THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS
By Frederick Louis Godet
Translated from the French By Rev. A.
Cusin, M. A.
Translation Revised and Edited with An
Introduction and Appendix
By Talbot W. Chambers, D.D.
INTRODUCTION TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
THE author of this book, the Rev.
Frederick L. Godet, D.D., was born at
Neufchatel, Switzerland, October 25th,
1812. After having finished his
collegiate course and entered upon
theological studies in his native town,
he repaired to Berlin, and afterward
to Bonn, where he gave his attention
to philosophy and theology. In 1837 he
was admitted to orders in
Neufchatel, and became curate of the
pastor of Valawjin. The next year
he was appointed by Prince William of
Prussia (now the Emperor of
Germany) to be the “civil governor” or
director of the education of his only
son, Frederick William, the present
crown-prince of the Empire. This
position he occupied with honor and
success for six years, securing the
confidence of his distinguished pupil
in such a degree that a
correspondence between them has been
maintained to this day. In 1845
he became pastor of the church in Val
de Ruy, and in 1850 one of the
principal pastors of the city of
Neufchatel, and professor of theology
(exegetical and dogmatic) in the
theological school of the national church
of the canton. While here he received
the degree of D.D. from the
University of Basle. At the
ecclesiastical disruption which took place in
1873, in consequence of the
encroachments of the political power, he
became the prominent leader of the
Independent Church then
established, and was made professor in
its theological school, a position
which he holds and adorns to this day.
Professor Godet is a man somewhat
above the ordinary height, of fine
presence and attractive demeanor. Two
of his early friends and fellowstudents,
Dr. Schaff and Prof. Guyot, speak of
him with enthusiasm as a
scholar, a patriot, and a Christian.
Among his numerous writings may be
mentioned: Histoire de la
Reformation et du Refuge dans le pays
de Neufchatel 1859. Commentaire
sur l'Evangile selon S. Jean. 2 vols.
1864-5; 2d ed. 1875. English
translation, Edin. 1876-7. Translated
also into German and Dutch.
First Next ->
Commentaire sur l'Evangile S. Luc. 2
vols. 18; 2d ed. 1870. English
translation, 1875.
Etudes Bibliques. Old Test. 1872; 2d
ed. 1873. English Translation, 1875.
New Test. 1874. English Translation,
1876; 2d ed. 1879.
Conferences Apologetiques. 1879.
English title: Lectures in Defence of
the Christian Faith. 1882.
His most recent work is the one now in
the reader's hands. The first
volume appeared in 1879, the second in
the following year. The English
translation was issued by the Messrs.
Clark, Edinburgh, in 1880-2, and by
arrangement with them is now sent
forth.
The work is a welcome addition to the
literature on this subject already
accessible to English readers. The
elaborate volumes of Drs. Hodge and
Shedd, able as they are, still leave
room for another exposition made from
a different point of view and taking
notice of the more prominent recent
writers. Dr. Godet is at once
exegetical and theological. He not only
examines critically the original text,
but discusses the doctrine involved,
both in itself and in its relation to
other truths of Scripture, a feature which
adds much to the value of the work for
homiletic purposes. The reader
may not always agree with the
conclusions reached, but he has before
him the reasoning upon which they
rest, and from this can receive
important aid in formulating his own
views. Indeed it is better for stimulus,
discipline, and mental growth that a
commentary should not reproduce
just what the reader already knows or
has accepted. To leave a track
because it is beaten is absurd, and to
seek novelty for the sake of novelty
is perilous, as has been shown again
and again on the Continent during
the present century. But careful,
independent study is another thing. The
riches of the Bible are so great as to
be practically inexhaustible, and the
great themes presented in the
doctrinal epistles of the apostle are so
profound and far-reaching that every
new generation of scholars may
come to them with the hope of seeing
and setting forth the truth in a
clearer light and a more varied
application than before.
The author has many qualifications for
his work. One of the most needful
exists in an eminent degree—viz., a
hearty sympathy with the book he is
expounding. He does not approach it
from the outside, but the inside,
having a heartfelt experience of the power
and blessedness of its truths.
He is a devout believer, filled with
affectionate loyalty to him who is God
over all, blessed forever. Taught by
the Holy Ghost, he knows what sin is
in the sight of the Holy One of
Israel, and at the same time appreciates
the grace and glory of the means by
which it is overcome, both in its guilt
and in its dominion. He cannot
therefore handle exegesis and dogma in a
cold, dry, mechanical way, but writes
as one who feels with the Psalmist
of old, “How precious are Thy thoughts
unto me, O God!” This pious
feeling is diffused over his pages
like the fragrance of a precious oil, and
renders his treatment of the loftiest
and most recondite themes tributary to
the spiritual growth of all careful
readers. Yet piety is not made a
substitute for knowledge. The author
presents the fruit of life-long studies.
He is not a novice, but having spent
his life in the centre of all the
discussions and investigations which
have occupied Christendom for the
last half-century, has become familiar
with the progress of opinion and
with the varied schools and tendencies
which have appeared from time to
time. He is able, therefore, to treat
erroneous views with fulness, ability,
and candor, meeting acuteness and
learning with acuteness and learning,
and furnishing substantial reason for
the faith that is in him. Baur and
Ewald and Renan are handled with
respect, yet without fear or
compromise. It is not necessary to
affirm
that the positions taken are always
right, or that the reasoning pursued is
always logical and conclusive, but it
may be confidently said that the
general tone is that of a thoughtful,
incisive, learned Christian scholar.
The work embraces, as must every
critical commentary in our day, the
consideration of textual questions. In
this respect nothing is omitted, even
where the variations of reading have
no effect upon translation or
exposition. The author is familiar
with the history of biblical criticism, and
always speaks intelligently. He,
however, does not accept the principles
which, since the days of Lachman, have
gradually approached well-nigh
universal acceptance among scholars.
He clings to the readings of the
Textus Receptus where most writers
give them up, and is unwilling to
accept the authority of the early
uncials as decisive in all cases. Doubtless
there are cases where the internal
evidence is so strong and varied that it
cannot be overborne by any
considerations of another kind, but the author
takes this view quite too often and
too freely. Besides, he gives in to the
opinion of Mr. Scrivener, that as a
cursive MS. may represent one even
older than the oldest known uncial,
this possibility should influence one's
judgment in a disputed case. It is
hard to see why much force should be
allowed to a consideration of this
kind. We argue commonly and
effectively from the known to the
unknown, but this method reverses the
process, and puts conjecture as the
basis of knowledge. Certainly it would
seem better to take the existing data
just as they stand, and draw from
them as a whole that conclusion which
they justify. The original edition of
this work was published before
Westcott and Hort gave to the world the
fruits of their long and elaborate
study of the sacred text, and of course no
reference to the conclusions which
they reached appears in any of the
author's pages; but occasionally the
editor has given in a foot-note a brief
notice of the readings in which these
latest editors agree with Tischendorf
and Tregelles. In cases where the
author differs from the judgment of the
latest critics, he is careful to cite
the evidence and state the reasons upon
which his opinion is founded. In this
way the thoughtful reader is enabled
to see the exact state of the
question, and form his own judgment. It is
gratifying to know that at present the
learned are coming more and more
to a substantial agreement upon the
principles involved in the
determination of questions in biblical
criticism. When this agreement is
once fully assured the application to
points in detail will be greatly
facilitated.
A useful feature of the work is the
citation and classification of opinions
upon important questions of dogma,
together with a statement of the
grounds upon which they rest ( e.g., ,
the introduction to chapters vi.-viii.)
This is done, so far as the writer is
able to judge, with fairness and
intelligence, no important feature
being either omitted or altered. The
author's own views are stated with
clearness and precision. In regard to
what are called the doctrines of
grace, he appears to hold the views of the
Remonstrants, although, so far as may
be gathered from his own words,
these views do not depend upon the
exact words of Scripture so much as
upon what he regards as necessary
corollaries from the free agency of
man. He thinks that he must construct
a Theodicy, and that the strong
language of the apostle, where it
seems to teach or imply Augustinianism,
must be modified or explained so as to
harmonize with our necessary
convictions of the moral liberty of
man. This is always a difficult and
perilous process, and furnishes an
incessant temptation to weaken and
lower the meaning of words beyond what
the laws of philology will allow.
To the writer it seems far better to
adopt the course mentioned by Dr.
Gifford in the Speaker's Commentary
(Romans, p. 65). In discussing the
nature of the divine agency in giving
men “up in the lusts of their hearts to
uncleanness (1:24), he
mentions the view which deems it
permissive , then that which calls it
privative , and finally decides for
that which regards it as judicial , the living
God thus working through a law of our
moral nature. But then he adds: “It
is none the less true that every
downward step is the sinner's own wilful
act, for which he knows himself to be
responsible. These two truths are
recognized by the mind as
irreconcilable in theory, but coexistent in fact;
and the true interpretation of St.
Paul's doctrines must be sought not by
paring down any, but by omitting
none.” Such a conclusion is unwelcome
to those who insist upon having a
complete, coherent, logical system
which will satisfactorily explain the
divine plan of the history of the world,
and reconcile what seem to be utterly
discordant factors in the existing
state of things. But if it be the
method of Scripture which unhesitatingly
affirms human freedom on one hand and
divine sovereignty on the other,
without ever even attempting to
exhibit the hidden link which unites these
antagonisms, what can we do that is
wiser than to follow in the track of the
holy men that are inspired by the Holy
Ghost?
In a few cases that seemed to be of
special importance, the editor has
recorded his dissent from the author
in notes, which, in order not to break
the continuity of the commentary, have
been placed together in a short
appendix at the end of the volume.
Dr. Godet's previous labors as an
exegete, upon the third Gospel and the
fourth, have been a useful preparation
for the present work, the most
difficult which an expositor can
propose to himself. For whatever view one
may adopt as to the occasion or the
object of the Epistle, there can be no
doubt that it is by far the fullest,
most complete, and most systematic
unfolding of Christian doctrine to be
found in the New Testament. It is an
epistle, and as such is adapted to the
local circumstances and special
tendencies of the church to which it
was addressed; yet, besides this, it is
also a comprehensive statement of the
fundamental principles of the
gospel by virtue of which it is the
one true religion for all the nations of the
earth, meeting the deepest wants of
human nature by unfolding a
satisfactory provision for
righteousness in the sight of God and
deliverance from the power of sin and
death. Its wide sweep takes in
natural religion, soteriology, and
ethics. Hence Coleridge does not
exaggerate when he pronounces it “the
most profound work in existence.”
None other grapples with such
difficult problems or discusses them with
such insight and logical force. It is
true there are those who depreciate it,
some voices even amid the ranks of the
orthodox which proclaim it to be
pedantic and overstrained, a merely
human resolution of the great
principles of the gospel into stiff
forms borrowed from the Roman law, and
therefore not only less attractive and
juicy than the words of our Lord, but
also less authoritative and useful.
These persons speak of Paul as
allowed to eclipse his master and seek
to represent the relation between
his writings and the Gospels as one of
decided contrast in substance as
well as form. It is too late in the
day to undertake to refute this
preposterous error. The Epistle has
impressed itself too deeply upon the
creeds of Christendom, and entered too
far into the common religious
consciousness of all believers, to be
set aside in any such summary way.
For better or worse, it is part and
parcel of the New Testament, the norm
of faith, and its very nature must
render it always the dominant factor in
the determination of dogma. The system
of revealed truth could not be
fully set forth or understood until
the facts of redemption had been
accomplished in the death,
resurrection, and ascension of the Son of God,
and in the seal put upon them by the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit at
Pentecost. Then the way of salvation
became capable of full delineation,
and for this purpose it pleased God
that the apostles should be, not only,
as the Saviour promised, led “into all
the truth,” but guided by inspiration
in
unfolding it in permanent records.
These records, though informal
because they are epistles, and
apparently the offspring of peculiar
emergencies which required to be met,
yet furnish the needful explication
of divine things, the material of a
systematic treatment of the subject.
Upon these the constructive minds of
the church in every age have been
diligently employed, and without these
theology could hardly have
attained the dignity of a science.
With them the circle of revelation
becomes complete. By far the most
important of the series is the Epistle
to the Romans. And the intelligence
and stability of any generation of
believers is exactly proportioned to
the degree in which this marrowy and
masculine treatise is studied,
understood, and appreciated. As to its
literary qualities, the eulogy of
Jerome has been reiterated by many a
scholar of subsequent ages: Paulum
proferam quem quotiesque lego,
video mihi non verba audire sed
tonitrua. Videntur quidem verba simplicia
et quasi innocentis hominis et rusticani,
et qui nec facere nec declinare
noverit insidias, sed quocunque
respexeris fulmina sunt. Haeret in causa;
capit omne quod tetigerit; tergum
vertit ut superet: fugam simulat ut
occidat (Ep. 48 ad Pammachiam, c. 13).
The translation is, with a few
trifling exceptions and one serious one, very
well executed, being faithful and
fluent. The serious drawback is in regard
to the text of the apostle as cited by
the author. Professor Godet is careful
to give a new version of the Greek,
corresponding to his view of its
precise meaning. Sometimes the English
translator has observed this and
reproduced its peculiar features in
our tongue, but in general the language
of the Authorized Version has been
adopted. So that occasionally there is
a disagreeable want of conformity
between the text and the comment. The
American editor has gone carefully
over the pages, and sought to make
the apostle's words, as they appear
here, an exact reproduction of the
author's views. This could not be done
uniformly, because in some cases
the author allows himself to vary in
the discussion from the wording
adopted in the text. This matter is of
more importance than would appear
at first blush. For exact idiomatic
translation is a nice accomplishment,
and often proves a more severe test of
insight and culture than an
elaborate exegesis. Dr. Godet
evidently bestowed great pains upon his
version, and desired it to be viewed
along with his exposition. In it he
shows for the most part considerable
exegetical tact; yet it is surprising
how often, or rather how commonly, he
disregards the exact force of the
Greek aorist and translates it by our
perfect. Of course there are places in
which this must be done, owing to our
idiom, but surely it should be
confined to such instances. His
rendering of the particles, the small but
useful hinges of speech, is careful
and accurate.
Talbot W. Chambers
NEW YORK,
March 1, 1883.
PREFACE.
NO one will deny that there is room
for some emotion in giving to the
public a Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans. It avails nothing that
the author is only the interpreter of
a given text. The contents of that text,
accepted or rejected, affect his
readers so decisively, that the author, who
serves them as a guide, feels himself
at every step under a burden of the
gravest responsibility. This
consideration cannot weigh with me, however,
to prevent me from offering to the
church, and especially to the churches
of the French language, this fruit of
a study which, in the course of my
theological teaching, I have been
called again and again to renew.
I shall here state frankly an anxiety
which fills my mind. I believe the divine
conception of salvation, as expounded
by St. Paul in this fundamental
work, to be more seriously threatened
at this moment than ever it was
before. For not only is it assailed by
its declared adversaries, but it is
abandoned by its natural defenders. In
these divine facts of expiation and
justification by faith, which formed,
according to the apostle's declaration,
the gospel which he received by the
revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1),
how many Christians see nothing more,
and would have the church
henceforth to see nothing more, than a
theological system, crammed with
Jewish notions, which St. Paul himself
conceived by meditating on Jesus
Christ and upon His work!
It will not be long, I fear, ere we
see what becomes of the life of individuals
and of the church, as soon as its
roots cease to strike into the fruitful soil
of apostolical revelation. A religious
life languishing and sickly, a
sanctification without vigor or
decision, and no longer distinguished by any
marked feature from the simple
morality of nature—such will be the goal,
very soon reached, of that rational
evolution on which the church, and
particularly our studious youth, are
invited to enter. The least obscuration
of the divine mind, communicated to
the world by means of apostolical
revelation, has for its immediate
effect a diminution of spiritual life and
strength.
Must the church of France, in
particular, lose the best part of its strength
at the very moment when God seems at
length to be bringing France into
its arms? This would be the last
tragedy of its history—sadder still than all
the bloody but heroic days of its
past.
It is neither the empty affirmations
of free thought, nor the vague
teachings of a semi-rationalism—which
does not know itself whether it
believes in a revelation or not—which
will present a sufficient basis for the
religious elevation of a whole nation.
For there is needed a doctrine which
is firm, positive, divine, like the
gospel of Paul.
When the Epistle to the Romans
appeared for the first time, it was to the
church a word in season. Every time
that, in the course of the ages, it has
recovered the place of honor which
belongs to it, it has inaugurated a new
era. It was so half a century ago,
when that revival took place, the
powerful influence of which remains
unexhausted to this hour. To that
movement, which still continues, the
present Commentary seeks to attach
itself. May it also be in some measure
to the church of the present a word
in season!
I may be justly charged with not
having more completely ransacked the
immense library which has gradually
formed round St. Paul's treatise. My
answer is: I might have...but on
condition of never coming to an end.
Should I have done
so?
And as I have been obliged to set a
limit to my study, I have been obliged
to restrict also the exposition of the
results of my labor. If I had allowed
myself to cross the boundaries of
exposition properly so called, to enter
more than I have sometimes done into
the domain of dogmatic
developments, or into that of
practical applications, the two volumes would
have been soon increased to four or
six. It was better for me to incur the
charge of dryness, which will not
repel any serious reader, than to fall into
prolixity, which would have done
greatly more to injure the usefulness of
the Commentary.
The pious Sailer used to say: “O
Christianity, had thy one work been to
produce a St. Paul, that alone should
have rendered thee dear to the
coldest reason.” May we not be
permitted to add: And thou, O St. Paul,
had thy one work been to compose an
Epistle to the Romans, that alone
should have rendered thee dear to
every sound reason.
May the Spirit of the Lord make all of
His own that He has deigned to put
into this work, fruitful within the
church, and in the heart of every reader!
The Author
INTRODUCTION.
COLERIDGE calls the Epistle to the
Romans “the profoundest book in
existence.” Chrysostom had it read to
him twice a week. Luther, in his
famous preface, says: “This Epistle is
the chief book of the New
Testament, the purest gospel. It
deserves not only to be known word for
word by every Christian, but to be the
subject of his meditation day by
day, the daily bread of his
soul....The
more time one spends on it, the more
precious it becomes and the better
it appears.” Melanchthon, in order to
make it perfectly his own, copied it
twice with his own hand. It is the
book which he expounded most
frequently in his lectures. The
Reformation was undoubtedly the work of
the Epistle to the Romans, as well as
of that to the Galatians; and the
probability is that every great
spiritual revival in the church will be
connected as effect and cause with a
deeper understanding of this book.
This observation unquestionably
applies to the various religious
awakenings which have successively
marked the course of our century.
The exposition of such a book is
capable of boundless progress. In
studying the Epistle to the Romans we
feel ourselves at every word face
to face with the unfathomable. Our
experience is somewhat analogous to
what we feel when contemplating the
great masterpieces of mediaeval
architecture, such, for example, as
the Cathedral of Milan. We do not
know which to admire most, the majesty
of the whole or the finish of the
details, and every look makes the
discovery of some new perfection. And
yet the excellence of the book with
which we are about to be occupied
should by no means discourage the
expositor; it is much rather fitted to
stimulate him. “What book of the New
Testament,” says Meyer, in his
preface to the fifth edition of his
commentary, “less entitles the expositor
to spare his pains than this, the
greatest and richest of all the apostolic
works?” Only it must not be imagined
that to master its meaning nothing
more is needed than the philological
analysis of the text, or even the
theological study of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the contents. The true understanding
of this masterpiece of the apostolic
mind is reserved for those who
approach it with the heart described by
Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount, the
heart hungering and thirsting after
righteousness. For what is the Epistle
to the Romans? The offer of the
righteousness of God to the man who
finds himself stripped by the law of
his own righteousness (1:17). To understand
such a book we must yield
ourselves to the current of the
intention under which it was dictated.
M. de Pressense8 has called the great
dogmatic works of the Middle Ages
“the cathedrals of thought.” The
Epistle to the Romans is the cathedral of
the Christian faith.
Sacred criticism, which prepares for
the exposition of the books of the
Bible, has for its object to elucidate
the various questions relating to their
origin; and of those questions there
are always some which can only be
resolved with the help of the exegesis
itself. The problem of the
composition of the Epistle to the
Romans includes several questions of
this kind. We could not answer them in
this introduction without
anticipating the work of exegesis. It
will be better, therefore, to defer the
final solution of them to the
concluding chapter of the commentary. But
there are others, the solution of
which is perfectly obvious, either from the
simple reading of the Epistle, or from
certain facts established by church
history. It cannot be other than
advantageous to the exposition to gather
together here the results presented by
these two sources, which are fitted
to shed light on the origin of our
Epistle. It will afford an opportunity at the
same time of explaining the different
views on the subject which have
arisen in the course of ages.
An apostolical epistle naturally
results from the combination of two factors:
the personality of the author, and the
state of the church to which he
writes. Accordingly, our introduction
will bear on the following points: 1.
The Apostle Paul; 2. The Church of
Rome; 3. The circumstances under
which the Epistle was composed.
In a supplementary chapter we shall
treat of the preservation of the text.
Introductory Articles.
CHAPTER I. THE APOSTLE ST. PAUL.
IF we had to do with any other of St.
Paul's Epistles, we should not think
ourselves called to give a sketch of
the apostle's career. But the Epistle to
the Romans is so intimately bound up
with the personal experiences of its
author, it so contains the essence of
his preaching, or, to use his own
expression twice repeated in our
Epistle, his Gospel (2:16, 16:25), that the
study of the book in this case
imperiously requires that of the man who
composed it. St. Paul's other Epistles
are fragments of his life; here we
have his life itself.
Three periods are to be distinguished
in St. Paul's career: 1. His life as a
Jew and Pharisee; 2. His conversion;
3. His life as a Christian and
apostle. In him these two characters
blend.
I. St. Paul before his Conversion.
Paul was born at Tarsus in Cilicia, on
the confines of Syria and Asia Minor
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
(see his own declarations, Acts 21:39,
22:3). Jerome mentions a tradition,
according to which he was born at
Gischala in Galilee. His family, says
he, had emigrated to Tarsus after the
devastation of their country. If this
latter expression refers to the
devastation of Galilee by the Romans, the
statement contains an obvious
anachronism. And as it is difficult to think
of any other catastrophe unknown to
us, the tradition is without value.
Paul's family belonged to the tribe of
Benjamin, as he himself writes, Rom.
11:1 and Phil. 3:5. His name, Saul or
Saul , was probably common in this
tribe in memory of the first king of
Israel, taken from it. His parents
belonged to the sect of the Pharisees;
compare his declaration before the
assembled Sanhedrim (Acts 23:6): “I am
a Pharisee, the son of a
Pharisee,” and Phil. 3:5. They
possessed, though how it became theirs we
know not, the right of Roman citizens,
which tends, perhaps, to claim for
them a somewhat higher social position
than belonged to the Jews settled
in Gentile countries. The influence
which this sort of dignity exercised on
his apostolic career can be clearly
seen in various passages of Paul's
ministry (comp. Acts 16:37 et seq.,
22:25-29, 23:27).
The language spoken in Saul's family
was undoubtedly the Syro-
Chaldean, usual in the Jewish
communities of Syria. But the young Saul
does not seem to have remained a
stranger to the literary and
philosophical culture of the Greek
world, in the midst of which he passed
his childhood. “Tarsus,” even in Xenophon's
time, as we find him relating (
Anab. 1.2. 23), was “a city large and
prosperous.” In the age of Saul it
disputed the empire of letters with
its two rivals, Athens and Alexandria. In
what degree Greek culture is to be
ascribed to the apostle, has often been
made matter of discussion. In his
writings we meet with three quotations
from Greek poets: one belongs both to
the Cilician poet Aratus (in his
Phaenomena ) and to Cleanthes (in his
Hymn to Jupiter ); it is found in
Paul's sermon at Athens, Acts 17:28:
“As certain also of your own poets
have said, We are also his offspring;”
the second is taken from the Thais of
Menander; it occurs in 1 Cor. 15:33:
“Evil companionships corrupt good
manners;” the third is borrowed from
the Cretan poct Epimenides, in his
work on Oracles; it is found in the
Epistle to Titus 1:12: “One of
themselves, a prophet of their own,
said: The Cretans are always liars,
evil beasts, slow bellies.” Are these
quotations proofs of a certain
knowledge of Greek literature which
Paul had acquired? M. Renan thinks
not. He believes that they can be
explained as borrowings at second
hand, or even from the common usage of
proverbs circulating in
everybody's mouth. This supposition
might apply in all strictness to the
second and third quotation. But there
is a circumstance which prevents us
from explaining the first, that which
occurs in the discourse at Athens, in
the same way. Paul here uses this form
of citation: “ Some of your poets
have said...” If he really expressed
himself thus, he must have known the
use made by the two writers, Aratus
and Cleanthes, of the sentence
quoted by him. In that case he could
not have been a stranger to their
writings. A young mind like Paul's, so
vivacious and eager for instruction,
could not live in a centre such as
Tarsus without appropriating some
elements of the literary life which
flourished around it.
Nevertheless it cannot be doubted that
his education was essentially
Jewish, both in respect to the
instruction he received and to the language
used. Perhaps he was early destined to
the office of Rabbin. His rare
faculties naturally qualified him for
this function, so highly honored of all in
Israel. There is connected with the
choice of this career a circumstance
which was not without value in the
exercise of his apostolical ministry.
According to Jewish custom, the
Rabbins
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
required to be in a position to gain
their livelihood by means of some
manual occupation. This was looked
upon as a guarantee of
independence and a preservative from
sin. The received maxim ran thus:
“The study of the law is good,
provided it be associated with a
trade....Otherwise, it is useless and
even
hurtful.” Saul's parents chose a trade
for him which was probably
connected with the circumstances of
the country where they dwelt, that of
tentmaker
( skhnopoiov" , Acts 18:3), a
term which denoted the art of making a
coarse cloth woven from the hair of
the Cilician goats, and used in
preference to every other kind in the
making of tents. The term used in the
Book of the Acts thus denotes the work
of weaving rather than tailoring.
When we take account of all the
circumstances of Saul's childhood, we
understand the feeling of gratitude
and adoration which at a later date
drew forth from him the words, Gal.
1:15: “God, who separated me from
my mother's womb. ” If it is true that
Paul's providential task was to free
the gospel from the wrappings of
Judaism in order to offer it to the Gentile
world in its pure spirituality, he
required, with a view to this mission, to
unite many seemingly contradictory
qualities. He needed, above all, to
come from the very heart of Judaism;
only on this condition could he
thoroughly know life under the law,
and could he attest by his own
experience the powerlessness of this
alleged means of salvation. But, on
the other hand, he required to be
exempt from that national antipathy to
the Gentile world with which
Palestinian Judaism was imbued. How would
he have been able to open the gates of
the kingdom of God to the
Gentiles of the whole world, if he had
not lived in one of the great centres
of Hellenic life, and been
familiarized from his infancy with all that was
noble and great in Greek culture, that
masterpiece of the genius of
antiquity? It was also, as we have
seen, a great advantage for him to
possess the privilege of a Roman
citizen. He thus combined in his person
the three principal social spheres of
the age, Jewish legalism, Greek
culture, and Roman citizenship. He
was, as it were, a living point of
contact between the three. If, in
particular, he was able to plead the cause
of the gospel in the capital of the
world and before the supreme tribunal of
the empire, as well as before the
Sanhedrim at Jerusalem and the
Athenian Areopagus, it was to his
right as a Roman citizen that he owed
the privilege. Not even the manual
occupation learned in his childhood
failed to play its part in the
exercise of his apostleship. When, for reasons
of signal delicacy, which he has
explained in chap. 9 of his first Epistle to
the Corinthians, he wished to make the
preaching of the gospel, so far as
he was concerned, without charge , in
order to secure it from the false
judgments which it could not have
escaped in Greece, it was this
apparently insignificant circumstance
of his boyhood which put him in a
position to gratify the generous
inspiration of his heart.
The young Saul must have quitted
Tarsus early, for he himself reminds
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, in the
discourse which he delivers to them,
Acts 22, that he had been “brought up
in this city.” In chap. 26:4 he thus
expresses himself not less publicly:
“All the Jews know my manner of life
from my youth at Jerusalem.”
Ordinarily it was at the age of twelve that
Jewish children were taken for the
first time to the solemn feasts at
Jerusalem. They then became, according
to the received phrase, “ sons of
the law. ” Perhaps it was so with
Saul, and perhaps he continued
thenceforth in this city, where some
of his family seem to have been
domiciled. Indeed, mention is made,
Acts 23:16, of a son of his sister who
saved him from a plot formed against
his life by some citizens of
Jerusalem.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
He went through his Rabbinical studies
at the school of the prudent and
moderate Gamaliel, the grandson of the
famous Hillel. “Taught,” says
Paul, “at the feet of Gamaliel,
according to the perfect manner of the law
of our fathers” (Acts 22:3). Gamaliel,
according to the Talmud, knew
Greek literature better than any other
doctor of the law. His reputation for
orthodoxy nevertheless remained
unquestioned. Facts will prove that the
young disciple did not fail to
appropriate the spirit of wisdom and lofty
prudence which distinguished this
eminent man. At his school Saul
became one of the most fervent zealots
for the law of Moses. And practice
with him kept pace with theory. He
strove to surpass all his fellowdisciples
in fulfilling the traditional
prescriptions. This is the testimony
which he gives of himself, Gal. 1:14;
Phil. 3:6. The programme of moral
life traced by the law and elaborated
by Pharisaical teaching, was an ideal
ever present to his mind, and on the
realization of which were
concentrated all the powers of his
will. He resembled that young man who
asked Jesus “by the doing of what
work” he could obtain eternal life. To
realize the law perfectly, and to
merit the glory of the kingdom of heaven
by the righteousness thus
acquired—such was his highest aspiration.
Perhaps there was added to this
ambition another less pure, the ambition
of being able to contemplate himself
in the mirror of his conscience with
unmixed satisfaction. Who knows
whether he did not flatter himself that he
might thus gain the admiration of his
superiors, and so reach the highest
dignities of the Rabbinical hierarchy?
If pride had not clung like a gnawing
worm to the very roots of his
righteousness, the fruit of the tree could not
have been so bitter; and the
catastrophe which overturned it would be
inexplicable. Indeed, it is his own
experience which Paul describes when
he says, Rom. 10:2, 3, in speaking of
Israel: “I bear them record that they
have a zeal of God, but not according
to knowledge. For they, being
ignorant of God's righteousness, and
going about to establish their own
righteousness, have not submitted themselves
unto the righteousness of
God” [that which God offers to the
world in Jesus Christ].
Three natural characteristics, rarely
found in union, must have early
shown themselves in him, and attracted
the attention of his masters from
his student days: vigor of
intellect—it was in this quality that he afterwards
excelled St. Peter; strength of
will—perhaps he was thus distinguished
from St. John; and liveliness of
feeling. Everywhere we find in him an
exuberance of the deepest or most
delicate sensibility, taking the forms of
the most rigorous dialectic, and
joined to a will fearless and invincible.
In his exterior Saul must have been of
a weakly appearance. In 2 Cor.
10:10 he reproduces the reproach of
his adversaries: “His bodily
appearance is weak.” In Acts 14:12 et
seq. we see the Lycaonian crowd
taking Barnabas for Jupiter, and Paul
for Mercury, which proves that the
former was of a higher and more
imposing stature than the latter. But
there is a wide interval between this
and the portrait of the apostle, drawn
in an apocryphal writing of the second
century, the Acts of Paul and
Thecla , a portrait to which M. Renan
in our judgment ascribes far too
much value. Paul is described in this
book as “a man little of stature, bald,
short-legged, corpulent, with eyebrows
meeting, and prominent nose.”
This is certainly only a fancy
portrait. In the second century nothing was
known of St. Paul's apostolate after
his two years' captivity at Rome, with
which the history of the Acts closes;
and yet men still know at that date
what was the appearance of his nose,
eyebrows, and legs! From such
passages as Gal. 4:13, where he
mentions a sickness which arrested him
in Galatia, and 2 Cor. 12:7, where he
speaks of a thorn in the flesh , a
messenger of Satan buffeting him, it
has been
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
concluded that he was of a sickly and
nervous temperament; he has even
been credited with epileptic fits. But
the first passage proves nothing; for a
sickness in one particular case does
not imply a sickly constitution. The
second would rather go to prove the
opposite, for Paul declares that the
bodily affliction of which he speaks
was given him—that is to say, inflicted
for the salutary purpose of providing
the counterpoise of humiliation, to the
exceeding greatness of the revelations
which he received. The fact in
question must therefore rather be one
which supervened during the
course of his apostleship. Is it
possible, besides, that a man so profoundly
shattered in constitution could for
thirty years have withstood the labors
and sufferings of a career such as
that of Paul notoriously was?
Marriage takes place early among the
Jews. Did Saul marry during his
stay at Jerusalem? Clement of Alexandria,
and Eusebius among the
ancients, answer in the affirmative.
Luther and the Reformers generally
shared this view. Hausrath has
defended it lately on grounds which are
not without weight. The passages, 1
Cor. 7:7: “I would that all men were
even as I myself” (unmarried), and
ver. 8: “I say to the unmarried and
widows, It is good for them if they
abide even as I,” do not decide the
question, for Paul might hold this
language as a widower not less than if
he were a celibate. But the manner in
which the apostle speaks, ver. 7, of
the gift which is granted him, and
which he would not sacrifice, of living as
an unmarried man, certainly suits a
celibate better than a widower.
Had Saul, during his sojourn at
Jerusalem, the opportunity of seeing and
hearing the Lord Jesus? If he studied
at the capital at this period, he can
hardly have failed to meet Him in the
temple. Some have alleged in favor
of this supposition the passage, 2
Cor. 5:16: “Yea, though we have known
Christ after the flesh , yet now
henceforth know we Him no more.” But this
phrase is rather an allusion to the
pretensions of some of his adversaries,
who boasted of their personal
relations to the Lord; or more simply still, it
denotes the carnal nature of the
Messianic hope current among the Jews.
As there is not another word in Paul's
Epistles fitted to lead us to suppose
that he himself saw the Lord during
His earthly life, Renan and Mangold
have concluded that he was absent from
the capital at the time of the
ministry of Jesus, and that he did not
return to it till some years later,
about the date of Stephen's martyrdom.
But even had he lived abroad at
that period, he must as a faithful Jew
have returned to Jerusalem at the
feasts. It is certainly difficult to
suppose that St. Paul did not one time or
other meet Jesus, though his writings
make no allusion to the fact of a
knowledge so purely external.
Saul had reached the age which
qualified him for entering on public
duties, at his thirtieth year.
Distinguished above all his fellow-disciples by
his fanatical zeal for the Jewish
religion in its Pharisaic form, and by his
hatred to the new doctrine, which
seemed to him only a colossal
imposture, he was charged by the
authorities of his nation to prosecute
the adherents of the Nazarene sect,
and, if possible, to root it out. After
having played a part in the murder of
Stephen, and persecuted the
believers at Jerusalem, he set out for
Damascus, the capital of Syria, with
letters from the Sanhedrim, which
authorized him to fill the same office of
inquisitor in the synagogues of that
city. We have reached the fact of his
conversion.
II. His Conversion.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
In the midst of his Pharisaical
fanaticism Saul did not enjoy peace. In
chap. 7 of the Epistle to the Romans,
he has unveiled the secret of his
inner life at this period. Sincere as
his efforts were to realize the ideal of
righteousness traced by the law, he
discovered an enemy within him
which made sport of his best
resolutions, namely lust. “I knew not sin but
by the law; for I had not known lust
except the law had said, Thou shalt
not covet.” And thus he made the most
important experience of his life,
that which he has expressed in these
words of the Epistle to the Romans
(3:20): “By the law is the knowledge
of sin.” The painful feeling of his
powerlessness to realize virtue was,
if I may so call it, the negative
preparation for the crisis which
transformed his life. His soul, hungering
and thirsting after righteousness,
found the attempt vain to nourish itself
with its own works; it did not suceed
in satisfying itself.
Another circumstance, fitted to
prepare for the change in a more positive
way, occurred at this period. An
inactive witness of Stephen's martyrdom,
Saul could calmly contemplate the
bloody scene—see the brow of the
martyr irradiated with heavenly
brightness, and hear his invocation
addressed to the glorified Son of man,
in which was revealed the secret of
his love and triumphant hope. His soul
was no doubt deeply pierced in
that hour; and it was with the view of
cicatrizing this wound that he set
himself with redoubled violence to the
work of destruction which he had
undertaken. “The hour shall come,”
Jesus had said to His apostles, “in
which whosoever shall kill you will
think that he renders God worship.” It
was really with this thought that the
young persecutor raged against the
Christians. Nothing but an immediate
interposition on the part of Him
whom he was thus persecuting could
arrest this charger in his full career,
whom the sharp prickings by which he
felt himself inwardly urged only
served to irritate the more.
The attempt has been made in modern
times to explain in a purely natural
way the sudden revolution which passed
over the feelings, convictions,
and life of Saul.
Some have described it as a revolution
of an exclusively inward character,
and purely moral origin. Holsten, in
his work on the Gospel of Peter and
Paul
(1868), has brought to this
explanation all the resources of his remarkable
sagacity. But his own master, Baur,
while describing the appearing of
Jesus at the moment of Saul's
conversion as “the external reflection of a
spiritual process,” could not help
acknowledging, after all, that there
remains in the fact something
mysterious and unfathomable: “We do not
succeed by any analysis, either
psychological or dialectical, in fathoming
the mystery of the act by which God
revealed His Son in Saul.”
The fact is, the more we regard the
moral crisis which determined this
revolution, as one slowly and
profoundly prepared for, the more does its
explanation demand the interposition
of an external and supernatural
agent. We cannot help recalling the
picture drawn by Jesus, of “the
stronger man” overcoming “the strong
man,” who has no alternative left
save to give himself up with all that
he has into the hands of his
conqueror. Saul himself had felt this
sovereign interposition so profoundly,
that in 1 Cor. 9 he distinguishes his
apostleship, as the result of
constraint, from that of the Twelve,
which had been perfectly free and
voluntary (vv. 16-18 comp. with vv. 5,
6). He, Paul, was taken by force. He
was not asked: Wilt thou? It was said
to him, Woe to thee, if thou obey
not! For this reason it is that he
feels the need of introducing into his
ministry, as an afterthought, that
element of free choice which has been
so completely lacking in its origin,
by voluntarily renouncing all pecuniary
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
recompense from the churches, and
imposing on himself the burden of his
own support, and even sometimes that
of his fellow-laborers (comp. Acts
20:34). This fact is the striking
testimony borne by the conscience of Paul
himself to the purely passive
character of the transformation which was
wrought in him.
The account given in the Acts
harmonizes with this declaration of the
apostle's conscience. The very shades
which are observable in the three
narratives of the fact contained in
the book, prove that a mysterious
phenomenon was really perceived by
those who accompanied Saul, and
that the fact belongs in some way to the
world of sense. They did not
discern the person who spoke to him,
so it is said, Acts 9:7, but they were
struck with a brightness surpassing
that of ordinary sunlight (22:9, 26:13);
they did not hear distinctly the words
which were addressed to him (Acts
22:9), but they heard the sound of a
voice (Acts 9:7). Sometimes these
striking details of the narrative have
been alleged as contradictions. But
the hypothesis has become inadmissible
since criticism, by the pen of
Zeller himself, has established beyond
dispute the unity of authorship and
composition characterizing the whole
book. Supposing even the author to
have used documents, it is certain
that he has impressed on his narrative
from one end to the other the stamp of
his style and thought. In such
circumstances, how could there
possibly be a contradiction in a matter of
fact? It must therefore be admitted
that while Saul alone saw the Lord and
understood His words, his
fellow-travellers observed and heard something
extraordinary; and this last
particular suffices to prove the objectivity of the
appearance.
Paul himself was so firmly convinced
on this head, that when proving the
reality of his apostleship, 1 Cor.
9:1, he appeals without hesitation to the
fact that he has seen the Lord , which
cannot apply in his judgment to a
simple vision; for no one ever
imagined that a vision could suffice to
confer apostleship. In chap. 15 of the
same Epistle, ver. 8, Paul closes the
enumeration of the appearances of the
risen Jesus to the apostles with
that which was granted to himself; he
therefore ascribes to it the same
reality as to those, and thus
distinguishes it thoroughly from all the visions
with which he was afterward honored,
and which are mentioned in the
Acts and Epistles. And the very aim of
the chapter proves that what is in
his mind can be nothing else than a
bodily and external appearing of
Jesus Christ; for his aim is to
demonstrate the reality of our Lord's bodily
resurrection, and from that fact to
establish the reality of the resurrection
in general. Now all the visions in the
world could never demonstrate either
the one or the other of these two
facts: Christ's bodily resurrection and
ours. Let us observe, besides, that
when Paul expressed himself on facts
of this order, he was far from
proceeding uncritically. This appears from
the passage, 2 Cor. 12:1 et seq. He
does not fail here to put a question to
himself of the very kind which is
before ourselves. For in the case of the
Damascus appearance he expresses
himself categorically, he guards
himself on the contrary as carefully
in the case mentioned 2 Cor. 12:1 et
seq. against pronouncing for the
external or purely internal character of
the phenomenon: “I know not; God
knoweth,” says he. Gal. 1:1 evidently
rests on the same conviction of the
objectivity of the manifestation of
Christ, when He appeared to him as
risen , to call him to the apostleship.
M. Renan has evidently felt that, to
account for a change so sudden and
complete, recourse must be had to some
external factor acting powerfully
in Saul's moral life. He hesitates
between a storm bursting on Lebanon, a
flash of lightning spreading a sudden
brilliance, or an increase of
ophthalmic fever producing in the mind
of Saul a violent hallucination. But
causes so superficial
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
could never have effected a moral
change so profound and durable as
that to which Paul's whole subsequent
life testifies. Here is the judgment
of Baur himself, in his treatise, Der
Apostel Paulus , on a supposition of
the same kind: “We shall not stop to
examine it, for it is a pure hypothesis,
not only without anything for it in
the text, but having its obvious meaning
against it.” M. Reuss thus expresses
himself: “After all that has been said
in our time, the conversion of Paul
still remains, if not an absolute miracle
in the traditional sense of the word
(an effect without any other cause than
the arbitrary and immediate interposition
of God), at least a psychological
problem insoluble to the present
hour.”
Keim, too, cannot help acknowledging
the objectivity of the appearance of
Christ which determined so profound a
revolution. Only he transports the
fact from the world of the senses into
the not less real one of the spirit. He
thinks that the glorified Lord really
manifested Himself to Paul by means of
a spiritual action exercised over his
soul. This explanation is the forced
result of these two factors: on the
one hand, the necessity of ascribing an
objective cause to the phenomenon; on
the other, the predetermined
resolution not to acknowledge the
miracle of our Lord's bodily
resurrection. But we shall here apply
the words of Baur: “Not only has this
hypothesis nothing for it in the text,
but it has against it its obvious
meaning.” It transforms the three
narratives of the Acts into fictitious
representations, since, according to
this explanation, Saul's fellowtravellers
could have seen nothing at all.
If Paul had not personally experienced
our Lord's bodily presence, he
would never have dared to formulate
the paradox, offensive in the highest
degree, and especially to a Jewish
theologian (Col. 2:9): “In Him dwelleth
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
”
With Saul's conversion a supreme hour
struck in the history of humanity.
If, as Renan justly says, there came
with the birth of Jesus the moment
when “the capital event in the history
of the world was about to be
accomplished, the revolution whereby
the noblest portions of humanity
were to pass from paganism to a
religion founded on the divine unity,” the
conversion of Paul was the means
whereby God took possession of the
man who was to be His instrument in
bringing about this unparalleled
revolution.
The moment had come when the divine
covenant, established in Abraham
with a single family, was to extend to
the whole world, and embrace, as
God has promised to the patriarch, all
the families of the earth. The
universalism which had presided over
the primordial ages of the race, and
which had given way for a time to the
particularism of the theocracy, was
about to reappear in a more elevated
form and armed with new powers,
capable of subduing the Gentile world.
But there was needed an
exceptional agent for this
extraordinary work. The appearing of Jesus had
paved the way for it, but had not yet
been able to accomplish it. The
twelve Palestinian apostles were not
fitted for such a task. We have
found, in studying Paul's origin and
character, that he was the man
specially designed and prepared
beforehand. And unless we are to regard
the work which he accomplished, which
Renan calls “the capital event in
the history of the world,” as
accidental, we must consider the act whereby
he was enrolled in the service of
Christ, and called to this work, as one
directly willed of God, and worthy of
being effected by His immediate
interposition. Christ Himself, with a
strong hand and a stretched-out arm,
when the hour struck, laid hold of the
instrument which the Father had
chosen for Him. These thoughts in
their entirety form precisely the
contents of the preamble to the
Epistle which we propose to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
study (Rom. 1:1-5).
What passed in the soul of Saul during
the three days which followed this
violent disturbance, he himself tells
us in the beginning of chap. 6 of the
Epistle to the Romans. This passage,
in which we hear the immediate
echo of the Damascus experience,
answers our question in the two
words: A death, and a resurrection.
The death was that of the selfidolatrous
Saul, death to his own righteousness,
or, what comes to the
same thing, to the law. Whither had he
been led by his impetuous zeal for
the fulfilling of the law? To make war
on God, and to persecute the
Messiah and His true people! Some
hidden vice must certainly cleave to a
self-righteousness cultivated so
carefully, and which led him to a result so
monstrous. And that vice he now
discerned clearly. In wishing to establish
his own righteousness, it was not God,
it was himself whom he had
sought to glorify. The object of his
adoration was his ego , which by his
struggles and victories he hoped to
raise to moral perfection, with the view
of being able to say in the end:
Behold this great Babylon which I have
built! The disquietude which had
followed him on this path, and driven him
to a blind and bloody fanaticism, was
no longer a mystery to him. The
truth of that declaration of
Scripture, which he had till now only applied to
the Gentiles, was palpable in his own
case. “There is not a just man, no,
not one” (Rom. 3:10). The great fact
of the corruption and condemnation
of the race, even in the best of its
representatives, had acquired for him
the evidence of a personal experience.
This was to him that death which
he afterwards described in the terms:
“I through the law am dead to the
law” (Gal. 2:19).
But, simultaneously with this death,
there was wrought in him a
resurrection. A justified Saul
appeared in the sphere of his consciousness
in place of the condemned Saul, and by
the working of the Spirit this Saul
became a new creature in Christ. Such
is the forcible expression used by
Paul himself to designate the radical
change which passed within him (2
Cor. 5:17).
Accustomed as he was to the Levitical
sacrifices demanded by the law for
every violation of legal ordinances,
Saul had no sooner experienced sin
within him in all its gravity, and
with all its consequences of condemnation
and death, than he must also have felt
the need of a more efficacious
expiation than that which the blood of
animal victims can procure. The
bloody death of Jesus, who had just
manifested Himself to him in His
glory as the Christ, then presented
itself to his view in its true light. Instead
of seeing in it, as hitherto, the
justly- deserved punishment of a false
Christ, he recognized in it the great
expiatory sacrifice offered by God
Himself to wash away the sin of the
world and his own. The portrait of the
Servant of Jehovah drawn by Isaiah, of
that unique person on whom God
lays the iniquity of all...he now
understood to whom he must apply it.
Already the interpretations in the
vulgar tongue, which accompanied the
reading of the Old Testament in the
synagogues, and which were
afterward preserved in our Targums ,
referred such passages to the
Messiah. In Saul's case the veil fell;
the cross was transfigured before him
into the instrument of the world's
salvation; and the resurrection of Jesus,
which had become a palpable fact since
the Lord had appeared to him
bodily, was henceforth the
proclamation made by God Himself of the
justification of humanity, the
monument of the complete amnesty offered
to our sinful world. “My righteous
Servant shall justify many,” were the
words of Isaiah, after having
described the resurrection of the Servant of
Jehovah as the sequel of His voluntary
immolation. Saul now
contemplated with wonder and adoration
the fulfilment of this promise, the
accomplishment of this
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
work. The new righteousness was before
him as a free gift of God in
Jesus Christ. There was nothing to be
added to it. It was enough to accept
and rest on it in order to possess the
blessing which he had pursued
through so many labors and sacrifices,
peace with God.
He entered joyfully into the simple
part of one accepting, believing. Dead
and condemned in the death of the
Messiah, he lived again justified in His
risen person. It was on this
revelation, received during the three days at
Damascus, that Saul lived till his
last breath.
One can understand how, in this state
of soul, and as the result of this
inward illumination, he regarded the
baptism in the name of Jesus which
Ananias administered to him. If in
Rom. 6 he has presented this ceremony
under the image of a death, burial,
and resurrection through the
participation of faith in the death,
burial, and resurrection of Jesus, he has,
in so expressing himself, only applied
to all Christians his own experience
in his baptism at Damascus.
To the grace of justification, of
which this ceremony was to him the
assured seal, there was added that of
regeneration by the creative
operation of the Spirit, who
transformed his reconciled heart, and
produced a new life within it. All the
energy of his love turned to that Christ
who had become his substitute, guilty,
in order to become the author of
his righteousness, and to the God who
had bestowed on him this
unspeakable gift. Thus there was laid
within him the principle of a true
holiness. What had been impossible for
him till then, self- emptying and
life for God, was at length wrought in
his at once humble and joyful heart.
Jesus, who had been his substitute on
the cross, in order to become his
righteousness, was easily substituted
for himself in his heart in order to
become the object of his life. The
free obedience which he had vainly
sought to accomplish under the yoke of
the law, became in his grateful
heart, through the Spirit of Christ, a
holy reality. And he could henceforth
measure the full distance between the
state of a slave and that of a child
of God.
From this experience there could not
but spring up a new light on the true
character of the institutions of the
law. He had been accustomed to regard
the law of Moses as the indispensable
agent of the world's salvation; it
seemed to him destined to become the
standard of life for the whole race,
as it had been for the life of Israel.
But now, after the experience which he
had just made of the powerlessness of
this system to justify and sanctify
man, the work of Moses appeared in all
its insufficiency. He still saw in it a
pedagogical institution, but one
merely temporary. With the Messiah, who
realized all that he had expected from
the law, the end of the Mosaic
discipline was reached. “Ye are
complete in Christ” (Col. 2:10); what
avails henceforth that which was only
the shadow of the dispensation of
Christ (Col. 2:16, 17)?
And who, then, was He in whose person
and work there was thus given to
him the fulness of God's gifts without
the help of the law? A mere man?
Saul remembers that the Jesus who was
condemned to death by the
Sanhedrim was so condemned as a
blasphemer, for having declared
Himself the Son of God. This
affirmation had hitherto seemed to him the
height of impicty and imposture. Now
the same affirmation, taken with the
view of the sovereign majesty of Him
whom he beheld on the way to
Damascus, stamps this being with a
divine seal, and makes him bend the
knee before His sacred person. He no
longer sees in the Messiah merely
a son of David, but the Son of God.
With this change in his conception of
the Christ there is connected
another not less decisive change in
his conception of the Messiah's work.
So long as
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Paul had seen nothing more in the
Messiah than the Son of David, he had
understood His work only as the
glorification of Israel, and the extension
of the discipline of the law to the
whole world. But from the time that God
had revealed to him in the person of
this son of David according to the
flesh (Rom. 1:2, 3) the appearing of a
divine being, His own Son, his view
of the Messiah's work grew with that
of His person. The son of David
might belong to Israel only; but the
Son of God could not have come here
below, save to be the Saviour and Lord
of all that is called man. Were not
all human distinctions effaced before
such a messenger? It is this result
which Paul himself has indicated in
those striking words of the Epistle to
the Galatians (1:16): “When it pleased
God, who separated me from my
mother's womb and called me by His
grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I
might preach Him among the heathen
...” His Son, the heathen: these two
notions were necessarily correlative!
The revelation of the one must
accompany that of the other. This
relation between the divinity of Christ
and the universality of His kingdom is
the key to the preamble of the
Epistle to the Romans.
The powerlessness of the discipline of
the law to save man, the freeness
of salvation, the end of the Mosaic
economy through the advent of the
Messianic salvation, the divinity of
the Messiah, the universal destination
of His work—all these elements of
Paul's new religious conception, of his
gospel , to quote the phrase twice
used in our Epistle (2:16, 16:23), were
thus involved in the very fact of his
conversion, and became more or less
directly disentangled as objects of
consciousness in that internal evolution
which took place under the light of
the Spirit during the three days
following the decisive event. What the
light of Pentecost had been to the
Twelve as the sequel of the
contemplation of Jesus on the earth, which
they had enjoyed for three years, that,
the illumination of those three days
following the sudden contemplation of
the glorified Lord, was to St. Paul.
Everything is connected together in
this masterpiece of grace (1 Tim.
1:16). Without the external
appearance, the previous moral process in
Paul would have exhausted itself in
vain efforts, and only resulted in a
withering blight. And, on the
contrary, without the preparatory process and
the spiritual evolution which followed
the appearance, it would have been
with this as with that resurrection of
which Abraham spoke, Luke 16:31: “If
they hear not Moses and the prophets,
neither would they believe though
one rose from the dead.” The moral
assimilation being wanting, the sight
even of the Lord would have remained
unproductive capital both for Paul
and the world.
III. His Apostleship.
St. Paul became an apostle at the same
time as a believer. The
exceptional contemporaneousness of the
two facts arose from the mode
of his conversion. He himself points
to this feature in 1 Cor. 9:16, 17. He
did not become an apostle of Jesus,
like the Twelve, after being
voluntarily attached to Him by faith,
and in consequence of a freelyaccepted
call. He was taken suddenly from a
state of open enmity. The
divine act whereby he was made a
believer resulted from the choice by
which God had designated him to the
apostleship.
The apostleship of St. Paul lasted
from twenty-eight to thirty years; and as
we have seen that Paul had probably
reached his thirtieth year at the time
of his conversion, it follows that
this radical crisis must have divided his
life into two
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
nearly equal parts of twenty-eight to
thirty years each.
Paul's apostolic career embraces three
periods: the first is a time of
preparation; it lasted about seven
years. The second is the period of his
active apostleship, or his three great
missionary journeys; it covers a
space of fourteen years. The third is
the time of his imprisonments. It
includes the two years of his
imprisonment at Caesarea, and the two of
his captivity at Rome, with the half-
year's voyage which separated the
two periods; perhaps there should be
added to these four or five years a
last time of liberty, extending to one
or two years, closing with a last
imprisonment. Anyhow, the limit of
this third period is the martyrdom
which Paul underwent at Rome, after
those five or seven years of final
labor.
I.
An apostle by right, from the days
following the crisis at Damascus, Paul
did not enter on the full exercise of
his commission all at once, but
gradually. His call referred specially
to the conversion of the Gentiles. The
tenor of the message which the Lord
had addressed to him by the mouth
of Ananias was this: “Thou shalt bear
my name before the Gentiles, and
their kings, and the children of
Israel” (Acts 9:15). This last particular was
designedly placed at the close. The
Jews, without being excluded from
Paul's work, were not the first object
of his mission.
In point of fact, it was with Israel
that he must commence his work, and
the evangelization of the Jews
continued with him to the end to be the
necessary transition to that of the
Gentiles. In every Gentile city where
Paul opens a mission, he begins with
preaching the gospel to the Jews in
the synagogue. There he meets with the
proselytes from among the
Gentiles, and these form the bridge by
which he reaches the purely
Gentile population. Thus there is
repeated on a small scale, at every step
of his career, the course taken on a
grand scale by the preaching of the
gospel over the world. In the outset,
as the historical foundation of the
work of Christianization, we have the
foundation of the Church in Israel by
the labors of Peter at Jerusalem and
in Palestine—such is the subject of
the first part of the Acts (i.-xii.);
then, like a house built on this foundation,
we have the establishment of the
church among the Gentiles by Paul's
labors—such is the subject of the
second part of the Acts (xiii.-xxviii.).
Notwithstanding this, Baur has alleged
that the course ascribed to Paul by
the author of the Acts, in describing
his foundations among the Gentiles,
is historically inadmissible, because
it speaks of exaggerated pains taken
to conciliate the Jews, such as were
very improbable on the part of a man
like St. Paul. But the account in the
Acts is fully confirmed on this point by
Paul's own declarations (Rom. 1:16,
2:9, 10). In these passages the
apostle says, when speaking of the two
great facts, salvation in Christ and
final judgment: “To the Jews first. ”
He thus himself recognizes the right of
priority which belongs to them in
virtue of their special calling, and of the
theocratic preparation which they had
enjoyed. From the first to the last
day of his labors, Paul ceased not to
pay homage in word and deed to the
prerogative of Israel.
There is nothing wonderful, therefore,
in the fact related in the Acts
(10:20), that Paul began immediately
to preach in the Jewish synagogues
of Damascus. Thence he soon extended
his labors to the surrounding
regions of Arabia. According to Gal.
1:17, 18, he consecrated three whole
years to those remote
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
lands. The Acts sum up this period in
the vague phrase “many days”
(9:23). For the apostle it doubtless
formed a time of mental concentration
and personal communion with the Lord,
which may be compared with the
years which the apostles passed with
their Master during His earthly
ministry. But we are far from seeing
in this sojourn a time of external
inactivity. The relation between
Paul's words, Gal. 1:16, and the following
verses, does not permit us to doubt
that Paul also consecrated these
years to preaching. The whole first
chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians
rests on the idea that Paul did not
wait to begin preaching the gospel till
he had conferred on the subject with
the apostles at Jerusalem, and
received their instructions. On the
contrary, he had already entered on his
missionary career when for the first
time he met with Peter.
After his work in Arabia, Paul
returned to Damascus, where his activity
excited the fury of the Jews to the
highest pitch. The city was at that time
under the power of Aretas, king of
Arabia. We do not know the
circumstances which had withdrawn it
for the time from the Roman
dominion, nor how many years this
singular state of things lasted. These
are interesting archaeological
questions which have not yet found their
entire solution. Nevertheless, the
fact of the temporary possession of
Damascus by King Aretas or Hareth at
this very time cannot be called in
question, even apart from the history
of the Acts.
At the close of this first period of
evangelization, Paul felt the need of
making the personal acquaintance of
Peter. With this view he repaired to
Jerusalem. He stayed with him fifteen
days. It was not that Paul needed to
learn the gospel in the school of this
apostle. If such had been his object,
he would not have delayed three whole
years to come seeking this
instruction. But we can easily
understand how important it was for him at
length to confer with the principal
witness of the earthly life of Jesus,
though he knew that he had received
from the Lord Himself the
knowledge of the gospel (Gal. 1:11,
12). What interest must he have felt in
the authentic and detailed account of
the facts of the ministry of Jesus, an
account which he could not obtain with
certainty except from such lips!
Witness the facts which he recites in
1 Cor. 15, and the sayings of our
Lord which he quotes here and there in
his Epistles and discourses
(comp. 1 Cor. 7:10; Acts 20:35).
For two weeks, then, Paul conferred
with the apostles (Acts 9:27, 28); the
indefinite phrase: the apostles , used
in the Acts, denotes, according to
the more precise account given in the
Epistle to the Galatians, Peter and
James. Paul's intention was to remain
some time at Jerusalem; for,
notwithstanding the risk which he ran,
it seemed to him that the testimony
of the former persecutor would produce
more effect here than anywhere
else. But God would not have the
instrument which He had prepared so
carefully for the salvation of the
Gentiles to be violently broken by the rage
of the Jews, and to share the lot of
the dauntless Stephen. A vision of the
Lord, which Paul had in the temple,
warned him to leave the city
immediately (Acts 22:17 et seq.). The
apostles conducted him to the coast
at Cesarea. Thence he repaired—the
history in the Acts does not say how
(9:30), but from Gal. 1:21 we should
conclude that it was by land—to
Syria, and thence to Tarsus, his
native city; and there, in the midst of his
family, he awaited new directions from
the Lord.
He did not wait in vain. After the
martyrdom of Stephen, a number of
believers from Jerusalem, from among
the Greek-speaking Jews ( the
Hellenists ), fleeing from the
persecution which raged in Palestine, had
emigrated to Antioch, the capital of
Syria. In their missionary zeal they had
overstepped the limit which
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
had been hitherto observed by the
preachers of the gospel, and
addressed themselves to the Greek
population. It was the first time that
Christian effort made way for itself
among Gentiles properly so called.
Divine grace accompanied the decisive
step. A numerous and lively
church, in which a majority of Greek
converts were associated with
Christians of Jewish origin, arose in
the capital of Syria. In the account
given of the founding of this
important church by the author of the Acts
(11:20-24), there is a charm, a fascination,
a freshness, which are to be
found only in pictures drawn from
nature.
The apostles and the church of
Jerusalem, taken by surprise, sent
Barnabas to the spot to examine more
closely this unprecedented
movement, and give needed direction.
Then Barnabas, remembering
Saul, whom he had previously
introduced to the apostles at Jerusalem,
went in search of him to Tarsus, and
brought him to this field of action,
worthy as it was of such a laborer.
Between the church of Antioch and
Paul the apostle there was formed from
that hour a close union, the
magnificent fruit of which was the
evangelization of the world.
After laboring together for a whole
year at Antioch, Barnabas and Saul
were sent to Jerusalem to carry aid to
the poor believers of that city. This
journey, which coincided with the
death of the last representative of the
national sovereignty of Israel, Herod
Agrippa (Acts 12), certainly took
place in the year 44; for this is the
date assigned by the detailed account
of Josephus to the death of this
sovereign. It was also about this time,
under Claudius, that the great famine
took place with which this journey
was connected, according to the Acts.
Thus we have here one of the
surest dates in the life of St. Paul.
No doubt this journey to Jerusalem is
not mentioned in the first chapter of
Galatians among the sojourns made
by the apostle in the capital which
took place shortly after his conversion,
and to explain this omission some have
thought it necessary to suppose
that Barnabas arrived alone at
Jerusalem, while Paul stayed by the way.
The text of the Acts is not favorable
to this explanation (Acts 11:30,
12:25). The reason of Paul's silence
about this journey is simpler, for the
context of Gal. 1, rightly understood,
does not at all demand, as has been
imagined, the enumeration of all the
apostle's journeys to Jerusalem in
those early times. It was enough for
his purpose to remind his readers that
his first meeting with the apostles
had not taken place till long after he had
begun his preaching of the gospel. And
this object was fully gained by
stating the date of his first stay at
Jerusalem subsequent to his
conversion. And if he also mentions a
later journey (chap. 2), the fact
does not show that it was the second
journey absolutely speaking. He
speaks of this new journey (the third
in reality), only because it had an
altogether peculiar importance in the
question which formed the object of
his letter to the churches of Galatia.
II.
The second part of the apostle's
career includes his three great
missionary journeys, with the visits
to Jerusalem which separate them.
With these journeys there is connected
the composition of Paul's most
important letters. The fourteen years
embraced in this period must, from
what has been said above, be reckoned
from the year 44 (the date of
Herod Agrippa's death) or a little
later. Thus the end of the national royal
house of Israel coincided with the
beginning of the mission to the Gentiles.
Theocratic particularism beheld the
advent of Christian universalism.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Paul's three missionary journeys have
their common point of departure in
Antioch. This capital of Syria was the
cradle of the mission to the Gentiles,
as Jerusalem had been that of the
mission to Israel. After each of his
journeys Paul takes cares to clasp by
a journey to Jerusalem the bond
which should unite those two works
among Gentiles and Jews. So deeply
did he himself feel the necessity of
binding the churches which he
founded in Gentile lands to the
primitive apostolic church, that he went the
length of saying: “lest by any means I
had run, or should run, in vain ”
(Gal. 2:2).
The first journey was made with
Barnabas. It did not embrace any very
considerable geographical space; it
extended only to the island of Cyprus,
and the provinces of Asia Minor
situated to the north of that island. The
chief importance of this journey lies
in the missionary principle which it
inaugurates in the history of the
world. It is to be observed that it is from
this time Saul begins to bear the name
of Paul (Acts 13:9). It has been
supposed that this change was a mark
of respect paid to the proconsul
Sergius Paulus, converted in Cyprus,
the first-fruits of the mission to the
Gentiles. But Paul had nothing of the
courtier about him. Others have
found in the name an allusion to the
spirit of humility—either to his small
stature, or to the last place occupied
by him among the apostles ( pau'lo" ,
in the sense of the Latin paulus,
paululus, the little ). This is ingenious, but
far-fetched. The true explanation is
probably the following: Jews travelling
in a foreign country liked to assume a
Greek or Roman name, and readily
chose the one whose sound came nearest
to their Hebrew name. A Jesus
became a Jason , a Joseph a Hegesippus
, a Dosthai a Dositheus , an
Eliakim an Alkimos. So, no doubt, Saul
became Paul.
Two questions arise in connection with
those churches of southern Asia
Minor founded in the course of the
first journey. Are we, with some writers
(Niemeyer, Thiersch, Hausrath, Renan
in Saint Paul , pp. 51 and 52), to
regard these churches as the same
which Paul afterward designates by
the name of churches of Galatia, and
to which he wrote the Epistle to the
Galatians (Gal. 1:2; 1 Cor. 16:2)? It
is certain that the southern districts of
Asia Minor, Lycaonia, Pisidia, etc.,
which were the principal theatre of this
first journey, belonged at that time,
administratively speaking (with the
exception of Pamphylia), to the Roman
province of Galatia. This name,
which had originally designated the
northern countries of Asia Minor,
separated from the Black Sea by the
narrow province of Paphlagonia, had
been extended by the Romans a short
time previously to the districts
situated more to the south, and
consequently to the territories visited by
Paul and Barnabas. And as it cannot be
denied that Paul sometimes uses
official names, he might have done so
also in the passages referred to.
This question has some importance,
first with a view to determining the
date of the Epistle to the Galatians,
and then in relation to other questions
depending on it. According to our
view, the opinion which has just been
mentioned falls to the ground before
insurmountable difficulties.
1. The name Galatia is nowhere applied
in Acts 13 and 14 to the theatre
of the first mission. It does not
appear till later, in the account of the
second mission, and only after Luke
has spoken of the visit made by Paul
and Silas to the churches founded on
occasion of the first (16:5). When
Luke names Phrygia and Galatia in ver.
6, it is unquestionable that he is
referring to different provinces from
those in which lay the churches
founded during the first journey, and
which are mentioned vv. 1-5.
2. In 1 Peter 1:1, Galatia is placed
between Pontus and Cappadocia, a
fact
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
which forbids us to apply the term to
regions which are altogether
southern.
3. But the most decisive reason is
this: Paul reminds the Galatians (4:13)
that it was sickness which forced him
to stay among them, and which thus
led to the founding of their churches.
How is it possible to apply this
description to Paul's first mission,
which was expressly undertaken with
the view of evangelizing the countries
of Asia, whither he repaired with
Barnabas?
From all this it follows that Paul and
Luke used the term Galatia in its
original and popular sense; that the
apostle did not visit the country thus
designated till the beginning of his
second journey, and that,
consequently, the Epistle to the
Galatians was not written, as Hausrath
thinks, in the course of the second
journey, but during the third, since this
Epistle assumes that two sojourns in
Galatia had taken place previously to
its composition.
A second much more important question
arises when we inquire what
exactly was the theoretic teaching and
the missionary practice of Paul at
this period. Since Ruckert's time,
many theologians, Reuss, Sabatier,
Hausrath, Klo1pper , etc., think that
Paul had not yet risen to the idea of
the abrogation of the law by the
gospel. Hausrath even alleges that the
object which Paul and Barnabas had in
Asia Minor was not at all to
convert the Gentiles—were there not
enough of them, says he, in Syria
and Cilicia?—but that their simple
object was to announce the advent of
the Messiah to the Jewish communities
which had spread to the interior.
He holds that it was the unexpected
opposition which their preaching met
with on the part of the Jews, which
led the two missionaries to address
themselves to the Gentiles, and to
suppress in their interest the rite of
circumcision. To prove this view of
the apostle's teaching in those earliest
times, there are alleged: (1) the fact
of the circumcision of Timothy at this
very date (Acts 16:3); (2) these words
in Gal. 5:11: “If I yet preach
circumcision, why do I yet suffer
persecution? Then is the offence of the
cross ceased;” (3) the words, 2 Cor.
5:16: “Yea, though we have known
Christ after the flesh, we know Him in
that manner no more. ”
Let us first examine the view of
Hausrath. Is it credible that the church of
Antioch, itself composed chiefly of
Christians of Greek origin and
uncircumcised (comp. the very emphatic
account of this fact, Acts 11:20
et seq.), would have dreamt of drawing
the limits supposed by this critic to
the commission given to its
messengers? This would have been to deny
the principle of its own foundation,
the free preaching of the gospel to the
Greeks. The step taken by this church
was accompanied with very solemn
circumstances (a revelation of the
Holy Spirit, fasting and prayer on the
part of the whole church, an express
consecration by the laying on of
hands, Acts 13:1 et seq.). Why all
this, if there had not been the
consciousness that they were doing a
work exceptionally important and in
certain respects new? And instead of
being a step in advance, this work
would be in reality, on the view
before us, a retrograde step as compared
with what had already taken place at
Antioch itself! The study of the
general course of the history of the
Acts, and of the progress which it is
meant to prove, forces us to the
conclusion that things had come to a
decisive moment. The church undertook
for the first time, and with a full
consciousness of the gravity of its
procedure, the conquest of the Gentile
world.
The question, what at that time was
the apostle's view in regard to the
abrogation of the law, presents two
aspects, which it is important to study
separately. What did he think of
subjecting the Gentiles to the institutions
of the law? and did he still hold its
validity for believing Jews?
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
According to Gal. 1:16, he knew
positively from the first day that if God
had revealed His Son to him in so
extraordinary a way, it was “that he
might proclaim Him among the Gentiles.
” This conviction did not follow
his conversion; it accompanied it. Why
should the Lord have called a new
apostle, in a way so direct and
independent of the Twelve, if it had not
been with a view to a new work destined
to complete theirs? It is with a
deliberate purpose that Paul, in the
words quoted, does not say the Christ
, but His Son. This latter expression
is tacitly contrasted with the name
Son of David , which designates the
Messiah only in His particular relation
to the Jewish people.
Now it cannot be admitted that Paul,
knowing his mission to be destined
to the Gentiles, would have commenced
it with the idea of subjecting them
to the discipline of the law, and that
it was not till later that he modified this
point of view. According to Gal. 1:1
and 11-19, the gospel which he now
preaches was taught him by the
revelation of Jesus Christ , and without
human interposition. And when did this
revelation take place? ver. 15 tells
us clearly: “when it pleased God to
reveal His Son to him,” that is to say,
at the time of his conversion. His
mode of preaching the gospel therefore
dates from that point, and we cannot
hold, without contradicting his own
testimony, that any essential
modification took place in the contents of his
preaching between the days following
his conversion and the time when
he wrote the Epistle to the Galatians.
Such a supposition, especially when
an Epistle is in question in which he
directly opposes the subjection of the
Gentiles to circumcision, would imply
a reticence unworthy of his
character. He must have said: It is
true, indeed, that at the first I did not
think and preach on this point as I do
now; but I afterward changed my
view. Facts on all sides confirm the
declaration of the apostle. How, if
during the first period of his
apostleship he had circumcised the Gentile
converts, could he have taken Titus
uncircumcised to Jerusalem? How
could the emissaries who had come from
that city to Antioch have found a
whole multitude of believers on whom
they sought to impose
circumcision? How would the Christians
of Cilicia, who undoubtedly owed
their entrance into the church to
Paul's labors during his stay at Tarsus,
have still needed to be reassured by
the apostles in opposition to those
who wished to subject them to
circumcision (Acts 15:23, 24)? Peter in the
house of Cornelius does not think of
imposing this rite (Acts 10 and 11);
and Paul, we are to suppose, was less
advanced than his colleague, and
still less so than the evangelists who
founded the church of Antioch!
It is more difficult to ascertain
precisely what Paul thought at the beginning
of his apostleship as to the abolition
or maintenance of the Mosaic law for
believing Jews. Rationally speaking,
it is far from probable that so
sequacious a thinker as St. Paul,
after the crushing experience which he
had just had of the powerlessness of
the law either to justify or sanctify
man, was not led to the conviction of
the uselessness of legal ordinances
for the salvation not only of
Gentiles, but of Jews. This logical conclusion
is confirmed by an express declaration
of the apostle. In the Epistle to the
Galatians, 2:18-20, there are found
the words: “ I through the law am dead
to the law , that I may live unto God;
I am crucified with Christ.” If it was
through the law that he died to the
law, this inner crisis cannot have taken
place till the close of his life under
the law. It was therefore in the very
hour when the law finished its office
as a schoolmaster to bring him to
Christ, that this law lost its
religious value for his conscience, and that,
freed from its yoke, he began to live
really unto God in the faith of Christ
crucified. This saying, the utterance
of his inmost consciousness,
supposes no
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
interval between the time of his
personal breaking with the law (a death)
and the beginning of his new life. His
inward emancipation was therefore
one of the elements of his conversion.
It seems to be thought that the idea
of the abrogation of the law was, at
the time of Saul's conversion, a quite
unheard-of notion. But what then had
been the cause of Stephen's death?
He had been heard to say “that Jesus
of Nazareth would destroy this
temple and change the institutions
which Moses had delivered” (Acts
6:13, 14). Among the accusers of
Stephen who repeated such sayings,
Saul himself was one. Stephen, the
Hellenist , had thus reached before
Paul's conversion the idea of the
abolition of the law which very naturally
connected itself with the fact of the
destruction of the temple, announced,
as was notorious, by Jesus. Many
prophetic sayings must have long
before prepared thoughtful minds for
this result. Certain of the Lord's
declarations also implied it more or
less directly. And now by a divine
irony Saul the executioner was called
to assert and realize the programme
traced by his victim!
The gradual manner in which the Twelve
had insensibly passed from the
bondage of the law to the personal
school of Christ, had not prepared
them so completely for such a
revolution. And now is the time for
indicating the true difference which
separated them from Paul, one of the
most difficult of questions. They
could not fail to expect as well as
Stephen and Paul, in virtue of the
declarations already quoted, the
abrogation of the institutions of the
law. But they had not perceived in the
cross, as Paul did (Gal. 2:19, 20),
the principle of this emancipation. They
expected some external event which
would be the signal of this abolition,
as well as of the passage from the
present to the future economy; the
glorious appearing of Christ, for
example, which would be as it were the
miraculous counterpart of the Sinaitic
promulgation of the law. From this
point of view it is easy to explain
their expectant attitude as they
considered the progress of Paul's
work. On the other hand, we can
understand why he, notwithstanding his
already formed personal
conviction, did not feel himself
called to insist on the practical application
of the truth which he had come to
possess in so extraordinary a way. The
Twelve were the recognized and titled heads
of the church so long as this
remained almost wholly the
Jewish-Christian church founded by them.
Paul understood the duty of
accommodating his step to theirs. So he did
at Jerusalem, in the great council of
which we are about to speak, when
he accepted the compromise which
guarded the liberty of the Gentiles,
but supported the observances of the
law for Christians who had come
from Judaism. And later still, when he
had founded his own churches in
the Gentile world, he did not cease to
take account with religious respect
of Jewish-Christian scruples relating
to the Mosaic law. But it was with him
a matter of charity, as he has
explained 1 Cor. 9:19-22; and this wise
mode of action does not authorize the
supposition that at any time after
his conversion his teaching was
contrary to the principle so exactly and
logically expressed by him: “Christ is
the end of the law” (Rom. 10:4).
The circumcision of Timothy in Paul's
second journey, far from betraying
any hesitation in his mind on this point,
is wholly in favor of our view.
Indeed, Paul did not decide on this
step, because he still regarded
circumcision as obligatory on
believing Jews. The point in question was
not Timothy's salvation, but the
influence which this young Christian might
exercise on the Jews who surrounded
him: “Paul took and circumcised
him,” says the narrative, “ because of
the Jews who were in those regions.
” If this act had been dictated by a
strictly religious
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
scruple, Paul must have carried it out
much earlier, at the time of
Timothy's baptism. The latter, indeed,
was already a Christian when Paul
arrived at Lystra the second time and
circumcised him. (“ There was there
a disciple ,” we read in Acts 16:1.)
At the beginning of the second journey,
Timothy was therefore a believer and a
member of the church, though not
circumcised. This fact is decisive. It
was precisely because the legal
observance had become in Paul's
estimation a matter religiously
indifferent, that he could act in this
respect with entire liberty, and put
himself, if he thought good, “under
the law with those who were under the
law, that he might gain the more.”
Such was the course he followed on
this occasion.
The words, Gal. 5:11: “If I yet preach
circumcision, why do I yet suffer
persecution?” on which Reuss mainly
supports his view, do not warrant
the conclusion drawn from them by
means of a false interpretation. Paul is
supposed to be alluding to a
calumnious imputation made by his
adversaries, who, it is said, led the
Galatians to believe that previously,
and elsewhere than among them, Paul
had been quite ready to impose
circumcision on his Gentile converts.
Paul, according to the view in
question, is replying to this charge,
that if to the present hour he yet
upheld circumcision, as he had really
done in the earliest days after his
conversion, the Jews would not
continue to persecute him as they were
still doing. But the reasoning of
Paul, thus understood, would assume a
fact notoriously false, namely, that
he had only begun to be persecuted by
the Jews after he had ceased to make
the obligatoriness of circumcision
one of the elements of his preaching
of the gospel. Now it is beyond
dispute that persecution broke out
against Paul immediately after his
conversion, and even at Damascus. It
was the same at Jerusalem soon
after. It is therefore absolutely
impossible that Paul could have thought for
a single instant of explaining the
persecutions to which he was subjected
by the Jews, by the fact that he had
ceased at a given point of his ministry
to preach circumcision, till then
imposed by him. Besides, if Paul had
really been accused in Galatia of
having acted and taught there differently
from what he had done previously and
everyhere else, he could not have
confined himself to replying thus in
passing, and by a simple allusion
thrown in at the end of his letter, to
so serious a charge. He must have
explained himself on this main point
in the beginning in chap. 1 and 2,
where he treats of all the questions
relating to his person and apostleship.
We therefore regard the proposed
interpretation as inadmissible. The
change of which the apostle speaks is
not one which had taken place in
his system of preaching; it is a
change which he might freely introduce
into it now if he wished, and one by
which he would immediately cause
the persecution to which he was
subjected to cease. “If I would consent to
join to my preaching of the gospel
that of circumcision, for which I was
fanatically zealous during the time of
my Pharisaism, the persecution with
which the Jews assail me would
instantly cease. Thereby the offence of
the cross would no longer exist in
their minds. Transformed into an
auxiliary of Judaism, the cross itself
would be tolerated and even
applauded by my adversaries.” What
does this signify? The apostle
means, that if he consented to impose
circumcision on those of the
Gentiles whom he converted by the
preaching of the cross, the Jews
would immediately applaud his mission.
For his conquests in Gentile
lands would thus become the conquests
of Judaism itself. In fact, it would
please the Jews mightily to see
multitudes of heathen entering the church
on condition that all those new
entrants by baptism became at the same
time members of the Israelitish people
by circumcision. On
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
this understanding it would be the Jewish
people who would really profit
by Paul's mission; it would become
nothing more than the conquest of the
world by Israel and for Israel. The
words of Paul which we are explaining
are set in their true light by others
which we read in the following chapter
(Gal. 6:12): “As many as desire to
make a fair show in the flesh, they
constrain you to be circumcised, only
that they may not be persecuted for
the cross of Christ.” Certain
preachers therefore, Paul's rivals in Galatia,
were using exactly the cowardly
expedient which Paul here rejects, in
order to escape persecution from the
Jews. To the preaching of the cross
to the Gentiles they added the
obligatoriness of circumcision, and the
Jews easily tolerated the former in
consideration of the advantage which
they derived from the latter. This
anti-Christian estimate was probably that
of those intriguers at Jerusalem whom
Paul calls, Gal. 2, false brethren
unawares brought in. Christianity,
with its power of expansion, became in
their eyes an excellent instrument for
the propagation of Judaism. So we
find still at the present day many
liberalized Jews applauding the work of
the Christian church in the heathen
world. They consider Christianity to be
the providential means for propagating
Irsaelitish monotheism, as paving
the way for the moral reign of Judaism
throughout the whole world. And
they wait with folded arms till we
shall have put the world under their feet.
The difference between them and St.
Paul's adversaries is merely that the
latter allowed themselves to act so
because of the theocratic promises,
while modern Jews do so in name of the
certain triumph to be achieved by
their purely rational religion.
Thus the words of Paul, rightly understood,
do not in the least imply a
change which had come over his
teaching in regard to the maintenance of
circumcision and the law.
As to the passage 2 Cor. 5:16, we have
already seen that the phrase:
knowing Christ no more after the flesh
, does not at all refer to a new view
posterior to his conversion, but
describes the transformation which had
passed over his conception of the
Messiah in that very hour.
We are now at the important event of
the council of Jerusalem , which
stands between the first and second
journey.
Subsequently to their mission to
Cyprus and Asia Minor, which probably
lasted some years, Paul and Barnabas
returned to Antioch, and there
resumed their evangelical work. But
this peaceful activity was suddenly
disturbed by the arrival of certain
persons from Jerusalem. These
declared to the believing Gentiles
that salvation would not be assured to
them in Christ unless they became
members of the Israelitish people by
circumcision. To understand so strange
an allegation, we must transport
ourselves to the time when it was
given forth. To whom had the Messianic
promises been addressed? To the Jewish
people, and to them alone.
Therefore the members of this people
alone had the right to appropriate
them; and if the Gentiles wished to
share them, the only way open to them
was to become Jews. The reasoning
seemed faultless. On the other
hand, Paul understood well that it cut
short the evangelization of the
Gentile world, which would never be
made Christian if in order to become
so it was first necessary to be
incorporated with the Jewish nation. But
more than all else, the argument
appeared to him to be radically vicious,
because the patriarchal promises,
though addressed to the Jews, had a
much wider range, and really concerned
the whole world.
Baur asserted that those who
maintained the particularistic doctrine at
Antioch represented the opinion of the
Twelve, and Renan has made
himself the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
champion of this view in France. Baur
acknowledges that the narrative of
the Acts excludes, it is true, such a
supposition. For this book expressly
ascribes the lofty pretensions in
question to a retrograde party, composed
of former Pharisees (Acts 15:1-5), and
puts into the mouth of the apostles
the positive disavowal of such
conduct. But the German critic boldly
solves this difficulty, by saying that
the author of the Acts has, as a result
of reflection, falsified the history
with the view of disguising the conflict
which existed between Paul and the
Twelve, and of making the later
church believe that these personages
had lived on the best
understanding. What reason can Baur
allege in support of this severe
judgment passed on the author of the
Acts? He rests it on the account of
the same event given by Paul himself
in the beginning of Gal. 2, and
seeks to prove that this account is
incompatible with that given in the Acts.
As the question is of capital
importance in relation to the beginnings of
Christianity, and even for the
solution of certain critical questions relative
to the Epistle to the Romans, we must
study it here more closely. We
begin with the account of Paul in
Galatians; we shall afterward compare it
with that of the Acts.
According to the former (Gal. 2), in
consequence of the dispute which
arose at Antioch, Paul, acting under
guidance from on high, determined to
go and have the question of the
circumcision of the Gentiles decided at
Jerusalem by the apostles (ver. 1). “A
proof,” observes Reuss, “that Paul
was not afraid of being contradicted
by the heads of the mother church.”
This observation seems to us to
proceed on a sounder psychology than
that of Renan, who asserts, on the
contrary, that at Antioch “there was a
distrust of the mother church.” It was
in the same spirit of confidence that
Paul resolved to take with him to
Jerusalem a young Gentile convert
named Titus. The presence of this
uncircumcised member in the church
assemblies was meant to assert
triumphantly the principle of liberty. This
bold step would have been imprudence
itself, if, as Renan asserts, the
church of Jerusalem had been
“hesitating, or favorable to the most
retrograde party.”
Paul afterward (ver. 2) speaks of a
conference which he had with the
persons of most repute in the
apostolic church—these were, as we learn
from the sequel, Peter and John the
apostles, and James the Lord's
brother, the head of the council of
elders at Jerusalem; Paul explained to
them in detail ( ajneqevmhn ) the
gospel as he preached it among the
Gentiles, free from the enforcement of
circumcision and legal ceremonies
generally. He completes the account, ver.
6, by subjoining that his three
interlocutors found nothing to add to
his mode of teaching ( oujde;n
prosanevqento ). In Greek, the
relation between this term added and that
which precedes ( explained ) is
obvious at a glance. Paul's teaching
appeared to them perfectly sufficient.
Paul interrupts himself at ver. 3, to
mention in passing a corroborative and
significant fact. The false brethren
brought in , maintained that Titus
should not be admitted to the church
without being circumcised. In other
circumstances, Paul, in accordance
with his principle of absolute liberty
in regard to external rites (1 Cor.
9:20), might have yielded to such a
demand. But in this case he refused;
for the question of principle being
involved, it was impossible for him to
give way. Titus was admitted as an
uncircumcised member. True, Renan
draws from the same text an entirely
opposite conclusion. According to
him, Paul yielded for the time, and
Titus underwent circumcision. This
interpretation, which was Tertullian's,
is founded on a reading which has
no authorities on its side except the
most insufficient; as little can it be
maintained in view of the context. As
to the apostles, they must
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
necessarily have supported Paul's
refusal, otherwise a rupture would have
been inevitable. But not only were the
bonds between them not broken;
they were, on the contrary,
strengthened. Paul's apostolic call, with a view
to the Gentiles, was expressly
recognized by those three men, the
reputed heads of the church (vv. 7-
9); Peter in his turn was unanimously
recognized as called of God to
direct the evangelization of the Jews.
Then the five representatives of the
whole church gave one another the hand
of fellowship , thus to seal the
unity of the work amid the diversity
of domains. Would this mutual
recognition and this ceremony of
association have been possible between
Paul and the Twelve, if the latter had
really maintained the doctrine of the
subjection of the Gentiles to
circumcision? St. Paul in the Epistle to the
Galatians (1:8) makes this
declaration: “Though we or an angel from
heaven preach any other gospel unto
you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be
accursed!” Now the contents of this
preaching of the gospel by Paul are
also found thus stated in the Epistle
(vv. 2-
4): “Behold, I say unto you, that if
ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you
nothing.” And he would have
recognized, he, Paul, as coming from God
equally with his own, the apostleship
of Peter, and the teaching of Peter
(2:7, 8), of Peter preaching
circumcision! The result flowing from Paul's
narrative is not doubtful. The liberty
of the Gentiles in respect of
circumcision was expressly recognized
at Jerusalem by the apostles and
the church. The narrow Judaizers alone
persisted in their obstinacy, and
formed a minority ever more and more
hostile to this apostolic course.
It is less easy to know from Paul's
account what was agreed on in regard
to converts from among the Jews. The
apostle's entire silence on this
point leads us to suppose that the
question was not once raised. Paul was
too prudent to demand a premature
solution on so delicate a point. His
silence indicates that the old practice,
according to which Jewish-
Christians continued to observe the
law, was tacitly maintained.
We pass now to the account given in
Acts. Luke does not speak of the
revelation which determined Paul to
submit the question to the jurisdiction
of the apostles. Natural as it is for
Paul to mention this biographical detail,
the explanation of its omission in a
history of a more general character is
equally easy.
Acts presents the picture of a plenary
assembly of the church before
which the question was discussed,
especially by Peter and James. This
account differs from that of
Galatians, in which we read only of a private
conference. Reuss does not think that
this difference can be explained.
But a private talk between the leaders
of two negotiating parties does not
exclude a public meeting in which all
interested take part. After mentioning
the exposition which he gave of his
teaching, without saying exactly to
whom, ver. 2, Paul adds an explanatory
remark in the words: “and that
privately to them which were of
reputation.” By this remark it would seem
that he desires tacitly to contrast
the private conversation which he relates
with some other and more general
assembly which the reader might have
in his mind while perusing his
narrative. The conclusion was therefore
prepared in the private conversation,
and then solemnly confirmed in the
plenary council. Luke's narrative is
the complement of Paul's. The interest
of Paul, in his attitude to the
Galatians, was to prove the recognition of his
gospel and apostleship by the very
apostles who were being opposed to
him; hence the mention of the private
conference. Luke, wishing to
preserve the deeply interesting and
precious document which emanated
from the council of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Jerusalem, required above all to
narrate the latter.
According to Luke, the speeches of
Peter and James conclude alike for
the emancipation of the Gentiles. This
is perfectly in keeping with the
attitude ascribed to them by St. Paul:
“ they added nothing to my
communication.” James speaks of it in
the Acts, at the close of his
speech, as a matter of course, and
about which there is no need of
discussion, that as to the Christians
of Jewish origin, the obligation to live
conformably to the observances of the
law remains as before. Now we
have just seen that this is exactly
what follows from Paul's silence on this
aspect of the question.
Finally, in its letter to Gentile
believers, the council asks them to abstain
from three things, meats offered to
idols, animals that have been
strangled, and impurity (vv. 28, 29).
Is not this demand in contradiction to
the words of Paul: they added nothing
to me? No, for the apostolical letter
in the Acts immediately adds: “From
which things if ye keep yourselves,
ye shall do well. ” The phrase used
would have been very different if it had
been meant to express a condition of
salvation added to Paul's teaching.
The measure which is here called for
is so on the ground of the interests
of the church.
In fact, this was the price paid for
union between the two parties of which
Christendom was composed. Without the
two former conditions, the life of
Gentile believers continued, in the
view of Jewish Christians, to be
polluted with idolatry, and penetrated
through and through with malign,
and even diabolical influences. As to
the third demand, it figures here
because impurity was generally
considered among the Gentiles to be as
indifferent, morally speaking, and
consequently as allowable, as eating
and drinking (1 Cor. 6:12-14). And we
can the better understand why
licentiousness is specially mentioned
in this passage, when we remember
that the most shameless impurities had
in a manner their obligatory and
religious part in idolatrous worships.
As to the delicate question whether
this compromise should be merely
temporary, or if it had a permanent
value in the view of the church of
Jerusalem, no one even thought of
suggesting the alternative. They
moved as the occasion demanded. Every
one thought that he had fulfilled
his task by responding to the
necessities of the present situation. The
really important fact was, that the
emancipation of the Gentiles from legal
observances was irrevocably recognized
and proclaimed by the Jewish-
Christian church. Paul might assuredly
congratulate himself on such a
result. For though Jewish believers
remained still tacitly subject to the
Mosaic ritual, no positive decision
had been passed on the subject, and
the apostle was too far-seeing not to
understand what must eventually
follow the liberty granted to the
Gentiles. Once these were set free from
the Mosaic discipline, it was thereby
established that the Messianic
salvation was not bound up with the
institutions of the law. Entrance into
the church was independent of
incorporation with Israel. All that Paul
desired was implicitly contained in
this fact. Levitical ritual thus descended
to the rank of a simple national
custom. By remaining faithful to it,
believing Jews kept up their union
with the rest of the elect people, an
indispensable condition of the mission
to Israel, till the day when God, by
a striking dispensation, should
Himself put an end to the present order of
things. Paul was too prudent not to
content himself with such a result, the
consequences of which the future could
not fail to develop. The
conclusion to which we are thus
brought, on this important and difficult
question, is in its general features
at one with that which has been
recently stated by three men of
undoubted scientific eminence, Weizsacker
, Harnack, and even
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Keim. The first, in his admirable
treatise on the church of Corinth, thus
expresses himself on the question:
“The apostles remained Jews, and
confined themselves to the mission
among the Jews. But they granted to
Gentile Christianity so thorough a
recognition, that we must conclude that
their religious life had its centre no
longer in the law, but in their faith as
such....In fact, Paul never
reckoned the Twelve among his
adversaries. He always distinguished
them expressly from these, both before
the conflict, by choosing them as
arbiters, and after it” (Gal. 2).
Harnack, the man of our day who perhaps
best knows the second century, thus
expressed himself recently: “The
apocalyptic writings are the last strongholds
within which a once powerful
party still intrenches itself, whose
watchword was: either Jewish-Christian
or Gentile-Christian (the Tubingen
school). The influence of Jewish-
Christianity on the catholic church in
the course of formation, must
henceforth be estimated at an almost
inappreciable quantity.” Keim, in a
recent work, demonstrates the general
harmony of the narratives given by
Paul and Luke, except on one point
(the conditions imposed on Gentile-
Christians in the Acts, which he holds
to be a gloss added to the original
account); and he appreciates almost
exactly as we do the mutual attitude
of Paul and the Twelve. Impartial
science thus returns to the verdict of old
Irenaeus: “The apostles granted us
liberty, us Gentiles, referring us to the
guidance of the Holy Spirit; but they
themselves conformed piously to the
institutions of the law established by
Moses.” The exposition of Renan,
given under Baur's influence, is a
mere fancy picture.
Returning to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas
took with them Silas, one of the
eminent men belonging to the church of
Jerusalem, who was charged with
delivering the reply of the council to
the churches of Syria and Cilicia.
Soon afterward Paul set out with Silas
on his second missionary journey ,
after separating from Barnabas on
account of Mark, the cousin of the
latter (Col. 4:10.) The texts give no
ground for supposing that this rupture
took place on account of any
difference of view regarding the law, as
some critics of a fixed idea have
recently alleged. Barnabas and Paul had
gone hand in hand in the conferences
at Jerusalem, and the sequel will
prove that this harmony continued
after their separation. Paul and Silas
together crossed the interior of Asia
Minor, visiting the churches founded
in the course of the first journey.
Paul's destination now was probably
Ephesus, the religious and
intellectual centre of the most cultivated part of
Asia. But God had decided otherwise.
The country whose hour had struck
was Greece, not Asia Minor; Paul
understood this later. The two heralds
of the gospel were arrested for some
time, by an illness of St. Paul, in the
regions of Galatia. This country,
watered by the river Halys, was inhabited
by the descendants of a party of Celts
who had passed into Asia after the
inroad of the Gauls into Italy and
Greece, about 280 B.C. This illness led
to the founding of the churches of
Galatia (Gal. 4:14). When they resumed
their journey the two missionaries
were arrested in the work of preaching
by some inward hindrance, which
prevented them from working
anywhere. They thus found themselves
led without premeditation to
Troas, on the Egean Sea. There the
mystery was cleared up. Paul
learned from a vision that he was to
cross the sea, and, beginning with
Macedonia, enter on the evangelization
of Europe. He took this decisive
step in company with Silas, young
Timothy, whom he had associated with
him in Lycaonia, and, finally, the
physician Luke, who seems to have been
at Troas at that very time. This is at
least the most natural explanation of
the form we which here meets us in the
narrative of the Acts (16:10). The
same form ceases, then
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
reappears later as the author of the
narrative is separated from the
apostle, or takes his place again in
his company (20:5, 21:1 et seq., 28:1
et seq.). Renan concludes from the
passage, 16:10, without the least
foundation, that Luke was of
Macedonian extraction. We believe rather
(comp. p. 15) that he was a native of
Antioch. Such also is the tradition
found in the Clementine Recognitions
and in Eusebius.
In a short time there were founded in
Macedonia the churches of Philippi,
Amphipolis, Thessalonica, and Berea.
St. Paul was persecuted in all
these cities, generally at the
instigation of the Jews, who represented to
the Roman authorities that the Christ
preached by him was a rival of
Caesar. Constantly driven forth by
this persecution, he passed southward,
and at length reached Athens. There he
gave an account of his doctrine
before the Areopagus. Thereafter he
established himself at Corinth, and
during a stay of about two years, he
founded in the capital of Achaia one
of his most flourishing churches. We
may even conclude from the
inscription of 2 Corinthians (1:1: “To
the church of God which is at Corinth,
with all the saints which are in all
Achaia ”) that numerous Christian
communities were formed in the country
districts round the metropolis.
After having concluded this important
work, the founding of the churches
of Greece, Paul went up to Jerusalem.
There is mention in the Acts of a
vow fulfilled before his departure
from Greece (18:18). By whom? By
Aquila, Paul's companion? So some
commentators have held. But if
Aquila is the nearest subject, Paul is
the principal subject of the clause.
Was the religious act called a vow
contrary to the spirituality of the
apostle? Why should it have been so
more than a promise or engagement
(comp. 1 Tim. 6:12-14)? Anyhow, Acts
21 shows us how he could find
himself in a state of life so full of
complications that Christian charity
constrained him to find his way out of
it by concessions of an external
nature. From Jerusalem Paul went to
Antioch, the cradle of the mission to
the Gentiles.
Here we must place an incident, the
character of which has been not less
misrepresented by criticism than that
of the conferences at Jerusalem.
Peter was then beginning his
missionary tours beyond Palestine; he had
reached Antioch. Barnabas, after
visiting the Christians of Cyprus along
with Mark, had also returned to this
church. These two men at first made
no scruple of visiting the Gentile members
of the church, and eating with
them both at private meals (as had
been done before by Peter at the
house of Cornelius) and at the
love-feasts. This mode of acting was not
strictly in harmony with the agreement
at Jerusalem, according to which
believers of Jewish origin were
understood to keep the Mosaic law. But,
following the example of Christ
Himself, they thought that the moral duty
of brotherly communion should, in a
case of competing claims, carry it
over ritual observance. Peter probably
recalled such sayings of Jesus as
these: “Not that which goeth into the
man defileth the man, but that which
goeth forth from the man;” or, “Have
ye not heard what David did when he
was an hungered, and they that were
with him...?” (Matt. 12:1-4). Finally,
might he not apply here the direction
which he had received from above at
the time of his mission to Cornelius
(Acts 10:10 et seq.)? As to Barnabas,
since his mission in Asia, he must
have been accustomed to subordinate
Levitical prescriptions to the duty of
communion with the Gentiles. Thus all
went on to the general satisfaction,
when there arrived at Antioch some
believers of Jerusalem, sent by James.
Their mission was, not to lay more
burdens on the Gentiles, but to
examine whether
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the conduct of Jewish-Christians
continued true to the compromise made
at Jerusalem. Now, according to the
rigorous interpretation of that
document, Peter and Barnabas, both of
them Jews by birth, were at fault.
They were therefore energetically
recalled to order by the newcomers.
We know Peter's character from the
Gospel history. He allowed himself to
be intimidated. Barnabas, whose natural
easiness of disposition appears
in the indulgence he showed to his
cousin Mark, could not resist the
apostle's example. Both were carried
the length of breaking gradually with
the Gentile converts. Here we have a
palpable proof of the insufficiency of
the compromise adopted by the council
of Jerusalem, and can understand
why Paul, while accepting it as a
temporary expedient (Acts 16:4), soon
let it fall into abeyance. This
agreement, which, while freeing the Gentiles
from Mosaic observances, still kept
Jewish Christians under the yoke of
the law, was practicable no doubt in
churches exclusively Jewish-
Christian, like that of Jerusalem. But
in churches like those of Syria, where
the two elements were united, the
rigorous observance of this agreement
must result in an external separation
of the two elements, and the
disruption of the church. Was this
really meant by James, from whom
those people came? If it is so, we
ought to remember that James was the
brother of Jesus, but not an apostle;
that blood relationship to the Lord
was not by any means a guarantee of
infallibility, and that Jesus, though
He had appeared to James to effect his
conversion, had not confided to
him the direction of the church. He
was raised to the head of the flock of
Jerusalem—nothing more. But it is also
possible that the newcomers had
gone beyond their instructions. Paul
instantly measured the bearing of the
conduct of his two colleagues, and
felt the necessity of striking a decisive
blow. He had gained at Jerusalem the
recognition of the liberty of the
Gentiles. The moment seemed to him to
have arrived for deducing all the
practical consequences logically
flowing from the decision which had been
come to, and without which that
decision became illusory. Insisting on the
previous conduct of Peter himself at
Antioch, he showed him his
inconsistency. He who for weeks had
eaten with the Gentiles and like
them, was now for forcing them, unless
they chose to break with him, to
place themselves under the yoke of the
law, a result which had certainly
not been approved at Jerusalem! Then
Paul took advantage of this
circumstance at last to develop openly
the contents of the revelation
which he had received, to wit, that
the abrogation of the law is involved in
principle in the fact of the cross
when rightly understood, and that it is vain
to wait for another manifestation of
the divine will on this point: “I am
crucified with Christ; and by that very
fact dead to the law and alive unto
God” (Gal. 2:19, 20). Baur and his
school, and Renan with them, think that
this conflict proves a contrariety of
principles between the two apostles.
But Paul's words imply the very
reverse. He accuses Peter of not walking
uprightly , according to the truth of
the gospel—that is to say, of being
carried away by the fear of man. This
very rebuke proves that Paul
ascribes to Peter a conviction in
harmony with his own, simply accusing
him as he does of being unfaithful to
it in practice. It is the same with
Barnabas. For Paul says of him, that
he was carried away into the same
hypocrisy. Thus the incident related
by Paul fully establishes the
conclusion to which we had come, viz.
that Peter did no more than Paul
regard the observance of the law as a
condition of salvation, even for the
Jews. And it is evidently to draw this
lesson from it that Paul has related
the incident with so much detail. For
what the disturbers of the Gentile
Christian churches alleged was
precisely the example and authority of the
Twelve.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
After this conflict the apostle
entered on his third journey. This time he
realized the purpose which he had
formed when starting on his previous
journey, that of settling at Ephesus,
and carrying the gospel to the heart of
the scientific and commercial
metropolis of Asia Minor. He passed through
Galatia. He found the churches of this
country already disturbed by the
solicitations of some Judaizing
emissary, who had come no doubt from
Antioch, and who by means of certain
adepts sought to introduce
circumcision and the other Mosaic
rites among the Christians of the
country. For the time being Paul
allayed the storm, and, as Luke says
(Acts 18:23), “he strengthened all the
disciples” in Galatia and Phrygia.
But this very word proves to us how
much their minds had been shaken.
At Ephesus there awaited him his
faithful friends and fellow-workers,
Aquila and his wife Priscilla; they
had left Corinth with him, and had
settled in Asia undoubtedly to prepare
for him. The two or three years
which Paul passed at Ephesus form the
culminating point of his
apostolical activity. This time was in
his life the counterpart of Peter's
ministry at Jerusalem after Pentecost.
The sacred writer himself seems in
his narrative to have this parallel in
view (comp. Acts 19:11, 12 with 5:15,
16). A whole circle of flourishing
churches, that very circle which is
symbolically represented in the
apocalyptic description by the image of
seven golden candlesticks with the
Lord standing in the midst of them,
rises amid those idolatrous
populations: Ephesus, Miletus, Smyrna,
Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colosse,
Thyatira, Philadelphia, Sardis, Pergamos,
and other churches besides, mentioned
in the writings of the second
century. The work of Paul at this
period was marked by such a display of
the power of the Holy Spirit, that at
the end of those few years paganism
felt itself seriously threatened in
those regions, as is proved by the tumult
excited by the goldsmith Demetrius.
But this so fruitful period of
missionary activity was at the same time the
culminating point of his contention
with his Judaizing adversaries. After his
passage through Galatia they had
redoubled their efforts in those regions.
These persons, as we have seen, did
not oppose the preaching of the
cross. They even thought it well that
Paul should Christianize the Gentile
world, provided it were to the profit
of Mosaism. In their view the law was
the real end, the gospel the means. It
was the reversal of the divine plan.
Paul rejected the scheme with
indignation, though it was extremely well
fitted to reconcile hostile Jews to
the preaching of Christ. Not being able to
make him bend, they sought to
undermine his authority. They decried him
personally, representing him as a
disciple of the apostles, who had
subsequently lifted his heel against
his masters. It is to this charge that
Paul replies in the first two chapters
of the Epistle to the Galatians. Next,
they maintained the permanence of the
law. Such is the doctrine which
Paul overthrows in chap. 3 and 4, by
showing the temporary and purely
preparatory character of the Mosaic
dispensation. Finally, they denied that
a doctrine severed from all law could
secure the moral life of its
adherents. Such is the subject of the
last two chapters, which show how
man's sanctification is provided for
by the life-giving operation of the Holy
Spirit, the consummation of
justification, much better than by his
subjection to legal prohibitions. This
letter was written shortly after Paul's
arrival at Ephesus (comp. the phrase:
so soon , 1:6). The passage, 1 Cor.
16:1, seems to prove that it succeeded
in reestablishing the authority of
the apostle and the supremacy of the
gospel in Galatia.
But the Judaizing emissaries followed
Paul at every step. Macedonia does
not seem to have presented a favorable
soil for their attempts; they
therefore
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
threw themselves upon Achaia. They
were careful here not to speak of
circumcision or prescriptions about
food. They knew that they had to do
with Greeks; they sought to flatter
their philosophical and literary tastes. A
speculative gospel was paraded before
the churches. Next, doubts were
sown as to the reality of the
apostleship of Paul, and by and by even as to
the uprightness and purity of his
character. The First Epistle to the
Corinthians gives us all throughout,
as Weizsacker has well shown, the
presentiment of a threatening storm,
but one which the apostle seeks to
prevent from bursting. Severe
allusions are not wanting; but the didactic
tone immediately becomes again the
prevailing one. It is in the second
letter that the full violence of the
struggle is revealed. This letter contains
numerous allusions to certain personal
encounters of the utmost gravity,
but posterior to the sending of the
first. It obliges the attentive reader to
suppose a sojourn made by Paul at
Corinth between our two letters
preserved in the canon, and even a
lost intermediate letter posterior to
this visit. The interval between the
dates of First and Second Corinthians
must, if it is so, have been more
considerable than is usually held; the
general chronology of Paul's life does
not, as we shall see, contradict this
view. The lost letter intermediate
between our two canonical Epistles must
have been written under the influence
of the most painful experiences and
the keenest emotions. Paul then saw
himself for some time on the eve of
a total rupture with that church of
Corinth which had been the fruit of so
many labors. Led away by his
adversaries, it openly refused him
obedience. Some dared to raise the
gravest imputations against his
veracity and disinterestedness; his
apostleship was audaciously ridiculed;
Paul was charged with being ambitious
and boastful; he pretended to
preach the gospel without charge, but
he nevetheless filled his purse from
it by means of his messengers: all
this was said of the apostle of the
Corinthians at Corinth itself, and the
church did not shut the mouths of the
insolent detractors who spoke thus!
But who then were they who thus
dared to challenge the apostle of the
Gentiles in the midst of his own
churches? Paul in his Second Epistle
calls them ironically apostles by way
of eminence [ chiefest , Eng.
transl.]. This was, no doubt, one of the titles
with which their adherents saluted
them. Baur and his school do not fear
to apply this designation to the
Twelve in Paul's sense of it. “These
apostles by way of eminence ,” says
the leader of the school,
“undoubtedly denote the apostles
themselves, whose disciples and
delegates the false apostles of
Corinth professed to be.” Hilgenfeld says
more pointedly still: “The apostles by
way of eminence can be no other
than the original apostles.” This
opinion has spread and taken root. We
should like to know what remains
thereafter of the apostleship of Paul and
of the Twelve, nay, of the mission of
Jesus Himself? Happily, sound
criticism treats such partial and
violent assertions more and more as they
deserve. We have already stated the
conclusion which has now been
reached on this question by such men
as Weizsacker , Keim, Harnack. It is
easy, indeed, to prove that the
phrase: “apostles by way of eminence,”
which St. Paul employs, borrowing it
ironically from the language used at
Corinth, could not designate the
Twelve. 1. We read, 2 Cor. 11:6, that
Paul was described at Corinth as a man
of the commonalty ( ijdiwvth" ,
rude , Eng. transl.) in language , as
compared with the superior apostles.
Now, what reasonable man could have
put the Twelve above Paul in the
matter of speech? Comp. Acts 4:13,
where the apostles are called men of
the commonalty , or unlettered , while
Paul was regarded as a man of high
culture and vast knowledge (Acts
26:24). 2. If it had been wished to
designate the Twelve by the phrase:
“the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
more eminent apostles,” the very word
would have made a place beneath
them for an apostle of an inferior
order. And for whom, if not for Paul?
Now, his adversaries were not content
at this time to make him an apostle
of an inferior order; they contrasted
him with the Twelve, as a false
apostle with the only true. We are
thus led to conclude that the apostles
par excellence , who were being
exalted at Corinth in order to blacken
Paul, were no other than those lofty
personages from Jerusalem who, in
the transactions related Acts 15 and
Gal. 2, had openly resisted the
apostles, and affected to give law to
them as well as to the whole church,
those very persons whom Paul has
designated in Galatians as false
brethren brought in. In Acts it is
related that after Pentecost many priests
(6:7) and Pharisees (15:5) entered the
church. These new Christians of
high rank and great theological
knowledge brought with them their
pretensions and prejudices, and they
ill brooked the authority of simple
and uncultured men like the Twelve.
They looked upon them as narrowminded.
They treated them with disdain; and
from the height of their
theological erudition thought it
deplorable that so glorious a work, from
which they might have drawn so much
advantage, had fallen into such
poor hands. They therefore tried
audaciously to snatch the direction of the
church from the apostles. Thus,
apostles by way of eminence, archapostles,
far from being a name intended to
identify them with the Twelve,
was rather meant to exalt them above
the apostles. It was they who, after
the council of Jerusalem, in
opposition to the Twelve no less than to Paul,
though under their name, had organized
the counter mission which Paul
soon met in all the churches founded
by him. Most commentators justly
hold that these people and their adherents
at Corinth formed the party
which in 1 Cor. 1:12 is named by Paul
the party of Christ. In this case it is
easy to understand the meaning of the
designation. It means, in
contradistinction to those who were
carried away with enthusiasm for this
or that preacher, those who would not
submit either to Paul or the Twelve,
and who appealed from them to the
authority of Christ alone. Thus the
party called that of Christ is
contrasted (1 Cor. 1:12) with that of Peter, as
well as with that of Paul or Apollos.
At the time when Paul wrote our Second
Epistle to the Corinthians, the
hottest moment of the conflict was
past. This Epistle in many of its parts is
a shout of victory (comp. especially
chap. 7). It was intended, while
drawing closely the bond between the
apostle and the portion of the
church which had returned into
communion with him, finally to reduce the
rebellious portion to submission or
powerlessness; and it appears to have
gained its end. Paul, regarding this
church as henceforth restored to him,
came at length, in the end of the year
58, to make his long-expected
sojourn among them; he passed the
month of December of this year at
Corinth, and the first two months of
the following year. Then he set out,
shortly before the feast of Passover,
on a last visit to Jerusalem. For some
time past vast plans filled his mind
(Acts 19:21). Already his thoughts
turned to Rome and the West. Paul was
in the highest degree one of
those men who think they have done
nothing so long as anything remains
for them to do. The East was
evangelized; the torch of the gospel was at
least lighted in all the great
capitals of Asia and Greece, Antioch,
Ephesus, Corinth. To these churches it
fell to spread the light in the
countries which surrounded them, and
so to continue the apostolic work.
Egypt and Alexandria had probably been
visited, perhaps by Barnabas
and Mark after their journey to
Cyprus. The West remained. This was the
field which now opened to the view and
thoughts of the apostle. But
already the gospel has preceded him to
Rome. He learns the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
fact...What matters it? Rome becomes
to him a mere point of passage.
And his goal, receding with the rapid
march of the gospel, will now be
Spain. His Christian ambition drives
him irresistibly to the extremity of the
known world. A duty, however, still
detained him in the East. He wished to
pay Jerusalem a last visit, not only
to take leave of the metropolis of
Christendom, but more especially to
present to it, at the head of a
numerous deputation of Gentile
Christians, the homage of the whole
pagan world, in the form of a rich
offering collected in all the churches
during these last years in behalf of
the Christians of Jerusalem. What
more fitted to cement the bond of love
which he had endeavored to form
and keep up between the two great
portions of Christendom!
All the deputies of the churches of
Greece and Asia, his travelling
companions, were already assembled at
Corinth to embark with him for
Syria, when he learned that the
freighted vessel and its cargo were
threatened with dangers by sea. He
therefore took the way by Macedonia,
celebrated the Passover feasts at
Philippi, and hastened the rest of his
journey so as to arrive at Jerusalem
for Pentecost. There he solemnly
deposited the fruit of the collection
in the hands of the elders of the church
presided over by James. In the
conference which followed, James
communicated to him the prejudices
with which he was regarded by the
thousands of believing Jews who were
daily arriving at Jerusalem to
celebrate the feast. Paul had been
represented to them as a deadly
enemy of the law, whose one aim was to
destroy Mosaism among the
Jews throughout the whole world. James
proposed to him to give the lie to
these rumors, by himself carrying out
a Levitical ceremony in the temple
before the eyes of all. The proposal
was that he should join some Jews
who were then discharging a vow of
Nazariteship , and take upon himself
the common expense.
M. Renan represents St. Paul as if he
must have been greatly
embarrassed by this proposition,
because he could not conceal from
himself that the rumor spread against
him was thoroughly well founded.
To consent to James's proposal was
therefore deliberately to create a
misunderstanding, “to commit an
unfaithfulness toward Christ.” Yet this
writer thinks that Paul, under
constraint of charity, managed to overcome
his repugnance; as if charity
authorized dissimulation! M. Reuss seems to
hesitate between two views: either
Luke, incapable of rising to the height
of Paul's pure spirituality, has not
given an exact representation of the
facts, or we must blame Paul himself:
“If things really passed as the text
relates,...it must be confessed that
the apostle lent himself to a weak
course of which we should hardly have
thought him capable;...for the step
taken was either a profession of
Judaism or the playing of a comedy.”
Both alternatives are equally false,
we answer with thorough conviction. In
fact, Paul could with perfect
sincerity give the lie to the report spread
among the Jewish- Christians of the
East. If, on the one hand, he was
firmly opposed to every attempt to
subject Gentile converts to the Mosaic
law, on the other, he had never sought
to induce the Jews to cast it off
arbitrarily. This would have been
openly to violate the Jerusalem
compromise. Did not he himself, in
many circumstances when he had to
do with Jews, consent to subject
himself to legal rights? Have we not
already quoted what he wrote to the
Corinthians: “To those that are under
the law I became as under the law” (1
Cor. 9:20)? The external rite being
a thing indifferent in his eyes, he
could use it in the service of charity. And
if he sometimes conformed to it, it is
perfectly certain that he could never
allow himself to become its fanatical
adversary. He left it to time to set free
the conscience of his countrymen, and
did not dream of hastening the
hour by a premature
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
emancipation. And therefore, whatever
may be said to the contrary, he
could protest without weakness and
without charlatanism against the
assertion which represented him in the
East as the deadly destroyer of
Mosaism among all the members of the
Jewish nation.
The circumstance to which we have been
referring was, as is well known,
the occasion of his being arrested.
Here begins the last period of his life,
that of his imprisonments.
III.
After his imprisonment and a show of
trial at Jerusalem, Paul was
transferred to Cesarea. In this city
he passed two whole years, vainly
expecting to be liberated by the
governor Felix. In the year 60 the latter
was recalled; and either in this year,
or more probably the following, his
successor, Festus, arrived. Here is
the second principal date in the
apostle's life, which, with the aid of
the Roman historians, we can fix with
tolerable certainty. In the year 61
(some say 60) Paul appeared before
Festus, when, to put an end to the
tergiversations of the provincial
authority, he appealed to the imperial
tribunal. It was a right which his
Roman citizenship gave him. Hence his
departure for Rome in the autumn
following the arrival of Festus. We
are familiar with the circumstances of
his voyage, and of the shipwreck which
detained him at Malta for the
winter. He did not arrive at Rome till
the following spring. We learn from
the last two verses of the Acts that
he continued there for two years as a
prisoner, but enjoying much liberty of
action. He could receive his fellowworkers
who traversed Europe and Asia, who
brought him news of the
churches, and in return carried to them
his letters (Colossians, Ephesians,
Philemon, Philippians).
Here Luke's history closes abruptly.
From this time we have nothing to
guide us except patristic traditions
of a remarkably confused character, or
suppositions still more uncertain.
Some assert that Paul perished, like
Peter, in the persecution of Nero, in
August of the year 64; on the other
hand, certain statements of the
Fathers would lead us to think that Paul
was liberated at the close of the two
years mentioned in the Acts; that he
was able to fulfil the promise which
he had made to Philemon and to the
Philippians to visit them in the East
(Philem. 22; Phil. 2:24); and that he
accomplished his final purpose, that
of carrying the gospel to Spain. If the
pastoral Epistles are really by the
apostle, as we cannot help thinking,
they are the monument of this last
period of his activity. For it does not
seem to us possible to place them at
any period whatever of Paul's
ministry anterior to his first
captivity at Rome.
As no church in Spain claims the honor
of being founded by the apostle,
we must hold, on this supposition,
that he was seized shortly after his
arrival on Iberian soil, and led
prisoner to the Capital to be judged there.
The Second Epistle to Timothy would,
in that case, be the witness of this
last captivity; and Paul's martyrdom,
which, according to the testimony of
the Roman presbyter Caius (second
century), took place on the Ostian
Way, must be placed about the year 66
or 67. This is the date indicated
by Eusebius.
We have thus, for fixing the
chronology of the life of the apostle, two dates
which are certain: that of his journey
to Jerusalem with Barnabas at the
time of Herod Agrippa's death (Acts
12), in 44; and that of his appearing
before Festus on the arrival of the
latter in Palestine (Acts 25), in 61 (or
60). It remains to us, by means of
those fixed points, to indicate the
approximate dates of the principal
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
events of the apostle's life.
Festus died the same year as he
arrived in Palestine, consequently before
the Passover of 62.
Paul cannot therefore have been sent
by him to Rome, at the latest, till the
autumn of the year 61. Paul's arrest
at Jerusalem took place two years
earlier, at Pentecost, consequently in
the spring of 59.
The third missionary journey, which
immediately preceded this arrest,
embraces his stay at Ephesus, which
lasted about three years (Acts 19:8,
10, 20:31), and various journeys into
Greece besides, perhaps more
important and numerous than is
generally thought. If to this we add his
stay in Achaia (Acts 20:3), and the
last journey to Jerusalem, we are led
backward to the autumn of the year 54
as the beginning of his third
journey.
His second mission, the Greek one, of
which Corinth was the centre,
cannot have lasted less than two
years, for the Book of Acts reckons
eighteen months and one or two more to
his sojourn at Corinth alone
(Acts 18:11, 18). We may therefore
ascribe to this second missionary
journey the two years between the
autumn of 52 and that of 54.
The council of Jerusalem, which was
held very shortly before this time,
must consequently be placed at the
beginning of 52, or about the end of
51.
The first missionary journey, that of
Paul and Barnabas in Asia Minor, as
well as the two sojourns at Antioch
before and after, filled the few years
preceding.
Thus, going back step by step, we
reach the other date which must serve
as a guiding-point, that of Herod
Agrippa's death, in 44. Now the time at
which we arrive, following Paul's
career backwards, is exactly the date
when Barnabas seeks him at Tarsus, to
bring him to Antioch, where they
labored together in the church, and
whence they were delegated to
Jerusalem in regard to the approaching
famine; the date of Herod
Agrippa's death, in 44.
The length of Paul's stay at Tarsus
before Barnabas sought him there is
not exactly indicated, but it seems to
have been considerable. We may
reckon it at three or four years, and
we come to the year 40 as that in
which Paul's first visit to Jerusalem,
after his conversion, took place.
This visit was preceded by Paul's
journey to Arabia (Gal. 1:18), and his
two sojourns at Damascus before and
after it; he himself reckons this
period at three years (1:18). Paul's
conversion would thus fall about the
year 37.
Paul must then have been at least
thirty years of age. We may therefore
place his birth about the year 7; and
if he died in 67, assign to his earthly
life a duration of sixty years.
This entire series of dates appears to
us in itself to be clear and logical.
But, more than that, history in
general presents a considerable number of
points of verification, which very
interestingly confirm this biographical
sketch. We shall mention six of them.
1. We know that Pilate was recalled
from his government in the year 36.
This circumstance serves to explain
the martyrdom of Stephen, which is
intimately connected with Saul's
conversion. Indeed, the right of
pronouncing sentence of death having
been withdrawn from the Jews by
the Roman administration prior to the
death of Jesus, it is not likely that
they would have indulged in so daring
an encroachment on the power of
their masters as that of putting
Stephen to death, if the representative of
the Roman power had been in Palestine
at the time. There is therefore
ground for thinking that the murder of
Stephen must be placed in the year
36, the time of the vacancy between
Pilate and his successor. An
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
event of the same kind took place,
according to Josephus, about the year
62, when the high priest Ananias put
James the brother of Jesus to death,
in the interval which separated the
death of Festus from the arrival of
Albinus his successor. The absence of
the governor, it would seem,
awoke in the heart of the people and
their leaders the feeling of their
ancient national independence.
2. The journey of Paul and Barnabas to
Jerusalem, recorded in Acts 11
and 12 (on occasion of the famine
announced by Agabus), must have
taken place, according to our
chronology, in the year 44 (Herod Agrippa's
death). Now we know from the
historians that the great famine overtook
Palestine in the reign of Claudius, in
45 or 46, which agrees with the date
assigned to this journey.
3. St. Paul declares, Gal. 2:1, that
it was fourteen years after his
conversion (such is the most probable
meaning of the passage) when he
repaired to Jerusalem with Barnabas to
confer with the apostles (Acts 15).
If, as we have seen, this conference
took place in 51, it really falls in the
fourteenth year after the year 37, the
date of the apostle's conversion.
4. We have been led to the conclusion
that the apostle arrived at Corinth
about the end of the year 52. Now it
is said (Acts 18:1) that Paul on
arriving at this city made the
acquaintance of a family of Jewish origin,
that of Aquila and Priscilla, who had
recently come from Italy in
consequence of the decree of the
Emperor Claudius commanding the
expulsion of Jews from Rome.
“Claudius,” says Suetonius, “banished from
Rome the Jews, who were perpetually
raising insurrections.” From various
indications furnished by Roman
historians, this decree must belong to the
last days of the life of Claudius. Now
this emperor died in 54; the date of
the decree of banishment thus nearly
coincides with that of Paul's arrival
at Corinth.
5. Towards the end of his stay at
Corinth, Paul was charged before the
proconsul of Achaia, called Gallio.
This proconsul is not an unknown
personage. He was the brother of the
philosopher Seneca, a man of great
distinction, who plays a part in his
brother's correspondence. He was
consul in the year 51; his
proconsulship must have followed immediately
thereafter. Gallio was thus really, at
the time indicated in Acts, proconsul
of Achaia.
6. Josephus relates that, while Felix
was governor of Judea, an Egyptian
excited several thousands of Jews to
insurrection, and proceeded to
attack Jerusalem. The band was
destroyed by Felix, but the leader
escaped. Now we know from Acts that,
towards the end of Felix's
government, the Roman captain who was
commanding at Jerusalem
suspected Paul of being an Egyptian
who had incited the people to
rebellion (Acts 21:38). All the
circumstances harmonize. It was the very
time when the escaped fanatic might
have attempted a new rising.
If we recapitulate the principal dates
to which we have been led, we find
that the apostle's life is divided as
follows:—
From 7-37: His life as a Jew and
Pharisee. From 37-44: The years of his
preparation for his apostleship. From
44-51: His first missionary journey,
with the two stays at Antioch, before
and after, and his journey to the
council of Jerusalem.
From 52-54: His second missionary
journey; the founding of the churches
of Greece (the two Epistles to the Thessalonians).
From 54-59: The third missionary
journey; the stay at Ephesus, and the
visits to Greece and to Jerusalem (the
four principal Epistles, Galatians,
1st and 2d Corinthians, Romans).
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
From 59 (summer) to 61 (autumn):
Arrest at Jerusalem, captivity at
Cesarea. From 61 (autumn) to 62
(spring): Voyage, shipwreck; arrival at
Rome. From 62 (spring) to 64 (spring):
Captivity at Rome (Colossians,
Ephesians, Philemon, Philippians).
From 64 (spring) to 66 or 67:
Liberation, second captivity, martyrdom
(pastoral Epistles).
How are we to account for the
institution of this extraordinary apostleship
side by side with the regular
apostleship of the Twelve?
The time had come, in the progress of
the kingdom of God, when the
particularistic work founded in
Abraham was at length to pass into the
great current of humanity, from which
it had been kept apart. Now, the
normal mode of this unparalleled
religious revolution would have been
this: Israel itself, with the work of
the Messiah before it, really and joyfully
proclaiming throughout the whole world
the completion of salvation, and
the end of the theocratic economy. It
was to prepare Israel for this task,
the glorious crown of its history,
that Jesus had specially chosen the
Twelve. Apostles to the elect nation,
they were to make it the apostle of
the world.
But man seldom answers completely to
the task which God has destined
for him. Instead of accepting this
part, the part of love, in the humility of
which it would have found its real
greatness, Israel strove to maintain its
theocratical prerogative. It rejected
the Redeemer of the world rather than
abandon its privileged position. It
wished to save its life, and it lost it.
Then, in order to replace it, God
required to call an exceptional instrument
and found a special apostleship. Paul
was neither the substitute of Judas,
whom the Twelve had prematurely
replaced (Acts 2), as has been
thought, nor that of James the son of
Zebedee, whose martyrdom is
related Acts 12. He is the substitute
for a converted Israel, the man who
had, single-handed, to execute the
task which fell to his whole nation. And
so the hour of his call was precisely,
as we have seen, that, when the
blood of the two martyrs, Stephen and
James, sealed the hardening of
Israel and decided its rejection.
The calling of Paul is nothing less
than the counterpart of Abraham's. The
qualities with which Paul was endowed
for this mission were as
exceptional as the task itself. He
combined with the power of inward and
meditative concentration all the gifts
of practical action. His mind
descended to the most minute details
of ecclesiastical administration (1
Cor. 14:26-37, e.g.,] as easily as it
mounted the steps of the mystic ladder
whose top reaches the divine throne (2
Cor. 12:1-4, e.g.,).
A not less remarkable combination of
opposite powers, which usually
exclude one another, strikes us
equally in his writings. Here we meet, on
the one hand, with the dialectical
rigor which will not quit a subject till after
having completely analyzed it, nor an
adversary till it has transfixed him
with his own sword; and, on the other,
with a delicate and profound
sensibility, and a concentrated warmth
of heart, the flame of which
sometimes bursts forth even through
the forms of the severest
argumentation. The Epistle to the
Romans will furnish more than one
example.
The life of St. Paul is summed up in a
word: a unique man for a unique
task.
CHAPTER II. THE CHURCH OF ROME.
AFTER having made acquaintance with
the author of our Epistle, it is
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
important for us to form a just idea of
the church to which it was
addressed. Three questions arise
here:—1. How was the church of Rome
founded? 2. Were the majority of its
members of Jewish or Gentile origin?
3. Was its religious tendency
particularistic or Pauline?
These three subjects, the foundation,
composition , and tendency of the
church, are undoubtedly intimately
related. They may, however, be
studied separately. To avoid
repetition, we shall treat the last two under a
common head.
I. Foundation of the Roman Church.
Among the apostolic foundations
mentioned in the Book of Acts, that of
the church of Rome does not appear.
Reuss sees a lacuna in this silence.
But is not the omission a proof of the
real course of things? Does it not
show that the foundation of the Roman
church was not distinguished by
any notable event such as the
historian can lay hold of; that it took place
in a sort of stealthy manner, and was
not the work of any individual of
mark?
What are the oldest known proofs of
the existence of a Christian church at
Rome?
In the first place, our Epistle
itself, which assumes the existence, if not of
a completely organized church, at
least of several Christian groups in the
capital; in the second place, the fact
related in the first part of Acts 28. On
his arrival at Rome in the spring of
the year 62, Paul is welcomed by
brethren who, on the news of his
approach, come to receive him at the
distance of a dozen leagues from the
city. How was such a Christian
community formed?
Three answers are given to the
question.
I. The Catholic Church ascribes the
founding of the Church of Rome to the
preaching of Peter. This apostle, it
is said, came to Rome to preach the
gospel and combat the heresies of
Simon the magician, at the beginning
of the reign of the Emperor Claudius
(41-54). But it is very probable that
this tradition rests in whole or in
part on a gross mistake, of which Justin
Martyr is the first author. If the
apostle had really come to Rome so early,
and had been the first to propagate
the gospel there, Paul evidently could
not write a long letter to this church
without mentioning its founder; and if
we consider that this letter is a
didactic writing of great length, a more or
less complete exposition of the
gospel, we shall conclude that he could
not, in consistency with his own
principles, have addressed it to a church
founded by another apostle. For he
more than once declares that it is
contrary to his apostolic practice “to
enter into another man's labors,” or
“to build on the foundation laid by
another” (Rom. 15:20; 2 Cor. 10:16).
Strange that a Protestant writer,
Thiersch, is almost the only theologian of
merit who still defends the assertion
of Peter's sojourn at Rome in the
beginning of the reign of Claudius. He
supports it by two facts: the
passage Acts 12:17, where it is said
that, delivered from his prison at
Jerusalem, Peter went into another
place ,—a mysterious expression
used, according to this critic, to
designate Rome; and next, the famous
passage of Suetonius, relative to the
decree of Claudius banishing the
Jews from Rome, because they ceased
not “to rise at the instigation of
Chrestus. ” According to Thiersch,
these last words are a vague indication
of the introduction of Christianity
into Rome at this period by St. Peter, and
of the troubles which the fact had
caused in the Roman synagogue.
These arguments are alike without
solidity. Why should not Luke have
specially
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
named Rome if St. Peter had really
withdrawn thither? He had no reason
to make a mystery of the name.
Besides, at this period, from 41 to 44,
Peter can hardly have gone so far as
Rome; for in 51 (Acts 15) we find
him at Jerusalem, and in 54 only at
Antioch. Paul himself, the great
pioneer of the gospel in the West, had
not yet, in 42, set foot on the
European continent, nor preached in
Greece. And the author of the Acts,
in chaps. 6-13, enumerates very
carefully all the providential
circumstances which paved the way for
carrying the gospel into the
Gentile world. Assuredly, therefore,
Peter had not up to that time crossed
the seas to evangelize Rome. As to the
passage of Suetonius, it is very
arbitrary to make Chrestus a
personification of Christian preaching in
general. The true Roman tradition is
much rather to be sought in the
testimony of a deacon of the church
who lived in the third or fourth
century, and is known as a writer
under the name of Ambrosiaster or the
false Ambrose (because his writings
appear in the works of St. Ambrose),
but whose true name was probably
Hilary. He declares, to the praise of
his church, that the Romans had become
believers “without having seen a
single miracle or any of the apostles.
” Most Catholic writers of our day,
who are earnest and independent,
combat the idea that Peter sojourned
at Rome under the reign of Claudius.
After all we have said, we do not mean
in the least to deny that Peter
came to Rome about the end of his
life. The testimonies bearing on this
stay seem to us too positive to be set
aside by judicious criticism. But in
any case, his visit cannot have taken
place till after the composition of the
Epistle to the Romans, and even of the
letters written by Paul during his
Roman captivity in 62 and 63 (Col.
Phil. Eph. Philem.). How, if Peter had
at that time labored simultaneously
with him in the city of Rome, could
Paul have failed to name him among the
preachers of the gospel whom
he mentions, and from whom he sends greetings?
Peter cannot therefore
have arrived at Rome till the end of
the year 63 or the beginning of 64,
and his stay cannot have lasted more
than a few months till August 64,
when he perished as a victim of the
persecution of Nero. As Hilgenfeld
says: “To be a good Protestant, one
need not combat this tradition.”
It is even probable that, but for the
notoriety of this fact, the legend of the
founding of the church of Rome by St.
Peter could never have arisen and
become so firmly established.
II. The second supposition by which it
has been sought to explain the
existence of this church—for in the
absence of everything in the form of
narrative one is reduced to
hypothesis—is the following: Jews of Rome
who had come to Jerusalem at the time
of the feasts were there brought
into contact with the first
Christians, and so carried to Rome the seeds of
the faith. Mention is made indeed,
Acts 2:10, of Roman pilgrims, some
Jews by birth, the others proselytes,
that is to say, Gentiles originally, but
converted to Judaism, who were present
during the events of the day of
Pentecost. At every feast thereafter
this contact between the members of
the rich and numerous Roman synagogue
and those of the church of
Jerusalem must have been repeated, and
must have produced the same
result. If this explanation of the
origin of the church of Rome is
established, it is evident that it was
by means of the synagogue that the
gospel spread in this city.
M. Mangold, one of the most decided
supporters of this hypothesis,
alleges two facts in its favor—(1) the
legend of Peter's sojourn at Rome,
which he acknowledges to be false, but
which testifies, he thinks, to the
recollection of certain original
communications between the apostolic
church, of which Peter
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
was the head, and the Roman synagogue;
(2) the passage of Suetonius,
which we have already quoted,
regarding the troubles which called forth
the edict of Claudius. According to
Mangold, these troubles were nothing
else than the violent debates raised
among the members of the Roman
synagogue by the Christian preaching
of those pilgrims on their return
from Jerusalem.
But, as we have seen, the legend of
Peter's preaching at Rome seems to
have an entirely different origin from
that which Mangold supposes; and
the interpretation of the passage of
Suetonius which he proposes,
following Baur, is very uncertain.
According to Wieseler and many other
critics, Chrestus—the name was a very
common one for a
freedman—simply designates here an
obscure Jewish agitator; or, as
seems to us more probable, Suetonius
having vaguely heard of the
expectation of the Messias (of the
Christ ) among the Jews, regarded the
name as that of a real living person
to whom he ascribed the constant
ferment and insurrectionary
dispositions which the Messianic expectation
kept up among the Jews. The word
tumultuari, to rise in insurrection ,
used by the Roman historian, applies
much more to outbreaks of rebellion
than to intestine controversies within
the synagogue. How could these
have disturbed the public order and
disquieted Claudius?
There are two facts, besides, which
seem to us opposed to this way of
explaining the founding of the church
of Rome.
1. How comes it that no circumstance
analogous to that which on the
above hypothesis gave rise to the
Roman church, can be proved in any of
the other great cities of the empire?
There were Jewish colonies
elsewhere than at Rome. There were
such at Ephesus, Corinth, and
Thessalonica. Whence comes it that,
when Paul arrived in these cities,
and preached in their synagogues for
the first time, the gospel appeared
as a thing entirely new? Is there any
reason for holding that the
Christianity of Palestine exercised a
more direct and prompt influence on
the synagogue of Rome than on that of
the other cities of the empire?
2. A second fact seems to us more
decisive still. It is related in Acts 28
that Paul, three days after his
arrival at Rome, called together to his hired
house, where he was kept prisoner, the
rulers of the Roman synagogue.
The latter asked him to give precise
information as to the doctrine of
which he was the representative. “For,”
said they, “we have heard this
sect spoken of, and we know that it
meets with opposition everywhere” (in
every synagogue). The narrative does
not state the inference drawn by
them from these facts; but it was
evidently this: “Not knowing the contents
of this new faith, we would like to
learn them from lips so authoritative as
thine.” What proves that this was
really the meaning of the Jews' words is,
that they fixed a day for Paul when
they would come to converse with him
on the subject. The conference bore,
as is stated in the sequel of the
narrative, “on the kingdom of God and
concerning Jesus,” taking as the
starting-point “the law of Moses and
the prophets” (ver. 23). Now, how are
we to understand this ignorance of the
rulers of the synagogue in respect
of Christianity, if that religion had
really been preached among them
already, and had excited such violent
debates as to provoke an edict of
banishment against the whole Jewish
colony?
It has been sought to get rid of this
difficulty in different ways. Reuss has
propounded the view that the question
of the rulers of the synagogue did
not refer to Christianity in general,
but to Faul's individual teaching, and
the opposition excited against him by
the Jewish-Christian party. But this
view would
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
have imperatively demanded the Greek
form a} su; fronei'" , and not
merely a} fronei'" . Besides, the
sequel of the narrative very clearly shows
that Paul's exposition bore on the
kingdom of God and the gospel in
general, and not merely on the
differences between Paulinism and
Judaizing Christianity.
Others have taken the words of the
Jews to be either a feint, or at least
cautious reserve. They measured their
words, it is said, from the fear of
compromising themselves, or even, so
Mangold thinks, from the desire of
extorting some declaration from the
apostle which they might use against
him in his trial. The rest of the
narrative is incompatible with these
suppositions. The Jews enter very
seriously into the discussion of the
religious question. On the day fixed
they come to the appointed place of
meeting in greater numbers than
formerly. During a whole day, from
morning till night , they discuss the
doctrine and history of Jesus, referring
to the texts of Moses and the
prophets. On the part of men engaged in
business, as must have been the case
with the rulers of the rich Jewish
community established at Rome, such
conduct testifies to a serious
interest. The result of the interview
furnishes like proof of the sincerity of
their conduct. This result is twofold;
some go away convinced, others
resist to the last. This difference
would be inconceivable if they had come
to Paul already acquainted with the
preaching of the gospel merely to lay
a snare for him. Olshausen has
proposed a different solution. According
to him, the banishment of the Jews by
Claudius led to a complete rupture
between the synagogue and the
Jewish-Christians. For the latter naturally
sought to evade the decree of
expulsion. And so it happened that, when
the banished Jews returned to Rome,
there was no longer anything in
common between them and the church;
the Roman Jews soon lost all
recollection of Christian doctrine.
But Baur and Mangold have thoroughly
refuted this supposition. It ascribes
much more considerable effects to the
edict of Claudius than it can ever
have had in reality. And how could a
short time of exile have sufficed to
efface from the minds of the Jewish
community the memory of Christian
preaching, if it had already made itself
heard in full synagogue?
Baur has discarded all half measures.
He has struck at the root of the
difficulty. He has pronounced the narrative
of the Acts a fiction. The author
desired to pass off Paul as much more
conciliatory to Judaism than he
really was. The true Paul had not the
slightest need of an act of positive
unbelief on the part of the Jews of
Rome, to think himself authorized to
evangelize the Gentiles of the
capital. He did not recognize that alleged
right of priority which the Jewish-
Christians claimed in favor of their
nation, and which is assumed by the
narrative of the Acts. This narrative
therefore is fictitious. The answer to
this imputation is not difficult: the Paul
of Acts certainly does not resemble
the Paul of Baur's theory; but he is
assuredly the Paul of history. It is
Paul himself who proves this to us when
he writes thrice with his own hand, at
the beginning of the Epistle to the
Romans (1:16, 2:9, 10), the: “to the
Jews first ,” which so completely
confirms the course taken by him among
the Jews of Rome, and
described so carefully by the author
of the Acts.
All these explanations of the account,
Acts 28, being thus untenable, it
only remains to accept it in its
natural meaning with the inevitable
consequences. The rulers of the
synagogue of Rome had undoubtedly
heard of the disputes which were
everywhere raised among their coreligionists
by the preaching of Jesus as the
Christ. But they had not yet
an exact acquaintance with this new
faith. Christianity had therefore not
yet been preached in the Roman
synagogue.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
III. Without altogether denying what
may have been done in an isolated
way
for the spread of Christianity at Rome
by Jews returning from Jerusalem,
we must assign the founding of the
Roman church to a different origin.
Rome was to the world what the heart
is to the body, the centre of vital
circulation. Tacitus asserts that “all
things hateful or shameful were sure to
flow to Rome from all parts of the
empire.” This law must have applied
also to better things. Long before the
composition of the Epistle to the
Romans, the gospel had already crossed
the frontier of Palestine and
spread among the Gentile populations
of Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece.
Endowed as it was with an inherent
force of expansion, could not the new
religious principle easily find its
way from those countries to Rome?
Relations between Rome and Syria in
particular were frequent and
numerous. Renan himself remarks them:
“Rome was the meeting- point of
all the Oriental forms of worship, the
point of the Mediterranean with which
the Syrians had most connection. They
arrived there in enormous bands.
With them there landed troops of
Greeks and Asiatics, all speaking
Greek....It is
in the highest degree probable that so
early as the year 50 some Jews of
Syria already become Christian entered
the capital of the empire.” In
these sentences of Renan we have only
a word to correct. It is the word
Jews. For it is certain that the
churches of Antioch and Syria were chiefly
composed of Greeks. Those Christians
of Gentile origin might therefore
very soon make their way to Rome. And
why should it have been
otherwise with members of the
Christian communities of Asia and Greece,
who were much nearer still?
There are some facts which serve to
confirm the essentially Gentile origin
of the Roman church. Five times, in
the salutations which close our
Epistle, the apostle addresses groups
of Christians scattered over the
great city. At least five times for
once to the contrary, the names of the
brethren whom he salutes are Greek and
Latin, not Jewish. These bear
witness to the manner in which the
gospel had gained a footing in the
capital. This wide dissemination and
those names of Gentile origin find a
natural explanation in the arrival of
Christians of Greece and Asia, who
had preached the word each in the
quarter of the city where he lived. The
course of things would have been quite
different had the preaching of the
gospel proceeded from the synagogue. A
still more significant fact is
related in the first part of Acts 28. On
hearing of St. Paul's approach, the
brethren who reside at Rome haste to
meet him, and receive him with an
affection which raises his courage.
Does not this prove that they already
loved and venerated him as their
spiritual father, and that consequently
their Christianity proceeded directly
or indirectly from the churches
founded by Paul in Greece and Asia,
rather than from the Jewish-
Christian church of Jerusalem?
Beyschlag, in his interesting work on the
subject before us, raises the
objection that between the composition of the
Epistle to the Romans, about the end
of the year 57 or 58, and the
founding of the churches of Greece,
about 53 or 54, too little time had
elapsed to allow the gospel to spread
so far as Rome, and to make it
possible for the whole world to have
heard of the fact (Rom. 1:8). But the
latter phrase is, of course, somewhat
hyperbolical (comp. 1 Thess. 1:8;
Col. 1:6). And if the founding of the
churches of Syria goes back, as we
have seen, to about the year 40, and
so to a date eighteen or nineteen
years before the Epistle to the
Romans, the time thus gained for this
Christian invasion is certainly not
too short. Even the five or six years
which intervene between the evangelization
of Greece and the
composition of our Epistle sufficed to
explain the arrival of the gospel at
Rome from the great commercial centres
of Thessalonica and Corinth.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
It may be asked, no doubt, how came
it, if it did so happen, that the
representatives of the Christian faith
in the capital had not yet raised the
standard of the new doctrine in the
synagogue? But it must be
remembered that for such a mission it
was not enough to be a sincere
believer; one required to feel himself
in possession of scripture knowledge,
and of a power of speech and argument
which could not be expected from
simple men engaged in commerce and
industry. We read in Acts (18:26 et
seq.) that when Apollos arrived at Ephesus,
and when, supported by his
eminent talents and biblical
erudition, he made bold —such is the word
used—to speak in the synagogue,
Aquila, the disciple and friend of Paul,
did not attempt to answer him in the
open assembly, but thought it enough
to take him unto him to instruct him
privately in the knowledge of the
gospel. This is easily understood; it
was a paradoxical proclamation which
was in question, being, as St. Paul
says, to the Greeks foolishness , and
still more to the Jews a stumbling-block.
The first-comer was not fitted to
proclaim and defend it before the
great Rabbins of capitals such as
Antioch, Ephesus, or Rome. So true is
this, that some expressions in the
Epistle to the Romans would lead us to
suppose that Paul himself was
accused of shrinking from the task. Is
it not indeed to a suspicion of this
kind that he is alluding, when, after
speaking of the delays which had
hitherto prevented his visit to Rome,
he declares (1:16) “that he is not
ashamed of the gospel of Christ”? Only
a very small number of men
exceptionally qualified could essay an
attack such as would tell on the
fortress of Roman Judaism, and not one
of those strong men had yet
appeared in the capital.
We have in the Book of Acts an account
of the founding of a church
entirely analogous to that which we
are supposing for the church of Rome.
It is that of the church of Antioch.
Some Christian emigrants from
Jerusalem reach this capital of Syria
shortly after the persecution of
Stephen; they turn to the Greeks ,
that is to say, the Gentiles of the city. A
large number believe, and the
distinction between this community of
Gentile origin and the synagogue is
brought out so pointedly that a new
name is invented to designate
believers, that of Christian (Acts 11:19-
26). Let us transfer this scene from
the capital of Syria to the capital of the
empire, and we have the history of the
founding of the church of Rome.
We understand how Greek names are in a
majority, such being borne by
the most distinguished of the members
of the church (in the salutations of
chap. 16); we understand the ignorance
which still prevailed among the
rulers of the synagogue in relation to
the gospel; we understand the
extraordinary eagerness with which the
Christians of Rome come to salute
Paul on his arrival. All the facts
find their explanation, and the narrative of
the Acts is vindicated without
difficulty.
II. Composition and Tendency of the
Roman Church.
It was generally held, till the time
of Baur, that the majority of the Roman
church was of Gentile origin, and
consequently sympathized in its
tendency with the teaching of Paul;
this view was inferred from a certain
number of passages taken from the
Epistle itself, and from the natural
enough supposition that the majority
of the church would take the general
character of the Roman population. But
Baur, in a work of remarkable
learning and sagacity, maintained that
on this view, which had already
been combated by Ruckert , it was
absolutely impossible to explain the aim
and construction of the Epistle to the
Romans; that such a letter had no
meaning except as addressed to a
church of Jewish-
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Christian origin, and of Judaizing and
particularistic tendency, whose
views Paul was concerned to correct.
He sought to give an entirely
different meaning from the received
one to the passages usually alleged
in favor of the contrary opinion; and
he succeeded so well in
demonstrating his thesis, that he
carried with him the greater number of
theologians (MM. Reuss, Thiersch,
Mangold, Schenkel, Sabatier,
Holtzmann, Volkmar, Holsten, etc.).
Even Tholuck, in the fifth edition of his
Commentary , yielded, up to a certain
point, to the weight of the reasons
advanced by the Tubingen critic, and
acknowledged the necessity of
holding for the explanation of the
Epistle the existence at Rome, if not of a
majority, at least of a very strong
minority of Judaizers. Philippi made a
similar concession. Things had come so
far three years ago, that
Holtzman could assert without
exaggeration that “Baur's opinion now
hardly found any opponent.”
Yet even in 1858 Theodore Schott,
while making large concessions to
Baur's view regarding the tendency and
arrangement of the Epistle, had
energetically maintained that there
was a Gentile-Christian majority in the
church of Rome. Several theologians
have since then declared for the
same view; so Riggenbach in an article
of the Zeitschrift fur die
Lutherische Theologie (1866),
reviewing Mangold's work; Hofman (of
Erlangen) in his Commentary on our
Epistle (1868); Dietzsch in an
interesting monograph on Rom. 5:12-21,
Adam und Christus
(1871); Meyer in the fifth edition of
his Commentary (1872). Even
Hilgenfeld in his Introduction (p.
305) has thought right to modify Baur's
opinion, and to acknowledge the
existence of a strong Gentile-Christian
and Pauline element in the Roman
church; finally, in the very year in
which Holtzmann proclaimed the final
triumph of Baur's view, two authors
of well-known erudition and
independence as critics, Schultz and
Weizsacker , declared in the
Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie (1876) for
the preponderance of the
Gentile-Christian element.
After all these oscillations an
attempt at conciliation was to be expected.
Beyschlag has proposed such a solution
in a work in which the facts are
grouped with a master-hand, and which
concludes, on the one side, that
the majority of the Roman church, in
conformity with Paul's express
statements, was of Gentile origin;
but, on the other, that this Gentile
majority shared Judaizing convictions,
because it was composed of
former proselytes.
According to the plan which we have
adopted, and not to anticipate the
exegesis of the Epistle, we shall not
here discuss the passages alleged
either for or against the Gentile
origin of the majority of the readers; either
for or against the Judaizing tendency
of this majority.
But outside the exegesis properly so
called we have some indications
which may serve to throw light on the
double question of the composition
and tendency of the majority of the
church.
1. The letter itself which we have to
study. St. Paul, who would not build
on the foundation laid by another,
could not write a letter like this,
containing a didactic exposition of
the gospel, except to a church which he
knew belonged to him at least
indirectly in its composition and tendency
as well as origin.
2. The ignorance of the rulers of the
synagogue in regard to the gospel.
Baur himself, in rejecting Luke's
narrative as a fiction of the author of the
Acts, has acknowledged the
incompatibility of this fact with the
preponderance of a majority in the
Roman church having a Jewish-
Christian tendency.
3. The persecution of Nero in 64. This
bloody catastrophe smote the
church of Rome without touching the
synagogue. “Now,” says Weizsacker ,
“if Christians
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
had not yet existed at Rome, except as
a mere Jewish party, the
persecution which fell on them,
without even ruffling the surface of
Judaism, would be an inexplicable fact
both in its origin and course.”
4. The information given by the
apostle as to the state of the church in the
beginning of his Roman captivity in
Phil. 1. He tells how the somewhat
drowsy zeal of the Christians of the
capital had been reawakened by his
presence. And in this connection he
mentions some Christians ( tinev" )
who set themselves fervently to
preach, but from envy (ver. 15). Who are
they? The common answer is: the
Judaizers of the Roman church. Well
and good. But in that case, as they
form an exception to the majority of
the faithful whom Paul has just
mentioned
( tou;" pleivona" , the
majority , ver. 14), and who have received a holy
impulse from confidence in his bonds,
the Judaizers can only have been a
minority. Here, then, is an express
testimony against the prevalence of
Jewish-Christianity in the church of
Rome. Against it is Weizsacker , who
exhibits this proof in all its force.
5. The composition of Mark's Gospel.
It is generally admitted that this
narrative was composed at Rome, and
for the Christians of the capital.
Now the detailed explanations
contained in the book as to certain Jewish
customs, and the almost entire absence
of quotations from the Old
Testament, do not sanction the view
that its author contemplated a
majority of readers of Jewish origin.
6. The Epistle of Clement of Rome.
This writing, which is some thirty odd
years posterior to the Epistle to the
Romans, breathes in all respects, as
Weizsacker says, the spirit of the
Gentile-Christian world. Such is also the
judgment of Harnack in his introduction
to the Epistle. No doubt it is far
from the strong spirituality of Paul,
but still it is substantially his conception
of Christianity. Now, the national
type of this great church cannot, as
Weizsacker says, have become
transformed in so short a space of time.
This writing is therefore a new proof
of the predominance of the Gentile
element in this church from its
origin.
7. The Easter controversy of the
second century. Rome put herself at the
head of all Christendom to root out
the Paschal rite established in the
churches of Asia Minor. And whence
came the offence caused by the
mode of celebrating Easter in those
churches? From the fact that they
celebrated the holy Easter supper on
the evening of the 14th Nisan, at the
same moment when the Jews, in
obedience to the law, were celebrating
their Paschal feast. Certainly, if the
Roman church had been under the
sway of a Judaizing tradition, it
would not thus have found itself at the
head of the crusade raised against
them.
8. The catacombs of Rome. There are
found at every step in those
burying- places names belonging to the
noblest families of the city, some
of them even closely related to the
imperial family. The fact shows the
access which Christianity had found
from the first to the upper classes of
Roman society, who assuredly did not
belong to Judaism. Another proof,
the full force of which has been
brought out by Weiszacker .
To support his view, Baur has quoted
the passage of Hilary, which we
have already mentioned, p. 37, and
particularly the following words: “It is
certain that in the time of the
apostles there were Jews dwelling at Rome.
Those of them who had believed, taught
the Romans to profess Christ,
while keeping the law.” But the
contrast which the passage establishes
between Jews and Romans shows clearly
that Hilary himself looked on
the latter, who, according to him,
formed the great body of the church, as
of Gentile origin. So the fact is
precisely the reverse of what Baur affects
to prove from the words. And as to the
legal tendency which, according to
Hilary, the Jewish-Christian
instructors had inculcated on the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Romans, it is clear that in the third
or fourth century this writer possessed
no tradition on the subject; nothing
positive was known at Rome in the
second century regarding facts
otherwise of great importance, such as
Paul's journey to Spain. It was
therefore a conclusion which he drew from
the anti-Jewish polemic which he
thought he could trace in the Epistle to
the Romans.
If any one is entitled to appeal to
this passage, it would seem to be not
Baur, but Beyschlag. Yet even that
would not be exact; for Hilary nowhere
says that those Romans who had been
converted by the believing Jews of
Rome formerly belonged to Judaism as
proselytes. The contrary is rather
to be inferred from the words he uses.
Besides, Beyschlag's solution,
during the twenty years that have
elapsed since it was proposed, has
found only a single supporter, M.
Schurer (in his review of Hilgenfeld's
Introduction ). And the fact is easily
understood. For either the gospel
reached Rome through the synagogue—and
then how would the
proselytes have been in such a
majority that the church could have been,
as Beyschlag admits, regarded as an
essentially Gentile-Christian
community? or the gospel spread to the
capital from the churches of
Greece and Asia Minor, in which the
spiritualism of Paul was
supreme—and in that case whence came
the legal character with which
Beyschlag supposes it to have been
impressed? The hypothesis asserts
too much or too little. So Weizsacker
and Schultz have not stopped for an
instant to refute it.
The result of our study is, that the
Roman church was mostly of Gentile
origin and Pauline tendency, even
before the apostle addressed our letter
to it. The formation of the church was
indirectly traceable to him, because
its authors proceeded for the most
part from the churches of the East,
whose existence was due to his
apostolic labors. Besides, the recruiting of
the church having taken place chiefly
in the midst of the Roman, that is to
say, Gentile population, Paul was
entitled to regard it as belonging to the
domain of the Apostle of the Gentiles.
Of course this solution will not be
valid until it has passed the ordeal
of the texts of the Epistle itself.
The result which we have just reached
renders it at once more difficult
and more easy to explain the course adopted
by the apostle in writing
such a letter to this church.
For if it is easier to explain how he
could by writing instruct a church which
came within the domain assigned to him
by the Lord, on the other hand it
is more embarrassing to say with what
view he could repeat in writing to
this church all that which it should
already have known.
CHAPTER III. THE EPISTLE.
To study the composition of this
Epistle, which establishes for the first
time a relation between the apostle
and the church, we shall have three
points to consider:—(1) the author;
(2) the circumstances of his life in
which he composed the letter; (3) the
aim which he set before him. We
shall continue to avoid interrogating
our Epistle except in so far as the
data which it may furnish are obvious
at a glance, and demand no
exegetical discussion.
I. The Author.
The author declares himself to be
Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles (1:1-7,
11:13, 15:15-20). The sending of the
letter pertains, in his view, to the
fulfilling of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the commission which he has received,
“to bring all the Gentiles to the
obedience of the faith” (1:5).
The unanimous tradition of the church
is in harmony with this declaration
of the author.
Between the years 90 and 100 of our
era, Clement, a presbyter of the
church of Rome, reproduced in chap. 35
of his Epistle to the Corinthians
the picture of the vices of the
Gentiles, such as it is traced in Rom. 1; in
chap. 38 he applies to the
circumstances of his time the exhortations
which are addressed to the strong and
the weak in chap. 14 of our Epistle.
Our letter was therefore preserved in
the archives of the church of Rome,
and recognized as a work of the
apostle whose name it bears.
It cannot be doubted that the author
of the Epistle called the Epistle of
Barnabas (written probably in Egypt
about 96), when writing his third
chapter, had present to his mind Rom.
4:11 et seq.: “I have set thee to be
a father of the nations believing in
the Lord in uncircumcision.”
The letters of Ignatius again and
again reproduce the antithesis in the
twofold origin of Jesus as Son of
David and Son of God, Rom. 1:3, 4.
In the Dialogue with Trypho , chap.
xxvii., Justin, about the middle of the
second century, repeats the
enumeration of the many biblical passages
whereby Paul, Rom. 3, demonstrates the
natural corruption of man.
The Epistle to Diognetus says, chap.
ix., not without allusion to Rom. 5:18,
19: “That the iniquity of many may be
covered through righteousness, and
that the righteousness of one may
justify many sinners.”
The churches of Lyon and Vienne , in
their letter to the churches of Pontus
(about 177), speak of their martyrs
(Eus. 5:1): “Really proving that the
sufferings of this present time ,”
etc. (Rom. 8:18).
Many features of the picture of
Gentile infamies, Rom. 1, reappear in the
Apologies of Athenagoras and of
Theophilus , shortly after the middle of
the second century. The latter quotes
Rom. 2:6-9, and 13:7, 8 textually.
The so-called Canon of Muratori
(between 170 and 180) places the
Epistle to the Romans among the
writings which the church receives, and
which should be read publicly.
The quotations made by Irenaeus (56
times), Clement of Alexandria, and
Tertullian , are very numerous. It is
only from this time forward that Paul is
expressly named in these quotations as
the author.
In the third century Origen , and in
the fourth Eusebius , do not mention
any doubt as expressed on the subject
of the authenticity of our Epistle.
The testimony of heretics is not less
unanimous than that of the Fathers.
Basilides, Ptolemaeus , and very
particularly Marcion , from the first half of
the second century onward, make use of
our Epistle as an undisputed
apostolical document.
Throughout the whole course of the
past centuries, only two theologians
have contested this unanimous
testimony of the church and the sects.
These are the English author Evanson ,
in a work on the Gospels, of the
last century, and Bruno Baur , in our
own day, in Germany. They ask:—1.
Why does the author of the Acts of the
Apostles not say a word about a
work of such importance? As if the
Book of Acts were a biography of the
Apostle Paul! 2. How are we to
understand the numerous salutations of
chap. 16 addressed to a church in
which Paul had never lived? As if
(granting that this page of
salutations really belongs to our Epistle) the
apostle could not have known all these
persons in Greece and the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
East who were now living at Rome, as
we shall prove in the case, for
example, of Aquila and Priscilla! 3.
How can we hold the existence of a
church at Rome so considerable as our
Epistle supposes before the
arrival of any apostle in the city? As
if the founding of the church of
Antioch did not furnish us with a
sufficient precedent to solve the question!
Thus there is nothing to prevent us
from accepting the testimony of the
church, which is confirmed, besides,
by the grandeur which betrays a
master, and the truly apostolic power
of the work itself, as well as by its
complete harmony in thought and style
with the other writings
acknowledged to be the apostle's.
II. The Date.
The external circumstances in which
this letter was composed are easily
made out.
1. Paul had not yet visited Rome
(1:10-13); this excludes every date
posterior to the spring of the year
62, when he arrived in the city.
2. The apostle is approaching the end
of his ministry in the East. From
Jerusalem to Illyria he has filled
every place with the preaching of the
gospel of Christ; now he must seek a
field of labor westward, at the
extremity of Europe, in Spain,
15:18-24. Paul could not have written these
words before the end of his residence
at Ephesus, which lasted probably
from the autumn of 54 to the Pentecost
of 57.
3. At the time he wrote he was still
free; for he was discussing his plans
for travelling, 15:23-25. It was
therefore at a period previous to his arrest
at Jerusalem (Pentecost of the year
59).
The interval which remains available
is thus reduced to the short period
from the year 57 to 59.
4. At the time when he wrote, he was
about to start for Jerusalem, at the
head of a numerous deputation charged
with carrying to the mother
church the fruits of a collection
organized on its behalf in all the churches
of the Gentile world (Rom. 15:24-28).
When he wrote his first Epistle to
the Corinthians (Pentecost 57), and a
year and a half later (unless I am
mistaken) his second (summer 58), the
collection was not yet finished,
and he did not know at that time
whether it would be liberal enough to
warrant his going himself to present
it to the church of Jerusalem (1 Cor.
16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8 and 9.). All is
completed when he writes the Epistle to the
Romans, and the question of his taking
part personally in the mission is
decided (15:28). This indication
brings us to the time immediately
preceding Paul's departure from
Corinth for Jerusalem, which took place
in March 59.
5. Finally, we are struck with the
sort of anxiety which appears in the
words used, 15:30-32: “Strive together
with me in your prayers to God for
me, that I may be delivered from them
that do not believe in Judea.” We
recognize in this passage the
disquieting presentiments which came out in
all the churches at that point in the
apostle's life, when he went to face for
the last time the hatred of the
inhabitants and authorities of Jerusalem
(comp. Acts 20:22, 23, 21:4, 10-12).
The Epistle to the Romans was
therefore written very shortly before
his departure for that city.
To fix the point exactly, it remains
only to attempt to determine the place
of its composition.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
1. 16:1, he recommends Phebe, a
deaconess of Cenchrea, the port of
Corinth, on the Egean Sea. It is
therefore probable that if this passage
really belongs to the Epistle to the
Romans, Paul wrote from Corinth or its
neighborhood.
2. He names Gaius as his host (16:23).
This is probably the same person
as is mentioned in the first Epistle
to the Corinthians (1:14) as being one
of the earliest converts of that city.
3. He sends a greeting from Erastus,
treasurer of the city, 16:23. It is
probable that this person is the same
as we find mentioned, 2 Tim. 4:20,
in these words: “Erastus abode at
Corinth. ”
These indications lead us to conclude
with great probability that Corinth
was the place of composition. This
result agrees with the preceding one
relative to the date. In fact, mention
is made in Acts 20:2 of a three
months' stay made by Paul in Hellas,
that is to say, in the southern part of
Greece, of which Corinth was the
capital. This stay immediately preceded
Paul's departure for Jerusalem, and
took place, consequently, in the
months of December 58, and January and
February
59.
So it was during this time of repose
that the apostle, after so many
anxieties and labors, found the calm
necessary for composing such a
work. The time was solemn. The first
part of his apostolic task was
finished. The East, wholly evangelized
in a way, lay behind him; he had
before him the West still enveloped in
the darkness of paganism, but
which belonged also to the domain
assigned him by the Lord. In the midst
of this darkness he discerns a
luminous point, the church of Rome. On
this he fixes his eye before entering
on the journey to Italy in person.
We shall see if the Epistle to the
Romans corresponds to the solemnity of
the situation.
III. The Aim.
Critics differ as much in regard to
the aim of our Epistle as they are
agreed about its date and
authenticity. Since Baur's time the subject has
become one of the most controverted in
the whole range of New
Testament criticism.
The question stands thus: If we assign
a special practical aim to the
Epistle, we put ourselves, as it
seems, in contradiction to the very general
and quasi- systematic character of its
contents. If, on the contrary, we
ascribe to it a didactic and wholly
general aim, it differs thereby from the
other letters of St. Paul, all of
which spring from some particular occasion,
and have a definite aim. The author of
the oldest critical study of the New
Testament which we possess, the
so-called Fragment of Muratori , wrote
thus about the middle of the second
century: “St. Paul's letters themselves
reveal clearly enough, to any one who
wishes to know, in what place and
with what view they were composed.” If
he had lived among the
discussions of our day, he would
certainly not have expressed himself
thus about our Epistle. What increases
the difficulty is, that the letter is not
addressed to a church which Paul had
himself founded, and cannot be
regarded, like his other Epistles, as
the continuation of his missionary
work. Let us add, finally, the sort of
obscurity which, as we have seen,
rests on the founding of this church,
and consequently on the nature of its
composition and its religious
tendency, and we shall understand how an
almost numberless multitude of
opinions should have been broached,
especially in the present day,
regarding the intention of the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
letter. It seems to us possible to
distribute the proposed solutions into
three principal groups.
The first starts from the fact that
all the other Epistles of the apostle owe
their origin to some special occasion,
and ascribes to this one a practical
and definite aim. In the situation of
Paul's work, and at the time when he
was preparing to transfer his mission
to the West, it concerned him to
acquire or to make sure of the
sympathy of the Roman church, destined
as it was to become his point of support
in those new countries, as
Antioch had been in the East. Our
Epistle, on this view, was the means
chosen to obtain this result. Its aim
was thus apologetic.
Diametrically opposed to this first
group is a second, which takes account
especially of the general and
systematic character of the Epistle. Such
contents do not seem to be compatible
with the intention of obtaining a
particular practical result. The
apostle, it is therefore held, simply
proposed to instruct and edify the
church of Rome. The aim of the letter
was didactic.
Between these two groups stands a
third, which admits, indeed, the aim
of teaching, but that with a definite
intention, namely, to combat the legal
Jewish- Christianity which was already
dominant, or at least threatening to
become so, within the Roman church.
Our Epistle, consequently, had a
polemic intention.
We proceed to review these three
groups, each containing numerous
shades of opinion. That which we have
indicated in the third place,
evidently forming the transition
between the other two, we shall treat
second in the following exposition.
First Group: Apologetic Aim.
The way was opened in this direction
at one and the same time (1836) by
Credner and Baur. The apostle wishes
to prepare for himself a favorable
reception in the principal church of
the West; such is the general
viewpoint, which is variously modified
by the different adherents of this
conception.
I. The most precise and sharply
defined situation is that supposed by
Baur. The church of Rome, being in the
great majority of its members
Jewish-Christian by origin, and
particularistic in tendency, could not look
on Paul's mission to the Gentiles
otherwise than with dislike. No doubt,
Jewish-Christianity no longer desired
at Rome, as it had done formerly in
Galatia, to impese circumcision on the
Gentiles; it did not attack, as at
Corinth, Paul's apostolic dignity and
moral character. But the Christians of
Rome asked if it was just and agreeable
to God's promises to admit the
Gentiles en masse into the church, as
Paul was doing, before the Jewish
people had taken their legitimate
place in it. It was not wished to exclude
the Gentiles. But it was maintained
that, in virtue of the right of priority
granted to Israel, they ought not to
enter till the chosen nation had done
so. Paul feels deeply that a church so
minded cannot serve as the point of
support for his mission in the West,
that it will rather put a hindrance in his
way. And hence, at the last stage of
his sojourn in Greece, during the
three months of rest which are allowed
him at Corinth, he writes this letter
to the Romans, with the view of
completely rooting out the prejudice from
which their repugnance to his mission
springs. Not only has the right of
priority, to which Israel pretends, no
existence, since the righteousness of
faith has now for all time replaced
that of the law, but the conversion of
the Gentiles, for which Paul is
laboring, will be the very means which God
will use to bring back the hostile
Jews to Himself. It will be seen that,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
on this view, the great outline of the
ways of God, ix.-xi., far from being, as
is commonly thought, a simple
appendix, forms the central part of the
letter, that in which its true
intention is expressed. The whole preceding
exposition of the righteousness of
faith forms its admirable preface.
The treatise of Baur produced at the
time of its appearance an effect
similar to that caused eight years
afterward by a like work on the Gospel
of John. The learned world was as it
were fascinated; men thought they
were on the eve of a sort of
revelation. From the dazzling effect then
produced criticism is only slowly
recovering at the present day. Credner's
work was less developed and less
striking; he only added to the idea
which we have just indicated in the
form presented by Baur an original
feature, which has recently been
revived by Holsten. We mean the
relation between the composition of
the Epistle to the Romans and the
large amount of the collection made in
behalf of the church of Jerusalem
at the same period. At the very time
that he was endeavoring by this work
of love to influence the metropolis of
Jewish-Christianity in the East, his
practical genius sought by means of
our Epistle to acquire a point of
support for his mission in the most
important Jewish-Christian church of
the West. So understood, the letter
becomes an act , a real and serious
work, as is naturally to be expected
from a man like Paul composing such
a treatise.
The following, however, are the
reasons which have prevailed with
science more and more to reconsider
its verdict:
1. It has been found impossible to
accept the very forced explanations by
which Baur has labored to get rid of
the passages attesting the Gentile
origin and the Pauline tendency of the
church of Rome.—2. An attempt at
conquest, such as that which Baur
ascribes to Paul, has been felt to be
incompatible with the principle
professed by him in our very Epistle, not to
build on another man's foundation. In
this case Paul would be doing even
worse; he would be introducing himself
into a house wholly built by
strange hands, and would be seeking to
install himself in it with his whole
staff of apostolic helpers; this, no
doubt, with a view to the work of Christ,
but would the end justify the means?—3.
The idea which Baur ascribes to
the Christians of Rome, that of
restricting the preaching of the gospel to
the Jews until the whole elect people
should become believers, is a
strange and monstrous conception, of
which there is not the slightest
trace either in the New Testament or
in any work of Christian antiquity.
The Judaizers, on the contrary,
strongly approved of the conversion of the
Gentiles, insisting only on the
condition of circumcision (Gal. 5:11, 6:13).
To refuse to the Gentiles the
preaching of salvation till it should please the
Jews to become converts, would have
been an aggravation, and not at all,
as Baur says, an attenuation of the
old Jewish pretensions.—4. It is
impossible from this point of view to
account for the detailed instruction
with which the Epistle opens (i.-
viii.), and in particular for the
description of the corruption of the Gentiles
(chap.
1). If all that was only intended to
provide a justification of the missionary
course followed by the apostle, stated
ix.-xi., was not Schwegler right in
saying “that such an expenditure of
means was out of proportion to the
end in view?” It is not less difficult
to explain from this standpoint the use
of the moral part, especially of chap.
12:5. In general, the horizon of the
Epistle is too vast, its exposition
too systematic, its tone too calm, to allow
us to ascribe to it the intention of
making a conquest, or to see in it
something like a mine destined to
spring the ramparts of a hostile
position.—6. This explanation comes
very near to compromising the moral
character of Paul. What Baur did not
say, his disciple Holsten frankly
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
confesses in our day. After quoting
these words of Volkmar: “that the
Epistle to the Romans is the maturest
fruit of Paul's mind,” this critic adds:
“But it must, at the same time, be
confessed that it is not its purest work.
Under the pressure of a practical want
, that of reconciling the Jewish-
Christians to his gospel..., Paul has
not kept— and he knows it well
himself —at the height of his own
thought...; he has blunted the edge of
his gospel. ” If, to bear out the
exposition of Baur and his school, one must
go the length of making the Epistle to
the Romans a work of Jesuitism, we
think that this solution is judged.
Baur has cited the testimony of Hilary
( Ambrosiaster ), who says of the
Romans: “Who, having been wrongly
instructed by the Judaizers, were
immediately corrected (by this
letter).” But even on this point it has been
shown that Hilary's opinion was wholly
different from Baur's; since,
according to the former, the
Judaizers, who had led the Romans into error
in regard to the law, were absolutely
the same as those who had troubled
Antioch and Galatia; while, according
to Baur, those of Rome made
entirely different pretensions.
II. The difficulties which had led
even Baur to modify his view have forced
critics who are attached in the main
to his opinion to soften it still more
considerably. The critic whom we may
regard as the principal
representative of Baur's corrected
exposition is Mangold. According to this
author, the church of Rome, while
Jewish-Christian in its majority and
legal in its tendency, had not the
strictly particularistic conception which
Baur ascribes to it. It was merely
imbued with certain prejudices against
Paul and his work; it did not know
what to think of that wide propagation of
a gospel without law in the Gentile
world. The general abandonment of
Mosaism, which the missionary action
of the apostle brought in its train,
appeared to it to endanger the Lord's
work, and even the morality of those
multitudes of believing Gentiles.
Paul, therefore, on the eve of transferring
his activity to the West, felt the
need of reassuring the Romans as to the
spirit of his teaching, and the
consequences of his work. In 1-8 he seeks
to make them understand his doctrine;
in ix.-xi. he explains to them his
mission. He hopes thereby to succeed
in gaining a powerful auxiliary in
his new field of labor.—This view has
obtained a pretty general assent; it
is found wholly or in part in
Thiersch, Holtzmann, Ritschl, Beyschlag,
Hausrath, Schenkel, Schultz, as also
in Sabatier. It has its best support in
the anti-Judaistic tendency, which
may, with some measure of probability,
be ascribed to various parts of the
Epistle. But it has not the perfect
transparency of Baur's view; it is
hard to know wherein those prejudices of
the Roman church against Paul's work
consist, neither springing from
Judaizing legality, properly so
called, nor from the exceptional point of
view imagined by Baur.—Besides, as
directed to a church not strictly
Judaizing, what purpose would be
served by the long preface of the first
eight chapters, pointed against the
righteousness of the law? What end,
especially in the line of justifying
Paul's missionary practice, would be
served by the moral part, xii.-xiv.,
which has not the slightest connection
with his work? Here, certainly, we can
apply the saying of Schwegler, “that
the expenditure of means is
disproportioned to the end.” There remain,
finally, all the reasons which we have
alleged against the Jewish-Christian
composition of the church.
III. While acknowledging the Gentile
origin of the majority of the church,
and
the Pauline character of its faith,
Schott and Riggenbach think that the
object of the Epistle is simply to
awaken and quicken its sympathy with
Paul's work, on the eve of his passing
to the West.—But in that case the
extravagance of the means employed
becomes still more startling. To
demonstrate in the outset in eight
long
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
chapters the truth of Paul's gospel to
a Pauline church, in order to obtain
its missionary cooperation, would not
this be idle work—labor lost?
It is true that Schott, to meet this
difficulty, images an objection raised at
Rome to Paul's future mission in the
West. The East, says he, was full of
Jewish communities; so that, while
laboring in these countries for the
Gentiles, Paul was at the same time
laboring, up to a certain point, in the
midst of Jews, and for their good. But
it was wholly otherwise in the West,
where the Jews were not so plentifully
scattered. Here Paul's work must
necessarily be severed from action on
the Jewish people. Paul,
anticipating the accusations which
would arise from this fact, writes the
Epistle to the Romans in order to
obviate them.—But the difference which
Schott lays down on this head between
the East and the West does not
rest on any historical proof. And, as
Beyschlag rightly asks, “What strange
believers those Christians of Rome
must have been, who, while
themselves enjoying the blessings of
salvation, notwithstanding their
Gentile origin, imagined that those
same blessings could not be offered to
the other Western Gentiles till after
Israel had been wholly converted!”
IV. Hofmann has given to the
apologetic intention an altogether particular
complexion. Our letter, he would have
it, is the personal justification of
Paul in reference to the long delays
which had retarded his arrival at
Rome. It was intended to prove that a gospel
such as his leaves no room
in the heart of its apostle for
feelings of shame or lukewarmness. And thus
it sought to secure a favorable
reception for his person and mission. The
object of his letter is consequently
to be found revealed in 1:14-16.—But
is it possible to conceive so broad
and authoritative a scheme of doctrine
as that of the Epistle to the Romans,
given with a view so narrow and
personal? The passage, 1:14-16, may
have served as a preface for Paul
to his subject; but it cannot express
the aim of the Epistle.
In general, Paul might certainly
expect, as a fruit of this letter, an increase
of sympathy for his person and
mission; and the great change which was
about to pass over his life and work
would naturally lead him to desire this
result. But it must have been a more
urgent reason which led him to take
pen in hand, and to give a fuller and
more systematic exposition of his
gospel than he had bestowed on any
other church.
Second Group: Polemic Aim.
The authors belonging to this group do
not find in our Epistle the proof of
any aim relating to the apostle
himself and to his missionary work. The
aim of the letter, in their view, is
to be explained solely by the state of the
church to which it is addressed. The
object to be accomplished was to
destroy the legal tendency at Rome, or
to render its introduction
impossible; and so, according to some,
to bring about union and peace
between the two parties of the church.
I. Thus Hilary spoke in this
direction: “The Christians of Rome had allowed
Mosaic rites to be imposed on them, as
if full salvation were not to be
found in Christ; Paul wished to teach
them the mystery of the cross of
Christ, which had not yet been
expounded to them.” Similar words are to
be found in many of the Fathers, as
well as in some Reformers and
modern theologians (Augustine,
Melanchthon, Flatt, etc.). The opinion of
Thiersch is also substantially the
same: “The church of Rome having been
left by Peter in a state of doctrinal
inferiority, Paul sought to raise it to the
full height of Christian knowledge.”
Volkmar, too,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
would seem to adhere to this opinion.
He calls our Epistle “ a war and
peace treatise , intended to reconcile
a strictly Jewish-Christian church to
the free preaching of the gospel.”
This explanation suits the grave and
didactic character of the fundamental
part, i.-viii., as well as the express
statement of the theme, 1:16, 17. Only
it is not easy to understand how
Paul could have congratulated his
readers on the type of doctrine
according to which they had been
taught, as he does 11:17, if his intention
had been to substitute a new
conception of the gospel for theirs. We have
found, besides, that the majority of
the church was not Jewish-Christian in
tendency.
II. From early times down to our own
day, many have thought that Paul's
polemic against Jewish legalism was
intended to bring about the union of
the two parties at Rome. We shall cite
in particular, in the Middle Ages,
Rabanus Maurus and Abe8lard ; in
modern times, Eichhorn (partly), Flatt,
Hug, Bleek, Hilgenfeld, Hodge, etc.
Hug thinks that after the Jews, who
had been banished from Rome by the
edict of Claudius, returned, a new
treaty of union became necessary
between the Christians of Gentile and
those of Jewish origin. This Eirenicon
was the Epistle to the Romans,
which revolves entirely round this
idea: “Jews and Gentiles are equal
before God; their rights and
weaknesses are similar; and if any advantage
existed in favor of the one body, it
was abolished by Christ, who united all
in one universal religion.” Hilgenfeld
ascribes to Paul the intention of
uniting the rich Jewish-Christian
aristocracy with the numerous plebs of
Gentile origin. Hodge, the celebrated
American commentator, denies the
prevalence of a Judaizing tendency in
the church of Rome, but thinks,
nevertheless, “that conflicts now and
again arose, both regarding doctrine
and discipline, between the believers
of the two races,” and that this was
the occasion of our Epistle. The view
of Baumgarten-Crusius is almost the
same: “This exposition of the Pauline
conception is intended to unite
believing Jews and Gentiles in
forwarding the common work.” From this
point of view the passage, 14:1-15:13,
must be regarded as containing the
aim of the Epistle. But this piece,
bearing as it does the character of a
simple appendix, cannot play so
decisive a part; and it would be
inconceivable that, up to that point,
Paul should have given neither in the
preface nor in the course of the
letter the least sign of this conciliatory
intention; for, finally, when he demonstrates
the complete parity of
Gentiles and Jews, both in respect of
the condemnation under which they
lie and of the faith which is the one
condition of salvation for all, he
nowhere thinks of bringing Jews and
Gentiles into union with one another,
but of glorifying the greatness of
salvation and the mercy of God its
author.
III. Weizsacker (see at p. 42) also
holds the anti-Jewish tendency of our
Epistle. But as he recognizes the
Gentile-Christian composition of the
church, and cannot consequently admit
the predominance of the legal
spirit in such a community, he
supposes that the time had come when the
Judaizing attack which had assailed
all the churches of Paul was
beginning to trouble it also. “The
church was not Judaizing, but it was
worked by Judaizers.” This situation,
supposed by Weizsacker , is perfectly
similar to that described in Phil. 1.
Paul's aim, accordingly, was this: he
does not wish to attack , as Baur
thought, but to defend; he wishes to
preserve, not to acquire. Thus the
fundamental part on the righteousness
of faith and the sanctification
flowing from it (i.-viii.) finds an easy
explanation. Thus, too, we have no
difficulty in understanding the famous
passage, ix-xi., which is intended,
not, as most modern critics since Baur
suppose, to justify the missionary
practice of Paul, but to solve this
problem
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
raised by the progress of events: How
does it happen, if this gospel of
Paul is the truth, that the Jews, the
elect people, everywhere reject it?
One has a feeling of satisfaction and
relief after reading this excellent
work, so judicious and impartial; one
feels as if he had reached shelter
from the sweeping current, the spirit
of prejudice which has swayed
criticism for forty years. And yet it
is impossible for us to accept this
solution. How, if our Epistle was
occasioned by a violent Judaizing
aggression, is there no trace of the
fact throughout the whole of the letter,
and especially in the introductory
passage, 1:8-15? St. Paul there
congratulates the Romans on their
faith, and yet makes not the slightest
allusion to the dangers which it runs
at that very moment, and which form
the occasion of his writing! How could
the moral part, from chap. 12
onward, present no trace whatever of
this polemical tendency? Weizsacker
confesses the fact, but explains it by
saying that Jewish legalism had only
just been imported into the church,
and had not yet affected its moral life.
This answer is not sufficient; for it
is precisely by forms and observances
that ritualism strives to act. In the
Epistle to the Galatians, written in a
similar situation to that which
Weizsacker supposes, the anti-Judaistic
polemic is quite as emphatically
brought out in the moral part as in the
doctrinal exposition; comp. 5:6 et
seq.; then ver. 14, and especially the
interjected remarks, ver. 18: “If ye
are led by the Spirit, ye are not under
the law;” ver. 23: “The law is not
against such things” (the fruits of the
Spirit); comp. also Gal. 6:12-16. We
shall have to examine elsewhere in
the course of exposition the passage,
Rom. 16:17-20, where Paul puts the
church on its guard against the
arrival of Judaizers as a probable fact, but
one yet to come. Finally,
notwithstanding all the ability of this critic, we
think that he has not entirely
succeeded in explaining the complete
difference between the Epistle to the
Romans, so calm and coldly
didactic, and that to the Galatians,
so abrupt and vehement in its tone.
IV. There is a view which to some
extent gives weight to these objections,
while still maintaining the
anti-Judaistic character of the Epistle. We mean
the solution which was already
propounded at the time of the Reformation
by Erasmus, and reproduced in our day
by Philippi, Tholuck (last edition),
and in a measure by Beyschlag. Paul,
who found himself pursued by
Judaizing emmissaries at Antioch, in
Galatia, and at Corinth, naturally
foresees their speedy arrival at Rome;
and as, when a city is threatened
by an enemy, its walls are fortified
and it is prepared for a siege; so the
apostle, by the powerful and decisive
teaching contained in our Epistle,
fortifies the Roman church, and puts
it in a condition to resist the
threatening attack victoriously.
Nothing more natural than this situation
and the preventive intention of our
Epistle connected with it; the
explanation harmonizes well with the
term strengthening , which the
apostle frequently uses to express the
effect which he would like to
produce by his work within the church
(1:11, 16:25). The only question is,
whether so considerable a treatise
could have been composed solely with
a view to a future and contingent want.
Then there is not in the whole
letter more than a single allusion to
the possible arrival of the Judaizers
(16:17-20). How could this word thrown
in by the way at the close, after
the salutations, reveal the intention
which dictated the letter, unless we
are to ascribe to the apostle the
course which ladies are said to follow, of
putting the real thought of their
letter into the postscript?
V. An original solution, which also
belongs to this group of interpretations,
has
been offered by Ewald. According to
him, Christianity had remained
hitherto enveloped in the Jewish
religion; but Paul began to dread the
consequences of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
this solidarity. For he foresaw the
conflict to the death which was about to
take place between the Roman empire
and the Jewish people, now
becoming more and more fanaticized.
The Epistle to the Romans is
written with the view of breaking the
too close and compromising bond
which still united the synagogue and
the church, and which threatened to
drag the latter into foolish
enterprises. The practical aim of the writing
would thus appear in chap. 13 in the
exhortation addressed to Christians
to obey the higher powers ordained of
God in the political domain; and the
entire Epistle would be intended to
demonstrate the profound
incompatibility between the Jewish and
the Christian spirit, and so to
establish this application. One cannot
help admiring in this theory the
originality of Ewald's genius, but we
cannot make up our mind to attach
such decisive importance to the
warning of chap. 14; for this passage is
only a subdivision of the moral
instruction, which is itself only the second
part of the didactic exposition. So
subordinate a passage cannot express
the aim of the Epistle.
We are at the end of the solutions
derived from the danger which the
Roman church is alleged to have been
then incurring from the legal
principle, whether as a present enemy
or a threatening danger. And we
are thus brought to the third class of
explanations, composed of all those
which despair of finding a local and
temporary aim for Paul's Epistle.
Third Group: Didactic Aim.
According to the critics who belong to
this group, the Epistle to the
Romans is a systematic exposition of
Christian truth, and has no other
aim than to enlighten and strengthen
the faith of the Christians of Rome in
the interest of their salvation.
Thus the author of the ancient
Muratori Fragment says simply: “The
apostle expounds to the Romans the
plan of the Scriptures by inculcating
the fact that Christ is their first
principle.”
The ancient Greek expositors, Origen,
Chrysostom, Theodoret, with those
of the Middle Ages, such as John of
Damascus, Oecumenius,
Theophylact, seek no more mysterious
aim than this: to guide men to
Christ. But why especially address
such instruction to the church of
Rome? Theophylact answers: “What does
good to the head, thereby does
the same to the whole body.” This
answer betrays a time when Rome had
come to occupy the central place in
the church.
Our Reformers and their successors
have almost the same idea of our
Epistle: “The whole of this Epistle,”
says Calvin, “is composed
methodically.” Paul, says Melanchthon,
has drawn up in the Epistle to the
Romans “the summary of Christian
doctrine, though he has not
philosophized in this writing either
on the mysteries of the Trinity, or on the
mode of the incarnation, or on
creation active and passive. Is it not in
reality on the law, on sin, and on
grace, that the knowledge of Christ
depends?”
Grotius thus expresses himself:
“Though addressed strictly speaking to
the Romans, this letter contained all
the supports ( munimenta ) of the
Christian religion, so that it well
deserved that copies of it should be sent
to other churches.” So he thinks he
can explain the use of the Greek
instead of the Latin language. He thus
anticipates a recent hypothesis, of
which we shall speak by and by.
Tholuck in his first editions, and
Olshausen in his excellent commentary,
also think that Paul's aim was
wholly general. He wished to show how
the gospel, and the gospel only,
fully answers to the need of salvation
attaching to every
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
human soul, a want which neither
paganism nor Judaism can satisfy.
Glo1ckler , Ko1llner , Reiche, and de
Wette likewise adhere to this view;
the latter at the same time
establishing a connection between the
evangelical universalism expounded in
our Epistle, and the position of
Rome as the centre of the empire of
the world. Meyer also, while fully
sharing this view, feels the need of
showing how the teaching was rooted
in actual circumstances. He thinks
that Paul has here expounded the
gospel as it appeared to him at the
close of the great struggle with
Judaism from which he had just
emerged, and as he would have
preached it at Rome had he been able
to go thither personally.
M. Reuss in his last work ( Les
e8pi<tres pauliniennes ) escapes from
Baur's view, which had previously
exercised a very marked influence over
him. The absence of all polemic in our
Epistle indicates, he thinks, that the
apostle addresses this exposition of
the essence of the gospel to an ideal
public. In reality, are not the wants
of all the churches substantially the
same? Only he ascribes to the apostle
the special desire of making the
church of Rome “the focus of light for
the West.”
M. Renan explains our Epistle by the
importance of the church of Rome
and the apostle's desire to give it a
token of his sympathy. “He took
advantage of an interval of rest to
write in an epistolary form a sort of
re8sume8 of his theological teaching,
and he addressed it to this church,
composed of Ebionites and Jewish
Christians, but embracing also
proselytes and Gentile converts.” This
is not all. The careful analysis of
chap. 15 and 16 leads M. Renan to
conclude that the letter was
simultaneously addressed to three
other churches, that of Ephesus, that
of Thessalonica, and a fourth church
unknown. This writer draws a picture
of Paul's disciples all occupied in
making copies of this manifesto intended
for the different churches ( Saint
Paul , p. 481).
The force of all these explanations
lies in the general and systematic tenor
of the Epistle to the Romans. It is
this characteristic which distinguishes it
from all the others, except that to
the Ephesians. But the weakness of
these solutions appears—1. In the
difference which they establish
between this letter and Paul's other
writings. “Such an Epistle,” says Baur,
“would be a fact without analogy in
the apostle's career. It would not
correspond to the true Pauline
epistolary type.”
2. In the fact that all these
explanations utterly fail satisfactorily to answer
the question: Why this systematic
teaching addressed to Rome and not
elsewhere?
3. In the serious omissions from the
system. Melanchthon was struck with
this. We instance two of them
especially: the omission of the doctrines
relating to the person of Christ and
to the end of all things , Christology
and Eschatology.
But these objections do not appear to
us to be insoluble. What, indeed, if
these two characteristics which seem
to be mutually contradictory, the
local destination and the generality
of the contents, were exactly the
explanation of one another? In the so
varied course of apostolic history
might there not be found a particular
church which needed general
teaching? And was not this precisely
the case with the church of Rome?
We know that Paul did not omit, when
he founded a church, to give those
who were attracted by the name of
Christ profound and detailed
instruction regarding the gospel.
Thiersch has thoroughly demonstrated
this fact. Paul refers to it in the
question so frequently repeated in his
Epistles: Know ye not that ...? which
often applies to points of detail on
which a pastor does not even touch in
our day in the instruction which he
gives to his catechumens. The Book of
Acts relates that at Ephesus Paul
gave a course of Christian instruction
in the school
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
of the rhetorician Tyrannus every day
for two whole years. What could be
the subject of those daily and
prolonged conferences, and that in a city
like Ephesus? Most certainly Paul did
not speak at random; he followed
some order or other. Starting from the
moral nature of man, his natural
powers of knowledge and his
indestructible wants, he showed the fall of
man, the turpitude of the Gentile
world, and the inadequacy of Judaism to
supply an efficacious remedy for human
misery. Thus he came to the
means of salvation offered by God
Himself. From this point he cast a look
backwards at the ancient revelation
and its several aspects, the
patriarchal promise and the Mosaic
law. He showed the essential unity
and the radical difference between the
law and the gospel. In this
retrospective glance he embraced the
entire history of humanity, showing
the relation between its fall in one
man and its restoration in one. Finally,
on this basis he raised the edifice of
the new creation. He revealed the
mystery of the church, the body of the
glorified Christ, the sanctification of
the individual and of the family, the
relation between Christianity and the
State; and unfolding the aspects of
the divine plan in the conversion of the
nations, he led up to the restitution
of all things, physical nature itself
included, and to the glory to come.
He did what he does in his Epistles,
and particularly in the most
systematic of all, the Epistle to the
Romans. Baur has alleged that the
apostles had no time, in the midst of
their missionary labors, to
systematize the gospel, and to compose
a Christian dogmatic. But could
Baur suppose that a mind of such
strength as Paul's was could have
lectured for two years before an
audience like the cultivated class of the
Ephesian population, without having at
least traced an outline of Christian
doctrine?
Now, this apostolic instruction which
Paul gave with so much care in the
churches which he founded, and which
was the real basis of those
spiritual edifices, he had not given
at Rome. Thessalonica, Corinth, and
Ephesus had enjoyed it; the church of
the Capital of the world had been
deprived of it. Here the message had
preceded the messenger. A
community of believers had been formed
in this city without his
assistance. No doubt he reckoned on
being there himself soon; but once
more he might be prevented; he knew
how many dangers attended his
approaching journey to Jerusalem. And
besides, should he arrive at Rome
safe and sound, he had too much tact
to think of putting the members of
such a church as it were on the
catechumen's bench. In these
circumstances, how natural the idea of
filling up by means of writing the
blank which Providence had permitted,
and of giving, in an epistolary
treatise addressed to the church, the
Christian instruction which it had
missed, and which was indispensable to
the solidity of its faith! The
apostle of the Gentiles was not able
to establish the church in the
metropolis of the Gentile world...,
the work was taken out of his hands;
what shall he do? He will found it
anew. Under the already constructed
edifice he will insinuate a powerful
substruction—to wit, his apostolic
doctrine systematically arranged, as
he expounds it everywhere else viva
voce.
If such is the origin of the Epistle
to the Romans, we have in it nothing
less than the course of religious
instruction, and in a way the dogmatic
and moral catechism of St. Paul. In
this explanation there is no occasion
for the question why this instruction
was addressed to Rome rather than
to any other church. Rome was the only
great church of the Gentile world
to which Paul felt himself burdened
with such a debt. This is the prevailing
thought in the preface of his Epistle,
and by which he clears the way for
the treatment of his subject
(1:13-16). After reminding the Romans that
they too, as Gentiles, belong to the
domain
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
confided to his apostleship, 1:1-6, he
accounts, from ver. 8, for the
involuntary delays which have retarded
his arrival at Rome; and so comes
at length to speak of the evangelical
doctrine which he desired to impart
viva voce , and which he now addresses
to them in writing. Nothing could
explain more naturally the transition
from ver. 15 to ver. 16. The
systematic form of the treatise which
begins here, the expressly
formulated theme which serves as its
basis (1:16, 17), the methodical
development of the theme, first in a
dogmatic part, i.-xi., then in a moral
part, xii.-15:13 (which is not less
systematically arranged than the
former),—all these features
demonstrate that the author here intends to
give a didactic exposition.
No doubt there are blanks, as we have
already acknowledged, in this
summary of Christian truth, and we
cannot in this respect compare it with
our modern dogmatic systems. But the
limits which Paul traced for himself
are not difficult to understand. They
were indicated by those of the
personal revelation which he had
received. The phrase: my gospel , which
he uses twice in this Epistle (and
only once again in his other letters),
sufficiently indicates the domain
within which he intended to confine
himself. Within the general Christian
revelation with which all the apostles
were charged, Paul had received a
special part, his lot, if one may so
speak. This is what he calls, Eph.
3:2, “the measure of the grace which
had been committed to him.” This part
was neither the doctrine of the
person of Christ, which belonged more
particularly to the apostles who
had lived with Him, nor the
delineation of the last things , which was the
common property of the apostolate. His
special lot was the way of gaining
possession of the Christian salvation.
Now Paul wished to give to the
church only that which he had himself
received “through the teaching of
Christ, without the intervention of
any man” (Gal. 1:11, 12). And this is
what has naturally determined the
contents of the Epistle to the Romans.
The limit of his divinely received
gospel was that of this Epistle. This
certainly did not prevent its contents
from touching at all points the
general teaching of the apostles,
which included Paul's, as a wider
circumference encloses a narrower. One
sees this in the christological
and eschatological elements contained
in the Epistle to the Romans, and
which harmonize with the general
apostolic teaching. But it is not from this
source that the substance of our
Epistle is derived. The apostle wishes to
give to the Romans his gospel, and, if
I may so speak, his Paul.
From this point of view we can also
account for the elements of anti-
Jewish polemic which have misled so
many excellent critics, Mangold and
Weizsacker for example, as to the aim
of his letter. Paul wished to expound
the mode of individual salvation; but
could he do so without taking account
of the ancient revelation which seemed
to teach a different way from that
which he was himself expounding? Could
he at this moment of transition,
when the one of two covenants was
taking the place of the other, say: by
faith , without adding: and not by the
law? The anti-legal tendency
belonged inherently to his teaching,
as much as the anti-papal tendency
belonged to Luther's. Would a Reformer
have been able, even without
intending to write polemically, to
compose a system of dogmatics without
setting aside the merit of works? The
aim of Paul's treatise was didactic
and world-wide; the introduction
proves this (the description of the
corruption of the Gentile world); the
middle confirms it (the parallel
between Adam and Jesus Christ); the
close completes the demonstration
(the systematic exposition of morals,
without any allusion to the law). But
beside this way of salvation, which he
was anxious to expound, he saw
another which attempted to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
rival it, and which professed also to
be divinely revealed. He could not
establish the former without setting
aside the latter. The anti-Judaizing
pieces do not therefore oblige us to
ascribe this tendency to the whole
letter. They have their necessary
place in the development of the subject
of the Epistle.
It need hardly be said that our
explanation does not exclude what truth
there is in the other proposed
solutions. That Paul desired by this system
of instruction to secure a favorable
reception at Rome; that he hoped to
strengthen this church against the
invasion of Judaizers, present or to
come; that he had it before him to
gather into his letter the whole array of
biblical and logical arguments which a
hot conflict and incessant
meditation had led him to collect
during the years which were just closing;
that this treatise was like a trophy
raised on the field of battle, where he
had gained such signal triumphs, since
the opening of hostilities at
Antioch to his complete victory at
Corinth; and that, finally, no part of the
world appeared to him more suitable
for receiving this monument erected
by him than the church of the Capital
of the world,—of all this I make no
doubt. But it seems to me that those
various and particular aims find their
full truth only when they are grouped
round this principal one: to found
afterhand, and, if one may so speak,
morally to refound the church of
Rome.
To set free the kingdom of God from
the Jewish wrapping which had
served as its cradle, such was the
work of St. Paul. This task he carried
out by his life in the domain of
action, and by the Epistle to the Romans in
the domain of thought. This letter is,
as it were, the theory of his
missionary preaching, and of his
spiritual life, which is one with his work.
Does the course of the Epistle really
correspond to the aim which we have
now indicated? Has it the systematic
character which we should be led to
expect from a strictly didactic
purpose?
CHAPTER IV. ARRANGEMENT AND PLAN OF
THE EPISTLE.
LIKE St. Paul's other letters, the
Epistle to the Romans begins with a
preface (1:1-15), which includes the
address and a thanksgiving, and
which is intended to form the relation
between the author and his readers.
But in this letter the address is more
elaborate than usual. This difference
arises from the fact that the apostle
did not yet know personally the
church to which he was writing. Hence
it is that he has strongly
emphasized his mission to be the
Apostle of the Gentiles; for on this rests
the official bond which justifies the
step he is taking (vv. 1-7). The
thanksgiving which follows, and which
is founded on the work already
accomplished among them, leads him
quite naturally to apologize for not
yet having taken part in it himself,
and to express the constant desire
which he feels of being able soon to
exercise his apostleship among
them, as well for the confirmation of
their faith and his own
encouragement, as for the increase of
their church (vv. 8-15).
After this preface of an epistolary
character, there begins, as in the other
letters, the treatment of the subject,
the body of the writing. But here again
the Epistle to the Romans differs from
all the rest, in having the central
part detached from the two epistolary
pieces, the introduction and the
conclusion, much more sharply. The
Epistle to the Romans is thus,
properly speaking, neither a treatise
nor a letter; it is a treatise contained
in a letter.
The treatise begins with ver. 16, the
first words of which form the skilfully-
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
managed transition from the
introduction to the treatment. The latter
extends to 15:13, where the return to
the epistolary form indicates the
beginning of the conclusion.
1:16, 17.
Before entering on the development of
his subject, the apostle expounds it
in a few lines, which are, as it were,
the theme of the entire treatise. This
summary is contained in vv. 16, 17.
The apostle proposes to show that
the salvation of every man, whoever he
may be, rests on the
righteousness which faith procures; he
supports this proposition
immediately by a scripture
declaration.
With ver. 18 the development of the
subject begins; it is distributed under
two heads, the one relating to
principles ,—this is the doctrinal treatise;
the other containing the application
,—this forms the moral treatise. The
first proceeds from 1:18 to the end of
chap. 1; the second from 12:1 to
15:13.
The doctrinal treatise is the positive
and negative demonstration of the
righteousness of faith. It comprehends
three parts: the one fundamental,
from 1:18 to the end of chap. 5; the
other two supplementary (chap. 6-8
and 9-11).
1:18-5:21.
In this first part Paul gives the
positive demonstration of justification by
faith. He develops the three following
thoughts:—
1. 1:18-3:20. The need which the world
has of such a righteousness. For
the whole of it is under the wrath of
God; this fact is obvious as to the
Gentiles (chap.
1); it is not less certain in regard
to the Jews (ii.), and that in spite of their
theocratic advantages (3:1-8). The
Holy Scriptures come, over and above,
to shut the mouth of all mankind (vv.
9-20). Summary: Wrath is on all,
even on the Jews.
