YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

WARREN F. DRAPER,
PUBLISHER AND BOOKSELLER,
ANDOVER, MASS.,
PUBLISHES AKD OFFER8 FOR SALE THE FOLLOWIKG, WHICH WILL BE SENT
POST PAID OH RECEIPT OF THE SUM HAMED.

GUERICKE'S CHURCH HISTOEY (Ancient Church; including the
First Six Centuries). Translated by William G. T. Shedd, Brown Professor
in Andover Theological Seminary. 442 pp. 8vo. $2.25.
The established credit of Guerickc's labors in the department of Ecclesiastical History, and the
use made of his works by many English writers will make this volume acceptable to a very large
class of students and readers. — London Journal of Sacred Literature.
Guericke's History is characterized by research, devoutness, firm grasp of evangelical truth,
and careful exhibition of the practical as well as the intellectual aspects of Christianity. — North
British Review.
We regard Professor Shedd'a version as a happy specimen of the transfusion, rather than a
translation, which many of the German treatises should receive. The style of his version is far
superior to that of the original. — Bibliotheca Sacra.
Among the most faithful, and yet the most indppendent, of the followers of Neander, may be
mentioned Guericke, who carries out Neander's plan in a more compendious form, but with an
almost bigoted attachment to the peculiar doctrines of Luther, In a style so crabbed and involved,
that we should not have hesitated to pronounce it untranslatable, but for the fact that an eminent
teacher and accomplished writer of ouv own country lias achieved what wc regarded as a sheer
impossibility. We are glad to have a book made legible in English, which, in spite of its original
uncoiithness, has been eminently useful, as a vehicle, not only of the best historical know], dge,
but of sincere piety, and sound religious sentiment in reference to all essentials. — Princeton
Review. In clearness the style of the translation exceeds the original. The natural animation and life
like character, which commonly vanish in the process of translatingfrom the German, have been
retained with signal success. We are disposed to consider it the best of the current text-books
for the use for which Prof. Shedd designs it. —New Englander.
Here is a Manual of Church History which may be confidently recommended, without reserve
or qualification, to Btudents belonging to all evangelical churches. Guericke is thoroughly Or
thodox. His evangelical belief and feeling give him a lively and appreciative interest in the in
ternal history of the Church ; he devotes special attention to the development of doctrines, and
presents the range of thought and substance of opinion distinguishing the works of the princi
pal writers in successive ages of the Church. Guericke's manual is complete in the particular
lines of history he has chosen, and is a most useful and reliable book for the theological class
room. Professor Shedd has wisely translated witli freedom, and has improved the structure of the
work. — Nonconformist.
We are glad that a Manual of Church History has appeared which exhibits, at once, undoubted
orthodoxy., and that grasp of mind which alone is capable of treating such a subject with a lu
minous and lively brevity. — Clerical Journal.
With the additions and improvements made in the successive editions, it is now, on the whole,
the most readable work on Church History to be found. We have used the original for some
years, and entirely agree with the translator, that it hits the mean between an offensive fullness
and a barren epitome. — Central Christian Herald.

Publications of TV. F. Draper, Andover.
THEOLOGIA GERMANICA. Which setteth forth many fair lineaments
of Divine Truth, and saith very lofty and lovely things touching a Perfect Lite.
Edited by Dr. Pfeiffer, from the only complete manuscript yet known.
Translated from the German by Sitsawka Winkworth With a Preface by
the Rev. Charles Kikgsley, Rector of Eversley ; and a Letter to the Trans
lator, by the Chevalier Buxsek, D. D , D. C. L., etc. ; and an Introduction
by Prof. Calvik E. Stowe, D. D. 275 pp. 16mo. Cloth, S1.00: calf, -^2 00.
This treatise was discovered by Luther, who first brought it into notice by an edition which
he published in 151G, of which he says : " And I will say, though it be boasting of myself, and
' I speak as a fool,' that, next to the Bible and St. Augustine, no book hath ever come into my
hands whence I have learnt, or would wish to learn, more of what God and Christ, and man,
and all things, arc."
" The times and the circumstances in which this most rich, thoughtful, and spiritually
quickening little treatise was produced, — the national and ecclesiastical tendencies and influ
ences which invested its author, and which gave tone, direction, and pressure to his thoughts,
— are amply and well set forth in the preface by Miss Winkworth, and the letter of Bunsen.
The treatise itself is richly deserving ofthe eulogies upon it so emphatically and affectionately
uttered by Prof. Stowe and Mr. Kingsley, and, long before them, by Luther, who said that it
had profited him ' more than any other book, save only the Bible and the works of Augustine.'
Sin, as a universal disease and defilement of the nature of man ; Christ, as an indwelling life,
light, and heavenly power ; Holiness, as the utmost good for the soul ; and Heaven, as the
state or place ofthe consummation of this holiness, with the consequent vision of God, and
the ineffable joy and peace,— these are the theme of the book. Audit has the grand, and in
this day the so rare and almost singular merit, of having been prompted by a real and deep relig
ious experience, and of having been written, not with outward assistance, but with the enthu
siasm, the spiritual wisdom, and the immense inward freedom and energy, of a bouI itself con
scious of union with Christ, and exulting in the sense of being made, through him, ' a partaker
of the Divine nature.'
" Those who have known the most of Christ will value most this " golden treatise." Those
whose experience of the divine truth has been deepest and most central will find the most in
it to instruct and to quicken them. To such it will be an invaluable volume worth thousands
upon thousands of modern scientific or hortatory essays upon " Religion made easy."
" It is printed by Mr. Draper, at the Andover press, in the old English style, with beautiful
carefulness and skill, and is sent, post paid, to all who remit to him one dollar."— [Independent.
The work is at once a literary curiosity and a theological gem.— [Puritan Recorder.
This little volume whieh is brought out in antique type, is, apart from its intrinsic value, a
curiosity of literature. It may be regarded as the harbinger of the Protestant Reformation. —
[Evening Traveller.
WRITINGS OF PROFESSOR B. B. EDWARDS. With a Memoir
by Professor Edwards A. Park. 2 vols. 12mo. 82.00.
These works consist of seven Sermons, sixteen Essays, Addresses and Lectures, and a Me
moir by Professor Park.
ERSKI3NTE ON THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE FOR THE
TRUTH OE REVEALED RELIGION. Third American, from the Fifth'
Edinburgh Edition. 139 pp lGmo. 50 cents.
"The entire treatise cannot fail to commend the positions which it advocates to intelligent
and considerate minds. It is one of tlie best, perhaps the best, of all the discussions of this
momentous subject." — [Congregationalist.
"This argument of Erskine for the Internal Evidence of the Truth of Revealed Religion, is
the most compact, natural and convincing we have ever read from any author." — [Chris. Chron.
" No man ought to consider himself as having studied theology, unless he has read, and pon
dered, und read again, ' Erskine on the Internal Evidence.* " — [The Independent.
THE ANGEL OVER TH3 RIGHT SHOULDER. By the author
of li Sunny Side.1' 29 pp xdmo. 20 cents.

Publications of W. JF7. Draper, Andover.

DISCOURSES AND ESSAYS. By William G. T. Shedd. 271 pp.
12mo. 85 cts.
The striking sincerity, vigor, and learning of this volume will be admired even by those rend
ers who cannot go with the author in all his opinions. "Whatever debate the philosophic"! ten
dencies of the book may challenge, its literary ability and moral spirit will be commended cvciy
where. — New Englander.
These elaborate articles are written in a lucid and racy style, and invest with a rare interest the
themes of which they treat. — Bibliotheca Sacra.
These Discourses are all marked by profound thought, and perspicuity of sentiment.—
Princeton Review.
The Essay on a Natural Rhetoric we earnestly commend to all persons who publicly assume
either to speak or to write. — Universalist Quarterly.
Few clearer and more penetrating minds can be found in our country than that of Prof. Shedd.
If the mind gets dull, or dry, or ungovernable, put it to grappling with these masterly pruduc-
tions. — Congregational Herald, Chicago.
Each of these Discourses is profoundly and ingeniously elaborated, and the volume as a whole
is a testimony to highly intellectual and consistent views of evangelical truth. — Boston Recorder.
LECTURES UPON THE PHILOSOPHY OE HISTORY. By
William G. T. Shedd. 128 pp. 12mo. 60 cts.
Professor Shedd has already achieved a high repuration for the union of philosophic insight
with genuine scholarship, of depth and clearness of thought witli force and elegance of style,
und for profound views of sin and grace, cherished not merely on theoretical, hut stilt more on
moral and experimental grounds. — Princeton Review.
This volume consists of four lectures, of which the following are the titles: The Abstract Idea
of History; The Nature and Definition of Secular History; The Nature and Deiinition « if Church
History; The Verifying Test in Church History. It is written in alucid style, and will interest
the students of theology and of history. — Bibliotheca Sacra.
The style of these Lectures has striking merits. The author chooses his words with rare skill
and taste, from an ample vocabulary; and writes with strength and refreshing simplicity The
Philosophy of Realism, in application to history and historical theology, is advocated by vigorous
reasoning, and made intelligible by original and felicitous illustrations. — New Englander.
The "Lectures upon the Philosophy of History," is an extraordinary specimen of the meta
physical treatise, and the charm of its rhetoric is not less noticeable. Prof. Shedd never puts his
creed under a bushel, but there are few students of any sect or class that will not derive great as
sistance from his labors.— Universalist Quarterly.
It bears the impress of an elegant as well as highly philosophical mind. — Boston Recorder.
OUTLINES OP A SYSTEMATIC RHETORIC. From the German
of Dr. Frakcis Theremin, hy William G. T. Shedd. Third and Bevi^ed
Edition, with an Introductory Essay by the translator, pp. 216. 12mo. 75 cts.
Advanced Btudenta will find it well worthy of perusal. The adoption of its leading ideas would
ennoble the art of rhetoric into a science, the practice of speaking into a virtue, and would clothe
the whole subject in our schools and colleges with a fresh and vital interest. — Bibliotheca
Sacra. Every minister and theological professor (in composition and rhetoric especially) should rend
it. A more thorough and suggestive, and, in the main, sensible view of the subject is hardly to be
found. The central idea of Theremin's theory is, that Eloquence is a Virtue, and he who reads
this little hook will be sure to receive an impulse in the direction of masculine thoughtful dis
course. — Congregational Herald.

Publiratlons of W. F Draper, Andover.

BIBLIOTHECA SACRA AND BIBLICAL REPOSITORY.
E. A. Park and S. H. Taylor, Editors. Published at Andover on the first
of January, April, July and October.
Each number contains about 225 pages, making a volume «f 900 pages yearly. This work is
larger, by more than 100 pages per volume than any other religious quarterly in the country.
This Review is edited by Prof. E. A. Park, of the Theological Seminary, aud S. II. Taylor,
LL. D-, of Phillips Academy, Andover. Among its regular contributors, are eminent scholars
connected with various theological and collegiate institutions of the United States. Its pages
will be enriched by such contributions from Foreign Missionaries in thc-East as may illustrate
the Biblical Record ; and also by such essays from distinguished naturalists as may elucidate
the agreement between Science and Religion. It is the organ of no clique or party, but aims
to exhibit the broad scriptural views of truth, and to cherish a catholic spirit among the con
flicting schools of evangelical divines.
" Questions of philosophy and the analysis of language, of Biblical and literary criticism, of
the constitution and life ofthe Church of Christ, of practical morality and evangelical religion,
of biblical geography and the interpretation of prophecy, and the relation of Science to Religion,
together with ample literary intelligence, both foreign and domestic," — these make up the
matter of each number, and cannot fail to interest Christian Scholars, Clergymen and Laymen.
Terms. — $4.00 per annum. A discount of 25 per cent, will be made to those who pay
strictly in advance, and receive the numbers directly from the office of publication, post
age ukpai d. "When supplied by agents, $3,50, in advance ; otherwise $4 00.
Postage.- The postage is five cents per number, or twenty centfl per year, to any part
ofthe United States. TESTIMONY OF THE PRESS.
The articles, treating of interesting themes useful to the general scholar as well as the theolo
gian, fully sustain the very high character of this quarterly, which, restricted to no sect, and
broad in its range of thought and instruction, has commended itself to the best minds in our
own and foreign lands. [Boston Courier.
This, as is well known, is the great religious Quarterly of New England, if not of tbe coun
try, and is held in high estimation in England and Germany as the principal organ of biblical
and philological criticism in the English language.
This work as now conducted, deserves a large and generous patronage from clergymen of all
denominations. [Puritan Recorder.
No Parish is either poor or rich enough to be able to do without its benefit to its pastor.
[Congregationahst.
INDEX TO THE BIBLIOTHECA SACRA AND BIBLICAL
REPOSITORY, Volumes 1 to 13 (from 1844 to 1856.) Containing an Index
of Subjects and Authors, a Topical Index, and a list of Scripture Texts. Pa
per covers, SI. 75; cloth, ©2.00; half goat, $2.50,
BIBLICAL REPOSITORY, First Series, comprising the twelve volumes
from the commencement of the work to 1838. The first four volumes contain
each four numbers ; the succeeding eight volumes, two numbers each. A few
sets only remain.
The Biblical Repository was commenced at Andover, in 1831. The present series of the Bib
liotheca Sacra was commenced in 1844. The two periodicals were united in lSol. Tho volume
of the combined periodicals for the present year (1858) is the forty-sixth ofthe Biblical Repos
itory and tho fifteenth of the Bibliotheca Sacra,

VIEW OF ANDOVER. A finely executed Lithographic View of An
dover, on a sheet 18 by 24 inches, exclusive ofthe margin.
The sheet contains a view of the Town from the west, and an enlarged delineation of the
Literary Institutions in the border. It will be sent by mail, post paid, on receipt of $1,25.

COMMENTARY

ON THE

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

BY
MOSES STUART,

LATE PROFESSOR OF SACREB LITERATURE IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
AT ANDOVER.

EDITED AND REVISED
JT
R. T> . C. ROBBINS,
PROFESSOR IN" MIDDLEBUKY COLLEGE.

FOITB.TH EDITION.

ANDOVER:
WARREN F. DRAPER,
BOSTON: QOULD AND LINCOLN.
NEW YOKK: WILEY AND HALSTED.
PHILADELPHIA : SMITH, ENGLISH & CO.
18 60.

FN3 8

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1859} by
WARREN F. DRAPER,
In the Clerk's Office ofthe District Court of the District of Massachusetts.

ELECTROTYPED AND PRINTED
BY W. F. DRAPER, ANDOVER, MASS.

PREFACE,

Ix the Preface to the second edition of this work, Professor Stuart
says : " Since the publication of the first edition of this Commentary,
several works have appeared, some of which are adapted to afford aid
of no inconsiderable importance. New editions of Usteri's Creed of
Paul (Lehrbegriff Pauli), with the commentaries on the Epistle to the
Romans by Beneke, Glockler, Riickert, and Reiche, have been pub
lished in Germany ; and, in our own country, the Rev. A. Barnes, of
Philadelphia, has also published a brief but very comprehensive and
valuable work on the same epistle. All of these, with the exception
of Riickert, which has not come to hand, have been consulted by me
in preparing the present edition. The work of Reiche (in two octa
vos) is exceedingly copious. I have been aided in some respects by
his Philology ; for his theology is any thing but consistent and evangel
ical. His book in various respects is an able one ; but his method is
confused, and his manner often tedious. Yet no commentator on this
epistle should now choose to dispense with the use of him. I thank
him sincerely for the valuable hints that he has given me, of which I
have omitted no opportunity to avail myself.
The works of Beneke and Glockler are short. The first holds to
the preexistence of human souls, and accounts for the present degra
dation of men, on the ground of sin in a previous state ; the second
appears to be a moderate Pantheist of the recent school, and not
unfrequently exhibits a portion of their mysticism. Yet both of these
writers are in the main sensible men, and appear to possess serious and
evangelical feelings. I have obtained some hints from each, which I
consider as of value.
From Usteri's new edition I have also taken some hints. From Mr.
Barnes's work I have also derived aid ; and especially have I been often
cheered on my way, by finding the result of his investigations to tally
so well with my own. I have altered and I hope amended, so many
passages in this edition, that to specify them all is out of question. I
have bestowed on it scarcely less labor than the first writing cost me.
On many places, indeed I may say on all, which I have not materi
ally altered, I have bestowed much study in order to satisfy myself
that they should remain unchanged.
For myself, I am so far from being satisfied with my first efforts,
that they only serve to stimulate me to new labors of investigation, in
order more fully to ascertain wliether they will abide a thorough scru
tiny. Experience has taught me, that first views on subjects so diffi
cult as some of those which the Epistle to the Romans discusses, are

IV PREFACE.
not always the safest. If there be any whose first impressions are
always and only right, and who find no reason to alter and amend,
they will not sympathize with these remarks ; but others who, like my
self, are obliged to investigate a second time, and review and amend,
will enter fully into the meaning of what I say."
In the preparation of tlie present edition, use has been made of most
ofthe commentaries which have appeared, for the first time, or in new
improved editions, since the publication of the second edition, some of
which are of much value. Riickert, Meyer, Alford, Olshausen, De
Wette, and Philippi, all have their excellences, and are occasionally
referred to, especially in the foot-notes. I have, however, been care
ful to introduce nothing into the body of the Commentary that is at
variance with the Theological or Exegetical views of Prof. Stuart.
Whenever I have been led to a different view of any passage, I have
either indicated it in the notes, or simply satisfied myself with giving
the view of the author as it appeared in the previous edition. I have
endeavored to keep in mind that my province was that of an editor
merely. Besides, the desire to reduce the size of the work has pre
vented me from making as many additions as I should otherwise have
been inclined to do.
It seemed desirable to change the Introduction more than the body
of the Commentary. A considerable part of that has accordingly
been re-written. Condensation, with occasional verbal alterations, has
been my main object throughout the body of the work. Some of the
Excursus, especially the V., have been abridged more freely, as the
subjects there discussed were subsequently more fully developed by
Prof. Stuart in Articles in the Biblical Repository and elsewhere.
R. D. C ROBBINS.
Middjlebuky Coll., July 30, 1858.

PREFACE TO THE EIRST EDITION.

I publish to the world the result of my labors upon the Epistle to
the Romans .with unfeigned diffidence, and with a trembling sense of
the responsibility which I incur by so doing. This epistle has been
the grand arena, If I may so express myself, on which theological
combatants have been contending ever since the third century, and
perhaps still earlier. The turn which the apostle James has given to
his discussion respecting justification, makes it probable that even in
his time there were some who abused the words of Paul, in his Epistle
to the Romans, concerning the doctrine of "justification by faith with
out the deeds of law." If so, then it would seem that there has been
no period since this epistle was written, in which its meaning has not
been more or less a subject of contest.
How could this be otherwise, since it discusses the highest and most
difficult of all the doctrines whieh pertain to the Christian system ?
Men must be more alike in their early education, their illumination,
their habits of reasoning, and their theological convictions, than they
have hitherto been, and they must love Cod and each other better
than they have ever yet done, not to differ in their interpretation of
the Epistle to the Romans. It strikes at the root, of all human pride
and vain-jrlory ; it aims even a deadly blow. And where a passionate
attachment to these is rankling in the breast, how is it possible that this
epistle should meet with a welcome reception, and the authority of its
simple and obvious meaning be admitted '/ Even where the remains of
such an attachment are still lurking within, and only now and then
developing themselves, because the heart is in some measure unsancti
fied, there we cannot expect to find an unprejudiced interpretation of
the writing in question. An epistle which is, as it were, tlie very
Confession of Faith that a true Christian is to make, must needs re
ceive an interpretation more or less forced, on the part of all who are
influenced by pride, by passion, by prejudice, by ill-directed early in
struction, or by ignorance.
For these reasons, an interpreter of this epistle must expect opposi
tion at the present day, let his views be what they may. Be he Cal-
vinist, Arminian, Pelagian, Antinomian, Socinian, or of any other
sect, it is in vain for him to think of esjape. Paul is a writer too for
midable to be acknowledged as an opponent. Hence, when he is in
terpreted so that the views of one party in any particular point seem
to be favored, other parties are very apt to unite in condemning tlie
interpretation. Nothing will satisfy them but to have such a writer
A*

YI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
explained as siding with them. Alas, then, for the interpreter!
While he meets, perhaps, with the approbation ot a few, he must of
course expect the vehement dissent of many. He must make up his
mind, therefore, before he publishes, to bear with all this, and to bear
with it patiently and firmly ; or else he had better abstain from pub
lishing. It may appear to him as a very undesirable remuneration for
painful and long-protracted labors ; but it is one which others have
been obliged to receive, and which he also must expect. The only
offset for all the pains which this may occasion him, must be the hope
that his labors after all may do some good ; and that, if they do not
themselves on the whole directly advance the cause of truth, they may
at least be the means of exciting others to make inquiries, which will
result in the accomplishment of such an end.
For myself, I do not profess to be free from all prejudices of educa
tion and all attachment to system, in such a degree as to make it cer
tain that my views may not sometimes be affected by them. Nor do I
profess to be so illuminated in respect to divine things, and so skilled
in the original language and criticism of the New Testament, as to be
certain that all my conclusions respecting the meaning of the epis
tle before us are correct. Homo sum, et nihil humani a me alienum
puto. When, therefore, I speak in the indicative mood, and say that
this means thus and so, the reader will not understand that anything
more is intended, than that this is true in my opinion. To be always
dealing in the conditional mood, and filling one's pages with, if, perhaps,
probably, possibly, may it not, can it not, etc., etc., would he intolerable
in such a writing as a commentary. Besides, it would represent the
author himself as in a perpetual state of doubt or uncertainty. This
I cannot truly say of myself. My convictions, for the most part, have
become definite and full in respect to far the greater portion of the
Epistle to the Romans. To represent them otherwise, would be to
misrepresent them.
But this does not imply that I am insensible to the weakness of hu
man nature, or to my exposedness to err. If I have any knowledge
of my own heart, it is very far from such insensibility. After all, how
ever, a man who is liable to err, may form opinions, and may be sat
isfied that they are correct. This all men do, and must do ; and all
which can be properly demanded of them is, that they should hold
themselves open to conviction, whenever adequate reasons are offered
to convince them of their errors.
In this position, I trust and believe, do I hold myself, as to the opin
ions advanced in the interpretations that follow. 1 ean say truly, that
there are no opinions advanced here, which have been hastily taken
up. I have been long engaged in the exposition of the Epistle to the
Romans, and have studied it much more than any other part of the
Bible. I have taken an extensive range in consulting commentators
ancient and modern, as well as exegesis contained in theological essays
and systems. This, however, I mention for one purpose, and one
only, viz., to show that I have not come lightly to the responsible task
of writing and publishing a commentary on the epistle under consider
ation; and that the opinions, therefore, which are advanced in it are
not the offspring of mere education or hasty conjecture.

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. vii
Dissent, and probably contradiction, are almost of course to be ex
pected. I may be permitted, however, respectfully to solicit those who
may see fit to publish anything of this nature, that they would inves
tigate thoroughly, before they condemn, what I have said. When they
have so done, I shall value their opinion, however it may differ from
my own. Aiming, as I trust I do, at the development of truth, I shall
rejoice to find any of my errors corrected (for errors, no doubt, there
are in my work) ; and, if the correction be made in the spirit of love
and Christian friendship, so much the more acceptable will it be. If
it be made in a different spirit, and is still a real correction, I would
fain hope for magnanimity enough to say : Fas est ab hosle doceri.
From some of those who have never deeply studied the Epistle to
the Romans, and who have a traditional and systematic exegesis which
answers their purposes in an a priori way, I may probably expect, in
regard to some things, vehement and unqualified dissent. Such, how
ever, can hardly assert the right of demanding that my views should be
accommodated to theirs ; since we proceed in our respective interpre
tations, on grounds so exceedingly diverse. I hope, therefore, that
such will excuse me from any obligation to contend with their exegesis.
To those who may differ from me, after thorough research, I can
only say : i{ The field is open ; as open for you as for me. You have
the same right to publish your thoughts to the world, as I have to pub
lish mine ; and as good a right to defend your views, as I have to prof
fer mine. The result of doing this, if done with deep, attentive, pro
tracted consideration, and in the spirit of kindness, cannot be other
wise than favorable to the interests of truth. I may not live to vindi
cate my own views where just, or to abandon the errors of which you
might convince me ; but others will live, who will do the one or the
other for me, should it become necessary. The truth, at last, must
and will prevail."
I confess, frankly, that I do not expect for this book the favor of
such as are truly sectarians. I have written it, so far as in my power,
without any regard to sect or name. Doubtless my efforts have been
imperfect ; but so far as in me lay, the one only and simple inquiry
with me has been: What did Paul mean to teach? AVhat Calvin, or
Augustine, or Edwards, or Arminius, or Grotius, or any other theolo
gian or commentator has taught or said, has been with me only secon
dary and subordinate. No one is farther from disrespect to the great
and good than myself; but when explaining the Bible, to call no man
master, and to bow to no system as such, are sacred principles with me.
If I have not always adhered to them, it results from my imperfection ;
not from any conscious and allowed design. Of course, all party men
in theology will probably find some things in the following pages with
which they will not agree. How can it be otherwise ? I have, to the
utmost of my power, left their systems out of sight, and made it my
constant and only effort, to follow simply the way in which the apostle
seems to lead me. Such a course will be estimated differently from
what it now is, when less attachment to system and party in theology,
and more of simple-hearted love of truth, just as it stands in the Scrip
ture, shall prevail in the churches.
My views of Rom. v. 12 — 19, of vii. 5 — 25, and of viii. 28, seq.,
B

VIII PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
will, no doubt, be controverted. I have anticipated this ; for who can
help knowing that these passages have, for time immemorial, been the
great irpdrnwa koI SKavtiaKov of theology ? To hazard an interpretation
here, and not to accompany it with reasons, would be justly deemed
presumptuous. To give reasons, demands at least the appearance of
theologizing. Whatever of this exists in the Commentary or the Ex
cursus, is, I may say, involuntary on my part. It is inserted only to
guard against being misunderstood, or else to support the interpreta
tion which I have given. In order to do this, it is now and then nec
essary to show that a different interpretation is replete with difficulties,
some of which are insurmountable.
Those who are disposed to find fault with what they may call my
theological discussions, — brief and few as they are, — would prob
ably not make any objections to such discussions, had the result of
them been accordant with their own views, or with those of the au
thors whom they highly esteem. But how can I be under obligation
to make wishes of this nature a rule to guide my interpretations, or my
explanation and defence of them ? I know of no precept in theory,
nor any obligation from usage, which hinders an interpreter from rea
soning upon the doctrines which the Scriptures appear to teach, or
which they have been represented as teaching. How can it be one's
duty not to guard against the misrepresentation of his own views in
respect to the meaning of Scripture, and not to defend those views by
producing the arguments which appear to justify them ?
Whatever the following pages contain, either of truth or error, they
have been written under no ordinary sense of responsibility. The
epistle itself must needs create such a feeling in the breast of every
reflecting man, who undertakes to comment upon it; and, in addi
tion to this, I have been repeatedly interrupted in my labors by my
state of health ; and this under circumstances that rendered it not im
probable, that I should not live to see the completion of my work.
The day of my account cannot be far distant; and in view of it, can
I publish to the world what I do not seriously regard as being true ?
Can party purposes have any strong attractions for a man in such a
condition ? I hope and trust I ean say, that the tribunal before which
this and all otlier works are to be finally judged, appears to me a mat
ter of immeasurably higher interest than all the praise or blame which
men can bestow.
May that omniscient and merciful Being, the God of love and truth,
forgive whatever of error may be in this book ; and accept and bless
to the good of his church, whatever of truth is explained or defended !
I should be ungrateful if I should omit to mention my special obli
gations to some of the interpreters, who have labored to explain the
Epistle to the Romans. Calvin, Grotius, J. A. Turretin, Flatt, and
Tholuck have been my favorite authors; although I have by no means
confined my reading to these. Most of all am I indebted to the excel
lent book of Tholuck on this epistle. I have often relied on him in
my statements wilh respect to the opinions of other commentators
whom I had not at hand. I am indebted to him, also, for various clas
sical quotations and allusions, and also for not a few valuable philolog
ical remarks, as well as views of the reasoning and argumentation of

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. IX
the apostle. He has my most unfeigned thanks for all the aid which
his excellent work has afforded me.
Throughout, I have adopted and expressed no views or opinions
without study ; and none upon the authority of others. Those who
read the following pages will perceive, I apprehend, that while I have
not neglected the study of other writers, I have not omitted to study
and think for myself. In this way only can any advance be hoped
for in the all-important work of interpreting the Bible. * * *
M. STUART.
Theological Seminary Andover, 1
Sept. 1832. )

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

§ 1. First Planting of the Church at Rome.
The origin ofthe church at Rome is involved in obscurity. Neither
the time at which, nor the persons by whom it was founded can now
be definitely and certainly designated. The testimony of the Clem
entine Homilies, (Clem. Recogn. 1, 6,) that during the life-time of
Christ, the truths of the gospel had been disseminated, and had taken
root at Rome, may be true, but is very improbable. Neither is there
more substantial foundation for the belief of the Catholic Church,
that Peter was the founder of this church, and first bishop of the
imperial city. Eusebius, it is true, places his arrival there in the
second year of Claudius, (Chron. ad ann. 2 Claud.,) and Clement of
Alexandria says that he went there at that time to confront Simon
Magus, (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. ii. 14,) and Jerome adds (De Script.
Eccl.,) that he was bishop there 25 years. Isidore of Spain combines
all these traditions : Hie postquam Antiochenam ecclesiam fundavit,
sub Claudio Cjesare contra Simonem Magum Romam pergit, ibique
practicans evangelium xxv. annis ejusdem tenuit pontificatum.
"But these traditionary statements," as Davidson says,* " have neither
the impress of credibility nor truth," and besides are plainly refuted
by the following considerations : In Acts xii. 3, 4, we find an account
of the imprisonment of Peter by Herod Agrippa, in the last year of
this king's reign (comp. v. 23) ; and this year synchronizes with the
fourth year of Claudius. Of course Peter was at Jerusalem, not at
Rome, after the period when Jerome and Eusebius affirm that he went
to Rome and resided there. We find Peter at Jerusalem in the ninth
(some say eleventh) year of Claudius ; he being present at the coun
cil there, Acts xv. 6, seq. Nothing is said in the book of Acts, or in
the New Testament, respecting Peter's visiting Rome ; and if he had
done so, before the time at which the history in the book of Acts ter
minates, we can hardly suppose so important an occurrence would
have escaped the notice of Luke. Paul came as a prisoner to Rome,
* Bib. Introd. II. 159.

xii INTRODUCTION TO THE
in the 7th year of Nero's reign, i. e., A. D. 60 (but some say in 61, 62
or 63) ; on which occasion there is no mention, and there seems to
have been among the Jews of that city no knowledge of Peter, Acts
xxviii. 1 7, seq. The arrangement made between the Apostles when
at Jerusalem (Acts xv.), fourteen years after Paul's conversion, A. D.
54, as a result of previous labors (Gal. ii. 7, seq.), that James, Ce
phas, and John should go to the circumcision, and Paul and Barnabas
to the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 9), would prevent him from going soon to
Rome, which Paul plainly claimed as within his sphere of labors,
Rom. i. 5, 6, 13 et saep. This agreement was doubtless adhered to
until the imprisonment of Paul rendered a deviation from it desirable,
for Lactantius, contemporary with Eusebius, plainly implies that Peter
did not visit Rome until the reign of Nero. De Mort. Persecut. :
Cumque jam Nero imperarat, Petrus Romam advenit et editis quibus-
dum miraculis, etc.
Several of Paul's Epistles, too, were doubtless written at Rome, as
that to Philemon, the Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, and the 2d to
Timothy. In these, other persons are mentioned as fellow-laborers,
and sometimes as his only aids in the work of his mission, as Coloss.
iv. 10, 11 ; Philip, ii. 20, iv. 11 ; and their salutations recorded, whilst
no allusion is made to Peter. And besides, the apostle expressly in
dicates in Rom. xv. 20, seq., 2 Cor. xv. 14, seq., that he avoided
building on another's foundation, and with this feeling, he would not
have written to them as he did, and especially would not have spoken
of coming to them in person to impart some spiritual gift.
So clear is this, that some of the best and most impartial scholars
among the Catholics themselves do not accede to the general belief of
their own church. Feilmoser (in the Tubingen Quarterly Jour, for
1820) shows that he could not have been in Rome earlier than a year
before his death. See also Hug, Klee and others.
Still, although it seems clear that Peter cannot be claimed as the
founder of the church of Rome, and that he was not there until after
the Epistle of Paul was written, yet it is somewhat probable that he
was there at some time before the end of Nero's reign. Origen, (in
Euseb. Eccl. III. 1) ; Dionysius of Corinth, (in Euseb. H. 25) ; Clem
ent of Alexandria, (in Euseb. II. 14, 15, and VI. 15); and Caius, a
presbyter, who wrote at Rome at the end of the second, or beoinnin"
of the third century, gives testimony to this effect which cannot be im
peached. The latter specifies so definitely the place of his martyrdom
and burial, etc., that if there had been any mistake or intentional false
representation, multitudes could, and would, in all probability, have
corrected or opposed his statements. But those who are desirous of
examining this question more at length are referred, amonw other
works, to Olshausen's Introduction to Comm. on Romans, p. 36, seq.
and an article in Stud, and Krit. No. 4, 1838; Bleek Stud. No. 4
1836, p. 1061 seq.; Wieseler, Kron. d. Apost. Zeitalt; Neander's
Planting and Training, Book IV. ch. 2 ; also Baur in Tubingen
Zeitschr. No. 4, 1831, and J. Ellendorf, translated in Bib. Sac. July
1858, p. 569, seq., both of whom deny the visit of Peter to Rome '
Winer, Real-Lex. Art. Peter, who doubts in reference to it.
The question recurs, if Peter had not been at Rome, by whom had

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. XIII
the church there been gathered ? It is possible that Andronicus and
Junias, mentioned in 16 : 7, as liaving been fellow-prisoners with Paul,
highly esteemed among the apostles and Christians before himself, or
Rufus, (16 : 13), or others mentioned in chap. 16, first carried the
gospel to_ Rome, and were instrumental of founding a church there ;
still nothing definite is known in reference to it. The most that can
be said with confidence is that the gospel " was introduced into Rome
by Jewish Christians after the remarkable day of Pentecost, and sub
sequently nurtured in a variety of ways by individuals brought into
the metropolis by different motives, and from many lands." David
son's Introd. II. p. 165.
That the church at Rome was early planted, seems probable from
the fame which it had acquired throughout the Christian world (Rom.
i. 8 ; xvi. 19), when Paul wrote his epistle. That the persons con
cerned in the establishment of it were Paul's particular friends and
acquaintances, with whom he had met and conferred, while preaching
in Asia or in Greece, appears very plain from the manner of the salu
tations in chap. xvi. 3 — 16. In respect to many of its members, as
Aquila and Priscilla, we have a definite knowledge, from Acts xviii.
1 — 3, 18, 26, and from what is said in Rom. xvi. 3, 4. Others are
called the kinsmen (o-u-yyeveis) of Paul, viz. Andronicus and Junias,
ver. 7 ; Herodion, ver. 11. Others again are called Styamrrol, (rwepyol,
4k\zktoI, icoTriaii/Tes &v Tip Kvpiai, etc. Moreover, the manner in which
Paul addresses the church of Rome, i. e. the plain, familiar, authorita
tive tone of the letter, shows that he considered himself as addressing
those who were in effect his own disciples, or, in other words, such as
had probably been converted to Christianity under the preaching of
his own particular friends and spiritual children. Hence, too, the fre
quent expressions of strong affection for the church at Rome, and of
strong sympathy with them.
§ 2. The constituent Parts of the Church at Rome.
Nothing can be clearer, than that a considerable portion of the
church at Rome consisted of Jewish converts; ii. 17 — iii. 19 ; iv. 1,
12; vii. 1 — 4, and chapters ix. — xi. Nor is there any serious diffi
culty of a historical nature, in making out the probability of this.
When Pompey overran Judea with a conquering army, about 63 years
before the Christian era, he caused many captive Jews to be sent to
Rome. There they were sold into slavery, as was usual in respect to
captives taken in war. But their persevering and unconquerable
determination to observe the Sabbath, and to practise many of the
Levitical rites and customs, gave their Roman masters so much trouble,
that they chose to liberate them rather than to keep them. As there
was a large body of persons so liberated, the government assigned
them a place opposite Rome, across the Tiber, where they built a
town which was principally inhabited by Jews. Here Philo found
them, just before Paul's time; Legat. ad Caium. p. 1014, ed. Frankf.
The reader who wishes for historical vouchers in respect to the num
ber of Jews at Rome, during the apostolic age, may consult Joseph.

XIV INTRODUCTION TO THE
Antiq. XVII. 14, XVIH. 5, ed. Cologn. Dio Cassius, XXXVI. p.
37. Suetonii vita Tiberii, cap. 36. . .
When the first impressions arising from the degradation of captivity
and slavery began to wear away, the Roman citizens seem to have
looked at the Jewish community with some degree of respect, or at
least with not a little of curiosity. Whether it arose from the disgust
which delicate females among the Romans felt for the obscene rites of
heathenism which they were called to practise or to witness, or
whether it sprung from a curiosity which is characteristic of the
female sex, the fact was, that in Ovid's time (ob. A. D. 17) some of
the most elegant and polished females thronged the Jewish assem
blies. The poet therefore advises the young men of the city, if they
wished to see a splendid collection of its beauty, to go to the sabbath-
day solemnities of the Syrian Jew. " Cultaque Judajo septima sacra
Syro." It is not strange, moreover, that some of these should become <refS6-
litvia or proselytes ; as Josephus relates of Fulvia, pla tuiv In a£ia>naTi
yvvaiK&i/, i. e., a noble woman. By degrees the men also, as was natu
ral, began to frequent the assemblies of those once despised foreigners.
Juvenal, at the close of the first century, pours out Ms contempt and
indignation at this in the following bitter words :
" Quidam sortiti metuentem Sabbata patrem,
Nil prscter nubes, et coeli Numen adorant;
Nee distare putant humana carne suillam,
Qua pater abstinuit; mox et prasputia ponunt;
Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges,
Judaicum ediscunt, et servant, ac metuunt jus,
Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses."
Seneca also (fl. A. D. 64), about the time when Paul wrote the
Epistle to the Romans, says, in a fragment preserved by Augustine
(De Civit. Dei, VII. 11), that "so many Romans had received the
Jewish [he means by this the cliristian'] religion, that per omnes jam
terras recepta sit, vied victoribus leges dederunt." Tacitus, in his An
nals, likewise represents the "exitiabilis superstitio" (christian re
ligion) as breaking out again after being repressed, and spreading non
modo per Judeam sed per urbem [Roman] etiam.
When to these testimonies respecting tho Jews at Rome, we add that
of the Epistle before us respecting Gentile converts, it is quite certain
that the church at Rome was made up of Gentiles as well as Jews.
Let the reader compare Rom. i. 1 6 ¦ — 32; ii. 6 — 11; iii. 9  j 9 29 •
ix. 24, 30 ; xi. 13 — 25 ;_ xiv. 1 — xv. 13, and no doubt can possibly
remain in his mind relative to this point. The general strain of the
whole epistle is such, as that it can be best accounted for by the sup
position that the church at Rome consisted of both Jews and Gentiles
with their own peculiar interests and feelings.
Much has been written upon the relative number of Jews and Gen
tiles in the church of Rome. According to Paulus, Neander Riick
ert, De Wette, Olshausen, Tholuck, and others, the Gentile element
predominated. They rely upon such passages as those quoted above
On the other hand, Henke, Koppe, Hiinlein, Meyer, Baur, Krehl con
tend for a majority of Jewish Christians. See especially Baur's

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. XV
Paulus, der Apos. Jesu Christi. But there seems to be nothing deci
sive on either side, nor is the mere preponderance of numbers a mat
ter of material importance in the exposition ofthe epistle. Sometimes
the one part and sometimes the other is especially addressed. See
Davidson's Introd. Vol. II. p. 168 seq.
§ 3. Tlie Time when, and Place where die Epistle was written.
The epistle itself furnishes us a kind of stand-point here. It could
not have been written before the decree of the emperor Claudius was
published, by which the Jews were banished from the city of Rome.
In Acts xviii. 2, we have an account of Paul's first acquaintance with
Aquila and Priscilla, who had recently quitted Rome and come to Cor
inth, because of the decree of Claudius banishing the Jews from the
imperial city. Now as Paul salutes these same persons, in Rom. xvi.
3, 4, and speaks of them as having risked great dangers in his behalf,
it follows, of course, that his epistle must have been written subse
quently to the decree of Claudius; which was probably in A. D. 52,
or as some say (improbably however) in A. D. 54.
It would seem also to have been written after the time when the
First Epistle to the Corinthians was written, which was during the last
visit which Paul made to Ephesus, and near the close of that visit, i. e.,
about A. D. 56. In Acts xviii. 19, we are told that Paul left Aquila
and Priscilla at Ephesus. After this he made another circuit through
the churches of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor (Acts xviii. 20 — 23),
and returned again to Ephesus, xix. 1. There he spent two years or
more (xix. 8 — 10) ; and near the close of this period, in writing to the
Corinthians, he sends the salutation of Aquila and Priscilla, who were
still at Ephesus, (1 Cor. xvi. 19.) Now as Paul sends a salutation, in
his Epistle to the Romans, to Aquila and Priscilla at Rome, it would
seem probable that it must have been written after he left Ephesus,
and after they had removed from this city to the metropolis of the
Roman empire.
Other circumstances concur, to render the matter still more definite.
When Paul wrote his epistle, he was on the eve of departure for Jeru
salem, whither he was going to carry the contributions of the churches
in Macedonia and Achaia, Rom. xv. 25, 26. When he should have
accomplished this, he intended to make them a visit at Rome, Rom.
xv. 28, 29. In what part of his life, now, do we find the occurrence
of these circumstances ? Acts xix. 21, compared with Acts xx. 1 — 4,
gives us a narration of exactly the same thing. Paul, at the close of .
his last abode at Ephesus, purposing to make a charitable collection inj
Macedonia and Achaia, first sent on Timothy and Erastus to Mace-'
donia in order to forward it there (Acts xix. 22) ; afterwards he him
self went into Achaia, passing through Macedonia, Acts xx. 1, 2.
That he came, on this occasion, to the capital of Achaia, i. e. Corinth,
there can be no reasonable doubt. Here most probably he abode
three months (Acts xx. 3) ; and then set out on his contemplated
journey to Jerusalem, where he was made prisoner, and sent (A. D.
59 or 60) to Rome, in order to prosecute his appeal to Cassar. From

XVI INTRODUCTION TO THE
a comparison of this account in the Acts, with Rom. xv. 25 — 29, it
follows of course that the Epistle to the Romans must have been
written about A. D. 57; although some chronologists put it later.
Counting the time which Paul's journey to Jerusalem must have occu
pied, and adding the two years of his detention as a prisoner at
Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 27), and the time necessarily taken up m going
to Rome, we must assign to the Epistle to the Romans the date above
given, on the supposition that Paul came to Rome (as is most proba
ble) about the beginning of the year 60.
As to the place where it was written, there can be no doubt. In
xvi. 1, Phebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, is commended
to the Romish church, who probably either had charge of the epistle,
or accompanied those who did carry it ; and Cenchrea was the port
of the city of Corinth, some seven or eight miles from that place. In
xvi. 23, Gaius is spoken of as the host of Paul; and this Gaius was
baptized by Paul at Corinth, 1 Cor. i. 14. Paul speaks also of Eras
tus, the chamberlain of the city, Rom. xvi. 23. The city, then, was a
well-known one, i. e., the capital of Achaia ; and moreover, we find
this Erastus spoken of in 2 Pirn. iv. 20, as abiding at Corinth.
From all these circumstances, we must conclude that the place of
writing the Epistle to the Romans was Corinth ; and that the time
was that in which Paul made his last visit there, and near the close of
it, i. e., about the latter part of A. D. 57.
§ 4. The Authenticity of the Epistle
This has been so generally acknowledged, at all times and in all
ages since it was written (excepting the last chapters, which have re
cently been disputed), that it seems to be unnecessary to make any
quotations here from the early writers, for the sake of proving it. It
is true, indeed, that some early sects, viz., the Ebionites, Encratites,
and Cerinthians, rejected it ; as appears from Irenseus ad Hasres. I. 26 ;
Epiphan. Hajres. XXX. ; Hieronym. in Matt. xii. 2. But as this
seems to have been purely on doctrinal grounds, i. e., because they
could not make the sentiments of Paul in this epistle to harmonize
with their own views, it follows of course that no weio-ht can be at
tached to their opinions. The question whether Paul wrote the
Epistle so the Romans, is of an historical, not of a doctrinal nature.
The reader who is curious to see an exhibition of early testimony
respecting this epistle, may find it amply detailed in Lardner's Credi
bility, and in Schmidii Plistoria et Vindicia3 Canonis Sac., etc. The
circumstantial evidence whieh evinces its genuineness, he will find
admirably exhibited in Paley's Hora? Paulinte, chap. II.
Those who do not possess the first two of these works, may consult
Polycarp, Epist. and Plnhpp. cap. 6 ; Clemens Rom. Ep. and Cor cap
35 ; both in Coteleru Patres Apostolici. See also Theoph. ad Autolyc
I. 20; III. 14, Epist. Ecc. Vienn. et Lugd. in Euseb. Hist. Ecc VI
Irenseus cont. Hseres. HI. 16. § 3. Clem. Alex. Strom. III., p 457 and
I., p. 117, edit. Sylburg. Tertull. adv. Praxeam, cap. 13; de Corona
cap. 6. Cypr. Ep. LXIX. It is needless to cite later authors. " The
stream of testimony is continuous and unanimous."

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. xvii

§ 5. The Integrity of the Epistle.
The integrity of the epistle has often been questioned in modern
times, although all the more ancient witnesses of any authority, Fathers
of the church, versions and MSS. regard the epistle as a connected
whole ; for Marcion's rejection of chaps, xv. and xvi. is entirely on
doctrinal grounds, if indeed the authority of one who so often per
verted other parts of the sacred writings were of any weight.
That chapter xvi. is omitted by Euthalius, in his Elenchus, is of no
importance, as he is only enumerating the chapters which were pub
licly read, and plainly recognizes the existence of the whole epistle
elsewhere ; and the reference to 16 : 10, as in the clausula epistohe, by
Tertullian (adv. Marcion, v. 14), is no proof that this did not belong
to the epistle. The arguments against the different parts of the
epistle, then, are entirely of an internal nature, the uncertainty of
which, at best, is great. Most of the arguments, as will be seen by an
examination of their character, are based upon a supposed want of
conformity, in the last chapters, to the preceding part of the epistle ;
as if we should take it upon ourselves to decide in what manner Paul
should write, and as if it were not natural that he should turn aside,
after he had completed the doctrinal part of the epistle, and give such
admonitions, exhortations, and encouragements, as he deemed useful.
Is not something like this found elsewhere in his epistles ?
Heumann led the way, in these criticisms, by the supposition that
there were two distinct epistles combined in what is now called the
Epistle to the Romans. The first consisted of chapters i. — xi., with
chapter xvi. as a sort of postscript ; and the second, of chapters xii. — xv.,
which was written subsequently to the former, on a reception of unfa
vorable reports in reference to the conduct of the Roman Christians.
Both these were written upon the same parchment, and hence became
united as one epistle. In a critical point of view, this hypothesis is of
little importance, as it does not properly disprove or even deny the
genuineness of any part of the epistle. Still, it is too improbable to
need much discussion. I will only add that " the amen (a^v), " as Ols
hausen says, " is clearly not the close of the epistle, but of the dox
ology with which St. Paul very appropriately concludes the doc
trinal part," * and chap. xii. is plainly connected by the deductive »,
at the beginning, with what precedes.
Semler, in his Dissert, de dupl. Appendice Ep. Pauli ad Rom., ad
vances the supposition "that chap. xv. was not addressed to the
Romans, but to those who had charge of Paul's epistle to them (which
consisted of chapters i. — xv., with the doxology in xvi. 25—27)" to be
communicated by the bearers of the epistle to those Christians who
might be met with on the way; and that, in chap. xvi. 1 seq., saluta
tions are sent to some of these persons. But there is not only no
proof of this, but, on the contrary, " chap, xv.," says Davidson, In
trod. II, p. 195, " cannot be separated from the xiv. without violence.
The same subject is continued in the first verse of xv. down to the ter-
* Introd. to Comm. ou Eom., Eng. Ed., p. 28.

XVIII INTRODUCTION TO THE
mination." The improbability that these salutations were for persons
on the way is easily shown.
For, on this supposition, the first stage of the journey of the letter-
carriers was only to Cenchrea, some seven or eight miles from Corinth,
to the house of Phebe. But the singularity of Paul's recommendation
is, that instead of commending them to her hospitality, he commends
her to the hospitality of those whom he addresses : <rwl<mi/u 5e bfiiv
*oi/3t)v  iW airiiy irpocrSQnir&e, k. -,-. A. Semler felt the incon
gruity of this, and referred ¦n-poaSe^aSie to receiving into communion.
Did Phebe, then, living within a couple of hours' walk from Corinth,
and famous as she was for being a irpoari.Tis icoKkSiv (ver. 2), need a
written recommendation of Paul, in order that the bearers of his let
ters might admit her to church communion ? But besides this, the
word irpoaSQ-naSrs, in such a connection, does not admit of such a sense.
Comp. Phil. ii. 29, and also (as to general meaning) 3 John v. 6.
Thus much for the outset of this journey. Nor is the progress
more fortunate. Aquila and Priscilla are next recommended to the
letter-carriers. But the last which we know of them, before the writ
ing of this letter, is that they are at Ephesus, Acts xviii. 18, 19, 26.
But Semler provides them with a house at Corinth; and this, probably,
because it would not be very natural for those who were to travel
westward toward Rome, to go some hundreds of miles eastward, i. e.,
to Ephesus, in order to get to the capital of the Roman Empire. But
how is the matter helped by this process ? What have we now ? A
letter of introduction (so to speak) from Paul, directing his messengers
to greet Priscilla and Aquila on their journey, while these same per
sons lived in the very town from which they started ! Hug has well
expressed his views of this matter. After speaking of the first stay of
Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth (Acts xviii. 2), and of a second at
Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 19), he thus proceeds: "Whence now this
third or Semlerian house at Corinth, I know not," Einleit. II p. 397,
ed. 3. But, lastly, what are we to do with verses 1 7 — 20, on the
ground of Semler? Were the bearers of the letter so divided as is
there described; and was their obedience (maKori) so celebrated as is
there hinted ? Above all, what is to be done with verses 21 — 24 ?
Would Paul send written salutations from those who were with him at
Corinth, to the bearers of his epistle who set out from the same place ?
Did they not confer with Paul himself, and did not his friends as well
as himself see and converse with them? And what shall we say
to ver. 16, which directs Paul's messengers to salute one another?
Schott, too, in his Isagoge ad Nov. Test., recently published, in a
note, p. 284 seq., has assigned other, and perhaps better, reasons for
rejecting chapter xvi.
(a) ' Paul salutes many persons, in xvi. 5 — 15, as being at Rome,
and in a very familiar ¦way. How could he, who had never been at
Rome (Rom. i. 13), do this' ?
The answer is, that several of these persons were his own kinsmen ¦
see § 1 above. With all or most of them he had very probably met
in the course of his travels. Intercourse between the metropolis of
the Roman Empire and the large towns of the provinces, was very
frequent; especially with Corinth, the headquarters of Achaia and

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. xix
Ephesus of Asia Minor. And even if Paul had not seen all the per
sons whom he salutes, what is easier than to suppose that their charac
ter and standing were known to him, and therefore he sent them salu
tations ? It is plainly a mistake, to suppose that none but personal
acquaintances are saluted in the Pauline epistles.
(b) ' But Paul makes no mention of any of the persons here
saluted as being at Rome, in his other epistles written there, e. g.,
in his epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and Phile
mon.' The answer is, that in only one of these (that to the Colossians)
does he send anything but a mere general salutation. Moreover, as
all these epistles must have been written some two years and a half,
and may have been written some four years later, than the Epistle to
the Romans, so the state of that church, exposed as it was continually
to increase and decrease, may have greatly altered when he wrote the
last-named epistles ; or the persons named in his Epistle to the
Romans may have gone elsewhere in order to propagate the gospel ;
or they might have deceased ; or it might be that they did not happen
to pay him a visit while he was writing the above named epistles, and
so a greeting from them was not mentioned. A thing of this nature is
so accidentally varied, that we cannot make any conclusions which
are valid, either from this appearance or from that.
(c) ' Aquila and Priscilla are saluted as being at Rome. In Acts
xviii. 19, 26, we find their abode at Ephesus; and in Paul's last stay
at Ephesus, when he wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians, we
find them still there, 1 Cor. xvi. 19.'
All this I concede. But since Aquila and Priscilla had, for some
time, been obliged to relinquish their abode at Rome, on account of
the decree of Claudius, what is more natural than to suppose, that, as
soon as might be, they would return to Rome, at least long enough to
adjust their affairs there, which it is more than probable had been em
barrassed by the decree of banishment ?
(cl) ' But 2 Tim. iv. 19, written at Rome, greets Priscilla and Aquila
as residing at Ephesus.'
I grant it. But when was this written ? Just before the final mar
tyrdom of Paul (iv. 6 — 8) i. e., probably some ten j'ears after the
Epistle to the Romans was written, and also after the persecution by
Nero had commenced. What difficulty now in the supposition, that
Aquila and Priscilla had fled from Rome when this persecution
broke out, and gone back to their former station at Ephesus, where
they had spent several years ? There Paul salutes them in 2 Tim.
iv. 19.
Last, Professor Schott expresses his belief, that chap. xvi. is made
up of fragments of some brief epistle of Paul's written at Corinth,
and addressed to some church in Asia Minor, and added by mistake,
piece by piece as it was discovered, to the Epistle to the Romans.
Verses 1 — 16 composed the first fragment; verses 17 — 20, the second;
verses 21 — 24, the third; verses 25 — 27, the fourth.
But what a series of conclusions is here made out, without a syllable
of historical evidence ? Where is the evidence of the lost epistle to
an anonymous church in Asia Minor ? Where that it was lost except-
O

XX INTRODUCTION TO THE
ing a few scattered fragments which usensim sensimque deprehende-
bantur?" And the conceit of adding all these fragments to the
Epistle to the Romans, which already had a good ending with chap.
xv.; how should this have ever entered any one's head ? Why add
them to this epistle, rather than to some of Paul's shorter epistles ?
And then the persons themselves named in chapter xvi.; what a
singular phantasy it must have been in the compiler, to _ have sup
posed that, if they belonged to some church in Asia Minor, their
names could be tacked on to the epistle written to the church at
Rome.'" How can we admit such gratuitous and improbable hypo
theses as these ?
Nor can I admit what has frequently been said in respect to chap.
xvi., viz., that it is wholly unconnected with the preceding part of the
epistle, and may be disjoined from it without injury to it. Thus much
is true, indeed, viz., that salutations and expressions of Christian
courtesy are not doctrinal discussions nor practical precepts; in a
word, the sixteenth chapter, which is principally made up of saluta
tions, must of course be diverse from the preceding part of the epistle.
But is it not equally true that chaps, xii. — xv. differ as much from the
preceding ones, as chap. xvi. does from all the otliers ? Is it proper,
moreover, that Christian salutations should be exchanged, in epistles
like that of Paul ? This will not be denied. The force of such
examples of kindness, and courtesy, and benevolent feeling, is scarcely
less than that of direct precept ; and in some respects it has evidently
the advantage of precept, inasmuch as practice speaks louder than
theory. Why, then, should the salutatory part of the epistle be thrown
away ? And would not rejecting it be an injury to the congruity and
to the general good effect of the whole ?
Nor is it correct to say, that there is not an evident relation and
connection of some part of chap, xvi., with what precedes, besides
that which has just been mentioned. Let any one diligently consider
the contents of verses 17 — 20, and he will see plainly that they refer
to the divisions and erroneous sentiments which are the subject of
particular discussion in chaps, xii. — xv. Let him compare xvi. 19
with i. 8, and he will see the same person expressing himself in the
same circumstances. In a word, it would be truly wonderful, if the
straggling fragments of an epistle, sent to some unknown church in
Asia Minor, should fit the place of conclusion to the Epistle to the
Romans so well as its present conclusion fits it.
What can we say, moreover, to the ToXuripdrepov Se %ypa\j,e i/Mv of xv.
15, if Paul does not refer to the whole of the preceding epistle ? It
would be even ridiculous, on any other ground. And what a singular
epistle chaps, xv. and xvi. would make out, consisting almost wholly
salutations !
Eichhorn (Einleit. in das N. Test.) has advanced a hypothesis still
more fanciful, if possible, than that of Semler or Schott". Chap. xvi.
1 — 20 is, according to him, a letter of recommendation to the Corin
thian church, whii h Paul wrote for Phebe, the deaconess mentioned in
verses 1, 2. This, after it had been read by them, she obtained an-^in
and carried it along with her to Rome ; and because the church there
were unwilling that anything from the hand of Paul should perish

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. XXI
they tacked it on upon the epistle of Paul to them, so as to make out a
conclusion for it !
Is it worth the pains to refute such criticism? Or rather, can the
name of criticism, be fairly given to such extravagant and incongruous
suppositions ? One is ready to ask : What sort of a church must it
have been, in the metropolis of the world, and whose fame had gone
abroad through the whole empire, that could deal thus with Paul's
epistles ? Why was not the letter of Phebe kept by itself, and pub
lished by itself, as well as John's letter to the " elect lady ? " But
this is only one among the numerous conceits, which are intermingled
with the striking and instructive compositions of Eichhorn.
More recently, Baur* has attempted to bring discredit upon the xv.
and xvi. chapters of this epistle. His view is that these chapters were
added by some one ofthe Pauline party in the church, at a subsequent
date, in order to effect a union of sentiment between those of his own
party and the Judaizers at Rome, by softening what might be offensive
in the epistle. His arguments have been fully answered by KIing,f
Tholuck,_t 01shausen,§ and De Wette.|| It is unnecessary here to
speak only briefly of those which are more prominent.
The favorable opinion which is given in xv. 14, of the superior piety
and Christian knowledge of the Roman Christians is at variance with
the object of the writer expressed in i. 11, and also with the general
admonitory dogmatic spirit of the epistle. If this be an objection to
the authenticity of the last two chapters of Romans, what shall we say
of 1 Cor. i. 5, as compared with vi. 5, x. 15, xiv. 20, and passages
which might be selected from any other writing of similar object and
character. The allusion to the office of Christ, as related to the Jews as com
pared with the Gentiles, in xv. 8 seq., is made by Baur an objection to
the integrity of the last part of the epistle, as well as the mention
of the intended journey to Spain, and the reason for his visit, in xv.
28 seq. But it is unnecessary to do anything more than call the atten
tion of the candid reader to such objections, the main pillars upon
which Baur's hypothesis is supported, to bring him to the conclusion
that itis "nothing else than the work of a misdirected acuteness, and
an unrestrained hypercriticism that will never be able to establish
itself." — Olshausen's Introd. p. 31.
In reference to the doxology in chap. xvi. 25 — 27, there is need of a
little more extended examination, as there is considerable variety in
the MSS. of the passage, and internal evidence has been adduced,
with some apparent plausibility, against it.
It occupies the position which it has in our version, at the end of
the epistle, in Codd B. C. D. E. 16, 66, 80, 137, 176; in the Syriac,
Erpenian, Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Vulgate versions, and with
these agree the Latin Fathers.
It is placed at the end of the xiv. chapter in Cod. J., and most MSS.
written in cursive letters, in most Greek lectionaries, in the Arab.
* Tubing. Zeitschr., No. 3, 1836. t Studien und Krit., No. 2, 1857, p. 297 seq.
t Studien u. Krit., No. i, 1838, and Introd. to Comm., p. 30 seq.
§ Comm. Introd., p. 2 seq. II Comm Introd., 4th ed.

XXII INTRODUCTION TO THE
Triglott and Polyglott, in the Sclavonic and most of the Armenian
MSS. in Codd. mentioned by Rufinus and in Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Damascenus, Theoph. of Antioch, Oecumenius, and Theodulms. It is
found in both places in A, 5, 17, 109, and in some Armenian MSS.
This doxology is entirely wanting in F, G (though in the latter
there is a space left after xiv. 23), in D, where it is plainly erased by
a later hand, and in MSS. spoken of by Jerome and Erasmus.
There can be little room for doubt, after an examination of testi
mony, that, as far as external evidence goes, this doxology_ is authen
tic, ('. e., that it belonged to the original writing, and was either at the
end of chap xiv. or xvi. or both.
There is, furthermore, a preponderance of external authority for
the position at the end of the epistle. It has accordingly been there
placed by Erasmus, Stephens, Bengel, Koppe, Boehme, Scholtz,
Tischendorf, Hug, Knapp, Lachmann, Hahn, Riickert, De Wette,
Philippi, Meyer, Alford, and others. A few, with Griesbach and
Matthiae, place it at the end of chap, xiv., but certainly with less
weight of external evidence.*
Internal evidence, too, is in favor of the position at the end of
chap. xvi. At the end of chap. xiv. it so manifestly interrupts the
connection of thought which is so intimate, as indicated both by the
6(pe'Ao/j.ey Se of xv. 1 , and by a comparison of the course of thought in
the first thirteen verses of chap. xv. as compared with the preceding
chapter. And besides, the matter at the close of chap. xiv. is not
such as would naturally be followed by such a doxology, at least, if we
do not, as it plainly cannot be, consider it as the close of the epistle.
The different places of these verses in different MSS, has been
variously accounted for. The most probable supposition is, that the
position " at the very end of the epistle, contrary to the analogy of
all the Pauline letters," and after the benediction in verse 24th, was
deemed inappropriate by copyists, and in looking about for a suitable
place, they were led to make choice of the end of chap, xiv., by a
supposed suitableness of the verb airipliai to the sentiment in that
chapter. So Chrysostom says : iraAiv yap iiceiviov %x*TaL tuiv cur&ei/oov k.
irpbs airovs Tpiirei rbv Aoyov. This theory is favored by the fact that
many of the authorities for its position at the end of chap. xvi. either
leave out the salutation in verse 24, or transfer it to the end of the
doxology.f Its position in both places may be naturally accounted
for by supposing that some transcriber, unable to determine which
was the suitable place, retained it in both, whilst a supposed unsuit
ableness in both caused some few to reject it entirely.
It is not improbable, however, that the division for public reading
gave occasion to the position at the end of chap. xiv. If as is not inv
probable, the part publicly read ended with chap, xiv., the doxoloo-y
from chap. xvi. might not unnaturally have been added, as a suitable
conclusion, and thus have crept into the MSS. as belon<nno- there
The supposed arguments from internal evidence, i. eT, from the lan-
* See Meyer, in his Comm., prefatory remarks to chap, xvi., and Gabler Praof „_l
Griesbach, Opusc, p. 24. '' au
t See Davidson's Introd. II., p. 190; Alford's Comm. upon v. 25— 27- al*so ni.
kausen's, Tholuck's, and Meyer's Commentaries ' ' "

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. XXIII
guage and style of the doxology, have been drawn out at length by
Reiche, and fully answered by Meyer, Davidson, and others. Indeed,
some of his arguments against its genuineness are conclusive in its
favor. " It is unsuitable in position," he says, " wants the simplicity
of Paul's other doxologies, is bombastic, exaggerated, loaded with un
suitable ideas, obscure, unusual, and even unintelligible in expression,"
and finally, " it is made up of pieces taken from Paul's writings," e. g.,
from Rom. ii. 16, Gal. i. 6, Eph. iii. 3, Coll. i. 26, 2 Tim. i. 8, Tit. i. 1,
Rom. i. 5, 1 Tim. vi. 16, Rom. ii. 1 6, i. 9, Heb. xiii. 20—23.
In answer to this, it is confidently denied that it is unintelligible or
bombastic, and no other argument is necessary than an appeal to the
discrimination of the intelligent reader. For the rest it is only neces
sary to suppose that Paul, after having completed the epistle, in re
viewing it, filled with holy fervor at the thought of the magnitude,
freeness, and excellence of the salvation for Jew and Gentile, which
is the great theme of the epistle, felt constrained to utter the gushing
emotions of his soul in words of praise to God. How could words
have been more appropriate to the individual, the circumstances of
the author, and the position which they were to occupy ! Had they
been added by a later hand, we should expect them to be conformed
to the Apostle's other doxologies, " simple and complete," without
solecisms or irregularities. Besides, there is not the difference in the
text usually found in spurious passages. Thus Davidson closes his
remarks upon the passage as follows : " We cannot doubt that it pro
ceeded from Paul himself. Schott says : ' Its tenor is wholly Pauline ; '
so, too, Fritzsche : ' in all Paul's writings, there are no verses more
Pauline than these.' The reasoning of Reiche against them is a bur
lesque on argumentation. Nor is the flippant mode in which Krehl
disposes of the passages likely to advance the same view. His argu
ments are substantially the same as those of Reiche, and need not
therefore be examined. He is compelled to admit that the words are
Pauline ; but takes offence at the construction, etc. * * * But
the evidence in favor ofthe authenticity overpowers all considerations
like those urged by Reiche and Krehl. Subjectivity and misinterpreta
tion of phrases are insufficient to overthrow the Pauhne authorship." —
Introd. p. 193, 4. § 6. Language and Style of the Epistle.
The Epistle to the Romans was doubtless written in the Greek lan
guage, in which the apostle was educated, and in which he wrote all
his other epistles. The assertion of the Scholiast upon the Peshito
version, that it was written in Latin, is of no critical value, standing,
as he does, alone, and doubtless was based upon the supposition that a
letter to Roman Christians would be written in the Latin language.
The claim of Salmero, Harduin, and others, that the Vulgate is the
original language of the epistle, needs not a word of confutation, as it
is given up by the Catholics themselves. The original MSS. and
versions, -the style of the epistle (though naturally not free from
Hebraisms), also plainly indicate that our Greek text is the original,
and not a translation.

XXIV INTRODUCTION TO THE
Neither is tliere any objection to this view from the language of the
persons addressed. The Jews at Rome, as well as in Palestine and
other lands, made use of the Greek language at the time when the
eiiistle was written. They would naturally learn it, both from the
Greeks and the Romans themselves, who, many of them, preferred it to
their own native tongue. This is clearly shown by the oldest Jewish
tombs at Rome, which all have Greek inscriptions.
Of the general use of the Greek among the Romans themselves,
tliere is abundant evidence. Juvenal often ridicules the excessive
love of his countrymen for everything Greek. (See for example Sat.
VI 185 seq.) Martial, too, says:
Rusticus es ? nescis quid Grseco nomine dicar. Spuma vocor nitri
Grsecus es ? aippivirpov and Tacitus, in Dial, de Oratoribus C. 14 :
Nunc natus infans delegatur Graecul* ancilla?, etc.
Ovid too (De Arte Amand. L. ii. v. 121), bears witness to the
knowledge of Greek in Rome :
Nee levis ingenuas pectus coluisse per artes cura sit, et linguas
edidicisse duas.
There are many passages also in other classical writers, as Cicero
and Horace, showing the prevalence of the Greek language at Rome,
even before the age of the Apostle.
Davidson further adds (Introd. vol. II. p. 187) : " Ignatius, Dionysius
of Corinth, and Irenams wrote in Greek to Roman Christians. Justin
Martyr, who resided for some time in Rome, addressed his apologies
to the Roman emperors in Greek. Of the names of the first twelve
bishops of Rome, ten are Greek and only two Latin. Clement wrote
in Greek ; so, also, Hermas wrote his TloipAiv, or Shephera, in the
same tongue. * * * The majority of slaves, mechanics, and
artisans were of Greek origin ; and the Romans addicted to foreign
practices were ready to adopt the language of that nation. Hence
Greek became the tongue of the more cultivated."
The style ofthe epistle is such as we might expect from one born at
Tarsus, " a city filled with a Greek population, and incorporated with
the Roman empire," and educated at Jerusalem, under Gamaliel, the
most eminent teacher of the most influential school of the time. It is
a strong, manly, Greek style, wanting classical finish, and colored by
Aramaean and Hebrew influence. It has the ease of a composition in
a tongue with whieh one has been perfectly familiar from childhood,
and yet betrays the influence of close devotion to the Hebrew law and
prophets, in their original language.
In general, the style of the Epistle to the Romans is highly vigorous,
argumentative, and philosophic, and hence it abounds in abstract
terms, and in such particles as yip and Sti, which introduce a proof,
or as 'iva and 'owus, or equivalent phrases which denote the end or pur
pose, ydp, for instance, is used nearly one hundred and fifty times in
this epistle, and frequently in several immediately successive clauses
as in x. 12 seq. Life and spirit is given to the style of this epistle by
the frequent use of interrogations aud exclamations, as in ii. 4 v. 16
vi. 3, -\ii. 1, xi. 2, and often elsewhere.
Irregularities of construction are not unfrequent in the Romans.
They are such, however, as betray not an ignorance of the Greek

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. xxv
language, but a degree of negligence in the use of it. They indicate
a spirit fully engrossed by the importance of the theme, and less at
tentive to the external garb in which the thought is arrayed.
Digressions and parentheses are natural to one who is full of his
subject in all its relations, so that utterances press upon him, which
break in upon the even and regular flow of a particular train of re
mark. So, in the very beginning of the epistle, we find that the apos
tle, after speaking of the " gospel of God," evayyeAiov 0eoC, immediately
introduces a phrase to indicate the dignity and excellence of that gos
pel : & irpoeiniyyeiAaTo dia. tuiv irpo<py}Twv  aylais. And again the
clause tov viov aiirov calls forth the descriptive phrases : ToC yzvo^ivov
 vettpuv. So again, in verse 4, after tov Kvplov ijp-av, the paren
thetical clause Sia. ov £Aa$op.ti> (ver. 5, 6). See also ii. 11 seq., 5 : 12 — 18,
and other passages. " This singularity," says Paley, " is a species of
digression which may properly, I think, be denominated going offal a
word. It is a turning aside from the subject, upon the occurrence of
some particular word, forsaking the train of thought then in hand, and
entering upon a parenthetic sentence, in which that word is the pre
vailing term."
The apostle also exhibits in this epistle the same tact, delicacy, dis
crimination and tenderness, yet mingled with perfect truthfulness and
fidelity, which are conspicuous in his other writings. These charac
teristics are especially noticeable in the manner of his treatment of his
Jewish brethren, many of whose prejudices he is obliged to oppose in
this epistle. See, among other passages, ix. 1 seq., x. 1 seq., and we
may also notice the manner in which he fortifies a somewhat question
able and disagreeable sentiment, by a reference to the Old Test.
Scriptures, whose authority a Jew could not question. See ix. 9 seq.,
xiv. 11, etc.
There are occasional indications of more elaboration of style, as
the use of paranomasia in i. 29, 30, v. 19 seq., specially significant
employment of participles, and synonymous words, condensed expres
sions, etc. But these are probably rather the natural outpourings of an
exuberant and highly cultivated nature, than the direct result of study.
Upon this whole topic of the style of the Romans, see Davidson's In
trod., Vol. IL, p. 144 seq.
The general form is that of a letter, with the name of the writer
prefixed, as in letters missive of churches, instead of subscribed, and
with personal remarks and greetings at the beginning and end, and
an occasional direct address in the body of the letter. In all other re
spects, it has rather the form of an essay than an epistle ; and yet it
has not strictly the form of a modern essay. Such a thing was hardly
known to the ancients. The author employs a greater freedom in the
use and arrangement of materials, but has not less directness of aim
and purpose than is exhibited by modern essay writers.
In general value to the Christian and scholar, it is not exceededif
equalled by any other of the epistles of the great apostle. It is in
ferior, perhaps, in a rhetorical point of view, to the 2d Corinthians,
and has less of the emotional, less of the outpouring of the heart than
the Epistle to the Ephesians, and some of the other epistles, for its
main desio-n is a doctrinal one. It is also a more general discussion of

XXVI INTRODUCTION TO THE
doctrinal points, less limited by the circumstances of the persons ad
dressed, and less polemical than the other epistles, in which doctrines
are discussed, as the Galatians ; so no one book in the whole sacred canon
is perhaps so important to a thorough understanding of the Cliristian
system. Hence Calvin well says : " If a man have attained unto the
true understanding of it, he hath a speedy passage made him unto all
the most secret treasures of the Scripture."
Olshausen characterizes well a part of the epistle, and the requisites
for understanding it, when he says, from the nature of the contents,
" It may be understood why it is usually regarded as difficult. Indeed,
it may be said that where there is wanting in the reader's own life an
experience analogous to that of the apostle, it is utterly unintelligible.
Everything in the epistle wears so strongly the impress of the greatest
originality, liveliness, and freshness of experience ; the apostle casts
so sure and clear a glance into the most delicate circumstances of the
inward life of the regenerate ; he continues, with such genius, to place
all that is individual in connection with that which is most general,
that the reader who stands on the limited, inferior ground of natural
knowledge of the world, must, at one time, become dizzy at the vast
prospects into the periods of development of the universe which St.
Paul discloses, and, at another, lose sight of these, in order, to look into
the, as it were, microscopically exhibited circumstances which the apos
tle unveils with respect to the most secret processes in the depths of
the soul." — Introd., p. 55, 56.
§ 7. Slate of Feeling and Opinion in the Church at Rome, when ihe
Epistle was written.
The Church at Rome manifestly consisted of Jews and Gentiles ;
see § 2 above. That many of the erroneous views which Paul combats
in this epistle, were such as the Hebrews and others, such as the Gen
tiles, were prone to cherish, there can be no doubt. The national
pride of the Jew ; his attachment to the Mosaic institutes, and espe
cially to the Levitical rites and distinctions of clean and unclean ; his
impatience of subordination, in any respect, to Gentiles ; his unwil
lingness to believe that they could be admitted to equal privileges
with the Jew, in the kingdom of the Messiah, and particularly with
out becoming proselytes to the Mosaic religion ; his proneness to feel
repugnance to the government of heathen magistrates are all plainly
alluded to. On the other hand, the Gentiles disregarded the prej
udices of the Jews, especially about circumcision, and meats and
drinks, and holidays ; they were wounded at the claim of superiority
which the Jews seemed to make, and doubtless needed all the cautions
and precepts, in reference to these points, given in the hortatory part
of the epistle.
Whilst, then, it cannot be doubted that there were individual differ
ences of feeling among the Jewish and Gentile members of the Chris
tian community, which would bring them into conflict at times vet it
seems equally certain that these differences were not marked or such
as called for severe reproof, as among the Galatians (see various pas
sages in Paul's Epistle to them). This condition of things is plainly

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. xxvii
indicated in chap. xvi. 17 seq.: "Now I beseech you brethren,
mark (o-Koireiv) them which cause divisions and offences contrary to
the doctrine which ye have learned. * * * For your obedience
is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf,"
etc. In the whole discussion of the epistle, and in all the allusions to
the proposed visit of the apostle too, there is a freedom from a
polemical tone, both of expression and feeling, which to my mind
precludes the idea of wrangling and strife among those to whom it
was sent. The address to them is not, Oh ! foolish Romans, who hath
bewitched you ? but, " Beloved of Gid : * * * I thank my God
through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of through
out the whole world ; " and " I long to see you, that I may impart unto
you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established " (i. 7, 8, 1 1) .
Cf. also i. 12, xv. 32, etc. There seems, then, to us, to be nothing in
the epistle which is contrary to the belief that it was written without
any positive information of differences between Judaizing and Gen
tile Christians at Rome, but with a strong feeling, derived from
observation and experience, that diversities of opinion must exist,
which a general discussion of prominent points of doctrine would
have a tendency to repress. Still, it would be perhaps too much to
say, with Olshausen, that "we find in the Epistle to the Romans a
purely objective statement of the nature of the Gospel, grounded only
on the general opposition between Jews and Gentiles, and not on the
more special opposition existing in the church itself, between Judaizing
and non-Judaizing Christians." — English Transl., p. 42.
The apostle doubtless meant to establish some great and general
principles of Christianity, and also to apply them to the state of the
church at Rome. So Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Bucer, Michaelis,
Tholuck, and others, have for substance judged. That Paul inter
mingles with general truths many things which are local, is almost a
matter of course in an epistle to a particular church.

BRIEF ANALYSIS
OF THE
CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Were I to select a motto, which would, in a single brief sentence
designate the substance of what this epistle contains, it should be
taken from the apostle Paul himself:
XPI2T02 'HMIN AIKAI02TNH TE KAI AriA2M02,
CHRIST OUR JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION.
The first five chapters exhibit Christ as the author and efficient
cause of our justification.
After an appropriate and affectionate introduction (i. 1 — 16),
the apostle proceeds to show, that the Gentiles had universally trans
gressed the law of God which was written on their hearts, by indul
ging in a great variety of sins which they knew to be wrong (i. 17 —
32). He next proceeds to show, that the Jews were still more guilty,
inasmuch as they had sinned against more light and more distinguished
privileges (ii. 1 — 3, 19). He now draws the conclusion from these
premises, that justification by deeds of law, i. e., on the score of merit
or on the ground of perfect obedience, is impossible ; for, inasmuch as
all men have sinned against the law of God, all are under its condem
nation, and therefore grace or mercy only can save them from perish
ing. This grace is vouchsafed only through Christ, and has been
procured by his sufferings and death in behalf of sinners (iii. 20, 31).
The Old Testament also teaches the same doctrine of gratuitous
justification : and that this should be extended to Gentiles as well as
jews (iv. 1 — 25).
The happy fruits of such a state of justification — peace with God,
support and consolation in the midst of trials and sufferings, a hope
which maketh not ashamed, and never can be disappointed — are next
described by the writer (v. 1 — 11). And that it is perfectly proper
and becoming on the part of God, to extend those blessings to all,
both Jews and Gentiles, is strikingly taught by an exhibition of the
fact, that all have been made to share in the evils which flowed from
the apostasy of our original progenitors (v. 12 — 19). Even in those
cases where sin has exhibited its greatest power, the grace of the gos
pel is made to triumph over it (v. 20, 21).
Thus is CHRIST OUR JUSTIFICATION set forth by the apos
tle. He comes next to exhibit CHRIST OUR SANCTIFICA
TION. This important topic he introduces, by discussing the objec
tion raised against the doctrine of gratuitous justification, viz., that it
tends to encourage sin. He shows in the first place, from various
considerations, the incongruity and impossibility of this (vi. 1 — 23).
He then proceeds to contrast a state of grace and the means and mo
tives to holiness which it furnishes, with a legal state ; and to show
that in the latter, the sinner has no hope of maintaining a holy char
acter, while in the former he is abundantly furnished with the means of
doing it ; consequently that a state of grace, so far from encouraging
men°to sin, affords them the only hope of their being able to subdue
Mid mortify sin (vii. 1 — viii., 1 7).

XXX ANALYSIS.
The apostle then, as he had before done at the close of his discus
sion respecting justification (v. 1 — 11), goes on to show the conso
lation which the gospel affords, under the various troubles of the
present lite (viii. 18 — 27) ; and in the sequel he concludes, as in the
former case, with exultation in the certainty of future and eternal
glory to all who truly love God (viii. 28 — 39).
The part of the epistle properly doctrinal, concludes with the 8th
chapter. Chapter ix. discusses the objection raised against the deal
ings of God with his creatures, when he makes some of them the dis
tinguished subjects of his mercy, and passes by others. Chap. x.
confirms still farther, by various considerations, and particularly by
texts cited from the Old Testament, the idea that the Jews who re
main in unbelief are and must be cast off; and therefore that this is
not a new or strange doctrine. Chap. xi. continues to urge the same
subject ; but at the close deduces from it the cheering consolation, that
even the rejection of the Jews will be made a great blessing to the
world, as it will be the occasion of the sending of salvation to the
Gentiles. And if their rejection bo attended with consequences so
important, then surely their reception again will fill the world with its
happy fruits.
The rest of the epistle is hortatory, and is adapted specially to warn
the church at Rome against several errors, to which, in their circum
stances they were peculiarly exposed. First, they are exhorted to
lay aside all pride, and envious distinctions, and claims to preference
on the ground of office, gifts, etc. ; and to conduct themselves in a
kind, affectionate, gentle, peaceable manner (xii. 1 — 21).
Next, they are exhorted to a quiet and orderly demeanor in regard
to the civil power, which the Jews were especially prone to contemn
(xiii. 1 — 7 ). The great law of love is to be regarded and obeyed
toward all men, without or within the church (xiii. 8 — 14).
Thirdly, the Gentile Christians are admonished to respect the scru
ples of their Jewish brethren on the subject of eating meats offered to
idols, and admonished that they have no right to interfere either in
this matter or in other things of the like tenor (xiv. 1 — xv. 7). On
the otlier hand, the Jews are admonished that their Gentile brethren
have equal rights and privileges with themselves, under the gospel
dispensation (xv. 8 — 13).
The writer then expresses his good hopes concerning them all, his
kind and tender regard for them, and his purposes in respect to visit
ing them (xv. 14, seq.).
Lastly, he subjoins the salutation of the various Christians who were
with him ; cautions them against those who seek to make divisions
among them ; and concludes with a doxology (xvi.).
Such is the brief sketch of the contents of the epistle before us.
It is one, however, which the reader may perhaps not fully understand
and appreciate, until he shall have attentively studied the whole ¦ but
still, one to which he may recur, in order to satisfy himself in some
measure respecting the relation which a particular part has to the
whole. To make this satisfaction complete, it is important that he
should become well acquainted with the general scope and object of
the whole epistle. The details are given in the introductions to the
respective parts.

COMMENTARY OK THE ROMANS.

CHAP. I. 1 — 16.
The introductory part of the Epistle to the Eomans, i. 1 — IG, contains (1) A salu
tation, vers. 1—7. (2) A brief declaration of some personal wishes and concerns,
vers. 8—16. The apostle, being a stranger in person to the Church at Rome, begins
his epistle by exhibiting the nature of his office, as divinely commissioned to preach
the Gospel, ver. 1 j which Gospel had been before announced by the ancient proph
ets, ver. 2, whose subject was Jesus, of the seed of David according to the flesh, but
the decreed Son of God, who dispensed tlie Holy Spirit with power after his reair-
rection, vers. 3, 4. From him, thus the constituted Lord of all, Paul a\ers that he
had received such grace as made him Christ's devoted follower, and also the oflxe of
an apostle to the Gentiles, in order to promote the knowledge of a Saviour among all
men, ver. 5 ; and to the Romans, as among these Gentiles, and called to be heirs of
the grace of life, he wishes every needed spiritual and temporal blessing, ver. 6.
Having thus indicated his right to speak to them, and given them his salutation,
he proceeds to speak ofthe gratification that the good report of their faith had given
him, ver. 9 ; and assures them of his remembrance of them in his prayers, and of
his desire to visit them, ver. 10 ; and thus communicate and in return receive spirit
ual blessings, vers. 11, 19. He then reassures the Romans of his long cherished de
sire to come to them and preach the Gospel, ver. 13 ; since, as apostle of the Gen
tiles, he was under obligation to preach to them everywhere, and did not shrink from
the performance of his duty even at Rome, vers. 14, 15 ; for he was not ashamed of
the Gospel, ver. 16.
(1) Pau!,Uav\o<;f probably a Roman and not a Hebrew name,
i.e., Paulus; compare the name ofthe Roman proconsul, Sergius
Paulus, Acts xiii. 7, who became a convert to Christianity, through
the instrumentality of Paul. The Hebrew name of the apostle
was b^W, 2auXos ; and he is first called IIauA.os in Acts xiii. 9,
immediately after the mention of Sergius Paulus. Hence many
have thought, that IlavAos is a name which the apostle took in
honor of the proconsul. The more natural explanation is, that
IlaOAos was a second name of Roman origin, given him in ac
cordance with the custom of the times. While the Jews were
subject to the power of the Seleucidas on the throne of Syria, it was
very common among them to adopt a second name of Greek
origin ; e. g. Jesus, Jason ; Jehoialdm* Alkimos, etc. So under
1

2 ROMANS I. 1.
the Eoman power ; Dostai, Dositheus ; Tarphin, Trypho. A
comparison of these will show, that in general the second name
bore some resemblance in sound to the first. So SaSAos, IlauAos.
The word SoCAos means, in itself, one devoted to the service
of another, one who is subject to the will or control of another.
Of course it may import a station or condition which is in
itself high or low, honorable or dishonorable, according to the
state or rank of the master. A servant of a man, i. e., of any
common man, is in the strict import of the term, a slave.
But the servants of a king may be courtiers of the highest rank,
who count this title a matter of honor. (1) Servants of God is
an appellation given to the prophets, Moses, Joshua, etc., Rev.
x. 7. xi. 18. xv. 3. Deut. xxxiv. 5. Josh. i. 1. Jer. xxv. 4. Amos
iii. 7 ; and in like manner the apostles and primitive preachers
of the gospel are called the Servants of Christ, Gal. i. 10. Phil.
i. 1. Titus i. 1. James i. 1. 2 Peter i. 1. Col. iv. 12. (2) AoCAos
is also employed as meaning simply or principally a worshipper
of Christ or of God, one devoted to his service; for in such a
sense we find the word employed in 1 Peter ii. 1 6. Eph. vi. 6.
Kev. vii. 3. Luke ii. 29. Acts iv. 29. Ps. cxiii. 1, al.
The word SoiJAo; here, does not seem to indicate official
station, like that of tlie ancient prophets and messengers of
God mentioned under JNTo. 1 ; but is employed in the second
sense, to designate the apostle as one devoted to the service
of Christ, one ready to obey him in all things, and to regard
the promotion of /iis interests as the great object of his life.
Interpreted in this way, SawAos does not anticipate the mean
ing of d7roo"j-oAos. There is rather a gradation in tbe sense.
First, Paul is represented as being devoted to the service of
Christ, and then as commissioned with a special office in that ser
vice ; which could not be said of every SoSAos. So Reiche
Glockler, and others.
Jesus Christ, "irjo-ov Xpurrov, in the Gen. here, shows the
relation in which Paul stood to the Saviour, and that the apos
tle's business or object (as SoCAos) was to promote the cause of
Christ or to forward his work. 'Irjaovs is the Greek form of the
Hebrew name yairn or of its later abridgment and substitute
rio , i. e., Savioiir, or ke who will save. Xptcrro's is properly a
participial adjective formed from ^ot'co, to anoint, and means the
anointed one. It is, like Kvpios, which is properly an adjective
usually employed by prefixing the article, as an appellative, when
applied to the Saviour, and commonly it designates him as Una
or possessed of royal dignity. Kings were appointed to their
office, among the Jews ; and also high priests. The name Christ
irnaa , Xptords, the Afessiah, may refer then to either of the«e

EOMANS I. 1. 3
high offices or dignities ; for he is both king and priest for ever.
The use of x/ho-to's alone in the Gospels, is hardly to be regarded
in the light of a proper cognomen, but rather as a mere attribu
tive appellation. In tlie epistles, it is not unfrequently used in
the way of a proper cognomen.
KA1770S, lit. called, but the meaning here is chosen, invited, viz.,
chosen to the office of an apostle; see Acts ix. 15, o-keCos e'lcAo-yiJs
/xot eanv ovros, also Acts xxvi. 17, where the kXvtos here is ex
pressed by i^atpovpevos ae, I have taken thee out of, f have selected
thee from. ^ In Gal. i. 15, it is more fully expressed by 6 a<f>opiaas
pe ck Koikiai p.rjTp6s [J-ov, Kai KaXeaas 81a. rijs xapiTos airov, i. e.,
who set me apart or designated me from my earliest years for
the apostolic office, and in due time called me to it by his grace ;
Jer. i. 5. The word kXtj-os sometimes has the sense merely of
invited, bidden; e. g., Matt. xx. 16, xxii. 14. Yet in the writ
ings of Paul it is not so used, but always in the sense of efficient
calling, as we say, i. e., it means not only that the person desig
nated has been invited or selected, but that he has accepted the in
vitation ; 1 Cor. i. 1, 2, 24. Rom. i. 6, 7. viii. 28 ; with which cf.
Gal. i. 15. Jude v. 1. Heb. iii. 1. Rom.xi. 29. Eph. iv. 1.
Apostle, 'AwoaroXos may mean a legate of any kind, one sent by
another on any kind of business or message. The word is used in
this way, in John xiii. 16. Phil. ii. 25. A divine messenger or
prophet it designates in Luke xi. 49. Eph. iii. 5. Rev. xviii. 20.
ii. 2 ; and in like manner it also signifies the messengers of Christ
which is the usual meaning of the word throughout the N. Testa
ment. To invest them with this office, an immediate choice by
the Saviour in person seems to have been necessary. This is
implied in our text; and more plainly still in Gal. i. 1. — Occa
sionally the companions of the apostles, or the delegates sent by
thein, are called apostles; so in 2 Cor. viii. 23. Acts xiv. 4, 14.
Rom. xvi. 7.
Set apart for the gospel of God, 'A<pu}pLap.evos .... Seov,
i. e., chosen or selected in order to preach the gospel of God, viz.,
that gospel of which God is the author, 9eov being Genitivus auc-
toris. The word 6.<j>uipiapevos seems to be intended as epexegeti-
cal of kXtjtos, i. e., it expresses the same idea in different lan
guage. Hesychius explains acpiapiapivos by eKXeXeypevos, chosen,
BiaKeKpipevos, selected. In the same sense a<f>opicra.Te occurs in
Acts xiii. 2. See the same sentiment in Gal. i. 15, Jer. i. 5.
The meaning is, that God, who foreknows all things, did set him
apart, choose, select him for the work of the gospel, even from the
earliest period of his life, Gal. i. 15. So it is said of Jeremiah,
that lie wras set apart, selected, for the prophetic office even be
fore he was formed in his mother's womb ; by all which expres-

4 E0MANSI.2.
sions is meant, that God who knows all persons and events be
fore they exist or take place, has a definite object in view which
he intends to accomplish by them. In classic Greek, the verb
acpopi^eiv is more usually employed in a bad sense (?k malam
partem), meaning to exterminate, excommunicate, repudiate, etc.
But in Hellenistic Greek it is more commonly employed in bo-
nam partem, as here.
For the gospel, Efc evayyeXiov, has the same sense as eh to
evayyeXiaaaBai eiayyeXlov, ill order to preach the gospel. This
method of using the Ace. (with the preposition eh prefixed) as a
nomen actionis, is a frequent idiom of Paul's writings, and resem
bles the use of the Heb. Inf. (with a b prefixed) as a nomen
actionis. WvayyeXwv itself is sometimes employed to denote the
preaching of the gospel ; e. g., 1 Cor. iv. 15, ix. 14 — eiayye'Xiov
Beov Chrysostom under.-tands as meaning tlie gospel concerning
God, viewing Beov as Genitivus objecti. But this interpretation
is plainly erroneous ; for the object is supplied in verse 3, viz.
erayye'Aiov Beov .... irepl tov viov avrov. Theophylact rightly
explains the phrase : dis BoiprjBev trapb. tov Beov [the gospel] as
given by God. For the sentiment that the gospel is of God, and
that Christ taught it as received from him, let the reader com
pare John viii. 28, 38. v. 19, 30. xii. 49. xiv. 10, 24. xvii. 4 — 8.
(2) Which he formerly, (or in former times,) declared for
published.) by his prophets, in the holy Scriptiires^O Trpoeirriyyei-
Xaro .... ayiais. In like maimer, Paul in his defence before
Agrippa says, that he had proclaimed nothing as a preacher of
the gospel, which the prophets and Moses had not declared
should take place, Acts xxvi. 22. That Christ and all his apos
tles believed and taught, that the Old Testament abounds in proph
ecies respecting him, there can be no doubt on the part of any
one who attentively reads the New Testament ; see Acts x. 43.
xviii. 28. 1 Peter i. 10. 2 Peter i. 19.
Even the heathen of the apostle's time had become acquainted
with the expectations of the Jews based on their Scriptures, in re
gard to the appearance of the Messiah. Thus Tacitus speaks of
this subject; |< Pluribus persuasio in erat, antiquis sacerdotum
Uteris eontineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret Oriens pro-
fectique Judsea rerum potirentur," Hist. V. 13. In the same
manner Suefonius his contemporary expresses himself: " Per-
crebuerat Oriente toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis ut eo
tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirentur," in Vespas. c. 4.' The
first promises respecting the Messiah were merely of a n-encral
nature, unaccompanied by peculiar and characteristic declarations ¦
e.g. Gen. iii. 15. xii. 3. xvii. 4, 5. xlix. 10. In hitcr times it
was 1'oretold that the expected King and Deliverer would be' of

ROMANS I. 3 5
the progeny of David, 2 Sam. vii. 16. Psalm Ixxxix. 35 — 37.
In several Psalms, some traits of the life, office, character, and
sufferings of this illustrious personage were given ; viz. Psalm ii.
xvi. xxii. xiv. ex. etc. ; still more graphically is the Messiah de
scribed in Is. liii. ; and individual occurrences in his history are
given in later prophets, e. g., Zech. ix. 9. xi. 13, Mai. iii. 1, seq.
iv. 2, seq. It has been observed, that Malachi's declaration in
the last chapter of his prophecy, is homogeneous with the very
first annunciation of the gospel in Mark i. 2. Our English ver
sion of TTpoeir-nyyeiXaTo, promised afore, does not give the proper
meaning ofthe word.
fn the Holy Scriptures, 'Ev ypacpats ayiais. The Jews em
ployed either ypa<prj the singular, or ypaifaai the plural, indiffer
ently. The first means the corpus librorum sacrorum ; the sec
ond refers to the same collection, as made up of several particular
writings. The epithet ayiai is given to ypacpai, because the
Scriptures were regarded as worthy of all reverence, or because
they were looked upon as being inspired by to irvevpa to ayiov.
(3) Respecting his Son, Hepl tov viov airov. This clause should
be joined, in the readers mind, to evayyeXiov Beov at the close of ver.
1. Verse 2 is a circumstantial declaration, thrown in to enhance
the value of the gospel, or its credibility and dignity. Tholuck
joins irepl tov viov airov with irpoeirnyyeiXaTo ; but as the verb
itself relates to evayyeXiov Beov, it seems to me more congruous to
refer 7repi k. t. A. to the same words.*
Who was born of the seed of David, in respect to the flesh, tov ye-
vopevov .... adpKa. The verse itself is replete with difficulties ;
and especially so to one who is not familiarly conversant with
the character of Paul's style. Tholuck compares the latter to the
urgent force of waves, which swell one above another in continual
succession. It is an obvious peculiarity of this apostle's style,
that he abounds in what are commonly called parentheses. His
mind was so glowing and so full of ideas, that the expression of a
single word often calls forth, as it were, a burst of thought res
pecting the import of that word, whieh hinders him from advanc
ing in the sentence that he had begun, until he has given vent to
the feelings thus incidentally occasioned. The expression of these
feelings makes here what may be named parentheses ; although
they may not always be designated as such in our printed book-.
To illustrate what I mean, let us take the examples in the first
* It is a matter of little importance as far as the sense is concerned, whether
this clause is considered as an adjunct of "the gospel of God" dayyiAiov
Steov, or of the nearer clause : " which lie formerly announced," o Trponnjy-
yeiAaro. Many with Tholuck prefer the latter connection. Sec Aifoid's
Comm. 1*

ROMANS I. 3.

paragraph of the epistle before us. When Paul (ver. 1) had
named the eirayye'Xtov Beov which would recall to the minds of
his readers the gospel that was then preached by himself and
others, he immediately adds, in order to enforce on their minds a
becoming idea of the dignity and excellence of this gospel, o irpo-
eirrjyyeiXaro Sia, iw irpocpgrCiv avrov ev ypa<pah ayiais ; after which
he resumes his subject. But no sooner has he uttered the words
tov viov avrov, than another burst of thought respecting the exalted
personage thus named escapes from him. First, this Son is yev-
opevov .... adpKa, a descendant of David, the most exalted
king who ever occupied the Jewish throne, according to the prom
ises respecting the Messiah, e. g., in 2 Sam. vii. 16, Ps. Ixxxix.
35 ¦ — 37. Secondly, he is tov bpiaBevros .... veKpoiv, i. e., he
is the Son of God clothed, according to decree, with supreme do
minion, especially in regard to the bestowment of the Holy Spirit,
after his resurrection from the dead. Having thus designated
some striking characteristics of the Son of God, he resumes his
theme by the words 'Irjaov .... rjpuiv, which are in apposition
with tov viov avrov in ver. 3. The words tov Kvpiov r/puiv again
suggest another train of thought, which the writer stops to utter,
viz. 8i ou . . . . Xpiarov, after which he resumes his theme and
finishes the sentence by 7r£o-i rots .... Xpiarov, ver. 7. The
greater part of this apparently involved sentence, might evidently
be included in parentheses ; and then the simple sentence would
run thus : IlaCAos .... difxupiapevos eh evayyeXiov Beov irepl roB
viov avrov .... 'Ivaov Xpiarov tov K.vpiov rjpiiiv .... 7r2o~i
tois ovaiv k. t. X. (See introduction).
Descended, bom, yevou-evov ; so the word is not unfrequently
employed. — 'Ek aireppaTos, of the posterity, of the lineage. — Ka
Ta aaKpa, in respect to human nature or his fleshly existence.
'Stdpi denotes literally flesh, i. e., the flesh of a living or animated
being, in distinction from that of a dead one, whieh is xpeas. It
denotes body also ; not in the sense of adfia which has reference
to the compacting of the whole of the parts into one mass, but
body as distinguished from mind, the visible, as distinguished
from the invisible part. Hence it is very often used, both in the
Old Testament and the New, for our animal nature, the animal
man (so to speak). Frail, perishable - man, also, and man with
carnal appetites and passions, are often designated by it ; as every
lexicon will show. As kindred with this, it often means man as
living in his present fleshly and dying or transitory state, in dis
tinction from another and different condition in a future world;
so Gal. ii. 20. Phil. i. 22, 21. Heb. v. 7, applied to Christ. 1
Pet. iv. 2. 2 Cor. x. 3. In the passage before us, the human
nature or condition of Christ, as descended from the royal progeny

EOMANS I. 4. 7
of David, is designated. But why so ? Because the promise was
made to David, that the Messiah should descend from him.
Hence the genealogy in Matthew : " The Son of David, the Son
of Abraham." So the common feeling and views of the Jews
decided : " How do they [the Scribes] say, that the Christ is
David's Son?" So the blind man (Luke xviii. 39) says : "Jesus,
thou Son of David, have mercy on me." Comp. also Luke i. 27,
32. Matt. xv. 22. xii. 23. xxi. 9, 15. xxii. 41 — 46. John vii. 42.
2 Tim. ii. 8 ; wdiich most abundantly illustrate the views of the
Jews and of the apostles. It is not, therefore, merely a son of
David which is designated by the phrase before us, but the long
expected and hoped for Son of David, i. e., the promised Messiah.
We must regard this clause, tov yevopevov e« airepp.aTos Aai/i'S
Kara. adpKa, then, as added to viov avrov, for the sake of pointing
out the fulfilment of the promises of God and the expectations of
pious Jews, in regard to the Messiah or Son of God ; a thought
naturally suggested by what the writer had said before in- relation
to the declarations in the Scriptures. But lest the reader might
argue that Son of David, considered as meaning Messiah, implied
nothing more than one of David's ordinary natural descendants ;
Paul adds Kara aaKpa, in respect to Ms human nature ; where
adpi; is plainly employed in the same sense as in John i. 14, 6
Xdyos adp£ eyeVero, i. e., the Logos became man, or took on him a
human nature. But if the Son of God was a mere man, in the
view of Paul, how strange it would be for him to say : yevopevov
.... Kara o-ap/ca; an expression never used respecting any
other individual. The application plainly is, that he had some
other nature than the human. The same distinction is implied
in Rom. ix. 5, ef S>v b Xpiaros to Kara adpKa. In his other nature,
he is there said to be 6 iirl iravrmv Beos-
Thus we have one special characteristic of the Son of God or
of the promised Messiah, viz., that he was, as to his human nature,
of the royal progeny of David. Now follows a second, of a more
exalted and peculiar kind.
(4) The decreed Son of God, etc., 'OpiaBevros .... vexpSv.
The word bpio-Bevros here has often been rendered decreed, de
cided, ordained; so Clavius, Erasmus, Faber, and many others.
This accords with the meaning of the word bpi'C,ia in Heb. iv. 7.
Acts xi. 29. ii. 23. x. 42. xvii. 26, 31. Luke xxii. 22 ; and these
are all the instances in which it is used in the New Testament,
excepting the case before us. In like manner the oldest Latin
interpreters translated qui prcedestinatus est; as appears from
the Latin interpretation of Irenaeus, III. 18, 32 ; from Rutin's
version of Origen, and Hilary De Trinitate, VII. In the like
way, also, some recent interpreters have rendered bpiaBevros.

8 ROMANS I. 4.
But this sense of the word is alleged, by many critics, not to
accord with the design of the writer. In order to prove this, they
suppose the passage (by way of illustration) to be construed thus ;
' Ordained to be the Son of God with power, Kara nvevpa dyiw-
avvns, i. e., by the miraculous gifts which the Spirit conferred
upon him, or by the miracles which the Spirit enabled him to
perform ; ' and then ask, ' How did the miraculous gifts or deeds
of Jesus ordain him to be the Son of God, or constitute him such ?
He possessed these gifts, or performed these miracles, because he
was the Son of God ; he was not made so by the possession of
his gifts or the performance of his deeds.' And admitting their
grounds of interpreting the rest of the verse, their objection
seems to be decisive against the exegesis which they oppose.
Grotius, in order to relieve this difficulty with respect to bpia-
Bevros, construes the passage thus : ' The regal dignity of Jesus,
as Son of God, was predestinated, or prefigured, when he wrought
signs and wonders in his incarnate state.' But how predestinat
ing can be made to mean prefiguring, I am not aware.
Others construe thus : ' Ordained to be the powerful Son of
God, in his pneumatic condition [or state of exaltation], by his
resurrection from the dead.' But in this case we are compelled
to ask : How could his resurrection decree or ordain his exalted
state ? It might be the consequence of a decree that he should
be exalted ; it was so ; but in what manner the resurrection
could ordain or decree his exaltation, it would be difficult to
explain. The passage has also been interpreted : ' Constituted the Son of
God with power, in his pneumatic condition, after his resurrection
from the dead.' For although he was the Son of God before his
resurrection, yet he was not the Son of God ev Svvdpei, in the
sense here meant, until after his ascension to the right hand of the
Majesty on high.
Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret, Theophylact, GEcume-
nius, the Syriac version, and the great majority of modern critics
give the sense: shown, demonstrated, exhibited, declared, bpiaBivros
=8eixBevTos, dirocpavBevros, KpiBevros, bpoXoyvBevros. Of such a
meaning for bpi£,w, it is true, no example can be found in the New
Testament, nor in the classics, which seems to be exactly in point.
Passow gives no sense of this kind to bpdjn, in his lexicon. I find
only one example (if indeed this be one) in the instances produced
by Eisner, which will stand the test of scrutiny ; this is : "A patron
of what is just, oWorr/v bpi£opev yv-qaiov, we call a true judge or
ive declare to be a. judge worthy ofthe name." But even here 'the
sense of deciding, determining, defining, is altogether a good one
and equally good for bpi'C,op.ev ; and this agrees with the usual

ROMANS I. 4. «J
meaning of the word. Still, as bpi'(u (from opos) means literally
to prescribe the boundaries or limits of any thing, and thus, by
defining it, to distinguish it from other things ; so the secondary
meaning given by Chrysostom, viz. SeixBevros dirocpavBevros, de
clared, shown, is not an unnatural one, although destitute (ro far
as I can discover) of any actual usus loquendi to support it. Tho
lexicon of Zonaras gives the same gloss to the word : bpiaBevros
= dirob'evxBevTos, dirocpavBevTOs-
It is a safe rule, not to adopt the meaning of a word which is
not supported by the usus loquendi, when another meaning which
is supported by it can be given, that will make good sense. And
in the case before us it is as good sense to say, that " Christ was
constituted the Son of God with power, after his resurrection from
the dead," as to say, that " Christ was shown to be the Son of God
wdth power, after his resurrection from the dead." For after the
resurrection, he was advanced to an elevation which, as Messiah,
he did not before possess; com. Phil. ii. 9 — 11. Heb. i. 3. ii. 9.
xii. 2. Rev. iii. 21. Matt. xix. 28. Nay one might say, that the
more energetic meaning of the word is to be found in constituted.
As an instance of the like sense, appeal has been made to Acts
X. 42, where Christ is said to be 6 uipiajxevos virb tov Beov Kpirrjs
£<__>vt(dv /cai veKpSiv, the constituted or appointed judge of the living
and the dead. For the like sense of opi£a_, appeal is also made to
Acts xvii. 31, Sipiae, sc. Kpir-qv, i. c., he [God] hath constituted or
appointed him [Christ] the judge, etc., comp. xvii. 26, bpiaas ....
Kaipovs. But of this meaning of bpit,u> as applicable to Rom. i. 4,
I now doubt, although I formerly was disposed to adopt it.
If we should construe the phrase, as some do : " Declared to be
the Son of God with power, by the Holy Spirit, on account of
(by) his resurrection from the dead ; " one might then ask : How
could the resurrection declare in any special manner, that Christ
was the Son of God ? Was not Lazarus raised from the dead ?
Were not others raised from the dead, by Christ, by the apostles,
by Elijah, and by the bones of Elisha ? And yet was their resur
rection proof that they were the sons of God ? God did indeed
prepare the way for universal dominion to be given to Christ, by
raising him from the dead. To the like purpose is the apostle's
assertion in Acts xvii. 31. But how an event common to him,
to Lazarus, and to many others, could of itself demonstrate him to
be the Son of God ev Svvdpei, remains to be shown.
The reasons produced by Reiche in his recent commentary,
and also by my friend, the Rev. A. Barnes, in his excellent little
volume on the Romans, in favor of this interpretation, are not
satisfactory to my mind. They both, with many others, under
stand iv Bwd/xei, here as adverbially employed, and make it to

10 ROMANS I. 4.
qualify bpurBivros, so that the meaning is powerfully demonstrated
or shown. It cannot be questioned that ev Swd/xei might be ren
dered adverbially, like Swarms. But had the apostle meant that
iv Svvdpei should qualify bpiaBevros, all the usual principles of
Greek construction and syntax would demand that he should have
written, tov iv Svvdpei bpiaBevros viov, the place between the arti
cle and the participle being the appropriate one, in order to avoid
ambiguity of sense or construction, when a noun is thus em
ployed. Then again, no example has been produced, and I must
doubt, until I see it, whether any can be produced, of the Greeks
applying Svvapis to designate the force or strength of a logical
demonstration made only to the mind. It always, certainly in
the New Testament, has reference to the active force or energy
of an agent, either corporeal or spiritual, when employed in such
a way. The Greeks would characterize the demonstrative force
of evidence or logic, in a very different way from this. The ob
jections, therefore, in point of grammatical construction and pro
priety of idiom, seem to me to be conclusive against such an exe
gesis. And the references by the commentators in question to
Col. i. 29, ttjv evepyeiav airov ttjv ivepyovpevrjv ev ipol iv Svvdpei
and to Mark ix. 1, euis av i'Sucti ttjv BaaiXeiav tov Beov iXrjXvBviav
iv Svvdpei, do not give any satisfaction as to their application of
iv Svvdpei in the case above, because here the SiW/us is that of
agents, and not that of logic or evidence. The kingdom of God,
of course means the persons who compose it, and ev Svvdpei the
efficiency with which they act, or (at least) with which God him
self acts, in building it up.
Nor am I convinced, that the resurrection powerfully demon
strated Christ to be the Son of God, by the allegation (in order
to remove an apparently formidable difficulty as stated above),
that 'in the circumstances of the case, after all the special claims
that Jesus had made to be considered as the Messiah, his resurrec
tion was a signal proof that he was the Son of God.' This it
would do, however, only in an indirect way, and such an infer
ence could be drawn from it only by virtue of reasoning from
consequences. It proved only, that the claims of Jesus were
allowed to be just and true. How could the power of God the
Father, exerted to raise Christ from the dead, prove the divine
or exalted nature of the latter? It proved only that God is
Almighty, and that he regarded with approbation the claims of
Jesus. One of these claims was, that he was the Son of God •
but this was only one among many. How then could the whole
force of the evidence to be drawn from the resurrection concentre
in this sole point? And when Reiche asserts (p. 119) that
" Paul always appeals to the resurrection of Christ as the princi-

ROMANS I. 4. 11
i
pal evidence of his divinity,'' and refers us to "Col. xv. 3, 17. Rom.
iv. 24. Acts xvii. 2-3, as proofs of this, one is tempted lo ask, what
is meant by evidence? Theae. passages merely show that Christ
was raised from the dead, in order to complete the work of medi
ation and redemption, and also to be the future judge of the
world ; nothing more. Nor is it in the nature of things, that
resurrection from the dead can prove Godhead? Was it the
Godhead that died, and was raised again ; or was it the man
Christ Jesus ? How could the raising of the man by the Father,
then, prove the Godhead of Christ ? In whatever light I look at
this interpretation, I feel constrained to reject it. Neither Paul
nor any other New Testament writer makes the evidences of
Christ's divine nature, (or higher nature, if you choose so to name
it,) to depend on the resurrection ; at least this is done nowhere,
unless it be in the passage before us. Would it not be strange
that this should stand entirely alone, in respect to such an impor
tant point as the interpretation in question makes it ?
I understand bpiaBevros in its usual (and only defensible)
meaning, first stated above, viz. decreed, appointed, established by
decree, determined by decision, viz. of a superior. I find in this
sense of the word a most expressive meaning in reference to Ps.
ii. 7, which, I doubt not, the apostle had in his mind ; " I will de
clare the decree, (p'rrbx IBCX) ; The Lord hath said unto me,
Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten thee." Here then
is the decreed, destinated, or appointed Son, to whom Paul refers,
the very Messiah promised in one of the most explicit and strik
ing predictions in all the Old Testament ; comp. ver. 2, iv yparpols
dyiais. And what is the decree of which the Psalmist speaks ?
It is, that the Son shall be made universal king, and that his ene
mies shall be dashed in pieces- before him, Ps. ii. 8 — 12 ; and all
this not in a temporal but spiritual sense. What is this now' but
to be the Son of God ev Svvdpei ? It has been suggested that there
is " no passage where Svvapis means authority, office, etc." ; but
we need only consult Matt, xxvi. 64. Mark xiv. 62. Luke xxii.
69. Luke iv. 36. Acts iv. 7. 1 Cor. v. 4. Rev. xiii. 2, iv. 11. v.
12. vii. 12. xii. 10, in order to correct this impression. Itis even
employed (by metonymy) for those in office and clothed with
power, e. g., 1 Cor. xv. 24. Eph.i. 21 ; so for angels good or bad,
who are high in station, Rom. viii. 38. 1 Pet. iii. 22.
It would be clear enough, then, that we might construe toO
bpiaBevros viov Beov iv Svvdpei, as meaning " the Son of God,
who by decree is possessed of universal authority or dominion."
My only doubt whether ev Svvdpei should be so construed here,
arises from its junction with the next words.
Kara, irvevpa dyiwavvrjs, which, like every other expression in

12 ROMANS I. 4.
this verse, is contested. Some translate, by the Holy Spirit; and
some, by a holy spirit, i. e., a divine and miraculous power, which
some represent as the miraculous power with wdiich Christ was
endowed, and others as that which was shown in raising him from
the dead. A third party construe irveipa here, as designating the
higher nature or condition of Christ, i. e., his pneumatic nature or
condition, if I may so express it.
Schleusner, Flatt, Bengel, and others, find in ayiwavvn a mean
ing designedly different from that of dyidr^s or dyiaapos. Thus
Bengel, " dyidr^s sanctitas, dyiaapos sanciificatio, dyioiavvrj sanc
timonia." But this seems to be imaginary ; for even in Latin,
sanctimonia and sanctitas differ only in form, not in sense. In
Greek, as there is no difference between dya^oo-WT; and dyaBor-ns,
so there appears to be none between dyiwavvn and ayiorrjs. The
Seventy use dyuaavvij for ti' , strength, in Ps. xcvi. 6 (xev. 6) ;
for trh'p in Ps. xcvii. 12 (xcvi. 12) ; and for Tin in Ps. cxlv. 5
(cxliv. 5.). But as irvevpa is here joined with dyaaaiivns, I can
not well doubt that the word dyicotnj'vijs is employed in the place
ofthe adjective dyiov, (like tlj-ip in "^ip irt , i. e., my holy moun
tain.) So the Gen. case of nouns is employed in almost innu
merable instances. If we may conjecture a reason why the apostle
here preferred dyiwavvns to dyiov, we might say that it was be
cause he wished to avoid the dubious meaning dyiov would seem
to give to the passage, as the reader might naturally refer such
an epithet to the Holy Spirit as an agent.
I cannot but regard it as quite certain, that Kara irvevpa dyiw-
avvvs here, is employed in a similar way with KaTa adpKa in the
preceding phrase. There Kara adpKa shows iu ivhat respect, in
regard to what Christ was the Son of David. Here KaTa irvevpa
ayiu>avvr)s shows in what respect the apostle means to set forth
Christ as- the decreed Son of God with power. Not that the men
tion of one leading particular in which his power was displayed,
excludes the possession of other powers by him. So much only
is meant, and so much is altogether true and striking, viz. that
power in bestowing the irvevpa dymavvijs, i. e., in causing the new
moral creation, is one of the most conspicuous of all proofs that
Jesus is indeed the decreed Son of God, who was promised in
ancient times, and predicted in the Holy Scriptures, by a declar
ation and an oath never to be forgotten.
We shall see, in the sequel, more abundant reason for this in
terpretation. But wc must first examine the meaning of the con
tested phrase ix dvaardaeois ve«pwv. Many have rendered ii by.
So Chrysostom ; who deduces from our verse three proofs which
were exhibited in order to show the divine nature of Christ ; viz.
(1) 'Ev Svvdpei, i. e., the wonderful miracles which Christ

ROMANS I. 4. 13
wrought. (2) The gift ofthe Holy Spirit, Kara, irvevpa dyuDavvns.
(3) The resurrection. The difficulty with the first and third
particulars of his reasoning, is, that in the same manner prophets,
apostles, and others may be proved to be divine, for the Saviour
says that his disciples will perform " greater wrorks than he," after
his ascent to the Father ; and many others were raised from the
dead as well as Jesus. As to the gift of the Spirit, that will be
noticed in the sequel. There can indeed be no doubt, that c'k (e£)
is, so far as this preposition merely is concerned, susceptible of
such an interpretation. It is often used in the sense of propter,
ex, and designates the causa occasionalis ; e. g., John iv. 6, "Jesus
being wearied iKTrjs bSoiropias," so in Acts xxviii. 3. Rom. v. 16.
Rev. viii. 13 ; or it designates the causa instrumentalis, 1 Cor. ix.
14. 2 Cor. vii. 9. Rev. iii. 18. But, on the other hand, that ck
signifies after, since, in respect to time, is equally clear and cer
tain ; e. g., ii< KoiXias prjrpos, FROM the time of one's birth ; Matt.
xix. 20, iKveorrjTos, FROM early youth; Luke viii. 27, eK xpoviav
iKavSv, a long time since ; xxiii. 8, John vi. 64. vi. 66. ix. 1,
32. Acts ix. 33. xv. 21. xxiv. 10. Rev. xvii. 11, ck tw eirrd
eo-n, after the seven ; 2 Peter ii. 8. ; comp. Sept. in Gen. xxxix.
10. Lev. xxv. 50. Deut. xv. 20. — So in the classics ; Arrian
Exped. Alex. I. 26. 3. eK votwv aKXrjpSiv after vehement south
winds. III. 15. 13. V. 25. 3. Hist. Ind. 33. 5. ck ToowSe KaKwv,
after so many evils. Xenoph. Res Graca?, VI. e£ dpiarov
AFTER dinner. No doubt can be left, then, that ef dvacn-do-e<__>s
veKpSiv may be rendered, after the resurrection from the dead, or
since his resurrection, etc. So Luther, sint der Zeit cr auferstan-
den ist, since the lime when he arose.
' Avaardaews veKpwv, moreover, is one of those combinations of
the Gen. case with a preceding noun which allows great lati
tude of construction. Here it is equivalent to dvaordcreais eK
veKpuiv. Both phrases, viz. dvdaraais veKpiiiv and dvdo-racris eK
veKpav, are used by the New Testament writers ; e. g., the first, in
Matt. xxii. 31. Acts xvii. 32. xxiv. 21. xxvi. 23 ; and Paul limits
himself to this same phraseology, e. g., 1 Cor. xv. 12, 13, 21, 42.
Heb. vi. 2 ; the second, in Luke xx. 35, Acts iv. 2. I can per
ceive no difference whatever in their meaning. In regard to the
latitude in which the Genitive is employed, in order to designate
relations which might otherwise be expressed by a preposition,
see § 99 of my New Testament Grammar.
The way is perfectly clear, then, to translate after his resur
rection from the dead, so far as philology is concerned.* Does
* Tho possibility of referring sk to time cannot be questioned, but most
modern critical commentators agree in making it here causal, by ov through.
If it refers to time, it should seem tp include the resurrection, as the point trom
2

14 ROMANS I. 4.
the nature of the case admit or demand this ? It seems to my
mind that it does. The manner in which the outpouring of the
Spirit is spoken of, as connected with or following the resurrection
and consequent glorification of Christ, appears to render this alto
gether probable, if not certain. Jesus, in promising a copious ef
fusion of the Spirit, says, that " out of the ' belly [of believers]
shall flow rivers of living waters," John vii. 38. The evangelist
immediately adds, that " he spake this of the Spirit, which they
that believe on him should receive, for the Holy Ghost was not yet
given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." In entire
accordance with this are the representations of the Saviour, in
his last conference with his disciples ; " If I go not away, the
Comforter will not come unto you," John xvi. 7. This Comforter
was to come after the departure of Jesus ; he was then to abide
with the disciples (John xiv. 16); to teach them all things
(John xiv. 26) ; to guide them into all the truth (xvi. 13) ; to testi
fy of him (xv. 26) ; and to convince the world of sin, of righteous
ness, and of judgment (xvi. 8: — 11). So on the great day of
Pentecost (which the apostle would seem to have had in his eye
when he wrote our text), Peter says, that the notable outpouring
of the Spirit then experienced, was a fulfilment of the prophecy
in Joel respecting this event; Acts ii. 14 — 21. Is. xliv. 3, refers
to the like event. In looking at Acts i. 8, it would seem as if the
very thing in our text is specifically designated by the words of
Christ to his apostles ; XrjipeaBe Svvapiv iireXBovros tov dyiov irvev
paros e</>' vpds. Here the oiW/ais which Christ is to bestow by
the sending of the Spirit, is expressly designated ; and, as the se
quel of the narration shows, it means an extraordinary and hith
erto unknown effusion of the Spirit. All the subsequent history
ofthe churches illustrates this. All the extraordinary revivals
of religion that followed, were in consequence of the extraordinary
outpouring ofthe Spirit which ensued upon the resurrection and
glorification ofthe Saviour.
The conclusion which I deduce from the whole is, that toS
bpiaBivros viov .... veKpmv means, that "Christ was the Son of
God, agreeably to the decree in the Holy Scriptures, i. e.(m Psalm
ii. 7) ; and Son of God endowed with power, which he displayed
by sending the Spirit in an extraordinary and glorious manner
after his resurrection and consequent exaltation." In this simple
way, supported by the testimony of the Scriptures as to facts, and
its usus loquendi as to meaning, would I explain this endlessly
controverted verse, respecting which scarcely any two commen-
which the time commences, mid as in some sense introductory to and tho
cause of subsequent acts and occurrences : From the lime of tlie resurrection

ROMANS I. 4. 15
tators of note wholly agree, and in regard to which, I am now
persuaded, that I was in some respects mistaken in the first edi
tion of this commentary. The ground of my mistake was, looking
to a distance too great for explanatory facts and principles, when
they lay near at hand.*
That the sense now given is far more noble and pregnant with
meaning, than the simple declaration that Christ was shown to be
lhe Son of God by his resurrection from the dead, can scarcely
fail of being felt by every reader. As now explained, the decla
ration of the apostle respects one of the highest, mo- 1 striking,
and most glorious of all. the proofs that Christ was the true Son
of God. It means no less than to assert, that he was and is the
author of the new creation, ofthe making of all things neic, by the
peculiar dispensation of his Spirit after his glorification. That
glorification was plainly commenced by his resurrection. Paul
in his address in the synagogue at Antioch in Piaidia (Acts xiii.)
explains the resurrection, indeed, as in part a fulfilment of the
prediction in the second Psalm respecting the elevation of Jesus
as the Son of God. And so it truly was ; inasmuch as it was
the commencement of his glorification.. But the interpretation
given above abates nothing from this. It is built on the very
supposition, that his resurrection must precede the special Suva/xis
whieh he exercised, in pouring out the Spirit in an extraordinary
manner so as to establish his new spiritual kingdom. In a word,
as God at the beginning manifested his power and Godhead by
creating the world from nothing, so the Son of God exhibited his
* I can hardly avoid thinking that Spitr&evTos here means exhibited, mani
fested, notwithstanding the strong arguments above adduced for the signifi
cation decreed, etc., not because I with Olshausen find any doctrinal difficulty
in the other significance, but because, in the connection, it seems to nie to
be much more natural to interpret thus : manifested or set forth with power to
be the Son of God. The fact that dptfa is not found elsewhere with exactly
this shade of meaning is not decisive here. lYom the original significations
bound, limit, define, etc., the change in this passive form is natural and easy
to that of exhibited, manifested, since to define a thing is to exhibit to the
mind, in its outlines and characteristics, as here, to tlie minds of men.
Then iv Swa^ei is naturally interpreted with power, and connected with
&pioSei/Tos. The position is more emphatic but less definite than if it were
between the article and participle. In that case tho position would require
>}f to qualify tbe participle; now it may or may not, as the senso demands.
It cannot bo questioned that the resurrection of Christ, as apart and distinct
fi'om tho case; of resurrection previously recorded (o. g. that of Lazarus), is
spoken of and considered, by both Paul and other N. Test, writers, to be a
proof that he was tho " Son of God," " the Messiah," since this resurrection
was effected by his own inherent power and strength (John 10: 18), and
involves the whole resurrection of man from the dead. See 1 Cor. 15: 3 sq.,
csp. 20 sq. ; 2 Cor. 13: 4; Acts 11: 36, where ttokuv is u-cd; Acts 10: 03,
etc. ; and Cf. Calvin, Olshausen, Meyer, Alford, and other commentators.

16 ROMANS I. 4.
all-glorious character in the new creation effected by the Spirit of
holiness, dispensed by him in so peculiar a manner after his glo
rification. This is the liighest evidence we can have of his being
indeed the decreed Son of God, and Saviour of Sinners. The
whole expression, tov bpiaBevros viov .... veKpuiv, serves to
distinguish what Jesus manifested himself to be after his resur
rection, in distinction from the development he made of himself
before this period. Before the resurrection " he was anointed
with the Holy Ghost and with power " (Acts x. 38) ; but " the
Holy Ghost was not yet given [i. e., bestowed on men,] because
Jesus was not yet glorified" (John vii. 38). It is in reference to
the manifestation of what Jesus was endowed with, and in refer
ence to the decree which respected his spiritual kingdom and
reign (Ps. ii.), that the apostle speaks in our text.
With this view of the subject, I cannot (with some expositors)
regard Kara adpKa and Kara irvevpa dyiuiavvvs as designedly
antithetic expressions. This indeed they cannot strictly be ; in
asmuch as both respect the same person. Nor can I now any
longer regard them as a designed contradistinction ; for to make
out this, we must suppose that the one relates to his human per
son, and the other to his divine. It is indeed true, as I formerly
maintained, that the higher and glorified nature of Christ (not
simply his divine nature), is several times called irvevpa, (but not
irvevpa dyiov nor 7rve£h_ux dyiuio-Dv^s) . The reader may find in
stances of this nature in 2 Cor. iii. 17, 18. Heb. ix. 14. 1 Cor.
xv. 45. 1 Pet. iii. 18, and perhaps in 1 Tim. iii. 16. It is also
true, that " decreed Son of God possessed of power in his glori
fied state," would be a sense altogether accordant with fact and
with the analogy ofthe Scriptures. But the interpretation given
above now seems to me, after much consideration, to be better
supported by the context and the intention of the writer ; who
designs to exhibit Christ as predicted in the Holy Scriptures,
first as " the Son of David in respect to his human nature," and
then as " the decreed Son of God in respect to the manifestations
of his spiritual power in the new creation." Consequently, if
this view be correct, we must understand Kara o-dpKa as explain
ing toC yevopevov, by showing in what respect Christ was descended
from David ; and KaTa irvevpa uyiuavvns as exjilaininn- in what
respect the Svvapis of the decreed Son was peculiarly exercised
so as to afford satisfactory evidence of his character and dignity.
Not antithesis, then, nor even contradistinction, is intended be
tween Kara. adpKa. and Kara irvevpa dyaoavvijs, but simply the like
construction is repeated in order to show a reference of the like
nature in two cases. Glockler, in his recent, original and in
many respects striking Commentary on the Romans" understands

ROMANS I. 5. 17
irvevpa dyiuiavvrjs in the same way as I have done, but lie has
missed the scriptural reference to Old Testament prophecy which
is contained in tov bpiaBevros viov. He has therefore applied ev
Svvdp.ei to bpiaBevros, in the old way, and eon-trues the /<a-d
'irveTpa ayiuiavvr/s as proving the Godhead of Christ. Consequen
tially, I should readily admit this ; for who that is not divine, can
dispen-e the Holy Spirit ? But the object ofthe apostle here is
not directly to prove the divine nature of Christ, but to show
that he is the decreed and predicted Son of God, whom the Holy
Scriptures had taught the Jews to expect.
The phrase viov Beov, wdiich stands connected with all the
predicates that have now been explained, is one of high and holy
import. If I rightly understand the meaning of it, it designates
the Messiah, the King of fsrael, the Lord of all, in the passage
before us. Such was Christ constituted, after his resurrection
from the dead, when he ascended to take his place at the right
hand of the Majesty on high, was made KXnpovopos irdvnov, and
copiously poured out the Spirit of holiness. For a more copious
discussion of this important phrase the reader is referred to
Excursus I.
The apostle having thus given his view's respecting the dignity
of Christ, he now resumes the theme mentioned at the beginning
of ver. 3, viz. rov viov airov, by adding the other usual appella
tives of honor and office given to the Son, which are : 'Irjaov
Xpiarov tov Kvpiov r)p,MV. Kiipios is a word of deep interest to
Christians. Applied to Christ, it properly denotes him as su
preme Ruler or Lord, specially of his church. Matthew and Mark
do not apply this title absolutely to Christ, except after his res
urrection, Malt, xxviii. 6. Mark xvi. 19, 20. But Luke. John,
and Paul, apply it to him everywhere and often. With Paul
the application seems to be in a manner exclusive. God the
Father, or God absolutely considered, is named ku/dios about
thirty times, in the Old Testament passages which Paul cites ;
but elsewhere, with the exception of some four or five instances,
Paul gives to Christ exclusively the title of Kvpios or o Kijpios in more
than two hundred and fifteen instances; see Bibl. Repos. I. 733,
seq. The article makes no difference in the meaning, inasmuch
as the word is a kind of proper name by usage, is employed in
like manner as one, and may therefore take or omit the article at
the pleasure of the writer. See the Essay on the meaning of
the word Kvpios, in the Bibl. Repos. as above, where the subject
is examined at length.
(5) By whom we have received grace and the office of an apostle,
Ai'ov . . . . diroaroXr/v. Chrysostom, Grotius, and others inter
pret this as though it meant \dpiv Trjs diroaroXrjs, the favor or
2*

18 ROMANS I. 6.
privilege ofthe apostolic office; i. e., they construe the last words
as a hendiadys. Augustine says : " Gratiam cum omnibus fidel-
ibus accepit — apostolatum, non cum omnibus." I prefer to sep
arate the meaning of the words. Grace, \dpis, I consider as hav
ing reference to the peculiar grace bestowed on Paul, who had
been a persecutor; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 9, 10. Gal. i. 13 — 16. 1
Tim. i. 12 — 16, which seem to make this clear. As to diroaToXr),
apostleship, "the office of an apostle," comp. Acts ix. 15. xiii. 2.
xxii. 21 ; also the passages just cited above.
On account of the obedience of faith, eh viraKorjv iriOTeins. Eis,
followed by an Ace, in almost innumerable instances designates
the object or end for which any thing is, or is done. The idea
here is, that the office of an apostle had been given to Paul, ' in
order that (eh) he should further or promote obedience to the
faith,' i. e., to the gospel; or (as we should here construe iriareuis)
the obedience of faith, viz. that which springs from subjective or
internal faith. I prefer this latter sense, as being on the whole
the most energetic. It seems to me probable, that the apostle
meant to designate the obedience of faith as contra-distinguished
from legal obedience*
Among all nations, iv irdai tois eBveai ; iv, among, a common
sense of the word. "E-Jveo-i may be rendered Gentiles here, in
asmuch as Paul was "the apostle of the Gentiles;" but the
expression seems to be more general. He means to say that he
received the office of an apostle, in order that the gospel might
be preached to all nations, to Gentiles as well as to Jews.
for his name's sake, virep rov ovoparos avrov, which means on
his account. But with what is this to be joined ? Does the
apostle mean to say, that he had received x°LPiv Kal diroaroXrjv on
his [Christ's] account ; or does he join the latter expression with
eis viraKorjv iriareuis, and thus designate the following sentiment,
viz. that ' obedience springing from Christian faith may be pro
moted among all nations, so that Christ may be glorified ? ' f In
this latter way I should prefer to interpret it ; so Tholuck and
others. (6) Among which, [nations are ye Romans], ev ols iare ko.1
vpeis. The writer means to say ; 'Among those nations are ye,
* This is explained perhaps by Acts 6: 21 : "A great company of the
priests were obedient to the faith," tmfaovov tt? iriarei. Paul elsewhere joins
an objective genitive to 6™^, as in 2 Cor. 10: 5. So Alford says : The
faith not = the Gospel which is to be believed," but the state of salvation,
¦in which men stand by Jattli. J '
t Perhaps this clause may appropriately be considered as related to the
whole preceding part of the verse: we have received grace and apostleship,
etc., "in behalf of his name,' "for his glory." ""»"y,

ROMANS I. 7. 19
who have been won over to obey the Christian faith.' So the se
quel : The called of Jesus Christ, kXtjtoi 'Irjaov Xpiarov, i. e., the
called who belong to Christ. KXtjto's (see on the word under
ver. 1) means, by the usage of Paul, not only those to whom the
external call of the gospel has been addressed, but those who have
also been internally called ; in other words, it designates effectual
calling. My reason for supposing I. XpioroG here to be a geni
tive which designates belonging to, rather than a Genitivus agentis
(in which case it would signify of or by Christ), is, that the
usual idiom ascribes the calling of sinners to Christ, as effected
by the agency of the Father, or of the "Holy Spirit. KXtjtoi I.
Xpiarov, according to the interpretation now given wrould mean
' Christians effectually called.' So Tholuck, Reiche, and others.
(7) To all who are at Rome, beloved of God, irdai .... Beov;
i. e., to all these Xeyu>, ypd<pu>, I say what follows in the sequel,
viz. Xdpis vpiv, etc. The apostle probably meant to include not
only the Christians who habitually dwelt in Rome, but also
Christians from abroad, of whom there must have been many in
that great city. Such was the concourse of Greeks there in
Juvenal's time, that he calls it Grcecam urbem. The apostle
may well be supposed to address the whole body of those who
joined in Christian worship. Still the language, 7rdcri....ev T<j/x»j,
does not make this supposition certain.
Beloved of God, dyamnrois Beov ; an appellation often bestowed
on the ancient people of God, or at least implied by what is said
concerning them, and which Paul here applies to Christians,
the true Israel of God. They are the objects of God's love,
because they are his children by a new and spiritual birth, be
cause they bear his image, and also because they possess a filial
and obedient spirit.
Chosen saints, kXtjtois dryiois, or saints effectually called. So
most editions and commentaries unite these words, making kXtjtois
an adjective qualifying dyiois, and so I have translated them.
This may be correct, inasmuch as the apostle had just before
called them kX.tjtoi I. Xpiarov. Thus the two words mean called
or chosen to be holy or to be consecrated to God, to be devoted to
him. The words however, may be pointed thus, kXtjtois, dyiois,
to those who are called, who are devoted to Christ. The sense is
substantially the same, whichever way we choose to interpret the
words. As to the appellations dyaTrr/TOis Beov, kXijtois dyiois, the
reader may compare the terms of honor and affection given to
God's ancient people, in Exod. xix. 6, Deut. xxxiii. 3, 12. xxxii.
19 ; with these compare also Col. iii. 12. 1 Pet. ii. 9. 1 Tim. iii. 15.
Phil. ii. 15. 1 John iii. 1, 2, 10. v. 1., given to Christians in the
New Testament.

20 ROMANS I. S.
May grace be imparted to you I x°PLq vu.iv, se. earui. ^ Xdpis de
notes every Christian grace and virtue, which the Spirit of God
imparts to the followers of Christ ; divine favor in the most ex
tensive sense, but specially in the sense of spiritual blessings. —
EipijvTj, like the Heb. D'lbta means happiness of every kind, peace
with God and man, and so a stale of quiet and happiness. The
same word (nbo) is still used among the oriental nations who
speak the Shemitish languages, in their formulas of greeting or
in expressing their good wishes.
Our Father, irarpbs rjpHiv,i. e., the Father of all Christians, of
you and me. So Christ has taught his disciples when they ap
proach God in prayer, to say irdrep -r)pC>v. — Kupiou, see under
ver. 4. One would naturally expect the article here, before the
monadic nouns Beov and Kvpiov. But nothing is more common
than to omit it before such nouns, wdien frequently employed, and
where there is no danger of mistake. See N. Test. Gramm. §
89, 2. a. b. More common is it to employ the article before an
epexegetical appellative in apposition, like irarpbs rjpwv in the
present case. But even here the practice is not uniform'; and
moreover the article before iro.rpos in the present case might he
dispensed with also, on the ground that tj/j.o>v sufficiently marks
its definitive nature ; N. Test. Gram. § 89. 6, comp. 3.
It should be remarked here that in this prayer or wish Paul
seems to take it for granted, that the blessings for which he asks,
come as really and truly (iot to say as much) from the Lord
Jesus Christ as from God our Lather. To the one then he ad-
dre^es his prayer, as well as to the other.
(8) The apostle now naturally proceeds to the expression of
his kind feelings and wishes toward the Church at Rome, in or
der to prepare the way, to be the more kindly listened to by
them. IIpcuTov in the first place, first of all, viz. before I speak
of other things. It does not here mean first in point of import
ance, but first in order of time. — The particle pev is not here
placed absolutely, i. e., without its usual corresponding Se ; for the
apostle, after two paragraphs in his usual manner, which begin
with ydp (illustrating and confirming first wdiat he had said in
ver. 8, and then what he had said in ver. 10), proceeds to the
second part of his declaration in ver. 13, viz. oi BiXm Se vpds,
k.t. X. That is, first, the apostle thanks God for their faith, etc.;
and secondly, he is desirous to tell them how much he has longed
to pay them a visit, etc. Reiche, following Bretschneider, denies
that pev in ver. 8, and Se' in ver. 13, can stand in relation to each
other. But in this he is not supported by the principles of phi
lology. MeV and Se' stand not only at the head of antithetic and
discrepant clauses, but also before those which express a differ-

ROMANS I. 9. 21
ence of one thought from another, and so in the room of our first,
secondly, etc. See Passow's Lex. pev.
My God, tc3 Beui pov ; the Christian religion which teaches us
to say irdrep iyi&v allows US to S&y Beos pov. — Aid'I-naov Xpiarov,
per Christum, auxilio Christi, interventu Christi, i. e., through, by
or in consequence of, what Christ has done or effected ; in other
words, Christo adjuvante, Deo gratias ago respectu vestrum om
nium, ut fides vestra, etc. The meaning seems to be, that as a
Christian, as one on whom Christ has had mercy, and wdio has
now a Christian sympathy for others beloved of Christ, he thanks
God for the prosperous state of the Church at Rome. Aid I.
Xpicrroi} may also be joined with Bew /uou, and the sense be thus
given : ' I thank God, who is my God through what Jesus Christ
has done for me ; to him I belong as one of his through the in
tervention of Christ.' So Glockler. Barnes and others construe
Sid I. Xpiarov as pointing out the medium through wdiich the
thanks ofthe apostle were offered. This is altogether consonant
with the Christian economy ; but it does not seem to me to be the
most natural sense of the passage. *
On account of you all, virep iravriov vpuiv ; not for you, i. e., in
your room or stead, but because of iriaris vpG>v, your Christian
belief, your faith in the gospel. — "OXu> ™ Koapia, i. e., through the
Roman empire. Koapos and oiKovpev-n are frequently used in a
limited sense, like the y-ist and ban of the Hebrews. Nothing is
more natural than to suppose, that the faith of the Church at
Rome might have- been widely known or reported, in consequence
of that great city being frequented by strangers from all parts of
the empire.
(9) For God is my witness, pdprvs ydp .... Beds. Tap ex-
plicantis et confirmantis ; i. e., the apostle unfolds and confirms,
in the following sentence, the evidence of his strong sympathies
with them, and of his gratitude to God on their account. The
reason why he here makes the appeal to God seems to be, that,
as he was a stranger in person to the Church at Rome, they
might otherwise think his expressions to be merely those of com
mon civility, f
Whom 1 serve in my soul (sincerely) in the gospel of his Son,
u> Xarpevo) .... airov. 'Ev tu> Trveu/iari pov I understand as
* Such passages as Eph. 5: 20 : " Giving thanks in the name of the Lord
Jesus Christ," and Hebrews 13: 15, favor the latter interpretation. See also
Olshausen, Comm. in h. 1.
t Thus the similar assurances of regard and remembrance in his devotions
is made to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians ; but
naturally, if we except Phil. 1 : 8, without the appeal to God as witness. A
similar appeal is often, however, made by the apostle ; cf. Gal. 1 : 20 ; 2 Cor.
1 : 23, etc.

22 ROMANS I. 10.
designating sincerity, i. e., real, internal, spiritual devotedness, in
distinction from what is merely external or apparent; comp.
Phil. iii. 3. 2 Tim. i. 3. Eph. vi. 6. Rom. ii. 28, 29.
The phrase : ev ™ eiayyeXi'u. rov viov airov may mean by the
preaching ofthe gospel which has respect lo Ids Son; more proba
bly it means, in the gospel which has respect to his Son, comp.
ver. 2 ; or it may mean the gospel of which his Son is the author,
and which he taught me. See, on the various meanings of the
Gen. case, New Testament Grammar § 99. That ev rm eiay-
yeXlip does not here refer to the preaching of the gospel, but to
living spiritually according to its precepts, seems rather more
probable because of the ev ™ irvevg-ari pov which precedes, and
which seems to define the kind of service rendered by the ap os
tle. The other sense however, is allowable. Hoio unceasingly
J make remembrance of you, &>s dSiaXeiirrws .... iroiovp.ai. This
shows the intense zeal which the apostle cherished for the wel
fare of the Christian Churches ; for if he thus constantly inter
ceded with God for the Church at Rome, which he had never
visited, we cannot suppose that he forgot other churches which
he had been the instrument of establishing. How different a
phase would the Christian Church speedily assume, if all its min
isters were now actuated with the same degree of zeal which
Paul exhibited! Iloiov/tai, L make to myself, Midd. voice.
(10) Always making supplication in my prayers, TrdvTore
. . . Seopevos ; whieh is confirming what he had said before,
dSiaXei7n-a>s g-veiav vpiiov iroiovpai, and at the same time pointing
out the manner in wdiich he made this remembrance, pveiav, viz.,
iu his supplications before God. 'Eiri tC>v irpoaevxSiv pov means,
literally, during my prayers, or when 1 pray.
[Thai] if possible, at some time before long, L may ( God -wil
ling) make a prosperous journey, and come to pay you a visit,
eiirios .... vpds. Ei7ras expresses a degree of uncertainty
which hung over the future, in the writer's own mind, i. e., it
means perhaps, if possible, if in some way, if by any means. "HStj,
followed by the Future, means mox, brevi, by and by, soon, before
long. IIoTe', aliquando, tandem, at last, at some time, at some fu
ture period ; (trdre, with the accent on the penult, means when).
Both the words gSg and irore have often nearly the same meaning
when connected with a future tense. They may be here rendered
thus : tjStj, mox, before long; irore, at least, at some time, or at some
future period; so in the version, where I have given to each
word its own particular and appropriate meaning, merely
reversing the order, because of our English idiom. EiuSwBrj-
aopai means, lo make a, pleasant or prosperous journey. A
journey to Rome, which the apostle so ardently loiiged to visit,

ROMANS I. 11, 12 23
would in itself of course have been a pleasant one. — 'Ev ™ BeXq-
u-ari roil Beov, i. e., Deo volente. Grotius renders the passage
very happily : Si forte Dei voluntas felicitatem mihi indulgeat ad
vos veniendi.
(11) Tdp, in this verse, precedes a sentence designed to illus
trate and confirm the declaration which Paul had just made, viz.,
that he felt a deep interest for the Church at Rome, and hoped
yet to enjoy the pleasure of visiting them. — "Iva ti . . . . 7rveu-
pariKov, that I may impart to you some spiritual favor or gift ;
not some miraculous gift, supernatural power, such as the apostles
sometimes imparted by the imposition of hands, * but spiritual
aid and consolation ; cf. xv. 32. In ver. 12, the apostle expresses
his expectation of receiving on his part a benefit like to that
which he bestows on them. What he expected from them, was
avpirapaKXijBrjvai  Sid rijs ev dXX-rjXois iriarews ; conse
quently this was what he expected to do Northern, viz., to encour
age, animate, and strengthen them in their Christian profession
and virtues. He speaks of a spiritual gift, as characteristic of
the graces of the gospel, of which the Spirit is the efficient author,
and as differing from common gifts of a worldly nature, often be
stowed by friends who pay visits to each other.
So the latter part of our verse : eis to arrjpixBrjvai vpds, that
you may be confirmed, viz., in the manner stated above. Nor
does it follow, that the apostle viewed the Church at Rome as
weak in faith, because he says this ; unless we say that he was
himself weak in faith, because he expects the like advantage of
confirmation from his intercourse with them. Faith that is
already strong, and Christian virtue that is conspicuous, are
capable of becoming still more so ; and therefore expressions of
this nature are never applied amiss, even to Christians of the
highest order. The apostle "did not as yet count himself to have
attained " all that elevation of Christian character of which he was
capable, and which it was his duty to attain ; Phil. iii. 13, seq.
(12) That is, tovto Se ean, id est, prefixed to an epexegesis, or
an eVavop-Jaicris (correction) as the Greeks named explanatory
clauses of such a nature as that which now follows. The apostle,
lest the meaning of the preceding declaration might be miscon
strued, adds (in ver. 12) the more full expression of his senti
ment. He does not mean to assert, that the consequence of his
visiting Rome would be merely their confirmation in the Chris
tian faith, and so the advantage be all on their side ; but he ex-
* It is plain tbat Paul did not value the extraordinary bestowment of tho
gifts of the Spirit so highly as to make it tho business of his life and the sub
ject of his unceasing and earnest prayer ; see Olshausen, De Wette, and
Alford.

24 ROMANS I. 13.
pects himself to be spiritually benefited by such a visit ; and this
he fully expresses in ver. 12. The remark of Calvin on this pas
sage is very striking and just ; " See with what gentleness a pious
soul will demean itself! It refuses not to seek confirmation even
from mere beginners in knowledge. Nor does the apostle use
any dissimulation here ; for there is none so poor in the Church
of Christ, that he cannot make some addition of importance to
our stores. We, unhappily, are hindered by pride from availing
ourselves properly of such an advantage." How very different is
the spirit and tenor of this remark from that of Erasmus,
wdio calls the expression of the apostle, pia vafrities et sancta
adulatio !
To be comforted among you by the mutual faith both of you and
me, avu.iro,paKXrjBrjvai .... ipov. In Attic Greek, irapaKX-qBrj-
vai means to call, to invite, to exhort. But in Hellenistic Greek, it
not only means to exhort, but specially to address one in such a
way as to administer comfort, encouragement, hope, resolution,
etc. I have rendered the word comfort, only because I cannot
find any English word which will convey the full sense of the
original. — 'Ev, among; and so, often. — 'Ev dXXijXois, placed be
tween the article and its noun, is of course employed in the man
ner of an adjective, i. e. it means mutual. — 'Ypwv re Kai ipov
seems to be a repetition of the idea conveyed by ev dXXijXois.
This repetition is intensive, and denotes the strong desire which
the apostle entertained, to be understood by the Church at Rome
as saying, that he expected good from them, as well as hoped
that they might receive good from him.
(13) The apostle had already signified his desire to visit Rome.
vers. 10, 11, But here he proceeds to show how definitely and
frequently he had cherished such a desire ; which gives intensity
to the whole representation.
Moreover, fam desirous, brethren, to have you know, that Lhave
often purposed to come to you, ov BeXio Se . . . . vpds. Ae in
this passage I regard as corresponding to pev in ver. 8, and so
making the to SeuVepov or apodosis of the apostle's discourse ; see
the note on ver. 8. Ou BeXw vpds dyvoeiv is the same in sense as
BeXw vpds yivwaKeiv ; but the first form of expression (in a nega
tive way), is what the Greeks call Xito'ttjs, i. e.,a softer or milder
form of expression than direct affirmation.
Ihave often purposed, iroXXaKis irpoeBiprjv ; comp. Acts xix. 21.
Rom. xv. 23, 24. It is clear from this and many other like pas
sages, that the apostles were not uniformly and always guided in
all their thoughts, desires, and purposes, by an infallible Spirit of
inspiration. Had this been the case, how could Paul have often
purposed that which never came to pass ? Those who plead for

ROMANS I. 13. 25
such a uniform inspiration, may seem to be zealous for the honor
of the apostles and founders of Christianity ; but they do in fact
cherish a mistaken zeal. For if we once admit, that the apostles
were uniformly inspired in all which they purposed, said, or did ;
then we are constrained of course to admit, that men acting under
the influence of inspiration, may purpose that which will never
come to pass or be done ; may say that which is hasty or incor
rect, Acts xxiii. 3 ; or do that which the gospel disapproves, Gal.
ii. 13, 14. But if this be once fully admitted, then it would make
nothing for the credit due to any man, to affirm that he is inspired ;
for what is that inspiration to be accounted of, which, even during
its continuance, does not guard the subject of it from mistake or
error ? Consequently those who maintain the uniform inspira
tion of the apostles, and yet admit (as they are compelled to do)
their errors in purpose, word, and action, do in effect obscure the
glory of inspiration, by reducing inspired and uninspired men to
the same level.
To my own mind nothing appears more certain than that in
spiration in any respect whatever, was not abiding and uniform
with the apostles or any of the primitive Christians. To God's
only and well-beloved Son, and to him only, was it given to have
the Spirit dp-erpOis or otj ex perpov, John iii. 34. All others on
whom was bestowed the precious gift of inspiration, enjoyed it
only ck perpov. The consequence of this was, that Jesus " knew
no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth ; but all his follow
ers, whenever they were left without the special and miraculous
guidance of the Spirit, committed more or less of sin and error.
This view of the subject frees it from many and most formida
ble difficulties. It assigns to the Saviour the pre-eminence which
is justly due. It accounts for the mistakes and errors of his
apostles. At the same time, it does not detract in the least de
gree from the certainty and validity of the sayings and doings of
the apostles, when they were under the special influence of the
Spirit of God.
But have been hindered until now, koX eKoiXvBrjv .... Sevpo. —
Kai although or but ; Bretschn. Lex. Kai, III. " ex Hebraismo,
Kai est particula adversativa, sed, vero, at;" of which he gives
many examples. The well-known power of 1 to stand before a
disjunctive clause, throws light on this usage ; which is very un
frequent in classic Greek. It cannot be truly said, in cases of this
nature, that Kai (or i) properly signifies but ; yet it may be truly
said, that Kai (i ) connects sentences, or clauses of sentences,
wliose meaning is adversative or disjunctive. The conjunctive
office consists in connecting the sentences, or parts of them ; the
disjunctive sense lies in the nature of the propositions. We may

26 ROMANS I. 14.
lawfully translate ad sensum, in such cases, and so render Kai (i.)
but, although.
That f may have some fruit even among you, as also among
other Gentiles, iva Tiva .... e'5veo-iv ; i. e., that I might see my
labors to promote the gospel crowned with success even at Rome,
the capital of the world, as well as in all other places where I
have preached.* Comp.. John xv. 16, iv. 36 — 38. Phil. i. 11.
Col i. 6.
(14) / am indebted both to Greeks and Barbarians, to the
learned and the ignorant, "EXXtjo-i re ... . elpi ; i. e., otpeiXerins
elpl eiayyeXi£,eaBai, f am under obligation to preach the gospel ;
comp. 1 Cor. ix. 16. 2 Cor. ii. 6. iv. 5. In classic usage, ySdpySapoi
means all who spoke a language foreign to the Greek; 1 Cor. xiv.
11. Acts xxviii. 2, 4. Of course, the Romans themselves, by
this usage, would be named fidpftapoi, and so Philo constantly
names them; and Plautus himself calls the Latin language bar-
bara lingua, and Italy barbaria. But here the question with the
apostle seems not to be in respect to language, but only in regard
to circumstances and state of knowledge. "EXXtjot, therefore,
appears to be equivalent to aocf/ois, and jiapBdpois to dvovjTois.
Considered in this way, "EXXijcri Kai Bapfidpois mean the polished
or unpolished, or the learned and ignorant, (or to use the idiom
of the present day) ' the civilized and the savage.' 2o</>ois re Kai
dvorjrois should be regarded here as characterizing the state of
knowledge, rather than the state or measure of the faculties of men
thus designated. Learned and unlearned is a version ad sensum.
Still the two couplets here may be considered as designating,
the first, those who spoke Greek and those who did not, the second,
ihe learned and the ignorant, be they of whatever nation they
might ; and so the whole will simply express with force and by
specific language the general idea of obligation to preach to all
nations and classes of men without distinction. This is the
most simple and natural view of the subjectf Glockler joins
TlIXXtjcti tc «ai BapySdpois with the preceding e^vecn; in vita
Minerva. * Calvin well says : " He speaketh of that fruit to tbe gathering whereof
the apostles were sent of the Lord; John 15: 16. Which fruit, albeit he
gathci-cth it not for himself, but for the Lord, yet he calleth it his, because
there is nothing more proper unto the godly than that which advanceth the
glory of the Lord, whereunto all their felicity is coupled."
t The Apostle here intends, doubtless, to designate bv Greeks and Bar
barians all the different nations and tribes of the heathen or gentile world,
and then by " the learned and unlearned " all the different individuals among
them. The first contrast, as Olshausen says, is founded upon a general
national distinction, the second upon particular individual differences. Cf
also Alford, De Wette, and others. He does not speak of himself here as

ROMANS I. 16. 27
(15) Much difli.-ulty is found in the interpretation of ovtoi here,
but wilhont good rea-on. Surely ourco or ovrois often stands alone,
without a preceding i<aB<l>s or iocrirep, as any one may see by
opening a lexicon or concordance. Oijtoj is often employed in
tills way, in the sense of similiter, si/uili. modo, eodem modo, in. lite
like wy, in such a way, in a similar manlier, iu the same man
ner. Tims in Matt. v. 16. vii. 17. xviii. 14. Mark xiii. 29. xiv.
59. Luke xiv. 33, et sajpe alibi. What hinders now that we
should understand it, in the verse before, us, in the same way?
' I am under obligation ' says the apostle, ' to preach the gospel
[for eiayyeXiaaaBai is implied in the first clause] to all classes of
men.' What then ? ' So, i. e., circumstances being thus, I am ready
(to Kar ipie irpoBvpov) to preach the gospel even to you who are
at Rome.' If tlie reader does not think that the above references
go so far as to give to ouVoi the sense here assigned to it, viz.,
matters being thus or circumstances being thus, or / being ?'¦_ this
condition, he may turn to John iv. 6, where itis said: "Jesus
being weary on account of his journeying, eKaBe'Cero ovtois iirl rjj
irrryrj," he sat down in this condition upon tlie ivell, viz., in a state
of weariness. All the attempts that I have seen to give outoos any
other sense, seem to be in vain. Compare also Rev. iii. 16, "I
would thou wert either cold or hot ! Ovrms, so," i. e., the matter
being thus, " since thou art neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee
out of my mouth." In like manner in the text before us ; ovtw,
'the matter being thus, viz., it being true that I am under obliga
tion to preach to all classes of men, I am ready to preach at
Rome ; ' or, ' since I am bound in my duty to preach to all, in
accordance with this (ovtoi) I am ready to preach the gospel at
Rome.' If KaBws were placed before "EXXtjcti, as Tholuck and
others judge it should be, the sentiment would be thus : ' In pro
portion to my obligation to preach to all men, is my readiness to
preach at Rome ; ' a. sentiment which, although doubtless true,
does not seem to me to be the one which the apostle means here
to convey. It is more simple to understand him as saying:
' Since I am bound to preach to all, in accordance with this obli
gation I am ready to preach even at Rome (Kai vpiv), formidable
and difficult as the task may seem to be.' Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 1 6.
In this view of ovtoj I find Reiche, in his recent work, fully
to agree.
lam ready, to Kar ipe irpoBvpov, [lit. there is,] a readiness in
respect to myself. Or it may be interpreted in this way : ' There
ii a readiness so far as it respects me,' namely, to the extent of my
ability, so far as it depends on me ; meaning to intimate, that the
debtor to the Jews, notwithstanding his earnest desires for them (9: 1 sq. and
10: 1 sq.) and his labors for them, because thoy were not his special charge.

28 ROMANS 1 16,
actual disposal of the matter is to be wholly committed to God.
The adjective to irpdBvpov with the article is here as often used for a
noun. Kai vpiv has an emphasis in it, i. e., even to you, at Rome, the
metropolis of the world. In other words : ' I shun not to preach
the gospel any where ; to the most learned and critical, as well as
to the most unlearned and unskilled in judging.' 'Ev, at ; and so
oftentimes before nouns oi place.
(16) For 1 am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, Oi yap
.... Xpurrov ; a reason or ground of his readiness to preach it,
which he' had just before asserted ; and therefore it is introduced
by ydp. The apostle Paul gloried in the gospel ; in fact, he
gloried in nothing else. Although Christ crucified was " to the
Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness," he
shunned not to preach it on this account, but was willing, even in
presence of the learned and the sophists at Rome, to proclaim the
truth as it is in Jesus.
The reading rov Xpiarov, is marked by Knapp as wanting an
adequate support, and is rejected by Mill, Bengel, Koppe, Gries
bach, and Lachmann. In respect to the sense of the passage, its
insertion or rejection will make no important difference. If re-
/ tained tov Xpiarov must be construed as Genitivus objecti, i. e.,
the gospel respecting Christ, or of which Christ is the object.
Here ends the first or salutatory part of this epistle. The re
mainder of verse 16 (with verses 17, 18) constitutes the leading
subject or theme of the epistle ; which the writer here as it were
formally proposes, and which he in the sequel proceeds to confirm,
illustrate, and fortify.

CHAP. I. 16—18.
These three verses contain four propositions, which lie at the basis of all that may
he appropriately called the gospel of Christ. (1) To gospel truth is imparted a divine
energy, in saving the souls of men. (2) Those only can be saved by it, who believe
it and put their confidence in it. (3) The pardon of sin, or the justification which
God will bestow only on sinners who believe in Christ, is revealed from heaven, and
proposed to all men for their reception. (4) The unbelieving and ungodly will also
be the subject of divine indignation and punishment. Tbe apostle does not proceed,
formally and in order, to illustrate and establish these propositions ; but now one
part of these respective truths, and then another, comes into view, and the whole ia
fully developed in the course of the epistle.
For it is the potver of God, unto the salvation of every one who
believes, SiW/us yap .... iria-Tcvovn ; L e., it is the efficacious
instrument, by which God promotes or accomplishes the salvation
of all believers. AuVa/xt? $eov means, that in and by it God ex
erts his power, that it is powerful through the energy which he

ROMANS I. 17. 29
imparts ; and so it is called the power of God. The yap serves
to introduce the reason why the apostle is not ashamed of the
gospel. It is mighty through God eh auirgoiav, to salvation, i. <?.,
to the accomplishment or attainment of salvation. Eis with the
Accusative is, in a multitude of cases, used in the like manner. — ¦
Ilavri tco 7riorei!ovTi, Dativus commodi : the gospel brings salva
tion to every bc4iever, or it is the means of imparting it to him.
To the few first and also to the Greek, 'IouSaiui .... "EXXijvi.
In proclaiming the gospel, the primitive preachers of it, themselves
being Leios, were directed first to proclaim the offers of mercy
through a Saviour to lhe Jews, wherever they went, and then to
the Gentiles ; which was the order usually followed, and to which
the clause before us seems to advert. That the irpuirov here
merely relates to the order in which the go-pel was propo-ed, and
not to any substantial preference ofthe Jew over the Greek, the
sequel of this epistle most abundantly shows. So C'iuysostom :
rd^ews ean irpiiirov, i. e., irpuirov relates merely to order.
(17) AiKaioavv-q ydp Beov. Tap ittuslrantis, as lexicographers
say. In the preceding verse the apostle has said, that the gospel
is, through divine power accompanjdng it, an efficacious instru
ment of salvation Travri t<3 iriarevovri, to every believer. On this
last expression an emphasis is to be laid ; inasmuch as the great
object of Paul, in the epistle before us, is to show that salvation
is gratuitously bestowed on the believer in Christ, but never con
ferred in any case on the ground of merit. The deign of verse
17 is to suggest, that faith or belief is the appointed means or
conditio sine qua non of justification, i. <_-., of obtaining pardoning
mercy from God; that the Old Testament Scriptures confirm this
idea; and consequently, that salvation is granted to believers, and
to them only ; all which goes to illustrate and establish the affirma
tion in ver. 16. It is in this way that ydp connects the fine and
delicate shades of thought and processes of reasoning, in the
Greek language.
The phrase SiKaioo-iivij Beov is among the mo =t important which
the New Testament contains, and fundamental in the right inter
pretation of the epistle before us. To obtain a definite and pre
cise view of its meaning, we must in the first place examine the
verb SiKaiooj, from which come nearly all the shades of meaning
that belong to Swaioo-wij and SiKaiWis, so often employed (espe
cially the former) in the writings of Paul.
The Greek sense of the verb SiKaio'w differs, in one respect, from
the corresponding Hebrew verb p^X, which (in Ka!) means to be
just, to be innocent, to be upright, and also to justify on 's self to
be justified, thus having the sense of either a neuter, reflexive, or
passive verb. In the active voice, SiKaioco in Greek has only an

30 KOM ANS I. 17.
active sense, and it is used in pretty exact correspondence with
the forms \n% and p^xi? (Peal and Hiphil) of the Hebrews, i. e.,
it means to declare just, to pronounce j ust, to justify, i. e., to treat
as j ust ; consequently, as intimately connected with this, to pardon,
to acquit from accusation, to free from the consequences of sin or
transgression, to set free from a deserved penally. This last class
of meanings is the one in wdiich Paul usually employs this word.
As a locus classicus to vindicate this meaning, we may appeal to
Rom. viii. 33, ' Who shall accuse the elect of God ? It is God 6
SiKaiuiv, who acquits them,' viz. of all accusation, or ' who liberates
them from the penal consequences of transgression.' Exactly in
the same way is it said, in Prov. xvii. 15, 'He who justifieth
(piflXE) the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they
both are an abomination to the Lord.' So in Ex. xxiii. 7, ' I will
not justify (p^xs xb) the wicked.' In the same manner Is. v. 23
speaks : ' Who justify the wicked (ip"^_M S'&yn) for a reward.'
In these and all such cases, the meaning justify is altogether
plain, viz. to acquit, to free from the penal consequences of guilt,
to pronounce just, i. e., to absolve from punishment, the direct
opposite of condemning or subjecting to the consequences of a
penalty. In this sense Paul very often employs the verb ; e. g., Rom.
v. 1, SiKaiuiBevres, being freed from punishment, being acquitted,
being pardoned .... elprjvrjv e^o/xev 7rpos t6v Beov. Rom. v. 9,
SiKaiuiBevres, being acquitted, pardoned .... awBijaopeBa Si'
airov dirb rrjs opyijs, which salvation is the opposite of being sub
jected to punishment, or of not being justified. In Gal. ii. 16, 17,
SiKaioio is four times employed in the sense of absolved, acquitted,
or treated as just, i. e., freed from penalty and admitted to a
state of reward. So Gal. iii. 8, 11, 21. v. 4. Tit. iii. 7. In Ro
mans iv. 5, t6v SiKaioiWa t6v dae/Hi) is plainly susceptible of no
other than the above interpretation ; for those who are ungodly,
can never be made innocent in the strict and literal sense of this
word ; they can only be treated as innocent, i. e., absolved from
the condemnation of the law, pardoned, delivered, from the pen
alty threatened against sin. That the idea oi pardon, or remis
sion of the penalty threatened by the divine law, is the one sub
stantially conveyed by SiKaio'w and SiKaioavvrj, as generally em
ployed in the writings of Paul, is most evident from Romans iv.
6, 7 ; where the blessedness of the man to whom the Lord im
putes oiKaioo-u'vij, i. e., whom he reckons, counts, treats as SiKaios,
isthus described: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are for
given, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man to whom
the Lord imputes not sin," i. e., whom he does not treat or punish
as a sinner. This passage is a fundamental explanation of the

EOMANS I. 17. 31
whole subject, so far as the present class of meanings attached to
SiKaioco and SiKaioo-i'vrj is concerned.
In the same sense we have the word Si/caio'co in Rom. iii. 24,
26, 28, 30. iv. 2, et al. saepe. So Acts xiii. 3s, 39. Luke xviii.
14. Comp. Sept. in Gen. xxxviii. 26, Job xxxiii. 32. Is. xliii. 26.
The way is now open for an easy and intelligible explanation
of the nouns, which stand immediately and etymological ly con
nected with the verb SiKaioui. These are three, viz. SiKaiocrtVij,
SeKaiwpa, and SiKaiWis , all employed occasionally in the very
same sense, viz. that of justification, i. e., acquittal, pardon, free
ing from condemnation, accepting and treating as righteous. All
three of these nouns are employed occasionally by the Seventy in
rendering the Hebrew word BBii;a ; which I mention merely to
show that the usus loquendi could employ all of them in the same
sense ; e. g., SiKaioavvrj for BSira ; in Prov. xvi. 11. xvii. 23. Is.
lxi. 8. Ezek. xviii. 17, 19, 21, etc.; SiKaiuipa for tiS'w'a, Ex. xxi.
1, 9, 31. xxiv. 3, et sa3pissime ; SiKaiWis for BQ'ia , Lev. xxiv. 22.
In like manner all three of these nouns are employed in Paul's
epistles : e. g., SiKaioijaa in the sense of pardon, justification, Rom.
v. 1 6, where it stands as the antithesis of KaraKpipa, SiKaiWis in
Rom. iv. 25, where it plainly means justification ; and so in
Romans v. 18, where it is the antithesis of KaraKpipa.
But 8iKaioo-w?j is the usual word employed by Paul to
designate gospel-justification, i. e., the pardoning of sin, and ac
cepting and treating as righteous. So we find this word plainly
employed in Rom. iii. 21, 22 (comp. ver. 24), 25, 26. iv. 11, 13.
v. 17, 21, ix. 30, 31. x. 3, 4, 5, 6, 10. 2 Cor. v. 21 (abstract for
concrete). Phil. iii. 9. Heb. xi. 7. et alibi sa?pe.
AiKaioavvw Beov seems then very plainly to have the same
meaning here that it has in Rom. iii. 21, and in the other passages
just referred to in this epistle, viz. ihe justification or pardoning
mercy bestowed on sinners who are under the curse of the divine
law ; or the state or condition of being pardoned, i. <_., justified or
treated adjust. In this sense it is allied to, but is not altogether
the same as, the Hebrew ^p^X, wdiich often means kindness,
benignity, favor, deliverance from evil ; e. g., Is. xiv. 8, 24, xlvi.
13. xlviii. 18. li. 6, 8. liv. 17. lvi. 1, and often in the P.- alms.
The reader must be careful to note, however, the simple idea
oi pardon, unattended by any thing clse,^V. e., the mere deliver
ance from punishment)is not all which is comprised in the mean
ing of SiKaioio and SiKaiocnVij. The idea is more fully expressed by
accepting and treating as righteous. Now, when this is done by
a benefactor, he does not stop with the simple remission of pun
ishment, but he bestows happiness in the same manner as though
the offender had been altogether obedient. As there are but two

32 ROMANS I. 17.
stations allotted for the human race, i. e., heaven or hell ; so
those who are delivered from the latter, must be advanced to the
former. All is now plain. AiKaiocrwTj Beov is the justification which
God bestows, or the justification of which God is the author ; or
if any one prefers, he may call it that state of pardon or accept
ance which is the result of mercy proffered in the gospel and dis
pensed on account of the atonement made by Christ. That Paul
should call it Siraioo-wTj Beov, was very natural, when he wished
to distinguish it from that righteousness wdiich the Jews supposed
themselves to possess in consequence of legal obedience, and which
entitled them (in their own view) to divine acceptance. The
justification which God allows, or that kind of righteousness
which he now admits as a condition of acceptance, is eK iriareuis,
ciK e'f epywv, and therefore altogether a matter of gratuity, and not
of merit or desert. This general view is made altogether clear
by comparing Rom. iii. 21 — 24; and indeed the whole tenor of
the discussion in the epistle to the Romans, seems imperiously to
demand this sense.*
Having thus explained my own view of the meaning of
SiKaioavvrj Beov, which is for substance the same as that defended
by Luther, Wolf, Ileumann, Limborch, Flatt, Macknight, Usteri,
Reiche, and many others, it may be proper, considering the
importance ofthe subject, briefly to review some of the leading
opinions that have been advanced and defended by others.
I. The first class are tho-e who regard SiKaioo-u'vij Beov here as
designating an attribute of God ; in which case Beoii is regarded
not as Gen. auctoris, but as Gen. possessionis.
Yet those who hold to such an opinion are by no means agreed
in the mode of special explanation, (a) Some regard SiKowavi-n
as designating the perfect holiness and uprightness of the Saviours
character, wdiich is imputed to believers. So Chemnitz, Hoepf-
ner, Schroeder, and many others.
But how can this oiK-aioo-wij in Christ be ck iriareuis, and espe-
.* ^hiA,vi0,v is substantially that of De Wette, Rii.-kert, Mover, Neander,
A ford, Otshausen and others, though witli some differences 'in tlie detail.
Olshausen says rather strongly and figuratively : " From the connection with
verse 16, winch exalts the Gospel as the power of God, it is plain that Sirow-
o-vvr, S,eov cannot signify the mere declaring a person righteous, but the
rkl \ZlZl 'nf "Uhtcouf •" ,and adds i" explanation : Taul " considered the
wa nerfector , ** ,f''oUlte,y realized in Christ. That whieh in him
portion o he de refnf i '• e"ldu'l,1-v '"""""ittc.1 <" individual men in pro-
S?e^ / ,etheTeaeeeoun^r V^lnT" '" ^T'l .V1'0*" ™ Mth> ^
aequittaf from guilt freely given of gU ?nn7c hee' f! • •'"Slif~ as th«
attained through faith in God's g"aee, in ClirisL "'^ °f ra,lscieilce>

ROMANS I. 17 33
cially Sia. iriaTeuts Xpiarov ? Phil. iii. 9. Is Christ righteous, then,
by having faith in himself? And in what part of the Bible are
we to find the doctrine, that his righteousness and perfect holiness
is actually transferred or imputed to us ? In such a case, our
pardon would no more be oi grace; and our claims would no more
depend on mercy, but on justice ; a sentiment the very opposite
of gospel-doctrine. If a friend gives me, who am a debtor, a sum
of money sufficient to pay off my debt, my creditor is bound as
much on the score of justice to give up my bond of payment
when I deliver to him this money, as if it had been all earned by
my own industry. It is no concern of his, how I obtain the
money. (b) AiKaioavvg Beov means God's fidelity or veracity in the be
stowment of grace according to the promises of the gospel. So
Beza, Piscator, Turretin, Locke, Bcihme, and others.
But how can God's fidelity or veracity, or any other of his
attributes, be eK iriarems, or Sia iriareios, or em, Trj iriarei ?
(c) God's vindictive justice. So Origen, Theodoret, Grotius,
Wetstein, Marckius, Bretschn. (Lex.), Fritsche, and some
others. But vindictive justice is manifested in the punishment of
sinners, not in their pardon. The SiKaioowij here is that which
pardons. (d) Rewarding justice, i. e., that which bestows favors on the
virtuous. So Calov, Storr, and others.
But how can this attribute of God be by faith, and by faith in
Christ ?
(e) Goodness of God. So Schoettgen, Morus, Voorst and
others. But here again, goodness, considered simply in the light of a
divine attribute, cannot be regarded as what the apostle means to
designate ; for how can this be eK 7ri'o-Teu_is ?
II. AiKaiocrwij Beov is regarded as something wdiich belongs to
men ; either as an attribute, quality, etc., or else as a state, con
dition, etc., of which God is the author or giver ; so that Beov is
construed as Gen. auctoris. But here again, there is some variety
of opinion ; for,
(a) Some hold that SiKatoo-wTj means internal righteousness,
virtue, or holiness such as the gospel requires. So Ammon,
Schleusner, Tholuck, Paulus, Schultz, Winer, Wahl, Glockler,
and others.' 6. But some of them explain this, as meaning the way
and manner of obtaining this holiness.
So far as Rom. i. 17 is concerned, this is a possible sense.
But the phrase 8iKaioo-w?j is so often employed by Paul to desig
nate pardon, forgiveness, or at least a stp&gzG^ p'ardon or of being

34 EOMANS I. 17.
forgiven, that it cannot well be supposed it is here employed in a
different sense, in proposing the theme which the apostle after
ward discusses.
That SiKaiocnjiij Beov . . . . <k iriareuis had a direct reference,
in the writer's mind, to liberation from punishment and the ob
taining of salvation, seems to be clear from the quotation which
he immediately makes from the Old Testament, in order to sanc
tion the sentiment which he had uttered, viz. SUaws e\- iriareuis
tfjaerai, he ivho is just, i. e., he who is accepted or regarded as
SUaios, shall obtain life by faith, i. c., shall be happy by faith (not
by merit). Such then is the SiKaioowij ©eoC. It bestows unmer
ited favor on perishing sinners ; not on him who has fulfilled the
law, (for who has done this ?) but on him who believes on Jesus ;
comp. Romans iv. 3 — 5.
Such a SiKaioavvrj, which is from God, or is of divine appoint
ment, is revealed in or by the gospel, ev ai™ d;roKa_\.i;7rTeTai ; for
aird) refers to to eiayyeXlov in ver. 16. The apostle does not
mean to say, that nothing respecting such a faith was before re
vealed ; for he appeals immediately to the Old Test. Scriptures,
in order to confirm the sentiment wdiich he had just uttered. But
the gospel, in the first place, makes such a revelation one of its
most prominent features ; and therefore, secondly, justification by
faith is revealed in it more fully and explicitly than it ever had
been before. In the like way, life and immortality are said to be
brought to light by the gospel, 2 Tim. i. 10.
The phrase, e« iriareuis eh irlanv, a controverted, and (by rea
son of its connection) very difficult phrase. The main question
is, whether eK iriareuis is to be joined with 8iKaioo-w?j, or whether
it belongs in sense to eis iriariv, so that eK iriareuis els irlanv would
make a kind of climactic expression, which would be equivalent
to the following phrase, viz., 'from a lower to a higher degree of
faith.' In this latter way Theophylact understood it; for he
says, oi yap dpKei to irpuiTuis iriarevaai, dXX' iK ttjs elaayuiyncrjs
iriareuis Sei rjp.ds dvaftaiveiv eh ttjv reXeiorepav iriariv; i. e., ' our first
belief is not sufficient, but we must ascend from our inceptive
faith to a more perfect degree of it.' So Clemens Alex. (Strom.
V. 1 ) : Koiv-ij iriaris KaBdirep BepeXios, KaBibs b Kvpios Ae'yei, rj
irlans aov aeauiKe ae ; i. e., ' a common faith is as it were a foun
dation, as Christ said : Thy faith hath saved thee.' He then
goes on to say, that ' a TeXeia itiVtis is one which can remove
mountains ; on which account the apostles themselves made this
request: Lord, we believe, help thou our unbelief!'
Tholuck approves of this exege-is ; and it is substantially the
same as that which has been defended by Melancthon, Bez:i, Ca
lov, Le Clerc, and many others. But three difficulties seem to

ROMANS I. 17 35
lie in the way of admitting it; the first, that it does not appear at
all to answer the exigency of the passage ; the second, that the
urns loquendi oi Paul's epistles is against it; the third, that the
context is evidently repugnant to it.
(a) The exigency of the passage. The exegesis in question
would make Paul's main thesis to be this: 'The justification
which God bestows, (or, according to Tholuck, the fulfilling of the
law which he requires,) is revealed in the gospel, from a lower
degree of faith to a higher, i. e., (as I suppose is meant,) it is so
revealed, as that men are required to advance from a lower to a
higher degree of faith. But this would indeed be a most sin
gular mode of expressing such a sentiment; one ofthe last which
the usual method of thought and expression can well be suppored
to devise. One might expect, if this idea is intended to be con
tained in the passage, that the writer would have said : AiKaiooaVtj
®eov iv a£r<3 obroKaAwTeTai iva irpojiaivuipev (or irpo(3Zpev) iK iria
reuis eis ttio-tiv; or at least that some mode of expression like this
would have been employed. But if the sense be not, that justifi
cation is so revealed by the gospel as that men are required to
advance from a lower to a higher degree of faith, then, after all,
ck iriareuis must be joined in effect with Si/<aioo-tivrj, and we must
say, 'The justification wdiich is iK iriareuis eh iriariv, is revealed,' etc.
This sentiment then does not fit the exigency of the passage;
since it represents the apostle, not as proposing the grand theme
of gratuitous justification (which is evidently the main subject of
his epistle), but as proposing the climactic nature of the faith con
nected with justification, as his great topic. How can this well
be imagined by a considerate reader of his epistle ?
(b) ft is against the usus loquendi of homogeneous passages ;
e. g., Rom. iii. 22, SiKaioawrj ®eov Sia Trio-reais (altogether of the
same tenor as SiKaiocrwrj ®eov . . . . ck iriareuis in our verse) ;
Rom. iii. 30, os SiKaicixrei . . . . eK iriareuis, Kai .... Sia. iriareuis'
Rom. iv. 11, acppayiSa rrjs SiKaioavvrjs, ttjs iriareuis' Rom. iv. 13,
Sia SiKaiorru'vrj; iriareuis- Rom. v. 1, SiKaio-Je'vres iK iriareuis' Rom.
ix. 30, Ta eBvq .... KareAaySe . . . SiKaiocn.'vrjv Trjv iK iriareuis'
Rom. ix. 32, on oiK ['Io-parjX rjv Siuikuiv SiKaiocrwrjv] eK iriareuis'
Rom. x. 6, rj Se eK iriareuis SiKaioowrj- and so in the other epistles
of Paul, e. g., Gal. ii. 16, [SiKaiovrai dvBpuiiros~\ Sia iriareuis' Gal.
iii. 8, ck iriareuis SiKaioi to. IBv-q b ©eos- Gal. iii. 11, 6 SUaws e/<
iriareuis tfjaerai (a quotation^; Gal. iii. 24, iVa eK iriareuis SiKaicu-
Buipev Gal. v. 5, eK iriareuis eXiriSa SiKaioavvrjs direK.SexopeBa- Phil.
iii. 9, SiKaiocrwrjv .... Trjv Sia iriareuis' Heb. xi. 7, Trjs Kara
n-ioriv SiKaioo-wrjs ; et alibi SEepe. These are enough to show
what Paul (I had almost said everywhere, and always) presents
to our view, in respect to the subject of justification. Can there

36 ROMANS I. 17.
be any good reason to apprehend, that in proposing the theme of
his whole epistle, he should not propose the same justification by
faith of which he afterwards so amply treats?
' But how could Paul separate eK iriareuis so far from SiKaioavvrj,
if he means that the former should qualify the latter ? ' I answer,
SiKaiocrwrj, as here employed, has already a noun in the Genitive
(®eoC) connected with it. The writer could not say rj eK iriareuis
SiKouoavvg ®eov (which would, I believe, be without a parallel) ;
nor was it apposite to say, SiKaioorjvrj ©eoiJ eK iriareuis, because the
writer was hastening to say, that God's appointed method of jus
tification was revealed in the gospel. When this idea, which was
uppermost in his mind (because he had just said that he ivas not
ashamed ofthe gospel), was fully announced, the writer proceeds
immediately to specify more particularly the SiKaioowrj in ques
tion. It is a SiKaioo-iJvrj eK iriareuis, in accordance with which he
has, in almost numberless examples, elsewhere made declarations.
The easiest and most direct solution is, to suppose SiKaiocru'vrj
to be repeated here before eK iriareuis. The sentence would then
run thus : AiKaiocnVrj yap ©eoC ev airui diroKaXvirreTai [SiKaiocrvvrj]
eK iriareuis, k. t.' X. or yevopivg may be supplied by the mind, be
fore eK iriareuis. In this way, eK iriareuis is epexegetical merely
of what precedes. The idea conveyed by SiKaioavvrj is resumed
by the mind, and it is made still more definite by this adjunct.
(c) That this is the real sentiment and design of the apostle,
seems quite clear from the quotation which he forthwith makes
in order to confirm what he had said, viz. 6 Se SiKaios eK iriareuis
ifjaerai. Does not SiKaios eK iriareuis clearly and unavoidably
correspond with the SiKaiocnj'v!; . . . . eK iriareuis which immedi
ately precedes ?
I merely add, that Flatt, Bengel, Hammond, and others,
interpret the passage in the same way as I have done. The
more I study the passage, the more difficulty I feel in construing
it as meaning revealed from faith to faith. What can be the
meaning of revealed from faith ? And if ck iriareuis does not
qualify dTroKaAwrreTai, then it must qualify SiKaioo-i'vrj, in which
case the meaning that I have given seems nearly certain. And
so Reiche construes Ik iriareuis, connecting it with SiKaioo-uvrj
and supposing yevopevq to be implied before it, which is ad
missible. In respect to the thing itself, viz. justification by faith, faith
designates the modus in quo, or the means by which; not the
causa causans seu efficiens,i.e.,zioteitherthe meritorious or efficient
cause or ground of forgiveness. Everywdiere the apostle repre
sents Christ as this cause. But faith (so to speak) is a conditio
sine qua non ; it is a taking hold of the blessings proffered by the

ROMANS I. 17. 37
gospel, although it is by no means the cause or ground of their
being offered. If the readers of this epistle will keep in mind
these simple and obvious truths, it will save them much per
plexity. Justification by faith, is an expression designed to point
out gratuitous justification (Rom. iv. 16), in distinction from that
Whieh is by merit, i. e., by deeds of law, or entire obedience to
the precepts of the law. The word faith, as used in this phrase,
is designed to show, that the justification which we are now con
sidering can be conferred only on believers, and that it is to be dis
tinguished from Swcaiocrwrj ef epycov, i. e., meritorious justification.
It is not designed to show that faith is, in any sense, the meritori
ous or procuring cause or ground of justification.
In order to be believed, for belief, eh iriariv. Such a use of the
/'Ace. with eis is exceedingly frequent in Paul's epistles. It is
equivalent to the Infinitive mood with the article before it ; e. g.,
in ver. 5, above eis viraKorjv = els rb viraKovBijvai ; so in ver. 16,
eis auirr/piav = eis ro o-io^rjvai, et sic al. ssepe. The reason wdiy
the apostle adds eis irlanv seems to be because he had said eis
auiTrjpiav iravrl rm mo-TeiJovri. In accordance with this he here
says, that gratuitous justification (SiKaioavvrj iK iriareuis) is re
vealed, so that all, both Jews and Greeks ('Io-uSai'io re irpuirov ko.1
"EAAtjvi) may believe and be saved ; i. e., they can be saved
through belief, and in this way only. Or we may construe eis
iriariv as Reiche does, viz. SiKaioo-uvrj is revealed to belief, i. e., to
believers ; comp. iii. 21.*
If eK iriareuis is to be attached to dTroKaAwrerai, I should think
the sentiment must be, that ' the gospel is revealed by means of
faith, i. e., by means of those who have faith in Christ, and in
order to promote faith,' thus making a kind of paronomasia, to
which the writings of Paul are by no means a stranger. But I
cannot apprehend this to be the true sentiment.
It should be remarked here, that faith is represented as the
necessary condition of SiKaiocruvrj ©eoi3, and also that this is
revealed to those who have faith, or at least for the sake of pro
moting faith. Thus the gospel scheme seems to begin and end
(as it were) with faith, ' He that believeth shall be saved.'
fn accordance with what is written, koBuis yeypa-jrrai, agreeably
to what is written, viz. in the Scriptures. The Talmudists very
* If eK irlo-Teus be joined with the verb airoKa\virTeTat to express "the
condition or subjective ground of the action, i. e. the humble aud trustful
surrender of the soul, and eis irio-nv be referred to the individuals to whom
the SiKaioo-ivrj is made known (or rather definitely and particularly to the
faith in tho individuals), the believers, tous it kit evovr as, both the grammati
cal construction and the connected train of thouglit should seem to be best
preserved. 4

38 ROMANS I. 17.
often appealed to the Scriptures in the like way, by the formulas
3"r:t i:_n , us if is ;vri':'en ; :t:1 ~M ""in according to Cat which
is written ; or picsn -rziy\ triz-ri, as the Scripture says. It is
not necessary to suppose, in all cases of this nature, that the
writer who makes such an appeal, regards the pa sage wdiich he
quotes as specific prediction. Plainly this is not always the case
with the writers of the New Te tament ; as nearly all commenta
tors now concede. Compare, for example, Acts xxvhi. 23, seq.
Rom. viii. 36. ix. 33. x. 5. xi. 26. xiv. 11, etc. Such being the
ease, it is not necessary that we should interpret the pa.-..- age
which follows (Hub. ii. 4.), as having been originally designed to
describe gospel just fication by fai'h ; for plainly tlie connection
in which it stands does not adm.t of this specific meaning. But
it then involves the same principle as that for which the apostle
is contending, viz., that 'the means of safety is confidence or trust in
the divine declarations.' The propliet Habakkuk sees, in prophetic
vision, "troublous times" coming upon Judcea ; and he exclaims
rVTP ipjrsxa F"^X, 6 SUaios iK iriareuis tfjaerai, the pious man
shall be saved by ids confidence or faith, viz., in God. It was not,
then, by relying on his own merit or desert that safety could be
had ; it was to be obtained only in the way of believing and trust
ing the divine declarations. Now the very same principle of ac
tion was concerned in so doing at that time, which is concerned
with the faith and salvation of the gospel. Of course the apostle
might appeal to this declaration of Habakkuk, as serving to con
firm the principle for which he contended.
Dr. Knapp and many others join eK iriareuis with SiVaios, and
then translate the passage thus : The just by faith shall live ; i. e.,
he who possesses faith shall be happy. The sentiment is true ;
but it does not comport, I apprehend, with the design of Habak
kuk, who must have written iisiasta if he intended this, and not
(as he has done) inasaxa .
If it be viewed as a simple illustration of a general principle,
a'.l difficulty about the quotation vanishes. As the Israelite, in
the time of Habakkuk, was to be saved from evil by means of
faith, so Jews and Gentiles are now to be saved by means
of faith.
To the whole I subjoin the brief comment which J. A. Turretin
has so strikingly given, in his Prcdectioncs on the epistle to the
Romans : " Apostolus noster, ubi agit de justificatione et salute
hominum, sa?pe vocat justitiam Dei earn justificationis rationem
quam Deus hominibus commonstrat, ct cujus ope eos ad salutem
ducit." Again : " Justitia Dei .... est ipsamet hominis justi-
ficatio, seu modus quo potest Justus haberi apud Deum, et salutis
particeps fieri ; " a definition of which one may almost say : Omne
tulit pvnrtvm.