2. 3:21-5:11. The free and universal
gift of the righteousness of faith given
by God to men. This gift has been made
possible by the expiatory work of
Jesus Christ (3:21-26). It is offered
to Gentiles as well as Jews, in
accordance with the principle of
Jewish monotheism (vv. 27-31). This
mode of justification is, besides, in
keeping with the decisive example, that
of Abraham (iv.). Finally, the
believer is assured that, whatever may be
the tribulations of the present, this
righteousness of faith will never fail
him. It has even been provided by the
faithful mediation of Jesus Christ,
that it shall suffice in the day of
final wrath (v. 1-11). Summary: the
righteousness of faith is for all,
even for the Gentiles.
3. 5:12-21. This universal
condemnation and this universal justification
(which have formed the subject of the
two preceding sections) are both
traced up to their historical points
of departure, Adam and Christ. These
two central personalities extend their
opposite influences, the one of
condemnation and death, the other of justification
and life, over all
mankind, but in such a way that the
saving action of the one infinitely
exceeds the destructive action of the
other. The righteousness of faith
without the works of the law is thus
established. But a formidable
objection arises: Will it be able to
found a rule of holiness comparable to
that which followed from the law, and
without having recourse to the
latter? After having excluded the law
as a means of justification, are we
not obliged to return to it when the
end in view is to lay a foundation for
the moral life of believers?
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
The answer to this question is the
subject of the first of the two
supplementary parts (vi.-viii.).
Chap. 6-8.
This part, like the preceding,
contains the development of three principal
ideas:—
1. 6:1-7:6. The relation to Christ on
which justification by faith rests,
contains in it a principle of
holiness. It carries the believer into communion
with that death to sin and life to God
which were so perfectly realized by
Jesus Christ (6:1-14). This new
principle of sanctification asserts its sway
over the soul with such force, that
the flesh is disposed to regard this
subjection to holiness as slavery (vv.
15-
23). And the believer finds in this
union with Christ, and in virtue of the law
itself, the right of breaking with the
law, that he may depend only on his
new spouse (7:1-6)
2. 7:7-25. This breaking with the law
should occasion us neither fear nor
regret. For the law was as powerless
to sanctify man as it showed itself
(see the first part) powerless to
justify him. By discovering to us our
inward sin, the law exasperates it,
and slays us spiritually (vv. 7-13). Once
it has plunged us into this state of
separation from God, it is powerless to
deliver us from it. The efforts which
we make to shake off the yoke of sin
serve only to make us feel more its
insupportable weight (vv. 14-25).
3. Chap. 8. But the Spirit of Christ
is the liberating power. It is He who
realizes in us the holiness demanded
by the law, and who, by rescuing
our bodies from the power of the
flesh, consecrates them by holiness for
resurrection (vv. 1-11). It is He who,
by making us sons of God, makes us
at the same time heirs of the glory
which is to be revealed (vv. 12-17). For
the sufferings of the present do not
last always. The universal renovation,
which is prayed for by the threefold
sigh of creation, the children of God,
and the Holy Spirit Himself, draws
near; and, notwithstanding the
tribulations of the present hour, this
state of glory remains as the assured
goal of God's eternal plans in favor
of His elect (vv. 18-30).
As at the end of the preceding part
the apostle, in his parallel between
Adam and Christ, had cast a
comprehensive glance over the domain
which he had traversed; so, from the
culminating point which he has just
reached, he embraces once more in one
view that entire salvation through
the righteousness of faith which is
rendered for ever indestructible by the
sanctification of the Spirit; and he
strikes the triumphant note of the
assurance of salvation (vv. 31-39).
But now that this first objection has
been solved, there rises another more
formidable still: If salvation rests
on the righteousness of faith, what
becomes of the promises made to the
people of Israel, who have rejected
this righteousness? What becomes of
the divine election of which this
people was the object? Is not the faithfulness
of God destroyed? The
second supplementary part (ix.-xi.) is
intended to throw light on this
obscure problem.
Chap. 9-11.
St. Paul resolves this objection by
three considerations, the details of
which we cannot reproduce here even
approximately.
1. The freedom of God cannot be
restricted by any limit external to itself,
nor in particular by any acquired
right or privilege (chap. 9).
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
2. The use which God has made of His
liberty in this case has a perfectly
good reason: Israel obstinately
refused to enter into His mind; Israel
determined to maintain its own
righteousness, and rejected the
righteousness of faith, which it
should have possessed in common with
the Gentiles (chap. 10).
3. The partial and merely temporary
rejection of Israel has had the most
salutary consequences for the world,
and shall one day have the same for
Israel itself. For the unbelief of
this people has opened wide the gate of
salvation to the Gentiles, and their
salvation will be the means to that of
Israel; so that these two halves of
mankind, after having both in their turn
made the humiliating experience of
disobedience, shall be reunited in the
bosom of eternal mercy (chap. 11).
Thus God was free to reject His
people; in doing so He used His freedom
justly; and this exercise of it,
limited in all respects as it is, will be salutary ,
and will show forth the wisdom of God.
All the aspects of the question are
exhausted in this discussion, which
may be called the masterpiece of the
philosophy of history. In closing it,
the apostle, casting his look backwards
a third time from this new culminating
point, and surveying the labyrinths
of ways and judgments by which God
realizes His plans of love, breaks
out into a cry of adoration over this
ocean of light (11:32-36).
Justification by faith, after having
been positively established, has come
forth triumphant from the two trials
to which it has been subjected. The
question was asked: Could it produce
holiness? It has shown that it could,
and that it was the law which, in this
respect, was powerlessness itself.
The question was, Could it explain
history? It has proved that it could.
What remains to be done? One thing
only: To show the new principle
grappling with the realities of
existence, and to depict the life of the
believer who by faith has obtained
justification. Such is the subject of the
second of the two courses of
instruction contained in the body of the
Epistle, that is to say, of the moral
treatise.
12:1-15:13.
In the piece vi.-viii., St. Paul had
laid the foundations of Christian
sanctification. He describes it now as
it is realized in everyday life.
Two grave errors prevail in the
estimate ordinarily formed of this portion of
the Epistle. Most people regard it as
a simple appendix, foreign to the real
subject of the work. But, on the
contrary, it rests, not less than the
doctrinal exposition, on the theme
formulated 1:17. For it completes the
development of the word shall live ,
begun in the part, chap. 6-8. The
other error which is fallen into not
less frequently, is to see in these
chapters only a series of practical
exhortations, without any logical
concatenation. But Calvin's epithet on
our Epistle: Methodica est , applies
not less to the practical than to the
doctrinal instruction, as we shall
immediately see. The moral treatise
embraces a general part (12:1-13:14)
and a special part (14:1-15:13).
12:1-13:14.
In this passage four principal ideas
are expounded.
1. 12:1, 2. The apostle lays down, as
the basis and point of departure for
the redeemed life, the living
sacrifice which the believer, moved by the
mercies of God, makes of his body, in
order to do His perfect will, which is
revealed more
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
and more to his renewed understanding.
2. 12:3-21. This gift of himself the
believer accomplishes, in the first place,
as a member of the church , the body
of Christ, by humility and love.
3. 13:1-10. He carries it out, in the
second place, as a member of the state
, the social body instituted by God;
and he does so in the two forms of
submission to the authorities, and
justice to all.
4. 13:11-14. What sustains and
animates him in this double task, as a
Christian and a citizen, is the point
of view which he has unceasingly
before him, Christ coming again, and
with Him the day of salvation
breaking,—a day which shall be such
only for those who are found
clothed with Christ.
This moral teaching thus forms a
complete whole. It sets forth clearly,
though briefly, the starting-point ,
the way , and the goal of the life of the
redeemed.
To this general teaching the apostle
adds a supplementary part, which is
a sort of example side by side with
precept. It is an application of the great
duty of self-sacrifice, in the forms
of humility and love, to the existing
circumstances of the church of Rome
(14:1-15:13).
14:1-15:13.
A divergence of views was manifested
at Rome between the majority,
who were heartily spiritual and
Pauline, and the minority, who were
timorous and Judaizing. Paul points
out to each party what its conduct
should be according to the law of
love, of which Christ has left us the
model (14:1-15:7); then, contemplating
in spirit the sublime unity of the
church realized in this way of love,
he once more sounds the note of
adoration (vv. 8-13).
This local application, while closing
the practical treatise, restores the
author and his readers to the midst of
the church of Rome; it thus forms
the transition to the epistolary
conclusion , which corresponds to the
introduction (1:1-15). From ver. 14,
indeed, the style again becomes that
of a letter.
15:14-16:25.
This conclusion treats of five
subjects.
1. 15:14-33. After having anew
justified the very considerable didactic
work which he had written them by the
commission which he has received
for the Gentiles, the apostle reminds
the Romans that his apostolic work is
now finished in the East. He hopes,
therefore, soon to arrive at Rome, on
his way to Spain. This piece
corresponds exactly to the passage, 1:8-15,
of the preface.
2. 16:1-16. He recommends to his
readers the bearer of his letter, and
charges them with greetings for all
the members of the church known to
him. To these personal salutations he
adds, for the whole church, those
with which he has been charged by the
numerous churches which he has
recently passed through.
3. Vv. 17-20. He invites them in
passing, and in a sort of postscript, to be
on their guard against the Judaizing
emissaries, who will be sure to make
their appearance as soon as they hear
of a work of the Lord at Rome.
4. Vv. 21-24. He transmits the greetings
of those who surround him, and
even lets his secretary Tertius have
the word, if one may so speak, to
greet them in his own person.
5. Vv. 25-27. He closes with a prayer,
which corresponds to the desire
with
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
which he had opened his letter, when
he said, 1:11, how much he longed
to be able to labor for their
strengthening. He did what he could with this
view by sending them such a letter.
But he knows well that his work will
not produce its fruit except in so far
as God himself will do His part in
working by it: “Now to Him that is of
power to stablish you according to my
gospel.”...
Outline.
Plan of the Epistle.
Epistolary Introduction (1:1-15).
The Body of the Work (1:16-15:13).
Summary: 1:16, 17.
I. The Doctrinal Treatise
(1:18-11:36).
Salvation by the righteousness of
faith.
Fundamental Part: 1:18-5:21.
The righteousness of faith without the
works of the law.
First Supplementary Part: 6-8.
Sanctification without the law.
Second Supplementary Part: 9-11.
The rejection of Israel.
II. The Practical Treatise
(12:1-15:13).
The life of the justified believer.
General Part: 12:1-13:14.
Exposition of Christian holiness.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Special Part: 14:1-15:13.
Divergences among Christians.
Epistolary Conclusion (15:14-16:27).
Such is the plan or scheme which the
apostle seems to me to have had
steadily before him in dictating this
letter.
If such is the method of the work, it
could not correspond better to the
object which, on our supposition, its
author had in view.
CHAPTER V. PRESERVATION OF THE TEXT.
CAN we flatter ourselves that we have
the text of our Epistle as it
proceeded from the apostle's hands?
1. A preliminary question has been
raised on this head: Is not our Greek
text the translation of a Latin
original? This view is given forth so early as
by a Syrian scholiast on the margin of
a manuscript of the Peshito (Syrian
translation), and it has been received
by some Catholic theologians. But
this is a mere inference, founded on
the erroneous idea that in writing to
Romans it was necessary to use the
Latin language. The literary language
at Rome was Greek. This is established
by the numerous Greek
inscriptions in the catacombs, by the
use of the Greek language in the
letter of Ignatius to the church of
Rome, in the writings of Justin Martyr
composed at Rome, and in those of
Irenaeus composed in Gaul. The
Christians of Rome knew the Old
Testament (Rom. 7:1); now they could
not have acquired this knowledge
except through the Greek version of the
LXX. Besides, it shows the utter want
of philological discernment to call in
question the original character of the
Greek of our Epistle, and to suppose
that such a style is that of a
translation.
2. A second question is this: Have
there not been introduced into the text
of our Epistle passages which are
foreign to the work, or even composed
by another hand than Paul's? No doubt
the exposition which we have just
given of the method of the work seems
to exclude such a suspicion by
showing the intimate connection of all
its parts, and the perfectly organic
character of the entire letter. Nevertheless,
doubts have been raised from
the earliest times in regard to some
passages of the last parts of the
Epistle; and these suspicions have
been so aggravated in the most recent
times, that from chap. 12, where the
moral part begins, all at the present
day is matter of dispute.
It is often alleged that Marcion,
about 140, in the edition of ten of Paul's
Epistles, which he published for the
use of his churches, rejected from the
Epistle to the Romans the whole
conclusion (our chaps. 15 and 16).
Origen says of him as follows ( ad
16.24): “Marcion entirely rejected (
penitus abstulit ) this piece; and not
only that, but he also lacerated (
dissecuit ) the whole passage from the
words: Whatsoever is done without
faith is sin (14:23), to the end.” But
was not F. Nitzsch justified in bringing
out the difference between the words
lacerate ( dissecuit ) and wholly
reject ( penitus abstulit )? It is
quite possible, therefore, that Marcion only
rejected the doxology which closes the
Epistle, 16:25-27, and that in xv.
and xvi. he had only made some
excisions to accommodate them to his
system. Such was his course in regard
to the biblical books which he
used. An expression of Tertullian's
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
has also been advanced ( adv. Marcion
, 5.14), which speaks of the
passage, 14:10, as belonging to the
clausula (the conclusion of the
Epistle). But it is not to be supposed
that Tertullian himself agreed with his
adversary in rejecting the last two
chapters, and 14 is so near the end of
the Epistle that nothing whatever can
be proved from this phrase. What
appears certain is—(1) that Marcion
rejected the final doxology, 16:25-27,
for it seemed in contradiction to his
system from the way in which it
mentions the prophetical writings; (2)
that he cut and carved freely on the
same principle in chaps. 15 and 16.
Yet the many conclusions which are
found at the close of our Epistle—no
less than five are reckoned (15:13,
33, 16:16, 20, 24-27)—the textual
displacements in the manuscripts, the
greeting so difficult to explain, have
awakened the doubts of criticism, and
till now have not been satisfactorily
settled.
Semler, at the end of the last century,
supposed that the Epistle closed at
14:23, which explains, he thinks, why
the final doxolgy, 16:25-27, is found
here in several manuscripts. The
passage containing the salutations, 16:3-
16, he holds to have been a special
leaf committed to the bearers of the
letter, to indicate the persons whom
they were to greet in the different
churches through which their journey
led them. Hence the phrase: “ Salute
N. N.”...And what more was contained
in those two chapters was
addressed to the persons saluted, and
was intended to be transmitted to
them with a copy of the letter.
Paulus saw in chaps. 15. and 16 a
supplement intended solely for the
leaders and the most enlightened of
the members of the Roman church.
Eichhorn and a great number of
theologians in his train have held that the
whole of chap. 16, or at least the
passage 16:1-20 or 3-20 (Reuss, Ewald,
Mangold, Laurent), could not have been
addressed to Rome by the
apostle. It is impossible to explain
these numerous greetings in a letter to
a church where he never lived. Thus we
have here a fragment which has
strayed from an Epistle addressed to
some other church, either Corinth
(Eichhorn) or Ephesus. But there
remained a difficulty: How had this
strange leaf been introduced from Asia
or Greece into the copies of a
letter addressed to the church of
Rome?
Baur boldly cut the knot. Founding on
the alleged example of Marcion, he
declared xv. and xvi. wholly
unauthentic. “They present,” he said, “several
ideas or phrases incompatible with the
apostle's anti-Judaistic standpoint.”
One cannot help asking, however, how
the Epistle to the Romans could
have closed with the passage 14:23. A
conclusion corresponding to the
preface is absolutely indispensable.
Schenkel ( Bibellexikon , t. v.)
thinks he finds this conclusion in the
doxology, 16:25-27, which he
transposes (with some documents) to the
end of xiv., and the authenticity of
which he defends. Chap. 15 is,
according to him, a letter of
recommendation given to Phoebe for the
churches through which she was to pass
on her way from Corinth to
Ephesus, and from Ephesus to Rome.
Scholten holds as authentic only the
recommendation of Phoebe (16:1, 2)
and the greetings of Paul's
companions, with the prayer of the apostle
himself (vv. 21-24).
Lucht adheres to Baur's view, while
modifying it a little. The Epistle could
not close with 14:23. Our chaps. 15
and 16 must therefore contain
something authentic. The true
conclusion was so severe on the ascetic
minority combated in xiv., that the
presbyters judged it prudent to
suppress it; but it remained in the
archives, where it was found by a later
editor, who amalgamated it by mistake
with a short letter to the Ephesians,
thus forming the two last chapters.
Of this theory of Lucht, Hilgenfeld
accepts only the unauthentic character
of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the doxology, 16:25-27. For his part,
with the exception of this passage, he
admits the entire authenticity of xv.
and xvi.
M. Renan has given forth an ingenious
hypothesis, which revives an idea
of Grotius (p. 55). Starting from the
numerous conclusions which these two
chapters seemingly contain, he
supposes that the apostle composed this
Epistle from the first with a view to
several churches , four at least. The
common matter, intended for all, fills
the first eleven chapters. Then come
the different conclusions, intended
for each of the four churches. For the
first, the church of Rome, chap. 15;
for the second, that of Ephesus, xii.-
xiv., and the passage, 16:1-20; for
the third, that of Thessalonica,
xii.-xiv., and the greeting, 16:21-24;
and for the fourth, unknown, xii.-xiv.,
with the
doxology, 16:25-27. Thus, indeed, all
is Paul's; and the incoherence of the
two last chapters arises only from the
amalgamation of the various
conclusions.
Volkmar presents a hypothesis which
differs little from that of Scholten.
The Epistle properly so called
(composed of a didactic and hortatory part)
closed at 14:23. Here came the
conclusion which must be discovered
among the unauthentic conglomerates of
xv. and xvi. And Volkmar's
sagacity is at no loss. The three
verses, 15:33, 16:2, and the four verses,
16:21-24, were the real conclusion of
the Epistle. All the rest was added,
about 120, when the exhortation of
xiv. was carried forward by that of 15:1-
32, and when the passage 16:3-16 was
added. Later still, between
between 150 and 160, there was added
the warning against heresy, 16:17-
20.
Finally, Schultz has just proposed a
very complicated hypothesis. He ably
maintains that all the particular
passages are composed by the apostle,
starting in his argument from
16:17-20, passing therefrom to vv. 3-16, to
vv. 21-24, to vv. 1, 2, and, finally,
to 15:14-33. But it is to demonstrate
immediately afterward that 16:17-20
can only have been addressed to a
church instructed and founded by Paul,
which was not the case with that of
Rome. Hence he passes to the numerous
salutations of chap. 16, which
can only have been addressed to a
church known by the apostle, probably
Ephesus. Thus there existed a letter
of Paul to the Ephesians which closed
with these many greetings (16:3-20).
But they could not be more than the
conclusion of a fuller letter. Where
was this letter? In chapters 12, 13, 14,
15:1-6, and in the conculsion,
16:3-20, of our Epistle. This letter was
written from Rome by the apostle
during his captivity. A copy, left in the
archives of the church, was joined,
after the persecution of Nero, with our
Epistle to the Romans. Hence the form
of our present text. The probability
attaching to this hypothesis at the
first glance is so slight that we can
hardly suppose its author to have
propounded it with much assurance.
Let us sum up our account. Opinions on
chaps. 15 and 16 fall into four
classes:—1. All is Paul's, and all in
its right place (Tholuck, Meyer,
Hofmann, etc.).
2. All is Paul's, but with a mixture
of elements belonging to other letters
(Semler, Eichhorn, Reuss, Renan,
Schultz). 3. Some passages are Paul's,
the rest is interpolated (Schenkel,
Scholten, Lucht, Volkmar). 4. All is
unauthentic (Baur).
We shall have to examine all those opinions,
and weigh the facts which
have given rise to them (see on xv.
and xvi.). Meanwhile, we may be
allowed to refer to the account we
have given of the general course of the
Epistle, and to ask if the entire work
does not produce the effect of a living
and healthful organism, in which all
the parts hold to and dovetail into one
another, and from which no member can
possibly be detached without
arbitrary violence.
3. The reader of a commentary is
entitled to know the origin of the text
which is about to be explained to him.
The text from which our oldest
editions and our versions in modern
tongues have been made (since the
Reformation) is that which has been
preserved, with
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
very little divergency, in the 250
copies of Paul's Epistles in cursive or
minuscular writing, later consequently
than the tenth century, which are
found scattered among the different
libraries of Europe. It was from one of
these manuscripts, found at Basle,
that Erasmus published the first edition
of the Greek text; and it is his
edition which has formed for centuries the
groundwork of subsequent editions. It
is obvious that the origin of what
has so long borne the name of the
Received text is purely accidental.
The real state of things is this.
Three classes of documents furnish us with
the text of our Epistle: the ancient
manuscripts , the ancient versions , and
the quotations which we find in the
works of ecclesiastical writers.
1. Manuscripts. —These are of two
kinds: those written in majuscular
letters, and which are anterior to the
tenth century; and those which have
the cursive and minuscular writing,
used since that date.
The majuscules in which Paul's Epistles
have been preserved are eleven
in number:
Two of the fourth century: the
Sinaiticus ( a ) and the Vaticanus (B);
Two of the fifth century: the
Alexandrinus (A) and the Cod. of Ephrem (C);
One of the sixth century: the
Claromontanus (D); Three of the ninth
century: the Sangermanensis (E), a
simple copy of the preceding; the
Augiensis (F); the Boernerianus (G);
Three of the ninth to the tenth
century: the Mosquensis (K), the Angelicus
(L), and the Porfirianus (P).
We do not mention a number of fragments
in majuscular writing. We have
already spoken of the documents in
minuscular characters. As soon as
men began to study these documents a
little more attentively, they found
three pretty well marked sets of
texts, which appear also, though less
prominently, in the Gospels: 1.
The Alexandrine set, represented by
the four oldest majuscules ( a A B C),
and so
called because this text was probably
the form used in the churches of
Egypt and Alexandria; 2. The
Greco-Latin set, represented by the four
manuscripts which follow in order of
date (D E F G), so designated
because it was the text circulating in
the churches of the West, and
because in the manuscripts which have
preserved it it is accompanied
with a Latin translation; and, 3. The
Byzantine set, to which belong the
three most recent majuscules (K L P),
and almost the whole of the
minuscules; so named because it was
the text which had fixed and, so to
speak, stereotyped itself in the
churches of the Greek empire.
In case of variation these three sets
are either found, each having its own
separate reading, or combining two
against one; sometimes even the
ordinary representatives of one differ
from one another and unite with
those, or some of those, of another
set. And it is not easy to decide to
which of those forms of the text the
preference should be given.
Moreover, as the oldest majuscules go
back no farther than the fourth
century, there remains an interval of
300 years between them and the
apostolic autograph. And the question
arises whether, during this long
interval, the text did not undergo
alterations more or less important.
Fortunately, in the two other classes
of documents we have the means of
filling up this considerable blank.
2. The Versions. —There are two
translations of the New Testament
which go back to the end of the second
century, and by which we
ascertain the state of the text at a
period much nearer to that when the
autographs were still extant. These
are the ancient Latin version known as
the Itala , of which the Vulgate or
version received
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
in the Catholic Church is a revision,
and the Syriac version, called
Peshitto. Not only do these two
ancient documents agree as to the
substance of the text, but their
general agreement with the text of our
Greek manuscripts proves on the whole
the purity of the latter. Of these
two versions, the Itala represents
rather the Greco-Latin type, the Peshitto
the Byzantine type. A third and
somewhat more recent version, the Coptic
(Egyptian), exactly reproduces the
Alexandrine form.
But we are in a position to go back
even further, and to bridge over a good
part of the interval which still
divides us from the apostolic text. The
means at our command are—
3. The quotations from the New
Testament in the writers of the second
century. —In 185, Irenaeus frequently
quotes the New Testament in his
great work. In particular, he
reproduces numerous passages from our
Epistle (about eighty-four
verses).—About 150, Justin reproduces
textually a long passage from the
Epistle to the Romans (3:11-
17).—About 140, Marcion published his
edition of Paul's Epistles.
Tertullian, in his work against this
heretic, has reproduced a host of
passages from Marcion's text, and
especially from that of the Epistle to
the Romans. He obviously quoted them
as he read them in Marcion's
edition. In this continuous series of
quotations (L. V. cc.13 and 14),
embracing about thirty-eight verses,
we have the oldest known evidence
to a considerable part of the text of
our Epistle. Tertullian himself (190-
210) has in his works more than a
hundred quotations from this letter.
One writer carries us back, at least
for a few verses, to the very age of the
apostle. I mean Clement of Rome, who,
about the year 96, addresses an
Epistle to the Corinthians in which he
reproduces textually (c. 35) the
entire passage, Rom. 1:28-32. The
general integrity of our text is thus
firmly established.
As to variations, I do not think it
possible to give an a priori preference to
any of the three texts mentioned
above. And in supporting the Alexandrine
text as a rule , Tischendorf, I fear,
has made one of his great mistakes.
When publishing this seventh edition
he had to a certain extent
recognized the error of his method,
which had gradually become prevalent
since the time of Griesbach. But the
discovery of the Sinaiticus threw him
into it again more than ever. This
fascination exercised by the old
Alexandrine documents arises from
several causes: their antiquity, the
real superiority of their text in a
multitude of cases, and, above all, the
reaction against the groundless
supremacy of the Byzantine text in the old
Textus receptus.
Any one who has had long experience in
the exegesis of the New
Testament will, I think, own three
things:—1. That all preference given a
priori to any one of the three texts
is a prejudice; 2. That the sole external
reason, having some probability in
favor of a particular reading, is the
agreement of a certain number of
documents of opposite types; 3. That
the only means of reaching a
well-founded decision, is the profound study
of the context.
In conclusion, it must be said the
variations are as insignificant as they are
numerous. I know only one in the
Epistle to the Romans—a work so
eminently dogmatic—which could
exercise any influence on Christian
doctrine, that of 8:11. And the point
to which it refers (to wit, whether the
body is raised by or on account of the
Spirit who dwells in us) is a subject
which probably no pastor ever treated,
either in his catechetical instruction
or in his preaching.
Principal Commentators.
Ancient church: Origen (third
century), in Latin translation. Chrysostom
(fourth century), thirty-two homilies.
Theodoret (fifth century).
Ambrosiaster, probably the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Roman deacon Hilary (third or fourth
century). OEcumenius (tenth
century). Theophylact, bishop of
Bulgaria (eleventh century). Erasmus
(sixteenth century), Annotationes in
N. T.
After the Reformation: Calvin and
Theodore Beza. Luther (his celebrated
Preface ). Melanchthon, Annotationes
(1522) and Commentarii (1532).
Bucer, Enarrationes (1536). Grotius,
Annotationes (1645). Calov, Biblia
illustrata (1672). Bengel, Gnomon
(1742).
Modern times : Tholuck (1824, 5th ed.
1856). Ruckert (1831, 2d ed. 1839).
Stuart, American theologian (1832).
Olshausen (1835). De Wette (1835,
4th ed.
1847). Hodge, of Princeton (1835,
published in French 1840). Fritzsche
(1836). Meyer (1836, 5th ed. 1872).
Oltramare, chaps. i.5.11 (1843).
Philippi (1848). Nielsen, Dane (1856).
Umbreit (1856). Ewald, die
Sendschreiben des apostels Paulus
(1857). Theod. Schott (1858). Lange
and Fay in the Bibelwerk (1865, 3d ed.
1868). Hofmann (1868). Ph. Schaff,
work published in English after
Lange's Commentary (1873). Volkmar
(1875). Bonnet, le Nouveau
Testament , 2d ed. Epi<tres de Paul
(1875). Reuss, La Bible, Epi<tres
pauliniennes (1878). [Shedd, 1879.]
Here we mention in addition three
remarkable monographs, two of them
on the passage,5:12-21. Rothe, Neuer
Versuch einer Ausl. der paul.
Stelle , 5.11-21
(1836), and Dietzsch, Adam und
Christus (1871). The third is the work of
Morison, of Glasgow, Critical
Exposition of the Third Chapter of Paul's
Epistle to the Romans
(1866). The ancient Commentaries are
well known; to attempt to
characterize them would be
superfluous. I shall say a word on the most
important of the moderns. Tholuck was
the first, after the blighting epoch
of rationalism, who reopened to the
church the living fountains of
evangelical truth which spring up in
our Epistle. Olshausen , continuing his
friend's work, expounded still more
copiously the treasures of salvation by
faith, which had been brought to light
again by Tholuck. De Wette has
traced the links of the apostle's
reasoning with admirable sagacity. Meyer
has brought to the study of our
Epistle all the resources of that learned
and vigorous philology, the
application of which Fritzsche had demanded
in the study of our sacred books; to
these he has added a sound
exegetical sense and an understanding
of Christian truth which makes his
work the indispensable Commentary.
Oltramare has a great wealth of
exegetical materials; but he has not
elaborated them sufficiently before
composing his book. Ewald , a
paraphrase in which the original spirit of
the author lives again. Theod. Schott;
his whole work turns on a
preconceived and unfortunately false
point of view. Lange; every one
knows his characteristics, at once
brilliant and arbitrary. Hofmann brings a
mind of the most penetrating order to
the analysis of the apostle's thought,
he does not overlook the slightest
detail of the text; his stores of
philological knowledge are not
inferior to those of Meyer. But he too often
lacks accuracy; he dwells complacently
on exegetical discoveries in which
it is hard to think that he himself
believes, and to appreciate the intrinsic
clearness of the style requires a
fourth or fifth reading. Schaff happily
remedies Lange's defects, and
completes him in an original way.
Volkmar's treatise is an analysis
rather than an interpretation. The best
part of it consists of criticism of
the text, and of a beautiful reprint of the
Vatican text. Bonnet , on the basis of
very thoroughgoing exegetical
studies, has, with considerable
self-denial, composed a simple
Commentary for the use of laymen.
Reuss explains the essential idea of
each passage, but his plan does not
admit of a detailed exegesis.
Morison's monograph, as it seems to
me, is a unique specimen of learning
and sound exegetical judgment.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Title of the Epistle.
The authentic title is certainly that
which has been preserved in its
simplest form in the seven oldest
Mjj., the four Alex., and the three Greco-
Latin: Pro;" JRwmaivou" , to
the Romans. In later documents there is a
gradual increase of epithets, till we
have the title of L: Tou' aJgivou kai;
paneufhvmou ajpostovlou Pauvlou
ejpistolh; pro;" JRwmaivou" ( Epistle of the
holy and everywhere blessed Apostle
Paul to the Romans ).
COMMENTARY.
THE framework of the Epistle to the
Romans is, as we have seen, the
same as that of the most of Paul's
other Epistles: 1. An epistolary preface;
2. The body of the letter; 3. An
epistolary conclusion. PREFACE. 1:1-15.
This introduction is intended to
establish a relation between the apostle
and his readers which does not yet
exist, inasmuch as he did not found
the church, and had not yet visited
it. It embraces: 1. The address; 2. A
thanksgiving for the work of the Lord
at Rome.
First Passage (1:1-7). The Address.
The form of address usual among the
ancients contained three terms: “N.
to
N. greeting. ” Comp. Acts 23:26: “Claudius
Lysias unto the most excellent
governor Felix greeting.” Such is the
type we have here, but modified in
execution to suit the particular
intention of the apostle. The subject, Paul ,
is developed in the first six verses;
the persons addressed, to the
Christians in Rome , in the first half
of ver. 7, and the object, greeting , in
the second.
One is surprised at the altogether
extraordinary extension bestowed on
the development of the first term. It
is very much the same in the Epistle to
the Galatians. The fact is accounted
for in the latter writing by the need
which Paul felt to give the lie at
once to the calumnies of his Judaizing
adversaries, who denied his divine
call to the apostleship. His object in
our Epistle is wholly different. His
concern is to justify the exceptional step
he is taking at the moment, in
addressing a letter of instruction like that
which follows, to a church on which he
seemed to have no claim.
In these six verses, 1-6, Paul
introduces himself; first, as an apostle in the
general sense of the word, as called
directly by God to the task of
publishing the message of salvation,
vv. 1, 2; then he indulges in an
apparent digression regarding the
object of his message, the person of
Jesus Christ, who had appeared as the
Messiah of Israel, but was raised
by His resurrection to the state of
the Son of God,
vv. 3, 4; finally, from the person of
the Lord he returns to the apostleship,
which he has received from this
glorified Lord, and which he describes as
a special apostleship to the Gentile
world, vv. 5, 6.
Vv. 1, 2. “ Paul, a servant of Christ
Jesus , an apostle by [his] call,
separated
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
unto the gospel of God, which he had
promised afore by his prophets in
the Holy Scriptures. ”—Paul introduces
himself in this ver. 1 with the
utmost solemnity; he puts his whole
letter under the authority of his
apostleship, and the latter under that
of God Himself. On the name Paul ,
see Introd. p. 16. After having thus
presented his personality, he effaces
it, as it were, immediately by the
modest title of dou'lo" servant. We need
not translate this term by the word
slave , which in our modern languages
suggests a more painful idea than the
Greek term. The latter contains the
two ideas of property and of
obligatory service. It may consequently be
applied to the relation which every
Christian bears to the Lord (1 Cor.
7:22). If we take it here in this
sense, the name would imply the bond of
equality in the faith which unites
Paul to his brethren at Rome. Yet as this
letter is not a simple fraternal
communication, but an apostolic message of
the highest importance, it is more
natural to take the word servant in a
graver sense, the same as it certainly
has in the address of the Epistle to
the Philippians 1:1: “Paul and
Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ , to
all the saints in Christ Jesus which
are at Philippi.” The term servant , thus
contrasted with the term saints ,
evidently denotes a special ministry. In
point of fact, there are men who are
called to exemplify the general
submission which all believers owe to
the Lord, in the form of a particular
office; they are servants in the limited
sense of the word. The Received
reading: of Jesus Christ , sets first
in relief the historical person ( Jesus ),
then His office of Messiah ( Christ ).
This form was the one which
corresponded best to the feeling of
those who had first known Jesus
personally, and afterward discovered
Him to be the Messiah. And so it is
the usual and almost technical phrase
which prevailed in apostolic
language. But the Vat. and the Vulg.
read: Cristou' jIhsou , of Christ Jesus;
first the office, then the person.
This form seems preferable here as the
less usual. It corresponded to the
personal development of Paul, who had
beheld the glorified Messiah before
knowing that He was Jesus. The title
servant was very general, embracing
all the ministries established by
Christ; the title apostle denotes the
special ministry conferred on Paul. It is
the most elevated of all. While
Christ's other servants build up the church,
either by extending it ( evangelists )
or perfecting it ( pastors and teachers
), the apostles, with the prophets
(Christian prophets), have the task of
founding it; comp. Eph. 4:12. Paul was
made a partaker of this supreme
charge. And he was so, he adds, by way
of call. The relation between the
two words called and apostle is not
that which would be indicated by the
paraphrase: “Called to be an apostle.”
This meaning would rather have
been expressed by the participle (
klhqeiv" ). In ver. 7, the corresponding
phrase: called saints , has quite
another meaning from: called to be saints
(which would assume that they are not
so). The meaning is: saints by way
of call , which implies that they are
so in reality. Similarly, Paul means that
he is an apostle, and that he is so in
virtue of the divine vocation which
alone confers such an office. There is
here no polemic against the
Judaizers; it is the simple
affirmation of that supreme dignity which
authorizes him to address the church
as he is now doing; comp. Eph. 1:1;
Col. 1:1. These two ideas, apostle and
call , naturally carry our minds
back to the time of his conversion.
But Paul knows that his consecration to
this ministry goes farther back still;
and this is the view which is expressed
in the following phrase:
ajfwrismevno" , set apart. This word, in such a
context, cannot apply to any human
consecration, such as that which he
received along with Barnabas at
Antioch, with a view to their first mission,
though the same Greek term is used,
Acts 13:2. Neither does it express
the notion of an eternal election,
which would have been denoted by the
compound prowrismevno" , destined
beforehand ,” as in the other cases
where a decree anterior to time is
meant. The expression seems to me to
be
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
explained by the sentence, Gal. 1:15,
which is closely related to this: “But
when it pleased God, who had separated
me ( ajforivsa" me ) from my
mother's womb, and called me (
kalevsa" me ) by His grace.” In this
passage of the Galatians he comes down
from the selection to the call ,
while here he ascends from the call to
the selection. Let the reader recall
what we have said, Introd. pp. 4 and
5, as to the providential character of
all the previous circumstances of
Saul's life. The apostle might well
recognize in that whole chain the
signs of an original destination to the
task with which he saw himself
invested. This task is expressed in the
words: unto the gospel of God ,
eij" eujaggevlion Qeou' . If by the word
gospel we understand, as is usually
done, the contents of the divine
message, then we must place the notion
of preaching in the preposition
eij" , in order to , and
paraphrase it thus: “ in order to proclaim the gospel.”
This meaning of the word gospel is
hardly in keeping with the living
character of primitive Christian
language. The word rather denotes in the
New Testament the act of gospel
preaching; so a few lines below, ver. 9,
and particularly 1 Thess. 1:5, where
Paul says: “Our gospel came not unto
you in word only, but also in power,
and in the Holy Ghost, and in much
assurance; as ye know what manner of
men we were among you.” These
words have no sense unless by our
gospel , Paul means, our preaching of
the gospel. In this case the
preposition for preserves its simple meaning.
The absence of the article before the
words gospel and God , give to the
words a sort of descriptive sense: a
message of divine origin. The genitive
Qeou' , of God , here denotes the
author of the message, not its subject;
for the subject is Christ, as is
mentioned afterward. Paul thus bears within
him the unspeakably elevated
conviction of having been set apart, from
the beginning of his existence, to be
the herald of a message of grace (
eu\ ajggevllein , to announce good
news ) from God to mankind. And it is
as the bearer of this message that he
addresses the church of Rome. If
the apostle does not add to his name
that of any fellow-laborer, as he
does elsewhere, it is because he is
doing this act in his official character
as the apostle of the Gentiles, a
dignity which he shares with no other. So
it is Eph. 1:1 (in similar
circumstances).
But this preaching of salvation by the
apostles has not dropped suddenly
from heaven. It has been prepared or
announced long before; this fact is
the proof of its decisive importance
in the history of humanity. This is what
is expressed in ver. 2.
Several commentators think that the
words: which He had promised afore
, had no meaning, unless the word
gospel, ver. 1, be taken as referring to
salvation itself, not as we have taken
it, to the act of preaching. But why
could not Paul say that the act of
evangelical preaching had been
announced beforehand? “Who hath
believed our preaching? ” exclaims
Isaiah (53:1), “and to whom is the arm
of the Lord revealed?” And 52:7:
“How beautiful are the feet of him who
bringeth good tidings, and who
publisheth peace!” Finally, 40:1, 2:
“Comfort ye my people, your God will
say...Cry unto Jerusalem, that her set
time is accomplished.” The apostle
himself quotes these passages, X.15,
16. The preaching of the gospel to
Jews and Gentiles appears to him a
solemn act marking a new era, the
hour of universal salvation long expected;
so he characterizes it also, Acts
17:30; Eph. 3:5-7; Tit. 1:3. It is not
wonderful that his feelings rise at the
thought of being the principal
instrument of a work thus predicted! He
thereby becomes himself a predicted
person, continuing as he does the
work of the prophets by fulfilling the
future they announced. The prov ,
beforehand , added to the word promise
, is not a pleonasm; it brings out
forcibly the greatness of the fact
announced. The pronoun aujtou' , “ His
prophets,” denotes the close relation
which unites a prophet to God,
whose instrument he is. The epithet
holy , by which their writings are
characterized, is related to this
pronoun. Holiness is
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the seal of their divine origin. The
absence of the article before grafaiv ,
scriptures , has a descriptive
bearing: “in scriptures which have this
character, that they are holy.”
Baur and his school find in this
mention of the prophetic promises a proof
of the Judeo-Christian origin of the
majority of the church, and of the
desire which the apostle had to please
it. But the Old Testament was read
and known in the churches of the
Gentiles; and the object with which the
apostle refers to the long theocratic
preparation which had paved the way
for the proclamation of salvation, is
clear enough without our ascribing to
him any so particular intention.—This
mention of prophecy forms the
transition to ver. 3, where Jesus is
introduced in the first place as the
Jewish Messiah, and then as the Son of
God.
Vv. 3, 4. “ Concerning his Son, born
of the race of David according to the
flesh; established as the Son of God
with power, according to the Spirit of
holiness, by his resurrection from the
dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. ”—The
apostle first designates the subject
of gospel preaching in a summary
way: it is Jesus Christ viewed as the
Son of God. The preposition periv ,
concerning , might indeed depend on
the substantive eujaggevlion ( gospel
), ver. 1, in virtue of the verbal meaning
of the word; but we should require
in that case to take ver. 2 as a
parenthesis, which is by no means
necessary. Why not make this clause
dependent on the immediately
preceding verb: which He had promised
afore? This promise of the
preaching of the gospel related to His
Son, since it was He who was to be
the subject of the preaching.—Here
begins a long period, first expressing
this subject in a general way, then
analyzing it in parallel propositions,
which, point by point, form an
antithesis to one another. They are not
connected by any of the numerous
particles in which the Greek language
abounds; their simple juxtaposition
makes the contrast the more
striking.—It has been sought to
explain the title Son of God merely as an
official name: the theocratic King by
way of eminence, the Messiah. The
passages quoted in favor of this
meaning would suffice, if they were
needed to refute it: John 1:50, for
example, where the juxtaposition of the
two titles, Son of God and King of
Israel, so far from demonstrating them
to be synonymous, refutes the view,
and where the repetition of the verb
thou art gives of itself the proof of
the contrary; and Ps. 2:7, where
Jehovah says to the Messiah: “Thou art
my Son, this day have I begotten
Thee.” This last expression is applied
to the installation of the Messiah in
His kingly office. But to beget never
signifies to establish as king; the word
denotes a communication of life.
Some explain the title by the
exceptional moral perfection of Jesus, and
the unbroken communion in which He
lived with God. Thus the name
would include nothing transcending the
limits of a simple human
existence. But can this explanation
account for the passage, 8:3: “God
sending His own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh”...? It is obvious from
this phrase that Paul ascribes an
existence to the Son anterior to His
coming in the flesh.
The title Son is also explained by our
Lord's miraculous birth. So, for
example,
M. Bonnet: “In consequence of His
generation by the Holy Spirit, He is
really the Son of God.” Such, indeed,
is the meaning of the term in the
message of the angel to Mary: “The
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee...
wherefore that holy thing which shall
be born of thee shall be called the
Son of God.” But the passage, 8:3,
just quoted, shows that the apostle
used the name in a more elevated sense
still, though the notion of the
miraculous birth has obviously a very
close connection with that of preexistence.
Several theologians of our day think
that the title Son of God applies to
Jesus
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
only on account of His elevation to
divine glory, as the sequel of His
earthly existence. But our passage
itself proves that, in the apostle's view,
the divine state which followed His
resurrection is a recovered and not an
acquired state. His personal dignity
as Son of God, proceeded on from
ver. 3, is anterior to the two phases
of His existence, the earthly and the
heavenly, which are afterward
described.
The idea of Christ's divine
pre-existence is one familiar to St. Paul's mind,
and alone explains the meaning which
he attached to the term Son of
God. Comp. (besides 8:3) 1 Cor. 8:6:
“One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
are all things , and we by Him;” Paul
thus ascribes to Him the double
creation, the physical and the
spiritual; 1 Cor. 10:4: “For they drank of that
spiritual Rock that followed them: and
that Rock was Christ;” Paul thus
regards Christ as the Divine Being who
accompanied the Israelites in the
desert, and who, from the midst of the
cloud, wrought all their
deliverances; Phil. 2:6: “Who, being
in the form of God ,...emptied Himself,
and took upon Him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of
men.” Add 2 Cor. 8:9: “Who, though He
was rich, yet for your sakes
became poor, that ye through His
poverty might be rich.” The riches of
which He stripped Himself, according
to the last of these passages, are,
according to the preceding, the form
of God belonging to Him, His divine
mode of being anterior to His
incarnation; and the poverty to which He
descended is nothing else than His
servant form , or the human condition
which he put on. It is through His
participation in our state of dependence
that we can be raised to His state of
glory and sovereignty. There
remains, finally, the crowning passage
on this subject, Col. 1:15-17.—Son
of God essentially, Christ passed
through two phases, briefly described in
the two following propositions. The
two participles with which they both
open serve as points of support to all
the subsequent determining
clauses. The fundamental antithesis is
that between the two participles
genomevnou and oJrisqevnto" ; to
this there are attached two others; the
first: of the race of David and Son of
God; the second: according to the
flesh and according to the Spirit of
holiness. Two phrases follow in the
second proposition, with power and
through His resurrection from the
dead , which seem to have no
counterpart in the first. But the attentive
reader will have no difficulty in
discovering the two ideas corresponding to
them. They are those of weakness , a
natural attribute of the flesh and of
birth; for His resurrection is to
Jesus, as it were, a second birth. Let us first
study the former proposition by
itself. The word genomevnou may bear the
meaning either of born or become. In
the second case, the word relates to
the act of incarnation, that
mysterious change wrought in His person when
He passed from the divine to the human
state. But the participle
genomevnou being here construed with
the preposition ejk , out of, from , it
is simpler to take the verb in the
sense of being born , as in Gal. 4:4: “
born of a woman ” ( genovmenon ejk
gunaikov" ). The phrase kata; savrka ,
according to the flesh , serves, as
Hofmann says, “to restrict this
affirmation to that side of His origin
whereby He inherited human nature.”
For the notion of a different origin
was previously implied in the phrase
Son of God.—What are we to understand
here by the term flesh? The
word has three very distinct meanings
in the Old and the New
Testaments. 1. It denotes the muscular
and soft parts of the body, in
opposition both to the hard parts, the
bones , and to the liquid parts, the
blood; so Gen. 2:23: “This is bone of
my bones, and flesh of my flesh;”
and John 6:56: “He that eateth my
flesh and drinketh my blood.” 2. The
word often denotes the entire human
(or animal) body , in opposition to
the soul; for example, 1 Cor. 15:39:
“There is one flesh of men, another
flesh of beasts,” a saying in which
the word flesh , according to the
context, denotes the entire organism.
In this
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
second sense the part is simply taken
for the whole. 3. By the same sort
of figure, only still more extended,
the word flesh sometimes denotes the
whole of man , body and soul, in
opposition to God the Creator and His
omnipotence. So Ps. 65:2: “Unto Thee
shall all flesh (every creature)
come;” Rom. 3:20: “No flesh (no man)
shall be justified in His sight.” The
first of these three meanings is
inapplicable in our passage, for it would
imply that Jesus received from His
ancestor David only the fleshy parts of
His body, not the bones and blood! The
second is no less so; for it would
follow from it that Jesus inherited
from David only His bodily life, and not
the psychical, the higher powers of
human life, feeling, understanding,
and will. This opinion is incompatible
with the affirmation of the full
humanity of Jesus, as we find in the
writings of Paul (comp. 5:15; 1 Tim.
2:5) and of John. For the latter, as
well as Paul, ascribes to Jesus a
human soul , a human spirit; comp.
12:27: “My soul is troubled;” 11:33:
“He groaned in His spirit. ” There
remains, therefore, only the third
meaning, which suits the passage
perfectly. As a human creature , Jesus
derives His origin from David. All
that is human in Him, spirit, soul , and
body (1 Thess. 5:23), so far as these
elements are hereditary in mankind
in general, this whole part of His
being is marked by the Davidic, and
consequently Jewish character. This
royal and national seal is impressed
not only on His physical nature and
temperament, but also on His moral
tendencies and aspirations; and this hereditary
life could alone form the
basis of His Messianic calling,
without, however, obliging us to forget that
in the Jew there is always the man,
under the national, the human
element. This meaning which we give to
the word flesh is absolutely the
same as that in the passage of John,
which forms, as it were, the text of
his Gospel: “The Word was made flesh (
sa;rx ejgevneto ),” John 1:14.
Relation of this saying to the
miraculous birth. —In expressing himself as
he does here, does St. Paul think of
Jesus' Davidic descent through
Joseph or through Mary? In the former
case the miraculous birth would be
excluded (Meyer and Reuss). But would
this supposition be consistent, on
the one hand, with the idea which the
apostle forms of Jesus' absolute
holiness; on the other, with his
doctrine of the transmission of sin to the
whole human race? He says of Jesus,
8:3: “Sent in the likeness of sinful
flesh; ” 2 Cor. 5:21: “He who knew no
sin; ” he ascribes to Him the part of
an expiatory victim ( iJlasthvrion ),
which excludes the barest idea of a
minimum of sin. And yet, according to
him, all Adam's descendants
participate in the heritage of sin (v.
12, 19, 3:9). How reconcile these
propositions, if his view is that
Jesus descends from David and from
Adam absolutely in the same sense as
the other descendants of Adam or
David? Paul thus necessarily held the
miraculous birth; and that so much
the more, as the fact is conspicuously
related in the Gospel of Luke, his
companion in work. A contradiction
between these two fellow-laborers on
this point is inadmissible. It is
therefore through the intervention of Mary,
and of Mary alone, that Jesus,
according to Paul's view, descended from
David. And such is also the meaning of
the genealogy of Jesus in Luke's
Gospel (3:23). Thus there is nothing
to prevent us from placing the
beginning of the operation of the Holy
Spirit on the person of Jesus (to
which the words: according to the
Spirit of holiness , ver. 4, refer) at His
very birth.
Yet this mode of hereditary existence
does not exhaust His whole being.
The title Son of God , placed
foremost, contains a wealth which
transcends the contents of this first
assertion, ver. 3, and becomes the
subject of the second proposition,
ver.
4. Many are the interpretations given
of the participle oJrisqevnto" . The
verb oJrivzein
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
(from o{ro" , boundary )
signifies: to draw a limit , to separate a domain
from all that surrounds it, to
distinguish a person or a thing. The marking
off may be only in thought; the verb
then signifies: to destine to, decree,
decide. So Luke 22:22, and perhaps
Acts 10:42 and 17:31. Or the
limitation may be traced in words; the
verb then signifies: to declare. Or,
finally, it may be manifested in an
external act, a fact obvious to the
senses, which leads to the meaning: to
install, establish , or demonstrate
by a sign. The first meaning: to
destine to , has been here attempted by
Hofmann. But this sense is
incompatible with the clause: by the
resurrection , and it would certainly
have been expressed by the word
proorisqevnto" , destined
beforehand (comp. 8:29, 30; 1 Pet. 1:20), it being
impossible that the divine decree relative
to the glorification of Jesus
should be posterior to his mission to
the world. Founding on the second
meaning, many (Osterv., Oltram.)
translate: “ declared to be the Son of
God.” But the notion of declaration ,
and even the stronger one of
demonstration , are insufficient in
the context. For the resurrection of
Jesus not only manifested or
demonstrated what He was; it wrought a real
transformation in His mode of being.
Jesus required to pass from His state
as son of David to that of Son of God,
if He was to accomplish the work
described in ver. 5, and which the
apostle has in view, that of the calling of
the Gentiles. And it was His
resurrection which introduced Him into this
new state. The only meaning,
therefore, which suits the context is the
third, that of establishing. Peter
says similarly, Acts 2:36: “God hath made
( ejpoivhse ) that same Jesus, whom ye
have crucified, both Lord and
Christ.” Hofmann has disputed the use
of the verb oJrivzein in this sense.
But Meyer, with good ground, adduces
the following saying of a poet: se;
Qeo;n w{rise daivmwn , “destiny made
thee God.” Not that the apostle
means, as Pfleiderer would have it,
that Jesus became the Son of God by
His resurrection. He was restored, and
restored wholly—that is to say,
with His human nature—to the position
of Son of God which He had
renounced on becoming incarnate. The
thought of Paul is identical with
that of the prayer of Jesus on the eve
of His death, as we have it in John's
Gospel (17:5): “Father, glorify Thou
me with the glory which I had with
Thee before the world was.” Jesus
always was the Son: at His baptism,
through the manifestation of the
Father, He recovered His consciousness
of Sonship. At His resurrection He was
re-established, and that as man, in
His state of Sonship. The antithesis
of the two terms, born and
established , so finely chosen, seems
thus perfectly correct.
Three clauses serve to determine the
participle established. The first
indicates the manner: ejn dunavmei ,
with power; the second, the moral
cause: kata; pneu'ma aJgiwsuvnh"
, according to the spirit of holiness; the
third, the efficient cause: ejx
ajnastavsew" nekrw'n , by His resurrection from
the dead. With power , signifies: in a
striking, triumphant manner. Some
have thought to take this phrase as
descriptive of the substantive Son of
God; “the Son of God in the glory of
His power,” in opposition to the
weakness of His earthly state. But the
antithesis of the two propositions is
that between the Son of God and the
son of David, and not that between
the Son of God in power and the Son of
God in weakness. The phrase:
with power , refers therefore to the
participle established: established by
an act in which the power of God is
strikingly manifested (the resurrection,
wrought by the glory of the Father ,
Rom. 6:4). The second clause:
according to the spirit of holiness ,
has been explained in a multitude of
ways. Some have regarded it as
indicating the divine nature of Jesus in
contrast to his humanity, the spirit
of holiness being thus the second
person of the Trinity; so Melanchthon
and Bengel. But, in this case, what
term would be left to indicate the
third? The second divine person is
designated by
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the names Son or Word, not Spirit.
According to Theodoret, what is meant
is the miraculous power which Jesus
possessed on the earth; but how are
we to explain the complement of
holiness? and what relation is there
between the virtue of working
miracles, possessed by so many prophets,
and the installation of Jesus in His
place as Son of God? Luther
understood by it the effusion of the
Holy Spirit on the church, effected by
Christ glorified. Then it would be
necessary to translate: “ demonstrated to
be the Son of God by the spirit of
holiness, whom he poured out.” But this
meaning does not suit the third
clause, whereby the resurrection is
indicated as the means of the
oJrivzein , not Pentecost. No doubt one
might, in this case, translate:
“ since the resurrection.” But
Pentecost did not begin from that time.
Meyer and others regard the spirit of
holiness as meaning, in opposition to
the flesh: the inner man in in Jesus,
the spirit as an element of His human
nature, in opposition to the outer
man, the body. But, as we have seen,
the human nature, body and soul, was
already embraced completely in
the word flesh, ver. 3. How, then,
could the spirit , taken as an element of
human nature, be contrasted with this
nature itself? Is, then, the meaning
of the words so difficult to
apprehend? The term spirit (or breath) of
holiness shows clearly enough that the
matter here in question is the
action displayed on Christ by the Holy
Spirit during his earthly existence.
In proportion as Jesus was open to
this influence, his whole human nature
received the seal of consecration to
the service of God—that is to say, of
holiness. Such is the moral fact
indicated Heb. 9:14: “ Who through the
eternal Spirit offered himself without
spot to God.” The result of this
penetration of his entire being by the
breath of the Holy Spirit was this: at
the time of His death there could be
fully realized in Him the law
expressed by the Psalmist: “Thou wilt
not suffer thy Holy one to see
corruption” (Ps. 16:10). Perfect
holiness excludes physical dissolution.
The necessary corollary of such a life
and state was therefore the
resurrection. This is the relation
expressed by the preposition katav ,
according to, agreeably to. He was
established as the Son of God in a
striking manner by His resurrection
from the dead, agreeably to the spirit
of holiness , which had reigned in Him
and in His very body. In the
passage, 8:11. the apostle applies the
same law to the resurrection of
believers, when he says “that their
bodies shall rise again, in virtue of the
Holy Spirit who dwells in them.” Paul
is not therefore seeking, as has been
thought, to establish a contrast
between inward
( pneu'ma , spirit ) and outward (
savrx , flesh ), nor between divine (the
Holy Spirit ) and human (the flesh ),
in the person of Jesus, which would
be a needless digression in the
context. What he contrasts is, on the one
hand, the naturally Jewish and Davidic
form of his earthly appearance;
and, on the other, the higher form of
being on which he entered at the
close of this Jewish phase of his
existence, in virtue of the principle of holy
consecration which had marked all his
activity here below. For this new
form of existence is the condition on
which alone He could accomplish the
work described in the verse
immediately following. The thought of the
apostle does not diverge for an
instant, but goes straight to its aim.—The
third clause literally signifies: by a
resurrection from the dead ( ejx
ajnastavsew" nekrw'n ). He
entered upon his human life by a simple birth;
but in this state as a son of David he
let the spirit of holiness reign over
him. And therefore he was admitted by
a resurrection into the glorious life
of Sonship. The preposition ejx , out
of , may here signify either since or in
consequence of. The first meaning is
now almost abandoned, and
undoubtedly with reason; for the idea
of a simple succession in time does
not suit the gravity of the thought.
Paul wishes to describe the immense
transformation which the facts of his
death and resurrection produced in
the person of Jesus. He has left in
the tomb his particular relation to the
Jewish nation and the family of David,
and has appeared
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
through his resurrection freed from
those wrappings which he had humbly
worn during his earthly life; comp.
the remarkable expression: minister of
the circumcision , 15:8. Thus it is
that, in virtue of his resurrection and as
the Son of God, he was able henceforth
to enter into connection with all
mankind, which he could not do so long
as he was acting only as the son
of David; comp. Matt. 15:24: “I am not
sent but unto the lost sheep of the
house of Israel.” The absence of the
article before the word resurrection
and before the plural dead is somewhat
strange, and must be explained in
the way indicated by Hofmann: “By an
event such as that which takes
place when the dead rise again.” There
needed a death and resurrection,
if he was to pass from the state of
son of David to that of Son and Christ
of humanity. It is therefore on the
character of the event that the apostle
insists, rather than on the fact
itself.
Before passing to the subject of the
calling of the Gentiles, which is the
direct consequence of this
transformation in the person of the Messiah
wrought by the resurrection, Paul sums
up in three terms the analysis of
his person which he has just given:
Jesus; this name denotes the
historical person, the common subject
of those different forms of
existence; the title Christ or
Messiah, which sums up ver. 3 (Son of
David), and that of Lord —that is to
say, the representative of the divine
sovereignty—which follows from his
elevation to the position of Son (ver.
4). On the title of Lord , see 1 Cor.
8:6; Phil. 2:9-11. When he says our ,
Paul thinks of all those who by faith
have accepted the sovereignty of
Jesus.
The intention of the passage, vv. 3,
4, has been strangely misunderstood.
Some say: it is a summary of the
gospel doctrine which the apostle means
to expound in this treatise. But a
summary is not stated in an address.
The true summary of the Epistle,
besides, is found 1:17. Finally,
christological doctrine is precisely
one of the heads, the absence of which
is remarkable in our Epistle. Gess
says: “One must suppose that the
apostle was concerned to sum up in
this introduction the most elevated
sentiments which filled his heart
regarding the Mediators of salvation.” But
why put these reflections on the
person of Christ in the address, and
between what Paul says of his
apostleship in general (vv. 1, 2), and what
he afterward adds regarding his
apostleship to the Gentiles in particular
(vv. 5,
6)? Hofmann thinks that Paul, in
referring to the relation between Jesus
and the old covenant, wishes to
indicate all that God gives us new in
Christ. But this observation would
suit any other place rather than the
address. The most singular explanation
is Mangold's: “A Jewish-Christian
church like that of Rome might be
astonished at Paul's addressing it as if
it had been of Gentile origin; and the
apostle has endeavored to weaken
this impression by reminding it (ver.
2) that his apostleship had been
predicted in the Old Testament, and
(ver. 3) that the object of his
preaching is above all the Messiah,
the Son of David.” So artificial an
explanation refutes itself. The
apostle started (vv. 1, 2) from the idea of his
apostleship, but in order to come to
that of his apostleship to the Gentiles,
which alone serves to explain the step
he is now taking in writing to the
Christians of Rome (vv. 5, 6). To pass
from the first of these ideas to the
second, he rises to the author of his
apostleship, and describes Him as
the Jewish Messiah, called to gather
together the lost sheep of the house
of Israel (ver. 5); then as the Son of
God raised from the dead, able to put
Himself henceforth in direct
communication with the Gentiles through an
apostolate instituted on their behalf
(ver. 4). In reality, to accomplish this
wholly new work, Jesus required to be
set free from the form of Jewish
nationality and the bond of theocratic
obligations. He must be placed in
one uniform relation to the whole
race. This was the effect of the
transformation wrought in His person
by
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
His death and resurrection. Thus there
is no difficulty in understanding the
transition from ver. 4 to ver. 5.
Vv. 5, 6: “ By whom we have received
grace and apostleship, with a view
to the obedience of faith among all
the Gentiles, for the glory of His name:
among whom are ye, also, the called of
Jesus Christ. ” The words dij ou\ ,
by whom , exactly express the
transition which we have just indicated. It is
from His heavenly glory and from His
state as Son of God that Christ has
founded the new apostolate, and called
him whom He has invested with it
(comp. Gal. 1:1).—The plural
ejlavbomen , we have received , is explained
by some: I and the other apostles; by
Hofmann: I and my apostolical
assistants (Barnabas, Silas, Timothy,
etc.). But the first meaning is
inadmissible, because the matter in
question here is exclusively the
apostleship to the Gentiles; and the
second is equally so, because Paul,
speaking here in his official
character, can associate no one with him in
the dignity which the Lord has
conferred on him personally. What we have
here is therefore the plural of
category , which the Greeks readily use
when they wish to put the person out
of view, and to present only the
principle which he represents, or the
work with which he is charged. The
words: cavrin kai; ajpostolhvn , grace
and apostleship , are regarded by
some (Chrys., Philippi) as equivalent
to: the grace of apostleship. But if
this had been Paul's meaning, it would
have been easy for him to express
it so. Hofmann applies the two terms
to the ministry of the apostle, as
presenting it, the former, in
connection with his own person—it is a grace
conferred on him; the latter, in its
relation to others—it is his mission to
them. But if the term grace be
referred to Paul's person, it seems to us
much simpler to apply it to the gift
of salvation which was bestowed on
himself; the second term, apostleship
, comes thus quite naturally to
designate his mission for the
salvation of the world. We have seen (Introd.
p. 13) how these two gifts, personal
salvation and apostleship, were, in
Paul's case, one and the same event.
The object of Christ in according
him grace and calling him to the
apostleship, was to spread the obedience
of faith. It is impossible to
understand by this obedience the holiness
produced by faith. For, before
speaking of the effects of faith, faith must
exist; and the matter in question is
precisely the calling of the apostle
destined to lay the foundation of it.
Meyer's meaning is still more
inadmissible, submission to the faith.
In that case, we should require to
give to the term faith the meaning of:
Christian truth (objectively
speaking), a meaning the word never
has in the New Testament, as
Meyer acknowledges. So he understands
obedience to the inward
sentiment of faith! This is a form of
speech of which it would be still more
difficult to find examples. The only
possible meaning is: the obedience
which consists in faith itself. By
faith man performs an act of obedience to
the divine manifestation which demands
of him submission and cooperation.
The refusal of faith is therefore
called, 10:3, a disobedience (
oujc uJpetavghsan ). The clause
following: among all the Gentiles , might be
connected with the word apostleship ,
but it is simpler to connect it directly
with the preceding, the obedience of
faith: “an obedience to be realized
among all Gentiles.” The term e[qnh ,
which we translate by Gentiles , has
been taken here by almost all critics
who hold the Jewish origin of the
Christians of Rome, in a wider
acceptation. They give it the general
meaning of nations , in order to
include under it the Jews, who are also a
nation , and consequently the
Christians of Rome. This interpretation has
been defended chiefly by Ruckert and
Baur. But it is easy to see that it is
invented to serve an a priori thesis.
The word e[qnh undoubtedly signifies
strictly: nations. But it has taken,
like the word gojim in the Old Testament
(Gen. 12:3; Isa. 42:6, etc.), a
definite, restricted, and quasi-technical
sense: the nations in opposition to
the chosen people ( oJ laov" ,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the people ). This signification
occurs from beginning to end of the New
Testament (Acts 9:15, 11:1, 18, 28:28;
Gal. 1:16, 2:7-9, 3:14, Eph. 2:11,
3:6). It is applied in the most
uniform manner in our Epistle (2:14, 15, 3:29,
11:13, 15:9, 11). Besides, the context
imperatively demands this limited
sense. Paul has just been explaining
the institution of a special
apostleship to the Gentiles, by a
transformation in the Lord's mode of
existence; the whole demonstration
would be useless if his aim were to
prove what the believers of Rome,
though Jewish Christians , belong also
to the domain of his mission. Mangold
feels the difficulty; for, in order to
remain faithful to Baur's view as to
the composition of the Roman church,
without falling into his false
interpretation of the word e[qnh , he tries to
take it in a purely geographical
sense. He thinks that by the nations , Paul
means to contrast the inhabitants of
the world in general, whether Jews or
Gentiles, with the Jews strictly so
called dwelling in Palestine. The apostle
means to say: “The church of Rome,
though composed of Judeo-
Christians, belongs geographically to
the world of the Gentiles, and
consequently comes within my domain as
the apostle of the Gentiles.” But
what in this case becomes of the
partition of domains marked out in Gal.
2? It must signify that Peter reserved
for himself to preach in Palestine,
and Paul out of Palestine! Who can
give this meaning to the famous
passage, Gal. 2? Besides, as Beyschlag
well says, this partition between
the apostles rested on a difference of
gifts , which had nothing to do with
geography, and evidently referred to
the religious and moral character of
those two great divisions of mankind,
Jews and Gentiles. It must therefore
be allowed that the words: among all
nations , refer to Gentiles, and to
Gentiles as such. Baur has sought to
turn the word all to account in favor
of his interpretation; but Paul uses
it precisely to introduce what he is
going to say, ver. 6, that the Romans,
though so remote, yet formed part
of his domain, since it embraces all
Gentiles without exception. It matters
little, therefore, that they are still
personally unknown to him, he is their
apostle nevertheless.—The third
clause: uJpe;r tou' ojnovmato" , for, in
behalf , or for the glory of His name
, depends on the whole verse from the
verb we have received. Paul does not
forget that this is the highest end of
his apostleship: to exalt the glory of
that name by extending the sphere of
his action, and increasing the number
of those who invoke it as the name
of their Lord. The words sound like an
echo of the message of Jesus to
Paul by Ananias: “He is a chosen vessel
to carry my name to the Gentiles;
” comp. 3 John 7. By this word Paul
reveals to us at once the aim of his
mission, and the inward motive of all
his work. And what a work was that!
As Christ in His own person broke the
external covering of Israelitish form,
so he purposed to break the national
wrapping within which the kingdom
of God had till then been inclosed;
and to spread the glory of His name to
the very ends of the earth, He called
Paul.
Ver. 6 may be construed in two ways:
either the klhtoi; jI. C. may be taken
as a predicate: “in the midst of whom
(Gentiles) ye are the called of Jesus
Christ ,” or the last words may be
taken in apposition to the subject: “of the
number of whom ye are, ye who are
called of Jesus Christ. ” The former
construction does not give a simple
meaning; for the verb ye are has then
two predicates which conflict with one
another: “ye are in the midst of
them,” and: “ye are the called of
Jesus Christ.” Besides, is it necessary to
inform the Christians of Rome that
they live in the midst of the Gentiles,
and that they are called by Jesus
Christ? Add the kaiv , also , which would
signify: like all the other Christians
in the world, and you have an addition
wholly superfluous, and, besides, far
from clear. What has led
commentators like De Wette, Meyer,
etc., to hold this first construction is,
that it seemed to them useless to make
Paul say: “ye are among, or ye
are of the number of the Gentiles.”
But, on the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
contrary, this idea is very essential.
It is the minor premiss of the syllogism
within which Paul, so to speak,
incloses the Romans. The major: Christ
has made me the Apostle of the
Gentiles; the minor: ye are of the number
of the Gentiles; conclusion:
therefore, in virtue of the authority of that
Christ who has called you as He has
called me, ye are the sheep of my
fold. The kaiv , also , from this
point of view is easily explained: “of the
number of whom (Gentiles) ye also are,
ye Romans, falling consequently
like the other Gentiles called by me
personally to my apostolical domain.”
The title klhtoi; jI. C. , called of
Jesus Christ , corresponds to the title which
Paul gave himself, ver. 1:
klhto;" ajpovstolo" , “ an apostle by calling. ” They
are bound to hear him in virtue of the
same authority under which he
writes to them, that of Jesus Christ.
The complement: “ called of Jesus
Christ ,” may be taken as a genitive
of possession: “called ones belonging
to Jesus Christ.” But it is better to
regard it as a genitive of cause: “called
ones, whose calling comes from Jesus
Christ.” For the important thing in
the context is not the commonplace
idea that they belong to the Lord; it is
the notion of the act by which the Lord
Himself acted on them to make
them believers, as on Paul to make him
their apostle. The idea of calling
(of God or Christ), according to
Paul's usage, includes two thoughts, an
outward solicitation by preaching, and
an inward and simultaneous
drawing by the Holy Spirit. It need
not be said that neither the one nor the
other of these influences is
irresistible, nor that the adhesion of faith
remains an act of freedom. This
adhesion is here implied in the fact that
the Romans are members of the church
and readers of these lines.
If we needed a confirmation of the
Gentile origin of the majority of this
church, it would be found in
overwhelming force in vv. 5 and 6, especially
when taken in connection with ver. 4;
and really it needs far more than
common audacity to attempt to get out
of them the opposite idea, and to
paraphrase them, as Volkmar does, in
the following way: “I seem to you
no doubt to be only the apostle of the
Hellenes; but, nevertheless, I am
called by Jesus Christ to preach the
gospel to all nations, even to the non
Hellenes such as you, believers of
Jewish origin!”
We come now to the second and third
parts of the address, the indication
of the readers and the expression of
the writer's prayer.
Ver. 7. “ To all the well-beloved of
God who are at Rome , saints by way of
call: Grace be given you and peace on
the part of God our Father, and the
Lord Jesus Christ. ”—The dative: to
all those , might be dependent on a
verb understood: I write , or I
address myself; but it is simpler to connect it
with the verb implied in the statement
of the prayer which immediately
follows: “To you all may there be
given. ” The adjective all would be quite
superfluous here if Paul had not the
intention of widening the circle of
persons spoken of in ver. 6 as being
of the number of the Gentiles. Paul
certainly has no doubt that there are
also among the Christians of Rome
some brethren of Jewish origin, and by
his to all he now embraces them in
the circle of those to whom he
addresses his letter. We need not separate
the two datives: to all those who are
at Rome and to the well-beloved of
God , as if they were two different
regimens; the dative: well-beloved of
God , is taken substantively: to all
the well-beloved of God who are at
Rome. The words denote the entire
number of Roman believers, Jews
and Gentiles. All men are in a sense
loved of God (John 3:16); but apart
from faith, this love of God can only
be that of compassion. It becomes an
intimate love, like that of father and
child, only through the reconciliation
granted to faith. Here is the first
bond between the apostle and his
readers: the common love of which they
are the objects. This bond is
strengthened by another: the internal
work which has flowed from it,
consecration to God, holiness:
klhtoi'" aJgivoi" , saints by way of call. We
need not translate either: called to
be saints, which
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
would imply that holiness is in their
case no more as yet than a
destination, or called and holy
(Ostervald), which would give to the notion
of calling too independent a force.
Paul means that they are really saints,
and that if they possess this title of
nobility before God, it is because
Christ has honored them with His call,
by drawing some from the
defilements of paganism, and raising
others from the external
consecration of God's ancient people
to the spiritual consecration of the
new. Under the old covenant,
consecration to God was hereditary, and
attached to the external rite of
circumcision. Under the new economy,
consecration is that of the will first
of all, and so of the entire life. It passes
from within outward, and not from
without inward; it is real holiness. The
words ejn JRwvmh/ , at Rome , are omitted
in the Greek text of the Cod. de
Baerner. (G), as well as in the Latin
translation accompanying it
( g ). This might be regarded as an
accidental omission, if it were not
repeated in ver.
15. Ruckert and Renan think that it
arises from manuscripts intended for
other churches, and in which
accordingly, the indication of the readers
had been left blank. But in this case
would it not occur in a larger number
of documents? Meyer supposes that some
church or other, having the
letter copied for its own special use,
had intentionally suppressed the
words. But it needs to be explained
why the same thing did not take place
with other Epistles. Perhaps the cause
of the omission in this case was
the contrast between the general
character of the contents of the letter
and the local destination indicated in
the suppressed words, the second
fact appearing contradictory to the
first (see ver. 15).
Why does the apostle not salute this
community of believers, as he does
those of Thessalonica, Galatia, and
Corinth, with the name of church?
The different Christian groups which
existed at Rome, and several of
which are mentioned in chap. 16, were
perhaps not yet connected with
one another by a common presbyterial
organization.
The end of ver. 7 contains the
development of the third part of the
address, the prayer. For the usual
term caivrein , joy and prosperity , Paul
substitutes the blessings which form
the Christian's wealth and happiness.
Grace , cavri" , denotes the love
of God manifested in the form of pardon
toward sinful man; peace , eijrhvnh ,
the feeling of profound calm or inward
quiet which is communicated to the
heart by the possession of
reconciliation. It may seem that the
title: well-beloved of God , given
above, included these gifts; but the
Christian possesses nothing which
does not require to be ever received
anew, and daily increased by new
acts of faith and prayer. The
Apocalypse says that “salvation flows from
the throne of God and of the Lamb;” it
is from God and from Jesus Christ
that Paul likewise derives the two
blessings which he wishes for the
believers of Rome; from God as Father
, and from Jesus Christ as Lord or
Head of the church. We need not
explain these two regimens as if they
meant “ from God through Christ.” The
two substantives depend on a
common preposition: on the part of.
The apostle therefore has in view not
a source and a channel, but two
sources. The love of God and the love of
Christ are two distinct loves; the one
is a father's, the other a brother's.
Christ loves with his own love, Rom.
5:15. Comp. John 5:21 ( those whom
he will ) and 26 ( he hath life in
himself ). Erasmus was unhappy in taking
the words: Jesus Christ our Lord , as
a second complement to the word
Father: “our Father and that of Jesus
Christ. ” But in this case the
complement Jesus Christ would have
required to be placed first, and the
notion of God's fatherhood in relation
to Christ would be without purpose
in the context. The conviction of
Christ's divine nature can alone explain
this construction, according to which
His person and that of the Father are
made alike dependent on one and the
same proposition.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
It is impossible not to admire the
prudence and delicacy which St. Paul
shows in the discharge of his task
toward this church. To justify his
procedure, he goes back on his
apostleship; to justify his apostleship to
them, Gentiles, he goes back to the
transformation which the resurrection
wrought in Christ's person, when from
being Jewish Messiah it made Him
Lord in the absolute sense of the
word. Like a true pastor, instead of
lording it over the conscience of his
flock, he seeks to associate it with his
own.
Second Passage (1:8-15). The Interest
long taken by the Apostle in
the Christians of Rome.
The address, had drawn a sort of
official bond between the apostle and
the church. But Paul feels the need of
converting it into a heart relation;
and to this end the following piece is
devoted. The apostle here assures
his readers of the profound interest
which he has long felt in them, though
he has not yet been able to show it by
visiting them. He begins, as usual,
by thanking God for the work already
wrought in them, ver. 8; then he
expresses his lively and long
cherished desire to labor for its growth,
either in the way of strengthening
themselves spiritually, vv. 9-12, or in the
way of increasing the number of
believers in the city of Rome, vv. 13-15.
Ver. 8. “ First, I thank my God
through Jesus Christ on account of you all,
that your faith is spoken of
throughout the whole world. ”—The apostle
knows that there is no more genuine
proof of sincere affection than
intercession; hence he puts his prayer
for them first. The word prw'ton , in
the first place (especially with the
particle mevn ), leads us to expect a
secondly ( e;peita dev ). As this word
does not occur in the sequel, some
have thought it necessary to give to
prw'ton the meaning of above all. This
is unnecessary. The second idea the
apostle had in view is really found in
ver. 10, in the prayer which he offers
to God that he may be allowed soon
to go to Rome. This prayer is the
natural supplement of the thanksgiving.
Only the construction has led the
apostle not to express it in the strictly
logical form: in the second place. —In
the words “ my God ,” he sums up
all his personal experiences of God's
fatherly help, in the various
circumstances of his life, and
particularly in those of his apostleship.
Herein there is a particular
revelation which every believer receives for
himself alone, and which he sums up
when he calls God his God; comp.
the phrase God of Abraham, of Isaac,
and of Jacob , and more especially
the words Gen. 28:20, 21. Paul's
thanksgiving is presented through the
mediation of Jesus Christ; he conveys
it through Christ as head of the
church, and more immediately his own.
Meyer thinks that Christ is rather
mentioned here as the author of the
work for which Paul gives thanks; but
this is not the natural meaning of the
phrase: I thank through; comp.
besides, 8:34. The propagation of the
gospel at Rome appears to Paul a
service rendered to him personally, as
apostle of the Gentiles.—The
phrase: on account of you all , seems
a little exaggerated, since he does
not know them all personally. But
would there be a human being at Rome
gained for Christ, known or unknown,
whose faith was not a subject of joy
to Paul! The preposition uJpevr , in
behalf of , which is found in the T. R.
(with the latest Mjj.), would express
more affection than periv , on account
of; but the latter is more simple, and
occurs in some Mjj. of the three
families. What increases Paul's joy
is, that not only do they believe
themselves, but their faith, the
report of which is spread everywhere,
opens a way for the gospel to other
countries; comp. a similar passage
addressed to the Thessalonians (1
Thess. 1:8). The o{ti , because ,
serves to bring into relief a special
feature in the cause of joy already
indicated; comp. 1 Cor. 1:5 (the o{ti
in its relation to ver. 4). The phrase:
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
throughout the whole world , is
hyperbolical; it alludes to the position of
Rome as the capital of the world;
comp. Col. 1:6.
Vv. 9, 10. “ For God is my witness,
whom I serve with my spirit in the
gospel of His Son, how without ceasing
I make mention of you, making
request in all my prayers, if perhaps
now at length I might have a
prosperous journey by the will of God
to come unto you. ”—This
thanksgiving of the apostle was an
inward action of which none but God
could have knowledge; and as the
words, ver. 8, might seem chargeable
with exaggeration, he appeals to the
one witness of his inner life. Paul
thinks of those times of intimate
intercourse which he has daily with his
God in the exercise of his ministry;
for it is at His feet, as it were, that he
discharges this task. He says: “ in my
spirit , that is to say, in the most
intimate part of his being, where is
the organ by which his soul
communicates with the divine world.
The spirit is therefore here one of the
clements of his human nature (1 Thess.
5:23); only it is evidently thought
of as penetrated with the Divine
Spirit. When Paul says: in the gospel of
His Son , it is clear that he is not
thinking of the matter , but of the act of
evangelical preaching. This is for him
a continual act of worship which he
performs only on his knees. The words:
of His Son , bring out the supreme
gravity of the act. How, in fact, can
one take part in a work which concerns
the Son , otherwise than in concert
with God Himself! The wJ" need be
translated neither by that (the fact
), which expresses too little, nor by how
much (the degree ), which is too
strong, but by how. The word refers to
the mode of this inward worship, as it
is developed in what follows. The
expression: without ceasing , explains
the: “I give thanks for you all ,”
which had preceded (ver. 8). Hence the
for at the beginning of the verse.
Ver. 10. With the thanksgiving there
is connected, as a second matter
which he has to communicate to them,
his not less unwearied prayer that
he might be able soon to visit them.
The words: always in my prayers ,
refer certainly to the following
participle: making request , and not to what
precedes, a sense which would lead to
a pleonasm. Not one of the
intimate dealings of the apostle with
his God, in which this subject does
not find a place.— jEpiv , strictly
speaking, on occasion of. The
conjunction ei[pw" , if perhaps ,
indicates the calculation of chances; and
the adverbs now, at length , the sort
of impatience which he puts into his
calculation. The term eujodou'n
strictly signifies: to cause one to journey
prosperously , whence in general: to
make one succeed in a business;
comp. 1 Cor. 16:2. As in this context
the subject in question is precisely
the success of a journey , it is
difficult not to see in the choice of the term
an allusion to its strict meaning: “if
at length I shall not be guided
prosperously in my journey to you.” By
whom? The words: by the will of
God , tell us; favorable circumstances
are the work of that all-powerful
hand. Vv. 11, 12 indicate the most
immediate motive of this ardent desire.
Vv. 11, 12. “ For I long to see you,
that I may impart unto you some
spiritual gift, to the end that ye may
be established; or to speak more
properly, that I may be encouraged
with you in the midst of you, by the
mutual action of our faith, yours and
mine. ”—Enriched with the gifts of
God as he was, could the apostle help
feeling the need of imparting some
of them to a church so important as
that of Rome? There is in the verb
ejpipoqw' , along with the expression
of the desire which goes out toward
them, one of regret at not having been
able to come sooner. A cavrisma ,
gift, is a concrete manifestation of
grace ( cavri" ). The epithet spiritual
shows the nature and source of the
gift which he hopes to impart to his
readers (the spirit, the pneu'ma ).
The word uJmi'n , to you , is inserted
between the substantive and the
adjective to bring out the latter more
forcibly. The apostle hopes that by
this communication they will receive an
increase of divine strength within
them. He puts the verb in the passive:
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
that ye may be strengthened. We need not
translate: to confirm you
(Oltram.); on the contrary, Paul uses
the passive form to put out of view
the part he takes personally, and to
exhibit only the result; it is God who
will strengthen. There would be a
degree of charlatanism in the choice of
the word strengthen, confirm , if, as
Baur, and following him, Mangold,
Sabatier, etc., think, the apostle's
object in this letter was to bring about a
radical change in the existing
conception of the gospel at Rome. To
strengthen, is not to turn one into
another way, it is to make him walk
firmly on that on which he is already.
But Paul was too sincerely humble,
and at the same time too delicate in
his feelings, to allow it to be
supposed that the spiritual advantage
resulting from his stay among them
would all be on one side. He hastens
to add that he hopes himself to have
his share, ver. 12. The first words of
this verse have generally been
misunderstood; there has been given to
them the meaning of the phrase
tou'tj e[sti , that is to say
(Ostervald, Oltram.). It is forgotten that the dev
which is added here ( tou'to dev ejsti
) indicates not a simple explanatory
repetition, but a certain modification
and progress in the idea. The
meaning, therefore, is: or to speak
more properly. In point of fact, Paul
had yet to add to the idea of the good
which he reckoned on doing, that of
the good which he hoped himself to
receive. This is precisely what he has
in view in the strange construction of
the words which immediately follow.
There is no doubt that the preposition
suvn , with , in the compound verb
sumparaklhqh'nai , to be encouraged
with , signifies: “I with you , Christians
of Rome.” For the subject of the verb
can be no other than the apostle, on
account of the words which follow: in
the midst of you. Fritzsche attempts
to give it a you for its subject,
uJma'" understood; Meyer and Hofmann
would make this infinitive directly
dependent on the word I desire , ver. 11:
“I desire to see you, and to be
encouraged in the midst of you.” But this is
to mistake the evident relation
between the two passive infinitives, so
closely connected with one another.
“To the end that ye may be
strengthened; and, to speak more
correctly, that with you I may be
encouraged among you.” The “ with
(you)” brings out the notion of their
strengthening, to add to it
immediately, and that in the same word (in
Greek) the notion of the encouragement
derived by Paul himself, as being
one with theirs; for is not the
strengthening of others the means of
encouraging himself? One shares in the
strength which he imparts. The
apostle seems to say that there is in
his desire as much holy selfishness
as holy zeal. The substitution of the
word encourage (in speaking of Paul)
for that of strengthen (in speaking of
them) is significant. In Paul's case,
the only thing in question is his
subjective feeling, which might be a little
depressed, and which would receive a
new impulse from the success of
his work among them; comp. Acts 28:15
( he took courage , e[labe qavrso"
). This same delicacy of expression is
kept up in the words which follow.
By the among you , the apostle says
that their mere presence will of itself
be strengthening to him. This appears
literally in what follows: “ by my
faith and yours one upon another. ”
These lasts words express a
reciprocity in virtue of which his
faith will act on theirs and theirs on his;
and how so? In virtue of their having
that faith in common (by the faith of
you and of me ). It is because they
live in this common atmosphere of one
and the same faith that they can act
and react spiritually, he on them, and
they on him. What dignity, tact, and
grace in these words, by which the
apostle at once transforms the active
part which he is obliged to ascribe to
himself in the first place into a
receptive part, and so to terminate with the
notion which unites these two points
of view, that of reciprocity in the
possession of a common moral life!
Erasmus has classed all this in the
category of pia vafrities and sancta
adulatio. He did not understand the
sincerity of Paul's humility. But what
Paul wishes is not merely to impart
new
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
strength to the Christians of Rome
while reinforcing his own, it is also to
aid in the increase of their church.
He comes as an apostle, not only as a
Christian visitor; such is the meaning
of the words which follow (vv. 1:3-
15).
Vv. 13, 14. “ Now I would not have you
ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes
I purposed to come unto you (but was
hindered hitherto), that I might
gather some fruit among you also, even
as among the other Gentiles. I
am debtor both to the Greeks, and to
the Barbarians; both to the wise,
and to the ignorant. ”—His readers
might ask with some reason how it
happened that Paul, having been an
apostle for more than twenty years,
had not yet found time to come and
preach the good news in the Capital
of the world. The phrase: I would not
have you ignorant , has something
slightly mysterious about it, which
will be explained presently. The dev ,
now , expresses a gradation, but not
one from the simple desire (ver. 11)
to the fixed purpose (ver. 13). The
right connection in this sense would
have been: for indeed , and not now.
Paul rather passes here from the
spiritual good, which he has always
desired to do among the believers of
Rome, to the extension of their
church, to which he hopes he may
contribute. Let his work at Corinth
and Ephesus be remembered; why
should he not accomplish a similar
work at Rome? He means, therefore: “
I shall confess to you my whole mind;
my ambition aims at making some
new conquests even in your city (at
Rome).” This is what he calls
gathering some fruit. The phrase is as
modest as possible. At Corinth and
Ephesus he gathered full harvests; at
Rome, where the church already
exists, he will merely add some
handfuls of ears to the sheaves already
reaped by others. Karpo;n e[cein ,
literally, to have fruit , does not here
signify: to bear fruit, as if Paul
were comparing himself to a tree. The N. T.
has other and more common terms for
this idea: karpo;n fevrein, poiei'n,
didovnai . The meaning is rather to
secure fruit, like a husbandman who
garners a harvest. The two kaiv , also
, of the Greek text, “ also among
you, as also among the other
Gentiles,” signify respectively: “among you
quite as much as among them;” and
“among them quite as much as
among you.” St. Paul remembers what he
has succeeded in doing
elsewhere. No reader free from
prepossession will fail to see here the
evident proof of the Gentile origin of
the great majority of the Christians of
Rome. To understand by e[qnh , nations
in general, including the Jews as
well, is not only contrary to the
uniform sense of the word (see ver. 5), but
also to the subdivision into Greeks
and Barbarians given in the following
verse: for the Jews, according to
Paul's judgment, evidently did not belong
to either of these two classes. If he
had thought of the Jews in this place,
he must have used the classification
of ver. 16: to the Jews and Greeks.
Ver. 14. No connecting particle. Such
is always the indication of a feeling
which as it rises is under the
necessity of reaffirming itself with increasing
energy: “ Yea , I feel that I owe
myself to all that is called Gentile.” The
first division, into Greeks and
Barbarians , bears on the language , and
thereby on the nationality: the
second, into wise and ignorant , on the
degree of culture. It may be asked in
what category did Paul place the
Romans themselves. As to the first of
these two classifications, it is
obvious that he cannot help ranking
among the Greeks those to whom he
is writing at the very time in the
Greek language. The Romans, from the
most ancient times, had received their
culture from the Greek colonies
established in Italy. So Cicero, in a
well-known passage of the De finibus
(2:15), conjoins Graecia and Italia ,
and contrasts them with Barbaria. As
to the second contrast, it is possible
that Paul regards the immense
population of Rome, composed of
elements so various, as falling into the
two classes mentioned. What matters?
All those individuals, of whatever
category, Paul regards as his
creditors. He owes them his
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
life, his person, in virtue of the
grace bestowed on him and of the office
which he has received (ver. 5). The
emotion excited by this thought is
what has caused the asyndeton between
vv. 13 and 14.
Ver. 15. “ So, as much as in me is, I
have the lively desire to preach the
gospel to you also, to you that are at
Rome. ”—Of the three explanations
by which it has been sought to account
for the grammatical construction of
this verse, the simplest seems to me
to be that which gives a restricting
sense to the words katj ejmev : for my
part , that is to say: “ so far as
depends on me , so far as external
circumstances shall not thwart my
desire,” and which takes to; provqumon
as a paraphrase of the substantive
proqumiva ; the meaning is: “So far as
I am concerned, the liveliest desire
prevails in me to”...Such is the
explanation of Fritzsche, Reiche, Philippi.
De Wette and Meyer prefer to join tov
with katj ejmev in the same sense as
we have just given to katj ejmev
alone, and to take provqumon as the
subject: “As far as I am concerned,
there is an eagerness to”...Some have
made to; katj ejmev a periphrasis for
ejgwv , as the subject of the
proposition, and taken provqumon as a
predicate: “My personal disposition
is eagerness to announce to you”...The
meaning is nearly the same
whichever of the three explanations be
adopted. The ou{tw , so , very
obviously stands as a concluding
particle. This eagerness to preach at
Rome no less than elsewhere is the
consequence of that debt to all which
he feels lying upon him. The meaning:
likewise , would not be so suitable.
The word to evangelize , literally, to
proclaim good news , seems to be
inapplicable to a church already
founded. But we have just seen that the
apostle has here in view the extension
of the church by preaching to the
unbelieving population around it.
Hence the use of the word. We must
therefore take the words: you that are
at Rome , in a wider sense. It is not
merely the members of the church who
are denoted by it, but the whole
population of the great city represented
in the eyes of Paul by his readers.
As Hofmann says: “He is here
considering the members of the church as
Romans, not as Christians.” The words
at Rome are omitted by Codex G,
as in ver. 7. Volkmar explains their
rejection by the fact that some
evangelistarium (a collection of the
pericopes intended for public reading)
suppressed them to preserve the
universal character of our Epistle. This
explanation comes to the same as that
which we have given on ver. 7.
Here for the present the letter closes
and the treatise begins. The first
proposition of ver. 16: I am not
ashamed of the gospel , is the transition
from the one to the other. For the
words: I am not ashamed , are intended
to remove a suspicion which might be
raised against the profession Paul
has just made of eagerness to preach
at Rome; they thus belong to the
letter. And, on the other hand, the
word gospel sums up the whole
contents of the didactic treatise
which immediately opens. It is impossible
to see in this first proposition of
ver. 16 anything else than a transition, or
to bring out of it, as Hofmann
attempts, the statement of the object of the
whole Epistle.
THE TREATISE. 1:16-15:13.
Third Passage (1:16, 17). The
Statement of the Subject.
VER. 16. “ For I am not ashamed of the
gospel:for it is a power of God
unto salvation to every one that
believeth; to the Jew first , and also to the
Greek. ”—The long delays which had
prevented the apostle's visit to
Rome did not arise, as might have been
thought, from some secret
anxiety or fear that he might not be
able to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
sustain honorably the part of preacher
of the word on this stage. In the
very contents of the gospel there are
a grandeur and a power which lift
the man who is charged with it above
feelings of this kind. He may indeed
be filled with fear and trembling when
he is delivering such a message; 1
Cor. 2:3; but the very nature of the
message restores him, and gives him
entire boldness wherever he presents
himself. In what follows the apostle
seems to say: “And I now proceed to
prove this to you by expounding in
writing that gospel which I would have
wished to proclaim with the living
voice in the midst of you.” When he
says: I am not ashamed , Paul does
not seem to have in view the
opprobrium attached to the preaching of the
Crucified One; he would have brought
out this particular more distinctly.
Comp. 1 Cor. 1:18, 23. The complement
tou' Cristou' , of Christ , which is
found in the T. R. along with the Byz.
MSS. is certainly unauthentic; for it
is wanting in the documents of the
other two families, in the ancient Latin
and Syriac Vss., and even in a larger
number of Mnn. The word gospel
denotes here, as in vv. 1 and 9, not
the matter, but the act of preaching;
Calvin himself says: De vocali
praedicatione hic loquitur. And why is the
apostle not ashamed of such a
proclamation? Because it is the mighty
arm of God rescuing the world from
perdition, and bringing it salvation.
Mankind are, as it were, at the bottom
of an abyss; the preaching of the
gospel is the power from above which
raises out of it. No one need blush
at being the instrument of such a
force. The omission of the article before
the word duvnami" , power ,
serves to bring out the character of the action
rather than the action itself. Hofmann
says: “ Power , for the gospel can do
something; power of God , for it can
do all it promises.” The word swthriva
, salvation , contains two ideas: on
the one side, deliverance from an evil,
perdition; on the other, communication
of a blessing, eternal life in
communion with God. The possession of
these two privileges is man's
health ( swthriva , from the adjective
sw'" , safe and sound ). The life of
God in the soul of man, such is the
normal state of the latter. The
preposition eij" , to , or in
(salvation), denotes not only the purpose of the
divine work, but its immediate and
certain result, wherever the human
condition is fulfilled. This condition
is faith, to every one that believeth. The
word every one expresses the universal
efficacy of the remedy, and the
word believeth , its entire freeness.
Such are the two fundamental
characteristics of the Christian
salvation, especially as preached by Paul;
and they are so closely connected
that, strictly speaking, they form only
one. Salvation would not be for all ,
if it demanded from man anything else
than faith. To make work or merit a
condition in the least degree, would be
to exclude certain individuals. Its
universal destination thus rests on its
entire freeness at the time when man
is called to enter into it. The apostle
adds to the word believing the article
tw'/ , the , which cannot be rendered
in French by the tout (all); the word
means each individual, provided he
believes. As the offer is universal,
so the act of faith by which man
accepts is individual; comp. John
3:16. The faith of which the apostle
speaks is nothing else than the simple
acceptance of the salvation offered
in preaching. It is premature to put
in this moral act all that will afterwards
flow from it when faith shall be in
possession of its object. This is what is
done by Reuss and Sabatier, when they
define it respectively: “A
personal, inward, mystical union
between man and Christ the Savious” (
Ep. paulin.
II. p. 43); and: “the destruction of
sin in us, the inward creation of the
divine life”
( L'ap. Paul , p. 265). This is to
make the effect the cause. Faith, in Paul's
sense, is something extremely simple,
such that it does not in the least
impair the freeness of salvation. God
says: I give thee; the heart answers:
I accept; such is faith. The act is
thus a receptivity, but an active
receptivity. It brings nothing, but it
takes what God gives; as was
admirably said by a poor Bechuana: “It
is the hand of the heart.” In this
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
act the entire human personality takes
part: the understanding discerning
the blessing offered in the divine
promise, the will aspiring after it, and the
confidence of the heart giving itself
up to the promise, and so securing the
promised blessing. The preaching of
free salvation is the act by which
God lays hold of man, faith is the act
by which man lets himself be laid
hold of. Thus, instead of God's
ancient people who were recruited by birth
and Abrahamic descent, Paul sees a new
people arising, formed of all the
individuals who perform the personal
act of faith, whatever the nation to
which they belong. To give pointed
expression to this last feature, he
recalls the ancient distinction which
had till then divided mankind into two
rival religious societies, Jews and
Gentiles, and declares this distinction
abolished. He says: to the Jew first,
and to the Greek. In this context the
word Greek has a wider sense than in
ver. 14; for there it was opposed to
Barbarian. It therefore designated
only a part of Gentile humanity. Here,
where it is used in opposition to Jew
, it includes the whole Gentile world.
Greeks were indeed the e8lite of the
Gentiles, and might be regarded as
representing the Gentiles in general;
comp. 1 Cor. 1:22-24. This
difference in the extension of the
name Greeks arises from the fact that in
ver. 14 the only matter in question
was Paul's ministry, the domain of
which was subdivided into civilized
Gentiles (Greeks) and barbarian
Gentiles; while here the matter in
question is the gospel's sphere of action
in general, a sphere to which the
whole of mankind belong ( Jews and
Gentiles ). The word prw'ton , first ,
should not be interpreted, as some
think, in the sense of principally. It
would be false to say that salvation is
intended for the Jews in preference to
the Greeks. Paul has in view the
right of priority in time which
belonged to Israel as the result of its whole
history. As to this right, God had
recognized it by making Jesus to be born
in the midst of this people; Jesus had
respected it by confining Himself
during His earthly life to gathering
together the lost sheep of the house of
Israel , and by commanding his
apostles to begin the evangelization of the
world with Jerusalem and Judea, Acts
1:8; Peter and the Twelve
remained strictly faithful to it, as
is proved by the first part of the Acts, Acts
2-12; and Paul himself had uniformly
done homage to it by beginning the
preaching of the gospel, in every
Gentile city to which he came as an
apostle, in the synagogue. And,
indeed, this right of priority rested on the
destination of Israel to become itself
the apostle of the Gentiles in the
midst of whom they lived. It was for
Jewish believers to convert the world.
For this end they must needs be the
first to be evangelized. The word
prw'ton ( first ) is wanting in the
Vat. and the Boerner. Cod. (Greek and
Latin). We know from Tertullian that
it was wanting also in Marcion. The
omission of the word in the latter is
easily explained; he rejected it simply
because it overturned his system. Its
rejection in the two MSS. B and G is
more difficult to explain. Volkmar
holds that Paul might ascribe a priority to
the Jews in relation to judgment , as
he does 2:9, but not in connection
with salvation; the prw'ton of 2:10 he
therefore holds to be an interpolation
from 2:9, and that of our ver. 16, a
second interpolation from 2:10. An
ingenious combination, intended to
make the apostle the relentless enemy
of Judaism, agreeably to Baur's
system, but belied by the missionary
practice of Paul, which is perfectly
in keeping with our first and with that of
2:10. The omission must be due to the
carelessness of the copyist, the
simple form: to the Jew and to the
Greek (without the word first ), naturally
suggesting itself. While paying homage
to the historical right of the Jewish
people, Paul did not, however, intend
to restore particularism. By the te
kaiv , as well as , he forcibly
maintains the radical religious equality
already proclaimed in the words: to
every one that believeth.
It concerns the apostle now to explain
how the gospel can really be the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
salvation of the world offered to all
believers. Such is the object of ver. 17.
The gospel is salvation, because it
offers the righteousness of God.
Ver. 17. “ For therein is the
righteousness of God revealed by faith for
faith: as it is written, But the just
shall live by faith. ”—The first part of this
verse is a repetition of ver. 16, in
more precise language. Paul explains
how this power unto salvation , which
should save the believer, acts: it
justifies him. Such is the fundamental
idea of the Epistle.
The term righteousness of God cannot
here mean, as it sometimes does,
for example, 3:5 and 25, an attribute
of God, whether His perfect moral
purity, or His retributive justice.
Before the gospel this perfection was
already distinctly revealed by the
law; and the prophetic words which Paul
immediately quotes: “ The just shall
live by faith,” prove that in his view
this justice of God is a condition of
man, not a divine attribute.
In what does this state consist? The
term dikaiosuvnh , justice , strictly
designates the moral position of a man
who has fully met all his
obligations (comp. 6:13, 16; Eph. 5:9;
Matt. 5:17, etc.). Only here the
complement: of God , and the
expression: is revealed by the gospel , lead
us to give the term a more particular
sense: the relation to God in which a
man would naturally be placed by his
righteousness, if he were righteous,
and which God bestows on him of grace
on account of his faith. Two
explanations of this notion meet us.
They are well stated by Calvin: “Some
think that righteousness consists not
merely in the free pardon of sins, but
partly also in the grace of
regeneration. ” “For my part,” he adds, “I take
the meaning to be that we are restored
to life, because God freely
reconciles us to Himself.” On the one
hand, therefore, an inward
regeneration on the ground of which
God pardons; on the other, a free
reconciliation on the ground of which
God regenerates. In the former
case: God acting first as Spirit to
deposit in the soul the germ of the new
life ( to render man effectually just
, at least virtually), and afterwards as
judge to pardon; in the latter, God
acting first as judge to pardon ( to
declare man just ), and afterwards as
Spirit to quicken and sanctify.
The first of these views is that of the
Catholic Church, formulated by the
Council of Trent, and professed by a
number of Protestant theologians
(among the earlier, Osiander; Beck, in
our day). It is the point of view
defended by Reuss and Sabatier. The
latter defines justification: “the
creation of spiritual life.” The
second notion is that round which the
Protestant churches in general have
rallied. It was the soul of Luther's
religious life; and it is still the
centre of doctrinal teaching in the church
which claims the name of this
Reformer. We have not here to treat the
subject from a dogmatical or moral
point of view. We ask ourselves this
one thing: Which of the two views was
the apostle's, and best explains his
words?
In our verse the verb reveals itself ,
or is revealed , applies more naturally
to a righteousness which is offered ,
and which God attributes to man in
consequence of a declaration , than to
a righteousness which is
communicated internally by the gift of
the Spirit. The instrument of
appropriation constantly insisted on
by the apostle, faith , also
corresponds better to the acceptance
of a promise than to the acceptance
of a real communication. The contrast
between the two evidently parallel
phrases:
“ The righteousness of God is revealed
,” ver. 17, and: “ The wrath of God
is revealed ,” ver. 18, leads us
equally to regard the righteousness of God
as a state of things which He founds
in His capacity of judge , rather than
a new life conveyed by His Spirit. The
opposite of the new life is not the
wrath of the judge, but the sin of
man.—In 4:3, Paul justifies his doctrine
of the righteousness of God by the
words of Moses: “Now Abraham
believed God, and it was counted to
him for righteousness ”
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
(counted as the equivalent of a
righteous and irreproachable life). The
idea of counting or imputing applies
better to a sentence which ascribes
than to an act of real
communication.—In the same chapter, vv. 7, 8, the
notion of the righteousness of God is
explained by the terms pardon and
non-imputation of sin. There is
evidently no question there of positive
communication, of a gift of spiritual
life.—In chap. 5:9, 10, Paul contrasts
with justification by the blood of
Christ and with reconciliation by His death
, as the foundation of salvation,
deliverance from wrath (in the day of
judgment), by the communication of His
life , as the consummation of
salvation. Unless we are to convert
the copestone into the basis, we must
put justification by the blood first,
and the communication of life by the
Spirit second; the one, as the
condition of entrance into the state of
salvation here below; the other, as
the condition of entrance into the state
of glory above.—The very structure of
the Epistle to the Romans forbids
us to entertain a doubt as to the
apostle's view. If the communication of
spiritual life were, in his judgment,
the condition of pardon, he must have
begun his Epistle with chaps. 6-8,
which treat of the destruction of sin and
of the gift of the new life, and not
with the long passage, 1:18-5:21, which
refers wholly to the removal of
condemnation , and to the conditions,
objective and subjective, of
reconciliation. —Finally, it is contrary to the
fundamental principle of Paul's
gospel, entire freeness of salvation, to put
regeneration in any degree whatever as
the basis of reconciliation and
pardon. It is to make the effect the
cause, and the cause the effect.
According to St. Paul, God does not
declare man righteous after having
made him righteous; He does not make
him righteous till He has first
declared him righteous. The whole
Epistle to the Romans excludes the
first of these two principles (which
is no other than the Judaizing principle
ever throwing man back on himself ),
and goes to establish the second
(the evangelical principle which
detaches man radically from himself and
throws him on God ). See on the
transition from chap. 5 to chap. 6—We
add here, as a necessary supplement, a
study on the meaning of the word
dikaiou'n , to justify.
Excursus on the use of the word
dikaiou'n , to justify.
Excursus on the use of the word
dikaiou'n , to justify. —The question is
this: Are we to understand the word
dikaiou'n , to justify , in the sense of
making just or declaring just?
Verbs in ow have sometimes the meaning
of making: dhlovw , to make
clear; doulovw , to make a slave;
tuflovw , to make blind. But this use of
the termination ow does not form the
rule; this is seen in the verbs
zhmiovw , to punish; misqovw , to
hire; loutrovw , to bathe; mastigovw , to
scourge.
As to dikaiovw , there is not an
example in the whole of classic literature
where it signifies: to make just. With
accusative of things it signifies: to
think right. The following are
examples: Thucyd. 2:6: “ Thinking it right (
dikaiou'nte" ) to return to the
Lacedemonians what these had done them.”
4:26: “He will not form a just idea of
the thing ( oujk ojrqw'" dikaiwvsei ).”
Herod. 1.133: “ They think it good (
dikaieu'si ) to load the table.” Justin,
Cohort. ad Gentil. (2:46, ed. Otto):
“When he thought good
( ejdikaiJwse ) to bring the Jews out
of Egypt.” Finally, in ecclesiastical
language: “It has been found good (
dedikaivwtai ) by the holy Council.”
With accusative of persons this verb
signifies: to treat justly , and most
frequently sensu malo, to condemn,
punish. Aristotle, in Nicom. 5:9,
contrasts ajdikei'sqai , to be treated
unjustly , with dikaiou'sqai , to be
treated according to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
justice. Eschylus, Agam. 391-393, says
of Paris, that he has no right to
complain if he is judged unfavorably (
dikaivwqeiv" ); let him reap what is
his due. Thucyd. 3:40: “You will
condemn your own selves ( dikaiwvsesqe
).” Herod. 1.100: “When any one had
committed a crime, Dejoces sent for
him and punished him ( ejdikaiveu ).”
On occasion of the vengeance which
Cambyses wreaked on the Egyptian
priests, Herodotus says (3:29): “And
the priests were punished (
ejdikaieu'nto ).” So we find in Dion Cassius:
dikaiou'n ; and in Elian: dikaiou'n
tw'/ qanavtw/ , in the sense of punishing
with death.
Thus profane usage is obvious: to
think just , or treat justly (most
frequently by condemning or punishing
); in both cases establishing the
right by a sentence, never by
communicating justice. Hence it follows that,
of the two meanings of the word we are
examining, that which comes
nearest classical usage is undoubtedly
to declare , and not to make just.
But the meaning of the verb dikaiou'n
, to justify , in the New Testament,
depends less on profane Greek than on
the use of the Old Testament,
both in the original Hebrew and in the
version of the LXX. This, therefore,
is what we have, above all, to
examine. To the term justify there
correspond in Hebrew the Piel and
Hiphil of tsadak, to be just. The Piel
tsiddek , in the five cases where it
is used, signifies not to make just
inwardly, but to show or declare just.
The Hiphil hits'dik appears twelve
times; in eleven cases the meaning to
justify judicially is indisputable; for
example, Ex. 23:7: “For I will not
justify the wicked,” certainly means: I will
not declare the wicked just; and not:
I will not make him just inwardly;
Prov. 17:15: “He that justifieth the
wicked, and he that condemneth the
just, are abomination to the Lord.”
Any other meaning than that of
declaring just is absurd. So with the
others. In the twelfth passage only,
Dan. 12:3, the word may be understood
either in the sense of making just
, or of presenting as just. (The LXX.
translate differently altogether, and
without using the word dikaiou'n .)
It is on this almost uniform meaning
of the verb tsadak in the Piel and
Hiphil that Paul and the other writers
of the New Testament founded their
use of the word dikaiou'n , to
justify. For this word dikaiou'n is that by which
the Hebrew word was constantly
rendered by the LXX.
The use of the word dikaiou'n , to
justify , in the New Testament, appears
chiefly from the following
passages:—Rom. 2:13: the subject is the last
judgment; then, one is not made , but
recognized and declared just; 3.4:
God is the subject; God is not made ,
but recognized or declared just by
man; 3:20: to be justified before God
cannot signify: to be made just by
God; the phrase before God implies the
judicial sense; 4:2: to be justified
by works; this phrase has no meaning
except in the judicial sense of the
word justify; 1 Cor. 4:4: Paul is not
conscious of any unfaithfulness; but for
all that he is not yet justified; a
case where it is impossible to apply any
other meaning than the judicial. The
reader will do well to consult also
Matt. 11:19 and Luke 7:35 (“wisdom
[God's] is justified of her children”);
Luke 7:29 (the publicans justified
God); Matt. 12:37 (“by thy words thou
shalt be justified , and by thy words
thou shalt be condemned ”); Luke
10:29 (“he, wishing to justify
himself ”), 16:15 (“ye are they who
justify yourselves ”), 18:14 (“the
justified publican”); Acts 13:39 (“to
be justified from the things from which
they could not have been justified by
the law”); Jas. 2:21, 24, 25 (“to be
justified by works ”).
There is not a single one of these
passages where the idea of an inward
communication of righteousness would
be suitable. In favor of this
meaning the words, 1 Cor. 6:11, have
sometimes been quoted. If the
passage be carefully
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
examined in its context, 6:1-10, it
will clearly appear that it forms no
exception to the constant usage of the
New Testament, as it has been
established by the collective showing
of the passages just quoted.
That from a dogmatic point of view
this notion of justification should be
rejected as too external and forensic,
we can understand, though we are
convinced that thereby the very sinews
of the gospel are destroyed. But
that, exegetically speaking, there can
possibly be two ways of explaining
the apostle's view, is what surprises
us.
The notion of the righteousness of God
, according to Paul, embraces two
bestowals of grace: man treated—(1) as
if he had never committed any
evil; (2) as if he had always
accomplished all the good God could expect
from him. The sentence of
justification which puts man in this privileged
state in relation to God is the
dikaivwsi" , the act of justification. In virtue of
this act “man has henceforth,” as
Hofmann says, “the righteousness of
God for him, and not against him.”
What is the meaning of the genitive
Qeou' , of God , in the phrase:
righteousness of God? Luther's
interpretation, maintained by Philippi, is
well known: a righteousness valid
before God (3:20; Gal. 3:11). But this
meaning of the complement is very
forced. Baur makes it a genitive of
quality: a righteousness agreeable to
the nature of God. Is it not simpler to
take it as a genitive of origin: a
justice which has God Himself for its
author? We are led to this sense also
by the parallel expressions: “The
righteousness that cometh from God ” (
hJ ejk Qeou' dikaiosuvnh ), Phil. 3:9;
“ the righteousness of God ” ( hJ tou'
Qeou' dikaiosuvnh ) opposed to our
own righteousness, Rom. 10:3. Of
course a righteousness of which God is
the author must correspond to His
essence (Baur), and be accepted by
Him (Luther).
The word ajpokaluvptetai , is revealed
or reveals itself , denotes the act
whereby a thing hitherto veiled now
bursts into the light; compare the
parallel but different expression,
pefanevrwtai , has been manifested , 3:21.
The present, is being revealed , is
explained here by the regimen in it , ejn
aujtw'/ —that is to say, in the
gospel. This substantive should still be taken
in the active sense which we have
given it: the act of evangelical
preaching. It is by this proclamation
that the righteousness of God is daily
revealed to the world.—The expression
ejk pivstew" eij" pivstin , from faith
to faith , has been interpreted very
variously. Most frequently it has been
thought to signify the idea of the
progress which takes place in faith itself,
and in this sense it has been
translated: from faith on to faith. This
progress has been applied by some
Fathers (Tert., Origen, Chrysost.) to
the transition from faith in the Old
Testament to faith as it exists in the
New. But there is nothing here to
indicate a comparison between the old
and new dispensations. The Reformers
have taken the progress of faith to
be in the heart of the individual
believer. His faith, weak at first, grows
stronger and stronger. Calvin:
Quotidianum in singulis fidelibus
progressum notat. So also thought
Luther and Melanchthon; Schaff:
“Assimilation by faith should be
continually renewed.” But the phrase thus
understood does not in the least
correspond with the verb is revealed;
and, what is graver still, this idea
is utterly out of place in the context. A
notion so special and secondary as
that of the progress which takes place
in faith is inappropriate in a summary
which admits only of the
fundamental ideas being indicated. It
would even be opposed to the
apostle's aim to connect the
attainment of righteousness with this
objective progress of the believer in
faith. It is merely as a curiosity of
exposition that we mention the view of
those who understand the words
thus: by faith in faith —that is to
say, in the faithfulness of God (3:3).
Paul's real view is certainly this:
the righteousness of God is revealed by
means of the preaching of the gospel
as arising from faith ( ejk pivstew" ),
in this
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
sense, that it is nothing else than
faith itself reckoned to man as
righteousness. The ejk , strictly
speaking, out of , which we can only
render by means of the preposition by
, expresses origin. This clause is
joined to the verb is revealed by the
phrase understood: as being. This
righteousness of faith is revealed at
the same time as being for faith , eij"
pivstin . This second clause signifies
that the instrument by which each
individual must personally appropriate
such a righteousness is likewise
faith. To make this form of expression
clear, we have only to state the
opposite one: Our own righteousness is
a righteousness of works and for
works —that is to say, a righteousness
arising from works done and
revealed with a view to works to be
done. Our formula is the direct
opposite of that which described legal
righteousness. To be exact, we
need not say that to faith here is
equivalent to: to the believer. Paul is not
concerned with the person
appropriating, but solely with the instrument of
appropriation, and his view in
conjoining these two qualifying clauses was
simply to say: that in this
righteousness faith is everything, absolutely
everything; in essence it is faith
itself; and each one appropriates it by
faith. These two qualifying clauses
meet us in a somewhat different form
in other passages; 3:22: “The
righteousness of God through faith in Christ
unto ( and upon ) all them that
believe;” Gal. 3:22: “That the promise by
faith of Jesus may be given to them
that believe;” Phil. 3:9: “Having the
righteousness which is by faith in
Christ, the righteousness of God for
faith.” We need not, however,
paraphrase the words for faith , with some
commentators, in the sense: to produce
faith. The eij" for , seems to us to
indicate merely the destination. It is
a righteousness of faith offered to
faith. All it has to do is to take
possession of it. Of course we must not
make a merit of faith. What gives it
its justifying value is its object, without
which it would remain a barren
aspiration. But the object laid hold of could
have no effect on man without the act
of apprehension, which is faith.
The apostle is so convinced of the
unity which prevails between the old
and new covenants, that he cannot
assert one of the great truths of the
gospel without quoting a passage from
the Old Testament in its support.
He has just stated the theme of his
Epistle; now comes what we may call
the text: it is a passage from
Habakkuk (2:4), which had evidently played
an important part in his inner life,
as it did decisively in the life of Luther.
He quotes it also Gal. 3:11 (comp.
10:37). With all that prides itself on its
own strength, whether in the case of
foreign conquerors or in Israel itself,
the prophet contrasts the humble
Israelite who puts his confidence in God
alone. The former will perish; the
latter, who alone is righteous in the eyes
of God, shall live. The Hebrew word
which we translate by faith, emounah
, comes from the verb aman, to be
firm; whence in the Hiphil: to rest on, to
be confident in. In the Hebrew it is:
his faith ( emounatho ); but the LXX.
have translated as if they had found
emounathi, my faith (that of God),
which might signify either my
faithfulness , or faith in me. What the
translators thought is of small
importance. Paul evidently goes back to the
original text, and quotes exactly when
he says: “ his faith,” the faith of the
believer in his God. In the Hebrew
text it is agreed by all that the words by
his faith are dependent on the verb
shall live , and not on the word the
just. But from Theodore Beza onwards,
very many commentators think
that Paul makes this subordinate
clause dependent on the word the just; “
The just by faith shall live.” This
meaning really seems to suit the context
more exactly, the general idea being
that righteousness (not life) comes
by faith. This correspondence is,
however, only apparent; for Paul's
saying, thus understood, would, as
Oltramare acutely observes, put in
contrast the just by faith , who shall
live, and the just by works , who shall
not live. But such a thought would be
inadmissible in Paul's view. For he
holds that, if one should succeed in
being righteous by his works, he
would certainly live by them
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
(10:5). We must therefore translate as
in the Hebrew: The just shall live by
faith; and the meaning is this: “the
just shall live by faith” (by which he has
been made just). Paul might have said:
the sinner shall be saved by faith.
But the sinner, in this case, he calls
just by anticipation, viewing him in the
state of righteousness into which his
faith shall bring him. If he lives by his
faith, it is obviously because he has
been made just by it, since no one is
saved except as being just. The word
zhvsetai , shall live, embraced in the
prophet's view: 1. Deliverance from
present evils (those of the Chaldean
invasion), and, in the case of
posterity, deliverance from evils to come; 2.
The possession of divine grace in the
enjoyment of the blessings of the
Promised Land. These two notions are,
of course, spiritualized by Paul.
They become: deliverance from
perdition and the possession of eternal
life. It is the idea of swthriva ,
salvation , ver. 16, reproduced. The word
shall live will also have its part to
play in the didactic exposition which now
begins, and which will develop the
contents of this text. In fact, to the end
of chap. 5 the apostle analyzes the
idea of the righteousness of faith; the
word shall live serves as a theme to
the whole part from chaps. 6-8, and
afterwards, for the practical
development, chaps. 12-14.
The exposition of the righteousness of
faith , which begins in the following
verse, comprises three great
developments: the description of universal
condemnation, 1:18-3:20; that of
universal justification, 3:21-5:11; and,
following up this great contrast as
its consummation, parallel between
Adam and Christ (v. 12-
21). The idea of this entire part,
i.-v., taken as a whole , is therefore: the
demonstration of justification by
faith.
FUNDAMENTAL PART. 1:18-5:21.
THE principal subdivision of this part
is indicated by the somewhat
amplified repetition of ver. 17, which
we shall find 3:21, 22. There we
again meet with the phrase
righteousness of God; the verb was
manifested evidently corresponds to
the word is revealed; and the two
secondary clauses: by faith of Jesus
Christ , and: unto and upon all them
that believe , are the development of
the phrase from faith to faith. It
follows from this parallel that the
apostle did not mean immediately to
study this great truth of
justification by faith; but he felt the need of
preparing the way for this exposition
by laying bare in human life the
reasons for this so extraordinary and
apparently abnormal mode of
salvation. Such, indeed, is the
subject of the first section, 1:18-3:20: If the
gospel reveals the righteousness of
God, it is because there is another
revelation, that of the wrath of God ,
and because this latter, unless
mankind be destined to perish,
requires the former.
First Section (1:18-3:20). The Wrath
of God Resting on the Whole
World.
In chap. 1, from ver. 18, St. Paul is
undoubtedly describing the miserable
state of the Gentile world. From the
beginning of chap. 2 he addresses a
personage who very severely judges the
Gentile abominations just
described by Paul, and who evidently
represents a wholly different portion
of mankind. At ver. 17 he
apostrophizes this personage by his name: it is
the Jew; and he demonstrates to him
that he also is under the burden of
wrath. Hence it follows that the first
piece of this section goes to the end of
chap. 1, and has for its subject: the
need of salvation demonstrated by the
state of the contemporary Gentile
world.
Fourth Passage (1:18-32). The Wrath of
God on the Gentiles.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
According to Paul's usual style, the
first verse contains summarily all the
ideas developed in the following
piece. The study of the verse will thus be
an analysis by anticipation of the
whole passage.
Ver. 18. “ For the wrath of God is
revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of
men, who hold the truth captive
unrighteously. ”—The transition from
ver. 17 to ver. 18, indicated by for ,
can only be this: There is a
revelation of righteousness by the gospel,
because there is a revelation of wrath
on the whole world. The former is
necessary to save the world (comp.
swthriva , salvation , ver. 16) from the
consequences of the latter.—From the
notion of wrath , when it is applied
to God, we must of course remove all
that pollutes human wrath, personal
resentment, the moral perturbation
which gives to the manifestations of
indignation the character of revenge.
In God, who is the living Good ,
wrath appears as the holy
disapprobation of evil, and the firm resolve to
destroy it. But it is false to say, as
is often done, that this divine emotion
applies only to the evil and not to
the evil-doer. In measure as the latter
ceases to oppose the evil and
voluntarily identifies himself with it, he
himself becomes the object of wrath
and all its consequences. The
absence of the article before the word
ojrghv , wrath , brings into
prominence the category rather than
the thing itself: manifestation there
is, whose character is that of wrath,
not of love.—This manifestation
proceeds from heaven. Heaven here does
not denote the atmospheric or
stellar heaven; the term is the
emblematical expression for the invisible
residence of God, the seat of perfect
order, whence emanates every
manifestation of righteousness on the
earth, every victorious struggle of
good against evil. The visible
heavens, the regularity of the motion of the
stars, the life-like and pure lustre
of their fires, this whole great spectacle
has always been to the consciousness
of man the sensible representation
of divine order. It is from this
feeling that the prodigal son exclaims:
“Father, I have sinned against heaven
and in thy sight.” Heaven in this
sense is thus the avenger of all
sacred feelings that are outraged; it is as
such that it is mentioned here.—By
ajsevbeia , ungodliness , Paul denotes
all failures in the religious sphere;
and by ajdikiva , unrighteousness , all
that belong to the moral domain
Volkmar very well defines the two terms:
“Every denial either of the essence or
of the will of God.” We shall again
find these two kinds of failures
distinguished and developed in the sequel;
the first, in the refusal of adoration
and thanksgiving, ver. 21 et seq.; the
second, in the refusal of the
knowledge of moral good proceeding from
God, ver. 28a.— jEpiv , upon, against
, has here a very hostile
sense.—The apostle does not say: of
men , but literally: of men who
repress. As Hofmann says: “The notion
men is first presented indefinitely,
then it is defined by the special
characteristic: who repress ”...We may
already conclude, from this absence of
the article tw'n ( the ) before the
substantive, that Paul is not here
thinking of all humanity. And, indeed, he
could not have charged the Jews with
holding captive the truth which had
been revealed to them, comp. 2:19-21,
while he proceeds to charge this
sin directly on the Gentiles. We must
therefore regard ver. 18 as the
theme of chap. 1 only, not that of
i. and ii. Besides, the wrath of God
was not yet revealed against the
Jewish world; it was only accumulating
(2:5).—Certainly the apostle, in
expressing himself as he does, does
not overlook the varieties in the
conduct of the Gentiles, as will
appear in the sequel (2:14, 15). He refers
only to the general character of their
life.— The truth held captive is, as vv.
19 and 20 prove, the knowledge of God
as communicated to the human
conscience. To hold it captive , is to
prevent it from diffusing itself in the
understanding as a light, and in the
conduct as a holy authority and just
rule. The
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
verb katevcein , to hold back, detain
, cannot here have the meaning which
some interpreters would give it, to
keep, possess , which the word
sometimes has; for example, 1 Cor.
15:2; 1 Thess. 5:21. In that case we
should require to place the charge
brought against the Gentiles not in this
verb, but in the qualifying clause ejn
ajdikiva/ : “who possess the truth in
unrighteousness ” (that is, while
practising unrighteousness). But the
sequel proves, on the contrary, that
the Gentiles had not kept the deposit
of truth which had been confided to
them; and the simple clause: in
unrighteousness , would not suffice to
characterize the sin charged
against them, and which is the reason
of the divine wrath. We must
therefore take the word katevcein , to
detain , in the sense in which we find
it 2 Thess. 2:6, 7, and Luke 4:42: to
keep from moving, to repress.
Oltramare: “They hindered it from
breaking
forth. ”—Some translate the words ejn
ajdikiva/ : by unrighteousness; they
paralyze the truth in them by the love
and practice of evil. But why in this
case not again add the notion of
ungodliness to that of unrighteousness?
The literal meaning is, not by
unrighteousness , but by way of
unrighteousness; this clause is
therefore taken in the adverbial sense:
unrighteously, ill and wickedly. In
reality, is there not perversity in
paralyzing the influence of the truth
on one's heart and life?
To what manifestations does the
apostle allude when he says that wrath
is revealed from heaven? Does he mean
simply the judgment of
conscience , as Ambrose and others,
with Hodge most recently, think?
But here there would be no patent fact
which could be taken as a parallel
to the preaching of the gospel (ver.
17). Bellarmine, Grotius, etc., think
that Paul means this preaching itself,
and that the words from heaven are
synonymous with the ejn aujtw'/ , in it
(the gospel), ver. 17. But there is,
on the contrary, an obvious antithesis
between these two clauses, and
consequently a contrast between the
revelation of righteousness and that
of wrath.—The Greek Fathers, as
also Philippi, Ewald, and Ritschl in
our own day, regard this manifestation
as that which shall take place at the
last judgment. This meaning is
incompatible with the verb in the
present: is revealed; not that a present
may not, in certain cases, denote the
idea of the action, independently of
the time of its realization; so the
very verb which Paul here uses is
employed by him 1 Cor. 3:13. But there
the future (or ideal) sense of the
present is plainly enough shown by all
the futures surrounding the verb (
genhvsetai, dhlwvsei, dokimavsei ),
and the context makes it sufficiently
clear. But in our passage the present
is revealed , ver. 18, corresponds to
the similar present of ver. 17, which
is incontrovertibly the actual present.
It is not possible, in such a context,
to apply the present of ver. 18
otherwise than to a present fact.
Hofmann takes the word is revealed as
referring to that whole multitude of
ills which constantly oppress sinful
humanity; and Pelagius, taking the
word from heaven literally, found here
a special indication of the storms and
tempests which desolate nature. But
what is there in the developments
which follow fitted to establish this
explanation? The word is revealed ,
placed emphatically at the head of the
piece, should propound the theme; and
its meaning is therefore
determined by the whole explanation
which follows.—We are thus brought
to the natural explanation. At ver. 24
mention is made of a divine
chastisement, that by which men have
been given over to the power of
their impure lusts. This idea is
repeated in ver. 26, and a third time in ver.
28: “God gave them over to a reprobate
mind.” Each time this
chastisement, a terrible manifestation
of God's wrath, is explained by a
corresponding sin committed by the
Gentiles. How can we help seeing
here, with Meyer, the explanation,
given by Paul himself, of his meaning in
our verse? Thereby the purport of the
following description and its relation
to ver. 18 become perfectly clear; the
truth is explained in vv. 19, 20; it is
God's revelation to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the conscience of the Gentiles, the
notion: to repress the truth, is
explained in vv. 21-23 (and 25); these
are the voluntary errors of
paganism; finally, the idea of the
revelation of divine wrath is developed in
vv. 24-27; these are the unnatural
enormities to which God has given the
Gentiles up, and by which He has
avenged His outraged honor. All the
notions of ver. 18 are thus resumed
and developed in their logical order,
vv. 19-27: such is the first cycle (the
ajsevbeia , ungodliness ). They are
resumed and developed a second time in
the same order, but under
another aspect (the ajdikiva ,
unrighteousness ), vv. 28-32. The meaning
of the words is revealed from heaven ,
is not therefore doubtful. It has
been objected that the term to reveal
always refers to a supernatural
manifestation. We do not deny it; and
we think that Paul regards the
monstrous degradation of pagan
populations, which he is about to
describe (vv. 24-27 and 29-32), not as
a purely natural consequence of
their sin, but as a solemn
intervention of God's justice in the history of
mankind, an intervention which he
designates by the term paradidovnai , to
give over. —If ver. 18 contains, as we
have said, three principal ideas: 1.
The Gentiles knew the truth; 2. They
repelled it; 3. For this sin the wrath of
God is displayed against them,—the
first of these ideas is manifestly that
which will form the subject of vv. 19
and 20.
The Wrath of God, according to
Ritschl.
In this work, Die Christliche Lehre
von der Rechtfertigung und
Verso1hnung
(II.123-138) (The Christian Doctrine
of Justification and Reconciliation),
Ritschl ascribes to Pharisaism the
invention of the idea of retributive
justice , and denies its existence in
Holy Scripture. Thus obliged to seek a
new meaning for the notion of the
wrath of God , he finds the following: In
the Old Testament the wrath of God has
only one aim: to preserve the
divine covenant; the wrath of God
therefore only denotes the sudden and
violent chastisements with which God
smites either the enemies of the
covenant, or those of its members who
openly violate its fundamental
conditions,—in both cases not with the
view of punishing, but of
maintaining here below His work of
grace. In the New Testament the idea
is substantially the same, but
modified in its application. The wrath of God
cannot have any other than an
eschatological application; it refers to the
last judgment, in which God will cut
off the enemies of salvation (not to
punish them) but to prevent them from
hindering the realization of His
kingdom (1 Thess. 1:10; Rom. 5:9). As
to our passage, which seems
irreconcilable with this notion, this
critic deals with it as follows:—We must
wait till 2:4, 5, to find the development
of the idea of the wrath of God ,
enunciated in ver. 18. The whole
passage, ver. 19-2:3, is devoted to
setting forth the sin of the Gentiles,
the fact of their katevcein th;n ajlhvqeian
, holding the truth captive. The
description of chastisement ( the revelation
of wrath ) is not developed till after
2:5; now this passage evidently refers
to the last judgment. Thus it is that
the ingenious theologian succeeds in
harmonizing our passage with his
system. But I am afraid there is more
ability than truth in the mode he
follows:—1. Ritschl will not recognize an
inward feeling in the wrath of God,
but merely an outward act , a
judgment. But why in this case does
Paul use the word wrath , to which he
even adds, 2:8, the term qumov" ,
indignation , which denotes the feeling
at its deepest? 2. We have seen that
the present is revealed , forming an
antithesis to the tense of ver. 17,
and giving the reason of it ( gavr , for ),
can only denote a time actually
present. 3. Is it not obvious at a glance
that the phrase thrice repeated:
wherefore He gave them over (vv. 24, 26,
28), describes not the sin of the
Gentiles, but their chastisement? That
appears from the term give over: to
give over is the act
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
of the judge; to be given over , the
punishment of the culprit. The same
follows also from the wherefores; by
this word Paul evidently passes each
time from the description of the sin
to that of the punishment, that is to
say, to the revelation of wrath. 4. As
to 2:4, 5, these verses do not begin
with a wherefore , as would be
necessary if the apostle were passing at
this part of the text from the
description of sin to that of chastisement.
These verses, on the contrary, are
strictly connected with ver. 3, as
continuing the refutation of Jewish
security in relation to the last judgment,
a refutation begun at ver. 3 with the
words: “ Thinkest thou...? ” and
carried on to ver. 4 with these: “ Or
[indeed] despisest thou...? ” How can
we regard this as the beginning of a
new idea, that of chastisement
succeeding that of sin? For the
examination of the explanation of ver. 32
given by Ritschl, by which he seeks to
justify all the violence he does to
the text of the apostle, we refer to
the verse itself.
With the term ojrghv , wrath , before
us, applied to the Gentiles first, ver.
18, and afterwards to the Jews, 2:5,
we are justified in holding to the
notion of that divine feeling as
explained by us, pp. 164, 165.
Vv. 19, 20. “ Seeing that that which
may be known of God is manifested in
them; for God hath manifested it unto
them. For the invisible perfections of
God, his eternal power and his
divinity are spiritually contemplated, since
the creation of the world, in his
works, that they may be without excuse.
”—The truth of which Paul wished to
speak in ver. 18, was that revelation
of God's person and character which He
had given to men. The diovti ,
because (for dia; tou'to o{ti , for
the reason that ), carries the thought to
that which follows as the reason of
what precedes, in contrast to diov , on
account of which (ver. 24), which
points to what precedes as the reason
for what follows.—The meaning of this
diovti , seeing that , is as follows:
they quenched the truth, seeing that
the truth had been revealed to them
(vv. 19, 20), and they changed it into
a lie (vv. 21-23) (25).—The term
gnwstovn , strictly, what can be known
, usually signifies in the New
Testament what is really known (
gnwstov" ); this is its probable meaning
in Luke 2:44; John 18:15; Acts 1:19,
17:23. Yet it is not quite certain that
the first meaning may not also be
given to the word in some of the
passages quoted; and in classic Greek
it is the most usual sense (see the
numerous examples quoted by
Oltramare). What decides in its favor in
our passage is the startling tautology
which there would be in saying: “
what is known of the being of God is
manifested. ” There is therefore
ground for preferring here the
grammatical and received meaning in the
classics. Paul means: “ What can be
known of God without the help of an
extraordinary revelation is clearly
manifested within them.” A light was
given in their conscience and understanding,
and this light bore on the
existence and character of the Divine
Being. This present fact: is
manifested , is afterwards traced to
its cause, which is stated by the verb
in the aorist: “for God manifested it
to them;” this state of knowledge was
due to a divine act of revelation. God
is not known like an ordinary object;
when He is known, it is He who gives
himself to be known. The
knowledge which beings have of Him is
a free act on His part. ver. 20
explains the external means by which
He wrought this revelation of
Himself in the conscience of men.
Ver. 20. He did so by His works in
nature. By the term ta; ajovrata , the
invisible things , the apostle
designates the essence of God, and the
manifold attributes which distinguish
it. He sums them up afterwards in
these two: eternal power and dwinity.
Power is that which immediately
arrests man, when the spectacle of
nature presents itself to his view. In
virtue of the principle of causality
innate in his understanding, he forth with
sees in this immense effect the
revelation of a great
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
cause; and the Almighty is revealed to
him. But this power appears to his
heart clothed with certain moral
characteristics, and in particular, wisdom
and goodness. He recognizes in the
works of this power, in the infinite
series of means and ends which are
revealed in them, the undeniable
traces of benevolence and
intelligence; and in virtue of the principle of
finality , or the notion of end , not less
essentially inherent in his mind, he
invests the supreme cause with the
moral attributes which constitute what
Paul here calls divinity ,
qeiovth" , the sum total of qualities in virtue of
which the creative power can have
organized such a world.—The epithet
aji?dio" , eternal (from ajeiv ,
always ), is joined by some with both
substantives; but power alone needed
to be so defined, in order to
contrast it with that host of second
causes which are observed in nature.
The latter are the result of anterior
causes. But the first cause, on which
this whole series of causes and
effects depends, is eternal , that is to say,
self-causing. The adjective is
therefore to be joined only with the first of
the two substantives; the second
required no such qualification. These
invisible things , belonging to the
essence of God, have been made
visible, since by the creation of the
universe they have been externally
manifested. Toi'" poihvmasi is
the dative of instrument: by the works of
God in nature; ajpov , since ,
indicates that the time of creation was the
point of departure for this revelation
which lasts still. The complex phrase
noouvmena kaqora'tai , are spiritually
contemplated , contains two intimately
connected ideas: on the one hand, a
viewing with the outward sense; on
the other, an act of intellectual
perception, whereby that which presents
itself to the eye becomes at the same
time a revelation to our
consciousness. The animal sees as man
does; but it lacks the nou'" ,
understanding (whence the verb noei'n,
noouvmena ), whereby man
ascends from the contemplation of the
work to that of the worker. These
two simultaneous sights, the one
sensible, the other rational, constitute in
man a single act, admirably
characterized by the expression spiritual
contemplation , used by the apostle.
We have here a proof of Paul's breadth
of mind and heart. He does not
disparage, as the Jews did, and as
Christian science has sometimes
done, the value of what has been
called natural theology. And it is
certainly not without reason that Baur
( Paulus , II. p. 260) has regarded
this passage as laying the first basis
of the apostle's universalism. This
same idea of a universal revelation
appears again in Paul's discourses at
Lystra and Athens (Acts 14:17, 17:27,
28); so also in 1 Cor. 1:21, and in
our own Epistle 3:29: “Is God not also
the God of the Gentiles?” a
question which finds its full
explanation in the idea of a primordial
revelation addressed to all men.
The last words of the verse point out
the aim of this universal revelation:
that they may be without excuse. The
words are startling: Could God have
revealed Himself to the Gentiles only
to have a reason for the
condemnation with which He visits
them? This idea has seemed so
revolting, that it has been thought
necessary to soften the sense of the
phrase eij" to; ...and to
translate so that (Osterv.), or: “they are therefore
inexcusable” (Oltram.). It is one
great merit of Meyer's commentaries that
he has vigorously withstood this
method of explanation, which arbitrarily
weakens the meaning of certain
prepositions and particles used by Paul.
Had he wished to say so that , he had
at command the regular expression
w{ste/ ei\nai . And the truth, if his
thought is rightly understood, has nothing
so very repulsive about it: in order
that, he means, if after having been
thus enlightened, they should fall
into error as to God's existence and
character, they may be without excuse.
The first aim of the Creator was to
make Himself known to His creature.
But if, through his own fault, man
came to turn away from this light, he
should not be able to accuse God of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the darkness into which he had plunged
himself. One might translate
somewhat coarsely: that in case of
going astray, they might not be able to
plead ignorance as a pretext. In these
circumstances there is nothing to
prevent the in order that from
preserving its natural meaning.
Vv. 19 and 20 have explained the word
ajlhvqeia , the truth , of ver. 18. Vv.
21- 23 develop the phrase: katevcein
th;n ajlhvqeian , to hold this truth
captive.
Ver. 21. “ Seeing that, when they knew
God, they glorified Him not as
God, neither gave Him thanks; but were
struck with vanity in their
reasonings, and their foolish heart
was darkened. ”—The because that
bears on the idea of inexcusableness ,
which closes ver. 20, and
reproduces the feeling of indignation
which had dictated the ejn ajdikiva/ ,
hurtfully and maliciously , of ver.
18: “ Yes , inexcusable, because of the
fact that”...How can the apostle say
of the Gentiles that they knew God? Is
it a simple possibility to which he is
referring! The words do not allow this
idea. ver. 19 declared that the light
was really put within them. Paganism
itself is the proof that the human
mind had really conceived the notion of
God; for this notion appears at the
root of all the varied forms of
paganism. Only this is what happened:
the revelation did not pass from
the passive to the active form. Man
confined himself to receiving it. He did
not set himself to grasp it and to
develop it spontaneously. He would have
been thus raised from light to light;
it would have been that way of
knowing God by wisdom of which Paul
speaks, 1 Cor. 1:21. Instead of
opening himself to the action of the
light, man withdrew from it his heart
and will; instead of developing the
truth, he quenched it. No doubt acts of
worship and thanksgiving addressed to
the gods were not wanting in
paganism; but it is not without
meaning that the apostle takes care to put
the words in front: as God. The task
of the heart and understanding would
have been to draw from the
contemplation of the work the distinct view of
the divine worker, then, in the way of
adoration, to invest this sublime
being with all the perfections which
He displayed in His creation. Such a
course would have been to glorify God
as God. For the highest task of the
understanding is to assert God freely,
as He asserts Himself in His
revelation. But if this act of reason
failed, the heart at least had another
task to fulfil: to give thanks. Does
not a child even say thanks to its
benefactor? This homage failed like
the other. The word h[ , or , must be
understood here, as it often is, in
the sense of: or at least. The words as
God also depend logically on were
thankful , which we have not been able
to express in French [nor in
English].—Now man could not remain
stationary. Not walking forwards in
the way of active religion , he could
only stray into a false path, that of
impiety, spoken of ver. 18. Having
neglected to set God before it as the
supreme object of its activity, the
understanding was reduced to work in
vacuo; it was in some sort made
futile ( ejmataiwvqhsan ); it peopled
the universe with fictions and chimeras.
So Paul designates the vain creations
of mythology. The term
ejmataiwvqhsan , were struck with
vanity , evidently alludes to mavtaia , vain
things , which was the name given by
the Jews to idols (comp. Acts 14:15;
Lev. 17:7; Jer. 2:5; 2 Kings 17:15).
The term dialogismoiv , reasonings , is
always taken by the writers of the New
Testament in an unfavorable
sense; it denotes the unregulated
activity of the nou'" , understanding , in
the service of a corrupt heart. The
corruption of the heart is mentioned in
the following words: it went side by
side with the errors of reason, of which
it is at once the cause and the
effect. The heart , kardiva , is in the New
Testament as in the Old ( leb ), the
central seat of personal life, what we
call feeling ( sentiment ), that inner
power which determines at once the
activity of the understanding and the
direction of the will. Destitute of its
true object, through its refusal to be
thankful to God as God , the heart
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
of man is filled with inspirations of
darkness; these are the guilty lusts
inspired by the egoistic love of the
creature and self. The epithet ajsuvneto"
, without understanding , is often
explained as anticipating what the heart
was to become in this course: “in such
a way as to become foolish.” But
was there not already something
senseless in the ingratitude described in
ver. 21? Thus the want of
understanding existed from the beginning. In
the form of the first aorist passive
ejskotivsqh , was darkened (as well as in
the preceding aorist ejmataiwvqhsan ),
there is expressed the conviction of
a divine dispensation, though still
under the form of a natural law, whose
penal application has fallen on them.
To this first stage, which is rather of
an inward kind, there has succeeded
a second and more external one.
Vv. 22, 23. “ Professing to be wise,
they became fools, and changed the
glory of the incorruptible God into
the likeness of the image of corruptible
man, and of birds, and fourfooted
beasts, and creeping things. ” Futility of
thought has reached the character of
folly. What, in fact, is Polytheism,
except a sort of permanent
hallucination, a collective delirium, or as is so
well said by M. Nicolas, a possession
on a great scale? And this mental
disorder rose to a kind of perfection
among the very peoples who, more
than others, laid claim to the glory
of wisdom. When he says: professing
to be wise , Paul does not mean to stigmatize
ancient philosophy
absolutely; he only means that all
that labor of the sages did not prevent
the most civilized nations, Egyptians,
Greeks, Romans, from being at the
same time the most idolatrous of
antiquity. The popular imagination,
agreeably served by priests and poets,
did not allow the efforts of the wise
to dissipate this delirium.
When good is omitted, there always
comes in its place an evil committed.
As, in respect of the understanding,
the refusal of adoration ( they did not
glorify ) became a vain laboring of
the mind ( they became vain ), and,
finally, complete estrangement from
truth, folly ( they became fools ); so in
respect of the heart , ingratitude was
first transformed into darkness; and,
finally—such is the last term
described ver. 23-into monstrous and
debasing fetishism. The ungrateful
heart did not stop short at not thanking
God, it degraded and dishonored Him,
by changing Him into His opposite.
The glory of God is the splendor which
His manifested perfections cast
into the heart of His intelligent
creatures; hence, a bright image which is to
man the ideal of all that is good.
This image had been produced within
them. What did they make of it? The
sequel tells. While holding the divine
person, they wrapped it up, as it
were, in the likeness of its opposite; it
would have been almost better to leave
it in silence, it would not have
been so great an affront. The
preposition ejn (which
corresponds here to the Hebrew a )
exactly describes this imprisonment of
the divine
glory in a form ignoble and grotesque.
This meaning seems to us
preferable to that of commentators
who, like Meyer, translate ejn , by ,
which is less natural with a verb such
as change. It is simpler to say
“change into ,” than “change by. ” The
epithet incorruptible is, as it were, a
protest beforehand against this
degradation; we need not then translate,
with Oltramare, immortal. Paul means
to say that the glory of God is not
reached by this treatment which it has
had to undergo. In the phrase: the
likeness of the image , we should
certainly apply the first term to the
material likeness, and the second to
the image present to the artist's mind
when he conceives the type of God
which he is going to represent. The
worship of man especially
characterizes Greek and Roman Polytheism;
that of the different classes of
animals, Egyptian and Barbarian paganism.
We need only refer to the worship of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the bull Apis, the ibis, the cat, the
crocodile, etc., among the Egyptians.
Thus idolatry, according to Paul, is
not a progressive stage reached in the
religious thought of mankind, starting
from primeval fetichism. Far from
being a first step toward the goal of
Monotheism, Polytheism is on the
contrary the result of degeneracy, an
apostasy from the original
Monotheism, a darkening of the
understanding and heart, which has
terminated in the grossest fetichism.
The history of religions, thoroughly
studied as it is nowadays, fully
justifies Paul's view. It shows that the
present heathen peoples of India and
Africa, far from rising of themselves
to a higher religious state, have only
sunk, age after age, and become
more and more degraded. It proves that
at the root of all pagan religions
and mythologies, there lies an
original Monotheism, which is the historical
starting-point in religion for all
mankind.
This statement of the apostle has been
regarded as a reflection of that
contained in the Book of Wisdom (comp.
for example, the passages,
Wisd. 13:1-8 and 14:11-20). But what a
difference between the tame and
superficial explanation of idolatry,
which the Alexandrian author gives to
his readers, and the profound
psychological analysis contained in the
preceding verses of St. Paul! The
comparison brings out exactly the
difference between the penetration of
the author enlightened from above,
and that of the ordinary Jew seeking
to reconstruct the great historic fact
of idolatry by his own powers.
The apostle has developed the two
terms of ver. 18: truth, and repressing
the truth. After thus presenting, on
the one hand, the divine revelation,
and, on the other, the sin of man in
quenching it, it remains to him only to
expound the third idea of his text:
the terrible manifestation of God's wrath
on that sin, in which the whole of
human impiety was concentrated.
Vv. 24, 25. “ Wherefore God also gave
them up to uncleanness through
the lusts of their own hearts, to
dishonor their own bodies between
themselves:who travestied the truth of
God into a lie, and worshipped and
served the creature instead of the
Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
” — In these words there is expressed
the feeling of indignation raised in
the heart of the apostle by the
thought and view of the treatment to which
God has been subjected by the creature
to whom He revealed Himself so
magnificently. The verses have
something of that paroxusmov" , that
exasperation of heart , of which the
author of the Acts speaks (17:16)
when describing Paul's impressions
during his stay at Athens. This feeling
is expressed forcibly by the two
conjunctions dio; kaiv , wherefore also.
Diov , literally, on account of which
, that is to say, of the sin just
described; this first conjunction
refers to the justice of punishment in
general; the second, kaiv , also ,
brings out more especially the relation of
congruity between the nature of the
punishment and that of the offence.
They sinned, wherefore God punished
them; they sinned by degrading
God, wherefore also God degraded them.
This kaiv has been omitted by
the Alex.; a mistake, as is plain, for
it expresses the profoundest idea of
the whole piece. No one would have
thought of adding it. The word gave
over does not signify that God
impelled them to evil, to punish the evil
which they had already committed. The
holiness of God is opposed to
such a sense, and to give over is not
to impel. On the other hand, it is
impossible to stop short at the idea
of a simple permission: “God let them
give themselves over to evil.” God was
not purely passive in the terrible
development of Gentile corruption.
Wherein did His action consist? He
positively withdrew His hand; He
ceased to hold the boat as it was
dragged by the current of the river.
This is the meaning of the term used
by the apostle, Acts 14:16: “He
suffered the Gentiles to walk in their own
ways,” by not doing for them what He
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
never ceased to do for His own people.
It is not a case of simple
abstention, it is the positive
withdrawal of a force. Such also is the
meaning of the saying, Gen. 6:3: “My
Spirit shall not always strive with
man.” As Meyer says: “The law of
history, in virtue of which the forsaking
of God is followed among men by a
parallel growth of immorality, is not a
purely natural order of things; the
power of God is active in the execution
of this law.” If it is asked how such
a mode of action harmonizes with the
moral perfection of God, the answer
undoubtedly is, that when man has
reached a certain degree of
corruption, he can only be cured by the very
excess of his own corruption; it is
the only means left of producing what all
preceding appeals and punishments
failed to effect, the salutary action of
repentance. So it is that at a given
moment the father of the prodigal son
lets him go, giving him even his share
of goods. The monstrous and
unnatural character of the excesses about
to be described confirms this
view.
The two prepositions, ejn , through ,
and eij" , to , differ from one another
as the current which bears the bark
along, once it has been detached
from the shore, differs from the abyss
into which it is about to be
precipitated. Lusts exist in the
heart; God abandons it to their power, and
then begins that fall which must end
in the most degrading impurities. The
infinitive tou' ajtimavzesqai might be
translated: to the impurity which
consists in dishonoring. But as the
whole passage is dominated by the
idea of the “manifestation of divine
wrath,” it is more natural to give this
infinitive the notion of end or aim:
in order to dishonor. It is a
condemnation: “You have dishonored me;
I give you up to impurity, that
you may dishonor your own selves.”
Observe the kaiv , also , at the
beginning of the verse. The verb
atimavzesqai is found in the classics only
in the passive sense: to be
dishonored. This meaning would not suit here,
unless we translate, as Meyer does:
“that their bodies might be
dishonored among them” (the one by the
other). But this meaning does
not correspond with the force of the
apostolic thought. The punishment
consists not merely in being
dishonored, but especially in dishonoring
oneself. jAtimavzesqai must therefore
be taken as the middle, and in the
active sense: “to dishonor their
bodies in themselves. If this middle sense
is not common in the classics, it is
accidental, for it is perfectly regular.
The clause in themselves looks
superfluous at first sight; but Paul wishes
to describe this blight as henceforth
inherent in their very personality: it is
a seal of infamy which they carry for
the future on their forehead. The
meaning of the two readings ejn
aujtoi'" and ejn eJautoi'" does not differ; the
first is written from the writer's
point of view, the second from the viewpoint
of the authors of the deed.
The punishment is so severe that Paul
interrupts himself, as if he felt the
need of recalling how much it was
deserved. With the oi{tine" , those who
, ver. 25, he once more passes from
the punishment to the sin which had
provoked it. God has dealt so with
them, as people who had dealt so with
Him. Such is the meaning of the
pronoun o{sti" , which does not only
designate , but describe. The verb
methvllaxan , travestied , through the
addition of the preposition metav ,
enhances the force of the simple
h[llaxan , changed , of ver. 23: the
sin appears ever more odious to the
apostle, the more he thinks of it.—The
truth of God certainly means here:
the true notion of His being, the idea
which alone corresponds to so
sublime a reality, and which ought to
be produced by the revelation of
Himself which he had given; comp. 1
Thess. 1:9, where the true God is
opposed to idols. As the abstract term
is used to denote the true God, so
the abstract word lie here denotes
idols, that ignoble mask in which the
heathen expose the figure of the
All-perfect. And here comes the height of
insult. After travestying God by an
image unworthy of him, they make this
the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
object of their veneration (
ejsebavsqhsan ). To this term, which embraces
all heathen life in general, Paul adds
ejlavtreusan , they served , which
refers to positive acts of worship. —
Parav , by the side of , signifies with
the accusative: passing beyond ,
leaving aside with contempt (to go and
adore something else).—The doxology
which closes this verse: who is
blessed for ever , is a homage
intended to wash off, as it were, the
opprobrium inflicted on God by
heathenism. On account of its termination,
eujloghtov" may either signify:
who ought to be blessed, or: who is
blessed. The second meaning is simpler
and more usual: just because He
ought to be so, He is and will be so,
whatever the heathen may do in the
matter. The term eij" tou;"
aijw'na" , for ever , contrasts God's eternal glory
with the ephemeral honor paid to
idols, or the temporary affronts given to
God.— jAmhvn , amen , comes from the
Hebrew aman, to be firm. It is an
exclamation intended to scatter by
anticipation all the mists which still
exist in the consciousness of man, and
darken the truth proclaimed.
Ver. 25 was an interruption extorted
from Paul by the need which his
outraged heart felt to justify once
more the severity of such a punishment.
He now resumes his exposition of the
punishment, begun in ver. 24; and
this time he proceeds to the end. He
does not shrink from any detail fitted
to bring out the vengeance which God
has taken on the offence offered to
His outraged majesty.
Vv. 26, 27. “ For this cause God gave
them up unto dishonoring passions:
for even their women did change the
natural use into that which is against
nature: and likewise also the men,
leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward
another; men with men working infamy,
and receiving in themselves the well-
merited recompense of their error.
”—Ver. 26 resumes the description
begun in ver. 24, and which Paul had
interrupted to ascend, ver. 25, from
the punishment to its cause. The dia;
tou'to , for this cause , relates to
ver. 25, and has the same logical bearing
as the diov , wherefore , in ver. 24,
which referred to ver. 23 (reproduced
in ver. 25). It is therefore perfectly
natural that the verb of the two
propositions, vv. 24 and 26, should be
one and the same ( parevdwken ,
He gave over ).—The complement
ajtimiva" , of dishonor , is a genitive of
quality ( dishonoring, vile ). This
word goes back on the end of ver. 24: to
dishonor their bodies among
themselves. The term pavqh , passions , has
something still more ignoble in it
than ejpiqumivai , lusts , in ver. 24; for it
contains a more pronounced idea of
moral passivity, of shameful
bondage.—The picture which follows of
the unnatural vices then prevalent
in Gentile society is confirmed in all
points by the frightful details
contained in the works of Greek and
Latin writers. But it is asked, How
can Paul give himself up, with a sort
of complacency, to such a
delineation? The answer lies in the
aim of the whole passage to show the
divine wrath displayed on the Gentile
world; comp. the term ajntimisqiva ,
meet recompense , ver. 27. A law
broods over human existence, a law
which is at the same time a divine
act: Such as thou makest thy God,
such wilt thou make thyself.—The
expressions a[rjrJene", qhvleiai , literally,
males, females , are chosen to suit
the spirit of the context.—The whole is
calculated to show that there is here
a just recompense on the part of
God. The methvllaxan , they changed,
travestied , corresponds to the same
verb, ver. 25, and the para; fuvsin ,
contrary to nature , to the para; to;n
ktivsanta of the same verse.—There is
in the oJmoivw" te an idea of
equality: and equally so , while the
reading oJmoivw" dev of four Mjj.
contains further an idea of progress,
as if the dishonoring of man by man
were an intensification of that of
woman.—In the h}n e[dei , which we have
translated by “ well- merited
recompense” (literally, the recompense which
was meet ), one feels, as it
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
were, the indignant breathing of God's
holy wrath. Justice could not let it
be otherwise! The error , plavnh , is
not that of having sought satisfaction
in such infamies; it is the voluntary
lie of idolatry , the lie ( yeu'do" ) of ver.
25, the quenching of the truth, ver.
18; for this is what explains the
ajntimisqiva , the withering
retribution just described. Once again the
clause in themselves brings out the
depth of this blight; they bear it in
themselves, it is visible to the eyes
of all.
The moral sentiment in man is based on
the conception of the holy God.
To abandon the latter, is to paralyze
the former. By honoring God we
ennoble ourselves; by rejecting Him we
infallibly ruin ourselves. Such,
according to the apostle, is the
relation between heathenism and moral
corruption. Independent morality is
not that of St. Paul.
He has described the ungodliness of
the Gentile world, idolatry, and its
punishment, unnatural impurities. He
now describes the other aspect of
the world's sin, unrighteousness , and
its punishment, the overflowing of
monstrous iniquities committed by men
against one another, and
threatening to overwhelm society. Ver.
28. “ And even as they did not
think good to retain God in their
knowledge, God gave them over to a
mind void of discernment, to do those
things which are not fitting. ”—The
ungodliness of the Gentiles was
accompanied by a depth of iniquity: the
refusal to let the thought of the
perfect God rule human life. To retain God
as an object of distinct knowledge
(the literal sense of Paul's words), is to
keep alive within the mind the view of
that holy Being, so that His will shall
give law to our whole conduct. This is
what the Gentiles refused to do.
Ceasing to contemplate God and His
will, they were given over to all
unrighteousness.— Kaqwv" , even
as (literally, agreeably to which ),
indicates anew the exact correlation
between this unrighteousness and
the punishment about to be described.—
Nou'" ajdovkimo" , which we
translate: a mind void of discernment
, corresponds to the oujk
ejdokivmasan , they did not think
good; having refused to appreciate God,
they lost the true sense of moral
appreciation, and this loss with all its
consequences is a judgment, as well as
the unnatural passions described
above. Such is the force of the
parevdwken , gave over , corresponding to
the same verb in vv. 24 and 26.—The
phrase: those things which are not
fitting , to express evil , is well
suited to the notion of appreciation which is
included in the verb dokimavzein , to
judge good , and the adjective
ajdovkimo" . Evil is here
characterized as moral incongruity , calculated to
revolt the nou'" , reason , if it
were not deprived of its natural discernment.
The infinitive poiei'n , to do , is
almost equivalent to a Latin gerund “ in
doing. ” The subjective negation mhv
with the participle signifies: all that is
ranked in the class designated by the
participle.—Remark, finally, the
intentional repetition of the
substantive oJ Qeov" , God: “As thou treatest
God, God treateth thee.” It is by
mistake that this second God is omitted in
the Sinait . and Alex. —Volkmar makes
ver. 28 the beginning of a new
section. He would have it that the
subject begun here is Jewish, in
opposition to Gentile guiltiness (vv.
18-27). But nothing, either in the text
or in the thought, indicates such a
transition; the kaiv , also , is opposed to
it, and the charge raised by the
apostle in the following verses, and
especially ver. 32, is exactly the
opposite of the description which he gives
of the Jews, chap. 2. The latter
appear as the judges of Gentile corruption,
while the men characterized in ver. 32
give it their applause.
Ver. 29a. “ Being filled with every
kind of unrighteousness , perverseness,
maliciousness, covetousness. ”—In the
following enumeration we need
not seek a rigorously systematic
order. Paul evidently lets his pen run on
as if he thought that, of all the bad
terms which should present
themselves, none would be out of place
or
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
exaggerated. But in this apparent
disorder one can detect a certain
grouping, a connection through the
association of ideas.—The first group
which we have detached in our
translation embraces four terms;
according to the T. R., five. But the
word porneiva , uncleanness , should
evidently be rejected; for it is
wanting in many Mjj.; it is displaced in some
others; finally, the subject has been
exhausted in what precedes.—The
phrase: “all sort of unrighteousness
,” embraces collectively the whole
following enumeration: ponhriva ,
perverseness , denotes the bad instinct
of the heart; kakiva , maliciousness ,
the deliberate wickedness which
takes pleasure in doing harm;
pleonexiva , covetousness (the desire of
having more plevon e[cein ), the
passion for money, which does not
scruple to lay hold of the possessions
of its neighbor to augment its own.
The participle peplhrwmevnou" ,
filled , at the head of this first group, is in
apposition to the understood subject
of poiei'n .
The four terms of this first group
thus refer to injustices committed against
the well-being and property of our
neighbor.
Ver. 29b. “ Full of envy, murder,
strife, deceit, bitterness. ”—These five
terms form again a natural group,
which embraces all the injustices
whereby the person of our neighbor is
injured. The adjective mestouv" , full
of (properly, stuffed ), on which this
group depends, indicates a change of
idea from the preceding. As an
adjective, it denotes solely the present
attribute, while the preceding
participle implied the process of growth
which had led to the state described.
The similarity of sound in the two
Greek words: fqovnou , envy , and
fovnou , murder , has led to their being
often combined also in the classics;
besides, envy leads to murder, as is
shown by the example of Cain. If envy
does not go the length of making
away with him whose advantages give us
umbrage, it seeks at least to
trouble him with deception in the
enjoyment of his wealth; this is
expressed by e[ri" , strife ,
quarrelling; finally, in this course one seeks to
injure his neighbor by deceiving him (
dovlo" , deceit ), or to render his life
miserable by bitterness of temper (
kakohvqeia ).
Ver. 30a. “ Whisperers, backbiters,
haters of God, despiteful, proud,
boasters. ”—The dispositions expressed
in the six terms of this group are
those of which pride is the centre.
There is no reason for reducing them to
four, as Hofmann would, by making the
second term the epithet of the
first, and the fourth that of the
third; this does not suit the rapidity of the
enumeration and the need of
accumulating terms.— Yiquristhv" ,
whisperer , the man who pours his
poison against his neighbor by
whispering into the ear;
katavlalo" , the man who blackens publicly;
qeostughv" signifies, in the two
classical passages where it is found
(Euripides), hated of God , and Meyer
therefore contends that the passive
sense ought to be preserved here,
while generalizing it; the name would
thus signify all hardened malefactors.
But this general meaning is
impossible in an enumeration in which
the sense of each term is limited by
that of all the rest. The active
signification: hating God , is therefore the
only suitable one; it is the highest
manifestation of pride, which cannot
brook the thought of this superior and
judge; one might say: the most
monstrous form of calumny (the
malediction of Providence); Suidas and
CEcumenius, two writers nearer the
living language than we, thought they
could give to this word the active
signification, a fact which justifies it
sufficiently. To insolence toward God
(the sin of u{bri" among the Greeks)
there is naturally joined insult
offered to men: uJbristhv" , insolent,
despiteful. The term uJperhvfano"
(from uJpevr, faivnomai ), proud ,
designates the man who, from a feeling
of his own superiority, regards
others with haughtiness; while
ajlazwvn , boaster , denotes the man who
seeks to attract admiration by
claiming advantages he does not really
possess.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Vv. 30b, 31. “ Inventors of evil
things, disobedient to parents, without
understanding, covenant-breakers,
without tenderness , without pity.
”—The last group refers to the
extinction of all the natural feelings of
humanity, filial affection, loyalty,
tenderness, and pity. It includes six
terms. The first, inventors of evil
things , denotes those who pass their
lives meditating on the evil to be
done to others; so Antiochus Epiphanes
is called by the author of 2 Macc.
(7:31), pavsh" kakiva" euJrethv" , and
Sejanus by Tacitus, facinorum
repertor. People of this stamp have usually
begun to betray their bad character in
the bosom of their families—they
have been disobedient to their
parents. — jAsuvneto" , without
understanding , denotes the man who is
incapable of lending an ear to
wise counsel; thus understood, it has
a natural connection with the
previous term; Hofmann cites Ps. 32:8,
9.— jAsuvnqeto" , which many
translate irreconcilable , can hardly
have this meaning, for the verb from
which it comes does not signify to
reconcile , but to decide in common ,
and hence to make a treaty. The
adjective therefore describes the man
who without scruple violates the
contracts he has signed , the faithless
man.— [Astorgo" , without
tenderness , from stevrgein , to cherish, caress,
foster; this word denotes the
destruction even of the feelings of natural
tenderness, as is seen in a mother who
exposes or kills her child, a father
who abandons his family, or children
who neglect their aged parents. If
the following word in the T. R.,
ajspovndou" , truce-breakers , were
authentic, its meaning would be
confounded with that of ajsunqevtou" ,
rightly understood.— jAnelehvmwn ,
without pity , is closely connected with
the preceding ajstovrgou" ,
without tenderness; but its meaning is more
general. It refers not only to tender
feelings within the family circle; here it
calls up before the mind the entire
population of the great cities flocking to
the circus to behold the fights of
gladiators, frantically applauding the
effusion of human blood, and gloating
over the dying agonies of the
vanquished combatant. Such is an
example of the unspeakable hardness
of heart to which the whole society of
the Gentile world descended. What
would it have come to if a
regenerating breath had not at this supreme
moment passed over it? It is in this
last group that the fact which the
apostle is concerned to bring out is
most forcibly emphasized, that of a
divine judgment manifesting itself in
this state of things. In fact, we have
no more before us iniquities which can
be explained by a simple natural
egoism. They are enormities which are
as unnatural as the infamies
described above as the punishment of
heathenism. Thus is proved the
abandonment of men to a mind void of
discernment (the ajdovkimo" nou'"
of ver.
28).
Ver. 32. “ Who, knowing the judgment
of God, that they which commit
such things are worthy of death, not
only do the same, but applaud those
who do them. ”—The relation of this
verse to what precedes has been
very generally misunderstood, hence
probably the corrections of the text
attempted in some MSS.—The most
serious misunderstanding is that of
Ritschl. This theologian regards the
men to whom this verse and the four
following (2:1-4) refer as forming a
class by themselves, and wholly
different from the sinners described
from ver. 19 onward. The men who
repress the truth , ver. 18, are
according to him divided into two classes:
“those who through heathenism have quenched
the feeling of divine
revelation (vv. 19-31),” and “those
who, while judging the immoralities
produced by paganism, nevertheless
take part in them by their conduct
(ver. 32-2:4).” But it is easy to see
that this construction is devised solely
with the view of finding the
development of the idea of divine wrath , ver.
18, in the passage 2:5 et seq., and
not in the paradidovnai , giving over , of
vv. 24, 26, and 28 (see p. 168). This
construction, proposed by Ritschl, is
impossible. 1. Because judging with a
view to approve , ver.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
32, is not the same thing as judging
to condemn , 2:1, 2. 2. On account of
the obvious relation between the terms
of ver. 32: though knowing the
judgment of God , and those of ver.
28: they did not keep God in their
knowledge. 3. The uniform sense of the
pronoun oi{tine" , as people who ,
forces us to seek in the description
of ver. 32 the justification of the
judgment described from ver. 28. Far,
then, from indicating a change of
persons, this pronoun expresses the
moral qualification by which the
individuals just described have drawn
on them so severe a punishment. It
is an exact parallel to the
oi{tine" of ver. 25. The latter justified the
judgment of idolaters by recalling to
mind the greatness of their offence.
The former in the same way justifies
the punishment which has overtaken
the resistance of man to the
revelation of moral good (ver. 28a): “They
had well deserved to be given over to
this deluge of iniquities, they who
had acted thus toward God when He
revealed his will to them.” The terms
which follow and explain the pronoun
they who , set forth this radical
iniquity through which men quenched the
sentiment of moral truth
revealed in them; comp. ver. 28a To;
dikaivwma , strictly, what God
establishes as just; here: His just
sentence; ejpignovnte" denotes the clear
discernment which men had of it. The
word recalls the gnovnte" to;n Qeovn
, knowing God , of ver. 21: moral
light was produced in them as well as
religious light. The words following
indicate the contents of that sentence
which God had taken care to engrave on
their heart. What appeals to
God's justice do we not find in the
writings of Gentile historians and
philosophers! What a description in
their poets of the punishment inflicted
on malefactors in Tartarus! The phrase
worthy of death has been applied
by some, and recently again by
Hofmann, to the punishment of death as
executed by human judges. But this
penalty would suit only one term in
the whole preceding enumeration, viz.,
fovno" , murder; and the ta; toiau'ta
, such things , does not allow so
restricted an application. Death therefore
here denotes death as God only can
inflict it, the pains of Hades, which
the Gentiles also recognized, and
which Paul, designating things from his
own point of view, calls death. The
second part of the verse leads from
the offence to the punishment. It is
the mind deprived of discernment , to
which God has given up men, in its
most monstrous manifestation; not
only doing evil, but applauding those
who do it! This is true to fact. Had
not the Caligulas and Neros found
advocates, admirers, multitudes always
ready to offer them incense? The not
only, but even , rightly assumes that
there is more guilt in approving in
cold blood of the evil committed by
others, than in committing it oneself
under the force and blindness of
passion. Such a mode of acting is
therefore the last stage in the
corruption of the moral sense.
The reading of the Cantab. would
signify: “They who, knowing the
sentence of God, did not understand
that those who do such things are
worthy of death; for not only do they
do them, etc.”...This meaning would
be admissible, but the contents of the
sentence of God would remain
absolutely unexplained, which is far
from natural. The reading of the Vatic.
would give the following translation:
“They who, knowing the sentence of
God, that those who do such things are
worthy of death, not only doing
those things, but approving those who
do them.” The construction in this
case demands the doubling of the verb
eijsivn , are (first, as verb of the
proposition o{ti , that those who;
then as verb of the proposition oi{tine" ,
they who ). This construction is very
forced; it is very probable, as has
been supposed, that the reading of B
is only an importation into the
apostolic text of a form of quotation
found in the Epistle of Clemens
Romanus. This Father, quoting our
passage, says: “They who practice
these things are abominable in the
sight of God; and not only they who do
them ( oiJ pravssonte" ), but
those also who approve them ( oiJ
suneudokou'nte" ).” The “ did not
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
understand ,” and the for added by the
Cantab. , appear to be mere
attempts to correct the reading of the
Vaticanus. In the whole of this
chapter the apostle evidently
distinguishes two degrees in the sin of the
Gentile world; the one active and
internal, the other passive and external;
the one a natural result of depraved
instinct, the other having the character
of unnatural monstrosity. The first is
chargeable on man, it is his guilt; the
second is sin as a punishment, the
manifest sign of God's wrath. This
great historical fact is developed in
two aspects. First, from the religious
point of view: man quenches his
intuition of the Divine Being, and clothes
God in the form of an idol; his
punishment in this connection is selfdegradation
by monstrous impurities. Then in the
moral point of view: man
quenches the light of conscience, and
as a punishment his moral
discernment is so perverted that he
puts the seal of his approbation on all
the iniquities which he should have
condemned and prevented. This is the
worst of corruptions, that of the
conscience. Thus is fully justified the great
thought of ver. 18: The wrath of God
displayed on the Gentile world to
punish the voluntary darkening of the
religious sense ( ungodliness ) and
of the moral sense ( unrighteousness
), which had been awakened in man
by the primeval revelation of God.
Fifth Passage (2:1-29). The Wrath of
God Suspended over the Jewish
People.
In the midst of this flood of
pollutions and iniquities which Gentile society
presents to view, the apostle sees one
who like a judge from the height of
his tribunal sends a stern look over
the corrupt mass, condemning the evil
which reigns in it, and applauding the
wrath of God which punishes it. It is
this new personage whom he
apostrophizes in the following words:
Ver. 1. “ Wherefore thou art
inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that
judgest: for wherein thou judgest
another, thou condemnest thyself; for
thou that judgest doest the same
things. ”—Whom is the apostle
addressing? Gentile magistrates, say
the old Greek commentators. But a
magistrate is appointed to judge
crimes; he could not be reproached for
filling his office. The best of the
Gentiles, say the Reformers, and Hofmann
in our own day. But what purpose would
be served, in this vast survey of
the general state of mankind, by such
a slight moral warning given to the
best and wisest of the Gentiles not to
set themselves to judge others?
Besides, this precept could not be
more than a parenthesis, while it is easy
to see that ver. 1 is exactly like
1:18, the theme of all the development
which immediately follows chap. 2.
Evidently the person apostrophized in
these terms: O man ..., forms an
exception among those men ( a[nqrwpoi ,
1:18) who hurtfully and wickedly
reject the truth. He does not repress, on
the contrary he proclaims it; but he
contents himself with applying it to
others. The true name of this
collective personage, whose portrait Paul
proceeds to draw without yet naming
him, will be pronounced in ver. 17:
“Now if thou Jew. ” The apostle knows
how delicate the task is which he is
approaching, that of proving to the
elect people that divine wrath, now
displayed against the Gentiles, is
likewise suspended over them. He is
about to drag to God's tribunal the
nation which thinks itself at liberty to
cite all others to its bar. It is a
bold enterprise. The apostle proceeds
cautiously. He first expresses his
thought abstractly: thou who judgest,
whosoever thou art , to unveil it
fully afterward. Chap. 2 is thus the parallel
of the passage 1:18-32; it is the
trial of the Jewish after that of the Gentile
world. And the first two verses are
its theme.
The course followed by the apostle is
this:—In the first part, vv. 1-16, he
lays down the principle of God's true
(impartial) judgment. In the second,
vv. 17-29, he
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
applies it directly to the Jew.—The
first part contains the development of
three ideas.
1. Favors received, far from forming a
ground for exemption from
judgment, aggravate the responsibility
of the receiver, vv. 1-5. 2. The
divine sentence rests on the works ,
vv. 6-12. 3. Not on knowledge , vv. 13-
16.
The diov , wherefore , which connects
this passage with the preceding,
presents a certain difficulty which
Hofmann and Ritschl have used to justify
their far from natural explanations of
the preceding. Meyer takes this
connecting particle as referring to
the whole preceding description from
ver. 18. For if a man is guilty, if he
commits such things without judging
them, it follows that he is still more
guilty if he commit them while judging
them. ver. 1 might, however, be
connected more particularly with ver. 32.
In point of fact, if sinning while
applauding the sin of others is criminal,
would not men be more inexcusable
still if they condemned the sin of
others while joining in it? In the
former case there is at least agreement
between thought and action—the man
does what he expressly approves
—while in the second there is an
internal contradiction and a flagrant
hypocrisy. In the act of judging, the
judge condemns his own doing. —The
word inexcusable , here applied to the
Jews, is the counterpart of the same
epithet already applied to the
Gentiles,
1:20.— Whosoever thou art ( pa'"
): whatever name thou bearest, were it
even the glorious name of Jew. Paul
does not say this, but it is his
meaning.—It is enough that thou
judgest, that I may condemn thee in this
character of judge; for thy judgment
recoils on thyself. The Jews, as we
know, liked to call the Gentiles
aJmartwloiv , sinners , Gal. 2:15.— jEn w\/ ,
wherein , signifies: “Thou doest two
things at once; thou condemnest thy
neighbor, and by condemning him for
things which thou doest, thou takest
away all excuse for thyself.” This
meaning is much more pungent than
Meyer's: in the same things which —that
is to say, in the things which thou
doest, and which at the same time thou
condemnest. There was
undoubtedly a difference between the
moral state of the Jews and that of
other nations, but the passage vv.
17-24 will show that this difference was
only relative. The repetition of the
words: thou who judgest , at the end of
the sentence, brings out strongly the
exceptional character in virtue of
which this personage is brought en the
scene. The apostle confronts the
falsehood under which the man shelters
himself with a simple luminous
truth to which no conscience can
refuse its assent.
Ver. 2. “ Now we know that the
sentence of God is according to truth upon
them which commit such things. ”—We
might give the dev an adversative
sense: “ But God does not let Himself
be deceived by this judgment which
thou passest on others.” It is more
natural, however, to translate this dev by
now , and to take this verse as the
major of a syllogism. The minor, ver. 1:
thy judgment on others condemns thee;
the major, ver. 2: now the
judgment of God is always true; the
conclusion understood (between vv. 2
and 3): therefore thy hypocritical
judgment cannot shelter thee from that of
God. The connecting particle gavr ,
for , in two Alex. is inadmissible. This
for , to be logical, must bear on the
proposition: thou condemnest thyself ,
which is unnatural, as a new idea has
intervened since then.—What is the
subject in we know? According to some:
we, Christians. But what would
the knowledge of Christians prove against
the Jewish point of view which
Paul is here combating? Others: we,
Jews. But it was precisely the Jewish
conscience which Paul was anxious to
bring back to truth on this point.
The matter in question is a truth
inscribed, according to the apostle, on the
human conscience as such, and which
plain common sense, free from
prejudices, compels us to own: “But
every one knows.”—The term kri'ma
does not denote, like krivsi" ,
the act of judging, but its contents , the
sentence. The sentence which God
pronounces on every man is
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
agreeable to truth. There would be no
more truth in the universe if there
were none in the judgment of God; and
there would be none in the
judgment of God, if to be absolved
ourselves, it were enough to condemn
others.—The words kata; ajlhvqeian
have sometimes been explained in the
sense of really: “that there is really
a judgment of God against those
who”...But what the Jews disputed was not
the fact of judgment; it was its
impartiality—that is to say, its
truth. They could not get rid of the idea that
in that day they would enjoy certain
immunities due to their purer creed,
and the greatly higher position which
they held than that of other
nations.— Such things , that is to
say, those referred to by the same word,
ver. 32.—But the apostle is not
unaware that in the Jewish conscience
there is an obstacle to the full
application of this principle; it is this
obstacle which he now labors to
remove. Vv. 3-5 develop the words: they
who do such things (whoever they are,
should they even be Jews); vv. 6-
16 will explain what is meant by a
judgment according to truth.
Ver. 3. “ But thou countest upon this,
O man, that judgest them which do
such things, and doest the same, that
thou shalt escape the judgment of
God? ”—We might, with Hofmann, take
the verbs logivzh/ and katafronei'" (
thou countest, thou despisest ) in an
affirmative sense. But the h[ , or
indeed , at the beginning of ver. 4
would rather incline us, following Paul's
ordinary usage, to interpret these
words in the interrogative sense; not,
however, that we need translate the
former in the sense of: thinkest thou?
The interrogation is less abrupt:
“thou thinkest no doubt?” The word
logivzesqai , to reason , well
describes the false calculations whereby the
Jews persuaded themselves that they
would escape the judgment with
which God would visit the Gentiles.
Observe the suv , thou: “that thou wilt
escape, thou ,” a being by thyself, a
privileged person! It was a Jewish
axiom, that “every one circumcised has
part in the kingdom to come.” A
false calculation. Such, then, is the
first supposition serving to explain the
security of the Jew; but there is a
graver still. Perhaps this false
calculation proceeds from a moral fact
hidden in the depths of the heart.
Paul drags it to the light in what
follows.
Vv. 4, 5. “ Or despisest thou the
riches of His goodness and forbearance
and long-suffering; not knowing that
the goodness of God leadeth thee to
repentance? But, according to thy
hardness and impenitent heart,
treasurest up unto thyself wrath for
the day of wrath and of the revelation
of the righteous judgment of God. ”—
[H , or even. The meaning is: is
there something even worse than an
illusion; is there contempt? The case
then would be more than foolish, it
would be impious! The riches of
goodness , of which the apostle
speaks, embrace all God's benefits to
Israel in the past: that special
election, those consecutive revelations, that
constant care, finally, the sending of
the Messiah, all that constituted the
privileged position which Israel had
enjoyed for so many ages. The
second term, ajnochv , patience (from
ajnevcesqai to restrain oneself ),
denotes the feeling awakened in the
benefactor when his goodness is put
to the proof by ingratitude. Paul has
in view no doubt the murder of the
Messiah, which divine justice might
have met with the immediate
destruction of the nation. The third
term, makroqumiva , long-suffering ,
refers to the incomprehensible
prolongation of Israel's existence, in spite
of the thirty consecutive years of
resistance to the appeals of God, and to
the preaching of the apostles which
had elapsed, and in spite of such
crimes as the murder of Stephen and
James (Acts 7 and 12). The three
words form an admirable climax. The
last ( long- suffering ) characterizes
this treasure of grace as exhausted,
and that of wrath as ready to
discharge itself. The notion of
contempt is explained by the fact that the
more God shows Himself good, patient,
and meek, the more does the
pride of Israel seem to grow, and the
more does the nation show itself
hostile to the gospel.—
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
jAgnow'n may be translated: ignoring ,
or mistaking; the first meaning is
simpler and may suffice, for there is
a voluntary ignorance, the result of
bad faith, in consequence of which we
do not see what we do not care so
see; it is this ignorance which is
referred to here.—The phrase to; crhsto;n
tou' Qeou' is touching: what is good ,
sweet, gentle in God ( crhstov" ,
strictly: that may be handled, what
one may make use of , from cravomai ).
The form: “what good there
is”...leaves it to be inferred that there is
something else in God, and that He
will not let Himself be always treated
thus with impunity. The time will come
when He will act with rigor.—The
word a[gein , to lead , implies the
power possessed by man of yielding to
or resisting the attraction exercised
over him. If he could not resist it, how
could the Jews be accused of
committing this offence at this very time?
Metavnoia , repentance , is the act
whereby man goes back on his former
views, and changes his standpoint and
feeling.
Ver. 5. The dev , but , contrasts the
result of so many favors received with
the divinely desired effect. The
contrast indicated arises from the fact that
the Jews in their conduct are guided
by a wholly different rule from that to
which the mercy of God sought to draw
them. This idea of rule is indeed
what explains the preposition katav ,
according to , which is usually made
into a by. The word denotes a line of
conduct long followed, the old
Jewish habit of meeting the calls of
God with a hard and impenitent heart;
what Stephen so forcibly upbraided
them with, Acts 7:51: “Ye stiffnecked (
sklhrotravchloi ) and uncircumcised in
heart and ears, ye do always resist
the Holy Ghost; as your fathers did,
so do ye.”— Hardness relates to
insensibility of heart to divine
favors; impenitence , to the absence of that
change of views which the feeling of
such goodness should have
produced.—But it must not be thought
that these favors are purely and
simply lost. Instead of the good which
they should have produced, evil
results from them. Every favor
trampled under foot adds to the treasure of
wrath which is already suspended over
the heads of the impenitent
people. There is an evident
correlation between the phrase riches of
goodness , ver. 4, and the Greek word
qhsaurivzein , to treasure up. The
latter word, as well as the dative (of
favor!) seautw'/ , for thyself , have
certainly a tinge of irony. What an
enriching is that! Wrath is here
denounced on the Jews, as it had been,
1:18, on the Gentiles. The two
passages are parallel; there is only
this difference between them, that
among the Gentiles the thunderbolt has
already fallen, while the storm is
still gathering for the Jews. The time
when it will burst on them is called
the day of wrath. In this phrase two
ideas are combined: that of the great
national catastrophe which had been
predicted by John the Baptist and by
Jesus (Matt. 3:10; Luke 11:50, 51),
and that of the final judgment of the
guilty taken individually at the last
day. The preposition ejn (“ in the day”)
may be made dependent on the
substantive wrath: “the wrath which will
have its full course in the day
when”...But it is more natural to connect this
clause with the verb: “thou art
heaping up a treasure which shall be paid
to thee in the day when”...The writer
transports himself in thought to the
day itself; he is present then: hence
the ejn instead of eij" .—The three
Byz. Mjj. and the correctors of the
Sinait . and of the Cantab. read a kaiv ,
and , between the two words revelation
and just judgment , and thus give
the word “day” three complements: day
of wrath , of revelation , and of just
judgment. These three names would
correspond well with the three of ver.
4: goodness, patience, long-
suffering; and the term revelation , without
complement, would have in it something
mysterious and threatening quite
in keeping with the context. This
reading is, however, improbable. The
kaiv ( and ) is omitted not only in
the Mjj. of the two other
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
families, but also in the ancient
versions (Syriac and Latin); besides the
word revelation can hardly be
destitute of all qualification. The apostle
therefore says: the revelation of the
righteous judgment; thus indicating
that wrath (righteous judgment) is
still veiled so far as the Jews are
concerned (in contrast to the
ajpokaluvptetai , is revealed , 1:18), but that
then it will be fully unveiled in
relation to them also.—Only two passages
are quoted where the word
dikaiokrisiva , just judgment , is used: in a
Greek translation of Hos. 4:5, and in
the Testaments of the twelve
patriarchs. The word recalls the
phrase of ver. 2: “The judgment of God
according to truth. ” It dissipates
beforehand the illusions cherished by the
Jews as to the immunity which they
hoped to enjoy in that day in virtue of
their theocratic privileges. It
contains the theme of the development which
immediately follows. The just judgment
of God (the judgment according to
truth , ver. 2) will bear solely on
the moral life of each individual, vv. 6-12,
not on the external fact of being the
hearer of a law, vv. 13-16. These are
the positive and negative
characteristics of a judgment according to
righteousness.—It would be
unaccountable how Ritschl could have
mistaken the obvious relation between
vv. 5 and 4 so far as to connect 2:5
with the notion of wrath , 1:18, had
not a preconceived idea imposed on
him this exegetical violence.
Ver. 6. “ Who will render to every one
according to his deeds. ”—No
account will be taken of any external
circumstance, but solely of the aim
which has governed the man's moral
action. It has been asked how this
maxim can be reconciled with the
doctrine of justification by faith.
Fritzsche finds in them two different
theories presenting an insoluble
contradiction. Others think that in
the judgment the moral imperfections of
believers will be covered by their
faith; which would convert faith into a
means of sinning with impunity. What a
just judgment that would be!
Melanchthon, Tholuck, and others hold
that this standard is purely
hypothetical; it would be the standard
which God would have applied if
redemption had not intervened. But the
future, “ will render ,” is not a
conditional ( would render ). Besides,
judgment according to the deeds
done , is attested by many other
passages, both from Paul (Rom. 14:12; 2
Cor. 5:10; Gal. 6:6), from Jesus
Himself (John 5:28, 29; Matt. 12:36, 37,
etc.), and from other writings of the
New Testament (Rev. 20:13). Ritschl
thinks that throughout this passage it
is a Pharisee whom Paul introduces
as speaking, and who starts from a
narrow idea of divine justice—the
idea, viz., of retributive justice.
But what trace is there in the text of such
an accommodation on the apostle's part
to a standpoint foreign to his
own? The logical tissue of the piece,
and its relation to what precedes and
follows, present no breach of
continuity. There is only one answer to the
question raised, unless we admit a
flagrant contradiction in the apostle's
teaching: that justification by faith
alone applies to the time of entrance
into salvation through the free pardon
of sin, but not to the time of
judgment. When God of free grace
receives the sinner at the time of his
conversion, He asks nothing of him
except faith; but from that moment the
believer enters on a wholly new
responsibility; God demands from him, as
the recipient of grace, the fruits of
grace. This is obvious from the parable
of the talents. The Lord commits His
gifts to His servants freely; but from
the moment when that extraordinary
grace has been shown, He expects
something from their labor. Comp. also
the parable of the wicked debtor,
where the pardoned sinner who refuses
to pardon his brother is himself
replaced under the rule of justice,
and consequently under the burden of
his debt. The reason is that faith is
not the dismal prerogative of being
able to sin with impunity; it is, on
the contrary, the means of overcoming
sin and acting holily; and if this
life-fruit is not produced, it is dead, and will
be declared vain. “ Every barren tree
will be hewn down and cast into the
fire” (Matt. 3:10). Comp. the terrible
warnings, 1
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Cor. 6:9, 10, Gal. 6:7, which are
addressed to believers.—The two
following verses develop the idea of
the verb ajpodwvsei , will render.
Vv. 7, 8. “ To them who, by patient
continuance in well-doing, seek for
glory and honor and immortality , [to
such] eternal life: but for them that
are contentious, and do not obey the
truth, but obey unrighteousness , [for
such] wrath and indignation! ”
The Jews divided men into circumcised,
and consequently saved, and
uncircumcised, and consequently
damned. Here is a new classification,
which Paul substitutes, founded solely
on the moral aim.—There are two
principal ways of construing ver. 7.
Sometimes the three words: glory,
honor, immortality , are made the
objects of the verb: will render (ver. 6),
understood. The phrase: patient
continuance in well-doing , is thus taken
to qualify the pronoun toi'" mevn
, to them , and the last words: zhtou'sin
k.t.l. , become merely an explanatory
appendix: “to wit, to them who seek
eternal life.” The meaning of the
verse thus taken is: “to them who live in
patient continuance in well-doing [He
will render] glory and honor and
immortality, [to wit, to those] who
seek eternal life.” But this construction is
very forced. 1. The subordinate
clause: “in continuance,” is rather the
qualification of a verb than of a
pronoun like toi'" mevn . 2. The participle
zhtou'si would require the article
toi'" , and would make a clumsy and
superfluous appendix. The
construction, as given in our translation, is
much more simple and significant. The
regimen kaqj uJpomonhvn , literally,
according to the standard of patient
continuance in well-doing ,
corresponds with the seek , on which
it depends; seeking must be in a
certain line. And the weighty word
eternal life , at the close of this long
sentence, depicts, as it were, the
final and glorious issue of this long and
laborious practice of goodness. This
accusative is the object of the verb:
will render , understood (ver. 6).—The
notion of patient continuance is
emphasized here, not only in
opposition to the idea of intermittent moral
efforts, but to indicate that there
are great moral obstacles to be met on
this path, and that a persistent love
of goodness is needed to surmount
them. The apostle says literally:
perseverance in good work. In ver. 6 he
had used the plural works. He now comprehends
this multiplicity of works
in the profound principle which
constitutes their unity, the permanent
determination to realize goodness.
What supports a man in this course is
the goal which he has constantly
before him: glory , an existence without
defilement or weakness, resplendent
throughout with the divine brightness
of holiness and power; honor , the
approbation of God, which forms the
eternal honor of its object;
immortality ( incorruptibility ), the absolute
impossibility of any wound or
interruption or end to this state of being. The
ands , kaiv , before the last two
substantives, show a certain degree of
emotion; the accumulation of terms
arises from the same cause. In all
human conditions there are souls which
contemplate the ideal here
described, and which, ravished with
its beauty, are elevated by it above
every earthly ambition and the pursuit
of sensual gratifications. These are
the men who are represented under the
figure of the merchant seeking
goodly pearls. For such is the pearl
of great price, life eternal! This last
word, laden as it were with all divine
riches, denotes the realization of the
ideal just described; it worthily
closes this magnificent proposition.
But is it asked again, where, in this
description of a normal human life, are
faith and salvation by the gospel to
be found? Does Paul then preach
salvation by the work of man? The
apostle has not to do here with the
means whereby we can really attain to
well-doing; he merely affirms that
no one will be saved apart from the
doing of good, and he assumes that
the man who is animated with this
persistent desire will not fail, some time
or other, in the journey of life, to
meet with the means
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
of attaining an end so holy and
glorious. This means is faith in the
gospel—a truth which Paul reserves for
proof at a later stage. “ He that
doeth truth ,” said Jesus to the same
effect, “ cometh to the light ,” as soon
as it is presented to him (John 3:21;
comp. 7:17). The love of goodness,
which is the spring of his life, will
then lead him to embrace Christ, the
ideal of goodness; and, having
embraced Him, he will find in Him the
triumphant power for well-doing of
which he was in quest. The desire of
goodness is the acceptance of the
gospel by anticipation. The natural
corollary of these premisses is the
thought expressed by Peter: the
preaching of the gospel before the
judgment to every human soul, either
in this life or in the next (1 Pet.
3:19, 20, 4:6). Comp. Matt. 12:31, 32. And
if the apostle has spoken of patient
continuance in this pursuit, it is
because he is well aware of that power
of self- mastery which is needed,
especially in a Jew, to break with his
nation, and family, and all his past,
and to remain faithful to the end to
the supreme love of goodness.
The other class of men is described
ver. 8. The regimen ejx ejriqeiva" can
without difficulty serve to qualify
the pronoun toi'" dev ; comp. the
construction oJ or oiJ ejk
pivstew" , 3:26; Gal. 3:7. The meaning is: “but for
those who are under the dominion of
the spirit of contention.”—The word
ejriqeiva , contention , does not
come, as has been often thought, from
e[ri" , disputation , but, as
Fritzsche has proved, from e[riqo" , mercenary;
whence the verb ejriqeuvein , “to work
for wages,” then, “to put oneself at
the service of a party.” The
substantive ejriqeiva therefore denotes the
spirit which seeks the victory of the
party which one has espoused from
self-interest, in contrast to the
spirit which seeks the possession of the
truth. Paul knew well from experience
the tendency of Rabbinical
discussions, and he characterizes it
by a single word. The term truth is
here used abstractly; but Paul has,
nevertheless, in view the concrete
realization of this notion in the
gospel revelation. Unrighteousness , which
he contrasts with truth (exactly as
Jesus does, John 7:18), denotes the
selfish passions, vain ambitions, and
unrighteous prejudices, which lead a
man to close his eyes to the light
when it presents itself, and thus produce
unbelief. Unrighteousness leads to
this result as certainly as moral
integrity leads to faith. Jesus
develops precisely the same thought, John
3:19, 20. The words wrath and
indignation , which express the wages
earned by such conduct, are in the
nominative in Greek, not in the
accusative, like the word eternal life
(ver. 7). They are not, therefore, the
object of the verb will render , which
is too remote. We must make them
either the subject of a verb
understood ( e[stai , will be, there will be ), or,
better still, an exclamation: “for
them, wrath!” The three Byz. Mjj. follow the
psychological order, “ indignation and
wrath! ” First the internal emotion (
indignation ), then the external
manifestation
( wrath ); but the other two families
present the inverse order, and rightly
so. For what is first perceived is the
manifestation; then we pass upward
to the feeling which inspires it, and
which gives it all its gravity. Qumov" is
the emotion of the soul; ojrghv
comprehends look, sentence,
chastisement.—Why does the apostle
once again repeat this contrast of
vv. 7 and 8 in vv. 9 and 10? Obviously
with the view of now adding to
each term of the contrast the words:
to the Jew first, and also to the Greek
, which expressly efface the false
line of demarkation drawn by Jewish
theology.
Vv. 9, 10. “ Tribulation and anguish
upon every soul of man that effecteth
evil, of the Jew first, and also of
the Greek; but glory and honor and peace
to every man that doeth good, to the
Jew first, and also to the Greek!
”—The asyndeton indicates, as it
always does, the more emphatic
reassertion of the previous idea: “
Yes , tribulation and anguish!”—The
antithesis of vv. 7, 8 is reproduced
in inverse order, not only to avoid the
monotony of a too exact parallelism,
but chiefly because,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
following up ver. 8 ( wrath and
indignation ), the idea of ver. 9 ( tribulation
and anguish ) presented itself more
naturally than that of ver. 10 ( glory
and honor and peace ); comp. the same
arrangement, Luke 1:51-53. The
terms tribulation and anguish describe
the moral and external state of the
man on whom the indignation and wrath
of the judge fall (ver. 8).
Tribulation is the punishment itself
(corresponding to wrath ); anguish is
the wringing of the heart which the punishment
produces; it corresponds
to the judge's indignation. The soul
is mentioned as the seat of feeling.
The phrase, every soul of man ,
expresses the equality and universality of
the treatment dealt out. Yet within
this equality there is traced a sort of
preference both as to judgment and
salvation respectively (ver. 10), to the
detriment and advantage of the Jew.
When he says first , the apostle has
no doubt in view (as in 1:16) a
priority in time; comp. 1 Pet. 4:17. Must we
not, however, apply at the same time
the principle laid down by Jesus,
Luke 12:41-48, according to which he
who receives most benefits is also
the man who has the heaviest
responsibility? In any case, therefore,
whoever escapes judgment, it will not
be the Jew; if there were but one
judged, it would be he. Such is the
apostle's answer to the claim alleged,
ver. 3: o{ti su; ejkfeuvxh/ , that
thou, thou alone, shalt escape.
Ver. 10. The third term: peace ,
describes the subjective feeling of the
saved man at the time when glory and
honor are conferred on him by the
judge. It is the profound peace which
is produced by deliverance from
wrath, and the possession of
unchangeable blessedness. The simple
ejrgavzesqai , to do , is substituted
for the compound katergavzesqai , to
effect (ver. 9), which implies
something ruder and more violent, as is
suited to evil; comp. the analogous
though not identical difference
between poiei'n and pravssein , John
3:20, 21.—On the word first , comp.
the remarks made 1:16, 2:9.
Here again the apostle indicates the
result finally reached, whether evil or
good, without expressly mentioning the
means by which it may be
produced; on the one hand, the
rejection of the gospel (ver. 9), as the
supreme sin, at once the effect and the
cause of evil-doing; on the other,
its acceptance (ver. 10), as effect
and cause of the determination to follow
goodness and of its practice. But what
is the foundation of such a
judgment? One of God's perfections,
which the Jew could not deny
without setting himself in
contradiction to the whole Old Testament, the
impartiality of God , whose judgment
descends on evil wherever it is
found, with or without law vv. 11,
12).
Vv. 11, 12. “ For there is no respect
of persons with God. For all those
who have sinned without law shall also
perish without law: and all those
who have sinned in the law shall be
judged by the law. ”—The principle
stated in ver. 11 is one of those most
frequently asserted in the Old
Testament; comp. Deut. 10:17; 1 Sam.
16:7; 2 Chron. 19:7; Job 34:19.
Accordingly, no Jew could dispute
it.—The phrase provswpon lambavnein ,
literally: to accept the countenance ,
to pay regard to the external
appearance, belongs exclusively to
Hellenistic Greek (in the LXX.); it is a
pure Hebraism; it forcibly expresses
the opposite idea to that of just
judgment , which takes account only of
the moral worth of persons and
acts. With God signifies, in that
luminous sphere whence only just
sentences emanate. But is not the fact
of the law being given to some,
and refused to others, incompatible
with this divine impartiality? No,
answers ver. 12; for if the Gentile
perishes, he will not perish for not
having possessed the law, for no
judgment will cause him to be sifted by
the Decalogue and the Mosaic
ordinances; and if the Jew should sin, the
law will not exempt him from
punishment, for the code will be the very
standard which judgment will apply to
all his acts. Thus the want of the
law no more destroys the one than its
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
possession saves the other. The aorist
h{marton , sinned , transports us to
the point of time when the result of
human life appears as a completed
fact, the hour of judgment. The kaiv ,
also (“will also perish without law”),
brings out the congruity between the
mode of the sin and that of the
perdition. In the second proposition,
this also is not repeated, for it is a
matter of course, that where there is
a law men should be judged by it.
The absence of the article in Greek
before the word law , makes this word
a categorical term, “A mode of living
over which a law presides;” as
applied: the Mosaic law.— Dia; novmou
, by law , that is to say, by the
application of a positive code (the
Mosaic code). We must beware of
regarding the difference between the
two verbs: ajpolou'ntai , shall perish ,
and kriqhvsontai , shall be judged ,
as accidental (Meyer). The very thing
the apostle wishes is by this
antithesis to emphasize the idea that the
Jews alone shall be, strictly
speaking, subjected to a judgment, a detailed
inquiry, such as arises from applying
the particular articles of a code. The
Gentiles shall perish simply in
consequence of their moral corruption; as,
for example, ruin overtakes the soul
of the vicious, the drunken, or the
impure, under the deleterious action
of their vice. The rigorous application
of the principle of divine
impartiality thus brings the apostle to this strange
conclusion: the Jews, far from being
exempted from judgment by their
possession of the law, shall, on the
contrary, be the only people judged (in
the strict sense of the word). It was
the antipodes of their claim, and we
here see how the pitiless logic of the
apostle brings things to such a point,
that not only is the thesis of his
adversary refuted, but its opposite is
demonstrated to be the only true
one.—Thus all who shall be found in the
day of judgment to have sinned shall
perish, each in his providential
place, a result which establishes the
divine impartiality.
It is evident that in the two
propositions of this verse there is the idea
understood: unless the amnesty offered
by the gospel has been accepted,
and has produced its proper fruits,
the fruits of holiness (in which case the
word h{marton , sinned , would cease
to be the summing up and last word
of the earthly life).—And why cannot
the possession of the law preserve
the Jews from condemnation, as they
imagine? The explanation is given
in ver. 13, and the demonstration in
vv. 14-
16.
Ver. 13. “ For not the hearers of the
law are just before God; but the doers
of the law, they shall be justified. ”
— Why hearers rather than possessors
or readers? To describe the position
of the Jews who heard the reading of
the law in the synagogue every
Sabbath, and who for the most part knew
it only in this way (Luke 4:16 et
seq.; Acts 13:15, 15:21).— Before God ,
says Paul; for before men it was
otherwise, the Jews ascribing
righteousness to one another on
account of their common possession of
the law. If such a claim were well
founded, the impartiality of God would
be destroyed, for the fact of knowing
the law is a hereditary advantage,
and not the fruit of moral action. The
judicial force of the term dikaiwqh'nai ,
to be justified , in Paul's writings,
comes out forcibly in this passage, since
in the day of judgment no one is made
righteous morally speaking, and
can only be recognized and declared
such. This declarative sense
appears likewise in the use of the
preposition parav ( before God), which
necessarily refers to an act of God as
judge (see on 1:17). The article tou'
before novmou , law , in the two
propositions, is found only in the Byz. Mjj.;
it ought to be expunged: the hearers ,
the doers of a law. No doubt it is the
Mosaic law which is referred to, but
as law, and not as Mosaic. Some
think that this idea of justification
by the fulfilment of the law is enunciated
here in a purely hypothetical manner,
and can never be realized (3:19,
20). Paul, it is said, is indicating
the abstract standard of judgment, which,
in consequence of man's sin,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
will never admit of rigorous
application. But how in this case explain the
future “ shall be justified”? Comp.
also the phrase of ver. 27:
“uncircumcision when it fulfils the
law,” words which certainly refer to
concrete cases, and the passage 8:4,
in which the apostle asserts that the
dikaivwma tou' novmou , what the law
declares righteous, is fulfilled in the
believer's life. It will certainly,
therefore, be required of us that we be
righteous in the day of judgment if
God is to recognize and declare us to
be such; imputed righteousness is the
beginning of the work of salvation,
the means of entrance into the state
of grace. But this initial justification,
by restoring communion between God and
man, should guide the latter to
the actual possession of
righteousness—that is to say, to the fulfilment of
the law; otherwise, this first
justification would not stand in the judgment
(see on ver. 6). And hence it is in
keeping with Paul's views, whatever
may be said by an antinomian and
unsound tendency, to distinguish two
justifications, the one initial,
founded exclusively on faith, the other final,
founded on faith and its fruits.