EOMANS I. 18. 39

as

Turretin has, indeed, construed <_k iriareuis eh iriariv nearly
Tholuck has done. But the usus loquendi of Paul in such con
structions is decidedly against him : e. g., Rom. vi. 19, ' Since ye
have yielded your members as servants of impurity, koI rrj dvopia
els dvopiav, and to iniquity for the commission of wickedness, so
should ye yield your members as servants ti) SiKaioavvrj eh dyiaa-
pov unto righteousness, in order that ye may practise holiness ; '
2 Cor. ii. 16, '[The gospel is] to some oaprj Bavdrov eh Bavdrov,
and to others, doyxrj £io^s eis £corjv, a savor of death to the causing
of death, and a savor of life to the causing of life.' In these
and all such cases, the Accusative with els before it, denotes the
end, or object, to which the thing that had just been named tends.
So must it be, then, in the text ; the [SiKaioo-u'vrj] eK iriareuis is
revealed or declared to the world eis iriariv, i. e., in order that it
may be received or believed.
(18) For the wrath of God from heaven, is revealed against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness, diroKaXinrTeTai ydp .... dvBpui-
iruiv. The yap with which this verse is introduced, refers doubt
less to an implied thought in the mind of the writer, which inter
vened between verses 17 and 18, viz. 'This Siko.ioo-wij ®eov is
now the only SiKaioo-wrj possible for men.' The sequel shows
this ; since it is designed to prove that all men are in a state of
sin and condemnation, and can be saved only by gratuitous par
don. 'Opy-q ®eov, literally, the wrath of God, divine indignation,
or (to use a softer phraseology) God's displeasure. That the
phrase is anthropopathic (i. e., used as speaking of God after the
manner of men), will be doubted by no one who has just views
of the divine Being. It is impossible to unite with the idea of
complete perfection that of anger in the sense in wdiich we usually
cherish it ; for with us it is a source of misery and sin. To neither of
these effects of anger can we properly suppose the divine Being to
be exposed. His anger, then, ean only be that feeling or affection
in him, which moves him to look on sin with disapp obation, and
to punish it when connected with impenitence. We must not,
even in imagination, connect this in the remotest manner with
revenge; which is only and always a malignant passion. But
vengeance, even among men, is seldom sought for against those
whom we know to be perfectly impotent, in respect to thwarting
any of our designs and purposes. Now as all men, and all crea
tion, can never endanger any one interest (if I may so speak)
of the divine Being, or defeat a single purpose ; so we cannot
even imagine a motive for revenge, on ordinary grounds. Still
less can we suppose the case to be of this nature, when we reflect
that God is infinite in wi.-dom, power, and goodness. It would
be quite as well (nay, much better) to say, that when the Bible

40 ROMANS I. 18.
attributes hands, eyes, arms, etc., to God, the words wdiich it em
ploys should be literally understood, as to say that when it attri
butes anger and vengeance to him, it is to be literally understood.
If we so construe the Scriptures, we represent God as a
malignant being, and class him among the demons ; whereas
by attributing to him hands, eyes, etc., we only commit the sin of
anthropomorphism. The lexicons make bpyrj to signify punishment. By wray of
consequence, indeed, punishment is implied. But bpyr) ®eov is a
more fearful phrase, understood in the sense of divine displeasure
or indignation, and more pregnant with awful meaning if so ren
dered, than it is if we give to it simply the sense of KoXaais, as so
many critics and lexicographers have done.
'Air oipavov, another locus vexatus. Is it to be joined with
®eov ; or should we refer back to diroKaXvirTerai, and construe it
as implying the method in which the divine displeasure is made
known ? The latter way is the one which almost all commenta
tors have chosen, although there is almost an endless diversity
among them as to the meaning of a7r' oipavov. E. g. (1) The
heavens declare the glory of God, and so point men naturally to
his worship, and by consequence warn them to forsake sin. (2)
Storm, tempest, hail, thunder, lightning, etc., from heaven, declare
the wrath of God against sin. (3) Christ will be revealed from
heaven, at the last judgment, to punish sin ; so Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Theophylact, Limborch, etc. (4) Judgments which
come from God, who is in heaven, testify against sin ; so Origen,
Cyril, Beza, Calvin, Bengel, etc. (5) In consequence of an ap
pointment of heaven, the divine displeasure against sin is testified
by conscience in every breast. (6) The displeasure of God
against sin is revealed, througli divine appointment, or by the
arrangement of the supreme Being.
This last interpretation I think to be nearly right. But the
usus loquendi (which seems unaccountably to have been over
looked here) enables us to be more explicit. In Heb. xii. 25, the
apostle says : " If they escaped not who rejected tov iirl yrjs ....
XprjpaT'ZovTa, him who on earth [at Mount Sinai] warded them,
much more shall we not escape, if we reject tov a7r' oipavuiv
[vjorj/xaTi'^ovra] him [who warneth us] from heaven ; " comp.
Mark i. 11, where a voice ck tuiv oipavuiv says: " This is my be
loved Son," etc. Now if such phraseology be compared with
Matt. v. 45, tov irarpos vpiov tov iv oipavois' vi. 1, 7raTpi .... ev
tois oipavois' vi. 9, irdrep -qpuiv b iv rois oipavois, et al. sfEpe it
would seem sufficiently plain, that God coming from heaven
where he dwells, or God belonging to heaven, is intended to be
designated by the phrase ©eoi; a7r' oipavot;. So Reiche. That

ROMANS I. 19. 41
a7ro, in multitude of cases, is put before a noun of place, in order
to designate that one belongs to it, scarcely needs to be suggested ;
e.g., Matt. ii. 1. iv. 25. 2 Thess. i. 7. John i. 45. xxviii. 21, etal.
ssepe. The sentiment I take to be this: 'The God of heaven,
or the God who dwells in heaven, i. e., God supreme, omnipotent,
has revealed his displeasure against sin ; ' and, therefore, escape
from punishment ean be only by the SiKaioo-u'vrj ®eov.
How the revelation of God's displeasure is made, is di '-closed
by the sequel. To the heathen it is made by God's works and
their own consciences, Rom. i. 20, 32. ii. 14, 15.
'Aaefieiav, impiety towards God (from a privative and ae/3opai ^-
to worship) ; dSiKi'av, injustice, unrighteousness, toward men.
Who keep back or itinder the truth by iniquity, tuiv rijv ....
Ka-e^ovTiov. So the verb Kare^w most naturally means ; comp.
Luke iv. 42. Phiiem. ver. 13. 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7. It also means to
hold firmly, to grasp hold of, to take possession of and retain, etc.,
as may be seen in the lexicons; but these meanings do not fit
well here. Theophylact explains Karexovruiv by KaAi/jTreiv,
aKonQeiv. The meaning seems to be : ' Who hinder the pro
gress or obstruct the power of truth, in themselves or others.'
But of what truth ? 'AArj^eia cannot here mean the gospel ;
because the writer goes on immediately to say, that the light of
nature sufficed to teach the heathen better, than to restrain the
dXr'jBeia in question. 'AXrj^eia is here, then, that truth which the
light of nature taught respecting the eternal power and Godhead '
of the Creator. When the apostle says in ver. 18, tuiv ttjv dX-q-
Beiav iv dSiKia, Karexovruiv, in his own mind he singles out of the
dvBpuiiruiv (all men) whom he has just mentioned, the heathen or
Gentiles, whose vicious state he immediately proceeds to declare.
This is the theme for the remainder ofthe first chapter.
'Ev dSiKia may mean by iniquity, iv standing before the means /"
or instrument, as usual ; or else it is used adverbially = dSiKios.
Reiche prefers the latter sense ; which is agreeable to idiom.*

CHAP. I. 19—32.
The apostle, having alluded to the heathen or Gentiles, as those ' who hinder tho
truth through unrighteousness,' now proceeds to illustrate and confirm his charge
against them : God has disclosed in tlie works of creation his eternal power and G od-
head, and this so clearly, that they are without excuse for failing to recognize it,
verses 19, 20. And since they might have known him, but were ungrateful, and
* The former, however, seems to us to be the meaning here. There is a
sort of contrast between a\ii&eiav and aS'iKiq. The truth, the right, which
is communicated to all is checked in its development by the love and prac
tice of the wrong. 4*

42 ROMANS I 19.
refused to glorify him, and darkened their minds by vain and foclish disputations;
and represented the eternal (Jod to be like mortal man, and even like the brutes
which perish; God gave them up to their own base and degrading lusts, as thus
rendering to the creature the honor that was due to the Creator, verses 21—25. Yea,
he gave them up to the vile and unnatural passions which they cherished, verses 29,
30; and these they not only commit themselves, although they know them to be
worthy of death, i. *., oi" condemnation on tlie part of tlie Divine lawgiver, but by
their approbation tliey encourage others to commit the like offences.
Such being the state of facts in regard to the heathen world, it follows of course
that they justly lie under the condemning sentence of tho divine law. It is not the
object ofthe apostle to prove that every individual heathen is guilty of each and all
the sins which he enumerates; much less does he intend even to intimate that there
are not other sins, besides those which lie enumerates, of which the Gentiles are
guilty, lt is quite plain, that those which he does mention, are to be regarded
merely in the light of a specimen. Nor will the charges which he here makes, prove
that every individual ofthe Gentile world was, at the moment when he was writing,
guilty of all the things preferred against the heathen. If we suppose that there might
then have been some virtuous heathen, {a supposition apparently favored by Rom,
ii. 14), such persons must have abstained from the habitual practices ofthe vices
named, and from others like them. But it suffices for the apostle's purpose, to show
that they once had been guilty of them; which of course was to show their absolute
need of salvation by a Redeemer, L e., of gratuitous pardon procured through him.
The case may be the same here, as that which is presented in chap. ii. iii., where a
charge of universal guilt is brought against the Jews. Certainly this was not de
signed to prove that there then existed no pious Jews, who were not liable to such
charge in its full extent, at the moment when the apostle was writing. Nay, it was
of course true to some extent, even of the pious, at tlie time when Raul was writing,
that they daily committed sin in some form or other; and the same was true of pious
Gentiles, if indeed there were any such. All me?i, then, were guilty before God,
although all men might not practise the particular vices which the apostle named,
when he was writing. It matters not for his purpose to prove this. All who could
sin, had sinned, and did then sin, in some way or other; all this is now, and always
has been true. Of course, all have fallen under the condemnation ofthe divine law,
and salvation by the grace proffered in the Gospel, is the only salvation which is
possible for them.
The question when men begin to sin, it is not the object of the apostle here to dis
cuss. Nor is it even the degree of their depravity, which is his main design to illus
trate and prove. The vni ue.rsulity of it is the main point; and it is all which is essen
tial to his argument. To this universality Raul admits of no exception ; but then we
are of course to understand this, of those who arc capable of sinning. It is thus that
we interpret in other cases. For example, when it is said: '' He that believeth not,
shall be damned," we interpret this of those who are capable of believing, and do not
extend it beyond them. With tho question, when individuals are capable of believ
ing or of sinning, I .repeat it, Raul does not here concern himself. Neither mere
infancy, nor entire idiocy, is the object of his present consideration. He is plainly
speaking of such, and only of such, as are capable of sinning; and these, one and all,
he avers to be sinners, in a greater or less degree. Such being the fact, it follows,
that as " the soul which sinneth must die," so, if there be any reprieve from this
sentence, it must be obtained only by pardoning mercy through a Redeemer.
I add merely, that the clause r&v t))U aX^etav eV aSucla, KaT^x^VTOiV-l properly
belongs to that division ofthe discourse which we are now to examine; but the con
nection of it with the general proposition in the preceding part of ver. 18, is made
so intimate by the present grammatical structure, that I deemed it best not to disjoin
them in the commentary.
(19) The idea of the preceding verse is here expanded and
enforced by showing that to all men is made, in the works of na-

KOMAXS I. 19. 43
ture, a revelation so plain of the eternal power and Godhead of
Jehovah, that nothing but a wilful and sinful perver.-on of the
light whieh they enjoy, ean lead them to deny this great truth.
Because ihit which might be known concerning God was mani
fest to them, Sion .... auTois. AigTi=Sia toCto oti and equiva
lent in logical force here to ydp, stands before a clause which
assigns a reason why the apostle asserts that the heathen hinder
the truth by iniquity. The amount ofthe proof which follows is,
(1) That the truth was knowable. (2) That nothing hut base
and evil passions keep men from acknowledging and obeying it.
Ti, e knowledge of God, to •yvo.o-Tov tov ®eov, or that concerning
God which is knowable or known. The meaning that which is
knowable, seems on the whole to be best; and that to yvuiardv may
be thus rendered we ean have no doubt, when Ave compare to
vorjTov, intelligible, to alaB-qrov quod perceptum sit, rb ddparov
quod non visum sit, i. e., invisible, etc. Buttmann (Gram. § 92.
Anm. 3, comp. my N. Test. Gramm. § 82, Note 1,) seems to
have decided this point, however, beyond any reasonable doubt.
He says, indeed, that verbals in -to's frequently correspond to the
Latin participles in -tus ; so irXeKros stricken, arpeirros perverted,
iroi-qros made, factus, etc. But " more commonly," he adds, •' they
have the sense of possibility, like the Latin adjectives in -His, or
the German ones in -bar ; as arpeirros versatilis, bparos visibilis,
aKovaros audibilis." This appears more fully when eWi is joined
with these adjectives or verbals ; e. g., /3icordv eo-ri, one can live,
(quasi, ' it is live-able ') ; tois o£k e'£iTov ian, they cannot go out,
(quasi ' to them it is not go-able'). Plato also frequently uses
the very word under examination, in connection with SofaordV,
e. g., to yvuiarbv Kai to Sofaordv, that which is knowable and that
which is supposable, de Repub. Lib. v. *
Concerning God, tov ®eov, ®eov being Genitivus objecti, as gram
marians say. For an extended statement of the latitude of the
Genitive, in regard to the many various relations which it ex
presses, see N. Test. Gramm. § 99. Examples in point are Matt.
xiii. 18, irapa/3oXt] rov aireipovros, the parable CONCERNING the
# Both the verbal form of the word and classical usage undeniably sanc
tion the meaning : " that which may be known," if the context favors that
interpretation. But, if we take this in its most extended signification : " all
that could be known," it cannot of course be true ; since the Gentiles have
not all possible knowledge of God from the light of nature. — On this
account Luther, De Wette, Meyer and others not without reason translate:
" that which is known." So Alford : " The objective knowledge patent and
recognized in creation ;" " 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 Gen
tile nations of antiquity."

44 ROMANS I. 2 0.
soiver; 1 Cor. i. 18, 6 A.o'yos 6 toC aravpov, the declaration CON
CERNING the cross. So Xdyos nvos a report concerning any
one, Xen. Cyrop. vi. 3. 10. viii. 5. 28. Comp. Luke vi. 12.
Rom. xiii. 3. John xvii. 2. Heb. ix. 8, et alibi.
Among them, iv airois. So ev often means; e. g., Matt. ii. C,
ev 0T5 among whom ; Rom. xi. 17. 1 Cor. iii. 18, etc. The t-ense
would then be: ' What may be known [by the light of nature]
concerning God, was manifest among them,' i. e., in the midst of
them, or before their eyes. The more probable sense, however,
seems to be in them, i. e., in their minds or consciences ; comp.
Rom. ii. 15. Acts xiii. 15. Some prefer to render ev airois as
they would the simple Dative airois, viz., to them, and appeal to
such examples as 1 Cor. xiv. 11. Matt. xvii. 22. Luke xxiii. 31.
xii. 8, and even to Acts iv. 12. 1 Cor. ii. 6. 2 Cor. iv. 3. But
the preceding method of construction is plainly the more certain
and simple one. Tholuck and Reiche accordingly prefer to ren
der ev airois in them ; and they interpret it as referring to their
moral sense, by whieh they may come to discern and judge of the
evidences of divine power and Godhead. That ev before the
Dative, can never be properly considered the same thing as the
simple Dative, seems to be conclusively shown by Winer, N.
Test. Gramm. p. 177, ed. 3.
The ydp in 6 ®eds ydp airois icpavepuiae is yap confirmantis.
(20) For the invisible things, etc., to. yap .... Kai Beiorr/s,
may be regarded as a parenthetic explanation. The ydp here
is also ydp confirmantis vel illustrantis ; it stands before an
assertion designed to illustrate and confirm the preceding
declaration. 'Ao'paTa, means the attributes or qualities of the di
vine Being; which are ddpaTa, invisible, because they are not
objects of physical notice, i. e., are not disclosed to any of our
corporeal senses. Of course the expression refers to the attri
butes belonging to God considered as a spirit ; 1 Tim. i. 17.
Since the creation of the world, dirb KTiaeuis Koapov. That u7ro
may be rendered since, scarcely needs proof; e.g., dirb KaTafioXijs
Koapov, air dpxfjs, a7rd rrjs wpas eKei'vijs, etc. ; see Lex. in
verbum. So far as the usus loquendi is concerned, it might be
rendered by, by means of, a sense which diro very frequently has
but Toi$iroirjpaai would then be tautological. By to. ddpara airov
.... KaBopdrai, the writer means to say, that ever since the
world was created, the evidences of eternal power and Godhead
have been visible to the mind; which indeed, must be as true as
that they are now visible.
By the things which are made, rois irovfjpaai, i. e., by the natural
creation. Tloi-qpaai, might be rendered by his operations, inas
much as nouns ending in the neuter -p.a not unfrcquently in the

ROMANS I. 20. 45
Hebrew-Greek have the same meaning as those which end in
-o-is; e. g., SiKaiuipa, SiKaiuiais, justification. If it were thus
rendered, the sense would be, that the operations of God in the
world of nature continually bear testimony respecting him. This
is not only true, but a truth scarcely less striking, lis it now ap
pears to us through the medium of astronomy, natural philosophy,
and physiology, than that which is developed by creative power.
Nevertheless, as the discoveries of modern science were unknown
to the heathen, so it seems most congruous here to explain 7roirj-
p,aai* by things made, the natural creation, which the heathen,
in common with all others, were continually reminded of by their
external senses.
The due result of serious notice is, that toi dopara tov ®eov may
be voovpeva, apprehended by the mind, understood. Nooiyxeva
KaBopdrai means, are distinctly seen, are intelligibly perceived,
i. e., they are so, or may be so, by the aid of the things which
have been made. In other words : God's invisible attributes, at
least some of them, are made as it were visible, i. e., are made the
object of clear and distinct apprehension, by reason of the natural
creation. So the Psalmist : " The heavens declare the glory of
God," etc., Ps. xix. 1, 2.
But what are the attributes of God which are thus plainly dis
cernible by his works ? The answer is, ij re diSios ofrov Svvapis
Kai ^eioTijs, both or even his eternal power and Godhead. This
clause is epexegetical of to ddpaTa airov. Avvapis must here have
special reference to the creative power oi God ; and this seems to
be called aioios, because it must have been possessed antecedently
to the creation of the world, or before time began. Still, although
S-qpiovpyia- (creative power), as Theodoret says, is here specially
meant, I apprehend that the sense of Svvapis is not restricted to
this. He who had power to create, must of course be supposed
to have power to wield and govern.
©eioTijs^s distinguished by Tholuck and others, from Oeo'njs, for
they represent the latter as signifying the Divinity or the Divine
nature, while the former is represented as meaning the complexity
of the divine attributes, the sum or substance of divine qualities.^
I cannot find any good ground, however, for such a distinction.
* The two ideas may be included in the word, that of creation and pre
servation. t There seems to be some ground for the distinction made by De Wette,
Alford and others between SeiSms as used here and S>e6r-ns in Col. 2: 9.
The former word here refers to -'those vestiges of God which men may
everywhere trace in the world around them," as " his majesty and glory,"
but the latter word in Colossians designates "the essential and personal
Godhead of the Son." See Trench's Syn. of the N. lest., De Wette s
Comm., et al.

46 EOMANS I. 20.
©eoTTjs is the abstract derived from Beds ; and from this latter
word is formed the concrete or adjective derivate ^eios, divine.
To ^eiov of course means divinity ; and from this comes another
regular abstract noun ¦Jeio'njs, with the same signification. So
Passow : Beio-rqs, Gdtilichkeit, gottliche Natur, i. e. divinity, di
vine nature. He then adds : " In particular, divine greatness,
power, excellence, eminence," etc.; i. e., Beioi-qs designates the
divinity with special reference to these qualities — the identical
manner in which the word is employed in our text. The same
lexicographer defines Beo-rqsthe Godhead, the divine Being, divine
excellence. In the same sense, viz., that of Godhead, Divinity, is
to -9-eiov plainly used in Acts xvii. 29. So Beior-qs Wisd. xviii. 9.
So Clemens Alex. (Strom. V. 10), to prj epBeipeaBai, Beiorvros
perexeiv iari, not to perish, is to be a partaker of Godhead or
Divinity. If Beior-qs be interpreted here as a word designating " the sum
of all the divine attributes," we must regard natural theology as
equally extensive with that which is revealed, so far as the great
doctrines respecting the Godhead are concerned. Did the apos
tle mean to assert this ? I trust not. I must understand Beior-qs,
then, as designating Divinity, divine nature, divine excellence or
supremacy, i. e., such a station, and condition, and nature as make
the Being who holds and possesses them to be truly divine, or
God. Eternal power and supremacy or exaltation appear, then,
to be those qualities or attributes of the divine Being, which the
works of creation are said by the apostle to disclose. And, when
examined by the eye of philosophy and reason, the evidence ap
pears to be of the very same nature which he has here designed.
At all events, the heathen never have made out any very definite
and explicit views of God as holy and hating sin ; not to speak of
other attributes, of which they had quite imperfect and unsatisfac
tory views.
On tliis deeply interesting subject, viz., the disclosure of the
natural world in respect to the Creator, Aristotle has said an ex
ceedingly striking tiling (De Mundo, c. C), mxo-ij Bvnrfj epvaei yevo-
pevcs dBeuiprjrus, dir airuiv tuiv epycov Beuipelrai 6 ©eos, God, who is
invisible to every mortal being, is seen by his works. Comp. also
Wisd. xiii. 1 — 5.
So that they are without excuse, eh rb eivai airovs dvairoXoyr'jTOVs.
Eis to, followed by an Inf., is often used in the same manner as
ware; e. g., Luke v. 17. Rom. iv. 18, vii. 4, 5. xii. 3. Eis to
k. t. X., is joined in sense with 6 Beds yap auTois icjiavepuiae (the
fir.-t claur-e in ver. 20 being a parenthesis) ; i. e., ' God has ex
hibited, in his works, such evidences of his eternal power and
Godhead, that those are without any excuse who hinder the truth

ROMANS I. 21. 47
by reason of their iniquity.' That the apostle means to character
ize the heathen by all this, is clear from the sequel.
(21) Because Cat having known God, Siunyifvies tov® edv. The
S-J.-i here is considered by Glockler as co-ordinate with that iu
ver. 19 ; and both tlie clauses in vers. 19, 20, and in vers. 21 —
23 he considers as protases to Sio k. t. X. in ver. 24 seq. The
sense then is: ' Because the knowledge of God was diM'losed to
them, etc., — because, when they knew God, they did not glorily
him, etc., — Sid, therefore God gave them over,' etc. But Start
cannot stand in the real protasis of a sentence that is independent
of a preceding one; see examples of its use in the Concordance.
We must consider the Sio'rt in ver. 19, then, a? prefatory to a rea
son why the heathen suppress the truth iniquitousiy ; and the
Sioti in ver. 21 as prefatory to a reason why they are without ex
cuse. In the same way ydp often follows in two and even three
successive clauses, prefatory to successive reasons for successive
assertions. Tvosres here is employed in a sense that comports .with the
meaning of to yvuiarbv in ver. 19, and may mean either actual
knowledge, or opportunity to know, being furnished with the
means of knowing, having the knowledge of God plainly set before
them. They glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, oix "!
.... evxapiaB-qaav ; i. e., they paid him not the honor due to
him as the Creator and Governor of all things, nor were they
thankful for the blessings which he bestowed upon them. The
particle r/, after a negative clause, means nor, neither.
But indulged foolish imaginations or vain thoughts, dXX ipanui-
Brjaav .... airuiv. So we may render the passage, if we fol
low the more common meaning of pM-aidco, which not unfrequently
corresponds to the Hebrew ^20 , i'OCri , insipide, stulte agere.
The Vulgate renders iparaiuiBnaav by evanuerant, and Erasmus
by frustrati sunt ; and to the like purpose many critics have inter
preted it. But the evident intention of the writer seems here to be,
to describe a state of mind or feeling, not to express the result of it.
AiaXoyiapois may be translated thoughts, reasonings, or disputa
tions; for the word has each of these senses. The first seems
the most appropriate here, on account ofthe clause which imme
diately follows, and which shows that the state of the interior man
is designed to be described. It should be noted, moreover, that
SiaXoyio-juds, as meaning thought or imagination, is commonly
taken in malam partem, i. e., as designating bad thoughts, evil imagi
nations, e. g., Matt. xv. 19. Mark vii. 21. Is. lix. 7 (Sept.) 1 Cor.
iii. 20.
If we construe the words before us in this way, the sense will

48 ROMANS I. 21.
be: 'They foolishly or inconsiderately indulged evil imagina
tions,' i. e., base and degrading views respecting the nature and
attributes of God, and the honor due to him, as the sequel (vers.
22 — 25) shows, particularly ver. 23.
But there is another sense of the expression before us, which I
am strongly tempted to adopt. The Hebrew b=n , vanitas, pan-
ottjs, pdraia, as is well known, is often employed to designate
idols and idolatry. Hence pdraia is frequently employed by the
Septuagint to designate idols; e. g., 2 Kings xvii. 15. Jer. ii. 5.
viii. 19. Amos ii. 4. 1 Kings xvi. 13, etc. So also in the New
Testament, Acts xiv. 15. From this usage, as one might
naturally conclude, the verb paraioui (which means literally
p. d t a t o v facere vel fieri) sometimes means, to be devoted to
pdraia, i. e., to idols ; e.g., 2 Kings xvii. 15. Jer. ii. 5. iparaiuiBrj-
aav, they became devoted to idolatry, or to vanities (which is the
same thing). The phrase in our verse is plainly susceptible of
the like rendering, viz., Ln their evil imaginations or by reason
of their wicked devices, they became devoted to idolatry, or devoted
to vanities (which has the same meaning).*
But on the whole, it is safer perhaps to regard the clause be
fore us a kind of parallel with the one which follows ; in which
case, the first asserts that the heathen foolishly indulged in wicked
devices, and the second, that in consequence of this, their incon
siderate minds became darkened. The clause under examina
tion will then be of the like tenor with ver. 22.
And their inconsiderate mind was darkened, kou iaKariaB-q ....
KapSia. KapSi'a, like the Hebrew ab very often means, animus,
intellectus, the mind ; and this is plainly its meaning here. —
'Ao-weTos means stolidus, insipiens, or imprudens, which latter
word means, wanting in consideration and foresight. I hesitate
between this meaning, and that of stolidus in the sense of the
Hebrew ^33 , i. e., impious, wicked. The KapSia which had fool
ishly indulged evil imaginations respecting God, may be truly
characterized either as inconsiderate or as impious. On the whole,
the latter seems to convey rather the most energetic meaning ;
but the former accords better with the idea, that the second clause
(now under examination) is parallel with the clause which
precedes it.
It will be observed by the attentive reader, that the apostle
here represents the darkening of the mind to be a consequence of
the wicked imaginations which the heathen had induced. Men
* Although this word may be used here in a general sense, yet there ean
be little doubt that it was chosen with reference to the allusion in it to idol-
worship, one of the ways in which the heathen showed their evil imagina
tions.

ROMANS I. 22, 23. 49
had once a right knowledge of the true God ; they all have op
portunity to be acquainted with his true attributes. But in this
condition, they choose foolishly to indulge in wicked devices and
imaginations ; and in consequence of this, they lose even what
light they possessed iaKoriaBg -q davveTos airuiv KapSia.
(22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, <pda-
Kovres .... ipuipdvBrjaav. The antithesis of the sentiment here
is strong. The pretensions of many heathen philosophers to wisdom, are
well known. From these sprung the names <f>iX6ao<poi, <piXoao4>ia,
aocpoi, ao<piarai, etc.QdaKui means to declare, to affirm; which, in
the present case, means the same as to profess. So the Greeks
used (jidaKui ; e. g., oi <piXoao<peiv epdaKovres, those who profess to
philosophize. To the same purpose Cicero says : " Qui se sapi-
entes esse profitentur," Quasst. Tusc. I. 9.
(23) And exchanged the glory of the immortal God, for an im
age like to mortal man, and fowls, and quadrupeds, and reptiles,
koi r/XAafav .... epireruiv. The phrase t-Jjv Sd£av tov dcpBdprov
®eov means the majesty and excellence of the eternal God, or the
glorious and eternal God. In rjXXa^av . . . . iv 6p.oicup.aTi, the
Dative with ev before it follows the verb. In such cases the
usual construction is to put the simple Dative after the verb, i. e.,
the dative of the noun designating the thing for whieh another is
exchanged ; i. e., Lev. xxvii. 10, oiK uXXdfei .... KaXov irovgpio.
Ibid. dXXdfij .... KTTjvos Krrjvei. Lev. xxvii. 33. Ex. xiii. 13.
The classic writers usually say, dXXdo-cretv ti tivos, or navri nvos;
but sometimes dXXdcro-eiv ti tivi. I find no construction like this
in ver. 23, except in Ps. cv. 20, where in the Sept, r/XXd^avTo ttjv
Sdfav airoi) ev bpoiuipan poaKov occurs. Tholuck says, that ev
bpoiuipan stands for eis bpoiuipa, and he construes it here as
meaning the transmuting of one thing into another, i. e., making
out of one thing something different from it. But this is not the
common use of dXAdo-cra, in cases like ours, although the verb oc
casionally admits of this sense (see ver. 26 below, where, however,
the Accusative with eis is employed). But usually it means to
commute one thing FOR another (not to transmute one thing into
another). Nor can it be the design of Paul to say, that the hea
then changed the glorious and immortal God into an image of
perishable man and animals, (for how could they do this ?) but to
say that they exchanged the former (as an object of worship) for
the latter ; which is the exact state of the ease.
Such being the fact, both as to the sense of the passage and the
more usual construction of the verb dXXdaaui, I must regard ev
bpoiuipan here as being of the same import and design as the
simple Dative unattended with the preposition ; of which exam-
5

50 BOMANS I. 24.
pies are not wanting in the New Testament, and which Ps. cv. 20,
confirms. The phrase ev bpoiuipan ebiovos is like the Hebrew d^S ras^ ,
the resemblance of the image, i. e., an image resembling or like
unto. QBaprov is designed as the antithesis of dipBaprov, and
means frail, perishable, mortal.
Hereivuiv k. t. X. How extensively such idolatry as is here de
scribed, has been and still is practised among the heathen, is too
well known to need any formal proof in the present case. Juve
nal (Sat. xv.) has drawn an admirable picture of Egyptian su
perstitions. The following lines are sufficiently graphic :
"Quisnescit .... qualia demens
jfegyptus portenta colat t Crocodilon adorat
Pars htee ; ilia pavit saturam serpentibus Ibim.

Oppida tota canem venerantur, nemo Dianam."
And after saying that ihey worshipped various productions of the
earth, and even culinary vegetables, he exclaims :
" 0 sanctas gentes, quibus hsec naseuntur in hortis
Numina ! "
Comp. Ps. cxv. cxxxv. 15, seq. Is. xliv. 9 — 17, where is a most
vivid description, in some of its traits not unlike to the hints in
Horace, Lib. I. Sat. 8.
(24) Such was the impiety and folly of the heathen. Even
their philosophers and learned men could not be exempted from
part of the charges here brought against the Gentiles. On ac
count of such sins, God even gave them up to their own lusts;
Sio Kai irapeSuiKev .... aKaBapaiav, wherefore God even gave
them up, in the lusts of their hearts, to impurity ;* i. e., God gave
them over to the pursuit of their lusts, and to the dreadful conse
quences which follow such a course, because they were so desper
ately bent upon the pursuit of these objects, and would hearken
to none of the instructions which the book of nature communi
cated. The imputation is, that in apostatizing from the true God,
and betaking themselves to the worship of idols, they had at the
same time been the devoted slaves of lust ; which indeed seems
here also, by implication, to be assigned as the reason or ground
of their apostasy. Every one knows, moreover, that among
almost all the various forms of heathenism, impurity has been
* The ml after Si6 may import : " as they advanced in departure from
God, so God also on his part gave them up. His dealings with them had a
progression likewise." — Alford.

ROMANS I. 24. 51
either a direct or indirect service in its pretended religious
duties. Witness the shocking law among the Babylonians, that
every woman should prostitute herself, at least once, before , the
shrine of their Venus. It is needless to say, that the worship
pers of Venus in Greece and Rome practised such rites ; or that
the mysteries of heathenism, of which Paul says " it is a shame
even to speak," allowed a still greater latitude of indulgence.
Nor is it necessary to describe the obscene and bloody rites prac
tised in Hindostan, in the South Sea and the Sandwich Islands,
and generally among the heathen. Polytheism and idolatry
have nearly always been a religion of obscenity and blood. This
the apostle plainly intimates.
The Std here = Sia d, on account of which, for which reason.
For substance it has the same sense with Sioti ; yet it is employed
more frequently in the way of illation, while it has a more spe
cifically relative meaning than Sioti. Thus Sioti in ver. 19, stands
at the head of a declaration intended to illustrate and establish
the truth of the preceding assertion ; so again of Sioti in ver. 21 ;
but Sid in ver. 24, stands at the head of an illation from all the
preceding premises in verses 19 — 23.
Gave up, gave- over, irapeSuiKe, i. e., left them to pursue their
own desires, without checking them by such restraints as he usu
ally imposes on those who are not hardened and obstinate offend
ers. It seems here neither to denote an active 'plunging into
sin,' on the one hand ; nor a ' mere inactive letting alone,' on the
other ; but a withholding, by way of just retribution for their of
fences, such restraints as I have just described. The verb Trapa-
SiSuipi is commonly employed to designate delivering over to prison
(Acts viii. 3), to bonds (2 Pet. ii. 4), to the executioner or con
demning judge (Matt, xviii. 34, xxvii. 2, 2G). So here it is a
giving or delivering over to the consequences of their own lusts,
i. e., a judicial abandonment of wicked heathen.*
fn their lusts, ev rais eiriBvpiais, i. e., God gave them up [being]
in their lusts, eis aKaBapaiav k. t. X. But most critics construe iv
here as meaning by in the sense of on account of, by reason of.
The sense is good, indeed, when rendered in this way, and tlie
usus loquendi above exception ; see Bretschn. Lex. ev No. 6. ed.
2nd. But I prefer to render it in the following way, viz. God
gave up them [dvres being] in their lusts etc.; i. e., he gave thein
up who were filled with lust, he gave them up to the pursuit of it,
he abandoned them to the perverse desires of their own hearts,
and to the consequences which would follow. In this way, ev
* Alford says : - As sin begets sin, and darkness of mind deeper dark
ness, grace gives place to judgment, and the divine wrath hardens men and
hurries them on to more fearful degrees of depravity."

52 ROMANS I. 25.
Ta?s hriBvpiais tuiv KapSidv becomes equivalent to an adjective
qualifying auTou's. Of a usage like this in respect to the dative,
with iv before it, the New Testament affords most ample proofs ;
e. g., Luke iv. 32, ev i£ovaia ijv 6 Xdyos airov, his word was pow
erful ; Rev. i. 10, iyevdp-qv iv irvevpari, I was inspired ; John xvi.
25, ev irapoipiais XaXeiv, to speak parabolically ; John v. 5, ev da-
Beveia e^oov, being iveak ; Rom. xvi. 7, ot yeydvao-iv iv Xpiarui, who
became Christians ; and thus very often, as may be seen in
Bretschn. Lex. ev, No. 5. Comp. Ps. lxxxi. 13. 'Ev employed
in this way, may be called ev conditionis ; inasmuch as the noun
before which it stands, serves to designate condition, habitude, or
relation. 'Ev thus employed agrees with the so-called a predicate
of the Hebrews, i. e., 3 prefixed to a noun which is employed in
the sense of an adjective.
To the practice of impurity, eh aKaBapaiav, where eis before the
Accusative denotes, as usual, the object for which anything is, or
is done. The sense is the same as eis to iroieiv ttjv aKaBapaiav.
To dishonor their own bodies among themselves, or that their
own bodies should be mutually dishonored, tov dnp-d'CeaBai ....
iv eavrois, (dnpd^eaBai in the Passive). Tov dnpd^eaBai is con
structed after irapeSuiKe implied. This Infinitive with tov has,
until recently, been generally reckoned as an imitation ofthe Ple
brew Inf. with b ; but Winer (N. Test. Gramm. § 45. 4, ed. 3rd)
has shown abundantly that it is very common in the Greek
classics; see my N. Test. Gramm. § 138. The older critics
used to solve this form of the Infinitive (where tov intimates de
sign, object, end), by supplying eveKa or x^PLV before it. Winer
constructs tov dnp.d^eo-.'rai, in the present ease, by making it the
Genitive after aKaBapaiav. I prefer the other method, Avhich
makes the clause epexegetical. Among themselves, iv eavrois.
For this frequent sense of ev, see Bretschn. Lex. ev I. 6.
(25) A repetition of the idea contained in ver. 23 — Kai rjXXa£av
k. t. X., but with some additions. Oitivcs p.er»jXXa£av ....
i//eu'Sei who exchanged the true God for a false one. 'AX-rjBeiav rov
®eoii = tov dX-qBrj ©edv. More usually it is the latter of two
nouns whieh is employed as an adjective in order to qualify the
former ; but sometimes the first noun performs the office of an
adjective ; compare Heb. Gramm. § 440. b. Both dX-qBeiav and
ij/evSei are examples of the abstract for the concrete ; ipevSei cor
responding to the Hebrew i_sh, Kid, np'r , which are so often em
ployed to designate idols. In regard to' p,eTijXXafav  ev ra
ij/evSei, see on ijXXagav . . . . ev bpoiuipan in verse 23. But
dXij^eia may be rendered true worship, and ij/evSei false worship.
And worshipped and served tlie creature more than the Creator,
Kai eaefidaBrjaav .... Kriaavra. — 2e/_sa£op,ai signifies to venerate,

ROMANS I. 20. 53
to worship, and designates the state of mind in the worshipper.
The Aorists passive often have the sense of the Middle voice, and
so, therefore, not unfrequently have an active sense, as here : N.
Test. Gramm. § CI, 1. AaTpeu'w designates either internal wor
ship (see ver. 9 above), or external. Here, as it is joined with
ae/3d£,opai, it more naturally designates the external rites of the
heathen religion. — the creature, created things, rrj KTiaei; see the
close of verse 23. — Ilapd, more than, above ; compare Luke iii.
13. Heb. i. 4. iii. 3. ix. 23. xi. 4. etc.; and see Bretschn. Lex.
irapd III. 2. e. But here 7rapd may be- rendered, rather than.
Who is blessed forever, Amen, os ianv .... dpijv. Doxologies
of this nature are not unusual in the writings of Paul ; see Gal.
i. 5. Rom. ix. 5. 2 Cor. xi. 31. The Jewish Rabbies from time
immemorial have been accustomed to add a doxology of the like
nature, whenever they have had occasion to utter any thing
which might seem reproachful to God. The Mohammedans have
borrowed this custom from them, and practise it to a great ex
tent. Tholuck mentions an Arabic manuscript in the library at
Berlin, which contains an account of heresies in respect to
Islamism ; and so often as the writer has occasion to name a new
heretical sect, he immediately adds : ' God be exalted above all
which they say! ' — EiXoy/jro's means worthy of praise, deserving
to be extolled.
Amen, dp,rjv, the usual response of the Hebrew solemn assem
blies to the words or precepts of the law, when read; see Deut.
xxvii. 15 — 26. The Hebrew "(it*- means rerum, cerium, rectum
sit, i. e., ita sit ; which is the usual sense of dp,?jv in the New
Testament, as in Rom. ix. 5. xi. 36. Gal. i. 5. Eph. iii. 21, et al.
saepe. As to the custom of public religious assemblies in respect
to using this word, see 1 Cor. xiv. 16. It is to be understood as
a solemn expression of assent to what has been said, and an ap
probation of it on the part of those who use it.
(26) As ver. 25 is a repetition and amplification of the senti
ment in ver. 23.; so vers. 26, 27, are a repetition and amplifica
tion of the sentiment in ver. 24. There is the same connection
in both cases ; e. g., after asserting the idolatry ofthe heathen in
ver. 25, the apostle proceeds (as in ver. 24) to say : on account
of this [their idolatry] God gave them up to base passions, Sta
tovto .... dnpias. For the sense of irapeSuiKev 6 ©eds, see verse
24. — lidBr] dnpias, base passions where dnpias (the latter of two
nouns in regimen) holds the place of an adjective, agreeable to
common usage ; see the remarks on verse 25.
For their women exchanged their natural usage, into that which
is unnatural or against nature, ai re yap .... cpvaiv. Ilapa not
unfrequently has the sense here assigned, as may be seen in the
5*

54 ROMANSI.27.
lexicons ; comp. Acts xviii. 13. So Plato 7rapa cbvaiv tjSovtj, un
natural pleasure. Ttjv epvaiK-qv XPWiv means usus venereus. But
whether the apostle refers here to the Greek rpifidSes or eraipia-
rpia, or to those who were guilty of prostituting themselves in-the
vile and unnatural manner mentioned in verse 27, it would be
difficult to determine ; nor is it necessary. Those who wish to
trace evidences of the facts alluded to, may consult Seneca, Ep.
95. Martial Epigr. I. 90. Athena^us, Deipnos. 13. p. 605.
Tholuck on the State of the heathen World, in Neander's Denk-
wiirdigkeiten, I. p. 143 seq., translated in the Biblical Repository,
vol. II. Sueton. Nero, 28.
(27) fn like manner, also, the males, leaving the natural use of the
female, burned in their lust toward each other, bpoiuis re koX ....
dXXijXois. Literally bpoiuis re Kai may be rendered moreover, in
like manner too. Te Kai is often employed in enumerating partic
ulars, in order to designate an intimate connection between them.
This it signifies in a more emphatic manner than Kai simply ; and
in this respect the Greek re answers well to the Lat. que. Te' is
employed rather to annex clauses than words, and in this respect
differs from Kai' ; at the same time re is more commonly connected
only with clauses which are not necessary to complete the sen
tence in itself, but are epexegetical, i. e., serve for confirmation,
illustration, amplification, etc. But in this instance, some good
Codd., and many versions and fathers, read Se instead of Te; and
Se is preferred by many critics.
The evidences of the fact here stated by the apostle are too
numerous and prominent among the heathen writers to need even
a reference to them. Virgil himself, ' the chaste Virgil,' as he
has been often called, has a Corydon amabat Alexin, without
seeming to feel the necessity of a blush for it. Such a fact sets
the whole matter in the open day. That at Athens and Rome
iraiSepaana was a very common and habitual thing, needs no
proof to one who has read the Greek and Latin classics, e.-pe-
cially the amatory poets, to any considerable extent. Plutarch
tells us that Solon practised it; and Diogenes Laertius says the
same of the Stoic Zeno. Need we be surprised, then, if the same
horrible vice was frequent in the more barbarous parts of Greece
and the Roman empire ? Would God that nations called Chris
tian were not reproachable with it ; and that the great cities of
the old world (possibly of the new also), did not exhibit examples
of it almost as flagrant as those of Greece and Rome !
Males with males doing that which is shameful, dpaeves ....
Karepya^dpevoi. A further description of what the writer
means, so as to leave no doubt about the design of the preceding
affirmation.

ROMANS I. 28. 55
And receiving in themselves the reward which is due to their
error, koi ttjv .... diroXapfidvovTes. The apostle doubtless
means, here, the evil consequences, both physical and moral,
which followed the practices on which he is animadverting. In
respect to the first, their bodies were weakened, their health im
paired, and premature old age came on both in a mental and
physical respect. With regard to the second, what else could be
expected from those who sunk themselves far below the brute
creation, but that their moral sense would be degraded, their con
science " seared with a hot iron," and all the finer feelings and
delicate sensibilities of life utterly extinguished ? No example
in the whole brute creation can be produced, which resembles the
degradation of the iraiSepaarai ; and it follows, by an immutable
law of a sin-hating God which is impressed on the very nature
of all moral beings, that degradation and shame should result from
the gratification of viler than beastly appetites. The despots,
princes, and rich men of the East, who practise polygamy and
keep extensive harems, are usually superannuated by the time
they sire forty years of age ; how much more might this be natu
rally expected, as to the offenders mentioned in the verses
under examination ?
(28) And inasmuch as they did not like lo retain God in their
knowledge, Kai KaBiiis . . . . ev iiriyvuiaei. AoKipd^ui usually means
to try, prove, examine, etc. But a secondary sense of the word
is, to approve, to choose ; like to SoKipos approved, accepted, agreea
ble, etc. The apostle means here to say, that the heathen volun
tarily rejected the knowledge ofthe true God, which, to a certain
and important extent, they might have gathered from the book
of nature so widely spread open before them — "Exeiv iv iiriyvuiaei
may be considered as equivalent to eViyvwo-Keiv ; or, which is still
better, to designate that failure to retain in their knowledge what
God had revealed to them in the book of nature, whieh book the
apostle accuses them of neglecting.
God gave them up to a reprobate mind, irapeSuiKev .... vovv. —
See on ver. 24 for irapeSuiKev. — 'ASoKipos is the negative or antithe
sis of Soki/xos ; and therefore means reprobate, that which is to be
rejected, unapproved. Beza has rendered this adjective as though
it had a neuter active sense, a mind incapable of judging. But
the usus loquendi will not bear this ; although adjectives in
-ip,os sometimes have an active sense ; see Buttm. ausfiihrl.
Sprachl. 2 Abth. p. 341. The meaning here of dSoKip,ov vow is
wicked or vile mind, which is deserving of condemnation or exe
cration. There is here an evident paronomasia of aSoKipov with
i&oKipaaav. To do those things which are disgraceful, iroieiv to. p/ij KaBr/Kovra,

56 ROMANS I. 29.
i. e., which are indecorous, shameful. God, in his righteous
judgment, abandoned those who practised such vices to the legiti
mate consequences of their own passions and conduct.
(29) Filled, full of, abounding in, ireirXrjpuipevovs, The con
struction, if completed, would be [Trape'ScoKev airovs b #eds] ireirXrj
poipevovs k. r. X. ; so that ireirX-qpuipevovs agrees with airou's in the
preceding verse. It is here followed by the Dative of the suc
ceeding nouns ; and so in some other cases, Wahl's Lex.
under irXvpoui. The Genitive is more common after verbs
of abounding.
'ASiKi'a is a generic word here, iniquity, sin, which comprehends
all the particular vices that are afterwards named. — Ilopveia is
omitted in some manuscripts, viz. A. B. G, several younger MSS.,
and some of the versions and fathers. In some, it is placed after
irovrjpla. The enumeration seems quite incomplete without it ;
as it is a sin which most of all was universal among the heathen.
In the New Testament, the iropveia has an extended sense, com
prehending all illicit intercourse, whether fornication, adultery,
incest, or any other venus illicita.
Malice, irovr/pia, i. e., versuta etfallax nocendi ratio, as Grotius
defines it. Malice is a wicked desire or intention of doing harm
to others, in a fraudulent and deceitful manner. This word is
omitted in D. E. G. in codd. Oar. Boern. ; which generally read,
dSiKia, KaKia, iropveia, irXeove^ia, k. t. X. — IIXeove£ia, covetousness.
Where luxury abounds, and devotedness to sinful pleasures, there
a thirst for gold will also reign, because it is necessary to supply
the means of pleasure. Petronius strikingly represents Rome
as covetous of the wealth of other nations, in the following
manner: — . . . . Si quis sinus abditus ultra,
Si qua foret tellus qu£e fulvum mitterct aurum,
Hostis erat, fatisque in tristia bella paratis
Quserebantur opes.
Mischief, KaKia, among the Greeks, was the antithesis of dpei-rj,
when taken in a generic sense. But when taken (as here) in a
limited one, it means the habit of doing mischief, or harm to others
in any way. It differs from irovqpia, malice, inasmuch as that
more particularly designates a state of mind, and the craftiness by
which the purposes it forms are to be executed. KaKia means
any kind of injurious treatment.
Full, p.eaTovs is of the same meaning as ireirX-qpuipevovs ; but it
seems to be introduced here with the genitive merely for the
sake of varying the construction. The ellipsis is as before, [irape'-
Sidkcv avrovs 6 ©eos] ptarovs k. t. X. — Envy, tpBovos, seems to be

ROMANS I. 30, 31. 57
a widely spread passion of the human breast. It exists at almost
all times and in all places, where one part of the community is,
or is thought to be, more happy or distinguished than another.
This passion was in the highest degree predominant at Rome. —
Murder or manslaughter, c/>dvos, both public and private, legalized
and forbidden, was extremely frequent at Rome ; e. g., the gladia
torial fights, the destruction of slaves, the executions by the Ro
man emperors' orders, and deaths by poison, assassination, etc. —
Strife, epis of course followed on in such a train. — Deceit. SdXos
is strikingly exemplified by a verse of Juvenal : " Quid Roma.
faciem? Mentiri nescio," Sat. III. 41. — Malevolence, KOKO-qBeia;
particularly that species of it which perverts the words and
actions of another, and puts a wrong construction on them in order
to gratify a love of mischief, when it was easy and proper to put
a good construction upon them. It differs specifically, therefore,
from irovqpia.
(30) Backbiters, ^tiBvpiarrjs, i. e., a slanderer in secret. — KaTa-
XaXos, a slanderer in public. — Betters of God, Beoarvyeis- Grotius
says, it should be written ^eoo-Tu'yeis, i. c, with the tone or accent
on the penult, in order to have an active sense. But this is not
necessary ; for Suidas defines Beoarvyeis (oxytone) by oi virb Beov
pvaovp-evoi, ko.1 ot Beov piaovvres. In the same manner Passow
gives the meaning of the word. That the active sense is here re
quired, the context clearly shows ; inasmuch as the vices of men
are here designated, not the punishment of them.* — Reproachful,
vj3piards, i. e., lacerating others by slanderous, abusive, passion
ate declarations. — Proud, vireprjcpdvovs, i. e., looking with disdain
upon others, and thinking highly of themselves. — Boasters, dXa£,6-
vas, i. e., glorying in that which does not belong to them, whether
wealth, learning, talents, or anything else. — Inventors of evil
things, e<pevperb.s KaKuiv. This doubtless refers to the inventions
in luxuries, vices, etc., which were constantly taking place in
the great cities of ancient times, where there was a competition
in pleasures among the wealthy. Disobedient to parents, yovevaiy
direiBels ; a vice exceedingly common among the heathen, multi
tudes of whom east out their parents, when they are old, to per
ish from hunger, or cold, or by the wild beasts. The accusative
cases, throughout this and the following verses, are all governed
by irapeSuiKev brought forward from verse 28.
(31) Inconsiderate, davverovs, or foolish ; compare verses 21,
22.  Covenant breakers, davvBerovs, perfidious. — Destitute of
natural afection, daropyovs. The writer probably refers here,
# It is doubtful whether this word can mean "haters of God ; " all clas
sical usa^e favors the meaning " hated of God." See Meyer, Riickert, De
Wette etc. The tone too should be on the final syllable.

58 ROMANS I. 32.
to the usual practices among the heathen of exposing young chil
dren to perish, when the parents had more of them than they
thought themselves able to maintain, or had such as they did not
wish'to take the trouble of bringing up. Tertullian (in Apolo-
getico) repeats this accusation against them in a tremendous
manner : " .... qui natos sibi liberos enecant . . . crudelius in
aqua spiritum extorquetis, aut frigori et fami et canibus exponi-
tis." — Implacable, do-TrdvSous, qui pactum non admittk. Some
manuscripts (A. B. D. E. G. et al.) omit the word ; but still its
authority does not seem fairly to be doubtful. This is a well-
known trait of the heathen character, exemplified in a most
striking manner by the Aborigines of this country. — Unmerciful,
dveker/povas, or destitute of compassion. What, for example, are
or were the provisions made for the poor and suffering, among
the heathen?
(32) Who knowing the ordinance of God, oinves .... eViyvov-
Tes. 'E7riyvdvres used like yvdvTes in ver. 21 ; where see re
marks. In Rom. ii. 14, 15, Paul asserts that ' the heathen who
have no written law (revelation), are a law to themselves, for
they give evidence that the requisitions of the divine law are
written upon their hearts.' He refers of course, in these and the
like expressions, to leading and principal traits of moral duty.
So in our text, when he speaks of the Gentiles as knowing God,
he means, that the disclosures made respecting God in the works
of nature, and respecting the duties which he demanded of them
in their own consciences or moral sense, were of such a kind as
fairly to give them an opportunity of knowing something respect
ing the great outlines of duty, and of rendering them inexcusable
for neglecting it.
Ordinance, to SiKaiuipa, or statute, precept. The Seventy em
ploy it often, in order to translate the Hebrew ph , eE'l_"c , ntx-: .
The use of SiKaiuipa in such a way, seems to be quite Hellenistic.
Suidas, however, defines it thus: SiKaiuipara ; vdpios, ivroXai.
Clear cases of usage in such a sense, are 1 Mace. i. 13.
7roieiv rd SiKaiuipara tuiv eBvwv, and Test. XII. Patriarch., iroieiv
™ SiKaiwpaTa Xvpiov, Kai viraKoveiv evroXas ©eoC; Fabric. Cod.
Pseudep. I. 603.
What the SiKaiuipa or ph is which the heathen knew or might
have known, is now declared, viz.. oti ot . . . . eio-tv, that they who
do such things [such as he had just been mentioning], are worthy
of death. As the affirmation here has respect to those who did
not enjoy the knowdedge of a written revelation, so death can
hardly be taken in the full and exact scriptural sense of the word ;
(on this sense, see the remarks on Rom. v. 12). It must, how
ever, be taken in a sense strictly analogous with this, viz., as

ROMANS I. 32. 59
meaning punishment, misery, suffering. The very nature of the
term implies this. That the word .Wdrou is, figuratively, not lit
erally employed here, is sufficiently plain from an inspection of the
catalogue of vices whieh the apostle had just named. Surely he
does not mean to say, that all of these deserved capital punish
ment from the civil magistrate in the literal sense ; and that this
was a case so plain, that the heathen themselves clearly
recognized it.
Since crimes in many cases are the result of a sudden impetus
of passion and temptation, in the midst of which men abandon re
flection, it requires, in the main, a higher degree of depravity
coolly to applaud and deliberately to justify and encourage wick
edness already committed or to be committed, than it does to com
mit it in the moment of excitement. Hence the apostle considers
this as the very climax of all the charges which he had to bring
against the heathen, that they not only plunged into acts of wick
edness, but had given their more deliberate approbation to such
doings. Not only do the same things, but even commend those who
do them, ov p.6vov .... irpdaaovai. It is often the case, that
wicked men, whose consciences have been enlightened, speak re
proachfully of others who practice such vices as they themselves
indulge in. Few profligate parents, for example, are willing
that their children should sustain the same character with them
selves. But when we find, as in some cases we may do, such
parents encouraging and applauding their children in acts of wick
edness, we justly consider it as evidence of the very highest kind
of depravity.
There is some variety in the readings of the MSS. and
Version, as to eViyvdvres, but not enough to render its authority
doubtful. It is of such depravity as this, that the apostle accuses the
heathen. And justly; for even their philosophers and the best
educated among them, stood chargeable with such an accusation.
For example ; both the Epicureans and the Stoics allowed and
defended iraiSepaaria and incest, numbering these horrid crimes
among the dSid<£opa, things indifferent. Aristotle and Cicero
justify revenge. Aristotle (Polit. I. 8) represents war upon
barbarous nations to be nothing more than a species of hunting,
and as altogether justifiable. The same writer justifies forcible
abortion, Polit. VII. 16. Otlier philosophers represent virtue
and vice as the mere creatures of statute and arbitrary custom ;
or (to use the words of Justin) they maintain, p.T?Sev eTvai dperrjv
p,r;Se KaKiav, Sdfjj Se p,dvov toijs dvBpunrovs ij dya^a rj KaKa TaOra
¦qyeiaBai, that there is nothing either virtuous or vicious, but that
things are made good or evil merely by the force of opinion.

60 ROMANS I. 32.
This is sufficient to justify the declaration of the apostle ; for
if philosophers thought and reasoned thus, what must the common
people have done, who were more exclusively led by their appe
tites and passions ? The picture is, indeed, a dreadful one ; it is
truly revolting in every sense of the word. But that it is just,
nay, that it actually comes short of the real state of things, particu
larly on the score of impurity and cruelty, there cannot be the
least doubt on the part of any man who is acquainted with the
ancient state of the heathen world, and of Rome in particular.
Poets, philosophers, and historians, have confirmed the words of
Paul ; and the relics of ancient cities in Italy, (in pictures, carv
ings, statues, etc.) — cities destroyed near the time when the apos
tle lived — bear most ample testimony to what he has said of their
laseiviousness and shameless profligacy. One has only to add,
with the deepest distress, that in many of the great cities or coun
tries called Christian, there is fearful reason to believe that there
are abominations practised in various respects, which even exceed
any inventions- of heathen depravity. How often is one obliged
to exclaim with the apostle, 7rape'Sa>Kev avrovs b ©eo's ! The evi
dence of this lies in more than beastly degradation.
It is hardly necessary to repeat here that Paul does not mean
to assert of every individual among the heathen, that he stood
chargeable with each and every crime here specified. This is
impossible. He means only to say, that these and the like vices
(for surely they were guilty of many others), were notorious and
common among the heathen ; and that every individual capable
of sinning, philosophers and common people, stood chargeable, in
a greater or less degree, with some of them. In this way he
makes out a part of his main proposition, viz. that all men are
under sin ; consequently that all are in a lost condition, or in a
stale of condemnation. These declarations being established, it
follows of course that all men need a Saviour, and can be delivered
from the curse of the divine law, only by means of atoning blood,
which procures gratuitous pardon for them.
That the apostle has been here describing the heathen, is clear
from verses 20 — 23, where all that is said applies in its proper "
force only to them.
That the heathen had a moral sense, is clear from Rom. ii. 14, -
15. One may even suppose it to be probable that some of them
did to a certain extent, obey this internal law ; at least, we may
well suppose that they could obey it. This seems to be implied "
in Rom. ii. 26, and perhaps in Acts x. 36. It is on this basis -
that the apostle grounds his charges of guilt against them. They
knew, at least they might have known, that what they did was
against the law of nature, against their consciences, against their

ROMANS I. 32. 61
internal persuasion with respect to right and wrong. Consequently
they were verily guilty in the sight of God ; not for transgressing
the precepts of a revelation never made known to them, but for
violating a law that was within them, and shutting their eyes
against the testimony of the natural world. Most clearly and
fully does the apostle recognize and teach all this, Rom. ii. 12 —
16, 26, 27. Consequently no one can accuse God of injustice,
because he blames and condemns the heathen ; for he makes the
law which was known to them the measure of their blame and
condemnation (Rom. ii. 12, seq.), and not a revelation with which
they were not acquainted.
It is clear then that the Gentiles need a Saviour ; it is equally
clear that they need gratuitous justification, and that they must per
ish without such a provision for them. It remains then to be seen,
whether the same things can be established with respect to the Jews.
On the method of establishing the declaration which the apostle
makes concerning the depravity of the Gentiles, it may be proper
here to add a single remark. He goes into no formal argument.
In the passage which we have been considering, he does not even
appeal (as he sometimes does, Tit. i. 12), to the testimony of their
own writers. The ground of this must be, that facts were plain,
palpable, well known, and acknowledged by all. In particular,
he was well assured that the Jewish part of his readers would
call in question none of the allegations which he made in relation
to the vices of the Gentiles. There was no need, therefore, of
any more formal proof on the pregent occasion. We shall see
that the writer occupies more time, and makes greater effort, to
confirm his declarations respecting the Jews.
Reiche, in his recent Commentary (p. 173 seq.), labors to
show, that the giving over of the heathen to their lusts, etc., must
mean an active hardening of them, or demoralization of them on
the part of God. This, however, he does not consider as the
apostle's real opinion, but only his argument KaT dvBpunrov, i. e.,
in conformity with the Jewish prejudices and modes of argument
in respect to the heathen. In like manner he considers the crim
inality which the apostle attaches to idol- worship, in verses 21 —
25, to be an allegation Kar dvBpurrrov. One is pained to meet
with not a few remarks of this nature, in a work as valuable in
many respects as the Commentary of this writer is. What means
the second commandment? And what, all the zeal testified
through the Old Test, against the sin of idol-worship ? And how
was the apostle to convict the Gentiles at Rome, by employing a
mere KaT dvBpuiirov, Jewish opinion or prejudice, as an argument
against them ? Neither the frankness, the sincerity, nor the good
sense of the apostle, will permit me to accede to such sentiments.
6

62 ROMANS II. 1.

CHAP. IL 1—29.
The apostle, having thus concluded his short but very significant view of the hea
then world, now turns to address his own nation, the Jews, in order to show them
that they stood in need ofthe mercy proffered by the Gospel, as really and as much
as the Gentiles. But this he does not proceed to do at once, and by direct address.
He first prepares the way by illustrating and enforcing the general proposition, that
all who have a knowledge of what is right, and approve of it, but yet sin against it,
are as really guilty as those who are so blinded as not to see the loveliness and excel
lence of virtue, and who at the same time transgress its precepts. This he does in
verses 1—8; in which, although he had the Jews constantly in mind, he still advances
only general propositions, applicable in common to them and to others; thus pre
paring the way, with great skill and judgment, for a more effectual charge to be
made specifically against the Jews, in the sequel of his discourse.
The words of Turretin (Expos, Epist. Pauli ad Rom. in cap. II.) are in point here :
" Postquam ostendisset apostolus epistolse sua? capite primo, Gentes ex propriis ope
ribus justificari non potuisse, eo quod deploratissimus eorum status esset; idem jam
Judaiis capite II. demonstrare aggreditur. Verum id facit dextre nee mediocri so-
lertia, statim ne nominatis quidem Judseis, positisque generalibus principiis, quorum
veritatem et equitatem negare non poterant; quo facto, sensim eorum mentiouem
injicit ; tandemque directe eos compellat, vividaque et pathetica oratione eorum con
scientiam pungit, facitque ut de propriis peccatis voleutes noleutes conviucantur.
Et in his quidem omnibus, deprimit supercilium Judaeorum, qui caeteras gentes
summo contemptu habebant, iisque se longe meliores et Deo acceptiores gloriaban-
tur. At vero, non negatis Judseorum ad cognitionem quod adtinet pnerogativis,
ostendit eos, ad mores quod spectat, qua; pars est religionis longe pra;cipua, Genti
bus haudquaquam meliores fuisse, proindeque Dei judicio et damnationi haud minus
obnoxios fore "
Iu verses 9 — 16, tho apostle shows that the Jews must be accountable to God as
really and truly, for the manner in which they treat the precepts contained in the
Scriptures, as the heathen for the manner in which they demean themselves with
respect, to the law of nature; and that each must be judged, at last, according to the
means of grace and improvement which he has enjoyed.
In verses 17—29 he advances still farther, and makes a direct reference to the Jews.
He shows here, that those who sin against higher degrees of knowledge imparted by
revelation, must be more guilty than those who have offended merely against the
laws of nature; i. c, he plainly teaches the doctrine, that guilt is proportioned to the
light and love that have been manifested, and yet been abused. The very precedence
in knowledge, of which the Jews were so proud and so prone to boast, the apostle
declares to be a ground of greater condemnation, in case those who possessed it sin
ned against it; a doctrine consonant as truly with reason aud conscience, as it ia
with the declarations of the Scriptures; compare Johu iii. 19. xv, 22—24. ix. 41.
(1) Therefore thou art without excuse, 0 man, every one that
condemneth, or whosoever thou art that condemnsih, Sio . . . .
KptVcov. — Aio is made up of Sta and 6, and we cannot avoid the
conclusion that the word is, in its own proper nature, illative.^
To my own mind, the connection appears to be thus : ' Since it
will be conceded, that those who know the ordinances of God
against such vices as have been named, and still practise them
and applaud others for doing so, are worthy of punishment ; it
follows (Sto, therefore) that all who are so enlightened as to dis
approve of such crimes, and who still commit them, are even yet

EOMANS II. 1. Go
more worthy of punishment.' The apostle here takes the ground,
that those who were so enlightened and instructed by revelation
as to condemn the vices in question, would of course sin against
motives of a higher kind than those which influenced the heathen
who were possessed of less light. It must be conceded, indeed, that
avvevSoKovai in i. 32 is designed to aggravate the description of
the guilt which the heathen incurred, (and in fact it does so); yet
it will not follow, that the sin of these heathen would not have
been still greater, had they enjoyed such light from revelation, as
would have led them fully to condemn those very sins in their
own consciences, while they yet practised them. The main point,
in the present chapter, seems to stand connected principally with
the greater or less light as to duty. The heathen with less light
went so far in vice as even to approve and applaud it, as well as
to practise it; the Jew with more light was led irresistibly, as it
were, to condemn such sins, but with all this light, and against all
the remonstrances of his conscience, he violated the same precepts
which the heathen violated. Now what the apostle would sa}r, is,
that he who sins while he possesses light enough to condemn the
vice which he practises, is really and truly guilty, as well as ho
who sins while approving it. He takes it for granted that his
readers will concede the point which he has asserted respecting
the guilt ofthe heathen; hence he draws the inference (Sto), that
on the like grounds they must condemn every one, who, like the
Jew, sins against the voice of his conscience and against his better
knowledge. In like manner Flatt makes out the connection of Sto' here :
" Aid, because thou knowest to SiKaiuipa rov ®eov ; because thou
knowest, that according to the divine decision they arc worthy
of punishment who practise such vices ; because thou thyself do-t
acknowledge this SiKaiuipa ®eov, so thou canst not excuse thyself
for committing the like sins." lias 6 Kplvuiv is indeed a general
proposition : but this is plainly a matter of intention on tlie part
of the writer. He means to include the Jews in it ; but at the
same time he commences his remarks on them in this general
way for the very purpose of approaching gradually and in an in
offensive manner the ultimate point which he has in view.
For wherein (i. e., in respect to what) thou condemnest another,
thou passest sentence of condemnation upon thyself, iv <5 yap ....
KaraKpiveis ; or, in condemning another, thou passest sentence on
thyself. — 'Ev <S, in respect t'o, with reference to; it might be
translated, because that, iua&much as, like the Hebrew irxa . The
idea then would be : ' For the very act of condemning another, is
passing sentence upon thyself.' The former explanation is pre
ferable : ' Thou who condemnest, dost pass sentence on thyself in

64 ROMANS II. 2.
respect to the very point which is the subject of condemnation ; '
i. e., thou, who condemnest the practice of the vices just named,
inasmuch as thou practisest the very same vices, dost come
under thine own condemnation. Xpivui may here, as oftentimes,
have the same sense substantially as KaraKpivui ; compare Matt.
vii. 1. Luke vi. 37. Eom. xiv. 3, 4, 10, 13, 22. 1 Cor. iv. 5. Col.
ii. 16; or we may render the passage thus : ' With that [sentence]
which thou dost pass,' or 'while thou passest sentence ' (ev wivhile,
Mark ii. 19. Luke v. 3. John v. 7), viz. on the heathen, 'thou dost
condemn thyself.'
The yap in this clause is yap illustrantis vel confirmantis ; for
the sentiments which follow are designed to show, that 7ras 6 Kpivuiv
is inexcusable, inasmuch as he stands chargeable himself with the
very crimes which he censures in others.
Since thou ivho condemnest, doest the same things, to. ydp .... 6
Kpivuiv. The apostle asserts this, and leaves it to the conscience
of his readers to bear witness to the truth of it, and to make the
application. As in the case where the woman taken in adultery
was brought before the Saviour, and he said toher accusers: "He
that is without sin, let him cast the first stone," and all withdrew
because of conscious guilt ; so here, the apostle says : ' Every one
who condemns the heathen for the crimes specified, [he was well
aware that the Jews did this with a loud voice], condemns him
self, because he is guilty of the like vices.' No arguments or
testimony was necessary here, for Paul knew that the consciences
of his readers would at once bear witness to the truth of his alle
gations. He therefore leaves it to their consciences. But still,
external testimony to the facts alleged is not wanting. That the
Jews of this period were grossly corrupt, is certain from the
accusations which Jesus so often brought against them, as recorded
in the Gospels. We may make the appeal to Josephus also,
and in particular to the description which he gives of Herod and
his courtiers.
(2) For we know that the judgment of God is according to
truth, against those ivho do such things, o'iSapev Se . . . . irpdaaovras.
Ae' may be occasionally a proper and simple continuative of dis
course; but such a sense without some indication of diversity or
antithesis, is not usually to be attached to it. Not unfrequently
it assumes the place of a casual particle, and is equivalent to ydp;
not because Se of itself has the same signification as ydp, but be
cause it connects sentences, or parts of sentences, whieh have a
causal relation. ' In such cases it may be translated for, since,'
etc. Here I take the connection of thought to be simply this :
'Thou art without excuse, who,' etc  ?. e., thou shalt not
escape condemnation, 'for we know that the judgment of God'

EOMANS II. 3. 65
etc. Reiche gives Se an adversative sense ; and to do so, he
makes the sentiment opposed to be the supposition that 'God
would not judge men.' But the preceding context docs not supply
this ; and the above method of interpretation, which is grounded
on the context, is more simple and obvious, and is equally con
formed to idiom. — Kpipa ©eoS means sentence of condemnation, on
the part of God, ®eov being Genitivus auctoris. — Kara dArjBeiav
may (1) be taken (as usual in the classics) for truly, verily ; i. e.,
just in the same sense as ovrcos, dXrjBuis. This would make a good
meaning in our verse ; but not the best. (2) It may mean the
same as Kara SiKaioavvnv, agreeably to justice, inasmuch as dXqBeia
often means vera religionis doctrina, vera atque salutaris doctrina,
etc. So Beza, Tholuck, and others. (3) A better sense still
seems to be, agreeably to the real state of things, in accordance
with truth as it respects the real character sustained by each in
dividual. The sentiment then is : 'Think not to escape the
judgment of God, thou who condemnest the vices of the heathen,
and yet dost thyself practise them ; whatever thy claims to the
divine favor on account of thy birth or thy spiritual advantages
may be, remember that the judgment of God will be according to
the true state of the case, according to the real character which
thou dost sustain.'
Such things, Ta roiavra, viz. such as he had just been mention
ing.* Observe that the apostle does not accuse the 7ras 6 Kpivuiv
here of the very same thing in all respects ; nor is it to be under
stood, that every individual among the Jews, or even that any
one, was chargeable with each and every vice which he had
named. Enough that any one or more of these vices might be
justly charged on all. And even if it could be said, that there
might be individuals who gave no external proofs to men that
they were guilty of any of these vices ; there certainly were none
who were not more or less guilty, in the sense in which our
Saviour declares in his Sermon on the Mount that men may
be guilty of murder and adultery, i. r., spiritually, internally,
mentally. (3) Dost thou think this, then, 0 man, who condemnest those
that do such things, and doest the very same things, that thou shalt
escape the judgment of God? Aoyity Si ... . ®eov. Ae' being in
its proper nature adversative, it is very naturally employed in
replies, answers, or questions which are designed to be in opposi
tion to something which another may have said, or may be sup
posed to cherish in his thoughts. It gives energy to the reply in
* See a similar use of ra. roiavra in Class. Greek, e. g. Xen. Meraorab.
I. 5. 2. 6*

66 EOMANS II. 4.
Greek ; but it cannot always be translated into our own idiom,
whose particles are often so insignificant compared with the
Greek ones. In the present case, it must be rendered then, which
makes the sentence in English approach very near toTfte ener
getic form of the Greek.
The sense of the verse appears to be as follows : ' Thou who
condemnest others for vicious indulgences and still dost thyself
practise the same, dost thou suppose, that while they cannot
escape thy condemning sentence, thou canst escape the sentence
of him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity ? ' Well has
Chrysostom paraphrased it : to aov oiK i£e(j>vyes Kpipa, Kai to tov
®eov Sia4>ev£-n ; thou hast not escaped thine own condemnation;
and shalt thou escape that of God? *
(4) Or dost thou despise (treat with contempt) his abounding
goodness, and forbearance, and long suffering, ij tov .... «aTa-
<ppoveh ; The word irXovros is often employed by Paul in order to
designate abunaance, copiousness ; e. g., Eph. i. 7. ii. 7. i. 18. iii. 16.
Rom. ix. 23. xi. 33, et alibi. The Seventy frequently employ it
to translate "an and b*ft . Here ttAoijtoxi supplies the place of an
adjective, and means abundant or abounding; comp. Heb.
Gramm. § 440. b. Kindness, benignity, xPV(r!"°'rVTOi- Holding
in, dvoxfis, i. c, checking or restraining indignation, forbearing to
manifest displeasure against sin. MaKpoBvpids, longanimitas,
c^qs ""is, slowness to anger, forbearance to punish. Both words
(dvo^iys, and paKpoBvpias) are of nearly the same import, and
serve, as synonymes thus placed usually do, to give intensity to
the expression. The meaning is as if the apostle had said : ' De
spisest thou his abounding kindness and distinguished forbearance
to punish ? ' The apostle means to say here, that all the distin
guished goodness which the 6 Kpivuiv enjoyed, in consequence of
his superior light, was practically neglected and contemned by
him, inasmuch as he plunged into the same vices which the igno
rant heathen practised.
Not acknowledging that the goodness of God leadeth thee to
repentance, dyvocov .... dyei. 'Ayvoulv in the sense of not recog
nizing or acknowledging. TivuiaKui and the Hebrew Sit often
mean to recognize, to acknowledge ; as may be seen in the lexi
cons. — To xP'ja-To'v, i. q., ^prjo-TOTTjs, by a common usage of the
Greek tongue; compare to yvaiordv in i. 19. — "Ayei, leads; but
as verbs often designate a tendency towards the action which
they usually designate, as well as the specific action itself, so here
the tendency or fitness to accomplish the end is designated ; com-
* The apostle seems to have in mind here the feeling; of the Jews that
only the Gentiles were to be judged under the Messianic rein-n whilst all
Israel should be treated as children, See Meyer's Comm.

EOMANS II. 5. 67
pare John v. 21, iyeipei, has the power or faculty to raise up ;
luioiroiei, has the power of giving life ; Rom. i. 21,yvdvTes, haviug
opportunity to know. The sentiment is, that the goodness of God
which the 6 Kpivuiv enjoys in a peculiar manner, and which is
manifested so highly in his forbearance to punish, is intended to
teach him gratitude for God's blessings, and of course sorrow (perd-
voiav) for his offences in respect to that course of conduct which
such a principle would dictate. Let the reader compare, for the
sake of deeply impressing on his mind so important and striking
a sentiment, the passages in 2 Pet. iii. 9. Ezek. xviii. 23, 32.
xxxiii. 11.
(5) According to thine obstinacy, however, and impenitent heart,
or according to thy hard and impenitent heart, KaTa Se . . . . Kap-
Siav. With Se' the antithesis is sometimes implied merely, by
what is said in the context, and not expressed. Here I take the
antithetic sentiment to be : " Thou art indeed hoping to escape
the judgment of God, but instead of this thou art heaping up
treasures of wrath," etc. * Ae', here rendered however, naturally
refers back to ver. 3, and is properly adversative to the thought
which the impenitent man cherishes. %KXgp6rrjs means insensi
bility of heart or mind, a state in which one is not duly affected
by considerations presented to his mind. — 'Ap-eTavdijTov KapSiav
means a heart not so affected as to sorrow for sin, through the
goodness of God which is designed to produce such an effect. It
is by such spiritual insensibility or stupidity, that a sinner is ag
gravating his condemnation; so the next clause.
Thou art treasuring up for thyself wrath in the clay of wrath,
when the righteous judgment of God shall be revealed, B-qaavpi^eis
.... rov ®eov. ®rjaavpit,eis, to treasure up, i. e., to lay up in
store, to accumulate, to increase. In the choice of this term,
there is a tacit reference of the mind to the preceding rod irXovrov
Trjs xP7l<TT°TrlT0'i > — Seaurco, for thyself, Datiyus incommodi (as
grammarians say); compare Rom. xiii. 2. Matt, xxiii. 31. James
v. 3. See N. Test. Gramm. § 104. 2, Note 1. — 'Opyqv, wrath,
includes also the punishment which is the natural consequence
of wrath. A day of punishment is called, in the Old Testament,
tfnia Dii , di't oii , flu".* C)X nii , i. e., a day when the displeasure
of Jehovah is manifested.
In the day of indignation, or punishment, iv rjpepa bpyrjs, i. e.,
bpyrjv [ttjv iaopevqv\ iv rjpepq. bpyrjs, indignation that will be shown
* Is it not better here with De Wette and Meyer to consider Se as strictly
adversative^nd introducing the contrast of the preceding clause : on — ayeil
The goodness of God leads (i e. this is its object and natural effect unre
sisted) thee to repentance, but in accordance with thine obstinacy and im
penitent heart, thou art, etc.

68 EOMANS II. 6, 7.
or executed, etc. — Kai drroKaXvij/euis /cat SiKaioKpiaias may be taken
as a Hendiadys, and rendered of revealed righteous judgment.
The meaning is: 'When God's righteous judgment shall be
revealed, i. «., in the great day of judgment.' Griesbach, with a.
majority of MSS., omits the second Kai; which makes the reading
more facile.
(6) Who will render to every man according to his works, os
diroSuiaei .... airov, i. e., who will make retribution to every
man, according to the tenor of his conduct. "Epya means here, as
often elsewhere, all the developments which a man makes of him
self, whether by outwardor inward actions ; compare John vi. 27.
Rev. xiv. 13. xxii. 12. The word is indeed more commonly
used to designate something done externally ; but it is by no means
confined to this sense. Thus epya vopov means any work which
the law demands ; epya ®eov means such tvorks as God requires ;
and in cases of this nature it will not be said, I trust, that God
and his law do not require anything but external works. Many
theories respecting future reward, have been made from this
verse. The apprehension that Paul here contradicts salvation by
grace, and makes it to depend on the merit of works, has no
good foundation. The good tvorks oi the regenerate are imper
fect. No man loves God with all his heart and his neighbor as
himself. But there is some real goodness in the works of the
truly sanctified ; and this will be rewarded, imperfect as it is, not
on the ground of law (which would demand entire perfection), but
on the ground of grace, which can consistently reward imperfect
good works. Thus the grace oi the gospel and the reward here
promised to good works, are altogether consistent. But those
who remain impenitent and unbelieving, stand simply on law-
ground as to acceptance, and must therefore be punished according
to the measure of their sins.
(7) To those who by patient continuance or perseverance in
well-doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, or immor
tal glory and honor, [he will render] eternal life or happiness,
tois pev .... aiuiviov. — Mev has its corresponding Se' in v. 8., in
troducing a contrast.' — 'Yiropevyv means perseverance or patient
continuance. — Kara, before the Accusative, frequently designates
the modus in which anything is done, or the state and condition
in which it is; e.g., Kara rd£iv, Kara tfjXov, Kara yvuiaiv, etc. 
"Epyou here has the epithet dya^oC, in order to distinguish it from
the generic epya used in the preceding verse. — Ao'fav Kai nam/
Kai dcpBapalav is cumulative or intensive ; ?'. e., it expresses hap
piness or glory of the highest kind. We may translate the
phrase thus : immtortal glory and honor, making dcpBapaiov an
adjective ; or we may render it, glorious and honorable immor-

ROMANS II. 8. 69
tality, or honorable and immortal glory. The idea is substantially
the same in all; but the first seems most congruous as to the
method of expression. The joining of Tip-r; and Sofa in order to
express intensity, is agreeable to a usage which is frequent in the
New Testament ; e. g., 1 Tim. i. 17. Heb. ii. 7, 9. 2 Pet. i. 17.
Apoc. iv. 9, 11. So the Hebrew, inni lin.
The interpretation given above is the usual one, for substance,
adopted by the great body of the commentators. But some pre
fer the following arrangement : tois p.ev [d-/ToS<ocrei], koB' viropev-qv
epyov dyaBov, Sdfav /cat ripijv Kai drpBapaiav, tflrovai itfnijv aicoviov,
i. e., ' to those [will he render], according to their perseverance
in well-doing, glory and honor and immortality, [even to those
who] seek eternal life.' But when it is said in defence of this,
that it is incongruous to speak of seeking glory, and honor, and
immortality, and therefore t,-qrovai must be joined with £g_-I)v alui-
viov, I acknowledge myself incapable of perceiving the weight of
the argument. What is glory, but future happiness ? What is
honor, but the divine approbation? And what is immortality,
but the perpetuity of these ? And what is there more incongruous
in seeking these, than in seeking 'Cuiijv aicoviov ? kqreiv, means to
labor for, earnestly lo desire, to strive for with effort ; and all
this the Christian certainly may and must do, in respect to glory,
and honor, and immortality. The suggestion, that ' to seek after
immortality would have no sense, because we are and must be
immortal,' does not apply in this case ; for it is not after immor
tality simply considered that we are to seek, but after an immor
tality of glory and honor. Besides, there is such an unnatural
chasm between tois and i,rjTovai, in case we adopt this interpreta
tion, as should be admitted only from a necessity, which does not
here exist.
(8) But to those who are contentious, tois Se ef ipiBeias- The
Genitive of a noun with e/c (iij) is often employed as an adjective
in designating some particular description of persons or things.
Thus o ef ovpavov = oipdvios ; rj iK cpvaeuis, natural ; tov iK iria
reuis, credens ; 6 cf vpuiv, yours ; ot e/c irepiToprjs, the circumcised ;
so the classical oi eK arods, etc. The objections against such a
sense of ef, have no good foundation. The apostle means here to
designate those who contend against God, or rebel against him.
The°Seventy use ipeBi(ui in order to translate n'na , Deut. xxi. 20.
xxxi. 27. What it means, moreover, is explained in the next
clause by a7ret^ouo-t. The derivation of ipiBeias from epi^edco, to
work in wool, to make parties, etc., is quite unnatural. It doubt
less comes from epis, ipeBi'Cui, as the sense of the word in the N.
Test, clearly shows.*
¦ * The derivation of this word from eji&os or ipiSteim seems now to be

70 EOMANS II. 9.
And are disobedient to the truth but obedient to unrighteousness,
/cat direiBovai .... dSi/cia. Here (in a subordinate member of
the apodosis oi the sentence begun in verse 7) is a second pev
which is protatic, and another Se' apodotic. The contrast of the
two respective clauses in which they stand, is made very plain by
d7rei5ovo-i and ireiBopevois. We have no words capable of desig
nating such nice shades of relation as pev and Se' signify here, and
in like cases ; although they are very plain and significant to the
practised critic. I have not in this case attempted an exact
translation, the nearest to the original that I am able to come,
is as follows : even those who disobey indeed the truth, but
obey unrighteousness. How imperfect an exhibition this is
of the nicer coloring of the Greek expression, every one
must feel who has " Sid ttjv efiv to. alaB-qr-qpia yeyvpvaapeva irpos
SiaKpiaiv." 'AX-qBeia here means true doctrine. As the proposition of the
apostle is general here, i. e., as it respects all, whether Jews or
Gentiles, who disobey the precepts of religion and morality, so
dXrjBeia. must be taken in a latitude that embraces the truth of
both natural and revealed religion. 'ASi/ci'a, as in i. 18, the an
tithesis of dXrjBeia, means that which is unrighteous, that zvhich
the truth forbids.
Indignation and wrath, bpyrj _cai Bvpos. Ammonius says :
Bvpos is of short duration, but bpyrj is a long-continued remem
brance of evil. These words do not seem, however, to be used
here with any specific difference, both meaning excitement, the
feeling of strong excitement, indignation, etc., but tlie accumula
tion of synonymous terms, as often, is intensive. The construc
tion of these nouns in the Nominative case, is an evident depar
ture from the structure in the preceding verse, (called by Gram
marians dvaKoXvBov) where t,uirjv aluiviov is in the Accusative
governed by d?roSojo-ei understood. Here bpyrj Kai Bvpos are the
Nominative to arovTat implied.
(!)) ®Xii]/is Kai arevoxuipia are in the same construction as bpyrj
Kai Bvpos, i. e., with eWai understood, and designate the effect of
the latter. The meaning is, intense anguish, great suffering.
These two words, used in the way of expressing intense suffering,
are often joined by classic writers ; and so in Hebrew we have
!",£"2'] iT?s Is. xxx. 6. The literal sense of the words, according
generally acknowledged, although formerly Prof. S. and others derived it
from ipis, strife. But sueh passages as 2 Cor. 12:20; Gal 5:20, where
ip&ita is distinguished from ifp.s, oppose this derivation. Alford and some
others understand it here in accordance with the first meaning of lhe word
epiSteioi, ns signifying •' sdf-seeh'nr, ;" but perhaps the apostle rather intends
to designate that opposition to God whieh is the result of self-scekino-

EOMANS II. 10 — 12. 71
to their etymology, would be pressure and narrowness or want of
room (the former objective and the latter subjective); hut the
literal sense is abandoned, and the tropical one here employed.
The ninth verse is a repetition of the general sentiment contained
in ver 8 ; while the 10th verse repeats the sentiment of verse 7.
This repetition, however, is evidently not merely for the sake of
emphasis, but with the design of making a specific application of
the threatening to all classes, both Jews and Gentiles.
Upon every soul of man, iirl irdaav i/m^v dv$pco7rou, i. <¦., upon
every man. In Hebrew, the soul of the righteous, of the wicked,
etc., means the righteous, the wicked, etc. So here, the soul of
man means man ; i. e., by metonymy, a leading or conspicuous
part of man, is put for the whole person. — First of the Jew, and
then of the Greek, 'lovSaiov .... "EXXvvos, i. e., the Jew, to
whom a revelation has been imparted, shall be judged and
punished first in order, because he sustains a peculiar relation
to revealed truth which calls for this; compare i. 16. Here the
apostle openly shows, that what he had been thus far saying only
in general terms, is applicable to Jews as well as to Greeks.
(10) But glory, and honor, and peace, lo every one who doeth
good, first to tlie Jew, and then to the Greek, Sofa Se . . . ."EXX-qvi.
That is, both threatenings and rewards are held out to the Jews
and Greeks, in the same manner, and on the same condition.
This verse is a repetition of verse 7, with the addition of 'IouSai'ou
tc irpuirov Kai "EXXtjvos. But here elp-qv-q is substituted for dcfiBap-
aiav there. 'Elp-qv-q may be considered as the opposite of that
enmity and disquietude in which unsanctified men are involved, as
it respects God. Intensity of affirmation is intended here, as in the
preceding verse.
(11) For with God there is no partiality, or no respect of per
sons, oiydp .... ©eu>. The Hebrew d*2S Nb3 means to deal par
tially, to look not at things, hut at persons, and pass sentence ac
cordingly. The phrases 7rpdrrco7rov XapfSdveiv or j3Xeireiv, and also
irpoaunroXij\fiia, are entirely Hebraistic in their origin ; the classic
writers never employ them. The apostle here explicitly declares,
that there is no difference in regard to the application of the gen
eral principle which he had laid down, the Jew as well as the
Greek being the proper subject of it. The ydp at the beginning
of the verse is ydp confirmantis.
(12) A confirmation or explanation of what he had just said in
the preceding verse ; for if God judges every man according to
the advantages which he has enjoyed, then there is no partially
in his proceedings ; and that he does, the present verse explicitly
declares. Since as many as have sinned without a revelation, shall perish

72 ROMANS II. 13, 14.
without a revelation, baoi yap .... d7roXo5vTai. Ndp.os, like the
Hebrew nnin, often means the Scriptures, the revealed law ; e.g.,
Matt. xii. 5. xxii. 36. Luke x. 26. John viii. 5, 17. 1 Cor. xiv. 21.
Gal. iii. 10. Matt. v. 18. Luke xvi. 17. John vii. 49, et alibi.
Here most plainly it means the revealed law, revelation, or the
Scriptures; for verse 15 asserts directly that the heathen were
not destitute of all law, but only of an express revelation. The
classical sense of dvdp,cos would be unlawfully, = irapavopuis. But
plainly this meaning is here out of question. 'Avopuis diroXovvrai
means, that, when adjudged to be punished, they shall not be tried
by the precepts of a revealed law with which they have never been
acquainted, but by the precepts of the law of nature which were
written on their own hearts; see verse 15.
And so many as have sinned under revelation, will be con
demned by revelation, koX baoi .... KpiBrjaovrai. Here vbpos is
employed in the sense pointed out in the preceding paragraphs.
i'Ev vdp.ii), in a state of law, i. e., of revealed law or revelation,
' with ev conditionis, as we may call it ; for ev is often put before
nouns designating the state, condition, or relation of persons or
things ; see Bretschn. Lex. ev, No. 5. It is equivalent to ewopoi,
1 Cor. ix. 21, vopov exovra, Rom. ii. 14. The sentiment is, that
those who enjoyed the light of revelation (as the Jews had done)
would be condemned by the same revelation, in case they had
been transgressors. The oo-oi employed in this verse is of the
most general signification = quicunque ; oinves would have a rela
tive and limited sense.
(13) This declaration is followed by another which is designed
j to illustrate and^cemfirm it, and which is therefore introduced with
another ydfrT"For not those who hear the law are just with God,
but those who obey the law shall be justified, oi ydp .... SiKaioiBrj-
aovrai, i. e., not those to whom a revelation has been imparted,
and who hear it read, are counted as righteous by their Maker
and Judge, but those who obey the law shall be counted righ
teous. The apostle here speaks of oi aKpoarai rov vopov, with
reference to the public reading of the Scriptures every Sabbath
day. The sentiment is : ' Not those who merely enjoy the exter
nal privilege of a revelation, but those who obey the .precepts of
such a revelation, have any just claim to divine approbation.
(14) To this sentiment the apostle seems to have anticipated
that objections would be. made. He goes on to solve them, or
rather to prevent them by anticipation. He had said that Jew
and Gentile, without distinction, would come under condemnation
for disobedience to the divine law, and also be rewarded for obe
dience (verses 9 10); he had declared that there is no partiality
with God, and that all would be judged by the precepts of lavv

ROM ANS II. 14. 73
(verses 11, 12) ; he had intimated that those who were the hearers
of the law (the Jews) would not on that account be accepted, but
only those who obey it. It was natural now for some objector to
say : ' The Gentiles have no revelation or law ; and therefore
this statement cannot be applied to them, or this supposition can
not be made in relation to them.' The answer to this is, that the
Gentiles have a law as really and truly as the Jews, although it
is not written on parchment, but on the tablets of their hearts.
That verse 14 is designed to illustrate the fact, that the
Gentiles are under a law, in the same manner as verse 13 (oi
dicpoarat tou vopov) is designed to show that the Jews are under a
law, there seems to be no good reason to doubt. The yap then in -
verse 14, is yap illustrantis et confirmantis.
An objection to this has often been made, viz., that in this way
we may represent the apostle as affirming, that there were some
of the heathen who did so obey the law as to be just before God.
But the apostle no more here represents the heathen as actually
attaining to this justification, than he represents the Jew as actu
ally attaining to it in verse 13. Surely he does not mean to say
in verse 13, that there are any Jews who are actually iroi-qral tov
vopov in .the sense which he attaches to this phrase ; compare
chap. iii. 19, 20, 23, 27, 30, 31. He is merely illustrating a
principle, in both cases. The Jew expected justification on ac
count of his external advantages. ' No,' says the apostle, ' this is
impossible ; nothing but entire obedience to the divine law will
procure justification for you, so long as you stand merely on your
own ground. And here the heathen may make the like claims.
If you say that a heathen man has no law, because he has no
revelation ; still I must insist that he is in as good a condition
with respect to actual justification, as you Jews are ; for although
he has no Scripture (and in this respect, no law), yet he has au
internal revelation inscribed on his heart, which is a rule of life
to him, and which, if perfectly obeyed, would confer justification
on him, as well and as truly as entire obedience to the written
law could confer it upon you. The principle is the same in both
cases. You can claim no pre-eminence in this respect.'
If it is understood that the apostle is only laying down, or illus
trating a principle here, not relating a historical fact ; all diffi
culty about the sentiment of the passage is removed. Certainly
there is no more difficulty in ver. 14, than must arise in regard
to the ironjTal tov vop.ov of ver. 13. The writer means to say
neither more nor less, than that the Gentiles may have the same
kind of claims to be actually justified before God as the Jews
(which of course has an important bearing on ver. 11); but, as
the sequel shows most fully, neither Jew nor Gentile has any
7

74 ROMANS il. 15.
claim at all ta justification, since both have violated the law under
which they have lived.
Do in their natural state such things as revelation requires,
<pvaei .... iroifj. Qvais, in a classical sense, means the nature or
natural state oi a thing, the natural condition of any thing ; just
in the same way as we use the word nature in our own language ;
e. q., the Greeks said 6 Kara cpvaiv Bdvaros, natural death ; b Kara
(pvaiv irar-qp, natural father ; <jivaiv exei yeveaBai, it naturally hap
pens, etc. In the verse before us, <£vcrei is equivalent to prj vopov
exovra ; i. e., it designates those who were acquainted with the
precepts of natural religion only, and were destitute of special
revelation. The dative case (c/>u'o-ei), here, as often, expresses
the state or condition of anything ; i. e., Dativus conditionis. As
to to tov vopov, it means either epya vbpov (see ver. 15), or el-e
SiKaitopxtTa vopov, etc. Those things belonging to the law desig
nates, of course, such things as the law requires.
These having no law, are a law unto themselves, ovtoi .... eicri
vdp,os. The construction is changed when ovtoi (masc. gender) is
employed ; which is constructio ad sensum, dvBpuiiroi being under
stood. What is meant by eavrois eicri vbpos, is explained in the
following verse. *
(15) Who show that the work which the law requires is written
upon their hearts, oinves .... avruiv. OiVives refers to the Gen
tiles. — The work or duty ofthe law, to epyov rov vbu.ov, _'. e., that
which the law demands. So, plainly, this much controverted
passage should be rendered, if we compare it with other phrases
of the like tenor ; e. g., 2 Thess. i. 3, epyov rrjs iriareuis, work such
as faith demands ; 1 Thess. i. 11, epyov ¦jriareuis, such works as
faith requires; John vi. 28, 'What shall we do that we may
perform rd epya tov ®eov, such ivorks as God requires ; to Avhich
the answer is (ver. 29.) ' to epyov tov ©eoC, the work which God
requires, is, that ye should believe, etc.; John ix. 4, ra epya tou
irep.<l/avrbs pe, works enjoined by him who sent me ; 2 Tim. iv. 5,
epyov euayyeXiarnv, duty which the evangelical office demands ; et
sic alibi. With these plain eases of usage before us, there is no
need of endeavoring to prove, as some have done, that epyov is
here merely periphrastic, i. e., that epyov tou vop.ov means the
same as vdp.os. That such a usus loquendi is not unknown to the
Greeks, may indeed be shown ; e. g., to ttjs c/>iAoo-oc/.i'as epyov, evioi
cpaaiv, dirb /3apj3dpuiv dp£ai, ph ilosophy (some say) took its rise from
barbarians. Aristotle (Rhet. i. 15. 6) says: iroieiv to epyov tov
vopov, to do what the law requires. The periphrastic use of XPVh1"-
and irpdypa in this way, is well known. But it is wholly unne
cessary to have resort to this, when the expression epyov vopov can
be so easily explained without it. It means plainly, such work,
or duty as the law requires.

EOMANS II. 15. 75
This, i. e., precept enjoining this, is written on the hearts or
minds of the Gentiles. rpa7rro'v is of course to be understood
figuratively ; and the idea conveyed by the whole expression is,
that the great precepts of moral duty are deeply impressed on our
moral nature, and co-exist with it, even when it is unenlightened
by special revelation. There is also an allusion in ypa7rrdvto the
written law of the Jews ; this was written on tablets, that on the
heart. KapSia, like the Hebrew ___&, very often stands for mind
as well as heart. Vpairrov iv Tais KapSi'ais is used as the antithesis
of ypairrbv ev irXa£i XiBivais, which characterized the revealed law
of Moses ; 2 Cor. iii. 3.
AVhat was meant by the expression just considered, the apostle
goes on to show by adding two epexegetical clauses. Their con
science bearing witness 2,vppapTvpovar]S avruiv Trjs avveiSrjaeuis,
viz., tco aura, to it, to the same epyov vbpov. That is, the evidence
that what the law of God requires is inscribed on the minds of the
heathen, is the testimony of their consciences to such moral pre- '
cepts. Some understand avppaprvpovarjs as meaning, that the
conscience bears testimony in conjunction with the heart or mind;
but compound verbs, like avppaprvpeui, not unfrequently have
substantially the same sense as the simple forms, or the same
with a little intensity. So avppaprvpeui is employed in Rom. ix. 1.
And in our text, ivritten in their hearts or minds is explained by
adding, the conscience%bearing testimony, viz., to the precepts in
question. This is the evidence that these precepts are engraved
upon the minds of natural men. The apostle does not mean to
say, that there are two testimonies, one of the mind and another
of the conscience ; but that the conscience testifies to the fact
which he had alleged in regard to the mind.
The apostle now adds a second confirmation of the fact, that
the demands of the moral law are inscribed on the heart of men
in a state of nature ; viz., their thoughts alternately accusing or
excusing them, Kai pera^v .... diroXoyovpevuiv . Merafu bXXijXuiv,
between each other, at mutual intervals, alternately, i. e., in succes
sion, first one kind of thoughts, i. e., approbation ; then another
kind, i. e., disapprobation. — Aoyiapbs means ratiocination, judg
ment, reflection. It designates a more deliberate act of tlie
mind than a mere ivBvpvp-a or ivBvp-qais- — Ka-nryopovVrcov,
accusing, in case the actions were bad ; d7roAoyoup.eW, defending,
in case they were good. After each of these participles, eaurov's
or dvBpuiirov is implied.
The meaning of this clause is not, as has frequently been sup
posed, that one man blames or applauds another, or that men mu
tually blame and applaud one another, (although the fact itself is
true) ; but that in the thoughts or judgment of the same mdi-

76 EOMANS II. 16.
vidual, approbation or condemnation exists, according to the tenor
of the actions which pass in review before him. Thus the voice
of conscience, which proceeds from a moral feeling of dislike or
approbation, and the judgment of the mind when it examines the
nature of actions, unite in testifying, that what the moral law of
God requires is impressed in some good measure on the hearts
even of the heathen.
To deny that men can have any sense of moral duty or obliga
tion, without a knowledge ofthe Scriptures, is erroneous ; for the
apostle's argument, in order to convince the Gentiles of sin, rests
on this as a basis. And if it be alleged, that in this way the ne
cessity of a revelation is superseded ; I answer, not at all. The
knowledge of some points of moral duty, or the power to acquire
such knowledge, is one thing ; a disposition to obey the precepts
of natural religion is another. The latter can be affirmed of few
indeed among the heathen of any age or nation. Again ; facul
ties adapted to discover the path of duty are one thing, the use of
them so as effectually to do this is another. The former the
apostle asserts ; the latter he denies. And justly ; for after all,
what have the heathen done and said which renders the gospel in
any measure unnecessary ? Little indeed ; in some respects we
may say, nothing. What authority had their precepts over them ?
And how was it with them as to doubts and difficulties about
some of the plainest principles of morality ? Their minds were
blinded by their passions. Hence the voice within them was not
listened to ; hut this does not prove that God left himself without
sufficient witness among them. The apostle most plainly and
fully asserts that he did not.
(IG) In the day when God shall judge the secret things of men,
iv rjpepa .... dv^p<o7rcov. But with what must we connect ev
¦qp-epa ; Most commentators have said : ' With KpiB-rjaovrai verse
12, making verses 13, 14, 15, a parenthesis.' So Knapp, Gries
bach, and others. This would then compare, as to construction,
with Rom. i. 2 — 6. v. 13 — 18, and many other passages in
Paul's epistles.
Others, as Beza, Heumann, Winer, join ev r/puepa with SiKaiui-
Bijaovrai at the end of verse 13, and make verses 14, 15, a
parenthesis. Bengel and Chr. Schmidt join ev rjpepa with evSeucvuvrai in
ver.-e 15, making the sentiment to be, that in the day of judg
ment it will appear manifest to all, that men's consciences have
testified iu favor of the law of God, etc.
Somewhat different in sense from this, is the exegesis of Je
rome, Theodoret, Chrysostom, Theophylact, (Eeumenius, Calvin
Erasmus, and others; viz., that e'v rjpepa stands connected imme-

EOMA_N S II. 16. 77
diately with the participles KaTijyopov'vTcov and d7roXoyovp.e'vc_)v,
which makes the passage to mean, that in the judgment-day the
consciences of the heathen will accuse them of all that Paul has
charged upon them. Several of these commentators, however,
think that Paul means only to say, that a fortiori, their con
sciences will then accuse, thein ; without meaning to say, that they
do not accuse them in the present life.
To this last interpretation Tholuck seems to accede. But I
cannot accord with this exegesis, because the object of the writer,
inverses 13 — 15, seems plainly to be merely a justification or
confirmation of what he said in verse 12, viz., that the heathen
who had no revelation, still had a law which they were bound to
obey, and by which they must be judged. How does Paul estab
lish this ? By an appeal to the fact that they have a conscience
or a moral sense, and that they pass judgment of a moral nature
upon their own actions. To say that this conscience and moral
sense will be developed at the judgment-day, is saying what is not
sufficiently apposite to his purpose. At the judgment-day, the hea
then will be tried by what ? By the law under which they were
placed, and under which they acted, in the present life. What
was this law ? That of conscience or moral sense. Then the
accusing and excusing, which are appealed to as evidence of this
moral sense, are exercised in the present world ; i. e., its
exercise here must of course be appealed to in order to sustain
the apostle's argument, by which he designs to establish their
present guilt.
For these reasons I must accede to the prevailing opinion
among critics, viz. that ev -qpepa is either to be joined with KpiB-q- _
aovrai in ver. 12, and that vers. 13 — 15 are a. parenthetic expla
nation or confirmation of ver. 12 ; or (which I think preferable)
make verses 11 — 15 parenthetic, and unite ver. 10, e'v -qpepa.
k. r. X. with ver. 10.*
Td Kpvirrd augments the force of the affirmation ; ' God will not
only bring into judgment the external actions of men, but all their
secret thoughts, desires, and affections.' Tholuck understands it
as referring to the secret judgment of the mind or conscience,
mentioned in the preceding verse, and makes the sense to be, that
God will bring into open judgment all the secret judgments of the
mind. But does this accord with the nature of the case ? It is
not the moral judgment of the mind, when it accords with the
* This last view is defended by Alford and seems open to no objection
but the great length of the parenthetic clauses that intervene, which in such
, a writer as Paul is not serious. See Introd. Meyer however connects this
with verse 13, De Wette, with the preceding participles, and Olshausen with
4vSe'tKVWTai in verse 15. 7*

78 EOMANS II. 17.
decision ofthe divine law (as is here supposed), which the apostle
means to represent as judged by God ; for these are not matters
of punishment, when they are correct ; but it is the secret wick
edness of men, as well as their open vices, that will make the
final judgment a time of awful terror. That such a view ofthe
subject is here intended, seems to me quite plain ; and so Tur-
retin, Flatt, and most others. To the very same purpose Paul
speaks in 1 Cor. iv. 5, where he represents the day of judgment
as the time, when God will bring to light toi Kpvirrd rov otcotovs
.... Kai Tas ySouAds tcov KapSi'cov.
According to the Gospel zvhich I preach, Kara to evayyeXiov pov ;
compare 2 Tim. ii. 8. 1 Cor. xv. 1. Some have understood this
of a written gospel of the apostle ; but without any good critical
or historical evidence.
By Jesus Christ, Sid 'Ivaov Xpiorou. Compare Acts xvii. 31.
John v. 27, 22. xvii. 2. Acts x. 42.
By affirming that God will judge to. KpvirTa. according to his
gospel, Paul seems to intimate, that a judgment-day is not plainly
revealed by the light of nature ; or, at least, that the extent of the
sentence which will be passed at that time, is not understood by
the heathen. Notions of reward and punishment, in some form
or other, belong to almost all the systems of heathenism ; but
such explicit views of a judgment-day as the gospel gives, are
nowhere else to be found.
As the secrets of all hearts are to be revealed and judged, in
the great day of trial, what but Omniscience is capable of passing
sentence ? To God alone is ascribed the power and prerogative
of searching the heart ; see 1 Sam. xvi. 7. 1 Chron. xxviii. 9.
xxix. 17. Ps. vii. 9. Jer. xi. 20. xvii. 10. Rom. viii. 27. To
Christ the same power is ascribed in Acts i. 24. Rev. ii. 23,
besides the present passage. How can the Supreme Judge
of all the human race be less than omniscient ; How can he
do full and impartial justice, with any knowledge short of

omniscience

1

(17) The attentive reader cannot help observing the skill and
address which Paul exhibits in this chapter, in showing that his
kinsmen the Jews are even more guilty than the Gentiles, and
consequently that salvation by grace is the only salvation which
is possible for them. In verses 1 — 8, he discusses the subject
on general grounds, bringing forward considerations applicable
either to Jew or Gentile, but not once naming either. In verses
9 — ¦ 16, he makes the application of these considerations to both,
and shows why both are to be considered as transgressors of
the divine law, the one having sinned against the revelation
contained in the Scriptures, the other against that which the

ROMANS II. IS. 79
book of nature discloses. But he has not yet done with the
subject. Guilt is proportioned to light and love abused. He
ventures therefore, in the next place, to prefer a heavier
charge against the Jews than he had done against the Gentiles.
He takes them on their own ground ; admitting, for the sake cf
argument, all the claims to pre-eminence which they were accus
tomed to advance, he then shows that these only increase their
guilt so much the more, in case of disobedience.
ff now thou art surnamed Jew, el Si ... . iirovopdty. The
reading iSe, (from which comes our English version behold), is
found in very few manuscripts, and is of no good authority. The
only difficulty with ei Se' is, that it makes a protasis, to which there
seems at first view, to be no corresponding apodosis. However,
this is not in reality the case ; for vers. 21 seq. make in substance
an apodosis. The relation between the two parts stands thus :
' If now thou art called a Jew, etc., i. e., if thou dost in fact enjoy
a high pre-eminence as to privileges, .... then how dost thou
transgress the very law which thou teachest, aud of which thou
dost make thy boast ? '
'IovSaios, a name of honor, much coveted by the Jews ; comp.
Gal. ii. 15. Phil. iii. 5. Rev. ii. 9. — "Eirovopidty, more formal and
''solemn than bvopd^-g. It is appropriate also ; inasmuch as lou-
Saios is a surname, which may be added to the individual name
of every Hebrew.
Thou restest upon the law, iiravairavy tco vop-co, or thou leanest
upon the law. 'Eiravairavui corresponds to the Hebrew, yj'qi , to
lean upon, to restore, to prop up one's self by ; see 2 Kings vii. 2,
17. eVave-n-aueTO ry XeLPL <*utov. This verb is also used in the
sense of adhering' to ; see 1 Mace. viii. 12. Either meaning gives
a good sense in the verse before us. The first, is the more usual
sense of the word, and altogether apposite. The Jew leaned upon
the law, as defending his claims to precedence and to acceptance
with God. — Ndp.co of course means here the Mosaic law, or the
Jewish Scriptures.
And gloriest in God, Kai .... ©eiS ; i. e., dost claim to thyself
honor or glory, because Jehovah, the only living and true God, is
thy God ; compare Deut. iv. 7. Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20. 2 Sam. vii. 23.
It was on this account that the Jew felt himself so far elevated
above the Gentile, and so disdained all comparison with him.
For the construction of Kauxacrai with ev and the Dative case, see
- Wahl on the word. For the form, Kavxdo-ai, 2nd person singular,
see New Testament Gramm. § 71. 5 ; also verse 23.
(18) And art acquainted with [his] will, and canst distinguish
things that differ, Kai .... Siacpepovra. TivdiaKeis, knoivcst, art
acquainted with, designates what the Jews were accustomed to

80 ROMANS II. 19, 20.
say of themselves ; or if viewed simply as a declaration of the
apostle, the meaning is : ' Thou hast the means of knowing, thou
art instructed in.' To BeXvpa, his will; where almost all the
commentators say that avrov or tou ©eou is to be supplied after
BiX-qp-a. But this is unnecessary; for, as is well known, the
article frequently has the sense of a pronoun ; see Middleton
on the Greek article, chap I. § 3. e. g., Acts xvii. 28, tov
ydp ye'vos iapev, for we are of his yevos. See New Testament
Gramm. § 94.
AoKipdt,eis may mean either to distinguish or to approve ; the
word having both these meanings in the New Testament and in
the classics. So Siacpepovra may mean things that differ, or things
that excel; the usus loquendi in both senses being equally certain.
So some explain the phrase as meaning : ' Thou approvest the
things which are excellent.' I prefer the other sense, because the
idea of knowledge or instruction is the one here intended to be
urged ; as is plain from the sequel. Such being the case, to dis
tinguish things that differ is more characteristic of this, than the
other rendering is, and therefore more appropriate. Things that
differ, are virtue and vice, i. e., lawful and unlawful, praiseworthy
and base things, etc.
Being instructed by ihe law, Karexovpevos iK tov vopov ; i. e.,
being taught or enlightened by the Scriptures.
(19) Thou art confident moreover that thou thyself art a guide
of the blind, ireiroiBds re ... . aKorei. This is figurative lan
guage, designed to show in a strong light the claims to superiority
over the Gentiles, which were made by the Jews. A guide to the
blind signifies one who is an instructor by means of superior
knowledge, i. e., an instructor of those who are in a state of gross
ignorance, viz., the Gentiles; see Matt. xv. 14. — A light to those
who are in darkness, efiuis tuiv iv o-kotci, the same idea by the use
of another figure. Compare Is. xlix. 6. Luke ii. 32. John i. 8,
9, 4, 5, respecting the signification of the word light. — _§kotos
here, as often elsewhere, designates a state of ignorance.
(20) An instructor of the ignorant, a teacher of little children,
iraiSevrijv .... vrpriuiv. " A<f>puiv means one who has not mental
skill or consideration ; secondarily, an ignorant person. — Nipruuv
of course here means, children of such an age as that they may
receive instruction. I have therefore rendered it little children,
in preference to babes, which naturally designates those not suffi
ciently mature for instruction.
Having the delineation (or form) of true knowledge in the
Scriptures, e^ovra . . . . ev tco vbpui. Mbp<j>uiaiv may be used in
a bad or good sense. In a bad sense it occurs in 2 Tim. iii. 5,
where the form (pbptpuiaiv) of godliness is opposed to the power of

EOMANS II. 21, 22. 81
it, i. e., hypocritical pi-etences to piety are opposed to the real ex
ercise of it. But the verb popcboui is used in a good sense in
Gal. iv. 19, ' until Christ pScpuiBfj be formed in you.' The syno
nyme of pocpuiais, viz., v7roTvn-iocris, is used in a good sense, 2 Tim.
i. 13, 'hold fast uTTOTuVrcocriv of sound doctrine,' etc. Mdpc/jcocris
means form, external appearance ; also, delineation, sketch, i. e.,
imitated form. I understand it in the good sense, i. e., as meaning
delineation in our verse, because the apostle is enumerating the
supposed, or rather the acknowledged, advantages of the Jews.
One of these was, that true knoivledge (in distinction from the
philosophy falsely so called of the Greeks) was in their possession,
or at least in their power.
/ Of true knowledge, rrjs yvuiaeuis Kai tijs dXqBeias ; a Hendiadys
in which the latter noun qualifies the former. The meaning of
the whole is ' Est tibi vera sapientia in lege adumbrata.'
(21) Dost thou, then, who teachest others, not instruct, thyself? b
ovv .... SiSdo-Keis; This constitutes in reality, although not
formally, the apodosis to the protasis which commences with el Se
in verse 17. Argumentum ad hominem ; for it is as much as to
say : ' Thou pridest thyself in thy superior knowledge, and re-
quirest all others to sit at thy feet in the humble capacity of
learners ; making these lofty professions, now, art thou thyself at
the same time ignorant of what thou professest to know ? ' The
apostle implies by this, that many of the Jews were criminally
ignorant. Reiche finds the apodosis in verse 25 ; Glockler, in
verse 23 ; alii aliter. The ovv in verse 21, as well as the nature
of its contents, seems to me to point plainly to the apodosis. Dr.
Knapp has omitted the sign of interrogation after SiSdo-Keis, KA.eV-
Teis, etc. ; plainly to the disadvantage of the sense. The interro
gation is, indeed, not one of doubt or simple inquiry, but is
designed for reproof and conviction. It is, moreover, better
accordant with the apostle's mode of reproof in this epistle, to sup
pose him here to be making interrogations (in the manner above
stated), than to suppose him directly to make the charges, at first ;
as Dr. Knapp's pointing would indicate.
Thou who proclaimest that [men] must not steal, dost thou steal?
6 K-qpvaauiv .... KAeVreis; Dost thou practise the very vice,
against which thou dost so loudly protest ? Krjpvaaeiv, publicly
to proclaim ; in respect to a teacher of religion or morality it
means to preach.
(22) Thou who forbiddest to commit adultery, dost thou commit
adultery? 6 Xeycov .... p-oixedeis; A crime very common
among the Jews ; for even the Talmud accuses some of the most
celebrated Rabbies of this vice. 'O Aeycov prj, forbiddest, lit. who
sayest : Not.

82 EOMANS II. 23, 24.
Dost thou ivho abhorrest idols, commit robbery in sacred things ?
6 ftSeXvaabu.evos .... iepocruAeis; Since the Babylonish captivity,
the Jews have always expressed the greatest abhorrence of idola
try. But still, the real criminality of idolatry consists in taking
from the only living and true God that which belongs to him, and
bestowing it upon something which is worthless and vain. Now
the Jews, who were prone to keep back tithes and offerings (Mai.
i. 8, 12, 13, 14. iii. 10. Mark vii. 11), by so doing robbed God
of that which was due to him, notwithstanding they professed a
great abhorrence of idolatry which committed the like sin. I ap
prehend, however, that the word iepocruAeis is here used in a some
what wider extent than this interpretation simply considered
would imply, i. e., that it designates every kind of act which denies
to God his sovereign honors and claims.
The exegesis of this word which assigns to it a literal sense,
viz., that of committing sacrilege, i. e., of robbing the temples of
idols and converting their riches to individual use (contrary to the
precept in Deut. vii. 25, 26), wants an historical basis for its
support. When and where were the Jews accustomed to act in
this manner? Yet Chrysostom, Theophylact, Le Clerc, Koppe,
Rosenmiiller, Fritsche, and others, have defended this inter
pretation. *
(23) Thou who gloriest in the law, by the transgression of the
law dost thou dishonor God ? os ev . . . . aTipid£eis ; As God was
the author of the law, or supreme legislator, so the transgression
of it was a dishonoring of him, a contemning or setting light by
his authority. For the construction and form of Kavxdcrai, see
note on verse 17 above; also comp. in Matt. v. 36. viii. 2. Mark
i. 40. ix. 22. Luke xvi. 25. 1 Cor. iv. 7. Rom. xi. 18, the like
forms. (24) For the name of God is blasphemed on your account,
among the Gentiles ; as it is written, to ydp .... yeypairrai. Tap
J conjiiynantis. — Ai' vp.5s may possibly mean by you, i. e., by you as
aut hors or agents ; like £o> Sid tov IlaTepa, vivo Patre vitce mem auc-
tore, John vi. 57 ; or like ^crerai Si' e/xe, ibid., et sic alibi. But the
^ most natural meaning of Si_v}m.s here is on your account, i. e„ you
being the cause or ground of the blasphemy in question. The
passage quoted seems to be Isaiah Iii. 5 ; where, however, the
Sept. has Si' vp.Ss Siairavrbs to bvopd pov pXaa^-qpeirai ev tois
eBveai, varying in manner at least from the text quoted by the
* Both Acts 19: 37 and Josephus Antt. 4. 8. 10 would imply tho pro
priety of such an implication against tlie Jews, but it is perhaps more pro
bable that a robbing ofthe temple of God, i.e. withholding and appropriat
ing to private use, the legitimate temple-offerings is meant here See Jo
sephus, Antt. 8. 2. 5 and 22. 6. 2.

EOMANS II. 25. 83
apostle. However, such variations are common in the New
Testament text. The Hebrew runs thus : yxsa iao Di*n-b_s "Pari,
the sense of which is that the heathen blasphemed the name of
Jehovah, because his people (by reason of their sins) were sub
jected to captivity. In the like manner Paul accuses the Jews
of causing the name of Jehovah to be reproached among the
Gentiles, because of the transgression against his laws which they
committed. The original passage is not a proper prediction, but
a simple declaration of a fact then existing. . Paul quotes it here,
for the sake of declaring that the same thing was true in his day;
i. e., he expresses his own views and asserts facts, in the language
of an ancient prophet. The ydp "at the beginning of the verse
shows that the design of the verse is, to illustrate and enforce the
declarations contained in dnpdt,eis. 'Ev tois eBveai, is a circum
stance added in the Sept. and by the apostle. It is not expressed
in the Hebrew, but it is evidently implied. The meaning of the
whole is, that the heathen themselves are led to blaspheme the
name of God by the flagrant vices of the Jews ; which was a
heavy charge, and allowing its truth, it served abundantly to illus
trate and confirm the declaration, that the Jews brought dishonor
upon God by their offences — dishonor even from others. Of
course their sins must have been great and conspicuous.
(25) Circumcision indeed is profitable, if thou dost obey the
law, TiepiTop-rj .... irpdaays. — Mev here belongs to the protasis,
the apodosis to which commences with edv Se. The ydp in this
verse is omitted in many MSS. and Versions. Still, it has suffi
cient support to claim a place in the text. Although ydp always
implies some preceding sentiment to which it refers, yet this is
not always expressed, but not unfrequently left to the mind of the
reader to supply. In such a case we may sometimes render ydp
by indeed, to be sure, truly, although not strictly an adverb, (see
Passow Lex. ydp). Here, as it seems to me, the sentiment in
the writer's mind before writing ydp was : ' Thou hast no reason
for glorying in the law ; for (ydp) circumcision [the symbol or
token of admission to the privileges of a Jew] will not avail thee
in case thou transgressest the law, as in reality thou dost.' In
such a connection of thought, which is naturally deduced from
verses 23, 24, the appropriateness of ydp is sufficiently plain. In
the case before us, verse 25, seq. are not a direct deduction from
the preceding paragraph, but an illustration of a similar nature,
designed to show that the Jew can claim no moral preference over
the Gentile, on the mere ground of external privileges. As this
is the main position of the apostle in this stage of his discussion,
we might supply before ydp in verse 25, the general thought, viz.,
' The Jew has no precedence in the matter of justification over

84 ROMANS II. 2 6.
the Gentile ; for (yap) circumcision profits only when he does
not transgress the law ; and this never can be affirmed of the Jew.'
But the manner in which the connection is made out above, con
nects ydp with the more immediate context, and the irapafidaeuis
of verse 23, and irapa/3di~qs of verse 25 show that the writer had
such a connection in his mind.
But if thou becomest a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision
becomes uncircumcision, idv Si ... . yeyovev ; i. e., ii thou dost
not obey the law, then the privileges to which thou art entitled
as a Jew, will not save thee ; thou wilt not be considered
or treated as any better than an uncircumcised person, i. e.,
a Gentile or heathen man. In a word, not external privileges
or pre-eminence, in themselves considered, but the use which
is made of them, entitles any one to divine approbation or
favor. How much the Jews attributed to circumcision, is strikingly
illustrated in a passage ofthe Talmud (Sliemoth Rabba, sect. 19.
fol. 118) : " Said Rabbi Berachias, When heretical, apostate, and
impious Jews say : ' We cannot go down to hell because we are
circumcised ; ' what does the blessed God do ? He sends his
angel, et prseputia eorum attrahit, ut, ipsi praputiati [uncircum
cised] in infernum descendant."
(2G) If, moreover, the uncircumcised keep the precepts of the
law, idv ovv .... tjivXdaarj. Ovv here, as often, serves merely
for the external connection of vers. 25, 26, and not to point out a
logical inference, deduction, etc. It might be rendered then
or so. But verses 25, 26 seem to be simply parallel cases ;
, and if so, moreover, is a more appropriate rendering. 'AKpoftvoria,
abstract for concrete, as exhibited in the translation. — AiKaiuipara,
precepts, D^St'a .
Shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision ? ou^i
¦f) . . . . XoyiaB-qaerai. That is, shall not he, in a heathen slate,
be accepted as readily as a Jew who obeys in a state of circum
cision ? In other words : Neither circumcision, nor the want of it
determines our deserts in view of our Maker and Judge ; but a
spirit of filial obedience. " If ye love me, j'e will keep my com
mandments." — Eis irepiroprjv is after the Hebrew analogy, which
¦J puts h before a noun designating that into which another thin"-
has been changed, or which it has become, e. g., n^u.1:^ cp"^n, be
men, 1 Sam. iv. 9 ; 'Jehovah made the rib nc;N^ , a woman, Gen.
ii. 22^., The parallel between dKpo/3varia yeyovev in ver. 25, and
eh'irepiTopijv XoyiaBrjaerai ver. 26, is very obvious.
The possibility that a heathen might keep the law, is here
most plainly admitted ; but this gives no ground for sayino- that
such a case has ever actually existed. Still, the principle enforced

EOMANS II. 27, 28. 85
is the same ; and the assumption of such a case gives great force
to tlie apostle's reasoning.
(27) Tea, he who keeps the law in his natural uncircumcised
state, shall condemn* koX Kpivei .... TeAovcra. Kai affirmantis,
'qualifying Kpivei. 'Ek cpvaeuis between tlie article and its follow
ing noun, takes of course the place of an adjective. Qvais plainly
means here what we call a state of nature, in distinction from a
stated which a revelation is enjoyed. The apostle states here
and in the preceding verse, as before remarked, a principle for
illustration merely ; he does not aver, that what he describes, is
matter of historical fact ; for this would contradict the whole
tenor and object of his reasoning in general, which is to show
that all men without exception have sinned, and therefore that all
without exception must be saved by grace through faith in Christ,
and can be saved only in this way. The efforts to prove from
such passages as the present that there have been heathen who
kept the whole law of God, are surely fruitless. The main argu
ment of the apostle himself falls to the ground, if this be once
admitted. It seems quite plain, that the whole is merely a
supposed case — supposed for the sake of illustrating a principle ;
and in the process of argumentation, nothing is more common
than this.
Thee who art a transgressor of the law, although enlightened
by the Scriptures and a partaker of circumcision, 2e tov ....
vbp.ov. Aid ypdpparos Kai irepiToujqs here coming between the
article tov and its corresponding noun irapafidf-qv, evidently per
form the office of adjectives qualifying irapaj3drgv. The Std here
..is Sid conditionis vel status, if I may so speak. Aid is not unfre
quently placed before nouns which designate state or condition ;
e. g., Rom. iv. 11, those who believe Si' aKpo/3vaTias, in an uncir
cumcised state ; 2 Cor. ii. 4, I have written this Sid iroXXCiv Saic-
pvcov, in a state of much weeping ; 2 Cor. v. 10, that every one
may receive tu Sid tov aiiiparos, [according to] the things done in
a bodily state; Heb. ix. 12. 2 Pet. i. 3. 1 John v. 6; see Bretschn.
Lex. Sid I. 2. c. The idea intended to be conveyed by the apos
tle, is quite plain ; viz. ' If a Gentile should do what the law
requires, would not this show that you are worthy of condem
nation who transgress the law, although you enjoy the light
of revelation and the privileges which a state of circumcision
confers ? '
(28) For he is not a Jew who is one externally ; oi ydp . . . .
ianv ; i. e., who is descended from Abraham, is circumcised, and
* KpiveT, literally shall judge, here means, shall condemn, i. e. by their
example put to shame, or as icaraicpiva is used in Matt. 12: 41, 42, "rise m
judgment against." 8

86 EOMANS II. 29.
enjoys the privileges of a written revelation, is not a Jew in the
important a:;d spiritual sense of the word ; he is merely an external
(not an internal) Jew. The grammatical construct o incompleted
without any ellipsis, would be, 6 e'v t<3 cpavepu) [louSaios], ouk
Iouoaios ianv.
Nor is that which is external, [merely] in the flesh, circumci
sion, ovSe ij ev . . . . irepncpfj ; i. e., that is not circumcision in
its high and true sense, which is merely external, whicli pertains
mereiy to the flesh. The sentence filled out would read thus :
ovSe -q iv t<3 c/>avepco \irepiToprj\, ev aapKi [irepiToprj], irepvroprj
[ecrri], i. e., true irepiTOjxfj.
(2'J) But he who is a Jew in the hidden part, dXX' b iv . . . .
'IouSalos ; i. e., who is spiritually or internally a Jew, such a one
only deserves the appellation 'louSaios. The clause filled out
would stand thus : dAA' 6 ev tco Kpvirrio 'IouSaios [TcuSaids ecrriv] ;
which latter clause the mind of the writer supplied from the first
part of ver. 28.
And the circumcision of the heart, a spiritual not a literal one,
koI irepiTop-q .... ypdp.p.an, [is the true circumcision.] There
is the same ellipsis here, as in the preceding clause, irepircp-q ianv
being understood after ov ypdpp.an. The words irvevu.an oi
ypdppan, most interpreters construe as referring to the Holy
Spirit and to the precepts of the law ; i. e., circumcision of the
heart wrought by the operation of the Holy Spirit, not by follow
ing merely the literal precepts of the law. The sense is good,
and the doctrine true ; but I apprehend that the writer here uses
irvevpaTi and ypdp.pan merely as adjectives or adverbs to charac
terize more graphically the irepnoprj KapSi'as which he had just
mentioned. Whose praise is not of men, but of God, ov 6 eWaivos .... ®eov ;
that is, the praise of the Jew, who is truly a Jew after the hidden
or internal man, is not of men but of God. " Man looketh on the
outward appearance, but God looketh on the heart." The Jews
considered it as a great privilege and a ground of high pre-emi
nence over others, that they were descended from Abraham, were
circumcised and were entrusted with the Scriptures. ' All this,'
says the apostle, ' does not entitle them in the least degree to the
praise of God. The state of the heart in the internal man, is
what he considers ; and this alone is of any real moral value in
his sight.' ' You,' says he, ' who are nothing more than external
Jews, are not Jews in the high and noble sense which will make
you to be heirs of the grace of life or of the promises of God.
You have, because of your external privileges, no pre-eminence
over the heathen on the score of moral accountability. All men
in regard to such an accountability, stand on a level, for each

EOMANS III. 1. 87
will be judged according to the law under which he acted ; the
Gentiles by the law of nature, the Jews by revelation.'

CHAP. IH. 1 — 20.
Nothing was more natural than for the Jew, who had entertained the most ele
vated notions of the advantages to which he was entitled from his external privileges,
to feel strong objections to such a representation of the apostle as reduced Jews and
Gentiles to a level in a moral respect. The Jew is represented accordingly as indig
nantly asking: ' Of what advantage then can Judaism be ? ' The apostle replies in
verse 2, that it is advantageous in many ways, and especially in that more light was
conferred by it. But the Jew further inquires how the apostle's views could be
reconciled with God's fidelity to the promises which he had made to the Jews, ver. 3.
The apostle replies, that this fidelity must not for a moment be called in question,
but that we must adopt the sentiment of David {Ps. Ji. 4) in regard to this, ver. 4.
The Jew still dissatisfied, urges further: * If the sins of the Jewish nation serve to
render more conspicuous the justice of God, is it not unjust that he should punish
us ? ' ver. 5. Not at all, replies the apostle ; for on the same ground you might
object to the truth, that God will judge the world, and of course punish the wicked ;
for his justice will be displayed in such a way as to redound to his glory, ver. 6.
The Jew again asks: "If God's faithfulness becomes more conspicuous by my un
faithfulness, why should I be condemned?' ver. 7. To which the apostle replies
that he might just as well say : ' Let us do evil that good may come ; ' which in fact
some did charge him with saying, although they deserved condemnation for so
doing, inasmuch as the charge was false.
The Jew again asks, with evident disappointment; £ How then have we Jews any
pre-eminence over the Gentiles? ' To which the apostle replies : You have none, in
respect to the matter that I am discussing. All are sinners. Your own Scriptures do
abundantly bear testimony that your nation are transgressors, as well as the heathen.
Prophets of different ages have borne testimony which conveys charges ofthe most
aggravated nature, vers. 10 — 18. Now as what is thus said in the Scriptures was
plainly said concerning the Jews, it follows, that your own sacred books bear testi
mony to the same doctrine which I affirm to be true. Consequently the whole world,
Jews and Gentiles, are guilty before God, ver. 19 ; for by ivorks of law none can be
justified, inasmuch as the law condemns all transgressors, and sets forth their crimi
nality instead of declaring their justification, ver. 20.
(1) What advantage then hath the Jew? or, what pre-eminence
hath the Jew ? Tt ovv .... 'IouSatov; — Ovv, then, is very often
joined with ti in interrogatives. Both words united signify as
much as to say : ' Allowing what you affirm, then how can this or
that take place, or how can it be so or so ? ' — Ilcpto-aw signifies
that which exceeds or abounds, precedence, prcestantia. Senti
ment : " If what you say is true, then how is the Jew in any
better condition than the Gentile, or what pre-eminence has he
over him ? '
Or what is the advantage or profit of circumcision f VH to
irepiTotxm. That is, if the Jew is subject to the same
condemning sentence as the Gentile, of what use is the rite of

88 EOMANS III. 2.
circumcision, and the relation in which it places him to the people
of God?
(2) Much [advantage] in many respects, or in every respect,
HoXv .... rpbirov. Rendered in this latter way, irdvra would
refer of course to something in the preceding context, and
every respect would mean, every one already touched upon, e. g.,
in ii. 17 — 20. Literally interpreted, irdvra must mean in all
respects. But the real sense of the phrase here is better
given by the translation, in various or many respects, in a variety
of ivays.
The principal one however is, that they were entrusted with the
oracles of God, irpuirov pev ydp .... ®eov. Beza renders irpuyrov,
primarium illud est quod. Jlpuirov clearly means, in some cases,
imprimis, maxime omnium, particularly, specially, most of all;
e. g., Matt. vi. 33. Luke xii. 1. 2 Pet. i. 20. iii. 3. 1 Tim. ii. 1.
In these cases, it does not signify first in such a sense as implies
a second in order, but first as the most eminent or most important
thing in the writer's mind or intention ; like the Hebrew rvrN^ ,
e. g., D^ia r,id_0 , the most distinguished of nations, Num. xxiv.
20. Amos. vi. G. — Tholuck suggests, that pev renders it probable
that a protasis is here intended, although he does not think this
decisive. And truly it is not decisive ; for piv is not unfrequently
used without any Si following, both in the classical writers and
in the books of the New Testament ; e. g., 2 Cor. xii. 12. 1 Thess.
ii. 18. Eom. vii. 12. xi. 13. x. 1, where " explicationi inservit;"
and so pev ydp in Acts xxviii. 22. 2 Cor. ix. 1. xi. 4. Heb. vi. 16.
vii. 18 ; piv ovv, Acts xxvi. 9. 1 Cor. vi. 4, 7, et alibi. Mev ydp,
in cases such as those just cited, seems evidently designed to an
swer the place of the Latin equidem, quidem, i. e., to give intensity
to a declaration ; and pev may in such cases be called pev inten-
sivum, or pev concessivum, viz., implying that what is asserted, is
supposed to be conceded ; or at least that the speaker thinks it
plainly ought to be conceded. It is indeed true, that piv may be
said ahvays to imply that another and different or opposite sentence
or declaration must follow, but the omission of this declaration in
cases where it can be easily and naturally supplied by the reader
is frequent. _ In the case before us the implication is, that to Jews
were committed the divine oracles, and not to other nations; i. e.
[oi 'lovSaioi] pev ydp eiriarevB-qaav rd Xoyia tov ©tou, [ra'aAAa
eBvij Se ovk iiriarevB-qaav, K. t. X.~\
Tdp here has indeed of itself no necessary connection with or
influence upon the piv, and may be considered as yap illustrantis,
i. e., yap standing before a clause designed to illustrate or confirm
what precedes.
The two particles pev ydp imply, that the advantage [irpZrov']

EOMANS III. 3. 89
of the Jew, it must be conceded, lay specially in his having the
gift of a revelation filled with precious promises to him. We
may translate (ad sensum) thus : ' A peculiar advantage, as you
must concede, is, that,' etc. ; or, ' The most important advantage
is,' etc' ; both having substantially the same sense.
The words on .... ®eov are not to be construed by taking
Adyta as a Nominative, for this word is the Accusative ai'ter
iiriaTevBrjaav. It is a principle of the Greek language, that
where a verb in its active voice governs the Accusative of a thing
and the Dative oi a person, the Accusative is retained after a verb
of the passive voice. Such is the case with iriarevui ; see Luke
xvi. 11. John ii. 24 ; compare for the passive voice, 1 Cor. ix. 17.
Gal. ii. 7. 1 Thess. ii. 4. 1 Tim. i. 11. Tit. i. 3. So frequently in
the classics ; Lex. in verb., also N. Test. Gramm. § 108. 6.
Oracles, Adyta, like the "E^ of the Hebrews, means any kind of
divine response or communication, effatum divinum. Here, as
verse 3 shows, the Adyta has special reference to those oracles
which contain promises respecting the Messiah, the Jewish
nation, etc.
In regard to the general sentiment of the verse, it is as much
as to say, that more light, and better spiritual advantages were
bestowed upon the Jews than upon the Gentiles. Access to the
Scriptures would give more light ; the promises offered encour
agement to a life of piety ; and in consequence of the state in
which revelation placed the Jews, to them were made the first
offers of the gospel. It should be remarked here, that the apostle
contents himself for the present with naming merely one ground
of advantage which the Jew had. The pressure of objections
seems to have occasioned his omission of other grounds of prece
dence. The reader will find others in chap. ix. 1 . seq.
(3) What then ? ri ydp ; The usual mode of asking questions,
yap being very often joined with an interrogative ; see Passow
on yap. It seems to be yap intensivum, in most of such cases ;
as Acts xvi. 37, oi ydp, not at all, 2 Tim. ii. 7. Job vi. 8. Phil. i. 18.
In the present case, ydp has reference to what had been said in
the preceding verse. The course of thought appears to be thus :
' What then shall we say to this, viz., to that which I am now
about to suggest ? ' That is ; ' Allowing what you have said
to be true, then if some of the Jews were unfaithful, as you
intimate, would not this detract from the veracity of the divine
promises ?'
If some were unfaithful, will their unfaithfulness render void
the faithfulness of God? el ijiriarrjaav .... Karapyrjaei ; That is,
if some of the Jews have been unfaithful to the covenant, and are
in no better condition than the heathen, how will this consist with

90 ROMANS III. 4.
the fidelity of God in respect to his promise made to the Jewish
nation ? — 'liiriorijoav is from diriariui, which comes from Sjrurros,
unfaithful, (iriorbs often means faithful). 'Airiariui therefore
mcaiH, not to be iriarbs, i. q., to be unfaithful, treacherous, etc.,
viz., in respect to their covenant with God. The meaning is:
'If the Jews practically disregard, i. e., would not dutifully
receive and obey, divine revelation, etc.' — IIto~m', fidelity, faith
fulness in keeping promises ; compare Matt, xxiii. 23. 2 Tim. ii.
13, and perhaps Gal. v. 22. 1 Tim. i. 4, 19. Eev. ii. 19. xiii. 10.
The pr] before diriaria airuiv is interrogative and employed here
(as usual) in a question to which a negative answer is of course
expected; see New Testament Gramm. § 153, 4.
Mi) yevoiTo, hoc minime eveniat! Let not this be supposed; or
not at all, by no means! Optative of yivopai joined with a nega
tive. This should be included in verse 4. The Hebrew fib^n
corresponds to this.
(4) But let God be [accounted] true, and every man false, yivia-
Bui Se . . . . KJ/evarqs. 'AXr/Bgs means veracious, faithful to his
word or promise, ^evarqs is the opposite of dX-qB-rjs. The
meaning is : Let God be regarded as faithful although all men
should thereby be deemed guilty of unfaithfulness ; i. e., much
more becoming and proper is it, that men should impute unfaith
fulness to themselves than to God. The second Se I have ren
dered and here, although it appears adversative. The sentiment
is not injured by this version, and the repetition of but is
avoided. To confirm the pious sentiment which he had just uttered, the
apostle appeals to an expression of David (Ps. li. Ife-, where, in
signifying his penitence in view of his past transgressions, he says
(Sept. Ps. 1. 4) : " Against thee only have I sinned, and done this ¦
evil in thy sight, biruis av . . . . KpiveaBaC ae, so that thou mayest
be justified when thou speakest (or in thy words tpj^a), and be
clear when thou art judged." The Psalmist means to say that as
he had sinned in a grievous manner against God, so God is to be
justified and acquitted altogether, when he reproves him for his
sin and pronounces against it the sentence of condemnation. So
Paul : ' Let us not,' says he, ' attempt to justify ourselves when
we are accused of being unfaithful ; but let us justify God in
all respects, when he condemns our conduct and vindicates his
own. '
The words eV tois Adyots aov mean, when thou utterest reproof
or condemnation, i. e., the connection in which it stands gives it
of necessity such a turn. — N 1*770775, mightest overcome, Hebrew
J-ram mightest be pure, i. e., mightest be adjudged to be pure, held
to' be guiltless or faultless. So in Rabb. Hebrew, and in the

EOMANS III. 5. 91
Gemara hit means vincere in causa. He who in a judicial con
test was adjudged to be pure or guiltless, of course was the victor;
and on this account the Septuagint viK-qays (adopted by the
apostle) is a translation of the Hebrew ad sensum, although not
ad verbum.
Fla'.t, Reiche, and others construe iv ra KpiveaBai ae as in the
passive voice. The Hebrew runs thus: rjas'ja .... ^nata,
when thou speakest .... when thou judges', or in the judgment
of thee, i. e., when thou art judged. The sense here seems plainly
to require us to understand the meaning as passive ; for the apostle
designs to say, that when the doings of God are judged of by his
creatures, he must be acquitted. So in the present case, he must
be acquitted of all unfaithfulness. The Psalmist (Psalm li. fb
employs the verb iisin in its active sense, meaning, that when
God condemns he will act justly. The use which the apostle
makes of the sentiment, is of the same nature ; for he would
say : ' In pronouncing sentence or condemnation upon men,
thou art to be justified, and if thou art called in question for
this, thou wilt prove to be victor, or come off clear in the
contest. '
(<5) But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God,
el Se . . . . avviar-qai. Ae " addit vim interrogation!, et usurpatur
pragsertim interrogatione repetita," Bretschn. Lex. Se 3. b. The
sense of Se is plainly adversative here. — 'ASi/aa is here the generic
appellation of sin, for which a specific name (dirtcrrta) was em
ployed in ver. 3, and ij/evap.a is used in ver. 7. In like manner,
the 8oca<.oo-wT7 in ver. 5, which is a generic appellation, is
expressed by a specific one (irlanv) in ver. 3, and by dXrjBeia
in ver. 7. The idea is substantially the same, which is designated
by these respectively corresponding appellations. Fidelity,
uprightness, integrity, are designated by irlanv, SiKawavvqv, and
dA.17.Jeta ; while diriaria, dSiKia, and \\ievapan, designate unfaithful
ness, want of uprightness, and false dealing. All of these terms
have more or less reference to the rn^a, covenant, or compact (so
to speak), which existed between God' and his ancient people.
But in the present verse, they are to be taken in a sense some
what more enlarged.
Ai*caioo-iV>7v ®eov does not here mean (as it does in most cases
where it is used in this epistle), the justification which is of God;
it designates the divine justice, as the context clearly shows. For
here the apostle (or the objector) is speaking of that attribute of
God, which is concerned with the judging and punishing of offend
ers. Of course, the retributive justice of God must be understood
by SiKaioavvqv ®eov.
Sets off to advantage, avviarqai, renders conspicuous. — Tt ipov-

92 EOMANS III. 5.
p.ev ; what shall we say ? That is, how can we persevere in main
taining that the unbelieving part of the Jewish nation will be cast
off, so long as even their very unbelief will be instrumental in
setting off to more advantage, or in rendering more conspicuous,
the retributive justice of God, and so of causing the more glory
to his name ? The equivalent of n ipovpev, is common in the
Rabbinic writings, where it runs thus : "la^ab KS^X "'KB ,
quid est dicendum ? This is usually expressed by the abbrevia
tion bsa .
Is God unjust, who inflicts punishment? p-qdSiKos .... bpy-qv;
If the interrogation were made by p-q oi, is not, etc., the solution
ofthe sentence would be easy. But p-q corresponds to the Latin
numne, and asks a question to which a negative answer is usually
expected. The Attics employed it, however, with somewhat
greater liberty, and in cases where a negative answer did not of
course follow. On the contrary, oi is used as an interrogation,
where an affirmative answer is of course expected. For an ex
ample of both cases ; Mi; Soxet o-ot tovto eti/at evnBes ; Does this
seem to you foolish ? Ans. No. Oi /cat KaXbv ion rb dyaBov ; Is
not a good thing something excellent ? Ans. Yes. "We cannot
translate, therefore, as Turretin and many others have done :
Nonne injustus Deus, dum infert iram ? i. e., is not God unjust,
etc.? This would indeed make the sentiment more easy and
intelligible, when viewed as coming from the objector ; for that it
is to be attributed to him appears from the sequel, xara dvBpunrov
Xiyui. After all, however, nearly the same sentiment comes out
of the passage in another way. The objector asks : Tt ipovpev ;
prj dSiKos k. t. A.; That is ; Can it be now that God deals unjustly
in the infliction of punishment [as your positions would seem to
indicate]?' The answer is in the negative oi course: prj yeVocro.
The objector means by the question which he puts, the same
thing as to say ; ' I cannot believe your representation, for it
would make God unjust.'
The immediate occasion for such a question on the part of the
objector, is furnished by the sentiment of the preceding verse.
God, says the apostle, is to be justified hi his condemning ; yea,
he is altogether to be vindicated in it, even if all men are by him
found guilty of unfaithful and treacherous dealing. ' But,' replies
the objector, 'on your ground we may go on and say, that glory
redounds to God because of such dealing on the part of men ; for
this gives opportunity for God to display his justice to greater
advantage than it could otherwise have been displayed. "Why
not, now, carry these considerations forward, and come to the
result to which they would naturally lead ? Why not conclude,
that God is unjust when he inflicts punishment? For this

ROMANS III. 6. 93
would seem to be a necessary consequence, if it be true that his
justice is disphvyed to the greatest advantage by reason of the
wickedness of men, and he thus gets to himself the more honor
and glory.
Tholuck attributes prj 6 ©eos, k. t. A. to the apostle himself, as
an answer to the preceding question. But the Kara dvBpuiirov
Xiyui and the pij yivoiro which follow, seem to me clearly to
decide against this.
I speak after the manner of men, Kara dvBpuiirov Xiyui; i. e.,
I speak as men are often accustomed to do. The expression
itself is general; but the class of men whom the writer has in mind
here, are plainly the objectors to his doctrine. The expression
Kara dvBpuiirov Xiyui may mean : I speak more humano, i. e., in
such a manner as is intelligible to men ; so dvBpunrivov Xiyui, in
Rom. vi. 19 ; and Kara dvBpuiirov Xiyui, in Gal. iii. 15. In the
sense first attributed to the phrase, the Greek and Latin writers
often use the like expression ; e. g., Aristoph. lianas, ver. 1090,
ov xpij <£pd£etv dvBpuiireuis, which one must describe in a way that
is usual among men ; Athen. Deipnos. Tom. III. Lib. IX. 29,
dvBpuiirivuis XaXeiv, to speak like other folks. So Cicero : hominum
more dicere, de Div. II. 64. In like manner the Rabbins, when
they wish to express what is commonly understood or affirmed
by men in general, say : iisjx "^BiO ia_s , as men usually affirm,
or say.
(G) By no means, p.rj yivoiro. This is the negative answer,
given by the apostle to the question : Mr) dS»cos k. t. X.
Otherwise, how shall God judge the world ? iirel iruis ....
Koapov ; i. e., if it is not to be denied that God is unjust, or if we
must concede that he is unjust, then how shall we admit the
doctrine of a future or general judgment? — 'Eirei, otherwise;
comp. Rom. xi. 6, 22. 1 Cor. v. 10. vii. 14. xiv. 16. xv. 29. Heb.
x. 2, et alibi. The question, ' How shall God judge the world ?'
is founded on the concessions or established opinion of the Jews
respecting a judgment-day, which were well known to the apostle.
The expression implies as much as to say : ' You Jews concede
that there will be a time of judgment, when God will punish the
wicked and reward the righteous. But how can this be, if your
objections have any force? The retributive justice of God
will be rendered conspicuous, when the wicked shall be con
demned and punished, and God will be glorified thereby, just
as in the present case ; if this then be a reason why God should
not punish, it is a reason why there should be no judgment ; and
in order to be consistent, you must deny this also.'
Some contend that _<do-p.os here means only the heathen ; and
Reiche has endeavored, at great length, to establish this interpre-

94 ROMANS III. 7. 8.
tation. But I do not see anything to be gained from it. The
Jews admitted a general judgment as well as a judgment of the
heathen. "Why then could not Paul argue from this as well as
from the other ? The nerve of the argument is the same in both
cases ; and this is, that ' because God brings good out of evil, he
is not therefore bound to remit the punishment of the evil, which
must be inflicted at the day of judgment.'
(7) StiU, if the truth of God has abounded the more unto his
glory, on account of my false dealing, el ydp .... airov. Tholuck
understands these to be the words of the apostle. To me they
appear very plainly to be the words attributed to the objector.*
The ydp at the beginningof the verse refers lo an implied thought
in the mind ofthe objector, viz., 'My objection is still valid ; for
(ydp) if the truth,' etc. As to dX-qBeia and ij/evapan, see on verse
5. 'AXr/Beia here means, God's faithful dealings with his people,
both in his threats and promises; 'ievapan means their unfaith
fulness as to his covenant, their false and treacherous dealings in
respect to their vows and obligations. Sentiment: 'If the veracity
and faithfulness of God are rendered more conspicuous, and this
unto his own glory, by the false and deceitful conduct of his cove
nant people, wh}',' etc. Reiche insists here, that dXyBeia must
refer to true religion in opposition to idolatry (if/evapa) ; and so
he makes out the verse to apply to the heathen. Why then does
he not refer dX-qBrjs and \pevarqs, in verse 4, to the heathen ? Is
it not evident that the nouns here merely correspond to the
adjectives there ?
Then why am I still condemned as a sinner ? ri ean .... Kpivo-
pai ; That is, why should I suffer punishment on account of that
very thing which has contributed to the glory of God, inasmuch
as it has occasioned the greater display of his perfections ?
(8) Shall we then [say], (as it is slanderously reported, and as
some affirm that we do say) : Let us do evil that good may come ?
koi pij ... . dyaBd; As pij is simply interrogative here, it cannot
be rendered (as in our English version), not. My is connected
with ipovpev or Xiyuipev understood, as appears from the follow
ing clause with on ; or it may be connected simply with iroiijaui-
pev. The answer of the apostle is by a question which strongly
implies disapprobation of the sentiment in the preceding clause ;
* It is a matter of some question, whether it is not better to take tins
verso as an extension of the reasoning of the preceding verse, and not as
the language of the objector. The course of thought then is: How shall
God judge tlie world; for if the truth of God is established by my wicked
ness (unfaithfulness) why am I to be judged as a sinner, i. e. suffer for that
which contributes to God's glory. And [why] should we not .... do evil
that good may result from it? the punishment of which (evil doing) is just.

ROMANSIII.fi. 95
' Shall we then speak out and say : Let us do evil that good may
come ? as some do actually, although slanderously, accuse us of
saying.' "On, as often in the N. Test, and ela-sie Greek, sinibly
murks cited words, viz., the words iroujawpev k. t. A. Or the whoiu
may be construed thus : Shall we say, then, that we may do evil,
etc. Kat is here a continuative of the apostle's reply to tlie
objector. TiXaaifiqpovpeBa, literally, ive are slanderously reported,
viz., it is slanderously reported that we say, etc.
The occasion given for the enemies of the gospel thus to slan
der Paul and others, was, that he preached the doctrine, that God
would be glorified by the display of his justice in the condemna
tion of sinners, and that where sin abounded grace did much
more abound; doctrines easily abused by a carnal mind, but
which contain truths awful and delightful. Would God that
abuse of them might have never extended beyond the apostolic
age! Whose condemnation is just, uiv to Kpipa IvSikov ion. He
means, that the condemnation of those who falsely attributed
such doctrines to the apostles and other preachers, was just ; in
other words, that their offence was of such a nature as to deserve
punishment.* (9) What then? n ovv ; The question is by the objector; and
ovv, in such a connection, implies as much as to say : ' What now
can be gathered from all this ? '
Bave we [Jews] any preference ? irpoexou.eBa ; That is, allow
ing all that you have said to be true, what preference now can we
assign to the Jews ? Hpoexbg-eBa may be construed as in the
Passive, i. e., are we preferred ? — Have we any precedence ?
So in Plut. de Stoic, rois dyaBoZs irdai irpoarjKei, Kar ovSev irpo-
exop.ivois virb tov Aids, i. e., this is necessary for the good, who are
not indulged at all with a preference by Jupiter.
None at all ; oi irdvruis ; i. e., none as it respects the great
point in debate, viz., whether all men are sinners before God, and
under the condemning sentence of his law. So the latter part of
the verse leads us to explain the sentiment ; and a comparison
with vers. 1, 2, above, and ix. 1 — 5, will oblige us thus to
interpret it; for superiority of another kind, i. e., in external
advantages, is there directly asserted of the Jews by the apostle
himself. For we have already made the charge (ch. i. and ii.) against
both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin, irporjnaadpeBa
* Is it not more natural to refer the uiv to those who would maintain the
sentiment contained in the words : "Let us do evil," etc., than to suppose
that the apostle turns aside to characterize the conduct of those who defame
him. So Mover, Uo Wette, Alford, and others.

96 ROMANS III. 10.
.... elrat. IIpoatTdop,at does not mean directly to prove.
Atria, is accusation, cause, ground, reason ; hence the verb
alndop,ai means to accuse, to show cause, etc. : generally in a bad
sense, implying the preferring or supporting of a charge against
any one. So the apostle means to say, that having already
advanced or supported the charge against Jews and Gentiles of
being sinners without exception, and of standing in need of the
mercy proffered by the gospel, of course he cannot now concede,
that the Jews have any exemption from this charge, or any ground
of preference to the Gentiles, so far as the matter of justification
is concerned. 'Y<fi dp-aprlav means, under the power, or control
of sin, subject to its dominion.
(10) Ka^uis yiypairrai k. t. X. What is the object of this
appeal ? Evidently it is to illustrate and confirm the point now
in debate. And what then is this point ? Why plainly, that the
Jews have no preference over the Gentiles, so far as their guilt
and inability to justify themselves are concerned. The apostle
had just said (in answer to the question put by a Jew, Have we
any pre-eminence ?) Ou irdvruis. Why not ? Because he had
already shown reason why the Jews, as well as the Gentiles, are
involved in the charge of universal guilt; therefore, both were in
the same condition, with respect to their need of a Saviour. The
quotations then, have special reference to the Jews. So Chry
sostom, Calvin, Grotius, Tholuck, Flatt, and others ; and so verse
19 obliges us to construe the quotations in question.
The quotations are taken from various parts of the Hebrew
Scriptures, and mostly in the words of the Septuagint. The
general strain and object of them is to show, that in ancient times
charges of guilt were made against the Jews, not less aggravated
than those now made by the apostle. The Jew could make no
satisfactory reply to this, so long as he allowed the full weight
and authority of the Old Testament. The apostle then, by
adducing such charges from the Jewish Scripture, says in effect :
' You cannot accuse me of making strange and novel charges
against you. Your own Scriptures are filled with charges of the
like nature.' See further v. 19.
Let us proceed, to consider each of the quotations separately.
Oti ovk .... cts, is a quotation ad sensum oi Ps. xiv. 1 ; where
the Hebrew has aia nb>< -ps; and the Septuagint, ovk Ian iroiCiv
Xp-qaTOTTjTa, oii< eanv 'iuis evbs. In Ps. liii. (a repetition of Ps. xiv.),
the Septuagint has simply oi/c eo-rt 7rottuv dyaBbv ; while the He
brew is the same as above. It would seem, therefore that the
apostle had his eye or his mind upon Ps. xiv., when he made the
quotation before us ; and that he has varied from the diction but
followed the sense of the original. Instead of saying there is 'none

ROMANS III. 11, 12. 97
that doeth good, he says, there is none righteous (idem per alia
verba). The ovSe eis of our text, evidently corresponds to the
Septuagint oiK ianv ecus ivbs.
(11) Ouk eanv avviuiv .... ©edv, corresponds to the Hebrew
Qin'^S-nx "tiyi ^pba UJjn, whether there is any one ivho under
standeth, who seeketh after God, Ps. xiv. 2. The question in the
Hebrew implies a negative ; and a simple negative is made by
Paul, who says, ouk eorj-tv k. t. A. The Septuagint runs literally :
Et eori avviuiv rj iK^ijTuiv rof ®eov. Paul has cited ad sensum, and
nearly ad verbum. Iwviuiv instead of avvieis, as from awiiui the
old root. See § 81 of New Test. Gramm. Comp. § 80.
(12) ndi/res .... evos, cited exactly from the Septuagint
version of Ps. xiv. 3. The Hebrew runs thus :
ins na lis sia nisi* vs inbsa w id Van
Whether aU have gone out of the way and together become
corrupt ? None doeth good, not even one. Paul omits, as the
Septuagint also does, the interrogatory sense of the first clause,
made by bbn (which is co-ordinate with urn in the preceding
verse), and renders simply: TLavres iiiieXivav, altogether ad
sensum. The word avviuiv in verse 11 means to have an enlightened
knowledge, viz. of God and duty. — 'O adjiriov (Heb. vHt) means,
to worship God, to seek him in acts of devotion, meditation, etc.,
to be a devoted worshipper. — 'EfcKAivav in verse 11 means, have
departed from the right way, from the paths of piety and happi
ness. — 'Hxpetco^o-ai/, have become corrupt, literally have become
unprofitable or useless. But as the meaning is here a moral one,
the first rendering is the most appropriate.
In regard to the original meaning of these quotations, there
seems not to be much room for dispute. Who is it of whom the
Psalmist is speaking? It is ^33, 6 diippuiv, as ver. 1 determines.
But are all men without exception d<f>poves ? Whatever may be
the fact, yet it is not here asserted ; for in ver. 4 the workers of
iniquity are expressly distinguished from my people. In verse 5,
the generation of the righteous is distinguished from the workers
of iniquity. It is plain, then, that the Psalmist is here describ
ing two parties among the Hebrews ; the one wicked, yea
altogether corrupt ; the other righteous, i. e., belonging to the true
people of God.
The application of this passage by the apostle is plain. All
unbelievers, all who put not their trust in Christ, are of the same
character with those wicked persons whom the Psalmist describes ;
9

98 EOMANS III. 13, 14.
and what is now true of them, was once true of present believers,
i. e., before they became' penitent.
(13) Tdcpos .... eSoAiouo-av, verbatim with the Septua
gint version of Ps. v. 10 (v. 9); which runs thus in the He
brew : •jipiVr) caius!: ' coha n*inB ¦nap
An open sepulchre is their throats ; with their tongues do they
flatter, speak deceitful things. Sentiment : ' As from the sepulchre
issues fortli an offensive and pestilential vapor ; so from the
mouths of slanderous persons issue noisome and pestilential
words.' Or if it may mean, as some suppose, that ' their throat
is like an open sepulchre, swallowing up and destroying all '
(Reiche, Barnes), then what is the sense of their tongues ? This
shows that noisome and pestilential falsehood and flattery or deceit,
is the idea which is intended to be expressed. — 'KooAiouo-ai>,
speak deceit, deceive, stands for eSoAtouv, Imperfect active ; see N.
Test. Gramm. § 65. 8.
'Ios doTTi'Soiv virb rd xe^V airuiv, accords verbatim with the
Septuagint version of a part of Psalm cxl. 4. (cxl. 3). The He
brew runs thus : i^rsd nnn STODS nan, the poison of asps, or
ofthe adder, is under their lips ; i. e., their words are like poison,
they utter the poisonous breath of slander. The phrase before
us gives intensity to the preceding description ; all of which,
however, is not intended to designate merely some specific kind
of slander, but the sinful exercise of the tongue, which (as James
expresses it) is irvp, 6 Koo-p.os rgs dSi/aas, iii. 6.
In the passages quoted in this and the following verse, the
persons characterized are the enemies of David. What was said
of them may be applied, as the apostle here intimates by the quo
tation, to all those who refused submission to ' David's Lord that
sat upon his throne.'
(14) ''Oi' to .... yep.et, runs thus in the Septuagint: Ou dpas
to arbpa airov yipei koi iriKpias Kai SdAou (Ps. ix. 7), which cor
responds to the Hebrew in Psalm x. 7, triaiosi sba *in*Q nbs , ex
cepting that oS is tidded by the Seventy, and also SbXov. ' The
apostle has quoted the Hebrew as it would seem, and exactly ad
sensum, the suffix pronoun in W& being generic, and indicating a
real plurality, which Paul expresses by Siv.
TIiKpias is used to translate the Hebrew niaia , which literally
signifies fraud, deceit. But as false accusations are here meant,
which tend to destroy reputation and confidence, and proceed
from bitterness of spirit, so mxpia (bitterness) is employed to char
acterize them, it being used ad sensum in a general way. Or did
the Seventy read nil'la , bitterness ?

EOMANS III. 15 — 19.

99

f!5 — 17) 'Of eis .... 'eyvuiaav, abridged from Is. lix. 7, 8.
The Septuagint and Hebrew run thus :

Ot 7rdSes airuiv iirl irovqpiav rpex~
ovai, raxivol eK^e'at alpa, Kai ol
Sia\.oyiapoi airuiv SiaXoyiap.ol
airb ifibvuiv avvrpijipa koi raXai-
ir^opia Tats oSots airuiv, Kai bSbv
elp-qvys oiK o'iSaai.

bi T|Bi;b nrroii iixii sib crrtai
lb "j;s nisbna ftrrrarn-a ips
sb nibirj in t cniicaa ¦aiai

:Q?

IWTi

Here the expressions are altogether of a general nature, as they
stand in the prophet, and plainly characterize a great part of the
Jewish nation in the time of the writer ; compare Is. lix. 2, 4, 9 —
1.3. Of course this is still more directly to the apostle's purpose,
than the preceding quotations. Those correspond with his inten
tion in the way of implication ; but the present quotation corres
ponds in the way of direct analogy.
An inspection of the original will disclose how much the apostle
has abridged it in his quotation. 'Ofets is substituted for raxivoi
in the Septuagint ; and the clause : " their thoughts are thoughts
of evil," is omitted. Both the Seventy and Paul omit the He
brew ips in the phrase ip3 01 , innocent blood. — 'EKxiai, 1 Aorist
Inf., comes from eK^e'to, Fut. e^euo-co (in the New Testament e^eca,
the Attic Fut., N. Test. Gramm. § 65. 3), 1 Aor. efe'xea after
the manner of verbs in A, p, v, p. A few ve; bs thus form the
first Aorist. See Gramm. § 65. 10.
Sentiment : ' They are ready and swift to engage in crimes of
the highest degree ; destruction and misery attend their steps, i. e.,
wherever they go, they spread destruction and misery around
them. The way of happiness they take no knowledge of, or they
give no heed to what concerns their own true welfare or that
of others.' (18) Ouk eo-Tt .... airuiv, is exactly quoted from the Septua
gint, and corresponds for substance to the Hebrew. The
Hebrew original is in Psalm xxxvi. 1, and it runs thus :
I^W 133!: cnn'bx ins -ps, there is no fear of God before his eyes;
i. e., lie has no reverence for God, no fear of offending him which
puts any effectual restraint upon his wickedness.
(19) Now we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it ad
dresses to those ivho are under the law, oiSapev Se  AaAet ;
i. e., we know that whatever the Old Test. Scriptures say, when
they speak in the manner now exhibited, they address it to those
who are in possession of these Scriptures, viz., to the Jews. — Ae
continuativum, nunc, German nun, English now, in tho sense of a
continuative. — Tots iv nd vopw, those who have a revelation os

100 EOMANS III. 19.
are under the law ; iv conditionis, compare what is said on ev
under chap. i. 24.
The object of the apostles is to show, that the Jews can in no
way avoid the force of what is here said. It was originally
addressed to the Jews, in a direct manner. What he has quoted
was indeed spoken at different times, to different classes of per
sons, and uttered by various individuals. But still the principle
is the same. Jews are addressed ; and the Jews are accused in
the very same manner, i. e., with equal force, by their own
prophets wliose authority is acknowledged, as tliey were accused
by Paul. The principle then by which such an accusation is to
be supported, is thus established. As to the actual application
of this, and the facts respecting the conduct and character of the
Jews in the apostle's time ; all the writings of the New Testament,
of Josephus, and others, and the direct assertions of Paul in this
epistle, go to show that no injustice at all was done to them in the
present case.
It is this principle, which the apostle has in view to establish
by all his quotations, viz., that in consistence with the fidelity of
God to his promises, and consistently with the ancient Scriptures,
the Jews might be charged with wickedness even of a gross
character, and such as brought them as truly as the polluted
heathen under the curse of the divine law; and this he does
entirely establish. When thus understood, there remains no im
portant difficulty respecting the quotations. These proofs from
Scripture were not needed to settle the question about the
depravity of the Gentiles. The character of the heathen was too
palpable to be denied. That of the Jews, indeed, was scarcely
less so in the eyes of others ; but still, they themselves expected
to escape divine justice, on the ground of being God's chosen
people. All expectation of this nature is overturned by the
declarations and arguments of the apostle, in chapters ii. iii.
of this epistle.
Such as undertake to prove universal depravity directly from
the texts here quoted, appear to mistake the nature of the apostle's
argument, and to overlook the design of his quotations. It is
impossible to make the passages in the Old Testament, as they
there stand, to be universal in their meaning, without doin"- vio
lence to the fundamental laws of interpretation. And surely
there is no need of doing thus. The whole strain of the apostle's
argument at large, goes to establish universal depravity ; I mean
the universal depravity of all who are out of Christ, and are
capable of sinning. The doctrine is safe, without doing violence
to any obvious principle of exegesis ; which we never can do
with safety. I need scarcely add, that Flatt, Tholuck, and

EOMANS III. 19. 101
nearly all distinguished commentators of the present clay, so far
as I know, agree in substance with the interpretation which I
have now given.
So that every mouth must be stopped, and the whole world become
guilty before Godf'lva irdv .... ©e<3. "Ira has here the ecbatic "'
sense, not the telic ; for to assert that the Old Test, was written
principally to stop the mouths of the guilty, would be a singular
position indeed. See Tittmann on Iva, in the Bibl. Repository,
No. I. of 1835. — Ilav arbpa <ppayrj, i. e., every man, all men,
whether Jews or Gentiles, must be convicted of sin, and be una-^
ble to produce anything to justify their conduct ; compare Job v.
16. Ps. cvii. 42. The phraseology is borrowed from the custom
of gagging criminals, i. e., stopping their mouths in order to
prevent apology or outcry from them, when they were led
out to execution. — 'YttoSikos, reus, i. e., guilty, deserving of
condemnation. But how extensive is the conclusion here ? (1) It extends to
all who are out of Christ. I draw this conclusion, not so much
from the mere forms of expression, such as irdv arbpa and 7r£s 6
Koapos, as I do from the nature and object of the apostle's argu
ment. What is this ? Plainly his design is, to show that there is
but one method of acceptance with God now possible ; and this is
in the way of gratuitous pardon or justification. But why is this
necessary in all cases ? The answer is : Because all have sinned.
Certainly, if those who do not believe in Christ cannot obtain
pardon without him, this is because they are sinners, and have no
claim on the score of justice or law.
But (2) All who are in Christ, i. e., are justified, have once
been sinners, and do still commit more or less sin, for which par
doning mercy becomes necessary. Once they were among the
impenitent and unregenerate. What the apostle asserts then, in
our text, of all men, need not be limited, and should not indeed
be limited, merely to those who are out of Christ at any
particular time, but may be extended to all who were ever
out of him.
According to the apostle's own commentary on this doctrine in
chap, iv., it appears that even Abraham and David, as well as the
grossest sinners, were justified only in a gratuitous way, being
utterly unable to obtain the divine approbation, on the ground
of perfect obedience. The plain inference then is that all men
are sinners, and that none therefore can be saved by their
own merits. So verse 20 virtually declares; and verse 23
says explicitly.
In form, the argument of Paul extends only to those who are
out of Christ ; but as this has once been the condition of all
J 9*

102 EOMANS III. 20.
men without exception, so in substance it embraces all men with
out exception, who "by nature are children of wrath, being
children of disobedience ; " for " that which is born of the flesh,
is flesh." I cannot forbear to repeat that it seems to me a wrong view
of the apostle's meaning in verses 10 — 19, which regards him as
laboring to prove directly the universality of men's depravity,
merely by the argument which these texts afford. Paul has
other sources of proof, besides that of argument ; for if he him
self was an inspired apostle, then surely his own declarations
respecting the state of the heathen or Jews, were to be credited
on just the same grounds as those ofthe ancient Psalmist and of
the Prophets. Why not? And then, why should we be solici
tous to show that everything in Paul's epistle is established by
argumentation ? Had the apostle no other way of establishing
truth, except by argumentation ? Are not his own declarations,
I repeat it, as weighty and credible as those of the ancient proph
ets ? If so, then we need not be anxious to retain the argument
as a direct one, in verses 10 — 19. Enough that it illustrates and
confirms the principle which the apostle asserts, and for which
he contends. The argument from this principle is irresistible,
when we once concede that Christ is the only Saviour of all men
without exception ; for this cannot be true, unless all men with
out exception are sinners. Of course I mean, all who are capable
of sinning.
(20) Because that by works of law shall no flesh be justified
before him, Sum .... aurou. Aioti, on account of, because that,
for. In this sense it differs little or nothing from ydp. It is not
employed, as some contend, to designate a logical conclusion
from premises, therefore ; but stands before a clause which assigns
a reason or ground of something already affirmed. The appeal
of Bretsch. (lex.) to Acts xvii. 31. Rom. i. 21. viii. 7. 1 Pet. ii.
6, does not at all support his conclusion, Sion being employed in
all these cases as above stated.
Works of law, epyuiv vbpov, i. e., such works as law requires ;
just as Ipya ®eou means, ' such works as God requires or ap
proves ; and so epya Tov'Afipadp, John viii. 39, ra. epya ToumtTpds
vpSiv [tov Sia/?dAou], John viii. 14; Ta epya w NtKoAatrav, Rev.
ih 6 ; and so epya Trjs Tropins — Tiys aapKos — tou 8ta/?dAou — ri}s
iriareuis, etc. From these and a multitude of other examples, it
appears entirely plain that epya and epyov, followed by a Genitive
which qualifies them, mean something to be effected or done, which
is agreeable to the command, desire, nature, etc., of the thing
which is designated by the Genitive noun.
Concerning this usage, there is no just room to doubt. But the

EOMANS III. 20. 103
sense of vopov has been thought to be less obvious. Does vbpos
then mean ceremonial law, or revelation in general, or the moral
law whether revealed or natural ? The object or design of the
writer must determine this. What then is the object of Paul in
the present case ? Surely it is, to show that both Gentiles and
Jews need that gratuitous justification which the gospel proclaims,
and which Christ has procured ; compare iii. 9, irdv arbpa and
7ra; 6 Koapos in iii. 19, irdvres in ver. 23, together with ver. 29.
Cf. also chap. i. 19 — 32 with ii. 17 —29. Nothing can be more
certain than that the conclusion of the apostle is a general one,
having respect to Jew and Gentile both. But how can it be ap
posite to say, in respect to the Gentiles, that they cannot be jus
tified by the ceremonial law? Were the Gentiles sinners,
because they had not kept the ritual laws of Moses ? So the
apostle does not judge ; see ii. 14, 15, 26. How, then, ean he be
supposed to say in reference to the Gentiles (for the present verse
refers to them as well as to the Jews), that by the law is the
knowledge of sin ? What knowledge of the ceremonial law of
Moses did the heathen possess ?
The transgressions of the ritual law are also no part of the
accusation which the apostle here brings against the Jews. In
chap ii. 17 — 29, he accuses them of breaking moral laws; and
after having enumerated a long catalogue of crimes common
among the Gentiles in chap. i. 19 — 32, he goes on immediately
to intimate in chap. ii. 1, seq., that the Jews were chargeable
with the same or with the like crimes. In ii. 14, seq., and ii. 26,
seq., he intimates that the law, inscribed upon the consciences
and minds of the heathen, inculcated those very things with
regard to which the Jews were sinners. In iii. 9, seq., he brings
Jews and Gentiles under the same accusation, explicitly charging
all with being sinners, and sinners against a law which was
common to both.
Again ; when it is asked in Rom. vi. 15, ShaU we sin
because we are not virb vopov but under grace ? what sense would
there be in this question (which is supposed to be urged by an
objector), provided the ceremonial law be meant? Would he in
reason ask the question : ' Have we liberty to break the moral
law, i. e., to sin, because we are not under the ceremonial ? ' Or,
' because the ceremonial law will not justify us, may we not break
the moral law ? ' Yet vbpov in Rom. vi. 15, is plainly of the
same nature as vbpos in iii. 20.
Finally ; the apostle everywhere opposes the S«atWts or
SiKaioow>7 of the gospel, to that justification which results from
works in general, works of any kind whatever ; e. g., 2 Tim. i. 9.
Eph. ii. 8, 9. Tit. iii. 5. Rom. iv. 2 — 5, 13 — 16. iii. 27. xi. 6.

104 EOMANS III. 20.
and in many other places. In all such cases, justification by
works means a meritorious justification, while that which is by
faith means a gratuitous justification.
From all this it results, that vbpov must here mean the moral
law, whether written or unwritten, i. e., law in general, any law
whether applicable to Gentile or Jew, any rule which prescribes
a duty by obedience to which men might claim a promise of re
ward. Neither is this duty limited to what is external merely.
It also has reference to the state of their heart and feelings. So
Paul teaches most explicitly, in Rom. ii. 28, 29, in Rom. ii. 16,
and often elsewhere.
Understood in this way, the phrase epya vbpov is plain. Neither
Jew nor Gentile can be justified before God on the ground of
obedience ; " all have sinned and come short of the glory of God ; "
each one has broken the law under which he has acted ; the
Gentiles, that which was written on their minds and consciences,
ii. 14, 15 ; the Jews, that which, was contained in the Scriptures,
ii. 27. Now as the law of God, revealed or natural, requires
entire and perfect obedience, just so far as it is known and under
stood, or may be so without criminal neglect on the part of men ;
and since " the soul which sinneth must die," and " he who
offendeth in one point is guilty of all ; " it follows of necessity
that all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, while in an unconverted
state, are under the condemning sentence of the law ; and there
fore that they cannot possibly claim acceptance with God on the
ground of perfect obedience. They can indeed expect nothing
but condemnation and misery from the exercise of simple retribu
tive justice toward them under a pure system of law ; for " all
have sinned," and therefore " all have come short of the glory
of God. "
In no other way, as it seems to me, can the general course of
argument by the apostle be understood and interpreted so as to
preserve consistency with the, other parts of this epistle, and with
his other writings, or so as to harmonize with the particular
design and object of the writer. Accordingly Storr, Flatt,
Tholuck and many others have explained epyuiv vbpov substantially
in the same manner as I have done. I add merely, that the
question here is, whether men in their present state and character,
as actual transgressors, can be justified by the law. The generic
and abstract question, whether human nature is capable of fulfil
ling the law, is not the subject of discussion, and is a question of
no moment, so far as the simple doctrine of justification is con
cerned ; inasmuch as all men born in the natural way, who are
capable of sinning, do sin.
AtKato^o-eTat, see on StKatoo-u'vij in i. 17, where the verb

EOMANS III. 20 105
Sucouoco is also explained. It means here to be accepted and
treated as having fully kept the precepts of the law. — Ou irocra
.... adp£ = liaa-bs sb, no one ; a true Hebraism in all
respects, which would hardly have been intelligible to a mere
Attic Grecian.
If all the world are vttoSikos tc3 ©eai, then must it be true that
none ean be Sucatos before him in a legal sense, i. e., on the ground
of perfect and meritorious obedience. 'Evunruov airov = "psab, in
his view, in his sight, in his presence. The mind of the writer
here contemplates mankind as standing before the divine tribunal,
in order to be judged of the things done in the body.
For by law is the knowledge of sin, Sta yap .... dpapnas.
The ydp here introduces a reason or ground why works of law
will not justify. The law condemns but does not justify ; and
'this, because men have broken it. Nd/nou here must evidently
mean the same as it does in the clause ef epyuiv vopov, which
clearly signifies any law of a moral kind, either natural or
revealed. Turretin understands vbpov, in the phrase before us,
as meaning the Jewish Scriptures. But, as the preceding phrase
is general, it must be understood so here. All law is a rule of
action, in the most extensive sense of this word, embracing the
internal as well as the external developments of the human soul.
By this rule all actions are to be scanned ; the Gentiles are to
scan theirs by the law written upon their own minds, ii. 14, 15 ;
the Jews by their own Scriptures. The precepts of law, whether
natural or revealed, by commanding this and prohibiting that
serve to make known the nature of sin : for all sin is dvopia,
want of conformity to the law. The simple design ofthe apostle,
in saying Sta yap vbpov iiriyvuiais dpaprias, is to remind those
whom he addressed, that the law (any law either natural or
revealed), so far from holding out to men who are sinners the
prospect of justification before God and promising them accept
ance with him, is the very means of bringing them, by its
disclosures respecting the nature and guilt of sin, to a knowledge
of their unhappy and desperate condition, inasmuch as it shows
them that they are exposed to its full penalty for every trans
gression which they have committed. The word iiriyvuiais is
stronger than the simple word yvuiais ; and in this way the
apostle means to intimate the clear knowledge of sin which the
law communicates.

106 EOMANS III. 21.

CHAP. ITI. 21—31.
The apostle having shown that both Jews and Gentiles are all under sin, and
therefore are obnoxious to the penalty of the divine law ; he now proceeds to show
more definitely that gratuitous pardon or justification is the only way of salvation
now open for men. This way of salvation is disclosed in the Old Testament Scrip
tures, verse 21 ; even that justification which is proposed to all men without distinc
tion, and conferred on all who believe in Christ, verse 22. No difference can be
made, as to the need of such a justification, between the Jew and Gentile, inasmuch
as all without exception are sinners, and therefore stand in the same need of gratui
tous pardon, verse 24. Christ is set forth to all men as a propitiatory offering or sac
rifice, the efficacy of which may be experienced by faith in his blood ; arrd thus God
manifests to the world the provision which he has made for the forgiveness of all sin,
aud discloses a way in which his holy regard to justice may be preserved, and yet
his pardoning mercy bestowed on the penitent believer in Jesus, verses 25, 26. All
boasting then on the ground of our own merits, is entirely excluded, because justifi
cation by faith, from its own nature, must be wholly gratuitous, verse 27. The con
clusion is forced upon us from all this, that we arc gratuitously justified, and not on
the ground of merit, verse 28. All are justified ou the same ground, because God
stands in the same relation to both Jews and Gentiles, verse 29; both the circum
cised and the uncircumcised are justified by faith, verse 30. The Old Testament
Scriptures also (as was before said, verse 21) teach the very same doctrine, verse 31.
(21) But now, the justification without law ivhich is cf God, is
revealed, vvvl Se . . . . ireepavipurrai. Nui/t, now, i. e., under the
gospel dispensation, in distinction from ancient times, or former
days.* Ae' " particula discretiva, opposita conjungens." — Xuipts
vbpov, without law, i. e., without the aid or concurrence of law, or
in such a way as not to be by means of law, or in a way different
from or contrary to that of legal justification which rests solely on
the ground oi perf ect and meritorious obedience. Xoipts vbpov, may
be interpreted as qualifying SiKatocruV?7 ©eou, or it may possibly
be joined in sense with ireepavipuirai. The meaning in either
case may perhaps be substantially the same. But both its
position in the sentence, and its more appropriate meaning
when thus construed, favor its connection with SiKaioavvrj
©eou. BiKaioavvrj ©eou see on i. 17. — Jle^ai/epaiTai, is disclosed,
manifested, revealed, viz., in or by the gospel.
Which is testified, i. e., plainly and openly declared, by the law
and the prophets, paprvpovpivq .... irpoep-qruiv, i. e., by the
Old Testament Scriptures; compare Matt. v. 17. vii. 12. xi.
13. xxii. 40. Luke xvi. 16. John i. 45. 4 Mace, xviii. 10. Tlie
apostle would affirm that he teaches no new thing; he only
repeats what in substance has been declared in the Old Test.
respecting gratuitous justification. And when he says vvvl . .
* It cannot be doubted that this gives a true idea, but it may be ques
tioned wliether vvvi strictly refers to time, whether it is not simply de-
auctive, as Hangs are, nouo.

EOMANS III. 22.

feS

irerpavipurrai, is NOAV revealed, in the preceding part of the verse,
he means that this shall be emphatically (not absolutely) under
stood ; otherwise the same verse would contain a contradiction
of itself. He designs to say, that gratuitous justification is more
fully and amply revealed by the gospel. What is merely hinted
in the declaration before us, Paul goes on fully to develop
in chapter iv.
(22) What that righteousness of God, SiKaioav-q ©eou, is, which
is without the law, xuipls vbpov, the apostle next proceeds explic
itly to develop. The justification then which is of God by faith
in Jesus Christ, SiKaioavvrj Si ... . 'Irjaov Xptcrrou. This ex
planation makes it clear as the noon-day sun, that SiKaioavvrj ©eou,
in this connection, does not mean, righteousness or the love of
justice, as an attribute of God. For in what possible sense can
it be said that God's righteousness or justice (as an essential
attribute) is by faith in Christ ? Does he possess or exercise
this attribute, or reveal it, by faith in Christ? The Se' does
not stand here as adversative to x^P's vbpov, but seems plainly to
introduce a clause which is a resumption of the preceding Sucaio-
avvq ©eou for the sake of further explanation. The Attics often
employed Se as a sign of resumption. In such a case, it is equiva
lent to our, and so, therefore, then. The shade of thought appears
to be this : ' As it is a justification ^copts vbpov, then or therefore
(Si) it is a justification by faith ; ' or the sense will be good if we
construe thus : ' a justification ^copts vbpov, namely (Se) a justifica
tion by faith.' But this latter usage of Se' without any adversa
tive sense in any respect, seems hardly admissible.
By Christian faith, Std iriareuis 'l-qaoii Xptcrrou, i. e., by that
faith of which Jesus Christ is the object, 'I770-0U Xpiarov being
Genitivus objecti ; for most clearly it is not faith which belongs
to Christ himself^ but the faith of sinners towards him. The
meaning of the apostle is, that the gratuitous justification which
the gospel reveals, is that which is to be had by believing and
trusting in Christ as our Redeemer and Deliverer; compare
vers. 23 — 26. Faith, indeed, is not to be regarded as the meri
torious cause or ground of justification (which is wholly gratui
tous, ver. 24), but only as the means or instrument by which we
come into such a state or relation, that justification can, consist
ently with the nature and character of God, be gratuitously
bestowed upon us.
To all and upon all, els irdvras ko.1 iirl irdvras. Luther under
stands ipxopivq before eis irdvras, i. e., [StKaioo-iV?7 ©eou ipxopivy~]
els irdvras. The sense is good ; but can we not better construe
ets Trdvras as connected with irecpavipuirai? Qavepbui usually takes
the simple Dative after it in such cases ; but the New Testament

108 BOMANS III. 22.
writers often use the Accusative with ets instead of the simple
Dative, or the Dative with ev ; see Bretschn. Lex. ets 5. b.
'Eirl irdvras appears to mark the subjects, who receive the
SiKaioavvrj in question ; which is clear from the tous Trurreuovras
that follows and qualifies it. I am aware, indeed, that many
commentators suppose that 7rto-TeuovTas belongs equally to both
cases of 7rdvTas. But may we not suppose, that ets irdvras denotes
to whom the proclamation of SiKatocruVr/, gratuitous pardon, is
made, i. e., that it is made to all men ? Kai iirl irdvras rovs iria-
Tevovras I should then consider as a kind of parenthesis thrown
in to guard against the idea that the actual bestowment of justifi
cation is as universal as the offers of it. The offer is made to
all men without exception ; believers only, however, are entitled
to the actual reception of it. My reason for supposing such a
parenthesis here, is that the writer immediately resumes the
generic or universal idea, ov ydp ian k. t. A., which shows that
his mind is intent on the illustration of ets irdvras, as his principal
proposition. Besides this, the clause em. irdvras tous Trioreuovras
is omitted in A., B., C, Copt., JEth.., Arm., Clem., Origen ; which
shows at least that it was not deemed essential to the principal
sentiment. As the main object is to show, that there is "no ex
ception at all as to the need of that justification which the gospel
proposes, Paul only suggests, here and there by the way, the
extent in which the justification proposed is actually bestowed —
iirl irdvras tous irurrevovTas .... Kat StKaiouira tov ck iriareuis
'I-qaov (ver. 26).
It is by overlooking these nicer shades and connections of
thought in this paragraph, that many critics have come to the
conclusion, that no difference exists here between ets irdvras and
iiri 7rdvras.* Before eVi 7rdiTas either iari or rather rj SiKaioavvrj
iari seem to be implied ; and then iirl is used in the sense of ad
commodum, for ; comp. Heb. viii. 8. xii. 10 ; see also Bretschn.
Lex. iirl, III. 5.
For there is no distinction or difference, ov ydp ian SiaaroX-q,
i. e., in regard to the matter of justification by faith or gratuitous
justification ; there is no distinction whatever between Greek
and Jew ; for as all have sinned, so justification by deeds of law,
i. e., by perfect obedience to the law, is an impossible thing, inas
much as it is impossible that a sinner should lay in any proper
claim to such a justification. The ydp here is ydp illustrantis vel
* The repetition of prepositions before a word with a shade of difference
in meaning for the sake of intensity or distinctness, as here for all, i. e. " for
the benefit of all," and upon all, i. e. " so us to be shed down on all," is com
mon in Paul's writings ; see Winer, N. Test. Idioms, § 54, 6, and Alford
and Meyer's Commentaries.

ROMANS III. 23, 21. 109
confirmantis, the sequel being designed to illustrate and confirm
the affirmation made above, viz., that the justification which
is of God without law, i. e., gratuitous justification, is revealed
et? irdvras.
(23) For all have sinned, and come short of divine approbation,
or of the glory which God bestows, irdvres ydp .... ©eou. The
ydp here is again ydp illustrantis vel confirmantis, i. e., it intro
duces the reason why there is no difference, SiaaroX-q. 'Yarepiui
comes from uWepos, last, and sometimes means (as its etymology
would indicate) to be last or inferior, 1 Cor. xii. 24. viii. 8. 2 Cor.
xi. 5. xii. 11. The passive voice is used in the same sense (for
substance) as the active ; varepiut meaning deficio, destituo, and
varepiopai, destituor, I am wanting in, I am deficient in. The
idea in our text is that of failing, bemg deprived or destitute of,
and the verb governs the Gen. by the usual principles of syntax.
The divine approbation, Sb$qs tov ©eou. So indeed most com
mentators translate it ; and with good philological support, inas
much as Sofa often and even commonly means praise, approbation,
in the classics, and has a like sense in the N. Test., e. g., John v.
41, 44. vii. 18. viii. 50, 54. xii. 43. Nevertheless, as Sofa very
often means, by N. Test, usage, a glorified state, a glorious con
dition, supreme happiness, it may be so taken here, and ©eou may
be construed as Genitivus auctoris, so that Sdfqs tou ©eou would
mean, the glory which God bestows, or of which God is the author.
So Semler, Morus, Bbhme, Chrysostom, Beza, Hammond, Ben
gel, Glockler, and others. But still as the subject is here that
of justification, viz., acquittal, Sbfrqs may appositely be employed
in the classical sense of opinion (here good opinion, approbation),
i. e., the approbation of the final judge of men, when they stand
before his tribunal. The idea would then be, that inasmuch as
all men have broken the law of God, they cannot expect his ap
probation in the day of trial, upon the ground of their own mer
its. Hence the necessity of some other method of justification
different from that which is by works of law.
(24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption
which is by Christ Jesus, SiKatovpevoi .... 'I-qaov. The apostle
has previously declared that all have sinned, and thus rendered a
sentence of acquittal and reward impossible on the ground of law.
He now asserts the counterpart of this, viz., that all who obtain
justification must obtain it gratuitously and only by virtue of the
redemption that Christ has accomplished ; a proposition which
contains the very essence of all that is peculiar to the gospel of
Christ, or that can make a solid foundation on which the hopes of
perishing sinners may rest.
The ellipsis before and after SiKatoup.evoi may be failed out
10

110 EOMANS III. 25.
thus : \irdvTes~] SiKaiovpevoi [eicrt] ; for SiKaiovpevoi here evidently
stands in the room of a verb. In fact, verses 23, 24, are really
two different sentences ; while the present grammatical construc
tion of them makes but one. — Atopedv, gratuitously, in the way
of mere favor. Auipedv (Heb. Mrl) comes from Scoped, donum
gratuitum, beneficium ; and this, with Suipov, munus, Suipvpa, bene
ficium, and Suipiopai, dono, all originate from SiSuipai or StSo'co, to
give. By his grace, rfj airov x°-PlTl; epexegetical of Suipedv, and
added to give intensity to the whole sentence or affirmation ;
comp. Eph. ii. 8, 9. 2 Tim. i. 9. Tit. iii. 4, 5. Redemption, diro-
Xvrpuiaeuis. The force of this word may be best seen by recur
ring to its root AuVpoi', which means, ' the price of ransom
paid for a slave or a captive, in consequence of which he is set
free.' Aurpdw and diroAurpda) both mean, to pay the price of ran
som ; diroXvrpbui is somewhat intensive, and = pay off. Accord
ingly Aurptocris and d7roAuVpu>o-is mean, (1) Tlie act of paying this
price ; and (2) The consequences of this act, viz. the redemption
which follows it. In this way the idea of cra-oAurpuio-is comes
at times to be merely generic, i. e., liberation, deliverance.. — T^s
iv Xptortp 'I?7o-ou designates the author of our redemption, viz.,
him who paid the ransom and procured our freedom, when we
were the slaves and captives of sin and Satan, and exposed to the
wrath of God, i. 18. The sequel defines more exactly what the
writer understands by d7roAuTpc6o-eios in this place.
(25) The most important word in the translation of the first
clause of this verse, is lAacrnjpiov. In classic Greek it is equiva
lent to the adjective iXdcri^os, propitiatory, atoning ; which comes
directly from iA.acrp.ds, atonement, propitiation ; which with
iXao-riKos, iA.acrr>7pios, and iXaapa comes from IXdaKopai or IXdopai
(tA.eop.at Att.), always employed by Homer to designate the making
of .propitiation or atonement to the gods. The later Greeks
sometimes used IXdaKopai in the sense of being propitious.
In our text IXaargpiov is best considered as a noun, although it
may be an adjective used in an elliptical way, hke other adjec
tives of a similar nature ; e. g., xapiarr/piov, aun-qpiov, rd ir-qaux.
,/ toi yeve'^Ata, etc., with Bvpa, offering or sacrifice to be supplied.
The Seventy employ IXaar-qpiov, sometimes joining it with
iirtBepa, Ex. xxv. 17 ; but usually omitting iirlBepa and using
tAaor?7piov alone, in the same sense which both words would give ;
e.g., Ex. xxv. 18, 19, 20 bis, 22. xxxvii. (Sept. xxxviii.) 6, 7, 3,
8 bis. Lev. xvi. 2, 13, 14, 15, etc. In all these cases whether
tAao-T^piov has iiriBepa expressed or not, the Hebrew word is
Tries, covering, viz. the covering of the ark of the covenant in the
y/ most holy place, which was overlaid with pure gold (Ex. xxv.
17), over which the cherubim stretched out their wings (Ex.

ROMANS III. 25. Ill
xxv. 20), and which was the throne of Jehovah in his earthly
temple, the place from which he uttered his oracles, and com
muned with the representatives of his people, Ex. xxv. 22 ;
comp. Ex. xxxvii. 6 — 9. Into the inner sanctuary where the
ark was, the high-priest entered but once in a year (Heb. ix. 7),
when he sprinkled the rYiES lAao-TrJptov \_iiriBepa] with blood, in
order to make propitiation for the sins of the people, Lev. xvi. 2,
15, 16. In like manner with the Seventy, Philo calls the rviBB,
iruipa iXaarr/piov and iiriBepa IXaar-qpiov, i. e., a propitiatory cover
ing ; Vita Mosis, III. 668. (Frankf. ed.) Also in de Prof. p. 465.
But Paul was not necessarily limited to that, inasmuch as the
common Greek idiom afforded him another combination of iAacr-
Tijpiov, viz. tAaa-T^piov Bvpa, propitiatory sacrifice or offering.
So Dio Chrysostom, Orat. II. 184, tAacn-qpiov 'A^atot rrj 'AB-qvS..
So Josephus, IXaar-qpiov pvrjpa, a propitiatory monument, Antiq.
XVI. 7. 1. So in 4 Maec. xvii. 22, IXaar-qpiov Bavdrov avrov.
Symmachus in Gen. vi. 14, iAdo-ets tAao-T^piov. Some, as Origen,
Erasmus, and Luther, have interpreted the word here ill accord
ance with the usage in the LXX., but Hesychius, Grotius, Tur-
retin, Tholuck, Alford, Meyer, and others, in accordance with
Greek idiom as above stated. I most fully agree with the latter
interpretation, since the phrase iv t<3 aip-art aurou, which follows,
seems to refer to the atp.a of the iAao-T>7piov. It may be said, that
if Christ be represented as the mercy-seat which was sprinkled
with propitiatory blood, aipan airov may refer to this. But such
an image is unnatural, if the analogy of the Jewish mercy-seat
be consulted ; for then. Christ would be represented as a mercy-
seat, sprinkled with his own blood. But if tAao-T^piov means a
propitiatory sacrifice, the usage is altogether congruous ; inasmuch
as the blood was sprinkled round about upon the altar, where the
sacrifice was laid, Lev. i. 5, 11. iii. 8.
The use of irpoiBero favors this latter meaning. In the classics,
irponBrjju means : (1) To lay before, to set before, e. g., to set any
thing before one to eat ; also to set a mark before one, or a pun
ishment, or a reward ; i. e., to propose. (2) Publicly to expose or
to hold up to view, e. g., to expose goods, wares, etc., for inspec
tion and sale; also to declare enmity, war, hatred, etc. (3) To
prefer ; which is the least common signification. In the New
Testament irporlB-qpi is sometimes used in the sense oi purposing,
decreeing, constituting ; e. g., Rom. i. 13. Eph. i. 9. So also in
Joseph. Antiq. IV. 6, 5. But with this meaning the verb is
intransitive, and of course is not followed by the Ace. case.
Of these various meanings, the second classical one seems
plainly to be that which is best adapted to our text ; as it best
agrees with the ets eVSafiv and wpos evSetfiv which follow. "Ov

112 ROMANS III. 25.
irpoiBero 6 ®ebs IXaarqpiov may then be rendered, whom God hath
openly exhibited to the world as a propitiatory sacrifice. But,
suppose now that we construe tAaa-TJjpiov as meaning mercy-seat,
tliere is incongruity in the image, as the mercy-seat was not exhib
ited to the view of those for whom atonement was made; the high-
priest only saw it once in each year, on the great day of atonement.
To avoid this evident incongruity, one must render irpoiBero,
constituit; and then the evident reference made by it to eis
evSei^iv and 7rpos eVSeifiv, is lost or obscured.
By faith, Sid rrjs iriareuis, i. e., this sacrifice then produces its
propitiatory effect, when faith is exercised in the blood, i. e.,
death of the victim which is offered. In other words ; Christ
makes expiation which is effectual for such only, as trust in his
atoning blood, i. e., who believe in him as the " Lamb of God
which taketh away the sin of the world." So Glockler and others.
Aid rrjs iriareuis may also be connected with SiKaiovpevoi or with
-irpoiBero ; so Reiche and others ; but not to so good purpose, nor
so naturally, as with tAaor^piov.*
By his blood, iv t<3 a'lpan aurov, i. e., by his bloody death ;
the expression and image being borrowed from the expiatory
blood of the ancient sacrifices. Faith in his blood or in the death
of Jesus, as the means of expiation, seems to be the distinguishing
trait above all others of true Christianity. The phrase ev t<3 at-
pan avrov may also be connected with SiKaiovpevoi ; (so Reiche,
Winzer, Fritsche, and others) ; or it may be connected with
tAacn-?7piov, and still the same sentiment for substance be retained.
(So Chrysostom, Theodoret, Vitringa, Calov, and others.)
In order to declare, etc., ets eVSetfti/ .... wpds eVSetftv. Ets
before eVSetfiv is equivalent to wpds in verse 26, and Trpos
eVSeifiv is co-ordinate with ets eVSetftv and sustains the same
relation to the first part of the whole sentence. The pre
positions eis and irpbs stand before the Accusative case, and be
fore the Infinitive mode used as a noun in the Accusative, in
order to designate the intention, object, purpose, design, end, etc.,
of any thing ; e. g., ets tui-qv, in order to obtain life, ets ttjv dvopiav,
in order to commit iniquity, ets o, for which purpose, ets touto, for
this purpose, ets to ipirai^ai, in order to mock. So in Matt. xx.
19, ets to aravpuiB-qvai, in order to be crucified, and so in number
less instances ; see Bretsch. Lex. ets 3. The same thing is true
of irpos ; e. g., irpbs to BeaBrjvai, in order to be seen, Matt. vi. 1 ;
* It seems best here to consider the clauses Sia rrjs irto-reas and iv t&
a'tjian, as distinct and disconnected clauses, the former indicating "the sub
jective means ofthe appropriation of the propitiatory sacrifice- and the
latter, the objective means of the propitiation made by Christ." ' See De
Wette, Mever, and Alford.

ROMANS III. 25. 113
wpos irapaxeipdaai, for the sake of passing the winter, Acts xxvii.
12 ; irpbs to iiriBvprjaai, in order to lust, Matt., v. 28 ; -irpos oiko-
Sopqv, for the sake of edification, Rom. xv. 2 ; 7rpos ivrpoir-rjv, for
the sake of shaming you, 1 Cor. vi. 5, et al. sajpe ; see Bretschn.
Lex. 7rpds, III. c. The arrangement of the thought stands thus :
bv irpoeBero 6 ©cos tAacmJpioj' .... ets eVSeifii/, bv irpoiBero 6
©eos lAao-Tijptov .... irpos eVSet^tv ; which arrangement fully
exhibits what I mean, by saying that the expressions are co-ordi
nate. And this arrangement seems to be plainly and fully con
firmed, by the antithetic comparison of wpoyeyovdruiv (past) in one
clause, and iv t<3 vvv Kaipu} (present) in the other.
Of his justification, rrjs SiKaioavvr/s airov, i. e., ofthe justifica
tion which he proffers, or of which he is author. Ambrose,
Locke, and others, understand StKaiocrur^s as meaning veracity ;
Theodoret, Socinus, Grotius, Bolten, Koppe, and Reiche, explain
it as meaning goodness ; like the Hebrew H^X . Flatt renders
it sanctitas; Tholuck says that SiKaiocruV>7, in Paul's writings,
always means righteousness or holiness ; in which he is most
surely mistaken. To my own mind nothing can be plainer, than
that Sixaioo-uKr/s has the same sense here as in chap. i. 17, and as
in verse 22 above : where it seems too plain to be mistaken.
What can be more congruous, than that it should be taken here
ina sense which is homogeneous with StKatco^-iJcrerai in verse 20,
and SiKaioup.evoi in verse 23 ? *
What now is the sentiment which is in accordance with this ?
It is as follows : ' God has openly exhibited Christ to the world
as a propitiatory offering for sin, unto all who believe in him, in
order that he might fully exhibit his pardoning mercy (his Stxai-
oo-u'vi?) in respect to the forgiveness of sins under the past and
present dispensation.'
Is not this plain and consistent sentiment, congruous with the
design of the writer and with the nature of facts ? How or why
so much difficulty should have been made about the word SiKai-
oo-uVj7s here, I am not able to explain. One good rule in the
explanation of Scripture is, that the same writer, on the same
topic, and in the same connection of reasoning and thought, must
be construed as using the same phraseology in the same sense.
All I ask here is, that a maxim so plain and reasonable should
be observed. And where is the " repetitio " alleged by Turretin,
in this case ? Where has the apostle before said, that God had
openly proposed to the world the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ,
* If we consider Sacaioo-6vri to indicate the justice of God, as most modern
commentators do, the idea is equally forcible. For God's justice as a judge
in overlooking the sins of those in past ages is exhibited m the sacrifice ot
his Son, to which he had regard in all his dealings with them.
10*

114 ROMANS III. 26,
in order to exhibit his pardoning mercy for sins committed
under the old and under the new dispensation ? And as to
the "frigida;" if there be any one sentiment in the whole
New Testament, respecting the efficacy of the atoning blood
of Jesus with regard to power and extent, whieh stands at
the head of all others, the sentiment here developed holds
this very place. It has its express parallel only in Heb. ix. 15.
Through remission by the forbearance of God of sins formerly
committed, Std Trjv ... . ©eou. That Std not unfrequently has
the meaning in respect to, in regard to, may be seen by consulting
Matt, xviii. 23, Std touto, in respect to this, viz., the sentiment
which Jesus had just uttered. So also, with another shade of
sense, Matt. xxi. 43. xxiii. 34, Std tovto, for the sake of this, on
account of this ; Mark xi. 24. Luke xi. 49. 1 Thess. iii. 7, Std,
on account of. So Flatt on our verse : Std, in Bucksicht auf,
i. e., in respect to. But still, I do not take Std here as meaning
merely in respect to, in regard to. A common meaning of it is,
per, propter. Here I understand it is designating the manner in
which SiKaioo-w77 has exhibited itself, viz., by or through remission,
etc. So Reiche. But there is another sense still in which it
may be here interpreted ; viz., on account of, for the sake of, re
mission, etc. This would make it co-ordinate with ets eVSet^ti'
k. t. A., and with 7rpds eVSei£iv k. t. A. ; and it would be rather
more consonant with usual Greek idiom as to the meaning of Std.
We should then have three co-ordinate clauses explanatory of
irpoiBero k. t. A., instead of two. I should embrace this last in
terpretation, were it not that ets eVSeifir and irpbs eVSeifii/ seem
rather to favor the reception of only two co-ordinate clauses.
The variation of the prepositions, in this case, would make noth
ing decisive against such an exegesis. Paul often varies them,
where the sense is designed to be substantially the same. On the
whole, the clause Sid tijv irdpeaiv .... ©eou may be best regarded
as epexegetical of the preceding SiKaiocrui^s aurou, viz., his StKat-
oo-uV?7 was manifested on account of, in respect to, the remission
of sins committed in former times, etc.
_ Ildpeo-tv (from irapl-qpi) means remission, passing by, dismis
sing, etc.; and therefore it has the same sense with drpeaiv, as
we should expect from the etymology of the word. — Ilpoyeyoi/d-
tuiv, formerly done, committed in times before. In the sense of
done, taken place, or committed, yivopai is often used with respect
to actions ; e. g., Matt. vi. 10. Luke x. 13. xxiii. 24 ix 7 xiii
17, et alibi.
(26) During the forbearance of God, iv ifj dvOXq. The unit
ing of this clause with verse 26, seems to be a mistake in Robert
Stephens ; for it is better connected with the preceding verse

ROMANS III. 26. 115
and has reference either to irdpeaiv or Trpoyeyovd-rtov dpaprnparuyv.
But to which of these? Does the writer mean to say, remission
.... through the forbearance of God, to punish sin ; or sins
formerly committed, while God forbore to punish ? The latter
sense might be made out; for iv often has the sense of dur
ing, dum est ; e. g., Matt. xii. 2, ev aa^fidrui, during the Sab
bath, Matt. xiii. 4, iv t<3 aireipeiv, during the action of sowing ;
John ii. 23, eV t% eoprrj, during the feast ; John vii. 11. Acts
viii. 33. xvii. 31. Rev. i. 10. But the former sense is pref
erable, and gives the idea of remission as introduced by, or con
nected with forbearance to punish. Both together make the idea
oi justification an intensive one. As to the general sentiment
of the clause, it has in some respects a parallel, in Acts xvii. 30.
" As to the times of this ignorance, iirepiSuiv 6 ©eds," i. e., God
forbore punishment. But in our text the apostle speaks of the
actual remission of sin which is connected with justification, i. e.,
the pardon of sin.
For the meaning of irpos eVSetftv rrjs StKaiocruVr/s aurou, see ex
planation of eis evSetfiv Trjs SiKaioavvqs airov in verse 25. At the
present time, iv toj vvv Katpai, i. e., under the new dispensation.
Thus has the apostle shown, that the propitiatory sacrifice of
Christ extends, with respect to its efficacy, to all ages of the
world, to all generations and nations, where such a faith as God
requires is exhibited. See the parallel sentiment in Heb. ix. 15.
It is implied also in other passages of the New Testament, not
unfrequently ; but it is no where else so explicitly asserted. The
sentiment shows, moreover, in what light the apostle viewed the
death of Christ. If this were to be regarded only as the death
of a martyr to the truth, or as an example of constancy, etc., then
how could its efficacy take hold on Trpoyeyovdrav apapT-qparuiv,
whatever it might do as to those who lived after his death
took place? This question seems to suggest the necessity
of ascribing a vicarious influence to the death of Jesus ; for
how else ean it avail for the forgiveness of sins committed in
early ages ?
Reiche, Barnes, and some others, reject the idea that 7rpoye-
yovbTtov refers to past ages, and think that the text requires no
moi-e than to understand it as designating the past sins oi each
individual living under the gospel. But what inducement the
apostle could have to put in irpoyeyovoTcov on such a ground,^ or
how 7rpoyeyovdTcoi/ dpapnuiv could differ from the simple dpapnuiv,
as individually applied, I do not see. Less still do I feel the
force of his remark, that it would be difficult, on the ground of
the exegesis which I adopt, to avoid the conclusion that all men
will be saved ; for the apostle has fully avoided any conclusion

116 ROMANS III. 26.
of this nature, as to the time before or since the gospel was pub,
lished, by stating that salvation is eVt ¦jrdvTas tous 7rio-Teu'ovTas.
Besides, ev tco vvv Kaipco is evidently emphatic and antithetic ; and
the antithesis can be found only in irpoyeyovoTcov dpapnuiv.
The question is, ' whether Christ is the only Saviour of the race
of man ; ' and this naturally extends to past ages, as well as
present. Such a view exceedingly ennobles the whole subject,
and is altogether consonant with the epistle to the Hebrews.
Comp. Rom. v.
That he might be [shown to be] just, and yet the justifier of
him that believeth in Jesus, ets to etvat .... 1-qaov, i. e., has the
faith of a Christian. Here again is a great diversity of sentiment
concerning SUaiov. Some make SiKaiov to signify kind, benignant,
for which they appeal to Matt. i. 19. John xvii. 25. 1 John i. 9,
and the frequent signification of the Hebrew p"1^ 2 and rt^S .
But although the word is capable of this sense, the connection
does not seem to admit it here, as it would make tautology. The
difficulty seems to be, that commentators have overlooked the
logical connection of the whole clause. The ets to at the begin
ning of it, shows that it has a like object with ets evSei£iv, and
irpbs evSeiijiv, with, however, this difference, that in eis to elvai
SUaiov k. t. A., the writer looks back to the whole sentiment pro
posed in verses 21- — 24; which is, that all men are sinners, that
a regard merely to law, i. e., justice merely on the part of God
(he being Siraios merely) does not in itself permit justification by
overlooking or setting aside the penalty against sin, and that the
death of Christ is an expedient of infinite wisdom, by which the
full claims of the law may be admitted, and yet the penalty
avoided, because a moral compensation or equivalent has been
provided by the sufferings of him who died in the sinner's stead.
Here then are two things conspicuous, in this wonderful arrange
ment of wisdom and benevolence ; the first, that God will not
give up the penalty of his law without an adequate substitute for
it, for he is StKaios, i. e., he retains a high and immutable regard
to justice or rectitude, he is unwilling to sacrifice any part of the
purity and strictness of his law, which is ' holy, and just, and
good ; ' the second, that God has still provided a way by which
he may retain all his regard to justice, and his law remain without
being in any measure dishonored or sacrificed, and yet the peni
tent sinner may be pardoned and treated as though he had
yielded perfect obedience to it. These I take to be the senti
ments conveyed by SiKaiov and SiKaiovra in this passage. Bengel
has happily expressed it; " Summum hie paradoxon evangel i cum ;
nam in lege conspicitur Deus et condemnans, in evangelio Justus
ipse et justificans, peccatores." As I can find no case in which

ROMANS III. 27, 28. 117
SiWos appears to mean either justified or justifying, I must retain
the sense of just in this place.
The believer in Jesus, tov eK iriareuis '1-qaov is like ot iK irepi-
Topi/s, oi ef ipeBeias, literally, him who is of the faith, who be
lieves in Jesus, i. e., the true Christian believer. 'I^o-ou is the
Gen. of the object.
(27) Where then is boasting or glorying ? irov ovv rj Kavxnais ;
That is, if what I have said be true, viz., that all men, both Jews
and Gentiles, are sinners, and can be justified only by grace
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ; then it follows,
that all boasting of their own merits, all occasion of glorying
in their special privileges is entirely excluded. This has a
special reference to the Jews, who were so prone to boast
of these things.
By what law or economy ? Sid rroiou vbpov ; Ndp,ou appears to
be used here in the sense of religious economy or dispensation,
i. e., that which ordered or regulated the lives of men, and
prescribed the reward of actions either good or bad. TSv epyuiv ;
i. e., is it excluded, Sid vdp.ou tuiv epyuiv ; Is it excluded by that
economy or rule of life, which places justification on the ground
of perfect obedience to the law, i. e., of entirely performing all
those works which the law demands ?
Nay, but by the economy or rule of faith, oixl .... iriareuis.
That is, faith being the condition of justification under the gospel
arrangement or vbpos, this excludes all claims of desert on the
part of the sinner. The very statement of itself shows, that
although faith is a conditio sine qua, non of justification, yet it is
not the meritorious or procuring cause of it. Ndp.ou iriareuis
means that arrangement which makes faith necessary to salvation,
but which, at the same time, bestows salvation merely as a
gratuity. (28) We conclude, therefore, that a man is justified by faith,
without the deeds of the law, AoyiZppeBa .... vbpov, i. e., we
reckon or count it as certain, that men are justified in a gratuitous
manner through faith in Christ, and not by perfect obedience to
the law or by perfectly doing those things which the law requires.
See remarks on chapter iv. 5. For ydp here, some Codices,
etc., have ovv; which gives a better sense, inasmuch as the
conclusion here is a logical inference and not a mere casual
suggestion. But as the weight of authority is on the side of ydp,
I have followed this in the regular version.
Luther translates iriarei, allein durch den Glauben, i. e., by
faith only, thus adding only to the text. And such were his views
on this subject, that he rejected the epistle of James from the
canon of the New Testament, because he thought that the second

118 ROMANS III. 29 — 31.
chapter of this epistle taught a doctrine different from that which
Paul here inculcates. See Excursus II. for a brief view of this
subject. (29) fs he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the
Gentiles ? rj 'lovSaiuiv .... iBvuiv ; That is, why should it not be
acknowledged, that " the God of the spirits of all flesh," who
" has made of one blood all the nations that dwell upon the face
of the earth," and who of old was named ^20 D^aa np 'frb$ ¦ — ¦
sustains the same relation to the Gentiles as to the Jews, and will
admit them to the like privileges ? The rj here is interrogative,
and implies that the person who is addressed will agree in the
answer with the person who puts the question ; so nicely are the
Greek interrogative signs adjusted.
(30) He should, he must be sb regarded. Nat, Kat [©eos]
iBvuw. To confirm this he adds : Since it is one and the same
God, who will justify the circumcised by faith, and the uncircum
cised by faith, irreiirep .... iriareuis. Ets, one and the same ; so
Luke, xii. 52. 1 Cor. x. 17. xi. 5, et al. — 'Ek irto-Tecos and Std rrjs
iriareuis are of the same import ; for both eVc and Std are placed
before the Genitive denoting the instrumental cause, in almost
numberless examples. — IIcpiTop.?7_/ and aKpopvarlav are examples
of the abstract put for the concrete = Jews and Gentiles.
(31) Do we then make void the law through faith? vbpov ovv
.... iriareuis ; That is, do we counteract or annul the Old Test.
Scriptures, by inculcating gratuitous justification ? So I feel
obliged to construe vbpov here, when I compare this verse with
verses 20, 21, and with chap. iv. where the object of the writer
throughout is, to show that the Old Testament inculcates the
same doctrine as that which he here urges. So Flatt, Koppe,
Chrysostom, and others. This exegesis is quite plain from the
fact that the apostle immediately proceeds to answer the objection
here made, by showing that the Old Testament actually teaches
the doctrine in question.
We confirm the law, vbpov larCipev ; i. e., we inculcate that
which entirely accords with the Old Testament, and serves to
confirm it. 'Icrrwp.ev is the unusual contract-form, from tordoj
instead of largpi.
How gratuitous justification can be said to confirm or establish
the moral law (as this text has been often explained^, it seems
difficult to make out. It would seem to be the atonement which
goes to establish the claims ofthe moral law ; how can remission
of the penalty of itself establish such a law ? That the doctrine
of justification by faith does not, indeed, overthrow moral ob
ligation ; yea, that such a justification even serves in a most
important way to promote holiness of hfe ; the apostle shows in

ROMANS IV. 1. 119
chap. vi. But his present concern is with the objection made to
his sentiments, viz., the objection that he is weakening the force
of the ancient Jewish Scriptures. Accordingly, he discusses the
question at large in the following chapter.

CHAP. IV. 1 — 12.
The writer now proceeds to show, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament do in
fact confirm the view which he had given of gratuitous justification. Even Abra
ham, notwithstanding his peculiar covenant relation to God, had no cause of glory
ing before him, verses 1, 2; for the Scripture asserts, that Abraham's faith was
imputed to him for righteousness ; and consequently that he was gratuitously justified,
verses 3, 4. So also David speaks ofthe subject of justification, representing it as
gratuitous forgiveness, not as acceptance pro meritis, verses 6 — 8. Neither can such
forgiveness belong only to those who are circumcised, i, e., to Abraham and his
natural posterity, for Abraham himself was justified antecedently to his circumcision ;
and he received this rite merely as a token of confirmation in respect to the
blessing already bestowed, aud in order that he might be a spiritual father
i. e , an eminent pattern or exemplar of spiritual blessings, both to Gentiles and
Jews, verses 9 — 12.
Verses 1 — 12 might be divided into three distinct parts, viz., (1) Verses 1 — 5, the
j ustification of Abraham was gratuitous. (2 ) Verses 6 — 8, David discloses the same
views as to the method of acceptance with God. (3) Verses 9 — 12, circumcision
was not, and could not be any ground at all of the justification of Abraham. I
have, however, chosen to connect these under one general head because I view the
third particular as the answer to the question in verse 1, and the first and second
particulars as being preparatory to this, and also as having respect to the main
design of the writer, which is, to show that the Old Testament Scriptures do in fact
exhibit the same views of justification which he has given in the preceding
context. (1) What then shall we say that Abraham our father obtained
in respect to the flesh ? tl ovv .... Kara craKpa; This question is
parallel with those in chap. iii. 1. The apostle evidently suggests
it as one which an opponent to his views would naturally ask.
¦ The import of it is : i How then will your doctrine concerning
justification as entirely gratuitous, agree with the views which
the Scripture leads us to take of Abraham? Had he no
advantage from his precedence and privileges ? Was the cove
nant and rite of circumcision, by which he was distinguished
from all the rest of the world, of no avail in his case ? ' Such is
evidently the tenor of the discourse, whether we suppose the
apostle to put such interrogations in his own person, or in that
of his opponent.
Then, ovv, i. e., on the ground which you take, what can we
say, etc.? The use of ovv in questions where objections are
raised, is very common among the Greeks. Our father, rbv
iraripa ?)ju.<w, shows that the objector here is supposed to be a Jew,

120 ROMANS IV. 1.
— Eup^Ke'rai, obtained; comp. Luke i. 30. Heb. ix. 12, — Kara
adpKa is a controverted phrase here. Should it be united in sense
with tov iraripa -qpuiv ? Or must we join it with evp-qKivai ? If the
question here concerned the relation of Abraham respectively as
a spiritual father and as a natural one, we should feel in a meas
ure necessitated to join KaTa adpKa with tov iraripa -qpuiv. Chry
sostom, Erasmus, Limborch, and others, do thus join it ; and
some manuscripts, in accordance with such views, placed eiprjKivai
before tov iraripa rjpiiiv. But as the weight of authority is against
these ; as the hyperbaton or transposition, taking the text as it now
stands, would be abrupt and improbable if we should join KaTa
adpKa with rbv iraripa -qpuiv ; and especially as Kara adpKa would
not then add anything to the idea designated by tov iraripa -qpuiv ;
so it would seem to be more eligible, to regard KaTa adpKa as
qualifying evp-qKevai. One meaning which has been given here
to crdp£, is external privileges or advantages ; and the appeal is
made to 1 Cor. x. 18. Phil. iii. 3. Gal. vi. 12, in order to confirm
this; but these texts all plainly relate to circumcision. 2dp£
sometimes means that which is external or physical, in distinction
from that which is internal or spiritual ; e. g., Gal. iv. 23. Eom.
ix. 8. In accordance with this general idea, and with probability
on their side, Wetstein, Venema, Michaelis, Koppe, Bretschnei
der (Lex.), and others, understand by Kara adpKa in our text,
circumcision ; adp$ being frequently used to designate the physi
cal member which was circumcised, or fleshly circumcision, e. g.,
Phil. iii. 3. Gal. vi. 12. 1 Cor. x. 18. Eph. ii. 11. Col. ii. 13;
comp. Gen. xvii. 11, 14, 24, 25. Tholuck makes the objection
to this exegesis, that the apostle does not undertake, in the sequel,
to show that circumcision was not the ground of Abraham's jus
tification, but that works were not. He also suggests, that the
second verse seems to construe Kara crdpKa as being equivalent in
sense to i£ epyuiv, Calvin renders KaTa crdpKa, naturaliter ; and
Grotius, propriis viribus ; to support which appeal has been
made to Matt. xvi. 17. Gal. i. 16 ; but there the phrase is, flesh
and^ blood. But if we consider KaTa adpKa as the opposite of KaTa
irvevpa, and regard irvevpa as designing the gracious spiritual
influences ^ vouchsafed to believers under the gospel, the meaning
of Kara adpKa would then be : 'In respect to efforts by one's own
natural powers, or efforts made in one's own strength.' This is
the interpretation which for substance Tholuck defends.* If
* The "se °f W"* in the plural in verse 2, favors this more general
meaning of cart. Hence Olshausen says : " We may best understand cdrt
of he outward in general (Gal. 3: 3) as contrasted with irvevpa, the inwafd
and hfe givmg." Alford: it "refers to that department of our bein.- from
which spring ; works, in contrast with that in which is the exercise of faith •"
s - "hap. 8: 4, 5. — See also Meyer and De Wette.

ROMANS IV. 2. 121
however (caret crapjea is to be taken as qualifying eip-qKivai (and so
the present textcompels us to take it), I must prefer the predomi
nant sense of it in the epistles of Paul, viz., in respect to circum
cision ; comp. iii. 1. where the very same question is put in a
,more literal way. The meaning of the question would then be :
,What good or advantage has Abraham our father obtained, in
respect to the distinguishing rite which separated him from all
the world and consecrated him to God ? The apostle in answer
to the like question in chap. iii. 1. shows that the Jewish nation
were all under sin and under condemnation, and that they can
therefore lay no claim to justification on the ground of external
privileges. The objector, however, not satisfied with this general
answer, wishes now to know in particular whether we can justly
hold that no pre-eminence was given to Abraham on account of
the covenant and the rite of circumcision. The apostle in his
answer tacitly admits, that Abraham enjoyed some advantage on
account of his external privileges. He admits the same thing
expressly oi the whole Jewish nation, iii. 2. But as to the great
subject in question, viz., gratuitous justification, Paul avers at
once that Abraham was not justified at all on the ground of his
external advantages, or of any merit ; for then he would have had
matter of boasting. But this he has not before God ; whatever
may be the praise which his privileges or his conduct in general
may deserve from men.
The apostle as we shall see makes good use of the case of
Abraham, in the sequel, v. 10, seq., in refuting the assumption of
the objector.
(2) For if Abraham was justified by works, he has ground
of boasting, el ydp .... Kavxvpa. This is the real response
of the apostle, which is marked by the nature of the sentiment.
Tdp, as is often the case, refers to something implied: oi Kavxqais.
The apostle means to say that Abraham had no Kavxqais (comp.
iii. 17), i. e., no ground for attributing justification to his own
merits ; and ydp introduces the reason why he has no ground of
glorying in his own works.
When the apostle says, el, if, etc., he makes a supposition
which he regards as untenable ; for this is indicated by the Ind.
Prseter (iSiKaiuiB-q) joined with et ; see New Testament Grammar,
§ 129. 3. d. We should naturally have expected after this, that
the Imperf. e'xe dv (instead of eXei) would have been used in the
apodosis of this conditional sentence. The use of the present
instead of this shows a design on the part of the writer to say,
not only that Abraham would have had ground of glorying, in
case of perfect obedience, but that the same would have continued
down to the then present time. 1.1

122 ROMANS IV 3.
But not [i. e., he had no ground of boasting] before God, dXX'
.... ©eoV. Whatever advantage then the Jew might attribute
to Abraham, he could not justly attribute that of obtaining justi
fication by his own privileges or merits. So the writer goes on
to prove from the Jewish Scriptures. Ou irpos tov ®ebv may be
considered either as referring to e^ei Kavxnpa or to e£ epycov iSiKai-
diB-q. The sense will be substantially the same. The immediate
antecedent, in such a case, has the preference ; and therefore I
consider it as referring to e^ei Kavxgpo..
Many critics, as Beza, Grotius, Semler, Koppe, Tholuck, and
Riickert, understand the reasoning of the apostle in this verse
thus: 'If Abraham were justified by works, then he would have
cause of glorying ; he had glory indeed among men on this
account, but not before God.' 'AXXa in this case, is understood
as concessive (in part) and at the same time adversative. But the
sequel in verses 4, 5, introduced by y d p confirmantis, shows,
that the apostle's object is to prove simply, that Abraham had no
ground of acceptance before God on account of his works or
merit, but that he was justified altogether in a gratuitous manner.
The apostle is not then discussing the question, whether Abraham
had any ground of praise or justification from men, and the mode
of reasoning stated above would be altogether inapposite to the
writer's design. Besides, if Abraham were justified by works,
according to the supposition made, then he would have the praise
of God as well as of men ; so that the denial here of such a
praise would contradict the nature of the case and other Scrip
tures ; comp. ii. 6, 29. See Reiche's refutation of the above
exegesis. The reasoning of the apostle may be simply stated thus : ' If
Abraham had been justified by his own merit, then he would
have ground of glorying : but he has no ground of glorying be
fore God ; [therefore he was not justified by his merit.'] The
conclusion is omitted by the apostle, apparently on the ground
that every intelligent reader's mind will supply it. That he
supposes such a conclusion is clear from verses 3, 4.
(3) For what saith the Scripture ? And Abraham believed
God, and it was counted to him for righteousness ; see Gen. xv.
6, which runs thus: "And he [God] counted it to him [Abra
ham] as righteousness." Instead of the active, the apostle
(with the Seventy) employs the passive form, but the idea is
for substance the same. But what is Aoyt£ecr.#at ets SiKaioavvr/v?
The word Xoyi^eaBai usually means, to reckon to one what he
actually possesses, or to impute that to him which actually belongs
to him, i. «., to treat him as actually possessing the thing or
quality reckoned to him; e.g., Ps. cvi. 31. (ev. 31) where the

ROMANS IV. 3. 123
good deed of Phinehas in slaying the polluted Israelite and Micl-
ianitish woman, ' was counted to him for righteousness ' (Num.
xxv. 6, seq.) ; 2 Sam. xix. 19, where Sliimei prays David : pg
XoyiadaBui 6 Ku'picis p.ou dvopiav, i. e., the iniquity which Shimei
himself had done. The same in Ps. xxxii. 2 (xxxi. 2), where
David pronounces the man blessed, to whom the Lord does not
impute iniquity (0up.17X0ytXeTatdv0p.tav). In Lev. vii. 8 (vii. 18)
the Sept. has ou XoyiaB-qaerai auno, viz., the informal and untimely
offering which any one makes, shall not be reckoned to him as an
offering. So in Lev. xvii. 4, if a man kill a victim for sacrifice
without bringing it to the door of the tabernacle, " blood," i. e.,
bloodguiltiness, " shall be imputed to him, eKeivco Xoyicr^creTai
.... a'ipa." So also Num. xviii. 27, and Prov. 27: 4. These
are all the instances in the Old Test, where the word _2ian,=
Aoyi'£op.ai, is employed in designating any action, word, or thing,
as imputed or reckoned to a person ; and in all these, it is uni
formly one's own doings, words, or actions, and not those of
another, which are imputed. The verb _r:Jn is indeed often em
ployed in other cases ; but only in the sense of thinking, suppos
ing, imagining, devising ; or else as signifying making account
of, regarding, or esteeming ; all of which cases have no direct
bearing on the present investigation.
In the New Test, the word Xoyi'Cppai is often employed, like
the Hebrew 2win, in the sense of thinking, computing, reckoning,
esteeming, considering, devising, meditating, etc.; in which senses
it has no direct bearing on our present enquiry. The only cases
that are apposite to our purpose, are those in which something is
imputed or counted to persons. These, independently of the in
stances which relate directly to Abraham's case, are 2 Cor. v. 19,
where it is said : " God was in Christ, reconciling the world to
himself, not imputing (prj Xoyi^bpevos) to them their trespasses,
i. e., their own sins. In 2 Tim. iv. 16, Paul says of those who
forsook him : " prj airois XoyiaBein, let it not be imputed to them,"
i. e., let not their offence be reckoned to them. All the other
cases in which Xoyi'Copai is employed in the sense of reckoning
something to an individual, are of one tenor, and have respect
either to Abraham himself, .or else to those whose case is com
pared with his. These may be found in Rom. iv. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
9, 10, 11, 22, 23, Gal. iii. 6. James ii. 23. In Rom. v. 13, eAAoy-
etrai is construed by many as meaning imputed or counted, but I
apprehend the true meaning to be regarded, made account of. In
Phiiem. ver. 18, the same word again occurs, and there in the
sense of reckon, or put to the account of. But this is a different
word from Xoyit,opai, which is now before us, and is never em
ployed in respect to the matter of justification. In a 1 the cases

124 ROMANS IV. 3.
of Xcyilopai as applied to Abraham's faith, or to that of others
who follow his example, it is only his or their own faith, which
is counted for righteousness ; not the faith of others put to their
account. The form of the expression Xoyi^opai els, is purely Hebraistic;
and nothing except resort to the Hebrew idiom can avail in solv
ing the difficulty of its explanation. The Hebrews had two
modes of expression when they said that one thing was counted
or reckoned as another. (1) The thing counted or reckoned was
put in the Accus. after 3w:n ; and the thing for which or as which
it was counted, was put in the Dat. with b (= ets) before it ; e. g.,
Job xiii. 24, 2";ixb isatonr.'! , and thou dost" count me for an enemy.
In like manner, Job xli. 19, 24. xix. 15. xxxiii. 10. 1 Kings x.
21. Lam. iv. 2, where the Pass, retains the Dat. after it. (2)
The thing counted was put in the Ace. as in No. 1, while the
thing for which it was counted took the particle 3 before it ; e. g.,
Job xix. 11. T-IX3 inpn^ , and he counts me as his enemy. So
Isa. xl. 15. Num. xviii. 27. Once (Ps. Ixxxviii. 5) we have dS
(with) instead of 3 (as.)
In accordance with the first mode (the Ace. of the thing and
the Dative of the person with b) are most of the cases where any
thing is said to be reckoned or imputed to individuals ; e. g., Ps.
xxxii. 2. (xxxi. 2.) Gen. xv. 6. 2 Sam. xix. 26; and with the
Pass, voice retaining the Dat. after it, Lev. vii. 18 (vii. 8.) xvii.
4. Num. xviii. 27. Prov. xxvii. 14. In Ps. cvi. 31, we find b
both before the thing reckoned and the person to whom it iis
reckoned. The form Xoyi'Copai ets, or Xoyl£,opai cos or uiairep, is employed -'
by the Sept. for b am, e. g., els for b in Job xli. 24 (23). Lam.
iv. 2 ; uiairep for b in Job xli. 19 (18.) xxxiii. 10. In like man
ner, cos is put for 3, in Num. xviii. 27. Is. xl. 15. Job xix. 11.
(uiairep.) Tliere can be no important difference between the
Hebrew, or the corresponding Greek expressions : Xoyit,opai eh
and Xoyi'Copai cos or uiairep. And in our text, whether we say
with the apostle : Kat iXoyiaB-q aurw eis SiKaiocruVijv, and it [i. e.,
Abraham's act of believing] was counted to him for righteous
ness ; or, in more exact conformity with the shape of the
Hebrew ; Kai aird iXoylaaro aurcp <os SiKaioo-uVqv, i. e., he [God]
imputed it [the act of believing] to him as righteousness ; the
sense is one and the same.
The gratuity then of Abraham's justification cannot be made
out, as it would seem, merely from the mode of expression here
employed. This decides no more than that God reckoned
Abraham's faith as a righteousness or righteous act. And so the?
same thing is said of the act of Phinehas, Ps. cvi. 31. And in

ROMANS IV. 3. 125
general, where one's own act is said to bo imputed to him, whether
it be a good or bad one, the meaning is not of course that it is
gratuitously imputed to him, but that it is imputed to him because
it belongs to him, and therefore the imputation or reckoning to
him accords with the reality.
On this account some commentators have considered Paul here
as putting a forced sense upon the words of Gen. xv. 6, which
they say, decides nothing more than that God counted to Abra
ham an act of faith as righteousness, which was indeed such an
act, and therefore deserved to be so counted. Faith thus seems
a duty, and therefore to be placed on the same ground with all
other duties ; and Christ himself calls it the work of God, viz.,
the work which God requires, John vi. 29. How then, they ask,
can this prove the gratuitous justification of Abraham ? Due
consideration of the nature of the case will help, I trust, to remove
this difficulty.
There are but two possible methods of acceptance with God,
or of justification before him ; the one by complete obedience to
the law of God, and therefore on the ground of merit ; the other,
by gratuitous pardon vouchsafed to him who has broken the law.
The first method of justification Paul mentions, is impossible,
under the present circumstances of men and with their present
character; and consequently that gratuitous justification is the
only way of acceptance. Now Abraham either kept all the law,
or he did not. It is taken for granted, (as well it might be, after
what the apostle had said,) that he did not. Justification on the
ground of merit then, is out of all question. There remains
therefore only gratuitous justification.
But because justification is gratuitous, it does not follow that
there is no condition on which the gratuity is to be bestowed, no
regard to character, state of mind, penitence, confidence in prof
fered mercy, or anything else. The gospel with all its freeness
and largeness of beneficence, promises salvation only to those who
believe. " He that believeth, shall be saved."
Here then is the general principle, the conditio sine qua non,
of free and unmerited pardon and acceptance. And the example
of Abraham confirms this principle. He believed, and righteous
ness was counted to him. But this could have been done in no
other way, than that by belief he was brought within the pale of
offered mercy. If a man commits one sin, and thus comes under
the curse of the law, all hopes of acceptance or salvation on law-
ground are utterly at an end. But here Abraham, a sinner,
once probably an idolater (Josh. xxiv. 14,) was accepted and
treated as righteous, when he exercised an act of faith, which is
the necessary condition of gratuitous pardon. Now this could
11*

126 ROMANS IV. 3.
not have taken place, if Abraham had not been gratuitously
accepted. The gospel condition of gratuitous justification was
complied with by him, i. e., he exhibited faith ; and so acceptance,
such as the gospel promises, was the consequence of this faith, or
was connected with it.
We are not to understand the apostle to assert that Abraham's
faith, as such, was in the particular instance related in Gen. xv.
1 — 5, the principal ground or meritorious cause of his final and
complete justification. This would defeat the express declara
tions of verses 4, 5. In these he takes it for granted, that
Abraham could plead no merit, and make no claim on the score
of simple justice ; and that justification by faith does of necessity
imply, (as truly it does and must imply,) that the acceptance
in such cases is a matter of mere gratuity, and not of merit
or desert.
Faith then may be a duty and a work, and may be necessary
to gratuitous justification, and may be required because it is
reasonable in itself and necessary in order to prepare the sinner
for justification ; and yet the man who is already a sinner can
put in no claim for acceptance on the ground of merit, because
he exercises faith. Acceptance in this way must of course be
gratuitous. Why then does not the apostle establish his point, when he
shows that Abraham was accepted in consequence of believing,
and not because he had obeyed the whole law ? No act of Abra
ham, after he had once fallen under the curse of the law, could
of itself redeem him from that curse. Nothing that he did, or
could do, would atone for past sins. And no act that he did
would be perfect. Acceptance therefore on the ground of merit,
was impossible in these circumstances ; and any act of his, either
faith or any other, if counted at all for righteousness, must be so
counted gratuitously. But if so, then the very point which Paul
is laboring to establish, is confirmed.
It is the nature of the case then, and not the diction merely
which is employed, that shows what it is which is here proved by
the apostle. We might indeed make some appeal to the nature
of the language. We might say, that faith is not properly^
obedience to the law, as such ; certainly, it is not entire obedience.
Nor was the faith that was exercised by Abraham full and per
fect. At least we may argue this from the imperfect condition
of any and every sinful man. That it should be counted for
righteousness, then, would seem to imply, that it was counted for
something which in and of itself it was not, *. e., it was not a
perfect righteousness such as the law demands. To count it then
for a righteousness would imply an act of grace on the part of

ROMANS IV. 4. 127
God. Not that the apostle means to say, that God actually, in
his own real estimation, judged Abraham's faith to be a differ
ent thing from what it was, and a perfect virtue which of itself
could claim acceptance with him. It is impossible for a moment
to suppose this ; because it would be supposing that God puts a
wrong estimate upon things. We come therefore of necessity to
the conclusion, that counting for righteousness means, to accept
and treat as righteous. More than this we cannot suppose, with
out at the same time supposing, that God makes in his own mind
an estimate of things different from what they really are.
It is highly important that the reader should here call to mind,
also, that Paul is not now laboring to show in what relation
Christ stands to all that find acceptance, as the meritorious cause
or ground of their pardon. He had already shown this, in the
preceding chapter. The simple point now before him is, whether
justification through this Saviour is meritorious or gratuitous.
Hence he does not say here, that the righteousness of Christ
became the righteousness of Abraham by imputation or transfer.
It was inapposite to his present purpose to discuss this point.
He simply avers, that the conditio sine qua non of gratuitous
justification was complied with by Abraham, who therefore
was justified in a gratuitous manner. Whatever other parts
of Scripture may teach in relation to the imputed righteousness of
Christ, no declaration on that point is to be found here. Abra
ham's own faith, and an individual act of it, viz., his giving credit
to the divine promises, is the subject of the apostle's assertions.
In a word ; the shape of Paul's argument appears to me as
being substantially this, viz., 'justification is gratuitous; for
righteousness was not counted to Abraham on the ground of per
fect obedience, but in consequence of his compliance with the
necessary condition of gratuitous justification, i. e., in consequence
of his exercising faith. Now if he was accepted and treated as
just on such ground, it follows of necessity that he could not have
been accepted on the ground of merit, and consequently that his
justification was gratuitous.' And if the justification of Abraham,
the most eminent of all the Hebrew saints, was a mere matter of
gratuity, it must certainly be so in case of all others. And thus
the object of the apostle is gained by an illustration and confirma
tion of the principle which he is endeavoring to inculcate.
(4) To him who worketh, t<3 epya£op.evu> (Midd. voice), i. e.,
to him who performs all the epya vd>ou, to him who yields entire
obedience* to the precepts of law ; compare the remarks on epya
* This idea should seem rather to be implied than directly expressed.
To him who worketh, i. e. to him who is a laborer, works for hire, viz. here, to
him who doeth tho works of the law, depends upon obedience to the law,

128 ROMANS IV. 5.
vbpov under iii. 20 above. 'Epya£opivu> here is equivalent to 6
iroidv Td "epya ; comp. iii. 20, 27, 28. ii. 15 ; also verse 6. below.
Lutlier translates: Der mit Werken umgehet; Beza : Is qui ex
opere est aliquid piromeritus. Tholuck defends Luther's version.
To me it seems to convey truth, but not the whole truth. Better
has Turretin said : Per eum qui operatur non intelligimus ....
eos qui bona opera faciunt, sed eos qui perfecte implerunt legem
Dei absque ullo defectu. It has been objected to this interpreta
tion that in this way all rewards would be excluded, inasmuch as
no man is perfect. But is it not true that all rewards of merit
on law-ground, i. e., that of entire perfection, are excluded ? It
seems to be a very clear doctrine of the New Testament, that
the good works which are rewarded, are gratuitously rewarded
in proportion to their desert of reward. Imperfect good works
can now be accepted and rewarded, througli grace by Christ,
which under a law-system could put in no claim for reward
or acceptance ; a principle that does not seem to be generally
understood. Reward is not rewarded or counted as a matter of grace, 6
piaBbs .... x°-PLV'' *'• *•> li 1& ^s Just ^ue' as t*ie secluel (dXXd
Kara bipeiX-qpa) shows : a due in consequence of the promise or
engagement of reward which the law contains, and not because
the obedience of men can really profit the Divine Being, so as to
lay him under obligations on this account.
(5) But to him who does not yield perfect obedience, rco Se p-q
ipyaCopivw ; plainly the opposite of the first part of the fourth
verse. The meaning is : 'To the sinner who has not exhibited
perfect obedience, but irto-Teuovri k. t. X., who believeth on him
who justifieth the ungodly,' i. e., on Christ who died for sinners,
and on account of whose death they are justified ; comp. v. 8 — 10.
iv. 25. 1 Pet. iii. 18. Heb. ix. 28, et al.
Some commentators suppose that Paul means to characterize
Abraham specifically, by the p-q ipyaCopivm and tov daej3ij in
verse 5. But the propositions in verses 4, 5, are of wider extent
than an individual case, and they declare a general truth of which
Abraham's case is only a particular example or illustration.
His faith is counted as righteousness, XoyiCerai .... 8tKatocru-
V17S ; i. e., through belief in Christ who died for sinners, he comes
to be treated or accepted as if he were himself righteous ; in
other words, through the favor of God he is freed from the
penalty of the law, and accepted and treated as he would be, had he
been perfectly obedient. The meaning of the phrase, counted for
righteousness, is of course the same here as in ver. 3 ; and in
reward is not counted or reckoned as a matter of grace [as it was to Abra
ham], but as a matter of debt.

ROMANS IV. 6. 7. 129
both cases it is very plain, that it signifies gratuitous ov unmerited
justification on the grounds already explained. We may add
here, that by the apostle's own explanation in the context, this
justification is one which is of grace, Kara ^dpiv (24), and with
out works, ^copis epycov (verse 6.)
The whole matter lies in a short compass : ' On the ground of
works, i. e., of perfect obedience and therefore of merit, none can
be justified, because all are sinners. If any then are justified at
all, it must be oi grace ; but this grace, although freely bestowed
and without any just claims on the part of the sinner, is still not
unconditionally bestowed. Faith in him who died to save sin
ners, is requisite to prepare one for the reception of pardon, yet
faith is not in any legal sense the meritorious ground of justifica
tion ; and he who is justified in this way, as a consequence of his
faith, is still justified in a manner altogether gratuitous.'
(6) In the like manner, also David congratulates the man,
KaBdirep Kai .... dvBpuiirov. The example of David is now
added to that of Abraham, in order to show (what he had before
asserted in iii. 31) that he does not disannul the Old Testament
Scriptures by avowing the doctrine of gratuitous justification.
Utters congratulation, Xiyei paKapuapbv. MaKap means happy ;
pa-KapiCui, to call or pronounce one happy, i. e., cangratulate ; and
of course paKapiapbs means congratulation, not happiness. I
have accordingly used the word congratulate in the translation
here, not the words, utters praise, eulogizes, praises, etc. Felicem
dicere the Latins could say ; and we might translate pronounceih
happy, etc., as I have done in the version. *J2i 6 Oeds .... epyuiv,
i. e., whom God accepts and treats as righteous ^copis epyuiv,
without entire obedience to the law, without having done all the
works which the law enjoins; comp. verse 5 above. To impute
righteousness without works, is equivalent to : to count faith for
righteousness; and both are designed to designate gratuitous
justification. AiKaioavvq here and elsewhere in this chapter where the same
phraseology occurs, is plainly not to be understood in the sense
of justification (which is the more common meaning of it in our
epistle,) but in tlie usual sense of fijrns . To say that faith was
counted for justification, would make no tolerable sense ; but
to say — it was counted as complete obedience, would be saying
just what the apostle means to say, viz., that the believer is
gratuitously justified, in the manner that has been explained
above. (7) Happy, greatly privileged, paKapioi. — Are remitted, dejii-
B-qaav, from dcpi-qpi, to remit, forgive — 'Whose sins iireKaXvcpBr]-
aav, are covered;' a figurative expression, not unfrequently

130 ROMANS IAr. 8, 0.
applied to the remission of sins. To cover or conceal, is to
remove from sight or notice ; and sins which are left out of sight
and out of notice, of course are sins which are not punished.
Comp. in Is. xxxviii. 17. Mic. vii. 19. Job xiv. 17.
(8) Happy the man, to whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity!
i. e., the sin which he has committed. The meaning is : ' Happy
the man who obtains forgiveness of his sins, and is accepted and
treated as if he were righteous.' To impute one's own iniquity
to him, is to hold him accountable for it in respect to the demands
of punitive justice.
To cover sins and impute not iniquity, means to pardon sin
and to treat with favor ; and this is substantially the same thing
which is designated by counting faith for rigldeousness ; i. e.,
both forms of expressions denote gratuitous acceptance with God.
The apostle has now prepared the way to refute the special
allegation designed to be made by the question in verse 1, Tt ouv
ipovpev 'AjBpadp tov iraripa -qpuiv evprqKivai Kara adpKa ; He has
shown that acceptance on the ground of merit or perfect obedience
is out of the question ; for even Abraham and David were justi
fied through faith gratuitously, and not ef epyuiv. No ground of
boasting, then, could be claimed by either of these conspicuous
individuals. It was grace only that saved them. But if it is
true in the general sense here stated, that salvation is in all cases
entirely a matter of gratuity, a question still remains, viz. Is this
gratuity bestowed as the Jews would claim, only on those who
are circumcised, i. e., on the Jews only, or is it also granted to
the Gentiles. The apostle now proceeds to the special considera
tion of the question about circumcision, which was first asked in
chap. iii. 1, and again virtually repeated by the evprjKevai Kara
adpKa in chap. iv. 1.
(9) [Is] this congratulation then respecting the circumcised
[only], or also the uncircumcised ; b pai<apiapbs .... aKpoplva-
riav ; That is, granting there is cause for rjronouncing blessed the
man whose sins are forgiven' and whose iniquities are covered,
still it may be asked : ' Does gratuitous pardon belong only to
the circumcised Jew, or are God's promised mercies bestowed
also on the idolatrous heathen ? '
Aiyopev ydp supposes an implied answer in the affirmative to
the preceding questions, viz., ' The privilege belongs also to the
uncircumcised.' That such must be the case, the apostle now
proceeds to show, by the allegation that Abraham was justified in
an uncircumcised state. The inference is, that David could not
mean to exclude such cases as that of Abraham himself. In this
way the ydp is easily accounted for here, as referring to some
implied sentiment. For a like aposiopesis of the answer to a
question, see iv. 2. et al.

ROMANS IV. 10, 11. 131
_ (10) How then was it counted? While he was in a state of
circumcision or of uncircumcision ? Not in a state of circumci
sion, but of uncircumcision ? irdis ovv ... . aKpo/Wrta ; In ev
irepiropfj k. ¦_ . X., the iv stands (as often) before the Dative of a
noun designating state or condition.
The design of the writer is plain. Abraham's faith was im
puted to him for righteousness, i. e., he was gratuitously justified
before the covenant of circumcision was made with him, and of
course before he was a partaker in this rite. Consequently the
privilege in question is not limited to those who are circumcised,
and therefore does not depend on circumcision.
(11) And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the
righteousness by faith, which [he obtained] while in a state of
uncircumcision, Kai avpeiov . . . . iv aKpoj3vaTia. That is, cir
cumcision was not the cause or ground of his faith being counted
for righteousness, or of his being gratuitously justified ; it was
merely a seal, i. e., a token of confirmation (for such is o-c/>payt's, 1
Cor. ix. 2. 2 Tim. ii. 19) in respect to the blessing which he had
before obtained. The allusion in the language is to the practice
of confirming written instruments, by seals placed on them in
token of ratification. T-qs SiKaioavvrjs rqs iriareuis, might here be
rendered of the justification which is by faith; but the idiom of this
chapter rather points us to a different version. There is, however,
no ground for mistake here, inasmuch as the qualifying words rf/s
iriareuis in connection with what had before been said, sufficiently
guard against it. We might naturally expect the article here,
viz., to a-qpeiov ttjs irepiroprjs, inasmuch as the thing is specific
and monadic ; but for this very reason also, the article may be
omitted, because there is no danger of mistake ; see New Test.
Gramm. § 89, 2 a. b.
"2,-qpeiov means a symbol, a token, an external visible mark. In
ttjs ev aKpoj3vaTia the -njs is referred by many to irio-Tecos ; but the
nature of the case seems plainly to demand, that it should be
referred to the compound idea designated by rrjs SiKaioo-ui^s ttJs
iriareuis. The circumstance here related is fatal to the claims of the
bigoted Jew, with respect to circumcision. But the apostle is not
satisfied with this simply ; he advances farther, and claims that
'Abraham was not only justified before he was circumcised,
but this was done for the very purpose of confirming the truth
which he is proclaiming. He was justified before the covenant
of circumcision, in order that he might be the father of all those
who believe in a state of uncircumcision, so that righteousness
might also be imputed to them, ets to elvai .... SiKaioo-uV?7v.'
That is; God, in justifying Abraham before he was circumcised,

132 ROMANS IV. 12.
did intend to make him a father, i. e., an eminent leader, pattern,
or example, to Gentile as well as Jewish believers, and to show
that righteousness might be imputed to the uncircumcised as well
as to the circumcised. Ai' aKpofSvarlas is an example of Sid con-
ditionis, i. e., of Std before a noun in the Genitive which desig
nates state or condition, and is equivalent to the Dative with ev
as used above. Eis to XoyiaBrjvai k. t. X., designates the conse
quence, or the object in respect to which paternity and sonship
existed, viz., that of being gratuitously justified, i. e., oi having
righteousness imputed to them, which means the same thing.
The Kai in this clause is omitted in A., B., several MSS. minusc,
and some versions. It is unnecessary ; but still it does not mar
the sense, as may be seen in the version.
(12) In all this, moreover, the apostle admits that there was
another object in view, viz., that Abraham should be the spiritual
father of the circumcised, as well as of the uncircumcised, i. e.,
that he should be an eminent example to all, both Jews and
Gentiles, of that gratuitous justification which God bestows on
men, and which is universally proffered under the gospel dispen
sation. So the sequel: And [in order that he might be] the father
of those who are circumcised, of those who are not only of the
circumcision, but walk in the steps of that faith which our father
Abraham had while in a state of uncircumcision, «at [ets to eivcu
ai/rov] iraripa, .... 'Afipadp. The connection requires us to
understand the apostle as asserting, that the sign of circumcision
which Abraham received, as a seal of the righteousness of faith
or a token of confirmation in respect to his gratuitous justification,
was received by him in order that he might be the spiritual father
of such Jews as imitated his example, as well as of Gentiles.
The writer clearly makes the same distinction here, that he does
in chapter ii. 28, 29. Not the literal posterity only of Abra
ham, or only his descendants by natural generation who received
the external sign of circumcision in their flesh, were the children
of this patriarch in the sense here intended. To walk in the steps
of Abraham's faith, means to follow the example of Abraham,
to possess and exercise a faith like his. It is to such and only to
such, that Abraham is a spiritual father.
This last clause of the verse renders very plain what is meant,
when Abraham is called the father of both Gentile and Jewish
believers. The word as , irar-qp employed in this way, designates
(as before remarked) an examplar, a pattern, a leading and
eminent example after which others copy; compare for such
a sense, Gen. iv. 20, 21. John viii. 38, 41, 44, where the
devil is called the, father of the wicked Jews ; comp. also 1 Mace.
ii. 54. So in the verse before us, the children of Abraham

ROMANS IV. 13. 133
are those who walk in the steps of his faith, i. e., imitate his
example.* _ One difficulty remains in respect to tois aroixovai. The repe
tition of the article before it here seems as if the writer intended
to distinguish those whom it designates, from the tois ouk e« Trept-
Top-qs pbvov which (by placing the ouk before tois) would mean,
not only to those of the circumcision ; and then dXXd Kat tois
k. t. X. would mean, hut also to those who walk, etc., i. e., but
also to Gentiles who imitate Abraham's faith. To this purpose
the Syriac version, the Vulgate, Theodoret, Anselm, Castalio,
Grotius, Koppe, and others. But the objection to this is, that
heathen believers have already been mentioned in the preceding
verse ; and that the writer seems plainly here intending to char
acterize such Jews, and only such, as were the spiritual children
of Abraham, i. e., to whom he was a spiritual father. The repe
tition of the article before o-Tot^oucrt in this case is indeed pecu
liar; Tholuck calls it a solecism, and Riickert says it is not to be
tolerated. I regard it, however, as a resumption of the sentence
begun with the preceding tois, and interrupted by the ouk e«
irepiroprjs pbvov dXXd Kat, the former part of which has the sense
of an adjective qualifying the tois ; but inasmuch as the resump
tion gives a new characteristic, it was necessary that the Part.
crrot^oucrt should have the article ; as in other like cases. In this
view Reiche fully concurs.

CHAP. IV. 13—17.
The apostle now proceeds to another illustration and confirmation of his asser
tions respecting gratuitous justification. The Jew gloried in belonging to a nation
to whom God had given a revealed law, and looked upon the pre-eminence which
this gave him, as a proof that God would treat him with special favor in a spiritual
respect. In order to take away all ground of glorying in this manner, the apostle
here proceeds distinctly to remind them, that Abraham was not justified by any
such privilege, the law having been given more than four hundred years after tlie
time in which he lived. Such, then, as are his spiritual children, i. t., such as are
justified on grounds like those on which he was justified, cannot regard the law as
the ground of their justification.
The proof of the writer's position could not fail to make a deep impression on the
mind of a serious Jev(. ' Abraham did not receive promises for himself and his

* The idea of priority in a particular course is doubtless prominent in
the designation of father, as used here. " Abraham is called the ' father of
the faithful,' as their leader, from being the first conspicuous example of
faith recorded in the Scriptures ; " and as being the head of the whole fam
ily of believers. So he is called the father of the circumcision in this verse,
as being the first who was circumcised. Cf. also the use of the word in
Gen. 4: 20. 12

134 ROMANS IV. 13.
seed, on account of the law or by means of the law, but gratuitously, i. e., by the
righteousness of faith, verse 13. JS'ow if the possession of the law, or obedience to it,
were necessary to constitute Abraham and his seed heirs of the promises, then heir
ship by faith, and the promises connected with this, would be annulled, because
these were granted to Abraham before the giving of the law, verse 14. The law,
moreover, is so far from being the ground of such promises, that it is a means of
indignation on the part of God towards sinners, i. e., a means of their punishment;
for it is the prohibitions of the law which constitute and define transgressions, and
if there were no law, there could be no transgression, verse 15. Such being the
case, the promises are not made on the ground of law, but through the instrumen
tality of faith, i. e., gratuitously, in order that all the seed might be assured respect
ing them, both Gentiles who have not the law, and Jews who have it, provided
they have like faith with Abraham, the spiritual father of all, verse 16. The Scrip
ture points out such a relation of Abraham to all true believers, and he is regarded
as sustaining such a one, by him who raises the dead to life, and calls things out of
nothing into existence, verse 17.
(13) For not by the law was the promise made to Abraham, or
to his seed, oi ydp .... airippan airov. Tap introduces a con
firmation of the preceding declaration, that Abraham was the
spiritual father of both Jews and Gentiles, iraripa irdvraiv tuiv
irixTTevovruiv, etc., not by any external right or privilege, but
through faith. — Through law, by means of the law, Std vbpov. The
writer designs by it either to designate the possession oi the law,
the privilege of living under it, and being the depositary of it, or
else he means obedience to it. I am inclined to give it the
former sense here, on account of the oi ck vbpov in verse 14,
which rather designates such as live under the law than those
who fulfil it.
What the promise made to Abraham and his seed was, the
writer proceeds to tell us, viz, that he should be heir or possessor
of the world, to KX-qpovbpov .... Koapov. This expression is
found literally in none of the passages which contain the promises
made to Abraham, Gen. xii. 1 — 3. xv. 1 — 6. xvii. 1 — 8. But
in Gen. xv. 5, is a promise, that the seed of Abraham should be
like the stars of heaven for multitude ; and in Gen. xvii. 5, it is
said : " A father of many nations have I made thee." That the
apostle had his mind intent upon this text, is plain from verse 17
in the sequel. When he says, then, that the promise was that
Abraham should be heir of the world, his meaning evidently is,
that the seed of Abraham (in the sense here meant, viz., his
spiritual seed), should be co-extensive with the world, or (to use
the phraseology employed in another of the promises made to
Abraham), "in him should all the families of the earth be
blessed." Taken in the sense now adverted to, the phrase before
us would imply, that the spiritual seed of Abraham should be co
extensive with the world, *'. e., should be of all nations. But
there is a somewhat more figurative way of understanding the
phrase to be heir of the world, viz., to take it as an expression

ROMANS IV 14. 135
that designates the receiving of great and important' blessings.
In such a way most clearly are psn cii , KX-qpovopeiv t^v y,)Ao
be taken, Psalms xxv. 13. xxxviii 9, 11, 22, 29. Prov. ii. 21.
Matt. v. 5. The former method of exegesis, however, is here to
be preferred, on the ground, that ver. 17 develops the fact, that
Paul here had a special meaning in reference to the extent of
Abraham's spiritual seed.
In regard to that seed of Abraham to whom the promise was
specially made ; who can this be but the Messiah ? Who else
of Abraham's seed was to be possessor of all the earth, particu
larly in a spiritual sense ? That Paul himself had such a view
of this subject, is made quite certain by Gal. iii. 16. It is true,
indeed, that in respect to the promises of a temporal nature made
to Abraham, his literal descendants were the partakers and heirs
of them ; see Gen. xvii. 8. xv. 1 8. So also were they, that is,
some of them, heirs of spiritual promises. But the specific
promise to which the apostle alludes in our text, seems to have
been made with reference to Christ, at least it seems to have
been entirely fulfilled only in him, Gal. iii. 16.* Reiche con
strues the promise here as having respect to a new world, like
that which the Millenarians expect, after the end of the present
order of things ; which implies a method of interpreting the
Messianic prophecies that cannot be defended on the ground of
rational exegesis.
The promise in question was not Std vbpov, i. e., on account of
any privileges connected with the giving of the law, for the law
was not yet given ; but it was Std SiKaiocruvrjs iriareuis, through the
righteousness of faith; see on iii. 22.
(14) If now they who are of the law, are heirs, el ydp ....
KXijpovbpoi ; i. e., if they who live under the law and enjoy its
privileges, are heirs of the promise made to Abraham and his
seed. Tap here is prefixed to an additional clause designed to
confirm what precedes. Ot eK vopov may mean, either those
who rest upon the law, i. e., make their boast of having fulfilled
it and so expect justification from it (in which way Tholuck and
many others have understood it) ; or it may mean, those who
enjoy the privileges and the distinction which a revelation con
fers. I prefer the latter sense as being more consonant with
the special object of the apostle ; which here is to prove that
no external rites or privileges can be the ground of justification
before God.
* Although the promises here referred to were only fulfilled through the
agency and in the person of Christ, yet it may be questioned wliether the seed
of Abraham here refers definitely to him. It should seem rather to refer to
tlie whole posterity of Abraham, to whom iu connection with him, as their
head, the promise was made.

136 ROMANS IV. 15.
Faith is rendered of no effect, and the promise is made void,
KeKcWat .... iirayyeXia. The reason of this is, that the promise
was made to Abraham and his seed in consequence of faith, and
therefore gratuitously ; but if those only who enjoy the privilege
of living under the law are heirs of the promise, and are so
without walking in the steps of Abraham as to faith, then the
promises to Abraham are of no effect. In a word, the ground of
justification taken by those who plead for it ck vbpov, is entirely
diverse from and opposed to that by which Abraham was justi
fied, and on which the promises were made to him ; and if they
are in the right, the promises made to Abraham are of course
null, because a new condition unknown to him and different
from that under which he obtained blessings, would thus be
introduced. (15) For the law is the occasion of wrath ; for where there is
no law, there is no transgression, 6 ydp vd^ios .... irapdfiaais.
A reason is here assigned why the promise would be made void,
on the ground suggested ; and this is, that the law was actually
the occasion of bringing upon the Jews divine displeasure, by
reason of their offences against its precepts. It is on this account
that the verse is introduced by ydp causal. If there were no law,
then there would be no transgression or sin. All sin is dvopia,
i. e., want of conformity to the law of God, either as to omission
or commission. Now as all men do sin, the law against which
they offend (inasmuch as it prohibits and condemns sin) is the
instrument of their condemnation, not of their justification. This
is indeed no fault ofthe law, which is of itself " holy and just and
good" (Rom. vii. 12) ; the fault lies with the transgressor. But
when such transgressor appeals to the law as the ground of his
justification, he must be told (as he is here told) that the law,
instead of delivering him from death or justifying him, condemns
Tiim to death ; nay, that its precepts, although holy and just and
good in themselves and worthy of all respect and obedience, are
nevertheless the occasion (the innocent occasion indeed) of the
sinner's guilt and ruin. The fault lies in him ; but still, if there
had been no precepts to transgress and no penalty connected
with transgression, then he would not have been a transgressor.
It is on such ground that the apostle (chap. vii. 7 — 13) declares
most explicitly, that "he had not known sin, except by the law ;"
that " sin, taking occasion by the law, wrought in him all manner
of concupiscence ; " that " without the law sin was dead," i. e., the
power of sin was inefficacious ; but still, that " the law is holy
and just and good," and all the fault lies in the transgressor.
Chap. vii. 7, seq., is indeed an ample commentary on the senti
ment expressed in the verse before us.

ROMANS IV. 16. 137
Admitting the truth of the apostle's representation, it follows,
that those who have no knowledge of law, *'. e., no moral
sense of any moral precept, cannot be transgressors. This is
plainly and palpably the doctrine which he teaches ; a doctrine
which is sanctioned by the fundamental principles of our moral
nature, and essential to the idea of right and wrong. In common
cases, we never pronounce any man to be an offender against a
moral law, unless he is an intelligent, rational, moral, free agent.
Any one of these qualifications being found wanting, we absolve
him from guilt. And does not Paul the same ? But this does
not settle the question when men begin to be such agents ; for
plainly they may be moral and free agents before they can read
the Scriptures. The question as to the time when sinning begins,
in each individual case, can be settled only by Omniscience.
Why should we not be content to leave it with ' the Judge of all
the earth, who will do eight ?'
The second ydp in this verse introduces a reason or ground of
the assertion immediately preceding ; that the law is the occasion
or instrument of condemnation. IIow does this appear? In
this way, viz., because that "where there is no law, there is no
transgression. (1 6) Because then the law does in fact never justify, but only
condemn, it follows that if justification be at all bestowed on sin
ners, it must come in some other way than by law. On this ac
count it was of faith, so that it must be of grace, Std tovto . . .
xdpw ; i. e., the promise is through faith, so that it must be gra
tuitous, since tliere is no way left in which it could be bestowed
on the ground of merit. See the notes on verses 4, 5,_ above.
We must of course suppose -r) iirayyeXia yiverai to be implied
before eK iriareuis ; in which case the mind reverts to the idea at
the close of verse 14. The iva before Kara x°>v is doubtless to
be taken in the ecbatic sense, ita ut, so that, indicating event, not
purpose. The reasoning then stands thus : ' The promise was
oi faith as the condition, so that- it must of course be gratuitous.'
In order that the promise might be sure to all the seed, ets to eivai
airippan. Ou any other ground than that of grace or
gratuity, the promise could not be sure either to Abraham or to
his seed • for if it were to be fulfilled only on condition of entire
obedience to the law, then would it never have a fulfilment, inas
much as no mere man ever did or will exhibit perfect obedience.
Aid touto in this verse extends to the whole of the reasoning
which precedes, and which goes to show that justification or
the promises of pardon and acceptance must be on gratuitous, and
not on meritorious grounds. ,
Mt only to him who is under the law, but to him who is of the faith,

138 ROMANS IV. 17.
of Abraham, oi ra . . . . 'Afipadp ; i. e., the promise is sure of
fulfilment to both Jew and Greek, that is, to all men without dis
tinction, to all tois crTOt^oucrt tois txyeai T17S ev T77 aKpo/3uo-Tta iriare
uis tov irarpbs rjpuiv 'Afipadp. The reader should note, that pbvov
belongs to ou tco, not to eK tov vbpov.
(17) This last idea, viz., that Abraham is the spiritual father
of both Jews and Gentiles, the apostle now takes occasion farther
to illustrate and confirm, by a reference to the Jewish Scriptures.
Who is the father of us all; (as it is written : A father of many
nations have I made thee,) bs iari .... TeBeiKa ae. TiBeiKa ae is
the Septuagint rendering of ^pnro , the Hebrew )n frequently
meaning to put, place, or constitute ; in which meaning it is often
followed by the Septuagint and New Testament, by the use of
TiB-qpi. There is a question whether the original in Gen. xvii. 5,
means anything more than that the literal posterity of Abraham
should be very numerous. Tholuck and many commentators so
construe it ; but it seems clear to me, that the apostle viewed it as
having reference to a spiritual seed. This is made quite certain by
comparing Gal. iii. 7. Rom. ii. 28, 29. iv. 11, 12, 16, 18. The
embarrassment as to the interpretation of Gen. xvii. 1 — 8, seems
to arise principally from the fact, that promises of both a temporal
and spiritual nature are tliere made. A double paternity (so to
speak) is assigned to Abraham ; many nations are lo descend
from him literally ; his literal seed are to possess the land of
Canaan. But he is also to become the spiritual father of ' many
nations,' (i. e., an eminent pattern or exemplar in regard to faith,
and justification by it, see verse 12 above), and in him are 'all
the families ofthe earth to be blessed,' Gen. xii. 3.
Such a father he was in the sight of God, whom he confided in
or believed, Karivavri ou . . . . ®eov. KaTe'vavri is equivalent to
the Hebrew 155 , lyb , 15s!? , 1,5152 , in the sight of, in the view of,
before. The sentiment is this : "' Abraham is the father of many
nations, in the sight of that God in whom he trusted, or whose
word he believed ; ' i. e., God views him and has constituted him
the spiritual father of many nations. The construction of the
verse is difficult, but I regard the real sense of it to be the same, as
if the arrangement in Greek were thus : KaTe'vaTTi ©eou ou [ =
(5] iiriarevae. The ou is to be considered as a case of attraction,
as grammarians say. Cf. John ii. 22. Mark vii. 13. Luke ii. 20.
Acts vii. 17, 45. 1 Pet. iv. 11. John xv. 20, etc. ; but in all these
cases, the noun precedes the pronoun which conforms to it. Ex
amples, however, of the like nature with the present, are the fol
lowing, viz., Mark vi. 16, ov eyco dvai<e<£d_\.iira 'Iwdvv^v, outos ecru;
Acts xxi. 16. dyovres irap' (S £eviaBuipev Mvdo-tovt; Rom. vi. 17,
eis ov TrapaSd^Te tuVov SiSa^s ; in which examples, indeed, the

R0MANSIV.17. 139
noun conforms to the pronoun as to its case ; but this makes no
important difference, inasmuch as the conformity may be of either
kind, i. e., of the noun to the pronoun, or the pronoun to the
noun; see New Test. Gramm. § 113. 2, 3* If we regard ov
eiriarevae as a circumstance thrown in, and to be mentally included
in a parenthesis, the difficulty of the sentence will be removed.
The present construction is somewhat anomalous as to the order
of words ; for the usual order would he thus : KaTe'vavn ©eou ou
iiriarevae, k. t. X.
Who giveth life to the dead, and calleth the things ivhich are not,
as if they were, tov Cuioitoiovvtos .... ovra. To express the idea
of divine, almighty power, is plainly the object of this passage.
This it does by asserting that God raises the dead, and exercises
creative and controlling power. In regard to tou ^uiottoiowtos tous
veKpous, it may mean generally, that God has the power to raise
the dead, and that he exercises it ; or it may have a special
reference to God's promises to raise up a numerous progeny from
Abraham, who was dead as to the power of procreation ; comp.
Heb. xi. 17 — 19, aud verse 19 below. In either case the mean
ing is good. Iii the first it is more energetic ; in the second,
more appropriate to the special object of the writer. KaXouvros
™ prj ovra Sis ovra is Hebraistic in its manner. KaAe'co is some
times employed like the Hebrew &OJ3 , i. e., to designate the idea
of commanding a thing to be or exist, which did not before exist ;
e. g., Is. xli. 4. xlviii. 13 ; comp. 2 Kings viii. 1. Isaiah xxii. 12.
Comp. also 2 Mace. vii. 28, ef ouk ovtcov hroiqaev aird 6 ©eos,
which resembles in sense ¦ the phrase before us ; also Philo de
Creat. p. 728, Ta p-q ovra iKdXeaev ets to elvai. The reference in
the mind of the writer, when he used the phrase before us, no
doubt was to Gen. i. 3, seq. The calling of things that are not,
is to command that they shall exist, in order to fulfil the purposes
which the Creator has in view by bringing them into existence.
This latter circumstance seems to have been overlooked ; and
thus has arisen great perplexity among interpreters. ' How,' it
has been asked, ' could God call into existence things that are not,
as if they were ? ' A seeming paradox, indeed, if literally inter
preted ; for things that already are, cannot be called into exist
ence. After all, the meaning of the apostle is not simply bidding
to exist (KaXovvros), but also directing, disposing of, commanding
in any way and for any purpose, the things called. ' God,' says
he, ' can call into existence things that now have no existence, and
employ them for his purposes, just as he directs and disposes of
* This attraction from the Dative is so unusual, that most modern com
mentators prefer to make out the construction thus : Karivavri tov Beov,
KaTevavn ol e-iricTevae, before God ill whose sight he believed; cf. Luke 1: 4.

140 ROMANS IV. 18.
things that already exist ; God calls rd prj ovra just as he does
rd ovra ; things that do not now exist, are at his disposal as really
and truly as things that do exist, i. e., they can be made to exist
and to subserve his purpose, in the same manner as things do
which now already exist.' If any one still feels a difficulty, he
may solve the sentence in this simple way, viz., KaXouvros rd prj
ovra cos [eKaXecrev] oVra, i. e., calling into existence (Gen. i. 2. Ps.
xxxiii. 6) things that are not, as [he called into existence] things
that are. The sense would be for substance the same.

CHAP. IV. 18—25.
The apostle now proceeds to a more detailed and animated description of Abra
ham's faith. First he hoped, when to all human appearance there was no ground
of hope, that he might become the father of many nations through the birth of a son,
verse 18. His strong faith Jed him to overlook his own extreme old age and that
of Sarah, verse 19; to trust with full confidence in the simple promise of God respect
ing a son, thus giving glory to God by reposing in him such an unlimited trust, and
by being so fully persuaded that he would perform what he bad promised , vers. 20, 21.
On this account he was justified through his faith, verse 22 ; nor was this fact recorded
merely for his sake, but also for our sake, that we may be inspired with the hope
of attaining to the like justification, provided we believe in the declarations of him
who raised up Jesus from the dead, and proposed him to the world as the object
of saving belief, inasmuch as he died for our offences, and rose again in order that
we might he justified, v. 23 — 25.
(18) Who against [all apparent] ground of hope, believed in hope
that he should become the father, etc.,* osirap' eXiriSa iir iXiriSi iiria-
revaev. The os, k. t. X. here is co-ordinate with the os, k. t. X. in ver.
1 G. But though co-ordinate as to construction, it is not merely ep
exegetical, but adds some new declarations respecting the strength
of Abraham's faith. The expression 7rap' e.WSa iir iXiriSi, is
what the Greeks call o£up.copov [oxymoron], i. e., a sharp, pointed,
and apparently contradictory saying ; like the Latin spes insperata,
ignavia strenua, etc. The 7rap' eX7ri8a, beyond or against hope, in
this case, refers to the circumstances recounted in ver. 19. For
the like sense oi irapd, see Acts xviii. 13.
According to what has been said, Kara to elp-qpivov, viz., in Gen.
xv. 5. — OuVcos, so, viz., like the stars in respect to number, to
which Abraham had just been pointed, i. e., innumerable ; comp.
Ps. cxlvii. 4.
* That lie should become, literally "in order to his becoming, etc. (i. e. as a,
step in the process of his becoming, and one necessary to that process going
forward)." — Alford.

ROMANS IV. 19 — 21. 141
(19) Mt being weak, pij daBevqaas, i. e., being strong. The
Greeks call this mode of expression XiTorqs, smallness, slender-
ness, or peiuiais, diminution ; because it seemingly, though not
really, diminishes from the full strength of the positive form. The
word daBevqaas here seems to be chosen in reference to the state
of the patriarchal pair, who were weak in body. Their faith was
in an opposite condition, pij daBevqaas. These words begin a
third co-ordinate clause, both the others beginning with os, as
already noted.
fn faith, rfj iriarei, Dative of condition, in respect to faith, i. e.,
having strong confidence.
He did not regard, ou KaTevovjcre.* — Already dead, 7/817 veveKpui-
ixivov, i. e., inefficient with regard to procreation ; comp. Heb. xi.
12. Gen. xvii. 17. About, irov, (adv.) which sense it has when
it is enclitic, as here ; about 1 00 years of age, eKarovraeT-qs irov. — -
Kat, nor, inasmuch as it follows oi in the preceding clause. So
in Hebrew, 1 following tkb means nor, Hebrew Gramm. § 358.
Note. — Tijv viKpuiaiv ttjs pqrpas = ttjv pr/rpav ttjv veveKpuipevqv .
Comp. the age of Sarah (90) at this time, Gen. xvii. 17.
(20) He did not doubt, ov SieKpiB-q, did not hesitate; comp.
Rom. xiv. 23. James i. 6. ii. 4. Matt. xxi. 21. Mark xi. 23.—
Respecting the promise of God, through, or by reason of an unbe
lieving spirit, els Se T-ijv iirayyeXiav .... diriaTia. The Se here
is adversative in respect to the preceding circumstances, and may
be translated, still, but, or however. The Dat. of diriario. is con
strued agreeably to idiom; see New Test. Gramm. § 106. 5.
But he was confident through faith, he firmly and confidently
believed, dXX iveSvvapuiB-q rfj iriarei, the opposite of the preceding
expression ; rfj iriarei, the Dative of mamier or means ; see New
Test. Gram, ut supra.
Giving glory to God, Aous 8d|av tco ©ecS. The Hebrew dliB
ni!T3 lias means,, to show by our actions that we acknowledge any
attribute of God ; which is ascribing to him what belongs or is
due to him. So here, Abraham, by the strength of his confi
dence, did in the highest manner ascribe to God omnipotence
and veracity. Comp. John ix. 24. Josh. vii. 19. The meaning
of the phrase as here employed by the writer, is given in the
next verse.
(21) Being fully persuaded, koa. irX-qpo<j>op-qBels on «.. t. A., a
repetition or epexegesis of what the preceding clause asserts.
"Being strong in faith" there, is equivalent to irX-qpotpop-qBeis
* Lachmann, following MSS. A C, Alford and others, omit the oi, before
Kaiev6naev; and then the meaning is: not being weak in the faith, he knew
well, was well aware that his body, etc., but (v. 20, eis Se) did not, etc. lhe
majority of critics retain the oi.

142 ROMANS IV. 22 — 25.
here; comp. Heb. x. 22. — What he had promised, 8 iirgyyeXro.i.
The Perf. pass, not unfrequently has an active sense, inasmuch as
it serves for the Perf. Middle as well as the Passive, (New Test.
Gramm. § 61. 2.) So in Acts xiii. 2, irpoaKiKX-qpai, I have invited.
Acts xvi. 10. 1 Pet. iv. 1. John ix. 22. — Kat iroirjaai, also to
perform, Kai in the sense of etiam, quoque, as it often is, i. e., Kai
intensive. (22) Wherefore [his belief] was counted to him as righteous
ness, Std ... . eis SiKaioo-iVijv ; in other words, through his faith
lie was counted or treated as righteous, he was admitted to the
divine favor. See on verse 5 above. The Kai before eXoyiaBv I
have interpreted as intensive. If otherwise taken, it may be
solved thus : Wherefore, also, it was imputed, etc.
(23, 24) Nor was this method of justification and accejitance
limited to Abraham. The history of it is recorded as an exam
ple, for the encouragement and imitation of all others down to the
latest period of time. Those who believe in him who raised up
Jesus from the dead (comp. ver. 17 above), i. e., those who be
lieve in what God has done and said with respect to the Messiah,
the only foundation of the sinner's hope, will be justified througli
their faith, in like manner as Abraham was by his.
(25) Was given up, irapeSbB-q, viz., to death, Matt. xxvi. 2. —
Atd rd irapo.irTuipa.ra -qpuiv, comp. Is. liii. 12, 5. 6. 8. Gal. i. 4. ii.
20. Tit. ii. 14. 1 Pet. ii. 24.
On account of our justification, Sid r-qv SiKcuuiaiv fjpuiv, i. e., our
acceptance with God. Christ rose from the dead, in order that
this great and glorious work might be completed. The primary
object of his death is here stated as being expiatory, i. e., as hav
ing a special influence on that part of justification which has
respect to remitting the penalty ofthe divine law. But as justi
fication, in its full sense, comprehends not only forgiveness, but
the accepting and treating of any one as righteous, it implies of
course the advancement of the pardoned sinner to a state of' glory.
The resurrection of Christ was connected with this ; for if " Christ
be not risen, then our faith is vain." His resurrection was pre
paratory to his receiving the kingdom given him of the Father,
and thus was necessary in order to complete the redemption of
those who believe in him.
Reiche maintains, that the whole work of Christ, is to be con
sidered as one ; and that we are not at liberty to ascribe more
efficacy to his death than to any of the actions of his life. Of
course he disallows the idea of a vicarious sacrifice, in any proper
sense of these words ; and he maintains that God, for Christ's
sake and for some reasons not stated by the sacred writers, for
gives and accepts the sinner. But, although the incarnation and

ROMANS V. 1—21. 143
obedience of Christ constitute an important part of his mediatorial
work, still it seems perfectly clear that the New Testament
ascribes peculiar efficacy to the sufferings and death of Christ ;
and to my mind, the doctrine of the atonement or the vicarious
sufferings and death of Christ, is fundamental to the very
essence of Christianity as distinguished from other systems
of religion.

CHAP. V. 1—21.
The apostle having thus shown, (a) That all men, Jews and Gentiles, are sinners;
(b) That they are therefore under the condemning- sentence of the divine law; (c)
That the only method of escape from the execution of this sentence, is by gratuitous
pardon, i. e. hy justification obtained through the death of Christ; and [d) That all
this is no new doctrine, but one inculcated in the Old Testament both by declaration
and example; he next proceeds, in chapter v., to exhibit the blessed fruits of this
pardon or justification. (1) We have peace with God (with whom we were before
in a state of enmity, being alienated from him, compare verses 6 — 10), and we en
joy, through Christ, free access to a state of favor with God, and thus are led to
rejoice in tbe hope of future glory, verses 1, 2. (2) We are supported and comforted
in all our afflictions during the present life; nay, we may even rejoice in them as
the instruments of spiritual good to us, verses 3 — 5. (3) All this good is rendered
certain, and tho hope of it sure, by the fact that Christ, having died for us while in
a state of enmity and alienation, and having thus reconciled us to God, will not fail
to carry on and complete the work which he has thus begun, verses 6 — 10. (4) Wc
may now therefore rejoice in God (who is as truly our covenant God as he has been
that of the Jews), on account of the reconciliation which Christ has effected,
verse 11.
(5) This state of reconciliation or filial relation to God, is extended to all men, /. t?.,
in some respects actually bestowed on all, and in others proffered to all, laid open
for all, rendered accessible to all, in like manner as the evils occasioned by the sin
of our first ancestor have in Some respects extended to all, and in others are liable to
be incurred or suffered by all ; yea, such is the greatness of Christ's redemption, that
the blessings procured by his death far exceed the evils occasioned by the sin
of Adam (verses 12 — 19), they even exceed all the evils consequent upon the tins
of men, who live under the light of revelation, verses 20, 21. The certainty of salva
tion, then, under such a dispensation as this, would seem to be made quite evident.
Such appears to me the sum of what is taught in chap. v. The difficulties attend
ing the interpretation of this passage, I readily acknowledge, and have long and
deeply felt. To the study of them I have devoted much more time, than to any
other equal portion of the Holy Scriptures. I do not persuade myself, however,
that I have succeeded in all respects with regard to the solution of them; much less
do I expect that what I shall propose will be satisfactory to the minds of all others.
What I could do, I have done; if others succeed better, it will be a matter of sincere
joy to me. One thing I cannot help remarking here; which is, that any exegesis
of verses 12 — 21, which represents the contents as irrelevant to the tenor ofthe con
text both before and after these verses, must wear the air, of course, of being an
improbable one. Never have I found more difficulty, however, than in satisfying
myself of the relation which verses 12 — 21 do in fact hold toward the context- and
in particular how they bear upon the theme discussed in verses 1 — 11. The result
of all my investigations is given, as to substance, under No. 5 above.
Tholuck states his result a little differently: "To render more conspicuous the

144 ROMANS V. 1, 2.
fruits obtained by redemption, the apostle contrasts the state of mankind as a whole,
and as being in the misery of their unredeemed condition, with the state of mankind
as a whole, in their happiness as partakers ofthe benefits of redemption. By a strik
ing parallel, he exhibits mankind in Adam the head and source of our race as sinful ;
and in Christ the head and source of it, as redeemed ; and he so represents this, that
redemption appears to be tbe greatest and most important occurrence which has
taken place with regard to mankind — the central point of all spiritual life and all
happiness." (Comm. iiber Rom. p. 158. edit. 2). Whether this summary comes
nearer than my own to the true exhibition of the contents of verses 12 — 21; in par
ticular, whether it harmonizes better with the context; I submit to the reader to
decide, when he shall have carefully studied the wdiole. In the mean time, I ac
knowledge with gratitude the important aid that I have received from the Commen
tary ofthe above named excellent writer.
The reader will find a more detailed statement ofthe contents of different passages
at the commencement ofthe commentary on them.
(1) Then, ovv, concessive and continuative. It does not here
express the force simply of syllogistic conclusion, but resumes
and alludes to the preceding arguments and illustrations, and
takes for granted the fact stated by SiKaico^evres. This last word
has here peculiar reference to pardon of sin, i. e., having been
pardoned or justified.
By faith, eK iriareuis, i. e., gratuitously, through belief instead
of perfect obedience ; see on chap. iv. 5 above.
We have peace, elp-qvqv exopev ; here in opposition to a state of
enmity to God, or a state of alienation from him ; see verse 10.
Several important MSS., A., C, D., 71., al., and some versions
and fathers, read e^copev (Subj.) ; but Paul does not mean to say
merely that we may have peace, but that we are in actual posses
sion of it.*
Aia tov K. I. XpiaroJj, viz., by the reconciliation which he has
effected, see verse 11.
(2) By whom also, St' ov Kai. — Access, ttjv irpoaayuryrjv, as well
as reconciliation; comp. Eph. ii. 18. iii. 12. We have obtained
access els ttjv xaptv Tairr^v, i. e., either to this state of favor or grace,
in which we now stand or are ; or, as Tholuck, Reiche, and some
others : ' We have obtained access [to God] by belief (r-fj Triarei)
in that grace in which we continue.' The former seems to be
the most facile sense ; the latter, most conformed to idiom. Tlpoa-
ayuiy-q seems to imply that God is the object of access ; so it is
expressed in Eph. ii. 18. 1 Pet. iii. 18, and implied (as here) in
Eph. iii. 12. Besides, the object of belief is generally indicated
by ets ; which would favor the view of Tholuck. — We have become
possessed of, we have obtained, iaxrJKapev. As the Perf. is here
employed (and not Pres. as above), it would seem that the access
* Lachmann adopts the reading exw/xei/, and it must be confessed that
there is strong MS. authority for it. If it be adopted, the Subjunctive must
bo considered as hortatory : Let us have peace, etc.

ROMANS V. 3 — 0. 145
here spoken of must refer to the pardoned sinner's first access to
God, after his forgiveness.
We stand, iarqKapev, the Perf. being used in this verb, because
the Present has not a neuter sense. See New Test. Gramm. S
50. 3, Note 2.
And we rejoice, Kai Kavx<iipeBa ; i. e., in addition to a state of .
peace with God and access to him, we are filled with joy, in the
hope of that glory which God will bestow. ®eov is here Genitivus
anctoris. (3) And not only so, but ive also rejoice, oi pbvov Se, dXXd koX
KavxuipeBa k. t. X., etc. Ae' continuative and discretive. The
ellipsis after oi pbvov Si is plain ; i. e., ' not only [do we rejoice
in hope of future glory], but,' etc. 'Ev after Kavxdopai, as not
unfrequently, stands before the object ofthe verb ; e.g., in Rom.
ii. 17. Gal. vi. 13, etc. The apostle does not mean to say, that
the Christian exults in pain and sorrow as such ; but that as a
means of spiritual good he exults in them, and is enabled by
divine grace to triumph over them.
Knowing, having assurance, etSores ; viz., from our relation to
God, and from his gracious purposes toward us. Confidence in
him gives assurance.
Produces patience or perseverance, oti ... . KarepydCerai.
Neither of these virtues can be exercised without sufferings and
trials. Patience is steadfast and submissive endurance of evils.
Afflictions are essential to the cultivation of this virtue. They are
not, indeed, the direct and efficient cause of patience ; but they
are at least an occasion or instrumental cause.
(4) Trial or approbation, SoKipqv. Either rendering is correct;
for perseverance or patience in the enduring of afflictions makes
thorough trial; and the same virtue secures approbation. I prefer
the second meaning, viz., approbation ; because it more naturally
connects itself with the iXiris that follows.' Comp. 8oKip.a£co, which
means to try, and also to approve.
Hope, iXiriSa, which springs of course from the approbation
bestowed on patient endurance of suffering for virtue's sake.
(5) Will not disappoint, oi Karaiaxyvei ; as the sequel shows.
So the Hebrew, dia; Nb . The Se' before this clause and two
others in verse 4, is continuative and discretive.
"On fj dydirv tov ®eoi> k. t. X. The first reason given why the
Christian's hope will not disappoint him, is that the love of God is
diffused (eKKe^urai) in his heart or mind; and this, by that Holy
Spirit which is imparted to him, i. e., by the gracious influence
of that Spirit who dwells in the hearts of believers ; 1 Cor.
vi. 19. iii. 16. 2 Cor. vi. 16. 2 Cor. i. 22, where the spirit
which is in the hearts of believers is called their d'ppajSuiv, the
13

146 ROMANS V. 6.
pledge of their future happiness, the pledge that their salvation is
secure. Comp. also Eph. i. 13, 14, where the same sentiment is
fully expressed. The love of God here evidently means his love
toward us ; as verse 8 plainly shows. His love shed abroad in
the hearts of Christians means, that a full and satisfactory con
viction respecting his love is bestowed ; and the manner of be
stowing or giving such a sense of his love is here designated, viz.,
by the influence of the Holy Spirit.

CHAP. V. 6—10.
Verses 6 — 10 constitute a kind of episode (if I may so speak), and contain an
illustration and confirmation of the sentiment expressed in verse 5. viz., that tlie
Christian's hope will not disappoint him. To show that this is truly tbe case, the
writer goes on to produce an illustration, which exhibits an argument of the kind
called a majori ad minus; i. t, ' if Christ has already done tbe greater thing for you,
viz., recouciled you to God, when you were in your sinful state, how much more
will he complete the work, the greatest and most difficult part of which has already
been accomplished?
In this view the passage before us seems to be more direct, in respect to the perse
verance of tlie saints, than almost any other passage in the Scriptures which I can
find. The sentiment here is not dependent on the form of a particular expression
(as it appears to be in some other passages); but it is fundamentally connected with
the very nature of the argument.
(6) "Eti ydp Xpiaros ovtuiv -qpuiv. The variety of readings is
here considerable ; e. g., eiye, B., Syr., Erp., Copt. ; ex ydp, Isid.,
Pelus., August.; ei ti, F., 6.; ets Tt, (ut quid), Ital., Vulg., Iren.,
Ambros., Pelag. ; which all probably originated either from the
supposed unusual location of en, or else from an apprehension
that en in verse 8 rendered it unnecessary or improbable here.
In like manner many MSS. and Versions have an eVt after da-
Bevuiv here ; which Griesbach and Koppe admit into the text, but
Knapp and Vater reject. It probably arose from some of the
lections, which begun with this verse, and transposed the eri, for
convenience' sake in reading, as it would not appear seemly at
the beginning of a lection. The position of en seems designed
for the sake of emphasis ; comp. Matt. xii. 46. xvii. 5. Mark v.
35. xii. 6, and specially Heb. ix. 6, en ttjs irpurr-qs aK-qvqs expvavs
ardaiv, where en belongs to ixovavs- — Tap here introduces proof
that the hope of the Christian will not disappoint him.
While we were yet, or we yet being, en ovtuiv -qpuiv. — Acr^evcov,
literally destitute of strength ; here, as generally expounded, in a
moral sense, i. e., destitute of moral vigor, without holy energy,
in a state of moral indisposition or infirmity. So Prov. xxiv. 16,
ot acre/Jets doBevijaovaiv iv KaKols, the ungodly are weak in their

ROMANS V. 7. 147
evil ^ ways, morally weak. Various modifications of the word
daBiveia may be found in Gal. iv. 9. Heb. iv. 15. v. 2. vii. 18.
In Heb. iv. 15, the nature ofthe appeal seems to show, that the
writer supposes Jesus himself to have possessed daBiveia like our
own ; but he takes care to add, Xcopts dpaprlas ; so that while he
had^ the susceptibility of being tempted and tried (ireireipaapivov
i<ard irdvra KaB' bpoibrqra) in all respects as we are, which seems
to be the daBiveia here characterized, he still remained " holy,
harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." It is not suscep
tibility of being tempted, then, which makes any one a sinner.
However, in our text, daBevuiv seems to be used in a more
emphatic sense than in Heb. iv. 15. v. 2 ; for it is immediately
exchanged for dae/3Giv, and in verse 8 for dpapruiXCiv. This
shows that actual development of character by some kind of vol
untary action is meant, and not merely vitiositas or peccabilitas ;
for daejS-qs and dpapruiXbs are not applied to mark these qualities,
but to mark character that is developed.
After all, however, the doubt forces itself on my mind, whether
daBevuiv does not here characterize weakness or inability of the
sinner as to saving himself, having once come under the con
demning sentence of the law. In Heb. vii. 18, the law is
asserted to be daBevrjs, because it can afford no help to the sinner
who is condemned by it. What now if we suppose the apostle to
mean here, that ' when we were under the curse, and unable to
save ourselves, Christ then interposed ? ' The sense is surely
good, and the apparent tautology made by daefiuiv, when it is con
strued in the usual way, is avoided.
In due time, Kara Kaipov, at an appointed or set time, viz., that
fixed upon in the counsels of God. Comp. Sept. in Job v. 26.
Isa. lx. 22 ; comp. also Luke xxi. 24, 8. Heb. xi. 11. Comp. to
irX-qpuipa tov xpdvov in Gal. iv. 4.
For [us] who were ungodly, virep dcre/3cov, i. e., virep daefiuiv
[fjpuiv]. It is plain that daefiuiv here characterizes the same class
of persons who were called baBevuiv in the preceding clause. It
means impious, those who do not reverence or fear God. — 'Xirip,
for, on account of, instead of, i. e., in our room or stead. — So
the comparison in the next verse, where dying virep dyaBov and
virep SiKaiov is mentioned, obliges us to interpret this. Even
Riickert concedes that the meaning here must be loco nostro,
vice nostra,. Reiche admits that this is the symbolical costume
of the language ; but that the idea of vicarious sacrifice is to be
objectively admitted, he arbitrarily deems to be entirely out of
question. (7) Tap illustrantis ; for the sequel is designed to illustrate the
great benevolence which the deatli of Christ displayed, and which

148 ROMANS V. 7.
is proposed to our view in verses 5, 6. AiKaiov is here used in
distinction from dya^oS. Often these words are synonymous ;
yet they are capable of distinct use, and in classic usage they are
not unfrequently distinguished from each other. E. g., Cicero :
" Recte justum virum, bonum non facile reperiemus ; " de Offic.
III. 15. Again: "Jupiter Optimus dictus est, id est, beneficen-
tissimus.' So in the Talmud (Pirque Abhoth, 5, 10) it is said :
"There are four kinds of men; (1) Those who say: What is
mine is mine, and what is thine is thine ; these are the middling
men. (2) Those who say : What is mine is thine, and what is
thine is mine ; these are the common people. (3) Those who
say : What is mine is thine, and what is thine is thine ; these are
the Di'-pon , i. e., dyaBoi. (4) Those who say : What is mine is
mine, and what is thine is mine ; these are the B^siai. ." So (by
the Seventy) T'pfi, usually = ocrios, p"1^?, StKaios. AiKaios may
be used to designate a person who is innocent merely •, so in the
Septuagint, Ex. xxiii. 7. Gen. xviii. 23, seq. So in the New
Testament, Matt, xxvii. 19, 24. It corresponds also to the He
brew ij?5, Prov. i. 11. vi. 17. Joel iii. 19. In using SiKaios,
therefore, as designating a character somewhat different from
dya#ds and inferior to it, the apostle has not varied from sacred
and classic usage. AiKaios clearly means here, one who is just
in the common sense of the word, one ivho is free from crimes
cognizable by law, one who does not defraud, etc. For such a
one, the apostle says, it would be rare to find any person willing
to volunteer the sacrifice of his life.
Although for ihe dyaBbs, i. e.,the benevolent or rather the benefi
cent man, (the T,t?n), some one perhaps might venture even to lay
down his life. This has in fact not unfrequently been done.
The difference between the readiness of men to hazard their lives
for a man of peculiar and overflowing benevolence of heart, and
for a man who merely pays a nice regard to meum and tuum, is
very plain to every observer who has a feeling heart. Reiche
and Tholuck suppose dya^ds here to designate a kind benefactor,
in distinction from a simple StKaios. To this I see no objection ;
for it makes the contrast between StKaios and dya^o's the more
striking ; and is well founded in the nature of the idiom. I may
add, that the sequel is rendered the more striking by it. Besides,
the use of the article here before dyaBov shows that a specific
benefactor is thought of by the writer. The article is here = to
the pronominal adjective his.
The ydp in this second clause may (as usual in such cases) be
taken as affirmative (ja, allcrdings, Passow), and we might trans
late thus : Perhaps, indeed, for the benefactor, etc. I have ren
dered it although in the version ; not because yap of itself means

ROMANS V. 8— 10. 149
although, hut because the relation of the sentiment demands such
a rendering, in order to make the sense explicit to us. The Kat
before roXpS. is undoubtedly Kai intensivum ; but standing before
such a connection as roXpa diroBaveiv, it may be joined with either
verb, as the sense requires. Here it is better to join it with
d7ro^aveiv — would venture even to die. What he had just said
was : ' Scarcely will any one die for a just man ; " now he says :
' Still it may be, that some one will venture even to die for a ben
efactor.' Will even venture does not put the emphasis in the right
place. (<S) Yet the grace of the gospel has far surpassed any exhibition
of human benevolence. He [God] commends, avviarqpi, displays,
— 'Aydir-qv, benevolence, tnarn compassionate kindness.- — ¦'Yirep
ijpuiv, in our stead, or on our account. In either way of rendering
tlie sense here must be, that the death of Christ saved us from
that which we as dpapruiXoi deserved. 'ApapruiXoi means those
who err in heart and life.
(9) Much more, then, being justified, i. e., acquitted as to our
past offences, by his blood, i. e., shall ice be saved by him from
[future] indignation, iroXXid ovv .... a7ro t^s bpyrjs. In other
words : ' If Christ by his death has accomplished our reconcilia
tion, while we were in a state of enmity ; a fortiori we may
expect that the great work, thus begun and accomplished as to
the most difficult part, will be completed.' That aipan airov
means the same thing as the death of Christ, i. e., that it here
directly refers to the preceding aTre'^ave, does not admit of any
reasonable doubt.
(10) A repetition of the same general ideas, in which the sen
timent of the whole is compressed and rendered prominent, ^rdp
confirmantis. ©avdrou k. t. X. here corresponds to tco aipari
airov in the preceding verse. — 'Ev rrj £coj5 airoi, the antithesis
of Bavdrov airov. Meaning : < If we were reconciled to God,
when enemies, by a dying Saviour ; a fortiori shall we, when
thus reconciled, attain salvation through a living one;' i. e., if
Christ in his humble and suffering state reconciled us to God,
much more in his exalted and glorified state (ev rrj Cuifj airov)
will he complete the work thus begun ; comp. Rom. iv. 21, where
is the same sentiment. 'Ev before &017 is evidently used in a dif
ferent sense from Std before Bavdrov.
The scriptural view of reconciliation is, that the offending
party becomes reconciled to the other. The verb KaTaAAdo-crco
properly means to change, exchange ; and it is here employed
to designate the change ofthe sinner's mind, who was "at enmity
with God," to that state in which he comes to love and reverence
him.

150 ROMANS V. 11.
(11) And not only, oi pbvov Se, [do we rejoice in afflictions,
verse 3, as tending to produce a hope of glory which the death
of Christ has rendered sure and certain'], but we rejoice, dXXd
koi Kavxuipevoi \_iapev~] in God, viz., as our God, our cove
nant God, our supreme and eternal joy; comp. Rev. xxi. 3.
Heb. viii. 10. Zech. viii. 8. Jer. iv. 2; also John viii. 41, 54.
Rom. ii. 17, which last passage shows the claims of the Jews
in respect to their covenant relation with God. The apostle
means to intimate, that all which the Jews boasted of, is in reality
secured to Christians. The use of Kairj(iop.evoi here, instead of a
proper verb as in verse 3, is substantially Hebraistic ; for in He
brew the change of construction from a verb to a participle, and
vice versa, is very common.
The verse before us is a summary or consummation of all the
grounds of rejoicing ; for to rejoice in God as our God, expresses
the consummation of all the Christian's happiness. In respect
to form or mode of expression, it constitutes a diverse head ; and
it is one which in fact is really diverse in this respect, viz., that it
is more generic than the preceding declarations. The phrases in
verses 1, 3, and 11, KavxuipeBa — oi pbvov Se dXXd Kai — oi pbvov
Se dXXd Kai — present the natural division of the apostle's dis
course, and correspond io our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, in English. Some
critics, however, think that verse 11 refers merely to the KaraA-
Aayevres auiB-qabpeBa of the preceding verse, and construe thus :
' But we are not only reconciled and saved, but also rejoice,' etc.
The sense is good ; but the method above stated seems to me, on
the whole, to be preferable. The phrase tjjv KaraAAay^v iXdplopev
receives its form from the expression in verse 10, Ka-rqXXdyqpev
k. t. X. The word means reconciliation ; and such is the sense
in which our English translators here used the word atonement
(quasi at-one-ment).

CHAP. V. 12—19.

The main dssign of this passage seems, indeed, to be plain, although the detail is
attended with difficulty. It is this, viz., to impress on our minds the certainty
of salvation through redeeming blood, and to exalt our views respecting the great
ness ofthe blessings which Christ has procured for us, by a comparison of them with
the evil consequences which ensued upon the fall of our first ancestor, and by show
ing that the blessings in question not only extend to the removal of these evils, but
even far beyond this; so that the grace of the gospel has not only abounded but
superabounded. These objects appear also to be united with the intention, to exhibit
the extent to which the blessings in question are actually diffused or proffered.
A synopsis of what is particularly taught in verses 12 — 19, may be comprised in
the following particulars; viz., (a) Sin entered into the world [commenced] by the
offence of Adam; and death, i. e., misery or loss of happiness, came in as the neees-

ROMANS V. 12. 151
sary result of it. In like manner death came upon all men, because that all have
sinned, verse 12-
{b) It is indeed true, that all men have been subjected to death : for that even those
who did not live under the light of revelation, nor were made acquainted with any
express commands of God, have been so, is proved from the fact, that all those who
lived between Adam and Moses were sinners, and therefore lay under sentence
of death, verses 13, 14.
(c) Adam, who was the occasion of introducing sin into the world, and of bringing
sin aud death upon all men, may be considered as a tvttos of Christ, in respect to
the influence which he has had on others; (but not as to the kind of influence, or as
to lhe degree of it, for here is a wide diversity;) verse 14, last clause.
[d) That the kind and degree of influence which Adam had on all men is not like
that which Christ has on them, is plain, (1) As to tlie kind of influence ; from the
fact that Adam occasioned the condemnation of all men, hut Christ delivers mankind
from condemnation, and bestows eternal happiness on them, verse 15. (2) As to the
degree of influence ; because the condemnation of which Adam was the occasion
has respect only to one offence, while the pardon which Christ procured extends to
many offences, verse 16. Hence (3) If death reigned over men because of one offence,
much more shall they reign in life who through Christ receive pardon for many
offences and a title to future blessedness, verse 17- In other words; if evils through
one offence spread so wide, then blessings through the pardon of many offences more
than counterbalance them.
Having thus guarded his readers against extending the idea of tvttos to points
of which it cannot properly be predicated; and having shown that the influence
of Christ on the human race is exactly the reverse of that of Adam, in respect to its
kind or nature, and also that it far surpasses it in degree ; the apostle now comes to
the consideration ofthe real points of similitude between Adam and Christ, viz., the
universality or extent of influence as exerted through the act of one, i. e., by what
one individual has done. This he states as follows :
(e) As the consequences of Adam's sin were extended to all men, so the conse
quences of Christ's obedience [viz. unto death] are extended to all; i. e., Jews and
Gentiles may all come on an equal footing into the kingdom of Christ, or the bless
ings which the gospel proffers are in some respects actually bestowed on all men
without exception, and in others made equally accessible to all men, and to all on
the same terms or conditions; verse 18,19. All this was accomplished, in each
case, by the act of one individual.
It seems to be plain, that the particular object ofthe writer is developed in verses
15 — 17, and 20, 21; and from these his object would appear mainly to be (as before
stated,) ' to impress our minds with the certainty of salvation which is by grace, and
to magnify the riches of that grace which is bestowed through Jesus Christ.' This the
writer undertakes to accomplish by a comparison of the evils removed by Christ and
the blessings bestowed, with the mischiefs occasioned by the fall of our first parents.
Moreover, it is certain that inasmuch as all men have been injured by the fall, so it
is a merciful and proper and benevolent arrangement on the part of God, that
the blessings procured by Christ should be bestowed on all, or at least proffered to
all; and in this way, the fact that he is the God of the Gentiles as well as the Jews,
and that salvation is and ought to be accessible to the former as well as to the latter
— a truth for which Paul so often and earnestly contends — see iii. 29 — 31. iv. 1 —
25 — is more fully illustrated and more satisfactorily and triumphantly evinced. "We
have then, according to this view ofthe matter, three objects to be accomplished by
verses 12 — 21; viz., to display and more fully evince the certainty, the GREATNESS,
and the extensive nature of that salvation which Christ wrought. In this general
statement Riickert agrees, in his recent Commentary.
(12) Therefore, Sta rovro. So it is usually translated, viz., as
illative, and as showing that what follows is a consequence or
deduction from what has gone before.

152 KOMANS V. 12.
Some have however converted the words Sta. tovto, into a mere
formula of transition ; e. g., Schleusner makes them so here ;
and Wahl represents Sid tovto as having such a sense in Matt.
xiii. 52. These words might then be rendered, moreover, further.
But such a meaning cannot be supported by reasoning which is
strictly philological.
Schott understands Sid tovto, in his able Essay on Eom. v. 12
— 14 (Opusc. vol. i. p. 318. seq.) as indicating an occasion, in
reference to what had already been said, of making the remarks
which follow. But Tholuck, Reiche, Glockler, and many others,
represent Std toCto here as illative ; although none of them seem
to me to have satisfactorily shown how the sequel is strictly a
logical deduction from what precedes.
Although Std tovto is not always employed in an illative sense,
as some assert, (cf. Matt. xiii. 52. Mark xii. 24. Eom. xiii. 6 ; to
which other doubtful passages might be added) ; still a minute
and extensive review of this subject has brought me to the con
viction, that Std tovto here is employed in a kind of illative sense,
although not in one which is strictly of logical illation. I do not
view it as having relation in particular to ver. 11, but to what
precedes this, and particularly to the great points brought to view
and established from chap. iii. 28 to ver. 11, viz., the extent, the
greatness, and the certainty of salvation by Christ. The con
nected course of thought seems to me to be this : ' The extent,
the greatness, the certainty of salvation, I have now exhibited to
you, therefore (Sid tovto) it is worthy of all reception, or therefore
it is true, that as by one man's sin,' etc. Instead of repeating a
simple deduction, the apostle makes out one accompanied by illus
trations and remarks which serve very much to strengthen the
impression that he intends to make. He who fully recognizes
this last circumstance, will probably be relieved in his mind from
the main part of the difficulty occasioned by the use of Sid tovto,
in this connection.
On any other ground than this, substantially, I do not see how
the appropriateness oi Std tovto can be made out. If we suppose
that the main point in vers. 12 — 21, is to exhibit the relation
of Adam to us, or the influence of his offence upon us, then it is
quite impossible to make out in reality and propriety an illative
sense of Std toJto here. For the apostle has not anywhere pre
viously discussed the subject of Adam's offence or influence. It
is men's own personal sins which he has thus far represented as
the cause of their guilt and danger before God. IIow then must
his reasoning stand, on the ground which I am opposing ? Simply
thus : ' Al men have brought themselves under the curse of the
law by their sins. God is the common father of Jews and Gen-

EOMANS V. 12. 153
tiles, and has the same designs of pardoning mercy towards both,
and has promised to bestow it ; the death of Christ has assured
the promised salvation ; the riches of his grace are exceedingly
great and wonderful ; therefore (Std toCto) as Adam by one
offence ruined all men, so Ohrist by his obedience has procured
salvation for all.' That this is a fair statement of the course of
thought will not be denied by any ; and the last particular must
be admitted by those whom I am now opposing. But how the
logical illation is to be made out by them, if we subjoin the last
particular in its present shape, is a problem that my powers of
reasoning are not adequate to solve.
We must change the shape, then, of the last member of this
series of propositions, and say : ' therefore, i. e., because of the
arguments produced and reasons already given to show the extent,
the greatness, and the certainty of salvation by Christ — therefore,
it is true, that, etc. ; or therefore we must admit, that as Adam
introduced sin and misery into the world in such a way that they
became universal, and certain, and abounding, so Christ has
become the author of salvation universal, certain, and abounding,
or great.' The main object of course is the latter one, and it is
for the very purpose of heightening the intensity of the picture
given of this, that the antithesis and similitude of Adam's case is
introduced. As, Siairep, of course introduces a comparison ; uiairep standing
before the protasis, which seems to extend through the verse.
The apodosis appears to be wanting here. The form of the sen
tence completed would be : "Uiairep k. t. X. — ovtuis koI k. t. X. This
apodosis is supplied, however, in different ways, or is differently
constructed, by different critics.
(a) Aid tovto [r-qv KaraXXayrjv iXd/3opev^\, uiairep Si evbs K. t . X. ;
making Siairep «.. t. A. itself an apodosis instead of a protasis. So
Cocceius, Eisner, Koppe, Cramer, Eosenmiiller, Stolz, and some
others. (b) By inverting koI ovtuis, and writing it oijtcos ko.1 k. t. X. ;
and so making the rest of the verse which follows, to be the
apodosis oi the sentence. So Le Clerc, Wolf, Homberg, and
others. ( c) Kai Sid rijs dpaprias k. r. X. is made the beginning of the
apodosis by Erasmus and Beza ; which of course they must trans
late thus : so also by sin, etc.
(d) Calvin, Goraer, Tholuck, Schmid, and some others, find the
apodosis in verse 14, viz., os ecrri tvttos toS peXXovros.
(e) Others find it concealed in verse 15 ; and some make it out
from the whole ofthe sequel after verse 12.
But all these methods come short of fully and definitely exhib-

154 EOMANS V. 12.
iting the contrast here, which the apostle designs to make between
the one man (Adam) who sinned, and Christ ; which contrast
appears fully and plainly in verses 18, 19. With the majority
of' interpreters, therefore, I hesitate not to regard verses 13 — 17
as substantially a parenthesis (thrown in to illustrate a sentiment
brought to view in the protasis, verse 12); and I find a full
apodosis only in verses 18, 19, where the sentiment of verse 12
is virtually resumed and repeated, and where the apodosis regu
larly follows, after an ovtui Kai. (I admit, however, that os
ian twos toB peXXbvros in verse 14 conveys a general sentiment,
which may make a kind of apodosis in the way of hint.) In this
manner, and only in this, can I find the real antithesis or compari
son as fully made out, which the apostle designs to make. This
method of writing, too, where the protasis is suspended for the
sake of explanations thrown in, is altogether consonant with the
usual method of the apostle Paul; see introduction and cf. Rom.
i..3 — 7. ii. 6 — 16. Eph. ii. 1 — 5. iii. 1 — 13. 1 Tim. i. 3, 4.
Rom. ix. 10, seq. Rom. ix. 22, seq. Rom. viii. 3. Heb. iv. 6 — 9.
v. 6 — 10. v. 10. vii. 1. ix. 7 — 12. All that is necessary to be
noted is, that the apodosis in verses 18, 19, is given in language
that fakes its hue from the intermediate parenthesis of verses 13
— 17. The simple apodosis independently of this would be :
ovtui /cat Std evos St/catocriivi; eis Koapov eiaijXBe, /cat ets irdvras dvBpui-
irovs SirjXBe.
By one man, Si evbs dvBpuiirov, i. e., by Adam, as appears from
verse 14; comp. 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, 45. The apostle cannot
design that this should be strictly construed ; for he himself has
told us, that " Adam was not deceived ; but the woman, being
deceived, was in the transgression." (1 Tim. ii. 14. 2 Cor. xi. 3),
i. e., Eve first transgressed ; which, moreover, Paul assigns as a
reason why she should not usurp authority and have precedence
in the church. In the like way the son of Sirach represents Eve
as the first transgressor, xxv. 24. Then why is not Eve men
tioned here ? Either the apostle, in making mention of Adam,
trusted that his readers would spontaneously call to mind the
primitive pair, the woman being comprehended along with the
man ; or he designed merely to compare the origin itself and
extent of sin and misery (without particularizing the manner),
with the origin and extent of the deliverance from them as
wrought by Christ. In respect to the first of these suppositions,
the rule a potior i nomen fit seems to be applicable to the senti
ment of it. Adam is named as the constituted superior, who was
/ first formed and made lord of the inferior creation. Nor can any
importance be here attached to the fact itself, that tivo were con
cerned in the primitive transgression : " they twain were one

ROMANS V. 12 154
flesh ; " they were one also in guilt, i. e., they were both partakers
of the same criminality. The object of investigation is not the
exact manner in which the first transgression came to be com^
mitted, but; What influence had the primitive sin, in which
Adam was the most conspicuous,, responsible, and important
actor, on the race of men, as to introducing and occasioning sin
and misery ? Besides, had Adam refused to unite with his wife
in her transgression, the consequences must inevitably have been
altogether different from what they have now been. His act,
then, completed the mischief which was begun by Eve ; and so
the apostle names him here as the cause of all the evils which
followed ; not, however, implying that he considered Eve as less
blameworthy than Adam, or more ^excusable, to which 1 Tim.
ii. 14 is directly opposed. But congruity in respect to the com
parison which he is to make, probably led to this manner of
representation, i. e., the comparing of the one man (i. e., the first
Adam) with one man (i. e., the second Adam). How would it
strike readers, if Eve had been here substituted for Adam ? And
this suggestion leads, at once, to a perception of what congruity
demands in the case before us.
As to Std in this phrase, it designates, as often elsewhere, the
causa principalis, not the mere secondary, instrumental, or oc
casional cause. In the Sept. and New Test., such a usage is
beyond all doubt a frequent one, as any good lexicon will show.
Sin, -q apapria. The sin, in English, would mean something
different from the Greek here, although the article is prefixed to
the word. Whenever anything is named which is generic in its
nature, but unique or single in its kind, the Greeks usually prefix
the article to it ; e. g., 6 epiXbaorfios, -q dper-q, -q dXrjBeia, to dyaBov,
¦q SiKaioavvrj, etc. In such cases, -q SiKaioavvrj (for example) as an
entire genus, is unique, i. e., it differs from all other qualities of
moral beings ; and so it has the article prefixed in order to denote
this. But still, Si/caioo-w?7 may at another time be regarded by
the mind as a genus comprehending several subordinate, species,
such as commutative justice, penal justice, integrity, etc.; in
which case the article would naturally be omitted. Agreeably to
these principles, -q apapria here appears with the article, because
it appears in its simple generic nature, i. e., as single or monadic.
That it is generic here, i. e., that it comprehends both sinful
actions and affections, seems to be clear from the nature of the
case, and from what follows. If Adam was created so as to be
upright, and was purely holy until his fall, then sin commenced
with his fall ; sin of any kind ; sin either in affection or action.
That such a generic meaning must here be given to -i) apapria, is
evident, from the simple fact, that Adam's desire of the forbidden

156 ROMANS V. 12.
fruit inordinately indulged, was a sin of the affections, and his
actually eating it was a sin of external action.*
Bretschneider remarks (Dogmat. II. 48, ed. 3), that the article
is used before apapria in the verse before us, because it designates
vitiositas, but not peccata actual-ia. But surely the sequel here
will not justify his remark ; for the -q apapria of Adam is called /
(verse 14) his irapdjiaais ; in verses 15, 17, and 18, his irapdirrui-
pa; in verse 19, his irapaKo-q; all of which implies peccatum
actuate, viz., the unlawful desiring and eating of the forbidden
fruit. The simple scriptural idea of apapria is dvopia, i. e., lawless
ness, violation of law. To miss the mark, to err, to fail, is the
primitive meaning of dpaprdvui ; and apapria always has reference
to some rule or law which is violated by it; as the apostolic
definition of it by dvopia clearly shows. At all events nothing
but sin as an act can be here designated ; for Adam's sin was
such. He had no previous vitiositas ; and if vitiositas had been
a part of the original constitution of man, Adam surely could not
have been the author of this. The meaning must be, as after
wards asserted, that sin commenced with Adam's irapdj3aais
or irapdirruipa or irapaKo-q, neither of which is vitiositas but
vitium. Into the world, els tov Koapov, i. e., among men, into the world
of human beings; comp. Matt. xxvi. 13. 2 Pet. ii. 5. iii. 0. Matt.
xiii. 38. John. i. 10. iii. 16, 17. xvi. 33. 2 Cor. i. 12. Comp. also
epxeaBai eis tov Koapov, John vi. 14. ix. 39. xi. 27. xii. 46. Heb.
x. 5. 2 John ii. 7. That the right explanation of Koapos is given
above, is confirmed by verse 18, where ets irdvras dvBpunrovs is a
substitute for it, and one of equivalent report.
Filtered into, invaded,^ eixrrjXBe. The first entrance or the
commencement of sin is here designated ; as is plain from the
sequel, where SirjXBe is used to designate the further and universal
progress of sin. Compare Wisd. ii. 24, cjiBbvui Se SiafibXov Bdva-
tos eia-rjXBev els tov xbapov ; and also xiv. 1 4.
And by sin, /cat Std -rrjs dpaprias, i. e., through " the instrumen
tality of sin ; or rather, by reason of sin, in consequence of sin, on
* De Wette says : sin, a/iaprta, is here a power ruling over men (verse 21
and 3: 9), partly as a principle existing and developing itself in all (7: 8) ;
and partly as a state, as it is represented in 1: 17 — 3: 21. It cannot be re
stricted to original sin (Calvin), the habit of sinning (Olshausen), the propen
sity to sin (Rothe), or to sin impersonated, as in 7: 8 seq.
t Entered into the world, i. e. as De Wette says, not merely, esse coepit,
primum commissa est (Heiche, Meyer, et al), i."e. that which was before
something merely possible, now began its real existence. But there is the
accompanying idea of diffusion, i. e. sin entered into, gained access, to the
world, K6apos, to men, to human beings.

ROMANS V. 12. 157
account of sin ; Sid being usually employed in this sense, when
put before the Genitive.
Death, Bdvaros. But what death ? That of the body, or of the
soul, or of both ? In other words : Is temporal evil only here
meant, or eternal, or both ?
The answer must be sought for, first of all, in the usus loquendi
oi the author himself. In the context we have his own explana
tion of Bdvaros- In verse 15, death, (direBavov) stands opposed
to x^Pts r°v ®eov /cat -q Stuped iv x^P^i. In verse 17, it stands
Opposed to rqv irepiaaeiav rrjs ^(dptTOS /cat rrjs Suipeds rrjs StKatooT;-
"¦qs. In verse 21, it stands opposed to £uir]v aluiviov. In chapter
vi. 23, Bdvaros is directly contrasted with t,uyq auiivios. That
gdvaros, then, by the usus loquendi of Paul, does sometimes mean
ii death which is the opposite of eternal life or happiness, is here
aiade certain.
In the like sense, i. e., as used to designate the penalty of sin, ,
the reader may find bdvaros in otlier writings of Paul ; viz. in
Eom. i. 32. vi. 21. vi. 16. vii. 5. vii. 10. vii. 13. vii. 24. viii. 2.
viii. 6. 2 Cor. ii. 16. vii. 10. 2 Tim. i. 10. Heb. ii. 14. Nor is
this peculiar to Paul alone, for it agrees with that of other sacred
writers in the New Testament; e.g., John viii. 51. v. 24. James
i. 15. 1 John iii. 14. Eev. ii. 11. xx. 6. xx. 14.
In like manner we find the word death to be used in the Old
Testament ; e. g., Deut. xxx. 15. Jer. xxi. 8 (comp. Sirach xv.
7). Prov. v. 5. viii. 36. xi. 19. xii. 28. Ezek. xxxiii. 11. And in
the same way the verb to die is employed ; e. g., by Paul, Rom.
viii. 13 ; by John vi. 50. xi. 26. viii. 21. So in the Old Testa
ment; e. g., Ezek. xviii. 4, 17, 20, 21, 24, 28, 32, Prov. xv. 10.
Ezek. xxxiii. 8, 11, 13, 14, 15. Must not this be the sense, also,
in Gen. ii. 17. iii. 3, 4?
It is clear that in many of these cases it is quite impossible to
limit the words death, die, to the dissolution of the body, or tem
poral death. E. g., John viii. 51, 'If any man shall keep my
saying, he shall never see death.' John v. 24. ' He that heareth my
words . . . is passed from death unto life.' John xi. 26, 'Who
soever . . . believeth in me, shall never die.' Ezek. xviii. 28,
' He . . . that turneth away from his transgressions . . . shall surely
live, he shall not die ; ' and so in many of the other passages
quoted. The biblical usage is very definitely and specifically set
forth in Deut. xxx. 5 ; ' See, I have set before thee this day,
life and GOOD, and death and evil.' Life is the image of all
good, and therefore is employed to express it ; death is the
consummation of all evil, and so it is used as a strong expression
in order to designate every kind of evil, whether temporal or
eternal. 14

>/

158 ROMANS V. 12.
The usus loquendi, then, doubtless permits Bdvaros to be con
strued as designating the penalty of sin, yea the whole penalty.
The only question is : Whether ^dvaTos is employed in this sense
in the passage before us ?
The antithesis in verses 15, 17, 21, and vi. 23, as produced
above, would seem to go far toward a final settlement of this
question. Indeed, there is no philological escape from the con
clusion, that death in the sense oi penalty for sin, must be regarded
as the meaning of the writer here.
Is there anything now in the nature of the case, which goes to
show that death should here have a limited meaning given to it,
or (in other words) that it should be construed as meaning only
the death of the body?
What then is the nature of the case ? It is this, viz., that as
condemnation [KaraKpipa'] came upon all men by the offence of
one man (Adam), so by the obedience of one (Christ), all men
have access to St/catWts ets tfnrqv, verse 18. Now as t,ui-q is here
plainly the antithesis of Bdvaros [/caTa/cpt/ca], we have only to
inquire what must be the meaning of £ui-q in order to obtain that
of -S-dwxTos. But in respect to this there can be no doubt. Zui-q
means the blessings or happiness procured by a Saviour's death,
i. e., it designates all the holiness and happiness which this intro
duces. But certainly these blessings are not limited to the resur
rection of the body. I do not deny that such a resurrection is a
blessing to the righteous ; see 1 Cor. xv. I wpuld rather say
however, that the resurrection is something preparatory to the
bestowment of blessings. But it must be remembered, that the
wicked will be raised from the dead as truly as the righteous ;
yet surely no one will count this a blessing to them. It is only a
preparation for augmented misery.
It cannot be, then, that the simple resurrection from the dead,
in itself considered, should be called SiKaluiaisJi,uirjs, and therefore
a state of temporal deatli is not a direct and full antithesis to life,
i. e., in the sense given to this word by the apostle, temporal death
is not principally the evil from which it is the main object of
Christ to deliver us ; for resurrection from this is a good or an
evil, just as the case may be in regard to the moral character of
him who is the subject of such resurrection.
It is unnecessary to enquire whether Christ delivers from the
suffering itself of temporal death, since all men without distinc
tion, are mortal and die. One thing, however, should be said in
reference to this ; which is, that ' the sting of death ' is taken
away as to believers, through the hopes inspired by a Saviour's
blood ; and that in this way the evil is greatly mitigated in respect
to those who have true hope in Christ.

ROMANS V. 12. 159
Once more ; the penalty of all sin is evil, i. e., evil as to both
body and soul. " The soul that sinneth shall die." Evil to the
body those of course will admit, who hold that temporal death is
here meant. Evil to the soul they must also admit ; for how is
it possible that any one should sin, without defiling, polluting, and
rendering unhappy the soul ? The primary elements of the
moral universe must be changed, before this can take place. It
is impossible in the case of Adam, or in any other case, that sin
should be committed without injury to the soul. It would follow
with certainty, then, that if Adam's first sin was a real sin, and a
fortiori if it was one of the greatest of all sins (as we surely have
much reason to conclude when we consider its consequences),
then death in its extensive sense must have been the penalty
attached to it. What reason can be given, why other sins less
than his are punishable with death in the enlarged sense of this
word, and yet that the sin of Adam was not punishable in the
like way ? Was he not even the more culpable, who fell from a
state of entire holiness ?
Finally, the apostle, when he comes to point out the dissimili
tude between Adam's offence and its consequences, and the obe
dience of Christ and its consequences (as he does in verses 15 —
17), opposes the KaraKpipa occasioned by Adam to the Si/catco^a
effected by Christ, verse 1 6 ; and the Bdvaros introduced 1))' the
former, to the fiaaiXeveiv iv £cinj accomplished by the latter, verse
17. Now as SiKaiuipa is not, in its more important sense, a de
liverance from temporal death merely, nor the reigning in life
merely a deliverance from mortality ; so temporal death, although
included (see 1 Cor. xv. 22) cannot with any good appearance
of reason, be understood here as the only and essential meaning
of bdvaros.
And thus, Kai ourcos, i. e., and so, or and in like manner. The
exact idea that the writer means to express by these words, we
shall be better able to understand, when we have examined the
remaining words of the verse.
Because that all have sinned, icb' <5 irdvres rjpaprov. Another
method of rendering this has often been urged, viz., in whom
all have sinned. So the Vulgate ; and so, in conformity to this,
Augustine, Beza, Calixtus, E. Schmidt, Calovius, et alii. But
tlie objections to translating i<f> cS by in quo, in ivhom, are
weighty ; for, (1 ) If <5 be made masc, there is no antecedent for
it within any probable limits. 'AvBpunrov lies too far back ; and
Bdvaros would make no tolerable sense ; for what meaning could
be conveyed, by saying, ' in which death all have sinned ? ' (2)
Not eTrt (5, (icb' w), but'ev cu would be the proper expression for in
whom. So Thomas Magister and Phavorinus: eep' cS, dv™ tov

160 ROMANS V. 12.
Sio'ti. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 4, icb' <3 oi BeXopev. (3) The asser
tion icb' w irdvres fjpaprov, is dwelt upon and explained in verses
13, 14 ; and in these verses, men's own personal sins appear to
be spoken of (as we shall hereafter see), not those of another
which are laid to their charge ; and if this explanation be admit
ted, then icb' J! cannot here mean in ivhom. (4) If icb' <j> could be
properly taken as equivalent to iv <5, (and em. and iv are beyond
all doubt sometimes commuted as to sense in the New Test.),
yet the whole phrase, viz., bpaprdveiv iirl tivi, meaning to sin in
some one or by one, is so far as I know, without any example to
support it. If the apostle had designed to express such an un
usual idea, would he not of course have shunned all ambiguity of
phraseology, and made the form of his expression so definite that
no doubt could remain ? As it is, we must follow the usual laws
of interpretation ; and there can be no doubt that we are author
ized by these to translate icj> <5, because, for that, etc. Thus in
the examples adduced by Phavorinus : icb' u> tt;v KXoir-qv ipydaui,
BECAUSE thou hast committed theft; icb' ots [plur.] toi/ vbpov ov
T-qpeis, because thou dost not obey the law. So in the example
of Thomas Magister : icf> <5 IWdStov eypacbev, because he has
given a sketch of Gennadi us. So Marcus Aurelius says : icb' ots
opare' pe SiaKeipevov, because ye see me determined, in Herod. 1.
4. Theophilus (ad Autol. 2) says : icfi ia ovk laxyae Bavaruiaai
a-uroi'c, because he could not kill them ; Plutarch (de Pyth. extr.)
icfi oh eyevbjj.-qv .... irpbBvpos, because f was ready. In fact,
. ich' <3 is a well known elliptical phrase, employed in the same sense
as iv tovtw 6Vt, or our English in that, because. And in this
rendering agree Theodoret, Photius, Pelagius, Erasmus, Luther,
Calvin, Pet. Martyr, our Eng. Version, Gerhard, Piscator,
Paraus, Buddanis, Raphe], Wetstein, Carpzov. Koppe, Flatt,
Schott, Vatablus, Schmid, Steudel, Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche,
and many others.
Other translations of icji <S have also been defended ; per eum
(Grotius); propter quem (Eisner); secundum quem (Photius,
CEcumenius, Bretsch.) ; cum quo (Cocceius) ; but it is enough to
say of these, that if Paul had meant to express such a sense, we
can hardly suppose that he would not have employed Std, or avv,
or perd, or Kara, instead of using iiri. Even post quem has been
proposed as a version of icb' cS, i. e., after whom. But what
would be the sense of Paul's saying, that Adam's posterity sinned
after he did ? Did his readers need to be told this ? Others, as
Homberg, Venema, Schmid, and Glockler, render icb' (S unto
which, viz., unto which death or punishment ; thus making iiri to
mark the end or consequence to which sinning came. In the
classics we do indeed find voaeiv eirl Bavdria, to be sick unto death

ROMANS V. 12. 1G1
(.ZElian), and S^crai em Bavdrui, to bind unto death (Herod.), and
other like phrases. But a conclusive objection against this inter
pretation is, that the apostle has just said, and more strongly
said, the very thing that this interpretation makes him to say over
again. Besides, to understand the apostle here as saying that all
'have sinned unto death, would seem to imply, that they might
have sinned to a certain extent without incurring such a penalty.
Different from this is the case where another apostle says, " there
is a sin unto death;" for he is there discussing the subject of an
unpardonable sin.
Finally : to render icb' (S, on account of which, for the sake of
which, would be little short of nonsense ; for how could the apostle
say, that all men sinned for the sake of bringing deatli upon
themselves ?
When Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, and some other
fathers, adopt the sense of in quo, this appears to be the result
of their theology rather than of their philology. Augustine has
given us the explanation of his views : " Fuerunt enim omnes
raiione seminis in lumbis Adam quando damnatus est : et ideo
sine illis damnatus non est, [Heb. VII. 9, 10] ; contra Jul.
Pelag. V. 12. And again : " In Adam omnes tunc peccaverunt,
quando in ejus natura, ilia insita vi qua eos gignere poterat,
adhuc omnes ille units fuerunt," De pecc. Merit, et Rem. III. 7.
The same unity with Adam has Pres. Edwards labored to estab
lish in Part IV. chapter 3 of his work on Original Sin ; where
he has argued, that the unity of each individual of the human
race with Adam their common ancestor may as well be asserted,
as the unity of any individual with himself at different points of
time ; unity in both cases being merely a matter of " sovereign
and arbitrary appointment." The schoolmen have speculated ad
nauseam on this subject.
All have sinned, irdvres r/paprov. But how ? In their own
proper persons ? Or in Adam ? Or is it merely the meaning
of i/jpapTov here, that all men are treated as sinners ?
This last opinion Storr maintains; and he appeals to Gen.
xliv. 32, ~>-'Xvr\\ then I will bear the blame, i. e., I will be treated
as a sinner, as he construes it. But the meaning is, ' I will con
sent to be regarded as a sinner by my father.' He also refers to
Job ix. 29, I'-i-ix OX; which however does not support the
appeal. Grotius also appeals to Gen. xxxi. 27, and Job vi. 24 (?)
for the like purpose ; but without ground. And although, if an
exigency of the passage demanded it, rjpaprov might be rendered,
are treated as sinners (comp. 1 K. i. 21, where, however, the
meaning is ' I and my son shall be sinners in the view of the
reigning prince'); yet no such exigency occurs here, as vers. 13,
14::

162 ROMANS V. 12.
14, show ; for in these (which are plainly built upon the latter
part of verse 12), the writer labors to show that men are them
selves actual sinners ; as we shall see in the sequel. Besides, it
is a good rule of interpretation, never to depart from the usual
sense of words unless there is an imperious reason for it ; and
dpaprdvui does not usually, if ever, mean to be treated as a sinner.
But the second method of explanation, viz., ' that all men have
sinned in Adam, cannot be adopted here, because it is founded
merely in the mode of expression, i. e., in the phrase «/>' w. The
reasons for rejecting this opinion have already been stated above.
It can be admitted only in case of philological necessity, which
does not occur here. There remains, therefore, only the first
plain and simple method of interpretation, viz., all men have
sinned in their own persons ; all men have themselves incurred
the guilt of sin, and so subjected themselves to its penalty ; or at
least, all men are themselves sinners, and so are liable to death.
The word -qpaprov contains in itself an active sense throughout ;
and must therefore imply sin in an active sense. Accordingly,
the word dpaprdvui has neither passive nor middle voice ; which
is a striking evidence that the word is, from its very nature, sus
ceptible of only an active sense. Besides, in the case before us
the Aorist is employed ; which, as Riickert and Reiche have
well observed, designates what was matter oifact, not mere state
or condition. The connection strongly impresses the same idea.
The sin of Adam, mentioned in the first clause of the verse, was
one of fact, deed, action, not of state or condition; and the impli
cation is, that 7rdvres have sinned as he did, although not against
the same law, or precept, verse 14. Moreover, the assertion of
universal sinfulness has an evident reference to the apostle's pre
vious declaration and conclusion, in iii. 19 — 23. All his proof
in chaps, i. — -iii. of universal sin, consists in appeal to facts, i. e.,
to sins actually committed.
Some of the most respectable commentators, it is true, regard
7rd>>Tes rjpaprov as meaning that all have sinned in Adam, or at
least, that through him they have become sinners ; and they
appeal to verse 17 — 19 in support of this sentiment. And it
must be confessed, that there is no more ground for objection to
the sentiment which the expression thus construed would convey
than there is to the sentiment in verse 17 — 19. But still
there are philological difficulties involved in such an exegesis
which I see no way of satisfactorily removing. Verses 13 and
14 seem plainly lo recognize such sin as that of which men are
personally and actually guilty; yea a sin different in some im
portant respects from that of Adam's first transgression, . . . . im.
rovs pq dpapr-qaavras iirl tco bpoiuipan ttjs irapafidaeuis 'ASdu.

ROMANS V. 12 163
This is a sin moreover, on account of which " death reigned over
them." But if this sin were the very sin of Adam imputed to
them, and not their own actual sin ; if it were merely his sin
propagated to them (as the usual sentiment respecting original
sin is) ; then how could it be that death came upon them, although
they had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression ?
So far from this must it be, that Adam's sin is their very sin,
and the very ground here alleged by the apostle why death
reigns over them.
This consideration, united with the principle that the ordinary
meaning of gpaprov should be received, unless there is a solid
reason for departing from it ; and all this added to the considera
tion that verses 13, 14 are clearly epexegetical of the latter part
of verse 1 2 ; seem to make it unavoidable that irdvres -qpaprov
should be here construed, all have sinned in their own persons or
actually. Calvin, Edwards, Flatt, Tholuck, and others, explain the
phrase in question by referring to verse 1 9 ; and some of them
allege as a ground of this, that the design of the apostle requires
us so to understand irdvres rjpaprov here, because he is evidently
intent upon representing the evils which Adam occasioned. But
because verse 19 asserts an influence of Adam upon the sinful
ness of men, it does not follow that the same sentiment must
therefore be of course affirmed in verse 12 ; certainly not that it
should be directly asserted in the same manner. It appears quite
probable, I readily concede, that Paul, in making the declarations
contained in verse 12, had in his own mind a view of the connec
tion between the first offence of Adam and the sinfulness of his
posterity. It is quite probable, indeed, that /cat ovtuis implies
this ; which (with Erasmus, Tholuck, and other_>) we might con
strue, et ita factum est, i. e., and so it happened, or and thus it was
brought about, viz., brought about that all men became sinners,
and thus fell under sentence of death ; in otlier words, Adam's
offence was the occasion of, or brought, sin and condemnation upon
all men ; yet it seems clear, that no more is here explicitly and
directly asserted, than that all men are themselves actual sinners,
and therefore come under condemnation. But in the preceding
apapria eis rbv Koapov eiarjXBe, and in the /cat ovtuis .... SiijXBe,
I think we may without any forced construction, nay that we
must, discover an indirect intimation of what is directly asserted
in verses 17 — 19, viz., that the first offence of Adam was con
nected with the sin and misery of his posterity, and in some sense
or other causal of it. At the outset, then, Paul may have had
this sentiment in his mind'; yet in verse 12 he seems t_o intimate
it only in the expressions just cited. Construed in this way, the

164 ROMANS V. 12.
sense of the verse would be as follows : ' By means of Adam's
first offence sin and death invaded the world of mankind ; and
having thus invaded it, they have been marching through it
(SigXBe) and carrying on their conquests ever since; all men
have become sinners, all have come under condemnation.'
While the clause before us, then, simply asserts the fact that all
have become sinners and have therefore come under condemna
tion, it may be regarded as intimating, by implication, that the
whole of what has come upon men stands connected with the
introduction by Adam of sin and death into the world. I cannot,
therefore, agree with those commentators, who find in our verse
no intimation of such a connection of all men with Adam ; less
still can I assent to those, who find in it no charge at all upon
Adam's posterity of actual sin in propria persona.
The objection has been made, that by construing the clause
before us as having respect to actual sin, infants must be
included among actual sinners ; which is not true. But how can
any more difficulty arise from saying that all are sinners here,
than from the apostle's saying the very same thing so often in
the previous part of his epistle, e. g., iii. 9 — 18, 19, 23? Of
course the writer of such declarations must be understood to desig
nate such as are capable of being sinners. That the apostle had
his eye on the case of infants, in particular, anywhere in this
whole paragraph, may be justly regarded as doubtful ; particu
larly when we take in to account the implication in reference to
the state of infants in Rom. ix. 11.
Are such commands and declarations as these : " He that
believeth not, sliall be damned ; Except ye repent, ye sliall all
perish; Without faith it is impossible to please God; He that
cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is the re warder
of those who diligently seek him ; Make to yourselves a new
heart, for why will you die," and numerous others, to be applied
to infants and -idiots ? Are we not, on every rational ground of
interpretation, just as much entitled to say that the Saviour
purposely consigns over to damnation all infants because they do
not and cannot believe ? To believe what we do not understand,
i* out ot the question ; and that infants and idiots should under-
^•Pn7etiPSpel method of Sfll™ti°n. is equally so. By general
en „T«hT;iW? k"!-* t0 include infants and idiofs ™ the threat-
lS apoficS t I^6'11 "0t Sha11 be damnt>d" ^e suppose
chological y fa^l ^f Tlyl ™!r° ^ Ideologically »nd In
consistent/ When th" .Zo^T^f *?* beIil,vinS- Let u" °e
and come undei 'tbe ne^y TctiT^ Wh° have ~d
were capable of sin in the JCW ' he.mu8t ™ean those who
biu m me actual sense; i. e., he must mean so.

ROMANS V. 12. 165
if the word rjpaprov characterizes such. And that it does, has, as
it seems to me, been already shown above.
Again ; should it be objected, that the parallel between the
effects of Adam's sin and the grace of Christ would lose its mean
ing, in case we suppose that men's own actual sins are designated
in the passage before us ; my answer would be, that this is by no
means the case, if Adam be regarded as the original cause of in
troducing sin into the world, and his offence as in some way the
cause or occasion of all the offences that followed. Indeed this is
the only ground on which a true parallelism can be maintained.
Does the grace of Christ save any sinner who does not repent
and believe ? Surely not. Then of course the grace of Christ is
not the only thing requisite to the salvation of sinners. There
must be some act of their own, as well as the provisions which
grace has made, in order that they should be saved. Must there
not then be something on the part of the sinner himself as well as
on the part of Adam, to complete his full and final destruction ?
Must there not be a true and real 7rdvTes rjpaprov ? This
argument, then, although so often and so strenuously urged,
would seem to be a kind of felo de se. The very nature of the
parallelism before us would seem to demand a different conclu
sion, and in some respects one opposite to that which is often
drawn. Once more ; the evils occasioned by Adam surely are not, as
many suppose, limited by the apostle, and by the nature of the
case are not to be limited, to that part only of suffering which
comes upon our race by reason of original sin (as it is called),
whatever this sin may be. Verse 14 speaks of ' death as reign
ing over those ivho had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression ; ' and of course it speaks of sin committed by
Adam's posterity, different from that of Adam; and verse 16
speaks of the many offences which the free gift of Christ takes
away or causes to be pardoned, in distinction from the one offence
only of Adam that is concerned with our sin and condemnation.
It follows of course, and we are thus assured, that tho apostle does
not limit himself to the one offence of Adam and its consequences
in the alleged way of imputation, when he exhibits the contrast
between Adam and Christ. Why should he do so ? If actual
sin in any way proceeds from, is connected with, or is occasioned
by, the sin of Adam ; then does it follow, that actual sin should
enter into the contrast presented by the apostle, between the sin
and misery occasioned by the first Adam, and the justification and
happiness introduced by the second.
On the whole, then, there seems to be no valid reason why we
may not construe irdvres rjpaprov, as I have done above.

166 ROMANS V. 12.
Let us now return to the interpretation of Kai ovtuis. Does it
mean : " And in like manner with Adam did his posterity sin,
and like him come under sentence of death? Or is this the
meaning : ' As death followed sin in the case of Adam, so did it
in the case of his posterity ? ' Or does the apostle intend, to say,
' Since Adam introduced sin and misery into the world, his sin
has been imputed to all his posterity, and all of them have been
subjected to death thereby?' Not the first; because verse 14
tells us that death came on many of Adam's posterity, who had
not sinned in the manner that he did, i. e., against a revealed
and express law. Not the third ; for the reasons already given
above, reasons why we must accede to the idea, that irdvres rjpap
rov here means actual sin in propria persona. Shall we conclude
then, that the meaning of /cat ovtuis must be substantially what is
implied in the second ofthe above questions, viz., 'As sin entered
the world, and death was inseparably connected with it, so death
has passed through the world, and come upon all men, because it
was inseparably connected with the sin which all men have com
mitted ? ' Even this statement does not appear to me to convey
the whole truth. The whole verse seems to contain an intima
tion, as has already been stated above, that both the sins oi men
and their condemnation stand connected, in some way or other,
with the first offence by Adam. Kat ovtuis then must mean :
'And the matter being thus,' or ' circumstances being such,' viz.,
Adam having thus introduced sin and death, ' it passed on through
all his race,' i. e., all have sinned, and all have come under con
demnation in these circumstances. If we look at verses 18, 19,
we shall surely find that the introduction oi sin and death
was considered by Paul as having some important connection
with the diffusion of them in after ages. Kat ovrcos then may
mean here, et hac conditione, et ita factum est, et rebus sic
constitutis.

CHAP. V. 13, 14.
The apostle having thus declared that sin and death were introduced into the
world by one man, and had become universa], in order to complete the comparison
which lie designs, and which is intimated by tbo-irep at the beginning of verse 12, he
would have naturally filled out the sentence by adding, at the end of this verse,
oStois /cal 5i' evbs b\vStpdmou ij fat] els rbv icoanov [eis iravras avSpiirrovs] eioT)A&e,
comp. verses 17, 18. But he suspends his apodosis here, for the sake of elucidating
and confirming what he had already said. This he docs by taking a case in respect
to which one might be disposed to think that it would be difficult to prove that men
are sinners, viz., (auaprla ?iv iv Koo-jxa) before tlie giving ofthe Mosaic law;
although they are not themselves prone to acknowledge their guilt in such circuin-

ROMANS V. 13. 1G7
stances, or they make but little account of it. Yet it is a fact that they were sinners,
and that death therefore pre\ ailed over them all, even all who had not sinned
against revealed law as Adam did.
(13) Until the law, dxpi vbpov ; i. e., the law of Moses, as verse
14 plainly leads us to construe it. Some commentators (Origen,
Chrysostom, Erasmus, Coppe, and others) construe d^pt vbpov
noJgasjiesignating the commencement of the Mosaic economy, but
aslfstemlftjg through the whole period of it. In defence of such
an interpretation, we are referred to d^pt in Acts iii. 21, and its
synonyme ecus dv in Acts ii. 35. Gen. xxviii. 15, etc. That these
words are sometimes employed in such a manner as not to indi
cate a cessation of anything that is, or is done, at the time which
is mentioned in connection with d^pi or ecos, is true. In other
words, the terminus ad quem does not limit the thing affirmed
universally ; it only expresses a limit for a certain purpose. For
example : in Acts iii. 21 it is said, that ' the heavens must receive
Jesus dxpi xpovuiy diroKaraaTaaeuis iravruiv, until the restoration of
all things ; by which is not meant, that he is no longer to dwell
in heaven, but that he will certainly dwell there until the time
specified. But whatever may be true in regard to the possible
meaning of dxpi in some cases, verse 14 clearly shows that here
it means only until the commencement ofthe laws of Moses, i. e.,
the time when these laws were given.
' But was sin in the world no longer than until that period ?
Did it cease when the law was introduced ? This would be a
direct contradiction of verse 20, and of many other passages.'
The answer is brief. It is no part of the apostle's object, to aver
that sin did not exist after this period ; but to declare that it
existed before it. What he had already said, once and again,
necessarily involved the idea, that where law was there sin was.
But he had also said, that " where there is no law, there is no
transgression," iv. 15. Now some of his readers might suggest,
that : ' Since you say that where there is no law, there is no
transgression, how then were men sinners before the law was
given? To this question, I suppose the apostle to answer in our
verse. ' Sin was in the world until the law of Moses, i. e., men
were sinners between the time of Adam and Moses, for death
reigned during all this period,' verse 13. In other words ; it is
not necessary that there should be a law expressly revealed, in
order that men should be sinners ; for " the heathen who have
no law, are a law unto themselves," ii. 14.
That apapria here means something different from original sin,
or imputed sin, seems to be clear from the reference which the
apostle tacitly makes to a law of nature that had been trans
gressed. A revealed law there was not for men in general, ante-

168 ROMANS V. 13.
cedently to the time of Moses ; yet men were sinners. How?
By sinning against the law " written on their hearts" (ii. 15);
and sinning in despite of the penalty of death, i. 32. But if such
was their sin, it was actual sin, not merely imputed guilt.*
Some, however, state the apostle's reasoning here in the follow
ing manner: viz., 'Men's own sins were not imputed to them on
the ground of their transgressing any law, until the law ofM^s
was given ; yet they were counted sinners (apapria gvJjpwS^m);
consequently, it must have been by reason of Adainfc sin being
imputed to them, inasmuch as their own offences were not
imputed.' Although this mode of exegesis is supported by names of high
respectability, I cannot accede to it for the following reasons : 1.
To aver that men's own sins were not imputed to them by God
(so they construe apapria Se ovk iXXoyeirai pr/ ovtos vbpov), is di
rectly to contradict tlie whole tenor of the Old Testament history
and declarations ; and also what Paul has, in the most explicit
manner, asserted in the preceding part of his epistle. As evidence
in favor of the first assertion I appeal to the case of Cain ; of the
antediluvians who perished in the flood ; of Sodom and Gomor
rah ; and to all the declarations of divine displeasure made
against the actual thoughts and deeds of the wicked, not against
their original or imputed sin. In respect to the second, I appeal
to the whole of what Paul has said in Rom. i. 19 — 32. ii. 12, 14,
15. iii. 9, 19, 23, 25. All these charges are made against actual
sins ; and it is impossible to suppose that the apostle means here
to say, that those who are dvopoi (without revelation), are, or ever
have been, counted by God as being without sin, actual sin ; for
both dvopoi and evvopoi, according to Paul, are all under
six, under actual sin. To admit the contrary, would be to
overturn the very foundation the apostle had taken so much pains
to lay, in chapters i. — iii., in order to make the conclusion
entirely evident and unavoidable, that all men need gratuitous
justification. 2. To aver that men's sins are not imputed to them, when they
do not live under a revealed law, would be to contradict what the
immediate context itself must be considered as asserting. Who
are those that have not sinned after the manner of Adam ? The
answer of those whom I am now opposing, is : ' They are those,
who have only original sin or imputed sin charged to their
account.' But then I find great difficulty in this answer. By
* So Alford says : " There was sin in the world, men sinned, see Gen. 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 tlie world during this period."

R0MANSV.13. 169
the supposition of many who make it, Adam's first sin does become
really and truly that of all his posterity, inasmuch as it is propa
gated to them in the way of natural generation. Yea, Augustine,
Pres. Edwards, and many others, maintain a real physical unity
of Adam with all his posterity ; and hence they derive to all his
posterity a participation in his sin. But if his sin be theirs in
any proper sense, i. e., be really theirs by such a unity as is
asserted ; or even if it be theirs by mere imputation without this ;
then how is it that the sin of the dvopoi is (as Paul asserts) not
like that of Adam ? How can it be unlike it, when it is the
very same ; either the very same in reality (as Augustine and
his followers hold), or the very same putatively, as others sup
pose? But,
3. There is another difficulty. How can the sins of Adam be
asserted to be imputed to all his posterity, and yet their own per
sonal sins be not at all reckoned? By the exegesis of those whose
opinion I am now endeavoring to controvert, Paul is made to say,
that God did not count to men their own personal and actual
sins, i. e., to those who lived before the Mosaic law. By a parity
of reason, then, the Gentiles at all times and everywhere, who
are dvopoi, are freed from the imputation of their own trans
gressions ; which would directly contradict the declarations of
Paul. From this conclusion, however, Schott and Tholuck, do in some
measure revolt, and say that to ovk iXXoyeiro must be assigned
only a comparative sense ; that although the guilt of men who
sinned against the law of nature, was not taken away absolutely,
yet their accountability for it was in a good measure superseded.
To illustrate this, Tholuck refers us to dvoxg in Rom. iii. 26, and
to iirepiSuiv b ©eo's in Acts xvii. 30. Both of these instances,
however, relate to deferring punishment, not to a remission of
accountability ; comp. 2 Pet. iii. 8, 9. Such a remission of
punishment would directly contradict what Paul has fully and
strongly asserted, in Eom. ii. 6 — -16.
And to what purpose is it to say, that men who were dvopoi,
were in a comparative sense not accountable to God for their own
personal sins ? This can mean neither more nor less, than that
they were accountable in some degree, although not as highly so
as those who were evvopoi. But accountability being admitted
(how can it be denied after reading Rom. ii. 6 — 16 ?), then the
argument is marred which those whom I am opposing deduce
from the verses in question. They make these verses to say, that
' the dvopoi are not accountable for their own sins ; but inasmuch
as they are still trea(ed as sinners, it must be because of imputed
sin only.' But while we admit accountability in same degree for
15

170 ROMANS V. 13.
the sins of the dvopoi, it forecloses such an argument from
the passage ; for it leaves it fully liable to the following con
struction, viz., ' Although men were held less accountable and
criminal, who lived before the Mosaic law, than those who lived
under this law, yet that they were still sinners, and were regarded
as such, is true ; for all were subjected to death.' That they
were sinners in their own person, or actual offenders in a way
different from that of Adam, is clear from what is said in ver. 14
respecting them. Plow then can Adam's sin be here asserted to
be theirs, and, by implication, to be the only sin for which death
came upon them ?
In such an interpretation, moreover, as that which I am now
considering, a very different sense is given to eAAoyetro from
that which it will here consistently bear ; as we shall see in the
sequel. Reiche states the argument thus : ' Positive punishment (like
death) can be inflicted only for breach of positive law. Now no
positive law threatening death, except in the case of Adam, was
given before the Mosaic law. Therefore all men who died during
this interval, must have died by reason of punishment threatened
to Adam being extended to them.' And in consonance with this
view he construes vers. 13, 14, in general ; although he seems to
me far from maintaining consistency. To this statement we may
easily reply : (1) The major proposition directly contradicts
what the apostle has said in Rom. i. 32. ii. 14, 15. iii. 19. The
apostle plainly makes no other difference between Jew and Gen
tile, than what is made by the respective degree of light which
each enjoyed. The Jew is the more guilty, because he enjoyed
better advantages and abused them. But all, both Jew and
Gentile, he pronounces to be dftoi Bavdrov and virbSiKoi t<3 ©e<3.
How then can we assume that death is not threatened to any, ex
cept in consequence oi a, positive, i. e., a revealed law ? It is tlie
very opposite of the apostle's argument and of his explicit and
repeated declarations. In Rom. v. 14, moreover, Paul directly
asserts that the penalty of death was incurred by those who had
not sinned in the manner of Adam, i. e., against express and
positive precept. But Reiche makes the apostle here to mean,
that they suffered on account of Adam's transgression and not
their own ; although he had just before strongly contended that
7rdvres fipaprov must have an active sense, and mean that all had
voluntarily and in fact sinned. (2) The minor proposition is
equally untrue, in respect to its real and essential meaning ; for
of what importance is it, whether the law was positive or natural,
so long as the declarations in Eom. i. 32. ii. 14, 15. iii. 19, and
the like remain ? How shall we admit positions which the apos-

ROMANS V. 13. 171
tie himself expressly contradicts ? (3) It follows, of course, that
the conclusion from such premises must be erroneous, viz., ' That
all men from Adam to Moses, died merely because of the penalty
threatened to Adam, and not by reason of their own sins.' The
reader will observe, that I do not here deny that in some sense
the doctrine of this conclusion may be true ; but only that in the
sense alleged it cannot possibly be made out satisfactorily from
such premises. Of course the exegesis of vers. 13, 14 by Reiche,
which is made in general to conform to such views, must be very
questionable. Whilst Reiche earnestly remonstrates against the sentiment of
Tholuck here, viz., that ' death came upon men living between
Adam and Moses, because of the vitiositas of which they partook,
aud which they derived from Adam ; ' how much does he relieve
the difficulty, by making death come upon all men without any
other reason than that it does come ? According to him, Adam
set it in motion, and it kept on, from the momentum which he gave
it, down to the time of Moses, irrespective of sin either original
or actual ?
The very limitation of the period, viz., from Adam to Moses, is
an objection to the exegesis, which represents the apostle as labor
ing to show, not that men sinned and therefore perished (as he
had just asserted in verse 12), but that they perished merely
because of their relation to Adam, either in consequence oi propa
gated vitiosity, or else without any specific assignable reason, as
Reiche avers. Why should the apostle stop within these narrow
limits ? The Mosaic Law was given to only about three millions
out of six or seven hundred millions of our race, and from that
time down to the present moment, has immeasurably the greater
portion of the human race been destitute of any revelation. How
does their case differ at all from that of those between Adam and
Moses ? And if not, why should the apostle confine his assertion
merely to those between Adam and Moses ? If his object be the
general one supposed by the commentators in question, no good
reason can be given for such a procedure. Besides, such a
method of illustration makes verses 13, 14, inapposite, in case we
allow that irdvres rjpaprov means, that all men did of themselves
sin. The ydp at the beginning of verse 14 shows, that what
follows is designed to illustrate and confirm what had just been
asserted ; and this is not that all men die because of inherited
vitiosity, but because all have sinned. How then could Reiche,
with any consistency, strenuously defend this latter sentiment,
and yet interpret verses 13, 14 as he has done ?
I must regard the apostle then as designing, in verses 14, 15, to
illustrate and confirm the proposition that ' all men have sinned

172 ROMANS V. 13.
and perished,' by the introduction of a case that might be deemed
doubtful, or called in question by some of his readers. If he
could show that no valid objection could be made to this, he of
course might take it for granted that no objection would be made
to the plainer parts of his position. And I regard him as refer
ring to the period between Adam and Moses, because it presented
an obvious and striking case adapted to his purpose. But if his
object was to establish the proposition, that all men without reve
lation have died because of inherited corruption, or died merely
because Adam introduced a fatal disease (as Reiche maintains),
why should he make such a limitation, or indeed, any limitation at
all ? We may well ask also : ' Do not those who have a revela
tion stand in the same relation to Adam and as really partake of
original sin as others ? And if so, what can be the object
of Paul in limiting his remarks to those who lived between Adam
and Moses, since the connection between imputed sin and death
is uniformly the same, if it exist at all, in all ages, nations,
and circumstances ? There was no more reason, surely, for
Paul's readers to doubt of imputed sin between Adam and Moses,
than there was to doubt of it between Moses and Paul ; nay, in
some respects there was less, inasmuch as the evils suffered
during the former period were very great, and yet the actual sins
were less, because there was less light. Yet, if the more usual
exegesis be true, the apostle has selected the former period as the
very one about which he expected there would be the most doubt.
Can this be so ? The nature of the case would seem to decide in
the negative.
But suppose now the question to be, as I have stated, whether
men can sin and perish without law (a question very naturally
raised after Paul's declaration in iv. 15); then the period which
Paul has selected for his purpose, is altogether apposite and
striking. For this very reason we may well suppose he chose it.
On every side difficulties start up against the other view — diffi
culties philological and theological — difficulties arising from
incongruity, ineptness, and contradiction of previously avowed
sentiment and the nature of accountability. That the sinning of
men had a connection with the offence of Adam, and that this was
in some way the cause or occasion of their sinning, is what (as I
have before stated) I do not doubt the apostle here admits. But
as he has asserted in verse 12 that death passed on all, because
all sinned, so here he confirms what he has said ; as the ydp
plainly shows.
It has been asked why the apostle here asserts again what he
had so often asserted before, viz., that all men are sinners. The
answer is easy. The subject here comes up in a new light, viz.,

ROMANS V. 13. 173
the connection between death and sin. That death is universal,
cannot be denied ; at least this is certain in regard to the death
of the body ; and that the apostle has this part of the penalty
against sin here particularly in view, will hardly be doubted.
Yet this does not, by any means, oblige us to suppose that other
parts of the penalty are designedly excluded, because this plain
and palpable part of it is here specifically made prominent. If
then death is universal, does it not follow that the cause of it, i. e.,
sin, is universal too ? Of course the argument relates to all who
can and do sin, and thus come under the penalty in question.
Thus both the guilt and misery of our race are here brought into
the account, and placed in opposition to the grace and salvation
of the gospel ; and thus the contrast designed to be made by the
whole representation is greatly heightened. But on the supposi
tion that no proper sin of Adam's posterity, or that only imputed
sin is here in question ; then surely it follows that Christ delivers
us from no sin, or from only imputed sin and the death which
that brings ; at least nothing further can here be made out from
the words ofthe apostle. Yet in verse 16 Paul asserts, that our
deliverance is from ir o X X ui v irapairruipdruiv ; which disproves
entirely that mode of exegesis, which confines apapria here to
imputed sin or to mere vitiositas.
I have only to add that the supposition of men's own personal
sins not being reckoned to them, while they are considered as
perishing forever by the mere imputation of another's sin, is a
position so revolting with respect to the justice, and goodness, and
impartiality of the sovereign Judge, " who will render to every
man according to his works," that it requires most ample and
satisfactory evidence and argument to support it.
The phrase dxpi vbpov apapria rjv iv Koapui, appears then, to be
only an affirmation respecting a particular class of men (whom
some might think it difficult to prove to be sinners) of something
which in the preceding clause had been affirmed of all men, irdv
res rgxaprov. It is designed to show that even that class of men
are sinners, whom one might be prone to exempt from such a
charge ; and especially so, after what the apostle had just said in
iv. 15. Any other mode of expounding this makes the ydp irrela
tive and out of place, when it is once admitted that Trdjaes fjpaprov
affirms the proper sin of Adam's posterity. And to construe vers.
13, 14 as having relation only to imputed sin, comes virtually to
the representation of Christ's death as a salvation only from
imputed sin; which would amount to a virtual contradiction
of verse 1 6.
Although sin is not made account of where there is no law,
apapria Se . . . . vbpov. Perplexity and difficulty have arisen
15*

174 ROMANS V. 13.
here from construing eXXoyeu-at as though it were connected with
©eds, as the agent by whom the counting or imputing is to be
done.* The difficulties of such an interpretation have already
been stated, in the considerations presented above. Bretschneider
(Dogmatik. II. 49. edit. 3) seems to have suggested the true solu
tion of the phraseology ; " 'EAAoyetrai is not imputatur a Deo, but
refertur ab hominibus ad peccata, i. e., habetur, agnoscitur pecca
tum." The like views did Calvin and Luther entertain relative
to the expression. The former says, that 'men do not count
themselves as sinners, and are not alarmed for their guilt, unless
the law first excites and quickens their consciences.' So Luther
renders eAAoyeiVai by achten, to regard, to have respect to. To the
like purpose Heumann, Camerarius, Photius (in (Ecumenius),
Schoettgen, Koppe. The words of Photius deserve to be recited.
" When [the apostle] says icb' <5 irdvies rjpaprov, lest some one
should reply and ask : ' How then could men sin where there was
no law ? P'or thou thyself hast said above, that where there is no
law there is no transgression ; and if no transgression, then surely
no sin. How then could death pass upon all men, because all
have sinned ? Lest therefore some one might make such an ob
jection, Paul anticipates and solves the doubt, and says on r/v Kai
irpb tov vbpov ; for sin was committed, and what is committed must
have an existence," To which remarks of Photius, CEcumenius
after citing them adds : " See the exactness of the apostle. That
we might not think ourselves to be wronged because we die on
account of another, he says apapria r/v iv Koapui although it was
disregarded (et /cat pg iXoyit,ero) ; therefore we die not only
because of Adam, but also because of sin." Surely when iXXoy
eirai is rendered, habetur, imputatur [ut peccatum] ab hominibus,
this is no more a departure from the meaning of eAAoyetrai, than
* It may well be questioned whether De "Wette, Tholuck and Olshausen
are not substantially right in the meaning which they give to e'AAo-yeiVai here.
Both the significance of the word and its connection would seem to imply
two parties. Paul is not treating at all of the extent of human conscious
ness. The word, it should seem, must in any case be used in a modi
fied sense, and tbe only question is whether the idea, if it is translated " reck
oned," is or is not Pauline, or at least consistent with other passages of Scrip
ture. It should be noticed that transgression, irapafiao-is, of law, or a positive
¦precept is specially brought to view hero in the sin of Adam and the sins of
his posterity after the promulgation of the Mosaic Law. But those who
lived between Adam and Moses were differently situated, and their sins were
not formally accounted as transgression. So Paul says in Acts 17: 30 : " The
times of this ignorance God winked at," etc. See also 7: 13 and 2: 11.
These and other passages show that although sin was punishable when
there was no law, yet the law brought out into distinct and prominent mani
festation individual transgressions which were formally " reckoned " against
the transgressor.