Divine imputation beforehand, in order to be
true, must necessarily become
true—that is to say, be converted into the
recognition of a real righteousness.
But if the maxim of ver. 13 is the rule
of the divine judgment, this rule
threatens again to overturn the principle of
divine impartiality; for how can the
Gentiles fulfil the law which they do not
possess? Vv.14 and 15 contain the
answer to this objection.
Vv. 14, 15. “ For when Gentiles, which
have not the law, do by nature the
things which the law prescribes,
these, having not the law, are their own
law unto themselves: for they show
thereby the work of the law written in
their hearts, their conscience also
bearing witness to it, and their thoughts
accusing or else excusing them one
with another. ”—There are four
principal ways of connecting ver. 14
with what precedes.
1. Calvin goes back to ver. 12a: “The
Gentiles will perish justly , though
they have not the law (ver. 12); for
they have a law in their hearts which
they knowingly violate” (ver. 14). The
explanations of Neander, de Wette,
Hodge, etc. are to the same effect.
But the number of important
intermediate propositions and ideas
intervening between this and ver. 12a
renders it unnatural to connect the “
for ” of ver. 14 with this declaration.
Besides, was it necessary to prove to
the Jews the righteousness of the
punishment which would be inflicted on
the Gentiles!
2. Meyer connects the for with the
immediately preceding proposition,
13b: “It is only doers of the law who
can be justified, for this rule can be
applied even to the Gentiles, since
they too have a law engraved on their
hearts.” The connection is simple and
logical. But can the apostle really
mean to say that a Gentile can obtain
justification by observing the law of
nature? That is impossible. We should
require in that case to revert to the
purely abstract explanation of ver.
13b, to regard it as a hypothetical
maxim, and consequently to take vv.
14, 15 as an abstract proof of an
impracticable maxim. These are too
many abstractions.
3. Tholuck, Lange, Schaff likewise
join the for with 13b; but they hold at
the same time that this for will be
veritably realized: “The doers of the law
shall be justified, for God will
graciously take account of the relative
observance of the law rendered by the
Gentiles” (here might be compared
Matt. 25:40, 10:41, 42); so Tholuck.
Or: “Those Gentiles, partial doers of
the law, will certainly come one day
to the faith of the gospel, by which
they will be fully justified;” so
Lange, Schaff. But these are expedients; for
there is nothing in the text to
countenance such ideas. In ver. 15, Paul
takes pains to prove that the Gentiles
have the law, but not that they
observe it; and about faith in the
gospel there is not a word. This could not
possibly be the case if the thought
were an essential link in the argument.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
4. The real connection seems to me to
have been explained by Philippi.
The for refers to the general idea of
ver. 13: “It is not having heard the
law, as the Jews think, but having
observed it, which will justify; for if the
hearing of it were enough, the Gentiles
also could claim this advantage,
since positive features in their moral
life testified to the existence of a law
engraved on their hearts, and the very
definite application of it which they
are able to make.” This connection
leaves nothing to be desired; and
Meyer's objection, that it is
necessary in this case to pass over 13b in
order to connect the for with 13a, is
false; for the idea of 13b is purely
restrictive: “The doers of the law
shall alone be justified,” while the real
affirmation is that of 13a: “Those who
had been only hearers shall not be
justified.” It is on this essential
idea of ver. 13 that the for of ver. 14
bears.— {Otan , when it happens that.
These are sporadic cases, happy
eventualities.—The word e[qnh ,
Gentiles , has no article: “people
belonging to the category of the
Gentiles.”—The logical relation included
in the subjective negative mhv is that
which we should express by: “
without having the law,” or: “ though
they have it not.”— Ta; tou' novmou ,
literally: the things which are of the
law , agreeable to its prescriptions.
They do not observe the precept as
such, for they have it not; but they
fulfil its contents; for example,
Neoptolemus in Philoctetes, when he
refuses to save Greece at the expense
of a lie; or Antigone, when she
does not hesitate to violate the
temporary law of the city to fulfil the eternal
law of fraternal love; or Socrates,
when he rejects the opportunity of
saving his life by escaping from
prison, in order to remain subject to the
magistrates. Sophocles himself speaks
of these eternal laws ( oiJ ajei;
novmoi ), and contrasts this internal
and divine legislation with the everchanging
laws of man.— Fuvsei , by nature ,
spontaneously, by an innate
moral instinct. This dative cannot be
joined with the preceding participle (
e[conta ); it qualifies the verb
poih'/ , do; the whole force of the thought is in
this idea: do instinctively what the
Jew does in obedience to precepts. The
readings poiw'sin and poiou'sin may be
corrections of poih'/ with the view of
conforming the verb to the following
pronoun ou|toi ; the Byz. reading poih'/
may also, however, be a correction to
make the verb agree with the rule of
neuter plurals. In this case the
plural of the verb is preferable, since Paul
is speaking not of the Gentiles en
masse , but of certain individuals among
them. Hence also the following ou|toi
, these Gentiles. This pronoun
includes and repeats all the
qualifications which have just been mentioned
in the first part of the verse; comp.
the ou|to" , John 1:2.—The logical
relation of the participle mh;
e[conte" , “ not having law ,” and of the verb
eijsivn , “ are law ,” should be
expressed by for; not having law, they
therefore serve as a law to
themselves. The negative mhv , placed above
before the participle and the object (
to;n novmon ), is here placed between
the two. This separation is intended
to throw the object into relief:
“ This law ( to;n novmon ), for the
very reason that they have it not ( mh;
e[conte" ), they prove that they
have it in another way.” This delicate form
of style shows with what painstaking
care Paul composed. But so fine a
shade can hardly be felt except in the
original language. The phrase: to be
a law to oneself , is explained in
ver. 15.
The descriptive pronoun oi{tine"
, “as people who,” is meant to introduce
this explanation; it is in consequence
of what is about to follow that Paul
can affirm what he has just said of
them, ver. 14. The relation of the verb
ejndeivknuntai , show , and its object
e[rgon , the work of the law, may be
thus paraphrased: “show the work of
the law ( as being ) written;” which
would amount to: prove that it is
written. But it is not even necessary to
assume an ellipsis ( wJ" o[n ).
What the Gentile shows in such cases is the
law itself written (as to its
contents) within his heart. Paul calls these
contents the work of the law , because
all the law commanded was meant
to become
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
work; and he qualifies novmou by the
article ( the law), because he wishes
to establish the identity of the
Gentile's moral instinct with the contents of
the Mosaic law strictly so called. But
this phrase: the work of the law ,
does not merely designate, like that
of ver. 14, ta; tou' novmou ( the things
agreeable to the law ), certain
isolated acts. It embraces the whole
contents of the law; for ver. 15 does
not refer to the accidental fulfilment of
some good actions; it denotes the
totality of the moral law written in the
heart. The figure of a written law is
evidently borrowed from the Sinaitic
law graven on the tables of stone. The
heart is always in Scripture the
source of the instinctive feelings
from which those impulses go forth which
govern the exercise of the
understanding and will. It is in this form of lofty
inspiration that the law of nature
makes its appearance in man. The plural:
their heart , makes each individual
the seat of this sublime legislation. The
last propositions of the verse have
embarrassed commentators not a little.
They have not sufficiently taken
account of the starting- point of this whole
argument. St. Paul, according to the
connection of ver. 14 with ver. 13,
does not wish merely to prove that the
Gentile possesses the law; he
means to demonstrate that he hears it,
just as the Jew heard it at Sinai, or
still hears it every Sabbath in the
synagogue ( ajkroathv" , hearer of the
law, ver. 13a). And to this idea the
appendix refers which closes ver. 15.
That the Gentile has the law (is a law
to himself), is already demonstrated.
But does he hear this law distinctly?
Does he give account of it to himself?
If it were not so, he would certainly
remain inferior to the Jew, who brings
so much sagacity to bear on the
discussion of the sense and various
applications of the legal statute. But
no; the Gentile is quite as clever as
the Jew in this respect. He also
discusses the data of the moral instinct
which serves as his guide. His
conscience joins its approving testimony
afterhand to that of the moral
instinct which has dictated a good action;
pleaders make themselves heard within,
for and against, before this
tribunal of conscience, and these
discussions are worth all the subtleties
of Rabbinical casuistry.—
Suneivdhsi" , the conscience (from suneidevnai ,
to know with or within oneself). This
word, frequently used in the New
Testament, denotes the understanding
(the nou'" , for it is a knowing ,
eijdevnai , which is in question),
applied to the distinction of good and evil,
as reason (the diavnoia ) is the same
nou'" applied to the discernment of
truth and falsehood. It is precisely
because this word denotes an act of
knowledge that it describes a new fact
different from that of the moral
instinct described above. What natural
impulse dictated without reflection,
conscience, studying it afterward,
recognizes as a good thing. Thus is
explained the suvn , with , in the
compound verb summarturei'n , to bear
witness with another. Conscience joins
its testimony to that of the heart
which dictated the virtuous action by
commending it, and proves thereby,
as a second witness, the existence of
the moral law in the Gentile.
Volkmar: “Their conscience bears
testimony besides the moral act itself
which already demonstrated the
presence of the divine law.” Most really,
therefore, the Gentile has a law—law
not only published and written , but
heard and understood. It seems to me
that in the way in which the apostle
expresses this assent of the conscience
to the law implanted within, it is
impossible not to see an allusion to
the amen uttered aloud by the people
after hearing the law of Sinai, and
which was repeated in every meeting of
the synagogue after the reading of the
law.—But there is not only hearing
, there is even judging. The Rabbins
debated in opposite senses every
kind of acts, real or imaginary. The
apostle follows up the comparison to
the end. The soul of the Gentile is
also an arena of discussions. The
logismoiv denote the judgments of a
moral nature which are passed by the
Gentiles on their own acts, either (as
is most usually the case)
acknowledging them guilty (
kathgorei'n , accusing ), or also sometimes
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
(such is the meaning of h] kaiv ;
comp. ver. 14: when it happens that ...)
pronouncing them innocent. Most
commonly the voice within says: That
was bad! Sometimes also this voice
becomes that of defence, and says:
No, it was good! Thus, before this
inner code, the different thoughts
accuse or justify, make replies and
rejoinders, exactly as advocates
before a seat of judgment handle the
text of the law. And all this forensic
debating proves to a demonstration not
only that the code is there, but
that it is read and understood, since
its application is thus
discussed.—The metaxu; ajllhvlwn ,
between them ( among themselves ).
Some, like Meyer, join this pronoun
with aujtw'n , the Gentiles; he would
refer it to the debates carried on
between Gentiles and Gentiles as to the
moral worth of an action. But it is
grammatically more natural, and suits
the context better, to connect the
pronoun between themselves with
logismw'n , judgments. For this
internal scene of discussion proves still
more clearly than a debate of man with
man the fact of the law written in
the heart. Holsten proposes to
understand the participle summarturouvntwn
(borrowed from summarturouvsh" )
with logismw'n : “their conscience
bearing witness, and the judgments
which they pass on one another's
acts in their mutual relations also
bearing witness.” This construction is
very forced, and it seems plain to us
that the two participles accusing or
else excusing refer to the thoughts ,
just as the participle bearing witness
referred to their conscience.
How can one help admiring here, on the
one hand, the subtle analysis
whereby the apostle discloses in the
Gentile heart a real judgment-hall
where witnesses are heard for and
against, then the sentence of the
judge; and, on the other hand, that
largeness of heart with which, after
drawing so revolting a picture of the
moral deformities of Gentile life
(chap. 1), he brings into view in as
striking a way the indestructible moral
elements, the evidences of which are
sometimes irresistibly presented
even by this so deeply sunken life?
Ver. 16. “ In the day when God shall
judge the hidden things of men by
Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
”—In this final proposition there is
expressed and summed up the idea of
the whole preceding passage
(from ver. 6), that of the final
judgment. But what is the grammatical and
logical connection of this dependent
proposition? It would seem natural to
connect it with what immediately
precedes (ver. 15), as Calvin does:
“Their inward thoughts condemn or
approve them in the day when”...for:
“till the day when”...But this sense
would have required e{w" th'" hJmevra" .
Tholuck and Philippi employ another
expedient; they understand: “and
that especially in the day when”...;
or: “and that more completely still in the
day when”...Others: “ as will be seen
clearly in the day when”...But if Paul
had meant to say all that, he would
have said it. Hofmann and Lange, also
connecting this proposition with ver.
15 (Hofmann especially with
ejndeivknuntai , manifest ), regard
the judgment of ver. 16 as being only the
internal and purely moral judgment
which is produced in the human
conscience every time the gospel is
preached to man. They read krivnei ,
judges , and not krinei' , will judge.
The phrase: in the day when , would
therefore denote, not the last
judgment, but every day that a man hears
the gospel for the first time. There
is a context in which this explanation
would be possible; but here, where the
dominant idea from ver. 6 has
been the final judgment, it is
inadmissible. Besides, the phrase: by Jesus
Christ , is not exactly suitable to
any but the last judgment; comp. the
words, Acts 10:42, 17:31; Matt. 25:31
et seq.; and especially the very
similar phrases in 1 Cor. 4:5.
Moreover, ver. 29 can leave no doubt as to
the apostle's meaning. The only
tolerable explanation, if it were wished to
connect ver. 16 with ver. 15, would be
to take the verbs of ver. 15 as
expressing the permanent present of
the idea: “The manifestation of the
presence of the law,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
written within their hearts, takes
place , for: will certainly take place , in the
day when”...; but this meaning of the
verbs in the present in ver. 15 could
not be guessed till after reading ver.
16. The time of the manifestation
would have required to be indicated
immediately to prevent a
misunderstanding. The only natural
connection of the words: in the day
when, is to join them to the end of
ver. 13: “The doers of the law shall be
justified... in the day when ”...No
doubt vv. 14, 15 thus become a sort of
parenthesis. But, notwithstanding,
Paul has not deviated for a moment
from his principal thought. These two
verses contained an explanatory
remark, such as we nowadays would put
in a note; it was intended to
show that the Gentiles also would be
entitled to believe themselves
justified, if all that was necessary
for this end were to possess and hear a
law without doing it. This false idea
set aside, Paul resumes the thread of
his discourse at ver. 16. To explain
this verse, there is clearly no need of
the two expedients proposed, the one
by Ewald, to join it with ver. 4, the
other by Laurent, to regard it as an
interpolation.—The phrase: hidden
things , is to be explained only by
the understood contrast to external
works, legal or ceremonial, in which
the Jews put their confidence. None
of those fine externals of piety or
morality will deceive the eye of God in
that day of truth. He will demand
holiness of heart; comp. the expression,
ver. 29; oJ ejn tw'/ kruptw'/
jIoudai'o" , the Jew who is one inwardly , and:
the circumcision of the heart; comp.
also, in the Sermon on the Mount,
Matt. 5:20-48, and 6:1-18. This idea
was indispensable to complete what
had been said of judgment according to
deeds. —The word men sets the
whole body of the judged face to face
with the Judge, and reminds the
Jews that they also will be there, and
will form no exception.—At the first
glance the phrase: according to my
gospel , is surprising, for the
expectation of the final judgment by
Jesus Christ belongs to the apostolic
teaching in general, and not to Paul's
gospel in particular. Nevertheless, it
is this apostle who, in consequence of
his personal experience, and of the
revelation which had been made to him,
has brought out most powerfully
the contrast between the e[rga novmou
, legal and purely external works ,
wanting the truly moral principle of
love and good works, the fruits of faith
working by love (Eph. 2:9, 10; Gal.
5:6). This antithesis was one of the
foundations of Paul's preaching.—The
last words: by Jesus Christ , recall
all the sayings in which Jesus
announced His advent as judge. If it is
really He who is to preside in the
great act of final judgment, it is plain
that, being such as He has made
Himself known to us, He will not be
satisfied with a parade of external
righteousness, and that He will demand
a holiness like that which He realized
Himself, which, taking its origin in
consecration of heart, extends over
the whole life.
The second part of the chapter, vv.
17-29, contains the application of the
principles laid down in the first.
After expressing himself in a general and
more or less abstract way, Paul
addresses himself directly to the person
whom he had in view from ver. 1, and
finally designates him by name. Yet
he still proceeds with the utmost
caution; for he knows that he is giving a
shock to inveterate prejudices,
prejudices which he long shared himself.
The way is slowly paved for the
conclusion which he wishes to reach;
hence the length of the following
sentence, which contains as it were the
preamble of the judgment to be
pronounced.
Vv. 17-20. “ Now if thou who art
called a Jew, and restest in the law, and
makest thy boast of God, and knowest
His will, and canst discern the
things that differ, being instructed
out of the law; and esteemest thyself to
be the guide of the blind, the light
of them which are in darkness, the
instructor of the foolish, the teacher
of babes, because thou hast the
formula of knowledge and of the truth
in the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
law ”...—Instead of iJdev , behold ,
which the T. R. reads, with a single Mj.,
we must certainly read eij dev , now
if; this is the natural form of transition
from principles to their application;
the other reading seems to be a
consequence of itacism (pronouncing ei
as i ).—Where are we to find the
principal clause to which this now if
is subordinate? Some, Winer for
example, think that the same
construction continues as far as the
beginning of ver. 21, where it is
abandoned on account of the length of the
sentence, and where an entirely new
proposition begins. But we must at
least meet again somewhere in the
sequel with the idea which was in the
apostle's mind when he began with the
words now if. Meyer regards ver.
21 itself as the principal clause; he
understands the ou\n , therefore , as a
particle of recapitulation. But, in an
argument like this ( now if , ver. 17),
this meaning of therefore is
unnatural. It is better than, with Hofmann, to
hold that the series of propositions
dependent on now if is prolonged to
the end of ver. 24, where the
principal proposition resulting from all these
considerations is understood as a
self- evident consequence: what good
in this case (that of such sins , vv.
21-24) will accrue to thee from all those
advantages (vv. 17-20)? It is to this
understood conclusion, which we
would replace with lacuna-points
(...), that the for of ver. 25 very naturally
refers. By this figure of rhetoric
(aposiopesis) the apostle dispenses with
expressing a conclusion himself, which
must spring spontaneously from
the conscience of every reader.
The propositions dependent on “ now if
,” taken together, embrace two
series of four verses each; the one,
that from vv. 17-20, is intended to
enumerate all the advantages of which
the Jew boasts; the other, from vv.
21-24, contrasts the iniquities of his
conduct with those advantages.
The advantages are distributed into
three categories. 1. The gifts of God,
ver.
17. 2. The superior capabilities which
these gifts confer on the Jew, ver.
18. 3. The part which he somewhat
pretentiously thinks himself thereby
called to play toward other nations,
vv. 19, 20. There is something slightly
ironical in this accumulation of
titles on which the Jew bases the
satisfaction which he feels as he
surveys himself.
Ver. 17. The name Jew ,
jIoudai'o" , is probably not used without allusion
to its etymological meaning: Jehoudah,
the praised one. The preposition
ejpiv , which enters into the
composition of the verb, converts this name
into a real title. But Israel
possesses more than a glorious name; it has in
its hands a real gift: the law. Here
is a manifest sign of the divine favor on
which it may consequently rest.
Finally, this token of special favor makes
God its God, to the exclusion of all
other nations. It has therefore whereof
to glory in God. To the gradation of
the three substantives: Jew, law, God ,
that of the three verbs perfectly
corresponds: to call oneself, to rest, to
glory.
Hence there result (ver. 18) two
capabilities which distinguished the Jew
from every other man. He knows God's
will, and so succeeds in
discerning what to others is confused.
One is always entitled to be proud
of knowing; but when that knowing is
of the will , that is to say, the
absolute and perfect will which
ordains all, and judges of all sovereignly,
such a knowledge is an incomparable
advantage. By this knowledge of
the divine will the Jew can discern
and appreciate ( dokimavzein ) the most
delicate shades of the moral life— Ta;
diafevronta might signify the things
that are better ( meliora probare ),
from the meaning of surpass , which is
often that of the verb diafevrein .
But here it is better to translate: the things
that differ (from the sense of
differing , which is also that of diafevrein ); for
the apostle seems to be alluding to
those discussions of legal casuistry in
which the Jewish schools excelled, as
when the two eminent doctors Hillel
and Schammai gravely debated the question,
whether
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
it was lawful to eat an egg laid by a
hen on the Sabbath day.—The last
words of the verse: instructed out of
the law , indicate the source of that
higher faculty of appreciation. The term
kathcouvmeno" , from kathcei'dqai ,
to be penetrated by a sound , makes
each Jew law personified.
From this knowledge and faculty of
appreciation flows the part which the
Jew claims in regard to other men, and
which is described in vv. 19, 20
with a slight touch of ridicule. The
first four terms set forth the moral
treatment to which the Jew, as the
born physician of mankind, subjects his
patients, the Gentiles, to their
complete cure. The term pevpoiqa" , thou art
confident , describes his pretentious
assurance. And first, he takes the
poor Gentile by the hand as one does a
blind man , offering to guide him;
then he opens his eyes, dissipating
his darkness by the light of revelation;
then he rears him, as one would bring
up a being yet without reason;
finally, when through all this care he
has come to the stage of the little
child , nhvpio" ( who cannot
speak; this was the term used by the Jews to
designate proselytes; see Tholuck), he
initiates him into the full knowledge
of the truth, by becoming his teacher.
—The end of the verse serves to
explain the reason of this ministry to
the Gentile world which the Jew
exercises. He possesses in the law the
precise sketch ( movrfwsi" ), the
exact outline, the rigorous formula of
the knowledge of things which men
should have (the idea which every one
should form of them), and of the
truth , that is to say, the moral
reality or substance of goodness.
Knowledge is the subjective possession
of truth in itself. The Jew
possesses in the law not only the
truth itself, but its exact formula besides,
by means of which he can convey this
truth to others. We need not then,
with Oltramare, make these last words
an appendix, intended to
disparage the teaching of the Jew:
“though thou hast but the shadow of
knowledge.” The drift of the passage
demands the opposite sense: “as
possessing the truth in its precise
formula.”
Vv. 21-24. “ And if, then, thou who
teachest another, teachest not thyself,
if preaching a man should not steal,
thou stealest, if, while saying a man
should not commit adultery, thou
committest adultery, if, abhorring idols,
thou robbest temples, if thou that
makest thy boast of the law, dishonorest
God through breaking the law; for the
name of God is blasphemed among
the Gentiles because of you, as it is
written ”...—On the one side, then,
the Jews are proud of the possession
of their law; but, on the other, how
do they put it in practice? it is to
set forth this contradiction that the second
series of propositions is devoted, vv.
21-24. The ou\n , then , ironically
contrasts the real practical fruit
produced in the Jews by their knowledge
of the law, and that which such an
advantage should have produced. The
term teach includes all the honorable
functions toward the rest of the
world which the Jew has just been
arrogating. JO didavskwn : Thou, the so
great teacher!—The apostle chooses two
examples in the second table of
the law, theft and adultery: and two
in the first, sacrilege and dishonor
done to God. Theft comprehends all the
injustices and deceptions which
the Jews allowed themselves in
commercial affairs. Adultery is a crime
which the Talmud brings home to the
three most illustrious Rabbins,
Akiba, Mehir, and Eleazar. Sensuality
is one of the prominent features of
the Semitic character. The pillage of
sacred objects cannot refer to
anything connected with the worship
celebrated at Jerusalem; such, for
example, as refusal to pay the temple
tribute, or the offering of maimed
victims. The subject of the
proposition: thou who abhorrest idols , proves
clearly that the apostle has in view
the pillage of idol temples. The
meaning is: “Thy horror of idolatry
does not go the length of preventing
thee from hailing as a good prize the
precious objects which have been
used in idolatrous worship, when thou
canst make them thine own.” The
Jews probably did not pillage
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the Gentile temples themselves; but
they filled the place of receivers;
comp. besides, Acts 19:37. The
dishonor done to God arises from their
greed of gain, their deceits and
hypocrisy, which were thoroughly known
to the Gentile populations among whom
they lived. Paul weaves the
prophetic rebuke into the tissue of
his own language, but by the as it is
written he reminds his readers that he
is borrowing it from the inspired
Scriptures. His allusion is to Isa.
52:5 (which resembles our verse more in
the letter than the sense), and to
Ezek. 36:18-24 (which resembles it more
in the sense than in the letter).
We have regarded the whole passage,
vv. 17-24, as dependent on the
conjunction eij dev , now if , ver.
17: “Now if thou callest thyself...(vv. 17-
20); and if teaching so and so,
thou...(vv. 21-24).” Thereafter, the principal
clause is easily expressed as a
proposition to be understood between vv.
24, 25: “What advantage will this law
be to thee, of which thou makest thy
boast before others, and which thou
dost violate thyself with such
effrontery?” For, in fine, according
to the principle laid down, ver. 13, it is
not those who know the law, but those
who do it, who shall be
pronounced righteous by the judgment
of God. The idea understood,
which we have just expressed, is that
to which the for of ver. 25 refers:
“For it is wholly in vain for thee, if
thou art disobedient, to reckon on
circumcision to exculpate thee. A
disobedient Jew is no better before God
than a Gentile, and an obedient
Gentile becomes in God's sight a true
Jew.” Such is the meaning of the
following passage,
vv. 25-29.
Vv. 25-27. “ For circumcision verily
profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if
thou be a breaker of the law, thy
circumcision is made uncircumcision. If
then the uncircumcised keep the
ordinances of the law, shall not his
uncircumcision be counted for
circumcision? And shall not he who, though
uncircumcised by nature, fulfils the
law, judge thee, who in full possession
of the letter and circumcision, dost
transgress the law? ”—Paul knocks
from under the Jew the support which
he thought he had in his theocratic
position, with its sign circumcision.
We have seen it; the adage of the
rabbins was: “All the circumcised have
part in the world to come,” as if it
were really enough to be a Jew to be
assured of salvation. Now,
circumcision had been given to Israel
as a consecration to circumcision of
heart , an engagement to holiness, and
not as a shelter from judgment in
favor of disobedience and pollution.
Taken then in this sense, and
according to the mind of God, it had
its use; but employed in the
Rabbinical sense, it formed only an
external wall of separation requiring to
be overturned. The prophets never
ceased to work in this direction; comp.
Isa. 1:10-15 and 66:1 et seq.— Gevgone
, strictly: “ has become, and
remains henceforth uncircumcision,” in
the eyes of God the righteous
judge.
Vv. 26, 27 describe the opposite case:
the transformation of the obedient
Gentile into a Jew, according to the
judgment of God. This transformation,
being the logical consequence of the
preceding, is connected by ou|n ,
then , with ver. 25.—The apostle is
not now speaking, as in vv. 14, 15, of
a simple sporadic observance of legal
duties. The phrase is more solemn:
keeping the just ordinances of the law
( dikaivwma , all that the law
declares righteous ). In 8:4, the apostle uses
a similar expression to denote the
observance of the law by the Christian
filled with the Holy Spirit. How can
he here ascribe such an obedience to a
Gentile? Philippi thinks he has in
view those many proselytes whom
Judaism was making at this time among
the Gentiles. Meyer and others
seek to reduce the meaning of the
phrase to that of ver. 14. This second
explanation is impossible, as we have
just seen; and that of Philippi falls
to the ground before the preceding
expressions of the apostle, which
certainly contain more than can be
expected of a proselyte ( keep, fulfil
the law,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
fulavssein, telei'n to;n novmon , vv.
26, 27). The comparison of 8:4 shows
the apostle's meaning. He refers to
those many Gentiles converted to the
gospel who, all uncircumcised as they
are, nevertheless fulfil the law in
virtue of the spirit of Christ, and
thus become the true Israel, the Israel of
God , Gal. 6:16. Paul expresses
himself in abstract terms, because here
he has to do only with the principle,
and not with the means by which it is
realized; compare what we have said on
vv. 7, 10. The future logisqhvsetai
, will be counted , transports us to
the hour of judgment, when God, in
order to declare a man righteous, will
demand that he be so in reality.
We might begin ver. 27 as an
affirmative proposition: and so He will judge
thee. But perhaps it is more in
keeping with the lively tone of the piece to
continue in ver. 27 the interrogation
of ver. 26, as we have done in our
translation: “And so (in virtue of
this imputation) will not He judge thee”...?
The thought is analogous to Luke
11:31, 32, and Matt. 12:41, 42, though
the case is different. For there it is
Gentiles who condemn the Jews by the
example of their repentance and their
love of truth; here, it is the case of
Christians of Gentile origin
condemning the Jews by their fulfilment of the
law.—Ostervald and Oltramare
substitute for judge , used by the apostle,
the term condemn. This is wrong; for the
claim of the Jews is to escape,
not only from condemnation, but from
judgment; and it is bitter for them to
hear, not only that they shall be
judged like the Gentiles, but that they
shall be judged by
them.— To;n novmon telei'n , to fulfil
the law , is a phrase expressing real
and persevering fulfilment. The love
which the gospel puts into the
believer's heart is in fact the
fulfilment of the law , Rom. 13:10.—The
preposition diav , strictly ( across
the length of ): through , here denotes,
as it often does, the state , the
circumstances in which an act is
accomplished; comp. 2 Cor. 2:4; 1 Tim.
2:15; Heb. 2:15. So: “in full
possession of the letter and
circumcision.”
This double transformation of the
disobedient Jew into a Gentile, and of
the obedient Gentile into a Jew, in
the judgment of God, is explained and
justified by vv. 28 and 29.
Vv. 28, 29. “ For he is not a Jew,
which is one outwardly, neither is that
circumcision, which is outward in the
flesh: but he is a Jew, which is one
inwardly, and circumcision is of the
heart, by the Spirit, and not by the
letter; its praise is not of men, but
of God. ”—The double principle laid
down here by Paul was the sum of
prophetic theology; comp. Lev. 26:41;
Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:14; Ezek. 44:9.
And hence it is that the apostle can
make it the basis of his argument.
ver. 28 justifies the degradation of the
Jew to the state of a Gentile,
proclaimed in ver. 25; and ver. 29 the
elevation of the Gentile to the rank
of a Jew, proclaimed in vv. 26 and 27.
The two words which justify this
double transformation are ejn tw'/ kruptw'/
, in secret, inwardly , and
kardiva", ejn pneuvmati , of the heart, by the spirit.
For if there is a principle to be
derived from the whole of the Old
Testament, it is that God has regard
to the heart (1 Sam. 16:7). Paul
himself referred in ver. 16 to the
fact that in the day of judgment by Jesus
Christ, it would be the hidden things
of men which would form the
essential ground of His sentence.
There is only one way of explaining
naturally the grammatical construction
of these two verses. In ver. 28, we
must borrow the two subjects
jIoudai'o" and peritomhv from the predicate;
and in ver. 29, the two predicates
jIoudai'ov" ( ejsti ) and peritomhv ( ejsti )
from the subject.—The complement
kardiva" , of the heart , is the gen.
object.: the circumcision which
cleanses the heart; the clause ejn
pneuvmati , in spirit , denotes the
means: by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is
the superior force which, by
transforming the feelings of the heart,
produces true inward purification. The
letter , on the contrary, is an
outward rule which does not change
either the heart or the will; comp. 7:6.
Meyer thinks we
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
should take ou| , of which , as a
neuter, referring to Judaism in general.
But to what purpose would it be to say
that the praise of Judaism comes
not from men, but from God? That was
sufficiently obvious of itself, since
it was God who had established it, and
all the nations detested it; we must
therefore connect this pronoun with
the Jew which precedes, and even
with the feminine term circumcision ,
which is used throughout this whole
piece for the person circumcised. —The
word praise is again an allusion
to the etymological meaning of the
word jIoudai'o" , Jew (see on ver. 17);
comp. Gen. 49:8. God, who reads the
heart, is alone able to allot with
certainty the title Jew in the true
sense of the word—that is to say, one
praised. The idea of praise coming
from God is opposed to all that Jewish
vainglory which is detailed vv.
17-20.—What a remarkable parallelism is
there between this whole passage and
the declaration of Jesus, Matt.
8:11, 12: “Many shall come from the
east and from the west, and shall sit
down in the kingdom of heaven,”
etc....And yet there is nothing to
indicate imitation on Paul's part. The
same truth creates an original form
for itself in the two cases.
Yet the apostle anticipates an
objection to the truth which he has just
developed. If the sinful Jew finds
himself in the same situation in regard to
the wrath of God as the sinful
Gentile, what remains of the prerogative
which divine election seemed to assure
to him? Before going further, and
drawing the general conclusion
following from the two preceding
passages, 1:18-32 and 2:1-29, Paul
feels the need of obviating this
objection; and such is the aim of the
following passage.
Sixth Passage (3:1-8). Jewish
Prerogative does not imply Exemption
from Judgment.
The order of thought in this piece,
one of the most difficult, perhaps, in the
Epistle, is as follows:
1. If the Jew is judged absolutely, as
the Gentiles are, what advantage
has he over them? Answer: The
possession of the divine oracles (vv. 1,
2).
2. But if this possession has not
realized the end which it was intended to
serve (the faith of Israel in the
Messiah), is not the faithfulness of God
toward this people annulled? Answer:
By no means; it will rather be
glorified thereby (vv. 3, 4).
3. But if God makes use of human sin
to glorify Himself, how can He yet
make sinners the objects of His wrath?
Answer: If the advantage which
God derives from the sin of man
prevented Him from punishing sinners,
the final judgment would become
impossible (vv. 5-8).
It is obvious that the reasoning is
consecutive, even very compact, and
that there is no need of expressly
introducing an opponent, as many
commentators have done. Paul does not
here make use of the formula:
But some one will say. The objections
arise of themselves from the
affirmations, and Paul puts them in a
manner to his own account.
Vv. 1, 2. “ What then is the advantage
of the Jew? or what is the profit of
circumcision? Much every way: foremost
, in that unto them were
committed the oracles of God. ”—It was
a thing generally granted that the
elect people must have an advantage
over the Gentiles; hence the article
tov , the , before the word advantage.
The Greek term perissovn literally
denotes what the Jews have more than
others. If they are judged in the
same category as these, as the apostle
in chap. 2, and particularly in vv.
25-29, had just shown, what have they
then more than they? The ou|n ,
then , precisely expresses this
relation. One might infer from what
precedes that every advantage of the
Jew was denied.—The second
question
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
bears on the material symbol of
Israel's election: circumcision. “Will the
people whom God has elected and marked
with the seal of this election
be treated exactly like the rest of
the world?” This objection is of the same
nature as that which would be made in
our day by a nominal Christian, if,
when put face to face with God's
sentence, he were to ask what
advantage there accrues to him from
his creed and baptism, if they are
not to save him from condemnation?
Ver. 2. Though the advantage of the
Jew does not consist in exemption
from judgment, he has an advantage,
nevertheless, and it is very
great.—The adjective poluv , which we
have translated by much , properly
signifies numerous. As neuter, it is
connected with the subject of the first
proposition of ver. 1: the advantage;
the second question was in reality
only an appendix calculated to
strengthen the first.—By adding every way
, Paul means that the advantage is not
only considerable, but very varied,
“extending to all the relations of
life” (Morison).—Of these numerous and
varied advantages he quotes only one,
which seems to him, if one may so
speak, central. Commentators like
Tholuck, Philippi, Meyer, suppose that
when the apostle wrote the word
prw'ton , first , he purposed to enumerate
all the other advantages, but that he
was diverted from fully expressing his
thought. To exemplify this style there
are quoted, besides 1:8 et seq.,
which we have had already before us, 1
Cor. 6:12, 13, and 11:18 et seq.
But the apostle has too logical a
mind, and his writings bear the mark of
too earnest elaboration, to allow us
to admit such breaches of continuity in
their texture. In the view of a sound
exegesis, the passages quoted prove
absolutely nothing of the kind. Others
think that we may here give to first
the meaning of chiefly; but the Greek
has words for this idea. The
preceding words: every way , suggest
the translation; they signify: “I might
mention many things under this head;
but I shall confine myself to one
which is in the front rank.” This form
of expression, far from indicating that
he purposes to mention others, shows,
on the contrary, why he will not
mention them. They all flow from that
which he proceeds to indicate.
Neither has the particle mevn (from
mevnein , to remain ) its ordinary
counterpart ( dev ) in the sequel. It
therefore means: “Though this
advantage were the only one, it
nevertheless remains perfectly real.” The
gavr , for , is omitted by several
Mjj. of both families, and by the old Vss. If
it were kept, the o{ti which follows
would require to take the meaning of
because , which is unnatural.—It is
better, therefore, to reject it, and to
translate o{ti by in that. —This
advantage, which takes the lead of all the
others, so that after it, it is
useless to announce them also, is the dignity
granted to the Jews of being the
depositaries of the divine oracles. The
subject of ejpisteuvqhsan is oiJ
jIoudai'oi understood, according to a wellknown
Greek construction; comp. 1 Cor. 9:17.
The meaning of the verb in
the passive is strictly: “to be
esteemed faithful, so that men will confide to
you a deposit.”—The deposit here is
the divine oracles. The term lovgion ,
oracle , has a graver meaning than
lovgo" , word , of which it is not at all a
diminutive (Philippi); for it comes
from the adjective lovgio" , eloquent. It
always denotes even in the classics, a
divine saying; so Acts 7:38, the law
of Moses; Heb. 5:12, the gospel
revelation; 1 Pet. 4:11, the immediate
divine communications with which the
church was then favored. In our
passage, where the subject in question
is the privilege granted to the
Jews over the Gentiles, the word must
be taken as referring to the whole
Old Testament; but it is nevertheless
true that the apostle thinks specially
of the Messianic promises
(Volkmar).—If Paul had intended to set forth
the beneficial religious and moral
influence exercised by these divine
revelations on the national, domestic,
and individual life of the Israelites, it
is evident that he would have had a
multitude of things to say. But it is
equally clear that he would have been
thus
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
diverted from the object of this
discussion. And hence he confines himself
to establishing the point from which
all the rest flows. This is the first
phase of the discussion.—But an
objection immediately rises: Has not this
advantage, the possession of the
Messianic promises, been rendered
void by Israel's unbelief? Here begins
the second phase.
Vv. 3, 4. “ For what shall we say? If
some did not believe, shall their
unbelief make void the faithfulness of
God? Let it not be: yea, let God be
found true, and every man a liar; as
it is written: That Thou mightest be
justified in Thy sayings, and mightest
overcome when Thou comest into
judgment. ”—Here again Paul is not
introducing any opponent; the
objection which he states springs
logically from the fact he has just
affirmed.—It would be possible to put
the point of interrogation after the
word tinev" , some : “For what
are we to think, if some did not believe?”
But we think it preferable to put the
point after gavr , for: “For what is the
fact? ” and to connect the
proposition: “If some did not believe,” with the
following question (see the
translation). Paul likes these short questions in
the course of discussion: for what?
but what? fitted as they are to rouse
attention. If he here uses the
particle for instead of but , it is because he
wishes from the first to represent the
objection as no longer subsisting,
but already resolved.—What is the
unbelief of the Jews which the apostle
has here in view? According to some,
Philippi for example, it is their old
unbelief in respect of the ancient
revelation. But the aorist hjpivsthsan , did
not believe , refers to a particular
historical fact rather than a permanent
state of things, such as Jewish
unbelief had been under the old covenant.
Besides, the faithfulness of God
toward Israel, when formerly unbelieving
and disobedient, was a fact which
could not be called in question, since
God by sending them the Messiah had
nevertheless fulfilled all His
promises to them in a way so striking.
Finally, the future will it make void?
does not suit this sense; Paul would
rather have said: did it make void?
The subject in question, therefore, is
a positive fact, and one which has
just come to pass, and it is in
relation to the consequences of this fact that
the question of God's faithfulness arises.
What is this fact? We find it, with
the majority of commentators in
Israel's rejection of Jesus, its Messiah;
and we might even add: in the
persevering rejection of apostolic
preaching. The hostile attitude of
Israel in relation to the gospel was now a
decided matter.—The pronoun
tinev" , some , may seem rather weak to
denote the mass of the people who had
rejected the Messiah; but this
pronoun denotes a part of the whole
irrespectively of the proportion. In
chap. 11:17, the unbelieving Jews are
called “ some of the branches;” in
Heb. 3:16, the whole people, Caleb and
Joshua only excepted, are
described by this same pronoun; comp.
1 Cor. 10:7. The phrase of Plato
is also cited: tine;" kai;
polloiv ge . Morison rightly says: “Many are only
some, when they are not the
whole.”—Questions introduced by a mhv
always imply an answer more or less
negative; so it is in this case: “This
unbelief will not, however, make
void”...? Answer understood: “Certainly
not.” Hence the for at the beginning
of the verse, which referred to this
foreseen negative answer.—The verb
katargei'n , which we have translated
by make void , signifies literally: to
deprive of action , or efficacy; and the
phrase pivsti" tou' qeou' , in contrast
to ajpistiva , unbelief , can only
designate the faithfulness of God
Himself, in a manner His good faith.
This perfection consists in the
harmony between God's words and deeds,
or between His past acts and His
future conduct; it is his adherence to
order in the line of conduct followed
by Him. The question thus signifies:
“Can Jewish unbelief in regard to the
Messiah invalidate God's
faithfulness to His people?” The
question might be asked in this sense: “If
the Jews have not taken advantage of
the salvation which the Messiah
brought to them,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
will it follow that God has not really
granted them all He had promised?
Will any one be able to accuse Him of
having failed in His promises?” The
sense may also be: “Will He not remain
faithful to His word in the future,
even though after such an act on their
part He should reject them?” For, in
fine, His word does not contain
promises only, but threatenings; comp. 2
Tim. 2:13: “If we believe not, He
abideth faithful” (by punishing unbelief, as
He has said).—The first of these
meanings does not agree naturally with
the future katarghvsei , will make
void , which points us not to the past, but
to the future. The second might find
some countenance in ver. 4, where
the example of David's sin and
punishment is referred to, as well as in the
term righteousness (taken in the sense
of retributive justice) and in the
term wrath , ver. 5. Yet the very
severe meaning which in this case must
be given to the phrase God's
faithfulness , would not be sufficiently
indicated. We are led to another and
more natural meaning: “From the
fact that Israel has rejected the
Messianic salvation, does it follow that
God will not fulfil all his promises
to them in the future? By no means; His
faithfulness will find a means in the
very unbelief of His people of
magnifying itself.” The apostle has
before him the perspective, which he
will follow to its termination in chap.
11, that of the final salvation of the
Jews, after their partial and
temporary rejection shall have been
instrumental in the salvation of the
Gentiles.
The negative answer to this question,
as we have seen, was already
anticipated by the interrogative mhv .
When expressing it (ver. 4), the
apostle enhances the simple negative.
He exclaims: “ Let that not be (the
faithfulness of God made void)!” And
to this forcible negation he adds the
counter affirmation: “May the contrary
be what shall happen: truth, nothing
but truth, on God's side! All the
lying, if there is any, on man's
side!”—There is an antithesis between
mh; gevnoito , that be far removed
(the chalilah of the Hebrews), and the
ginevsqw dev , but let this come to
pass! The imperative givnesqw , may be
or it become , is usually
understood in the sense: “May God be
recognized as true”...! But the term
givnesqai , to become , refers more
naturally to the fact in itself than to the
recognition of it by man. The veracity
of God becomes , is revealed more
and more in history by the new effects
it produces. But this growing
realization of the true God runs
parallel with another realization, that of
human falsehood, which more and more
displays man's perversity.
Falsehood denotes in Scripture that
inward bad faith wherewith the
human heart resists known and
understood moral good. The apostle
seems to allude to the words of Ps.
116:11: “I said in my haste: All men
are liars.” Only what the Psalmist
uttered with a feeling of bitterness,
arising from painful personal
experiences, Paul affirms with a feeling of
composure and profound humiliation in
view of the sin of his people. He
says even all men and not only all
Israelites; all men rather than God. If
the principle of falsehood is realized
in history, let all that bears the name
of man be found capable of falseness,
rather than that a tittle of this
pollution should attach to the divine
character. For the idea of faithfulness
(ver. 3) there is substituted that of
veracity , as for the idea of unbelief that
of falsehood. In both cases the second
is wider than the first, and includes
it.—The conflict between the promises
of God and His veracity, raised by
the present fact of Israel's unbelief,
must issue in the glory of the divine
faithfulness. This necessary result is
expressed by the apostle by means
of a saying of David, uttered on the
occasion of one of his gravest
infidelities, Ps. 51:6: “ That
according as it is written ...” Alarm has been
taken at the that; it has been sought
to make it a simple so that (Osterv.,
Oltram.), as if what was spoken of
were an effect, not an end. The wish
was to avoid making David say he had
sinned in order that God might be
glorified. It cannot really be supposed
that David means to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
ascribe to God responsibility for his
trespass in any degree whatever, and
that in a passage where he expressly
affirms that the purity of the divine
character must appear with new
brightness on occasion of it.
Hengstenberg and after him Philippi,
have recourse to the distinction
between the sinful will of David,
which belongs wholly to him, and the form
in which his sin was outwardly
realized, a form which falls under the
direction of Providence. But this
distinction, which the theologian can
make, could not present itself to the
mind of David at the time, and in the
disposition in which he composed his
psalm. To explain the that , we have
simply to take into account the manner
in which David expresses himself
in the foregoing words. He had said
not only: “I have sinned,” but: “I have
sinned against Thee; ” not only: “I
have done the evil,” but: “I have done
that which is displeasing in Thy
sight. ” It is with the two ideas against
Thee and what is displeasing in Thy
sight , which aggravate the
confession: I have sinned , that the
that is connected. David means: “I was
clear as to what I was doing; Thou
hadst not left me ignorant that when
sinning I was sinning against Thy
person, which is outraged by such
misdeeds, and that I was doing what
Thou hatest— that if, in spite of this
knowledge, I nevertheless did it, Thou
mightest be pure in the matter, and
that the guiltiness might belong to me
only.” This idea of the knowledge of
the divine will possessed by David, is
that which is anew forcibly
expressed in ver. 6: “Thou didst teach
me wisdom in the hidden part.” God
had instructed and warned David that
if he sinned, he sinned, he might be
the only guilty one, and might not be
able to accuse God. The that has
therefore nearly the same meaning as
the: “to the end they might be
without excuse,” 1:20. We thus
recognize the analogy of situation
between David and Israel, which leads
the apostle to quote these words
here. Israel, the depositary of the
divine oracles, had been faithfully
instructed and warned, that if later,
in spite of these exceptional
revelations, giving themselves up to
the falsehood (voluntary blindness) of
their own hearts, they came to miss
recognizing the Messiah, they should
not be able to accuse God for their
rejection, but should be declared, to
the honor of the divine holiness, the
one party guilty of the catastrophe
which might follow.—The words: “that
Thou mayest be justified in or by
Thy words,” signify: “that Thou mayest
be acknowledged righteous , both
in respect of the warnings which Thou
hast given, and in the sentences
which Thou wilt pronounce (on David by
the mouth of Nathan, on Israel by
their rejection).” In the Hebrew, the
second proposition refers exclusively
to those sentences which God
pronounces; for it said: “and that Thou
mayest be found pure when Thou
judgest. ” But the LXX. have translated:
“that Thou mayest be victor (gain Thy
case) when Thou art judged,” or:
“when Thou hast a case at law.” It is
probably this last meaning to which
the apostle adapts his words, giving
the verb krivnesqai the middle sense,
which it has in so many passages; for
example, Matt. 5:40; 1 Cor. 6:1, 6:
“that Thou mayest gain Thy case if
Thou hast one to plead.” Paul has
obviously in view the accusation
against God's faithfulness which might be
raised from the fact of the unbelief
and rejection of the chosen people.
But this very thought, that the
veracity of God will come forth magnified
from Israel's unbelief, raises a new
objection, the examination of which
forms the third phase of this
discussion.
Vv. 5, 6. “ But if our unrighteousness
establish the righteousness of God,
what shall we say? Is not God
unrighteous when He inflicts wrath? I speak
as a man. Let it not be: for then how
shall God judge the world? ”—From
the that , ver. 4, it seemed to follow
that God wills the sin of man for His
own glory. But in that case, has He
the right to condemn an act from
which He reaps advantage, and to be
angry with him who commits it?
This objection might be put in the
mouth of a Jew, who, placing
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
himself at Paul's view-point, and
hearing him say that Israel's rejection of
the Messiah will glorify God's
faithfulness, and conduce to the
accomplishment of His plans, judged
God highly unjust for being angry
with Israel on account of such
conduct. Our unbelief would then signify the
unbelief of us Jews. But the contrast
which prevailed in ver. 4 was that
between God and every man , and not
between Jew and Gentile. It is
therefore more natural to apply the
term our unrighteousness to human
unrighteousness in general,
undoubtedly with special application to the
Jewish unrighteousness which gives
rise to the objection. It is from the
depths of the human conscience that
the apostle fetches his question. Is it
righteous on God's part to judge an
act which He turns to His own
advantage? As Paul had previously
substituted the idea of truth for that of
(God's) faithfulness , he here
substitutes righteousness for truth. This term
in its most general sense denotes the
perfection in virtue of which God
cannot become guilty of any wrong toward
any being whatever. Now this
is what He seems to do to the sinner,
when He at once condemns and
makes use of him. It is from the word:
that Thou mayest be acknowledged
righteous , ver. 4, that Paul derives
the term righteousness , ver. 5.—
Sunistavnai , strictly: to cause to
stand together , whence: to confirm, to
establish. The question tiv ejrou'men
, what shall we say? does not occur
in any other letter of the apostle's;
but it is frequent in this (4:1, 6:1, 7:1,
8:31, 9:14, 30). It serves to fix the
mind of the reader on the state of the
question, at the point which the
discussion has reached. If it had been in
the interest of a certain school of
criticism to deny the authenticity of the
Epistle to the Romans, it is easy to
see what advantage it would have
taken of this form so exclusively
characteristic of this treatise.—The
interrogative form with mhv assumes,
as it always does, that the answer
will be negative: “God is not,
however, unjust in”...? It is certainly the
apostle who is speaking, and not an
opponent; for the objection is thus
expressed in the outset as one
resolved in the negative. The phrase: to
inflict wrath , alludes to 2:4, 5,
where the apostle threatened Israel with
divine wrath against the day of wrath;
but the question is nevertheless put
in a perfectly general sense.—There is
always something revolting to a
conscience enlightened from above, in
joining the epithet unrighteous with
the word God , even hypothetically.
This is why Paul adds: I speak as a
man. By man he here understands man
left to himself and his own
reason, speaking with lightness and
presumption of the ways of God.
Some commentators would join this
explanatory remark with what follows.
But the following exclamation ( mh;
gevnoito , let it not be so ), is absolutely
opposed to this.
The argument of ver. 6, according to
Meyer, is this: How would God be
disposed to judge the world, if there
was no righteousness in Him? For the
troublesome consequences of sin could
not impel Him to it, since He can
turn them to good. It must be
confessed that this would be a singularly
wiredrawn argument. To go to prove
God's righteousness by the fact of
the judgment, while it is the fact of
the judgment which rests on divine
righteousness! If the apostle had
reasoned thus, Ruckert would have been
right in declaring that the argument
was insufficient. But the reasoning is
quite different. Meyer might have
found it clearly stated by Olshausen: “If
God's drawing a good result from a bad
deed were enough to destroy His
right to judge him who committed it,
the final judgment would evidently
become impossible; for as God is
always turning to good the evil which
men have devised, every sinner could
plead in his defence: My sin has
after all served some good end.”—One
might be tempted to apply the
word the world exclusively to the
Gentile world, which would lead us to the
explanation whereby ver. 5 is put into
a Jewish mouth. To this Jewish
interlocutor, excusing the sin of his
nation by the good fruits
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
which God will one day reap from it,
Paul would then answer: But at this
rate God could as little judge the
Gentiles ( the world ). For He brings
good fruits from their sins also. This
meaning is very plausible in itself. But
yet it does not correspond with the
apostle's thought. For the word to;n
kovsmon , the world , would then have
such an emphasis (as forming an
antithesis to the Jews), that it would
necessarily require to be placed
before the verb. The idea is therefore
more general: No final judgment is
any longer possible if the beneficial
consequences of sin, human or
Jewish, justify the sinner. This idea
is exactly that which is expounded in
the two following verses.
Vv. 7, 8. “ For if the truth of God
hath abounded through my lie unto His
glory; why yet am I also judged as a
sinner? And not, Let us do evil—as
we are accused of doing, and as some
falsely pretend that we teach—that
good may come? whose condemnation is
just. ”—Many commentators
(Calvin, Grotius, Philippi) have
fallen into a strange error in regard to ver.
7. They imagine that this verse
reproduces once more the objection of
ver. 5. The for serves, they say, to
justify the question: “Is not God
unrighteous?” In reality the apostle
is made to add: after the advantage
which He has derived from my lie for
His glory, how does He still judge
me? But for what reason should the for
relate to ver. 5 rather than ver. 6,
which immediately precedes? This would
be to forget the answer given in
ver. 6, and so to confess its
weakness! In this case we should require
rather to adopt the reading eij dev ,
but if , of the Sinait . and Vatic. , and to
make ver. 7 an objection to the answer
given in ver. 6. But this reading is
inadmissible, because this new
objection raised would remain without
answer in the sequel. This same reason
tells also against the explanation
which makes ver. 7 a simple
reaffirmation of the objection of ver. 5. How
could an objection, reproduced so
forcibly, possibly be left without any
other answer than the relegating of
those who dare to raise it to the
judgment of God (ver. 8)? For a mind
like Paul's this would be a strange
mode of arguing! ver. 7 is simply, as
the for indicates, the confirmation of
the answer given in ver. 6: “How would
God judge the world? In reality (
for ) every sinner might come before
the judge and say to Him, on his own
behalf: And I too by my lie, I have
contributed to Thy glory. And he must
be acquitted.”—By the phrase truth of
God Paul returns to the beginning
of the discussion (vv. 3 and 4). What
is in question is the moral
uprightness of God; in like manner the
term lie brings us back to the every
man a liar (ver. 4). This lie consists
in voluntary ignorance of goodness, to
escape the obligation of doing it. The
verb ejperivsseusen , has abounded ,
strictly: flowed over , denotes the
surplus of glory which God's moral
perfection extracts from human
wickedness in each case. [Eti , yet ,
signifies: even after so profitable a
result has accrued from my sins.
Kajgwv , I also: “I who, as well as
all the rest, have contributed to Thy
glory.” It is as if one saw the whole
multitude of sinners appearing before
the judgment-seat one after the other,
and throwing this identical answer
in God's face; the judgment is
therefore brought to nothing. Thus is
confirmed the answer of ver. 6 to the
objection of ver.
5.—This so suitable meaning appears to
us preferable to a more special
sense which might present itself to
the mind, especially if one were
tempted to apply the term the world
(ver. 6) to the Gentile , in opposition to
the Jewish world (ver. 5). The sense
would be: “For the judgment comes
to nought for me Gentile, as well as
for thee Jew, since I can plead the
same excuse as thou, my Gentilehood
contributing to glorify God's truth
as much as thy unbelief to exalt His
righteousness.” For the application to
the Gentiles of the two expressions:
God's truth , and lie , see 1:25. But to
make this meaning probable, Paul would
require to have brought out in
chap. 1 the idea that idolatry had
contributed to God's glory; and as to the
restricted meaning of to;n kovsmon ,
the world , see at p. 137.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
The apostle pushes his refutation to
the utmost (ver. 8): Why even not go
further? Why, after annihilating the
judgment, not say further, to be
thoroughly consequent: “And even let
us furnish God, by sinning more
freely, with richer opportunities of
doing good! Will not every sin be a
material which He will transform into
the pure gold of His glory?” The
words kai; mhv , and not , should
properly be followed by the verb: let us
do evil? poihvswmen ta; kakav , as we
have translated it. But in Greek the
sentence is interrupted by the
insertion of a parenthesis, intended to
remind the reader that such is
precisely the odious principle which Paul
and his brethren are accused by their
calumniators of practising and
teaching. And when, after this
parenthesis, he returns in ver. 8 to his
principal idea: poihvswmen , let us do
, instead of connecting it with the
conjunction, and (that) not , he makes
it depend directly on the last verb of
the parenthesis, teach: “As we are
accused of teaching, let us do evil. ”
The oJti , that , is the oJti
recitative so common in Greek (transition from
the indirect to the direct form of
discourse). The construction which we
have just indicated is a form of
anacolouthon, of which numerous
examples are found in classic
authors.—The verb we are accused has for
its object the understood clause: of
doing so , of practising this principle. If
we understood: “Accused of teaching ,”
the following words would be a
mere superfluous repetition. The term
blasfhmei'sqai seems deliberately
chosen to suggest the idea that the
principle calumniously imputed to him
is itself blasphemous in its nature.
The second part of the parenthesis
adds the idea of professing ( lavlein
) to that of practising. The words form
a climax, for it is graver to lay down
a blasphemous maxim as a principle
than to put it into practice in a few
isolated cases. Hofmann has proposed
another construction; he understands
ejstin after kai; mhv , and makes the
following kaqwv" dependent on it:
“And it is not the case with me, as we
are accused of practising and
teaching, that it only remains to do evil
that”...But it is harsh to make the
kaqwv" depend on ejstiv ; and Meyer
rightly observes that Paul would have
required to say kai; ouj , and not kai;
mhv ; comp. the interrogations, 1 Cor.
6:7; Luke 19:23, etc.—The sort of
malediction which closes the verse is
applied by most commentators to
those who really practise and teach
the maxim which is falsely applied to
Paul. But the apostle would not have
confined himself in that case to the
use of the simple relative pronoun w|n
, whose; he would necessarily have
required to indicate, and even
characterize, the antecedent of the
pronoun, which cannot refer to any
substantive expressed or understood
in the preceding proposition. It must
have for its antecedent the preceding
tinev" , some , and we must apply
this severe denunciation to the
calumniators of the apostle's life and
teaching. Those who raise such
accusations wrongly and maliciously
against his person and doctrine
themselves deserve the condemnation
which they call down on the head
of Paul. But it should be well
observed that the apostle does not express
himself thus till he has satisfied all
the demands of logical discussion.
Observations on the passage ,
3:1-8.—Notwithstanding its temporary
application to the Jewish people, this
passage, which will find its complete
explanation in chap. 11, has a real
permanent value. It has always been
sought to justify the greatest crimes
in history by representing the
advantages in which they have resulted
to the cause of humanity. There is
not a Robespierre who has not been
transformed into a saint in the name
of utilitarianism. But to make such a
canonization valid, one would require
to begin by proving that the useful
result sprang from the evil committed
as its principle. Such is the teaching
of Pantheism. Living Theism, on the
contrary, teaches that this
transformation of the bad deed into a means of
progress, is the miracle of God's
wisdom and power continually laying
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
hold of human sin to derive from it a
result contrary to its nature. On the
first view, all human responsibility
is at an end, and the judgment
becomes a nullity. On the second, man
remains fully responsible to God
for the bad deed as an expression of
the evil will of its author, and despite
the good which God is pleased to
extract from it. Such is scriptural
optimism, which alone reconciles man's
moral responsibility with the
doctrine of providential progress. The
apostle has laid the foundations of
this true theodice8e in the remarkable
piece which we have just been
studying.—It is curious to see how
Holsten seeks to explain this passage,
the meaning of which has, as we think,
been made so clear, by a
polemical intention against the
alleged Jewish-Christianity of the
Christians of Rome. We do not waste
time in giving a refutation which
seems to us to arise of itself from
the preceding.
The apostle has drawn in two great
pictures the reign of God's wrath—(1)
over the Gentile world (chap. 1); (2)
over the Jewish people (chap. 2); and
by way of appendix he has added a
passage to this second picture,
intended to sweep away the objections
which, from the ordinary Jewish
point of view, seemed opposed to the
statement that this elect people
could possibly become, notwithstanding
their unbelief, the object of divine
animadversion. Now, to the judgment
which follows from the preceding
context with respect to the whole of mankind
, he affixes the seal of
Scripture sanction , without which he
regards no proof as finally valid.
Seventh Passage (3:9-20). Scripture
proclaims the fact of Universal
Condemnation.
After a general declaration, repeating
the already demonstrated fact of the
condemnation of Jews and Greeks (ver.
9), the apostle quotes a series of
Scripture sayings which confirm this
truth (vv. 10-18); then he formally
states the conclusion
(vv. 19 and 20). Ver. 9. “ What then?
are we sheltered?Certainly not:for
we have before proved all men, both
Jews and Greeks, that they are
under sin. ”—If the words tiv ou\n ,
what then , be taken as an independent
question, the meaning will be: “ What,
then, is the state of things? To what
result are we thus brought?” But many
commentators connect these two
words with the following sentence, so
as to form a single question. The
meaning in that case is, according to
the different acceptations of the verb
proevcesqai : What have we to allege
as an excuse? or: In what, then, are
we superior? But neither of these
meanings agrees with the answer
following. Indeed, instead of in no
wise. it would require to be none
whatever , or in nothing. There are
therefore two questions, and not
merely one.—What is the sense of the verb
proecovmeqa , which by itself
forms the second question? We should
first testify to the correctness of
the Received reading. All the MSS. are
at one on this point except A L,
which read the subjunctive instead of
the indicative, obviously to convert
the word
into an exhortation, and D G, which
read prokatevcomen while adding the
object perissovn ; these last, at the
same time, reject the words ouj pavntw"
. This is the text which Chrysostom
and Theodoret seem to have followed,
as well as the Itala and Peshito. The
meaning would be: What superiority
do we possess? It is simply an attempt
to escape from the difficulty of the
Received reading.—The verb proevcein
has two principal meanings in the
active: to hold before (in order to
protect), and to hold the first place. In the
passive, the first meaning changes
into to be protected; the second
meaning, as being intransitive, has no
passive. In the middle, the verb
signifies, according to the first
meaning: to protect oneself, to shelter
oneself, to hold
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
out a pretext; according to the
second: to place oneself at the head, to
surpass. It is logically impossible to
apply here the idea of superiority ,
either in the passive form: Are we
preferred? or in the middle form: Do we
surpass? Undoubtedly these two
interpretations have both found their
defenders; Osterv., for example: Are
we preferable? Oltram.: Have we
some superiority? But the question of
ascribing a superiority to the Jews
had been put at ver. 1; the apostle
had resolved it affirmatively from the
theocratic standpoint. If, then, he
now resolves it negatively, as he does in
the following answer, it can only be
from the moral point of view. But in
this case he could not fail to
indicate this distinction. The only appropriate
meaning, therefore, is that of
sheltering , which is also the most frequent
in classic Greek: “Have we a shelter
under which we can regard ourselves
as delivered from wrath?” This meaning
seems to us to be perfectly
suitable. The apostle has demonstrated
that the Jewish people, as well as
the Gentile world, are under God's
wrath. He has put to himself the
objection: But what in this case
becomes of the Jew's advantage? And he
has proved that this advantage,
perfectly real though it be, cannot hinder
the rejection and judgment of this
people. “What then?” he now asks as a
consequence from what precedes, “can
we flatter ourselves that we have
a refuge?” “In no wise,” such is his
answer. All is closely bound together in
the reasoning thus understood.—The
phrase ouj pavntw" strictly signifies:
not altogether; comp. 1 Cor. 5:10.
When Paul means: not at all , he uses,
in conformity with Greek custom, the
form pavntw" ouj ; comp. 1 Cor.
16:12. But the first meaning is
evidently too weak after the preceding
argument, and in consequence of that
which follows. Meyer even finds
himself obliged here to abandon his
philological rigorism, and to take the
second meaning. And, in reality, this
meaning is not incorrect. It is
enough, as Morison says, to make a
pause in reading after ouj , not ,
adding pavntw" , absolutely , as
a descriptive: no, absolutely; or better: no,
certainly. This meaning is that of the
entirely similar phrase ouj pavnu in
Xenophon, Demosthenes, Lucian, and
even that of ouj pavntw" in two
passages quoted by Morison, the one
taken from classic Greek, the other
from patristic.
The apostle demonstrates this
negation, which refers specially to the
Jews, by summing up in the following
proposition the result of the long
preceding indictment against the two
divisions of mankind. The term
aijtia'sqai , to accuse, incriminate ,
belongs to the language of the bar. The
pro , before, previously , which
enters into the composition of the verb,
reminds the reader of the two great
pictures which Paul had just
drawn.—The phrase: to be under sin ,
does not merely signify: to be under
the responsibility (the guilt) of sins
committed, but also to be under the
power of sin itself, which like a
perpetual fountain constantly reproduces
and increases this guilt. These two
meanings, sin as a trespass , and sin
as a power , are both demanded by the
context, the first by the preceding,
and the second by the succeeding
context. In point of fact, God's wrath is
not based solely on trespasses
committed, which have something
external and accidental in their
character; it is founded, above all, on the
permanent state of human nature as it
is about to be described by
Scripture. So long as the Scriptures
had not spoken, Paul might be
regarded as a simple accuser. But as
soon as the voice of this judge shall
be heard, the case will be determined,
and the sentence pronounced. Vv.
10-18 enumerate, if one may so speak,
the grounds of judgment; vv. 19
and 20 give the sentence.
Paul first reminds his readers, in
scriptural terms, of the most general
characteristics of human corruption,
vv. 10-12. Then he presents two
particular classes of the
manifestations of this corruption, vv. 13-17.
Finally, he closes this description by
a decisive feature which goes back to
the very fountain of evil, ver.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
18.
Vv. 10-12. “ As it is written, There
is none righteous, no, not one: there is
none that understandeth, there is none
that seeketh after God. They are
all gone out of the way, they are
together become useless; there is none
that doeth good, no, not even one.
”—These six sentences are taken from
Ps. 14:1-3. At the first glance, this
psalm seems to be depicting the
wickedness of the Gentiles only; comp.
ver. 4: “They eat up my people ,
as if they were eating bread.” But on
looking at it more closely, it is clear
that the term my people denotes the
true people of Jehovah, “the afflicted”
(ver. 6), in opposition to the proud
and violent as well within as without the
theocracy. This delineation therefore
applies to the moral character of
man, so long as he remains beyond the
influence of divine action.—Ver.
10 contains the most general
statement. Instead of the word righteous ,
there is in the Hebrew: the man that
doeth good , which comes to the
same thing.—The two terms which follow
in ver. 11 have a more particular
sense. The first is related to the
understanding: the knowledge of the
Creator in His works; the second to
the will: the aspiration after union with
this perfect being. The Sinait ., like
most of the Mjj., reads the article oJ
before the two participles. This
article is in keeping with the meaning of
the psalm. God is represented as
seeking that one man and not finding
him. We may accentuate suniw'n as an
unusual participle of sunievw , or
sunivwn , from the verb sunivw , which
sometimes takes the place of the
verb sunivhmi .—In the case where
positive good is not produced (seeking
after God), the heart immediately
falls under the dominion of evil; this
state is described in general terms,
ver. 12.
jEkklivnein , to deviate , to go in a
bad way, because one has voluntarily
fled from the good (ver. 11).
jAcreiou'sqai , to become useless , unfit for
good, corresponds to the Hebrew alach,
to become sour , to be
spoiled.—The sixth proposition
reproduces, by way of resume8 , the idea of
the first. Mankind resembles a caravan
which has strayed, and is moving
in the direction opposite to the right
one, and whose members can do
nothing to help one another in their
common misery ( do good ).
Here begins a second and more
particular description, that of human
wickedness manifesting itself in the
form of speech.
Vv. 13, 14. “ Their throat is an open
sepulchre; with their tongues they
have used deceit; the poison of asps
is under their lips: whose mouth is
full of cursing and bitterness. ”—These
four propositions refer to the
different organs of speech, and show
them all exercising their power to
hurt, under the dominion of sin. The
throat
( larynx ) is compared to a sepulchre;
this refers to the language of the
gross and brutal man, of whom it is
said in common parlance: it seems as
if he would like to eat you. The
characteristic which follows contrasts with
the former; it is the sugared tongue ,
which charms you like a melodious
instrument. The imperfect ejdoliou'san
(Alex. form) denotes the action as
continually repeated. These two
features are borrowed from Ps. 5:9,
where they describe the behavior of
David's enemies. The third
proposition is taken from Ps. 140:3,
which treats of the same subject;
what is meant is that calumny and
falsehood which malignant lips give
forth, as the serpent infuses its
poison. The fourth (ver. 14) describes the
wickedness which is cast in your face
by a mouth full of hatred or
bitterness; it is borrowed from Ps.
10:7, where the contrast is between the
weak godly man and the powerful wicked
man within the theocracy itself.
This picture of human depravity
manifesting itself in word is completed by
the description of the same wickedness
shown in deeds.
Vv. 15-18. “ Their feet are swift to
shed blood: oppression and misery are
in
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
their ways: the way of peace they have
not known: there is no fear of God
before their eyes. ”—Of these four
propositions the first three are
borrowed from Isa. 59:7, 8, in which
chapter the prophet confesses the
corruption of Israel. The feet , as
the emblem of walking, symbolize the
whole conduct. Man acts without regard
to his neighbor, without fear of
compromising his welfare and even his
life; a saying taken from Prov.
1:16. He oppresses ( suvntrimma ) his
brother, and fills his life with misery (
talaipwriva ), so that the way marked
out by such a course is watered with
the tears of others.—No peace can
exist either in the heart of such men,
or in their neighborhood (ver. 17).
And this overflow of depravity and
suffering arises from a void: the
absence of that feeling which should have
filled the heart, the fear of God
(ver. 18). This term is the normal
expression for piety in the Old
Testament; it is that disposition in man
which has always God present in the
heart, His will and judgment. The
words: before their eyes , show that
it belongs to man freely to evoke or
suppress this inward view of God, on
which his moral conduct depends.
This final characteristic is borrowed
from Ps. 36:1, which marks the
contrast between the faithful and the
wicked even in Israel.
The apostle in drawing this picture,
which is only a grouping together of
strokes of the pencil, made by the
hands of psalmists and prophets, does
not certainly mean that each of those
characteristics is found equally
developed in every man, Some, even the
most of them, may remain latent
in many men; but they all exist in
germ in the selfishness and natural pride
of the ego, and the least circumstance
may cause them to pass into the
active state, when the fear of God
does not govern the heart. Such is the
cause of the divine condemnation which
is suspended over the human
race.
This is the conclusion which the
apostle reaches; but he limits the express
statement of it, in vv. 19, 20, to the
Jews; for they only could attempt to
protest against it, and put themselves
outside this delineation of human
corruption. They could object in
particular, that many of the sayings
quoted referred not to them, but to
the Gentiles. Paul foresees this
objection, and takes care to set it
aside, so that nothing may impair the
sweep of the sentence which God
pronounces on the state of mankind.
Vv. 19, 20. “ Now we know that what
things soever the law saith , it
speaketh for them who are under the
law: that every mouth may be
stopped, and all the world may become
subject to judgment before God.
Seeing that by the deeds of the law
there shall no flesh be justified in his
sight: for by the law is the knowledge
of
sin. ”—By his we know , Paul appeals
to the common sense of his
readers. It is obvious, indeed, that
the Old Testament, while depicting to
the Jews the wickedness of the
Gentiles, did not at all mean to embitter
them against the latter, but to put
them on their guard against the same
sins, and preserve them from the same
judgments; a proof that God saw
in their hearts the same germs of
corruption, and foresaw their inevitable
development if the Jews did not remain
faithful to Him. Thus, while none
of the sayings quoted might refer to
them , they were nevertheless all
uttered for them. —The law here
denotes the whole Old Testament, as
being throughout the rule for
Israelitish life; comp. John 10:34; 1 Cor.
14:21, etc.—The difference of meaning
between the words levgein , to say
, and lalei'n , to speak , comes out
clearly in this passage—the first
referring to the contents of the
saying, the second to the fact of its
utterance. —There is no reason for
weakening the sense of the
conjunction i{na , in order that , and
making it signify so that. The object of
all those declarations given forth by
Scripture regarding the wickedness of
the natural man, was really to close
his mouth against all vainglory, as
that to which a man filled
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
with self-satisfaction gives himself
up. Every mouth , even the Jews'. Kaiv
: and that thus. All the world: all
mankind, Jew and Gentile; uJpovdiko" ,
placed under the stroke of justice ,
like one whom the judge has declared
guilty, and who owes satisfaction to
the law he has violated. The word is
frequently used in this sense in the
classics; it is a judicial term,
corresponding to the word Paul had
used to denote the accusation
( ai[tia'sqai , ver. 9). The last
word: to God , is full of solemnity; it is into the
hands of His justice that the whole
guilty world falls.
The all the is so true that the only
possible exception, that of the Jewish
people, is excluded (ver. 20). This
people, indeed, could have alleged a
host of ritualistic and moral works
performed daily in obedience to the
divine law. Did not such works establish
in their case special merit and
right to God's favor? The apostle sets
aside such a claim, Diovti : for the
reason that. No flesh: no human
creature (see on 1:3).—Here for the first
time we meet with the expression e[rga
novmou , works of the law , one of
the important terms in the apostle's
vocabulary. It is found, however, only
in the Epistles to the Romans (3:28,
9:32) and to the Galatians (2:16, iii, 2,
5, 10). But, nevertheless, it
expresses one of the ideas which lie at the
root of his experience and of his view
of Christian truth. It sums up the first
part of his life. It may be understood
in two ways. A work of law may
mean: a work exactly conformed to the
law, corresponding to all the law
prescribes (Hodge, Morison, etc.); or
it may mean: such a work as man
can accomplish under the dispensation
of the law, and with such means
only as are available under this
dispensation. In the first sense it is
certainly unnecessary to explain the
impossibility of man's finding his
righteousness in those works by an
imperfection inherent in the moral
ideal traced by the law. For Paul
himself says, 7:14, that “ the law is
spiritual; ” 7:12, that “ the law is
holy , and the commandment is holy, just,
and good; ” 8:4, that “the work of the
Holy Spirit in the believer consists in
fulfilling what the law has determined
to be righteous.” Much more, he
goes the length of affirming
positively, with Moses himself (Lev. 18:5), that
if any one exactly fulfilled the law
he would live by his obedience (Rom.
10:5; Gal. 3:12). Taking this meaning,
then, why cannot the works of the
law justify? It can only be man's
powerlessness to do them. St. Paul would
then say: “No man will be justified by
the works of the law, because works
really conformed to the spirit of the
law are beyond his power to realize.”
Thus the kind of works referred to in
the declaration: “not being justified by
the works of the law,” would be ideal
and not real. This meaning is far
from natural. From Paul's way of
speaking of the works of the law, we
cannot help thinking that he has a
fact in view—that he is reckoning with a
real and not a fictitious value. We
must therefore come to the second
meaning: works such as man can do when
he has no other help than the
law—that is to say, in fact, in his
own strength. The law is perfect in itself.
But it does not provide fallen man
with the means of meeting its demands.
Paul explains himself clearly enough
on this head, Gal. 3:21: “If there had
been a law given which could have
given life, verily righteousness should
have been by the law.” In other words,
the law does not communicate the
Spirit of God, and through Him the
life of love, which is the fulfilling of the
law (Rom. 13:10). Works wrought in
this state, notwithstanding their
external conformity to the letter of
the law, are not therefore its real
fulfilment. Though agreeable to the
legal statute, they are destitute of the
moral disposition which would give
them value in the eyes of God. Paul
himself had groaned till the time of
his conversion over the grievous
contrast in his works which he
constantly discerned between the
appearance and the reality; comp. the
opposition between the state which
he calls, 7:6, oldness of the letter
and newness of spirit. He gives his
estimate of the works of the law when,
after saying of himself
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
before his conversion, Phil. 3:6: “As
to the righteousness which is under
the law, blameless,” he adds, ver. 7:
“But what things were gain to me (all
this from the human point of view
blameless righteousness), these I
counted loss for Christ's sake.”—There
remains one question to be
examined. Is it true, as Theodoret,
Pelagius, and many modern critics
have thought, that Paul is speaking
here only of ceremonial works
imposed by the law, and not of works
implying moral obedience? The
meaning of the verse would then be
this: “The whole world is condemned;
for the Jews themselves cannot be
justified by the observance of the
ceremonies which their law
prescribes.” But such a distinction between
two kinds of works is opposed to the
context; for the apostle does not
contrast work with work—he contrasts
work with faith. Then how could he
add immediately, that by the law is
the knowledge of sin? From 7:7, 8, it
appears that this saying applies above
all to the moral law. For it was the
tenth commandment which led the
apostle to discern covetousness in his
heart, and it was this discovery of
covetousness which convinced him of
sin. Hence it appears that the last
words of our verse refer to the moral,
and not the ceremonial law, which
decides the meaning of the term: the
works of the law. Besides, the
expression all flesh , which evidently
embraces the Gentiles, could not be
applied to them if the law were here
taken as the ceremonial law, for in
this sense they have never had it. In
general, the distinction between the
ritual and the moral elements of the
law is foreign to the Jewish
conscience, which takes the law as a divine
unity.—It follows from this saying of
the apostle, that man ought never to
attempt to put any work whatever
between God and himself as
establishing a right to salvation,
whether a work wrought before his
conversion proceeding from his natural
ability, for it will lack the spirit of
love which alone would render it good
in God's sight; or even a work
posterior to regeneration and truly
good ( e[rgon ajgaqovn , Eph. 2:10), for
as such it is the fruit of the Spirit,
and cannot be transformed into a merit
of man.—The declarative meaning of the
verb dikaiou'n , to justify ,
appears clearly here from the two
subordinate clauses: by the works of
the law , and before him (see on 1:17).
By a short proposition (20b) the
apostle justifies the principle affirmed 20a.
Far from having been given to sinful
man to furnish him with a means of
justification, the law was rather
given to help him in discerning the sin
which reigns over him; ejpivgnwsi"
, discernment , proof.—This thought is
only indicated here; it will be
developed afterward. Indeed, Paul
throughout the whole of this piece is
treating of sin as guilt , forming the
ground of condemnation. Not till chap.
7 will he consider sin as a power ,
in its relation to the law, and in
this new connection; then will be the time
for examining the idea with which he
closes this whole passage.
Judaism was living under a great
illusion, which holds it to this very hour,
to wit, that it is called to save the
Gentile world by communicating to it the
legal dispensation which it received
through Moses. “Propagate the law,”
says the apostle, “and you will have
given to the world not the means of
purifying itself, but the means of
seeing better its real corruption.” These
for us are commonplaces, but they are
become so through our Epistle
itself. At the time when it was
written, these commonplaces were rising on
the horizon like divine beams which
were to make a new day dawn on the
world.
On the order of ideas in this first
section, according to Hofmann and
Volkmar. —Hofmann finds the principal
division of this section between
vv. 4 and 5 of chap. 3. Up to ver. 4,
the apostle is proving that God's wrath
rests on mankind, whether Gentile
(1:18-2:8) or Jewish (2:9-3:4); but from
that point all the apostle says
applies specially to Christians, thus: “As we
are not ignorant, we Christians
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
(3:5), that man's sin, even when God is
glorified by it, can be justly judged
(vv. 5-7), and as we do not teach, as
we are accused of doing, that the
good which God extracts fron evil
excuses it (ver. 8), we bow, with all
other men, before the Scripture
declarations which attest the common sin,
and we apply to ourselves the sentence
of condemnation which the law
pronounces on the whole world. Only
(3:21 et seq.) we do not rest there;
for we have the happiness of knowing
that there is a righteousness of faith
through which we escape from wrath.”—This
construction is refuted, we
think, by three principal facts—1. The
man who judges, 2:1, is necessarily
the Jew (see the exegesis). 2. The
objection, 3:5, is closely connected
with the quotation from Ps. 51, and
cannot be the beginning of a wholly
new development. 3. The question:
“What then? have we a shelter?” (ver.
9), is too plainly a reference to that
of ver. 1 (“what then is the advantage
of the Jew?”) to be applied otherwise
than specially to the Jew. This is
confirmed by the end of ver. 9, in
which the apostle gives the reason for
the first proposition in this general
sentence:
“ For we have proved both Jews and
Greeks. ” It is clear, therefore, that
as chap. 1 from ver. 18 describes the
wrath of God displayed on the
Gentiles, chap. 2 describes and
demonstrates the wrath of God as
accumulating over the Jewish world,
and that the passage 3:1-8 is simply
intended to set aside the objection
which the Jew might draw from his
exceptional superiority. Vv. 9-20 are
the scriptural resume8 and
demonstration of this double
condemnation of Jews and
Gentiles.—According to Volkmar, chap.
1 from ver. 18 describes the wrath
of God against all sin , and chap. 2
that same wrath against all sinners ,
even against the Jew, notwithstanding
his excuses (2:1-16) and his
advantages, which he is unable to turn
to moral account (vv. 17-29), and
finally, notwithstanding the greatest
of his privileges, the possession of the
Messianic promises (3:1-8). Here, 3:9,
Volkmar places the beginning of
the new section, that of the
righteousness of faith. “Since the whole world
is perishing, vv. 9-20, God saves the
world by the righteousness of faith,
which is confirmed by the example both
of Abraham and Adam, the type
of Christ.” This construction differs
from ours only in two points, which are
not to its advantage, as it appears to
me—(1) The antithesis between all
sins (chap. 1.) and all sinners (chap.
2), which is too artificial to be
apostolical; (2) The line of
demarkation between the preceding and the
new section fixed at 3:9 (instead of
3:21), a division which awkwardly
separates the section on wrath in its
entirety (1:18-3:8) from its scriptural
summary (vv. 9-20).
Second section. 3:21-5:11.
Justification by Faith Acquired for the
Whole World.
In this section, which forms the
counterpart of the preceding, three
principal ideas are developed.
1. The historical fact by which
justification by faith is acquired for the
world, 3:21-26.
2. The harmony of this mode of
justification with the revelation of the Old
Testament, 3:27-4:25.
3. The certainty of justification, not
for the present only, but for all the
future , embracing the last
judgment,5:1-11.
Thus the sentence of condemnation is
effaced by that of absolution.
Eighth Passage (3:21-26). The Fact by
which Justification by Faith is
acquired for us.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
We have already proved that ver. 21 is
directly connected in sense with
1:17 (see p. 99). In the interval
from. 18 to 3:20, the apostle has shown
that the wrath of God rests on
mankind, whence it follows that if the world
is not to perish, a divine
manifestation of an opposite kind, and able to
overcome the first, is indispensable.
It is this new revelation which forms
the subject of the following passage.
Vv.21 and 22 contain the theme of
the first piece, and at the same time
of the whole section. ver. 23 once
more sums up the thought of the
preceding section; and vv. 24-26 are the
development of the subject, the
exposition of the new way of justification.
Vv. 21, 22a. “ But now the
righteousness of God is manifested without the
law, being witnessed by the law and
the prophets; even the righteousness
of God by faith in Jesus Christ for
all and upon all them that believe.
”—The dev , but , is strongly
adversative; it contrasts the revelation of
righteousness with that of wrath. The
former is presented as a new fact in
the history of mankind; so that one
might be led to give the word now a
temporal sense; comp. the at this time
, ver. 26, and Acts 17:30. This,
however, is only apparent. The
contrast with the preceding is moral rather
than temporal; it is the contrast
between the condemnation pronounced by
the law (ver. 20) and the new
righteousness acquired without the law (ver.
21). It is therefore better to give
the word now the logical meaning which it
has so frequently in the New Testament
(7:17; 1 Cor. 13:12, 14:6, etc.)
and in the classics: “The situation
being such.” The words: without the law
, stand foremost, as having the
emphasis. They evidently depend on the
verb is manifested , and not on the
word righteousness ( a righteousness
without law , Aug.). The absence of
the article before the word law does
not prove that the apostle does not
mean the term to denote the Mosaic
law; only the law is excluded from
co-operating in the new righteousness
not because it is Mosaic , but because
it is law. Under the old
dispensation, righteousness came to
man through the thousand channels
of legalism; in the new, righteousness
is given him without the least cooperation
of what can be called a law.—We know
what Paul calls the
righteousness of God: it is the state
of reconciliation with God in which
man is placed by the sentence which
declares him just (see on
1:17).—The verb fanerou'n , to put in
the light, differs from the verb
ajpokaluvptein , to reveal , used
1:17, in the figure, not in the sense. The
second applies to an object which was
hidden by a veil, and which is
made known by withdrawing the veil;
the former, to an object placed in the
shade, and on which rays of light are
let fall. The only real difference from
1:17 is therefore this: there, the
verb was in the present , for it denoted the
permanent revelation of the gospel by
means of evangelical preaching;
while here, the verb is in the perfect
, because it refers, as Morison says,
“to the fact itself, which that
preaching proclaims.” That fact now finished
is the subject expounded in vv. 25 and
26; it is through it that the
righteousness of God is set in the
light for all times.
But if legal observances are excluded
from all co-operation in this
righteousness, it does not follow that
the latter is in contradiction to the
Old Testament revelation in its double
form of law and prophecy. These
two manifestations of the divine will,
commandment, and promise,
understood in their true sense,
contain, on the contrary, the confirmation
of the righteousness of faith, as the
apostle will prove in the sequel of this
section, ver. 27-4:25. The law by
unveiling sin opens up the void in the
heart, which is filled by the
righteousness of faith; prophecy completes the
work of preparation by promising this
righteousness. Thus there is no
objection to be drawn from the old
revelation against the new. As the new
fulfils the old, the latter confirms
the former.
Ver. 22. The new righteousness, then,
being given without any legal work,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
what is the means by which it is
conferred? ver. 22 answers: faith in Jesus
Christ. Such is the true means opposed
to the false. The dev , now , which
the translation cannot render, is
explanatory, as 9:30; Gal. 2:2; Phil. 2:8,
etc. It takes the place of a scilicet,
to wit. Osterv. and Oltram. have well
rendered it by: say I: “The
righteousness, I say , of God.” Here, again, the
absence of the article serves to
indicate the category: a righteousness of
divine origin, in opposition to the
legal dispensation, in which
righteousness proceeds from human
works.—This righteousness is
granted to faith , not assuredly
because of any merit inherent in it—for this
would be to fall back on works , the
very thing which the new dispensation
wishes to exclude—but because of the
object of faith. Therefore it is that
this object is expressly mentioned:
Jesus Christ. The omission of the word
Jesus by Marcion is perhaps to be
explained by the fact that this heretic
denied the humanity of Jesus, and
attached importance only to His
Christship. The omission of this word
in the one Mj. B, cannot bring it into
suspicion. It has been attempted to
make this complement: Jesus Christ,
a gen. subjecti: the faith which Jesus
Christ Himself had , whether His
faith in God (Benecke: His fidelity to
God) or His fidelity to us (Lange). The
parallel, 1:17, suffices to refute
such interpretations. The only possible
sense is this: faith in Jesus Christ;
comp. Mark 11:22; Gal. 2:16; Jas. 2:1,
etc.—This clause: by faith in Jesus
Christ , is the reproduction and
development of the first clause: ejk
pivstew" , by faith , 1:17. The following:
for and upon all them that believe ,
is the development of the second
clause in the same verse: eij"
pivstin , for faith. Faith, indeed, as we have
seen, plays a double part in
justification. It is the disposition which God
accepts, and which He imputes as
righteousness; and it is at the same
time the instrument whereby every one
may appropriate for his own
personal advantage this righteousness
of faith. The first office is
expressed here by the clause: by
faith; the second by the clause: for and
upon all them that believe. —The words
kai; ejpi; pavnta" , and upon all
them , are wanting in the four Alex.,
but they are found in the Mjj. of the
other two families (except P), and in
the ancient Vss. Meyer and Morison
justly remark that it would be
impossible to account for their interpolation,
as there was nothing in the clause:
for all them , to demand this
explanatory addition. It is easy to
understand, on the contrary, how these
words were omitted, either through a
confusion of the two pavnta" by the
copyists—the Sinait . , in particular,
abounds in such omissions—or
because this clause seemed to be a
pleonasm after the preceding. It is
quite in keeping with Paul's manner
thus to accumulate subordinate
clauses to express by a change of
prepositions the different aspects of the
moral fact which he means to describe.
These two aspects in this case
are those of general destination (
eij" , for ) and personal application ( ejpiv
, upon ): “As to this righteousness,
God sends it for thee that thou mayest
believe in it; and it will rest on
thee from the moment thou believest.”
Comp. Phil. 3:9. Theodoret, Bengel,
etc. have thought that the clause: for
all them , applied to the Jews, and
the clause: upon all them , to the
Gentiles. But the very object the
apostle has here in view is to efface
every other distinction save that of
believing. This same reason prevents
us also from allowing the explanation
of Morison, who, after Wetstein,
Flatt, Stuart, puts a comma after
eij" pavnta" , for all , that is to say, for all
men , absolutely speaking, inasmuch as
this righteousness is really
universal in destination , and who
applies the participle: them that believe ,
only to the second clause: upon all ,
inasmuch as real participation in this
righteousness is granted to believers
only. But in this case the second
pavnta" , all , should of course
have been omitted. Then we shall see in
ver. 25 that the condition of faith is
included from the beginning in the very
decree of redemption. Finally, these
two clauses: for all them , and upon
all them that believe ,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
are plainly the unfolding of the
contents of the words eij" pivstin , for faith ,
1:17; whence it follows that the words
who believe belong equally to the
two pronouns all. —To pronounce one
righteous, God does not then any
more ask: Hast thou kept the law? but:
Believest thou, thou, whoever thou
art? The first clause: for all ,
contrasts this believer, Jew or Gentile, with
the Jews, who alone could attain to
the righteousness of the law. The
second clause: upon all , contrasts
this righteousness as a gift of God fully
made, with that of the law of which
man himself must be the maker.
These two verses are, as we shall see,
the theme which will be developed
in the whole following section. But,
first, ver. 23 sums up the preceding
section by restating the ground on
which every human being needs the
righteousness of faith.
Vv. 22b, 23. “ For there is no
difference: for all have sinned, and are
deprived of the glory of God. ”—By
denying all difference , the apostle
means here that there are not two ways
by which men can be justified, the
one that of works, the other of faith.
The first is closed against all, even
the Jews, by the fact of universal
condemnation, which has just been
demonstrated. The second, therefore,
alone remains open. The old
Genevan version, Ostervald, and Martin
put all ver. 23 into ver. 22, and
thus reckon only thirty verses instead
of thirty-one in the chapter. The
object of this change was to make ver.
23 a simple parenthesis, that the
participle being justified might be
directly connected with ver. 22. But this
grammatical connection is certainly
incorrect, and we should preserve the
reckoning of the verses as it stands
in the Greek text.
Ver. 23. This absence of difference in
the mode of justification rests on the
equality of all in respect of the fact
of sin. In the aorist h{marton , have
committed sin , no account is taken of
the question whether they have
done so once or a hundred times. Once
suffices to deprive us of the title
of righteous, and thereby of the glory
of God. — Kaiv , and in
consequence. —The verb uJsterei'sqai ,
to lack , expresses in general the
idea of a deficit , which consists
either in remaining below the normal
level, or in being behind others. Paul
therefore means that they all want
more or less a normal state, which he
calls the glory of God. By this term
some have understood the favorable
opinion which God has of the just
man, His approbation or favor (Grot.
Turret. Fritzsche). This meaning is
far from natural; John 12:43 does not
suffice to justify it. Others
understand by this expression: glory
in God's sight , that which we should
possess if we were righteous (Mel. Calv.
Philippi). This meaning is not
much more natural than that which
appears sometimes in Luther: the act
of glorying in God; or than that of
OEcumenius and Chalmers: the
destination of every man to glorify
God. There are really only two senses
possible. The first is that of the
many commentators who understand the
glory of God as the future and eternal
glory (Beza, Morison, Reuss, etc.).
But in this case we must give to the
verb uJsterei'sqai a very forced
meaning: to lack the necessary
qualifications for obtaining this glory. The
second meaning, and the only one which
we think admissible, is this the
divine splendor which shines forth
from God Himself, and which He
communicates to all that live in union
with Him (see Hofmann, Meyer).
This meaning includes that of Ruckert
and Olshausen, who understand it
too specially, no doubt, to mean the
original image of God in man. The
complement Qeou' , of God , is at once
a gen. possess. and a gen. auctor.
God can communicate this glory,
because He possesses it Himself, and it
belongs to His nature. He had
communicated a ray of it to man when He
created him pure and happy; it was
intended to shine more and more
brightly in him as he rose from
innocence to holiness. By sinning, man lost
both what he had received of it and
what he was yet to obtain. A
dispossessed king,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the crown has fallen from his
head.—The consequence of this state of
things is indicated, in close
connection with the context, in ver. 24.
Ver. 24. “ Being justified as a pure
gift by His grace through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
”—The participle dikaiouvmenoi , being
justified , takes us by surprise. Why
give this idea, which is the principal
one in the context, a subordinate
place, by using a participle to express it?
To explain this unexpected form, it
must be remembered that the idea of
justification had already been
solemnly introduced, vv. 21, 22. ver. 23 had
afterward explained it by the fact of
the fall; and now it can reappear as a
simple corollary from this great fact.
We might paraphrase: “being
consequently justified, as we have
just declared , freely”...The present
participle
( dikaiouvmenoi ) refers to every
moment in the history of mankind when a
sinner comes to believe. There is no
need therefore to add, as Ostervald
and others do, a new conjunction: “and
that they are justified.” Neither is it
necessary to take this participle,
with Beza and Morison, as the
demonstration of the fact of sin, ver.
23. It is impossible that the essential
idea of the whole passage should be
given in proof of a secondary idea.
The most erroneous explanation seems
to us to be that of Oltramare, who
here begins a wholly new period, the
principal verb of which must be
sought in ver. 27: “Since we are
justified freely...is there here, then, any
cause for boasting?” The most
important passage in the whole Epistle, vv.
24-26, would thus be degraded to the rank
of a simple incident. And,
moreover, the asyndeton between vv.
23, 24 would be without the
slightest justification.
This notion: being justified , is
qualified in three directions: those of the
mode , the origin , and the means. The
mode is expressed by the adverb
dwreavn , gratuitously. It is not a
matter of wages, it is a free gift.—The
origin of this gift is: His grace ,
God's free goodwill inclining him to sinful
man to bestow on him a favor. There is
no blind necessity here; we are
face to face with a generous
inspiration of divine love. The means is the
deliverance wrought in Jesus Christ.
The Greek term ajpoluvtrwsi" denotes
etymologically, a deliverance obtained
by way of purchase
( luvtron , ransom ). No doubt the New
Testament writers often use it in the
general sense of deliverance , apart
from all reference to a price paid; so
8:23; Luke 21:28; 1 Cor. 1:30. But in
these passages, as Morison
observes, the matter in question is
only one of the particular
consequences of the fundamental
deliverance obtained by Christ. The
idea of the latter is usually
connected with that of the ransom paid to
obtain it; comp. Matt. 20:28, where it
is said that Jesus gives his life a
ransom
( luvtron ), in the room and stead (
ajntiv ) of many; 1 Tim. 2:6, where the
term signifying ransom forms one word
with the preposition ajntiv , in the
place of ( ajntivlutron ); 1 Pet.
1:18: “Ye were ransomed as by the precious
blood of the Lamb, without spot.” This
notion of purchase , in speaking of
the work of Christ, appears also in 1
Cor. 6:20, 7:23; Gal. 3:13. It is
obvious that this figure was most
familiar to the apostle's mind; it is
impossible to get rid of it in the
present passage.—The title Christ is
placed before the name Jesus , the
main subject here being his
mediatorial office (see on 1:1).—After
thus giving the general idea of the
work, the apostle expounds it more in
detail by defining exactly the ideas
he has just stated. That of divine
grace reappears in the words: whom he
had set forth beforehand , ver. 25;
that of deliverance, in the words: to be
a propitiation through faith; that of
Christ Jesus , in the words: in His
blood; and, finally, the principal
term: being justified , in the last words of
ver. 26: the justifier of him who
believeth in Jesus. This conclusion thus
brings us back to the starting-point
of the passage.
Vv. 25, 26. “ Whom He had established
beforehand as a means of
propitiation through faith,by His
blood, for the demonstration of His justice,
because of the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
tolerance shown toward sins done
aforetime, during the forbearance of
God, for the demonstration of His
justice at the present time; that He
might be just, and justifying him who
is of the faith in Jesus. ”—It is not
without reason that these two verses
have been called “the marrow of
theology.” Calvin declares “that there
is not probably in the whole Bible a
passage which sets forth more
profoundly the righteousness of God in
Christ.” And yet it is so short that
the statement seems scarcely to have
begun when all is said, within so few
lines are the most decisive thoughts
concentrated! It is really, as
Vitringa has said, “the brief summary of divine
wisdom.”
It is God Himself who, according to
this passage, is to be regarded as the
author of the whole work of
redemption. The salvation of the world is not
therefore wrested from Him, as is
sometimes represented by the
mediation of Christ. The same thought
is expressed elsewhere; for
example, 2 Cor. 5:18: “All is of God ,
who hath reconciled us to Himself by
Jesus Christ;” and John 3:16: “God so
loved the world, that He gave His
only-begotten Son.” This point should
never be forgotten in the idea which
we form of expiation.—The verb
protiqevnai , to put before , may signify in
the middle, either: to exhibit ,
present publicly (in view of oneself), or to set
before oneself in the innermost shrine
of the spirit; to decide, to design
beforehand within oneself. For the
preposition prov may have the local
meaning in front of , or the temporal
meaning before. Both significations of
the verb have been used here, and in
favor of both numerous examples
may be quoted in classic Greek. The
second sense is obviously the
prevailing one in the New Testament;
comp. Rom. 1:13, Eph. 1:9, etc., as
well as the common use of the word
provqesi" to denote God's eternal plan
(8:28; Eph. 3:11); see also Acts
27:13. In favor of the first meaning, there
may be quoted, indeed, the phrase
a[rtoi th'" proqevsew" , the shewbread ,
in the LXX. If we use it here, it
would make the apostle say: “whom God
set forth publicly as a propitiatory
victim.” This act of public showing forth
would refer either to the exhibition
of Jesus on the cross, or to the
proclamation of His death by the
apostolic preaching. The middle form (to
set forth for oneself ) would find its
explanation in the clause following: “for
the demonstration of His justice. ”
This meaning is not impossible. It is
adopted by the Vulgate, Luth., Beng.,
Thol., de Wette, Philip., Meyer,
Hofm., Morison. But this idea of a
public exhibition of the person of Jesus
appears to us to have it something at
once theatrical and superfluous.
Independently of what we have just
been saying of the ordinary meaning
of the words protiqevnai,
provqesi" , in the New Testament, the context
speaks strongly in favor of the other
meaning. The fundamental idea of
the passage is the contrast between
the time of God's forbearance in
regard to sin, and the decisive moment
when at once He carried out the
universal expiation. It is natural in
this order of ideas to emphasize the fact
that God had foreseen this final
moment, and had provided Himself
beforehand with the victim by means of
which the expiation was to be
accomplished. Thus the phrase: to set
forth beforehand , already gives a
hint of the contrast: at the present
time , ver. 26. Placed as it is at the
head of the whole passage, it brings
out forcibly, at the same time, the
incomparable gravity of the work about
to be described. The middle of the
verb refers to the inward resolution
of God. In adopting this meaning, we
find ourselves at one with the ancient
Greek interpreters, Chrys., OEcum.,
Theoph.; see, among the moderns,
Fritzsche. The word iJlasthvrion ,
propitiatory , belongs to that host of
Greek adjectives whose termination (
hrio" ) signifies what serves to.
The meaning therefore is: “what serves to
render propitious, favorable.” The
verb iJlavskesqai corresponds in the
LXX. to kipper , the Piel of kaphar,
to cover. Applied to the notion of sin ,
this Piel has a double sense: either
to pardon —the subject is then the
offended one himself, who, as it were,
covers the sin
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
that he may see it no more, for
example, Ps. 65:4—or to expiate —the
subject is then the victim which
covers ( effaces ) the sin with its blood,
that the judge may see it no more, for
example, Ex. 29:36. In the New
Testament this verb occurs twice, Luke
18:13, where the publican says to
God: iJlavsqhti , show Thyself
propitious to me, which is equivalent to:
forgive me; and Heb. 2:17: eij"
to; iJlavskesqai ta;" aJmartiva" , to expiate the
sins of the people. We find in these
same two passages the two meanings
of the term in the Old Testament. The
etymology of this verb iJlavskesqai is
the adjective iJlao" , favorable,
propitious (probably connected with e[leo" ,
merciful ). To explain the word
iJlasthvrion in our text, very many
commentators, Orig., Theoph., Er.,
Luth., Calv., Grot., Vitringa, and
among the moderns, Olsh., Thol.,
Philip., etc., have had recourse to the
technical meaning which it has in the
LXX., where it denotes the
propitiatory , or lid of the ark of the covenant.
With this meaning the substantive
understood would be ejpivqema , lid ,
which is sometimes joined to the
adjective, for example, Ex. 25:17. As is
well known, the high priest, on the
day of atonement, sprinkled this lid with
the blood of the victim (Lev. 16:14 et
seq.). On this account these
commentators hold that it was here
regarded by Paul as the type of
Christ, whose shed blood covers the
sin of the world. The term is found in
this sense, Heb. 9:5. We do not,
however, think this interpretation
admissible. 1. If the matter in
question were a well-known definite object,
the only one of its kind, the article
tov could not be omitted. 2. The Epistle
to the Romans is not a book which
moves, like the Epistle to the Hebrews,
in the sphere of Levitical symbolism;
there is nothing here to indicate that
the term is applied to an object
belonging to the Israelitish cultus. 3. Gess
justly observes that if this type had
been familiar to St. Paul, it would have
been found elsewhere in his letters;
and if it were not so, the term would
have been unintelligible to his
readers. 4. In all respects the figure would
be a strange one. What a comparison to
make of Jesus Christ crucified
with a lid sprinkled with blood! 5.
Give to the verb proevqeto whichever of
the two meanings you choose, the
figure of the propitiatory remains
unsuitable. In the sense of exhibiting
publicly , there is a contradiction
between this idea of publicity and the
part assigned to the propitiatory in
the Jewish cultus; for this object
remained concealed in the sanctuary, the
high priest alone could see it, and
that only once a year, and through a
cloud of smoke. And if the verb be
explained in the sense which we have
adopted, that of establishing beforehand
, it is still more impossible to
apply this idea of an eternal purpose,
either to a material object like the
propitiatory itself, or to its typical
connection with Jesus Christ. We must
therefore understand the word
iJlasthvrion in a very wide sense: a means
of propitiation. After reading
Morison, we cannot venture to define more
strictly, and to translate: a victim
of propitiation , as if there were to be
understood the substantive qu'ma (
victim ). For this meaning of the term
used here does not seem to be
sufficiently proved by the passages
alleged (see the examples quoted by
Thol., de Wette, Meyer, with
Morison's criticism). The English
commentator himself takes the word
iJlasthvrion as a masculine adjective,
agreeing with the relative o{n :
“Jesus Christ, whom God set forth as
making propitiation. ” Such is the
explanation of the Peshito, Thomas
Aquinas, Er., Mel., etc. It is certainly
allowable. But in this sense would not
Paul rather have used the
masculine substantive iJlasthv" ?
The word iJlasthvria is indeed found, not
iJlasthvrioi (Hofm.). We therefore
hold by the generally received
interpretation, which makes the term
iJlasthvrion a neuter substantive
(originally the neuter of the
adjective; comp. swthvrion, caristhvrion , etc.).
As to the idea of sacrifice, if it is
not in the word itself, it follows from its
connection with the following
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
clause: by His blood (see below). For
what is a means of propitiation by
blood , if it is not a sacrifice? A
question may here be raised: if it is God
himself who, as we have just said, has
established this means of pardon
of His free grace , what purpose then
was this means to serve? For it
cannot obtain for us anything else
than we possessed already, the Divine
love. This objection rests on the
false idea that expiation is intended to
originate a sentiment which did not
exist in God before. What it produces
is such a change in the relation
between God and the creature, that God
can henceforth display toward sinful
man one of the elements of His
nature rather than another. The
feeling of the divine mind shows itself in
the foundation of the expiatory work
as compassion. But the propitiation
once effected, it can display itself
in the new and higher form of intimate
communion. As Gess says: “Divine love
manifests itself in the gift of the
Son, that it may be able afterward to
diffuse itself in the heart by the gift of
the spirit.” There are therefore—1.
The love which precedes the
propitiation, and which determines to
effect it; and 2. Love such that it can
display itself, once the propitiation
is effected.
The clause dia; ªth'"º
pivstew" , by faith , is wanting in the Alex. , which,
however is not enough to render it
suspicious. Five Mjj. (Alex. and Greco-
Lat.) omit the article th'" ( the
, before faith ). It would be impossible to
explain why this word had been
rejected if it existed originally in the text. It
has therefore been added to give the
notion of faith a more definite sense:
the well-known faith in Jesus. But it
was not on this or that particular faith
the apostle wished here to insist; it
was on faith in its very idea, in
opposition to works. — On what does
the clause depend: dia; pivstew" , by
faith? According to some ancients and
Philippi: on proevqeto ( He set forth
, or established beforehand ). But it
is difficult to conceive what logical
relation there can be between the
ideas of setting forth or establishing ,
and a clause such as by faith. The
only natural connection of this clause is
with the word iJlasthvrion ( means of
propitiation ): “God has established
Jesus beforehand as the means of
propitiation through faith,” which
signifies that the efficacy of this
means was from the first bound by the
divine decree to the condition of
faith. God eternally determined within
Himself the means of pardon, but as
eternally He stipulated with Himself
that the condition on which this means
should become available for each
individual should be faith, neither
more nor less. This idea is important;
the subjective condition of faith
entered as an integral element into the
very decree of amnesty (the
provqesi" ). This is what we shall find
afterward expressed in the words
ou}" proevgnw , whom He foreknew (as
His own by faith), 8:29. The clause
following: in or by His blood , is
connected by most commentators (Luth.,
Calv., Olsh., Thol., Morison) with
the word faith: “by faith in His blood.
” Grammatically this connection is
possible; comp. Eph. 1:15. And it is
the interpretation, perhaps, which has
led to the article th'" being
added before pivstew" . But it should certainly
be rejected. The idea requiring a
determining clause is not faith , which is
clear of itself, but the means of
propitiation. In a passage entirely devoted
to the expounding of the fact of
expiation, Paul could not possibly fail to
indicate the manner in which the means
operated. We therefore find the
notion of propitiation qualified by
two parallel and mutually completing
clauses: the first, by faith ,
indicating the subjective condition; and the
second, by His blood , setting forth
the historical and objective condition of
the efficacy of the means. Propitiation
does not take place except through
faith on the part of the saved, and
through blood on the part of the
Saviour. The attempt of Meyer,
Hofmann, etc., to make this clause
dependent on proevqeto (“He set Him
forth or established Him
beforehand... through His blood ”) is
unnatural. To present or establish a
person through or in his blood, would
not only be an obscure form of
speech, but even
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
offensively harsh. — According to Lev.
17:11, the soul of man, the
principle of life, is in the blood.
The blood flowing forth is the life exhaling.
Now the wilful sinner has deserved
death. Having used the gift of life to
revolt against Him from whom he holds
it, it is just that this gift should be
withdrawn from him. Hence the
sentence: “In the day thou sinnest, thou
shalt die.” Every act of sin should
thus, in strict justice, be followed by
death, the violent and instant death
of its author. The sinner, it is true, no
longer understands this; for sin
stupefies the conscience at the same time
that it corrupts the heart and
perverts the will. Such, then, is the law which
must be set in the light of day before
pardon is granted, and that it may be
granted. Otherwise the sovereign
majesty of God on the one side, and the
criminal character of the sinner on
the other, would remain shrouded in
the conscience of the pardoned sinner;
and such a pardon, instead of
laying a foundation for his
restoration, would consummate his degradation
and entail his eternal ruin. Thus are
justified the two qualifications of the
means of propitiation indicated here
by the apostle: in blood and by faith;
in other terms — 1. The judgment of
God on sin by the shedding of blood;
2. The adherence of the guilty to this
judgment by faith. The apostolic
utterance may consequently be
paraphrased thus: “Jesus Christ, whom
God settled beforehand as the means of
propitiation on the condition of
faith, through the shedding of His
blood.”
Blood does not certainly denote the holy
consecration of life in general. It
is purely arbitrary to seek any other
meaning in the word than it naturally
expresses, the fact of a violent and
bloody death. This signification is
specially obvious in a passage where
the word is found in such direct
connection with iJlasthvrion
( propitiation ), in which there is
concentrated the whole symbolism of the
Jewish sacrifices.
The relation commonly maintained
between propitiation (the act which
renders God favorable) and blood is
this: the blood of the Messiah, shed
as an equivalent for that of sinners,
is the indemnity offered to God's
justice to purchase the pardon granted
by love. But it must be observed
that this relation is not stated by
the apostle himself, and that the term
iJlavskesqai , to render propitious ,
does not necessarily contain the idea of
an indemnity paid in the form of a
quantitative equivalent. The word
denotes in general the act, whatever
it be, in consequence of which God,
who was displaying His wrath, is led
to display His grace, and to pardon.
This propitiatory act is, Luke 18:13,
14, the cry of the penitent publican;
Ps. 51:17, the sacrifice of a broken
and contrite heart. In the supreme and
final redemption which we have in
Christ, the way of propitiation is more
painful and decisive. The apostle has
just told us in what it consists; he
proceeds in the words which follow to
explain to us its object: for the
demonstration of His justice.
The term demonstration is remarkable.
If the apostle had in view a
payment offered to justice in
compensation for the death which sinful men
have merited, he would rather have
said: “for the satisfaction of His
justice.” The word manifestation seems
to belong to a somewhat different
order of ideas. But let us begin with
fixing the meaning of the principal
expression: the righteousness of God.
Luther has connected it with
justification. But in this case the
contrast with the time of God's longsuffering
, ver. 26, becomes unintelligible, and
the two last terms of the
same verse: “that He might be just and
the justifier ,” could not be
distinguished from one another. So all
interpreters agree to take the word
as indicating a divine attribute
which, long veiled, was put in the light of
day by the cross. Which attribute is
it? Justice sometimes denoting moral
perfection in general, each
commentator has taken the term used by Paul
as expressing the special attribute
which agreed best
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
with his system in regard to the work
of redemption. It has been taken to
express—(1) Goodness (Theodor., Abel.,
Grot., Seml., etc.); (2) Veracity
or fidelity (Ambr., Beza, Turret.);
(3) Holiness (Nitzsch, Neand., Hofm.,
Lipsius); (4) Righteousness as justifying
and sanctifying (the Greek
Fathers, Mel., Calv., Oltram.) — this
meaning is almost identical with
Luther's; (5) Righteousness in so far
as it carries the salvation of the elect
to its goal; such is the meaning of
Ritschl, which comes very near No. 3;
(6) Retributive justice in God,
considered here specially as the principle of
the punishment of sin (de Wette, Mey.,
Philip.). The first five meanings all
fall before one common objection; the
Greek language, and Paul's
vocabulary in particular, have special
terms terms to express each of
those particular attributes:
crhstovth" , goodness; ajlhvqeia , veracity; pivsti"
, faithfulness; cavri" , grace;
aJgiwsuvnh , holiness. Why not use one of
these definite terms, instead of
introducing into this so important didactic
passage a term fitted to occasion the
gravest misunderstandings, if it was
really to be taken in a sense
different from its usual and natural
signification? Now this signification
is certainly that of No. 6: justice, as the
mode of action whereby God maintains
the right of every being, and
consequently order throughout the
whole moral universe, blessing him
who has respect to this order,
visiting with punishment him who violates it.
The essence of God is the absolute
love of the good, His holiness (Isa.
6:3: “Holy, holy, holy”...). Now, the
good is order, the normal relation
between all free beings, from God
Himself to the last of them. The
attribute of justice , eternally
latent in holiness, passes into the active state
with the appearance of the free
creature. For in the fact of freedom there
was included the possibility of
disorder, and this possibility soon passed
into reality. God's abhorrence of
evil, His holiness, thus displays itself in
the form of justice preserving order
and maintaining right. Now, to
maintain order without suppressing
liberty, there is but one means, and
that is punishment. Punishment is
order in disorder. It is the revelation of
disorder to the sinner's conscience by
means of suffering. It is
consequently, or at least may be, the
point of departure for the
reestablishment of order, of the
normal relation of free beings. Thus is
explained the notion of the justice of
God , so often proclaimed in
Scripture (John 17:25; 2 Thess. 1:5; 2
Tim. 4:8; Rev. 16:5, 19:2, 11, etc.);
and especially Rom. 2:5 et seq., where
we see the dikaiokrisiva , the just
judgment , distributing among men
wrath and tribulation (vv. 8, 9), glory
and peace (vv. 7-10).—This meaning
which we give with Scripture to the
word justice , and which is in keeping
with its generally received use, is
also the only one, as we shall see,
which suits the context of this passage,
and especially the words which follow.
How was the cross the manifestation of
the justice of God? In two ways so
closely united, that either of them
separated from the other would lose its
value. 1. By the very fact of Christ's
sufferings and bloody death. If Paul
does not see in this punishment a
quantitative equivalent of the treatment
which every sinner had incurred, this
is what clearly appears from such
sayings as 2 Cor. 5:21: “God made Him
sin for us; ” Gal. 3:13: “Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the law,
being made a curse for us. ” Now,
herein precisely consists the
manifestation of the righteousness wrought
out on the cross. God is here revealed
as one against whom no creature
can revolt without meriting death; and
the sinner is here put in his place in
the dust as a malefactor worthy of
death. Such is the objective
manifestation of righteousness. 2.
This demonstration, however striking,
would be incomplete without the
subjective or moral manifestation which
accompanies it. Every sinner might be
called to die on a cross. But no
sinner was in a condition to undergo
this punishment as Jesus did,
accepting it as deserved. This is what
He alone could do in virtue of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
His holiness. The calm and mute
resignation with which He allowed
Himself to be led to the slaughter,
manifested the idea which He Himself
formed of the majesty of God and the
judgment He was passing on the sin
of the world; from His cross there
rose the most perfect homage rendered
to the righteousness of God. In this
death the sin of mankind was
therefore doubly judged, and the
righteousness of God doubly
manifested—by the external fact of
this painful and ignominious
punishment, and by the inward act of
Christ's conscience, which ratified
this dealing of which sin was the
object in His person.—But now it will be
asked what rendered such a
demonstration necessary: Because , says St.
Paul, of the tolerance exercised in
regard to sins done aforetime.
For four thousand years the spectacle
presented by mankind to the whole
moral universe (comp. 1 Cor. 4:9) was,
so to speak, a continual scandal.
With the exception of some great
examples of judgments, divine
righteousness seemed to be asleep; one
might even have asked if it
existed. Men sinned here below, and
yet they lived. They sinned on, and
yet reached in safety a hoary old
age!...Where were the wages of sin? It
was this relative impunity which
rendered a solemn manifestation of
righteousness necessary. Many
commentators have completely mistaken
the meaning of this passage, by giving
to the word pavresi" , which we
have translated tolerance , the sense
of pardon (Orig., Luth., Calv.,
Calov.; see also the Geneva
translation of 1557, and, following it, Osterv.
etc.). This first mistake has led to
another. There has been given to the
preposition diav the meaning of by ,
which it cannot have when governing
the accusative, or it has been
translated in view of , which would have
required the preposition eij" .
The first error lies in confounding the term
pavresi" ( tolerance, impunity )
with a[fesi" ( remission, pardon ). The
second of these substantives comes
from the verb ajfivenai , to send away
, dismiss, pardon
( remittere ); while the first used
here comes from the verb parivenai , to let
pass , neglect, not to occupy oneself
with ( praetermittere ); nearly the
same idea as that expressed by the
word uJperidei'n , to close the eyes to ,
Acts 18:30. The signification of the
verb parivenai appears clearly from the
two following passages: Sir. 23:2:
“Lest sins should remain unpunished (
mh; pariw'ntai ta; av marthvmata );”
and Xenophon, Hipparchic. 7.10: “Such
sins must not be allowed to pass
unpunished ( ta; ou|n toiau'ta aJmarthvmata
ouj crh; parivenai ajkovlasta ).” It
is worthy of remark also that in these two
places sin is designated by the same
word aJmavrthma as Paul employs in
our passage: sin in the form of
positive fault, transgression. The real
sense of pavresi" is therefore
not doubtful. It has been given by Theodor.,
Grot., Beng.; it is now almost
universally received (Thol., Olsh., Mey.,
Fritzs., Ruck ., de Wette, Philip.
etc.). The diav can thus receive its true
meaning (with the accusative): on
account of; and the idea of the passage
becomes clear: God judged it
necessary, on account of the impunity so
long enjoyed by those myriads of
sinners who succeeded one another on
the earth, at length to manifest His
justice by a striking act; and He did so
by realizing in the death of Jesus the
punishment which each of those
sinners would have deserved to
undergo.—Ritschl, who, on account of his
theory regarding the righteousness of
God (see on 1:18), could not accept
this meaning, supposes another
interpretation (II. p. 217 et seq.).
Tolerance ( pavresi" ) is not,
according to him, contrasted with merited
punishment , but with the pardon which
God has finally granted. ver. 25
would thus signify that till the
coming of Jesus Christ, God had only
exercised patience without pardoning,
but that in Christ the justice of God
(His faithfulness to the salvation of
His elect) had advanced so far as to
give complete pardon. But where then,
asks Gess, is this only , so
necessary to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
indicate the advance from tolerance to
pardon? The natural contrast to
impunity is not pardon, but
punishment; comp. 2:4, 5, and the parallel
passage to ours, Acts 17:30, 31: “ The
times of ignorance God winked at ,
but now commandeth men to repent,
because He hath appointed a day in
which He will judge the world in
righteousness. ” Finally, it is impossible on
this interpretation to give a natural
meaning to the words on account of.
For pardon was not given because of
the impunity exercised toward those
sins. Paul would have required to say,
either: because of those sins
themselves, or: following up the long
tolerance exercised toward them.
Several commentators (Calovius, for
example) refer the expression: sins
done aforetime , not to the sins of
mankind who lived before Christ, but to
those committed by every believer
before his conversion. It is difficult in
this sense to explain the words which
follow: at this time , which form an
antithesis to the former. We must
apply them to the moment when each
sinner in particular believes. But
this meaning does not correspond to the
gravity of the expression: at this
time , in which the apostle evidently
contrasts the period of completion
with that of general impunity, and even
with the eternal decree (the
provqesi" ).
It may be further asked if these sins
done aforetime are those of all
mankind anterior to Christ, or
perhaps, as Philippi thinks, only those of the
Jews. The argument which this
commentator derives from the meaning of
iJlasthvrion , the lid of the ark, the
propitiatory so called, has of course no
weight with us. Might one be found in
the remarkable parallel, Heb. 9:15:
“The transgressions that were under
the first testament”? No, for this
restricted application follows
naturally from the particular aim of the Epistle
to the Hebrews (comp. for example,
2:16). It may even be said that the
demonstration of which the apostle
speaks was less necessary for Israel
than for the rest of mankind. For the
sacrifices instituted by God were
already a homage rendered to his
justice. But this homage was not
sufficient; for there was wanting in
it that which gives value to the sacrifice
of Christ; the victim underwent death,
but did not accept it. Hence it was
that the death of the Messiah
necessarily closed the long series of the
Levitical sacrifices. No more can we
receive the opinion of Beza,
Cocceius, Morison, who think the sins
that are past are those of the
faithful of the Old Testament whom God
pardoned from regard to the
future sacrifice of Christ. The
article tw'n (“ the sins”) does not admit of this
restriction, which there is nothing
else to indicate. And the sacrifice of
Christ cannot be explained here by an
end so special.
But if it is asked why Paul gives as
the reason for this sacrifice only the
past and not the future sins of
mankind, as if the death of Christ did not
apply equally to the latter, the
answer is easy, from the apostle's standpoint:
the righteousness of God once revealed
in the sacrifice of the cross,
this demonstration remains. Whatever
happens, nothing can again efface
it from the history of the world, nor
from the conscience of mankind.
Henceforth no illusion is possible:
all sin must be pardoned—or judged.
Regarded from the point of view here
taken by the apostle, the death of
Jesus is in the history of humanity,
something like what would emerge in
the life of a sinner had he a time of
perfect lucidity when, his conscience
being miraculously brought into one
with the mind of God regarding sin,
he should judge himself as God judges
him. Such a moment would be to
this man the starting-point of a total
transformation. Thus the
demonstration of righteousness given
to the world by the cross of Christ at
the close of the long economy of sin
tolerated , founded the new epoch,
and with the possibility of pardon
established the principle of the radical
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
renewal of humanity.
Ver. 26. The first words of this
verse: during the forbearance of God ,
depend naturally on the word
pavresi" , tolerance: “the tolerance (shown)
during the forbearance of God.” It is
less simple to connect this clause
with the participle progegonovtwn :
“committed formerly during the
forbearance of God.” For the principal
idea in what precedes, that which
needs most to be explained, is that of
the tolerance , and not that
expressed by this participle. Meyer gives
to the preposition ejn the
meaning of by: “the tolerance
exercised toward the sins that are passed
by the forbearance of God.” But the
following antithesis: at this time ,
imperatively requires the temporal
meaning of the clause ejn th'/ ajnoch'/
.—At the first glance it seems strange
that in a proposition of which God is
the subject, the apostle should say,
not: “during his forbearance,” but:
“during the forbearance of God. ” The
reason of this apparent
incorrectness is not, as has been
thought, the remoteness of the subject,
nor the fact that Paul is now
expressing himself as it were from his own
point of view, and not from that of
God (Mey.). Rather it is that which is
finely given by Matthias: by the word
God the apostle brings more into
relief the contrast between men's
conduct (their constant sins ) and God's
(His long-suffering).
We have seen that ver. 26 should begin
with the words reproduced from
ver. 25: for the demonstration of His
justice. To what purpose this
repetition? Had not the reason which
rendered the demonstration of
righteousness necessary been
sufficiently explained in ver. 25? Why raise
this point emphatically once more to
explain it anew? This form is
surprising, especially in a passage of
such extraordinary conciseness. De
Wette and Meyer content themselves
with saying: Repetition of the eij"
e[ndeixin ( for the demonstration ),
ver. 25. But again, why the change of
preposition: in ver. 25, eij" ;
here, prov" ? We get the answer: a matter of
style (Mey.), or of euphony (Gess),
wholly indifferent as to meaning. With
a writer like Paul—our readers, we
hope, are convinced of this—such
answers are insufficient. Ruckert and
Hofmann, to avoid these difficulties,
think that the words: for the
demonstration ...should not be made
dependent, like the similar words of
ver. 25, on the verb proevqeto , had
established , but on the substantive
forbearance: “during the time of His
forbearance, a forbearance which had
in view the manifestation of His
justice at a later period.” De Wette
replies, with reason, that were we to
connect these words with so
subordinate an idea, the reader's mind would
be diverted from the essential thought
of the entire passage. Besides, how
can we fail to see in the pro;"
e[ndeixin ( for the manifestation ) of ver. 26
the resumption of the similar
expression, ver. 25? The fact of this
repetition is not, as it seems to us,
so difficult to explain. The moral
necessity of such a manifestation had
been demonstrated by the
tolerance of God in the past; for it
had thrown a veil over the
righteousness of God. But the
explanation was not complete. The object
to be gained in the future by this
demonstration must also be indicated.
And this is the end served by the
repetition of this same expression in ver.
26: “for the demonstration, I say, in
view of ”...Thus at the same time is
explained the change of preposition.
In ver. 25 the demonstration itself
was regarded as an end: “whom he set
forth beforehand as a propitiation
for the demonstration ( eij" ,
with a view to)”...But in ver. 26 this same
demonstration becomes a means , with a
view to a new and more remote
end: “ for the demonstration of His
justice, that He might be (literally, with
a view to being ) just, and the
justifier”...The demonstration is always the
end, no doubt, but now it is only the
near and immediate object—such is
exactly the meaning of the Greek
preposition prov" , which is substituted
for the eij" of ver. 25-compared
with a more distant and final end which
opens up to view, and for which the
apostle
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
now reserves the eij" (with a
view to): “ with a view to being just, and the
justifier.” Comp. on the relation of
these two prepositions, Eph. 4:12: “ for (
prov" ) the perfecting of the
saints with a view to a ( eij" ) work of ministry.”
Here we may have a convincing proof
that nothing is accidental in the
style of a man like Paul. Never did
jeweller chisel his diamonds more
carefully than the apostle does the
expression of his thoughts. This
delicate care of the slightest shades
is also shown in the addition of the
article thvn before e[ndeixin in ver.
26, an addition sufficiently attested by
the four Alex. Mjj., and by a Mj. from
each of the other two families (D P).
In ver. 25 the notion of demonstration
was yet abstract: “ in demonstration
of righteousness.” In ver. 26 it is
now known; it is a concrete fact which
should conspire to a new end; hence
the addition of the article: “for that
manifestation of which I speak, with a
view to”...The following words: at
this time , express one of the gravest
thoughts of the passage. They bring
out the full solemnity of the present
epoch marked by this unexampled
appearance, preordained and in a sense
awaited by God Himself for so
long. For without this prevision the
long forbearance of the forty previous
centuries would have been morally
impossible; comp. Acts 17:30 (in
regard to the Gentiles), and Heb.
9:26: “But now once in the end of the
ages hath He appeared, to put away sin
by the sacrifice of Himself” (in
regard to Israel).
And what was the end with a view to
which this demonstration of
righteousness was required at this
time? The apostle answers: that he
might be just and justifying —that is
to say, “that while being and
remaining just, God might justify. It
was a great problem, a problem
worthy of divine wisdom, which the sin
of man set before God—to remain
just while justifying (declaring just)
man who had become unjust. God did
not shrink from the task. He had even
solved the difficulty beforehand in
His eternal counsel, before creating
man free; otherwise, would not this
creation have merited the charge of
imprudence? God had beside Him, in
Christ ( proevqeto , ver. 25; comp.
Eph. 1:3, 4), the means of being at once
just and justifying —that is to say,
just while justifying, and justifying while
remaining just.—The words: that He
might be just , are usually understood
in the logical sense: “that He might
be known to be just.” Gess rightly
objects to this attenuation of the
word be. The second predicate: and
justifying , does not suit this idea
of being known. If God did not once
show Himself perfectly just, would He
be so in reality? Gess rightly says:
“A judge who hates evil, but does not
judge it, is not just: if the
righteousness of God did not show
itself, it would not exist.” In not smiting
those sinners at once with the
thunderbolt of His vengeance, those who
had lived during the time of forbearance,
God had not shown Himself just;
and if He had continued to act thus
indefinitely, mankind and the entire
moral universe would have had good
right to conclude that He was not
just. It is obvious that the words:
that He might be just , do not, strictly
speaking, express a new idea: they
reproduce in a different form the
reason for the demonstration of
righteousness already given in ver. 25 in
the words: “because of the tolerance
exercised toward sins done
aforetime.” If this tolerance had not
at length issued in a manifestation of
justice, justice itself would have
been annihilated. The thought is
nevertheless of supreme importance
here, at the close of this exposition.
Men must not imagine, as they might
easily do, especially with pardon
before them, that the justice of God
is somehow completely absorbed in
His grace through the act of
justifying. There is in the firm and immovable
will of God to maintain right and
order in the universe—His justice, that is
to say—the principle of the justification
of believers no doubt, but not less
certainly that of the judgment of the
impenitent. Now, if God did not show
Himself just at the moment when He
justifies the unjust, there would be in
such a pardon what would
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
plunge sinners into the most dangerous
illusion. They could no longer
seriously suppose that they were on
their way to give in an account; and
judgment would burst on them as a
terrible surprise. This is what God
could not desire, and hence He has
exercised the divine privilege of
pardon only through means of a
striking and solemn manifestation of His
justice. He would really have given up
His justice if, in this supreme
moment of His manifestation, He had
not displayed it brightly on the earth.
After having secured His
righteousness, He is able to justify the unjust; for
He has, in Christ, the means of
justifying him justly. We have seen that
the cross re- establishes order by
putting each in his place, the holy God
on His throne, rebellious man in the
dust. So long as this homage, making
reparation for the past, remains
without us, it does not save us; but as
soon as we make it ourselves by faith
in Jesus , it avails for us, and God
can justly absolve us. This is what is
expressed by the last words, to
which the passage pointed from the
first: and justifying him who is of the
faith in Jesus. By adhering to this
manifestation of divine righteousness
accomplished in Jesus, the believer
makes it morally his own. He renders
homage personally to the right which
God has over him. He sees in his
own person the malefactor worthy of
death, who should have undergone
and accepted what Jesus underwent and
accepted. He exclaims, like that
Bechuana in his simple savage
language: Away from that, Christ; that's
my place! Sin is thus judged in his
conscience, as it was in that of the
dying Jesus—that is to say, as it is
by the holiness of God himself, and as
it never could have been by the ever
imperfect repentance of a sinner. By
appropriating to himself the homage
rendered to the majesty of God by
the Crucified One, the believer is
himself crucified as it were in the eyes of
God; moral order is re-established,
and judgment can take end by an act
of absolution. As to the impenitent
sinner, who refuses to the divine
majesty the homage contained in the
act of faith, the demonstration of
righteousness given on the cross
remains as the proof that he will
certainly meet with this divine
attribute in the judgment.—The phrase: to
be of the faith , has nothing
surprising in Paul's style; comp. the ei\nai ejk ,
2:8; Gal. 3:7, 10, etc. It forcibly
expresses the new mode of being which
becomes the believer's as soon as he
ceases to draw his righteousness
from himself and derives it wholly
from Jesus.—Three Mjj. read the
accusative jIhsou'n , which would lead
to the impossible sense: “and the
justifier of Jesus by faith.” This
error probably arises from the abridged
form IY in the ancient Mjj., which might
easily be read IN. Two MSS. (F G)
wholly reject this name (see Meyer).
The phrase: “him who is of the faith,”
without any indication of the object
of faith, would not be impossible. This
reading has been accepted by
Oltramare. But two MSS. of the ninth
century do not suffice to justify it.
Nothing could better close this piece
than the name of the historical
personage to whose unspeakable love
mankind owes this eternal blessing.
The Expiation.
We have endeavored to reproduce
exactly the meaning of the
expressions used by the apostle in
this important passage, and to rise to
the sum of the ideas which it
contains. In what does the apostolical
conception, as we have understood it,
differ from the current theories on
this fundamental subject?
If we compare it first with the
doctrine generally received in the church, the
point on which the difference seems to
us to bear is this: in the
ecclesiastical theory God demands the
punishment of Christ as a
satisfaction to Himself, in so far as
His justice ought to have an equivalent
for the penalty merited by man, to
permit divine
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
love to pardon. From the point of view
to which the exposition of the
apostle brings us, this equivalent is
not intended to satisfy divine justice
except by manifesting it, and in
re-establishing the normal relation
between God and the guilty creature.
By sin, in short, God loses His
supreme place in the conscience of the
creature; by this demonstration of
justice He recovers it. In consequence
of sin, the creature no longer
comprehends and feels the gravity of
his rebellion; by this manifestation
God makes it palpable to him. On this
view it is not necessary that the
sacrifice of reparation should be the
equivalent of the penalty incurred by
the multitude of sinful men, viewed as
the sum of the merited sufferings; it
is enough that it be so as regards the
physical and moral character of the
sufferings due to sin in itself.
The defenders of the received theory
will no doubt ask if, on this view, the
expiation is not pointed simply to the
conscience of the creature, instead
of being also a reparation offered to
God Himself. But if it is true that a
holy God cannot pardon, except in so
far as the pardon itself establishes
the absolute guilt of sin and the
inviolability of the divine majesty, and so
includes a guarantee for the re-
establishment of order in the relation
between the sinner and God, and if
this condition is found only in the
punishment of sin holily undertaken
and humbly accepted by Him who
alone was able to do so, is not the
necessity of expiation in relation to the
absolute Good, to God Himself ,
demonstrated? His holiness would
protest against every pardon which did
not fulfil the double condition of
glorifying His outraged majesty and
displaying the condemnation of sin.
Now, this double end is gained only by
the expiatory sacrifice. But the
necessity of this sacrifice arises
from His whole divine character, in other
words, from his holiness, the
principle at once of His love and justice, and
not exclusively of His justice. And,
in truth, the apostle nowhere expresses
the idea of a conflict between justice
and love as requiring the expiation. It
is grace that saves, and it saves by
the demonstration of justice which, in
the act of expiation, restores God to
His place and man to his. Such is the
condition on which divine love can
pardon without entailing on the sinner
the final degradation of his
conscience and the eternal consolidation of his
sin.
This view also evades the grand
objection which is so generally raised in
our day against a satisfaction made to
justice by means of the substitution
of the innocent for the guilty. No
doubt the ordinary theory of expiation
may be defended by asking who would be
entitled to complain of such a
transaction: not God who establishes
it, nor the Mediator who voluntarily
sacrifices Himself, nor man whose
salvation is affected by it. But, in any
case, this objection does not apply to
the apostolic conception as we have
expounded it. For whenever the
question ceases to be one of legal
satisfaction, and becomes a simple demonstration
of God's right, no
ground remains for protesting in the
name of justice. Who could accuse
God of injustice for having made use
of Job and his sufferings to prove to
Satan that he can obtain from the
children of the dust a disinterested
homage, a free submission, which is
not that of the mercenary? Similarly,
who can arraign the divine justice for
having given to sinful man, in the
person of Jesus, a convincing
demonstration of the judgment which the
guilty one deserved at his hand?
Deserved, did I say? of the judgment
which will visit him without fail if
he refuses to join by faith in that homage
solemnly rendered to God's rights, and
rejects the reconciliation which
God offers him in this form.
It seems to us, then, that the true
apostolical conception, while firmly
establishing the fact of expiation,
which is, historically speaking—as no
one can deny—the distinctive feature
of Christianity, secures it from the
grave objections which in these days
have led so many to look on this
fundamental dogma with
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
suspicion.
But some would perhaps say: Such a
view rests, as much as the so-called
orthodox theory, on notions of right
and justice , which belong to a lower
sphere, to the legal and juridical
domain. A noble and generous man will
not seek to explain his conduct by
reasons taken from so external an
order; how much less should we have
recourse to them to explain that of
God?—Those who speak thus do not
sufficiently reflect that we have to
do in this question not with God in
His essence, but with God in His
relation to free man. Now, the latter
is not holy to begin with; the use
which he makes of his liberty is not
yet regulated by love. The attribute of
justice (the firm resolution to
maintain order, whose existence is latent in
the divine holiness ) must therefore
appear as a necessary safeguard as
soon as liberty comes on the stage,
and with it the possibility of disorder;
and this attribute must remain in
exercise as long as the educational
period of the life of the creature
lasts, that is to say, until he has reached
perfection in love. Then all those
factors, right, law, justice, will return to
their latent state. But till then,
God, as the guardian of the normal relations
between free beings, must keep by law
and check by punishment every
being disposed to trample on His
authority, or on the liberty of His fellows.
Thus it is that the work of
righteousness necessarily belongs to God's
educating and redeeming work, without
which the world of free beings
would soon be no better than a chaos,
from which goodness, the end of
creation, would be forever banished.
Blot out this factor from the
government of the world, and the free
being becomes Titan, no longer
arrested by anything in the execution
of any caprice. God's place is
overthrown, and the creatures destroy
one another mutually. It is common
to regard love as the fundamental
feature of the divine character; and in
this way it is very difficult to reach
the attribute of justice. Most thinkers,
indeed, do not reach it at all. This
one fact should serve to show the error
in which they are entangled. Holy,
holy, holy , say the creatures nearest to
God, when celebrating His perfection
(Isa. 6), and not good, good, good.
Holiness, such is the essence of God;
and holiness is the absolute love of
the good, the absolute horror of evil.
Hence it is not difficult to deduce
both love and justice. Love is the
goodwill of God toward all free beings
who are destined to realize the good.
Love goes out to the individuals, as
holiness to the good itself which they
ought to produce. Justice, on the
other hand, is the firm purpose of God
to maintain the normal relation
between all these beings by his
blessings and punishments. It is obvious
that justice is included no less
necessarily than love itself in the
fundamental feature of the divine
character, holiness. It is no offence
therefore to God to speak of His
justice and His rights. The exercise of a
right is only a shame when the being
who exercises it makes it
subservient to the gratification of
his egoism. It is, on the contrary, a glory
to one who, like God, knows that in
preserving His place He is securing
the good of all others. For, as Gess
admirably expounds it, God, in
maintaining His supreme dignity,
preserves to the creatures their most
precious treasure , a God worthy of
their respect and love.
Unjustifiable antipathy to the notions
of right and justice, as applied to
God, has led contemporary thought to
very divergent and insufficient
explanations of the death of Christ.
Some see nothing more in this event
than an inevitable historical result of
the conflict between the holiness of
Jesus and the immoral character of
his contemporaries. This solution is
well answered by Hausrath himself:
“Our faith gives to the question: Why
did Christ require to die on the
cross? another answer than that drawn
from the history of His time. For
the history of the ideal cannot be an isolated
and particular fact; its
contents are absolute; it has an
eternal value which does not
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
belong to a given moment, but to the
whole of mankind. Every man should
recognize in such a history a mystery
of grace consummated also for him
” ( Neutest. Zeitgesch. 1:450).
Wherein consists this mystery of grace
contained in the Crucified One for
every man? In the fact, answer many,
that here we find the manifestation
of divine love to mankind. “The ray of
love,” says Pfleiderer, “such is the
true saviour of mankind....And as to
Jesus, He is the sun, the focus in
whom all the rays of this light
scattered elsewhere are concentrated”
( Wissensch. Vortrage uber
religio1se Fragen ). On this view, Jesus
sacrificed himself only to attest by
this act of devotion the full
greatness of divine love. But what, then, is a
devotion which has no other object
than to witness to itself? An exhibition
of love, which might be compared to
that of the woman who committed
suicide, a few years ago, to awake, as
she said, the dormant genius of her
husband by this token of her love.
Besides, how could the sacrifice of his
life made by a man for his fellow-men
demonstrate the love of God? We
may, indeed, see in it the attestation
of brotherly love in its most eminent
degree, but we do not find the love of
the Father.
Others, finally, regard the death of
Christ only as the culminating point of
His consecration to God and men, of
His holiness. “These texts,” says
Sabatier, after quoting Rom. 6 and 2
Cor. 5, “place the value of the death
of Jesus not in any satisfaction
whatever offered to God, but in the
annihilation of sin , which this death
brings about” ( L'ap. Paul , p. 202). To
the same effect M. de Pressense8
expresses himself thus: “This generous
suffering, which Jesus voluntarily
accepts, is an act of love and
obedience; and hence its restoring and
redeeming character....In the
name
of humanity Christ reverses the
rebellion of Eden; He brings back the
heart of man to God ....In the person
of a holy victim, humanity returns to
the God who waited for it
from the first days of the world” (
Vie de Je8sus , pp. 642 and 643). Most
modern theories (Hofmann, Ritschl), if
we mistake not, are substantially
the same, to wit, the spiritual
resurrection of humanity through Christ. By
the holiness he so painfully realized,
and of which His bloody death was
the crown, Jesus has given birth to a
humanity which breaks with sin, and
gives itself to God; and God,
foreseeing this future holiness of believers,
and regarding it as already realized,
pardons their sins from love of this
expected perfection. But is this the
apostle's view? He speaks of a
demonstration of justice , and not
only of holiness. Then he ascribes to
death , to blood , a peculiar and
independent value. So he certainly does
in our passage, but more expressly
still in the words,5:10: “If, when we
were enemies, we were reconciled (
justified , ver. 9) by His death (His
blood, ver. 9), much more, being
reconciled, we shall be saved by His life
( through him , ver. 9).” It is by His
death, accordingly, that Jesus
reconciles or justifies, as it is by
his life that he sanctifies and perfects
salvation. Finally, the serious
practical difficulty in the way of this theory
lies, as we think, in the fact that,
like the Catholic doctrine, it makes
justification rest on sanctification
(present or future), while the
characteristic of gospel doctrine,
what, to use Paul's language, may be
called its folly , but what is in
reality its divine wisdom, is its founding
justification on the atonement
perfected by Christ's blood, to raise
afterward on this basis the work of
sanctification by the Holy Spirit.
Ninth Passage (3:27-31). The Harmony
of this Mode of Justification
with the true Meaning of the Law.
The apostle had asserted, ver. 21,
that the law and the prophets
themselves bear witness to the mode of
justification revealed in the
gospel. This he
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
demonstrates, first generally, from
the spirit of the law, then specially,
from the example of Abraham, in the
two following pieces: chap. 3:27-31
and chap. 4. As the theme of the
preceding piece was expressed in the
words of vv. 21 and 22: righteousness
of God revealed without law...by
faith in Jesus Christ , that of the
following development is found in the
words of ver. 21: witnessed by the law
and by the prophets. We see how
rigorously the apostle adheres to
order in his work.
The piece, vv. 27-31, argues from all
that precedes to the harmony of
justification by faith with the Old
Testament—1. Inasmuch as the law and
the gospel equally exclude
justification by works, vv. 27 and 28; this is the
negative demonstration; and 2.
Inasmuch as only justification by faith
harmonizes with the Monotheism which
is the doctrinal basis of the whole
Old Testament, vv. 29-31; such is the
positive demonstration.
Vv. 27, 28. “ Where is the boasting
then? It is excluded. By what law? of
works? Nay, but by that of faith. For
we judge that man is justified by faith
without works of law. ”— Ou\n , then:
in consequence of the great fact
which has been explained, and of the
means of justification which it
implies (vv. 23-26).— Kauvchsi" ,
boasting , vainglory; this term denotes
not the object boasted of, but the act
of self- glorification. The article hJ ,
the , marks this boasting as well
known; it is therefore the boasting of the
Jews which is referred to. The word
might be connected with the kauca'sqai
ejn Qew'/ , 2:17, and understood of
the glory which the Jews sought to
borrow from their exceptional
position; but the context, and especially the
following verse, prove that the
apostle has in view the pretension of the
Jews to justify themselves by their
own works, instead of deriving their
righteousness from the work of
Christ.—This pretension has been
excluded forever by the work
described, vv. 24-
26. There remains nothing else for man
to do than to lay hold of it by faith.
This question has something of a
triumphant character; comp. the similar
form, 1 Cor. 1:20. The
self-righteousness of the Jews is treated here as
the wisdom of the Greeks is in that
passage. The apostle seeks it, and
before the cross it vanishes. Hofmann
understands this exclamation of the
vainglory to which even Christians
might give themselves up: “Have we
then, we Christians, thus justified,
whereof to boast?” This interpretation is
bound up with that of the same author,
according to which the question,
3:9: “Have we any advantage (over
those whom judgment will overtake)?”
is also put in the mouth of
Christians. But it is evident that, like the
question of ver. 9, this refers
specially to Jewish prejudice; for it is
expressly combated in the following
words, ver. 29, and it is alluded to by
the article hJ , the , before
kauvchsi" .—Only the question arises, What
leads the apostle to put such a
question here? The answer seems to us to
be this. His intention in these few
verses is to show the profound harmony
between the law and the gospel. Now
the conclusion to which he had
been led by the searching study of the
law, vv. 9-20, was, that it was
intended to shut the mouths of all
men, and of the Jews in particular,
before God, by giving them the
knowledge of sin. Hence it followed that
the mode of justification which best
agreed with the law was that which
traced the origin of righteousness not
to the works of the law, by means of
which man thinks that he can justify
himself, but to faith; for, like the law
itself, the righteousness of faith
brings all boasting to silence, so that the
righteousness of works, which lays a
foundation for boasting, is contrary
to the law, while that of faith, which
excludes it, is alone in harmony with
the law. And this is exactly what Paul
brings out in the following
questions.—In these two questions the
term law is taken in a general
sense. This word is often used by Paul
to denote a mode of action which
is imposed on the individual, a rule
to which he is subject, a principle
which determines his conduct.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Sometimes when thus understood it is
taken in a good sense; for
example, 8:2: “the law of the spirit
of life which is in Jesus Christ;” again it
is used in a bad sense; so 7:23: “the
law which is in my members;” or,
again, it is applied in both ways,
good and bad at once; comp. 7:21. As
Baur well says, the word law denotes
in general “a formula which serves
to regulate the relation between God
and man.” The genitive tw'n e[rgwn ,
of works , depends on a novmou
understood, as is proved by the repetition
of this word before pivstew" .
That glory which man derives from his
self-righteousness, and which the
law had already foreclosed, has been
finally excluded. And by what
means? By a rule of works? Certainly
not, for such a means would rather
have promoted it, but by that of faith
(ver. 26.) The apostle thus reaches
the striking result that the rule of
works would contradict the law, and that
the rule of faith is that which
harmonizes with it.—He here uses the word
novmo" , rule , probably because
he was speaking of excluding , and this
requires something firm.
Ver. 28. The relation between this
verse and the preceding rests on the
contrast between the two ideas
kauvchsi" and pivstei dikaiou'sqai , boasting
and being justified by faith. “We
exclude boasting in proportion as we
affirm justification by
faith.”—Several commentators read ou\n , then , after
T. R., which is supported by the Vat.
and the Byzs. In that case this verse
would form the conclusion from what
precedes: “We conclude, then, that
man”...But if the apostle were
concluding finally in ver. 28, why would he
recommence to argue in the following
verse? We must therefore prefer
the reading of the other Alexs. and
the Greco-Lats., gavr , for: “For we
deem, we assert that”...Another question
is, Whether, with the Byzs., we
are to put the word pivstei , by faith
, before the verb dikaiou'sqai , to be
justified , or whether it is better to
put it after, with the other two families,
and so give the idea of justification
the dominant place over that of the
means of obtaining it. The connection
with ver. 27 certainly speaks in
favor of the Byz. reading, which has
the Peshito for it. It is the idea of
being justified by faith , and not
that of being justified in general, which
excludes boasting.—It is worth
remarking the word a[nqrwpon , man. This
general term is chosen designedly:
“whatever bears the name of man,
Jew as well as Gentile, depends on the
justification which is of faith, and
can have no other.” If it is so, it is
plain that boasting is finally excluded.
The apostle adds: “ without works of
law , that is to say, without
participation in any of those works
which are wrought in the servile and
mercenary spirit which prevails under
the rule of law (see on ver. 20). The
matter in question here is neither
final salvation nor works as fruits of faith
( good works , Eph. 2:10; Tit. 3:8).
For these will be necessary in the day
of judgment (see on 2:13).
If it were otherwise, if the works of
the law had not been excluded by the
great act of expiation described vv.
24-26, and by the rule of faith involved
in it, it would be found that God
provided for the salvation of a part of
mankind only, and forgot the rest. The
unity of God is not compatible with
this difference in his mode of acting.
Now the dogma of the unity of God is
the basis of the law, and of the whole
of Judaism. On this point, too,
therefore, the law is at one with
faith, vv. 29-31.
Vv. 29, 30. “ Or is he the God of the
Jews only?is he not also of the
Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
seeing it is one God, who shall bring
out the justification of the
circumcised from faith, and who shall bring
about that of the uncircumcised by the
faith. ”—The meaning of the h[ , or ,
when prefixed to a question by Paul,
is familiar to us: “ Or if you do not
admit that”...? This question
therefore goes to show that the negation of
what precedes violates the Monotheism
so dear to the Jews, and in which
they gloried. The genitive jIoudaivwn ,
of Jews , used without the article,
denotes
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the category. Meyer refuses to take
this word as the complement of the
predicate Qeov" , God ,
understood; but wrongly; the natural meaning is:
“Is God the God of the Jews?” Comp.
2:29, 1 Cor. 14:33, and Luke 20:38
(with Matt. 22:32). Otherwise we
should require to apply here the phrase
ei\naiv tino" , to be the
property of (to belong to), which does not
correspond to the relation between God
and man.—To the question: Is He
not also the God of the Gentiles? Paul
could answer with assurance: yes,
of the Gentiles also; for the entire
Old Testament had already drawn from
Monotheism this glorious inference.
The psalms celebrated Jehovah as
the God of all the earth, before whom
the nations walk with trembling (Ps.
96-98, 100). Jeremiah called Him
(10:7) the King of nations; and the
apostle himself had demonstrated in
chap. 1 the existence of a universal
divine revelation, which is the first
foundation of universalism.
Ver. 30. The Alex. read ei[per : if
truly. This reading might suffice if the
apostle were merely repeating the
principle of the unity of God as the
basis of the preceding assertion: “ if
indeed God is one.” But he goes
further; this principle of the unity
of God serves him as a point of departure
from which to draw important
inferences expressed in a weighty
proposition: “ who will justify. ” To
warrant him in doing so, it is not enough
that he has asserted the unity of God
as an admitted supposition: “ if
indeed. ” He must have laid it down as
an indubitable fact which could
serve as a basis for argument. We must
therefore prefer the reading of
the other two families: ejpeivper ,
seeing that. Monotheism has as its
natural corollary the expectation of
one only means of justification for the
whole human race. No doubt this dogma
is compatible with a temporary
particularism, of a pedagogic nature;
but as soon as the decisive question
arises, that of final salvation or
condemnation, the unity must appear. A
dualism on this point would imply a
duality in God's essence: “ who (in
consequence of His unity) will
justify. ” The future: will justify , has been
variously explained. Some think that
it expresses logical consequence (
Ruck . Hofm.); others, that it refers
to the day of judgment (Beza, Fritzs.); a
third party refer it to all the
particular cases of justification which have
taken or shall take place in history.
The last sense seems the most
natural: the whole new development of
history, which is now opening,
appears to the apostle as the
consequence of the fundamental dogma of
Judaism.—Meyer alleges that the
difference of the two prepositions ejk
and diav , from and by (which we have
sought to render in our translation),
is purely accidental. Is it also
accidental that the article th'" , the , which
was wanting in the first proposition
before the word pivstew" , faith , is
added in the second? Experience has
convinced us that Paul's style is not
at the mercy of chance, even in its
most secondary elements. On the
other hand, must we, with Calvin, find
the difference a pure irony: “If any
one insists on a difference between
Jews and Gentiles, well and good! I
shall make over one to him; the first
obtains righteousness from faith, the
second by faith.” No; it would be much
better to abandon the attempt to
give a meaning to this slight
difference, than to make the apostle a poor
wit. The following, as it seems to me,
is the shade of meaning which the
apostle meant to express. With regard
to the Jew, who laid claim to a
righteousness of works , he contrasts
category with category by using the
preposition ejk , from, out of , which
denotes origin and nature: a
righteousness of faith. Hence, too, he
omits the article, which would have
described the conciete fact, rather
than the quality. But when he comes to
speak of the Gentiles, who had been
destitute till then of every means of
reaching any righteousness whatever,
he chooses the preposition diav ,
by: by means of , which points to
faith simply as the way by which they
reach the unexpected end; and he adds
the article because faith presents
itself to his mind, in this relation,
as the well-
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
known means, besides which the Gentile
does not dream of any other.
The harmony between the Mosaic law and
justification by faith has been
demonstrated from two points of
view—1. That of the universal humiliation
(the exclusion of all boasting), which
results from the former and
constitutes the basis of the latter
(vv. 27, 28). 2. That of the unity of God ,
which is the basis of Israelitish
Mosaism and prophetism, as well as that
of evangelical universalism (vv. 29,
30). Thereafter nothing more natural
than the conclusion drawn in ver. 31.
Ver. 31. “ Do we then make void the
law through faith? That be far from
us! Much rather we establish the law.
”—This verse has been
misunderstood by most commentators.
Some (Aug., Luth., Mel., Calv.,
Philip., Ruck .) apply it to the
sanctification which springs from faith, and by
which the gospel finally realizes the
fulfilment of the law. This is the thesis
which will be developed in chaps. 6-8.
We do not deny that the apostle
might defer the full development of a
maxim thrown out beforehand, and,
as it were, by the way; comp. the
sayings, 3:3 and 20b. But yet he must
have been logically led to such sentences
by their necessary connection
with the context. Now this is not the
case here. What is there at this point
to lead the apostle to concern himself
with the sanctifying power of faith?
Let us remark, further, that ver. 31
is connected by then with what
precedes, and can only express an
inference from the passage, vv. 27-30.
Finally, how are we to explain the
then at the beginning of chap. 4? How
does the mode of Abraham's
justification follow from the idea that faith
leads to the fulfilment of the law?
Hofmann offers substantially the same
explanation, only giving to the word
law the meaning of moral law in
general (instead of the Mosaic law).
But the difficulties remain absolutely
the same.—Meyer and some others regard
ver. 31 as the beginning, and,
in a manner, the theme of the
following chapter. The term law , on this
view, refers to the passage of Genesis
which the apostle is about to
quote, 4:3: “The harmony of
justification by faith with the law is about to be
explained by what the law says of
Abraham's justification.” But it is difficult
to believe that Paul, without the
slightest indication, would call an isolated
passage of the Pentateuch the law.
Then, if the relation between ver. 31
and 4:1 were as Meyer thinks, it
should be expressed logically by for , not
by then. Holsten, if we understand him
rightly, tries to get rid of these
difficulties by applying the term law
in our verse to the law of faith (ver.
27), in which he sees an absolute rule
of righteousness holding good for
all men, and consequently for Abraham.
One could not imagine a more
forced interpretation. Our explanation
is already indicated; it follows
naturally from the interpretation
which we have given of the preceding
verses. Paul's gospel was accused of
making void the law by setting aside
legal works as a means of
justification; and he has just proved to his
adversaries that it is his teaching,
on the contrary, which harmonizes with
the true meaning of the law, while the
opposite teaching overturns it, by
keeping up the vainglory of man, which
the law was meant to destroy, and
by violating Monotheism on which it is
based. Is it surprising that he
concludes such a demonstration with
the triumphant affirmation: “Do we
then overturn the law, as we are
accused of doing? On the contrary, we
establish it.” The true reading is
probably iJstavnomen ; the most ancient
form, which has been replaced by the
later form iJstw'men . The verb
signifies, not to preserve, maintain ,
but to cause to stand, to establish.
This is what Paul does with regard to
the law; he establishes it as it were
anew by the righteousness of faith;
which, instead of overturning it, as it
was accused of doing, faithfully
maintains its spirit in the new
dispensation, the fact which he had
just proved.
This verse forms a true period to the
whole passage, vv. 21-30. The law
had been called to give witness on the
subject of the doctrine of universal
condemnation;
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
it had borne witness, vv. 7-19. It has
just been cited again, and now in
favor of the new righteousness; its
testimony has not been less favorable,
vv. 27-31.
After demonstrating in a general way
the harmony of his teaching with Old
Testament revelation, the apostle had
only one thing left to desire in the
discussion: that was to succeed in
finding in the Old Testament itself a
saying or an illustrious example
which, in the estimation of the Jews,
would give the sanction of divine
authority to his argument. There was
such a saying, and he was fortunate
enough to find it. It was written by the
hand of the legislator himself, and
related to what was in a manner the
typical example of justification with
the Jews. It therefore combined all the
conditions fitted to settle the
present question conclusively. Thus it is that
Gen. 15:6 becomes the text of the
admirable development contained in
chap. 4. This piece is the counterpart
of the scriptural demonstration
which had closed the delineation of
universal condemnation, 3:9-20. It
belongs, therefore, to the exposition
of the thesis of ver. 21: the
righteousness of faith witnessed by
the law and the prophets.
Tenth Passage (4:1-25). Faith the
Principle of Abraham's
Justification.
Abraham being for the Jews the
embodiment of salvation, his case was of
capital moment in the solution of the
question here treated. This was a
conviction which Paul shared with his
adversaries. Was the patriarch
justified, by faith and by faith
alone, his thesis was proved. Was he
justified by some work of his own
added to his faith, there was an end of
Paul's doctrine.
In the first part of this chapter, vv.
1-12, he proves that Abraham owed his
righteousness to his faith, and to his
faith alone. In the second vv. 13-16,
he supports his argument by the fact
that the inheritance of the world,
promised to the patriarch and his
posterity, was conferred on him
independently of his observance of the
law. The third part, vv. 17-22,
proves that that very posterity to
whom this heritage was to belong was a
fruit of faith. In the fourth and last
part, vv. 23-25, this case is applied to
believers of the present. Thus
righteousness, inheritance, posterity ,
everything, Abraham received by faith;
and it will be even so with us , if we
believe like him.
1. Vv. 1-12.
Abraham was justified by faith , vv.
1-8, and by faith alone , vv. 9-12.
Vv. 1, 2. “ What shall we say then
that Abraham our first father has found
according to the flesh? For if Abraham
were justified by works, he hath
whereof to glory; but not in relation
to God. ”—The question with which
this exposition opens is connected
with the preceding by then , because
the negative answer anticipated is a
logically necessary consequence of
the demonstration given 3:27-31. The
particular case of Abraham is
subordinate to the general principle
which has just been established.—It is
not proper to divide this verse, as
some have done, into two questions:
“What shall we say? That Abraham has
found [something] according to
the flesh?” For then it would be
necessary to understand an object to the
verb has found , righteousness, for
example, which is extremely forced. Or
it would be necessary to translate,
with Hofmann: “What shall we say?
That we have found Abraham as our
father according to the flesh?” by
understanding hJma'" , we , as
the subject of the infinitive verb to have
found. But this ellipsis of the
subject is more forced still than that of the
object; and what Christian of Gentile
origin—for the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
expression have found could not be
applied to the Jewish-
Christians—would have asked if he had
become a child of Abraham in the
way of the flesh? ver. 1 therefore
contains only one question (see the
translation). The apostle asks whether
Abraham by his own action found
some advantage in the matter of
salvation. In the Received reading, which
rests on the Byzs., the verb has found
separates the words our father
from the others: according to the
flesh , so that this latter clause cannot
apply to the substantive father , but
necessarily qualifies the verb has
found. It is otherwise in the Alex.
and Greco-Latin readings, where the
verb has found immediately follows the
words: What shall we say?
whereby the words our father and
according to the flesh are found in
juxtaposition, which might easily lead
the reader to take the two terms as
forming a single description: our
father according to the flesh. But this
meaning cannot be the true one; for
the matter in question here is not yet
the nature of Abraham's paternity,
which is reserved to a later point, but
the manner in which Abraham became
righteous (vv. 2, 3). The reading
was probably falsified by the
recollection of the frequent phrases: father or
child according to the flesh. —The
flesh denotes here human activity in its
state of isolation from the influence
of God, and consequently in its natural
helplessness so far as justification
and salvation are concerned. The
meaning is therefore: “What has
Abraham found by his own labor? ” The
word flesh is probably chosen in reference
to circumcision, which became
the distinctive seal of the elect
family.—The term propavtwr first father ,
which occurs here in the Alex. instead
of the simple pathvr (in the two
other families), is strange to the
language of the New Testament and of
the LXX.; but this very circumstance
speaks in favor of its authenticity. For
the copyists would not have
substituted so exceptional a term for the
usual word. Paul probably used it to
bring out the proto- typical character
of everything which transpired in
Abraham's person.—Does the pronoun
our imply, as is alleged by Baur,
Volkmar, etc., the Jewish origin of the
Christians of Rome? Yes, if the
translation were: our father according to
the flesh. But we have seen that this
interpretation is false. It is not even
right to say, with Meyer) who holds
the Gentile origin of the church of
Rome), that the pronoun our refers to
the Judeo-Christian minority of that
church. For the meaning of this
pronoun is determined by the we , which
is the subject of all the preceding
verbs
( make void, establish, shall say );
now this refers to Christians in general.
Is not the whole immediately following
chapter intended to prove that
Abraham is the father of believing
Gentiles as well as of believing Jews
(comp. the categorical declarations of
vv. 12 and 16)? How, then, should the
word our in this verse, which is as it
were the theme of the whole chapter,
be used in a sense directly opposed
to the essential idea of the entire
piece? Comp., besides, the use of the
expression our fathers in 1 Cor. 10:1.
What is the understood reply which
Paul expected to his question? Is it,
as is often assumed: nothing at all?
Perhaps he did not go so far. He meant
rather to say (comp. ver. 2):
nothing, so far as justification
before God is concerned; which did not
exclude the idea of the patriarch
having from a human point of view found
certain advantages, such as riches,
reputation, etc.
Ver. 2. Some commentators take this
verse as the logical proof ( for ) of
the negative answer which must be
understood between vv. 1 and 2: “
Nothing; for , if he had been
justified by his works, he would have whereof
to glory, which is inadmissible.” But
why would it be inadmissible? This is
exactly the matter to be examined. The
reasoning would then be only a
vicious circle. The verse must be
regarded, not as a proof of the negative
answer anticipated, but as the
explanation why Paul required to put the
question of ver. 1: “I ask this,
because if Abraham had been justified by
his works, he would really have
something of which to glory; and
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
consequently the boasting which I
declared to be excluded (3:27) would
reappear once more as right and good.”
Did not Abraham's example form
the rule?—The expression by works is
substituted for that of ver. 1:
according to the flesh , as the term
being justified replaces the having
found. In both cases, the term
appearing in ver. 2 indicates the concrete
result ( works, being justified ), as
that in ver. 1 expressed the abstract
principle ( the flesh, finding ). The
word kauvchma signifies a matter for
glorying in , which is quite a
different thing from kauvchsi" , the act of
glorying. Paul does not say that
Abraham would really glory, but only that
he would have matter for doing so. But
how can the apostle express
himself at the end of the verse in the
words: but not before God , so as to
make us suppose that Abraham was
really justified by his works, though
not before God? Some commentators
(Beza, Grot., de Wette, Ruck .,
Philip.) think themselves obliged to
weaken the sense of the word justified
, as if it denoted here justification
in the eyes of men: “If Abraham was
justified by his works (in the
judgment of men), he has a right to boast
(relatively to them and himself), but
not as before God.” But would such
an attenuated sense of the word
justify be possible in this passage, which
may be called Paul's classical
teaching on the subject of justification?
Calvin, Fritzsche, Baur, Hodge, assert
that we have here an incomplete
syllogism; the major: “If Abraham was
justified by works, he has whereof
to glory;” the minor: “Now he could
not have whereof to glory before God;”
the conclusion (understood):
“Therefore he was not justified by works.”
But the minor is exactly what it would
have been necessary to prove; for
what had been said, ver. 27, of the
exclusion of boasting or of justification
by works, was again made a question by
the discussion on the case of
Abraham. Besides, the conclusion was
the important part, and could not
have been left to be understood. The
apostle has not accustomed us to
such a mode of arguing. Meyer, after
some variations in his first editions,
has ended by siding with the
explanation of Chrysostom and Theodoret,
which is to the following effect: “If
Abraham was justified by his works, he
has undoubtedly something whereof to
glory in his own eyes; but in this
case he has received no favor from
God, nothing which honors him as the
object of divine grace; and his
justification not coming from God, he has
no cause to glory in relation to God.”
This meaning is very ingenious;
nevertheless it is untenable; for—1.
The term glorying would require to be
taken in a good sense: glorying in a
real favor received from God, while
throughout the whole piece it is
applied to an impure boasting, the ground
of which man finds in himself and in
his own work. 2. Paul must have said
in this sense: ejn Qew'/ , in God ,
rather than pro;" to;n Qeovn , in relation to
God, comp. 2:17. 3. ver. 3 does not
naturally connect itself with ver. 2
when thus understood, for this verse
proves not what it should ( for ), to
wit, that Abraham has no cause for
boasting in the case supposed, but the
simple truth that he was justified by
his faith. Semler and Glo1ckler have
had recourse to a desperate expedient,
that of taking pro;" to;n Qeovn as
the exclamation of an oath: “But no,
by God , it is not so.” But this sense
would have required pro;" tou'
Qeou' ; and what could have led Paul to use
such a form here? The turn of
expression employed by the apostle is
certainly singular, we shall say even
a little perplexed. He feels he is
approaching a delicate subject, about
which Jewish national feeling could
not but show itself very sensitive. To
understand his meaning, we must,
after the words: “If he was justified
by works, he hath whereof to glory,”
add the following: “and he has really
great reason for glorying; it is
something to have been made an
Abraham; one may be proud of having
borne such a name,
but ”...Here the apostle resumes in
such a way as to return to his theme:
“but all this glorying has nothing to
do with the account which he had to
render to God.” The
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
words: in relation to God , pro;"
to;n Qeovn , are evidently opposed to a
corresponding: in relation to man ,
understood. In comparing himself with
men less holy than he, Abraham might
have some cause for glorying; but
the instant he put himself before God,
his righteousness vanished. This is
exactly the point proved by the
following verses.
Vv. 3-5. “ For what saith the
Scripture? Now Abraham believed God, and it
was counted unto him for
righteousness. Now to him that worketh his
reward is not reckoned as of grace,
but as of debt. But to him that worketh
not, but believeth on him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness; ”—By the words of ver.
2: “ But it is not so in relation to
God ,” the apostle gave it to be
understood that he knew the judgment of
God Himself on Abraham's works. ver. 3
explains how he can pronounce
regarding a fact which seems to lie
beyond the reach of human
knowledge. Scripture contains a
declaration in which there is revealed the
judgment of God respecting the way in
which Abraham was justified. This
saying is to be found in Gen. 15:6.
Called by God out of his tent by night,
he is invited to contemplate the
heavens, and to count, if he can, the
myriads of stars; then he hears the
promise: “so numerous shall thy seed
be.” He is a centenarian, and has
never had children. But it is God who
speaks; that is enough for him: he
believed God. Faith consists in holding
the divine promise for the reality
itself; and then it happens that what the
believer has done in regard to the
promise of God, God in turn does in
regard to his faith: He holds it for
righteousness itself.—The particle dev ,
now , takes the place of the kaiv ,
and , which is found in the LXX., though
their reading is not quite certain, as
the Sinait . and the Vatic. have a blank
here. It is possible, therefore, that,
as Tischendorf thinks, the generally
received reading in Paul's time was
dev , now , and not kaiv . For it is
evident that if the apostle preserves
this particle, which is not demanded
by the meaning of his own text, it is
to establish the literal character of the
quotation. It is not said: he believed
the promise of God , but: God. The
object of his faith, when he embraced
the promise, was God Himself—His
truth, His faithfulness, His holiness,
His goodness, His wisdom, His power,
His eternity. For God was wholly in
the promise proceeding from Him. It
little matters, indeed, what the
particular object is to which the divine
revelation refers at a given moment.
All the parts of this revelation form
but one whole. In laying hold of one
promise, Abraham laid hold of all by
anticipation; for he laid hold of the
God of the promises, and henceforth he
was in possession even of those which
could only be revealed and
realized in the most distant
future.—The Hebrew says: “ and God counted
it to him for righteousness.” The LXX.
have translated by the passive: and
it was counted to him; Paul follows
them in quoting. The verb logivzein,
logivzesqai , signifies: to put to
account; comp. 2 Sam. 19:19; 2 Cor. 5:19;
2 Tim. 4:16; and Philem. 18 (where
Paul uses the analogous term
ejllogei'n , because he is speaking of
an account properly so called: “If he
has done thee any wrong, put it to my
account”). It is possible to put to
one's account what he possesses or
what he does not possess. In the first
case it is a simple act of justice; in
the second, it is a matter of grace. The
latter is Abraham's case, since God
reckons his faith to him for what it is
not: for righteousness. This word
righteousness here denotes perfect
obedience to the will of God, in
virtue of which Abraham would necessarily
have been declared righteous by God as
being so, if he had possessed it.
As he did not possess it, God put his
faith to his account as an equivalent.
Why so? On what did this incomparable
value which God attached to his
faith rest? We need not answer: on the
moral power of this faith itself. For
faith is a simple receptivity, and it
would be strange to fall back on the
sphere of meritorious work when
explaining the very word which ought to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
exclude all merit. The infinite worth
of faith lies in its object, God and His
manifestation. This object is moral
perfection itself. To believe is therefore
to lay hold of perfection at a stroke.
It is not surprising that laying hold of
perfection, it should be reckoned by
God as righteousness. It has been
happily said: Faith is at once the
most moral and the most fortunate of
strokes ( coups de main ). In vv. 4
and 5, the apostle analyzes the saying
quoted. This analysis proves that
Abraham was justified not in the way of
a man who had done works (ver. 4), but
in the way of a man who has not
done them (ver. 5); which demonstrates
the truth of the affirmation of ver.
2: “but it is not so in relation to
God.”—The two expressions: oJ
ejrgazovmeno" , he that worketh ,
and oJ mh; ejrgazovmeno" , he that
worketh not , are general and
abstract, with this difference, that the first
refers to any workman whatever in the
domain of ordinary life, while the
second applies only to a workman in
the moral sense. To the hired
workman who performs his task, his
reward is reckoned not as a favor,
but as
a debt. Now, according to the
declaration of Moses, Abraham was not
treated on this footing; therefore he
is not one of those who have fulfilled
their task. On the other hand, to the
workman (in the moral sense) who
does not labor satisfactorily, and who
nevertheless places his confidence
in God who pardons, his faith is
reckoned for righteousness. Now,
according to Moses, it is on this
footing that Abraham was treated;
therefore he belongs to those who have
not fulfilled their task. These two
harmonious conclusions—the one
understood after ver. 4, the other after
ver. 5—set forth the contents of the
declaration of Moses: Abraham was
treated on the footing not of a good,
but of a bad workman.—The
subjective negation mhv before
ejrgazovmeno" is the expression of the
logical relation: because , between
the participle and the principal verb: “
because he does not do his work, his
faith is reckoned to him as
work.”—Paul says: He who justifieth
the ungodly. He might have said the
sinner; but he chooses the more
forcible term to designate the evil of sin,
that no category of sinners, even the
most criminal, may think itself
excluded from the privilege of being
justified by their faith. It has
sometimes been supposed that by the
word ungodly Paul meant to
characterize Abraham himself, in the
sense in which it is said (Josh. 24:2)
that “Terah, the father of Abraham,
while he dwelt beyond the flood, had
served other gods. ” But idolatry is
not exactly equivalent to ungodliness
(impiety), and Paul would certainly
never have called Abraham ungodly
(impious).—To impute to the believer
righteousness which he does not
possess, is at the same time not to
impute to him sins of which he is
guilty. Paul feels the need of
completing on this negative side his
exposition of the subject of
justification. And hence, no doubt, the reason
why, to the saying of Moses regarding
Abraham, he adds one of David's,
in which justification is specially
celebrated in the form of the nonimputation
of sin.
Vv. 6-8. “ As David also exactly
celebrateth the blessedness of the man,
unto whom God imputeth righteousness
without works: Blessed are they
whose iniquities are forgiven, and
whose sins are covered. Blessed is the
man to whom the Lord does not impute
sin. ”—It need not be supposed
that David here plays the part of a second
example, side by side with
Abraham. The position of the patriarch
is unique, and Paul will return to it
after this short interruption. He
merely adduces a saying of David, the
inspired singer, which seems to him to
complete the testimony of Moses
about Abraham.—The conjunction of
comparison kaqavper is more forcible
than kaqwv" : it indicates an
intrinsic and striking agreement: exactly as.
—The word makarismov" , which we
have translated by blessedness ,
strictly signifies: the celebration of
blessedness. The verb levgei , says , of
which this word is the object,
signifies here: he utters (this beatification).
The following words are, as it were,
the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
joyful hymn of the justified sinner.
This passage is the beginning of Ps. 32,
which David probably composed after
having obtained pardon from God
for the odious crimes into which
passion had dragged him. Hence the
expressions: transgressions pardoned,
sins covered, sin not imputed.
Here, then, is the negative side of
justification, the evil which it removes;
while in regard to Abraham it was only
the positive side which was under
treatment, the blessing it confers.
Thus it is that the two passages
complete one another.
This observation made, the apostle
returns to his subject. It was not
enough to prove that Abraham owed his
justification to his faith. For the
defenders of works might say: True;
but it was as one circumcised that
Abraham obtained this privilege of
being justified by his faith. And so we
have works driven out by the door, and
returning by the window. The
answer to the question of ver. 1:
“What hath Abraham found by the way of
the flesh?” would no more be: nothing
, but: everything. For if it was to his
circumcision Abraham owed the favor
whereby God had reckoned his
faith to him for righteousness,
everything depended in the end on this
material rite; and those who were
destitute of it were ipso facto excluded
from justification by faith. The
nullity of this whole point of view is what
Paul shows in the following passage,
where he proves that the patriarch
was not only justified by faith, but
by faith only.
Vv. 9, 10. “ Is this beatification
then for the circumcision, or for the
uncircumcision also? for we say:Faith
was reckoned to Abraham for
righteousness. How was it then
reckoned? when he was in a state of
circumcision, or of uncircumcision?
Not in a state of circumcision, but of
uncircumcision. ”—The then serves
merely to resume the discussion: “I
ask then if this celebration of the
blessedness of the justified applies only
to the circumcised, or also to the
uncircumcised.” On this everything really
depended. For, on the first
alternative, the Gentiles had no way left of
admission to the privilege of
justification by faith except that of becoming
Jews; and there was an end of Paul's
gospel. M. Reuss regards all this as
an example “of the scholasticism of
the Jewish schools of the day,” and of
a “theological science” which could
supply the apostle only with
“extremely doubtful modes of
argument.” We shall see if it is really
so.—The second part of the verse: for
we say ...is intended to bring back
the mind of the reader from David to
Abraham: “For, in fine, we were
affirming that Abraham was justified
by faith. How is it then with this
personage, whose example forms the
rule? How was he justified by faith?
as uncircumcised or as circumcised?”
Such is the very simple meaning of
ver. 10. The then which connects it
with ver. 9 is thus explained: “To
answer the question which I have just
put (9a), let us then examine how
the justification of Abraham took
place.”—The answer was not difficult; it
was furnished by Genesis, and it was
peremptory. It is in chap. 15 that we
find Abraham justified by faith; and
it is in chap. 17, about fourteen years
after, that he receives the ordinance
of circumcision. The apostle can
therefore answer with assurance: “not
as circumcised, but as
uncircumcised.” There was a time in
Abraham's life when by his
uncircumcision he represented the
Gentiles, as later after his circumcision
he became the representative of
Israel. Now, it was in the first of these
two periods of his life, that is to
say, in his Gentilehood, that he was
justified by faith...the conclusion
was obvious at a glance. Paul makes full
use of it against his adversaries. He
expounds it with decisive
consequences in the sequel.
Vv. 11, 12. “ And he received the sign
of circumcision , as a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he
had yet being uncircumcised: that he
might be at once the father of all
them that believe while in a state of
uncircumcision, in order
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
that righteousness may be imputed unto
them also; and the father of the
circumcised, of them who not only are
of the circumcision, but who also
walk in the steps of the faith which
our father Abraham had in
uncircumcision. ”— Kaiv , and ,
signifies here: “and in consequence of the
justification thus found.”—
Peritomh'" , of circumcision , may be made a
genitive of apposition: “the sign
which is circumcision,” or a genitive of
quality: “a sign in the form of circumcision.”
The former is the simpler
sense. In any case, the reading
peritomhvn in two Mjj. is a correction.
Circumcision appears even in Gen.
17:11 as the sign of the covenant
between God and His people. The
Rabbins express themselves thus:
“God put the sign of love in the
flesh.” The term shmei'on , sign , relates to
the material thing; the term
sfragiv" , seal , to its religious import. Far, then,
from circumcision having been the
antecedent condition of Abraham's
justification, it was the mark, and
consequently the effect of it.—The article
th'" (after the words
righteousness of faith ), which we have translated by:
which he had , may relate to the
entire phrase righteousness of faith , or to
the word faith taken by itself. If we
consider the following expression:
“father of all believers ” (not of all
the justified), and especially the end of
ver. 12, we cannot doubt that the
article applies to the word faith taken
alone: “the faith which he had yet
being uncircumcised.” The in order that
which follows should not be taken in
the weakened sense of so that. No
doubt Abraham in believing did not set
before himself the end of
becoming the spiritual father of
Gentile believers. But the matter in
question here is the intention of God
who directed things with this view
which was His from the beginning of
the history. The real purpose of God
extended to the Gentiles; the
theocracy was only a means in His mind.
Had He not said to Abraham, when
calling him, that “in him should all the
families of the earth be blessed”?
Gen. 12:3.—On the meaning of diav , in
the state of , see on 2:27.—The last
words: that righteousness might be
imputed unto them , should not be
regarded as a new end of the: he
received the sign , to be added to the
first already mentioned (that he
might be the father...). The verb is
too remote; we must therefore make
the that ...depend on the participle
pisteuovntwn . them that believe (though
they be not circumcised); not
certainly in Hofmann's sense: “who have
faith in the fact that it will be
imputed to them,” but in the only
grammatically admissible sense: “them
who believe in order that
righteousness may be imputed to them.”
There is a desire in faith. It seeks
reconciliation with God, and
consequently justification.—The pronoun
aujtovn , he (“that he might be, even
he ”), is intended to bring the person
of Abraham strongly into relief, as
called to fill, he, this one solitary man,
the double place of father of
believing Gentiles (ver. 11) and of believing
Jews (ver. 12). It is very remarkable
that the apostle here puts the
believers of Gentile origin first
among the members of Abraham's
posterity. But was it not they in fact
who were in the condition most similar
to that of the patriarch at the time
when he obtained his justification by
faith? If, then, a preference was to
be given to the one over the other, it
was certainly due to them rather than
to circumcised Christians. What a
complete reversal of Jewish notions!
Ver. 12. There can be no doubt that
this verse refers to believers of
Jewish origin, who formed the other
half of Abraham's spiritual family. But
it presents a great grammatical
difficulty. The Greek expression is such
that it seems as if Paul meant to
speak in this same verse of two different
classes of individuals. It appears as
if the literal translation should run
thus: “father of circumcision, in
respect of those who are not only of the
circumcision, but also in respect of
those who walk in the steps
of”...Proceeding on this translation,
Theodoret, Luther, and others have
applied the first words: “in respect
of those who are not only of the
circumcision,” to Jewish
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
believers, and the following words:
“in respect of those who walk in the
footsteps of Abraham's faith,” to
Gentile believers. But why then return to
the latter, who had already been
sufficiently designated and characterized
in ver. 11? And how, in speaking of
Jewish believers, could Paul content
himself with saying that they are not
of circumcision only, without
expressly mentioning faith as the
condition of their being children of
Abraham? Finally, the construction
would still be incorrect in this sense,
which would have demanded ouj
toi'"...movnon ( not only for those who
belong to the circumcision) instead of
toi'" ouj...movnon ( for those who not
only belong to ...). This ancient
explanation must therefore certainly be
abandoned. There can be here only one
class of persons designated by
two distinct attributes. The first is
circumcision, and the second, a faith like
Abraham's. But in this case the Greek
construction seems again faulty in
the second member. This is
acknowledged by Tholuck, Meyer, etc.
Philippi is fain to satisfy himself
with the reflection that negligences of style
are found in the best writers; which
is true, but does not help us here; for
the faultiness would be a real want of
logic. On the other hand, the
expedients recently devised by Hofmann
and Wieseler are so farfetched
that they do not deserve even to be
discussed. And yet the apostle has
not accustomed us to inexactness
unworthy even of an intelligent pupil;
and we may still seek to solve the
difficulty. This is not impossible, as it
appears to us; we need only take the
first toi'" to be a pronoun ( those who
), as it incontestably is, but regard
the second not as a second parallel
pronoun (which would, besides, require
it to be placed before the kaiv ),
but a simple definite article: “ the
(individuals) walking in the steps
of”...The meaning thus reached is to
this effect: “those who are not only of
the circumcision, but who are also ,
that is to say, at the same time, the
(individuals) walking in the steps
of”...This article, toi'" , the , is partitive. It
serves to mark off clearly within the
mass of the Jewish people who
possess the sign of circumcision, a
much narrower circle: those walking in
the faith , that is to say, the Jews,
who to circumcision add the
characteristic of faith. These latter
do not form a second class alongside
of the first; they form within this
latter a group apart, possessing beside
the common distinction, an attribute
(faith) which is wanting to the others;
and it is to draw this line of
demarkation accurately within the circumcised
Israel that the article is used. The
toi'" is here simply an article analogous
to the toi'" before pisteuvousin
.
Paul is not satisfied with saying:
“who also walk in the footsteps of
Abraham's faith;” he expressly reminds
us—for this is the point of his
argument—that Abraham had this faith
in the state of uncircumcision.
What does this mean, if not that
Abraham was still ranked as a Gentile
when “he believed and his faith was
counted to him for righteousness?”
Hence it follows that it is not,
properly speaking, for Gentile believers to
enter by the gate of the Jews, but for
Jewish believers to enter by the gate
of the Gentiles. It will be allowed
that it was impossible for one to
overwhelm his adversary more
completely. But such is Paul's logic; it
does not stop short with refuting its
opponent, it does not leave him till it
has made it plain to a demonstration
that the truth is the very antipodes of
what he affirmed.
We find in these two verses the great
and sublime idea of Abraham's
spiritual family , that people which
is the product, not of the flesh, but of
faith, and which comprises the
believers of the whole world, whether Jews
or Gentiles. This place of father to
all the believing race of man assigned
to Abraham, is a fundamental fact in
the kingdom of God; it is the act in
which this kingdom takes its rise, it
is the aim of the patriarch's call: “ that
he might be the father of ...(ver.
11), and of ”...(ver. 12). Hofmann says
rightly: “Abraham is not only the
first example of faith, for there had been
other believers before him (Heb. 11);
but in him therewas founded forever
the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
community of faith.” From this point
the continuous history of salvation
begins. Abraham is the stem of that
tree, which thenceforth strikes root
and develops. For he has not believed
simply in the God of creation; he
has laid hold by faith of the God of
the promise, the author of that
redeeming work which appears on the
earth in his very faith. The notion of
this spiritual paternity once rightly
understood, the filiation of Abraham in
the physical sense lost all importance
in the matter of salvation. The
prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus
(John 8), were already at one in laying
down the truth which the apostle here
demonstrates: faith as constituting
the principle of life, as it were the
life-blood of Abraham's family, which is
that of God on the earth. Because,
indeed, this principle is the only one in
harmony with the moral essence of
things, with the true relation between
the Creator who gives of free grace,
and the creature who accepts
freely.—And this whole admirable
deduction made by the apostle is to be
regarded as a piece of Rabbinical
scholasticism!
The apostle has succeeded in
discovering the basis of Christian
universalism in the very life of him
in whose person theocratic
particularism was founded. He has
demonstrated the existence of a time
when he represented Gentilism, or, to
speak more properly, mankind in
general; and it was during this
period, when he was not yet a Jew, but
simply a man, that he received
salvation! The whole gospel of Paul was
involved in this fact. But a question
arose: after receiving justification,
Abraham had obtained another
privilege: he had been declared, with all
his posterity, to be the future
possessor of the world. Now this posterity
could be none else than his issue by
Isaac, and which had been put in
possession of circumcision and of
Canaan. Through this opening there
returned, with banners displayed, that
particularism which had been
overthrown in the domain of
justification. Thus there was lost the whole
gain of the preceding demonstration. Paul
does not fail to anticipate and
remove the difficulty. To this
question he devotes the following passage,
vv. 13-16.
2. Vv. 13-16.
Vv. 13, 14. “ For the promise, that he
should be the heir of the world, was
not made to Abraham, or to his seed,
by the law, but by the righteousness
of faith. For if they which are of the
law be heirs, faith is made void, and
the promise
annulled. ”—The for bears on the
understood objection which we have just
explained: “For it need not be
imagined that the promised inheritance is to
be obtained by means of the law, and
that the people of the law are
consequently assured of it.” Paul knew
that this thought lay deep in the
heart of every Jew. He attacks it
unsparingly, demonstrating that the very
opposite is the truth; for the law,
far from procuring the promised
inheritance for the Jews, would
infallibly deprive them of it.—The
possession of the world , of which the
apostle speaks, had been promised
to Abraham and his posterity in three
forms.—1. In the promise made to
the patriarch of the land of Canaan.
For, from the prophetic and Messianic
point of view, which dominated the
history of the patriarchal family from
the beginning, the land of Canaan was
the emblem of the sanctified earth;
it was the point of departure for the
glorious realization of the latter. In this
sense it is said in the Tanchuma: “God
gave our father Abraham
possession of the heavens and earth. ”
2. Several promises of another
kind naturally led to the extension of
the possession of the promised land
to that of the whole world; for
example, the three following, Gen. 12:3: “In
thee shall all families of the earth
be blessed;” 22:17: “Thy seed shall
possess the gate of his enemies;” ver.
18: “In thy seed shall all the nations
of the earth be blessed.” The two
expressions: in thee , and in thy seed ,
alternate in these promises. But they
are
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
combined, as in our passage, in the
verses, 26:3, 4, where we also again
find the two ideas of the possession
of Canaan, and the blessing of the
whole world through Israel. 3. Above
all these particular promises there
ever rested the general promise of the
Messianic kingdom, the
announcement of that descendant of
David to whom God had said: “I
have given thee the uttermost parts of
the earth for an inheritance” (Ps.
2:8). Now Israel was inseparable from
its Messiah, and such an
explanation led men to give to the
preceding promises the widest and
most elevated sense possible. Israel
had not been slow to follow this
direction; but its carnal spirit had
given to the universal supremacy which it
expected, a yet more political than
religious complexion. Jesus, on the
contrary, in His Sermon on the Mount
and elsewhere, had translated this
idea of dominion over the world into
that of the humble love which rules by
serving: “Blessed are the meek; for
they shall inherit the earth.” The
apostle does not here enter on the
question of how the promise is to be
fulfilled; he deals only with the
condition on which it is to be enjoyed. Is the
law or faith the way of entering into
the possession of this divine
inheritance, and consequently are the
people of law or of faith the
heirs?—The word inheritance , to
express ownership , reproduces the
Hebrew name Nachala , which was used
to designate the land of Canaan.
This country was regarded as a
heritage which Israel, Jehovah's first-born
son, had received from his heavenly
Father.
To prove that the inheriting seed is
not Israel, but the nation of believers,
Jews or Gentiles, Paul does not use,
as Meyer, Hodge, and others
suppose, the same argument as he
follows in Gal. 3:15 et seq. He does
not argue here from the fact that the
law was given subsequently to the
patriarchal covenant, and could make
no change in that older contract,
which was founded solely on the
promise on the one hand, and faith on
the other. The demonstration in our
passage has not this historical
character; it is, if one may so speak,
dogmatic in its nature. Its meaning is
to this effect: If the possession of
the world were to be the reward of
observing the law, the promise would
thereby be reduced to a nullity. This
declaration is enunciated ver. 14, and
proved ver. 15. The inference is
drawn ver. 16.
Ver. 14. If, in order to be heir of
the world , it is absolutely necessary to
come under the jurisdiction of the law
, and consequently to be its faithful
observer—otherwise what purpose would
it serve?—it is all over at a
stroke both with faith and with the
promise: with faith, that is to say, with
the hope of that final heritage, since
the realization of that expectation
would be bound to a condition which
sinful man could not execute, the
fulfilment of the law, and since faith
would thus be deprived of its object
(literally, emptied , kekevnwtai ,
from kenov" , empty ); and next, with the
promise itself: for, an impossible
condition being attached to it, it would
thereby be paralyzed in its effects (
kathvrghtai ). Proof and conclusion, vv.
15, 16.
Vv. 15, 16. “ For the law worketh
wrath: and, indeed , where no law is,
there is no transgression. Therefore
it is of faith, that it might be by grace;
to the end the promise might be sure
to all the seed; not to that only which
is of the law, but also to that which
is of the faith of Abraham, who is the
father of us all; —Faith deprived of
its object, the promise made void for
those who are under the law, why all
this? Simply because the law, when
not fulfilled, brings on man God's
disapprobation, wrath , which renders it
impossible on His part to fulfil the
promise. This passage, like so many
others already quoted, is incompatible
with the idea which Ritschl forms of
divine wrath. This critic, as we know
(see on 1:18), applies the term wrath
, in the Old Testament only, to the
sudden punishment with death of
exceptional malefactors, who by their
crime compromised the existence of
the covenant itself. But in these
words the apostle evidently starts from
the idea that whatever is under the
law is
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
ipso facto the object of wrath, which
applies to the entire people, and not
to a few individuals only. Melanchthon
applied the term wrath in this verse
to the irritation felt by condemned
man against the judgment of God. He
forgot that the loss of the divine inheritance
results to the sinner, not from
his own wrath, but from that of the
judge.—The article oJ , the , before the
word law , proves that the subject
here is the law properly so called, the
Mosaic law. — It would be improper to
translate: “for it is the law which
produces wrath,” as if wrath could not
exist beyond the jurisdiction of the
law. Chap. 1 proves the contrary. But
the law produces it inevitably where
it has been given. The preponderance
of egoism in the human heart once
granted, the barrier of the law is
certain to be overpassed, and
transgression is sure to make wrath
burst forth.
T. R., with the Byzs., the
Greco-Latins, and the oldest versions, connects
the second part of this verse with the
first by gavr , for. This reading
appears at the first glance easier
than that of the Alex.: dev ( now , or but ).
But this very circumstance is not in
its favor. The three gavr , which have
preceded, may have also led the
copyists to write the same particle again.
The context, carefully consulted,
demands a dev rather than a gavr . For
what says the second member? That
without a law transgression is not
possible. Now this idea does not
logically prove that the law necessarily
produces wrath. This second
proposition of ver. 15 is not therefore a
proof, but a simple observation in
support of the first; and this connection
is exactly marked by the dev , which
is the particle here not of opposition (
but ), but of gradation
( now ), and which may be rendered by
and indeed. This second
proposition is therefore a sort of
parenthesis intended to strengthen the
bearing of the fact indicated in the
first (15a): “In general, a law cannot be
the means fitted to gain for us the
favor of God; on the contrary, the
manifestations of sin, of the evil
nature, acquire a much graver character
through the law, that of transgression
, of positive, deliberate violation of
the divine will, and so increase
wrath.” Paravbasi" , transgression, from
parabaivnein , to overpass. A barrier
cannot be crossed except in so far as
it exists. So without law there is no
sin in the form of transgression.—The
article oJ is wanting here before
novmo" , law. And rightly so; for this
saying is a general maxim which does
not apply specially to the Jews and
the Jewish law (as 15a). The Gentiles
have also a law (2:14, 15), which
they can observe or violate. In the
latter case, they become objects of
wrath (chap. 1) as well as the Jews,
though in a less degree.
Ver. 16. If, then, the promise of the
inheritance was serious, there was
only one way to its fulfilment—that
the inheritance should be given by the
way of faith and not of law. This
consequence is expounded in ver. 16,
which develops the last words of ver.
13: by the righteousness of faith , as
ver. 15 had developed the first: not
by the law.—Therefore: because of
that condemning effect which attaches
to the law. The verb and subject to
be understood in this elliptical
proposition might be: the promise was
made. But the words following: that it
might be by grace , do not allow this;
the subject in question is evidently
the fulfilment. What we must supply,
therefore, is: the promise will be
fulfilled , or: the heritage will be given.
The inheritance, from the moment of
its being granted to faith only,
remains a gift of pure grace; and
while remaining a gift of grace, it is
possible for it not to be withdrawn,
as it must have been if its acquisition
had been attached to the fulfilment of
the law. It is very important not to
efface the notion of aim contained in
the words eij" to; ei\nai
( that the promise might be ), by
translating, as Oltramare does, so that.
There was positive intention on God's
part, when He made the gift of
inheritance depend solely on faith.
For He knew well that this was the only
way to render the promise sure (the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
opposite of being made void , ver.
14). And sure for whom? For all the
seed of Abraham, in the true and full
sense of the word; it was the
fulfilment of those terms of the
promise: “to thee and to thy seed. ” After
what precedes, this term can only
designate the patriarch's spiritual
family—all believers, Jew or Gentile.
Faith being the sole condition of
promise, ought also to be the sole
characteristic of those in whom it will be
realized. These words: sure for all
the seed , are developed in what
follows. The apostle embraces each of
the two classes of believers
contained in this general term:
“sure,” says he, “ not only to that which is
of the law ,” believers of Jewish
origin who would lose the inheritance if it
was attached to the law, “ but also to
that which is of faith ,” Christians of
Gentile origin to whom the promise
would cease to be accessible the
instant it was made to depend on any
other character than that of faith. It
is plain that the expression used here
has a wholly different meaning from
the apparently similar form employed
in ver. 12. There are two classes of
persons here, and not two attributes
of the same persons. The second tw'/
is a pronoun as well as the first. It
may be objected, indeed, that in
designating the first of these two
classes Paul does not mention the
characteristic of faith , and that
consequently he is still speaking of Jews
simply, not believing Jews. But after
all that had gone before, the notion of
faith was naturally implied in that of
Abraham's seed. And to understand
the apostle's words, we must beware of
connecting the movnon , only ,
exclusively with the words ejk tou'
novmou' , of the law: “those who are of
the law only ,” that is to say, who
are simply Jews, and not believers. The
movnon refers to the whole phrase:
tw'/ ejk tou' novmou , only that which is
of the law , as is shown in the
following context by the position of the kaiv ,
also, before the second tw'/ : “ not
only that which is of the law, but also
that which ”...that is to say: not
only believers who were formerly under the
law, but also Gentile believers. The
attribute of faith is expressly
mentioned in the case of the last,
because it appears in them free from all
legal environment, and as their sole
title to form part of Abraham's
descendants.—The last words: who is
the father of us all , sum up all that
has been developed in the previous
context. Believing Jews and Gentiles,
we all participate by faith not only
in justification, but also in the future
possession of the world; for the true
seed to whom this promise was made
was that of faith, not that according
to the law. Abraham is therefore the
sole stem from which proceed those two
branches which form in him one
and the same spiritual organism.—But
after all a Jew might still present
himself, saying: “Very true; but that
this divine plan might be realized, it
was necessary that there should be an
Israel; and that there might be an
Israel, there must needs come into the
world an Isaac. Now this son is
born to Abraham in the way of natural,
physical generation; and what has
this mode of filiation in common with
the way of faith?” Here in an instant
is the domain of the flesh reconquered
by the adversary; and to the
question of ver. 1: “What has Abraham
found by the flesh?” it only
remains to answer: His son Isaac,
consequently the chosen people, and
consequently everything. A mind so
familiarized as Paul's was with the
secret thoughts of the Israelitish
heart, could not neglect this important
side of the question. He enters into this
new subject as boldly as into the
two preceding, and sapping the last
root of Jewish prejudice by Scripture,
he demonstrates that the birth of
Isaac, no less than the promise of the
inheritance and the grace of
justification, was the effect of faith. Thus it is
thoroughly proved that Abraham found
nothing by the flesh; quod erat
demonstrandum (ver. 1). This is the
subject of the third passage, 17-21.
3. Vv. 17-21.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
The birth of Isaac was the work of
faith; the apostle proves it by the
Scripture narrative, the memory of
which was present to the mind of all his
readers, and which was intended to be
recalled to them by the declaration
of ver. 3 relative to Abraham's
justification.
Ver. 17. “ According as it is written,
I have made thee a father of many
nations, before God whom he believed,
as him, that quickeneth the dead,
and calleth those things which be not
as though they were. ”—This verse
is directly connected with the end of
ver. 12; for the last words of ver. 16:
who is the father of us all , are the
reproduction of the last words of ver.
12: the faith of our father Abraham.
The development, vv. 13-16, had only
been the answer to an anticipated
objection. First of all, the general
paternity of Abraham in relation to
all believers, Jew or Gentile, so
solemnly affirmed at the end of ver.
16, is proved by a positive text, the
words of Gen. 16:5. The expression:
father of many nations , is applied by
several commentators only to the
Israelitish tribes. But why in this case
not use the term Ammim rather than
Gojim , which is the word chosen to
denote the Gentiles in opposition to
Israel? The promise: “Thy seed shall
be as the stars of heaven for multitude,”
can hardly be explained without
holding that when God spoke thus His
view extended beyond the limits of
Israel. And how could it be otherwise,
after His saying to the patriarch: “In
thee shall all the families of the
earth be blessed (or shall bless
themselves)”? The full light of the
Messianic day shone beforehand in all
these promises.—But there was in this
divine saying an expression which
seemed to be positively contradicted
by the reality: I have made thee.
How can God speak of that which shall
not be realized till so distant a
future as if it were an already
accomplished fact? The apostle uses this
expression to penetrate to the very
essence of Abraham's faith. In the
eyes of God, the patriarch is already
what he shall become. Abraham
plants himself at the instant on the
viewpoint of the divine thought: he
regards himself as being already in
fact what God declares he will
become. Such, if we mistake not, is
the idea expressed in the following
words which have been so differently explained:
before God whom he
believed. This before is frequently
connected with the words preceding the
biblical quotation: who is the father
of us all. But this verb in the present:
who is , was evidently meant in the
context of ver. 16 to apply to the time
when Paul was writing, which does not
harmonize with the expression
before , which transports us to the
very moment when God conversed with
Abraham. It seems to me, therefore,
better to connect this preposition with
the verb: I have made thee , understanding
the words: “ which was
already true before the God whom”...;
that is to say, in the eyes of the God
who was speaking with Abraham, the
latter was already made the father
of those many nations. There are two
ways of resolving the construction
katevnanti ou\...Qeou' ; either:
katevnanti tou' Qeou' katevnanti ou\ ejpivsteuse
(before the God before whom he
believed); or: katevnanti tou' Qeou' w|/
ejpivsteuse (before the God whom he
believed). Perhaps the first
explanation of the attraction is most
in keeping with usage (anyhow there
is no need to cite in its favor, as
Meyer does, Luke 1:4, which is better
explained otherwise). But it does not
give a very appropriate meaning.
The more natural it is to state the
fact that Abraham was there before
God, the more superfluous it is to
mention further that it was in God's
presence he believed. The second
explanation, though less usual when
the dative is in question, is not at
variance with grammar; and the idea it
expresses is much more simple and in
keeping with the context; for the
two following participles indicate
precisely the two attributes which the
faith of Abraham lays hold of: “before
the God whom he
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
believed as quickening ...and calling.
”—Two Mjj., F G, and the Peshito
read ejpivsteusa" , thou didst
believe. Erasmus had adopted this meaning
in his first editions, and it passed
into Luther's translation. These words
were thus meant to be a continuation
of the quotation. It would be best in
this case to explain the katevnanti
ou| in the sense of ajnqj ou| : “ in respect
of the fact that thou didst believe.”
But this meaning is without example,
and the reading has not the shadow of
probability.—The two divine
attributes on which the faith of
Abraham fastened at this decisive moment,
were the power to quicken and the
power to create. It was, indeed, in this
twofold character that God presented
Himself when He addressed to him
the words quoted: I have made thee
—here is the assurance of a
resurrection— father of many nations
—here is the promise of a creation.