ROMANS V. 13. 175
to render it imputatur a Deo. Whether ©eo's or dvBpunroi is to
be understood here, must be decided of course by the nature of
the sentiment. And as to eXXoyeiYat, why should attributing to it
the sense of regarding, accounting, esteeming, etc., be called
strange ? inasmuch as this word accords as to both sense and
origin altogether with Xoyit,o[nai, which often occurs with such a
meaning; e. g., Acts xix. 27. Rom. ii. 26. vi. 11. viii. 36. ix. 8.
xiv. 14. 1 Cor. iv. 1. 2 Cor. x. 2. xi. 5, et sa?pe. So a^n, Gen.
xxxi. 15. 1 Sam. i. 13. Job xli. 27 (19). The ellipsis after
eXXoyetVai may be supplied by ets dpapriav or uis apapria, both
methods of construction being common after Xoyi^opai, as any one
may see by consulting the above instances. That eXXoyeu. occurs
(Phiiem. ver. 18) in the sense of impute, is no valid reason why
it should have that particular meaning in the verse before us.
But even in Phil, verse 1 8, the sense is altogether good when we
translate touto poi iXXbyei, reckon that to me, or put that to my
account ; which conveys exactly the idea intended, viz., that the
writer would be responsible for the wrong done by Onesimus.
That the sentiment derived from such an exegesis as that
which I have adopted, is not foreign to the writings of Paul, is
quite clear from comparing Eom. vii. 7 — 11 and iii. 20. In the
former of these passages, the law is represented as greatly excit
ing and aggravating the unholy desires of the carnal heart by its
restraints and disclosures ; so that " without the law sin is death,"
i. e., it is little estimated and felt. In the latter, Paul declares
that "by the law is the knowledge of sin." How well this
accords with apapria Se oiK eXXoyeiYai p-q bvroi vbpov, needs
hardly to be suggested.
I admit that a modified sense of the expression is to be
regarded as the true one, viz., that it is not to be considered so
absolute as to convey the idea that no sense of sin existed among
the heathen in any measure ; for this would contradict fact, and
contradict what Paul says in chap. ii. 14, 15. But then the
modification is of just the same nature as is to be received in
respect to Eom. vii. 7 — 1 1, iii. 20, and also of John xv. 22 — 24,
where the Saviour says, that if he had not come and spoken to
the Jews, " they would not have had sin." But the sense of eX-
XoyeiVo, as maintained by Tholuck and others, i. e., a modified
sense in respect to the account which God makes of sin, does not
answer the purpose at all for which it is intended by them. If
God made any account of men's own sins before the law, then
imputed sin is not the only thing for which men die. Of course
the argument that they labor to establish, is given up. The as
sertion considered as absolute, viz., that God made no account at
all of men's own sins, who were not under the law, is contradicted
by all the preceding part of the epistle.

176 ROMANS V. 14.
Pres. Edwards has given the verse before us a peculiar turn:
" For before the law of Moses was given, mankind were all
looked upon by the great Judge as sinners, by corruption, and
guilt derived from Adam's violation of the original law of works ;
which shows that the original universal rule of righteousness is
not the law of Moses ; for if so, there would have been no sin
imputed before that was given, because sin is not imputed where
there is no law," ( Orig. Sin, p. 275. Worces. edit.) Thus the
main design of the apostle is to show, that the Jews could not
claim their law as the only criterion of right and wrong ; and in
order to do this, Paul shows that men were condemned on account
of imputed sin, before the giving of the law. But this makes a
forced construction and also introduces a subject of consideration
that the apostle seems for the present to have dismissed from his
mind, viz., the confident and boastful reliance of the Jews on
their law. And besides, in order to make out the interpretation
of Edwards, it must also be shown that the apostle here asserts
the existence of another law antecedent to that of Moses, to which
men were accountable. This he had done in chap. ii. 14, 15;
but here it is not to his purpose to repeat it. He says merely,
that men were sinners antecedently to the law of Moses, although
in a state of nature they made but little account of sin ; they were
sinners, notwithstanding they made light of it ; and they incurred
the sentence of death, although they had not, like Adam, sinned
against a revealed and express law.
(14) Yet or nevertheless death reigned from Adam unto Moses,
dXX ifiaalXevaev Moiio-eajs. 'AXAd, tamen, attamen- — Reigned,
i/3aaiXevae, i. e., u>as predominant, exercised uncontrolled sway or
power, held universal dominion among men. But what deatli ?
Tlie same, I would answer, as before ; but still, I should be dis
posed to believe, as has been remarked above, that he had in his
eye here a particular part of what is comprehended under the
generic term death ; in other words, that temporal death was the
special object to which he here adverts. For temporal death is
a palpable part of the execution of the sentence, so palpable that
all must admit it ; and to some such undeniable evidence the
writer seems to appeal. I do not look upon this sense of Bdvaros
here as a departure from the preceding one, in any important
respect ; for should it be construed as referring to a palpable part
of the death threatened, this, by its relations to the other carts of
187S2meditnV°1VeS °r impli6S them alS°" S° Tll0luck> Comp^ p.
Even over those who had not sinned after the similitude of
Adams transgression, /cat iirl .... 'ASdp. A part of the text
itself is here a matter of dispute. Some Latin Codices also Ori

ROMANS V. 14. 177
gen, Cyril, Eufin, Tertullian, Victorinus, Sedulius, and Ambrosi-
aster, omit the prj here. Semler, Mill, and some otliers, have
done the same. But nearly all the Greek manuscripts (three
only, and these a secunda manu, excepted), the Syriac version,
the Vulgate, and many of the most conspicuous Greek and Latin
fathers, e. g., Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylus, Irenseus, Je
rome, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, insert it. The weight of
authority on the side of inserting it seems, therefore, to be quite
conclusive. Moreover, there is internal evidence of its genuine
ness. Toellner, Koppe, and Schott, have well remarked, that the
use" of /cat here before dpapr-ijaavras, intimates that something
unusual or unexpected was designed on the part of the writer.
Accordingly while one would expect to find him saying simply
(which would apparently make a much more facile and seemingly
unexceptionable sense) ifiaalXevae . . . iirl toi>s dpapr-qaavras,
we find him saying, e/3aaiXevae . . . Kai iirl rovs p rj dpapr-qaav
ras. Besides all this, the proof that all have sinned requires p-q;
otherwise, those who had no positive precepts might, in the minds
of some, be exempted. But now, those wdio have sinned like
"Adam, i. e., against positive precept, and those who have sinned
against the internal law, make up the all men.
The phrase im t<3 bpouiipari is like the Hebrew Httb (confi-
denter) ; i. e., a noun with a preposition is employed instead of
an adverb. So the Hebrew D^x 13a nrai3 , Dan. x. 16, is
rendered in the Septuagint cos bpoiuiais viov dvBpuiirov. In all
respects eri tiu bpoiuipan is equivalent to bpoiuis ; so that bpoiuis
t<3 'ASdp irapa/3dvn would express the sense ; as would Uiairep
'ASdp irape/3-q. Comp. biroluipa in Eom. i. 23. viii. 3. Phil. ii. 7.
As to the sense of the passage ; by mentioning those who lived
before the law of Moses as not having sinned after the manner of
Adam there is a plain implication that those who lived under the
law did sin after the manner, or in the likeness of Adam. But the
likeness in question did not consist in this, that the very same
precepts were given to them and were transgressed by them ; it
consisted plainly in the fact that they, like Adam, had positive or
revealed precepts as the rule of duty. Consequently those who
sinned, but yet did not sin in the like way (and such are
described in vers. 13, 14), must have sinned without positive
revealed precepts. Such are described also in ii. 14, 15.
Origen, Augustine, Melancthon, Beza, Pres. Edwards, and
others, have construed the clause prj dpapr-qaavras k. t. X., as
having respect to infants only. But Calvin rejects this interpre
tation : " Malo . . . interpretari de iis qui sine lege peccaverunt."
Nevertheless he thinks infants may be included. But the ground
of this is, that he construes irdvres rjpaprov and apapria tjv iv

178 ROMANS V. 14.
Koapui as referring to the sinning of all men in and by Adam.
The remark of J. A. Turretin is directly to the point, : " Ex scopo
apostoli serieque sermonis patet, hie agi etiam de adultis omnibus
qui ab Adamo usque ad Mosem vixerunt. Etenim si de solis
infantibus ageretur, cur intra id spatium se contineret, quod inter
Adamum et Mosem fuit ? Nam infantium omnium, et ante et
post legem, eadem est ratio." Accordingly, the interpretation of
Augustine is generally rejected, so far as I know, by distinguished
critics of all parties at the present day.
I am aware that it has been sometimes alleged, in regard to p-q
dpapr-rjaavras k. t. X., that the dissimilitude here affirmed consists
in the fact that Adam was an actual sinner, and others (to whom
reference is here made) sinners only by imputation. But such
an interpretation has been shown above to be inconsistent with
the tenor ofthe passage, and with the declarations ofthe Old and
New Testament in relation to this subject. Any attempt to estab
lish such an interpretation must surely fail. For if such an im
putation be made out, by virtue of the unity of Adam's posterity
with himself (and this is the ground on which it is asserted), then
it would follow, of course, that their sin, is NOT different from his,
but the very same ; for if they were in him, and sinned in and
with him, surely their sin is not different from, but the same with
his ; which is what the apostle here denies. Or if his sin is
merely imputed to them without their actually participating in it,
then, in the first place, how can it be said of them that they "all
sinned ? " And secondly, if it be said that they sinned in, by, and
through Adam, then, so far as their sin is concerned, how does it
differ from his ? There is but one act of sin but the guilt of it
is divided among countless millions ; or, if this statement be
rejected, then the alternative must be taken, viz., that tlie guilt
of it is multiplied and repeated as often as there are individuals
belonging to the human race. In either case there remains only
the actual sin of Adam, and so far as this belongs to his posterity
in any sense, either real or putative, so far the sin is not different
from that of Adam, but the same. It is only when we construe
the passage as referring to men's own personal sins, that the dif
ficulty can be removed.
Who is a type of him that was to come, os eon tvttos tov peX-
Xovros. Tviros signifies, (1) in its original and most literal accep
tation, an impress, a note or mark made by impression, sculpture,
beating, etc. ; inasmuch as it comes from re-mira the second Perf.
of tvtttui. In this sense it is employed in John xx. 25. Hence
(2) It means example, pattern, model; as in Acts vii. 44. Heb.
viii. 5. Ex. xxv. 40 (where the Hebrew has rvinri). (3) It means
example, model, in a good sense; e.g., Phil. iii'. 17. 1 Thess. i. 7.

ROMANS T. 14. 179
2 Thess. iii. 9. 1 Tim. iv. 12. Tit. ii. 7. 1 Pet. v. 3; but some
times an example for the sake of warning, not of imitation, as in
1 Cor. x. 6, comp. verse 11. (4) It means image, something
which is a resemblance of some otlier thing supposed or real ; as
in Acts vii. 43. Amos v. 26 (Heb. th±). In this last sense, i. e.,
that of image or resemblance, not in a physical sense but in a
causal one (if I may so speak), is Adam called a Tim-os of Christ.
The appropriate scriptural sense of type is, a person or thing,
which by special appointment or design of an overruling Provi
dence, is intended to symbolize, or present a likeness of some
other and future person or thing. So the word tvitos here
implies that by special divine arrangement and appointment,
Adam was made in particular respects to present an antithetic
image of what Christ was to be.
That Christ is meant by toC peXXovros, is clear from verse 15,
seq., where he is by name brought into comparison with Adam.
The ellipsis after peXXovros, i. e., the noun with which this parti
ciple agrees by implication, seems to be 'ASdp, viz., the second
Adam or eu^aros 'ASdp, as he is called in 1 Cor. xv. 45.
But in what sense, i. e., how far, is the first Adam here consid
ered as an image of the second. A question of no small import
ance, since by the answer to it, our views of the general meaning
of verses 12 — 19 must be, in no small measure, regulated. But
an answer in detail, would occupy too much space here ; I there
fore refer the reader to Excursus IV. for the illustration, and sup
port of the following sentiments :
I. Tlie tvttos asserted of Adam, in respect to Christ, is not to
be taken in the widest and fullest sense here. For, (1) In many
cases, a tvttos in the Old Testament is of the same nature with the
dvTirviros in the New Testament. But here, the whole is most
plainly antithetic ; on the one hand are the evils done and occa
sioned, and on the other are the good done and the blessings pro
cured. (2) Tlie degree or measure of the evils occasioned by
Adam, is not the point of tvVos in respect to Christ ; for this
measure is declared to be far exceeded by the blessings which
Christ has procured ; " grace superabounds." " Many offences
are forgiven," verse 16. (3) It is not the person of Adam as
such, which is compared with the person of Christ. It is the acts
of each and the consequences of what each has done, that are
the objects of a comparison by the apostle ; it is the irapaKo-ij or
irapdirrmpa and KaraKpipa of Adam, and the effects of the same,
which are compared with the viraKorj and SiKaiuipa of Christ and
the effects of these. (4) One sin of one individual, viz., Adam,
was the occasion of evil to all men ; while, on the other hand,
many sins are forgiven on account of one individual, viz., the
Lord Jesus Christ.

180 ROMANS V. 14.
II. The actual and principal point of similitude between Adam
and Christ is, that each individual respectively, was the cause or
occasion, in consequence of what he did, of greatly affecting the
whole human race ; although in an opposite way. Adam intro
duced sin and misery into the world ; and in consequence of this
all men are, even without their own concurrence, subjected to
many evils here ; they are bom entirely destitute of a disposition
to holiness ; and this condition and their circumstances render it
certain that they will sin, and will always sin in all their acts
op A moral nature, until their hearts are.renewed by the Spirit
of God; and of course, all men are born in a state in wdiich they
are greatly exposed to the second death, or death in the highest
sense of the term, and in which this death will certainly come
upon them, unless there be an interposition of mercy through
Christ. On the other hand; Christ introduced righteousness or
justification, and all the blessings spiritual and temporal which
are connected with a probationary state under a dispensation
of grace and with the pardoning mercy of God. A multi
tude of blessings, such as the day and means of grace, the
common bounties of Providence, the forbearance of God to
punish, the calls and warnings of mercy, the proffers of pardon,
etc., are procured by Christ for all men without exception, and
f without any act of concurrence on their part ; while the higher
blessings of grace, actual pardon and everlasting life, are indeed
proffered to all, but are actually bestowed only upon those who
repent and believe. The extent of the influence of Adam, is
therefore a proper tvttos of that of Christ. Each of these individ
uals, by what he did, affected our whole race without any concur
rence of theirs, to a certain degree ; the one has placed them in a
condition, in which they actually suffer many evils, and in which,
by their own voluntary acts, they are peculiarly exposed to the
most awful of all evils ; the other has actually bestowed many and
important blessings on all without exception, and proffers to all
the opportunity to secure the greatest of all blessings. Here then
is antithetic twos of the like extent, in both cases.
| The superabounding of gospel grace, which is insisted on so
emphatically in vers. 15 — 17, consists (as is stated in ver. 16)
I in the fact, that the death of Christ procures pardon for the nu
merous offences which we commit (ttoXXcov irapairruipdruiv), i. e.,
the death of Christ had respect to a multitude of offences ; 'while
the effects of Adam's sin have respect only to one offence, viz.,
that of eating the forbidden fruit. In other words ; the death of
Christ as a remedy, is far more powerful and efficacious than the
sin of Adam was as a means of corruption and misery. See fur-
| ther explanations in Excursus IV. Calvin, Tholuck, and others

ROMANS V 15. 181
regard the expression, o; cori twos to5 peXXovros, as the apodosis
of verse 12 ; see remarks on that verse above.

CHAP. V. 15 — 17.
The general object of these three verses is to magnify the greatness of gospel
grace, by contrasting it with the evils occasioned by Adam's sin (verse 15); to show
that while all men are sufferers on account of Adam, it is only to that degree in
which one sin could affect them, while, on the other hand, the free gift of Christ ex
tends to the pardoning of a multitudi of offences (verse 16). Nor is pardon of many
offences all which the gospel achieves; for if Adam's offence did bring deatli on all
his posterity, or subject them all to more or less of evil, then it is surely more credi
ble still, that the grace of Christ will bestow blessings on all, and especially that it
will perfect the work of pardon, and secure the blessings of eternal life to all who
have obtained it (v. 17). There is then plainly a gradation of sentiment in these three
verses. In verse 15 we have the general idea that grace abounds beyond any evil
brought upon us by Adam. In verse 16 it is specifically declared, that the evil in
flicted is only such as corresponds to one offence, while the good bestowed consists
in- pardon extended to many offences. In verse 17 we have the assurance, that par
don shall be crowned with everlasting life. All these points of dissimilitude or an
tithesis illustrate and enforce the idea of the greatness, the certainty, and the extent
of gospel blessings, and of course dispel any apprehension that the reader might
have from the mention of tvttos, that equality or similitude in all respects was
intended to be asserted, in regard to the respective influence of Adam and Christ.
In pointing out the particulars of dissimilitude and inequality, the apostle has
limited the signification of tvttos, and at the same time, he strengthens tbe idea in
the preceding context, and helps to confirm the faith and hope ofthe believer. The
sentiment which attributes to the grace of Christ good which is far greater than the
evil occasioned by Adam's offence, lies upon the very face of verses 15 — 17, and
should never be overlooked. What we should be in ourselves, as tbe fall of Adam
has left us, is one thing ; what our condition now is, through the grace of Christ, is
another and very different one. "When we maintain, then, that our present state,
depraved and ruined as in itself it is, is more eligible as to securing final salvation, than
that of Adam was while on his first probation, let it not be said that we deny or ex
tenuate the evil consequences of the fall. By no means; but let this be said, viz.,
that after the example of Paul we represent grace as superabounding over all the evils
introduced by the apostasy.
One point more deserves special notice here. Paul points out in these verses, as
has been observed, the principal features of dissimilitude or inequality between the
type and antitype. If now it be true, as some confidently maintain, that the many
on whom blessings are bestowed, means only tbe elect in Christ; and the many who
suffer on account of Adam's sin, means all mankind without exception; then how can
we suppose that the apostle would have here neglected to mention this ov% ws,
i. e.j this point of dissimilitude ? A point surely of not less magnitude, interest, or
importance, than any one which he has mentioned. So far is he, however, from
pointing out such a prominent feature of dissimilitude, that he has apparently taken
a course directly the reverse of this, and such a one as could scarcely fail to mislead
more or less of his readers, provided his design be in reality that which is alleged.
Does he name the mass of men who are injuriously affected by the sin of Adam
oi ttoWoi in verse 15 ? In the very same verse he calls those on whom Christ be-
btows favors tous ttoWovs. Does he again call the first class (in verse 18) Traces
&v& purr oil In the same verse he names the second class TrdvT€s frvSpcimot. Does
he again call the .first class oi iroWoi, in verse 19? The very same designation he
16

182 ROMANS V. 15.
there again applies to the second. No common principle of philology, then, what.
ever our theological systems may demand, can of itself justify us in making au im
measurable distinction here as to numbers, while the apostle (whose specific object
heie is to point out the dissimilitudes of the two cases), has not given us any intima
tion by the language which he employs, that such a distinction is here intended to
be designated by him. In a word, had Paul meant what some ascribe to him here,
how could he do otherwise than say something like this: ' And not as the number
affected by the sin of Adam, is the number affected by the grace of Christ; for all
men without exception, were condemned through the sin of Adam, while the elect
only were the subject of blessings through the grace of Christ ? But then, if he had
thus spoken, his assertion would amount to a declaration that sin superabounds over
grace ; directly contrary to what he is laboring to establish, viz., the superabounding
of grace octr sin. Can anything be plainer, then, than that the sentiment here
attributed to Paul, viz., universality of meaning as to oi iroWoi in the first case,
and partial extent only in the second, is incongruous with the evident design of the
writer ?
The difficulty that seems to arise in respect to universal salvation, by the natural
exposition of Paul's language, is only apparent not real. It is only when, on the
one band, we view all mankind as absolutely and unconditionally given over to the
whole extent of the penalty of death on account of Adam, instead of considering
them as actually incurring a part, and as exposed to and in imminent danger ofthe
whole; and then on the other, regard Christ as having actually bestowed eternal
life on all thus exposed, instead of having bestowed more or less of the blessings
procured by him on all, and eternal life only ou all who actually believe; it is only
in such a case, I say, that anything of consequence can be made out to favor the
doctrine of universal salvation. But no rules of interpretation oblige us to embrace
such an exegesis. The mature of gospel-grace, as contrasted with the evil effects of
Adam's sin, is the grand theme. Why is not the great object ofthe writer answered,
when he has shown, that all men have gained more by the grace ofthe gospel, than
they have lost by the offence of Adam ? Or why, because the writer particularizes
(as usual) some ot the liighest blessings and evils on both sides, should all interior
blessings and evils be excluded from his meaning? When it is an actual fact that
the grace of Christ does confer many important favors on all men without exception,
why should we, why need we, limit the declarations of the apostle to only a small
part of men? The interpretation which I defend has the manifest advantage, as it
seems to me, of comporting with fact, as well as with the philology of the passage.
It is no more true that all men suffer the whole of everlasting death, than it is that
all men obtain the whole of everlasting life. But all sufler more or less of the sen
tence, in the first case ; they enjoy more or less of the blessings in the second. Be
yond this, all are in imminent peril, in the first case; to all salvation is proffered in
the second. Why are not the demands of the passage answered, when the nature
ofthe two things is fully and respectively disclosed? But in case we resort to what
actually happens, we may then advance to a certain extent, both as to evil inflicted
and good bestowed. If we look beyond, and take a general survey ofthe nature of
each dispensation, we find that the pit is open on the one hand, and heaven on the
other. It depends now on the choice of men, whether they will advance to the
right or the left. The universality, the greatness, the certainty of gospel-salvation
to all who will accept the proffered good, i. e. , the true nature and principle of all this,
is altogether and strikingly illustrated and confirmed by the passage before us.
It belongs to those who defend the limitation of ot ttoXKoi in regard to blessings, to
Bhow how the great point which the apostle urges throughout the passage before us,
viz., the superabounding of grace, is made out by him on the ground which they
assume. This they have a right to insist on, who are of the opinion thut oi voWoi
must mean the same in both cases. If the former should say, ' It is made out as to
the elect] then the question will be whether the elect are the predominant party, the
great mass' I do not undertake to say that they will not eventually be so: but when
the apostle wrote (and even down to the present time), all might say as Jesus did,

ROMANS V. 15. 183
1 Strait is the gate and narrow the way, and few there be that find it.' Besides, if a
superabounding of grace over sin _*s to the elect only, is here the question, then, to be
consistent, only the elect can be taken in the counterpart, i. e., the apostle must be
supposed to speak only of the elect here as injured by the sin of Adam. And this,
dhlicult as it would be to render it probable, would be a more eligible and consistent
interpretation than the other. How can the two respective members of a compari
son or similitude, or (if one pleases) dissimilitude or antithesis, be so immeasurably
disproportionate as the exegesis that I have been examining makes them? Even
if we can get uo satisfaction from this passage, without assuming such premises, I do
not see how we can bring ourselves to assume them. Whenever the mind is thus
forced upon conclusions contrary to the 'nature ofthe language, and against the
tenor of the surrounding context and the apparent aim of the writer, it must after
all remain in a wavering, uncertain, conjectural state. It is much better to give up
the expectation of finding the true sense, than thus to do violence to the laws of in
terpretation. Oue remark more should be made. This is, that the superabounding of the grace
now in question, is its superabounding over the evils occasioned by Adam's fall. It
goes far beyond these. It embraces the iroAAa TrapairTdojiaTa of men, verse 16. It
exceeds even the sins that are committed under the law (verse 20), great and griev
ous as they are.
(15 Offence, irapdirruipa, i. e., the fall, the first sin of Adam.
That only one sin, and this altogether peculiar as to its effects, is
here taken into view by the apostle, seems clear from verses 16,
17, 18. — Favor, ydpiapa., i. e., benefit, good bestowed on us or
done for us.
For if el ydp, does not imply uncertainty here, but conces
sion. The shape of the argument stands thus : ' Granting (as we
must do) that the many [all] die [come under sentence of death]
through Adam or by means of him ; much more must we allow,'
etc. The Indie, here stands in both the protasis and apodosis,
(direBavov — iirepiaaevae) , and the protasis is assumed as being
conceded; New Test. Gramm. § 129. 3. a. Ydp is here obviously
ydp confirmantis, — 'Evos refers of course to 'ASdp.
The many died, ol iroXXol direBavov, i. e., all men came under
sentence of deatli. IIoAAot here is exchanged in verse 18 for
irdvras dvBpunrovs ; this therefore is doubtless the meaning of ot
iroXXoi. The reason why the apostle employs this word seems
plainly to be, because he had just said tov evbs, of which ot iroXXol
is the direct antithesis, and as such would designate all men in
distinction from Adam. In regard to direBavov, see remarks on
Bdvaros under verse 12. I would merely remark, that if Bdvaros
means, as I have there stated it to mean, evil of any kind in this
world or in the next, then it is true that Adam did by his offence
cause Bdvaros to come on all without exception, inasmuch as all
his race are born destitute of a disposition to holiness, and in such
a state that their natural passions, whenever they come to act as
moral agents, will lead them to sin. All too are the heirs of more
or less suffering. It is true, then, that all suffer on Adam's
account; that all are brought under more or less of tlie sentence

184 ROMANS T. 15.
of death ; in a word, that ot ttoAAoi direBavov ; but still it does not
follow that all, without distinction and without any voluntary act
of their own, are equally exposed to Bdvaros in its fullest and
highest and most awful sense, more than that it follows that all
men partake of the xaptcr/m of Christ in its highest sense, without
any act of their own, i. e., without repentance and faith ; see
Comm. on verse 4, and Excursus iv.
It certainly is not necessary to suppose, that those who never
had any knowledge of duty, and never arrived at a state in which
they were capable of moral agency ; in a word, that infants and
idiots — ¦ are liable to the same Bdvaros in all respects, as those
who have iroXXd irapairruipara (verse 16) of their own to answer
for. It is enough for the apostle's purpose, that all, even without
any act or concurrence of their own, do in some degree partake
both ofthe evil and the good, while the good iirepiaaevae ; at the
same time, all by their own acts may either bring on themselves
Bdvaros in its ultimate and highest sense on the one hand, or by
penitence and faith they may obtain t,urq in its highest sense on
the other.
Much more, iroXXu} paXXov; in sense just what the old logicians
call an a fortiori in argument. — The grace of God and the gift
which is by grace, -q x^P's tov ®eov koi -q Suiped iv yapin, some
regard as a Hendiadys, and that the meaning is the gracious gift
of God, viz., that gift which the gospel proffers, or those blessings
which Christ has procured. But viewing the design of the writer
as I do, I prefer to construe each clause separately. Xapts tou
®eov should, in this way of interpretation, be regarded as desig
nating the favors which God bestows on all men without distinc
tion for Christ's sake, and without any act on their part which is
the condition of their being bestowed. See the same distinction
made by the phraseology of verse 17 — rrjv irepiaaeiav rrjs xdpiros,
Kai Trjs Suipeds SiKaioaivqs. — ¦ 'H Suiped iv ydpin, if I am right in the
suggestion above, must mean the special blessings which are
actually bestowed on some, through Christ, or on account of what
he has done and suffered, and which are proffered to all. While
all without distinction participate in some of the blessings which
Christ has procured, and which are in their full extent freely
proffered to all, yet those who believe and actually receive pardon,
do in this way become de facto participators of these further
blessings in their highest sense. If any one should incline to
interpret x<¥"s T0V ®^ov and -q Suiped iv yapm k. t. X. as a repeti
tion of the idea for the sake of intensity, he should even in this
case, refer \dpis @eov to the gracious or benevolent feeling or in
tention of the divine mind, and rj Scopea k. t. X. to this design as
developed in the actual execution of such intention

ROMANS V. 15. 185
Which is of one man Jesus Christ, rfj rov evbs .... 'Xpiarov.
Tjj has %dpin for its antecedent. The Genitive tou evbs k. t. X.
might be taken as Gen. objecti, i. e., as indicating the favor be- '
stowed on Christ, i. e., of whieh he was the recipient ; but the
object of assertion here seems to be to designate the grace
of which Christ is the cause or author, Gen. auctoris. Paul has
just said x^P's ®£°v, where ©eoS plainly denotes the author; and
here it is more probable, that toC evbs k. t. X. is Gen. auctoris,
i. e., it signifies here, that the blessings bestowed upon men come
by or through Christ, as their immediate cause or author. Such
is the economy of the gospel, that we may ascribe all its blessings
to God, and call them ^apts ®eov ; we may also, with equal cor
rectness, say, that Christ is the author or bestower of all the pe
culiar blessings of gospel grace. '' Of his fulness have we all
received, even grace for grace," John i. 1 6.
Hath abounded toward the many, els rovs iroXXovs iirepiaaevae.
Toiis iroXXovs with the article, has a different meaning from
iroXXovs without it ; just as ot iroXXoi, in the preceding clause,
differs from iroXXoi. Tlie latter would signify many in distinction
from a few ; but ot iroXXoi signifies the many, i. e., the mass of
men, as we say in English ; or in German, die Gesammtheit der
Menschen; in Hebrew, dn_H>_3. Rightly has Augustine said (on
verse 19): 'ApapruiXol KareardBgaav ol ir oXXo l , multi consti-
tuti sunt peccatores, i. e., omnes, qui revera sunt multi. So in
verse 18, the synonyme is irdvras dvBpuiirovs. Indeed the laws
of language here seem to place the meaning as thus given beyond
the reach of fair controversy. When the apostle wished, as he
did here (certainly in the first clause of verse 15), to divide all
men into two classes, if the 6 els be put in the one, then ot iroXXoi
must designate the other. Udvres would not here answer his
purpose, for this would make but one class, which would of course
include the 6 els ; for the opposition of irdvres is oiSeis, no one,
none. Moreover iroXXoi (without the article) would not answer
his purpose ; for this is in opposition to some, not to one. Just so
in the second member of ver. 15, where Christ (the one) is put
in opposition to, or in distinction from, ot 7roAAot, i. e., all others
besides himself. If it be asked, How then could the apostle
employ iravras dvBpuiirovs in verse 18 ? The answer is easy. In
verse 18 tliere is no antithesis of 6 els, one person, but only of ev
irapdirruipa ; which of course leaves the apostle at liberty to ex
change oi iroXXoi for irdvres.
The reader will observe, that the statement made in this verse
is simple declaration ; a declaration, however, in which the appeal
is tacitly made to that sense of the divine goodness, which the
apostle seems to have taken for granted, dwelt in the breast of
16*

186 ROMANS V. 16.
all his readers. ' If it be true,' says he, ' that the sin of Adam
occasioned so much evil; then surely we may regard it as true,
that the goodness of God has abounded so as to counterbalance
it.' He needed no argument to make his readers inclined to re
ceive this. Let us count in what manner we please, if we make
a right estimate, the blessings of the gospel will be found to be
more than sufficient to counterbalance the mischiefs of the fall ;
and this must be true, even when we take into view the full extent
of those mischiefs ; see Excursus iv.
(IC) Tea, Kai, imo, immo; or it may well be rendered more
over or again. The preceding verse exhibits the diverse nature
or kind of influence upon men, through Adam and Christ respec
tively. The one condemns pr destroys ; the other forgives and
saves. The present verse exhibits a diversity of influence in an
other re-puct, viz., as to the degree in which it exists or is exer
cised. On tlie one side is the mischievous influence of one offence
only ; on the other is forgiveness extended to many offences.
The comparison begins with the general assertion of dissimilarity
(oix "s) as m verse 15, and then continues with a ydp causal as
before. After ovx "s> we should mentally insert KaraKpipa. in
order to fill out the ellipsis ; as is clear from the next clause, viz.,
rb pev ydp Kpipa els KaraKpipa. Comp. ovx *"s> T° irapdirruipa, in
verse 15.
Several important Codices read instead of dpapT-qaavros, upap-
rrjparos, viz., D., E., F., G., Cant., Germ., Bcern., Harl. ; also the
Syriac, Vulgate, and old Latin versions, with Theodoret (not
uniformly), Aug., Rutin. Pelag., Ambrosiast., Sedul., which
Griesbach has received into the text. But the present reading
has a decided weight of evidence in its favor ; and it is attended
with no serious difficulty. One need only insert KaraKpipa after
uis, and the comparison is obvious ; and that this should be done
is plain, as has already been hinted, from the clause immediately
following, viz., to pev yap Kpipa k. r. X. The whole would then
read thus, 'Moreover [the condemnation] on account of one who
sinned, is not like the free gift ; for the sentence by reason of one
[offence] was unto condemnation [was a condemning sentence] ;
but the free gift [pardon] is of many offences unto Justification,
i. e., is a sentence of acquittal from condemnation for many
offences.' After Suipypa^ we must supply iyivero or i&jXBe. — To pev yap
Kplpa it; evbs, i. c.,^ e£ evos [irapairruipaTos'] ; for the antithesis,
ydpiapa^ eK iroXXuiv irapairruipdruiv, shows very clearly that
irapairrdiparos is to be supplied after ivbs. It is clear throughout
this passage (verses 12 — 19), that to irapdirruipa, -i) irapd/3aais, -q
irapaKorj, all have a specific relation to Adam's first sin. Equally

ROMANS V. 16. 187
clear is it, that 1 Tim. ii. 14. 2 Cor. xi. 3. 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22,
favor this opinion. And in the verse before us, c'f evds [•n-apcnrrto-
/iaros] is plainly and directly opposed to it o XX uiv irapa-n-Tuipdruiv.
But how could this be, unless Paul considered the first offence
of Adam, and (I may say) this only, as having occasioned the
evils which he here contrasts with the blessings bestowed by
Christ ? It must be granted, indeed, that this was a peculiar dis
pensation of the Most High, one which displayed his sovereignty
in a special manner. But so was the dispensation of grace. It
was the one act of obedience unto death, by which Christ procured
justification (St/catcn/m) for us. All the obedience of his life did,
no doubt, contribute to the perfection of his character, and thus
fitted him to become an acceptable propitiatory sacrifice ; but his
obedience unto the death of the cross, was the grand act by which
our salvation was ensured ; comp. Phil. ii. 8. Matt. xxvi. 39, 42.
John x. 18. Heb. x. 7 — 10. In this respect, therefore, the obe
dience of the second Adam may be compared with the disobedience
oi the first ; and so, indeed, does the apostle make the comparison
in verse 19.
The word Kpipa, as here employed, probably has reference to
the formal threatening recorded in Gen. ii. 17, in accordance with
which sentence was passed upon Adam. This sentence was
[eyevero] ets KaraKpipa of his posterity, all of whom were subjected
to evil, i. e., to death, on his account. Kpipa then has reference
to him, and KaraKpipa, to his posterity, as they are here employed.
The words are often synonymous ; and are substantially so here ;
but the two forms are used for the sake of variety and dis
tinctness. Free gift, xapi-apa, is here the opposite of Kpipa or KaraKpipa,
i. e., forgiveness or the bestowment of favors on the one side, and
condemnation or infliction of evil on the other. The preposition
e/c is not strictly accommodated to the connection with xdpi-apa, for
the simple Genitive would be more exact, according to the usual
mode of expression. Its use here seems to have been occasioned
by its use in the preceding clause, viz., in i$ evo's, where it is em
ployed in the sense of propter, because of, on account of, as in
John iv. 6. Acts xxviii. 3. Rev. viii. 13. xvi. 10, 11. Sept. Gen.
xvi. 5. al.; see Brctsch. Lex. Ik, 2. d. But there e/c seems to
denote the occasional cause, i. e., forgiveness could not be exer-
6ised unless there existed offence or sin. In this sense ^apio-p-a
proceeds from offences. The iroXXSiv is introduced to qualify
¦n-apairruipdTuiv, but does not alter the nature of the construction.
The use of e/c in these two different relations and shades of sense,
is a kind of paronomasia.
Many offences, iroXXSiv irapairruipdruiv, not sins of many, for that

188 ROMANS V. 17.
would require the article, viz., tco v 7roXAcov irapairruipdruiv. — At-
Kalwpa differs from x°-PL<Jbux-i omy as tne act diffei's from the
intention. Xdpiapa is favor as exhibited in the gracious intention
of him who forgives. At_catu.p.o_ is actual pardon or gratuitous
justification. For SiKaiuipa, Cod. D., Clar., .ZEth. have SiKaiuipa
^to^s, which is favored by St/ccuWiv tfurqs in verse 18, and seems to
be by no means an improbable reading.
The verse thus interpreted shows the ground of the irepiaaela —
the abounding of the grace of the gospel — over the KaraKpipa
occasioned by the sin of Adam. This abounding was generically
asserted, or rather implied, in verse 15, but not particularly
explained. Here it is particularized. Whatever were the evils
brought upon the posterity of Adam by his fall, they were only
such as one offence occasioned. But, on the other hand, the
blessings procured by Christ are not merely commensurate with
these evils, they extend not only to counterbalancing the conse
quences of the fall, but also to the removing of the consequences
of the 7roAAa irapairruipara of men.
It is quite evident, that whether the KaraKpipa. in question be
considered as the loss of the righteousness of man's original state,
and the being born in a condition in which it is certain that our
passions will get the better of our reason and bring us under con
demnation ; or whether it be considered as matter of fact, that
the sin of Adam causes all men to be born with a disposition
which is in itself positive sin, and thus necessarily brings us into
condemnation ; it is still true, in either case, that the evil inflicted
or suffered is of such a nature as to lead to, or to prepare the way
for KaraKpipa, condemnation, i. e., Bdvaros ; see remarks on the
15th verse and Excursus V.
(17) Verse 17 does not seem to be designed as a confirmation of
the leading idea in verse 1 6, which is, the contrast between the evils
occasioned by one sin, and the good bestowed by the forgiveness of
many sins. The reigning idea here is, that if God inflicted so much
evil as the consequence of the one sin of one man, a fortiori he
will secure the greater good where his grace abounds through
one ; the same idea, for substance, is in verse 15 ; where, indeed,
the very same hypothetical form of assertion (et ydp k. r. X.) is
used, and the same nouns (x<*pts and Suiped) are employed. There
we have x^P's Kai Suiped .... iirepiaaevae, and here we have
rrjv irepiaaeiav rrjs x^ptTos Ka' Scopeas .... Xapjidvovres, whieh
is altogether equivalent. The expressions in verse 17 are more
intensive, e. g., verse 15 ot iroXXol d7re'5avov, but in verse 17 6
Bdvaros ifiaaiXevae ; in verse 15 x<*Pts KaL Scupea ... ets tous
7toaA.ous iirepiaaevae ; in verse 17 ot Xapjidvovres ireppiaaeiav
iv £u_J7 /WtAeu'crouo-t, and the whole verse seems to be.introduced for

ROMANS V. 17. 189
the sake of putting emphasis upon the reigning idea of the whole
passage, viz., the abounding of grace over sin. In this view the
reader may connect it with the ovx <"s T° rrapdirruipa ovtuis to xd-
piapa of verse 15, or better with the equivalent expression at the
commencement of verse 16. The general idea that runs through
the three verses is, the abounding of grace over sin. Verse 15
declares that we may naturally expect this, viz., from the well-
known character of God (for such seems to be the writer's view);
verse 1 6 shows that it must be so because many sins are forgiven
by grace, while one sin comes into the account as the cause of the
evils in question. Verse 17 then repeats the main idea in lan
guage more strong and specific than had before been used. The
ydp seems therefore to be referrible to an ovtuis iari, or something
of the like nature here in the apostle's mind, in reference to the
greatness and the certainty of the salvation bestowed through
Christ, which he has so strongly insisted on in verses 1 — 11 of
the present chapter. As if he would say, ' Salvation is sure and
certain ; our hope will not make us ashamed or disappoint us
(verse 5 ) ; we may rejoice confidently in God as our covenant
God (verse 11); for, because, (ydp), it is certain that if sin has
done great mischief in bringing all into a state of condemnation,
grace will do much more good as dispensed througli Jesus Christ.'
Or if the reader is not satisfied with the causal relation as thus
indicated, because he may deem it too remote, we may state it
thus : ' The dissimilarities between the nature and operations of
the sin of Adam and the beneficence of Christ, are not only great
in some important respects, but they are such as lead us to believe
with the greater certainty that salvation is secure. This is so ;
foe if by the offence of one, etc'
The attentive reader will not fail to observe, that the conclusion
drawn in this verse (for such it is when considered in a logical
point of view), is apparently drawn in part from premises indi
rectly asserted or implied, and in part from the nature of the
case, which the writer might presume would be understood and
assented to by all his readers. What is indirectly asserted, is,
that there is irep iaa ela rrjs x°V>tTos Kat rrj Suipeds rrjs SiKaioav
vrjs. The consequence of this is, the bestowment of life in Christ.
Then, moreover, the idea that is brought to view inverse 15, viz.,
that we may well expect from the nature of the case and the
character of God, that the effects of the beneficence of Christ will
predominate over the effects of Adam's sin, seems to be here
conjoined with the sentiment assumed respecting the abundance
of grace. The 17th verse, then, is properly an enthymeme, i. e.,
a syllogism whose form is not fully made out.
The phrase Sta toS evbs may be regarded as emphatic. The

190 ROMANS V. 17.
apostle had already said, t<3 tov ivbs irapairruipan ; and when he
says again, ifiaalXevae Std tou evo's, he renders emphatic two
things, viz., the predominance of death, and the fact that this
predominance was occasioned by one individual, viz., Adam.
Much more, etc., iroXXui .... Xpurrov. It seems evident to
me that iroXXta paXXov here should be referred to the greater credi
bility that the' happiness of the pardoned will be secure, and not
that it should be taken as Tholuck and others maintain, as quali
fying /3aaiXeiiaovai. In verse 15, the same words may qualify
iirepiaaevae, and so they are construed by some ; and here they
may be construed with ftaaiXevaovai ; but in both cases the most
simple and obvious method is to construe them as referring to the
greater credibility of super-abounding grace. They stand too far
from the respective verbs, to be naturally joined with them. On
the phrases tijv irepiaaeiav Tgs xdptTos and ttjs Sojpeas ttjs SiKaioav-
vqs, see remarks on verse 15. I would merely add here, that
some of those who think that there is no ground for any distinc
tion of meaning between the two phrases, adopt the exegesis
here which represents Christ as the author of blessings only to the
elect. But the laws of philology and interpretation, and indeed
the fact itself, are opposed to it. Others make actual redemption
co-extensive with the human race, which the context and innum
erable declarations in various parts of the Scriptures contradict.
Yet, on the ground, that a simple and essential principle merely
of the gospel dispensation is here stated, both of the expressions
employed may be regarded as equivalent, without any serious
difficulty ; for then the declaration is, that ' the gospel, taken as
a system of grace in opposition to the evils of sin, peoffees
blessings far more abundant than the evils which the sin of Adam
has introduced. It proffers abundant pardon and eternal glory.'
And in this case, the reigning in life would seem to indicate a
higher measure of happiness than men would have attained, had
they continued obedient under a system of mere law. Respecting
this we can only say: ' O the depth ofthe riches of gospel-grace.'
With men this may be unexpected and even improbable ; but —
' God will be greatly glorified in his Son.'
Tholuck refers Si/caioo-uVq here to internal sanctification, or to
the life of God in the soul of man, i. e., subjective holiness. But
it seems to me quite clear, that Sucaioo-w?7 conveys the same mean
ing here as SiKaiuiBivres in verses 1, 9. Certainly this makes the
antithesis to the state of condemnation, designated by 6 Bdvarcs
e/3aaiXevae in the preceding clause.
Shall reign, etc., fiaaiXevaovai iv £uirj. It is well known that
t,ui-q is the common word to indicate happiness, and therefore it
needs not to be here proved. That to reign means to be exalted

ROMANS V. 18. 191
to an elevated and glorious condition, the reader may see by com
paring Rev. ii. 26, 27. iii. 21. Matt. xix. 28. Luke xxii. 30.' 1 Cor.
vi. 2. 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12. Rev. xx. 4. Dan. vii. 22. Ps. xlix. 14.
Ex. xix. 6, comp. 1 Pet. ii. 9.

CHAP. V. 18, 19.
We have already seen, that verse 12 contains a protasis without a corresponding
apodosis. We have also seen, that os ecrri tvttos too jxeWovros (verse 14) may be
regarded as comprising in the way of hint, but not formally, a kind ot'apodosis. No
sooner was tottos tov fieWovros uttered by the apostle, than he turns from the
main object of his discourse, to guard his readers against misconstruing tottos, by
carrying too far the resemblance which it indicates, 15 — 17. This being completed.
he now proceeds fully to exhibit his apodosis or main conclusion, in verses 18, in.
But these verses are not a simple resumption ofthe subject as left unfinished in verse
12 j for the manner of expression in them is built upon what is said or declared in
tlie intermediate verses. This will be made evident in the explanation of the
phraseology. (18) Wherefore, as by the offence of one [sentence came] upon
all men unto condemnation, dpa ovv .... KaraKpipa. "Apa and
dpa ovv are commonly illative, according to New Testament usage ;
e. g., Matt. vii. 20. Gal. iv. 31. Rom. vii. 3, 25. viii. 12. ix. 16,
18. xiv. 12 : 19 et alibi. So it may be here. The apostle had
already averred, that Adam was twos tov peXXovros ; and had
shown, that the mischiefs resulting to our race from the fall of
Adam, were more than repaired by the grace of Christ. "Apa
ovv, then, would by no means be inapposite. It is as much as to
say : ' Matters being as I have already declared, it follows or
results from them, that the comparison begun in verse 12 will
hold, viz., that as all have been introduced to sin and death by
Adam, so righteousness and life are provided for all by Christ.
While dpa ovv may be admitted then (as Tholuck urges), to be
illative, this does not hinder these words from standing at the head
of a sentence which is in substance a resumption of what had
been said in verse 12, although the form of it is illative in res
pect to what had been said in the intermediate verses.
That St' evbs irapairruiparos means by the offence of one [man],
has been strenuously argued by some, from the antithesis St' evos
SiKaiwparos ; which (as they aver) cannot mean anything but the
righteousness of one (not one righteousness). But the idiom of
the whole passage is opposed to this interpretation. For such a
designation Paul uses the phraseology: t<3 tov evbs irapairrdipari;
see verse 15, and the same again in verse 17. In verse 16,
where he employs evbs without the article, he uses a participle

192 ROMANS V. 18.
(dpapr-qaavTos) with it, in order to prevent mistake ; while in the
antithetic part, he employs dvBpuiirov (verse 15), and I. Xpto-Tov
(verse 17), so as effectually to guard against any misconception
of his meaning by the general reader. Not so here. How then
can we well avoid the conclusion, that Si ivbs irapairruipaTos means
by one offence ; and so, that St' evos St/catoi/xaTos must mean by one
righteousness. The latter expression appears somewhat unusual
or strange, but Paul's love of antithesis occasions, in not a few
instances, unusual expressions, which carry out a kind of parono
masia and render the diction on the whole more striking. All
difficulty about SiKaiuipa here however, is removed by verse 19,
where viraKorj is employed in its stead. Both words refer, no
doubt, more specifically to his great act of " obedience unto
death," on account of which God highly exalted the Saviour and
gave him the fruits of his obedience, viz., sinners justified and
accepted. AiKaluipa, here taken as the antithesis of irapdirruipa,
must mean the obedient fulfilling of what was required of Christ
as our substitute. Kplpa is implied after irapairTuipaTos, as sug
gested by Calvin.
The phrase ets 7rdvTas dvBpuiirovs is twice employed in this
verse, instead of the ot iroXXoi used in the preceding verse and in
verse 19. The reason of this seems to be, that the evo's here em
ployed does not designate one man, but one offence, one righteous
ness or act of obedience. If evds here meant one man, then ot
iroXXoi must have been employed as the natural antithesis of it ;
for irdvras would include that one, and iroXXoi would not. It
should be noted also, that if the apostle had designed here to des
ignate only the elect by irdvras dvBpuiirovs in the second case, he
could hardly have avoided subjoining to irdvras some other word
than dvBpuirrovs, which is the very word he had already employed
in the antithetic member of the sentence, and which the reader
would naturally and indeed spontaneously understand in the same
way in both cases. Where else in all the Bible is Trdvres dvBpui-
iroi employed as the designation of the elect only ? How can we
feel ourselves at liberty here, then, to construe it in a manner
contrary to the plain and obvious sense of the words as usually
employed, and contrary to the very nature and object of the an
tithesis in this case ? So Calvin did not construe this passage :
"Communem omnium gratiam facit, quia omnibus expositalst,
non quod ad omnes extendatur re ipsa ; nam etsi passus est
ChristUS PEO PECCATIS TOTIUS MUNDI, atque OMNIBUS INDIF-
ferentee Dei benignitate offeratur ; non tamen omnes appre-
hendunt." It is true that in his early work entitled Institutiones
he sometimes exhibited sentiments which appear to differ from
these, but no words can more exactly express what I suppose the

ROMANS V. 19. 193
apostle to mean, than those of Calvin above ; for it is manifest,
that he here considers the object of Paul to be a statement of
what the gospel-plan of salvation is, considered as it is in its own
proper nature, and not as giving the simple history of what has
actually taken place in all respects. On the one hand is a state
of imminent exposure to everlasting death, together with many
other actual evils ; on the other hand is free access for all to ever
lasting life, with the bestowment of many actual blessing-.
Could Calvin, if he were consistent with himself, view the subject
in any other light than this ? Does matter oi fact justify us in
extending it beyond this, if the parallel of the two cases is to be
made out ?
So [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life,
ovtui Kai ... . £uirjs. That xdptoyca is here to be supplied, is
manifest from the nature of the case, from the elliptical state
of the phrase, and from a comparison with the latter clause
of verse 1 6. Ou'™ /cat is the sign of the apodosis, which stands
in antithesis both to verse 12, and to the first clause in the pres
ent verse, which is in substance a resumption or repetition of that
verse. Justification of life, St/catWtv £wrjs, means that justification
which is connected with eternal life or happiness. So Calvin ;
and so the nature of the case requires. It is plain that SiKaiuipa
in verse 16, SiKaioavvrj in verse 17, and SiKaiuiais here, are all
used in accordance with the practice of the New Test, writers,
substantially in the same sense, for the sake of avoiding uniform
ity of diction. On the other hand, the one SiKaiuipa ascribed to
Christ in the preceding phrase, must mean either his " obedience
unto death," or his incarnation as preparatory and essential to
this ; comp. Heb. x. 5 — 10.
(19) Most interpreters have considered this verse to be little,
if anything, more than a repetition of verse 18. So Theophylact,
OZcumenius, Semler, and even Tholuck, Riickert, and Rosen-
miiller. Still, the ydp at the beginning ofthe verse .shows, that
the writer meant to assign some reason or ground for what he had
just asserted in the preceding verse, either in the way of expla
nation or confirmation. Verse 18 asserts fully, having both a
protasis and an apodosis, what verse 12 begins to assert but
leaves unfinished, viz., that as by the offence of Adam all men
were brought into a state of condemnation, so by the SiKaiuipa of
Christ all were brought into a state of justification. In verse 19,
the apostle adds the ground or reason why all men have come
into a state of condemnation and of justification, viz., because
they have become sinners through the disobedience of Adam on
the one hand, and righteous through the obedience of Christ on
17

194 ROMANS V. 19.
the other; i. e., the disobedience of Adam was a cause or ground
why all men became sinners and therefore came into a state cf
condemnation, and the obedience of Christ is in like manner a
cause or ground why all are come into a state of justification.
The course of thought in vers. 18, 19 is substantially the same as
that in verse 12, with the exception that what is there merely
hinted, is here fully and explicitly declared. There the senti
ment is, that by the offence of one man sin entered the world
and death followed, and followed so as to extend itself over all
the human family, inasmuch as all became sinners, id> ui irdvres
¦qpaprov. Tliere too, as we have seen above, the /cat oij'tcos inti
mates, that the entrance of sin and death into the world being
brought about by the offence of Adam, the spread also of these
was in some way connected with or occasioned by this offence.
But in vers. 18, 19, these thoughts are fully and explicitly un
folded ; for verse 18 declares explicitly that condemnation and
justification are connected with or occasioned by the offence of
Adam and the righteousness of Christ, and verse 19 shows that
the ground or reason of this is, that on the one hand men are
made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, and on the other are
made righteous through the obedience of Christ. The apodosis is
merely implied in verse 12, and not at all expressed ; but dpap-
ruiXol KareardBrjaav ot iroXXoi of verse 19, is evidently intended
by the apostle to correspond with the i<f cS irdvres -qpaprov in ver.
12. What is added in verse 19, to the former statement is, that
' by the disobedience of one man, the ma.ny became sinners ; ' a
thing not explicitly declared but merely hinted in the Kat ovtuis
of verse 12.
It is allowed by nearly all commentators, that verses 1 8, 1 9
resume and complete the statement begun at verse 12. If then,
as seems to be quite clear, icp' <5 -jravres rjpaprov in verse 12 and
dpapruiXol KareardB-qaav ol iroXXoi in verse 19 correspond, it is
plain that in the latter case actual sinners are denoted as well as
actual sin in the former case. The fact, that Adam's sin was a
cause or ground of men's becoming sinners in reality (not puta
tively so), and that Christ's obedience was a ground of men's
becoming righteous, i. e., of their being justified in reality (not
merely in a putative or fictitious manner), constitutes the sub
stance ofthe declaration in verse 19 ; and all this is a fuller and
more explicit declaration of the sentiment implied in verse 12
while at the same time it stands related to verse 18 as assigning
a ground or reason of the condemnation and justification there
asserted. That irapaKor) here is the same as irapdj3aais in verse 1 4 and
as irapdirruipa in verses 15, 17, 18, needs hardly to be mentioned.

ROMANS Y. 19. 195
In all of these cases the reference is specifically to the first offence
of Adam and to that only. See on verse 16 above.
Everything peculiar in this verse depends, as will readily be
seen, on dpapruiXoi, St/catot, and KaBiargpi. In what sense then
does scriptural usage entitle us to take the first of these words ?
In all other places except this, I cannot hesitate for a moment to
say, it is taken as designating a sinner in heart and life, or (in
other words) an actual sinner. The very form and limitations of
the verb dpaprdvui, which has only an active voice, confirm this
idea. If dpapruiXbs is ever employed in order to designate those
who are guilty, in the sense of being obnoxious to punishment ;
like the word guilty itself, in such cases, it implies at the same
time moral turpitude and ill desert as the ground of this obnox-
iousness. To designate one who has merely the susceptibility of
receiving impressions that will lead him to sin (Adam had this
before his fall) ; or one who has (as we say) merely an original
disposition to sin, i. e., such a disposition as is native and not su
perinduced ; or one who is beset with temptations to sin, and is
in great danger from them ; to designate one who is simply
exposed to evil, or is merely unhappy or wretched ; the word
dpapruiXbs is never used elsewhere in the Scriptures. Why then
should we introduce a new sense of the word here ? In ver. 12,
when the apostle had said, that ' by one man sin entered the
world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men,' he
meant by these last words (as we have seen above), that his
readers should understand him to hint, that the passing of death
upon all men had some connection with Adam's offence. But
still he subjoins immediately, as the specific and immediate reason
or ground of this death, e</>' <5 -n-dvTes f/paprov. Why not recognize
the same connection and the same sentiment here ? Adam's sin
was a cause or ground why all men are constituted sinners ; yet
Adam's sin is not affirmed to be their sin ; they are not said to be
ev airco dpapruiXoi, nor ry apapria. avrov dpapruiXoi, nor yet to)
KaraKpipan airoi) Ka.TaSeSiKaape.voi ; but they are dpapruiXoi in,
by, and for themselves. A ground or cause of this, was Adam's
offence. But natural evil, and. disadvantage, and degeneracy of
nature is one thing, and sin, is another. A man's sin is and
must be his own act, either internal or external, or both ; and for
men to be dpapruiXoi, they must be actively and voluntarily so.
Another man's sin can no more be mine, than his soul can be
mine ; no more than his consciousness, will, affections, or disposi
tion, can be mine. To impute them to me, then, must be to im
pute to me what in fact does not belong to me, what never did,
and what never can. The candid advocates of imputation in its
hio-hest sense, concede this. But how much progress do we make

196 ROMANS V. 19.
in tne knowledge of things, and in the explanation of important
principles in theology, when we affirm that God counts that as
existing which does not in reality exist, and which is in itself an
impossibility ?
To avoid the difficulty of such imputation (which indeed such
men as Calvin, and Edwards, and Stapfer pointedly rejected)
some, e. g., Edwards and others, have assumed an absolute unity
or oneness of Adam and all his posterity. But this method
of explanation is fraught with difficulties both physiological and
moral. It is physiologically untrue. A separate consciousness,
will, affections, desires, etc., make separate beings ; or else there
is but one being material or immaterial, in the universe. Con
sciousness contradicts this theory. Individual accountability
renders it incredible. If Adam and his posterity are indeed all
one, then all their sins are just as much his, as his is theirs ; and
his penitence is as much theirs, as his offences. Or is it true,
that God, a being of boundless benevolence and love of holiness,
has made such a world that nothing but sin can be propagated
in it?
The simple statement of fact seems to be, after all, that God
has such an utter aversion to sin, that he has testified his dis
pleasure by an appalling exhibition of the woful consequences to
which it leads. Sin is a violation of the order and harmony of
the universe, and consequently productive of evil, because it dis
turbs those laws and tendencies all of which are in themselves
productive of good. The greatest mischief of all is, that sin, in
this way, brings suffering and sorrow upon the innocent as well
as the guilty. But in this very way, too, the odious and abomi
nable nature of sin is most fully and completely exhibited. The
earth cursed for man's sake ; the brute creation subjected to
innumerable evils on his account ; the posterity of Adam born
heirs of suffering, and despoiled of the disposition to obedience
which our primitive ancestors possessed ; are all striking and
melancholy evidences of the evil of sin. But for the evils to
which Adam's posterity are subjected and exposed, God has
provided a remedy; or rather, he has prepared the way for
redemption from them. The two things, therefore, now "o
together, viz., the exhibition of the dreadful effects of sin on the
one hand, and of abounding mercy and benevolence on the other.
The constitution of the universe, by which sin was made to
appear so dreadful in its bitter fruits, is doubtless ordained to
serve great and wise purposes, sooner or later, in the scheme of
the divine moral government and discipline. Nor is the case of
Adam's sin the only one, and altogether singular in its kind. The
same principle in the constitution of the world everywhere devel-

ROMANS V. 19. 197
ops itself. Parents ,by their vices ruin their children ; wicked
men corrupt their neighborhood ; bad rulers affect whole nations
with evil, the innocent as well as the guilty. Nothing can be
more untrue, than that the miscliiefs occasioned by sin light only
upon the guilty. The horrible evil of sin is, that according to the
constitution of the universe, it often involves the innocent as well
as the guilty in its consequences. Nor could " the exceeding
sinfulness of sin " be fully displayed and held forth in its odious
light to the abhorrence of all benevolent beings, unless such were
the case. Still, after all is attributed to the first sin whieh belongs
to it, it would be difficult to see how Adam's first offence differed
from other sins, as to tlie consequences which it superinduced,
excepting that his condition and his relations to the whole human
race differed greatly from those of any of his posterity. The
consequences of his sin, therefore, were peculiar and awfully
deleterious. It is then one thing to be made a sufferer on account of the sin
of others, and another thing to be constituted a sinner by some
thing that he has done. So far as it respects the manner in which
Adam's sin has affected us, both of these consequences have
flowed from it. This leads us to consider next the word,
KaTeo-Ta^crav. The primary and literal sense of this word, as
actively used, seems to be to lay down, put down, deposit ; as its
composition (/card and lar-qpi) would plainly denote. In a secondary
sense, the word means to establish, ordain, settle, decree, constitute,
etc., to cause that any person or thing should be this or that, possess
this or that quality, or fill this or that place or office, etc. It has
also neuter or intransitive meanings, e. g.,to subsist,to be extant, to be
established, to stand firm or unmoved, but they would be quite in
appropriate to the passage before us, and are therefore plainly out
of question. The form KareardBgaav is passive Aor. 1 ; which
tense, although frequently employed, in the sense of the middle
voice (see New Test. Gramm. § 61. 4), where there is no Aorist
middle, yet as here there is a middle Aor. 1, it must be regarded
as passive, and passive as to some of its transitive meanings. We
come then to the conclusion, that KareardBijaav must mean were
constituted, were made to be, were caused to be ; for standing in
connection as it does v/ith irapaKo-q as designating a cause or
means, it would hardly seem susceptible of any of the other
transitive meanings which the verb KaBiargpi has. Reiche has
labored, with much learning, to prove that KaBiar-qpi may mean
to show, exhibit, publicly demonstrate anything to be this or that ;
and that the Pass, voice may of course mean to be shown, etc.
Classic examples of this usage are not at hand, excepting ainov
KaBiardveiv (to show cause) as employed by Lucian. But in
17*

198 ROMANS V. 19.
Hellenistic Greek he thinks this to be more common : e. g., 3
Mace. iii. 5, where however the neuter sense (became permanent
ly), is better than the one he proposes, and indeed the only one
that can well be given to KaBeiarqKeiaav, because the tense i3
Pluperfect. So in Josephus, (Ant. VI. 5, 6,) rbv ®ebv avrois
eipevrj Karaarrjaai may mean to render the Divinity propitious to
them, not (as Reiche proposes) exhibit him as propitious. We
can not therefore regard KareardB-qaav here as equivalent to
i<bavepuiB-qaav, and render it declarati sunt esse, with Koppe, C.
Flatt, and Reiche. Nor can we, with Grotius, Limborch,
Whitby, Storr, Stiskind, Flatt, and others, render KareardB-qaav,
were treated as sinners ; for the apostle has told us in verse 12
that death has passed upon all men ec/>' J> 7rdvres rjpaprov ; and
how, moreover, could a just and unerring God treat men as sin
ners unless they were so ? See Comm. on ets KaraKpipa in pre
ceding verses.
By the obedience, Std viraKorjs, equivalent to St' evbs SiKaiuiparos
in verse 18. See the remarks under this verse, and also on ver.
16 ; and compare the passages in Matt. xxvi. 39, 42. John x. 18.
Phil. ii. 8. Heb. x. 7 — 10. But although I can scarcely enter
tain a doubt that the obedience of Christ, in this connection of
thought, means in particular his obedience in assuming our nature
and his suffering an -expiatory death in it, yet I would not ex
clude the idea that the active (as well as passive) obedience of his
whole life did contribute, yea was necessary, to the perfection of
his character as a Mediator and a great High Priest who should
make atonement for us. Without such an obedience, he would
have needed an atonement for himself, instead of being able to
make it for others. But in respect to the specific allegation, that
' Christ's obedience (viraKo-q) is imputed to us ; ' this Paul does
not here nor elsewhere say, nor any other sacred writer. This is
a phraseology superinduced upon the Bible, many years since the
Reformation, from human systems and methods of explanation ;
and not one which is taken from the Scriptures and transferred
into Symbols. In all the Bible there occurs not such a declara
tion, as that one man's sin or righteousness is imputed to another.
The thing for substance aimed at, by many who employ such
phraseology, is doubtless a doctrine of the Bible, viz., that the
obedience of Christ, above all his obedience unto death, did con
tribute to constitute him an all-glorious and all-sufficient Media
tor. As to the rest, that God for Cheist's sake forgives sin
ners, not imputing their trespasses to them, is the very sum and
substance of what is appropriately called the gospel, and all
which can be exegetically made out from the simple interpreta
tion of the Scriptures. For in what part of the Bible is it said

ROMANS V. 19. 199
that Christ obeyed for us? Or where, that his obedience is im
puted to ^ls I And yet, that on our account or in our behalf, he
obeyed and suffered, I deem to be a great and fundamental doc
trine of the gospel.
The many shall be made righteous, St/catot /caTao-Ta^o-ovTai ot
iroXXoi. Is St/catos to be taken in an active, or passive sense ?
That is, does it mean one who is pious, fearing God and obeying
his commands, Justus, probus ; or does it mean justificatus, a jus
tified person, one forgiven or delivered from the curse of the law?
In all cases excepting the present one and 6 St/catos e/c iriareuis, I
think it must be conceded that St/catos is employed in the active
sense ; that is, it means either one who obeys the whole law, i. e., it
has a legal sense, or else it means one who obeys in such a manner
as proves him to be a sanctified, holy, devout person, i. e., it has
an evangelical sense. As to the case of StKaios e/c iriareuis, I do
not see any good reason for departing from the common usus
loquendi in respect to StKaios ; for the declaration amounts simply
to this, viz., that a man is pious, holy, of an obedient spirit,
through faith, or in the way of exercising faith in the Lord Jesus,
and has thus been graciously sanctified, so that he now fears God
and keeps his commandments in a Christian sense. I doubt on
several accounts, whether here, we can translate or explain
SUaios by the word justified; for this would merely designate a
passive sense, and be descriptive of what Christ has done for sin
ners, without exhibiting the active sense in which they are holy
or obedient, SUaioi. AiKaiuiBeLs, SiKaiuiBevres is employed by Paul,
when he wishes to designate simply the passive idea ; e. g., Rom.
v. 1, al. At'/catot, moreover, must have an active sense here, in
order to make out the antithesis to dpapruiXoi, which clearly bears
only an active sense, if the usus loquendi may decide this point ;
at least it does so wherever else it is employed.
How then is the obedience of Christ to make many just or
righteous ? In the like manner, we may answer, as the disobedi
ence of Adam made many sinners, i. e., was a cause or ground
of their becoming sinners. Christ, by what he has done and
suffered, has opened a new and living way of access to God, in
which sinners may hope for pardon, and grace to become humble
and obedient, i. e., to become StVatot, or SiKatoi eK iriareuis. But
in this case, abundant as the provision is which he has made for
sinners, yet penitence and faith are a conditio sine qua non to the
bestowment of the higher blessings of the gospel. And so in the
opposite case ; some voluntary act of sin, which is properly one's
own, wrould seem to be necessary in order to make sure the final
and eternal damnation of any one of Adam's posterity. Before
this they are indeed in a damnable state, i. e., in imminent hazard

200 ROMANS V. 19.
of damnation (if I may so express it) ; and it is also true, that
before repentance and faith sinners are in a state of peculiar
probation, and in a solvable state, i. «., a state in which they may
be saved.
The reader will note, that the future tense (Karaerra^crovTai)
is employed in this apodosis. This corresponds to the sentiment
implied in the SiKaiWiv tuyijs of verse 18. The affirmation of
Paul then is, that the efficacy of Christ's obedience will bring the
many to be righteous, holy, or devoted in heart and life to the
service of God. If this were already done in the sense in which
he expected it to be done, and in the sense which the idea of im
puted righteousness would render necessary, why should he here
employ the future tense ? The fact that he does so, appears to
afford evidence that the whole paragraph is intended to disclose
the virtue and efficacy of the two dispensations, under the first
and second Adam, rather than to detail facts merely as such, or
to give us a simple historical picture. Thus considered, there is
no difficulty as to any of the apostle's declarations. What he
declares concerning the influence of Adam's offence, discloses
what would be the certain result of that, if all men were left to
themselves in the condition into which that offence brought them ;
while what he declares respecting the • obedience of Christ, dis
closes to us the true nature of gospel grace, its all-sufficiency, the
certainty of its accomplishing its ends, and its adaptedness to the
wants and woes of all our race. The apodosis here, then, is not
so much a narration of mere historical occurrences in this case,
as it is a declaration of the nature of that which Christ's obedience
is adapted to accomplish. Or may it and must it be construed
(the tense being future) of the millennial day of glory — the
future and universal prevalence ofthe Christian religion? This
would seem to be rather a forced construction, and that the
SiKatoi here described are those which the work of Christ will be
efficient in constituting, either in this world, or in the next, or in
both. AtKatot those are called, who at the last day appear before
the throne of the final Judge, and meet with acceptance through
the mercy of a Saviour; see Matt. xxv. 37 ; where the appel
lation is doubtless given, in reference to the character which they
sustain as the subjects of sanctifying grace. The meaning
of Paul seems therefore to be, that as Adam's offence had been
the cause of ruining the many, the obedience of Christ should be
the cause why the many should be justified. In a word, as
actual suffering and a dangerous and ruinous condition are the
lot of all through Adam ; so, on the other hand, a state of re
newed and peculiar probation, attended with many privileges
and blessings, even such as exceed all that were lost by the fall,

ROMANS V. 20. 201
with the proffer of eternal life and glory, is procured for our
guilty race by the Lord Jesus Christ. For further remarks, see
Excursus on Rom. v. 19.

CHAP. V. 20, 21.
Ik verses 12 — 19, respecting the evils occasioned by Adam and the blessings pro
cured by Christ, nothing was said of any good achieved by the Jewish dispensation.
It is very natural to suppose that the Jew, ever jealous for tbe honor of the Mosaic
economy, would feel a strong objection to the representation which attributes deliv
erance from these evils wholly to Christ and his gospel, without regard to the law.
Verses 20, 21, seem designed to answer such an objection : l As to the Mosaic law, it
was so far from delivering men from sin and its fearful cousequences. that the
result of it was just the contrary, viz., the abounding of sin, or at least the more
conspicuous and striking exhibition of it.' Both of these sentiments, indeed, we may
suppose to be included in the assertion made in verse 20. The same idea is more
fully developed in Rom vii 5 — 13.
Moreover in verses 20, 21, the apostle plainly designs to show, that the gospel, in
stead of being superseded by the law in any important respect, was rendered (so to
speak) the more necessary. The law, instead of diminishing the sins of men, did, on
account of their abusing it (Rom vii. 11), render them more guilty; and conse
quently it increased their need of a new dispensation of pardoning mercy. And
such is the rich provision for mercy under this new dispensation, that not only the
sins which men committed before the law of Moses was published (verses 13, 14) may
he forgiven, but even the more aggravated guilt which they incur who sin against
the precepts of revelation, may be pardoned Considered in the point of view now
presented, the verses under consideration are pregnant with highly important
meaning. (20) Revelation, vo/aos, i, e., the Mosaic law. — Hap£i<rr}\$€v is
rendered by some, came in unawares ; but this makes no tolera
ble sense here, and moreover it contradicts fact, for the law was
introduced with awful pomp and. solemnity ; Ex. xx. Gal. iii. 19.
Heb. xii. 18 — 21, 26. We must therefore translate : supervened,
came in the way of addition, prceterea introiit (as Beza renders
it) ; i. e., it supervened upon the state which preceded Moses,
when men were living without a revelation.* The word irapet-
aipxofxat is employed in both significations in the classics ; and
Philo uses the word TrapetcrJjA^ev, in the same sense as tunjXScv
(see Bretsch. Lex.); but I regard the second meaning above
given to the word, as the best in this passage.
"Iva is said by some to be not causal, i. e., not introducing a
reason or cause why the law came in, in order that, etc., but
ecbatic (ck/Jcm-hcos), t. e., showing the effect or consequence ; so
* Meyer says : came in addition, supervened to sin, &fiaprla9 which had
already made its entrance into the world.

202 EOMANS V. 21.
that we may translate; the law supervened so that offences
abounded.* The telic sense of iva, however, might be retained in the verse
under examination, by construing irXeovdag as we do iirepiaaevaev
in iii. 2, which there means may appear to abound, may exhibit
or display its abounding (like the Piel and Hiphil conjugations
of Hebrew verbs) ; and in the like way is irepiaaevay used in 2
Cor. iv. 15. In this way the sense will be: 'The law came in
order that sin might be abundantly exhibited, or that a full dis
play of sin might be made;' according with Rom. vii. 13, comp.
vii. 5 — 12. iii. 12. In this way it is construed by Tholuck,
Flatt, and others ; and it scarcely needs to be said, that the end
or design of the lav/ itself was not the increase of sin, but the
restraint of it. My objection, however, to the explanation of these
interpreters is, that verse 21 evidently demands a sense of irXeov
dag different from that which they give. If we say : ' The law
entered in order that the odious nature of sin might be more fully
and plainly exposed and known ; ' then what shall we make of
verse 21? It must be this: 'Where sin was more fully dis
played, grace superabounded,' viz., above the display. But
clearly the apostle does not mean to say this, (for what can be
tlie meaning of such a declaration ?) but that where sin actually
abounded, there grace actually superabounded.
We must return then to the ecbatic use of 'iva here, which
Chrysostom has proposed. The meaning of the ver.se may be
thus given : 'The Mosaic law which was introduced, instead of di
minishing the guilt and sins of men, served only to increase them;
for although in itself holy, and just, and good, yet being abused
and resisted by the evil passions of men, it was made the occasion
of increasing their guilt, because the light which it shed on them,
both aggravated their offences and rendered them more conspicu
ous.' Chap. vii. 5 — 13, as before suggested, is a full and satis
factory comment on these sentiments. Turretin, Reiche, Glock
ler, Barnes, and others have for substance adopted the same
explanation. (21) But where sin abounded, grace did superabound ; i. e., the
pardoning mercy of the gospel has triumphed even over the sins
of the Jews, which were greatly aggravated by reason of the light
they enjoyed.
So that as sin reigned by death, iva uiairep k. r. X., i. e., brought
sentence of death or condemnation upon all men, in like manner
also grace might reign by justification unto eternal life, through
* Alford and others consider 'Iva here is telie, in order that. Alford says -
" no possible objection can bo taken to this statement by those who view the
law as a preparation for Christ."

ROMANS V. 21. 203
Christ Jesus our Lord, i. e., grace might reign or have an influ
ence widely extended, in the bestowment of justification or par
doning mercy, which confers eternal life or happiness on all men
who will accept it, through Jesus Christ our Lord. — Alter SiKaio
avvrjs here, one must supply rrjs ovar/s (which is) els £uir)v aluiviov.
In this verse, iv ™ Bavdrui is the Dative of means or manner ;*
and it stands in antithesis with Sta SiKaioavvrjs els ^uirjv aluiviov.
Of course SiKaioavvvs does not here mean righteousness in the
sense of holiness or conformity to the divine law, but in the sense
oi justification, i. e., God's righteousness, viz., that which he gives
or bestows ; in the like sense as SiKaiuipa, SiKaioavvqs, and SiKaiui-
aiv, in vers. 16 — 18 above. The meaning is, that as sin exer
cised its sway over men in occasioning their condemnation (Bdv-
arov), so grace, which superabounds, has exercised its sway in
procuring a remission of the sentence of condemnation, and be
stowing that justification which is connected with eternal life.
Turretin wrongly makes SiKaioavv-qs here mean both justification
and sanctification. For the antithesis of SiKaioavvrj, viz., Bavdros,
does not mean both sin and condemnation at the same time.
The reader will remark, also, that as Bdvaros is the direct an
tithesis of f<u7) aluivios here, so it must mean more than temporal
death merely ; nay, more than any limited term of misery in a
future world ; unless, indeed, it can be shown that the happiness
of the righteous is limited. But this none will attempt to show.
How then can the misery of the wicked be shown to be tem
porary? That Bavdros is here employed in the same sense
as in verses 12 — 19, impresses itself, as it seems to me, spon
taneously on the mind of every reader not misled by a priori
reasonings. It should also be noted, that virepe-rrepiaaevaev rj ^apis of course
cannot be applied to the number of its subjects here ; for how
could grace superabound in this respect, when all men were
sinners ? It plainly has reference, therefore, to abounding sin
which existed after the law was introduced. What the apostle
means to affirm, is, that however much sin was aggravated under
this new order of things, yet such was the greatness of gospel
grace that it triumphed even over this aggravated guilt. In
other words, the salvation of the gospel is so ample, that it may
be extended to all men however depraved and deserving of
punishment they may be ; and those who are under the law and
have transgressed it, do of all men most need the salvation of the
gospel. * It may be better to take iv r$ Sravira as denoting the sphere or
kingdom in which the dominion of sin was specially held, or " that in and
by which the reign was exercised and shown." See Meyer and Alford.

204 ROMANS VI. — VIII.

CHAP, vi.— vin.
When the apostle (chap. i. — ii.) had shown the guilt of all men, both Jews and
Gentiles, and that none could escape the wrath to come except by the mercy of God
through Christ, he represents the Jew as objecting to such a sentiment, on the
ground that thcT fidelity of God, in respect to the promise made to Abraham and his
seed would be called in question by it. To this the apostle replies, that no such ob
jection could be made; for God is to be regarded as faithful to his promises, even
if all men are thereby conyicted of being unfaithful to their engagements. The
faithfulness of God is in fact the more conspicuous, when he treats those who have
sinned, and who continue impenitent, according to their real desert.
Tbe Jew, however, not satisfied with this, objects that there would in this way be
encouragement for men to sin; inasmuch as the divine glory would be the more
conspicuous, in consequence ofthe display of pardoning mercy. But this objection
the apostle repels, with strong language of disapprobation, iii. 5 — 8. He does not,
however, proceed to canvass it, because he has other things which he is desirous to
say, before he enters particularly into the consideration of such an objection.
These he exhibits in chap, iii 9, to v. 21. After all which he here says, and espe
cially after such an exhibition of superabounding grace as is made in chap. v. 12 — 21,
it is natural to expect that the Jew would renew, at least in bis own mind, the same
objection as before ; and this, with more appearance of reason than he then had.
Accordingly, we find the apostle representing him as immediately objecting to the
views of gospel grace which he had expressed, in the following words : "Shall we
continue, then, in sin, that grace may abound? " Chaps, vi. vii. viii. are designed to
canvass the great subject which this objection brings forward, and fully to illustrate
it. The course of thought appears to be as follows:
1. The very profession and nature ofthe Christian religion are directly opposed to
continuance in sin ; for he who is " baptized into the death of Christ," if sincere in
his professions, must renounce sin and mortify his carnal appetites, vi. 2 — 11.
2. The remainder of chap. vi. forms a peculiar argument, if I may so call it, with
respect to the subject under the apostle's consideration, viz., whether a dispensation
of grace allows its subjects to sin. Verses 12, 13, are an exhortation to guard against
sin; which is occasioned by the preceding considerations that the writer has prof
fered. But in verse 14 Paul places his subject in a new attitude. He had before
shown that Christianity, from its very nature, stands opposed to sin, and implies the
subduing and mortifying of all evil passions and desires. He now ventures to sug
gest, not only that there is no good ground for the allegation of the objector, viz ,
that the doctrine of grace would encourage men to continue in sin, but that this very
doctrine furnishes powerful motives, yea, more powerful ones than those which a
dispensation of law furnishes, to excite men to the practice of holiness. He begins
by saying, that ( sin -will not have dominion over Christians, for they are not under
law, but under grace.' This is as much as to say, that if they were still under the
law (in the sense here meant) sin would have dominion over them ; but inasmuch as
they are under grace, this will not be the case. The subject thus introduced is oue
of vast magnitude and importance. If it be true, that a system of grace is the only
one which, now proffers adequate means of SAMCTIFICATION as well as pardon, their is
the importance ofthe gospel rendered doubly conspicuous. This is what the apostle
intimates in verse 14, and what he goes on through the remainder of chapter vi., and
also through chapters vii. viii. to confirm and illubtrate.
The first illustration ofthe power of gospel grace to subdue sin, is drawn from the
relation which the Christian sustains toward the gospel or X°-Pis' He has become
the servant of grace; consequently, he must yield it his obedience; and by becoming
the servant of grace, he has renounced his subjection to sin ; consequently, he must
act in a manner that accords with the relation which he sustains, i. e., he suould

ROMANS VI. — VIII. 205
live in a holy manner, verses 16 — 20. And thus the Christian must be led to act,
also, on the ground that the consequences of obeying sin and of obey ing grace are so
unspeakably different and important, verses 21 — 23. This, however, is negative argu
ment; if I may so speak. I mean, that it does not directly prove what is intimated
in verse 14, viz., the superiority of grace to law in influencing us to lead a holy life.
But it proves, that even in those respects in whicli the Jaw might seem to claim a
high pre-eminence, it has none. The gospel confers as high obligation and threatens
as high penalties. In both respects it is opposed to sin ; its obligations are directly
contrary to sin; its consequences are just the reverse of tliose which follow sin. In
ail these respects, then, we may truly affirm of the gospel as mucli as could be
affirmed ofthe law.
3. All this prepares the way to accomplish the subsequent part of the apostle's de
sign ; which is to show that the law (in the sense to which Jewish legalists adhered
to it) is virtually and substantially renounced, by giving ourselves to Christ in the way
of the gospel, vii. 1 — 4. This is an important point, and a great advance toward
the attainment of the apostle's design. He then goes on (vii.) to assert and prove
that the law, instead of being an effectual means of sanctifying men and making
them truly holy, is in reality the occasion of their plunging into deeper guilt; while
grace produces just the contrary effect. See further in the preliminary remarks to
these several passages in this chapter. Secondly, he removes the objections which
one might naturally raise against the law on such a ground, vii. 13 — 25-
4. He next shows that grace operates upon men in a manner different from that
of law, viii. 1 — 11.
5. In the remainder of chapter viii., he insists on the duties and privileges that
result from such a state of grace.
If the reader will now look back, for a moment, he will see a regular serios
of thought, all pertaining to the same great subject, from the commencement
of chap. vi. to the end of chap. viii. To the apostle's plan of justification by grace
alone, the natural and most formidable objection at first view would be, that such a
doctrine would lay no restraint upon sin, but rather encourage it. Already had he
adverted to this objection, in chap. iii. 5 — 8. But with chap. vi. the formal discus
sion ofthe subject which is introduced by it commences. The simple outlines ofthe
argument and illustrations are, (1) The very profession and nature of Christianity
imply a renunciation of sin, vi. 1 — 11. (2) The gospel lays more effectual constraint
upon us to abstain from sin than the law can do, vi. 14; for, (a) By becoming ser
vants of it, we must yield our obedience to it, vi. 16 — 20. (b) It sets before us the
highest possible rewards, and renders them attainable, vi. 21 — 23. (3) We renounce
our legality, i. e., our dependence on the Jaw as the effectual means of sanctification,
when we become affianced to Christ. We sustain a new relation in consequence
of this, and are laid under new obligations which are of a more forcible nature, vii.
1 — 4. (4) The law, instead of restraining and subduing our sins, is even the occa
sion of their being aggravated, of plunging us into deeper condemnation, vii. 5 — 11;
yet this is not chargeable upon the nature ofthe law, which in itself is holy and just
and good, but on our evil passions which abuse it, while our consciences testify to
the excellence and purity of the law itself, vii. 12 — 25. Consequently sanctijication,
as well as justification, can be expected not from the law, but only from a dispensa
tion of grace. (5) Such is the actual effect of grace ; it subdues and mortifies the
principles of sin within us, and affords us the effectual guidance and aid ofthe Spirit
of God in the discharge of our duty, viii. 1 — 11. Consequently, (6) The obligation
to live in a holy manner may now be urged on Christians with the hope of success,
for they have aid which is adequate for every time of need; yea, which will make
them to triumph over all the troubles, and sorrows, and trials of life, and to persevere
even unto the end in the way of holiness and truth, viii. 12 — 39.
This partial repetition of the course of thought in chapters vi. — viii., I have made
merely for the sake of being explicitly understood. Tbe attainment of correct
views in regard to this course, is a sine qua non to a right exegesis ofthe whole. The
particular parts form one harmonious whole; all resolve themselves, at last, into the
18

20G ROMANS VI. 1.
simple design of showing not only that the grace of the gospel is not justly liable to
the charge of encouraging sin, but that it does in fact proffer to sinners the only hopeful
and effectual means of sanctificatiom, as well as justilication ; 5 ea, that it assures
them of these means being effectual even to the end, so that their hopes can never be
disappointed. If the reader has still any doubt, whether I have correctly stated the general out
lines ofthe apostle's design and argument, let him look back on chaps, i. — iv., and
see that the great discussion concerning gratuitous justification is there terminated;
as is evident from chap, v., which is designed to point out the sequel or consequences
of such justification. Let him look at the nature of the subject proposed by the
question iu vi. 1, and the arguments and illustrations which follow. Let him duly
consider the assertion in vi 14, with the sequel iu verses 15 — 20. Let him then see,
in verses 21 — 23, that Kapir6s eis ayicctTjuoV is still before tbe writer's mind. In
passing to vii. 1 — 3, 4, let him note, that verse 4 sums up the object of all by
'Lva Ka(yirobopi]o-mjj.ev toi ®e$. In reading verses 5, 6, he must observe, that the law
is set forth as being even the occasion of aggravating our carnal desires, instead
of mortifying and subduing them: all of which shows the insufficiency of it as a
means of sanctification. Verses 7 — 11 only expand and enforce this idea; while
verses 12 — 23 defend it from abuse. Chap. viii. opens as if the subject of justifica
tion were a prominent object of the writer's attention; but verses 2 — 4 show that
this is only in consequence of justification being connected with sanctification. The
special object of God's sending his Son, as considered in verses 3, 4, is KaiaKpivetv
ihv apapriav ev tt) aapKi, and 'iva. to SiKaioipa too vopoo irK-npoi&fi eV jjfuv.
And so the sequel shows that sanctifying grace subdues sin, and secures filial obedi
ence. Hence, in verses 12 — 17, the exhortation subjoined to the preceding context
is, tbat Christians " should not live Kara adpKa." And finally, it is the sanctified,
filial, obedient spirit, inspired by tbe gospel and given by the Spirit of God in con
nection with it, which supports us under all sorrows and trials, and will end in com
plete and everlasting triumph. On the face of all this course of thought, then, there
lies what bas already been attributed to it.
There is another circumstance still, which afiords no small ground for confirming
what has been stated above. In chap, v., the apostle, after having finished bis dis
cussion with regard to the subject of justification by grace, goes on to declare the
happy fruits of this, viz., cheering support under all the sorrows of life, and assur
ance of final happiness in the kingdom of glory, through the redemption of Christ.
Just so in chap. viii. 14 — 39. When Paul has completed the discussion of his second
grand theme, viz., the sanctifying nature of gospel grace, he goes on to show, first, how
it triumphs over sufferings and sorrows, inspiring a joyful hope; and, secondly, that
it will assuredly bring the believer, at last, safe to glory. The parallelism, as to (lie
general course of thought, is so exact between chaps, v. and viii. 14 — 30, that no one
can help perceiving it. There is then good ground to believe, from this circumstance,
in addition to the other evidence produced above, that the apostle had, in his own
view, here completed a second prominent topic of discussion; just as, at the end
of chap, iv., he had completed his first one. The rest of his epistle is employed in
canvassing various objections raised by Judaizing opponents; and in delivering
various precepts and exhortations suited to the condition ofthe church at Home.

(1) What shall we say then? ti ow ipovpev; words of the
objector; viz., ' What shall be said, now, as to such a sentiment
as that just uttered, viz., that where sin abounded, grace did super-
abound? May we not say: 'Let us continue in sin, that grace
may abound ? ' The meaning of the question is : ' Since God is
glorified in the abounding of his grace ; and since this abounds in
proportion to the sin which is committed ; then why should we

ROMANS VI. 2, 3. 207
not go on to sin, as the glory of God will in this way be made to
abound ?
Sha'.l we continue? impevovpev ; But all the uncial Codd.,
many Codd. minusc, Copt., Codd. Lat., Damasc, Augustine ; and
after these, Grotius, Hammond, Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann,
Reiche, prefer i-mpevuipev (Subj.) which would mean, must or
should we continue, etc.? The latter seems to be the preferable
reading. (2) Dead to sin, direBdvopev rrj apapria, means, to renounce sin,
to become, as it were, insensible to its exciting power or influence
(as a dead person is incapable of sensibility) ; or, as Chrysostom
Well expresses it, prjKeri viraKoveiv \_ttj dpapria], dXXd peveiv aKiv-
qrov uiairep rov veKpov. Comp. Gal. ii. 19. 1 Pet. ii. "24. Rom. vii.
4. The Greek and Latin writers employed the like phrase
ology ; e. g., riBvrjKe poi (Libanius) ; mortuus tibi sum, Plautus.
So of the antithetic expression ; e. g., ipol £qv (Alciphr.) ;
£,jjv r-fj yaarpi (Diony. Halic). In all such cases, a sense of
such a nature as that given above was attached to this phrase
ology. How shall we any longer live in it ? iruis en tfjaopev iv airui ;
i. <_¦., how shall we who have renounced sin, and profess to be in
sensible to its influence, any more continue to practise it, or to be
influenced by it ? The Fut. tense here expresses not simply what
is declarative but what has relation to duty, viz., what can or
ought to be done ; N. Test. Gramm. § 125. Note 5.
The objector asks (verse 1), whether we should continue in sin,
he means, beyond all doubt : ' May we go on to sin ? May we
then still continue the practice of it?' To this question the
apostle answers in the negative ; and this negative he expresses
by the phrase direBdvopev rfj apapria. To become dead to sin
must mean, ' to refrain from the practice of sin, no longer to con
tinue in it, no more to be guided or influenced by it,' i. e., it is
just the opposite of 'Qqaopev iv airy, to continue in the practice
of it, or to find pleasure in it. That such is the condition of true
Christians, the apostle now proceeds to show, in suggesting what
is implied by the very nature of a Christian profession with its
initiatory rites.
(3) That as many, etc., oaoi ipairriaB-qpev, k. r. X. The sense
of this depends on tlie meaning of the formula @airTi£eiv els riva —
or /3airri£eiv els to ovopa tivos. (a) In regard to pairri£eiv els to
ovopa the noun ovopa is, no doubt, to be regarded as expletive ; as
BIB in Hebrew often is. So in the Jewish formula of baptizing
proselytes, if the proselyte was a servant, the master, at his bap
tism, made a declaration whether he intended to make the servant
free as a proselyte, or to have him still remain a servant. This

208 ROMANS VI. 3.
declaration was made thus : "pi'in 13 &11& ^SB , he is baptized into
the name of a freeman; or "as, Qioi i>3B , ^e is baptized into the
name of a servant. So Matt, xxviii. li*, baptized els to ovopa tov
Tlarpbs, Kai tov Yloii, koI tov Uvevparos 'Ayiov ; which is the same
as baptized els tov Uarepa, Kai rbv Ylbv, Kai rb Ilvevpd rd Ayiov.
Accordingly we find ovopa omitted in our text, as also in 1 Cor.
x. 2. Gal. iii. 27; it is used, however, in Acts viii. 16. xix. 5. 1
Cor. i. 13, 15.
(b) The sense of the whole formula is more difficult to be as
certained. Most commentators, after Vitringa (Obs. Sac. III.
22), explain cts as meaning into the acknowledgment of; with an
implication of affiance, subjection, discipleship, etc. But the
formula in 1 Cor. xii. 13, irdvres els ev auipa i^airriaB-qpev, seems
not to accord with such an explanation. Here els plainly desig
nates participation, and the meaning of the phrase is, that by
baptism we come to belong to one body, to participate in one
body, to be members of one body. In like manner we may say:
By baptism we come to belong (in a special and peculiar sense),
to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So the apostle speaks of being
baptized into (and so of belonging to) Moses, 1 Cor. x. 2 ; to
Paul, 1 Cor. i. 13. In this way all the passages of this nature
may be construed alike, and the sense in all will be good. The
idea is, for substance, that ' by baptism we become consecrated to
any person or thing, appropriated (as it were) to any person or
thing, so as to belong to him or to it, in a manner peculiar and
involving a special relation, and consequent special duties and
obligations.' Thus the passage under examination would mean : ' As many
of us as have become devoted to Christ by baptism ; or as many of
us as have been consecrated to Christ by baptism, or have been
laid under peculiar obligations, or have taken upon us a peculiar
relation to him, by being baptized.' The word oo-oi is employed
by the Greeks to designate the meaning whoever, etc., i. e., all
without any exception.
We have been baptized into his death, els rbv Bdvarov avrov
ifiairriaB-qpev, i. e., we have, as it were, been made partakers of
his death by baptism ; we have come under a special relation to
his death ; we have engaged to die unto sin as he died for it ; we
have a certain communion or participation in death to sin ; comp.
Rom. vi. 6. Gal. ii. 19. The being baptized into his death, there
fore, is an internal, moral, spiritual thing ; of which the external
rite of baptism is only a symbol ; for the relation symbolized by
baptism is in its own nature spiritual and moral. The participa
tion in the death of Christ, of which Paul here speaks, is surely
something more than what is external; it is therefore of a moral

ROMANS VI. 4. 209
or spiritual nature, of which the external rite can be regarded
only as a symbol.
(4) We have been buried with him, then, by baptism into his
death, avverd<t>-qpev ovv k. t. X., i. e., we are (by being baptized
into his death) buried as he was, avv irdeji-qpev ; where avv
means like, in like manner with ; comp. verse 6 ; also Rom. viii.
17. Col. iii. 1, where any other sense of avv is out of question;
2 Tim. vii. 11, to which the same remark will apply.
Most commentators have maintained, that avverdrp-qpev has
here a necessary reference to the mode of literal baptism, which,
they say, was by immersion ; and this, they think, affords ground
for the employment of the image used by the apostle, because
immersion under water may be compared to burial under the
earth. As my own conviction is not, after protracted and
repeated examinations, accordant here with that of commentators
in general, I feel constrained briefly to state my reasons for it.
The first is, that in the verse before us there is a plain antithe
sis ; one so plain that it is impossible to overlook it. If now
avverdcp-qpev is to be interpreted in a physical way, i. e., as mean
ing burial in the water in a physical sense, why is there no cor
responding physical reference in the opposite part of the antithesis
or comparison ? The resurrection here spoken of is entirely
moral and spiritual, for it is one which Christians have already
experienced during their present life ; as may be fully seen by
comparing vers. 5 — 11, below. I take it for granted, that after
¦qpeis in verse 4, iyepBevres is implied ; since the nature of the
comparison, the preceding &s iyepB-q Xpiaros, and also verse 5,
make this entirely plain.
In Col. ii. 12 (which is altogether parallel with the verse
under examination), we shall find more conclusive reason still, to
argue as above respecting the nature of the antithesis presented.
"We have been buried with him [Christ] by baptism." What
now is the opposite of this ? What is the kind of resurrection
from this grave in which Christians have been buried ? The
apostle tells us: "We have risen with him [Christ], by faith
wrought by the power of God [rrjs ivepyeias rov ®eov], who
raised him [Christ] from the dead." Here, then, there is a res
urrection by faith, i. e., a spiritual and moral one. Why then
should we look for a physical meaning in the antithesis ? If then
one part of the antithesis is manifestly to be construed in a man
ner entirely moral or spiritual, why should we not construe the
other in like manner, provided it is susceptible of such an inter
pretation, as it plainly is here ? Do not the laws of interpreta
tion forbid us to understand awerdcfiripev as designating a literal
burial under water? 18*

210 ROMANS VI. 4.
(b) Nothing can be plainer, than that the word awerdtyqpev
here, is equivalent in sense to the word direBdvopev in verse 8 ;
and is adopted merely lor the sake of rendering more striking the
image of a resurrection, which the apostle applies in the other
part of the antithesis. ' A resurrection from the grave,' is a natu
ral phrase when one is speaking with respect to the subject of a
resurrection ; see John v. 28, 29 ; comp. Dan. xii. 2. This state
ment is most plainly in accordance with the context, both here
and in Col. ii. 12. For here the apostle goes on in the very
next verse (as is usual with him), to present the same idea in a
different costume. Verse 5 (which is a mere epexegesis of verse
4) says, If we have been homogeneous (avprjivToi, i. e., like, of the
same kind) with Christ in his death, then shall we be in his
resurrection. The same idea and explanation is repeated in ver.
8 — direBdvopev — avtfjaopev ; and the whole is summarily ex
plained in verse 11 ; So reckon ye yourselves to be veKpovs pev rrj
apapria. tfiivras Se rio ®euj. Exactly in the same manner has the
apostle gone on to explain avvrarjjevTes in Col. ii. 12. In verse
13 he adds, " You veKpovs in your offences .... avvet/iioiroi-qae,
has he [God] made alive with him [Christ], having forgiven us
all our offences."
There can be no real ground for question, then, that by avverd-
<pgp.ev, in both cases, is meant for substance neither more nor less
than by direBdvopev, veKpoi, etc. The epexegesis, added in both
cases seems to make this quite plain. The reason why avverdcjirj-
pev is used, seems to be, that the language employed may be a
full antithesis of the word resurrection, which is used in the cor
responding part of the comparison. " You who were buried
with Christ," gives energy to the expression. A dead body would
indicate that life had departed ; but a body dead and buried, would
indicate more thoroughly the entire removal of it.
(c) But my principal difficulty in respect to the usual exegesis
of awerdc\rqpev is, that the image or figure of immersion, baptism,
is, so far as I know, nowhere else in Scripture employed as a
symbol of burial in the grave. Nor can I think that it is a very
natural symbol of burial. The obvious import of washing with
water, or immersing in water, is, that it is symbolical of purity,
cleansing, purification. But how will this aptly signify burying
in the grave, the place of corruption, loathsomeness, and de
struction ?
(d) Last, the reader can scarcely fail to remark, that the com
parison, as continued by the apostle through verses 5 — 9, is
built wholly upon the idea of a death like to that of Christ, and
not of a burial. The unity of the allegory or continued figure
would be destroyed, then, by supposing that the principal circum-

ROMANS VI. 4. 211
stance in the mind of the apostle was the burial and not the death
of Christ.
For these reasons it seems clear that the apostle had only
a moral and spiritual burial, as he had only a moral and
spiritual resurrection in view, in the corresponding part of
the antithesis. Indeed, what else but a moral burying can be
meant, when the apostle goes on to say, We are buried with
him [not by baptism only, but] by baptism into his death?
Of course it will not be contended, that a literal physical burying
is here meant, but only a moral one. And although the words
into his death, are not inserted in Col. ii. 12 ; yet as the following
verse there shows, they are implied. In fact, it is plain that
reference is here made to baptism, because, when that rite was
performed, the Christian promised to renounce sin, and to mortify
all his evil desires, and thus to die unto sin that he might live
unto God. I cannot see, therefore, that there is any more neces
sary reference here to the modus of baptism, than there is to the
modus of the resurrection. The one may as well be maintained
as the other.
If any one should say: 'I admit that burial with Christ has
only a moral sense ; but then the language in which this idea is
conveyed (avveTdcp-qpev), is evidently borrowed from the custom _
of immersion ; ' In reply to this, I must refer him to the consid
erations under (c) above. The possibility of the usage I admit ;
but to show that the image is natural and obvious, and that it is a
part of Scripture usage elsewhere, is what seems to be necessary
in order to produce entire satisfaction to the mind of a philological
inquirer. At any rate, I cannot at present think the case to be
clear enough to entitle any one to employ this passage with confi
dence, in a contest respecting the mode of baptism. In this gen
eral view of the subject I find Reiche to concur.
In order that, Iva, to the intent that ; which may refer to the
intention of mind in the individual who took baptism on himself,
or the end wdiich the nature of the case required to be kept in
view. — Glorious presence, Sia rrjs S6£qs ( = 11333) i- e., glorious
display of power, might, or majesty. The Hebrew IS , might,
power, is sometimes rendered S6£a by the Seventy ; e. g., Psalm
lxviii. 35 (Ixvii. 34). Is. xii. 2. The idea really conveyed by Sta
Trjs So^-qs here, can be satisfactorily explained, however, only by
a reference to the Hebrew lias , which was employed to desig
nate the divine presence as being attended with a supernatural
brightness or splendor. In the same sense nj^SJ was employed
by the Rabbinic writers ; comp. Matt, xxviii. 3. Luke xxiv. 4,
which seem to disclose that to which Sta rijs So'^s here refers.
Ata here, by, or through ; where it signifies on account of for the

212 ROMANS VI. 5.
sake of, as an end or object, it has the Accusative after it. Com
pare, as to sentiment, Col. ii. 12. Eph. i. 19.
With fjpeis, iyepBevres, plainly must be supplied in order to
make good the comparison commenced with -qyepB-q above. — We,
[being raised from the dead] should live a new life, iv Kaivorgri
rrjs lurqs irepiiranjauipev ; i. <?., as we have been made like unto
Christ in his death, so must we also in his resurrection, i. e., we
must, like him, live a new life after our resurrection. Kaivorr/ri
rijs £uirjs I regard as a Hebraistic form, in which the first noun
supplies the place of the adjective. See Heb. Gramm. § 440. b.
See further in verse 11.
The comparison here is not one in all respects oi like with like.
Christ died for sin, i. e., on account of it, in order to make expi
ation for it ; the believer dies to sin, that is, he mortifies and
subdues it, he becomes more or less insensible to its influence, or
at least he successfully resists it. Christ had no sin of his own to
mortify ; the believer's dying consists in the mortification of his
own sins. Even so it is with the resurrection. Christ rose
physically from the dead ; the believer, in the present life, rises
spiritually from a state of moral death. Christ lived physically
and naturally a new life ; the believer lives spiritually and morally
a new life.
On the whole, this is one of those cases of comparison, which,
not affording strict analogies throughout, can be brought to bear
only in a general way, and will not stand the test of being
urged into particulars. It were easy to bring many instances
of the like nature from the Scriptures ; but the attentive reader
will of course observe them. Turretin, in speaking of verse 4,
says truly and forcibly - " Non tam est argumentum directum
. . . quam vivida atque elegans hujus argumenti illustratio, et
quasi pictura pro more orientalium hominum ac specialiter
Judceorum, qui ejusmodi figuris atque emblematibus plurimum
delectabantur." (5) If we have become homogeneous, el ydp avpcjivToi yeyovapev.
So avpcfivToi must be explained, if philology is to be our guide.
'SivpcjivTos and avpefivgs appear to be synonymous ; and both mean
grown up together, sprung up together, and so (secondarily) inti
mately connected together, cognate, etc. Of the whole grain
growing together in one field, the Greeks would say, It is avpcjiv-
ros. Tlie evident meaning here is for substance the same as
opoios, like, homogeneous, i. e., participating in, or intimately con
nected with, as to something. Therefore we may render, If we
have become connected or homogeneous hy a likeness in respect to
his death, tov Bavdrov being the Gen. objecti, i. e., the object in
respect to which we have become like to Christ ; or we may

ROMANS VI. 6. 213
translate : if we have become cognate in the likeness of his death,
the latter clause showing that in respect to which we have become
cognate. The meaning is : If we have become dead to sin, as he
died for sin ; then shall we in like manner live a new life, when
risen from our [moral] death, as he lived a new one after his
resurrection.' The translation planted is wrong, as <$riui does not
mean to plant, but to grow, spring up, become nascent, etc. ; and
the nature of the imagery here employed is obscured by such a
version. We have become and still are, yeyovapev ; the Perfect often has,
as here, a continuative sense, New Test. Gramm. § 125. Note 3.
a. The reader will observe, that the sentence is conditional (et
ydp) ; but as the Indie. Perf. is here used in the protasis, and the
Ind. Fut. in the apodosis, it is what is called a simple or absolute
conditional proposition, in which the condition stated in the
protasis is taken for granted, and the apodosis is then stated as
designating a thing that is necessarily consequent ; New Test.
Gramm. § 129. a.
Then surely, dXXd Kai. 'AXXa is concessive, i. e., it implies that
what precedes it is conceded ; and here it may stand in hypotheti
cal sentences like the present, where deductions are made ; al
though in mere simple conclusions of a logical nature, dXXd is not
employed. The real fact seems to be, that this formula implies
an ov povov Se before it, or some declaration which involves what
amounts to this. So here, ' If . . . [then not so only] . . . but
also,' etc. The Fut. iaopeBa may be regarded here as expressive
of obligation ; for so the Fut. is not unfrequently employed; e. g.,
Matt. iv. 10. Luke iii. 10, 12, 14. Judg. xiii. 13, 14 (Sept.) Deut.
vi. 5 (Sept.) Matt. xxii. 37, 39. Lev. xix. 17, 18 (Heb. and
Sept.); New Test. Gramm. § 125. Note 5. a. That the apostle
does not mean here to argue merely that Christians should at
some future period become alive to God, is clear from verse 11 ;
he means to inculcate the sentiment, that from and after their
spiritual resurrection they are bound to be so. Trjs dvaardaeuis
depends on bpoidipan implied. We should naturally expect the
article t<3 before rrjs dvaardaeuis ; but it is often omitted in such
cases ; see New Test. Gramm. § 92. 1. b.
(6) Knowing this, rovro yivmaKovres, i- e., we acknowledge,
concede, or consider as established, thus much, viz., what is
immediately mentioned in the sequel. It is equivalent to yivdia-
Kopev ydp.
Our old man, 6 iraXaibs rjpuiv dvBpuiiros, a phrase of Jewish
origin, no doubt. Thus in the Talmud it is said of proselytes,
that "they became as little children," (Jemavoth. fol. 62. 1;) and
they are also called a new creation ncin hsr-ia . This serves to

214 ROMANS VI. 6.
show, that when our Saviour spoke to Nicodemus of the necessity
of being born again, and when Paul spake of him who is in Christ
as being a new creature (Kaivrj Kriais), there is no probability that
the language employed by them was unusual or strange among
the Jews. The iraXaubs dvBpunros here seems plainly to mean the
internal man, i. e., the sinful desires and propensities which
belong to us in a natural or unrenewed state. The epithet iraXaids
(old) is given, as designating something in opposition to the new
spiritual man which is put on in Christ Jesus.
Is crucified, avvearavpuiBg, as he [Christ] was, literally, is cru
cified with him. On the comparative meaning of avv in composi
tion, see on awerdcji-qpev under verse 4. Meaning : ' The sinful
desires and propensities of the natural man are mortified and
subdued in the Christian, so that they will no longer have a
predominant influence over his conduct.' Not improbably the
apostle, in choosing the word avvearavpuiBg here, might have an
allusion in his mind to the painful and protracted struggle whicli
every Christian must go through, in subduing his carnal desires.
Certainly, the word is very significant, when viewed in this light.
Cf. Gal. ii. 20.
Might be deprived of efficiency, KarapyqBfj, i. e., might be
deprived of sinful vigor, power, life ; might be rendered ineffica
cious as to sin, or be disabled from causing sin any more.
To auipa Trjs dpaprias, (locus vexatus), is explained by Ham
mond, Schcettgen, Glass, Tholuck, and others, by referring it to
tlie Hebrew idiom ; in which D23 and spa (substance and body)
are often employed either in a kind of superfluous manner, or
(which is the more usual fact) in order to add intensity to the ex
pression. Explained in this manner the whole runs thus : ' Our
old man, i. e., our carnal or natural man, is crucified as' Christ
was, in order that the substance or essence of our sinful passions
might be destroyed.'
A more simple method still of interpreting to auipa rrjs dpap-
ria-;, is that followed by many of the fathers, and not a few distin
guished modern interpreters. Theodoret says: to auipa rrjs
dpaprias, irepiTppaariKuis, avrrj -q apapria, i. e., periphrastically used
for sin itself. So (Ecumenius. The reason why aSipa is em
ployed seems to be, that the apostle wishes to carry through the
metaphor that he had begun, by speaking of the crucifixion'of our
old man. A body only can be literally crucified. Sin is personi
fied, and represented as a monster with a body. Comp. the same
figure of speech again in Col. ii. 11.
Beza, Semler, Bohme, Bretschneider, Wahl, Tholuck, Riickert,
and pome others, retain the literal sense of auipa, and construe'
dpaprbxs as qualifying it = sinful body, i. e., body practising sin,

ROMANS VI. 7. 215
or causing sin, source of sin, etc. Such was the sense which I
formerly gave it. And although this seems to be a justifiable
meaning, if we compare Rom. vi. 12. viii. 13. vii. 23 — 25; yet
I now view the meaning given above as the more simple and
obvious. Reiche contends strongly, that Paul never teaches the
doctrine that the body is the seat or cause of sin ; which, he
moreover avers, must be metaphysically untrue. But I am not
able to make any important distinction between o-apf and aSipa as
used by him in respect to things of a moral nature ; and that
Paul everywhere uses crapf as characterizing carnal passions and
desires, admits of no doubt. Moreover, how can we refuse to
concede, that iiriBvplais airov (sc. auiparos) in Rom. vi. 12, aui-
paros tou Bavdrov ill Rom. vii. 24, and irpd^eis rov auiparos in
Rom. viii. 13, afford evidence that auipa may be employed in the
same way as o-ap£? Nor can I see why it may not be true, that
our bodies, by their appetites and passions, may be the cause or
means of our sinning as well and as truly as that the external
world may be so. Sin, in a strict sense, is doubtless an act of the
spirit or soul only ; but the exciting cause need not be spiritual ;
and the body is often the instrument of acting out sin. The sense
of totality, entirety, rb irdv, has also been given to auipa here ; but
very ineptly. Carpzov renders it slave; and he appeals to
similar usage among the Greeks, e. g., in Rev. xviii. 13. But
there seems no good reason why the word here should bear such
a sense. That we should no more be servants to sin, rov pqKeri SovXeveiv
ijpds rfj apapria. ToS . . . SovXeveiv, instead of uiare SovXeveiv ;
for in this latter way the Greeks usually express thenisel\es.
There are, indeed, examples of such a use of rov before the Infini
tive, even in classic Greek authors ; see Buttmann's Gr. Gramm.
§ 127. b. Anm. 1. But the frequency oi this usage in the New
Testament and Septuagint in the sense of that, in order that,
which must be assigned to to5 in some of these cases, seems to
have its basis in the use of b before the Infinitive in Hebrew,
where it may signify either design, object, or end, event, conse
quence. See N. Test. Gramm. § 138. 8. a. Winer's Gramm. §
45. 4. — Trj apapria is. still personified here. The meaning of the
apostle is, that we should no longer obey our passions and appe
tites which lead us to sin.
(7) This verse may be regarded as a kind of general maxim or
truth, in regard to all such as die physically or naturally. The ob
ject of the writer is, to draw a comparison between the effects of
natural death and those of spiritual death ; the first causes men to
cease from all actions, and of course from their transgressions ; and
by analogy we may conclude that the second, which is a death unto

216 ROMANS VI. 7.
sin, will do as much. The maxim, in itsphysical sense, was probably
proverbial among the Jews. Thus in the Talmud, it is said :
"When a man dies, he is freed from the command.-," Treat.
Nidda. Now what is said by the common proverb adduced by
the apostle, in a, physical respect (and correctly said in the sense
intended to be conveyed), the apostle means to intimate will
apply, in a spiritual respect, to one who is spiritually dead as to
sin, i. e., he must become free from its influence. His great
object is to illustrate and enforce this point. The ydp with
which the proverb is introduced, is ydp illustrantis vel confirmantis.
We may understand SeSiKaiuirai, in the sense already intimated
above, viz., freed, delivered from. Nothing is more common in
the writings of Paul than the use of SiKaio'w in tho sense of acquit
ting, freeing, viz., from the sentence or penalty of the law, etc.
But here the idea seems to be more general, and is equivalent to
that conveyed by iXevBepoui, which is substituted in its room in
verse 18 below. Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 1, 6 iraBiov iv aapKi, ireiravrai
dpaprias. In Sirach xxvi. 29, we read : ov SiKaiuiB-ijaerai Kair-qXos
dirb dpaprias, a peddler will not be free from sin, meaning that in
the course of his business he will almost of course be led to con
tract guilt.
Thus explained, verse 6 asserts the fact, that in case the old
man is crucified, Christians can no more be engaged in the ser
vice of sin. Verse 7 enforces this declaration by a simile drawn
from natural or physical death ; viz., as he who is physically
dead ceases from all action, and therefore from sin, so he who is
dead to sin (for this apodosis is implied) ceases from the practice
of it. What is said .literally ofthe one literal death, is said mor
ally or spiritually oi the other death which is of a moral nature.
It hardly needs to be added here, that when the apostle speaks
of natural death as freeing us from sin, he means from sinning
here, in our present state and condition. AVhat may be the con
dition of the soul in a future world, is not here an object either
of inquiry or of assertion.
A more simple interpretation and construction is preferred by
some, thus : 6 diroBaviiiv \_rfj dpapria\ SeSiKaiuirai k. r. X. ; supply
ing apapria from verse 2, and from what is implied in avvearav-
puiB-q and KarapygBrj in verse 6. If [with Chrysostom] we under
stand SeSiKaiuirai here as equivalent to dirijXXaKTaL (is freed), this
mode of exegesis may be admitted. The reasoning then would
stand thus : " We know that our old man must be put to death, in
order that the power of sin may be destroyed, so that we may no
longer be in subjection to it ; for he who dies in this manner, i. e.,
dies unto sin by crucifying the old man, will be freed of course
from the power of sin.' This is not mere tautology (as it has

ROMANS VI, 8. 217
been called) but only appealing to the fact, that crucifying sin so
as to become dead to it, must from the nature of the case free us
from slavishly obeying it. In any way of construing the passage,
apapria must here mean sin in its active sense, as personified and
exercising power. It cannot mean penalty of sin ; for that is not
here the subject of discussion.
(8) In order to understand the nicer shades of the apostle's dis
course here, we must re-survey the course of thought in verses
5 — 7 : ' We are dead with Christ, and we shall live with him
[in the sense explained above] ; for if we are made like him in
the first respect, then we must be in the second. That such must
be the case, follows from the fact that our old man is crucified,
and we are thus freed from the power of sin and can no longer
serve it. Vers. 5 — 7 are therefore merely an illustration or con
firmation of verse 4 ; and accordingly el ydp and 6 -yap, the usual
signs of clauses added for such a purpose, here make their ap
pearance. But verse 8 commences with ei Se. Ae here, as not
unfrequently, is employed as a continuative oi the discourse ; and
particularly where the theme before introduced is resumed, and
something added by way of illustration or confirmation ; in which
case we may call it Se resumptionis. Here the apostle resumes
the sentiment of verse 4 (Turretin and Tholuck say of verse 5,
overlooking the ydp confirmantis of verse 5), for the sake of ad
ding a new circumstance by way of establishing his position, viz.,
that as Christ died but once and thenceforth lives for ever a new
life, so the believer dies once for all to sin when he truly dies to
it ; consequently he must ever after live a new life, and no more
practise sin as he once did.
If now ive are dead, etc., el Se diroBdvopev k. t. X.; i. e., if we
die unto sin, as he died for it ; for so verses 4, 5 seq. lead us of
course to interpret this. — We shall live with him, av^-qaopev aiirw,
or rather like him we also shall live. See remarks on avv in com
position in verse 4. Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Grotius,
Heumann, Semler, Flatt, and others, have contended that av^-qao-
pev refers to future glory in another world ; and Reiche contends
strongly for this exegesis. But the latter part of verses 4, 5, 11,
are conclusive against it. The simple sentiment is as before, viz.,
that ' as Christ died and rose again, so the Christian (in a moral
sense) dies and rises again ; as Christ lives a new life, so does
he.' If it be objected that this is repetition or tautology, the* an
swer is, that the sentiment of the preceding verses is indeed
resumed here, but it it is for the purpose of adding a new circum
stance as evidence of what had been affirmed, viz., that Christ
died once for all, and so the Christian must die once for all to sin,
i. e., he can no more resume the practice of it.
19

218 ROMANS VI. 9, 10.
(9) ElSores 6Vt is employed here in the same way as rovro
yivwaKovres in verse 6, and for the same purpose, viz., as prefatory
to the introduction of matter that was confessedly obvious and
true. This form of speech is equivalent to saying : c What I have
now asserted must be true, inasmuch as you know this or that
to be true from which my position is a plain and necessary
deduction.' Dies no more, ovKen diroBv-qaKei, i. e., will never more die.
The whole force of the illustration hangs on these two words ; for
in these consists the additional matter which the apostle intro
duces. — Death has no more dominion over him, Bdvaros ....
Kvpievei; a repetition of the preceding thought in different lan
guage, in order to give it intensity. It is as much as to say,
' Christ will die no more, for death has no longer any power over
him.' As to the sentiment here and in verse 10, comp. Heb. ix.
25 — 28. x. 11 — 14. One is strongly tempted to believe, that
the same hand traced all these passages, from the peculiar shade
of sentiment which is found in them. They mutually illustrate
and confirm each other.
(10) For in that he died, he died once for all, or only once on
account of sin, o ydp .... icjidirai;. The construction of o
(neuter pronoun here) is rather unusual in the New Testament;
comp. also Gal. ii. 20. For its use in the classics, see Matth. Gramm.
II. 891. Like the corresponding Latin quod thus placed, it
»neans in respect to this, viz., in respect to that which is immedi
ately subjoined ; which here is direBave. The sense o thus abso
lutely used is the same as KaB' 5.'* — Tap is used to confirm the
preceding affirmation.
He died to sin, rfj apapria direBavev. But " he who knew no
sin," could not die to sin in the sense that sinful men do. The
Dativus causce vel occasionis, on account of, etc., is not unfrequent,
(see N. T. Gramm. § 106. 5), and might be applied to the ex
pression before us, in case it stood alone. But then we could not
well interpret £rj ™ ®e<3 which follows, in like manner. The
Dative, seems rather designed to express an object to which the
action of the verb stands related ; i. e., the dying expressed by
direBavev bears a relation to rfj apapria. This is designated by
the Dative of this noun. But what the kind of relation is, the
Dative does not of itself designate. This must be gathered from
the "context, or from the nature ofthe ease. And here the sense
requires us to construe Christ's dying to sin, as meaning that he
died in order to diminish its power or influence (Dat. incommodi
* It is perhaps better here to make the relative pronoun 8 the direct object
ot the verb : for what [i. o. the death which] he died, etc. See Philippi, Meyer,
and others. ' J '

ROMANS VI. 11. 219
as the grammarians express themselves in such a case). — 'E<pd-
irat;, lit. for once; but the meaning is, as we say in English, once
for all ; comp. Heb. ix. 12. x. 10.
But in respect to his living, he lives to God, o Se 'Cf, tfj ra ©ecu.
As this clause is an antithesis ofthe former, so the Dative here is
an antithesis of the one there employed ; for here it is a species
ofthe Dativus commodi (as grammarians call it), the meaning
being evidently that ' Christ lives to the honor and glory of God.'
This indeed he always did ; but not in that high and peculiar
sense which is meant in reference to his state of exultation. For
such a sense of the Dative, and in a like case, comp. Rom. xiv.
6 — 8. See also 2 Cor. v. 13. Matt. iii. 10. Luke i. 55. xii. 21.
The case in Luke xx. 3.S, irdvres ydp airu] £,waiv, resembles the
present one in form, but not in sen.-e, inasmuch as avrui (-<•. ©e<3)
appears to mean by him. The o (neuter pronoun) is construed
here as in tlie first clause of the verse.
(11) Now follows the comparison of the members with the
head. Ovtui koI .... ©ecu, in like manner you also must count
yourselves dead to sin, but alive to Gad. For the sense of veKpovs
rfj apapria, see on verse 2 above. — Zuivras rw ©eui, has here a
meaning like to that in the preceding verse. Comp. Eph. ii. 5.
Col. iii. 1. Eph. iii. 20.
The principal difficulties in respect to ver-es 1 — 11, arc (1)
That the comparison in verses 10, 11, between Chri-t and believ
ers, will not hold in the same sense. But on this I have already
remarked under verse 4. (2) That Christ lived to God, in the
sense here supposed to be asserted, before his resurrection as
well as after it. IIow then, it is asked, ' ean the apostle be sup
posed to assert what would imply that it was only after his
resurrection that he lived to God?' The answer to this is vir
tually exhibited in the context. The apostle has said that Christ
died to sin once for all ; death has no more dominion over him.
Now as his living to God is placed in antithesis to this, the neces
sary implication is, that he lives to him in such a way as to have no
more concern with suffering and sorrow on account of sin, he lives
to him in a state that is new, and the happiness of which is not
interrupted by sin. In like manner believers are to become dead
to sin, i. e., to be- unaffected by its solicitations, and to be alive to
God, i. e., devoted in heart and life to the honor and glory of God,
or to live in a state in which God (and not sin) shall be the
chief object of all their regard. All this is to be attained iv X.
'Irjaov, through Jesus Christ, for this is the only name given under
heaven among men, whereby we can attain to such a happy con
dition. Or the sense may be, and from the well known idiom of
Paul, probably is : 'you, being in Christ Jesus, i. e., "by virtue

220 ROMANS VI. 12. .
of your union with him" must count yourselves as living
to God, etc' — Toi Kvplio gpuiv is considered by Knapp, Gries
bach, and Koppe, as being spurious. It matters nothing to
the sense of the passage in general, whether it be received or
rejected. (12) Therefore, ovv, i. e., all this being true which I have said,
it follows that sin ought not to reign, etc. — Reign, predominate,
have rule, fiaaiXeverui ; see on verse 17. — In your mortal body,
to) Bvqrio vpuiv auipan. The word Bvyrui has given occasion here
to a variety of exegeses. The reason why the apostle calls the
body Bv-qrov, mortal, exposed to death, seems to be, that he may
present in an impressive manner the sin and folly of permitting
the lusts and passions of a frail, perishable body, to have domin
ion over the soul. The ground why he speaks of the body as the
seat of reigning sin, is that its passions and lusts have great influ
ence in leading men to sin. It is evident that auipa Bv-qrov
here is equivalent to eavrovs in verse 13, and to vpuiv in verses
11, 16; excepting that the representation is, as has been
suggested, rendered more impressive by this designation. 'S.wpa
is often employed in Greek, as a designation of the whole person,
C. g., ywaiKu)i> Kai 7raiSoji> auipara, Jos. Antiq. XI. 3. 10 ; SO Kara
aiupa, man by man ; and so the Latin corpus. But in the passage
before us I cannot doubt that the apostle means to designate the
body as the seat of carnal passions and lusts. Comp. with the
sentiment here, Rom. vii. 5, 23, 24. viii. 3, 6, 7. See also the
remarks on to auipa rrjs dpaprias, verse 6 above.
Ets to viraKoveiv .... airov, i. e., let sin not have such predomi
nance as to yield obedience to its dictates. There seems to be a
tacit acknowledgment in the form of this expression, that sinful
appetites are not extinguished in the believer ; he must keep them
in subjection, but he does not wholly extinguish them. Fact
accords with this. The enemy is taken captive, but not absolutely
slain. The text varies in the latter part of this verse ; the Receptus
reading ai™ iv rais iiriBvplais airov ; which is wholly omitted in
Clar., Germ., Ambros., Faustin. ; rejected by Griesbach, Koppe,
and Tholuck ; and suspected by Vater and Flatt. Tats iiriBvplais
airov is supported by many MSS., versions, and fathers, and
received by Bengel, Knapp, Lachmann, and others. Airfj simply,
in the place of this, is supported by several MSS., D., E., F., G.,
Clar., and some of the fathers, and admitted by Mill. There
are some other varieties of reading ; e. g., avrui, avrov, avrr'jv, iv
airfj, and atJT^s. Reiche thinks the whole clause was originally-
omitted, and that the varieties have arisen from efforts to supply
a seeming deficiency by conjecture. It is a mere question

ROMANS VI. 13, 14. 221
of lower criticism. The sense is not materially varied by any
of the readings.
(13) Proffer, irapiardvere, give up, devote. MeX-q means liter
ally, the members ofthe body; which, however, here designate the
whole man. This verse, then, is only a virtual repetition of the
preceding one, in different language and for the sake of intensity.
— "OttXo here, as Reiche thinks, should be rendered (as usual)
armor ; because sin, is represented as a king, and compelling us
to his service. But idea of contest is not the predominating
one here ; and therefore oirXa may more appropriately be ren
dered instruments. The article is omitted before it, although in
apposition with to. peX-q ; see New Test. Gramm § 89. 6. Or
it may be construed as following elvai understood. — Tfj apapria
connects with p-q irapiardvere, give not up to sin, i. e., to sinful
lust or desire, or to the service of sin, your members as instru
ments of iniquity, i. e., as instruments of doing that which is
sinful. Tw ®€(3 being arranged immediately after irapaar-rjaare here,
shows that rfj apapria in the clause above is to be construed in
like manner. — 'Os iK veKpuiv L,uivras, as alive from the dead, i. e.,
as raised from the dead ; comp. Eph. ii. 1, 5. The ground of this
figurative language is easily discovered in verses 3 — 11. That
moral life and death are here meant, the reader scarcely needs to
be reminded.
[ Give up~] to God your members as instruments of righteous
ness, /cat rti peX-q [7rapao-rr/crare] . . . . t<3 ®e<3; viz., as instruments
of doing that which is lawful and right. Tv} ©eui is construed
here by Tholuck, and others, as a Dativus commodi, in the fol
lowing manner, viz., for God, i. e., for the glory and honor of
God. But analogy with the preceding clause seems plainly to
require the construction wdiich I have given in the translation
above. (14) For sin shall not have dominion over us, apapria ydp ....
Kvpievaei. The apostle here assigns a reasonable and proper
ground of the commands given in verses 12, 13. If it be true
that Christians are under grace, and that therefore they will be
enabled to subdue sin, then is this a good reason why they are
exhorted and commanded to do so. That the sense of the verse
is prediction, promise (and not simply command or obligation), I
must believe with the great body of commentators, e. g., Origen,
Chrysostom, Augustine, Theodoret, Melancthon, Erasmus, Calvin,
Tholuck, Riickert, Reiche, etc. It was as true under the law as
it is under grace, that men were obligated not to sin ; and there
fore an expression of mere obligation here seems to be fairly out
of question. Although the Fut. tense may express obligation as
19*

222 * ROMANS VI. 14.
well as predict, yet it never can express mere physical possibility
Prediction is here the only consistent sense for it.
For ye are not under law but under grace, ov ydp iare . . . .
Xdpiv; i. e., 'Ye are not under a legal dispensation, but a gracious
one.' This general proposition in which the apostle asserts the
incompetency of the law to furnish the requisite means for the
sanctification of the sinner in his present condition, is explained
by the remainder of this chapter and by chapters vii. viii. See
in particular vii. 1 — 5, 9 — 11. viii. 3, 4.
Some commentators contend that virb vopov refers only to the
ceremonial law, but this gives to this passage a frigid and inept
sense. Where, in all the sequel down to the end of chap. viii. is
there anything which reminds us that the discussion here has
relation merely to the ceremonial law ? The law discussed in
chap. vii. 5 — 25 is not only " holy and just and good," but it is
the internal moral law, the vopos to£) vodd (verse 23), it is a vopos
irvevpariKos (verse 14). ' But how can it be true, that Christians
are not under the law ? The Saviour did not come to abolish the
moral law ; nay, he came that it might be fulfilled (Matt. v. 17,
18). Can it then be said that we are not under the moral law?'
My answer is, that this is not said. The expressions of such a
nature as the one under examination, are of course to be under
stood according to the circumstances and intention of the writer.
Paul had to do with Jewish legalists, whose doctrine was, that
salvation was attainable by legal obedience, not in theory only,
but in an actual and practical way, and that the law, by its pre
cepts, its restraints, and its penalties, was an adequate and effec
tual means of sanctification. The first part of this scheme the
apostle has overthrown in chaps, i. — iv. ; the last part he is now
employed in overthrowing. — How he does this the reader may
see, by reperusing the illustration of the general course of thought
prefixed to the present chapter.
The apostle asserts in this verse that Christians are not under
the law, as an actual, effectual, adequate means of justification or
sanctification ; and if they are so, their case is utterly hopeless ;
for ruin must inevitably ensue. This is all that he means as ap
pears from the sequel of his remarks (vi. 15 — viii. 39). What
can be plainer, than that the moral law as precept, is altogether
approved and recognized by him? See chap. vii. 12 — 14.
Nay, so far is the apostle from pleading for abolition or repeal of
moral precept, that he asserts directly (viii. 3, 4), that the gospel
is designed to secure obedience to these precepts ; which the law
itself was unable to do. It is then from the law viewed in this
light, and this only, viz., as inadequate to effect the sanctification
and secure the obedience of sinners, that the apostle here declares
us to be free.

ROMANS VI. 15, 16.' 223
Let no one, then, abuse this declaration, by imagining that it
in any measure affords ground to believe, that Christians are freed
from obligation to obey the precepts of the moral law. What is
the divine law but a transcript of the divine will ? And are not
Christians to be conformed to this ? Is not all the law summed
up in these two declarations : " Thou shalt love the Lord with all
thine heart ; and thy neighbor as thyself! " And are Christians
absolved from loving God and their neighbor ? If not, then this
part of the subject stands unembarrassed by anything which the
apostle has said in our text or context.
I will only suggest in addition, that virb x°-Plv implies that
Christians are placed in a condition or under a dispensation of
which grace is the prominent feature ; grace to sanctify as well
as renew the heart ; grace to purify the evil affections ; grace to
forgive offences though often repeated, and thus to save from
despair, and to excite to new efforts of obedience. Viewed in this
light, there is abundant reason for asserting, that Christians,
under a system of grace, will much more effectually throw off the
dominion of sin, than they would do if under a mere law
dispensation. (15) What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the
law but under grace ? Ti ovv .... x°-PLV > The first impression
made by the declaration of the apostle, we might easily suppose,
would lead the legalist to such questions as these. ' Is not the
law,' he would ask, ' holy ? Does it not forbid all sin ? And
does not grace forgive sin ? How then can grace restrain sin ? '
That is, why may we not sin, if we are under grace merely, and
not under the law ? But this question the apostle follows with a
p-q yevoiro ; and he then goes on to illustrate and confirm the im
portant truth which he had uttered in verse 14. Comp. verse 1.
(16) Know ye not? OiK olSare; i. e., I take it for granted that
ye know and believe. This and the like expressions, the apostle
often employs as a preface to matter which he knows is well
understood, and to which he expects assent will be given by
those whom he addresses ; see rovro yivuiaKovres verse 6, and
eiSdYes verse 9.
That to whomsoever ye give up yourselves as servants bound to
obey, ye are the servants of him whom ye obey, on & ... . viraKov-
ere. AovXovs els viraKo-qv means servants unto obedience, i. e.,
servants bound to obey, devoted to obedience ; els before the Ac
cusative denotes purpose, object, intention, obligation. AovXoi
iare, i. e., when you have once given up yourselves to any one as
SovXovs ek viraKo-qv, you are no longer your own masters or at
your own disposal ; you have put yourselves within the power
and at the disposal of another master. If the reader will call to

224 ROMANS VI. 17.
mind the extent of a master's power over his slave or servant in
the days of Paul, he will perceive the unusual strength of the
expressions here.
Whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justification,
ijtoi dpaprias .... StKatocnivijv ; i. e., ye are servants when once
ye have given yourselves up either to sin or to righteousness. If
ye give up yourselves as servants of sin, then you must expect
the consequences to be death ; for the " wages of sin is death,"
verse 23. Once devoted to sin, and continuing to be so, you can
not avoid the end of it, which is death. But if you are the
servants of that obedience which is unto justification, i. e., which
is connected with justification, which ends in it, then you may
expect eternal life (fanjv aluiviov, verse 22). The argument in
tended to be urged by these representations is, that when the
Christian has once given himself up as the servant of grace he
will of course, if sincere, yield obedience to its dictates ; and these
are such as will lead els SiKaioavvgv, to justification. This mean
ing seems plain both from the antithesis of els Bdvarov, and the
yery explicit epexegesis of the whole in verses 21, 22, where
tuigv atWtov is substituted for SiKaioavv-qv in verse 16. Tliere is,
indeed, a little doubt about the genuineness of the reading, inas
much as Codd. D., E., the Syriae version, and two or three Codd.
minusc. omit ets Bdvarov; yet, on the whole, no substantial doubt
remains that it should be retained. The sentiment is ' Fearful as
the consequences of sin are, when you are its servants you must
follow its dictates. But on the other hand, the obedience which
you yield to grace, is a joyful, glorious service, ending in eternal
life.' How any one can maintain that nothing more than physical
death with its terrors is meant, when it is placed in opposition to
SiKaioavvv here and to Cwyjv aluiviov in verse 22, I am unable to
see. ®dvarov means condemnation or sentence of death; and
SiKawavvgv, acquittal, justification, sentence of acquittal, not holi
ness ; compare verse 22.
(17) But thanks be unto God that ye were the servants of sin,
bid have become obedient from, the heart to that model of doctrine
in which ye have been instructed, xdpis Se . . . . StSa^s. Such
is the literal translation. But the nature of the case is sufficient
to show, that the apostle's thanks to God are not designed to have
a special bearing on gre SovXoi ttjs dpaprias. In view of the
whole case, viz., that they once were the servants of sin, but now
are devoted to Christian obedience, Paul thanks God, as well he
might, for ' there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth.'
The meaning of ijre here plainly is, that 'ye once were but no
longer are,' i. e., that liaving once been so they have ceased to be
so. Thus in Latin : Fuit Ilium ; fuimus Troes.

ROMANS VI. 17. 225
It has been proposed here to render 5n although ; but, first,
there is no adequate authority for such a translation ; secondly, the
present construction of the sentence requires 6Vt as rationem red
dens in respect^ to x<ipts tco ®e,2 ; and the Si (but) after iirqKovaare
indicates that ort in the preceding clause retains its usual sense.
The true solution of the difficulty consists in taking the whole
phrase together ; for then a meaning is conveyed, which might
well excite the mind of the apostle to gratitude.
But ye have heartily or sincerely become obedient, virrjKodaare Se
eK KapSias. The apostle means to express his cheering confidence
in the reality of their devotedness to the cause of Christ, which
they professed to love ; and this seems to me to be all that he
here means to express. Tholuck says, however, that virqKoiaare
joined with e/c KapSias, 'is designed to render conspicuous the
idea of the free will with whicli the sinner first came to Jesus and
received pardon. Was it true, then, that Jesus first sought the
sinner, or the sinner him ? Do we " love him because he first
loved us ; " or is it the reverse ? That the sinner was " willing,"
I doubt not ; but that he was " made willing in the day of God's
power," seems to be equally plain. Does not " God work in us
both to will and to do ?"
Ets bv ... . StSa^s. 'YiraKovui may govern the Accusative
as well as the Dative ; see examples of the Accusative in Prov.
xxix. 12. Deut. xxi. 18. It may also govern the Genitive ; e. g.,
Deut. xxi. 20. xxvi. 14, 17, et al. saape. The Dative after it,
however, is most common. We may then construe thus : iirq
Kovaare rvirov StSa^s .... ets ov irapaSoBrjre. Ets with the
Accusative very frequently follows irapaSiSuipi, although the simple
Dative is the most usual. But here the Dative would not give
the sense — into which ye have been initiated ov in respect to which
ye have been instructed.
A second way of solving the grammatical construction, is by
attraction. The noun, as often, is attracted to the case of the
pronoun, so that rvirov is written for tvttui, which would be the
more usual construction after viraKovui. Tholuck, and others,
seem to prefer the rather forced construction here, virvKovaare ets
rvirov os irapeSdB-q vpiv. That virqKOvaare, in the second clause
here, corresponds to rjre SovXoi in the first, is plain. The apostle
might have used eSovXuiBgre in the room of it ; but virqKovaare
corresponds better to the phraseology of the preceding verse.
Model of doctrine, rvirov SiSa^s ; rviros, model, form, example,
etc. Comp. Rom. ii. 20, pop<f>uiais rrjs yvwaeuis; 2 Tim. i. 13,
v7rorvira>o-ts vyiaivdvruw Xdyuiv. So in the classics ; e. g., Jambl.
Vita Pythag. c. 1 6. He had rijs 7raiSevo-eo>s o tvttos, toiovtos, such
a model of instruction, etc.; Ib. c. 23 : tov rvirov ttjs StSao-KaXtas.

226 ROMANS VI. 18, 19.
Some render twov here impression ; a sense which might receive
some countenance from epcfivTov Xoyov in James i. 21, but which,
however, cannot be maintained as Pauline, after weighing the
examples in Rom. ii. 20. 2 Tim. i. 13. — 'Ek KapStas means wil
lingly, heartily, sincerely. UapeSoBgre refers to the fact that they
had been taught of God, or taught of the apostles. I see no good
reason, however, why the idea may not include both, and so
generally designate all the right teaching which they had
received. (18) Being freed from sin, iXevBepuiBevres .... dpaprias, i. e.,
from a state of bondage to sin, from being the servants of sin.
This was effected, when they " passed from death unto life," from
"the bondage of Satan to enjoy the liberty of the children of God."
Then it was also, that they became the Lord's ; they became so
«k KapStas. Being " bought with a price," they held themselves,
in their new state, to be under obligation to " glorify God with
their bodies and with their spirits which are his ; " which is ex
pressed by eSovXoj^tyre ry SiKaioavvrj.- — Tlie Se in this verse is
continuative, i. e., it means then or morover.
Verses 17 — 20 are not designed to advance the argument of the
apostle, but merely fo deepen the impression on the minds of his
readers. He intends to show them, that they have a personal inter
est in what he says, and indeed that they are themselves examples
of what he is declaring. Verse 18 may indeed be viewed as an
appeal ad hominem : ' Ye, brethren, are no more the servants
of sin ; how then can you any longer continue to obey its dic
tates ? Ye have become the servants of righteousness ; and of
course you must obey its dictates, i. e., live a life of holiness.'
(19) ' AvBpunrivov Xeyui seems to be equivalent to kot dvBpuiirov
Xeyui, iii. 5 ; i. e., I speak as men are accustomed to speak, viz., I
use such language as they usually employ in regard to the affairs
of common life. So classic Greek authors say : dvBpunrivuis Xeyui
or dvBjiunre'iuis Xeyui; see Aristoph. Rana3, 1090. Vespoe, 1174.
Strato in Athenasus, Deipnos. Tom. III. lib. IX. 29. So also
the Latins ; as Petronius, Satyr, c. 50, Sajpius poetice quam
humane locutus es. Cicero, de Divinat. II. 64, hominum more
dicere. The apostle means to say, that in speaking of the
subject under consideration, he uses language borrowed from
common life, which may be easily understood. The reason
of this he now proceeds to assign. I consider the declaration in
dvBpunrivov Xeyui as referring to what precedes and also to what
follows. Because of tlie weakness of your flesh, Sta ttjv .... vpuiv. Tfis
aapKos vpuiv may, like the Hebrew "ibs, be used by way of peri
phrasis, merely to indicate your own selves. Or do-^eVetav may be

ROMANS VI. 20. 227
used here (as daBevdv is in Romans v. 6) for moral weakness.
bo Beza and others ; but this is an improbable sense ; for the
apostle does not here speak in the tone of chiding. The expres
sion in 1 Cor. iii. 1, seems to afford aid sufficient to make the
matter plain : "I could not speak to you as irvevpariKols but as
aapKiKois ; " wdiich latter word is immediately explained by the ep
exegetical clause, uis vtjttiois ev Xpta-Tol So here the apostle adapts
himself to the acr^e'veta rrjs aapKos, the feeble or infantile state of spir
itual knowledge among the Romans ; by making use of the familiar
phraseology which the context exhibits. In giving this construction
to daBeveiav rrjs aapKos vpuiv, we must regard rrjs aapKos as Gen.
causes vel auctoris ; so that the sense is : ' The weakness which
the flesh or carnal part occasions, viz., the inability to compre
hend language of a higher and more difficult nature, which had
been occasioned by their fleshly passions and appetites.
For as ye have given up your members to be the servants of im
purity and iniquity, for the sake of iniquity, uiairep ydp ....
dvopiav. The simple ground of yap is to be found in the implied
sentiment : ' Ye must now be the servants of righteousness, for as,
etc' That is, ' Ye must be servants of righteousness, if you
would act consistently ; for when you served sin you engaged
actively in its service, and so it must be when you serve righ
teousness.' Ta peXq vpuiv is equivalent to crap.a Bv-qrov in verse
12. It is resuming the diction of verse 13. The ground of the •
usage is, that our members are the instruments actually employed
either in the service of sin or righteousness. They are our
instrumental agents. — AovXa is here an adjective, SovXos -v -ov,
comp. Wisd. xv. 7.— Tfj aKaBapaia Kai T-g dvopia, Dat. commodi,
at least a species of it. — For the purpose of iniquity, els tt)v
dvopiav, i. e., of doing iniquity, of committing sin. So now give
up your members to be the servants of righteousness, for the sake
of holiness, ovtui vvv .... aytacrp,ov. — Ets dyiaapov stands here
without the article, although we have in the antithesis ets ttjv
dvopiav. But this is one of those cases of the use of abstract.
nouns where the article may be inserted or omitted without any
important difference of meaning ; see New Test. Gramm. § 89. 2.
(20) For when ye were the servants of sin ye were free in
respect to righteousness, ore ydp .... StKatoo-vvr;. The connection
and object of this verse are somewhat difficult. Tholuck says
that yap points to verse 22, in respect to the reward of Christians ;
but this is a liberty with ydp which it would be no easy task to
justify. I must connect it with what precedes, in this case, not
with what follows. What says the apostle ? ' As you once served
sin, so now you must serve holiness. [Your present relation ad
mits of no other conclusion]; for when you served sin, you

228 ROMANS VI. 21.
deemed yourselves free from all obligation to righteousness, [so
now, serving holiness, count yourselves free from all obligation to
sin].' I cannot see in what other way ore yap k. t. X. is here con
nected. There is, indeed, an anacoluthon in this case ; but how
often Paul admits this into his epistles, the distinguishing reader
of them needs not to be informed.
Some render iXevBepoi here, destituti ; but this is a sense which
it would be difficult to vindicate, and which is unnecessary.
When the apostle says, that they, being the servants of sin, were
iXevBepoi r-f SiKaioavvy, he can not mean that in fact they were
free from all obligation to holiness (for this can never be true of
any moral being whatever) ; he must mean, then, that in their
own estimation, or according to the tenor of their own reasonings,
they were absolved from obligation to pursue holiness ; or he
means, that in fact they lived as those who are absolved from
obligation to holiness. I understand him here to be making an
appeal ad hominem, as in the preceding verse, and to say in
effect : ' Since you formerly, when in the service of sin, counted
yourselves free from the dominion of holiness ; so now, as the
servants of righteousness, count yourselves free from all obliga
tion to obey sin.' The Dative here (r-f SiKaioavvy) designates in
relation to, in respect to. See New Test. Gramm. § 106. 1 ; and
comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 20. Acts vii. 51. xx. 22. 1 Cor. vii. 34.
Heb. v. 11.
(21) What fruit, moreover, had ye then, in respect to those
things [of which] ye are now ashamed ? Tiva ovv .... iiraiaxi-
veaBe; There are various ways of pointing and constructing this
sentence. Some put the interrogation point after to't£, and make
the answer to be : ' Such fruit as ye are now ashamed of.' So
Koppe ; with whom Flatt and Tholuck agree.* I prefer the divi
sion of Knapp, who points as above. Ovv, " orationi continuandce
inscrvit." There seems to me plainly to be a transition in the
discourse here to another topic, viz., from the topic of obligation
of which the writer had been speaking, to that of consequence,
i. e., either penalty or reward. This makes the second point of
comparison, between being under the law and under grace. The
end or event of the two states is unspeakably different. The
writer, however, assumes the position here, that while under the
law men will continue to sin, and thus bring death upon them
selves. It is only in the sequel (chap. vii. 5 — 25), that he fully
illustrates the reason or ground of this.
What reward had ye ? Kapirbv elxere K. r. X. Comp. Rom. i.
* Most of the critical editors, as Lachmann, Griesbach, Iiahn etc and
modern commentators, prefer the pointing : Tiva ovv Kapirbv clyere roVe'- «.<(.•
ols, ... . . \., what fruit then had ye at that time ? in things in which, etc.

ROMANS VI. 22, 23. 229
13. xv. 28. Heb. xii. 11. "E^etv Kapirov has a different meaning
from epipeiv Kapirov. To make the construction full, eKei'viov must
be understood before ec/>' ots. Such an ellipsis is very frequent;
see Bretschn. Lex. os, c. /3. 'E7rato-xvvop.at usually governs the
Accusative, but is here constructed with iiri after it.
For the end of those things is death, rb ydp Te'Xos iKeivuiv Bdvaros ;
viz., of such things as they formerly practised, but are now
ashamed of. Te'Xos retains here a sense which is very common,
viz., the consequence, final event, fata ultima, exitus rei. Tap
confirmantis ; as if the writer had said : ' What solid good could
result from your former course of life, since the end of this course
must be death?' For the sense of ^dvaTos, see chap. v. 12.
(22) But now, being freed from sin, and having become servants
to God, ye have your fruit in respect to holiness, Nwl Se . . . .
dyiaapov. The preceding context explains eXev-Jepco-JeWes ....
®e<5. "E^ere rbv Kapirov must mean the same as in verse 21, viz.,
you have your benefit or reward. — -Ets .... dyiacrp-ov, in respect
to holiness or sanctification ; not (with Flatt and others) unto holi
ness, i. e., the consequence is, that ye are holy. This is not the
writer's object here, for serving God implies that holiness already
exists. It is the fruits, i. e., the consequences of serving God,
wdiich Paul here brings into view ; for nothing else would make
out the antithesis to the preceding verse ; a circumstance over
looked by many commentators. I understand the apostle as
saying : ' You already enjoy important benefits, in respect to a
holy course of life ; and you hope for more important benefits
still, viz., £ojt)v atoSvtov.'
And the end [is to possess] eternal life, to Se . . . . aluiviov. The
reader will observe, that the Ace. (£<ut?v atwvtov) renders it neces
sary here to supply some verb in order to complete the construc
tion ; and some verb which is different from that in verse 21
(iari), where Bdvaros is in the Nom. The sentence may be filled
out in two ways ; viz., (1) To Se Te'Xos [exe'v or *£eu/] f0"?" <"<¦>"
vtov. (2) To Se Te'Xos [«£«] fon^ aluiviov. The sense is the same
in both cases. In the latter case, £ojt)v at'uviov is put in apposition
with to reXos, and is explanatory of it. In the former case, the
construction is thus : ' The end or event will be, that you shall
obtain everlasting happiness.' One or the other of these con
structions, the context and the form of the words compel us to
adopt. The antithesis between t,uirjv aluiviov and Bdvaros has been
previously alluded to. How can the latter be temporal only ?
What comparison would this make, between the two members of
the antithesis ?
(23) Such consequences must follow from the established rules ot
the divine government, respecting the fruits of sin and of holiness.
20

230 ROMANS VII. 1 — 4.
For the reward (wages) of sin is death, to. yap .... Bdvaros ;
comp. on Rom. v. 12. — Tap confirmantis; for what is said in
the sequel confirms verses 21,22. — 'Oif/uivia, properly the rations
of soldiers, i. e., their wages, which at first were paid in grain,
meat, fruit, etc., but afterwards in money. Observe that the
apostle employs this term in order to designate something which
was really the proper due of sin, viz., for the service of it ; as the
wages which a soldier earns by his hard military service, are
properly his due. But on the other hand the reward of Chris
tians is all of grace, not of debt ; and so it is designated in the
sequel by ^apto-pa. Through Jesus Christ, iv Xptcrrai Ivaov t<3
Kvpiui -qpuiv, i. e., through the redemption or atonement of Christ,
iii. 23 — 26. v. 1, 8, 11, 17 — 19, 21.

CHAP. VII. 1—4.
All the difficulty in these verses seems to arise from an exertion to make the illus
tration too exact and carry it out in all the little particulars. The object of the
comparison is to illustrate the relation ofthe Christian to the law as modilied by the
death of Christ. As the wife is liberated from the law of her husband by his death,
so the Christian is freed, by the death of Christ, from the law as a means of salvation,
and brought under the dominion of another, even him who was raised from the
dead. The seeming discrepances in the comparison, viz., that the liberated person
is the survivor in one case, and the deceased in the other is of no importance, since
the comparison is plainly not to be extended to these minor particulars.
These verses may be considered an illustration of what the apostle had avowed in
vi. 14: " For we are not under law but under grace.* The simple basis of the whole
comparison I understand thus: ' Brethren, you are aware that death, in all cases,
dissolves the relation which exists between an individual and a law by which he
was personally bound. For example: the conjugal law ceases to be in force, by the
death of one ofthe parties. So it is in the case of Christians. They not only die to
mii, i. e., renounce it, when they are baptized into the death of Christ, vi. 2 — 11;
but they also die to the law at the same time, i. e., they renounce all their hopes and
expectations of being sanctified by the law, so that sin will no more have dominion
over them. They do, by the very fact of becoming real Christians, profess to receive
Christ as their " wisdom, and justification and sanctifloation (ayiaopSs) and re
demption," 1 Cor. i. 30.
If wc consider, for a moment, the true nature of the apostle's assertion, no
alarm need be felt as to the tendency of his sentiments. For what is it which he
affirms in chap. vi. 14? It is, that " sin shall not have dominion over Christians, be
cause they are not under the law but under grace." The dominion or power which
sin is to have over Christians, is then the subject of his inquiry and of his assertions.
So indeed the preceding context teaches; and so the subsequent context also. That
* Meyer and otliers connect this with the last verse ofthe preceding chap
ter: The gift of God is eternal life, etc. This you cannot doubt since you
are not ignorant, etc. But the connection seems more natural with verse 14,
tlie remaining verses of chap. vi. being an answer to verse 15. And yet the
way is prepared by the preceding verses, especially 22 and 23, for the intro
duction of the illustration in vii. 1 — 4.

ROMANS VII. 1. 231
we are not under the law, then, must of course mean, in this connection, that we are
not under it as an efficacious or successful means of deliverance from the power of
sin ; for this it has never been, and cannot bo, as chap. vii. 5 — 25 most fully shows
Christians are dead to the law, then, in this respect, viz., they renounce all hope of
deliverance from the power of sin, through the law. It convinces, and condemns,
and keeps up a continual struggle in the sinner's breast by awakening his con
science; but does not deliver, vii. 14 — 25, comp. viii. 3, 4. Consequently the true
penitent, coming to feel its impotence as the means of delivering from the power
of sin, renounces all hope of deliverance in this way, and gives himself up to Christ,
as his sanctification, as well as his wisdom, justification, and redemption.
Now what is there in all this, which infringes on the obligation of moral precept
contained in the law? Surely nothing. " The law is holy, and just, and good ; " it
, is all summed up in the requisition, 'to love God with all our heart, and our neigh
bor as ourselves.' Will any one assert that Paul contends against this, after all that
he has said in chaps, vi. — viii., relative to the Christian's obligation to renounce sin
and live a holy life? Nothing can be farther from his intention. The only question
that needs to bo solved, in order to remove all difficulty is : In what sense does Paul
say that we are dead to the laio ? This I hare endeavored to answer, by making the
apostle his own expositor. The sum of tlie answer is, that as Christians renounce
the law as an effectual means of justification {chaps, i. — iii), so they must renounce
it as an effectual means of sanctification. Christ is our only hope in this respect, as
well as in the other. The grace of the gospel is the only effectual means by which
wc can hope successfully to resist sin and persevere in holiness. I appeal to chap.
viii.' 3, 4 for an exhibition of the sum of this sentiment ; and to the whole of chaps.
vi. — viii., and also to the experience and feelings of every truly enlightened and
humble Christian on earth, — in confirmation ofthe same sentiment.
(1) Know ye not, -q dyvoeire; in sense the same as ovk ot'SaTe in
vi. 16 ; which see. "H, num., an, merely a sign of interrogation.
Here, as in vi. 16, the writer means to say, that they well know,
or that they will readily acknowledge, viz., that which he is about
to state. — - rivuicrKovo-i .... XaXui, for I address those who are ac
quainted with the law, viz., the Mosaic law. The apostle may
mean here, that he addresses especially the Jewish part of the
Church at Rome, or it may be implied, that the whole church had
some acquaintance with the Old Testament Scriptures, which is
not improbable, as the Old Testament was everywhere and con
tinually appealed to by the primitive teachers of Christianity, and
was moreover extant in the Greek language which was very
generally understood at Rome. However, I should consider it to
be most probable, that he is here particularly addressing the He
brew Christians. The article is here omitted before yivuiaKovai,
but it is not unfrequently omitted in such cases ; N. Test Gramm.
§ 144. That the law exercises control over a man as long as he lives,
on 6 vopos . ... Zfj. The apostle means the Mosaic law here ;
but what he says is equally true of other laws of a permanent
nature. — Kvptev'et, performs the office of Kvpios, i. e., controls, is
valid in respect to. Not improbably the choice of this word was
dictated by the ™ Kvptoi of the preceding verse. It is as much as
to say, that so long as we are affianced to the law, the law is our

232 ROMANS VII. 2, 3.
Kvpios, and not Christ. — Tov dvBpuiirov, the man, i. e., the man
who lives under it, not any man in general, but only one who
holds such a relation. Some interpreters here take dvBpuiirov in
the same sense as dvSpos, i. c, husband. But the usus loquendi
is against this and the proposition is evidently of a general nature,
in respect to such individuals as lived under the Mosaic law. —
tfj is rendered by Flatt and others, it lives, viz., the law. But
first, if the man dies, the law still lives as to others ; it becomes
inefficacious as to him, only by means of his death. It cannot
die in any other way. Then it would be mere tautology ; The
law is in force (Kvptev'et), as long as it is in force (£tj)! Is this
the manner of Paul ? Besides, the dvqp tfov and a.7ro^avSv of
verses 2, 3, clearly show, that in verse 1 dvBpunros is the Nomi
native to tfj.
(2) For the. married woman is bound to her husband by the law,
so long as he liveth, -q ydp . . . vopui. — YiravSpos, a very expres
sive word, classical as well as Hellenistic, and like the Hebrew
ndis nrm , Num. v. 29. In the East, vVavSpos denotes a higher
degree of disparity between husband and wife, than is admitted
in the western world. — Ae'SeTat vopoo has a force also here, which
commentators have generally overlooked. Under the Mosaic
economy, the husband could divorce the wife almost at pleasure ;
but where is the precept giving the like liberty to the wife ?
This would have been contrary to the genius of eastern manners
and customs. This seems to be the reason why the apostle has
chosen the woman, in this case, in order to exhibit an example
of obligation while the life of the parties continues. — Tap illus-
trantis ; anil it might, as to sense , be well translated for exam
ple. The instance in verses 2, 3, seems to me very plainly to be
a mere illustration of the general principle in verse 1 .
But if her husband die, she ceases to be under the conjugal law,
iav Se . . . dvSpos. — KaTTypyi/rat when followed by a7rd (as in the
present case), means to cease to belong to any one, to cease to be
subject to his control ; comp. verse 6 below, and Gal. v. 4. In
the next verse we find iXevBe/ia iariv dirb tov vopov — Kar-qpyrjrai
dirb rov vopov in this. So the Hebrew la Vaa is used. — Tov dv
Spos, Gen. of relation, viz., the law which related to her husband
i. c, the conjugal law which gave him power and right as a
husband. (3) Therefore if she marry another, during Jier husband's life, she
shall be called an adulteress, dpa ovv . . . erepw; i. e.,ii follows from
the nature of her obligation, that she cannot be united with another
man while her husband is living. So then, apa ovv ; an intensive
form of particles designating conclusion. — Xp-qpariaei, she shall
bear the name of, she shall receive the appellation of. This usage

ROMANS VII. 4. 233
of the word belongs to later classics ; in which the verb puts the
name called into the Nominative after it ; ixpvpdnt,e BaaiXevs,
Diod. Sic. XX. 54.
So that she shall not be, rov prj elvai air-qv. The classic Greek
would usually express this by aWe p-q eivai airrjv. But for the
infinitive with rov in the Septuagint and in the New Testament;
see note and references, chap. vi. 6.
(4) The true sense here indicated by Siare, seems to be thus, or so
that ; i. e., these things being so, you also have become dead to
the law, in order that you might be affianced to Christ, etc. In
other words ; allowing that a new connection may be lawfully
formed, after the death of one of the parties in the conjugal union,
it follows that you, who have become dead to the law, i. e., wholly
renounced it as an adequate means of sanctification, may be affi
anced solely to Christ, etc. — Kat vp.ets, you also, i. e., you, as well
as the woman, having become dead to the law may be affianced
to another. To the law, t<3 vopw, the Dative of specification ; New Test.
Gramm. § 106. 1. The declaration that they had become dead to
the law, is new in respect to form. Dead to sin the apostle has
asserted them to be, in chap. vi. ; he has also asserted that they
are not vm vopov, vi. 14. But that they were dead to the law, is
a new expression, and the phrase Sta. tov auiparos rov Xpiarov is
subjoined in explanation of it. He must of course mean the body
of Christ as crucified, as liaving suffered in order to redeem us
from the curse of the law ; comp. Heb. x. 5 — 10. Col. i. 22. ii.
14. 1 Pet. ii. 24. Eph. ii. 15, which are decisive in respect to the
meaning of auipa Xpiarov here. As Christ, by his death, is made
unto us " righteousness and sanctification, and redemption ; " so it
• is his deatli which has opened such new prospects for perishing
sinners that they are enabled to look away from the law, and to
renounce it as an effectual means of sanctification. Hence the
apostle says : " Ye have become dead to the law, by the body of
Christ." In order that ye should be [affianced] to another, who has risen
from the dead, ets to yeveaBai . . . eyepBevn; i. e., Christ has
called you away from your vain hopes and expectations respecting
what the law could accomplish as to purifying and saving you,
and admitted you to participate in the blessed fruits of his death,
viz., the gift of a sanctifying Spirit. But although by his death
you are freed from the relation in which you once stood to the
law as a means of sanctification, yet you are not affianced to him
as being dead, but as being risen from the dead, as a conqueror
who has burst the bars of death, and ascended to glory at the
right hand of God the Father. 20*

234 ROMANS VII. 5.
So that we may bring forth fruit to God, iva  ©e<3 ; i. e.,
such fruit as God will accept. ®e<3, Dat. commodi. The reader
will observe, that the last circumstance noted here is the climax
of the figurative language used by the apostle. First, there is an
annulling of a former marriage contract by the death of one of
the parties ; next, there is a new union ; and lastly the fruits of
this, and also the object of it, are designated. To bring forth
fruit for God or unto God, is to live a holy life, to yield obedi
ence unto his precepts, to act in such a manner as to do honor to
him. This is not intended as argument in a strict sense, but illus
tration. The similarity between the two cases presented, rests
partly on the nature of them, and partly on his own declarations.
The case in regard to husband and wife, he takes it for granted
his readers will admit ; the similarity of the Christian's case to
this, rests in part on his own declaration or authority. Does this
never supply the place of formal argument ? Or are we to con
cede no authority to the apostle as to the determination of matters
in religion ? It is too true, alas, that some do not appear to make
any concessions of this nature.

CHAP. Vn. 5, 6.
The objector might here reply : ;i "What you say implies that it is only in our new
state of affiance to Christ, that we can bring forth fruit to God ; and that, while under
the law, no fruit but such as is of a contrary nature can be produced." The apostle
now comes out with his last, highest, and boldest assertion concerning the law, as
to its efficacy with respect to the point under consideration, viz., its efficacy
to sanctify the hearts of sinners. The course of thought seems to be in sub
stance as follows : ' I have said that you must be freed from the law and united
to Christ, in order that you may bring forth fruit to God. This is true; for
the law is so far from accomplishing the great end of subduing and sanctifying the
hearts of sinners, that it occasions just the opposite effect, i. e., it is the occasion of
their becoming more deeply involved in guilt, and of bringing them into more ag
gravated condemnation. It is the occasion of their bringing forth fruit unto death,
and not unto God. But when we are freed from all reliance upon it as a means of
subduing and sanctifying us, and with a becoming sense of our guilt and helpless
ness have betaken ourselves to Christ, and relied on him only as our "sanctification
and redemption," then we are enabled to serve God with a new spirit, and not in the
old way of only a literal and external obedience. It should be noted, that verse 5
here is the theme of discussion through vera. 7— 25 in the sequel; while verse 6 (the
antithesis of verse 5) constitutes the theme of chap. viii. 1 — 11, which is in all im
portant respects the antithesis of vii. 7 — 25. See remarks at the beginning of the
chapter, and also Excursus VII.
(5) For when we were in the flesh, ore yap . . . aapKi; i. e.,
when we were in our natural or carnal state. That such is the
meaning of this expression, and that it is not to be literally taken
here, is clear from the usus loquendi, and from the nature of the

ROMANS VII. 6. 235
case. From the first ; because they who are in the flesh, as con
trasted with tois ev Xpiarui '1-qaov, in chap. viii. 1 — 11, where
vers. 7 — 9 put beyond all question what ev aapKi elvai means.
From the second ; because the contrast in vers. 5, 6, is between
the character whieh those whom the apostle addresses sustained
before they became affianced to Christ, and that which they sus
tained after they were affianced to him. Of course ev aapKl elvai
must mean to be in a natural or unregenerate state, i. e., in that
state in which men not yet united to Christ are.
Our sinful passions which were by the law, toi iraB-qpara ....
vopov ; i. e., our sinful passions which were occasioned by the
law, verse 11. — Tuiv dpapriuiv, Gen. of attribute, our passions
which lead us to sin, our sinful passions.. — Ta Sta tov vop.ov [sc.
ovra or yeyovoVa], which were by the law; not, as Chrysostom
and Carpzov, to. Sta rov vopov \_epaivopeva or yvuxrra], which were
shown or disclosed by the law ; and not as Locke (Comm. on Ro
mans), that remained in us under the law, who construes Sta vopov
as Sta conditionis, viz., we being in a law state. To both of these
methods of commentary verse 12 is an unanswerable objection,
as it is the author's commentary upon his own words. Moreover,
Mr. Locke's translation would require gpeis Sta tov vop.ov ovres,
instead of tu [7ra.irT7p.aTa] Sta rov vopov.
^ Put forth their energy in our members, to bring forth fruit unto
death, ivepyeiro .... 5avaT(p. 'Evepyetro, wrought, vim suam
exserebat, in the Middle voice. — 'Ev tois peXeaiv -qpuiv, the same
in sense as auipa Bvrrrdv in vi. 12, as may be seen by comparing
verse 23 below. MeXq is used as an equivalent for auipa, because
the members of the body are its efficient agents in doing anything.
Such was the influence of our sinful passions, to. Sto, tov vopov,
that the consequences were fatal. Our fruit was unto death, i. e.,
was such as turned to the account of death, such as brought us
under its power or subjected us to it. The Dat. ™ 9-avd.ru> is a
kind of Dat. commodi ; as expressed in the paraphrase above.
©dvaros is here used in the way of personification, and put in an
tithesis to ©eui in verse 4.
(6) Thus much, then, for the influence of the law upon us in
our natural state. It was utterly unable to effect our renewal
and sanctification ; nay, it did but aggravate our guilt and con
demnation, instead of delivering us from them. It is only in our
new state and under our new affiance, that we are enabled to
bring forth fruit of a different kind.
But now being freed from the law, vwl Se . . . . vopov ; i. e., no
longer placing our reliance on it as a means of subduing and
sanctifying our sinful natures. For the sense of KarrjpyqBrjpev,
compare Karrjpyrjrai dirb rov vopov in verse 2 above. The reading

236 ROMANS VII. 7.
d7ro#avovTes has been controverted, but both external and internal
evidence are quite conclusive in its favor. The sentiment of it is
exactly the same, as that of iBavaruiBgre tu> vdpia in verse 4
above. Here the first person plural is used, — and there the
second; but this changes not the nature of the sentiment. The
full construction here would seem to be : d7ro^avovres [eKet'vtu] ev
u> KareixopeBa. A goodly number of authorities, viz., D., E., P.,
G., Vulg., It., Codd. apud Rufin., read tov bavdrov here instead
of d7ro^avdvTes. R. Simon and Reiche prefer this reading. — The
verb Karexui means to hold back, to retain, to hold firmly, etc.
Here KareixopeBa must mean, the holding as it were in a state
of bondage, from which the gospel frees. 'Ev u), i. e., iv iii vdpio.
The sense of the whole may be made more facile by a different
arrangement : but now being dead [to the law], we are freed from
the law by which we ivere held in bondage.
So that we now serve [God] in a new and spiritual manner,
etc., ware . . . ypdpparos. That ©eui is to be understood after
SovXeveiv, seems certain from the nature of the antithesis, and
from comparing vers. 4, 5. — IIvev/AaTos I take to be the Gen.
of attribute or explanation. 'Ev Kaivoi-qri irvevparos, in a newness
of a spiritual kind, i. e., in a new and spiritual manner. So
TraXatdrTjTt ypdpparos designates the former method of literal ex
ternal obedience, which the Jews endeavored to render to the law
while ev aapKi. There was no heart in it. God is a Spirit ;
and he must be worshipped ev irvevpaTt. But this command is
obeyed, only when there is a " new heart and a right spirit " in
men ; and this is not until they become affianced to Christ.
" The law," says Calvin, " puts a check upon our external
actions ; but it does not in the least restrain the fury of our
concupiscence."

CHAP. VII. 7—12.
The legalist would naturally indignantly repel the declaration of the apostle, viz.,
to Tra^^ifxara twv a.fj.apTta>v to 5ia tou y6/j.ov. c What! then,' he would say, ' are
we to believe that the holy and perfect law of God is not only incompetent to sanc
tify us, but that it is even the occasion of our becoming greater sinners. Can it be?
is the law sin? '
To this objection the apostle now replies; and replies in such a way as to show,
that while he fully maintains his ground, viz., that the law is the occasion of greatly
aggravating our guilt and condemnation, still the fault lies in us, and not in the
law ; for this is altogether worthy of approbation and obedience, because it is " holy,
just, and good." This is at once a delicate and difficult part of the apostle's dis
course, and it is managed with great skill and effect.
(7) What shallwe saythe?i? Is thelaw sin? ti ovv . . . .afxaprta;

ROMANS VII. 7. 237
Language of the objector, in opposition to what the apostle has
said in verse 5. — 'Apapria, from the necessity of the case must
here mean, the cause of sin. So Mic. i. 5, " What is the trans
gression of Jacob ? Is it not Samaria ? " i. e., what is the cause
of Jacob's transgression, etc.? Eph. ii. 16, "having slain the
enmity thereby," i. e., the cause of enmity. To give apapria a
different sense here, would be inept.
Mt) yevoiro is the answer of the apostle. He plainly means by
it wholly to deny the charge involved in the previous question,
in the sense in which the legalist supposed the charge might be
made, viz., that the law was the efficient cause or the sinful cause
of our sin, and that our guilt might be justly put to the account
of the law. But he does not mean to deny, that there is a sense
in whicli the law is connected with our sins, and that it is the
occasion of their being aggravated, rather than the efficient means
of our being sanctified. 'AXXa intimates, that the apostle allows
of some exceptions to the Universal sense of pr] yevoiro. It is
frequently employed, as here, after negative assertions, in order
to indicate that there is some limitation or qualification of them
to be made. The course of thouglit runs thus : ' The law is not
the sinful or efficient cause of sin, in the sense that you suppose ;
but still there is a sense in which the law is the occasion of sin.'
What this is, the writer goes on to describe.
I had not known sin except by the law, ttjv dpapriav .... vopa.
By what law ? As a general proposition, it would be true as to
the law of nature or of revelation. " Where there is no law,
there is no transgression," Rom. iv. 15. When the apostle
(Rom. i. — ii.) speaks of the Gentiles as sinners, he makes them
offenders against the law of nature written upon their hearts,
Rom. ii. 14, 15 ; and when he convicts the Jews of guilt, he re
presents them as offending against revelation. What is said in
the verse before us, if understood in a general way, might be ex
plained and defended, then, on general principles. But plainly
this is not the object ofthe writer here. He is controverting the
legalists. And who were they ? Jews, not Gentiles ; at least, they
usually were not Gentiles. It is the Jewish law, then, to which he
here adverts.
But in what sense would he not have known sin, except by the
law ? Surely the Gentiles were sinners, who had no revelation ;
as he has abundantly shown in chaps, i. ii. This consideration
leads us of course to say, that the meaning oi known (iyvuiv) is a
qualified and comparative one, in the present passage. The
meaning must be that he would not have known sin in any such
manner and measure as he then actually did, had it not been for
the law. The explanation subjoined in verse 8, appears to leave

238 ROMANS VII. 7.
no room to doubt this exegesis. The simple explanation of the
whole seems to be this : ' Unless the law had put restraint upon
sinning, I should never have known how great my wickedness is,
or how much propensity to evil I have. The restraints of the law
galled my evil passions, and they broke out with redoubled vio
lence ; and in this way I have come, from bitter experience, to
know much more of the nature and extent of my sinfulness. I
should never have known to what extent I was capable of going,
had not the restraints of the law brought me to a full development
of myself. I was excited by the check which they put upon me ;
and I acted out myself in such a manner as I never should have
otherwise done ; and in this way I have come to know my sinful
ness, through the law.
In this compound sense of fuller development and (through
this) of more complete means of knowledge, does the apostle ap
pear to affirm that he has acquired a knowledge of sin by the
Jaw. Verses 7 and 8 taken together (and so they should be),
can leave no room to doubt, that it is not merely the instruction
which the law gives concerning the nature of sin, which the apos
tle aims here to describe ; but a knowledge which is acquired (as
described in verse 8), by an experimental acquaintance with sin ;
whicli had been heightened to so great a degree by the restraints
of law, as to place the subject of it in such a condition as to prac
tical knowledge with regard to his own sinfulness, as nothing else
could have brought about. On any other ground of exegesis,
the connection between verses 7 and 8 must be virtually broken up.
For I had not known even lust, unless the law had said: Thou
shalt not lust, rrjv Te ydp .... iiriBvprjaeis. Tap confirmantis here.
The second clause is an assertion of the same general nature with
the first, excepting merely that it is in emphasis more intense.
'EiriBvpiav means here, unlawful or sinful desire in general, i. e.,
desire of what would be in any way injurious to our neighbor.
Tlie reference in the mind of the writer appears plainly to have
been to Ex. xx% 14, iann Nb etc.; whicli is well rendered:
Thou shalt not covet, i. e., shalt not inordinately desire ; but which
is rendered in Greek by ovk iiriBvp-qaeis, thou shalt not desire in
ordinately, thou shalt not lust after or covet. We have no Eno-lish
noun that corresponds well to the generic sense of the verb covet;
for covetousness means a greedy appetite for wealth ; and lust
means (at least as now employed), impure desire. We must then
paraphrase iiriBvpiav, and render it inordinate desire, forbidden
desire. The word, it is true, sometimes means unlawful sensual
desire ; but plainly it is not here limited to a meaning so circum
scribed. The reference to Ex. xx. 14, as well as the nature of
the case, forbids this supposition.

ROMANS VII. 8. 23'J
Te, when employed alone (as here), is used to join those things
which in their own nature are united and naturally follow eacli
other ; or those whicli, for some other reasons, must be associated
together. It does not like Kat connect coordinate but subordinate
clauses. It is accordingly employed in clauses annexed (as here)
for the sake of illustration or confirmation. 'E71-1.Jvp.ta, in the sense
which it here has, is a species under the genus apapria. The general
principle is illustrated, then, by this particular sin whicli the law
inhibits. The genius of our language does not permit us to
translate re here, without doing injury to the mode of expression,
if not to the sense. In Greek it affords a sign to the reader, that
he is to connect the clause in which it stands with the preceding
one. That the whole is here to be understood in a comparative
sense, is a clear case. If no revelation had ever been given to
the Jews, then, like the Gentiles, they would have had the
law of nature to guide and check them, Rom. ii. 14, 15. In
the absolute sense, then, the apostle cannot be supposed to
speak. The writer means : ' I had not so known sin as I now
know it, except by the law.' A complete and full illustration
and vindication of such a comparative sense, may be found in
John xv. 22 — 24; which the reader is desired attentively to
consult. (8) This verse explains how the law has been the occasion of
promoting the knowledge of sin, in the sense which the writer
here means to convey. But sin, taking occasion by the command
ment, wrought out in me all manner of inordinate desire, drpopprjv
Se . . . . iiriBvpiav. — KaTetpyacraTO, wrought out ; it is more than
elpydaaro, and means -more fully to complete, develop, ov accom
plish. — 'Apapria is here personified. It cannot mean simply
sinful desires or affections ; for these are affirmed to be the effect
of its influence or operation. _Nor can it be what is called actual
sin ; for illis again is the effect of its operations. It would seem,
therefore, that the personification of sin in this case must answer
to the iyui aapKiKos and ireirpapevos virb ttjv dpapriav of verse 14
seq. ; in otlier words, that it stands for the carnal man, as such,
who is opposed to the divine law, and who is roused by its prohi
bitions and threatenings to more active engagement in the com
mission of sin. Accordingly, while apapria is employed in the
way of personification = eytb aapKiKos in verses 8 — 13, and in
the sequel eyu o-ap/ctKo's, for tlje most part takes its place. It is in
fact the carnal /which rouses up the passions, and which is the
cause of all the evil that follows. And if the whole passage re
lates to the experience of Christians (as some suppose), even
then it is the remains ofthe carnal I in them, which occasions all

240 ROMANS VII. 8.
the evil. But how or why did sin take occasion by the com
mandment to produce all manner of inordinate desires ? The
apostle does not definitely answer this question, but leaves it to
be supplied, as a matter of course, by his readers. What then is
the principle in human nature, which he seems to consider so
obvious as to need no mention ? It is the one, I answer, to which
I have already more than once adverted ; viz., that opposition to
the desires and passions of unsanctified men, inflames them and
renders them more intense and unyielding. So most of the com
mentators. Calvin : Neque inficior quum acrius a lege exstimu-
letur caro ad concupiscendum. — Per legem instigator cupiditas
nostra, ut in majorem ebulliat insaniam. — Vitiosa hominum na
tura, cujus perversitas ac libido, quo magis justitia? repagulis co-
erceretur, eo furiosius erumpit (in verse 5). Chrysostom: When
we covet anything, and are hindered from obtaining it, the flame
of our inordinate desire is the more augmented. So Erasmus and
others. A most striking and melancholy example in point is,
that prohibition and penalty were not sufficient, even in paradise,
to prevent our first parents from ruining themselves and all their
posterity. The very heathen fully acknowledge the principle in question ;
so plainly is it a part of our nature. Thus Cato (Liv. xxxiv. 4)
says of luxury, Non mota, tolerabilior esset quam erit nunc ; ipsis
vinculis, sicut fera bestia, irritata deinde emissa. Seneca : Par-
ricidiB cum lege coeperunt, de Clem. I. 23. Horace : Audax
omnia perpeti, gens humana ruit per vetitum nefas, Carm. I. 3.
Ovid : Nitimur in vetitum semper cupimusque negata, Amor.
III. 4. To the like purpose is Prov. ix. 17 : Stolen waters are
sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasure. Now as this is an
obvious principle of a corrupt natural state, and will account for
the fact whicli the apostle has asserted in the text, we may adopt
the conclusion that it lies at the ground of his assertion. 'Apapria,
therefore, as here employed in the way of personification, desig
nates the eyco capKiKos.
Observe the strength of the expression, Sta t^s evToX?js ....
iiriBvpiav ; as much as to say, ' Sin, i. e., my disposition to sin, did
not simply produce iiriBvpiav, i. e., some inordinate desire that
would lead to the commission of evil — but irdaav iiriBvpiav, every
kind of inordinate desire, a great variety of evil passions.' To
account for this, we must resort to the principle already stated.
It should be noted here, also, that in this way it was, that the
law became the occasion of his obtaining a knowledge of sin,
which he would otherwise never have acquired. So the sequel
intimates :
For without the law sin is dead, ^topis ydp vopov apapria veKpd ;

ROMANS VII. 8. 241
«. e., comparatively sluggish and inoperative ; comp. James ii. 17,
26, iriaTis veKpd. Xcopts vopov is equivalent to p-q ovtos vopov,
i. e., there being no law. That such must be the sense, the pre
ceding declaration shows ; the amount of whicli is, that ' sin did
by the commandment produce all kinds of inordinate desire in
him.' Now if this be correct, then sin, without such command
ment, i. e., without such an occasion of producing irdaav iiriBvpiav,
would be comparatively inoperative. For the comparative sense
of the whole passage the reader is again referred to John xv. 22
— 24. That the apostle could not mean to be understood in the
absolute sense, is plain from chap. i. ii., where the Gentiles are
charged with sin, who nevertheless are without the particular law
here spoken of, i. e., without a revelation. In the absolute sense,
the time never has been, and never can be, when men are without
the law. " The heathen, who have no [written] law, are a law
unto themselves." No individual, at any period of his life when
he is capable of moral action, can be said to be without law in the
absolute sense ; for the law always exists, independently of this
or that individual. The meaning of Paul, then, according to the
views which he himself inculcates, must be this, viz., that before
an individual has any particular and definite views of the nature
and extent of the divine law as to its prohibitions and penalties.
When these first come home to his mind with power, then it is
that he, through enmity and opposition to them, plunges deeper
than ever into sin, and becomes at the same time more consciously
guilty. It is singular that some commentators represent apapria in this
verse as meaning actual sin, and not a disposition to sin or vitios
itas. Actual sin, they say, produces sinful desires ; and these
again produce sinful actions in their full development ; and thus
comes the train of evils which the apostle here adverts to. But
whence the mother sin ? we may well ask ; and this of course is a
question which renders the whole of this theory quite improbable.
It is true, beyond all doubt, that sins of action do beget various
lusts, and nearly always do this ; and these in their turn develop
themselves in action. But the apostle is speaking here of some
thing in us which is roused up by the law to produce inordinate
desires, which then bring forth death. Now what is that originally,
if it be not the native disposition that we have to be excited by
sinful objects, and to oppose holy ones ; and which we, since the
fall of Adam, possess in a measure that is sure to triumph over
all the restraints of the divine law, and of reason and conscience,
which testify in its favor, and remonstrate against our evil pas
sions ? I must believe, with the great mass of commentators, that
dpapria here is a personification of the disposition. Tlie theory

242 ROMANS VII. 9.
of Reiche and Glockler, in this case, seems to me to involve a
real varepov irpdrepov.
(9) For I was alive once, without the law, eyu> Se e%uw . . . irore.
The Se' here introduces an additional explanation : " accuratius
definit," Bretschn. Lex. ; and it may be rendered moreover, besides.
It might be rendered for, inasmuch as the connection in which it
stands often entitles us so to render it (see Passow's Lex.) ; yet
here it does not seem to be subordinate to the last clause in verse
8, but co-ordinate. The last clause in verse 8 asserts, that sin is
dead without the law, while verse 9 declares that when the law
came, sin developed itself with power ; with which declaration it
also connects other additional circumstances.
The iydi here must of course mean another self different from
the one which apapria designates in the verse above. I hesitate,
however, whether we should here construe it as designating
merely self i. e., I myself as a person or individual, taken in the
usual sense and without reference to another and different self;
or whether the 6 eau> dvBpunros (verse 22) should be here
regarded as constituting the eyw. On the wdiole I incline to the
former, for two reasons ; (1) Because the antithetic iyui seems
not to be introduced until verse 14 seq. (2) What is said in the
sequel of the verse would seem rather to belong to the whole
person ; to the man as man, than merely to the 6 eaui dvBpunros in
the limited sense in which Paul uses this phrase in the sequel.
"E£u>v is plainly used here in a comparative and figurative
sense ; and seems to be suggested by the preceding veKpd, to which
e£u>v of course is the direct antithesis. To find out the full mean
ing of this antithesis, then, we must revert to apapria veKpd.
This, we have seen, must be taken in the comparative sense, viz.,
as indicating the comparatively inactive power and influence of
sin, before an individual has a definite apprehension of the prohi
bitions and penalties of the divine law. "E£o>v, then, characterizes
the state of the man, as opposite to that which is affirmed of
apapria. Now as sin is declared in the condition supposed, to be
comparatively inoperative or dead, so the man himself is compar
atively without sin, or (in other words) alive ; just as when our
Saviour says of the Jews, ' If I had not come and spoken to them,
they had not had sin.' To say that sin is dead, and to say that
the man is alive, evidently means for substance one and the same
thing. So the apostle immediately asserts, that as soon as sin
gathered new life (dve£qaev) the man died (eyu direBavov). Now
what was this death, except to come under the active and pre
dominating power and penalty of sin ? What then must be the
life, (e£u>v), in this case, but to be free from such a state? But
then — the whole is beyond all doubt to be taken in a convpara-

ROMANS VII. 9. 243
five sense. For what is the apostle laboring to prove ? Not that
a man must be under the Jewish or revealed law (for that is the
law here designated), in order that he should be a sinner ; for how
could this agreewith chaps, i. ii., where he labors to convict the
Gentiles of sin ? He is laboring here to show, that the law, in
stead of sanctifying and saving men, is, througli their abuse of it,
the means of plunging them deeper in guilt. In other words ;
the Jewish law, to which so many are prone to look as the means
of safety and sanctification, does actually serve, under the present
circumstances and condition of men, to render them more guilty
than they would otherwise have been. Of course then the e£cov
here can mean nothing more nor less than that before an indivi
dual has a distinct and vivid perception of the nature and spiritu
ality and extent of the divine law, he is less active and desperate
in his sin and guilt than after he comes to such a knowledge.
And thus explained, all is easy, natural, and coherent. The
reader cannot fail to observe, also, how exactly this sentiment
parallelizes with that in chap. iii. 20, where Paul declares, that
" the law entered so that sin would or should abound." It is the
w/zabounding state of it, then, which is described in our text bv
eyui eQuiv.
According to Barnes, Calvin, Augustine, and others, e£u.v here
means : ' I deemed myself alive once,' i. e., before I understood
the spirituality and extent of the law. But this exegesis is
attended with insuperable difficulties. For example: 'I once
deemed myself spiritually alive ; but when I came under convic
tion by the law, a sense of sin revived and I was brought to deem
myself spiritually dead (so far all seems well) ; ' and the com
mandment which was designed to give life, proved to be deadly
(et's Bdvarov) to me ; ' it was deadly to me, because it brought me
under real and true conviction as to my desperate spiritual con
dition ! Is this then the way in which the law of God proves
fatal to the sinner, viz., by convincing him of the true and deadly
nature of sin ? Others understand etfuv here in the simple sense
of degere vitam, to exist or be for any length of time. But the
nature of the antithetic language here does not seem to permit
this ; for in the sequel a.7re'^avov is plainly opposed to e%uiv here ;
but direBavov cannot be tlie antithesis of e£cov taken in the sense
of vitam degebam, for then direBavov must mean physical death ;
which surely is not the sense of it here.
What period is designated by x^P's vopov ? Augustine, Origen,
Ernesti, Morus, and others, understand it of the period of infancy;
Luther, Ammon, and others, the period before he was taught by
Gamaliel ; Theodoret supposes he alludes to his pre-existence in
Adam ! Calvin and Beza seem plainly to have hit nearest to the

244 ROMANS VII. 10.
point; "Intellige legem venisse, cum ab eo ccepit intelligi." It
seems plain, that Paul must mean some application of the law to
himself in a new manner, or in a way different from any which
he had before experienced. When this was, he does not say.
We may suppose it to be in childhood, or in riper years. The
principle is the same. Whenever the law of God was pressed on
his mind and conscience with such a weight and power that
he could not dismiss attention to its demands, then began his
active and increased opposition to it. Before this, sin was
comparatively dead. Now it revived in all its strength, and
brought him into deeper guilt and more aggravated condem
nation. Tlie Se' after eXBova-qs is discretive, introducing the antithesis
ofthe preceding clause. — 'Apapria dve£qae, sin revived or flour
ished. 'Avatfiui means to gather new life, to show additional
rigor; and such is clearly the sense here, as it does not mean
merely a renewal of a life which had before existed. The ex
pression itself is plainly one which the writer uses as equivalent
to apapria .... Kareipyaaaro iv ipol irdaav iiriBvpiav, in the
preceding verse. As there ' all manner of inordinate desire is
said to have been wrought Sta rrjs ivroXrjs,' so here the conse
quence of iXBova-qs rijs ivroXrjs, is, that sin becomes more vigorous.
(10) But I died, eyui 8e direBavov. The Se may be here
regarded as discretive, i. e., = but, since direBavov is the antithesis
of dve'Cgae ; yet perhaps it simply introduces a thought additional
to the one which precedes. — 'A7re\Wov, I died, i. e., 1 fell under
sentence of death or came into a state of death ; for " the soul
that sinneth shall die," " the wages of sin is death." So plainly
the next clause explains it, where the death incurred is placed in
opposition to the life which obedience to the whole law would
ensure. But then there is plainly an intensive sense to be at
tached here to the word a7re^avov ; just as there is to the word
dvetgae. Tlie apostle means to say (as verse 8 shows), that sin
put forth fresh vigor when the commandment came ; consequently
he incurred aggravated guilt ; and aggravated condemnation
must necessarily follow. It also lies on the face of the whole,
that the writer designs to convey the idea, that the law, instead
of affording sanctification and deliverance from sin, is the occa
sion of aggravating both guilt and condemnation. So he had inti
mated in vi. 14 ; and so he here proves the fact to be.
And the commandment which was designed [to bestow] life,
the same was found to be unto death, Kai evpe.Bg .... ets Bdva
rov. This clause is evidently added for the sake of intensity and
variety of expression — an epexegesis of d?re'.Wov, witli the addi
tion of a new circumstance, [n saying ivroXr] ets fu>TJv, there was a

ROMANS VII. 11, 12. 245
reference in the mind of the writer to such passages of the Old
Testament as the following: "My statutes . . . which if a man
do he shall even live by them," Ezek. xx. 11, 13, 21. Lev. xviii.
o, et alibi. Mot is, in point of sense, to be construed after Bdva
rov, and is a Dat. incommodi ; comp. verse 13, and see N. Test.
Gramm. § 104. 2. Note 1.
(11) A repetition of the sentiment in verses 8, 9, with some
characteristic of the manner in which sin performed its deadly
work. — For sin taking occasion by the commandment deceived
me, and by it slew me, rj ydp .... cbreV-retve. Tap confirmantis ;
for the sequel shows how the commandment came ets Bdvarov to
him. In respect to dcfiopp-qv Xaj3ovaa, see verse 18. The occa
sion afforded, was the circumstance that the law restrained evil
passions ; which, in a graceless state of the heart, aggravates op
position to it. — ¦ Ata rrjs ivroXijs must mean, through the law as
an occasional instrument or cause ; not by it as the efficient cause
of sin, which the sequel denies the law to be. — 'E^qirdnjae pe
seems to mean the deceit which our sinful pas-ions practise upon
us, by leading us to regard all restraint of them as unreasonable
and oppressive, and to feel that we are in the right when we
resist such restraint. The consequences of such a feeling will
be, to obey our passions and not the law. Of course we are slain
by such deceit ; it leads us to plunge into ruin. ¦ — At' av-rrjs must
mean St' ivroXrjs. In what sense sin slays through the command
ment, has been once and again stated.
(12) So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy and
just and good, mare 6 pev . . . dyaBrj. The true force of uJo-re
seems to be so that, i. e., things being as I have said, it follows,
that, etc. In consequence of such a connection, ware may be
rendered wherefore, therefore ; for it is, in the classics, not unfre
quently employed as an intensive particle of conclusion. — Me'v is
difficult of grammatical solution here. Taken as the usual sign
oi protasis, where is the apodosis ? Kat -q ivroXr] k. t. X. will not
make one, for it is merely epexegetical of 6 vo'pos aytos. In the
Greek classics, p.e'v is often employed without any subsequent
apodosis expressed, but it is not so used probably unless one is
implied. What then is the implied apodosis here ? We may
perhaps supply it from verse 13 ; and if so, it would seem to be
this : apapria Se iariv i) Karepya£,opevq Bdvarov Sta rov dyaBov
vopov. Riickert makes the implied apodosis to be, 6 Se IovSatos
Ka«os Kat aSucos.
The present is not a regular logical deduction from the preced
ing verses. The writer means to say, that the view which he has
taken of the case is such, on the whole, that the excellence and
imritv of the law stand entirely unimpeached. The law is in-
1 J 21*

246 ROMANS VII. 12.
deed the occasion, but it is the innocent occasion, of sin. It is the
evil passions which convert what in its own nature tends to life,
into an instrument of death. The reason of repeating both vopos
and b/roX-q here, seems to be, that both had been employed in the
preceding illustration; see verses 7 — 10. If tliere be any dif
ference between the two word-;, it must be this, viz., that vopos is
the generic appellation of the divine law, S-'liin ; while ivroX-q cor
responds to ph, i. e., any particular precept. As used by the
writer, however, no difference seems to be here intended. 'Ayta
means holy, free from all moral defect, free from sin, opposed to
sin. AiKaia, agreeable to Siktt, i. e., promoting justice and punish
ing sin. 'Aya^r;, good in its object and end, tending to secure the
ends of benevolence. The most appropriate to the apostle's pur
pose here of all the qualities which he mentions, is that of holi
ness. Hence, 6 vopos dyios and -q evroX-q dyt'a.
The vindication of the character of the law as thus stated,
which makes it the occasion of the aggravation of our guilt in
stead of delivering us from it, follows. But before we proceed
to consider this, we must endeavor to solve some questions which
naturally arise here.
The reader has doubtless perceived, that I suppose the apostle
to be here speaking of himself when in a legal state or under the
law, and before he was spiritually united to Christ. This I must,
on the whole, believe to be the case. In support of this view
many reasons may be offered ; but some of them I defer to the
close of the chapter. It is sufficient for my present purpose to
state, verses 7 — 11 plainly appear to be a defence and confirma
tion of the obnoxious expression (obnoxious to the legalist) con
tained in verse 5. It is this verse, surely, whieh gives occasion
to the objection expressed at the beginning of verse 7 ; and it is
of course the same, therefore, which is the theme of verses 7 —
11. But on looking back to verse 5, we find r/pev iv rfj aapKi to
be the condition of the person, on whom the law of God produced
the unhappy effect stated in the sequel. Indeed the case of itself
determines this ; for surely the law of God is not the object of the
believer's hatred, nor does it enkindle his passions and aggravate
his offences ; it reproves, restrains, moderates, subdues, his evil
affections and desires. To prove this, would be as superfluous
as to prove that the renewed heart loves and approves of
holiness. It is surely none but an unsanctified heart which
can make such a use of the law of God as is stated in verses
7 — 11.
Moreover, insuperable difficulties attend the usual exegesis (in
modern times and among a certain class of writers) of this pas
sage. E. g., verses 9, 10, are thus explained : ' I thought my-

ROMANS VII. 12. 247
self alive, i. e., holy or good, before I was brought under convic
tion by the law ; but when this conviction took place, a peniten
tial sense of sin became strong and active ; I was then fully per
suaded that _ I deserved condemnation (eyw Se ctTre'^avov) ; and I
found that instead of keeping the commandment, I had only
brought myself under its penalty. Now all this would do well,
in itself considered ; the sentiment is evangelical and correct.
But the difficulty in obtaining this sentiment from the passage
before us, is, (1) That one must violate the usus loquendi. (I)
He must bring contradiction and inextricable difficulty into the
context. (3) He must make the writer assert what is irrelevant
to his present purpose.
First, to construe apapria dveXgaev as meaning a penitential
sense of sin revived or become strong, has no parallel in Scripture.
'Apapria cannot be shown ever to mean penitential sense of sin.
As little too can e£u>v be shown to mean, / thought myself alive,
¦i. e., righteous. Both renderings are discrepant from all usus
loquendi. Secondly, if we take this meaning of apapria, viz., penitential
sense of sin, and carry it on through verse 11, which is indissolu
bly connected with verse 10, (as a comparison of verses 7, 8, and
the ydp in verse 11, show,) it will make a sense utterly inadmis
sible. E. g., 'A penitential sense of sin (apapria) taking occa
sion by the law, deceived me and slew me/' Sorrow for sin
neither deceives nor slays, but just the opposite. Yet such a car
rying forward of the sense given to apapria in verse 10, is fairly
inevitable, unless one renounces the principles by which a writer's
thoughts are connected together.
Thirdly, such a sentiment as is given to verse 10, although true
in itself, is irrelevant to the writer's purpose here. His object is to
show that he has not rashly said, ra iraBrjpara tuiv dpapnuiv to. Std tov
vopov, verse 5. How will it prove this, if he. declares merely that
the law undoes the false hopes of the sinner, and brings him
under true conviction ? This would seem, at least, to be proving
just the opposite of what he designs to show. Nor will it help
the matter in the least, if you suppose him to be speaking of the
experience of Christians ; for surely it would not illustrate the
declaration, that the law is the occasion of our evil passions being
aggravated, to assert that Christians are convinced of sin by it,
and brought to true penitence.
I must proceed, therefore, in explaining the remainder of
the chapter, on the ground that a person in a law-state, and
not in a state of grace, is described. To some of the reasons
for this method of interpretation I have just adverted ; and
others will come up in the course of my exposition. But for

248 ROMANS VII. 13.
a more ample exposition and defence of this exegesis, see Excur
sus vii.
Does the apostle by employing the first person singular,
throughout verses 7 — 25, mean to designate himself specially
and peculiarly, or does he include others with himself? Others
certainly are included, understand him as you please. If he
speaks of himself while under the law, he means by a parity of
reasoning to include all others who are in the same condition.
If he speaks of himself as a Christian, he means in the same
manner to include all other Christians, who of course must have
similar experience. So that Ambrose very appropriately and
truly says : Sub sua persona quasi generalem causam agit. The
use sometimes of the plural and sometimes of the singular num
ber, favors this supposition; comp. verses 5, 7, 14, seq. and viii.
1, seq. The apostle often employs the first person singular,
where he is discussing general principles ; e. g., 1 Cor. vi. 12. x.
23, 29, 30. xiii. 11 — 13; Gal. ii. 18, et al. sajpe. That it is
not unusual for the apostles to include themselves, even where
they are saying things which convey sharp reproof, is also true ;
e. g., James iii. 1, 2, 9. Comp. 1 Cor. iv. 6, where he explicitly
asserts such a principle. Even Reiche, who represents the eyco
aapKiKos as the commonwealth of the Jews under the law, and the
better /as the ideal Jew without sin, is still obliged to concede
that Paul uses peraaxnpariapos here, i. e., that he appropriates
to himself what belongs to others, or represents them in his own
person.

CHAP. Vn. 13—25.
The apostle proceeds in these verses to exhibit the fact tbat the law can in no way
be involved in the charge of being the efficient cause of sin, for it stands in direct
and perpetual opposition to all the sinful desires of men in an unsanctified and car
nal state. That it is holy and just and good, is evinced by the fact, that the con
science and moral sense spontaneously take sides with it or approve of its precepts.
Yet, notwithstanding all this, such is the force of sinful desires and lusts, that they
triumph over the precepts ofthe law, and lead the unsanctified man to continual
opposition and transgression. Even against the voice of reason and conscience, i. e.j
of an internal moral nature, as well as against the divine precepts, does carnal desire
prevail; we yield the moral self to the power of the carnal self, and plunge deep into
ruin, while the voice of God's law is thundering in our ears, and the voice of our
own consciences is loudly remonstrating against our conduct. Who can refrain,
dow, from perceiving that all this is much to the purpose of the apostle, whose object
it is to show, that to be under grace, ( and not under the law ) affords the only hope for
the sinner? Accordingly, in chap. viii. 1—17, he shows that the opposite of all which
he has been before describing takes place in the regenerate, and that a filial spirit
subdues carnal affections, overcomes the world, and enables Christians to walk ac-

ROMANS VII. 13. 249
cording to the spirit ; nothing of which is accomplished, while men are in the condi
tion desc.ibcd in vii. 14 — 25-
Now to what special end ofthe apostle would it be here subservient, if we suppose
him to be describing a state of grace in chap, vii.? How does the contest in the
breast of Christians against sin, prove the inefficacy of the law to sanctify them?
For to prove such an inefficacy, it must be admitted, is the general object of the
present discourse. The fact is, that such a statement would prove too much. It
would show that grace is wanting in efficacy, as well as the law; for the Christian,
being a subject of grace, and still keeping up such a contest, one might of course be
tempted to say, ' It appears, then, that grace is no more competent than law, to
subdue sin and sanctify the heart.' And indeed why might he not say this, if the
ground of those who construe all this of the regenerate man be correct? For what is
the real state of the whole matter as represented by the apostle? It is, that in every
contest here between the flesh aud the spirit (the moral man), the former comes off
victorious. And can this be a regenerate state? Is this u the victory which is of God,
and overcometh the world? " " He that is born of God sinneth not; " those that
love his law "do no iniquity; " he that loveth Christ "keepeth his command
ments; " ?'. e., an habitual and voluntary offender such a one is not; he gives not
himself up to any course of sin; it is his habitual study and effort to subdue his
passions, and obey tlie commandments of God. But what of all this is there, in the
case which the apostle represents in vii. 14 — 25? Read now chap. viii. 1 — 17, and
then ask, Is the man described in vii. 14 — 25, who yields in every instance to the
assault of his passions, and suffers them continually to triumph over law, con
science, and every other consideration, such a man or the same man as is described
in viii. 1 — 17? In this latter passage the man is described, u who walks not after
the flesh but after the Spirit." Can this then be the same man who does walk after
the flesh, and always does this, even when the voice of God and conscience is
thundering in his ears, and his own internal moral nature is warning him against
the course he pursues? Impossible. Light and darkness are not more diverse than
these two cases.
(13) lias then that which is good become death to Tne? tc ovv
ayaSov .... SdvaTos ; i. e., ' You call the commandment ayafj-r),
kind, beneficent^ productive of happiness ; bow can that which is
beneficent, be fatal to me ? Is this not a contradiction ? ' Tlie
answer is, fi-rj yivotTO ! i. e., it is not true that the ivToXyj dyaSi]
was of itself fatal or deadly to you, aX\d -i) a/iapria, but sin [was
death to you] ; for that o~oi yiyovc S-dvaros is implied after afiapTia,
is very plain from the nature of the sentence. — \AAAa here, as
often elsewhere, stands before a clause designed to give a true
account of a thing in opposition to an erroneous one. — Tiyove is
wanting in F., G.; and in A., B., C, D., E., iyivero stands in its
room. The sense is the same in all the cases, and hermeneuti-
cally the reading is a matter of indifference.
So that sin might exhibit itself as causing death to me by that
which is good, Iva <f>avrj .... SdvaTOV. — Qavrj is 2 Aor. pass.
Subj., but is employed (as the Aorists pass, often are) in the
sense of the Middle voice. The meaning is ; * Sin became the
cause of death to me, by leading me to abuse the law which was
altogether good; and so it exhibited, in a true light, its own
deadly and odious nature.' The /W here and the ipot above are
the Dative incommodi.

250 ROMANS VII. 14.
So that sin, through the commandment, might be exceedingly
sinful, 'iva yevrpai .... ivroXrjs ; i. e., so that sin, by abuse of the
commandment which was good, and by making it the occasion of
death to the sinner, and by its opposition to a commandment in
its own nature holy and just and good, might thus appear to he
exceedingly aggravated and detestable. The heinousness of sin,
not the increase as to quantity, is here characterized. For KaB'
virepfioX-qv, used adverbially instead of iirep/3aXX6vruis, comp. 1
Cor. xii. 31. 2 Cor. i. 8. iv. 17. I take the two phrases in these
verses beginning with iva, to be co-ordinate ; and both of them I
regard as suspended on dXXd -q apapria \_Bdvaros yeyove]. One
of the phrases declares that sin developed itself according to its
true nature, by perverting the holy law of God ; the other, that
the exceedingly odious nature of it was thus made the more
manifest. (14) O'iSapev ydp some critics divide thus: otSa pev ydp. But
the general usage of Paul is against this ; for in appeals of this
nature he generally uses the plural number and not the singular.
— Tap illustrantis et confirmantis for the sequel is designed to
illustrate and confirm what he has said in respect to the law and
sin, in verse 13.
The law is spiritual, 6 vopos irvevpariKos ean, i. e., the law en
joins those things which are agreeable to the nature and mind
of the Spirit. Flesh and spirit are often opposed to each other
in a variety of senses ; viz., (1) As flesh is weak and perishable
(Gen. vi. 3. Ps. Ixxviii. 39. lvi. 4. Jer. xvii. 5. Is. xl. 6), so spirit
(nil , irvevpa), the animating and invigorating principle, is some
times placed in opposition to it with the meaning of strength and
permanence ; e. g., Is. xxxi. 3. But, (2) The most common
usage in the New Testament is the tropical one ; where o-ap£ is
viewed as the seat of carnal desires and affections, and is often
employed to designate them, sometimes simply, and sometimes
with (jipovqpa added to it ; while irvevpa, when employed in the
way of antithesis to it, means a new and holy disposition, which
is ti 7rv€vpaTtKoi/, i. e., something produced by the influence of the
Spirit of God and guided by this influence. Hence Christians
are irvevpariKoi and unsanctified men are aapKiKoi, because the
former are under the influence of the Spirit, and the latter are
guided by their carnal appetites and desires. All this is quite
plain, when one reads Rom. viii. 1 — 17, where the antithesis is
fully and explicitly stated.
To say then that the law is irvevjuvriKos, is to affirm that its
nature is pneumatic, i. e., agreeable to the mind or will of the
Spirit. The antithesis therefore is plain, viz., eyia Se aapKiKos
elpi, but lam carnal, i. e., I am under the influence of carnal de-

EOMANS VII. 15. 251
sires and affections. Even such desires as do not spring directly
from the flesh, are sometimes named carnal ; and this, it would
seem, because most of our sinful propensities are in some way
connected with the flesh, and those which are not, are similar in
regard to their moral character. For example ; in Gal. v. 10
— 22, the apostle names hatred, envy, anger, etc., as epya aapKos;
and so in Rom. viii. 5 — 9, Kara adpKa elvai or irepiirareiv, includes
every kind of vicious conduct. And in the passage before us,
aapKiKos elpi is explained by a clause which the writer immedi
ately adds ; viz.
Sold under sin, ireirpapevos virb tijv dpapriav, i. e., the bond slave
of sin SoCAos tijs dpaprias ; for so the sequel shows him to be, in
asmuch as he obeys sin in every case, whatever opposition is
made to it on the part of conscience or the divine law. The lan
guage is borrowed from the practice of selling captives, who have
been taken in war, as slaves. They were viewed as having for
feited their lives ; and so they were sold into a state of the most
absolute despotism. In allusion to this, the apostle represents
the person who is still under the law, and therefore unredeemed,
as being the bond slave of sin. Stronger language than this he
could not employ ; and it will be important, in the sequel, to look
back on this expression in order to solve some of the doubts
which may arise from o pia<Z, o ou BeXui iyui, rb BeXeiv irapaKenal
poi, avvrjSopai tcS vdpu> rov ®eov, etc. Let the reader who wishes
to consult the writer's own exposition of aapKiKos, carefully com
pare chap. viii. 5 — 9. The law then is good, for it is irvevpari-
kos, i. e., agreeable to the dictates of the Spirit. It is not this,
therefore, which is the efficient cause of men's sins ; it is that they
are aapKiKoi, devoted to the desires of the flesh, following the dic
tates of its desires.
(15) That the law does sustain such a character, must be well
known to the sinner himself. His own reason and conscience
take sides with the law and approve of its precepts. Yet still so
carnally inclined is he, that he listens not to these, but acts
directly against them. In other words, he is actually the slave
of sin. Tap in this verse would seem to have direct relation to
the declaration just repeated. Observe the tenor of it : ' He does
that which he dislikes, he is as it were forced by his slavish con
dition to do that which is hateful to his better self.' In this way,
the idea that he is ireirpapevos virb Trjv dpapriav, because very
prominent. In order to express the sentiment which he intends to convey
in the most striking manner, the apostle divides the person thus.
in bondage into two selves (if I may thus speak \ viz., the voi3s or
6 eau> dvBpunros (verses 22, 23), and the ciopa, adpi, or carnal part

252 EOMANS VII. 15.
of his nature. In the latter dwell the passions and aflfections
which sway the dvBpunros aapKiKos ; in the former is still a portion
ofthe image of God (James iii. 9 ; 1 Cor. xi. 7), which discerns
and cannot but approve the holy and perfect law of God that is
merely a transcript of his own nature; cf. Rom. ii. 14, 15. That
the unregenerate have reason and conscience, which approve and
must approve the divine law, shows nothing more than that they
are rational and moral beings with faculties adapted to a state of
moral probation, and that they are made in the image of God so
far as a rational and moral nature is concerned ; i. e., they are
men, and not brutes. The faculty to discern what is good, the
power to approve of it, is in itself no more holy or sinful, than
the faculty of ratiocination is, or of seeing or hearing. Isothing
can be more unfounded, than the supposition that moral good is
put to the account of the sinner, nvnAy because one a>signs to
him reason to discern its nature and conscience to approve it.
Without these he could net be a rational and moral being. They
are mere pura naturalia, to speak in the language of the old
theology. The reader need not be in any degree alarmed, then, for the doc
trine of human depravity, whwi h'j find* (he sinner here represented
as seeing something ofthe nature ol the divine law and testifying
in its favor. It is on such ground as this, that the ways of God
toward men may be vindicated ; ibr allowing it to be true, that
our physical nature is the peculiarly exciting cause of most of our
sins, we may still ask : ' Is there not an ecru dvBpunros which op
poses all inordinate desires, and warns us to avoid sin and cleave
to duty?' And on this ground it is, that God regards the heathen
as being without excuse ; as is clear from Rom. i. ii., especially
ii. 14, 15.
For that which I do, I disapprove, o yap .... yivmaKui. Ka-
repyd^opai means more than the simple ipydlppai ; it designates
*,he habitual doing or practising of anything. — Oi yivuiaKui is
i-endered by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Tholuck, and otliers, I know
not, i. e., my mind is so darkened by sin that I do not perceive
the true nature of what I am doing ; but the explanation which
Paul immediately subjoins seems to forbid this exegesis, viz., ov
ydp o BeXui, k. r. X* Besides, the very height of the criminality
here depicted is, that the sin is against light, and knowledge, and
conscience. On the other hand, that yivuiaKui in Greek, as well
* There is little difficulty in understanding: this word literally : I know
~\ot. A reason is given here for the preceding declaration : "sold under Mil,"
Und the language is conformed to it. I am the slave of sin, for in my custo
mary actions, I proceed blindly not intelligently, as a slave who acts in ac
cordance with the will of another.

EOMANS VII. 15. 253
as the Hebrew S'n; , not unfrequently means to know in the sense
of acknowledging or approving may be seen in the lexicons ; see
Matt. vii. 23. xxv. 12. Luke xiii. 27. Ps. i. 6. Hos. viii. 4. That
knowledge speculatively considered is not here meant, i. e., that
oi ywuiaKui does not mean / am ignorant, insciens sum, is clear
from the sequel, where the apostle speaks of his neglecting to do
that which he wills. Now what he wills, must be an object of
perception with him ; so that oi yivdiaKui cannot be understood of
mere intellectual ignorance.
For not that which I approve, do I perform, ov ydp o BeXui,
rovro irpaaaui. Tap confirmantis, i. e., the clause of the sentence
that follows, confirms the preceding statement. First, we have a
general declaration. What I do, I disapprove. Next follows a
specific one which illustrates and confirms it : Not that which I
approve do 1 perform, but I do that which I hate. If there be any
thing paradoxical here (and the first view of the case may seem
to present a paradox), it is occasioned entirely by the plan ofthe
writer to represent the two contrary selves in one and the same
person. Karepyd^opai belongs to the carnal self, and ywuiaKui to
the vois or eau> dvBpunros ; and thus in succession it is the con
science and reason, i. e., the internal moral man, which disap
proves (ov BeXui) and hates (piaui), while the carnal man
practises (irpaaaui, iroiui) the thing which is disapproved and
hated. All speculative metaphysical questions would here be entirely
out of place. One might ask : ' Is it true, then, that a man does
what he is unwilling to do, and hates to do ? This would be not
only to represent him as acting against predominant motives, but
as a machine who could not follow his own inclination.' And on
the ground of some systems of metaphysical philosophy, the
whole would indeed be an unaccountable affair, as it is here
represented by the apostle ; although such philosophy is not un
frequently insisted on, and urged as being all-important in the
ology. But still the apostle might make the appeal, for his own
triumphant vindication, to the breast of every man on earth, where
the moral warfare has been carried on as he describes it, between
conscience and passion. And a most exact and striking picture
it is too. The demonstration of its correctness is internal, in the
very consciousness of the soul ; it depends not on metaphysics or
ratiocination. It is not true, indeed, that a man does that which
on the whole he is unwilling to do ; nor is this what the apostle
means to affirm. But it is true, that men often do what reason
and conscience disapprove ; and which he here expresses in tlie
strong language of oi BeXui and piaui, i. e., it is the eaui dvBpunros
of whom this is predicated. These words, in a contrast like the
22

254 EOMANS VII. 15.
present, are not to be urged to the highest point of possible mean
ing. So, for example, piaui may mean not positive hatred, but a
not loving or merely a comparatively not loving, i. e., a less lov
ing; for so the examples in Matt. vi. 24, Luke xvi. 13. xiv. 26,
as compared with Matt. x. 37. That BeXui and piaui, then, can
both be affirmed of the conscience enlightened by the divine law
(comp. verse 9), when they are understood in this qualified sense
(and on any ground of exegesis a qualified sense is absolutely
necessary), is sufficiently manifest. Any one who undertakes to
urge the sense of words employed in such a contrast as is here
presented, to the highest meaning of which they are capable,
must involve himself at least in difficulties that are absolutely
inextricable. There is a striking passage in Xenophon (Cyrop. VI. 1), in
which Araspes the Persian says, by way of excusing his trea
sonable designs : " Certainly I must have two souls .... for
plainly it is not one and the same which is both evil and good,
nor which loves honorable and base conduct, and at the same
time wishes to do a thing and not to do it. Plainly then there
are two souls ; and when the good one prevails, then it does
good ; and when the evil one predominates, then it does eviL"
So Euripides, Medea, 1077, 8 :
Mav^ctvco pev, ota 8pav peXXui Kaxa'
®vpos Se Kpeiaauiv tuiv ipuiv fiovXevparuiv.
I know, indeed, that such things as lam about to do, are evil; but
my mind is better than my inclinations.
The same poet (as quoted by Clemens Alex. Strom. II. 15) :
AeXrjBev oioev ruivSe p mv av vovB-qreis'
Tvwpqv 8' ixovrd p' -q <pvais /JtafeTat.
I have forgotten none ofthe things respecting which you have ad
monished me ; but although I have a desire to do them, nature
forces me another way.
To the same purpose, and in a manner very much like that
of Paul, Epictetus says (Enchirid. II. 26). 'O dp.apTavu>v, o pev
BeXei ov iroier /cat o pr/ BeXei, iroiei. So Plautus, (Trinummus,
Act. IV. Seen. 2, verse 31): Scibam ut esse me deceret, facere
non quibam miser ; I knew that it was becoming, but, me misera
ble! I could not do it. See also Seneca (Ep. III.) and Ilippol.
verse 604. Lactantius also represents a heathen as saying: Volo
equidem non peccare, sed vincor ; indutus enim sum carne
fragili. Itaque ducor incertus, et pecco non quia volo, sed quia
cogor.

EOMANS VII. 16, 17. 255
These quotations (for which I am indebted to Prof. Tholuck)
show how clear and distinct the impression is upon the human
mind, in all countries, that there is a struggle in the breast
between conscience and carnal inclination. They also show how
much alike men, enlightened or unenlightened by revelation, ex
press themselves in relation to the struggle in question. They
answer still another purpose, viz., to show that language of this
nature is used and is to be understood in the popular sense, and
in this only.
(16) If then I do that which I do not approve, I consent to ihe
law as good, el Se .... koXos ; i. e., if my reason and conscience
disapprove that which I do, then my inward man hears testimony
in favor of the law, gives assent to the goodness of it. Ae " ora
tioni continuandae inservit." 'Svptb-qpi, lit. to speak with, to confess,
to acknowledge. The appeal here in favor of the law is very
strong ; for even those who habitually violate it, are represented
as testifying in its favor. In one point of view, this is stronger
testimony than that of Christians ; for if the real enemies them
selves of the law feel obliged to confess its excellence, we may
well expect that the friends of the law will do the same ; as in
deed they of course do. The reader will notice, that when the
apostle says that he does that which he disapproves, he represents
the eaui dvBpunros, in thus disapproving, as giving its testimony in
favor (avpcbqpi) oi what the law decides. It is not then the phy
siological exercise of the will here which is designated by BeXui
(for this of course determines the outward actions) ; but it is the
approbation of the reason and conscience, i. e., oi the internal man,
which is meant.
(17) But now it is no longer I who do this, but sin which dwells
in me, vvvl Se . . . . apapria. Nwi is properly a particle of
time, but often employed (like now in English) as a mere contin
uative of argument. It is as much as to say: 'In these or in
such circumstances, the case being as represented, then it follows,'
etc. Ae discretive, " accuratius definit." The apostle means to
guard against the possibility of confounding the two selves, which
he has here introduced, and to aver strongly that the internal
man does not participate in approving the course which the
carnal passions pursue, but takes sides with the divine law, and
continues to give its assent to its sanctions, even amid all the
predominant opposition of the carnal self. Two consequences
then plainly follow from the principle asserted in verse 15 ; viz.,
first, that the internal man assents to the goodness of the divine
law ; secondly, that it is not reason and conscience which of them
selves unperverted lead men to sin, but their own carnal desires.
The latter sentiment is fully and strongly asserted in verse 17.

256 ROMANS VII. 18.
T,yui therefore is the moral self, the vois or eaui dvBpunros here ;
while fj apapria (here personified) means, the sinful passions and
affections of men, or the disposition to indulge them. The dis
tinction here made between the higher moral self of reason and
conscience, and the lower one of carnal passions and appetites, is
very striking. In like manner Seneca says : Mens cujusque is
est quisque, non ea figura qua? digito monstrari potest ; the jiind
of a man is himself, not that part which may be pointed out with
one's finger, i. e., not the body. So Augustine : Magis ego in eo
quod in me approbabam, quam in eo quod in me improbabam,
Confess. VIII. 5. The higher moral self has the better claim to
the title of iyui.
There is tome difficulty of rather a serious nature here, as to
the ev ipoi in which sin dwells or reigns or is predominant. It
is not the first, the dvBpunros aapKiKos, some one may say ; ' for to
suppose this, would be to suppose that the apostle represents sin
as dwelling in itself; for what is sin here but the carnal man?
Not the second ; for the eaui dvBpunros is opposed to sin and takes
sides with the divine law, as the whole passage abundantly testi
fies.' ' The epoi then,' he might say, ' must here designate the
whole person, and be employed in its usual sense. This seems
plausible, at first view, but as the apostle has personified sin here,
the mode of expression must be in accordance with this figure of
speech. For the moment, sin is spoken of as a separate agent,
and as dwelling and acting in the man who obeys its dictates.
But it is in the carnal man, i. e., the carnal self in this case, that
it dwells. The eo-co dv-JpioTros disapproves and condemns what
the otlier self, in which sin dwells, approves and practises. It is
plainly a popular and allegorical, not a metaphysical, mode of
representation. — But more must be said in respect to the diffi
culty before us, in explaining the next verse.
(18) For I know, etc., otSa yap .... dyaBov. The yap in
troduces a confirmation ofthe declaration that he has just made,
viz., that indwelling sin leads him to thwart the promptings of
reason and conscience and the commands of God's holy law.
This is clear from the conclusion drawn in verse 20. The inter
vening matter, then, is designed to illustrate and confirm the po
sition just mentioned. First of all, therefore, he avers that he is
conscious (oSa) that no good thing dwells in him, i. e., in his
carnal part. — 'Aya^ov, without the article, means any good thing,
i. e., anything morally good, or inclining to moral good ; for not
natural but moral good and evil are here the subject of consider
ation. That o-ap/a pov must mean the carnal man, and not mere
flesh and blood, is evident enough from the nature of the case,
and from verse 5, where ev rij aapKi surely does not mean flesh
physiologically considered.

EOMANS VII. 19, 20. 257
For to will is present with me, rb ydp BeXeiv, irapdKenal poi,
i. e., is in my power, is accessible to me, is in readmess, is what
I can readily and easily come at or accomplish. The yap here is
again causal, i. e., it introduces a reason or proof of the fact, that
no good dwells in the carnal man, and that he is conscious of
this ; for experience tells him, that while the inner man, tne rea
son and conscience approves of and consents to that which is
good, the carnal man has no power or inclination or readiness to
accomplish it. As to ovx tvplaKui, I do not find, it is plainly an
elliptical expression. — Oi^ evpiaKui [irapaKeipevov pot], i. e., I do
not find it in my power. But not metaphysical nicety of ex
pression is here intended. The writer evidently means to say,
that the carnal part is altogether the predominant self; just in
the same manner as he says, that " the natural man receiveth not
the things of the Spirit of God .... neither can he know them."
So again : " The carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not
subject to the law of God nor indeed can it be," Rom. viii. 7. As
crapKiKos, i. e., as swayed and directed by carnal desires and affec
tions, the sinner finds no power to do good. The assertion of the
apostle does not respect the ability of men in a mere psychologi
cal or physiological point of view, with simple reference to the
powers and attributes of their nature as men ; but it respects them
as aapKiKoi, as ev aapKi, and as acting agreeably to this predomi
nating part of themselves. So long as they are in this state of
servitude, and under such masters, they cannot serve another
master. But this does not decide that they have no power, in any
sense of this word, to quit the service of a bad master, and go
over to a good one.
(19) For the good which I approve, etc., ov ydp o BeXui «.. t. X.
This verse is for substance a repetition of verse 15 ; still it is not
a mere repetition, for the form is varied ; since here we have
dyaBov and KaKov, and the sentence commences with a ydp confir
mantis, and it appears to be designed to confirm the preceding
declaration. The proof that my reason and conscience approve
that which is good, and that I find myself unable or indisposed to
effect it, is this : that I in fact leave undone the good which I ap
prove, and do the evil which I disapprove.
(20) Et Se k. r. X. Here Se' marks the continuation of the
discourse, while it is discretive as to the matter to be added. In
effect this verse is a conclusion drawn from the matter suggested
in verses 18, 19, serving to confirm the position in verse 17 ; for
a part of verse 19 is repeated here, and also the latter part of the
sentence in verse 17. The form is hypothetical; which is a
favorite mode of Paul in making out conclusions. The amount
of it is thus : 'If what I have said in verses 18, 19, be true [and
22*

258 ROMANS VII. 21.
clearly it is], then what I have affirmed in verse 17 must be
true.' The phrase ov BeXui is related, as before, to the internal
moral man ; and rovro iroiui to the carnal man. So the oixert
£yu> Karepyd£opai refers to the former, and the ev ipo'i to the
latter. (21) Next follows a general deduction from the preceding re
presentations, of which dpa, then, therefore, is the sign.
Only two methods of explanation seem to me worth discussing
here, (a) 'I find rbv vopov, a law or constitution, viz., of my na
ture, that when I would do good, evil is near at hand.' So Cal
vin, Venema, Limborch, Michaelis, Bolten, Ammon, etc. It is
charged as a difficulty upon this mode of interpretation, that the
article in t6v vopov cannot well be accounted for ; for vopov in
verse 23 has it not. But this objection has little weight, for
vopos in verse 21 is surely a particular and specific vopos ; but
in verse 23, rbv erepov vopov (i. e., adding the article) would give
a sense which the writer does not intend, for he means here only
to say that there is another law, i. e., some other law, in opposition
to the law of his mind. 'Ev tois peXeai does indeed specificate the
vop.os in question ; but in such a case the article may be either
inserted or omitted. A comparison moreover of verse 21 with
verse 23 seems to render it quite plain, that rbv vopov in the
former is the same as the erepov vopov in the latter. I take the
meaning of the writer to be, that he finds it to be a custom or
law with him, resulting from his carnal nature, that when his
reason and conscience decide in favor of doing good, evil comes
in and prevents it; i. e., his carnal affections and desires inter
pose and hinder his doing good ; in other words, he finds the do
ing of evil so habitual with himself, that he must regard it as a
controlling law of his carnal nature.
(b) The second method puts a comma after dpa, and construes
the intermediate clause thus : 'Ep.ot tu> BeXovri iroieiv rbv vopov,
[sc. 7rotetv] to koXov ; thus making to koXov a synonyme with tov
vopov, and supposing Troterv to be virtually repeated before it.
So Tholuck, Knapp, et al. This explanation is a possible one ;
but I can hardly bring myself to feel that it is probable. In
sense it does not differ materially from the other ; and therefore
it offers no special inducement to adopt it. That vdp.os in this
case does not mean the Mosaic law, as some maintain, seems to
me quite certain from the two different senses given to vdptos in
verse 23.
Evil is at hand, evil is near or in readiness, ipol rb KaKbv
rapdKeirai. The meaning here is, as verse 23 shows, that evil
stands ready to usurp the place of good, and does in fact usurp
it. This last clause, beginning with on, etc., is epexegetical
of tov vopov.

EOMANS VII. 22. 259
(22) For I delight in the law of God, as it respects the internal
man, aw-rjSopai ydp .... dvBpuiirov. The sentiment is, for
substance, the same as in verses 15 — 17; but the costume in
which it appears, is diverse. That the sentiment, moreover, is
epexegetical of verse 21, is quite plain. Hence the ydp illustran-
tis with which it is introduced. ^vvgSopai here corresponds to
avp<f>gpiin verse 16; and eaui dvBpuiirov, here, corresponds to eyco
in verse 17. If the strength of the expression avvrjSopai to vopui,
is supposed to be inconsistent with an unregenerate state, it may
well be asked, whether the expression in verse 14, on the other
side, is not still stronger. The truth is, in a contrast like this,
where the mind of the writer is wrought up to a high pitch of
feeling, the mere forms of expression cannot in themselves go
very far toward establishing any principle of doctrine. It is to
the object at which the writer is aiming, that we must look ; and
this object has been already brought to view. But if any one
insists on urging the form of expression, let him first construe
verse 14 by the rule which he himself here adopts; and then
compare Mark vi. 20 -qSeuis avrov r/xoue, i. e., Herod heard John
i^Se'cus ; John v. 35. Matt. xiii. 20. John ii. 23 — 25. Acts viii. 13,
comp. verse 20 — 23, Isa. lviii. 2, where it is said of the wicked,
that " they delight to know my ways," and " they take delight in
approaching to God." Comp. also 1 K. xxi. 27 — 29. 1 John
iii. 9. Ps. cxix. 3. Many other passages of the like tenor could
be adduced, in order to show that a qualified sense is to be put
on such expressions. Above all, John xv. 22 — • 24. Matt. vi.
24. Luke xvi. 13 and xiv. 26, show that very strong expressions
of this kind are to be modified according to the nature of the
case which is under consideration.
In accordance with such examples, and with the whole context,
I cannot hesitate to say, that verse 22 only expresses in a more
intense form and with more feeling, what is simply expressed in
verse 16, avpcj>gpi tu. vdpui. The approbation, complacency (so
to speak), which reason and conscience yield to the divine law as
holy and good, is strongly expressed indeed ; but not more so than
in the cases to which the reader is referred above, and about the
exegesis of which there can be no disagreement. In fact the
very next verse shows that the apostle cannot here be understood
to mean the pleasure which a regenerate and filial spirit takes in
the divine law ; for this, as chap. viii. 1 — 17 most clearly shows,
would lead the person who might possess it to " walk after the
Spirit " and not " after the flesh ; " while here, the very individ
ual who " delights in the law of God after the inner man," is at
the same time represented as being under the actual dominion of
the law of sin and death, aud led to destruction by it. Is this the
real stale of a child of God ? Comp. viii. 9 — 14.

260 ROMANS VII. 23, 24.
(23) But I perceive another law in my members, warring
against the law of my mind, /SXeirui Se . . . . pov. Ae adversa
tive or disjunctive ; i. e., notwithstanding my reason and con
science strongly approve of the divine law, yet I do not obey it;
for there is another law directly opposed to it, viz., the law dic
tated by my carnal passions and desires. — Ndp.os must of course
mean not law in the sense of precepts, but a predominating ten
dency, i. e., it has a figurative or secondary sense, kindred to the
meaning which we often give it, in speaking of the laws of nature,
the laws of fluids, etc. Me'Xeat is only another designation of
auipa, adp£, or dvBpunros aapKiKos ; comp. verse 5. The ground
of employing vopos, in this case, is paronomasia; for it stands as
the offset to another kind of vopos mentioned in the preceding
clause — As to voos (Gen. of vois), it evidently means the same
thing as the ecrto dvBpunros above. — This law not only wars
against the law of the inner man, but actually overcomes it —
alxpaXunifovrd pe . . . . pov, lit. making me a captive to the law
of sin which is in my members, i. e., reducing me to entire sub
jection unto, placing me altogether at the disposal of, the law of
sin or carnal self. AlxpaXuiri^ovra comes from alxp-ij a spear and
dXoui to take, seize upon, and belongs to the later Greek. Cap
tives taken in war were put to death, or kept or sold as slaves,
at the pleasure of the victor. The meaning therefore is, that the
law of sin had entire rule or control, notwithstanding the inner
man decided against it. And can such be the habitual state of
any real Christian ?
If the reader is in any measure perplexed with the question,
How could the other law in his members bring him into captivity
to the law of sin, when the law of sin, i. e., a predominating sinful
propensity is the very thing designated by both expressions ?
The obvious answer is, that here, as in verses 17, 20, sin is per
sonified, and the carnal man is represented as being ruled over
or subdued and made captive by it. The difficulty is merely
of a rhetorical nature, and belongs only to the mode of repre
sentation. (24) Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from
the body which occasions this death or condemnation ? raXaiiruipos
.... tou'tou. No wonder that the sinner, whose conscience
has been awakened by the law of God, and who has been brought
by bitter experience to see that all which reason and conscience
do for him proves ineffectual as to the actual control of his lusts
and passions — no wonder that he should be constrained, in view
of the dreadful condemnation which seems to await him, to ex
claim, " Wretched man that I am ! " Well may he express a
wish, too, for deliverance from the predominating power of his

ROMANS VII. 25. 261
bodily carnal lusts and inclinations ; whicli, in spite of all the
remonstrances that his awakened conscience makes, continue to
expose him to the curse of the divine law, yea to its aggravated
penalty. The body of this death, tov auiparos toC Bavdrov tovtov is con
strued by some as being equivalent to o-oipa Bv-qrov, i. e., frail,
dying body. The sentiment would then be : ' Oh, that I might
die, or be liberated from this mortal body ! ' This would, in the
connection here presented, be the language of despair ; like that
of Job when in deep distress, iii. 3 — 11. x. 18. But although
this is a possible, it does not seem to be the probable sense, as
the comparison of it with chap. viii. 2 shows. 'Xuipa I under
stand here (so not unfrequently elsewhere) as equivalent to o-dpf,
i. e., as designating the seat of carnal desires. In such a sense
adpi; stands opposed to irvevpa, in John iii. 6. Rom. viii. 9, 5, C.
®avdrov is the Genitive of effect, as grammarians say, i. e., it is a
Genitive which marks or designates the effect produced by auipa;
and this latter word designates the agent, viz., carnal desire in
natural men, which leads to death or condemnation ; comp. viii.
6. Comp. verse 13, where apapria is said to work death ; which
sin is only a personification of the carnal appetites, and dwells in
the carnal man; see verses 17, 20, and comp. verse 18. So here
it is intimated of the body, which is the abode of this apapria, that
it is the cause of death.
(25) / thank God, through Jesus Christ, our Lord, evxapiarui
.... -qpuiv,* viz., that there is deliverance ; an exclamation
from sympathy for the guilty and wretched sufferer, who had just
been described. It should be read as in a parenthesis, inasmuch
as it breaks in altogether upon the thread of discourse, and is
simply an anticipation of what is about to follow in chap. viii.
Wherefore I the same person serve with ihe mind the law of
God, but with the flesh the law of sin, dpa ovv .... dpaprias. A
summary of the whole preceding representation, as dpa ovv
denotes, in respect to the contest which he had been describing.
The sum of all is : ' While my mind, i. e., reason and conscience,
takes part with the law of God and approves its sanctions, my
carnal part obtains the actual predominance, and brings me into
a state of condemnation and ruin.' Why should the apostle pre
fer vovs here and in verse 23, to irvevpa the natural and usual
antithesis of o-dp£ ? The obvious answer seems to be, that he
especially designs to characterize the intellectual, rational, and
moral iydi of man, as being that part of him which approves the
* The text here is very doubtful. Lachmann, Alford aud others prefer
the reading : %<W TV @e'P s'^ '^<rov, etc.' The idea is nearly the same, which
ever text we adopt.

262 ROMANS VII. 25.
law of God. — Airos iyui, I myself; so designated here, as it
would seem, in order to distinguish the e'y<o now introduced
(self in the usual and comprehensive sense), from the iyui carnal
and internal which he had all along been employing, i. e.,^ the
two selves which he had been representing. The ey<o airo's,
then is the same person (as we say), who has, while in a
law-state, two minds or inclinations in him. I do not perceive any
need of the difficulties which some commentators have made here.
But what follows from all this ? Just what the writer set out
to prove, viz., (1) That the law of God, which has reason and
conscience on its side, is not to be accused as being the efficient
cause of sin ; but that the indulgence of the sinner's own evil
passions is the direct cause of his guilt and misery. (2) That
the law, with all its holiness and justice, and goodness, and even
with reason and conscience on its side, is unable to control the
person who is yet under it, and is destitute of the grace of the
gospel. From all this follows the grand deduction which the
apostle intends to make, viz., that we must be " under grace," in
order to subdue our sinful passions and desires. In other words:
" Christ is our dyiaapos, as well as our SiKatoo-uvri."
And now, at the close of this whole representation we may
well ask ; What stronger proof could the apostle produce, than
that which he has brought forward, in order to show that the law
is ineffectual as the means of subduing the power of sin and of
sanctifying sinners ? The law with all its terrors and strictness,
even when reason and conscience are on its side, cannot deliver
e/c rov auiparos rov Bavdrov rovro. On the contrary, its very re
straints are the occasion of the sinner's guilt being aggravated,
because his passions are excited by them to more vehement op
position. Does not all this fully and satisfactorily establish the
assertion implied in verse 5, rd iraB-qpara tuiv dpapnuiv Ta Sta tou
vopov ? And yet, with what admirable caution and prudence is
the whole of this nice and difficult discussion conducted ? The
law stands fully vindicated. Even the sinner himself, who
abuses it to his own aggravated guilt and ruin, is obliged to con
cede that it is holy, and just, and good. But with all its excel
lence and glory, with all its promises and threatenings, it never
did and never can redeem one soul from death, nor " hide a mul
titude of sins." Christ is, after all, our only and all-sufficient
Saviour ; his is " the only name given under heaven among men
whereby we ean be saved." He is " our wisdom, our justifica
tion, our sanctification, and our redemption." What then becomes
of all the vain and selfish hopes of the legalist? The apostle has
scattered them to the winds, and showed that ' no man can come
unto the Father, except by the Son.'

ROMANS VIII. 1. 263
That there is, after all, adequate help for the poor perishing
sinner, the apostle next proceeds to show. What the law could
not accomplish, Christ has effected. That control over the carnal
passions and desires, which no legal penalties and no remon
strances of reason and conscience would give to him, the grace of
the Holy Spirit given through the gospel, does impart. No
longer does he live to the flesh ; no more does sin have a habitual
and supreme control over him. Such is the happy state to which
the perishing sinner comes, by being brought tj7to x°LPlv> an&
this, he has abundant assurance, will be a permanent state, i. e.,
his ' grace will be crowned with glory.' Such is the theme of the
next chapter. For additional hints respecting the grounds on
which chap. vii. 5 — 25 has been interpreted, as having respect
to a person who is under the law and not under grace, see the
Excursus upon this chapter.

CHAP. VIII. 1 — 11.
In the preceding chapter (verses 7 — 25), the apostle has illustrated and enforced
the proposition made in chap vii. 5, viz., that while in a carnal state, our sinful pas
sions are not only exercised, but that they are even rendered more vigorous or
energetic by reason of the restraints which the divine law puts upon them ; and
consequently, that they ' bring forth fruit unto death.' The law, then, being thus
abused by our unholy inclinations and desires, and made the occasion of increas
ing our sin, and enhancing our condemnation, can never be the means of our
salvation or deliverance from that very penalty which itself pronounces on all
transgressors. The present chapter exhibits the antithesis of all this. It is a commentary upon
vii. 6, or at least an enlargement and illustration of the sentiment there exhibited.
As verse 6 there is the antithesis of verse 5; so here viii. 1 — 11 is the antithesis of
vii. 7 — 25.
(1) Now then, dpa vvv, i. e., now agreeably to this, or in ac
cordance with what has been said. "Apa is here, as usually,
illative, at least in part. But it does not stand connected with
the next preceding sentence. The reader must go back beyond
the illustration in vii. 7 — : 25, to vii. 6, and vii. 4, in order to
find the connection of the dpa vvv here.* The course of the
sentiment is thus : ' Since ye have been absolved from your legal
state, i. e., since ye have quit your hope of being sanctified and
saved by the law, and have become united to Christ in order that
* Meyer, Alford, and others, refer this directly to the 25th verse : I my
self with my mind serve, etc. There is then, now no condemnation, i. e. be
cause with your mind, and that mind dwelt in and led by the spirit of Christ,
you serve, delight in the law of God. But it seems far more natural to refer
it to the general idea in the previous discussion : since you are not under law,
but under grace, there is now, etc.

264 ROMANS VIII. 1.
you may bring forth fruit unto God and serve him in newness
of spirit, there is no condemnation to you in your present state.'
This of course implies that there would have been condemnation
to them, had they remained under the law.
No condemnation, oiSev .... KaraKpipa, here means, of course,
no condemnation which is to be carried into execution, no penalty
actually to be inflicted. The gospel condemns all sin either in
believers or others, with even more strictness than the law (<ee
Matt, v.) ; but under it a way of pardon is provided, by which
the condemned may obtain remission of the penalty that they
have incurred.
The subject of condemnation is suggested here by the previous
exclamation : Tt's pe pvaerai iK to? auiparos tou Bavdrov tovtov ;
Besides, sin and condemnation are inseparably connected; and
hence it is, that in verse 2 the apostle speaks of " deliverance
from sin and death" by the power and grace of the gospel. The
subject of death or condemnation is, however, merely secondary
here ; for chaps, i. — v. fully treat of this. It is sanctification,
and not justification which, as has been repeatedly remarked, is the
main subject of discussion here. This is made quite plain by
verse 3, seq.
To those who are in Christ, rois ev Xpiarui '1-qaov, i. e., those
who are truly and spiritually united to Christ ; comp. 2 Cor. v.
17. Rom. xvi. 7 — 11. Phil. i. 1. 1 Cor. i. 2. So Erasmus : Qui
in Christo insiti sunt. The ground of this idiom, is the spiritual
union which exists between the Head of the church and its
members; comp. Eph. v. 30. 1 Cor. vi. 15. xii. 27. Eph. iv. 15,
16. John xvii. 11, 21, 23. xiv. 20. 1 John iv. 13. iii. 24.
The phrase, p-q Kara .... irvevpa, is marked by Knapp as
spurious, and is omitted by Mill, Semler, Bengel, Griesbach,
Vater, Lachmann, and Riickert. It is omitted in manuscripts
G, D., F., G. ; also in many versions and fathers. Only the
last clause, however, i. e., dXXd Kara irvevpa, is omitted in manu
scripts A., B. ; also in the Vulgate, Syriac, and Armenian ver
sions ; likewise in Basil, Chrysostom, and many of the fathers.
It is a matter of little or no importance whether the words are
received or rejected, either in whole or in part, so far as the
sense of the whole passage is concerned. The very same words
occur again in verse 4 ; and accordingly many critics have sup
posed that they are not genuine here. But we may as well
attempt to prove the spuriousness of verse 4 by assumino- that it
is a mere repetition of this, as the spuriousness of this by assum
ing it to be a repetition of verse 4. The external evidence only
makes the genuineness of it doubtful. The sense is : ' Who do
not live in such a manner as to gratify the desires of the flesh,

ROMANS VIII. 2, 3. 265
but walk in such a manner as accords with tne desires which
the spirit imparts,' and the whole clause is epexegetical, and
added in order to characterize those who are in Christ Jesus.
(2) The word vopos here will be best understood by referring
back to vii. 21, 23, 25, where, in vopov, erepov vopov, and vdpui
dpaprias, the word means dictate (as we say), dominatio, jussuin,
prceceptum. As vopos dpaprias means dictate of sin, so vopos
IIveipaTos (the opposite of vopos dpaprias) must mean dictate of
the Spirit, i. e., the law of the new man, which results from the
influences of the spirit, who imparts life in Christ Jesus, or true
Christian life.
Of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, irvevparos rrjs £u>rjs iv
Xpto-T<3 '1-qaov, i. e., of the Spirit which imparts true, quickening,
Christian influence or a Christian disposition ; comp. as to the in
fluences ofthe Spirit, verses 9, 11 below; also 1 Cor. ii. 10, 12.
xii. 4, 7, 11, 13. Something different from the natural powers
or the natural conscience of men is meant, as is plain, from com
paring this with what is asserted of the natural conscience in vii.
15 — 25 ; when the inefficacy of the natural conscience to control
the passions and to free the sinner from the condemning sentence
of God's holy law is conspicuous. Zurqs is abstract tor concrete,
designating quality and holding the place of an adjective ; i. e.,
life-giving, quickening. 'Ev Xpto-Ttp '1-qaov means the same as in
verse 1. The sentiment then is this : ' The dictate of or the in
clination imparted by the Spirit, who quickens those that once
were dead in trespasses and sins, and gives them the predominant
inclination to live in Christ."
This influence of the Spirit, Paul goes on to say, frees from
the law of sin and [from] death. Here (as this is the antithesis
ofthe former clause of the verse), the law of sin means the dictate
[jussum or impetus] of sin, which leads to death or condemna
tion. To suppose diro to be repeated or implied before rov Bavd
rov, seems to be the most correct method of explaining the
phrases ; yet, if any one prefers, he may construe it thus : ' The
law, viz., impetus, which leads to sin and condemnation.' The
apostle does not mean to say, that Christians who are under the
influences of ' the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus,' are perfectly
sinless, but that they are freed from the predominating power of
sinful inclination, such as is described in the preceding chapter,
verses 7 — 23, and such as subjects them to the penalty of the
divine law. More than this need not be attached to his words ;
and more than this cannot properly be attached to them, when
the antithesis in the preceding chapter is taken into the account,
or when facts themselves are regarded.
(3) For that which the law could not effect, or that which was
23

266 ROMANS VIII. 3.
impossible for the law, rb ydp dSvvarov rov vopov* viz., that which
the law of works could not effect or accomplish. What that is,
is designated by the sequel, viz., the subjugation of sin or the
sinful affections and lusts of men, the slaying of the carnal man.
This, as the preceding chapter abundantly shows, could not be
effected by the law ; which served rather to irritate and rouse up
the carnal man than to subjugate and destroy him. Tap is
prefixed to a clause introduced for the sake of illustration or
confirmation. Because it was weak through the flesh, iv d> rjaBevei Sid rrjs aap
Kos, i. c, because, through the strength of our carnal inclinations
and desires, it was unable to regulate our lives so that we
should be perfect or entirely free from sin; comp. vii. 14 — 25.
2dp£ here, as often elsewhere, designates carnal appetites or
inclinations. What the law of works could not effect, o ©eos .... dpaprias,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of our sinful flesh, i. e.,
God sending his Son, with a body, or having a nature, like that
of corrupt and sinful men [did accomplish]. *E7rotTTo-e, therefore,
or some verb of an equivalent meaning, should doubtless be sup
plied. Others translate thus : ' As to the impossibility of the
law,' etc. But the idea in this case seems to be left in an imjjer-
fect state. The simple meaning is : ' What the law could not ac
complish, God by the mission of his Son did accomplish.' As to
bpoiuipan aapubs dpaprias, comp. John. i. 14. Rom. i. 3. Heb. ii.
14, 17. iv. 15. Phil. ii. 7. Gal. iv. 4. 1 John iv. 2, 3. 1 Tim. iii.
16. The phrase cv bpoiuipan does not mean, as the Docetaj con'
strued it, merely an apparent likeness of human nature and not
a real one; for in Heb. ii. 17, Christ is said bpoiuiBijvai Kara
iravra, in respect to his brethren, i. e., men. That Jesus possessed
a nature really and truly like our own, is established beyond all
doubt by the passage above quoted, and others of the like tenor.
No less certain is it that he did not on that account become a
sinner; see Heb. iv. 15. 2 Cor. v. 21. Heb. vii. 26. The idea
therefore in the expression before us, is, that Christ took on him
such a physical nature as sinful men possess, with all the powers,
faculties, and susceptibilities of soul and body, which belong to hu
man nature. Accordingly the apostle represents him as having
the sympathies of our nature, and as feeling the power of tempta
tion in like manner with us, although without sin ; Heb. iv. 15.
It is not susceptibility oi being excited by sinful objects, then,
* According to some, rb . . . aSivarov is in the nominative, and in appo
sition with the clause : Kai^ptve, k. t. a. Tlie idea is : that which is impossible
for the law, God condemned in the flesh, i. e. this last, the condemning, etc.
is what is impossible for the law to accomplish.

ROMANS VIII. 3. 267
which makes men sinners, but it is the yielding to this excitement.
This Jesus did not.
The phrase Kat 7rept dpaprias may be equivalent to /cat irpoa-
<hopa. irepl dpapTtas, and by an offering for sin. The elliptical
phrase, irepl dpaprias, is frequently used instead of the entire one ;
comp. Heb. x. 18, with x. 8, 6. Lev. iv. 3. Num. viii. 8. Ps.
xxxix. 6 (Sept.) There can be no serious difficulty in regard to
such an ellipsis. Moreover, that dpapria alone is sometimes used
for sin-offering (nxan), seems to be altogether probable from 2
Coi-. v. 21, dpapriav iiroi-qae; also from Heb, ix. 28, x«/°w dpap
Ttas. In this way irepl dpaprias would be construed as designat
ing the way or means by which Christ condemned or destroyed
sin, viz., by giving himself an offering for sin, and so procuring
sanctifying grace for sinners.
But although I adopted this interpretation in the former edi
tion of this work, it seems better to lake Trept in some of its more
usual meanings ; in respect to, on account of, fur the sake of for,
concerning, respecting, because of, about, etc. In significations so
multiform and generic as these, it is easy to perceive that the
latitude in which 7rept is used must be very great. In connection
with expiations, sacrifices, etc., it often has the meanings : for, on
account of, because of, which have a direct bearing on the present
case, e. g., Mark i. 44, ' Offer what is commanded, -Trept toC KaBa-
piapov,' i. e.,for the sake of accomplishing or effecting the requi
site legal purification; so also in Luke v. 14. In Luke ii. 27 :
7rept avrov, in his behalf, on his account, for him.' So in Heb. v.
3, ' offerings irepl tou Xaov, for the people, i. e., in, their behalf.'
But when dpapria follows Trept, there must of necessity be a dif
ferent shade of sense. Thus in Heb, x. 18 irpoa<f>opb irepl dpap
rias, Heb. X. 26 Bvala irepl dpapnuiv, Heb. X. 6, 8 7rept dpaprias
(elliptically for 7rpoo-c/>opd irepi dpaprias, comp. v. 18), 1 Peter iii.
18 7rept dpaprias eiraBe, 1 John ii. 2. iv. 10 IXaapbs irepl tuiv
dpapnuiv, it must be understood that the sacrifice was occasioned
by sin, and that it is offered in relation to sin, i. e., in order to
make atonement for it. So I would construe irepl dpaprias in the
verse before us. It is connected with irepij/as tov eavrov Yto'v, and
the apostle makes two affirmations, viz., (a) God sent his Son in
the likeness of men, i. e., with the nature of those whom he was
to redeem, (b) God sent him /cat 7rept dpaprias, also on account
of sin, i. e., to make atonement for it, to prevent its evil effects.
The change of prepositions, (ev being first employed and then
Trept) ; and the consequent change of construction, is not unusual
in the writings of Paul. Ilept dpaprias here, seems plainly to be
chosen for the sake of the paronomasia, with bpoiuipan crap/cos
dpaprias. And for a like reason, and in reference to the two last

268 EOMANS VIII. 3.
words of this clause, he says immediately afterwards, KareKpive
ttjv dpapriav iv rfj aapd, i. e., the sin already mentioned (the arti
cle is used here before dpapriav), and the sin which has its seat
in the flesh, i. e., in our carnal passions and appetites, ry aapd
(also with the article). The whole phraseology is paronomasiac
in a peculiar degree.
Condemned sin in the flesh, KareKpive .... o-ap/ct, i. e., (as
many explain) condemned the sin which fleshly appetites occa
sion. The word KareKpive has occasioned much difficulty among
critics. The reason why it is employed here, seems to be, that
the writer had just used KaraKpipa in verse 1. The antithesis
stands thus : • There is now no KaraKpipa for Christians ; but
there is a KaraKpipa of their carnal appetites and desires ; ' i. e.,
Christians are indeed delivered from the penalty of death, but
their sinful lusts are condemned to death or slain, in consequence
of the provision made by Jesus Christ for their deliverance. In
such a paronomasiac use of words, we are not to feel obliged to
remain by the mere literal and usual meaning, but to give the
latitude which the nature of the connection requires. The
meaning of the apostle evidently is, that instead of being con
demned themselves, Christians experience, through the grace of
Christ, the condemnation of the sin within them which works
their ruin. This very same idea is insisted on in different lan
guage at large in chap. vi. 2 — 1 1, where the old man is repre
sented as crucified, mortified, etc. The expected consequence of
KareKpive dpapriav here is plainly that Christians should yield
obedience to the divine precepts ; iva rb SiKaiuipa *. r. X., verse
4. And so according to chap. vi. 11 seq., he whose old man is
crucified lives henceforth to God. Such of course is the conse
quence of the carnal affections being put to death, or (to use the
language of our text) condemned, i. e., to death, (KareKpive not
eKpive). All this is effected by the mission of Christ, who
came to save his people from the power as well as from the
penalty of sin.
The words ev o-ap/ct here may be joined with dpapriav, and so
indicate what Paul has so often declared in the preceding context,
viz., that sin is occasioned by fleshly appetites and desires ; and
so the majority of expositors understand it. In such a case r rj v
iv o-ap/ct would be the usual and full mode of expression ; but the
article may be omitted; see New Test. Gram. § 92. b. But ev
trap/a may be joined in sense with KareKpive, and so indicate the
manner or means in or by which Christ condemned sin, viz., by
assuming our fleshly nature (eV bpoiuipan crap/cos dpaprias).
Many prefer this construction as the more apposite and con
gruous. Either sense is good, and allowed by the idiom of the
anostle.

EOMANS VIII. 4 — 6. 269
The course of thought, which is somewhat obscured by the
arrangement of the words, may be made plain to the reader by a
somewhat different position of some parts of the sentence. E. g.,
' God sent his own Son, in the likeness of men and on account of
their sins, and destroyed the power of sin in their carnal nature,
(which the law could not possibly effect because it was deprived
of its energy through the strength of the carnal affections), in
order that the precepts of the law which demands holiness of life,
might be obeyed by those who walk according to the dictates of
his spirit.'
(4) The precepts cf the law, to SiKaiuipa rov vopov. So in the
Septuagint SiKaiuipa is used to translate pr\ , BS'Ja , and ttyi'v .
llXijpuiBrj iv gpiv, might be accomplished or done by us ; viz., that
we, who are influenced and guided by the Spirit, might be obedi
ent to divine precepts requiring holiness of life, and no longer
devoted to the lusts of the flesh.
Here then we have a view of the end which is accomplished
by the death of Christ ; viz., the sanctification of believers. This
is one of the passages, which shows the whole drift of the dis
course in chap. vii. and viii.. 1 — 11. 'Ev ijpiv may be rendered
by ms, but better, in us, so as to designate the internal spiritual
influence of the death of Christ upon believers, inasmuch as it
causes a conformity of spirit or heart to him. Some understand
this verse as having respect to an imputed and vicarious fulfilling
of the law, or the imputation of Christ's obedience to believers.
But the context shows plainly, that actual sanctification, the
mortification or death of sin, is here the subject of discussion.
(5) For they who are in a carnal state, have regard to carnal
things, ol ydp .... cppovovaiv. Tap illustrantis. Kara adpKa is
here used, because the same phrase stands in the preceding verse.
Etvat Kara crdp/ca, to be according to the flesh, does not differ in
sense from etvat aapKiKoi, or from ev crap/ct etvat, when taken in
the figurative sense. The meaning plainly is, ' to act in accord
ance with carnal desires and affections.'
But they who are in a spiritual state, have regard to spiritual
things, ot Se . . . 7rveij'p.aros. Comp. verses 2 and 9 — 11. Ot
Kara irvevpa being the antithesis of ot Kara adpKa, is easily
understood. (6) For the carnal mind is death, rb ydp . . . Bdvaros. Tap
illustrantis again, where we might naturally expect Se'. How
ever, I take verse 6 to be co-ordinate with verse 5, and the ydp
here to indicate an illustration of what is said in verse 4. So
Riickert. The connection seems to be thus : ' The precepts of the
law are obeyed by those who walk not after the flesh, but after
the Spirit ; but carnal men will not give heed to spiritual things,
23*

270 ROMANS VIII. 7.
and their pursuits lead to death; while eternal happiness, is
the consequence or fruit of a spiritual mind, i. e., a mind con
formed to the dictates of the Spirit.' This is not direct confirma
tion of what is asserted in verse 4, but is an illustration of the
condition there described, by showing its connections and results,
and also those of the opposite condition. &p6vqpa aapKos means
a mind or will conformed to carnal passions and appetites.
(7) Next follows the ground or reason why this is and will be
so, because the carnal mind is enmity toward God, Sioti .... ets
©edv, i. e., is inimical to God, or (in plain terms) hates him,
dislikes his precepts, his character, and his ways. So the sequel,
™ ydp k. t. X. The abstract noun exBpa, is here used for the
adjective ivBpd, inimical, unfriendly. The proof that the senti
ment just uttered is correct, follows in the next clause.
For it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be, t<3
ydp .... SwaTat ; i. e., it does not obey the precepts of God's
law, nor can it obey them. The very nature of a carnal mind
consists in gratifying carnal and sinful desires, viz., those desires
which the law of God prohibits. Of course this mind or disposi
tion, so far as it prevails, leads to the very opposite of subjection
to God's law, i. «., leads to disobedience. From its very nature
this cannot be otherwise ; for when it is otherwise, the mind is no
longer carnal.
Upon this passage the advocates of metaphysical reasoning
with respect to ability in men have speculated, and disputed not
a little. What is the cannot ? One Answers : It is a ivill not ;
another, that it is to be literally understood, without any abate
ment. So Luther, de Servo Arbitrio ; and so many others.
That the phrase stands in the way of Pelagianism, and indeed
of all unqualified assertions of ability in the carnal man ; at least,
that it may be easily and naturally so construed, it is not diffi
cult to see. Still what the natural and physiological powers of the
sinner are, is not here the subject of discussion. Thus much the
writer appears to say, and no more, viz., that the eppov-qpa aapKos
is not subject to God's law, and cannot be subject to it. And is
not this plainly and obviously true ? So far as ebpovqpa aapKos
goes, it is directly the opposite of subjection in its very nature.
" How," says Augustine (and much to the point), " can snow
be warmed ? For when it is melted and becomes warm, it is no
longer snow." And so it is with the carnal mind. Just so long
as it exists, and in just such proportion as it exists, it is and will
be enmity against God and disobey his law. But whether the
sinner who cherishes this jypdvqpa aapK6s is not actuated by other
principles also, and urged by other motives, and possessed of
ability, arising from other sources, to turn from his evil ways,

ROMANS VIII. 8, 9. 271
does not seem to be satisfactorily determined by this expression.
What Chrysostom says, deserves very serious attention : " He
does not affirm that the bad man cannot become a good one ;
but that, while he continues to be bad, he cannot possibly obey
God. When converted, however, it is easy to be good and to
obey God."
(8) Those then who are in the flesh, cannot please God, ot Se
.... Suvavrat. The particle Se is continuative here ; comp. its
use in Rom. viii. 28. Mark xvi. 8. Acts xxiii. 13. Rom. iii. 22. 1
Cor. x. 11. xv. 56. James ii. 15. Ot Se ev o-ap/ct k. t. X. resumes
the sentiment contained in rb ebpdvqpa rrjs crap/cos exBpa k. t. X.
and repeats it in another form. Moreover, this latter form has
special reference to vii. 5, 18.
Those who are ev o-ap/ct, are those, " who are not led by the
Spirit of God," comp. verses 9, 13, 14 ; who follow fleshly desires
and appetites. All men who are not regenerated or sanctified,
wdio are in a natural state, are ev aapKi, carnal, and therefore are
influenced and guided by their carnal desires and affections ;
comp. John iii. 6. 1 Cor. ii. 14. Eph. ii. 1 — 3. Col. ii. 13.
Consequently, as may well be supposed, ©e<3 dpeaai ov Svvavrai,
they cannot please God ; i. «., while they live in such a state,
and are led on by such carnal desires, they can do nothing which
is pleasing to God. The ov Svvavrai here is to be understood in
the same way as the oi SiVaTat in the preceding verse.
(9) The opposite character is now brought into view, in order
to render the sentiment more striking. Tou, however, are not in
the flesh but in the Spirit, provided the Spirit of God dwells in
you, vpeis Se . . . . vp.tv. The Se here is distinctive. If the
Spirit of God dwells in any one, he cannot be in a carnal state ;
for the Spirit dwells in and guides only those who are the sons of
God (verse 14), and therefore his friends, verse 17. Such can
not be at enmity with God. The 7rveCpa ©eou which is here
merrtioned, is the same as that to which the writer has all along
referred. In the next verse it is called Trveupa Xpto-ToC. As to
the dwelling ofthe Spirit in Christians, comp. 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17.
vi. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 16 ; and with these texts comp. John xvii. 23.
xiv. 23—26.
The Spirit of Christ, irvevpa Xpiarov, is either the Spirit which
Christ imparts, or the Spirit which makes us like to Christ. The
first should seem the more probable meaning, when we compare
John xiv. 15 — 18, 26. xv. 26. It is remarkable that in this
short paragraph (verses 9 — 11), 7rveijp.a Xpi.n-ov, Xptcn-ds, and to
irvevpa tov iyeipavros 'Ivaoiiv (i. C., Trveupa ©eoS IlaTpo's), should
be exchanged for each other, and plainly stand for one and the
same thing. Is not this evidence, that the apostle saw and felt no

272 ROMANS VIII. 10.
inconsistency in speaking of Christ, and of the Spirit of God or
of Christ, as in some respects distinct, and yet in others as consti
tuting a unity of nature ? There seems to me to be an entire
simplicity in the mode in which Paul has treated this subject ; a
subject which has unhappily been made so complex and intricate,
by the subtilties ofthe schools. The simple facts, without specu
lation or nice distinctions, that Christ and the Spirit are divine,
are one in nature with God, and yet in some respect distinct from
the Father, seem to be the basis of the apostle's language here
and elsewhere ; may the time soon come, when Christians shall
also be content with simple facts relative to this great subject,
without useless speculations.
Possesseth not, ovk e^et ; i. e., if the Spirit of Christ does not
habitually dwell in and influence any one. — He is not his, ovk
eanv avrov, i. e., he is no Christian, he is not a true disciple or
follower of Christ. The Se at the beginning of the clause seems
to be continuative, and therefore may be translated now. If any
choose they may render it as adversative, but.
(10) But if Christ be in you, el Xpiaros iv vpiv, i. e., if he dwell
in you by his Spirit, if ye have the Spirit of Christ, if ye are ha
bitually influenced by him in your lives and conversation. The
Se here is plainly adversative.
The body indeed is mortified on account of sin, but the spirit
lives on account of righteousness, rb pev auipa .... St/caioo-wrr.
There are three methods in which this passage has been inter
preted. One class of interpreters explain it thus : ' The body is dead
in respect to sin, i. e., sin has no more power to excite its evil
appetites and desires. The soul has, moreover, the principle of
spiritual life ; and he who raised up Jesus will also give to your
bodies [viz., at the resurrection], a new principle of spiritual
life or animation.' So for substance, Origen, Theodoret,
Clarius, Grotius, Raphel, Taylor, Melancthon, Bucer, and
others. The objection to this is, that it renders it necessary to construe
Std before the Accusative as meaning in respect to, in reference
to ; which can hardly be admitted. Moreover it destroys the
antithesis in verse 10. It renders quite insipid, also, the an
tithesis between auipa ve/cpo'v inverse 10, and £u>o7roiTjo-ei to, Bv-qrd
aiiipara in verse 1 1 .
Another method of interpreting the phrase in question is this :
' The body must die [physically] because of sin ; but the spiritual
part lives and even the body itself will be made to live at the
period of the resurrection, i. e., it will be raised up and become
like Christ's own glorious body.' So Tholuck, Flatt, Calvin,

ROMANS VIII. 10. 273
Augustine, Beza, and others. Thus it would foreclose an objec
tion which would arise in the mind of some reader, who might
ask : ' Are all the consequences of sin, then, removed by the
death of Christ ? ' To this the apostle may be viewed as reply
ing in the verse before us : ' No, not absolutely and entirely all.
Natural death still remains. But a glorious resurrection will
follow this ; so that in the end all its consequences will be done
away.' But there are weighty objections against this mode of
interpretation. If veKpov is to be understood in its literal sense,
then of course the following £uirj must be understood literally
also ; and what sense would it make to say, that ' the soul has
natural life because of righteousness,' when all know that the
wicked are as immortal as the righteous ? But if veKpov means
dead in the sense of having our carnal passions mortified, then
£0)77 would of course designate the peace and happiness of the
soul or spirit.
With Chrysostom, Erasmus, and others, I understand auipa
vei<pov in verse 10, as not indicating [physical] death ; nor yet as
meaning death in the sense of being dead in trespasses and sins,
i. e., destitute of spiritual life, or in a state of death or condemna
tion ; but as used in the same sense as bdvaros in vi. 4, 5 ; as
expressing an idea exactly kindred with avvearavpuiBrj and /carap-
yqBfi rb auipa ttjs dpaprias, in vi. 6 ; the same with diroBavuiv in vi. 7 ;
diroBdvopev in vi. 8 ; and veicpous in vi. 1 1 . That the writer did con
nect viii. 10, 11, in his own mind with vi. 4 — 13, appears quite
plain from his diction and general course of thought. In vi. 12 he
calls the body ^vtitov, just as in viii. 11 ; and in the former pas
sage he evidently means to designate by it a corporeal, material,
perishable body; which is also the sense, for substance, in
viii. 11.
But all the words above mentioned, in chap, vi., serve merely
to characterize what we call the mortification [the putting to
death] ofthe body, i. e., the subduing and mortifying our carnal
desires and affections, which are cherished by or originate from
the body. So I understand ve/cpdv here (as I do veKpovs in vi.
11), to designate, viz., a state in which the old man is crucified,
in which the carnal desires of the body are mortified and sub
dued. This exegesis has, at least, plain analogy on its side. In
terpreted in this way the sentiment of the whole passage would
run thus : ' If the Spirit of Christ dwells in any one, his body is
indeed dead on account of sin, i. e., the old man is crucified, or he
undergoes mortification as to his bodily and sinful appetites ; but
his spirit is rendered happy on account of righteousness, i. e.,
because of conformity to the requisitions of the gospel. Yea, if
the Spirit of him who raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in

274 EOMANS VIII. 11.
any man, that same Spirit will quicken, i. e., impart life to, his
mortal body ; ' in otlier words, he will not suffer it to remain a
mere auipa veKpov, but make it an instrument of righteousness
(vi. 12, 13, 19), and give it a power of being subservient to the
glory of God.
By degrees the Christian " brings under his body," and keeps
it in subjection. At first it is, as it were crucifying the old man ;
but in the sequel, the grace of God makes conquest easy and
even delightful. It is such a quickening of our bodies, a convert
ing of them into " instruments of righteousness," to which the
apostle seems to me here to refer. It seems to be conclusive in
regard to this exegesis, that the apostle here describes the Spirit
which " quickens the bodies " of Christians, as being the Spirit
which dwells in them, ivoiKovv iv vpiv. For where is the resur
rection of our physical bodies, at the last day, attributed to the
sanctifying Spirit in believers ? Very different is the statement
in Col. ii. 12, 13. Eph. i. 19, 20. ii. 5, 6. Rom. vi. 4. It is, then,
the Spirit who dwells in believers that is to quicken them in the
sense which is here meant ; and what can this be, except the one
designated in vi. 12, 13, 19 ?
Verse 13 seems clearly to indicate that the present passage is
to be understood as above explained ; for there, Tas irpdijeis rov
auiparos Bavarovre appears plainly to convey the same meaning
as o-o}p,a ve/cpo'v. The object of the writer, as I apprehend it, is
to show Christians, that although mortification and self-denial
must be practised in order to subjugate carnal desires, yet even
here they may expect relief in due time. Victory repeated be
comes easier. The enemy often vanquished, becomes weaker.
Tlie Spirit of Christ, in fine, brings the believer at last fully and
freely to dedicate all that he has and is to the service of his Lord
and Master ; so that no discouragement should be felt, because
the way is at first rough and difficult. It is a path which eon-
ducts to life.
(11) Et Se to . . . . vpiv. The Spirit of him who raised up
Jesus from the dead, is the Spirit of God the Father, or the Spirit
of God ; comp. verse 9, also Col. ii. 12, 13. Eph. i. 19, 20. ii. 5,
6. Rom. vi. 4. Et Se', if also, if moreover ; Se here is a continua
tive. Zuioiroi-qaei, will give life to, ivill animate, i. <?., will make
them active instruments. Aid rb ivoiKovv .... ip.iv, i. e., the
same Spirit who dwells in you, will enable you to quicken the
Bv-qrov auipa or croipa Bavdrov, which now occasions so much pain
and mortification, and to make it a willing instrument of righ
teousness. Can all the promise that is made to Christians here
be, that their bodies shall be raised up at the last day ? If so,
the inference might be, that the wicked will not be raised up ';

ROMANS VIII. 11. 275
which we know to be contrary to the doctrine of Paul and other
New Testament writers. Such an exegesis should seem to
reduce the whole passage to comparative insignificance, or
else make it speak that which is contradictory to Christian
doctrine. The MSS. A., B., C. (which has aircS for airov) 12 Codd.
minusc, and many of the fathers, exhibit the common reading
here, viz., Std tou evot/couvTos airou irvevpaTos ; while Sid rb ivoi
Kovv airco irvevpa is the reading of D., E., F., G., the majority
MSS. minusc, Syr., Erp., Sahid., Vul., Ital., Origen, Ephiph.,
Phot., Chrys., (usually,) Method., Theod., Maxim., Theoph.,
CEcum., Iren., Tertul., Hilar., Ruf., Sedulius. This seems to be
altogether the best supported, and is preferred by Erasmus, Ste
phens, Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, Knapp, Koppe, and many recent
critics. The internal probability is strong against the Genitive ;
for Std with the Gen. would denote the agent by whom the
change in the bodies of Christians is to be made; whereas
that agent has been already named, viz., 6 iyeipas rbv Xpiarov.
The reading Std to . . . irvevpa, in the Accus., of course obliges
us to translate, because of the Spirit which dwelleth in you.
In this way the last clause assigns a reason or ground why he
who raised up Jesus from the dead, will quicken his true
followers ; it is because he has given them his Spirit ; and having
done thus much for them, he will complete the work which he
has begun.
The analogy ofthe course of thought and diction in chap, vi.,
removes all serious difficulty in the interpretation here. There
Christians are represented as dead to sin ; their old man as
crucified ; and, as Christ was raised from the dead by the glori
ous power of the Father, so are they quickened in like manner,
in order that they may live unto God. If therefore it should be
said (as it has been), that ' inasmuch as the raising of Christ from
the dead was an act oi physical power (so to speak), in like man
ner the raising up of believers here must be regarded in the
same light ; the obvious answer is, that Paul goes through an
extended comparison of the like nature in chap, vi., where the
death of Christ and his resurrection are all along taken in the
natural and physiological sense, while the death of believers and
their resurrection are taken throughout in a moral sense. Indeed,
after all which the apostle has said in chap. vi. in relation to this
subject, I think there should be strong and plain reasons given
for a physiological sense of his words here, before we can adopt
it. It is contrary to his own analogy, and inapposite to his
present purpose.
It has been objected : (1) that auipara (plural) cannot be em-

276 ROMANS VIII. 12.
ployed in the same figurative sense as o-dpf.' But why no; ?
Mpi is not used in the plural, merely because it has no plural.
2Spa in the singular is clearly exchanged with trdpf (see verse
13) ; and auipara in the plural as applied not to one but to all
believers, is altogether appropriate. (2) ' ©euro's has only a phy
siological sense.' This is in general true, but it is manifestly
employed here as the mere substitute for veKpov in verse 10 ; and
this latter word confessedly has very often a figurative or moral
sense. (3) ' ZarorroiTjo-et must have a future meaning ; but
believers are already quickened in a moral sense.' The answer
to this is, they are indeed alive as to the spirit and temper of the
mind ; but the process of sanctification, until all the bodily appe
tites are thoroughly subdued and mortified, is usually a long one,
and the apostle might well employ £coo7roi7;o-e<. Other objections
have been answered for substance above.*

CHAP. VIII. 12 — 17.
In the preceding verses, the apostle has consummated his argument to prove that
Christians, who are under grace, are the only persons who possess means adequate
and ample of living devoted to the service of God, and of renouncing sin and mor
tifying all their sinful desires. What those under the law could not do, God, send
ing his Son on account of sin, and pouring out his Spirit, and giving a filial and
obedient temper of mind, has accomplished. The mind is thus filled with desires of
conformity to Christ, and even the body, the seat of carnal appetites and sinful de
sires, will be so quickened as to become an instrument of righteousness.
And what now follows? Just that which we should expect from an apotle so
zealous of good works as Paul, and so grateful forthe blessings of redemption, viz.,
an animated exhortation to live in a manner accordant with Christian obligation,
and a view ofthe consequences which will ensue from the believer's being united to
Christ. (12) Therefore, brethren, we are not under obligation to the
flesh, to live in a carnal manner, dpa ovv .... fjjv ; i. e., since
* If the apostle had referred merely to the resurrection of the body here,
iyeipel might and probably would have been employed. But still is not that
included in the complex idea'* So Alford says: " The higher phase of the
{uioiroieiv takes place in the spirit of man ; and even of that which takes place
in the body, there are two branches — one the quickening of it from beiirn- 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 Kai joined
with Srv-nTa signifies that the working of the irvevpa. (uoirotou'v 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." The implication that has been sup
posed here, that if tliere is a reference to physical resurrection, the wicked
will not be raised, is entirely groundless ; for it is only the good that como
into the account, and the resurrection that awaits them as participating in a
sense, with the resurrection of Christ. "'

EOMANS VIII. 13, 14. 277
the Spirit is given to us, and we have such privileges, we must
not obey the lusts of the flesh. The expression is negative in
form but affirmative in meaning. The writer means that we are
bound not to obey the dictates of carnal appetites and desires. —
Tov . . . £,7Jv shows the object of obligation : ' We are under no
obligation — to live, etc' For the use of toS with the Inf., see
N. Test, Gramm. § 138. 8.
(13) For if ye live in a carnal manner, ye shall die, el yap
.... d7ro$vT7o-/ceiv ; i. e., if ye live carnally, ye shall come under
the penalty of the divine law, which threatens death to the soul
that sins. See on Bdvaros, in chap. v. 12. Reiche, who all along
understands bdvaros as designating temporal death, necessarily
concedes that here it must have a more extended sense,' for if the
death of the body only is threatened, then there is no distinction
between those who live in a carnal manner, and those who do
not, which would deprive the apostle's words of all meaning.
But if through the Spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye
shall live, elSe . . . . tfjaeaBe ; i. e., if, yielding to the influence
of the Spirit which dwelleth in you, ye crucify the old man with
his lusts, if you suppress those deeds to which your carnal affec
tions would lead, then ye shall live, i. e., enjoy the spiritual
blessedness which the gospel promises to the obedient. The ex
change of o-cjp.a for crdpf, in the phrase Tas 7rpdfets rov c-iiiparos is
plain. D., E., F., G., and many of the fathers read o-up/cds for
auiparos; which only shows that they understood both in the
same sense here. The efforts of some to show that auipa means
' body as a composite organization,' and adp£, ' body as an ani
mated, active, and excitable substance,' are. here to no purpose ;
nor indeed is this in conformity with Pauline usage.
(14) The ydp here introduces an illustration or confirmation oi
the declaration just made : that those who mortify their sinful
appetites and desires, shall live, i. e., such persons are led by the
Spirit of God, and consequently must be the children of God ;
and if so, he will give them the portion which belongs to children,
viz., the heavenly inheritance. For so many as are led by the
Spirit of God, they are the sons of God, oaoi ydp .... ®eov. A
special divine influence is here implied in dyovTat ; for if nothing
but the simple means of moral suasion by objective truth is em
ployed in guiding the children of God, how do they differ from
others who enjoy the same means ? If you say : ' The difference
is that the former obey the suasion, while the latter resist it ; ' I
answer : The fact is true ; but then it does not reach the point
of difficulty. How comes the one to obey the suasion, and the
other to resist it ! What is the first occasion of this ? If you say :
24

278 EOMANS VIII. 15, 16.
' A corrupt nature leads the impenitent to resist ; ' then I ask :
Had not the regenerate the like corrupt nature before their
change ? What then is the efficient cause why one obeys and
the other disobeys ? The passage before us ascribes it to the
influence of the Spirit of God. The idea here seems to be : that
those only who are led by, are under the controlling influence of,
the Spirit, are the sons of God. The inference is a necessary
one, (and in accordance with our every day observation and ex
perience,) that all men are not " the sons of God, in the sense
here indicated, as not being under the controlling influence of his
Spirit. Sons of God, viol ®eov, a term of endearment ; comp.
Matt. v. 9, 45. Luke vi. 35. xx. 36. Rom. viii. 19. 2 Cor. vi. 18.
Gal. iii. 26. iv. 6, 7, et alib. comp. Hosea xi. 1. Ex. iv. 22,
23. See also the remarks of viov airov in Rom. i. 3, with the
Excursus. (15) For ye have not received a servile spirit, that ye should
again be afraid, oi ydp  eis <t>6/3ov ; i. e., ye have not
the spirit of slaves, who fear and tremble before the dreaded
severity of a master ; in other words, ye are not, through fear of
condemnation or death, all your life time evo^oi SouAetds, Heb. ii.
15. Tdp illustrantis et confirmantis ; for the object ofthe writer
is, to show that they are sons and not slaves. The phrases
irvevpa SouXetas, and 7rveup.a vloBeaias indicate such a spirit as
slavery is wont to produce, i. e., such a temper or disposition of
mind as is appropriate to it ; and such a spirit or temper of mind
as belongs to affectionate children.
But ye have received a filial spirit, by which we cry: Abba,
Father ! dAAd .... 6 irarrjp ! That is, instead of the timid and
cowering spirit of slaves, who tremble before their masters, we
are endowed with the spirit of children, so that we may appaoach
God with affection and confidence. The word 'A/J/Ja is the
Chaldee K3X , sc. TraTTjp ! Augustine and Calvin think that the
design of using both 'A/?/3d and 6 irarrjp here, is to show that
both Jews and Greeks, each in their own respective language,
would call on God as a Father. But the same idiom is exhibited
in Gal. iv. 6, and Mark xiv. 36, where, at least, such a distinc
tion is out of question. If 6 irarrjp here be designed for anything
more than a translation of 'A/3/3a, we may suppose the repetition
to be designed for expressing intensity of child-like feeling, (as
my father, dear father,) for this naturally prompts to a repetition
of the name of a parent. So Theodoret. 'O irarrjp is the Nom.
used instead ofthe Vocative; New Test. Gramm. § 21. N. 3.
(16) The same Spirit testifies to our minds that we are the
children of God, airb rb irvevpa . . . ©eou ; i. e., as many inter-

ROMANS VIII. 17. 279
pret this passage : this filial, confiding, affectionate spirit, irvevpa
vloBeaias, imparted by the Spirit of God who dwells in us, affords
satisfactory evidence to our minds that we are the children of
God. ^ivppaprvpei here = paprvpeui ; so avppaprvpeui is em
ployed also in Rom. ii. 15. ix. 1, al. The sentiment of the pas
sage thus construed would be, that the affectionate spirit which
the children of God possess, is an evidence to their minds of
their standing in a filial relation to him. To> irvevpari -qpuiv
means, to our minds, animis nostris.
On the whole, however, I am persuaded that airb to irvevpa is
the same as irvevpa ®eov in ver. 14, i. e., the spirit of God. And
if the question be urged, as it is natural that it should be : " How
then does the Spirit bear witness to our minds or souls, that we
are the children of God ?" The answer is, by imparting the
spirit of adoption or a filial spirit to us. It is this, then, which
affords the evidence to our minds of being in a state of filiation,
i. e., of bearing the relation to God of spiritual children. And as
this spirit comes from the Spirit of God, so he may be said in this
case to bear icitness, because he is the author of that spirit which
affords the evidence oi oar filiation.
That the world deny any such testimony in the hearts of be
lievers, and that they look on it with scorn or treat it with
derision, proves only that they are unacquainted with it ; not that
it is an illusion. It was a sensible and true remark of the French
philosipher, Hemsterhuys, in regard to certain sensations which
he was discussing : " Those who are so unhappy as never to have
had such sensations, either through weakness of the natural
organ, or because they have never cultivated them, will not com
prehend me." (Euvres, I. p. 208. So Paul, elsewhere, ex
presses himself still more strongly : " The natural man receiveth
not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to
him," 1 Cor. ii. 14.
(17) But if children, etc., Et Se revKa koI KX-qpovopoi, i. e., if
we sustain the relation of sons, then shall we be treated as such,
*'. e., we shall be heirs. With reKva, iapev, and with /cXirpovdpoi,
iaopeBa are to be supplied. KXTjpovdpot ®eov, heirs of God,
means, possessors of that inheritance which God bestows. Ae'
continuative. — %vyK.X-qpovopoi Xpiarov, joint heirs with Christ;
i. e., as Christ endured sufferings and was advanced to glory, in
like manner shall we also be advanced to glory. We shall be
made like him, be united to him, be with him in possession of
the heavenly inheritance. For the manner in which Christ ob
tained this heritage, see and comp. Phil. ii. 8, 9. Heb. ii. 9, 10,
v. 7 — 9 ; and for the comparison of believers to Christ, see 2 Tim.
ii. 11, 12. Heb. xii. 2. Rev. iii. 21. John xvii. 22—24. These

280 ROMANS VIII. 18.
texts sufficiently explain the sequel of the verse, et7rep k. t. X.
which may be rendered : " In case we suffer as he did, [in the
cause of truth], in order that we may be glorified with him."

CHAP. Vm. 18—25.
These verses constitute one of those passages which the critics call loci vexatissimi.
The general object of the passage, however, is plain. In ver. 18 the apostle asserts,
that the sufferings ofthe present life are not to be regarded in comparison with the glory to
be revealed, i. e., future glory is great beyond all comparison or expression. Such is
the proposition to be illustrated or confirmed. And the apostle proceeds in the fol
lowing manner: * Now that such a glory is to be revealed, {/'. e., there is a world
of surpassing glory beyond the grave), the whole condition of mankind, in the pres
ent world, abundantly proves. Frail and perishable nature serves to show that no
stable source of happiness can be found on earth. In the midst of the sufferings and
sorrows to which men are here exposed, they look forward to another and better
world, where happiness without alloy and without end may be enjoyed. Even the
Christian, with all his hopes and joys, is compelled by sufferings and sorrows to
sjgh and groan, and to expect a state of real and permanent enjoyment only in
heaven ; so that he can only say that he is saved because he hopes or expects salva
tion in another and better world.
The practical conclusion from all this the apostle now proceeds to draw, viz.,
'that Christians, in the midst of sufferings and trials, ought not to faint or be dis
couraged, inasmuch as a glory to be revealed is in prospect, which should make
them regard their present temporary sufferings as altogether unworthy to be
accounted of.'
(18) Aoyt^ofiai here means I count, reckon, regard, estimate.
The classical Greek writers employed this word rather in the
sense of computing or reckoning, e. g., a sum of numbers, or
of estimating a conclusion drawn from premises by the act of
reasoning. Tt is difficult at first sight to account for the ydp here.* I
construe in this simple manner, viz., ' We shall be glorified with
Christ, i. e., obtain great and eternal glory, for (yap) all the suf
ferings and sorrows of the present state are only temporary. All
things do, and must, work together for good to those who love
God.' UaSyj^ara tov vvv Kaipov means suffering such as Christians
were then called to endure, or sufferings such as all men are
exposed to endure in the present life. The latter seems to be
*It should seem to introduce the inducements which the apostle felt, there
were "to suffer here e^p <Tvhwd<TKo^, k. t. K." v. 17. viz.. that we mny
attain to that state of final blessedness which Christ has prepared for his
followers, v. 18 — 25. r l

ROMANS VIII. 18. 281
the preferable sense ; because the reasoning of the apostle, in the
context, has respect to the whole period of our present life down
to its close, when a glorious reward succeeds a life of sorrow.
The Genitive here, as often elsewhere, is the Genitivus temporis,
i. e., it marks the time belonging to the noun which precedes it.
See N. Test. Gramm. § 99. 1. h.
Not worthy, ovk d^ia, insignificant, unworthy to be compared
with, (irpos). So the preposition irpos is sometimes used ; e. g.,
Ecclus. xxv. 19, Joseph, cont. Apion. II. 22. When we have
suitable regard to future glory we make but little account, in com
parison, of the sufferings of the present time.
The phrase ttjv peXXovaav S6$av diroKaXvifiBrjvai is equivalent to
diroKaXvTbB-qaopevrjv. The Greek could use the simple future;
or, instead of it, as here, the verb peXXui and the Infinitive. The
employment of /xeXXoucrav here indicates the confident expectation
not only of future glory, but of its speedy revelation. Me'AAto is
employed by the Greeks to designate a proximate future. The
word S6(a, which here signifies future happiness, signifies in clas
sic writers, opinion, fame, reputation, etc. But the New Testa
ment meaning of Sofa is borrowed from the Hebrew lias or Titt,
splendor, magnificence, excellence. The idea of 6o£a in the pres
ence of God, seems to be founded upon being there in the light
or splendor of his presence. Hence light is used so often in the
Bible as the image of happiness. Hence too we may see some
thing of the plenary meaning which Sofa has, when used to de
scribe a state of future happiness. In the present world, " eye
hath not seen ;" but when another world bursts upon the vision
of Christians, after death shall have rent away the veil of mor
tality, there 'in God's light they will see light;' there too they
shall enjoy " everlasting light, for God will be their glory."
(19) The particle ydp is here prefixed to a clause added by
way of confirming the sentiment of the preceding assertion. The
apostle in ver. 18 has introduced, as an object of attention, the
glory which is to be revealed. That there is such a glory he now
proceeds to show, or at least to adduce reasons why Christians
should confidently expect it.
Earnest expectation, diroKapaSoKia, the German Ahndung. The
etymology favors this meaning; for the word comes from dird
(prep.), Kapa head, and SoKevui to observe, look after. The Ety-
mologicum Magnum explains it by r-rj Ke<{>aXfj irpofSXeweiv, to thrust
forward ihe head and see, i. e., to look with anxiety or eager
ness ; like the Hebrew bbinnii . The same sense the word has
in Phil. i. 20.
Very much of the difficulty of the passage before us turns on
the meanino- of the word Kriais- We will, first, consider its
24*

282 ROMANS VIII. 19.
meaning in the other passages of the New Testament, where it
is found, and then compare it with the corresponding Hebrew
words; and secondly examine some of the various meanings
which have been assigned to the word in this place, and endeavor
to vindicate the preferable sense.
I. The meanings of Kriais, in all the other passages of the New
Testament where it is found, excepting the one before us, may be
distributed into two classes ; viz :
1. It means the act of creation, creating. In such a sense it is
generally conceded that it is employed in Mark x. 6, xiii. 19.
Rom. i. 20. 2 Pet. iii. 4. Yet all of these passages might be re
ferred to No. 2, as the sense would be equally good. But this
first sense is the proper and primary meaning of the word, accord
ing to the ending -o-is, in which words derived from verbs com
monly denote the act of doing anything, nomina actionis. So
frequently in the Greek classics, making, constructing, creating,
etc. But in the New Testament the meaning is for the most
part different from this.
2. It means creature, created thing, any product of creating
power, creation as an existing thing. Such a deflexion from the
primary meaning of a word is very common, not only in the
Greek, but in all other languages ; the abstract (nomen actionis)
passing, as grammarians say, into the concrete sense ; i. e., the
word which denoted action, being also used to denote the conse
quences or effects of that action. So here, ktio-is (the act of
creating), is more commonly employed in the New Testament to
signify the effects of this action, viz., a thing created, res creata.
But this second signification may either be generic, or employed
to designate any ofthe several species of meanings that constitute
a part of the generic whole.
(a) In its generic sense it means created things, creation, any
created thing, in Rom. i. 25. viii. 39. Col. i. lo. Heb. iv. 13. Rev.
iii. 14, perhaps also in Mark x. 6. xiii. 19. Rom. i. 20. and 2 Pet.
iii. 4. In a sense very nearly allied to this, it is used in Heb. ix.
11. to designate the material creation as such, in distinction from
the spiritual one. This distinction, however, results rather from
the exigency of the passage, and it seems to be made here rather
by the word ravrgs than from the force of ktio-is.
(b) In a specific sense it means the rational creation, man,
men, the world of mankind. Thus in Mark xvi. 15, 'Go preach
the gospel Tracn; rrj Knaei to all men, to every man.' Col. i. 23,
'which [gospel] has been preached iv irday rrj Kriaei among
aU nations.' 1 Pet. ii, 19, 'Be subject, then, rdaV dvBpuiirivr,
Knaei, to every man, to every human being, for the Lord's sake, i.
e., out of regard to the Lord Christ. The exportation immedi-

ROMANS VIII. 19. 283
ately subjoined explains this, viz., eire /3aaiXei, uis vtrepexovri- e'lre
¦qyepoaiv, uis Si' aiiToS k. . . A. : ' be subject to every man placed in
authority, whether he be a king who has preeminence, or a gov
ernor appointed,' etc.
(c) In a more specific and limited sense still, it designates the
new rational creation, those ivho are created anew in Christ Jesus,
Christians. So in 2 Cor. v. 17, 'If any one be in Christ, he is
Kaivrj Kriais, a new creature.' Gal. vi. 15, 'In Christ Jesus
neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but
Kauri) Kriais.' This, however, may mean a new act of creating,
i. e., the power of the Spirit in renovating the soul. But in both
of these cases, the special meaning it must be confessed, depends
rather on Kaivrj than upon Kriais.
These are all the cases in which ktio-is occurs in the New Tes
tament, excepting those in the passage under examination. From
these we gather the conclusion that the usus loquendi allows us
to assign to ktio-is either of the three meanings ranked under No.
2, i. e., it may be interpreted as meaning things created ; the
natural creation, i. e., men or mankind, or Christians who are a
new spiritual creation ; yet this last meaning is plainly uncer
tain, unless some qualifying word (e. g., Kaivrj) is joined with
ktio-is. I have only to add here, as a confirmation of the above mean
ings assigned to ktio-is (which however are not altogether pecu
liar to the New Testament, see Judith ix. 12. xi. 14. Wisd. ii. 6.
xvi. 24. xix. 6), that the Chaldee and the Rabbinic Hebrew coin
cide with the usage just exhibited. The words in these lan
guages which correspond to ktio-is, are X^a , XrY>"i3 , nsTia , STj*i2 ,
which all mean creatio, creatura, res creata, i. e., the act of
creating, and the thing created, just in the same way as K7to-ts
does. Moreover, in Rabbinic Hebrew the plural form rYi-na
sometimes means homines, men, specially the heathen. All this,
we see, corresponds with and explains the New Testament use of
Kriais. In regard to the last particular of all, viz., that rvhia
sometimes means the heathen, by way of degradation or con
tempt ; it is singular that we have adopted, into vulgar English,
the very same meaning of the word creature, and applied it in a
derogatory sense to human beings ; e. g., ' the creature refused to
obey.' Which of these meanings, now, shall be applied to ktio-is in the
passage before us ?
The following interpretations have been given to it. These
are, 1. The Angels. 2. The souls (tlie animating principle) of
the planetary worlds. 3. Adam and Eve, because they were the
immediate work of creative power. 4. The souls of believers, in

284 ROMANS VIII. 19.
distinction from their bodies. 5. The bodies of believers, i. e.,
their dead bodies, in distinction from their souls. 6. Christians
in general. 7. Christians in particular, i. e., either Jewish Chris
tians, or Gentile Christians. 8. Unconverted men in general.
9. Unconverted men in particular, i. e., either unconverted Jews
or unconverted heathen. 10. The material creation, inanimate
and animate, exclusive of rational beings. 11. The rational
creation or men in general, mankind.
All these supposed meanings I have canvassed in an exegesis
of vers. 18 — 25, printed in the Biblical Repository, Vol. I. pp.
363, seq. I deem the first five too improbable to need discussion
here ; and therefore proceed with the others.
The sixth and seventh opinions may be both ranked under one
head, viz., that of Christians. Can Kriais, then, here mean
Christians, either in general or in particular? (a) The usus
loquendi is wanting, to render this probable. The word Kriais in
2 Cor. v. 17 and Gal. vi. 15, does not, as I have already re
marked, of itself mean Christians. In both these cases it is con
nected with Kaivrj. (b) In vers. 19, 21, the word Kriais seems to
designate those who are distinguished from the children of God,
and who belong not to such as are now entitled to their privi
leges. But I do not consider this argument to be decisive ; for
the expressions in vers. 19, 21, are not much unlike that in verse
23, where Christians are represented as groaning within them
selves and waiting for their filiation (uto^eo-t'ai') i. e., for the con
sequences of it, viz., the redemption of their bodies from their
present frail, painful, and dying state.
(c) A more conclusive argument is deducible from the form of
ver. 23, where aijTot ttjv dirapxijv rov Tlvevparos exovres seems
plainly to mean Christians, as I shall in the sequel endeavor to
show. Conceding this then, it is quite plain that ktio-is in the
preceding verses cannot mean Christians, because the class of
men designated in verse 23, is very clearly distinguished from
the preceding class in vers. 19 — 21, who are there designated by
KTlO"lS. On the same ground, viz., that ktio-is cannot be regarded as
meaning Christians in general, it must be excluded from mean
ing Christians in particular, i. e., either Jewish Christians or
Gentile Christians. How are these to be distinguished from
" those who had the first fruits of the Spirit?" Even supposing
that dirapxg means here, special miraculous gifts, (as some be
lieve), Jewish Christians surely, above all others, possessed these •
and if we look into the first epistle to the Corinthians, we find
there a graphic account of the special gifts of the Spirit, which
leaves no room to doubt that they were distributed to Gentile as

ROMANS VIII. 19. 285
well as to Jewish Christians. Still stronger is the argument, if
we suppose (as I shall endeavor hereafter to show that ive must
suppose), dirapxqv here to mean the prelibation, the foretaste, the
earnest of future glory, which is common to all Christians. For
as those who have this dirapxrjv, are here plainly and explicitly
distinguished from those denominated ktio-is above ; so, if these
are Christians in general (as they clearly seem to be), it follows
that ktio-is above is not used to designate either Christians in
general, or Jewish or Gentile Christians in particular.
The eighth and ninth opinions may also be classed under one
head. These are, that ktio-is means either unconverted men in
general as such, or unconverted men in particular, viz., Jews or
Gentiles. In regard to the specific meaning here assigned to
ktio-is, I cannot see any tolerable ground of support for it. Why
should either unconverted Jews or Gentiles be represented as
peculiarly exposed to a frail and dying state ? Surely there is
no good reason for any distinction here, as all are equally exposed
to the miseries of life.
More probable is the interpretation, which assigns to ktio-is the
meaning of unconverted men in general. In this case it is easy
to make a plain and evident distinction between Kriais in vers.
19 — 22, and ot tt)v dirapx-qv rov irvevparos exovres in ver. 23. I
think this to be substantially the right meaning. But I would
not assign to it the signification simply of unconverted men. I
apprehend the meaning to be the same as in Mark xvi. 15. Col.
i. 23. 1 Pet. ii. 13, i, e., man, men, mankind in general. But
of this, and of the objections urged against it, I shall say more in
the sequel.
On the whole, then, we have reduced our multiplex interpre
tations down to two, viz., the material creation in general animate
and inanimate, and the rational creation or mankind in general.
Critics of high rank and great abilities are divided between these
two interpretations.
The first of these two meanings, that of the material creation,
the ivorld in general, or the universe exclusive of rational beings,
has had many defenders both in ancient and modern times.
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, CEcumenius, Jerome, Am
brose, Luther, Koppe, Doddridge, Flatt, Tholuck, Reiche, and a
multitude of others have been its advocates. Flatt, Tholuck, and
Reiche, in their recent commentaries, have collected all which
has been said in its favor, besides advancing some things peculiar
to themselves. What they have brought forward deserves a se
rious examination.
That ktio-is might be employed to indicate the natural creation
around us, consisting of things animate and inanimate, is philo-

286 ROMANS VIII. 20.
logically certain from the usus loquendi of the word, as seen un
der No. 2, a, above. But is it so employed in the passage
before us? I have satisfied my own mind that ktio-is means
here, as in Mark xvi. 15. Col. i. 23 (and for substance in 1
Pet. ii. 13), mankind in general, gens humana, in distinction
from, but not in opposition to, Christians as such. See further
proofs, etc., in Excursus, viii.
Expects, or waits for, the revelation of the sons of God, tijv
diroKaXv\biv tuiv vluiv rov ®eov cbreKSe^eTai ; i. e., the period when
the sons of God in their ultimate state, and endowed with all their
honors and privileges, shall be fully disclosed. This will be at
the general judgment; when the Father who seeth in secret will
reward them openly. Here they are in obscurity ; the world
knoweth them not. They are like to the seven thousand of old
who had not bowed the knee to Baal, but who were unknown
even to the prophet Elijah. However, it will not always be so.
The day is coming when they will shine forth as the sun in his
strength and as the stars for ever and ever, in the kingdom of
their God and Father. See also Excursus.
(20) For the creature, rrj ydp paraior-qn -q Kriais virerdy-q, i. e.,
mankind, ivas subjected to a frail and dying state. That paraiorqs
here has the sense thus assigned to it, is clear from the epexegesis
of it in ver. 21, viz., SoiAeta rrjs ebBopds, which is there used in
stead of repeating paraidr-qs. Such as wish for further confir
mation as to this sense of the word, may consult in the Sept. Ps.
lxi. 9. xxxviii. 5. Ecc. i. 2, 14. As the Hebrew Vati vanity, to
which paraiorrjs in the Septuagint corresponds, sometimes desig
nates an idol; so some commentators have here interpreted
paraiorrjs, idolatry ; the idea then is, mankind became subjected
to idolatry, or the natural world was employed as the object of
idolatry. So Tertullian, Luther, Marck, Baumgarten and oth
ers. Consequently they interpreted the succeeding clause, not
voluntarily, but through him who subjected it, as having reference
either to Satan, or to Adam as concerned in the original fall of
man. But SouAeta ttJs <bBopds (ver. 21) seems to remove all
probability from this interpretation of paraiorqs ; and of course
virord£avra can be applied only to God the Creator of man. Com
pare Gen. iii. 17 — 19.
Wot voluntarily, but by him who put it in subjection, oix eKovaa
dXXd Sta rbv viroTd$avra, i. e., to a frail and dyino- state. The
creature did not voluntarily choose its present condition of sor
row and pain ; but God the Creator has by his sovereign will, by
the arrangements of his holy providence, placed man in this frail
and dying state. It seems quite probable that Paul here referred
in his own mind to the effects of the fall, as described in v. 12

ROMANS VIII. 21. 287
seq. This state of paraior-qs was not original, but superinduced
by sin. The use of the Aorist, virerdy-q seems to indicate some
specific fact which happened in past time. Had the apostle's
design been merely general, i. e., merely to indicate that man has
been and is frail, he would most naturally have employed
viroTeraKrai, Perf. passive. But still, this frail condition is a state
of hope. So we are assured in the next verse. Ata rbv virordi;-
avra is adduced by some to show that Sia may be understood of
an efficient cause, although employed with the Accusative. That
we may thus render Sta by per, Germ, durch, i. e., through, by
means of, many critics contend, and most concede.
(21) In hope, iir IXiriSi. Here the Dative designates the
state or condition in which the ktio-is is, although subjected to
paraiorqru It is a state in which a hope of deliverance can
be indulged; not a state of despair. 'Err iXiriSi may be con
nected either with virerdy-q or v7roTafai/Ta. Is it not doing vio
lence to the word Kriais, to construe it here as meaning natural
world, and then to predicate of it eKovaa and eV iXiriSi ? It would
be an example of prosopopeia, which I believe even the most
animated poetical parts of the Scriptures no where present.
But. what is the hope in which the creature is permitted to in
dulge i It is, on Kat air-q -q KTiais iXevBepuiB-qaerai dirb rrjs SovXeias
ejiBopds, that this very same creature, viz., the one which is sub
jected to a frail and dying state, shall be freed from the bondage
of a perishing condition. <&Bopd comes from epBeipui, to corrupt,
to destroy. Here it plainly means a state of corruption, i. e., a
frail and dying state. Such a state the apostle calls SouAeta, bon
dage ; first, because the creature was not willingly subjected to it ;
secondly, because it is not only a state of pain and misery, but it
places us at the disposal of masters, who inflict upon us suffering
and sorrow while we cannot resist or control them. The word
eAev^epw^o-eTat is fitly chosen as the antithetic correlative of
SouAeia. [And shall be introduced, Kat eio-ax^o-erai] into the glorious
liberty of the children of God, ets r-qv iXevBepiav rrjs So^qs tuiv
reKvuiv rov ®eov. Eis, put before the Accusative here, shows the
state unto which the creature is to attain, by being delivered
from the bondage of a frail and dying state. The phrase, how
ever, is elliptical, and some verb is implied, as indicated above.
Aofa, by an idiom very common throughout the Scriptures, is
used in this place as an adjective qualifying the preceding noun.
In what sense men in general may be said to hope for this state,
has been already explained above. If there be any objection to
predicate this of men in general, is there not a still stronger one
to predicating it of the natural world ?

288 ROMANS VIII. 22, 23.
Verses 20, 21, thus explained, render a reason why the crea
ture looks with diroKapaSoKia to another and better state ; which
is, because men are born with an instinctive and unquenchable
thirst for happiness, and cannot find what they desire in this frail
and perishing condition. This explains the reason why ydp is
prefixed to ver. 20 ; " ydp orationi rationem reddenti prtefigitur."
(22) For we know that every creature, o'iSapev ydp ....
axpi rov vvv, i. e., the whole human race, has sighed and sor
rowed together until the present time. In other words, it has been
the lot of man, from the beginning down to the present time, to
be subject to a frail and dying state, which has cost much sighing
and sorrow. The idea in o'iSapev is. no one can have any doubt,
we are well assured, i. e., it is taken for granted that the thing to
which it refers is well and familiarly known to all. But sup
pose, now, that the natural world is here represented as sighing
and sorrowing, from the beginning of the world down to the time
then present, and this because it waited for its renovation, which
will take place only at the end of the world, or after the general
resurrection; was this a thing so familiar to all, that the apostle
could appeal to it by saying o'iSapev? I cannot but think that
the advocates themselves of this interpretation must hesitate here.
Tdp is prefixed to a clause which confirms what the writer has
said, in verse 21, of our frail and dying state. The immediate
antecedent clause may be supplied thus : ' I say bondage of a per
ishing state, for (ydp) the whole creation exhibits abundant evi
dence of this. The verbs avarevdt,ei and o-wuSivei denote the
mutual and universal sighing and sorrowing of mankind. No one
part is exempt ; there is a mutual correspondence between them
all in regard to the subject in question. The verbs arevo%ui and
cuStVoj are appropriate, especially the latter, to the sighs and pains
of a travailing woman. The language is therefore exceedingly
appropriate to the apostle's purpose, inasmuch as it not only indi
cates a great degree of sorrow and distress, but that this is indica
tive of a new birth, i. e., a new state of things, or (in other
words) that a change for the better is to be looked for. The
prep, avv, here joined with these two verbs, serves to indicate a
mutual participation on all sides in the sorrows mentioned.
(23) Yet_ not only so, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits
of the Spirit, even we groan within ourselves ; i. e., not only have
mankind in all ages, down to the present hour, been in a frail and
suffering state, but even we, who, as having within us an earnest
of future glory and a pledge that we are the children of God, and
are to receive the inheritance of his beloved, might naturally be
supposed to be exempted from the common lot of sinful men are
in distress and sigh for deliverance from it.

ROMANS VIII. 23. 289
Some interpret the phrase Kat airoi rijv dirapx-qv rov irvevparos
exovres, of special and supernatural gifts, limiting it to the apos
tles only ; while others explain it in the like way, but extend it
to all Christians who were endowed with such gifts. Others re
gard dirapxrj as meaning gift or present merely, in a general way ;
while most interpret it as meaning the earnest, or first fruits, or
pledge, of that which is afterward to be given in a more complete
manner. I can find but one meaning of it throughout the New
Testament; and this is, that which is first of its kind, or that
which is first in order of time, irpuiros. It is applied both to per
sons and things, in a sense compounded of both of these, viz.,
first in respect to kind and time also ; e. g., Rom. xvi. 5. 1 Cor.
xvi. 15. James i. 18. 1 Cor. xv. 20, 23. Rev. xiv. 4. In this
last passage it may have, it is said, the general sense of sacrifice
or offering, inasmuch as the Septuagint puts it for the Hebrew
rrann ; but on the whole the other sense is preferable. I take
the meaning of the writer in Rev. xiv. 4 to be, that the persons
there named may be considered in a light resembling that of the
dirapxrj in ancient times, as the first-fruits of a glorious Christian
harvest. 'Airapxrj, then, = the Hebrew rTOso , for which it so often
stands ; caput, princeps, first in its kind, first in point of time, etc.
Comp. rvnoto in Gen. xlix. 3. Prov. viii. 22. Lev. ii. 12. xxiii.
10. Deut. xviii. 4. xxvi. 10. xxxiii. 21. Num. xxiv. 20. Amos
vi. 6. In the passage before us, all the Greek fathers appear to
have attached the same meaning to dirairxg, viz., that of first
fruits, in the sense of earnest, pledge, foretaste, oi joys to come.
The apostle represents Christians as the habitation of God by his
Spirit, Eph, ii. 22, comp. 1 Cor. iii. 16. vi. 19 ; the Spirit of God
dwells in them, 1 John iii. 24. iv. 13 ; and this Spirit, thus con
ferred on them, is the dppafiuiv, the pledge of future glory, 2 Cor.
v. 5. Eph. i. 1 4. What hinders, then, that we should understand
dirapxq as meaning foretaste or first fruits of future glory which
the Spirit who dwells in Christians imparts ? The usus loquendi
of the word does not seem to admit of any other exegesis, and
this gives a meaning entirely congruous with the nature and de
sign of the passage. Cf. Keil, Opusc. p. 294 seq. If this be cor
rect then it follows that the dirapxq here spoken of is common to
all true Christians ; and that the interpretation which limits this
verse to the apostles, or to a few of the primitive Christians
endowed with miraculous gifts, has no stable foundation.
That Christians were subject to sorrows, which even the earnest
of future glory did not exempt them from, needs not to be proved.
See 2 Con v. 2, 3. 1. Cor. xv. 19, That they longed and sighed
for deliverance, followed from their very nature. But there is a
25

290 ROMANS VIII. 23
peculiar energy and delicacy in the expression which marks the
consequences of their sufferings; we groan within ourselves,
i. e., internally, not externally. We suppress the rising sigh ; we
bow with submission to the will of God which afflicts us ; we re
ceive his chastisement as children ; our frail nature feels it, and
we sigh or groan inwardly ; but no mourning word escapes us ;
we suppress the outward demonstrations of pain, lest we should
even seem to complain. Is this imaginary on my part ? Or did
the writer mean to convey what I have attributed to him ? So
much at least we can say, viz., that such a sentiment was worthy
of Paul, and of all Christians who suffered with him. It is wor
thy of being carried into practice at the present hour ; it com
mends itself to the conscience of every one who thoroughly believes
in the holy, just, and benevolent providence of God.
Waiting for [our] adoption or filiation, vloBeaiav direKSexdpevoi.
There is a twofold filiation spoken of in the New Testament.
The first is, that which takes place when believers are born
again, John i. 12, 13. iii. 3 — 5. Rom. viii. 14, 15 represents be
lievers as possessing irvevpa vloBeaias; see also 1 John iii. 1, 2.
But there is another and higher sense in which believers are to
become the children of God, viz., they are to be so, when they
shall be perfected in the world of glory, when they become " the
children of the resurrection," when they are made " like to the
angels," Luke xx. 36. Their first adoption or filiation is secret,
in regard to the world ; their second is the diroKaAui/'is tuiv uiaiv tov
©eoC, when " he who seeth in secret shall reward them openly ;"
The clause ttjv diroXvrpuiaiv rov auiparos -qpuiv, the redemption of
our body, i. e., its redemption from a state of frailty, disease, and
death is epexegetical. This body is, at the resurrection, to be
like to Christ's glorious body, Phil. iii. 21 ; it is to be a auipa
irvevpariKov, 1 Cor. xv. 44 ; this mortal is to put on immortality,
this auipa (jiBaprov is to become a auipa d<j>Baprov, 1 Cor. xv. 53,
54. Such is the d7roAvrpu)o-is of this frail and dying body, which
believers now inhabit. Comp. d7roAvT/D<oo-is in Luke xxi. 28.
Eph. i. 14. iv. 30. Heb. xi. 35. The reader will note that the
expression diroXvrpuiaiv tov auiparos here is equivalent to the
diroKaXvij/iv ru>v vluiv rov ®eov in ver. 19, and to the iXevBepiav ruiv
tIkvuiv rov ®eov in ver. 21 ; and therefore serves to show what
those expressions mean in the connection in which they stand.
Christians, then, in their present state, must long and wait for
their second and final adoption or filiation. They must wait with
confidence ; yea, with assurance : " for he who cometh will come
and will not tarry." But let them not regard the present world
as their home. It is not the Canaan in which they are to rest.
They must " seek a city which hath foundations, whose builder

ROMANS VIII. 24, 25. 291
and maker is God." Then the agitated breast, the heaving sigh,
the groaning within, will no more annoy or distress them. Let
not the child of God complain, then, that his final reward is not
anticipated and distributed to him here in the present world, while
he is in a state of trial. He must wait until he comes to the
goal, before he can wear the crown of him who has been a victor
in the race. He must defer his expected laurels until his combat
is over. Then he shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not
away. (2 i) That the Christian cannot expect a full reward here, the
apostle goes on most explicitly to declare. For we are saved in
hope, rrj yap iXiriSi iauiB-qpev, i. e., we have obtained sahation,
but a part of it is only in hope ; we have attained a condition in
which we indulge the hope of a glory that is yet future. This is
all which can be rationally expected or accomplished in the pres
ent life. As he had said in the preceding verse, Christians are
here in the attitude of waiting for their filiation. Verse 24 is
designed to confirm this ; hence the ydp at the beginning of it.
The reader should observe that the Aor. iauiB-qpev is qualified in
its sense by rfj iXiriSi. We are saved or have attained to a state
of salvation, says the apostle, yet it is not fully and completely
so, but is so, ry iXiriSi, i. e., it is a salvation of which hope is at
present a leading constituent.
Wow hope ivhich is seen, is no longer hope, iXirls Se 
eA7rts, i. e., the object of hope (iXiris in the first instance here
means this) is no longer such, when one attains the actual pos
session of it. Ae' introduces a clause which is designed to con
tinue and illustrate what precedes. For what one sees, how does
he still hope for it, 6 ydp .... iXiri^ei. That is, what a man
has actually attained or come to the enjoyment of, how can he
be said to look forward to with hope or anticipation ? Tap ratio-
nem rei dictce reddit.
(25) But if we hope for that which we do not enjoy, then we
patiently wait for it, el Si ... . direKSexopeBa. That is, if it be
true, as all will concede, that in the present life we attain not to
our final reward, but can be called the heirs of salvation only be
cause we have obtained a well-grounded hope of it ; if it be so
that we cannot rationally expect an exemption from trials and
troubles here, but must take our part in them with all around us ;
if it be true, also, that a great and glorious reward is reserved in
heaven for all who endure patiently until the end of their proba
tion (and that this is true, the very nature that God has given to
men, which is here so imperfectly developed, and whieh therefore
points to a stale of greater perfection, satisfactorily shows) ; then
it becomes Christians to endure with all patience and meekness

292 ROMANS VIII. 26.
the trials and sufferings of the present life. Time is short ; eter
nity is long. Our sufferings are comparatively slight and mo
mentary. Who can place them beside that glory " whicli eye
hath not seen, nor ear heard, and of which it hath not entered
into the heart of man to conceive," and which is to endure as
long as the God who bestows it, and yet make any serious ac
count of them ? Christian brethren, says the apostle, let us
patiently wait the appointed time of our deliverance. The Std
before iiropevrjs stands before a noun marking the state or condi
tion of those of whom it is said, direKSexopeBa.

CHAP. VIII. 26—27.
Iw this our weak and suffering condition, we are greatly aided by the Spirit who
dwells in us ; so that even when we are so much perplexed and distressed that we
know not what to ask for or what to say in our prayers, our internal sighs which are
not uttered by words, and which arise from his influence on our souls, are noticed
and understood by the Searcher of hearts, whose ears will be open to them. Such is
the course of thought in these verses ; the natural inference from it is: ' Christians,
be not discouraged, even in your deepest distresses. He who sees in secret, counts
e.-ery groan, hears every sigh, and will be a very present help in time of need.1
(26) In like manner, i. e., in the very same way, uiaavruis.
Some critics render uiaavruis by prceterea, uberdiess, i. e., more
over, besides. This would do well, if philology would allow
it. It seems, however, to be rather making a new meaning for
tlie word than explaining the usual one. The true answer to the
question, ' Like to what?' seems to be this ; 'In like manner as
hope supports, strengthens, cheers us, and renders us patient, so
do the influences of the Spirit aid us, in all our distresses.
'iiaavruis Se Kai, and in like manner also, or and in like manner
moreover. The Spirit, rb irvevpa. But what Spirit ? Our own mind ?
A filial spirit ? Or the Spirit of God ? Each of these methods
of exegesis has been defended. I was formerly inclined to re
gard the second meaning as the most probable ; principally on
account of the 27th verse. It is natural to ask : Does not the
phrase 6 epewuiv rds KapSias, designate him who knows the secrets
of the human breast ? And as this same Searcher of hearts is
said to know eppovqpa rod irveijiaros, i. e., the mind or ivill of the
spirit, does not this mean the same thing as rap KapSias, and there
fore de-ignate the human mind? One may also a?k : Where in

ROMANS VIII. 20 . 293
all the Scriptures is the Spirit of God represented as making in
tercession (ivrvyxdvei) for the saints. These difficulties have led
many to construe irvevpa throughout the passage as meaning
irvevpa vloBeaias, comp. ver. 15. But this explanation is doubt
ful, especially when we compare irvevpa in verses 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11,
13, 14, 23, where it clearly and certainly means the Spirit of God
or of Christ. The probability is, therefore, that the writer
here uses irvevpa. in the like sense. The Spirit whieh sanctifies
Christians, which subdues their fleshly appetites, which gives
them a filial temper, which bestows a foretaste of future glory, —
this same Spirit aids Christians in all their sufferings and sor
rows ; and consequently they ought to endure them with pa
tience. It cannot be denied that intensity of meaning is given
to the whole passage by this exegesis.
Helps, avvavnXapjSdverai ; but in the Greek avv augments the
signification, so that one might translate, greatly assists, affords
much help. The avv in composition not only denotes con, with,
together with, etc., but also marks the completeness or entirety of
an action ; e. g., avpirXgpoui, to fill entirely full ; cf. also avvdywpi,
avpirareui, avvrepvui, etc. Our infirmities, daBeveiais gpuiv, seems to
mean our frail, infirm, afflicted, troubled state ; and this accords
entirely with the context. A., B., C, D., many Codd. minusc,
with many versions and fathers, read rfj daBeveia, in the Dat. sin
gular. Indeed the weight of authority seems to be in favor of
this reading.
For we know not that which we should pray for as we ought,
rb ydp . . . ovk o'iSapev k. r. X. ; i. e., in our perplexities, weaknesses,
ignorance and distresses, we are often at a loss what would be
best for us, or most agreeable to the will of God respecting us.
Kov56 Set, as we ought, i. e., the object for which we should pray, in
accordance with duty, Kara to BeX-qpa. rov ®eov (comp. 1 John v.
14), or in a becoming manner, is frequently unknown to us.
Ka#o Set belongs to or qualifies irpoaev^uipeBa. In this state, the
same Spirit, airb rb Tlveiipa, the same who sanctifies us, dwells in
us, and helps our infirmities, earnestly intercedes for us, virepevTvy-
Xavei inrep rjpuiv ; where virep in composition with the verb aug
ments the force of it, which I have endeavored to express.
Prayer or supplication, however, made by the Spirit, i. e., by
the Spirit of God as such and by himself, is not here intended.
So the sequel clearly shows ; viz., the Spirit makes intercession
for us, arevaypdis dXaX-qrois, in sighs or groans which are unut
terable, i. e., the full meaning of which cannot be spoken in words.
Or dXaX-qrois may mean, that which is not uttered, that which is
internal, i. e., suppressed sighs ; for verbals in -tos may have
either a passive meaning, as in this case, or they may designate
25*

294 ROMANS VIII. 27.
what may or can be done ; New Test. Gramm. § 82. Note 1.
Either sense is good ; the Spirit then intercedes for the saints,
by exciting within them such longings for conformity to God, for
deliverance from evil, and for the enjoyment of future blessed
ness, that no language can adequately express them. What is
thus done in the souls of believers through the influence of the
Spirit, is here attributed to him ; i. e., he is said to do what they
do under his special influence. In accordance with the idiom of
the sacred writers, that is often attributed to God, which human
agents perform under his oversight, government, or aid. In
accordance with such a sentiment, Fenelon, in his Essay entitled,
Que V Esprit de Dieu enseigne en dedans, says in a very striking
manner : " The Spirit of God is tlie soul of our soul." So
Augustine, with equal correctness and concinnity : " Non Spiritus
Sanctus in semetipso apud semetipsum in ilia Trinitate gemit;
sed in nobis gemit, quia gemere nos facit (Tract. VI. in Johan.
§ 2) ; that is, the Divine Spirit does not groan or intercede in and
by himself, as God and belonging to the Trinity ; but he inter
cedes by his influence upon us, and by leading us to aspirations
which language cannot express ;" a sentiment equally true and
striking. (27) The Searcher of hearts, 6 Se ipevvuiv tois KapSias, a common
appellation of God, who is omniscient; comp. vii. 9 (10). Jer.
xi. 20. Acts 1. 14 — Knoweth the desire of the Spirit or the mind
of the Spirit, oTSe to <j>povrjpa tov Tlvevparos, i. e., what is sought
after, willed, or desired, when these arevaypol dXaXrjroi excited
by him arise. In other words : " The Searcher of hearts does
not need that desires should be clothed or expressed in language,
in order perfectly to understand them and to listen to them." It
is not the mind of the Spirit of God, in himself considered and
as belonging to the Godhead, but as disclosed ev arevaypdis
dXaX-rjrois tuiv dyiuiv, that the writer means to designate. In this
way, there is no difficulty in applying irvevpa to the Spirit of God.
The sense is, that God knows the mind or desire of the saints,
which is prompted or excited by his Spirit.
That he intercedes for saints agreeably to the will of God, oti
Kara .... dyiuiv. "On must be translated because, but the
sense is better if we construe the clause oti k. t. A. as explicative
of the preceding assertion. Paul frequently adds explicative
clauses which begin with oti, e. g., 1 Cor. iii. 20 al. Meaning :
' God knows what the unutterable sighs mean which the Spirit
excites in the bosoms of his saints ; he knows, that aided by his
Spirit they make intercession Kara ®eov, i. e., KaBb Se£. Karu
©eoV, then, must mean not to God, which would require irpbs ®eoV,
but secundem Beum, i. e., Kara rb BeX-qpa tov ®eov, comp. 1 John

ROMANS VIII. 27, 28. 295
v. 14., and for this sense of Kara, cf. Rom. viii. 4. 2 Cor. xi. 17.
Rom. ii. 2. Luke ii. 22, 24, 27, 29, et al. saspe. With the word
dytW here, employed as a noun, we might naturally expect the
article. But where particular emphasis or specification is not
intended, the article may be omitted; N. Test. Gramm. § 90. 4.
Note 1.
The Christian who reads this passage wilh a spirit that
responds to the sentiment which it discloses, cannot avoid lifting
up his soul to God with overflowing gratitude for his mercies.
Here we are " poor, and wretched, and miserable, and blind, and
naked," and in want of all things; we are crushed before the
moth ; " we all do fade as a leaf, and the wind taketh us away ;"
we are often in distress, in darkness, in perplexity, in straits from
which we can see no escape ; even in far the greater number of
cases we know not what will be for our ultimate and highest good,
and so " know not what we should pray for as we ought ; but
then, the Spirit of the living God is present with all the true fol
lowers of the Saviour ; he excites desires in their souls for lib
eration from sin and present evil, and for heavenly blessedness
and holiness greater than words can express. The consequences
or designs of present trials and sufferings are often too uncertain
for us even to venture on making a definite request with regard
to them ; because we do not know whether relief from them is
best or not. The humble Christian, who feels his need of chas
tisement, will very often be brought to such a state. Then -what
a high and precious privilege it is, that our " unutterable sighs "
should be heard and understood by Him who searches our hearts !
Who can read this without emotion? Such are the blessings
purchased for sinners by redeeming blood ! Such the consola
tions which flow from the throne of God for a groaning and dying
world !

CHAP. VIII. 28—39.
To crown the whole, the apostle now goes on to assure those to whom he is writ
ing, that all things, i. «., all the sufferings and sorrows and trials of the present life,
will prove to be instruments, in the hand of a wise and powerful God aud merciful
Eedeemer, of promoting the final and greatest happiness and glory of all true saints.
The purposes of God in respect to the saints are certain, and nothing can ever sepa
rate them from the care and kindness and affection ofthe Saviour who has redeemed
them. Christians have, therefore, no reason to despond or to be discouraged, while
sutFering the evils and trials of life.
(28) We know, moreover, otBafieu Se. Ae orationi continnandm
inservit. What follows here, is in addition to what is like in kind

29G ROMANS VIII. 29.
or relating to the same subject in the preceding context.^ All
sufferings, sorrows, trials, etc., shall cooperate, irdvra avvepyei, i. e.,
mutually contribute or each contribute, for the good, for the
final and highest good, of those who love God. Augustine and
some other fathers suppose sin to be here included in the irdvra.
But plainly this was not here in the apostle's mind.
To those who are called according to his purpose or design, rois
.... oSo-iv. KXtjtois, in the New Testament, is used twice in
the sense of invited, bidden, viz., Matt. xx. 16, xxii. 14. In all
other cases it=eKAeKros, and means not only such as have been
invited, but such as have accepted the invitation, the true Chris
tian; e. g., 1 Cor. i. 2, 24. Jude v. 1. Rom. i. 6. Rev. xvii. 14.
So in the verse before us, the persons designated are those who
love God. Kara irpoBeaiv, those who are called or chosen in con
formity with the purpose [of God]. This irpoBeais is /car* eKAoyrJv,
Romans ix. 11, i. e., free, without any merit or desert on the part
of the sinner, or of obligation (strictly speaking) on the part of
God ; it is the irpoBeais of him who worketh all things after the
counsels of his own will, and hath before ordained that Christians
should have a heavenly inheritance, Eph. i. II : it is a irpoBeais
tuiv awivuiv, an eternal purpose, Eph. iii. 11 ; or it is a irpoBeais
.... irpb xpdvuiv aluiviuiv, a purpose before the ancient ages, i. e.,
before the world began, 2 Tim. i. 9. That the purpose of God
is here meant, and not the purpose or will of man, as many have
maintained, is rendered entirely clear by the sequel, verse 29,
seq. See the Excursus on this passage.
(29) For those whom he foreknew, on ovs irpoeyvui. The course
of thought seems to be thus : ' All things must work together for
good to Christians — to such as are called to the privileges of a
filial relation, and were chosen before the world began, to be con
formed to the image of God and to be advanced to a stale of
glory. The everlasting love and purpose of God cannot be dis
appointed.' "Oti k. t. A. introduces the reasons why it is certain
that all things will work together for the good of true Christians.
TLpoeyvui, foreknew, or before decreed or constituted or determined,
(viz., as kXvtoi, elect, saints, chosen, see on ver. 28), a word so
endlessly disputed, that it would seem to have been too often for
gotten, that the object and argument of an expositor should be
philological, not theological, i. e., he should seek for what the
apostle does say, not for what he may conjecture he ought to say.
IIpo (in composition) gives to the verb the additional significa
tion of previous time, formerly. What then does yivdiaKui mean?
It means (1) To know in any manner generally ; to know by the
aid of any of the bodily senses, by hearing, etc., or by experience,
trial; Lat. cognoscere, sentire. (2) To be acquainted with, to

ROMANS VIII. 29. 297

¦e

perceive so as fully to apprehend, to take knowledge of, to maK
ones self acquainted with. (3) To recognize one as a known
friend, a familiar acquaintance ; Malt. vii. 23. Mark vii 24 1
Cor. viii. 3. Gal. iv. 9. 2 Tim. ii. 19. Heb. xiii. 23. To the
same purpose is the corresponding Hebrew S"n employed, i. e.fit
means, to regard with affection, to treat with favor; e. g., it
is said of God in respect to the saints, Ps. i. 6. cxliv. 3. Amos
iii. 2. Nah. i. 7 ; of men in respect to God, Hos. viii. 2. Ps.
xxxvi. 11. ix. 11. Job. xviii. 21. The first and second classes of
meaning above given are so common, and so easily confirmed by
any of the lexicons, that I have deemed it superfluous to adduce
examples. ^ TIpoeyvui then may mean, he before loved, he before re
garded with affection, he before looked on with favor. In this
sense many have here understood the word ; e. g., Origen, Eras
mus, Calvin, Mosheim, Baumgarten, E. Schmidius, and°generally
the Arminians.
On the other hand; Theophylact, CEcumenius, Ambrose,
Augustine, Bucer, Balduin, Hunnius, Calovius, Heumann, and
others, have construed irpoeyvui here as meaning he foreknew,
understood in the literal and primary sense of the word ; i. ?.,
say the Lutheran commentators in general : ' God foreknew that
the KX-qroi would freely believe.' In the same way many at the
present day construe this text. But the question on which all
turns, as to this interpretation, is : Does the apostle here repre
sent the calling, and justification, and glorification of the KX-qroi,
as the result of God's love to them, or of their love to him ?
That is, did God bring them by his Spirit into a state of grace
because they loved him first or before they were brought into this
state, or did he by his mercy bring them into this state so that they
might love him ? This question is finally and fully settled by
such texts as 1 John iv. 10, 19, John xv. 16, Rom. v. 6 — 10. Jer.
xxxi. 3. 2 Tim. i. 9, ou Kara to. epya -qpuiv — dAAd Kara irpoBeaiv
Kat xdpiv rrjv SoBeiaav .... irpb xpdvuiv aluiviuiv. It is settled
by the nature of the case. The Spirit of God " breathes on the
valley of dry bones ;" he " quickens those who are dead in tres
passes and sins ;" he " calls the dead to life ;" he " creates anew in
Christ Jesus ;" sinners are "born of the Spirit ;" and it is in this
way, and in this only, that the_y come to love God ; for " the car
nal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to his law, nor
indeed can be;" and that " which is born of the flesh is flesh."
It is God who first loves us (1 John iv. 10, 19), before we come
to love him. There is no setting aside declarations so plain, so
full, so often repeated as these. It must necessarily be true that
God foresees and perfectly knows all the voluntary love and obe
dience which his children will ever exhibit ; and it is equally

298 ROMANS VIII. 29.
certain that he has before determined to reward these in propor
tion to their desert. But this cannot be the ground of his causing
them, when they are his enemies, and dead in trespasses and sins,
to become avppopejiovs rrjs e'iKovos tov Ylov airov. It must tor
ever remain true, that we are brought " to love him because he
first loved us."
Of those who embrace the sentiment respecting irpoeyvui given
in No. 3 above, some say that God before loved his saints, because
he foresaw their character and good works ; others, that out of his
•mere good pleasure he set his love upon them. In the latter way,
Calvin, Beza, the Westminster Catechism, and most of the Cal
vinistic writings take it. But our text, it should be observed,
assigns neither the one reason nor the otlier ; it states the simple
fact, and no more. No conclusive objections of a philological
nature can be urged against adopting the sense of before hving or
regarding with affection; because the like sense of the verbs
ytvwo-Ku) and ST) is common. It is only when the reason for do
ing this is forced upon us, as being disclosed in the text itself, that
I should object to such an exegesis.
With Tholuck, however, I prefer a sense of irpoeyvui, different
from any yet mentioned ; and this merely from the philology of
the passage. It is well known in respect to yivuiaKui, that it some
times means volo, constituo mecum, 1 will, I wish, I determine with
myself, I resolve, or determine, or decide. So Rom. vii. 15.
Josephus : 6 ©e6s eyi'oj ripuipiaaaBai airovs, God hath determined
to punish them, Antiq. I. 2 ; comp. also Antiq. II. 4, 5 and III.
12. 3. Psalt. Sal. xvii. 47 : rjv eyvui 6 ®ebs dvaarrjaai, which God
hath determined to establish. In like manner Plutarch ; iyvui
rfuyelv diroSgpia rr)v virdvoiav, he determined to avoid suspicion by
going abroad, Lye. c. 3. Polybius : eyvwo-av Sid pdxyjs Kplveiv Ta
irpdypara, they have determined to decide matters by appeal to
arms, V. 82. So often in Esop's Fables.
That irpoyivmaKui may have the like sense, is clear from 1 Pet.
i. 20 ; where irpoeyvuiapevov irpb KarafioXij; Koapov (said of Christ)
means plainly before decreed, before constituted or determined. In
the like sense (as many think) it is used in Rom. xi. 2, God hath
not cast away his people, ov irpoeyvui, whom he chose to be his or
constituted his, viz., before the foundation of the world ; comp. 1
Pet. i. 20. Eph. iii. 11. 2 Tim. i. 9. And in accordance with
this irpoyvmais is used ; e. g., Acts ii. 24, where it is the equivalent
of uipiapev-q, jSovXrj. So also in 1 Pet. i. 2 ; and it is the same as
7rpd^eo-ts, in 2 Tim. i. 9. Eph. iii. 11.
In this view of the subject, ov irpoeyvui is to be regarded as a
resumption of the idea expressed by Kard irpoBeaiv KXgrois in ver.
28, i. e., those who by his purpose were KX-qroi, those whom

ROMANS VIII. 29. 299
irpoeyvui, i. e., whom he had before resolved or determined should
be his kXijtoi — those irpouipiae k. t. X. That irpo in composition
here means before the foundation of the wor'.d, may be seen by
comparing 1 Pet. i. 20. 2 Tim. i. 9. Eph. iii. 11.
Tlie objeclions to this view lie equally against translating
irpoeyvui, he foreknew, or he loved before. If God did actually
foreknow who were to be his KX-qroi, then it was not uncertain
whether they would be or not. If he loved them before the
foundation of the world, then it must hava been that he did fore
know that they would be his KX-qroi, and this again makes the
same certainty. If he determined before the foundation of the
world that they should be his KX-qroi, then again the same cer
tainty existed, and no more. Nay even if we could abstract God
and his purposes from the whole, and suppose the order of the
universe to move on without him in its constituted way, the same
certainty would still have existed. I do not see, therefore, in
wdiat way we can avoid the conclusion, that certainty must exist,
by the divine purpose and counsel, in regard to the KXrjroi — a
certainty not merely that they will be saved, provided they be
lieve and obey and persevere in so doing, but a certainty that the
Kara irpoBeaiv KX-qroi will be brought to believe and obey and per
severe, and will therefore obtain salvation ; for such is the mani
fest tenor of the whole passage.
Still, all those of any party in theology who draw directly from
irpoeyvui the conclusion that God fore-ordained or chose or loved,
out of his mere good pleasure, on the one hand ; or from his fore
sight of faith and good works on the other ; deduce from the text
what is not in it, for it says neither the one nor the other. It
avers merely that the Kara rpoBeaiv KX-qroi were foreknown, or
fore-loved, or fore-determined. The certainty of future glory to
all the kXvtoI ®eov is what the writer means to affirm ; and to
affirm it by showing that it is a part of the everlasting purposes of
God. He also fore-ordained, ko.L irpouipiae, predestinated, decreed be
fore, viz., before the foundation of the world. So, clearly, the
word is used in Acts iv. 28. 1 Cor. ii. 7, expressly Trpd tuiv
aluivuiv. I take the npd in composition with the several verbs
here, to have the same meaning as in irpb tuiv aluivuiv. It does
not mean simply that God determined or decreed this or that be
fore men individually came into existence, but before the world
began. Eph. i. 5, 11. The idea that the decree here has respect
merely to the external privileges of the gospel, and not to eternal
salvation, is directly contradicted by 1 Cor. ii. 7 — ets Sofav -qpwv ;
bv Eph. i. 5 — ets vioBeaiav Std 'l^o-oC Xpiarou . . . iv w exopev
rgv d-iroXvrpuiaiv . . . and verse 11, iv <5 iKXqpuiB-qpev,

300 ROMANS VIII. 3 0.
irpoopiaBevres Kara irpoBeaiv k. . . A. The whole tenor of the pas
sage before us also clearly contradicts this ; for here the subject
is final and future glory, not merely present opportunities and
external advantages for acquiring Christian knowledge. The
only remaining passage where the word is used (Acts iv. 28),
employs it in an entirely different connection, but with the plain
sense of before decreed. The sense of the whole is : ' Those who
are kXijtoi according to the purpose of God, those whom he deter
mined from everlasting*to save, he did at the same time predesti
nate to be conformed to the image, etc'
To be of the like form with the image of his own Son, avppop-
</>ous . . . aurou, i. e., to be like him, to resemble him in a moral
respect. God has not then (as is often objected to the doctrine
of predestination) decreed that men should be saved whether they
be sinful or holy, i. e:, without any regard to the character wdiich
they may have ; but he has determined that all who are con
ducted to glory, must resemble in a moral respect him who leads
them to glory, i. e., the great Captain of their salvation. Phi
lology requires that avppoprjiovs should be made the pre.dica.te
arc, as indicating the character which God designed they should
sustain, and ^ avppoprfiovs elvai.
That he [(he Son] should be the first-born among many breth
ren, ets to etrai . . . dSeXrjiois, i. e., that the Saviour should, in
his office as Lord of all and Head over all things for his church,
stiU sustain a fraternal relation to those whose leader he is, they
being made to resemble him by being made pariakers ofthe like
qualities or affections; comp. Heb. ii. 11 — 18. The apostle
does not say here, whether believers are to resemble the
Saviour in their moral qualities, their sufferings, or their glorifi
cation. But nothing forbids our extending the idea to all these
particulars ; and the context invites us to do so. For the sense
of irptuToVoKos, comp. Ps. Ixxxix. 27, (28). Ex. iv. 22. Heb. i. 6,
Col. i. 15.
(30) And whom he fore-ordained or predestinated, ous Se
irpouipiae, viz., to be conformed to the image of his Son. In other
words, whom he before determined to regenerate and sanctify, to
purify from sin, and to make holy in some measure as the Saviour
is holy. The same did he also call, tovtovs koi iKdXeae. Is this the so-
named effectual calling; or does it mean nothing more than the
external invitation of the gospel, the moral suasion of it addressed
to the heart and understanding of sinners ? That KaAe'co is some
times employed in the latter sense is clear from such passages as
Matt. ix. 13. Mark ii. 17. Luke v. 32. But it is usually applied
to effectual calhng, i. c., such a calling as ensures acceptance,

ROMANS VIII. 31, 32. 301
election. In such a way KXrjais and kXijtos are, beyond all doubt,
commonly applied. So here iKaXeae manifestly means such a
calling as proceeds from the 7rpd$eo-is, from the fore-knowledge
and from the predetermination of God in respect to the objects of
it, and which is followed by justification or pardon of sin and final
glory. The same he also justified, tovtovs ko.1 iSiKaluiaev, i. e., pardoned,
acquitted, absolved from the penalty of the divine law, accepted
and treated as righteous. — And those whom he justified, the same
he also glorified, ous Se . . . . eSdfao-e; the work begun in
accordance with his everlasting love and purpose, he carries
through and consummates by bestowing endless glory in heaven
upon the Kara. irpoBeaiv kXtjtoi.
Can then the mere external invitations and privileges of the
gospel be here meant ? Is it indeed true, that all to whom these
are extended are KX-qroi in the higher sense here meant ? Such
texts as John xv. 22 — 24. ix. 41. iii. 19. Heb. ii. 1 — 3. iii. 18,
19_ yi. 4 — -6. x. 26 — 30. Mark xvi. 16, and verses 1 — 11
above decide the question whether all who hear the gospel will be
saved. If now all who enjoy the external privileges of the gos
pel are not kXijtoi or KeKXqpevoi in the sense of the present pas
sage, then must it be true, that such only as are conformed to the
image of Cirist will be saved. See Excursus on this passage.
It should be noted also that Paul uses the Aorist here in all
cases ; as well in respect to future glorification (eSd£ao-e) as in
regard to predestination and justification. This is altogether in
the manner of the Hebrew prophets, who usually speak of future
events that are certain, as events which have already past. The
obvious solution of this is that in the knowledge and purpose of
God, things future are like those which are past as to the cer
tainty that they will take place. The use of the Aorist indicates
the certainty of the writer's mind in regard to such things.
(31) What shall we say in respect to these things, ri . ¦ . Tavra,
i. e., what shall we say now in reference to the facts and princi
ples which I have just mentioned, viz., the purposes of God in
respect to the KXgroi, and the manner in which he deals with
them ? The sequel answers this question ; the sum of which is
that, ' such being the purposes of God, none of the sorrows or
troubles of life, yea, none of the spiritual enemies and opposers of
the children of God will be able to disappoint or frustrate their
hopes.' If God be on our side, el o ©eos . . . -qpSiv, i. e., espouse
our cause, who can contend with success against him ?
(32) Even he who spared not his own son, os ye k. t. X. Te
quidem, German eben ; ye . . . . vim verbi auget, i. e., intensiya
His own, ISiov, i. e., his genuine, in opposition to or in dis-
2G

__. >*
CSU

302 ROMANS VIII. 32.
tinction from utou Berov, an adopted son, for such believers are ;
e. g., Abraham prepared to offer up his own son as a sacrifice
instead of selecting a supposititious or adopted heir. Sun being
evidently used here as povoyevrjs in Luke i. 35, not for the divine
Logos as such, but for the Messiah clothed with our nature ; as
the sequel plainly shows.
He scared not, ovk icjielaaro, i. e., he did not withhold ; a Xirorqs
as in v. 12 above, equivalent to ixapiaaro, he gave. So the
sequel ; but gave him up for us all, dXX' .... airov, i. e., gave
him up to suffering and death, devoted him to be a sacrifice for
our sins; comp. John iii. 16. Luke xxii. 19. Gal. i. 4. The
word irapeSuiKev is stronger than eSuiKe, which is used in these
cited passages. It means delivered over, viz., to death. Tldvruiv
is plainly the same here as -rjpeis, i. e., all Christians.
IIow [can it be] that with him he will not also bestow all things
upon us ? ituis oixi .... xapiaerau.. That is : ' How can we possi
bly suppose, that, after having bestowed the greatest of all gifts
upon us, viz., his own Son, he will refuse to bestow those gifts
which are smaller and less costly ? '
Tholuck says that "the apostle has here assured Christians
that nothing shall hurt them unless they injure themselves."
And again : " If the Calvinistic idea [of perseverance] had been
intended to be conveyed [by the apostle] he must also have said,
that neither apostasy nor sin would, under any circumstances,
have rendered their calling uncertain or disappointed it." That
this may be rendered uncertain, he thinks is shown by 2 Pet.
i. 10. But if exhortations, commands and threatenings of a most
awful nature, addressed to Christians, are to be considered as
implying an uncertainty whether the work whicli God has begun
in Christians will be completed ; then the Bible is indeed full of
proof that they may fall away and finally perish ; for it is filled
with passages of such a nature. Above all does the epistle to the
Hebrews abound in them. But while it is impossible to deny
this, or even to deny that if Christians were left to themselves
they would fall away every day and hour of their lives, one may
still, without any just cause of reproach, be permitted to believe
with the apostle, that "whom God calls he justifies and glorifies;"
he may believe, with the same apostle, that "if Christ died for us
while we were yet sinners, while we were daBeveis Kai daefieis,
much more, being justified [i. e., obtaining pardon through his
blood], shall we be saved from wrath," Rom. v. 6— 10. How
can we then put a construction so frigid on this most animated
and energetic passage which is now before us ? ' The purposes
of God,' says the apostle, ' will not be disappointed in brining

ROMANS VIII. 32. 303
his elect to glory." Why ? " Because, since God hath given
us his own Son — the greatest possible gift — to redeem them
from sin, therefore, their redemption remaineth not uncertain, but
will be accomplished." This reasoning we can see and feel.
But how is it with the exegesis of Tholuck ? " God will save
you from the power of external causes of disappointment, if you
only take care yourselves of the internal ones." Indeed ! But I
have great difficulty in finding the consolation or assurance which
I need in such a declaration as this. It is offering me only a
single drop of water, when I am ready to faint with thirst, and
need a copious draught. Ten thousand thousand enemies with
out are not half so strong as the one within ; and if God's gift
of his own Son has not secured sanctifying and restraining
grace for his children, which shall enable them to " crucify the
old man with his lusts and to put on the new man," then is the
work not only incomplete, but it will most certainly fail of being
finally accomplished. The world and the devil would have little
influence over us, indeed, were our hearts altogether right toward
God ; and certain it is, that all other combats are mere skir
mishes, compared with the warfare that is going on within us by
reason of our internal enemy, i. «., a corrupt heart. But did not
Christ die to redeem us from the dangers of this most powerful
of all enemies, as well as from other dangers ? If not, then wo
may abandon all hopes which the gospel inspires, and give our
selves up, after all, for lost. But no, no ! This exegesis does
not meet the object which the apostle has in view. It is and
must be true, that " if when we were enemies we were reconciled
to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled,
we shall be saved by his life." Rom. v. 10.
But all this purpose (which belongs only to the counsels and
mercy of God) does not hinder Paul, nor any other sacred
writer, from reproving, warning and threatening Christians, just
as if they were liable, every day and hour of their lives, to fall
away and to lose the glorious reward of the saints. In them
selves considered they are liable to this ; and God employs the
very means in question in order to preserve them against apos
tasy. Thus, while we admit that the promises of Christ will
not fail, nor the efficacy of atoning blood be frustrated ; while
we believe that " where God has begun a good work, he will
carry it into execution. (iirireXeaei) until the day of Jesus
Christ" (Phil. i. 6) ; we admit in the fullest manner the impor
tance and duty of warning, reproving, exhorting, and threatening
Christians, just as we should do were tliere no direct assurances
that "whom God calls he justifies, and whom he justifies he glo
rifies." We admit all this, because the sacred writers evidently

304 ROMANS VIII. 33, 34.
admit it, and write constantly in a manner that accords with this
admission. (33) Who shall bring an accusation against the elect of God?
lis  ©eou ; That is : "Who shall prefer an accusation
against them of crimes that would occasion their condemnation,
when they come before the tribunal of God ? " 'EKAeKrilv, Heb.
Tre, ims, iina, chosen, dear, beloved, precious ; comp. 1 Pet.
ii. I)'; Luke xxiiu35. 1 Pet.i. 1. Matt. xxiv. 22,31. Mark xiii. 20.
Luke xviii. 7. Col. iii. 12. Tit. i. 1. Rev. xvii. 14; also Matt. xx.
16. xxii. 14 (where iKXeKroi is used in distinction from kXijtoi).
That iKXeKruiv, however, here means something more than merely
dyair-qroi, may be seen from comparing ver. 28 above — KaTa
it p 6 B e a iv . . . KX-qroi and Pet. i. 1, 2, eVAeKTOis • • • Kara
Trpoyi/coo-ii' ©eou IlaTpds.
It is God who justifieth, ©eos 6 SiKaiw. So I prefer to ren
der and to point it, viz., by making this phrase answer to the
preceding question. So Luther, Tholuck, our English version,
and most commentators. On the other hand, Augustine, Eras
mus, Locke, Schbttgen, Griesbach, Knapp, Reiche, and others,
put an interrogation point after Swaiuiv, and likewise after all the
succeeding clauses ; with diminished emphasis, as it seems lo me,
and certainly with no great probability ; for how can we well
suppose that seventeen successive questions are here put, without
any answer or intervening matter ? as Dr. Knapp's and Gries-
bach's pointing represents them to be. ©eos 6 SiKatuiv means, it is
God who acquits, pardons, forgives the sins tuiv iKXeKruiv. Now
as God is the supreme and final judge, how can any accusation
against them occasion their condemnation ?
(34) Who shall condemn or be the condemner? Tis 6 KaraKpivuiv;
i. e., who shall pass sentence of condemnation ? God acquits ;
can any one besides him condemn ? No ; Christ has prevented all
condemnation by his death : Xpiaros 6 diroBavuiv, i. e., his death
having made expiation for the sins of believers, no sentence of con
demnation can now be passed. I construe Xptcrros 6 diroBavuiv as
an answer to the preceding question ; so Tholuck and Flatt.
Tea rather, who is also risen, who moreover is at the right
hand of God, and maketh intercession for us. MSAAov Se . . . .
¦ijpuiv, i. e., Christ not only died to make atonement for our sins,
buthe isrisen from the dead, and is exalted to the throne of
Majesty in the heavens, in order that he may complete the glo
rious work which he began by his death. In regard to the
phrase ev Sefta tou ©eou, see Comm. on Heb. i. 3. — ' Evruyxdvei
conveys the general sense of aiding, assisting, managing one's
concerns for his advantage, etc.; comp. Heb. vii. 25. ix. 24.
1 John ii. 1. In construing the passage in this way, one must

ROMANS VIII. 35-3S.

305

remove the interrogation points after the respective clauses, and
substitute a comma after the first and second, and a period after
the third. r
(35) Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Tis
.... Xpurrov; i. e., from that love which he cherishes for us.
Calvin remarks on tis here (instead of ti'), that the apostle uses
tis because he considers all creatures and trials here as so many
athleta, striving against the efforts of Christians. ©Afyts, i) are-
voxuipia -rj Stcoyads ; i. e., shall vexation from without, or anxiety
from within, or persecution by the enemies of the Christian re
ligion, effect a separation from the love of Christ ? ©Aityis is
strictly applicable to any strait or pressure which comes from
circumstances, i. e., from external causes ; arevoXuipia (lit. nar-
nowness of place) is applied more especially to anxiety of mind ;
Siuiypos obviously designates distresses arising from the rage and
malice of persecutors. All three words together express in
tensely the general idea of trouble or distress. Bodily sufferings
and dangers next follow ; to which Christians, who live in periods
of persecution, must of course be peculiarly exposed. Famine and
nakedness are the natural result of being driven from home, and
made to wander in deserts and desolate places. Peril and sword
are necessarily connected with the bitter hostility of persecution.
(36) The quotation here from Ps. xliv. 23 (Sept. xliii. 22),
is applied to the state of Christians in the apostle's times, as it was
originally to those whom the Psalmist describes ; in other words, the
apostle describes the state of suffering Christians, by the terms
which were employed in ancient days to describe the suffering
people of God. — "OXtjv ttjv -qpepav, D^fi-Jo, continually unre
mittingly. We are counted, i. e., we are reckoned, regarded, dealt with,
as sheep for ihe slaughter ; 'EXoylaB-qpev uis irpofiara arbay-qs, or
we are killed as slaughter-sheep, i. e., unremittingly and without
mercy. (37) But still, dXXd, i. e., notwithstanding these severe pres
sures and trials. — In all these, ' Ev toutois irdaiv, viz., all these
sufferings and sorrows. We are more than conquerors ;
'YirepviKuipev an intensive and powerful expression, used with
great appropriateness and significancy here. Aid .... i^tas, i. e.,
through Christ who loved us, viz., in consequence of the strength
and courage which he imparts : comp. Phil. iv. 13.
(38) The ydp here stands as a reason for the assertion that we
are more than conquerors. "It must be so," says Paul, ufor
nothing ean separate us from the love of Christ." ©dvaTos ....
tfii-ij ; death, may naturally refer to a violent death by the hands
of persecutors, and Zunq, to life on condition of recanting a profes-

26*

306 ROMANS VIII. 38.
sion of the Christian religion . If any one, however, choose to give
the words a more extensive meaning, and to regard them as equi
valent to saying, that there is nothing in death itself or in life,
which will separate, etc., there can be no valid objection to this.
Neither angels, nor principalities, nor powers ; Ovre ayyeXoi,
ovre dpxai .... oure Svvdpeis. The separation of Suvdyiteis here
from dpxai, by an intervening clause, although it produces difficulty
in interpretation, does in fact exist in the best manuscripts, and
in the Coptic, Armenian, and Syriac versions. So we are
obliged, as critics, to receive it as it stands, and to interpret it in
the best manner we can.
Is Svvdpeis here intended by the writer to designate an order
of angels, either good or bad ? Many suppose so, because we
find words of the same and the like kind, elsewhere ranged to
gether to designate such classes or orders; e. g., Eph. i. 21, . . .
dpxfjs Kai i^ovaias Svvdpeuis. Col. i. 16, eiTC Bpovoi, e'ire KvpioT-qres,
e'ire dpxai, eire i£ovaiai, 1 Pet. iii. 22, dyyeXuiv, Kai i$ovaiuiv, Kai
Swapeuiv. The Seventy often render tos , (exercitus) by SuVa/xis.
And this seems to give us a key to the meaning of the word, when
it is applied to the angels. In the passages just cited, different
ranks or orders of angels would seem to be designated. Is the
use of the word thus here in accordance with the Jewish usus
loquendi ?
So far as we can gather, from the Old Testament and from the
Rabbins, what this usage was, we may answer in the affirmative.
Thu^ in Dan. xii. 1, Michael is called the great prince. In
Isaiah vi. 1, seq., the Seraphim are represented, as presence-
angels (so to speak) of Jehovah. In Matt, xviii. 10, the guar
dian-angels of little children are also represented by our Saviour
as the presence-angels of Jehovah. And with regard to the
Rabbins, it is well known that they made a great many different
orders of angels ; e. g., tpasrs, QiSBk ci<_nb, onrix , tnnixri i;a
Bife^iyn niB-xTQ , trsxra ; and also Di-ito/oiata and D^xes,' i. e.
Kvpu'rr-qres, dpxai, and Bpovoi.
From all this it appears, that angels, and principalities, and
powers correspond somewhat exactly to the Jewish orders of
angels as occasionally reckoned ; and that, so far as the possibil
ity of meaning is here concerned, there lies no difficulty in the
way of applying these three words to angels. Nay, we may ad
vance still farther, and say that in respect to dpvai' at least, it is
quite improbable that it should have been intended to designate
magistrates of any kind. "AyyeAot and dpXat' may very naturally
be taken as designating angels and archangels; comp. Jude
verse 9. 1 Thess. iv. 16. Dan. x. 13. xii. 1. If we understand
here these two great divisions of angels it will be in accordance

ROMANS VIII. 38. 307
with the usus loquendi oi the Old Testament. The fact that
dyyeAot and dp^ai are joined by juxta-position, renders it probable
that they belong to the same category of meaning; for so words
of this class are commonly employed.
But allowing this, are good or evil angels here meant ? That
evil angels were also distributed by the Jews into classes, is as
clear as that good angels were classified; e. g., Eph. vi. 12.
1 Cor. xv. 24. Col. ii. 15, where they are called dpxai Kat i£ov-
o-i'ai, and in 2 Pet. ii. 4. they are also called dyyeAot. Moreover
Satan is styled 6 dpxuiv, Matt. ix. 34. xii. 24. John xii. 31. xiv.
30. xvi. 11. Eph. ii. 2, which implies precedence, i. e., rank
among evil angels. The passage in Eph. vi. 12 seems to
be most direct to our purpose, where the apostle represents
Christians as in violent contest 7rpos Tas dp^as Kai irpbs Tas i^ovaias.
So in the verse before us, I understand the apostle as averring,
that neither angels nor archangels with whom we are con
testing, i. e., neither the inferior evil spirits, nor Satan himself,
(or it may be, Satan and others of similar rank), shall be able,
by all their assaults and machinations, to separate true Christians
from the love of their Saviour. Tholuck supposes the good
angels to be meant here ; but how can those "who are sent forth
to minister to such as are the heirs of salvation" (Heb. i. 14),
be well supposed to be the opposers and enemies of Christians?*
Accordingly, with Flatt, I understand dyyeAot and ap^ai of evil
spirits. Awdpeis not to be associated in meaning with ayyeXoi and
dpxat, because it is not associated with them by juxta-position;
for it has juxta-position in all other instances where it means
angels. I must interpret it, therefore, as designating magistrates,
civil powers, viz., persecuting kings and princes. That SuVa/us
means aucto'ritas, imperium, is beyond all doubt; see Luke iv.
36. Acts iv. 7. 1 Cor. v. 4. Rev. xiii. 2 ; also Rev. iv. 11. v. 12.
vii. 12. xii. 10. And that the abstract sense may become con
crete, i. e., that Siivapis may designate those persons who are
clothed with civil power, is clear from 1 Cor. xv. 24. Eph. i. 21,
as also from comparing its synonyme igovaia, in Rom. xiii. 1 — 4.
Neither the present nor. the future ; ovre ivearurra oure peXXovra,
i. e., neither any objects of the present time nor of the future. The
apostle, after having mentioned particular things in the preceding
context, here comes to the generic ideas of time, including of
course all occurrences that take place in it ; and in the next
# Can there be any greater objection to the implied supposition, for rhe
torical effect, of the possibility of this kind of influence from good angels,
than in Gal. i 8 : " But though .... an angel from heaven preach any
other gospel," etc. ?

308 ROMANS IX. 1
clause he seems to predicate that of space or place, which he here
asserts of time.
(39) Neither height nor depth, ovre vfuipa ovre ^dBos. A great
variety of explanations have been given to these words ; e. g.,
Origen : ' Evil spirits in the air and in hades.' Ambrose :
' Neither high and haughty speculation [in doctrine] nor deep
sins.' Augustine : ' Idle curiosity about things above us and be
low us.' Melancthon : ' Heretical speculation of the learned, and
gross superstition of the vulgar, etc' So likewise : ' Honor and
dishonor,' ' high place and low place,' ' happiness and misery,'
' the elevation of Christians on the cross, and the submersion of
them in the sea,' have all had their advocates. The meaning
happiness or misery, honor or dishonor, is a possible one ; but the
animated and glowing spirit of the whole passage naturally leads
the mind to expect something more elevated than this. "Yfos
may mean heaven ; so ni-ra , and so vif/os in Luke i. 78. Eph. iv. 8.
As to /3dBos, it has been taken to mean the earth, and Eph. iv. 9
is appealed to as sustaining this interpretation. But Ps. cxxxix.
15, ynx niinnn, the lower parts of the earth, ra /3dBg rrjs yi/s
(comp. Eph. iv. 9), would be a more apposite appeal, inasmuch
as here the meaning plainly is, earth or secret recesses cf the earth.
On the whole, however, /SdBos (as the antithesis of vxj/uipa) would
more appropriately designate the under-world, hSmxo , dSijs,d(3voaos.
Thus understood, the sentiment of the apostle ends in a climax ;
viz., neither heaven nor hell, i. e., neither the world above, nor
the world below, ovre ris Kriais erepa, nor any other created thing.
The whole summed up together, and understood after the Hebrew
manner of speaking stands thus : ' The universe shall not be able
to separate Christians from the love of Jesus, who died for them ;'
heaven above and Sheol below, and other created things consti
tuting, in the language of Scripture, the universe. I "prefer, how
ever, the simple meaning above and below, i. e., no time and no
space can separate us, etc. ; or no period of time and no place
can occasion the disappointment of our hopes.
This is, indeed, " an anchor sure and steadfast, entering into
that within the vail;" A blessed, cheering, glorious hope,
WHICH ONLY THE GOSPEL AND ATONING BLOOD CAN INSPIRE.

CHAP. IX. 1—33.
With the eighth chapter concludes what may be termed strictly the doctrinal part
of our epistle. What follows is either by way of forestalling or of removing objec
tions, or of justifying what has been 6aid (chapters ix.-xi.), or else in the way of

ROMANS IX. 1. 309
practical exhortation and caution (12 — 16). In different parts ofthe epistle, the
apostle had already advanced sentiments ou the subject of salvation by grace— si
salvation proifered on the same terms to Gentile and Jew — which he knew would
be very obnoxious to many of lias kinsmen, not excepting some who pioiessed to be
converts to the Christian religion. In chapters ii and iii. he had foimally shown
that the Jews were not only in a state of condemnation by the divine law, but even
more guilty than the Gentiles; and this because they liad enjoyed greater religious
privileges. At the close of chap, iii he had plainly and explicitly declined, that
God is the God ofthe Gentiles as really and truly as of the Jews; and had labored
to show (chap. 14), that such was the priuciple or doctrine which is taught in the
Old Testament Scriptures themselves. uThe seed of Abraham," in tlie highest,
and noblest, and only really important sense of the phrase, means his spiritual seed ;
which comprises all who imitate the faith of Abraham, and like him believe
implicitly in the divine declarations. In chap. v. the apostle had implicitly justified
the extension of the gospel privileges and blessings to all men indiscriminately, inas
much as all were affected by the fall of Adam, their common progenitor. Then in
chapters vi. — viii. he had shown that Christ and his grace are the only effectual
ground of our sanctification as well as justification ; that all objection to the scheme
of grace on the ground that it will encourage sin, not only is destitute of founda
tion, hut that the sinner has no hope of resisting sin with success, but through the
grace ofthe gospel; and, finally, that the sanctification of believers will, as certainly
as their justification, issue in their salvation.
But how could the Jew, accustomed to pride himself in his descent from Abra
ham, to regard God as his peculiar and covenant God, and to expect acceptance in
consequence of his lineage and ofthe peculiar favors which had been shown to the
Hebrew nation — how could he receive with approbation a doctrine, which not only
went to prostrate all the hopes that he had cherished of pre-eminence in this world,
and of happiness in the world to come, and to place the very heathen on a level
with himself, but which even advanced still farther, and made him more guilty than
the heathen, and consequently involved him in higher condemnation, because he
had sinned against peculiar light and love? Nay, the very privileges, which had
been the ground of his greatest confidence that he must be regarded with divine
approbation and entitled to the favor of God, had become, according to the repre
sentation ofthe apostle, the occasion of his peculiar and aggravated condemnation.
The apostle accordingly expected that his countrymen would accuse him of hav
ing become alienated from his kinsmen after the flesh, and partial to the Gentiles,
since he was an apostle to them. To counteract this feeling, he evidently wrote
the chapter now before us. He begins this by a most solemn profession or declara
tion of his sincere and ardent affection for his own nation. He protests against tlie
idea, that in declaring God to be the God ofthe Gentiles, as well as the Jews, he has
therefore abjured every kind of pre-eminence to his own people. He allows that
they have enjoyed special and distinguished external privileges; above all, that the
Messiah himself has come from the midst of them, verses 2 — 5. He then proceeds
to show that God in selecting the heirs of his grace where he pleases, i. e., making
the Gentiles the Kara irp6.^e(Tty kAtjtoI as well as Jews, had violated no promise.
His word ouk c'/ctt eVroj/ce (ver. 6), i. e., his promise made to Abraham and his seed is
not frustrated or annulled, as the Jewish Scriptures themselves do testify. Abra
ham, for example, had several children; but in Isaac only was his seed called,
verses 7 — 9. To Isaac two sons were born, Esau and Jacob; yet Esau was rejected
and Jacob received ; and the decision respecting this was made even before they
were born, verses 10 — 14. God's declaration to Moses, and his dealing with Tha-
raoh, exhibit the same truth in a striking manner, verses 15 — 18. All objection to
this on the ground of partiality or injustice, is without any good support ; since the
sovereign Lord of the universe has a perfect right to dispose of his own as seems
good in his sight, verses 19, 20. He does injustice to none; for those whom he
passes by are left to the course of justice and equity, verses 21—23. The Hebrew

310 ROMANS IX. 1.
Scriptures have not only displayed, in this way, God's sovereignty in his dealings
with his people, but tliey also contain express declarations that the Gentiles shall
be brought into the church and become the children of God, verses 2-1 - 26. Equally
certain is it that they predict tlie unbelief and rejection of the natural descendants
of Abraham, verses 2V — 29. Finally, the apostle sums up the whole matter in dis
cussion, by declaring that > the Gentiles are admitted io tlie gospel privilege of justi
fication by faith, but that the Jews in general remain in a state of unbelief and
rejection, because Christ crucitied is to them a stumbling-block, and none hut
believers on him can be saved,' verses 30 — 33.
It is in this way that the apostle justifies what he had already advanced respecting
the Jews and Gentiles; and in particular what he had said, in the eighth chapter, in
reference to the bestowment of blessings upon the Kara irpoSieo-iv /cArjToi. 'God
has always,' he would say, 'dealt in the same manner by his people.' The Old
Testament is full of the same doctrine, or of facts wbich illustrate aud confirm it.
It contains predictions concerning the very things of which the Jews now
complain.' The question in the eighth chapter is not one oi external privileges or advantages;
it is one of calling, justification, and glorification. It is one which respects the ever
lasting and inseparable love of Christ. Defence, therefore, of the sentiments incul
cated in respect to these topics, occupies the ninth chapter. In itself it contains not
the great doctrine in question, that is, it does not directly reveal or inculcate it.
The examples of God's sovereignty produced in it are of various kinds, some of them
having respect to temporal advantages or disadvantages ; and some to both spiritual
and temporal. But the principle illustrated and confirmed by all these is the main
and all-important question ; and the principle is that which is avowed in the eighth
chapter, viz., that the Kara irp6Steaiv K\r\Toi are the certain heirs of future glory.
It is the eighth chapter, then, which is the key of the ninth; and without keeping
ibis in view one may look in vain for the object of the various examples and illus
trations which the ninth chapter exhibits. In a word, the apostle shows in the
ninth chapter, ' that God in calling, justifying and glorifying, ovs 'irpoeyvui, does
inihj what he has a perfect right to do, what is analogous to examples of his dealings as
exhibited by the Jewish Scriptures, and what accords with the doctrines aud pre
dictions which they contain. In this way, and in this ouly, can we fully see the
scope, object, and connection ofthe ninth chapter.

CHAP. IX. 1—5.