Faith imagines nothing arbitrarily; it
limits itself to taking God as He offers
Himself, but wholly.—The first
attribute, the power to quicken (or raise
again ), has sometimes been explained
in relation to facts which have no
direct connection with the context,
such as the resurrection of the dead ,
spiritually speaking (Orig. Olsh.), or
the conversion of the Gentiles
(Ewald), or even the sacrifice of
Isaac (Er. Mangold)! But ver. 19 shows
plainly enough what is the apostle's
meaning. It is in the patriarch's own
person, already a centenarian, and his
wife almost as old as he, that a
resurrection must take place if the
divine promise is to be fulfilled.—In the
explanation of the second predicate,
the farfetched has also been sought
for the obvious; there has been given
to the word call a spiritual
signification (calling to salvation),
or it has even been applied to the
primordial act of creation ( kalei'n ,
to call , and by this call to bring out of
nothing). But how with this meaning
are we to explain the words wJ" o[nta ,
as being? Commentators have thus been
led to give them the force of wJ"
ejsovmena or eij" to; ei\nai , as
about to be , or in order to their being; which
is of course impossible. The simple
meaning of the word call: to invite one
to appear , is fully sufficient. Man
in this way calls beings which are; on the
summons of the master the servant
presents himself. But it belongs to
God to call beings to appear which are
not, as if they already were. And it
is thus God speaks to Abraham of that
multitude of future nations which
are to form his posterity. He calls
them up before his view as a multitude
already present, as really existing as
the starry heaven to which he
compares them, and says: “ I have made
thee the father of this multitude.”
The subjective negative mhv before
o[nta expresses this idea: “He calls as
being what he knows himself to be
non-existent.” The two present
participles, quickening and calling ,
express a permanent attribute,
belonging to the essence of the
subject. The passage thus understood
admirably teaches wherein faith
consists. God shows us by his promise
not only what he wills to exist for
us, but what he wills us to become and
what we already are in his sight; and
we abstracting from our real state,
and by a sublime effort taking the
position which the promise assigns us,
answer: Yea, I will be so; I am so.
Thus it is that Abraham's faith
corresponded to the promise of the God
who was speaking to him face to
face. It is this true notion of faith
which the apostle seeks to make plain, by
analyzing more profoundly what passed
in the heart of the patriarch at the
time when he performed that act on
which there rested the foundation of
the kingdom of God on the earth.
Ver. 18. “ Who against hope believed
in hope, in order to become the
father of many nations, according to
that which was spoken, So shall thy
seed be. ”—The word hope is used here
in two different senses, the one
subjective: hope as a feeling (in the
phrase: in hope ), the other objective:
hope to denote the motive for hoping
(in the phrase: against hope ). It is
nearly the same in 8:24, with this
difference, that hope in the latter
passage, taken objectively, does not
denote the ground of hoping,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
but the object of hope (as in Col.
1:5). The apostle therefore means:
without finding in the domain of sense
or reason the least ground for
hoping, he nevertheless believed, and
that by an effort of hope
proceeding from a fact which the eye
did not see nor the reason
comprehend, God and His promise. This
is the realization of the notion of
faith expressed Heb. 11:1, a notion
which is so often wrongly contrasted
with the conception of Paul. Instead
of: he believed in hope , it seems as if
it should have been: he hoped on (the
foundation of) his faith. But the
ejpiv is taken here nearly in the same
sense as in the frequent phrases:
ejpj eujnoiva/, ejpj e[cqra/ , in
goodwill, in hatred; ejpi; xeniva/ , in hospitality.
His faith burst forth in the form of
hope, and that in a situation which
presented no ground for
hope.—Translators generally weaken the
expression eij" to; genevsqai ,
in order to become, by suppressing the idea
of intention: “and thus it is that he
became” (Oltram.), or: “and he believed
that he would become” (Osterv.). This
substitution of the result for the
intention is grammatically
inadmissible. He really believed with the
intention of becoming. If he grasped
the promise with such energy, it
certainly was in order that it might
be realized. It is therefore unnecessary
to ascribe this notion of aim to God,
as Meyer does.—The following
verses develop the two notions:
against hope (ver. 19), and in hope (vv.
20, 21).
Vv. 19, 20. “ And being not weak in
faith, he considered his own body now
dead—he was about an hundred years
old—and the old age of Sarah's
body; but having regard to the
promise, he doubted not through unbelief;
but grew in strength by faith, giving
glory to God. ”—Abraham is
represented in this passage as placed
between two opposite forces, that
of sight, which turns to the external
circumstances (ver. 19), and that of
faith, which holds firmly to the
promise (ver. 20). The dev , but , of ver. 20,
expresses the triumph of faith over
sight.—We find in ver. 19 one of the
most interesting various readings in
the text of our Epistle. Two of the
three families of MSS. the Greco-Latin
and the Byz., read the negative ouj
before katenovhse : he considered not.
The effect of the subjective
negative mhv before ajsqenhvsa" ,
being weak , on the principal verb would
then be rendered thus, because:
“because he was not weak in faith, he
considered not”...The meaning is good:
the look of faith fixed on the
promise prevented every look cast on
the external circumstances which
might have made him stagger, as was
the case with Peter, who, as long
as he looked to Jesus, regarded
neither the winds nor the waves. But the
Alex. family, with the Peshito this
time on its side, rejects the ouj . The
meaning is then wholly different: “not
being weak in faith, he looked at (or
considered) his deadened body...but
for all that
( dev , ver. 20) he staggered
not”...This reading seems to be preferable to
the preceding, for it better explains
the contrast indicated by the dev , but ,
of ver. 20. The meaning is also more
forcible. He considered...but he did
not let himself be shaken by the view,
discouraging as it was. The mhv
before ajsqenhvsa" may be
explained either as a reflection of the author
intended to bring out a circumstance
which accompanied this view (he
considered without being weak ), or,
what is better, as indicating the
negative cause , which controls all
that follows (vv. 19, 20): “ because he
was not weak in faith, he
regarded...but did not stagger.” In favor of the
Received reading: “he considered
not,”...the passage has been alleged:
“Abraham laughed, and said in his
heart, Shall a child be born unto him
that is an hundred years old? and
shall Sarah, that is ninety years old,
bear?” (Gen. 17:17); a passage which,
according to this view, gave
occasion to the rejection of the
negative ou\ . This is not wholly impossible.
But the time to which this passage
(Gen. 17) applies is not the same as
that of which the apostle here speaks
(Gen. 15).
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Ver. 20. The dev , but , denotes the
contrast to the possible and natural
result of this consideration. Strictly
speaking, the antithesis would have
been the ejnedunauwvqh , he
strengthened himself; but the apostle feels
the need of reminding us first, in a
negative form, of what might have been
so easily produced under such conditions.—The
eij" th;n ejpaggelivan , in
regard to the promise , stands
foremost. It was the object in contrast to
that which was presented to his view
by the effeteness of his own body
and Sarah's. For the force of
eij" , comp. 16:19.—The verb here:
diakrivnesqai , to doubt , properly
signifies to be parted , or to be divided
into two men, one affirming, the other
denying; one hoping and giving
himself up, the other waiting to see:
“but in regard to the promise, there
was no division in him.” The
complement: of God , brings out that which
gave the promise this full power over
his heart.—In the clause: through
unbelief , the Greek substantive is
preceded by the article: through the
unbelief common among men, the
well-known unbelief.—The ajllav , but ,
is more strongly adversative than the
dev : “But quite the contrary.” This
word forcibly contrasts the idea of
the strength drawn from the promise
with the weakness arising from doubt.
The verb ejnedunamwvqh may be
translated as a passive: he was
strengthened; comp. Heb. 11:34; but it
may also be taken in the middle and
reflective sense: he strengthened
himself , reinvigorated himself, Acts
9:22; Eph. 6:10. The antithesis of the
diakriqh'nai , to doubt , speaks
rather in favor of the middle sense, unless
we recur to the simply intransitive
meaning: he grew in strength; this
shade would perhaps be preferable; it
harmonizes with the preposition ejn
, which enters into the composition of
the verb, and denotes a growth of
inward strength. In proportion as he
contemplated the promise with a fixed
regard, in which he put, so to speak,
his whole soul, his entire being, body
and spirit, was penetrated with a new
force, the principle of the complete
resurrection in which he had made bold
to believe (ver. 17).
The clause by faith is usually
connected with the verb he was
strengthened; but so understood, these
words do little more than repeat
what has already been sufficiently
expressed. It is better, therefore, to join
them with the following participle:
“by faith (by this faith) giving glory to
God.” The position of this word,
heading the clause to which it is thus
joined, corresponds with the
importance of the idea of faith in the whole
piece. Man was created to glorify God.
He did not do so by his obedience.
It is by faith , at least, that in his
state of sin he can return to the fulfilment
of this glorious destination.— To give
glory to God means in Scripture, to
render homage either by word or deed,
to one or other of God's attributes,
or to His perfection in general.
Wherein, in this case, did the homage
consist? The apostle tells us in ver.
21: in the firm conviction which he
cherished of God's faithfulness to His
word and of His power to fulfil it.
Vv. 21, 22. “ Being fully convinced
that, what He has promised, he is able
also to perform. Wherefore also
righteousness was imputed to him. ”—
Plhroforei'n , to fill a vessel to the
brim; this word used in the passive
applies to a man filled with a
conviction which leaves no place in his heart
for the least doubt. It is the
opposite of the diakrivnesqai , to be inwardly
divided , of ver. 20. If the relation
between the two participles: giving glory
and being convinced , is as we have
said, we should probably omit the
kaiv , and , which begins this verse
in the Alex. and Byz., and prefer the
Greco-Latin reading which rejects
it.—As to the kaiv , also , before poih'sai
, to do , it well expresses the
inseparable relation which the moral
perfection of God establishes between
His saying and His doing. If His
power were not equal to the height of
His promise, He would not promise.
Ver. 22 sums up the whole development
relating to Abraham's faith, vv. 1-
21,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
to clear the way for the final
application which Paul had in view. Diov ,
wherefore , refers to what has just
been said of the confidence with which
Abraham laid hold of God's promise,
ver. 21. God ascribed to that
confidence which glorified Him the
worth of perfect righteousness. The
kaiv , also (“wherefore also”), found
in the Alex. and Byz. Mjj., points to the
moral relation which exists between
faith and the imputation made of that
faith. The subject of ejlogivsqh , was
counted , might be the pisteu'sai ,
believing , understood; but it is
simpler to regard the verb as impersonal:
“there was in relation to him an
imputation of righteousness.” This saying
is more expressly connected with the first
of the three subjects treated in
this chapter, Abraham's justification,
vv. 1-12; but it sums up at the same
time the two others, the inheritance
of the world and the birth of Isaac,
which are, so to speak, its
complements. Thus is introduced the fourth
part, which contains the application
to existing believers, vv. 23-25.
4. Vv. 23-25.
Vv. 23, 24. “ Now it was not written
for him only, that it was imputed to
him; but for us also, to whom it shall
be imputed, when we believe on him
that raised up Jesus our Lord from the
dead. ”—The apostle extracts the
permanent principle contained in
Abraham's case to apply it to us. The dev
, now , marks this advance. Dij
aujtovn , for him (strictly: on account of
him), does not signify to his honor
(Beza, Thol.). The idea is that the
narrative was written not merely to
relate a fact belonging to Abraham's
history, but also to preserve the
knowledge of an event which should take
place in ours. So it will be on the
condition expressed by the following
participle toi'" pisteuvousin ,
for us who believe , the meaning of which we
have rendered freely in the
translation ( when we believe ). Every time this
condition shall be fulfilled, the same
imputation will certainly take place;
such is the meaning of the word
mevllei , is to. —But what in our position
now will be the object of faith? Faith
in the biblical sense can only have
one object. Whether Abraham or we be
the parties in question, this object,
always the same, is God and His
manifestation. But in consequence of
the unceasing progress, which takes
place in the divine work, the mode of
this manifestation cannot but change.
In the case of Abraham God
revealed Himself by the promise of an
event to be accomplished; the
patriarch required therefore to
believe in the form of hope , by cleaving to
the divine attribute which could
realize it. In our position now we are in
presence of an accomplished fact , the
display of the almighty grace of
God in the resurrection of Jesus. The
object of faith is therefore different
in form and yet the same in substance:
God and His manifestation, then in
word, now in act. What closely binds
the two historical facts brought into
connection, though so distant, the
birth of Isaac and the resurrection of
Jesus, is that they are the two
extreme links of one and the same chain,
the one the point of departure, the
other the consummation of the history
of salvation. But it must not be
imagined that, because it falls to us to
believe in an accomplished fact, faith
is now nothing more than historical
credence given to the reality of this
fact. The apostle at once sets aside
this thought when he says, not: “when
we believe in the resurrection of
Jesus,” but: “when we believe in God
who raised Jesus; ” comp. Col. 2:12.
He excludes it likewise when he
designates this Jesus raised from the
dead as our Lord , one who has been
raised by this divine act to the
position of representative of the
divine sovereignty, and especially to the
Headship of the body of the church. He
gives it to be understood, finally,
by unfolding in the following verse
the essential contents of this supreme
object of faith.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Ver. 25. “ Who was delivered on
account of our offences, and was raised
again on account of our justification.
”—In the title our Lord there was
involved the idea of a very intimate
relation between Jesus and us. This
mysterious and gracious solidarity is
summed up in two symmetrical
clauses, which in a few clear and
definite terms present its two main
aspects. He was delivered on account
of our offences. Perhaps Paul
means by the phrase: being delivered ,
to remind us of the description of
the servant of Jehovah, Isa. 53: “His
soul was delivered ( paredovqh ) to
death” (ver.
12). He who delivers Him, according to
Rom. 8:32, is God Himself: “who
spared not His own Son, but delivered
Him up for us all.” Paul has told us,
3:25, for what end this act was
necessary. It was required to manifest
conspicuously the righteousness of
God. Every sinner needed to be
brought to say: See what I deserve!
Thus justice was satisfied and pardon
possible. And He was raised again on
account of our justification.
Commentators are unanimous, if I
mistake not, in translating: for our
justification , as if it were
prov" or eij" , and not diav ( on account of ). This
for is explained in the sense that the
resurrection of Christ was needed in
order that faith might be able to
appropriate the expiation which was
accomplished, and that so
justification, of which faith is the condition,
might take place. But what a
roundabout way of arriving at the explanation
of this for! And if the apostle really
meant for ( with a view to ), why repeat
this same preposition diav which he
had just used in the parallel
proposition, in its natural sense of
on account of , while the language
supplied him with prepositions
appropriate to the exact expression of his
thought
( prov", eij" , 3:25, 26)? I
am not surprised that in this way several
commentators have found in this
symmetry established between the facts
of salvation nothing more than an
artificial distribution, belonging to the
domain of rhetoric rather than to that
of dogmatics, and that one has even
gone the length of reproaching the
apostle “for sacrificing to the mania of
parallelism.” If we were shut up to
the explanation referred to, we could
only join regretfully in this
judgment. But it is not so. Let us take the diav in
its natural sense, as we are bound to
do by its use in the first proposition.
In the same way as Jesus died because
of our offences, that is, our
(merited) condemnation, He was raised
because of our (accomplished)
justification. Our sin had killed Him;
our justification raised Him again. How
so? The expiation of our trespasses
once accomplished by His death, and
the right of God's justice proved in
earnest, God could pronounce the
collective acquittal of future
believers, and He did so. Over the blood of
the sacrifice a sentence of
justification was pronounced in favor of guilty
man; his condemnation was annulled.
Now, in view of this divine fact, a
corresponding change must necessarily
be wrought in the person of
Christ Himself. By the same law of
solidarity whereby our condemnation
had brought Him to the cross, our
justification must transform His death
into life. When the debtor is proved
insolvent, his security is thrown into
prison; but as soon as the latter
succeeds in clearing the debt, the debtor
is legally set free, and his security
is liberated with him. For he has no
debt of his own. Such is the bond of
solidarity formed by the plan of God
between Christ and us. Our lot is as
it were interwoven with His: we sin,
He dies; we are justified, He lives
again. This is the key to the declaration,
1 Cor. 15:17: “If Jesus be not risen,
ye are yet in your sins.” So long as
the security is in prison, the debt is
not paid; the immediate effect of
payment would be his liberation.
Similarly, if Jesus were not raised, we
should be more than ignorant whether
our debt were paid; we might be
certain that it was not. His
resurrection is the proof of our justification only
because it is the necessary effect of
it. What Paul required to say,
therefore, was diav , on account of ,
and not eij" , with a view to. If in Christ
dead humanity disappeared condemned,
in Christ raised again it
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
appears acquitted. And now what is the
part of faith in relation to the
resurrection thus understood? Exactly
that of Abraham in regard to the
divine promise. On hearing the
promise, he no longer saw himself as he
was, but he considered himself as the
promise made him. So, the
resurrection of Christ once completed,
we have no longer to see
ourselves as we are in ourselves, but
as this fact reveals us to our view:
justified. For this resurrection is
the incarnation of my justification. If death
is the payment of my debt,
resurrection is, as it were, the acknowledgment
of it.
We must beware, therefore, if we would
not efface from the Scriptures
their most magnificent revelation, of
giving to the word dikaivwsi" ,
justification , as several
commentators, Do1llinger for example, the entirely
arbitrary sense of sanctification:
Jesus was raised with a view to our moral
amelioration!—or of bringing in here,
as some Protestant commentators
do (Calv., Thol., Philip.) with the
notion of the resurrection, those of the
heavenly dominion and the intercession
of Christ. The resurrection is here
presented by Paul in express terms in
its relation to what preceded,
namely, His death, not the glorified
existence which followed.
Thus is finished the demonstration of
the harmony between the revelation
of the Old Testament and the
justification by faith revealed in the gospel.
The grand truth of the righteousness
of faith, summarily enunciated 3.21,
22, was first placed on its historical
foundation, the work of God in Christ,
3:23-26; then it was confirmed by its
harmony with the Old Testament;
first with the spirit of the law,
3:27-31, then with the example of Abraham,
4:1-24. One question might yet be
raised: Will this justification by faith,
which saves us at present, hold good
in the future? Can it assure us of
salvation even before the
judgment-seat? It is to the solution of this so
grave question that the following
piece is devoted. Thus will be closed the
didactic exposition of justification
by faith.
Eleventh Passage (5:1-11). The
Certainty of final Salvation for
Believers.
The title which we have just given to
this piece suffices to indicate the
difference between the idea which we
form of its scope and aim, and that
which prevails on the subject in the commentaries.
Commentators, except
Meyer to some extent, and Th. Schott
more completely, see in the
following piece the exposition of the
fruits of justification by faith; to wit,
peace , ver. 1; the hope of glory,
ver. 2; patience , ver. 3 et seq.; and the
feeling of the love of God, ver. 5, et
seq. But, first, such a juxtaposition of
effects so diverse would not
correspond with the nature of Paul's genius.
Then chaps. 6-8 are intended, as all
allow, to expound Christian
sanctification as the fruit of
justification by faith. But if the piece 5:1-11
were the beginning of the description
of the fruits of justification , why
interrupt the delineation by the
parallel of Adam and Christ, which does
not naturally belong to it? One cannot
be surprised, if it is so, at the
judgment of Reuss, who alleges that in
the matter of systematic order our
Epistle leaves something to be desired
( Gesch. d. N.
T. Schr. § 108). To escape this
difficulty, Lange and Schaff, following
Rothe's example, think we should close
the exposition of justification at
5:11, and make the parallel of the two
Adams the opening of a new
division, that relating to
sanctification. We shall state the exegetical
reasons which absolutely prevent us
from referring the passage 5:12-21
to the work of sanctification. Here we
merely call the attention of the
reader to the particle dia; tou'to ,
wherefore , 5:12, by which the second
part of our chapter is closely joined
to what precedes, and which makes
the following piece not the opening of
a new part, but the close of that
which we are studying (1:18-5:11). As
to the disorder which Reuss
attributes to the apostolic
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
doctrine, we think we can show that
the author of the Epistle is entirely
innocent, and that it is solely
chargeable on his expositors. The apostle
never thought of explaining, in the
piece which we are about to study, the
fruits of justification; he simply
finishes treating the subject of justification
itself. What good, indeed, would be
served by an argument in regular form
like that which we find in vv. 6-8 and
in vv. 9, 10, which are real
syllogisms, to demonstrate what is
obvious at a glance: that peace with
God flows from justification? Was it
not enough to indicate the fact? The
view of the apostle is therefore
entirely different. From this point he turns
his attention to the future which
opens up before the justified soul. It is not
at its goal; a career of trials and
struggles awaits it. Will its state of
justification hold good till it can
possess the finished salvation? The
apprehension of divine wrath exists in
the profound depths of man's heart.
A trespass suffices to reawaken it.
What justified one will not sometimes
put the anxious question, Will the
sentence by which my faith was
reckoned to me for righteousness be
still valid before the judgment-seat;
and in the day of wrath (ver. 9) will
this salvation by grace, in which I now
rejoice, still endure? It is the
answer to this ever-reviving fear which the
following piece is intended to give.
We are still, therefore, engrossed with
the subject of justification. The
exegesis, I hope, will prove the truth of this
view, which makes this piece an
essential waymark in the progress of the
Epistle. As is usual with Paul, the
theme of the whole passage is
expressed in the first words, vv. 1
and 2.
Vv. 1, 2. “ Therefore, being justified
by faith, we have peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom
also we have obtained access by
faith into this grace wherein we
stand, and triumph in the hope of the glory
of God. ”—The meaning of ver. 1 is as
follows: “Since, then, we have
obtained by means of faith our
sentence of justification from God, we find
ourselves transferred relatively to
Him into a state of peace, which
henceforth displaces in our minds the
fear of wrath.”—The form of
expression: eijrhvnhn e[cein
prov" , is common in classic Greek (see
Meyer). But must we not read, with the
great majority of Mjj. and Vss., the
subjunctive e[cwmen , let us have ,
instead of e[comen , we have, we
possess? This reading is adopted by
Hofm., Gess, Volkm.; it makes this
ver. 1 an exhortation. But how happens
it that immediately afterward the
didactic tone recommences and
continues uniformly to the end of the
piece, without any resuming of the
exhortation? This reading certainly
arises from a mistaken correction,
which owes its origin to the erroneous
idea which has been formed of the
piece (see above). Perhaps, also, it is
due to the fact that a liturgical
reading began with this verse. No exegete
has been able to account
satisfactorily for this imperative suddenly
occurring in the midst of a didactic
development.—The words: through our
Lord Jesus Christ , are explained by
commentators, and even by Meyer,
as referring to the work of expiation
previously described. We cannot
admit this view, for the following
reasons: 1. The work of expiation is cited
in ver. 2 as a benefit wholly distinct
from that to which ver. 1 refers; dij ou\
kaiv , by whom also , are the words in
the beginning of ver. 2. It is
therefore impossible, without useless
repetition, to explain the two
expressions, through our Lord , ver.
1, and by whom also , ver. 2, in
reference to the same mediation. Now
the mediation of ver. 2 is
undoubtedly that which Jesus effected
by the atonement. That of ver. 1
must therefore refer to another work.
2. The mediation of which ver. 2
speaks is mentioned as an accomplished
fact, the verb being in the
perfect: ejschvkamen , we have
obtained , while the present, e[comen , we
have , refers to a present and
permanent taking in possession. 3. If the
clause: through our Lord Jesus Christ
, referred to the work of expiation, it
would probably be joined to the
participle dikaiwqevnte" , having been
justified , rather than to the verb we
possess.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
The mistake of exegesis arises from
the fact that there has not been
recognized in this verse the theme,
and, so to speak, the title of the whole
piece (on to ver. 11), a piece which
refers not to the act of justification, but
to the present and future of the
justified. When he says: we have peace
with God , the apostle means: we can
henceforth regard God with entire
serenity, not only as to the past, but
also in view of the future, and even of
the judgment; for—this is the thought
with which he closes the exposition
about to follow—we have in Christ,
besides the mediation of His death , by
which we have already been justified (
dikaiwqevnte" ), that of His life , by
which we shall be maintained in this
state of salvation; comp. vv. 9 and
10, which are the authentic
explanation of the clause: through our Lord
Jesus Christ , ver. 1. In this way
ver. 2, which refers to the atonement,
ceases to have the effect of a
repetition.—Schott says to the same
purpose: “As it is to the person of
Christ that we owed access into grace
(ver. 2), it is the same person of
Christ which assures us of the perfecting
of salvation (ver. 1).”
Ver. 2. Paul here reminds us that the
Jesus who henceforth makes our
salvation sure ( by his life ), is no
other Mediator than the Jesus who has
already purchased our justification (
by his death ). Thus is explained the
dij ou\ kaiv , “by whom also. ” The
blessing of reconciliation by His death,
explained above, was the foundation of
the new grace he had in view
throughout the whole piece. Comp. a
similar return to a past development
intended to serve as the
starting-point of a new one, 3:23. Before passing
to the new grace he is concerned to
recall the former, to impress the
conviction that we owe all, absolutely
all, to this Jesus only. The perfect
ejschvkamen expresses an act of taking
possession already past, though
the possession continues. — The term
prosagwghv , which we have
translated by the word access ,
sometimes signifies the act of bringing or
introducing; it may, for example,
designate the manoeuvre by which
engines of war are brought close to
the walls of a besieged city (comp.
Meyer). It might be understood in this
sense: “by whom we have obtained
introduction into this grace. ” But
the word has also sometimes an
intransitive meaning: the right of
entering, access. The other substantives
compounded from the same verb have
often an analogous meaning; thus
ajnagwghv , setting out to sea;
periagwghv , circular motion. And certainly
this intransitive meaning is
preferable here. The first would be suitable if
the matter in question were
introduction to an individual, a sovereign for
example; but with an impersonal
regimen, such as grace , the meaning of
access to is more natural. It is in
this sense also that the word is taken
Eph. 2:18 and 3:12, if we are not
mistaken. The words th'/ pivstei , by faith
, are wanting in the Vat. and the
Greco-Latins. If they are authentic, they
simply remind us of the part
previously ascribed to faith in justification. But
it is improper, with some
commentators, to make the clause: to this grace ,
dependent on it. Such a form of
speech: pivsti" eij" cavrin , would be
without example in the New Testament.
The words: to this grace ,
complete the notion of access to: “At
the time when we believed ( th'/
pivstei ) we had access to this grace
in which we are now established.” —
The perfect eJsthka signifies: I have
been placed in this state, and I am in
it. This word, which has the meaning
of a present, recalls us to the
e[comen , we have henceforth, of ver.
1, and forms the transition to the
following idea: “and (in this state)
we glory.” — This last proposition (ver.
2) might be made dependent on the
relative pronoun in which. The
meaning would be: “this grace in which
we henceforth stand and glory.”
But this construction is somewhat
awkward. ver. 2 being already a sort of
parenthesis, in the form of an
incidental proposition, it is unnatural to
prolong the appendix still further. We
therefore connect the words: and we
triumph , with the principal idea of
ver. 1: we have peace. It is a climax:
“not
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
only do we no longer dread any evil at
the hand of God, but we have even
when we think of Him the joyful hope
of all blessing.” It is the feeling of
security raised to the anticipated joy
of triumph. These last words confirm
our explanation of the e[comen , “we
have henceforth ,” ver. 1. For they
express more obviously still the
conviction of the justified man in relation
to his future. In reality, the object
of this triumphant conviction is the
certain hope of glory. The phrase: the
glory of God , denotes the glorious
state which God Himself possesses, and
into which He will admit the
faithful; see on 3:23. — The kaucasqai
, to triumph , is the blessed
conviction and energetic (but humble,
1 Cor. 1:31) profession of
assurance in God. But some one will
ask the apostle: And what of the
tribulations of life? Do you count
them nothing? Do they not threaten to
make you lower your tone? Not at all;
for they will only serve to feed and
revive the hope which is the ground of
this glorying. This reply is
contained and justified in the
following verses.
Vv. 3, 4. “ And not only so, but we
triumph on account of tribulations also:
knowing that tribulation worketh
constancy; and approval; and hope. ” —
This passage being, strictly speaking,
the answer to an unexpressed
objection, it is natural that it
should recur (end of ver. 4 and 5) to the idea
of hope. The participle kaucwvmenoi ,
and even triumphing , which is found
in B C, would correspond very well
with the digressive character evidently
belonging to these verses. But it is
probable that this form has been
borrowed from that of ver. 11. — The
phrase we triumph , literally
translated, would be: in afflictions.
But this translation would not render
the idea of the text in our language
[French]. It would express the
circumstances in the midst of which
the believer triumphs, while the Greek
phrase denotes the object itself of
which he boasts; comp. 1 Cor. 1:31: “to
triumph in the Lord,” for: on account
of the possession of the Lord; 2 Cor.
12:9: “to triumph in his weaknesses,”
for: to extract triumph from his very
weaknesses. Thus Paul means here: to
make his afflictions themselves a
reason of triumph. This strange
thought is explained by what follows; for
the climax which is about to be traced
proves that it is tribulations that
make hope break forth in all its
vigor. Now it is this feeling which is the
ground for kauca'sqai ( to glory ). —
The words knowing that introduce the
logical exposition of the process
whereby affliction becomes transformed
in the believer into hope. First,
affliction gives rise to constancy ,
uJpomonhvn . This Greek word, coming
from uJpov and mevnein , literally:
to bear up under (a burden, blows,
etc.), might be translated by
endurance. From want of this word [in
French] we say constancy. — ver.
4. Endurance in its turn worketh
approval , dokimhvn . This is the state of a
force or virtue which has withstood
trials. This force, issuing victorious
from the conflict, is undoubtedly the
faith of the Christian, the worth of
which he has now proved by experience.
It is a weapon of which
henceforth he knows the value. The
word dovkimo" frequently denotes in
the same sense the proved Christian,
the man who has shown what he is,
comp. 14:18, and the opposite, 1 Cor.
10:27. We find in the New
Testament two sayings that are
analogous, though slightly different: Jas.
1:3, where the neuter substantive
dokivmion denotes, not like dokimhv
here, the state of the thing proved,
but the means of proof, tribulation
itself; and 1 Pet. 1:7, where the same
substantive dokivmion seems to us
to denote that which in the faith of
the believer has held good in suffering,
has shown itself real and effective,
the gold which has come forth purified
from the furnace. — When, finally, the
believer has thus experienced the
divine force with which faith fills
him in the midst of suffering, he feels his
hope rise. Nothing which can happen
him in the future any longer affrights
him. The prospect of glory opens up to
him nearer and more brilliant. How
many Christians have declared that
they never knew the gladness of faith,
or lively
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
hope, till they gained it by means of
tribulation! With this word hope the
apostle has returned to the end of
ver. 2; and as there are deceitful hopes,
he adds that the one of which he
speaks ( the hope of glory , ver. 2) runs
no risk of being falsified by the
event.
Ver. 5. “ Now hope maketh not ashamed;
because the love of God is shed
abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost
which was given unto us. ”—This
verse is the central saying of the
entire passage. On the one hand, it is
directly connected with the two first
verses: “We no longer feel any fear;
nay, rather, we triumph in the hope of
glory, a hope which is rendered
brighter even by sufferings.” On the
other hand, this verse contains all that
follows. This hope will not be
falsified in the end by the event; this is what
the second part of the passage
proceeds to prove (vv. 6-
11).—The word make ashamed refers to
the non-realization of the hope
when the hour of glory has struck. The
present maketh not ashamed is
the present of the idea. This
falsification, inflicted on the hopes of faith by
facts, and the possibility of which is
denied by the apostle, is not that with
which the truth of materialism would
confound them. This idea is foreign to
the mind of Paul. The matter in
question in the context is the terrible
position of the justified man who in
the day of judgment should find
himself suddenly face to face with
unappeased wrath. Paul declares such
a supposition impossible. Why? Because
the source of his hope is the
revelation of God Himself which he has
received, of the love of which he
is the object. The reawakening of
wrath against him is therefore an
inadmissible fact.—The love of God
cannot denote here our love for God,
as Hofmann would have it. It is true
this critic thoroughly recognizes the
imperfections always attaching to our love.
But he thinks that Paul is here
looking at the believer's love to his
God only as a mark of our renewal by
the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, this
meaning must be rejected; first, on
account of the choice of the verb
ejkkevcutai , is shed abroad (see below);
next, because the following verses
(vv. 6-8), joined by for to ver. 5
develop the idea of God's love to us,
not that of our love to God; finally,
because the syllogism finished in vv.
9, 10 would want its basis (its minor)
if the fact of God's love to us had
not been established in the preceding
context. The love of God is therefore
the love with which God loves us.
The verb translated by is shed abroad
, literally signifies: to be poured out
of. Paul means: out of the heart of
God, where this love has its source,
into ours. The perfect used here
signifies that there was a time when this
effusion took place, and that since
then it has not been withdrawn. It is
this meaning of the perfect which
explains the use of the preposition of
rest, ejn ( in , without the idea of
motion), instead of eij" ( into , with
motion). This preposition refers to
the whole state which has resulted from
the effusion. There was an act of
revelation in the heart of believers, the
fruit of which is the permanent
impression of the love which God has for
them. The medium of this transfusion
of the divine love into their heart
was the Holy Spirit. We see, 1 Cor.
2:10-12, that this Divine Being, after
having sounded the depths of God,
reveals them to the man to whom he
imparts himself. Thereby we become
privy to what is passing in God, in
particular, to the feeling which he
cherishes toward us, just as we should
be to a feeling which we might
ourselves cherish toward another. In
general, the work of the Spirit
consists in breaking down the barrier
between beings, and placing them in a
common luminous atmosphere, in
which each hears the heart of his
neighbor beat as if it were his own. And
this is the relation which the Spirit
establishes not only between man and
man, but between man and God Himself;
comp. John 14:19, 20. The
aorist participle doqevnto" ,
which was given to us , reminds us of two
things: the time when this heaven was
opened to the believer, and the
objective and perfectly real character
of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
this inward revelation. It was not a
case of exalted feeling or excited
imagination; it was God who imparted
himself; comp. John 14:21 and
23.—The transition from ver. 5 to 6
seems to me to be one of the points
on which exegesis has left most to be
desired. Commentators confine
themselves in general to saying that
ver. 6 gives the external proof, the
proof from fact, of that divine love
shed abroad in our hearts, and that the
proof is the sacrifice of Christ, vv.
6-8. But this inorganic juxtaposition of
the internal proof, ver. 5, and the
external proof, ver. 6, is not satisfactory;
and this explanation does not
correspond to the use of the particle for ,
which implies a much more intimate
relation of ideas. The object is to
prove that this hope of glory, whose
source is the inward revelation of the
love of God, will not be falsified by
the event in the hour of judgment. For
this end, what does the apostle do? He
does not merely allege an external
fact already past; he penetrates to
the essence of that internal revelation
of which he has just been speaking in
ver. 5. He analyzes, so to speak, its
contents, and transforming this
ineffable feeling into a rigorous syllogism,
he deduces from it the following
argument, which is that of the Spirit
Himself in the heart of the believer:
God loved thee when thou wast yet a
sinner, giving thee a proof of love
such as men do not give to one another,
even when they respect and admire one
another the most, and when the
devotion of love is carried among them
to its sublimest height (vv. 6-8).
Such is the minor, the divine love
already manifested in the fact of
redemption. The understood major is to
this effect: Now the love which
one has testified to his enemies does
not belie itself when these have
become better than enemies, friends.
The conclusion is expressly stated,
vv. 9, 10: If, then, God testified to
thee, to thee when yet an enemy, a love
beyond all comparison, how shouldst
thou, once justified and reconciled,
have to fear falling back again under
wrath? It is obvious that to the end of
the passage, from ver. 6, the whole
forms one consecutive reasoning, and
this reasoning is joined by for to
ver. 5, because it serves only to expound
in a logical form the language which
the Holy Spirit holds to the heart of
the believer, and by which He sustains
his hope, even through earthly
tribulations.
Vv. 6-8. “ For when we were yet weak
in due time Christ died for the
ungodly. For hardly for a righteous
man will one die:for peradventure for
goodness some would even dare to die.
But God establisheth His own
love towards us, in that, while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
”—The for might be rendered by in
fact. The inward revelation of divine
love, whereby the Holy Spirit
certifies to the believer that his hope of glory
shall not be deceived, is now to be
set in full light. The authenticity of this
for is sufficiently attested—(1) By
the reading of the Alex., Byz.: e[ti gavr ;
(2) By that of the Greco-Latin:
eij" tiv gavr ; (3) By that of the Vat. itself,
which reads ei[ge ; for this g seems
to be a remnant of the primitive gavr .
The reading of the Alex. and Byz. MSS.
which put the e[ti , yet , at the
head of the sentence, is likewise
authentic. For, to the weight of the
authorities there is added the
decisive importance of this little word, in
which there is concentrated the whole
force of the following verses: “God
testified His love to us when we were
yet in a state which rendered us
wholly unworthy of it....! The
Greco-Latin reading: eij" tiv gavr , for what
end? is a corruption
of this not understood e[ti . A
question relative to the end of divine love
would be out of place in this
argument, where it is not the end, but the
particular character of the love which
is in question. It is wholly different
with the reading of the Vat.: ei[ge ,
if at least , which perfectly suits the
meaning of the passage, whether the if
be made dependent on the
proposition: hope maketh not ashamed ,
ver. 5—and to this the at least
points—or whether it be taken as the
beginning of the following argument:
“If Christ died...with much stronger
reason...(ver. 9).” This construction,
adopted by
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Ewald, is excellent; only it obliges
us to make vv. 7 and 8 a parenthesis,
which is complicated and unnecessary,
since the reading e[ti , yet , gives
in a simpler form exactly the same
sense: “When we were yet without
strength, Christ died...; with much
stronger reason...ver. 9.” ver. 6
describes the miserable condition in
which we were at the time when
divine love was extended to us. We
were weak , ajsqenei'" . The word often
means sick (1 Cor. 11:30). Here it
expresses total incapacity for good, the
want of all moral life, such as is
healthy and fruitful in good works. It was
certainly not a state fitted to win
for us the sympathy of divine holiness. On
the contrary, the spectacle of a race
plunged in such shameful impotence
was disgusting to it. Seven Mjj. read
after ajsqenw'n the word e[ti , yet (five
of them read it previously in the
beginning of the verse). If this somewhat
strange reading be admitted, the comma
need not be placed where
Tischendorf puts it (8th edition),
after this e[ti , to connect it with what
precedes, but before, to join it to
the following word: kata; kairovn , yet in
time. What led Tischendorf to this
construction was, that he mistakenly
connected the first e[ti , in the
opening of the verse, with the verb: Christ
died. Neither the sense nor grammar is
favorable to this connection. But,
on the other hand, if the second e[ti
were joined to kata; kairovn , yet in
time , there would be too marked an
emphasis on an idea in the passage
which is purely secondary. We
conclude, therefore, that the second e[ti
should be rejected from the text. It
is, as Meyer thinks, a mistaken
repetition arising from the fact that
this little word did not appear suitable
in the beginning of the passage,
especially if a liturgical lesson
commenced with ver. 6. So copyists
have first transposed it after the
ajsqenw'n , then doubled it by
combining the two readings.—The words: in
due time, at the right moment , may
contain an allusion to the eternal plan,
3:25: “at the hour fixed beforehand by
divine wisdom.” Or they express the
idea of the suitability of this time
in relation to the state of mankind, either
because having now made full trial of
their misery, they might be disposed
to accept with faith the salvation of
God; or because it was the last hour ,
when, the time of forbearance having
reached its limit (3:26), God, if He
did not pardon, must judge. This last
meaning seems to us, from 3:25, 26,
to be the one which best corresponds
to the mind of the apostle.—The
incapacity of mankind for good, their
moral sickness, arose from their
separation from God, from their
voluntary revolt against Him. This is what
the apostle brings out in the words:
for ungodly ones , which indicate the
positive side of human perversity.
Their malady inspires disgust; their
ungodliness attracts wrath. And it was
when we were yet plunged in this
repulsive state of impotence and
ungodliness that the greatest proof of
love was given us, in that Christ died
for us. The preposition uJpevr , for ,
can only signify: in behalf of. It
neither implies nor excludes the idea of
substitution ( in the room of ); it
refers to the end , not at all to the mode of
the work of redemption.
To shed light on the wholly
exceptional character of the love testified to
mankind in this death of Christ, the
apostle compares the action of God in
this case with the noblest and rarest
proofs of devotion presented by the
history of our race; and he bids us
measure the distance which still
separates those acts of heroism from
the sacrifice of God, vv. 7 and 8.
In ver. 7 he supposes two cases in the
relations of man to man, the one
so extraordinary that it is hardly (
movli" , hardly ) conceivable, the other
difficult indeed to imagine, but yet
supposable ( tavca , peradventure ). The
relation between those two examples
has been variously understood.
According to the old Greek
commentators, Calv., Beza, Fritzs., Mey.,
Oltram., etc., the relation is that of
complete identity; the expression: uJpe;r
tou' ajgaqou' , for the man who is
good , in the second proposition,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
designating no essentially different
character from the uJpe;r dikaivou , for
a righteous man , in the first. The
second proposition on this view is simply
the justification of that remnant of
possibility which was implied in the word
hardly in the first: “hardly will one
die for a just man; I say, hardly; for after
all I do not absolutely deny that for
such a man of probity one might be
found willing to sacrifice his life.”
But if such were really the apostle's
meaning, why substitute in the second
proposition for the word dikaivou ,
the just man , the term ajgaqou' , the
good man (or goodness )? Why prefix
the article to the latter, which did
not stand before the former: a just... the
good (or goodness )? Why put the word
ajgaqou' first in the proposition
obviously indicating the purpose to
establish an antithesis between the
two ideas: the good man (or goodness
), and a just man? Why, finally, in
the second proposition add the word
kaiv , even , which establishes a
gradation, and consequently a
difference between the two examples
quoted? We are aware of the reason
that has led so many commentators
to this explanation, which is
inconsistent with all the details of the text. It is
the difficulty of pointing out a
satisfactory distinction between the two
words dikaivou , righteous , and
ajgaqou' , good. According to Olshausen,
the first denotes the man who does no
evil to any one; the second, the
man who does positive good, that is to
say, more than men have a right to
exact from him. According to De Wette,
the one is the simply just man, the
other the man who, to justice, adds
nobleness. According to Hodge, the
one is the man who does everything the
law demands, and whose
character commands respect; the other,
the man whose conduct is
directed by love, and inspires love.
According to Ewald, the just man is he
who is acknowledged innocent in regard
to some specific charge; the
good man, one who is irreproachable in
all respects. Philippi thinks that
the righteous one is the honest man,
and the good , the generous and
amiable man who does good to those
about him, in his family, his city, his
country, in a word, the pater patriae.
Tholuck, finally, arrives at a clearer
and more precise distinction, by
giving, like many other commentators, to
ajgaqov" , good , the meaning of
a beneficent man, first, and then by
derivation, that of benefactor. In
this latter case the article the is explained
by saying that the person meant is the
benefactor of the man who devotes
himself to death, or rather, according
to Tholuck himself, by the rhetorical
use of the article oJ , the , in the
sense of our phrase: the man of virtue,
the philanthropist. This latter
explanation of the article might be applied
also to the other meanings. But,
despite the enormous erudition displayed
by the defenders of these various
distinctions to justify them from classic
writers, all that is gained by most of
them is to father a subtlety on the
apostle; and all that is gained by the
last, the only one which presents a
clear contrast between the two terms,
is to make him say what he has not
said. To express, indeed, this idea of
benefactor , he had in Greek the
hallowed terms ajgaqopoiov" or
eujergevth" . Why not use them? Besides,
the addition of the article finds no
natural explanation in any of these
senses. Reuss has even resolutely
sacrificed it in his translation: “one
may dare to die for a man of virtue.”
Jerome, and after him Erasmus,
Luther, Melanchthon, have taken the
two terms, the just and the good, in
the neuter sense: justice, goodness.
But as to the former, this meaning
would have absolutely demanded the
article; the meaning of uJpe;r
dikaivou can be nothing else than: for
a just man. —This last explanation,
however, brings us within reach of the
solution. Nothing in fact prevents
us from applying Jerome's idea to the
second of the two terms, and taking
uJpe;r tou' ajgaqou' in the sense of:
for goodness (and not for the good man
). This is the explanation which
Ruckert in particular has defended, and
which Hofmann has finally adopted. Not
that we understand, with the
former, the good , in the sense of the
useful. The idea of the whole
passage would
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
be falsified if there were introduced
into it a notion foreign to the purely
moral domain. The good here, in
opposition to ajsebei'" , the ungodly , ver.
6, and aJmartwloiv , sinners , ver. 8,
can only signify a holy cause; for
example, the fulfilment of a sacred
duty to which one sacrifices his life,
like Antigone; or the defence of the
law to which one remains faithful even
unto death, like the martyrs in the
time of the Maccabees; or the
deliverance of our country for which
so many men have sacrificed
themselves, even among the heathen; or
the good of humanity in general,
which has inspired so many deeds of
heroic devotion. It is in this way that
Julius Muller , in his Christl. Lehre
v. d. Sunde , ends by returning to the
masculine meaning of tou' ajgaqou' ,
applying the adjective to Him who is
good par excellence, to God: “For a
righteous man one will hardly die; but,
for God , yes, peradventure such a
thing will occur.” This meaning would
be excellent, and the contrast
striking: “Hardly will men die for God, the
perfectly good, and God puts Christ to
death for men the ungodly!”
Nevertheless, we believe that if the
apostle had thought of God
personally, he would have designated
Him more clearly. In any case, this
last sense would coincide with that of
Ruckert , since God is the good in
the absolute sense of the word.—The
reading of the Peshito uJpe;r
ajdivkwn , for unrighteous men , in
the first proposition, gives a very simple
meaning, only too simple, and one
which completely enervates the force
of the contrast to the terms ungodly ,
and sinners , in vv. 6 and 8. It is
condemned, besides, by all the
documents.— Tolma'n , to dare, to have
courage for; hence, to resolve to.—
Kaiv : it is a case which is also
supposable. See, then, how far, in
some exceedingly rare cases, the
devotion of man in its sublimest
manifestations can rise. To sacrifice his
life for one whose honorable character
inspires respect; hardly! to
sacrifice yourself on the altar of a
cause whose grandeur and holiness
have possessed you; perhaps also (
kaiv )! And now for the contrast
between these supreme acts of human,
devotion and God's conduct
toward us.
Ver. 8. The dev , but , indicates this
contrast. What man hardly does for
what is most worthy of admiration and
love, God has done for that which
merited only His indignation and
abhorrence. On the verb sunistavnai , see
on 3:5; here it is the act whereby God
establishes beyond question the
reality of His love. The apostle says
th;n eJautou' ajgavphn : His own love, or
the love that is peculiar to Him. The
expression contrasts God's manner of
loving with ours. God cannot look
above Him to devote Himself, as we
may, to a being of more worth than
Himself. His love turns to that which is
beneath Him (Isa. 57:15), and takes
even the character of sacrifice in
behalf of that which is altogether
unworthy of Him.— {Oti , in that , is here
the fact by which God has proved His
peculiar way of loving.—In the word
aJmartwlov" , sinner , the
termination wlo" signifies abundance. It was by
this term the Jews habitually
designated the Gentiles, Gal. 2:15. The e[ti ,
yet , implies this idea: that there
was not yet in humanity the least
progress toward the good which would
have been fitted to merit for it such
a love; it was yet plunged in evil
(Eph. 2:1-7).—The words: Christ died for
us , in such a context, imply the
close relation of essence which unites
Christ and God, in the judgment of the
apostle. With man sacrificing
himself, Paul compares God sacrificing
Christ. This parallel has no
meaning except as the sacrifice of
Christ is to God the sacrifice of
Himself. Otherwise the sacrifice of
God would be inferior to that of man,
whereas it must be infinitely exalted
above it.—Finally, it should be
observed how Paul places the subject
Qeov" , God , at the end of the
principal proposition, to bring it
beside the word aJmartwlw'n , sinners , and
so brings out the contrast between our
defilement and the delicate
sensibility of divine holiness.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
In vv. 6-8 the minor premiss of the
syllogism has been explained: God
loved us when wicked, loved us as we
ourselves do not love what is most
excellent. Here properly the major
should stand: Now, when one has done
the most for his enemies , he does not
refuse the least to his friends. But
Paul passes directly to the
conclusion, introducing into it at the same time
the idea of the major. Reuss says, in
passing from ver. 8 to 9: “Finally,
hope is also founded on a third
consideration.” The apostle does not
compose in so loose a style.
Vv. 9, 10. “ Much rather then, being
now justified by His blood, we shall be
saved from wrath through Him. For if,
when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God by the death of His
Son, much rather, being reconciled,
we shall be saved by His life. ”—The
ou\n , then , concludes from the proof
of love already received to the proof
of love to be hoped for. The pollw'/
ma'llon is certainly taken here in the
logical sense: much more certainly ,
and not: much more abundantly. —Meyer
is right in saying that the
conclusion proceeds not from the least
to the most , but from the most to
the least. The work already finished
is summed up in the words: being
now justified by His blood. The word
now contrasts the present state of
justification, on the one hand, with
the former state of condemnation (the:
yet sinners of ver. 8); and, on the
other, with the state of future salvation (
we shall be saved ). The state in
which we now are is greatly more
inconsistent with final wrath than
that from which we have already been
rescued.—But what is that wrath from
which we have yet to be delivered?
That spoken of by Paul, 2:5, 6, in the
words: “the day of wrath and
revelation of the righteous judgment
of God,” the day when “God will
render to every one according to his
deeds;” comp. 1 Thess. 1:10; 2
Thess. 1:8. Our Lord speaks, Luke
12:47, 48, of the punishment in store
for the servant who knew the will of
his master and did it not: he shall be
beaten with many stripes. “To
whomsoever much is given, of him shall
much be required.” A ground this for
serious vigilance on the part of the
justified man, but not of fear. Paul
explains why: there is in Christ more
than the expiation (the blood) by
which He has introduced us into the state
of justification; there is His living
person, now glorified, and consequently
able to interpose in new ways in
behalf of the justified, and to bring to a
successful end the work of salvation
so well begun in them. Such is the
meaning of the words: “we shall be
saved through Him ( dij aujtou' ).”
Comp. 8:34: “Who died, yea rather ,
that is risen again; who is at the right
hand of God, who also maketh
intercession for us;” Gal. 2:20: “I live, yet
not I, but Christ in me;” Heb. 7:25:
“Ever living to make intercession for
us;” John 14:19: “Because I live, ye
shall live also.” Paul here explains
himself clearly regarding the double
mediation indicated (vv. 1 and 2) by
means of the two diav , through: “
through our Lord...(ver. 1), through
whom also ...(ver. 2).” The one
expressed in ver. 1 was that which was
implied here in the words through Him:
we are delivered from all fear
through Him (as to our future). The
other, expressed in ver. 2 (“ through
whom also we have obtained
access”...), was that of His blood, through
which we have been justified,
delivered from condemnation (as to the
past). It is obvious how profoundly
the apostle's work is weighed, and that
we were not mistaken in alleging that
in the words: “We have peace with
God,” he had his eyes already turned
to the future, the final salvation.
Ver. 10 is, strictly speaking, only a
stronger repetition of the argument of
ver.
9. Paul makes the reasoning more
evident—1. By adding the term
enemies , which renders the a fortiori
character of the proof more striking;
2. By substituting for justified (ver.
9) the term reconciled , which
corresponds better with the word
enemies; 3. By describing the death of
Christ as that of the Son of God ,
which presents its value more
impressively; 4. By explaining the
indefinite term: through
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
him (ver. 9), by the more precise
expression: by his life. —The for is
explained by the new force which the
argument derives from these
various changes. It is our en effet
(in fact); comp. the relation between vv.
3 and 5 in John 3—Three stages are
indicated: enemies, reconciled,
saved. Divine love, which has brought
us from the first to the second, will
yet more certainly bring us from the
second to the third. — The terms:
weak, ungodly, sinners (vv. 6 and 8),
are here summed up in the word
enemies. Does this word denote man's
enmity to God, or that of God to
man? Hating God ( Dei osores ), or
hated of God ( Deo odiosi )? The first
notion would evidently be insufficient
in the context. The enmity must
above all belong to Him to whom wrath
is attributed; and the blood of
Christ, through which we have been
justified , did not flow in the first place
to work a change in our dispositions
Godward, but to bring about a
change in God's conduct toward us.
Otherwise this bloody death would
have to be called a demonstration of
love , and not of righteousness
(3:25). Here, besides, the saying
11:28 should be compared, where the
term enemy of God is contrasted with
the title beloved of God; the first
therefore signifies: one not loved, or
hated of God; comp. Eph. 2:3: “by
nature children of wrath. ” We must obviously
remove from this notion of
divine enmity every impure admixture,
every egoistic element, and take
this hatred in the sense in which
Jesus speaks of His disciple hating his
father, mother, wife, children, and
his own life , Luke 14:26. This hatred is
holy; for it is related only to what
is truly hateful to ourselves and others,
evil, and what is fitted to lead to
it. But yet it is not enough to say, with
many commentators, that what God hates
in the sinner is the sin and not
the person. For, as is rightly
observed by Oltramare (who on this account
rejects the passive sense of the word
enemies , which we defend), it is
precisely hatred against the sinners ,
and not against the sin , which
meets us in the expression enemies of
God , if it be taken in the sense:
hated of God. The truth is, as it
appears to me, that God first of all hates
sin in the sinner, and that the sinner
becomes at the same time the object
of this holy hatred in proportion as
he voluntarily identifies himself with sin,
and makes it the principle of his
personal life. Undoubtedly, so long as this
development remains unfinished, the
sinner is still the object of divine
compassion, inasmuch as God continues
to regard him as His creature
destined for good. But the co-existence
of these two opposite sentiments,
of which, 11:28, we have a very
striking particular example, can only
belong to a state of transition. The
close of the development in good or
evil once reached, only one of the two
sentiments can continue (see on
1:18). While maintaining as
fundamental the notion of divine enmity in the
term enemies of God , we do not think
it inadmissible to attach to it as a
corollary that of man's enmity to God.
Our heart refuses to embrace the
being who refuses to embrace us. It is
in this double sense that the word
enemy is taken in common language. It
implies a reciprocity; comp. the
expression ejn e[cqra/ o[nte" ,
used of Pilate and Herod (Luke 23:12).—A
somewhat analogous question arises as
to the meaning of the expression
kathllavghmen tw'/ Qew' , we were
reconciled to God. The words may
signify two things: either that man
gives up the enmity which had
animated him against God, or that God
gives up His enmity to man. Taken
in themselves, the two meanings are
grammatically possible. The words 1
Cor. 7:11 present a case in which the
reconciled person becomes so by
giving up his own enmity (“if the
woman depart, let her remain unmarried,
or, be reconciled to her husband”); 1
Sam. 29:4 and Matt. 5:24 offer two
examples of the opposite sense. In the
first of these passages, the chiefs
of the Philistines, suspecting the
intentions of David, who asks permission
to join them in fighting against Saul,
say to their king: “Wherewith should
he reconcile himself
( diallaghvsetai , LXX.) to his master
( tw'/ kurivw/ aujtou' ), if not with the
heads of our
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
men?” In the second, Jesus exhorts the
man who would bring his offering
to the altar, and who remembers that
his brother has something against
him , to go and first be reconciled to
him. In both cases it is evident that
the enmity, and consequently the
giving up of the enmity, are ascribed to
the man with whom the reconciliation
has to take place (Saul, and the
neighbor who thinks himself offended).
In our passage the true meaning
does not seem to us doubtful. The word
being reconciled reproducing the
being justified of ver. 9, it follows
from this parallelism that it is God, and
not man, who gives up His enmity. In
the same way as by justification God
effaces all condemnation, so by
reconciliation He ceases from His wrath.
This meaning results also from that of
the word ejcqrov" , enemy , which
we have just established, as well as
of the term wrath , ver. 9. If it is God
who is hostile and provoked , it is in
Him first of all that the act of
reconciliation must take place. This
view is confirmed by the main
passage, 3:25. If it was man who had
to be brought first to abandon his
hostility, the reconciling act would
consist, as we have just said in
speaking of the word enemy , in a
manifestation of love, not of
righteousness. Finally, as Hodge
observes, to make these words signify
that it is we who in the
reconciliation lay down our enmity to God, is to put
it in contradiction to the spirit of
the whole passage. For the apostle's
object is to exhibit the greatness of
the love testified by God to unworthy
beings, in order to conclude therefrom
to the love which will be testified to
them by the same God in the future.
The whole argument thus rests on
God's love to man, and not on man's to
God. On the other side it is true,
as Oltramare remarks, that the
expression to be reconciled is nowhere
applied to God. It is only said, 2
Cor. 5:19: “that He reconciled the world
unto Himself , not imputing their
trespasses unto them.” How explain this
fact? Certainly the sacred writers
felt that it is impossible to compare the
manner in which God becomes reconciled
to men, with the manner in
which one man becomes reconciled to
another. It was God Himself who
began by doing everything to establish
His righteousness and secure the
majesty of His position, that He might
then be able to pardon. Here there
was a mode of action which does not
enter into human processes of
reconciliation; and hence the
apostles, in speaking of God, have avoided
the ordinary expression.
If for the word blood ver. 10
substitutes death , which is more general, it is
in order to call up better the Passion
scene as a whole. The words: of His
Son , exhibit the immensity of the
sacrifice made for enemies! Conclusion:
If God (humanly speaking) did not
shrink from the painful sacrifice of His
Son in behalf of His enemies, how
should He refuse to beings, henceforth
received into favor, a communication
of life which involves nothing save
what is ineffably sweet for Himself
and for those who receive it! Thus is
proved the certainty of final
salvation (salvation in the day of wrath),
toward which everything pointed from
the first words: we have peace.
—The clause ejn th'/ zwh'/ aujtou' ,
by His life , must not be regarded as
indicating the object of the being
saved (introduced into His life). The ejn ,
in , can only have the instrumental
sense, like that of the ejn tw'/ ai{mati , in
His blood, ver. 9; saved through His
life, from which ours is henceforth
drawn; comp. 8:2: “The law of the
spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made
me free from the law of sin and
death.” In fact, justification is not the whole
of salvation; it is the entrance on
it. If sin continued to reign as before,
wrath would reappear at the close. For
“without holiness no man shall see
the Lord,” Heb. 12:14. But the
mediation of the life completes that of the
blood, and makes sure of holiness, and
thereby of final salvation. Comp.
chaps. 6-8, intended to develop the
thought which is here merely
enunciated in connection with the
grace of justification. The expression be
saved therefore denotes salvation in
the full sense of the word—the final
sentence which, along with
justification, assumes
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the restoration of holiness. A sick
man is not saved when the trespass
which has given rise to his malady has
been pardoned; he must also be
cured. There are therefore, as we have
elsewhere shown, a sentence of
initial grace— justification , in the
ordinary sense of the word—founded
solely on faith; and a sentence of
final grace, which takes account not only
of faith, but also of the fruits of
faith. The first is the fruit of Christ's death;
the second flows from participation in
His life. For both of these graces
faith is and remains, of course, the
permanent condition of personal
appropriation. If this is not
expressly mentioned in our passage, it is
because it refers solely to believers
already justified (ver. 1).
We cannot help remarking here, with
Olshausen, how entirely at variance
with the view of the apostle is the
Catholic doctrine, which is shared by so
many Protestants of our day, and which
bases justification on the new life
awakened in man by faith. In the eyes
of St. Paul, justification is entirely
independent of sanctification, and
precedes it; it rests only on faith in the
death of Christ. Sanctification flows
from the life of Christ by the work of
the Holy Spirit.
At the end of ver. 2, Paul had passed
from the absence of fear (“ we have
peace ,” ver. 1) to the positive hope
of glory , in which already we triumph.
This same gradation is reproduced here
from the passage from ver. 10 to
ver. 11, after which the theme
contained in the first two verses will be
exhausted, and the proposition: “hope
maketh not ashamed” (ver. 5), fully
demonstrated.
Ver. 11. “ And not only [so] , but
even glorying in God through our Lord
Jesus Christ, by whom we have now
received the reconciliation. ”—The
general gradation from ver. 10 to ver.
11 is well explained by Philippi:
“Salvation is not merely negative: deliverance
from wrath; we hope for
better: participation in glory.” It
was by this idea of triumphant entrance
into glory that the apostle behooved
to crown this whole exposition of
justification. For then it is that it
will become complete and final.—The
construction presents a difficulty.
What are we to make of the participle
kaucwvmenoi , glorying , which does
not rest on any finite verb? The
ancients and several moderns (Thol.,
Philip., Ruck ., Fritzs., Hodge)
regard it as the equivalent of a finite
verb, understanding ejsmevn , we are
glorying, for we glory. This is the
meaning indicated by the reading of L
and of the ancient Versions. In this
case, we must understand another
finite verb after not only , which can
be no other than the: we shall be
saved , of ver. 10. The meaning is:
“and not only shall we be saved, but
we glory in God even now over this
assured salvation.” The logical
progress is from the future to the
present. It has been objected that it is
impossible to make a simple participle
a finite verb, at least in prose, (for
poetry furnishes numerous examples of
such license). But how otherwise
are we to explain 2 Cor. 7:5? The real
difficulty is to resolve the
disagreement between the future we
shall be saved and the present we
glory. It seems that if the gradation
in the mind of the apostle really bore
on the matter of time, the nu'n , now
, which occurs in the following
proposition, should have been placed
in this: “not only shall we be saved,
but we are so certain of it that now
already we triumph in God.” If Paul has
not expressed himself so, it is
because this was not his meaning. A
second construction is adopted by
Meyer, Hofmann, and others: it
consists in supplying after not only ,
not: the verb swqhsovmeqa , we shall
be saved , but the participle
katallagevnte" , being reconciled , so that this
participle as well as the kaucwvmenoi
, glorying , rest both of them on the
we shall be saved of ver. 10: “We
shall be saved, and that not only as
reconciled , but also as glorying. ”
The gradation in this case is not from
the future to the present, but from
the joy of reconciliation to that of
triumph. The objection to this
construction is this: The participle being
reconciled , in ver. 10, is not a
simple qualification of we shall be
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
saved; it is a participle of
argumentation , as is well said by Oltramare (see
also Philippi). It cannot therefore be
made logically parallel with the
participle glorying. What is to be
done if we will not return to the first
construction? It only remains, as it
seems to me, to derive from the verb
swqhsovmeqa , we shall be saved , the
idea of salvation , by supplying the
participle swzovmenoi , saved , after
not only , and to refer this participle,
as well as the following kaucwvmenoi ,
glorying , to the time of final
salvation: “Much more certainly shall
we be saved (ver. 10), and that not
only as saved , but as glorying in
God. ” The meaning is almost the same
as in the preceding construction, but
more precise: “And when this hour of
salvation shall come, it will not be
as men barely saved, like those
rescued from shipwreck or a deserved
death, that we shall cross the
threshold of eternal salvation: it
will be in the triumphant attitude of men
whom the Son of God has crowned with
His own holiness and renewed in
His glorious image, and whom the
Father has marked with the seal of His
adoption, 8:15, 29.” It may be objected,
no doubt, that by referring this
participle glorying to the final hour,
we depart from the meaning of the
same verb in ver. 2, which contains
the theme of the whole passage. But
Paul, on reaching the close of this
development, may easily substitute for
the present glorying in hope, the song
of triumph at the moment of
entrance into glory.— To glory in God
was the privilege of which the Jews
boasted in virtue of their
monotheistic revelation (2:17). St. Paul here
applies this expression to the sanctified
Christian who has not only
nothing to fear from God, but who as
His child is also His heir (8:17).—Yet
he takes care in the same breath to
cast down all that might be opposed
to humility in this hope of future
triumph, by adding: through our Lord
Jesus Christ. Even in the possession
of perfect holiness and on the
threshold of glory, it will be
impossible for the Christian to forget that it is
to Christ he owes all his eternal
triumph as well as his past reconciliation,
which was its condition. The last
words: by whom we have now received
the reconciliation , might be taken to
remind the believer in what a sad
state he was found, and by what
painful means he needed to be rescued
from it. The word now would then
contrast his present with his past state.
But this meaning is not the most
natural after the preceding context. In
closing, Paul rather contrasts the
present with the future state: “through
whom ye have now already received the
reconciliation,” that first pledge of
the deliverance to come, He who
acquired for us the first of these favors
by His sufferings, even that which is
the condition of all the others, will not
fail to carry the work to its
completion, if we remain attached to Him by
persevering faith. This: by whom we
have received , is the parallel of the
by whom also of ver. 2, as the through
our Lord Jesus Christ , which
precedes, is the parallel of the same
words in ver. 1. The cycle is closed.
It is now demonstrated by this summary
argument, that justification by
faith includes the resources necessary
to assure us of the final
justification—that spoken of 2:13—and
even of final triumph, and that,
consequently, the grace of
justification is complete.
After thus expounding in a first
section (1:18-3:20) universal
condemnation , in a second section
(3:21-5:11) universal justification ,
there remains nothing more for the
apostle to do than to compare these
two vast dispensations by bringing
together their two points of departure.
Such is the subject of the third
section, which closes this fundamental
part.
Hofmann thinks that, after describing
divine wrath in the section i, 17-3:4,
the apostle from 3:5-4:25 contrasts
with it the state of justification which
Christians enjoy without cause of
boasting; this teaching is entirely in
keeping with monotheism, strengthens
moral life instead of weakening it
(3:31), and is not at all invalidated
by
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the case of Abraham. The conclusion is
drawn 5:1-11, namely, to lead
believers to enjoy this blessed state
fearlessly and full of hope. This
construction breaks down before the
following facts: 3:5 cannot begin a
new section; 3:9 cannot be a question
of the Christian conscience; 3:31
does not refer to the moral fulfilling
of the law: Abraham's case cannot
have so slight a bearing as that which
Hofmann is obliged to ascribe to
it;5:1 is not an exhortation in the
form of a conclusion.—The construction
of Volkmar is wholly different.
According to him, the exposition of
justification by faith, begun 3:9,
closes at 3:30. Here begins the
confirmation of this mode of
justification by the Old Testament. It goes
from 3:31-8:36. And, first,
confirmation by the book of the law, chap. 4 (the
text of Genesis relating to Abraham);
then, confirmation by the law itself,
the biblical narrative of the
condemnation of all in Adam, which
corresponds to the doctrine of the
justification of all in Christ,5:1-21;
finally, confirmation by the harmony
of the moral consequences of
justification with the essence of the
law, vi.-viii. But, independently of the
false sense given to 3:31 as a general
title of iv.-viii., how are we to place
the piece 5:1-11 in one and the same
subdivision with the parallel
between Adam and Jesus Christ, and how
are we to see in this last piece
only a confirmation of justification
by faith, by means of the narrative of the
fall in the Old Testament? Finally,
this distinction between the book of the
law, the law and the moral essence of
the law, is certainly foreign to the
mind of the apostle. Holsten rightly
says: “It is unnecessary to prove that
these thoughts and this order belong
to Volkmar, not to Paul.” Our
construction approaches much nearer to
that which Holsten himself has
just published ( Jahrb. fur protest.
Theol. 1879, Nos. 1 and 2). The
essential difference begins only with
the following piece regarding Adam
and Christ. This passage, while
stating the result of the preceding part,
belongs nevertheless, according to
Holsten, to the following part, chap. 6-
8, of which it is in his view the
foundation.
Without failing to perceive a certain
transitional character in this passage,
we must regard it mainly as a
conclusion. Thus it is regarded also by
Lipsius in his recent work on the
Epistle to the Romans ( Protestanten-
Bibel ).
Third Section.
Twelfth Passage (5:12-21). The
Universality of Salvation in Christ
proved by the Universality of Death in
Adam.
Justification by faith had just been
expounded; the historical foundation on
which it rested, its harmony with the
Israelitish revelation, the certainty of
its enduring to the end—all these
points had been illustrated; and the
major part of the theme, 3:21 and 22,
was thus developed. One idea
remains still, and that the most
important of all, which was expressed in
the theme in the striking words:
eij" pavnta" kai; ejpi; pavnta" tou;"
pisteuvonta" , for all and upon
all who believe. Universalism was the
peculiar character of Paul's gospel;
justification by faith, the subject of
exposition thus far, was its necessary
condition. To omit expressly
developing this decisive feature would
have been to leave the fruit
ungathered after laboriously
cultivating the tree. The apostle could not
commit such a mistake. He performs
this final task in the last piece, the
very peculiar nature of which suffices
to demonstrate its importance.
Commentators have understood the idea
and object of the passage in
various ways. According to Baur and
his school, as well as several other
commentators, the apostle has in view
the Jewish-Christianity reigning in
the Roman Church. He wishes at once to
refute and gain it, either by
expounding a conception of history in
which
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the law finds no more place (Baur), or
by proving that salvation, like
condemnation, depends in no degree on
the conduct of individuals and
their works, but solely on an
objective standard, on the unconditional and
absolute appointment of God (Holsten).
But this piece does not answer
exactly either to the one or other of
these two views. The observation
made in ver. 20 on the secondary part
played by the law, cannot express
the intention of the entire piece.
This remark, rendered indispensable in
this universal survey by the important
place filled by the Mosaic law in the
religious history of mankind, is
thrown out too much by the way to allow of
its concentrating upon itself the
interest of so vast an exposition. The
other view, that of the absolute
determinism which Holsten ascribes to St.
Paul, would no doubt serve to cut by
the roots the system of justification
by works; but it would be one of those
remedies which destroy the
suffering by killing the sufferer. For
determinism excludes human merit
only by suppressing moral liberty and
responsibility. It is not so that Paul
proceeds. In any case, it is easy to
see that the apostle's direct aim in this
piece is not to exclude legal
righteousness; he has done with this idea. It
is the universality of the Christian
salvation which he wishes to
demonstrate. Ewald, Dietzsch, and Gess
rightly advance the striking
difference which there is between the
argument of the Epistle to the
Galatians and the teaching of the
Epistle to the Romans. In the former,
where Paul is attacking
Jewish-Christianity, his argument starts from the
theocratic history, from Abraham; in
the latter, which expounds the
relation of the gospel to human
nature, Jewish and Gentile, the argument
starts from general history, from
Adam, the father of all mankind. From the
very beginning of the Epistle the point
of view is universal (Gentiles, chap.
1; Jews, chap. 2).
Very many commentators hold the
opinion that the apostle's purpose is to
ascend to the source of the two
currents, whether of condemnation and
death, or of justification and life,
which sway the life of mankind; or, as
Dietzsch puts it, to the very powers
which determine present facts, the lot
of individuals. The practical aim of
this investigation would thus be that
indicated by Chrysostom in the words:
“As the best physicians turn their
whole attention to find out the root
of maladies, and thus reach the very
source of the evil, so it is that Paul
acts.” Every reader would thus be
invited by the passage to break the
bond of oneness (solidarity) which
naturally unites him to the head of
lost humanity, and to contract by faith
the new bond whereby he can have
fellowship with the head of justified
humanity. This view is the most widely
spread, and we do not conceal
from ourselves the measure of truth
which it contains. But two difficulties
arrest us when we attempt to make this
idea the key to the whole
passage. It is perfectly obvious from
ver. 12 that the apostle is rather
concerned with the origin of death
than with that of sin, and that he
mentions the latter only to reach the
former. It is also to the fact of death
that he returns most frequently in the
course of this piece, comp. vv. 15-
18, 21. Would it be so if his direct
aim were to ascend to sin, the source of
evil? Then we find him nowhere
insisting on the gravity of sin and on the
necessity of faith for salvation. No
exhortation to the reader to form a
personal union with the new Adam
reveals this directly practical intention
which is ascribed to him, especially
by Hofmann and Th. Schott. We are
therefore forced to conclude that we
are not yet on the right track.
Rothe starts from the idea that the
first part of chap. 5 has already begun
the exposition of sanctification as
the fruit of justification by faith, an
exposition which continues in chap. 6
The passage from vv. 12-21 would
thus be a simple episode intended to
prove that as men became sinners
in common by the sin of one, so they
can only become saints in
common—that is to say, in Christ. The
piece would thus treat of the moral
assimilation , either of corruption or
holiness, by individual men.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Such is also the opinion of Lange and
Schaff, who make chap. 5:12 begin
the part of the Epistle relating to
moral regeneration by the appropriation
of the holy life of the new Adam
(vi.-viii.). There is certainly mention of
sanctification in the passage,5:1- 11;
we grant this to Rothe (comp. vv. 9,
10: by Him; by His life ), but, as we
have seen, only in relation to final
justification, which rests on the
continuance of the action of the living
Christ in the justified soul. As to
the subject of sanctification thus
announced beforehand, it is not
actually treated till chap. 6. The relations
to 6-8 are no doubt real and profound.
Lange proves them perfectly. But it
is exaggerating their scope to make
them a reason for detaching the
passage 5:12-21 from the preceding
context, in order to make it the
preface to the doctrine of
sanctification. The dominant ideas in the
passage are not those of sin and of
the new life; they are only, as we shall
see, those of condemnation and
justification, which had been the subject
of the whole preceding part. This piece
must therefore be regarded as its
conclusion.
By the first term of the comparison
(our common condemnation in Adam)
this parallel certainly recalls the
whole section of the ojrghv , wrath , 1:18-
3:20, as by the second (common
salvation in Christ) it recalls the subject
of the second section, the
righteousness of faith , 3:21-5:11. But this
resemblance is far from exhausting the
connection of this piece with all
that precedes. The two terms of
comparison, Adam and Christ, are not
only put in juxtaposition with one
another; they are put in logical
connection, and it is in this living
relation that the true idea of the piece is
contained. With a boldness of thought
which it is scarcely possible to
imagine, Paul discovers, in the
extension and power of the mysterious
condemnation pronounced in Adam, the
divine measure of the extension
and power of the salvation bestowed in
Christ, so that the very intensity of
the effects of the fall becomes
transformed, in his skilful hands, into an
irresistible demonstration of the
greatness of salvation. And this final piece
is thus found to be at one and the
same moment the counterpart of the
first section (condemnation) and the
crowning of the second (justification).
The following parallel falls, as it
were, of itself into four distinct
paragraphs:
1. 5:12-14: the universal diffusion of
death by the deed of one man.
2. 5:15-17: the superiority of the
factors acting in Christ's work over the
corresponding factor in the work of
Adam.
3. 5:18, 19: the certainty of equality
in respect of extension and effect
between the second work and the first.
4. 5:20, 21: the indication of the
true part played by the law between these
two universals of death and
righteousness.
Exegesis has been led more and more to
the grouping which we have just
indicated (see Dietzsch, and
especially Hodge), though the idea of those
four paragraphs and their logical
relation are still very variously
understood.
I. Vv. 12-14.
Ver. 12. “ Wherefore, even as by one
man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon
all men, for that all have sinned;
”—The logical connection between this
piece and the preceding is
expressed by dia; tou'to , wherefore.
Some, like Meyer, make this
expression refer solely to the last
words of ver. 11: we have received the
reconciliation. But we have seen that
this incidental proposition, which the
context itself did not require, was
added there with the view of
recapitulating the whole previous
section, before and with the view of
passing to the following passage. The
very term katallaghv , reconciliation ,
which contains an
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
allusion to the name ojrghv , wrath ,
is chosen so as to remind us not only
of the second section (that of
justification), but also of the first (that of
condemnation); so that in reality to
say that the wherefore refers to the
last proposition of ver. 11 is to
admit, with Tholuck, Ruckert , Holsten, etc.,
that it bears on all the preceding
context from 1:17: “Since, condemned as
we all were, we have found
reconciliation in Christ, there is therefore
between our relation to Him and our
relation to the head of natural
humanity the following resemblance.” Hofmann
and Schott make the
wherefore refer to the piece 5:1-11
only: “On account of this assurance of
final salvation which we possess in
Christ”...According to Hofmann, the
verb which is wanting should contain
an exhortation to realize holiness
(the contents of 8:1 et seq.), an
exhortation judged to correspond with that
of the alleged ejcwmen , let us have ,
of 5:1. This is all pure romance.
Schott derives the verb more naturally
from the preceding: “Wherefore we
shall be saved by Him alone (5:9, 10),
as we perished by Adam”...(But
see below).
The w{sper , even as , has been
construed grammatically in a multitude of
ways.—1. It has been thought that the
principal proposition (the verb of
the wherefore ) had been forgotten by
the apostle, distracted as he was by
the host of thoughts which presented
themselves successively to his mind
(see Ruckert and Hofmann for example).
I hope our readers are convinced
that such an explanation, or rather
absence of explanation, is impossible.
We have had sufficient proof hitherto
that the apostle did not compose
without having fully taken account of
what he meant to say.—2. The main
correlative proposition is supposed to
be understood; requiring to be
inferred from what precedes. De Wette
adduces in this sense Matt. 25:14,
where we find an even as , to which
there is no corresponding principal
clause, and which depends simply on
the preceding sentence. Lange
almost in the same way derives the
understood verb from ver. 11:
“Wherefore we have reconciliation by
Christ, as by one sin and death
came upon all;” Umbreit and Schott,
from ver. 10: “We shall be saved by
Christ, as we perished in Adam;” van
Hengel simply understands the verb:
“Wherefore it is the same in Christ as
it was in Adam.” Dietzsch fills up the
ellipsis by taking the verb from what
follows: “ Wherefore life came by a
man , in the same way as by a man sin
and death came.” De Wette's
explanation breaks down under the
wherefore , which distinguishes our
passage from the one quoted. In the
other views the question arises, How
in a didactic piece so severely
composed, the apostle, instead of making
such an ellipsis and holding the mind
of the reader in suspense to the end
as he does without satisfying him
after all, did not simply write like this:
dia; tou'to ejgevneto ejn Cristw'/
w{sper ....“Wherefore it
is the same in Christ as in
Adam”...—3. The principal verb on which
w{sper depends is sought in the words
which follow; Erasmus and Beza,
in the clause: “ and death by sin ,”
giving to kaiv the meaning of also.
Taken rigorously, the construction
would be admissible, though it would
have been more correct to write
ou{tw" kaiv , or to put the kaiv after the
clause ( thus also , or by sin also );
but this meaning is absolutely
excluded by the fact that Paul does
not think of comparing the entrance of
sin with that of death. It is evident
that when he wrote the as , he had in
view as the second term of the
comparison the entrance of justification
and life by Christ. A similar reason
is also opposed to the explanation of
those who, like Wolf, find the
principal point in the more remote words:
“and so death passed upon all.” Paul
has as little thought of comparing
the mode in which death entered with
that of its diffusion. Besides, this
would have required ou{tw" kaiv ,
and not kai; ou{tw" .—4. A more
generally admitted explanation is that
of Calvin (Thol., Philip., Mey.,
Holst.), who finds the principal point
indicated, at least so far as the sense
goes, at the close of ver. 14, in the
words: “who is the type of Him that
was to come.” The meaning of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
these words is to this effect: “ Even
as,...so by a new Adam, of whom he
was the type , justification came on
mankind.” We must hold on this view
that the explanation interposed in vv.
13 and 14 led Paul away from
finishing the construction begun in
ver. 12. But it would be a strange style
to give the principal proposition, which
the reader was expecting after the
as of ver. 12, in the form of this
incidental proposition: who is the type of
Him that was to come. Then in what
immediately follows, ver. 15, Paul
does not expound this idea of the
equality between Adam and Christ,
which had been announced by the as ,
and which in its substance the last
proposition of ver. 14 was meant to
recall. He explains, on the contrary,
the difference between the two terms
of comparison, so that he only
raises (end of ver. 14) the idea of
equality to abandon it at the same
instant (vv. 15-17); what an unnatural
proceeding!—5. We pass rapidly
over the hypotheses of Mehring and
Winer, who seek the chief clause, the
former in the first proposition of
ver. 15 by taking it interrogatively, the
latter in the second proposition of
the same verse; two equally impossible
attempts, since ver. 15a cannot be an
interrogation (see below), and since
ver. 15b can only correspond to the
subordinate proposition which
precedes in the same verse: “ for
if ”—etc.—There is only one
explanation admissible, that of Grotius,
Bengel, Flatt, best defended by Hodge,
who finds the principal clause in
ver. 18. It is there, indeed, that we
have the close of the comparison
begun in ver. 12 in the form of equality.
Vv.13 and 14 have been an explanation
required by the last words of ver.
12, one of those digressions which, in
our modern fashion, we put in a
note. Vv. 15-17 have been brought in
by the expression: “type of Him that
was to come” (end of ver. 14), which
demanded an immediate
modification or restriction, so that
it is not till ver. 18 that the apostle is free
to finish the comparison he has begun.
The proof that in ver. 18 Paul at
length resumes the idea of ver. 12, is
found in these two characteristic
features: ( a ) the a{ra ou\n , so
therefore , which indicates the resuming of
a previously expressed idea; ( b ) the
reappearance of the contrast
between one and all ( ei\" and
pavnte" ), which was that of ver. 12, but
which had been dropped in the interval
for the contrast between one and
many ( ei\" and oiJ polloiv , vv.
15-17). As to the idea, it is evident that ver.
18 logically completes ver. 12. The
words: as by one fall condemnation
came upon all men , reproduce the
idea, even as , etc., of ver. 12; and the
following: so also by one
righteousness justification of life came upon all ,
are manifestly the long delayed second
term of the comparison. As to the
end of ver. 14, in which so many
commentators have found the principal
idea, it was simply a way of
announcing to the reader this second part of
the comparison, which was to be still
further prefaced (vv. 15-17) before
being enunciated (ver. 18).
Ver. 12 describes the entrance of
death into the world. The emphasis is
on the words: by one man. Adam is here
characterized not merely as the
first of sinners, but as the one who
laid human life open to the power of
sin. If Paul does not speak of Eve, as
in 2 Cor. 11:3, et al. , it is because
the fall of the race was not
necessarily bound up with that of the woman.
Adam alone was the true representative
of mankind still included in him at
that time.—The term sin should be
taken here in its greatest generality.
The apostle is not speaking specially
of sin either as a tendency or an act,
either as an individual act or as a
collective fact; but of the principle of
revolt whereby the human will rises
against the divine in all its different
forms and manifestations. Holsten sees
in sin an objective power
controlling human existence even in
Adam. But from the Bible standpoint
sin exists only in the will. It has no
place in objective existence and
outside the will of the creature.
Julius Muller reaches a result almost the
same by starting from an opposite
point of view; according to him, the will
of individual men has been
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
corrupted by a free transgression
previously to their earthly existence. On
both of these views the apostle should
have said: sin appeared with or in
the first man; but not: sin entered by
him. The word entered indicates the
introduction of a principle till then
external to the world, and the word by
throws back the responsibility of the
event on him who, as it were, pierced
the dike through which the irruption
took place; comp. the term
disobedience , ver. 19.—The word
kovsmo" , the world , evidently denotes
here, as in John 3:16, et al. , only
the domain of human existence. Paul
certainly holds, with Scripture, the
previous existence of evil in a
superhuman sphere.—Assuredly no
subsequent transgression is
comparable to this. It created a state
of things here below which
subsequent sins only served to
confirm. If the question is asked, how a
being created good could perpetrate
such an act, we answer that a
decision like this does not
necessarily suppose the existence of evil in its
author. There is in moral life not
only a conflict between good and evil, but
also between good and good, lower good
and higher good. The act of
eating the fruit of the tree on which
the prohibition rested, was not at all
illegitimate in itself. It became
guilty only through the prohibition. Man
therefore found himself placed—and
such was the necessary condition of
the moral development through which he
had to pass—between the
inclination to eat, an inclination
innocent in itself, but intended to be
sacrificed, and the positively good
divine order. At the instigation of an
already existing power of revolt, man
drew from the depths of his liberty a
decision whereby he adhered to the
inclination rather than to the divine
will, and thus created in his whole
race, still identified with his person, the
permanent proclivity to prefer
inclination to obligation. As all the race
would have perished with him if he had
perished, it was all seized in him
with the spirit of revolt to which in
that hour he had adhered. We are
nowhere told, however, that his
descendants are individually responsible
for this diseased tendency. It is in
proportion as each individual voluntarily
resigns himself to it that he becomes
personally responsible for it.—But
was it compatible with divine
perfection to let this succession of
generations, stained with an original
vice, come into the world? God
certainly might have annihilated the
perverted race in its head, and
replaced it by a new one; but this
would have been to confess Himself
vanquished by the adversary. He might,
on the contrary, accept it such as
sin had made it, and leave it to
develop in the natural way, holding it in His
power to recover it; and this would be
to gain a victory on the field of battle
where He seemed to have been
conquered. Conscience says to which of
these two courses God must give the
preference, and Scripture teaches
us which He has in in reality
preferred.
But the point which Paul has in view
in this declaration is not the origin of
sin, but that of death. And hence he
passes immediately, understanding
the same verb as before, to the second
fact: and death by sin. It would
have been wholly different had he
meant to begin here to treat the subject
of sanctification; he would in that
case have at least stopped for a moment
at this grave fact of the introduction
of sin. If sin is not mentioned by him
except by way of transition to death,
this is because he is still on the
subject of justification, the
corresponding fact to which is condemnation,
that is to say, death. Death is the
monument of a divine condemnation,
which has fallen on mankind.—The term
death is used by Scripture in
three senses—1. Physical death, or the
separation of soul and body; in
consequence of this separation from
its life principle, the body is given
over to dissolution. 2. Spiritual
death, or the separation of the soul from
God; in consequence of this separation
from its principle of life, the soul
becomes corrupt in its lusts (Eph.
4:22). 3. Eternal death, or the second
death; this is in the human
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
being the consummation of his
separation from God by the separation of
the soul from the spirit , the soul's
faculty for the divine. The soul and body
then deprived of this superior
principle, the native element of the soul,
become the prey of the worm which
dieth not (Mark 9:43-48). Of these
three meanings, the last does not suit
this passage; for the second death
does not begin till the judgment. The
second is equally inapplicable,
because the idea of death would then
be compounded with that of sin ,
which is distinguished from it in this
very passage. There remains,
therefore, only the first meaning. It
is confirmed, besides, by the obvious
allusion to the narrative of Genesis
(2:17, 3:19), as well as by the
explanation contained in the following
verses (13 and 14), where the word
death is evidently taken in its strict
sense. We should add, however, that
death, even when taken simply as
physical death, always implies an
abnormal state in relation to God, a
state which, if it continues and
develops, cannot fail to draw after it
fatal consequences to man.
What, according to the apostle's view,
is the relation between sin and
death contained in the preposition
diav , by , which he uses a second
time? It might be said that death is
simply the natural consequence of sin,
since, God being the source of moral
and physical life, once the bond is
broken between Him and man, man must
die. But in ver. 16 the apostle
makes death the consequence of sin
through a positive sentence, which
proves that if we have to do here with
a natural consequence, it is one
which is also willed. It is true, two
objections may be urged against this
opinion, which makes death a
consequence of sin. The first is what Paul
himself says, 1 Cor. 15:42, that our
earthly body is sown in corruption,
weakness , and dishonor , and that
because it is psychical. A little further
on, ver. 47, alluding to Gen. 3:19, he
adds that the first man is of the earth,
earthy , which seems to make the
dissolution of his body a natural
consequence of his nature. The second
objection is this: Long before the
creation of man, the existence of
death is proved in the domain of animal
life. Now the body of man belongs to
the great sum total of animal
organization, of which he is the
crown; and therefore the law of death must
already have extended to man,
independently of sin. Paul's words in the
Epistle to the Corinthians, as well as
those of Genesis, the sense of which
he reproduces, prove beyond doubt the
natural possibility of death, but not
its necessity. If man had remained
united to God, his body, naturally
subject to dissolution, might have
been gloriously transformed, without
passing through death and dissolution.
The notion of the tree of life , as
usually explained, means nothing else.
This privilege of an immediate
transformation will belong to the
believers who shall be alive at the time of
our Lord's return (1 Cor. 15:51, 52);
and it was probably this kind of
transformation that was on the point
of taking effect in the person of the
Lord Himself at the time of His
transfiguration. This privilege, intended for
holy men, was withdrawn from guilty
man; such was the sentence which
gave him over to dissolution. It is
stated in the words: “Thou art dust (that
is to say, thou canst die), and to
dust shalt thou return (that is to say, thou
shalt in fact die ).” The reign of
death over the animals likewise proves
only this: that it was in the natural
condition of man to terminate in
dissolution. Remaining on the level of
animalism by the preference given
by him to inclination over moral
obligation, man continued subject to this
law. But had he risen by an act of
moral liberty above the animal, he would
not have had to share its lot (see
also on 8:19-22).
From the origin of sin, and of death
by sin, the apostle passes to a third
idea: the diffusion of death. Once
entered among mankind, death took
hold of all the beings composing the
race. The two prepositions eij" ( into )
and diav ( through ) in the two verbs
eijsh'lqen and dih'lqen , indicate exactly
this connection between entrance
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
and propagation. As poison once
swallowed penetrates to all parts of the
body, so it happened in Adam, in whom
the whole race was virtually
contained; in him the tendency to
dissolution victoriously asserted itself
over all the individuals that were to
come, so that every one of them was
born dying. The word ou{tw" , so
, may be explained in three ways: either
it repeats, as Dietzsch, Hofm. think,
the notion: by one man: “death, after
having entered by one, spread in the
same manner (by this one).” Or, as
is held by Meyer and Philippi, this so
alludes to the relation of cause and
effect, which has just been pointed
out between sin and death: “and so, by
reason of this connection between sin
and death, death passed on all,”
which assumes as a premiss the
understood idea that sin also extended
to all. Or, finally, is it not more
natural to explain the word so by the
connection between the two verbs? “And
once entered , it gained by its
very entrance the power of passing on all.”
The threshold crossed, the
enemy could strike immediately all the
inmates of the house. What mode
would have presented the opposite of
that characterized by the so , if
death had reached each man
individually by a door which he himself had
opened? The all is expressly
emphasized in contrast to one , because in
this contrast between one and all
there is concentrated the idea of the
whole passage. The Greco-Latin MSS.
here omit oJ qavnato" , death. In
this case we must either take the verb
dih'lqen in an impersonal sense:
“and so it (this connection between
sin and death) happened to all;” or,
what would be preferable, take the
whole following proposition as the
subject: “and so there passed on all,
that in consequence of which , or in
virtue of which , all have sinned.”
Both of these constructions are
obviously forced. It is probable that
the omission of oJ qavnato" has arisen,
as van Hengel well suggests, from the
fact that the whole of the verse was
connected with sin; the words: and
death by sin , being consequently
regarded merely as incidental or
parenthetical, and so there was given as
a subject to dih'lqe, hJ aJmartiva ,
sin , of the first proposition.
But why does Paul add the last words:
ejfj w|/ pavnte" h{marton , which we
have translated by: for that all have
sinned? They seem to contradict the
idea expressed in the first part of
the verse, and to ascribe the death of
each man not to the sin of Adam, but
to his own. The numerous
explanations which have been given of
these words may, it seems to us,
be reduced to three principal heads;
they amount in fact to one or other of
these three ideas—1. The death of
individual men results wholly from their
own sins. 2. The death of individual
men results partly from Adam's sin
and partly from their own sins. 3. The
death of all individual men arises
solely from Adam's sin.
Let us begin with the study of the
form ejfj w|/ . In the New Testament it is
found in the local sense (Luke 5:25);
in the moral sense, it is applied
either to the object: ejfj w|/ pavrei
, “ with what object art thou here?” or to
the determining cause of the action or
feeling; so without doubt 2 Cor. 5:4:
ejfj w|/ ouj qevlomen ejkduvsasqai ,
for that we would not be unclothed, but
clothed upon;” probably also Phil.
3:12: ejfj w\/ kai; katelhvfqhn , “I seek to
apprehend, because that also I have
been apprehended;” perhaps also
Phil. 4:10: ejfj w|/ kai; ejfronei'te
, “(I say so), because that ye also thought;”
but this ejfj w|/ may also be
understood as a pronoun connected with what
precedes: “as regards what concerns
me, with which ye were also
occupied.” It is easy to see, in fact,
that the phrase may have two different
meanings, according as we take it as
pronominal or conjunctive. In the
former case, it bears on what
precedes: on account of , or in view of which
, that is to say, of the idea just
expressed ( propterea ). In the second, it
bears on what follows: because , or in
view
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
of the fact that , that is to say, of
the idea just about to be enunciated (
propterea quod ). The difference is
analogous to that of diov and diovti .
We shall have need, as will appear, of
all these meanings in the study of
the following phrase.
The first explanation is that which
makes the apostle explain the death of
all by the individual sin of all. This
is the meaning adopted by Calvin,
Melanchthon, and several others,
particularly by Reuss. The latter
expresses himself thus: “No question
here of the imputation of Adam's sin
or hereditary sin; these are
scholastic theses. All have been visited with
the same punishment as Adam, therefore
they must all have merited it like
him.” The idea would thus be that all
men die in consequence of their
individual sins. There are three
reasons which render this explanation
impossible—1. The kai; ou{tw" ,
and so , evidently signifies that each
individual dies in consequence of the
entrance of sin, and therefore of
death, into this world by one man. 2.
This idea would be in contradiction to
the very aim of the whole passage,
which is to make the death of all rest
on Adam, even as the righteousness of
all rests on Christ. 3. The death of
infants would be inexplicable on this
interpretation; for they have certainly
not brought death on themselves by
their individual sins. Calvin, Tholuck,
and others on this account apply the
h{marton , have sinned , not to
particular acts, but to the evil
disposition: have become sinners , which
might be said also of infants who have
died without actual sins. But the
verb aJmartavnein cannot have this
meaning. It always denotes sin as an
act, not as a state. Paul would have
said: aJmartwloi; ejgenhvqhsan , or, as
in ver. 19: aJmartwloi; katestavqhsan
. Mangold alleges that Paul did not
take account of infants when he
expressed himself thus, and that he
meant only to speak of mankind, so far
as they really sin. But Paul is not
explaining the death of this or that
individual; he is explaining the fact of
death in itself. If there are examples
of death, and that in great number,
which do not come under the
explanation he gives, it is not enough to say
that he does not take account of them;
his explanation must be declared
insufficient.
A second class of commentators seek to
modify the preceding and
evidently inadmissible explanation;
they give a restricted or determinate
sense to ejfj w|/ , making it signify:
seeing that besides , or on this
condition that , or in so far as; so
Julius Muller , Rothe, Ewald. The object
of all these attempts is to get at
this idea: that the diffusion of death in the
world, in consequence of Adam's sin,
took place only on a certain
condition, and on account of a
subsidiary cause, the particular sins
committed by each man. There is on
this view a personal act of
appropriation in the matter of death,
as there is one, namely faith, in the
matter of salvation. But such a
meaning of ejfj w|/ cannot be
demonstrated; it would have required
ejfj o{son , or some other phrase.
Then this meaning is opposed to ver.
16, which directly contrasts
condemnation as a thing which has come
by one , with the gift of grace as
applying to the sins of the many.
Besides, would it be possible for Paul to
seek to establish no logical relation
between these two causes, the one
principal, the other secondary, and to
content himself with putting them in
juxtaposition, notwithstanding their
apparent contradiction?
The third class of interpretations may
be divided into two groups—1.
Those which take ejfj w|/ as a
relative pronoun. So Hofmann, who makes
qavnato" ( death , in the
physical and moral sense) the antecedent, and
gives to ejpiv and ejfj w|/ the
temporal sense: “during the existence, or in
the presence of which (death) all have
sinned”—that is to say, that when
all individual men sinned, the reign
of death was already established here
below, which proves clearly that it
was so not in consequence of our
particular sins, but on account of
Adam's sin. Dietzsch interprets almost in
the same way as Hofmann, only he sets
aside the temporal meaning of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
ejpiv , to substitute for it the
notion of the condition on which, or the state
of things in which, the fact takes
place. The same relation of the ejfj w|/ to
qavnato" is followed by Gess,
except that he understands the word
qavnato" of spiritual death ,
sin: “Upon all (spiritual) death has come, on
the ground of which all individual men
have consequently committed sin.”
We omit other less comprehensible
shades. But why have recourse to this
form of expression ejfj w|/ , which
has usually a quite different sense in
Paul, and not say simply, if such was
his meaning, that death here below
preceded individual sins, and
consequently is not their effect? Besides,
the fact itself, here ascribed to the
apostle, is not strictly true. For the first
death on the earth, that of Abel, was
certainly preceded by a multitude of
particular sins. In Gess's explanation
the idea is much simpler: “In Adam
death came upon all, moral corruption,
as a consequence of which all
since have sinned individually.” But
this idea lies without the context; for
Paul, as we have seen, is not treating
here of the origin of sin , but of the
origin of death , and of death taken
in the physical sense. Death appears
here as the visible proof of the
invisible judgment which hangs over
mankind. Vv. 13, 14, as well as 15 and
17, leave no doubt on this head. In
this way it would seem to us simpler
to give to ejfj w|/ the neuter sense: on
which, in consequence of which , all
have sinned. Only this meaning of ejfj
w|/ would be, we fear, without
precedent. 2. The second mode of
interpretation in this third class takes
the ejfj w|/ as a conjunctive phrase:
for that , and connects it with the
idea following: all have sinned. How
sinned? Through this one man who
introduced sin. So Bengel: quia
omnes , ADAMO PECCANTE peccaverunt. It
must be allowed that the
thought of the dij eJno;"
ajnqrwvpon , by one man , which begins the verse,
so controls the mind of the apostle
that he does not count it necessary
expressly to repeat it. This meaning
is in harmony with the best
established use of the ejfj w|/ in the
New Testament (see above) and in
the classics (see Meyer). And the idea
expressed in this proposition thus
understood, appears again without
doubt in the first part of ver. 15:
“through the offence of one many be dead;”
and in that of ver. 17: “by one
man's offence death reigned by one; ”
comp. 1 Cor. 15:22: “as in Adam all
die. ” No doubt it is objected that
the essential idea in this case: “ in Adam
,” is omitted; but we think we have
accounted for the omission. And we
find, as Bengel has already remarked,
a somewhat similar ellipsis in the
analogous though not parallel passage,
2 Cor. 5:15: “If one died for all,
then all died;” understand: in
him.—True, the question is asked, if it is
possible that the eternal lot of a
free and intelligent person should be
made dependent on an act in which he
has taken no part with will and
conscience. Assuredly not; but there
is no question here about the eternal
lot of individuals. Paul is speaking
here above all of physical death.
Nothing of all that passes in the
domain in which we have Adam for our
father can be decisive for our eternal
lot. The solidarity of individuals with
the head of the first humanity does
not extend beyond the domain of
natural life. What belongs to the
higher life of man, his spiritual and eternal
existence, is not a matter of species,
but of the individual.—The Vulgate
has admitted an interpretation of this
passage, set in circulation by Origen
and spread by Augustine, which, in a
way grammatically false, yet comes
to the same result as ours. jEfj w|/
is taken in the sense of ejn w|/ : “ in
whom ” (Adam). But ejpiv cannot have
the meaning of ejn , and even if w|/
were a relative pronoun here, it would
neither refer to Adam, who has not
been named, nor to one man , from
which it is separated by so many
intermediate propositions.
The most impenetrable mystery in the
life of nature is the relation between
the individual and the species. Now to
this domain belongs the problem
raised by the words: “ for that (in
this one man) all have sinned. ” Adam
received the unique
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
mission to represent the whole species
concentrated in a single individual.
Such a phenomenon cannot be repeated,
at least in the domain of nature.
The relation of each of us to that
man, the incarnation of the species itself,
has nothing in common with the
relation which we have to sustain to any
other man. In the revelation of
salvation given to the apostle this
mysterious connection was assumed, but
not explained. For it belongs to
a sphere on which the revealing ray
does not fall. And therefore it is that in
the two following verses the apostle
thinks it necessary to demonstrate
the reality of the fact which he had
just announced: the death of all
through the sin of one. We shall see
that the meaning of these two verses
comes out only when we approach them
with the explanation just given of
the last words of ver. 12; this will
be the best proof of its truth.
Vv. 13, 14. “ For until the law sin
was in the world: but sin is not imputed if
there is no law; and nevertheless
death reigned from Adam to Moses,
even over them that had not sinned
after the resemblance of Adam's
transgression, who is the figure of
Him that was to come. ”—According to
the first two interpretations of the
preceding proposition, which lay down
the sins committed by each individual
as the sole or secondary cause of
his death, the argument contained in
vv. 13, 14 would be this: “All die
because they have all sinned; for even
during the time which elapsed
down to the giving of the law sin was
in the world; now sin is undoubtedly
not reckoned in the absence of law.
Nevertheless , that did not prevent sin
from reigning during all the interval
between Adam and Moses, which
proves certainly that it was
nevertheless imputed in some measure. How
could that be? Because of the law of
nature written even in the heart of
the Gentiles.” Such is De Wette's
interpretation, also that of Lange and
Reuss. In this sense the second
proposition of ver. 13 must be taken as
an objection made to Paul on which he
raises himself. Then he would be
made to answer in the sequel by
confining himself to stating the very fact
of the reign of death. But the
explanation of death is the very point in
question; how could the fact itself be
given in proof? Then a simple dev
would not have sufficed to indicate
such a shifting in the direction of the
thought. The text rather produces the
impression of a consecutive
argument. Finally, at the close of
such an argument, the apostle could not
have left to be understood the
solution which he himself gave of the
problem, namely, the natural law
written in the heart of the Gentiles. This
idea, on which everything rested, was
at once too essential and too
unfamiliar to the minds of his readers
to be passed over in silence as selfevident.
It has been sought to meet these
difficulties by giving to the word
ejllogei'n , to put to account , a
purely subjective meaning, and so to make
the proposition, ver. 13b, a simple
observation interjected by the way.
Ambrose and Augustine, then Luther,
Calvin, and Melanchthon, and in our
days Ruckert , Rothe, and J. Muller ,
do in fact apply the imputation
expressed by ejllogei'n not to the
judgment of God, but to the reckoning
which the sinner makes to himself of
the trespass which he has
committed: “Every one died for his own
sin, for sin existed even before the
law, though the sinners did not take
account of it, nor esteem themselves
guilty. But death, which nevertheless
reigned, proved that God on His part
imputed it to the sinner.” But this
purely subjective signification of the term
ejllogei'n cannot be justified. It
would require to be indicated in some way.
How, besides, could Paul have affirmed
in terms so general that the
sinners between Adam and Moses did not
impute their sins to
themselves, after saying of the
Gentiles, 2:15, that “their thoughts
mutually accuse or excuse one
another,” and 1:32, that these same
Gentiles “knew the judgment of God,
that those who do such things are
worthy of death”? Finally, the idea
that, notwithstanding this want of
subjective imputation, the divine
imputation continued ever in force, would
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
have required to be more strongly
emphasized in ver. 14. In general, all
these modes of interpretation,
according to which Paul is held to explain
the death of individuals by their own
sins, run counter to the object which
he had before him in this whole
passage, the parallel between the
justification of all in one, and the
condemnation of all in one.
Let us then resume our explanation of
the end of ver. 12; and let us seek
from this viewpoint to give account of
vv. 13, 14: “Death passed upon all,
for that (in Adam) all sinned.” The
course of the following argument at
once becomes easy to understand: “ Sin
was assuredly in the world at
that time (and you might consequently
say to me: it was for that reason
men died); but I answer: sin is not
imputed if there is no law (it could not
therefore be the cause of the death
with which every individual was
visited); and yet death reigned even
over those who had not like Adam
violated a positive law. ” The
conclusion is obvious: “Therefore all these
individuals died, not for their own
sin, but because of Adam's,” which had
been affirmed in the close of ver. 12
and which was to be proved. We
might in our own day argue in exactly
the same manner to explain the
death of the heathen or of infants:
Since they are still without law, they
die, not because they have sinned
personally, but because they all sinned
in Adam. It is clear also how the argument
thus understood is in keeping
with the object of this passage. All
having been, as is proved by the death
of all, condemned in Adam, all can
likewise be really justified in Christ.
Hofmann and Dietzsch, who have
explained ejfj w|/ in the sense of: “on
the ground of which (death) all have
sinned,” are of course obliged to
interpret vv. 13 and 14 differently
from us, though to arrive at the same
result. We think it useless to discuss
their explanation, which falls to the
ground of itself, with that which they
give to the last words of ver. 12.
Having explained the argument as a
whole, let us return to the details of
the text itself. The for , at the
beginning of ver. 13, bears not only on the
proposition of which it forms part,
but on the entire argument to the end of
ver. 14.—The words a[cri novmou ,
until the law , might signify, as the old
commentators would have it: “as long
as the law existed,” that is to say,
from Moses to Jesus Christ. For a[cri
may have the meaning of during. But
ver. 14, which paraphrases the words
thus: “from Adam to Moses,”
excludes this meaning.—The absence of
the article before novmou , law ,
certainly does not prevent it here
from denoting the Mosaic law; comp.
ver. 14: until Moses. But it is not as
Mosaic law, but as law strictly so
called, that the Jewish law is here
mentioned. And so the translation might
well be: till a law , that is to say,
a law of the same kind as the
commandment which Adam violated. The
absence of the article before
aJmartiva , sin , has a similar
effect; there was sin at that period among
men. In the following proposition it
is again sin as a category which is
designated (being without article). If
the substantive aJmartiva , sin , is
repeated (instead of the pronoun), it
is because, as Meyer says, we have
here the statement of a general
maxim.—The verb e]llogei'n is not found
elsewhere except in the Epistle to
Philemon, ver. 18, where Paul asks this
Christian to put to his account , his,
Paul's, what Onesimus, whom he is
recommending, may still owe to him.
Between this term and logivzein ,
which he more frequently uses, the one
shade of difference is that of the
ejn , in , which enters into the
composition of ejllogei'n : to inscribe in the
account book. It is wholly arbitrary
to apply this word to the subjective
imputation of conscience. The parallel
from the Epistle to Philemon shows
clearly what its meaning is. But does
the apostle then mean to teach the
irresponsibility of sinners who, like
the Gentiles, have not had a written
law? No; for the whole book of
Genesis, which describes the period
between Adam and Moses, would protest
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
against such an assertion. The matter
in questior is an immediate and
personal imputation, resting on a
threatening like this: “In the day thou
eatest thereof thou shalt die.” The
infliction of the punishment of death in
the sense of this divine saying
necessarily supposes a positive law
violated; it supposes in general a
theocratic government set up. Only in
such circumstances can the violator be
brought to account to be
immediately judged and subjected,
either to capital punishment, or to the
obligation of providing an expiatory
act, such as sacrifice (taking the place
of the punishment of death). Outside
of such an organization there may
be other great dispensations of a
collective and disciplinary character,
such as the deluge, the overthrow of
Sodom and Gomorrah, or the
abandonment of the Gentiles to their
own corruption (chap. 1). These
historical dispensations are vast
pedagogical measures taken in respect
of the whole human race; they have not
the character of judicial and
individual sentences, like those which
rest on some article of a code
violated by an individual with full
knowledge of the law; comp. the contrast
between the ajpolou'ntai , shall
perish , and the kriqhvsontai , shall be
judged , 2:12.—The subjective negative
mhv before o[nto" novmou
represents the fact as it exists in
the mind of the author of the maxim.
Ver. 14. jAllav : and nevertheless; a
strongly emphasized contrast to the
idea of non-imputation (ver. 13).—The
word reign denotes a power firmly
established, resting on the immovable
foundation of the divine sentence
pronounced over the whole race. Death
cannot denote more here than the
loss of life in the ordinary sense of
the word. There is no reference either
to spiritual death (sin, Gess), or to
the sufferings and infirmities of life
(Hodge), but simply to the fact that
between Adam and Moses men died
though there was no law. This
imputation of Adam's sin, as the cause of
death to every individual man, would
be absolutely incomprehensible and
incompatible with the justice of God,
if it passed beyond the domain of
natural life marked off by the
mysterious relation between the individual
and the species. The sequel will show
that as soon as we rise to the
domain of spiritual life, the individual
is no longer dependent on this
solidarity of the species, but that he
holds his eternal destiny in his own
hands.—The words: “ also , or ( even )
over them that had not sinned,” are
taken by Meyer as referring to a part
only of the men who lived between
Adam and Moses, those, namely, who did
not enjoy the positive
revelations granted during this
period, the Noachian commandments, for
example, Gen. 9:1-17. Thus understood,
Paul reminds us of the fact that
the men of that time who were without
those precepts were, as well as
their contemporaries who enjoyed such
light, subjected to death. But the
whole passage, on the contrary,
implies the absence of all positive law
which could have been violated between
Adam and Moses; consequently,
the phrase: “ even over them who
sinned not,” etc., embraces the whole
human species from Adam to Moses
without distinction; mankind during
this interval are contrasted with Adam
on the one hand, and with the
people of Israel from Moses on the
other. All these who were not under
conditions of a capitally penal kind
(ver. 13) died nevertheless.—The
words: “ after the resemblance of
Adam's transgression ,” are certainly not
dependent, as the old Greek expositors
thought, on the word reigned:
“death reigned on the ground of a sin
similar to that of Adam.” This sense
leaves the words: even over them that
sinned not , without any reasonable
explanation. We must therefore bring
this clause under kai; ejpi; tou;" mh;
aJmarthvsanta" , in this sense: “
even over them that did not sin after the
fashion of Adam's sin, ” that is to
say, by transgressing as he did, a
positive prohibition.—Hofmann insists
on the strict meaning of the word
which Paul uses, oJmoivwma , the
object like (differing from oJmoiovth" ,
the resemblance ), and, taking the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
genitive parabavsew" as a
subjective genitive, he explains: according to the
form which was that of ...or on the
type presented by the transgression of
...To render this shade into English,
we must translate, not after the
resemblance , but after the fashion of
Adam's transgression.
From this whole argument it appeared
that Adam had been the sole
author of the reign of death, and
herein precisely was he the counterpart
of Him who was to come to be the sole
principle of life here below. Thus it
is easy to understand why the apostle,
after explaining the origin of death,
closes with these words, appropriately
introducing the statement of the
other member of the parallel: who is
the type of the Adam that was to
come. It is improper, with Bengel, to
give to the participle mevllonto" the
neuter sense: of that which was to
come (by regarding the masculine o{"
as a case of attraction from
tuvpo" ). The word Adam, immediately
preceding, more naturally leads us to
make mevllwn a masculine. One
might more easily, with Hofmann,
regard this participle as a masculine
substantive: Him who should come, in
the sense in which the Messiah is
called the ejrcovmeno" , the
coming one. The meaning is not essentially
different. If the Rabbinical sayings
in which the Messiah is designated as
the second or the last Adam were older
than the seventh century of our
era ( Targum of the Psalms), or the
sixteenth ( Neve8 schalom ), it might
be inferred from these passages that
the description of the Messiah as the
Adam to come was already received in
the Jewish schools, and that the
phrase of the apostle is a reference
to this received notion. But it is quite
possible that these sayings themselves
were influenced by the texts of the
New Testament. So Renan says
positively: “In the Talmudic writings
Adam ha-rischo=n simply denotes the
first man, Adam. Paul creates Haadam
ha-aharo=n by antithesis.” We must
certainly set aside De Wette's
idea, which applies the phrase: the
future Adam , to Christ's final advent.
The term mevllwn , future , is related
to the time of the first Adam , not to
the time when the apostle writes.—The
word type denotes in Scripture
language (1 Cor. 10:11) an event, or a
person realizing a law of the
kingdom of God which will be realized
afterward in a more complete and
striking manner in a corresponding
future event or person. Adam is the
type of the Messiah, inasmuch as, to
quote Ewald, “each of them draws
after him all mankind,” so that “from
what the one was to humanity we
may infer what the other is to it”
(Hofmann).—This proposition is a sort of
provisional apodosis to the even as of
ver. 12. It reminds the reader of the
comparison which has been begun, and
keeps the thought present to his
mind till the comparison can be
finished and grammatically completed by
the true principal clause (ver. 18).
2. Vv. 15-17.
A certain superiority of action is
ascribed to Christ's work as compared
with Adam's, in these three verses.
What object does the apostle propose
to gain by this demonstration? Why
interrupt in this way the statement of
the parity between the two works begun
ver. 12? It has been thought that
Paul is simply gratifying a want of
his heart by displaying in the outset the
infinite superiority of the second
work over the first, that he may not
compromise its dignity by abandoning
himself without reserve to the idea
of equality. But whatever overflow of
feeling there may be in St. Paul, it is
always regulated, as we have seen, by
the demands of logic. We think,
therefore, that these three verses,
which are among the most difficult of
the New Testament, will not be
understood till we succeed in making them
a necessary link in the argument.
It may be said that the sagacity of
commentators has exhausted itself on
this
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
passage. While Morus holds that from
vv. 15-19 the apostle merely
repeats the same thing five times over
in different words; while Ruckert
supposes that Paul himself was not
quite sure of his own thoughts, Rothe
and Meyer find in these verses traces
of the most profound meditation
and mathematical precision.
Notwithstanding the favorable judgment of
the latter, it must be confessed that
the considerable variety of expositions
proposed to explain the course and
gradation of the thoughts seem still to
justify to some extent the complaints
of the former. Tholuck finds in ver.
15 a contrast of quantity between the
two works, and in vv. 16, 17 a
contrast of quality (the contrast
between right and grace ). Ewald thinks
that the contrast of ver. 15 bears on
the thing itself (a sad effect and a
happy effect—this would be the quality
), that of ver. 16 on the number
and kind of the persons interested (
one sinner condemmed, thousands
justified); then he passes on to ver.
17 with the simple remark: “to
conclude,” and yet there is a for.
Meyer and Holsten find in ver. 15 the
contrast of effects ( death and the
gift of grace ), in ver. 16 a numerical
contrast, as Ewald does, and in ver.
17 the seal put on the contrast of ver.
16 by the certainty of the future
life. Dietzsch finds the gradation from ver.
15 to ver. 16 in the transition from
the idea of grace to that of the reestablishment
of holiness in pardoned believers; so
he understands the
dikaivwma of ver. 16. Reuss sees in
ver. 15 the contrast between just
recompense and free grace (a contrast
of quality ), in ver. 16 that between
a single sinner and a whole multitude
of sinners (a contrast of quantity ),
and in ver. 17, finally, one as to the
degree of certainty (a logical
gradation). Hodge finds in ver. 15 the
contrast between the more
mysterious character of condemnation
and the more intelligible character
of pardon in Christ (a contrast
evidently imported into the text), and in ver.
15 the idea of Christ's delivering us
from a culpability greater still than that
of Adam's sin—that is to say, besides
that of Adam, He takes away what
we have added to it ourselves;
finally, in ver. 17, he finds this gradation,
that not only does Christ save us from
death , but He introduces us into a
state of positive and eternal felicity.
—After all this, one needs a certain
measure of courage to enter this
double labyrinth, the study of the text
and that of the exegetical
interpretations.
We have seen that the apostle's
argument aims at proving the parity
between the two works. This is the
idea of ver. 12 ( even as...death...upon
all ...), as well as of ver. 18 which
completes it ( so...on all to justification of
life ). From this connection between
ver. 12 and ver. 18 it follows that the
development of the superiority of
action belonging to Christ's work, vv. 15-
17, must be a logical means of
demonstrating the equality of extension
and result , which forms the contents
of the conclusion expressed in vv.
18 and 19. The relation between the
first proposition of ver. 15 and the
first of ver. 16 leads us to expect
two contrasts, the first expounded in ver.
15, the second in vv. 16, 17.
Ver. 15. “ But not as the offence, so
is the act of grace. For if through the
offence of one the many be dead, much
rather the grace of God, and the
gift by grace, which is by one man,
Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto the
many. ”—What the apostle here compares
is not, as some have thought,
the abundance of the effects, but
rather the degree of extension belonging
to the two works; for the emphasis is
on the term the many , of the two
sides of the parallel; and this degree
of extension he measures very
logically according to the degree of
abundance in the factors—a degree
indicated on the one side by the
subordinate clause of the first
proposition: through the offence of
one , on the other by the subject of the
second: the grace of God , and the
gift through this grace of one man.
From the contrast between these
factors it is easy to arrive at this
conclusion: If from the first factor,
so
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
insignificant in a way—the offence of
one!—there could go forth an action
which spread over the whole multitude
of mankind, will not the conclusion
hold a fortiori that from the two
factors acting on the opposite side, so
powerful and rich as they are, there
must result an action, the extension of
which shall not be less than that of
the first factor, and shall consequently
also reach the whole of that
multitude? Such is the general idea of this
verse. It may be illustrated by a
figure. If a very weak spring could
inundate a whole meadow, would it not
be safe to conclude that a much
more abundant spring, if it spread
over the same space of ground, would
not fail to submerge it entirely?
The term paravptwma , fall, offence ,
is not synonymous with paravbasi" ,
transgression. It is applied, Eph.
1:7, 2:1, to the sin of the Gentiles. It has
something extenuating in its meaning;
it is, as it were, a mere false step.
Such is the active principle in the
first case. On the other hand, it is the
cavrisma , the act of grace , whose
contents Paul will state in the double
subject of the principal proposition.
Some commentators have taken this
first proposition of ver. 15
interrogatively. But the construction of the
sentence does not lead naturally to
the idea of an interrogation. And what
is still more strongly opposed to this
explanation is, that the sentence so
understood would express the development
of an analogy, while the rest
of the verse states a difference. The
two parallel members present a
common term: oiJ polloiv , literally,
the many. This term has often been ill
understood, or badly rendered; so when
Oltramare translates by the
majority in the first proposition, and
a greater number in the second, which
gives rise to more than one kind of
ambiguity. Ostervald translates: many ,
which is as far from being exact. By
this form Paul denotes, just as much
as he would have done by the pronoun
all , the totality of the human race.
This is proved by the article oiJ ,
the , which he prefixes for the very
purpose of indicating the idea of a
totality to polloiv , many. Only this term
many is chosen with the view of
establishing the contrast to the one from
whom the influence went forth. All
would be opposed to some , and not to
one. It would not be suitable here.
Paul will return to it at ver. 18. He is
dealing in ver. 15 with the
possibility of the action of one on many. We
have sought to render the meaning of
this oiJ polloiv , by translating: the
many ( the multitude ). — An offence
of one, says the apostle, sufficed to
bring about the death of this
multitude. This expression confirms the
sense which we have given of the last
clause of ver. 12; it is clearly
through Adam's sin, and not through
their own, that men die. This fact,
established by the demonstration of
vv. 13 and 14, serves as a point of
support for the conclusion drawn in
the following proposition. — The term
cavrisma , act of grace , used in
opening the verse, combined the two
ideas which Paul now distinguishes:
the grace of God and the gift by
which it is manifested, Jesus Christ.
Grace is the first source of salvation.
The richness of this source, which is
no other than the infinite love of God
Himself, at once contrasts with the
weakness of the opposite factor, the
offence of one. But how much more
striking is the contrast, when to the
love of God we add the gift whereby
this love is displayed! Comp. John
3:16. The substantive hJ dwreav , the
gift , denotes not the thing given (
dwvrhma , ver. 16), but the act of
giving, which is more directly related to
the idea of grace. — Commentators
differ as to the grammatical relation of
ejn cavriti , in (or by ) the grace of
the one man. Meyer and others make
these words depend on the verb
ejperivsseusen : “The gift flowed over
through the grace of the one man,
Jesus Christ. ” But the expression: the
gift , can hardly remain without an
explanatory clause. And the idea:
through the grace , connected with the
verb overflowed , weakens the
meaning of the clause instead of
strengthening it. For it diverts the thought
from the essential word: unto the
many. Meyer alleges that there
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
must be in the second member a
counterpart to the words: through the
offence of one , in the first, and
that this counterpart can only be found in
these: through the grace of the one,
Jesus Christ. He thus misses one of
the greatest beauties of our verse—I
mean the reversal of construction
introduced by the apostle in passing
from the subordinate to the principal
proposition; there, the intransitive
form: By...many are dead; here, the
active form: the grace of God, and the
gift...have abounded to the many.
In the first case, there was a
disagreeable accident involuntarily
experienced: the many fell stricken
with death; in the second, on the
contrary, they are the objects of a
double personal action put forth in their
behalf. In reality, then, the
counterpart of the expression: through the
offence of one , is found in the
second member, but as the subject, and no
longer as a simple phrase. We shall
again find a similar change of
construction in ver. 17. Comp. also 2
Cor. 3:9. The clause ejn cavriti is
therefore the qualification of the
word the gift: “ the gift consisting in the
grace of the one man, Jesus Christ.”
The love of God is a love which
gives another love; it is the grace of
a father giving the love of a brother.
The absence of the article between
dwreav and ejn cavriti is explained by
the intimate relation subsisting
between these two substantives, which
express, so to speak, a single notion.
The idea of the grace of Christ is
developed in all its richness, 2 Cor.
8:9: “Ye know the grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ, that, though He was
rich, yet for your sakes he became
poor, that ye through his poverty
might be rich.” This relation of solidarity
and fraternity between Christ and us
is strongly brought out by the phrase:
of the one man , eJno;"
ajnqrwvpou . Comp. the similar expressions, 1 Cor.
15:21: “ By man ( dij ajnqrwvpou )
came death, and by man ( dij ajnqrwvpou
) the resurrection of the dead;” and 1
Tim. 2:5: “There is one Mediator...
the man Christ Jesus.” The incarnation
has had for its effect to raise the
whole human race to the rank of His
family. The adjective eJnov" , of one ,
is prefixed to contrast Christ, as
well as Adam, with the many. And after
these accumulated descriptions, all
calculated to display the greatness of
the gift of divine grace, there is at
length pronounced the name which in
the history of mankind is the only one
that can figure side by side with that
of Adam: Jesus Christ. Comp. John
1:17, where this name, long delayed,
is proclaimed at last with special
solemnity (in contrast to Moses); and
John 17:3, where it is joined, as here,
with the name of God, to describe
the source of salvation and the
supreme object of faith. What must have
been the impression produced by the
appearance of Jesus on His
contemporaries, when, only twenty odd
years after His death, He could be
put with the avowal of the entire
church—for the apostle evidently reckons
on the absolute assent of his
readers—on a parallel with the father of the
first humanity! The clause eij"
tou;" pollouv" is placed immediately before
the verb, because it is on this idea
that the emphasis rests. —
jEperivsseusen , abounded; it might be
translated: overflowed. This verb
properly denotes the outflow of a
liquid lapping over a vessel more than
filled. Christ is the vessel filled
with grace, whence salvation overflows on
the many. The aorist indicates an
already accomplished fact; the subject,
then, is not a future grace, but the
work of justification expounded from
3:21. If Adam's offence was
sufficiently influential to tell in the form of
death on the whole multitude of the
race, much more should a grace like
that of God, and a gift like that of
Jesus, be capable of acting on the same
circle of persons! The superiority of
abundance in the factors of Christ's
work thus establishes an a fortiori
conclusion in the view of the apostle in
favor of the equality of extent
belonging to the two works here compared.
Hence it follows that the pollw'/
ma'llon , much rather , should be
understood in the logical sense: much
more certainly , and not in the
quantitative sense: much more
abundantly (as is the opinion of Er., Calv.,
Ruck ., Rothe, Hofm., and Dietzs.).
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Chrysostom, Meyer, and Philippi have
been led to the same view as ours.
The apostle is not at all concerned to
demonstrate that there is more
grace in Christ than there was of
death in Adam. What he wishes to prove
is, that if a slight cause could bring
sentence of death on all mankind, this
same mankind will experience in its entirety
the salutary effect of a much
more powerful cause. The idea of
superabundant quantity ( more richly )
is not in pollw'/ ma'llon , as has
been thought by so many interpreters,
misled by the relation between this
adverb and the verb ejperivsseuse ,
abounded. It is merely indicated as a
premiss of the argument in the
double subject of the second
proposition (the grace of God and the gift of
Christ); at the most, a sort of
involuntary indication of it may be seen in the
meaning of the verb ejperivsseuse ,
abounded. — We have already seen
the logical sense of pollw'/ ma'llon
in vv. 9 and 10 of our chapter. It is found
perhaps also in 2 Cor. 3:7, 9, 11.
The reasoning is extremely bold; it is
as if one were to argue thus: Adam's
offence has reached down to me, having
had the power of subjecting me
to death; how much more certainly will
the grace of God and the grace of
Christ combined have the power of
reaching to me to save me!
A second difference is evidently
announced in the first words of ver. 16;
the end of ver. 16 is intended to
expound it, and ver. 17 to demonstrate it.
Ver. 16. “ And the gift is not as by
one that sinned:for the judgment is by
one to condemnation, but the free gift
is of the offences of many unto
justification. ”—Most expositors hold
with us that the apostle is here
expounding a second contrast between
Adam's work and Christ's; only it
should be remarked that the form of
ver. 16 is very different from that of
ver. 15. We no longer find here the a
fortiori argument there indicated by
the pollw'/ ma'llon , much rather ,
while, strange to say, this same form of
reasoning reappears in ver. 17, which
is thus presented as a stronger
reproduction of the argument of ver.
15. This difference between vv. 16
and 15, and this quite peculiar
relation between vv. 17 and 15, prevent us
from regarding ver. 16 as a second
argument entirely parallel to that of
ver. 15, so as then to make ver. 17
the conclusion of both. Hofmann is so
well aware of this that he refuses to
see in the first words of ver. 16 the
announcement of a second contrast, and
has connected them directly
with the close of ver. 15. In fact, he
uniformly supplies in the three
propositions of ver. 16 the verb and
the regimen: abounded unto many , of
ver. 15: “And the gift did not abound
unto the many , as in that case in
which the imputation took place
through one who had sinned; for
judgment abounded from one to many in
condemnation, and the gift of
grace abounded from one to many in
justification.” It is obvious how such
an ellipsis thrice repeated burdens
and embarrasses the course of the
argument. What of truth there is in
this view is that the gift mentioned in
ver. 16 is no other than that referred
to in the words of ver. 15: hJ dwrea;
ejn cavriti ..., the gift by grace of
..., and that consequently the second
contrast, vv. 16 and 17, should be
regarded as serving to bring out a
particular aspect of the general
contrast pointed out in ver. 15. The kaiv ,
and , at the beginning of the verse is
thus equivalent to a sort of notabene:
“And mark well this circumstance”...An
objection might be made to
the pollw'/ ma'llon , much more certainly
, of ver. 15. One might say: True,
the factors acting on Christ's part
(15b) are infinitely more abundant than
the weak and solitary factor acting on
Adam's part (15a); but, on the other
hand, was not the work to be wrought
on Christ's part much more
considerable than that accomplished in
Adam! If the source was richer,
the void to be filled was deeper: In
Adam a single actual sinner—all the
rest playing only an unconscious and
purely passive part; in Christ, on the
contrary, a multitude of sinners to be
justified, equally conscious and
responsible with the first, having all
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
voluntarily added their own contingent
of sins to the original transgression.
Undoubtedly, answers the apostle; but
in the matter of salvation the part
of those interested is also quite
different. In the one case they were
passively and collectively subjected
to the sentence of death; here, we
have to do with beings who lay hold
individually and personally of the
sentence which justifies them. There,
a single and solitary condemnation,
which embraces them all through the
deed of one; here, a justification,
collective also, but appropriated by
each individually, which is transformed
into as many personal justifications
as there are believing sinners, and
which cannot fail to establish the
kingdom of life more firmly still than the
kingdom of death was founded on the
condemnation of all in Adam. This
antithesis established as a fact in
ver. 16, is demonstrated in ver. 17 by an
a fortiori argument, entirely similar
to that of ver. 15.
Nothing more is to be understood in
the first proposition than the verb
givnetai , comes about: “And the gift
does not come about by one sinner”
(as the condemnation had done). Some
have supposed a more extensive
ellipsis: “The gift did not come about
by one ( as the condemnation had
done ), by one sinner.” But this
ellipsis is unnecessary, and even impairs
somewhat the meaning of the contrast,
for the words: by one who sinned ,
depend directly on the verb: does not
come about. The reading
aJmarthvmato" (“by one sin ”),
though supported by the ancient versions, is
a correction, the origin of which is
easily understood; it is borrowed from
the ejk pollw'n paraptwmavtwn which
follows, understood in the sense of: of
many sins. The idea of one sin seemed
to contrast better than the idea of
one sinner with the expression thus
understood. The contrast which Paul
has now in view certainly demands the
Received reading. With “ the
offence of one,” ver. 15, he has
contrasted the grace of God and of Jesus
Christ in its double fulness. Now,
with the one sinner, in the first case, he
contrasts the multitude of sinners who
are the objects of justification in the
second. What a difference between the
power of the spark which sets fire
to the forest by lighting a withered
branch, and the power of the
instrument which extinguishes the
conflagration at the moment when
every tree is on fire, and makes them
all live again!
The substantive dwvrhma denotes the
concrete gift, the blessing
bestowed; here it is the gift of
justification by Christ, as described 3:21-
5:11.—The two propositions develop the
contrast announced ( for ). The
term to; kri'ma properly signifies:
the judicial act , the sentence
pronounced, in opposition to cavrisma
, the act of grace (in the second
proposition).—The clause ejx
eJnov" , of one , indicates the point of
departure for this judicial act, the
material on which it operated. This one
is not neuter (one offence ), but
masculine, agreeably to the reading
aJmarthvsanto" : the one who had
committed the act of sin, and whose sin
had become the object of judgment. It
is on the word ejx eJnov" that the
emphasis lies. Its counterpart in the
second proposition is ejk pollw'n
paraptwmavtwn , which may be
translated either by: of many sins , or by
making pollw'n a pronoun and a
complement: of the sins of many. In the
former case, each of those numerous
offences must be regarded as the
summary indication of the fall of a
particular individual, in opposition to
one sinner. But in the second the
contrast is clearer: the plurality of
individuals is exactly expressed by
the pronoun pollw'n , of many. Dietzsch
denies that this last construction is
possible. But it is found very probably
in Luke 2:35 ( ejk pollw'n kardiw'n ,
of the hearts of many ) and 2 Cor.
1:11.—As the preposition ejk relates
to the matter of the judgment, eij"
denotes the result in which it issues:
“ to condemnation.” The reference is
to the sentence of death pronounced on
mankind
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
because of one who had sinned; for
this one contained in him the entire
race.—The antithesis to this
kajtavkrima , sentence of condemnation ,
appears in dikaivwma , which must be
translated by sentence of
justification. This meaning arises
from the contrast itself, as well as from
the meaning of the words dikaiou'n and
dikaiosuvnh
( justify, righteousness ) throughout
this part of the Epistle, and with St.
Paul generally. Only the question may
be asked, whether the apostle has
in view here the justification granted
to the sinner at the very hour of his
believing, or justification in the
absolute sense, as it will be pronounced in
the day of judgment (2:13). Two
reasons seem to us to decide in favor of
the second alternative—1. The
passage,5:1-11, in which the final
sentence of acquittal is represented
as the indispensable complement of
the righteousness of faith, this
becoming eternally valid only by means of
the former. 2. ver. 17, which is
connected by for with ver. 16, and the
second part of which refers to the
most distant future ( the reign in life ).
Hence we must conclude that the term
dikaivwma , sentence of
justification , also embraces that
supreme sentence of acquittal whereby
we shall conclusively escape from
wrath (v. 9, 10). This parallel between
Adam and Christ manifestly assumes the
whole doctrine of justification
from 3:21, including the final passage
on the justification to come,5:1-11.
The absolute meaning which we here
give to dikaivwma , is thus in
keeping with the position of the whole
passage. Dietzsch is certainly
mistaken in applying this word
dikaivwma to the sanctification of the sinner
by the Holy Spirit. It is nevertheless
true that if we extend the meaning of
this term to the final justification,
on entering upon glory, it involves the
work of sanctification as finished
(see on 5:9, 10). But this does not in the
least modify the sense of the word
itself ( a justificatory sentence ), as
appears from the meaning of the word
dikaiou'n and from the context (in
contrast to katavkrima , a
condemnatory sentence ).—It is unnecessary to
refute the divergent constructions
proposed by Rothe and Dietzsch,
according to which to; mevn and to;
dev are taken as the subjects of the
two propositions having kri'ma and
cavrisma either as predicates (Rothe),
or in apposition (Dietzsch).—It has
often been thought that the emphasis
in this verse was on the idea of the
contrast between the nature of the two
results: condemnation and
justification. It is not so. The real contrast
indicated by the Greek construction is
that between ejx eJnov" , one ( who
sinned ), and ejk pollw'n
paraptwmavtwn , the sins of many. There, by a
judicial act, condemnation goes forth
from one sinner; here, by the act of
grace, from the offences of a multitude
, there proceeds a
justification.—We come now to the most
difficult point of the whole
passage: the relation of ver. 17 to
what precedes, and the exposition of
the verse itself.
Ver. 17. “ For if by the one man's
offence death reigned by this one; much
rather they who receive the
superabundance of grace and of the gift of
righteousness shall reign in life by
the one, Jesus Christ. ”—The for
beginning this verse has been the
torture of expositors, for it seems as if it
should rather be therefore , since
this verse appears to give the
conclusion to be drawn from the
difference indicated in ver. 16. Meyer
seeks to get over the difficulty of
the for by making it bear on the idea of
dikaivwma , ver. 16, and finding in
the certainty of the future reign (end of
ver. 17) the joyful confirmation of
the grace of justification (ver.
16); Philippi almost the same: “The
justified shall reign in life (ver. 17),
which proves that they are really
justified (ver. 16).” But is it logical to
argue from a future and hoped-for
event to demonstrate the certainty of a
present fact? Is not justification at
least as certain as the future reign of
the justified? Hofmann here alleges a
forced turn in the dialectic.
According to him, ver. 17 does not
prove the fact alleged in ver. 16, but
the reasoning of ver. 17 is intended
to demonstrate that the second part of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
ver. 16 (from to; me;n ga;r ..., for
the judgment ..., to the end) has really
proved the truth of the first ( kai;
oujc wJ" ..., and the gift did not come
about as by...). The meaning he holds
to be: “I have good reason to say
that it is not so with the
judgment...as with the gift of grace...; for if...(ver.
17).” Dietzsch rightly answers that
the demonstration given in ver. 16
would be very weak if it needed to be
propped with the complicated
reasoning of ver. 17. Dietzsch
himself, starting from his sense of
dikaivwma , the restoration of
holiness , ver. 16, thus understands the
argument: “This holiness will be
really restored in believers; for, according
to the divine promises, they are one
day to enter into the kingdom of life
(ver. 17), which cannot take place
without holiness.” Everything is
erroneous in this explanation—1. The
meaning of dikaivwma ;
2. The intervention of the divine
promises, of which there has been no
mention in the context; 3. The idea of
sanctification, which is out of place
in this passage. Rothe has given up in
despair the attempt to discover a
logical connection between vv. 17 and
16. He has accordingly attempted
to refer the for of ver. 17 to the
argument of ver. 15, making ver. 16 a sort
of parenthesis. There is something
seductive about this solution. We have
already seen in vv. 9, 10 of this
chapter, two verses which followed one
another, both beginning with for , and
the second of which was merely the
repetition (reinforced with some new
elements) of the first, and so its
confirmation. It might therefore be
supposed that it is the same in this
case, only with the difference that
ver. 16 would be inserted in order to
enunciate those new elements which are
to play a part in ver. 17. So it
was that, following the path opened by
Rothe, we long flattered ourselves
that we had solved the difficulty. Yet
we have been obliged to abandon
this solution by the following
considerations:—1. Can the for of ver. 17,
after the insertion of a new contrast
specially announced, ver. 16a, and
expounded, ver. 16b, be purely and
simply parallel to the for of ver. 15? 2.
How happens it that in ver. 17 there
is no further mention of the many ,
nor consequently of the extent of the
two works, but solely of the equality
of the effect produced (on the one
side a reign of death , on the other a
reign in life ), and specially, that
instead of the past ejperivsseusen (ver. 15),
we are all at once transported into
the future by the words: they shall reign
(end of ver. 17)? Finally—and we long
held to this idea also—the for of
ver. 17 might be taken to refer to the
affirmation (vv. 15 a , 16a) of the two
differences: “ It is not with the
offence as with the gift ...(ver. 15a);” “ the
gift did not come about ...(ver. 16a).”
But the second part of ver. 16 would
thus be sacrificed; now it is too
important to be only a parenthesis. We
must therefore revert to the attempt
of Meyer and Philippi, which consists
in connecting the for with ver. 16;
this is, besides, the only probable
supposition; only we must seek to
justify, better than they have done, the
logical relation established by this
for. And that does not seem to us
impossible if what we have observed
regarding the meaning of dikaivwma
, the sentence of justification , ver.
16, be borne in mind. The parallel
between Christ and Adam strikes its
roots into the whole previous doctrine
regarding the righteousness of faith ,
3:21-5:11; witness the wherefore (v.
12). Now Paul had demonstrated,5:1-11,
that once justified by the death
of Christ, all the more may we be
certain of being saved and glorified by
His life. It is this very idea which
forms the basis of the second part of ver.
17, which thus contains the paraphrase
of the term dikaivwma , sentence
of justification , at the end of ver.
16. The relation between vv. 16, 17 is
therefore as follows: Two facts are
set forth in ver. 16 parallel to one
another: one sinner, the object of the
act of condemnation; a multitude of
sinners, the objects of the act of justification.
The reality of the first of
these facts was demonstrated by vv.
12-14. It remained to demonstrate
that of the second. This is the object
to which ver. 17 is devoted. The
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
mode of reasoning is as follows: The
apostle starts (ver. 17a) from the first
fact as certain, and by means of it he
infers (17b) the still more certain
reality of the second. ver. 17 has
thus its logical place between the two
propositions of ver. 16 to prove by
the first the truth of the second. Not
only so. But in reproducing ver. 16a
in the first proposition of 17a, he
combines with 16a the contents of the
first proposition of ver. 15 (15a);
and in reproducing, in the conclusion
17b, the second proposition of ver.
16 (16b), he combines with it the
contents of the second proposition of
ver. 15 (15b), and that in order to
give double force to the a fortiori
reasoning whereby from the premiss he
reaches the conclusion; in other
words, 16a, supported by 15a, serves
him as a premiss in 17a to reach
the conclusion 17b, containing 16b
combined with 15b by a double a
fortiori. The meaning of this masterly
logic, simpler than would have been
thought possible, is as follows: If a
weak cause, the single sin (15a) of one
sinner (16a), passively endured, could
bring about the death of every man
(17a), much more certainly shall the
more powerful cause (16b),
assimilated by each one personally
(16b), produce in him an effect not
inferior to the effect produced by the
first cause (17b). If a weak
deleterious cause passively endured by
me has been able to produce my
death, a life-giving cause much more
powerful, which I actively
appropriate to myself, will far more
certainly give me life.—We thus
apprehend at the same time the
relation between vv. 16, 17 and ver. 15.
Ver. 15 relates to the two circles
influenced; they must cover one another
perfectly ( the many , of the two
sides); for the more powerful cause
cannot have extended less widely than
the weaker. In vv. 16, 17 the
subject is the result obtained in
every individual belonging to the many in
the direction either of death or of
life. The second of these effects (life)
cannot be less real than the first
(death), for it has been produced by a
cause more powerful and individually
appropriated. ver. 15: as many
individuals; vv. 16, 17: as much
effect produced in each one. Let us now
enter upon the detailed study of this
verse, in which the apostle has
succeeded in combining with the
argument which he was following the full
riches of the antithesis already
contained in vv. 15,
16.
In the first clause there is a
difference of reading. Instead of: by one man's
offence , some Greco-Latin copyists
have written: by one offence , or
again: by the one single offence. This
reading, opposed to that of the two
other families, and also of the
Peshitto, can only be regarded as an
erroneous correction. The idea of one
(sinner) has been rejected,
because it seemed to involve a
repetition when taken with the immediately
following words: by this one. But it
has been overlooked that the terms: by
one man's offence , are intended to
reproduce the idea of the first
proposition of ver. 15, as the words:
by this one , reproduce the idea of the
ejx eJnov" , of one , in the
first proposition of ver. 16. These expressions
have something extenuating about them:
only one act, only one actor. The
apostle means to contrast the weakness
of these causes with the
greatness of the result: a reign of
death established in the world. We see
a whole race of slaves with their
heads passively bent, through the solitary
deed of one, under the pitiless
sceptre of death. The words: by one , are
added as by an after-thought, in order
to emphasize the passivity of the
individuals subjected to this order of
things. The apostle does not here
mention, as in ver. 15, the many , in
opposition to this one. He has not in
view the extent of the reign of death,
but the part played by the individuals
in relation to this tragical
situation. He sees them all as it were absorbed in
the one being who has acted for
all.—The expression: death reigned ,
denotes a firmly established order of
things against which, for individuals,
there is no possibility of resistance.
Nothing more desperate in
appearance than this great historical
fact of the reign of death,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
and yet it is this very fact which
becomes in the eyes of the apostle a
principle of the most powerful
encouragement and the most glorious hope.
For this terrible reign of death,
established on the weak foundation of a
single sin and a single sinner, may
serve as a measure to establish the
greater certainty of the reign of life
which will come to light among the
justified by the freely accepted gift
of God. Such is the idea of the second
part of the verse. Instead of this
impersonal multitude involved in the act,
and thereby in the condemnation of a
single sinner, Paul contemplates a
plurality of distinct individuals
appropriating to themselves, consciously
and freely, the fulness of the gift of
righteousness; and he asks himself,
with a tone of triumph, whether a
glorious reign of life will not spring up
under similar conditions more certainly
still than the sinister reign of death
established itself on the weak
foundation which he has just
mentioned.—The salient expression in
this second part of the verse is the
oiJ lambavnonte" , they who
receive (literally, the receivers or accepters).
The verb lambavnein may signify to
take, to lay hold of , or again: to
receive (more or less passively). As
it here evidently denotes the act of
faith , it expresses the idea of a
taking in possession resting on a free
acceptance (see on 1:17). The form of
the present participle is variously
explained. According to Philippi, it
denotes the continuousness of the
acceptance of salvation by believers
during the whole period of grace.
Meyer and others take the present as
referring to the epoch now in
progress , as the intermediate station
between the natural order of things
and the future kingdom. But what have
these two ideas to do with Paul's
intention in the context? It seems to
me that this present is rather that of
moral condition relatively to the
state which ought logically to arise from it.
Whoever joins the number of those
accepters , shall reign in life.—The
definite article oiJ , the , presents
all these accepters as distinct persons,
individually capable of accepting or
rejecting what must decide their lot. It
is no longer that undistinguished mass
which had disobeyed and perished
in one. Here we meet again those
polloiv , the many sinners, mentioned in
ver. 16, who, under the burden of
their personal offences, have accepted
for themselves the act of grace, and
shall become individually the objects
of the dikaivwma , the sentence of
justification. It is to be remarked that
even in ver. 16 the article has ceased
to be prefixed to the word pollw'n (
many; not “ the many”), and that Paul
does not even speak of polloiv ,
many. The accepters are not the
totality of men condemned to die; Paul
does not even say that they are
necessarily numerous. His thought here is
arrested by each of them, whatever
shall be their number. In this fact,
taken by itself, of individual
acceptance, on the side of grace there is a
complete difference of position as
compared with the passivity of the
individuals on the opposite side. It
is a first difference fitted to establish an
a fortiori conclusion. But there is
another fact, which combines with it the
infinitely greater power of the cause,
on the same side. The apostle had
already remarked it in ver. 15: the
grace of God, and the gift of Jesus
Christ. It is easy to see the
connection of the expressions used with those
of 15b: And first: th;n perisseivan ,
the abundance , which reproduces the
idea of the verb ejperivsseuse , hath
abounded; then th'" cavrito" , of the
grace , which goes back upon the
double grace of God and of the one
man Jesus Christ; finally, the term
dwreav , the gift , which appears in both
verses. The complement th'"
dikaiosuvnh" , of righteousness , is alone
added here, because the subject in
question is the gift accepted by faith
and transformed into individual
righteousness. The destination (ver. 15)
has become possession. Thus the
thought of the apostle is clear: as the
term oiJ lambavnonte" , the
receivers , forms an antithesis to dia; tou' eJnov"
, by this one , so the expressions:
the abundance of grace, and of the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
gift of righteousness , form an
antithesis to the: by the offence of one. Not
only, then, is there on this side
individual appropriation (ver. 16), but this
appropriation rests on a more powerful
cause (ver. 15).
Thus is seen the justice of the
observation: that in this ver. 17 there are
designedly combined to establish a
double a fortiori , the two previously
described contrasts: “If a weak
objective cause, without personal
appropriation on the part of those
interested, has been able to establish a
reign of death, with stronger reason
should it be certain that a still more
powerful objective cause, and one
individually appropriated, will be
capable of establishing a glorious
reign of life.” Perisseiva : abundance , or
more strictly superabundance , so that
the superfluity flows over; cavrito" ,
of grace , applies at one and the same
time, according to ver. 15, to the
love of God and to that of Jesus
Christ. The gift of righteousness is that
justification objectively realized in
Christ for the many (mankind), and
apprehended by the faith of every
receiver. When the empty vessel of the
human heart has once become filled by
faith with this fulness of grace and
righteousness, the sinner is raised to
the place of a king in life. This last
expression also forms an antithesis to
an analogous one in the first
proposition: death reigned. But the
apostle has too lively a conviction of
spiritual realities to say here: life
shall reign. Death reigns; it is a tyrant.
But life does not reign; it has not
subjects; it makes kings. Besides Paul
transforms his construction, as he had
already done with a similar
intention in ver. 15. This change
admirably suits the thought of the
context. Instead of the sombre state
of things which bears sway as a reign
of death, it is here the individuals
themselves who, after having personally
appropriated righteousness, reign
personally in the luminous domain of
life. Comp. on this reign what Paul
said, 4:13, of the inheritance of the
world; then the kaucwvmenoi , glorying
, 5:11; finally, 8:17.
The clause ejn zwh'/ , in life , does
not denote a period, as when we say: in
eternal life. If the word life were
taken in this sense, it would undoubtedly
be defined by the article th'/ . The
preposition ejn must not be taken in the
instrumental sense, as in 5:10 ( by
life). Contrasted as it is to this: reign of
death , the expression denotes the
mode or nature of the reign of
believers. A new, holy, inexhaustible,
and victorious vitality will pervade
those receivers of righteousness , and
make them so many kings. If the
collective condemnation could make
each of them a subject of death, the
conclusion therefrom should be that
their individual justification will make
each of them a king in life.—The
meaning of pollw'/ ma'llon , much more ,
is, as in ver. 15, purely logical:
much more certainly. Unquestionably there
is no doubt that there is a greater
abundance of life in Christ than there
was of death-power in Adam. But this
is not what the apostle says here.
He is not aiming to establish either a
contrast of quality (between life and
death ) or a contrast of quantity (
more of life than of death). It is a higher
degree of certainty which he
enunciates and demonstrates. Justified, we
shall reign still more certainly in
Christ, than as condemned we are dead
in Adam. Our future glory is more
certain even than our death; for a more
powerful cause, and one individually
assimilated, will make us live still
more certainly than the weak
unappropriated cause could make us die.
There remains a last word which, put
at the close of this rich and
complicated period, has peculiar
solemnity: by the one, Jesus Christ. Tou'
eJnov" , the one , is a pronoun,
and not an adjective: the only one,
opposed to the other only one. The
name Jesus Christ is in apposition:
“by the one who is Jesus Christ.”
These final words remind us that He has
been the sole instrument of the divine
love, and that if the receivers have
a righteousness to appropriate, it is
solely that which He has acquired for
them.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Again, at this point (vv. 15, 16) the
reasoning of the apostle is amazingly
bold. It is as if a justified sinner
dared to find in the very power of the
miserable lust which dragged him into
evil, the irrefragable proof of the
power which will more certainly still
be exercised over him by the grace of
God and of Jesus Christ, to save him
and raise him to the throne.
Let us sum up this passage, unique as
it is of its kind. Ver. 15
demonstrates the universal destination
of justification in Christ. The
argument runs thus: If a cause so weak
as Adam's single offence could
influence a circle so vast as that of
the entire multitude of mankind, with
greater reason must a far richer cause
(the double grace of God and of
Jesus Christ) extend its action over
this same multitude. —It is the
universalism of the gospel , the
eij" pavnta" , for all ..., of 3:22, proved by
the very universality of death.
Vv. 16 and 17 demonstrate the full
reality and quickening efficacy of the
personal application which every
beliver makes of the justification
obtained by Christ. Affirmed in ver.
16, this individual efficacy is proved in
ver. 17: One single agent, serving as
the instrument of a very weak cause,
could bring about the death of so many
individuals who had not personally
taken part in his act. Consequently,
and much more certainly , will each of
those same individuals, by personally
appropriating a force far superior in
action to the preceding, become
thereby a possessor of life.—Here is the
individualism of the gospel , the
ejpi; pavnta" tou;" pisteuvonta" , upon all
that believe , of 3:22, fully
established by the very fact of their individual
death in Adam.
We have thus reached the complete
demonstration of these two words
pavnti and tw'/ ( pisteuvonti ), all
and every (believer), which are the
essential characteristics of Paul's
gospel, according to 1:16.
As the argument of vv. 12-14 was a
necessary logical premiss to that of
vv. 15-17, the latter was a no less
indispensable premiss for the
conclusion finally drawn by the
apostle, vv. 18, 19. In fact to be entitled to
affirm, as he does in these two
verses, the universality of justification in
Christ as the counterpart of the
universality of death in Adam, he must
prove, first, that all men died in
Adam and not through their own
deed—such are the contents of vv.
12-14; then, that from this universal
and individual death in Adam there
followed a fortiori the certainty of the
universal destination, and of the
individual application of justification in
Christ—such are the contents of vv.
15-17. It remains only to draw this
conclusion: all (as to destination)
and each (by faith) are justified in Christ
(ver. 18); this conclusion is at the
same time the second and long-delayed
part of the comparison begun in ver.
12. The apostle could not state it till
he had logically acquired the right to
do so.
3. Vv. 18, 19.
Vv. 18, 19. “ So then as by one
offence there was condemnation for all
men; so also by one act of
justification there was for all men justification of
life. For as by one man's disobedience
the many were constituted sinners;
so by the obedience of one shall the
many be constituted righteous.
”—The result on the side of
righteousness is at least equal to that which
history attests on the side of
condemnation: the apostle could make this
affirmation after the previous
demonstration, and at length close the
parallel opened at ver. 12.—The a[ra ,
in consequence , introduces this
declaration as a conclusion from the argument
which precedes, and the
oujn , therefore , takes up the thread
of the sentence broken since ver. 12.
These two particles combined thus
exhaust the logical connection of this
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
verse with all that prepared for it.
The first proposition is the summary
reproduction of ver. 12. The
understood verb is ajpevbh , issued ,
here taken in an impersonal sense (
there came about, res cessit , Mey.).
Philippi takes e{no" as a masculine
pronoun: “by one's offence.” But in
that case we must take the e{no" of the
second proposition in the same sense,
which, as we shall see, is
impossible.—The katavkrima , sentence
of condemnation , denotes the
condemnation to death which has
overtaken mankind, the: “Thou art dust,
and to dust shalt thou return.” There
is no reference here to eternal
condemnation (the ajpwvleia ).
The particles ou{tw and kaiv , so and
also , refer, the one to the moral
analogy of the two facts, the other,
simply to the repetition of the two
similar facts. Many commentators apply
the expression: by one act of
righteousness , dij e{no"
dikaiwvmato" , to the holy life of Jesus, which was
throughout, as it were, one great act
of righteousness, or to His expiatory
death , as the culminating point of
that perfect life. The meaning of the
Greek term, which Aristotle (Nicom.
5:10) defines: ejpanovrqwma tou'
ajdikhvmato" , a reparation of
injury , might suit either the one or the other
of these senses. They are, however,
both inadmissible for the following
reasons: 1. It is not natural to
depart from the meaning the word has in
ver. 16; now there it forms (in a
rigorously symmetrical proposition) the
antithesis of katavkrima , sentence of
condemnation; this positively
determines its meaning: sentence of
justification. 2. If this term be applied
to the holy life or expiatory death of
Jesus Christ, there arises a complete
tautology with the second proposition
of ver. 19, where uJpakohv ,
obedience , has the very meaning which
is here given to dikaivwma . And
yet the for , which connects the two
verses, implies a logical gradation
from the one to the other. 3. In
Paul's terminology it is God and not Jesus
Christ who is the justifier , 8:33 (
Qeo;" oJ dikaiw'n ). By e}n dikaivwma we
must therefore understand a divine
act. It is therefore the one collective
sentence of justification , which in
consequence of the death of Christ has
been pronounced in favor of all sinners,
of which, as we have seen, 4:25,
the resurrection of Jesus was at once
the effect and proof. It is ever this
same divine declaration which takes
effect in the case of every sinner as
he believes. If such is the meaning of
the word dikaivwma , the e{no" is
obviously an adjective and not a
pronoun: “by one act of
justification.”—The verb to be
understood is neither in the present nor the
future: there is , or there will be.
For the matter in question is an
accomplished fact. It is therefore the
past: there was , as in the first
member.—The sentence already passed is
destined for all men with a
view to their personal justification.
It is this destination which is expressed
by the eij" dikaivwsin zwh'"
, to justification of life , exactly like the eij"
pivstin , 1:17, and the eij"
pavnta" ( for all ), 3:22. The apostle does not say
that all shall be individually
justified; but he declares that, in virtue of the
one grand sentence which has been
passed, all may be so, on condition
of faith. The strongly active sense of
the word dikaivwsi" (the act of
justifying) fits it peculiarly to
denote the individual sentence by which the
collective justification is applied to
each believer.—The genitive zwh'" is
the genitive of effect: “the
justification which produces life.” By this word
life Paul here denotes above all
spiritual life (6:4, 11, 23), the reestablishing
of holiness; then, in the end, the
restoration and glorification
of the body itself (8:11). The word
thus hints beforehand the entire
contents of the following part (chap.
6-8).
Ver. 19. At the first glance this
verse seems to be a mere useless
repetition of the foregoing. Looking
at it closely, we see that, as the gavr ,
for , indicates, it is meant to state
the moral cause which gives rise to the
two facts put parallel to one another
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
in ver. 18. In fact, ver. 19a serves
to explain 18a, and 19b to explain 18b.
This logical relation accounts for two
modifications, apparently accidental,
which are introduced into the parallel
expressions in ver. 19. For the
simple wJ" , as , of ver. 18,
there is substituted here w{sper , which is more
emphatic and precise, for precisely
as. For the new contrast is meant to
give the key to the preceding one.
Then, for the antithesis of one offence,
of one sentence of justification, to
the notion of universality , ( all ), ver. 18,
there is substituted the antithesis
between ei|" and oiJ polloiv , one and the
many. Why the reappearance of this
expression used in ver. 15, but
abandoned since vv. 16 and 17? It is
because the apostle would here
ascend from historical effects to
moral causes or hidden principles. Two
historical facts sway the life of
mankind (ver. 18): the condemnation which
kills it, and the justification which
quickens it. These two great facts rest on
two individual moral acts: an act of
disobedience , and an act of
obedience. Now in both cases the
extension to all of the effect produced
can be explained only on one
condition: the possibility, namely, of the
action of one on many. This second
antithesis: one and many , belongs
therefore to the exposition of the
cause (ver. 19), as the first: one act and
all , belong to the exposition of the
historical fact (ver. 18). Hence the
reason why in ver. 15, where he had to
do with the antithesis between the
two causes , the apostle had dropped
the pronoun pavnte" , all , used in
ver. 12, to apply the form ei|"
and oiJ polloiv , one and the many , and why
he reverts to it here, where he is
ascending from the effect to the cause.
New proofs of the scrupulous care with
which the apostle watched over
the slightest details of his
writings.—This word parakohv , disobedience ,
denotes the moral act which provoked
the sentence of condemnation (ver.
18a). There had been in the case of
Adam ajkohv , hearing; a positive
prohibition had sounded in his ears.
But this prohibition had been for him
as it were null and non-existent (
parakohv ).—The verb katestavqhsan ,
which we have translated literally by
were constituted , signifies, when it is
applied to an office: to be
established in it (Luke 12:14; Acts 7:10, 27; and
even Heb. 5:1); but when it is
applied, as here, to a moral state, the
question arises whether it is to be
taken in the sense of being regarded
and treated as such, or being rendered
such. The second meaning, if I am
not mistaken, is the most common in
classic Greek: tina; eij" ajporivan
kaqistavnai , to put one into a state
of embarrassment; klaivonta katasth'saiv
tina , to make one weep , etc. In the
two principal examples taken from the
New Testament there is room for some
hesitation; Jas. 4:4: “Whosoever
will be a friend of the world is made
the enemy of God,” may signify: “ is
proved , or is rendered the
enemy”...The last sense is the more natural. In
2 Pet. 1:8: “Such virtues will make
you neither barren nor unfruitful,” the
second meaning is the more probable.
It is also the meaning which the
context appears to me to demand here.
The apostle is explaining the
moral cause of the fact stated 18a.
The meaning: to be regarded , or
treated as ..., will only yield a
tautology with the fact to be explained. The
real gradation from the one verse to
the other is as follows: “They were
treated as sinners (by the sentence of
death) (ver. 18); for they were really
made sinners in Adam (ver. 19).” The
last words of ver. 12 already
involved the same idea. “They all
participated mysteriously in the offence (
ejfj w|/ pavnte" h{marton );” the
first fact whence there resulted the
inclination to sin affirmed in our
ver. 19. Moreover, the diav construed with
the genitive ( by ) would suffice to
demonstrate the effective sense of the
kaqistavnai , to constitute , in ver.
19. With the other sense, the diav with
the accusative ( on account of ) would
have been more suitable.
With the disobedience of one there is
contrasted the obedience of one.
Some
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
understand thereby the expiatory
sacrifice of Jesus. But as in the Levitical
cultus the victim required to be
witbout blemish, so in the true expiatory
sacrifice the victim required to be
without sin. It is impossible, therefore, to
isolate the death of Christ here from
His holy life; and the term obedience
embraces both; comp. Phil. 2:8.—If the
word divkaioi , righteous , denoted
here a moral state, like the
aJmartwloiv , sinners , in the first proposition,
the same question would be raised here
as to the meaning of kaqivstasqai .
But if the word righteous is applied,
as the sense of this whole part
requires, to imputed righteousness,
then the verb naturally takes the
meaning of being constituted righteous
, though there would be nothing to
hinder us from translating it, as in
the first member, by: being rendered
righteous. For as the case in question
is a state obtained in a declaratory
way, being rendered amounts to the
same thing as being constituted. The
future: will be rendered , or
constituted righteous, is referred by some to
the successive justification of those
sinners who during the present
economy come to faith; by others, to
the final declaration of the judgment
day. In the passages 16b and 17b the
apostle transported himself, as we
have seen, to the close of the economy
of probation. This connection
decides in favor of the second
meaning. The time in question is that
described 5:9-11. If, then, the idea
of moral righteousness is not that of
this word righteous , as Dietzsch and
others will have it, the fact of
sanctification is nevertheless
involved in the supreme absolution to which
the second part of this verse
refers.—The expression: the many , or the
multitude , cannot have the same
extension in the second member as in
the first. For it is not here as in
ver. 15, where the question was only of the
destination of righteousness. This
passage refers, as is proved by the
future: will be made righteous , to
the effectual application. Now, nowhere
does St. Paul teach universal
salvation. There are even passages in his
writings which seem expressly to
exclude it; for example, 2 Thess. 1:9;
Phil. 3:19. On the other hand, the
pronoun the many cannot denote a
simple plurality (the majority); for,
as we have seen in vv. 15 and 19a, the
article oiJ , the , implies a
totality. The totality must therefore be restricted
to those whom, ver. 17, Paul called
the accepters , oiJ lambavnonte" , and
of whom he said: they shall reign in
life. This future: shall reign , is in close
connection with the future: will be
made , in our verse; for the declaration
of righteousness (ver. 19) is the
condition of reigning in life (ver. 17).
We cannot hold, with the school of
Baur, that this parallel between Adam
and Christ was inspired by a polemical
intention in opposition to a legal
Jewish- Christianity. But it is
nevertheless evident that in so vast a survey
of the principal phases of the
religious development of mankind, a place,
however small, could not fail to be
granted to the Mosaic institution. The
part of the law is therefore briefly
indicated ver. 20; ver. 21 is the general
conclusion.
4. Vv. 20, 21.
Vv. 20, 21. “ Now the law was added,
that the offence might abound. But
where sin abounded, grace
superabounded more: that as sin hath reigned
unto death, even so might grace reign
through righteousness unto eternal
life by Jesus Christ our Lord. ”—
Novmo" (the) law , undoubtedly denotes
the Mosaic law; but as positive law in
general (regard being had to the
absence of the article), we might
almost translate: a law. —The Jews
attributed a particularly important
part to this institution in the history of
mankind; they claim to make it the
means of education and salvation of
the whole world (2:17-20). Paul shows
that it plays only a secondary part.
It was added during the era of sin and
death to prepare for the era of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
justification and life. It is from
want of a more exactly corresponding term
that we translate pareish'lqen by was
added. It should be: came alongside
of. Compounded of the word
eijsevrcesqai , to enter , to appear on the
stage (ver. 12), and the preposition
parav , by the side of , it applies to an
actor who does not occupy the front of
the stage, and who appears there
only to play an accessory part. It is
a mistake, therefore, to ascribe to this
verb the notion attached to it by the
Vulgate , when it translates
subintravit, came in , as it were
stealthily , a meaning which, besides, is
incompatible with the solemn
promulgation of the law. Calvin finds in this
verb the notion of an intermediate
which took its place between Adam and
Christ, and Chrysostom, that of a
passing appearance. But parav signifies
neither between nor in passing. The
true meaning of the word is: by the
side of , and this is also the meaning
which best suits the passage. The
Mosaic economy was, as it were, a side
economy, an institution parallel to
the economy of sin; as Philippi says,
“it is a particular economy by the
side of the great general economy.” It
might be compared to a canal
flowing by the side of the river which
feeds it.—And why this special
economy? That the offence might
abound. If, instead of the word
paravptwma , offence, fall , the
apostle had said paravbasi" , transgression ,
the thought would be easily
understood. For he has himself said (4:15):
“Where no law is, there is no
transgression;” that is to say, in that case sin
does not present itself as the
violation of a positive command. The sense
would consequently be this: The law
was given to Israel that in this
particular field of fallen humanity
sin might take a graver and more
pronounced character; that of
transgression , and so manifest completely
its malign nature; a process which
should be the means of its cure. But
this sense would require the use of
the term paravbasi" ( transgression ).
The term chosen: paravptwma , offence
, has a wider meaning (see on ver.
15). The word, indeed, denotes every
particular act of sin committed
under the law or without the law. This
meaning is, on the other hand, more
restricted than that of the word
aJmartia , sin , which comprehends,
besides, the external acts, the
corrupt inward disposition. The apostle
therefore did not mean to say that the
law was given to increase sin itself.
Not only would the word aJmartiva have
been required in this sense, but
this thought would also be
incompatible with divine holiness. Neither do I
think the expression can be explained
exactly by the passage, Rom. 7:10-
13, which refers to the use made of
the law by sin; while Paul is here
speaking of its providential object.
The meaning rather is: that the law by
multiplying prescriptions also gives
rise to much more frequent occasions
of offence. Now, each of these
particular offences requiring to be expiated
either by a sacrifice or a penalty,
human guilt is thus more clearly
manifested, and condemnation (apart
from the intervention of grace)
better founded. Man does not thereby
necessarily become worse than he
was; he only shows what he is already.
Yet, if we went no further, we
should still fail to apprehend the
full thought of the apostle. Throughout the
whole of this passage (vv. 15, 17, 18)
the term to; paravptwma , the offence
, has a sort of technical meaning: the
offence of Adam. Is it not natural to
take the word here in this definite
acceptation? The meaning is therefore
as follows: By the law it has come
about that the offence of the first man
has multiplied, or in a sense
reproduced itself among his descendants in a
multitude of particular acts of sin,
like a seed which reappears in a harvest
of fruits like itself. Those acts of
sin are the offences of many , spoken of
in ver. 16, and which are the object
of individual justification. And the end
of the law in making the manifestation
of sin abound in Israel in this
concrete form was to prove the inward
malady, and to pave the way for its
cure. How? The sequel will explain.—In
connection with what precedes,
the ou| ( dev ) ( but ) where , cannot
have the general
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
meaning of wherever ..., as if the
saying which follows were a maxim of
universal application. The connection
between the first and second part of
the verse requires that the word where
be taken in a strictly local and
limited sense: where , that is to say,
in the domain where the law has
done its work, and made the offence
abound in Israel. Against this view,
Meyer urges the general character of
the whole passage, and especially
that of ver. 21, and, like Schott and
many others, he refers the words:
where ..., to the whole world. This
objection ignores the fact stated in ver.
21, that the experiment made in Israel
was intended to profit the whole
world. As to the temporal meaning
given to the word where by Grotius, De
Wette, etc., at the time when , it
would suit the idea perhaps. But this use
of ou| is without example in the New
Testament, and cannot even be
demonstrated with certainty in the
classics ( ajfj ou| is different). The sense
is therefore that given by Abe8lard in
the words: in eodem populo quo
...—As the law gave more frequent
occasion in Israel of proving individual
guiltiness, by that very means it gave
occasion to grace to manifest itself
in a manner more abundant and
extraordinary (2:4). Among the
manifestations of mercy referred to by
these last words of our verse:
grace superabounded , we cannot but
suppose that the apostle places
foremost the great expiatory act on
which all the sins of Israel converged
(Heb. 9:15). As in the expression: sin
abounded , he naturally thinks of the
greatest crime of the Jewish people,
that in which was concentrated their
whole spirit of revolt, the murder of
their Messiah, their deicide, the
catastrophe of their history; so in
the following words there is presented to
the rapt view of the apostle the
advantage which divine mercy has taken
of this crime, by making it immediately
the instrument of salvation for
Israel themselves and all mankind. The
word where might thus receive a
yet stricter application than that
which we have been giving to it till now.
Golgotha, that theatre where human sin
displayed itself as nowhere else,
was at the same time the place of the
most extraordinary manifestation of
divine grace. The term
uJpereperivsseuse , superabounded over , is
explained by Hofmann in the sense of:
grace abounded beyond itself; it,
as it were, surpassed itself. This
meaning is far-fetched. It would be better
to refer the uJpevr , over , to the
sin which was, as it were, submerged
under this flood of pardon. But if
Paul had meant to state this relation, he
would certainly have repeated the same
verb as he had just used in
speaking of sin. It seems most natural
to me to take this uJpevr , over , as
expressing the superlative of the
verbal idea: Grace overflowed beyond all
measure, to infinity. Philippi
accurately observes that plevon in pleonavzein
is a comparative ( the more ): while
uJpevr (in uJperperisseuvein ) expresses
not only a more , but a superlative of
abundance.
Ver. 21. This verse declares the
universal end of this divine dispensation
which seemed at first to concern only
Israel. Paul thus returns to the
general idea of the entire passage.
The that , as well as perhaps the
uJpevr in the verb of the preceding
sentence, implies that what was
passing in Israel contemplated the
establishment of a reign of grace
capable of equalling and surpassing in
mankind generally the reign of sin
founded in Adam. This is what the
legal dispensation could never effect.
Far from bringing into the world the
grace of justification, the law taken in
itself made the offence and
condemnation abound. The passage, Gal.
3:13 and 14, is also intended to point
out the relation between the curse of
the Jewish law , borne by the Messiah,
and the gift of grace made to the
Gentiles. This superabounding of pardon
brought to bear on this
superabounding of sin in the midst of
the Jewish people, had therefore for
its end ( i{na , that ) to display
grace in such a way as to assure its triumph
over the reign of sin throughout the
whole earth, and to replace one
economy by another.— {Wsper ,
absolutely as. The work of grace
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
must not remain, either in extent or
efficacy, behind that of sin.—The
words ejn tw'/ qanavtw/ , in death ,
remind us that the reign of sin is
present; it manifests itself, wraps,
as it were, and embodies itself in the
palpable fact of death. The meaning:
by death, would not give any clear
idea. Far from sin reigning by death,
it is death, on the contrary, which
reigns by sin.—The antithesis to the
words in death is distributed between
the two terms: through righteousness ,
and to life. The first has no
reference whatever, as one whole class
of exegetes would have it, to
moral righteousness; for in this case
its meaning would trench upon that
of the following term. The word
denotes, as in this whole part, of which it
contains the summary, the
righteousness freely granted by God to faith.
Hence the apostle says: “that grace
may reign through righteousness.” It
is in fact by free justification that
grace establishes its reign.—The end of
justification is life; eij" ,
unto , is opposed to “ in death,” as the future is to
the present. But this word eternal
life does not refer merely to future glory.
It comprehends the holiness which from
this time forward should flow from
the state of justification (comp. 6:4,
11, 23). If the word through
righteousness sums up the whole part
of the Epistle now finished, the
words: unto eternal life , are the
theme of the whole part which is now to
begin (vi-viii).—The last words: by
Jesus Christ our Lord , are the final
echo of the comparison which formed
the subject of this passage. We
understand the object of this piece:
By the collective and individual fact of
death in one, Paul meant to
demonstrate the reality of universal and
individual justification in
one—universal as to destination, individual
through its application to each
believer. And now—so this last word
seems to say—Adam has passed away;
Christ alone remains.
Adam and Christ. —It is to be borne in
mind, if we are not to ascribe to the
apostle ideas which nothing in the
doctrine of this passage justifies, that
the consequences which he deduces from
our solidarity with Adam belong
to a wholly different sphere from
those which flow, according to him, from
our solidarity with Christ. We are
bound to Adam by the fact of birth. Every
man appears here below in some sort as
a fraction of that first man in
whom the entire species was
personified. Adam, to use the expression of
the jurist Stahl, is “ the substance
of natural humanity;” and as the birth by
which we emanate from him is a fact
outside of consciousness, and
independent of our personal will, all
that passes in the domain of this
natural existence can have no other
than an educational, provisional, and
temporary character. So, too, the
death of which St. Paul speaks in this
whole passage is, as we have seen, not
eternal damnation, but death in
the ordinary sense of the word. Sin
itself, and the proclivity to evil which
attached to us as children of Adam, as
well as the individual faults which
we may commit in this state, place us
no doubt in a critical position, but
are not yet the cause of final
perdition. These facts only constitute that
imperative need of salvation which is
inherent in every human soul, and to
anticipate which divine grace advances
with love. But on reaching the
threshold of this superior domain, we
find ourselves face to face with a
new and wholly different solidarity,
which is offered to us in Christ. It is not
contracted by a natural and
unconscious bond, but by the free and
deliberate act of faith. And it is
here only, on the threshold of the domain
of this new life, that the questions
relative to the eternal lot of the
individual are raised and decided. To
use again the words of the writer
whom we just quoted: “Christ is the
divine idea of humanity;” He is this
idea perfectly realized. The first
humanity created in Adam, with the
characteristic of freedom of choice,
was only the outline of humanity as
finally purposed by God, the
characteristic of which, as of God Himself, is
holiness. The man who by faith draws
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
his righteousness and life from the
new Head of humanity is gradually
raised to His level, or, as St. Paul
says, to His perfect stature; this is life
eternal. But the man who refuses to
contract this bond of solidarity with
the second Adam, remains for that very
reason in his corrupt nature: he
becomes answerable for it because he
has refused to exchange it for the
new one which was offered him, while
he is at the same time responsible
for the voluntary transgressions added
by him to that of his first father;
and, corrupting himself more and more
by his lusts, he moves onward
through his own fault to eternal
perdition, to the second death.
We have reached the close of the
fundamental part of the treatise which
forms the body of the Epistle. In the
first section Paul had demonstrated
universal condemnation. In the second,
he had expounded universal
justification obtained by Christ and
offered to faith. The third section has
furnished the demonstration of the
fact of the condemnation of all in one,
rendered indubitable by the reign of
death, and proceeding, in the way of
an a fortiori argument, to establish
the fact of the justification of all in one.
The question now arises, whether the
mode of justification thus
expounded and demonstrated can secure
the moral renewal of mankind,
and explain the theocratic history of
which it is the consummation. Such is
the subject of the two following
parts.
FIRST PART. SUPPLEMENTARY. CHAPS. 6-8.
SANCTIFICATION.
BY faith in the expiatory sacrifice of
Jesus Christ the believer has obtained
a sentence of justification, in virtue
of which he stands reconciled to God.
Can anything more be needed for his
salvation? It seems not. The
didactic treatise, intended to expound
salvation, seems thus to have
reached its close. Why then a new
part?
The attentive reader will not have
forgotten that in the first part of chap. 5
the apostle directed our attention to
a day of wrath , the day of the
judgment to come, and that he dealt
with the question by anticipation,
whether the justification now acquired
would hold good in that final and
decisive hour. To settle this
question, he brought in a means of salvation
of which he had not yet spoken:
participation in the life of Christ; and it
was on this fact, announced beforehand
(v. 9, 10), that he based the
assurance of the validity of our
justification even in the day of supreme
trial. When uttering those words, Paul
marked out in advance the new
domain on which he enters from this
time forward, that of sanctification.
To treat this matter is not to pass
beyond the limits traced in the outset by
the general thesis expressed 1:17:
“The just shall live by faith.” For in the
expression shall live , zhvsetai ,
there is comprehended not only the grace
of righteousness , but also that of
the new life, or of holiness. To live is not
merely to regain peace with God
through justification; it is to dwell in the
light of His holiness, and to act in
permanent communion with Him. In the
cure of the soul, pardon is only the
crisis of convalescence; the restoration
of health is sanctification. Holiness
is true life.
What is the exact relation between
these two divine blessings which
constitute salvation in its real
nature: justification and holiness? To put this
question is at the same time to
inquire into the true relation between the
following part, chaps. 6-8, and the
portion of the Epistle already studied.
The understanding of this central
point is the key to the Epistle to the
Romans, and even to the whole Gospel.
1. In the view of many, the relation
between these two blessings of grace
ought to be expressed by a but. “No
doubt you are justified by faith; but
beware, see
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
that you break with the sin which has
been forgiven you; apply yourselves
to holiness; if not, you shall fall
into condemnation again.” This somewhat
prevalent conception of the relation
between justification and sanctification
seems to us to find instinctive
expression in the words of Th. Schott: “Here
we enter upon the domain of the
preservation of salvation.” According to
this view, salvation consists
essentially of justification, and sanctification
appears solely as the condition of not
losing it.
2. Other expositors make what follows,
in relation to what precedes, a
therefore , if one may so speak: “You
are justified freely; therefore ,
impelled by faith and gratitude, engage
yourselves now to renounce evil,
and do what is well-pleasing to God.”
This mode of understanding the
relation between justification and
holiness is probably that followed by
most of the readers of our Epistle at
the present day.
3. According to others, Reuss and
Sabatier for example, the connection
sought would require to be expressed
by a for , or in fact: If faith justifies
you, as I have just shown, it is
because in fact , by the mystical and
personal union which it establishes
between Christ and us, it alone has
the power to sanctify us. The gift of
pardon flows, on this view, from that of
holiness and not the reverse; or, to
speak the truth, these blessings of
grace are confounded with one another.
“Paul knows nothing,” says
Sabatier expressly, “of the subtle
distinction which has given rise to so
many disputes between declaring
righteous and making righteous, justum
dicere and justum facere. ” So thought
also Professor Beck of Tubingen .
This is the opinion which was elevated
by the Council of Trent to the rank
of a dogma in the Catholic Church.
4. Finally, in these last days a bold
thinker, M. Ludemann , has explained
the connection sought after a wholly
new fashion. The appropriate form
for expressing the connection is,
according to him: or rather. This author
will have it that the first four
chapters of our Epistle expound a wholly
juridical theory of justification, of
purely Jewish origin, and not yet
expressing the real view of the
apostle. It is a simple accommodation by
which he seeks to gain his
Judeo-Christian readers. His true theory is of
Hellenic origin; it is distinguished
from the first by its truly moral character.
It is the one which is expounded
chaps. 5-8. Sin no longer appears as an
offence to be effaced by an arbitrary
pardon; it is an objective power
which can only be broken by the
personal union of the believer with Christ
dead and risen. By the second theory,
therefore, Paul rectifies and even
retracts the first. The notion of
justification is suppressed, as in the
preceding view, at least from the
standpoint of Paul himself; all that God
has to do to save us is to sanctify
us.
We do not think that any of these four
solutions exactly reproduces the
apostolic view; the two last even
contradict it flatly.
1. Sanctification is more and better
than a restrictive and purely negative
condition of the maintenance of the
state of justification once acquired. It
is a new state into which it is
needful to penetrate and advance, in order
thus to gain the complete salvation.
One may see, 10:10, how the apostle
distinguished precisely between the
two notions of justification and
salvation.
2. Neither is it altogether exact to
represent sanctification as a
consequence to be drawn from
justification. The connection between the
two facts is still more intimate.
Holiness is not an obligation which the
believer deduces from his faith; it is
a fact implied in justification itself, or
rather one which proceeds, as well as
justification, from the object of
justifying faith, that is, Christ dead
and risen. The believer appropriates
this Christ as his righteousness
first, and then as his holiness (1 Cor.
1:30). The bond of union which
connects these two graces is not therefore
logical or subjective; it is so
profoundly impressed on the believer's heart
only
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
because it has an anterior reality in
the very person of Christ, whose
holiness, while serving to justify us,
is at the same time the principle of our
sanctification. Reuss justly observes
in this relation, that from the apostle's
point of view, we have not to say to
the Christian: “Thou shalt sin no
more;” but we must rather say: “The
Christian sins no more.”
3. As to the third view, which finds
in sanctification the efficient cause of
pardon and justification, it is the
antipodes of Paul's view. Why, if he had
understood the relation between the
two in this way, would he not have
commenced his didactic treatise with
the part relating to sanctification (vi.-
viii.), instead of laying as its
foundation the exposition of justification (i.-
v.)? Besides, is not the then (6:1):
“What shall we say then? ” enough to
show the contradiction between this
view and the apostle's conception?
He must have said: “ For (or in fact )
what shall we say?” Finally, is it not
evident that the whole deduction of
chap. 6 assumes that of chap. 3, and
not the reverse? If the opinion which
the works of Reuss have contributed
to accredit in the Church of France
were well founded, we must
acknowledge the justness of the charge
which this writer brings against
the apostle of “not having followed a
rigorously logical course, a really
systematic order.” But it is a hundred
to one when a reader does not find
the Apostle Paul logical, that he is
not understanding his thought; and this
is certainly the case with the critic
whom we are combating. The apostle
knew the human heart too well to think
of founding faith in reconciliation
on the moral labors of man. We need to
be set free from ourselves, not to
be thrown back on ourselves. If we had
to rest the assurance of our
justification, little or much, on our
own sanctification, since this is always
imperfect, our heart would never be
wholly made free Godward,
absolutely set at large and penetrated
with that filial confidence which is
itself the necessary condition of all
true moral progress. The normal
attitude Godward is therefore this:
first rest in God through justification;
thereafter, work with Him, in His
fellowship, or sanctification. The opinion
before us, by reversing this relation,
puts, to use the common expression,
the cart before the horse. It can only
issue in replacing the church under
the law, or in freeing it in a manner
far from salutary, by setting before it a
degraded standard of Christian
holiness.
4. The fourth view, while equally at
variance with the doctrine of the
gospel, compromises, besides, the
loyalty of the apostle's character. Who
can persuade himself, when reading
seriously the first part of the Epistle
relating to justification by faith,
that all he demonstrates there with so
much pains, and even with so great an
expenditure of biblical proofs (iii.
and iv.), is a view which he does not
adopt himself, and which he
proposes afterward to set aside, to
substitute in its room one wholly
different? To what category morally
are we to assign this process of
substitution presented (6:1) in the
deceptive form of a conclusion ( then )
and so ably disguised that the first
who discovers it turns out to be a
professor of the nineteenth century?
Or perhaps the apostle himself did
not suspect the difference between the
two orders of thought, Jewish and
Greek, to which he yielded his mind at
one and the same time? The
antagonism of the two theories perhaps
so thoroughly escaped him that
he could, without suspecting it,
retract the one while establishing the
other. Such a confusion of ideas
cannot be attributed to the man who
conceived and composed an “Epistle to
the Romans.”
Sanctification, therefore, is neither
a condition nor a corollary of
justification: nor is it its cause ,
and still less its negation. The real
connection between justification and
Christian holiness, as conceived by
St. Paul, appears to us to be this:
justification by faith is the means , and
sanctification the end. The more
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
precisely we distinguish these two
divine gifts, the better we apprehend
the real bond which unites them. God
is the only good; the creature,
therefore, cannot do good except in
Him. Consequently, to put man into a
condition to sanctify himself, it is
necessary to begin by reconciling him to
God, and replacing him in Him. For
this purpose, the wall which separates
him from God, the divine condemnation
which is due to him as a sinner,
must be broken down. This obstacle
once removed by justification, and
reconciliation accomplished, the heart
of man opens without reserve to
the divine favor which is restored to
him; and, on the other hand, the
communication of it from above,
interrupted by the state of condemnation,
resumes its course. The Holy Spirit,
whom God could not bestow on a
being at war with Him, comes to seal
on his heart the new relation
established on justification, and to
do the work of a real and free inward
sanctification. Such was the end which
God had in view from the first; for
holiness is salvation in its very
essence. Justification is to be regarded as
the strait gate , through which we
enter on the narrow way of
sanctification, which leads to glory.
And now the profound connection between
the two parts of the Epistle,
and more especially between the two
chaps. 5 and 6, becomes manifest.
It may be expressed thus: Even as we
are not justified each by himself,
but all by one, by Jesus Christ our
Lord (comp. 5:11, 17, 21); so neither
are we sanctified each in himself, but
all in one, in Jesus Christ our Lord
(6:23, 8:39).
The course of thought in the following
part is this: In the first section the
apostle unfolds the new principle of
sanctification contained in the very
object of justifying faith, Jesus
Christ, and shows the consequences of this
principle, both as to sin and as to
law (6:1-7:6).
In the second, he casts a glance
backward, in order to compare the action
of this new principle with the action
of the old, the law (7:7-25).
In the third, he points to the Holy
Spirit as the divine agent who causes the
new principle, or the life of Christ,
to penetrate the life of the believer, and
who by transforming him fits him to
enjoy the future glory, and to realize at
length his eternal destiny (8:1-39).
In three words, then: holiness in
Christ (vi.-7:6), without law (7:7-25), by
the Holy Spirit (8:1-39). The great
contrast on which the thought of the
apostle moves here is not, as in the
previous part, that between wrath and
justification; but the contrast
between sin and holiness. For the matter in
question is no longer to efface sin,
as guilt , but to overcome it as a power
or disease.
The apostle was necessarily led to
this discussion by the development of
his original theme. A new religious
conception, which offers itself to man
with the claim of conducting him to
his high destiny, cannot dispense with
the demonstration that it possesses
the force necessary to secure his
moral life. To explain this part, therefore,
it is not necessary to assume a
polemic or apologetic intention in
relation to a so-called Jewish-
Christianity reigning in the Church of
Rome (Mangold), or to some Jewish-
Christian influence which had begun to
work there ( Weizsacker ). If Paul
here compares the moral effects of the
gospel (chap. 6) with those of the
law
(vii.), it is because he is positively
and necessarily under obligation to
demonstrate the right of the former to
replace the latter in the moral
direction of mankind. It is with
Judaism, as a preparatory revelation, that
he has to do, not with
Jewish-Christianity, as in the Epistle to the
Galatians. Here his point of view is
vastly wider. As he had discussed
(chap. 3) the question of the value of
the law in relation to justification , he
could not but take up the same subject
again in connection with the work
of sanctification (vii.). Besides, the
tone of chap. 6 is essentially didactic;
the polemical
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
tendency does not come out till chap.
7, to give place again in viii. to
positive teaching, without the
slightest trace of an apologetic or polemic
intention.
It is equally plain how palpably
erroneous is the view of those who would
make the idea of Christian
universalism the subject of the whole Epistle,
and the principle of his plan and
method. The contrast between
universalism and particularism has not
the slightest place in this part,
which would thus be in this exposition
wholly beside the subject.
How bold was the apostle's
undertaking, to found the moral life of
mankind on a purely spiritual basis,
without the smallest atom of legal
element! Even to this hour, after
eighteen centuries, how many excellent
spirits hesitate to welcome such an experiment!
But Paul had had a
convincing personal experience, on the
one hand, of the powerlessness of
the law to sanctify as well as to
justify; and, on the other, of the entire
sufficiency of the gospel to
accomplish both tasks. This experience he
expounds under the guidance of the
Spirit, while generalizing it. Hence
the personal turn which his exposition
takes here in particular (comp. 7:7-
8:2).
First Section (6:1-7:6). The Principle
of Sanctification Contained in
Justification by Faith.
This entire section is intended to lay
the foundations of Christian
sanctification. It includes three
portions.
The first (6:1-14) unfolds the new
principle of sanctification in the very
object of justifying faith.
The second (6:15-23) exhibits the
intrinsic power possessed by this
principle, both to free the believer
from sin, and to subject him to
righteousness.
In the third (7:1-6), Paul infers from
this double fact the right henceforth
possessed by the believer to renounce
the use of the former means, the
law. The new morality is thus solidly
established.
Thirteenth Passage (6:1-14).
Sanctification in Christ dead and risen.
The apostle introduces this subject by
an objection which he makes to his
own teaching, ver. 1; he gives it a
summary answer , ver. 2, and justifies
this answer by appealing to a known
and tangible fact, namely baptism,
vv. 3 and 4. Then he gives a complete
and didactic exposition of the
contents of his answer, vv. 5-11.
Finally he applies it to the practical life of
his readers, vv. 12-14.
Ver. 1. “ What shall we say then?
Should we continue in sin, that grace
may abound? ”—The meaning of this
question: What shall we say then?
can only be this: What consequence
shall we draw from the preceding?
Only the apostle's object is not to
draw a true consequence from the
previous teaching, but merely to
reject a false conclusion which might be
deduced by a man still a stranger to
the experience of justifying faith. It
need not therefore be concluded from
this then that the apostle is now
passing from the principle to its
consequences. In that case he would
have said directly: “Shall we then
continue”...?—This question is usually
connected with the declaration,5:20:
“Where sin abounded, grace did
much more abound.” But this saying
referred solely to the part played by
the law in the midst of the Jewish
people, while the question here put is of
universal application. We should
rather be inclined to hold that Paul was
alluding to the saying,5:16. There, he
had pointed to all the offences
committed by the many sinners,
terminating through the act of grace in a
sentence of universal justification;
and he may well, consequently, ask
himself, in
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the name of those who do not believe
in such a divine act, whether
believers will not abuse it in the
line of the question proposed. But even
this connection would still be too
narrow. If account is taken of the
meaning of the whole previous part,
and of the calumnious accusation
already expressed 3:8, it will rather
be concluded that the question bears
on the whole doctrine of justification
by grace, chaps. 1-5. As to believers
justified in the way described above,
it is evident that they will never put
this alternative: Shall I sin or shall
I not sin? For the seal of holiness has
already been impressed on their inner
and outer life by the manner of their
justification. This is what the
apostle proceeds to show while answering
the objection suggested.
The reading of the T. R.,
ejpimenou'men , shall we continue? has no critical
authority; it probably arises from the
preceding ejrou'men . The reading of
the Sinait. and of two Byz.,
ejpimevnomen , let us continue! or we continue ,
expressing either an exhortation or a
resolution, would make believers
hold a language far too improbable.
That of the Alex. and of the Greco-
Lats., ejpimevnwmen , that we should
continue! or should we continue? is
the only admissible one. Hofmann takes
it in the first of these two senses
as a mutual exhortation, and with this
view supplies a new: Shall we say?
understood before the second question.
But this invitation to sin, which
believers would thus be made to
address to one another, is too
improbable a supposition; and the
ellipsis of the verb: Shall we say? is
arbitrary and superfluous. The second
of the two meanings of
ejpimevnwmen , should we continue?
(the deliberative conjugation), is the
only natural one: Should we take the
resolution of continuing in our old
state of sin? The following
conjunction: that , corresponds well with this
deliberative meaning. It is a
calculation: the more sins committed, the
more material will grace find on which
to display itself.— jEpimevnein , to
continue, persevere , in a state to
which a decisive circumstance ought to
have put an end.—The reply is forcible
and summary. A fact has taken
place which renders this calculation
absolutely impossible.
Ver. 2. “ Let it not be so! We who are
dead to sin, how shall we live any
longer therein? ”—Just as a dead man
does not revive and resume his
former occupations, as little can the
believer return to his old life of sin; for
in his case also there has been a
death. —The phrase mh; gevnoito , let it
not be so! expresses the revolting
character of the rejected assertion, as
well as a conviction of its
falsehood.—The pronoun oi{tine" is the relative
of quality: people such as we. We have
a quality which excludes such a
calculation: that of beings who have
passed through death. To what fact
does the phrase relate: we are dead ,
literally, we have died? It is obvious
at a glance that there can be no
reference here to the condemnation
which came upon us in Adam (“dead
through sin”). It is difficult to
understand how the Swiss version could
have committed such an error.
All that follows (the being buried
with Christ, ver. 3; participation in His
death and resurrection with Him, vv.
4-8; and especially the expression:
dead unto sin, alive unto God , ver.
11) leaves no doubt as to the apostle's
thought. The clause th'/ aJmartiva/ ,
to sin , is the dative of relation; comp.
the expressions: to die to the law ,
7:4, Gal. 2:19; to be crucified to the
world , Gal. 6:14. The words therefore
denote the absolute breaking with
sin. It is the opposite of persevering
in sin , ver. 1.—This figure of dying is
generally applied to baptism. But we
shall see that baptism is the
consequence of the death spoken of by
Paul in ver. 2, not that death itself.
What proves it, is first the ou\n ,
therefore , of ver. 4, then the ejqanatwvqhte
, ye were put to death , 7:4—an
expression which, accompanied with the
words: through the body of Christ ,
sets aside every attempt to identify the
death undergone by believers with
their baptism. The fact in the mind of
the apostle is of a purely moral
nature. It is the appropriation of our Lord's
expiatory
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
death. The sentence of death with
which God visited the sin of the world
in Christ is reproduced in the
conscience of every sinner. The instant he
applies the expiation to himself, it
becomes in him the sentence of death
on his own sin. He could not
appropriate Christ to himself as dead for his
sin, without finding himself die,
through this death undergone for him, to
sin itself. It was under this
impression that the believing Bechuana
exclaimed: “The cross of Christ
condemns me to be holy.”
The righteousness of God , in
pronouncing this sentence of death on the
sin of the world, the consciousness of
Jesus in accepting and submitting
to this sentence in the tortures of
the cross and the agonies of His
abandonment by God, and in ratifying
it with a humble submission in the
name of humanity which He represented,
have thus smitten sin in the
consciousness of every believer with a
mortal blow. Such is the
unparalleled moral fact which has put
an end to the former life of the world
in general, and which puts an end to
the life of sin in every individual
believer. And this result is so
thoroughly implied in that of justifying faith,
that Paul appeals to it in our passage
as a fact already known by his
readers (comp. chaps. 1-
5), and understood as a matter of
course.
On the meaning of the expression: To
die unto sin.—We find ourselves
here met by four interpretations,
which seem to us more or less false, and
which it is well to set aside.
1. Many find in this and the relative
expressions in the following verses
nothing more than simple figures,
metaphors signifying merely the duty of
imitating the example of virtue which
Christ has left us. Even Ritschl
declares (II. p. 225) that “this
reasoning of the apostle makes rather too
strong an appeal to the powers of
imagination.” But we think we have just
demonstrated the grave moral reality
of the relation by which Christ brings
the believer into the fellowship of
His death. We shall see immediately the
not less grave reality of the relation
through which He communicates to
him His own heavenly life, and thus
makes him a risen one. The death
and resurrection of Jesus are metaphors,
not of rhetoric, but of action; it is
divine eloquence.
2. R. Schmidt regards the death to sin
of which Paul speaks as of a purely
ideal nature, and as exercising no
immediate influence whatever on the
moral state of believers. The apostle
simply means, according to him, that
to the divine mind they appear as dead
in Christ. He would have it that
participation in the life of the Risen
One is the only real fact, according to
the apostle. But we do not find Paul
making such a distinction in the
sequel. He regards participation in
the death of Christ as being as real,
and even more so (for he puts it in
the past. vv. 4, 6, 8); and fellowship in
His life, which is represented as a
future to be realized (vv. 4, 8); and in
ver. 11 he puts the two facts exactly
on the same footing.
3. Death to sin is regarded by most
commentators as expressing
figuratively the act of will by which
the believer undertakes for himself, and
promises to God, on the blood of
reconciliation, henceforth to renounce
evil. This would make it an inward
resolution, a voluntary engagement, a
consecration of the heart. But St.
Paul seems to speak of something more
profound and stable, “which not only
ought to be , but which is ” (as Gess
says). This appears clearly from the
passive form: ye have been put to
death , 7:4; this expression proves
that Paul is thinking above all of a
divine act which has passed on us in
the person of another ( by the body
of Christ ), but which has its
counterpart within us from the moment we
appropriate it by faith. It is not,
then, an act merely which is in question,
but a state of will determined by a
fact performed without us, a state from
which our will cannot withdraw itself
from the time
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
that our being is swayed by the power
of faith in the death of Christ for us.
4. It was attempted, in the religious
movement which stirred the church so
deeply a few years ago, to represent
the effect produced on the believer
by the death of Christ as a fact
achieved in us once for all, existing in us
henceforth after the manner almost of
a physical state, and as outside of
the will itself. From this point of
view men spoke daringly of a death of sin ,
as if this were identical with Paul's
expression: death to sin. We
appreciate the intention of those who
promoted this style of teaching; their
wish was to bring back the church to
the true source and the full reality of
Christian sanctification. But they
committed, if we mistake not, a grave
and dangerous exaggeration. This
mirage of an absolute deliverance,
which had been reflected on the eyes
of so many souls thirsting for
holiness, soon vanishing before the
touch of experience, left in them a
painful disappointment and even a sort
of despair. The death to sin of
which the apostle speaks is a state no
doubt, but a state of the will , which
continues only so long as it keeps
itself under the control of the fact which
produced it, and produces it
constantly—the death of Jesus. As at every
moment Jesus could have withdrawn
Himself from death by an act of His
own will (Matt. 26:53), so the
believer may at any moment free his will
from the power of faith, and take up
the thread of that natural life which is
never completely destroyed in him.
If it were otherwise, if ever the
believer could enter into the sphere of
absolute holiness, a new fall, like
that of Adam, would be needed to
remove him from it. If ever sin were
entirely extirpated from his heart, its
reappearance would be something like
the resurrection of a dead man. At
what point, besides, of the Christian
life would such a moral event be
placed? At the time of conversion? The
experience of all believers proves
the contrary. At some later period?
The New Testament teaches us
nothing of the kind. There is found in
it no particular name for a second
transformation, that of the convert
into a perfect saint.
We conclude by saying that death to
sin is not an absolute cessation of
sin at any moment whatever, but an
absolute breaking of the will with it,
with its instincts and aspirations,
and that simply under the control of faith
in Christ's death for sin.
The practical application of the
apostle's doctrine regarding this
mysterious death, which is at the
foundation of Christian sanctification,
seems to me to be this: The
Christian's breaking with sin is undoubtedly
gradual in its realization, but
absolute and conclusive in its principle. As, in
order to break really with an old
friend whose evil influence is felt, half
measures are insufficient, and the
only efficacious means is a frank
explanation, followed by a complete
rupture which remains like a barrier
raised beforehand against every new
solicitation; so to break with sin
there is needed a decisive and radical
act, a divine deed taking
possession of the soul, and
interposing henceforth between the will of the
believer and sin (Gal. 6:14). This
divine deed necessarily works through
the action of faith in the sacrifice
of Christ.
Ver. 3. “ Or know ye not, that so many
of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into His death?
”—The h[ , or, or indeed , ought,
according to the usual meaning of the
phrase: or know ye not , to be
paraphrased thus: Or, if you do not
understand what I have just said (that
there has been among you a death to
sin), know you not then what was
signified by the baptism which ye
received? If you understood that rite,
you would know that it supposes a
death, and promises a second birth,
which removes every possibility of a
return to the old life. It has been
generally concluded, from this mode of
expression: Or know ye not ...?
that baptism was represented as being
itself the death spoken of by St.
Paul in ver. 2. I believe it
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
is thereby made impossible to explain
satisfactorily the whole of the
following passage, especially the
words: “ Therefore we are buried with
Him by baptism into His death.”
According to these words, it is not to
death, it is to the interment of the
dead , that Paul compares baptism. And,
indeed, just as the ceremony of
interment, as a visible and public fact,
attests death, so baptism, in so far
as it is an outward and sensible act,
attests faith, with the death to sin
implicitly included in faith. As to the
phrase: Or know ye not? it finds a
still more natural explanation if baptism
is regarded as the proof of death,
than if, as is constantly done, to the
detriment of the sense of this
beautiful passage, baptism is identified with
it. St. Paul means: “Ye know not that
ye are dead...? Well then, ye are
ignorant that as many of you as there
are, are men interred (baptized)!
People do not bury the living.” The
o{soi , a pronoun of quantity: as many
individuals as , differs from the
pronoun of quality oi{tine" , a kind of
people who. The point in question here
is not, as in ver. 2, one of quality,
but of quantity: “Ye know not then
that as many baptized (buried) persons
as there are, so many dead are
there.”—Some take the word baptize in its
literal sense of bathing, plunging ,
and understand: “As many of you as
were plunged into Christ. ” But in the
similar formula, 1 Cor. 10:2: “ to be
baptized into Moses ( eij" to;n
Mwsh'n baptizesqai ),” the meaning is
certainly not: to be plunged into
Moses. The word baptized is to be taken
in its technical sense: to be baptized
with water (by the fact of the
passage through the sea and under the
cloud), and the clause must
consequently signify: in relation to
Moses , as a typical Saviour—that is to
say, in order to having part in the
divine deliverance of which Moses was
the agent. Such is likewise the
meaning of the being baptized into Christ
Jesus , in our passage: “Ye received
baptism with water in relation to the
person of Jesus Christ, whose property
ye became by that act.” Comp.
the phrase: being baptized , eij"
to; o[noma , into the name of (Matt. 28:19
and 1 Cor. 1:13), which should be
explained in a similar manner. One is
not plunged into a name, but into
water in relation to ( eij" ) a name—that
is to say, to the new revelation of
God expressed in a name. It is to the
God revealed under this form that the
believer consecrates himself
externally by baptism.—The title
Christ is placed here, as 1:1, before the
name of the historical person ( Jesus
). The idea of the office evidently
takes precedence in the context of that
of the person. Yet Paul adds the
name Jesus , which is wrongly omitted
by the Vatic. , for this name is
closely connected with the fact of the
death which is about to be brought
into relief.—In this expression: being
baptized into death , the sense
plunged would be less inadmissible
than in the preceding phrase; for an
abstract object like death lends
itself better to the notion of plunging into ,
than a personal one like Moses or
Christ. But if such had been the
apostle's meaning, would he not rather
have said: into His blood , than
into His death? We think, therefore,
that here too it is more exact to
explain: “ baptized with water in
relation to His death.” When one is
baptized into Christ, it is in virtue
of His death that the bond thus formed
with Him is contracted. For by His
blood we have been bought with a
price. Baptism serves only to give him
in fact what belongs to him in right
by this act of purchase. Baptism thus
supposes the death of Christ and
that of the baptized man man himself
(through the appropriation of Christ's
death). Hence the conclusion drawn in
ver. 4, and which brings the
argument to a close.