(1 ) First of all the apostle makes the most solemn and glow
ing assurances of his affectionate regard for his own nation, in
order to prevent the apprehension that any alienation from the
Jews had caused him to believe and teach as he had done
respecting the Gentiles.
I speak the truth in Christ. 'AXrjBeiav . . . Xpiarui. Most
interpreters regard iv Xpiaru) as the formula of an oath ; and tliey
appeal to the Hebrew form of an oath, which prefixes a (iv) to
the object or person by whom any one swears. So also 'iv in the

ROMANS IX. 2, 3. 311
New Testament, e. g., Matt. v. 34—36. Rev. x. 6. So Dan.
xii. 7. (in Theodotion's Greek version). But this interpretation
is very doubtful. Compare for example, iv Kvpiui in Eph. iv.
17, where it follows paprvpovpai, and where the formula of an
oath is out of question. It is only solemn declaration, such as
Christ or the Spirit of Christ prompts or suggests. In like
manner we have xaP°- *v Xpiarid,dydiTg iv Xpio-™, k. t. A., where'
an oath is out of all question. Indeed the phrase iv Kvpiui, iv
Xpiario, etc., occurs so often, that abundant analogies are at hand
to justify the exegesis which is given to iv Xpiarui, here, when we
construe it as meaning agreeably to what becomes one who is in
Christ, or who belongs to him ; i. e., as a Christian, or one who is
spiritually united to Christ, I speak the truth, etc. 04 4/ei>Sopai
repeats the affirmation and strengthens it by litotes. Comp. John
i. 21. Eph. iv. 25. 1 Sam. iii. 18, for the form of the expression;
1 Tim. ii. 7, for the like words.
My conscience bearing me witness, in the Holy Spirit, avppap-
rvpova-qs .... dyiui. Dr. Knapp and some other critics incor
rectly join ov xj/evSopai with ev Tivevpan dyiio, making the latter
phrase a part of the formula of an oath. The repetition of an
oath here, would be unnatural and excessive ; besides that no
example elsewhere of Christians swearing by the Holy Ghost
can be produced. Conscience is the voice of God in man ; or at
least the faculty on which the influence of the Spirit of God
seems to be specially exerted. It was a conscience moved and
enlightened by this Spirit, whieh, the apostle here solemnly de
clares, testified his affectionate regard for the Jewish nation ; ev
Tivevpan dy«u, meaning, I who am moved by the Holy Spirit, or
am in the Spirit ; comp. Rev. i. 1 0, eyevdpqv iv irvevpari.
(2) That I have great sorrow and continual anguish in my
heart, an .... pov. For the like expressions of sympathy and
affection, comp. 1 Cor. i. 4. Phil. i. 3, 4. Eph. i. 16. 1 Thes. i.
2. Rom. i. 9, 10. Phiiem. ver. 4. 2 Tim. i. 3, 4. 2 Cor. xi. 29.
xii. 15.
(3) Nearly every word in this verse has been the subject of
different and contested exegesis. For I myself could wish,
¦qixip-qv ydp avrbs. Compare Acts xxv. 22, ej3ovXdpgv, I could
wish; Gal. iv. 29, iijBeXov, I could desire. But why not trans
late, I did wish, i. e., when I was an unconverted Jew I did wish ?
Because (1) The apostle designs to show his present love to the
Jews. Who questioned this strong attachment to them, when he
persecuted Stephen and others before his conversion? Or to
what purpose could it be now io exhibit this, when his love to
them since he became a Christian is the only thing that is called
in question? Then (2) Neither the present evXopai, nor the

312 ROMANS IX. 3.
Optative eixoip-qv, would accurately express what the apostle
means here. Evxopai (Ind. present) would mean, I wish by way
of direct and positive affirmation, and with the implication that
the thing wished might take place ; eixoip-qv (Opt.) Iain wishing
with desire, implying the possibility that the thing wished for
would take place. On the other hand, -qvxopqv as here employed,
(/ could wish) implies, that whatever his desires may be, after all
the thing wished for is impossible or it cannot take place ; which
is doubtless the very shade of thought that the writer would de
sign to express. See New Test. Gramm. § 136. Note 1. (b).
If the apostle had designed here merely to describe what he
once felt or desired, i. e., before his conversion, he would of
course have employed the Aorist of narration, and not the
Imperfect. See upon this use of the Imperf. with dv, especially
Robinson's Buttmann, § 139. R. 12. b., who says, that by rule,
the Imperfect Tense with dv is used when the reference is to the
present time, " to signify that in consequence of the impossibility
or non-fulfilment of certain conditions, some action or thing in
like manner cannot or could not be fulfilled."
To be an anathema, dvdBepa elvai, i. e., to be devoted to destruc
tion, or to be excommunicated. In classical Greek dvdBepa and
dvdBgpa are synonymous ; just as evpepa and evp-qpa were, and
also iir'iBepa and iiriB-qpa, etc. (1) The proper and original
meaning of dvdBepa or dvdB-qpa, was a setting out or setting up oi
anything consecrated to the gods, in their temples, such as tripods,
images, statues, inscriptions, etc. The exposure of such things in
the temples, in any way, whether they hung up, stood up, or lay
down, was dvdBejua ; the action of exposing them, or the exposure
itself, was called dvdBepa. Hence, (2) The thing itself exposed,
the thing consecrated or devoted to the gods, was by a very com
mon principle of language called dvdBepa. Then (3) As any
thing devoted or consecrated to the gods was irrevocably given
up to them, and was no more subject to common use; so when
any living thing, beast or man, became an dvdBepa, it was of
course to be slain in sacrifice, and offered to the gods mostly as a
piacular victim. In like manner, under the Levitical law, every
t^si or dvdBepa devoted to God, was incapable of redemption.
See Lev. xxvii. 28, 29, comp. Judg. xi. 30, 31 and 39; which,
however, is the only instance on record in the Scriptures of a
human dvdBepa, and which at all events is not encouraged by the
laws of Moses. And in consequence of such a custom or law,
cities, edifices, and their inhabitants, which were devoted to
excision or entire destruction, were called tm , .'. <_., dvdBepa as
the Seventy have rendered it. So Jericho was" Din , Josh. vi. 17,
comp. verse 21; and so the cities of the Canaanites that were

ROMANS IX 3. 313
utterly destroyed by Israel, were named rvrvn , destruction. Any
thing in fact, wliether man, beast, or any species of property or
ornament, which was to be utterly destroyed, was called trf\
(dvdBepa) by the Hebrews ; see Lev. xxvii. 28, 29. Deut. xiii.
15 — 17, and comp. 1 Kings xx. 42. Is. xxxiv. 5. Zech. xiv. 11.
The Greek words dvaBeparit,ui and dvariB-qpi correspond, in the
like manner, to the Heb. oi"inn (Hiph. of Bin), and mean to
pronounce to be an dvdBepa, to give up as an dvdBepa, i. e., to set
apart or deliver over to destruction.
Some suppose that natural death or sufferings in the present
world, are here referred to. Then dirb rov Xpiarov means by Christ ;
in which case the whole sentiment would seem to be : 'I could
wish to suffer temporal death inflicted by Christ, provided this
would exempt my countrymen from it.' But the apostle is not
here discussing the subject of the Jews' temporal punishment or
excision, but of their excision from the blessings of a future world
by reason of their unbelief; comp. ix. 25 — 33. A mere willing
ness to suffer physical dissolution to avert this, is unworthy to be
put into the mouth of the apostle. It is a Bin of a far different
kind, fehat he would consent to take upon himself, could they be
saved by it. That dvdBepa may be used to signify the second
death, is clear from 1 Cor. xvi. 22. 'Airb tov Xpiarov may how
ever, mean 6y Christ; i. c, it is equivalent to virb rov Xpiarov.
So clearly dirb is often employed; e. g., Mark viii. 31. Luke ix.
22. xvii. 25. Matt. xi. 19. Luke xii. 58. Acts ii, 22. x. 17. et
stepe. Still, as the idea of being an anathema involves the idea
of separation or banishment from Christ, a7rd may be rendered
from, without any important variation of the sense.
On account of or in the room of my brethren, my kinsmen after
the flesh, virep tuiv  adpKa, i. e., for the sake of my nat
ural brethren ; my kinsmen by natural descent or generation, i. e.,
the Jews.
Tholuck gives a little different turn to the passage, but the
same sense in substance. He compares dvdBepa to Bin in the
later Heb. ; which was used to denote excommunication, separa
tion from the Jewish community or bri%. The Rabbins make
three gradations of excommunication, which they call, (a) ima se
clusion, which lasted a month, and obliged a man to keep four ells
distant from all his household, (b) The Bin , which forbade all
intercourse, action, eating, drinking, etc., wi+h any one, and all
approach on the part of the excommunicated person to the syn-
ao-ogue. (c) The KITOC (from mad, excludere), which designated
utter exclusion on the part of God and man, and the being given
up to destruction. For a tremendous example of the Rabbinic
Bin see Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. p. 828. In this way, dvdBepa dirb
27

314 ROMANS IX 3
rov Xpurrov would mean, one banished, cut off, separated from
Christ ; which would involve, however, all the consequences that
are involved in the preceding exegesis. But on the whole, as
the preceding sense is most consonant with Scriptural and clas
sical usage, I should give it the preference. The sentiment then
is : ' Such is my love for my kinsmen after the flesh, that were
it possible, I would devote myself to the destruction which threat
ens them, could they but escape by such means.
The objections urged against this sentiment seem to be of little
weight. It is asked : ' How could the apostle be willing to be
for ever cast off and separated from Christ ? How could he be
willing to become a sinner and to be miserable forever?' I an
swer, (1) The possibility that such could or would be the case, is
not at all implied in what he says ; no more than the possibility
that " an angel from heaven should {ireach another gospel," is
implied by what is said in Gal. i. 8. (2) Even supposing the
actual possibility of the exchange in question was believed by
the apostle, it would not imply that in itself he was willing to be
a sinner, or to be forever miserable. When the apostle says that
Christ was made a curse/of us, does he mean to say that Christ
took on him the temper of mind which they have who are
accursed ? " Quid minim," says Origen, '' si, cum Dominus pro
servis maledictum sit factum, servus pro fratribus anathema
fiat 1" It would imply merely, then, that Paul would be willing,
in case he could save the whole nation, to take on himself the
miseries to which they were hastening. And a sentiment like
this, is surely capable of a rational and sober defence. If be
nevolence would lead Paul to undergo any assignable degree of
suffering, in the present life, in order to promote the everlasting
welfare of the Jewish nation ; would not the like benevolence
lead him to undergo any assignable degree of misery in a future
world for the same purpose, provided such a purpose could be
answered by it ? Who can draw the line where benevolence
would stop short ; except it be, where the evil suffered was to be
equal to the good accomplished, or even greater ? Could Paul
have the genuine spirit of his Lord and Master, unless he could
truly say what he has said in the passage before us ? But, (3)
The inference that Paul " was willing to be damned," or that
Christians must come to such a state of willingness, is made
without any ground from the verse in question. If Paul's being
cast off by the Saviour could occasion the reception and salva
tion of the whole Jewish people, this apostle expresses his read
iness to submit to it. But as such a thing was impossible ; and
as he really knew it to be so ; all that we can well suppose the
passage teaches, is, that the apostle possessed such a feeling of

ROMANS IX. 4. 315
benevolence toward the Jewish nation, that he was ready to do or
suffer anything whatever, provided their salvation might be
secured by it. In other words, this is a high and glowing ex
pression, of his strong affection, springing from an excited state
of feeling, which the use of common language could not at all
satisfy. Such expressions are still very common in the East.
The Arabians, for example, very commonly, in order to testify
strong affection, say, let my soul be a ransom for thee. So Mai-
monides (Sanhed. fol. 18. 1), in explaining the Tahnudic ex
pression ^rnss isi'in , see I am thy ransom states, that this was a
common expression of strong affection.
(4) Israelites, 'lapagXirai, i. e., who bear this honorable or
far-famed name ; comp. Gen. xxxii. 28. John i. 47, 2 Cor. xi.
22. Phil. iii. 5. This however is only an external privilege ; for
they are not all Israelites in truth, who are of Israelitish descent,
Rom. ix. 6. comp. iii. 28, 29.
Whose is the sonship, uiv rj vloBeaia, i. e., the relation of sons
or children; comp. Ex. iv. 22, 23. Deut. xxxii. 5, 6, xiv. 1. Hos.
xi. 1. The meaning is, that Israel stood in a special relation to
God, and was treated with distinguished and peculiar affection.
This last circumstance forms what is the special ground of the
vloBeaia. This vloBeaia was however external, and consisted with
the Jewish nation's being in a very imperfect state ; comp. Gal.
iv. 1 — 3. 2 Cor. iii. 6 — 18. For a sonship of a much higher
nature than this, comp. Gal. iv. 4 — 7. Rom. viii. 14 — 17.
Adfa. may have the sense here of glory, and be joined with
vloBeaia in the way of Hendiadys or as explicative, so that the
meaning would be for substance glorious adoption or sonship, i. e.,
one which is worth)- of praise, etc. And this method Tholuck
prefers. But the ephithet 8d£;a appears to be too strong for a
mere external vloBeaia ; and besides all the other nouns whicli
precede and follow stand single. On this account I must prefer
giving to Sofia the sense of Tins , and regard it here as designat
ing the visible splendor which was the symbol of Jehovah's
presence, and which was peculiarly manifested in the sanctum
sanctorum of the temple ; comp. Ex. xxv. 22. xl. 34, 35. Lev.
ix. 6. Ezek. i. 28. iii. 23. viii. 4. It is true, indeed, that in all
these passages we have ri'-i^ Ti33 (86£a ®eoi), and not simply
1123 . But the Targum, which employs nin-; Nn::^: for Tins ,
n'ini also employs K!1j=U (Shechinah) alone in the same sense.
Paul then may have 'here used So'£a. elliptically, in a correspond
ing manner. Beza, Turretin, Vitringa, Riickert, Reiche, and
others, agree with me in this interpretation. The sentiment then
is : 'To the Israelites belonged the visible splendor or glory,
which was indicative of the immediate presence of Jehovah.'

316 ROMANS IX. 5.
Covenants, AiaBrJKai, i. <?., those made at different times with
Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc. — legislation, vopoBeaia, or system
of laws, viz., the Mosaic legislation or laws ; as to the distin
guished privilege of these, comp. Deut. iv. 5 — 8. Ps. cxlvii. 19,
20. Rom. ii. 18, 19. — Service, Xarpeia, niia:*, rites of the tem
ple, priesthood, etc. — The promises, iirayyeXiai, viz., those which
had respect to the Messiah : comp. Gal. iii. 16. Rom. xv. 8. Heb.
xi. 17.
(5) Whose are ihe fathers, oiv ol irarepes, i. e., whose progeni
tors were the fathers, Abraham, etc., to whom so many promises
(iirayyeXiai) were made, and who are so distinguished in sacred
history. From whom [descended] Christ, in respect to the flesh, i£
uiv . . . adpKa, i. e., in respect to his human or inferior nature, or
so far as he was man ; comp. Rom. i. 3 and bpoiuipa aapnos in
viii. 3. But if he had no other nature, why should such a dis
tinction as is implied by Kara adpKa, be here designated ? Would
a sacred writer say of David, for example, that he was descended
from Abraham Kara adpKa? Would it not imply that Kara
irvevpa he was not descended from Abraham ? But here, the
other nature of Christ appears to be designated by the succeed
ing phrase 6 uiv iirl iravruiv ©eos.
Who is God over all, blessed forever, Amen ? b Siv . . . dp-qv.
'O un/ is equivalent to or the same as os ian, who is ; for so the
article followed by a participle is often employed in the Greek
language ; see John i. 18. iii. 13, xii. 17. 2 Cor. xi. 31, 6 ©e6s . . .
6 wv eiXoy-qros k.t. X. — "Eirl iravruiv, being placed here between
the article 6 and the noun ©eos to which this article belongs, is
of course an adjective as to meaning, and designates the idea of
supreme. Some indeed have understood cm iravruiv as meaning
eVi. irdvruiv iraripuiv ; but this is plainly a forced and frigid exege
sis. In Hebrew, nixns in'bsj. and ilia are epithets of Jehovah,
the supreme God ; and to these iravroKparuip in the Septuagint
corresponds ; e. g., 2 Sam. v. 10. 1 Chron. xi. 9. Jer. v. 14. Amos
iii. 13. Zech. i. 3, seq., et alibi. So in the Apocalypse iravroKpdruip
often appears as an epithet of Jehovah, e. g., Rev. i. 8. iv. 8. xi.
17. xv. 3, etc. Now iravTOKpdruip is for substance the equivalent of
iirl irdvruiv as to meaning ; so that o iiri iravruiv ©eos must be al
together equivalent to 6 ©eo's 6 iravroKparuip.
Blessed, eiXoyq-ros is equivalent to the Hebrew TttlS. The
Jewish Rabbins from time immemorial have been accustomed,
whenever the name of God is mentioned, to add Nin -p-ia , bles
sed is he. So Paul here, after calling Christ 6 uiv iiri irdvrwv ®eos,
adds eiXoynrbs els rois aluivas, i. e., isi tb'-.vb ^ina . Compare
now the same appellation given lo God iii Mark xiv. 61.' Whether
an ascription of divine honour to Christ is intended by applying

ROMANS IX. 5. 317
to him here the word eiXoy-qros, the reader may satisfy himself by
comparing the use of this word in 2 Cor. i. 3. xi. 3 1 . Eph. i. 3. 1
Pet. i. 3. Luke i. 68. That divine honor is ascribed to Christ
by the heavenly hosts (and the same too which is rendered to the
Father), appears from Rev. v. 13, 14. Nor can it be objected
that it is contrary to the usage of Paul, to name Christ ©eos ; for
so he is called in Tit. i. 3, and tke great God in Tit. ii. 13 ; more
over he is represented as Xa-a ©e<3 in Phil. ii. 6 ; and as ©eos in
John i. 1 ; not to mention the controverted but seemingly well
authenticated reading (©eo's) in 1 Tim. iii. 16. Nor is it any
objection to this, that in 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28, the apostle repre
sents the Son as renouncing or laying aside his supremacy or do
minion, at the final consummation of all things ; for the office of
(he Messiah, and the dominion of the Messiah, as such, must of
course cease, when all the objects of that office and that dominion
shall have been fully accomplished. In reference to this kind
of dominion, Christ is called Kvpios in 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; and it is
such a dominion which is represented as bestowed on him in Phil.
ii. 9 — 11. Col. i. 17, 18. Heb. i. 3. ii. 5—9. viii. 1.
Neither the grammatical arrangement of the text, then, nor
the sentiments of the apostle elsewhere, require us, or (may I not
say ?) permit us, to give a different interpretation to the words
of the verse in question. Nor do any various readings of the
verse occur, which are of any authority at all. It has been con-,
jectured, indeed, that we should read Siv 6 k. t. X., i. e., whose is the
God over all, etc. ; so Whitby, Crellius, Taylor, and others. But not
to say, that taking such liberties with the text is fairly out of
question, it will be enough to compare the sentiment which the
passage thus modified would give, with Rom. iii. 29, 30. This
then is one of the cases, in which Paul has directly asserted
Christ to be supreme God, and has accordingly rendered to him
the sacred doxology.*
The efforts to evade this conclusion have been many and stren
uous. The interpretations which have resulted from them may
be divided into two classes, viz : —
I. Those which put a full period after adpKa, and make the re
mainder of the verse a doxology to God the Father. So Eras-
mus,'in the enlarged edition of his notes ; so Enjeddin, Whiston,

* Alford says of the rendering given above, that " it is not only that most
agreeable to the usage of the Ap. but the only one admissible bi/ the rules of
grammar and armnr/ement. It also admirably suits the context: for, having
enumerated the hisioric advantages of the Jewish people, he concludes by
stating one whicli ranks far higher" than all, — that from them sprang, accord
ing to the flesh. lie who is God over all, blessed forever."
27*

318 ROMANS IX. 5.
Semler, Glockler, and others ; this of course, we might expect
from Reiche, who is apparently a high Arian. But (a) It was
lono- ago noted by Bengel (with whom Faustus Socinus also
agrees," that in all classes of doxology, ^-3 in Hebrew and
evXoy-qrds in Greek precede the name of God who is blessed. So
the laws of grammar beyond all doubt demand ; for -piia nini
would mean, the blessed Jehovah, i. e., the blessed Jehovah does
this or that ; for both words (thus arranged) make out merely the
subject of a sentence. On the contrary, nini ^_na means blessed
is or blessed be Jehovah ; Jehovah being the subject of the sen
tence, and -113 the predicate. So, more than thirty times, the
words T^ia in Hebrew and eiXoynros in Greek are placed in the
Old Testament, and so all the examples in the New Testament.
Only one can I find in all the Bible, that differs from this ; and
this is Ps. Ixvii. 19 (Sept.), where however the repetition of
evXoyrjros is plainly an error of the scribes, as it has no corres
ponding repetition in the Hebrew, and is against all analogy.
Even Eichhorn (Einleit. ins. A. T. §320) concedes that the
reading in the Sept. is a doubtful one. (b) Construed in this
way, uiv is entirely useless and destitute of meaning, and the ad
dition of it is altogether unaccountable. The natural and simple
order of the text would be ; TiiXoygrbs 6 iirl iravruiv ©eos k. t. X.
(c) In this mode of interpretation there is no antithesis to /caret
adpKa, which plainly requires one ; as the natural inquiry is : If
Christ be descended from David only Kara. adpKa, what is he as to
his higher nature? Comp. Rom. i. 1, 3.
II. Another class of critics viz., Locke, Clark, Justi, Ammon,
and others, put a full period after irdvruiv, and then make a
doxology of the sequel. In this way the difficulty last suggested
with regard to the interpretation No. I, is in a measure removed,
as a kind of antithesis is made out by 6 uiv iirl irdvruiv, sc. irdvruiv
irarepuiv, i. e., Christ in his human nature was a descendant of
David, but still was a personage of exalted dignity, being ele
vated above all the Jewish fathers, who are objects of so much
encomium in sacred history and of so much veneration among
the Jewish people. But still there are weighty objections against
this mode of pointing and explaining the text ; for (a) The dif
ficulty in regard to the position of etJAoyijros, is the same here as
has been already described above, under No. I. a. (b) In such
a case the noun ©eds must have the article, as being the subject
of the sentence, and in its own nature customarily requiring it.
So uniformly in the Sept. and in the New Testament, where ©eds
is the subject of a doxology made by evXoyrjros it takes the arti
cle ; e. g., Gen. ix. 26. xiv. 20. xxiv. 27. 1 Sam. xxv. 32. 2 Sam.
xviii. 28. 1 K. i. 48. v. 7. viii. 15. 2 Chron. ii. 12. vi 4. Ez. vii.

ROMANS IX. 5. 319
46. Ps. xvii. 50. xl. 14. lxv. 19. Ixvii. 20, 38. Ixxi. 19. cv. 47.
cxliii. 1. Dan. iii. 29. Luke i. 68. 2 Cor. i. 3. Eph. i. 3. 1 Pet.
i. 3. In regard to Kvpios, the usage of the Sept. varies ; e. g.,
1 Sam. xxv. 39, evXoygrds 6 Kvpios, according to the usage of
©eo's ; but in other passages the article is omitted, e. g., Ex. xviii.
10. Ruth iv. 14. Ps. cxxiii. 5. cxxxiv. 21. But no instance of
the like variation can I find, in respect to ©eds. The example in
our text must stand alone, if it be one, of ©eds in a doxology
with eiXoy-qros, and yet without the article, (c) To break off a
sentence with 6 uiv iirl irdvruiv, seems at least to make it very
abrupt and incomplete. To what can Trdvruiv refer, in such a con
nection, except to the fathers ? And to say that the Messiah was
exalted above the Jewish patriarchs, although it might be saying
something, would not seem to be saying very much, considering
the efficacy which Paul had been ascribing to his love and suf
ferings, and death, and the greatness which he had ascribed to his
power, (d) There is something incongruous in a doxology here
to God the Father ; which even Crellius himself suggests (Arte
mon. Init. Evang. Johan.) The apostle is here expressing the
deepest and most unfeigned regret of his soul, that notwithstand
ing the exalted and peculiar privileges of the Jewish nation, they
had by their unbelief forfeited them all, and made themselves
obnoxious to a most terrible condemnation. To break out into a
doxology here, would be (as Flatt suggests) like saying : 'These
special privileges have, by being abused, contributed greatly to
enhance the guilt and punishment of the Jewish nation ; God be
thanked that he has given them such privileges !' It is a duty,
indeed, to be grateful for blessings which are bestowed ; but —
all in its proper place. Doxologies are not appropriate to para
graphs, which give an account of mercies abused and deep guilt
contracted, (e) Besides all this, the abruptness of a doxology
here, which could contain no reference to God as mentioned in
the preceding context (for he is not there mentioned), is plain
and striking : and also, as Nosselt, Flatt, Koppe, and Ewald have
observed, it would be without example. Comp. Rom. i. 25. xi.
36- The remark of Eckermann and Justi, that eiAoyr/ros is required
to stand before ©eds in a doxology, only when this doxology stands
at the beginning of a sentence, is not true in point of fact ; e. g.,
Gen. xiv. 20, where Kat shows that eiXoygros is not at the begin
ning of a sentence ; 2 Sam. xxii. 47. Ps. xvii. 46. Ixvii. 35. In
the last case, one might contend and say, that eiXoygros begins a
new sentence ; but then where does it not, on the same ground ?
The burden of proof lies on those, who assert that eiXoyvrds need
not be prefixed except it stand at the beginning of a sentence ; yet

320 , ROMANS IX. 5.
where are the instances in which it is not prefixed ? The only-
one (except an instance of a manifestly corrupt text, Ps. Ixvii.
19), is the very verse before us. To assume the principle in
question, then, is to take for granted the very point in dispute.
The remark of Doderlein, that dpqv necessarily implies an
Optative, doxology (sc. eiXoyrrrbs el-q ©eds), is disproved by Rom.
i. 25, where os e a r iv eiXoyrjrbs .... dpqv, are the words of
Paul, i. e., the apostle speaks in the Indicative mode, and not in
the Optative. The same is the case in 1 Pet. iv. 11, Si [sc. ©eui
vel XpiarS] i a r iv ij Soija k. t. X. And in other cases where no
verb is supplied, e. g., Rom. xiv. 27. Gal. i. 5. 1 Tim. i. 17. vi. 16.
2 Tim. iv. 18, etc., it is not by any means certain (as the above
explicit instances of Indicative usage show), that the Optative el-q,
rather than the Indicative iari, is to be supplied. Nor does the
remark of Erasmus, that in some of the manuscripts of Cyprian,
Hilary, and Chrysostom, Deus or ©eds is wanting in the citations
of Rom. ix. 5, prove anything ; for these are evidently omissions
of copyists, since all the best manuscripts of these fathers insert
Deus or ©eds.
Grotius is still more unsuccessful, in asserting that the Syriac
version (the Peschito), omits ©eds ; for this version has words
translated Deus super omnia. Stolz, in his celebrated German
version, has left out ©eds ; whether on the authority of Grotius as
above, or because he thought it a disagreeable appendage to the
text, does not appear. After all these proposed changes, how
ever, of punctuation, of the order of the text, and of the sub
stance of it, the text, as it now stands, remains in reality un
touched by any criticism which can have any considerable weight
with men of ingenuous and candid minds. That those who deny
the divinity of Christ should be solicitous to avoid the force of
this text, is not unnatural ; for while it remains in the records
of the New Testament, it stands an irrefragable evidence of what
Paul believed, asserted, and taught, relative to this subject. The
only way in which any avoiding of its force is practicable, seems
to be, to assert that 6 uiv iirl irdvruiv ©eds is meant to designate
merely the supremacy of Christ as Mediator, in which capacity he
is quasi Deus, and in the like capacity is styled D^nix in Ps. xiv.
In pursuing this course, more probability than is now exhibited in
the various evasions that I have above noticed, and also more in
genuousness, might be shown. But still, the general and spon
taneous feeling of an unprejudiced reader must always be (at
least so it seems to me), that God over all means supreme God,
and that eiXoyrjrbs els rovs alSivas, dprjv, can be applied only to
him who is truly divine. A ©eos Sedrepos, in a real and veritable
sense, seems to oppose the fundamental principle of the Scriptures.

ROMANS IX. 6. 321
Riickert and Usteri, the first in his Commentary, and the
second in his Lehrhegriff Pauli, both acknowledge that there is
no avoiding the usual exegesis of this text on tbe common prin
ciples of philology. Both of them doubt or impugn the divinity
of Christ; yet they yield to the laws of grammar and philology
here. But both assert that this is a diraf, Xeyopevov on the part
of Paul (which I would by no means admit), and Usteri says,
that " he cannot divest himself of .the suspicion, that there must
be some error in the text or in the interpretation." But Reiche
is made of sterner stuff. He yields nothing to the laws of gram
mar, or to the position of eiXoyqros, etc. : he makes a period at
adpKa and constructs the rest as a doxology. Both proceed upon
the ground, so far as their feeling of objection is concerned, that
Christ is only a derived God, and therefore cannot have supreme
divinity ascribed to him. This is indeed a legitimate infer
ence from the Nicene creed ; but still it is not what the Nicene
fathers meant to teach in a direct way. Peal divinity, al
though not supreme divinity, they undoubtedly meant to ascribe
to Christ.
(6) It is not so that, etc., ovx °">v ^€'- (1) °'0I/ may De taken
adverbially, as u>s or uiairep to which it is very often equivalent
(see Passow on otos, No. 6) ; and then we may translate : It is
not so that, etc. ; just as we translate prj cos on, 2 Thess. ii. 2.
(2) Olov in classic Greek often implies a preceding rotov. The
whole phrase would be : oi toiov Se' ian or Aeyto olov ort k t. X. ;
i. e., "it is no such thing as that, etc.;" in which case we may
render : There is no such thing as that, etc. ; iKireirruiKev k. t. X.
The former method is most simple, perhaps, but not the most
probable ; for olov used adverbially is generally employed in a
merely comparative way. The meaning is : " But what I have
said in respect to the defection of Israel, does not at all imply
that tbe promises of God are not sure and certain." A.e, but,
continuative and adversative.
It is not true, as has been alleged, that otdv re must always have
the infinitive after it. Oids re with an Infinitive has indeed the
meaning possibile est, etc. ; but it is often employed without an
Infinitive, in the sense of so as, such as, like ; and even without
an Infinitive, it sometimes means possible ; see Passow on oios No.
2. e. No. 3. c. Still it is doubtful whether olov Se is employed in
the sense of olde re, possible. Consequently I must prefer the
rendering given above.
Promise or word, Adyos in the sense of something promised ;
often so in English, e. g. he has given his word. — TtKireirruiKev,
failed, been frustrated, irritum factum est. So the Hebrew
£>S3, which corresponds in sense with iKireirruiKe ; e.g., in Josh.
xxi. 45. 1 K. viii. 56. 2 K. x. 10.

322 ROMANS IX. 7, 8.
For not all who are of Israel, are Israel; oi ydp . . .'lapa-qX,
i e not all the natural descendants of Abraham, are Israelites
in the true, spiritual, scriptural sense of the word. The Talmud
(Tract. Sanhed. cap. 11) expresses the feelings and views ot the
Jews, relative to their claims of preeminence : pbn 131 SSOcn-aB
Stan tAis> , i. e., all Israel have their portion in the world to come.
But such claims are rejected by our text and the sequel; as well as
by Rom. iii. John viii. 39. Matt. iii. 9, Gal. iii. 9, 28, 29. Tap here
introduces a reason why the promise has not been broken ; and
that is, that all the natural descendants of Abraham are not, as
such, the heirs of the promise.
(7) Natural descendants, aireppa — children, Te'/cra, here in
the higher spiritual sense, like that of 'Icrpa?;A above in the
second° instance. — But, "in Isaac shall thy seed be called ;"
'AXX' iv laaaK .... aireppa ; i. e., (as mo.-t explain it) in the
person of Isaac, thy seed, viz., thy descendants who are to stand
in a covenant relation to me, shall be chosen or selected. But a
more probable and efficient sense is given by taking KX-qB-qaovrai
as in iv. 17; and then the meaning will be: "In Isaac or
through Isaac shall thy seed (the seed here promised), be called
into being." KaAe'to, used like the Hebrew sap, means to call
out of nothing into being ; as Rom. iv. 17 shows. After dAAa
and before ev k. t. X. either ovtuis ipprjBij or epp-qBrj, is implied.
— As to reKva, these are, in the next verse, called to. reKva rrjs
iirayyeXlas. In verse 5 above, iirayyeXiai (ni-ia) are reckoned
among the external privileges which the Israelites enjoyed. But
even these, only a part of Abraham's natural descendants
enjoyed. Ishmael, Abraham's eldest son, was excluded from the
covenant relation ; and so were Abraham's six sons by Keturah,
Gen. xxv. 1 — 5.
'E7rayyeA.tas in verse 8, however, refers to the promises in
Gen. xv. 4, 5. xvii. 15, 16, 19, 21 (see verse 9). Isaac was in
a special sense the son of promise ; and his natural descendants,
therefore, may be styled reVra rrjs iirayyeXlas.
(8) That is, tovt eanv, i. e., which signifies, which means.
But does Paul intend to say, that the explanation which follows
exhibits the sense of the original promise ? Or does he mean
to intimate merely, that he gives to the subject under consider
ation a meaning analogous to that ancient promise ? That it is
capable of a satisfactory explanation on the former ground, may
be shown from the considerations suggested in the sequel. — The
natural descendants [of Abraham] are not the children of God.
©eoS. Ta reVra rf)s aapKos plainly means physical or natural
descendants, children in the first and literal sense. But the
sense of TeWa toO ©eoi) is not so obvious. Is it here used to des-

ROMANS IX. 8. 323
ignate the children of God in the highest spiritual sense of this
term ? I think not ; for it is Isaac and his descendants as such,
who are here contradistinguished from Ishmael and the other six
sons of Abraham and their descendants. The point here
insisted on is, that natural descent from Abraham did not of
itself entitle any one to the high spiritual privileges of the gos
pel ; that the Jew had no more right than the Gentile, to expect
any peculiar favor to himself merely on such a ground. But
how does the apostle illustrate and confirm this principle ? By
showing that in ancient times, the promise of a numerous seed
who should stand in a covenant relation to God, and enjoy peculiar
external privileges on this account, was not made to the na
tural descendants of Abraham as such, but only to those natural
descendants who would spring from Isaac the son of peculiar
promise. In other words, Ishmael and the sons of Abraham by
Keturah, had no share in the covenant-engagements made with
the promised seed.
The deduction from all this is, that God does not dispense his
blessings or favors according to claims grounded on mere natural
descent or external privileges, but according to his own infinite
wisdom and pleasure. The best of reasons he doubtless has ;
but these reasons God has kept to himself: he has not revealed
them to us. When this is the case, the apostle speaks of him as
acting Kara r-qv irpoBeaiv airov — ¦ Kara ttjv uipaipevqv PovX-rjv Kai
irpdyvuiaiv airov, etc. But nothing can be farther from truth,
than to suppose that a Being of infinite wisdom and goodness
ever acts arbitrarily.
That reKva tov ®eov may mean, " the children of promise in
respect to the external privileges and blessings of the ancient
covenant or dispensation," and not the highest spiritual blessings,
is clear from the manner in which reKva (D^s) is applied to the
whole body of Israelites, in Deut. xxxii. 5, 6. xiv. 1. Hos. xi. 1.
Ex. iv. 22, 23. So to, reKva rgs iirayyeXlas designates those on
whom the promised blessings were bestowed, which are mentioned
above in verses 4, 5 ; or else those who were the descendants of
Isaac, himself a tIkvov rrjs iirayyeXlas. In the same manner
aireppa at the close of the verse, is to be understood, i. e., as
equivalent to reKva ©eou in the sense just explained, or as 5-"iT in
Gen. xvii. 8. ®eov is omitted in F. G. 37. 67 ex emend. 70.
Matt. c. k., Chrysostom. Probably the copyists were stumbled
with the appellation reKva ®eov as applied -to the posterity of
Isaac in general. But the texts cited above show that they need
not have been ; for the meaning of reieva ®eov is, such children
as God according to the special promise to Abraham would raise
up for his posterity, who should enjoy covenant privileges.

324 ROMANS IX. 8, 9.
Another view of this whole subject may be taken. We may
suppose Paul by tovt' eanv to mean, that the promise concerning
Isaac was typical of a future and spiritual seed, to be chosen on
like principles. In other words, as not all the literal posterity
of Abraham were selected to be heirs of the special covenant-
promise made to the patriarch, but only Isaac was selected, so it
is in respect to the new covenant. God does not select merely
the literal seed of Abraham, but he chooses a spiritual seed of
the father of the faithful to be the heirs of gospel blessings. In
a word, selection, choice, was a principle of action in respect to
the patriarch's posterity ; choice or selection is still equally visi
ble in dispensing the blessings of the new covenant. In this
way Paul would be understood as saying, by tout' eanv, that the
ancient promise was as much as to say or equivalent to saying
what follows, which contains an exhibition of the same principle.
The amount of the whole in either way of explanation, is
that Paul, in order to illustrate and defend God's proceedings in
respect to bestowing spiritual blessings of the highest kind, ad
duces examples from the Old Test. Scriptures, where the princi
ple concerned is exactly the same as that which is concerned
with the calling and glorifying of the KX-qroi, viz., where the
blessings bestowed are not conferred on the ground of being a
natural descendant of Abraham, nor on the ground of merit or
desert, but i<arb irpdBeaiv ®eoi. Now certainly God can be no
more unjust in great things than in small ones ; and if he was
not unjust in selecting the objects of his temporal favors Kara
irpdBeaiv airov, why should we regard him as unjust in selecting
the objects of his highest spiritual favors in the same way ; that
is, not accordmg to claim or merit on the part of men (for these
things belong not to them), but according to reasons, good and
sufficient ones, known only to himself? Such as are inclined to
feel that this would be wrong on the part of God, and that it is
in any measure proper for us to complain of this, will do well
to read the sequel of this chapter with a candid, humble, inquir
ing mind.
(9) For this was the word of the promise. "According to
this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son," iirayyeXlas
ydp . . . vlos, Gen. xviii. 10, 14. This shows who the children
of the promise were, that are described in the preceding verse,
viz., the descendants of Isaac the son thus promised. Hence
the yap at the beginning of the verse.
According to this time, Kara rbv Kaipov tovtov. In Hebrew the
whole phrase runs thus : n*tt n_/3 Tpbx ariJN aio , I will surely return
or come back to thee, ivhen the time shall be renewed, Gen. xviii.
10. The word nin seems to be simply an adjective, as the text

ROMANS IX. 10. / 325
now stands, and to mean living again, in the sense of being re
newed. So Saadias, Tremellius, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Winer,
and Tholuck ; comp. Gen. xvii. 21 and xviii. 14, -era. The Sept.
reads in this last case, ets rbv Kaipov tovtov dvaarpef ui irpbs ai els
wpas. What is meant by eis uipas, unless it be exactly, at the very
hour, I am unable to conjecture. In regard to toCtov (which
seems to be put for nin), one almost spontaneously falls upon
the conjecture, that the Sept. and Paul must have read Wfi in
Gen. xviii. 10, 14, instead of nin; which is by no means im
probable, considering that the ancient manuscripts were destitute
of vowel points, and that the two words nin and ntn are so
nearly alike. Fritsche and others compare nin n;;3 with the
£<Sv xp°Vos of Sophocles (Trach. 3. 1159) where ko.V irdpuiv vvv
is added (as they aver) in the way of explanation. Thus con
strued the sense would be present time, i. e., when this time shall
be again present. Reiche, Meyer, Alford and others accept this
explanation as satisfactory, but Tholuck opposes it. Zuiv xpdvos
appears to mean flourishing age. — I would suggest another
interpretation still, viz., as at life-giving time ; in which case the
meaning would be, that God would again address her as a
mother who gives life to, i. e., bears children. Comp. the sense
of nin and £g«u, in the lexicons.
(10) The apostle having thus shown that the promised seed
was not all but only a select part of the natural descendants of
Abraham, he now goes on to show that not only did God make
a distinction Kara, irpdBeaiv airov among the natural descendants
of Abraham, but that even among the descendants of him who
was " the Son of promise," he made a like distinction ; and
this too, in a case where the respective merit or desert of the
parties could not possibly be the ground of distinction. Thus
Jacob the younger son of Isaac was chosen as the object of favor,
and Esau the elder son, who according to the custom of the patri
archs had higher rights, was rejected. This choice was made
too, before the children were born, i. e., before they could have
done either good or evil, before they could have possessed any
merit or demerit. Consequently the irpoBeais of God was
according to his iKXoyrj and not e£ epyuiv or on the ground of
merit. To the reasoning in the preceding verses the Jews might
reply : ' As to Ishmael, he was only the son of a bond-woman,
and 'therefore had no good title to be an heir of promise ; and as
to the sons of Keturah, they were much younger than Isaac,
who of course was entitled to the rights of primogeniture. On
these grounds we may suppose the preference was given to
Isaac' In order to foreclose every thing of this nature, the
28

326 ROMANS IX. 1 0.
apostle now produces an example of -q Kar' eVAoyJ/v irpoBeais.
This effectually accomplishes his object. Esau was not only the
son of Rebecca, the lawful, proper, and only wife of Isaac, but
he was the elder son, and therefore entitled by usage to the rights
of primogeniture. Yet notwithstanding all this, Jacob was pre
ferred to him, and was chosen as the reievov ttjs iirayyeXlas.
The bearing which all this has on the main subject of the
apostle, is plain, and is specially confirmatory of 8: 28 — 39. ' If
God did, Kar iKXoyrjv, make such distinctions among the legiti
mate and proper children of Isaac, the son of promise, then the
same God may choose, call, justify, and glorify those who are
kXtjtoi in respect to the heavenly inheritance. If it is not un
just or improper, in one case, to distribute favors Kara irpdBeaiv
aurov, then it is not in another.'
And not only, oi povov Se ; an elliptical expression in itself,
which has been filled out in different ways by different critics.
The most natural supplement seems to be toOto. Then the sen
timent is : ' Not only was such the case with Abraham, but also
in respect to Rebecca, etc' The use of oi povov Se denotes
advance to more cogent reasons still. Oi povov Se, koI dXXd
means, but not only is that true which I have already said, but
also, etc. Some critics, and some versions, make the supple
ment after povov Se to be thus : ' Not only did Sarah obtain a
special promise respecting her son, but Rebecca also.'' This
is allowable ; but the other mode seems to me more facile and
more fraught with meaning.
'PefieKKa forms here a kind of anacoluthon, i. e., the beginning
of a sentence, the construction of which is afterwards changed,
or (in other words) the sentence is not finished in the same man
ner in which it was begun. Here the natural grammatical con
struction would be, oi povov Se [tovto,] dAAa Kat 'TefSeKKa, ii evbs
Koi-rqv ix°dar) . . ipprjB-q . . . on k. t. X. Instead however of
'Pe/3eKKa (Dat.), we have in the text 'Pe/Je'KKa (Nom.) with
which exovaa agrees. But the construction thus begun in the
Nominative, is not carried through. Instead of associating the
Nom. 'VefieKKa with some following verb of which it might be
the subject, the verb ipprjB-q is afterwards employed, and the
Dative required by it is made by a pronoun referring to 'Pe/SeVa,
viz., by airfj. This construction is frequent in Hebrew, where
what is called the Nom. absolute is employed, whilst a pronoun
referring to it, is put in the case in which the verb or the nature
of the sentence requires it to stand. Comp. Acts vii. 40, o
Mojuo-f)s ovros . . . ri yeyovev aurw.
E£ eVos Koirqv exovaa, accipiens semen unius viri. Literally
Koir-qv means cubile, bed; figuratively however it is employed to

ROMANS IX. 11. 327
designate c on cubitus ; compare the Hebrew S'rr naatJ, conciibitus
iseminis, (Gesen. effusio seminis), Lev. xv. 16, 32. xviii. 20, 23.
xxii. 4. In Lev. xviii. 23. naavo alone is employed to designate
the same idea. A clear case of such a usage, is in Num. v. 20
(Sept.). Kocnjv exovaa, conceiving. — -'E£ evds, by one, viz.
Isaac ; which last word immediately follows in the context.
(11) Tap illustrantis. — TewrjBevruiv, SC. iralSuiv, which the
mind spontaneously supplies, by recurring back to ii evds koitijv
exovaa. The whole phrase in the verse is a construction with
the Genitive absolute ; which is a species of anacoluthon ; see
N. T. Gramm. § 102.
Neither having done anything good or evil, pg&e .... ko.kov ;
a very important declaration in respect to its bearing on some
of the controverted questions about hereditary depravity or
original sin. It appears that when the words related in the next
verse were spoken to Rebecca, the children in her womb had
arrived to such a state or growth as that life and motion in them
were perceived by the mother, Gen. xxv. 22, 23, i. e., to the
age of some five months, comp. Luke i. 24. At this period,
then, the apostle declares that they had done neither good nor evil,
i. e., they had as yet no positive moral character or (in other
words) that there was as yet no development of their moral
powers. And with the principle here developed, the tenor of
other texts, as well as every man's consciousness, agrees ; e. g.,
Is. vii. 15, 16, comp. viii. 4. Deut. i. 39. Jonah iv. 11. That
some knowledge of law and its obligations should exist in order
that positive sin can be committed, seems to be clearly decided
by Rom. iv. 15, and to be plainly implied by James iv. 17. John
ix. 41. 1 John iii. 4. But when children do arrive at such a
growth of moral nature that they begin positively to sin, the
Scripture does not seem to have decided. The poetic and inten
sive expressions in Ps. li. 5, when compared with Ps. lviii. 3,
will hardly establish the doctrine which many have supposed it
to establish. Gen. viii. 21 decides no more, than that men begin
very early to commit sin ; and John iii. 6. Eph. ii. 3, and other
texts of a like nature, decide only that men in a natural state, *'. e.,
in an unregenerate or unsanctified state, are children of wrath
and carnal ; which must be true, since they actually need regen
eration. The apostle, however, has here told us when sinning had not
begun, in respect to Jacob and Esau. That they possessed
powers or faculties, even in the womb, which were afterwards
employed in committing sin when they were more fully devel
oped, is undoubtedly true. But the power or faculty of sinning
is one thin"- ; the commission of sin another. Adam m paradise,

328 ROMANS IX. 11.
before his fall, certainly possessed a susceptibility of excitement
to sin, and the power or faculty of sinning, (else how could he
have been tempted and sinned as he did ?) yet he was not guilty
of sin because he possessed them, but for the abuse of them. It
is not therefore the power or susceptibility which the Creator
has given us, which makes us sinners ; it is the abuse of them.
But the fallen posterity of Adam possess a susceptibility of
sin in a much greater degree, so that before regeneration, all
their moral acts are sinful. Yet the apostle has decided in our
text, that such acts do not take place before birth. Excitability
in respect to forbidden objects must be yielded to before it
becomes actual sin ; or rather, the sin itself is in the yielding,
and not in the original disposition which God himself has given
us. Disposition to sin, so far as it is created by our indulgence
in it, may fairly be put to our account and reckoned as sin. But
to count that as sin, which the Maker of heaven and earth him
self gave us, before all voluntary moral action, involves conse
quences that are of fearful aspect. See further remarks in Ex
cursus vi. on Rom. v. 11 — 19.
It should be noted that -q here is less in accordance with the
usual idiom than p-qSe (New Test. Grammar § 151. 2) ; which
the Text. Recept. has. It is, however, well supported by
authority. That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not
of works, but of him that calleth, 'iva . . . . ck koXovvtos. *H Kar
iKXoyqv irpoBeais means, a purpose whicli proceeds from one's own
free choice, one to which he is moved by internal, and not
merely by external causes or motives. It means here, a purpose
which God did not entertain because he was moved to it by any
thing which Jacob or Esau had done, or would do (ouk ef epyuiv),
but for reasons which he has not disclosed, and which pertain
merely to himself. But let the reader beware, how he repre
sents or even imagines these reasons to be arbitrary or unground
ed. This would be to represent the divine conduct as utterly
inconsistent with infinite wisdom and goodness.
Not of workt, oiK ii epyuiv, i. e., not because of merit, not
because of obedience, yielded to the law of works, i. e., the law
requiring good works. — But of him that calleth, dXX' £k koXovvtos ;
i. e., the admission of the one to privileges, and the rejection of
the other from them, proceed not from their personal desert, but
from him who calls, i. e., chooses or selects men to be the objects
of his special favor for reasons within himself. That such is
the sentiment here, seems very plain ; for the apostle has just
asserted, that the decision of God in respect to the future con
dition and privileges of Jacob and Esau, was made before they

ROMANS IX. 12, 13. 329
were born, and before they had done either good or evil; and
that it was so made, in order that God's kot eVAoyV Trpd-Wts
might be stable, pevy, Heb. "itosi.
(12) But what is the thing decided in this case? The elder
shall serve the younger, 6 pei£uiv .... iXdaaovi ; or rather the
first-born shall serve the younger, i. e., he who by right of primo
geniture would take the precedence, he shall in fact be inferior
or take the lower place. The precedence then of Jacob is
established by this declaration.
(13) Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated, tov ... .
ipia-qaa, i. e., on Jacob have I bestowed privileges and bles
sings, such as are the proofs of affection ; I have treated him as
one treats a friend whom he loves ; but from Esau have I with
held these privileges and blessings, and therefore treated him as
one is wont to treat those whom he dislikes ; comp. Mai. i. 2, 3,
from which the quotation here is made, and where the prophet
adds to the last clause ('llaaii iplagaa) the following words, and
laid his mountains and his heritage waste. That the whole refers
to the bestowment and the withholding of temporal blessings, is
clear not only from this passage, but from comparing Gen. xxv.
23. 27 — 29, 37 — 40. As to ipiagaa, its meaning here is rather
privative than positive. When the Hebrews compared a stronger
affection with a weaker one, they call the first love and the other
haired; comp. Gen. xxix. 30, 31. Deut. xxi. 15. Prov. xiii. 21.
Matt. vi. 24. Luke xiv. 26 comp. with Matt. x. 37. Glass.
Rhet. Sac. lib. III. tr. 3. can. 19.
After all, this does not answer the question : What is the ulti
mate object of the apostle in making his appeal to such an
instance of kot exAoyijv 7rpd$ecn.s ? Must not this answer be,
that he does so in order to justify and support what he had said
in chap. viii. 28 — 39 ? And surely jvhat he has there said does
not relate merely to temporal condition or privileges, but to
effectual calling, to justifying and glorifying. All however
which is decided is, that God, in either case, does not bestow his
blessings on the ground of merit, (for how can any sinner be
blessed on such a ground ?) but for reasons known only to him
self, and which are ab intra, not ab extra.
Those who contend against this sentiment, contend against
what is every day exhibited before their eyes. Why was this
man born white, and that one black ? Why is this child born
and nurtured in the bosom of a pious family, and that one in
the midst of robbers and murderers ? The children had done
neither '' good nor evil," when their lot was decided. This no
one can deny. Then, in the next place, is not their eternal con
dition connected with their means of grace, their pious nurture,
28*

330 ROMANS IX. 14.
their present condition and associations in life ? And who
placed them in their present condition ? All nature, as well as
the Bible, proclaims this doctrine of divine sovereignty. Yet
with all this, the Bible plainly recognizes the freedom of men,
and attributes to themselves their own destruction. The world
say that there is contradiction here ; but if there be, the natu
ralist has as really to contend with its difficulties as the advo
cate for revelation. However, there can in reality be no con
tradiction or absurdity in two things which are both true. All
the difficulty lies in our ignorance of the manner in which pre
destination and free agency can be reconciled. When will men
learn, that- their ignorance is not the measure of truth ! See
farther in Excursus X.
Finally, I remark, that those who refer the preferences given
to Jacob over Esau so exclusively to temporal blessings and
privileges, as to maintain that the sentiment of the whole passage
can prove at the most merely that such privileges and blessings
are granted to Christians, and nothing more, by the election of
God, would do well to read over again the first five verses of this
chapter, where Jews, in the possession of all these privileges, are
counted as reprobates and as exposed to the anathema of the Lord
Jesus Christ. Does the election of God then amount to nothing
more, than to leave men after all to perish who are his chosen
saints ?
(14) What shall ive say, then'? ri ovv ipovpev ; language which
Paul puts into the month of the objecting Jew. Is there
unrighteousness before God! prj dSiKia irapd toj ©eui; a very
natural question for one whose mind is perplexed and offended
with the doctrine of divine sovereignty, and the dispensation of
favors on the part of God koto irpdBeaiv airov. From the time
of the apostle down to the present hour, the same questions have
been repeated and the same difficulties felt. That some of those
who have maintained the doctrine of divine sovereignty, have, at
times given occasion for the charge of making predestination
amount to fate or destiny, and kot eVAoyijv irpoBeais to amount to
arbitrary decision — is what I feel unable to deny. In some
treatises on reprobation, enough that stands exposed to such, or a
similar charge, may be found. But to argue from such expres
sions as tov 'Ecrau ipiarjaa, an actual hatred, like that which men
cherish towards one another, would be a great abuse indeed of the
sound principles of exegesis. On the same ground one might
prove that it is our duty actually and positively to hate father
mother, wife, etc. ; and that we cannot be Christians without so do
ing, if he should urge the literal meaning of Luke xiv. 26 and
other texts of the same tenor. God cannot hate more humano any

ROMANS IX. 15, IG. 331
thing which he has made, much less man who is made in his own
image. Rom. v. 8 — 10. John iii. 10, 17. Tit. iii. 4, 5. Wisdom
of Solomon xi. 24. But still, God may and does hate sin ; he
may and will punish it ; he may treat sinners therefore as if he
hated them, i. e., he may inflict evil or suffering upon them. In
the future world, he never does this but in consequence of actual
guilt, and in proportion to that guilt; but in the present world,
trouble and sorrow may be brought on men as the instruments of
trying them, of purifying them, of humbling them, and this with
out being proportioned by the simple principles of retribution ; for
sufferings and trials here are not always in the way of simple
retribution. In all this God acts Kara. irpdBeaiv airov; jet not in
an arbitrary manner, and without any good reason, but still, in a
manner which we, in our ignorance, cannot explain. But surely
our want of knowledge cannot establish against him a charge of
injustice. (15) That God does dispense his favors without being moved
thereto by any merit on the part of him who receives them, is
clearly established, and is designed to be confirmed by the quota
tion which Paul makes from the Old Testament, Ex. xxxiii. 19 —
My yevoiro .... o'lKreipui, not at all; for he saith to Moses: "I
will have mercy on whomsoever I will have mercy ; and I will
show compassion to whomsoever I will show compassion." In
other words : ' As none of the human race have merited my
approbation and reward, as none are entitled to them on the
ground of merit, I may properly and do bestow my favors where
and when I please.' Is there any injustice, dSiKia, here ? Out
of a hundred criminals who have all deserved death, may not a
wise and benevolent government, for reasons entirely within
itself, choose some as the objects of pardon, while others are given
up to the punishment which the law enjoins ? I am fully aware
ofthe opposition made by the natural heart to such a proceeding
on the part of God; but I am not aware how the fact that God
does this can be reasonably denied, nor how injustice can with any
propriety be charged upon him because he does it.
(16) Consequently, i. e., it follows, therefore [that exAoyr; is not
obtained] by him that willeth, or him that runneth, but through
the mercy of God, dpa ovv ... . ©eou. That iK.Xoyy is here to
be supplied, may be seen by looking back to verse 11. The
sense is given substantially by the supplying of iK.Xoyy, but per
haps the ellipsis is more natural from the quotation preceding :
The favor of God, God's compassion is not of, in the power of
him that willeth, etc., but of God who exercises the compassion.
The Gen. BeXovros, k. t. A., is the Gen. of agent or cause. — ©e-
Aovros indicates desire, wishing, etc., and probably has reference

332 ROMANS IX. 16.
to the wish of Abraham in Gen. xvii. 18. xxi. 11. Tpe^ovTos
may possibly refer to Esau's haste to prepare food for Isaac ;
see Gen. xxvii. 1 seq. It is often used to designate Christian
efforts, as in 1 Cor. ix. 24, 26. Heb. xii. 1. Phil. ii. 16. iii. 14.
Gal. ii. 2, etc. 'EAeowros refers to the quotation Paul had just
made. The sentiment of the whole is, that God bestows his
favors not because they are first merited or acquired by strong
desire or of strenuous action, but because he has mercy on those
who are the objects of his favor. Of him that runneth. The
language may be supposed to be figurative and drawn rather
from the running in the race, cf. 1 Cor. ix. 24 seq. Hence the
idea is the same for substance as given above : God's favor is
not bestowed in consequence of previous desire and exertion. This
does not imply that let men merit ever so much, i. e., desire salva
tion ever so much, or labor for it ever so strenuously, all this
will be of no account with God ; and that he will bestow mercy
in a maimer merely arbitrary, and irrespectively of all works or
character on the part of the sinner. Before sinners are made
the objects of his special mercy, they are " dead in trespasses
and sins ; " they are " by nature children of wrath and disobe
dience ; " " what is born of the flesh is flesh ;" " the carnal mind
is enmity against God, is not subject to his law, nor indeed
can be ; " consequently, the case here supposed (of previous
merit and effort) never exists. It is God's mercy which first
disposes sinners to will and to do (Phil. ii. 13. Eph. ii. 1. Rom.
v. 6 — 10) ; and it is accordingly impossible that his mercy can
be bestowed in consequence of their previous merits.
All this, however, does not disprove the doctrine that good
works will be rewarded ; which is certainly and plainly a Scrip
ture doctrine. But what are good works ? Those which are
done before conversion, or after it? Surely the latter. But in
respect to the reward of Christians for evangelical good works, the
apostle is not here speaking. What he says has respect to the
fore-knowing, fore-ordaining, calling, justifying, and glorifying,
mentioned in viii. 29, seq. All this is not on the ground of
merit, but of pure gratuity ; and consequently it is tou eAeoCvTos
©eou. The fact that good works themselves are rewarded, is
itself a part of this pure system or plan of grace ; for it is only
the works of those who are sanctified, which are reputed good
in the scripture sense, i. e., holy, acceptable to God ; and even
the best of these are imperfect, so that they could not claim
any reward on their own account and on principles of legal
merit. The law allows of no imperfection. It requires us "to
love God with all the heart, and our neighbor as ourselves."
Now as no man on earth has ever done this (Jesus only ex-

ROMANS IX. 17. 333
cepted), so no man has ever been in a condition to advance a claim
to reward on the ground of law, in any age or country of the
world. Consequently, the fact that the good works of saints are
rewarded, is a matter of gratuity and not of legal claim. But
still, this is not what the apostle is here discussing ; and conse
quently what he says is not to be regarded as at all interfering
with or contradicting what he says on the subject of the re
ward of good works in other parts of his writings.
It may be proper to remark, that so plain is the sentiment above
exhibited by the words of the apostle here, that some critics very
far removed from belief in the doctrines of the Reformation,
have felt compelled to acknowledge that Paul has here advanced
the doctrine of election or decrees. So Ammon, Riickert, Usteri,
and others.
(17) The preceding verse, although comprising a sentiment
which is very disagreeable to the natural heart and to the pride
of unsanctified men, is still more easily acquiesced in than the
one now before us, which has been the theme of great contention,
and the occasion of not a little unguarded and hazardous asser
tion. Let us first investigate the language.
For the Scripture saith to Pharaoh, Aeyei yap y ypa<by too <_f?apa(o,
instead of the formula for God saith to Pharaoh. So Gal. iii. 8,
22. iv. 30. What the Scripture says, God says, for iraaa y ypaeby
Beoirvevoros, i. e., it is the word of God. So the Rabbins frequently
exchange the two formulas of quotation, nffin lax, the Name
[God] says, and 3>in3n "ras, the Scripture says; both of which
are designated by the abbreviations ii'hn . The yap here stands
before a quotation which is designed to confirm the doctrine of
the divine sovereignty.
For this very purpose have I roused thee up, that I might exhibit
mypoieer. "On els . ¦ ¦ Svvapiv pov. Paul has departed from
the Septuagint version, which runs thus : eveKev rovro SierypyBys,
Iva evSeiiuipoi iv aoi tijv to^u'v pov, substituting iiyyeipa for Sie-
ryprjBys oiruis for 'iva, and Svvapiv for ict^u'v ; i. e., he makes a trans
lation of his own, which on the whole, was better adapted to the
purpose of his argument and equally, not more, accordant with
the original Hebrew than that of the LXX. We must not
therefore take SierypyBys for a commentary on iiyyeipa here, in
asmuch as the apostle has rejected this verb and preferred another,
for the sake (as it would seem) of a nearer accordance with the
meaning of the original Hebrew in this passage. What then is
the sense of iieyeipui, as employed in Hellenistic Greek ? In the
Septuagint it is used some seventy times. In none of these cases
does it mean to create, to produce, to raise up, in the sense^ of
bringing into being, etc. ; so that those who construe iirjyeipd -

ae,

334 ROMANS IX, 17.
I have created thee or brought thee into existence, as Beza : Feci ut
exi -teres, do that which is contrary to the Hellenistic usus lo
quendi. Augustine, Reiche, Calvin.
It is employed throughout in the sense of arousing, exciting,
rousing up, waking up, from, etc., with slight variations in mean
ing, according to the connection and the adjuncts of the verb.
Accordingly it is employed by the Septuagint to translate the He
brew yipn , to rouse up, or to wake up, i. e., from sleep, Ps. iii. 5.
Ixxii. 20. cxxxviii. 18. Jer. xxxi. 26. li. 39. Dan. xii. 2. In
the like manner it stands for y|3i to wake up or rouse up from
sleep; Gen. xxviii. 16. xli. 22. Judg. xvi. 15, 21. Ps. lxxvii.
71. With these meanings it is used intransitively. But the
principal use of it is transitive ; in which case it is employed to
designate the idea of rousing up one's self to action, exciting or
rousing up others to action, exciting or rousing up any thing, ani
mate or inanimate, to do this or that ; e. g., Judges v. 12. Ps. vii.
7. xxxiv. 26. lvi. ll.lxxix. 3. cvii. 2. Cant. iv. 16. Jer. 1. 41.
Joel iii. 9. Zech. xiii. 7, etc. ; and so in the like manner, forty-
two times; see Trommii Concord, in verbum, No. 11. In all
these cases it corresponds to the Hebrew iw, ii»n, etc. In
seven other cases it corresponds to Dtp, when this word is used
in a sense altogether synonymous with that of lis , e. g., Num. x.
35. 2 Sam. xii. 11. 1 Kings xi. 14. Est. viii. 5. Ps. cxviii. 62.
Hab. i. 6. Zech. xi. 16. Throughout all these, the idea is uni
form, viz., that of rousing, exciting, stirring up, rendering active,
urging to activity, in a word, in the sense of bringing out of a
state of rest or inaction or inefficiency into a contrary state, i. e.,
in the sense of exciting.
Twice only have the Seventy employed iiyyeipa, where the
meaning might perhaps be thought doubtful. In Prov. xxv. 24,
dvepos . . iieyeipei verby, the wind raiseth up clouds. The He
brew verb is bbin, begetteth or bringeth forth. But the sense of
iieyeipui here in the Septuagint, is. plainly the usual one. So also
in Ezek. xxi. 16. (Heb. xxi. 21), iieyeiperai corresponds to niisa
(from nsi) ; but still it has the sense of excite, and this meaning
corresponds substantially with the Hebrew, although not literally.
In the New Testament we have only one example besides that
before us, where iieyeipui is used, viz., 1 Cor. vi. 14, where it is
clearly u-ed to designate the action of rousing from the sleep of
death, raising or exciting from a state of inaction or death*
On the whole, then, the sense of the Greek word is altogether
clear, and subject to no well grounded doubt. It means to rouse
_ * These uses are entirely in accordance with the signification of the word
m the few cases where it is used in classical authors, where the meaning is
to rouse up, as from sleep, death, etc.

ROMANS IX. 17, 18. 335
up, to excite, to stir up, in any manner or for any purpose. But
does the Hebrew word in Ex. ix. 16, which corresponds to
iiyyeipa, admit of such a sense ?
The Hebrew word is ipnasn , Hiphil of las : which usually
means (in Kai) to stand, to stand fast, to continue' standing, to stand
up, etc., Ex. ix. 28. Lev. xiii. 5. Dan. x. 17. In Hiphil (T>asn), it
means to make to stand, to place, also to keep standing, to persevere
or continue in standing. Tholuck and others have labored to
show that irrrosn has the usual Hiph. sense in Ex. ix. 16. That
the Hebrew word might have such a sense, is sufficiently plain
from 1 Kings xv. 4. 2 Chr. ix. 8. Prov. xxix. 4. 2 Chr. xxxv.
2. But although the Hebrew word ipnasn might have the
sense which Tholuck and others assign to it, yet the Greek word
iiyyeipa, which Paul uses, can hardly, according to the usus lo
quendi, have such a sense put upon it.
Still has "nasn ever the sense of exciting, arousing, like the
iiyyeipa of the apostle ? If so, then we may presume the apostle
chose this Greek word, in deliberate preference to the SierypyBys
of the Septuagint. Instances of this nature are clear. So in
Neh. vi. 7, niasn , thou hast roused up or excited the prophets,
etc. So Dan. xi. 11, 13, liasni and he shall excite or rouse up a
great multitude, etc. We can have little reason, then, to doubt
that the apostle had such a meaning of iFTiasn in view, when he
rendered it eirqyeipa; for this Greek word is fairly susceptible of
no other meaning. In accordance therefore with this result res
pecting the meaning of iieyeipui, I have translated thus : For this
very purpose have I roused thee up.
That I might show forth my power and declare my name in all the
earth, orruis . ... rfj yfj, i. e., in all the land, Viz., of Egypt. The
consequence of Pharaoh's conduct was, that the Hebrews were
brought out of Egypt by signal divine interposition, exhibited in
the various plagues inflicted on Egypt after the declaration re
corded here, i. e., the hail, the locust, etc., Ex. ix. 16, seq. Cf.
also Ex. xv, 14 — 16. Such interpositions caused the power
and glory of Jehovah to be known through all the land of Egypt.
Or if all the earth be construed as having a still more extensive
sense, one might justify this by observing, that the Scriptures
themselves now diffused so widely througli the world, the Koran
read and revered by many millions, the Greek author Artapanus
(Euseb. Prasp. Evang. IX. 29), also Diodorus Siculus (Bibl. III.
39), and the Latin Trogus (Justin. Hist. XXXVI. 2), all speak
of the wonders which were done in Egypt, and the overthrow of
Pharaoh there.
(18) Therefore halh he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and
whom he will he hardeneth, dpa ovv .... aKXypvvei. A con-

336 ROMANS IX. 10,20.
elusion of the apostle's, and not the words of the objector, as some
have intimated. This is clear from what is immediately subjoined
by Paul : 'Epeis ouv poi, k. t. X. On the nature and force of the
conclusion here drawn, I have already remarked in commenting
on verse 16. Rambach, Carpzov, and Ernesti haye endeavored
to show that aKXypvvei means here to deal hardly with. They ap
peal to 2 Chron. x. 4, and Job xxxix. 16 in order to confirm this;
but in the first instance the sense is to make hard, to render griev
ous ; in the second, the Hebrew is nurpn and the Sept. diroa-
KXypvvui, and the sense harmonizes substantially with the obvious
one in the verse before us. I see, therefore, no proper philologi
cal method of construing aKXypvvei, but in the way already inti
mated above.
(19) Thou wilt say to me, then: Why doth he still find fault,
for who resisteth his will? 'Epeis ouv .... dvBearyKe: "Whom
he will, he hardeneth," says Paul. " Then why blame men for
being hardened ? How is this inconsistent with what God wills ? "
is the reply of the objector ; and this contains a sentiment, which
has been repeated from the time when Paul wrote his epistle,
down to the present hour. Although the objection seems to be
formidable at first view, yet it is specious ; for it does not follow,
because God by I113 infinite goodness and almighty power will
convert the wicked deeds of the sinner into means of promoting
his own glory, that the sinner may not be called to an account and
punished for the evil which he intended. Because a wise and
benevolent government may convert the crime of some individ
uals into a means of furthering the public good, do not the
criminals in question deserve punishment ? Supposing then that
there is a sense, in which sin is made even the instrument of ac
complishing the wise and holy purposes of God and the greatest
good of his creatures, it does not follow, that the sinner who had
malignant purposes in view is not deserving of punishment nor
that there is not an important sense in which he has resisted the
will of God.
(20) But rather, pevovvye, at vero, verum enimvero. This com
pound particle is found elsewhere in the New Testament only in
Luke xi. 28. and Rom. x. 18. Suidas explains it by to dXyBes
or /xaAAov pev ovv, i. e., verily or the rather then. Here the sense'
seems to be then, or but rather ; and the construction or sense of
the passage is thus: ' Ihen i. e., in case you do thus sliy, I may
rather Say, i. ,, I have a still better right to say, Who art thou,
etc.. ^vnsei . . ©eo,; who art thou that repliest against God,
t. e, who sayest something that charges him with acting wrongl^
or improperly The apostle, in answer to the objector" does nit
endeavor at all to explain how it is that God should hardm Z-

ROMANS IX. 20. 337
ners, and yet sinners be guilty of their own ruin ; he does not
attempt any metaphysical conciliation of divine sovereignty and
control with human freedom and moral responsibility ; he takes
it for granted that the facts which he had been stating were true,
and could not be contradicted. He first remonstrates with the
objector for his presumption, and continues this remonstrance,
by quoting from the Old Testament and applying to the object
before him passages, which serve strongly to confirm the riglit
of the Creator on the one hand to dispose of his creatures, and
the duty of his creatures on the other to bow in submission
before him. Would it not be well for those who are to teach
the doctrines of Paul, at the present time, to imitate his exam
ple in dealing with objectors ?
ShaU the thing formed say to him who formed it, why hast thou
made me thus? py ipei .... outcos/ A quotation ad sensum
from the passage in Is. xiv. 9, and xxix. 16. The design of
this quotation is, to stop the mouth of the objector who inquires :
' Why doth he find fault then, for who hath resisted his will ? '
The implication in this of wrong on the part of God, in bestow
ing blessings on some which he withholds from others, and in
advancing some to glory while he leaves others to hardness of
heart and to the punishment consequent upon it, the apostle
meets by appeal to the language of the Scriptures, in regard to
the sovereignty of God over the works of his hands : ' Has the
creature a right to call in question the Creator, by whose power
he was formed, and by whose goodness he is preserved and nur
tured? Should he reproach his Creator, because he has en
dowed him with the nature which he possesses ? ' It is as much as
to say: 'Even supposing that there was some ground for the objec
tion which you make, I might reply in the language of Scripture
and ask, whether it is proper and becoming for a creature to sum
mon the Creator before his tribunal, and to pass sentence of
condemnation upon him.' Viewed in this light, it is a kind of
argumentum ad hominem ; applicable indeed to all who make the
like objection in the like spirit, but specially adapted to stop the
mouth of the haughty and presumptuous Jew, who, in Paul's
time, was indignant that God should be represented as making
the Gentiles the objects of his speeial favor. In appealing, how
ever, to the sovereignty of God the Creator, Paul does not assert
or intimate that God is arbitrary in any of his dealings with his
creatures, or that he ever makes any arrangement in respect to
them without wise, and good, and sufficient reasons. For being
infinitely holy, and wise, and just, and good, he cannot act with
out the best of reasons for acting; although, indeed, these
reasons mioht not be given to us. It should be remarked here,
29

338 ROMANS IX. 21, 22.
also, that it is only when a proud and contumacious spirit lifts
up itself, like that of the Jew in the context, that an appeal to a
direct and sovereign right of God, is made by the sacred writers,
in order to abash and repress such arrogant assumption.
(21) But one quotation does not satisfy the apostle's ardor to
repress the objector. He makes a second one (ad sensum again,
not ad literam) from Jer. xviii. 6, comp. ver. 4, which by
another image inculcates the same sentiment as before. Hath
not the potter power over the clay, to make out of the same lump
one vessel to honor und another to dishonor ? y ovk . . . dnpiav ;
i. e., one vessel for a use which is deemed honorable, and another
for one deemed dishonorable ; comp. Jer. xviii. 4. ' Even so
(the apostle would say) are all men in the hands of God, and at
his disposal ; ' comp. Jer. xviii. 6. In other words : ' Who can
call in question his right to dispose of us as it seems good in his
sight? The Jew, however, regarded his nation as the cfivpapa
from which none but aKevy np.rjs could be formed. But the
apostle shows him, that God could make, and had made, the
Gentiles also a (fivpapa from which the like vessels were formed.
The same God also makes unbelievers among the Jews to be
o-Keu?7 opyys, as well as unbelievers among the Gentiles. He
chooses the objects of his mercy or of his justice where he
judges best, not arbitrarily, but still for reasons which are not
revealed to us.
(22) It is evident to any one who will attentively read vers.
22 — 24, that the sense remains incomplete, i. e., the sentence
(or sentences) is unfinished; which form of writing the Greeks
called dvaKoAou^ov. But what must be supplied in order to com
plete the sense of these verses, is not sufficiently plain to com
mand the unanimous consent of interpeters. Without delaying
to recite different opinions, I would merely say, that at the end
of vers. 22 — 24, it seems to me plain the question in ver. 20 is
to be repeated, viz. av ris ei, 6 dvrairoKpivdpevos toi ©ea>; Whether
you repeat this question at the end of ver. 22, or here and also
at the end of ver. 24, seems to be of little importance ; for the
sense in each case would be substantially the same. The sum
of the sentiment thus explained is : 'If God, in order that he
might exhibit his punitive justice and sovereign power, endures
with much long-suffering the wickedness of the impenitent and
rebellious who are worthy of divine indignation ; and if he has
determined to exhibit his rich grace toward the subjects of his
mercy whom he has prepared for glory, even towards us ([eVi]
ypds) whom he has called (viii. 30), Gentiles as well as Jews ;
who art thou, that repliest against the divine proceedings hi
respect to all this ? '

ROMANS IX. 22. 339
If then, or if now, el Si, i. e., since God is the supreme Lord
of all things, and all his creatures are at his disposal by a sover
eign and entire right (verses 20, 21) ; if now, determining to
display his punitive justice and power, he has endured, etc. Ae'
is sometimes construed as adversative here to ver. 14; but it is
better to regard it as the sign of an additional illustration or
confirmation of the sentiments just advanced. The connection
of thought seems to be this: 'If the sovereign Lord of all
creatures, who may dispose of them as he pleases, does still
endure with much long-suffering the wickedness of some of
them, and by all this determines to display his punitive justice,
who can justly find fault with his proceedings?'
Willing, BeXuiv, i. e., determining, designing, purposing. It
intimates, of course, that in ' enduring with much long-suffering
the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, God had a purpose or
design of displaying his indignation against sin, i. e., his puni
tive justice and his power.' Can it be a reasonable subject of
complaint, that he is determined, or that he purposes (BeXuiv), to
bring good out of evil ?
To manifest or exhibit his indignation or displeasure, ivSeiiaa-
Bai ryv opyyv; in other words to display his punitive justice
with respect to the wicked. 'Opyrj is often employed to desig
nate the idea of punishment, i. e., the consequences of indigna
tion or anger ; e. g., Rom. i. 18. iv. 15. xiii. 4, 5, al. So Demos
thenes : ouk io-»7v ryv opyyv 6 vopos erafe, k. t. X. ; Reiske, De
mosthenes, p. 528. — -And to make known, publish, declare his
power, Kai yvuipiaai rb Svvarov avrov ; comp. Svvapis in verse 17,
where the power of God has special reference to his miraculous
interpositions in order to punish Pharaoh with the Egyptians,
and to deliver the oppressed Hebrews. AuvaTov, therefore, in
the connection in which it here stands, must be viewed as having
a special relation to the power of making retribution to sinners,
the power of punitive justice. But this must be understood in
accordance with the nature of a being who is self-existent, immu
table, and independent. Men are prone to revenge, from malig
nity and because of wounded pride ; they are prone to display,
because of vanity and vain glory. But can we imagine the
ever blessed God, whose glory and happiness cannot in any
measure be affected by the favor or opposition of any of his
creatures, as exhibiting his punitive justice and power for the
purposes of revenge or display ? He must exhibit them only for
the purposes of benevolence, i. e., for the sake of doing good to
the subjects of his moral government; who, while they are
allured to virtue, on the one hand, by all the glories of the
upper world, are deterred from sin, on the other, by the judg
ments that are inflicted on the disobedient and rebellious.

340 ROMANS IX. 22.
Endured, bore with, eveyKe. The verb <bepui has generally the
sense of bearing or carrying away, i. e., of bearing accompanied
by motion in some way or other. But it is also employed in the
sense of fcar\ patior, to endure, to suffer, Heb. xiii. 13 ; or of
tolero, sustineo, to tolerate, to bear with, as Heb. xii. 20 ; in the
Sept. Gen. xxxvi. 7. Num. xi. 14. Deut. i. 12. In this last
sense it is clearly used here, as the adjunct ev iroXXrj poKpoBvuia
shows. — MoKpoBvpia, long-suffering, longanimitas, i. e., forbear
ance to punish, delay to enforce the strict claims of justice.
The apostle seems to have his eye here on the case of Pharaoh
in particular, who, after he had nine times resisted the mandate
of Heaven to let the Hebrews go, was still spared and preserved
in life, although he had long before forfeited all claim to forbear
ance. Still Paul plainly would not limit the case to Pharaoh
only. He would intimate that God, in like manner, now (i. e.,
at the time when he was writing) displays his long-suffering, by
forbearing to punish those who deserve it. And what was true
then, in respect to this matter, has been so ever since, and is so
at the present moment.
Vessels of ivrath, 'StKevy dpyys, means vessels in respect to
which wrath should be displayed, i. e., wicked men who deserve
punishment. %Kevy was probably suggested here by its use in the
preceding verse, where he has spoken of vessels fitted for honor
able and dishonorable use. The language thus literally em
ployed there, is figuratively used here. So in Is. xiii. 5, the Per
sian army is called nini DST ibs , o-Keu'77 dpyys Kupiou ; comp. Jer.
1. 25. But in these examples, by aKevy dpyys is meant instru
ments of executing the divine displeasure ; while in our text the
meaning is passive, viz., persons on whom it ought to be or will
be executed. Fitted for destruction, Karypnapeva els diruiXeiav,
another offendiculum criticorum. Karypnapeva fitted ; how or
by whom, the text does not say ; whether merely by their own
act, or whether there was some agency on the part of God ; it
simply designates the actual condition of the aKevy opyr/s. The
passive participle in such a case may be applied to dc.-ignate
what one has done for himself; e.g., 2 Tim. ii. 21, eav ouv tis
iKKaBdpy eavrov dirb rovruiv, earai oKevos els npyv ... eis irdv epyov
dyaBov yroipaapevov, where the being prepared for every
good work is the consequence of the iKKoBdpy eavrov. So in
2 Tim. iii. 17, iiypnapevos denotes the being prepared or fitted
lor every good work, by the beneficial influence of the inspired
Scriptures. But in our text, how can we avoid comparing
Karypnapeva in ver. 22, with a irpoyroipaae in ver. 23 ? The
two verses are counterparts and antithetic ; and accordingly we
have aKeiy dpyys, to which o-Keu'77 t'Ae'owt corresponds, and so eis

ROMANS IX. 22. 341
aViuAeiav and eis Sdfav. How can we help concluding, then, that
Karypnapeva and a irpoyrdipaae correspond in the way of anti
thesis. The objections which can be made to such a sense of Karypna
peva here, viz., a sense whicli makes it to designate some agency
of arrangement on the part of God, by or in consequence of which,
or under which, the vessels of wrath become fitted for destruction,
are in all respects just the same as can be brought against the
iiyyeipa «.. r. X. of verse 17, which has been discussed above.
The answer to the question, whether God is, in any sense, the
author of sin in such a way as throws any of the guilt, or any
portion of it, upon him, and removes or diminishes the criminal
ity of the sinner, is settled and certain from the tenor of the
whole Bible, as well as from passages direct and express ; e. g.,
James i. 12. But is it proper for God, as the sovereign of the
universe, having placed his creatures, who are moral and free
agents, in circumstances in which he certainly knows beforehand
they will sin, to exhibit upon them his punitive justice and power?
This question has been sufficiently discussed in the Commentary
on verse 17. If any one is still stumbled at this, I must refer him
to such texts as 1 Pet. ii. 8. 1 Thess. v. 9, for God hath not ap
pointed us to wrath, ovk eBero y p a s k.t. A., i. e., the implication
is, that he has appointed some others, but not us to punishment,
etc. Jude ver. 4. Prov. xvi. 4. Add to these such as designate
the antithesis to this meaning, viz., the appointment of some to
life eternal ; as in Acts xiii. 48. ii. 47. Eph. i. 4, 5, 11. 2 Tim.
i. 9. Rom. viii. 29, 30. Eph. iii. 11, al. If now to all these he
adds such texts as 2 Sam. xii. 11. xvi. 10. 1 Kings xxii. 22.
Josh. xi. 20. Ps. cv. 25. 1 Kings xi. 23. 2 Sam. xxiv. 1. Ex. vii.
13. ix. 12. x. 1, 20, 27. xi. 10. xiv. 8. Rom. ix. 17, 18. Deut. ii.
30. Is. lxiii. 17. John xii. 40, he can no longer doubt that there
is some sense, (as explained in verse 17), in which the sacred
writers do declare that God is concerned with evil. In the same
sense, and in no other, can we suppose God to be here concerned.
At all events there can be nothing more difficult in the fitting the
vessels of wrath for destruction, in this verse, than there is in all
the texts just referred to ; and especially in Prov. xvi. 4. Jude
verse 4. 1 Peter ii. 8. 1 Thess. v. 8. If one text is explained
away, many others meet us which are of the very same tenor ;
and some of them, at least, admit of no explaining away. Un
less we deny an omnipotent and omniscient God, we cannot abate,
in the least degree, from any of the difficulties which such texts
make. The great problem is : How entire free agency and ac
countability can consist with entire dependence, and with the fact
that our Creator has designs to accomplish even by our very
29*

342 ROMAN'S IX. 23.
wickedness? As has been repeatedly said, this is plainly beyond the
boundaries of human knowledge. In the meantime, as sin is
actually in the world, and men are actually accountable, — would
it be any relief to the difficulties of our question, to suppose God
to be so impotent that he cannot bring good out of evil; or so
deficient in foresight and wisdom, as to have made a plan for
the world of intelligent moral beings, which is radically defective
in regard to accomplishing the ends of benevolence, and which
admits evil that was not foreseen, and which cannot be prevented,
nor even turned to the accomplishment of good ? I think every
candid and sober man will answer it then in the negative. It is
better, then, to let the subject rest where the Bible has placed it;
where it is placed in our text, and in verse 17.
(23) Kai iva yvuipiay, an enallage of construction. Verse 22
begins with ei BeXuiv . . . ivSeliaaBai . . . ko.1 yvuipiaai, i. e., with
a particle followed by the Infinitive mood. Tlie same construc
tion continued would here require [el BeXuiv] yvuipiaai rbv
irXovrov k. t. X. But instead of this, we have i'va yvuipiay. This
usage of the Subj. with i'va, instead of the Inf., is very frequent
in the New Test.; see New Test. Gram. § 138. 12. In the
same manner the apostle might have said, el Se BeXuiv o ©eos, iva
ivSeiiy . . . Kai yvuipiay . . . -^veyKev k. t. A. Of these methods of
expression, both equally good in respect to grammar, the apostle,
deviating from a strictly regular construction, as often, has used the
one in verse 22, and the other in verse 23. For the use of BeXui
followed by i'va with the Sujunctive (like BeXuiv ... iva yvuipiay),
as well as by the Infinitive, see examples in Matt. vii. 12. xx. 32
(where i'va is implied) ; xxvi. 17 id. xxvii. 17 id. Mark vi. 25.
ix. 30. x. 51 (i'va implied), et srepe. For the use of the partici
ple of BeXui see 2 Cor. xi. 1 2, BeXovruiv ... i'va .... evpyBdiai
k. t. X. The full construction here then is, [el Se ^e'Auivj i'va
yvuipiay k. t. X.
His abundant glory, rbv irXovrov -rijs Sdiys, where the first noun
stands as an adjective ; com. Heb. Geb. Gramm. § 440. b. 2,Kevy
eAeous, i. e., vessels toward which his mercy was to be dis
played ; the same as the kAtjtoi of viii. 28, and the antithesis
here of aKevy dpyys — which he had before prepared ; d irpoyroi-
paae; comp. Acts xiii. 48. ii. 47. Eph. i. 4, 5, 11. 2 Tim. i.
9. Rom. viii. 28, 29, 30. Eph. iii. 11, et. ah — Ad£av, glory, i. e.,
happiness, glory in heaven. — As to ttAoutos, comp. Rom. ii. 4
Eph. i. 7, 18. ii. 7. Col. i. 27.
After Soiav there is plainly something wanting, in order that
tlie sentence may correspond with rJveyKe *. r. X. in the verse
above. The most appropriate verb to be supplied seems to be
yXeyae, had mercy upon, it being suggested by the phrase o-Keui?

ROMANS IX. 23. 343
e'Ae'ous. But supplying this, we read thus : " [And if desiring]
that he [God] might make known his rich grace toward tlie ves
sels of mercy which he had before prepared for glory, [he showed
mercy to] us whom he called, etc." In this way all runs on
smoothly ; and although I have not seen this exegesis of the
passage in any commentator, I cannot help thinking that it is the
most easy and obvious one. Tholuck supplies eKciAeo-e ; but the
ous Kai seems to forbid this. And besides, ii<dXeae does not seem
to complete the sense. Understood as above explained, the sen
timent is plain, and the transition in verse 24 . . . ous Kai *. r. A.,
is facile.* The same thing is accomplished in another way, viz., by sup
posing the ellipsis to be completed from the former part of ver.^e
23 thus : " God desiring that he might make known his rich grace
toward the vessels of mercy which he had before prepared for glory,
[eyvcupio-e rbv irXovrov rys Sdiys aurou £7riJ ypds, ous Kai eKaAeo-e
k. t. A." This evidently comes for substance to the same thing as
the exegesis given above ; and the whole of the ellipsis is in this
way supplied from the context immediately preceding. 'EKaAeo-e
governs ous, and ypds/is synonymous with o-kcu?; iXeovs, or is in
apposition with it, and therefore may take the same preposition
(eVi) implied before it. The phra-e connected stands thus (ac
cording to the last proposed method of filling up the ellipsis) :
He made known his rich grace toward or unto us, [iirl] ypds. See
v. 22 above.
Reiche proposes a very different construction ; viz., to connect
Kai iva k. r. X. with the preceding yveyKe ; and then he connects
the whole thus : " Endured with great longanimity, etc., and this
in order that (koi i'va) he might make known the abundance of
his glory in respect to the righteous, the chosen objects of his
mercy, etc." He compares the sentiment with Rom. ii. 4. Acts
xvii. 27 seq. But here the long-suffering is for the good of the
individuals toward whom it is exercised, not for the sake of
others ; sotliat the cases are not analogous. Nor am I aware of
any direct analogy in the Scriptures. Besides, to render Kai i'va
as = Kai rovro, and thus to make the clause that follows exegeti
cal or supplementary, is as great a deviation from grammatical
propriety as the anacoluthon proposed in verse 22. After all,
the main difficulty with his exegesis is, that it does not correspond
to the sentiment of the preceding verse, where two classes are
described, who are widely diverse in their character and destiny ;
and each of these is at God's disposal. The prominency of this
sentiment is destroyed by the interpretation whicli he proposes.
* The sense is very well given here by Alford and others, who consider
ei Si as used to introduce an answer to the question ofthe objection in v. 19,

<y4 ROMANS IX. 24—26.
IlporWaacre here seems to designate the determination in the
divine mind to prepare the elect ; for the calling, as a matter of
fact, must of course precede the fact of preparation. Vt hat God
intends to do, is here spoken of as done ; a very common idiom
of the Scriptures. ^ _ , _
(24) Even us also whom he called, ous Kai eKaAeo-e ypas,l.e.,
Gentiles as well as Jews. Comp. iii. 29, 30. i. 16. ii. 9, 10
(25) Even so, or to the same purpose he saith by Hosea. 'Os
Kai . . . Ae'yei. 'Ev 'tlaye may mean in Hosea, i. <?., in the book
of Hosea ; just as ev Aa/3i'S (Heb. iv. 7) may mean in the book
of David. But in both cases, it is perhaps more probable that
the meaning is by Hosea, by David; like the Hebrew suina i-iTia .
i" will call him who was not my people, my people y and her
who was not beloved, beloved, KaXeau>  yyoirypivyv, i. e.,
the Gentiles, who were deemed outcasts from God, and were
strangers to the covenant of his promise, will I bring into a cov
enant relation with me, and number among my beloved family ,
I will make tbem " sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty."
The object of the quotation is to support the assertion just made,
that the vessels of mercy were chosen from the Gentiles as well
as the Jews, without any respect of persons. The Hebrew of
this passage runs thus : " I will love her who was not beloved ;
and I will say to her who was not my people, My people art
thou," Hos. ii. 23 (25). The Sept, renders it literally and in the
same order : dyairyaui ryv oiK dyairypevyv k. t. A. The apostle
has changed the order of the words, and quotes ad sensum, not ad
literam. (26) And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said
to them : Te are not my people, there shall they be called the sons
of the living God ; ko.1 iarai .... £oivtos ; another quotation
from Hos. i. 10. (ii. 1), to the same purpose as the preceding.
In both cases the original Hebrew, to which the language here is
conformed, has reference to the reception and restoration to
favor of Israel, who had been rejected on account of their trans
gressions. The apostle here applies the same language to the
receiving of the Gentiles, who had been " strangers to the coven
ant of promise, and aliens from the commonwealth of Israel."
It is an accommodation of the words of the prophet, so as to
express his own views on the present occasion ; and, further
more, the principle of God's dealing, which is disclosed in the
and equivalent to lav obv in John vi. 62. and c\\\' et in classical Greek :
'¦ But what if God, willing to manifest his wrath, and make known his
might, (that which he would do), endured much long-sufTering, the vessels
of wrath prepared for destruction ; and (what if this took place) that he
might make known the riches of his glory," etc.

ROMANS IX. 2 7, 28 345
original passages and applied to Israel is the same which is in
volved in the reception to favor of the Gentiles who had b.cn
out-casts. (27) Thus much for the reception of the Gentiles. Next, as
to the more difficult point of casting off the great body of the
Jews. In order, however, to settle the question on this point in
a satisfactory manner, the apostle appeals to the declarations of
the Hebrew prophets themselves. Laiah moreover says, in res
pect to Israel, 'Haalias Se . . . 'laparjX. Ae continuative, exclaims,
Kpd^ei, speaks aloud or openly. Although idv, or if; Hebrew
here, CX 13, although. — 'tis y dppos rrj; BaXdaays, i. e., so great
that it cannot be reckoned, exceedingly great. Td KardXeippa
auiByaerai, a remnant | only] shall be saved. KardXeippa here,
and the corresponding Hebrew IXU means a small number, a
residue only. So the context obliges us to interpret the word,
both here and in Is. x. 22 seq. from which it is quoted. The
apostle's purpose is to show that the Hebrew prophets had fore
told the same thing which he affirms, viz., that only a remnant of
Israel is to be saved. Tlie passage, in the original Hebrew,
probably relates to the times of the Messiah ; as may be seen by
comparing Is. x. 20, 21. The meaning of verse 22 seems to be
that only a small remnant of them [small compared with those
who had perished] will return to the Lord, so as to be received
by him.
(28) The phrase Aoyov .... yrjs, is quoted nearly verbatim
from the Sept., Is. x. 22, 23, with the exception that ydp is added
by the apostle, to show that he continues quoting for the sake of
confirmation. The original Hebrew runs somewhat different!}' •
destruction is decreed, it shaU overflow injustice ; yea, destruction
is verily determined on ; the Lord Jehovah will execute it in the
midst of all the land. The Sept. and the apostle both represent
the general sense of the Hebrew, but do not follow the words.
Aoyov o-uvreASv means accomplishing his word, i. e., his promise
or threat of excision. Kai avvrepvuw, deciding, bringing to an
end, executing, viz., his Aoyov, as before. — 'Ev SiKaioavvy,
carrying all this into execution so as to satisfy the demands of
justice. ¦
For [Jehovah] will execute his word decreed, oti Xdyov avvrer-
pypevov iroirjaei, i. e., his threatening determined on, or deci
sively made, decisively pronounced. — On the land, iirl rrjs yijs,
i. e., of Israel.
The object of the whole is only to show, that God of old
threatened to destroy great multitudes of Jews for contumacy ;
and that it is no strange thing now to say, that great numbers of
tlieai will perish.

346 ROMANS IX. 20.
(29) Tea, [it happens] as Isaiah had before said, koI 
'Ho-aias: Kai affirmants, imo, immo ; for here it is equivalent to Kai
yiverai. The object of this quotation is the same as that of the pre
ceding, viz., to show that it is no new or strange thing, that a
part, yea a large portion of Israel should be rejected or cut off
on account of their apostasy or unbelief. Consequently Kai was
followed, in the mind of the writer (and of course it should be in
the mind of the reader), by yiverai or iyivero, i. «., it happens or has
happened. — IIpoeipTjKe here does not mean predicted (as it does in
some cases), but had, before said. The apostle had just cited one
passage from Isaiah, viz., x. 22, 23, and here he adds : " To the
same purpose had Isaiah spoken in a preceding part of his pro
phecy," viz., in i. 9. Kai Ka^ws irpoeipyKev 'Ho-aias.
The Lord of Hosts, Kvpios 2,a/3auiB. The Hebrew name niXSS
is often added to the title nini 0r Qin'Vx (in'sx), an(i designates
the Supreme Being as Lord of the hosts of heaven, i. e., oi the
angels, etc., in heaven. There does not appear to be any good
reason for the opinion of Tholuck and others, that this title
was first given to Jehovah because he was the mighty defender
(liaa) of Israel ; and afterwards because he was considered as
the Lord ofthe stars ; which are called the host of heaven. The
Lord ofthe heavenly hosts, i. e., the angels, nixas nini is more
simple : and so Gesenius explains it in his lexicon ; comp. Ps.
lxviii. 17, where the " chariots of God are said to be twenty
thousand, even thousands of angels," and "the Lord to be among
them;" also Deut. xxxiii. 2, where he is said to come with
myriads of his holy ones (lii'ip ni33"ra) ; comp. 2 K. vi. 16, 17.
Dan. vii. 10, " thousand of thousands ministered unto him, and
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him." I add only
that the appellation niNas does not occur in the Pentateuch, nor
in the book of Judges, and that it is most frequent in Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Zechariah, and Malachi. The apostle appears to
have retained the Hebrew word untranslated, because it is so
retained in the Septuagint version of Is. i. 9, which he here
quotes. %ireppo here corresponds to the Plebrew li'iiz), the literal
meaning of which is not seed, but remnant, i. e., that which is
left or saved after a general overthrow or destruction. In Deut.
iii. 3 and Is. i. 9, the Septuagint has aireppa for "Pita. %ireppa
often means posteri, posterity, those who come after one. But I
apprehend the ground of the usage in this case by the Seventy,
is that aireppa (what is sown, seed) denotes what remains of
grain, after the consumption for the year, until seed-time comes,
which is then sown ; so that, considered in this light, aireppa. is
equivalent to residuum, which is the sense of it here.

ROMANS IX. 30. 347
Qs Topoppa dv iipoiuiBypev=J}op6ppci. av uipouiiBypev. The Greeks
could employ either construction ; at least the Seventy have done
so ; see in Hos. iv. 6. Ezek. xxxii. 2, in which latter case both
constructions are employed in the same sentence ; X e ov r 1
iBvuiv uipoiuiBys av, koi uis S p d k 01 v b ivrfj BaXdaay. The He
brew is 3 nin. To be like Gomorrha, is to be utterly destroyed
as this city was. The sentiment therefore is : " Isaiah said con
cerning the Jews, that only a small remnant should be rescued
from utter destruction.''
It is true, that in Is. i. 9 the passage does not respect the
spiritual but the temporal punishment of the Jews. But the
ground of the apostle's reasoning here is analogy. His object is,
as it all along through the chapter has been, to illustrate a prin
ciple ot action. What God did at one time and in one respect,
he may do at another time and in a different respect, provided
the principle concerned shall be the same. And surely it is no
more against his benevolence or his justice, to punish spiritually
for transgressions of a spiritual nature, i. e., for continued im
penitence and unbelief, than it is to punish temporally for sins
against himself. His promises to Abraham and his seed, i. e.,
his literal descendants, are only and always conditional, either
as to temporal or spiritual blessings. Of course the same prin
ciple of action applies to both, when God punishes. It is on
this ground, then, that the apostle adduces instances of threaten
ing temporal evil, in order to illustrate and confirm spiritual
threats. Overlooking this obvious principle of analogical reasoning,
many commentators on Rom. ix. have very strenuously main
tained, that all which is there said pertains only to the present
world, and to things of a merely temporal nature, or at most
only to the external privileges of religion ; and all this, because
the instances here produced are mostly of such a kind. But
let any one look back first on chap. viii. 28 — 39, which most
plainly gives rise to the whole discussion in chap. ix. ; then con
template the resumption of this theme in chap. ix. 6 ; and above
all, let him view the summing up of the main object in chap. ix.
18 — 23, and then glance forward to verses 30 — 33 ; and it does
seem to me, unless he has made up his mind to an a priori way
before he comes to the study of the text, that he cannot entertain
any doubt what the object of the writer is.
(30) Ti ouv ipovpev ; a preface or transition to a summary of
what he had been inculcating in the preceding context. It is as
much as to say : ' How then may all that has been said on the
point under consideration be summed up ? The answer follows :
That the Gentiles who did not seek after justification, have

348 EOMANS IX. 31, 32.
obtained justification, and that justification which is by faith .'*
on. . . <tk iriareuis. That is, one principal thing which I have
maintained, (when I have averred that the Gentiles have be
come the children of Abraham by faith, and are received in the
place of the unbelieving Jews) is that those who did not seek
after justification, i. e., who were once estranged from God and
liis law, were enemies to all which is good, and utterly regardless
of spiritual blessings — these have now obtained justification by
faith, i. e., they are admitted by the mercy of God, without any
merit on their part, to participate in the blessings of the gospel,
even in the justification whicli Christ has procured. Aiuikui is
frequently used, even in the classic authors, in a sense like
t,yreiv; and so in Hebrew t\T} for l^jsa. Reiche, Ohhausen, et
ah, suppose that on is here designed to continue the question ;
i. e., \_Sliall we say~\'that, etc. But the Sia™' of verse 32 is
opposed to this interpretation.
(31) But Israel, who sought for a law of justification, have not
attained to a law of justification, 'lapo.yX .... ouk etfiBaae. That
is, Israel, who, confiding in their own merit and good works, be
took themselves for justification to their supposed complete obe
dience to the divine law, have not found or attained to such a
law as would justify them ; in other words : They have failed
in this way of obtaining acceptance or justification. The reason
or ground of this is fully stated in Rom. i — iii. as explained in
the Commentary above. The apostle proceeds briefly to state
the ground of what he had just asserted.
(32) Why ? because [they sought] not by faith but by works of
law, Siari ; on .... vopov; i. e., Israel did not seek for justifica
tion in a gratuitous way, but by legal, i. e. meritorious obedience.
That eK iriareuis, by faith, necessarily involved, in the mind of
the writer, the idea of gratuitous justification, is certain from
Rom. iv. 4, 5, and especially iv. 16. It is equally clear, from iii.
20 — 28, that ii epyuiv vbpov means meritorious obedience, i. e.,
such works that the reward consequent on perfect obedience can
be claimed. Such a reward, the apostle maintains, it is now
impossible for any one of the human race to obtain, " because all
have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Now as the
Jews were self-righteous and proud, they of course lacked that
humility and sense of ill-desert which the gospel demands, and
without whicli its salvation is not to be had. This pride and
self-righteousness led them to reject the Saviour of lost sinners,
* And that justification, etc. The particle Se' here is strietlv adversative,
the contrasted clause being omitted. The idea it, : not that justification
which comes from works, but that which is of faith. The use of Ss expresses
one of those nice shades of meaning so common with the Greek particles.

ROMANS IX. 33. 349
ti.id to refuse all trust or confidence in him. Here it was that
tney stumbled and fell, yea even to their own perdition ; as the
apostle goes on to say :
For they stumbled on the stone of stumbling, as it is written,
irpoaeKoxj/av yap . . . yeypairrai. Tap here introduces a clause
which assigns the cause or reason why Israel had not obtained
SiKaioo-uvrjv. Yet A., B., D., E., F., G. ; Syr. utr., Copt., Arm.,
Vulg., Ital. ; Cyr., Chrys., Ruf., Aug., Ambrosiast., Pel., omit the
yap ; and it is probably spurious. The connection is more facile
without it. But supposing it to be genuine we may thus explain
the text ; to the question, Stan'; why ? viz., Why did not Israel
obtain justification? the apostle answers, (1) 'Because they
sought it by legal obedience and not by faith.' (2) As subordi
nate to this he says : ' They did not exercise faith because they
were offended with the Messiah as he appeared among them ;
they were stumbled at his character and claims.'
(33) Behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock
of offence ; but every one who believeth on him shall not be ashamed,
ISov . . . KaraiaxuvByaerai. A peculiar quotation, made up of Is.
xxviii. 1 6, and viii. 14. The former passage runs thus : " Behold,
I have laid in Zion a stone, a corner stone, tried, precious, a firm
foundation ; he who confides in it shall not be afraid." The lat
ter passage thus : " And he shall be for a refuge, and for a stone
of stumbling and a rock of offence to both houses of Israel." The
stone of stumbling and rock of offence is taken from Is. viii. 14,
while the rest of the verse is from Is. xxviii. 1 6.
The Jewish Rabbins, in citing the Scriptures, often combine
passages that are of the same tenor ; and I may add, this is done
by writers every day, without any consciousness of doing violence
to the Scriptures, or of using an improper liberty ; see Surenhu-
sius's Bi/3Xos KaraAAciyr/s, Par. V. p. 43. The fact that the apos
tle has done so, too, seems to be plain. The reader will observe,
that in Is. xxviii. 16 the predicates of the stone that was laid in
Zion are, that it is tried, precious, a firm foundation ; but one of
the predicates in Is. viii. 14 is, that it is a stone of stumbling, or a
rock of offewe. The apostle is describing the unbelief of the
Jews, their rejection of the Messiah, and of course the stone of
stumbling is best adapted to the description of their case.
Paul seems to cite both of these passages, as if they referred
to the Messiah. That at least they were, in his view, capable of
such an application in the way of analogy is certain. Tholuck
and many others understand them in the former way. The
Chaldee Targum, on Is. xxviii. 16, translates thus : " See, I place
in Zion a King, a mighty and a powerful King ;" meaning the
Messiah. Also the Babylonish Talmud (Tract. Sanhedrin. fol.
30

350 KOMAN SIX. 33.
38. 1), the book of Zohar, and Jarchi. Kimchi also speaks of
such an interpretation being given. In the New Testament, if
the reader will compare Matt. xxi. 42, 44. Luke xx. 17, 18, and
1 Pet. ii. 5 — 7, he will find that Ps. cxviii. 22 ("the stone
which the builders refused is become the headstone of the
corner,"), and Is. viii. 14 are joined together, on account of their
resemblance and their reference to the same object. Peter has
not only joined these two passages, but added a third, viz., Is.
xxviii. 1 6, and referred them all to the Messiah. This casts light
therefore, on the intermingling of texts by Paul in the passage
under consideration.
It seems evident, too, from Luke ii. 34, that the pious part of
the Jews, to say the least, were accustomed to give to Is. 8, 14, a
Messianic interpretation ; for thus does the aged Simeon, when
he takes the child Jesus in his arms, and says : " This child is
set for the fall and rise of many in Israel, a sign that shall be
spoken against." So the Gemara (Tract. Sanhedrin) also inter
prets Is. viii. 14, of the Messiah. That the Messiah would be
rejected by the Jews, is plainly enough predicated (as their own
ancient Rabbies acknowledge) in Ps. xxii. Is. liii. Zech. xi. xii.,
etc. So the Bereshith Rabba (a mystical commentary on
Genesis, written about A. D. 300, by Rabbi Bar Nachmani),
says : " One will sing no song, until the Messiah shall be treated
with scorn ; as it is written" [in Ps. Ixxxix. 52].
The objection against the Messianic interpretation of Is. viii.
14. xxviii. 16, viz., that 'circumstances then present are referred
to, the threatening of present punishment uttered, and excitement
to present hopes and confidence then proffered,' cannot weigh
much against such an interpretation. The prospect of the future
was then held out by the prophet to the wicked as a matter of
dread ; to the pious as a matter of hope and joy. Let us see, now,
how this matter stood. The Jews looked forward to a great
deliverer, to a period of great prosperity and glory in the days of
their Messiah. What says the prophet ? He says ; ' The days
of the Messiah himself shall bring no liberation of the wicked
from evil. They shall be consolatory only to the good; for even
the Messiah himself will be only a stone of stumbling and a rock
of offence to the wicked.' This is both prediction and preaching.
It threatens and consoles, while it discloses what is yet future.
Who can venture to say, now, that the prophet could not, or did
not, entertain such views as these, and speak in such a manner ?
After the interpretation of Christ himself and of his apostles, in
such a way as to support this view, we may venture to embrace
it without any hazard.
Ou KaraiaxyvBrjaeToi, in the Hebrew T^ini x'b. Paul seems to

ROMANS X. 1. 351
have read (and so the Seventy also), 1^131 sib or diai sib. The
present Hebrew text, UJirn sib, means literally Ae shall not make
haste; but a secondary and derived sense of the same verb, is
to be afraid, to be agitated with fear so as to betake one's self to
flight. In this latter sense, it comes in substance to the same
meaning which KaTaicr^uv^o-eTai expresses, viz., that of disap
pointed expectation and hope, failure of obtaining security and
happiness. " Non refert verbum, sed res."

CHAP. X. 1 — 21.
The apostle now proceeds again to testify (as he has done in chap. ix. 1 — 5) his
strong affection for his kinsmen after the flesh, and his ardent desires and prayers
for their salvation. Nothing can be more appropriate than the expression of so
much kind aud deeply interested feeling on his part, for the Jews, whom he is obliged
to denounce and threaten, as he does, in the preceding chapter, because of their char
acter and conduct. It serves to show, that he does not do this in the spirit of revenge,
or because he loves denunciation; but with a sorrowful heart aud eyes full of tears,
that his bowels yearn over them, and that he retains for them all the affection which
he once had when acting with them; yea, even more, and that too of a higher and
better nature.
He had just said, that Israel was Btd>KO)v v6\xov StKaiocrvvris . . . /cal ovk ety&a&e.
Here he resumes the theme, and explains himself more at large. He states the
reason why they did not attain justification, verses 2, 3, and goes on to show, that
Moses himself confirms the same ideas which he had disclosed to them relative to
faith and works, verses 4 — 8. The sentiment that belie/ in Christ is necessary for all,
both Jew and Greek, is still further confirmed by verses 9—12.
The apostle next presents the Jew as objecting thus: 'If we allow what you say
as to the necessity of faith or belief in Christ, yet how are we to be blamed tor
rejecting him, in case he has never been preached or declared to us? verses 13 — 15.
To tins the apostle answers (1 ) That not all who have heard the gospel, believe it ;
as Isaiah himself declares, verses 16,17. (2) But further; the objection cannot be
truly made, that the Jews have not heard the gospel, at least enjoyed the opportu
nity of hearing it; for one may apply to them, in this respect, the words of Ps. xix.
4; or the words of Moses, in Deut. xxxii. 21; or of Isaiah, in lxv. 1, 2; so that
they are left without any just apology for their unbelief, verses 18—21.
(1) The benevolent or kind desire of my heart, v\ \mlv evSoKta tt/s
€/x% KapStas ; i. e., his sincere and hearty wish (as we say) is, etc.
— Ets tromypiav, for salvation, i. e., for their salvation. Literally
my prayer to God for them [is] unto or in respect to salvation.
But ets is frequently used in the New Testament in the same
sense as h in Hebrew ; e. g., Rom. xvi. 6, ets rjfxas, for us ; 1
Cor. viii. 6, cts avrov, for him, i. e., for his honor and glory ; 2
Cor. viii. 6, ets fytas, for your advantage; and so often. The
phrase v-irlp avrwv [ecrrti/] ets a-wTrjptav is altogether equivalent,
then, to Iva o-uSuo-t or virep tt}s o-o>T7]pia<; avrwv. The reading

352 ROMANS X. 2, 3.
U7rep airuiv which is sanctioned by A., B., D., F., G., is now gen
erally admitted in critical editions, instead of the Receptus virep
rov 'lapoyX. The sense is the same. The same MSS. omit rj
before irpos.
(2) For I bear them witness, pap-rvpui ydp airois- Tap illus
"' I trantis. The apostle means to say, that he retains a strong affec
tion for the Jews, and prays sincerely and ardently for their
salvation ; and specially so, as they have much feeling and zeal
in respect to the subject of religion.
. That they have a zeal for God, on tfjXov ©eou exovai ; ©eou,
v ' the Genitive of the object after itfrjXov. So in John ii. 17,6 IfqXos
tou oiVou o-ou, zeal for the honor of thine house ; comp. Ps. lxix.
10 (9), 7jn-i_a ns»p, also Acts xxii. 3, and John xvi. 2 ; comp.
Gal. i. 14. Acts xxi. 20. The idea is, that the Jews had much
zeal for objects of a religious nature ; that they possessed strong
religious feelings and sympathies. Philo, Josephus, and the
various writers of the New Testament, by the facts which they
disclose, most abundantly confirm the correctness of this decla
ration. But not according to knowledge, dXX' oi kot iiriyvuiaiv,
i. e., not an intelligent, discriminating, enlightened zeal ; not a
zeal regulated by a proper understanding of what was really
religious truth. They persecuted Christians, for example, unto
death, and yet thought themselves to be doing service for God,
Xarpeiav ®eS, John xvi. 2. Zeal without knowledge, is supersti
tious, persecuting, hostile to the peace and happiness of the
community ; and knowledge without zeal, is cold, sceptical, un
feeling, such as devils may possess as well as men. An actual
union of both is accomplished only by sincere piety ; and a high
degree of this union, only by ardent piety.
(3) For beingignorant of that justification which is of God, dyvo-
. ovvres yap . . . SiKaioavvyv. The Gen. ©eou here designates the
r j author of that which the preceding noun signifies. Tyv tov
®eov SiKaioavvyv is that method of justification, viz., gratuitous
or by faith, which God has established, appointed, or revealed
in the gospel. It stands opposed, here, to t^v iSiav SiKaioavvyv,
i. e., justification on the ground of merit or by the works of law.
j r<V (for) causal, introduces proof of the assertion contained in
dXX' oi kot iiriyvuiaiv. The apostle does not mean by dyi/oouires,
to imply that the Jews had enjoyed no opportunity to become
acquainted with the SiKaioavvyv ©eou ; for this would contradict
what he says in the sequel, verse 18, seq. ; but whatever their
opportunities of knowledge had been, they were in fact still igno
rant, and criminally ignorant, of the gospel method of justifica
tion. And seeking to establish their own justification, kol ryv ISiov . . .

ROMANS X. .1. 353
aryaai. %ryaai means here to render valid, to make good one's
claims. The inclination of the Jews, as is well known, to seek
for and expect justification by their own merit, i. e., in obedience
to their laws, specially the ceremonial law, is here referred to
by the apostle.
They have not submitted themselves, ouk uvreTay^o-av ; Second
Aor. Pass., with the reflexive sense of the Middle voice. See
Buttm. Gr. Gramm. § 123. 2 ; N. Test. Gramm. § 61. 4. But
if we render ovk virerdyyaav passively, they have not been sub
jected, the sense will be substantially the same. The idea in the
verse is : ' Having no correct views of justification by grace,
and being earnestly desirous of justification on the ground of
their own merit, they reject the justification which God has prof
fered to them in the gospel.'
(4) For Christ is the end of the law, reXos ydp vopov Xpiaros ;
i. e., believing in Christ, receiving him by faith, and thus attain
ing to Siicaioo-uVi; ©eou, accomplishes the end or object which the
law, i. e., perfect obedience to the law, would accomplish. In
this simple way, and consonant with the context, I would inter
pret this long agitated and much controverted text. Thus reAos
is frequently used to denote exitus rei, the event, end, ultimate ob
ject or design of a thing ; Matt. xxvi. 58, iSeiv to Te'Xos, to see the
event, final end, Rom. vi. 21, to re'Aos, the end or final event oi
those things, is death; 2 Cor. xi. 15, uiv rb reXos, whose end, final
state or condition, i. e., reward, shall be according to their works ;
Phil. iii. 19, uiv rb reXos, whose end or final state, shall be
destruction ; 1 Tim. i. 5, to Se reXos rys irapayyeXias, now the ulti
mate end, object, design, of the commandment, etc. ; Heb. vi. 8,
y s to reXos els Kaiiaiv, whose end or final reward is burning. See
also James v. 11. 1 Pet. i. 5, rb reXos, the end or event oi your
faith, is the salvation of your souls ; iv. 17. So in other Greek
writings ; e. g., to reXos tov irpdyparos els kokiov dyei, Test. XII.
Patriarch, p. G89 ; to tovtov reXos iv ©e<3 rjv, the end or event of
this matter was with the Divinity, Demosth. 292. 22. So in the
phra es, TeAos Xapjidveiv, irapepxeaBai els reXos, iK rov TeAous yvui-
piaBevra, k. t. X.
The end of the law, was the justification of men, i. e., their
advancement to happiness and glory in a future world. So the
apostle himself states in the sequel : " The man that doeth these
tilings shall live by them." But inasmuch as "all men have
sinned and come short of the glory of God," so " no flesh can
be justified by the deeds of the law ; " i. e., legal justification on
the ground of merit is now impossible. But what the law can
not accomplish, Christ does accomplish; for through him the
justification of sinners is brought about, whieh would otherwise
30*

354 ROMANS X. 4, 5.
be impossible. Christ then is the end of the law, i. e., he accom
plishes or brings about that which the law was designed to
accomplish — the acceptance of men with God, and their admis
sion to the happiness of the future world. That ver. 4 is only
epexegetical of the last clause of the preceding verse, seems to
me quite plain ; and the ydp intimates this.
But TeAos has been very differently construed ; viz., (a) As
meaning end in the sense of ending or completion. In this case
vopos means the ceremonial law ; and the sentiment is : ' Christ
has, by his coming, made an end of the ceremonial law.' But
it is a sufficient objection to this interpretation, that it is wholly
irrelevant to the subject now under discussion, (b) Christ is the
reXevnais or irXypuipa of the Jewish law, i. e., Christ perfectly
fulfilled or obeyed it. But this explanation, although preferred
by Origen, Pelagius, Ambrose, Melancthon, Calvin, etc., is not
in accordance with the usus loquendi oi the word TeAos. And
moreover ; to say that Christ obeyed the whole law, ritual, or
moral, or both, is saying what indeed is true : but then it has no
direct or visible bearing upon the subject immediately before
the mind of the writer. Tliere are two supposable ways of jus
tification, one wrong way and one right one ; this it is his object
to show. Now the Jews, having chosen the wrong one, viz.,
their own works of law, i. e., their own merits, have of course
missed the right one, viz., that by faith in Christ, (c) Chrysos
tom, Theodoret, Beza, Bengel, Turretin, Heumann, Tholuck,
etc., understand reXos in the sense of end, design, final object.
Tholuck explains it thus : viz., that the law teaches us our sin
fulness and our need of a Saviour, and this was what it was
designed to accomplish ; and thus it leads us in the end to Christ,
or to Christ as its final end. He finds an exact parallel in Gal.
iii. 34 : " the law is our 7rai8aya)yos to bring us to Christ." But
why we should give the passage this turn here, I cannot see ;
for the writer has expressly told us in what respect he means
that Christ was the end of the law, viz. eis SiKaioavvyv.
In respect to the justification of every believer, els ¦ ¦ ¦ iriarevovn.
This designates, as I have before observed, the very respect in
which Christ wa3 Te'Aos vopov. He is so to every believer ; but
not so to others, i. e., not so while they remain unbelievers,
although he is proffered to them as mighty and willing to save
all who will come unto God through him. Tlavri, k. t. X., the
Dative of the person for whom.
(5) Maniocs ydp k. t. X. Here is ydp illustrantis again ; for
the quotations which follow are plainly designed to illustrate the
two different methods of justification which the apostle had just
brought into view. — Describeth, delineateth, Tpd<j>ei; often used in

ROMANS X. G. 355
such a sense. — Legal justification, ryv SiKaioavvyv ryv e/c tou
vopov, i. e., a justification which a man may claim as the proper
reward of his own good deeds or obedience. The apostle makes
this appeal to Moses, both to confirm and illustrate his own
declarations, and to show also that he is inculcating no new doc
trine. That the man who doeth these things shall live by them,
on . . . . iv airois. "On is prefixed as here to a quotation =zviz.,
namely, or as follows. The Greek word itself seems in reality to
be the neuter of oo-ns, on = 6 ti, i. e., this thing, videlicet. Tloiy-
cras aura, viz., the tiling spoken of in the preceding context. The
quotation is from Lev. xviii. 5, which has a reference to preced
ing ordinances and statutes recorded in Leviticus. Z^o-erai iv
aurois, he shall be rendered happy by them, i. e., by obedience to
such statutes, etc. Obedience, i. <-., entire obedience, shall ren
der him happy, shall entitle him to the rewards tbat are prof-
fe ed to the obedient. That the Jews understood something
more than happiness in the present life by the ini (lyaeTai) in
Lev. xviii. 5, seems probable from the version of Onkelos : " He
shall live in eternal life by them." So the Targum of Pseudo-
Jonathan : " He sliall live in eternal life, and have a part with
the righteous."
(6) But justification by faith speaketh thus, 17 Se . . . . Ae'yei.
Ac' but, here in distinction from or in opposition to the preceding
declaration. AiKaioaivy is here personified. The idea is : " One
who preaches justification by faith, might say, etc' Say not in
thine heart, py . . . . aov, i. e., within thyself. To say within
one's self, is to think, imagine, suppose. So the Greek rjiypi is
sometimes used. 'Ev rfj KopSia. aov, T|aba where ab (heart) is
used like 10E5 (soul) for self; and so very often in the Hebrew
language. Who shall ascend to heaven? ris .... oipavov; etc. The
whole appeal and method of reasoning is in an analogical way.
Moses, in Deut. xxx. 11, assigns as one reason why the Hebrew
nation should be obedient, that the statutes of the Lord given
them were plain and intelligible ; they " were not hidden from
them, neither were they afar off." In order to enforce this last
thought (Jie more effectually, he dwells upon it and illustrates it
in several ways. "The commandment," says he, "is not in
heaven, that thou shouldest say: Who shall go up for us to
heaven and bring it to us that we may hear it and do it. Neither
is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: Who shall go
over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear and do
it ?" Nay, " The word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and
in thy heart, that thou mavest do it." Deut. xxx. 14. That is :
' The commandment is in language which thou dost speas, and is

356 ROMANS X. 7, 8.
such as thou canst comprehend with thine understanding.' The
whole 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 justification
by faith in Christ is an equally plain and intelligible doctrine.
It is not shut up in mysterious language, nor concealed from the
eyes of all but the initiated, like the heathen mysteries. It is not
in the books of countries which lie beyond the impassable ocean ;
not in the mysterious book of God in heaven, and yet undis
closed ; not in the world beneath, whicli no one can penetrate and
return to disclose its secrets. It is brought before the mind and
heart of every man ; and thus he is without excuse for unbelief.
It is the general nature of the imagery, in the main, which is sig
nificant to the purpose of the writer. Paul means simply to
affirm, that if Moses could truly say that his law was intelligible
and accessible, the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ is
even still more so. That is, to bring down Christ, rovr ean
.... Karayayeiv. The tout' ean here designates the reference
which the apostle designs to make of the sentiment just quoted,
viz., that he means to apply it to Christ, and not to the law of
Moses. — Xpiarbv here means Christ in the sense of verse 4,
where he is called reXos vopov . . els SiKaioavvyv.
(7) Who shall go down into ihe abyss, tis .... dfivaaov. In
the Hebrew, Deut. xviii. 3, the phrase is Kin dib lass sib not
beyond the sea is it. The expression differs, but the general sense
is the same as here. To go beyond the sea, which was consid
ered as of boundless width (Job. xi. 9) and impassable, is em
ployed by Moses as the image of what is difficult or impossible.
In the same way Paul employs dfivaaov. No one returns from
the world beneath bi'stia or Dinn ; (for bism and Binn are occa
sionally synonymous, being the antithesis of' bys'd, see Gen. xlix.
25. Ps. cvii. 26. Slrac. xvi. 18. xxiv. 5, and comp. Ps. cxxxix.
8. Amos ix. 2. Matt. xi. 23. Here d/3vaaov designates the bisiu
ofthe Hebrews, considered as the abode ofthe dead; as is evident
from Xpiarbv iK veKpuiv dvayayeiv. For the general idea see v. 6.
The quotations before us are clear examples of the liberty
which Paul takes, of accommodating the spirit of the QJd Testa
ment to the objects and truths of the Gospel, without any slavish
subjection to the mere form of words.
(8) What saith it? dXXd ri Ae'yei; i. e., what saith y e/c 7rio-reios
Si/caioo-uVr; ? It saith : The word is nigh to thee, in thy mouth and
in thy heart, e'yyu's aov.. . . aov. 'Pypa here means prjpa iriareuis,
i. «., the gospel, as the sequel shows ; comp. 1 Tim. iv. 6. In
thy mouth, in thine own language, i. e., a subject of conversation
and teaching. In thy heart, i. e., a subject of meditation and

ROMANS X. 9, 10. 357
thought. Sentimont ; ' The doctrine which I inculcate, is so far
from being an obscure and inaccessible and forbidden mystery,
that it is daily a subject of reflection and of conversation.' That
the apo-tle means the doctrine of faith which he taught and
preached, is clear from the following tout' ean . . . Kypvaaopev.
(9) "Oti, because, i. e. say not in thine heart, etc., because if
thou shalt openly profess with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord, idv
bpoXoyyays .... 'I170-0W. The verb bpoXoyeui means literally
eadem loqui, to speak ivhat consents or agrees with something
which others speak or maintain. But it is frequently used to de
note speaking or professing openly, i. e., proclaiming openly one's
belief in Christ, which was speaking in accordance with what
other Christians had avowed. 'Ev tco aropan, by word of mouth,
in words, or by the use of language. Kupiov I take to be the
predicate of the sentence in this case, i. e., a true believer is to
confess that Jesus is Lord; comp. Acts ii. 36. v. 31. Phil. ii. 9,
10, where the order of the words is Kupios lijo-ous Xpiaros (the
same as here), but where it is certain that Kupios must be a
predicate, viz., that Jesus Christ is Lord. The position of Ku'piov
before 'lyaovv, is for the sake of emphasis. And shah believe in
thy heart that God hath raised him from the dead, koI iriarevays
.... ve/cpSv ; i. e., shalt sincerely, ex animo, believe that God
has raised him from the dead, and exalted him to the throne of
universal dominion. It is not the simple fact of a resurrection
of Jesus' body from the tomb, which in the apostle's view is the
great and distinguishing feature of Christian belief; it is the
exaltation, glory°and saving power that are consequent on the
resurrection, which he evidently connects with this event. So in
Phil. ii. 8  11. So in Acts ii. 24, 31—33, where the whole
connection is very explicit; comp. also Heb. ii. 9. 2 Cor. iv. 14.
Acts xvii. 31. Rom. iv. 25. 1 Cor. xv. 17—20. Thou shalt
be saved, auiByay, i. e., a bold and open profession of the Chris
tian faith, united with a sincere and hearty belief of it, will secure
the salvation of him who makes such a profession ; all which
shows that the way of salvation is open and easy of access.
The reader will observe that the apostle has here followed the
order of the quotations which he had made from the law of
Moses (verse 8) in stating the conditions of salvation. Inde
pendently of this we might naturally expect that belief of the
heart would be first mentioned, and then confession of the mouth,
i e by words ; for this is the order of nature. And so, m the
explanation immediately subjoined, the apostle does 111 fact
arrange his declarations ; viz. _
(10) For with the heart there is belief unto justification, and
with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, KapSia. ydp ... .

358 ROMANS X. 11. 12.
auirypiav. TTiareveTai and opoXoyelrai, if regarded as being in the
Mid. voice, may be rendered in an active sense ; but both may
be taken passively and rendered as above ; or we may translate :
Belief is exercised, confession is made, etc. Our English version
takes the first verb actively, and the last passively ; which does
not seem to have been intended by the writer. Tap introduces a
clause which confirms or gives emphasis and definiteness to the
preceding sentiment. Eis Si/caioo-uVqv and eis aqrypiav mean, so
that justification is attained and so that salvation is attained. Eis
here, as often, stands before a noun designating the object or end
to be obtained, and may be called eis telicum. The sentiment is
the same for substance as in the preceding verse ; see Comm. on
auiByay. The design of the apostle in repeating it is to strengthen
the impression upon this point, which is important specially in the
course of his argumentation.
(11) This verse is a still further confirmation of the first part
of v. 10, bringing into view a text to which he had before made
an appeal in chap. ix. 33. IISs 6 . . . KaraurxovByaerai, no one
icho believeth on him shall ever be disappointed ; i. e., salvation is
certain to every true believer. IISs . . . ou I have put together, and
rendered no one. If the oi in this case had been connected
with 7ras by position, and not with tbe verb, the meaning would
then have been, as in English, not every one, i. e., some but not
all. See New Test. Gramm. § 116. 1. The form of the Greek
is Hebraistic. The Hebrew had no method of saying none,
except by using ba (every one) with a negative sib (not). Karai-
axyvByaerai, CT3", none shall be put to shame by a failure of his
hopes, none shall be disappointed.
(12) The word iras, which the above quotation from Is. xxviii.
16 exhibits, gives occasion here for the apostle to bring into view
a point which he had often insisted upon in the previous parts of
his epistle, particularly in chaps, iii. iv., viz., that the salvation
of the gospel is proffered to all men without distinction, and on
the same terms ; for there is no difference between the Jew and
the Greek, or there is no distinction of Jew and Greek, oi ydp . . .
"EXXyvos. Te koi is used here, as often elsewhere, between two mem
bers coupled together closely by the sentence, but diverse or anti
thetic in respect to meaning. Tap illustrantis, viz., illustrating the
iras ofthe preceding assertion. In fact, there is a singular succession
here of clauses, arising one out of another, to all of which yap is
prefixed. Thus in verse 10, KapSia ydp k. t. A., assigns a ground
or confirmation of the preceding declaration; verse 11, Te'Aei yap
k. t. A., assigns a ground of confirmation, in respect to what had
been advanced in verse 10, i. e., it appeals to the Scriptures in
confirmation of it; verse 12, oi ydp K. r. A., is again a confirma-

ROMANS X. 13. 359
tion of the declaration iras . . . ov irraiaxyvByaerai, and this last
declaration is, in its turn, confirmed by two succeeding ones, viz.,
6 ydp airbs, k. r. A., and irds ydp os, k. t. A., the first of which
contains a declaration of the apostle, and the second an appeal
to the Scriptures confirming this declaration : so that here are
no less than five clauses in immediate succession, all of which
have a yap prefixed, and in the same sense throughout, i. e., each
yap stands in a clause which serves to confirm or illustrate the
preceding assertion. This is altogether characteristic of the
manner of Paul ; see Introd.
For there is the same Lord of all, 6 ydp .... irdvruiv ; i. e., the
Jews and Gentiles have one common Lord and Master ; comp.
Rom. iii. 29, 30. iv. 16, 17. — IIAourciv .... aurdv, abounding
[in goodness] toward all ivho call upon him. TIXovtuiv means
being rich, having abundance, viz., of wealth. But here the
connection shows, of course, that the apostle means rich in spir
itual blessings, abounding in spiritual favors towards men. —
En-i/caAoup.evois iir aurdv like the Heb. D'i;a Stij?, means making
supplication to him, performing acts of devotion to him. Tlavras
here again shows, that the goodness of God is not limited to the
Jewish nation, but equally proffered to all.
(13) This is confirmed again by another quotation which
exhibits the same irds. For every one who calls on the name of
the Lord, shall be saved, irds ydp . . . auiByaerai. Here we have
the full Hebrew form, viz., nini tjra sopn -rasrba every true
worshipper cf God ; ovopa being pleonastic, as in " the name of
the God of Jacob defend thee," " the name of the Lord is a
strong tower," etc. In the quotations in vers. 11 and 13, from
Is. xxviii. 16 and Joel iii. 5 (ii. 32), it is true, that the sacred
writers of the Old Testament had principally in view the confi
dence which is placed in God the Father, in seasons of danger
and distress, and the promise that such confidence should not be
in vain. But it is the principle of action which is the main
question, and not the special relation of it in ancient times. Is
the principle the same under the Christian dispensation as it was
under the Jewish one, viz., that those who are exposed to dan
ger and distress, and who put their trust in God shall obtain
deliverance ? This is true in a spiritual, as well as in a tempo
ral respect, i. e., there is undeniably a irXypwais to this promise
under the gospel. Paul did not expect his readers to deny this ;
and consequently he has used the quotations with special refer
ence to Christ ; although the passages, in their original connec
tion, do not seem to have had such a special reference. But in
doing this, he has plainly authorized us to apply to Christ the
same divine worship and honor, which the saints of ancient days

360 ROMANS X. 14.
applied to Jehovah. For he must have known that his readers
would of course see, that he applied the very same things to
Christ, which the writers of the Old Testament referred to Jeho
vah ; and consequently, that he considered him as entitled to the
same honors and confidence. I see not any way in which we
can make less out of the passage than this, viz., that all who
believingly call upon the name of Christ shall be saved.*
(14) The apostle here anticipates an objection which he ex
pected the Jew would make to his argument, whicli urges the
necessity of calling on Christ in order to be saved : ' How. shall
one call on him, unless he is first a believer in him, i. e., first
persuaded that he is the proper object of religious invocation !
And how shall he believe this, provided no declaration of it has
been made to him ! And how can such a declaration be made,
unless by a messenger or preacher duly commissioned ? For
the Scripture itself bestows its encomium on such messengers,
and thus impliedly recognizes the importance of them.' To all
this the apostle gives an answer in the sequel, verse 16 seq.
It is a matter of indifference, whether (with Grotius) we sup
pose the apostle to introduce an objector as speaking here in the
person of an unbelieving Jew, or whether (with Tholuck and
most commentators) we suppose the apostle himself to utter the
words in question. If we attribute them to the apostle, we must
suppose him to be uttering what an objector would naturally say.
Nor is it necessary to suppose, that all which comes from an ob
jector is false. The speciousness of an objection consists in the
claims of some part of it to be considered as true. The reason
ing of the objector here is correct, if you' allow him his premises;
i. e., it is true that men first believe on a Saviour, before they
will call upon him, etc. But the main question here after all
is, whether the fact assumed as a basis of all this reasoning, viz.,
that the Jew had not heard tlie gospel, is true. The apostle pro
ceeds in the sequel to show that this is not the case ; and there
fore that the whole objection falls to the ground.
How then shall they call [on him] in whom they have not be
lieved ? iru>s ovv . . . hriarevaav ; i. e., how shall they pray to
him, do religious homage to him, who is not the object of belief
or confidence? Ouv marks here a relation to the foregoing
assertions. " It is used," says Passow, " in interrogative sen
tences, with reference to preceding assertions which are con-
_ * Do Wette, Meyer, Alford and others agree with the above interpreta
tion. Alford says : Kvplov is " used here of Christ bcvond a doubt, as the
next verse shows. There is hardly a stronger proof, or one more irrcfraea-
1,1c by those who deny the Godhead of our blessed Lord, of the unhesitatinsr
appUcation to him by the apostle of the name and attributes of Jehovah "

ROMANS X. 15. 361
ceded." So here, the objector (or Paul in his place) says,
' Conceding now that all who call on him shall be saved, yet how
can men call on one of whom they have not heard, etc ? ' By
saying this he aims to apologize for the unbelief of many Jews
who still rejected the Saviour. Eis dv here must mean the Lord
Jesus Christ ; for surely he is the specific object of faith or belief,
about which the apostle is here discoursing. And how shall they
believe [on him] of whom they have not heard; irds Se iriarevaovaiv
[eis aurdv] ou ouk rj/couo-av; That is, before one can believe on
a Saviour, .he must have some knowledge of him ; this Saviour
must be proclaimed to him. Ou here is the Genitive governed
by yKovaov ; "verba sensus gaudent Genitivo." — Kt/pu'o-o-ovtos,
a preacher, is one who proclaims in public any matter, who pub
lishes aloud ; in the Hebrew "iiaai2.
(15) And how shall they preach, except they be sent? iruis Se
. . . diroaraXiiiai ; i. e., unless they are divinely commissioned;
comp. Jer. xxiii. 21. As it is written, koBuis yeypairrai. The
connection of the sentiment here presents some difficulty. But
the course of the thought seems to be this, viz., ' the importance
of the heralds of salvation is implied in the high commendation
which the Scripture bestows upon them.' This is indeed truly
implied in the words quoted ; for why should these heralds be
spoken of with high and joyful commendation, if they are not
important instruments in the salvation of men ? So the speaker
in this case, in making this quotation, illustrates what he has
just suggested respecting the importance of the heralds of salva
tion. How beautiful are the feet of those who publish salvation, who
proclaim good tidings, uis uipaioi ... to. dyaBd. The Septuagint
translates thus : dis copa iirl tuiv opeuiv, uis irdSes eiayyeXiZppevov
aKoyv elpyvys, cos euayyeAi£o/xevou dyaBd ! So the Codex V atl-
canus ; and I suppose that after the latter cos the translator must
have supplied in his own mind the word 7rdSes, in order to make
out a sense which would be good. The Hebrew runs thus:
" How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of him who pro
claims glad tidings, who publishes peace, who makes proclama
tion of good ! " Is. Iii. 7. Paul, in translating, has abridged the
original Hebrew. — Oi iroSes, feet, i. e., a part of the person taken
for the whole ; as often in Hebrew, and so in other languages ;
comp. Acts v. 9. The reason why oi irdSes is here chosen
rather than any other part of the body to be the representative of
the person would seem to be, that the heralds who proclaim any
thing (oi-isaa), travel from place to place in order to discharge
their duty.' Salvation, elpyvyv, Dibd, good in its most extensive
sense. — EuayyeAi'£to means primarily, according to its etymology,
31

362 ROMANS X. 16 — 18.
to publish good news. But secondarily, it conveys only the gen
eral idea to publish ; consequently it takes after it the Ace. of a
noun indicating the thing published, as here elpyvyv ... to.
dyaBd. (16) But all have not obeyed the gospel, dXX' oi -rrdvres . . .
eiayyeXia; i. e., notwithstanding what you say (dAAd concedes),
still it is true, the apostle replies, that all to whom the gospel has
been published have not become obedient to it. For Isaiah saith,
Lord, who hath believed our report? 'Ho-aias . . . rjpuiv ; Is.
liii. 1. That is, the prophet complains that the declarations made
respecting the Messiah are not credited by those who hear them.
Here then is an example of Jews who hear and believe not ; and
the same thing is asserted by Isaiah, which the apostle now as
serts ; so that he could not be accused of producing a new or
strange charge.
(17) Faith then comes by hearing, and hearing by the word, of
God, dpa . . . ©eou ; i. e., the very quotation you make concedes
the principle, that the gospel must first be published before men
can be taxed with criminality for unbelief; for Isaiah complains
of those to whom it had been published. — ' H Se aKoy Sid pyparos
tov ©eou, i. e., the word of God, the gospel, must first be pro
claimed before it can be heard, understood, and believed. The
verse I take to be the suggestion of the objector. He means to
insist by it, that many of the Jews are not culpable for unbelief,
inasmuch as they have not heard the gospel, and hearing it is nec
essary to the believing of it.
(18) The apostle admits the correctness of the principle, viz.,
that faith cometh by hearing; but he denies the fact which was
implied in the statement of it, viz., that there was a part of the
Jewish nation who had not heard, i. e., who had not enjoyed the
opportunity to hear. So the sequel : but I reply : Have they
not heard ? AAAa Ae'yio . . . yKovaav ; Mevouvye, yes, verily ;
compounded of pev, ouv, and ye. Mevouv asserts, and ye' increases
the intensity of the assertion. In the py oiK before tjkovoov, the
py is the sign of interrogation, and ouk simply qualifies the verb ;
see New Test. Gramm. § 153. 5.
Their sound hath gone forth, etc., els irdaav . . . to pypara airuiv,
quoted from Ps. xix. 5, in the words of the Septuagint, which here
follows the Hebrew. 'O cjiBdyyos airuiv, in the original Psalm,
means the voice or sound of the works of nature, which show or
declare in all the earth that he who made them is God, and the
God of glory. The apostle seems to use the words in this place
simply as the vehicle of his own thoughts, as they were very con
venient and appropriate. The expressions Tracrav t^v y^i/ and
to. irepara t^s oucou//.e'vrjs, are common and figurative expressions

ROMANS X. 19. 363
to designate the idea of far and wide, what is unlimited in extent,
etc. As originally employed by the Psalmist, they may be taken
in their greatest latitude. As used by the apostle, they may be
taken in the like latitude so far as the Jews are concerned ; for it
is of them, and them only, that he is here particularly speaking.
(19) But 1 say, dXXd Xeyui, i. e., I reply again in reference to
the opportunity of the Jews to gain some knowledge of the gos
pel. Doth not Israel know? My 'lapayX ovk eyvui; What — is
not said, and has been matter of much controversy. To me,
however, it seems plain, that it is to be gathered from the subse
quent context ; if so, it is clear that the sentiment is : ' Doth not
Israel know (as I have before said, verses 11, 12), that the Gen
tiles are to be received as well as the Jews, and the Jews to be
cast off for unbelief ? ' The apostle now proceeds to quote pas
sages of the Old Testament, which show that the ancient prophets
have explicitly declared the same thing. Reiche construes the
phrase thus: 'Has not [God] loved or acknowledged Israel ? '
Comp. Amos iii. 2. Hos. viii. 5. Rom. xi. 2. But I cannot re
gard this as congruous with the context. Meyer, Tholuck, De
W ette and others, agree with the explanation above.
First, Moses saith, irpuiros Mcouotj? Ae'yei. Ilpon-os I understand
here as meaning first in point or order of time, like the Hebrew
¦jitEBO : comp. the Lex. under irpuiros- I will move you to jealousy
by that which is no nation, 1 will excite you to indignation by a
foolish people ; iyui . . . irapopyiui vpds ; i. e., I will make you
jealous, by receiving to favor those whom you regard as un
worthy of the name of the people (eBvos, iis), viz., the Gentiles ;
I will render you indignant, by receiving to favor & foolish people,
bas iis. The Hebrew baj designates one that is spiritually fool
ish, i. e., a wicked, unbelieving person, who contemns God. " The
fool ( baa ) hath said in his heart : There is no God." " Fools
( dbas )make a mock at sin." Consequently the epithet dcruWos
here designates a wicked or idolatrous people. The meaning of
the whole is : ' I will receive to my favor the heathen whom you
regard as despicable, and who are without God and without hope
in the world.' In Deut. xxxii. 21 (from which these words are
quoted), God complains of the Jews, that they had apostatized
from him and gone after idols, and thus provoked his jealousy
and indignation. Because they had so done, he declares that he
will, at some future period, provoke them, and excite their jeal
ousy, by receiving a heathen and idolatrous people in their stead.
It is not necessary to suppose that Moses (in Deut. xxxii. 21)
had in view the salvation of the Gentiles in go--pel times. It is
enough for the apostle's purpose, that the same principle is devel-
opedln the words of Moses, which is developed by the reception

364 ROMANS X. 20, 21.
of the Gentiles into the Christian church in his time. Now as the
Jews were jealous and angry because of this reception, so the
apostle might appeal to the declarations of Moses, as an exhibi
tion of the very same views and sentiments which he had been
teaching. (20) But Isaiah comes out boldly and says, 'Haaias Se . . .
Ae'yei. In diroroXpa, the otto, as often, augments the signification.
1 was found by those who sought me not, I manifested myself to
those who did not inquire after me, evpeByv .... iirepuirwai;
i. e., the idolatrous Gentiles, who did not seek after God, have,
through the gospel, been brought near to him, and he has, in
Christ, disclosed himself to those who were before in utter ignor
ance of him and made no inquiries for him. The passage is
quoted from Is. lxv. I,i3iapa sibb ins<Stt_] iibsjtz? sibb inurf!?. The
apostle follows the Seventy here in sense ; but has reversed the
order of the clauses. The more literal and exact shade of mean
ing in the Hebrew is : I am sought after [viz., as an object of re
ligious inquiry and worship] by those who have not [hitherto]
asked after me, 1 am found by those who did not seek for me.
Thus far the apostle quotes in respect to the reception of the
Gentiles ; but the rejection of the Jews for their unbelief; or at
least their unbelief itself, which implies their consequent rejec
tion, is now brought to view.
(21) But unto Israel he saith : All the day long have I stretched
out my hand to a disobedient and gainsaying people, irpbs Se . . .
livTiAeyovra. "OAjyv tt/v ypepav, Diin~ba continually, constantly, with
out intermission ; which implies long and persevering efibrts on
the part of God's messengers to the Jews, and peculiar hardness
of heart and blindness of mind on their part. To stretch out the
hands, is to address by way of inviting, beckoning, beseeching,
warning ; comp. Prov. i. 24. — 'ATrei^ouvra characterizes unbelief
in what is said by God's messengers ; avnAeyovra, contradiction,
or gainsaying.
Thus has the apostle shown once more, and in a way different
from that which he took in chap, iv., that the Gentiles stand on
an equal footing with the Jews, as to gospel privileges, and that
God may, in perfect consistency with his ancient promises and
declarations, cast off the Jews, when they persist in unbelief, and
receive believing Gentiles as his people in their stead. The re
pulsive nature of this doctrine to the feelings of his proud and
self-righteous countrymen, seems to be the reason why the apostle
recurs to it so often, and enforces it by such repeated appeals to
the Old Testament. L

ROMANS XI. 1. 365
CHAP. XI. 1—36.
_ The apostle having thus plainly asserted the rejection ofthe Jews, and the recep
tion ofthe Gentiles into their place as the people oi' God, now proceeds to suggest
various considerations which might serve to correct the wrong views that his coun
trymen would probably entertain in regard to the general declarations which he had
just made. The Jew would very naturally ask (as Paul suggests in ver. 1): "Is it
true, then, that God has actually cast his people away, to whom pertained tlie adop
tion and the glory and the covenant, and the promises ? Can this be consistent with
the numerous promises which he made to Abraham, and whieh he often confirmed
and repeated to his posterity * "
The apostle proceeds in this chapter to answer these questions. He shows in verses
1-5, that now, as formerly in times of the greatest declension, God lias still a rem
nant among his people who are true believers, i. c, belong to the spiritual seed of
Abraham. But this remnant are, as he has already maintained in chaps, viii. ix.,
those whom the election of God according to his purposes of grace has made the
subjects of his mercy, and who are not saved by their own merits ; while the rest are
given up to their own hardness of heart and blindness of mind, even as their own
Scriptures have expressly foretold, verses 6—10. Yet it will not always remain thus.
The whole of the nation will, at some future day, be brought within the pale of the
Christian church. Their present general unbelief is now the occasion of the gospel
being preached to the Gentiles, and of the increase of the Christian church among
them; so that even their rejection has been the occasion of blessings to others How
much more then is to be hoped, from their general return to God! verses 11 — 15.
This return must take place. The nation, from its origin, were consecrated to God,
and they must yet return to him; for although some of its branches were broken off
because of unbelief, aud others were grafted in to supply their place, yet in clue time
they will be again received. Tbe Gentiles, therefore, who have been grafted in, can
have no reason to indulge in pride and boasting on account of this. Nor ought they
to demean themselves loftily towai-ds the Jews, who were yet to be received back
to the divine favor, and fully restored as the people of God, vers. 16 — 27. Although
they are now enemies of the gospel, good comes to the Gentiles through this; aud
the promises made to their fathers of old are not forgotten, and will yet be fully
carried into execution, vers. 28, 29. Although now in a state of unbelief, they will
obtain mercy in the like manner as the Gentiles have obtained it who were once in
tlie same state, vers. SO, 31. For God has showed both Gentiles and the Jews, that
they were included in unbelief and justly subject to the condemning sentence of the
law ; and he has suffered them to come into such a state, that he might display, in
the more signal manner, his mercy toward them, ver. 32. The ways and judgments
of God in his proceedings with Jews and Gentiles, are beyond the reach of human
wisdom ; they are deep and unfathomable mysteries, which can be fully searched out
and known only by the Infinite Mmd. We can admire and adore, but never fathom
the depths thereof, vers. 33 — 35.
Is there not then, something more in these awful mysteries, than what those admit
or believe who strenuously reject the doctrine of election? On the ground which
they maintain, I do not see why the mind of the apostle should be so deeply affected
with the mysterious and unsearchable nature of the whole transaction. This is, in
deed, a very obvious remark ; but I must leave it to the reader, whet her it has not an
important bearing on the exegesis of chaps, viii. ix. xi., and some other parts of this
epistle. I cannot help thinking that Paul had something more in his mind, than
they have who read him in the manner stated — something different also from that
which they admit.
(1) Isay then, Ae'yco ouv, the words of an objector:* 'If this be
* Rather perhaps a false inference which might he made from what pre
cedes, and introduced here in order to be refuted.
31*

386 EOMANS XT. 2, 3.
true whicli you affirm, then must it not follow, that God has rejected
his chosen people ? ' His own people, rbv Xabv aurou, i. e., his own
peculiar people, the Jews. And here the objector means by
Aaov aurou, the whole of the nation, as the sequel, whicli exhibits
the answer, evidently shows.
Paul replies that an universal rejection of the Jews was not
meant to be affirmed by what he had said. He adduces himself
as an exception to such a rejection, and a proof that it was not
meant to be asserted by him. — Kai yap eya> k. t. X.,for I myself
or even I. The koI in this case qualifies iyui as an intensive par
ticle, which is best rendered as above. 'lapayXlrys, i- e., a des
cendant of Israel. 'Ek airepparos 'Afipadp is only a synonyme
with the preceding expression for the purpose of amplification,
or with particular reference to the same phrase which is often re
peated in the Old Testament. — $uAijs Beviapiv, so he describes
himself in Phil. iii. 5. It is merely a circumstance of par
ticularity in description, which serves to make it more impressive.
(2) God hath not cast away his people whom he foreknew, oiK
.... irpoeyvui, i. e., whom he before determined or decided should
be his people. In other words, he has not utterly rejected the
Jewish people, whom he from the first ordained to be his people.
See on irpoeyvui in chap. viii. 29, and compare ver. 29 below.
The sentiment plainly is such as is developed in chap. viii. 28, by
the ovs irpoeyvui a. r. X. ; and the choice of language here, seems
plainly to have reference to the words there employed. The sen
timent is, that the oi koto irpdBeaiv kAijtoi among the Jews are by
no means cast off.
Know ye not what the Scripture says in Elijah ? y oiK ....
y ypa<by, i. e., in that part or portion of it which is cited by the
name of Elijah, because it contains his history. The division of
the Hebrew Scriptures into chapters and verses was made by
Hugo de Cardinalis in the twelfth century ; and of the New Tes
tament, by the famous printer and editor, Robert Stephens. Of
course, reference to the Scriptures in ancient times was, as above,
in a very different way from that now practised. So the Rabbins
cite, in the Mishna ; and so the Greek authors were accustomed
to cite Homer ; e. g., iv t<3 tuiv veuiv KaraXoyui, in ike catalogue of
the ships; comp. Mark xii. 26, eVi tov /3drov, i. e., in the passage
which gives an account of the burning bush. The y is the mere
sign of interrogation. 'Os, when ; so it often signifies. 'Evruy-
xdvei .... KaTa, means to plead against, to make intercession
against ; as evruy^aveiv .... virep means to intercede for.
(3) Kupic .... pov, cited from 1 K. xix. 10, ad sensum and
with contractions. The Hebrew text runs thus: "And he
[Elijah] said, lam very jealous for Jehovah, the God of hosts;

ROMANS IX. 4, 5. 367
for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, they have
destroyed thine altars, and killed thy prophets ; and I only am
left, and they seek my life to take it away." The prophet com
plains, in these word,, of what he supposed to be the universal
apostasy of Israel. Kareo-Kai^av, lit. digged down ; for altars were
usually made with stones and earth or turf, so that digging down
characterizes the kind of effort necessary to destroy them — Tijv
ij/vxyv, natural or animated life ; often so in the Hebrew; comp.
Matt. ii. 20. To seek one's life, i. e., to seek to take away one's
life, is a Hebraism.
(4) Divine response, xp-qpariapos, from xp^ari&o, to do public
business, to give public responses, etc. In the New Testament, it is
applied only to the response or warning of the true God. —
'Epavrid, Dativus commodi, for myself, i. e., for my service. —
'ETTTaKicr^iAiou; dvSpos, the number seven is probably employed
here in the way of a round number, i. e., a definite instead of an
indefinite number. So the Romans were wont to use sexcenti ;
and in like manner 70 and 40 are frequently used in the Scrip
ture. The idea is : a very considerable number. Bowed the knee,
eKapxpav yow, a part of the religious service rendered to idols ;
the attitude is indicative of reverence and supplication. Baal
(bsa) was the name of the principal god among the Canaanites,
Carthaginians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. The Phenicians
called him ijiisj; (Adoni), and the Greeks 'ASovis. Ti} BaaA, with
the fem. article ry ; and so also in the Sept., in Hos. ii. 8. Jer. ii.
8. xi. 13. xix. 5. Zeph. i. 4, also Tobit i. .5. To explain the fem.
of the article (for Baal generally has the masc. article), Erasmus,
Beza, and Grotius, suppose that y elxuiv is understood, so that the
full expression would be rrj e'lKovi BaaA. Others suppose that
there was a female deity by the name of Baal, i. e., the moon ;
like i^bia and n=b« (Jer. xxxii. 35. xliv. 17, 18, 19, 25), which
were symbols of the sun and moon. But the objection to this is,
that, in Jer. xxxii. 35, y BaaA (fem.) is the same as 6 MoAo^
(masc). Otliers suppose that Baal was dvSpoyvvys, a hermaphro
dite divinity, aud so might take either 6 or y ; like the Latin
Deus Lunus and Dea Luna ; and this seems most probable, at
least the Seventy seem to have been of this opinion. The fem.
article may be applied in the way of contempt ; just as Moham
med (Koran Sur. LIII.) speaks with contempt of the heathen
Arabians, who had gods with fem. names ; and so in Arabic, the
name of an idol is God (in the fem.); and so the Rabbins call idol
gods, m'li'bsj;, gods (fem.).
(5) In tike manner, then, even at the . present time, there is a
remnant according to the election of grace, ovtuis koX .... yeyovev;
i. e., as in ancient times when it appeared to the prophet Elijah

3G3 EOMANS XI. C, 7.
as if apostasy was universal among his countrymen, there were
not a few sincere worshippers of the true God, so at the present
time, although the unbelief of the Jews appears to be nearly uni
versal, yet God has a people among them, viz., all such as he has
of his mercy chosen to everlasting life ; comp. viii. 28, seq. ix.
15, 16, 23, 27. The ouv introduces an inference from what pre
cedes. Outojs ouv means : ' Such then being the case,' or ' cir
cumstances being as I have now related.' — Kai qualifies eV t<S vvv
Kaipui, according to the version.. — A remnant, Xeippa, i. e. a small
number, a part which though considerable in itself' is small com
pared with another part. So here, the number of Jewish
believers, although then considerable and important, was small
compared with the whole number of unbelievers. Consequently
Xeippa may be used to designate it; comp. ix. 27.— -KaT' iKXoyrjv
xdpiros according to an election which is not made on the ground
of merit, but of mercy. God has not chosen Jewish believers
unto salvation, because their obedience first made them the
objects of his choice ; but he chose them because he had mercy
on them ; comp. the texts cited above from Rom. ix., and the
commentary on them.
(6) But if it be of grace, then it is not at all of works, eloe . . .
epyuiv ; i. e., if God's iKXoyrj, his choosing this Xeippa to salvation,
be gratuitous or. his part, it follows that it is not ef epyuiv, i. e.,
that itis not in any degree meritorious. — Otherwise grace would
be no longer grace, iirel f] . . . xapi's ; i. e., ii this were not so,
then it would be improper to speak of grace in our salvation ;
for if men are chosen on account of any merit or desert, then
grace is not the ground of their being chosen, but merit ; which
would contradict the very idea of grace. See Comm. on ix.
15, seq.
But if of works, then it is not at all of grace, otherwise work is no
more work, elSe . . . epyuiv ; the mere converse of the preceding
sentiment, and most probably a gloss from the margin. It is
omitted in Codices A., B., C, D., E., F., G., 47, and in the Cop
tic, Armenian, iEthiopic, Vulgate and Italic versions; also in
Chrysostom, Theodoret, Damascenus, Jerome, and generally in
the Latin Fathers, Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Griesbach, Tho
luck, Flatt, and others, regard it as spurious. At all events, it
adds nothing to the sentiment of the passage ; but is merely
the counterpart of the preceding sentiment.
(7) What then, n ovv; i. e., what is the sum and substance of
that which I have been saying? That which Israel sought after
he hath not obtained, o iir^yrei .... iireTvXe ; i. e., the justifica
tion which he sought to obtain by his own merit (comp. x. 3) he
has not obtained. Touto is a more approved reading than tou'tou ;

EOMANS XI. 7, 8. 369
although eViTuyxavo. almost always governs the genitive in Greek
it occasionally takes the Accusative. See Herm. ad Vi^er n'
760, and Kiihn. Gr. II. p. 26. ° ' i '
But the election, y Si iKXoyy, i. e., the elect, the abstract, (as
grammarians say) being put for the concrete, as is often the case,
e. g., Rom. ii. 26, 27, etc. The meaning is : ' Although the Jews,
who have sought justification by their own merit, have altogether
failed as to obtaining this end in this way ; yet those who are
called according to the gracious purpose of God (viii. 28), who
are justified by his mercy through Christ Je.Mis, have obtained
justification in a way which others rejected; and therefore they
have not failed in the accomplishment of their object.'
And the rest, ol Se Xoiiroi, i. e., the unbelieving part of the Jews,
those who did not belong to the iKXoyy — 'EiruipuiByaav, were
blinded. The word 7roipds is equivalent to Tv<bX6s ; and the verb
iTuipoui (in the active voice) means lo make blind, but in the pas
sive, to be blind, to become blind, etc. It is applied in a secondary
sense to the mind ; and so the apostle here employs it. By itt-elf
it indicates state or condition; but does not necessarily indicate
the cause or agent by which that state or condition is produced.
Thus oi Aoi7roi iwuipuiBijaav may mean merely, that the remainder
(the unbelieving part of the Jews) were in a state of blindness.
Still, it is capable of designating, and doubtless does here desig
nate the idea, that they were made blind by the agency of another,
i. e., God. If tliere be difficulty in admitting this sentiment,
there is no more than is contained in chap. ix. 17, 18 ; where see
Commentary. It should seem that the conclusion cannot be
avoided, by any candid philologist, that the text does both there.
and in this and the following verses, assert, that in some sense or
other the agency of God is concerned with the hardening of sin
ners. In what sense, I have endeavored there to answer in a
Scriptural manner. And especially in verse 8, is it possible to
deny that an agent is designated who is in some way or other con
cerned with the drbBaXpovs rov py /3Xeireiv, i. e., with the iruipuiais
of Israel, unless we do away by violence the most obvious sense
of the apostle's words. But the question whether it is asserted
that some agency on the part of God is concerned with all this,
and the question whether such an agency is concerned as makes
God the proper author of men's moral blindness and sins, and
interferes with the free agency and accountability of men for their
own actions, is a very different one. About the .latter the Bible
leaves us no room to doubt: see James i. 13, 14.
(8) KaBuis yeypairrai does not of necessity mean that what fol
lows is strictly a prediction. It is a clear case that nothing can
be decided from the 'formula of quotation ; for very different

370 EOMANS XI. 8.
formulas precede one and the same text, quoted for one and the
same purpose. Sameness of principle in the two cases which are
brought into the comparison, is here denoted by koBuis ; i- e., as in
ancient times God declares respecting Israel (Is. xxix. 10. Deut.
xxix. 4), that he gives them the spirit of slumber, blind eyes, and
deaf ears ; so now, the same thing is true respecting unbelievers
among the Jews ; for they are blinded, iiruipuiByaav.
God hath given them a slumbering spirit, or the spirit of deep
sleep, eSuiKev . . . Koravv$euis. The original Hebrew, "p: i3
i-ra^-ip. rm nini E5">bs , the Seventy have rendered thus : "Oti
ireirdriKev vpds Kvpios 'irvevpon Karavii^euis. But the apostle in
rendering ip3 , by eSuiKe, has translated ad sensum not ad verbum.
The Hebrew' designates the specific idea of pouring out on the
hardened Jews the spirit of profound sleep ; while Paul, dropping
the particular image which the Hebrew presents, retains only the
generic idea of communicating such a spirit to them. It is plain,
then, that in this case, as in many others, the apostle makes his
own translation de novo from the Hebrew. Eyes that see not, and
ears that hear not, unto this day, 6<jiBaXpovs .... ypepas. The
original Hebrew in Deut. xxix. 4 runs thus . " For Jehovah hath
not given you a heart to understand, nor eyes to see, nor ears to
hear, unto this day." If this be the passage whicli Paul had in
his mind, he quotes merely ad sensum. The Hebrew declares,
that ' God has not given Israel seeing eyes and hearing ears ;'
the apostle says, that 'he has given them eyes that see not, and
ears that hear not;' the passage in Hebrew is in the negative
form as to the verb, and in the affirmative as to the rest of the
sentence ; while Paul's declaration is in the affirmative form as
to the verb, and negative as to the rest of the sentence. Is the
sense the same in both ? To our ear this latter seems to indicate
more active interposition on the part of God ; but not so to the bib
lical writers, who, beyond all reasonable doubt, regarded these
expressions as equivalent. It would be easy to prove this from
a multitude of passages which assert agency on the part of God,
when at the very same time the wicked (to whom this agency
has respect) are represented as the cause of their own ruin, by
their own voluntary sins. Comp. what is said in chap. ix. 17, 18,
above. Dr. Knapp (in his New Testament) and some other critics,
suppose that Paul has quoted 6<fiBaXpovs k. ¦, . X. from Is. vi. 10,
and that euis rrjs ayixepov ypepas belongs not to the quotation, but
contains the apostle's own words ; and so Dr. Knapp has marked
it in his Testament, placing the closing member of tiie parenthesis
which includes the quotation, after pit] anoveiv, thus joining euis Tf/s
arjpepov ypepas with oi Aoittoi hrupu'iByaav. ' But this attributes an

ROMANS XI. 9, 10. 371
idiom to Paul, which he seems to have made a very unfrequent
use of. 'Ecus rrjs aypepov ypepas belongs to the Old Testament, to
writers who chronicled earlier events and spoke of eailier times,
which they occasionally compared with present events and times.
Moses could well make use of the expression, in Deut. xxix. 4 ;
Paul could use it, for he has once employed it (2 Cor. iii. 15 ecus
aypepov), where it is exactly the Expression which he there
needed. But it is difficult to make it probable that these words
are his in Rom. xi. 8.
(9) David also says, koI AauiS Ae'yei; i. e., nor are these the
only passages of Scripture which speak the same sentiment, or
develop tbe same principle. David, your most renowned king,
and the most favorite of all your sacred poets, also utters senti
ments still more severe. Let their table be a snare to take them,
and an occasion of falling, and a recompense to them, yevyBqno
.... aurois, i. e., let their season of enjoyment and refreshment,
when they expect quietude and pleasure, aud feel themselves to
be safe, prove to be a season of chastisement and of danger and
of righteous retribution. The quotation is from Ps. lxix. 23 (22).
The Hebrew, according to its present vowels, runs thus : " Let
their table before them be a snare ; yea, a gin to those who feel
themselves to be secure." The Septuagint (Ps. lxix, 22) has
y rpdiretfl. airuiv ivuimov airuiv els irayiSa Kai els dvrairdSoaiv koi els
aKavSaXov; so that tbe apostle seems to have made a version
so.newhat changing the order, and also exchanging some of the
words for others (putting dvrairdSopa for dvra7rdSoo-iv), and leav
ing out ivuiiriov airuiv. He has also added els Bypov, in order,
apparently, to. give the sense of eis 7rayi'Sa; for eis Bypov means
that they may be taken, or that they may be destroyed, as this would
follow their being taken. As to eis dvTa7rd8o/aa (Sept. eis dvraird
Soaiv), it is clear that the apostle and the Seventy read the pres
ent Hebrew (Diaibqb) with different vowels from those now em
ployed, i. e., they read it traibdb or fmhtib , for a recompense.
To this rendering and pointing no good objection can be made,
as the Hebrew is clearly capable of it. The present Hebrew
conveys a different sense. For a net or gin, eis o-KavSaAov, bpvib.
But the Seventy have frequently rendered this word by oW-
SaAov, which means anything whereby another stumbles and
falls to his harm. The generic idea of O^ia is retained in
aKavSaXov. (10) Let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and
their backs always be bowed down, aKonaByruiaov . . . ai'ryKap<j/ov ;
i. e., let them be in a defenceless and helpless state, bowed down
with troubles and infirmities, and groping in the darkness of
affliction. Instead of tov vIIitov o'vtCiv Sia-avrbs avyKopfov (faul

372 EOMANS XI. 10, 11.
and the Septuagint), the Hebrew is isart Tvatn S^Mia , make
ihou their loins continually to shake. Here again the apostle has
taken the passage ad sensum. This expression, in Hebrew, des
ignates the tossing of the body hither and thither on account of
distress. In the hke sense is bowing down the back ahvays to be
taken. a
These repeated instances show that the apostle was more solic
itous about the general sense and object of the Old Testament
passages than he was about the costume or diction of them ; a
principle which he, guided as he was, was not in danger of abus
ing; one also which may be used to good purpose by us, in
sacred criticism, but which needs to be very closely watched in
order to guard it against abuse.
As to the general sentiment of this passage from Ps. lxix. 23,
24, it is undoubtedly to be classed with the somewhat numerous
passages in the Psalms which contain the like imprecations.
Great difficulty is found in such passages by many minds, inas
much as they seem to be so opposed to the tenor of those pas
sages in the New Testament which require us " to love our
enemies, to bless those who curse us, to pray for those who
despitefully use and persecute us." If indeed these passages in
the Psalms are to be viewed as the mere utterance oi private and
personal wishes and feelings, it would be utterly impossible to
reconcile them with the spirit of the gospel. David, as king and
magistrate, might certainly wish the punishment of the seditious
and rebellious: nay, it would be an imperious duty for him to
punish them. Now was it lawful for him to pray that the same
thing might be done, which it was his duty to do ? Could he not
express desires of this nature without the spirit of revenge ? Can
not we wish the robber and the assassin to be apprehended and
punished, yea with capital punishment, and this without being
actuated by a spirit of vengeance and a thirst for blood ? No
reasonable man can deny that such wishes are not only consistent
with benevolence, but prompted by it.
The apostle, in making this quotation, need not be supposed to
intend anything more, than to produce an instance from the
Psalms where the same principle is developed as is contained in
the assertions which he had made ; i. e., the ancient Scriptures
speak of a part of Israel as blind and deaf, as in deep distress
and under heavy punishment because of their unbelief and dis
obedience. What happened in ancient times may take place
again ; it has in fact happened at the present time.
^(11) I say, then, hare they stumbled so as to fall down? Xeyui
ovv . . . ireauiai; Language of the objector, who inquires with
solicitude, whether such passages as Paul has quoted can be

EOMANS IX. 12, 13. 373
meant to designate the final casting off of the Jews. Ouv refers
to what had been said in the preceding context. The form of
the question : py hrraiaav k. r. A., is suggested by the use of the
word o-KavSaAov in the quotation above.
So that they may fall down, 'iva ireauiai, i. e., have the Jews stum
bled so that there is no recovery for them, so that they must fall
entirely down ? The question being asked by py, implies that
he who puts it expects an answer in the negative.
Not at all ; py yevoiro, i. e., you must not understand me as at
all maintaining their final and utter rejection and ruin. Fearful
as their doom is, there are many circumstances respecting it
which are worthy of the highest consideration. For in fact this
very lapse of theirs, i. e., their unbelief and rejection of the
gospel, has been- the direct occasion of its being preached to the
Gentiles; comp. Matt. xxi. 43. viii. 11, 12. xxii. 1 — 14. — Ilap-
oTTTuipori, lapse, offence, stumbling, in a moral sense. — 'S.unypia,
the blessings of the gospel, the salvation which it proffers.
To provoke them to jealousy, els to irapa£yXuiaai airovs, i. e., to
excite the Jews to be jealous on account of the privileges and
favors bestowed on the Gentiles through their belief, and to seek
after the same blessings for themselves.
(12) Now if their lapse has been the riches of the world, and
their degradation the riches of the Gentiles, el 8k ... . eBvuiv. Ae
"orationi continuandie inservit." — IxAouros Koapov, if their lapse
has been the occasion of spiritual riches to the world, i. e., of
spiritual blessings in abundance. — Their diminution, yrrypo
airuiv, i. e., their degradation, rejection, punishment, has occa- -
sioned abundance of spiritual blessings to the Gentiles. How
much more their fulness, vdaia paXXov .... airuiv! TLXyjiuipo,
is here the antithesis of yrrypa ; and of course it signifies resto
ration to favor, a copiousness of blessings and good things, such
as would follow a restoration. The sentiment of the whole is :
" If now the degradation and punishment of the Jews for their
unbelief has been the occasion of rich and numerous blessings
to the Gentiles, then surely their restoration to favor, their full
reception, will redound still more to the spiritual riches of the
world." Some understand yrrypa and irXypuipa in a moral sense,
i. e., their depraved and criminal state, and their restored and justi
fied state ; but the construction given above is more simple and
obvious ; comp. verse 15, from which it is plain that yrrypo here
= diroftoXy, casting off, and irXypuipa (the antithesis of yrrypa)
= irpoaXy-fis, the reception to favor.
(13) For I say this to you G, ntiles, vpiv ydp . . . eBveai. Tap
makes some difficulty here; and it is omitted in A., B., several Co
dices minusc, Syr., Copt. Damasc, which supply Se, and thus make
82

374 EOMANS XI. 14, 15
the sense facile. But it is admissible. The simplest connection
of it seems to be an implied sentiment, viz., " the irXypuipa of the
Jews will yet be accomplished ; for I speak to you Gentiles in
such a way that I may stir up the Jews and contribute to their
salvation." In this case Xeyui is connected in sense with ei.7rcos in
ver. 14, and the intervening matter is considered as in a parenthe
sis. This is not the usual, but it seems to me the more easy and
natural mode of exegesis. The apostle is very careful, as is evi
dent from this, while he fully represents the unbelief and diro-
/3uXy of the Jews, not to give occasion to boasting or exultation
on tiie part of the Gentiles.
Inasm.uchas lam indeed an apost'e of the Gen'iles, I do honor
to n. y office, i(j> iiaov pev .... Sot'a£u>. Mev simplex, i. e., without
the usual Se or some equivalent particle following it. But it is
omitted in D. E. F. G. 80. al. 5. Clar. Boern., Ambrosiaster; prob
ably because no 8e follows. Where pev is simplex, it = the Latin
quidem, equidem, videlicet ; but oftentimes cannot be rendered at
all into English, nor conveniently into Latin. It may be called
pev explicantis ; though it also appears to have an affirmative
and concessive force. The supposition of the writer who thus
employs it is, that what he says will of course be conceded.
Off e ofthe ministry, Aiokoviov, i. e., the apostolic office of Paul.
Ao£a£(i_i, magni cestimo, honoro, honore officio.
(14) Ifly any means 1 may excite to jealousy some of my kins
men after the flesh, and save some of them, eliruis . . . . ef airuiv.
Ei7rais, si fieri potest, si qua ratione. — Ti)v adpKa, my flesh, i. e.,
my relatives, oi cruyyeveis koto adpKa, comp. Rom. ix. o. So the
Hebrew loa often means; e. g., Gen xxix. 14. Judg. ix. 2.
2 Sam. v. l.'Gen. xxxvii. 27. Is. lviii. 7. The meaning of the
apostle in the whole passage is : "I extol the blessings of you
Gentiles, not to lift you up with pride, but in order to excite the
attention of the Jews to the distinguished favors which you en
joy, and which they have lost by their unbelief."
(15) For if the casting away of them be the reconciliation of
the world, what shall the reception of them be but life from the dead?
Ei ydp .... ex veKpuiv ; if the rejection of the Jews on account
of their unbelief, has been the occasion of reconciling many of
the Gentile world to God, what shall the reception of them
back to the divine favor be, but as it were a general [spiritual]
resurrection ? Tap marks the resuming of what was dropped at
verse 12 for the sake of further explanation. So Reiche, Meyer
and others. — KaraAAayr; is applied to the conciliation of the
heathen to God, who by their wicked works had before been
enemies to him and strangers to the covenant of his promise. 
Kdapov here, as often, stands for the heathen Gentile world.

EOMANS XI. 16. 375
Reception to favor, irpdaXyfis, i. e., admission to the family or
church of Christ.
Life from the d-ad, t,uiy iK veKpuiv some (most of the ancient com
mentators and some recent ones) have understood literally, i. e.,
as indicating the resurrection of the body ; meaning therebjf,
that when the Jews should be brought into the Christian church
as a body, the end of time would soon follow. But the time of
the reign of Christ on earth as described in the Apocalypse, and
the interval of wickedness that will succeed, seem to forbid this
exegesis ; it has no usus loquendi in its favor, for the proper
phrase would be dvacn-acris eK tuiv veKpuiv. It is true that we have
£<ovTes eK veKpuiv in Rom. vi. 13 ; but then it is plainly figurative,
*". e., it signifies a moral resurrection. I regard £uiy iK veKpuiv,
then, as a tropical expression, used in a kind of proverbial way,
or as a figure of speech designating something great, wonderful,
surprising, like to what a general resurrection of the dead would
be. So Turretin : Quid erit admissio eorum, nisi quoddam genus
resurrectionis ; altogether to the purpose. So the Arabians
speak proverbially of great agitations and changes, as of a resur
rection. See example in Tholuck's Commentary. In Ezek.
xxxvii. 1 — 14, too, we have the moral renovation of the Jews
designated at full length by the similitude of a resurrection ; and
in all probability the apostle had this passage in his mind ; so
that t,uxq iK veKpuiv here is equivalent to saying: "What .shall
such a irpoaXyfis oi the Jews be, but a general resurrection of
them, such as Ezekiel has described, i. e., a great, general, and
wonderful conversion of them to Christianity ! "
( 1 G) If, moreover, the first fruits were holy, so shall the mass
le, elSe . . . . ebvpapa. 'Airapxy, like the Hebrew niqjn , means
the firstlings or first-fruits oi any kind which were offered to
God. The Hebrews called the firstlings of fruit and grain, in
their natural state Di"W2a fPEMO ; the firstlings of grain, etc.,
in a prepared state, tiiantl nuiisn. But the particular
name given to the firstlings of dough or kneaded meal, was
nioiiSJ rriasn, Num. xv. 20, where the Septuagint renders,
dwapxy cbvpdparos ; which is the same expression as occurs
in the passage before us, cpvpdparos being implied after
dirapxrj. The comparison here lies between the small part
of the mass of dough, which was taken as the rrmTiQ mttO
and offered up to God, and the greater part or mass of it which
was left for the use of him who made the offering. After the
rniSXl was offered, the whole mass became sanctified to lawful
use, i.e., was set apart for this purpose and consecrated to it. In
like manner, the apostle would here say, is the whole mass of
the Jewish nation yet to be set apart for God and consecrated to

376 EOMANS XI. 17.
him ? The d ir a p x V °f tnis nation, i. e., the ancient patriarchs
and fathers of it (comp. ver. 28), were set apart for God in a
peculiar manner ; and consequently the mass of their descend
ants are yet to be consecrated to him. The whole is illustration,
however, rather than argument.
And if the root is holy, so are the branches, Kai ei . . . oi kAcuSoi.
The same idea is here expressed as in the former clause. A root
bears some such proportion to the branches oi a tree, as ihe first-
fruits did to the whole mass of bread. So here, the root repre
sents the fathers (ver. 28), and the kAiiSoi their descendants. —
The word ayios in both cases means consecrated to God, devoted
to God, set apart for God, or set apart, consecrated to God, devo
ted to God, set apart for God, or set apart, consecrated, viz., for
the service of God. But it should be noted, that the apostle
does not design to say, that the ejivpapa and the kAoSoi are holy,
i. e., that they were so when he was writing. He predicts only
that tliey will be so at some future period.
(17) But if some ofthe branches were broken off, el Se 
i^enXdaByaav, i. v., if now some of the natural descendants of the
ancient fathers have been cast off, because of unbelief (ver. 20).
Ae may be construed here as continuative, jam, German nun ;
but the distinctive sense seems to be the more facile one. And
thou being a wild olive, wert grafted in their stead, and made
partaker of the root and fatness of the olive, av Se 
eyeVou. The dpyieXaios, it is said, was often grafted into the fruit
ful one when it began to decay, and thus not only brought forth
fruit, but caused the decaying olive to revive and flourish. This
fact is denied by Glockler and Reiche, but it is substantiated by
Columella (de Re Rust, V. 9) and Palladius (de Insit. XIV. 53),
and also by several modern travellers. According to the usual
course of nature among us, the fruit will be according to the
original nature of the graft, and not according to the stock.
How far this is actually the case in respect to olive-trees, seems not
to be yet satisfactorily made out. Be the fact however as it may,
it will not change the meaning ofthe apostle's supposition. The
image which he here employs is a very vivid one. The Gentiles
had been grafted in upon the Jewish Church, and liad caused this
decayed tree to revive and flourish. But still the apostle means
to hold in check any exultation of the Gentiles on account of
this. He reminds them, that after all they are not the stock but
only grafts ; that the root and fatness of the good olive had
been transferred to them, only because they have been grafted
into it. 'Ev auTois seems to be used in a local way, viz., in the
place of them.
All this shows, moreover, that in the apostle's view, there has

EOMANS XI. 18 — 20. 377
in reality been but one church ; the ancient Jewish one being
only the foundation, the Christian one the superstructure and
completion of the building ; a sentiment which accords through
out with the representations in the epistle to the Hebrews,
where only a change in rites and forms is argued, not a change
of the spiritual and essential nature of the church.
(18) Exult not over the branches, py kotokovxui tuiv kAouW ; i. e.,
exult not that the Jewish branches have been broken off, and that
thou hast been engrafted in their stead. KaraKauxao/mi means
to exult in one's own advantages or pre-eminence, in such a man-
mer as to look down with contempt on others who do not possess
them. But if thou dost exult, thou dost not support the root, but
the root thee, el Se KaraKavxdaai . . . . ae; i. e., if thou art so in
considerate and wanting in humility as to exult, there is no
ground for such exultation ; for after all, the Jewish church is the
stock on which the Christian has been engrafted : it is the root
from which the tree with its branches have sprung ; and as thou
art only a branch, thou canst not boast as if thou wert the root.
(19) Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off, that I
might be grafted in : epeis ouv .... iyKevrpiaBui ; i. e., per
haps thou wilt reply : ' Tliere is at least some ground for exulta
tion, because the branches were broken off in order to make room
for me to be grafted in ; which proves that I was considered as of
more importance than the branches. — KAaSoi has the article oi in
many copies ; but A., C, E., 3., 7., 37., 46., 47., 54., Chrysos
tom, and Damascenus omit it; and so Dr. Knapp. If inserted,
it would designate the specific branches before mentioned ; if omit
ted, then KAdSoi will designate branches, some branches, in an in
definite way.
(20) Be it so, they were broken off by reason of unbelief, and
thou retainest thy standing by faith : koXSis .... earyKas, i. e., be
it as thou hast said, viz., that the branches were broken off so that
thou mightest be grafted in, yet the original ground or moving
cause of their being broken off was the unbelief of the Jews ;
and thou retainest thy present condition only on the ground of
faith or belief in Christ. Shouldest thou deny him, as the Jews
have done, thou wouldest also be broken off in like manner. —
KaAios bene, approves of the sentiment which had just been ut
tered in some respect or other, but it does not necessarily approve
of it in the full extent in which the speaker himself might have
done. Here koXuis partially concedes the sentiment just expres
sed, i. e., it concedes that the branches were broken off so that the
wild olive might be grafted in, still it is asserted that the prompting
cause of their being broken off, was not merely the desire of
grafting in new ones, but their unbelief d-n-icrn'a. The Gentile, is
32*

378 EOMANS XI. 21,2.
also reminded that he retains his present place and standing on
the very same condition as that on which the Jews held theirs, viz.,
on condition of faith or belief, av Se ry iriarei earyKos. The Per
fect of 'iarqpi has a neuter sense, viz., to stand, and is used with
present significance. Be not high-minded, but fear, yaij . . . .
eboftov ; i. e., carry yourself not haughtily as it respects the Jews
who have been broken off; or rather, do not think too highly of
your elevation to favor, but demean yourself as a humble believer,
and one who has need to be continually on his guard, and to fear
lest he may fall through unbelief and be broken off.
(21) For if God did not spare the natural tranches, then [fear]
lest he will not spare thee, el ydp .... ebeiaerai; i.e., if God did
not refrain from rejecting the Jews, when they became unbelievers,
then surely he will not refrain from rejecting thee, in the like cir
cumstances. The ydp in this case introduces a cause or reason
why the Gentile should fear. — Kara ebvaiv kXoSuiv means the
branches which naturally belonged to the original stock, i. e., the
Jews, the natural descendants of the partriarchs to whom the
promises of God were made. Before pyiruis the verb cboplov is
of course to be understood. Instead of ebeiaerai some copies read
ebeiayrai (Subj.); and after verbs oi fearing (iorebo(3ov is here im
plied) the Subj. is the usual mood. It is also the usual mood
after the particle py. But in cases where it is supposed a thing
actually exists or will exist, the Indie mood is employed to indi
cate this. Here evidently the apostle believes that God would
not spare Gentile unbelievers ; and so the Indie, is the preferable
mood; see N. Test. Gramm. §152. 4. Note 1.
(22) Behold, then, the kindness and the severity of God,lSe ovv
. . . ©eou ; i. e., consider, on the one hand, the distinguished
kindness whicli God has manifested toward thee who believest ;
and on the other, the strict regard to justice and truth which he
exhibits, in the punishment of the unbelieving Jew*. So the se
quel of the vei"-e ; severity toward those who have fallen away ; but
kindness tcward thee, provided thou dost, maintain a stale of ineg-
rity ; otherwise < v, n thou shalt be cut off, iirl pev . . . eKicoiryay.
'Eov iiripeivys rrj xpgaTOTyrimaj be rendered, if thou dost continue
in a state of favor ; so Tholuck and others ; and so in the trans
lation. But we may attach an intransitive sense to xPrt0~!'oryn ;
for the phrase may be taken as an antithesis to iinpelvuiai rrj
diriaria in the following verse, so that xpw™'™?™ may here desig
nate the state or qualification of the individual concerned, probiy,
uprightness, and not the goodness of God toward him. Cf. this
use of xp-nvTorqs, hjsns, in the Septuagint, Ps. xiii. 1, 3 (xiv. 1,
3). xxxvi. 3 cxviii. 56 (cxix. 66). The former sense, however,
is to be preferred.