Ver. 4. “ Therefore we are buried with
Him by baptism into death: in order
that as Christ was raised up from the
dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness
of life. ”—If baptism were , or
represented , the death of which Paul
had spoken, the therefore would be
very hard indeed to explain (see the
commentaries). But if baptism is in
his view the external proof of death,
as burial is
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the proof of decease, he can take up
again the course of his argument
and say: “In consequence of this death
to sin undergone in Christ, we
have therefore been buried with
Him...in order also to rise with him,” which
signifies: “buried with Him, not with
the aim of remaining in the tomb or of
issuing from it to return to the past
life, but to penetrate into a new life,
whence a return to the old is
definitely precluded.” The clause into death
cannot depend on the verb we are
buried , as Grot., Hofm., and
Ostervald's version would have it. How
could it be said of one interred that
he thereby descends into death? The
converse would be the truth. This
clause, therefore, must be made
directly dependent on the word baptism:
“by baptism into death.” The
substantive bavptisma , baptism , like those
generally derived from verbs in izw ,
has a forcible meaning which allows
it easily to have this position and
the relation between the notions
expressed by the two substantives is
so close, that no article was needed
to connect them. What also guides us
quite naturally to make the words
into death dependent on the word
baptism , is ver. 3: We were baptized
into his death. Undoubtedly we must
explain the phrase: baptism into
death , like the similar ones
preceding: “baptism (with water) in relation to
death.” Our versions translate: “into
His death” (Osterv., Oltram.). But if
this had been the apostle's view, he
would have expressed it by adding
the pronoun aujtou' , of Him. He
evidently wished to leave the notion of
death in all its generality, that the
word might be applied at once to His
death, and ours included in His. It is
in relation to these two deaths which
have taken place that the believer is
baptized.—Modern commentators
are not at one on the question whether
the apostle means to allude to the
external form of the baptismal rite in
the primitive church. It seems to us
very probable that it is so, whether
primitive baptism be regarded as a
complete immersion, during which the
baptized disappeared for a moment
under water (which best corresponds to
the figure of burial ), or whether
the baptized went down into the water
up to his loins, and the baptizer
poured the water with which he had
filled the hollow of his hands over his
head, so as to represent an immersion.
The passage, Mark 7:4, where the
term baptismov" , a washing, bath,
lustration, baptism (Heb. 6:2), is applied
not only to the cleansing of cups and
utensils, objects which may be
plunged into water, but also to that
of couches or divans, proves plainly
that we cannot insist on the sense of
plunging , and consequently on the
idea of total immersion, being
attached to the term baptism. It is
nevertheless true, that in one or
other of these forms the going down into
the water probably represents, in
Paul's view, the moral burying of the
baptized, and his issuing from the
water, his resurrection.—The relation
between the two facts of burial and
baptism indicated by the apostle is
this: Burial is the act which
consummates the breaking of the last tie
between man and his earthly life. This
was likewise the meaning of our
Lord's entombment. Similarly by
baptism there is publicly consummated
the believer's breaking with the life
of the present world, and with his own
natural life.
It is a mistake to represent the idea
of the first proposition of the verse as
entirely isolated from all that
follows. Paul means, not only that we have
been buried with Christ, but that we
have been so, like Him, in order to
rise again. —The i{na , in order that
, is the essential word of the verse. In
the case of an ordinary death, the man
is inclosed in the tomb, to remain
there; but he who is buried with
Christ is buried with one who died and
rose , consequently with the intention
of rising also. This idea is essential
to the apostle's argument. Indeed, the
believer's death, even with the
baptism which seals it, would not
suffice for a sure guarantee that he will
not return to his old life of sin. Did
not Lazarus come forth from the tomb
to resume life? What, for one dead,
renders his return to an earthly
existence definitively impossible,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
is his passing to a new and higher
life by the way of a resurrection. Now,
such is precisely the believer's case.
By being buried with Christ by
baptism, he does not intend to remain
thereafter inactive and lifeless, any
more than Christ Himself, when giving
Himself up to the grave, thought of
remaining in it. As Christ gave His
life to take it again (John 10:17, 18), the
believer renounces his life of sin for
Him only to receive from Him another
and wholly different life (Luke
17:33). His baptism, which supposes his
death, tends to life. To die to sin,
is it not to die to death, and
consequently to spring to life? As,
then, by His burial Christ broke the last
tie with His earthly life and entered
on a higher life, so the believer, by his
baptism, finds himself placed between
a life which has taken end, and a
wholly different one which opens
before him. Paul knew by experience the
situation indicated by his i{na , in
order that. In Acts 9 we behold him
placed between death on the one hand
(vv. 8,
9), and the burial of baptism,
followed by resurrection through the Holy
Spirit, on the other (vv. 17, 18).
Comp. also the position of the penitents of
Pentecost, to whom Peter says: “Be
baptized for the pardon of your sins,
and ye shall receive the Holy Spirit.”
It is therefore true, as the end of the
verse says, that what the resurrection
was to Christ, renewing by the Holy
Spirit is to believers. And in this
last fact there is found the answer to the
question of ver. 2: “How shall we, who
are dead to sin, live any longer
therein?” Perhaps, if we were no more
than dead, it would not be possible
to answer this question so positively.
But if, being dead, we have
penetrated to a higher life, the
relation to the old life is most certainly
terminated. The conjunction w{sper ,
even as , indicates only an analogy,
a resemblance. The sequel will bring
out the internal necessity on which
this resemblance rests.—The
expression: from the dead , is an allusion to
the state of death to sin in which the
believer receives baptism, and which
paves the way for his spiritual
resurrection.— The glory of the Father by
which Christ was raised, is not the
display of His power apart from His
other perfections; but, as usual, that
of all the divine attributes combined.
For they have all contributed to this
masterpiece of the revelation of God
on the earth, righteousness as well as
mercy, wisdom as well as holiness.
Speaking of the resurrection of
Lazarus, Jesus said to Martha: “Thou shalt
see the glory of God. ” But here we
have to do with the resurrection of the
Son; and therefore Paul says: by the
glory of the Father. —The word so
expresses the analogy of the second
fact with the first, irrespectively of
the individuals in whom it is
realized; the we also sets forth the living
personalities in whom the prototype is
reproduced.—In speaking of
believers, the apostle does not rest,
as in the case of Christ Himself, on
the bare fact of their resurrection,
but solely on its permanent
consequence, the new life which flows
from it: that we should walk in
newness of life. He does so because,
in regard to believers, he wishes
solely to shut out their return to
their former life; now this result springs
from life in a state of complete
realization, rather than from the act by
which it is entered on.—The term
peripatei'n , to walk , is a frequent figure
with Paul for moral conduct.—Paul
says: newness of life , instead of new
life. By this turn of expression he
gives less prominence to the idea of life
(in contrast to that of death ) than
to the new nature of the second life in
contrast to the nature of that which
it excludes. The slightest detail of style
is always strictly determined in his
writing by the principal thought.
Infant baptism does not seem to me to
be either assumed or excluded by
this passage. The baptism assumed here
is certainly that of adults, and
adults only. The act of baptism is put
between faith (with death to sin
through faith) on the one hand, and
renewing by the Holy Spirit on the
other. Baptism, thus understood,
therefore
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
involves the actual fact of faith and
of death to sin, as much as burial
implies the death of the buried. But,
at the same time, it is clear that Paul
adduces the rite of baptism such as it
exists at the time of his writing. The
baptism of adults was that which, from
the nature of things, suited the first
generation of believers, as the
parents required to belong to the church
before there could be any question of
introducing their children into it. The
apostle does not therefore think of
excluding a form which may arise
when, circumstances having changed,
family life shall have become an
integral element in that of the
church. The only question is, whether this
modification is in keeping with the
spirit of the gospel. And this is a
question which it seems to me
impossible to examine here without
breaking the plan of our exegesis.
Ver. 5. “ For if we have become one
and the same plant [with Him]
through the likeness of His death, we
shall be also partakers of His
resurrection; ”—The apostle had used
the rite of baptism to illustrate the
impossibility experienced by the
believer of continuing in his former life.
Now he expounds the same truth
didactically. The in order that of ver. 4
becomes as it were the text of this
development (vv. 5-11), of which ver. 5
contains the summary.—The for bears
directly on this in order that. The
idea of ver. 4 was: “We were buried by
baptism only with the intention of
rising again.” This intention is
demonstrated by the moral fact formulated
ver. 5: “The man who participates in
the death of Christ cannot but
participate in His resurrection.”
There is much said in a certain theological
school about the possession of the
life of Christ. This vague phrase
seems intended to take the place of
all Christian doctrine. Does it really
mean what St. Paul understood by it? I
do not examine the subject here.
But in any case it should not be
forgotten, as is usually done from this
view- point, that the participation in
the life of Christ of which the apostle
speaks, has as its necessary and
preliminary condition, participation in
His death. The docile acceptance of
the cross is the only pathway to
communion in the life of the Risen
One. Forgetfulness of this point of
departure is full of grave
consequences. For the second fact has no reality
save in connection with the first.—The
construction of each of the two
propositions of this verse has been
understood in a variety of ways.
Bisping has proposed to make tou'
qanavtou , of death , the complement
not of tw'/ oJmoiwvmati ( the likeness
), but of suvmfutoi ( partakers ), while
taking tw'/ oJmoiwvmati as an
adverbial clause, meant to indicate the
means or mode of this participation:
“If we were made partakers of His
death in a likeness; ” this notion of
resemblance being applied either to the
figurative rite of baptism, or to the
internal fact of death to sin, which would
thus be as it were the moral copy of
Christ's death. This construction
would enable us to establish an exact
parallelism between the two
propositions of the verse, for the
genitive th'" ajnastavsew" ( of the
resurrection ) in the second
proposition would depend on suvmfutoi (
partakers ), exactly as tou' qanavtou
( of death ) in the first on this same
adjective. But one cannot help feeling
how harsh and almost barbarous
this construction is. Besides, it is
now abandoned. The complement of
death depends naturally on tw'/ oJmoiwvmati
, the likeness , as has been
acknowledged by Chrys., Calv., Thol.,
Ruck ., Olsh., de Wette, Mey.,
Philip., Hofm. By this likeness may be
understood either the external act
of baptism, as representing
figuratively the death of Christ, or our own
death to sin as spiritually
reproducing it. But whether in the one sense or
the other, it is surely uncouth to
connect so concrete a term as suvmfuto" ,
born with, partaking , with an
abstract notion such as likeness. One is
made a partaker not of the likeness of
a thing, but of the thing itself.
Besides, baptism is not the
representation of death, but of burial (see
above). It therefore appears to us,
that the only admissible construction is
to join the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
adjective suvmfutoi with the
understood regimen su;n aujtw'/ , with Him; “
born with Him , united to Him , by the
likeness of His death.” This is the
opinion of Er., Grot., and others. The
ellipsis of this pronoun arises
naturally from the preceding phrase:
we were buried with Him , ver. 4; it
reappears obviously in ver. 6 (
sunestaurwvqh , was crucified with ). The
expression: through the likeness of
His death , refers, according to what
precedes, to the inner fact by which
the death of Christ for sin is
reproduced in us, that is to say, to
our own death to sin implied in the act
of faith.—The term suvmfuto" (in
classic Greek more commonly sumfuhv" )
is derived from the verb sumfuvw , to
be born, to grow together. This
adjective, therefore, denotes the
organic union in virtue of which one
being shares the life, growth, and
phases of existence belonging to
another; so it is that the existence,
prosperity, and decay of the branch are
bound up with the state of the stem.
Hence we have ventured to translate
it: to be made one and the same plant
with Him. Not a case of death to sin
passes in the church which was not
already included in the death of
Christ, to be produced wherever faith
should be realized; not a spiritual
resurrection is effected within the
church, which is not Christ's own
resurrection reproduced by His Spirit
in the heart which has begun by
uniting itself to Him in the communion
of His death.—It must, however, be
remarked (and we shall meet with this
characteristic again in the sequel of
the passage) that the fact of
participation in the death is put in the past (
we have become one and the same plant
...), while participation in the
resurrection is expressed in the
future: we shall be partakers ...Some of
the Fathers have concluded from this
change of tense, that in the latter
words the apostle meant to speak of
the future resurrection, of the bodily
glorification of believers. But this
idea is foreign to the context, which is
governed throughout by reference to
the objection of ver. 1 (the relation of
the believer to sin). The expression,
therefore, denotes only sanctification,
the believer's moral resurrection. The
contrast indicated between the past
and the future must find an entirely
different explanation. As the
communion of faith with Christ
crucified is the condition of sharing in His
life as risen, the apostle speaks of
the first event in the past, and of the
second in the future. The one having
taken place , the other must follow.
The past and future describe, the one
the principle, the other the
consequence. We begin with union to
the person of Christ by faith in that
mysterious: He for me , which forms
the substance of the gospel; then this
union goes forward until His whole
being as the Risen One has passed
into us. Gess makes tw'/ oJmoiwvmati a
dative of aim: “We have been
united to Him in order to the likeness
of His death,” to be made
conformable to it (Phil. 3:10). But
this meaning does not harmonize with
ver. 2, where the reproduction of the
death is looked upon as wrought in
the believer by the fact of his death
to sin implied in his faith.
The words ajlla; kaiv , which connect
the two propositions of the verse,
might here be rendered: well then
also! The second fact stands out as the
joyous consequence of the first.—The
genitive th'" ajnastavsew" , of the
resurrection , cannot depend on the
verb ejsovmeqa , we shall be: “we shall
be of the resurrection,” meaning: we
shall infallibly have part in it (in the
sense of the expressions: to be of the
faith, to be of the law ). Such a
mode of speech would be without ground
in the passage; and the term
resurrection is not taken here in the
general sense; it refers solely to
Christ's personal resurrection. Meyer
and Philippi, true to their explanation
of the first proposition, here supply
the dative tw'/ oJmoiwvmati : “As we
have shared in the likeness of His
death, we shall share also in the
likeness of His resurrection.” This
ellipsis is not impossible, but it renders
the phrase very awkward. Following the
construction which we have
adopted in the first clause, it is
simpler merely to understand suvmfutoi in
this second, making the genitive
th'" ajnastavsew" , of the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
resurrection , dependent on this
adjective: “Well, then, we shall be
partakers also of His resurrection!”
This solution is possible, because the
word suvmfuto" is construed
indifferently with the genitive or dative, like
our English word to partake (to
partake of or in ). This direct dependence
(omitting the idea of likeness ) is
according to the nature of things. Jesus
does not communicate to us His death
itself; we possess only its likeness
in our death to sin. It is otherwise
with His resurrection and His life as
risen. It is this life itself which he
conveys to us: “And I live; yet not I, but
Christ in me” (Gal. 2:20). “Because I
live, ye shall live also” (John 14:18).
The believer being once ingrafted into
Christ by faith in His death, and
thereby dead to His own life, lives
again through the Holy Spirit on the
very life of the risen Christ. Thus
the difference of form between the first
and second propositions is perfectly
explained.—This summary
demonstration of the truth of the in
order that (ver. 4) required to be
developed. Vv. 6 and 7 expound the
contents of 5a; vv. 8-10 those of 5b.
Ver. 6. “ Understanding this, that our
old man has been crucified with Him,
that the body of sin might be
destroyed, that henceforth we should not
serve sin. ”—Why introduce abruptly
the notion of subjective knowledge
into a relation which ver. 5 seemed to
have laid down as objectively
necessary? This phenomenon is the more
remarkable because it is
reproduced in ver. 9 in the
eijdovte" , knowing that , and even in the
logivzesqe , reckon that (ver. 11).
Meyer thinks that the believer's
subjective experience is cited here to
confirm the moral bond indicated in
ver. 5 as necessary in itself: “We
shall certainly be partakers..., a fact
besides which we cannot doubt , for we
know that”...This appendix so
understood has all the effect of an
excrescence. Philippi, on the contrary,
finds a consequence to be drawn
indicated by this participle: “ And thus (in
proportion as the we shall be of 5b is
realized in us) we shall know
experimentally that”...But the present
participle does not naturally express
a relation of consequence. There would
rather have been needed kai;
gnwsovmeqa , and thus we shall know.
Hofmann paraphrases: “And we
shall make the experience that that
has really happened to us, and
happened in order that”...We do not
see much difference between this
meaning and that of Philippi whom this
author criticises. The relation
between the participle understanding ,
and the verb we shall be (ver. 5b),
is rather that of a moral condition, a
means. As Gess puts it: “Our
participation in Christ's resurrection
does not take place in the way of a
physical and natural process. That
such a result may take place, there is
needed a moral co- operation on the
part of the believer.” And this cooperation
of course supposes a knowledge ,
knowledge of the way (ver. 6)
and of the end (ver. 8). The believer
understands that the final object
which God has in view in crucifying
his old man (ver. 6) is to realize in him
the life of the Risen One (vv. 8, 9),
and he enters actively into the divine
thought. Thereby only can this be
realized. This notion of subjective
knowledge, expressed by the words:
understanding this , was contained in
the previous i{na , in order that , of
ver. 4: “We were buried with Him with
the aim of rising with Him,
understanding that”...The whole piece,
beginning with the or know ye not that
of ver. 3, transports us into the
inmost consciousness of the believer,
as it has been formed in the school
and through the personal assimilation
of the death of Christ. The believer
knows certainly that he is called to
die, but to die in order to live
again.—The expression: our old man ,
denotes human nature such as it
has been made by the sin of him in
whom originally it was wholly
concentrated, fallen Adam reappearing
in every human ego that comes
into the world under the sway of the
preponderance of self-love, which
was determined by the primitive
transgression. This corrupted nature
bears the name of old only from the
viewpoint of the believer
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
who already possesses a renewed
nature.—This old man has been
crucified so far as the believer is
concerned in the very person of Christ
crucified. The apostle does not say
that He has been killed. He may exist
still, but like one crucified, whose
activity is paralyzed. Up to the solemn
hour of believing, sin puts on the
behavior of triumphant independence, or
presents itself to us as an excusable
weakness. The instant we
contemplate it in Christ crucified, we
see it as a malefactor condemned
and capitally punished by the justice
of God; and its sentence of death
pronounced in our conscience is the
same to it within us as the cross was
to Christ—not an immediate death
certainly, but the reduction of it to
powerlessness.—The purpose of this
moral execution, included in the
very fact of faith, is the destruction
of the body of sin. There ought to be a
complete difference between this
second fact indicated as the aim and the
foregoing one. What the apostle calls
the body of sin , cannot therefore be
identical with what he calls our old
man. Must we, with several,
understand the body in the strict
sense of the word, the apostle seeing in
it the principle of evil in our human
nature? But the sequel proves that he
does not at all regard sin as inherent
in the body and inseparable from it;
for in ver. 13 he claims the body and
its members for the service of God,
and represents them as under
obligation to become instruments of
righteousness. It is the same in 2
Cor. 4:10-12, where the life of Jesus is
spoken of as displaying itself in the
body , the mortal flesh of believers,
which has become the organ of this
heavenly life. So far is the apostle
from regarding our bodily nature as
the cause of sin, that in 2 Cor. 7:1 he
contrasts the defilements of the
spirit with those of the flesh. And herein
he is perfectly at one with the Lord,
who, Matt. 15:19, declares that “ from
the heart proceed evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, thefts, false witness,
blasphemies.” The very fact of the
real incarnation of our Lord Jesus
Christ, as taught by Paul, Rom. 8:3
(see on the passage), suffices to
refute the opinion which would hold
the body to be the principle of sin.
These considerations have led several
commentators (Calv., Olsh., J.
Muller
, Philippi, Baur, Hodge) to understand
the word body here in a figurative
sense. According to them, it denotes
sin itself as a heavy mass , or even
as an organism, a system of evil
dispositions, which keeps the soul under
its yoke. The complement of sin they
take as a genitive of apposition. One
can easily understand in this sense
how Paul should demand the
destruction of this body of sin , that
is to say, of sin itself. But it is
impossible to harmonize this meaning
with vv. 12 and 13, in which Paul,
applying our passage, evidently speaks
of the holy consecration of the
body , taking the term in its strict
sense. Besides, it would be difficult to
escape from a tautology between this
and the preceding proposition.
There remains a third explanation
found with varying shades in Meyer,
Hofm., etc. It regards the genitive of
sin as a complement of property or
quality: the body so far as it serves
as an instrument of sin in human life.
This meaning is certainly the one
which corresponds best with the thought
of the apostle. Only, to understand
the genitive of sin , we must add the
idea: that from our birth there exists
between our body and our sinful will
that intimate relation whereby the two
elements are placed in mutual
dependence. This relation is not a
simple accident; it belongs to the fallen
state into which our soul itself has
come.—The verb katargei'n , which we
translate by destroy , strictly
signifies: to deprive of the power of action;
and hence to make needless or useless
, as in Luke 13:7, Rom. 3:3; or to
annul bring to an end, destroy , as in
1 Cor. 13:8, 10; 1 Cor. 6:13; Eph.
2:15, etc. Neither the meaning: to
render inactive , nor to destroy , could
be applied to the body, if we had to
understand thereby the physical
organism in itself. But the apostle
has no thought here of recommending
bodily asceticism to believers. It is
not of the body as such that he is
speaking; it is of the body so far as
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
it is an instrument in the service of
sin. Of the body in this special relation,
he declares that it should be reduced
to inaction , or even destroyed. It is
obvious that in this application the
two meanings of the word katargei'n
amount nearly to the same. But the
translation destroyed probably
renders the thought best. A body, that
of sin, is destroyed that another
may take its place, the body which is
an instrument of righteousness (ver.
13).—In the third proposition, which
expresses the final aim of this inward
labor, the apostle introduces a third
subject: we , hJma'" , a term which
denotes the entire moral personality
independently of the question
whether it is or is not under the
dominion of sin. This third subject differs
wholly from that of the first
proposition: the old man , as well as from that
of the second: the body of sin. The
old man is crucified by faith in Christ's
crucifixion; the body of sin is
destroyed, because in consequence of the
crucifixion of the old man the corrupt
will which formerly used the body for
its own satisfaction is paralyzed, and
so can dispose of it no more. And
the ego , the true I, the moral
personality in its essence, is thus set free at
once, both from the power of the old
nature and of the body its instrument,
and can consequently consecrate this
last to a wholly new use. The
apostle illustrates the truth of this
moral situation by an example taken
from common life.
Ver. 7. “ For he that is dead is of
right freed from sin. ”—Many
commentators, from Erasmus to Thol.,
De Wette, Philip., Hodge, Gess,
etc., take the participle ajpoqanwvn ,
he that is dead , in the figurative
sense (comp. the similar expressions
in
vv. 6 and 8). But these critics divide
immediately as to the meaning of the
term dedikaivwtai , literally, is
justified; some applying it to deliverance from
guilt and punishment (Hodge for
example)—as the ordinary meaning of
the word justify by Paul seems to
demand—the others to deliverance from
the power of sin, in the sense that he
who is dead is no longer subject to
this master, no longer owes him
anything. Yet neither of these meanings
is satisfactory. The first would take
us back to the subject of justification,
which was concluded at the end of
chap. 5. According to Gess, Paul
means to express the idea that “the
believer's absolution from sin
( justification ) takes place only on
condition of his death to sin.” That
would result in making sanctification
the principle of justification. The other
meaning would be more suitable in some
respects: “He who is dead
spiritually (in the sense of ver. 6),
is thereby set free from the power of
sin.” Undoubtedly in a general way
this is the apostle's meaning in ver. 7;
the context demands it. But we do not
think that this interpretation
accounts exactly for the expressions
used. The word dikaiou'n , even with
the preposition ajpov , cannot
signify: to free from the power of , or, at
least if we reach this meaning, it
must be shown in what legitimate way
that is possible. Then the participle
oJ ajpoqanwvn , he that is dead , not
being accompanied by any
qualification, is rather to be understood in the
strict sense, and the more so as in
the following verse, when the apostle
returns to the spiritual meaning, he
expressly indicates the change by
adding the words su;n Cristw'/ , with
Christ. It is therefore a maxim
borrowed from common life which the
apostle expresses here, leaving it to
the reader to apply it immediately to
the corresponding fact of the moral
life, which is precisely that just
described by him in ver. 6. It follows that
the word justify , dikaiou'n , must
have a somewhat different meaning from
its ordinary dogmatic sense in Paul's
writings; for the domain to which he
here applies it is altogether
different. One who is dead, he means to say,
no longer having a body to put at the
service of sin, is now legally
exempted from carrying out the wishes
of that master, who till then had
freely disposed of him. Suppose a dead
slave; it will be vain for his master
to order him to steal, to lie, or to
kill. He will be entitled to answer: “my
tongue and hands and feet no longer
obey me.” How, then, could he be
taken to task for
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
refusing to serve? Such is the
believer's position after the crucifixion of his
own will (of his old man ) has reduced
his body of sin (ver. 6) to
powerlessness. He can no longer serve
sin in the doing of evil, any more
than the slave deprived of his body by
death can continue to execute the
orders formerly given him by his
wicked master. The verb dikaiou'sqai , to
be justified , signifies in this
connection: to be free from blame in case of
disobedience; to be legally entitled
not to obey. The idea of legality is in
the word dikaiou'n , to justify , that
of liberation in the preposition ajpov ,
from. Taking the term oJ ajpoqanwvn in
the literal sense, as we have done,
commentators have sometimes restricted
its application to the malefactor,
who, by submitting to the punishment
he deserved, has effaced his guilt,
and can no longer be apprehended for
the same crime. But the words: he
who is dead , are too general to bear
so special an application, and the
sentence thus understood would reopen
the subject of justification, which
is exhausted.—The case of the dead
slave described in ver. 7, as we
understand it, is the exact
counterpart of the believer's moral situation
described in ver. 6. The apostle
leaves the reader to make this application
himself, and passes in the following
verses from the negative side of
sanctification, crucifixion with
Christ, to the positive side of this great truth,
resurrection with Him. This second
side is the necessary complement of
the first. For the sinful will being
once crucified in Christ, and its organ the
body reduced to inaction, the
believer's moral personality cannot remain
inert. It must have a new activity;
the body itself demands a new
employment in the service of this
activity. We have seen how this idea
was contained in the in order that of
ver. 4. The believer dies, not to
remain dead, but in order to rise
again; and this he knows well, for in the
person of Him with whom he dies, the
Risen One, he beholds beforehand
the moral necessity of the event. This
relation of thought, already
indicated vv. 4, 5, is now developed
vv. 8-10; comp. Gal. 2:20.
Vv. 8-10. “ Now, if we be dead with
Christ, we believe that we shall also
live with him:knowing that Christ
after being raised from the dead dieth no
more; death hath no more dominion over
Him. For the death that He died,
He died unto sin once for all: and the
life that He liveth, He liveth unto
God. ”—The dev , now , marks the
progress to be made from participation
in Christ's death to communion in His
life. This gradation corresponds
exactly with the force of the well
then also , ajlla; kaiv , ver. 5. As, indeed,
vv. 6 and 7 were the didactic
paraphrase of 5a, so vv. 8-10 are that of 5b.
Participation in death is mentioned as
a past event, included in the fact of
faith ( we are dead with Him; comp.
5a), while participation in the life is
described as an event to come: we
shall also live with Him. The first,
indeed, is to every true believer an
object of experience; it is not yet so
with the second. At the time of
baptism, the view-point of the apostle (vv.
3, 4), the new life is yet an object
of hope and faith. Hence, in relation to
the former, the term ginwvskonte"
, knowing , ver. 6, and in relation to the
latter, pisteuvomen , we believe ,
ver. 8. The baptized one stands between
the death which he experienced on
believing, and the life which he awaits
with certainty as a gift from Him who
is not only dead, but risen again.—
To live with Christ , suzh'/n aujtw'/
, is to share His life as one risen and
glorified. Jesus, from the depths of
His heavenly state, communicates
Himself to the man who has
appropriated His death by faith, and thus fills
up with His holy life the void formed
in us by the renunciation of our own
life. This is our Pentecost, the
aualogue of His resurrection.
Ver. 9. This faith, this firm
expectation of the believer who is dead with
Him, is not a vain imagination. It
rests on a positive fact, the resurrection
of Christ Himself: eijdovte" ,
knowing that. This participle justifies the we
believe of ver. 8. We believe
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
that our spiritual resurrection will
come about, because we know that His
resurrection has taken place, and that
irrevocably. Now the latter gives us
assurance of the former. But faithful
to his original subject, the apostle,
instead of developing the idea of the
new life of Jesus, confines himself to
expressing this consequence: that He
dieth no more. It is easy to see the
logical relation between this purely
negative turn of expression, and the
question put in ver. 2: “How shall we
who are dead to sin live any longer
therein?” There is no return backward
for the risen Jesus; how should
there be one for us, from the time
that we share His life as the Risen
One? No doubt, his death alone would
not have rendered His return to an
earthly life impossible; but His
entrance upon a celestial life absolutely
excludes such a retrograde step. Thus
mere communion with His death
would not suffice to furnish an
unhesitating answer to the question of ver.
2, while participation in His new life
settles it once and forever.—The last
words of ver. 9 form an independent
proposition. This break in the
construction throws the idea more into
relief. The time having passed
when death was permitted to stretch
its sceptre over him, He is freed from
its power forever.
Ver. 10. The first proposition of ver.
10 unfolds the reason why death was
allowed to reign over Him for a
moment; the second explains the reason
why this cannot be repeated.—The two
pronouns o{ , that which , may be
taken either as a determining
expression: in that so far as , or as the direct
object of the two verbs: that which He
died, that which he lived. For in
Greek it is allowable to say: to die a
death, to live a life; comp. Gal. 2:20.
This parallel and the sense itself appears
to us to decide in favor of the
second construction. The first would
seem to indicate a power of partial
rather than temporary death, which is
not natural in the context.—The
short-lived power of death over Jesus
is explained by the regimen th'/
aJmartia/ , to sin. The relation which
Jesus sustained to sin was the soul
cause of His subjection to death. As
in this piece death unto sin denotes
an absolute breaking with it (ver. 2),
it might be attempted here to give the
meaning: Jesus struggled victoriously
against sin during His whole life, not
granting it for a moment the right of
existing in His person. But the adverb
ejfavpax , once , forbids us to extend
the application of the term dying unto
sin to His whole life. Besides, the
commentators who, like Meyer and
Hofmann, adopt this meaning, limit the
expression to the moment of
death: with the end of His life His
struggle with sin ended; from that
moment sin (in the form of temptation)
exercised no more power over His
person. This meaning would certainly
account to some extent for the
ejfavpax , once. But it forces us to
take the word die in two wholly different
senses in the same sentence, and it is
not easy to get a clear idea of this
dying unto sin ascribed to Jesus. Does
it refer to his struggle against
temptation? The phrase dying unto sin
is unsuitable. One dies to a real,
not a possible fact. Are we to think
of the struggle against sin outside of
Him? But this struggle continues to
this very hour. Is it a personal
breaking with evil which is meant? He
did nothing else during His whole
life. The only possible meaning,
therefore, seems to me to be that
adopted by Grot. and Olsh.: He died to
expiate sin, a sense connected
quite naturally with that given by Chrys.,
Calv., etc.: and to destroy it.
There was a moment in His existence in
which He bore its penalty, and
thereby established its defeat. But
this moment was short, and remains
single and alone. Such is the force of
the term ejfavpax , once for all. It
was a transient necessity which He
consented to encounter; but such a
crisis will not be renewed. The debt
once paid is so completely and
forever; comp. Heb. 7:27, 9:12, 26,
28, 10:10; 1 Pet. 3:18. The dative th'/
aJmartiva/ , unto sin , thus signifies:
unto the service of sin , that is to say,
to accomplish all that was demanded by
the entrance and destruction of
this
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
fact among mankind. It is obvious from
the once for all that the death of
Jesus occupies a place by itself in
His work, and should not be regarded
merely as the culminating point of His
holy life.—This crisis once past,
Jesus no longer owes anything to sin,
and His life may manifest itself
without hindrance as an instrument of
the life of God.— To live to God , is
to live solely to manifest and serve
Him, without having to submit any
more to certain obligations imposed by
a contrary principle. The meaning
of this expression is, as Meyer says,
exclusive: to God only. The glorified
Jesus lives and acts for no other
object than to manifest in the heart of
men by the Holy Spirit the life of God
which has become His life, life
eternal; comp. John 17:2: “As Thou
hast given me power over all flesh,
that I should give eternal life to as
many as Thou hast given me.” Thus it
is that He serves and glorifies God.
As Christ, then, once entered upon
this life and glorious activity, does not
depart from it to return back again,
so the believer, once dead to sin and
alive to God in Christ, cannot return
to his old life of sin. ver. 11 explicitly
draws this conclusion, held in
suspense since ver. 8, and prepared for in
vv. 9 and 10.
Ver. 11. “ Thus also reckon ye
yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, and
alive unto God in Christ Jesus our
Lord. ”—The ou{tw , likewise , indicates
the inference to be drawn from the
conformity between the case of
believers and that of Jesus.— Ye also:
ye, as well as he.— Logivzesqe ,
reckon, consider , is evidently an
imperative, not an indicative: comp. the
following imperatives, vv. 12 and 13.
The apostle means: Behold, in
consequence of what you witness in
Jesus Himself, the view-point at
which you ought to put yourselves when
you regard your own case. You
have no longer to see your condition
as you were in yourselves: slaves of
sin, dead unto God. You have to regard
yourselves as you are in Christ,
as I have just explained to you: dead
to sin, alive to God. Beside and
above the old man which still lives in
him, the believer possesses a new
ego contained in Christ who lives in
him; this ego has broken with sin, it is
wholly consecrated to God. Such is the
being whom he ought henceforth
to regard as his true self; he ought
consequently to appropriate it
subjectively by constantly
substituting it for his natural self, which is
henceforth denied at the foot of the
cross. Such is the divine secret of
Christian sanctification, which distinguishes
it profoundly from simple
natural morality. The latter says to
man: Become what thou wouldst be.
The former says to the believer:
Become what thou art already (in Christ).
It thus puts a positive fact at the
foundation of moral effort, to which the
believer can return and have recourse
anew at every instant. And this is
the reason why his labor is not lost
in barren aspiration, and does not end
despair. The believer does not get
disentangled from sin gradually. He
breaks with it in Christ once for all.
He is placed by a decisive act of will in
the sphere of perfect holiness; and it
is within it that the gradual renewing
of the personal life goes forward.
This second gospel paradox,
sanctification by faith, rests on the
first, justification by faith.
After having shown the believer how he
is to regard himself in virtue of his
union with Christ, the apostle calls
him not to let this new position be a
mere matter of theory, but to work it
into his real life, to make it his life
from moment to moment. As Philippi
says, Christians ought to begin with
discerning what they are, and then
labor to manifest it. Such is the subject
of vv. 12-14.
Vv. 12, 13. “ Let not sin therefore
reign in your mortal body, that ye should
obey its lusts.Neither yield ye your
members to sin as instruments of
unrighteousness: but yield yourselves
unto God, as those that have
become alive from the dead, and your
members as instruments of
righteousness for God. ”—In Christ all
is done. In the believer all is doing
and can be done only with the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
concurrence of his will. Hence the
following exhortation which is
connected by therefore. —It might have
been thought from certain
previous expressions, that Paul did
not admit the existence of sin any
longer in the believer; but he far
from giving himself up to such
exaggerations. The very word: “Let not
sin reign ,” assumes that it is still
there. But it ought no longer to be
there as sovereign: for it has lost its
powerful instrument and auxiliary, the
body; the latter has become in
Christ the instrument of God. These
two aspects of the sanctification of
the body, its liberation from sin and
its consecration to God correspond
respectively to vv. 6 and 7 and vv.
8-10, and are developed, the former in
vv. 12 and 13a, and the latter in ver.
13b
The imperative mh; basileuevtw , let
it not reign , is addressed
grammatically to sin, but in meaning
to the believer himself; for it is he
who has the task of bringing this
reign to an end. The exhortation thus
placed as the sequel of what precedes,
reminds us of the passage Col.
3:5: “Ye are dead (ver. 3); mortify
therefore (ver. 5) your members, which
are upon the earth.” It is because we
are dead to sin in Christ that we can
mortify it in ourselves in daily life.
The present imperative, with the
negative mhv , implies the notion of a
state which existed till now, but
which must terminate.—We must not, as
some do, give to the ejn , in , the
meaning of by , as if the apostle
meant that the body was the means by
which sin exercises its dominion over
us. The natural meaning is: “ in your
mortal body.” The body is the domain ,
as it were, in which the dominion of
sin is exercised, in this sense, that
when once the will has been
subjugated by sin, it gives the body
of which it disposes over to sin, and
this master uses it for his pleasure.
The epithet qnhtw'/ , mortal , must
bear a logical relation to the idea of the
passage. The object of this term has
been understood very variously.
Calvin regards it as expressive of
contempt, as if Paul meant to say that
man's whole bodily nature hastens to
death, and ought not consequently
to be pampered. Philippi thinks that the
epithet refers rather to the fact of
sin having killed the body, and having
thus manifested its malignant
character. Flatt thinks that Paul
alludes to the transient character of bodily
pleasures. Chrysostom and Grotius find
in the word the idea of the brevity
of the toils , which weigh on the
Christian here below. According to
Tholuck, Paul means to indicate how
evil lusts are inseparable from the
present state of the body, which is
destined by and by to be glorified.
According to Lange and Schaff, the
sanctification of the mortal body here
below is mentioned as serving to
prepare for its glorification above. It
seems to us that this epithet may be
explained more naturally: It is not the
part destined to die which should rule
the believer's personality; the higher
life awakened in him should penetrate
him wholly, and rule that body even
which is to change its nature. — It is
obvious that in the last proposition of
the verse, the Received reading: to
obey it in its lusts , does not yield a
simple meaning. To obey sin in its
lusts is an artificial and forced
expression. The Greco-Latin reading:
to obey it , is rather superfluous;
what would this regimen add to the
idea expressed by the previous words:
“Let not sin reign in your body”? The
Alexandrine reading: to obey its lusts
( aujtou' , the body's ), so far as
the meaning is concerned, is preferable to
both the others; and it has the
advantage besides, as we shall show, of
explaining easily how they arose. —
The lusts of the body are its instincts
and appetites, which, acting on the
soul, determine within it the
passionate and disorderly motions of
sin. The term ejpiqumiva , lust (from
ejpiv , upon, toward , and qumov"
, the heart, feeling, passion ), denotes
the violence with which, under the
dominion of bodily appetite, the soul is
carried to the external objects, which
can satisfy the desires excited within
it. Although, then, it is still sin,
the egoistical instinct of the soul, which
reigns in the body and directs its
use, it thus happens that the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
appetites of the latter become the
masters of conduct; for they present
themselves to the soul as the means of
satisfying the ardent desire of
enjoyment with which it is consumed.
In this way the beginning and end of
the verse harmonize, the reign of sin
over the body, and the supremacy of
the body over the person himself. But
this relation of ideas was not
understood by the copyists. As at the
beginning of the verse sin was the
subject of the verb reign , it seemed
to them that the obedience spoken of
in the following words was meant to be
rendered to it also, and they
added (as in the Byz.) the pronoun
aujth'/ , it (sin), which necessitated the
adding also of the preposition ejn ,
in , before the word tai'" ejpiqumivai" ,
the lusts. Such is the origin of the
Received reading. Or, again, they
rejected all this final clause, which
did not seem to be in keeping with the
beginning; and thus was formed the
Greco-Latin reading.
Ver. 13. After speaking of the body in
general, the apostle in ver. 13a
mentions the members in particular.
Philippi, who, with Calvin, has
understood the body in ver. 12, not of
the body properly so called, but of
the body and soul united (in so far as
the latter is not under the influence
of the Holy Spirit), gives also to the
word members , ver. 13, a moral as
well as physical sense. It is not only
the eyes, hands, feet, tongue, etc.,
but also the heart, will, understanding.
There could be nothing more
arbitrary than this extension to the
soul of the meaning of the words body
and members. The members of the body
correspond to the various lusts ,
ver. 12, and are the particular
instruments of their gratification. The term
o{pla may be translated by arms or by
instruments. Meyer insists strongly
on the first meaning, the only one,
according to him, used in the New
Testament (comp. 2 Cor. 6:7, 10:4).
But we doubt much whether this
observation applies to Rom. 13:12 (see
on the passage); and the
meaning: instrument , seems to us much
more suitable here, as there is
no reference to war, but to the
gratification of lusts. — The present
imperative paristavnete , present,
yield , like the basileuvetw of ver. 12,
denotes the continuance of an actual
state. With the negative mhv , it
therefore signifies: cease from
yielding , as you have done till now. The
verb paristavnein signifies: to
present in order to put at the disposal of. The
word ajdikiva , unrighteousness , here
embraces all acts contrary to moral
obligation in general. — It may be
doubted whether the dative th'/
aJmartiva/ , to sin , depends on the
verb yield , or on the substantive
instrument. Perhaps it should be
connected with both at once. — Vv. 12
and 13a have expounded the notion of
the sanctification of the body from
a negative point of view. ver. 13b
expounds it positively. It is the same
gradation as we have from 5a to 5b,
and from ver. 7 to ver. 8.
The apostle here uses the aorist
parasthvsate instead of the present
paristavnete , ver. 13a Critics are
not agreed as to the meaning and
intention of this form. Meyer takes
this imperative aorist as indicating the
instantaneousness with which the
consecration of the body should be
carried out. Fritzsche finds in it the
notion of the continual repetition of the
acts in which this consecration takes
effect. Philippi thinks that this form
expresses the idea of a consecration
accomplished once for all. As the
aorist strictly denotes the passing
into action, the imperative aorist
strongly calls upon the individual to
accomplish without delay the act
indicated by the verb (almost the
meaning indicated by Meyer). The
difference between this aorist
imperative and the present imperatives
preceding is therefore this: the
latter were an exhortation not to continue
the old state; the former insists on
an immediate transition to the new
state (comp. Hofmann, p. 246). This
change should affect not the body
only, but the whole person: yield
yourselves. The consecration of the body
and of the members is included in that
of the person. The as which follows
does not
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
signify: as if ( wJseiv , Alex.
reading), but: as being really ( wJ" , Byz.
reading).—The expression dead has been
understood here in two ways.
Some, like Philippi, have found in it
the notion of spiritual death, in which
the sinner still lies, comp. Eph. 2:1
and 5. The apostle is thought to be
contrasting the old state of
estrangement from God, in which the Romans
formerly were, with their present
state of life in God. Others, on the
contrary, like Meyer, starting from
the comparison between vv. 2 and 11,
think that the subject in question is
the death to sin consummated by faith
in Christ. The apostle is thought to
be contrasting the state of the body's
inactivity at the time when the
believer is only experimentally dead with
Christ (vv. 6, 7), with his new
activity from the time that he receives a new
life (vv. 8-10), through experimental
acquaintance with the Lord's
resurrection, This second meaning is
obviously forced; the first, simpler in
itself, also agrees better with the
contrast between the believer's new and
old state (vv. 12 and 13a). The term
dikaiosuvnh , righteousness , in
contrast to ajdikiva , iniquity , can
only denote here moral righteousness,
the fulfilment of all human
obligations.—The dative Qew'/ , to God , does
not depend probably on the understood
verb yield , since it would have
been useless in this case to repeat
this clause already expressed in the
previous line. It must therefore be
connected with the expression o{pla
dikaiosuJnh" , instruments of
righteousness for God. All those works of
righteousness which God could not
execute Himself here below without
constant miraculous interventions, He
accomplishes by believers, who
eagerly lend their bodies and members
to Him as instruments for this end.
Ver. 14. “ In fact, sin will not have
dominion over you: for ye are not under
the law, but under grace. ”—We have
not here a disguised exhortation,
expressed by a future taken in the
sense of an imperative: “Let not sin
reign any more”...! Why would the apostle
not have continued the
imperative form used in the preceding
verses? It is a future fact made
sure to the believer as a glorious
promise: “What I have just asked of you
(to die unto sin and consecrate
yourselves to God), ye will certainly be
able to do; for it will be impossible
for sin to hold its place longer in you; it
will no longer be able to reign over
you.” This promise is the justification of
the command given ver. 12: “Let not
sin reign”...! ver. 14 is thus the
transition from the preceding
exhortation to the subsequent development
which treats of the believer's
emancipation.—The promise contained in
the first proposition is justified in
the second. The state of grace, cavri" ,
reconciliation to God, the enjoyment
of His favor and the possession of
His Spirit, communicate to the soul a
victorious power all unknown to the
legal state. In this latter there
reign the feeling of sin, the fear of
condemnation, and the servile spirit,
which are the opposite of inward
consecration.—And hence sin can be
overcome under grace , while it
reigns inevitably under law. The
apostle has not put the article before the
word novmon , law; for, though he is
thinking substantially of the Mosaic
law, it is as law that he wishes to
designate it here, and not as Mosaic law.
What he affirms applies to every
institution having the character of an
external commandment.—But why use the
preposition uvpov , under , and
not the preposition ejn , in , which
seems more suitable to a notion like that
of the state of grace? Is grace, then,
a yoke, as well as the law? Is it not,
on the contrary, an inner life, a
power? In other connections Paul would
certainly have made use of the
preposition ejn , in , with the word grace.
But the idea of the whole passage
about to follow is precisely that of the
decisive control which grace exercises
over the believer to subject him to
righteousness with an authority not
less imperious, and even more
efficacious than the law (vv. 15-23).
And it is this idea which is expressed
and summed up by the preposition uJpov
, under. —In the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
same way, indeed, as the second
passage of the section (vv. 15-23) is the
development of the words under grace ,
the third (7:1-6), as we shall see,
will be the development of the words,
no more under the law. And the
logical connection of the three
passages is consequently this: After
demonstrating in the first that faith
in Christ crucified and risen contains in
it the principle of a reign of
holiness (6:1-14), the apostle proves that this
principle is not less powerful than a
law to subdue man to itself (vv. 15-
23), and that in consequence of this
moral subjugation the believer can
henceforth without danger renounce the
yoke of the law (7:1-6).
Fourteenth Passage (6:15-23). The
Power of the new Principle of
Sanctification to deliver from Sin.
The new principle had just been laid
down. The apostle had found it in the
object of justifying faith. But could
a principle so spiritual, apart from every
external and positive rule, take hold
of the will with power enough to rule it
thoroughly? To this natural objection,
formulated in ver. 15, St. Paul
answers as follows: by the acceptance
of grace a new master has been
substituted for the former, sin (vv.
16-
19); and the believer feels himself
obliged to serve this new master with
the more fidelity because he rewards
his servants by communicating life
to them, whereas the former master
pays his by giving them death (vv. 20-
23). Thus it is proved that the new
principle is clothed with sufficient,
though purely internal authority, to
control the believer's entire life.
Ver. 15: “ What then? should we sin ,
because we are not under the law,
but under grace? Let it not be so!
”—The question of ver. 15 is not a
repetition of that in ver. 1. The
discussion has advanced. The principle of
holiness inherent in salvation by
grace has been demonstrated. The
apostle only asks himself whether it
will have the power necessary to rule
man without the assistance of a law?
This is the point at which the
question ti ou\n , what then , resumes
the discussion. Thus is explained
the difference of style between the
question of ver. 1 and that of ver. 15.
In the former, Paul asked: Should we
continue in sin? Here he says
simply: should we sin , aJmarthvswmen
. There is no doubt that the
Received reading: shall we sin ,
aJmarthvsomen , should be rejected, for it
is not found in a single majuscule.
The aorist subjunctive aJmarthvswmen
does not denote, as the present would
do, the permanent state, but the
isolated act, which is perfectly
suitable here. The question is no longer, as
in ver. 1, whether the justified
believer will be able to continue the life of
sin which he formerly led. The answer
has been given in vv. 1-14. But the
matter in question is whether the new
dominion will be strong enough to
banish sin in every particular case.
Hence the form of the aorist
subjunctive: should we commit an act
of sin? Could we act thus voluntarily
in a single instance? And, in point of
fact, a believer will not easily say: By
grace I shall remain without any
change what I have been till now. But he
will find himself only too easily
regarding some particular leniency toward
sin as admissible, on account of the
freeness of pardon. The gradation
between the question of ver. 1 and
that of ver. 15 makes itself also felt in
the form of the motive alleged in
favor of unfaithfulness. The apostle does
not say now: “ that grace may abound,”
words which could only come from
a heart yet a stranger to the
experiences of faith; but he says here: “
because we are under grace.” The snare
is less gross in this form. Vinet
one day said to the writer of these
lines: “There is a subtle poison which
insinuates itself into the heart even
of the best Christian; it is the
temptation to say: Let us sin, not
that grace may abound, but because it
abounds.” Here there is no longer an
odious calculation, but a convenient
let alone.—Where
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
would be the need of holding that the
apostle, to explain this question, has
in view an objection raised by legal
Jewish-Christianity? The question
arises of itself as soon as the gospel
comes in contact with the heart of
man. What proves clearly that the
apostle is not thinking here of a Jewish-
Christian scruple, is the fact that in
his reply he does not make the least
allusion to man's former subjection to
the law, but solely to the yoke which
sin laid upon him from the beginning.
And the literal translation of our
verse is not: “For ye are no more
under the law,” but: “For ye are no more
under law , but under grace. ” It is
understood, of course, that when he
speaks of law he is thinking of the
Mosaic dispensation, just as, when
speaking of grace , he is thinking of
the revelation of the gospel. But he
does not mention the institutions as
such; he designates them only by
their moral character.
Vv. 16-19 describe the new subjection
( to righteousness ) by which grace
displaces the old subjection ( to sin
).
Ver. 16. “ Know ye not, that in
respect of Him to whom ye devote
yourselves as servants to obey, ye are
henceforth His servants who owe
Him obedience; whether it be sin unto
death, or obedience unto
righteousness? ”—The question of ver.
15 arose from an entirely
erroneous way of understanding the
relation between the moral will of
man and the acts in which it is
manifested. It seemed, according to the
objection, that an act of liberty is
merely an isolated fact in human life, and
that an act of God's grace is enough
to annul it, so that not a trace of it
shall remain. Thus it is that a
superficial Pelagianism understands moral
liberty. After the doing of each act,
it can return to the state in which it was
before, exactly as if nothing had
passed. But a more serious study of
human life proves, on the contrary,
that every act of will, whether in the
direction of good or of evil, as it
passes into reality, creates or strengthens
a tendency which drags man with
increasing force, till it becomes
altogether irresistible. Every free
act, then, to a certain degree determines
the future. It is this psychological
law which the apostle here applies to the
two principles: of sin on the one
hand, and grace on the other. He calls
attention to the fact that he is
appealing to an experiment which every one
can make: Know ye not that? ...? Jesus
had already expressed this law
when He uttered the maxim: “Whosoever
committeth sin is the servant [of
sin],” John 8:34.—The words: him to
whom ye devote yourselves as
servants , refer to the first steps
taken in one or other of the two opposite
directions. At this point, man still
enjoys a certain degree of moral liberty in
relation to the principle which tends
to master his will; he therefore
devotes himself , as the apostle says.
But in proportion as he yields
himself to this principle by certain
acts of compliance, he falls more and
more under its sway: ye are the
servants of him whom ye obey. These
last words characterize the more
advanced state of things, in which, the
bond of dependence once formed, the
will has lost all power of resistance,
and exists only to satisfy the master
of its choice. The words: w|/
uJpakouvete , whom ye obey , are
strictly speaking a pleonasm; for this
idea was already contained in the
expression: dou'loiv ejste , ye are
servants; but yet they are not superfluous.
They signify: “to whom
obedience is now the order of the day,
whether ye will or not.” A man does
not put himself at the service of a
master to do nothing for him. In other
words, absolute liberty cannot be the
condition of man. We are made, not
to create our guiding principle, but
simply to adhere to one or other of the
higher moral powers which solicit us.
Every concession freely made to
either is a precedent which binds us
to it, and of which it will avail itself to
exact more. Thus there is gradually
and freely established the condition of
dependence spoken of by the apostle,
and which issues, on the one side,
in the absolute incapacity of doing
evil (1 John 3:9), the state of true
liberty: on the other, in the total
incapacity either to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
will or to do good (Matt. 12:32), the
state of final perdition. Since Paul is
not speaking as a philosophical
moralist, but as an apostle, he
immediately applies this truth to the
two positive principles which he is
here contrasting with one another
namely, as he says in the second part
of the verse, sin and obedience. Of
the two disjunctive particles h[toi (
whether certainly ) and h[ ( or ), the
first is somewhat more emphatic, as if
the apostle meant to rely more
strongly on the first alternative: Whether
certainly of sin unto death, or, if
this result do not suit you, of obedience
unto righteousness.”—Sin is put first,
as the master to whom we are
naturally subject from infancy. It is
its yoke which faith has broken; and
consequently the Christian ought ever
to remember that should he make
any one concession to this principle,
he would thereby begin to place
himself anew under its dominion, and
on the way which might guide him
back to the goal of his previous life:
death. The word death here cannot
denote physical death, for the
servants of righteousness die as well as the
servants of sin. We are no longer in
that part of the Epistle which treats of
condemnation, and in which death
appeared as a doom pronounced on
the first sin, consequently as death
strictly so called. It is the contrast
between sin and holiness which
prevails in this part, chap. 6-8. The matter
in question, therefore, is death in
the sense of moral corruption, and
consequently of separation from God
here and hereafter; such is the
abyss which sin digs ever more deeply,
every time that man, nay, that the
believer, even gives himself over to
it.—Why, in opposition to sin, does
the apostle say in the second
alternative: of obedience , and not: of
holiness; and why, in opposition to:
unto death , does he say: unto
righteousness , and not: unto life?
Obedience is frequently understood in
this passage as obedience to good or
to God, in a general way.
Obedience in this sense is certainly
opposed to sin; and if Paul were
giving a course of morals, instead of
an exposition of the Gospel, this
meaning would be the most natural. But
in the following verse there can
be no doubt that the verb obey denotes
the act of faith in the teaching of
the Gospel. We have already seen, 1:5,
that the apostle calls faith an
obedience. It is the same 15:18, where
he designates the faith of the
Gentiles by the name of obedience.
Faith is always an act of docility to a
divine manifestation, and so an
obedience. Thus, then, it is faith in the
gospel which the apostle here
designates by the word obedience; and he
can perfectly contrast it with sin in
this sense, because it is faith which
terminates the revolt of sin and
establishes the reign of holiness. Every
time the gospel is preached to the
sinner, he is challenged to decide
between the obedience (of faith) or
the carnal independence of sin. Man
does not escape from his state of sin
by the simple moral contemplation of
good and evil, and their respective
effects, but solely by the efficacy of
faith.—The words: unto righteousness ,
have been applied by
some—Meyer, for example—to the sentence
of justification which will be
passed on the sanctified Christian at
the last day. This interpretation has
been adopted from the contrast between
this term and the preceding: unto
death. But we have just seen the term
righteousness used, ver. 13, in the
sense of moral righteousness; and this
is also the most suitable meaning
here, where the object is to point out
the holy consequences which will
flow from the principle of faith. The
antithesis to the term death also finds
a simple explanation with this
meaning. As death, the fruit of sin, is
separation from God; so righteousness,
the fruit of faith, is spiritual
communion with God. The former
contains the idea of moral corruption,
as the way , and the latter includes
the idea of life, as the goal. If it were
wished to render the contrast
completely, we should have to say: “whether
of sin , unto unrighteousness which is
death , or of obedience , unto
righteousness which is life. ” By
expressing himself as he does, Paul
wishes, on the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
one hand, to inspire a horror of sin,
whose fruit is death; on the other, to
bring into relief the essentially
moral character of faith, the fruit of which is
righteousness.
Vv. 17, 18. “ Now God be thanked that
ye were the servants of sin, but ye
obeyed from the heart that type of
doctrine which was delivered you; then
being made free from sin, ye became
the servants of righteousness.
”—Ver. 16 established the necessity of
choosing between the two
masters: sin which leads to death, and
faith which produces
righteousness. The apostle declares in
ver. 17—and he gives God thanks
for it—that the Romans have already
made their choice, and that the good
one. The exclamation: thanks be to God
, is not an oratorical form; it is a
cry of gratitude from the depths of
the apostle's heart for the marvellous
work which God has wrought without him
among those former
Gentiles.—But can he give thanks
because they were formerly servants of
sin? There are two ways of
understanding the form used here by St. Paul:
either the thanksgiving is made to
bear only on the second proposition,
and the first is regarded as serving
only to bring out by contrast the
excellence of the change which has
passed over his readers: “God be
thanked that whereas formerly ye were
servants..., ye have now
obeyed”...Or it is held that the first
proposition belongs also to the
contents of the thanksgiving; for this
view it is enough to emphasize
strongly the imperfect were: “because
ye were , that is to say, are no
longer.” In this sense the analogous
expressions are compared, 1 Cor.
6:11; Eph. 5:8 (see Meyer, Philippi).
The second explanation is supported
by the fact, that in the first meaning
the contrast could not fail to be
indicated by the particle mevn , as
well as by the prominent position
occupied at the beginning of the
sentence by the verb h\te , ye were. But
the use of the particle mevn is much
rarer in the New Testament than in
profane Greek. The place of the verb
would undoubtedly be a more valid
reason; in any case it explains how
the apostle could follow up the
expression: thanks be to God ,
immediately with the idea: servants of sin.
But it is nevertheless true that the
first meaning remains the simplest and
most natural. Numerous examples of
this mode of expression can be
cited.—The imperfect h\te , ye were ,
brings out the duration of the past
state; the aorist uJphkouvsate , ye obeyed
, refers to the decisive fact by
which they adhered to the gospel and
broke with that former state.—The
expression ejk kardiva" , from
the heart , indicates their inward readiness,
and the absence of all constraint. The
gospel answered to a moral want
within them.—The following proposition
may be construed in three ways:
1. tw'/ tuvpw/ didach'" eij"
o}n paredovqhte , because ye obeyed the form of
doctrine to which ye were given over
(Chrys., Thol., De W., Mey., Philip.,
Winer); 2. eij" to;n; tuvpon
didach'" o}n paredovqhte , because ye gave
obedience to (or: in relation to ) the
form of doctrine which was transmitted
to you ( o}" paredovqh uJmi'n );
so Hofmann: 3. eij" to;n tuvpon didach'" eij"
o}n paredovqhte (combining the
meanings of the previous constructions).
Of these three constructions the first
alone is admissible, because to obey
any one or anything is expressed in
Greek by uJpakouvein with the dative,
and not with the preposition eij"
; the latter would denote quite a different
thing (the aim of the obedience). Paul
congratulates the Romans on the
fact that they have adhered with
faith, docility, and eagerness to the form
of Christian doctrine which was
brought to them by those who first
communicated to them the knowledge of
the gospel. Does this form of
doctrine denote Christianity in
general, or a more special form of Christian
teaching? In the former case, would
not Paul have simply said: “because
from the heart ye obeyed Christ or the
gospel?” The choice of so
exceptional a term, and so unique as
that which he thinks good to use
here, leads us rather to think of a
special and precisely-defined form of
Christian teaching. The reference is
to that gospel of Paul (2:16, 16:25)
which the first propagators of the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
gospel at Rome had preached there.
Paul knew well from his own
experience it was only in the pure
spirituality of “his gospel” that the true
power of Christian sanctification was
to be found, and that every
concession to the legal principle was
at the same time a barrier interposed
to the operation of the Holy Spirit.
Hence his heartfelt joy because of the
form of doctrine which had marked with
its profound impress the moral life
of the Christians of Rome. Could he
without charlatanism have expressed
himself thus, if, as so many critics
think, the doctrine received by those
Roman Christians had been of a
Judaizing nature, and in contradiction to
his own?—All the terms are, as it
were, deliberately chosen to express the
receptive condition of the readers.
And first the word tuvpo" , type, form
(from tuvptein , to strike ), which
denotes an image deeply engraved, and
pitted to reproduce its impress; comp.
Acts 23:25, where this word
denotes the exact tenor of a missive,
and the analogous term uJpotuvpwsi"
, 2 Tim. 1:13, used almost in the same
meaning as here. Then the passive
paradoqh'nai , literally, to be given
over , which strongly expresses the sort
of moral subjection which results from
the power of Christian truth once
accepted. One is free to acquiesce in
it or to reject it; but the Christ
received becomes a master who
instantly dispossesses the previous
master.
If it is asked wherein exactly
consisted this precise form of the truth of the
gospel of which the apostle was here
thinking, it seems to us that we find
it best summed up in 1 Cor. 1:30,
where Christ is presented, first, as our
righteousness , then as our
sanctification , lastly, our final redemption. It
may be said that the whole didactic
part of our Epistle is embraced in
these three terms: chap. 1-5 in the
first
( dikaiosuvnh , righteousness ), chap.
6:1 to 8:11 in the second ( aJgiasmov"
, holiness ), and the end of chap. 8
in the third ( ajpoluvtrwsi" , redemption
).
Some critics regard ver. 18 as the
conclusion of the argument; but instead
of the particle dev , now , it would
require to have been ou\n , therefore ,
which is found indeed in two Mjj., led
astray by this supposition. We are
not yet at the conclusion. The
assertion: ye were made subject to
righteousness , belongs still to the
premisses of the argument. Here in fact
is the reasoning as a whole: In ver.
15 the objection: Will the believer wish
to sin even once? From ver. 16 to ver.
18 the answer. ver. 16, the major:
Man cannot be absolutely free; he
cannot help choosing between two
masters, sin or righteousness. Vv. 17,
18, the minor: Now when you
decided for faith (ver. 17), you
accepted subjection to righteousness (ver.
18). The conclusion follows of itself.
Therefore your progress in goodness
is henceforth a matter of necessity.
Accordingly, the objection started is
resolved: you could not sin even once
without renouncing the new
principle to which you have given
yourselves. We thus see how Paul has
succeeded in rediscovering a law even
in grace, but a law inward and
spiritual, like his whole gospel. It
is Christ Himself who, after having freed
us from sin by His death, by uniting
us to His life as the Risen One, has
made us subject to righteousness.
But the apostle, in his exposition of
the relation between the believer and
his new master, had used an expression
which jarred on his own sense of
propriety, and which he feels the need
of excusing and explaining. It was
the word servitude
( slavery ), applied to the believer's
dependence on righteousness. Is then
the practice of goodness a servitude?
Is it not, on the contrary, the most
glorious freedom? Most certainly, and
to this thought the remark applies
which begins ver. 19; after which, in
the second part of the verse, the
apostle concludes this development
with a practical exhortation.
Ver. 19. “ I speak after the manner of
men because of the infirmity of your
flesh: for as ye have yielded your
members servants to uncleanness, and
to iniquity
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
unto iniquity; even so now yield your
members servants to righteousness
unto holiness. ”—Several critics
(Beng., De Wette, Mey., Philip.) refer the
fleshly infirmity of the Romans, of
which the apostle here speaks, to their
intellectual weakness, their inability
to apprehend religious truth
adequately. This is the reason which
has led him to make use of a human
mode of speaking, calling the
fulfilment of righteousness a servitude ,
which, from the divine point of view,
is, on the contrary, true liberty. What
is well-founded in this explanation is
the application of the first words of
ver. 19 to the term servitude used in
ver. 18. But what seems to me
inexact, is to apply the expression
weakness of the flesh to a defect of
understanding. Does not this
explanation contradict what the apostle
recognizes in such forcible terms,
15:14: the high degree of Christian
knowledge to which the Church of Rome
has already attained? Weakness
of the flesh (more literally:
proceeding from the flesh ) must therefore
denote a general state shared by the
Romans with the great majority of
the members of the Christian Church,
consequently a moral rather than
an intellectual state; and this is
really what the expression used by the
apostle naturally indicates. If the
obligation to practice righteousness
seems to the greater number of
believers to be a subjection to a strange
principle, it is not in consequence of
a want of understanding; the cause is
deeper; it is because the flesh , the
love of the ego , has not yet been
completely sacrificed. From this moral
fact there arises even in the
Christian the painful impression that
perfect righteousness is a most
exacting, sometimes even a harsh
master, and that the obligation to
conform in all points to the will of
God makes him a slave. Such is the
imperfect moral condition to the
impressions of which Paul accommodates
his language in the expressions used
in ver. 18. The ancient Greek
interpreters thought this remark, ver.
19a, should be connected with what
follows, giving it the meaning: “I do
not mean to ask of you what goes
beyond your human weakness, caused by
the flesh; yield your members
only to righteousness in the same
measure as you formerly yielded them
to sin. I do not ask more of you.” But
it is evident that the apostle, in a
passage in which he is describing the
standard of Christian holiness,
cannot think of abating aught of the
demands of the new principle. The
exhortation which follows cannot be
less absolute than that which
preceded, vv. 12, 13, and which was
unaccompanied by any such clause.
Hofmann and Schott take the two words
ajnqrwvpinon levgw , I speak as a
man , as a parenthesis, and join the
regimen dia; th;n ajsqevneian , on
account of the weakness of the flesh ,
to the verb: ye became subject ,
ver. 18. According to this view Paul
recognizes that the practice of
goodness is really a servitude for the
believer, subjection to a strange will;
and that arising from the persistence
of the old nature, and from the fact
that the flesh requires to be constantly
subdued. But it is very doubtful
whether the apostle here seriously
called by the name of servitude that
Christian life which he represents
always, like Jesus Himself, as the most
glorious emancipation. Undoubtedly, in
1 Cor. 9:27, he uses the
expression doulagwgei'n , to bring
into subjection , but in a figure, and in
relation to the body.
The imperative yield proves that the
second part of the verse is an
exhortation. But in this case why
attach it with a for to what precedes?
Can an exhortation serve to
demonstrate anything? Does it not require
itself to be founded on a
demonstration? To understand this strange form,
we must, I think, change the
imperative yield into the form: “ ye are held
bound to yield.” We can then
understand how this idea may be connected
by for with ver. 18: “Ye were made
subject to righteousness henceforth,
since, in fact ( for ), it remains to
you only to yield your members.” It must
not be forgotten, indeed, that the
exhortation: yield your
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
members , was already expressed
previously in vv. 12 and 13, and that as
logically based on all that preceded (
therefore , ver. 12), and that
consequently the transition from ver.
18b to 19b may be thus
paraphrased: “ye became the servants
of righteousness, for, in fact, as I
have shown you, ye have now nothing
else to do than to yield your
members to righteousness.” The only
difference between the exhortation
of vv. 12 and 13 and that of 18b is
that Paul said in the former: do; while
here, in keeping with the object of
this second passage, he says: “And ye
cannot do otherwise.” By this relation
between the for of ver. 19b and ver.
18, it may be proved that 19a is
indeed, as we have seen, an interjected
observation.
There is a slightly ironical touch in
the meaning of the second part of ver.
19. It concerns the readers to be now
in the service of their new master,
righteousness, as active and zealous
servants as they formerly were in
the service of their old master. “Ye
were eager to yield your members to
sin to commit evil, be ye now as eager
to yield them to righteousness to
realize holiness. Do not inflict on
this second master the shame of serving
him less faithfully than the first.”
The old master is denoted by the two
terms ajkaqarsiva , uncleanness , and
ajnomiva , lawlessness , life going
beyond all rule, licentiousness. The
first of these terms characterizes sin
as personal degradation, the second as
contempt of the standard of right
written in the law on every man's
conscience (2:14, 15). This distinction
seems to us more natural than that
laid down by Tholuck, who takes the
term uncleanness in the strictly
proper sense of the word, and who takes
lawlessness to be sin in general. The
broad sense which we give to the
word uncleanness appears clearly from
1 Thess. 4:7. The two
expressions therefore embrace each, as
it seems to us, the whole sphere
of sin, but from two different points
of view.—From sin as a principle, the
apostle passes to sin as an effect.
The regimen eij" ajnomivan , unto
lawlessness , signifies: to do all
one's pleasure without being arrested in
the least by the line of demarkation
which separates good from evil. This
expression ajnomiva , lawlessness , so
expressly repeated, and this whole
description of the previous life of
the readers, is evidently more applicable
to men formerly Gentiles than to
believers of Jewish origin.—With sin
characterized as an evil disposition,
as an inward principle , in the two
forms of degradation and lawlessness,
there is contrasted goodness, also
as a principle and as a moral
disposition, by the term dikaiosuvnh ,
righteousness. This is the will of God,
moral obligation accepted by the
believer as the absolute rule of his
will and life. Then with sin as an effect
produced in the form of ajnomiva , the
rejection of every rule in practice,
there is contrasted goodness as a
result obtained, by the term aJgiasmov" :
this is the concrete and personal
realization of goodness, the fruit of
perpetual submission to the principle
of righteousness, holiness , or
sanctification. The word
aJgiasmov" is usually translated by sanctification ,
and this is represented as the
progressive amelioration of the individual
resulting from his moral
self-discipline. It is certain that Greek substantives
in mo" or smo" are, as
Curtius says
( Schulgramm. § 342), nomina actionis
, denoting properly an action put
forth, rather than a state of being.
But we must not forget two things: 1.
That, from the Scripture point of
view, the author of the act denoted by the
term sanctify is God, and not man;
this is established, as it seems to me,
by 1 Pet. 1:2, 2 Thess. 2:13, and 1
Cor. 1:30, where this act is ascribed to
the Holy Spirit and to Christ. 2. That
even in the Old Testament the term
aJgiasmov" seems to be used in
the LXX. to denote not the progressive
work, but its result; thus Amos 2:11,
where the LXX. use this word to
translate nezirim, the consecrated
ones; and Ezek. 45:4, where it seems
to be taken in the same sense as
mikdasch, sanctuary. In the New
Testament, likewise, it more naturally
denotes the result reached than the
action put forth, in the following
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
passages: 1 Thess. 4:3; 1 Tim. 2:15;
Heb. 12:14. We are thus led to
translate it rather by the term
holiness. And this seems to be confirmed by
the preposition eij" , for, unto
, which expresses the goal rather than the
way. If it is asked wherein the term
aJgiasmov" , taken in the sense of
holiness , still differs from
aJgiovth" , (Heb. 12:10) and aJgiwsuvnh (1:4; 1
Thess. 3:13; 2 Cor. 7:1), which seem
to be completely synonymous, the
indication of the shade may be found
in the form of the terminations:
aJgiovth" denotes holiness as an
abstract idea; aJgiwsuvnh , as a personal
quality, an inward disposition;
aJgiasmov" , as a work which has reached
the state of complete realization in
the person and life, the result of the
divine act expressed by aJgiavzein .
The apostle has thus reminded the
church of the two principles between
which it has finally made its choice,
and the necessity laid on the believer
to be as thoroughgoing in his new
master's service as he had been in that
of the former; he now labors to
strengthen this choice and decision by
presenting the consequences of the one
and the other condition of
dependence. On the one side, shame and
death; on the other, holiness
and life. Here is the second part of
the passage; vv. 20 and 21 describe
the consequences of the service of sin
to their extreme limit; ver. 22 gives
the consequences of dependence on God
also to their final goal; ver. 23,
in an antithesis full of solemnity,
formulates this double end of human life.
Vv. 20, 21. “ For when ye were the
servants of sin, ye were free in respect
of righteousness. What fruit therefore
had ye then? Things of which ye are
now ashamed; for certainly their end
is death. ”—We must seek the
counterpart of ver. 20, not in ver.
18, which belongs to a passage now
concluded, but in ver. 22. In ver. 20,
indeed, there begins the description
of the consequences of the two
services. The for bears on the exhortation
contained in ver. 19b It would be
impossible to depict the degrading
character of the former dependence in
which his readers had lived, more
keenly than the apostle does in the words:
free in respect of
righteousness. The conviction of what
is righteous did not for a moment
hamper them in their course of life.
This was an annoyance which they did
not feel! To use the expression of
Scripture, they drank iniquity as one
drinketh up water.
Ver. 21. And what was the result of
this shameful liberty? The apostle
analyzes it into a fruit ,
karpov" , and an end , tevlo" . What fruit had ye
then? he asks literally. The verb
e[cein , to have , no more here than in
1:13, signifies to produce. Paul would
rather have used for this meaning
one of the verbs fevrein or poiei'n .
By saying that they have this fruit, he
wishes to express not only the idea
that they produce it, but that they
possess and keep it in themselves,
that they drag it with them as forming
part of their own moral life. “Their
works follow them,” as is said.
Commentators are not at one as to the
meaning of the following words:
things of which ye are now ashamed.
Some, like the Peshitto, Theod.,
Theoph., Er., Luth., Mel., Thol., De
W., Olsh., Philip., take these words as
the answer to the question put: “This
is the fruit, namely, acts of which,
now that ye are in Christ, ye cannot
think without confusion; for ye now
see clearly that the goal to which
they were leading you inevitably was
death.” But some commentators (Chrys.,
Grot., Beng., Fritzs., Mey.)
regard these words as a continuation
of the preceding question: “What
fruit did ye derive from those things
of which ye are now ashamed?” The
answer in this case would be
understood. According to Meyer, it would
simply be: none , of course taking the
word fruit in an exclusively good
sense. Or the answer might be supposed
to be: a very evil fruit , finding
the proof of this evil quality in the
following words: “For their end is death.”
But whatever may be the answer which
is sought to be supplied, this
construction, by prolonging the
question with this long incidental
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
proposition, has the disadvantage of
taking away from its vivacity, and
making the sentence extremely heavy.
Besides, we must supply before
the relative ejfj oi\" , of which
, some antecedent or other, such as
ejkeivnwn or ejx ejkeivnwn , which is
not very natural. If account is taken of
the very marked contrast between the
two adverbs of time, then and now ,
tovte and nu'n , we shall be led
rather to see here two distinct propositions
than only one. Finally, we find in
ver. 22 the result described under two
distinct aspects: as fruit ,
karpov" , and as end , tevlo" . Should it not be the
same in our verse, to which ver. 22
corresponds? This would not be the
case in the sense preferred by Meyer.
It would be necessary to make
tevlo" ( end ) almost the synonym
and explanation of karpov" ( fruit ). This
commentator relies especially on the
fact that the apostle gives to the
word fruit only a good sense; so Gal.
5:19 and 22, where he speaks of the
works of the flesh and the fruit of
the Spirit, and Eph. 5:11, where he
characterizes the works of darkness as
being without fruit ( a[karpa ). But
Meyer does not take into consideration
that the mind of the apostle is here
moving in the domain of a sustained
figure , which he applies successively
to the two opposite servitudes. On
both sides he sees: 1. A master (sin,
God); 2. A servant (the natural man,
the believer): 3. Some work or other
in the service of the master; 4. Fruit
, which is the immediate product of
the labor, the work itself (the things
of which the workers are ashamed, or
those which lead to holiness); 5. An
end , as retribution at the hand of the
master (death, eternal life). It is
therefore evident that the figure of fruit is
in place on the one side as well as on
the other. So thoroughly is this the
thought of the apostle, that in ver.
22 he says to the believer: Ye have “
your fruit ,” in evident contrast to
that which they had previously as
sinners. As to those who to the
question: What fruit had ye? understand
this wholly different answer: a bad,
detestable fruit, it is impossible for
them to explain so important an
ellipsis. We do not therefore hesitate to
prefer the first of the two
explanations proposed: “What fruit did ye then
derive from your labor in the service
of sin? Such fruit, that now when ye
are enlightened, it only fills you
with shame,” e[rga tou' skovtou" (the works
of darkness), Eph. 5:11.
The for which connects the last
proposition with the preceding bears on
the notion of shame. In point of fact,
the final result of those things, their
tevlo" ( end ), which is death ,
demonstrates their shameful nature. “It is
most fitting indeed that ye should
blush for them now; for their end is
death.” In this fact: death, as the
end, there is expressed the estimate of
God Himself. I regard as authentic the
particle mevn , which is read here
by five Mjj. It seems to me impossible
that it should have been added; its
omission, on the contrary, is easily
explained. It is the particle known
under the name of mevn solitarium , to
which there is no corresponding
dev , and which is merely intended
expressly to reserve a certain side of
the truth which the reader is guarded
against forgetting: “For (whatever
may be the virtue of grace) it remains
nevertheless true that”...—The end
differs from the fruit in that the
latter is the immediate result, the very
realization of the labor, its moral
product; while the end is the
manifestation of God's approval or displeasure.—
Death here evidently
denotes final death, eternal
separation from God, a)pw/leia ( perdition ).
Ver. 22. “ But now, being made free
from sin and become servants to
God, ye have your fruit holiness, and
your end everlasting life. ”—For the
abstract master designated above,
namely righteousness, Paul here
substitutes God Himself; for in Christ
it is to the living God the believer is
united. The form of expression used by
Paul, literally rendered, would be:
“Ye have your fruit in the direction
of holiness.” It is to the state of holiness
that ye are brought. Such, in fact, is
the result of action constantly kept up
in dependence on God. Every duty
discharged is a step on the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
way at the end of which God's servant
sees the sublime ideal of
aJgiasmov" , completed holiness,
shining.—To this fruit God is pleased to
add what Paul calls the end: eternal
life. Besides holiness, this expression
embraces glory, imperishable
happiness, perfect activity.
In ver. 23 the apostle sums up in a
few definite strokes those two
contrasted pictures.
Ver. 23. “ For the wages of sin is
death; but the gift of God is eternal life in
Jesus Christ our Lord. ”—On the one
side, wages , something earned.
The word ojywvnion strictly denotes
payment in kind , then the payment in
money which a general gives his
soldiers. And so it is obvious that the
complement th'" aJmartiva" ,
of sin , is not here the genitive of the object:
the wages paid for sin, but the
genitive of the subject: the wages paid by
sin. Sin is personified as man's
natural master (vv. 12, 14, 22), and he is
represented as paying his subjects
with death. This term, according to the
apostle, does not seem to denote the
annihilation of the sinner. To pay
any one is not to put him out of
existence; it is rather to make him feel the
painful consequences of his sin, to
make him reap in the form of
corruption what he has sowed in the
form of sin (Gal. 6:7, 8; 2 Cor.
5:10).—In the second proposition the
apostle does not speak of wages ,
but of a gift of grace ( cavrisma ).
This term is taken here in its most
general sense; it comprehends the
fulness of salvation. Everything in this
work, from the initial justification
to the final absolution, including
sanctification and preparing for
glory, is a free gift, an unmerited favor, like
that Christ Himself who has been made
unto us righteousness, holiness,
and redemption. “Hell,” says Hodge,
“is always earned; heaven, never. ”
The apostle closes with the words: in
Christ Jesus our Lord; for it is in Him
that this entire communication of
divine mercy to the faithful takes place.
Here, again, for the diva , by , which
was the preposition used in the
preceding part (for example,5:1, 2,
11, 17,
21), Paul substitutes the ejn , in ,
which is more in keeping with the mode
of sanctification. After being
justified by Him , we are sanctified in Him , in
communion of life with Him.
It is commonly thought that this
twenty-third verse, as well as the whole
passage of which it is a summary,
applies to the believer only from the
view-point of the second alternative,
that of eternal life, and that the
unconverted only are referred to by
the apostle when he speaks of the
service of sin and of its fatal goal,
death. But the tenor of ver. 15 proves
how erroneous this view is. What is
the aim of this passage? To reply to
the question: “Shall we sin because we
are under grace?” Now this
question can only be put in reference
to believers. It is to them, therefore,
that the reply contained in this whole
passage applies. Neither could Paul
say in respect of unconverted sinners
what we find in ver. 21: “those
things whereof we are now ashamed.” It
is therefore certain that he
conceives the possibility of a return
to the service of sin—a return which
would lead them to eternal death as
certainly as other sinners. It follows,
even from the relation between the
question of ver. 15 and the answer, vv.
16-23, that such a relapse may arise
from a single voluntary concession
to the continual solicitations of the
old master, sin. A single affirmative
answer to the question: “Shall I
commit an act of sin, since I am under
grace?” might have the effect of
placing the believer again on the inclined
plane which leads to the abyss. A
striking example of this fact occurs in
our very Epistle. In chap. 14:15 and
20, Paul declares to the man who
induces a weak brother to commit an
act of sin contrary to his conscience,
that thereby he may cause that brother
to perish for whom Christ died ,
and destroy in him the work of God.
Such will infallibly be the result, if this
sin, not being quickly blotted out by
pardon and restoration, becomes
consolidated, and
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
remains permanently interposed between
him and his God.
Fifteenth Passage (7:1-6). The
Believer is set free from the Law at the
same Time that he is set free from
Sin.
AGREEABLY to the proposition stated
6:14: “Sin shall no more have
dominion over you: for ye are under
grace,” the apostle had just
expounded emancipation from sin by
subjection to grace. But he had said:
“For ye are not under the law , but
under grace.” And the words underlined
required a special explanation. It is
this demonstration which is furnished
by the following passage. In his view
the two emancipations, that from sin
and that from the law, are two closely
connected facts, so that the one is
the complement of the other. Also
between the descriptions of the two
deliverances there is to be remarked a
parallelism of figures which
extends to the slightest details of
the two descriptions. It is easy to see
how exactly 7:1-4 corresponds to
6:16-19, and 7:5, 6, to 6:21-23. Only the
general figure in the two cases is
borrowed from different domains of
social life. The law being a nobler
master than sin, the apostle in speaking
of it substitutes for the degrading
relation of servitude , the more exalted
one of marriage; and hence also in vv.
5 and 6 for the figure of fruits (of
labor) he puts that of children (the
issue of marriage).
To prove the believer's emancipation
from legal bondage, Paul supports
his argument by an article of the law
itself, which he applies spiritually, vv.
1-4; then he shows that the believer
makes use of this right, not to yield
himself more freely to sin, but to
serve God better than he would have
done under the law (vv. 5, 6). His
emancipation in relation to the law is
therefore legitimate—more than that,
it is morally beneficial and
necessary.
The first three verses adduce the
example cited from the law, and the
fourth applies it.
Vv. 1, 2. “ Or are ye ignorant,
brethren (for I speak to them that know the
law), that the law hath dominion over
a man for as long time as he liveth?
For the married woman is bound by the
law to her living husband; but if
the husband have died, she is loosed
from the law of the husband. ”—We
are familiar with the meaning of
Paul's question: Or are ye ignorant; it
explodes the negation of the expounded
truth by an indisputable truth.
The meaning here is therefore: Or, if
ye are afraid, in the work of your
sanctification, to yield yourselves
solely to this new master, grace, and
think that ye cannot dispense with an
external rule like that of the law,
know ye not that...? The form of
address: brethren , had not occurred, as
Hofmann observes, since 1:13. The
apostle is about to have recourse to a
more familiar mode of teaching than he
had hitherto used in his Epistle;
hence he approaches his readers
addressing them by this title, which
gives to what follows the character of
a conversation.—In the parenthesis:
for I speak to those who ..., the for
refers to the negative answer which is
to be supplied after the question: are
ye ignorant: “No, ye cannot be
ignorant of the legal prescription
which I am about to quote”...—We must
avoid translating as if the article
toi'" stood before the participle
ginwvskousi : “ to those among you who
know the law. ” The grammatical
form proves that the apostle here, as
well as by the word brethren , is
addressing the whole of the church of
Rome. This is one of the passages
from which many conclude that this church
was almost exclusively
composed of Jews (Baur, Holtzmann), or
at least of proselytes (De Wette,
Beyschl.). Nevertheless, even Mangold
allows (p. 73) that “this expression
may apply also to Christians of
Gentile origin, as the O. T. was received
and read throughout the whole church
as a document of revelation.” One
might even go farther, and maintain
that it
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
would be superfluous to remind those
who had been Jews that they are
such as know the law. Very early the
reading of the O. T. passed from the
worship of the synagogue to that of
the church. The Epistles addressed to
the churches of the Gentiles prove to
what an extent the apostles
assumed their readers to be acquainted
with the history and oracles of the
O. T. St. Paul thus interrogates the
Galatians, who certainly were not of
Jewish origin (4:21): “Tell me, ye
that desire to be under the law,
understand ye not the law?”—Now, here
is one of the articles of that law,
which, spiritually applied, solved the
question of the relation between the
Christian and the law. The code, in
case of death, allowed the surviving
spouse to remarry. If, consequently,
it is a fact that there was a death in
the case of the believer, it follows,
according to the law itself, that he is set
free from the law, his former spouse.
Such is the summary of the following
verses.—So true is it that ver. 1 is
still connected with ver. 14, and gives
the development of the words of that
verse: not under the law , that the
term kurieuvein , to be master , to
have power over, is borrowed from that
verse.—The term man , a[nqrwpo" ,
may designate either sex. In ver. 2,
where the case of the female is
specially in question, Paul uses another
word ( ajnhvr ) to denote the
husband.—The subject of the verb zh'/ , lives ,
according to our translation, is, the
man. The law bears rule over the
individual man, so far as his civil
relations are concerned, as long as he is
in life. Some commentators (Or., Er.,
Beng.) understand as the subject of
the verb lives , novmo" , the
law. This would give the idea of the abolition
of the law by the coming of Christ, in
the sense of 10:4. But this sense is
incompatible with the following verse,
where the word zw'nti (to the living
husband) reproduces the idea of zh'/ ,
liveth , from ver. 1, as well as with
the antithesis: “but if the husband be
dead. ” Besides, the idea of the
whole passage is not that of the
objective abolition of the law by the
coming of Christ; the point in
question is the believer's subjective
emancipation from this external
standard through faith in Christ's death.
Philippi agrees with us in making oJ
a[nqrwpo" , man , the subject of the
verb zh'/ , liveth; but he applies the
notion of living to life in sin (6:2), to
which faith in Christ has put an end
(6:2-11). The meaning of these last
words of the verse would thus be: “The
law has only power over the man
as long as he continues in his own
life, in his natural state of sin; from the
time he renounces it to enter into
union with Christ, he is set free from the
law.” Hence it would follow that ver.
1, instead of citing an example taken
from the law, with the view of
illustrating the thought of the passage,
would itself express this thought. But
it is impossible thus to separate ver.
1 from the sequel. The for of ver. 2
shows that the latter is only the
explanation of the article of the law
quoted in ver. 1. Besides, how could
the reader have suspected this
extraordinary meaning of the word live ,
which would here designate neither
common life nor life in God? Finally,
the words: “I speak to you as to those
who know the law,” forbid us to take
the following maxim as anything else
than an extract from the law. The
first three verses form a whole: the
example, namely, taken from the code
relating to conjugal life. ver. 4 will
apply the general maxim contained in
this example to the domain of
religion.
Ver. 2. The maxim cited in ver. 1 is
developed in ver. 2. The same law
which renders the woman inseparable
from the man as long as he lives,
sets her free from this subjection as
soon as he dies. In the first
proposition the emphasis is on the
word zw'nti , living; in the second, on
the words: if he be dead. The precept
Deut. 24:2 expressly authorized the
marriage of a woman put away by her
first husband with a second; and a
fortiori , a new marriage after the
first husband was dead. If, in the first
proposition, the apostle does not
speak of the case of divorce, it is
because he is referring to the woman
as the acting party, and because in
any case it did not
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
belong to the woman to put away her
husband. The husband alone had
the right to give a letter of divorce,
Deut. 24:1. The expression kathvrghtai ,
literally: is annulled, has ceased to
be , and hence, naturally, is freed from
, is chosen to extend in a sense to
the woman herself the notion of death ,
which applies in strictness only to
the husband. The conjugal bond being
broken by the husband's death, the
wife dies also as a wife. Thus the
formula of ver. 1, which seemed to
apply only to the deceased, is found to
apply likewise to the widow. She is
dead (to the conjugal bond) in her
dead husband. Some take the
expression: the law of the husband , as
meaning the article of the code
concerning marriage, lex ad maritum
pertinens. But it is more natural to
understand by this law the legal power
with which the husband is invested in
relation to his wife.—The difficult
question in this verse is why Paul
takes as an example a wife losing her
husband and free to remarry, rather
than a husband losing his wife and
enjoying the same right. For the two
cases equally demonstrate the truth
of the maxim of ver. 1. The fact that
the law bound the woman more
strictly than the husband, does not
suffice to explain this preference. It is
the application which Paul proposes to
make of his example to the
spiritual life which will give us the
solution of the question. It shows, in
point of fact, that Paul had in view
not only the breaking of the believer's
soul with the law (the first husband),
but also its new union to the risen
Christ (the second husband). Now in
this figure of the second marriage,
Christ could only represent the
husband, and the believer, consequently,
the wife. And this is what leads the
apostle to take a step farther, and to
attribute death to the wife herself.
For Christ having died, the believing
soul cannot espouse Him except as
itself dead.
Ver. 3. “ So then if, while the
husband liveth, she be married to another
man, she shall be called an
adulteress; but if the husband be dead, she is
freed from the law, that she may not
be an adulteress, though she be
married to another
man. ”—This verse is not a needless
repetition of ver. 2. It serves to draw
from the legal prescription explained
in ver. 2 the conclusion which the
apostle has to demonstrate—the
legitimacy of a second union in the case
supposed. What would be a crime during
the husband's lifetime, becomes
legitimate when he is dead.—The term
crhmativzein strictly signifies to do
business , and hence: to bear the name
of the profession to which one is
devoted. To this day a large number of
our family names are names of
some trade. Comp. also Acts 11:26.—The
expression: freed from the law ,
is defined by the context: it bears
special reference to the law on the rule
of marriage. But the expression is
designedly kept up in all its generality to
prepare for the absolute application
of it to believers, which the apostle is
about to make.— That she may not be an
adulteress (if she marries
again): the law was really intended to
reserve for her such
liberty.—Augustine, Beza, and
Olshausen have attempted another
explanation, according to which vv. 2
and 3 are not the development, but
the allegorical application of the
maxim of ver. 1. In its clearest form it is
as follows, as it seems to me: The
woman bound by the law to her living
husband is the human soul subjected by
the law to the dominion of sin
(the first husband). The latter, sin,
dying (through faith in Christ crucified),
the soul is set free from his power,
and enjoys the liberty of entering into
union with Christ risen (the new
husband). But this explanation would
carry us back to the idea of the
preceding passage (emancipation from sin
), whereas ver. 6 shows clearly that
Paul means to speak here of
emancipation from the law. Then the
relation between vv. 1 and 2 would
require to be expressed, not by for ,
but by so ( ou{tw ), or so that ( w{ste ).
Finally, the w{ste , so that , of ver.
4 shows it is not till then that the moral
application begins.
Ver. 4. “ So that, my brethren, ye
also are become dead to the law by the
body
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
of Christ; that ye should belong to
another, even to Him who is raised from
the dead, that we should bring forth
fruit to God. ”—Coming to the
application, the apostle approaches
his readers anew, and more closely,
addressing them as: my brethren. It is
as if he were to say to them
familiarly: Let us see! Now, then, is
it not clear to you all?—The
conjunction w{ste , so that , cannot
be taken, as some have sought to do,
in the sense of likewise , or so then.
The natural sense: so that , is
perfectly suitable, if only the force
of this conjunction is made to bear not
exclusively on the following verb: Ye
are dead to the law , but on the verb
with its entire connection: Ye are
dead to the law; that ye should belong to
another. It is not the death of
believers in Christ crucified whose legitimacy
the apostle wished to show by the
preceding example taken from the law,
but the new union of which this death
is the condition.—The same need of
drawing close to his readers which
suggests the form of address: my
brethren , leads him also to use the
second person, which is more in
keeping with the direct application to
which he is now coming.— Ye also:
quite like this wife who is dead (as a
wife) through her husband's death,
and who thus has the right to marry
again.— jEqanatwvqhte , ye are dead ,
or more literally: Ye have been put to
death in relation to the law. The first
aorist passive here expresses, as
usual, the highest degree of passivity.
Jesus draws believers as it were
violently into communion with Him in His
sufferings. This participation in His
violent death is not exactly the same in
this passage as that spoken of in ver.
6 of the preceding chapter. The
latter referred to the believer's
death to sin , whereas Paul says here: “Ye
are dead to the law. ” Christ on the
cross died to the law, inasmuch as this
punishment set Him free from the
jurisdiction of the law, under which He
had passed His life, and from the
Jewish nationality which had determined
the form of His earthly existence
(Gal. 4:4). The believer who appropriates
this death appropriates also the
glorious liberty which in the case of Christ
was its consequence. Delivered in Him
from the law of ordinances (Eph.
2:15), he enters with Him into the
higher life of communion with God.
When Paul says: by the body of Christ
, he reminds us that it was this
body which formed the bond between
Christ and the theocratic nation
(1:3); and that this bond once broken
in His case by death, it is also
broken in that of believers, who draw
their life from Him. There is no
reference in this context to the gift
of His body as the price of our
redemption (Gess).—The application of
the idea of death to believers, in
the words: Ye are dead to the law ,
agrees with the observation we have
made on the expression kathvrghtai ,
she (the wife) is annulled, has
ceased to be (as a wife), at the end
of ver. 2. As the new husband is a
dead and risen Christ, the wife must
necessarily be represented as dead
(through the death of her first
husband, the law), that she may be in a
position to be united to Christ as one
risen again. It is a marriage, as it
were, beyond the tomb. And hence it is
that the apostle is not content with
saying: “Ye have been put to death in
relation to the law; that ye should
belong to another ,” but adds
immediately: “ to Him who is raised from the
dead. ”—We can now understand
perfectly how Paul, with this application
in view from the beginning, extended
the notion of death , which, strictly
speaking, applied only to the husband,
to the wife, by the term kathvrghtai ,
she is abolished, has ceased to be ,
ver. 2.—It is easy to see that this
figure of a marriage between the soul
dead in Christ crucified and Christ
risen expresses exactly the same idea
as we have found already in 6:5,
and as was developed in the whole
passage 6:6-10; only this idea is
resumed here to deduce from it the
believer's enfranchisement in regard
to the law. We may therefore thus sum
up the contents of these four
verses: As by His death Christ entered
upon an existence set free from
every legal statute and determined by
the life of God alone, so we, when
we have
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
died to sin, enter with Him into this
same life in which, like a remarried
widow, we have no other master than
this new Spouse and His Spirit.
The object of this new union, says
Paul, concluding this development, ver.
4, is, that we may bring forth fruit
unto God. By this expression he
unmistakably continues and completes
the figure which he began,
namely, that of marriage. The new
issue which is to spring from this union
between the Risen One and His church
is an activity rich in holy works
wrought in the service of God (
karpoforh'sai tw'/ Qew'/ , to bear fruit unto
God ). To reject this view of the
figure is to show a prudery which is
neither in harmony with the spirit of
antiquity, nor with that of the gospel
itself. It is, in fine, to put oneself
in contradiction to the two following
verses, which can leave no doubt as to
the apostle's real meaning.—On
what does the that depend? Hofmann and
Schott hold that it must be
connected solely with the last words:
to Him that is raised from the dead,
that ...; Christ is raised to a
celestial life that He might communicate it to
us, and render us active in God's
service. But the aim of the resurrection
cannot be thus restricted, and the
sequel proves that the that depends, as
is natural, on the principal idea:
that ye should be married to another. It is
not the resurrection, it is the union
of the believer with the Risen One,
which has for its end to give birth to
a life of good works. This appears
from the following verses, in which
the apostle contrasts union with the
law, which produced fruits of sin,
with union with Christ, which results in
the best fruits. What has led Hofmann
to this false explanation is the
desire to account for the transition
from the second person plural: ye have
been put to death...ye were married
..., to the first: we should bring forth
fruit: “ He is raised for us,
believers , that we should bring forth”...Some
commentators, indeed (Meyer, to a
certain extent), suppose that the verb
in the second person and the pronoun
uJma'" ( you ) were written from the
viewpoint of Judeo-Christians; for, it
is said, only people formerly subject
to the law could become dead in
relation to it. The last verb in the first
person is, on the contrary, it is
said, written from the standpoint of all
Christians. But the author of these lines,
being himself of Jewish origin,
would require to say, and especially
when speaking of Judeo-Christians,
we , rather than ye. Comp. Gal. 3:13,
where, speaking in the name of
believers of Jewish origin, he says we
, to contrast with them afterward, in
ver. 14, the Gentiles , and in the end
to combine both in a final we. The
true explanation of the contrast
between ye and we in our passage is
simpler. At the beginning of this
passage, Paul, to get near to his readers,
had passed from the didactic tone to
the direct address: brethren! It was a
way of saying to them: “Understand
thoroughly, brethren; it is your own
history which was contained beforehand
in this legal prescription.” A new
and still more urgent apostrophe had
followed in ver. 4 ( my brethren), at
the point where from the explanation
Paul was passing to the application.
And now the application being made by
the: Ye became dead, that ye
should belong , the didactic tone of
the treatise recommenced with the:
that we should bring forth fruit ,
which is true not only of the Roman
readers, but of the whole Church; and
the first person continues (vv. 5, 6);
comp. 8:12, 13 (the inverse change).
In ver. 6 he also affirms, as well as
in ver. 4, things which at first sight
can only suit believers of Jewish origin:
“ that (the law) under the power of
which we were held. ” This is because
the apostle does not forget that the
experiment of the effects of the law
made by the Jews is to the benefit of
all mankind. For if the law had
continued for the Jews, its
maintenance must have issued in extending
the reign of the law to the rest of
the world; and so it was indeed that
Paul's adversaries understood it ( the
Judaizing false brethren ), so that it
is when addressing all believers that
he can say: “Ye became dead to the
law by the body of Christ, that ye
should be married to the Risen One.”
Calvin also says, speaking of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
every Christian: “From hand to hand, passing
from the power of the law ,
we were given over to Christ.” Apart
from Christ, the Gentiles would have
no other religious future than
subjection to the Jewish law.—The apostle
had just proved by the law itself that
believers, in consequence of the
death which they have undergone, may
without unfaithfulness cast off the
yoke of the law, and contract a new
union with Christ. He now points out
the grave reason which they have for
using this right and preferring this
new union to the previous one. The
fruits which shall issue from it will be
as excellent as those which proceeded
from the former were detestable.
This expression: fruits , recalls the
conclusion of the preceding passage,
6:20-23, where the moral result of the
two servitudes was described. Here
the subject is two marriages. The
contents of the two verses 5 and 6 were
announced in the last words of ver. 4.
And first, ver. 5: the first marriage
and its fruits.
Ver. 5. “ For when we were in the
flesh, the affections of sins, excited by
the law, did work in our members to
bring forth fruit unto death; ”—The for
evidently bears not on ver. 5 only,
but on vv. 5 and 6 together.—The
expression: to be in the flesh , is
very far from being synonymous with
living in the body; comp. Gal. 2:20.
The term flesh , denoting literally the
soft parts of the body, which are the
usual seat of agreeable or painful
sensations, is applied in biblical
language to the whole natural man, in so
far as he is yet under the dominion of
the love of pleasure and the fear of
pain, that is to say, of the tendency
to self-satisfaction. The natural
complacency of the ego with
itself—such is the idea of the word flesh in
the moral sense in which it is so
often used in Scripture. Now, what part
does the law play in the moral
development of man in this state? The
affections of sins , paqhvmata
aJmartiw'n , are, says Paul, excited by it. The
Greek term, which may be rendered by
affection or passion , denotes an
essentially passive state. And,
indeed, the affections of sense, which
correspond to certain external objects
fitted to satisfy them, are less of the
nature of spontaneous determinations
of the will, than the effect of
impressions received. As to the
complement: of sins , it might be taken
either as the genitive of cause
(produced by sins), or of quality (which
have the character of sins). But in
both senses the singular: of sin , would
have been more natural. This
complement might also be explained as the
genitive of apposition: the affections
in which the varied inward forms of
sin consist , such emotions as are
intemperate or impure, interested or
proud, selfish or violent. But is it
not more natural to see in this
complement: of sins , the genitive of
effect? the affections which do not fail
to produce every kind of sins, as soon
as, being strongly excited, they
seek their gratification.—The regimen:
by the law , depends directly on the
word paqh/mata , the affections; it
cannot signify: produced by the law,
which would be to say too much; for
they result from the natural state
which Paul designated by the
expression: to be in the flesh. We must
therefore explain: excited by the law;
this coming into collision with those
instincts which were asleep, makes
them pass into the active and violent
state. Why as a fact do we find man
degrading himself so often, by
passing beyond the simple satisfaction
of his wants, and plunging into
excesses to which the brute does not
descend? There is not in the latter
case that arrest of law which seems so
often nothing more to man than an
incitement to evil- doing.—The term
ejnhrgei'to , acted, operated , literally,
worked within , denotes that sort of
inward fermentation which is produced
when the passions, excited by the
resistance of the commandment, seek
to master the body in order to their
gratification. The verb ejnergei'sqai , to
act, operate , is always taken by Paul
in the middle sense, which we give
to it here, never in the passive
sense. to be put in action; comp. 1 Thess.
2:13; 2 Thess. 2:7; Gal. 5:6; 2 Cor.
1:6, 4:12, etc. etc. The
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
word: the members , corresponds to the
expression: of the sins. Every evil
instinct has, so to speak, an agent
corresponding to it in one of the
members of the body. The result of
this impure working, caused by the
shock of the holy law against the
carnal heart of the natural man, is an
abundance of evil fruits which produce
death in man; comp. Jas. 1:14, 15.
The eij" , to, in order to ,
contains, as it always does, the notion of end ,
and not only of effect. In the
affections of the flesh, it is said, 8:6, there is a
secret aspiration after death. The man
who acts without God tends to
separate himself ever more profoundly
from God.
Ver. 6. “ But now we are delivered
from the law, being dead to him under
whom we were held; so that we serve in
newness of spirit, and not in
oldness of the letter. ”—The contrast
between this but now and the when
we were of ver. 5, corresponds
exactly, both as to form and substance,
with the contrast between the when ye
were and the but now , 6:20 and
22; only with an application to another
domain (that of the law). In the
kathrghvqhmen , literally, we were
annulled , we again find the form already
explained in ver. 2, where it was said
of the woman deprived of her
standing as a married wife by the
death of her husband: kathvrghtai , she
is abolished , she has ceased to be
(as a wife). Here, as in the former
case, this verb, construed with the
preposition ajpov , from , contains the
idea of the most complete deliverance.
We have seen in ver. 4 that this
deliverance resulted from the death
undergone in Christ ( ye were put to
death ). It is this last idea which is
recalled by the being dead ,
ajpoqanovnte" . The reading of
the T. R.: ajpoqanovnto" , that under which
we were held (the law) being dead ,
arises, according to Tischendorf, from
a mistake of Beza, who followed
Erasmus in a false interpretation which
he gives of a passage from Chrysostom.
In point of fact, as we have seen,
the idea of the abolition of the law
is foreign to this passage. As to the
reading tou' qanavtou of the
Greco-Latins: “We are delivered from the law
of death under which we were held,” it
has probably been occasioned by
the expression: to bring forth fruit
unto death , ver. 5; but this qualification
of the law is equally foreign to the
passage before us.—Could the master,
under whom we were held, possibly be,
as Hofmann would have it, the
flesh , taking the ejn w|/ as a neuter
pronoun? But the whole context, as
well as the parallel passage, ver. 4,
shows clearly that the subject in
question is the law. The antecedent of
ejn w|/ is the demonstrative
pronoun toutw'/ ( him , that is to
say, the master ) understood. The last
words: under whom we were ..., appear
superfluous at first sight; but they
are intended to remind us of the example
taken from the law, which was
the starting point of this
demonstration (vv. 1-3).
But this liberation does not tend to
license. On the contrary, it is to issue in
a douleuvein , a new servitude of the
noblest and most glorious nature,
which alone indeed deserves the name
of liberty. This term douleuvein , to
serve , is chosen as alone applicable
to the two states about to be
characterized.— In newness of spirit ,
says the apostle; he thus
designates the new state into which
the Holy Spirit introduces the
believer, when He establishes a full
harmony between the inclination of
the heart and moral obligation; when
to do good and renounce self for
God has become a joy. With this state,
of which he gives us a glimpse,
and which he reserves for description
(chap. 8), the apostle in closing
contrasts the former state. This he
puts second, because it is the state
which he proposes to describe
immediately, vv. 7-25. He calls it oldness
of the letter: there may be in this
expression an allusion to the old man ,
palaio;" a[nqrwpo" , 6:6;
but anyhow Paul wishes to designate this state as
now past for the believer; it is from
the viewpoint of his new state that he
can characterize it thus. The letter
is the moral obligation written in the
code, imposing itself on man as a
foreign law, and opposed to his
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
inward dispositions. Is it not
legitimate (vv. 1-4) and advantageous (vv. 5,
6) to break with such a state, and
enter upon the other, as soon as this
possibility is presented by God
Himself?
The apostle has shown in the first
section that the gospel has the power to
sanctify, and thereby to put an end at
once to the reign of sin and law,
which are one and the same state. He
proceeds to explain that the law
need not be an object of regret, since
it is powerless to sanctify. It has
therefore no well-founded protest to
raise against the judgment which falls
on it. Such is the subject of the
following section.
Second Section (7:7-25). Powerlessness
of the Law to Sanctify Man.
Sixteenth Passage (Vers. 7-25.)
The essential ideas of this passage
are the following: After having
involved man in death (vv. 7-13), the
law leaves him to struggle in this
state which cleaves to his nature, and
from which it has no power to
extricate him (vv. 14-23). It cannot
bring him farther than to sigh for
deliverance (vv. 24, 25).
But in developing this theme of the
powerlessness of the law, is not the
apostle turning backward? Was not this
subject treated already in chap.
3? It seems so, and this is one of the
reasons why Reuss thinks that our
Epistle is deficient in systematic
order. But what Paul proved in chap. 3
was the insufficiency of the law to
justify; the demonstration to be given in
the part relative to justification by
faith. What he proves here is its
powerlessness to sanctify , which is
entirely different, at least in the eyes
of the apostle, and of all those who
do not confound justification and
sanctification.
It is perfectly intelligible how,
after displaying the sanctifying power of the
gospel (vi.-7:6), the apostle should
take a look backward to consider the
work of the law, and describe it from
this point of view. This retrospective
glance at the part played by an
institution which he regards as divine, and
which had ruled so important a part of
his life, does not at all, as has been
thought, assume Judaizing readers, or
even such as were of Jewish-
Christian origin. The question of the
influence of the law was of general
interest; for the new gospel
revelation appeared everywhere as a
competitor with the ancient revelation
of the law, and it concerned all to
know their respective value in the
work of man's sanctification; some, on
the one side, wishing to know if they
should remain under the law; others,
if they should place themselves under
its discipline.
The following section consists of only
one passage, divided into two parts.
In the first (vv. 7-13), the apostle
proves from experience that the law can
only kill man morally—that is to say,
separate him from God; in the
second, from ver. 14, he shows its
powerlessness to extricate him from
the sad state into which he is
plunged. The passage has this peculiarity,
that the theses demonstrated are not
expounded in a general way, but in
a purely personal form; ver. 7: “ I
had not known”...; ver. 8: “Sin wrought in
me ”...; ver. 9: “ I was alive... I
died”...; ver. 11: “Sin deceived me; ” ver. 14:
“ I am carnal;” ver. 15: “What I
would, that I do not;” ver. 22: “ I delight in
the law of God;” ver. 24: “Who shall
deliver me? ” ver. 25: “ I thank God.”
This style continues even into the
beginning of the following chapter, 8:2:
“The law of the spirit of life hath
made me free.” The question is, who is
the personage denoted throughout this
whole piece by the ejgwv , I?
Commentators have indulged in the most
varied suppositions on this
point.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
1. Some Greek commentators (Theoph.,
Theod. of Mops.) have thought
that Paul was here speaking of himself
as representing the whole race of
mankind from the beginning of its
existence, and was thus relating the
great moral experiences of the human
race up to the time of its
redemption.
2. Others (Chrys., Grot., Turret.,
Wetst., Fritzs.) apply this description to
the Jewish nation. Apostolus hic sub
prima= persona= describit hebraeum
genus , says Grotius. The experiences
here described (see below) are
referred to the different phases of
their history.
3. A large number of commentators
(most of the Fathers, Er., the Pietistic
school, the rationalistic critics,
Beng., Thol., Neand., Olsh., Baur, Mey.,
Th. Schott, Holst., Bonnet, etc.),
consulting the context more strictly, think
that the apostle, in virtue of his
past history, is here introducing himself as
the personification of the legal Jew ,
the man who, being neither hardened
in self-righteousness, nor given over
to a profane and carnal spirit, seeks
sincerely to fulfil the law without
ever being successful in satisfying his
conscience.
4. After his dispute with Pelagius,
Augustine, who had formerly adhered to
the previous opinion, gave currency to
another explanation. He
expounded the passage, especially from
ver. 14, as referring to the
converted Christian; for he only can
be so profoundly in sympathy with the
divine law as Paul describes himself
in the passage, and on the other
hand every believer in the course of
his life has those profound
experiences of his misery which are
here described by the apostle. This
opinion was followed by Jerome, then
adopted by the Reformers, and
defended in our time by Philippi,
Delitzsch, Hodge, etc.
5. Only two commentators, so far as
known to us, restrict the application
of the passage to the apostle's own
person. Hofmann, who, if we
understand rightly, refers it to Paul
as a Christian, but such as he finds
himself when he abstracts for a moment
from his faith, and Pearsall
Smith, who thinks that Paul is here
relating a painful experience of his
Christian life, in consequence of a
relapse under the yoke of the law; after
which chap. 8, he thinks, sets forth
his return to the full light of grace.
We shall not pronounce on what we
believe to be the true sense of the
apostle till we have studied this
controverted passage in all its details. The
first part extends to the end of ver.
13. It explains the effects of the first
living contact between the divine law
and the carnal heart of man. Sin is
unveiled, ver. 7, and in consequence
of this discovery it gathers strength
and grows (vv. 8, 9), so that man,
instead of finding life in his relation to
the law, finds death (vv. 10, 11). But
this tragical result must be ascribed
not to the law itself, but to sin,
which uses the law to this end.
Vv. 7-13.
This whole exposition is introduced by
the objection which consists in
identifying the law with sin. But it
must not be thought that the apostle's
aim is really to exonerate the law
from such a suspicion. Who, in the circle
in which he taught, could have
pronounced such a blasphemy against an
institution recognized to be divine?
What the apostle wishes to justify is
not the law; it is his own teaching,
from which it seemed to follow that the
two things, law and sin, are
inseparably united, or even identical. Had he
not just proved that to be set free
from sin is to be so also from the law?
Does it not seem to follow that the
law and sin are one and the same
thing? It is this impious consequence
from which he proceeds to clear his
gospel. He
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
shows that if the law plays so active
a part in the history of sin, it is by no
means because of its own nature, which
would be wicked, but because of
the exceedingly sinful nature of sin.
Ver. 7. “ What shall we say then? Is
the law sin? Let it not be! Nay, I did
not learn to know sin, but by the law;
for I had not known lust, if the law
had not said, Thou shalt not covet.
”—Some commentators think that in
the second question the word sin
should be taken in the sense of a cause
of sin. But Paul would easily have
found a way of expressing this thought
more precisely. The simple meaning of
the terms which he uses is this: Is
the law something bad in itself,
contrary to the essence and will of God,
and consequently malignant? And this
meaning suits the context still
better than the preceding one, which,
however, does not imply that we
should paraphrase aJmartiva , sin , by
aJmartwlov" , sinner (Mey., Philip.), a
term which can only be applied to a
personal agent.—While repelling with
indignation the conclusion ascribed to
him, the apostle nevertheless
points out the measure of truth which
it contains. The law does not
produce sin, but it is the law which
reveals it. There might be given to the
word a[lla , but , which follows the:
Let it not be! the meaning of a strong
contrast: Nay, but on the contrary. To
unveil sin is in reality, in some
respects, the opposite of producing
it. But the apostle has already in view
what he proceeds to expound in ver. 8,
the fact of the growth of sin as an
effect of its detection by means of
the law. And hence we think it better to
give to the word
a[lla , but , a restrictive sense, in
relation to the strong negation which
precedes. No, assuredly! But at least
this cannot be denied.—It is
unnecessary to give to oujk e[gnwn ,
literally: I did not learn to know , the
meaning of the conditional
(understanding a[n ): I should not have known.
The indicative is perfectly suitable.
It is a fact: “I did not learn to judge of
sin otherwise than by the light of the
law.”—The notion of knowledge ,
contained in e[gnwn , has been here
explained in many ways. Fritzsche
applies it to the existence of sin, as
when it is said: I did not know pain; for
I had not yet suffered. But this
meaning would throw the responsibility of
sin on the law, the very thing which
Paul wishes to avoid. Meyer thinks
that the law made sin known by calling
forth its violence, and so rendering
it more easily perceived. But in this
sense the idea of ver. 7 would not
differ from that of ver. 8; now this
is precluded by the dev , progressive or
adversative, at the beginning of the
verse (see the strait to which Meyer is
reduced to explain this transition).
Tholuck and Philippi give an entirely
different sense to the word know. The
point in question is not the proof of
the fact of sin, but the understanding
of its culpability: “It was by the law
that I knew sin as an act contrary to
the will of God.” But why in this way
force the application of the word know
, when its simple meaning is
perfectly sufficient: “I did not
perceive in myself the presence of the evil
instinct of sin, except by means of
the law;” comp. the e[gnwn , Luke 8:46:
I became aware of, I became conscious.
This sentence is absolutely
parallel, whatever Meyer may say, to
that in 3:20: “By the law is the
knowledge of sin.”—And how was this
discovery, made by means of the
law, effected? This is what the
apostle explains in the following
proposition: “ For also I had not
known lust if ”...He explains by a concrete
fact what he has just stated more
abstractly in the preceding proposition.
If he discovered sin by the law, it
was because one of the commandments
made palpable to him the presence of
lust, of whose abnormal existence
in his inner man he would otherwise
have remained forever
ignorant.—This te; gavr , for also,
and in fact , denotes two things: 1st, a
second fact of the same kind as the
preceding ( tev , also ); and 2d, the
second fact serving as a proof or
explanation to the first ( gavr , for ). Paul
might have remained ignorant forever
of the state of sin in which his heart
was sunk, if lust had not made it
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
palpable to him. And the presence of
lust would have forever escaped
him, if the tenth commandment had not
made it known to him. jEpiqumiva ,
lust , denotes that involuntary motion
of the soul ( qumov" ) toward ( ejpiv )
the external object which presents
itself as corresponding to its desire.
This motion of the soul toward the
objects which can satisfy it is so natural
to the human heart, that it would be
absolutely lost in the general current
of life, and would not fall specially
under the eye of conscience, unless the
law said: Thou shalt not covet. This
prohibition is needed to bring man to
fix his attention on this spontaneous
movement of the soul, and to
discover in this fact the symptom of
an inward revolt against the divine
will.—The pluperfect h[/dein has,
strictly speaking, the meaning of an
imperfect: I had learned to know, and
hence: I knew. But in consequence
of the if (if not=except) which
follows, this verb can only be taken logically
in the sense of a conditional
(understanding, as is frequently done, the a[n
which indicates this mood): I should
know (present), or: I should have
known (past). It may therefore be
translated in two ways: “I should not
know lust (present), except the law
said to me ( e[legen , imperfect).” Or: “I
should not have known (I should not
have been aware of) lust, except the
law had said” (extending the ellipsis
of the a[n to the second verb). In the
second case, Paul goes back in thought
to the previous time denoted by
e[gnwn : “I did not know except by...;
and in fact I should not have been
made aware of...except”...What seems
to me to decide in favor of the
latter sense, which places the action
in the past, is the relation indicated
between the two propositions, and
expressed by the te; gavr , for also , or
and in fact. For the abstract terms:
sin and law (in the first proposition),
there are substituted in the second
the two concrete terms: lust and
commandment. Sin appears in lust, as
law in the commandment. This is
what is signified in reality by the
te; gavr , the tev denoting the transition
from the general to the particular,
and the gavr characterizing the
particular fact as a proof or
explanation in relation to the general: “I did not
learn to know sin except by the law;
for in fact I should not have been
aware of lust (in which sin is
revealed), had there not been a positive
commandment saying to me: Lust not.”
With this sense also agrees the
difference between the two verbs:
e[gnwn , from gignwvskein , to learn to
know , and h[/dein , from ijdei'n , to
perceive (a fact). It was through the
tenth commandment that Paul discovered
lust, and it was by finding out
this inward fact of lust that he
became conscious of his state of sin.—In
this picture of his inner life Paul
gives us, without intending it, a very high
idea of the purity of his life as a
child and a young man. He might, when
confronted with the nine commandments,
have to the letter claimed for
himself the verdict, Not guilty, like
the young man who said to Jesus: “All
these have I kept from my youth up.”
But the tenth commandment cut
short all this self-righteousness, and
under this ray of the divine holiness,
he was compelled to pass sentence of
condemnation. Thus there was
wrought in him, Pharisee though he
was, without his suspecting it, a
profound separation from ordinary
Pharisaism, and a moral preparation
which was to lead him to the arms of
Christ and His righteousness. To this
so mournful discovery there was added
( dev , ver. 8) by and by a second
and still more painful experience.
Ver. 8. “ Then sin, taking occasion,
wrought in me by the commandment
all manner of concupiscence; for
without the law sin is dead. ”—After
revealing to him the presence of sin,
the law itself intensified in him the
force of this evil principle. This
idea of progress is indicated by the dev ,
now, then , which makes the fact
described in ver. 8 a sequel to that of
which we are reminded in ver. 7. The
word ajformhv , which we translate
by occasion , strictly signifies the
point of support from
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
which the spring or flight proceeds (
ajpov, oJrmavw ). Some critics make
the words dia; th'"
ejntolh'" , by the commandment , dependent on the
participle labou'sa , having taken. In
this case we should not have to
translate: “Taking occasion from the
commandment,” which would require
one of the prepositions ajpov or ejk
usual in such a case. The meaning
would be: “Taking occasion by means of
the commandment.” But it is
more natural to make this clause
depend on the principal verb wrought.
For, in the other sense, there would
have been no reason for inserting the
subject between this clause and the
participle which depended on it. The
analogous construction of ver. 11 also
leads us to make the clause: by the
commandment , dependent on the
principal verb wrought. —What is the
occasion meant by the apostle? The
usual answer is, the commandment
itself: “ In lege est occasio,” says
Calvin. This meaning is not inadmissible.
Sin, finding a series of prohibitions
enumerated in the commandment,
made use of this means to enkindle
desire for the forbidden objects. But is
it not more probable that Paul finds
the occasion of which sin makes use,
in those forbidden objects themselves,
when they appear to the eye or
imagination? “Sin finding an occasion,
in the view of one of those objects
in regard to which God says to me:
Thou shalt not covet, took advantage
of the circumstance to kindle in my
heart, through this very prohibition, the
manifold lusts which are related to
those different objects.” The point in
question here is the well- known
experience already remarked by the
ancients, that man always inclines to
forbidden fruit. Comp. Prov. 9:17.
The prohibition has for its effect to
fix the object strongly on the
imagination, and thereby to lend it a
new charm. The heart is as it were
fascinated by it, and the latent
desire changes into intense aspiration.
Thus every word of the commandment
has, so to speak, the property of
awakening in the heart a new lust. But
it must be constantly borne in mind
that this is only so because sin, the
egoistic instinct, already exists in the
heart. The commandment of itself does
not produce this result; it is sin
which, so to speak, trades upon the
commandment for its own profit. On a
sound nature, the commandment would
not have acted thus; witness the
first temptation in which a foreign
agent required to play the part here
ascribed to sin.—Calvin, in his
eagerness to exculpate the apostle
completely from the charge of
ascribing to the law the aggravation of sin,
gives this verse a purely logical
meaning. Paul means, according to him,
that the law manifested the various
lusts already present. Detexit in me
omnem concupiscentiam. This is
evidently to distort the meaning of the
apostle's words.
And in what state, then, was sin
before the law had thus made it abound
in all manner of particular lusts? It
was dead , says Paul. This expression,
far from signifying that it did not
exist , proves, on the contrary, its
presence, but, virtually, like the
germ of a disease still slumbering, which
the least circumstance may cause to
break out so as to bring the malady
to the acute state. And it is this
malignant principle, already in existence,
which bears all the responsibility of
the disagreeable effects of the law.
The literal translation would be:
Without law sin is dead. It is not as
Mosaic law, but as law , that is to
say, as an external letter, that the code
produces this pernicious effect on the
sinful soul. And this is what
warrants us in applying this description
to the law of nature, and what
explains how the nitimur in vetitum
may also be a confession of the
heathen conscience.—We must beware of
understanding with Beza the
verb h\n , was: “Without law sin was
dead.” The very ellipsis of the verb
proves that we have here a general
proposition.—The verses which follow
initiate us more deeply still into the
apostle's moral experiences, when he
was under the law.
Vv. 9, 10a. “ And I was alive when I
was formerly without law; but when
the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
commandment came, sin revived, and I
died; ”—Calvin well expresses the
rhythm of these verses: “The death of
sin is the life of man; and, on the
contrary, the life of sin is the death
of man.”—The Vatic. reads e[zhn
instead of e[zwn : both forms are
classical. What is this life which the
apostle enjoyed when he was yet
without law? Augustine, the Reformers,
and some modern commentators (Bengel,
Bonnet) think that the time in
question is when, sunk in his Pharisaical
delusions, filled with selfrighteousness,
Paul thought himself in possession of
the life of God, of
true righteousness. They understand
the: I was alive , in the sense of: I
thought myself alive. This
interpretation is in itself forced; but there is
more against it. Could Paul really say
of himself that, as a Pharisee, he
was without law? It was, on the
contrary, the time when he was absolutely
under the law , uJpo; novmon ,
according to 1 Cor. 9:20, kept under the
charge of the schoolmaster, who was to
bring him to Christ, according to
Gal. 3:24. Then if it was his Pharisee
life which he wished to characterize
in the words: when I was formerly
without law , what would be the time
denoted by the following words: when
the commandment came? Will it be
said: the time of his conversion, when
the law took its inmost meaning for
him, in Christ , its full spiritual
bearing? “Though before his eyes,” says
Calvin, when speaking of his life as a
Pharisee, “the law did not seriously
affect his heart with the conviction
of the judgment of God.” It was only by
the Spirit of Christ that his eyes
were opened, and that the commandment
truly humbled and condemned him. But
where, then, is this idea of the
interposition of Christ, and of the
profound crisis of which he speaks
elsewhere as a new creation? And was
the understanding of the
commandment then the sole or even the
principal character of this
transformation? Certainly, if these
words refer to his conversion, some
indication or other would not be
wanting to designate this transition to a
new faith. To discover a period in
Paul's life to which the words: formerly
when I was under the law , really
apply, we must go back to the days
which preceded the awakening of his
moral consciousness under the
operation of the law. We are thereby
led to the period of his childhood,
before he was subjected to the
Pharisaic ordinances and the exact
discipline of the law. From the age of
twelve, young Israelites were
subjected to the legal institutes, and
became, as was said, sons of the
law, bene8 hattorah. This stage of his
outward life was undoubtedly for the
young Saul the signal of the inward
crisis described from ver. 7 onward.
From the moment he found himself
called to apply the prescriptions of the
law seriously to his conduct, he was
not slow to discover sin within him;
for in the depths of his heart he
found lust; and not only did the law unveil
this evil principle to him, but it
intensified its power. The torrent bubbled
and boiled on meeting with the
obstacle which came in its way. Till then
Saul was alive , morally and
religiously, which does not mean merely that
he thought himself alive; nor does it
denote merely the innocent and pure
sprightliness of childhood, yet
untroubled by any remorse. The word live ,
when used by Paul, always includes
something more profound. It refers
here to the state of a young and pious
Israelitish child, trained in the
knowledge and love of Jehovah, tasting
by faith in the promises of His
word the blessings of the covenant,
awaking and going to sleep in the
arms of the God of his fathers, and
seeking not to displease Him in his
conduct. There was here a real
beginning of life in God , a pure flame,
which was extinguished no doubt
afterward by self-righteousness and by
the inward strife inseparable from it,
but which burst forth at last
magnificently at the breath of faith
in Jesus Christ.
The words: when the commandment came ,
after what precedes, refer
simply to the appearance of the
commandment, with its holy majesty, in
the conscience of young Saul. Then
began in him the serious attempt to
put it fully into practice. The
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
term commandment is used instead of
law , because, as ver. 7 shows, it is
specially the tenth commandment which
is in question. It is by it above all
that the work here described is
effected in him. This work was, as Paul
tells us, to make sin live or revive.
The term live forms an antithesis to the
other: sin is dead (ver. 8). It is a
somewhat difficult question which of its
two meanings is to be attached to the
preposition ajnav in the composition
of the verb ajnazh'n , that of anew
(like our re in revive): recovered life; or
whether, according to its strict
signification, above , it merely denotes here
the transition from the passive to the
active state: took life. Meyer, in favor
of the first sense, insists on the
fact that it is impossible to quote, either in
the N. T. or in the classics, a single
case in which this verb or its
analogues ( ajnabiovw, ajnabiwvskomai
) signifies anything else than revive
(Luke 15:24, for example). This cannot
be denied. Nevertheless it is true
that many verbs compounded with ajnav
do not at all include the idea of a
return to a previous state; thus
ajnatevllw , to spring (speaking of plants),
and to rise (speaking of the stars);
ajnaboavw , to raise the voice, to cry;
ajnazevw , to bubble up. The verb
ajnablevpw is taken in both senses: to
look above (Matt. 14:19; Mark 7:34;
Luke 19:5), and to see anew (Acts
9:12, 17, 18). In John 9:11, the
meaning is doubtful. If we translate:
“ recovered life,” what is the
previous life of sin present to the mind of the
apostle? Origen discovers here his
system of the pre-existence of souls,
and of a fall anterior to this present
life. Hilgenfeld also ascribes this idea
to the apostle. But how obscurely
would it be expressed, and how would it
come about that no other trace of it
is found in his writings? Rom. 5:12 is
anything but favorable to this theory.
Augustine and Bengel think of the
first appearance of sin in paradise;
but this fact is too remote to furnish us
with the explanation of the word
revive here. It would be better to hold that
Paul was thinking of sin as it had
lived in his parents before reviving in
him. But what is simpler still is to
abandon this idea of the renewal of the
life of sin, and to explain ajnazh'n
in the sense of: to awake to active
life.—The commentators who have
applied the preceding words to the
Pharisaic epoch of the apostle's life,
are embarrassed by the declaration:
Sin revived, and I died (10a). Would
such be the terms in which he would
characterize his new birth?
Impossible! But they apply, it will be said, to
the most advanced stage of his
Pharisaism. M. Bonnet says in this
direction: “Sin, pursued to its last
intrenchments, manifested its power by
a desperate resistance...; and, on the
other hand, the man saw the
nothingness of his moral life, and
succumbed to the sentence of death
executed by the law within the depths
of his consciousness.” But where in
Paul's Epistles do we find the
evidences of such a crisis? It seems to me
more natural to carry it back to the
time when his moral consciousness
was first developed, and to hold that
this state was gradually increasing
during the whole time of his
Pharisaism. ver. 10a The transition of sin from
its latent state to that of an active
force was to Saul a mortal stroke. The
internal divorce between God and him
was consummated: to infantine
liberty there succeeded fear, to
filial feeling the revolt of the heart and
servile obedience, two equally sure
symptoms of death. A weight
henceforth repressed the impulse of
his soul Godward.
The words which follow serve to bring
out the unforeseen character of this
effect (ver. 10b), and give the true
explanation of it (ver. 11).
Vv. 10b, 11. “ And the commandment,
which should have guided me to
life, was found to turn me to death;
for sin, taking occasion, deceived me
by the commandment, and by it slew me.
”—This coming into activity on
the part of sin, which Paul felt as if
he were the object of a spiritual
murder, was occasioned by a gift of
God, the commandment; for this was
the instrument of it, the commandment
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
which God had given to the faithful
Israelite with the words: “This do and
thou shalt live ” (Lev. 18:5)! Instead
of guiding him to holiness and peace,
or giving life , it did the opposite,
by revealing sin to him and increasing its
power, it raised a thick wall between
God and him, and involved him in
death! The feeling of surprise which
so unexpected a result produced is
expressed by the word euJrevqh , was
found. —Meyer understands the
term death (end of the verse) of
eternal death , in the sense that the man
who passes through such experiences is
doomed to final perdition (apart,
of course, from redemption). But Paul
is speaking of a more immediate
result, a separation from God, that
spiritual death which he describes
himself, Eph. 2:1 et seq.
Undoubtedly this description of the
effects of the law exhibits only one
aspect of the truth, that which had
been particularly experienced by Saul
the Pharisee. For he then regarded the
law as the means of establishing
his own righteousness (10:3), and not
as the pathway opened to divine
grace. The psalmists frequently
describe the effects of the law in a wholly
different light (Ps. 19, 119, etc.),
and we cannot doubt that Jesus Himself,
during the period of His development
up to His baptism, found in it the
fulness of what God had promised:
Doing these things, thou shalt live by
them , or what is expressed by the
words of Paul: “The commandment
which was given me to guide me to
life. ” Only, if it is to display this
beneficent effect, the law must be
received either by a heart free from sin,
or otherwise by a heart which does not
separate the commandment from
the grace accompanying the law, a
heart which seeks in it not the means
of acquiring self-merit and gratifying
its pride, but the way of union to the
God of the covenant by sacrifice and prayer:
as an illustration, let the
parable of the Pharisee and the
publican serve!
Ver. 11 is intended to explain what
really took place. It throws back the
blame of the sad experience related,
on its true author, sin , as was
already done in ver. 8, while
reproducing this explanation more forcibly
after the fuller development of the
experience itself in vv. 9 and 10. The
word hJ aJmartiva , sin , is placed
foremost; for it is the true culprit, not the
law; it is this depraved instinct
which the commandment encountered, and
which caused the latter to produce a
result diametrically opposed to that
for which it was given.—The words
taking occasion refer, as in ver. 8, to
the external objects corresponding to
our various lusts. The
commandment, by raising a barrier
between these objects and us, makes
them appear so much the more
desirable; we cannot get rid of the
impression that a jealous God takes
pleasure in refusing them to us, for
the very reason that they would
promote our happiness. Such is the
mirage which sin produces in us by the
commandment itself. The words:
deceived me by the commandment ,
certainly contain an allusion to the
part played by the serpent in Gen. 3,
where, as we have said, it fills the
office here ascribed to sin in
relation to man in innocence. It deceives and
seduces Eve by ascribing hatred to
God, love to itself; and hence murder,
separation from God, either by
internal revolt or external
disobedience.—The repetition of the
clause: by the commandment...by it ,
with each of the two verbs, expresses
forcibly how contrary to the nature
of the commandment is the part which
sin makes it play.—The verb
ejxapata/n includes the two ideas of
deceiving , and of thus causing to
deviate from the right road ( ejk ,
out of ). Deception causes to deviate,
and deviation leads to death: by it
slew me. It is incomprehensible how
Calvin should take the liberty of
giving a purely logical sense to the terms
deceived and slew: “Sin was unveiled
by the law as a seducer and
murderer ( Ergo verbum ejxepavthsen
non de re ipsa= , sed de notitia=
exponi debet).”
It remained to conclude by finally
formulating the result of this profound
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
psychological analysis contained in
the passage vv. 7-11. This is what is
done in vv. 12 and 13. The w{ste , so
that , ver. 12, announces a
conclusion.
Vv. 12, 13. “ So that the law
assuredly is holy, and the commandment
holy, just, and good. Did then that
which is good become death unto me?
Let it not be so! But sin, that it
might appear sin, wrought death in me by
that which is good; that sin by the
commandment might become
exceeding sinful. ”—The result
formulated in these two verses is this: The
holier the law is, the more does sin,
which has used it to produce evil,
appear thereby in the blackness of its
nature.—The apostle begins, in
view of the result indicated, by
removing from the law all suspicion of
blame. The mevn , undoubtedly , has no
corresponding dev , but. So far as
the sense goes, the dev is found in
ver. 13b This mevn is intended to guard
beforehand the unassailable character
of the law. Whatever may be said
afterward, nothing shall invalidate
the character of holiness belonging to
the law. The law , oJ novmo" ,
here denotes the Mosaic system in its
entirety, and the commandment hJ
ejntolhv , each article of the code in
particular. The term a{gio" ,
holy , is the word which in Scripture denotes
the perfect love of good; when it is
applied to God, it is the identity of His
will with goodness; when it is applied
to the creature, it is his voluntary
consecration to God, the one Being
essentially good. The law is holy ,
precisely because it demands this
consecration, and the commandment
also, because each commandment only
demands this consecration in a
particular relation. The two
characteristics just and good flow from and are
included in that of holiness. The
commandment is just
( dikaiva ), because it regulates in a
normal way the relations between
different beings. It is good ( ajgaqhv
), in the sense of beneficent; this
epithet is explained by the preceding
words: fitted to give life (ver. 10).
Ver. 13. Here was the place strictly
speaking for the but ( dev ), answering
to the mevn , assuredly , of ver. 12.
But Paul interrupts himself; he feels
the need of yet again stating the
problem in all its difficulty. This is what he
does in the question beginning ver.
13. The difference between the
reading of the majority of the Mjj.,
ejgevneto (aorist), and that of the T. R.,
gevgone (perfect), is this: The first
expresses the act by which this whole
internal history was brought about;
the second, the permanent state which
resulted from that act. The first is
therefore rather connected with what
precedes, the second with what
follows. From the internal point of view
both may consequently be defended; but
the authorities are rather in favor
of the first.—The problem being thus
put afresh in all its rigor, the second
part of ver. 13 gives its solution
precisely as the mevn of ver. 12 leads us
to expect, and as we have stated it at
the beginning of that verse.—The
second part of the verse has been
construed in many ways. And first,
what is the verb of the subject hJ
aJmartiva , sin , which begins the
sentence? Either it is derived from
the preceding sentence, by
understanding ejgevneto qavnato"
: “But sin (not the law) became my death
,” or “turned me to death.” But is not
this ellipsis somewhat serious? Or
the verb is found in the following
participle katergazomevnh , by making it a
finite verb: “But sin, that it may
appear sin, works my death (Calvin:
operatur mihi mortem) by that which is
good.” To this meaning there has
been objected the form of the
participle. But if the apostle means to
denote rather a quality than an act of
the subject, the participle may be
suitable: “Sin ( is ) working death,”
that is to say, is capable of working , or
wicked enough to work it. But this
return to the present tense would be
singular after the past ejgevneto ;
then it would require rather the present
fainh'/ , may appear , than the aorist
fanh'/ , might appear. Paul is not
speaking of what is , he is reflecting
on what has taken place. The first of
the two constructions would therefore
be preferable; but there is
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
still room for hesitation between two
alternatives: ( a ) Either the participle
katergazomevnh is taken as in
explanatory apposition to the principal
subject hJ aJmartiva , sin , by making
the three words i{na fanh'/ aJmartiva a
short parenthetical proposition: “But
sin, that it might appear sin, turned
me to death, working my death by what
was good.” The participle
katergazomevnh would have the force of
the Latin gerund. Only the general
sense suffers from an awkward
tautology: to turn to death by working
death! ( b ) Or the participle
katergazomevnh is joined to the proposition i{na
fanh'/ aJmartiva : “But sin (turned me
to death), that it might appear sin by
working my death by that which is
good.” This second sense is evidently
preferable. As to making the second
aJmartiva the subject of this
dependent proposition: “But sin turned
me to death that sin might appear
(to all eyes) working my death by what
is good,” it cannot be thought of;
this construction would require the
article hJ before the second aJmartiva .
We should therefore range ourselves
without hesitation on the side of
construction No. 1 b , were it not for
two grave difficulties, the one arising
from the thought itself, the other
from the connection between the two i{na
, in order that , which follow one
another in this verse. Could Paul say: Sin
turned me to death, that it might
appear sin slaying me by a good thing?
The idea is rather this: Sin caused my
death by a good thing , that it might
appear so much the more sin. Then what
relation are we to establish in
this sense between the two thats? Are
they parallel as two distinct and
simultaneous ends: Sin turned me to
death, 1st, that it might appear sin;
2d, that it might become exceeding
sinful? But the fact of becoming is not
parallel to that of appearing; the
latter is rather the result of the former. Or
should we give to gevnhtai , become ,
a purely logical sense, as is done by
many commentators: that it might
appear exceedingly sinful in the view of
my conscience? But this verb would
only serve in this sense to repeat the
idea of the verb fanh'/ , might
appear; and then why change the term? Or
should we see in the second that a
more remote end in relation to which
the first that would only be the
means? But appearing is not the means of
becoming; on the contrary, appearing
is the result of becoming. It is clear
that none of those constructions is
wholly satisfactory.
It seems to me that to obtain a result
in harmony both with the
requirements of language and of logic,
it is enough to modify construction
No. 1, and combine it so modified with
No. 2. We need to understand not
ejgevneto <SYMB >, page 2è9,<
vSYMB >avnato" , but merely the verb
ejgevneto , then to make of this
finite verb the point of support for the
participle katergazomevnh : “But sin,
that it might appear sin, turned to
[became] working ( ejgevneto
katergazomevnh ) my death by what was
good.” We have thus a simple ellipsis,
a meaning exact, clear, and in
keeping with the context; we keep up
the past tense ( ejgevneto ), which
suits the aorist fanh'/ ; we get an
analytic form ( ejgevneto katergazomevnh )
which, while leaving the fact in the
past, serves to bring out (by the
present participle) the permanent
attribute , and not merely the initial act ,
as the aorist kateirgavsato (ver. 8)
would have done. Finally, in this way we
get without difficulty at the
explanation of the two thats. The verb ejgevneto
katergazomevnh , became working ,
becomes the point of support for the
second that , which gives a clear
meaning: sin wrought death by
goodness, that it might become as
sinful as possible. God willed that sin,
by killing by means of that which was
ordained to give life , should commit
a true masterpiece of perversity. Hence
the second that: it applies to the
fact in itself ( gevnhtai , might
become ). And why did God will that it should
be so? This is what we are told in the
outset by the first that: that sin might
appear fully what it is, sin ( i{na
fanh'/ aJmartiva ). These three words form
a parenthetical proposition put at the
beginning to indicate from the first
the final aim
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
of this whole unexpected dispensation.
It was necessary that to manifest
completely its evil nature (the first
that ), sin should inflict death on me, not
by something evil (which would throw
part of the odium of this murder on
the means employed), but by something
good (the commandment), that
the crime might be completely the work
of sin (the second that ).
Thus we have three ideas—(1) sin slays
by that which is good; (2) that
thereby it may accomplish an act
worthy of its nature; (3) and that thereby
(final end) this nature may be
manifested clearly. It is obvious from this
progression that we must beware of
taking gevnhtai , might become , in the
logical sense, and of identifying as
far as the sense goes the two thats , as
Meyer does.
On vv. 7-13.—The commentators who
apply the moral experiences
described by the apostle in this
passage (p. 270) to mankind in general,
apply the words I was alive (ver. 9)
to the period of paradise; those which
follow: when the commandment came , to
the prohibition to eat of the tree
of the knowledge of good and evil, and
the rest of the passage, extending
to the end of the chapter, to the fall
and its consequences. By the
question: What shall we say then (ver.
7)? Paul would thus invite his
readers to a general contemplation of
the history of our race from the
beginning, to justify what he has been
expounding in regard to
emancipation from the law (vv. 1-6).
But this interpretation is excluded first
by the words aJmartiva nekrav , sin is
dead (ver. 8). In paradise, according
to St. Paul, sin was not dead; it did
not exist (ch. 5:12). Then neither
would the term ajnevzhsen , as
understood, be suitable to designate the
first appearance of sin. Finally, the
commandment expressly quoted (ver.
7) belongs to the code of Sinai, and thus
brings us face to face with the
Jewish law.
Those who, from Chrysostom to our day
(p. 271), apply this passage to
the Jewish people , find in the words
I was alive an indication of the
patriarchal period when the promise
was the bond between God and man,
and in the coming of the commandment ,
the epoch of Moses, when the
law broke this relation, and produced
the great national revolts. This
interpretation connects itself more
easily with the context than the
preceding. But neither is it tenable.
When we think of the shameful sins of
the patriarchal period, can we apply
to that time the descriptions of sin
being dead , and I was alive? Then is
it historically demonstrable that
through the giving of the law, the
state of the nation was made sensibly
worse, and that its relation to
Jehovah was broken? Do not the words of
Paul apply to an inward event
( covetousness , revelation of sin),
rather than to a great national
experience? Finally, what subtleties
are we led into by this explanation,
when we attempt to apply it in a
consequent way to the end of the section!
When we come to the passage 14-25, we
must then, with Reiche, apply
the first of the two I's which are in
conflict, to the ideal Jew, the Jew such
as he ought to be, and the other, to
the real Jew, such as he shows
himself in practice! We do not deny
that the human conscience in general,
and the Jewish conscience in
particular, may recognize their experiences
in those which are here described. But
that is natural; is not Paul a man
and a Jew? The truth is, the whole is
narrated about himself , but with the
conviction that his experience will
infallibly be that of every Israelite, and
of every man who will seriously use
the moral or Mosaic law as a means
of sanctification.
The point in question now is to trace
this experience to its profound cause.
Such is the study to which the
following section (vv. 14-25) is devoted ( for
, ver. 14).
Vv. 14-25.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
It is from this ver. 14 especially
that the difference between the two
explanations of the passage comes out:
that which applies it to the state
of man regenerate, and that which
regards it as depicting the impotent
struggles of a sincere and serious
man, but one still under the yoke of the
law, and ignorant of deliverance by
the Holy Spirit.
The principal reasons advanced in
favor of the first opinion are the
following (best developed perhaps by
Hodge): 1. The transition from the
past tense in the preceding passage to
the present in this; 2. The
impossibility of ascribing to
unregenerate man sentiments so elevated in
their nature as those which are here
professed: cordial assent to the law,
vv. 16 and 22, and profound hatred of
evil, vv. 15, 19, etc.; 3. ver. 25,
where the apostle seems expressly to
appropriate to himself at the
present time the entire description
which he has just traced: thus far the
objections whose validity or
groundlessness it belongs to exegesis alone
to determine. The only side of the
question which we can exhaust here is
that of the connection of this passage
with the preceding, and with the
section to which it belongs taken as a
whole.
1. Paul has just delineated, vv. 7-13,
the deadly action of the law upon
him, from the time it established its
supremacy in his inmost soul, and
from that period during the whole time
of his Pharisaism. How should he
now pass all at once from this
description, to that of his inward struggles
as a regenerate man? Hodge and
Philippi explain this transition by an a
fortiori. The law is powerless to
regenerate the natural man, it only serves
to increase the power of sin, vv.
7-13. And the proof is, that it does not act
otherwise, even on the believer's
heart, when, forgetting his faith for the
time, he finds himself as a naturally
carnal man face to face with the law.
Even with the profound sympathy which
his renewed heart feels for the
law, he cannot find in it the means of
sanctification which he needs; how
much less can it deliver from sin a
heart still unregenerate? This attempt
to construe the passage in keeping
with what precedes is ingenious, but
inadmissible. Exactly what it was most
essential to say in this case, to
make the argument intelligible, would
be understood: “Even since I have
become a new creature in Christ, I
cannot find any assistance in the law;
on the contrary, when I put myself
under its yoke, it renders me worse.”
This must have been said in order to
be clear. Paul says nothing of the
kind between vv. 13 and 14.
2. Another omission, not less
inexplicable, would be his passing over the
profound change which was effected in
him by regeneration. He would
pass from the period of his Pharisaism
(vv. 7-13) to his Christian state, as
it were on the same level, and without
making the least allusion to the
profound crisis which made all things,
and the law in particular, new to him
(2 Cor. 5:17). And it would not be
till chap. 8, and by an afterthought, that
he would come to his experiences as a
Christian. The author of the
Epistle to the Romans has not
accustomed us hitherto to a style of writing
so far from clear. Hodge says no doubt
that the apostle is here speaking
of the believer from the viewpoint of
his relations to the law, abstracting
from his faith. But a believer, apart
from his faith..., that surely resembles
a non- believer. So understood the
description of the miserable state, vv.
14-25, would be the demonstration not
of the impotence of the law, but of
that of the gospel.
3. How explain the contrast between
the delineation of chap. 7 and that of
chap. 8, a contrast infinitely sharper
than we find between the section vv.
7-13 (description of Saul as a
Pharisee) and vv. 14-25, a passage which
they would refer to Paul the
Christian? Is there, then, a greater difference
between Christian and Christian, than
between Pharisee and Christian?
Philippi alleges that the apostle
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
describes successively in the two passages,
vv. 14-25 and 8:1 et seq., the
two opposite aspects of the Christian
life , the believer without and the
believer with the breath of the
Spirit. But once again the great crisis would
require to be put in this case, not in
vv. 24 and 25, between the two
aspects of the same state , but
between
vv. 13 and 14, where the new state is
contrasted with the old, newness of
spirit with oldness of the letter , to
use Paul's own words.—The direction
of the apostle's thought is clearly
marked out by the section as a whole; it
may serve as a guiding thread in all
that follows. After showing that there
is in faith a new principle of
sanctification (6:1-14), which is a sufficiently
firm standard for moral life (vv.
15-23), and which renders emancipation
from the law possible and desirable
(7:1-6), he explains what the
intervention of the law produced in
his own life (vv. 7-13), and the state in
which, despite his sincere and
persevering efforts, it left him (vv. 14-23),
to issue in that desperate cry of
distress in which this state of continual
defeats finally expresses itself: Who
shall deliver me? Of this liberator he
does not know the name at the time
when he utters the cry (a fact which
proves that he is not yet in the
faith); but he anticipates, he hopes for, he
appeals to him without knowing him.
And heaven gives him the answer.
Chap. 8 contains this answer: The
Spirit of Christ hath set me free , ver. 2;
He it is who works in me all that the
law demanded, without giving me
power to do it (ver. 4).—This series
of ideas is unimpeachable; it only
remains to see whether in this way we
shall account for all the details of
the following passage, and succeed in
overcoming the objections
mentioned above, which have been
raised in opposition to this view.
This passage seems to me to fall into
three cycles, each of which closes
with a sort of refrain. It is like a
dirge; the most sorrowful elegy which ever
proceeded from a human heart.
The first cycle embraces vv. 14-17.
The second, which begins and ends
almost in the same way as the first,
is contained in vv. 18-20. The third
differs from the first two in form,
but is identical with them in substance; it
is contained in vv. 21- 23, and its
conclusion, vv. 24 and 25, is at the
same time that of the whole passage.
It has been sought to find a gradation
between these three cycles. Lange
thinks that the first refers rather to
the understanding , the second to the
feelings , the third to the
conscience. But this distinction is artificial, and
useless as well. For the power of this
passage lies in its very monotony.
The repetition of the same thoughts
and expressions is, as it were, the
echo of the desperate repetition of
the same experiences, in that legal
state wherein man can only shake his
chains without succeeding in
breaking them. Powerless he writhes to
and fro in the prison in which sin
and the law have confined him, and in
the end of the day can only utter
that cry of distress whereby, having
exhausted his force for the struggle,
he appeals, without knowing him, to
the deliverer.
First Cycle: Vv. 14-17.
Ver. 14. “ For we know that the law is
spiritual; but I am carnal , sold under
the power of sin. ”—We have in this
cycle, ver. 14, an affirmation: “I
acknowledge that the law...but I am
captive;” then the demonstration of
this fact (vv. 15 and 16); finally,
ver. 17, the conclusion, which is merely
the reaffirmation of the thesis now
demonstrated.
The reading of some MSS. oi[damen dev
, then , or but we know , has no
meaning. We must read gavr , for ,
with the majority of the Mjj. and
versions. This for might signify: The
case was really so; for witness my
state as it resulted from this
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
fatal crisis. The law slew me, and
what proves it is the state of death in
which I found myself involved from
that time. But it is more natural to
understand the transition from the
preceding passage to this somewhat
differently. Holstein seems to me to
put it well when he says: From the
historical phenomenon, described vv.
7-13, Paul now ascends to its real
moral nature, which explains it: “The
law produced on me the effect which
I have just described, because there
is an opposition between its nature
which is holy, and mine which is
corrupt.” This transition includes what we
have presented in the first place, for
the state in which the law involves us
is only the continuation of that in
which it had found us. It finds us
diseased, and leaves us so. If this is
the explanation of the for , we need
not be surprised at the use of the
present in the verbs which follow. We do
not certainly say with Hodge: Paul
speaks of the regenerate man
abstractly from his faith for the
time; but we say: Paul speaks of the
unregenerate man without concerning
himself with the question how far
the unregenerate heart still remains
in the regenerate believer. He
describes man as he is by nature, man
as he knew him, and still finds him
in himself, every time that his
natural character shows itself. Here is the
permanent essence of human nature
since the fall outside the action of
faith. Thus is explained the use of
the present , without our saying that
Paul describes his present state.—Some
commentators, such as Jerome,
Hofm., Schott, write oi[da mevn : I
know undoubtedly. But after that should
we not have had simply eijmi dev , but
I am , instead of ejgw; de;...eijmi :
“but as for me , I am”...? In point of
fact, this form implies a very marked
contrast between the I thus
emphasized, and some other subject in the
preceding context. And this subject to
which the I , ejgwv , forms an
antithesis, can only be the subject of
the preceding verb we. We are thus
led to regard the ordinary reading as
necessary: oi[damen , we know. In
this we , Paul no doubt includes with
himself all believers who have
passed through the same experiences,
and even the Jews who are at one
with Christians regarding the truth
affirmed by him.—The knowing , of
which he here speaks, is more than a
matter of understanding; the sequel
shows that it implies a cordial
adhesion to that truth (comp. the verbs
suvmfhmi, sunhvdomai , vv. 16 and 22):
“We know and heartily own that the
law is excellent.”—The epithet
spiritual , applied to the law, has been
understood by many, Beza for example,
in this sense, that the law is
suited to the spiritual nature of man
(the pneu'ma , the spirit , in man);
whence it follows that it demands not
only external observance, but also
the obedience of the heart. But the
term pneumatikov" , spiritual , is usually
connected with the idea of the Divine
Spirit; and as in chap. 8:4, Paul says
himself that what is demanded by the
law is wrought in them who walk
after the Spirit (evidently God's
Spirit), it is more exact to understand here
by spiritual: agreeable to the impulse
or tendency of the Divine Spirit.
What the law commands is nothing else
than what the Holy Spirit works in
the heart where He dwells. There is a
complete identity between the
external precept of the law and the
internal working of the Spirit. The idea
found here by Calvin, that the law
cannot be fulfilled except through the
Spirit, follows indeed from the
expression used by Paul, but does not
express its meaning.
But, says Paul, returning upon
himself, of what avail practically is this
knowledge which we all have of the
holy spirituality of the law? By the use
of the pronoun I , he here contrasts
with this collective acknowledgment (
we know ) the wholly individual
experience of his carnal state; and in this
latter he finds the invincible
obstacle to the fulfilment of the law, however it
may be recognized, as perfect in
theory. The reading of the T. R. and of
the Byzs., sarkikov" , and that
of the Mjj. of the two other families, sarkinov"
, have almost the same meaning:
carnal. But the first adjective denotes
carnal activity , the second the
carnal substance , and by
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
metonymy the carnal nature. As the
apostle in this passage is contrasting
with the essentially good law not only
his own sinful action , but his corrupt
nature , the form sarkinov" is
certainly preferable.—The notion flesh is here
taken in its moral sense, and
embraces, as it does in all cases where the
flesh is opposed to God , or to what
is divine, the whole human person.
Paul feels his natural self controlled
by the flesh, that is to say, by selfcomplacency,
the inclination to seek
self-satisfaction in everything. This
tendency is what determines his
natural will. And hence the incompatibility
between his nature and that of the
law, which demands absolute selfconsecration.—
He adds in explanation of the term
carnal , the words: sold
to sin , literally, “ under sin.”
Thereby he compares himself to a slave
bought for money. The seller is the
flesh, and the buyer, who has become
his master, sin. In fact, a fatal
contract, as it were, has taken effect on us,
whereby the violence of the flesh has
given over our will to the power of
sin. The expression sold under is
stronger than the usual form sold to; it
includes the idea of the shameful
state of servitude which has followed the
act of sale.
Ver. 15. “ Indeed what I perform I
know not: for what I would, that do I not;
but what I hate, that do I. ”—This
verse contains the proof from fact of the
state of slavery which Paul has just
affirmed. The slave knows not what
he does, for he does the will of
another. So Paul complains that his work
is not the result of a distinct view
in which he has, as it were, intellectually
possessed himself beforehand of what
he was going to do; it is the result
of blind instinct, which drags him
along as if without his knowledge, so that
when he sees it realized, it is not
what he wished; it is, on the contrary,
what he detests. The expression: I
know not , should not be taken in the
sense: “I do not own as good ,” a
forced sense, and one which is not
necessary.—The qevlein , will , which
Paul does not execute, is of course
the willing of good, and what he hates
and yet executes is certainly evil.
The moral tendency of his will to
purpose good and hate evil, is connected
with the acknowledgment of the
perfection of the law of which he spoke in
ver. 14. But this will which puts
itself on the side of the law is nothing more
than a desire, a wish, a simple I
should like , which gives way in practice.
Such, indeed, is the frequent meaning
of qevlein , to will , in Paul (1 Cor.
7:7; 2 Cor. 5:4, 12:20; Col.
2:18).—The term pravssein , to do , has the
meaning of working at , and expresses
the idea that his practical activity
does not follow the direction of his
will.— Misei'n , to hate , here denotes
moral reprobation; and poiei'n , to do
, which has the sense of
accomplishing , realizing, refers not
to activity in exercise ( pravssein ), but
to the product of the activity, so
that the exact paraphrase of the two last
propositions would be this: “At the
time when I act, I am not working in the
direction of my desire to fulfil the
law; and when I have acted, I find myself
face to face with a result which my
moral instinct condemns.”—It is asked
how Paul could ascribe to himself this
desire of good and hatred of evil,
while speaking of the time when he was
yet under the law? but we ask in
turn of those who refer this verse to
Paul in his regenerate state, how he
could in this state ascribe to himself
the powerlessness with which he
charges himself, especially if we
compare the contrast he brings out
between the state described here and
the delineation of the Christian he
draws in chap. 8? In fact, what this
verse expresses is nothing else than
what is contained in the words of
Jesus, John 3:24: “He that doeth truth
cometh to the light.” To do the truth
certainly denotes the loyal desire of
goodness; and this disposition
precedes faith in the case of the men of
whom Jesus is speaking, since the
latter is its consequence: cometh to
the light. We meet with the same
thought in the parable of the sower,
Luke 8:15, when Jesus speaks of the
honest and good heart in which the
gospel seed produces its fruit; comp.
also Rom. 2:7 and Acts 10:34, 35. It
is
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
understood, of course, that such a
disposition exists only as the work of
Him who is alone good. But there is a
way of regarding the corruption of
human nature contrary to the gospel,
and which when thoroughly weighed
is self-destructive.
Vv. 16, 17. “ If then I do that which
I would not, I consent with the law that
it is good. And now it is no more I
that perform it, but sin that dwelleth in
me. ”—These two verses draw the
conclusion from the fact mentioned
ver. 15, a conclusion which is the
reaffirmation of the thesis laid down in
ver. 14.—The reprobation with which
Paul's conscience visits his own
work, is a solemn homage rendered by
him to the law, for thereby he
takes part with the law against
himself. The preposition suvn , with , in the
verb suvmfhmi , I give testimony , I
applaud with , can only bear on the
regimen tw'/ nomw'/ , the law: “I
declare, in concert with the law , that the
contents of the law are good.” It is
the reproduction of the assertion: “We
know that the law is spiritual.”
Ver. 16 likewise reproduces the second
part of ver. 14; it is, so to speak,
the paraphrase of the words: sold to
sin. It is not to be thought that Paul
wishes to exculpate himself in the
least when he says: “It is not I who do
it, but sin.” On the contrary, he
wishes to make the miserable state of
bondage to which he is reduced the
more palpable; he is not master even
in his own house; there he finds a
tyrant who forces him to act in
opposition to his better wishes. What
humiliation! What misery! It is the
state of sin regarded from its painful
rather than its culpable point of
view.—The adverbs now , nuniv , and no
more , oujkevti , cannot have a
temporal meaning here; Paul states the
moral conclusion drawn from the
facts which he has just recorded.
Their meaning is therefore logical. Now
means: “Things being so;” no more:
“not as if the normal state, that of full
moral liberty, still existed in me.”
Second Cycle: Vv. 18-20.
The first verse again contains a
thesis parallel to that of ver. 14. This
thesis is demonstrated by experience
in the second part of the verse and
in ver. 19, which thus correspond to
vv. 15 and 16 of the first cycle.
Finally, in ver. 20 we find as a conclusion
the reaffirmation of the thesis; it
is the parallel of ver. 17.
ver. 18a “ For I know that in me, that
is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good
thing. ”—This thesis, reproducing that
of ver. 14: I am carnal , connects
itself, by terms used, with the last
words of ver. 17; comp. the two
expressions: “Sin dwelling in me,” and
“in me dwelleth no good thing.” The
gavr , for , is explanatory rather
than demonstrative. It is the same
experience which is again expounded
more precisely; comp. the similar
for , ver. 10. It might seem, when
Paul said, ver. 14: I am carnal , that he
left nothing subsisting in the ego
which was not flesh. The contrary
appeared, however, from the we know
preceding; for he who recognizes
that the law is spiritual, must possess
in himself something spiritual. This
distinction between the ego , the I ,
and the flesh , is emphasized still more
fully in ver. 18. For it is obvious
that the phrase that is has a restrictive
sense, and that Paul means: in me, so
far at least as my person is carnal.
He therefore gives it to be understood
that there is something more in him
besides the flesh. This something is
precisely that in him which
recognizes the spirituality of the
law, and pays it homage. We thereby
understand what the flesh is in his
eyes, the complacent care of his
person, in the form of pride or
sensuality. Now this is precisely the active
power which in practice determines the
activity of the unregenerate man.
The flesh thus understood does not
exclude the knowledge, and even the
admiration of goodness; but it renders
this noble faculty fruitless in
ordinary life, by enslaving to itself
the active principle, the will. There is
therefore really, as Paul gives it to
be understood, good in the ego , but
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
in the understanding only, the
contemplative faculty, not in the flesh which
gives the active impulse. See this
contrast exactly stated in ver. 25.—The
proof from fact follows.
Vv. 18b, 19. “ For to will is present
with me; but how to perform that which
is good I find not. For the good that
I would I do not; but the evil which I
would not, that I do. ”—In what
precedes, Paul had already claimed a
certain will in relation to good; he
here affirms the same thing more
expressly. This will is present;
paravkeisqai , to be beside , and as it were
within reach. The verb qevlein , to
wish , denotes, as in vv. 15 and 16, a
simple desire, an intention rather
than a fixed and deliberate decision;
comp. the passages quoted. Paul means:
as to good intentions, they are
present and in abundance; but the
execution...that is what I find not. Not
finding is the opposite of being
within reach. Instead of oujc euJrivskw , I
find not , read by the Byzs. and the
Greco-Lats., there is found in the four
Alex. a simple ouj , not: “But the
doing of good, not!” ( ouj paravkeitai ). This
reading has something harsh and abrupt
which renders it suspicious.
Whence could this word euJrivskw , I
find , have come into the text,
corresponding so well with the term
paravkeisqai , to be present? Has not
Meyer ground for suspecting a copyist
of having passed carelessly from
the oujc , ver. 18, to the following
ouj , ver. 19?
Ver. 19. The I find not was the proof
that no good whatever dwelt in the
flesh; it is demonstrated in turn by
the two facts stated in ver. 19. The only
difference between this verse and ver.
15b, is that here the verb poiei'n , to
do , accomplish, is applied to good,
while the verb pravssein , to work at , is
applied to evil; which leads to this
sense: “I do not succeed in realizing the
good which I would, while I find
myself working at the evil which I would
not.”—The two notions of good and evil
must of course be taken in their
deepest sense, embracing the inward
disposition as well as the external
act. Even in doing the external task,
one may himself, and in the eyes of
God, find that he is doing evil. —The
conclusion is expressed in ver. 20.
Ver. 20. “ Now if I do that I would
not, I myself , it is no more I that do it,
but sin that dwelleth in me. ”—A
conclusion uniform with that before
enunciated, vv. 16 and 17: “I am not
master of myself; a stranger has
forced his way into my house and holds
me captive.”—This is really the
proof of the sold unto sin , ver. 14.
Paul does not say so by way of excuse,
but to describe a state of the
profoundest misery. And every time he
repeats this confession, it is as if
he felt himself seized with a stronger
conviction of its truth. The ejgwv , I
(after that I would not ), is rejected by
important authorities, and condemned
by Meyer. But Tischendorf seems
to me to be right in preserving it. It
stands in a moral relation to the ejgwv ,
I , which follows: “What I would not,
I myself , it is not really I who do it.”
Third Cycle: Vv. 21-25.
This cycle, while repeating the same
experiences, stamps them as the
abiding and definitive result of the
state of things described throughout the
whole passage ( a[ra , consequently ).
The following cycle really contains
the full picture of man's state under
the law. Like the others, it first
expresses the general thesis, ver. 21,
parallel to vv. 18 and 14; then the
proof from fact, vv. 22 and 23 as
above; and finally, the conclusion, vv. 24
and 25, which, while reproducing that
of the other cycles, goes beyond it
and forms the transition to the
description of the new state which has
replaced the former in the regenerate
(chap. 8).
Ver. 21. “ I find then, this law,
that, when I would do good, evil cleaves to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
me. ”—Always the same two
characteristics of his moral state: will for
good, but powerless; evil carrying him
away in practice.—We have
frequently seen the term novmo" ,
law , taking the general sense of a
governing principle of life; any rule
whatever imposing itself authoritatively
on the will ( novmo"
pivstew" , the law of faith; novmo" e[rgwn , the law of
works, 3:27; novmo" pneuvmato",
th'" aJmartiva" , the law of the spirit, of sin,
8:2, etc.). Such, undoubtedly, is the
meaning of the word here. Paul is
summing up the mode of his existence
since the time when the law came
in to affect his inward life, and from
which the law gives him no means of
escape. This is what he calls to;n
novmon , this law. This general and
abstract meaning of the term law
follows first from the expression: the law
of God , ver. 22, where by this
complement of God the law of which he
speaks here is contrasted with the
moral and Mosaic law; and next from
ver. 23, where Paul again applies the
general idea of law , speaking, in
contrast to the law of God, of another
law. —This mode of existence
appears with two opposite
characteristics; the will for good: to me who
would do good , and the doing of evil:
evil cleaves to me. The dative tw'/
qevlonti , to me who would , is the
object of to;n novmon , the law; for this
word has here a very active sense:
“The law which imposes itself on me
who would do”...We have taken the
liberty of translating the words thus:
with me, when I would do. The o{ti ,
that , depends also on to;n novmon ,
the law: this law which I find in me
consisting in the fact that ...—The verb
paravkeisqai , to be present with , is
taken here in the same sense as in
ver. 18: to be within reach, to
present itself at once: “As to me, when I
wish to do good, evil is present
first.”—The two ejmoiv , to me , serve to
bring out strongly the unity of the
subject who has the misfortune to wish
one thing and to do its opposite.
The numerous critics who have begun
with taking the term law in this
verse in the sense of the Mosaic law ,
have thereby involved themselves
in inextricable difficulties. Witness
the following:—1. Knapp and
Olshausen take to; kalovn , good , as
in apposition to to;n novmon , the law;
then o{ti , that , as the object of I
find: “As to me who would perform the
law, that is, good, I find that evil
is present with me.” But this apposition is
very strange, and the participle tw'/
qevlonti would require to be placed
before to;n novmon .—2. Chrysostom and
the Peshitto take the words tw'/
qevlonti , to me wishing , as the
dative of favor, and the conjunction o{ti in
the sense of because: “I find the law
coming to my aid, to mine who would
do good, and that because evil is
present with me.” The law coming to
Paul's help in the struggle against
evil! The idea is the antipodes of what
Paul teaches throughout this whole
chapter.—3. Ewald obtains a directly
opposite sense, by taking to; kakovn ,
evil , as the apposition to to;n
novmon , the law: “I find the law,
that is, evil, present with me when I would
do good.”—Not only is this
construction forced grammatically, but above
all this identification of the law and
of evil would be an evident
exaggeration (comp. 7:7). Only Marcion
could have expressed himself
thus.—4. Meyer gives as the object of
the participle qevlonti , wishing , the
substantive law , and takes poiei'n ,
to do , as the infinitive of aim: “I find
that with me when I wish the law with
the view of doing good, evil is
present.” But the object to;n novmon
would require to be placed between
tw'/ and qevlonti ; and the term
wishing the law is unsupported by
example. Finally, it is far from
natural to take the infinitive poiei'n , to do ,
as the infinitive of aim; it is
evidently the object of qevlonti , wishing. —5.
The masterpiece of all these
explanations is that of Hofmann; according to
him the verb poiei'n , to do , has no
object; it must be taken in the sense of
acting; to; kalovn , good , is an
attribute of to;n novmon , the law , and o{ti
signifies because: “I discover that
the law is goodness for me when I
would act, because evil is present
with me;” meaning: that evil, by
arresting me in my
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
eagerness to act when good is before
me, serves to prove to me by this
resistance that it is really the law
which I intend to realize. Is it possible to
imagine a more tortuous thought and a
more artificial construction? The
active verb poiei'n , to do , without
an object; the attribute separated from
its substantive, etc.!—The true
meaning of the word novmo" , law , which
we have established, delivers this
poor verse from all those tortures to
which it has been subjected. Our
meaning is found in a goodly number of
commentators (Calvin, Tholuck,
Philippi, etc.). If after that confirmation
were needed, it would be found in the
two following verses, the one of
which demonstrates the: in me when I
would do good (ver. 21a), the other
the: evil is present with me (ver.
21b).
Vv. 22, 23. “ For I applaud the law of
God after the inward man: but I see
another law in my members, warring
against the law of my mind, and
bringing me into captivity to the law
of sin which is in my members. ”—The
verb sunhvdomai strictly signifies: I
rejoice with. Does it mean, as van
Hengel thinks: with other persons , who
like me take pleasure in the law?
Or as Meyer understands it, with the
law itself , which as well as myself
takes pleasure in the good it
prescribes? The first idea is not supported by
the context, and the second is
unnatural; for the law is not the subject, but
the object of sunhvdesqai , of the
feeling of joy spoken of by the apostle.
We must therefore apply the suvn ,
with , to the inwardness of the feeling
experienced: I rejoice in and with
myself , that is to say, in the inmost
chamber of my being. This term is
still stronger than the suvmfhmi , to
agree with , of ver. 16. The latter
merely signified: “What the law declares
good, I declare good along with it,”
while here we have an eager and even
delighted adherence.—The complement of
God , added to the law , brings
out the moral elevation of the rule,
and so justifies the assent indicated by
the verb sunhvdomai , I applaud. —The
last words: after the inward man ,
expressly remind us that it is only to
a part of his being that we must apply
what Paul here says of himself. We
must beware of confounding the
inward man with the new man (
kaino;" a[nqrwpo" ). Paul means to speak
only of that which he calls, vv. 23
and 25, the understanding , the nou'" ,
the organ with which the human soul is
endowed to perceive the true and
good, and to distinguish them from the
bad and false. Here especially is
the action of the moral consciousness,
that faculty which has little more
than a theoretic character, and which
in practice exercises no control over
the will sufficient to constrain it to
do what it approves. The outward man,
the acting phenomenal personality,
remains under the dominion of
another power which draws it on the
other side (ver. 23). Again, in 2 Cor.
4:16 we come upon the contrast between
the inward and the outward
man, but modified by the context. The
first in this passage denotes the
whole man morally regarded, the will
as well as the understanding, and
the second, physical man only.—We have
already shown, on occasion of
the expressions used, ver. 16, that
nothing affirmed by Paul here passes
in the least beyond what Jesus Christ
Himself ascribes to man
unconverted, but desirous of goodness
and placed under the influence of
the divine law and of the prevenient
grace which always accompanies it;
comp. John 3:21. St. Paul in chap. 2
had already recognized not only the
existence of moral conscience in the
Gentiles, but the comparative
rightness with which they often apply
this divine rule in the practice of life.
Ver. 23. This verse is the development
of 21b: Evil is present with me. All
the expressions of this verse refer to
the same figure and form a picture.
At the moment when the speaker starts
to follow the law of God which
attracts him, he beholds
( blevpw , I see ) an armed adversary
advancing against him to bar his
passage; such is the literal meaning
of the term ajntistrateuvesqai , to set
oneself in battle against.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
This enemy is a law opposed to that of
God dwelling in his own members.
Thereby Paul denotes the egoistical
instincts attached to the members of
the body, and which seek their
gratification through them, in spite of the
assent the understanding gives to the
law which labors to repress them.
Thus two adversaries find themselves
as it were face to face, the law of
the mind and that which dwells in the
members. The prize of the contest is
the I , the ego which both seek; and
its ordinary result, the taking of the
ego by the second.—The words: bringing
me into captivity to the law of
sin , represent the ego at the moment
when it is dragged captive ( aij
cmalwtivzein , to make prisoner ) by
the law of the members, and so given
over to the power of sin. St. Paul
calls this master the law of sin which is
in my members. These last words appear
at first sight like a repetition. But
they are added to show in these
members, which strive so faithfully
against the law of the mind to wrest
the ego from it, the army equipped as
it were by sin to fight in its service
and pay.
In the two verses, 22 and 23, we thus
find four particular laws mentioned,
in which there is summed up the
general law, or the entire mode of living
belonging to the natural man. Two of
these laws are objective , and are
imposed on the will as it were from
without. The one is the law of God ,
the moral law written or unwritten;
the other is the law of sin , that
egoistical instinct which hereditarily
reigns over mankind since the fall. To
these two objective laws there
correspond two subjective ones, which are,
so to speak, the representatives of
the two former in the individual: the law
of the mind , which is nothing else
than the moral sense in man,
appropriating the law of God, and
making it the rule of the individual; and
the law of the members , which is, on
the other hand, the subjective organ
by which the individual falls under
the law of sin. And the four laws
combined, the habitual fact being
added of the victory which the latter two
gained over the former two, constitute
the general law of our existence
before regeneration, that order of
life which Paul recognizes within him
when he examines himself, the
novmo" of ver. 21. — If the apostle were
merely a cold moralist, dissecting our
state of moral misery with the
scalpel of psychological analysis, he
would have passed directly from ver.
23 to the second part of ver. 25,
where in a precise antithesis he sums up
once more the result of this whole
investigation. But he writes as an
apostle, not as a philosopher. In
drawing the picture of this state, the
question he feels weighing on his heart
is one of salvation. Anguish seizes
him as if he were still in the heat of
this struggle. He utters the cry of
distress (ver. 24), then immediately
that of thanksgiving, because now
when he is writing he knows of
deliverance (ver. 25a); after which he
resumes the course of exposition in
the second part of ver. 25.
Vv. 24, 25. “ O wretched man that I
am! who shall deliver me from the
body of this death? I thank God
through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then
with the mind I myself serve the law
of God; but with the flesh the law of
sin. ”—The figure of the preceding
verse continues in this; these two
exclamations are those of the inward
man, who, feeling himself led
captive to the law of sin, utters a
groan and then cries for help. The term
a[nqrwpo" , man , is fitted to
remind every reader that the state described
is really his own , so long as the
deliverer has not appeared for him.—Why
does Paul here call himself wretched ,
rather than guilty? Because the
point in question is not the condemnation
resulting from guilt; this subject
was treated in the first part, chaps.
1-5. The innate power of evil, against
which that of the law is shattered, is
a hereditary disease, a misfortune
which only becomes a fault in
proportion as we consent to it personally by
not struggling against it with the
aids appropriate to the economy in which
we live. Thus undoubtedly is explained
the cry of the apostle: talaivpwro" ,
wretched! —The term rJuvesqai , to
deliver , is used to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
denote the act of the soldier who runs
at his comrade's cry to rescue him
from the hands of the enemy. It too
belongs to the same order of figures
as the two verbs ajntistrateuvesqai
and aijcmalwtivzein in the preceding
verse.—The enemy who keeps the
prisoner bound is here called the body
of this death. The term body has
sometimes been taken as a figurative
expression, signifying merely mass,
load. Thus Calvin says: Corpus
mortis vocat massam peccati vel
congeriem, ex qua= totus homo conflatus
est. But there occurs the mention in
ver. 23 of the mevlh , members , of the
body in the strict sense; and such a
figure is far from natural. Chrysostom,
followed by several, takes the body in
the strict sense; but in the cry he
finds a call for death, also in the
strict sense: How long shall I be obliged
to live in this miserable body?
Calvin's explanation of the apostle's cry
amounts to the same thing: “He teaches
us to ask for death as the only
remedy of evil; and such indeed is the
only end which can make the
desire of death lawful.” It is
impossible to mistake the meaning of this
saying more completely. Does not the
apostle give thanks in the following
sentence for the deliverance obtained?
And is this deliverance then
death? Assuredly not; it is the
spiritual emancipation described in chap. 8.
It is then the body strictly so called
which is in question, but the body in a
sense analogous to that in which it
was called, 6:6, the body of sin. It is
the body regarded as the principal
instrument of which sin makes use to
enslave the soul and involve it in
spiritual death, estrangement from God,
the life of sin (ver. 5: to bring
forth fruit unto death ). The body continues
with the Christian, but to be to his
soul an instrument of righteousness, to
bring forth fruit unto God (ver. 4);
comp. 6:12, 13. Those who applied the
whole passage, 7:14-23, to the
regenerate believer, were of course led to
the explanation either of Chrysostom
or Calvin.—Should the adjective
touvtou be connected with
swvmato" , the body ( this body of death), or with
qanavtou , death (the body of this
death)? The Greek phrase would give
rise to an almost inevitable
misunderstanding, if the first construction were
the true one; and Meyer rightly
observes that the sigh for deliverance
does not arise from the fact that the
body is this earthly body, but from the
fact that the body is the instrument
of this state of death in which the soul
is sunk (ver. 11). This observation
seems to us to decide the question.
There are two things in the form of
the second question of ver. 24 which
do not harmonize well with the
supposition that Paul is here speaking as
the representative of regenerate
humanity. There is the indefinite pronoun
tiv" , who. A Christian may find
himself in distress; but he knows at least
the name of his deliverer. Then there
is the future: will deliver me. In
speaking as a Christian, Paul says,
8:2: hath made me free; for to the
believer there is a deliverance
accomplished once for all, as the basis of
all the particular deliverances which
he may yet ask. He does not pray,
therefore, like the man who utters the
cry of our verse, and who evidently
does not yet know this great
fundamental fact. Finally, let us reflect on the
opposite exclamation in the following
words: I thank God through Jesus
Christ. If, as is manifest, we have
here the regenerate believer's cry of
deliverance, corresponding to the cry
of distress uttered in ver. 24, it
follows as a matter of course that the
latter cannot be the apostle's, except
in so far as he throws himself back in
thought into a state anterior to the
present time.
Ver. 25. Of the three readings
presented by the documents in the first part
of this verse, we must first set aside
the Greco-Latin: hJ cavri" tou' Qeou' ,
the grace of God. This would be the
answer to the tiv" in the preceding
question: “Who shall deliver me?”
Answer: “The grace of God.” This
reading evidently arises from the
desire to find an immediate answer to
the question in the words which
followed it.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
According to the reading of the Vatic.
and Origen: cavri" tw'/ Qew'/ , thanks
to God! the exclamation would be a
triumphant one, corresponding to the
previous cry of pain. The copyists
might easily yield to the temptation of
thus contrasting cry with cry; but
would not this change of mood be
somewhat abrupt? Is it not probable that
the analogous passage, 1 Cor.
15:57, has exercised some influence on
the form thus given to our text?
We therefore hold to the received
reading, notwithstanding the authority of
Tischendorf: eujcaristw' tw'/ Qew'/ ,
I thank God , not only because it has
representatives in the three families
of documents, but also because,
having a more peaceful character, it
contrasts better both in form and
matter with the agonizing agitation
which characterizes the two preceding
questions.—Is the mediation of Jesus
Christ, referred to in the following
words, to be applied to the giving of
thanks itself, of which He is the
mediator and instrument in the
presence of God, or to the deliverance ,
which is the understood ground of the
giving of thanks, and of which
Jesus Christ was the instrument? The
first meaning is defended by
Hofmann; but it is not supported by
the general idea, while the second is
demanded by the context; comp. 1 Cor.
15:57.—The special feature in the
deliverance, of which the apostle is
here thinking, is not the pardon of sins
through the blood of Christ, but
victory over sin through Christ crucified
and risen, communicated to faith by
the Holy Spirit; comp. the contrast
established by Paul himself between
these two means of grace contained
in Christ, chap. 5:1, 2.—If Paul does
not develop the mode of deliverance,
it is because every reader can and
should supply it on the instant from the
preceding passage, 6:1-7:6. The
apostle indeed may satisfy himself at this
point with few words, because, as
Schott well says, he is merely recalling
what he has been expounding at great
length; we shall add: and
announcing what he is about fully to
develop, 8:1 et seq.
After this interruption in the
description of his state of misery previously to
faith, Paul returns to his subject in
the second part of ver. 25, which is a
sort of summary of the whole passage,
vv. 14-23. It seems to me that the
a[ra ou\n , so then , has the double
office of taking up the broken thread (
a[ra ) and of marking that there is
here a conclusion ( ou\n ). This
conclusion might be regarded as the
consequence of the: I thank through
Jesus Christ , in this sense, that
without Christ Paul's state would still be
that which is about to be expressed in
the two following propositions; so
Meyer thinks. But this connection has
the awkwardness of making an
idea, which has only been expressed in
passing, control the general
thought of the whole piece. I am
therefore more inclined to agree with
Ruckert , in connecting the then with
the entire piece, which is about to be
recapitulated in two striking
sentences. We have already found more than
once, at the close of a development, a
pointed antithesis intended to sum
it up by recalling the two sides of
the question; comp. chap. 5:21 and
6:23.—The two particles mevn and dev ,
the first of which is not often used
in the N.
T., forcibly bring out the contrast.
The rejection of the mevn in the Sinait .
and two Greco-Latins is a pure
negligence. This form ( mevn and dev )
shows that the first of the two
thoughts is mentioned only in passing and
with the view of reserving a side of
the truth which is not to be forgotten,
but that the mind should dwell
especially on the second.—The pronoun
aujto;" ejgwv , I, myself , has
been variously understood. Some (Beza, Er.)
have taken it in the sense of I, the
same man, ego idem: “I, one and the
same man, am therefore torn in two.”
This meaning, whatever Meyer may
say, would suit the context perfectly;
but it would rather require the form
ejgw; oJ aujtov" . The examples
quoted to justify it are taken wholly from
the language of poetry. Others (Grot.,
Thol., Philip.) understand it: I, I
myself, ipse ego; “I, that same man
who have thus been deploring my
misery.” But this meaning would only
be suitable if what
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Paul proceeds to say of himself formed
a contrast (or at least a gradation)
to the preceding description. Now, as
we shall immediately see, far from
saying anything new or different, he
simply sums up in order to conclude.
This pronoun has also been explained
in the sense of I alone, ego solus ,
that is, isolating my person from
every other. This sense would be the true
one if it had not the awkwardness of
substituting a numerical notion ( one
only) for the purely qualitative idea
of the pronoun. As Hofmann says, “the
aujtov" , self , serves to
restrict the I to himself;” that is, to what Paul is in
and by himself. The undoubted
antithesis is: I in what I am through Christ
(ver. 24) or in Christ (8:1). By this
statement of his case he replaces
himself in the position described from
ver. 14. The instant he abstracts
from the interposition of Christ the
deliverer in his moral life, he sees only
two things in himself, those mentioned
in the immediate sequel. On the
one hand, a man who with the mind
serves the law of God. The term nou'"
, the mind , is strangely tortured by
Hodge, who paraphrases it thus: “the
heart so far as regenerated;” and by
Calvin and Olshausen, the one of
whom takes it as: “the rational
element of the soul enlightened by God's
Spirit;” the other: “the understanding
set free [by regeneration] to fulfil the
law.” But where is there a word of
God's Spirit in the passage? Do we not
again meet here with the same
expression as in ver. 23: the law of my
mind , equivalent to the term: the
inward man , ver. 22? True, Calvin
makes bold to say that “it is the
Spirit which is there called the inward
man!” Paul's language is more strict,
and it is enough to prove that this
specially Christian sense, which is
sought to be given to the term mind , is
false; that, as Meyer observes, if it
were the regenerate man who is here
in question, the order of the two
propositions would necessarily require to
be inverted. Paul would have required
to say: “With the flesh no doubt I
serve the law of sin, but with the
mind the law of God;” for it is on the latter
side that victory remains in the
Christian life. The mind here therefore
simply denotes, as in ver. 22, that
natural organ of the human soul
whereby it contemplates and discerns
good and gives to it its assent. If
this organ did not exist in the
natural man, he would no longer be morally
responsible, and his very condemnation
would thus fall to the
ground.—The expression seems
extraordinarily strong: “ serve the law of
God!” But comp. 7:6: “ serve in
oldness of the letter,” and Phil. 3:6: “as to
the righteousness of the law
blameless.” It is impossible to overlook a
gradation from the we know , or we
acknowledge , ver. 14, to the I agree
with ( suvmfhmi ), ver. 16; from this
term to the I rejoice in ( sunhvdomai ),
ver. 22; and finally from this last to
the I serve , ver. 25; Paul thus passes
from knowledge to assent, from that to
joyful approbation, and from this,
finally, to the sincere effort to put
it in practice. He therefore emphasizes
more and more the sympathetic relation
between his inmost being and the
divine law.
As the first of the two antithetical
propositions sums up the one aspect of
his relation to the law, vv. 14-23
(the goodwill of the mind), the second
sums up the opposite aspect, the
victory gained by the flesh in the
practice of life. And this is the
point at which human life would remain
indefinitely, if man received no
answer to the cry of distress uttered, ver.
24. Olshausen and Schott have thought
right to begin the new section (the
description of the state of the
regenerate man) at ver. 25. But this obliges
us either to admit an immediate
interruption from the second part of this
verse onward, or to give to the term
nou'" , the mind , the forced meaning
given to it by Olshausen. Hofmann
succeeds no better in his attempt to
begin the new section with the a[ra
ou\n , so then (25b). How would a
second a[ra , then , 8:1, immediately
follow the first? And, besides, the
contrast which must be admitted
between 25b and 8:1 would require an
adversative particle ( dev , but ),
much more than a then.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Conclusion regarding the passage vv.
14-25.—Before entering on the
study of this passage, we had
concluded from the context, and from the
section taken as a whole, that this
part could only refer to Paul's state as a
Pharisee. It was the natural
consequence of the identity of the subject of
the passage vv. 7-13 (on which all, or
nearly all, are agreed) with that of
the section vv. 14-25. This view seems
to us to have been confirmed by
the detailed study of the whole
passage. Paul has avoided, with evident
design, every expression specially
belonging to the Christian sphere, and
the term pneu'ma , the Spirit , in
particular, to make use only of terms
denoting the natural faculties of the
human soul, like that of nou'" , the
mind. The contrast in this respect
with 8:1-11 is striking. We can thus
understand why this is the passage in
all Paul's Epistles which presents
the most points of contact with
profane literature. The state of the pious
Jew under the law does not differ
essentially from that of the sincere
heathen seeking to practice goodness
as it is revealed to him by
conscience (2:14, 15).—Neither has it
seemed to us that the verbs in the
present offer an insurmountable
obstacle to this explanation. Not only did
ver. 24 prove with what liveliness
Paul in writing this passage recalled his
impressions of former days. But it
must also be remembered, and Paul
cannot forget it, that what for him is
a past, is a present for all his sincere
fellow-countrymen of whom he is
himself the normal representative.
Finally, does he not feel profoundly,
that as soon as he abstracts from
Christ and his union with Him, he
himself becomes the natural man, and
consequently also the legal Jew,
struggling with sin in his own strength,
without other aid than the law, and
consequently overcome by the evil
instinct, the flesh? What he describes
then is the law grappling with the
evil nature, where these two adversaries
encounter one another without
the grace of the gospel interposing
between them. No doubt this is what
explains the analogy between this
picture and so many Christian
experiences, and which has misled so
many excellent commentators.
How often does it happen that the
believer finds nothing more in the
gospel than a law, and a law more
burdensome still than that of Sinai! For
the demands of the cross go infinitely
deeper than those of the Israelitish
law. They penetrate, as a sacred
writer says, “even to the dividing
asunder of soul and spirit, and of the
joints and marrow, and discerning
even the thoughts and intents of the
heart” (Heb. 4:12). Now as soon as
the Christian has allowed the bond
between Christ and his heart to be
relaxed, however little, he finds
himself face to face with the gospel,
exactly like the Jew face to face with
the law. Obliged to carry into effect
the injunctions of Jesus and the
apostles in his own strength, since Christ
no longer lives in him, is it
surprising that he should make the same, and
even more bitter experiences, than the
Jew under the yoke of the
Decalogue? Faith in Christ is usually
supposed to be a fact accomplished
once for all, and which should
necessarily and naturally display its
consequences, as a tree produces its
fruits. It is forgotten that in the
spiritual domain nothing is done which
does not require to be continually
done again , and that what is not done
again to-day, will to-morrow begin
to be undone. Thus it is that the bond
of the soul to Christ, whereby we
have become His branches , relaxes the
instant we do not re-form it with
new active force and begins to break
with every unpardoned act of
infidelity. The branch becomes barren,
and yet Christ's law demanding its
fruitfulness remains (John 15). Thus,
then, he recommences the
experience of the Jew. And this state
is the more frequent and natural
because we Christians of the present
day have not passed, like Paul, from
the law to faith through that profound
and radical crisis which had made
the one dispensation in him succeed to
the other. From the fact of our
Christian education, it happens rather
that we learn to know the gospel at
once as law and grace, and that we
make, so to speak, the experiences of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Jew and Christian simultaneously, and
that very often (when there has
been no marked conversion) to the end
of our life. But we must beware of
concluding therefrom that this state
of half Jew half Christian is normal,
and may be justified by the passage,
Rom. 7. It is against this enervating
view, resting on a false
interpretation of our chapter, that the most recent
religious movement has just sought to
protest. It has brought out forcibly
the difference between the spiritual
state described in chap. 7 and that
which chap. 8 describes, and claimed
for the latter only the name of
Christian. Is not the one in fact what
Paul calls oldness of the letter , the
other, newness of Spirit (7:6)? These
cannot be, as Philippi would have it,
the two aspects of one and the same
state; they are two opposite states.
We ought to humble ourselves because
of the last traces of the former,
when we find them in ourselves, as for
something abnormal, and aspire
after the complete possession of the
glorious privileges which constitute
the second.
Of the various explanations mentioned
above (pp. 15, 16), we therefore
set aside the application of this
passage: 1. To mankind in general; 2. To
the Jewish people , considered in
their external and national history; 3. To
Paul, as the representative of
regenerate Christians; 4 Neither can we
share Hofmann's opinion, who finds
here only the entirely personal
experiences of Paul. How would those
experiences interest the Church,
and deserve a place in the description
of the method of salvation , given in
the Epistle to the Romans, if they had
not something of a prototypical
character? Paul himself ascribes to
them this character, Eph. 3:8-10, and
1 Tim. 1:12-16. He regards himself as
the normal example of what must
happen to every man who, in ignorance
of Christ, or thinking to dispense
with Him, will yet take the law in
earnest. It is only as such that he can
think of presenting himself
prominently in the pronoun I , in a work of
supreme importance like our
Epistle.—As little can we accept the
explanation proposed in the treatise
of Pearsall Smith: Bondage and
Liberty. According to this writer, as
we have said, the apostle is here
giving the account of a sad experience
through which he passed, some
time after his conversion, by yielding
to the attempt to “render himself
perfect by his own efforts,” so that
in consequence of this aberration sin
recovered life in him; he saw himself
deprived of his intimate communion
with Christ, and consequently also of
victory over sin (see p. 14). This
idea assuredly does not merit
refutation, especially when this example of
the apostle's alleged aberration is
contrasted with that of an American
preacher, who for forty years had
known only the experience of chaps. 6
and 8 of the Romans, those of triumph,
and never the experience of chap.
7, that of defeat (p. 28)! We cannot
express our conclusion better than in
these words of M. Bonnet ( Comment. p.
85): “The apostle is speaking
here neither of the natural man in his
state of voluntary ignorance and sin,
nor of the child of God , born anew,
set free by grace, and animated by
the Spirit of Christ; but of the man
whose conscience, awakened by the
law, has entered sincerely, with fear
and trembling, but still in his own
strength , into the desperate struggle
against evil;”—merely adding that in
our actual circumstances the law which
thus awakens the conscience and
summons it to the struggle against
sin, is the law in the form of the
Gospel, and of the example of Jesus
Christ, taken apart from justification
in Him and sanctification by Him.
Third Section (8:1-39). The Work of
the Holy Spirit in the Justified
Believer.
At the close of the preceding section,
the apostle had contrasted the
oldness of letter , a term by which he
denotes the state of the sincere Jew
under the law, with
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the newness of Spirit , by which he
understands the state of the
regenerate Christian. He has just
described from his own experience the
former of these two states, in order
to show how little reason the Christian
has to regret the passing away of
subjection to a principle of morality so
external and inefficacious as the law.
He now turns the page of his
spiritual life, and describes the
latter of these two states, the work of the
Holy Spirit. This divine principle
does not impose good from without; He
inspires it; He causes it to penetrate
into the very will, by radically
transforming its direction. The
consequences of this life of the Spirit are
displayed from this time onward from
stage to stage, till the perfect
accomplishment of God's plan in behalf
of redeemed humanity. Such is
the subject developed in this
admirable chapter, which has been called:
“The chapter beginning with no
condemnation , and ending with no
separation! ” Spener is reported to
have said that if holy Scripture was a
ring, and the Epistle to the Romans
its precious stone, chap. 8 would be
the sparkling point of the jewel.
This chapter may be divided into four
sections: In the first, vv. 1-11, the
Holy Spirit is represented as the principle
of the moral and bodily
resurrection of believers.
In the second, vv. 12-17, the new
state into which the Holy Spirit has
brought the believer, is represented
as the state of adoption , which
confers on him the dignity of an heir.
The third, vv. 18-30, contrasts with
the misery still attaching to the present
state of things the assured
realization of glory , to which believers have
been eternally destined.
Finally, in the fourth section, vv.
31-39, the hymn of the assurance of
salvation crowns this exposition of
sanctification, adoption, and
glorification by the Spirit.
Before beginning the study of this
incomparable chapter, we must again
take account of its connection with
chap. 6. In the latter, the apostle had
showed how the object of justifying
faith, Christ justified and risen,
becomes to the believer, who
appropriates it, a principle of death to sin
and life to God. But there it was yet
nothing more than a state of the will ,
contained implicitly in the act of
faith. That this new will may have the
power of realizing itself in the life,
there is needed a force from above to
communicate to the human will creative
efficacy, and overturn the internal
and external obstacles which oppose
its realization. This force, as the
apostle now unfolds, is the Holy
Spirit, by whom Christ crucified and risen
reproduces Himself in the believer
(Phil. 3:10).
Seventeenth Passage (8:1-11). The
Victory of the Holy Spirit over Sin
and Death.
Vv. 1-4 describe the restoration of
holiness by the Holy Spirit; and vv. 5-11
show how from this destruction of sin
there follows that of death. Thus are
destroyed the two last enemies of
salvation.
Vv. 1, 2. “ There is therefore now no
condemnation to them which are in
Christ Jesus.For the law of the Spirit
of life in Christ Jesus hath made me
free from the law of sin and of death.
”—The word now has here its
temporal, and not its logical sense,
as Philippi would have it (to be in
keeping with the application which he
makes of 7:7-25 to the regenerate).
By this word Paul contrasts the new
state with the old, which had passed
away.—The therefore is not merely
connected, as Meyer thinks, with the
preceding verse: “As I am no more in
myself, but in Christ, there is no”...;
for
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
then but would have been required
rather than therefore. This therefore
takes up the thread, which had been
for the moment broken, of the
exposition of Christian
sanctification; for the passage 7:7-25 was, as we
have seen, a retrospective glance at
the moral effects of the law in fallen
man, and consequently a sort of
parenthesis. Now Paul resumes at the
point where he had interrupted himself,
that is, at 7:6, and raises the
superstructure, the foundation of
which he had laid in the section 6:1-7:6.
Hence the therefore: “Since ye are
dead to sin and alive to God, and so
subject to grace, and made free from
the law, all condemnation has
disappeared.” The expression: no
condemnation , does not apply to any
one form of condemnation, and, indeed,
Paul takes into view first that
which has been lifted off by the grace
of justification, chaps. 1-5: the
abolition of guilt; and next, that which
is made to disappear by the
destruction of sin itself (chaps.
6:1-7:6). After therefore the believer has
found reconciliation with God, and
thereby death to sin, he can really
exclaim: “There is now no
condemnation.” Only sin must not recover its
dominion; otherwise condemnation would
infallibly revive. For we have
seen at the close of chap. 6 that sin
entails death on the justified, in whom
it regains the upper hand, as well as
on the unjustified (8:12, 13). There is
therefore only one way of preventing
sin from causing us to perish, that is,
that it perish itself. Grace does not
save by patronizing sin, but by
destroying it. And hence the apostle
can draw from what has been proved
in chap. 6 the conclusion: that there
is no condemnation. It ought to be so
after sin is pardoned as guilt and
destroyed as a power, if always this
power remains broken. The view of Paul
extends even it would seem to a
third condemnation, of which he has
not yet spoken, that which has
overtaken the body, death , the
abolition of which he proceeds also to
explain, ver. 11.—The words: them
which are in Christ Jesus , form a
contrast to the expression
aujto;" ejgwv , I, as I am in myself , 7:25.—Our
translations, following the received
text, give us at the end of the verse
this addition: who walk not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit. These words
are, according to numerous
authorities, and according to the context itself,
an interpolation borrowed by
anticipation from ver. 4: “A precautionary
gloss against the freeness of
salvation,” says M. Bonnet very happily. It
was needful to proclaim deliverance
before explaining it.— How has it
been effected? This is what is
expounded vv. 2-4.
Ver. 2. It is strange that Paul should
speak of the law of the Spirit. Are
these two expressions not
contradictory? We shall not understand the
phrase unless we bear in mind what has
been said (3:27, 7:21, etc.) of the
general sense which the word law often
takes in Paul's writings: a
controlling power imposing itself on
the will, or, as in the case before us,
appropriating the very will. The
complement th'" zwh'" , of life , may be
understood as the genitive of cause:
“The Spirit which proceeds from the
life (that of Jesus Himself);” or as
the gen. of effect: “The Spirit which
produces life (in the believer).” But
is it possible wholly to sever these two
relations? If the Spirit produces
spiritual life in the believer's heart, is it not
because he is the breath of the living
and glorified Christ? He takes of that
which belongs to Jesus , John 16:15,
and communicates it to us.—The
clause: in Jesus Christ , is connected
by several commentators with the
verb hath made free: “The Spirit of
life made us free as soon as we
entered into communion with Jesus Christ.”
But in this sense would not
Paul rather have said in him, ejn
aujtw'/ , simply referring to the in Christ
Jesus of the previous verse? It is
therefore more natural to make the
clause dependent on the immediately
preceding phrase: the law of the
Spirit of life. The only question is
what article is to be understood, to serve
as the link of this clause. Should it
be oJ , relating to novmo" , the law , or
tou' , referring to pneuvmato" ,
the Spirit , or finally th'" , referring to zwh'" ,
life? The first connection, that
adopted by Calvin, seems to us the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
preferable one. The apostle has no
special reason for recalling here that
life or the Spirit are given in Jesus
Christ , which is understood otherwise
of itself. But it is important for him
to remind us that, in opposition to the
reign of the letter, which made us
slaves, the reign of the Spirit of life,
which sets us free, was inaugurated in
Jesus Christ. The absence of the
article oJ before the clause ejn C.
jI. arises from the fact that the latter is
regarded as forming only one and the
same idea with the phrase on which
it depends.—Instead of the pronoun mev
, me , read by the T. R. with the
majority of the Mss., there is found
in the Sinait . and the Vatic. , as well as
in two Greco-Latins, sev , thee: “hath
made thee free.” This reading must
be very ancient, for it is found so
early as in the Peshitto and Tertullian. It
has been admitted by Tischendorf in
his eighth edition. But it is
nevertheless very improbable. Why the
sudden appearance of the second
person at the very close of this
argument? This sev has evidently arisen,
as Meyer thinks, from the repetition
of the last syllable of hjleuqevrwse .
The mev , me , is the continuation of
the form of expression which the
apostle had used throughout the whole
of the second part of chap. 7.
Indeed, the figure used by him in vv.
23 and 24, that of a prisoner calling
for help, with the cry: “Who shall
deliver me?” still continues and reaches
its close in our verse, as is seen by
the choice of the term hjleuqevrwse ,
hath made free. Our ver. 2 is the true
answer to this cry of distress, ver.
23. It is the breath of life
communicated in Jesus to the justified Christian
which causes the chains of sin and
death to fall from him.—We must
beware of following several
commentators in applying the phrase: the law
of sin and of death , to the law of
Moses. Paul has just called the latter the
law of God , and has declared that he
took pleasure in it after the inward
man; this would not be the time to
abuse it in this fashion. The true
explanation follows from ver. 23,
where he has spoken of the law which is
in his members , and which renders him
the captive of sin. The word law
is therefore still used here in that
general sense in which we have just
seen it taken in the beginning of the
verse. The apostle deliberately
contrasts law with law , that is to
say here: power with power.—The two
combined terms, sin and death , form
the antithesis to life; for the latter
includes the notions of holiness and
resurrection. Death is the state of
separation from God in which sin
involves us, but with the understanding
that physical death is the transition
to eternal death. The two words: sin
and death , control the following
development down to ver. 11. And first:
deliverance from sin, vv. 3 and 4.
Vv. 3, 4. “ For—what the law could not
do, in that it was weak through the
flesh— God sending His own Son in the
likeness of a flesh of sin, and for
sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that
the righteousness prescribed by the
law might be fulfilled in us, who walk
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
”—The fact and agent of the
deliverance had just been mentioned in ver.
2; vv. 3 and 4 describe its mode; ver.
3 its condition, ver. 4 its realization.
The for of ver. 3 extends its force to
the close of ver. 4.—Our translation
shows to what construction we hold in
explaining the words: what the law
could not do. We make them, with
Meyer, Philippi, and others, a
nominative, in apposition to the
divine act, to be enunciated immediately
afterward: “God condemned sin, a thing
which the law was powerless to
accomplish.” This construction is to
be preferred for its simplicity and
clearness to all others: to that of
Schott, who, by means of a harsh
inversion, thus explains the words:
“seeing that ( ejn wv/ ) the impotence of
the law was weak through the flesh;”
that is to say, the weakness of the
law was still further increased
through the influence of the flesh—the
meaning is as forced as the
construction;—or to that of Hofmann, who
understands the verb h\n , was , and
makes the whole a principal
proposition; “The weakness of the law
was (consisted) in that it was weak
through the flesh.” But
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
such an ellipsis is inadmissible, and
the asyndeton between this and the
following proposition is without
explanation. It would be better to
understand, with Luther (comp. the
translations of Ostervald and
Oltramare), the words ejpoivhse tou'to
: “What the law could not do, God
did by sending”...When Paul was about
to write this verb, he is held to
have substituted the mention of the
act itself thus announced: “What was
impossible...God condemned.” But does
not that bring us back to Meyer's
construction, which reaches the goal
by a shorter course? Comp. Heb.
8:1.—The powerlessness of the law to
accomplish this work did not come
from any intrinsic imperfection, but
from the fact that it found resistance in
man's sinful nature: dia; th'"
sarkov" , by reason of the flesh. The law could
certainly condemn sin in writing, by
engraving its condemnation on stone;
but not by displaying this condemnation
in a real human life. And yet this
was the necessary condition of the
destruction of the sinful tendency in
mankind, and in order to the
restoration of holiness. The expression: the
powerlessness or impossibility of the
law , is easily understood,
notwithstanding Hofmann's objection,
in the sense of: “What it is
impossible for the law to realize.”
Meyer quotes the expression of
Xenophon: to; duvnaton th'"
povlew" , what the city can make or give. —The
words ejn w|/ , in this that ,
evidently open up the explanation of this
weakness. The depraved instinct which
the law encounters in man, the
flesh , prevents it from obtaining the
cordial obedience which the law
demands from him. The flesh here as so
frequently, in the moral sense
which rests on the physical:
self-complacency. The participle pevmya" ,
sending , though an aorist,
nevertheless expresses an act simultaneous
with that of the finite verb condemned
(see Meyer): “condemned by
sending.” The term sending by itself
would not necessarily imply the preexistence
of Christ; for it may apply to the
appearance of a mere man
charged with a divine mission; comp.
John 1:6. But the notion of preexistence
necessarily follows from the relation
of this verb to the
expression: His own Son , especially
if we take account of the clause: in
the likeness of sinful flesh. It is
evident that, in the view of one who speaks
thus, the existence of this Son
preceded His human existence (comp. the
more emphatic term ejxapevsteilen ,
Gal. 4:4).—The expression: His own
Son , literally, the Son of Himself ,
forbids us to give to the title Son , either
the meaning of eminent man , or
theocratic king , or even Messiah. It
necessarily refers to this Son's
personal relation to God, and indicates that
Him whom God sends, He takes from His
own bosom; comp. John 1:18.
Paul marks the contrast between the
nature of the envoy ( the true Son of
God) and the manner of His appearing
here below: in the likeness of sinful
flesh. —This expression: sinful flesh
(strictly flesh of sin ), has been
understood by many, especially most
recently by Holsten, as implying the
idea that sin is inherent in the
flesh, that is to say, in the bodily nature. It
would follow therefrom—and this critic
accepts the consequence—that
Jesus Himself, according to Paul, was
not exempt from the natural sin
inseparable from the substance of the
body. Only Holsten adds that this
objective sin never controlled the
will of Jesus, nor led Him to a positive
transgression ( paravbasi" ): the
pre-existing divine Spirit of Christ
constantly kept the flesh in
obedience. We have already seen, 6:6, that if
the body is to the soul a cause of its
fall, it is only so because the will itself
is no longer in its normal state. If
by union with God it were inwardly
upright and firm, it would control the
body completely; but being itself
since the fall controlled by
selfishness, it seeks a means of satisfaction in
the body, and the latter takes
advantage therefrom to usurp a malignant
dominion over it. Thus, and thus only,
can Paul connect the notion of sin
so closely with that of body or flesh.
Otherwise he would be obliged to
make God Himself, as the creator of
the body, the author of sin. What
proves in our very
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
passage that he is not at all
regarding sin as an attribute inseparable from
the flesh, is the expression he uses
in speaking of Jesus: in the likeness
of a flesh of sin. Had he meant to
express the idea ascribed to him by
Holsten, why speak of likeness? Why
not say simply: in a flesh of sin , that
is to say, sinful like ours? While
affirming similarity of substance between
the flesh of Jesus and ours, the very
thing the apostle wishes here is to
set aside the idea of likeness in
quality (in respect of sin ). This is done
clearly by the expression which he has
chosen. It will be asked, might he
not have said more briefly: in the
likeness of flesh or of our flesh ( ejn
oJmoiwvmati sarkov" )? But by
expressing himself thus, he would have
favored the idea that the body of
Jesus was a mere appearance. And this
is the very consequence which Marcion
has sought to draw from our
passage. One cannot help admiring the
nicety of the phrase formed by the
apostle, and the pliability of the
language which lent itself so readily to the
analysis and expression of such
delicate shades.—Wendt, while rightly
criticising Holsten's opinion, escapes
it only by another inadmissible
explanation. He understands the word
flesh in the sense in which it is
taken in that frequent expression: all
flesh , that is to say, every man,
every creature. Paul means here, he thinks,
that Jesus appeared on the
earth in the likeness of the sinful
creature. But should we then require to
take the word flesh in the preceding
proposition: “The law was weak
through the flesh ,” in the sense of
creature? It seems to us that M.
Sabatier is right in saying: “No doubt
the word flesh sometimes denotes
man taken in his entirety. But even
then it never absolutely loses its
original signification; the notion of
the material organism always remains
the fundamental notion.” We have no
need of Wendt's expedient to
account for the phrase of the apostle.
Here is its meaning, as it seems to
us: God, by sending His Son, meant to
provide a human life in that same
flesh under the influence of which we
sin so habitually, such that it might
complete this dangerous career without
sin ( cwri;" aJmartiva" , Heb. 4:15);
comp. 2 Cor. 5:21: “He who knew no
sin”...—What then was the reason
why God sent His Son in this form?
Jesus, Paul tells us in Philippians,
might in virtue of His God-form , of His
divine state in the presence of
God, have appeared here below as the
equal of God. The reason it was
not so is explained by the words kai;
peri; aJmartiva" , and for sin. If man
had still been in his normal state,
the appearance of the Son would also
have had a normal character. But there
was an extraordinary thing to be
destroyed, sin. And hence the
necessity for the coming of the Son in a
flesh like our sinful flesh. As the
expression: for sin , is sometimes taken in
the O. T. (LXX. version) as a
substantive, in the sense of sacrifice for sin
(Ps. 40:6, e.g.,), and has passed
thence into the N. T. (Heb. 10:6-18),
some commentators have thought that
Paul was here appropriating this
Alexandrine form. But there are two
reasons opposed to this idea: 1. This
very special sense, which might
present itself naturally to the mind of the
readers of such a book as the Epistle
to the Hebrews, filled throughout
with allusions to the ceremonies of
the Levitical worship, could hardly
have been understood, without
explanation, by the Christians of Rome,
who were for the most part Gentiles.
2. The context does not require the
idea of sacrifice , because the matter
in question is not guilt to be
expiated, but solely the evil tendency
to be uprooted. Not that the notion
of expiation should be wholly excluded
from the contents of so general an
expression as for sin. It is
undoubtedly contained in it, but it is not here the
leading idea. Paul means in a wide
sense, that it is the fact of sin , and
especially the intention to destroy it
(by every means, expiation and
sanctification ), which have caused
the coming of Christ here below, in
this form, so unlike His glorious
nature.
This coming is only the means of the
means; the latter is the decisive act
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
expressed by the words: He condemned
sin. To condemn, is to declare
evil, and devote to destruction; and
we see no occasion to depart from
this simple and usual meaning. Most
commentators have thought it
inapplicable, and have substituted for
it the meaning of conquering,
overwhelming, destroying , Chrys.:
ejnivkhsen aJmartivan ; Theod.:
katevlusen ; Beza: abolevit; Calvin:
abrogavit regnum; Grot.: interfecit;
Beng.: virtute privavit; so also
Thol., Fritzs., De Wette, Mey., etc. But Paul
has a word consecrated to this idea;
it is the term katargei'n , to abolish,
annul; comp. 6:6; 1 Cor. 15:24, etc.
There is in the word katakri'nein , to
condemn , the notion of a judicial
sentence which is not contained in the
sense indicated by these authors.
Other commentators have felt this, and
have again found here the idea of
expiation , developed in chap. 3: God
condemned sin in Christ crucified, as
its representative, on the cross (
Ruck ., Olsh., Philip., Hofm., Gess);
to this idea many add that of the
destruction of sin, evidently demanded
by the context; so Philippi: “ to
destroy by expiating; ” Gess: “a
destruction of the power of sin founded on
a judicial sentence,” which is
included in “Christ's expiatory death.” But
that powerlessness of the law in
consequence of the flesh, of which Paul
was speaking, did not consist in not
being able to condemn sin; for it did
condemn and even punish it; but it was
powerless to destroy it, to render
man victorious over its power.
Besides, would it not be surprising to find
Paul, after developing the subject of
expiation in its place in chap. 3,
returning to it here, in very unlike
terms! We are therefore led to a wholly
different explanation. Paul has in
view neither the destruction of sin by the
Holy Spirit (ver. 4), nor its
condemnation on the cross; he is regarding
Christ's holy life as a living
condemnation of sin. The flesh in Him was like
a door constantly open to the
temptations both of pleasure and pain; and
yet He constantly refused sin any
entrance into His will and action. By this
persevering and absolute exclusion He
declared it evil and unworthy of
existing in humanity. This is what the
law, because of the flesh , which
naturally sways every human will,
could not realize in any man. This
meaning, with an important shade of
difference, was that to which Menken
was led; it is that of Wendt; it was
certainly the idea of Theophylact when
he said: “He sanctified the flesh, and
crowned it by condemning sin in the
flesh which He had appropriated, and
by showing that the flesh is not
sinful in its nature” (see the passage
in De Wette). Perhaps Irenaeus even
had the same thought when he thus
expressed himself: Condemnavit
peccatum (in the inner chamber of His
heart) et jam quasi condemnatum
ejecit extra carnem. —It is evident
that if this meaning corresponds exactly
to the thought of the apostle, the
question whether we should connect the
following clause: ejn th'/ savrki , in
the flesh , with the substantive th;n
aJmartivan , sin (“sin which is in the
flesh”), or with the verb katevkrine ,
condemned (“He condemned in the
flesh”), is decided. Not only, indeed,
in the former case would the article
thvn be necessary after aJmartivan ;
but still more this clause: in the
flesh , would be superfluous, when
connected with the word sin; now it
becomes very significant if it refers to
the verb. It might even be said that
the whole pith of the thought centres in
the clause thus understood. In fact,
the law could undoubtedly overwhelm
sin with its sentences, and, so to
speak, on paper. But Christ
accomplished what it could not do, by
condemning sin in the flesh , in a
real, living, human nature, in a
humanity subject to those same conditions
of bodily existence under which we all
are. Hence the reason why He
must appear here below in flesh. For
it was in the very fortress where sin
had established its seat, that it
behooved to be attacked and conquered.
We must beware of translating with
several: “in His flesh,” as if there were
the pronoun aujtou' , of Him. In this
case the pronoun could not be
wanting; and the thought itself would
be misrepresented. For the
expression: in
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
His flesh, would only denote the
particular historical fact, whereas the
latter: in the flesh, while reminding
us of the particular fact, expresses the
general notion which brings out its
necessity. Like the hero spoken of in
the fable, He required, if one may
venture so to speak, Himself to descend
into the infected place which He was
commissioned to cleanse.—Thus
from the perfectly holy life of Jesus
there proceeds a conspicuous
condemnation of sin; and it is this
moral fact, the greatest of the miracles
that distinguished this life, which
the Holy Spirit goes on reproducing in
the life of every believer, and
propagating throughout the entire race. This
will be the victory gained over the
law of sin (ver. 2). Thus we understand
the connection between the condemned
of ver. 3, and the no
condemnation , ver. 1. In His life He
condemned that sin, which by
remaining master of ours, would have
brought into it condemnation. The
relation between vv. 3 and 4 becomes
also very simple: The
condemnation of sin in Christ's life
is the means appointed by God to
effect its destruction in ours.
Ver. 4. The relation we have just
indicated between vv. 3 and 4 forbids us
to give here to dikaivwma , what the
law lays down as just , the meaning
of: sentence of absolution , which
some, and Philippi most recently, have
given to it. The matter in question
here is not guilt to be removed; and to
say that the law itself can henceforth
declare as just, the term plhrwqh'nai ,
to be fulfilled , would not be very
suitable. The matter in question,
according to the context and the terms
employed, is what the law
demands of man. All the postulates
contained in the righteousness
demanded by the law (comp. the Sermon
on the Mount, for example) are
fulfilled in us , as soon as we walk ,
no more after the flesh , but after the
Spirit. For, as we have seen, the law
being spiritual , must coincide at all
points in its statutes with the
impulses of the Spirit. The participle
peripatou'sin , who walk , expresses
the condition on which Paul can affirm
of believers what he has just said
(comp. the toi'" pisteuvousin , John
1:12).—Commentators differ as to the
meaning of the word pneu'ma , spirit.
Does it denote, as Lange thinks, the
spiritual life in believers? But would
this be a very sure standard, and does
ver. 2 admit of this subjective
sense? Most, therefore, understand by
the expression: the Holy Spirit.
This meaning does not seem to us open
to question (comp. also vv. 9 and
11). Only from the use of the word
spirit in the sequel (vv. 5-8), it follows
that the apostle is not speaking of
the Holy Spirit, independently of His
union with the human pneu'ma , but of
the former as dwelling in the latter,
or of the latter as wholly directed by
the former. And hence the reason
why the one and the other idea becomes
alternately the dominant one in
the following passage.
But the most important word in this
verse is the conjunction that. In this
word is contained Paul's real notion
of sanctification. How does the
fulfilment of the law in believers
follow from the fact expounded in ver. 3:
the condemnation of sin wrought in the
person of Christ? The strangest
answer to this question is that of
Holsten: “The power of the flesh in
humanity was destroyed by the
death-blow which slew the flesh of Christ
on the cross.” But how could sin of
nature, objective sin, in humanity, be
destroyed by the fact of Christ's
death? If sin is inherent in the flesh , the
flesh which needs to be destroyed is
not only Christ's, but that of the
entire human race. As Wendt rightly
observes, nothing but the death of all
men could secure the desired
result.—Gess thinks that the part played by
Christ's death in sanctification was
to render possible the gift of the Spirit,
who alone has power to sanctify (comp.
Gal. 3:13, 14). But Paul does not
say in ver. 4: “that the Spirit might
be given” (as he does Gal. 3:14: that
we might receive the Spirit ). He
passes directly from the condemnation of
sin in Christ (ver. 3) to the
fulfilment of the law in believers (ver. 4).
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
This mode of expression supposes
another relation. And this relation is
easy to comprehend if the right
meaning of ver. 3 has been taken. The
believer's holiness is nothing else
than that which Jesus Himself realized
during His earthly existence. “For their
sakes I sanctify myself,” says
Jesus, John 17:19, “that they also
might be sanctified through the truth.”
Here, as in other respects, the Spirit
only takes what is His , to
communicate it to us (John 16:14). Our
Lord's holy life on the earth is the
type which the Holy Spirit is
commissioned to reproduce in us, the
treasure from which He draws the
renewing of our life (Col. 3:10; 2 Cor.
3:17, 18). The holiness of all of us
is only this unique holiness which the
Spirit makes ours: He is our sanctification
as well as our righteousness ,
the latter by His death (which faith
makes our death), the former by His
holy life (which the Spirit makes our
life). Witness the two diav , through,
by, of 5:1, 2; and the mysterious by
His life , ejn th'/ zwh/ aujtou' , of 5:10.
Such is the rich and profound sense of
the that , 5:4.—The expression ejn
hJmi'n , in us , perfectly suits this
meaning. It says first, that therein we are
receptive; then it contains also the
by us. —The term peripatei'n , to walk ,
is Paul's usual figure for moral
conduct.—The subjective negation mhv is
used because Paul is speaking not of
the fact in itself, but of the fact as
being the assumed condition of the
preceding affirmation.
Thus the first idea of this passage
has been developed: emancipation
from the law of sin. What the law
condemns was condemned in Christ,
that henceforth through His Spirit the
law might be fully carried out in us.
No doubt the power of sin is not
annihilated within, but it cannot control
the active part of our being and
determine the peripatei'n ( the walk ). There
remains the second idea: deliverance
from the last condemnation, that of
death: death spiritual , vv. 5-10, and
finally also from bodily death, ver. 11.
Vv. 5, 6. “ For they that are after
the flesh aspire after the things of the
flesh; but they that are after the
Spirit aspire after the things of the Spirit.
For the aspiration of the flesh is
death; but the aspiration of the Spirit is life
and peace. ”—To understand the for
which connects this verse with the
preceding, we must begin with
paraphrasing the first clause by adding:
“For, while they that are after the
flesh,”...then complete the second
clause by adding to the words: “aspire
after the things of the Spirit,” the
following: “and consequently walk
after the Spirit , with the view of
obtaining those spiritual blessings.”—
To be after the flesh , is to be
inwardly governed by it, as the
natural man always is. The part here
referred to is the deepest source of the
moral life, whence the will is
constantly drawing its impulses and
direction. Hence the consequence: ta;
th'" sarko;" fronou'sin :
they are preoccupied with the things of the flesh,
aspire after them. The word fronei'n
is one of those terms which it is
difficult to render in French, because
it includes at once thinking and
willing. Comp. the well-known Greek
expressions uJyhlofronei'n,
megafronei'n , to aim high, to have a
high self-regard. The fronei'n , the
aspiration , of which our verse speaks,
proceeds from the ei\nai , being ,
and produces the peripatei'n , the
walking , of ver. 4, the moral necessity of
which Paul wishes to demonstrate,
whether it be on the side of the flesh
or on that of the Spirit.—The I, ego ,
is distinct from both tendencies; but it
yields itself without fail to the one
or the other—to the former, as the I of
the natural man; to the latter, as the
I of the regenerate man. As its state,
so is its tendency; as its tendency,
so is its conduct.
Ver. 6 explains ( gavr , for ) the
moral necessity with which this motion
constantly proceeds, from the inward
moral state to aspiration, and from
aspiration to action. There is on both
sides, as it were, a fated end to be
reached, which acts at
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
a distance on the will by an
attraction like that which is exercised by a
precipice on the current of a river as
it approaches it. No doubt one might
take the words death and life as
characterizing the two tendencies
themselves. But the argument does not
find so natural an explanation
thus, as if we take the two words to
express the inevitable goal to which
man is inwardly impelled in both ways.
This goal is death on the one
hand, life on the other. The flesh
tends to the former; for to gain the
complete liberty after which it
aspires, it needs a more and more complete
separation from God; and this is
death. The Spirit, on the contrary, thirsts
for life in God, which is its element,
and sacrifices everything to succeed
in enjoying it perfectly. Neither of
these two powers leaves a man at rest
till it has brought him to its goal,
whether to that state of death in which not
a spark of life remains, or to that
perfect life from which the last vestige of
death has disappeared.— Death is here,
as in ver. 2, separation from
God, which by a course of daily
development at length terminates through
physical death in eternal perdition
(6:23). Life , in Scripture, denotes a fully
satisfied existence, in which all the
faculties find their full exercise and
their true occupation. Man's spirit,
become the abode and organ of the
Divine Spirit, realizes this life with
a growing perfection to eternal life.
Peace is the inward feeling of
tranquillity which accompanies such an
existence; it shows itself
particularly in the absence of all fear in regard to
death and judgment (v. 1). There is no
changing the nature of these two
states and walks (ver. 5), and no
arresting the latter in its onward march
(ver. 6). The way of salvation is to
pass from the first to the second, and
not to relapse thereafter from the
second to the first.
The two theses of ver. 6 are justified
in the following verses, the former in
vv. 7 and 8, the latter in vv. 9 to
11.
Vv. 7, 8. “ Because the aspiration of
the flesh is enmity against God: for it
doth not submit itself to the law of
God, neither indeed can it. And they
that are in the flesh cannot please
God. ”—The flesh tends to death (ver.
6); for it is in its essence hatred of
God. The conjunction diovti , literally,
because of the fact that , announces
an explanation which indeed follows.
The flesh, the life of the I for
itself, must be hostile to God; for it feels that
all it gives its idol it takes from
God, and all it would bestow on God it
would take away from its idol. Enmity
to God is therefore only the reverse
side of its attachment to itself, that
is to say, it belongs to its essence. This
enmity is proved by two facts, the one
belonging to man as related to God
(ver. 7b), the other to God as related
to man (ver. 8). The first is the revolt
of the flesh against the divine will;
this feeling is mentioned first as a
simple fact. The flesh wishes to
satisfy itself: most frequently the law
withstands it; hence inward revolt
always, and often external revolt. And
this fact need not surprise us. The
flesh is what it is; it cannot change its
nature, any more than God can change
the nature of His law. Hence an
inevitable and perpetual conflict,
which can only come to an end with the
dominion of the flesh over the will.
Now this conflict is the way of death;
comp. Gal. 6:8.
Ver. 8. On the other hand, God is no
more the friend of the flesh than the
flesh is of Him. The dev has been
understood in all sorts of ways, from
Meyer, who understands it in the sense
of now then , to Calvin and Flatt,
who give it the sense of therefore
(ergo)! It is a simple adversative: and on
the other hand. The enmity is as it
were natural. For the abstract principle,
the flesh , Paul here substitutes the
carnal individuals; he thus approaches
the direct application to his readers
which follows in ver. 9.— To be in the
flesh is a still stronger expression
than to be after the flesh , ver.
5. According to this latter, the flesh
is the standard of moral existence;
according to the former, it is its
principle or source. Now, how could God
take pleasure in beings
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
who have as the principle of their
life the pursuit of self? Is this not the
principle opposed to His
essence?—Thus, then, carnal beings, already
involved in spiritual death, plunge
themselves in it ever deeper and
deeper; and consequently for them
condemnation remains, and is all that
remains; while spiritual men rise on
the ladder of life to that perfect
existence wherein the last trace of
condemnation, physical death itself,
will disappear (vv. 9 to 11).
Ver. 9. “ But as for you, ye are not
under the dominion of the flesh, but
under that of the Spirit, if the
Spirit of God really dwell in you. But if any
man have not the Spirit of Christ, he
is none of His. ”—In thus
apostrophizing his readers directly,
the apostle wishes to bring them to
examine themselves, in order to know
which of these two currents they
are obeying; for we easily apprehend
these truths with the understanding,
but we are slow to apply them to
ourselves personally. He begins with
expressing a feeling of confidence in
regard to their state; but he adds a
restriction fitted to excite their
vigilance: ei[per , if really. This word does
not positively express a doubt, as
ei[ge would do, if at least (Col. 1:23).
Paul proceeds on their Christian
profession to draw from it a sure
consequence in the supposed case of
their profession being serious. To
them it belongs to verify the truth of
the supposition. The expression: to
dwell in you , denotes a permanent
fact; it is not enough to have some
seasons of impulse, some outbursts of
enthusiasm, mingled with practical
infidelities.—This first proposition
of ver. 9 is the foundation of an
argument which will be prolonged to
the close of ver. 11. Before
continuing it the apostle throws in by
the way the serious warning
contained in ver. 9b, which raises the
supposition contrary to that of the
ei[per , if really , and shows also
the consequence which would flow from
it. It is remarkable that the Spirit
of Christ is here used as the equivalent of
the Spirit of God in the preceding proposition.
The Spirit of Jesus is that of
God Himself, which He has so perfectly
appropriated here below as to
make it His personal life, so that He
can communicate it to His own. It is in
this form that the Holy Spirit
henceforth acts in the Church. Where this
vital bond does not exist between a
soul and Christ, it remains a stranger
to Him and His salvation. After this
observation, which every one is
expected to apply to himself, the
argument recommences, connecting
itself with the favorable supposition
enunciated ver. 9a
Ver. 10. “ Now if Christ be in you,
the body is indeed dead because of sin;
but the Spirit is life because of
righteousness. ”—As the apostle had
substituted the Spirit of Christ for
the Spirit of God , he now substitutes for
the Spirit of Christ His person: Now
if Christ be in you. “Where the Spirit of
Christ is,” says Hofmann, “there he is
also Himself.” In fact, as the Spirit
proceeds from Christ, His action tends
to make Christ live in us. “I shall
come again to you,” said Jesus (John
14:17, 18), when He was describing
the work of the Spirit. This new
expression brings out more forcibly than
the preceding the solidarity between
the person of Jesus and ours , and
so prepares for ver. 11, in which the
resurrection of Jesus is set forth as
the pledge of ours.—This hope of
sharing His resurrection rests on the
fact that even now His life has
penetrated the spiritual part of our being
(ver. 10b). No doubt this spiritual
life will not prevent the body from dying;
but it is the earnest of its
participation in the resurrection of Christ. From
chap. 5:12, 15, and 17, we know the
apostle's view respecting the cause
of death: “Through one man's offence
many are dead.” The fact of
universal death does not therefore
arise from the sins of individuals, but
from the original transgression. The
meaning of these words: because of
sin , is thus fixed; they refer to
Adam's sin. It is sometimes asked why
believers still die if Christ really
died for them; and an argument is drawn
hence against the doctrine of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
expiation. But it is forgotten that,
death not being an individual
punishment, there is no connection
between this fact and the pardon of
sins granted to believing individuals.
Death, as a judgment on humanity,
bearing on the species as such,
remains till the general consummation of
Christ's work; comp. 1 Cor. 15:26.—The
term dead here signifies:
irrevocably smitten with death. The
human body bears within itself from its
formation the germ of death; it begins
to die the instant it begins to live.
Commentators who, like Chrys., Er.,
Grot., explain this term dead , as
dead unto sin (in a good sense),
evidently do not understand the course
of thought in these verses, 9-11.—But
if the believer's death cannot be
prevented, there is a domain in him
where life has already established its
reign, the spirit in which Christ
dwells. Hofmann insists strongly that the
term spirit should here be applied to
the Spirit of God. In that case the
words: the spirit is life , must be
understood in the sense: the spirit
produces and sustains life in the
soul. But this sense is unnatural, and the
contrast between spirit and body leads
us rather to apply the former term
to the spiritual element in the
believer. In the passage, 1 Thess. 5:23, Paul
distinguishes these three elements in
man: body, soul , and spirit. By the
third term he denotes the organ with
which the soul of man, and of man
alone of all animated beings, is
endowed, whereby he perceives and
appropriates the divine; by this
spiritual faculty it is that the Spirit of God
can penetrate into the soul, and by it
rule the body. Hence arises the
sanctification of the body (6:11-13),
not its deliverance from death. But
Paul can already say, nevertheless,
that in consequence of its union with
the Spirit of God the spirit of the
believer is life. This expression no doubt
sounds somewhat strong; why not say
simply: living? This peculiarity
seems to have been observed very
early; it is certainly the origin of the
reading zh'/ , lives , instead of zwhv
, life , in two Greco-Latin MSS. but
Paul's thought went further. The life
of God does not become merely an
attribute of the spirit in man through
the Holy Spirit; it becomes his nature ,
so that it can pass from the spirit to
his whole person, psychical and bodily
(ver. 11).—The last words: because of
righteousness , cannot refer to the
restoration of holiness in the
believer; not that the word righteousness
cannot have this meaning in Paul's
writings (comp. 6:13 and 19), but
because it is impossible to say life
exists because of holiness; for in reality
the one is identical with the other.
We must therefore take the word
righteousness in the sense of
justification , as in chaps. 1-5. To this
meaning we are also led by the meaning
of the clause which forms an
antithesis to this in the first
proposition: because of sin. As the body dies
because of a sin which is not ours
individually, so the spirit lives in
consequence of a righteousness which
is not ours.—But will this body,
given over to death, be abandoned to
it forever? No; the last trace of
condemnation behoves to be effaced.
Ver. 11. “ Now, if the Spirit of Him
that raised up Jesus from the dead
dwell in you, He that raised up Christ
Jesus from the dead shall quicken
also your mortal bodies, because of
His Spirit that dwelleth in you. ”—The
dev , now , denotes the progress of the
life which, after penetrating the
spirit, takes hold even of the body.
That body in which, as well as in
Jesus, the Spirit of God has dwelt,
will be judged worthy of the same
honor as the body of Jesus Himself.—In
the first proposition the apostle
uses the name Jesus , because the
reference is to His person merely; in
the second he says Christ , or Christ
Jesus , because the subject in
question is the office He fills as
Mediator between God and us. As
Hofmann remarks, the personal
resurrection of Jesus merely assures us
that God can raise us; but His
resurrection, regarded as that of the Christ ,
assures us that He will do so
actually. Once again we see how carefully
Paul weighs every term he uses. We
have a new proof of the same in the
use of the two expressions ejgeivrein
, to awake (applied to Jesus), and
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
zwopoiei'n , to quicken (applied to
believers). The death of Jesus was a
sleep, unaccompanied with any
dissolution of the body...; it was therefore
enough to awake Him. In our case, the
body, being given over to
destruction, must be entirely
reconstituted; this is well expressed by the
word quicken. —The word kaiv , also ,
omitted by the Sinait . and the Vatic.
, suits the context well: the spirit
is already quickened; the body must be
so also. —The apostle had said of the
body in ver. 10, it is dead , nekrovn .
Why does he here substitute the term
mortal , qnhtovn ? It has been
thought that he used this word, which
has a wider meaning, to embrace
those who shall be alive at the Lord's
coming, and whose bodies shall be
not raised, but transformed. Hofmann
takes the term mortal , of ver. 10, as
referring to the future state of the
body, the state of death to which it is still
only destined, and from which the
resurrection will rescue it. The true
explanation of the term seems to me
simpler: In ver. 10, Paul means to
speak of the fact (death); in ver. 11,
of the quality (mortal). For the
resurrection will not only change the
fact of death into that of life, but it will
transform the nature of the body,
which from being mortal will become
incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:43, 44).
The last words of this verse played a
somewhat important part
dogmatically in the first ages of the
church. Those who maintained the
divinity and personality of the Holy
Spirit were more inclined to read, as is
done by some ancient Alex. Mjj., dia;
tou' ejnoikou'nto" aujtou' pneuvmato"
..., “ by the Holy Spirit who dwelleth
in you.”—In fact, by this mode of
expression the apostle would ascribe
the divine operation of raising from
the dead (John 5:21) to the Holy
Spirit, which would imply His power of
free causation as well as divinity.
The opponents of this doctrine alleged
the other reading, which is that of
Stephens, and which differs here from
the received reading: dia; to;
ejnoikou'n aujtou' pneu'ma , “ because of the
Spirit that dwelleth in you. ” This
reading is found in authorities of the three
families in the oldest versions, the
Itala and the Peshito , and in some very
ancient Fathers, such as Irenaeus and
Origen. Such being the case, we
can only ascribe it to Tischendorf's
provoking predilection for the Sinait . ,
that he adopts the first reading in
his eighth edition. Indeed, so far as
external authorities are concerned,
the decisive fact is the well-attested
existence of a reading in the
documents of the various countries of the
church; now in this case we find the
reading dia; to; ..., because of , in
Egypt (Vatic.), in the West (It.
Fathers), in Syria (Peshito), and in the
Byzantine Church (K L P, Mnn.), while
the received reading is represented
by little more than three Alexandrines
and a Father of the same country
(Clement). The meaning also decides in
favor of the best supported
reading. The diav with the accusative,
because of , follows quite naturally
the two similar diav of ver. 10:
“because of sin, death; because of
righteousness, the life of the Spirit;”
and because of the life of the Spirit,
the resurrection of the body. The
entire course of thought is summed up in
this thrice repeated because of.
Besides, Paul is not concerned to explain
here by what agent the resurrection is
effected. What is of importance in
the line of the ideas presented from
ver. 5 onward, is to indicate the moral
state in consequence of which the
granting of resurrection will be
possible. That to which God will have
respect, is the dwelling of His own
Spirit in the believer; the holy use
which he shall have made of his body to
glorify Him; the dignity to which the
Spirit shall have raised the body by
making it a temple of God (1 Cor.
6:19). Such a body he will treat as He
has treated that of His own Son. This
is the glorious thought with which
the apostle closes this passage and
completes the development of the
word: no condemnation. —This
difference of reading is the only one in the
whole Epistle to the Romans which is
fitted to exercise any influence on
Christian doctrine. And yet we do not
think that the question whether the
resurrection
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
of the body takes place by the
operation of the Holy Spirit, or because of
His dwelling in us, has been very
often discussed in our Dogmatics or
treated in our Catechisms.
The apostle does not speak of the lot
reserved for the bodies of
unbelievers, or of unsanctified
believers. The same is the case in the
passage 1 Cor. 15:20-28. But the word
of ver. 13: “If ye live after the flesh,
ye shall die,” should suffice. That is
not, especially after all that precedes,
a word of salvation. Besides, what
would be meant by the sharp contrast
between the two propositions of vv. 5
and 6? We have to explain his
silence by his aim, which was to
expound the work of salvation to its
completion. It is the same with 1 Cor.
15:20-28.—We believe, finally, that
after that it is quite unnecessary to
refute the opinion of those who, like De
Wette, Philippi, Holsten, think the
expression: to quicken the body , ver.
11, should be applied in whole or in
part to the sanctification of the
Christian's body; Paul does not mix up
questions so; he spoke, in ver. 2,
of two laws to be destroyed, that of
sin and that of death. And he has
rigorously followed the order which he
traced for himself.
Eighteenth Passage (Vv. 12-17). Freed
from Sin and Death, The
Christian becomes Son and Heir.
Victory over sin and death once
decided by the reign of the Holy Spirit,
condemnation is not only taken away,
it is replaced by the benediction
which is given to us in all its
degrees: in the present, the filial state,
adoption; in the future, the divine
inheritance.
Vv. 12 and 13 form the transition from
the preceding passage to this. The
life of the Spirit is not realized in
the believer without his concurrence
merely from the fact that the Spirit
has once been communicated to him.
There is needed on man's part a
persevering decision, an active docility in
giving himself over to the guidance of
the Spirit. For the guidamce of the
Spirit tends constantly to the
sacrifice of the flesh; and if the believer
refuses to follow it on this path, he
renounces the life of the Spirit and its
glorious privileges.
Vv. 12, 13. “ Thus then, brethren, we
are under obligation, not to the flesh
to live after the flesh; for if ye
live after the flesh, ye must die; but if ye
through the Spirit do mortify the
deeds of the body , ye shall live. ”—It is
not enough to have received the
Spirit; it is also necessary to walk
according to Him. The thus then refers
to the thought of the preceding
passage: “Since the Spirit has set you
free from the law of sin and death,
do not replace yourselves under this
curse.” The address: brethren ,
reappears every time the apostle
wishes to bring home to his readers a
practical and personal warning.—When
saying: we are under obligation ,
literally debtors , Paul meant to
continue in the words: to the Spirit, to live
according to Him. As soon as the
Spirit comes to dwell in our heart, we
owe to Him, ourselves, and a life
wholly conformed to His wishes. But the
apostle breaks off his sentence to set
aside the opposite supposition, one
unfortunately which cannot be passed
over in silence, and he makes
haste to add: not to the flesh. “The
natural man,” Hofmann observes,
“imagines that he owes it to his flesh
to satisfy it.” The care of his person,
from the most earthly point of view,
appears to him the first and most
important of his obligations. Now it
is this tendency which is combated by
the Spirit as soon as He takes
possession of us (Gal. 5:17). This is the
debt which should neither be
acknowledged nor paid. The apostle says
why in the following verse.
Ver. 13. In this way the regenerate
man himself would go on to death. So
the flesh will reward us for our
fidelity in discharging our debt to it.—
Mevllete : “there is
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
nothing for you but to die; such is
the only future which awaits you.” Now
was the time to resume the sentence
which had been begun: “Ye are
under obligation... to the Spirit. ”
But the apostle supposes this idea to
come out clearly enough from the expressed
contrast: not to the flesh ,
and continues as if he had expressed
it: “ But if through the Spirit ,” etc.
Whither does this principle, whose
impelling power takes the place of the
flesh, lead us? To death also; to the
death of the flesh, and thereby to life:
ye shall live. The rhythm of this
verse is quite similar to that observed by
Calvin in 7:9, 10; 13a, the life of
the flesh is the death of man; 13b, the
death of the flesh is the life of man.
Why does the apostle say: the works
of the body , and not of the flesh?
This difference already struck certain
Greco-Latin copyists, who have sought
to correct the text in this direction.
But it is unnecessary. The complement:
of the body , is not here the
genitive of the instrument , but that
of the author. The acts of which the
body is the simple instrument are not
its own. Paul would suppress those
of which it is the independent author,
and wherein, consequently, it
withdraws from the dominion of the
Spirit. These should come to an end,
because in the Christian the Spirit
should direct and penetrate all , even
his eating and drinking , according to
the example quoted by the apostle,
1 Cor. 10:31. In all these acts of
life the body should not guide, but be
guided. Every act of sacrifice whereby
the independence of the body is
denied, and its submission to the
spirit forcibly asserted, secures a growth
of spiritual life in man. It is only
as a void is cleared in the domain of the
flesh, that the efficacy of the Spirit
shows itself with new force. Thus is
explained the ye shall live , which
applies to every moment of the
believer's existence on to the state
of perfection.—This last word: ye shall
live , becomes the theme of the
following passage. For the two attributes
son and heir of God, which are about
to be developed, the one in vv. 14-
16, the other in ver. 17, exhaust the
notion of life.
Vv. 14, 15. “ For all they who are led
by the Spirit of God, they are the
sons of God. For ye have not received
a spirit of bondage to fall back into
fear; but ye have received a Spirit of
adoption, whereby we cry: Abba,
Father! ”— {Osoi , literally: “ as
many as there are of them who are
led...they are ”...The for refers to
the promise: ye shall live. It is impossible
for one who is a Son of God, the
source of life, not to live. Now he who
gives himself to be guided by the
Spirit of God, is certainly a son of God.
The thought expressed in this verse
may be understood in two ways.
Does Paul mean that living according
to the Spirit is the proof that one
possesses the rank of a child of God?
In that case this would follow from
the grace of justification; and the
gift of the Spirit would be a subsequent
gift coming to seal this glorious
acquired position. In favor of this view
there might be quoted Gal. 4:6: “
Because ye are sons, God hath sent
forth the Spirit of His Son into your
hearts.” But it must not be forgotten
that Paul is not here speaking of the
gift of the Spirit, but of the believer's
surrender to His influences. The
reference therefore is to a more
advanced stage of the Christian life.
The other possible meaning is this:
“Ye have a right to the title of sons
as soon as ye let yourselves be led by
the Spirit.” And this meaning
evidently suits the context better. Though
one become a son by justification, he
does not possess the filial state , he
does not really enjoy adoption until
he has become loyally submissive to
the operation of the Spirit. The
meaning is therefore this: “If ye let
yourselves be led by the Spirit, ye
are ipso facto sons of God. ”—Meyer
gives the pronoun oujtoi , they , an
exclusive sense: “they only. ” But we
are no longer at the warning; the
apostle is now proving the: ye shall live (
for ). The restrictive intention is
therefore foreign to his thought, he is
making a strong affirmation.—In the
term a[gontai , are led , there is
something like a notion of holy
violence; the Spirit drags the man where
the flesh would fain not go. The verb
may be taken in the passive:
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
are driven , or in the middle: let
themselves be driven. —The intentional
repetition of the word God establishes
a close connection between the
two ideas: obeying the Spirit and
being sons. A son obeys his father. The
term uiJov" , son , implies
community of nature and all the privileges which
flow from it; consequently, when God
is the father, participation in life.
—The apostle gives in what follows two
proofs of the reality of this state of
sonship: the one, partly subjective,
the filial feeling toward God
experienced by the believer, ver. 15;
the other, objective, the testimony of
the Divine Spirit proclaiming the
divine fatherhood within his heart, ver. 16.
Ver. 15. The ancients were much
perplexed to explain this expression: Ye
have not received a spirit of bondage.
It seemed to them to imply the idea,
that a servile spirit had been given
to the readers previously by God
Himself. Hence the explanation of
Chrysostom, who applied the spirit of
bondage to the law. This meaning is
inadmissible. It would be preferable
to understand it of the mercenary and
timid spirit which accompanied legal
obedience. But could Paul possibly
ascribe this to a divine
communication? If we connect the
adverb pavlin , again , as we should do,
not with the verb ejlavbete , ye
received , but only with the regimen eij"
fovbon , to fear , there is nothing in
the expression obliging us to hold that
Paul has in view an anterior divine
communication; for the meaning is this:
“The Spirit which ye have received of
God is not a servile spirit throwing
you back into the fear in which ye
formerly lived.” Comp. 2 Tim. 1:7. The
character of heathen religions is in
fact the sentiment of fear (
deisidaimoniva , Acts 17:22). And was
it not in some respects the same
among the Jews, though with them the
fear of Jehovah took a more
elevated character than the fear of
the gods among the Gentiles? The
feeling with which the Spirit of God
fills the believer's heart is not fear,
suited to the condition of a slave,
but the confidence and liberty which
become a son.—The word spirit might
here be regarded as denoting
simply a subjective disposition; as in
that word of the Lord in reference to
Sennacherib (Isa. 37:7): “I will put
such a spirit in him, that he will return,
to his own land;” comp. 1 Cor. 4:21: a
spirit of meekness; Rom. 11:8: a
spirit of slumber. Here it would be
the filial sentiment in relation to God.
What might support this subjective
meaning of the word spirit , is the
strongly emphasized contrast between
this verse and the following, where
the objective meaning is evident: “The
Spirit Himself beareth
witness”...Nevertheless it is impossible,
if we consider the connection
between ver. 15 and the preceding
verse, not to see in the Spirit of
adoption , of which Paul here speaks,
the Spirit of God Himself; comp.
especially Gal. 4:6, a passage so like
ours, and where there is no room for
uncertainty. The difference between
vv. 15 and 16, so far as the meaning
of the word spirit is concerned, is
not the difference between an inward
disposition and the Spirit of God, but
rather that which distinguishes two
different modes of acting, followed by
one and the same Holy Spirit. In the
former case, the operation of the
Spirit makes itself felt by means of a
personal disposition which He produces
in us; in the second case it is still
more direct (see on ver. 16).—The
Spirit of adoption is the Spirit of God,
in so far as producing the spiritual
state corresponding to sonship; He may
even be called: the Spirit of the Son
Himself, Gal. 4:6. He puts us
relatively to God in the same position
as Jesus, when He said: Father!
The term uiJoqesiva , adoption ,
reminds us of the fact that Jesus alone is
Son in essence ( uiJo;"
monogenhv" , only son ). To become sons, we must
be incorporated into Him by faith
(Eph. 1:5).—The pronoun ejn wj/ , in
whom , shows that it is under the
inspiration of the filial sentiment
produced in us by this Spirit that we
thus pray, and the term cry expresses
the profound emotion with which this
cry of adoration goes forth from the
believing heart.— Abba is the form
which the Hebrew word ab, father ,
had taken in the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Aramaic language, commonly spoken in
Palestine in the time of Jesus. It
was thus Jesus spoke to God when He
called Him Father; comp. Mark
14:36. It has been thought Paul
employed the form here, because he
made use of it habitually in his own
prayers, and that he added the Greek
translation: oJ pathvr , father , in
writing to the Romans and to the
Galatians, because the Aramaic was
unintelligible to them as former
Gentiles. But the employment of the
expression (which occurs in three
writings of the N. T.) must rest on a
more general usage. Like the terms
Amen, Hosanna, Hallelujah , this word
Abba had no doubt passed from
the liturgical language of the
primitive Judeo-Christian church into general
ecclesiastical language. By adapting
this sacred form of address, which
had passed through the mouth of Jesus
Himself, to the worship of
Christians, not only was there a
compliance with the command: “When ye
pray, say: Our Abba ( our Father ),
who art in heaven,” but the feeling of
the whole church seemed to blend with
that of its High Priest, who had
prayed, using the same term for
Himself and His brethren. From regard to
Greek-speaking Christians, and neophytes
in particular, the custom was
probably followed of adding the Greek
translation: oJ pathvr , father , as is
done by Mark. Augustine and Calvin
suppose that it was meant, by using
these two forms in juxtaposition, to
express the union of Jewish and
Gentile Christians in one spiritual
body. This hypothesis has no great
probability.
Vv. 16, 17. “ The Spirit itself
beareth witness to our spirit, that we are
children of God. Now if children, then
heirs of God, and joint-heirs with
Christ; if so be that we suffer with
Him, that we may be also glorified with
Him. ”—The asyndeton form (the absence
of a connecting particle)
between vv. 15 and 16 indicates here,
as always, profound emotion; it
announces the more forcible
reaffirmation of the same fact, but presented
in a new aspect. The expression aujto;
to; pneu'ma does not signify the
same Spirit ( to; aujto; pneu'ma ),
but the Spirit Himself , as the immediate
organ of God. All who are not
strangers to the experience of divine things,
know that there is a difference
between a state formed in us by the Divine
Spirit, and expressing itself in the
form of prayer (ver. 15), and the
language in which God answers us
directly by means of the Spirit. This
difference comes out in the following
passage, when the apostle expressly
distinguishes the groaning of the
Spirit Himself in those who have
received the first-fruits of the
Spirit (ver. 26), from their own groaning (ver.
23). We observe a similar difference
in the life of Jesus Himself when it is
He who says: my Father (Luke 2:49, et
al. ), or when it is God who says to
Him: Thou art my Son (Luke 3:12). So,
in this case the apostle means that
we are sons of God , not only because
our heart cherishes a filial
disposition toward God, and inspires
us with the cry of love: my Father;
but—and this is still more
sublime—because from the heart of God
Himself there comes down the answer by
the voice of the Holy Spirit: my
child. It is not only our arms which
are stretched out to take hold of God
who gives Himself to us in Christ, but
His at the same time which embrace
us and draw us to His bosom.—The suvn
, with , in the verb summarturei'n ,
to bear witness with , should
evidently preserve its natural meaning:
“bears witness conjointly with our
spirit,” the feeling of which was
expressed in ver. 15. But the dative:
tw'/ pneuvmati hJmw'n , to our spirit , is
not to be regarded as the regimen of
suvn , with (“bears witness with our
spirit ”); it is our spirit which here
receives the divine testimony. The term
tevknon , child , differs from
uiJov" , son , ver. 14, in this, that the latter
expresses rather the personal dignity
and independence, the official
character of the representative of a
family, while the second has a more
inward sense, and indicates rather
community of life. In the one what is
expressed is the position of honor, in
the other the relation of nature.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Ver. 17. The apostle has proved the
fact of our being sons or children, first
by the filial fecling produced in us
by the Spirit, and then by the direct
witness of the Spirit Himself. He can
now conclude his argument; for even
in expressing the most exalted
sentiments, his exposition always assumes
a logical form. He had said, vv. 13
and 14: “Ye shall live, for ye are sons;”
then he demonstrated the reality of
this title son; and he now infers from it
the condition of heirship. Thus the
reasoning is concluded; for to be an
heir of God is identical with being a
possessor of life.—No doubt God
does not die, like those who leave an
inheritance; it is from the heart of
His glory that He enriches his sons by
communicating it to them, that is,
by imparting Himself to them. For,
rightly taken, His heritage is Himself.
The best He can give His children is
to dwell in them. St. Paul expresses it
when he describes the perfect state in
the words (1 Cor. 15:28): God all in
all. —But he here adds an expression
particularly fitted to impress us with
the sublimity of such a state: coheirs
with Christ. The loftiness of the title
heir of God might easily be lost in
vagueness, unless the apostle, with the
view of making this abstract idea
palpable, added a concrete fact. To be
an heir with Christ is not to inherit
in the second instance, to inherit from
Him; it is to be put in the same rank
as Himself; it is to share the divine
possession with Him. To get a glimpse
of what is meant by the title heirs
of God , let us contemplate the relation
between Christ and God, and we
shall have an idea of what we are led
to hope from our title sons of God;
comp. ver. 29--;Only to reach the
possession of the inheritance, there is
yet one condition to be satisfied: if
we suffer with Him. Paul knows well
that, ambitious as we are of glory, we
are equally ready to recoil from the
necessary suffering. Now it is
precisely in suffering that the bond between
Christ and us, in virtue of which we
shall be able to become His co-heirs,
is closely drawn. We only enter into
possession of the common heritage of
glory, by accepting our part in the
common inheritance of suffering; ei[per :
“ if really , as we are called to it,
we have the courage to”...These last
words are evidently the transition to
the passage immediately following, in
which are expounded, first the
miserable state of the world in its present
condition, but afterward the certainty
of the glorious state which awaits us.
Nineteenth Passage (Vv. 18-30).
Completion of the Plan of Salvation,
notwithstanding the Miseries of our
present Condition.
In speaking of the full victory gained
by the Spirit of Christ over the last
remains of condemnation, Paul seemed
to assume that the work had
already reached its goal, and that
nothing remained but to pass into glory.
But in the words: “If so be we suffer
with Him,” he had already given it to
be understood that there remained to
the children of God a career of
suffering to be gone through in communion
with Christ, and that the era of
glory would only open to them after
this painful interval. These two
thoughts: the present state of
suffering, and the certain glory in which it is
to issue, are the theme of the
following passage. This piece, as it appears
to me, is one of those, the tenor of
which has been most misunderstood
even in the latest commentaries. It
has been regarded as a series of
consolatory themes, presented by the
apostle to suffering believers. They
are the following three, according to
Meyer: 1. The preponderance of
future glory over present sufferings
(vv. 18-25); 2. the aid of the Holy Spirit
(vv. 26 and 27); 3. the working
together of all things for the good of those
who love God (vv. 28-30). M. Reuss
says on reaching ver. 28: After hope
(vv. 18-25) and the Spirit (vv. 26 and
27), the apostle mentions yet a third
fact which is of a nature to support
us, namely, “that everything
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
contributes to the good of them that
love God.” A little further on he adds:
“To this end Paul recapitulates the
series of acts whereby God interposes
in the salvation of the individual.” A
third fact..., to this end! Such
expressions hardly suit our apostle's
style; and when one is obliged to
have recourse to them, it simply
proves that he has not grasped the
course of his thoughts. The same is
the case with the division recently
offered by Holsten, who here finds the
hope of the Christian founded: 1.
on the state of creation; 2. on the
groaning of believers; 3. on the groaning
of the Spirit;
4. on the consciousness of believers
that their very sufferings must turn to
their good. How can one imagine that
he has understood St. Paul, when
he lacerates his thoughts in this
fashion?
The following passage develops two
ideas: the world's state of misery in
its present condition, a state
demonstrated by the groaning of the whole
creation, by that of believers
themselves, and finally by that of the Holy
Spirit; then in contrast, the
certainty, notwithstanding all, of the perfect
accomplishment of the glorious plan
eternally conceived by God for our
glory. The transition from the first
idea to the second is found in the
oi[damen dev , but we know , of ver.
28, where the adversative particle dev ,
but , expressly establishes the
contrast between the second idea and the
first.
And first of all, the general theme,
ver. 18, enunciating the two ideas to be
developed: 1. The sufferings of the
present time (the sumpavscein , to
suffer with , ver.
17), and 2. The glory yet to be
revealed in us (the sundoxasqh'nai , being
glorified together with , ver. 17).
Ver. 18. “ For I reckon that the
sufferings of this present time are not
worthy to be compared with the glory
which shall be revealed in us.
”—The term logivzomai , I reckon ,
here signifies: “I judge after calculation
made.” The expressions which follow
imply, indeed, the idea of a
calculation. The adjective a[xio"
, worthy , comes, as the old
lexicographers say, from the verb a[gw
, to drive, to cause to move , and
denotes strictly a thing which is
heavy enough to produce motion in the
scale of the balance. The preposition
prov" is used here, as frequently, to
denote proportion. Consequently, the
apostle means that when he
compares the miseries imposed on him
by the present state of things with
the glory awaiting him in the future,
he does not find that the former can
be of any weight whatever in the
balance of his resolutions. Why does he
use the first person singular, I
reckon , instead of speaking in the name of
all Christians? No doubt because he
would have them verify his
calculation themselves, each making it
over again for himself. And he has
good right to take the initiative in
comparison with them, as evidently
suffering more than all of them.—This
present time denotes the actual
conditions of our earthly life in
contrast with those of the new world which
succeeds it. These are, on the one
hand, the miseries arising from bodily
infirmities and the necessities of
life; on the other, those caused by the
enmity of man and the sins of
believers themselves. Paul, who endured
more than any other of these two kinds
of sufferings, yet calls them, 2
Cor. 4:17: the light affliction of the
present moment , in opposition to the
eternal weight of glory which he sees
before him.—This glory is to be
revealed; it is therefore already; and
indeed it exists not only in the plan of
God decreeing it to us, but also in
the person of Christ glorified, with
whose appearing it will be visibly
displayed. The apostle adds eij" hJma'" ,
in and for us. He might have written
ejn hJmi'n , in us; but this expression
would have been insufficient. For the
glory will not consist only in our own
transformation, but also in the coming
of the Lord Himself, and the
transformation of the universe. Thus
it will be displayed at once for us and
in us; this is expressed by the
eij" hJma'" . Being unable to render the two
relations into French by
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
a single preposition, we have
preferred to express the second, which is
the most comprehensive.
Ver. 19 begins the development of this
general state of misery and waiting
in which the church still
participates, and which was denoted by the term:
the sufferings of this present time
(ver. 18).
Ver. 19. “ For the earnest expectation
of the creation longeth for the
manifestation of the sons of God.
”—The for is usually made to refer to the
idea of the glory yet to be revealed ,
ver. 18. And this view is supported
either by the greatness of this glory
(De W., Hofmann), or by its certainty
(Meyer), or by its futurity (Philip.),
or by the imminence of its manifestation
(Reiche). But not one of these
affirmations is really proved in what follows.
What Paul demonstrates is simply the
fact, that if we are already saved
spiritually, we are far from being so
also outwardly. In biblical language:
As to the spirit, we are in the age to
come; as to the body, in the present
age. The for therefore refers to the
sufferings of this present time. This
strange discord forms the basis of our
present condition; and this is what
ver. 19 demonstrates by the waiting
attitude which all nature betrays.
Holsten, ever preoccupied with the
alleged application of our Epistle to the
Judeo-Christians of Rome, thus
introduces the subject: “The Judeo-
Christians ask: But, if all wrath is
taken away, why so much suffering still?”
We in turn ask: Is it only
Judeo-Christians, is it not every Christian
conscience which asks the question?
The Greek term which we have
translated by the word expectation , is one
of those admirable words which the
Greek language easily forms. It is
composed of three elements: kavra ,
the head; dokevw, dokavw, dokeuvw ,
to wait for, espy; and ajpov , from,
from afar; so: “to wait with the head
raised, and the eye fixed on that
point of the horizon from which the
expected object is to come.” What a
plastic representation! An artist might
make a statue of hope out of this
Greek term. The verb ajpekdevcetai ,
which we have translated by longeth
for , is not less remarkable; it is
composed of the simple verb devcomai ,
to receive , and two prepositions:
ejk , out of the hands of , and ajpov
, from, from after; so: “to receive
something from the hands of one who
extends it to you from afar.” This
substantive and verb together vividly
describe the attitude of the suffering
creation, which in its entirety turns
as it were an impatient look to the
expected future.—What is to be
understood here by the creation (Eng.
version, the creature )? There is an
astonishing variety of answers given
to this question by commentators. The
word hJ ktivsi" itself denotes either
the creative act, or its result, the
totality of created things. But very often it
takes a more restricted meaning, which
is indicated by the sense of the
whole passage. Thus in this context we
must begin with excluding
believers from the creation. For in
ver. 23 they are mentioned as forming a
class by themselves. We must likewise
cut off from it unbelieving men ,
whether Jews or Gentiles. For of two
things one or other must happen:
either they will be converted before
the expected time, and in that case
they will themselves be found among
the children of God, and will not
form part of the creation (end of the
ver. and ver. 21). Or if they are not
then converted, they will not
participate (even indirectly) in the glorious
condition of the children of God.
Consequently, since there can be no
question in this context either of
good angels or devils, it only remains to
us to restrict the application of the
word the creation to all the unintelligent
beings which we usually comprise in
the expression nature (in opposition
to mankind ). Thus are excluded the
explanation of St. Augustine, who
understood by it unconverted men , and
that of Locke and others, who
applied it to unconverted Jews; that
of Bo1hme , who applied it to the
heathen; the Arminian explanation,
which took the word the creation in the
sense of the new creation , and
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
applied this term to Christians only;
that of Luther, who in some passages
seems to have restricted it to
inanimate nature; that of Zyro, who sees in
this term a designation of the flesh
in the regenerate, etc. The explanation
we have given is that most generally
adopted (Er., Calv., Grot., Thol., De
Wette, Philip., Hofm., etc.). It is
confirmed by the following parallels: Matt.
19:28, where Jesus speaks of the
palingenesia , or universal renovation
which is to take place; Acts 3:21,
where Peter announces the restoration
of all things; and Rev. 21:1, where
this event is described as the
substitution of a new heaven and a new
earth for the present heaven and
earth. The same perspective of a
universal renovation in the last times is
already opened up in the O. T. (Isa.
11:1 et seq., 65:17; Ps. 102:26, 27,
104:34); it follows from the fact of
the fall of man in which nature was
involved. Solidarity in the matter of
restoration is naturally associated with
solidarity in the fall.—In this
prophetico- poetical passage the destination
of nature is represented as its own
expectation. This figurative expression
becomes a truth in proportion as the
beings themselves suffer from the
general disorder.—The hour of
transformation is called the time of the
manifestation of the sons of God. This
expression is explained by Col. 3:4:
“When Christ, our life, shall be
manifested, then ye also shall be
manifested with Him in glory.” The
appearing of the sons of God in their
true sanctified nature, will break the
bonds of the curse which still to this
hour hold the creation in fetters;
comp. Matt. 13:43; 1 John 3:2. And
nature herself is impatient to see
those new guests arrive, because she
knows that to receive them she will
don her fairest apparel.—In the
following verses, Paul develops more
fully that abnormal character of the
present creation which he has just
declared in ver. 19.
Vv. 20-22. “ For the creation was made
subject to vanity, not voluntarily,
but by reason of him who hath
subjected the same in hope, because the
creation itself also shall be
delivered from the bondage of corruption into
the glorious liberty of the children
of God. For we know that the whole
creation groaneth together and as it
were travaileth until now. ”—The
vanity to which nature is now subject,
is the state of frailty to which all
earthly beings are subjected.
“Everywhere,” says M. Reuss, “our eyes
meet images of death and decay; the
scourge of barrenness, the fury of
the elements, the destructive
instincts of beasts, the very laws which
govern vegetation, everything gives
nature a sombre hue”...This reign of
death which prevails over all that is
born cannot be the normal state of a
world created by God. Nature suffers
from a curse which it cannot have
brought upon itself, as it is not
morally free. It is not with its goodwill , says
the apostle, that it appears in this
condition, but because of him who hath
subjected it to such a state. —Whom
does he mean? According to most
modern commentators: God. Was it not
He who pronounced the sentence
of doom: “Cursed is the ground for thy
sake” (Gen. 3:17)? Yet if this were
the apostle's meaning, it would be
strange that he should use the
expression: by reason of ( diav with
the accusative); for God is not the
moral cause, but the efficient author
of the curse on nature. Then if the
expression: not with its goodwill ,
signifies: not by its own fault, it is natural
to seek in the contrasted term a
designation of the person on whom the
moral responsibility for this catastrophe
rests; and we cannot be surprised
at the explanation given by
Chrysostom, Schneckenburger, Tholuck, who
apply the term oJ uJpotavxa" . he
who subjected , to the first man; comp.
the expression, Gen. 3:17: “Cursed is
the ground for thy sake. ” It cannot
be denied, however, that there is
something strangely mysterious in the
apostle's language, which he might
easily have avoided by saying: by
reason of the man, or by reason of us;
then does the term: he who
subjected , apply well to man, who in
this event, so far as nature is
concerned, played a purely passive
part? This consideration has led one
critic,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Hammond, to apply the term to Satan ,
the prince of this world (as Jesus
calls him), who, either by his own
fall or by that of man, dragged the
creation into the miserable state here
described. The only room for
hesitation, as it appears to me, is
between the two latter meanings.—The
regimen: in hope , can only refer to
the term: who hath subjected , if we
apply it to God, which, as we have
seen, is unnatural. It depends therefore
on the principal verb: was made
subject to vanity , and signifies that from
the first, when this chastisement was
inflicted, it was so only with a future
restoration in view. This hope,
precisely like the expectation , ver. 19, is
attributed to nature herself; she
possesses in the feeling of her unmerited
suffering a sort of presentiment of
her future deliverance.
Ver. 21. The conujnction o{ti ( that ,
or because ) may be made directly
dependent on the words in hope: “in
hope that. ” ver. 21 would then state
wherein the hope itself consists. But
we may also take it in the sense of
because , and find in ver. 21 the
reason of the hope: “I say: with hope,
because ”...This indeed would be the
only possible meaning if, with
Tischendorf, we adopted the reading of
the Sinait . and the Greco-Latins:
diovti , seeing that. In any case it
is the natural sense; for why otherwise
would the apostle repeat in extenso
the subject of the sentence: aujth; hJ
ktivsi" , the creation itself? No
writer will say: nature was made subject in
the hope that Nature herself would be
delivered.—The pronoun itself
glances at a natural objection: one
would not have expected such a fact in
a being like Nature. The kaiv , also,
even , refers to the same thought: the
unintelligent creation no less than
men. —In the expression: the bondage
of corruption , the complement
may signify: “the bondage which
consists of corruption.” But this
complement may also be taken as the
genitive of the object, subjection to
corruption, as a law. This second
meaning is undoubtedly better; for the
idea of enslavement is thus rendered
more emphatic, in opposition to the
idea of liberty in what follows.—The
term fqorav , corruption, putrescence ,
is more forcible than the word vanity,
and serves to define it more
exactly.—Paul does not say that nature
will participate in the glory , but
only in the liberty of the glory of
the children of God. Liberty is one of the
elements of their glorious state, and
it is the only one to which nature can
lay claim. It expresses the unchecked
development of the free expansion
of all the powers of life, beauty, and
perfection, wherewith this new nature
will be endowed. There is nothing to
show that the apostle has in view the
return to life of the individual
beings composing the present system of
nature. In the domains inferior to
man, the individual is merely the
temporary manifestation of the
species. We have therefore to think here
only of a new nature in its totality,
differing from the old system in its
constitution and laws.
Ver. 22. The hope expressed in ver. 21
is justified in ver. 22. By the word
we know , Paul appeals, not as Ewald
supposes, to an old book that has
been lost, but to a book always open
to those who have eyes to read it,
nature itself, the daily sight of
which proclaims loudly enough all the
apostle here says. Is there not a cry of
universal suffering, a woful sigh
perpetually ascending from the whole
life of nature? Have not poets
caught this vast groaning in every
age? has not their voice become its
organ? As Schelling said: On the
loveliest spring day, while Nature is
displaying all her charms, does not
the heart, when drinking in admiration,
imbibe a poison of gnawing melancholy?
The preposition suvn , with ,
which enters into the composition of
the two verbs, can only refer to the
concurrence of all the beings of
nature in this common groaning. But there
is more than groaning in the case;
there is effort, travail. This is forcibly
expressed by the second verb
sunwdivnei , literally, to travail in birth. It
seems as if old Nature bore in her
bosom the germ of a more perfect
nature, and, as the poet says, “ sente
bondir en elle un nouvel univers ”
(feels in her womb
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the leaping of a new universe).—We
should beware of giving to the
expression until now the meaning
assigned to it by De Wette and Meyer:
from the first of time , or without
interruption. This would be a superfluous
observation. The context shows what
Paul means: Until now, even after
redemption is already accomplished.
The renovating principle has
transformed the domain of the Spirit;
for it became penetrated therewith at
Pentecost. But the domain of nature
has remained till now outside of its
action. Comp. the eJw" ajrti , 1
Cor. 4:13. It is in this respect with the whole
as with the individual; comp. ver. 10.
On the passage 8:18-22.—In following
the exposition of the work of
salvation, the apostle touches a
domain, that, namely, of nature , where
he comes into contact with the labors
of science. Is there harmony or
variance between his teaching and the
results of scientific study? There is
a first point on which the harmony is
complete. For a century past the
study of our globe has proved that the
present condition of the earth is
only the result of a series of profound
and gradual transformations; which
leads us naturally to the conclusion
that this state is not final, and should
only be regarded as a temporary phase
destined to pave the way for
some other new transformation. So it
is precisely that our earth appears to
the view of the apostle enlightened by
the Holy Spirit. But there is a
second point on which the harmony does
not seem so complete. The
apostle traces the present state of
suffering and death to a catastrophe
which has intervened, first in the
moral world, and which has reacted on
external nature. Now modern science
seems to prove that the present
condition of the earth is a natural
result of its whole previous development,
and that the miseries belonging to it
are rather remains of the primitive
imperfection of matter than the
effects of a fall which intervened at a given
moment. Is death, for example, which
reigns over mankind, anything else
than the continuation of that to which
the animal world was subject in the
epochs anterior to man? This is a
serious objection. Putting ourselves at
the apostle's point of view, we may
answer it in two ways. If we apply to
man the expression oJ uJpotavxa"
, he who subjected (nature to vanity), it
must be held that man placed in a
privileged position, exempt from
miseries in general and from death,
with a body which life in God could
raise above the law of dissolution,
was called as the king of nature to free
this magnificent domain from all the
imperfections and miseries which it
had inherited from previous ages.
After developing all his faculties of
knowledge and power in the favored
place where he had been put for this
purpose, man should have extended this
prosperous condition to the
whole earth, and changed it into a
paradise. Natural history proves that a
beneficial influence even on the
animal world is not an impossibility. But in
proportion as man failed in his
civilizing mission to nature, if one may so
speak, it fell back under that law of
vanity from which it should have been
freed by him, and which weighed on it
only the more heavily in
consequence of man's corruption. Thus
the apostle's view may be justified
on this explanation. But if the term
oJ uJpotavxa" , he who subjected ,
refers to Satan, there opens up to our
mind a still vaster survey over the
development of nature. Satan is
called—and Jesus Himself gives him the
title— the prince of this world. He
who believes in the personal existence
of Satan may therefore also hold that
this earth belonged originally to his
domain. Has it not been from the first
steps of its development the theatre
of the struggle between this revolted
vassal and his divine liege-lord? The
history of humanity is constantly
showing us, both in great things and
small, God taking the initiative and
laying down some good, but that good
hasting to alter its character by a
progressive deviation, which leads
slowly to the most enormous
monstrosities. Might
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
not primitive nature have been subject
to a similar law, and the crisis of its
development have resulted also from
conflict between a beneficent force
laying down a normal state, and that
power of deviation which
immediately takes hold of the divine
product to guide it to the most
abnormal result, till the salutary
principle again interpose to establish a
new point of departure superior to the
former, and which the malignant
spirit will corrupt anew? From this
unceasing struggle proceeded the
constant progress which terminated in
man, and in the relatively perfect
condition in which he originally
appeared. But the power of deviation
showed itself immediately anew on the
very theatre of paradise, and in the
domain of liberty produced sin , which
involved all again under the law of
death, which is not yet finally
vanquished. It belongs to Christ, to the
children of God, the seed of the woman
, man victorious over the serpent,
his temporary victor, to work out a
deliverance which would have been the
work of the race of mankind had it
remained united to God. Perhaps this
second point of view explains more
fully the thought of the apostle
expressed in this passage.—There is a
third point on which science
seems to us to harmonize readily with
St. Paul's view; I mean the close
solidarity which exists between man
and the whole of nature. The
physiologist is forced to see in the
human body the intended goal and
masterpiece of animal organization
which appears as nothing else than a
long effort to reach this
consummation. As the breaking of the bud renders
sterile the branch which bore it, so
the fall of man involved that of the
world. As Schelling said in one of his
admirable lectures on the philosophy
of revelation: “Nature, with its melancholy
charm, resembles a bride who,
at the very moment when she was fully
attired for marriage, saw the
bridegroom to whom she was to be
united die on the very day fixed for the
marriage. She still stands with her
fresh crown and in her bridal dress, but
her eyes are full of tears.” The soul
of the poet-philosopher here meets
that of the apostle. The ancient
thinkers spoke much of a soul of the
world. The idea was not a vain dream.
The soul of the world is man. The
whole Bible, and this important passage
in particular, rest on this profound
idea.
The groaning of nature, of which the
apostle has just spoken, is the
expression and proof of the abnormal
state to which it is subjected, with
all the beings belonging to it. But it
is not the only sufferer from this state
of imperfection. Other beings of a
higher order, and which have already
been restored to their normal state,
also suffer from the same, and mingle
their groaning with that of nature.
This is the truth developed in vv. 23-25.
Ver. 23. “ And not only only so, but
we also,which have the first-fruits of
the Spirit, we ourselves also groan
within ourselves, waiting for the
adoption , the redemption of our body.
”—The connection between this
passage and the preceding one is
obvious at a glance; it is found in the
idea of groaning. The groaning of
believers themselves, men already
animated with the breath of God, rises
as it were on that of nature. Of the
three or even four readings presented
by the documents, we must first,
whatever Volkmar may say to the
contrary, set aside that of the Vatic. ,
which rejects the hJmei'" , we ,
in the middle of the verse; this pronoun is
indispensable to emphasize the
contrast between believers and nature.
And whence could it have come into all
the other texts? We may also set
aside the Greco-Latin reading (D F
G). By putting the pronoun: we
ourselves also , at the beginning of the
sentence, after the words: not only
but , it obliterates the forcible
reaffirmation which these words
contain when placed in the middle of the
sentence: “ We also...we ourselves
also ”...The two other readings differ
only in this, that the Alexandrine ( a A
C) places
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the hJmei'" , we , before kai;
aujtoiv , while the Byzs. place it between the
two words: and we ourselves. The
difference of meaning is almost
imperceptible ( we ourselves also;
also we ourselves ). It is probable that
the Alexs. have displaced the
hJmei'" , we , to bring it next the participle
e[conte" . This is the reason why
we have translated according to the
received reading.—Several commentators
have thought that in saying first
we , then adding we ourselves also ,
the apostle meant to speak of two
different subjects, for example,
Christians and apostles (Mel.), or
Christians and Paul himself (Reiche).
But in this case the article oiJ before
the participle e[conte" would be
indispensable; and what object could there
be in such a distinction in the
context?—The logical connection between
the participle e[conte" , having,
possessing , and the verb stenavzomen , we
groan , should be rendered by the
conjunction though: “Though already
possessing, we still groan ( ipsi nos
habentes ).”—The expression: the
first-fruits of the Spirit , is so clear that it
is difficult to understand how it
should have given rise to dispute. How has
it occurred to commentators like De
Wette, Olshausen, Meyer, to apply it
specially to the Spirit bestowed on
the apostles and first believers, to
distinguish it from the Spirit
afterward bestowed on other believers? What
importance can this difference have
for the spiritual life, and where is a
trace of such a distinction to be found
in the N.
T.? It would be preferable to regard
the word first-fruits (with Chrys., Calv.,
Thol., Philip., Bonnet) as referring
to the fact that Christians here below
receive only a beginning, while there
will be given to them above the
entire fulness of the Spirit. In this
sense the genitive would be the
complement of the object: The
first-fruits of that gift which is the Spirit. But
the apostle is not here contrasting an
imperfect with a more perfect
spiritual state; he is contrasting an
inward state already relatively perfect,
with an outward state which has not
yet participated in the spiritual
renewal; this appears clearly from the
last words: waiting for the
redemption of our body. The genitive
is therefore the complement of
quality or apposition: “The
first-fruits which consist of the Spirit Himself.”
This meaning is proved, besides, by
the attentive comparison of 2 Cor.
1:22 and Eph. 1:14. The apostle means:
“We ourselves, who by the
possession of the Spirit have already
entered inwardly into the new world,
still groan, because there is a part
of our being, the outer man, which does
not yet enjoy this privilege.”—Hofmann
joins the regimen: within ourselves
, to the participle e[conte" : we
who have within ourselves. But is it not
superfluous to say that the Holy
Spirit is possessed inwardly? This
regimen is very significant, on the
contrary, if we connect it, as is
grammatically natural, with the verb
we groan: “We groan often inwardly,
even when others do not suspect it,
and when they hear us proclaiming
salvation as a fact already
accomplished.” The disharmony between the
child of God and the child of the dust
therefore still remains; and hence we
wait for something.—This something St.
Paul calls adoption , and he
explains it by the apposition: the
redemption of our body. No doubt our
adoption is in point of right an
acquired fact (Gal. 4:6). It is so in reality on
its spiritual side, for we already
possess the Spirit of our Father , as Paul
has developed it, vv. 14-16. But the
state of sons of God will not be fully
realized in us until to the holiness
of the Spirit there be added the glory
and perfection of the body. It needs
hardly be said that the expression: the
redemption of our body , is not to be
interpreted in the sense: that we are
to be delivered from our body
(Oltram.). For this idea, applied to the body
itself, would be anti-biblical; faith
waits for a new body; and if it applied to
the body only as the body of our
humiliation , as Paul says, Phil. 3:21, this
specification would require to be
added, or at least Paul would require to
say tou' swvmato" touvtou , of
this present body. The complement of the
body is therefore evidently the
genitive, not of the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
object, but of the subject: it is the
body itself which is to be delivered from
the miseries of its present
corruption. We see from 2 Cor. 5:4 that Paul
desired not to be unclothed , but to
be clothed upon: that is, to receive his
glorified body, by the power of which
his mortal body was to be as it were
swallowed up. It is by the
transformation of the body only that we shall
become completely sons of God. Comp.
the affirmation, which is not
identical, but analogous, made in
reference to Christ Himself, 1:3, 4.
Vv. 24, 25. “ For we have been saved
in hope; but hope that is seen is not
hope; for what a man seeth, why would
he yet hope for? Now if we hope
for that we see not, then do we with
perseverance wait for it. ”—Ver. 24
uses one of the three constituent
elements of the Christian life, namely
hope (1 Cor. 13:13), to demonstrate
the reality of that state of groaning
and expectation which has just been
ascribed to believers. On the one
hand, undoubtedly salvation is a thing
finished; this is indicated by the
aorist ejswvqhmen , we have been
saved. But, on the other hand, this
salvation having as yet penetrated
only to the spiritual part of our being, is
not fully realized, and leaves room
for awaiting a more complete
realization. Hence the restrictive
specification th'/ ejlpivdi , in hope. This
word, from its position at the
beginning of the sentence, evidently has the
emphasis. This dative is, as Bengel
says, a dativus modi , signifying: “ in
the way of hope. ” The meaning
therefore is: “If we are saved, which is
certain, this holds true only when we
take account of the element of hope
which continues always in our present
state.” We must not, like Chrys., De
Wette, Ruck ., identify hope with
faith, and find here the idea of salvation
by faith. The whole context shows that
it is really of hope in the strict and
special meaning of the word that Paul
is speaking. Already in the apostolic
age we find persons who, intoxicated
with a feeling of false spiritualism,
gave out that salvation concerned only
man's higher nature, and who
abandoned the body to everlasting
destruction; so those Christians of
Corinth who denied the resurrection of
the body (1 Cor. 15), and those
heretics of Asia Minor who alleged
that the resurrection was already past
(2 Tim. 2:18), probably because they
confounded it with moral
regeneration. Were there such men at
Rome? Paul must have had some
reason for insisting, as he does here,
on the outward and future
consummation of the edifice of
salvation. The meaning of the last two
propositions of ver. 24 is clear:
“Now, hope implies non-possession.” In
the words: hope that is seen , the
term hope is taken for the object hoped
for , as is often the case, Col. 1:5
for example. In the words following the
term resumes its subjective meaning.
The last proposition has been
amended by the copyists in all sorts
of ways. In our translation we have
rendered the
T. R. The Greco-Latin text, rejecting
the kaiv , yet , signifies: “For what one
sees, why would he hope for?” The
Sinait .: “What one sees, he also
hopes for,” or “does he also hope
for?”—a reading which in the context
has no meaning. The Vatic.: “What one
sees, does he hope for?” This is
the reading which Volkmar prefers; for
in regard to the Vatic. he gives
himself up to the same predilection
with which he rightly charges
Tischendorf in regard to the Sinait .
This reading is impossible. It would
require when instead of what: “ When
one sees, does he hope?”—The
kaiv , yet , is by no means
superfluous: yet , after sight has begun, along
with sight, hope has no more place.
Ver. 25. This verse is not, as Meyer
thinks, a deduction fitted to close the
first reason of encouragement. In this
case an ou\n , therefore , would
have been necessary rather than dev ,
now , or but. The meaning but
(Osterv., Oltram.) well suits the
contrast between the ideas of hoping (ver.
25) and seeing (ver. 24). Yet it seems
to me that the meaning now is
preferable. It is not a conclusion; it
is a step in the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
argument intended to prove the painful
state of waiting attaching even to
believers. The emphasis is on the words
dij uJpomonh'" , with
perseverance , and the general meaning
is this: “Now, obliged as we yet
are to hope without seeing, waiting
necessarily takes the character of
perseverance. ” To understand this
thought, it is enough to recall the
etymological meaning of the word
uJpomevnein : to hold out under a
burden. We wait with perseverance
amounts therefore to saying: “It is only
by holding out under the burden of
present sufferings that we can expect
with certainty the hoped-for future.”
The conclusion is this: We are not
therefore yet in our normal condition;
otherwise why endurance?
Vv. 26, 27. “ And likewise the Spirit
also helpeth our infirmity;for we know
not what we should ask in order to
pray as we ought, but the Spirit itself
maketh intercession with groanings
which cannot be uttered. But He that
searcheth the hearts knoweth what is
the aspiration of the Spirit, because
He maketh intercession for the saints
according to God. ”—As the apostle
had passed from the groaning of
universal nature to that of the children of
God, he now rises from the latter to
that of the Holy Spirit Himself. This
gradation is so evident that one is
astonished it could have remained
unobserved by so many commentators
(see for example Meyer). But we
must remark the significant difference
between this second transition and
the former. In passing from the
groaning of nature to that of believers, he
said: not only...but also. Now he
simply says: and likewise also. There is
no contrast indicated here; for the
groaning of the Spirit is homogeneous
with that of believers ( likewise ),
though distinct from it notwithstanding (
also ), and though there is a
gradation from the one to the other ( dev ,
now , which we have rendered by and
).—If, with the Byzs., we read the
plural tai'" ajsqeneivai" ,
our infirmities , the word would denote the moral
infirmities of believers. But so
general an idea is out of place in the
context. We must therefore prefer the
Alex. reading: th'/ ajsqeneiva , our
infirmity. This expression refers to a
special infirmity, the fainting condition
with which the believer is sometimes
overtaken under the weight of
present suffering; it is the want
which makes itself felt in his uJpomonhv ,
that constancy , the necessity of which
had been affirmed in the previous
verse. The reading of F G: our
weakness in prayer , would refer to our
ignorance as to what should be asked
(the proposition following). But this
so weakly supported reading is
certainly a gloss. Infirmity in prayer enters
into the weakness of which the apostle
speaks, but does not constitute the
whole of it. The verb
sunantilambavnesqai , to support, come to the help of ,
is one of those admirable words easily
formed by the Greek language;
lambavnesqai (the middle) to take a
burden on oneself; suvn , with some
one; ajntiv , in his place; so: to
share a burden with one with the view of
easing him; comp. Luke 10:40. This
verb is usually followed by
a personal regimen, which leads us to
take the abstract substantive here:
our weakness , for: us weak ones (
hJmi'n ajsqevnesin ). The Spirit supports
us in the hour when we are ready to
faint. The end of the verse will
explain wherein this aid
consists.—Before describing it the apostle yet
further examines the notion: our
infirmity. The case in question belongs to
those times in which our tribulation
is such that in praying we cannot
express to God what the blessing is
which would allay the distress of our
heart. We ourselves have no remedy to
propose. The article tov defines
the whole following proposition taken
as a substantive: “The: what we
should ask. ” This is what we know not
ourselves. The words as we ought
do not refer to the manner of prayer
(this would require kaqwv" ), but to its
object. Jesus Himself was once in the
perplexity of which the apostle here
speaks. “Now is my soul troubled,”
says He, John 12:27, “and what shall I
say? Father, save me from this hour:
but for
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
this cause came I unto this hour.”
After this moment of trouble and
hesitation, his mind became fixed, and
His prayer takes form: “Father,
glorify Thy name.” In our case the
struggle usually lasts longer. Comp. a
similar situation in the experience of
Paul, 2 Cor. 12:7-9.—In these
extreme situations help is suddenly
presented to us, a divine agent who
raises us as it were above ourselves,
the Spirit. The verb
uJ/perentugcavnein is again a term
compounded of three words: tugcavnein ,
to find oneself, to meet with some
one; ejn , in a place agreed on; uJpevr ,
in one's favor; hence: to intercede in
favor of. It would seem that the
regimen uJpe;r hJmw'n , for us , in
the Byz. text, should be rejected
according to the two other
families.—How are we to conceive of this
intercession of the Spirit? It does
not take place in the heavenly
sanctuary, like that of the glorified
Christ (Heb. 7:25). It has for its theatre
the believer's own heart. The very
term groaning implies this, and ver. 27,
by speaking of God who searches the
hearts , confirms it.—The epithet
ajlavlhto" , which we have
translated unutterable , may be explained in
three ways. 1. Beza and Grotius have
given it the meaning of mute , that
is to say, purely inward and spiritual.
But what end would such a
qualification serve here? 2. Others
understand inexpressible; such is the
meaning of our translation; that is to
say, that the understanding cannot
fully grasp its object, nor
consequently express it in distinct terms. Only, 3,
we should have preferred to translate,
had the language permitted it, by
the word unformulated or unexpressed.
In every particular case, he who is
the object of this assistance feels
that no distinct words fully express to
God the infinite good after which he
sighs. The fact proves that the
aspiration is not his own, but that it
is produced in his heart by the Spirit of
Him of whom John said, “that He is
greater than our heart” (1 John 3:20).
We here find ourselves in a domain
analogous to that of the glwvssai"
lalei'n , speaking in tongues , to
which 1 Cor. 14 refers; comp. vv. 14 and
15, where Paul says: “When I pray in a
tongue, my spirit ( pneu'ma )
prayeth indeed, but my understanding (
nou'" ) is unfruitful.” The
understanding cannot control, nor even
follow the movement of the spirit,
which, exalted by the Spirit of God,
plunges into the depths of the divine.
Thus, at the moment when the believer
already feels the impulse of hope
failing within him, a groan more
elevated, holy, and intense than anything
which can go forth even from his
renewed heart is uttered within him,
coming from God and going to God, like
a pure breath, and relieves the
poor downcast heart.
Ver. 27. The dev , but , contrasts the
knowledge of God, which thoroughly
understands the object of this
groaning, with the ignorance of the heart
from which it proceeds. God is often
called in the O. T. the kardiognwvsth"
, the searcher of hearts. As to the
blessing to which the aspiration of the
Spirit goes forth in the believer's
heart, he knows its nature, he discerns its
sublime reality. Why? This is what is
told us in the second part of the
verse: Because this supreme object of
the Spirit's aspiration is what God
Himself has prepared for us. The
groaning of the Spirit is kata; Qeovn ,
according to God. The preposition
katav , according to , denotes the
standard; God does not require the man
who prays to express to Him the
things he needs, since the groaning of
the Spirit is in conformity with the
plan of God which is to be realized.
If it is so, how should not God
understand such a groan? For the
Spirit fathoms the divine plans to the
bottom, 1 Cor. 2:10. It is obvious how
far Meyer and Hofmann are
mistaken in alleging that o{ti should
signify that and not because. They
have not apprehended the bearing of
the kata; Qeovn , according to God;
Paul has a reason for making this word
the opening one of the
proposition. What is according to Him
cannot remain unintelligible to Him.
It is impossible to conceive a more
superfluous thought than the one here
substituted by the two commentators
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
referred to: “God knows that the
Spirit intercedes, and that He does so
according to Him for the saints.” Did
this knowing require to be affirmed?
The last words, uJpe;r aJgivwn ,
literally, “ for saints,” are very weighty.
These saints are beings in whom the
Spirit already dwells. After what He
has already done in them, is it not
natural for Him to interest Himself in the
completion of their salvation?—In the
words: according to God and for
saints , there is already enunciated a
thought which is now to become that
of the following passage, the thought
of a divine plan conceived from all
eternity in favor of the elect. It is
to the accomplishment of this plan that
the operation of the Spirit tends.
What a demonstration of the
unutterable disorder which reigns throughout
creation, and consequently of the
state of imperfection in which it still is,
notwithstanding the redemption which
has been accomplished! Nature
throughout all her bounds has a
confused feeling of it, and from her
bosom there rises a continual lament
claiming a renovation from heaven.
The redeemed themselves are not exempt
from this groaning, and wait for
their own renewal which shall be the
signal of universal restoration; and
finally, the Spirit, who is intimate
with the plans of God for our glory (1 Cor.
2:7), and who distinctly beholds the
ideal of which we have but glimpses,
pursues its realization with ardor.
Thus is exhausted the first of the two
leading ideas of this paasage, that of
the sumpavscein , suffering with
Christ. The apostle now passes to the
second, that of the sundoxa/sqh'nai ,
being glorified with Him. The first
was the condition ( ei[per , if so be , ver.
17); the second is the final aim.
Ver. 28. “ But we know that all things
work together , for good to them that
love God, to them who are the called
according to the design formed
beforehand. ”—We have shown how
mistaken those expositors are who
take the dev as a simple particle of
transition: then , and say: third or fourth
ground of encouragement. The dev is
adversative: but. With this universal
groaning which he has just described, and
the source of which is in the
sufferings of the present time , the
apostle contrasts the full certainty
already possessed by believers of the
glorious goal marked out
beforehand by the plan of God. This
result, which they await with
assurance, is the luminous point on
which their eye is already fixed, and
the brilliance of which is reflected
on the obscurities of the way which they
have yet to traverse: “We groan no
doubt; we know not how to pray..., but
we know ”...The regimen: to them that
love God , is placed at the
beginning, as expressing the condition
under which the prerogative about
to be enunciated is realized in man.
This characteristic of love to God is
associated with the attribute of
saints which he ascribed to believers, ver.
27, and more particularly with the
cry: Abba, Father , the expression of
their filial feeling, ver.
15. Those who belong to this class
will never fail to be strengthened, and
even to gain progress, by everything
which can happen them; for in this
normal path obstacles even become
means of help. The end of the verse
will explain why.—The term pavnta ,
all things , includes all that comes on
us, especially everything painful in
consequence of the miseries of the
present time and of the sins of our
neighbors. But it would be wrong to
embrace under it what we may do
ourselves in opposition to God's will,
since that would contradict the idea:
them that love God. —The suvn , with
, in the verb sunergei'n , to work
together with , has been variously
explained. According to some, it means
that all things work in concert
(comp. the suvn , ver. 22); according
to others, All things work in common
with God under His direction. Others,
finally: All things work in common
with the believer who is their object,
and who himself aspires after the
good. This last sense, which is well
developed by Philippi, is undoubtedly
the most natural. The Alex. and the
Vatic. have added oJ Qeov" , God , as
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the subject of the verb. In that case
we must give to sunergei'n a causative
sense: “God makes all things work
together. ” But this meaning is foreign
to the N. T., and probably to classic
Greek; Passow does not quote a
single example of it.—The regimen:
eiJ" ajgaqovn , for good , has a more
precise meaning in the apostle's
language than that usually given to it. It
means not only any good result
whatever in which everything issues for
the believer, but that constant progress
to the final goal to which the plan
of God leads us, and which constitutes
our real destination. Everything is
fitted to hasten our progress in this
direction, when the heart has once
been subjected to God. The last words
of the verse give the reason.
Those who have come to take God as the
object of their life and activity,
and to live for Him like Jesus Himself
(6:10), are exactly those in whose
favor God has formed the universal
plan. All therefore which happens
according to this plan must turn out
in their favor. Two reasons explain the
co-operation of all things for the
believer's good: a subjective reason—he
has entered into the true current (
loving God ); and an objective
reason—all things are ordered in his
favor in the plan of God; this is
indicated by the second regimen.—The
notion of the divine plan is
expressed by the term provqesi" ,
the design fixed beforehand. Paul often
uses this expression in a more or less
extended sense; thus, 2 Tim. 1:9,
he applies it specially to salvation
by grace without works; Eph. 1:11, this
term is applied to the election of the
people of Israel; Rom. 3:24, the
design of God has for its object
Christ's expiatory sacrifice. The classic
passages, as they may be called, where
this term is taken in its most
general signification, are found in
the Epistle to the Ephesians: 1:3-10 and
3:11. We see here that the design of
God is eternal ( before the ages ), for
it rests on Christ ( in Jesus Christ
), and that is was conceived freely,
solely on account of the divine love
(the decree of His will, according to
His good pleasure ).—In this plan of
salvation there were comprehended
at the same time the individuals in
whom it was to be realized; hence they
are designated here as the called
according to His purpose. The call is the
invitation addiessed by God to man,
when by the preaching of His gospel
He offers him salvation in Christ.
This call by the Word is always
accompanied with an inward operation
of the Spirit which tends to render
the preaching effectual. Those
theologians who hold absolute
predestination have no deubt denied
the generality of this internal
operation of grace; they have alleged
that it does not accompany the
outward call except in the case of the
elect. Some have even gone the
length of distinguishing between a
serious and consequently effectual
calling, and a non-serious and
consequently ineffectual calling. But it will
be asked, What could God have in view
with a non-serious call, that is to
say, one which He did not Himself seek
to render effectual? It has been
answered, that its object was to
render those to whom it was addressed
inexcusable. But if God Himself
refuses to give the grace necessary for its
acceptance, how is he who refuses
thereby rendered more inexcusable?
It must then be held that when the
apostle in his Epistle speaks of the
divine call, he always embraces under
the term the two notions of an
outward call by the Word and an inward
call by grace, and that the
apostle's expression: the called
according to His purpose , is not at all
intended to distinguish two classes of
called persons, those who are so
according to His purpose, and those
who are not. All are alike seriously
called. Only it happens that some
consent to yield to the call and others
refuse. This distinction is indicated
by Jesus in the saying: “Many are
called, but few are chosen,” Matt.
20:16. The chosen in this passage are
those who accept the call, and who are
thereby rescued from the midst of
this perishing world; the called are
those who, not accepting the call,
remain called and nothing more, and
that to their condemnation. In the
Epistles, the apostles,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
addressing Christians, do not require
to make this distinction, since the
individuals whom they address are
assumed to have accepted the call,
from the very fact that they have
voluntarily entered the church. The case
is like that of a man who should say
to his guests when assembled in his
house: “Use everything that is here,
for you are my invited guests. ” It is
obvious that by expressing himself
thus, he would not be distinguishing
invitation from acceptance, the latter
being implied in the very fact of their
presence; comp. 1 Cor. 1:23, 24. What
the apostle means to say then is
this: There is something prior to the
present sufferings of believers; that is
the eternal purpose in virtue of which
their calling took place. It is not
possible therefore but that all things
should turn to their good.—The
relation between the two clauses: them
that love God, and them that are
the called according to His purpose ,
reminds us of John's words: “We
love Him because He first loved us” (1
John 4:19).—The participle toi'"
ou\si , who are , strongly expresses
the present reality of this condition
described by the word called , in
opposition to the ideal nature of the
decree, previously to its realization
in time.—The Greek Fathers, Pelagius
and others, in their desire to escape
from the idea of an absolute
predestination, applied the act
indicated by the word provqesi" , purpose ,
to man, and understood thereby his
good will to believe, as in Acts 11:23.
But in the context it is the divine
side of salvation only which is meant to
be emphasized, as it is the only side
which is expounded in the two
following verses. The ground of the
calling could not really be the
believer's disposition to accept it.
The idea of God's purpose is developed
in the two verses, VV. 29 and 30.
Ver. 29 indicates its final aim; ver.
30 marks off, as it were, the path along
which it reaches its realization.
Ver. 29. “ For whom He did foreknow,
He also did predestinate to be
conformed to the image of His Son,
that He might be a first-born among
many brethren. ”—The for bears on the
principal idea of ver. 28: All things
must turn to the good of them that are
called according to God's eternal
plan. Why so? Because once individually
foreknown, He has determined
to bring them to the glorious
consummation of perfect likeness to His Son.
This is the end with a view to which
He has ordered the plan of all things
beforehand.—By the ou'" proevgnw
, whom He did foreknow , Paul
evidently expresses the condition of
the prowvrisen , He predestinated.
The decree of predestination (
proorismov" ) is founded on the act of
foreknowledge ( provgnwsi" ).
What does St. Paul understand by this last
word? Some have given to the word foreknow
the meaning of elect,
choose, destine, beforehand (Mel.,
Calv., Ruck ., De Wette, etc.). Not only
is this meaning arbitrary, as being
without example in the N. T., and as
even in profane Greek the word
ginwvskein , to know , has the meaning of
deciding only when it applies to a
thing , as when we say: connai<tre d'une
cause, to judge of a case , and never
when applied to a person; [in this
case ginwvskein periv would be
absolutely necessary, to decide regarding
(the person)]; but what is still more
decidedly opposed to this meaning is
what follows: He also did
predestinate; for in that case the two verbs
would be identical in meaning, and
could not be connected by the particle
of gradation kaiv , also , especially
in view of ver. 30, where the
successive degrees of divine action
are strictly distinguished and
graduated. Others give to the word
know a sense borrowed from the
shade of meaning which it sometimes
has in the biblical style, that of
loving (Er., Grot., Hofm.); comp.
11:2; Jer. 1:5; Amos 3:2; Hos. 13:5; Gal.
4:9, etc. The meaning according to
this view is: “whom He loved and
privileged beforehand.” With this
class we may join those who, like Beza,
give the word the meaning of approving.
It is certain that with the idea of
knowledge, Scripture readily joins
that of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
approbation, intimate communion, and
tender affection; for it is only
through mutual love that intelligent
beings really meet and know one
another. Besides, no one can think of
separating from the word foreknow
here, any more than 11:2, the notion
of love. Only it is still less allowable
to exclude from it the notion of
knowledge , for this is the first and
fundamental meaning; the other is only
secondary. There is not a passage
in the N. T. where the word know does
not above all contain the notion of
knowledge , properly so called. The
same is the case with the word
foreknow; comp. Acts 26:5; 2 Pet.
3:17. In the passage Acts 2:23,
foreknowledge is expressly
distinguished from the fixed decree , and
consequently can denote nothing but
prescience; and as to 11:2: “His
people whom God foreknew,” the idea of
knowledge is the leading one in
the word foreknew; that of love is
expressed in the pronoun His. The
meaning then to which we are brought
seems to me to be this: those on
whom His eye fixed from all eternity
with love; whom He eternally
contemplated and discerned as His. In
what respect did God thus
foreknow them? Obviously it is not as
being one day to exist. For the
foreknowledge in that case would apply
to all men, and the apostle would
not say: “ whom He foreknew.” Neither
is it as future saved and glorified
ones that He foreknew them; for this
is the object of the decree of
predestination of which the apostle
goes on to speak; and this object
cannot at the same time be that of the
foreknowledge. There is but one
answer: foreknown as sure to fulfil
the condition of salvation, viz. faith; so:
foreknown as His by faith. Such is the
meaning to which a host of
commentators have been led, St.
Augustine himself in early times, then
the Lutheran expositors; Philippi
explains: praecognovit praevisione fidei.
Only Philippi, after frankly
acknowledging this meaning, instantly adds,
that the faith which God foresees He
also creates; and so by this door a
return is provided into the system of
predestination which seemed to have
been abandoned. But this view is not
compatible with the true meaning of
the word know , especially when this
word is contrasted, as it is here, with
the term predestinate. The act of
knowing , exactly like that of seeing,
supposes an object perceived by the
person who knows or sees. It is not
the act of seeing or knowing which
creates this object; it is this object, on
the contrary, which determines the act
of knowing or seeing. And the
same is the case with divine prevision
or foreknowledge; for in the case of
God who lives above time, foreseeing
is seeing; knowing what shall be is
knowing what to Him already is. And
therefore it is the believer's faith
which, as a future fact, but in His
sight already existing, which determines
His foreknowledge. This faith does not
exist because God sees it; He
sees it, on the contrary, because it
will come into being at a given
moment, in time. We thus get at the
thought of the apostle: Whom God
knew beforehand as certain to believe,
whose faith He beheld eternally.
He designated predestined ( prowvrisen
), as the objects of a grand
decree, to wit, that He will not
abandon them till He has brought them to
the perfect likeness of His own
Son.—It is clear from the ou{" and the
touvtou" , whom...them , that it
was those individuals personally who were
present to His thought when
pronouncing the decree.—As the first verb
contained an act of knowledge, the
second denotes one of free will and
authority. But will in God is neither
arbitrary nor blind; it is based on a
principle of light, on knowledge. In
relation to the man whose faith God
foresees, He decrees salvation and
glory. Reuss is certainly mistaken,
therefore, in saying of these two
verbs that substantially they denote “one
and the same act.” The object of the
decree is not faith at all, as if God
had said: As for thee, thou shalt
believe; as for thee, thou shalt not
believe. The object of predestination
is glory: “I see thee believing..., I will
therefore that thou be glorified like
my Son.” Such is the meaning of the
decree. The predestination of which
Paul speaks is not a predestination to
faith,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
but a predestination to glory, founded
on the prevision of faith. Faith is in a
sense the work of God; but it contains
a factor, in virtue of which it reacts
on God, as an object reacts on the
mind which takes cognizance of it; this
is the free adherence of man to the
solicitation of God. Here is the element
which distinguishes the act of
foreknowledge from that of predestination,
and because of which the former
logically precedes the latter.—It is hardly
necessary to refute the opinion of
Meyer, who gives the verb foreknow the
same object as the verb predestinate:
“Whom He foreknew as conformed
to the image of His Son, He also did
predestinate to be conformed to the
image of His Sou.” Has this any
meaning? It would be more intelligible if
the order were reversed: “Whom he
predestinated to ..., He also did
foreknow as ”...
What the decree of predestination
embraces is the realization of the image
of the Son in all foreknown believers.
The adj. suvmmorfoi , conformed , is
directly connected with the verb He
predestinated; the ellipsis of the verb
to be , or to become , is obvious and
common. Paul does not say:
“conformed or like to His Son ,” but:
“to the image of His Son.” By using
this form of expression, he
undoubtedly means that Christ has realized in
Himself a higher type of existence (
eijkwvn , image ), which we are to
realize after Him. This is the
existence of the God-man, as we behold it in
Christ; such is the glorious vesture
which God takes from the person of
His Son, that therewith He may clothe
believers. What, in point of fact, was
the aim of God in the creation of man?
He wished to have for Himself a
family of sons; and therefore He
determined in the first place to make His
own Son our brother. Then in His
person He raises our humanity to the
divine state; and finally, He makes
all believing men sharers in this
glorious form of existence. Such are
the contents of the decree. It is
obvious that Christ Himself is its
first object; and hence He is called the
Elect , absolutely speaking, Isa.
42:1; Luke 9:35 (most approved reading).
His brethren are elect in Him , Eph.
1:4-6. The Father's intention in acting
thus is to glorify the Son by causing
His beauty to be reflected in a family
of living likenesses.—The term
prwtovtoko" , first-born , no doubt denotes
primarily a relation of time: Jesus
preceded all the others in glory, not only
because of His eternal existence, but
also as a man by His resurrection
and ascension; comp. Col. 1:15 and 18.
But the decree of predestination
carries us into an eternal sphere,
where the idea of priority has no more
place, and is transformed into that of
superiority. It will be vain for us to
take on His likeness; we shall never
be equal to Him; for the likeness
which we shall bear will be His. Thus
what comes out as the end of the
divine decree is the creation of a
great family of men made partakers of
the divine existence and action, in
the midst of which the glorified Jesus
shines as the prototype.
But how are we, we sinful men, to be
brought to this sublime state? Such
a work could not be accomplished as it
were by the wave of a magician's
wand. A complete moral transformation
required to be wrought in us,
paving the way for our glorification.
And hence God, after fixing the end,
and pronouncing the decree in
eternity, set His hand to the work in time to
realize it. He beheld them at their
haven, all these foreknown ones, before
launching them on the sea; and once
launched, He acted; such is the
meaning of ver. 30.
Ver. 30. “ Moreover, whom He did
predestinate, them He also called; and
whom He called, them He also
justified; and whom He justified, them He
also glorified. ”—Here are the
successive acts whereby the eternal decree
is executed in time. They stand, as it
were, between the eternity in which
this decree is pronounced, and the
eternity in which it is finished. It is to be
remarked that the apostle only points
out in its accomplishment the acts
pertaining to God: calling,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
justification, glorification , because
he is only setting forth that side of the
work of salvation which is contained
in the decree of predestination, and
which consequently depends solely on
divine causation. If his intention
had been to explain the order of
salvation in all its elements divine and
human , he would have put faith
between calling and justification, and
holiness between justification and
glorification.
The dev , then, moreover , at the
beginning of the verse is progressive; it
indicates the transition from the
eternal decree to its realization in time. He
who wishes the end must employ the
means; the first mean which God
puts in operation is His call , which,
as we have seen, embraces the
outward invitation by preaching, and the
inward drawing by the Spirit of
grace. Paul does not mean that God
addresses this call only to those
whom He has predestined to glory, but
he affirms that none of those who
are predestinated fail to be also
called in their day and hour. Not one of
those foreknown shall be forgotten.
They form a totality, which, once
introduced from eternity into time, is
faithfully led by God from step to step
to the goal fixed beforehand. God
would be inconsequent if He acted
otherwise.—The plural pronouns whom...them
, imply knowledge of the
individuals as such. All were present
to the mind of God when he decreed
the height to which He would raise
them.—The call once accepted—and it
could not fail to be so, since we have
to do here only with those whose
faith God foreknew—a second divine act
followed: justification. The kaiv ,
also , indicates the continuity of the
divine work, the different acts of which
follow, and mutually involve one
another. Each successive grace is as it
were implied in the preceding. Grace
upon grace , says John 1:16. On
those who have been called and have
become believers, there has been
passed the sentence which declares man
righteous, that is to say, put
relatively to God in the position of
one who has never done any evil nor
omitted any good.—The third step,
glorification , is no longer connected
with the preceding by kaiv , also ,
but by dev , moreover. This change
indicates a shade of difference in the
thought. The apostle feels that he is
nearing the goal, foreseen and
announced in ver. 29; and this dev
consequently signifies: and finally.
The feeling expressed is that of one
who, after a painful and perilous
journey, at length reaches the end.—We
might be tempted to include holiness
here in glorification; for, as has been
said, holiness is only the inward side
of glory, which is its outward
manifestation. But when we remember
chaps. 6-8, it seems to us more
natural to make holiness the transition
from justification to glory, and to
regard it as implicitly contained in
the former. Once justified, the believer
receives the Spirit, who sanctifies
him in the measure of his docility, and
so prepares him for glory.—There is
nothing surprising in the fact that
verbs in the past are used to denote
the first two divine acts, those of
calling and justification; for at the
time Paul wrote, these two acts were
already realized in a multitude of
individuals who were in a manner the
representatives of all the rest. But
how can he employ the same past
tense to denote the act of
glorification which is yet to come? Many
expositors, Thol., Mey., Philip.,
think that this past expresses the absolute
certainty of the event to come.
Others, like Reiche, refer this past to the
eternal fulfilment of the decree in
the divine understanding. Or again, it is
taken as an aorist of anticipation,
like that of which we have a striking
example, John 15:6 and 8. Hodge seems
to have sought to combine
those different senses when he says:
“Paul uses the past as speaking
from God's point of view, who sees the
end of things from their beginning.”
But if it is true that the use of the
two preceding aorists was founded on an
already accomplished fact, should it
not be the same with this? If believers
are not yet glorified, their Head
already is, and they are virtually so in Him.
This is the completed historical fact
which suffices to justify the use of the
past. Does
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
not Paul say, Eph. 2:6: “We have been
raised up together with Him, and
made to sit together with Him in
heavenly places”? When the head of a
body wears a crown, the whole body
wears the same with it.
Paul has thus reached the goal he had
set from the beginning, in the last
words of the preceding passage (ver.
17): “that we may be glorified
together with Him.” For he had
proposed to himself (ver. 1) to show the
final abolition of all condemnation ,
even of that of death, by the law of the
Spirit of life which is in Jesus
Christ; and he has fulfilled this task. It only
remains for him to celebrate in a hymn
this unparalleled victory gained in
our behalf.
It is obviously too narrow an
interpretation of the passage to apply it
merely, as Calvin does, to the victory
over the sufferings of this present
time (ver. 18). We have here the
consummation of that salvation in Christ,
the foundation of which Paul had laid
(chaps. 1-5) in the demonstration of
the righteousness of faith , and the
superstructure of which he had raised
in the exposition of sanctification
(chaps. 6-8). Hereafter it will only remain
to follow this salvation, thus studied
in its essence, as it is unfolded on the
theatre of history.
On predestination as taught vv.
28-30.—Wherein consists the divine
predestination undoubtedly taught by
the apostle in this passage? Does it
in his view exclude the free will of
man, or, on the contrary, does it imply
it? Two reasons seem to us to decide
the question in favor of the second
alternative:—1. The act of foreknowing
, which the apostle makes the
basis of predestination, proves that
the latter is determined by some fact
or other, the object of this
knowledge. It matters little that the knowledge is
eternal, while the fact, which is its
object, comes to pass only in time. It
follows all the same from this
relation, that the fact must be considered as
due in some way to a factor distinct
from divine causation, which can be
nothing else than human liberty. 2.
The apostle avoids making the act of
believing the object of the decree of
predestination. In the act of
predestination faith is already
assumed, and its sole object is, according
to the apostle's words, the final participation
of believers in the glory of
Christ. Not only then does Paul's view
imply that in the act of believing full
human liberty is not excluded, but it
is even implied. For it alone explains
the distinction which he clearly
establishes between the two divine acts of
foreknowledge and predestination ,
both as to their nature (the one, an act
of the understanding; the other, of
the will) and as to their object (in the
one case, faith; in the other, glory).
Human liberty in the acceptance of
salvation being therefore admitted, in
what will predestination , as
understood by St. Paul, consist? It contains,
we think, the three following
elements:
1. The decree ( proorismov" )
whereby God has determined to bring to the
perfect likeness of His Son every one
who shall believe. What more in
keeping with His grace and wisdom than
such a decree: “Thou dost
adhere by faith to Him whom I give
thee as thy Saviour; He will therefore
belong to thee wholly, and I shall not
leave thee till I have rendered thee
perfectly like Him, the God-man”?
2. The prevision ( provgnwsi" ),
in consequence of the divine
foreknowledge, of all the individuals
who shall freely adhere to the divine
invitation to participate in this
salvation. What more necessary than this
second element? Would not God's plan
run the risk of coming to nought if
He did not foresee both the perfect
fidelity of the Elect One on whom its
realization rests, and the faith of
those who shall believe in Him? Without
a Saviour and believers there would be
no salvation. God's plan therefore
assumes the assured foreknowledge of
both.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
3. The arrangement of all the laws and
all the circumstances of history
with a view to realizing the glorious
plan conceived in favor of those
foreknown. It is this arrangement
which St. Paul describes in ver. 28,
when he says that “ all things must
work together for good to them who
are the called according to the
eternal purpose.” What more magnificent!
Once believers, we may be tossed on
the tempests of this present time;
not only do we know that no wave can
engulf us, but we are assured that
every one of them has its place in the
divine plan, and must hasten our
course. Thus we have three points: 1.
The end indicated by the decree; 2.
The personally known individuals who
are to reach it; 3. The way by which
they are to be led to it.
If any one does not find this
predestination sufficient, he may make one to
his taste; but, according to our
conviction, it will not be that of the apostle.
Twentieth Passage (8:31-39). Hymn of
the Assurance of Salvation.
This passage is a conclusion. The then
of ver. 31 indicates this. This
conclusion is directly connected with
the previous teaching on
predestination (vv. 28-
30); but as this passage only sums up
all that the apostle had expounded
before: 1st, on justification by faith
(chaps. 1-5), 2d, on sanctification by
the Spirit of Christ (chaps. 6-8), it
follows that it is the conclusion of the
entire portion of the Epistle now
completed. It is presented in the form of
questions which are, as it were, a
challenge thrown out to all the
adversaries of that salvation, the
certainty of which Paul would here
proclaim. This form has in it
something of the nature of a triumph; it gives
us the idea of what was meant by him
when he used the expression in the
previous context: ejn Qew'/ kaucasqai
, to glory in God.
Vv. 31 and 32 contain a question of an
entirely general character; vv. 33-
37 enumerate the different kinds of
adversaries; vv. 38 and 39 are as it
were the shout of victory on the
battle-field now abandoned by the enemy.
Vv. 31, 32. “ What shall we then say
to these things? If God be for us, who
can be against us? He that spared not
His own Son, but delivered Him up
for us all, how shall He not with Him
also freely give us all things? ”—The
question: What shall we then say? does
not introduce an objection, as in
other passages; it invites the readers
to take account of the position made
theirs by the divine acts which have
been thus far expounded, and to seek
language adequate to such benefits (
ou\n , then ). It would be incorrect to
give to the words pro;" tau'ta ,
to these things , the meaning of besides , as
Bengel does; this would have required
pro;" touvtoi". Prov" here signifies in
regard to: “What shall we say when we
consider these things?” The
apostle seeks to make himself and us
thoroughly familiar with the nature
of the new situation which is made
ours. God has put Himself henceforth
on our side...; for that reason alone
all adversaries will be powerless. “Not
that there are none,” says Calvin,
“but with such a defender none of them
is to be dreaded: Hic murus nobis est
aheneus. ”
Ver. 32. This absolute assurance in
God, Paul derives from the great act
of mercy toward us which has been
accomplished. The expression oJ" ge ,
literally, who at least , is
undoubtedly used in Greek in the sense of who
assuredly. It is allowable, however,
to seek the more precise sense of this
restrictive form, and we think it may
be expressed by the paraphrase:
“Who though he had done nothing else
than that. ” There is a striking
contrast between the expression: His
own Son , and the verb spared not
(so to say, did not treat
delicately).—It is very clear here that the meaning
of the word Son cannot be identified
with that of Messiah—King. What
would be
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
meant by the expression: His own
Messiah? The being in question is
evidently one who is united to Him
personally and who shares His nature,
whom He brings, as it were, from His
own bowels ( eJk tou' ijdivou ). The
apostle's expressions certainly
reproduce those of the angel of the Lord to
Abraham, after the sacrifice of Isaac:
“Because thou hast not spared thy
son, thine only son” (Gen. 22:12).
Meyer denies this parallelism, but
without sufficient reason. There was,
as it were, a victory gained by God
over Himself when He gave up His
well-beloved to that career of pain and
shame, just as there was a victory
gained by Abraham over himself when
with Isaac he climbed the mount of
sacrifice. The inward sacrifice
consummated, God gave Him up for us.—
For us all , says Paul. These
words might here embrace the totality
of human beings. But the us ought
undoubtedly to have the same meaning
as that of ver. 31, unless, indeed,
the word all , which is added here, be
meant to indicate an extension to be
given to the circle denoted by the
preceding us. But is it not more natural
to hold that this all contrasts the
totality of believers with the one being
whom God has given to be their
Saviour? “One for all” (2 Cor. 5:14).—As
all were the object of this sacrifice,
so all things were comprehended in
this gift. The word ta; pavnta , all
things , with the article, denotes a definite
totality. This means all the gifts of
grace previously enumerated. If, with
the Greco-Lats., we reject the
article, it is all things , absolutely speaking;
which in the application amounts to
the same thing. There is a very
marked shade of difference between the
verb: freely give
( carivzesqai ), and the preceding
verbs: not sparing, giving up. While the
latter express something painful, the
former denotes an act full of pleasure
to the heart of him who does it. How,
after carrying through the sacrifice,
would He not do the pleasant part of a
gracious giver? Thus it is that all
possible gifts, however great or small
they may be, whether for this life or
the next, are virtually comprised in
the gift of the Son, just as the gift of all
Abraham's possessions and of his
person even were implicitly contained
in that of Isaac. To give all things
is a small matter after the best has been
given. This is precisely what was
expressed beforehand by the gev , at
least , at the beginning of the verse,
and what is confirmed by the kaiv ,
also , added to the verb shall give.
This particle indeed is connected with
the verb, and not with the regimen
with Him (see Philippi, in opposition to
Meyer). He being once given, God will
also bestow on us, in the course of
our life, all other blessings.
The three questions which follow are
only various applications of the
question in ver. 31: “Who can be
against us?” The first two (vv. 33 and 34)
refer to attacks of a judicial nature;
they contemplate enemies who contest
the believer's right to pardon and
salvation. The third (vv. 35-37) refers to
a violent attack in which the enemy
has recourse to brute force, to break
the bond between Christ and the
believer. The whole passage vividly
recalls the words of Isa. 50:7-9: “I
know that I shall not be ashamed. He is
near that justifieth me: who will
contend with me? Let us stand together:
who is mine adversary? Let him come
near to me! Behold, the Lord God
will help me; who is he that shall
condemn me?”
Ver. 33. “ Who shall lay anything to
the charge of God's elect? It is God
that justifieth. ”—Paul is not
ignorant how many accusers every believer
has: conscience, the law, Satan, the
accuser of the elect, the persons we
have offended or scandalized by our
faults: all so many voices rising
against us. Did Paul himself, when
writing these words, not think of the
cries of pain uttered by the
Christians whom he had cast into prison and
scourged, and especially of the blood
of Stephen, which, like that of Abel
the righteous, called for vengeance
against him? All these charges are
only too real. But from the mouth of
God there has gone forth a
declaration which serves as a buckler
to the believer, and against which
those fiery
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
darts are quenched, as soon as he
takes shelter under the sentence: God
hath declared him just. Here we
clearly see the juridical meaning of the
word justify as used by St. Paul.
These words: It is God that justifieth ,
which paralyze every accusation
uttered in His presence, are the
summary of the whole first part of the
Epistle (chaps. 1-5). The
expression: the elect of God ,
literally, elect of God , has an argumentative
value; it serves to demonstrate
beforehand the powerlessness of the
accusation. This expression recalls
what has just been said (vv. 28-30) of
the eternal predestination of
believers to salvation and glory; ejklektov" ,
elect , from ejklevgesqai , to draw
out of. Rescued by His own call from
identification with a world plunged in
evil, could God thrust them back into
it?
From the time of St. Augustine several
commentators (most lately
Olshausen, De Wette, Reuss) have taken
the last proposition of the verse
in an interrogative sense: “Who will
accuse? Would it be God? How could
He do so, He who justifieth? ” The
apostle would thus be using an
argument ad absurdum. This meaning is
ingenious, and seems at the first
glance to be more forcible. But can
the part of accuser be ascribed, even
by supposition, to God? The function
of God is more elevated. Besides, it
is simpler, graver, and in reality
more forcible to regard this proposition as
a calm and decided affirmation. It is
the rock against which every wave of
accusation breaks; compare also the
parallel Isa. 50, which speaks
decidedly in favor of the affirmative
form (Philippi).
The accusers are reduced to
silence...for the present; but will it also be so
at the final moment when the tribunal
will be set, in the day of the
dikaiokrisiva , “of the just judgment
of God,” when sentence will be given
without “acceptance of persons” and
“according to every man's work” (2:5,
6, 11)? Will the absolution of
believers then still hold good? Let it be
remembered this was the question put
at the close of the first part (vv. 9
and 10), and resolved in the second
(vi.-viii.). St. Paul raises it again in
this summary, but in a tone of
triumph, because on this point also he
knows that victory is won.
Ver. 34. “ Who is he that condemneth?
It is Christ Jesus that died, yea
rather , that is risen again , who is
also , at the right hand of God, who also
maketh intercession for us. ”—The form
tiv" oJ katakrivnwn , literally, who
will be the condemning one? supposes
only one judge possible, while the
form of the previous question, Who
will accuse? admitted a plurality of
accusers. Why this difference? When
accusing is the matter in question,
all creatures may raise their voice.
But as to judging? One only is
appointed for that office, He who is
called (Acts 10:42) by St. Peter “the
judge of quick and dead;” comp. also
Acts 17:31 and Rom. 14:10; so that
the question put amounts to this: Will
Christ, at the day of judgment,
condemn us? The verb understood must
be will be , not is; comp. vv. 33
and 35. The negative answer arises
from the following enumeration of the
acts done by Christ in our behalf.
There would be a contradiction between
this series of merciful interpositions
and a final condemnation. It has
excited surprise that when saying
Christ died , Paul did not add for us. But
he is not speaking here of the death
of Christ from the viewpoint of
expiation; in this respect it was
already implied in the answer to the
previous question, “It is God that justifieth.”
The death of Christ is
mentioned here from the same
standpoint as in chap. 6, implying, for the
man who appropriates it, death to sin.
The article oJ , literally, the ( one
who died ), reminds us that one only
could condemn us, but that it is that
very one who died that we might not be
obliged to do it. The resurrection
is likewise mentioned from the same
point of view as in chap. 6, as the
principle whereby a new life is
communicated to believers, even the life of
Christ Himself, of which, when once
justified, we are made partakers
(Eph. 2:5
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
and 6).— His sitting at the right hand
of God naturally follows, first as the
principle of the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit, and then as having put into
the hands of Christ the government of
the world and the direction of all the
events of our life.—Finally, by His
intercession we are assured of His
precious interposition at such moments
of spiritual weakness, as that in
reference to which He declared to
Peter: “I have prayed for thee, that thy
faith fail not.” How, with such
support, should the Christian not become
the conqueror of the sin which still
cleaves to him, and how should he not
succeed in presenting himself before
the judgment-seat in a state which
will not dishonor his Lord? This is
what the apostle had called (ver. 10),
“being saved by His life ,” in
contrast to “being reconciled by His death”
(same verse).
After the example of Erasmus, Meyer
divides the questions and answers
contained in this passage quite
differently. According to him, the words:
Who will be the condemner? still form
part of the answer to the question:
Who will accuse? (ver.
33), as if it were: “Since God
justifieth, who then will condemn?” Then
follows a second interrogation
introduced by the affirmations: Christ died ,
etc., affirmations terminating in the
conclusion expressed anew, ver. 35, in
the interrogative form: Who will separate?
that is to say: “who then will
separate us?” But this grouping of
questions and answers seems to me
inadmissible, for the following
reasons:—1. The question: Who will
condemn? cannot be the reproduction
(negatively) of the previous
question: Who will accuse? For
accusing and condemning are two entirely
different functions; the one belongs
to everybody, the other to one only. 2.
L then would be indispensable in the
two questions: who shall condemn
(ver. 34)? and who shall separate
(ver. 35)? intended, according to Meyer,
to express the two conclusions. 3. The
question: Who shall separate (ver.
35)? is so far from being intended to
express the conclusion from what
precedes, that it finds its answer in
all that follows, and particularly in the
words of ver. 39, which close the
whole passage: Nothing shall separate
us. 4. This same question: Who shall
separate? is followed by a long
enumeration of the sufferings
calculated to separate the believer from his
Saviour, which absolutely prevents us
from taking this question as
expressing a conclusion.
A more seducing proposition is that of
the expositors who, after taking the
words Qeo;" oJ dikaiw'n
interrogatively: God who justifieth? give the same
turn to ver. 34: “Who is he that shall
condemn? Will it be Christ, He who
died, who”...? This form has something
lively and piquant; and if it applied
only to a single question, one might
be tempted to hold by it. But the
series of questions which would then
succeed one another in the same
interrogative, and almost ironical
sense, does not seem to us to be
compatible with the profound feeling
of this whole passage.
The numerous variants (ver. 34) which
we have indicated in the note have
no importance. The name Jesus , added
to the title Christ , by several Mjj.,
is in thorough keeping with the
context; for in what follows there are
summed up the phases of His existence
as a historical person. It is the
same with the kaiv , also , in the
second and third proposition. It may even
be said that the kaiv of the third
does not admit of any doubt.
The apostle has defied accusers; their
voice is silenced by the sentence
of justification which covers
believers. He has asked if at the last day the
judge will not condemn, and he has
seen sin, the object of condemnation,
disappear from the believer's life
before the work of the crucified and
glorified Christ. It remains to be
known whether some hostile power will
not succeed in violently breaking the
bond which unites us to the Lord,
and on which both our justification
and sanctification rest. By this third
question he reaches the subject
treated in the last place, in this
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
very chapter, from ver. 18: ta;
paqhvmata , the sufferings of this present
time; and thus it is that in the three
questions of this passage the entire
Epistle is really summed up. It is
clearly seen how the logical form does
not for an instant slip from the mind
of Paul, even at the time when the
most overflowing feeling charges his
pen.
Vv. 35-37. “ Who shall separate us
from the love of Christ?shall tribulation,
or distress, or persecution, or
famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As
it is written, For Thy sake we are
killed all the day long; we are accounted
as sheep for the slaughter. But in all
these things we are more than
conquerors through Him that loved us.
”—The pronoun tiv" , who , refers
properly to persons; here it is applied
to all the sufferings about to be
enumerated, as if Paul saw in each of
them an enemy bearing a grudge at
the bond uniting him to Christ.— The
love of Christ , from which nothing
will separate him, is not the love
which we have to Him; for we are not
separated from our own personal
feeling. It is therefore the love which He
has to us; and this is confirmed by
the close of ver. 37: “through Him that
loved us.” We might, with Calv.,
Thol., Ruck ., understand; nothing will
separate us from the feeling we have
of the love of Jesus to us. But is not
Paul rather representing this love
itself as a force which takes hold of and
possesses us? Comp. 2 Cor. 5:14: “The
love of Christ constraineth us
(holds us pressed).” Paul is thinking
of the profound action which this love
exercises through the Holy Spirit at
once on our heart and will. Such is the
mysterious power from the operation of
which nothing will be able to
withdraw us. — Qlivyi" ,
tribulation: overwhelming external circumstances;
stenocwria , anguish , literally,
compression of heart, the inward effect
produced by tribulation; diwgmov"
, legal persecution. To understand the
words: famine, nakedness, peril , it
is enough to refer to the sketch of St.
Paul's life, given in 2 Cor. 11:23 et
seq. The sword: the symbol of capital
punishment. When Paul writes this
word, he designates, as Bengel
observes, his own future mode of
death.
Ver. 36. The apostle here quotes the
sorrowful lament put by a psalmist in
the mouth of the faithful under the
old covenant, during a time of cruel
oppression, Ps. 44:22. The quotation
follows the LXX. All the day: every
hour of the day (Meyer). Any hour is
serviceable for dragging them to
slaughter. For the love of thee:
Jehovah in the O. T. corresponds to Christ
in the New. We are accounted: it is
long since sentence has been
pronounced by hatred, and has hung
over their head, though it is not yet
executed.
Ver. 37. Paul expresses his certainty
that none of these efforts will avail to
tear the believer from the encircling
arms of Christ's love. There is in this
love a power which will overcome all
the weaknesses of despondency, all
the sinkings of doubt, all the fears
of the flesh, all the horrors of execution.
Paul does not say merely nikw'men , we
are conquerors , but
uJpernikw'men , we are more than
conquerors; there is a surplus of force;
we might surmount still worse trials
if the Lord permitted them. And in
what strength? The apostle, instead of
saying: through the love of the
Lord, expresses himself thus: through
the Lord that loved us. It is His
living person that acts in us. For it
is He Himself in His love who sustains
us. This love is not a simple thought
of our mind; it is a force emanating
from Him. The Greco-Latin reading:
dia; to;n ajg. , on account of Him ...,
would make Jesus merely the moral
cause of victory. This is evidently too
weak.—It will perhaps be asked if a
Christian has never been known to
deny his faith in suffering and
persecution. Yes, and it is not a
mathematical certainty the apostle
wishes to state here. It is a fact of the
moral life which is in question, and
in this life liberty has always its part to
play, as it had from the first moment
of faith. What Paul means is, that
nothing will tear us
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
from the arms of Christ against our
will, and so long as we shall not refuse
to abide in them ourselves; comp. John
10:28-30.
Vv. 38-39. “ For I am persuaded, that
neither death, nor life, nor angels ,
nor principalities , nor things
present, nor things to come, nor powers , nor
height, nor depth, nor any other
creation, shall be able to separate us from
the love of God, which is in Christ
Jesus our Lord. ”—The challenge which
the apostle had just thrown out to
condemnation, and sin and suffering of
every kind, he now extends to all the
hostile powers of the universe which
could threaten the bond of love
whereby Christ, and God Himself, are
united to the believer. The for
expresses an argument a fortiori: “none of
the enemies mentioned is to be feared,
for not even throughout the whole
universe is there a being to be
dreaded.—Paul reverts to the form I ,
which he had dropped after ver. 18;
the reason being that here, as well as
in ver. 38, the matter in question is
a personal conviction of a moral rather
than a systematic nature. We must not
forget the: “ if at least you
persevere,” which Paul himself wrote,
Col. 1:23, nor examples such as
that of Demas, 2 Tim. 4:10. It is by
uJpomonhv (ver.
25), perseverance in believing in the
love of Christ to us, that this love
exercises its irresistible power over
us. The conviction here expressed by
Paul does not apply to himself only,
but to all believers ( us , ver. 39).
The adversaries who rise before his
view seem to advance in pairs. The
first pair is death and life. Death is
put first, in connection no doubt with vv.
35 and 36. The inverse order which we
find 1 Cor. 3:22, is occasioned
there by the difference of the
context. Death: the apostle is thinking of
martyrdom, the fear of which may lead
to apostasy. With death and its
agonies, he contrasts life with its
distractions, its interests and seductions,
which may lead to lukewarmness and
unfaithfulness, as in the case of
Demas.—The second pair: angels and
principalities. Undoubtedly
principalities , ajrcaiv , might be
regarded as an order of angels superior to
common angels—archangels. But in the
other pairs there is always found
a contrast of character: it is
therefore natural to apply these two terms to
spirits of opposite kinds; the first
to good angels (though this sense is not
exclusively the meaning of a[ggeloi ,
as Meyer alleges; comp. 1 Cor. 4:9
and 6:3); the second to malignant
angels, as 1 Cor. 15:24 and Eph. 6:12
(Hofmann). It will be asked how good
angels could labor to separate us
from Christ; but this may only be a
hypothesis like that of Gal. 1:8. And
may not what is of itself good contribute
to lead us astray, if our
attachment or admiration stops short
at the creature, instead of rising to
God?—The Byzs. here read a third term
almost synonymous: dunavmei" ,
powers; and a Mj. (C) with some Mnn.
even adds a fourth: ejxousivai ,
dominations. This last term is
evidently an interpolation to form a pair with
the third. As to the latter, according
to the Mjj. of the other two families, it
has its place, if it is really
authentic, after the following pair.—Third pair:
things present and things to come. The
first term embraces all earthly
eventualities, death included; the
second, all that await us in the future
life. The word ejnestw'ta , which
strictly signifies what is imminent , when
contrasted with things to come , takes
the meaning: all that is already
present. —If the term powers is
authentic, it must be taken as embracing
in one idea the two terms of the
following pair: height and depth. These
are all the powers of the invisible
world, whether those which exalt us to
the third heaven ( height ), but which
in an instant, by reason of pride or
even violently excited sensuality, may
occasion the most frightful falls to
the poor human heart; or those which
plunge us into the most mysterious
and unspeakable agonies ( depth ), like
that of Jesus at Gethsemane,
when He exclaimed: “My soul is
sorrowful even unto death;” comp. what
He added soon after: “This is your
hour and the power of darkness. ” It is
scarcely necessary to refute the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
following interpretations which have
been proposed: good fortune and
bad; or honor and disgrace; the wisdom
of heretics and vulgar prejudices
(Mel.); the heights from which martyrs
were precipitated, and the depths
of the ocean where they were buried
(Thomas Aquinas); or finally, the
opposite dimensions of space
(Meyer).—The last term, ktivsi" e{tera , is
usually translated by the expression:
any other creature , and made a sort
of et caetera. This meaning would
certainly be rather poor after
expressions of such ample
comprehension as those which precede. But
more than that, it hardly suits the
word e{tera , which signifies different ,
and not merely other , as the word
a[llh would do (for the distinction
between these two adjectives, comp. 1
Cor. 15:37-41). It seems, then,
that the word ktivsi" signifies
here, not creature , as if the reference were
to a particular being, to be put side
by side with several others, but
creation. Paul sees in thought this
whole creation disappear, on the
theatre of which there has been
wrought the greatest wonder of divine
love; and he asks whether, if a new
creation arise, and more magnificent
marvels are displayed before the eyes
of man, the cross in those new
ages will not run the risk of being
eclipsed, and the love of God in Jesus
Christ of being relegated to the
oblivion of the past. And he boldly affirms
that whatever new creations may
succeed one another, the first place in
the heart of believers will ever
remain for the redeeming love of which
they have been the object here
below.—Paul here speaks of the love of
Jesus as being the love of God
Himself; for it is in the former that the latter
is incarnated for us, and becomes the
eternal anchor of which our faith
lays hold for eternity; comp. 5:15 and
Luke 15, where the compassion of
God is completely identified with the
work of Jesus on the earth.
Nowhere has the feeling of St. Paul
been displayed in such overflowing
measure, and yet the thread of logical
deduction is not broken for an
instant. This passage sums up, as we
have seen, all that Paul has hitherto
expounded in this Epistle. He leaves
us at the end of this chapter face to
face with this divinely wrought salvation,
which is complete, and assured,
and founded on faith alone, to be
apprehended, and ever apprehended
anew by the same means. Then, after a
moment of contemplation and
rest, he takes us again by the hand to
guide us to the theatre of history,
and show us this divine work unfolding
itself on a great scale in the human
race.
SECOND PART. SUPPLEMENTARY. CHAPS.
9-1. THE REJECTION
OF THE JEWS.
IN stating the theme which he proposed
to discuss (1:16 and 17), the
apostle had introduced an element of
an historical nature which he could
not fail to develop at some point or
other of his treatise. It was this: “to the
Jew first , and also to the Greek.” In
what relation did salvation, as set
forth in his Gospel, stand to those
two great sections of the human race
looked at from the standpoint of its
religious development? And
particularly, how did it happen that
the Jewish people, to whom salvation
was destined in the first place,
showed themselves the most rebellious to
this final revelation of divine mercy?
Did not the fact give rise to a grave
objection to the truth of the gospel
itself, and to the Messiahship ascribed
to person of Jesus by the new faith? A
Jew might reason thus: Either the
gospel is true and Jesus really the
Messiah—but in this case the divine
promises formerly made to this Jewish
people who reject the Messiah and
His salvation are nullified;—or Israel
is and remains forever, as should be
the case in virtue of its election,
the people of God, and in this case the
gospel must be false and Jesus an
impostor. Thus the dilemma
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
seemed to be: Either to affirm God's
faithfulness to His own election and
deny the gospel, or to affirm the
gospel, but give the lie to the divine
election and faithfulness. The apostle
must have found this problem in his
way every time he bore testimony to
the gospel of Christ; and his
demonstration of salvation by faith
without the law would have contained a
grave omission, if it had not
presented a solution suitable to the nature of
God of the greatest enigma in history:
the rejection of the elect people.
Generally when a new doctrine presents
itself, after demonstrating its
intrinsic truth, it has a double task
to discharge to mankind whom it
professes to save—(1) to prove that it
is capable of realizing what ought to
be , moral good; this Paul has done by
showing, chaps. 6-8, that the
doctrine of justification by faith
(expounded chaps. 1-5) was capable of
producing holiness; (2) to demonstrate
that it can account satisfactorily for
what has been , for history; this the
apostle proceeds to do, chaps. 9-11.
The domain upon which the apostle here
enters is one of the most difficult
and profound which can be presented to
the mind of man. It is that of
theodicy , or the justification of the
divine government in the course of
human affairs. But he does not enter
on it as a philosopher, and in its
totality; he treats it in relation to
a special point, the problem of the lot of
Israel, and he does so as a part of
his apostolic task.
There are two ways in which mistakes
have been committed in
expounding the thought of Paul in this
passage. Some have taken it as a
dogmatic and general statement of the
doctrine of election , as an element
of Christian teaching. This view finds
its refutation in the entire course of
this great exposition, in which the
apostle constantly reverts to the people
of Israel, the antecedents of their
history (9:6 et seq.), the prophecies
concerning them (9:27-29 and
10:19-21), and their present and future
destiny (see the whole of chap. 11,
and particularly the conclusion, vv. 25-
31). It is therefore a problem of
history and not of doctrine, strictly
speaking, which he proposes to treat.
Calvin himself is perfectly aware of
this. Here is the dilemma which,
according to him, St. Paul resolved in
these chapters: “Either God is
unfaithful to His promises (in regard to the
Jews), or Jesus whom Paul preaches is
not the Lord's Christ particularly
promised to that people.”
The other erroneous point of view in
regard to these chapters is to take
them as intended to reconcile the
Judeo-Christian majority of the church
of Rome to the apostle's mission to
the Gentiles (Baur, Mangold, Holsten,
Lipsius, with various shades).
Weizsacker , in his excellent work on the
primitive Roman church, asks with
reason why, if the apostle was
addressing Judeo-Christians, he should
designate the Jews, 9:3, “as his
brethren,” and not rather “as our brethren;”
and how it is that in 11:1 he
alleges as a proof of the fact that
all Israel is not rejected, only his own
conversion and not that of his
readers. He likewise demonstrates beyond
dispute, in our opinion, that in the
passage, 11:13, the words: “I speak
unto you, Gentiles,” are necessarily
addressed to the whole church, not
merely to a portion of the Christians
of Rome (see on this passage). If it is
so, it is impossible to hold that,
addressing himself to former Gentiles,
Paul should think himself obliged to
demonstrate in three long chapters
the legitimacy of his mission among
the Gentiles. No; it is not his mission,
and still less his person, which Paul
means to defend when he traces this
vast scheme of the ways of God; it is
God Himself and His work in
mankind by the gospel. He labors to
dissipate the shadow which might be
thrown on the character of God or the
truth of the gospel by the unbelief of
the elect people. The Tubingen school commits
the same mistake in
regard to this part of our Epistle as
in regard to the Book of the Acts. This
latter writing it views in general as
the product of an
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
ecclesiastical piece of management,
intended to accredit Paul's person
and ministry among Christians of
Jewish origin, while it is meant to
demonstrate by a simple statement of
facts the painstaking and faithful
manner in which God has proceeded
toward His ancient people in the
foundation of the church. Comp.
besides, that remarkable passage in the
Gospel of John, 12:37-43, in which
this apostle takes a general survey of
the fact of Jewish unbelief,
immediately after describing its development,
and seeks to fathom its causes. This,
indeed, was one of the most
important questions at the period of
the foundation of the church. In this
question there was concentrated the
subject of the connection between
the two revelations.
How, at a given point in time, can God
reject those whom He has elected?
Is the fact possible? The apostle
resolves this problem by putting himself
successively at three points of
view—1. That of God's absolute liberty in
regard to every alleged acquired
right, upon Him, on man's part; this is the
subject of chap. 9:2. That of the
legitimacy of the use which God has
made of His liberty in the case in
question; such is the subject of chap. 10,
where Paul shows that Israel by their
want of understanding drew upon
themselves the lot which has overtaken
them. 3. That of the utility of this
so unexpected measure; this forms the
subject of chap. 11, where the
beneficent consequences of Israel's
rejection down to their glori ous final
result are unfolded.—This passage does
not contain a complete
philosophy of history; but it is the
finest specimen, and, so to speak, the
masterpiece of this science.
Twenty-first Passage (9:1-29). The
Liberty of God in regard to the
Election of Israel.
The apostle opens this passage with a
preface expressing the profound
grief he feels in view of the
mysterious fact which is about to occupy him
(vv. 1-5); then he shows how the
liberty of God is set in its full light by the
theocratical antecedents
(vv. 6-13), and by the most
unequivocal scriptural declarations (vv. 14-24);
and finally, he calls to mind that the
use which God is now making of this
liberty in relation to the Jews, was
clearly foretold (vv. 25-29). This last
idea forms the transition to the
following passage, which refers to the
legitimacy of the application which
God has made to the Jews of His
sovereign right (chap. 10). Chap. 10
ought strictly to begin at ver. 30 of
chap. 9.
Vv. 1-5.
Paul expresses all the intensity of
his grief on account of his people (vv. 1-
3), and he justifies it by the
magnificent prerogatives wherewith this
unique people had been honored (vv. 4
and 5).
Vv. 1, 2. “ I say the truth in Christ,
I lie not, my conscience bearing me
witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have
a great grief and a continual
lamentation in my
heart. ”—No connecting particle joins
this part to the preceding. The
asyndeton is here, as always, the
evidence of a lively emotion which
breaks, so to speak, the logical bond;
but this form attests at the same
time with all the more energy the
profound relation of feeling which unites
this piece to the preceding. And is it
not in fact one and the same feeling
in the two contrasted aspects, that
emotion of triumphant joy expressed at
the end of the previous chapter, when,
after conducting poor condemned
and lost creatures through the
righteousness of faith and sanctification by
the Spirit, he has brought them to the
threshold of glory—and the grief
which he feels at seeing his Israel
loved above all, yet deprived of such
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
blessings? He has just been following
a people of elect and glorified ones
rising from the midst of fallen
humanity, and Israel is wanting from among
the number! There is between these two
parts a bitter contemplation in
which the misery of rejected Israel
appears to him like the sombre reverse
of the incomparable blessedness of the
faithful who are adopted in Jesus
Christ.—The apostle does not pronounce
the word which expresses the
cause of his grief. It is not an
oversight, as Reuss thinks; but it costs him
too much to pronounce the fatal word;
every reader will divine it from his
very silence.—The words: in Christ ,
must be joined to the preceding: I
speak the truth , and not to what
follows: I lie not. To make Paul say: “in
Christ I lie not,” would be to put
into his mouth a poor commonplace. ver.
2, and especially ver. 3, will tell
what the fact is which he is concerned to
affirm so solemnly.—A man, even a
truthful man, may exaggerate his own
feelings; but in the eyes of Paul
there is something so holy in Christ, that
in the pure and luminous atmosphere of
His felt presence no lie, and not
even any exaggeration, is possible.
The parenthesis following: “I lie not”...,
might be taken as a second declaration
in a negative form, parallel to the
affirmation which precedes. But it is
difficult in this case to understand
what the testimony of his conscience
and of the Holy Spirit can add to the
security already given by the words in
Christ. It seems to me, then, that
this parenthesis should be regarded as
a confirmation of those first words
themselves: “I do not lie in affirming
that it is under the view of Christ that I
declare what I there say.” It is
therefore on this declaration: “I speak in the
communion of Christ,” that the
testimony of his conscience bears; and
even this testimony, as too human,
does not suffice. Paul declares that he
feels at the same instant, through the
Holy Spirit, the whole intimacy of
this communion. The suvn , with , in
the verb summarturei'n , to testify with ,
signifies: in concert with my own
declaration. “In the mouth of two or three
witnesses shall every word be
established;” it seems as if Paul wished to
confirm his affirmation by a double
testimony, that of his conscience and
that of the Holy Spirit. Why so much
solemnity in entering on his subject?
We understand the reason when we think
what he has in view: the
rejection of Israel. Was he not the
man whom the Jews accused of being
moved in his whole work by a spirit of
hostility to his people? But here is
the expression of his real feelings
attested by all he counts sacred,
however extraordinary what he is about
to say (ver. 3) may appear.
Ver. 2. Vv. 2 and 3 contain the matter
of that truth so solemnly announced
in ver. 1. The parallelism of the two
propositions of the verse, as always,
is the indication of a rising feeling.
A triple gradation has been remarked
between the two propositions. First,
between the two subjects: luvph , grief
, which denotes an inward sadness;
ojduvnh , lamentation , which refers to
the violent outburst of grief, though
it should only be inwardly; then a
gradation between the two epithets
megavlh , great , and ajdiavleipto" ,
continual: it is so intense that it
accompanies all the moments of his life;
finally, between the two regimens moi
, to me , and th'/ kardiva/ mou , to my
heart , the latter term denoting the
deepest spring of the emotions of the
me. —Here still Paul leaves us to read
between the lines the tragical word
which expresses the cause of this
grief.
Ver. 3. “ For I could wish that myself
were anathema away from Christ for
the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen
according to the flesh. ”—This
inward fact is the proof of the
intensity of the feeling expressed in ver. 2 (
for ); and it is to this almost
incredible fact that the exceptional affirmations
of ver. 1 applied.—The imperfect
indicative hujcovmhn , literally, I was
wishing , has in Greek the force of
throwing this wish into the past, and
into a past which remains always
unfinished, so that this expression takes
away from the wish all possibility of
realization. The meaning
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
therefore is: “I should wish, if such
a desire could be realized.” If the
apostle had meant to speak of a wish
really formed by him, though under
certain conditions, he would have
expressed this idea by the present
optative eujcoivmhn , or by the aorist
eujxaivmhn with a[n (Acts 26:29);
comp. Gal. 4:20, and also Acts 25:22
(where Agrippa expresses his
desire, while stating it as
unrealizable, that he might not have the
appearance of encroaching on the
authority of Festus). It is from not
understanding or applying the meaning
of the Greek imperfect indicative
that recourse has been had to so many
unnatural explanations, intended
to spare the apostle a wish which
seemed to have in it something
offensive to Christian feeling. Thus
the interpretation of the Itala ( optabam
), Ambrosiaster, Pelagius, the Vulgate
, Luther, Chalmers: “ I wished
(formerly when in my blind fanaticism
I persecuted the church of Christ).”
The apostle would, on this view, be
recalling the fact that it was his ardent
love for his people which had then
driven him away from the Christ (who
had appeared in Jesus). But it is not
of what he was formerly, it is of what
he is now, as the apostle of the
Gentiles , that Paul wishes to bear
testimony; and that the expression:
far from Christ , may prove the
strength of his love to Israel, the
testimony must go forth from a heart
which has recognized Jesus as the
Christ, and is able to appreciate Him
at His proper value. Finally, some
indication or other of the time when he
formed this wish would have been
necessary ( potev , formerly ,
7:9).—Some English expositors, among
the last Morison and Tregelles,
have made the first half of ver. 3 a
parenthesis, and joined the end of the
verse “for my brethren”..., with ver.
2. What Paul, according to this view,
meant to express by the wish, was the
profound misery of Israel, a misery
in which he himself also was formerly
involved. But Morison has
withdrawn this explanation, which is
really inadmissible, and he now
proposes to translate: I might desire
(to go all that length). The examples
which he quotes to justify this
meaning appear to me insufficient, and the
idea itself lacks precision. Finally,
Lange, after Michaelis, has made a still
more unfortunate attempt. He translates:
“I made a vow,” and explains it
of an engagement, accompanied no doubt
with an imprecation, which he
took, it is held, at the hands of the
high priest when he was preparing to
set out to Damascus, there to
persecute the Christians (Acts 9:2). He
undertook in some way or other, at the
peril of his Messianic blessedness,
to save Judaism by extirpating the
heresy. To set aside such an
explanation it is enough to point to
the imperfect hujcovmhn , which would
require, since the matter in question
is a positive fact, to be replaced by
the aorist hujxavmhn , or at least
accompanied with some kind of
chronological definition.—It need not
be asked how this vow could ever be
realized. Paul himself declares that
it is an impossibility; but if its
accomplishment depended only on his
love, he would certainly express
such a wish before the Lord.
The word ajnaqema , anathema , from
ajnativqhmi , to expose, to set in view
, always denotes an object consecrated
to God. But this consecration may
have in view either its preservation
as a pious offering in a sanctuary (
donaria )—in this case the LXX. and
the N. T. use the form ajnavqhma , for
example 2 Macc. 5:16, and Luke 21:5—or
it may be carried out by the
destruction of the consecrated object,
as in the case of the ban ( che8rem
); the LXX. and the N. T. prefer in
that sense using the form ajnavqema (for
example, Josh. 7:12; Gal. 1:8, 9; 1
Cor. 16:22). This distinction between
the two forms of the word did not
exist in classic Greek. —The expression
is so strong, especially with the
regimen ajpo; Cristou' , away from Christ ,
that it is impossible to apply it
either, with Grotius, to ecclesiastical
excommunication, or, with Jerome, to a
violent death inflicted by Christ
(substituting uJpov , by , for ajpov ,
for from ). Paul has evidently in mind
the breaking of the bond which unites
him to Christ as his
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Saviour. He would consent, if it were
possible, to fall back again forever
into the state of condemnation in
which he lived before his conversion, if
by the sacrifice of his salvation he
could bring about the conversion of his
people Israel. The words: away from
Christ , express the bitterness that
such an anathema would have for his
heart; and yet he would face it, if it
were possible thus to exchange lots
with his people. Here is, as it were,
the paroxysm of patriotic devotion.
The pronoun myself , if placed, as in
the Byz. text, before the term: to be
anathema , sets Paul in contrast to
the Jews who are really in this state:
“I should myself like to be anathema
(rather than they).” But if, with the
other documents, it be placed after the
words: to be anathema , it serves to
contrast the real with the alleged
Paul, who was made the mortal enemy of
the Jews in consequence of the
mission which he carried out among the
Gentiles: “to be anathema myself
, I who am represented as the despiser
of my nation, and who have in fact
the sad mission of consecrating the
divorce between Israel and her God!”
To the notion of spiritual and
theocratic kinship denoted by the title
brethren , the expression: kinsmen
according to the flesh , adds the idea
of natural human kinship by blood and
nationality.
Vv. 4 and 5 are intended to justify
the wish expressed in ver. 3, by
declaring the glorious prerogatives
which are fitted to render this people
supremely precious to a truly
Israelitish heart.
Ver. 4. “ Who are Israelites; to whom
pertaineth the adoption, and the
glory, and the covenants , and the
giving of the law and the service, and
the
promises. ”—The pronoun oi{tine"
, who , characterizes them in the
context as persons for whom it would
be worth while to accept even
damnation.—The name Israelites is the
name of honor belonging to the
people; it is a title resting on the
glorious fact related Gen. 32:28. It
contains all the prerogatives which
follow.—These prerogatives are
enumerated in ver. 4, to the number of
six, all connected by kaiv , and , a
form expressing rising exaltation of
feeling.— UiJoqesiva , the adoption:
Israel is always represented as the
Lord's son or first-born among all
peoples, Ex. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Hos.
11:1.— Dovxa , the glory: this term
does not at all express, as Reuss
thinks, the final glory of the kingdom of
God; for this glory belongs to the
Gentiles as well as to the Jews. The
term is here taken in the special
sense which it often has in the O. T.: the
visible , luminous appearance of the
Lord's presence, Ex. 24:16, 29:43; 1
Kings 8:11; Ezek. 1:28. The Rabbins
had invented a particular term to
denote this glorious appearance, the
name shekinah , from schakan, to
dwell. — Diaqh'kai , the covenants:
this word denotes the numerous
covenants concluded by God with the
patriarchs. The reading of some
MSS. the covenant , is a faulty
correction. What led to it was the term: the
old covenant. — Nomoqesiva , the
giving of the law: this term embraces
along with the gift of the law itself,
the solemn promulgation of it on Mount
Sinai; comp. the saying of the
psalmist, Ps. 147:20: “He hath not dealt so
with any nation.”— Latreiva , the
service ( cultus ), this is the sum-total of
the Levitical services instituted by
the law.— :Epaggelivai , the promises:
this term carries our view from past
benefits to the still greater blessings to
come, which God promised to His
people. The reading: the promise , in
the Greco-Latin, is also an erroneous
correction.
Ver. 5. “ Whose are the fathers, and
of whom, as concerning the flesh,
Christ came, who is God over all,
blessed for ever, amen. ”—To blessings
of an impersonal nature Paul adds, as
crowning them, the gifts which
consist in living persons, and which
either preceded the above or followed
them; such are the patriarchs , from
whom the people sprang, and who
are as it were its root; and the
Messiah , who sprang from the people, and
who is as it were its flower.—The
first proposition
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
literally signifies: “whose
(Israelites') are the fathers,” that is to say, to
whom the fathers belong as national
property. The heroes of a people are
regarded by it as its most precious
treasure.—But the apostle is careful
not to apply the same form to the
Messiah, which would signify that the
Christ is the property of the Jews. He
says here eJx w|n , from the midst of
whom. He proceeds from them as to
origin, but He does not belong to
them exclusively as to His
destination. The antithesis between the two
forms w|n , whose , and ejx w|n , from
among whom , is certainly
intentional.—But while fully
recognizing that the Christ comes from the
Jews, the apostle is well aware that
this mode of origin refers only to the
human and phenomenal side of His
person; and hence he immediately
adds: as to the flesh. This expression
should evidently be taken in the
same sense as in ver. 3; for here as
there the matter in question is a
relation of filiation or origin. The
term flesh therefore embraces the human
nature in its totality; and it is a
mistake to seek here the contrast between
the flesh and the spirit , savrx and
pneu'ma . We find this same meaning of
the word flesh again in ver. 8, where
the human sonship is opposed to the
divine (by faith in the promise). It
is also in the same sense that John says
(1:14): “The Word was made flesh.” The
antithesis to the word flesh in all
these cases is not spirit , but God;
comp. Gal. 1:16: “I conferred not with
flesh and blood” (men in contrast to
God); Matt. 24:22; Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor.
1:29, etc. The contrast is not,
therefore, altogether the same in this
passage as in 1:3 and 4. There, the
point was the antithesis between the
flesh and the spirit in the person of
Jesus Himself; here, it is the contrast
between His divine origin (which was
implied already in 8:3) and His
human , and more especially His
Israelitish origin.
Many commentators close the sentence
with the words: according to the
flesh (Seml., Fritzs., Ew., van Heng.,
Meyer, Baur, Tischendorf, 8th
edition). In that case it only remains
to take the following words as an
exclamation of thanksgiving to the
praise of the God who has so highly
privileged Israel; so Oltramare
translates: “Let Him who is over all things,
God, be therefore blessed forever!
Amen.” The epithet: oJ
w]n ejpi; pavntwn , who is above all
things , or above all , would require to
be regarded as paraphrasing the term
pantokravtwr , the universal
sovereign , by which the LXX. often
render Schaddai , the All-powerful;
comp. 2 Cor. 6:18; Rev. 1:8, 4:8. This
thanksgiving in the context would
apply either to the sovereign freedom
with which God distributes His gifts
to whom He pleases, or to His
providence, which, always extending to all,
favors one people only, with the view
of bringing to Himself all the rest. On
the other hand, it is impossible not
to be surprised at a conclusion so
abrupt and negative in form, at least
as to sense, of an enumeration so
magnificent as the preceding; for
there is evidently a limitation and, so to
speak, a negation in the words: as
concerning the flesh. They signify: “ At
least as concerning the flesh.” This
restriction goes in the teeth of the
feeling which has inspired the whole
passage thus far. It is a descent
which, after the gradual ascent of the
preceding lines, closes it with
startling abruptness. Still more, the
burst of gratitude which on this
explanation would inspire this
doxology, would be out of all harmony with
the impression of profound grief which
forms the basis of the whole
passage. In fact, the privileges
enumerated have been heaped up thus
only to justify this painful
impression; and here is the apostle all at once
breaking out into a song of praise because
of those advantages which
Israel have rendered unavailing by
their unbelief! (comp. Gess). If,
besides, the participle oJ w[n , who
is , referred to a subject not mentioned
in the previous proposition (God),
this transition from one subject to
another would require to be indicated
in some way, either by the addition
of a dev , now , as in 16:25, Jude
ver. 24, etc., or by giving a turn to the
sentence such as this: tw'/ ejpi;
pavntwn Qew'/, tw'/
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
eujloghmevnw/...dovxa , “to God ever
blessed be glory!” comp. 11:36; or
simply: eujloghto;" oJ Qeov"
, as in 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3. In his truly classical
dissertation on this passage, Hermann
Schultz vigorously develops the
argument often alleged against the
interpretation which we are examining,
that the participle eujloghmevno"
, blessed , would require to be placed not
after, but before the substantive
Qeov" , God. The usage is, that in forms
of thanksgiving the first word
proceeding from the heart of the grateful
worshipper is the term blessed , and
that this word precedes the name of
God; comp. in the LXX. Gen. 9:26 and
14:20; Ps. 18:46; 28:6, 31:21,
41:13, 66:20, 68:35, 72:18, 19, 89:52,
etc.; and in the N. T. Matt. 23:39;
Mark 11:9; Luke 1:68, 13:35, 19:38; 2
Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3. The
only exception which can be quoted
would be Ps. 68:19, if the text of the
LXX. were not probably corrupted in
this passage, and if especially the
verb to be understood were not the
indicative ejstiv , is , instead of the
imperative e[stw , let Him be; comp.
ver. 34. Finally, it is difficult to
understand in our passage the object
of the participle w[n ( who is , who is
really ) applied to God; the form oJ
ejpi; pavntwn Qeov" (without w[n ) would
have been perfectly clear; and Paul
could not have any reason for
insisting in speaking of God on the
reality of the divine sovereignty. For he
was not concerned to combat idolatry,
as in chap. 1 for example.
Erasmus, who first proposed to end the
period after savrka ( flesh ), had
likewise put the question whether the
sentence might not close with the
word pavntwn ( all things , or all ):
“of whom is the Christ according to the
flesh, who is over all things; God be
blessed forever and ever!” Is this
construction better than the
preceding? Meyer thinks not. It seems to me
that in the matter of improbability
they are on a par. Yet the latter at least
gives a more or less suitable
conclusion to the proposition relative to the
Christ. These last words: “who is over
all,” applied to Christ, contain up to
a certain point the antithesis which
we were led to expect from the
restriction: as concerning the flesh;
and by proclaiming the supreme
dignity of the Christ, they bring out,
as the context demands, the
exceptional prerogative granted to the
people of which He is a member. It
would also be somewhat easier to
explain the form of oJ w[n , who is ,
than on the previous construction. For
the application to Christ of the idea
of universal sovereignty might require
this word w[n , who is really. But
independently of several difficulties
which attach to the preceding
explanation, and which remain in this
one, there are new difficulties which
belong to it, and which render it, if
possible, still more inadmissible. The
words: who is over all things , are
not the natural antithesis of these: as
concerning the flesh. The latter
referred to origin; the former point only to
position. Then, as Meyer observes, the
doxology comes on us with
intolerable abruptness: “God be
blessed forever and ever!” And more than
all, the sole reason which would make
it possible to explain to a certain
extent the position of the participle
eujloghmevno" ( blessed ) after Qeov" (
God ), contrary to the uniform usage
of the sacred writers, is wholly lost;
for this displacement can only arise
(see Meyer) from the forcible
description of God in the words: who
is over all things.
The entire primitive church seems to
have had no hesitation as to the
meaning to be given to our passage;
comp. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen,
Chrysostom, Augustine, Jerome,
Theodoret; later, Luther, Calvin, Beza,
Tholuck, Usteri, Olshausen, Philippi,
Gess, Ritschl, Hofmann, Weiss,
Delitzsch, Schultz. In fact, in
writing the restriction: to; kata; savrka , as
concerning the flesh , Paul had
evidently in view this peculiarity: that the
Christ was something else and more
than a Jew, and it is with this
unparalleled fact that he rightly
concludes the enumeration of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Israel's prerogatives. No doubt the
words: who is over all things , express
in a certain measure the naturally
expected idea of the supreme
greatness of the Christ; but they are
not enough for the apostle's object.
For, if they connect themselves with
the ejx w|n , from the midst of whom ,
contrasting the universal supremacy of
the Christ with His national origin,
they bear no relation whatever to the
still narrower restriction: as
concerning the flesh. Now this latter
leads us also to expect its antithesis,
which appears only in the title God.
This word is therefore the legitimate
conclusion of the whole passage, as it
forms its culminating point.
Scripture frequently contrasts, as we
have seen, flesh (human nature in its
weakness) with God; comp. Isa. 31:3.
And if it is certain that Paul
recognizes in the divine being who
appeared in Jesus the creator of all
things (1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16, 17),
the Jehovah of the O. T. who led the
people in the cloud (1 Cor. 10:4), who
before coming on the earth was in
the form of God (Phil. 2:6 et seq.),
is it strange that he should have
sometimes given the name of God to
such a being, and that he should
have done so especially in such a
passage as this, where he is feeling in
all its bitterness the contrast
between the transcendent greatness of the
gifts bestowed on Israel and the sad
result in which they have terminated?
It seems to us difficult to avoid
seeing in the benediction which follows the
words: “who is God over all things,”
an expression of homage rendered to
this God-Christ, and intended to wipe
out the dishonor cast on Him by
Jewish unbelief, as in chap. 1 the
form of adoration, pronounced in ver.
25, was a way of protesting against
the outrage inflicted on the true God
by Gentile idolatry.
But it is precisely because of this
word God that objections are raised to
the application of such utterances to
the person of Christ. It is objected
that nowhere else does Paul designate
Jesus in this way (Meyer), and
that even in 1 Cor. 8:6, Christ, as
only Lord , is expressly distinguished
from the Father , as the one God
(Reuss). It is added, that by the words:
over all things , Christ would seem to
be placed above God Himself, or at
least made equal to the supreme
God.—Suppose this passage were
really the only one in which Jesus
receives the name of God from Paul, is
it not the same with John, in whose
writings this name is not given to
Christ confessedly more than once or
twice (1:1, 20:28)? As to the
general question, I am unwilling to
give judgment from the various
passages which are alleged by many
commentators with the view of
proving that Paul has given Jesus the
name of God, Qeov" , more than
once. I have carefully weighed the
reasons of those who deny the fact;
and yet, after reading and re-reading
Eph. 5:5 and Tit. 2:13, I always
come back to the first conviction
which the Greek construction produces,
viz. that Paul in these passages
really meant to designate the Christ as
Qeov" . But this discussion would
be out of place here, and could not in
any case lead to an absolutely
conclusive result.—As to the doxologies of
the N. T. besides those of Revelation,
which are addressed to the Lamb
as well as to God, there is that of 2
Tim. 4:13, which indisputably applies
to Christ, and which must be assigned
to St. Paul unless we deny to him
the whole Epistle.—Let us add, that it
would be wholly false to depend
here on the rule (the correctness of
which I do not examine), that when in
the N. T. Christ is called Qeov"
, God , it is in every case without the
article, and that the designation oJ
Qeov" is reserved for the one God and
Father. This rule does not apply to
the case before us, for the article oJ
belongs not to the word Qeov" ,
but to the participle w[n . If Paul had
meant here to use the form oJ
Qeov" in application to God, he would have
required to write: oJ w]n oJ ejpi;
pavntwn Qeov" . We have therefore the
form Qeov" without the article,
as in John 1:1, that is to say, as a simple
grammatical predicate.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Against our explanation Reuss with
great assurance opposes 1 Cor. 8:6.
The reasoning of this critic may be
valid against those who refuse to admit
the subordination of the Son to the
Father. But for those who prefer the
true thought of Scripture to a
theological formula, ancient, no doubt, but
yet human, this argument does not
affect them. The distinction between
the God and Father and the God- Christ
is in their eyes a perfectly
established fact. And if there is
nothing to hinder God the Father from
frequently receiving the name
Kuvrio" , Lord , neither is there anything to
prevent the Lord Christ from receiving
in certain cases the name Qeov" ,
God (see Hofmann on this point).
The most singular objection is that
which is taken from the words: over all
things (or over all ). Meyer says: “To
all this there is added the
insurmountable difficulty that Christ
would not be simply called God, but
God over all; which would designate
Him the Qeo;" pantokravtwr , the
sovereign God, and would contradict
the general view maintained in the
N. T. of the dependence of the Son in
relation to the Father.” Meyer
argues as if ejpi; pavntwn , over all
things , was descriptive of the word
Qeov" , God , and here denoted
the being called God as the supreme
God. But what does he say himself two
pages farther on: “ ejpiv , over ,
denotes government over all things. ” The
over all things , according to
Meyer himself, is not at all a
determination of the word Qeov" . We must
not, as his objection assumed, connect
ejpi; pavntwn with Qeov" , but with
the participle w[n , a word which
otherwise would be unmeaning there:
“He who is exalted over all things, as
God blessed forever.” Comp. Matt.
18:28. It is understood, of course,
that to this pavntwn , all things , the
exception applies which is stated 1
Cor. 15:27: “He is excepted which did
put all things under Him.” How could
God be included in the pavnta , all
things?
Gess, while holding with us that the
conclusion of the verse applies to
Christ, divides it into three clauses,
placing a first comma after pavntwn ,
and a second after Qeov" , “who
is above all things, (is) God, (is)
blessed”...; so that Paul is taken to
affirm three things of Christ: first, that
He is appointed universal sovereign;
next, that He is God; finally—as
follows from the two previous
terms—that He is forever adored and
blessed. I cannot agree with this
explanation. The epithet blessed is too
directly connected with the term God
to be thus separated from it; and the
expression: God blessed , seems, as
well as the ejpi; pavntwn , to be the
attribute of the participle w[n , and
intended to form with this latter the
complete antithesis to the
restriction: as to the flesh. Besides, this
breaking up of the proposition into
three parallel clauses seems to me
contrary to the gush of feeling which
dictates this whole conclusion.
Nearly the same reasons may be urged
against the punctuation proposed
by Hofmann (a comma after pavntwn ):
“who is over all things, (who is)
God blessed forever.”
Schultz, after demonstrating with the
tone of a master the necessity of
applying this whole conclusion (from
the word flesh ) to Jesus Christ,
insists notwithstanding on this point:
that according to Paul's view this
affirmation of Christ's divinity
applies only to Jesus glorified (from the date
of His exaltation at the close of His
earthly life). Christ would thus be
called God only in an inferior sense,
as man raised to universal
sovereignty. Three reasons render this
explanation inadmissible—1. Paul
requires to complete the idea of the
Israelitish origin of Jesus by that of a
higher origin. The matter in question,
therefore, is not His exaltation , but
His divine pre-existence. 2. The
passages of the Epistles to the
Corinthians, to the Colossians, and to
the Philippians, which explain this
name Qeov" , God , relate to
Christ before His incarnation, and not to
Christ glorified by His ascension. 3.
From
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the standpoint of biblical monotheism
to become God, without being so by
nature, is a monstrosity.
It seems to us, therefore, beyond
doubt that Paul here points, as the
crown of all the prerogatives granted
to Israel, to their having produced for
the world the Christ, who now, exalted
above all things, is God blessed
forever. It only remains to say a word
about the term pavntwn . Some
translate: all , and understand either
all men , or all the servants of God,
under the O. T.; others understand by
the term all things , and apply it
either to all the prerogatives
bestowed on Israel, or to the universe in its
entirety. This last meaning seems to
us the most natural and the most
agreeable to the context. What can
form a people's supreme title to honor,
if not the fact of having given to the
world the universal monarch?
And yet such prerogatives did not
exempt the Israelitish nation from the
possibility of a rejection. In the
very history of this people so peculiarly
blessed there were antecedents fitted
to put them on their guard against
this terrible danger. This is the
point the apostle brings out in the following
passage, vv. 6-13, borrowing from
Israelitish history two facts which prove
that from the beginnings of this
people God has proceeded by way of
exclusion in regard to an entire
portion of the elect race. Thus, when Isaac
alone received the character of the
chosen seed , to the exclusion of
Ishmael, son of Abraham though he also
was, vv. 6-9; and again, when of
Isaac's two sons Jacob was preferred,
and his eldest rejected, vv. 10-13.
Vv. 6-13.
Vv. 6-9. “ Not as though the word of
God were made of no effect; for they
are not all Israel , which are of
Israel. Neither because they are the seed
of Abraham, are they all children;
but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called;’
that is, they which are the children
of the flesh, these are not the children
of God; but the children of the
promise are counted for a seed. For this is
a word of promise, ‘ At this time will
I return, and Sarah shall have a son.
’”—The dev , but , between vv. 5 and
6, is strongly adversative: “But all
those privileges, excellent as they
were, could not assure to Israel what
the word of God did not promise;” that
the divine election should apply to
all the children of Abraham according
to the flesh.—As the form oujc oi\ovn
te signifies: it is not possible ,
this meaning has been adopted here by
Beza and others: “ But it is not
possible that the word of God should be of
no effect;” which would imply that
this word proclaimed the exclusion of
the Jewish nation as inevitable, and that
consequently this exclusion could
not fail to come about some time or
other. But the apostle does not go so
far. In the demonstration which
follows, he proves the possibility of the
rejection of the mass of the people,
but not its necessity; then oi\on has
only the meaning of it is possible ,
when it is followed by the particle te ;
and finally, when it has this meaning,
the verb following is in the infinitive,
whereas we have here the perfect
ejkpevptwken . This meaning must
therefore be given up, and we must
abide by the ordinary signification of
the word oi\o" , such that: “The
thing is not such that,” that is to say, the
rejection of Israel must not be so
interpreted, that the word of God is
thereby annulled. There is only a
grammatical difficulty in the way of this
explanation; that is the conjunction
o{ti , that , which intervenes between
oi\on and the verb ejkpevptwken : such
as that it has been annulled. This
that was already contained in oi\on ,
and forms a pleonasm. It has been
variously explained; it seems to me
the simplest solution is to suppose
that it depends on an idea understood:
“such that one might say that”...,
or: “that it comes about that”...— The
word of God here denotes the
promises by which Israel had been
declared to be the people of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
God—promises which seemed to exclude
the possibility of their rejection.
Hofmann, followed in this case by
Volkmar, interprets the transition from
ver. 5 to ver. 6 somewhat differently.
He applies the oujc oi\on , not that the
thing is such that , to Paul's desire
to be cast off for the love of his people,
and gives to ver. 6 this meaning: “Not
that my wish signifies that without
the sacrifice of my salvation which I
am ready to make, the promise of
God to Abraham would be nullified.”
This meaning is more than forced.
How could Paul suppose that the
keeping of God's promise depends,
even hypothetically, on the wish which
he has expressed, especially
when, in the very act of uttering it,
he himself declares it to be
impracticable? Holsten makes the oujc
oi\on bear on the grief itself: “not
that I distress myself as if the word
of God were made of no effect.” This is
less inadmissible, but far from natural.
Could Paul suppose it possible for
God to give man occasion to weep over
the forgetfulness of His
promises? The verb ejkpivptein , to
fall from , denotes the non- realization
of the promise, its being brought to
nothing by facts. And it must be
confessed that the present rejection
of Israel would be a giving of the lie to
the divine election, if all the
individuals composing the people of Israel
really belonged to Israel, in the
profound sense of the word. But that is
precisely what is not the case, as the
apostle declares in the second part
of the verse. In this proposition
Meyer applies the second Israel to the
person of the patriarch Jacob; the
first, to the people descended from him.
But it is not till later that Paul
comes to Jacob personally. We must beware
of destroying in this place the
significant relation between the first and
second Israel. The word is used both
times collectively, and yet in two
different applications. They who are
of Israel denote all the members of
the nation at a given moment, as
descendants of the preceding
generation. By the first words: are
not Israel , Paul signalizes among the
nation taken en masse , thus
understood a true Israel, that elect people,
that holy remnant , which is
constantly spoken of in the O.
T., and to which alone the decree of
election refers, so that rejection may
apply to the mass of those who are of
Israel , without compromising the
election of the true Israel.
This possibility of rejection for the
mass of the people is what is proved by
the two following examples. And first,
that of Isaac:
Ver. 7. The first proposition of this
verse has almost the same meaning as
the second of ver. 6, but with a
different shade intimated by the particle
oujdev , neither further. The apostle,
by way of transition to the following
discussion, vv. 8 and 9, for the
expression: which are of Israel , substitutes
seed of Abraham. For he is going to
speak of the lot of Abraham's two
sons, Ishmael and Isaac. Both were
seed of Abraham; but they did not
both for that reason deserve the title
of child. This term, taken absolutely,
combines the characteristic of a child
of Abraham with that of a child of
God; for the subject in question is
evidently that of the true members of
God's family.—The simple fact of
descending from Abraham is so far from
making a man his child , in this
exalted sense, that God, on the contrary,
excludes from the divine family every
other descendant of Abraham than
Isaac and his seed, when He says to
Abraham, Gen. 21:12 (literally): “In
Isaac shall thy seed be called.” This
last word evidently denotes the seed
of Abraham properly so called, that
which was to remain the depositary of
the promise of salvation for the
world. We might identify the person of
Isaac with his seed, and understand
the ejn , in , in this sense: in the very
person of Isaac (as containing in him
all his descendants). The verb kalei'n
, to call , would be taken here, as in
4:17, in the sense of: to call into
existence. But as Isaac was already
born, and as the verb kara refers
rather to the name to be given, it is
more natural to distinguish Isaac from
the seed, to understand kalei'sqai in
the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
sense of: to bear the name of , and to
explain the ejn in the sense of
through: “By Isaac it is that the race
shall be born who shall truly bear the
name of seed. ”
Ver. 8. In this verse Paul detaches
the general principle from the particular
fact which has just been cited. The
toutevsti , that is , exactly expresses his
intention to derive from the
historical fact the principle on which it rests.
Ishmael's birth proceeded from the
flesh , that is to say, had nothing in it
except what was human. In Isaac's, God
interposed with his promise; and
it was from this divine promise,
according to chap. 4, that Abraham by
faith drew the strength which rendered
him capable of becoming father of
the promised seed. In consequence of
this higher element, only Isaac and
his descendants can be regarded as
God's children. This is what explains
the second proposition of the verse,
in which the name of the (promised)
seed is expressly given to the
descendants obtained by faith in the
promise.—The first proposition of this
verse implicitly legitimates the
rejection of the Jews according to the
flesh; the second, the adoption of
the believing Gentiles.
Ver. 9. This verse is simply intended
to justify the expression: children of
the promise , ver. 8. When the apostle
says: a word of promise , he
means: a word which had the free
character of a promise, and which did
not in the least imply the recognition
of a right. The quotation is a
combination of vv. 10 and 14 of Gen.
18. according to the LXX. The term:
at this time , signifies: “Next year,
at the moment when this same time
(this same epoch) will return.”
But could Isaac and his race, though
proceeding from Abraham, and that
through the intervention of a divine
factor, be regarded without any other
condition as real children of God?
Evidently not; for if the faith of Abraham
himself ceased to belong to them, they
became again a purely carnal
seed. It must then be foreseen that
the same law of exclusion which had
been applied to Ishmael, in favor of
Isaac, would anew assert its right
even within the posterity of the
latter. This is what came about
immediately, as is seen in the second
example quoted by the apostle, that
of Esau and Jacob.
Vv. 10-13. “ And not only this; but
when Rebecca also had conceived by
one, even by our father Isaac (for the
children being not yet born, neither
having done any good or evil , that
the purpose of God according to
election may stand, not of works, but
of Him that calleth); it was said unto
her, The elder shall serve the
younger, as it is written: Jacob have I loved,
but Esau have I hated. ”—This second
fact is still more significant than the
former. We are now in the pure line of
Abraham by Isaac, the ancestor
from whom is the promised seed; and
yet his wife sees that divine
selection which had been exercised in
regard to the sons of Abraham
reproduced as between her own
children.—The nominative Rebecca , in
Greek, might be regarded as a
provisional nominative, its true logical
relation being expressed in ver. 12 by
the dative aujth'/ , to her; but it is
more natural to find a verb in the
preceding context, of which this
nominative is the subject: She was
treated in the same manner, or had to
undergo the same lot, ejpavqh to;
aujtov .—The expression by one is
occasioned by the contrast here to the
case of Isaac and Ishmael. There,
there were two mothers, which might
justify the preference accorded to
Isaac. Here, where the children were
of the same mother, the only
possible difference would have been on
the father's side. But as the case
was one of twins, the commonness of
origin was complete; no external
motive of preference could therefore
influence the divine choice. This is
what is brought out once again by the
last words: Isaac, our father. The
our , no doubt, applies in the first
place to the Jews, but also to Christians
as children of Isaac by faith (4:1).
Ver. 11. Nay more, the preference
given to Jacob was expressed even
before
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the birth of the twins, before they
had done any act whatever; so true is it,
that it was not founded on any
particular merit which Jacob might
possess. The two subjective negations
mhvpw and mhdev are used here
because they contain a reflection of
the author on the fact; as is
expressed in the translation. No doubt
it might have been said in answer
to the apostle, that God foresaw the
good works of Jacob and the evil acts
of Esau, and that His predilection for
the former was founded on this
prevision. The view might even have
been supported by a word used by
the apostle, that of foreknowledge ,
8:29. But supposing the apostle had
wished to discuss the question
thoroughly, he might have replied in turn
that the divine prevision, on which
election rests, relates not to any work
whatever as being able to establish
some merit in favor of the elect, but
on his faith, which cannot be a merit,
since faith consists precisely in
renouncing all merit, in the humble
acceptance of the free gift. Faith
foreseen is therefore a wholly
different thing from works foreseen. The
latter would really establish a right:
the former contains only a moral
condition, that, namely, which follows
from the fact that possession in the
case of a free being supposes
acceptance. Work foreseen would impose
obligation on God and take away from
the freedom of His grace; faith
foreseen only serves to direct its
exercise. To accept and to merit are two
different things. But the apostle does
not enter on this discussion, and
simply states the fact that it was no
merit on Jacob's part which
constrained God to organize His plan
as He did. This plan certainly was
not arbitrarily conceived, but it
contains nothing which gives it the
character of an obligation or
debt.—Before citing the oracle which he
intends to quote here (ver. 12), the
apostle explains the object of God's
way of acting, announced in the
oracle. What God meant by choosing the
youngest of the two sons and setting
aside the eldest was, that His liberty
of organizing His plans in virtue of
His free choice between individuals
might remain perfectly intact.—We know
already what the provqesi" is, the
purpose formed beforehand (see on
8:27). This purpose to be realized
needs human instruments; and it is to
the choice of these individuals that
the word ejkloghv , election , refers.
The expression: the purpose of God
according to election (not as in the
T. R.: the purpose according to the
election of God ), denotes therefore a
plan of conduct in the preparation of
salvation, which God draws out in
virtue of a choice which He has made
between certain individuals, in order
to secure the man who best suits his
purpose. Such a plan is the opposite
of one founded on the right or merit
of one or other of those individuals.
God's free will indeed would be at an
end if any man whatever might say to
Him: “I have a right to be chosen,
and used by Thee rather than that
other.” Suppose Saul had been chosen
king in consequence of some merit of
his own, when the time came for
substituting David for him, God would
have had His hands bound. In like
manner, if in virtue of his right of
seniority Esau must necessarily have
become the heir of the promise, a man
who suited His purposes less than
another would have been imposed on
God. The plan and choice of God
must not therefore be tied up by any
human merit, that the will of the only
wise and good may be exercised without
hindrance. This is the principle
of His government which God wished to
guard by choosing, in the case of
which Paul speaks, the younger instead
of the elder. It was easy for the
Jews, who pretended to have a right to
the divine election, to apply this
principle to themselves.—The word
mevnh/ , may stand , may be
understood in the logical sense: “may
stand well established in the
conscience;” but is there not
something more in Paul's thought? Does he
not mean: “may stand in reality ”? It
is not only in the thought of man, but
really that the liberty of God would
be compromised if any human merit
regulated His choice. God, who had
determined to use Jacob and put
aside Esau, might have caused Jacob to
be born
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
first. If He has not done so, it is
precisely that His right of free choice may
stand not only established, but
intact.—Tholuck rightly observes that the
apostle, by using the present mevnh/ ,
may stand , instead of the aor.
meivnh/ , might stand , extends this
consequence of the fact to all times: it
applies therefore also to the Jews of
Paul's day.—The two regimens: “ not
of works, but ”...might be made to
depend on a participle understood: ou\sa
, being , which would be a qualification
of the verb mevnh/ , may stand. But
it is more natural to take this verb
in an absolute sense, and to connect
the two clauses with the subject of
the sentence: the purpose according to
election. Paul adds: “purpose not of
works, but”...; that is to say, the
choice on which the plan rests was not
made in accordance with a merit
of works, but solely according to the
will of the caller. Chap. 8:29 has
shown us that though this choice is
unmerited, yet neither is it arbitrary.
Ver. 12. The oracle quoted is taken
from Gen. 25:23. The question
whether it refers to the two brothers
personally, or to the two peoples who
shall spring from them, is settled by
the words preceding: “Two nations
are in thy womb, and two manner of
people shall issue from thee.” Hence
it follows that the oracle speaks
neither of the two peoples separately from
their fathers, nor of the two fathers
separately from their descendants.
Possibly Genesis gives greater weight
to the idea of the two peoples,
whereas Paul (ver. 11) thinks chiefly
of the two fathers. It matters little; for
a profound solidarity, at once
physical and moral, connects the character
of the race with that of the father.
The theocratic inferiority of Esau
resulted historically from his profane
spirit, which showed itself in the
sale of his birthright; it was sealed by the
blessing of Jacob. As to the people
who sprang from Esau, this same
inferiority appeared, first, in the
fact that their dwelling-place was assigned
outside the promised land properly so
called, then in their submission to
Israel under David, and finally, after
several alternations of subjection and
independence, in their final
incorporation with the Jewish state under John
Hyrcanus, and their obliteration from
the number of the nations.—The
translation of the words meivzwn and
ejlavsswn by elder and younger , is
rejected by Meyer as opposed to the
natural meaning of the two terms.
But it is quite impossible to give a
different meaning than elder to the word
meivzwn in the passage Gen. 29:16,
where it is contrasted with the term hJ
newtevra , the younger. Even in Hebrew
the meaning of the narrative is not
certainly that Leah was physically
greater than her younger sister. And in
our passage how can Meyer hold that
the term greater signifies that Esau
was the stronger of the twins in their
mother's womb!
Ver. 13. A second quotation, meant to
confirm the first; it is taken from
Mal. 1:2, 3. The conjunction as may be
understood in two ways: either in
the sense that God's love to Jacob and
His hatred to Esau were the cause
of the subjection of the latter to the
former; or it may be thought that Paul
quotes this saying of Malachi as
demonstrating by a striking fact in the
later history of the two peoples the
truth of the relation expressed in ver.
12. Malachi lived at a period when, in
their return from exile, Israel had
just received a marvellous proof of
God's protection, while Edom was still
plunged in the desolation into which
it had been thrown by its eastern
conquerors. Beholding those ruins on
the one side and this restoration on
the other, Malachi proclaims, as a
fact of experience, the twofold divine
feeling of love and hatred which breaks
forth in these opposite modes of
treatment. I have loved and I have
hated do not signify merely: I have
preferred the one to the other; but: I
have taken Jacob to be mine , while I
have set aside Esau. Calvin here
employs the two verbs assumere and
repellere. God has made the one the
depositary of His Messianic promise
and of the salvation of the world, and
denied to the other all co-
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
operation in the establishment of His
kingdom. And this difference of
dealing is not accidental; it rests on
a difference of feeling in God Himself.
On the one hand, a union founded on
moral sympathy; on the other, a
rupture resulting from moral
antipathy; on hating , comp. Luke 14:26: “If
any man hate not his father and
mother..., and his own life”...—God's love
to Jacob is neither merited nor
arbitrary. When we think of the patriarch's
many grave sins, when we think of
Israel's endless apostasies, it will be
seen that merit cannot enter into the
case. But when we take account of
God's prevision of the power of faith,
and of its final triumph in that man
and people (the foreknowing of 8:29),
it will be seen—as follows otherwise
from the divine essence itself—that
neither is the prerogative bestowed on
Jacob arbitrary. As to Esau, let the
three following facts be remarked in
regard to the hatred of which he is
the object:—1. In speaking of Jacob
and Esau, either as men or nations,
neither Genesis nor Malachi nor St.
Paul have eternal salvation in view;
the matter in question is the part they
play regarded from the theocratic
standpoint, as is proved by the word
douleuvein , to serve. 2. Esau, though
deprived of the promise and the
inheritance, nevertheless obtained a
blessing and an inheritance for
himself and his descendants. 3. The
national character inherited from the
father of the race is not so impressed
on his descendants that they cannot
escape it. As there were in Israel
many Edomites, profane hearts, there
may also have been, as has been said,
many Israelites, many spiritual
hearts, in Edom. Comp. what is said of
the wise men of Teman, Jer. 49:7,
and the very respectable personage
Eliphaz (notwithstanding his error) in
the Book of Job.
The two examples of exclusion, given
in the persons of Ishmael and Esau,
have served to prove a fact which
Israel embraced with their whole heart:
God's right to endow them with
privilege at the expense of the Arab
(Ishmael) and Edomite (Esau) nations,
by assigning to them in the history
of redemption the preponderating part
to which the right of primogeniture
seemed to call those excluded. Now, if
Israel approved the principle of
divine liberty when it was followed in
a way so strikingly in their favor, how
could they repudiate it when it was
turned against them!
To explain the apostle's view, we have
added at each step the
explanatory ideas fitted to complete
and justify his thought; this was the
business of the commentator. But he
himself has not done so; he has
been content with referring to the
biblical facts, setting forth thereby the
great truth of God's liberty. And
hence this liberty, thus presented, might
appear to degenerate into
arbitrariness, and even into injustice. This gives
rise to the objection which he puts in
ver. 14, and treats down to ver. 24;
this is the second part of this
discussion: Does not liberty, such as thou
claimest for God in His decrees and
elections, do violence to His moral
character, and especially to His
justice? It is to this question that vv. 14-18
give answer; the apostle there proves
that Scripture recognizes this liberty
in God; and as it can ascribe to Him
nothing unworthy of Him, it must be
admitted that this liberty is
indisputable. Then in vv. 19-24 he shows by a
figure that the superiority of God to
man should impose silence on the
proud pretensions of the latter, and
he applies this principle to the relation
between God and Israel.
Vv. 14-24.
Vv. 14-16. “ What shall we say then?
Is there not unrighteousness with
God? Let it not be! For He saith to
Moses, I will have mercy on whom I
have mercy, and I will have compassion
on whom I have compassion. So
then it is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth, but of God that
showeth mercy. ”—Several
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
commentators, and Mangold among the
last, have taken vv. 15-18 not as
the answer to the objection raised in
ver. 14, but as the continuation and
justification of the objection itself.
But nothing is needed to refute this
opinion beyond the exclamation: mh;
gevnoito , let it not be , which cannot
be a simple parenthesis; besides, the
form of the question with the
negation mhv , in ver. 14, already assumes
a negative answer, the
development of which is necessarily
expected in what follows.—The
answer is taken solely from Scripture,
which is an authority for Paul's
opponent in the discussion as well as
for himself. This opponent is a Jew,
who thinks that the sovereign liberty
which the apostle ascribes to God,
and by which he seeks to justify the
rejection of Israel, wrongs the divine
character. It must, indeed, be borne
in mind that the Jewish conscience,
being developed under the law, was
accustomed to consider God's
dealings with man as entirely
dependent on human merit or demerit.
Man's doings regulated those of God.
Ver. 15. Scripture itself, that
foundation of all Israel's theocratic claims,
demonstrates divine liberty as it is
taught by Paul. This liberty therefore
cannot involve any injustice. And
first, a quotation proving the absence, in
the case of man, of all right to God's
favors. It is taken from Ex. 33:19,
where God, when condescending to grant
the bold request of Moses that
he might behold His glory with his
bodily eyes, gives him to understand
that nothing in him, notwithstanding
all he has been able to do up till now
in God's service, merited such a
favor. If God grants it to him, it is not
because he is that Moses who asks it,
or because there is any right in the
matter; it is pure grace on God's
part. The passage is cited according to
the LXX. The only difference between
it and the Hebrew is, that here in
each proposition the first verb is in
the past (present), the second in the
future; while in the Greek the first
is in the future, the second in the
present. It matters little for the
sense. The two verbs in the present (or
past) express the internal feeling,
the source, and the verbs in the future
the external manifestations, the
successive effects. But the emphasis is
neither on the first nor on the second
verbs; it is on the pronoun o}n a[n ,
him, whosoever he may be. It is the
idea of God's free choice which
reappears. The condescension of God to
Moses is certainly not an
arbitrary act; God knows why He grants
it. But neither is it a right on the
part of Moses, as if he would have
been entitled to complain in case of
refusal. The difference of meaning
between the two verbs ejleei'n and
oijkteivrein is nearly the same as
that between the two substantives luvph
and ojduvnh , ver. 2. The first
expresses the compassion of the heart, the
second the manifestations of that
feeling (cries or groans).
Ver. 16 enunciates the general
principle to be derived from this divine
utterance in the particular case of
Moses. When God gives, it is not
because a human will ( he that willeth
) or a human work ( he that runneth
) lays Him under obligation, and forces
Him to give, in order not to be
unjust by refusing. It is in Himself
the initiative and the efficacy are ( Him
that calleth ), whence the gift flows.
He gives not as a thing due, but as a
fruit of His love; which does not
imply that therein He acts arbitrarily. Such
a supposition is excluded, precisely
because the giver in question is God,
who is wisdom itself, and who thinks
nothing good except what is good.
The principle here laid down included
God's right to call the Gentiles to
salvation when He should be pleased to
grant them this favor. The words:
“of him that willeth , of him that
runneth ,” have often been strangely
understood. There have been found in
them allusions to the wish of Isaac
to make Esau the heir of the promise,
and to Esau's running to bring the
venison necessary for the feast of
benediction. But Isaac and Esau are no
longer in question, and we must remain
by the example of Moses. It was
neither the wish expressed in his
prayer, nor the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
faithful care which he had taken of
Israel in the wilderness, which could
merit the favor he asked; and as no
man will ever surpass him in respect
either of pious willing or holy
working, it follows that the rule applied to him
is universal. So it will always be.
Israel, in particular, should understand
thereby that it is neither their fixed
theocratic necessities, nor the multitude
of their ceremonial or moral works,
which can convert salvation into a debt
contracted toward them by God, and
take away from Him the right of
rejecting them if He comes to think it
good to do so for reasons which He
alone appreciates.—But if the words of
God to Moses prove that God
does not owe His favors to any one
whomsoever, must it also be held that
He is free to reject whom He will?
Yes. Scripture ascribes to Him even this
right. Such is the truth following
from another saying of God, in reference
to the adversary of Moses, Pharaoh.
Vv. 17, 18. “ For the Scripture saith
unto Pharoah, Even for this same
purpose have I raised thee up, that I
might show my power in thee, and
that my name might be declared
throughout all the earth. Therefore hath
He mercy on whom He will, and whom He
will He hardeneth. ”—Having
given an instance of the liberty with
which God dispenses grace, Paul
gives an example of the way in which
He hardens. This example is the
more appropriately chosen, because the
two personages brought on the
scene are, in the Bible history, as it
were the counterparts of one another.
The logical connection expressed by
for is this: There is nothing strange in
Scripture ascribing to God the right
of dispensing grace, since it ascribes
to Him even the yet more
incomprehensible right of condemning to
hardness. These two rights indeed
mutually suppose one another. The
God who had not the one would not have
the other. The passage quoted
is Ex. 9:16. God pronounces this
sentence after the sixth plague. The verb
ejxegeivrein (Osterv.: I have called
thee into being; Oltram.: I have raised
thee up ) signifies properly: to bring
out of a state of insensibility or
inaction; from sleep, for example, as
in Xenophon: “having seen this
dream, he awoke
( ejxhgevrqh );” or from death, as 1
Cor. 6:14: “God will also raise up us by
His power”
( ejxegerei' ). This passage is, with
the one before us, the only place where
this word is used in the N. T.—But it
is employed in the LXX. in the sense
of raising up, causing to be born ,
thus Zech. 11:16: “I raise you up (
ejxegeivrw ) a shepherd;” Hab. 1:6: “I
raise up (I cause to come) against
you the Chaldeans.” It is in this last
sense that the simple ejgeivrein is
used in the N. T., Matt. 11:11: “There
hath not been raised up
( ejghvgertai )...a greater than John
the Baptist;” John 7:52: “Out of Galilee
no prophet hath been raised up (
ejghvgertai ).” The simple verb ejgeivrein
is likewise used, Jas. 5:15, to
signify to cure of a disease: “And the Lord
will raise him up ( ejgerei' ).” All
these different shades of meaning have
been applied by commentators to our
passage. According to some (Aug.,
Fritzs., De Wette), the meaning is: “I
aroused thee to resistance against
me.” Reuss also says: “Pharaoh acts as
he does in regard to the
Israelites, because God excites him
thereto. In this case the apostle must
have departed completely from the
meaning of the Hebrew word he8e8mid
(not he8ir ), which simply signifies:
to cause to stand up. And would there
not be something revolting to the
conscience in supposing that God could
have Himself impelled Pharaoh inwardly
to evil? Comp. Jas. 1:12. Others
(Hofmann, Morison), fixing on the
sense of the Hebrew word, according to
which the LXX. have translated (
diethrhvqh" , thou hast been preserved ),
as on that of the simple verb
ejgeivrein , Jas. 5:15, think that God is
thereby reminding Pharaoh that He
could have left him to die (in one of
the previous plagues), or that He
could at that very moment visit him with
death with all his people; comp. 9:15.
But in the former case God would
be made to allude to a fact which
there is nothing to indicate; and in the
second, the verb employed would
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
not be suitable; for it expresses more
than the idea of simple preservation,
as is acknowledged by Hofmann himself.
A third set give the word the
meaning of: “I have established thee
as king ” (Flatt, for example). But so
special a qualification as this would
require to be expressed more
precisely. This last meaning, however,
comes near what seems to us to
be the true one. We think, indeed,
that we should here apply the meaning
raise up in all its generality. “I
have caused thee to appear at this time, in
this place, in this position”
(Theoph., Beza, Calv., Beng., Olsh., Ruck .,
Thol., Philip., Beyschl.). The subject
in question is not the wicked
disposition which animates Pharaoh,
but the entire situation in which he
finds himself providentially placed.
God might have caused Pharaoh to be
born in a cabin, where his proud
obstinacy would have been displayed
with no less self-will, but without
any notable historical consequence; on
the other hand, He might have placed
on the throne of Egypt at that time a
weak, easy-going man, who would have
yielded at the first shock. What
would have happened? Pharaoh in his
obscure position would not have
been less arrogant and perverse; but
Israel would have gone forth from
Egypt without e8clat . No plagues one
upon another, no Red Sea
miraculously crossed, no Egyptian army
destroyed; nothing of all that
made so deep a furrow in the
Israelitish conscience, and which remained
for the elect people the immovable
foundation of their relation to Jehovah.
And thereafter also no influence
produced on the surrounding nations.
The entire history would have taken
another direction. God did not
therefore create the indomitable pride
of Pharaoh as it were to gain a
point of resistance and reflect His
glory; He was content to use it for this
purpose. This is what is expressed by
the following words: o{pw" , that
thus , not simply that ( i{na ). Comp.
Ex. 15:14, 15, those words of the
song chanted after the passage of the
Red Sea: “The nations heard it;
terror hath taken hold on the
inhabitants of Palestina. The dukes of Edom
have been amazed; trembling hath taken
hold upon the mighty men of
Moab; the inhabitants of Canaan have
melted away.” Also the words of
Rahab to the spies sent by Joshua,
Josh. 2:9, 10: “Terror hath taken hold
of us, the inhabitants of the land
have fainted; for we have heard how the
Lord dried up the waters of the Red
Sea from before you...; the Lord your
God, He is God in heaven above and in
earth beneath.” Read also the
words of the Gibeonites to Joshua,
Josh. 9:9: “From a very far country thy
servants are come, because of the name
of the Lord thy God; for we have
heard the fame of Him, and all that He
did in Egypt.” Thus it was that the
catastrophes which distinguished the
going out from Egypt, provoked by
Pharaoh's blind resistance, paved the
way for the conquest of Canaan.
And even to the present day, wherever
throughout the world Exodus is
read, the divine intention is
realized: “to show my power, and make known
my name throughout all the earth.”
Ver. 18. From this particular example
Paul deduces, as in ver. 16, the
general principle, while reproducing
by way of antithesis the maxim of ver.
16, so as to combine the two aspects
in which he wishes here to present
divine liberty: “No man can say
either: I am, whatever I may do, safe from
the judgment of God, or such another,
whatever he may do, is unworthy of
the divine favor.”—The repetition of
the words: him that willeth , as well as
their position at the head of the two
sentences, shows that the emphasis
is on this idea. To a son who should
complain of the favors granted to one
of his brothers, and of the severe
treatment to which he is himself
subjected, might it not be said: “Thy
father is free both to show favor and
to chastise;” it being understood that
the man who answers thus does not
confound liberty with caprice, and
assumes that the father's character
sufficiently secures the wise and just
exercise of his liberty? We must here
cite the observation of Bengel,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
fixing the antithesis Paul has in
view, and explaining his words: “The Jews
thought that in no case could they be
abandoned by God, and in no case
could the Gentiles be received by
God.” The apostle breaks the iron circle
within which this people claimed to
confine the divine conduct toward
themselves and the Gentiles, saying:
to the Gentiles wrath; to us, the only
elect, clemency!
What is meant by the term hardening ,
and what leads the apostle to use
the expression here? The notion of
hardening was not contained in the
term raised up , but in its relation
to the conjunction that which follows
(see Meyer); besides, the narrative of
Exodus was in the memory of every
reader. God, in raising up Pharaoh,
foresaw his proud resistance, and had
in reserve to chastise it afterward by
a complete blindness which was to
be the means of reaching the desired
result.— To harden signifies: to take
from a man the sense of the true, the
just, and even the useful, so that he
is no longer open to the wise
admonitions and significant circumstances
which should turn him aside from the
evil way on which he has entered.
We need not therefore seek to weaken
the force of the term, as Origen
and Grotius do, who regard it as only
a simple permission on the part of
God (leaving the sinner to harden
himself), or like Carpzov, Semler, etc.,
who explain it in the sense of
treating harshly. The word harden cannot
signify, in the account Exod. 4-14,
anything else, as God's act, than it
signifies as the act of Pharaoh, when
it is said that he hardened himself.
But what must not be forgotten, and
what appears distinctly from the
whole narrative, is, that Pharaoh's
hardening was at first his own act. Five
times it is said of him that he
himself hardened or made heavy his heart
(7:13, 14, 7:22, 8:15, 8:32, 9:7; we
do not speak here of 4:21 and 7:3,
which are a prophecy), before the time
when it is at last said that God
hardened him (9:12); and even after
that, as if a remnant of liberty still
remained to him, it is said for a last
time that he hardened himself (9:34,
35). It was a parallel act to that of
Judas closing his heart to the last
appeal. Then at length, as if by way
of a terrible retribution, God hardened
him five times (10:1 and 20, 10:27,
11:10, and 14:8). Thus he at first
closed his heart obstinately against
the influence exercised on him by the
summonses of Moses and the first
chastisements which overtook him;
that was his sin. And thereafter, but
still within limits, God rendered him
deaf not merely to the voice of
justice, but to that of sound sense and
simple prudence: that was his
punishment. Far, then, from its having been
God who urged him to evil, God
punished him with the most terrible
chastisements, for the evil to which
he voluntarily gave himself up. In this
expression hardening we find the same
idea as in the paradidovnai (“God
gave them up ”), by which the apostle
expressed God's judgment on the
Gentiles for their refusal to welcome
the revelation which He gave of
Himself in nature and conscience
(1:24, 26, 28). When man has wilfully
quenched the light he has received and
the first rebukes of divine mercy,
and when he persists in giving himself
up to his evil instincts, there comes
a time when God withdraws from him the
beneficent action of His grace.
Then the man becomes insensible even
to the counsels of prudence. He
is thenceforth like a horse with the
bit in his teeth, running blindly to his
destruction. He has rejected salvation
for himself, he was free to do so;
but he cannot prevent God from now
making use of him and of his ruin to
advance the salvation of others. From
being the end , he is degraded to
the rank of means. Such was the lot of
Pharaoh. Everybody in Egypt saw
clearly whither his mad resistance
tended. His magicians told him (Ex.
8:19): “This is the finger of God.”
His servants told him (Ex. 10:7): “Let
these people go.” He himself, after
every plague, felt his heart relent. He
once went the length of crying out
(9:27): “I have sinned this time; the
Lord is righteous.” Now was the
decisive instant...for the last time after
this
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
moment of softening he hardened
himself (9:33). Then the righteousness
of God took hold of him. He had
refused to glorify God actively, he must
glorify Him passively. The Jews did
not at all disapprove of this conduct
on God's part as long as it concerned
only Pharaoh or the Gentiles; but
what they affirmed, in virtue of their
divine election, was, that never, and
on no condition, could they themselves
be the objects of such a judgment.
They restricted the liberty of divine
judgment on themselves, as they
restricted the liberty of grace toward
the Gentiles. Paul in our verse reestablishes
both liberties, vindicating God's sole
right to judge whether
this or that man possesses the conditions
on which He will think fit to
show him favor, or those which will
make it suitable for Him to punish by
hardening him.—Thus understood—and we
do not think that either the
context of the apostle, or that of
Exodus allows it to be understood
otherwise—it offers nothing to shock
the conscience; it is entirely to the
glory of the divine character, and
Holsten has no right to paraphrase or
rather to caricature the view of Paul
by saying: “God shows grace, pure
arbitrariness; God hardens, pure
arbitrariness.”