EOMANS XI. 23 — 25. 379
(23) The present rejection of tlie unbelieving Jews is by no
means final and exclusive. And they also, unless they persevere in
unbelief, sliall be grafted in ; fir God is able again ti graft ihem
in, koI iKeivoi be . ... auTOus. That is : ' Inasmuch as unbelief
was the ground of their rejection, so, when they shall abandon
this and become believers, they will be again received to favor ;
for God is able to bring them back to his favor.' He speaks here
only of what can be done ; but in ver 24 seq., he speaks of what
will be done. — Kai eKavoi Se, and they also ; or, if any one pre
fers, but even they.
(24) That the Jews will le attain received to favor, the apostle
now proceeds to show. For if thou wert cut off from the wild
olive which was naturally wild, and wert grafted into the good olive
which wjs contrary to thy nature, el ydp . . . KoXXieXaiov ; i. e.,
if thou wert introduced into a state of favor with God, from a
state of enmity which was in all respects foreign to a state of fa
vor. How much more shall the natural [branches] be grafted into
their own olive ? Tloaui paXXov . . . iXaia. Argumentum a
minori ad majus ; viz., if God had mercy on Gentiles, who were
out-casts from his favor and strangers to the covenant of his
promise, shall he not have mercy on the people whom he has al
ways distinguished as being peculiarly his own, by the bestow
ment of many important, privileges and advantages upon them ?
Comp. Rom. ix. 1 — 5. The yap in this verse introduces a sen
timent co-ordinate with that which follows ydp in the preceding
veive. (25) The apostle now proceeds more directly to assert the
future reception of the Jews. For 1 would not have you ignorant,
brethren, of this mystery, oi ydp . . . rovro. Tap introduces a
clause which is designed further to illustrate and confirm the as
sertion in ver 24, viz., that the Jews would again be grafted in.
Tlie form of expression, I would not have you ignorant, is a
peiuiais,=I am desirous that you should know. Mvarypiov denotes
anything which is hidden, concealed, unknown. The fact that the
Jews would be converted, must have been unknown to human
wisdom. It was against all appearances and probabilities at that
time. Lest ye should be wise in your own conceit, iva py . . .
ebpdvipoi ; i. e., lest you should be puffed up with a view of your
own importance I am going to tell you more plainly still, that you
are not the exclusive objects of God's favor. That blindness has
come upon Israel in part, until the fulness of the Gentiles shall
come in, on iruipuiais . ¦ ¦ elaeXBy. As to irdpuiais, comp. verses
8, 10 above; comp. also 1 Thess. ii. 15, 16. — 'A™ pipovs, is a
qualifying expression to be joined with t<3 'lapayX ye'yovev, which
saves the proposition from being a universal one ; comp. verse3

380 EOMANS XI. 26.
1 — 5 above. Paul means to say, that ' Israel is indeed in part
blinded, and will continue to be so, until, etc., without designating
what proportion of them continues in unbelief. It is a softened
mode of expression, or (as rhetoricians say) per charientismum,
i. e., koto xdpiv.
The irXypuipa tuiv eBvuiv, I understand as meaning great multi
tudes or a great multitude, comp. John i. 16. Rom. xv. 29. Col. ii.
9. It cannot be denied that rXypuipa sometimes means fufilling,
completion, completing, i. q., irXypuiais ; e. g., Rom. xiii. 10, applied
to the law ; Gal. iv. 4. Eph. i. 10, applied to time. But such a
meaning would hardly be congruous in the present instance. The
fulfilling of a law, or of a limited time, is an ea^y and obvious
expression, because there is no obvious limit to which the filing
up or fulfilling is to extend ; but what the limit would be in
irXypuipa tuiv eBvuiv it would be difficult to answer. It accordingly
seems altogether more facile and congruous, to take irXypuipa in
the sense of copia, great numbers, multitudes. IIow great this
number must be, the apostle does not say ; much less that all the
Gentiles must first be converted to Christianity, before the Jews
can be brought into the pale of the church. Critics are not
wanting, who strenuously contend for the meaning of tdfality in
this case, and who aver that irXypuipa can mean nothing less. So
Reiche and Alford. But the usus loquendi of the word will not
support this allegation. The subject must therefore remain as
Paul has left it, i. e., indefinite as to the extent of Gentile con
versions before the time when the Jews will return. Of course
Christians are not debarred, by this view, from hope in laboring
and praying for the Jews at the present period, although as yet
but comparatively a small part of the Gentiles have been con
verted to the Christian faith. It is true, even now, that there is
a great multitude of Gentile converts. May we not hope that
the time is near at hand, when there will be a irXypuipa of them ?
(26) And so all Israel shall be saved, koI ovtui . . . auiByaeioi;
i. e., when the irXypuipa oi the Gentiles shall have been joined to
the Lord, then his ancient covenant people shall also be reclaimed.
Kai ovtui means and so, i. e., when it shall be so that the rXypuipa
of the Gentiles shall be brought in, then, etc. That Kai outoi,
maybe used" substantially in the same way as Kai Tore (and then),
see Actsvii. 8. xvii. 33. xx. 11. xxviii. 14 — lias here means all,
in opposition to the d™ pepovs of the preceding verse. But
whether this means strictly every individual, it would be difficult
indeed to determine. A deliverer shall come from Zion, and turn
away ungodliness from Jacob, i^ei iK . . . 'laKu'fl. This is
apparently a citation from Is. lix. 20, where the Hebrew runs
thus : "A deliverer for Zion shall come, and for those who for-

EOMANS XI. 27, 28 381
sake ungodliness in Jacob.'' The Septuagint reads eveKev Siojv,
instead of e« SiaV ; but in other respects it conforms to the quo
tation of the apostle ; which gives the general sense of the ori
ginal, i. e., deliverance for Zion is to be accomplished, and peni
tents of the house of Jacob are to be saved. It is a very striking
instance of free quotation as to the general sense of a passage,
while the particular costume of it is disregarded. That Isaiah, in
lix. 20, had respect to the salvation of gospel times, the con
text seems to me very clearly to indicate. But if he had respect
to temporal deliverance merely, tliere can be no difficulty in the
apostle's using the words as the vehicle of conveying his own
thoughts, -with regard to spiritual deliverance.
(27) Andthisis my covenant with them, koI avry .... Sia^Kij.
Now suppose that this is quoted from the next succeeding verse
in Isaiah, viz., lix. 21, as it agrees verbatim with the Septuagint
there. But here the question stops, according to this supposition,
and the next succeeding clause, orav debeXuipoi ras dpaprias airuiv,
is taken from Is. xxvii. 9, where the words stand in the midst of
a verse which has relation to the punishment of the Jews, and
their consequent moral reformation. I should therefore prefer
the supposition, that the apostle here quotes and abridges, Jer.
xxxi. 33, 34 (the same passage whieh is quoted at length in Heb.
viii. 8 — 12). There the words avry y Sio-^k?; pov occur in
verse 33; and inverse 31, Jehovah is represented as saying:
lAeios eaopai rois uSiKiais auTuiv, Kai tuiv dpapnuiv airuiv oi pvyaBui
en ; so that nothing is easier than to suppose that the apostle
quotes ad sensum these last passages, when he says defieXuipai ras
dpaprias airuiv. This last supposition is favored by the fact that
the whole passage in Jeremiah most evidently refers to a new dis
pensation, to gospel-times ; which would be altogether appropriate
to the apostle's purpose, for the very point he is laboring to estab
lish, is, that there will be a general conversion of the Jews to the
Christian religion.
(28) This alienation of the Jews, although an evil, exceedingly
great in itself, has been overruled for the accomplishment of very
important purposes in respect to the salvation of the Gentiles.
In respect to ihe gospel, they have become enemies on your account,
koto pev .... vpds ; i. e., they have become ixBpol tov ©eou, have
apostatized from him, or have been rejected by him, and are no
longer treated as his friends. That ©eou is implied after ixBpoi,
(and not eiayyeXlov, nor pov as Theodoret, Luther, Grotius, Cam
eron, Baumgarten, and others, have supposed), is clear, by com
paring with ixBpoi its antithesis dyoiryroi; with which it is clear
that ®eov is implied. On your account, Si vpds, i. e., to your ad
vantage. In other words, the rejection of the gospel by the Jews

382 EOMANS XI. 29.
has been the occasion of its being more widely diffused among the
Gentiles ; so that, in this respect, the loss of the Jews has been
the gain of the Gentiles. But in respect to the election, they are
beloved for their fathers' sake, Kara Se .... irarepas; i.e., in so
far as God chooses men to salvation Kara ryv irpdBeaiv avrov (viii.
28) and without being moved thereto by any merit on their part
(xi. 5, 6), he will have special regard to the Jews, because ofthe
many and precious promises which he made to their fathers.
Some, as Tholuck, find here only an election to external privileges.
But that the point in question is not the external privileges of
Christianity merely, but the spiritual blessings of the gospel
seems to me impossible to doubt, unless one is led to do so by
otlier considerations than those of simple exegesis.
The apostle appears plainly to aver, that although God has
mercy on whom he will have mercy (ix. 18); and although men
do not become the heirs of eternal life by any merits of their
own, but merely by the good pleasure of his grace (xi. 5, 6); yet
in bestowing that grace, he may have regard to his promises
made in ancient days to the distinguished patriarchs of the Jew
ish nation ; he may have regard to his original design that the
seed of Abraham by faith, and the seed which also were lineally
descended from him, should be " as the stars of heaven for multi
tude." That salvation is entirely of free grace and not of merit,
of course leaves it open for the sovereign Lord of all to choose
the objects of his mercy where and when he pleases. That he
always does this with good and adequate reason, yea the best of
reasons, his own infinite wisdom and goodness are a sure and per
fect pledge. But that men are always acquainted with these
reasons, or that he has revealed them, is not asserted, and is not
capable of being proved.
(29) God will not disappoint the hopes which he has excited,
nor violate the promises whicli he has made. The blessings
which he promised to bestow, and the calling of Abraham's
posterity to be his spiritual seed, will surely not fail. For the
gifts and calling of God he will not repent of; lit. are not the sub
jects of repentance, dperapeXyra .... ©eou. The meaning is,
that God will never repent of the promises which he made to the
fathers, and therefore never change his purpose in regard to the
bestowment of spiritual blessings upon their offspring. The yap
here introduces the reason why the Jews are still dyairyToi. Here
again Tholuck urged by the fear of gratia irresislibilis construes
i<Xyais of the external calling of the Jews. But the reader is
desired merely to turn back and compare viii. 28 — 30 with this
whole passage, and also verses 5 — 7 above. No other answer
need be given to the objection against the sense here maintained.

ROMANS XI. 30 — 32. 383
Above all, when one compares the sequel, verses 30 — 36, with
verses 28, 29, can he constrain himself to believe, that external
privileges only are here the subject of the apostle's discussion ?
Could these excite in him such wonder, admiration, and gratitude,
as he evidently expresses in verses 33 — 36 ? And is this the
obtaining of mercy, of which verse 30 speaks ? Let every un
prejudiced reader examine and judge !
(30) For as you were formerly disobedient to God, but have
now obtained mercy through their unbelief "Qairep ydp 
direiBeia. This refers to the former heathenish and unbelieving
state of the Gentiles, and to the fact that the Gospel was
preached to them, and they became believers in consequence of
the Jews liaving rejected it, in the sense before explained. Tap
introduces a clause added for the sake of confirming the preced
ing declaration.
(31) So they too have now become disobedient that they also
may obtain mercy through the mercy shown to you, ovtui koI . . .
iXeyBuiai. Here are two cases presented, parallel in some res
pects, but differing in others. (1) The Jews reject the gospel,
and occasion its being preached to the Gentiles, who thus become
believers. (2) The Gentiles, by the blessing bestowed on them
in consequence of their faith, provoke the Jews to jealousy, and
occasion their seeking to be restored to their former place as the
people of God ; comp. verses 13, 14. The parallelism consists
in this, viz., that each part}' occasions the blessings of salvation
to come to the other, i. e., each is (dcboppeTiKuis) the cause of sal
vation to the other. The difference is, that the Jews give occa
sion to this by their unbelief, but the Gentiles by their belief,
which provokes the Jews to jealousy, and leads them to seek
after the privileges of the gospel. May the time speedily come,
when the example of Christians will have a better tendency
to excite such a jealousy among the Jews than it has ever yet
done !
The position of iva here is peculiar. We should expect to
find it before ™ vperepui; but comp. 1 Cor. ix. 15. 2 Cor. ii. 4.
Gal. ii. 10.
(32) For God hath included all in unbelief, so that he might
have mercy on all, avveKXeiae .... iXerjay; i. e., God hath left
both Jew and Gentile to fall into unbelief or disobedience, in
order that the true nature of sin might fully appear, and that he
might thus magnify the riches of his grace, in pardoning multi
plied and aggravated transgressions; comp. Rom. v. 20, 21,
where the same general sentiment is developed. The fathers in
speaking of this subject compare sin to a fever, which before it
reaches a certain height, does not so develop itself that the

384 BOMANS XI. 3 3.
physician applies its appropriate remedy. They also compare
it to a tree, which is permitted to grow up to full height, and to
spread forth all its branches and leaves, before it is felled. So
when sin had reached its acme, the Redeemer appeared and
struck the mortal blow. The ydp introduces an additional reason
to show that God will have mercy on all.
AvveKXeiae seems to be the best illustrated by a reference to the
Hebrew 113 "iiscn , bx "PSDH, b "PSOn all of which (from ISO) mean
to deliver over to, to give up to the power of. — The whole verse,
and also chap. v. 20, 21, seems plainly to teach, that God had a
special purpose to answer in giving man over to the power or
dominion of sin and unbelief, viz., to expose the " exceeding
sinfulness of sin," and to magnify the riches of his pardoning
mercy. But if any insist that o-uveKAeicre, is to be taken in a
more active sense, they may compare it with Rom. v. 20, aud
also with ix. 18 : aKXypvvei. Still such a sense does not seem to
be necessary here.
(33) Here then, to say the least, is some deep and mysterious
proceeding on the part of God, which the human mind cannot
fathom, and which it should wonder at and adore. 0 the bound
less riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! *Q
/3dBos ¦ . . ®eoi>. TLXovtov literally means riches, but here, abun
dance. — 2o<£i'as, the wisdom of God, viz., the wisdom displayed in
thus making the unbelief of the Jews subservient to the purpose
of bringing salvation to the Gentiles, and also in finally bringing
the Jews back to their filial relation, through the mercy granted
to the Gentiles, rvojo-ews, boundless knowledge ; for what less
than Omniscience could foresee the effects to be thus produced,
the good effects that would flow from present and apparent evil ?
Tholuck refers the whole simply to divine compassion, and says
that " the words are contra decretum absolutum of Augustine."
This may indeed be true, if Augustine meant what Tholuck
supposes he did — fatality. This excellent critic seems to find
frequent matter of difficulty in the assertions of Paul here ; so
strongly is he exercised with the fear of the decretum absolutum
of Augustine and Calvin.
How unsearchable are his proceedings, and his ways past find
ing out ! uis ¦ ¦ . bSol airov. Understanding all this as of course
having a reference to the preceding declarations of the apostle,
we must interpret it as meaning : " How entirely above our com
prehension, that God should accomplish such ends by such
means," viz. the salvation of the Gentiles in such a way,
and then that of the Jews ! — Kpipara seems plainly to mean
like the Hebrew Diasda , ordinance, arrangement, proceed
ing : or rather decision, counsel, determination. Here it is

EOMANS XI. 34 — 36. 385
for substance a synonyme with 6S01, which evidently has tho
like sense. The word 6S01 which literally means way or track
that one makes in going, gives occasion to the adjunctive dve|exvi-
acrroi, whose footsteps cannot be traced, i. e., unsearchable, vice non
vestiganda. What ean be plainer, now, than that the declaration
in verse 32 gives the immediate occasion to the exclamation in verse
33 ? But if this be so, then avveKXeiae contributes its share to
excite the apostle's feeling, as well as iXerjay. Tholuck admits
only the latter.
(34) For who hath known the mind cf the Lord, or who hath
been his counsellor? ris ydp . . . iyivero. Tap is placed here
before a clause added in order to confirm the assertion, that the
ways of God are unsearchable. The verse is a quotation from
Is. xl. 13, ad sensum, and nearly in the words ofthe Seventy. The
object is, to challenge the wisdom of created beings ; for the call
is made on them to show, if there be any such case, wherein any
of them has contributed anything to enlighten or to guide the
divine counsels. The question implies strong negation.
(35) Or who hath first given him anything, and it will be re
paid ? y tis .... aur<3. The sentiment of this verse may be
found in the Hebrew of Job xli. 3 (11), Dbaxi laaiiipn ia , who
hath done me any service, that I may recompense him. This
the apostle has changed to the third person, instead of the first,
so as to make it congruous with the preceding quotation. The
Septuagint, "abit in omnia alia" here; so that the apostle (if
indeed he here quotes at all, which seems somewhat doubtful),
has given a new version to the Hebrew. This latter quotation
(if it be one) is designed by the apostle to have a bearing on all
claims to the divine favor, which can be preferred on the score
of desert or of services rendered to God. How prone tlie Jews
were to make such claims every reader of the New Testament
must know. This sentence is designed strongly to affirm, that
no one can make any just claims upon God tor his favor, as no
one by his services has laid him under any obligation. The
Nominative to dvTa7ro8o^^o-eTai is aird understood, which would
refer to ti implied after the preceding irpoeSuiKe.
(36) On the contrary, instead of creatures laying God under
any obligation to them, God is all and in all, i. e., he is the source
of all being and blessing, by him all things come into existence and
are sustained and governed, and for him, for his glory and honor,
they "are and were created." — For of him, and by him, and for
him, are all things, on ef .... irdvra. Of him, ef aurou, i. e.,
he is the original source, the eternal fountain whence all the
streams of existence take their rise. By him Si airov, he is not
only the original source, but the intermediate cause of all things.
33

386 EOMANS XI. 36.
It is the exertion of his power that brings them into being, and
preserves, directs, and controls them. For him, els airov, for
his honor, praise, glory ; he is the sovereign Lord and possessor
of all, and all exist because he wills it, and exist for the accom
plishment of purposes which the Maker of all has in view. The
sentence seems equivalent to saying, " God is the beginning, con
tinuance, and end of all things."
This strong expression of wonder, reverence, and adoration,
in regard to the unsearchable ways of God in his dealings with
men ; and an assertion of the liighest intensity, respecting his
sovereign right to control all things so as to accomplish his own
designs, inasmuch as all spring from him, " live, and move, and
have their being in him," and are for his glory, appropriately
concludes this part of the Epistle. A doctrine truly humbling
to the proud and towering hopes and claims of self-justifying
men ; a stumbling-block to haughty Jews, and foolishness to un-
humbled Greeks. I scarcely know of anything in the whole
Bible which strikes deeper at the root of human pride than vers.
33 — 36. But what emphasis can there be in these, if the apostle
is discoursing merely on the external privileges of men ? Every
one must see without argument, that distinctions of a temporal
nature are eo-extensive with the human race. But when we
come to the great question : Are distinctions of a spiritual nature
made, which are eternal in their consequences ; and made too ac
cording to the good pleasure of God, without any merit on the
part of men ? it is then we find ourselves to need all the argu
ment and reasoning of the apostle, to bring us submissively to
bow, and to contemplate the whole subject (as he does) with
wonder and adoration. It is then, that God's claims to be con
sidered the GREAT ALL IN ALL, must be advanced in such
a way, that "the loftiness of man may be bowed down, and the
haughtiness of man laid low, and Jehovah alone be exalted."
On the other hand, if God has for reasons not disclosed to us,
and therefore in the way of what we call the exercise of divine
sovereignty, rejected for a time the Jewish nation, and brought in
the Gentiles ; and if God, in his own due time, shall also again
bring the Jewish nation into his church ; and all this in such a
way as entirely exceeds our comprehension, and which of course
we are altogether unable to explain ; then we may exclaim with
the wondering apostle, 0 the depth! Then we may find over
whelming reason to believe, that God is all in all, that he is the
beginning, middle, and end of all things, and that " for his glory
they are and were created." We can sympathize, therefore,
while cherishing such views, with all which the apostle has

EOMANS XII. 387
here said, and find abundant reason to cherish sentiments such as
he has avowed.
But to prevent all mistake here, I repeat, before I close this
subject, what I have once and again expressed in the preceding
pages, viz., that sovereignty in God, does not imply what is arbi
trary, nor that he does anything without the best of reasons. It
only implies, that those reasons are unknown to us. While clouds
and darkness are truly about him, in respect to our vision, justice
and judgment are the habitation of his throne forever. Infinite
wisdom and goodness can never act at all without reason, nor
without the very best reason. It would be the extreme of folly
fo suppose that because God acts in a way which is mysterious,
he acts in an arbitrary or oppressive manner. Is he under obli
gation to disclose all the grounds of his proceedings to us ?
Enough he has disclosed to satisfy us that he is wise and good.
May there not be something left to exercise our filial confidence,
and to give us (what does indeed well become us) a deep sense
of our humble and imperfect condition ? Shall we prescribe to
God the terms of our moral discipline ? If not, then let us be
content, when his mysterious ways press upon our minds, and
we feel straitened and in darkness, to say with the apostle : ^Cl
fidBos 7tAoutou Kai aorbios koi yvuiaeuis ©eou ! And if our hearts
are ever tempted to rise up against the distinctions which God
has made, either in a temporal or spiritual respect, in the bestow
ment of his favors, let us bow them down to the dust, as well as
silence and satisfy them, with the humbling, consoling, animating,
glorious truth, that " of God, and through him, and for him, are
all things ! " To him, then, be the glory for ever and ever !
Amen.

CHAP. XII. 1—21.
The apostle having thus concluded what may be called the argumentative part of
his epistle, now proceeds to the hortatory and practical part; which contains precepts
both general and particular that were specially adapted to those whom he was
addressing, and the spirit of which is applicable to all times and nations. The
very solemn and earnest manner in which he inculcates the practical maxims that
follow, shows how deeply he felt the importance of uniting Christian doctrine and
duty; yea, how necessarily the reception of the former must lead to the latter. He
begins with urging Christians to make an entire consecration of themselves to Goel,
verses 1, 2; he urges upon his readers humility, although they possess the special
gifts ofthe Spirit: inasmuch as all the diversities of such gifts are possessed by
those who are only parts of the spiritual body to which all Christians belong,

388 EOMANS Xfl. 1, 2.
verses 3—5 ; he enjoins upon each to make a wise and diligent improvement of the
special gift or office bestowed on him, verses 6— S; and then gives, in the remainder
of the chapter, a most striking and admirable series of Cliristian precepts ; of which
no equal, and no tolerable parallel, can be found in all the writings of the heathen
world. (1) I entreat you, then, by the tender mercies of God, irapaKaXSi
ovv . . . ©eou, i. e., such being the case as I have now stated,
such being the love and compassion exhibited towards sinners,
and such the provision made for them, I entreat you on account
of the tender mercies, etc. Ouv has reference to all that precedes,
and intimates that the writer is making a general deduction from
it. — O'iKTippuiv, in the plural, is an imitation of the Hebrew
dicni which has no singular. It means kindness, benignity,
compassion, etc. Aid, by, on account of; comp. Rom. xv. 30.
1 Cor. i. 10. 2 Cor. x. 1.
To present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to
God, which is your rational service, irapaarrjaai . . . vpuiv. Tlopa-
aryaai is common in classic Greek, and is employed to designate
the action of bringing and presenting to the divinity a sacrifice
of any kind. — Your bodies, auipara vpuiv, i. e., yourselves. The
word auipoTa appears to be suggested by the practice of sacri
ficing the bodies of animals, ©uo-iav tfiaav, a living sacrifice, in
distinction from that of beasts which were slain. The meaning
appears to be, that the living active powers of their bodies were
to be continually offered or devoted to God. But possibly the
reference may be to the custom of the Levitical law, which for
bade the offering to God of what was accidentally killed. The
animal must be brought alive to the altar, and slain there. Holy,
dyiov, i. e., WEB, integer, without blemish, or defect ; for no other
kind of sacrifice could be dyi'a, i. e., consecrated to God. — Eud-
pearov r<3 ©ecS is an epexegesis of the preceding dyi'a. — Your
rational service, Tr/v XoyiKrjv Xarpelav vpuiv, viz., your spiritual
offering or service, or that which is mental or belongs to reason
(Aoyos), in distinction from an external service or Xarpeia aap-
KiKy, such as the Jews offered and relied on for salvation.
(2) And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed
by the renewing of your mind, Kai py . . . vobs vpuiv. The Codices
A., D., E., F., G., and many Codd. minusc. read avaxqpari^ea-
Bai and perapopcbovaBai, in the Infinitive ; which would imply
irapoKaXui before them. The sense would be the same, in such
a case, as the Imperative of the text before us makes. — T/te
present world, ™ aiivi toutoj, i. e., i-tfrj Qbisj-j, according to the
later usage of the word dVis among the Jews/ The classic sense
of aicuv, never coincides with this. See my Exegetical Essay on
aluiv, aiuivios, etc., § 5. By not conforming to the world the apos-

EOMANS XII. 2, 3. 389
tie means, the not adopting of its sinful customs and practices
whether _ of an external or internal nature. 'AAAd perapop-
<jiovaBe, i. e., put on another form, person ; exchange the popf-i,
of the world for that of Christianity. Do this by the renewing
of your mind, dvaKaivuiaei rov vobs vpuiv, i. e., by renovating the
vous_7raXaios, by exchanging it for a vous koivo's such as the gos
pel inspires. In other words : ' Cherfh no more a spirit devoted
to the world and sinfully conforming to it ; cultivate a new and
different spirit, one devoted to God, one whicli will love and
practise what is good and pleasing to God.
That ye may learn what the will of God is, that tvhich is good
and acceptable and perfect, els to SoKipd'Ceiv . . . TiXewv. AoKipdf ui
means (among other things) to explore, to investigate, to search
out, -jna ; and this for the purpose of learning and knowing.
The apostle means to say, that a renewed mind is essential to a
successful inquiry after practical and experimental Christian
truth, in its whole extent. " If any man will do his will, he shall
know of the doctrine whether it be of God." T6 dyaBdv, k. r. X.,
I regard as nouns, formed in the usual way, viz., by prefixing the
article to the neuter gender of the adjective ; for rd is of course
implied before eidpearov and reXeiov. So Flatt and Glockler. 
Eudpeo-rov means acceptable to God, ™ ©e<3 being implied. 
Te'Xeiov, that which is wanting in nothing, which has no defect,
integrum. Others construe these adjectives as qualifying BeXypa.
The whole verse, is an exhortation to spiritual-mindedness, in
order that Christians may attain to a full knowledge of what
their holy religion demands.
(3) Tap here stands before specific reasons given for a gen
eral principle urged in the preceding context. By virtue of the
[apostolic] office of grace bestowed on me, Sid rys x«P'tos ; comp.
Rom, i. 5. xv. 15. Eph. iii. 2, 8. — Among you, iv vpiv; so iv
frequently means. Not to over-estimate himself beyond what he
ought lo estimate, py . . . cbpoveiv. TLopd, as often in comparative
declarations ; e. g., Luke xiii. 2. iii. 13. Rom. xiv. 5. Heb. i. 9.
i. 4. hi. 3. — But to make such an estimation as to act soberly,
dXXa . . . aunbpoveiv, i. e., to think modestly, prudently, in a
rational way, of himself, not being puffed up with his own
attainments and gifts ; the same as auxbpdvuis <j>poveiv. Notice
the paronomasia in virep-cfipoveiv and auiebpoveiv.
According to the measure of faith which God hath imparted to
}dm, eKacrno dis . . . iriareuis, i. e., according to the measure of
Cliristian belief and knowledge which God has imparted. In
other words : ' Let each one estimate his gifts by the principles
which the gospel has revealed.' But Flatt and Tholuck under
stand maris here as equivalent to ^dpicr/xa, i. e., 7rtb-ris = TO
33*

390 EOMANS XII. 4—6.
ireirurrevpevov, quod creditum est, donum ; for which I can find no
adequate and satisfactory proof or example. Nor can I per
ceive that the meaning which this exegesis would give to the
passage, is a probable one. For the apostle is not exhorting
men to prize their gifts according to the diverse nature of them ;
but he is exhorting all, whatever may be their gifts, to demean
themselves modestly and humbly. All belong to one body,
and no invidious distinctions are to be made. Consequently it
is more congruous to explain perpov iriareuis as indicating the
measure of Christian belief or faith, *. e., oi Christian know
ledge which is the object of faith.
(4) To show that no one has any reason to set up himself as
superior to others, the apostle now introduces the admirable
comparison of the body of Christ, i. e., the church, with the
human body. There are various members of the latter ; and
they are designed for different uses. But all belong to one and
the same body ; and each performs its own proper functions for
the good of the whole. So it ought to be in the Christian
church. — Use, irpd^iv, opus, negotium, office.
(5) So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and are each
members of others, ouras . . . peXy ; i. e., there is but one church,
one spiritual body, of which Christ is the head. To this we all
belong. In this respect there is no pre-eminence. — Ka5eis for
KaB' eva, properly a solecism ; see also John viii. 9. Mark xiv.
19. 3 Mace. v. 34, and dvd els Rev. xxi. 21.
(6) And possessing gifts which are diverse, according lo the grace
bestowed upon us, exovres . . . Sidepopa ; i. e., we, who are many
in number, and yet one body in Christ, possess gifts which are
diverse, according to the diversity of the operations of the Spirit,
who bestows different gifts on different persons. "Exovres agrees
with ypeis understood, and is a continuation of the preceding sen
tence. It is plain that here is grammatically an anacoluthon;
for no verb as afi apodosis regularly follows the participial e^ov-
Tes, k. t. A. The preceding context may supply an apodosis;
and this may either be dAA^Acov peXy iapev, or irpd^iv exy.
Whether prophecy, elre irpoefiereiav, i. e., eire [e^ojaev or exovres]
irpocbyreiav, the ellipsis of exopev or I^ovtcs being quite plain.
Upocbyreiav here = x°-Plv rrpotbyreias, i. e., the office or gift of
prophecy, the prophetic office, appears certain from the sequel.
— Eire serves to enumerate particular species, which belong to
the genus xapi'oyiara. But is irpoebyreia a public or a private
office, and what were its appropriate duties ?
Ilpo^ifnjs, among the Greeks usually signified an interpreter
of the will of the gods, etc. The general idea is : an interpreter,
one who explains or declares, viz., what was before dark, or not

EOMANS XII. 6. 391
understood, or not known. So the Greeks could say, irpocbyrys
Beov — Jepou — pdvreuis — Mouow, k. r. X. Sometimes (but
more rarely) irpocbyrys means, one who himself foretells, one who
predicts, etc., and it is then equivalent to the Greek pdvns. But
in general it differs from pdvns, inasmuch as the latter means a
person who is himself under the divine afflatus in such a manner
as to be bereaved of his own consciousness and reason, and merely
to utter (as an instrument) what the inspiring divinity causes him
to utter. Tliis, whicli the pdvns himself is not supposed to
understand and cannot explain, it was the office of the irpocbyrys
to interpret. Thus Plato derives pdvns from poivopai, to rave, to
be out of one's senses ; which indicates its peculiar meaning, in
distinction from irpocbyrys, a designation of such persons only as
are in possession of their reason.
IIpo<j_>ijT_7s in the New Testament, corresponds well with the
Hebrew sn,i, which means an interpreter of the divine will gen
erally, and specially one who by divine inspiration foretells future
events. Of this latter sense, which all admit, it is unnecessary to
give any examples ; . but as to the former, the reader may consult
for sia; , Judg. vi. 8. 2 Sam. vii. 2. Ex. vii. 1, where Aaron is
said to be a Kias to Moses, i. e., the interpreter to the people of
the plans and designs of Moses (comp. Exod. iv. 16. Jer. xv. 19)
Deut. xviii. 18. For the like sense oi irpocbyrys in the New Tes
tament, comp. Matt. v. 12. x. 41. xi. 9. xiii. 17. John vii. 52.
Acts vii. 48, 52. Rev. x. 7. xi. 10, 18. xviii. 24, 20. Comp. also
the verb irpocbyrevui in Rev. x. 11. xi. 3. Luke i. 67. Acts ii. 17,
18. xix. 6. xxi. 9. 1 Cor. xi. 4, 5, xiii. 9. xiv. 1, 3, 4, 5, 24,
31, 39 ; and with these texts compare Joel ii. 28. Num. xi. 25,
27. 1 Sam. x. 5, 6, 10 — 13. xix. 20 — 24.
From all these passages it is put beyond a doubt, that to
prophesy means not merely to predict, ( which is rather the pre
dominant signification of the word), but also to preach (as we
say), to warn, to threaten, to utter praise ; in short, to speak any
thing by divine inspiration or afflatus. TIpocbyTeiav in our text,
therefore, does not necessarily refer to those who predicted; but
it is probable, indeed it is almost certain, that it has a more gen
eral sense, referring to those who publicly uttered any thing by
special divine aid or inspiration, which had respect to the subject
of religion.
Such then, were -rrpocpyrai in the Christian church, i. «., men
endowed with a supernatural gift in regard to addressing the peo
ple, either for the purposes of instruction or of devotion. The
apostle directs them to perform the duties of their office, accord
ing to the proportion of faith, or according to the analogy of
faith, koto -ryv dvaXoylav -rys iriareuis. According to the first

392 EOMANS XII. 7.
method of translating it, the sense would be : ' Let tbe prophets
speak only as they have faith to do it : ' i. <?., let them not go be
yond the faith imparted to them. Faith here may mean_ that
which is the object of their belief i. <?., what is given to them m an
extraordinary maimer as the object of their belief. In such a
case, the apostle means to say : ' Let not the prophets exceed
what is entrusted to them. Let them keep within the bounds of
their reason and consciousness, and not, like the heathen p.dvTeis,
rave, or speak they know not what.' Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 32,
where the fact is made clear, that Paul considered the prophets
as conscious, rational, voluntary, accountable agents, while in the
exercise of their gifts. And as to the solemn and conscientious
discharge of the duty of a propliet, comp. Jer. xxiii. 25 — • 40.
Ezek. ii. 6 — 8. iii. 17 — 21. In this manner Chrysostom, Theo
doret, Calvin, Tholuck, and many others, have understood the
phrase under examination. Reiche, however, and others, con
strue dvaAoyi'av rrjs iriareuis as meaning the ' measure of faith,'
i. e., the degree or measure of actual belief which the prophet
exercised, or of which he was the subject. At the same time, as
dvaAoyi'av may signify analogy, agreement (for so it means in the
classics), the sense may be: 'Prophesy in such a manner that
what you say will accord with the doctrine of faith, viz., with
that which the Scripture contains.' The former sense is the most
congruous here, and therefore the most probable.
The construction is elliptical here. We may understand
irpocbyrevuipev before KaTa tt)v dvaAoyi'av ; or we may fill out the
construction thus: rrpdfiv exit irpocbyreia ; or again we may make
KaTa . . . iriareuis coordinate with koto x°-Plv "¦¦ T- ^-> an(^ supply
exovres. But the comparison of the clause eiVe irpocfnrrelav k. t. A.
with the succeeding clauses, elre Siokoviov ev ry Siokovio k. t. A.,
opposes this latter construction. Grammatically it is possible ;
exegetically it is quite improbable.
(7) Whether ministry, elre Siokoviov, i. e., eire [exopev] Swlko-
vlav. Aiokovos, in a general sense, means a servant, a waiter of
any one. But as the office of a servant is elevated by the sta
tion of his master, and the duties which the servant has to per
form, the word is sometimes, (like the Hebrew 133)) used in a
most honorable sense, as servant of God, servant of Christ, serv
ant (minister) of the gospel, etc. In the passage before us, Sia-
Kov'ia probably refers to the official duty of the SidKovoi in the
Christian church, to whom was committed the care of alms for
the poor, of providing ibr the sick, of preparing conveniences for
public worship, etc., and generally, of watching over and takino-
care of the external matters of the church. In the primitive age
of the church this office was very simple, having reference only

EOMANS XII. 8. 393
to the alms of the church. So the verb SiaKoveui very often
means, to supply one with food, to make ready or provide
food for any one, e. g., Matt. iv. 11. Mark. i. 13. Luke x.
40. xii. 37. xvii. 8. John xii. 2 ; comp. Acts vi. But in subse
quent ages, the office was extended to all the external and merely
temporal relations of the church. So in the Jewish synagogue,
the "Iri, inspector, overseer, corresponded to SiaKovos. 'Ev r-fj
Slokovio, i. e., wpev or earui ; like ev toutois laBi, 1 Tim. iv. 15,
i. e., sit totus in illis, let him be wholly devoted to his ministra
tion or service, let him be deeply engaged to perform its duties
with fidelity and zeal. Eire 6 SiSdo-Kuiv. Here the construction
is varied, although there appears to be no special reason for it in
the nature of the sentence. We should expect eiVe SiSaaKoXiav
here, i. e., the Accusative case of the abstract noun ; but in its
stead we have a participial noun in the Nominative. Of course
the verb rj or iari is understood here after 6 SiSdo-Kuiv. — 'Ev rrj
SiSaaKaXia, i. e., earui as before.
That the office of teacher is here distinguished from irpocbyTys
on the one hand, and from irapaKoXCiv on the other, is plain. But
in what this distinction consisted, it would be a difficult matter for
us at the present time to say definitely. It would seem however
that irpocbyrys indicated one who taught by inspiration, and only
so far as inspiration prompted and enabled him to teach. In the
strict sense ofthe word, it was an office created and sustained by
miraculous gift. But SiSdo-KaAos appears to have been an ordi
nary stated teacher, one who was so by official station, and who
tauo-ht according to the degree of religious knowledge which he
possessed. (8) Eire 6 7rapaKaAolv, i. e., 6 irapaKoXuiv rj. — 'Ev rrj irapaicXyaei,
i. e., earui as before. But what is irapaKoXuiv? The verb irapa-
KaXeui means to warn, to console. TlapaKaXiov, then, would seem
to indicate an exhorter, i. e., one who urged to practical duties,
who dwelt upon the threatenings and promises of the gospel, and
so aided and completed the work which the SiSdo-KaAos had begun.
How long the distinction which is here intimated, v/as kept up in
the church, is not certain. In the original settlement of the
churches in New England, many of them had two ministers, a
SiSdo-KaAos and a irapaKaXSiv, as here explained ; based upon the
supposition that these distinct offices were intended to be per
petual in the church. But why consistency would not lead, also,
to the maintenance of all the other offices here named, it would
be difficult to say,
He who is a distributer, 6 yueraSiSou's, sc. rj, i. e., he who distrib
utes the charities of the church, or of individuals in it.— 'Ev
ottAotttti, i. e., with a simple or single regard to the good of those

394 EOMANS XII. 9, 10.
for whom the charity was bestowed, without any selfish or sin
ister purposes of his own. But in what respect 6 peroSiSovs dif
fered from the Sidravos above mentioned, we are now unable to
ascertain with precision. It may be that the Siokovos was the
general overseer, the collector and provider of alms ; while the 6
/neraSiSou's was the actual distributer of them among the needy.
The reader should remark, that with o peraSiSovs the construction
is again changed, inasmuch as the e'ire is omitted ; so that the strain
of the sentiment becomes purely hortatory.
Let him who presides do it with diligent attention, b irpoiardpevos
iv airovSfj. A question may indeed be raised here, whether 6
irpoiardpevos means an office in the church, or only a person to
whom the care of some duty or business is committed. As o
irpdiardjxevos stands connected here with a series of other words
which express some official duty, most interpreters have been in
clined to construe it as having respect to office, as I have above.
Thus it seems plainly to be used in 1 Thess. v. 12, to designate one
who holds the office of a teacher ; and in 1 Tim. v. 17, it also seems
to designate one who holds the office of ruling or governing in
the church, as well as teaching. The context of this latter pas
sage has indeed been regarded by some commentators, as showing
that there were some irpo'iardpevoi who held the double office of
teacher and governor or ruler in the church, although, as some of
them suppose, these offices would seem more usuall)' to have been
separate. In like manner, Justin Martyr speaks of a irpoearuis
rCov dSeXrbuw, who (it appears) is the presbyter of the church, Ap-
olog. I. c. 67. But see Excursus XII. for a more extended dis
cussion, and a somewhat different interpretation of this word, and
indeed of the whole verse. He who shows compassion, [let him do
it] with cheerfulness, 6 iXeZv iv IXaporyn ; comp. 2 Cor. ix 7.
(9) Let benevolence be sincere, y dydiry, dvviroKpiros. I render
dydiry benevolence here, because it seems to indicate kind feeling
toward men in general. The love of the brethren is specified in
verse 10. The apostle here enjoins on Christians to cherish a
sincere and real, not merely a pretended and apparent, feeling of
kindness toward all men. 'AirooruyouvTes, i. e., eare, which would
make the Imper. ; and this the nature of the case evidently de
mands. So KoXXuipevoi, sc. eare. In the connection in which to
irovypdv and t<3 dyaBiZ here stand, the meaning is limited to malice
and kindness. So irovypds means, even in the classics, malicious,
mischievous ; and dya5ds is the converse of this, kind, benevolent.
These two phrases, therefore, are merely an epexegesis of dyd^
hi the preceding clause.
(10) In respect to brotherly love, kindly affectionate one toward
another, ttj cjuXaSeXcpia, els dXXyXovs cpiXoaropyoi. Tfj cbiXaSecbia,

EOMANS XII. 11, 12. 395
is the Dative of relation .- in respect to, in regard to. So often in
the New Testament ; e. g., vuiBpol rais duodis, Heb. v. 1 1 ; Gal.
i. 22 ; so Matt. xi. 29. Heb. xii. 3. Eph. iv. 18, et sa?pe alibi.
<3>iAooTopyoi means affectionate, in such a manner as one is toward
his own near relative ; aropyy means natural affection. In res
pect to honor anticipating each other, ry npfj, dXXrjXovs irpoyyovpevoi;
i. e., let each one, in paying the proper tribute of respect to others,
strive to anticipate his Christian brother. Tlpoyyeopai means to
take the lead, to go before, to set the example. The meaning is, that
so far from being averse to pay that respect which is due to others,
each should strive to excel the other in the performance of this
duty. Christianity, therefore, is so far from banishing all civility
and good manners from society, that it enjoins the greatest atten
tion to this subject.
(11) As to diligence, not remiss, ry airovSrj py oKvypol. Trj
airovSfj Dative of relation as before. %irovbfj here seems to be
taken in the general sense ; and so the passage accords with Eccle.
ix. 10 : " Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy
might." So the next phrase explains the whole expression, by
presenting the antithesis ¦of it, viz., t<3 irvevpon leovres, ferventes
animo, warmly engaged (as we say), fervid, active in serious earn
est ; comp. Acts xviii. 25. Some apply t<3 irvevpan here to the
divine Spirit ; but I think without any good reason. T<3 Kupi'io
SouAeuovres (for which Griesbach reads t<3 KaipiS SouAeuovres), is
supported by the more important testimony of external witnesses.
Griesbach has rejected it on the ground, that ' the less usual read
ing is to be preferred ;' a ground which, to say the least, has many
slippery places. Knapp, Morus, Bengel, and Beza, preserve
Kupioj, and I think with good reason. I take the whole expres
sion to mean, that all our diligence is to be consecrated to God, to
be made subservient to the cause of Christ. That Kupia. here
means the Lord Christ, the usus loquendi of Paul leaves no
good room to doubt. Inasmuch as SouAeuw governs the Dative, we
need not insist here on the Dative of relation. But in fact, all of
the Datives in this whole paragraph are of this nature ; so that
exactly rendered it would be, as to (or in respect to) the Lord,
obedient or engaged in his service.
(12) As to hope, joyful, rfj iXiriSi, ^aipovres; i. e., rejoicing in
the blessed hope of glory which the gospel inspires ; and this,
amid all the troubles and sorrows of life. As to affliction, pa
tiently enduring, ry BXixj/ei, viropevovres ; i. e., since you are animated
with a joyful hope, you may well be called upon to endure the
troubles and sorrows of life with patience. As to prayer, be per
severing, T-rj irpoaevxfj, rpoaKoprepovvres ; i- e., the way to main
tain a joyful hope, and to be patient under afflictions, is to
cherish the spirit of prayer and to live near to God.

396 EOMANS XII. 13—16.
(13) In respect to the wants of the saints, be sympathetic, rais . . ¦
Koivuivovvres ; i. e., feel these wants as if they were your own.
With all these participles, eare is implied. While Christians were
to be kind towards all others, they were to be specially so to
wards their brethren of the church. Koiviove'io in classic Greek
has always an intransitive sense ; and the instances in Gal. vi. 6, and
Phil. iv. 5 hardly prove that a transitive sense should be given to
it in the New Test., viz., communicate, distribute. To be a par
taker, to sliare in, is the genuine meaning of the word ; and from
that we need not here depart. Readily practising hospitality,
ttjv cbiXogevlav SiuiKovres. Here the construction is changed, and
the Accusative after SicoKovTes is employed. Comp. 1 Tim. v. 10.
Heb. xiii. 2. 1 Pet. iv. 9. 3 John verses 5 — 8. This virtue was
specially necessary in the primitive times, when Christian teach
ers had no regular support, and when the missionaries of the cross
were laboring to diffuse the knowledge of salvation.
(14) Bless those who persecute you, bless and curse not, eiXoy
eire .... KaropdaBe; comp. Matt. v. 44. Luke vi. 28. That is,
while your persecutors imprecate divine indignation upon you, do
you pray that blessings may descend upon them.
(15) Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who
weep, xoipeiv .... KAaiovriov ; i. e., sympathize with your fellow
Christians both in joy and grief; show that you enter with feel
ing into the consideration of their joys and sorrows. The Infin
itive xa'peiv, KXaieiv, stands (as frequently in the Greek classics)
instead of the Imperative. Strictly speaking, Sei is understood
in such cases, q. d., you must rejoice — weep, etc.
(16) Mutually think the same thing, to airb els dXXrjXovs <ppovovv-
res, sc. iote, i. e., be agreed in your opinions and views. Whether
this relates to matters that concerned spiritual or temporal affairs,
the words themselves do not show; but the nature of the case
would seem to indicate, that the expression is designed to have a
general bearing on all their concerns and articles of belief. Ori
gen, and others, have interpreted the passage as meaning : ' Enter
into each other's circumstances, in order to see how you would
yourself feel;' and so it parallelizes with the preceding expres
sion. But the usus loquendi oi Paul does not seem to admit of
this exposition; comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. ii. 2; comp. Rom.
xv. 14. Eis dAAijAous is not, indeed, the usual mode of expression
in the New Testament, but eV dAA^Aois ; comp. Mark ix. 50. John
xiii. 35. Rom. xv. 5. But the exchange of els with the Accusa
tive for iv with the Dative, in the New Testament (and indeed
elsewhere), is very frequent.
Mind not high things, but be led away by humble ones, py rd. . .
avvairaydpevoi. Such is the literal translation of the words. The

EOMANS XII. 17 — 19. 397
sentiment is : ' Shun pride, and culivate humility. That dAAa
tois ra7reivois k. t. A., is the antithesis of rd ui/^jAd, k. t. A., seems to
me very obvious. Ta7reivois is then in the neuter gender, to cor
respond to vif/yXd. But some construe it as of the masculine gen
der, aud represent the sentiment of the phrase to be : ' Suffer
yourselves to be led away, viz., to the judgment-seat of magis
trates, with the despised Christian.' Otliers : ' Suffer yourselves
to be led away by the humble, i. e., conform to them. This agrees
in sentiment with the above exposition ; but it has the disadvan
tage of sacrificing the direct antithesis of the words tyyXd and
raireivois. — 5uva7rdyo/xai is commonly used in a bad sense, viz., to
suffer one's self to be led away by temptation, etc. ; see Gal. ii.
13. 2 Pet. iii. 17 ; but here it must have a, generic sense, and we
must translate : ' Suffer yourselves to be influenced or led away
by tilings that are despised,' viz., by the proud world; i. e.,
' Readily undertake offices or duties that are humble and mean, in
the estimation of the proud.' Be not wise in your own conceit,
py . . . eavrois ; i. e., do not, trusting in your own superior skill
and understanding, refuse to confer with others or to harken to
their suggestions ; a caution intimately connected with the pre
ceding. (17) Not rendering evil for evil, pySevl .. . diroSiSovres ; comp.
1 Pet. iii. 9. Matt. v. 43 — 48. This is, no doubt, one of the
most difficult of all the precepts which the gospel enjoins ; I mean,
one which most thwarts our natural inclinations and desires.
" The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit." Seek
after that which is good in the sight of all men, irpovoovpevoi . . .
dvBpuiiruiv ; i. e., be studiously attentive to those duties, which are
commended by all, and which all therefore admit to be of the
highest obligation. The expression seems to be taken, with some
abridgment, from Prov. iii. 4, Kai rpovoov KaXd ivunriov Kvpiov Kai
dvBpuiiruiv. (18) If it be possible, so far as you are able, be at peace with
all men, el Svvarov . . . elpyvevovres. The limitations ei Svvarov
and rb i£ vpuiv, show that the apostle did not deem this possible in
all cases ; and beyond all question it is not. The world hate the
truths of the gospel, and will be at enmity with those who boldly
and faithfully urge them on their consciences. Apostles and
martyrs did thus urge them ; and their sufferings prove the truth
of what has now been alleged. — To ef vpuiv, i. e., KaTa to i$ vpuiv.
'E$ is used here in the sense of belonging to. The whole phrase
means, 'in proportion to that which belongs to you,' i. e., accord
ing to your ability ; like the French votre possible.
(19) Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give plg.ce to [divine]
indignation, py iavrovs .... dpyfj. Such is one method of in-

398 EOMANS XII. 19, 20.
terpreting this clause. AiSdvai rdirov means to allow, to give place
to (as we say in English) . So Eph. iv. 22, py SiSore rdirov t<3 SiafidXui,
give no place to the devil; and Luke xiv. 9, A6s toutuj tottov, re
sign your place lo this person or make room for him. Cf. also
Josephus, Antiq. xvi. ii. § 6, Plutarch, De Ira cohibenda, chap.
14; and Marcus Antoninus Lib. iii. 6. The meaning above
given to Sore toVov rrj bpyfj, thus according with the frequent sense
of the phrase Souvai toVov, seems to be favored by the quotation
which immediately follows : *Epol k. t. A. This quotation would
be wholly inapposite, if we suppose that bpyfj here means the
wrath of our enemy, and Sore rdirov, to mean go out of the way of,
get out of the way of, etc., as many have done. In Rabbinic He
brew, it is true indeed, that dips int (give place) means to go out
of the way of; but we need not resort to Hebrew idiom here.
Another method of interpreting dpyij is, to assign to it the
meaning of one's own indignation, and then to construe Sore toVov
as meaning spatium dale i. e., put off, defer. The sense of this
would be good ; and Wisd. xii. 20 -would help to justify the usus
loquendi. So also Livy (viii. 32) says : Iras suae spatium ....
daret. So Seneca : Ira surda est et amens, dabimus illi spatium
(de Ira, iii. 39); also Lactantius : Dedisset iras sute spatium (de
Ira, 18). Construed in this way the passage would mean : ' Put
off the execution of that to which your indignation would prompt,
or defer the execution of your anger : for God will repay evil to
your enemy in case he has done wrong. Retribution belongs
rather to him than to you.' This sense, on the whole, seems to
be better supported than the other above given. Nor is there any
want of congruity with what follows.
Retribution is mine, I will make it, saith the Lord, ipol . . .
Kupios ; or vengeance is mine, I will render it, saith the Lord. The
passage is taken from Deut. xxxii. 35, tkviss. DpJ ib. Aeyei Kupios
are the apostle's own words, for they are not in the Hebrew. The
meaning is : ' God will render righteous judgment or retribution
for acts of wickedness ; Christians are not to claim for themselves
the doing of that which it is his sovereign prerogative to do.'
(20) If thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, etc., idv ovv
. . . avrov. Food and drink here stand as a part for the whole,
and signify our obligation to treat an enemy with beneficence or
kindness. The meaning is : ' Do good to thine enemy, instead of
evil ; show him kindness, instead of taking revenge.'
For in so doing, thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head, rovro
ydp . . . airov. This is quoted from Prov. xxv. 21, 22. In Ps.
xviii. 8, 12; 13, Qi^rjJ , coals of fire, are emblematical of consuming
or destruction. The Arabians say, he roasted my heart, or he kind
led afire in my heart, to designate the idea of giving or inflicting

EOMANS XIII. 399
pain. So in 4 Ezra xvi. 54, " Coals of fire shall burn on the
head of him who denies that he has sinned against God." There
can be no well-grounded doubt, then, that pain is meant to be
designated by this expression. But is it the pain of shame or
contrition for misconduct, or that oi punishment? More prob
ably the former here ; for so ver. 21 would almost necessarily
lead us to conclude. It is a noble sentiment when thus under
stood. " Take not revenge," says the apostle : " overcome your
adversary with kindness and beneficence. These will bring him
to shame and sorrow for his misconduct."
(21) Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good, py
vikui .... rb kokov, i. e., be not led to an indulgence of a spirit
of revenge' on account of injuries ; but subdue the evil temper
which leads to the infliction of injury, by beneficence and kind-

CHAP. XIII. 1 — 14.

At the time when Paul wrote this epistle, the civil power was everywhere in the
hands of heathen men, who were idolaters and polytheists, and consequently hos
tile to Christianity. In Palestine even, the power committed to the hands ofthe
Jews was principally of an ecclesiastical nature, and the Romans uniformly reserved
to themselves the right of confirming or reversing any sentence which should
affect the life or liberty of their subjects. The Roman civil power, as such, had not
yet begun to persecute Christians, or even to tolerate persecution in others; but the
.Roman magistrates could not but look with indignation or scorn on those who
denied the religio licita of the empire, and who without hesitation condemned all
religion but their own as false and injurious. There were some superstitious men,
moreover, among these magistrates; and there were multitudes of superstitious
priests, who were peculiarly hostile to Christianity, and who urged the common
people, and magistrates also, to testify their displeasure against it. Gradually this
feeling increased, until at last, under Nero, it burst forth like a volcano, and swept
before Its fiery streams all the disciples of Jesus who were within its reach.
On the other hand, the Jews, before they were converted to Christianity, as the
chosen people of God, considered themselves entitled to pre-eminence above the
nations of the earth. They looked down with scorn and hatred upon the t^i} the
worshippers of stocks and stones. The idea that the Romans claimed the right to
dispose of their persons and property was insufferable. They fortified themselves
in this opinion, by an appeal to Deut. xvii. 15: " Thou shalt in anywise set him
king over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren
shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, who is not
thy brother." Willing subjection to the Romans, then, was in their view disobe
dience to this injunction of Moses. Hence nothing but the fear of immediate and
summary punishment restrained them, for many years, from rising up against the
Roman power in Palestine; and even in other countries where they were numerous
they made no small tumult whenever occasion offered.
When individuals passed over from the Jewish community to that of the Chris
tians, they could not, or did not, divest themselves at once of all these feelings and

400 ROMANS XIII.
views. Christianity introduced them to a new citizenship, new rights, new privi
leges, new spiritual rulers, new fellow-citizens. Could they then have any regard
for heathen citizenship? It was natural to ask this question; and above all, it was
easy to do so, since the heathen magistracy were well known to be hostile in their
feeling toward Christians, and since Christians were required to yield up life rather
than to obey the civil magistrate as to some things which God had forbidden.
It is easy to see, that while matters stood thus, there was great danger that private
Christians, instigated by their own particular views of heathen superstitions and by
a sense of duty in some cases where they were called upon to renounce obedience to
the magistrate, would be exposed to judge wrongly, and go too far in justifying a
principle of insubordination to the civil power. Paul felt a deep solicitude in regard
to this subject, which was evidently encompassed with many difficulties. For on
the one hand, it was clear that in some cases life itself was to be sacrificed rather
than to obey the civil power ; and the apostle himself was a most eminent pattern
of high and holy independence, in cases of this nature. On the other, private indi
viduals, with all their prejudices and scorn of heathenism, might greatly abuse the
proper liberty of a Christian, and extend it to things to which Christianity did not
allow them to extend it.
That there was a disposition to do so among the Christians at Rome, seems evident
from the tenor of chap. xiii. The cautions here are salutary for the church in all
ages ; but they were peculiarly needed in the age of the apostles.
Nothing can be plainer, than that the subjection urged in chap. xiii. cannot be ex
tended to cases where the commission of a moral evil is demanded. But with the
exception of this, the principles here enjoined are altogether of such a nature as our
holy religion demands. We certainly should not neglect any remedy for evils of a
civil nature, which is proper. We are bound to make use ofthe proper remedy, if in
our power, by a regard to the public good. But where the government is despotic
and there is no remedy but rebellion, and this may be a hazardous and bloody
measure, it is better to suffer than to excite tumult. So thought Paul, comp. Tit. iii.
1; and so did leter+each, 1 Pet. ii. 13, 17. But let not the advocates of despotic
power urge subjection in cases where the gospel will not allow it, under cover ofthe
general expressions here used. Every precept of this nature is to be interpreted
with a proper regard to the time and circumstances in which it was uttered. What
these were in the case before us, we have seen. What the example of the apostle
and the Saviour himself was, we know. We know, too, that Christianity in its very
nature is love to God and man; that it makes all men a brotherhood ; it places them
on the same ground as to rights and privileges; it pays real deference to moral worth,
and to this only. It acknowledges no light in one to oppress another; admits of no
"Jew or deck, Barbarian or Scythian, bond or free; " for it teaches that "all are
one in Jesus." It teaches true equality of rights, true spiritual and civil freedom.
It does not, indeed, abolish all distinctions among men ; nor does it abolish civil gov
ernments. Far from this; but then it decides, in its very nature, that all governments,
and all civil orders and distinctions, should be only for the public good. It admits
no dhme right of one man to be lord over another ; it is at open and eternal war with
all the mere claims of birth, and pride, and oppression. The universal good, the equal
rights, the peaceful state of man is the object at which it aims; and whatever is incom
patible with there, is incompatible with the fundamental principles ofthe great " law
of liberty and love."
But all this may be allowed (and contradicted it cannot be with reason), and yet it
may be true at the same time, that Christians, situated as the Romans were in Paul's
time, are required to yield peaceful submission to magistrates, whether Christian or
heathen, in all things where the command of God does not directly forbid it. What
the world ought to be, what it would be if all men weie Christians indeed, is one thing;
what the world is, and what is the present duty of Christians in such circumstances, is
another and different thing. In a word, the spirit ofthe precepts in Rom. xiii. is to be
regarded as a rule for all ages and nations so long as circumstances shall belike
those which then existed. And even when these circumstances alter, and magistrates

EOMANS XIII. 1—3. 401
become really Christian, it must then be true in a still more eminent degree, that
quiet and peaceful obedience in all lawful things will be a duty.
(1) Let every soul be subject to the supreme magistracies, irdaa
.... viroToaaiaBui. Tidaa ipvxy is Hebraism, like UJBjrbs , every
one, each one : — 'Yirepexovaais means preeminent, supreme ; i. e.,
in this case, the civil magistracy or power of civil rulers. For
there is no magistracy unless by divine permission ; and the ex
isting [magistrates] are of God's appointment, oi ydp 
elaiv. Top stands before a reason why they should be subject to
the civil magistracy. The apostle intends to reconcile Christians
to the idea of civil obedience, on the ground that obeying the
magistrate is in accordance with the command of God. Ail ma
gistrates are by his permission ; and even when they are oppres
sive, the Christian is bound to regard them (so he should regard
other evils), as existing by divine permission, since "the powers
that be are ordained of God ; " and to bow submissive in all cases
where direct disobedience to God is not demanded by them.
Such a view of the subject is greatly adapted to satisfy the
mind of a Christian, when he feels galled with the yoke of op
pression. (2) So that he who resists the magistracy, resists the comand-
ment of God, uiare .... dvBearyKev. The reason of this is, that
as God has required obedience to the magistrates (in the sense
before stated), so he who refuses to yield this, is disobedient to
the divine command. And they who resist shall receive punish
ment for themselves, ol Se . . . Xyifiovrai. Kplpa is often used in
the sense oi punishment ; e. g., Rom. iii. 8. 1 Cor. xi. 29. Gal. v.
10. 1 Tim. v. 12, et alibi.' — 'Eavrois, is here the Dativus incom-
modi, see N. Test. Grammar, § 104. 2. Note 1. The meaning
is, that those who are seditious, i. e., make resistance against the
civil government, will be brought to punishment, and that
deservedly. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil, ol ydp
.... kokuiv. This clause shows what sort of rulers Paul expect
ed Christians to obey, and how far obedience was a duty, viz.,
such rulers as protect the good and repress the evil ; and while
they do this, there can be no question as to the duty of obeying
them. But suppose the reverse, i. e., suppose that they protect
evil-doing and forbid good works, then Paul's own conduct shows
what other Christians ought to do. — <J>dy3os here is abstract for
concrete, i. e., cbdfios for cbojiepoi. And wilt thou not fear the ma
gistracy? BeXeis Se . . . . igovaiav. That is, since the ruler is
terrible to evil-doers wilt thou not be afraid to do evil ? Do good,
and thou shalt have praise for it, rb dyaBov .... airrjs, i. e.,
34*

402 EOMANS XIII. 4 — 6.
yield obedience to the civil power, and you shall obtain from it
the commendation of being a peaceful and obedient citizen.
(4) For il is an instrument in the hands of God, to promote
thy good, ®eov ydp . . . dyaBov. That is, civil government is of
divine appointment, and it is designed to be an instrument of
good to those who do well. Soi els rb dyaBov, for thy good; aoi,
Dativus commodi. The ydp stands before a reason or ground
why they might expect praise, eiraivos, for doing well.
But if thou doest evil, fear, idv Se . . . <bo/3ov ; i. e., if thou art
refractory and disobedient to the civil magistracy, thou hast
reason to fear the consequences. — For he beareth the sword not
in vain ; but he is God's minister punishing the evil-doer, oi ydp
. . . irpdaaovri. The sword is here the, emblem of punishment.
®eov Siokovos, a minister or instrument oi God's appointment, or
one whom his providence has raised up or permitted to exist.
"EkSikos els bpyrjv, exercens judicium ad pcenam, judging, condemn
ing to punishment. T<3 irpdaaovri, the Dative of " the person to
or for whom anything is, or is done."
(5) Therefore we ought to yield subjection not because of indig
nation only, but also for conscience' sake, Sia . . . aweiSyaiv ; i. e.,
we should do our duty not merely in order to shun the evils of a
different course, but we ought to do it from a conscientious regard
to the obligation under which we are.
(6) On this very account also pay tribute Sia rovro .... re-
Xeire. Aid to5to, i. e., for the sake of conscience, as well as to
avoid civil penalties. Tap illustrantis. It is difficult to make out
a proper causal meaning for ydp in this case ; because Sid rovro
itself designates such a meaning. Why may we not consider
Sia Tovro ydp as an intensive causal formula, not unlike iireiSyirep,
etc. ? I have so rendered it, viz., on this very account. Kai,
also, denoting not only an additional circumstance, but also
being affirma'ive, kcI cpopovs reXeire, ye should also pay tribute,
or ye should pay tribute as well as yield obedience in other
things. TeXeire I take as in the Imperative.*
For they are ministers of God, who attend to this matter,
Xeirovpyol . . . irpoaKaprepovvres ; i. e., they are God's ministers
or instruments, in the same sense as the magistracy above men
tioned. God who has ordained that there should be civil magis
tracy, has also ordained, as a means of supporting it, that there
should be tribute, custom, taxes. Let the Christian pay these
cheerfully ; and even when they are oppressive, let him submit
on the same ground as he does to other evils, i. e., until a proper
and lawful remedy for the oppression can be found. TlpoaKapre-
* The Greek negative particle pi) shows that it is not Indie, but Impera
tive.

EOMANS XIIT. 7-9. 403
povvres indicates habitual and persevering attention to any thing ;
as much as to say, Wliose proper official business it is to attend
to this matter.
(7) Render to all men what is due, dirdSore, k. t. X., on the
ground and spirit of such precepts. — &bpov means properly a
tax either on persons or on land ; or rather, in the present case,
both of these together. Te'Xos answers to our present term cus
tom, i. e., a tax on goods, wares, merchandise, etc. In respect
to cbofiov, comp. verse 4, above. The meaning of the apostle is,
that we should so stand in awe of those who wear the sword of
civil justice, as to deter us from sedition and civil disobedience.
Tipy commonly means the respect which one pays to his equals
in rank. But here it means the respect to be paid to the magis
tracy ; comp. 1 Pet. ii. 17. t6v fiaaiXeo ripdre. The construction
t<3 t6v cbopov is elliptical = t<3 tov cbopov [Sei d7rau-£iv], or some
equivalent expression ; and so of ™ rb riXos.
(8) From these precepts with respect to rendering to magis
trates what is due on the ground of our civil obligations, the
apostle makes an easy transition to our duty in general with
respect to the subject of debts : Owe no man any thing, except
to hve one another, pySevl . . dyairav ; i. e., scrupulously pay off
all debts of whatever nature, and to whomsoever they may be
due ; except, as I may say, the debt of love. An animated and
very expressive description of the extent to which the obhgation
of benevolence reaches ! A debt of this nature is not hke a
pecuniary one, which, by the payment of a certain sum, is fully
and finally extinguished. The debt of love is only renewed by
payments ever so ample. In its own nature it is inextinguisha
ble ; for, as Augustine says : Nee cum redditur amittitur, sed
potius reddendo multiplicatur ; Ep. 62, ad Ccelest. But some
with less significance take dcbelXere in the Indie, and construe
thus : ' Ye have no debt but that of love, etc. ; ' i. e., true benev
olence will lead you to a proper discharge of all your relative
duties. For he who loves another, fulfils the law, 6 ydp dyairuiv
. . . ireirXypuiKe. Top illustrantis, i. e., it introduces a clause
designed to show that the debt of love is one which is always due.
But how does the apostle intend to illustrate this ? The answer
is, by showing that the law of God demands love to our neigh
bor, and this is admitted to be of perpetual obligation ; conse
quently the duty which it demands, must also be perpetual.
(9) He proceeds to show, that the sum of the moral law is
contained in the precept to love our neighbor. Tap introduces
the proof, from the law, of the position which he had just laid
down. The rb here is the article prefixed before a quotation or
ci.ation, introduced as such ; comp. Luke ix. 46, to, ris b\v ely pel-

404 EOMANS XIII. 10, It.
£<ov airuiv. See also Luke xxii. 2. Acts iv. 21. xxii. 30. xxvii. 4,
9. Luke i. 62. 1 Cor. iv. 6. Rom. viii. 26. 1 Thess. iv. 1. Mark ix.
23. Gal. iv. 25 ; see N. Test. Gramm. § 93. 9. Oi poixevaeis
k. r. X. All these commands proceed from the law of love. By
committing any one of the crimes here named, a man sins
against the good of his neighbor, and therefore against the pre
cept which requires him to love his neighbor as himself — Oi
\l/ev8opapTvpyaeis, is not important to the meaning, and is of very
doubtful authority. — Kai ei tis is not meant to express a doubt
whether there be any other commandment, but only this idea :
' Whatever other commandment there may be,' viz., respecting
our relative duties.
In this saying or declaration, iv tovtw tu! Xdym, i. e., in the
declaration which follows. — 'Aya^o-eis k. t. A., seems to be
quoted from Lev. xix. 18, ?pH3 ~$~b FOriNl, thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself. In this one sentence the apostle rightly
affirms that the whole essence of the relative moral law is con
tained. Suppose now that every man on earth should really
and truly and as highly regard his neighbor's happiness as his
own ; then all injustice, fraud, oppression, and injury of every
kind, would at once cease, and a universal fulfilment of our
obligation to others would be the consequence. — nX^o-iov in
itself an adverb, is here employed with the Article as a noun in
the Ace. case. So the Greeks frequently employed adverbs.
The pronoun iavrdv is here referred to the second person singu
lar. It may designate either the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd person, by the
usage of both classic and N. Test, writers. See Lex. on iovrov.
(10) Love worketh no ill to its neighbor ; love then is the fulfil
ling of the law, y dydiry . . . y dydiry. That is, he who loves
his neighbor as himself, will designedly do him no harm or
injury. TiXypuipa seems here to be of the same meaning as
irXypuiais ; and so in Gal. iv. 4. Eph. i. 10. So Philo de Abr.
p. 387, irXypuipa rov xpdvov ; .so TrAijpojcris tuiv ypepuiv, Ezek. v. 2.
Dan. x. 3. Tlie fulfilling ofthe law is the filling up the measure
of its requisitions ; and here the fulfilling of the law which has
respect to our relative duties ; comp. Gal. v. 14. James ii. 8.
Matt. xxii. 39, 40. 1 Tim. i. 5. What the apostle designs to
teach is : ' Love, such as the law demands, will lead us always
to seek our neighbor's good, and so to be always paying the
debt of benevolence, yet never paying it off.'
(11) Kai tovto, i. e., xai tovto roieire, do this, viz., all of which
he had been exhorting them to do. Kai tovto is explained by
Theodoret as meaning, Kai pdXiaro ; which gives the sense very
well. Considering the time, elSores rov Kaipov, or taking cognizance
of the time, or (taking the participles as causal, which is often

EOMANS XIII. 11. 405
the case, New Test. Gramm. § 140. 7) since, or because ye know,
etc., comp. r/Seiv in Acts xxiii. 5. Kaipov I understand to mean
the gospel-time which had already come. The apostle considers
the commencement of this, which had already taken place, as
the beginning of a glorious day, the dawning of the Sun of
righteousness with healing in his beams. A state of sin and
ignorance is a state of darkness ; and out of such a state Chris
tians are brought, that they may see the light ; comp. Eph. v, 8,
11. John iii. 19 — 21. 1 Pet. ii. 9. That it is now time to
awake out of sleep, for now is our salvation nearer than when
we believed, oti uipa  iiriarevaapev. That is, the com
mencement of the Christian dispensation, and the beginning of
light in your own souls, call for corresponding efforts and activity.
The image of awaking out of sleep is often used, in order to
designate the rousing up from a state of comparative inaction, to
one of strenuous effort ; comp. Eph. v. 14. 1 Cor. xv. 34. 1
Thess. v. 6.
But what is the auirypia, which is nearer than when Christians
at Rome first believed ? Tholuck, and most of the late com
mentators in Germany, even those who are most strenuous de
fenders of the inspiration of the apostles suppose that they ex
pected the speedy advent of Christ upon earth a second time,
when the day of glory to the church would commence. Accor
dingly, they represent him as here and elsewhere exhorting
Christians to be on the alert, constantly expectiug the approach
of such a day. In support of this view, Tholuck appeals to Phil.
iv. 5. 1 Thess. v. 2, 6. Rev. xxii. 12. But how the words ofthe
apostles, when thus construed, can be made consistent with them
selves (not to speak of other difficulties arising from the consid
eration that they were inspired), is more than I am able to see.
The very passage referred to, in the first epistle to the church at
Thessalonica, was understood by the Thessalonians in the same
manner as Tholuck and others understand it ; but this interpre
tation was formally and strenuously corrected in 2 Thess. n. Is
it not enough that Paul has explained his own words ? Who can
safely venture to give them a meaning different from what he
gives? — Then as to Rev. xxii. 1 2, how is it possible that the
writer who had just made an end of predicting a long series of
events that should happen before the day of glory, one of whicli
is to occupy a thousand years, can be supposed to have believed
that all this was to take place during that very generation in
which he lived ? . .
I only add here, that I cannot with my present views_ admrt it.
I must, therefore, refer auirypia to the spiritual salvation winch
believers were to experience, when transferred to the world ot

406 EOMANS XIII. 12 — 14.
everlasting light and glory. And so construed, the exhortation of
Paul amounts to this : 'Cliristian brethren, we have been brought
out of darkness into marvellous light ; let us act in a manner that
corresponds with our condition. We are hastening to our retri
bution ; every day brings us nearer to it ; and in prospect of the
reward which now almost appears in sight, as we approach the
goal of human life, let us act with renewed effort as duty requires.'
So Chrysostom.
(12) The night is advanced, the day is at hand, y vuf ....
¦ijyyiKe ; a repetition of a part of the idea contained in the preced
ing verse. NiJf, the time of ignorance and darkness in which they
had once been, 'is now nearly gone,' i. e., they had now come as it
were to the confines of eternal day, i. e., of a more perfect knowl
edge of divine things. It behooved them, therefore, to rouse up
all their energies, and to act in a manner congruous with their
condition and obligations. Let us put away then the works of dark
ness, and put on the armor of light, diroBuipeBa . . . cbuirds; i. e.,
let us reject such things as we were accustomed to do while in a
state of darkness ; and let us arise to combat all our spiritual foes,
by girding on the armor of light, that is, by living and acting in
such a manner as becomes those who are the sons of light.
(13) Let us walk in a becoming manner, as by day, uis ... .
irepi-rraT-rjauipev ; i. e., let us live as it becomes those who enjoy the
light, to whom the path of duty is made plain ; so as to guard
against reproach from those whose eyes are fixed upon us to watch
our demeanor. 'Evypepa, I take here to be the Dat. conditionis,
i. e., to designate the circumstance that they have now to act as
tho<e who have daylight to guide their actions. Not in revelling
and drunkenness, etc., py Kuipois . . . t,yXw. The apostle here men
tions some of those sins which were most usually committed dur
ing the night season.
(1 4) But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, dXX' .... Xpiarov,
i. e., imitate him ; which is the usual sense of the Greek ivSvaaaBat
riva; or perhaps it here means, like the Hebrew cab, to be filled
with, and so the idea is : Be filled with a Christian spirit, abound
in it ; "let Christ dwell in you richly." And make no provision
for the flesh, in respect lo its lusts, koi rrjs aapms . . . iiriBvpias.
Tijs aapKos irpdvoiav means provision for the sake of the flesh, i. e.,
in order to gratify its lusts, as els emBvpias explains it. For the
Genitive see New Test. Gramm. § 99. So Rom. viii. 32, irpdj3ara
acbayys, sheep destined for the slaughter ; comp. Phil. i. 22. John
v. 29. vii. 35. Matt. iv. 15. x. 5. etc.

EOMANS XIV. 407

CHAP. XIV. 1—23.
The apostle having given precepts, for the sake of caution and restraint, to the
Jewish part of the church at Eome, now turns to the Gentile part, and gives them
some salutary cautions with respect to their treatment of their Jewish brethren. It
should be remembered, that (holocausts excepted) only a part of the offerings of the
flesh of slain beasts was consumed by fire ; the rest was reserved for the priests or
the offerer, and frequently came to the market for sale. Now a man who ate meats
that bad been obtained at the market, might cat that which had been offered to idols.
The Jew from bis abhorrenceof idolatry shuddered at such a possibility and even the
Christian Jew could not at once divest himself of the feeling, and sometimes even
abstained from all flesh lest he should eat that which had been offered to idols.
Clement of Alexandria and Augustine, however, interpret the chapter before us as
having reference only to scrupulousness about meat that had actually been offered to
idols, and not meat in general. But ver. 2 seems to be opposed to this opinion. Ac
cordingly, Chrysostom, Origen, Theodoret. Jerome, and most modern commentators
suppose, that there is reference to all kinds of meat sold in the public markets. A
comparison of the present chapter with ICor. viii., would seem to afford confirmation
that the scruples in. question (about the eating of meat) arose from the circumstance,
that meats which had been presented at the temples of idols, often came into the
markets for sale (1 Cor. x. 25 —28), and in consequence cf this, it was so difficult lo
distinguish lawful meats from unlawful ones, that it was duty rather to forego the
use of meats, than to incur the danger of eating those which were polluted.
Some ciitics, however, as Koppe and Eichhorn have maintained, that the Christians
whom Paul has in view here, were those called by the Creek aatcrjrai, ascetics, i. c,
those who practised peculiar self-denial as to food and drink, and subjected them
selves to various penances and mortifications of the flesh, in order that they might
attain to a more pure and elevated state of devotion and piety. That a Feet of this
kind, viz . the Essenes, existed among the Jews atthis time, is well known from tbe
testimonies of Philo and Josephus. But besides the Essenes, there were others among
the Jews who practised abstinence from meat. Cf. Tita Josepbi, §§ 2, 3- There were
also, among the Greeks, many Pythagoreans ofthe newly reviving school of this phi
losopher, who pursued a like course of life with regard to food. Similar to those classes
of men, in respect to their mode of sustenance, are some Christians mentioned by
Origen (cont. Celsum, V. 48), who lived in his time. So in Cunones Apostoh (L.). the
like class of men is mentioned.
Still it does not seem probable that it was such ascetics that the apostle here intends
to describe. Ascetics of this class in every country where they have made their ap
pearance, have usually obtained for themselves great credit and influence, on the
ground of their supposed extraordinary sanctity. As was very natural, they took to
themselves great credit on this account, and looked down with pity or contempt on
those, who declined to pursue the course of self-denial which they had adopted. If the
apostle were here addressing men of this class, he would attack their pride and vain
glory, as he does very strenuously in Col ii. 21—23. But instead of this, we find the
ascetic party here to be the one which needs defending. Whom the others look down
vpon with contempt or disrespect and are prone to treat with some degree of scorn
or neglect on account of their weakness or superstition. It is more probable, then
that the whole difficulty in question was one which arose from Jewish scruples about
meats and drinks offered to idols, in whicli the Jewish Christians believed that they
could not partake, except at the expense of associating themselves with the worship
pers of idols and becoming polluted.
This is satisfactorily confirmed by ver- 5, which speaks ofthe distinction that these
same persons made between days, out of respect tothe laws of 3Ioses and the customs
of the Jews; comp. Col. ii. 16. The Gentile part of the church would naturally feel
no scruple in respect to such matters j and it would not be unnatural for them to look

408 ROMANS XIV. 1.
at first with wonder, and afterwards with disdain, on the scrupulousness of their Jew
ish brethien respecting such external ordinances. It is easy to see, that tlie peace of
the church would thus become endangered. And iu orderto prevent this, the apostle
throws his shield over his brethren in a weaker state of belief, and insists upon it that
others shall deal very tenderly aud affectionately with scruples of such a uatuie, and
not condemn or despise those who entertained them. This he could insist on v\ ith the
more urgency, because their scruples were of a conscientious and sober nature, and
not mere whims of superstition. Accordingly the present chapter gives precepts
and principles iu regard to things of this nature, which must be of great value to the
church of Christ, down to the end of time; and on this account, we can aver, in one
sense, that we rejoice in the occasion which called forth the expression of such views
and feelings on the part of r.iul, The whole constitutes a rule of life in regard to
weaker Christian brethien, aud with regard to food, drink, manner of living, and
observance of fasts and feasts of an extraordinary nature, which is a very important
guide to scrupulous and tender consciences.
(1) Him that is weak in his belief, tov .... iriarei; i. e., him
who is not yet fully convinced or enlightened in regard to the
true extent of Christian liberty. The article rfj here may, as
often, be taken as equivalent to the pronoun his ; or it may be con
strued as referring to the Christian belief or persuasion. Tlians
does not here mean strictly saving faith, but belief or persuasion
in the more general sense of the term; comp. 1 Cor. viii. 11, 12.
Receive wilh kindness, irpoaXap/3dveaBe, admit to your society or
friendship ; so the \ erb irpoaXap/3dvopai is used in the New Tes
tament. It means literally to take to one's self; and so it is ap
plied to taking a companion, Acts xvii. 5 ; to receiving into one's
house as a guest or a friend, Acts xviii. 26. xxviii. 2. Phiiem. vs.
12, 18. Hence, in a sense somewhat more general, to receive
kindly; comp. Rom. xiv. 3. xv. 7. Calov objects here against
his Lutheran brethren, for employing this text to prove that Cal
vinists should be treated with lenity. He says that 2 John verse
10, is the proper rule to be applied to them !
Not so as to make decisions in respect to his opinions, py els
SiaKpiaeis SiaXoyiapuiv. AiaKpiaeis literally signifies distinctions,
decisions, discriminations. The meaning doubts, scruples, needs
confirmation, and is unnecessary here. The word SiaXoyiapuiv
means thoughts, opinions, sentiments. The main difficulty here
is, to make out the verb that is implied after the py . We may
repeat irpoaXapfldveaBe, and then the sense will be : ' Do not
receive him for the sake of making decisions, or so as to make
decisions, of opinions or sentiments,' viz., opinions in respect to
the subject mentioned in the sequel. Or we may simply supply
earui, and then the meaning will be: 'Let not this (viz., the
reception spoken of) be such as will lead you to sit in judgment
upon the opinions of those who are weak in the faith, in respect
to the matter that follows.' The construction of the verse is very
obscure. Another exegesis not uncommon is : 'Do not act in

EOMANS XIV. 2 — 4. 409
such a manner as will have a tendency to promote, rather than
allay scrupulous thoughts (SiaKpiaeis SiaXoyiapuiv) about meats,
days, etc' This sense is a good one if it could be fairly made
out that SiaKpiaeis means scruples or doubts. As the matter
stands, the other sense accords best with philology.
(2) *Os pev . . . 6 Se do-^ecoiv. At first sight the reader may
mistake these formulas for distinctive antithetic pronouns. But
strictly os pev would require os Se with the verb instead of the
participle in the antithetic part (see in ver. 5) ; in the same man
ner as the pronominal article 6 pev requires the antithetic corres
pondent to be 6 Si. So there is a slight anacoluthon here. The
pev with os has simply a discretive power in respect to os, which
is sufficiently marked in our English one. The Se in the next
clause is adversative or antithetic as to the sentiment, and is to
be translated but. Ilavra agrees with ^puiparo understood, comp.
verse 15, but fipuipa is not confined merely to the sense of meat;
it means anything eatable, any food. ebayeiv is the second Aorist
here, as appears from the accent ebdyui, though usually ranged, in
the lexicons, under the root iaBlui.
But he who is weak eateth herbs, 6 Se . . . iaBlei ; i. e., 6 aV-Je-
v&v ev iriarei, comp. ver. 1, he who is scrupulous about distinction
of meats, etc., refrains from meat sold in the markets lest he
should eat that which is offered to idols. He prefers to live on
veyetables (Xdxava), rather than subject himself to this danger.
After iaBlei the word povov is implied.
(3) Let not him who eateth, despise him who eateth not; nor
him who eateth not, condemn him who eateth; 6 iaBiuiv ....
Kpiverui. Kplveiv, in the sense of condemn, is frequent in the New
Testament. The sentiment is: 'He who is freed from any scru
ples about distinction of meats, should not exercise an unchari
table and condemning spirit towards him who entertains such
scruples. The reason is subjoined :
For God has accepted him, 6 ®eos . . irpoaeXafiero, i. e., received
him into his redeemed family, and admitted him to its privileges ;
comp. irpoaXappdveaBe in ver. 1.— Avrov in this case must be
generic, as it includes both him who eateth, and him who eateth
(4) Who art thou that condemnest the servant of another? Sv
tis . . . o'iKeryv. That is, such a one as is favorably accepted of
God, and is his servant and not yours, how can you claim the
right of exercising severity towards him, in respect to his scru
ples of conscience ? The pron. av, thou, is emphatic in position :
Thou that condemnest, etc., i. e., who art thou, etc. ^
By [or to] his own master he standeth or falleth, ™ ioiu ....
¦xiirrei. The apostle says to thosewho were freed from scruples

410 EOMANS XIV. 5.
about food : < Brethren, do not be severe in condemning those
who differ from you in opinion with respect to this point. Tours
is not the prerogative to judge in this case ; it is God who will
acquit or condemn. Stjj/oo is not a classical, but later Greek
word, from the Perfect 'iaryKo. Its meaning here is, to stand
fast or firm in a secondary sense, i. e., to hold good one's place
at a time of trial, to remain firm and secure. So Psalm i. 5,
"The ungodly shall not stand in judgment;" i. e., shall not be
able to remain firm and safe. So the opposite term (iriTrrei)
would also lead us to judge. To fall, means, in this case, to be
condemned, to be insecure, to be subjected to condemnation or pun
ishment ; exactly as we say in English, of a man on trial for
crime and condemned, he was cast at the trial, he failed, eireae.
The Dative rid iSim Kvpiui, is here the Dative of relation ; comp.
xii. 10, seq. and New Test. Gramm. 106. 1. The strict render
ing ad sensum would be : In relation to his own master he is sub
ject to a sentence of condemnation or acquittal; for it is only his
own master who can call him to an account. And he shall be
established, for God is able to establish him, araByaeroi . . . airov ;
i. e., he shall stand in the judgment of his conduct in reference to
this matter, for God is able to acquit him, or God has the power
and right of acquitting him, although you should condemn him.
(5) One esteemeth one day more than another, os pev . . . ype-
pav, i. e., he makes a distinction between days, regarding one as
more sacred than another. Kpivei here has a very different sense
from that which it conveys in the preceding verse, and is employed
in a kind of paronomasiac way ; it means estimates, regards,
deems; comp. Acts xiii. 46. xvi. 15. xxvi. 8. Rom. iii. 7. 1 Cor.
ii. 2. Joseph. Antiq. Jud. IV. 8, 2. KpiBeiyre eiSaipovearoToi, ye
shall be deemed most fortunate. Uapd, more than, above.
Another esteemeth every day, os Se . . . ypipav ; i. e., makes no
distinction between days, regards all days alike. The pev and Se
joined with os in the two clauses, serve merely the purpose of
antithetic distinction as to the pronoun. Let every one be fully
persuaded in his own mind, eKaaros . . . irXypocbopeiaBui ; i. e., let
each one act conscientiously in respect to this matter, according to
the real persuasion or behef of his own mind.
Whether the apostle means to include the Sabbath, or rather
the Lord's day, under what he says here of the special observance
of particular days, has often been called in question. It is well
known, that in the early ages ofthe church a distinction was made
between Sabbath and Lord's day. The former was the Jewish
weekly Sabbath, i. e., the seventh day of the week. It embraced
also the occasional fasts and feasts prescribed by the Mosaic law ;
comp. Col. ii. 16. Gal. iv. 10. Such was the Jewish use of the

EOMANS XIV. 0. 411
word n_al3, adpfiarov. But the early Christians, in order to dis
tinguish this from the first clay of the week, on which they held
their religious assemblies of worship (1 Cor. xvi. 2. Acts xx. 7),
called the first day ypipa Kvplov (Lord's day), Rev. i. 10. Of this
distinction there is clear evidence in the writings of the eccles
iastical fathers ; and the passages above quoted seem to make it
sufficiently evident.
There is nothing in the context whicli furnishes any certain
clew to the meaning of ypipa here. But if we may venture to
compare it with Col. ii. 16 and Gal. iv. 10 (and the two passages
seem manifestly to have relation to the same usages and preju
dices in the church), then we may draw the conclusion pretty
clearly, that ypipa here relates to clays which the scruples of Jew
ish Christians deemed sacred, and has no relation to the i^aepa
Kupiou whicli all agreed to keep holy.
(6) He who regards the day, regards it to [the honoring of] the
Lord; and he who regards not the day for [the honoring of] the
Lord, he doth not regard it, 6 cbpovwv . . . oi cbpovei; that is, he
who makes the distinction in question between clays, does so be
cause he believes that God has required it, and he keeps such
days sacred in order to honor him ; but he who does not make
these distinctions, refrains from doing it because he thinks that
duty to God requires him to refrain, inasmuch as God does not
require these days to be kept holy. 'O py cbpovuiv . . . oi cbpovei
is omitted in A., B., C, D., E., F., G. ; 23., 57., 67. ; .ZEth, Copt.,
Vulg., Ital. ; Ruf., Ambrosiast., Pel., Aug., Hieron. ; and neg
lected by Erasmus and Mill. Still, the context seems so to re
quire it, that it is now generally admitted. Kvpia is the Dativus
commodi. Likewise he who eats, eats to [the honoring of] the Lord, for he
gives God thanks, /au 6 iaBiuiv . . . ©e<i. ; i. e., he who eats food
without any scrupulous distinctions, does this with a regard
to the commands of God, and is thankful to God for the blessings
bestowed upon him, viz., the privilege of enjoying his food with
out the troublesome distinction of clean and unclean. Tap stands
before the reason why he eats in honor of the Lord. And he who
eats not, for [the honoring of] the Lord he eats not, and gives
God thanks, koI 6 prj iaBiuiv . . . ©e<3. That is, he refrains from
certain kinds of food, from a design to obey the commands of
God ; and for the light which is imparted to him (as he supposes)
with respect to making such a distinction in food, he is grateful.
Flatt thinks this should be turned thus : ' For the little which he
does enjoy, he is thankful to God.' But then this little would be
what he eats ; whereas he who does not eat, is here represented
as thankful — for what ? The not eating must be the answer ; and
this, in the sense above given.

412 EOMANS XIV. 7 — 9.
(7) For none of us lives to himself, oiSels ydp . . . tfj ; i. e., none
of us, who behaves himself as a Christian, can live only for his
own pleasure, or to obey his own inclinations. The apostle seems
here to take it for granted, that those who made distinctions be
tween food, and those who did not, aimed to honor God by this,
because they stood pledged to be entirely devoted to his service
and glory. — Zrjv tivi to live devoted lo any person or thing, to ac
commodate all our actions and desires to his wishes ; comp. Luke
xx. 38. Rom. vi. 10, 11. Gal. ii. 19. — The ydp at the beginning
of the verse, introduces a general reason for what he had just
affirmed. And none of us dieth to himself, koi oiSels iavrio diroB-
vyoKei ; i. e., in life and death we are the Lord's, we are bound to
glorify him in all that we do. That the phrase oiSels iavrio diroB-
vyaKei means, we are the Lord's whether in life or in death, i. e., in
the state of the dead, viz., in the present and future world, seems
clear from comparing verses 8, 9.
(8) For whether we live, we live to the Lord, and whether we die,
we die to the Lord, idv re . . . diroBvyaKuipev ; i. e., whether in a
state of life or death (comp. v. 9), we belong to the Lord, weare
bound to glorify him. The yap introduces a clause illustrating
and confirming the preceding declaration. — The phrases idv re
. . idv re show the mutual connection of both, and their relation
in common to something else ; which here is t<3 Kvpim tfjv or otto-
BvrjaKeiv respectively. The nicer shades of re . . . koi or (as
here) re . . . re, it is impossible to imitate in our language.
Whether we live, then, or die, we are the Lord's, idv re . . . iapev ;
i. e., whether we exist in the present world, or in another, viz.,
the world of the dead, we belong to the Lord, i. e., to Christ, as
appears from v. 9. Christ is our Lord, both here and hereafter.
And this being the case, all judgment must be committed to him.
(9) For Clirist both died and revived, for the very purpose that he
might be Lord of the dead and the living, els tovto ydp . . . Kvpievay.
There is much discrepancy of readings here. Kai before diriBave
is rejected by many uncial and other MSS. and ancient versions :
also by Griesbach, Lachmann, and Reiche. The word dveVre,
rose, in the textus receptus, in some ancient MSS., versions, and
fathers, is rejected on good grounds. It seems to have come from
the margin, where it was written as a gloss or explanation of k%yae.
"E£ijo-ehas here the sense of reviving, coming to life, and not sim
ply of hving, compare Matt. ix. 18. John v. 25. xi. 25. Acts i.
3. xxv. 15, et alibi. In relation to the sentiment here expressed,
viz., that Christ suffered and rose, or in other words, that he " took
on him our nature, and became obedient unto death," in order
that he might be Lord of all, the reader may compare Phil. ii. 5
¦ — 11. John xvii. 4, 5. Heb. ii. 9, 10. xii. 2. Universal dominion

EOMANS XIV. 10—12 413
though not the principal object of Christ's death, was a fruit or
consequence of it, and indeed one of the ends which the Saviour
had in view, because it was necessary for the accomplishment of
his benevolent purposes. — To be Lord of the dead and of the liv
ing, is that he should be supreme ruler over the present world
and the world of spirits ; for the living and the dead, make up all
the human race. — The supremacy of Christ, and his absolute
property in all Christians, hving or dead, is fully asserted and im
plied in vers. 6 — 9.
(10) And thou, why dost thou condemn thy brother? %v Se . . .
aov ; Sij is emphatic as in verse 4 above. Ae, but in this case ; for
the sentiment is adversative. Ti Kplveis, why dost thou censure thy
brother for his weak and scrupulous conscience ? Even thou, why
dost thou despise thy brother ? *H /cai av . . . aov. Kai av, emphatic.
To despise here means to regard wilh feelings of contempt brethren
who have scrupulous consciences, to look upon them as inferior.
For we must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, irdvres
yap . . . Xpiarov ; i. e., such a brother is not amenable to you in
a matter of this nature ; Christ the supreme judge of all is his
judge. We must leave such matters to him ; at the same time
feehng that we are accountable for all that we do or say in respect
to our Christian brethren. — Tap introduces a reason why we
ought not to despise a Christian brother for his weak conscience,
viz., the fact that he is accountable to Christ himself and not to
us ; as we also are accountable for our demeanor toward him.
(11) In the phrase yeypairrai ydp, ydp is prefixed to a clause
introduced in order to confirm what immediately precedes. As
I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow lo me, and every tongue
shall confess to God, tfi iyui .... ®eoi ; i. e., all shall acknowl
edge subjection to me, and give to me an account of their actions ;
or, all are accountable to God as their supreme and final judge.
The passage is quoted ad sensum from Is. xiv. 23 (xiv. 23, 24
Sept.), where the Hebrew for £w iyio is TOM ¦'a = i_)x in, Sept.
kot ipavrov opvvui, by myself do I swear. So the apostle has
translated ad sensum, not ad verbum.
12) That the doctrine of accountability to God is contained or
implied in this passage from the Old Testament, Paul now pro
ceeds to assert : every one of us, iherefore, must give an account
respecting himself to God, dpa ovv . . . ®ei3. For A.dyos, in the
sense here given, comp. Matt. xii. 36. Acts xix. 40. 1 Pet. iv. 5.
Heb. xiii. 17. iv. 13. The apostle here reckons the appearing
before the judgment-seat of Christ, as giving an account to God.
So God is represented as judging the world by Christ, Acts xvii.
31. Rom. ii. 16. " Deus et Christus arctissime conjunct! sunt, ita
ut quod de hoc dicitur, dicitur etiam de illo."
35*

414 EOMANS XIV. 13 — 15.
(13) Let us then no longer judge one another, p-yKen . . Kpivuipev ;
i. e., let us no longer, as we have done, judge and condemn those
who make a distinction of meats, days, etc. Since we are all
accountable to God for all that we do, let us no more thus expose
ourselves to his displeasure.
But rather determine this not to put a stumbling -block, or an occa
sion of falling in the way of a brother, dXXd tovto . . . aKovSaXov.
Kpivare, used by a kind oi paronomasia here=determine, decide, is
taken in a sense quite different from that of Kpivuipev in the pre
ceding clause. Kpivare rovro means, make or come to this deter
mination; comp. Acts xvi. 15. xx. 16. 1 Cor. vii. 37. et alibi.
Tui dSeXoSu is Dativus incommodi, as the grammarians say : irpoa
Koppa and o-KcivSaXov are not materially different ; both mean an
occasion or cause of stumbling. Here they are to be understood,
of course, in a moral sense ; and the use of both words seems de
signed merely to indicate every kind of occasion for stumbling.
(14) Iknow and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, oTSa . . 'I^o-ov;
i. e., I know, and know for certainty because the Lord Jesus him
self has taught me. *Ev Kvpiui by ihe Lord, for so iv may be con
strued before the Dative of cause or agent. Or it may be con
strued as designating Paul's relation to the Lord, i. e., I being in
the Lord, am persuaded, etc. The last is the more analogical
meaning. That nothing is unclean of itself, on . . airov ; i. e., no food or
drink in its own nature, or as it is in itself, is unclean to the
Christian. Ai' avTot), by or in itself, on its own account. For avToi),
Lachmann reads airov. The exchange of these words for each
other in the New Test., is very frequent, owing often to the neg
ligence of coUators as to making the requisite distinction. But
to him who deemeth anything to be unclean, it is unclean, el py . . .
koivov ; i. e., if a man believes any species of food or drink to be
unlawful, and then partakes of it, he defiles himself, because he
does that which he believes to be sinful.
(15) Now if thy brother is grieved because of meat, elSe . . . .
Xvireirai. Ae continuative, now ; but it is a well authorized read
ing. — Aia. j3puipa, because thou eatest meat which he regards as
unclean. Thou walkest no longer according to what benevolence
requires, oiKen . . . irepiiraTeis ; i. e., thou dost violate the law of
love, which would require thee to do unto others that which thou
wouldest that others should do unto thee. But this thou dost
not, when thou demeanest thyself in this manner.
Destroy not him by thy meat, for whom Christ died, py . . . .
airiBave. That a7ro_\Ave means destroy, seems plain from compar
ing 1 Cor. viii. 11 and verse 20 below. The word dirdXXvpi was
sometimes employed by the Greeks in the sense of cruciare, to

EOMANS XIV. 16—19 415
torment, vex ; a sense which is possible here, but not probable.
The meaning seems to be : ' Do not furnish an occasion of stumb
ling to thy brother, lest he fall and come into condemnation.' —
'Yirep ov Xpiaros direBave seems to be added in order to show how
very differently Christ himself acted and felt, with respect to
Christians who are weak in faith ; and thus to paint, in glowing
colors, the criminality of those who refused to imitate his spirit.
(16) Let not your good, then, be evil spoken ofipy... dyaBov.
Ovv, therefore, then, i. e., since such is the case, viz., that Christ
died for sinners, and that you are under obligation to show the
spirit of similar benevolence toward your fellow Christians, you
ought to demean yourselves in such a way, as that you will give
no occasion for the religious liberty which you enjoy to be evil
spoken of. That dyaBov here means freedom from the yoke of
bondage which the ceremonial law imposed^ I cannot well doubt ;
and so Origen, Theodoret, Bengel, Clarius, and others, understood
it. But Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, and others, less ap
propriately understood by dya^ov, the Christian religion in gen
eral. (17) For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but right-
ousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, ov ydp . . . dyito.
The yap here introduces a reason why Christians should not suffer
their good to be evil spoken of. 'H ftaaiXeia tov ©eoS here means,
the spiritual kingdom-ai God or Christ ; his reign within ; his
moral dominion over the hearts of men : in a word, true Chris
tianity. This does not consist in refraining or not refraining
from this or that food or drink ; but in holy conformity to God,
peaceful and gentle demeanor, and joy such as is imparted by the
influences of the Holy Spirit. A truly admirable description of
the nature of real Christianity ! TApyvy here means peace, in op
position to discord and contention among brethren. — 'Ev irvevpon
dyiio may be applied, as a qualification, to SucauKnVr; and elpyvy as
well as to xa/°* > but I prefer the construction above given.
(18) For he who serveth Christ in respect to these things, is ac
ceptable to God, and approved by men, 6 ydp . . . dvBpunrois. The
ydp here introduces a reason why peace and joy follow the prac
tice of pure Christian principles. 'Ev rovrois means the things
before mentioned, in regard to meats and drinks and feast days,
etc. AoKipos, acceptus, gratus ; the apostle means, that men will
speak well of such a demeanor as he had commended.
(19) Therefore let us strive after peace and mutual edification,
dpa ovv . . . dXXyXovs. Td rys elpyvqs . . . rd rys o'lKoSopys, are,
according to a very common usage of the Greek, a periphrasis
for to, elpyviKd, etc., or for the simple eip^vr;, o'lKoSopy. — Tijs eis dX
XyXovs, i. e., Ti?s oUoSopys ek dXXyXovs. For the use of the article

416 EOMANS XIV. 20.
before the adjectives see New Test. Gramm. § 92. 1. The ob
ject of this verse is, to charge the church at Rome to demean
themselves in such a way, with regard to the matters in dispute
which he had touched upon, as would promote the peace of the
church and the edification of both parties.
(20) Destroy not the work of God on account of food, py . . .
®eov. To epyov rov ®eov may = o'lKoSopyv ®eov in 1 Cor. iii. 9,
and o'iKoSopy . . . ev Kvpiui, in Eph. ii. 21, and oucoSopyv iavrov in
Eph. iv. 16 ; i. e., it may designate Christians, or a Christian. But
possibly the writer may refer here to the internal work oi faith,
which is called epyov ®eov in John vi. 29. Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 9. 1 Pet.
ii. 5. That the renewal and sanctification of the heart is the spe
cial reason why Christians are called God's building, etc., is
plain ; but I see no reason why the sense here of epyov ®eov may
not be concrete, i. e., taken as including the persons in whom such
a work is carried on. — KaTa_W is a verb accommodated to the
figurative expression epyov ®eov, and means to pull down, to
destroy. The meaning is : ' Do not so demean thyselfj in respect
to this dispute about meats clean and unclean, as to cause thy
weak brother to sin and to fall into condemnation.'
All [meats] are clean, iravra piv KoBapd ; i. e., no distinction of
food is to be made under the Christian dispensation. All dis
tinctions of this nature made by the Levitical law are abolished.
That 7rdvTa agrees with fipuipara implied, is clear from eveKev
Ppwparos of the preceding verse. Mev in the protasis here has,
as often, dXXd in the apodosis for its corresponding particle. They
are hurtful to the man who eats so as to occasion stumbling thereby,
dXXd . . . iaBiovn. 'AXXd, here concedes what is said in the
preceding clause, but introduces a clause which limits or makes
exception to this general principle. Aid, before a noun in the
Genitive, often designates the manner in whicli a thing happens
or is done ; so, e. g., in Luke viii. 4, Sid irapafioXys, i. q., irapa-
/3oXikuis ; Acts xv. 27. SidXdyov, orally ; 2 Cor. x. 11, Si' eVio-ToAuV,
in the way of ivriting ; Heb. xiii. 22, Sia jSpa^eov, briefly, etc.
Here the context seems to indicate that Sia irpoaKopparos desig
nates the giving of offence, not the taking of offence ; inasmuch as
the apostle is plainly addressing those who were not weak in the
faith, but believed that all meats were clean. Is kokov here sub
ject, or predicate ? The most facile construction seems to be, to
repeat fipuipa mentally from the preceding part of the verse, and
to arrange the sentence thus : dXXd kokov [ean fipuipa] rid dv-
Bpuiirio k. r. X. Or 7rav may be understood as the subject of the
sentence ; or Ka/co'v may be rendered as a noun =: bad or evil
thing, for so koXov appears to be constructed in the next verse.
The meaning of kokov in this case is spiritual, not physical. The

EOMANS XIV. 21—23. 417
apostle means to say, that it is a sin when any one eats so as to
give offence. The participle tu> iaBlovn seems to be equiva
lent to the Inf. mode iaBieiv ; and it may be rendered here as ex
pressing conditionality, i. e., if or provided that he eat, etc. See
N. Test. Gram. § 140. 8.
(21) It is good not to eat flesh, nor drink wine, nor [to do any
thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or has ground of offence, or is
made weak, koXov . . daBevei. MijSe ev <5 is elliptical; the full expres
sion would be, pySe cbayeiv y irieiv n iv (S k. t. X. The words y
aKavSaXi^eTai r) daBevei, are omitted in Codd. A. C. 67, and in
Syr. Arab. Copt, versions ; also in Orig., Ruf., and Augustine.
Mill and Koppe hold them to be a gloss or repetition of irpoaKoir-
Tei ; but Reiche contends against this. The sense of daBevei is to
render incompetent, viz., incompetent to walk safely or securely.
(22) Hast thou faith ? keep it to thy self before God; Sii . . . ®eov,
i. e., hast thou a belief that there is no difference in meats (which
is truly the case), yet deem it sufficient, in respect to this point,
to regulate by it thy conduct in private as seen only by the eye of
God. Do not act this out in public, when you may give needless
and injurious offence. The meaning of irlanv see in ver. 1 of
the present chapter. Happy [is he], who does not condemn himself
in respect to the thing which he allows, paKopios . . . So/a/m^ei, i. e., we
may congratulate that man, who does not so use his Christian
liberty in respect to food, as to bring on himself condemnation or
blame by an abuse of it, or by making use of it in an imprudent
and inconsiderate manner. 'Ev <S in this case is an example of
attraction which is of an elliptical nature. It stands for e'v
tovtui o; which would complete the grammatical construction.
See N. Test. Gram. § 113. Note 2.
(23) But he who doubts is condemned if he eat, because it is not
of faith, 6 Se  7ricn-eu>s; i. e., he who doubts whether it is
lawful for him to eat a particular kind of food, and yet eats it, is
worthy of condemnation ; because he does this against, or at least
without the approval of his conscience. And everything that is
not of faith is sinful; irdv Se . . . . iari, i. e., not only the eating,
but the doing anything else against one's conscience or without an
approving conscience, is deserving of condemnation. No man
should indulge in any demeanor or conduct, the lawfulness of
which he doubts. A truly excellent maxim in Christian morals,
and one which, if duly heeded by Christians, would prevent many
a bitter hour of darkness and contrition.

418 EOMANS XV. 1—4.
CHAP. XV. 1 — 33
In the present chapter, Paul continues to exhort the Church at Home to strive after
unity and peace. He sets before them the self-denial of Christ, vers. 3, 4. Pie be
seeches God to give them the spirit of Christian unity and love, vers. 5, 6. lie
exhorts them to a mutual kind reception of each other, ver. 7. He shows that the
reception of Gentiles into the Christian church, had been clearly and often pre
dicted, vers. 8 — 12; and prays God to fill them all with joy and peace, ver. 13. He
apologizes, as it were, for writing to the Church at Rome, by describing the nature
of his office as an apostle to the Gentiles, the labors which he liad performed while
holding this office, and the affectionate desire which he had cherished of paying the
church at Rome a visit, vers. 14 — 24. He describes to them the plan of his future
journeys and labors, expresses his hope of yet visiting them, and begs an affection
ate interest in their prayers to God for him, vers. 25 — 32. He then concludes with
a benediction, ver 33.
(1) We, however, who are strong, ought to bear with the infirmi
ties of the weak, bcbeiXopev Si ... . ^oard'Qeiv. Ae must, on the
whole, be considered as adversative here. The course of thouglit
seems to be thus : " He who eats in a state of doubt, commits a
sin against his own conscience ; but we, who have more enlight
ened views, ought to bear with his scruples, and not to demean
ourselves so as to increase them." Avvaroi, the strong in faith,
i. e., those who had no scruples about meats and drinks, etc. —
'ASwdrojv, those who were not Swarot, i. e., who had scruples,
etc. BaoT-d£eiv to bear with, to endure patiently, to tolerate ; comp.
Gal. vi. 2. Rev. ii. 2. And not to please ourselves, koI py iav-dis
dpiaiceiv, i. e., not to act merely in such a way as would gratify
our own views and inclinations. See the example of Paul, in
1 Cor. ix. 22.
(2) Let each one of us please his neighbor in respect to that
which is good unto [his] edification, eKaaros .... o'lKoSopyv, i. e.,
let us act in such a manner as to please our neighbor, so far as
Ave may do so and do what is good ; let us act so as to edify him.
(3) For Christ did not please himself, koI ydp .... ypeaev, i. e.
Christ did not have respect merely to his own pleasure or pain,
convenience or inconvenience ; but did that which was grateful
and useful to others, although he exposed himself to great suffer
ing in consequence of acting thus. Tap stands prefixed here to
a reason why we ought to seek the good of others. But as it is
written, the reproaches of those who reproached thee have fallen
upon me, dXXd . . . iir' ipe. The passage is quoted from I's. lxix.
10 (L\ix. 9). The general sentiment is here accommodated to a
particular case ; i. e., the same thing which this sentiment de
clares, was in fact exemplified in the treatment which Christ
received; he suffered reproaches rather than desist from his
beneficence towards others.
(4) For whatsoever things were written in ancient times, were
written for our instruction, oaa ydp . . . irpoeypdcby. The connec-

EOMANS XV. 5. 419
tion of this verse with the preceding is somewhat difficult. The
ydp here gives a reason for an implied sentiment, viz., "This.
Scripture is appropriate, for, etc." Tipoeypdcby, lit. were written
before, i. e., in former days, in ancient times.
That through patience and the admonition of the Scriptures,
we might obtain hope, i'va . . . exuipev. 'Yiropevys refers to a pa
tient endurance of the troubles and sorrows, to which the doing
of good may expose us ; or to patient tolerance of the igno
rance and prejudice of others. Some refer it to patient continu
ance in belief. But this is not so apposite : — irapaK.Xyaeuis seems
here to mean admonition or exhortation ; for it refers back to SiSao--
koXIov, and if rendered consolation does not seem to be directly
congruous with that word. The reference is to the exhortation
virtually contained in the Scripture quoted, to persevere meekly
and patiently in doing good. Patience of this nature will pro
duce hope ; comp. Eom. v. 3 — 5. He who perseveres in thus
doing good, amid the evils which may come upon him, will be
rewarded with " a hope that maketh not ashamed."
(5) Now may the God of patience and admonition give mutual
unity of sentiment to you, according to Christ Jesus, 6 Se Beds ....
'I^o-ow. 'O ©eos rys viropovrjs means God, who bestows patience,
or, is the author of patience ; just as the God of grace, is the God
who bestows grace. So 6 ©eos rys 7rapaKA»;cre(os means, either
God, who is the author of consolation, or, better, who is the
author of exhortation or encouragement [viz. to persevere], ex
cites or exhorts to acts of self-denial, to do those things which
make for peace and for mutual Christian edification, although
they may cost self-denial and mortification; which accords with
the context above. — Am; is a later form of Opt. 2 Aor. for S0117 ;
see also 2 Tim. i. 16, 18. ii. 7, et al.
Kara. Xpiarbv 'Tqaovv means, in accordance with the Spirit of
Christ, or agreeably to what Christ or the Christian religion re
quires. The earnest supplication of the apostle, that the Romans
may be led to airb cbpoveiv iv dXXyXois, shows how mistaken those
are who think that practical unity of sentiment among Christians
is not desirable, even as to matters not essential to salvation ;
for surely the sentiment about distinction of meats was not essen
tial in this sense. If now such unity in smaller matters was
urged by the apostle, then of course he would urge it far more
in things essential to salvation. The precepts of the apostle
show, also, that Christians may differ about externals, and things
of minor importance, without hazarding their salvation ; although
not without endangering in some degree the peace and welfare of
the Church. Such is the imperfection of human nature, that
difference of opinion is apt to produce dispute ; and dispute of
course is apt to lead, more or less, to alienation of feeling.

420 EOMANS XV. 6—8.
(6) That with one accord and with one voice you may glorify
. God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Iva . . . Xpio--
rov. 'OpoBvpaSdv, from bpos conjunctus, and Bvpos animus,
characterizes the union of mind or sentiment, which the apostle
desires should pervade the Christian church. 'Ev evi aropan
characterizes the harmony of the voices, in the song of praise
whicli was to be sung by the church ; i. e., they should not sing
discordant but harmonious notes. The meaning is not literal
here, but figurative, viz., that with union in their praise to God
they might offer him thanksgiving, that they might all accord in
the same feeling and same worship. In koI iraripa, koi, even, is,
explicative ; a very common use in the New Testament ; comp.
1 Pet. i. 3. 2 Pet. i. 11. ii. 20. Phil. iv. 20. Eph. i. 3. Col. iii. 17.
In such cases, where /cat explicative is followed by a noun in ap
position with the preceding noun and limiting or defining it, the
article is usually omitted before the second noun, as here before
irarepa ; compare also, the examples cited above.
(7) Therefore show kindness to each other, as Christ, also hath
showed kindness to you, unto the glory of God, Sib ... . ®eov, i. e.,
in view of all that has been said, I beseech you to treat each
other with brotherly kindness and affection, such as Christ has
shown to you, in order that God may be glorified. Aid refers to
all which had been before said of Christian kindness and forbear
ance. As to irpoaXap($dveaBe, comp. xiv. 3. "Ypds in the textus
receptus is ypds. This latter is removed, because the MSS. A.
C. D. E. F. G., many Codd. minusc, and several versions and
fathers, read vpds. — Eis Sd£av ®eov Tholuck interprets of eternal
happiness, i. e., the glory which God bestows. The phrase is
capable of this meaning, comp. Heb. ii. 10. Rom. v. 2. 1 Pet. v.
4 ; but vers. 8, 9, require a different sense here, viz., since
Christ hath kindly received you, in order that God may be glo
rified. (8) Aeyoi Se k. r. X. Ai, as often, is added to a phrase or sen
tence, inserted for the sake of more full and entire explanation.
The design, however, is not directly indicated by Se', but by the
nature of the case. The writer having asserted that Christ has
kindly received us in order that God may be glorified, goes on
now to add some things which serve to show, that Christ entered
upon the duties of his mediatorial office in order to propagate the
truth, and to bring Jew and Gentile nations to glorify God.
Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision, on account
of the truth of God, 'lyaovv Xpiarbv .... ®eov; i. e., that Jesus
Christ was a minister of the Jews, that he served the cause of
divine truth among the Jews, in order to promote its true inter
ests. 'Yirep, on account of, for the sake of. In order to confirm

EOMANS XV. fl— 13. 421
the promises made to the fathers, els to . . . irarepuiv, i. e, in
order to carry into execution the promises made to the ancient
fathers, viz., of spiritual blessing to be bestowed on their chil
dren. (9) [I say] also, that the Gentiles are to glorify God for his
mercy [in Christ], to. Se . . . ®eov; i. e., the Gentiles as well as
the Jews, are to be brought into the church, that God may be all
and in all, and thus be glorified by all men. Ae', i. e., Xeyco Se as
above, I add further. — Aofdo-ai is constructed with Ae'yco implied,
as the version shows. The present phrase discloses the meaning
of eis Sdfav ©eoi! in ver. 7. On this account will I praise thee
among the Gentiles, yea, to thy name will I sing praise, Sid rovro
 xbaXiii. The design of this quotation from Ps. xviii.
49, is to show, that the Gentiles as well as the people of Israel,
would have the blessings of the gospel proffered to them, and be
brought to glorify God. — 'Ei^opoXoyyaopai, I will praise thee,
rnix . — Ti3 ovopari aov, to thy name, i. e., to thee, ^sdb .
(10) Kai. 7rdA.1v Xeyei; viz., rejoice ye Gentiles with his people,
in Deut. xxxii. 43. TiicbpdvByre .... airov; Hebrew D^15 ^"f,
ras. The design of the quotation is, to show that the Gentiles
are spoken of in the Old Testament Scriptures, as destined to be
brought into the church of God, or as being made to praise him.
(11) Kai TrdAiv, viz., in Ps. cxvii. 1 (Sept. 116. 1). The
sentiment is the same as before. The object in accumulating
quotations, is additional confirmation of what the writer had
advanced. (12) Kai Xeyei, viz., in Is. xi. 10. In the quotation the apostle
omits Niinn di*3 , in that day. Also, instead of the Hebrew "im
tm-J bii 1H3 who shall stand as a banner of the nations or Gen
tiles, the apostle has (with the Septuagint) Kai 6 dviord/Aevos dp^eiv
eyvcov, one shall arise to be a leader of the Gentiles ; ad sensum,
but not ad literam, as the Hebrew vowels now are. But probably
the apostle read *rai> , and then his version is literal. For eA.7ri-
ovo-i, the Hebrew has WT!? • The whole quotation, therefore, is
ad sensum only. It is added to the others for the same purpose
as before, viz., with the design of showing that the Gentiles
should belong to the Christian church, so that God may be glori
fied by them. Thus far in confirmation of the latter clause of
ver. 7. The apostle now quits this subject, and resumes his
supplications in behalf of the church at Rome, which were inter
rupted by ver. 7, seq.
(13) Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace
in believing, 6 Se Beds . . • iriareveiv ; i. e., may that God who is
the author of all Christian hope (comp. eA.7rioCo-iv in ver. 12),
make your joy and peace, which result from faith in Christ,
36

422 EOMANS XV. 14 — 16.
greatly to abound. So that ye may abound in hope through the
power ofthe Holy Spirit, ets to . . . dyiou, i. e., so that having much
joy and peace in believing, you may also have a lively Christian
hope of future glory, through the influence of the Holy Spirit
who dwells in you, and who gives the earnest of future glory,
comp. Eph. i. 13, 14. Rom. viii. 23. with the notes upon it.
(14) ileVeur/xai Se' ; Se "orationi continuanda? inservit," as in
ver. 13 above, and often. Kai airbs iyui, even I myself. Kai
added to pronouns in this way, serves to make the expression
more distinct and intense. Here it is as much as to say, ' Even
I who have thus warned and cautioned you, am persuaded, etc.'
In respect to you, irepl vpuiv ; that you yourselves, (koI airoi) are
filled with kindness, on . . . dyaBuiavvys- 'AyaBuiavvys I take
here to refer to the kind feelings which the apostle hoped and
believed the Roman Christians would cherish towards each other.
Abounding in all knowledge, and able to give mutual admoni
tion, ireirXypuipevoi . . . vovBereiv. The meaning is : " I am per
suaded that ye possess in abundance, such a knowledge of
Christian truths and principles, that ye will be able to give such
advice and warning as you may mutually need."
(15) I have written in part the more boldly to you, brethren, as
one repeating admonition, roXpyporepov . . . vpds, i. e., I have
written with more freedom than might have been expected from
a stranger, when reminding you of the various things which I
have urged upon you. 'A^o pepovs means in some parts of his
epistle, i. e., as to some things. It seems to qualify eypo\j/a ¦ — -
'E7rava/«;u.v7;o-/<o_)v, adding to or repeating admonition, or something
in the way of reminiscence.
On account of the favor which was bestowed upon me by God,
Sid ri)v x°-Pw  ©eoS ; namely the honor of the apostolic
office (comp. Rom. i. 5), which the sequel shows to be the mean
ing of x°-Piv here.
(16) That I should be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles,
els to elvai .... eBvy. Because his office led him to preach the
gospel to the Gentiles, and to exercise a spiritual watch over
them, he had ventured to address the church at Rome with free
dom. Performing the office of a priest [in respect to] the gospel
of God, lepovpyovvra .... ©eou, i. e., acting a part in respect to
the concerns of Christians not unlike that of a priest among the
Jews. That the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable,
being purified by the Holy Spirit, iva yevyrai . . . dyua, i. e.,
that the Gentiles may be offered to God, whom as their AeiToupyos
I present, inasmuch as they have been rendered clean, pure, by
the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit on their hearts.

EOMANS XV. 17 — 23. 423
(17) I have tlien cause for glorying through Jesus Christ
as to those things which pertain to God, e^a> ovv . . . ®e6v, i. e.,
being a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, I have cause
for rejoicing, that he has strengthened me and given me success
among them, in things pertaining to religion. Ovv, then, i. e.,
since God has bestowed such an office upon me. — 'Ev Xpiorui
'Iijo-ov may mean through the aid of Christ. Paul had just
averred that he was Aeiroupyos 'lyaov Xpiarov ; arid as such he
may be understood as here intimating that Christ had afforded
him aid, so as to ensure him success in his employment. 'Ev
often has the meaning of by or through, in the sense of ope, aux
ilio alicujus, e. g. "He casts out demons ev t<3 dp^dvri, by the
aid of the prince of demons," Matt. ix. 34. In like manner, ev
is used in John xvii. 10. Acts iv. 9. xv. 7. xvii. 28, 31, et ssepe
alibi. But Iv X. 'I^croD may also mean, " I being in Christ Jesus,
viz. as before described, have cause for glorying, etc."
(18) For I will not presume to mention, anything which
Christ hath not wrought by me, oi ydp . . . ipov, i. e., I
do not, in saying this, intend to claim any praise by exagger
ating my success, or taking to myself credit for what I have not
done or for what Christ has not done by me, in order to bring
the Gentiles to obey the gospel, eis vnoKoyv eBvuiv. — Adya> Kai
eypio means by preaching and by other personal effort. Tap
explicantis. The connection seems to be thus : I speak of the
glorying in Christ which I may truly have ; for I will not pre
sume to appropriate to myself any praise for what I have not
done, or rather, for what Christ has not done by me.
(19) By the influence of signs and wonders, iv Svvdpei . . .
repdruiv. In Hebrew, tFPEn'ai nini* (usually conjoined) means
wonders, signs, or miracles adapted to persuade or enforce be
lief in the power, providence, veracity, etc., of God. The union
aypeia koi repara in the New Testament, is an imitation of this
idiom. It may be rendered as a. Hendiadys, and the latter noun
made an adjective to qualify the former, agreeably to an idiom
common both in the Old and New Testament. If rendered signs
and wonders, then aypeiuiv means miraculous proofs adapted to
impress the mind with conviction, and ripoTa means 'wonderful
events or occurrences, adapted to fill the mind with awe. Both
together constitute a very strong designation of supernatural in
terposition and impressive evidence arising from it.
By the influence of tlie Holy Spirit, iv Svvdpei  dyiov,
may be considered a subordinate clause referring to the signs and
wonders performed by virtue of this influence ; and so Chrysos
tom, Theodoret, Erasmus, and others have understood it. But it
may better be taken as coordinate with Svvdpei aypeiuiv koI repd-

424 EOMANS XV. 20, 21.
tcov, meaning the internal influences of the Spirit, e. g., the
gift of prophecy, the power of speaking in foreign languages,
etc., and so Beza, Grotius, Tholuck, and others have explained
it. So that from Jerusalem and around, even to Illyricum, I have
fully declared the gospel of Christ, uiare pe . . . Xpiarov. "Qare
pe . . . . ireirXypuiKivai is the usual construction of the Infinitive
with ware. TleirXypuiKevai many interpret as having here the sense
of diffusing, spreading abroad; derived from the more common
sense oi filling up, because in order to fill up, a diffusion into all
parts is necessary. In Acts v. 28, the verb is followed by a noun
which designates place, and therefore retains the usual meaning.
But a real parallel may be found in Col. i. 25, irXypovv rbv Xdyov ;
where the meaning seems to be fully to declare, i. e., to accomplish
or complete the declaration of the divine doctrine. The pas
sages quoted by Reiche, from 3 K. i. 14 (Sept.) and 1 Mace. iv.
19, are inapposite ; the first having another sense, and the latter
depending on a contested reading. Paul gives to the phrase a
meaning peculiar to himself; elsewhere it means to fulfil, in the
sense of fulfilling a prophetic declaration, etc. Illyricum corres
ponds with the modern Croatia and Dalmatia ; and was the ex
treme boundary of what might be called the Grecian population.
The circle of Paul's preaching, then, as here described, reaches
from the extreme north-west of the land of the Greeks, to Jeru
salem and round about, i. e., it comprehends all Greece in the
widest sense of this term, Asia Minor, the Grecian islands, the
country between Asia Minor and Jerusalem, and the region around
Jerusalem, i. e., Phenicia, Syria, and part of Arabia. Comp.
Acts ix. 20. Gal. i. 16, 17.
(20) And was strongly desirous to preach the gospel, not where
Christ was named lest I should build on another's foundation, ovtui
. . . o'lKoSopid. QiXonpovpevov is to be constructed with pe, taken
from the preceding verse. The word literally signifies to covet or
desire as an honor, to regard as honorable, hence the secondary
sense, to desire strongly, earnestly to wish for or to covet. Ovno
must be regarded as qualifying eiayyeXit,eaBai. Its present posi
tion seems to be for the sake of emphasis. Its correspondent is
Ka^ois in the next verse. I have endeavored to represent all this
in the version and its punctuation ; but it is difficult to do it in a
satisfactory manner. As ovtui refers to the manner of preaching,
so the apostle describes the first negatively, by ovk dirov, k. t. X.,
then affirmatively by dXXd KaBibs, k. t. X.
(21) But, as il is written: They shall see to whom no declara
tion was made respecting him, and they who have not heard shall
understand, dXXd . . . avvrjaovai. The quotation is from Is. Iii.

ROMANS XV. 22—24. 425
15 ; a passage which seems to have respect to the Messiah's being
made known to the heathen. The apostle quotes it here in order
to illustrate and to justify the principle which he had avowed, viz.,
that of preaching the gospel where it was entirely unknown be
fore. The quotation says as much as to declare, that the gospel
shall be thus proclaimed. "Oij/ovrai and avvrjaovai are to be un
derstood as designating mental vision and perception ; for this is
what the writer intends to designate.
(22) Wherefore I was greatly hindered from coming to you, Sib
koi . . . vpds. Aid, i. e., on account of his many and urgent calls
to preach elsewhere. Kai is joined with iveKoirrdpyv rd iroXXd as
an intensive, i. e., "sensum intendit, augmentat." The apostle
does not simply say, that he ivas often hindered or much hindered
iKoirrdpyv rd iroXXd, but Kai iKoirrdpyv rd iroXXd, I was altogether
hindered, i. e., I had such frequent and urgent calls elsewhere,
that it was impossible for me to visit Rome as I desired to do.
(23) But now, having no longer any place in these regions, and
being desirous for many years to pay you a visit, vvvl Se . . . eVcuv.
ToVov exiov, i. e., having no longer any considerable place, where
I have not proclaimed the gospel.
(24) Whenever I may go into Spain, I hope, as I pass on, to
see you, uis idv . . . vpds ; i. e., intending to visit Spain, he meant
to take Rome in his way. 'Edv appears here (as often in the
New Test., Sept. and Apocr.), to stand for dv. Its use in such a
way seems to belong to tha later Greek. See Winer N. T.
Gramm. p. 257. ed. 3. Here it qualifies the particle of time, cos.
The Subj. mood which follows is designed to designate a, possible
or probable action. Had the Indie, been used (as D. E. F. G.
exhibit it), then the meaning would be, that the apostle certainly
expected, or was resolved to go. In the textus receptus, iXevaopai
irpbs vpds follows %-rroviov, which Griesbach and Knapp have
rejected, as they are not found in Codd. A. C. D. E. F. G., nor in
the Syriac, Arabic or Coptic versions, etc. Whether the apostle
in fact, ever made a journey to Spain, is not certain. The tradi
tion of the church affirms this ; but not on sure grounds. In case
we allow that he was imprisoned a second time at Rome, such a
journey is not improbable.
And to be sent on my way thither by you, koI . . . eVei. The
apostle here refers to the usual custom of the churches, when the
messengers of the gospel departed from them, of sending their
elders, etc., to accompany them for some distance on their journey ;
comp. Acts xv. 3. xvii. 14, 15. xx. 38. xxi. 5. When lam in
part first satisfied with your company, edv . . . ipirXyaBSi. Ob
serve the delicacy of the expression. The apostle does not say
iunrXyaBSi, satisfied, but dirb pepovs ipirXyaBw, partly satisfied, as
36*

426 EOMANS XV. 25—31.
though he never could enjoy their society sufficiently to gratify
all his desires.
(25) But now I go to Jerusalem to supply the wants of the saints,
wvl Se . . . dylois. AiaKove'co is often used in the New Testament,
to designate the supplying with food and other comforts of hfe.
'At present,' says the apostle, ' I cannot visit you, as duty calls me
in another direction.'
(26) For it has seemed good to Macedonia and Achaia, to make
some contribution for indigent Christians at Jerusalem, eiSoKyaov
ydp .... 'lepovaaXyp. Koivuivlav, contribution, collatio beneficio-
rum. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 1 — 4. 2 Cor. viii. ix. Acts xxiv. 1 7.
(27) [I say ] it has seemed good, for they are truly their debtors,
eiSoKyaov ydp . . . elal. Tap koi bcbeiXerai airuiv eicri, assigns a
reason why it seemed good. Kai is here an intensive, truly, really.
Dr. Knapp, has pointed this verse so as to disturb the sense. The
comma should not be after ydp, but after evSoKijcrav.
Tap assigns a reason why they are debtors. If the Gentiles
have shared in their spiritual things, they ought surely to aid them
in temporal things. Kai intensive, in Kai ev tois aapKiKols.
(28) Now when this duty shall have been discharged, and this
fruit made sure to them, I shall pass through the midst of you into
Spain, tovto . . . %iroviav. Kapirov here means the fruit of the
contribution in Macedonia and Achaia, the fruit which their be
nevolence had produced. Jbcbpayiadpevos, applied to an instru
ment in writing, means to authenticate it, to make it valid, i. e.,
sure to answer the purpose for which it was intended. So here,
the apostle would not stop short in the performance of the duty
with which he is entrusted as the almoner of the churches, until
he had seen the actual distribution of their charity among the in
digent saints at Jerusalem ; a fidelity and an activity well worthy
of all imitation.
(29) I know, also, that wlien I come to you I shall come with the
full blessing of the gospel of Christ, oTSa Se . . . iXevaopai.
Wilh an abundant blessing, iv KXyptopan eiXoyias ; where the first
of the two nouns constitutes the adjective ; comp. Heb. Gramm.
§ 440. b.
(30) Moreover I beseech you, brethren, by the Lord Jesus Christ,
irapaKoXui Se . . . Xpiarov. Ae continuative. — Aid 'lyaov Xpia
rov, for the sake of the Lord Jesus Christ, i. e., out of love and
regard for him. And by the love of the Spirit, koI Sid . . irvevparos;
i. e., by the affectionate Christian sympathy for the friends of
Christ, which the Spirit has given you. That ye strive together
for me, in your prayers to God in my behalf avvoyuwiaoaBoi . . .
Beov ; i. e., that you unite with me in my Christian warfare, help
ing me by your earnest supplications to God in my behalf.

EOMANS XVI. 1. 427
(31) That I may be delivered from unbelievers in Judea, Ivo . . .
'lovSala ; i. <?., pray that I may be delivered from the enemies of
the gospel in Judea, whither I am going : for I have reason to
expect persecution and injury from them.
And that my service which is for Jerusalem may be acceptable
to the saints, koi iva . . . dyiois. AiaKovia means his service in
carrying and distributing the contributions of the Greek churches.
It seems rather singular, at first, that he should doubt whether
such a charity would be agreeable to indigent churches at Jerusa
lem. But when we call to mind the violent prejudices of the
Jewish Christians, who were zealots for the law of Moses, we
may well suppose that some of them would hesitate to come under
obligations to Paul, the great champion of opposite opinions, and
also to the charity of Gentile Christians, who disregarded the
laws of Moses with respect to ceremonial observances.
(32) So that I may come to you with joy, if God will, and may
be refreshed among you, iva iv . . . vpiv. "Iva is here connected in
sense with the iva pvaBui, k. t. X., of the preceding verse. The
sense is, 'that being delivered, etc., he may come with joy to them,
etc. — Aid BeXrjparos Beov, Deo volente.
(33) Now the God of peace be with you all, 6 Se .Seds . . vpuiv ;
i. e., may God, the author of peace, who bestows happiness, true
prosperity, Dibia be with you, i. e., aid you, and bless you. 'Apyv
in the textus receptus, is of suspicious authority, and is so noted by
Dr. Knapp.

CHAP. XVI.
The apostle concludes his epistle by various affectionate greetings and commenda
tions. 1 — 16. After which he warns the church against those who make divisions
and give offence among them, i. e., such as practise the contrary of that which he
had been enjoining in the preceding part of his epistle, vers. 17, 18. He expresses
his affectionate desire that they might be kind and simple-hearted, and his wish that
the God of peace would give them the victory over the adversary of souls, the
fomenter of discord among brethren, vers. 19, 20. He then expresses the salutations
of several Cliristian friends and companions, who were with him, vers. 21—24; and
concludes with a devout doxology, vers. 25 — 27.
(1) Now I commend toyou Phebe our sister who is a deaconess
of the church at Cenchrea, avviarypi Se . . . Keyxpedis. Ae' con
tinuative. — Auxkovov, i. e., ryv Siokovov, for the Greeks used both
6 et y Siokovos. It should be remembered, that in the East women
were not permitted to mix in the society of men, as in the west
ern world they are at present. They were kept secluded, for the
most part, in a retired room or yuvaKciov, to which no stranger
could have access. Consequently it became highly important for

428 EOMANS XVI. 2 — 4.
the church to have ai SiaKovoi as well as oi Siokovoi, in order that
the former might look to females who were indigent or sick. Ac
cordingly we find the female deacons more than once adverted to,
in the epistle of Paul ; comp. 1 Tim. iii. 11. v. 10. Tit. ii. 3. Pliny
in his letter to Trajan (x. 97), no doubt refers to the ai Sidxovoi in
the following passage : Necessarium credidi, ex duabus ancillis
qufe ministrce dicebantur, etc.
Cenchrea, Keyxpeais, was the eastern port of Corinth ; for Corinth
itself lay not upon the sea, but had two harbors some four or five
miles distant from the city, viz., Cenchrea on the east and Lechea
on the west. It would seem that Phebe was about to sail from
Cenchrea to Rome, when Paul wrote this epistle ; and it is quite
probable that it was sent by her to the church at Rome. The
word Keyxpeai is used only in the plural, like 'AByvai.
(2) That ye may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of
the saints, iva . . . dyiuiv. That the phrase ev Kvpiui may mean
being in the Lord, i. e., being a member of his spiritual body can
not be doubted. See 1 Cor. xii. 27. Rom. xii. 5. 1 Cor. x. 17.
Eph. i. 22, 23. iv. 12. v. 30. Col. i. 24. So the sentiment here
may be : ' Receive Phebe who is a Christian, in such a manner
as becomes Christians,' i. e., with distinguished kindness and benev
olence. But some refer ev Kvpito to the church at Rome, and in
terpret thus : ' Do ye, as united to Christ, receive her worthily
of the saints.' There is nothing in the language or context which
decides absolutely for the one or the other interpretation. I rather
incline to the latter, from its appositeness here. ' Do ye, who are
professed Christians, act worthily of your profession in this mat
ter.' And render her assistance in anything, where she may need it of
you ; for she herself has been a helper of many, and especially of me,
koi irapaaryTe . . . ipoii. For the words irapaaryre and Trpoardns,
see on irpoiardpevos in chap. xii. 8. This hint shows what the office
of a deaconess was, i. e., what duties it led her to perform. A
comparison of irpoardns here will serve to cast light on 6 rpo'ia-
Topevos in Rom. xii. 8.
(3) Prisca, TlpiaKav, the same as IIpio-KiAAa in Acts xviii. 2,
26. 1 Cor. xvi. 19. The latter is merely a diminutive, which was
commonly applied to women in the way of courtesy or affection ;
as John says to Christians : " My little children." Both Priscilla
and her husband Aquila are here called crvvepyous of the apostle.
'Ev Xpiarig 'lyaov, i. e., in the Christian cause.
(4) Who exposed their own neck for my life, oirives . . vireByKav,
i. e., who exposed their own neck to the sword, their own head to
be cut off, in order to defend me from harm. — And the church
which is in their house, koi ttjv . . . iKK.Xyaiav, i. e., which habit-

EOMANS XVI. 5 — 16. 429
ually convenes there. Aquila and Priscilla are spoken of, also, as
having a church in their house while at Ephesus, 1 Cor. xvi. 19 ;
from which some have drawn the conclusion, that only their family,
which consisted of Christians, are meant by iKKXyaiav; a criticism
which is destitute of support from the usus loquendi of the New
Testament. On the contrary, nothing is more natural than the
supposition, that these zealous advocates of the Christian cause,
wherever they sojourned, were accustomed to hold assemblies at
their own house, for the purpose of Christian worship and instruc
tion. All the meetings of the primitive Christians must have
been in thi3 way, inasmuch as they had at first no churches or
temples where they could convene.
(5) Epainetus ; this and other names which follow down to
ver. 15, designate persons otherwise unknown to us, but who,
personally or otherwise, must have been known to the apostle.
'Airapxrj rys 'Actios, one of the first who embraced Christianity
under my preaching in proconsular Asia, i. e., Asia Minor prob
ably in the Roman sense of that word. — Eis Xpiordv, in respect
to Christ.
(6, 7) It appears probable, that the persons here named had
formerly been residents in Asia or Greece, where the apostle was
acquainted with them, but that they had now removed to Rome.
Of note, iiriaypoi ; i. e., well-known, highly esteemed, among the
apostles, iv rois diroaToXois. Who became Christians even earlier
than myself, oi . . . Xpiano ; where ev Xpio-T<3 can hardly be mis
taken. (9) 'AyaTnjTov pov iv Kvpicp, i. e., my beloved felloio Christian.
(10) A tried and approved Christian, rbv SoKipov iv Xpiario.—-
Toiis eK tuiv 'ApiaroBovXov, i. e., Toiis ovras ev Kupiio eK tojv oiKeiaiv
'ApiaTo/3ovXov ; comp. the close of verse 11.
(13) His mother and mine, pyrepa airov koi ipov; l. e., his
mother in a literal sense, and mine in a figurative one.
(16) Salute each other with a holy kiss, dairdaoaBe . . . dyiio;
». e., greet each other after the affectionate manner of Christians ;
live too-ether in the kind exchange of Christian salutations and
tokens^of friendship. This custom is extensively maintained, at
present, on the continent of Europe, among Christian friends, and
others also. In itself, it is like any external thing, not essential,
but only a res loci et temporis, depending on the manners and cus
toms of the time and place, like the wearing or not wearing of
long hair at Corinth, etc. Ai iKKXyaloi irdaai, l. e., all the churches
in the vicinity of the apostle, or those which he had recently visited.
This shows the custom of the early Christian churches, as to
sendino- expressions of brotherly affection for each other, although
they were mutual strangers in respect to personal acquaintance.

430 EOMANS XVI. 17—20.
(17) To consider attentively, aKoireiv, to beware of. — Divisions,
Sixooraaias, viz., in the church among brethren. Offences,
aKavSaXo, i. e., those who are the occasion of others stumbling
and falling, by their uncharitableness or their superstition. Ilapd
contrary to, against ; comp. Rom. i. 26. xi. 24. Gal. i. 8, 9. Heb.
xi. 11. Stand off from them, iKKXivare air airuiv, i. e., avoid
them, i. e., give them no countenance or approbation.
(18) Tui Kvpiio -qpuiv XpiaruJ, i. e., the Christian cause, or him
who is the author of Christianity. Their own appetite, koiXio,
i. e., they do not labor for the good of the Christian cause, but
merely for their own private interests, merely to obtain a main
tenance. The apostle seems, therefore, to refer here to certain
teachers at Rome, at this time, who were the authors of division
and offence there, and whose views extended no farther than the
acquisition of a maintenance for themselves.
And by flattery and fair speeches beguile the minds ofthe sim
ple, Kai Sid . . . aKaKiov. Theophylact : xpnaroXoyio, KoXaKeia, i. e.,
flattery. EvAoyi'as is eulogy, praise. KapSias, minds, like the
Hebrew _sb. 'Akokuiv means those who are destitute of suspi
cion, without guile, simple-hearted.
(19) For your obedient temper of mind is known among all
[the churches], y ydp . . . dcbiKero, i. e., the fame of your Chris
tian temper, your readiness to obey the gospel, has been spread
among all the churches. Tap seems here to refer to a clause readily
supplied, e. g., [I exhort you to do all this] ydp, because I
know that you will lend a listening ear. See Bretschn. Lex.
on ydp.
I rejoice, therefore in respect to you, xaipui ovv . . . vpiv; i. e.,
since your obedient disposition has procured you such a good
name in the churches, I rejoice. To icb' vpuiv, i. e., koto rb icb'
vpuiv. And I wish you to be wise in respect to that which is good,
but simple in regard to that which is evil, BeXui Se . . . kokov. The
idea is : I do not desire you Christians to use dexterity in order to
accomplish selfish ends, like the false teachers among them ; but
to be willingly accounted simple or simpletons, in regard to doing
evil. (20) May God, who is the author of peace, Beds tt}s elpyvys,
or who loves and approves it ! SvvrpiuVei, Fut. for Optative, like
the Heb. Future. Xaravdv, Satan, viz., the malignant accuser
of the brethren, and who delights in exciting the evil-minded
to discord and division. May God disappoint all his malignant
purposes, and preserve your harmony and kindly affection. The
language of this wish (awTpbpei) refers to the prediction in Gen
iii. 15.
Xdpis here means favor of every kind, like the bsi diia of
the Hebrews. — 'Ap-ijv seems to be spurious.

EOMANS XVI. 21 — 26. 431
(21) Luke, and Jason, and Sosipater are classed together here
as relatives of Paul. If this be Luke the Evangelist, which
seems altogether probable, then it would appear that he must
have been of Hebrew descent, at least in part ; for Paul was "a
Hebrew of the Hebrews," i. e., of pure Hebrew descent. Never
theless, as o-uyyeveis does not mark the degree of relation, we
cannot argue from this expression with much confidence.
(22) Tepnos 6 ypdij/as, i. e., who was the amanuensis of Paul
on the occasion of writing this epistle.
(23) My host, 6 £e'vos pov ; i. e., who has received me into
his house, and showed me hospitality ; and who shows an exten
sive hospitality to all Christians. The treasurer of the city,
o'lKovdpos rrjs irdXeuis. Kovapros shows the manner in which the
Greeks represented the Latin qu, Quartus.
(25) The whole now concludes with a general ascription of
praise. Tip Svvapevui, sc. rj y So'fa, as appears from the close
of ver. 27. The sentence is suspended, after the usual manner
of Paul, until he resumes it in pdvto aocbco Beui. To establish,
arypi^ai, viz., in the Christian faith and practice. In accordance
with the principles of the gospel which I preach, agreeably to
the principles of this, koto to eiayyiXiov pov. — Even the Gospel
of Jesus Christ, Kai to Krjpvypa, i. e., even the gospel of which Jesus
is the author, or which has respect to him. Kypvypa is in apposi
tion with eiayyiXiov; and the object of Paul is to show by the whole
declaration, that the gospel which he preached was the true one.
According to the revelation of the mystery which was kept
in silence during ancient ages, koto diroKaXvij/iv  aeaiyype-
vov ; i. e., agreeably to the gospel which was not fully revealed
in ancient times, but is now brought to light ; comp. 1 Cor. ii. 7.
Eph. iii. 5, 9. Col. i. 23. This phrase is coordinate with koto to
eiayyiXiov above, and is designed for more ample description.
(26) But is now revealed by the Scriptures of the prophets,
cbavepuiBevros Se . . . TrpocbyTiKuiv. The apostle first refers to the
most ancient times before any revelation was given, as the xpo'voi
aiaJvioi, when the gospel remained as it were concealed ; next he
points us to the Messianic prophecies contained in the Old Tes
tament. Paul generally represents the gospel as hidden from
the ancients, but now revealed, i. e., under the Christian dispen
sation ; see Col. i. 26. Eph. iii. 5, 10, and comp. 1 Pet. i. 12.
But in Rom. iii. 21. he says of the grace of the gospel, wvl
irecbavepuirai, and at the same time he adds, paprvpovpevy virb tou
vopov koX tSiv irpocbyTCiv ; which concurs with the present repre
sentation. Three things are predicated of the pvarypiov which
he mentions in ver. 25 ; (1) That it was kept in a hidden or
concealed state down to the time when the Old Testament dis-

432 EOMANS XVI. 26.
pensation commenced. (2) That it was disclosed, i. e., comparatively
brought to light (cbovepuiBevros) by the ancient Scriptures. (3)
That it was fully published or made known (yvuipiaBivros) under
the gospel dispensation. 'I'avepio^evTos vCv here means the same
in all essential respects as the paprvpovpevy viro tov vopov koi tuiv
irpocbyruiv oi Rom. iii. 21. There is a concurrent testimony,
declaration, or disclosure, by the ancient prophetic writings, which
gives force to the new testimony under the gospel dispensation.
In the other passages to which reference is made above, the
revelation of the gospel mysteries in later times in opposition to
the silence of former days is only comparative, just as when the
Saviour says, that " if he had not come and spoken to the Jews
they had not had sin, but now they have no cloak for it;" and
just as when Paul says, that " life and immortality are brought
to light by the gospel." Surely when Abraham and the patri
archs " sought a better country, even a heavenly one," they must
have had some notions of immortality. It may be altogether
correct, then, that gospel truth, as disclosed by the prophets,
made only a twilight compared with the noontide glories of the
new dispensation, and so there was ample occasion for the com
parative views which the apostle has disclosed in Col. i. 26. Eph.
iii. 5, 10 ; at the same time it may be, and is equally true,
that the gospel is in some degree disclosed (cbavepuiBeis) in the
Old Testament prophets, and is testified to (paprvpovpivyv) by
them in their works, which are every day still read by Christians.
Te before ypocbuiv seems to give occasion to some difficulty, in
asmuch as the clause in which re stands has another connective
(Se), we cannot regard it in the simple light of a conjunction, by
which cbavepuiBivTos, k. t. X. is joined to the preceding clause. It
must then, as it would seem, have a relative meaning, and imply
another clause after it to which either a koi or a Te is appended.
Accordingly, the Syr., Arab., (Erp.), and dEth. versions insert
the and before Kar hrnayyv, k. t. X. But as there is no room
for critical doubt of the genuineness of the re here, and as koi is
destitute of other support than these versions, it is better to con
sider the passage as elliptical, and Kai as omitted before kot iiriTa-
y-ijv, it being necessarily implied by the presence of the re in the
preceding phrase. In this way kot imrayyv, k. t. X. belongs to
the last clause, and is to be connected (as it should be) with the
part. yvcopio-^e'vTos ; so that the sense of the last clause is, that
" the gospel, by the commandment of the eternal God, has been
published to all nations, in order to lead them to the obedience
which faith ensures."*
* There need not be any hesitation in taking Si as adversative to the pre
ceding clause, and then making Te connect what follows to (pavepaSrevTos Se

EOMANS XVI. 27. 433
(27) The apostle now resumes the doxology which he had
begun^ in ver. 25 by Tip Swapevio, with pdvio, k. t. A. The pro
noun u) here would seem to relate grammatically and most naturally
to Jesus Christ. But in such a case, in order to complete the
construction, ©ecu must be joined with y Sofa eis rovs aiuivas im
plied, or Sofa, or some equivalent word must be understood
immediately after it. Following another mode of construction,
we must refer <5 to ©ecp, and either construe it as equivalent to
airia (which however wants precedent to confirm it) ; or we must
take u) in the demonstrative sense, viz., as employed for ovtos or
o'Se (it often is so employed, Passow, Lex. ds, B), and translate
it, " to this one be glory, etc." This, on the whole is the more
facile way of construing it. The first mode of construction
seems at least to be rather hard ; yet the elliptical form of the
whole paragraph detracts somewhat from the hardness of it, and
makes it quite possible.
The subscription, like most of the others in the Pauline
epistles, is adscititious. Chap. xvi. 1 doubtless gave occasion to
it ; and the matter of it is in all probability correct. But we
cannot regard it as coming from the hand of Paul ; for surely he
did not need to inform the church at Rome, by a subscription,
who it was that conveyed the epistle to them, when he had once
commended the same individual to their hospitality. Moreover,
competent external evidence of genuineness is wanting.
viiv. Thus we may translate : But now revealed, and by the prophetic
Scriptures, in accordance with the command of the eternal God, made
known to all nations, etc. 37

EXCURSUS I.
On vibs &eov in Rom. i. 4 (p. 17).
The generic idea in the phrase vibs 3*oD is that of a being formed in the
image of God, i. e., possessing by his gift a moral and intellectual nature
like his own. The original idea of vl6s, is that of derivation. The sec
ondary one (which is often employed), is that of resemblance. The third
gradation of meaning is, that of being regarded or treated as a, son, occupying
the place of a son, viz., having distinguished gifts, favors, or blessings
bestowed on any one. To one or the other of these classes of meaning, may
all the instances be traced in which the phrase son or sons of God is applied,
in the Old Testament or the New.
This phrase is applied (1) To Adam, as proceeding immediately from the
hand of the Creator, Luke iii. 38. (2) To those who are regenerated, or
born of the Spirit of God, John i. 12, 13; Rom. viii. 15, 17; 1 John iii. 1,
2, et ssepe alibi. Connected with this, is the usage of calling all true wor
shippers of God his sons; e. g., Matt. v. 9, 45 ; Luke vi. 35, xx. 36 ; Rom.
viii. 14, 19; 2 Cor. vi. 18; Gal. iii. 26; Heb. xii. 6; Rev. xxi. 7, et alibi.
(3) The same appellation is sometimes given to such as are treated with spe
cial kindness; e. g., Rom. ix. 26 ; Hos. i. 10, xi. 1 ; Deut xxxii. 5, 19 ; Isai.
i. 2, xliii. 6; Jer. xxxi. 9; 2 Cor. vi. 18. God, as the common father and
benefactor of all men, good and bad, in reference to this relation, often calls
himself a father, and styles them his children ;" If I be a father, where is
mine honor 1" "1 have nourished and brought up children, but they have
rebelled against me." Moreover, as all men are made in his image, t. e.,
have an intellectual, rational, and moral nature like his own, on this account
also they may be styled his children ; but more especially does this apply to
those who are regenerated, and in whom the image of God that had been in
part defaced, is restored. (4) As bearing some resemblance to tho Supreme
Ruler of the universe in respect to authority, or as having office by his spe
cial favor, kings are sometimes named sons of God; e. g., Ps. lxxxii. 6
(VnV? 's3)- ^ Sam. '.ii. 14. So in Homer Stoyev^s Pcuriheis, II. lib. i.
279, ii. 196. (5) Angds are called sons of God, for the like reason that men
are, viz., because God is their creator and benefactor ; and specially, because
they bear a high resemblance to God ; see Job i. 6, ii. 1, xxxviii. 7 ; Dan.
iii. 25.
It is evident from inspecting these examples, that men and angels may be
called sons of God for more than one reason ; nay, that in some cases all the
reasons for giving this appellation are united. E. g , a pious Israelite might
be called a son of God, because God was his creator ; because of the special

436 EXCUESUS I. ON KOM. I. 4.
favors and blessings bestowed upon him, i. e., because of his being treated
as a son ; because he was born again by the power of the Holy Spirit ; and
because ho bore a special resemblance to his heavenly Pather. Por all or
for any one of these reasons, it is obvious we might, agreeably to Scripture
usage, call any one a son of God, who is truly pious. To note this is of no
small importance in rightly estimating the force of d vibs tov Sreov, as applied
to Christ. We come now to consider this last phrase, as applied in this
manner. (a) It designates Jesus as conceived by the Virgin Mary, by the miracu
lous influence of the Holy Spirit, Luke i. 32 (comp. Luke iii. 38). Perhaps
the same sense belongs to it in Mark i. 1. The words of the centurion in
Matt, xxvii. 54, and Mark xv. 39, seem, in the mouth of a Roman, to have
the like or similar sense.
(b) It means Jesus as the constituted Icing or Messiah. E. g., Matt. xvi. 16,
xxvi. 63 ; Mark xiv. 61 ; Luke xxii. 70 ; John i. 49, xi. 27 ; and probably in
Matt. viii. 29, xiv. 33; Mark iii. 11, v. 7; Luke iv. 41, viii. 28; John i. 34,
vi. 69, ix. 35, x. 36 ; Acts ix. 20, xiii. 33 ; Heb. v. 5. So the appellation
son is given to him, by the ancient prophets who foretold his appearance, Ps.
ii. 7, Ixxxix. 27. On the like ground, kings, as we have seen in No. 4, are
called sons of God, Ps. lxxxii. 6 ; 2 Sam. vii. 14.
(c) The most common use of the phrase Son of God as applied to the Mes
siah, is, to designate the high and mysterious relation which subsisted
between him and God the Father, by virtue of which he was, in his complex
person as SrsavSponros, the a.Travyacr/j.a. tv\s 5d^7j_» Kai xaPaKT^P rys vrromarreias
rov irarpds, Heb. i. 3, the et/civ tou rd-eou tov aopdrov, Col. i. 15; the eiKtliv
rov 3-eoO, 2 Cor. iv. 4. In this respect, 6 vibs tou &eoD is rather a name of
nature than of office, for it is predicated of the high and glorious eliciiv,
resemblance, similitude, which the Son exhibits of the Father, he being the
radiance (a-iravyatrim) of his glory; so that what Jesus said to Philip is true,
viz., " He that hath seen me, hath seen tho Father," John xiv. 9. "It hath
pleased the Father that in him all fulness should dwell." Col. i. 19 ; even " all
the fulness ofthe Godhead bodily, Col. ii. 9; and that high, yea, divine
honor should be paid to him, Phil. ii. 9 — 11 ; Rom. xiv. 11 (comp. v. 9) ;
Rev. v. 13, 14 ; John v. 23; Heb. i. 6. As Son, Christ is lord and heir of
all things, Heb, i. 2, 3, 8. In particular, it would seem to be one design of
the New Testament writers, in using the appellation Son of God, to convey
the idea of a most intimate connection, love, and fellowship (so to speak)
between him and the Father. Compare such texts as Matt. xi. 27 ; Luke x.
22; John i. 14, 18; Heb. i. 5, seq.; Matt. iii. 17; Luke iii. 22, ix. 35; Col.
i. 13 ; 2 Pet. i. 17 ; Matt. xvii. 5 ; Mark i. 11, ix. 7 ; and also, with these the
parables in Matt. xxi. 37, seq., xxii. 2, seq., Mark xii. 6 ; Luke xx. 13 ; also
John viii. 35, 36, and x. 36. That God has given Christ tho Spirit without
measure, that he dwells in him cwfuaTmm. that all counsels and secrets (to
to speak) of the divine nature are perfectly known to him (John i. 18;
Matt. xi. 27 ; Luke x. 22 ; John vi. 46, vii 29, viii. 19, xiv. 9, 10, 11, 20, x.
15); seems to be suggested by tho appellation' Son of God as frequently
bestowed ; for so the texts referred to, and other like texts, would imply

EXCURSUS I. ON EOM. I. 4. 437
In a word, similitudo, affection, confidence, and most intimate connection
seem to be designated by the appellation son, as applied to Christ. In this
sense it is most frequent in the New Testament ; although with Paul, the
idea of Messianic dignity or elevation is more commonly designated by
Kvpios. But while I am fully satisfied that the term Son of God is oftentimes
applied to Christ as a name of nature, as well as of office ; yet I am as fully
satisfied, that it is not applied to him considered simply as divine, or simply
as Logos. It designates the &edv&puiros, the God-man, i. e., the complex
person of the Messiah, in distinction from his divine nature simply consid
ered, or his Logos state or condition. The exceptions to this are only cases
of such a nature, as show that the appellation Son of God became, by usage,
a kind of proper name, which might be applied either to his human nature
or to his divine one, as well as to his complex person. In just such a way
proper names are commonly used; e. g., Abraham usually and properly
means, the complex person of this individual consisting of soul and body.
But when I say, ' Abraham is dead,' I mean the physical part only of Abra
ham is so ; and when I say, ' Abraham is alive,' I mean that his immortal
part only is so. So in regard to the name Son of God ; when I say, ' The
Son of God was crucified,' I mean that his mortal part was so ; when I say,
' God sent his Son, the Son came out from the Pather, he had glory with the
Pather before the world was,' etc., I mean, in such cases, that the divine
nature of the Son became incarnate, that eavrbv iKevucre . . . iavrbv lia-irel-
vacre (Phil. ii. 7, 8), taking upon him the likeness of our nature. But when
I say, with John, that "Jesus is the Son of God," and that" Jesus Christ
has come in the flesh," I mean to designate his complex person, the i&eov-
frpaiiros, the &ebs eV crapxl cpavepw&ets, the \6yos crapl- yev6pevos, and this is
the case with most of the examples of the phrase in the New Testament.
If it is affirmed that Christ is called Son as being divine, and in order to
designate his originating from the Father in his divine nature ; the objections
are many and serious. I can only glance at a few of them.
( 1 ) If Son of God necessarily implies, ex vi termini, that Christ as to his
divine nature is derived; how shall we construe such texts as the following ;
viz , " What and if ye shall sec the Son of Man ascend up where he was be
fore? " John vi. 62. '• No man hath ascended to heaven, but he that came
down from heaven, even the Son of Man who is in heaven," John iii. 13.
Does Son of Man indicate (ex vi termini) the divine nature of Christ ? This
I suppose will not be affirmed ; for plainly it indicates the freavfrpwiros, the
debs iv aapKi ipavepai&eis, i. e., it has of itself a necessary reference to the in
carnate condition of the Saviour. Yet when employed as a proper name, we
see by the texts above that it can be used to indicate the original and divine
nature of the Messiah along with his human nature. If not, then these texts
would prove that the incarnate nature of Christ existed in heaven before he
came down from that place ; a fiction which we may well rank with the sup
posed rapture of Christ into heaven, and his subsequent descent from hea
ven, as maintained by Socinus.
Now as these texts, when thus employed will not prove that the human
37*

438 EXCURSUS I. ON EOM. I. 4.
nature of Christ had a prior existence in heaven ; so neither will the other
texts above cited prove that the appellation, Son of God, means the divine
nature of Christ as begotten of God, merely because the Father is said to
have loved him and to have sent him into the world. But,
(2) If the Son as God be derived or begotten, then it must follow, that as
God he is neither self-existent nor independent. It is of no avail to say here,
that his generation is eternal, and that the method of it is mysterious, super
human, and unlike to that of any created substance ; for one may very read
ily allow all this, and still ask, whether the word generation (let the manner
of the thing be what it may) does not of necessity, and by the usage of every
language, imply derivation ? And whether derivation does not of necessity
imply dependence, and therefore negative the idea of self-existence ? This the
ancient Fathers acknowledged almost with one voice, asserting that Christ
is not aiiiiSreos. but derived from the Pather, and beyotten of his substance.
The Father only they regarded as self-existent ; not deeming it compatible
at all with tho idea of generation, that the Son could vindicate to himself this
attribute of divinity. So the Nicene Fathers in their symbol : &ebs 4k &eov,
coSis iic <par6s. They did truly and really regard the Logos as an emanation
from the Pather ; many of the fathers ( most of the earlier ones ), as an emana
tion from him whieh took place in time, or rather perhaps an emanation just
before time began. Hence the familiar phrase among them, \6yos ivdid&e-
tos, i. e., tho Logos ivhich was in God as his reason, wisdom, or understanding,
from eternity ; and \6yos irpotpopmis, i. e., Logos prophuric, uttered, developed,
viz., by words. This development many of them supposed was made, when
God said, "Let there be light; " others supposed it to have been still earlier,
viz., at the period when God formed the plan of the world, and thus gave
development to his internal Aoyos, by the operations of his wisdom and
understanding. The philosophy of the Fathers permitted them to believe in a divine nature
derived. Of course they could maintain the generation of the Son as Logos
without any difficulty. But that we ean now admit a being to bo truly God,
and worship him as such, who as to his divine nature is derived and depend
ent, does seem to me quite impossible. The very elements of my own views
(to say the least) respecting the divine nature must be changed, before I can
admit such a proposition.
To say that the Son is eternally begotten, and yet is self-existent and indc-
jienilimt, is merely to say that the word begotten does not imply derivation ; it
is to deny that the word has any such meaning, as all antiquity and com
mon usage have ahvays ascribed to it. It is, moreover, to give up tlie very
doctrine which the ancient church strenuously maintained. Tholuck, who
appears to maintain tho views of the Nicene creed, says (on Rom. ix. 5) :
" Tho Father is the original source of all being, 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; John v. 26 •
the Son is only the e'mdv of his being, Col. i. 15; 2 Cor. iv. 4; Heb. i. 3.
But as being the image of the divine Being, the Son is in no respect different
from tho Pather, but fully expresses the Being of God. As the church is
wont to say : The attribute of ayevvneria is possessed only by tho Father."
"The Son is in no respect (in nichts) different from tho Father, but fully

EXCURSUS I. ON EOM. I. 4. 439
(vollkommen, jterfctly) resembles or expresses (ausdruckt) tho being of
God ; " and yet to tlie Son belongs not ayevv-ncria, self-existence, independence,
but hyevvno-ia, belongs exclusively to the Father ! " What is this more or
less than to say : The Son is perfectly like the Pather in all respects ; and
yet in regard to that very attribute, which beyond all otliers united makes
God to be what he is, viz., true and very God, i. e., in respect to sri ')'-, xistence
(and of course independence), the Son has no participation at all iu this, but
it belongs exclusively to the Father! In other words : "The Son is in all
resjiects like tho Father, with tho simple exception that ho is, in regard to the
most essential of all his attributes, infinitely unlike him."
A mode of reasoning which involves such difficulties as these, should not
be adopted without very imperious reasons. I know of no such reasons,
unless they be drawn from the expression ti Tibs too &eov understood in a
literal sense, i. e., so far literal as can be possible in respect to spiritual
beings. Now that one spiritual being ean produce another, in somo way
or 'other (of course not more humano), will not be denied. And if Son
necessarily imports derivation in the divine nature of the Logos, along with
this it necessarily imports dependence ; in other words, it necessarily denies
self-existence and independence. If any one refuses to acknowledge this, then
of course' ho must abandon tho meaning of generation. No matter what the
modus of generation may be, however mysterious or super-human; this
makes no difference as to real dependence, in ease the generation is real and
actually matter of fact. But in ease we insist on preserving the term genera
tion, as applied to the divine nature of the Son, and yet aver that he is self-
existent and independent, then tho diction merely of the ancient fathers is
preserved, while the doctrine which they maintained is clearly abandoned.
All such as cannot admit the emanation philosophy into their system of
theology (the ancient Fathers did this), will not regard Christ as Srebs beire-
pos, but as 6 Siv iirl iravruiv Qebs, eiiXoynrbs els toiis alwvas, ap-riv- The
Logos, "who created all things," "by whom all things were created in hea
ven and earth," bears at least the highest stamp of Divinity undekived.
Who is self-existent if not tho Ckeatok ? And who is God supreme, if not
6 Siv iirl irduToiv Qe6s ? If there be any higher assertions of Godhead respect
ing the Pather than these, lot those who ascribe self-existence only to him,
point them out.
The most formidable objection to the Niccnian and Athanasian Creed is,
that it makes such a statement respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, as
destroys the idea of full and proper equality of the persons of the Godhead.
The Son is made dependent on tbe Father; and the Spirit also dependent
on the Father, according to tho views and explanations of the Greek church,
but according to the Latin one, dependent on, i. e., proceeding from, both
the Pather and Son. The Son then has not two capacities or faculties which
the Father has, viz., that of begetting and causing procession, as the Greek
church would have it ; and the Spirit is in like manner wanting as to both
of these capacities. According to the Latin church, tho Spirit is also want
ing as to one capacity which the Son has. viz , that of causing procession.
Now if God is everywhere in the Bible recognized as supreme and only

440' EXCURSUS II. ON EOM. III. 28.
God, because he is Creator of the world, and all competition of those
called gods is treated with scorn, because they cannot compare with him
here ; then how immeasurably more exalted still must the Pather be above
the Son and Spirit, if he is the ground or cause of their being, the fons et
principium of Godhead itself! Arianism itself has placed the Son and Spirit
too near the Pather, if there be such an immeasurable discrepance between
them as there must be between being derived and dependent, and self-exist
ent and independent.
This, however, is not the place to enlarge on this topic ; and it is the less
necessary, inasmuch as I have discussed the subject at length in an Essay in
the Bib. Repository, Nos. 18, 19, 1835, where I have commented on Schleier-
macher's comparison of the Sabellian and Athanasian Creeds.

EXCURSUS II.
On Rom. iii. 28, \oyi(Ape&a yap SiKaiovcr&at iricrrei Hvfrpairov xaP^s epyav
vApov (p. 117).
It will be conceded at once, that before we pronounce sentence respecting
the agreement or disagreement of Paul and James with respect to the doc
trine of justification, it is necessary that we should understand the meaning
of the words which they respectively employ, and the nature of the object
which they respectively have in view.
First, then, what does Paul assert ? He says that " a man is justified by
faith," xaP^s epyav vAp-ov. The inquiry is fundamental, therefore, What
does he mean by epyav vApov 1
I answer : He means works which the law requires, works which the law
makes it duty to perform. That the Gen. case after epyov is sometimes em
ployed to express such a relation, there can be no room for doubt ; e. </.,
John vi. 28, 29, epya Qeov works which God requires ; John ix. 4, to epya
tov icipi/aviis pe, the works required by him who sent me ; Acts xxvi. 20,
jieravoias epya, works such as repentance demands ; 1 Thess. i. 3, rov epyov
T7Js iricrieas, the works which faith requires; and 2 Thess. i. 11, ?p7oi/ irdr-
Tews, in the same sense.
In like manner, epyov vAp.ov and epya vApiov mean work or works which the
law demands. So the phrase is plainly used in Rom. ii. 15 ; iii. 20, 28 ; ix.
32; Gal. ii. 16 (thrice); iii. 2, 5, 10. Sometimes vApov is omitted, and
epyov is used alone in the same sense, breviloquentiai causa; e. g., Rom. iv.
6 ; ix. 12 ; xi. 6 (thrice) ; Eph. ii. 9.
What works, then, does the law of God require ? Tho answer is : It
demands perfect obedience. " The soul that sinneth shall die." " Cursed is
he who continueth not in all things written in the book ofthe law, to do them."
It is manifestly on this ground that Paul argues the impossibility of justifi-

EXCUESUS II. ON EOM. ni. 28. 441
cation by Works of law. In Rom. iii. 19, when summing up his argument
contained in the preceding part of the epistle, he says : " The whole world
is guilty before God," i. <_., all men are chargeable with the guilt of sin.
What foUows ? The apostle tells us in ver. 20 : SiAri, k. t. X., Therefore by
works of law no flesh can be justified before God.
Must not this be true ? If the law of God demands perfect obedience,
and its penalty is attached to every sin, then one sin ruins the hopes of man
and effectually debars him from justification before God, on the ground of
merit or obedience.
The apostle Paul disputes with those who denied this, and who expected
justification on the ground of their own meritorious obedience; comp. ix.
30, 31 ; x. 3; also Gal. ii. 16; iii. 8—13; Rom. iv. 4, 5. To say, then,
that a man is not justified by works of law, is (with him) the same as saying,
that he cannot be justified meritoriously, i. e., on tho ground of merit or obedi
ence, Rom. iv. 5. But as faith in Josus Christ, who died to procure mercy
for sinners so that they might be pardoned and accepted, docs from its very
nature involve the renunciation of claims to merit, and the casting of our
selves on him for gratuitous justification ; so the apostle opposes the being
justified by faith to tho being justified by works of law, the former meaning
(with him) gratuitous justification, the latter meritorious. Let the reader now
carefully and diligently compare Rom. iv. 4, 5, 14 — 16; ix. 6; Gal. v. 4;
iii. 11, 12, and he can entertain no doubt of the correctness of this repre
sentation. We have then before us the object of Paul, in declaring that a man is
not justified by works of law. It is the same thing as to say, ' No one is
accepted with God on tho ground of merit or perfect obedience to the law,
for no one has done all whieh the law requires.'
But does this involve the idea, that Paul maintains good works (epya
iiya&d) to be unnecessary for a Christian f Nothing could bo farther from
his intention. Are not his epistles filled with the most urgent exhortations
to Christians, that they should be fruitful in good works 1 Compare now,
for a moment, Rom. ii. 7; 2 Cor. ix. 8; Eph. ii. 10; Col. i. 10; iii. 17;
1 Thess. v. 13; 2 Thess. ii. 17; 1 Tim. ii. 10; v. 10 (twice); .. 25; vi. 18;
2 Tim. ii. 21 ; iii. 17 ; Tit. i. 16 ; ii. 7, 14 ; iii. 1, 8, 14, etc. Compare the
strain of Paul's reasoning in Rom. vi. — viii. ; and then say, is it possible to
doubt, for a moment, that Paul urged good works as strenuously as James,
or as any other apostle 1
Let the reader mark well, that epya vA/iov, and epya ayaSrd or epyov rrio-Teois
(1 Thess. i. 3 ; 2 Thess. i. 11), aro two very different things ; different not
so much in their own nature, strictly considered, as in the use which Paul
makes of them in his writings. With him, epya vApov always designates the
idea of perfect obedience, viz., doing all which the law requires. But epya
ayaSid or epya iria-Teais are the fruits of sanctification by tbe Spirit of God ;
the n-ood works which Christians perform, and which are sincere, are there.
fore acceptable to God under a dispensation of grace, although they do not
fulfil all tho demands of the law. On the ground of the first, Paul earnestly
contends, at length, in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians, that no one

442 EXCUESUS H. ON EOM. HI. 28.
can be justified. The latter he everywhere treats as indispensable to the
Christian character.
In a word, when Paul is contending with a legalist, i. e., one who expected
justification on the ground of his own merit, he avers that justification by
works of law or perfect obedience, is impossible. But when he is addressing
Christians, he tells them that good works are absolutely essential to the Chris
tian character.
2. Come we then, in the second place, to inquire what is the meaning and
object ofthe apostle James, in chap. ii. 14 — 26.
He commences by asking : "Of what avail is it, my brethren, if a man say
he have faith, and have not works t " It is then with those who make pre-
•/ tensions to Christian faith, and mere pretensions, that the apostle has to do.
This is clear from the closing verse in the paragraph : " For as the body
without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead."
The characters, then, which the apostle James has in view, are of a kind
directly opposite to those with which St. Paul was concerned. James is dis-
/ puting with Antinomians, viz., such persons as held that mere speculative
belief or faith, unaccompanied by works, was all which the gospel demands.
He tells them that this is not the case, and cannot be. He appeals to the
examples of Abraham and Rahab, and asks, whether the faith which they
possessed did not co-operate with works, when they were justified.
Observe now, that James does not once mention epya vApov. This is not
the subject which he has in view. It is tpya irlcrreus, and these only, of
which he treats ; comp. verses 17, 22, 26.
Mark again, that James does not at all maintain that faith is not essential
to justification. He expressly admits that Abraham's faith co-operated with
his works, and was perfected by them, ver. 22. Nay, he appeals to the very
same passage of Scripture, in confirmation of this, whieh Paul appeals to in
Rom. iv. 3, when establishing the doctrine of gratuitous justification. The
work of Abraham which James mentions, is recorded in Gen. xxii. ; and it
took placo some 30 years after the words were spoken to him, which are
quoted in ver. 22. By this work (viz., of offering up his son), Abraham
" perfected his faith," and " fulfilled the Scripture which says : Abraham be
lieved God, and it was counted to him for righteousness," verses 22, 23. In
other words : ' Tho faith of Abraham was inseparable from good works. It
shone out in the most conspicuous manner by them. And in like manner
did the faith of Rahab exhibit itself.'
James, then, maintains that no man has any good claim to tho faith of a
Christian, who does not at tho same time exhibit good works ; i. e., good
/ works superadded to faith are necessary to justification.
Paul maintains that men are justified gratuitously, in opposition to leal
or meritorious justification. Still he is so far from denying that Christian
faith must produce good works, that he everywhere strenuously maintains
the necessity of them. Where, then, is the contradiction ?
Luther strangely thouglit that he found it ; and he rejected the epistle of
James from tho canon of the New Testament on this ground, callin" it

EXCURSUS III. ON EOM. V. 12. 443
epistola straminea. So did the Magdeburg Centuriators ; and not a few re
cent commentators have alleged, that James contradicts what Paul teaches.
For a more ample discussion of the subject of this Excursus, the reader
may consult the dissertation by Dr. Knapp, Bib. Repos. III., pp. 189 seq. ;
and also the recent one by C. Fromann, Bib. Repos. IV., pp. 683 seq. ;
where he will find references to various writings on this subject, and an ex
amination of the arguments of those who hold that James intended to gain
say some of the declarations of Paul.

EXCURSUS III.
On bdvaros in Rom. v. 12 (pp. 157 seq.).
Among some of the older commentators, and even among some very dis
tinguished recent and living ones, e. g., Flatt, Schott, Reiche, and others, tho
position has been strongly asserted, that bdvaros can here mean only the
death ofthe body. The arguments as summed up by Reiche are briefly these.
(1) 'No explanation added to bdvaros leads us to suppose the literal and
usual meaning is not to be here admitted.' But in verses 1 5 — 1 9, an anti
thesis to bdvaros, or (what is of the same import) to xpipa, KaraKpipa, etc.,
shows beyond all reasonable question that the death is such an one as is the
opposite of reigning in life and of justification unto life. Can this be mere
temporal death 1 (2) ' The connection leads us to construe bdvaros as mean
ing temporal death only.' And what is this ? It is, that in ver. 10 bdvaros
is used to designate the physical death of Christ. Can Prof. Reiche show
us that bdvaros is capable of any other meaning, as apphed to Christ 1 And
because the apostle from necessity uses the term literally in one case, can he
not employ it in a secondary or tropical sense in another ? Especially can
not Paul be supposed to do this, who so often employs the same word in
different senses, even in the same sentence? (3) ' Paul elsewhere considers
physical death as a great evil or enemy, which Christ came to destroy.* He
appeals to Rom. vi. 21 in proof of this ; an unfortunate appeal, inasmuch as
the antithesis in ver. 22 is £017) aXiivios ; also to 2 Tim. i. 9 (which says noth
ing concerning the subject) ; also to 2 Cor. v. 1 ; 1 Cor. xv. 54, which relate
to the resurrection. But what should lead Paul or others to suppose, that
because Christ liberates the body from its death, he does not liberate the soul
also from the death that has befallen it ? Or how can the proof that Christ
does one thing, prove that he does not perform another, provided it be not
the opposite of the first t Or how can it be shown, that because bdvaros
sometimes designates the death of the body, that it never designates the death
of the soul? (4) 'The apostle speaks according to Jewish views merely;
and the Jews held that temporal death was introduced by Adam.' The an
swer to this is, that the Jews of his time probably did believe that temporal

444 EXCUESUS III. ON ROM. V. 12.
death was connected with Adam's fall ; as Wisd. i. 13, ii. 24 ; Sirac. xxv.
24, xli. 3, would seem to show. Yet to this hour, so far as the efforts of
the learned are concerned, no uniform and consistent views among the Rab
bins are made out. Vitringa (Observ. Sac. III. 8, 9), Siisskind (Magaz.
St. 13), Bartoloceius (Biblioth. Rabb. V. II. pp. 47 seq.), and others, have
maintained that the Rabbins reject the common doctrine of connection with
Adam and derivation of evil from him ; while many others (as Tholuck,
Reiche, and many quoted by them) endeavor to show that they held, either
that our temporal death was occasioned by Adam's fall, or that our moral
corruption and physical death both sprung from him ; for both of these opin
ions are avowed among the Rabbins. But what has all this to do with the
meaning of Paul 1 He might assert what was generally believed by the
Jews of his day in relation to the point in question, or he might contradict
what they believed. In his epistle he has often done both, in respect to many
points. He must be left, then, to be explained by himself, and by the gen
eral nature of the Scriptural idiom ; which does not here decide for temporal
death only. (5) 'The exegesis which explains bdvaros as meaning all eril
of every kind, mixes the figurative and literal together, and therefore is im
probable.' Thon Qmi), which means (in its secondary sense) happiness, and
implies continued life at the same time, is improperly used ; and every word
whose tropical sense is enlarged beyond its literal one while it is built upon
it, is wrongly employed. How far can we proceed in the interpretation of
Scripture on such a ground as this f
Such are the arguments by which the usual exegesis is assailed. Let us
see what is said by the assailants, in answer to arguments adduced upon the
other side ofthe question, (a) 'Physical death is not removed by Christ;
it is still universal.' To this Reiche answers, that ' it is not indeed removed ;
but it will be at the resurrection ; and it will be abolished even here, at
Christ's second coming [viz., to reign on earth].' That is, the mischiefs of
temporal death will in some way be repaired ; but those mischiefs are not
prevented. Is this all then that verses 15 — 19 mean? (b) ' Eternal hfe in
ver. 21 is the antithesis of bdvaros, which therefore must mean something
besides the death of the body.' To this Reiche replies, that eternal life is
merely the reunion hereafter of body and soul, and their continued existence.
If it be urged that happiness is meant by life, then, he says, we may reply,
that the blessings procured by Christ are much greater than the mischief
occasioned by Adam, which was mere temporal death; see verses 15, 16.
But on this I would remark, that the excess of the blessings as specificated
by the apostle, has reference to the evils occasioned by one sin, and to the
forgiveness extended to many ; which is a different view of the subject from
that which Reiche gives, (c) Finally bdvaros Seirepos in Apoc. ii. 11, al.,
is disposed of by Reiche, by saying, that 'it may mean (according to the
Rabbins) a second actual death ofthe body after the first resurrection ; or if
it does not mean this, we cannot conclude from the mode of expression
(bdvaros Sex'rrepos) what simple bdvaros must mean.' But to me it seems the
reverse. The writer of the Apocalypse, in order to remove all doubt respect-

EXCURSUS IH. ON ROM. V. 12. 445
ing his moaning, when he mentions bdvaros as the reward of Ein, adds Sev-
Tepos for this very purpose.
I am well aware that the passage in 1 Cor. xv. 22, " Por as in Adam all
die, so in Christ shall all be made alive," has often been adduced, in order
to show that bdvaros in the passage before us means only the death of the
body. But with Toellner and Koppe I may venture to say, that because, in
discussing the subject ofthe resurrection (the resurrection of Christians only,)
the apostle represents Adam as having introduced the death of the body, it
does not follow, that in another epistle, when treating of quite a different
topic, and intending to show the full extent of the benefits procured by the
death of Christ, he could not employ bdvaros in its most extensive latitude.
Above all, this does not follow, when it is quite certain, that in the context
of this last named epistle, and elsewhere, Paul does beyond all doubt employ
bdvaros in its most enlarged sense. It lies, moreover, on the face of the
whole antithesis which he makes in verses 12 — 19, that his object is to exalt
tlie Sucaiaipa of Christ, by showing the greatness of the Kardnpip-a from which
he delivers us, and which was occasioned by Adam. But how is this object
effected in any important measure, in case bdvaros means no more than the
dissolution of our mortal bodies t a thing, by the way, from which none aro
at all delivered.'
On the whole, I regard the ease as one which scarcely admits of a doubt
on the ground of philology, or of the first principles of theology. When
Adam sinned, death was threatened. Now is the death of the body the only
penalty of sin % If not, then more was meant than this ; and the most ra
tional exegesis seems to be that which we are so often obliged elsewhere to
adopt, viz., that evil of every kind was threatened. In regard to the bdvaros
which came upon the posterity of Adam, it was of the same nature ; it was
fully inflicted, or rather tho penalty fully attached, where they actually sinned,
as ver. 12 itself shows ; and even where they did not actually sin, there was
subjection still to death in as high a measure as the nature of the case ad
mitted. Another difficulty in respect to the present subject deserves notice before
we leave it. It is suggested by the following statement : ' If the miseries of
the present life and the death of the body be a part of the penalty threatened
to Adam, then the subject is implicated in difficulties like to those which have
been already suggested ; for if these be a part of the penalty of sin, how can
that penalty be contrasted with the deliverance which Christ has effected, in
asmuch as he has not effected a deliverance from the evils just named ?
Must not the miseries of the present life, then, and physical death, be wholly
excluded from the penalty originally threatened 1 '
Some have been led to exclude them by this or the like train of reasoning ;
and especially because, as our context abundantly asserts, the blessings pro
cured by Christ do greatly exceed the evils occasioned by Adam's sin. Such
being the case, they conclude that the death of Christ must of course remove
the very same evils, in all respects, which were threatened in the original pen
alty ; and as temporal evils and the death of the body still remain, and are
33

446 EXCURSUS HI. ON ROM. V. 12.
universal, they cannot admit that they were included in the death threatened
to Adam.
But in reply to this I would remark, that it does by no means follow that
even those who become the subjects of redemption are to suffer none of the
evils threatened against sin. The question, What would be the best means
of training up men, who should be always sinless on earth, for the glory of
the heavenly world ? is something quite different from the question, How
are sinners to be disciplined, in order that they may become fitted, and best
fitted, for the happiness of heaven? A part of the discipline of the latter,
(infinite wisdom has so decided it) must now necessarily be suffering and
trial ; and as included in this, we may also include the death of the body.
Paul himself has told us, in the very chapter under consideration, that the
children of God have reason to rejoice in afflictions, inasmuch as they result
in patience, approbation, and hope, verses 3, 4 ; and again ho says, that " ouv
momentary [temporal] afflictions work out for us a far more exceeding and
eternal weight of glory," 2 Cor. iv. 1 7 ; and again, that " all things will work
together for good, to those who love God," Rom. viii. 28. So far as bodily
suffering is concerned, for the time being, Christians may suffer as severely
as others ; and oftentimes they may be the subjects of severe mental as well
as bodily sorrows ; but all this finally promotes their spiritual benefit. Here then
is the immense difference which Christ has made, between the effect of their
sufferings and that of the suffering of the wicked. So far as misery in the
present life is concerned, Christians may indeed undergo and do suffer some
portion of that which the penalty of the law threatens ; they are truly made
to taste how bitter a thing it is to have sinned against God, and how dread
ful the consequences of sin would be, if they should be subjected to them all.
But still, this lesson is by divine mercy made highly salutary, both in wean
ing them from sin, and in preparing them for glory. To repeat the words
of the apostle : " All things work together for their good." In a word, al
though a portion of the penalty of sin (in the modified way just described),
is the necessary result in every case of having sinned ; yet as Christ redeems
us from immeasurably the greater part of the penalty, and makes that part
of it which Christians do suffer, subservient to their own good ; above all,
since he saves us from every evil which appropriately belongs to the second
death, no valid objection can be made against the declaration, that the bless
ings which the Redeemer procures, do not only exceed the evils introduced
by the offence of Adam and consequent upon it, but also that tbe salvation
which he has wrought is an effectual antidote against the curse of the law.
Even the small part of this whicli the believer (as having once been a sinner)
must necessarily undergo, i. e., the evils which in the present life he must
suffer, is, as we have seen, converted into a means of spiritual good to him.
This is sufficient then to justify the assertion, that Christ has redeemed us from
the curse ofthe law. It is not necessary, that all and every particular of this
curse should be included in such an assertion; itis enough that the very
sufferings which Christians undergo, i. e. so much of the curse as they do
suffer, prove at last to be only "blessings in disguise."
But if temporal death merely constitutes the whole of the threatening to

EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. V. 11. 447
Adam, or the main part of it, then has the death of Christ failed to accom
plish the end whicli Paul asserts it to have accomplished, inasmuch as aU
men without distinction are still subjected to it. Viewing this death, how
ever, as only a very subordinate and inferior part of the evil threatened to
our first parents ; and reflecting that even this is made the occasion of disci
pline, which ends in good ; we may without any serious embarrassment main
tain with Paul, that tho death of Christ has been the cause of blessings which
greatly superabound over the miseries occasioned by the fall.
The deeply interesting nature of the subject, the difficulties attending it;
and the efforts of numerous commentators, among whom are some highly
respected ones, to establish that interpretation of bdvaros which assigns to
it the meaning of temporal death only, are my apology for dwelling so long on
the topics which this word suggests.