Perhaps we shall be charged with
introducing into the explanation of the
apostolic text clauses which are not
found in it. This charge is just; only it
is not against us that it comes. The
reserves indicated in our interpretation
arose of themselves, we think, from
the special case the apostle had in
view. For he was not here writing a
philosophy or a system of Christian
dogmatics; he was combating a
determined adversary, Jewish Pharisaism
with its lofty pretensions both in
relation to the Gentiles, and relatively to
God Himself. Paul, therefore, only
unveils the side of the truth overlooked
by this adversary, that of divine
liberty. Certainly if Paul had been
disputing with an opponent who started
from the opposite point of view,
and who exaggerated divine liberty so
as to make it a purely arbitrary and
tyrannical will, he would have brought
out the opposite side of the truth,
that of the moral conditions which are
taken into account by a wise and
good sovereignty, like that of
God.—This occasional character of the
apostle's teaching in this chapter has
not always been considered; men
have sought in it a general and
complete exposition of the doctrine of the
divine decrees; and so they have completely
mistaken its meaning. And
hence we have been forced to put
ourselves at the general standpoint by
supplying the clauses which the
apostle took for granted, and the
statement of which was not required by
the particular application he had in
view.
The apostle has proved from Scripture
God's liberty to show grace when
He thinks right, as well as His
liberty to chastise by hardening when He
thinks right. On this point the
adversary can make no reply; he is forced to
accept the apostle's demonstration.
But here is his rejoinder: “Granted!
says he, God has the right to harden
me. But at least let Him not claim to
complain of me after having hardened
me.” To this new rejoinder the
apostle answers first by a figure ,
which he will afterward apply to the case
in question. The figure of the potter:
Vv. 19-21. “ Thou wilt say then unto
me, Why doth he yet find fault? For
who can resist His will? Much rather ,
O man, who art thou that repliest
against God? Shall the vessel of clay
say to him that formed it, Why hast
thou made me thus? Or hath not the
potter power over the clay, of the
same lump to make one vessel unto
honor, and another unto dishonor?
”—The word then proves that the
interlocutor accepts the answer made to
his first objection (ver. 14), but
that he starts from it to raise a new one.
The e[ti , yet , after tiv ,
signifies: yet , after hardening me. The verb
mevmfesqai , to find fault , to speak
with anger, applies to the perdition with
which God
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
threatens sinners who are hardened by
Him. When He hardens any one,
God cannot ask that he should not
harden himself. The question, Who
can resist His will? literally
signifies, Who hath resisted , or rather Who
resisteth? ...For the perfect of the
verb i{sthmi and its compounds has
really the sense of the present: “I
have placed myself there, and continue
there.” It is therefore clear that the
question: “Who is he that resisteth
Him?” signifies: “Who is he that can
resist Him?” Hofmann thinks that the
interlocutor means: Who, in this case
(that of my hardening), hath resisted
God? Answer: “Nobody; for in hardening
myself I have done nothing but
obey Him.” This meaning is not
impossible; it is ingenious, but more farfetched
than the preceding.
Ver. 20. Most commentators do not hold
that in the following answer Paul
comes seriously to discuss the
objection. Abrumpit quaestionem , says
Melanchthon. Holsten observes that
Paul raises the question, not to
resolve it, which would be impossible,
but to crush it. We acknowledge
that in vv. 19 and 20 Paul pleads
solely man's incompetency to discuss
the dealings of God. But we shall see
that he does not stop there, and that
he enters more profoundly into the
marrow of the question than is
generally thought. It would be
surprising, indeed, if a conclusion not-to-be
received should be found to be the
last word of Paul's logic. It would have
been better for him in that case not
to have made his interlocutor bring
him to such a strait.—The particle
menou'nge , translated by much rather ,
is omitted by the Greco- Latins;
wrongly, without doubt. It falls into three
words: mevn , certainly; ou\n ,
therefore , and gev , at least; that is to say,
what follows remains in any case true,
though all the rest should be false.
Hence: much more certainly still;
comp. Phil. 3:8 ( much more ). It
therefore signifies here: “I do not
examine the intrinsic truth of what thou
allegest; but, however that may be,
what is more certain is, that thou art
not in a position to dispute with
God.” The address: O man! reminds the
adversary of the reason of his
incompetency; it is his absolute inferiority in
relation to the Creator. The
exclamation w\ a[nqrwpe , O man , is placed by
the Byzs. at the beginning of the
sentence, but by the Alexs. after
menou'nge ; the former is undoubtedly
preferable. For the address: O man!
justifies the use of this particle;
and the two terms man and God placed,
the one at the beginning of the
sentence, the other at the end, form a
better antithesis. The term
ajntapokrivnesqai does not mean simply: to
reply; but, as is proved by the only
parallel in the N. T. (Luke 14:6): to
reply to a reply, to make rejoinder ,
as it were. God, indeed, had already
answered once in the previous sayings.
This word implies the spirit of the
contest.—The comparison of the
relation between God and man to that
between the vessel and the potter
seems logically defective. Man free and
responsible cannot be a mere
instrument in the hands of God. Moreover,
endowed as he is with sensibility to
pleasure and pain, he cannot be
manipulated like worthless matter. And
certainly, if the question
addressed by the vessel to the potter:
“Why hast thou made me thus?”
signified: “Why hast thou created me
good clay or bad clay?” and in the
application to man's relation to God:
“Why hast thou created me with the
disposition to good or to evil?” the
comparison would have no meaning.
For the potter does not commit the
absurdity of holding the clay
responsible for its superior or
inferior quality. But the question is not in the
least about the production of the
clay, and consequently about its qualities
, but solely about the use which is
made of it by the potter. He does not
create the clay; he takes it as he
finds it, and adapts it as best he can to
the different uses he proposes to
himself. And besides, it is not the yet
shapeless clay which asks: “Why hast
thou made me thus (with or without
such or such qualities)?” it is the
fully manufactured vessel ( to; plavsma )
which thus interrogates him who has
given it its present form ( tw'/
plavsanti ). Consequently, in the
application made of this to the relation
between man and God,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
this same question does not signify:
“Why hast Thou created me good or
evil?”—in that case the question could
not be summarily set aside by
Paul—but: “Why, in the development of
Thy work here below, hast Thou
assigned me an honorable use (by
favoring me with Thy grace, like
Moses) or a vile use (by hardening me
like Pharaoh)? Why does such a
man serve the end of Thy glory by his
salvation; such another the end of
Thy glory by his dishonor?” This is
the question in regard to which Paul
reminds his Israelitish disputant of
man's incompetency as before God. As
it belongs only to the potter, in
virtue of the knowledge he has of his art, to
determine the use which he shall make
of the different parts of the mass
in his hands to extract from each the
best result possible, so it belongs to
God alone to assign to the different
portions of humanity, to the Jews no
less than to the rest of men, the use
which suits Him best, with a view to
His final aim. The question whether,
in determining the use of one and
another, He will act without rhyme or
reason, or whether, on the contrary,
He will adapt the use made of each to
His moral predispositions, finds no
place in the mind of any one who
understands that God's perfections
always act in harmony, and that
consequently His power is ever the
servant of His goodness, justice, and
wisdom. As that which justifies the
power of the potter over the lump of
clay is not only the superiority of his
strength, but that of his
understanding; so, with stronger reason, what
explains the sovereignty of God and
His right over mankind is not only His
almightiness, but His supreme
understanding, and His infinite moral
perfection. And what follows, vv.
22-24, proves that such is the view of the
apostle. For to what purpose are the
expressions qevlwn , willing (ver. 22),
and i{na , that (ver. 23), if not to
bring out, as we shall see, God's perfect
wisdom in the choice of His ends and
the employment of His means? It is
obvious, therefore, that the use God
makes of man at a given moment (a
Pharaoh, for example, as a vessel of
dishonor), far from excluding his
moral liberty, supposes and involves
it. For the honor or dishonor to which
God turns him in the execution of His
work is not independent, as appears
from this example, of the attitude
taken by man in relation to God. The
work of the skilful potter is not the
emblem of an arbitrary use of strength;
but, on the contrary, of a deliberate
and intelligent employment of the
matter at his disposal. Such is the
apostle's complete view. But it is quite
true, as Lange says: “When man goes
the length of making to himself a
god whom he affects to bind by his own
rights, God then puts on His
majesty, and appears in all His
reality as a free God, before whom man is
a mere nothing, like the clay in the
hand of the potter. Such was Paul's
attitude when acting as God's
advocate, in his suit with Jewish
Pharisaism. This is the reason why he
expresses only one side of the
truth. The following passage, ver.
30-10:21, will show that he is very far
from mistaking or forgetting the other.
The h[ , or , of ver. 21, means: “Or,
if it were otherwise, it must be admitted
the potter has not?”...Comp. Matt.
20:15. The genitive tou' phlou' , of the
lump of clay , is dependent not on oJ
kerameuv" , the potter , but on
ejxousivan , power: the power which he
has to use the clay. The subject,
the potter , is placed between the two
words, the better, as it were, to
command them.—What does the lump
represent? Some think that it is the
people of Israel , and that God is
described as having the right to make
them either His elect people, or a
rejected nation. This meaning breaks
down on vv. 23 and 24, where we see
that the vessels unto honor are
elected from among the Gentiles as
well as from among the Jews. The
lump therefore represents the whole of
humanity , not humanity as God
creates it, but in the state in which
He finds it every moment when He puts
it to the service of His kingdom. This
state includes for each individual the
whole series of free determinations
which have gone to make
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
him what he is. Let not Israel
therefore say to God: Thou hast no right to
make of me anything else than a vessel
of honor; and Thou hast no right
to make of that other body, the
Gentiles, anything else than a base vessel.
It belongs to God Himself to decide,
according to His wisdom, the part
which He will assign to every human
being. Comp. 2 Tim. 2:20, 21, where
the words: “If a man therefore purge
himself from these, he shall be a
vessel unto honor,” show clearly the
truth of the standpoint which we have
just expounded.—The forms o} mevn, o}
dev , might be explained as a
remnant of the most ancient form of
the Greek article; but it is perhaps
more correct to admit an ellipsis: o}
me;n poiei' eij" timh;n, eij" timh;n
poih'sai , etc.—Let us add, that the
figure here developed by Paul is
familiar to the writers of the O. T.
(Isa. 29:16, 45:9, 10; Jer. 18:6, etc.), and
thus had the force of a quotation.
Application of the figure, vv. 22-24.
Vv. 22-24. “ Now if God, willing to
show His wrath, and to make His power
known, endured with much
long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction: And [ if ] that He might
make known the riches of His glory on
the vessels of mercy, which he had
afore prepared unto glory, us, whom
he also called, not of the Jews only,
but also of the Gentiles ”...—Many
commentators, Tholuck for example,
find in the dev , now , which they
translate by but , the indication of a
strong contrast, and think that Paul is
setting over against God's abstract
right , expounded in vv. 19-21, the real
use which He has made of it in the
history of the Jewish people: Thou, O
man, art in any case incompetent to
dispute God's right; but what, when I
shall prove to thee that He has not
used it rigorously, and that His conduct
toward thee is still marked with the
most wonderful long-suffering! But
such a contrast would have demanded a
stronger adversative particle (
a[lla , but ); and this notion of a
purely abstract right is rather philosophical
than religious. Is it not simpler to
take vv. 19-21 as giving the figure, and
vv. 22-24 the application? It is
evident that the figure of vessels unto
dishonor , ver. 21, finds its
corresponding expression in vessels of wrath ,
ver. 22, as the figure of vessels unto
honor , ver. 21, finds its
corresponding term in vessels of mercy
, ver. 23. It is equally obvious that
to the liberty used by the potter over
the lump of clay which is at his
disposal, to make of it vessels of
different destinations, ver. 21, there
corresponds the power of God displayed
either in the form of wrath or in
that of grace in vv. 22 and 23. It is
therefore the transition from the figure
to the application which is indicated
by the dev , and the particle ought
therefore to be translated by now. But
in the form: Now if , there is at the
same time contained a gradation. For
Paul means thereby that God has
not even dealt with Israel as the
potter with his vessel. We seek the
principal proposition on which depends
the sentence: Now, if willing ...,
and we do not find it; but it is easy
to understand it from what precedes:
“Wilt thou still find fault, O Jew?
wilt thou do what the vessel would not
dare to do against the potter? Wilt
thou still accuse God of being unjustly
angry?” We shall see afterward the
point in the following passage where
this understood principal proposition
finds its logical place.
Ver. 22 describes God's dealing with
the vessels unto dishonor; vv. 23
and 24 will describe His dealing with
the vessels of value. The relation
between the participle qevlwn ,
willing , and the verb h[negken , He endured
, may be explained in three ways,
expressed each by one or other of the
conjunctions, when, because , or
though. In the first connection the
meaning would be: “When He had the
intention of”...Instead of striking at
once, as He already purposed doing, He
bore with patience. The relation
thus understood is only slightly
different from that which would be
expressed by though. The connection
expressed by because (De Wette,
Ruck ., and others), would signify
that God's long-suffering had no other
end than to bring
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
about an accumulation of wrath; but
would such long-suffering deserve
the name? It is obvious from 2:4 and 5
that if the long-suffering produces
this painful result, this is not the
intention of Him who bears long, but the
fault of those who abuse His
forbearance to harden themselves the more.
The true relation is consequently that
expressed by the conjunction
though (Fritz., Philip., Meyer). There
is, in fact, a natural contrast between
the long-suffering and the manifestation
of wrath, and it is this contrast
which is expressed by the though.
—God's intention in regard to the Jews
was moving on to the display of His
wrath and the manifestation of His
power. In these expressions there is
an evident allusion to the saying of
God regarding Pharaoh, as just quoted,
ver. 17; comp. the expressions
ejndeivxasqai th;n ojrghvn , to show
wrath , ver. 22, and ejndeivxwmai ejn
soiv , to show in thee , ver. 17; to;
dunato;n aujtou' , His power , ver. 22, th;n
duvnamivn mou , my power , ver. 17.
This because unbelieving Judaism
was playing toward the church, at the
date of Paul's writing, exactly the
same part as Pharaoh formerly played
toward Israel themselves. As this
tyrant sought to crush Israel in its
cradle, so Israel was endeavoring to
crush the church at its first steps in
the world. And hence God's dealings
with Pharaoh must be now reproduced in
the judgment of Israel.— The
manifestation of wrath refers at once
to the doom of destruction which
was already suspended over the head of
the nation in general, and to the
condemnation of all unbelieving
Israelites in particular; comp. 2:5, and the
saying of John the Baptist, Matt. 3:10
and 12. We might refer the
manifestation of God's power to the
mighty efficacy of God's Spirit
creating a new people in Israel from
the day of Pentecost onward, and
thus preparing the spiritual Israel,
which was to replace the carnal Israel
when the latter is to be rejected. But
it is to vv. 23 and 24 that this idea
belongs; and the allusion to the power
displayed in the destruction of
Pharaoh and his army (ver. 17) leads
us rather to apply this expression to
the near destruction of Jerusalem and
of the Jewish people by the arm of
the Romans, which was to be in this
unexampled catastrophe the
instrument of God's wrath and
power.—The execution of this destruction,
long ago determined and clearly
announced by Jesus Himself, God
delayed for forty years; that is the
long-suffering of which the apostle here
speaks. It seems as if, at the very
moment when Israel was laying its
deicidal arm on the person of the
Messiah, God should have annihilated it
by a thunderbolt. But, agreeably to
the prayer of Him who said, “Father,
forgive them,” a whole period more of
long-suffering was granted them,
and not only of long-suffering, but of
tender and urgent invitation by the
preaching of the apostles. Is not Paul
then right in characterizing God's
dealings with Israel by the words: “Though
He was already determined
to...He endured with much long-
suffering”? Comp. the accumulated
expressions of goodness, forbearance ,
and long-suffering. Chrysostom
and De Wette have applied this word
endured to God's patience with
Pharaoh. This was to make a simple
allusion the explanation; Paul has
finished with Pharaoh long ago.
According to Meyer, Paul means that God
put off the judgment of the Jewish
people, because as the destruction of
Jerusalem was to be the signal of the
end of the world, if God had
hastened this event there would have
remained no more time for the
conversion of the Gentiles. This idea
is bound up with the explanation
given by Meyer of the that , ver. 23.
But it is difficult to suppose that Paul,
who, according to 1 Thess. 2:16, was
expecting the destruction of the
Jewish people as close at hand, and
who yet, according to chap. 11,
placed the conversion of all Gentile
nations and the restoration of the
Jews before the end of the world,
could have imagined that all these
phases of the great drama of humanity
were to be accomplished in so
brief a time. The meaning which we
have given presents none of these
difficulties.—But those Jews to whom
God extends
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
such marvellous long-suffering are
none the less already vessels of wrath
fitted to destruction. The term:
vessels of wrath , signifies, according to
Lange: “vessels on which wrath falls,”
that is to say, which He will break in
His wrath. But ver. 21 and the
completely parallel passage, 2 Tim. 2:20,
show that the point in question is the
use , and consequently the contents
of those vessels. The meaning is
therefore: all saturated with wrath; not
for the purpose of emptying it on
others, like the angels who hold the
seven vials of divine wrath, Rev. 16
(Lange's objection), but to taste all its
bitterness themselves.—The perfect
participle kathrtismevna , prepared,
fitted to , has given rise to great
discussions; for the apostle does not tell
us by whom this preparing was made.
Meyer contends that it should be
ascribed to God Himself. He supports
his view by the regimen following:
to destruction , which indicates a
judgment of God. But we find in 2:4 an
authentic explanation from the apostle
himself on this subject. If the Jews
are actually ripe for judgment, he
says, it is not the fault of God, who has
faithfully pointed them to repentance
and salvation; it is the effect of their
own hardening and impenitent heart
which has changed the treasures of
divine grace into treasures of wrath
heaped on them. What answer does
Meyer give to this? He holds that the
apostle moves between two
irreconcilable theories. In chap. 2
Paul stood, it is true, at the viewpoint of
human liberty; but here he starts from
the standpoint of absolute divine
will. But is it probable that a mind
so logical as Paul's should accept such
an irreducible duality of views? And
what seems stranger still is, that from
ver. 30 of our chapter onward, and in
the whole of chap. 10, he replaces
himself anew at the standpoint of
human liberty, and reproduces exactly
the same explanation as in chap. 2!
Finally, while in the following verse he
directly ascribes to God the
preparation of the elect for salvation: “ which
He has prepared unto glory,” he
deliberately avoids expressing himself
thus in speaking of the preparation of
the Jews for destruction. He here
employs, instead of the active verb
prepare , with God as its subject, the
passive participle: fitted to. The
understood subject of this action of fitting
appears not only from 2:4, but more
clearly still if possible from the
passage, 1 Thess. 2:15, 16: “The Jews,
who both killed the Lord Jesus
and their own prophets, and persecuted
us; and they please not God, and
are contrary to all men: forbidding us
to speak to the Gentiles that they
might be saved, to fill up their sins
alway; but wrath is come upon them to
make an end of them.” It thus appears
who is the author of the present
ripeness of the Jews for judgment in
Paul's view. It is not God assuredly
who has Himself prepared vessels which
please Him not , and of which
He is in haste to make an end. De
Wette even acknowledges that the
apostle “ avoids saying by whom they
have been fitted to
destruction.”—The perfect participle
used by the apostle denotes a
present state which has been
previously formed in a certain manner; but
this participle indicates absolutely
nothing as to the mode in which this
state has been produced; hence the
expressions ripe or ready for ...very
well render the thought contained in
this term; comp. Luke 6:40. The
choice of the verb katartivzein , to
arrange perfectly, equip (for example, a
vessel, that it may be ready to set
sail, see Passow), shows also that the
point in question is not the beginning
of this moral development (which
would have required the term
eJtoimavzein , ver. 23), but its end. In using
this term, Paul means to designate the
result of the historical development
of the people: their present state as
being that of full ripeness for divine
judgment. So this expression has been
rightly explained by the Greek
Fathers, Grot., Calov., Beng., Olsh.,
Hofm., etc. As to the manner in which
St. Paul viewed the formation of this
state of perdition, we may determine
it with certainty by what he has said
in chap. 1 of the analogous
development wrought among the
Gentiles. First, they voluntarily
extinguished the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
light which burned in them by natural
revelation; then, as a punishment,
God gave them up to their evil
propensities, and thereafter evil overflowed
like a flood; comp. 1:24, 26, and 28.
The same was the case with
Pharaoh; he began by hardening himself
when confronted with the first
signs of the divine will; then God
hardened him; again he hardened
himself; and finally, judgment took
hold of him. Thus it is always that the
two factors, the human and the divine,
concur in the tragical development
of such a moral state. As is admirably
said by Lange: “These two points of
view [which are alleged to be
contradictory] fall into one, according to
which every development in sin is a
tissue of transgressions due to
human responsibility, and of judgments
coming from God.” It is exactly so
with Israel. The development of their
state of perdition begins face to face
with the Mosaic and prophetic
revelations, whose sanctifying influence
they reject; it continues in presence
of the appearance and work of Jesus
Himself; and now it reaches its goal
with the rejection of the apostolical
preaching and the perfidious obstacles
raised by Israel against this
preaching throughout the whole world.
After such a history this people
deserved the judgment of hardening
which overtook them (11:8-10), more
even than
Pharaoh.— Perdition , ajpwvleia , does
not merely denote external
punishment, the destruction of
Jerusalem and the dispersion of the
people; it is also the condemnation of
the wilfully unbelieving Israelites. It
is quite obvious, indeed, that this
ripeness of the people for condemnation
did not prevent the individual
conversion of any of its members, any more
than the collective entrance of the
Gentiles into the kingdom of God, ver.
27, prevents the unbelief and
hardening of individuals among them. And
this is what explains the object of
God's long-suffering toward this people
even when ripe for destruction; He
wished to allow all those who might yet
separate from this mass time to
respond to the gospel call (Acts 2:40). To
the long-suffering of God with the
already devoted nation, there is added
the merciful work whereby God draws
from within it the foreknown
believers to form the nucleus of the
church (vv. 23, 24).
Ver. 23. Here God is presented to us
as the potter, laboring to form the
vessels of honor.—How are we to
construe the proposition: And that He
might make known? The most forced
construction is that of Ewald,
Hofmann, and Schott, who find here the
principal clause on which
depends the subordinate: Now, if God,
willing...ver. 22. The sense would
in that case be: “Now, if God, willing
to show..., endured..., He also ( kaiv )
acted that ( i{na ).” Such an ellipsis
seems inadmissible.—Calvin, Grotius,
Meyer, Lange leave nothing to be
understood, but make the kai; i{na , and
that , directly dependent on the: He
endured , in the preceding sentence:
“If, willing to show His wrath..., God
endured..., and also that ”...Here on
this view would be a second aim in
God's long-suffering, added by Paul as
subsidiary to the first. The principal
proposition on which the if depends
would remain understood, as we said in
the outset; it would be: “What can
be said? Canst thou find fault?” The
meaning is nearly the same as in the
previous construction; only the
grammatical form is a little more flowing.
But it is difficult to believe that
God's dealing with the vessels of honor
should be given as a mere appendix,
supplementary to His dealing with
the vessels of wrath. The two things
ought at least to be put on an equal
footing, as in ver. 21.—Beza, Ruckert
, and Beyschlag make the that
dependent on kathrtismevna , fitted
to: “Vessels of wrath fitted to
destruction, and also that ( kai; i{na
) God might make known the riches of
His grace.” But how make the idea of
the manifestation of grace, which is
one of the two fundamental ideas of
the whole passage, dependent on an
expression so subordinate as this participle?—There
remains only one
possible construction, that of some
ancients,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
and of Philippi, Reuss, and others,
that is, to understand here the eij , if ,
of ver. 22, and to make ver. 23 a proposition
parallel to the preceding: “If
willing...God endured...and [if]
that”...But where, in this case, is the verb
dependent on this second if and
parallel to He endured? Either there must
be held to be a new ellipsis to be
added to that of the principal
verb,—which is very clumsy—or this
verb must be found in the ejkavlesen ,
He called, of ver. 24. Undoubtedly the
relative pronoun ou{" , whom , “
whom He called,” seems to be opposed
to this solution. But we have
already seen—and it is a turn of
expression not unusual in Greek—that
Paul sometimes connects with a
dependent proposition a member of the
sentence which properly belonged to
the principal proposition; comp. 3:8,
and especially Gal. 2:4, 5: “ to whom
we did not give place,” for: “we gave
not place to them. ” It is precisely
for this reason, no doubt, that he here
adds to the relative ou{" , whom
, the pronoun hJma'" , us , this apposition
being, as it were, the last remnant of
the regular construction which had
been abandoned. And why this
incorrectness? Is it a piece of negligence?
By no means. By this relative
ou{" , whom , as well as by the kaiv , also ,
added to the verb He called , ver. 24,
the apostle means to bring out the
close bond which connects with one
another the two acts of preparing
beforehand , ver. 23, and calling ,
ver. 24; comp. 8:30, where the same
relation of ideas is expressed under
the same form: “Whom He did
predestinate, them He also called. ”
Our translation has rendered (ver. 24)
this turn of the original as exactly
as our language permits.
By the words: to make known the riches
of His glory , Paul alludes to the
example of Moses, ver. 15, who had
asked God to show him His glory ,
exactly as by the expression of ver.
22 he had reminded his readers of
those relative to Pharaoh. These
riches of glory are the manifestation of
His mercy which heaps glory on the
vessels of honor, as the manifestation
of wrath brings down perdition on the
vessels that are worthless. Glory is
here particularly the splendor of
divine love.— Vessels of mercy: Vessels
that are to be filled with salvation
by mercy.— Which He prepared
beforehand , a} prohtoivmase . This
expression means more than the ready
or fitted for of the previous verse;
it was God Himself who had beforehand
prepared everything to make those
beings the objects of His grace. This
saying is explained by the analogous
expressions 8:29, 30; comp. the
prov , beforehand , which enters into
the composition of the verb, as into
that of the two verbs 8:29; then the
relation of the verbs prepared
beforehand and call , which is the
same as that between the verbs
predestinate and call , ver. 30; and,
finally, the kaiv , also , before ejkavlese
, called , which reproduces that of 8:30.
Jesus expresses an idea
analogous to this, Matt. 25:34:
“Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from
the foundation of the world;” with
this difference, that in this saying it is the
kingdom which is prepared in advance
for believers, whereas here it is
believers who are so for the kingdom.
In this term: prepared beforehand ,
there are contained the two ideas of
foreknowledge (prevision of faith) and
predestination (destination to glory),
expounded 8:29. Let us further
remark these four striking differences
between this expression and the
corresponding term of the preceding
verse ( kathrtismevna ): 1. The
preposition prov , beforehand , is
wanting in the participle of ver. 22. 2.
There the passive form, instead of the
active used here. 3. Here the
aorist, referring to the eternal act,
as in 8:29, instead of the perfect (ver.
22), which denoted the present fact.
4. Here the verb eJtoimavzein , to
prepare , which indicates the
beginning of the development, instead of
that of ver. 21, which indicated its
result. These four differences are not
accidental, and leave no doubt as to
the apostle's view.
Ver. 24. And those predestined to
glory, He has drawn by long-suffering,
not only from the midst of the lost
mass of the Jews, but also from among
the Gentiles.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
This was what Jesus had declared: “I
have yet other sheep which are not
of this fold” (John 10:16). And this
Paul had in view in the words: the
riches of His glory. While He gleaned
among the Jews, He reaped a
harvest among the Gentiles, and thus
carried out, in spite of Jewish
pretensions, the free and large plan
of salvation which He had formed on
the sole prevision of faith.—The kaiv
, also , reminds us of the relation
between the eternal decree and the
call in time.—It is thus a new people
of elect ones, composed of the
believing portion of the old Israel and of
the entire multitude of the believing
Gentiles, whom the apostle sees
rising to the divine call to take the
place of that carnal Israel; comp. Luke
14:15-24 and Rev. 7:9 et seq. He
cannot but think with a profound feeling
of gratitude that it is by his own
ministry this rich exercise of grace is
effected; that he is himself in a way
the hand of God, to form out of the
mass of the Gentile world that
multitude of vessels unto honor! Here
should be placed logically the
principal proposition, which is interrogative,
but understood, on which rests the two
preceding subordinate
propositions, beginning with now if ,
ver. 22, and and if , ver. 23: “And if
those Jews, already ripe for
perdition, are still borne with by God, who
holds His arm ready to strike them and
cast them far from Him, and if as
to those believers whom He has prepared
beforehand He does not
confine Himself to take them from
Israel, but goes in search of them to the
very ends of the earth..., will
mankind be entitled to find fault with God
who thus directs their destinies? Will
the Jewish people in particular be
able to reproach God for the way in
which He exercises His justice on
them, seeing they have so justly
brought this judgment upon them, and for
the use which He at the same time
makes of His mercy, calling His elect
from the whole mass of mankind, without
disturbing Himself about the
reprobation which Israel is pleased to
suspend over one whole part of this
mass?...Yea. O Jew, who dost venture
to dispute with God, what hast
thou to say!” And I ask every reader
who has attentively followed this
explanation of the apostle's words,
what can be said against this defence
of God's dealings? Do not all the
divine perfections concur harmoniously
in realizing God's plan, and has not
the freedom of man its legitimate
place in the course of history, in
perfect harmony with God's sovereign
freedom in His acts of grace as well
as in His judgments?
The word of God has not therefore been
made of no effect by the fact of
the rejection of the Israelitish
nation (ver. 6). For, 1st, the principle of
divine selection which controlled the
early destinies of the patriarchal
family is only realized anew in the
distinction between believing Israelites
and the carnal and rejected mass (vv.
6-
13). 2d. God, when making choice of
this people to prepare for the
salvation of the world, did not
abdicate His freedom to reject them on
certain conditions, and if He came to
think this good; neither did He
abdicate His liberty of calling other
individuals not belonging to this
people, on certain conditions, and if
He came to see good reason. And the
use which He actually makes of this
liberty, in rejecting His obstinately
rebellious people while sparing them
as long as possible, and even after
the greatest crimes, is not tantamount
to the annulling of His word (vv. 14-
24). But, 3d, more remains to be said:
this double dispensation of the
calling of the Gentiles and of the
rejection of Israel is nothing else than the
fulfilling of His very word; for it
was announced beforehand. This is what is
proved by the third part of this
discussion, vv. 25-29.
Vv. 25-29.
And, first, vv. 25 and 26: the
proclamation by the prophets of the calling of
the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Gentiles; then vv. 27-29: that of the
rejection of the mass of the Jewish
people.
Vv. 25, 26. “ As He saith also in
Osee, I will call that my people, which was
not my people; and her beloved, which
was not beloved. And it shall come
to pass, that in the place where it
was said unto them, Ye are not my
people; there shall they be called
sons of the living God. ”—The words as
also evidently refer to the last words
of ver. 24: “but also of the Gentiles.”
To facilitate the exposition of the
following quotation, Hofmann has
thought it best to apply this as also
to the first words of ver. 24: “not of the
Jews only.” But this reference is not
in keeping with the apostle's thought;
for when he really passes to the
prophecies relating to Israel, ver. 27, he
expressly indicates this transition.
The difficulty which has driven Hofmann
to his view is this Hosea, in the two
passages quoted, 2:23 and 1:10, is
certainly speaking of the Israelites
of the ten tribes scattered in distant
lands, and not of Gentiles; how can
the apostle apply them to the latter?
St. Peter does exactly the same thing
(1 Pet. 2:10). Hodge remarks that
the ten tribes having relapsed into
idolatry, were thus in the same state as
the Gentiles, so that what was said of
the former could equally be applied
to the latter. Then he cites the fact,
as Tholuck does, that in Scripture a
general truth enunciated in regard to
a particular class of men is afterward
applied to all those whose character
and position are found to be the
same. And, indeed, in the mouth of God
the expressions: “that which is
not of my people;” “her which is not
beloved;” “I will call them my people...,
beloved,” express a principle of the
divine government which comes into
play everywhere when circumstances
reappear similar to those to which
they were originally applied. This was
the case with the Gentiles yet more
completely, if that is possible, than
with the inhabitants of Samaria. We
shall add, that the exiled Israelites
being mingled with the Gentiles, and
forming one homogeneous mass with
them, cannot be brought to God
separately from them. Isa. 49:22
represents the Gentiles as carrying the
sons of Israel in their arms and their
daughters on their shoulders, and
consequently as being restored to
grace along with them.—Instead of: I
will call , Hosea simply says: I will
say to. The meaning is the same; for I
will call applies to the new name
which will be given them (see the full
context of Hosea). Only by the form I
will call , Paul alludes to the calling
of the Gentiles to salvation.
Ver. 26. The second saying quoted
(Hos. 1:10) is attached to the
preceding as if it followed it
immediately in the prophet. More than once in
the following chapters we find this
combination of originally distinct
sayings. Some apply the expression in
Hosea: in the place where , to the
land of Samaria, in the meaning that
God there pronounced the rejection
of the people. In that case, Paul, in
applying this saying to the Gentiles,
would have perverted it entirely from
its meaning. But is it not more
natural to apply this word: the place
where , to the strange land where the
Jews were long captive, and as it were
abandoned of God? Was it not
there God said to them by the voice of
fact during long ages: “Ye are not
my people”? Is it not there that they
will begin anew to feel the effects of
grace when God shall visit them, and
recall them as well as the Gentiles,
with whom they are at present
confounded?
Vv. 27-29. “ But Isaiah crieth
concerning Israel, Though the number of the
sons of Israel be as the sand of the
sea, the remnant [ only ] shall be
saved: for the Lord will make a short
and summary reckoning on the
earth:and, as Esaias foretold, Except
the Lord of hosts had left us a seed,
we had become as Sodom, and been made
like unto Gomorrha. ”— Dev ,
on the other hand (but). Paul's object
is not merely to contrast Israel with
the Gentiles, for in that case the
words concerning Israel would begin the
sentence. He wishes at the same time
to show how the one prophet
completes the other. His meaning is
this: “To the saying of Hosea
regarding the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Gentiles there is added, to complete
the revelation of God's plan, the
following declaration of Isaiah
concerning Israel.”—The expression kravzei
, cries , indicates the threatening
tone of the herald called to proclaim thus
the judgment of the Sovereign. In this
relation the preposition uJpevr , over
, might well have its local sense:
this threat henceforth hangs over the
head of Israel.—The quotation is taken
from Isa. 10:22,
23. The article tov , the , before the
word remnant , characterizes this
remnant as a thing known; and, indeed,
one of the most frequent notions
of the Book of Isaiah is that of the
holy remnant , which survives all the
chastisements of Israel, and which,
coming forth purified from the crucible,
becomes each time the germ of a better
future. The T. R. reads
katavleimma , which is the term used
by the LXX.; we ought probably to
read with the Alexs. uJpovleimma . The
view of the apostle is not, as
Hofmann and others think, that this
remnant will certainly subsist; that is
not the question. In the context, both
of Isaiah and of the apostle, there is
a contrast between the innumerable
multitude which as it seemed ought
to form Jehovah's people and which
perishes, and the poor remnant
which alone remains to enjoy the
salvation.
Ver. 28 explains this idea of a saved
remnant. This time, indeed, judgment
will be carried out neither by halves
nor over a long period. It will be, says
Isaiah, a sudden and summary execution
which will fall not upon this or
that individual, but on the nation as
a whole. Such is the meaning of the
Hebrew and of the LXX., though the
latter have somewhat modified the
form of the original. Isaiah says
literally: “Destruction is resolved on; it
makes righteousness overflow; for the
Lord works on the earth destruction
and decree.” The LXX. translate: “The
Lord fulfils the sentence; He cuts
short righteously, because He will
execute a summary reckoning upon all
the earth.” Paul reproduces this
second form while abridging it; for it is
probable we should prefer the shortest
reading, that of the oldest Mjj. and
of the Peshito (see the note), since
that of the T. R. merely restores the
text of the LXX. The word lovgo"
might undoubtedly signify decree; but in
connection with the terms number and
remnant of ver. 27, as well as with
the two participles suntelw'n and
suntevmnwn , consummating and cutting
short , the word ought here to
preserve its natural meaning of reckoning:
“God will this time make His reckoning
with Israel by a short and summary
process.” In this threatening the
feeling of indignation prevails. Paul
subjoins to it a second saying, ver.
29, which rather breathes sadness and
compassion; it is taken from Isa. 1:9.
He no longer quotes it with the word
kravzei , he cries; he uses the calmer
term proeivrhken , he said before.
Some expositors explain this
preposition prov , before , contained in the
verb, by the circumstance that in the
Book of Isaiah this passage occurs
before that which had just been
quoted, vv. 27 and 28. This meaning is
puerile; for the position has no
importance. Paul wishes to bring out the
idea that the prophetical mouth of
Isaiah having once declared the fact, it
must be expected that one day or other
it would be realized. The meaning
of this saying is, that without a
quite peculiar exercise of grace on the part
of the Lord, the destruction announced
vv. 27 and 28 would have been
more radical still, as radical as that
which overtook the cities of the plain,
of which there remained not the
slightest vestige.— Spevrma , a germ, a
shoot; this word expresses the same
idea as uJpovleimma , the remnant ,
ver. 27. But, as is well said by
Lange, it adds to it the idea of the glorious
future which is to spring from that
remnant.—Instead of saying: we should
have been made like to , Paul says,
with the LXX., made like as , thus
heaping up two forms of comparison, so
as to express the most absolute
assimilation. Such would have been the
course of justice; and if Israel will
find fault, they have only one thing
for which to blame God, that is, for not
having annihilated them utterly.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
No, certainly; by concluding a special
covenant with Israel, God had not
abdicated the right of judging them,
and alienated His liberty in respect of
them and of the rest of mankind. His
promise had never had this bearing,
and the rejection of Israel does it no
violence. But thus far the problem
had been treated only from the formal
point of view; the question had
been only as to God's right. The
apostle now enters upon the matter
involved. The right being established,
it remains to examine what use God
has made of it. This is the subject
treated by the apostle in the following
passage, which extends from ver. 30 to
the end of chap. 10.
Twenty-second Passage (9:30-10:21).
Israel the Cause of their own
Rejection.
Vv. 30-33.
In vv. 30-33 the apostle gives
summarily the solution of the problem; then
he develops it in chap. 10.
Vv. 30, 31. “ What shall we say then?
That the Gentiles, which followed
not after righteousness, have obtained
righteousness, but the
righteousness which is of faith; and
that Israel, which followed after the
law of righteousness, hath not
attained to the law of righteousness. ”—The
question: What shall we say then? has
in the present case peculiar
gravity: “The explanation of the fact
not being found by saying, God has
annulled His word; what, then, is the
solution of the enigma?” Thus, after
setting aside the false solution, Paul
invites his reader to seek with him
the true one; and this solution he
expresses in ver. 31 in a declaration of
painful solemnity, after prefacing it
in ver. 30 with a saying relating to the
lot of the Gentiles. While the latter
have obtained what they sought not,
the Jews have missed what they sought;
the most poignant irony in the
whole of history. Some expositors have
thought that the proposition which
follows the question, What shall we
say then? was not the answer to the
question, but a second question
explanatory of the first. We must then
prolong the interrogation to the end
of ver. 31. But what do we find there?
Instead of an answer, a new question,
diativ , wherefore? This
construction is clearly impossible. It
is the same with the attempt of
Schott, who makes a single question of
the whole sentence from the tiv
ou\n to dikaiosuvnhn (the second):
What shall we say then of the fact that
the Gentiles have obtained...? and who
finds the answer to this question
in the last words of the verse: “but
the righteousness of faith!”—The
solution given by the apostle may be
thus expressed: “That, whereas the
Gentiles have obtained..., Israel, on
the contrary, has failed”...— [Eqnh ,
without article: Gentiles, beings
having this characteristic. The subjective
negative mhv might be rendered: “
without their seeking.”— Dikaiosuvnhn ,
without article, a righteousness. It
is a mistake to give to this word here,
as Meyer does, the moral sense of
holiness; for it could not be said of the
Greeks that they did not often aspire
after a high morality. What they
never sought was righteousness , in
the religious sense of the word,
justification. The idea which they formed
of sin as a simple error. and of
the Deity as not looking very narrowly
at human actions, did not lead them
to the pursuit of righteousness in
this sense. And yet they obtained it,
precisely because they were exempt
from the false pretensions which
barred access to it in the case of the
Jews. They were like the man of
whom Jesus speaks, who, crossing a
field, discovers a treasure in it which
he was not seeking, and without
hesitating makes sure of its possession.
The verb katevlaben , literally, put
the hand on , suits this mode of
acquisition. It must, however, be
further explained how the matter could
transpire in this way; hence the last
words: “but the righteousness which is
of faith.” The dev , but , is
explicative (as in
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
3:22): “but the righteousness thus
obtained could, of course, only be a
righteousness of faith.”
Ver. 31. The lot of the Gentiles
presents a contrast fitted to bring out more
clearly the tragical character of that
of Israel. This people, which alone
followed the law of righteousness, is
precisely the one which has not
succeeded in reaching it. Some
(Chrys., Calv., Beng., etc.) have stumbled
at this expression, the law of
righteousness , and have translated it as if it
were the righteousness of the law.
They have not understood the
apostle's expression. What Israel
sought was not so much righteousness
itself in its moral essence, as the
law in all the detail of its external and
manifold observances. The expression
is therefore chosen deliberately,
“to remind the reader,” as Holsten
well says, “of the weakness of the
religious conscience of Israel, which
was ever seeking an external
standard.” If the Jews in general had
been seriously preoccupied, like
young Saul, with true moral
righteousness, the law thus applied would
have become to them what it was in its
destination, the schoolmaster to
bring them to Christ (Gal. 3:23, 24).
But seeking only the letter, they
neglected the spirit. Levitical
prescriptions, minutiae about Sabbaths and
meats, fastings, tithes, washings of
hands, of bodies, of furniture, etc.,
such were their sole pursuits. The
object of their labor was thus really the
law , from which righteousness should have
proceeded, and not
righteousness itself, as the true
contents of the law. Therein there was a
profound moral aberration which led
them to the refusal of true
righteousness when it was presented to
them in the person of the
Messiah.—By designating true
righteousness in the same sentence by the
same expression, the law of
righteousness , the apostle wishes by the
identity of terms to exhibit the
contrast in the things: pursuing the shadow,
they missed the reality.—The term law
is taken the second time in that
more general sense in which we have
found it so often used in our Epistle
(3:27, 7:21 and 25, 8:2): a certain
mode of being, fitted to determine the
will. The reference is to the true
mode of justification.—The strongly
supported reading which rejects the
word dikaiosuvnh" , of righteousness ,
would signify: “they have not attained
to the law. ” But what would that
mean? They have not attained to the
fulfilment of the law? The
expression: “attain to the law,” would
be very strange taken in this sense.
Or would it apply, as some have
thought, to the law of the gospel? But
where is the gospel thus called
nakedly the law? This reading is therefore
inadmissible, as Meyer himself
acknowledges, notwithstanding his
habitual predilection for the
Alexandrine text, and in opposition to the
opinion of Tischendorf.
Vv. 32, 33. “ Wherefore? Because
[seeking] not by faith, but as it were by
works , they stumbled at the
stumbling-stone; as it is written, Behold, I lay
in Sion a stumbling-stone and rock of
offence: and he who believeth on
Him shall not be ashamed. ”—The
apostle has just declared (ver. 30) the
moral fact which is the real cause of
Israel's rejection, and he now asks
how this fact could have come about. The
question, wherefore? does not
signify for what end ( eij" tiv
)? but on account of what ( dia; tiv )? If, with
the T. R. and some Byz. Mjj., we read
gavr , for , with they stumbled , this
verb necessarily begins a new
proposition, and a finite verb must be
understood with the conjunction
because: “because they sought , not by
faith, but as it were by works.” But
this reading seems too slenderly
supported to be admissible, and it is
difficult to extract from it a rational
meaning; for the act of stumbling is
rather the effect than the cause , or
than the proof of seeking in a false
way. It would require, consequently, to
be, “they stumbled therefore. ” If,
with the most numerous and important
documents, we reject, the for , two
possible constructions remain: Either
the whole may be taken as a single
proposition (see the translation); the
two
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
regimens: not by faith and as it were
by works , depend in this case on
they stumbled , the participle seeking
being understood; this construction
is somewhat analogous to that of ver.
11. The meaning is excellent.
“Wherefore did they not find true
righteousness? Because, seeking it in
the way of works, they ended in
stumbling against the stumbling-stone,
the Messiah who brought to them true
righteousness, that of faith.” Or it is
possible, even without the for , to
find here two propositions, as is done by
most commentators; the first: “Because
they sought not in the way of faith,
but in that of works;” the second,
which would follow by way of asyndeton
, and which would require to be
regarded as pronounced with emotion:
“Yea; they stumbled”...! But what
prevents us from adopting this last
construction is, that the idea of
stumbling thus comes on us too abruptly. It
would require a kai; ou{tw" , and
so , to establish the relation between the
two acts of seeking in the false way
and stumbling. We hold, therefore, by
the preceding construction.—Paul can
with good reason make it a charge
against the Jews that they have not
sought righteousness in the way of
faith; for he had shown (chap. 4) by
the example of Abraham that this way
was already marked out in the O. T.;
comp. also the saying of Habakkuk
quoted (1:17), and that of Isaiah
about to be referred to (ver. 33), etc.
Every day the experiences made under
the law should have brought the
serious Jew to the feet of Jehovah in
the way of repentance and faith to
obtain pardon and help (see the
Psalms). And following this course, they
would have avoided stumbling at the
Messianic righteousness; they
would, on the contrary, have grasped
it greedily, as was done by the e8lite
of the people. The as it were , added
to the regimen by works , signifies
quite naturally: “As if it were
possible to find righteousness by this means.”
Meyer explains it somewhat
differently. “To seek righteousness by a
process such as that of works.” But
the first meaning much better
describes the contrast between the
real and the imaginary means.—The
complement novmou , of the law , in
the T. R. is omitted by the Alexs. and
the Greco-Latins; it adds nothing to
the idea. Seeking in this false way,
they have ended by stumbling on the
stone which made them fall. This
stone was Jesus, who brought them a
righteousness acquired by Himself
and offered only to faith. The figure
of stumbling is in keeping with all
those that precede: follow after,
attain to, reach (obtain). In their foolish
course, Israel thought they were
advancing on a clear path, and lo! all at
once there was found on this way an
obstacle upon which they were
broken. And this obstacle was the very
Messiah whom they had so long
invoked in all their prayers! But even
this result was foretold.
Ver. 33. Paul combines in this
quotation Isa. 27:16 and 8:14, and that in
such a way that he borrows the first
and last words of his quotation from
the former of these passages, and
those of the middle from the latter. It is
hard to conceive how a great number of
commentators can apply the
saying of Isaiah, 28:16: “Behold, I
lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a
tried stone”...etc., to the theocracy
itself (see Meyer). The theocracy is the
edifice which is raised in Zion; how should
it be its foundation? According
to 8:14, the foundation is Jehovah;
and it is on this stone that the
unbelieving Israel of both kingdoms
stumble, while on this rock he that
believes takes refuge. In chap. 28 the
figure is somewhat modified; for
Jehovah is no longer the foundation;
it is He who lays it. The foundation
here is therefore Jehovah in His final
manifestation, the Messiah. We thus
understand why Paul has combined the
two passages so closely; the one
explains the other. It is in the sense
which we have just established that
the same figure is applied to Christ,
Luke 2:34, 20:17, 18; 1 Pet. 2:4
(comp. Bible annote8e on the two
passages of Isaiah quoted by the
apostle). The terms stone, rock ,
express the notion of consistency. We
break ourselves struggling
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
against the Messiah, rather than break
Him.—The two words provskomma
and skavndalon , stumbling and scandal
, are not wholly synonymous. The
former denotes the shock, the latter
the fall resulting from it; and so the
former, the moral conflict between
Israel and the Messiah, and the latter,
the people's unbelief. The first
figure applies, therefore, to all the false
judgments passed by the Jews on the
conduct of Jesus—His healings on
the Sabbath, His alleged contempt of
the law, His blasphemies, etc.; the
second, to the rejection of the
Messiah, and, in His person, of Jehovah
Himself.—The adj. pa'" , every
one , which the T. R. adds to the word he
who believeth , is omitted by the
Alexs. and the Greco-Latins, and also by
the Peshito. The context also condemns
it. The point to be brought out
here is not that whosoever believeth
is saved, but: that it is enough to
believe in order to be so. The word
every one (which is not in Isaiah) has
been imported from 10:11, where, as we
shall see, it is in its place.—The
Hebrew verb, which the LXX. have
translated by: shall not be confounded
, strictly signifies: shall not make
haste (flee away), which gives the same
meaning. There is no need, therefore,
to hold, with several critics, a
difference of reading in the Hebrew
text ( jabisch for jakisch ).
General considerations on chap.
ix.—Though we have not reached the
end of the passage beginning with ver.
30, the essential thought being
already expressed in
vv. 30-33, we may from this point cast
a glance backward at chap. 9 taken
as a whole.—Three principal views as
to the meaning of this chapter find
expression in the numerous
commentaries to which it has given rise:
1. Some think they can carry up the
thought of Paul to complete logical
unity, by maintaining that it boldly
excludes human freedom, and makes
all things proceed from one single
factor, the sovereign will of God. Some
of these are so sure of their view,
that one of them, a Strasburg professor,
wrote most lately: “As to determinism,
it would be to carry water to the
Rhine, to seek to prove that this
point of view is that of St. Paul.”
2. Others think that the apostle
expounds the two points of view side by
side with one another—that of absolute
predestination, to which
speculative reflection leads, and that
of human freedom, which experience
teaches—without troubling himself to
reconcile them logically. This
opinion is perhaps the most widespread
among theologians at the present
hour.
3. Finally, a third class think that
in Paul's view the fact of human freedom
harmonizes logically with the
principle of divine predestination, and think
they can find in his very exposition
the elements necessary to harmonize
the two points of view. Let us pass
under review each of these opinions.
I. In the first, we immediately
distinguish three groups. In the first place:
the particularistic predestinarians ,
who, whether in the salvation of some
or in the perdition of others, see
only the effect of the divine decree. Such,
essentially, are St. Augustine, the
Reformers, the theologians of Dort, and
the churches which have preserved this
type of doctrine down to our day,
whether pushing the consequence the
length of ascribing the fall itself and
sin to the divine will (
supralapsarians ), like Zwingle, who goes so far as
to say, in speaking of Esau: “quem
divina providentia creavit ut viveret
atque impie viveret” (see Th. p. 500);
or whether they stop half way, and,
while ascribing the fall to human
freedom, make the divine decree of
human election bear solely on those
among lost men whom God is
pleased to save
( infralapsarians ).—But, first, it is
forgotten that the apostle does not think
for a moment of speculating in a
general way on the relation between
human freedom and divine sovereignty,
and that he is occupied solely
with showing the harmony
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
between the particular fact of the
rejection of the Jews and the promises
relating to their election. Then it
would be impossible, if he really held this
point of view, to acquit him of the
charge of self-contradiction in all those
sayings of his which assume—1st. Man's
entire freedom in the
acceptance or rejection of salvation
(2:4, 6-10, 6:12, 13); 2d. The
possibility of one converted falling
from the state of grace through want of
vigilance or faithfulness (8:13; 1
Cor. 10:1-12; Gal. 5:4; Col. 1:23, a
passage where he says expressly: “ if
at least ye persevere”). Comp. also
the words of Jesus Himself, John 5:40:
“But ye will not come to me;” Matt.
23:37: “How often would I...but ye
would not.” Finally, throughout the
whole chapter which immediately
follows, as well as in the four verses we
have just expounded, vv. 30-33, the
decree of the rejection of the Jews is
explained, not by the impenetrable
mystery of the divine will, but by the
haughty tenacity with which the Jews,
notwithstanding all God's warnings,
affected to establish their own
righteousness and perpetuate their purely
temporary prerogative.
In this first class we meet, in the
second place, with the group of the
latitudinarian determinists , who seek
to correct the harshness of the
predestinarian point of departure by
the width of the point reached; the
final goal, indeed, according to them,
is universal salvation. The world is a
theatre on which there is in reality
but one actor, God, who plays the
entire piece, but by means of a series
of personages who act under his
impulse as simple automata. If some
have bad parts to play, they have
not to blame or complain of themselves
for that; for their culpability is only
apparent, and...the issue will be
happy for them. All's well that ends well.
Such is the view of Schleiermacher and
his school; it is that to which
Farrar has just given his adherence in
his great work on St. Paul.—But
how are we to reconcile this doctrine
of universal salvation, I do not say
only with declarations such as those
of Jesus, Matt. 12:23 (“neither in this
world nor in the world to come”),
26:24 (“it were better for that man that he
had never been born”), Mark 9:43-48,
but also with the sayings of Paul
himself, 2 Thess. 1:9; Rom. 8:13?
These declarations, indeed, seem
incompatible with the idea of a
universal final salvation. Neither does this
idea seem to us to arise from the
sayings of the apostle here and there
whence it is thought possible to
deduce it, such as 1 Cor. 15:22 (“in Christ
all made alive”) and 28 (“God all in
all”); for these passages refer only to
the development of the work of
salvation in believers. It is impossible to
allow that a system according to which
sin would be the act of God
Himself, remorse an illusion arising
from our limited and subjective
viewpoint, and the whole conflict, so
serious as it is between guilty man
and God, a simple apparent embroilment
with a view of procuring to us in
the end the liveliest sensation of
re-established harmony—entered for a
single moment the mind of the apostle.
We may say as much of the third form
in which this determinist point of
view presents itself, that of
pantheistic absorption. No one will ever
succeed in explaining the words of the
apostle by such a formula. Paul
emphasizes too forcibly the value and
permanence of personality, as well
as the moral responsibility of man;
and it must not be forgotten that if he
says: “God shall be all ,” he adds: in
all. —In none of these three forms,
therefore, can the system which makes
everything, even evil, proceed
from divine causality, be ascribed to
Paul.
II. Must we take refuge in the idea of
an internal contradiction attaching to
the apostle's mode of view, whether
this contradiction be regarded as a
logical inconsequence attributable to
the weakness of his mind (so Reiche
and Fritzsche, who go so far as to
deplore that the apostle “was not at the
school of Aristotle rather than that
of Gamaliel”); or with Meyer, Reuss,
and a host of others, the problem be
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
regarded as insoluble in its very
nature, and in consequence of the limits
of the human mind; so that, as Meyer
says, whenever we place ourselves
at one of the two points of view, it
is impossible to expound it without
expressing ourselves in such a way as
to deny the other, as has
happened to Paul in this chapter?—We
think that in the former case the
most striking character of St. Paul's
mind is mistaken, his logical power,
which does not allow him to stop short
in the study of a question till he has
thoroughly completed its elucidation.
This characteristic we have seen
throughout the whole of our Epistle.
As to Meyer's point of view, if Paul
had really thought thus, he would not
have failed, in view of this insoluble
difficulty, to stop at least once in
the course of his exposition to exclaim,
after the fashion of Calvin: Mysterium
horribile!
III. It is therefore certain that the
apostle was not without a glimpse of the
real
solution of the apparent contradiction
on which he was bordering
throughout this whole passage. Was
this solution, then, that which has
been proposed by Julius Muller in his
Sundenlehre , and which is found in
several critics, according to which
Paul in chap. 9 explains the conduct of
God from a purely abstract point of
view, saying what God has the right to
do, speaking absolutely, but what He
does not do in reality? It is difficult to
believe that the apostle would have
thus isolated the abstract right from its
historical execution, and we have seen
in ver. 21 et. seq. that Paul directly
applies to the concrete case the view
of right expounded in the instance of
the potter.—Must we prefer the
solution defended by Beyschlag in the
wake of many other critics, according
to which the question here relates
solely to groups of men , and to those
groups of men solely as to the
providential part assigned them in the
general course of God's kingdom;
but not to the lot of individuals ,
and much less still as to the matter of their
final salvation? That it is so in
regard to Esau and Jacob, does not seem
to us open to doubt, since in those
cases we have to do with national
dispensations in the course of the
preparatory economy. But it seems to
me impossible to apply this solution
to the essential point treated in the
chapter, the rejection of the Jews and
the calling of the Gentiles. For
among those rejected Jews, Paul proves
an election of redeemed ones,
who are certainly so, in virtue of
their individual faith; and among those
Gentile nations who are called, he is
very far from thinking there are none
but saved individuals; so that the
vessels of wrath are not the Jewish
nation as such, but the individual
unbelievers in the nation; and the
vessels of mercy are not the Gentile
peoples as such, but the individual
believers among them. The point in
question therefore is, the lot of
individual Jews or Gentiles. When Paul
says: “fitted to destruction” and
“prepared unto glory,” he is evidently
thinking not only of a momentary
rejection or acceptance, but of the
final condemnation and salvation of
those individuals. What is promised as
to the final conversion of Israel has
nothing to do with this
question.—Neither can we adopt the attempt of
Weiss to apply the right of God,
expounded in chap. 9, solely to the
competency belonging to God of fixing
the conditions to which He
chooses to attach the gift of His
grace. The apostle's view evidently goes
further; the cases of Moses and
Pharaoh, with the expressions to show
grace and to harden , indicate not
simple conditions on which the event
may take place, but a real action on
God's part to produce it.—A multitude
of expositors, Origen, Chrysostom, the
Arminians, several moderns, such
as Tholuck, etc., have endeavored to
find a formula whereby to combine
the action of man's moral freedom
(evidently assumed in vv. 30-33) with
the divine predestination taught in
the rest of the chapter. Without being
able to say that they have entirely
succeeded in showing the harmony
between the two terms, we are
convinced that it is only in this way that the
true thought of the apostle can be
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
explained; and placing ourselves at
this viewpoint, we submit to the
reader the following considerations,
already partly indicated in the course
of the exegesis:
1. And first of all, the problem
discussed by the apostle is not the
speculative question of the relation
between God's sovereign decree and
man's free responsibility. This
question appears indeed in the background
of the discussion, but it is not its
theme. This is simply and solely the fact
of the rejection of Israel, the elect
people; a fact proved in particular by the
preamble 9:1-5, and the vv. 30-33,
introduced as a conclusion from what
precedes by the words: “What shall we
say then? ” We should not
therefore seek here a theory of St.
Paul, either regarding the divine
decrees or human freedom; he will not
touch this great question, except in
so far as it enters into the solution
of the problem proposed.
2. We must beware of confounding
liberty and arbitrariness on the part of
God, and aptitude and merit on the
part of man. To begin with this second
distinction, the free acceptance of
any divine favor whatever, and of
salvation in general, is an aptitude
to receive and possess the gift of God,
but does not at all constitute a merit
conferring on man the right to claim it.
We have already said: How can faith be
a merit, that which in its essence
is precisely the renunciation of all
merit? This distinction once established,
the other is easily explained. Face to
face with human merit, God would
no longer be free , and this is really
all that Paul wishes to teach in our
chapter. For his one concern is to
destroy the false conclusion drawn by
Israel from their special election,
their law, their circumcision, their
ceremonial works, their monotheism,
their moral superiority. These were
in their eyes so many bonds by which
God was pledged to them beyond
recall. God had no more the right to
free Himself from the union once
contracted with them, on any condition
whatever. The apostle repels
every obligation on God's part, and
from this point of view he now
vindicates the fulness of divine
liberty. But he does not dream of teaching
thereby divine arbitrariness. He does
not mean for a moment that without
rhyme or reason God resolved to
divorce Himself from His people, and to
contract alliance with the Gentiles.
It God breaks with Israel, it is because
they have obstinately refused to
follow Him in the way which he wished
the development of His kingdom
henceforth to take (see the
demonstration in chap. 10). If He now
welcomes the Gentiles, it is
because they enter with eagerness and
confidence on the way which is
opened to them by His mercy. There is
thus no caprice on God's part in
this double dispensation. God simply
uses His liberty, but in accordance
with the standard arising from His
love, holiness, and wisdom. No anterior
election can hinder Him either from
showing grace to the man who was
not embraced in it at the first, but
whom he finds disposed to cast himself
humbly on His favor; or to reject and
harden the man to whom He was
united, but who claims to set himself
up proudly in opposition to the
progress of His work. A free
initiative on God's part in all things, but
without a shadow of arbitrariness—such
is the apostle's view. It is that of
true monotheism.
3. As to the speculative question of
the relation between God's eternal
plan and the freedom of human
determinations, it seems to me probable
that Paul resolved it, so far as he
was himself concerned, by means of the
fact affirmed by him, of divine
foreknowledge. He himself puts us on this
way, 8:29, 30, by making foreknowledge
the basis of predestination. As a
general, who is in full acquaintance
with the plans of campaign adopted
by the opposing general, would
organize his own in keeping with this
certain prevision, and would find
means of turning all the marches and
countermarches of his adversary to the
success of his designs; so God,
after fixing the supreme end, employs
the free human actions, which He
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
contemplates from the depths of His
eternity, as factors to which He
assigns a part, and which He makes so
many means in the realization of
His eternal design. Undoubtedly Paul
did not think here of resolving the
speculative question, for that did not
enter into his task as an apostle; but
his treatment furnishes us by the way
with the necessary elements to
convince us that if he had meant to do
so, it would have been in this
direction he would have guided our
thoughts.
What are we to conclude from all this?
That the apostle in this chapter, far
from vindicating, as is ordinarily
thought, the rights of divine election over
against human freedom, vindicates, on
the contrary, the rights of God's
freedom in regard to His own election
relating to Israel. His decree does
not bind Him, as an external law
imposed on His will would. He remains
sovereignly free to direct His mode of
acting at every moment according
to the moral conditions which he meets
with in humanity, showing grace
when he finds good, even to men who
were not in His covenant, rejecting,
when He finds good, even men who were
embraced in the circle which
formed the object of His election. St.
Paul did not therefore think of
contending in behalf of divine sovereignty
against human freedom; he
contended for God's freedom in
opposition to the chains which men
sought to lay on Him in the name of
His own election. We have here a
treatise not for , but against
unconditional election,
Chap. 10:1-4.
The apostle has summarily enunciated
the real solution of the enigma in
vv. 30-33. The proud claim of the
people to uphold their own
righteousness caused them to stumble
at the true righteousness, that of
faith, which God offered them in the
person of the Messiah. Chap. 10
develops and establishes this solution
of the problem. Notwithstanding
their religious zeal, the Israelitish
nation, blinded by their selfrighteousness,
did not understand that the end of the
legal dispensation
must be the consequence of the coming
of the Messiah (vv. 1-4); because
he came to inaugurate a wholly new
order of things, the characteristics of
which were opposed to those of the
legal system: 1st. The complete
freeness of salvation (vv. 5-11); 2d.
The universality of this free salvation
(vv. 12-21).
In the act of unveiling the spiritual
ignorance of the elect people, which
forced God to separate from them for a
time, Paul is seized with an
emotion not less lively than that
which he had felt when beginning to treat
this whole matter (9:1 et seq.), and
he interrupts himself to give vent to the
feelings of his soul.
Vv. 1, 2. “ Brethren, my heart's good
pleasure and the prayer I address to
God for them are for their
salvation.For I bear them record that they have
a zeal of God, but not according to
knowledge. ”—The emotion with which
the apostle's heart is filled betrays
itself in the asyndeton between ver. 33
and ver. 1. By the word brethren , he
joins his readers with him in that
outburst of feeling to which he is
about to give utterance.—The word
euvdokiva , good pleasure, complacency
of heart , has been taken by
many in the sense of wish; thus to
make the term run parallel with the
following: my prayer. But it is not
necessary to give it this meaning, of
which no example can be quoted. The
apostle means that it is to this
thought of Israel's salvation the
regard of his heart rises with constant
complacency; that therein, as it were,
is found the ideal of his heart. To
this idea there attaches quite naturally
that of the prayer by which he asks
the realization of the ideal. The
three variants presented by the T. R.
(indicated in the note) should be set
aside. The two last arise no doubt
from the circumstance that with this
passage there began a public lesson,
which made it necessary to complete
the proposition.—The regimen uJpe;r
aujtw'n , for them ,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
might depend on the verb is , or
rather are , understood: my good
pleasure and my prayer are in their
interest; and this idea of interest,
contained in the prep. uJpevr , would
be afterward determined by the
apposition eij" swthrivan : “are
in their interest, that is to say, for their
salvation.” But why add this explanation,
which seems superfluous? Is it
not better to make the regimen for
them , as well as the preceding one to
God , dependent on the word prayer ,
which has an active and verbal
meaning, and to make eij"
swthrivan , to salvation , the regimen of the
whole proposition: “My good
pleasure...and my prayer for them (on their
account) tend to their salvation”? It
was a matter of course that Paul
prayed on account of Israel; but did
he pray for their chastisement or their
salvation? That was the question which
might have been asked.—Bengel
here observes, “that Paul would not
have prayed for the Jews if they had
been absolutely reprobate.” And this
remark is quoted by some with
approbation. I do not think it
accurate, for an absolute reprobation might
indeed overtake unbelieving
individuals of Paul's time, without its being
possible to conclude therefrom to the
eternal objection of the people.
Even in this case, therefore, Paul
could pray for their future conversion.
Ver. 2. In this verse Paul justifies
his so lively interest in the lot of the
Jews, expressed in ver. 1. What has
not been done, what has not been
suffered, by those Jews devoted to the
cause of God, under successive
Gentile powers? Notwithstanding the
most frightful persecutions, have
they not succeeded in maintaining
their monotheistic worship for ages in
all its purity? And at that very time
what an admirable attachment did they
show to the ceremonies of their
worship and the adoration of Jehovah!
When Paul says marturw' , I bear them
witness , he seems to be alluding
to his conduct of other days, and to
say: I know something of it, of that
zeal!—Unhappily this impulse is not
guided according to the standard (
katav ) of a just knowledge , of a
real discernment of things. And it is this
want of understanding which has
spoiled the effects of this admirable
zeal. He does not use the word
gnw'si" , knowledge (in the ordinary sense
of the word), for the Jews certainly
do not lack religious knowledge. The
compound term ejpivgnwsi" , which
he employs here, rather signifies
discernment , that understanding which
puts its finger on the true nature of
the thing. They have failed to discern
the true meaning and the true scope
of the legal dispensation; they are
ardently attached to all its particular
rites, but they have not grasped their
moral end.
Vv. 3, 4. “ For they not knowing God's
righteousness, and seeking to
establish their own righteousness ,
have not submitted themselves unto
the righteousness of God. For Christ
is the end of the law for
righteousness to every one that
believeth. ”—These verses are meant to
explain the terrible
misunderstanding which weighed on the
mind of Israel, and which now
brings about the separation between
God and His people. Not
understanding that it was from God
their righteousness was to come,
Israel were led to maintain their
legal dispensation at any cost, and to
mistake the limit which God had
purposed to assign it.—The term
ajgnoou'nte" , not knowing , is
directly related to the preceding expression:
not according to knowledge. Under the
discipline of the law, the
discernment of true righteousness,
that which God grants to faith, should
have been formed in them. For, on the
one hand, the conscientious effort
to observe the law would have brought
them to feel their weakness
(comp. chap. 7); and, on the other,
the profound study of the Scriptures
would have taught them, by the example
of Abraham (Gen. 15:5) and by
sundry prophetic declarations (Isa.
50:8, 9; Hab. 2:4), that “righteousness
and strength come from the Lord.” But
through not using the law in this
spirit of sincerity and humility, they
proved unfit to understand the final
revelation; and their mind, carried
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
in a false direction, stumbled at the
divine truth manifested in the
appearing of the Messiah (ver. 32).
Several commentators understand
ajgnoou'nte" in a very forcible
sense: misconceiving. Meyer insists on
retaining the natural sense: not
knowing. This latter sense may suffice,
indeed, provided it be not forgotten
that in this case, as in many others,
the want of knowing is the result of
previous unfaithfulnesses; comp. 1
Cor. 14:38 and Acts 17:30.—Though we
did not know from the first part of
the Epistle the meaning of the term:
righteousness of God , it would
appear clearly here from the
contrasted expression: their own
righteousness. The latter is a
sentence of justification which man obtains
in virtue of the way in which he has
fulfilled the law. God gives him
nothing; He simply attests and
proclaims the fact. The righteousness of
God, on the contrary, is the sentence
of justification which He confers on
faith of His own good will.—In the
first proposition the subject in question
is the notion of God's righteousness,
which has not succeeded in finding
an entrance into their mind; in the
second, the word is taken in the
concrete sense; the subject is
righteousness, as it has been really offered
them in Christ.— Sth'sai , to
establish; this word means: to cause to stand
erect as a monument raised, not to the
glory of God, but to their
own.—This proud attempt has issued in
an open revolt, in the rejection of
Christ and of the righteousness of God
offered in Him. The verb oujc
uJpetavghsan , they have not submitted
themselves , characterizes the
refusal to believe as a disobedience;
it is the counterpart of the passages
in which faith is called an obedience
(1:5, 6:17). This verb may have the
passive or middle sense; here it is
evidently the second (8:7, 13:1).
But this voluntary revolt has cost
Israel dear; for this is precisely the cause
of their rejection.
Ver. 4. It is on this point, indeed,
that their view and that of God have
come into collision. The Messiah
brought a free righteousness offered to
faith; His coming consequently put an
end to man's attempt to establish
his own righteousness on the
observance of the law; thus, then, fell the
whole legal economy, which had now
fulfilled its task. It was not so the
Jews understood it. If they in a
measure accepted the salvation of the
Gentiles, they thought of it only as
an annexation to Israel and a
subjection to the sovereignty of
Moses. It was under this idea “that they
compassed sea and land, as Jesus says,
to make proselytes” (Matt.
23:15). The Messiah was simply to
consummate this conquest of the
world by Israel, destroying by
judgment every Gentile who resisted. His
reign was to be the perfect
application of the legal institutes to the whole
world. It is easy to understand the
error and the irritation which could not
fail to take possession of the people
and their chiefs, when Jesus by His
decided spirituality seemed to
compromise the stability of the law of
ordinances (Matt. 5, 9:11-17, 15:1 et
seq.); when He announced plainly
that He came not to repair the old
Jewish garment, but to substitute for
that now antiquated regime, a garment
completely new. In this familiar
form He expressed the same profound
truth as St. Paul declares in our
verse: The law falls to the ground
with the coming of Him who brings a
completely made righteousness to the
believer.—The word tevlo" may
signify end or aim; but not, as some
have understood it here (Orig., Er.):
fulfilment
( teleivwsi" ), a meaning which
the word cannot have. The meaning aim ,
adopted by Calov., Grot., Lange, and
others, is in keeping with Gal. 3:24,
where the law is called the pedagogue
to bring the Jews to Christ. But the
context seems rather to require that
of end (Aug., Mey., etc.). There is a
contrast between this word tevlo"
and the term sth'sai , to hold erect (ver.
3). This latter meaning, that of end ,
no doubt implies the notion of aim; for
if the law terminates in Christ, it is
only because in Him it has reached its
aim. Nevertheless it is true that the
contrast established in the following
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
development between the righteousness
of the law and that of faith
requires, as an explanation properly
so called, the meaning of end , and
not aim. Of two contrary things, when
the one appears, the other must
take end.—This new fact which puts an
end to the law, is the coming of
Christ made righteousness to the
believer. The eij" indicates the
destination and application: “in
righteousness offered and given to the
believer, whoever he may be, Jew or
Gentile;” comp. 1 Cor. 1:30. These
words: every one that believeth ,
express the two ideas which are about to
be developed in the two following passages:
that of the freeness of
salvation, contained in the word
believeth (vv. 5-11); and that of its
universality , contained in the word
every one (vv. 12-21).
Vv. 5-11.
Ver. 5. “ For Moses describeth the
righteousness which is of the law thus:
The man who hath done [the law], shall
live by it. ”—In this translation we
have followed, for the first of the
three variants indicated in the note, the
reading of the T. R., which is
supported not only by the Byz. documents,
but also by the Vatic. and the two
ancient Latin and Syriac versions. It is
easy to explain the origin of the
other reading which has transposed the
oJti , that , by placing it
immediately after the verb grafei , writes; it seemed
that it should run: Moses writes that.
As to the second variant, the
authorities in favor of the T. R. (“he
that hath done those things ”) are
somewhat less strong, and especially
it is probable that this object aujtav (
those things ) was added under the
influence of the text of the LXX.; no
reason can be imagined why this word
should have been rejected. With
regard to the third, we think the T.
R. must also be abandoned, which
reads at the end of the verse ejn
aujtoi" , by them (those things), and
prefer the reading ejn aujth'/ , by it
(this righteousness). This last reading
has on its side the same reasons which
have decided us in regard to the
second variant, and the authority of
the Vaticanus besides.—Accordingly,
the object of the verb gravfei ,
writes , is not the saying of Moses quoted
afterward, but the words: the
righteousness which is of the law , so that
we must here take the word gravfein ,
with Calvin, in the sense of describe
(Moses describit): “Moses thus
describes this way for him who would
follow it.” Then (second variant) the
participle: he who has done , must be
taken in an absolute sense; for it has
no expressed object; comp. 4:4 ( he
that worketh , oJ ejrgazovmeno"
), literally: “He who has acted ” (in contrast
to him who has believed ). In the
translation we have been obliged to
supply an object; that object is: what
there was to be done, consequently
the law. Finally, the ejn aujth'/ , by
it , which we adopt (third variant),
refers evidently to the whole phrase:
“the righteousness which is of the
law.” This would be the means of
salvation and life to him who should
really do (the law).
But if it is certain that this way is
impracticable for fallen man, how is it to
be explained that Moses seriously
proposed it to the people of God? Or
must it be thought that there was here
a sort of irony: “Try, and thou shalt
see that it is too hard for thee.” It
is enough to reperuse the passage of the
law, Lev. 18:5, to be convinced that
the latter cannot be the sense in
which this invitation was addressed to
the people by the lawgiver. Now, if
this exhortation and promise were
serious, the way thus traced out was
practicable. And, in fact, the law of
Jehovah rightly understood was not
given independently of His grace. The
law, taken in the full sense of the
word, contained an entire provision of
means of grace unceasingly offered
to the pious Israelite. From the
moment he sinned, he could have
recourse humbly to the pardon of his
God, either with or without sacrifice,
as the case might be; comp. Ps.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
51:16, 17: “Thou delightest not in
sacrifice...; the sacrifice of God is a
broken spirit;”
vv. 10-12: “Create in me a clean
heart, O God; let the spirit of freedom
uphold me...; restore unto me the joy
of Thy salvation.” The law thus
humbly understood and sincerely
applied was certainly the way of
salvation for the believing Jew; it
led him to an ever closer communion
with God, as we find exemplified so
often in the O. T., and what was yet
wanting to this theocratic pardon and
salvation was to be granted one day
in the Messianic pardon and salvation
which closed the perspective of the
national hope. There was nothing,
then, more serious for the Israelite who
understood and applied the law in its
true spirit and in its full breadth than
the saying of Moses. But,
unfortunately, there was another way of
understanding the law and using it. It
was possible to take the law in a
narrower sense, solely in the form of
command, and to make this
institution thus understood a means of
self- righteousness, and of proud
complacency in self-merit. Such was
the spirit which reigned in Israel at
the time when Paul wrote, and
particularly that of the school in which he
had been brought up. Pharisaism,
separating the commandment from
grace, deemed that its fulfilment,
realized by man's own strength, was the
true title to divine favor. It is
against this point of view that Paul here turns
the law itself. He takes it as it is
regarded by those whom he wishes to
convince, as simple law, nuda lex
(Calvin), law properly so called. And he
reasons thus: “You wish to be
justified by your own doing. Well! But in that
case let your doing be complete! If
your obedience is to make you live, it
must be worthy of Him to whom it is
offered.” Such is the hopeless pass
into which the apostle had himself
been driven by the law thus understood
and practised, and into which he
drives the Pharisees of his time. If man
wishes to raise the edifice of his own
righteousness, let him take out every
element of grace in the law; for the
instant he has recourse to grace for
little or for much, it is all over
with work: “work is no more work” (11:6).
This is probably also the reason why
the apostle expresses himself as he
does according to the true reading,
saying, not: “Moses writes that”..., but:
“Moses thus describes the
righteousness of the law, to wit, that”...The
intention of Moses was not to urge to
such righteousness. But in his
saying there is formulated the
programme of a righteousness that is of the
law “as law.” If the law be once
reduced to commandment, the saying of
Leviticus certainly implies a mode of
justification such as that of which the
apostle speaks. Calvin is therefore
right in saying: Lex bifariam accipitur;
that is to say, the law may be
regarded in two aspects, according as we
take the Mosaic institution in its
fulness, comprehending therein the
elements of grace which belonged to it
in view of a previous justification
and a real sanctification, or as we
lose these elements of grace out of
view to fasten only on the commandment
and turn it to the satisfaction of
human pride.
Vv. 6, 7. “ But the righteousness
which is of faith speaketh on this wise,
Say not in thine heart, Who shall
ascend into heaven? that is, to bring
Christ down. Or, who shall descend
into the deep? that is, to bring up
Christ again from the
dead. ”—Few passages have been so
variously understood as this. And,
first, was the intention of the
apostle to give a real explanation of the
passage quoted (Aug., Abail., Buc.,
Cal., Olsh., Fritzs., Meyer,
Reuss)—whether this explanation be
regarded historically exact, or as a
violence done to the text of Moses (as
Meyer, who here finds an
application of the Rabbinical method
of seeking hidden meanings in the
simplest texts; or Reuss, who
expresses himself thus: “Paul finds a
passage from which he extorts the
desired sense...by means of
explanations which contradict the
meaning of the original”)?—Or must it
be held that the apostle only meant
here to employ the expressions of
which Moses made use, while giving
them a new
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
sense (Chrys., Beza, Beng., Thol.,
Ruck ., Philip., Hofm., etc.)? A third
class may be formed of those who, like
Calvin, Lange, Hodge, etc., find in
Paul a fundamental thought identical
with that of the text of Moses, but
one which is expounded here with great
freedom in form. It is clear that
these three classes, the last two
especially, cannot always be
distinguished precisely.
Let us remark in the outset the change
of subject as we pass from ver. 5
to ver. 6. Paul no longer says here: “
Moses writes (or describes). It is no
longer he who speaks either directly
or indirectly. It is the righteousness of
faith itself which takes the word,
borrowing, in order to reveal its essence,
certain expressions from the passage
quoted, Deut. 30:11-14. Meyer
endeavors in vain to weaken the
bearing of this difference. It is clear that
Paul is no longer quoting Moses
himself as in ver. 5, but making another
personage speak, while ascribing to
him in a free way the language of
Moses.—What now did the latter mean
when uttering the words quoted
here? The passage in the original
context applies to the law which Moses
had just been repeating to the people
according to its spirit rather than
according to its letter. Moses means
that the people need not distress
themselves about the possibility of
understanding and practicing this law.
They need not imagine that some one
must be sent to heaven or beyond
the seas, to bring back the
explanation of its commandments, or make its
fulfilment possible. This law has been
so revealed by the Lord, that every
Israelite is in a condition to
understand it with the heart and profess it with
the mouth; its fulfilment even is
within the reach of all. It is evident that in
expressing himself thus the lawgiver
is not taking up the standpoint of an
independent morality, but of
Israelitish faith, of confidence in the nearness
of Jehovah, and in the promise of His
grace and succor. It is not without
meaning that the Decalogue began with
the words: “I am the Lord thy
God, who brought thee out of the land
of Egypt,” and that every series of
laws terminated with the refrain: “I
am the Lord.” Consequently the
understanding and fulfilling of the
law which Moses declares possible,
have nothing in common with
meritorious work; they are the fruits of a
heart in the full communion of
confidence and love with the God of the
covenant. And how, indeed, could
Moses, who had written of Abraham
the words: “His faith was imputed to
him for righteousness,” have thought
that the way of faith was to be
replaced after a few centuries by that of
meritorious work? Comp. Gal. 3:17 et
seq. That element of grace which,
according to Moses himself, formed the
basis of the whole covenant
throughout its different phases,
patriarchal and Mosaic, is here
disentangled by Paul from its
temporary wrapping (in Deuteronomy), as
Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount
disentangles the spirit from the letter of
the Decalogue. He does not put into
the passage of Moses what is not
there, but he draws from it, in order
to set in relief its profoundest element,
the grace of Jehovah wrapped up and
attested in the commandment itself.
This grace, already existing in the
Jewish theocracy, was the fruitful germ
deposited under the surface, which was
one day to burst forth and
become the peculiar character of the
new covenant. The apostle therefore
was perfectly right in taking this
saying as the prelude of gospel grace. It
is easy, however, to understand why,
feeling himself at some distance
from the letter, in this application,
he has not introduced Moses himself,
but the righteousness of faith
emerging as it were itself in the expressions
of the lawgiver.
The differences between the texts of
Moses and that of Paul are
numerous. Moses says: “This
commandment is not in heaven above,
saying (that is, thou shouldst
say)”...Paul adds: in thy heart —an
expression which, as Philippi says,
commonly refers to an evil thought
which one is afraid to utter. Comp.
Matt. 3:9; Rev. 18:7. Moses continues
thus: “and having heard, we shall do
it.” Paul omits
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
these words as not having to do
directly with his object, namely, to bring
out the element of grace contained in
the passage. He does so also with
the same expressions repeated vv. 13
and 14. Finally, for the phrase
beyond the sea , he substitutes: into
the deep (abyss), a word which
evidently denotes here the abode of
the dead; comp. ver. 7. Did he
understand the expression beyond the
sea in the sense of the depth, or
has he departed entirely from the
figure supported by the fact that the
word abyss sometimes denotes the
immensity of the seas? or, finally, is
he alluding to the idea of antiquity,
which placed the fields of the blessed
beyond the ocean? None of these is
probable; he has been led to the
expression by the contrast so frequent
in Scripture between heaven and
Hades (Job 11:8; Amos 9:2; Ps. 107:26,
139:8). He wished to contrast
what is deepest with what is highest;
to depict on the one hand the
condemnation from which Christ rescues
us (ver. 7), and on the other, the
full salvation to which He raises us
(ver. 6); and, keeping as close as
possible to the figurative expressions
of Moses, he has taken Sheol and
heaven as types of these two states.
By these slight transformations Paul
substitutes for the yet imperfect
grace attached by the Lord to the gift of
the law, the perfect bestowals of
grace belonging to the new covenant. In
the application which he makes of the
saying of Moses, he points out not
only the help of Jehovah ever near the
believer to sustain him in the
fulfilment of the law, but the law
already completely fulfilled , both in its
prescriptions and threatenings, by the
life and death of Christ, so that all
that remains for him who seeks
salvation is to appropriate and apply this
fulfilment as his own. Moses reassured
the sincere Jew by showing him
that doing would follow easily from
believing. Paul reassures every man
desirous of salvation by offering to
him a doing wrought by another, and
which his believing has only to lay
hold of. To penetrate, therefore, to the
spirit of Moses' saying, and to
prolong the lines of the figures used by him,
are all that is needed to land us in
the gospel. There was a piquancy in
thus replying to Moses by Moses, and
in showing that what the lawgiver
had written was still more true of the
gospel than of the law.
The meaning of this saying in Paul is
not, therefore, as was believed by
the Greek Fathers, and as is still
thought by Meyer and a good many
others: “Beware of being unbelieving
toward Christ incarnate (ver. 6) and
risen (ver. 7).” 1. This thought is foreign
to the context, for Paul has no
idea of contrasting believing with not
believing , but doing with believing.
2. There would be no connection
between the application of this saying by
Paul, and its signification in
Deuteronomy. 3. How could we suppose the
apostle addressing this saying to
non-believers? Has the righteousness of
faith then the right to say to them: I
prohibit your not believing? What
would be the use of such a
prohibition? The apostle is addressing
Christians, who hold the supernatural
facts of Christ's history, but who do
not yet understand the full saving
efficacy contained in them; and this is
what he would have them to perceive.
The same objections apply equally
to other explanations, such as that of
Reiche: “Who shall ascend into
heaven to convince himself that Jesus
is really there?” and: “Who shall
descend into the abyss to assure
himself that He has indeed risen from
it?” Or that of Grimm: “Who shall
ascend to bring Christ down from
heaven, and thus prove the reality of
His glorified existence?” Or that of
Holsten: “Who shall go to convince
himself in heaven and in the abyss
that God has power to effect the
incarnation of Christ and the resurrection
of His body?” In all these
explanations the person dealt with is always one
who has to be convinced of the facts
of salvation. But we do not convince
of a historical fact by giving command
to believe it. He to whom the
righteousness of faith speaks with
this tone of authority is one who
believes those facts, and whom it
exhorts to draw the saving
consequences
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
which rationally flow from
them.—Calvin already comes near the true
practical bearing of the passage when
he thus explains: “Who shall
ascend into heaven to prepare our
abode there? Who shall descend into
the abyss to rescue us from the
sepulchre?” Only the context proves that
the subject in question is not our
future resurrection and glorification, but
our present justification by
faith.—Philippi, Lange, and Reuss seem to us
to come still nearer the truth when
they take these words as indicating
works which Christ has already really
accomplished to save us, so that it
only remains for us to accept this
fully wrought salvation. But when
Philippi and Lange apply the first
question, that of ver. 6, to the fact of the
incarnation , explaining it with
Meyer: “Who shall ascend to bring Christ
down (by incarnation) to work out our
salvation?” it is impossible for me to
follow them; first, because there is
no need of an ascension, but prayer is
enough to obtain a gift of grace from
God; and further, because in that
case there would cease to be any real
connection between the application
made by Paul of this saying and its meaning
in Moses.
If we start, as is natural, from this
last point (the original meaning of the
saying), the following is the
explanation of vv. 6 and 7: “O thou, who
desirest to reach the heaven of
communion with God, say not: How shall I
ascend to it? as if it were necessary
for thee thyself to accomplish this
ascent on the steps of thine own
obedience. That of which thou sayest:
Who will do it (how shall I do it)? is
a thing done; to ask such a question is
to deny that Christ has really done
it. It is to undo, at least so far as thou
art concerned, what He has done. Thou
whom thy sins torment, say not
any more: Who shall descend into the
abyss, there to undergo my
punishment? That of which thou sayest:
Who will do it (how shall I do it)?
is a thing done. To ask such a
question is to deny that Christ has done it;
it is to undo, at least so far as thou
art concerned, what He has done.
Expiation is accomplished; thou canst
have it by faith.
The form tiv" , who? has this
meaning: it is not every man individually that
is asked to fulfil these two
conditions of salvation—obedience and
expiation. In that case every man
would be called to be his own Christ.
The righteousness of faith forbids us
to make such pretensions, which can
only issue in our discouragement or
embitterment. Instead of the part of
Christs, it brings us down to that of
believers; and hence the reason why
Paul, in the following words, makes
use twice of the name of Christ , and
not that of Jesus , as he would
certainly do if he meant to speak here of
the historical facts as such: comp.
8:11.
Twice the apostle interrupts his
quotation of the Mosaic saying with one of
those brief explanations which, in the
Rabbins, get the name of Midrasch ,
and of which we find other examples in
Paul, e.g., 1 Cor. 15:55 and 56. To
support his explanation of the
questions vv. 6 and 7 (as addressed to an
unbeliever), Meyer, with many others,
has been obliged to make these
two short explanations, interjected by
the apostle, dependent on the two
preceding questions, as if they were a
continuation of them: “Who shall
ascend into heaven, that is to say,
with the view of bringing the Christ
down? Who shall descend into the deep,
that is to say, with the view of
bringing the Christ up?” This meaning
of tou'tj e[sti , that is to say , is far
from natural; for what we expect is
the indication of the reason why the
righteousness of faith forbids such
speaking, not the mention of the
motive which leads the interrogator to
raise this question. Besides, there
is a tou'tj e[sti perfectly parallel
in ver. 8; now, there it is impossible to take
the phrase in the sense which Meyer
here gives to it. The word is
therefore directly connected with mh;
ei[ph/" , say not. “Say not: Who shall
ascend? for that (speaking thus) is to
bring down..., or: Who shall
descend? for that (speaking thus) is
to bring up”...And, in point of fact, to
wish
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
to do a thing oneself (or ask that
some one should do it) is evidently
equivalent to denying that it is
already done. Consequently, to say: Who
shall ascend to open heaven for us? is
to deny that Christ has already
ascended for this end; it is logically
to bring Him down again to this earth.
It is therefore impossible to follow
the almost unanimous leading of
commentators, and refer the here
imagined descent of Christ to the
incarnation; rather it is a giving of
the lie to the fact of the ascension (as
Glo1ckler has understood it): “What
thou wouldst do, ascend to heaven by
thine own obedience, thou canst not;
but Christ, by His perfect obedience,
has won heaven both for Himself and
thee. To ask: How shall I do it? or:
Who shall do it? is therefore
equivalent to denying that He has ascended.
If thou dost really believe in His
ascension, as thou professest to do, thou
canst not deal thus with it.”—In the
second question, ver. 7, De Wette and
Meyer observe that there is no need of
putting two points (:) after the h[ ,
or; the quotation continues.—The abyss
frequently denotes the abode of
the dead and of fallen angels (Luke
8:31). For as the azure of the sky
represents perfect salvation, so the
depth of the sea is the natural figure
for the abode of death and the state
of condemnation.—The meaning
given by Meyer: tou'tj e[sti , that is
to say , is still more inadmissible here
than above. In fact it is an
impossible supposition, that of a man going
down into hell to raise up Christ
there. If He is the Christ, He will certainly
rise of Himself: if He is not, He will
not rise at all. And in whose mouth
should we put such a question? In that
of a believer? But a believer does
not doubt the resurrection. In that of
an unbeliever? But an unbeliever
would say: Who shall descend? not
certainly with the view of going to
raise Him up, which has no meaning,
but with the view of going to see
whether He has risen, or of going to
prove that he has not; and besides,
such a man would not thus off-hand
call Jesus the Christ. It seems to me
that it is a mistake to refer the word
ajnagagei'n , to bring up , to cause to
ascend, as is generally done, to the
fact of the resurrection. This
expression must of course be
understood in a sense analogous to that of
the word bring down , ver 6. Now this
latter signified: to deny, by wishing
to gain heaven oneself, that Christ
has ascended thither to open it for us;
to replace things as they would be
without the ascension. To bring up
consequently signifies: to deny, by
wishing oneself to undergo
condemnation for his sins, that Christ
has blotted them out; to replace
things as they would be without His
expiatory death. Meyer objects that
ver. 9 expressly speaks of the
resurrection; but he resolves this objection
himself when he says, in the
explanation of ver. 9: “Without the
resurrection, the death of Jesus would
not be the expiatory death.” What
is in question here is not the
historical fact of His death, but its expiatory
value, of which the resurrection is
the monument. It is by the resurrection
that the death appears not merely as
that of Jesus, but as that of the
Christ. Meyer again objects, that the
death would require to have been
placed by Paul before the ascension.
But Paul was following the order of
the words of Moses, and this order
really better suited the didactic
meaning which he was introducing into
them. First the conquest of heaven
by Christ's holy life and perfect
obedience; then the abolition of
condemnation by His expiatory death.
We may now sum up the general meaning
of the passage: All the doing
asked of man by the law (ver. 5), and
which he could never accomplish
otherwise than imperfectly, is now
accomplished perfectly by the Christ,
whether it relate to the conquest of
heaven by holiness, or to the abolition
of condemnation by expiation. All,
therefore, that remains to man in order
to be saved, is to believe in this work
by applying it to himself; and this is
what is commanded us by the
righteousness of faith, ver. 8, after it has
forbidden us, vv. 6 and 7, to pretend
ourselves to open heaven or to close
hell. This argument showed at a
glance, that Christ having
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
charged Himself with the doing , and
having left us only the believing , His
work put an end to the legal
dispensation, which the apostle wished to
prove (ver. 4).
Ver. 8. “ But what saith it? The word
is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy
heart. Now, that is the word of faith
which we preach. ”—In the passage
quoted, Moses said: “Believe on him
who is revealed to thee in the law.
With Him in the heart and on the lips
thou shalt understand it, and thou
shalt certainly fulfil it.” This
saying was in the ancient economy a relative
truth. It becomes in Christ absolute
truth. In these words Moses had in a
sense, without suspecting it, given
the exact formula of the righteousness
of faith; and it is because the
apostle was conscious of this fundamental
identity of feeling between Moses and
the gospel on this point, that he
could venture, as he does here, to
apply the saying of the one to the
teaching of the other. There is
therefore in this passage neither a simple
imitation of the words of Moses, nor a
false Rabbinical pretence to
interpret it correctly. Paul has done
what we do or should do in every
sermon: 1st. Disentangle from the
temporary application, which is the
strict sense of the text, the
fundamental and universal principle which it
contains; 2d. Apply freely this
general principle to the circumstances in
which we are ourselves speaking.
Nigh thee signifies (in the mouth of
Moses): of possible, and even easy
accomplishment. The term is explained
by the two expressions: in thy
mouth and in thy heart , the former of
which means: easy to be learned
and repeated; the second: easy to be
loved; of course: in communion with
Jehovah and by the aid of His Spirit
both promised to faithful Israelites.
“Such expressions, says Paul, are
exactly those which find their full reality
when they are applied to the word of
faith , which forms the subject of
gospel preaching.” If faith is an emotion
of the heart, and its profession a
word of invocation: Jesus Lord! is it
possible to realize this formula of
Moses: in thy mouth and in thy heart ,
better than is done by the word of
faith?—Salvation thus appears to us as
a perfectly ripe fruit which divine
grace places before us, and on which
we have only to put the hand of
faith. To Christ belongs the doing; to
us the believing. This idea of the
absolute nearness of the finished
salvation is analyzed in
vv. 9 and 10 (starting from the expressions
of ver. 8), and justified once
more by a scriptural quotation (ver.
11), which contains at the same time
the transition to the following
passage.
Vv. 9, 10. “ Seeing that if thou shalt
confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus, and shalt believe in thine
heart that God hath raised Him from the
dead, thou shalt be saved. For with
the heart man believeth unto
righteousness; and with the mouth
confession is made unto salvation.
”—The two terms: confessing with the
mouth and believing with the heart ,
reproduce the ideas in thy mouth and
in thy heart , of ver. 8. These are the
two conditions of salvation; for while
faith suffices to take hold of the
finished expiation, when this faith is
living, it inevitably produces
profession, and from this follows
incorporation into the flock already
formed, by means of invocation and
baptism. Profession is put first here,
in keeping with the words of Moses
(ver. 8: in thy mouth ); the order is that
which from the external ascends to the
internal; it reminds us that
profession would be nothing without
faith.—The object of the profession is
the title Lord given to Christ, as is
done in the invocation by which we
publicly declare ourselves subjects;
comp. 1 Cor. 12:3 (according to the
true reading). Here again we find the
idea of ver. 6, that of the glorified
Christ. The same relation between the
sovereignty of Christ and the
Christian profession appears in Phil.
2:9-11: “Wherefore God hath
supremely exalted Him...that every
tongue should confess that He is
Lord.” This allusion to ver. 6 proves
clearly that the reference there was
not to the incarnation; for Jesus is
called by the title of Lord, as the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
glorified, and not as the pre-existent
Christ.—On the other hand, the
special object of faith is Christ
risen. The reason is clear: it is in the
external fact of the resurrection that
faith apprehends its essential object,
the moral fact of justification; comp.
4:25.—Paul concludes this long
sentence with a brief summary word:
swqhvsh/ , thou shalt be saved , as if
he would say: After that all is done.
ver. 10 demonstrates in fact that these
conditions once complied with,
salvation was sure.
Ver. 10. The idea of salvation is
analyzed; it embraces the two facts:
being justified and being saved (in
the full sense of the word). The former
is especially connected with the act
of faith , the latter with that of
profession. Paul, in expressing
himself thus, is not swayed, as De Wette
believes, by the love of parallelism.
There is in his eyes a real distinction
to be made between being justified and
being saved. We have already
seen again and again, particularly in
chap. 5:9 and 10, that justification is
something of the present; for it
introduces us from this time forth into
reconciliation with God. But salvation
includes, besides, sanctification and
glory. Hence it is that while the
former depends only on faith, the latter
implies persevering fidelity in the
profession of the faith, even to death and
to glory. In this ver. 10, Paul
returns to the natural and psychological
order, according to which faith
precedes profession. This is because he is
here expounding his thought, without
any longer binding himself to the
order of the Mosaic quotation. And to
put, as it were, a final period to this
whole passage, the idea of which is
the perfect freeness of salvation, he
repeats once more the passage of
Isaiah which had served him as a point
of departure (9:33).
Ver. 11. “ For the Scripture saith,
Whosoever believeth on Him shall not
be confounded. ”—That is to say, it
suffices to believe in Him who has
fulfilled all, to be saved exactly as
if one had fulfilled all himself. Here
again the apostle quotes according to
the LXX. (see on 9:33). The most
miserable of believers will not be
deceived in his hope, if only he believes.
The apostle here adds the word
pa'" , every one, whosoever , which was
not authentic (9:33), but which is not
wanting in any document in our
verse. He might, indeed, deduce it
with reason from the idea of the verse
taken as a whole. Yet he does not add
it by accident; for with the idea of
the freeness of salvation he proceeds
to connect that of its universality.
This was the second point to which the
ignorance of the Jews extended,
and one of the two causes which
rendered their rejection necessary for
the execution of God's plan. Imagining
that salvation was bound up with
the fulfilment of the ordinances of
the law, they monopolized it to their
advantage, consenting to share it only
with those of the Gentiles who
would accept circumcision and the
Mosaic dispensation, and thereby
become members of the people of
Israel. Through this conception, they
came into conflict with the mind of
God, which had in view the preaching
of a free salvation to the whole
world, and consequently the abolition of
the legal system. This divine
universalism, with its consequence, the free
preaching of the gospel to all men, is
the subject of the following passage.
By introducing the word pa'" ,
every one, whosoever (ver. 11), into the
saying of Isaiah, the apostle
announces this new idea which he proceeds
to develop.
Vv. 12-21.
Paul has justified the matter of his
preaching, salvation by grace; he now
justifies its extension. Not that, as
Baur, Holsten, etc., think, he wishes
thereby to remove the scruples of the
Judeo-Christian conscience against
his apostleship among the Gentiles;
but—as the context says clearly
enough—to indicate the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
second point in regard to which the
Jews have showed themselves
ignorant (ver. 4) as to the plan of
God, and because of which they have
brought on themselves the rejection
with which they are overtaken. When
man would put himself against the plan
of God, God does not stop; He
sets aside the obstacle. Such is the
connection of ideas which leads to the
following passage.
Vv. 12, 13. “ For there is no
difference between the Jew and the Greek: for
there is one and, the same Lord for
all, rich unto all that call upon Him. For
whosoever shall call upon the name of
the Lord shall be saved.
”—Salvation being free , there is no
longer any restriction to its
application: it is necessarily
universal. It is this logical consequence which
the apostle expounds (ver. 12), and
which he confirms (ver. 13) by a new
Scripture passage.—What formed the
separation between the two
fractions of mankind, the Jews and the
Greeks, was the law (Eph. 2:14,
the mesovtoicon , the partition wall
). This wall once broken down (as has
just been proved) by the work of the
Messiah, mankind no longer forms
more than a single social body, and
has throughout the same Lord , and a
Lord rich enough to communicate the
blessings of salvation to this whole
multitude on one single condition: the
invocation of faith. Israel had never
imagined anything like this; and yet
it was so clearly announced, as is
proved by ver. 13.—In the second
proposition of ver. 12, the subject might
be the pronoun oJ aujtov" , the
same: “the same (being) is Lord of all.” It
seems to me, however, more natural to
join the word kuvrio" , Lord , to the
subject, and then to understand it as
the predicate: “The same Lord is
(Lord) of all.” See the same
construction 2:29. In any case, there is no
reason for making the participle
ploutw'n , who is rich , the principal verb in
this sense: “The same Lord is rich for
all;” for the essential idea is not that
of the Lord's riches, but that of His
universal and identical sovereignty
over all men. To us this idea is
commonplace; it was not so at the
beginning. It strikes St. Peter like a
sudden flash the first time he gets a
glimpse of it (Acts 10:34-36).—The
condition of invocation recalls the idea
developed above of profession (the
oJmologia ) in vv. 9 and 10. The true
profession of faith is, in fact, this
cry of adoration: Lord Jesus! And this cry
may be equally uttered by every human
heart, Jewish or Gentile, without
the need of any law. Behold how the
universalism founded on faith
henceforth excludes the dominion of
law.—The idea: rich unto all ,
establishes the full equality of
believers in their participation of the
blessings of salvation. The common
Lord will give not less abundantly to
one than to another; comp. John 1:16:
“and of his fulness have all we
received.”
Ver. 13. Joel (2:32) had already
announced this new fact: that salvation
would depend only on the believing
invocation of the name of Jehovah in
His final Messianic manifestation.
Legal rights had vanished from before
his eyes; there remained the adoration
of Jehovah in His supreme
revelation. Paul applies with full
right this prophetic word to the coming of
Jesus. Now, if the invocation of the
name of Jehovah, revealed in the
person of the Messiah Jesus, is to be
the means of salvation for all, what
follows therefrom? The need of a
universal preaching of the name which
must be invoked by all.
Vv. 14, 15. “ How then shall they call
on Him in whom they have not
believed? And how shall they believe
in Him of whom they have not
heard? And how shall they hear without
a preacher? And how shall they
preach , except they be sent, as it is
written, How beautiful are the feet of
them that publish peace , who announce
good things! ”—No invocation
without faith; no faith without
hearing; no hearing without preaching; no
preaching without sending. A universal
apostolate is therefore the
necessary corollary of a free and
universal salvation. Such are the
contents of our two verses, which are
directed, not against Judeo-
Christian prejudices, but against
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the ignorance of Israel, the final
result of which was necessarily their
rejection. Paul points out to the
Jews, who took offence at the wide and
universal character of his
apostleship, the internal necessity on which it
was based, and the positive prophetical
texts which justified it. We are
therefore still at the development of
this theme: The ignorance of Israel
the cause of their rejection.
And first, no invocation without
faith. It is difficult to decide between the T.
R. ejpikalevsontai , shall they call
on , and the Alex. and Greco-Latin texts:
ejpikalevswntai , shall they be able
to call on. This same variant reappears
in the following verbs, and that
without the critical authorities being
consequent with themselves. The simple
future is more natural, though
the subjunctive may easily be
defended.—No faith without the hearing of
the gospel message. The pronoun ou\ ,
whom , presents a difficulty; for
the meaning is: “Him whom they have
not heard.” Now, men cannot hear
Jesus Christ. Meyer answers, that they
can hear Him by the mouth of His
messengers: “whom they have not heard
preaching by His apostles.” But
could this idea be left to be wholly
understood? Hofmann gives to ou\ a
local meaning: in the place where:
“How could He be invoked in the place
where men have not heard (Him spoken
of)?” But the ellipsis of the last
words would be very marked. It seems
to me simpler to apply the pronoun
ou\ to Jesus, not as preaching
(Meyer), but as preached; comp. Eph. 4:21:
“If at least ye have heard Him , and
have been taught by Him.” It is true
the pronoun which is the object of
have heard , in this passage, is in the
accusative ( aujtovn ), and not, as
here, in the genitive. But this difference
is easily explained; the act referred
to in Ephesians is one of the
understanding which penetrates the
object, while here it is only a simple
hearing, the condition of faith.
Ver. 15. No preaching without sending.
Paul is not thinking here of some
human association sending out
missionaries. The term ajpostalw'sin , be
sent , evidently alludes to the
apostleship properly so called, the normal
mission established by the Lord
Himself by the sending of the apostles.
This mission included in principle all
subsequent missions. At this thought
of a universal apostleship the feeling
of the apostle rises; he sees them,
those messengers of Jesus, traversing
the world, and, to the joy of the
nations who hear them, sowing
everywhere the good news. The passage
quoted is taken from Isa. 52:7. A
similar saying is found in Nahum (1:15),
but in a briefer form: “Behold upon
the mountains the feet of him that
publisheth peace.” In this prophet the
saying applies to the messenger
who comes to announce to Jerusalem the
fall of Nineveh. In Isaiah, it is
more in keeping with the text of Paul,
and refers more directly to the
preaching of salvation throughout the
whole world. This message of grace
is to be the consequence of the return
from the captivity. The point of time
referred to is when, as Isaiah says,
40:5, “all flesh shall see the salvation
of God.” The words: “of them that
publish peace,” are wrongly omitted by
the Alex. MSS. The copyist has
confounded the two eujaggelizomevnwn ,
and thus omitted the intermediate
words. It cannot be supposed that it is
the T. R. and its documents which have
added these words; for they
would have been copied more exactly
from the text of the LXX. (comp. the
substitution of the eijrhvnhn for the
ajkoh;n eijrhvnh" ). Besides, this is one
of the passages in which Paul
designedly abandons the translation of the
LXX. to conform his quotation to the
Hebrew text, the first words of which
were utterly misrendered by the Greek
version: wv" w{ra ejpi; tw'n ojrevwn
, as fair weather on the mountains
...The apostle at the same time allows
himself some modifications even of
Isaiah's text. He rejects the words: on
the mountains , which did not apply to
the preaching of the gospel; and for
the singular: him that publisheth , he
substitutes the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
plural, which better suits the
Christian apostleship.—We must naturally
contrast the terms peace and good
things (in our [French] translations:
good news ) with the establishment of
the legal dispensation throughout
the whole world; comp. Eph. 2:27, the
thought and even expressions of
which are so similar to those of our
passage. If, with three Mjj., we read
the article tav before ajgaqav ( the
good things, instead of good things),
Paul makes express allusion to those
well-known foretold blessings which
were to constitute the Messianic
kingdom.
Such was to be the end of the old
covenant: not the extension of the law
to all nations, but a joyful and
universal proclamation of peace and of
heavenly grace on the part of a
Saviour rich unto all. And if Israel had
known the part assigned them, instead
of making themselves the
adversaries of this glorious
dispensation, they would have become its
voluntary instruments, and transformed
themselves into that army of
apostles who are charged with
publishing the mercies of God. This divine
plan was frustrated through their
ignorance, both of the real nature of
salvation and of its universal
destination. Such is the force of the following
verses.
Vv. 16, 17. “ But they have not all
obeyed the gospel; for Esaias saith,
Lord, who hath believed our message (
pre8dication )? So then faith
cometh of hearing, and hearing by the
word of God. ”—The word ajllav ,
but , contrasts strongly what has been
produced (by the fact of Jewish
unbelief) with with what should have
been the result, faith and the
salvation of Israel first of all.—
Pavnte" , all , denotes the totality of those
who hear the word; and the exception
indicated by the ouj pavnte" , not all ,
applies in the context to the mass of
the Jewish people who have formed
an exception to the general faith
which the gospel was finding in the
world. The term: have not obeyed ,
reminds us of that in ver. 3: have not
submitted themselves. There is
disobedience in not accepting what God
offers. The term gospel ( evangel )
reproduces the word evangelizing
(publishing good tidings), ver.
15.—But that was to be expected ( for ).
This disobedience was in fact foreseen
and proclaimed, Isa. 53:1, without,
however, the guilt of Israel being
thereby diminished, divine
foreknowledge not annulling human
liberty.—Isaiah in this passage
proclaims the unbelief of the people
of Israel in regard to the Messiah,
giving a description of His entire
appearance in His state of humiliation
and pain. He well knew that such a
Messiah would not answer to the
ambitious views of the people, and
would be rejected by them. The
subject of the unbelief thus
proclaimed is not his prophecy only, but above
all the fact in which it is to be
realized.—The word ajkohv , which we
translated by our message signifies:
our hearing , and may denote either:
what we (prophets) hear from the mouth
of God, and proclaim to you,
Jews; or: what you (Jews) hear from us
(by our mouth). The second
meaning is certainly more natural, and
agrees better with the meaning of
the same word in ver. 17.—In quoting
this saying, the apostle has in mind
not only the unbelief of the Jewish
people in Palestine in regard to the
preaching of the apostles, but also
that of the synagogues of the whole
world in relation to his own.
Ver. 17. There was no logical
necessity obliging the apostle to return to
the two ideas contained in this verse,
and already expressed in ver. 14.
But he takes them up again in passing,
as confirmed by the words of
Isaiah just quoted, and to give
occasion more clearly to the objection
about to follow in ver. 18. [Ara : so
then (precisely as I was saying).—The
meaning of ajkohv , hearing , is not
modified in passing from ver. 16 to ver.
17. It is still the hearing of what is
preached as from God; only Paul here
distinguishes between the two ideas of
hearing and preaching ( the word
of God ), which were blended in the
first of these two terms, ver. 16, in the
passage of Isaiah (in consequence of
the complement hJmw'n , of us [ our
], prophets
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
and apostles). It is unnecessary,
therefore, to apply the expression word
of God , as Meyer would, to the
command by which God sends the
preachers. This meaning has not the
slightest support in the words of
Isaiah, and it is contrary to the use
of the term rJh'ma , word , in vv. 8, 9,
where it denotes the work of salvation
as preached. It must be the same
here. jEk , of: faith is born of
hearing; diav , by: hearing is wrought by the
word preached.—The complement of God
in the T. R. denotes the author
of the word, while the complement of
Christ in the Alex. and Greco-Lat.
reading would express its subject. The
first reading agrees better with the
context.—The question is therefore
relatively to the unbelief of the Jews:
Has this double condition been
fulfilled toward them? If not, here would be
a circumstance fitted to exculpate
them, and to throw back on God the
blame of their unbelief and rejection.
The apostle does not fail, before
closing, to raise this question.
Ver. 18. “ But I say, Have they not
heard? Yea, much more, their sound
went into all the earth, and their
words unto the ends of the world. ”—It is
not God who has failed in His part.
No; they who have not believed (the
majority of Israel) cannot excuse
themselves by saying that the mission,
which is an essential condition of
faith, was not carried out in their case.
As (according to Ps. 19:1 et seq.) the
heavens and their hosts proclaim
God's existence and perfections to the
whole universe, and, mute as they
are, make their voice re-echo in the
hearts of all men; so, says St. Paul,
with a sort of enthusiasm at the
memory of his own ministry, the voice of
the preachers of the gospel has
sounded in all countries and in all the
cities of the known world. There is
not a synagogue which has not been
filled with it; not a Jew in the world
who can justly plead ignorance on the
subject.— Mh; oujk h[kousan : “It is
not, however, the case that they have
not heard, is it? Evidently the
apostle is speaking of those who have not
believed , consequently of the Jews.
How can Origen and Calvin think
here of the Gentiles? It is the case
of the Jews which is being pleaded.
The pronoun aujtw'n , their (voice),
refers not to the subject of the previous
sentence, but to that of the sentence
of the Psalm quoted by Paul: the
heavens. —No one certainly will think
that Paul meant here to give the
explanation of this passage; it is an
application of the Psalmist's words,
which is still freer than that made of
the passage from Deut. in vv. 6-8.
The apostle has just advanced, and
then refuted, a first excuse which
might be alleged in favor of the Jews;
he proposes a second, the
insufficiency of which he will also
demonstrate.
Ver. 19. “ But I say, Did not Israel
know?First Moses saith, I will provoke
you to jealousy by a people who are
not a people, by a foolish nation I will
anger
you. ”— Mh; oujk : “It is not the
case, however, is it, that Israel did not
know?” Know what, then? Crities answer
the question differently. Some,
from Chrysostom to Philippi and
Hofmann, say: The gospel. But what
difference in that case would there be
between this excuse and the
former? Philippi seeks to evade this
difficulty by explaining the verb ejgnw
not in the sense of know , but in the
sense of understand: “Is it credible
that Israel did not understand what
the Gentiles apprehended at once (the
gospel)?” But in that case the answer
would be: “Yes, certainly it is
credible, for it is the fact.” Now the
form of the question (with mhv ) admits
only of a negative answer. The object
of the verb did know ought naturally
to be taken from what precedes; it is
therefore the essential idea of this
whole passage, the universality of the
preaching of the gospel. Paul asks:
It is not, however, the case, is it,
that Israel did not know what was
coming? that they were taken by
surprise by this sending of the message
of grace to the Gentiles throughout
the whole world, as by an unexpected
dispensation? If it were so, this
might form an excuse for them. But no;
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Moses even (ver. 19), and again more
distinctly Isaiah (vv. 20, 21), had
warned them of what would happen, so
that they cannot excuse
themselves by saying that they are the
victims of a surprise. The
sequence and progress of the argument
are thus vindicated in a way
which is perfectly natural and well
marked. It is not even necessary to
introduce here, with Ewald and several
others, the more special idea of
the transference of the kingdom of God
from the Jews to the
Gentiles.—Moses is called first
relatively to Isaiah (following verse),
simply because he preceded him.
Hofmann has attempted to connect this
epithet with Israel: “Did Israel not
hear the gospel first , as was their right?”
But the answer would require to be
affirmative; and this is excluded by the
mhv . It is clear that what Paul is
concerned to bring out by this word first
is not the simple fact of the priority
of Moses in time to Isaiah, but the
circumstance that from the very
opening of the sacred volume the mind of
God on the point in question was
declared to Israel.—The words quoted
are found in Deut. 32:21: “As Israel
have provoked the Lord to jealousy by
worshipping that which is not God, so
the Lord in His turn will provoke
them to jealousy by those who are not
His people.” It is inconceivable how
commentators like Meyer can apply
these last words to the remains of the
Canaanites whom the Israelites had
allowed to remain among them, and
whom God proposed to bless to such a
degree as to render the Israelites
jealous of their well-being. Such are
the exegetical monstrosities to which
a preconceived system of prophetical
interpretation may lead. Moses
certainly announces to the Jews in
these words, as Paul recognizes, that
the Gentiles will precede them in the
possession of salvation, and that this
will be the humiliating means whereby
Israel themselves shall require at
length to be brought back to their
God.—The former of the two verbs (
parazhlou'n ) means that God will
employ the stimulant of jealousy; and the
latter ( parorgivzein ), that this
jealousy will be carried even to anger; but all
in view of a favorable result, the
conversion of Israel. The words: by those
who are not a people , have been
understood in the sense: that the
Gentiles are not strictly peoples ,
but mere assemblages of men. This idea
is forced, and foreign to the context.
We must explain: those who are not
a people , in the sense: those who are
not a people, par excellence, my
people.
What Moses had only announced darkly
in these words, Isaiah
proclaimed with open mouth. He
declares unambiguously: God will one
day manifest Himself to the Gentiles
by a proclamation of grace, while the
Jews will obstinately reject all the
blessings which shall be offered to
them.
Vv. 20, 21. “ But Esaias is very bold,
and saith, I was found of them that
sought me not; I was made manifest
unto them that asked not after me.
But to Israel he saith, All the day
long I have stretched forth my hands
unto a disobedient and gainsaying
people. ”— jApotolma'/ : “he declares
without mincing matters.” The passage
quoted is Isa. 65:1. Most modern
crities apply this saying of Isaiah to
the Jews who did not seek the Lord,
while Paul applies it to the Gentiles.
Hofmann, while starting from the
prevailing explanation, seeks to
justify Paul's quotation; but without
success. Meyer acknowledges the
difference between the two
interpretations, Paul's and that of
modern exegesis. But, he says, Paul
saw in unbelieving Israel a type of
the Gentile world. This solution is
impossible; for, as we shall see,
Isaiah distinctly contrasts those of whom
he is speaking in ver. 1 with
unbelieving Israel, ver. 2. We think that the
simple and unbiassed study of the
passage from Isaiah leads irresistibly
to the conclusion that the prophet
really meant to speak in ver. 1 of the
Gentiles reaching salvation
notwithstanding their ignorance, and to
contrast them with the Jews in their
obstinate rebellion against God, who
had long revealed Himself to them,
ver. 2. In fact—1. The term goi
expressly
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
distinguishes as Gentiles those to
whom ver. 1 refers, as the term am (
the people ), in ver. 2, positively
describes Israel. 2. This contrast is the
more certain that the prophet adds to
the term goi , the nation , the
commentary: “(the nation) which was
not called by my name.” Could he
thus designate Israel? 3. Is it
possible to mistake the contrast established
by the prophet between those who, not
inquiring after the Lord, whom
they do not yet know, find Him because
He consents to manifest Himself
to them spontancously (ver. 1), and
the people, properly so called, whom
for ages He has not ceased to call to
Him, who know Him as their God,
but who obstinately reject His mercies
(ver. 2)? Let us add, 4, that the two
ideas of the future unbelief of the
Jews in relation to the Messiah, and of
the calling of the Gentiles to fill
for the time their place in the kingdom of
God, are very distinctly expressed
elsewhere in Isaiah; so 52:13-15: the
kings and peoples of the Gentiles, who
had not heard any prophecy,
believe in the suffering and exalted
Messiah, while the Jews reject Him,
though to them He had been clearly
foretold (53:1); so again 49:4: the
failure of the Messiah's work in
Israel, forming a contrast to the rich
indemnification which is bestowed on
Him through the conversion of the
Gentiles (ver. 6). It is clear that
the alleged advances in the interpretation
of the prophets may, after all, on
certain points, be only retrogressions.
The thought of vv. 20 and 21 is analogous
to that of 10:30 and 31. The
unsophisticated ignorance and
corruption of the Gentiles are an easier
obstacle for the light of God to
dissipate than the proud obduracy of the
Jews, who have for long been visited
by divine grace. The words: I was
made manifest , are intended by the
apostle to refer to that universal
preaching which is the idea of the
whole passage. Ver. 21. What leads up
to this verse is the lively feeling of
the contrast between the conduct of
Israel and that of the Gentiles. It
sums up the idea of the whole chapter:
the obstinate resistance of Israel to
the ways of God. The Lord is
represented, Isa. 65:2, under the
figure of a father who, from morning to
evening, stretches out his arms to his
child, and experiences from him
only refusal and contradiction. It is
thus made clear that the apostle in no
wise puts the rejection of Israel to
the account of an unconditional divine
decree, but that he ascribes the cause
of it to Israel themselves.—The
preposition prov" might signify:
in relation to , as in Luke 19:9 and 20:19.
But yet the natural meaning is to; and
this meaning is quite suitable: “He
saith to Israel.” For if in the
prophetical discourse God spoke of Israel in
the third person, in the book written
for the people it is to them that he
addresses this saying; comp. 3:19.—
All the day long: do not these words
designate the whole theocratic epoch,
which, in the eyes of the Lord, is
like a long day of labor in behalf of
His people? But what a response have
they made to such fidelity! The words
kai; ajntilevgonta , and gainsaying ,
were added to the Hebrew text by the
LXX. They characterize the hairsplittings
and sophisms whereby the Israelites
seek to justify their
persevering refusal to return to God;
comp. in the Book of Malachi the
refrain: “And ye say”...!
Thus Israel, blinded by the privileges
bestowed on them, sought only one
thing: to preserve their monopoly, and
for this end to perpetuate their law
(ver. 4). They have hardened
themselves, consequently against the two
essential features which constituted
the Messianic dispensation, a free
salvation (vv. 5-11) and a salvation
offered to all by universal preaching
(vv. 12-17). And to extenuate this
sin, they are wholly without excuse. The
messengers of salvation have followed
them to the very ends of the earth
to offer them grace as well as the
Gentiles; neither had God failed to warn
them beforehand, from the very
beginning of their history, of the danger
they ran of seeing themselves
outstripped by the Gentiles (vv. 18-20). All
to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
no purpose. They have held on in their
resistance...(ver. 21). After this, is
not the case fully ripe for trial? Do
not the facts attest that it is not God
who has arbitrarily excluded them, but
themselves who have placed God
under the necessity of pronouncing
their rejection?
Yet there is a mercy which, where the
sin of man abounds, yet more
abounds. It has a last word to speak
in this history. Its work toward the
rebellious people seems closed; but it
is far from being so. And chap. 11
proceeds to show us how God, in the
overflowing of His grace, reserves
to Himself the right to make this
severe and painful dispensation issue in
the most glorious result.
Twenty-third Passage (chap. 11). God's
Plan in Israel's Rejection.
The apostle has proved in chap. 9 that
when God elected Israel, He did
not lose the right one day to take the
severest course against them, if if it
should be necessary. Then he has
showed in chap. 10 that in fact there
was a real ground and moral necessity
for this measure. He proceeds,
finally, to establish in chap. 11 that
it was taken with all due regard to the
position of this people, and within
the limits in which it should subserve the
salvation of mankind and that of
Israel themselves.
This chapter embraces the development
of two principal ideas, and then a
conclusion. The first idea is this: The
rejection of Israel is not total, but
partial (vv. 1-
10). It bears only on that portion
referred to in the demonstration of God's
right, given in chap. 9. The second:
This partial rejection even is not
eternal, but temporary
(vv. 11-32). For after it has served
the various ends which God had in
view in decreeing it, it shall come to
an end, and the entire nation shall be
restored, and with the Gentiles shall
realize the final unity of the kingdom
of God. The conclusion is a glance at
this whole vast plan of God, and the
expression of the feeling of adoration
which is inspired by the
contemplation, vv. 33-36.
Vv. 1-10.
The partial character of the rejection
of God's people is proved, first by the
conversion of St. Paul himself (ver.
1); then by the existence of a whole
Judeo- Christian church (vv. 2-6). And
if this church does not contain the
entire Jewish people, it is the effect
of a judgment of a partial hardening
rendered necessary by the moral state
of the people (vv. 7-10).
Ver. 1. “ I say, then, Hath God cast
away His people? Let it not be! For I
also am an Israelite, of the seed of
Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
”—From all that preceded, chaps. 9 and
10, the reader might have
concluded that God had completely and
finally broken with all that bore
the name of Israel; hence the
then. —The form of the question is
such ( mhv ) that only a negative
answer can be expected. This is
likewise indicated by the pronoun aujtou' ,
his , which of itself implies the
moral impossibility of such a
measure.—The expression His people
does not refer, as some have
thought, to the elect part of the
people only, but, as the expression itself
shows, to the nation as a whole. It is
evident, indeed, that the rest of the
chapter treats not of the lot of the
Israelites who have believed in Jesus,
but of the lot of the nation in its
entirety. Thus then, this question of ver. 1
is the theme of the whole chapter.—The
apostle takes a first answer, by
way of preface, from his own case. Is
not he, a Jew of well-approved
Israelitish descent, by the call which
he has received from above, a living
proof that God has not cast away en
masse and without distinction the
totality of His ancient people? De
Wette and Meyer give a
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
wholly different meaning to this
answer. According to them, Paul would
say: “I am too good an Israelite, too
zealous a patriot, to be capable of
affirming a thing so contrary to the
interests of my people.” As if the
interests of truth were not supreme,
in Paul's view, over national
affections! And what in this case
would be meant by the epithets
descendant of Abraham and of Benjamin
, which Meyer alleges against
our explanation? May not one, with his
civil status as an Israelite perfectly
unquestionable, comport himself as a
bad patriot? What Paul means by
them is this: “It is nothing my being
an Israelite of the purest blood; God
has nevertheless made of me such as
you see me, a true believer.” Meyer
still urges the objection of the
exceptional position of a man like Paul; but
the apostle does not confine himself
to pleading this personal fact; he
adds to it immediately, from ver. 2
onward, the patent fact of the whole
Judeo-Christian portion of the
church.— Weizsacker makes the important
remark on this ver. 1: “Paul could not
possibly take his proof from his own
person, if the mass of the Christians
of Rome were Judeo-Christian, and
so themselves the best refutation of
the objection raised.”
Vv. 2, 3. “ God hath not cast away His
people which He foreknew. Or wot
ye not what the Scripture saith in the
passage about Elijah; how he
maketh intercession to God against
Israel:Lord, they have killed Thy
prophets , they have digged down Thine
altars, and I am left alone, and
they seek my life. ”—The formal denial
which begins ver. 2 is intended to
introduce the more general proof, the
exposition of which begins with the
words: Or wot ye not? Several
commentators (Or., Aug., Chrys., Luth.,
Calv., etc.) have explained the words:
whom He foreknew , as a restriction
narrowing the general notion of the
people of Israel: “He could
undoubtedly cast away the mass of the
people, but not the foreknown
elect who form, strictly speaking, His
people. ” This meaning is
inadmissible; for, as we have already
seen in ver. 1, the matter in question
here is not the lot of this elect
portion, but that of the people as a whole. Is
it not of the entire people that the
apostle speaks when, in vv. 28 and 29,
he says: “ As touching the election ,
they are loved for the Father's sake;
for the gifts and calling of God are
without repentance?” These words are
the authentic explanation of the
expression in ver. 2: His people whom He
foreknow. Of all the peoples of the
carth one only was chosen and known
beforehand, by an act of divine
foreknowledge and love, as the people
whose history would be identified with
the realization of salvation. In all
others salvation is the affair of
individuals , but here the notion of salvation
is attached to the nation itself; not
that the liberty of individuals is in the
least compromised by this collective
destination. The Israelites
contemporary with Jesus might reject
Him; an indefinite series of
generations may for ages perpetuate
this fact of national unbelief. God is
under no pressure; time can stretch
out as long as He pleases. He will
add, if need be, ages to ages, until
there come at length the generation
disposed to open their eyes and freely
welcome their Messiah. God
foreknew this nation as believing and
saved, and sooner or later they
cannot fail to be both.
As usual, the form: or know ye not ,
signifies: “Or if ye allege the contrary,
do ye forget”...—The expression ejn
jHliva/ , literally, in Elias , is a form of
quotation frequent in the N. T. (Mark
12:26; Luke 20:37) and in the
Rabbins to denote: “in the passage of
the Scriptures which contains the
history of Elias.”—The preposition
katav can signify nothing else here than
against. To intercede against is a
strange expression, but fitted to bring
out the abnormal state of the people
in regard to whom the prophet could
only pray thus, that is to say,
protesting before God against their conduct.
Comp. 1 Kings 19:10, 14, 18.
Ver. 3. In the Hebrew text the second
clause of the verse is put first; it is
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
needless to seek an intention for this
inversion.—Mention is made of “
altars of God,” though according to
the law there was, properly speaking,
only one legitimate altar, that of the
sanctuary. But the law itself
authorized, besides, the erection of
altars in the places where God had
visibly revealed Himself (Ex. 20:24),
as at Bethel, for example. Moreover,
participation in the legitimate altar
being interdicted within the kingdom of
the ten tribes, it is probable that in
such circumstances the faithful
ventured to sacrifice elsewhere than
at Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:29).—Meyer
interprets the word alone in this
sense: “alone of all the prophets.” This
meaning seems to us incompatible with
God's answer. The seven
thousand are not prophets, but simple
worshippers. Elijah, in that state of
deep discouragement into which
foregoing events had plunged him, no
longer saw in Israel any others than
idolaters, or believers too cowardly to
deserve the name.
Vv. 4, 5. “ But what saith the answer
of God unto him? I have reserved to
myself seven thousand men, who have
not bowed the knee to Baal. Even
so then, at this present time also
there is a remnant according to the
election of
grace. ”— Crhmatismov" : the
direction of a matter, and hence: a decision
of authority; then: a divine
declaration, an oracle (Matt. 2:12).—It is
impossible to apply the words: “I have
reserved to myself,” to the temporal
preservation of this elect body of
pious Israelites, in the midst of the
judgments which are soon to burst on
Israel. It is in the spiritual sense, as
faithful worshippers in the midst of
reigning idolatry, that God reserves
them to Himself. They are the leaven
kept by His faithfulness in the midst
of His degenerate people.—It is
impossible to understand what leads
Hofmann to take katevlipon as the
third person plural: “ They (the
persecutors) have left me seven
thousand men.” This cannot be the
meaning in the Hebrew, where the
grammar is opposed to it; and as little
the sense meant by Paul, where the
words to myself and according to the
election of grace , ver. 5, prove that
he is speaking of the action of God
Himself. The pronoun to myself does
not belong to the Hebrew text; it is
added by Paul to bring more into
relief the settled purpose of grace in this
preservation.—The substantive Baval ,
Baal , is preceded by the feminine
th'/ : “ the (female) Baal.” This form
is surprising, for Baal, the god of the
sun among the Phoenicians, was a
masculine divinity, to whom Astarte,
the goddess of the moon, corresponded,
as the female divinity. By the
LXX. the name Baal is sometimes used
as feminine, sometimes as
masculine. In our passage this version
uses it in the latter way. To explain
the female form as used here by Paul,
it has been thought that Baal was
sometimes regarded as a hermaphrodite
divinity. But in 1 Sam. 7:4, we
find Baal put along with Astarte, and
both in the feminine form. It seems to
us more natural simply to understand
the feminine substantive eijkovni ,
the image , in the sense of: “the
statute Baal.” Meyer objects that in that
case the article tou' would be
required before Baval . But the Jews took
pleasure in identifying false gods
with their images, as if to say that the
god was nothing more than his material
representation. The Rabbins, in
this same contemptuous spirit, had
invented the term Elohoth to designate
idols, a feminine plural of Elohim,
and several have been thereby led to
suppose that our feminine article
might be explained by a feeling of the
same kind. This explanation is not
impossible, but the previous one
seems to me the more simple.
Ver. 5. This verse applies the case of
the seven thousand to present
circumstances. The remnant , of whom
the apostle speaks, evidently
denotes the small portion of the
Jewish people who in Jesus have
recognized the Messiah. The term
lei'mma , remnant , is related to the
preceding verb katevlipon , I have
reserved to myself, kept. There is no
reference whatever to the members of
the Jewish people
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
who shall survive the destruction of
Jerusalem, and shall be preserved to
go into exile. These form, on the
contrary, the rejected portion to whom
the words, vv. 7-10, apply.—The three
particles which connect this verse
with the preceding context: so, then,
also , refer, the first to the internal
resemblance of the two facts, for the
same principle is realized in both; the
second, to the moral necessity with
which the one follows from the other
in consequence of this analogy. The
third simply indicates the addition of
a new example to the former.—The
words: according to the election of
grace , might apply to the individuals
more or less numerous who are
embraced in this remnant, now become
the nucleus of the church. The
word election would in that case be
explained, as in the case of the elect
in general, 8:29, 30, by the fact of
the foreknowledge which God had of
their faith. But the matter in
question throughout the whole of this chapter
is the lot of the Jewish people in
general; it is therefore to them in their
entirety that the idea of the divine
election refers; comp. vv. 2 and 28. One
thing indeed follows from the election
of grace applied to the whole of
Israel; not the salvation of such or
such individuals, but the indestructible
existence of a believing remnant at
all periods of their history, even in the
most disastrous crises of unbelief, as
at the time of the ministry of Elias, or
of the coming of Jesus Christ. The
idea contained in the words: “according
to the election of grace,” is
therefore this: In virtue of the election of Israel
as the salvation-people, God has not
left them in our days without a
faithful remnant, any more than He did
in the kingdom of the ten tribes at
the period when a far grosser
heathenism was triumphant.
Ver. 6. “ Now, if it is by grace, then
is it no more of works; since grace
would be no more grace. ”—The apostle
wishes to express the idea, that if
Israel possess this privilege of
always preserving within their bosom a
faithful remnant, it is not because of
any particular merit they have
acquired before God by their works; it
is purely a matter of grace on the
part of Him who has chosen them. The
instant there was introduced into
this dispensation a meritorious cause,
whether for little or for much, there
would be taken away from grace its
character of freeness; it would no
longer be what it is. Why add this
idea here? Because it is only inasmuch
as the maintenance of the faithful
remnant is a matter of grace, that the
rejection of the mass (of which Paul
is about to speak, vv. 7-9) is not an
injustice. If there were, on the part
of Israel as a people, the least merit
arising from work as the ground of
their election, even that partial
rejection, of which the apostle
speaks, would be impossible.—The word
oujkevti , no more , should be taken
here in the logical sense: the principle
of grace being once laid down. The
verb givnetai (literally, not is , but
becomes ) should be explained as Meyer
does: Grace ceases to show
itself as what it is, ceases to become
in its realization what it is in its
essence.
The second proposition, parallel to
the former, which is found in the T. R.,
is entirely foreign to the context,
and for this reason alone it must appear
suspicious. But it is decidedly
condemned by its omission in the greater
number of documents, and in particular
by the harmony on this point of
the Alex. and Greco-Latin texts,
excepting the Vaticanus. It is impossible
to imagine a reason copyists could
have had for rejecting it. Volkmar, in
order to remain faithful to the Vatic.
alleges this very fact of the want of
relation to the context as that which
struck copyists, and gave rise to its
rejection. This is to do them too much
honor. We should have had much
graver and more numerous variants in
the N. T. if copyists had proceeded
so freely. It is much more probable
that a reader composed a proposition
parallel and antithetic to the former,
and wrote it on the margin, whence it
passed into the text. Cases of this
kind are frequent.
It is obviously wholly unnecessary, in
order to explain this verse, to hold,
with
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the Tubingen school, that the apostle
means to refute the Judeo-Christian
principle of the mixing up of works
and grace. Besides, would not the
apostle have addressed himself
directly in this case as he does to his
Gentile-Christian readers in the
passage vv. 13 and 14, which Volkmar
himself puts parallel to this?
Let us again remark the correlation
between this passage, vv. 1-5, and the
preceding, 9:6-13. The latter referred
to the carnal portion of the nation,
and proved the right God had to reject
them (as much as Ishmael and
Esau); the present passage refers to
the faithful portion, and establishes
the fact that God has not failed to
maintain a similar elect number in
Israel. These two points of view taken
together form the complete truth on
the subject.
Reuss finds in this passage two
theories placed side by side with one
another, but “which logic deems
contradictory.” The one, he thinks, is that
of unconditional grace , by which the
holy remnant are kept in their fidelity;
the other that of works , by which
Paul explains the rejection of the nation
in general. But there is no
contradiction between these two points of view;
for if the faithfulness of the elect
supposes the initiative of grace, it
nevertheless implies faith on their
part, and if the mass of the nation are
rejected, this rejection only arises
from their voluntary and persevering
resistance to the solicitations of
grace.
The apostle put the question whether
the present relation between God
and Israel was that of an absolute
divorce; and he began by answering:
no, in the sense that a portion at
least of Israel have obtained grace, and
form henceforth the nucleus of the
church. But, he adds—for this is the
other side of the truth—it is
certainly true that the greater part of the
people have been smitten with
hardness. This is what he expounds in vv.
7-10, showing, as his habit is, that
this severe measure was in keeping
with the antecedents of the theocratic
history and the declarations of
Scripture.
Vv. 7, 8. “ What then? Israel hath not
obtained that which he seeketh for ,
while the election hath obtained it;
but the rest were hardened. According
as it is written, God hath given them
a spirit of torpor, eyes that they
should not see, and ears that they
should not hear, unto this day. ”—By
the question: What then? Paul means:
If Israel are not really rejected,
what then? What has happened? As he
has elucidated this question in
chap. 10, he confines himself to
summing up in a word all that he has
explained above regarding the foolish
conduct of Israel. The object of their
search, the justification to be
obtained from God, having been pursued by
them in a chimerical way (by means of
human works), they have not
attained the end which the elect have
reached without trouble by faith.
The present ejpizhtei' , seeketh , for
which there must not be substituted,
with the oldest translations (see the
critical note), the imperf. sought ,
indicates what Israel has done and is
still doing at the very moment when
the apostle is writing.—The elect then
being once excepted, it is quite true
that all the rest , oiJ loipoiv , have
been rejected, and that in the severest
way: a judgment of hardening with
which God has visited them. The term
pwrou'n , to harden , signifies in the
strict sense: to deprive an organ of its
natural sensibility; morally: to take
away from the heart the faculty of being
touched by what is good or divine,
from the understanding, the faculty of
discerning between the true and the
false, the good and the bad. The
sequel will explain how it is possible
for such an effect to be ascribed to
divine operation.
Ver. 8. Holy Scripture had already
either witnessed to an operation of God
in this direction in certain cases, or
had raised the foreboding of it in
regard to the Jews. So when Moses said
to the people after their exodus
from Egypt, Deut. 29:4: “The Lord hath
not given you an heart to perceive,
and eyes to see, and ears to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
hear, unto this day.” And yet (ver. 2)
“they had seen all that the Lord did
before their eyes.” All the wonders
wrought in the wilderness they had
seen in a sort without seeing them;
they had heard the daily admonitions
of Moses without hearing them, because
they were under the weight of a
spirit of insensibility; and this
judgment which had weighed on them during
the forty years of their rejection in
the wilderness continued still at the time
when Moses spoke to them in the plains
of Moab, when they were
preparing to enter Canaan: until this
day. In quoting this remarkable
saying, Paul modifies it slightly; for
the first words: “ God hath not given
you a heart to perceive,” he
substitutes a somewhat different expression,
which he borrows from Isa. 29:10: “The
Lord hath poured upon you the
spirit of deep sleep.” The negative
form of which Moses had made use
(“God hath not given you”...)
perfectly suited the epoch when this long
judgment was about to close: “God hath
not yet bestowed on you this
gracious gift to this day; but He is
about to grant it at length!” While, when
the apostle wrote, the affirmative
form used by Isaiah to express the same
idea was much more appropriate: “God
hath poured out on you”...The
state of Israel indeed resembled in
all respects that of the people when in
Isaiah's time they ran blindfold into
the punishment of captivity. Hence it is
that Paul prefers for those first
words the form of Isaiah to that of
Moses.—There is something paradoxical
in the expression: a spirit of
torpor; for usually the spirit rouses
and awakens, instead of rendering
insensible. But God can also put in
operation a paralyzing force. It is so
when He wills for a time to give over
a man who perseveres in resisting
Him to a blindness such that he
punishes himself as it were with his own
hand; see the example of Pharaoh
(9:17) and that of Saul (1 Sam.
18:10).—The term katavnuxi" ,
which is ordinarily translated by
stupefaction , and which we prefer to
render by the word torpor , may be
explained etymologically in two ways:
Either it is derived from nuvssw , the
act of piercing, rending, striking ,
whence there would result, when the
blow is violent, a state of stupor and
momentary insensibility; or it is taken
to be from nuvw, nuvzw, nustavzw , to
bend the head in order to sleep ,
whence: to fall asleep. It is perhaps
in this second sense that the LXX.
have taken it, who use it pretty
frequently, as in our passage, to translate
the Hebrew term mardema, deep sleep.
This second derivation is
learnedly combated by Fritzsche; but
it has again quite recently been
defended by Volkmar. If we bring into
close connection, as St. Paul does
here, the saying of Isaiah with that
of Deuteronomy, we must prefer the
notion of torpor or stupor to that of
sleep; for the subject in question in the
context is not a man who is sleeping,
but one who, while having his eyes
open and seeing, sees not.—The works
of God have two aspects, the one
external, the material fact; the other
internal, the divine thought contained
in the fact. And thus it comes about,
that when the eye of the soul is
paralyzed, one may see those works
without seeing them; comp. Isa.
6:10; Matt. 13:14, 15; John 12:40,
etc.—The apostle adds in the following
verses a second quotation, taken from
Ps. 69:22 and 23.
Vv. 9, 10. “ And David saith, Let
their table be made a snare and a trap
and a stumbling-block, and [so] a just
recompense unto them! Let their
eyes be darkened, that they may not
see; and bow down their back alway!
”—Paul ascribes this psalm to David,
according to the title and Jewish
tradition; he does not meddle with
criticism. Is this title erroneous, as is
alleged by our modern savants? They
allege vv. 33-36, which close the
psalm, and in which we have mention
made of the liberated captives who
shall rebuild and possess the cities
of Judah, expressions which naturally
apply to the time of the captivity.
But, on the other hand, the author
speaks “of that zeal for the house of
God which eats him up;” which
supposes the existence of the temple.
Nay more, the adversaries who
oppress him are expressly designated
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
as members of God's people: they are
“his brethren, his mother's children”
(ver. 8); they shall be blotted out of
the book of life” (ver. 28); their name
was therefore inscribed in it; they
are not the Chaldeans. Finally, what is
stronger: those enemies, his
fellow-countrymen, enjoy perfect external
well-being; while they give the
Psalmist, the object of their hatred, gall to
drink, they themselves sit at table
and sing as they drink strong drink (vv.
22 and 11, 12); a singular description
of the state of the Jews in captivity!
It must therefore be held that the
last verses of the psalm
(vv. 33-36) were, like the last and
perfectly similar verses of Ps. 51 (vv. 18
and 19), added to the hymn later, when
the exiled people applied it to their
national sufferings. The original
description is that of the righteous
Israelite suffering for the cause of
God; and his adversaries, to whom the
curses contained in the two verses
quoted by Paul refer, are all the
enemies of this just one within the
theocracy itself, from Saul persecuting
David down to the Jewish enemies of
Jesus Christ and His Church.—The
table is, in the Psalmist's sense, the
emblem of the material pleasures in
which the ungodly live. Their life of
gross enjoyments is to become to
them what the snares of all sorts with
which men catch them are to the
lower animals. It is difficult to
avoid thinking that the apostle is here
applying this figure in a spiritual
sense; for the punishment which he has
in view is of a spiritual nature; it
is, moral hardening. The cause of such a
judgment must therefore be something
else than simple worldly
enjoyment; it is, as we have seen, the
proud confidence of Israel in their
ceremonial works. The table is
therefore, in Paul's sense, the emblem of
presumptuous security founded on their
fidelity to acts of worship, whether
the reference be to the table of
showbread as a symbol of the Levitical
worship in general, or to the
sacrificial feasts. These works, on which they
reckoned to save them, are precisely
what is ruining them.—The Psalmist
expresses the idea of ruin only by two
terms: those of snare and net (in
the LXX. pagiv" , net , and
skavndalon , stumbling-block ). Paul adds a
third, qhvra , strictly prey , and
hence: every means of catching prey. This
third term is taken from Ps. 35:8 (in
the LXX), where it is used as a
parallel to pagiv" , net , in a
passage every way similar to that of Ps. 69. By
this accumulation of almost synonymous
terms, Paul means forcibly to
express the idea that it will be
impossible for them to escape, because no
kind of snare will be wanting; first
the net ( pagiv" ), then the weapons of
the chase ( qhvra ), and finally the
trap which causes the prey to fall into
the pit ( skavndalon ).—The Hebrew and
the
LXX., as we have said, contain only
two of these terms, the first and the
third. Instead of the second, the LXX.
read another regimen: eij"
ajntapovdosin , for a recompense.
Whence comes this expression? They
have evidently meant thereby to render
the word lischelomim, for those
who are in security , which in the
Hebrew text is put between the words
snare and stumbling-block. Only to
render it as they have done, they must
have read leschilloumim (probably
after another reading). This substantive
is derived from the verb schalam, to
be complete , whence in the Piel : to
recompense. It therefore signifies
recompense; hence this eij"
ajntapovdosin , for a recompense , in
the LXX. Paul borrows from them this
expression; but he puts it at the end
as a sort of conclusion: “and so in just
retribution.” In ver. 10 the apostle
continues to apply to the present
judgment of Israel (hardening) the
expressions of the Psalmist. The
reference is to the darkening of the
understanding which follows on the
insensibility of the heart (ver. 9),
to such a degree that the Gentiles, with
their natural good sense, understand
the gospel better than those Jews
who have been instructed and
cultivated by divine revelation.—The last
words: bow down their reins , are an
invocation; they refer to the state of
slavish fear in which the Jews shall
be held as long as this judgment of
hardening which keeps them outside of
the gospel
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
shall last. They are slaves to their
laws, to their Rabbins, and even to their
God (8:15). We must beware of
thinking, as Meyer does, that this
chastisement is their punishment for
the rejection of the Messiah. It is, on
the contrary, that rejection which is
in the apostle's eyes the realization of
the doom of hardening previously
pronounced upon them. As St. John
shows. 12:37 et seq., the Jews would
not have rejected Jesus if their eyes
had not been already blinded and their
ears stopped. It could only be
under the weight of one of those
judgments which visit man with a spirit of
torpor , that any could fail to
discern the raying forth of the glory of God in
the person of Jesus Christ, as the
apostle declares, 2 Cor. 4:4. In this
passage he ascribes the act of
blinding to the god of this world , who has
cast a veil over the spirit of his
subjects. This means, as is seen in the
book of Job, that God proves or
punishes by leaving Satan to act, and it
may be by the spirit of torpor
mentioned in ver. 8, as with that spirit of
lying whom the Lord sent to seduce
Ahab in the vision of the prophet
Micaiah, 1 Kings 22:10 et seq. However
this may be, the rejection of
Jesus by the Jews was the effect , not
the cause of the hardening. The
cause—Paul has clearly enough said,
9:31-33—was the obstinacy of their
self-righteousness.
Vv. 11-32.
God has not then, absolutely speaking,
rejected His people; but it is
perfectly true that He has hardened
and rejected a portion of them. Yet
there are two restrictions to be noted
here: This chastisement is only
partial; and, besides, it is only
temporary. It is this second idea which is
developed in the following passage. It
is obvious how far Reuss is
mistaken when he calls this second
passage, in relation to the former, “a
second explanation.” This critic's
constant idea is that of contradictory
points of view placed in juxtaposition
in the apostle's writing. On the
contrary, the following passage is the
logical complement of the
preceding: “And this chastisement,
which has fallen on Israel only
partially, is itself only for a time.”
This passage includes four sections,
having each a distinct subject. The
first, vv. 11-15, points out the two
ends , the proximate , and the final , of
the rejection of the Jews. The
proximate end was to facilitate the
conversion of the Gentiles, the final
end is to restore the Jews themselves
by means of the converted Gentiles,
and that to bring down at length on
the latter the fulness of divine
blessing.
The second section, vv. 16-24, is
intended to put the Gentiles on their
guard against the pride with which
they might be inspired by the position
which is made theirs for the present
in the kingdom of God, as well as
against contempt of the Jews into
which they might be carried.
In the third, vv. 25-29, Paul
announces positively, as a matter of
revelation, the fact of the final
conversion of Israel.
Finally, the fourth, vv. 30-32,
contains a general view of the course of
divine work in the accomplishment of
salvation.
It is impossible, in a subject so
difficult, to imagine a simpler and more
logical order.
Vv. 11-15.
Vv. 11, 12. “ I say then, Have they
stumbled that they should fall? Let it
not be! But by their fall salvation is
come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke
them to jealousy. Now, if the fall of
them be the riches of the world, and
the diminishing of them the riches of
the Gentiles, how much more will be
their fulness! ”—The then indicates
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
that this new question is occasioned
by the preceding development: “A
portion have been hardened; is it then
forever?” The question with mhv
anticipates a negative answer.
According to many commentators, the two
terms stumble and fall have almost the
same meaning, and they make the
question signify: “have they fallen
solely for the end of falling?” But this
meaning would have required the adverb
movnon , only , and it is contrary
besides, to the difference of meaning
between the two verbs; ptaivein , to
stumble , expresses the shock against
an obstacle; pivptein , to fall , the
fall which follows from it.
Consequently the meaning can only be this:
“Have they stumbled so as to leave
forever their position as God's people,
and to remain as it were lying on the
ground (plunged in perdition)?”
Comp. the figures of striking against
, 9:32, and stumbling , ver. 9.—“No,”
answers the apostle, “God has very
different views. This dispensation
tends to a first proximate aim,
namely, to open to the Gentiles the
gateway of salvation.” According to
Reuss, the apostle means to say, God
“has for the present hardened the Jews
that the gospel might be carried to
the Gentiles.” If by this the author
means anew to ascribe to St. Paul the
idea of the unconditional decree in
virtue of which God disposes of men
independently of their moral liberty,
he completely mistakes the apostle's
thought. It is through the fault of
Israel that it has been impossible for the
preaching of the gospel to the
Gentiles to be carried out except by God's
breaking with the chosen people. If,
indeed, this people had lent
themselves with intelligence and love
to God's purpose toward the rest of
mankind, they would willingly have let
fall their theocratic pretensions;
and, substituting the righteousness of
faith for that of the law, they would
themselves have become God's
instruments in offering to the Gentiles the
grace they enjoyed. But as their
national pride did not permit them to enter
on this path, and as they wished at
any cost to maintain their legal
system, God was obliged to blind them,
so that they should not in Jesus
recognize their Messiah. Otherwise the
gospel would have been
Judaized; believing Gentiles would
have required to become the
proselytes of Israel, and this would
have been an end of salvation for the
world, and of the world for salvation.
Moreover, in consequence of the
proud contempt of the Jews for the
Gentiles, there would have been
formed between them and the latter
such a relation of enmity, that if
Christianity offered itself to the
world under cover of this detested
Judaism, it would, no doubt, have
gained some adherents, but it would
have been the object of the antipathy
which the Gentile world felt to the
Jewish people. In these circumstances,
God, who wished the salvation of
the world, necessarily required to
disentangle the cause of the gospel
from that of Judaism, and even to
oppose them to one another. And this is
what was brought about by the refusal
of Israel to recognize Jesus as the
Messiah. The preaching of the Christ,
delivered by this very separation,
was able, free from all hindrance, to
take its flight over the world. Once,
then, Israel had become by their own
fault what they were, God could
evidently not act otherwise, if He would
save the Gentiles; but nothing
forced Israel to become such. There is
nothing here, therefore, of an
unconditional decree; it is ever the
same law we meet with: God's plan
embracing the vagaries of human
liberty, and making them turn to its own
fulfilment.
But that is not all. Wonderful result!
Israel, having been unwilling to concur
with God in saving the Gentiles, must
end by being themselves saved
through their salvation. It is
undoubtedly a humiliation for them to be the
last to enter where they should have
introduced all others; but on God's
part it is the height of mercy. Here
is the more remote end (for which the
conversion of the Gentiles becomes a
means), which Paul indicates in the
words borrowed from the passage of
Moses quoted above, 10:19: “ to
provoke them to jealousy. ” Seeing all
the blessings of the kingdom,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
pardon, justification, the Holy
Spirit, adoption, shed down abundantly on
the Gentile nations through faith in Him
whom they have rejected, how
can they help saying at length: These
blessings are ours? And how can
they help opening their eyes and
recognizing that Jesus is the Messiah,
since in Him the works predicted of
the Messiah are accomplished? How
shall the elder son, seeing his
younger brother seated and celebrating the
feast at his father's table, fail to
ask that he may re-enter the paternal
home and come to sit down side by side
with his brother, after throwing
himself into the arms of their common
father? Such is the spectacle of
which Paul gives us a glimpse in the
words: to provoke them to jealousy.
The sin of the Jews could modify the
execution of God's plan, but by no
means prevent it.
Ver. 12. The dev is that of gradation:
well then. It is a new and more
joyous perspective still which the
apostle opens up. If the exclusion of the
Jews, by allowing the gospel to be
presented to the world freed from
every legal form, has opened for it a
large entrance among the Gentiles,
what will be the result of the
restoration of this people, if it shall ever be
realized? What blessings of higher
excellence for the whole world may not
be expected from it! Thus the apostle
advances from step to step in the
explanation of this mysterious decree
of rejection.— Their fall or their false
step: this expression, which refers
back to the term ptaivein , to stumble ,
ver. 11, denotes Jewish unbelief.—By
the riches of the world , Paul
understands the state of grace into which
the Gentiles are introduced by
faith in a free salvation.—The two
abstract expressions fall and world are
reproduced in a more concrete way in a
second proposition parallel to the
first; the former in the term h{tthma
, which we translate by diminishing (
reduction to a small number ); the
latter in the plural word the Gentiles.
The word hJtthma comes from the verb
hJtta'sqai , the fundamental
meaning of which is: to be in a state
of inferiority. This inferiority may be
one in relation to an enemy; in this
case the verb means: to be overcome
(2 Pet. 2:19), and the substantive
derived from it signifies defeat ( clades
). Or the inferiority may refer to a
state fixed on as normal, and below
which one falls. The substantive in
this case denotes a deficit , a fall. Of
these two meanings the first is
impossible here; for the enemy by whom
Israel would be beaten could be no
other than God; now in the context
this thought is inapplicable. The
second and only admissible sense may
be applied either qualitatively or
numerically. In the former case, the
subject in question is a level of
spiritual life beneath which Israel has
fallen; comp. 1 Cor. 6:7: “There is
utterly an inferiority, h{tthma (a moral
deficit), among you because ye go to
law one with another,” and 2 Cor.
12:13. Applied here, this meaning
would lead to the following explanation:
“The moral degradation of Israel has
become the cause of the enriching of
the Gentiles.” But there is something
repugnant in this idea, and, besides,
we should be obliged by it to take the
substantive plhvrwma , the fulness ,
which corresponds to it, also in the
moral sense: the perfect spiritual state
to which the Jews shall one day be
restored. Now this meaning is
impossible in view of ver. 25, where
this expression evidently denotes the
totality of the Gentile nations. We
are therefore led by this antithesis to the
numerical meaning of h{tthma ,
diminishing to a small number (of
believers): “If their diminishing as
God's people to a very small number of
individuals (those who have received
the Messiah) has formed the riches
of the world, how much more their
restoration to the complete state of a
people”...! But it is important to
observe the shade of difference between
this and the often repeated
explanation of Chrysostom, which applies the
word h{tthma to the believing Jews
themselves, which would lead to an
idea foreign to the context, namely
this: that if so small a number of
believing Jews have already done so
much good to the world by
becoming the nucleus of the church,
the entire nation once converted will
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
do more still. The pronoun aujtw'n (
their ) excludes this sense; for in the
three propositions it can only apply
to the same subject, the Jewish
people in general (Meyer).—Instead of
“the riches of the world ,” the
apostle says the second time “the
riches of the Gentiles; ” because now
there presents itself to his mind that
indefinite series of Gentile nations
who, ever as the preaching of the
gospel shall reach them, shall enter
successively into the church, and thus
fill up the void arising from the
reduction of Israel to so small a
number of believers.— Their fulness: the
totality of the then living members of
the people of Israel. The term
plhvrwma , used apparently in such
different acceptations by the N. T.
writers, has but one fundamental
signification, of which all the others are
only various applications. It always
denotes: that with which an empty
space is filled ( id quo res impletur
); comp. Philippi simplifying Fritzsche.
In the application of this term to the
people of Israel, we must regard the
abstract notion of a people as the
empty frame to be filled, and the totality
of the individuals in whom this notion
is realized, as that which fills the
frame.—From what we have said above,
we must set aside meanings of a
qualitative nature, such as: “the
fulness of the Messianic salvation,” or “the
restoration of Israel to its normal
position,” or the state of spiritual
perfection to which it is destined
(Fritzs., Ruck ., Hofm.). Neither can the
meaning be admitted which Philippi
ascribes to the two words h{tthma and
plhvrwma ; he supplies as their
understood complement the idea of the
kingdom of God, and explains: “the
blank produced in the kingdom of God
by their rejection,” and “the filling
up of this blank by their readmission.”
This is to do violence to the meaning
of the genitives aujtw'n , and to
introduce into the text an idea (that
of the kingdom of God) which is
nowhere indicated.
Vv. 13-15 are a more particular
application to St. Paul's ministry of the
ideas expounded vv. 11 and 12; for
this ministry had a decisive part to
play in accomplishing the plan of God
sketched in these two last verses;
and the feelings with which Paul
discharged his apostleship must be in
harmony with the course of God's work.
This is exactly what he shows in
these three verses.
Vv. 13-15. “ For I say it to you
Gentiles: Inasmuch as I am an apostle of
the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
if by any means I may provoke to
emulation them which are my flesh, and
might save some of them. For if
the casting away of them be the
reconciling of the world, what shall the
restoring of them be, but a
resurrection from the dead? ”—It is somewhat
difficult to decide between the two
readings gavr ( for ) and dev ( now then
). The authorities are balanced; but
it is probable that the dev , now , has
been substituted for for , because the
observation which begins ver. 13
was connected with the preceding verse
in this sense: “Now I tell you that
(the preceding) specially you
Gentiles.” And as this connection is
decidedly mistaken, and the apostle's
observation refers manifestly to
what follows (vv. 13-15), there is
reason to believe that the true
connection is that which is expressed
by for. And in fact the natural
transition from vv. 11 and 12 to vv.
13-15 is this: “What I have just told you
of the magnificent effects which will
one day be produced among you
Gentiles by the restoration of the
Jews, is so true that it is even in your
interest and as your apostle, the
apostle to you Gentiles, that I strive to
labor for the salvation of the Jews;
for I know all that will one day accrue
to you from their national conversion,
a true spiritual resurrection (ver.
15).” There is a wholly different and
widespread way of understanding the
meaning of these three verses. It is
to take vv. 13 and 14 as a sort of
parenthesis or episode, and to regard
ver. 15 as a somewhat more
emphatic repetition of ver. 12; comp.
for example, vv. 9 and 10 of chap. 5.
In that case, what the apostle would
say in this parenthesis (vv. 13 and
14) would be this: “If I labor so
ardently in my mission to the Gentiles, it is
that I may thereby
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
stimulate my fellow-countrymen, the
Jews, to seek conversion.” It is the
opposite thought from that which we
have been expressing. This meaning
occurs in almost all the commentaries.
But, 1st. It is impossible to
understand how Paul could say that as
the apostle of the Gentiles; he
would rather say it though their
apostle and as a Jew by birth. 2d, After an
interruption like that of vv. 13 and
14, it would be unnatural to make the for
of ver. 15 bear on ver. 12. This is
what renders the case so different from
that of chap. 5:9, 10. Let us study
our text more closely, and we shall
certainly be led to the first meaning
which we have stated. The emphasis
is not on the fact that in laboring
for the conversion of the Gentiles he is
laboring in the end for that of the
Jews—which is undoubtedly true, vv. 13
and 14—but on the fact that in
laboring thus for the conversion of the
Jews he is in that very way laboring
for the good of the Gentiles, who are
his proper charge, vv. 13-15.
To you, Gentiles: Baur and his
disciples (Volkmar, Holsten), and also
Mangold, allege that this style of
address embraces only a fraction of the
church, the members of Gentile origin,
who are only a weak minority.
Meyer rightly answers that in that
case Paul must have written: Toi'"
e]qnesin ejn uJmi'n levgw , “I address
those of you who are of Gentile
origin.” Weizsacker , in the often quoted
work (p. 257), likewise observes
with reason, that the form employed
being the only direct style of address
used to the readers in this whole
passage, it is natural to apply it to the
entire church; that one may
consequently conclude from these words with
the utmost certainty that members of
Gentile origin formed the
preponderating element in this church.
We shall ask further, if in the
opposite case Paul could have called
the Jews my flesh , as speaking in
his own name only, while the great
majority of his readers shared with him
the characteristic of being
Judeo-Christians.—And what does the apostle
say to those Gentiles who have become
believers? The conjunction ejfj
o{son may signify as long as , or
inasmuch as. It is clear that the notion of
time has no application here, and that
the second sense is the only
possible one; comp. Matt. 25:40. By
this expression Paul distinguishes in
his own person two men: one, in whose
name he is here speaking; that is,
as he says, the apostle of the
Gentiles. Who is the other? That is
understood of itself, and the
following expression: mou th;n savrka , which
should be translated by: my own flesh
(in consequence of the prominent
position of the pronoun mou ), reveals
it clearly enough: it is the Jew in
him. What does he mean then? That if
as a Jew who has become a
believer he certainly feels the desire
to labor for the salvation of his fellowcountrymen
( his flesh ), he strives all the more
to do so as the apostle of
the Gentiles, because the conversion
of his people must end in loading
the Gentiles with all the riches of
the blessings of the gospel. The sequel
will explain how (ver. 15). In this
connection of ideas there is no doubt that
the mevn , which the T. R. reads after
ejfj o{son , and which is rejected by
the Greco-Latin reading, belongs
really to the text. For this particle is
intended to fix and bring out forcibly
the character belonging to Paul of
apostle to the Gentiles, in opposition
to the other which he also
possesses. The word is supported,
besides, even by the Alexs., which
read me;n ou\n . As to this ou\n ,
therefore , added by the latter, it is
evidently, as Meyer himself
acknowledges, a gloss, occasioned by the
fact that the first proposition was
connected with ver. 12, in order to begin
afterward a wholly new sentence.
What does Paul understand by the
expression: I magnify mine office?
These words might be applied to the
defences which he was constantly
obliged to make of his apostleship, to
the narratives in which he
proclaimed before the churches the
marvellous successes which God
granted him (Acts 15:12, 21:19; 1 Cor.
15:9, 10). But instead of
contributing to bring the Jews to
faith (ver. 14), such recitals could
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
only embitter them. It is therefore of
the zeal and activity displayed by him
in the service of his mission that the
apostle is thinking. To magnify his
ministry as the apostle of the
Gentiles, is to convert as many heathens as
possible. And thereby at what remoter
result is he aiming? He tells us in
ver. 14.
Ver. 14. He would try if in any way (
eijpw" ; comp. Phil. 3:11) he may
reach the end, by dint of success, of
awakening his people, whom he
loves as his own flesh , from their
torpor, should it only be by jealousy?
Here, as in ver. 11, he uses the
expression which Moses had employed
(10:19). No doubt he does not deceive
himself; he does not reckon on a
conversion of Israel en masse before
the last times; but he would like at
least, he adds, to save some of them ,
as first-fruits of the harvest. But we
are not at the goal. That even is only
a means. The final aim is declared in
ver. 15.
Ver. 15. In truth, it will not be till
the national conversion of Israel take
place, that the work of God shall
reach its perfection among the Gentiles
themselves, and that the fruit of his
labor as their apostle will break forth in
all its beauty. Such is the
explanation of the words of ver. 13: “inasmuch
as I am the apostle of the Gentiles.”
As a Jew, he certainly desires the
conversion of the Jews; but he desires
it still more, if possible, as the
apostle of the Gentiles, because he
knows what this event will be for the
entire church. It is clear how closely
the for at the beginning of this verse
joins it to vv. 13 and 14, and how
needful it is to guard against making
these two last a parenthesis, and ver.
15 a repetition of ver. 12. It is also
clear how wide of the truth are Bauer
and his school, when they find in
these verses a clever artifice by
which Paul seeks to render his mission
among the Gentiles acceptable to the
so- called Judeo-Christian church of
Rome. According to this
interpretation, his meaning would be: “You are
wrong in taking offence at my mission
to the Gentiles; it is entirely to the
profit of the Jews, whom it must end by
bringing to the gospel;” an adroit
way, if one dared say so, of gilding
the pill for them! Not only is such a
supposition unworthy of the apostle's
character, but it is just the opposite
of his real thought.—Here it is as it
results from the three verses
combined: “To take it rightly, it is
as your apostle, you Gentiles, that I labor
in seeking to provoke the Jews to
jealousy by your conversion; for it is not
till they shall be restored to grace
that you yourselves shall be crowned
with fulness of life.” This saying is
not therefore a captatio benevolentioe
indirectly appealing to
Judeo-Christian readers; it is a jet of light for the
use of Gentile-Christians.
The term ajpobolhv strictly denotes
the act of throwing far from oneself
(Acts 28:22: ajpobolh; yuch'" ,
the loss of life ). How is the rejection of the
Jews the reconciliation of the world?
Inasmuch as it brings down that wall
of law which kept the Gentiles outside
of the divine covenant, and opens
wide to them the door of grace by
simple faith in the atonement.—Now, if
such is the effect of their rejection,
what shall be the effect of their
readmission? The word provslhyi"
(translated by Osterv. their recall , by
Oltram. their restoration , by Segond,
their admission ) strictly signifies the
act of welcoming. When cursed, they
have contributed to the restoration
of the world; what will they not do
when blessed? There seems to be here
an allusion to what Christ Himself did
for the world by His expiatory death
and resurrection. In Christ's people
there is always something of Christ
Himself, mutatis mutandis. —A host of
commentators, from Origen and
Chrysostom down to Meyer and Hofmann
(two men who do not often
agree, and who unfortunately concur in
this case), apply the expression: a
life from the dead , to the
resurrection of the dead , in the strict sense.
But—1st. Why use the expression a life
, instead of saying as usual
ajnavstasi" , the resurrection?
2d. Why omit the article before the word life ,
and
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
not say as usual the life, life
eternal, instead of a life? And more than all,
3d. What so close relation could there
be between the fact of the
conversion of the Jews and that of the
bodily resurrection? Again, if Paul
confined himself to saying that the
second event will closely follow the
first, this temporal relation would be
intelligible, though according to him
the signal for the resurrection is the
return of the Lord (1 Cor. 15:23), and
not at all the conversion of Israel.
But he goes the length of identifying the
two facts of which he speaks: “What
shall their return be but a life?” It is
evident, therefore, for all these
reasons, that the expression: a life from
the dead , must be applied to a
powerful spiritual revolution which will be
wrought in the heart of Gentile
Christendom by the fact of the conversion
of the Jews. So it has been understood
by Theoph., Mel., Calv., Beza,
Philip., etc. The light which converted
Jews bring to the church, and the
power of life which they have
sometimes awakened in it, are the pledge of
that spiritual renovation which will
be produced in Gentile Christendom by
their entrance en masse. Do we not
then feel that in our present condition
there is something, and that much,
wanting to us that the promises of the
gospel may be realized in all their
fulness; that there is, as it were, a
mysterious hindrance to the efficacy
of preaching, a debility inherent in
our spiritual life, a lack of joy and
force which contrasts strangely with the
joyful outbursts of prophets and
psalmists; that, in fine, the feast in the
father's house is not complete...why?
because it cannot be so, so long as
the family is not entirely
reconstituted by the return of the elder son. Then
shall come the Pentecost of the last
times, the latter rain. We are little
affected by the objection of Meyer,
who alleges that, according to St. Paul,
the last times will be times of
tribulation (those of Antichrist), and not an
epoch of spiritual prosperity. We do
not know how the apostle conceived
the succession of events; it seems to
us that, according to the
Apocalpyse, the conversion of the Jews
(chap. 11:13 and 14:1 et seq.)
must precede the coming of the Antichrist,
and consequently also Christ's
coming again. Paul does not express
himself on this point, because, as
always, he only brings out what
belongs rigorously to the subject he is
treating.
Vv. 16-24.
The apostle proves in this passage the
perfect congruity, from the
viewpoint of Israelitish antecedents,
of the event which he has just
announced as the consummation of
Israel's history. Their future
restoration is in conformity with the
holy character impressed on them
from the first; it is therefore not
only possible, but morally necessary (ver.
16). This thought, he adds, should
inspire the Gentiles, on the one hand,
with a feeling of profound regard for
Israel, even in their lapsed state
(vv. 17, 18); on the other, with a
feeling of watchful fear over themselves;
for if a judgment of rejection
overtook such a people, how much more
easily may not the same chastisement
descend on them (vv. 19-21)! He
finishes with a conclusion confirming
the principal idea of the passage (vv.
22-24).
Ver. 16. “ But if the first-fruit be
holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root
be holy, so are the branches. ”—The
Jewish people are consecrated to
God by their very origin—that is to
say, by the call of Abraham, which
included theirs (ver.
29).—According to Num. 15:18-21, every
time the Israelites ate of the
bread of the land which God had given
them, they were first of all to set
aside a portion of the dough to make a
cake intended for the priests. This
cake bore the name of ajparchv ,
first-fruits; it is to this usage the apostle
alludes in the first part of our
verse. It has sometimes been alleged that he
took the figure used here from the
custom of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
offering in the temple, on the 16th
Nisan, on the morrow after the
Passover, the sacred sheaf gathered in
one of the fields of Jerusalem, as
first-fruits and as a consecration of
the entire harvest. But the subject in
question here is a portion of dough (
fuvrama ), which necessarily leads to
the first meaning. This cake offered
to God's representative impressed the
seal of consecration on the entire
mass from which it had been taken.
What is it that corresponds to this
emblem in the apostle's view? Some
answer: the Jews converted in the
first times of the church; for they are
the pledge of the final conversion of
the whole people. But exactly the
same thing might be said of the first
Gentile converts, as being the pledge
of the successive conversion of all
the Gentiles. Now, by this figure Paul's
very object is to express a
characteristic peculiar to the Jews. Some
Fathers (Or., Theod.) apply this
emblem to Christ , as assuring the
conversion of the people from whom He
sprang. But this reasoning would
apply equally to Gentile humanity,
since Jesus is a man, not only a Jew.
We must therefore, with the majority
of commentators, take these holy
first- fruits as the patriarchs , in
whose person all their posterity are
radically consecrated to the mission
of being the salvation-people; comp.
9:5 and 11:28.
But this figure, by which the entire
nation was compared to a lump of
dough consecrated to God, did not
furnish the apostle with the means of
distinguishing between Jews and Jews,
between those who had faithfully
preserved this national character and
those who had obliterated it by their
personal unbelief. Thus he is obliged
to add a second figure, that he may
be able to make the distinction which
he must here lay down between
those two so different portions of the
nation. There is therefore no need to
seek a different meaning for the
second figure from that of the
first.—Origen, again, applies the
emblem of the root to Christ , inasmuch
as by His heavenly origin He is the
true author of the Jewish people; but
this notion of Christ's pre-existence
is foreign to the context.—It follows
from these two comparisons, that to
obtain salvation the Jewish people
had only to remain on the soil where
they were naturally rooted, while the
salvation of the Gentile demands a
complete transplantation. Hence a
double warning which Paul feels
himself forced to give to the latter. And
first the warning against indulging
pride.
Vv. 17, 18. “ Now, if some of the
branches be broken off, and thou, being
a wild olive tree, wert grafted in
their place, and with them partakest of the
root and fatness of the olive tree,
boast not against the branches; and if
thou boast, it is not thou that
bearest the root, but the root thee. ”—We
might give dev the sense of but (“ but
if, notwithstanding their natural
consecration, the branches were broken
off”); or that of now , which is
better, as the argument continues down
to the inference drawn in ver.
18.—Undoubtedly an event has happened
which seems to be in
contradiction to this people's
character of holiness; a certain number of its
members, like branches struck down
with an ax, have been rejected. The
term some indicates any fraction
whatever, small or considerable matters
not (see on 3:3).— Su; dev , and if
thou. Some commentators think that
this style of address applies to the
Gentile- Christian church personified.
But in that sense would not the
article oJ have been needed before
ajgrievlaio" , the wild olive?
Without an article the word is an adjective, and
denotes the quality, not the tree
itself. Besides, it is not one tree that is
engrafted on another. By this style of
address, therefore, Paul speaks to
each Christian of Gentile origin
individually, and reminds him that it is in
spite of his possessing the quality of
a wild tree that he has been able to
take a place in this blessed and
consecrated organism to which he was
originally a stranger.—The words ejn
aujtoi'" , which we have translated: in
their place , properly signify: in them
, and may be understood in two
ways: either in the sense of among
them —that is to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
say, among the branches which have
remained on the trunk, converts of
Jewish origin—or: in the place which
they occupied, and, as it were, in the
stump which has been left by them,
which would apply solely to the
branches which have been cut down. The
prep. ejn , in , which enters into
the composition of the verb, might
favor this latter meaning, which is,
however, somewhat forced.—Once
engrafted on this stem, the wild
branches have become co-participants (
sugkoinwnoiv ) of the root. This
expression is explained by the
following words: and of the fatness of the
olive , of which the meaning is this:
As there mounts up from the root into
the whole tree a fruitful and unctuous
sap which pervades all its branches,
so the blessing assured to Abraham (
hJ eujlogiva tou' jAbraavm , Gal. 3:14)
remains inherent in the national life
of Israel, and is even communicated
by believing Jews to those of the
Gentiles who become children of the
patriarch by faith; comp. Gal. 3:5-9.
The Alexs. reject the word kaiv , and ,
after rJivzh" , root: “the root
of the fatness of the olive.” It would be
necessary in that case to give to the
word root the meaning of source ,
which is impossible. This reading must
therefore be rejected, as well as
that of the Greco- Latins, which omit
the words: of the root and of: “coparticipant
of the fatness of the olive.” The
meaning would be admissible;
but this reading is only a correction
of the text once altered by the Alex.
reading.—This passage demonstrates in
a remarkable way the complete
harmony between St. Paul's view and
that of the twelve apostles on the
relation of the church to Israel. The
Tubingen school persists in contrasting
these two conceptions with one
another. According to it, the Twelve
regarded Christians of Gentile origin
as simply members by admission, a
sort of plebs in the church; while
Paul made them members of the new
people, perfectly equal to the old.
The fact is, that in the view of Paul, as
in that of the Twelve, the believers
of Israel are the nucleus round which
are grouped the converts from among
the Gentiles, and God's ancient
people, consequently, the flock with
which the Gentiles are incorporated.
“I have yet other sheep, said Jesus
(John 10:16), who are not of this fold;
them also I must bring, and there shall
be one flock, one Shepherd.”
Excepting the figure, the thought is
identical with our passage.
It has been objected to the figure
used here by the apostle, that a
gardener never engrafts a wild branch
on a stem already brought under
cultivation; but, on the contrary, a
stem is taken which still possesses all
the vigor of the wild state to insert
in it the graft of the cultivated tree.
There are two ways of answering this
objection. It may be said that,
according to the reports of some
travellers, the course taken in the East is
sometimes that supposed by the figure
of the apostle. A wild young
branch is engrafted in an old
exhausted olive, and serves to revive it. But
there is another more natural answer,
viz. that the apostle uses the figure
freely and without concern, to modify
it in view of the application. What
proves this, is the fact that in ver.
23 he represents the branches broken
off as requiring to be engrafted anew.
Now this is an impracticable
process, taken in the strict sense.
Ver. 18. If it is so, Christians of
Gentile origin have no cause to indulge
pride as against the natural branches.
The true translation would perhaps
be: “ Do not despise the branches. But
if, nevertheless, thou despisest
”...Must we understand by the branches
those broken off? Certainly, for it
is on them that the look of disdain
might most easily be cast by those who
had been called to fill their place.
Do we not see Christians at the present
day often treating with supreme
contempt the members of the Jewish
nation who dwell among them? But this
contempt might easily extend
even to Judeo-Christians; and this,
perhaps, is the reason why Paul says
simply the branches , without adding
the epithet: broken off. It is all that
bears the name of Jew which he wished
to put under the protection of this
warning. As to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the idea Fritzsche had of applying
this word branches to Christians of
Jewish origin solely, it does not deserve
refutation.
Yet the apostle supposes that the
presumption of the Gentile-Christian
continues, in spite of this warning.
This is why he adds: “But if,
notwithstanding, thou despisest”...We
have not to understand a verb such
as: know that or think that. The idea
understood, if there is one, is to this
effect: “Be it! despise! But this,
nevertheless, remains the fact.” And what
is the fact that nothing can change,
and with which such a feeling
conflicts? It is, that the salvation
enjoyed by this believer has been
prepared by a divine history which is
one with that of Israel, and that the
Christian of Gentile origin enters
into possession of a blessing already
existing and inherent in this people.
As Hodge says: “It is the Jews who
are the channel of blessings to the
Gentiles, and not inversely.” The
Gentiles become God's people by means
of the Jews, not the Jews by the
instrumentality of the Gentiles. In
view of this fact, the contempt of the
latter becomes absurd and even
perilous.
Not only, indeed, should Gentile
believers not despise the Jews; but if
they understand their position
rightly, the sight of this rejected people
should lead them to tremble for
themselves.
Vv. 19-21. “ Thou wilt say then,
Branches were broken off, that I might be
grafted in. Well! because of unbelief
they were broken off, and thou
standest by faith; be not high-minded
, but fear! For if God spared not the
natural branches, [it may be] that
neither will He spare thee. ”—The
objection Paul puts in the mouth of
his reader is taken from the very
answer which he had just made to him
in ver. 18; hence the then: “Since
branches have been cut off the stem to
make place for me, who was
foreign to it by nature, the
preference of God for me appears thereby still
more striking than if God had confined
Himself to engrafting me on the
same stem with them.”—The article oiJ
, the , before the word branches ,
is to be rejected, according to the
majority of the documents. Paul means,
in reality: “beings who had the
character of branches.” The particular
emphasis resting on the ejgwv should
be remarked; literally: “that I on my
part should be grafted in.” To make
place for me, even me , God rejected
branches!
Ver. 20. Paul grants the fact; but he
denies the inference drawn from it.
There is no arbitrary favor in God. If
the Jews have been rejected, it is in
consequence of their unbelief; and if
thou fillest their place for the present,
it is a consequence of faith—that is
to say, of divine grace. For there is no
merit in faith, since it consists only
in opening the hand to receive the gift
of God. The term: thou standest ,
alludes to the favored position of the
engrafted branch which now rises on
the stem, while those it has replaced
lie on the ground.—The reading
uJyhlofrovnei ought certainly to be
preferred to the form uJyhla; frovnei
, which is substituted for it by the
Alexs., probably after 12:16. In the
passage 1 Tim. 6:17, where this word
again occurs, there is the same
variant.—But it is not enough to avoid selfexaltation;
there should be a positive fear.
Ver. 21. May not what has happened to
the natural branches, happen to
the engrafted branches? There is even
here an a fortiori: For the
engrafted branches being less
homogeneous with the trunk than the
natural branches, their rejection may
take place more easily still, in case of
unbelief. The Alex. reading rejects
the conj. mhvpw" , from fear that; thus
the meaning is: “neither will He spare
thee.” But the
T. R., with the Greco-Latins, reads
mhvpw" before oujde; sou' , and should
be translated by borrowing from the
word fear in the preceding verse the
notion of fear: “[fear] that He will
no more spare thee.” It is difficult to
believe that a copyist would have
introduced this form mhvpw" , lest ,
which softens the threat; it is more
probable that
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
this conjunction should have been
omitted. Why? The other variant which
the last word of this short
proposition presents probably explains the
reason. The future feivsetai , will
spare , which is read in all the Mjj.,
seemed incompatible with the conj.
mhvpw" , which usually governs the
subjunctive. Hence two kinds of
corrections in opposite ways: the one (the
Alex.) have rejected the conjunction,
all the more that it was not
dependent on any verb; and the others,
the Byz. Mnn., have changed the
indicative ( feivsetai ) into the
subjunctive ( feivshtai. ).
Vv. 22-24 derive for believers of
Gentile origin the practical application of
all they have been reminded of in vv.
17-21.
Ver. 22. “ Behold, therefore, the
goodness and severity of God: on them
which fell, severity;but toward thee,
goodness , if thou continue in this
goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be
cut off. ”—The readers have just
been contemplating two examples, the
one of severity, the other of grace;
the first, in the person of the Jews;
the second, in their own. Hence two
lessons to be derived which the apostle
entreats them not to neglect. In
opposition to crhstovthv" ,
goodness , from crhstov" (literally: that may be
handled ), the apostle uses the
forcible term ajpotomiva (from ajpotevmnw ,
to cut right off , to cut short): a
rigor which does not bend. We may read in
the second clause the two substantives
in the nominative with the Alexs.,
and then we shall have either to
understand the verb is (“severity is on
those who”), which is excessively
clumsy, or to make these two words
absolute nominatives, as sometimes
happens in Greek appositions. But
the Received Reading puts these words
in the accusative, which is much
simpler. It is, besides, sufficiently
supported.—In passing to the
application of God's two modes of
acting which he has just characterized,
the apostle begins with the second;
and he connects it directly with what
precedes by this grave restriction:
“if thou continue in this goodness.”
Continuance is effected by the same disposition
whereby grace was
appropriated at the first, humble
faith. Unhappy is the believer for whom
grace is no longer grace on the
hundredth or the thousandth day, as it
was on the first! For the slightest
feeling of self-exaltation which may take
possession of him on occasion of grace
received or of its fruits, destroys
in his case grace itself and paralyzes
it. There is nothing more for him to
expect in this condition than to be
himself also cut off from the stem. Kai;
suv , thou also , as well as the Jews.
The future passive ejkkophvsh/ , thou
shalt be cut off , abruptly closes the
sentence, like the stroke of the axe
cutting down this proud branch.—It is
but too clear to any one who has
eyes to see, that our Gentile
Christendom has now reached the point here
foreseen by St. Paul. In its pride it
tramples under foot the very notion of
that grace which has made it what it
is. It moves on, therefore, to a
judgment of rejection like that of
Israel, but which shall not have to soften
it a promise like that which
accompanied the fall of the Jews.—For the
rest, I do not think that any
conclusion can be drawn from this passage
against the doctrine of an
unconditional decree relative to individuals; for
the matter in question here is Gentile
Christendom in general, and not
such or such of its members in
particular (see Hodge).
In vv. 23 and 24 the idea of severity
is applied, as that of goodness was in
the foregoing verse. As the goodness
which the Gentiles have enjoyed
may through their fault be transformed
into severity, so the severity with
which the Jews had been treated may be
changed for them into
compassionate goodness, if they
consent to believe as the Gentiles
formerly did. With the close of this
verse the apostle returns to his
principal subject, the future of
Israel.
Vv. 23, 24. “ And they also, if they
abide not still in unbelief, shall be
grafted in; for God is able to graft
them in again. For if thou wert cut out of
the olive tree which
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
is wild by nature, and wert grafted
contrary to nature into a good olive
tree, how much more shall these, which
be the natural branches, be
grafted into their own olive tree!
”—Severity to the Jews was a threat to
the Gentiles; so the goodness
displayed to the Gentiles is a pledge, as it
were, of mercy to the Jews. Let them
only give up persisting in their
unbelief (a contrast to the
non-persistence of the Gentiles in faith, ver. 22),
and on this one condition the power of
God will restore them their place in
His kingdom. It will engraft them on
Christ, who will become to them a
vivifying stem, as well as to the
Gentiles. And this transplantation will be
effected more easily still in their
case than in the case of the Gentiles.
Ver. 24. There is, in fact, between
the Jewish nation and the kingdom of
God an essential affinity, a sort of
pre-established harmony, so that when
the hour has come, their restoration
will be accomplished still more easily
than the incorporation of the
Gentiles.—The words: how much more ,
seem to us to signify naturally in the
context: “How much more easily.” It is
objected, no doubt, that one thing is
no easier to God than another. That
is true in the physical world; but in
the moral world God encounters a
factor which He Himself respects—moral
freedom. The Jewish people
having been raised up only with a view
to the kingdom of God, will not
have an organic transformation to
undergo in order to return to it; and if it
is objected that a Jew is converted
with more difficulty than a Gentile, that
proves nothing as to the final and
collective revolution which will be
wrought in the nation at the end of
the times. A veil will fall (1 Cor. 3:14,
15), and all will be done.
Thus far the apostle has shown the
moral congruity of the event which he
has in view; now he announces the fact
positively, and as matter of
express revelation.
Vv. 25-32.
Ver. 25 contains the announcement of
the fact; vv. 26, 27 quote some
prophecies bearing on it; vv. 28, 29
conclude as to Israel; finally, vv. 30-32
sum up the whole divine plan in
relation to Israel and to the Gentiles.
Vv. 25, 26a. “ For I would not, brethren,
that ye should be ignorant of this
mystery, lest ye should be wise in own
your conceits:that a hardening in
part hath befallen Israel, until the
fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and
so all Israel shall be saved. ”—The
form of expression: “I would not that ye
should be ignorant,” always announces
a communication the importance
of which the apostle is concerned to
impress. The style of address:
brethren , leaves no room to doubt
that the apostle is here speaking to the
church as a whole. Now it is
indubitable that in vv. 28 and 30 those
readers whom he addresses with the
word ye are of Gentile origin. This
proof of a Gentile majority in the
church of Rome seems to us
incontrovertible.—Paul uses the word
mystery to designate the fact he is
about to announce. He does not mean by
this, as might be thought from
the meaning this term has taken in
ecclesiastical language, that this fact
presents something incomprehensible to
reason. In the N. T. the word
denotes a truth or fact which can only
be known by man through a
communication from above, but which,
after this revelation has taken
place, falls into the domain of the
understanding. The two notions mystery
and revelation are correlative; comp.
Eph. 3:3-6. The apostle therefore
holds directly from above the
knowledge of the event he proceeds to
announce; comp. 1 Cor. 15:51 and 1
Thess. 4:15.—Before stating the fact
he explains the object of this
communication: “that ye be not wise in your
own eyes.” The reference here is not,
as in ver. 19, to proud thoughts
arising from the preference which God
seems now to have given to the
Gentiles. It is the wisdom of self
whose inspirations Paul here sets aside.
The
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
converted Gentiles composing the
church of Rome might form strange
systems regarding Israel's rejection
and future history. Paul is concerned
to fix their ideas on this important
point, and leave no place in their minds
for vain and presumptuous speculations.
He borrows his expressions from
Prov. 3:7. Instead of parj
eJautoi'" , beside yourselves , two Alexs. read ejn
eJautoi'" , within yourselves.
The copyists may possibly have changed the
original ejn ( in ) into parav , under
the influence of the text of the LXX. The
meaning is substantially the same.
The contents of the mystery are
declared in the end of this verse and the
first words of the following: “
hardness is happened.” Paul had already
pointed out this, ver. 7; but he adds:
in part , ajpo; mevrou" . This word is
explained, as it seems to me, by the
expression of ver. 7: “the rest were
hardened,” and by the term some , ver.
17. Hence it follows that we must
here give the word in part a numerical
sense. Judgment has not fallen on
the totality of Israel, but on a part
only; such is also the meaning to which
we are led by the antithesis of the
all Israel of ver. 26; comp. 2 Cor. 2:5. It
is a mistake in Calvin to apply this
word: to the degree , of the hardening
which according to him still left room
for partial blessings; and in Hofmann,
in a more forced way still, to apply
it to the restricted time during which it is
to last.—But even this judgment, which
has overtaken one entire portion
of the nation, will have an end: to
make it cease, God waits till the totality
of the Gentile nations shall have made
their entry into the kingdom of
God. This is the people which should
have introduced all the other
peoples into it; and for their
punishment the opposite is what will take
place, as Jesus had declared: “The
first shall be last.” It is almost
incredible how our Reformers could
have have held out obstinately, as
they have done, against a thought so
clearly expressed. But they showed
themselves in general rather
indifferent about points of eschatology, and
they dreaded in particular everything
that appeared to favor the
expectation of the thousand years'
reign which had been so much abused
in their time. Calvin has attempted to
give to the conj. a[cri" ou\ , until that ,
the impossible meaning of in order
that; which in sense amounted simply
to the idea of vv. 11 and 12. Others
gave to this conjunction the meaning
of as long as , to get this idea: that
while the Gentiles are entering
successively into the church, a part
of the Jews undoubtedly remain
hardened, but yet a certain number of
individuals are converted, from
which it will follow that in the end
the totality of God's people, Jews and
Gentiles ( all Israel , ver. 26), will
be made up. This explanation was only
an expedient to get rid of the idea of
the final conversion of the Jewish
people. It is of course untenable—1st.
From the grammatical point of view
the conj. a[cri" ou\ could only
signify as long as , if the verb were a present
indicative. With the verb in the aor.
subjunctive the only possible meaning
is: until. 2d. Viewed in connection
with the context, the word Israel has
only one possible meaning, its strict
meaning: for throughout the whole
chapter the subject in question is the
future of the Israelitish nation. 3d.
How could the apostle announce in a
manner so particular, and as a fact
of revelation, the perfectly simple
idea that at the same time as the
preaching of the gospel shall sound in
the ears of the Gentiles, some
individual Jews will also be
converted? Comp. Hodge.—The expression:
the fulness of the Gentiles , denotes
the totality of the Gentile nations
passing successively into the church
through the preaching of the gospel.
This same whole epoch of the
conversion of the Gentile world is that
which Jesus designates, Luke 21:24, by
the remarkable expression:
kairoi; ejqnw'n , the times of the
Gentiles , which he tacitly contrasts with
the theocratic epoch: the times of the
Jews (19:42, 44). Jesus adds,
absolutely in the same sense as Paul,
“that Jerusalem shall be trodden
down until those times of the Gentiles
be fulfilled;” which evidently
signifies that after those times had
elapsed, Jerusalem
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
shall be delivered and restored. In
this discourse of Jesus, as reported by
Matthew (24:14) and Mark (13:10), it
is said: “The gospel of the kingdom
shall be preached unto the Gentiles
throughout all the earth; and then
shall the end come.” This end includes
the final salvation of the Jewish
people.—Olshausen and Philippi suppose
that the complement of the
word plhvrwma , fulness , is: “of the
kingdom of God,” and that the genitive
ejqnw'n , of the Gentiles , is only a
complement of apposition: “Until the full
number of Gentiles necessary to fill
up the void in the kingdom of God,
made by the loss of Israel, be
complete.” This is to torture at will the words
of the apostle; their meaning is
clear: Till the accomplishment of the
conversion of the Gentiles, there will
be among the Jews only individual
conversions; but this goal reached,
their conversion en masse will take
place.
ver. 26a Kai; ou{tw" cannot be
translated “and then;” the natural meaning
is: and thus; and it is quite
suitable. Thus, that is to say, by means of the
entrance of the Gentiles into the
church, comp. ver. 31. When Israel shall
see the promises of the O. T., which
ascribe to the Messiah the
conversion of the Gentiles to the God
of Abraham, fulfilled throughout the
whole world by Jesus Christ, and the
Gentiles through His mediation
loaded with the blessings which they
themselves covet, they will be forced
to own that Jesus is the Messiah; for
if the latter were to be a different
personage, what would this other have
to do, Jesus having already done
all that is expected of the Messiah?—
Pa'" jIsrahvl , all Israel , evidently
signifies Israel taken in its
entirety. It seems, it is true, that the Greek
expression in this sense is not
correct, and that it should be jIsrah;l oJlo" .
But the term pa'" , all ( every
), denotes here, as it often does, every
element of which the totality of the
object is composed (comp. 2 Chron.
12:1: pa'" jIsrah;l metj aujtou'
, all Israel was with him ); Acts. 2:36; Eph.
2:21. We have already said that there
can be no question here of applying
the term Israel to the spiritual
Israel in the sense of Gal. 6:16. It is no less
impossible to limit its application,
with Bengel and Olshausen, to the elect
portion of Israel, which would lead to
a tautology with the verb shall be
saved , and would suppose, besides,
the resurrection of all the Israelites
who had died before. And what would
there be worthy of the term mystery
(ver. 25) in the idea of the salvation
of all the elect Israelites!—Paul, in
expressing himself as he does, does
not mean to suppress individual
liberty in the Israclites who shall
live at that epoch. He speaks of a
collective movement which shall take
hold of the nation in general , and
bring them as such to the feet of
their Messiah. Individual resistance
remains possible. Compare the
admirable delineation of this period in the
prophet Zechariah (12:10-
14).—Two prophetic sayings are alleged
as containing the revelation of
this mystery.
Vv. 26b, 27. “ As it is written, There
shall come out of Sion the Deliverer,
and shall turn away ungodliness from
Jacob: and this is the covenant I will
make with them when I shall take away
their sins. ”—Two passages are
combined in this quotation, as we have
already found so often; these are
Isa. 59:20 and 27:9. As far as the
word when , all belong to the first
passage; with this conjunction the
second begins. Both in Isaiah refer to
the last times , and have consequently
a Messianic bearing. Paul follows
the LXX. in quoting, with this
difference, that instead of ejk Siwvn , from
Sion , they read e{neken Siwvn , “in
favor of Sion.” The form of the LXX.
would have as well suited the object
of the apostle as that which he
employs himself. Why, then, this
change? Perhaps the prep. e{neken , in
favor of , was contracted in some MSS.
of the LXX. so as to be easily
confounded with ejk , from. Or perhaps
the apostle was thinking of some
other passage, such as Ps. 110:2,
where the Messiah is represented as
setting out from Sion to establish His
kingdom. But what is singular is, that
neither the one nor the other form
corresponds exactly to the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Hebrew text, which says: “There shall
come to Sion ( the Zion ), and to
them who turn from their sins in
Jacob.” It is probable that instead of
leschave4 (“them that turn”) the
LXX. read leschov ( to turn away );
and they have rendered this infinitive
of aim by the future: he will turn
away. Hence the form of our quotation.
However that may be, the meaning is
that He who shall deliver Sion from
its long oppression, will do so by
taking away iniquity from the entire
people. Such is, in fact, the bearing
of the term jIakwvb , Jacob , which
denotes the whole nation collectively.
It is therefore on this second
proposition of ver. 26 that the weight
of the quotation properly rests. As to
the first proposition, it may be
regarded as a simple introduction; or we
may find in it the idea, that after
setting out from Sion , the preaching of
the gospel, having made the round of
the world, will return to Israel to
purify it, after all the other
nations; or, finally, it may be held, with
Hofmann, that the words from Sion
denote the place whence the Lord will
make His glory shine forth, when He
shall fulfil this last promise on the
earth.
Ver. 27. The first proposition of this
verse belongs also to the first of the
two passages quoted; but, singular to
say, it is almost identical with the
clause with which Isaiah begins the
second saying used here (27:9): “And
this is the blessing which I shall put
on them when”...This is no doubt what
has given rise to the combination of
these two passages in our quotation.
The meaning is: “Once the sin of
Israel (their unbelief in the Messiah) has
been pardoned, I shall renew with them
my broken covenant.” The
pronoun aujtw'n , their , refers to
the individuals, as the word Jacob
denoted the totality of the people.
In the two following verses the
apostle draws from what precedes the
conclusion relative to Israel. In ver.
28 he expresses it in a striking
antithesis, and in ver. 29 he
justifies the final result (28b) by a general
principle of the divine government.
Vv. 28, 29. “ As touching the gospel,
they are, it is true, enemies for your
sakes; but as touching the election,
they are beloved for the fathers' sake;
for the gifts and calling of God are
irrevocable. ”—To sum up, Israel are in
a two-fold relation to God, at once
enemies and beloved; but the latter
character will carry it in the end
over the former. The term ejcqrov" , hated
, opposed as it is here to
ajgaphtov" , beloved , can only be taken in the
passive sense: an object of the
hatred, that is to say, of the just wrath of
God; comp. chap. 5:10. It needs not be
said that when the feeling of
hatred is applied to God, we must
eliminate from it all admixture of
personal resentment, or of the spirit
of revenge. God hates the sinner in
the same sense in which the sinner
ought to hate himself, that is to say,
his own life. This sentiment is only
the hatred of holiness to evil; and then
to the wicked man in so far as he is
identified with evil.—The words: as
concerning the gospel , refer to what
was said above: that the Jews being
once determined not to abandon their
law and their monopoly founded on
it, needed to be struck with blindness,
so that they might not discern in
Jesus their Messiah; otherwise a
Judaized gospel would have hindered
the offer of salvation to the Gentile
nations. The apostle might therefore
well add to the words: as concerning
the gospel , the further clause: for
your sakes. —But in every Jew there is
not only an object of the wrath of
God, there is an object of His love.
If it is asked how these two sentiments
can co-exist in the heart of God, we
must remark, first, that the same is
the case up to a certain point with
respect to every man. In every man
there co-exist a being whom God hates,
the sinner, and a being whom He
still loves, the man created in His
image, and for whom His Son died.
Then it must be considered that this
duality of feelings is only transitory,
and must issue finally either in
absolute hatred or perfect love; for every
man must arrive
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
at the goal either absolutely good or
absolutely bad of his moral
development, and then the divine
feeling will be simplified (see on chaps.
5:9, 10).—The words: as touching the
election , must not be referred, as
Meyer will have it, to the elect
remnant , as if Paul meant that it is in
consequence of this indestructible
elect that God always loves Israel. The
antithesis to the expression: as
concerning the gospel , leads us rather to
see in election the divine act by
which God chose this people as the
salvation people. This idea is
reproduced in the following verse by the
expression: hJ klh'si" tou' Qeou'
, the calling of God. —This notion of
election is closely connected with the
explanatory regimen: for the fathers'
sake. It was in the persons of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that the divine
election of Israel was originally
realized, and through them that it was
transmitted to the whole people. The
love with which God loved the
fathers continues toward their
descendants “even to a thousand
generations” (Ex. 20:6). Only let the
hearts of the children return to their
fathers, that is to say, let them
return to the sentiments of their fathers
(Mal. 4:6; Luke 1:17), and the
beneficent cloud which is always spread
over their head will again distil its
dew on them.
Ver. 29. This verse justifies the
assurance of salvation expressed in favor
of Israel in the second proposition of
ver. 28. The gifts of God might
denote divine favors in general; but
it seems to us more in harmony with
the context, which refers throughout
to the destination of Israel, to give
this term the special meaning which it
usually has in St. Paul's Epistles.
He there uses the word to denote the
moral and intellectual aptitudes with
which God endows a man with a view to
the task committed to him. And
who can fail to see that the people of
Israel are really endowed with
singular qualities for their mission
as the salvation-people? The Greeks,
the Romans, the Phoenicians had their
special gifts in the different
domains of science and art, law and
politics, industry and commerce.
Israel, without being destitute of the
powers related to those spheres of
mundane activity, have received a
higher gift, the organ for the divine and
the intuition of holiness. The calling
of God is on the one hand the cause,
on the other the effect of those
gifts. It is because God called this people
in His eternal counsel that He
entrusted the gifts to them; and it is
because he enriched them with those
gifts that in the course of time He
called them to fulfil the task of
initiating the world in the way of salvation,
and of preparing salvation for the
world. Of this august mission they have
for the time been deprived: instead of
entering first, they will enter last. But
their destination is nevertheless irrevocable;
and through the overflowing
of divine mercy (chap. 5:20) it will
be realized in them at the period
announced by the apostle, when, saved
themselves, they will cause a
stream of life from above to flow into
the heart of Gentile Christendom
(15:12, 15, and 25, 26).—This
irrevocable character of Israel's destination
has nothing in it contrary to
individual liberty; no constraint will be
exercised. God will let unbelieving
generations succeed one another as
long as shall be necessary, until that
generation come which shall at
length open its eyes and return freely
to Him. And even then the
movement in question will only be a
national and collective one, from
which those shall be able to withdraw
who refuse decidedly to take part in
it. Only it is impossible that the
divine foreknowledge in regard to Israel as
a people (“the people whom God
foreknew,” ver. 2) should terminate
otherwise than by being realized in
history.
There is nothing in this passage pointing
to a temporal restoration of the
Jewish nation, or to an Israelitish
monarchy having its seat in Palestine.
The apostle speaks only of a spiritual
restoration by means of a general
pardon, and the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
outpouring of the graces which shall
flow from it. Will there be a political
restoration connected with this
general conversion of the people? Or will it
not even precede the latter? Will not
the principle of the reconstitution of
races, which in our day has produced
Italian unity, German unity, and
which is tending to the unity of the
Slavs, also bring about Israelitish
unity? These questions do not belong
to exegesis, which confines itself to
establishing these two things—(1) That
according to apostolical
revelation, Israel will be converted
in a body; (2) That this event will be the
signal of an indescribable spiritual
commotion throughout the whole
church.
The theme of the chapter is properly
exhausted; we are furnished with
light from all points of view, that of
right , that of cause , and that of aim ,
on the mysterious dispensation of the
rejection of Israel. Nothing remains
but to gather up what has been said of
the past and future of this elect
people into a general view of God's
plan as to the religious progress of
humanity. This is what the apostle
does in vv. 30-
32.
Vv. 30, 31. “ For as ye also in time
past disobeyed God, but have now
obtained mercy by their disobedience;
even so have these also now been
disobedient, that by the mercy shown
to you they also may obtain mercy.
”—The entire course of the religious
history of the world is determined by
the antagonism created among mankind
by the calling of Abraham,
between a people specially destined by
God to receive His revelations,
and the other nations given over to
themselves. From that moment (Gen.
12) there begin to be described those
two immense curves which traverse
the ages of antiquity in opposite
directions, and which, crossing one
another at the advent of Christianity,
are prolonged from that period in
inverse directions, and shall
terminate by uniting and losing themselves in
one another at the goal of
history.—Ver. 30 describes the rebellion of the
Gentiles, then their salvation
determined by the rebellion of the Jews; and
ver. 31, the rebellion of the Jews,
then their salvation arising from the
salvation of the Gentiles.
Ver. 30. The Gentiles first had their
time of disobedience. The expression
in time past carries the reader back
to the contents of chap. 1, to those
times of idolatry when the Gentiles
voluntarily extinguished the light of
natural revelation, to abandon
themselves more freely to their evil
propensities. This epoch of
disobedience is what the apostle calls at
Athens (Acts 17:30) by a less severe
name: “the times of ignorance.”
Perhaps we should read with the T. R.
kaiv , also , after for. This little word
might easily be omitted; it reminds
the Gentiles from the first that they also
, like the Jews, had their time of
rebellion.—That time of disobedience has
now taken end; the Gentiles have found
grace. But at what price? By
means of the disobedience of the Jews.
We have seen this indeed: God
needed to make the temporary sacrifice
of His elect people in order to
disentangle the gospel from the legal
forms in which they wished to keep
it imprisoned. Hence it was that
Israel required to be given up to unbelief
in regard to their Messiah; hence
their rejection, which opened the world
to the gospel. Now then, wonderful to
tell, an analogous, though in a
certain sense opposite, dispensation
will take effect in the case of the
Jews.
Ver. 31. The word nu'n , now ,
strongly contrasts the present period (since
the coming of Christ) with the former,
ver. 30. Now it is the Jews who are
passing through their time of
disobedience, while the Gentiles enjoy the
sun of grace. But to what end? That by
the grace which is now granted to
the latter, grace may also one day be
accorded to the Jews. This time,
then, it will not be the disobedience
of the one which shall produce the
conversion of the others. A new
discord in the kingdom
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
of God will not be necessary to bring
about the final barmony. In this last
phase, the good of the one will not
result from the evil of the other, but
from their very blessedness. Israel
went out that the Gentiles might enter.
But the Gentiles shall not go out to
make place for the Jews; they will
open the door to them from within.
Thus are explained at once the
analogy and the contrast expressed by
the conjunctions w{sper , as , and
ou{tw , even so , which begin and form
a close connection between vv. 30
and 31. It cannot be doubted that the
clause tw'/ uJmetevrw/ ejlevei , by
your mercy (that which has been shown
to you), depends on the following
verb ejlehqw'si , may obtain mercy ,
and not on the preceding proposition.
The apostle places this clause before
the conj. i{na , that , to set it more in
relief; for it expresses the essential
idea of the proposition. Compare the
similar inversions, 12:3; 1 Cor. 3:5,
9:15, etc.—For the form kai; ou\toi ,
these also , in the first proposition,
there is substituted in the second the
form kai; aujtoiv , they , or they
themselves also , to bring out the identity of
the subject to which those two so
opposite dispensations apply. It is
impossible to admit the Greco-Latin
reading, which has kai; aujtoi; both
times. We must also reject the reading
of some Alex. and of some ancient
translations, which in the second
proposition repeat the nu'n , now. These
last words refer evidently to the
future.
Ver. 32. “ For God hath included all
in disobedience, that He might have
mercy upon all. ”—Here we have, as it
were, the full period put to all that
precedes the last word in explanation
of the whole plan of God, the
principal phases of which have just
been sketched ( for ). The term
sugkleivein , to shut up together ,
applies to a plurality of individuals,
enclosed in such a way that they have
only one exit, through which they
are all forced to pass. The prep. suvn
, with , which enters into the
composition of the verb, describes the
enclosure as subsisting on all sides
at once. Some commentators have
thought that there must be given to
this verb a simply declarative sense,
as in Gal. 3:22, where it is said: “The
Scripture hath concluded all under
sin,” in this sense, that it declares all
men to be subject to sin and
condemnation. But in our passage the action
is not ascribed to an impersonal
subject like Scripture; the subject is God
Himself; it is His dispensations in
the course of history which are
explained. The verb can therefore only
refer to a real act, in virtue of
which the two portions of mankind just
spoken of have each had their
period of disobedience. And the act
whereby God has brought about this
result, as we know from all that
precedes, is the judgment denoted in the
case of the Gentiles by the term
parevdwken , He gave them up , thrice
repeated, 1:24, 26, and 28, and in the
case of the Jews by the word
ejpwrwvqhsan , they were hardened ,
11:7. Only it must be remarked that
this divine action had been provoked
in both cases by man's sin; on the
part of the Gentiles through their
ingratitude toward the revelation of God
in nature, and on the part of the Jews
by their ignorant obstinacy in
maintaining beyond the fixed time
their legal particularism. The Danish
theologian Nielsen says with good
reason, in his short and spiritual
exposition of the Epistle to the
Romans: “The sinful nature already existed
in all; but that the conviction of it
might be savingly awakened in
individuals, this latent sin required
to be manifested historically on a great
scale in the lot of nations.” To be
complete, however, it must be added
that this latent sin was already
manifested actively and freely on the part
both of Gentiles and Jews before taking
the form of a passive
dispensation and of a judgment from
God. Thus the act of sugkleivein ,
shutting up together , is already
justified from the viewpoint of cause; but
how much more magnificently still from
the viewpoint of end! This end is
to make those Jews and Gentiles the
objects of universal mercy. The
word tou;" pavnta" , all ,
is applied by Olshausen solely to the totality of the
elect in these two parts of mankind;
and by Meyer, to all the individuals
comprehended in
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
these two masses, but solely,
according to this author, in respect of their
destination , in the divine mind. For
that this destination may be realized,
there is needed the free act of faith.
But it should not be forgotten that this
saying does not refer to the time of
the last judgment and the eternal
future, which would necessarily
suppose the resurrection of the dead, of
which there is no question here.
According to the whole context, the
apostle has in view an epoch in the
history of the kingdom of God on this
earth , an epoch, consequently, which
comprehends only the individuals
who shall then be in life. Hence it is
that he puts the article touv" , the ,
before pavnta" , all; for the
subject in question is a determined and already
known totality, that which comprehends
the two portions of mankind which
Paul has been contrasting with one
another throughout the whole
chapter.—The domain of disobedience,
within which God has
successively shut them all up, leaves
both in the end only one issue, that
of humbly accepting salvation from the
hand of mercy. As Nielsen again
says: “Divine impartiality, after
having been temporarily veiled by two
opposite particularisms, sbines forth
in the final universalism which
embraces in a common salvation all
those whom these great judgments
have successively humbled and abased.”
There is therefore no inference
to be drawn from this passage in favor
of a final universal salvation (De
Wette, Farrar, and so many others), or
even of a determinist system, in
virtue of which human liberty would be
nothing more in the eyes of the
apostle than a form of divine action.
St. Paul teaches only one thing here:
that at the close of the history of
mankind on this earth there will be an
economy of grace in which salvation
will be extended to the totality of the
nations living here below, and that
this magnificent result will be the effect
of the humiliating dispensations
through which the two halves of mankind
shall have successively passed. The
apostle had begun this vast
exposition of salvation with the fact
of universal condemnation; he closes
it with that of universal mercy. What
could remain to him thereafter but to
strike the hymn of adoration and
praise? This is what he does in vv. 33-
36.
Vv. 33-36.
Ver. 33. “ O the depth of the riches
both of the wisdom and knowledge of
God! How unsearchable are His
judgments, and His ways past finding
out! ”—Like a traveller who has
reached the summit of an Alpine ascent,
the apostle turns and contemplates.
Depths are at his feet; but waves of
light illumine them, and there spreads
all around an immense horizon
which his eye commands. The plan of
God in the government of mankind
spreads out before him, and he
expresses the feelings of admiration and
gratitude with which the prospect
fills his heart.—The word bavqo" , depth ,
applies precisely to that abyss which
he has just been exploring. The
genitive plouvtou , of riches , by
which the word depth is qualified, is
regarded by most commentators as a
first complement, co-ordinate with
the two following: of wisdom and of
knowledge. In this case it must be
held that the abstract term riches
applies to a special divine attribute
which can be no other than divine
mercy; comp. 10:12; Eph. 2:4, etc. The
two kaiv , and...and , which follow,
would furnish an instance of a
construction like that of Luke 5:17.
And one might make these three
complements, riches, wisdom, knowledge
, parallel to the three questions
which follow, vv. 34 and 35, as in
fact the first refers rather to knowledge,
the second to wisdom, and the third to
grace. But if this latter relation
really existed in the apostle's mind,
why should the questions be arranged
in an opposite order to that of the
three terms corresponding to them in
our verse? Then is not the notion of
mercy too diverse in kind from those
of wisdom and knowledge to allow of
the first being thus
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
co-ordinated with the other two?
Finally, would not the abstract term
riches have required to be determined
by a complement such as ejlevou"
or cavrito" (mercy, grace)? The
apostle is not afraid of such accumulations
of genitives (2:5 and Eph. 1:19). It
rather seems to me, therefore, that the
second of these two abstract terms (
depth and riches ) ought to be
regarded as a complement of the other:
a depth of riches , for: an infinitely
rich depth, that is to say, one which,
instead of being an immense void,
presents itself as embracing contents
of inexhaustible fulness. Calvin has
well caught this meaning: “This is
why,” says he, “I doubt not that the
apostle exalts the deep riches of
wisdom and knowledge which are in
God.”—This depth is rich, not in
darkness, but in light; it is a depth both of
wisdom and knowledge. —The two kaiv ,
both...and ..., have the
disjunctive sense; they distinguish
the two following substantives very
precisely, however closely allied
their meaning may be. The second,
gnw'si" , knowledge , refers
especially in the context to divine
foreknowledge , and in general to the
complete view which God has of all
the free determinations of men,
whether as individuals or as nations. The
former, sofiva , wisdom , denotes the
admirable skill with which God
weaves into His plan the free actions
of man, and transforms them into so
many means for the accomplishment of the
excellent end which He set
originally before Him. We cannot
reflect, however little, without seeing that
the very marked difference which Paul
here establishes between these
two divine perfections, is by no means
indifferent; it is nothing less than
the safeguard of human liberty. If the
omniscience of God, especially His
foreknowledge, were counfounded with
His wisdom, everything in the
universe would be directly the work of
God, and the creatures would be
nothing more than blind instruments in
His hands.
Paul sees these two attributes of God
shine forth in two orders of things
which, combined, constitute the whole
government of the world:
judgments , krivmata , and ways or
paths , oJdoiv . Here the general sense
of decree is sometimes given to the
former of these terms. But the word in
every case implies the idea of a
judicial decree; and what Paul has just
been referring to, those severe
dispensations whereby God has
successively chastised the ingratitude
of the Gentiles (chap. 1) and the
haughty presumption of the Jews (chap.
10), shows clearly that we are to
keep to its strict sense.— Ways ,
oJdoiv , do not really denote different
things from judgments; but the term
presents them in a different and more
favorable light, as so many advances
toward the final aim. The term
judgments expresses, if one may so
speak, the because of the things, as
the word ways points to their in order
that. We may thus understand the
twofold relation of the events of
history to knowledge on the one hand,
and wisdom on the other. From the
knowledge which God possesses,
there follow from the free decisions
of man the judgments which He
decrees, and these judgments become
the ways which His wisdom
employs for the realization of His
plan (Isa. 40:14: krivmata, oJdoiv
).—These two orders of things are
characterized by the most
extraordinary epithets which the most
pliant of languages can furnish:
ajnexereuvnhto" , what cannot be
searched to the bottom; ajnexicnivasto" ,
the traces of which cannot be followed
to the end. The former of these
epithets applies to the supreme
principle which the mind seeks to
approach, but which it does not reach;
the latter to an abundance of
ramifications and of details in
execution which the understanding cannot
follow to the end. These epithets are
often quoted with the view of
demonstrating the incomprehensibility
to man of the divine decrees, and
in particular of that of
predestination (Aug.). But it must not be forgotten
that St. Paul's exclamation is called
forth, not by the obscurity of God's
plans, but, on the contrary, by their
dazzling clearness. If they are
incomprehensible and unfathomable, it
is to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
man's natural understanding, and until
they have been revealed; but, says
the apostle, 1 Cor. 2:10. “God hath
revealed them unto us by His Spirit;
for the Spirit searcheth ( ejreuna'/ )
all things, even the deep things ( ta;
bavqh ) of God.” It is therefore in
view of the unveiled mystery that the
exclamation is raised, as is done by
Paul here: “O the depth of the riches!”
A fact which does not prevent the mind
which understands them in part
from having always to discover in them
new laws or applications.
Vv. 34, 35. “ For who hath known the
mind of the Lord, or who hath been
His counsellor? Or who hath first
given to Him, and it shall be
recompensed unto Him again? ”—Here is
the Scripture proof that God's
designs are impenetrable until He
reveal them Himself to His apostles and
prophets, and by them to His people.
The first passage quoted is Isa.
40:13, which Paul uses as if it were
his own saying. This question in the
mouth of the prophet applies to the
wonders of creation. Paul extends it to
those of the divine government in
general, for the works of God in history
are only the continuation of those of
nature.—The question: Who hath
known? is a challenge thrown down to
the natural understanding. As to
those whom God has enlightened on the
subject of His designs, Paul
himself says, 1 Cor. 2:16: “But we
have the mind of Christ.”—This first
question contrasts the always limited
knowledge of man with the infinite
knowledge of God ( gnw'si" tou'
Qeou' , ver. 33). The second goes further, it
bears on the relation between human
and divine wisdom. It is no longer
merely the discovery of the secrets of
God by the study of His works
which is in question, but some good
counsel which man might have been
called to give to the Creator in the
organizing of His plans. The word
suvmboulo" denotes one who
deliberates with another, and can
communicate to him something of his
wisdom. It is therefore a more
exalted position than that supposed by
the previous question.
The third question, ver. 35, would
imply a still more exalted part. The
matter in question is a service
rendered to God, a present which man is
supposed to have made to Him so as to
merit a gift in return. Such,
indeed, is the position which the Jews
were taking, and by which they
claimed especially to limit the
freedom of God in the government of the
world on account of their meritorious
works. “There is no difference,” said
the Jews of Malachi's day pettishly,
“between the man who serveth God
and him who serveth Him not. What have
we gained by keeping His
commandments?” This spirit of pride
had been growing; it had reached its
apogee in Pharisaism. The preposition
prov , in advance , which enters
into the composition of the first
verb, and the preposition ajntiv , in
exchange , which enters into that of
the second, perfectly describe the
relation of dependence on man in which
God would be placed, if the
former could really be the first to do
something for God and thereby
constitute Him his debtor. With this
third question Paul evidently returns to
the special subject of this whole
dissertation on the divine government:
the rejection of the Jews. By the
first question he denied to man the power
of understanding God and judging Him
till God had explained Himself; by
the second, the power of co- operating
with Him; by the third, he refuses
to him the power of imposing on Him
any obligation whatever. Thus is fully
vindicated the liberty of God, that
last principle of the mysterious fact to be
explained.
This question of ver. 35 is also a
Scripture quotation which Paul weaves
into his own text. It is taken from
Job 41:11, which the LXX. translate
strangely (41:2): “Or who is he that
will resist me and abide?” It is true that
in the two MSS. Sinait. and Alex.
there is found at the close of Isa. 40:14 a
saying similar to the apostle's
translation. But there it is certainly an
interpolation taken from our epistle
itself.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Ver. 36. “ For of Him, and through
Him, and to Him are all things: To
whom be glory for ever! Amen. ”—God's
absolute independence, man's
total dependence in everything which
might be a matter of glory to him:
such is the thought of this verse, the
termination of this vast survey of the
plan of God. The first prep. ejk , of
, refers to God as Creator; it is of Him
that man holds everything: “life,
breath, and all things,” Acts 17:25. The
second, diav , through , refers to the
government of mankind. Everything,
even the free determinations of the
human will, are executed only through
Him, and are turned immediately to the
accomplishment of His designs.
The third, eij" , to , refers to
the final goal. The word to Him does not refer
to God's personal satisfaction, an
idea which might undoubtedly be
supported; for, as Beck says, “the
egoism of God is the life of the world.”
But it is more natural to apply the
term to Him to the accomplishment of
His will, in which His own glory and
the happiness of His sanctified
creatures blend together as one and
the same thing. It has been
sometimes attempted to apply these
three prepositional clauses to the
three persons of the divine Trinity;
modern exegesis (Mey., Gess, Hofm.)
has in general departed from this
parallel; and rightly. When Paul speaks
of God , absolutely considered, it is
always the God and Father he
intends, without, of course, excluding
His revelation through Christ and
His communication by the Holy Spirit. But
this distinction is not raised
here, and had no place in the context.
What the apostle was concerned to
say in closing, was that all things
proceeding from the creative will of God,
advancing through His wisdom and
terminating in the manifestation of His
holiness, must one day celebrate His
glory, and His glory only.—The
application of the word all things
might be restricted to the two portions of
mankind spoken of (as in ver. 32). But
Paul rises here to the general
principle of which ver. 32 was only a
particular application, and hence also
he substitutes the neuter all things
for the masculine all. What is meant,
therefore, is the totality of created
things, visible and invisible.—The glory
of God, the reflection of His
perfections in all that exists, that glory, now
veiled, in so many respects in the
universe, must shine forth magnificently
and perfectly forever and ever. For,
as Hodge says, “the highest end for
which all things can exist and be
ordered, is to display the character of
God.” This goal of history is, as it
were, anticipated by the wish and prayer
of the apostle: “To Him be glory!”
The first part of the doctrinal
treatise had terminated in the parallel
between the two heads of mankind, a
passage in which there was already
heard a more exalted note. The second
part closed, at the end of chap. 8,
with a sort of lyrical passage, in
which the apostle celebrated the blessing
of sanctification crowning the grace
of justification, and thus assuring the
state of glory. The third, that which
we are concluding here, terminates in
a passage of the same kind, a hymn of
adoration in honor of the divine
plan realized in spite of, and even by
means of, human unfaithfulness.
After thus finishing the exposition of
salvation in its foundation
(justification), in its internal
development (sanctification), and in its
historical course among mankind (the
successive calling of the different
nations, and their final union in the
kingdom of God), the apostle puts, as
it were, a full period, the Amen which
closes this part of the epistle.
Never was survey more vast taken of
the divine plan of the world's history.
First, the epoch of primitive unity,
in which the human family forms still
only one unbroken whole; then the
antagonism between the two religious
portions of the race, created by the
special call of Abraham: the Jews
continuing in the father's house, but
with a legal and servile spirit, the
Gentiles walking in their own ways. At
the close of this period, the
manifestation of Christ determining
the return of the latter to the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
domestic hearth, but at the same time
the departure of the former. Finally,
the Jews, yielding to the divine
solicitations and to the spectacle of
salvation enjoyed by the Gentiles as
children of grace; and so the final
universalism in which all previous
discords are resolved, restoring in an
infinitely higher form the original
unity, and setting before the view of the
universe the family of God fully
constituted.
The contrast between the Jews and
Gentiles appears therefore as the
essential moving spring of history. It
is the actions and reactions arising
from this primary fact which form its
key. This is what no philosophy of
history has dreamed of, and what makes
these chaps. 9-11 the highest
theodicy.
If criticism has thought it could
deduce from this passage the hypothesis
of a Judeo-Christian majority in the
church of Rome, if it has sought to
explain it, as well as the whole of
our epistle, by the desire felt by Paul to
reconcile this church to his
missionary activity among the Gentiles, it is
easy to see from the passage, rightly
understood, how remote such
criticism is from the real thought
which inspired this treatise. The
conclusion from an altogether general
application, vv. 30-32, in which he
addresses the whole church as former
Gentiles whom he expressly
distinguishes from Jews, can leave no
doubt as to the origin of the
Christians of Rome. Supposing even
that in ver. 13 he had divided his
readers into two classes, which we
have found to be a mistake, from ver.
25 he would in any case be again
addressing all his readers. And as to
the intention of the whole passage, it
is evidently to show that those who
should have been first , though now
put last , are not, however, excluded ,
as the Gentiles might proudly imagine,
and that if the prw'ton , firstly ,
ascribed to the Jews by God's original
plan (1:16) has not been historically
realized (through their own fault),
the divine programme in regard to
mankind will nevertheless, though in
another way, have its complete
execution. ver. 32 is the counterpart
of 1:16. It is therefore to impair the
meaning of this passage to see in it
an apology for Paul's mission. The
thought is more elevated: it is the
defence of the plan of God Himself
addressed to the whole church.
SECOND PART OF THE EPISTLE. THE
PRACTICAL TREATISE. THE
LIFE OF THE JUSTIFIED BELIEVER.
12:1-15:13.
IN the doctrinal part which we have
just finished, the apostle has
expounded the way of salvation. This
way is no other than justification by
faith, whereby the sinner is
reconciled to God (chaps. 1-5), then sanctified
in Christ by the communication of the
Spirit (vi.-viii.); and it is precisely the
refusal to follow this way which has
drawn down on Israel their rejection
(chaps. 9-11). What now will be the
life of the justified believer— life in
salvation? The apostle sketches it in
a general way in chaps. 12 and 13;
then he applies the moral principles
which he has just established to a
particular circumstance peculiar to
the church of Rome (14:1- 15:13). We
can therefore distinguish two parts in
this course of practical doctrine, the
one general, the other special.
General Part. Chaps. 12 and 13.
There exists in regard to these two
chapters a general prejudice which
has completely falsified their
interpretation. They have been regarded as
giving, according to the expression
used even by Schultz, “a series of
practical precepts,” in other words: a
collection of moral exhortations
without systematic order, and guided
merely by more or less accidental
associations of ideas. This view,
especially in
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
recent times, has brought graver
consequences in its train than could
have been expected. It has been asked
whether those details in regard to
practical life were in keeping with a
whole so systematically arranged as
the didactic treatise contained in the
first eleven chapters. And Renan and
Schultz have been led in this way to
the critical hypotheses which we
have summarily expounded at the end of
the Introduction (I. pp. 66 and
67), and which we must now study more
closely.
According to the former of these
writers, chaps. 12, 13, and 14 formed no
part of the Epistle as it was sent to
the church of Rome. These chapters
were only in the copies despatched to
the churches of Ephesus and
Thessalonica, and an unknown church,
for whose benefit Paul is held to
have composed our Epistle. The
conclusion, in the copy destined for the
church of Rome, was composed solely of
chap. 15. Nor did chap. 16
belong to it. Here we have to do only
with chaps. 12 and
13. The reasons which lead Renan to
doubt the original connection of
these chapters with the first eleven,
in the copy sent to Rome, are the two
following: (1) Paul would be departing
here from his habitual principle:
“Every one in his own domain;” in
fact, he would be giving imperative
counsels to a church which he had not
founded, he who rebuked so
sharply the impertinence of those who
sought to build on the foundations
laid by others. The first word of
chap. 12, the term parakalw' , I exhort , is
no doubt habitual to him when he is
giving a command to his disciples; but
it is unsuitable here, where the
apostle is addressing believers whom he
did not bring to the faith. (2) The
first part of chap. 15, which, according to
Renan, is really addressed to the
church of Rome, forbids the thought that
chaps. 12, 13, and 14 were composed
for the same church; for it would
form a duplicate of those three
chapters of which it is a simple summary,
composed for Judeo-Christian readers,
such as those at Rome.
The viewpoint at which Schultz places
himself is somewhat different. In
his eyes, we possess from chap. 12 a
considerable fragment of a wholly
different epistle from that which the
apostle had composed for the church
of Rome. This letter, of which we have
not the beginning, was addressed
to the church of Ephesus, and must
have been written in the last period of
St. Paul's life, that of his Roman
captivity. To it belong the three chapters,
12, 13, and 14, as well as the first
seven verses of chap. 15, then the
salutations of chap. 16 (vv. 3-16),
and finally, the warning against
Judaizers, 16:17-20. The true
conclusion of the Epistle to the Romans is
to be found, according to him, in
chap. 15, from ver. 7 to the end, adding
thereto the recommendation of Phoebe,
16:1 and 2, and the salutations of
Paul's companions, 16:21-24. How has
the fusion of those two letters in
one come about? It is rather difficult
to explain, as the one went to the
East, the other to the West. Schultz
thinks that a copy of this Epistle to the
Ephesians, written from Rome, remained
without address in the archives
of this church, and that the editors
of the Epistle to the Romans, finding
this short epistle of practical
contents, and thinking that it had been written
to the Romans, published it with the
large one. Only they omitted the
beginning, and mixed up the two
conclusions.
The following are the reasons which
lead Schultz to separate chaps. 12
and 13 from what precedes:—1. The
exhortation to humility, at the
beginning of chap. 12, would be
somewhat offensive if addressed to a
church which the apostle did not know.
2. The exhortation to beneficence
toward the saints, and the practice of
hospitality, supposes a church in
connection with many other churches,
which was rather the case with the
church of Ephesus than with that of
Rome. 3. It is impossible to connect
the beginning of chap. 12 ( ou\n ,
therefore ) naturally with chap. 11; for the
mercies of God spoken of chap. 12:1,
are not at all identical with the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
mercy of God spoken of 11:32. 4. The
whole moral side of the gospel
having been expounded in chap. 6, it
was not necessary to go back on it
in chap. 12:5. There was no reason for
reminding the Judeo-Christians of
the church of Rome, as Paul does in
chap. 13, of the duty of submission
to the Roman authorities; for the Jews
were quite happy at Rome about
the year 58, during the first years of
Nero's reign. Such a recommendation
was much more applicable to the Jews
of Asia, disposed, as the
Apocalypse proves, to regard the
imperial power as that of Antichrist.
Are we mistaken in saying that the
reasons alleged by these two writers
produce rather the impression of being
painfully sought after than of
having presented themselves naturally
to the mind? What! Paul cannot
give imperative moral counsels and use
the term parakalei'n , exhort , when
writing to a church which he does not
know? But what did he do in chaps.
6 and 8, when he said to his Roman
readers: “Yield not your members as
instruments unto sin;” “If ye live
after the flesh, ye shall die,” etc.? And as
to the term which seems unsuitable to Renan,
does not Paul use it, as
Lacheret observes, in chap. 15:30,
which this writer himself supposes
addressed to the church of Rome? The
objection which Renan draws
from the sort of pleonasm which the
first part of chap. 15 would form, if it
appeared in the same writing as chap.
12, will easily be resolved when we
come to the passage. On the contrary,
what a difficulty there would be in
holding that a doctrinal treatise,
composed by the apostle with a view to
Gentile-Christian churches, such as
Ephesus or Thessalonica, for the
purpose of giving them a complete
exposition of the faith, could have
been addressed just as it was to a
Judeo-Christian church like that of
Rome (according to Renan) for the
purpose of gaining it to the apostle's
point of view! This consideration,
says Lacheret with reason, suffices to
overthrow from the foundation the
whole structure of Renan. And what a
factitious procedure is that which
Renan invites us to witness: “the
disciples of Paul occupied for several
days copying this manifesto for the
different churches,” and then later
editors collecting at the end of the chief
( princeps ) copy the parts which
varied in the different copies, because
they scrupled to lose anything of what
dropped from the apostle's pen!
The reasons of Schultz inspire as
little confidence. Paul is careful himself
to explain his exhortation to humility
in chap. 12, as in chap. 1, and in
chap. 15 he explains his whole letter,
on the ground of his apostleship,
and especially his apostleship to the
Gentiles, which gives him authority
over the church of Rome, though he has
not personally founded it: “I say,
through the grace given unto me , to
every man that is among you”
(12:3).—Why would not the exhortation
to beneficence and hospitality
have been in place at Rome, where the
poor and strangers abounded, as
well as at Ephesus?—And as to the
warning relative to submission to the
authorities, had it not its reason in the
general position of Christians over
against pagan power, without any need
of special oppression to give the
apostle occasion to address it to this
church? Had not the Emperor
Claudius not long before expelled the
Jews from Rome because of their
continual risings? And what church
could more suitably than that of the
capital receive instruction on the
relation between Christians and the
State?—Chap. 12 forms by no means a
reduplication of chap. 6; for in the
latter the apostle had merely laid
down the principle of Christian
sanctification, showing how it was
implied in the very fact of justification,
while in chap. 12 he gives the
description of all the fruits into which this
new life should expand. We shall
immediately see what is the relation
between chap. 12 and all that
precedes, as well as the true meaning of
the therefore in ver. 1. We think,
therefore, we are entitled to continue the
interpretation of our Epistle, taking
it as it has been transmitted to us by
Christian antiquity. It would need
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
strokes of very different power to
sunder the parts of so well-compacted
an edifice.
In the theme of the treatise: “The
just shall live by faith,” there was a word
whose whole contents had not yet been
entirely developed: shall live. This
word contained not only the whole
matter of chaps. 6-8, but also that of
chaps, xii. and
xiii.; and this matter is not less
systematically arranged in these chapters
than that of
the whole doctrinal part in the
preceding eleven. The essentially logical
character of Paul's mind would of
itself suffice to set aside the idea of an
inorganic juxtaposition of moral
precepts, placed at haphazard one after
the other. We no sooner examine these
two chapters more closely, than
we discover the idea which governed
their arrangement. We are struck
first of all with the contrast between
the two spheres of activity in which
the apostle successively places the
believer, the religious sphere and the
civil sphere—the former in chap. 12,
the latter in chap. 13. These are the
two domains in which he is called to
manifest the life of holiness which
has been put within him; he acts in
the world as a member of the church
and as a member of the state. But this
twofold course has one point of
departure and one point of aim. The
point of departure is the consecration
of his body , under the direction of
the renewed understanding; this is the
basis of the believer's entire
activity, which Paul lays down in the first two
verses of chap. 12. The point of aim
is the Lord's coming again constantly
expected; this advent Paul causes to
shine in splendor at the goal of the
course in the last four verses of
chap. 13. So: one point of departure, two
spheres to be simultaneously
traversed, one point of arrival; such, in the
view of the apostle, is the system of
the believer's practical life. Such are
also the four sections of this general
part: 12:1, 2, 12:3-21, 13:1-10, 13:11-
14.
This moral instruction is therefore
the pendant of the doctrinal instruction It
is its necessary complement. The two
taken together form the apostle's
complete catechism. It is because the
rational relation between the
different sections of this part has
not been understood that it has been
possible for the connection of this
whole second part with the first to be so
completely mistaken.
Some one will ask, perhaps, if the
apostle, in thus tracing the model of
Christian conduct, does not seem to
distrust somewhat the sanctifying
power of faith so well expounded by
him in chaps. 6-8. If the state of
justification produces holiness with a
sort of moral necessity, why seek still
to secure this object by all sorts of
precepts and exhortations? Should not
the tree, once planted, bear its
fruits of itself? But let us not forget that
moral life is subject to quite
different laws from physical life. Liberty is and
remains to the end one of its
essential factors. It is by a series of acts of
freedom that the justified man
appropriates the Spirit at every moment, in
order to realize with His aid the
moral ideal. And who does not know that
at every moment also an opposite power
weighs on his will? The believer
is dead unto sin , no doubt; he has
broken with that perfidious friend; but
sin is not dead in him, and it strives
continually to restore the broken
relation. By calling the believer to
the conflict against it, as well as to the
positive practice of Christian duty,
the apostle is not relapsing into Jewish
legalism. He assumes the inward
consecration of the believer as an
already consummated fact; and it is
from this fact, implicitly contained in
his faith, that he proceeds to call
him to realize his Christian obligation.
Twenty-fourth Passage (12:1, 2). The
Basis of Christian Conduct.
Ver. 1. “ I exhort you, therefore,
brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye
present your bodies a living victim,
holy, acceptable unto God , which is
your rational service. ”—How are we to
explain the ou\n , therefore , which
joins this verse to what
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
precedes? We fully concur with Schultz
in holding that it is impossible to
connect chap. 12 directly with the
idea of chap. 11, and to identify the
mercies of God (ver. 1) with the mercy
displayed in the course of salvation
across the field of history (11:32).
The true connection with what precedes
is much wider; it is nothing less than
the relation between the two parts of
the Epistle. Religion among the
ancients was service ( cultus ); and cultus
had for its centre sacrifice. The
Jewish service counted four kinds of
sacrifice, which might be reduced to
two: the first, comprising the
sacrifices offered before
reconciliation and to obtain it (sacrifice for sin and
for trespass ); the second, the
sacrifices offered after the obtaining of
reconciliation and serving to
celebrate it (the whole burnt-offering and the
peace-offering ). The great division
of the Epistle to the Romans to which
we have come is explained by this
contrast. The fundamental idea of the
first part, chaps. 1-11, was that of
the sacrifice offered by God for the sin
and transgression of mankind; witness
the central passage, 3:25 and 26.
These are the mercies of God to which
Paul appeals here, and the
development of which has filled the
first eleven chapters. The practical
part which we are beginning
corresponds to the second kind of sacrifice,
which was the symbol of consecration
after pardon had been received
(the holocaust, in which the victim
was entirely burned), and of the
communion re-established between
Jehovah and the believer (the peaceoffering,
followed by a feast in the court of
the temple). The sacrifice of
expiation offered by God in the person
of His Son should now find its
response in the believer in the
sacrifice of complete consecration and
intimate communion.
Such is the force of these first
words: “I exhort you, therefore , by the
mercies of God.” This word therefore
gathers up the whole doctrinal part,
and includes the whole practical part.
Comp. the entirely similar therefore ,
Eph. 4:1. So true is it that the
relation of ideas just expounded is that
which fills the apostle's mind, that
to designate the believer's conduct in
response to the work of God he employs
the expression victim and living
victim, which pointedly alludes to the
Jewish sacrifices.
The term parakalw' , I exhort ,
differs from the legal commandment, in that
it appeals to a sentiment already
existing in the heart, faith in God's
mercies. It is by this term, also,
that Paul, in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
4:1, passes from the doctrinal
teaching to the practical part. And as this
Epistle (notwithstanding its title) is
addressed to Christians whom Paul did
not know personally (1:15, 3:2, 4:21),
we there find a new proof of the
mistake of Renan, who thinks that this
expression would be out of place
addressed to others than the apostle's
personal disciples.—The diav , by ,
gives the reader to understand that
the divine mercies are the power by
means of which this exhortation should
take possession of his will. The
word paristavnai , to present , is the
technical term to denote the
presentation of victims and offerings
in the Levitical cultus (Luke
2:22).—The victim to be offered is the
body of the believer. Many regard
the body as representing the entire
person. But why not in that case say
uJma'" aujtouv" ,
yourselves? comp. 6:13. De Wette thought that Paul
meant by the word to remind his
readers that the body is the seat of sin.
But this intention would suppose that
the question about to be discussed
was the destruction of this hostile
principle, while the apostle speaks
rather of the active consecration of
the body. Olshausen supposes that,
by recommending the sacrifice of the
lower part of our being, Paul meant
to say: all the more everything that
is in you of a more exalted nature. But
he could not have passed over all the
rest in silence; comp. 1 Thess. 5:23.
Meyer distinguishes between the
consecration of the body , ver. 1, and
that of the mind , which, according to
him, is referred to in ver. 2. But this
contrast between the two parts of our
being does not come out in the least
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
in the sequel; and we shall see, in
point of fact, that the relation between
the two verses is wholly different.
Let us not forget that those whom the
apostle here addresses ( ajdelfoiv ,
brethren ), and whom he exhorts, are
believers already inwardly
consecrated. Chap. 6 has shown how
justification by faith provides the
principle of sanctification. It is in the
name of this finished work that Paul
now invites them to lead the life of
consecrated victims. Now, the
indispensable instrument for this purpose is
the body. And hence it is that the
apostle, supposing the will already
gained, does not require more than the
consecration of the body.—The
expression qusiva zw'sa , living
victim , refers to the animal victims which
were offered in the Levitical cultus
by putting them to death. The sacrifice
required by Paul is the opposite of
these. The victim must live to become,
at every moment of his existence, the
active agent of the divine will. The
term living has not here, therefore, a
spiritual sense, but should be taken
in the strict sense. The word qusiva
is often translated sacrifice. It may
have this meaning; but the meaning
victim better agrees with the term
parasth'sai , to present. The epithet
aJgiva , holy , might express the idea of
real holiness, in opposition to the
merely ritual purity of the Levitical
victims. But would not Paul have said,
in that sense, o[ntw" or ajlhqw'"
aJgiva , truly holy? He means rather
to contrast the new employment of the
body in the service of God with its
previous use under the dominion of
sin.—This body, full of life and
constantly employed for good, will present
a well-pleasing spectacle to the eye
of God; it will be an “offering of sweetsmelling
(well-pleasing) savor” in the N. T.
sense. And this is what is
expressed by the third epithet. Some
have connected the regimen tw'/
Qew/ , to God , with the verb
parasth'sai , to present. But this would be a
tautology, and too many important
words separate the two terms.—The
last words of the verse certainly
establish a contrast between the external
service of the Old Testament and the
spiritual service of the New. Hence
several commentators have been led to
give the word logikhvn ,
reasonable , the sense of spiritual;
comp. 1 Pet. 2:2, where, in
consequence of the understood
antithesis (material milk), there can be no
doubt as to the meaning of this word.
But why would not Paul have rather
used in our passage the ordinary term
pneumatikhvn , spiritual? Calvin
takes the epithet reasonable as
opposed to the superstitious practices of
the heathen; and Grotius contrasts it
with the ignorance of animal victims.
It seems to me that in all these
explanations it is forgotten to take account
of an important word, the complement
uJmw'n , of you —that is to say, “of
such people as you.” Is it not this
pronoun which explains the choice of
the word logikhvn , reasonable , of
which, undoubtedly, the true meaning
is this: “the service which rationally
corresponds to the moral premises
contained in the faith which you
profess”?
It will be asked whether Paul, by
requiring simply that service ( cultus )
which consists of a life devoted to
good, means to exclude as irrational,
acts of worship properly so called.
Assuredly not, a host of passages
prove the contrary; comp. for example,
1 Cor. 11-14. Only the acts of
external service have no value in his
eyes except as means of nourishing
and stimulating the truly rational
service of which he speaks here. Every
act of service which does not issue in
the holy consecration of him who
takes part in it, is christianly
illogical.—But what use is to be made of this
consecrated body? ver. 2 proceeds to
answer this question.
Ver. 2. “ And be not fashioned after
this age, but be ye transformed by the
renewing of your mind , that ye may
discern what is the will of God, that
good, acceptable, and perfect will.
”—We have already said that we are
not to seek in this verse, as Meyer
does, the idea of the sanctification of
the soul, as completing the
consecration of the body. This idea would
have been placed first, and the term
soul
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
or spirit would certainly have been
used instead of nou'" , the mind , which
denotes only one of the faculties of
the soul, and that the faculty of simple
perception. The relation between the
two verses is quite different. Paul
has just pointed to the believer's
body as a consecrated instrument. What
remains to him to indicate, except the
rule according to which the believer
ought to make use of it? The kaiv ,
and , therefore signifies here: and in
order to that. The T. R., with several
ancient documents and the two
oldest versions, reads the two verbs
in the imperative: conform ye,
transform ye , while the Greco-Latin
MSS. read them in the infinitive. It is
probable that the copyists by this
latter reading meant to continue the
construction of ver. 1, and to make
these two verbs dependent on
parakalw' , I exhort you. The
authorities speak in favor of the imperative.
But even if the other reading were
adopted, we should have to give to the
infinitive the meaning of the
imperative, as is so often the case in Greek;
comp. in this very chapter, ver. 15.
For the relation of dependence on
parakalw' is in any case forced.—In
the use of his consecrated body, the
believer has first an everywhere
present model to be rejected, then a new
type to be discerned and realized. The
model to be rejected is that
presented to him by the present world
, or, as we should say, the reigning
fashion , taking this word in its
widest sense. The term sch'ma denotes the
manner of holding oneself, attitude,
pose; and the verb schmativzesqai ,
derived from it, the adoption or
imitation of this pose or received mode of
conduct. The term (this) present world
is used in the Rabbins to denote
the whole state of things which
precedes the epoch of the Messiah; in the
N. T. it describes the course of life
followed by those who have not yet
undergone the renewing wrought by
Christ in human life. It is this mode of
living anterior to regeneration which
the believer is not to imitate in the use
which he makes of his body. And what
is he to do? To seek a new model,
a superior type, to be realized by
means of a power acting within him. He
is to be transformed , literally,
metamorphosed. The term morfhv , form ,
strictly denotes, not an external pose
suitable for imitation, like sch'ma ,
attitude , but an organic form , the
natural product of a principle of life
which manifests itself thus. It is not
by looking around him, to the right and
left, that the believer is to learn to
use his body, but by putting himself
under the dominion of a new power
which will by an inward necessity
transform this use. It is true that
Meyer, Hofmann, and others refuse to
acknowledge this difference of meaning
between the substantives sch'ma
and morfhv , and between the two verbs
derived from them, alleging that it
is not confirmed by usage. But if
Phil. 2:5 et seq. be adduced, the
example proves precisely the contrary.
Etymology leads naturally to the
distinction indicated, and Paul
evidently contrasts the two terms of set
purpose.—It should be remarked, also,
that the two imperatives are in the
present. The subject in question is
two continuous incessant acts which
take place on the basis of our
consecration performed once for all (the
aorist parasth'sai , ver.
1).—And what will be the internal
principle of this metamorphosis of the
believer in the use of his body? The
renewing of his mind , answers St.
Paul. The nou'" , the mind , is
the faculty by which the soul perceives and
discerns the good and the true. But in
our natural state this faculty is
impaired; the reigning love of self
darkens the mind, and makes it see
things in a purely personal light. The
natural mind, thus misled, is what
Paul calls nou'" th'"
sarkov" , the carnal mind (under the dominion of the
flesh), Col. 2:18. This is why the
apostle speaks of the renewing of the
mind as a condition of the organic
transformation which he requires. This
faculty, freed from the power of the
flesh, and replaced under the power of
the Spirit, must recover the capacity
for discerning the new model to be
realized, the most excellent and
sublime type, the will of God: to
appreciate (discern exactly) the will
of God. The verb
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
dokimavzein does not signify here, as
it has often been translated (Osterv.,
Seg.): to prove, to make experience
of. For the experience of the
excellence of the divine will would
not be an affair of the mind only; the
whole man would take part in it. The
meaning of the word here, as
usually, is to appreciate, discern. By
means of his renewed mind the
believer studies and recognizes in
every given position the divine will
toward him in the circumstances, the
duty of the situation. He lifts his
eyes, and, like Christ Himself (John
5:19, 20), “he sees what his Father
shows him” to be done. This perception
evidently requires a renewed
mind. In order to it we require to be
raised to the viewpoint of God
Himself.—It is against the rules of
grammar to translate the following
words, either in the sense of: “ that
the will of God is good” (Osterv., Seg.),
or in the sense: “ how good it is”
(Oltram.). The only possible meaning is: “
what is the good, acceptable...will of
God.” It is not always easy for the
Christian who lives in the world, even
with a heart sincerely consecrated,
to discern clearly what is the will of
God concerning him, especially in
regard to the externals of life. This
delicate appreciation demands a
continual perfecting, even of the
transformed mind.—And why is the
model to be studied and reproduced in
the life not the present world's
mode of acting, but the will of God?
The apostle explains by the three
epithets with which he qualifies this
will; literally: the good, the acceptable,
the perfect. Such, then, is the normal
type to which, in all circumstances,
we must seek to rise with the mind
first, then with the conduct. Good: in
that its directions are free from all
connivance with evil, in any form
whatever. Acceptable: this adjective
is not accompanied here with the
words to God , as in ver. 1; it
refers, consequently, to the impression
produced on men when they contemplate
this will realized in the believer's
life. They cannot help paying it a
tribute of admiration, and finding it
beautiful as well as good. Have not
devotion, disinterestedness, selfforgetfulness,
and self-sacrifice, a charm which
subdues every human
heart? Perfect: this characteristic
follows from the combination of the two
preceding. For perfection is goodness
united to beauty. The meaning
would not be very different if, with
some commentators, we regarded
these three adjectives as three
substantives forming an apposition to the
term: the will of God. “The will of
God, to wit, the good, the acceptable, the
perfect.” But the article tov would
require to be repeated before each of
the terms if they were used
substantively.
The following, then, is the re8sume8
of the apostle's thought: To the false
model, presented in every age by the
mundane kind of life, there is
opposed a perfect type, that of the
will of God, which is discerned by the
renewed mind of the believer, and
which he strives to realize by means of
his God-consecrated body, at every
moment and in all the relations of his
life; thus is laid down the principle
of life in salvation. This life he now
proceeds to show as manifesting itself
simultaneously in two spheres, that
of the church, chap. 12, and that of
the state, chap. 13.
Twenty-fifth Passage (12:3-21). The
Life of the Believer as a Member
of the Church.
The notion of consecration is still
the prevailing one in this passage. This
consecration is realized in life: 1st,
in the form of humility (vv. 3-8); 2d, in
that of love
(vv. 9-21)
Vv. 3-8.
The natural tendency of man is to
exalt himself. Here is the first point at
which
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the will of God, discerned by the
renewed mind of the believer, impresses
on his conduct a completely opposite
character to that of secular conduct.
He recognizes the limit which God imposes
on him, and modestly
confines himself within it.
Ver. 3. “ For I say, through the grace
given unto me, to every man that is
among you, not to aspire beyond that
to which he ought to lay claim; but
to aspire to regulate himself,
according to the measure of faith which God
hath allotted to every ma:n . ”—It is
with this that he who forms part of the
church ought to begin, the sacrifice
of himself; instead of seeking to make
himself great, as is done in the
world, he should aspire to moderate and
control himself in conformity with the
standard traced for him by the new
type which he consults, the will of
God. Thus we see how this verse
should be joined to the preceding by
the word for. It is an application
which confirms the principle.—The
authority with which Paul traces this
line of conduct rests on the grace
given unto him. This grace is that of the
apostleship and of the light
accompanying it. In virtue of his office, he has
not only the gift of teaching the way
of salvation, as he has done in the
doctrinal part of this Epistle (chaps.
1-9). He has also that of marking out
the true direction for moral action,
as he proceeds to do in this practical
part.—The term levgw , I say, I
declare , has a more marked character of
authority than the I exhort of ver. 1.
Religious impulse ought to be
regulated by a higher authority. 1
Cor. 12-14 shows the necessity of
apostolical direction on that very
point which is about to occupy us, that of
spiritual gifts. It is not without
reason that Paul here calls to mind his
office; comp. 1:1-7. Apostle to the
Gentiles, he had the task not only of
founding churches among them, but also
of guiding them when founded.
This charge Paul had, in virtue of his
apostleship also, in relation to the
church of Rome.—The expression: panti;
tw'/ o[nti ejn uJmi'n , to every man
that is among you , would be
superfluous, if it were merely intended to
denote the members of the church
present at Rome. It is necessary to
give the words: every man that is , a
more special and forcible meaning:
“Every man that is in office , engaged
in ministry in some form or other
among you; every one that plays a part
int he life of the church.” See the
enumeration which follows. Perhaps the
apostle is led to use this
expression by his own absence from
Rome. He who with his apostolic gift
is absent, addresses all those who,
being present, can exercise an
influence on the progress of the
church, to say to them on what condition
this influence shall be a blessed
one.— JUperfronei'n : “ to aspire beyond
one's measure. ” The measure of each
man is denoted by the words: o}
dei' fronei'n , that which he has a
right to claim. In the believer's case it
consists in his wishing only to be
that which God, by the gift committed to
him, calls him to be. The gift
received should be the limit of every man's
claim and action, for it is thereby
that the will of God regarding him is
revealed (ver. 2).—The following
expression: fronei'n eij" to; swfronei'n ,
contains a sort of play on words: “to
turn the fronei'n , the energy of the
mind, into a swfronei'n , to recognize
its limits and respect them.” The man
of the world enters into conflict with
others, to exceed his measure, to
make himself prominent, to rule. The
Christian enters into conflict with
himself, that he may gain self-rule
and self-restraint. He aspires to
continue within or return to his
measure. Such is a wholly new type of
conduct which appears with the
gospel.—The rule of this voluntary
limitation ought to be the measure of
faith as it is imparted to each. Paul
does not mean to speak of the quantity
of faith which we possess; for this
measure depends in part on human
freedom. The genitive: of faith ,
should be regarded not as a partitive
complement, but as denoting quality
or cause: “the capacity assigned to
each man in the domain of faith; the
particular form of activity for which
each has been fitted as a believer; the
special gift which constitutes his
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
appanage in virtue of his faith.” This
gift, the measure of the action to
which we are called, is a divine limit
which the Christian's renewed mind
should discern, and by which he should
regulate his aspirations in regard
to the part he has to play in the
church.
Vv. 4, 5. “ For as we have many
members in one body, and all members
have not the same office; so we, who
are many, are one body in Christ,
and severally members one of another.
”—The organization of the human
body should be an example to the
believer to make him perceive the
necessity of limiting himself to the
function assigned him. Not only,
indeed, is there a plurality of
members in one body, but these members
also possess special functions, varied
capacities (ver. 4). So in the
church, which is the organ of Christ's
life on the earth ( His body ), there is
not only a multiplicity of members,
but also a diversity of functions, every
believer having a particular gift
whereby he ought to become the auxiliary
of all the rest, their member. Hence
it follows that every one should
remain in his function, on the one
hand that he may be able to render to
the rest the help which he owes them,
on the other that he may not disturb
these in the exercise of their gift.
See the same figure more completely
developed, 1 Cor. 12—The form kaqj
ei|" , instead of kaqj e{na , occurs
only in the later Greek
writers.—Instead of oJ dev (in the Byzs.), which is
the pronoun in the nominative, the
Alexs. and Greco-Latins read to; dev ,
which may be taken as an adverbial
phrase: relatively to , or better, as a
pronoun, in the sense:
“ and that , as members of one
another.
Vv. 6-8. “ Having then gifts differing
according to the grace that is given to
us [let us exercise them], whether
prophecy, according to the proportion of
faith; or ministry, in ministering; or
he that teacheth, in teaching; or he that
exhorteth, in exhortation; he that
giveth, with simplicity; he that ruleth, with
zeal; he that doeth works of mercy,
with cheerfulness. ”—There is no
occasion for making the participle
e[conte" , having , as De Wette and
Lachmann do, the continuation of the
preceding proposition: “We are one
body, but that while having different
gifts.” This idea of the diversity of gifts
has been sufficiently explained in the
previous verses. And if this participle
still belonged to the previous
proposition we should require to take all the
subordinate clauses which immediately
follow: according to the
proportion...in ministering...in
teaching...etc., as simple descriptive
appendices, which would be
tautological and superfluous. The words
having then are therefore certainly
the beginning of a new proposition.
Paul takes up the last thought of the
previous verse, to make it the point of
departure for all the particular
precepts which are to follow: “As, then, we
have different gifts, let us exercise
them every one as I proceed to tell
you: confining our activity modestly
within the limits of the gift itself.” As to
the meaning, it is always the
swfronei'n , self-rule , which remains the
fundamental idea. Grammatically, the
principal verb should be taken from
the participle having: “Having then
different gifts, let us have (exercise)
them by abiding simply in them, by not
seeking to go out of them.”—The
term cavrisma , gift , denotes in the
language of Paul a spiritual aptitude
communicated to the believer with
faith, and by which he can aid in the
development of spiritual life in the
church. Most frequently it is a natural
talent which God's Spirit
appropriates, increasing its power and sanctifying
its exercise.—The gift which holds the
first place in the enumerations of 1
Cor. 12 and Eph. 4 is apostleship.
Paul does not mention it here; he
pointed to it in ver. 3 fulfilling its
task.
After the apostolate there comes
prophecy in all these lists. The prophet
is, as it were, the eye of the church
to receive new revelations. In the
passages, Eph. 2:20 and 3:5, it is
closely connected with the apostolate,
which without this gift would
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
be incomplete. But it may also be
separate from it; and hence prophets
are often spoken of as persons
distinct from apostles in the primitive
church, for example, Acts 13:1, and 1
Cor. 14. Prophets differed from
teachers, in that the latter gathered
up into a consecutive body of doctrine
the new truths revealed to the church
by the prophets.—Wherein, then,
will the voluntary limitation consist
which the prophet should impose on
himself in the exercise of his gift
(his swfronei'n )? He should prophesy
according to the analogy of faith. The
word ajnalogiva is a mathematical
term; it signifies proportion. The
prophet is not absolutely free; he ought to
proportion his prophecy to faith. What
faith? Many (Hofmann, for example)
answer: his own. He should take care
in speaking not to exceed the limit
of confidence, of real hope
communicated to him by the Spirit, not to let
himself be carried away by self-love
to mingle some human alloy with the
holy emotion with which he is filled
from above. But, in that case, would
not the apostle have required to add
the pronoun aujtou' : “ his faith”? And
would not the term revelation have
been more suitable than that of faith?
Others think it possible to give the
term faith the objective meaning which
it took later in ecclesiastical
language, as when we speak of the
evangelical faith or the Christian
faith; so Philippi. The prophet in his
addresses should respect the
foundations of the faith already laid, the
Christian facts and the truths which
flow from them. But the word faith
never in the N. T. denotes doctrine
itself; it has always a reference to the
subjective feeling of self-surrender,
confidence in God, or in Christ as the
revealer of God. And may not we here
preserve this subjective meaning,
while applying it also to the faith of
the whole church? The prophet should
develop the divine work of faith in
the heart of believers, by starting from
the point it has already reached, and
humbly attaching himself to the work
of his predecessors; he should not, by
giving scope to his individual
speculations, imprudently disturb the
course of the work begun within
souls already gained. In a word, the
revelations which he sets forth should
not tend to make himself shine, but
solely to edify the church, whose
present state is a sort of standard
for new instructions. It is obvious how,
in the exercise of this gift, it would
be easy for one to let himself go
beyond the measure of his revelations,
and thus add heterogeneous
elements to the faith and hope of the
church itself. No more in the New
Testament than in the Old does it
belong to every prophet to recommence
the whole work. Hence no doubt the
judgment to be pronounced on
prophesyings, mentioned 1 Cor. 14:29.
Ver. 7. The term diakoniva , which we
translate by ministry , denotes
generally in the N. T. a charge, an
office confided to some one by the
church. Such an office undoubtedly
supposes a spiritual aptitude; but the
holder is responsible for its
discharge, not only in relation to God from
whom the gift comes, but also to the
church which has confided to him the
office. Such is the difference between
the functions denoted by this name
and the ministry of the prophet, or of
him who speaks with tongues. These
are pure gifts, which man cannot
transform into a charge. In our passage
this term ministry , placed as it is
between prophecy and the function of
teaching, can only designate an
activity of a practical nature, exerted in
action, not in word. It is almost in
the same sense that in 1 Pet. 4:11 the
term diakonei'n , serving , is opposed
to lalei'n , speaking. We think it
probable, therefore, that this term
here denotes the two ecclesiastical
offices of the pastorate (bishop or
presbyter) and of the diaconate properly
so called. Bishops or presbyters were
established in the church of
Jerusalem from the first times of the
church, Acts 11:30. Paul instituted
this office in the churches which he
had just founded, Acts 14:23; comp.
Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:1 et seq.; Tit.
1:5 et seq. They presided over the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
assemblies of the church, and directed
its course and that of its members
in respect of spiritual matters; comp.
1 Thess. 5:12 and 13. Hence their
title poimevne" , pastors , Eph.
4:11.— Deacons appear even before elders
in the church of Jerusalem (Acts 6:1
et seq.). They were occupied
especially with the care of the poor.
This office, which emanates so
directly from Christian charity, never
ceased in the church; we find it again
mentioned Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:12.—Each
of these functionaries, says the
apostle, should keep to his part,
confine himself within the administration
committed to him. The elder should not
desire to mount the tripod of
prophet, nor the deacon aspire to play
the part of bishop or teacher. It is
ever that voluntary limitation which
the apostle had recommended, vv. 3-
5.
In the passage from the first to the
second part of this verse, we observe a
slight change of construction. Instead
of mentioning the gift or the office,
as in the two preceding terms, Paul
addresses himself directly to the man
who is invested with it. This is not a
real grammatical incorrectness; for, as
the preceding accusatives: profhteivan
( prophecy ), diakonivan ( ministry ),
were placed in apposition to the
object carivsmata , gifts (ver. 6), so the
nominatives: oJ didavskwn , he that
teacheth , oJ parakalw'n , he that
exhorteth , are in apposition to the
participle e[conte" , having (same
verse).—As to the following clauses:
in teaching, in exhortation , they
continue to depend on the understood
verb e[cwmen , let us have ,
exercise, abide in.— He that teacheth
(the teacher, oJ didavskalo" ), like
the prophet, exercises his gift by
speech; but while the latter receives by
revelations granted to him new views
which enrich the faith of the church,
the teacher confines himself to an
orderly and clear exposition of the
truths already brought to light, and
to bringing out their connection with
one another. He it is who, by the word
of knowledge or of wisdom (1 Cor.
12:8), shows the harmony of all the
parts of the divine plan. In the
enumeration, Eph. 4:11, the teacher is
at once associated with and
distinguished from the pastor. In
fact, the gift of teaching was not yet
essentially connected with the
pastorate. But more and more it appeared
desirable that the pastor should be
endowed with it, 1 Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:9.
Ver. 8. In 1 Cor. 14:3, the function
of exhorting is ascribed to the prophet,
and the surname Barnabas, son of
prophecy , Acts 4:36, is translated into
Greek by uiJo;" paraklhvsew"
, son of exhortation. The prophet therefore
had certainly the gift of exhorting,
stimulating, consoling. But it does not
follow from the fact that the prophet
exhorts and consoles, that, as some
have sought to persuade themselves in
our day, any one, man or woman,
who has the gift of exhorting or
consoling, is a prophet , and may claim the
advantage of all that is said of the
prophets in other apostolical
declarations. Our passage proves
clearly that the gift of exhorting may be
absolutely distinct from that of
prophecy. So it is also from that of
teaching. The teacher acts especially
on the understanding; he would be
in our modern language the catechist
or dogmatic theologian. He that
exhorts acts on the heart, and thereby
on the will; he would rather be the
Christian poet. Also in 1 Cor. 14:26,
Paul, bringing these two ministries
together as he does here, says: “Hath
any one a doctrine , hath any one a
psalm? ”
The three last functions mentioned in
this verse are no longer exercised in
the assemblies of the church; they
come, to a certain point, under the
exercise of private virtues. It is
wrong, indeed, to regard the metadidouv" ,
he that distributeth , as has been
done, to indicate the official deacon, and
the proi:stavmeno" , he that
ruleth , the elder or bishop. The verb
metadidovnai does not signify to make
a distribution on behalf of the church
(this would require diadidovnai , Acts
4:35); but: to communicate to others
of one's own wealth; comp. Luke 3:11;
Eph. 4:28. And as to the bishop,
the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
position here assigned to this
ministry would not be in keeping with his
elevated rank in the church; and the
matter in question is especially works
of beneficence. The first term: he
that giveth (communicateth), therefore
denotes the believer, who by his
fortune and a natural aptitude sanctified
by faith, feels himself particularly
called to succor the indigent around him.
Paul recommends him to do so with
simplicity. The Greek term might be
translated: with generosity , with
large-heartedness; such is the meaning
which the word aJplovth" (2 Cor.
8:2, 9:13) often has. According to its
etymological meaning, the word
signifies: the disposition not to turn back
on oneself; and it is obvious that
from this first meaning there may follow
either that of generosity , when a man
gives without letting himself be
arrested by any selfish calculation,
or that of simplicity , when he gives
without his left hand knowing what his
right does—that is to say, without
any vain going back on himself, and
without any air of haughtiness. This
second meaning seems to us preferable
here, because the prevailing idea
throughout the entire passage is that
of swfronei'n , self-limiting , selfregulating.—
The second term: he that ruleth ,
should be explained by the
sense which the verb proi?stasqai
frequently has in Greek: to be at the
head of; hence: to direct a business.
So, in profane Greek, the term is
applied to the physician who directs
the treatment of a disease, to the
magistrate who watches over the
execution of the laws. In the Epistle to
Titus, 3:8, there occurs the
expression: proi?stasqai kalw'n e[rgwn , to be
occupied with good works; whence the
term prostavti" , patroness ,
protectress, benefactress, used in our
Epistle, 16:2, to express what
Phoebe had been to many believers and
to Paul himself. Think of the
numerous works of private charity
which believers then had to found and
maintain! Pagan society had neither
hospitals nor orphanages, free
schools or refuges, like those of our
day. The church, impelled by the
instinct of Christian charity, had to
introduce all these institutions into the
world; hence no doubt, in every
community, spontaneous gatherings of
devout men and women who, like our
present Christian committees, took
up one or other of these needful
objects, and had of course at their head
directors charged with the
responsibility of the work. Such are the persons
certainly whom the apostle has in view
in our passage. Thus is explained
the position of this term between the
preceding: he that giveth , and the
following: he that showeth mercy. The
same explanation applies to the
following clause ejn spoudh'/ , with
zeal. This recommendation would hardly
be suitable for one presiding over an
assembly. How many presidents, on
the contrary, would require to have
the call addressed to them: Only no
zeal! But the recommendation is
perfectly suitable to one who is directing
a Christian work, and who ought to
engage in it with a sort of
exclusiveness, to personify it after a
manner in himself.—The last term: oJ
ejlew'n , he that showeth mercy ,
denotes the believer who feels called to
devote himself to the visiting of the
sick and afflicted. There is a gift of
sympathy which particularly fits for
this sort of work, and which is, as it
were, the key to open the heart of the
sufferer. The phrase ejn iJlarovthti ,
literally, with hilarity , denotes the
joyful eagerness, the amiable grace, the
affability going the length of gayety,
which make the visitor, whether man
or woman, a sunbeam penetrating into
the sick-chamber and to the heart
of the afflicted.
In the preceding enumeration, the
recommendation of the apostle had in
view especially humility in those who
have to exercise a gift. But in the last
terms we feel that his thought is
already bordering on the virtue of love. It
is the spectacle of this Christian
virtue in full activity in the church and in
the world which now fills his mind,
and which he presents in the following
description, vv. 9-21: First,
self-limiting, self- possessing: this is what he
has just been recommending; then
self-giving: this is
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
what he proceeds to expound.
Vv. 9-21.
The carivsmata , gifts , are
different, as we have just seen. But there is a
gift which is at the root of all the
rest, and which ought to be common to all
believers, that of all those who have
no other, viz. love. The church,
gained by faith in divine love, lives
by love. All who believe, love. When
this love is sincere, it produces in
every believer a spontaneous ministry,
which is carried out in his whole life
by the manifold activity of love. This
beneficent activity is exercised,
first, toward the sympathetic elements the
believer finds around him, vv. 9-16;
then toward the hostile elements
which he happens to meet, whether
within the church itself or without, vv.
17-21.
Vv. 9-16.
Vv. 9, 10. “ Let love be without dissimulation.
Abhor that which is evil,
cleave to that which is good. As to
brotherly love, being full of tenderness
one toward another; as to honor, each
making others to pass before him.
”—In these two verses the apostle
speaks of three dispositions, and first,
ver. 9, of the fundamental feeling,
the principle of all the activity about to
be described, as well as of the two
characteristics which alone guarantee
its sincerity: love , in the general
sense of the word. There follow in ver. 10
two immediate manifestations of love:
brotherly love and mutual
respect.— Without dissimulation ,
literally, without mask. The heart ought
to feel really the whole measure of
affection which it testifies. There is also
here something of the swfronei'n ,
self-ruling , the controlling idea of the
preceding passage, in opposition to
the uJperfronei'n , self-exalting. —The
two following verbs: abhor and cleave
, are in the participle in Greek:
abhorring, cleaving. These participles
relate grammatically to the subject
of the verb love , contained in the
substantive love. It follows from this
construction that the two participles:
“abhorring, cleaving,” are intended to
qualify the love unfeigned, by
reminding us of the characteristics in virtue
of which it deserves the title. This
is not here a commonplace
recommendation to detest evil and love
good. Paul means that love is not
pure except when it is the declared
enemy of evil, even in the person of
those whom we love, and that it
applies all its energy to labor for their
progress in goodness. Destitute of
this moral rectitude, which is the spirit
of holiness, love is only a form of
selfishness.
Ver. 10. The two datives: th'/
filadelfiva/, th'/ timh'/ , which we have
translated by: “ as to brotherly
love,” “ as to honor,” might be regarded as
datives of means: by , or in virtue
of. But it is more natural to take them as
a sort of headings in the catalogue of
Christian virtues. They are the wellknown
categories forming the believer's
moral catechism. The article th'/ ,
( the ) precisely characterizes those
virtues as supposed present in the
heart. The adjective and participle
which follow, show how they are to be
realized in the life. The word filovstorgo"
, full of tenderness , comes from
the verb stevrgw , which denotes the
delicate attentions mutually rendered
by those who cherish one another with
natural affection, as parents and
children, brothers and sisters, etc.
The apostle, by using this term, wishes
to give to the love of the members of
the church to one another the tender
character of a family affection.—The
term timhv denotes the feeling of
respect which every believer feels for
his brother, as one redeemed by
Christ and a child of God, like
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
himself.—The verb prohgei'sqai
strictly signifies: “to put oneself at the head
in order to guide.” Hence may be
deduced the meanings: to give example
(Meyer), or to anticipate, to be
beforehand with kindness (Vulg., Luth.,
Osterv., Oltram., Seg.), or to surpass
(Chrys.). But in all these meanings
we should expect from the usage of the
language to find the regimen in
the genitive or dative rather than the
accusative. Erasmus, Hofmann, etc.,
proceeding on the sense which the
simple verb hJgei'sqai often has: to
esteem, regard (Phil. 2:3), translate:
“each esteeming others better than
himself.” This meaning is evidently
forced; but it may be rendered more
natural by taking hJgei'sqai in its
primitive signification of conducting:
“Conducting others before you,” that
is to say, making them pass in all
circumstances before yourselves.
There follows a second group of three
dispositions which are naturally
connected with the preceding and with
one another.
Ver. 11. “ As to zeal, being not
indolent; fervent in spirit; taking advantage
of opportunity. ”—With respectful
consideration, ver. 10, there is easily
connected the disposition to render
service, which is here denoted by the
word: not indolent. —This in its turn,
in order to overcome the resistance
of selfishness, in cases where to
oblige requires self-sacrifice, and must
be, not a natural disposition only,
but a powerful movement, due to the
impulse of the Divine Spirit, and like
an inner fire kept up unceasingly by
action from above: fervent in spirit.
The word spirit undoubtedly refers
here to the spiritual element in man
himself, but that as penetrated and
quickened by the Divine Spirit. In reading
these words, we see the
believer hastening, with his heart on
fire, wherever there is any good to be
done.—The third proposition presents
an important variant. The Alex. and
Byz. documents read tw'/ Kurivw/ (
serving ) the Lord. The Greco-Lat. text
reads tw'/ kairw'/
( serving ) the time , the season, the
occasion; adapting yourselves to the
opportunity. This expression is
somewhat strange, but it is common
enough in profane Greek; comp. the
kairw'/ latreuvein (see Meyer), and in
Latin the tempori servire (Cicero).
The very fact that this phrase is without
example in the N. T. may speak in
favor of its authenticity. For it is far
from probable that any one would have
replaced so common an
expression as that of serving the Lord
by that of serving the time , while
the opposite might easily happen,
especially if abbreviations were used in
writing. The context must therefore
decide, and it seems to me that it
decides in favor of the Greco-Latin
reading. The precept: serve the Lord ,
is too general to find a place in a
series of recommendations so particular.
The only means of finding a certain
suitableness for it would be to
understand it thus: “While employing
yourselves for men, do it always with
a view to the Lord and His cause.” But
it would be necessary to supply
precisely the essential idea. On the
contrary, the meaning: “serving the
opportunity,” or “adapting yourselves
to the need of the time,” admirably
completes the two preceding precepts.
Zeal , according to God, confines
itself to espying providential
occasion, and suiting our activity to them; it
does not impose itself either on men
or things.
There follows a third group, the three
elements of which form a small wellconnected
whole.
Ver. 12. “ Rejoicing in hope, patient
in tribulation, persevering in prayer.
”—The fervor of devotion, referred to
in ver. 11, has no more powerful
auxiliary than joy; for joy disposes
us to kindness and even to selfsacrifice.
But this applies only to Christian
joy, to that which is kept up in
the heart by the glorious hopes of
faith.—The passage, chap. 5:3, 4,
shows the intimate bond which unites
this joy of hope with the patient
endurance which the believer should
display in the midst of trial; comp. 1
Thess. 1:3.—And what are we to do to
keep up in the heart the joyful
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
spring of hope, and that firmness of
endurance which holds out?
Persevere in prayer , says the
apostle; such is the fruitful principle of
those admirable dispositions. The
following is Hofmann's paraphrase of
the verse: “In so far as we have cause
to hope, let us be joyful; in so far
as we have cause of pain, let us hold
out; in so far as the door of prayer is
open to us, let us continue to use
it.” The force of the datives which head
the three propositions could not be
better rendered.
Paul came down from charity and its
external manifestations to the depths
of the inner life; he now returns to
the practical manifestations of this
feeling, and points out the blessings
of active charity extending to three
classes of persons: brethren,
strangers, enemies.
Vv. 13, 14. “Distributing to the
necessities of saints; eager to show
hospitality. Bless them that persecute
you;bless and curse not.”—The
saints are not only the families of
the church of Rome, but also all the
churches whose wants come to the
knowledge of the Christians of the
capital. The Byz. and Alex. documents
read creivai" , the necessities;
while the Greco-Latins read
mneivai" , the remembrances. Would this term
denote the anniversary days
consecrated to the memory of martyrs? This
meaning would suffice to prove the
later origin of this reading. Or should
the expression remembrances be applied
to the pecuniary help which the
churches of the Gentiles sent from
time to time to the Christians of
Jerusalem (Hofmann)? This meaning of
mneivai" , in itself far from natural,
is not at all justified by Phil. 1:3.
The Received reading is the only possible
one. The verb koinwnei'n strictly
signifies to take part; then, as a
consequence, to assist effectively.
—There is a gradation from saints to
strangers. The virtue of hospitality
is frequently recommended in the N. T.
(1 Pet. 4:9; Heb. 13:2; 1 Tim. 5:10;
Tit. 1:8).—The term diwvkein , literally,
“ pursue (hospitality),” shows that we
are not to confine ourselves to
according it when it is asked, but
that we should even seek opportunities
of exercising it.
Ver. 14. A new gradation from
strangers to them that persecute. The act
to be done by love becomes more and
more energetic, and this is no
doubt the reason why the apostle
passes abruptly to the imperative, after
this long series of participles. Here
we have no longer a manifestation
which, supposing love, is in a manner
understood as a matter of course.
To act as the apostle demands,
requires a powerful effort of the will, which
the imperative expressly intended to
call forth. This is also the reason why
this order is repeated, then completed
in a negative form; for the
persecuted one ought, as it were, to
say no to the natural feeling which
rises in his heart. The omission of
the pronoun you in the Vatic. serves
well to bring out the odiousness of
persecution in itself, whoever the
person may be to whom it is
applied.—We do not know whether the
apostle had before him the Sermon on
the Mount, already published in
some document; in any case, he must
have known it by oral tradition, for
he evidently alludes to the saying of
Jesus, Matt. 5:44; Luke 6:28. This
discourse of Jesus is the one which
has left the most marked traces in the
Epistles; comp. Rom. 2:19; 1 Cor. 4:12
and 13, 6:7, 7:10; Jas. 4:9,5:12; 1
Pet. 3:9 and 14. This recommendation,
relating to love toward malevolent
persons, is here an anticipation; Paul
will return to it immediately.
Now comes a group of four precepts,
the moral relation of which is equally
manifest.
Vv. 15, 16. “ Rejoice with them that
do rejoice , weep with them that weep:
aspiring after the same aim for one
another; not minding high things, but
associating with men of low estate. Be
not wise in your own eyes. ”—The
connection between
vv. 14 and 15 is the idea of
self-forgetfulness. As self-forgetting is needed
to bless
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
him who hates us, we must also be
freed from self to identify ourselves
with the joy of others when our heart
is full of grief, and with his grief when
we ourselves are filled with joy. In
Greek the two verbs are in the infinitive.
This form is rightly explained by
understanding dei' , it is necessary. But
here we may be permitted to mark a
shade of distinction; the infinitive is
the indication of an accidental fact:
to act thus every time that the case
presents itself. It is less pressing
than the imperative; it is, as it were, a
virtue of the time being.—The
following precept is commonly applied to
good feeling between the members of
the church. But in that case there
would require to be ejn
ajllhvloi" , among you , and not eij" ajllhvlou" , in
relation to one another , and the
following precept would have no natural
connection with this. The only
possible meaning is: “aiming at the same
object for one another as for
yourselves;” that is to say, having each the
same solicitude for the temporal and
spiritual well-being of his brethren as
for his own: comp. Phil. 2:4. As this
common disinterested aspiration
naturally connects itself with sympathy,
ver. 15, so it is easily associated
with the feeling of equality
recommended in the following verse. There
frequently forms in the congregations
of believers an aristocratic tendency,
every one striving by means of the
Christian brotherhood to associate with
those who, by their gifts or fortune,
occupy a higher position. Hence small
coteries, animated by a proud spirit,
and having for their result chilling
exclusiveness. The apostle knows these
littlenesses, and wishes to
prevent them; he recommends the
members of the church to attach
themselves to all alike, and if they
will yield to a preference, to show it
rather for the humble. The term
uJyhlav therefore denotes distinctions, high
relations, ecclesiastical honors. This
neuter term does not at all oblige us,
as Meyer thinks, to give a neuter
sense to the word tapeinoi'" in the
following proposition: “humble things;
” the inferior functions in the church.
The prep. with , in the verb
sunapagovmenoi , letting yourselves be drawn
with , does not admit of this meaning.
The reference is to the most indigent
and ignorant, and least influential in
the church. It is to them the believer
ought to feel most drawn.—The
antipathy felt by the apostle to every sort
of spiritual aristocracy, to every
caste distinction within the church, breaks
out again in the last word. Whence
come those little coteries, if it is not
from the presumptuous feeling each one
has of his own wisdom? It is this
feeling which leads you to seek
contact especially with those who flatter
you, and whose familiar intercourse
does you honor.—This precept is
taken from Prov. 3:7, but it evidently
borrows a more special sense from
the context.
Already, in ver. 14, the apostle had
made, as it were, an incursion into the
domain of relations to the hostile
elements which the believer encounters
around him. He returns to this subject
to treat it more thoroughly; here is
the culminating point in the
manifestations of love. He has in view not
merely the enmity of the unbelieving
world. He knew only too well from
experience, that within the church
itself one may meet with ill-will, injustice,
jealousy, hatred. In the following
verses the apostle describes to us the
victory of love over malevolent
feelings and practices, from whatever
quarter they come, Christians or
non-Christians. And first, vv. 17-19, in the
passive form of forbearance; then, vv.
20, 21, in the active form of
generous beneficence.
Vv. 17-19. “ Recompensing to no man
evil for evil; being preoccupied with
good in the sight of all men. If it be
possible, as much as lieth in you, living
peaceably with all men. Dearly
beloved, avenging not yourselves; but give
place unto wrath; for it is written:
Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the
Lord. ”—There is a close connection
between the abnegation described in
the preceding verses and the love
which pardons. Hence it is that the
apostle continues, in ver. 17, with a
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
simple participle; for vengeance is
very often the effect of wounded pride.
But why add the second precept, taken
from Prov. 3:4? Probably the
apostle means to contrast
preoccupation with good , as an antidote, with
those sombre thoughts and hostile
projects which are cherished under the
dominion of resentment. The clause:
before all men , depends of course
on the participle pronoouvmenoi ,
preoccupying yourselves. not on the
object kalav , good things , as
Hofmann thinks. Paul would have the
believer's inward preoccupation with
good to be so manifest in his
conduct, even toward his adversaries
or enemies, that no one shall be
able to suspect in him any working of
the mind inspired by a contrary
disposition. The meaning of the Hebrew
is rather different from that of the
Alex. version, which the apostle here
follows. The original ought probably
to be translated thus: “Thou shalt
find favor and success before men.” The
LXX. have translated: “Thou shalt find
favor; and do thou consider good
before all men.”
Ver. 18. This spirit of goodwill is
necessarily pacific; not only does it not do
nor mediate anything which can
trouble, but it strives to remove what
disunites. The first restriction: if
it be possible , refers to our neighbor's
conduct; for we are not master of his
feelings. The second: as much as
lieth in you , refers to our own; for
we can exercise discipline over
ourselves. If it does not depend on us
to bring our neighbor to pacific
dispositions toward us, it depends on
us to be always disposed to make
peace.
Ver. 19. But this notwithstanding,
there is in the heart of man an
ineffaceable feeling of justice which
the apostle respects. He only desires
to give this sentiment its true
direction. Evil ought to be punished, that is
certain. Only, if thou wouldest not
thyself become unjust, think not thou
shouldest make thyself the instrument
of justice, and peacefully resign this
care to God, the just Judge. The
apostle knows that he is here requiring a
difficult sacrifice. Hence the style
of address: dearly beloved , by which he
reminds his readers of the tender love
which dictates this
recommendation, a love which is only
an emanation of that which God
Himself bears to them. To give place
unto wrath , is to refrain from
avenging oneself, in order to give
free course to the justice which God
Himself will exercise when and how He
thinks good. To seek to anticipate
His judgment is to bar the way against
it. Comp. what is said of Jesus
Himself, 1 Pet. 2:23. It is needless
to refute explanations such as the
following: “Let your wrath have time
to calm down,” or: “Let the wrath of
the enemy pass.” The passage quoted is
Deut. 32:35, but modified in
conformity with the version of the
LXX. The Hebrew text says: “To me
belong vengeance and retribution.” The
LXX. translate: “In the day of
punishment I will repay.” Either they
read aschallem, I will repay , instead
of schillem, retribution; or they
freely paraphrased the meaning of the
substantive. Paul appropriates the
verb: I will repay , as they introduced it;
and it is remarkable that the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews does
exactly the same. The same form is
also found in the paraphrase of
Onkelos ( vaani aschallem ), which
seems to prove that this way of
quoting the verse was common. It is
impossible, therefore, to conclude
anything from this analogy as
concerning the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews.—But forbearance alone would
only be a half victory. It is not
enough to refrain from meeting evil
with evil; the ambition of love must go
the length of wishing to transform
evil into good.
Vv. 20, 21. “ Therefore, if thine
enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give
him drink; for in so doing thou shalt
heap coals of fire on his head. Be not
overcome of evil, but overcome evil
with good. ”—The connection: But if ,
in the Alex., would signify: “But, far
from avenging thyself, if the
opportunity of doing good to thine
enemy present itself, seize it.” The
connection: Therefore if , in the
Byzs., is
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
somewhat more difficult to apprehend;
but it is precisely this fact which
speaks in its favor: “Thou oughtest
not to avenge thyself; consequently , if
the occasion present itself of doing
good to thine enemy, seize it; for to
neglect it would in itself be an act
of revenge.” The Greco-Latin reading: if
(simply), merely adds doing good to
forbearance; it is the least
probable.—The precept is taken, like
so many others in this chapter, from
the Book of Proverbs; comp. 25:21, 22.
It is impossible to suppose that in
this book the precept is an
encouragement to heap benefits on the head
of the evil-doer in order to aggravate
the punishment with which God shall
visit him (Chrys., Grot., Hengst.,
etc.). For we read in the same book,
24:17: “Rejoice not when thine enemy
falleth; and let not thine heart be
glad when he stumbleth.” Not to be
guilty of a self-contradiction, the
author would therefore have required
to add in our passage: “if thine
enemy repent not.” In any case, Paul
could not quote this saying in such a
sense. For how would acting thus be
“to overcome evil with good” (ver.
21)? There is here, therefore, rather
a fine irony at the expense of him
who would cherish in his heart a
desire of vengeance: “Thou wouldst
avenge thyself? Be it; and here is the
way in which God permits thee to do
so: Heap benefits on thine enemy; for
thereby thou shalt cause him the
salutary pain of shame and regret for
all the evil he has done thee; and
thou shalt light up in his heart the
fire of gratitude instead of that of
hatred.” The figure coals of fire is
common among the Arabs and Hebrews
to denote a vehement pain; but, as
Meyer observes, it contains no
allusion whatever to the idea of
melting or softening the object.
Ver. 21. To render evil for evil, is
to let evil have the victory; to confine
oneself to not rendering evil is, if
it may be so said, neither to be
conqueror nor conquered, though in
reality this also is to be conquered.
The true victory over evil consists in
transforming a hostile relation into
one of love by the magnanimity of the
benefits bestowed. Thereby it is
that good has the last word, that evil
itself serves it as an instrument: such
is the masterpiece of love.
Twenty-sixth Passage (13:1-10). The
Life of the Believer as a Member
of the State.
Meyer and many others find no
connection whatever between the subject
treated in this chapter and that of
the foregoing. “A new subject,” says this
author, “placed here without relation
to what precedes.” It must be
confessed that the connections
proposed by commentators are not very
satisfactory, and afford some ground
for this judgment of Meyer. Tholuck
says: The apostle passes here from
private offences to official
persecutions proceeding from the
heathen state. But in what follows the
state is not regarded as a persecutor;
it is represented, on the contrary, as
the guardian of justice. Hofmann sees
in the legally-ordered social life one
of the aspects of that good by which
evil ought to be overcome (ver. 21).
Schott finds the link between the two
passages in the idea of the
vengeance which God will one day take
by the judgment (12:19), and
which He is taking now by the power of
the state (13:4). Better give up
every connection than suppose such as
these.
As for us, the difficulty is wholly
resolved. We have seen that Paul, after
pointing to the Christian consecrating
his body to God's service, places
him successively in the two domains in
which he is to realize the sacrifice
of himself: that of spiritual life
properly so called, and that of civil life. And
what proves that we are really in the
track of his thought, is that we
discover in the development of this
new subject an order exactly parallel
to that of the preceding exposition.
Paul had pointed to the Christian, first,
limiting himself by humility, then
giving himself by love. He
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
follows the same plan in the
subsequent passage. In vv. 1-7, he
inculcates the duty of submission by
which the believer controls and limits
himself in relation to the state;
then, in vv. 8-10, he enters into the domain
of private relations, and points to
the Christian giving himself to all in the
exercise of righteousness. We
therefore find here the counterpart of the
two passages, 13:3-8 and 9-21, the
former of which presented the
believer in his relations to the
church as such; the latter, in his conduct in
the midst of society in general.
If such is the nexus between the
subjects treated in these two chapters,
there is no necessity for seeking in
the local circumstances of the church
of Rome for a particular reason to
explain this passage. Bauer,
proceeding on the idea of a Judeo-
Christian majority in this church, has
alleged that the apostle meant here to
combat the Jewish prejudice which
held heathen authorities to be only
delegates of Satan, as the prince of
this world. But Hofmann justly
remarks, that if such were the polemic of
the apostle, he would have confined
himself to proving that it is allowable
for the Christian to submit himself to
a heathen power, without going the
length of making this submission a
duty, and a duty not of expediency
only, but one of conscience.
Weizsacker also replies to Baur, that if the
matter in question were a Jewish
prejudice to be combated, the apostle
would require especially to remind his
readers that the Christian faith does
not at all imply, as the Jewish
Messianic viewpoint did, the expectation of
an earthly kingdom; whence it follows
that nothing is opposed from this
side to the submission of believers to
the power of the state. It is in this
line he argues, in the First Epistle
to the Corinthians , 7:21 et seq., when
he shows that there is no
incompatibility between the position of slave and
Christian. Besides, we have seen the
error of Baur's hypothesis regarding
the Judeo-Christian composition of the
church of Rome too clearly to
make it necessary for us to spend more
time in refuting this explanation. If
it were thought absolutely needful to
find in the state of this church a
particular reason for the following
precepts, we should certainly have to
prefer Ewald's hypothesis. This critic
thinks that the spirit of
insubordination which broke out soon
after in the Jewish nation in the
revolt against the Romans, was already
agitating this people, and making
itself felt even at Rome. The
apostle's intention was therefore, he thinks,
to protect the church of the capital
from this contagion emanating from the
synagogue. This supposition can no
more be proved than it can be
refuted by positive facts. All that we
can say is, that it is not needed to
explain the following passage.
Expounding the gospel didactically, and the
life which flows from it, the apostle
must naturally, especially when writing
to the church resident in the heart of
the empire, develop a duty which
was soon to become one of the most
important and difficult in the conflicts
for which it was necessary to prepare
with the heathen power, that of
submission to the state on the ground
of conscience, and independently
of the character of those who wield
the power for the time. Weizsacker
thinks that all Paul says here to
Christians supposes no persecution to
have yet taken place. We think on this
point he is mistaken, and that in
any state of the case Paul would have
spoken as he does. For, as we
shall see, he treats the question from
the viewpoint of moral principle,
which remains always the standard for
the Christian. And what is a clear
proof of it is, that the course traced
by him has been ratified by the
conscience of Christians in all
epochs, even in times of persecution. It was
followed, in particular, by the whole
primitive church, and by the Christians
of the Reformed Church of France; and
if there was a time when the
latter, driven to extremity by
extraordinary sufferings, deviated from this
line of conduct, their action
certainly did not turn out a blessing to them.
Moreover, comp. the sayings analogous
to those of Paul in Matt. 26:52,
Rev. 13:10, and the whole of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the First Epistle of Peter, especially
chap. 2—We cannot help quoting
here, as a specimen of Renan's manner,
the observation with which he
accompanies the precept of the
apostle: “Paul had too much tact to be a
mover of sedition. He wished the name
of Christian to be of good
standing” (p. 477).
In vv. 1-7, the apostle points out the
Christian's duty in regard to the state
(1a), and explains the ground of it
(1b). He points out its penal sanction
(ver. 2), and justifies it (vv. 3 and
4). Ver. 5 draws the general
consequence from these principles;
finally, vv. 6 and 7 apply this
consequence to the details of social
life.
Ver. 1. “ Let every soul submit itself
unto the higher powers; for there is no
power but of God , and the powers that
be are ordained of God. ”— Why
does the apostle say: every soul ,
instead of every man, or rather every
believer? Is he alluding to the fact
that submission ought to proceed from
the inmost sanctuary of the human
being (the conscience, ver. 5)? The
word every does not correspond well
with this explanation; it leads rather
to the thought that the apostle means
to express that a duty is involved
which is naturally incumbent on every
human being. This is not an
obligation on the believer arising
from his spiritual life, like the precepts of
chap. 12; it is an obligation of the
psychical life which is the common
domain of mankind. Every free and
reasonable being should recognize its
suitableness.—The present imperative,
uJpotassevsqw , let it submit itself ,
indicates a reflex action, exercised
by the man on himself, and that
permanently. This expression is,
indeed, the counterpart of the term
swfronei'n , to control oneself , in
chap. 12—The term higher powers does
not denote merely the highest class of
authorities in the state. It is all
those powers in general and of all
degrees; they are thus designated as
being raised above the simple citizen;
comp. ver. 7.
The second part of this verse
justifies the duty of submission, and that for
two reasons: the first is the divine
origin of the state as an institution; the
second, the will of God which controls
the raising of individuals to office at
any given time. The first proposition
has the character of a general
principle. This appears—(1) from the
singular ejxousiva , power; comp. the
same word in the plural before and
after, in the same verse, which proves
that Paul means to speak of power in
itself , and not of its historical and
particular realizations; (2) from the
negative form of the proposition: “there
is not but of”...; this form
corresponds also to the enunciation of an
abstract principle; (3) from the
choice of the preposition ajpov , of , or on
the part of , which indicates the
origin and essence of the fact. It is true the
Alexs. and Byzs. read uJpov , by , in
this proposition as well as in the
following. But this is one of the
cases in which the Greco-Latin text has
certainly preserved the true reading.
It is clear, whatever Tischendorf may
think, that the copyists have changed
the first preposition according to that
of the following clause. Meyer himself
acknowledges this. We shall see
that as thoroughly as ajpov
corresponds to the idea of the first proposition,
so thoroughly does uJpov apply to that
of the second. Paul means,
therefore, first, that the institution
of the state is according to the plan of
God who created man as a social being;
so that we are called to
recognize in the existence of a power
(authority) the realization of a divine
thought. In the second proposition he
goes further ( dev , and, moreover ).
He declares that at each time the very
persons who are established in
office occupy this exalted position
only in virtue of a divine dispensation.
This gradation from the first idea to
the second appears—(1) from the
particle dev ; (2) from the participle
ou\sai , those who are , that is to say,
who are there; this term added here
would be superfluous if it did not
denote the historical fact in
opposition to the idea; (3) from the return to
the plural ( the powers ), which
proves that Paul means again to designate
here, as in the first part of the
verse, the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
manifold realizations of social power;
(4) from the affirmative form of the
proposition, which applies to the real
fact; (5) from the preposition uJpov ,
by , which more naturally describes
the historical fact than would be done
by the preposition ajpov , on the part
of. —The word ejxousivai in the T. R.
is probably only a copyist's addition.
But for the very reason of this
precept it is asked: If it is not merely the
state in itself which is a thought of
God, but if the very individuals who
possess the power at a given time are
set up by His will, what are we to
do in a period of revolution, when a
new power is violently substituted for
another? This question, which the
apostle does not raise, may, according
to the principles he lays down, be
resolved thus: The Christian will submit
to the new power as soon as the
resistance of the old shall have ceased.
In the actual state of matters he will
recognize the manifestation of God's
will, and will take no part whatever
in any reactionary plot. But should the
Christian support the power of the
state even in its unjust measures? No,
there is nothing to show that the
submission required by Paul includes
active co-operation; it may even show
itself in the form of passive
resistance, and it does not at all
exclude protestation in word and even
resistance in deed, provided that to
this latter there be joined the calm
acceptance of the punishment
inflicted; comp. the conduct of the apostles
and Peter's answer, Acts 5:29, 40-42.
This submissive but at the same
time firm conduct is also a homage to
the inviolability of authority; and
experience proves that it is in this
way all tyrannies have been morally
broken, and all true progress in the
history of humanity effected.
Ver. 2. “ Whosoever, therefore,
rebelleth against the power, resisteth the
ordinance of God; now, they that
resist shall receive to themselves a
judgment. ”—This verse exhibits the
guilt, and, as a consequence, the
inevitable punishment of revolt. The
term ajntitassovmeno" is the
counterpart of uJpotavssesqai , ver.
1. The perfect ajnqevsthken , as well as
the participle which follows, has the
meaning of the present.—The term
diataghv , ordinance , includes the
two ideas expressed in 1b: an
institution, and a fact of which God
Himself is the ordainer. This term
etymologically and logically recalls
the three preceding: uJpotassevsqw,
ajntitassovmeno" , and
tetagmevnai .—The application of the principle laid
down here remains always the same,
whatever may be the form of
government, Monarchical or Republican.
Every revolt has for its effect to
shake for a longer or shorter time the
feeling of respect due to a divine
institution; and hence the judgment of
God cannot fail to overtake him who
becomes guilty.—Undoubtedly the term
kri'ma , judgment , without article,
does not refer to eternal perdition;
but neither should we apply it, with
many critics, solely to the punishment
which will be inflicted by the
authority attacked. Most certainly, in
the mind of the apostle, it is God who
will put forth His hand to avenge His
institution which has been
compromised, whether he do so directly
or by some human
instrumentality. Paul here reproduces
in a certain sense, but in another
form, the saying of Jesus, Matt.
26:52: “All they that take the sword shall
perish by the sword.” Volkmar has
thought good, in connection with this
precept, to advance a supposition
which resembles a wicked piece of
pleasantry. He alleges that when the
author of the Apocalypse represents
the false prophet seeking to induce
men to submit to the beast (the
Antichrist), he meant to designate
Paul himself, who, in our passage,
teaches the Christians of Rome to
submit to the emperor. But the author
of this ingenious hypothesis will yet
acknowledge that to submit is not the
equivalent of to worship (Rev. 13:12).
And to give this application any
probability whatever, the Apocalypse
must have avoided reproducing
exactly the saying of Jesus which we
have just quoted, and the precept of
Paul himself, by cautioning Christians
against revolt, and saying to them,
13:10: “He that killeth with
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the sword must be killed with the
sword; here is the patience and the faith
of the saints.” It is obvious that
Jesus, Paul, and John have only one and
the same watchword to give to the
believer in regard to his relations to the
state: submission, and, when
necessary, patience.
Vv. 3, 4. “ For rulers are not a
terror to good works, but to the evil.Now
wouldest thou not be afraid of the
power? do that which is good, and thou
shalt have praise from the same; for
he is the minister of God to thee for
good. But if thou do that which is
evil, be afraid; for it is not in vain that he
beareth the sword, for he is a
minister of God, to execute just wrath upon
him that doeth evil. ”—If revolt is a
crime, and a crime which cannot fail to
receive punishment, it is because the
power whose authority it attacks is a
divine delegation in the midst of human
society, and is charged with a
moral mission of the highest
importance; hence the for. —The good work
is not submission, and the evil work
is not revolt. Paul means by the one
the practice of justice, and by the
other that of injustice, in general, in the
whole social life. The state is called
to encourage the doing of good, and
to repress the doing of evil in the
domain which is confided to it. This
domain is not that of the inward
feelings, it is that of external deeds, of
work or works , as the apostle says.
It matters little which of the two
readings (the dative singular or the
genitive plural) is preferred; the first is
better supported.—After this general
declaration, the apostle takes up
again each of the two alternatives.
And first that of well-doing , vv. 3b and
4a. The verses have been badly divided
here. The first proposition of ver.
4 belongs still to the idea of ver. 3,
that of well-doing.—No doubt it may
happen, contrary to what the apostle
says, that the virtuous man falls
under the vengeance of the laws, or
becomes a butt for the unjust
dealings of the magistracy. But it
remains true that in this case good is not
punished as good. An unjust law or a
tyrannical power make it appear
falsely as evil; and the result of
this suffering unjustly endured will
certainly be the reform of the law and
the fall of the power. Never has any
power whatever laid down as a
principle the punishment of good and the
reward of evil, for thereby it would
be its own destroyer.—The praise of
which the apostle speaks consists, no
doubt, in the consideration which
the man of probity generally enjoys in
the eyes of the magistracy, as well
as in the honorable functions which he
is called by it to fill. ver. 4a If it is
so, it is because magistracy is a
divine ministry, instituted for the good of
every citizen ( soiv , to thee ), and
because, though it may err in the
application, it cannot in principle
deny its charge to assert justice. ver. 4b
The other alternative: evil-doing. The
power of the state is not to be feared
except by him who acts unjustly.—The
verb forei'n , a frequentative from
fevrein , to carry , denotes official
and habitual bearing.—The term
mavcaira , sword , denotes (in opposition
to xivfo" , the poniard or
straightedged sword) a large knife
with bent blade, like that carried by the
chiefs in the Iliad , and with which
they cut the neck of the victims, similar
to our sabre. Paul by this expression
does not here denote the weapon
which the emperor and his pretorian
prefect carried as a sign of their
power of life and death—the
application would be too restricted—but that
which was worn at their side, in the
provinces, by the superior
magistrates, to whom belonged the
right of capital punishment, and which
they caused to be borne solemnly
before them in public processions. It
has been said that this expression was
not intended by the apostle to
convey the notion of the punishment of
death. The sword, it is said, was
simply the emblem of the right to
punish in general, without involving
anything as to the punishment of death
in particular. Is not Philippi right in
answering to this: that it is
impossible to exclude from the right of
punishing the very kind of punishment
from which the emblem
representing this right is taken?
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
It is improper to bring in here the
idea of the grace of the gospel. For at
the very time when the state is
carrying out on the criminal the work of
justice to which it is called, the
church may, without the least contradiction,
carry out toward the same man the work
of mercy which is divinely
confided to it. Thus Paul devotes to
the destruction of the flesh (1 Cor.
5:4, 5) the same man whose salvation
he labors to procure against the
day of Christ. And Peter tells us of
men who perished when judged
according to the flesh , but to whom
the gospel is preached that they may
live in spirit according to God.
Experience even proves that the last
punishment of the law is very often
the means of opening up in the heart
of the malefactor a way for divine
grace. The penalty of death was the first
duty imposed on the state at the time
of its divine founding, Gen. 9:6:
“Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man
shall his blood be shed; for God
made man after His image.” It is
profound respect for human life which in
certain cases enjoins the sacrifice of
human life. The question involved is
not that of simple social expediency,
but that of keeping up the human
conscience to the level of the value
which God Himself attaches to the
human person.—The last proposition is
exactly parallel to that with which
the apostle had concluded the first alternative,
that of good (ver. 4a).
When the magistracy punishes, no less
than when it rewards, it does so
as God's agent and vicegerent on the
earth ( diavkono" ,
servant ).—In the expression
e[kdiko" eij" ojrghvn , an avenger for wrath ,
there is not, as might be thought, an
unmeaning pleonasm. The meaning
is: an avenger by office to satisfy
the demands of wrath , that of God, the
only wrath perfectly holy. The
expression e[kdiko" might be used here in a
favorable sense: to render justice to
him who is trampled on; comp. Luke
18:3, 5, 7, and 8.
Ver. 5. “ Wherefore ye must needs be
subject , not only because of the
wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
”—If the state were only armed with
means of punishing, it would be enough
to regard it with fear; but it is the
representative of God to assert
justice among men; and hence it is from a
principle of conscience that
submission must be given to it. It is obvious
that the apostle has a much nobler
idea of the state than those who make
this institution rest on utilitarian
grounds. As its foundation he lays down a
divine principle, and sees in it an
essentially moral institution. This
teaching was the more necessary as the
Christians were daily witnesses
of the corruption which reigned in
heathen administration, and might be
led to involve in one common
reprobation both the institution and its
abuses. But it must not be forgotten
that, in assigning conscience as a
ground for obedience, the apostle is
in the very act indirectly tracing the
limit of this obedience. For the very
reason that the state governs in God's
name, when it comes to order something
contrary to God's law, there is
nothing else to be done than to make
it feel the contradiction between its
conduct and its commission (see above,
the example of the apostles), and
that while still rendering homage to
the divine principle of the state by the
respect with which the protest in the
case is expressed and the calmness
with which the punishment inflicted is
borne.
In the two following verses the
apostle confirms by a particular fact of
public life the notion of the state
which he has just been expounding (ver.
6), and passes from the principle to
its practical applications (ver. 7).
Vv. 6, 7. “ For it is for this cause
also that ye pay tribute; for they are God's
ministers for this very thing,
attending thereto continually. Render to all
their dues: tribute to whom tribute;
custom to whom custom; fear to whom
fear; honor to whom honor. ”—There is
a usage universally practised, and
whose propriety no one disputes: that
is, the payment of tribute for the
support of the state. How are we to
explain the origin of such a usage,
except by the general conviction of
the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
indispensable necessity of the state?
The: for this cause , does not refer
specially to the idea of ver. 5, but
to the whole preceding development
from ver. 1. The for makes the
practical consequence (the payment of
tribute) the proof of the principle,
and the also refers to the agreement
between the general idea and the
particular fact. It is unnecessary,
therefore, with Hofmann, to make the
verb telei'te , ye pay , an imperative:
Pay. It is a simple fact which Paul
states.—The apostle, to designate the
divine character of the state, here
uses a still graver term than that of
servant , ver. 4. He calls him
leitourgov" , minister. This term, compounded
of the words laov" , people , and
e[rgon , work , denotes one who labors for
the people, who fills a public office
, and with the complement Qeou' , of
God , a public office in the religious
sphere, like the priests and Levites in
the theocracy. Among the Jews these
divine functionaries were supported
by means of the tithe; the same
principle, in the view of the apostle,
explains the tribute paid by citizens
to the state: for the state performs a
function for God.—Some have
translated: “For ministers are of God. ” The
meaning is impossible grammatically;
it would require the article before
leitourgoiv .—The clause which
follows: for this very thing , might depend
on the participle
proskarterou'nte" , applying themselves to. But it is more
natural to make it depend on the
expression leitourgoiv : “ministers for this
very thing”—that is to say, to make
justice reign by checking evil and
upholding good. Olshausen and Philippi
apply the words: for this very
thing , to the payment of tribute,
which would signify that the state is God's
minister to levy tribute, or that it
may watch continually on this levying.
Neither the one nor the other of these
two ideas rises to the height of the
notion of the state as it has just
been expounded. This appendix:
proskarterou'nte" , attending
thereto continually , seems at the first glance
superfluous; but it is intended to
account for the payment of tribute
because the magistrates, devoting
their whole time to the maintenance of
public order and the well-being of the
citizens, cannot themselves provide
for their support, and ought
consequently to be maintained at the expense
of the nation.
Ver. 7. After thus confirming the
notion of the state which he has
enunciated, the apostle deduces from
it some practical applications. Four
MSS. reject the therefore , which is
read in all the others. We may indeed
be content to understand this
particle. The imperative render thus
becomes somewhat livelier.—Foremost is
placed the general obligation
which is afterward specified. The verb
ajpovdote , render , belongs to the
four principal propositions which
follow. The verb of the four dependent
propositions is understood; it is
ojfeivlete , ye owe , to be taken from the
substantive ojfeilav" : “him to
whom ye [ owe ] tribute, [ render ] tribute.”—
Pa'si , to all , denotes all persons
in office.—The term, fovro" , tribute ,
refers to a personal impost, the
annual capitation (the tributum ); the word
is connected with sumfevrein , to
contribute regularly to a common
expenditure; the word tevlo" ,
custom , denotes the custom duty on goods
( vectigal ); it comes from the verb
telei'n , to pay (occasionally); fovbo" ,
fear , expresses the feeling due to
the highest authorities, to supreme
magistrates before whom the lictor
walks, and who are invested with the
power of life and death; timhv , honor
, applies generally to all men in
office.
The church did not neglect the
faithful discharge of all these obligations.
The author of the Epistle to Diognetus,
describing in the second century
the conduct of Christians during a
time of persecution, characterizes it by
these two words: “They are outraged,
and honor ( uJbrivzontai kai; timw'si
).” The passage, 1 Pet. 2:13-17,
presents, especially in ver. 14, a striking
resemblance to ours. The Apostle Paul
is too original to allow us to
suppose that he imitated Peter. Could
the latter, on the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
other hand, know the Epistle to the
Romans? Yes, if he wrote from Rome;
hardly, if he wrote from Babylon. But
it is probable that the two apostles,
when they lived together at Jerusalem
or Antioch, conversed on a subject
so important for the guidance of the
church, and so the thoughts, and
even the most striking expressions of
the Apostle Paul, might have been
impressed on the mind of Peter.
From the duty of submission to the
state, Paul passes to that of justice in
private relations.
Ver. 8. “ Owe no man anything, save to
love one another; for he that
loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
”—The expression anything and no
man clearly indicate a transition to
the private sphere. Most commentators
think that Paul here returns to the
duty of love; Meyer, for example, says
at the beginning of vv. 8-14: “Exhortation
to love and to Christian conduct
in general.” As if the apostle were in
the habit of thus resuming without
cause a subject already treated, and
as if, wishing to describe the task of
love, he could have contented himself
with saying, as he does in ver. 10:
“Love worketh no ill to his neighbor!”
No, the apostle does not wander
from his subject: the duty of justice.
Only he is not ignorant that there is no
perfectly sure pledge for the exercise
of this duty except love. This is what
leads him to speak again of love, and
what explains at the same time the
purely negative form he uses: “not to
do wrong,” an expression which is
the formula of justice, much more than
that of love. Love is therefore not
mentioned here except as the solid
support of justice.—The believer
should keep no other debt in his life
than that which a man can never
discharge, the debt which is renewed
and even grows in proportion as it is
discharged: that of loving. In fact,
the task of love is infinite. The more
active love is, the more it sees its
task enlarge; for, inventive as it is, it is
ever discovering new objects for its
activity. This debt the believer
therefore carries with him throughout
all his life (chap. 12). But he can
bear no other debt against him; and
loving thus, he finds that in the very
act he has fulfilled all the
obligations belonging to the domain of justice,
and which the law could have
imposed.—How could it have occurred to
the mind of Hofmann to refer the words
to;n e{teron , the other , to novmon ,
the law: “He that loveth hath
fulfilled the other law”—that is to say, the rest
of the law, what the law contains
other than the commandment of love?
Love is not in the law a commandment
side by side with all the rest; it is
itself the essence of the law.—The
perfect peplhvrwken , hath fulfilled ,
denotes that in the one act of loving
there is virtually contained the
fulfilment of all the duties
prescribed by the law. For a man does not
offend, or kill, or calumniate, or rob
those whom he loves. Such is the idea
developed in the two following verses.
Vv. 9, 10. “ For this: Thou shalt not
commit adultery, thou shalt not kill,
thou shalt not steal , thou shalt not
covet; and if there be any other
commandment, it is summed up in this
saying, namely , Thou shalt love
thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh
no ill to his neighbor; therefore love
is the fulfilling of the law. ”—It has
been asked why the apostle only
mentioned here the commandments of the
second table. Simply because
he does not make ethics at will, and
because he keeps strictly to his
subject. Duties to God do not belong
to justice; the obligations which
constitute the latter are therefore
found solely in the second table of the
law, which was, so to speak, the civil
code of the Jewish people. It is this
also which explains the negative form
of the commandments. Justice
does not require the positive doing of
good, but only the abstaining from
doing wrong to others. Paul begins
like Jesus, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20,
and Jas. 2:11, with the commandment
forbidding adultery; Philo does the
same. Hofmann thinks this order arises
from the fact that the relation
between man and wife is anterior to
the relation which a man holds to all
his neighbors. This
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
solution is not so inadmissible as
Meyer thinks. The latter believes that the
apostle simply follows the order which
he finds in his manuscript of the
LXX.; for such inversions are observed
in the MSS. of this
version.—According to the most of the
documents belonging to the three
families, the words: “Thou shalt not
bear false witness,” are unauthentic.
This is possible; for Paul closes the
enumeration with the general
expression: “and if there by any other
commandment.” The
commandment which forbids covetousness
is mentioned here, because it
puts the finger on the secret
principle of the violation of all the rest. It is
really in the struggle with this
internal source of all injustices that love
appears as the indispensable auxiliary
of justice; what other feeling than
love could extinguish
covetousness?—The word e{teron , different , is not,
strictly speaking, used for a[llon ,
other; it reminds us that every article of
the code protects our neighbor on a
different side from the
preceding.—The apposition ejn tw'/ ,
in the (namely), though wanting in
some MSS. is certainly authentic; it
might easily be forgotten after the
preceding substantive ( ejn tw'/
lovgw/ ). Like the to; gavr , for this , at the
beginning of the verse, it points to
the saying quoted as something familiar
to all readers.—The quotation is taken
from Lev. 19:18; as true as it is that
one does not wrong himself, so true is
it that it contains all the duties of
justice to our neighbor.
jAnakefalaiou'n : to gather up a plurality in a unity;
Eph. 1:10.—The Alexs. have thought
right to correct the eJautovn , himself
, by seautovn , thyself. It was not in
the least necessary; comp. John 18:34.
Ver. 10. The asyndeton between these
two verses arises from the
vividness with which the author
perceives their logical relation: “No,
certainly! love cannot do wrong”...It
has been asked why the apostle
speaks here only of the evil which
love does not do, and not of the good
which it does. “The good to be done,”
answers Hofmann, “was understood
as a matter of course.” But the evil
not to be done was still more so. The
explanation of the fact arises from
what precedes. Love is spoken of here
only as the means and pledge of the
fulfilment of justice. Now, the
functions of justice have a negative
character (not to do wrong).—The
second proposition of this verse
serves only to express as a conclusion (
therefore , true reading) the maxim
laid down as a thesis in ver. 8, and
regarded as demonstrated.— Plhvrwma ,
the fulfilment; strictly: what fills a
void; the void here is the commandment
to be fulfilled.
Paul has thus closed his exposition of
the Christian's duties as a member
of civil society. It only remains for
him to direct the minds of his readers to
the solemn expectation which can
sustain their zeal and perseverance in
the discharge of all those religious and
social obligations.
The nature of the state , according to
Rom. 13—The apostle's doctrine on
this important subject occupies the
mean between two opposite errors,
both equally dangerous: that which
opposes the state to the church, and
that which confounds them. The first
view is that which is expressed in the
famous maxim: “The state is godless”
(Odillon Barrot). Bordering on this
saying, as it seems, was Vinet's
thought when he wrote the words: “The
state is the flesh,” thus contrasting
it with the church, which would be the
incarnation of the Spirit. This
opinion appears to us false, because the
state represents the natural man, and
the natural man is neither “godless,”
nor “the flesh” pure and simple. There
is in him a moral element, the law
written in the heart (chap. 2:14 and
15), and even a religious element,
God's natural revelation to the human
soul (1:19-21). And these two
elements superior to the flesh ought
to enter also into the society of
natural men organized as a state. This
is what St. Paul has thoroughly
marked, and what, according to him,
gives a moral and even religious
character to the institution of the
state, as we have just seen in explaining
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
this passage. But, on the other hand,
we must beware of confounding this
religious character of the state with
the Christian character. It is
impossible to distinguish the
Christian sphere from the civil more exactly
than Paul does in these two chapters,
xii. and xiii. The one belongs to the
psychical order; hence the pa'sa yuch ,
every human soul , 13:1; the other is
spiritual or pneumatic, and supposes
faith (12:1-6). The one has justice as
its principle of obligation, the other
love. To the one belong means of
constraint, for we have the right to
demand of every man that he discharge
the duties of justice; the other is
the reign of liberty, because love is
essentially spontaneous, and cannot
be exacted from any one. There is
therefore a profound distinction
between the state and the church,
according to Paul's teaching, but not
opposition , any more than between law
and grace, or between justice and
love. As the law paves the way for
grace, and as the conscientious
practice of justice prepares the soul
for the exercise of love, so the state,
by repressing crime, preserves public
order, and thereby the condition in
which the church can tranquilly pursue
her work, that of transforming the
citizens of the earth into citizens of
the kingdom of heaven. There is thus a
reciprocal service which the two
institutions render to one another. But we
must beware of going further; the
church has nothing more to ask of the
state than her freedom of action, that
is to say, the common right. So Paul
himself declares, 1 Tim. 2:1 and 2.
And on its side the state has not to
espouse the interests of the church,
nor consequently to impose on this
society, which it has not contributed
to form, any belief or procedure
whatever. The essence and origin of
the two societies being different,
their administration ought to remain
distinct.—Such is the result of the
exposition which we have just studied
in chaps. 12 and 13. In tracing
these outlines of the philosophy of
right and of the theory of the state, by
how many centuries was St. Paul ahead
of his own age, and perhaps of
ours? We have palpable proof of the
truth of the saying with which he
introduces this whole moral doctrine
(12:3): “I declare unto you by the
grace given unto me.”
Twenty-seventh Passage (13:11-14). The
Expectation of Christ's
coming again a Motive to Christian
Sanctification.
This passage is the counterpart of
that with which the apostle had begun
his moral teaching, 12:1 and 2. There
he had laid down the principle: a
living consecration of the body to God
under the guidance of a mind
renewed by faith in the mercies of
God. This was, as it were, the impelling
force which should sustain the
believer in his twofold spiritual and civil
walk. But that this course may be firm
and persevering, there must be
joined to the impelling force a power
of attraction exercised on the
believer's heart by an aim, a hope
constantly presented to him by faith.
This glorious expectation is what the
apostle reminds us of in the following
passage. The passage, 12:1, 2, was the
foundation; this, 13:11-14, is the
corner- stone of the edifice of
Christian sanctification.
Vv. 11, 12. “ And this, knowing the
season, that now it is high time for you
to awake out of sleep; for now is
salvation nearer to us than when we
believed. The night is far spent, the
day is at hand; let us therefore cast off
the works of darkness, and let us put
on the instruments of light. ”—The
somewhat abrupt transition from ver.
10 to ver. 11 has been differently
understood. What is the principal verb
on which the participle eijdovte" ,
knowing , rests? Meyer thinks that we
must go back on ojfeivlete (ver. 8),
“Owe no man anything.” But there is no
special relation to be observed
between the duty of justice, ver. 8,
and the following passage. Lange has
recourse to a strong ellipsis; he
derives from the participle knowing the
understood
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
verb we know (comp. 12:6), which leads
to this meaning: “and knowing
this (that love is the fulfilling of
the law), we know also the importance of
the present moment (the nearness of
final salvation).” The logical
connection between these two ideas
would thus be this: When once love
is present, perfect salvation cannot
be far off. This meaning is ingenious,
but very far-fetched, and this
construction is not sufficiently justified by
12:6. Hofmann, feeling the
impossibility of these explanations, has
recourse to the following expedient: he
gives tou'to , that , an abverbial
meaning: in that way , or in that
respect. The clause would therefore
signify: “Knowing the time thus far ,
that the hour is come for you to
awake”—that is to say, the true
meaning of the present moment is the
obligation to awake. This strange
construction is its own
condemnation.—After the exposition
which we have given of the plan of
this whole moral part, we are not
embarrassed by this transition. In the
words: And this , Paul sums up all the
foregoing precepts, all the duties of
love and justice, enumerated chaps. 12
and 13, with the view of passing
to the fourth and last section of this
part: “And all that [we fulfil],
knowing”...The idea of fulfilling did
not need to be specially expressed,
because the foregoing precepts along
with the idea of duties included that
of their execution.—Faithfulness in
the realization of such a life rests on
the knowledge which Christians have of
the present situation of the world
and of its significance: “The hour is
solemn; time is short; we shall soon
be no longer able to labor on the work
of our sanctification; there is not an
instant to lose.” In the following
proposition: “It is high time for you to
awake out of sleep,” the apostle
compares the Christian's position to that
of a man who has begun to awake from
the sleep in which he was
plunged, and who, by an energetic act,
requires to overcome the last
remnant of sleepiness. Sleep is the
state of forgetfulness of God and of
estrangement from Him, and the cannal
security of the man of the world in
this state. Awaking is the act by
which man reaches the lively conviction of
his responsibility, gives himself to
the impulse of prayer drawing him to
God, and enters into communication
with Him to obtain through Christ the
pardon of his sins and divine help. As
to awakening, his readers had
already experienced it; but the most
awakened in the church has still need
of awakening; and hence the apostle
reminds his readers that the
meaning of the present situation is
the duty of awakening thoroughly. The
word h[dh , already ( now ), is well
explained by Philippi: at length , “high
time.”—The reading uJma'" , you ,
is to be preferred to the reading hJma'" ,
us. The latter evidently arises from
the following verb, which is in the first
person plural.
The need of a complete awakening
arises from the rapidity with which the
day is approaching to which we are
moving on. Paul understands by this
day the decisive moment of Christ's
coming again , which he proceeds to
compare (ver. 12) to the rising of the
sun in nature. He here calls it
salvation , because this will be the
hour of complete redemption for
believers; comp. 5:10, 8:23-25,
10:10.—The march of events to this goal,
or of this goal to us, is so rapid,
says the apostle, that the interval which
separates us from it has already
sensibly diminished since he and his
readers were brought to the faith. To
understand this saying, which is
somewhat surprising when we think of
the eighteen centuries which have
followed the time when it was written,
it must be remembered, 1st. That
the Lord had promised His return at
the time when all the nations of the
earth had heard His Gospel; and 2d.
That the apostle, looking back on his
own career, and seeing in a sense the
whole known world evangelized by
his efforts (Col. 1:6), might well say
without exaggeration that the history
of the kingdom of God had made a step
in advance during the course of
his ministry. Of course this saying
supposes that the apostle had no idea
of the ages which should yet elapse
before the advent of Christ. The
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
revelation of the Lord had taught him
that He would return, but not when
He would return. And when it was
sought to fix this time, the apostle
himself opposed the attempt (1 Thess.
5:1, 2; 2 Thess. 2:1 et seq.). He
expresses himself sometimes as a
possible witness of it (1 Thess. 4:17; 1
Cor. 15:52); sometimes as if he were
not to have part in it; 1 Cor. 6:14 (
hJma'" , us , the undoubted
reading); 2 Tim. 4:18. And is it not thus we
ought to live constantly, waiting
without ceasing? Is not this attitude the
most favorable to progress in
sanctification? Did not Jesus claim this of
His own when He said, Luke 12:36: “Be
ye like unto men that wait for their
lord when he-will return from the
wedding, that when he cometh and
knocketh, they may open unto him
immediately”? And if it is not He who
comes to us in the Parousia, is it not
we who shall go to Him in death? Is
not death for the individual what the
Parousia is for the church as a whole,
meeting with the Lord?—The interval
between the time when the readers
had come to the faith and that of this
solemn meeting, individual or
collective, was therefore sensibly
shortened since the day of their
conversion.
Ver. 12. On the one hand the night
advanced, on the other the day drew
near. The former of these figures
signifies that the time granted to the
present world to continue its life
without God had moved on, was
shortened; the latter, that the
appearing of the kingdom of Christ had
approached. Hence a double inference:
As the night is dissipated, there
should be an end of the works of the
night; and as the day begins to
shine, awaking should be completed,
and there should be effected what
may be called the toilet worthy of
full day.—The works of darkness: all that
dare not be done by day, and which is
reserved for night (ver. 13). The
term o{pla may be translated in two ways:
the instruments or arms of light.
The parallel, 1 Thess. 5:4-11, speaks
in favor of the second sense. In that
case the reference would be to the
breastplate, the helmet, the sandals of
the Roman soldiery, arms which may be
regarded as garments fitted on in
the morning to replace the dress of
night. But the delineation as a whole
does not seem to apply to a day of
battle; rather it appears that the day in
question is one of peaceful labor. And
for this reason we think it more
natural to apply the expression oJpla
here to the garments of the laborious
workman who, from early morning, holds
himself in readiness for the hour
when his master waits to give him his
task. These figures are applied in
vv. 13 and 14: the works of night , in
ver. 13; the instruments of light , in
ver. 14.
Vv. 13, 14. “ Let us walk becomingly,
as in the day, not in revelling and
drunkenness, not in chambering and
wantonness, not in strife and
passion; but put ye on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and be not preoccupied with
the flesh to excite its lusts. ”—The
words wJ" ejn hJmevra/ signify: “as is
done in full day;” but not without
allusion to the fact that the light which
shines in the believer's soul is the
very light which shall break on the world
in the day of salvation, in the hour
of the Parousia; comp. 1 Thess. 5:5
and 8.—Christian holiness is
represented here as the highest decency (
eujschmovnw" , decently ), to be
compared with that full attitude of dignity
which the rising of the sun enjoins on
the man who respects himself.
Worldly conduct resembles, on the
contrary, those indecencies to which
men dare not give themselves up except
by burying them in the shades of
night. Such a mode of acting is
therefore incompatible with the situation of
a man who is already enlightened by
the first rays of the great day.—The
works of night are enumerated in
pairs: first, sensuality in the forms of
eating and drinking; then impurity,
those of brutal libertinism and wanton
lightness; finally, the passions which
break out either in personal disputes
or party quarrels. This last term
seems to me to express the meaning of
the word zh'lo" , in this
passage, better than the translations jealousy or
envy. Comp. 1 Cor. 3:3; 2 Cor. 12:20;
Gal. 5:20.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Ver. 14. To lay aside what belongs to
the night of worldly life, is only the
first part of the preparation to which
we are called by the rising of the great
day. Our concern must be, besides, to
put on the dispositions which are in
keeping with so holy and brilliant a
light. What is this new equipment
which we must haste to substitute for
the old? Paul indicates it in the
expression: to put on Jesus Christ. He
certainly speaks of Christ here not
as our righteousness , but as our
sanctification , 1 Cor. 1:30. The toilet of
the believer, if one may venture so to
speak, in view of the approaching
salvation, consists solely in putting
on Christ, in appropriating by habitual
communion with Him all His sentiments
and all His manner of acting. He
thus becomes for His redeemed ones
Himself the robe for the marriagefeast.
The Christian will be unable to stand
before Him except in so far as
he is “found in Him ” (Phil. 3:9).
It seemed as if this forcible
recommendation: “But put ye on the Lord
Jesus Christ,” should close the
passage. But the apostle adds a last word,
which is certainly intended to form
the transition to the following passage.
This pure garment of the believer
(Christ's holiness which he
appropriates) should be kept free from
every stain. But the apostle here
perceives a very common infirmity,
which is not made greatly matter of
selfreproach, and against which he
feels the need of putting his readers
particularly on their guard. It is a
sensuality which has not the gross
character of the works of night, and
which may even assume a lawful
form. The body being an indispensable
servant, is it not just to take care
of it? The apostle does not deny this.
But to take care of the body and to
be preoccupied with its satisfaction
are two different things. The
expression provnoian poiei'sqai , to
give oneself up to preoccupation ,
clearly indicates a thought directed
with a certain intensity toward sensual
enjoyment. I do not think the notion
of sin is contained in the word flesh ,
which simply denotes here our
sensitive nature; it is rather to be found in
the term: to preoccupy oneself with.
Paul does not forbid the believer to
accept a pleasure which comes of
itself; comp. the touching expression,
Acts 27:3, where it is said of Julius
the centurion that he allowed Paul to
repair to his friends to enjoy their
attentions ( ejpimeleiva" tucei'n ). But to
accept with pleasure the satisfaction
which God gives, is quite another
thing from going in quest of pleasure.
In this second case there is a
weakness, or, to speak more properly,
a defilement which spoils the
marriage garments of many
Christians.—The last words: eij" ejpiqumiva" ,
literally, for lusts , may be regarded
either as expressing the aim of the
preoccupation: “Do not preoccupy
yourselves with a view to satisfying
lusts,” or, as a reflection of Paul
himself, intended to justify the previous
warning: “Do not preoccupy yourselves
with the satisfaction of the flesh so
as to (or: which would not fail to)
give rise to lusts.” Both constructions are
possible. But the second meaning seems
to us simpler. The clause eij"
ejpiqumiva" thus understood well
justifies the warning: “Be not
preoccupied with”...—These verses, VV.
13 and 14, have acquired a sort
of historical celebrity; for, as
related by St. Augustine in the eighth book of
the Confessions , they were the
occasion of his conversion, already
prepared for by his relations with St.
Ambrose. If ver. 13 had been the
inscription of his past life, ver. 14
became that of his new life.
We may now be convinced that the
practical treatise, which serves as a
complement to the doctrinal, is not
less systematically arranged than the
latter was. The four parts of which it
is composed: faith in the mercies of
God as the basis of Christian life
(12:1, 2); the realization of this life in the
two spheres, religious and civil,
under the supreme law of love (12:3-21
and 13:1-10); finally, the eye of hope
constantly fixed on the coming of
Christ as the spring of progress in
sanctification
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
(13:11-14;—these four parts, we say,
which may be reduced to three,
bring us without straining to Paul's
ordinary triad: faith, love, and hope (1
Thess. 1:3; 1 Cor. 13:13, etc.). It
might be asked, no doubt, how it comes
that in this summary of Christian
morals he omits family duties, so well set
forth in the Epistles to the
Colossians and Ephesians. But perhaps the
subject of domestic life appeared to
him too particular to find a place in so
general an exposition.
Twenty-eighth passage (14:1-15:13).
Exhortation relative to a
particular Difference of View in the
Church of Rome.
The following passage is a practical
application of the law of love
expounded, chaps. 12 and 13. It is an
immediate illustration of the
selfsacrifice which Paul has just been
requiring. This passage, from its
connection with a local circumstance,
is at the same time the first step of
return from the treatise to the letter
form; it is, consequently, the transition
to the epistolary conclusion of the
entire writing. Thus it is that everything
is organically bound together in the
compositions of the apostle.
What was the subject of the difference
of view to which the instruction
following refers? ver. 2 proves that a
certain number of Christians at
Rome thought they should abstain from
the use of meats and of wine; and
it is probable, from vv. 5 and 6, that
the same men joined to this
abstinence the scrupulous observance
of certain days which seemed to
them more holy than others. This party
does not appear to have been
considerable or influential; and Paul,
far from treating it as he treated
those who corrupted the pure gospel in
Galatia, at Corinth, or at Colosse,
seems rather inclined to take it under
his protection as against the rest of
the church. The subject is one on
which somewhat divergent views have
been expressed. It is difficult to
explain the principle which led these
people to act thus.
Eichhorn regarded the weak as former
Gentiles, who had belonged
previously to a school of philosophy
with an ascetic tendency, the Neo-
Pythagoreans, for example. They
imported into the gospel, according to
him, certain principles pertaining to
their former philosophy.—This opinion
is now generally rejected. 1st. There
are manifest indications of the
Jewish origin of this party. Thus vv.
5 and 6 appear to prove that these
same men observed the Jewish feast
days, like the heretics of Colosse
(see the exegesis). Besides, if the
passage, 15:1-13, still forms part of this
section, as appears to us
unquestionable, it follows that we have to do
with a Judeo-Christian party. For this
whole passage closes with the
celebration of the union of Christians
of both origins in one and the same
salvation. 2d. Such men would not have
taken the modest and timid
attitude at Rome which seems to have been
that of the weak. On the
ground of their pretended superiority,
either in holiness or in culture, they
would much rather have affected
haughty airs in relation to the rest of the
church.
Origen and Chrysostom regarded these
people as Christians of Jewish
origin, and ascribe their kind of life
to their attachment to the Mosaic law.
But the law did not forbid the eating
of flesh, except that of certain
(unclean) animals, nor the use of
wine, except to certain persons and in
certain particular cases. It would
therefore be difficult to explain how they
could have come by the way of the
Levitical ordinances to the principle of
entire abstinence.
This reflection and comparison with
the passage, 1 Cor. 8-10., have led
many commentators (Clem. of Alex.,
Flatt, Neand., Philip., etc.) to explain
the abstinence of the weak by the fear
they felt of unwittingly eating flesh
and drinking wines which had been
offered to idols. Rather than run such
a risk, they preferred to dispense
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
with them altogether. But it should
have been easy to find means of
avoiding this danger, at least in
private meals; and it would be hard to
understand how, if the ideas of these
people had been the same as those
of their scrupulous brethren in the
church of Corinth, Paul should not give
them any of those explanations which
he had given to the latter, and
should content himself with striving
to preserve peace within the church of
Rome. It appears to us very doubtful,
besides, whether the weak at
Corinth were of Jewish origin. The
more we have examined the question,
the more have we been led to regard
them rather as formerly Gentiles.
Finally, the text of ver. 14 is
incompatible with this opinion. Paul says: “I
am persuaded in the Lord that there is
nothing unclean of itself. ” These
words: of itself , prove that the
pollution appeared to the weak as attaching
to the very nature of the meats, and
not merely contracted by accident.
Baur, in his Apostel Paulus (I. p. 361
et seq.), has attempted to connect
the party of the weak with the
Ebionites , who, according to the description
given by Epiphanius, abstained from
all animal food, or even from food
prepared with animal matter. He also
cites the Clementine Homilies
(dating from Rome in the last third of
the second century), in which the
Apostle Peter thus describes his mode
of life: “I use only bread and oil
and a little pulse,” and where it is
taught that the use of flesh is contrary to
nature, and of diabolical origin. He
cites also the saying of Hegesippus
regarding James the brother of our
Lord: “He ate nothing e[mfucon (
animated ).” As to wine, this critic
refers to the fact that according to
Epiphanius, the most austere of the
Ebionites celebrated the Eucharist
only with unleavened bread and water;
which seems to prove that they
abstained wholly from wine.
Ritschl ( Enst. der altkath. Kirche ,
2d ed. p. 184 et seq.) has given out a
somewhat different hypothesis, which
has been adopted by many
moderns (Mey., Mang., etc.). Our party
of the weak at Rome was
composed, it is said, of former
Essenes. According to this critic, the
fundamental idea of the Essene order
was to realize a permanent priestly
life. Now, it is known that the
priests were forbidden (Lev. 10:9) to drink
wine while they were officiating; the
Essene must therefore have
abstained from it entirely. Moreover,
the priests, being required to eat only
food consecrated to God, and Essenism
rejecting at the same time the
practice of bloody sacrifices, it
followed that they could eat no flesh. If,
therefore, such men had been sold as
prisoners, and carried to Rome as
the result of previous wars, then set
free and converted to the gospel, they
might have carried with them into the
church their former mode of life as
superior in holiness to that of
ordinary Christians. An analogous origin
ought probably to be assigned to the
sect which some years later troubled
the church of Colosse. In general, it
is clear that a certain ascetic dualism
was in the air at this period. And
this was the common source of all the
different tendencies which we have
mentioned.—Only the question
arises—(1) Whether, supposing the weak
had belonged to one of these
parties, Paul could have attached so
little importance to the question
considered in itself (comp. his
polemic in the Epistle to the Colossians);
and (2) whether the attitude of such
Christians would have been so
modest as the following passage
supposes?
Perhaps there is a simpler way of
explaining the origin of such ideas. We
must go back even beyond the law.
According to the narrative of Genesis,
animal food was not originally allowed
to man (Gen. 1:29). It was not till
after the deluge that it was expressly
authorized (9:3). The invention of
wine dates also from this latter
epoch, and the abuse of this drink was
immediately connected with its
discovery. It is easy to understand how
such biblical precedents might have
taken hold of serious readers of the
O. T., and led them to the abstinence
of which our text speaks. In this
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
conduct no Christian principle was
seriously compromised. It was simply
an attempt to return to the primitive
regimen, which easily presented itself
to the mind as the most normal. And
thus is explained why the apostle
does not even touch the root of the
question, and treats it solely on the
side on which it concerns the
maintenance of harmony between the
members of the church.—To finish at
once the exposition of our view, we
shall add that, as appears to us, it
was in the love-feasts that the
difference broke out and gave rise to
certain painful manifestations to
which the apostle desired to put an
end. We think we can give the proof of
this as we study chap. 14.
It has been sometimes thought that in
the first part of this chapter, vv. 1-
12, the apostle was addressing the
weak , with the view of checking their
unjust judgments upon the strong; and
in the second, vv. 13-23, the
strong , to call them to the exercise
of charity toward the weak. This view
does not seem to me exact, at least as
to the first part. Rather Paul begins
by addressing both in this part, in
order to point out to them the duty of
mutual toleration; then he turns
specially to the strong in the second part,
to remind them of the considerate
bearing which love claims of them
toward the weak.
Vv. 1-12.
The first three verses are a sort of
heading, in which the apostle expounds
the ground of difference, and gives
the solution of it provisionally.
Vv. 1, 2. “ Him that is weak in the
faith receive ye, yet not to enter into
discussions of opinions. One hath
faith to eat all things; but another, who
is weak, eateth herbs. ”—The
participle ajsqenw'n , being weak , is not
altogether synonymous with the
adjective ajsqenhv" , weak; it denotes one
whose faith falters (becomes weak) at
a given moment and in a special
case. This expression better spares
the sensibilities of those here spoken
of. The imperative proslambavnesqe ,
receive , addressed to the whole
church, evidently assumes that those
who are recommended to this
favorable reception form only a very
weak minority at Rome. The Greek
expression signifies to take to
oneself with tenderness; comp. 15:7 and
John 14:3, where it is applied to
Christ's conduct in relation to
believers.—The last words of the verse
have been explained in a
multitude of ways. Luther, Olsh.: “but
not so as to excite doubts (
diakrivsei" ) in your neighbor's
inward thoughts
( dialogismw'n ).” There are two
reasons opposed to this meaning;
diavkrisi" does not signify doubt
, and dialogismov" cannot mean simply
thought. The word always denotes in
the N. T. the activity of the
understanding in the service of evil;
comp. Luke 2:35,5:22; 1 Cor. 3:20;
and in our Epistle, 1:21.—Beza,
Vulgate: “but not to dispute with them (
diakrivsei" ) regarding the ideas
which they form of things
( dialogismw'n ).” But
dialogismov" does not denote an idea; it is a
reasoning. — Ruckert : “but not to
reach a still profounder separation of
opinions.” But how could it be thought
that this would be the result of the
reception recommended; and how should
the idea: still profounder , have
been omitted by the apostle?—Meyer:
“but not so as to criticise the
thoughts (of your weak brethren).”
This meaning would require the
singular diavkrisi" , criticism ,
and it does not harmonize with the term
dialogismov" , which applies
rather to the reasonings of a proud wisdom
than to pious scruples.—The following
is the meaning which alone seems
to me natural: “but not to get by this
very reception into debates (
diakrivsei" ), which would
terminate in the end only in vain reasonings (
dialogismoiv ).” This meaning suits
the two substantives used, as well as
the plural form of both. After this
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
general recommendation the apostle
formulates the point of the question.
Ver. 2. The meaning of pisteuvein , to
believe , is determined by its
opposition to ajsqenw'n , being weak:
“who has a faith firm enough to be
able to eat anything without
scruple.”— Eateth herbs , that is to say,
nothing else.
Ver. 3. “ Let not him that eateth,
despise him that eateth not; and let not
him which eateth not, judge him that
eateth; for God hath received him.
”—This verse contains the theme which
is about to be developed down to
ver. 12. The two propositions are
connected in the T. R. by and , and in
the Alex. by but. The second reading
more strongly, perhaps too strongly,
contrasts the two views. The term
despise applies well to one who feels
himself strong, and regards with a
disdainful eye the timid attitude of the
weak; the term judge suits the latter,
who, not understanding the liberty
used by the strong, is disposed to
confound it with license.—The last
words: God hath received him , may
refer to both, or to the latter only (the
strong). The following verses being
addressed more particularly to the
weak, it may possibly be the divine
reception of the strong only to which
Paul wishes here to refer. A being
whom God has taken to Him, whom He
has made one of His own, ought not to
be judged lightly by his brother, as
if he were without master. This is
what is developed in the following verse.
Ver. 4. “ Who art thou that judgest
another man's servant? To his own
master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he
shall stand; for God is powerful to
hold him up. ”—The idea is: It is to
the advantage or disadvantage of his
master, not of his fellow- servants,
that a servant fulfils or neglects his
task. The terms standing and falling
refer, not to the servant's absolution
or condemnation at the judgment, but
to his daily faithfulness or
unfaithfulness, and to the
strengthening or weakening of his inward
relation to Christ. What proves this,
is the ground for confidence indicated
in the words: “Yea, he shall stand;
for God is powerful to hold him up.”
There is no more need of being held up
, or at least of being so by the
power of God, in the judgment day. Of
course the servant's sincerity, in
the line of conduct which he has
adopted, is assumed, even if he were in
error on a particular point. Paul
affirms that the Lord will be able to hold
him in communion with Himself.—Here
the Lord is probably, as generally
in the N. T., Christ. It is He,
indeed, who is Master of the house, and for
whom the servants labor (Luke
12:41-48).—There is a slight touch of irony
in this reason: “Yea, he shall be held
up.” It is as if Paul said to the weak:
“thou mayest assure thyself about him;
for, even if he is mistaken, his
Master is powerful enough to avert the
bad effects of a piece of flesh.”
This argument applies, of course, only
to things which arise exclusively on
the domain of the individual
conscience.—In the last proposition, the
Greco-Lat. reading oJ Qeov" , God
, it seems to me, ought to be preferred
to that of the other documents: oJ
kuvrio" , the Lord; for the act in question
is that of strengthening, which is
naturally ascribed to God. The reading oJ
kuvrio" has probably arisen from
the tw'/ kurivw/ which precedes.—How
easily do these verses find their
explanation, if we imagine the church
assembled for the love-feast! The
majority gives an affectionate welcome
to the minority. They sit down
altogether for the feast; then immediately
the difference breaks out between
neighbors. It is the moment for
watching: “Well!” says the apostle,
“no perverse debates on this occasion;
but let each beware of the danger
which threatens him at this instant, the
one of despising, the other of judging.
Vv. 5, 6. “ One man distinguisheth one
day from another, the other
esteemeth every day alike: let every
man be fully persuaded in his own
mind. He that regardeth the day,
regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that
regardeth not the day, to the Lord he does
not regard it. He that eateth,
eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God
thanks; and
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
he that eateth not, to the Lord he
eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
”—Paul here adduces an example taken
from the same domain of
external practices, and in which the
two opposite lines of conduct may be
also followed with equal fidelity. The
days are those of the Jewish feasts,
which Judeo-Christians continued for
the most part to observe: Sabbaths,
new moons, etc. (Col. 2:15). Did this
example really exist at Rome, or did
the apostle choose it from the life of
the church in general, to have the
opportunity of better explaining his
thought? The first is the more natural
supposition. For there must have been
in the church of Rome a certain
number of Judeo-Christians, though
they did not form the majority.—The
for , which is read in some MSS. is
probably owing to a copyist's habit.
The word krivnein , to judge ,
frequently takes the sense of distinguishing.
To judge one day among others , may
therefore signify: to distinguish it
favorably from the others; to set it
apart as more worthy to be sanctified.
There is a little irony in the second
alternative: to discern every day. For it
is evident that there is no longer any
distinction when all are distinguished.
To set apart every day as holy, is no
longer to sanctify any one specially.
Between the two modes of acting thus
expressed, the apostle does not
decide. All he asks of any one is,
that his practice should obey a personal
and deliberate conviction. The
expression ejn tw'/ noiv , in his mind ,
contains the idea of a serious
examination; and the term plhroforei'sqai ,
strictly: to be filled to the brim ,
denotes a state of conviction which leaves
no more room for the least hesitation.
Ver. 6. The apostle states the reason
why the two lines of conduct are
equally admissible. It is because,
opposed as they are, they are inspired
by one and the same desire, that of
serving the Lord. The second
proposition: “He that regardeth not
the day”..., is omitted in the Alex. and
Greco-Lat. texts. Notwithstanding all
the efforts of commentators, and of
Hofmann in particular, to justify the
absence of this parallel proposition,
this reading appears to me untenable.
It is necessary strangely to force
the meaning of the first alternative:
“He that regardeth...regardeth unto the
Lord,” to bring it into logical
relation to the two ways of acting explained in
ver. 5. And it is impossible to refer
it only to one of them. The confounding
of the two fronei' by a careless
copyist must have caused the omission, as
in so many other similar cases.—The
apostle means that the man who, in
his religious practice, keeps the
Jewish feast-days, does so for the
purpose of doing homage to the Lord by
resting in Him, as the man who
does not observe them does so for the
purpose of laboring actively for
Him.
It has been concluded from these
sayings of Paul, that the obligation to
observe Sunday as a day divinely
instituted, was not compatible with
Christian spirituality, as this was
understood by St. Paul. The context does
not allow us to draw such a
conclusion. The believer who observes
Sunday does not in the least do so
under the thought of ascribing to this
day a superior holiness to that of
other days. To him all days are, as the
apostle thinks, equal in holy
consecration. As rest is not holier than work,
no more is Sunday holier than other
days. It is another form of
consecration, the periodical return of
which, like the alternations of sleep
and waking, arises from the conditions
of our physico-psychical existence.
The Christian does not cease to be a
man by becoming a spiritual man.
And as one day of rest in seven was
divinely instituted at the creation in
behalf of natural humanity, one does
not see why the believer should not
require this periodical rest as well
as the unregenerate man. “The Sabbath
was made for man; ” so long as the
Christian preserves his earthly nature,
this saying applies to him, and should
turn not to the detriment, but to the
profit of his spiritual life. The
keeping of Sunday thus
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
understood has nothing in common with
the Sabbatical observance which
divides life into two parts, the one
holy, the other profane. It is this legal
distinction which Paul excludes in our
ver. 5 and Col. 2.
In the second part of ver. 6, Paul
returns to the principal case. He does so
simply by the copula kaiv , and , and
not by a wJsauvtw" , likewise; which
seems to prove that the example taken
from the keeping of days was not
a simple comparison chosen at pleasure
from the general life of the
church, but a case which was really
found at Rome itself. As a proof that
he who eats (of everything), eats to
the Lord, the apostle adduces ( for )
the fact that he gives thanks for
those meats. The object of this giving of
thanks is God, as the author of
nature.—In speaking of him who does not
eat (of everything), Paul does not
say, as in the previous case: “ for he
giveth thanks,” but: “ and he giveth
thanks.” It was unnecessary, indeed,
to prove that by abstaining he did so
for the Lord; that was understood of
itself. The real meaning of this
proposition is therefore: “And he does not
the less give thanks, he too, for this
frugal repast.”—As to these two
thanksgivings, which mark the two
different ways of acting with a seal of
equal holiness, how much more of a
dramatic character do they take
when we imagine them as offered by
these two classes of believers at the
same moment and at the same table!
This so remarkable saying of the
apostle furnishes us with the true means
of deciding all those questions of
casuistry which so often arise in
Christian life, and cause the believer
so much embarrassment: May I
allow myself this or that pleasure?
Yes, if I can enjoy it to the Lord, and
while giving Him thanks for it; no, if
I cannot receive it as a gift from His
hand, and bless Him for it. This mode
of solution respects at once the
rights of the Lord and those of
individual liberty.
The contrast between these two ways of
acting, partaking and abstaining,
which we must beware of converting
into a contrast of faithfulness and
unfaithfulness, was only the special
application of a more general contrast
which pervades the whole of human
life: that between living and dying.
Paul, always under the necessity of
embracing questions in all their width,
extends in the following verses that
which he has just been treating to the
entire domain of life and death.
Vv. 7, 8. “ For none of us liveth to
himself, and no man dieth to himself.
For, whether we live, we live unto the
Lord; whether we die , we die unto
the Lord. Whether we live, therefore,
or die , we are the Lord's. ”—In
everything that concerns the active
use of life (such as the enjoyment of a
kind of food), as well as in
everything connected with the wasting of it, of
which death is the termination (such
as abstinence), the Christian
depends not on his own will, but on
the Lord's. Paul does not mean to say
thereby how we ought to act. For in
that case the following verse would
require to be connected with this one
by therefore , and not by for. It is a
fact which he expresses; he supposes
it realized in the life of his readers.
The truth of this supposition follows
from the meaning of the word hJmw'n ,
us , us believers. Faith, if it is
real, implies this consequence. Once we are
believers, the current of life with
all it embraces, and the current of death
with all that accelerates it, tend no
longer self-ward, as in our natural
existence. Consequently we cannot be
called by men to give account of
our conduct, though it may differ from
theirs.
Ver. 8. The proof of ver. 7 is given
in ver. 8 ( for ). Our life and death being
through the fact of faith at the
Lord's service, the contrast between living
and dying is thus completely dependent
on the higher direction impressed
on our being. Comp. 2 Cor. 5:15 and
Rom. 12:1. For the believer to live, is
to serve Christ; to die, is to be
united to Him more perfectly (Phil. 1:21-24;
2 Cor. 5:6-9). Hence it follows ( ou\n
,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
therefore ) that he remains in every
state of the case the Lord's property.
As the dative tw'/ kurivw/ , to the
Lord , in the first part of the verse,
expressed consecration; so the
genitive tou' kurivou , literally, of the Lord ,
in the last proposition, expresses
possession. We remain His in both
cases. The bond which unites us to Him
can only be strengthened by the
so varied circumstances summed up in
the two words: life and
death.—The first and third time we
should probably read the subjunctive
ajpoqnhvskwmen ; for ejavn , if,
whether , is construed in the N. T. only with
the subjunctive. But the second time
the indicative ajpoqnhvskomen must
certainly be read; for it is a fact
which Paul is stating. Those who have
read the subjunctive, have mistaken it
for an exhortation.
The solidity of the bond of possession
which unites the believer to the
Lord, rests on his side on the
subjective fact of faith, but on the Lord's side
on an objective fact which nothing can
shake: the sovereignty of the
glorified Christ, in virtue of which
He evermore controls the contrast
between life and death (ver. 9).
Ver. 9. “ For to this end Christ died
and revived;that He might be Lord both
of the dead and living. ”—With the
view of securing the possession of His
own, whether as living or dead, Jesus
began by resolving in His own
person the contrast between life and
death. He did so by dying and
reviving.—For what is one raised again
except a dead man living? Thus it
is that He reigns simultaneously over
the two domains of being through
which His own are called to pass, and
that He can fulfil His promise to
them, John 10:28: “None shall pluck
them out of my hand.” Comp. also
John 11:25,
26. Of the three principal readings
presented by the documents, the
simplest and most agreeable to the
context is certainly the Alexandrine
reading: “He died and revived.” These
two terms correspond to the living
and the dead. This very simple
relation has been changed in the other
readings. The word rose again , in the
Byz. reading, has evidently been
introduced to form the transition
between these: died and revived. The
reading of two Greco-Lats. and of
Irenaeus: “lived, died, and rose again,”
has certainly arisen from the desire
to call up here the earthly life of Jesus;
which was not necessary, since the
domain of the living belongs now to
Jesus, not in virtue of His earthly
existence, but in consequence of His
present life as the glorified One. To
understand this saying rightly, Eph.
4:10 should be compared, where the
apostle, after pointing to Christ
“descended into the lowest parts (the
abode of the dead),” then “ascended
to the highest heavens,” adds: “that
He might fill all things.” Which signifies
that by traversing all the domains of
existence Himself, He has so won
them, that in passing through them in
our turn as believers, we never
cease to be His, and to have Him as
our Lord. Hence the inference
expressed ver. 10.
Ver. 10. “ But thou, why dost thou
judge thy brother? or thou also, why
dost thou set at nought thy brother?
For we shall all stand at the judgmentseat
of Christ. ”—The dev , but , contrasts
the incompetent judgment of a
brother , with the judgment of this
one Lord. —The first question is
addressed to the weak; comp. ver.
3. The second, connected by: or thou
also , to the strong. The also is
explained by the fact that contempt is
likewise a mode of judging. No one
ought to be withdrawn from his
rightful judge, who is the Lord alone.—The
all is prefixed to remind us that no
one will escape from that judge. It is
well said, no doubt, John 5:24, that
the believer “shall not come into
judgment;” but that does not mean that
he shall not appear before the
tribunal (2 Cor. 5:10). Only he will
appear there to be owned as one who
has already voluntarily judged himself
by the light of Christ's word and
under the discipline of His Spirit;
comp. John 12:48 and 1 Cor.
11:31.—The Alexs. and Greco-Lats. read
tou' Qeou' : “the judgment-seat of
God. ” This expression must then be
explained in the sense: the divine
tribunal , where Christ will sit as
God's
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
representative. For never is God
Himself represented as seated on the
judgment throne. But is it not the two
following verses which have given
rise to this reading?
Vv. 11, 12. “ For it is written, As I
live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow
to me, and every tongue shall confess
to God. So then , every one of us
shall give account of himself to God.
”—In ver. 11, Paul quotes Isa. 45:23,
where the universal homage is
described, which all creatures will render
to God at the end of the world. This homage
supposes and implies the
judgment, by which they shall all have
been brought to His feet. If we read
of Christ , and not of God , at the
end of ver. 10, it must be held that the
apostle sees this last royal
manifestation of Jehovah, proclaimed by
Isaiah, finding its realization in
Christ; comp., indeed, Phil. 2:10, 11, where
the words of Isaiah in our verse are
applied to Jesus glorified.—The form
of affirmation in the original text
is: I have sworn by myself. Paul
substitutes, unintentionally no doubt,
a somewhat different form of oath,
but one which is also frequent in the
O. T.: “I am living that”...the meaning
of which is: “As truly as I am the
eternally living One, so truly shall this
come to pass.” The words: saith the
Lord , are here added by the apostle.
Then he substitutes for the
expression: shall swear by me (as the one true
God), the term “shall do me homage” (
ejxomologei'sqai ). This word, which
strictly signifies to confess , might
allude to the judgment which will lay
every man low in the conviction of his
guilt, and draw forth from the heart
of all an acknowledgment of God's
holiness and righteousness. But all
that this term expresses may simply be
the homage of adoration, which
proclaims God as the one being worthy
to be glorified; comp. Luke 2:38;
Phil. 2:11.—The words to God are the
paraphrase of the to me , in Isaiah.
In ver. 12, Paul applies to every
individual in particular what has just been
said of all in general. The preceding
context signified: “Judge not thy
brother, for God will judge him; ”
this verse signifies: “Judge thyself, for
God will judge
thee. ”—Paul here repeats the
expression tw'/ Qew' , to God , rather than
say tw'/ Cristw'/ , to Christ ,
because he wishes to contrast in a general
way divine, the alone truly just
judgment, with human judgments.
Vv. 13-23.
After having addressed the strong and
the weak simultaneously, the
apostle further addresses a warning to
the former, to induce them not to
use their liberty except in conformity
with the law of love. As is observed
by Hofmann, he had nothing similar to
recommend to the weak; for he
who is inwardly bound cannot change
his conduct, while the strong man
who feels himself free may at pleasure
make use of his right or waive it in
practice. To induce the strong
believer to make sacrifice of his liberty, the
apostle brings to bear on him the two
following motives: 1st. Vv. 13-19a,
the duty of not wounding the heart of
the weak or producing inward
irritation; 2d. Vv. 19b-23, the fear
of destroying God's work within him by
leading him to do something against
his conscience.
Ver. 13. “ Let us not, therefore,
judge one another any more, but judge this
rather: that no man put a
stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his
brother's way. ”—The first proposition
sums up the whole of the first part
of the chapter; for it is still
addressed to both parties; it forms at the same
time the transition to the second. The
object of the verb: one another ,
proves that the term judge here
includes the contempt of the strong for the
weak, as well as the condemnation
which these take the liberty of
pronouncing on the former.—From the
second proposition of the verse
onward, the apostle turns to the
strong exclusively. He makes a sort of
play on the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
meaning of the word krivnein , to
judge: “Do not judge one another; but, if
you will judge absolutely, judge as follows.”
Judge the second time has
the meaning of decide; comp. Tit.
3:12.—The wise decision to take is,
according to Paul, to avoid anything
that might cause a shock (
provskomma ), or even a fall (
skavndalon ), to your neighbor. There must
be, whatever Meyer may say, a
difference of meaning between the two
substantives; not only because Paul
does not use pleonasms, but also on
account of the particle h[ , or ,
which undoubtedly expresses a gradation:
or even. One strikes against (
proskovptein ), the result is a wound; but one
stumbles against an obstacle (
skandalivzesqai ), the result is a fall. The
second case is evidently graver than
the first. It is easy even to recognize
in these two terms the theme of the
two following developments: the first
relates to the wounded feeling of the
weak, with all its vexing
consequences; the second to the sin
which one is in danger of making
him commit by leading him into an act
contrary to his conscience. The first
of these evils, as we have said, is referred
to in vv. 14-19 a.
Vv. 14, 15. “ I know, and am persuaded
in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is
unclean of itself:except that to him
that esteemeth anything to be unclean,
it is unclean. Now if thy brother be
grieved because of food, thou walkest
no more charitably. Destroy not by thy
food, him for whom Christ died.
”—Paul does not wish to discuss the
matter; but yet he cannot conceal his
conviction; and he expresses it in
passing, in ver. 14, as a concession he
must make on the side of the strong.
At bottom, it is they who are right.
Oi\da , I know , indicates a rational,
theoretic conviction, such as even a
Jew, trained by the O. T. to a true
spirituality, might reach. The second
verb pevpeismai , I am persuaded ,
goes further; it indicates that this
conviction has penetrated to his very
conscience, and set it practically free
from all perplexity. The words: in the
Lord Jesus , remind us that it is He
who has put an end to the obligations
imposed by the ceremonial law. The
emancipation which faith finds in Him
arises not only from His doctrine
(Matt. 15:11, for example), but above
all from the redemption wrought by
Him. This clause: in the Lord Jesus ,
bears on the second verb; there is
nothing except the possession of
salvation which can practically give full
liberty to the soul.—Several ancient
commentators have referred the
words dij aujtou' , to Jesus Christ:
“Through Him there is no longer
anything unclean.” But the negative
form of the proposition is not
favorable to this sense. Paul would
rather have said: “everything is clean
through Him.” It is more natural to
understand this dij aujtou' in the sense
of: of itself (as would obviously be
the case with the reading dij eJautou' ):
“Nothing is unclean in its own nature
(in the matter of food);” comp. 1 Cor.
10:26; 1 Tim. 4:4, 5; Tit. 1:15.—The
restriction eij mhv , except , applies to
the idea of uncleanness in general,
without taking account of the limitation
of itself. This slightly incorrect use
of eij mhv has given rise, though
erroneously, to the belief that this
particle might signify but; comp. Matt.
12:4; Luke 4:26, 27; John 5:19; Gal.
1:19, 2:16, etc.—This restriction,
whereby Paul reminds us that what is
regarded as unclean becomes
really so to him who uses it under
this idea, paves the way for indicating
the voluntary limits which the strong
should be able to impose on himself
in the exercise of his liberty.
Ver. 15. If this verse be connected
with the preceding by for , with the
majority of the Mjj., it is very
difficult to understand their logical relation.
Meyer paraprhases thus: “It is not
without reason that I remind you of that
(the preceding restriction); for love
is bound to take account of such a
scruple.” Hofmann rightly judges this
explanation of the for impossible; but
is his own less so? He takes the
phrase following in the interrogative
sense: “ For , if thy brother is
grieved thereby, wouldest thou for this error
on his part henceforth cease to walk
toward him in love?” It is
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
difficult to imagine anything more
forced. We must therefore, though the
T. R. dev , now then or but , has only
a single Mj. (L) in its favor, prefer this
reading (Reiche, Ruck ., De W.,
Philip.). This dev may be taken in the
sense of now then , or in that of but.
The adversative sense seems to me
preferable. The but refers to the
first part of ver. 14: “I know that nothing is
unclean..., but if, nevertheless...The
meaning is excellent, and the
construction the more admissible
because the second part of ver. 14 was
a simple parenthesis.— Lupei'tai , is
grieved, hurt; this word expresses the
painful and bitter feeling produced in
the heart of the weak by the
spectacle of the free and bold eating
of the strong.—With the words:
“Thou walkest no more ( oujkevti )
charitably,” we must evidently
understand the idea: when thou actest
thus. The threat, added by the
apostle, of compromising thereby our
neighbor's salvation, is so grave,
that it is not explicable at the first
glance, and one is tempted to refer it to
the sin which the weak believer would
commit by imitating the strong;
comp. ver. 20. But it is not till
afterward that Paul comes to this side of the
question, and it is far from probable
that the weak man, at the very time
when he is wounded by the conduct of
the strong, could be tempted to
imitate him. These words therefore
refer to the profound irritation, the
hurtful judgments, the breach of
brotherly ties, which must result from
such wounding. The asyndeton is
striking: it shows Paul's emotion when
writing these last words.... “By thy meat
make him perish whom Christ
saved by His
death!” The whole scene supposed by
this verse is infinitely better
understood if it is placed in the full
love-feast, than if the strong and the
weak are supposed taking their meal at
their own houses. The following
verses (vv. 16-19a) complete by some
secondary considerations the
principal motive which has been
expressed at the end of ver. 15.
Ver. 16. “ Let not, then, the good you
enjoy be evil spoken of. ”—The
expression your good has been applied
to the kingdom of God (Meyer), or
to faith (De Wette), or to the gospel
(Philip.), or to the superiority of the
Christian to the non- Christian
(Hofmann). But all these meanings want
appropriateness. The context itself
shows that the subject in question is
Christian liberty (Orig., Calv.,
Thol., etc.). The you applies not to all
believers, but to the strong only.
Paul recommends them not to use their
liberty so as to provoke the
indignation and blame of their weaker
brethren. The blessing they enjoy ought
not to be changed by their lack of
charity into a source of cursing.
Carefully comp. 1 Cor. 8:9-11, and 10:29,
30.
Ver. 17. “ For the kingdom of God is
not food or drink, but righteousness
and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
”—Nothing could be simpler than the
connection of this verse with the
preceding. The force from above, which
is the essence of the kingdom of God,
does not consist in being able to
eat or drink more or less freely and
regardlessly toward our neighbor, but
in realizing in life the three
dispositions mentioned, by triumphing over our
own tastes and vanity. The three
terms: righteousness, peace, joy , ought,
according to the context, to be taken
in the social sense, which is only an
application of their religious sense.
Righteousness: moral rectitude
whereby we render to our neighbor what
is his due—here particularly
respect for his convictions. Peace:
good harmony between all the
members of the church. Joy: that
individual and collective exultation which
prevails among believers when
brotherly communion makes its sweetness
felt, and no one is saddened. By such
dispositions the soul finds itself
raised to a sphere where all
sacrifices become easy, and charity reigns
without obstacle. Such is the reality
of the kingdom of God on the earth.
Would it not then be folly to seek it
in the inconsiderate use of some meat
or drink, at the expense of those the
only true blessings?—By the words:
in the Holy Spirit , Paul indicates
the source of these virtues: it is this
divine guest who, by
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
His presence, produces them in the
church; the instant He retires grieved,
He carries them with Him.—It is
incomprehensible how this passage has
not succeeded in moving Meyer from the
interpretation of the term
kingdom of God , which he has adopted
once for all in his commentary,
applying it invariably to the future
Messianic kingdom.
Ver. 18. “ For he that in these things
serveth Christ, is acceptable to God
and approved of men. ”—So true is it
that it is in these dispositions the
kingdom of God consists, that the
goodwill of God and men rests only on
him who cultivates them. If we read
ejn touvtw/ , we may refer the pronoun
( him or that ) either to the principle
expressed in ver. 17 (“thus”), or to the
Holy Spirit. The first meaning is
forced; it would have required kata; tou'to ,
according to (this principle). Nor is
the second less so; for it would be the
merest commonplace to say that he who
serves Christ in the Holy Spirit is
acceptable to God. We must therefore
read, with the T. R. and the Byzs.,
ejn touvtoi" , in these
dispositions. Such a man is acceptable to God , who
reads the heart, and he enjoys merited
consideration even in the
judgment of men. Every one, Christian
or non-Christian, recognizes him to
be a man really animated with power
from above, the opposite of a fool or
a boaster; dovkimo" : an approved
Christian, who has stood the test of
trial.
Vv. 19, 20. “ Let us therefore follow
after the things which make for peace,
and things which pertain to mutual
edification.For food destroy not the
work of God; all things indeed are
pure, but a thing becomes evil for that
man who eateth in a state of scandal.
”—Ver. 19 forms the transition from
the first to the second reason; 19a
repeats the first: the obligation to
preserve harmony in the church? 19b
introduces the second: the
obligation to do nothing which might
be injurious to our neighbor's
edification. The call, therefore, is
no longer merely to avoid what may
wound and vex our neighbor, but also
to respect and not compromise the
work of God already wrought in his
heart. It is obvious, as Meyer
acknowledges, that we must read diwvkwmen
, let us seek , and not
diwvkomen , we seek. The Greco-Latin
reading, according to which we
should require to read fulavxwmen ,
let us keep , as the verb of the last
proposition of the verse: “Let us keep
the things which are for edification,”
may very probably be authentic. The
omission of this verb would be
explained by the fact that the
copyists did not understand that the apostle
was passing to a new reason.
Ver. 20. The asyndeton between vv. 19
and 20 proves how acutely the
apostle is alive to the responsibility
of the strong: destroy the work of God!
In ver. 14, where it was personal
pain, wounding, which was referred to,
the apostle spoke of making the
brother himself perish. Here, where the
occasioning of a scandal is the matter
in question, he does not speak any
more of the person, but of the work of
God in the person.—It matters not
that food is free from uncleanness in
itself; it is no longer so as soon as
man uses it against his conscience.
Ruckert has taken the word kakovn ,
evil , as the attribute of a verb
understood: “ Eating becomes evil for the
man who does it against his
conscience.” Meyer prefers to take from the
preceding proposition the understood
subject to; kaqarovn , what is clean
in itself: “Even the food which is
clean of itself becomes evil when it is
eaten thus.” But it seems to me
simpler to make kakovn the subject: “
There is evil (sin) for him who eateth
in such circumstances.”— Dia;
proskovmmato" , in a state of
scandal. On this use of the diav , comp. 2:27.
Is the reference to the strong man,
who eats while occasioning scandal, or
to the weak brother, who lets himself
be drawn into eating by succumbing
to the scandal? Evidently the second.
Paul is not speaking here of the evil
which the strong believer does to
himself, but of that which he does to his
brother carried away into
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
sin.—We may be astonished to find the
apostle regarding the salvation of
the weak as compromised by this one
trespass. But is not one voluntary
sin interposing between Christ and the
believer enough to disunite them,
and if this sin is not blotted out,
and the state is prolonged, to plunge him
again in death?
Ver. 21 is the summing up of the whole
warning addressed to the strong
from ver. 13.
Ver. 21. “ It is good not to eat flesh
and not to drink wine, and [to do
nothing] whereby thy brother
stumbleth, or is offended, or even is made
weak. ”—The word kalovn , it is good,
honorable , is tacitly opposed to the
notion of humiliation, which in the
eyes of the strong attached to
abstinence. There is nothing, except
what is honorable, Paul means, in
abstaining when we sacrifice our
liberty to charity.—Before the pronoun
ejn w|/ , wherein , we must understand
the verb poiei'n ti , to do anything.
—Of the three verbs which the T. R.
reads, the first refers to the wounding
of the heart caused to our neighbor by
conduct which he disapproves; the
second, to the sin which he would be
led to commit by being drawn away
to do what his conscience condemns;
the third, to the want of regard for
the scruples with which he is affected
through weakness of faith. So: to
make him judge ill of you; to make him
do what he condemns, or to do in
his presence something which raises a
scruple in him. The h , or , which
connects the two last verbs, should be
translated by: or even only. —The
reading lupei'tai , is grieved ,
instead of proskovptei , is offended , in the
Sinait . , is certainly mistaken. As
to the omission of the last two verbs in
the Alex. text, it is probably the
effect of an oversight; for the verb
proskovptein , to be offended , would
not completely sum up the warning
given to the strong (see at ver.
13).
The last two verses are the conclusion
and summary of the entire chapter.
ver. 22 applies to the strong; ver. 23
to the weak.
Vv. 22, 23. “ As to thee, thou hast
faith;have it to thyself before God.
Happy is he that judgeth not himself
in that thing which he approveth! But
he that doubteth is condemned if he
eat, because he eateth not of faith.
Whatsoever is not done by faith is
sin. ”—The proposition: thou hast faith ,
might be taken in the interrogative
sense; but there is more force in the
simple affirmation. The Alexs. read
h{n , which , after pivstin , faith. The
meaning in that case is: “The faith
which thou hast, keep.” The ancient
versions do not favor this reading,
and neither is it in keeping with the
context, which requires that the two
cases treated should be put expressly
face to face with one another, with a
view to the definite counsel to be
stated for each. The words keep , etc.
allude to the sacrifice which Paul
had asked the strong to make in his
external conduct. Paul reminds him
that he does not in the least ask the
abandonment of his internal
conviction, and invites him to
preserve it intact in his heart under the eye
of God.—By the last words: Happy ...,
he gives him to understand that it is
a feeling of gratitude and not of
pride, with which he ought to be inspired
by the degree of faith, and of liberty
in faith, to which he has attained.
Here, as elsewhere, the word krivnein
must be translated by judge , and
not by condemn. “To condemn oneself in
what he adopts as good,” would
be a contradictory idea. The subject
in question is a simple inquiry as to
the course which has been adopted once
for all. Happy the man who no
longer feels any scruple, nor puts any
question of conscience to himself
regarding the resolution he has taken.
Dokimavzein , to find good after
examination.
Ver. 23 applies to the opposite case:
that of doubt in regard to the line to
be followed. Conscience has not
reached oneness with itself; hence the
term diakrivnesqai , to be divided into
two men, the one of whom says yes,
the other
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
no.—Many give to the word pivsti"
, faith , the abstract sense of conviction.
But there is nothing to authorize us
to take from the word so common in
Paul its religious signification. It
refers, as always, to the acceptance of
the salvation won by Christ. What a
man cannot do as His redeemed one
and in the joy of His salvation, must
not be done at all. Otherwise this act,
of which faith is not the soul,
becomes sin, and may lead to the result
indicated ver. 20: the total
destruction of God's work in us.
Of the position of the doxology ,
16:25-27, at the end of chap. xiv.—A
considerable number of documents place
here, after ver. 23, the three
doxological verses which, in the
generally Received text, close the Epistle
(16:25-27). These are the Mj. L,
nearly 220 Mnn., the Lectionaria , the
Philoxenian Syriac version, some ancient
MSS. mentioned by Origen,
finally, the Fathers of the Greek
Church (Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodoret,
etc. There may be added the MS. G and
the Latin translation which
accompanies it (g), which leave a
blank here, as well as the Mjj. A and P
and three Mnn., which read these three
verses in both places. We shall
complete these indications when we
come to 16:25. Should it be held that
these verses have their original place
here, and were afterward
transposed from it to the end of the
Epistle? Or did they, on the contrary,
form originally the conclusion of the
letter, and have certain copyists
transferred them to this place for
some reason or other? Or, finally, should
we regard this passage as a later
interpolation, which was placed
sometimes at the end of chap. 14,
sometimes at the end of chap. 16?
There might be a fourth supposition,
viz., that the apostle himself repeated
at the end of his letter this passage,
placed originally at the end of our
chapter. But such a repetition would
be without example or object. As to
the apostolic origin of the passage,
we shall examine it at 16:27.
The question has more importance than
appears at the first glance; for it
has a somewhat close connection with
that of the authenticity of chaps.
15, 16. If the apostle closed chap. 14
with this formula of adoration, it is
probable that he meant thereby to
terminate his Epistle; consequently all
that follows would be open to the
suspicion of being unauthentic. True,
Reuss says, that even though the last
three verses were placed at the end
of chap xiv., “there would arise
therefrom no prejudice unfavorable to the
authenticity of chap. 15;” the apostle
might have intended “to lay down the
pen and close his discourse with a
short prayer; then he bethought
himself to add a few pages.” We doubt,
however, whether a real example
of such procedure can be quoted, and
we think that if the true position of
these three verses was indeed at the
end of chap. 14, the fact would
prove indirectly either that chaps. 15
and 16 are the work of an
interpolator, or that, if they
proceeded from the apostle's pen, they
belonged originally to some other
writing, whence they were transferred to
this.
Let us examine the different
hypotheses made on this subject: 1st.
Hofmann has attempted to bring these
three verses into the apostolic text
by making them the transition from
chap. 14 to chap. 15. According to
him, the expression: “To Him that is
of power to stablish you” (16:25), is in
close connection with the discussion
of chap. 14 relative to the strong and
the weak; and the dative tw'/
dunamevnw/ , to Him that is of power ...is
dependent on the verb ojfeivlomen , we
owe (15:1): “We owe to Him that is
of power to stablish us to concur in
His work by bearing the burdens of the
weak.” The relation is ingeniously
discovered; but this explanation is
nevertheless inadmissible. Not only
would this dative: to Him that is of
power , be separated from the verb on
which it depends by a doxological
amplification out of all proportion,
but especially the dev , now then , which
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
accompanies the verb we owe ,
indicates clearly the beginning of a new
sentence.
2d. Baur, Volkmar, Lucht, place the doxology
here, but as a later
interpolation, and infer from this
fact the total or almost total unauthenticity
of chaps. 15 and 16. According to
Lucht, the true conclusion of the
Epistle, which immediately followed
14:23, was suppressed by the elders
of the church of Rome as too severe
for the weak of chap. 14. But it was
discovered again afterward in the
archives of this church, and amplified in
two different ways, in the form of the
doxology 16:25- 27, and in the more
extended form of the passage 15:1-16:24;
these two conclusions, at first
distinct, were afterward fused into
one, which produced the now generally
received form. Volkmar enters still
more into detail. The true apostolic
conclusion may, according to him, be
found with certainty and in a
complete form in chaps. 15 and 16. It
consists of the two passages 15:33-
16:2, and 16:21-24. The rest of these
two chapters embraces additions
intended to co-operate in the
pacification of the church. They proceed
principally from two authors, the one
in the east, who added the doxology
about 145; the other in the west, who
composed nearly all the rest about
120.—We are struck at once with the
arbitrariness there is in the
hypothesis of Lucht. What! elders take
the liberty of suppressing the end
of the apostolic writing! Then they
preserve it in the archives of the
church, and it becomes in the hands of
some writer or other, along with
some fragments of an Epistle to the
Ephesians, the theme of our last two
chapters! This is a romance which in
any case could only gain some
historical probability if we were to
discover in chaps. 15 and 16 very
positive proofs of their
unauthenticity. Volkmar holds that the authentic
conclusion has been wholly preserved,
though mixed with a conglomerate
of diverse interpolations. But would
this close be sufficient? The apostle
had introduced his didactic treatise
with a long preamble in the letter form
(1:1-15). Was it possible that in
closing the writing he should not return, at
least for a few moments, to the
epistolary form with which he had begun?
Now it is evident that the few words
which Volkmar preserves as authentic
by no means correspond to a preamble
at once so grave and affectionate
as the beginning of the Epistle. And
it is impossible to understand how
Paul could pass suddenly from the end
of the practical treatise:
“Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”
(14:23), to the words which, according to
Volkmar, immediately followed: “The
God of peace be with you all! Amen.
I commend unto you Phoebe”...No, it
was not thus the apostle composed.
3d. Since, then, it is impossible to
find a place for this doxology in the
didactic tissue of chaps. 14 and 15;
and since, on the other hand, it
cannot be held that it indicates the
conclusion of the Epistle (at the end of
chap. 14)—it only remains to have
recourse to a third solution. The weight
of critical authorities makes the
balance incline in favor of the position of
these three verses at the end of chap.
16. What circumstance could have
led to their migration, in a certain
number of documents, to the end of
chap. 14? If we keep account of the
fact demonstrated by the study of the
text of the whole N. T., that most of
the errors of the Byz. documents arise
from the tendency to adapt the text to
the necessities of public reading,
we shall be led to the supposition
that in very ancient times the reading of
our Epistle in the assemblies of the
church stopped at the end of chap. 14,
because from that point the didactic
part, properly so called, terminated.
But the reading could not end so
abruptly. There was written therefore on
the margin, for the use of the reader,
the doxology which closed the entire
Epistle; and, as has so often
happened, it passed from the margin into the
text at this place. So it has come
about that it is found here in the
documents of Byz. origin, and
particularly in the Lectionaria , or collections
of passages intended for public
reading. It is objected, no doubt, that
chaps. 15 and 16
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
appear in all our ancient
lectionaries. But the period at which the omission
of these two chapters would have taken
place is long anterior to the date
of the collections of pericopes which
have been preserved to us. This way
of explaining the transposition of the
doxology seems to us preferable to
the reasons stated by Meyer. If it is
so, we understand how this doxology
is found in both places at once in
some documents, and how it is wholly
wanting in some others. Certain
copyists, doubtful about the position to be
given to it, put it in both places;
certain others, made suspicious by this
double position, rejected it
altogether. It is singular, we acknowledge, that
it was not rather placed after ver. 13
of chap. 15, so as to embrace also in
the public reading the passage we are
now going to study (15:1-13). It is
impossible at this date to discover
the circumstance which has led to the
choice rather of the end of chap. 14.
15:1-13.
Here, according to M. Renan, we return
to the text of the copy addressed
to the church of Rome; for, according
to him, chap. 15 formed the
conclusion of the Epistle destined for
this church. If this view were well
grounded, the first verse of chap. 15
must have immediately followed the
last of chap. 11; for chaps. 12, 13,
and 14 only belonged to the copies
intended for other churches. Is this
hypothesis probable? What connection
is there between the end of chap. 11,
celebrating the wisdom of God in
the course of history, and this
distinction between the strong and the weak
with which chap. 15 begins? This
contrast fits in, on the contrary, in the
closest possible way to the subject of
chap. 14. Schultz feels this so
much, that though sharing Renan's
opinion in regard to the three
preceding chapters, up to a certain
point, he still makes the first six verses
of chap. 15 the continuation and
conclusion of the passage chap. 14, and
not till ver. 7 does he find the
resumption of the true Epistle to the
Romans, which closed, according to
him, with our ver. 13. Thus in the
apostolic copy it was ver. 7:
“Wherefore receive ye one another as Christ
also received you,” which immediately
followed the close of chap. 11. But
this sudden transition to a hortatory
application, after so vast a
development as that of chap. 11, is
somewhat too abrupt to be probable;
and especially when we recognize, as
this author does, the close
connection between the first six
verses of chap. 15 and the whole
development of chap. 14, it must also
be seen that the exhortation:
“Wherefore receive ye one another”
(ver. 7), is only the resumption of that
which began chap. 14 in these terms:
“Receive ye him that is weak in
faith.” Not only is it in both cases
the same verb that is used:
proslambavnesqai , to take to oneself.
But, moreover, the following words of
ver. 7: “As Christ took you to
Himself,” reproduce exactly the end of 14:3:
“For God hath taken him to Himself,”
(thy brother, weak or strong). Our
ver. 7 is therefore the close of the
cycle of teaching opened 14:1-3; and
Paul sums up in ver. 7 the general
exhortation to connect with it the
invitation to union between the two
parts of the church which forms the
subject of vv. 8-13. Thus is closed
the practical part begun in chap. 12.
Everything is so strongly compacted,
and forms so fine a whole, that it is
hard to understand how it should have
entered the mind of intelligent
commentators to break such an organism.
We have already said that with chap.
15 there begins, according to Baur,
the unauthentic part of our Epistle.
We shall examine step by step the
objections to which the composition of
these two chapters by the Apostle
Paul seems to him to be exposed. We
shall have to study likewise the
reasons which have led a great number
of critics, such as Semler,
Griesbach, Eichhorn, Reuss, Schultz,
Ewald, and
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
others to dispute, not the apostolic
origin of the whole or part of the last
two chapters, but their original
connection with the Epistle to the Romans.
As we have stated these very diverse
opinions in the Introduction, vol. i.
pp. 66-69, we think it unnecessary to
reproduce them here.
From the particular question which has
just occupied the apostle, he now
passes to a more general subject, that
of the perfect union which,
notwithstanding the difference between
the two elements of which it is
composed, ought to unite the whole
church in a common song of praise to
the God of salvation. The goodwill
with which all, Jews and Gentiles, have
been received by God, ought to make
them, as it were, one heart and one
mouth to magnify the Lord, while
awaiting patiently the consummation of
the work He has begun. Such are the
contents of this passage, which
admirably crowns the practical part.
It is really impossible to understand
Baur's affirmation: “This piece
contains nothing which had not been much
better said before,” or that of M.
Renan, who, adhering to this judgment,
thus expresses himself: “These verses
repeat and weakly sum up what
precedes.” The particular question
treated in chap. 14 broadens; the point
of view rises, and the tone is
gradually heightened even to the elevation of
a hymn, as at the end of all the great
parts preceding (chap. 5:12 et seq.,
8:31 et seq., 11:33 et seq.).—Paul
first exhorts, by the example of Christ,
to mutual condescension, vv. 1-3; he
points out, vv. 4-7, as an end to be
reached the common adoration to which
such conduct will bring the
church; finally, vv. 8-13, he
indicates the special part given to Jews and to
Gentiles in this song of the whole
redeemed race. He has not before
expressed anything like this.
Ver. 1. “ We then that are strong ought
to bear the infirmities of the weak,
and not to please ourselves. ”—The dev
, then , is progressive. The
domain enlarges; it is no longer
simply the question of meats, but in
general of the relation between Judeo-
Christianity more or less legal, of
which the party of the weak, chap. 14,
was a branch, and that pure
spirituality, which is the proper
character of Paul's gospel. This tendency
to enlarge the subject had already
appeared in the preceding chapter, in
vv. 5 and 6, where the example taken
from the observance of feast days
was evidently borrowed from a more
general domain. The apostle now
expresses his entire thought regarding
the relation between a Christianity
still allied to the legal spirit, and
that which is wholly exempt from it. Since
the two elements co-existed in the
church of Rome, Paul must once at
least before closing utter his thought
as to their normal relation, and he
does so here quite naturally by
applying that law of love in which he has
just pointed out that the soul of the
Christian life is to be found. It is this
gradation in the subject treated which
is indicated by the dev progressive (
then ) of ver. 1. It is no doubt for
the same reason he changes the
expression which he had used to
designate the weak in chap. 14. He now
employs the terms dunatov" and
ajduvnato" , able, unable , whereas he had
made use of the term ajsqenhv" .
It would be improper, however,
completely to identify the contrast
expressed by these two terms,
employed ver. 1, with that between
Judeo-Christians and believers of
Gentile origin. For by saying
hJmei'" , we , the apostle shows clearly that
he puts himself among the strong , and
not only himself, but all those also
of his Jewish fellow- countrymen who,
like Aquilas and Priscilla, for
example, have risen to the height of
Christian spirituality. Among the
weak, on the other hand, might be
found a goodly number of former
proselytes who had brought with them
into the gospel their attachment to
the law. We acknowledge then, with
Mangold, that the contrast between
the strong and the weak in chap. 15
does not coincide absolutely with that
of chap. 14. There the matter in
question was only a special feature of
Judeo-
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Christian formalism; here the apostle
speaks of the conduct to be
observed toward the formalist spirit
in itself. But, on the other hand, it is
impossible to adopt the opinion of the
same author, when he represents
the strong and the weak here as two
small minorities, two ultra parties of
the right and left, the one of extreme
Gentile-Christians, the other of
particularly narrow Judeo-Christians,
whom Paul contrasted with the in
general moderate Judeo-Christian mass
of the church of Rome. How
could Paul himself, by saying: we, the
strong , take his place in one of
these extreme parties, which,
according to Mangold, wished even (see at
ver. 7) to excommunicate the weak!
This construction, whereby it is
sought in the face of this whole
passage to save the hypothesis of a
Judeo-Christian majority in the church
of Rome, is an expedient which all
critics have hitherto judged
untenable.— jAsqenhvmata , the infirmities or
weaknesses; these are, as Hodge says,
“the prejudices, errors, and faults
which arise from weakness of faith.”
The strong ought to show his
strength, not by humiliating the weak
and triumphing in the feeling of his
superiority, but by bearing the burden
of his weakness with love and
tenderness. To serve is always in the
gospel the true sign of strength
(Gal. 6:2).—But to be able to act
thus, there is an enemy that must be
swept out of our own heart: self-
complacency. The man who boasts of his
superiority in understanding and in
Christian liberty, is not fitted to assist
the weak; rather he estranges and
revolts them.
Vv. 2, 3. “ Let every one of us please
his neighbor in what is good to
edification. For also Christ pleased
not Himself; but, as it is written, The
reproaches of them that reproached
thee fell on me. ”—The gavr , for , in
the T. R., is certainly unauthentic:
the asyndeton implies a more emphatic
reproduction of the thought of ver. 1.
The word every one seems to us to
extend the exhortation to all the
members of the church, weak or strong; it
is as if it ran: “Yes, let every one
of us in general”...—There are two ways
of seeking to please our neighbor. In
the one we are self-seeking; we
seek to satisfy our interest or
self-love. In the other, we seek the good of
our neighbor himself. It is this
latter way only which the apostle
recommends: such is the force of the
first clause: in good; for good, not
from egoism. Then this abstract notion
is positively determined by the
second clause: to edification. The
life of Paul was all through the
realization of this precept; comp. 1
Cor. 10:33, 34.
Ver. 3. The example of Christ is to
the believer the new law to be realized
(Gal. 6:2); hence the for also. If, as
man, Christ had pleased Himself in the
use of His liberty, or in the
enjoyment of the rights and privileges which
His own righteousness had acquired,
what would have come of our
salvation? But He had only one
thought: to struggle for the destruction of
sin, without concerning Himself about
His own well-being, or sparing
Himself even for an instant. In this
bold and persevering struggle against
our enemy, evil, He drew on Him the
hatred of all God's adversaries here
below, so that the lamentation of the
Psalmist, 69:9, became as it were
the motto of His life. In laboring
thus for the glory of God and the salvation
of men, He recoiled, as Isaiah had
prophesied, “neither before shame nor
spitting.” This certainly is the
antipodes of pleasing ourselves. Ps. 69
applies only indirectly to the Messiah
(ver. 5: “ My sins are not hid”); it
describes the righteous Israelite
suffering for the cause of God. But this is
precisely the type of which Jesus was
the supreme realization.—We need
not say, with Meyer, that Paul adopts
the saying of the Psalmist directly
into his own text. It is more natural,
seeing the total change of
construction, like Grotius, to supply
this idea: “ but he did as is written;”
comp. John 13:18.—Paul, vv. 1 and 2,
had said us; it is difficult, indeed, to
believe, that in writing
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
these last sayings he could avoid
thinking of his own apostolic life.
But divine succor is needed to enable
us to follow this line of conduct
unflinchingly; and this succor the
believer finds only in the constant use of
the Scriptures, and in the help of God
which accompanies it (vv. 4-6).
Vv. 4-6. “ For whatsoever things were
written aforetime were written for
our learning, that we, through
patience and through comfort of the
Scriptures, might have hope. Now the
God of patience and of comfort
grant you to be like-minded one toward
another according to Christ
Jesus;that with one accord ye may with
one mouth glorify the God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. ”—The
transition from ver. 3 to ver. 4 is
this: “If I thus apply this saying of
the Psalmist to Christ and ourselves, it is
because, in general, all Scripture was
written to instruct and strengthen
us.” It is certain that in the case of
the first verb we should read proegravfh
, was written aforetime; and probably
we should read for the second the
simple ejgravfh , was written (comp.
the critical note). The new light which
Scripture revelation throws on all
things, and particularly on the events of
human life, diffuses in the heart the
strength which makes us hold out (
uJpomonhv , patience ), and even hold
out joyously
( paravklhsi;" , comfort ).
Whether we read or reject the second diav ,
through , the genitive tw'n grafw'n ,
of the Scriptures , equally depends on
both the preceding substantives: the
patience and comfort of which the
Scriptures are the source.—And it is
by these dispositions that we are
kept at the height of Christian hope
which anticipates the joy of perfect
salvation. We need not give the verb
e[cwmen the exceptional meaning of
holding fast ( katevcein ); the simple
sense of possessing is enough.—Baur
has found in this verse an evidence of
the unauthenticity of the whole
piece. How could the apostle, on
occasion of the passage quoted (ver. 3),
set himself to speak all at once of
the entire O. T.? But he forgets that this
whole piece is a practical
exhortation, and that in such circumstances the
particular recommendation of the use
of the Scriptures is quite in place.
The inspiration thereto was probably
given by the apostle's own daily
experience.—But he knows well himself
that Scripture is ineffectual
without the direct help of the God of
the Scriptures. It is therefore to Him
that he lifts his eyes, ver. 5.
Ver. 5. By the double description of
God as the God of patience and of
consolation , He is characterized as
the true source of these two graces
which are communicated to us through
the channel of the Scriptures. To
get them we must therefore go not only
to the Scriptures, but to
Himself.—There is a close relation in
a church between the consolation
and the union of its members. When all
are inwardly consoled from above,
the way is paved for communion of
hearts, all together aspiring
vehemently after the same supreme
good. It is this common impulse
which is expressed by Paul's term (
fronei'n ejn ajll ). He thus returns to the
principal idea of the passage, which
he had left for an instant to speak of
the Scriptures.—On the difference
between Christ Jesus and Jesus Christ
, see at 1:1.
Ver. 6. When one common aspiration
reigns in the church, secondary
diversities no longer separate hearts;
and from the internal communion
there results common adoration like
pure harmony from a concert of welltuned
instruments. All hearts being melted
in one, all mouths become only
one. And how so? Because one being
only appears henceforth to all as
worthy of being glorified.—It seems
obvious to us, since the two words
God and Father are joined in Greek by
one and the same article, that the
complement: of our Lord Jesus Christ ,
must depend on both. Comp. Eph.
1:17 (“the God of Jesus Christ”);
Matt. 27:46 (“my God, my God”); John
20:17 (“my Father and your Father, my
God and your God”). The
expression: God of Jesus Christ ,
denotes the relation of complete
dependence; and the expression: Father
of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Jesus Christ , the relation of perfect
intimacy. The ideal here described by
the apostle, and which is the supreme
object of the prayer which he has
just formed, ver. 5, is therefore that
of the union of the entire church,
composed of Jews and Gentiles, in the
adoration of the God and Father
who has redeemed and sanctified it by
Jesus Christ. This union was in a
sense his personal work, and the prize
of his apostolic labors. How his
heart must have leaped, hearing
already by the anticipation of faith, the
hymn of saved humanity! It is the part
of every believer, therefore, to
make all the advances and all the
sacrifices which love demands in order
to work for so magnificent a result.
So there is added, as the conclusion of
all that precedes (from 14:1), ver. 7.
Ver. 7. “ Wherefore receive ye one
another, as Christ also received us , to
the glory of God. ”—The compassionate
welcome which Christ has given
to all the members of the church
individually ought to be perpetually
reproduced in the welcome of goodwill
and tenderness which they give
one another in all the relations of
life. And if there is some concession to
make, some antipathy to surmount, some
difference of opinion to allow,
some injury to forgive, one thing
ought to lift us above all these
annoyances—the thought that we are
thereby laboring for the glory of
God, who received us in grace through
Jesus Christ. Mutual love ought to
reign supremely in a church wholly
composed of the Lord's well-beloved.
We should probably read hJma'" ,
us, us believers in general, rather than
uJma'" you (the Christians of Rome).
This latter reading has no doubt
arisen from the verb in the second
person plural: receive ye. The words:
to the glory of God , depend rather on
the first than on the second verb;
for they are intended to explain the
recommendation.—Mangold finds
himself led by his peculiar point of
view, according to which the strong in
this chapter are merely the small
number of extreme Paulinists, to give to
the word receive a wholly different
sense from that which it had 14:1,
where the same recommendation was
addressed to the entire (according
to him, Judeo-Christian) church. The
party of the strong mentioned here
had, according to this critic, pushed
opposition to the weak the length of
regarding them as a burden to the life
of the church, and of demanding
their excommunication. And this is
what Paul would prevent. It is very
obvious how arbitrary is this
difference laid down in the notion of
receiving. Not only can the
proslambavnesqai ( receive ) signify nothing else
than in 14:1, but, moreover, the
apostle would never have consented to
rank himself, as he would do by the
word us (vv. 1 and 2), in a party so
violent.
The apostle would seem, by this
conclusion, to have reached the end of
the whole development begun 14:1. But
he has still an explanation to add:
If Christ has received us with equal
goodness, there has yet been a
difference in the mode of this
receiving. Unity in the works of God is never
uniformity. Rather harmony implies
variety. This common adoration, in
which all presently existing contrasts
in the church are to be fused, does
not prevent each group in the new
people of God from bringing with it its
own experiences, and playing its
particular part in the final concert.
Vv. 8, 9a. “ Now I say that Christ was
made a minister of the circumcision
for the truth of God, to confirm the
promises made unto the fathers, but
that the Gentiles glorify God for His
mercy; ”—The gracious acceptance
which Jesus Christ has given to men
has taken place in two principal
ways. In His relation to the Jews, God
has above all displayed His truth ,
His fidelity to His ancient promises;
in His relation to the Gentiles, He has
more particularly manifested His
mercy; for, without having promised them
anything directly, He has given
everything to them as well as to the Jews.
And hence it is, that with the voice
which rises from the people of Israel to
celebrate God's faithfulness, there
should henceforth be joined that of the
Gentile
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
world magnifying His grace. Such is
the meaning of this admirable
passage, which extends to ver. 13.—The
reading gavr , for , would
introduce the demonstration of the
proselavbeto , He received us. But what
follows is rather an explanation than
a proof; the latter would have been
superfluous. We must therefore read
levgw dev : “ Now , here is my whole
thought regarding this receiving on
the part of Christ, and the duty of
union arising from it.”—What attracts
the Jew to Christ is not exactly the
same as that which gains for Him the
heart of the Gentile. The Jew is
struck with the fulfilment of the
prophecies in His person (comp. the
Gospel of St. Matthew); the heart of
the Gentile is taken by the view of His
mercy (comp. the Gospel of
Luke).—Bauer has thought that the
expression: minister of the
circumcision , could not be ascribed to the
apostle, and that it betrayed a writer
disposed to carry concessions to
Judaism much further than St. Paul
could have done. But what is there in
this expression which goes beyond the
contents of Gal. 4:4 and 5: “Born
of a woman, born under the law, to
redeem them that are under the law”?
All the Gospels prove that Jesus
submitted to the strictest observance of
the law, and that from His
circumcision to His death He enveloped Himself
as it were in the national form of
Israelitish life. It is a gratuitous error of
commentators to think that he ever
violated the Sabbath, even in His
works of healing. He simply freed it
from the Pharisaical prescriptions
which had greatly exaggerated
Sabbatical strictness. And when Paul
says, Phil. 2:8: “He became obedient,
even to the death of the cross,” he
exactly expresses the idea contained
in the term with which Baur finds
fault. Hilgenfeld himself acknowledges
the error of the master of his
school on this point: “This passage,”
says he, “contains nothing more than
was already contained in chap. 11 of
our Epistle.”—Several MSS.
substitute the aorist gevnesqai for
the perfect gegenh'sqai ; erroneously,
without doubt, for the fact in
question is one which remains forever in its
results, as is proved in the sequel.—
To establish a promise is to confirm
by fulfilling it. Comp. 2 Cor. 1:19,
20, a passage which is, as it were, the
exegesis of ours. ver. 9a The
Gentiles, indeed, occupied a place in the
prophecies committed to Israel; but
God had never promised them
anything directly. This circumstance
gave to the salvation which was
granted to them as well as to the Jews
a more marked character of
freeness.—The verb doxavsai , to
glorify , is not an optative, as Hofmann
thinks; the change of construction
would be too abrupt. It is the aorist
infinitive; and this infinitive is not
to be regarded as parallel to bebaiw'sai ,
to establish, and consequently as
dependent on eij" , in order to: “in order
to confirm the promises..., and in
order that the Gentiles might glorify”...,
as Meyer thinks. For the work of God
for the Gentiles would thus be made
dependent on the act by which Jesus
became a minister of the law in
behalf of the Jews, which, in this
passage at least, would have no
meaning. The simple construction is to
make this infinitive, as well as the
preceding gegenh'sqai , the object of
levgw , I say: “Now, I say that Jesus
became a minister...for the truth of
God...; and that the Gentiles glorify
[have in Him a cause for glorifying]
God for His mercy.” Thus is formed the
sublime duet in which there is uttered
henceforth the thanksgiving of the
entire race.—In support of this idea
Paul now quotes a series of O. T.
passages which announced the future
participation of the Gentiles in the
eternal hallelujah.
Vv. 9b, 10. “ According as it is
written, For this cause I will praise Thee
among the Gentiles, and sing unto Thy
name. And again He saith,
Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with His people.
”—The first passage quoted is Ps.
18:49: David, victorious over all his
enemies, declares that he will make
his hymn of thanksgiving resound even
in the heathen countries subject to
his seeptre, in order to associate
these nations in celebrating the work of
Jehovah. In the application, Paul
starts from the idea that
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
what was accomplished in David's
person must be more magnificently
realized in that of his antitype the
Messiah.
The second passage (ver. 10) is found
in Deut. 32:43. Moses, in his final
hymn, describes Israel's future
deliverance and the judgment of their
adversaries; then he invites the
Gentiles who have escaped punishment
to join their song of rejoicing with
that of Israel glorified. The apostle
follows the version of the LXX. The
latter translates from a form of the text
which is not that of our Masoretic
text, but which has been proved by
Kennicott as a variant. According to
this reading, the preposition eth ( with
) stands before ammo ( His people ),
which leads to the meaning of the
LXX. and of the apostle: “Rejoice, ye
Gentiles, with His people.” If this eth
be rejected, as in the ordinary text,
we may translate: “Rejoice, ye nations,
His people,” either, with De Wette,
applying the term nations ( gojim ) to
the twelve tribes of Israel, or
holding, with Aquilas, Theodotion, Ostervald,
Hofmann, that it is the Gentiles
themselves who are here designated as
the people of God. In the sense of De
Wette, the application Paul makes
of this saying would have no
connection with the thought which is really
expressed. But this meaning is not
admissible, for Moses could not
designate the people of Israel as
gojim, Gentiles , especially in a song
which turns throughout on the
antagonism between Israel and the
heathen. The second explanation would
be possible; it would be in
harmony with the object of the
apostolic quotation. Only it must be
confessed that the idea of the
transformation of the Gentiles into God's
people has not been so much as hinted
by the rest of the song.—Again, it
may be translated, as by the Vulgate
and Segond: “Nations, praise His
people,” or, “Sing the praises of His
people.” But is it natural to direct
praise to Israel rather than to
Jehovah? Besides, Meyer rightly observes
that the Hiphil hirenin, to sing ,
either has no regimen (Ps. 32:11), or it is
construed with the dative (Ps.
81:1).—Lange and others hold yet a
different translation: “Gentiles, make
His people sing with joy (by turning
to the Lord).” Hirenin has really this
causative sense, Ps. 65:8. But there is
no question here of making Israel
rejoice, but of celebrating the glory of
Jehovah. If the meaning defended by
Hofmann (see above) is
inadmissible, it only remains to
follow the reading adopted by the LXX.,
and which has passed into the text of
the apostle. The idea of these two
quotations, as well as of the two
following, is the announcement of the
great fact: that a day will come when
the Gentiles shall celebrate Jehovah
in concert with Israel.
Vv. 11, 12. “ And again , Praise the
Lord, all ye Gentiles; and let all the
peoples laud Him!And again, Isaiah
saith, There shall be the root of
Jesse, and He that ariseth to reign
over the Gentiles; in him shall the
Gentiles hope. ”—The third passage is
taken from Ps. 117:1. This hymn in
honor of Jehovah, ascribed to the
Gentiles, naturally supposes their
conversion and their entrance into the
kingdom of God. We prefer the
reading ejpainesavtwsan , let them
laud , to the T. R. ejpainevsate , laud ye.
The second person is probably a
correction after the preceding
proposition. The MSS. of the LXX.
present the same variant.
Ver. 12. Quotation from Isa. 11:10.
The literal meaning of the Hebrew is:
“And in that day there shall be a
shoot of Jesse, which shall be set up as a
banner for the peoples.”...For the
figure of an erected banner , the LXX.
have substituted the idea of a person
rising up to reign; Paul quotes after
them. In meaning it comes to the same
thing.—With what emotion does
St. Paul refer to all these passages,
each of which was the motto, as it
were, of his own work among the
Gentiles! One understands, in reading
such quotations, what he said in ver.
4, undoubtedly from his own
experience, of the patience and
consolation which are kept up in the
believer by the daily use of the
Scriptures, as well as of the ever new hope
which they inspire. This
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
idea of hope is that which is
expressed in the prayer uttered ver. 13. For
this adoration of the Gentiles, to
which the four preceding quotations refer,
is the fruit not only of the enjoyment
of present blessings, but also, and
above all, of the hope of future
blessings.
Ver. 13. “ Now the God of hope fill
you with every kind of joy and peace in
believing, that ye may abound in hope
through the power of the Holy
Spirit! ”—God is described here as the
God of hope , evidently in relation
to the last words of the preceding
quotation: “In Him shall the Gentiles
hope.” The apostle could not more
clearly designate his readers as former
Gentiles, than he does by this
connection.—The richer the possession of
present blessings ( peace and joy )
which the believer derives by the everrenewed
act of faith ( ejn tw'/ pisteuvein ,
literally, by believing ), the more
does his soul rise to the lively view
of future blessings, and according to
the expression of the apostle,
superabounds or overflows with
hope.—The last words: the power of the
Holy Spirit , point out to the
reader once more, as in 14:17, the
true power which they ought to seek,
in opposition to the factitious power
by which one exalts himself so easily
above others. The former unites, for
it strives to serve (15:1), whereas the
second disunites.
From the very marked connection of
this whole last passage with the
apostle's ministry, it forms at once
the conclusion of the didactic part of
the Epistle to the Romans and the
transition to the epistolary conclusion in
which Paul proceeds to treat of the
present situation of his apostolic work.
The reasons alleged by Baur against
the authenticity of the first part of
this chapter have appeared to us
without force. The spirit of conciliation in
regard to Judaism, which Baur judges
incompatible with Paul's character,
never ceased to be that which inspired
his work. It was because he felt
the need of keeping up union with the
Twelve, that after each of his
missions he returned to Jerusalem,
“lest,” as he says himself, Gal. 2:2,
“he had run in vain.” The collections
which he made in the churches of the
Gentile world in behalf of the
Judeo-Christians of Palestine had the same
object. This was also the object of
the personal concessions of which he
speaks 1 Cor. 9:21, 22, and by which
he became “to the weak as weak,”
exactly as he recommends to the strong
in this passage. Hilgenfeld rightly
says: “What is looked upon as not possibly
Paul's, to my conviction only
proves one thing: that since the days
of Marcion there has been formed
an inexact idea of the apostle to
which it is still sought at the present day
to conform the real Paul” ( Einleit.
p. 323). It will be seen that this
observation applies equally to the
criticism of Baur and Lucht in regard to
the second part of this chapter.
According to Schultz, it is from ver.
7 that the real Epistle to the Romans
recommences, to which the whole moral
treatise, 12:1-15:6, was originally
foreign. It would follow therefrom
that the wherefore of ver. 7 was
immediately connected with the end of
chap. 11. There is something
seductive at first glance in this
combination. The mercy shown both to the
Gentiles and to the Jews (11:32) is
well adapted to justify the invitation to
the mutual receiving spoken of in our
ver. 7. But it is nevertheless true that
this relation is factitious—1st.
Because the object of chap. 11 was to
justify God's dispensations toward the
people of Israel, and not to
endeavor the union of Jews and
Gentiles in the church; 2d. Because ver.
7 is in evident, and we might say
literal correlation, not with any saying
whatever of chap. 11, but with the
first three verses of chap. 14.
Finally, we have an inference to draw
from this whole piece, 14:1-15:13,
as to the composition of the church of
Rome. We appropriate the
observation of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Hilgenfeld, who declares that in this
passage, as nowhere else, there is
revealed the true composition of this
church; but we apply it in a very
different sense from his. While
confessing, indeed, that Paul is addressing
the Roman Christians in a body as
strong (14:1 and 15:1), this critic
refuses to conclude therefrom that the
majority of the church were Pauline
by conviction and Gentile-Christian by
origin. How does he escape from
this consequence, which is yet so
evident? By supposing that Paul
expresses himself thus: “as conceiving
good hopes of them”—that is to
say, describing them here not as they
are, but as he hopes they will
become. This critical subterfuge will
deceive no one.
M. Reuss experiences no less
embarrassment in view of our passage. In
his Histoire des e8crits du N. T. he
expressed himself thus: “This passage
is cleverly turned, so as to make
believe that the freer opinion was
dominant at Rome, while the contrary
was assuredly the case.” Reuss
thus ascribed tactics to the apostle