EXCURSUS IV.
On tvttos rov peWovTos in Rom. v. 14 (pp. 178 — 180.)
In making additional remarks upon tvttos, I observe, (1) That the com
parison, from its very nature and design, is in the way of contrast. Adam
was ihe cause of sin and death ; Christ, cf righteousness and life : these are the
simple elements of the contrast. The apostle himself indicates that he does
not mean a ty])e of something the same in kind, but an antithetic type, or one
in the way of contrast ; by immediately subjoining &aa' oi>x &$ rb irapd-iriapa,
k. r. A.
(2) The same measure or degree of influence in bringing evil upon men,
is not to be attributed to the first Adam, as is to be attributed to the second
in respect to bringing grace and salvation; rj x°,pLS • • • irrepicrcrevo-e  rb
Kpipa e£ evbs [irapairridftaTos] els Kardxpipa, rb be x^purpa iK iroW&v irapairTai-
pditnv els Sixaiaipa ; and this last sentiment is virtually repeated again in ver.
17. Nothing can be clearer than this makes it, that the blessings of redemp
tion predominate over the mischiefs occasioned by the fall, yea, greatly super-
abound. The measure or degree then of mischief and of benefit, are not
what constitutes the tv-itos in the case under consideration.
(3) Is it then, as 1 have stated in the commentary (p. 179), the extent of
the evil on the one side, and of the good on the other, which is a point of
resemblance ? That is, does the apostle insist that the mischiefs of the fall
on the one side, and tho blessings of redemption on tho otlier, pertain in any
sense to our whole race without exception? A deeply interesting question,
and one on which hang some very important deductions. In answer to it, I
would observe,
(a) That all Adam's race do suffer more or less evil in consequence ofthe

448 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. V. 14.
fall. This point has been sufficiently discussed in the commentary, p. 178,
seq. and below p. 450.
(b) As the counterpart of this, it may with equal truth be said, that the
blessings procured by Christ affect all the human race without exception, in some
important respects. References under (a) above.
(c) But it is important also to note that tliere are spiritual blessings, i. e.
actual pardon and justification, which do not come upon all men without
distinction, but only on those who believe. These blessings are indeed prof
fered to all ; they are open to all ; they are accessible to all. But they are
not actually conferred on all ; they are not actually possessed and enjoyed,
except by believers ; for he who believeth shall be saved, and he who believeth not
shall be damned. It is necessary, then, in order to become an actual partaker
of these blessings, to believe, i. e., the acts of penitence and faith, acts which
are our own, are the conditions of enjoying these highest blessings of the gos
pel, conditions without which they cannot be enjoyed.
And now — the other part of the contrast ; which will not, perhaps, be so
easily conceded by many of my readers. Does the ultimate and highest part
of the sentence of death, the second death, i. e. future misery, which was
threatened to Adam, actually come on all his posterity without any act of
their own, without any real and personal concurrence with the sin of their
ancestor? So the apostle does not say; for he says that "death passed
through upon all men, because that all have sinned; i. e. (as we have seen
above), in their own persons. But you will say that the apostle affirms, in
ver. 19, that " by the disobedience of Adam the many, i. c, all, were consti
tuted sinners." I grant this ; I believe fully what this passage affirms. But
to say that Adam's disobedience was an occasion or ground or instrumental
cause of all men's becoming sinners (which I must verily believe is the mean
ing of this declaration), and that it was thus an evil to them all; and to say
that his disobedience was personally theirs, or was reckoned or imputed as
being personally theirs ; is saying two very different things. I see no way
in which this last assertion can be made out by philology.
Besides ; how utterly unlike, in this last case, would be the points of com
parison q It is plain that none can enjoy the higher blessings procured by
Christ without the personal and voluntary acts of repentance and faith ; does
it not seem equally true, now, that none will actually suffer the higher pen
alties of the curse threatened to Adam, without their own voluntary trans
gression ? If this be not the time state of the case, how can the superabound
ing of grace, asserted so repeatedly in verses 1 5 — 1 7, be in any way defended ?
If we say that sentence of eternal perdition, in its highest sense, comes actu
ally upon all men by the offence of Adam ; and this without any act on their
part, or even any voluntary concurrence in their present state and condition
of existence ; then, in order to make grace superabound over all this, how can
we avoid the conclusion, that justification in its highest senso comes upon all
men without their concurrence ?
I am aware, indeed, that many commentators have considered Adam as
being hero produced by the apostle as the representative of all tho human
race, and Christ as the representative of only the elect ; sec tho discussion on

EXCURSUS IV. ON EOM. V. 14. 419
this point, p. 183 seq. Nor is there any need of resorting to this construction,
if we take into view the suggestions above, viz., that on tho one hand bless
ings are proffered to all, blessings much greater than the evils occasioned by
tho fall, which blessings still can be actually enjoyed only through repentance)
and faith ; while on the other hand, eternal death is before all, i. e., all aro
exposed to it from their condition and circumstances, but some personal act,
!. e., some actual sin, must precede it. I see not well how to escape from
this conclusion, unless we give up a part of the superabounding of the grace
ofthe gospel, or else take the position that Christ is hero presented as merely
the head of the elect. But how can the first be given up, when the apostle
so often asserts it ? And how can the last be received, without doing violence
to the laws of interpretation, and to the nature of the contrast presented 2
It must be particularly noted, that the superabounding of the grace of the
gospel appertains not to the number of its subjects, but to the number of
offences forgiven by it, i. e., tho actual greatness cf evil removed by it ; for
the evils of Adam's fall extend to all his race without exception, and how
can the grace of Christ extend to more than all ? This makes it clear, that
the superabounding has reference to the forgiveness ofthe many offences which
men commit, and which expose them to far greater evils than the one offence
of Adam does ; as it is asserted by the apostle in ver. 16.
There is one otlier point, also, which should not be omitted in this refer
ence to the superabounding of the grace of the gospel. This is, that the
gospel places all men under a dispensation of grace, where penitent sinners can
be pardoned and accepted; while a dispensation of law (such was that under
which Adam was first placed), subjects them to its penalty without reprieve,
for the first offence which they commit. It cannot escape notice, then, that
we are now, notwithstanding the numerous and dreadful evils occasioned by
the fall, under a. far more favorable dispensation in respect to an oppor
tunity for making sure our final happiness, than we should have been by
being placed in the original condition of Adam. Pres. Edwards has taken
great pains in his book on Original Sin (p. 324 seq.), to justify God's deal
ings with Adam's posterity, in charging Adam's sin upon them, by endeav
oring to show that mankind had a most favorable trial in Adam, and one
which was much more likely in the nature of things to result in their good,
than if each had stood upon his own trial. Now if there be any foundation
for this, and indeed if we simply admit that each in a state of innocence must
have been tried as Adam was, then the fact that he fell, and the conclusion
thence to be deduced by analogy that they would fall, seems to render it pretty
certain, that the whole of our race would have been involved in a final and
irretrievable ruin by being placed under a law dispensation, as Adam first
was. Grace superabounds, then, above the evils of the fall, in that Adam lost
for men only an innocent legal state — one in which men wore on trial, and
from which they might fall ; while Christ has procured for them a dispensa
tion of grace, under which many and aggravated offences are no bar to the
salvation of the penitent.
I speak of a legal state in which men were to be on trial, because I am not
able to find any good reason, to support tho idea, that if Adam had obeyed,
38*

450 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. V. 14.
all his posterity would have been born in a state not only of perfect, but of
confirmed holiness. Where is one sentence in all the book of God which
declares this? And how is any argument to be obtained from analogy?
The angels have had their trial, and some of them "kept not their first
estate." The first human pair had their trial, when directly from the hands
of their Maker ; and they fell. But supposing they had not fallen, is there
any ground to expect that their posterity would have been born in a condition
better than that in which the first pair were created 1 As far as we know
any thing of the history of rational beings, so far it is clear, that it is an in
dispensable rule of divine moral government, that all should be subject lo a
state of trial. If then the views of Pres. Edwards and others in relation to
this subject are unsupported either by the Scriptures or by analogy, how can
we admit them? It is not enough to appeal to symbols and to systems of
divinity in such a case ; nor to argue ad verecundiam, by reciting the names
of such as have patronized a view of the subject like that which has now been
examined. We must have Scripture, and argument drawn from it, and then
we will cheerfully yield our assent.
I return from this partial digression, however, and observe that if, as
stated in the commentary, the tu7tos of the apostle is to be understood as
having reference merely to evils and blessings that eomo on all Adam's
posterity without any concurrence or voluntary act of their own, we may find
sufficient here to answer the demands of a tvttos. But if any insist that the
meaning shall be regarded as having respect to the highest penalty on the one
hand, and the highest blessings on the other ; then, in order to make out a
real and true parallel, we must include the free and voluntary concurrence
of each individual, who sins and suffers for himself or on his own account,
or repents and believes for himself so as to receive the highest blessings which
Christ bestows. I do not object to extending the Tti7roj in this way, provided
it be understood when thus extended, not of penalty in the higher sense as
actually inflicted, nor of blessings in the higher sense as actually bestowed,
but of exposedness to ponalty on the one hand, and exposedness (sit venia verbo
comparationis causa) to blessings on the other. How can anything more
than this be made out ? That everlasting death will actually be inflicted on
all of Adam's race, of course will not be assumed ; and as little can it bo
made out, that everlasting life will actually be bestowed on all.
The subject, properly considered, will afford relief to the mind, which is
straggling with difficulty arising from the assertions of the apostle, which
represent the blessings procured by redemption as being co-extensive with
the mischiefs introduced by the fall. The evils and blessings in question
are in many important respects co-extensive ; and in their highest sense they
are in this way regarded as being suspended on something which is to be
done on the part of man in order either to suffer the one or to enjoy the
other. What hinders, then, that Adam in respect to the evils which he has
introduced should bo contrasted (as Paul has contrasted him) with Christ in
respect to the blessings which he had introduced *
After all, there aro many serious and considerate men, accustomed to a
different mode of representing this subject, who probably will not concede to

EXCURSUS IV. ON EOM. V. 14. 451
this view. But with the exception of some whose views are excessive on
this point, I have an apprehension that the difference consists more in words
and modes of interpretation, than in opinion as to the facts in the ease. They
take it for granted, at the outset, that in all respects in which our present
condition differs from that of Adam before his fall, in those respects it must
bo the consequence of sin ; and to this I do not object ; excepting that the lat
itude ofthe assertion " all respects," may possibly be too wide. What is
called high orthodoxy maintains, moreover, that the disposition with which
wc are born is itself not only sin, but a part of the punishment of sin ; and, as
wo could not ourselves sin before we had an existence, that Adam's sin is
imputed to us, and we are punished for it, by being born with a disposition
which is itself sinful, and which is also a part of the penalty of Adam's sin
imputed to us. The argument is, tbat inasmuch as we are bom heirs of
woe and heirs of a disposition to sin, this must be a punishment for guilt
which is either our own in a strict sense, or our own by imputation.
Now that men are born with a disposition that will certainly and always
lead them to sin, in all their acts of a moral nature, before they are regener
ated, I admit as fully as they do. But the fictitious process of accounting for
this on the ground of imputed sin, which in this way becomes our own, is not
what the Bible asserts or seems to maintain. There is not, in all the Scriptures,
an instance in which one man's sin or righteousness is said to be imputed to another.
If there is, let it be produced, and discussion on this point will then cease.
The natural state of man I admit to be one that is destitute of any proper
disposition to holiness ; and therefore, that man in his natural state is exposed
to all the terrors of the curse. This is in itself a tremendous e vii ; it is also
the consequence of Adam's fall. The awful turpitude of sin is disclosed
by the fact that the consequences fall upon the innocent as well as tho
guilty. The vicious parent ruins his innocent children; the wicked ruler
plunges whole nations into wretchedness. This fact is not illustrated, proved,
or accounted for, by saying that his wickedness is imputed to these nations '?
The fact is one which takes place as the natural and regular sequence of
wickedness, under the present constitution of things.
So in the case of Adam and his posterity. All are sufferers on his ac
count. The original state of man is lost. A new one is come in, in conse
quence of his sin, which is fraught with danger and sorrow. It is certain now,
that all who come to sufficient maturity to sin, will sin. This certainty has
been occasioned by the fall. In this way " all are made sinners by the dis
obedience of one," i. e., all are placed in a condition in which they will surely
be sinners and nothing else, in case of moral development or of ability to
commit sin. More than this cannot be made out. More is not even con
tended for by moderate and sober writers, whenever they lose sight of tho
doctrine of imputation. In proof of this, we may appeal to the fact, that
they have made a broad distinction between original and actual sin. Why
this ? Plainly because the human mind revolts at confounding our own per
sonal and voluntary acts as free agents, with the disposition that the God of
nature has given us, and in whicli we had no concurrence. But where does
the Bible make two sorts of sin, we might well ask ; two sorts so immeasur-

452 EXCURSUS IV. ON ROM. V. 14.
ably different as these ? The one free, voluntary, of pur own choice ; the
other antecedent to all choice or action ?
Then, again, the advocates for imputation do most of them concede the
salvation of infants, who die before the commission of actual sin. Why ?
Plainly because they cannot bring their minds to place voluntary sins on a
level with involuntary ones. Pictet himself, strenuous as he is in orthodoxy,
puts tho question, whether final damnation would ensue merely on the ground
of original sin ? And this he answers by the declaration, that he does not
believe it would.
Of what use then is it to confound things by giving them one and the same
name (sin), which we afterwards separate so widely from each other, and
which we cannot help separating, without doing violence to the first laws of
our moral consciousness ? If I might be permitted to suggest an answer, it
would be, that it answers no other purpose but to keep Christians sepaiated
from each other, and to perpetuate disputes about names, while as to things
they are essentially agreed. Different modes of explanation they may adopt.
In difficult and mysterious matters men will always do this. But why should
we refuse to see, that calling certain things by certain names, helps neither
to establish nor explain them ? A fictitious ground for a resting-place, which
is never adopted by the sacred writers, can never add to the peace or har
mony, or valuable stores of theologians.
In a word, it does not follow, because men are bom heirs of woe and ex
posed to become actual sinners, that this is to be considered as individual and
personal punishment (in the proper sense of this word) ; nor that any light is
thrown on this mystery by saying, that they are sinners by imputation. Im-
jiuted sin and veritable punishment do not match together. Eternal justice
is in no good measure vindicated by coupling them together. The mind
remains, after all fictitious efforts of this nature, just where it was before.
The facts are seen and confessed ; but the mode of accounting for them in
this way, the mind is not obligated to receive, while uo declarations of such
a nature can be pointed out in the Scriptures.
My positions are, that all men are born destitute of a predominant dispo
sition to holiness ; that all who come to moral action will sin and always sin
before regeneration ; that this state of things is brought upon us by Adam's
fall ; that suffering and personal sin, however, in such a world as this now
is, are by no means co-extensive ; that tho tremendous evil of sin is, that it
often affects the innocent (innocent in regard to the particular matter that
occasioned the evil) as well as the guilty ; and that admitting these facts, we
have the substance of the scriptural doctrine respecting the fall and its con
sequences. The quo modo, i. e., the manner of accounting for such facts as
these, I cannot regard as important, excepting that it should not be anti-
scriptural. A mere law-fiction cannot help us here ; and here, moreover, the
sacred writers have not speculated ; why then should we ?
It is only when men hold fast to the position, that there can be no evil in
the world which is not penalty in the proper sense — penalty in respect to the
particular individual who suffers it — that they need to be embarrassed with
the question, why wo are heirs of woe, and of a disposition that leads to

EXCUESUS IV. ON ROM. V. 14. 453
actual sin. Tell us then, all ye who assume such a position, Was Adam
in paradise, before his fall, exposed to no evil ? Did he suffer none ? Posi
tive pains of body or of mind, I grant he did not suffer ; but was it no evil
to be exposed to the temptations of Satan ? Did it prove to be none ? Nay,
I might well ask, to what greater evil could he have been subjected, unless
it was final perdition, than to be thus exposed to the wiles of Satan ? Why
then should we be so often and so confidently told, that all evil is the pen
alty of sin, and only the penalty of it ? It is not so ; it has not been so. In
a world of trial, there is and must be evil of some kind or other, in some
degree or other ; else trial is but an empty name.
We need not to be over solicitous then to answer the question, How can
all the present evils suffered by men, or evils to which they are exposed, be
accounted for ? That Adam's fall has been concerned with them, or most
of them, in their present form, is clearly and abundantly taught by Paul in
the chapter before us. But in what way, i. e., how far in all respects, and
the modus operandi, this chapter does neither assert nor explain. Why need
we do what the apostle has left undone ? To say that these evils come
because of imputed sin, is explaining nothing, satisfying in no degree the
enquiring mind, helping the case in no respect. It is only changing res oli-
scura for nomen obscurius. Enough that we believe the facts, as simply stated ;
speculation beyond this has hitherto availed little indeed, and promises but
little for the future.
I must make one more remark in this connection. The inquiry has often
been made : On the ground that the evils of the present life and physical
death stand connected with the fall of Adam, how can it be that the redemp
tion of Christ does not liberate the elect from all these evils ? In reply to
this I would say to the enquirer : Mark well that Paul does not aver, that
the blessings procured by Christ do in all respects stand directly opposed to
the evils introduced by Adam, so as to prevent their occurrence in any de
gree. Not at all. He only avers that blessings superabound, and that they
are of the like extent with the evils. We have seen that this is true ; and
we have abundant assurance, also, that all the sufferings and sorrows of this
life, which the children of God are called on to undergo, will turn to good
account at last in respect to their spiritual interests. This does not show
indeed that they are not evils in themselves ; but only that they may be
converted into a blessing, by that infinite power and wisdom and benevo
lence which have redeemed man. It sets the redemption of Christ in a new
and glorious light, that such are the effects of it ; and in such a light it was
the design of Paul to place it, in the paragraph before us. As I have before
said, suffering and soitow in some degree may be necessary (so infinite wis
dom has adjudged) to our discipline in our sinful and fallen state, but they
do not substantially detract, and they never can detract, from the actual su
perabounding of the blessings which the gospel has introduced.
(4) The riiros is not between the person of Adam as such, and that of
Christ. See commentary, p. 179.
(5) The apostle nowhere declares Adam to be the federal head or repre
sentative of all his posterity ; nor Christ to be the federal head of his spirit-

454 EXCUESUS IV. ON ROM. V. 14.
ual children. It would be indispensable, indeed, to the admission of the
latter idea, that Christ should be regarded as the federal head of the elect
only. But as we have seen, the representations of the present passage do
not admit of such an exegesis. The usual doctrine of the more recent Prot
estant symbols, in respect to the federal and representative capacity of Christ
and Adam, took its rise in the time and in consequence of the disputes of
Augustine ; it was variously modified and represented by the schoolmen of
after ages. It was, however, more fully developed in its present form at the
time of Cocceius, who gave occasion to such a development by his manner
of considering the covenants of law and grace. Whatever may be correct
or incorrect in the more usual representations about federal head, it does not
appear to me to be taught in the chapter before us. It is drawn from it, as
all must admit, merely in the way of theological deduction. It is a deduc
tion indeed, which in some respects, and in a modified sense, seems to pre
sent nothing inconsistent with scriptural doctrine ; inasmuch as all men are
affected more or less by what Adam theh first progenitor did, and also by
what Christ has done in order to introduce a dispensation of grace But
this particular form of expression casts no new additional light on the diffi
culties of our subject; and, from the nature ofthe case, it cannot be justly
deemed essential to a fuU belief in the Christian doctrine of depravity or of
redemption. (6) Calvin points out two other points of dissimilitude between Adam
and Christ, whieh he says the apostle did not think unworthy of notice, but
whicli he omitted to notice merely because the tum of his discourse did not
allow him to do it. These are (a) " Quod peccato Adae non per solam im-
putationem damnamur, acsi alieni peccati exigeretur a nobis poena ; sed ideo
ejus poenam sustinemus, quia et culpce sumus rei, quatenus scilicet natura nos
tra in ipso vitiata, iniquitatis reatu dbstringitur apud Deum.
" At per Christi justitiam alio modo in salutem restituimur ; neque enim id
nobis accepta fertur qui intra nos sit, sed quod Christum, cum bonis suis om
nibus, Patris, largitate nobis donatum possidemus." Calvin then adds
(which those should note well who may hold that Christ's righteousness
does in any proper sense become our own) : "Itaque donum justitiiE non
qualitatem qua nos Deus imbuat, sed gratuitam justitiae iniputationem signifi
cat." (b) " Altera [differentia] est, quod non ad omnes homines pervenit Christi
beneficium, quemadmodum universum suum genus damnatione Adam invol-
vit." He then goes on to state that the ground of this is, that "our corrup
tion comes in the course of nature (he means that it is transmitted by nat
ural generation), and so pervades the whole mass ; but we must possess faith
in order to participate in the blessings proffered by Christ. To be depraved,
it is necessary only to be a man ; to participate in the righteousness of
Christ, one must be a believer. Tho infants of believers have by covenant a
right of adoption, by which they come into communion with Christ ; other
infants are not exempt from the common lot. Comm. on Rom. v. 17.
The first point, is that Adam's sin is not imputed to us merely as the
sin of another, i. e., one which is put to ouv account, but that our nature has

EXCURSUS V. ON EOM. V. 16. 455
become vitiated in consequence of it, and the fault thus becomes inherent,
and in a proper sense our own. Calvin and Turretin are directly at vari
ance here, and Edwards and Stapfer take sides with the former. But
the righteousness of Christ does never become inherently our own, for the
pardon bestowed on account of it is simply gratuitous.
Into a discussion of this topic my limits do not allow me here to go. Cal
vin may be in the right or in the wrong, just as one understands and defines
his assertions. He denies that punishment for another's sins is exacted of us ;
and here I fully believe him to be in the riglit ; for punishment, in the prop
er sense of this word, and under a system of law which is strictly just, must
ever have relation to one's own offences. But sufferers because of Adam's sin
we truly are ; for how else shall we account for it, that we are born destitute
of a disposition to holiness, and possessed of one which (in case of moral de
velopment) will certainly lead us to sin ? To say that Adam's vitiosity is
transmitted to us by natural generation, or in any simply physical way, helps
nothing in the way of explanation. What matters it, whether we have
Adam's vitiosity, or another one de novo, if after all we actually have such
a vitiosity as fact shows that we do possess ? The modus in quo of obtaining
it, is a question of no practical moment ; and it is wonderful that so much
stress should have been laid upon it. How is the fact in question in any
way illustrated, established, or vindicated by such a supposition ? The
transmission of a moral character in the way of natural descent is a problem
that (to say the least) must always remain dark and difficult ; for in a strict
and proper sense every man forms his own moral character. But the fact
that all men are so born, since the fall, that they are disposed to evil and not
to good, at the first opening of moral development, is a fact which universal
experience testifies. With this simple fact we may well rest satisfied. Spec
ulation has not yet helped us to any adequate eclaircissement, and, so far as
I can see, is not likely to do so.
In regard to the second point of discrepancy made by Calvin, it would
seem to show that he regarded Christ as here represented to be the federal
head of only the elect. See tho discussion of this point in commentary, p.
222, and above, p. 449.

EXCURSUS V.
On Rom. v. 16 (p. 188 seq.)
I cannot see that the considerations here suggested suffer any abatement
of their force, on the supposition that the oi -iroXXoi (on whom the blessings
procured by Christ are conferred) comprises only the elect ; as some strenu
ously maintain. For the elect are never made partakers of actual pardon
and justification, without repentance and faith ; and these are both acts of
their own, for it is not the sanctifying Spirit of God who repents and believes

456 EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. V. 16.
for them. And these aro not only their own acts, but they are truly acts
which constitute a conditio sine qua non of real pardon and justification. But
how is it, now, on the other side of the antithesis ? According to the views
of those who advocate the above sentiment, the very elect are partakers of
Adam's sin and guilt to the full extent of final and eternal damnation, ante
cedently to any act or choice of their own. So, at all events, Turretin states
this matter ; and so others who think with him. But, looked at in this
simple light, how are the particulars of the comparison to be made out ? Or
in what important respect is there any real tvttos left between the one and
the other? The simple, thing, that the act of one had influence on others,
seems to be all that remains : the manner of that influence, the condition of
it, its extent, the degree of causality or efficacy which should be attributed
to it, are all thrown out of the question ; and yet these are the main points
of importance and interest. When the question is put : " Whether the in
fluence of the Spirit of God in regeneration is efficient as causa principalis,
or whether it is secondary or subordinate, i. e., whether it operates merely
as causa occasionalis ?" it is rightly thouglit by most theologians to be a fun
damental question in evangelical theology. It is not so much the fact itself,
that the spirit of God does influence the sinner who is converted, which in
terests us, as it is the degree and kind and extent and condition of his influence.
So in the case of the first and second Adam. The mere fact that each had
some kind of influence is of little interest or importance compared with the
degree and kind and condition and extent of influence. But how are these
to be at all compared, when things so diverse are brought together, as many
bring together in the present case ? On the one side, many blessings are
unconditionally bestowed on all men without exception ; yet still higher and
eternal happiness is made altogether conditional, even after all which Christ
has done ; for it is suspended on their own voluntary acts of repentance and
faith. But on the other, there is not only unconditional and universal tem
poral evil to a certain extent (for this all candid persons would seem eon-
strained to admit), but there is unconditional and universal sin, guilt, and
misery, in their ultimate and eternal measure, before any voluntary act at
aU of the nascent human being, and before he is in any proper physiological
and pneumatical sense capable of any free moral agency whatever. Nor can
we, if we keep upon Turretin's ground, draw back from this statement, as
some have lately attempted to do. This is and has been the dominant opin
ion among those who sometimes claim the exclusive right to be called the
highly orthodox party in the reformed churches ; as every man may satisfy
himself who wiU read Turretin, Van Maestricht, or other writers of the like
character. And assuming this statement for our basis, where, I ask again,
is the tvttos that remains, in any respect that can be a matter of much in
terest or importance ?
Should it be said, as it has been, that the grand tvttos in this case is impu
tation on both sides— imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity, and of Christ's
righteousness to the elect — the simple answer is, that this is not once as
serted, nor even hinted (so far as I am able to discover) in the whole pas
sage. Whatever may be elsewhere taught respecting imputation, it is not to

EXCURSUS V. ON ROM. V. 16. 457
be found hero. And indeed with respect to the otlier parts of the Bible, it
is plain matter of fact that tho Scriptures (as has once and again been said)
never speak of any man's sin being imputed to others ; it is the imputation
of one's own sin or fault to himself, which they speak of (as we have already
seen, p. 123 above), and not the imputation of the sin of one man to others
who did not commit that sin.
Moreover can it be that tho train of evils that result from the fall, are no
more than suppository, i. e., imputed ones ? And are the unspeakable bless
ings that come to us on account of what Christ has done and suffered, only
imputed, i. e., supposititious ones, or at least are they only from a suppositi
tious source ? Does not the mind spontaneously ask, Can imputed sin bo
punished otherwise than by imputed damnation, unless the eternal laws of
right and wrong — of even-handed justice, are to bo overturned and set
aside ? And must not imputed righteousness correspond with imputed hap
piness ? Else how can we join par cum pari ? And what is tho kind of
moral government that we must be led to believe in, by this method of rep
resenting the subject ? A world, not of realities, but of imputations ; all as
it were factitious, and nothing real and veritable as to the original ground of
punishment or reward! Moreover, according to the scheme in question,
while Adam's sin is not only imputed to us, and thus imputed brings upon
us the sentence of real and veritable death in its final and eternal power, and
while tliere is besides this an inherent original sin (the penalty of imputed
sin) which also subjects us to the like condemnation ; yet, on the other hand,
Christ's righteousness, although said to be imputed to us, is acknowledged
as never hecoming inherent (for then we should be absolutely perfect), but is
reckoned only as supposititious. Here then is par cum lupari. The two
cases are immeasurably diverse, and the real tIittos seems to be much, if not
altogether obscured. Must we not force our way, when we oblige ourselves
to move in such a direction as this ?
After all, however, it is rather the language employed, and the costume
put upon this whole matter by such modes of representation, than the real
ultimate object in view, at least the object in view as conceived of by sober
and judicious men, to which one may reasonably object The extremes of
the imputation doctrine do certainly lead to very serious difficulties ; some of
which are stated above, and many others might be added, if this were the
proper place. It is enough to say, once more, that there is not in all the Bible
one assertion, that Adam's sin or Christ's righteousness is imputed to us ; nor one
declaration that any man's sin is ever imputed by God or man to another
man. If this be not a correct statement, those who discredit it have the ob
vious means before them of correcting it. But if it does not need correction,
then why should we bo compelled to admit, as essential truth, the modus of
stating a doctrine which has no parallel in the Scriptures ; whick we may
therefore regard as not expressly warranted by the word of God ; which is so
obviously adapted to raise difficulties in the mind on the score of God's jus
tice and impartiality ; which seems to resolve the grand features of redemp
tion into mere arbitrary sovereignty ; which counts things to be what all con
fess they are not ; which seems also to present the moral governor of the
39

458 EXCURSUS V. ON EOM. V. 16.
universe as doing with the one hand for tho sake of undoing with the other,
and doing much — very much that is all-important — in a merely fictitious
way, and not as veritable reality ; why, I would most respectfully ask, should
we be compelled to adopt such a statement, unless the Bible absolutely de
mands it ? Every Protestant, at least, is at liberty to ask this question ; and
he is at hberty to choose a different mode of stating the subject, until it can
be shown that the Bible requires this mode, and this only.
But I speak, of course, only of ultraism in these views. It is altogether
plain that many, I believe I might say of most sober, judicious, and pious
men, who have weU studied this subject, and are attached to this mode of
representation, use the terms imputation and impute only as a convenient or
rather compendious method of expressing theh belief, that the posterity of
Adam have greatly suffered on account of his sin, and that they receive
many blessings on account of what Christ has done and suffered. In the thing
itself, as thus stated, all men of what is called evangelical sentiment must
agree and do agree. The objection to imputation and impute, as employed
by ultra-theologians, is, that these words (as they apply them) have no war
rant in Scripture ; that they are adapted to mislead ; and that the doctrine
apparently inculcated by them is liable to many appalling objections, among
which one of the most urgent is, that the sin of Adam and the righteousness
of Christ are represented as imputed in the like way, when after all the
method is so exceedingly diverse, as we have seen above. At least this latter
assertion is most palpably true, when the consequences of imputation whicli
are invariably connected with it by those who strenuously maintain the doc
trine, are taken into view. For as they present the matter, the consequence
of Adam's imputed sin, is to be born an heir of damnation and of inherent
sin ; and the latter is regarded both as the punishment of the former and as a
new cause for other punishment, and also as the cause of all subsequent
actual sin ; while, on the other hand, men are not regarded as born holy on
account of Christ ; not even the elect sire so born ; nor is tliere ever any inhe
rent holiness in them because Christ's righteousness is imputed to them.
They are made really and veritably holy in part (not putatively so), by the
sanctifying influences of the Spirit of God, on account of what Christ has
done and suffered ; so that their holiness is not in this case factitious, and
the Redeemer's holiness is not veritably theirs. If it were so, then perfect
holiness would be theirs ; and they could then present a claim of salvation
on the ground of meeting the demands of the law. Mere imputed holiness,
however, never can answer proper legal demands ; and therefore it can never
entitle sinners to a legal acquittal. Pardon is given altogether of grace; not
on the ground of either real or factitious, i. e , imputed obedience. The first of
these sinners cannot plead ; the second, law (as such) does not in itself admit.
If any one should reply, that Christ is and is called the Lord our righteous
ness ; my answer would be, that he is at the same time called our wisdom and
sanctification and redemption. Now he is by this representation made just as
much our imputed wisdom, and our imputed sanctification, and our imputed
redemption, as he is our imputed righteousness. But what possible sense
could be made from imputation as applied to all these ? What is our im-

EXCURSUS VI. ON EOM. V. 19. 459
puted redemption ? The simple meaning, then, of all is, that Christ is the
author of the wisdom which the gospel has revealed; he is the procuring
cause of the sanctification which believers experience; he is the author of
tho eternal redemption of which they are made partakers ; and he is the Lord
their righteousness (biKaioaivn) in the same way, i. e., he is the meritorious
cause of their justification or pardon.

EXCURSUS VI.
On Rom. V. 19, Sia. ttjs TapaKorjs rov evbs avbpiirrov apapraiKol KaTeardbricrav
of iroAAof (pp. 198, 199J.
The meaning of the word KaTecTTdbijcrav has been sufficiently discussed.
The general idea in the whole declaration still remains in some measure to be
ascertained. Those who are familiar with the idiom of the original Scrip
tures must know, that causation of every degree and kind was usually ex
pressed by the Hebrews in one and the same way. We are accustomed,
when we wish for nice distinctions, to speak of efficient or principal, cause, and
of secondary or instrumental or occasional cause, etc. But it is not so generally
in the Scriptures. ' God moves David to go and number Israel, and Satan
moves David to go and number Israel.' The very same verb is applied to both
agents in this case. So ' the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, and Pharaoh
hardened his own heart ; ' see Exod. vii. 13, ix. 12, x. 1, 20, 27, xi. 10, xiv.
8 ; Eom. ix. 18 ; Deut. ii. 30 ; Isai. lxiii. 17 ; John xii. 40. So evil is as
cribed to God, both moral and natural; 2 Sam. xii. 11, xvi. 10; 1 Kings
xxii. 22 ; Josh. xi. 20 ; Ps. cv. 25 ; 1 Kings xi. 23, xxiv. 1 . In like manner
God is said to give men a new heart, and they aro commanded to ' make to
themselves a new heart ; ' the Spirit of God is said to convince and convert,
and regenerate the sinner ; and the same thing is often ascribed, for the most
part in the like words, to the gospel and to the power of divine truth. Now
he who has not carefully noted and weighed these obvious and highly impor
tant facts, is in great danger of making out in some way a very partial sys
tem of theology, and of contradicting in his exegosis of one part of the
Bible, what the sacred writers have affirmed in another.
To apply this to the case before us. Were constituted sinners means, that
Adam was, in some sense or otlier, the cause or occasion of his posterity be
coming sinners. But whether this was through a degradation of their nature
physically propagated down from father to son ; or whether it was (as Chrys
ostom, CEcumenius, Pelagius, Erasmus, and others have with little proba
bility maintained), only by virtue of the example which he set, or whether it
was in some other way, is not determined by the language of the text. Such
expressions, as we have seen above, do not determine of themselves either
the degree or the kind of causality. Principal or subordinate causation in

460 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19.
this case may either of them be expressed by the phrase Sia ttjs — KaTiard'
bnirav. The strenuous advocate for imputation avers, however, that the pos
terity of Adam were constituted sinners, by his offence being imputed to them,
and their being treated as though they had committed it.
But when I look at the nature of this case, and ask what language the
apostle would most probably have employed, had he designed to convey such
a meaning, I am constrained to say, that the case can hardly be supposed
with probability, that ho would have employed merely such language as that
before us, when other modes of expression more explicit and obvious were
within his reach. "On iv ai>Tq> afxapraiXol iXoylo-brjo-av — '6ti aureus iXoyicrbij
i) apapria avrov — or else bri i\o~av xnrAbtKoi Sia ttjs apaprias avTov, or some
thing equivalent to these expressions, might, not to say must, have been added
after ot iroXXoi, so as to prevent all mistake. But as the matter now is, with
the necessarily active sense of apapraXoi, the language itself cannot lead us
philologically to the supposition of an imputation scheme of sin. See comm.
on this verse and the preceding Excursus.
That men should be constituted or made sinners by the disobedience of Ad
am, most naturally means, I had almost said, must necessarily mean, that in
some way his offence so affected them as that tliey become actual sinners in
proprid persona. Now is anything more common than this mode of expres
sion ? 'A man of vicious character,' we say, ' corrupts his whole family. A
profligate of winning exterior corrupts the whole neighborhood of youth
around him. One sceptic makes many doubters in revelation. Voltaire
made half of literary Europe sceptical.' Now in these and a thousand other
hke expressions, we do moan to assert an active influence, a real causality in
some proper sense, of the evil done or spoken. Yet we never once think,
for example, of Voltaire's scepticism being imputed to half of literary Eu
rope ; nor do we once imagine, that any of the classes above named as being
corrupted are corrupted withont any voluntary agency of their own. The
sin of corrupt feelings and affections is entirely their own : it matters not what
the causes were which operated on them, so long as they were after aU
left to their own choice whether they would yield to the excitement or resist
it. So far then as the force of language is concerned, the expression apapraXci
KaTeo-Tabijcrav can never bo proved to mean that Adam's posterity were mado
sinners only by imputation. Indeed it must mean something more than this
and different from it. It is real and not fictitious and merely putative sin, of
whicli the apostle is here speaking; as we may see by appealing to ver. 12,
and to the nature of the case and the meaning of apapraXoi.
In what way, then, does Adam's sin operate, in order to produce the effect
which the apostle attributes to it? The degree, the extent, and nature of
this influence, seem all to be laid open in the text. It amounts to such a
degree as to involve us in a ruinous state or condition ; it extends to all the
posterity of Adam ; it is a cause or ground of moral depravation, for it is the
cause or occasion of all men's coming into condemnation, and therefore it
must be a cause of their becoming sinners. But after all, the modus operandi
is not declared by the apostle. Ho does not say, whether the operation of

EXCURSUS VI. ON EOM. V. 19. 461
Adam's sin is on our physical or mental constitution ; or whether it has in
fluence merely on the condition in whicli we are placed, as being expelled
from paradise and surrounded by peculiar temptations ; nor whether it is
examples merely of Adam which we copy ; and therefore a man may believe
all that Paul has here taught, who refrains from speculations on any of these
points, or on any others of the like nature. Better indeed would it have been
for the quiet of the churches, if many had entirely refrained from all the par
ticular modes of explanation which they have urged ; for the danger is great
that we may not only substitute our own individual belief and speculations
for essential doctrines of the Scriptures here, but also for a commentary upon
the text, and then elevate what we have thus superadded to an eminence far
above the text itself.
It is not then from the text or context here that we can explain the modus
operandi of Adam's sin. But from facts elsewhere disclosed and well known
by observation we may learn, that all men are now born destitute of a holy
disposition, i. e., a disposition that would lead them to obey the divine law.
Our nature then is degenerate and fallen ; and what can have rendered it so
but sin? Then, again, Adam's sin occasioned the expulsion of our race
from paradise ; the ground was cursed on account of this ; we are now born
in a state in which we are everywhere surrounded and assailed by tempta
tions ; we have no predominant inclination or disposition to resist them, al
though we have the physiological and psychological power to do so ; and for
all these reasons (and these are enough to account for the fact without the aid
of imputation), all men are constituted, or do become sinners. That they are
actual sinners in the womb, before they are capable of moral knowledge and
action, Paul has expressly denied in Rom. ix. 11, " The children being not
yet born, neither having done any good or evil." Even those who make two
sorts of sin, viz., original and actual, would seem virtually to admit the truth
which the apostle here affirms, if they admit infants to be guilty of only
putative sin. But still, that men are born with a disposition that will lead
them to sin, or occasion them to sin, is altogether certain from Scripture and
from fact. Now this is a state the opposite of that in which Adam was cre
ated ; for his predominant disposition was that which led to holy action.
Such facts as these the apostle plainly refers to in our text. And we may
safely admit them ; inasmuch as they are confirmed by Scripture, and by
every day's experience. But the modus operandi by which thoy are brought
about, must still remain, in many respects, entirely hidden from our view.
Why should we waste our time and talents, and spoil our benevolent feelings
towards others, in pushing our speculations where the sacred writers have
not led the way, and where facts wiU not warrant us in pushing them ?
One more remark of a philological nature should be made on the manner
in which causality is stated in this verse, viz., Sia ti)s irapanoris. That Sid
may in particular cases stand before a Genitive which denotes principal cause,
is sufficiently plain from examples in John i. 3. iii. 17 ; Rom. xi. 36, i. 5 ; 1
Cor. i. 9 ; Gal. i. 1 ; 2 Thess. ii. 2 ; Heb. i. 3, Si' eavrov. But that such
phrases as Sta irapaKor)s KaTecrToSrno-av cannot, from the mere form of the
language, be made to mean principal cause, is not only clear from the fact
39*

462 EXCURSUS VI. ON ROM. V. 19.
that Sid before the Genitive usually designates instrumental or secondary
cause, but from the fact also that cases occur where it would be absurd to
construe it as designating causa principalis. For example : Paul says in
Rom. vii. 5, Ta irab-fip-aTa tSiv apapri&v, to 5 i ci tov vApov, our sinful passions
which are by the law. In ver. 7 he says : " I had not known sin, but Sih. tou
vAjxov." In ver. 8 he says : " Sin, taking occasion Sia t5js ivroXris, wrought
in me all manner of concupiscence ; " and so in ver. 11. Is the law then
the efficient cause of sinful passions and actions ? Yet the law had some
thing to do with these ; and it is therefore (as usual among the sacred writers)
reckoned as a cause or ground of them ; but by no means the exclusive or
principal or only cause. And so in the case before us ; if Adam's sin as imputed
to us, if original sin indeed either imputed or inherent (as theologians speak),
be the solo and exclusive cause of all our sin, then what was the cause of
Adam's first sin ? He surely was not influenced by original sin, in either
sense that is assigned to this word. The truth seems plainly to be, that there
was originally a susceptibility in our nature of being impressed and excited
by allurements to sin ; else how happened it that Adam was moved to sin ?
Even the spotless Saviour was tempted ; and if there wore no sympathies in
his nature like to our own, or rather, like to those of Adam in his primitive
state, how could he be tempted, and how could the apostle appeal (as he does
in Heb. ii. 14 — 18, iv. 15, 16) to his sympathy with us who are tempted, as
the peculiar ground of hope and relief for us when we are subjected to
temptations ?
The point of degradation and fall, then, would seem to develop itself pe
culiarly in this particular, viz., that our sympathies towards sinful objects aro
now much stronger and higher than those of Adam in his primitive state ;
such indeed as to render it certain that our moral acts will all bo sinful, until
we become regenerated and sanctified. This renders certain the great fact
stated by the apostle, that ab1 men become sinners through the disobedience
of Adam. But that they are actual sinners before moral action, can be made
out when it is shown that sin does not consist in moral action ; and that moral
action begins before birth, can be made out when the assertion of Paul, that
Jacob and Esau (when old enough to struggle together in the womb) "had
not done any good or evil."
The reason why God made such a constitution of human nature, which
would suffer in all its branches by reason of an act of sin in our first parents,
he has not given. We leave that to his infinite wisdom and goodness, cheer
fully confiding in the great and certain truth that he does all things well.
We are concerned only with facts ; and the facts are few, plain, and simple,
if we receive them as the Scriptures have left them, and content ourselves
without addition to them by our own speculations. See further in Bib. Repos.
for Apr. 1836, p. 241 sq. ; Apr. 1839, p. 261 sq., and July 1839, p. 26 sq.

EXCUESUS VII. ROM. VII. 5—25. 463
EXCURSUS VII.
On Rom. vii. 5 — 25 (pp. 234 — 263).
First, it is the just principle of interpretation, that we should understand
every writer, when this can be done in consonance with the laws of language,
as speaking to the purpose which he has immediately before him. There aro
very many truths of the gospel, and many plain and important truths, which
are not taught in this or that passage of Scripture. The question concern
ing chap. vii. 5 — 25 is not, whether it be true that there is a contest in the
breast of Christians, which might, at least for the most part, be well described
by the words there found ; but, whether such a view of the subject is congru
ous with the present design and argument of the apostle.
Secondly, no theory of interpretation can, in the present case, be duly and
satisfactorily supported, by appealing merely to the form and intensity of
particular expressions. If this can be allowed here, then aro we certain that
two opposite theories may be equally well established, viz., that the individ
ual whose experience is represented is a saint, and is not one. That he is
one, may be made out by such expressions as the following : viz., 0-iji.ipijpi
Tip vApip, ver. 16 ; rb yap biXeiv [sc. rb KaXbv] irapaKeirai poi, ver 18 ; rep bi-
Xovrt ipol iroieiv rb KaXAv, ver. 21 ; crvvTJSopai yap Tip vAjica tov beov Kaia, rbv
iau dvbpa-irov, ver. 22 ; and Tip pev vot SovXevw vd/iw beov, ver. 25 ; while with
equal certainty and by the same reasoning, we may prove that he is not a
saint, from eyo* Se irapKtKAs elpi, Trerrpapivos virb tiiv ap-apriav, ver. 14 ; 'A piau
tovto irpdWw, ver. 1 5 ; ovk oiKei iv ipol tout' icrTi iv T7? crapKt jiov, ayabuv,
ver. 18 ; rb Se KaTepyd£eirbai rb uaXAv ovx eipta-Ka, ver. 18 ; S ov beXai Kaicbv,
tovto irpdo'O'ui, ver. 19 ; ipol rb KaKbv, irapduenat, ver. 21 ; fiXeirca erepov
vojjlov iv tois peXecri .... alxpaXuni^ovid pe Tip vApta t5)s dp.apTtas, ver. 23 ;
Ti) Se aapit'i [SovXeva] vApip ajiaprias, ver. 25. Stronger language than this,
viz., " I am crapKmAs, and sold under sin," i. e., a bond-slave to sin, and wholly
devoted to its service and obedient to its orders, cannot well be found in the
New Testament.
Whoever insists, then, that the passage before us must be applied to the
Christian, because of some strong expressions in it which seem to indicate
true moral good, should also take notice that, by the very same principles of
interpretation, he wiU of course be obliged to concede that a carnal state and
entire devotedness to the passions and appetites is described. To avoid this
conclusion, he considers these last expressions as used in a qualified or mod
erated sense, and accounts for them by the fervor of the writer's feelings and
the nature of the contrast. But who does not see that the very same rule,
when applied to the passages which seem to indicate moral good or holiness,
will so modify them as to make the application of them to true Christians
altogether unnecessary ? The reason and conscience of the unsanctified, es
pecially when they are awakened by the terrors of the divine law, present
sufficient ground to justify the use of the language here employed, in such a
modified sense as that now supposed.

464 EXCURSUS VII. ON ROM. VII. 5 — 25.
In fact, it appears a very plain case, that neither class of commentators,
that is, neither those who apply chap. vii. 7 — 25 to Christians, nor those
who apply it to the unregenerate, can find satisfactory ground for so doing,
merely in the jihraseology, or modes of expression employed. Either party who
adopts this ground, must deny his opponent the same liberties which he him
self takes ; or else involve himself in inextricable difficulties, by admitting
that the same grounds of explanation may be taken by others, which he takes
for himself. But he can do neither of these ; not the first, because the com
mon sense of all men would cry out against him ; not the last, because this
would prove the very contrary of what he holds, or else prove that the apostle
has really contradicted himself.
The laws of interpretation demand that a modified sense is to be given to
such particular forms of expression as seem to stand in the way of the argu
ment and the object of the writer. This we always give in fairly construing
the language of men, on all occasions, whether it be written or spoken. The
literal interpretation of all expressions, in an animated contrast, drawn by a
man of such powerful feeling- as Paul, would hardly be contended for in any
case in which polemic theology was not concerned. As well might we insist
that such declarations of our Saviour as : " it is easier for a camel to go
through tho eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom
of God ; " or : "if he had not come and spoken to the Jews, they would not
have had sin;" will any one insist now that these declarations should be
literally interpreted. No one will doubt then that the passage in question
must be so modified as to agree with the context, and the scope of reasoning
which the writer is aiming at, if that can be determined.
If the reader will now look back, he will see that I have not, in any case,
laid any particular stress on the form or intensity of expression, in my re
marks on vii. 5 — 25 ; and the reason of this is evident enough from what
has already been said above. At the same time, I have supposed that the
expressions crirp'p'npi tQ vApcp, crvvi\Sop.ai t<2 vApitp, Tip vot SovXeiiai rip vAfxto, etc.,
are those which the writer intended should be specially modified by the
reader ; and this because the object of his discourse requires them to be mod
ified. This is the ground on which I rest my interpretation; and not
on the form or strength of single words or phrases, on cither side of the
contrast. With these remarks in view, I proceed to offer, in a summary way, my
reasons for adopting the exegesis which the commentary presents.
1. The object of the apostle in vii. 7 to viii. 17, is to illustrate and confirm
what he had said in vii. 5, 6 ; and which he had before intimated in vi. 14.
Chap. vii. 7 — 25 is as plainly a comment on vii. 5, as chap. viii. 1 — 17 is
on vii. 6 ; and antithesis between vii. 7 — 25 and viii. 1 — 25, seems to be
plain and certain. As this is a fundamental point in the interpretation of
the whole, the reader will allow me to be full and explicit in the discussion
of it.
At the beginning of chap, viii., we find a distinction made, and a transition
of the discourse marked by £ p a vvv, now then, i. e., in our present state, in
the present condition of Christians, viz., as contradistinguished from their

EXCURSUS VII. ON EOM. VII. 5 — 25. 465
former state. What was this former state ? It was a carnal state, iv crapid,
ver. 5 ; o-apKiKAs, ver. 14 ; one in which thoy were subject to the law of sin,
ver. 23. What makes this transition the more striking is, that in ver. 6 tho
antithesis between the two conditions there described, is pointed out by the
very same word as here, viz., by vvvl.
If now we examine particulars in these two discourses (vii. 7 — 25, and
viii. 1 — 17), we shall find them in direct antithesis to each other. E. g , the
complaint in vii. 24 of miserable subjection to the influence of carnal desires
stands opposed to the thanks in vii. 25, uttered in reference to the deliverance
which the writer is about to describe. In vii. 23, the person described is a
captive to sin, i. e., altogether subject to tho influence of sinful passions and
desires ; in viii. 2, he is represented as delivered from the law of sin and
death. In vii. 14, an incessant and irreconcilable opposition is represented
as existing between the law of God and the person there described ; in viii.
4, he is represented as possessing the ability and the disposition to keep, at
least in some good measure, the precepts of the law. In vii. 18, the person
described is represented as having no good thing iv tt/ aapKi \o.\itov\ and as
finding no power to effect what is good, even when his mind or conscience
approves it or would prefer it ; in viii. 3, 4, this disability is represented as
removed. In vii. 5, 14, 18, the person described is represented as being iv
ffapiu, crapKiuAs ; in viii. 9 he is declared to be ovk iv a-apKi. In vii. 14 he
is represented as the bond-slave of sin ; (iretrpapivov vrrb ti)v apapiiav), i. e., as
altogether under the power of sin ; in viii. 11, 1 4 he is represented as having
the Spirit of God to dwell in him, and as being led, i. e., influenced or guided
by that Spirit.
In a word, the whole tenor of the two discourses is such as is adapted to
make the impression, that they are in antithesis to each other, and that they
are designed by the writer to be so. It is only the difficulties in regard to
subordinate parts, that can occasion or sustain any doubts in respect to this
subject. Indeed, I cannot better express my convictions of the antithetic
nature of the two passages, the connection in which they stand, and the de
sign of the writer, than in the words of Tholuck : " Truly if one has respect
only to the connection of the latter part of Rom. vii., with what goes before,
and what follows after, it is impossible to explain this [the latter part of Rom.
vii.] of any one, except of him who is still under the law."
2. The object of the writer ("which is to show that the law is insufficient for
the sanctification of sinners) would not be effectually promoted by supposing
that he represents the experience of Christians in chap. vii. For if Christians,
who are of course under grace, and are dead to the law (vi. 14, vii. 6), are
actually still in the state here represented, then would it follow that neither
grace nor law hinders them from being tho servants of sin. But to aver that
grace does not effect this, is to contradict viii. 1 — 17.
3. The tout ensemble of the representation in chap. vii. seems to render it
certain, that a true Christian cannot be here described. What is the result
of the whole ? It is, that notwithstanding all the opposition whicli the law
of God and the law of the mind make to sin, yet the person in question
practises it, and habitually practises it, on all occasions, and under all cir-

466 EXCUESUS VII. ON EOM. VH 5—25.
cumstances. In every contest here, the sinful carnal mind comes off vic
torious. Is this "overcoming the world ? " Is this to be 'born of God so
as not to sin ? ' Is this ' loving Christ so as to keep his commandments ? '
Is this ' doing no iniquity ? ' Is this " walking not after the flesh, but after
the Spirit ? " In a word, is it possible to make this accord with chap. viii.
1 — 17?
4. If chap. vii. represents the Christian struggle with sin, then what is the
state into which the Christian goes, as represented in chap. viii. ? The answer
must be: One in which there is no more struggle. Butwhen — where — was
ever such a state on earth ? It has often been imagined and asserted, but not
proved. But if now the transition is from a state in which sin was altogether
predominant, into one in which grace on the whole reigns and triumphs, then
all is easy and intelligible. On any other ground it is inexplicable ; at least,
it is so to me.
It were easy to add more reasons ; but if these are well-grounded, they are
sufficient. It is proper, now, briefly to pass in review some of the exegesis
and the allegations of those, who maintain that a regenerate person is
described in vii. 5 — 25.
( 1 ) Their interpretation (viz., that which most of them give) of vii. 9
leads, as may be seen in the commentary on vii. 9, to inextricable difficulty,
and contradiction of the context. It is equally opposed to the usus loquendi,
and to those parts of the discourse which precede and which follow.
(2) It is alleged, that the contest described in Rom. vii. 14 — 25 is one
which accords with the feelings and experience of every Christian ; and that
he is thus conscious that the interpretation given to it by those who apply it
to Christians, must be correct.
This consideration is, in fact, the main dependence of those who support
the exegesis just named ; I mean, that by such an appeal to feeling, they
produce more conviction on the mind of Christians, than is produced by all
their other arguments. After all, however, this is far from determining the
case. Let us look at the subject in all its bearings.
I concede, in the first place, that Christians have a contest v/ith sin ; and
that this is as plain and certain as it is that they are not wholly sanctified in
the present life. It is developed by almost every page of Scripture, and
every day's experience. That this contest is often a vehement one ; that tho
passions rage, yea, that thoy do sometimes even gain the victory ; is equally
plain and certain. It follows now, of course, that as the language of Rom.
vii. 14 — 25 is intended to describe a contest between the good principle and
the bad one in men, and also a contest in which the evil principle comes off
victorious ; so this languago can hardly fail of being appropriate, to describe
all those cases in a Christian's experience, in which sin triumphs. Every
Christian at once recognizes and feels, that such cases may be described in
language like that which the apostle employs.
Here is the advantage which the patrons of this opinion enjoy, and which
they have not failed to push even to its utmost extent. After all, however,
the ground is unfairly taken, and unfairly maintained. For, first, it is only a
part of the case. While Christians have many a contest in which they are

EXCURSUS Vn. ON ROM. VH 5 — 25. 467
overcome by sin, yet they must be victors in far the greater number of cases,
if tho whole bo collectively taken. If this be not true then it cannot bo true
that ' he who loveth Christ, keepeth his commandments ;' it cannot lie true
that 'they who love the law of God, do no iniquity ;' nor true that " he who
is born of God sinneth not ; " nor that faith enables him who cherishes it to
"overcome the world." As, however, there is no denying the truth of theso
and the like declarations, and no receding from them, nor explaining them
away as meaning less than habitual victory over sin ; so it follows, that when
verses 15 — 25 are applied to Christian experience, they are wrongly applied.
The person represented in these verses succumbs to sin in every instance
of contest. The Christian must not — cannot — does not, so fight against
sin. To assert this would be to contradict the whole tenor of the Scriptures ;
it would be abrogating, at once, all which is declared in so pointed a manner,
in chap. viii. 1 — 17.
Secondly, as I have already noted, there stands in the way of this inter
pretation the fact, that a great transition is marked by the commencement of
chap, viii.; one of which no satisfactory account can be given, if vii. 14 — 25
is to be interpreted as belonging to those who are under grace.
Thirdly, I repeat the remark, that the question is not, whether what is here
said might be applied to Christians, but whether, from the tenor of the
context, it appears to be the intention of the writer that it should be so ap
plied. (3) So far as reasoning or argument is concerned, the main allegation of
those who apply verses 14 — 25 to Christian experience, remains yet to be
considered. It is this, viz., that ' the declarations made in these verses res
pecting the internal man, are such as comport only with the state or condition
of a regenerate man ; and if this be not admitted, then we must concede that
the unregenerate are subjects of moral good.' But,
First, this allegation takes for granted, that the phrases crvpip-njii t$ vApm,
crvvijSoipai rip vApcp, etc., are to be taken in their full strength, without any
modification. But in respect to such an interpretation, see commentary on
verse 22, and the former part of this Excursus, on the subject of deducing argu
ments merely from the forms of expression, without a special reference to the
context, and the object which the writer has in view. When the whole of
this is weighed, I would inquire, whether he who interprets chap. vii. 5 — 25,
as having respect to one who is under law, has not just as good a claim to
insist that crapKiKAs, ireirpapevos virb ti)v ap.apriav, alxpiaXari^ovrd fie rip vApip
rrjs apaprias, etc., shall be taken without abatement or modification ? And
thus it will follow that the writer has described an impossible state, one in
which a man is under law, and under grace at one and the same time ; one in
which sin has a power predominant in all cases, and grace a power on tho
whole predominant, at one and the same time. The answer to this question
may be found, in the considerations which have been suggested above.
But secondly, the whole of the allegation which I am discussing, appears
to me to rest on ground entirely unsafe and unsatisfactory. It will bo ad
mitted by those who are conversant with the dispute about the meaning of the
passage before us, that Augustine was the first who suggested the idea, that

468 EXCURSUS VII. ON EOM. VII. 5—25.
it must be applied to Christian experience. This he did, however, in the
heat of dispute with Pelagius. At an earlier period of his life, he held to
the common exegesis of the church, as is certain from Prop. XLV. in Epist.
ad Rom. ; Intelligitur hinc ille homo describi, qui nondum sub gratia. So in
Confess. VII. 21, VIII. 5, Ad Simplic. 1. But Pelagius, who denied the
fallen state of man, urged upon him the declaration above referred to, viz.,
delighting in the law of God after the inner man, serving the law cf God with the
mind, etc. Augustine felt himself pressed by them, and made Iris escape by
protesting against the exegesis of his antagonist. He recanted his former
opinion respecting verses 14 — 25, and became a strenuous advocate for an
interpretation which through him has gained an extensive ground among
Christians, and maintains its footing among many down to the present hour.
It is difficult to say how far men, and even good men, will sometimes go in
matters of interpretation and criticism, in order to relieve themselves from
the straits occasioned by warm dispute. It was, in all probability, the dis
pute of the church at Rome with the Montanists, which first occasioned it
to doubt and then to deny, the Pauline origin of the epistle to the Hebrews.
Luther's dispute with the Roman Catholics, on the subject of justification by
faith alone, led him to discard the epistle of James, and to call it, by way of
contempt, epistola straminea. And the like have many others done, for
similar reasons. Such seems to have been the ground of Augustine's new
exegesis. But when we come, now, seriously and calmly to inquire whether there is
any cause of alarm in respect to the doctrine of the natural man's depravity,
because Rom. 7—25 is interpreted as having respect to him, we can see that
this is so far from being the case, that the opposite is true ; I mean, that this
depravity is rendered much more conspicuous and aggravated by this exege
sis. Let us see if this be not palpable and certain.
That men are moral beings, does not make them sinners or saints. That
thoy have faculties which can distinguish between good and evil, only shows
that they are capable of doing good or evil, or of being righteous or wicked.
Conscience and reason belong to the pura naturalia of the human race. Man,
in the full and proper sense of this word, cannot exist without them. It is
no more an evidence, then, that a man is holy or good in the Scripture sense
of the word, because his reason and conscience distinguish good from evil,
and testify in behalf of the good, than it is that he is holy because he has a
moral nature. Such a distinction and such an approbation are inseparable
from the essential nature of reason and conscience.
Consider moreover, that the guilt of a sinner who continues to yield to the
solicitations of his carnal desires, is proportioned entirely to the measure of
light which he has, and to the inducements set before him to act in a differ
ent manner. " Where there is no law, there is no transgression." " To
him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Then of
course the sinner, with reason, and conscience, and the law of God all re
monstrating against his conduct, is involved in guilt of the deepest dye,
while an offender (if I may so call him) without any of these checks, would
be no offender at all. " He that knoweth his master's will, and doeth it not,

EXCURSUS VII. ON EOM. VII. 5 — 25. 469
shall be beaten with many stripes." And so it ought to be. What then
can render the person's case more aggravated, who is described in verses
14 — 25, than the fact that he resists so much light and such powerful mo
tives to pursue a different course ?
Is it, then, denying the depravity of tho unregenerate, when we assign
to them faculties to do good, and light as to their duty, and strong excite
ment to perform it, and represent them as after all refusing to do good, and
uniformly hearkening to the voice of sin ? I appeal to tho reason and con
science of all men, whether such an accusation against the exegesis in
question, is not in a high degree unjust and unfounded. Nay, I might go
farther; I may say, it is the contrary exegesis which is pressed with the
very difficulty it urges against the other. For if the sinner is born without
reason and conscience, and is without light; or if he is bom with reason
and conscience that are incapable of distinguishing good from evil, or of
giving the preference to the former ; then his depravity and desperate guilt
can in no way be made out, consistently with the first principles of a moral
sense. Of all the charges then brought against the exegesis which I have
defended, that of its diminishing the guilt of unregenerate men is the most
unfounded and unjust.
I have discussed the principal arguments, so far as I am acquainted with
them, of those who interpret verses 14 — 25 as having a relation to Christian
experience. I have already remarked upon the allegation, that Paul here
speaks in the first person singular, and must therefore be relating his own
experience, p. 246, seq. There is no objection to allowing it to be Paul's
experience ; but when had he such experience ? And why does he speak
of himself? These are the questions to be answered ; and I have endeav
ored to answer them at the close of vii. 12.
I cannot conclude this already protracted Excursus, without adverting
for a moment, to the history of the exegesis introduced by Augustine.
As has been already stated, the most ancient Fathers of the Church, with
out a dissenting voice, so far as we have any means of ascertaining their
views, were united in the belief, that an unregenerate, unsanctified person is
described in vii. 5 — 25. So Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Theo
doret. In this state did the views of the church remain down to the time
of Augustine, whose first opinion, and whose change of it, and how unne
cessary it was as far as tho doctrine of depravity is concerned, have already
been described.
The exegesis of Augustine, however, found favor in the churches where
his sentiments respecting original sin were received ; and prevailed very
extensively and for a long time. In like manner with him, have Anselm,
Thomas Aquinas, Cornelius a Lapide, Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza,
Spener, Buddams, Koppe, and many others, explained the passage in ques
tion ; and most commentators among evangelical Christians in Great Britain
and in this country, have followed the same opinion.
On the other hand, besides all tho ancient Greek, and some of the Latin
Fathers, there are many distinguished men who have defended the senti
ment which has been above exhibited. Such are Erasmus, Raphel, Epis-
40

470 EXCURSUS VIII. ON EOM. VIII. 19.
copius, Limborch, Turretin, Le Clerc, Heumann, Bucer, Schomer, Francke,
G. Arnold, Bengel, Eeinhard, Storr, Flatt, Knapp, Tholuck, and (so far as
I know) all the evangelical commentators of the present time on the conti
nent of Europe. Most of the English Episcopal church, also, for many
years, and not a few of tho Scotch, Dutch, and English Presbyterian and
Congregational divines, have adopted the same interpretation. I cannot
but believe that the time is not far distant, when tliere will be but one
opinion among intelligent Christians, about the passage in question ; as
there was but one before the dispute of Augustine with Pelagius. In this
respect there is ground of trust, that the ancient and modern churches will
yet fully harmonize.

EXCURSUS VIII.
On ktIctis in Rom., viii. 19 (pp. 284 — 286).
Tholuck argues that ktIctis means the material creation here ; first, from
the connection in which it stands, and the predicates which are assigned to
it; and secondly, from both Jewish and Christian belief respecting the
renewal of the natural world at a future period.
First he says, that the more usual meaning of Krto-is is the natural world.
That this is not so in the New Testament, is plain from the examples ad
duced in the commentary. But still, that the world may very naturally, in
itself considered, be thus employed has been freely conceded.
His next argument is, that aiiri) i) ktIctis in ver. 21, indicates a descent
from the noble to the ignoble part of creation ; i. e., abri) t) Kricris indicates,
that "Not only the nobler part of creation, but even this inferior creation, of
which he is now speaking, also longs for a disclosure of the glory which is
to be revealed."
The answer to this is, that such an exegesis of abrij t) ktIctis would neces
sarily imply, that a higher and nobler ktIctis had been already mentioned
in the preceding context, with which this inferior one is now compared.
The expectation of the nobler part of creation is first mentioned in ver. 23,
vlobecriav aireKbexAfJievoi. The force of abrf) i) ktIctis must therefore be
made out in another way. Paul had just said, t) ktIo-is is made subject to a
frail and perishing state (paraiArTiTi), with the hope. i. c, in a condition or in
circumstances in which it is permitted to hope, that Kai aiirr) i) ktIctis, even
this very same creature may be freed, etc. Tholuck does not seem to have
noted, that the expression is not simply abri), but ical abrr) ; which necessa
rily refers it to the preceding ktIo-is, the frail and perishing ktIo-is which
had just been described, and precludes any implied comparison with a nobler
ktIctis, which indulged tho like hopes.
A third reason of Tholuck for the signification which he here assigns for
Kriais is, that in ver. 22, tt ii cr a r\ Kriais is mentioned.

EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. VIII. 19. 471
But why the apostle could not say iraaa n icriais, if he meant the world
of rational beings, just as well as he could if he meant the world of nature,
I am not aware ; and more especially so, since in Mark xvi. 15, and Col.
l. 23, this very expression is made use of (irdan rp Kilcrei — iv Trday ry
K-riaet) in order to denote the universality of the rational world.
linally, Tholuck avers that the predicates naraiATys and SovXeta ttjs
cpbopiis (verses 20, 21,) more naturally belong to the material creation.
But this I cannot see. Above all, I cannot see it, when the apostle says,
that the kt'io-is was made subject fiaTaioTrjri, ovx cicouaa, not voluntarily, not of
of its own choice. Does this belong more naturally, then, to the material
than the rational creation1 Of which is choice more naturally predicated?
Then again, is not uaTaiAr-ns, u frail and dying state, as easily and naturally
to be predicated of men, as it is of the material world ? And taken as a
whole, is not the latter far less subject to ixaraiAr-ns than the race of men ?
Comp, paTaiAr-ns in Eph. iv. 17 — 19 ; Rom. i. 21, seq. Once more, is not
SovXeta iijs cpbopas, the bondage of a mortal or perishing condition, as naturally
predicated of men as it is of the material world ? Rather, is it not much
more naturally applied to human beings, than it is to the world in which
tliey live ? So Paul seems to have thought, and so expressed himself; see
cobopd in 1 Cor. xv. 50. Comp. 2 Pet. ii. 18, 19 ; i. 4.
None of tho reasons, then, assigned by Tholuck for the exegesis which
he defends, that are drawn from the exigency of the passage, seem to be
well-grounded. So much is true, viz. that the usus loquendi in itself consid
ered would admit the sense which be gives to Kilais. But that the exigentia
loci renders probable this meaning, does not seem in any good degree to be
made out.
We come, next, to the second class of reasons assigned by Tholuck in
defence of his interpretation ; viz., those derived from the Jewish and Chris
tian belief, respecting the renovation of the natural world at a future period.
The passages of Scripture mainly relied on are 2 Pot. iii. 7 — 12; Rev.
xxi. 1 ; Isai. xi. 6, seq., lxv. 17, seq. ; Heb. xii. 26, seq. Hints of the
same doctrine are supposed to be contained in Matt. xiii. 38, seq.; xix. 28,
and Acts iii. 21.
All the force of argument from these and the like passages must rest on
a literal interpretation of them. But how can passages of this nature be
urged as having a literal meaning, after reading Rev. xxi, and xxii. 1 — 5 ?
Or if this does not satisfy the mind, then compare passages of a similar
nature viz., those which have respect to the Messiah's kingdom on earth,
his spiritual kingdom before the end of time, and during the gathering in
of his saints. What immeasurable absurdities and contradictions must be
involved in a literal exegesis here ? For such examples, see Bib. Repos.
Vol. I. p. 389 seq.
I have a difficulty, also, as to the logical commentary of the passage, pro
vided we adopt the interpretation defended by Tholuck. Let us examine
this for a moment. The apostle begins by saying, that present afflictions
should not be laid to heart by Christians, because of the future glory which
is reserved for them. What now is demanded, in order that this should be

472 EXCURSUS VIII. ON ROM. VIII. 19
believed, and that Christians should regulate their thoughts and conduct by
it ? Why plainly nothing more is required, than that they should cherish
a confirmed belief of it, a steadfast hope that such glory will bo bestowed.
Such is the conclusion in ver. 25. But how is this hope to be animated
and supported ? Plainly by considerations which add to the assurance.
that future glory is in prospect. And what are these ? They arc, that
God has enstamped on our very nature the desire of such a state, and that
he has placed us in such a frail and dying condition, as that the whole
human race naturally and instinctively look to such a state and hope for it.
The present is manifestly a state of trial ; even Christians, who have the
earnest of future glory within themselves, are not exempt from this. But
the very fact that we are in a state of trial and probation, naturally points to
an end or result of this. And what is such an end, but a state oi future
happiness ? for here happiness in a higher sense is not to be attained.
But suppose now that the material world is that which sighs after and
hopes for deliverance from its present frail and perishable state ; has this a
direct bearing on the subject in question ? The answer must be in the
negative ; so thought Turretin, as his notes most clearly show. But then
it may be said, that it has a bearing upon it by way of implication ; be
cause the renovation of the material world is necessarily connected with
the future happiness of the saints. In this point of view I acknowledge
it would not be irrelevant. But is not this less direct, less forcible, less
convincing, than the appeal to the wants and desires of which every human
breast is conscious ? Of two modes of exegesis, either of which is possible,
I must prefer that which imparts the most life and energy to the reasoning
and argument of tho writer.
I have another substantial difficulty with the interpretation under exam
ination. It is this : if Kriais means the material or natural world, on the
one hand, and avrol tIjv enrapxiiv tou rrveifiaros exovres means Christians on
the other (which Tholuck and Flatt both avow), then here is a lacuna which
cannot well be imagined or accounted for. Christians arc subject to a frail
and dying state, but aro looking for a better one ; and the natural world is
in the same circumstances ; but the world of men in general, the world
of rational beings who are not regenerate, have no concern or interest in
all this ; they are not even mentioned. Can it be supposed now, that the
apostle has made such an important, unspeakably important, omission as
this, in such a discourse and in such a connection ? The natural, physical
world brought into tho account, but the world of perishing men left out ! I
must have confirmation "strong as proof from holy writ," to make me
adopt an interpretation that offers such a manifest incongruity.
Such are my reasons for not regarding as weighty the arguments offered
by the advocates of tho interpretation I am examining ; and such are my
positive grounds for rejecting it.
I eome, at last, to the interpretation which I have supposed above to be
the correct and proper, viz , that Kiiais most probably means men, mankind
in general, as stated above, No. 2, b. That such an interpretation is agreea
ble to the usus loquendi, is clear from the statement there mado. It only

EXCURSUS IX. ON ROM. VIII. 28. 473
remains, then, to inquire, whether it accords with the nature of the passage in
which the word stands, and whetlier it can be vindicated from the objections made
to it. In reference to the former point, see the commentary on this verso,
and in reference to the latter, see Bib. Repos. as quoted above.

EXCURSUS IX.
On Rom. viii. 28, rois Kara irpAbeaiv kXtjtois oZai. (p. 296.)
The difficulty arising from this passage, and the temptation to deny or ob
scure what I must believe to be its plain and inevitable meaning, are both
suggested by the following question : " How can God have had an eternal
purpose as to those who are to be saved, and yet men be free agents, free
even in the matter of their own repentance and conversion t" It will not
be expected, of course, that I should here discuss at length a metaphysical
question, which the disputes and contentions of more than 4000 years have
not settled ; for in every age and nation, where religious inquiries have been
pursued, the difficulty before us has for substance presented itself to the minds
of thinking men. One may say that three parties exist, and perhaps have
in every age existed, in respect to it; viz., (1) Those who embrace the doc
trine of fatality, and therefore deny the proper free agency of man. (2)
Those who deny the divine decrees or eternal purposes of God, and make in
effect a kind of independent agency of man. (3) Those who believe both
in the divine foreknowledge, purpose, or decree (for the difference between
these is in name only, not in reality), and also in the entire free agency of
man. Among this latter class, I would choose my lot. The Scriptures
seem to me plainly to hold forth both of these doctrines. Yea, so far are
the sacred writers from apprehending any inconsistency in them, that they
bring them both forward (i. e.. divine agency and purpose, and human agency
and purpose) at one and the same time, not seeming even to apprehend that
any one will speculate on them so as to make out any contradiction. Por
example : Acts ii. 23, " Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel
and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have cruci
fied and slain;" i.e., the determinate counsel (apia/ievi) $ovXii) and fore
knowledge of God did not render the hands of the Jews less wicked, who
crucified the Saviour. Of course they must have acted in a voluntary man
ner, i. e., as agents altogether free; for a sin involuntary, i. e., without
consent of the will, is a contradiction in terms, so far as moral turpitude is
concerned. Again ; Phil. ii. 12, 13, " Work out your own salvation with fear and tremb
ling ; for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do, of his good plea
sure •" i. e. the very ground on which I urge diligence in the matter of
your' Christian duties is, that God helps you both to willandto do.
40*

474 EXCURSUS IX. ON ROM. Vin. 28.
These are a specimen of the philosophy (if I may so speak) with which
the Bible is full. The attributes of an omniscient God, his designs, his very
nature, prove that he must have purposes ; and such as will not be frustrated.
Prediction or prophecy proves this, and puts it beyond all rational contradic
tion. Is it uncertain, whether what the prophets of God have foretold will
come to pass ? Yet are not the men by whom the things foretold are brought
to pass, free agents in all cases of this nature, just as they were in the cruci
fixion of the Lord of glory ?
But you will ask : ' How is this ? ' To which I answer at once : I do not
know. The manner in which God's purposes are consistent with free agency,
I do not pretend to know. The fact that they are consistent, I do know ;
because I am conscious of being a free agent ; I am as certain of it as I am
of my own existence. I am equally certain that God is omniscient, and has
always been so ; and therefore he must have always perfectly known every
thing that will take place. If he knew it with certainty (and if he did not,
then he did not know it at all), then is it uncertain wliether it will take place ?
And if it is certain, then how does this differ from what is said to be decreed?
The name decree, indeed, seems to have carried along with it a kind of terror
to many minds ; but, so far as I can see, it implies neither more nor less than
divine purpose or divine will. And can it be, that sober-minded Christians
will, on reflection, maintain that there is no divine purpose or will ?
To all the arguments adduced from such a statement ot facts to prove the
doctrine of fatalism, I have only to reply, that fact itself disproves this ; for
we are conscious of being free agents. The Scriptures disprove this: for
they everywhere treat men as free agents. And this is enough ; for these are
the two highest possible sources of proof, and with these we ought to rest
satisfied. As to the question : How is our free agency made to consist with
God's eternal purposes ? I have said nothing : for I know nothing. How
ten thousand thousand other things, which I believe, and which all men be
lieve, can be true or take place, no one in tho present world knows, or ever
will know, anything ; e. g., How do heat, moisture, and earth make one plant
green and another red, one nutritive and another poisonous, in the veiy same
bed of earth ? yet we all believe the fact that they do.
Who can show it to be absurd, now, that God should have had an eternal
purpose, and yet man be a free agent ? Does the certain knowledge we now
have of a past event, destroy the free agency of those who were concerned in
bringing about that event ? Did any previous knowledge of the same neces
sarily interfere with their free agency ? And as to free agency itself ; cannot
God make a creature in his own image, free like himself, rational like himself,
the originator of thoughts and volitions like himself ? Can this be disproved ?
The fact that we are dejiendent beings, will not prove that we may not be free
agents as to the exercise of the powers with which we are endowed, — free
in a sense like to that in which God himself, as a rational being, is free. Nor
will this establish any contingency or uncertainty of events, in the universe.
Could not God as well foresee what would be the free and voluntary thought
of men, in consequence of the powers which he should give them, as he
could foresee thoughts and volitions which would proceed from the operation

EXCURSUS X. ON ROM. VIII. 28—30. 475
of external causes upon them ? Until this can bo denied on the ground of
reason and argument, the sentiment in question is not justly liable to the
charge of introducing the doctrine of casual contingency or uncertainty into
the plans of tho divine mind.
I only add, that when we say, 'God has had an eternal purpose in respect
to those who aro called' (and the apostle does say this, Eph. iii. 11 ; 2 Tim.
i. 9), wo speak avbponroirdbas. With God there is no time. 'A thousand
years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years.' With him it is an
eternal now, as it has often and forcibly been expressed. So the expres
sions, l'RF.-destination, xORE-ordination, etc., strictly speaking, aro anthropo-
paihic. ' Non FRX-videntia, sed TRO-indentia potius dicitur,' says Boethius,
De consol. Philos. i. 5. prop. 6. If God has any purposes, they are eternal.
We must, then, either deny that he has any purposes, or else admit their
eternal existence ; and this being admitted, the KX-niol Kara. irpAbeaiv aro truly
such as tho apostle describes them to bo in the sequel of chap. viii.

EXCURSUS X.
On Eom. viii. 28—30. [p. 295, sq.]
On the disputes which have arisen from the paragraph in verses 28 — 30,
I shall not comment at large in this place ; but I cannot pass by the subject
without making a few remarks.
That man should be entirely dependent on God, and yet be a free agent at
the same time, presents, it has been often asserted, an impossibility, an ab
surdity, a contradiction of terms, a scheme of fatalism, etc. After all, how
ever, tho mere disciple of Naturalism, who sets revelation entirely aside, but
allows the natural perfections of the Godhead (among which are omniscience
and omnipotence), falls into the very same difficulties inevitably, which he
puts solely to the account of Revelation. If there be a God, u Creator, al
mighty and omniscient, then we are perfectly and entirely dependent on him ;
from everlasting moreover, he has known all that we are and shall be ; ho
has known this with absolute certainty ; and if so, then what we are and shall
be is not fortuitous. This the disciple of nature can no more deny, than the
disciple of revelation. And this involves at once all the real difficulties
which are charged to the account of those who believe in the plain and sim
ple allegations of the passage before us.
Once admit the idea of an omniscient and omnipotent Creator, and the
difficulty of reconciling dependence and free agency comes up of course ;
and it bears equally, moreover, on every system which admits this truth. It
is wonderful that this should not be more extensively seen and felt by writers,
who are in the habit of charging all difficulties of this nature to the opinions
of those who favor the sentiments of Calvin.

476 EXCURSUS X. ON ROM. VIII. 28 — 30.
After all, if there be any force in the objections made against the doctrine
in question, it arises only from reasoning analogically in respect to the laws and
qualities of matter and those of mind. In a piece of physical machinery, every
motion will be in accordance with the laws of motion and mechanical power,
and all necessarily according to the contrivance of the mechanist ; i. e., the
laws of matter and motion remaining the same, the result which is calcu
lated upon is necessary ; and it is always the same, for there is no volition in
the machine, nothing to resist, alter, or modify the influence to which it is
subjected. Not so in the world of immaterial and spiritual being. Man is made in the
image of God ; therefore he has a free agency like to that of his Maker.
From its very nature, this free agency is incapable of mechanical control.
Motives, arguments, inducements may move, convince, persuade ; but they
cannot control by a necessity like that in the world of matter. That they
cannot, is owing to tho very nature itself of a free agent, who is no longer
free, if he have no ultimate choice and power of his own. The Bible every
where ascribes such a power to man. He resists light, knowledge, persua
sion ; he remains unmoved (at least undetermined) by all the motives drawn
from earth, heaven, and hell ; he resists and grieves the Spirit of God him
self. Such are the representations of the Scripture. Is this representation
truth or fiction ? Which is the same as to ask : Are men in fact free agents,
or only so in name and appearance ?
That thoy are in fact free, is what I believe. Nor can I be persuaded, that
illustrations of free agency drawn from tho material world, are in any toler
able measure apposite to our subject. Our souls are spirit, not matter. They
are like the God who made them ; not like the dust on which we tread. All
arguments, then, drawn from cause or causation and effect in the material
world, and applied to the subject of spiritual agency and influence, are
wrongly applied, and cannot serve to cast anything but darkness on this
deeply interesting subject. All the deductions in respect to fatalism more
over, which are made out and charged upon those who hold the doctrine of
God's foreknowledge and eternal purposes, are made out by a process of rea
soning which has its basis in material analogies. A regular, necessitous,
mechanical concatenation of cause and effect, altogether like that in the world
of nature, is predicated of the doctrine of the divine purposes or decrees ; and
then the charge of fatalism and absurdity of course follows. Let those who
would avoid this take good care, then, not to reason about spirit in the same
way as they do about matter.
Can any one prove, that the Spirit of God may not influence the human
mind, in a manner perfectly consistent with its entire free agency — influence
it to accept the offers of salvation, and become aippopepos tov viov tou beov 1
He can no more do this, than he can prove that ono man cannot influence
another, without impairing his freedom of action ; an event which takes
place every hour, and in all parts of this lower world. Above all, who can
show that truth can influence men while they remain free, and yet that the
Spirit, who is the author of all truth, cannot operate as effectually and with
as little interference with free agency, as the truth which he has revealed ?

EXCURSUS X. ON ROM. VIII. 28— 30. 477
So littlo foundation is there for the charge of fatalism, against tho doctrine
of divine influence upon the souls of men !
Those who are saved freely repent, freely believe, freely accept the terms
of salvation. Why can they not be as free under tho influence of tho Spirit,
as they are under the influence of the truth which he has revealed ? And
none but penitents will be saved. There is no room then to say, that a belief
in the divine eternal purposes makes it a matter of indifference whether a
man lives a virtuous and holy life or not, and that if ho is to bo saved, ho
will be saved, let him do what he may. The plain and certain truth is, that
he ' is not to be saved ' unless he become conformed to the image of Christ, and
that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. This is God's everlasting pur
pose, his eternal, decree ; and sooner than this can be violated, heaven and
earth shall pass away. All accusations of such a nature, then, against the
doctrine in question, properly understood, are ungrounded and unjust.
In regard to the dispute whether God irpoc&piae tovs kXt)tovs, from his mere
good pleasure, or from a foresight of their faith and good works ; it is easy to
see, that the paragraph of the epistle which is under consideration does not
decide on this. So far tho question seems to be fully settled, by other texts
of Scripture, viz., that the merit or obedience of the KX-nroi was not the ground
or reason of their regeneration and sanctification. This would be assuming
that holiness existed before it did exist ; that it was the ground of that which
it followed only as a consequence.
On the other hand ; as to tho decretum absolutum, as it has been called, viz.,
tho determination that the kXt)to'i should be saved, irrespectively of their
character and actions, one cannot well soe how this is to be made out. So
much must be true, viz., that they are not regenerated, sanctified, or saved,
on account of merit ; all is of grace, pure grace. If this be all that any one
means by the decretum absolutum, there can be no reasonable objection made
to it. But on the other hand ; as God is omniscient, and therefore must know
every part of every man's character, through all stages of his being ; as all
things, in their fullest extent, must have always been naked and open to his
view ; so %ve cannot once imagine, that any decree or purpose in respect to
the kXtito'i can have been made irrespectively of their whole character. Such
an irrespeclion (if I may use the word) is impossible. God has never deter
mined, and from his holy nature never can determine to save any except such
as are conformed to the image of his Son. All stands or falls together. A de
cretum absolutum, i. e., a decree which should separate these, or have no
regard to these, would be a different one from that which the apostle has
stated ; and I may add, different from what we can ever imagine to be pos
sible. To what purpose, then, can disputes on such a question be raised or fos
tered ? Happy would it be for the church, had there been no occasion in
times past to mourn over them ! It is truly important to distinguish that
which is revealed, from that which is not ; and to content ourselves with the
one, and dismiss the otlier. " Secret things belong to the Lord our God ;
but tilings revealed to us and our children."
I will only add, that the phrase, God out of his mere good pleasure, is very

478 EXCURSUS X. ON ROM. VIII. 28 — 30.
liable to be misunderstood and perverted, as it often has been, and it is to
be regretted that it was ever introduced into the technology of religion.
My own apprehension is, that most of those who employ it, use it merely
to signify without regard to merit, without being induced by considerations of
meritorious obedience. In this sense, as applied to God in respect to his
purposes of renewing and sanctifying sinners, it is strictly true. Merit they
have not; obedience they exhibit not, while in their unrenewed and un
sanctified state. But then the phrase is often understood as conveying the
idea, that God, in a way merely arbitrary, i. e., without any good reasons
whatever, did choose some to everlasting life. This can never be true at
all ; no, not in any sense whatever. AU that can ever be true is, that God
has done this while the reasons are entirely unknown to us. „He surely never
did and never will determine or do any thing, without the highest and best
reasons ; although he may not unfold them to us.
' How,' it is asked, ' can God have determined from eternity who are to
be saved,' i. e., whom he will effectually call, and justify, and sanctify, and
bring to glory, and yet men be free to choose or refuse salvation ? And the
difficulty in aU this is, that they suppose a regular concatenation of causes
and influence must be arranged in the spiritual world, which will just as
mechanically and certainly bring about the end, as that gravitation will
make a stone fall to the earth. They join, with all this transfer of physical
causation and effect over to spiritual things, the idea, that regard to the
character or efforts of those who are saved is to be left out of the question ;
and then they make out in their own minds, the idea of fatalism, an undis-
tinguishing fatalism, which acts thus and so, merely because it chooses to
do this or that, without any good and sufficient reason whatever. And
taking such a view of the doctrine of predestination, of course they think
it very reasonable to reject it.
In answer to all this it may be said (1 ), That it is impossible even to im
agine a case in which God can be supposed not to have before him the whole
of every individual character of those who belong to the KX-nroi. (2) AU
that the Scripture teaches in regard to the ground or reason of his purpose
of mercy towards these, is, that it is not on account of merit or desert in
them ; they are regenerated, and sanctified, and saved through grace, grace
only ; " not of works, lest any man should boast." Farther than this nega
tive assertion, the Scripture does not go ; and who knows any thing more
than what is revealed concerning it? (3) The Bible, and experience, and
reason, all unite in giving testimony of tho highest kind which the human
mind can receive, that whatever may bo the purposes of God, men in pact
are free agents; free in all their spiritual exorcises, as well as any others:
and what is thus in fact conciliated or harmonized, cannot in its own nature
be contradictory or absurd. (4) The eternal purpose of God is no more in
the way of free agency, than his present purpose ; for his present purpose is
neither more nor less than his eternal one, and his eternal one neither more
nor less than his present one. With him there is one eternal now ; and all
ideas of causation, and concatenation of causes and influence, drawn from
sensible objects that are temporary and successive, only serve to mislead the

EXCURSUS XI. ON ROM. IX. 17. 479
mind in regard to God, when thoy are applied to him. (5) All the diffi
culties whicli ever have been or ever can be raised in regard to the foreor
dination or decree of God, concentre at last in one single point, viz., How
can a creature be perfectly dependent, entirely under the control and within
the power of another, and yet bo free ? And all tho difficulty here comes
at last upon the how ; it lies not in the fact ; for the fact that such is the
case, is put beyond all doubt by tho testimony of Scripture and experience.
Now as this how lies equally in the way of all who admit tho existence
of an omniscient and omnipotent Creator — I say equally in the way of all
such, for this is plainly the case unless they are fatalists — and since, more
over, this question is plainly beyond the boundaries of human knowledge ;
it does not seem to me reasonable to declaim against those who admit that
the doctrine of divine foreknowledge implies of course divine purpose ; and
that divine purpose must have been always the same, inasmuch as God is
immutable, "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." At any rate, no
arguments of an a priori nature can serve to set aside the plain, direct, in
evitable meaning of the passage in Rom. viii. 28, seq. Nor if it presents a
difficulty can we free ourselves from this, even if we reject revelation. A
God almighty and omniscient, and a creature frail and entirely dependent,
and yet free, always and every where present the same paradox to the
human understanding. The Jew, the Mohammedan, and the Theist, are
obliged to encounter it, in common with the Christian of strict creed and
principles.

EXCURSUS XI.
On Rom. ix. 17, els airb iovto itfyeipd ae (p. 333).
But what is the meaning of the entire assertion, the words of which we
have thus considered in the commentary ? Does it mean that God did
actively and by his immediate influence on tbe heart or mind of Pharaoh,
excite hiin or rouse him up to do evil, t. e., to continue obstinate and re
bellious against himself? Or that God had excited or roused him up by
the various plagues sent on him and his people, so that his opposition to let
ting the people of Israel go had become more active and more bitter ? The
first of these meanings is the one which it is said some writers have ven
tured to give. E.g., Augustine, (de Gratifr et lib. Arbit. c. 21): His et
talibus testimoniis Scripturarum satis manifestatur operari Deum in cordibus
hominum ad inclinandas eorum voluptates quocumque voluerit, sive ad bona pro
sua misericordid sive Ar> mala pro mcritis eorum, etc. So Gomar, as repre
sented by Hales : " Not unjustly docs God condemn the sinner, for he has
ordained the means of condemnation [i. <_., sin] ; so that he condemns no
one, without having first plunged him into sin." — Golden Memains, p. 435,

480 EXCURSUS XI. ON EOM. IX. 17.
ed. 1688. Augustine says, more expressly and fully than above, on the
verse before us : Exeitavi te ut contumacius resisteres, non tantum permit-
tendo, sed multa etiam tam intus quam foris operando. So Anselm, as
quoted by Tholuck : Cum malus esses, prodigiis quasi sopitum exeitavi, ut
in mulitia persisteres atque deterior fieres. After quoting this passage, Tho
luck exclaims : " Is it God or the devil who speaks thus ? " And on the
other passages just quoted he says : " Can God speak thus to man [viz. can
he say what these comments represent him as saying ?] then woe to us 1 for
we are mere dwarfs in tho hands of an irresistible Cyclops, created and
dashed in pieces at his pleasure." And again : " Then have Satan and
God exchanged offices. God goeth about as a roaring lion, seeking whom
he may devour ; and Satan exults that the almighty, from whose hand
none can escape, places at his disposal the victims of his vengeance." He
then goes on to say, that this is just what pantheism would exult in, viz.,
that pantheism which abolishes all distinction between good and evil.
These expressions, it must be admitted, bear very hardly on such men as
Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, Beza, P. Martyr, Parasus, Gomar, and many
others. Yet so much must we concede, viz., that the Scriptures not only
teach us God's entire abhorrence of sin, and the freedom of man in sinning,
but tliey do also, in so many words, assert that " God cannot be tempted
with evil, neither tempteth he any man ; but every man is tempted, when
he is drawn away of his own lust and enticed," James i. 13, 14. With this
unequivocal assertion of an apostle before our eyes, an assertion bearing
directly on the specific point of internal excitement to do evil, we ought not to
take any position which maintains that God operated directly on the
heart and mind of Pharaoh, in order to harden him and make him more
desperate. God does not permit wicked men to say truly that such is the case, in
respect to his dealings with them. Thus he says to the Jews : " WiU ye
steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense
to Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not ; and come and
stand before me in this house . . . and say : We are delivered [roVii, we are
reserved] to do all these abominations?" Jer. vii. 9, 10. Nay, the Scrip
ture directly decides, that there may be a " determinate counsel and fore
knowledge of God " respecting a thing which is exceedingly sinful, and vet
that those who are agents in bringing it about may be altogether voluntary
and guilty, Acts ii. 23. Guilty or wicked thoy could not be, unless they
were voluntary agents.
But liaving advanced thus far, wo must go still farther in order to obtain
satisfaction as to the point in question. This can be obtained only bv a
considerate and extensive survey of the usus loquendi in the Scriptures, with
reference to God as the author of all things. There is a sense, in whieh lie
is the author of all things, yea., of all actions. He has created all things.
Under his control, and by his direction and power, they como into exist
ence. None but atheists will deny this. He continues to hold them all
under his control, ;'. e., he governs tho universe ; and in him " we live, and
move, and have our being." He directs all tilings after tlie counsel of his

EXCURSUS XI. ON ROM. IX. 17. 481
own will; i. c. he so guides and controls all things, all events, all creatures
and their actions, as finally to accomplish his own blessed and glorious pur
poses, both of mercy and justice.
The moment wo admit him to be an omniscient and omnipotent (mil, that
moment we admit that ho must have foreseen from eternity all the actions
of his creatures, all their thoughts and affections and wishes and desires.
We cannot deny that, foreseeing all these with all their consequences, he
brought thom into being, and placed them (for surely it was he who ordered
their lot) in circumstances, where he knew they would act as he had fore
seen they would. It is impossible to deny this, without denying the omnis
cience of God, and his immutability.
Now the Scripture most evidently admits and inculcates all these truths.
Such being the fact, there is plainly a sense in which all things and events
may be ascribed to God. He foreknew them ; and his creating and govern
ing and controlling power renders it certain that they will come to pass ; for
how could he foreknow what is uncertain ? Accordingly, the Bible declares
that ' we live and move and have our being in God.' Nay it goes farther
than this ; however we may stumble at the expressions, or revolt at the
sentiment. It ascribes evil, yea, moral evil, to God in some sense or other ;
an assertion which must not be hazarded without proof, and which shall
be supported by au overwhelming mass of examples. Let the reader now
turn to the following passages and attentively consider them ; viz., 2 Sam.
xii. 11, xvi. 10; 1 Kings, xxii. 22; Josh. xi. 20; Ps. cv. 25; 1 Kings xi.
23 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 1 . Let him next examine the texts which declare that
God hardened the heart of one and another; e. g., of Pharaoh, Exod. vii.
13, ix. 12, x. 1, 20, 27, xi. 10, xiv. 8; Rom. ix. 18; of Sihon king of the
Amorites, Deut. ii. 30 ; of the Israelites, Isai. Ixiii. 17 ; John xii. 40.
Who can read such texts as these, and so many, and yet aver that the
Scripture teaches us, that there is no sense in which it is true that God
hardens the hearts of men ?
But the great question yet remains, Does God do this in such a way,
i. c., is he so concerned in it, and only so concerned, that man's free agency
is still left entire, and so that all the moral blame of his sins is to be attrib
uted solely to him ? This question we may answer in the affirmative. The
Bible does indeed speak of God as hardening the hearts of men, in some
sense or other. In what sense, is not specifically said, although it is very
plainly implied. That he does this in the way of direct influence on the
heart or mind, seems to be unequivocally denied in James i. 13, 14. That
what we are allowed to attribute to him, in respect to the hardening of the
heart cannot be any thing which takes away the criminality and guilt of
men nor any thing which in any measure abridges the entire freedom of
their own actions, is clear from the fact, that the sacred writers often and
everywhere ascribe the hardening of the heart to the wicked themselves. So,
expressly, in respect to Pharaoh, Exod. viii. 15, 32, ix. 34; 1 Sam. vi. 6;
in respect to others, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 13 ; Ps. xcv. 8 ; Prov. xxviii. 14 ; Job
ix 4 • and so of hardening the neck, which for substance has the same mean-
in" 2 Kings xvii. 14 ; Jer. vii. 26, xix. 15 ; Prov. xxix. 1 ; Neh. ix. 16,

482 EXCURSUS XI. ON EOM. IX. 17.
17,29. In other expressions the passive voice only is made use of, without
designating any agent : e. g., Exod. vii. 22, viii. 19, ix. 7, 35, et alibi.
With these texts may be compared Isai. vi. 10, where the prophet is bid
to go and make the heart of the people stupid, their ears heavy, and to close up
their eyes. Read now the comments on this, in Matt. xiii. 1 5 ; Mark iv.
12; John xii. 40; Acts xxviii. 26, 27. A comparison of these is replete
with instraction; for in Isai. vi. 10, the prophet is represented as hardening
the Jews because he declares to them the divine word, and they, hearing
and rejecting it, became more hardened. In John xii. 40, God is repre
sented as hardening their heart (which seems also to be implied in Mark iv.
12) ; while in Matt. xiii. 15 and Acts xxviii. 26, 27, the plain and necessary
. implication is, that the Jews hardened their own hearts. Here then is one
and the same case, which is represented in three different ways. ( 1 ) The
prophet hardens the Jews. (2) God does the same thing. (3) Tho Jew
ish people do it themselves. Is all this true ; or is one part contradictory to
another ? We may safely answer : it is all true. The prophet is said to
harden the hearts of the Jews, merely because he is the instrument of deliver
ing messages to them ; while they, in consequence of abusing these, be
come more hardened and guilty. God hardens their hearts, in that by his
providence he sustains them in life, upholds the use of all their powers,
causes the prophets to warn and reprove them, and places them in circum
stances where they must receive these warnings and reproofs. Under this
arrangement of his Providence they become more hardened and wicked.
In this sense, and in this only, do the Scriptures seem to affirm that he is
concerned with the hardening of men's hearts.
The Jews hardened their own hearts, inasmuch as they freely and volun
tarily abused all the blessings and privileges which the providence and
mercy of God had bestowed upon them, and thus became more stupid and
corrupt. Surely no one will say that the prophet (Isai. vi. 10) hardens the hearts
of the Jews, by direct and positive influence upon them. It is not neces
sary, then, when it is declared that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, to
draw the conclusion that this was done by direct and jiositive influence.
That it is not necessary, can bo made clear from the following illustration
of Scripture usage. In 2 Sam. xxiv. 1, it is said, The Lord moved (riC'n)
David lo go and number Israel, etc., which, under the circumstances then
existing, and with tho views that David had, was a great sin in the sight of
heaven, and was punished by a signal judgment of God. Here observe,
that no»5. is applied directly to Jehovah, without any intimation of ii
secondary agent or instrument; and so one might argue (as some do in re
gard to other expressions of the like nature in the Scriptures), that God is
here assorted to be the direct exciting cause, which occasioned David to
number Israel, etc. Yet in 1 Chron. xxi. 1 the very same thing is ascribed
to Satan: And Satan moved no;i David to go and number Israel, etc. Ob
serve that the very same verb is employed in the second case, as in the first.
Now as Satan is the tempter of men to sin, and as " God tempted no man,"
we must say, Here is a clear case, in which that is ascribed to God, which

EXCURSUS XI. ON EOM. IX. 17. 483
he permits or suffers to be brought about under his superintendence or gov
ernment of the universe, by agents of an inferior character. This seems, at
least, to bo a clear case ; and it is one which has a very important bearing
on the subject before us.
It is true that God roused up Pharaoh, so that he was the occasion of tho
divine power and glory being displayed in all the land of Egypt. But was
this done by direct and immediate operation in hardening his heart, or was
it through the signs and wonders, which the power and providence of God
performed before the eyes and in the country of this contumacious monarch ?
In the latter way, we may safely answer, inasmuch as Pharaoh and others
are said, in the Scriptures, to harden their own hearts. There was another
agency here, then, besides that of Jehovah ; just as in the case stated above.
God in his providence did send Moses and Aaron with a commission to make
demands on the king of Egypt in behalf of the oppressed Hebrews ; he sent
plagues upon Egypt by his miraculous power ; and all these things under
arrangements of his providence being brought to act upon Pharaoh, he be
came worse and worse. The Lord hardened his heart, because the Lord was
the author of commands and messages and miracles, whieh were the occasion
of Pharaoh's hardening his own heart. In just such a way, Paul says that
our sinful passions are by the law, Ta irabiipaTa tuiv apaprioiv ia Sia. tou vApov,
Rom. vii. 5, which he afterwards explains by saying i) yap apapria aijioppijv
Xafiovaa, k. t. A., Rom. vii. 11.
That God was the author of the commands and messages delivered by
Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh, is clear ; that he was the author of the judg
ments inflicted on the land of Egypt is clear ; that he knew what effect these
would produce on the heart of Pharaoh, is equally certain ; and that he de
signed to turn all this into ultimate good, and to glorify himself, the Bible
often asserts or implies. There is no difficulty then in saying, with reference
to all this, and in the sense stated above, that God hardened Pharaoh's heart,
or that he roused him up, vix., by his messages and tho miracles which he
wrought. It is a clear case, that the active and bitter indignation and contu
macy of Pharaoh was greatly increased or excited by these doings of Divine
Providence ; and therefore the sentiment of our text remains true ; while, at
the same time, God is not the author of Pharaoh's sin (in the common sense
of this expression), any more than he is the author of our sin, because he
has given us powers and faculties by which we may sin, and, with full knowl
edge that we should sin, has placed us in a world where wo are of course
surrounded by temptations and enticements to sin. After all this, we are
free agents, wo sin, voluntarily, and we are therefore accountable for it ; all
which was equally true of Pharaoh.
To all that has now been said to illustrate and vindicate the true sense of
itfyeipa, it may be added, that the conclusion drawn by the apostle in ver.
18, clearly implies that he gave such a sense to verses 16, 17, as has been
given above : " Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will,
he hardeneth'" Now if e'l^ipa does not imply some kind of agency, some
thing done on the part of God which has a connection with the hardening
of Pharaoh's heart, how can the apostle deduce the conclusion in ver. 18 from

484 EXCURSUS XI. ON ROM. IX. 17.
the assertion in verses 16, 17 ? This consideration alone seems fully and
finally to decide the point, in regard to tho exegesis put upon itfyeipa by
Tholuck, who follows the Sieriipiibns ofthe Seventy, and construes it of pre
serving Pharaoh ;'. e., upholding him in life during the continuance of the
plagues in Egypt. Six of these had already been inflicted, when the words
in ver. 17 were spoken. Tholuck says that Pharaoh might have easily been
taken off by the plagues, and therefore, itftyeipa relates, as ho maintains, to
Pharaoh's having been preserved in life. And in the same way many
others have construed the word itfyeipa. But this will hardly satisfy the
demands of critical exegesis. The six plagues already inflicted were, the turn
ing of the waters of the Nde into blood, Exod. vii. 14, seq. ; the sending of
tho frogs, Exod. viii. 1, seq. ; of the lice, Exod. viii. 16, seq. ; of the flies,
Exod. viii. 20, seq. ; the murrain of beasts, Exod. ix. 1, seq. ; and the plague
of boils and blains, Exod. ix. 8, seq. Now as all these plagues were merely
temporary, and as we have no intimation in the sacred records that they occa
sioned the loss of human life among the Egyptians, so there seems to be no
special reason for putting this sense on ^si"iK»- , viz. I have preserved
thee, or kept thee alive.
And then, if this be adopted, how does the conclusion of the apostle in ver.
18 follow, viz., %v Se beXei aKX-npvvei ' Does preserving in life, or making one
to keep his standing, necessarily import a ib aKXijpvvetv or aKX^paipa ? I am
altogether unable to see how Paul could deduce such a conclusion from such
promises. I must therefore accede to what seems to be the plain and evident mean
ing of itfyeipa, viz., that God in his providence did so direct things, viz., the
warnings to Pharaoh, the commands addressed to him, and the signs and
wonders in his land, that he was excited to more vehement resistance and
contumely, which ended in his signal overthrow and destruction. In all this
Pharaoh was entirely voluntary and free. The case differs not, in principle,
from what happens every day. As has been before remarked, God creates
men : he endows them with powers and faculties which enable them to sin ;
and places them in a world surrounded by temptation ; and all this, knowing
certainly that they will sin. Every one must agree to this. But are not
men free agents still ? Do they not sin voluntarily ? Does not the blame of
this attach entirely to themselves ? Can any part of it be justly charged
upon God ? Surely not ; and if not, then there is a sense in whieh he may
say, that he roused up Pharaoh in order that he might show forth his power and
glory in all the earth ; and this without making himself the proper author of
sin. In one sense, God does all that takes place under his providence and
government of the world ; for he preserves all creatures and all worlds, and
gives them all their powers, faculties, and opportunities of action . In an
other sense, God is not the author of sin ; " God tempteth no man." Man is
the proper author of his own sin; " every man is tempted when ho is drawn
away by his own lust, and enticed to sin." In one sense God hath made all
things for himself, yea, "the wicked for the day of evil," Trov. xvi. 4, and in
the like sense he roused up Pharaoh. So far as he is concerned with all this
it is in a way that is perfectly consistent with the freedom of men in action ¦

EXCURSUS XII. ON ROM. XII. 8. 485
and all his designs are to bring good out of evil, and thus to promote the
glory of his own name ; as is intimated in tho verse before us.
All the difficulty which is involved in these declarations in their full ex
tent, is involved in the principle (which even Theism admits), that God is
omniscient, omnipotent, and immutable. The Deist has, in reality, the very
same difficulties to cope with here, so far as free agency and tho sinfulness
of men are concerned, as the evangelical Christian. The nodus of the whole
is our ignorance of the manner in which free agency and entire dependence,
foreknowledge and voluntary action, consist together and are harmonized.
But as fact only is known to us, viz., the fact that they do coexist ; and
as the manner of their coexistence or consistency is beyond the boundaries
of human knowledge; so I do not see how those, who are stumbled at
the subject under consideration, can ever satisfy themselves, so long as
they insist on first knowing the manner of tho consistency, before they admit
the fact.
In tho apostle's time, tho very same objection was made to his doctrine,
which has been made ever since, and is still every day repeated. So the verses
in the sequel plainly show us. They show, moreover, that the apostle was
understood in the same way by objoctorSj as his words at first view would
seem to mean ; for if this were not so, what ground was there for the objec
tion which is raised ?
The difficulty of this subject, the manner in which it has so often been
misunderstood and abused, and a wish to contribute (if possible) something
to remove some of its perplexities from the minds of readers who may peruse
these pages, are my apology for dwelling so long upon it. That there are
difficulties still which remain unexplained, and which ever must remain so
while ' we know in part,' i. c, while we, continue in the present world, I do
not feel disposed at all to deny. But this is confessedly tho case in regard
fo a multitude of other things, which all admit without hesitation ; and admit
them, too, even while the.modus of them remains utterly inexplicable.

EXCURSUS XII.
On the various designations in Rom. xii. 8 (p. 393).
I have, in this commentary, given the reader the usual exegesis of the pas
sage in question, viz., 6 peraSiSobs, iv airXAr-nTi' 6 Trpo'iardixevos, iv airovbrj- o
iXeav, iv lXapoTi]Ti. But an attentive and repeated examination of it has
raised many doubts in my mind whether there is not a radical mistake, at
the foundation of this whole interpretation. I refer not now to the verbal crit
icisms merely; which, it is obvious, are in general well founded and correct.
But I refer to the assumption, in this case, that 6 p-eraSiSovs, o TTpo'taid/xevos,
and 6 iXeav designate officers or offices in the church ; I mean officers in the
41*

486 EXCUESUS XH. ON EOM. XII. 8.
usual and proper sense of the word, viz., men set apart by the special desig
nation and appointment of the church, for the performance of some peculiar
and appropriate duties. I have a predominant persuasion, that these words
here designate duties which individuals merely as such were to perform, and
to whom the church looked for such performance because they had ability or
opportunity to perform them, or (if it shall be thought more probable) who
were specially desired by the church to perform them. In the last case it
might be true, for example, that to an individual in the church who was
wealthy, the church looked in a peculiar maimer with expectation that ho
would aid the poor ; or (to adduce another example) it might happen that
some individual had leisure, and also particular qualifications for visiting the
sick, consoling mourners, counselling the perplexed, relieving the distressed
by various personal attentions, etc., and the church looked to him as a b iXeuv,
or they made a special request of him that he would attend to such duties.
All this might be, nay, it is all very natural and probable ; while, at the same
time, this would not prove that there were regularly instituted officers in the
church, designated by 6 peraSiSois, 6 irpo'Cardiievos, and o iXecov.
These hints give the general views which I feel compelled to entertain of
the words under examination. But as the whole subject has an important
bearing on the polity of the Christian church, I feel obliged to assign reasons
for such an opinion.
(1) It is obvious that the apostle does not here confine himself to extraor
dinary and miraculous gifts only, although he includes them. The irpo<p-fiT-ns
was one who spoke under the influence of inspiration ; but <5 SiSdaKtev and
6 irapaKaXcov might or might not be inspired ; for the office itself was of a
permanent or general nature, and not limited to special circumstances. So
the SidKovos might or might not be an inspired man ; for Stephen (Acts vi.
vii.) was "full of the Holy Ghost," while we have no particular reason to
believe that all of his brethren in office were endowed with the same gift.
The same is true of o p-eraStSois, 6 irpo'lardpevos, and 6 iXeuv : for the res
pective individuals who performed the duties designated by these words,
might, at times, enjoy special divine assistance and direction. But this be
longs not essentially to the nature of the duties themselves, which may in
general be performed without miraculous interposition.
(2) It is equally obvious that the apostle, in the whole extent of his exhor
tation here, includes both public and private, official and unofficial duties.
A bare inspection of verses, 6 — 21 sets this question at rest. He means to
say, that inasmuch as all Christians are members of one and the same body,
all their gifts and talents, of whatever kind or nature, whether adapted to
the performance of public or private duties, whether they are aided by the
special influence of the Spirit or otherwise — all were to be employed in
the most efficient and profitable manner. Such is tho evident tenor of his
whole discourse. Who, for example, would seek in verses 9, 10 seq., for
directions only to men in official stations ? There is no reasonable question,
therefore, respecting the general principle which I have here laid down, in re
gard to the whole paragraph which contains the apostle's exhortation. But
where does he dismiss the address to the officers of the church as such, and

EXCURSUS XII. ON ROM. XH 8. 487
begin with individuals or laymen ? This is the very gist of the question ;
and in order to throw some light on this, I observe,
(3 ) That the very construction and natural order of verses 6 — 8 favor the
supposition, that the last three classes of men named are private, not official
persons. In respect to the natural order of the passage, it would seem to bo an ob
vious dictate of propriety, that tho apostle should begin first with the officers
of the church ; and this he has plainly done; for we have irpo^Tijs, Siaxoyos,
SiSdaKaXos, 6 irapaKaXav, before he proceeds to the rest. Now if, after Trap-
axaXav, he proceeds to unofficial men (as I suppose), then it would be per
fectly natural to select from among these, those who are particularly distin
guished in the church for their usefulness ; and so ho seems to have done.
The reader will not fail to notice, moreover, that here (before 6 peraSiSois)
the construction is changed by the apostle, etre being omitted as if purposely
to designate a change in classification.
(4) Itis difficult, if not impossible, to make out official distinctions througli
the whole of verses 6 — 8. How does 6 peraSiSois, as an officer ofthe
church, differ from 6 Sidicovos ? And again ; how does o iXeeiv differ from
both, or from either ? A question which none of the commentators have
answered with any good degree of satisfaction. Indeed most of them pass
the difficulty over with entire silence ; which is at least the most easy, if not
the most instructive, method of commentary. Here then according to them,
are two supplementary offices to that of Sidicovos ; the main and originally
the only duty of which was, io take care of the poor.
But further, who is S Trpoiardpevos ? He who presides over the church ?
If so, how can he be placed the sixth in rank here, and the seventh in 1 Cor.
xii. 28 ? ( See Kv$epvr)aeis there. ) Then again, why should 6 TTpoiardpevos
not have a place among the teachers, instead of being placed where it has, on
the right and left hand, an office of mere charity ? Does the presiding officer
of the whole church ever rank in this way, in times either ancient or modern ?
I know of no such example.
I am aware, indeed, that the apostle has not strictly followed the order of
office here, as to dignity or rank, inasmuch as he has mentioned the deacon
before the teacher or exhorter. But tliere is an apparent reason for this. In
speaking of the official classes of the Romish church, the highest and lowest
office, viz., that of prophet and deacon, i. e., the two extremes of office, occur
red first : which is a very natural method of thought. These the apostle
wrote down as they occurred. He then supphed the intermediate offices,
viz., that of teacher and exhorter, i. e., the proper doctrinal instructor, whether
in public or private, and exhorter, or practical and persuasive preacher. This
will account very naturally for the order of officers here. But in 1 Cor. xii.
28, the apostle ex-professo recounts the natural order seriatim ; which he makes
to be, 1. Apostles ; 2. Prophets ; 3. Teachers ; 4. Such as possessed miracu
lous powers in general (Svvdpeis) ; 5. Such as possessed the gift of healing
the sick; 6. AvriXrpfieis ; 7. Kv$epv-r)aeis ; 8. Those who spoke various lan
guages ; 9. Interpreters (comp. ver. 30).
Here, then, the 5 peraSiSovs, 6 irpoiardpevos, and 6 iXeuv of our text, are

488 EXCURSUS Xn. ON ROM. XII. 8.
omitted (unless indeed the 6 irpoiaTdpevos is found in the Kv$epvi)aeis, of
which more hereafter), and ai>Ti\7)i|/eis comes in for 6 Sidxovos. So Bret
schneider on avrix-ntyis : " haud dubie ad munus diaconorum et diaconissarum
respicitur, ut etiam patres eccles. putarant." That this last declaration is
correct, one may see by consulting Suicer's Thesaurus, sub. voc. wrlx-ntf/is.
Vitringa thinks that avrlx-n^ts means the interpreters of foreign languages
(comp. 1 Cor. xii. 30, Sieppevevovai) ; de Vet. Synag.II.3l,-p. 509. But the
other exegesis is most natural ; for avrix-n^is means, help, assistance, care;
and here the abstract (as grammarians say) being used for the concrete, the
sense is curatores, i. e., SiaKovoi.
It is obvious, now, that in this noted passage in 1 Cor. xii. 28, 6 peTaSiSoi's
and S ixeuv are omitted ; and this gives very strong reason to suspect that
these were not properly offices in the church.
But how is it with 6 irpoiardpevos ? Is he not found in the Kv$epvr\aeis of 1
Cor. xii. 28 ? This looks probable at first view ; but let us examine a little
more thoroughly.
First, I remark, that the word irpoiaT-nju and its derivates are by no means
confined to designate the idea of presiding over persons. It sometimes con
veys the idea of being placed over any thing, or any kind of business, in order
to take care of it, see that it is done, etc., i. e., the undertaker in anything, the
protector or curator of any person or thing, the Greeks call b rrpoiaTdpevos, o
irpoeaTiis, S TTpoiardT-ns, i. q., patron, helper. Accordingly the word occurs in
the sense of aiding, assisting, etc., in Rom. xvi. 2, where the brethren of the
Roman church are charged by the apostle to aid, in any manner she may
need, Phebe, who had been a TrpooraTis of many Christians, i. c, a helper, a
curator, one who had aided them by her personal attention and by her charity.
The grammarian Varinus explains irpoaraaia by $o-/)beia. In the letter of
Athanasius ad Solitarios, when speaking of the disposition of Zenobia to
Paul of Samosata, he says : irpoiaT-n tov ^apoadreuis, she aided him cf Sam
osata* So Theophylact, commenting on Rom. xii. 8, says : UpoiaTaabai
ian rb ^o-qbeiv, Kai Sia fi-fjfjiaTQiv Kai Sia. tov at&fiaros aurov rep fiorjbelas Seopivoi,
i. v, irpcuaTaabai means to aid, both by words and by personal services, him who
is needy. That such a meaning then may be given to S irpoiaTdpevos in Rom. xii. 8,
seems clear. The usus loquendi allows it. What then docs the context de
mand ? Let us see what precedes, and what follows.
What precedes is, o /teraSiSobs, iv airXAi-nri ; which I now render, let him
who imparts [cliarity], do it with liberality. So, beyond all doubt, the words
may be rendered. That airxAr-ns may mean liberality, one may see in 2 Cor.
viii. 2, ix. 11, 13; James i. 5. So Xenophon: aTrAowrxaTo./ Se' poi Soxet
elvai, ro v. X., it seemsto me tobe die part of a most liberal man, etc., Cyrop.
VIII. p. 155. So Josephus, speaking of Araunah's liberal offer to David
(2 Sam. xxiv. 19 — 24), says : David highly esteemed his airxArirra, liberality,
etc. Antiq. VII. 10. So in Test. XII. Patriarch, p. 624 : 6 bebs avvepyei
Tfj b.ttxAttjtI pov, God helped my liberal disposition. See otlier examples in
* Reiche has quoted this in the sense of ' he presided over Samosata!'

EXCURSUS XH. ON ROM. XII. 8. 489
Kypke in loc. As to 6 /xeTaSiSous, which is commonly applied to one who
distributes charity, and so made for substance synonymous with Sianwos, it is
very doubtful, to say the least, whether the word will bear this construction.
Bretsclmeider has indeed given it such a meaning (as others before him have
often done) ; but as Vitringa long ago observed (De Vet. Synag. II. 3. p.
501 ), " the proper Greek word for distribute is SiaSlSaipi ; " as one may see in
Johnvi. 11 ; Luke xviii. 22 (also in xi. 22, it has the like sense), Acts iv.
35. The like sense this verb has in the classics. But peraSiSapi properly
means to impart among others what belongs to one's self, to give of one's own to
others; whicli is, or at any rate may be, a very different thing from distribut
ing the alms of the church.
If these words be rightly explained, we have in them a command of the
apostle, that those who are able peraSiSAvai, to give in charity, should do this
in a liberal manner. That all this is congruous and appropriate, I presume
no one will venture to deny.
We have seen what precedes 5 irpoXardpevos. Let us now see what follows
it. This is 6 iXeuiv, iv iXapArnTi, let him who performs deeds of mercy, do it
cheerfully, i. e., let him go about his task with a willing mind voluntarily, not
grudgingly and with a forbidding demeanor. The duty of o iXeZv may
differ from that of o peTaStSobs, in this respect, viz., that the former consisted
in personal cares and services bestowed upon the sick and unfortunate ; while
the latter consisted in donations of money, food, etc. These latter duties
devolved especially on tho rich ; the former could be performed by all classes
of Christians.
Between these two classes of benefactors, then, the apostle places S irpoiaTd-
p.evos. If these classes, now, are not officers of the church, it would seem
probable that o irpoXardpevos does not here stand for one. That S iXeav can
not be made to mean an officer of the church, the silence of most commenta
tors concerning it would seem pretty strongly to indicate. Accordingly
Vitringa does not hesitate to say : Quicquid enim adverse opinionis auc-
tores statuant, fieri non potest ut per rbv iXeovvra describantur aliqui ecclesia}
officiarii [officers.]
It does seem most probable, therefore, that 6 irpoiardpevos is of the like tenor
with i\ irpoaTaris in Rom. xvi. 2, which there means, one who receives and
entertains strangers, i. e., a helper of Christian brethem coming from abroad ;
for such a helper (irpooTaVis) was Phebe. And this seems the more prob
able inasmuch as the duty of hospitality, so often and so urgently insisted
on by the apostles, has no specific mention among the special charities
here, unless it be included in this word ; although it is touched on as it res
pects the church in general, in ver. 13. But a camparison with Rom.
xvi. 2 as I must think, renders the sense now given to o Trpoiirrcijiteyos quite
probable. But Tholuck and others appeal to KuPepvfaets in 1 Cor. xii. 28, and say,
that as KvPepv-fiaeis means there a special gift or office bestowed by the influ
ence of the Spirit, so 6 irpoi.aTdp.evos must be considered as corresponding
with it. But what is Kvpipiniais ? A question difficult to be answered, in
asmuch as this word in 1 Cor. xii. 28 is a c_7ra| XeyApevov. In classic Greek

490 EXCURSUS XII. ON ROM. XH. 8-
it means guidance, direction, steering; and is especially (as also the verb
Kvfiepvdoi) applied to designate the steering or guiding of a ship by the pilot.
Hence many critics understand ithere (1 Cor. xii. 28) as designating the
office of a ruler in the church. But how can such an office be placed the
seventh in rank (for tho apostle here seems to make an enumeration accord
ing to the order of precedence), and have but one or two offices reckoned
below it ? This seems to be exceedingly incongruous. The governor and
guide of a Christian church would seem, in the order of nature, to stand at
its head.
I ask, in the next place, how it should happen that Kv$epvi)aeis stands here
in such a position, having in order before it avrixii^ieis, opitulatores, curatores
(i. q., SiaKovoi), and after it yivi\ yXooaaoiv ? Why does it not stand next be
fore or after -irpocb-fiTas or SiSaaicdXovs, where we should almost of necessity
expect to find it, if it mean presidents or governors of the church ?
Moved by such difficulties, I feel constrained to seek another than a clas
sical meaning for Kv$epvi]aeis. But as in the New Testament the word is not
elsewhere to be found, we must resort to the Septuagint : and here the word
is uniformly employed as the rendering of the Hebrew hi^narifl skilful dex
terity, wise foresight, power of prudent or skilful management. In this very
sense Kvfiepv-nais is plainly employed in Prov. i. 5, xi. 14, xxiv. 6. ^ieTa kv@-
ipvijaeuis yiverai rrAxepos; and these are all the instances in which the word
occurs in the Septuagint. In accordance with this meaning is the Lex.
Cyrilli ; Kufiepvriais, copAvriats. So the Glossas inedita! in Prov. Salom. : kv-
fiipvnais, iiriarij/xT} tuiv irpaTTop-evivv. So also Hcsychius : Ku&epvr)aeis,
irpovoeriKal i.riaTTJpai Kai <ppov-ftoeis, considerate knowledge and understanding.
In view of all this, we may now venture to translate KufSepv-qaeis skilful
discernment or insight. But in what respect ? To answer this, we must let
tho apostle explain himself. Let us go back, then, to 1 Cor. xii. 8 — 10,
and there we shall find nearly if not quite the same reckoning of spiritual
gifts as in verses 28 — 30. But there, before yevri yXwatrwv, stands SiaKpiaeis
tuv TTvevpAiuiv; whieh does not at all appear in verses 28 — 30, unless it be
designated by Ku$epid)aeis. That it should not in fact be included in this
latter passage, distinguished as such a gift must be, and important as it was
in the then state of the church, would be singular. Now as in 1 Cor. xii.
28, yiv-n yXoiaaav comes immediately after Kvfjepvijaeis, and in ver. 10 im
mediately after SiaKpiaeis irvevpArwv, so it is natural to conclude, that the
apostle means to designate the same thing by Ku$epvi\aeis as he docs by Bia-
Kpiaets irveupdrav. For as peculiar skill and insight would be appropriate and
necessary to the discerning of spirits, so the qualifications for such a duty
may be used to designate the persons who are to perform it. Philology al
lows this ; but above all, tho order, concinnity, and consistency ofthe apostle's
discourse here, seem to render it necessary, or at least quite probable. This
being conceded, it would follow that no argument from Kvl3epvi)aets can be
adduced in order to show that b irpoiardpevos in Rom. xii. 8 means a rider in
the Christian church.
I am the more satisfied with this view of the subject, as I find it was fully
embraced by Lightfoot and Vitringa, " quos [in re critica] facile principes
nominarem." See Vitringa, De Vet. Synag. II. 3. p. 507 seq,

EXCURSUS XH. ON ROM. XII. 8. 491
It remains only that I notice one objection more to the meaning which I
have assigned to <5 irpoiaTdp.evos. This is, that in 1 Thess. v. 12 and in Tim.
in. 4, 12, it means governors, overseers of the church; and consequently that
is the most probable meaning in Rom. xii. 8.
On this allegation I must be very brief, as I have already put the patience
of the reader to atrial. In 1 Thess. v. 12 the apostle says to the church:
'Affectionately regard tous KomwvTas iv vpiv, ical irpoiaTafxivous upuv iv Kvplip
koi vovbcTouvras vpas. The question is, whether he means here different
classes of officers, or one and the same class, in the exercise of divers gifts. I
know of no way in which this question can be definitely and certainly decided.
The insertion of the article before K07ri»j/Tas (the first participial noun in
the series), and the omission of it before the other like nouns Trpoiarapcvous
and i/ouS-eTowTas will not prove, as has sometimes been assumed, that all be
long to one class ; nor will it prove the contrary ; for ( 1 ) the article is usually
omitted, even when the meaning of the nouns employed is plainly diverse,
provided they are of the same gender and case ; e. g., Mark xv. 1, peia tZv
TrpeafSuTtpoiv Kai ypappareuv (the latter without rai/); and so Col. ii. 8, 19 ; 2
Thess. iii. 2 ; Rom.i. 20 ; Phil. ii. 17, et sa?pe alibi; see N. Test. Gramm.
§ 89. 9. (2) The article is often inserted, where each noun indicates a sep
arate subject ; e. g., Mark ii. 1 6, ol ypappareis kol ol (f>apiaa7oi ; so Luke viii. 24,
xi. 39 ; 1 Thess. iii. 1 1 ; Phil. iii. 10, et alibi ssepe ; comp. ut sup. Of course,
as usage is both ways, the omission of the article here can prove nothing.
Nor, (2) Will the context enable us to decide the point under consideration; as
there seems to. be nothing in it which has a direct bearing on this point. We
are left, therefore, to the simple nature of the case. What can be gathered
from this ? I answer, (a) That tovs KomSivras is evidently a generic, not a
specific term, and may indicate any kind of labor performed in behalf of the
church, (b) Tho words irpoiaTapevovs and vovberovvras appear to be specific
here, i e., to designate particular (and probably different) classes of persons.
The most probable interpretation, then, is that irpoiarapevovs and vovbeioiv-
tus designate the specific classes, comprehended under the genus KoiriSivTas.
This being admitted (and certainly no one will say this is an improbable ex
egesis), it would seem altogether probable, that irpoiarapevovs here has the
like sense as in Rom. xii. 8, viz, those who applied themselves to tho external
temporal business or concerns of the church, while vovberovvTas designates
all the various kinds of teachers. The exhortation of the apostle, then, is to
regard with kindly feelings those who labored in any respect, whether tem
poral or spiritual, for the good of the church. This determines nothing,
therefore, against our inteipretation of 6 irpoiaTdjievos in Rom. xii. 8.
Prom what has now been said, it is easy to explain 1 Tim. v. 17, " Let tho
elders koXois irpoeaTaires managing well [tho concerns of the church], be ac
counted worthy of double honor [i. e., of ample maintenance], especially
those who labor in word and doctrine." There were then two kinds of elders,
or (to speak more accurately) there were two departments in which the irpea-
frurepoi might labor; they might be irpoeaTares, i. c, standing over, taking
care of, serving the temporal concerns and business, etc., of the church ; or

492 EXCURSUS XU. ON ROM. XII. 8.
they might be specially devoted to preaching and teaching, xAyip Kai SiSaaKa-
Xia ; or perhaps this latter means, that they might perform the duties of a
-irpoeaTiiis, and also to teach and preach in addition to this. That the gov
ernment of the church, in the ordinary sense of presiding over and making
rules for the church, is not here meant, at least that it is not necessarily meant,
seems to me quite plain, from comparing irpo'iaTT)/ii and its derivates in other
places. E. jr., in this same epistle, iii. 13, deacons are spoken of who tckvuiv
koXois Trpoiardjievoi Kai tccv ISiow oXkoiv, manage their own children and households,
well i. e., take good care of them ; for so ver. 13 explains it oi yap koX&s
StaKov4]aavTes = KaXSis icpoiardpevoi. I cannot refrain from adding, that this
last passage throws great light on what has been before said about d irpoiard
pevos, and serves very much to confirm it.
So, then, irpoiaTapievoi and TrpoearSiTes may mean the performers of any
service or services which pertain to the external welfare and management of
the church. That the TrpeafSbrepoi sometimes did such services, is clear from
1 Tim. v. 17. But that others might perform them, is equally clear from
Rom. xii. 8 ; 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Rom. xvi. 2, etc.
We can now account for it that the apostle says, in Rom. xii 8, ' Let
b irpoiardp.evos do his duty iv a-irouSr}, with diligence, i. e., with active watch
ful attention and effort.' But how iv airovS-ji can be applicable to ruling, in
the common sense of this word, has been a difficulty which has perplexed
not a few, who have undertaken to expound this passage. Wc might ex
hort a ruler to perform the duties of his office with impartiality, with a duo
regard to justice and equity, etc. ; but to exhort him to govern iv airovSy,
seems hardly congruous.
On the whole, I am brought by a kind of philological necessity to the con
clusion, that church officers, in the appropriate sense of this word, are not
designated by & peraSiSobs, d irpoiaTapievos, and d iXeiiv in Rom. xii. 8, but
that the apostle refers to individuals in the church, conspicuous for their at
tention to the duties respectively indicated by these words ; which duties
were, the giving of money or substance, the management of the external
temporal affairs and business and interests of the church, and the succoring
of the sick and unfortunate by personal attention and effort.

THE

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Introduction and Salutation.
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a chosen apostle, set apart
2 for the gospel of God, | winch he formerly declared by his
3 prophets in the holy Scriptures, | concerning his Son (born
4 of the seed of David in respect to the flesh, | the decreed Son
of God with power in respect to the spirit of holiness after his
5 resurrection from the dead), Jesus Christ our Lord, | (by
whom we have received grace and apostleship, in order to
promote the obedience of faith among all nations, for his
6 name's sake, | among whom are ye also called of Jesus
7 Christ,) | to all who are at Rome, beloved of God, chosen
saints ; grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ.
8 First, I thank my God, through Jesus Christ, on account
9 of you all, that your faith is spoken of in all the world. For
God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gos
pel of his Son, how unceasingly I make remembrance of you,
10 always asking in my prayers, that if possible, at some time
before long, I may (God willing) make a prosperous journey
11 and come to you. For I am desirous to see you, in order to
bestow on you some spiritual favor, so that you may be con-
12 firmed. This also [I desire], to be comforted among you by
the mutual faith both of you and me.
13 Moreover, I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that I
have often purposed to come unto you (but have been hin
dered until now), that I might have some fruit among you, as
14 also among other Gentiles. I am a debtor both to Greeks
15 and Barbarians, both to the learned and the unlearned : such
being the case, I am ready, according to my ability, to preach
the gospel even to you who are at Rome.
Subjects of consideration proposed.
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, since it is
42

494 ROMANS I. 17—32.
the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth ;
17 to the Jew first, and then to the Greek. For by it the justi
fication which is of God is revealed, [justification] by faith
for the faithful ; as it is written : " The just shall live by
18 faith." For the wrath of God from heaven is revealed
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,
Universal depravity and guilt ofthe Gentiles.
19 Who wickedly hinder the truth; | because that which might
be known of God,* is manifest in them, inasmuch as God
20 hath manifested it to them ; | (for the invisible things of him,
since the creation of the world, are clearly seen by the things
which are made, even his eternal power and Godhead) ; so
21 that they are without excuse ; because, when they knew God,
they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but
became foolish in their imaginations, and their inconsiderate
22 mind was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they
23 became fools, | and exchanged the glory of the immortal God
for an image like to mortal man, and fowls, and four-footed
24 beasts, and reptiles. Wherefore God even gave them up, in
the lusts of their hearts, to uncleanness, to dishonor their own
25 bodies among themselves ; who exchanged the true God for a
false one, and worshipped and served the creature rather than
26 the Creator, who is blessed for ever, Amen ! On account of
this, God gave them up to base passions ; for their women
changed their natural use into that which is against nature.
27 And in like manner also the males, leaving the natural use of
the female, burned in their lust toward each other, males with
males doing that which is shameful, and receiving in them-
28 selves the reward of their error wdiich is due. And inasmuch
as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God
gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which
29 are base : being filled with all iniquity, uncleanness, malice,
covetousness, mischief; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, ma-
30 levolence ; | backbiters, open slanderers, haters of God, rail-
crs, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to
31 parents, | inconsiderate, covenant-breakers, destitute of natu-
32 ral affection, implacable, unmerciful : who, knowing the ordi
nance of God that they who do such things are worthy of
deatli, not only do the same things, but even bestow commen
dation on those who do them.
The Jews equally guilty with the Gentiles.
II. Therefore thou art without excuse, O man, whoever thou
* Or that which is known.

ROMANS II. 1—24. 495
art that judgest; for while thou art passing sentence upon
another, thou condemnest thyself, since thou who judgest doest
2 the same things. For we know that the judgment of God is
3 according to truth, against those who do such things. Dost
thou think, then, O man, who condemnest those that do such
things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judg-
4 ment of God ? Or dost thou despise his abounding goodness
and forbearance and long-suffering, not acknowledging that the
5 goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance ? According to
thy hard and impenitent heart, however, thou art treasuring
up for thyself wrath in the day of wrath, when the righteous
6 judgment of God shall be revealed ; who will render to every
7 man according to his wrorks ; to those who by patient continu
ance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality,
8 eternal life ; but to those who are contentious, and disobey the
9 truth and obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath. Af
fliction and distress [shall be] upon every soul of man that
10 doeth evil, first of the Jew and then of the Greek ; but glory
and honor and peace [shall be] to every one who doeth good,
11 first to the Jew and then to the Greek; (for with God there
12 is no respect of persons ; since so many as have sinned with
out law shall perish without law, and so many as have sinned
13 under the law shall be condemned by the law; for not the hear
ers of the law are just with God, but the doers of the law will
14 be justified ; for when the Gentiles who have no law, do in a
natural state such things as the law requireth, these, being
15 destitute of the law, are a law to themselves ; who shew that
the work which the law requireth, is written upon their hearts,
their consciences bearing witness, and their thoughts alter-
16 nately accusing or excusing) ; in the day when God shall
judge the secret things of men by Jesus Christ, according to
my gospel.
17 If now thou art surnamed Jew, and dost lean upon the law,
18 and make thy boast of God ; | and art acquainted with [his]
will, and canst distinguish things which differ, being instructed
19 by the law ; thou art confident also of being thyself a guide to
20 the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, | an instructor
of the ignorant, a teacher of little children, one having the
representation of true knowledge in the law ; dost thou then
21 who teachest another, not instruct thyself? Dost thou who
22 preachest against stealing, thyself steal ? Dost thou who for-
23 biddest to commit adultery, thyself commit adultery ? Dost
thou who abhorrest idols, thyself commit robbery in holy
24 things? Dost thou who gloriest in the law, thyself dishonor
God°by transgressing the law? For as it is written, "the

496 ROMANS II. 25 — III. 1—13.
name of God is on your account blasphemed among the Gen
tiles."
25 Circumcision indeed is profitable, if thou dost obey the law ;
but if thou art a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision be-
26 cometh uncircumcision. If, moreover, he who is uncircum
cised keep the precepts of the law, shall not his uncircumci-
27 sion be counted for circumcision ? Yea, he who keepeth the
law in his natural uncircumcised state, will condemn thee,
who, in possession of the Scriptures and a partaker of circum-
28 cision, art a transgressor of the law. For he is not a Jew,
who is one outwardly ; nor is that which is outward, [merely]
29 in the flesh, circumcision. But he is a Jew, who is one in
wardly ; and circumcision is of the heart, spiritual not literal ;
whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Answer to some objections. Further confirmation ofthe depravity and guilt ofthe
Jews. General conclusion from the facts stated.
III. ' What then is the advantage of the Jew ? Or what the
profit of circumcision ? '
2 Much in diverse respects ; the most important however is,
that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.
3 ' What then if some did not believe ? Will their unbelief
make void the faithfulness of God ? '
4 By no means ; but let God be [counted] true, and every
man false ; as it is written : "That thou mightest be justified
when thon speakest, and overcome when thou art judged."
5 ' But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of
God, what shall we say ? Is God unjust, who inflicteth pun-
isment ? '
6 (I speak after the manner of men). By no means; other
wise, how shall God judge the world?
7 ' Still, if God's faithfulness to his word has on account of
my deceitfulness abounded more unto his glory, why am I any
longer condemned as a sinner?'
8 Sliall we then [say] (as it is slanderously reported and as
some affirm that we do say) : Let us do evil that good may
come ? whose condemnation is just.
9 ' What then ? Have we any preeminence ? ' None at all ;
for we have already made good the charge against both Jews
10 and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written:
11" There is none righteous, not even one ; there is none who
12 understandeth, there is none who seeketh after God ; all have
gone out of the way, together have they become corrupt;
13 there is none who doeth good, not even one. Their throat is
an open sepulchre ; with their tongues do they deceive. The

ROMANS IV. 2—5. 497
14 poison of asps is under their lips. [Whose mouth is full of
,15 cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood;
]7\ destruction and misery attend their steps ; | the way of peace
18 they know not. There is no fear of God before their eyes.
19 Now we know whatsoever things the law saith, it speaketh
to those who are under the law ; so that every mouth must
20 be stopped, and the whole world become guilty before
God, | because that by works of law shall no flesh be justified
before him, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Gratuitous justification by Christ is the only way of salvation.
21 But now, the justification without law which is of God is
revealed, to which testimony is given by the law and the
22 prophets ; a justification then which is of God by faith in
Jesus Christ; [offered] to all, and [bestowed] on all who
23 believe, for there is no distinction. For all have sinned and
24 come short of divine approbation, | being justified freely by
his grace through the redemption which is by Christ Jesus ;
25 whom God hath set forth as a propitiatory [sacrifice] by faith
in his blood, in order to declare his justification through re
mission, by the forbearance of God, of sins formerly com-
26 mitted; in order to declare liis justification at the present
time ; so that lie might be just and yet the justifier of him
that believeth in Jesus.
27 Where then is boasting ? It is excluded. By what law ?
28 Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith ; for we have come
to the conclusion, that a man is justified by faith without
29 works of lawr. Is he the God of the Jews only ? Is he not
30 also of the Gentiles ? Yea, of the Gentiles also ; since it is
one and the same God, who will justify the circumcised by
31 faith and the uncircumcised by faith. Do we then make void
the law through faith ? By no means ; we confirm the law.
The Scriptures of the Old Testament teach the doctrine of justilication by grace only.
IV. ' What then shall we say that Abraham our father ob
tained, in respect to the flesh ? '
2 No ground of glorying ; for if Abraham was justified by
works, he hath ground of glorying; but [this he hath] not
3 before God. For what saith the Scripture ? " And Abra
ham believed God, and it was counted to him for rightcous-
4 ness." Now to him that worketh, reward is not counted as a
5 matter of grace, but as a debt ; but to him who worketh not,
but believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is
counted for righteousness. 42*

498 ROMANS IV. 6—24.
6 In like manner, also, David pronounceth happy the man, to
7 whom God imputeth righteousness without works : " Blessed
are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are
8 covered ; blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not
iniquity."
9 [Is] this a declaration of blessedness, then, concerning
those who are circumcised [only], or concerning the uncir
cumcised? [Concerning the uncircumcised also], for we say
10 that faith was counted to Abraham for righteousness. How
then was it counted ? While he was in a state of circum
cision, or of uncircumcision ? Not in a state of circumcision,
11 but of uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circum
cision, as a seal of the righteousness by faith which [he
obtained] in a state of uncircumcision ; in order that he
might be the father of all the uncircumcised who believe, so
12 that righteousness might also be counted to them ; and the
father of the circumcised, who are not only of the circum
cision, but walk in the steps of that faith which our father
Abraham had while in a state of circumcision.
13 For the promise was not made by law to Abraham or to his
seed, that he should be heir of the word ; but by the right-
14 eousness of faith. If now they who are of the law, are
heirs, faith is rendered of no effect, and the promise is made
void ; for the law worketh wrath, because where there is no
16 law there is no transgression. On this account it was of
faith, so that it must be of grace, in order that the promise
might be sure to all the seed, not only to him wdio is under
17 the law, but to him who is of the faith of Abraham; — wdio
is the father of us all | (as it is written : " A father of many
nations have I made thee" ), in the sight of God in whom he
believed, who giveth life to the dead, and calleth the things
18 which are not, as if they were ; | who, against hope, believed
in hope that he should become the father of many nations
(according to what had been said : " So shall thy seed
19 be") | and being not weak in faith, he considered not his
own body already dead (as he was about one hundred years
20 of age), nor yet the deadness of Sarah's womb ; neither did he
through unbelief doubt the promise of God, but he was
21 strong in faith, giving glory to God, | and being fully per
suaded that what he had promised he was also able to per-
22 form. Wherefore it was verily counted to him for righteous-
23 ness. Yet it was not recorded merely for his sake, that
it was counted to him ; but also for our sake, to whom it will
be counted, to us who believe on him who raised up Jesus
24 our Lord from the dead, | who was delivered up on account

ROMANS V. 1 — 18. 499
of our offences, and was raised for the sake of our justifi
cation. J
The fruits of justification, as to their certainty and extent.
Vo r. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with
I Orod, through our Lord Jesus Christ ; by whom also we have
obtained access [to God], through belief in that grace* in
which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
3 And not only so, but we rejoice also in our afflictions,
4 knowing that affliction produceth patience, | and patience ap
probation, and approbation hope, | and hope maketh not
5 ashamed ; for the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts
6 by the Holy Spirit whicli is given to us. For while we
were yet without strength, Christ died in due time for the
7 ungodly. Now scarcely for a just man will any one die ;
although for his benefactor some one, perhaps, might venture
8 even to die. But God commended his love to us, in that
9 while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Much more
10 then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from
wrath by him. For, if, when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God by the death of his Son ; much more, being
reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our
Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now obtained reconcili
ation.
12 Therefore, as by one man, sin entered into the world, and
death by sin ; and so death came upon all men, because that
13 all have sinned ; (for until the law sin was in the world,
14 although sin is not accounted for where there is no law ; yet
death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over those who
had not sinned in like manner as Adam ; who is a type of him
15 that was to come. But not as the offence, so the free gift
also ; for if by the offence of one the many died, much more
has the grace of God and the gift which is by the grace of
16 one man, Jesus Christ, abounded unto the many. Moreover,
not as the [condemnation] by one who sinned, is the free
gift ; for sentence was by one [offence] unto condemnation,
but the free gift is unto justification from many offences.
17 For if by the offence of one death reigned because of that
one, much more shall they who receive abundance of grace
and of the gift of justification, reign in life by one, Jesus
18 Christ ;) therefore, as by one offence [sentence came] upon
all men unto condemnation, so by one righteousness [the fre<» '
* Or, we have obtained access through faith unto that grace, etc'

500 ROMANS VI. 1 — 18.
19 gift came] upon all men unto justification of life ; for as by
the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, so
by the obedience of one the many will be made righteous.
20 The law moreover was introduced, so that offence should
21 abound; but where sin abounded, grace superabounded; so
that, as sin reigned by death, in like manner grace also might
reign by justification unto eternal life, through Jesus Christ
our Lord.
Gratuitous justification does not encourage men to sin, but restrains them from it.
VI. What shall we say then ? May we continue in sin, that
grace may abound?
2 By no means. How shall we, who are dead to sin, any
3 longer live in it ? Know ye not, that so many of us as have
been baptized into Christ Jesus, have been baptized into his
4 death ? We have then been buried with him by baptism into
his death ; so that, as Christ was raised from the dead by the
glory of the Father, in like manner we also should walk in
5 newness of life. For if we have become kindred with him
by a death like unto his, then we shall also be [kindred] by a
6 resurrection : for we know this, that our old man is crucified,
as he was, that the body of sin might be destroyed, in order
7 that we should no longer serve sin ; for he who is dead, is
8 freed from sin. If now we are dead with Christ, we believe
9 that we shall also live with him ; knowing that Christ, being
raised from the dead, dieth no more, death hath no longer any
10 dominion over him. For in that he died, he died once for all
11 unto sin; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. In like
manner you also must account yourselves dead unto sin, but
alive unto God through Jesus Christ.
12 Let not sin reign, then, in your mortal body, that ye should
13 obey the lusts thereof; neither proffer your members to sin as
instruments of iniquity ; but proffer yourselves to God as
alive from the dead, and your members to God as instruments
14 of righteousness. For sin shall not have dominion over 30U ;
since ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 ' What then ? Shall we sin, because we are not under law,
but under grace ? '
16 By no means. Know ye not, that to whomsoever ye prof
fer yourselves as servants ready to obey, ye are servants to
him whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience
17 unto justification ? But thanks be to God, that ye were the
servants of sin, but have become obedient from the heart to
that model of doctrine in which ye have been instructed.
18 Moreover being freed from sin, ye have become tlie servants

ROMANS VII. 1 — 11. 50]
19 of righteousness. (I speak in language common to men, be
cause of the weakness of your flesh) ; for as ye have prof
fered your members* as servants to impurity and iniquity in
_ order to commit iniquity, so now proffer your members* to
20 righteousness in order to be holy. For when ye were the
servants of sin, ye were free in respect to righteousness.
21 What fruit had ye then, in those things of which ye are now
22 ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now,
being freed from sin and having become servants to God, ye
have your fruit in respect to holiness, and in the end [ye will
23 have] eternal life. For the wages of sin is death ; but the
gift of God, eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Those who are under law cannot be freed from the power and penalty of sin.
VTI. Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to those acquainted
with the law,) that the law hath dominion over a man so long
2 as he liveth ? For the married woman is bound to her hus
band so long as he liveth ; but if her husband die, she is freed
3 from the law of her husband. Therefore, if she marry an
other while her husband is living, she shall be called an adul
teress ; but if her husband die, she is freed from the law, so
that she will not become an adulteress by marrying another
husband.
4 Thus, my brethren, ye also have become dead to the law
by the body of Christ, in order that ye should be joined to
another who is risen from the dead ; so that we may bring
5 forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, our
sinful passions which were by the law, wrought in our mem-
6 bers to bring forth fruit unto death ; but now we are freed
from the law by which we were held in bondage, inasmuch as
we have become dead to it ; so that we serve [God] with a
new spirit, and not according to the ancient letter.
7 ' What shall we say then ? Is the law sin ? '
By no means. Still, I had not known sin except by the
law ; for I had not known inordinate desire unless the law
8 had said, " Thou shalt not desire inordinately." But sin, tak
ing occasion by the commandment, wrought out in me all
manner of inordinate desire ; for without the law sin is dead.
i§j Once, moreover, I was alive without the law ; but when the
commandment came, sin revived, and I died ; yea, the com
mandment which was unto life, the very same was found to
11 be death to me. For sin taking occasion by the command-
* Or yourselves

502 ROMANS VIII. 1 — 7.
12 ment deceived me, and by it slew me ; so that the law is holy
and tlie commandment holy and just and good.
13 ' Has then that which is good become death unto me ? '
By no means ; but sin [has become death], in order that it
might manifest itself as causing death to me by that which is
good, so that through the commandment sin might be exceed-
14 ingly sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual ; but I
15 am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I practise, I ap
prove not ; for not what I approve do I perform, but that
16 which I hate, I do. If then I do that which I approve not, I
17 give consent to the law as good. But now it is no longer I
18 who do this, but sin which dwelleth in me. For I know that
in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwelleth no good thing ; for
to approve is easy for me, but to do what is good I find no
19 [readiness]. For the good which I approve, that I do not;
20 but the evil which I condemn, that I do. Now if I do that
which I approve nQt, it is no longer I who do it, but sin
21 which dwelleth in me. I find, then, that it is a law to me,
22 when desirous to do good, that evil is near me. For I take
23 pleasure in the law of God, as to the inner man ; but I per
ceive another law in my members, warring against the law of
my mind, and making me a captive to the law of sin which is
24 in my members. Wretched man that I am ! Who shall de-
25 liver me from the body which causeth this death ? I thank
God, through Jesus Christ our Lord ! Wherefore I, the same
person, serve with my mind the law of God, but with my
flesh the law of sin.
A state of grace delivers from the bondage and penalty of sin.
VIII. But now, there is no condemnation to those who are in
2 Christ Jesus.* For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
3 Jesus, hath freed me from the law of sin and death. For
what the law could not accomplish, in that it was weak through
the flesh, God [accomplished], who, sending his own Son in
the likeness of sinful flesh and on account of sin, condemned
4 sin in the flesh ; so that the precepts of the law might be ful
filled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according
5 to the Spirit. For they who live according to the flesh, do
mind the things of the flesh ; but they who live according to
6 the Spirit, the things ofthe Spirit. For the mind ofthe flesh
7 is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace. Be
cause the mind of the flesh is enmity against God ; for it is
* Who walk not after the .flesh, but after the Spirit, is probably spurious
hero, and is therefore omitted.

ROMANS VIII. 8—27. 503
not subject to his law, nor indeed can be. Those then ivho
8 are in the flesh cannot please God. Ye, however, are not in
9 the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you. If now any one hath not the Spirit of
10 Christ, he is none of his ; but if Christ be in you, the body
indeed is mortified on account of sin, but the Spirit liveth on
11 account of righteousness. Butif the Spirit of him who raised
up Jesus from the dead, dwelleth in you, he who raised up
Christ from the dead will also quicken your mortal bodies,
because of his Spirit which dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live
13 according to the flesh ; | for if ye live according to the flesh,
ye shall die ; but if through the Spirit ye mortify the deeds
14 of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the
15 Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. For ye have not
received a servile spirit, that ye should again be in fear : but
ye have received a filial Spirit, by which we cry Abba,
16 Father! The same Spirit beareth witness in our spirit, that
17 we are children of God. But if children, then heirs ; heirs
of God, and joint heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer
with him in order that we may be also glorified with him.
Fruits ofthe grace and sanctification proffered in the gospel.
18 Moreover I reckon the sufferings of the present time as not
worthy of regard, when compared with the glory which is to
19 be revealed tous. For the earnest expectation of the crea-
20 tiice is waiting for the revelation of the children of God. For
21 the creature was made subject to frailty (not of its own choice
but through him who put it in subjection), in hope that this
same creature may be freed from the bondage of a perishing
state, and [brought] into the glorious liberty of the children
22 of God. For we know that every creature sighs and groans
23 together even to the present time. Yet not only so, but those
who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves
groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, the redemp-
24 tion of our body. For we are saved in hope. Now hope
which is seen, is not hope : for what a man seeth, how doth
25 he still hope for it ? But if we hope for that which we do
not see, we patiently wait for it.
26 In like manner, also, the Spirit helpeth much our infirmi
ties ; for we know not what we should pray for as we ought ;
the same Spirit, however, maketh earnest intercession for us,
27 in sighs which cannot be uttered ; but he who searcheth
hearts knoweth the mind of the Spirit, that he maketh inter
cession in behalf of the saints according to the will of God.

504 ROMANS IX. 1—9.
28 We know, moreover, that all things work together for good
to those who love God, to those who are called according to
29 his purpose. For those whom he foreknew, he also predes
tinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that
30 he should be the first-born among many brethren. Those
also whom he predestinated, the same he likewise called ; and
those whom he called, the same he also justified; and those
whom he justified, the same he also glorified.
31 What shall we say, then, concerning these things ? If God
32 be for us, who is against us ? Even he who spared not his
own Son, but gave him up for us all — how sliall he not also
33 with him freely give us all things ? | Who shall accuse the
34 elect of God ? It is God that justifieth ; | who is he that con
demneth? It is Christ who died [for us]; yea rather, who
has also risen, who moreover is at the right hand of God, and
35 also intercedeth for us. Who shall separate us from the love
of Christ ? Shall affliction, or anguish, or persecution, or
36 famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (As it is written :
" For thy sake are we continually exposed to death, we are
37 counted as sheep for the slaughter.") Nay, in all these things
38 we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For
I am persuaded that neither death nor life, neither angels nor
principalities, neither things present nor future, nor powers,
39 | neither height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall
be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ
Jesus our Lord.
God has a right to make those whom he chooses to be partakers of his favor ; and
this right he. has always exercised.
IX. I say the truth in Christ, I speak not falsely (as my con-
2 science testilieth for me in the Holy Spirit), | that I have
3 great sorrow and continual anguish in my heart. For I could
wish even myself to be devoted to destruction by Christ, in-
4 stead of my brethren, my kinsmen after the flesh ; | who are
Israelites ; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory,
and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the rites of
5 service, and the promises ; | wliose are the fathers ; and from
whom Christ [descended] in respect to the flesh, who is God
over all, blessed forever, Amen !
6 However, it is not so that the word of God has been ren
dered void ; for they are not all Israel who are of Israel ;
7 | neither are all the seed of Abraham children, | but, "in Isaac
8 shall thy seed be called ; " that is, not the children of the flesh
are the children of God, but the children of promise, are
9 counted for the seed. For the word of promise was thus :

ROMANS IX. 10 — 29. 505
"According to this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a
son."
10 And not only so, but Rebecca also, having conceived by
11 one, our father Isaac, | for [the children] being not yet born,
neither liaving done any thing good or evil, that the purpose
of God according to election might stand, not of works but of
12 him that calleth, | it was said to her; "The elder shall serve
13 the younger;" | as it is written: "Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated."
14 " What shall we say then ? Is there unrighteoiiMiess with
God?"
15 By no means ; for he saith to Moses : " I will have mercy
on whomsoever I will have mercy, and I will have compas-
16 sion on whomsoever I will have compassion." Therefore it
is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God
17 who showeth mercy. For the Scripture saith to Pharaoh :
" For this very purpose have I roused thee up, that I might
show forth my power in thee, and declare my name in all the
18 land." Therefore on whom he will he hath mercy, and whom
he will he hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then to me; Why doth he yet find fault, for
20 wdio resisteth his will ? But rather [I may say], Who art
thou, O man, that repliest against God? Shall the thing
formed say to him who formed it : Why hast thou made me
21 thus ? Hath not the potter power over the clay, to make out
of the same lump one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?
22 What now if God, purposing to manifest his indignation and
make known his power, endured with much long-suffering the
23 vessels of wrath fitted for destruction ; and that he might
make known the riches of his glory towards the vessels of
24 mercy which he had before prepared for glory, | [shewed
mercy] even to us whom he hath called, not only ofthe Jews
25 but also of the Gentiles ? To the like purpose he saith also
in Hosea : " I will call him who was not my people, my peo-
26 pie ; and her who was not my beloved, beloved. And it shall
come to pass, that in the place where it was said to them :
' Ye are not my people,' there sliall they be called the sons of
the living God."
27 Isaiah moreover saith concerning Israel: "Although the
number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
28 [only] a remnant shall be saved. For he will execute his
word which he hath decreed in righteousness ; for the Lord
29 will execute his word decreed concerning the land." Yea, as
Isaiah had before said, " Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left
43

506 ROMANS X. 1 — 15.
us a remnant, we should have been like Sodom, we should
have been made like to Gomorrah."
30 ' What shall we say then ? ' That the Gentiles, who did not
seek after justification, have obtained justification, and that
31 justification, which is by faith ; but Israel, who sought after a
law of justification, have not attained to a law of justification.
32 Why ? Because [they sought] not by faith, but by works of
law ; for they stumbled at the stone of stumbling ; | as it is
33 written : " Behold ! I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a
rock of offence ; but every one who believeth on him shall
not be ashamed."

The unbelief and rejection of the Jews, and the reception of the Gentiles through
faith, are truly consistent with the declarations of the ancient Scriptures.
X. Brethren, the kind desire of my heart and my prayer to
2 God for them is, that they may be saved. For I bear them
witness, that they have a zeal for God, but not according to
3 knowledge. For being ignorant of the justification which is
of God, and seeking to establish their own justification, they
have not submitted themselves to the justification which is of
4 God. For Christ is the end of the law unto justification, to
every one who believeth.
5 For Moses describeth the justification which is of the law,
namely, " The man who doeth these things shall live by
6 them." But justification by faith speaketh thus : " Say not
in thine heart, Who sliall ascend into heaven ? " that is, to
7 bring down Christ ; or, " Who shall de: cend into the abyss ? "
that is, to bring up Christ from the dead. But what saith it ?
8 " The word is near to thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart ;
9 that is, the word of faith which we preach. For if thou shalt
openly confess the Lord Jesus with thy mouth, and believe in
thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
10 saved; because with the heart there is belief unto justifica
tion, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11 For the Scripture saith: "No one who believeth on him,
shall be ashamed."
12 There is therefore no difference between the Jew and
Greek ; because there is the same Lord of all, wdio is rich
13 [in mercy] unto all them that call upon him; for "every one
who calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
14 ' Plow then shall they call on him in whom they have not
believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom
15 they have not heard ? And how shall they hear without a
preacher ? | And how shall they preach except they be sent ? '

ROMANS XI. 1 — 11. 507
As it is written : " How beautiful are the feet of those who
publish salvation, who proclaim good tidings ! "
16 Yet all have not obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah saith:
" Lord, who hath believed' our report ? "
17 ' Faith, then, cometh by hearing ; and hearing by the word
of God."
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yea, truly, "their sound
hath gone forth into all the earth ; their words to the ends of
19 the world." But I say : Doth not Israel know ? First Moses
saith : " I will move you to jealousy by that which is no na
tion ; I will excite you to indignation by a foolish people."
20 But Isaiah is very bold, and saith : " I was found by those
who sought me not ; I made myself manifest to those who did
21 not inquire for me." But unto Israel he saith: " All the day
long have I stretched out my hand to a disobedient and gain
saying people."
God hath not cast away the Jews entirely and utterly. Some are now saved;
and all will finally be converted, with the fulness of the Gentiles. God's
dealings with them are unsearchable, but wise.
XI. 'I sat then, hath God cast away his people?'
2 By no means; for I myself am an Israelite, ofthe seed of
Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast
away his people whom he foreknew. Know ye not what the
Scripture saith in [the history of ] Elijah, when he maketh in-
3 tercession to God against Israel ? ' Lord, they have killed thy
prophets, and digged down thine altars ; and I only am left,
4 and they are seeking my life.' But what saith the answer of
God to him ? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand
5 men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal." In like man
ner, then, tliere is even at the present time a remnant accord-
6 ing to the election of grace. But if it be of grace, then it is
no more of works ; otherwise grace is no more grace. But
if it be of works, it is no more of grace ; otherwise work is
no more work.
7 ' What then ? that which Israel sought after, he hath not
obtained.'
8 But the elect have obtained it ; and the rest were blinded ;• |
as it is written : " God hath given them the spirit of slumber,
eyes that see not and ears that hear not, even unto this day."
9 David also saith : " Let their table become a snare to catch
them and an occasion of falling and a recompense to them.
10 Let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot sec, and their
back be always bowed down."
11 'I say then, have they stumbled so as utterly to fall ? '

^08 ROMANS XI. 12 — 32.
By no means ; but by their fall salvation [is come] to the
12 Gentiles to provoke their emulation. If now their fall hath
been the riches of the world, and their degradation the riches of
13 the Gentiles, how much more their fulness? For I say this
to you Gentiles (inasmuch as I am indeed an apostle of the
14 Gentiles I do honor to my office), | if by any means I may
excite to emulation some of my kinsmen after the flesh, and
15 save some of them. For if the casting away of them be the
reconciliation of the world, wdiat shall the reception of them
16 be but life from the dead. If, moreover, the first fruits were
holy, so shall the mass be ; and if the root be holy, so will be
17 the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off,
and thou, being a wild olive, wert engrafted in their stead
and made partaker of the root and fatness of the olive, | glory
1 8 not over the branches : but if thou dost glory, thou dost not
19 support the root but the root thee. Thou wilt say, then :
' The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.'
20 Be it so : they were broken off by unbelief, and thou standest
21 by faith; be not high-minded but fear; for if God spared
not the natural branches, then [fear] lest he should not spare
thee.
22 Behold, then, the kindness and severity of God ! Severity
toward those who have fallen away; but kindness toward
thee, provided thou dost abide in his kindness, otherwise even
23 thou shalt be cut off. But even they, unless they continue in
unbelief, shall be grafted in; for God is able again to graft
24 them in. For if thou wert cut out from the olive which was
wild by nature and contrary to thy nature, how much more
shall the natural branches be grafted into their own olive !
25 Moreover, I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this
mystery (lest ye should be wise in your own conceit), that
blindness has come upon Israel in part, until the fulness of
26 the Gentiles shall come in. And thus all Israel shall be
saved ; even as it is written : " A deliverer shall come out
27 of Zion, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob ; " | also :
"This is my covenant with them, when I shall take away
28 their sins." In respect to the gospel [they have become]
enemies on your account ; but in respect to the election [they
29 arc] beloved for their father's sake. For the gifts and call-
30 ings of God, he will not repent of. For as ye were formerly
disobedient to God, but have now obtained mercy throuo-h
31 their unbelief; so they too have now become disobedient,
that they may obtain mercy through the mercy shown to you.
32 For God | concluded all in unbelief, so that he might have
mercy on all.

ROMANS XII. 1-19. 509
33 f ^^i boundless ricIles both of the wisdom and knowledge
ol God! How unsearchable are his counsels, and his ways
34 past finding out ! For who hath known the mind of the
3o Lord, or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first
36 given him any thing, and it will be repaid ? For of him, and
by him, and for him, are all things ; to him be the glory for
ever, Amen !
Exhortation to piety, humility, diligent improvement of gifts, kind sympathy and
benevolent feeling.
XII. I entreat you, therefore, by the tender mercies of God,
to present your bodies a living' sacrifice, holy, acceptable to
2 God which is your rational service. And be not conformed
to this world ; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your
mind, that ye may learn what the will of God is, even that
which is good and acceptable and perfect.
3 I say, moreover, by the grace given to me, to every one
among you, that he think not of himself more highly than he
ought to think, but that he think modestly, according to the
4 measure of faith which God hath imparted to him. For as
in one body we have many members, but all the members
5 have not the same office, so we, being many, are one body in
Christ, and are members one of another.
6 Having then gifts which differ according to the grace that
is given us, whether prophecy, [let it be] according to the
7 proportion of faith ; [ whether ministry, [let there be dili-
8 gence] in ministration ; whether teaching, in instruction ; | or
exhorting, in exhortation. Let the distributer [do his duty]
with simplicity ; the superintendent, with diligence; he who
9 performs offices of compassion, with cheerfulness. Let be
nevolence be sincere ; abhor that which is evil ; cleave to
that which is good.
10 As to brotherly love, [be] kindly affectionate one toward
11 another ; as to honor, give to each other the preference ; | as
to dilio-ence, be not slothful ; be fervent in spirit ; engaged, in
12 the Lord's service ; | rejoice in hope ; be patient in affliction ;
13 persevere in prayer ; make the wants of the saints your own ;
14 practise hospitality. Bless those who curse you ; bless, and
15 curse not. Rejoice with those who rejoice ; and weep with
1 6 those who weep. Think mutually the same thing ; do not
rea;ard high things, but suffer yourselves to be influenced by
humble ones. Be not wise in your own conceit.
17 Render to no man evil for evil ; seek after that which is
18 good in the sight of all. If it be possible, so far as in you
19 lieth be at peace with all men. Avenge not yourselves, bc-
43*

510 ROMANS XIII. 1 — 14. XIV. 1, 2.
loved, but defer anger ; for it is written : " Retribution is
20 mine, I will render it, saith the Lord." Therefore, "if thine
enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him drink ; for in
21 so doing, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head." Be
not overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Exhortation to obey civil rulers, and to exhibit a kind and peaceable demeanor
towards all men.
XIII. Let every soul be subject to the supreme magistracies ;
for there is no magistracy except of God ; and those which
2 be, are ordained of God. So he that resisteth. the magistracy,
resisteth the ordinance of- God ; and they who resist, shall
3 receive for themselves condemnation. For rulers are not a
terror to good works but to evil ones ; and wilt thou not stand
4 in awe of the magistracy ? Do good, and thou shalt have
praise for it ; for [the magistrate] is a servant of God for thy
benefit. But if thou doest evil, fear ; for he beareth the sword
not in vain, since he is the minister of God, avenging unto
5 indignation the evil doer. Therefore we ought to yield sub
jection, not only because of indignation, but for conscience' sake.
6 On this very account also pay tribute ; for they are God's
7 ministers who attend to this matter. Therefore render to all
that which is due ; tribute, to whom tribute ; custom, to whom
8 custom ; fear, to whom fear ; honor to whom honor. Owe no
man anything, except to love one another ; for he who loveth
9 another fulfilleth the law. For this [is the law] : " Thou
shalt not commit adultery ; thou shalt not kill ; thou shalt not
steal ; thou shalt not covet ; " and if there be any other com
mand, it is summarily comprehended in this precept, namely :
10 " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Love worketh
no ill to its neighbor; love, then, is the fulfilling of the law.
11 And this [do], since ye know the time, that the hour has
already come when we should awake out of sleep ; for now
12 is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is
far spent, the day is at hand ; let us put away then the works
13 of darkness, and put on the armor of light. Let us walk in
a becoming manner, as in the day ; not in revelling and
drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife
14 and bitter envy ; | but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ,
and make no provision for the flesh, in respect to its lusts.
Caution against making external rites and observances matters of division and
conteutiou among Christians.
XIV. Him that is weak in faith receive with kindness, not in
2 order to judge of his opinions. One believeth that he may

ROMANS XIV. 3 — 22. 511
3 eat everything ; but he who is weak eateth herbs. Let not
him wdio eateth, despise him who eateth not ; nor him who eat
eth not, condemn him who eateth ; for God hath accepted him.
4 \\ ho art thou, that condemnest the servant of another ? By
his own master he standeth or falleth ; and he shall stand, for
God is able to make him stand.
5 One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteem
eth every day [alike] ; let each one be fully persuaded in his
6 own mind. He who regardeth the day, regardeth it for [the
honoring of] the Lord ; and he who regardeth not the clay,
for [the honoring of] the Lord he doth not regard it. Like
wise he who eateth, eateth for [the honoring of] the Lord,
for he giveth God thanks; and he who eateth not for [the
honoring of] the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
7 For no one of us liveth to himself; and no one of us dieth
8 to himself; for whether we live, we live to the Lord, and
whether we die, we die to the Lord ; whether we live, then,
9 or die, we are the Lord's. For Christ both died and revived
for this very purpose, that he might be Lord of the dead and
of the living.
10 But thou, why dost thou condemn thy brother? Even
thou, why dost thou despise thy brother ? For we must
11 all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. For it is
written, " As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to
12 me, and every tongue shall confess to God." Every one
of us, therefore, must give an account of himself to Goel.
13 Let us then, no longer judge one another ; but rather let
us decide not to put a stumbling block or a cause of falling in
14 the way of a brother. I know, and am persuaded of the
Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself ; but to him who
15 deemeth anything to be unclean, it is unclean. Now if thy
brother is grieved because of meat, thou dost not walk as love
requireth ; destroy not him by thy meat, for whom Christ
16 died. Let not your good, then, be evil spoken of; for the
17 kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and
peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 Now he who serveth Christ, as to these things, is accepta-
19 ble to God and approved by men. Therefore let us strive
20 after peace and mutual edification. Destroy not the work of
God on account of meat. All [meats] are clean ; yet they
are hurtful to him, who eateth so as to give offence thereby.
21 It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [to do any
thino-] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or hath cause of
22 offence, or is made weak. Hast thou faith, keep it to thyself
before God. Happy the man, who doth not condemn himself

512 ROMANS XV. 1 — 16.
23 in that which he alloweth ! But he who doubteth, is con
demned if he eat, because it is not of faith ; and every thing
which is not of faith, is sin.
Various exhortations to charity and kindness. Expression of the apostle's regard
for the church at Rome, of his intention to visit them, and of his desire for an
interest in their prayers.
XV. We, however, who are strong, ought to bear with the in-
2 firmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each
one of us please his neighbor, in respect to that which is
3 good, unto edification. For Christ did not seek his own
pleasure ; but [with him it was] according to that whicli is
written : " The reproaches of those who reproached thee,
4 have fallen upon me." For whatsoever things were written
in ancient times, were written for our instruction ; that
through patience and the admonition of the Scriptures, we
might obtain hope.
5 Now may the God from whom is patience and admonition,
give to you mutual unity of sentiment, according to Christ
6 Jesus, that with one mind and with one voice ye may glorify
God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ !
7 Wherefore deal kindly with each other, even as Christ hath
dealt kindly with you, unto the glory of God.
8 I say, moreover, that Jesus Christ became the minister of
the circumcision, on account of the truth of God, in order to
9 confirm the promises made to the fathers ; also, that the Gen
tiles shall glorify God for his mercy ; even as it is written :
" Therefore will I celebrate thy praise among the Gentiles,
10 and to thy name will I sing." And again he saith : " Rejoice,
1 1 ye Gentiles, with his people." And again : " Praise the
12 Lord, all ye Gentiles ; and laud him, all ye people." And
again Isaiah saith : " There shall be a root of Jesse, and one
shall rise to be a leader of the Gentiles ; upon him shall the
Gentiles place their hopes."
13 Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace
in believing, that you may abound in hope, through the influ
ence of the Holy Spirit !
14 Moreover, I am myself well persuaded concerning you, my
brethren, that ye are full of kindness, abounding in all know-
15 ledge, and able to admonish one another. But I have written
to you in part the more boldly, brethren, as one repeating ad
monitions, because of the grace which is bestowed by God
16 upon me, | that I should be a minister of Jesus Christ to the
Gentiles, performing the office of a priest in respect to the
gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be ac-

ROMANS XVI. 1, 2. 513
17 ceptable, being purified by the Holy Spirit. I have then
cause of glorying in Christ Jesus, as to those things which per-
18 tain to God; for I will not venture to mention anylh>.g
which Christ hath not wrought by me, in order to bring the
19 Gentiles to obedience, by word and by deed, | by the power
of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit; s-n
that from Jerusalem and round about, even to Illyricum, I
20 have fully proclaimed the gospel of Chri.-t, [ and I was
strongly desirous so to preach the gospel (not where Christ
was named, lest I should build on another man's founda-
21 tion, | butj as it is written : " They shall see to whom no
declaration was made respecting him, and they who have not
heard shall understand."
22 On this account I have been greatly hindered from coming
23 to you. But now, having no longer any place in these re
gions, and being desirous for many years of making you a
24 visit ; whenever I may go into Spain, I hope, as I pass on, to
see you, and to be sent on my way thither, when I am in part
25 first satisfied with your company. But at present I am going
26 to Jerusalem, to supply the wants of the saints. For it hath
seemed good to Macedonia and Achaia, to make some contri-
27 bution for the saints in poverty at Jerusalem. [I say] it hath
seemed good, for verily they are debtors ; because if the Gen
tiles have shared in their spiritual things, they ought surely
28 to assist them in temporal things. Now when this duty shall
have been performed, and this fruit secured to them, I shall
29 pass through the midst of you into Spain. I know, also, that
when I come to you, I shall come with abundant blessings
of the gospel of Christ.
30 Moreover I beseech you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus
Christ- and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together
31 for me, in your prayers to God in my behalf, | that I may be
delivered from the unbelieving in Judea, and that my service
32 for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints ; [also] that I
may come to you with joy (if God will), and may be re-
33 freshed among you. The God of peace be with you all,
Amen! Various salutations. Caution against divisions. Conclusion.
XVI. Now I commend to you Phebe our sister, who is a dea-
^2 coness of the church of Cenchrea, I that ye may receive her
in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and give ber
assistance in any thing wherein she may need it of you ;
for she herself hath been a helper of many, and especially
of me.

514 ROMANS XVI. 3 — 27.
3 Salute Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow-laborers in Christ
4 Jesus | (who exposed themselves to great danger in my be
half; to whom not only I myself am grateful, but even all
the churches of the Gentiles) ; | and the church whicli is at
5 their house. Salute Epenetus, my beloved, who is the first
6 fruit of Asia in Christ. Salute Marjr, who labored much for
7 us. Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and fellow-
prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, and who were
8 before me in Christ. Salute Amplias my beloved in the
9 Lord. Salute Urbanus, our fellow-laborer in Christ. Salute
10 them of the household of Aristobulus. Salute Herodian, my
11 kinsman. Salute them of the household of Narcissus, who
12 are in the Lord. Salute Tryphene and Tryphosa, wdio labor
in the Lord. Salute Persis the beloved, who labored much
13 in the Lord. Salute Rufus, elect in the Lord, and his mother,
14 and mine. Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas,
15 Hermes, and the brethren with them. Salute Philologus and
Julias, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints
16 with them. Salute each other with a holy kiss. All the
churches of Christ salute you.
17 Moreover I beseech you, brethren, to beware of those who
occasion divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrines
18 which ye have learned. For such serve not the Lord Je.-us
Christ, but their own appetite ; and by flattery and fair
19 speeches they beguile the minds of the simple. For your
obedience is known to all ; I rejoice therefore concerning you,
and desire you to be wise in respect to that which is good,
20 but simple in respect to that which is evil. May the God of
all peace shortly bruise Satan under your feet ! The grace
of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you !
21 Timothy my fellow-laborer, and Luke and Jason, and So^i-
22 pater, my kinsmen, salute you. (I Tertius, who wrote this
23 epistle, salute you in the Lord). Gaius saluteth you, who is
my host and that of the whole church. Erastus saluteth you,
24 the chamberlain of the city, and Quartus, a brother. The
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, Amen !
25 Now unto him who is able to establish you, according to
my gospel, even the gospel of Jesus Christ ; according to the
revelation of the mystery which was kept silent in ancient
26 times, | but is now manifested by the prophetic Scriptures,
[and] according to the command of the eternal God made
27 known to all nations for the obedience of faith ; — to the only
wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever,
Amen!

WARREN F. DRAPER,
TTBLISECEIR ^NJD BOOKSELLER,
ANDOVER, MASS.
MMies and offers for Sab tit Mowing, Ah ^ k sfflt J0st paid on receipt of ft, . named.

QUERICKE'S CHURCH HISTORY. Translated bv W. o. T. Shedd,
l^iowii 1 rul^r iu Andover Theological Seminary. 438 pp. 8vo. 5-2.25
This volume includes the pcrioa ofthe Ancient Clcnc, (the first six centuries, A. CI or the
Apostohc and Putustic Church.
Wo regard Professor Shedd's version, now under notice, as a happy specimen of tho iuw
rusio.. rather than a ii, vn_.l_vt.o_,, whieh many of the German treaties should receive.
lhe style of his version is far superior to that of the original— [Bib. Saera, Jan. 1808.
DIS COURSES AND ESSAYS. By Pr.oF. AV. G. T. Shedd. 271 pp.
12mo. 85 cts.
Few clearer and more penetrating minds can ho found in our country than that of Prof.
Fhedd. And besides, he writes with a chaste and „turdy eloquence, transparent as crystal . so
that if he rocs DEi.r, we love to follow him. If the mind gets dull, or dry, or ungovernable,
put it to grappling with these masterly productions. — [Congregational Herald, Chicago.
LECTURES UPON THE PHILOSOPHY OE HISTORY. By
Frcw. W. G. T. Shedd. 12S pp. 12mo. 60 cts.
Content*: The abstract Idea of History ; The Nature and Definition of Secular History ;
The Nature aud Definition of Church History ; The Verilying Test in Church History.
OUTLINES OF SYSTEMATIC RHETORIC. From lhe German of
Dr. Francis Theremin, liy 1'kop. \V G. T. Shedd. 102 pp. 12mo. 75 cts.
Every minister and theological professor tin composition and rhetoric especially) should read
it. A more thorough and suggestive, and, in the main, sensible view of the subject is hardly
to be found. The central idea in Theremin's theory is, that eloquence is a virtue, and he who
reads this little book will be sure to receive an impulse in the direction of masculine thoughtful
di_,cuuiso.~ [Cong. Herald, Chicago.
EI3LS HISTORY OF PRAYER. By C. A. Goodrich. 384 pp.
lino. S1.00.
The aim of this little volume is to embody an account of the delightful and successful inter
course of believers with heaven for some four thousand years. The author has indulged a
good deal in narrative, opening and explaining the circumstances which gave birth to the
several prayers.
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPECULATIVE PHI
LOSOPHY FROM KANT TO HEGEL. From the German of Dr.. II. 31.
Chalybaeus. With an Introductory Note by Sib William Hamilton.
1 vol. 12mo. 151.25.
Those who arc in search of knowledge on this perplexed subject, without having time to in
vestigate the original sources for information, will receive great assistance from this careful, thor
ough and perspicuous analysis. — [Diblical Repertory and Princeton Review, April, 1854.
Sec also notice of this work on page G35 of Hib. Sac., July, 185-1.
VINET'S HISTORY OF FRENCH LITERATURE IN THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTUKY. 523 pp. 35175.
"WORKS OF LEONARD "WOODS, D. D. 5 vols. Svo. SMI).

Publications ofW.F. Draper, Andover.
AUBERLEN ON DANIEL AND THE REVELATION. Trans
lated by Rev. Adolph Sapliir. 490 pp. ©1.50-
"It is refreshing to one's spirit to receive a book of this kind from Germany  The
Prophecies of Daniel and of John have long been the sport of unbelieving criticism; and if
their authority, as the products of Divine inspiration, could have been overthrown by learning
and ingenuity and industry, this would long since have been accomplished. Undismayed by
the long array of learned names against him, Auberlen, comparatively a young writer, has
undertaken the defence of these books, and has manfully fulfilled his task." [See notice in
Bib. Sacra, vol. IJ, pi-ge 643 sq..
HENDERSON'S COMMENTARY' ON THE MINOR PRO
PHETS. (In press)
The only critical Commentary on the subject accessible to English students. A work care
fully prepared by an able scholar
JAHN'S BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY". Translated, with Additions,
by Prof. Thomas C. Upham, 573 pp. 8vo. $1.75.
This is a standard work in its department. It is a very excellent book for Sabbath school
teachers and advanced classes. There are probably none superior within the same compass.
SCHAUFFLER'S MEDITATIONS ON THE LAST DAYS OF
CHRIST. 439 pp. 12mo. $1.00.
The first sixteen chapters of the book consist of Meditations on the last days of Christ,
preached in the midst of plague and death, by Rev. Mr. Schaufflcr, at Constantinople; the second
part, of eight sermons on the 17th chapter of John, and is a practical exposition of that chapter.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. By
Prof. M. Stuart. Third edition. 1vol. 8vo. $2.25.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
By Prof. M. Stuart. Third edition. 1 vol. 8vo. $2.25.
VENEMA'S INSTITUTES OP THEOLOGY". Translated by Kev.
A W Brown, Edinburgh. 532 pp. 8vo. Fine edition. $1.50.
"It must be admitted, that Venema had far more independence, both of thought and style
than belonged to many of his contemporaries. Tlie perusal of "Vcnema's treatise cannot fail,
we think, to .iwaken a spirit of Biblical investigation, and to illustrate the importance of an ac
curate and well-balanced theological system."— [Bib. Sac, January, 1S54.
RUSSELL'S PULPIT ELOCUTION. Comprising Eemarks on the
Effect of Manner in Public Discourse; the Elements of Elocution applied to
the Reading ofthe Scriptures, Hymns and Sermons; with observations on the
Principles of Gesture ; and a Selection of Exercises in Reading and Speaking.
With an Introduction by Prof. E. A. Park and Rev. E K. Kirk. 413 pp.
12rao. Second edition. $1.00.
" Mr. Russel is known as one of the masters of elocutionary science in the United States. Tie
has labored long, skilfully, and successfully in that irjnst interesting field, and has ncquired an
honored nnme among the teachers and writers upon rherotic. It is one of the most thorough
publications upon the subject, and is admirably addressed to the correction of the various de
fects which diminish the influence of pulpit discourses. Itis already an established authority
in many places."— [Literary World.
ADDRESSES OF REV. DRS. STURTEVANT AND STEARNS
at the Anniversary of the American < 'nngiv^atiouaJ Union, May 1S55 25 cts.
NEMESIS SACRA. A series of Inquiries, Philosophical and Critical, into
the Scripture Doctrine of Retribution on Ean.h. 550 pp. $2.75.

3 9002

: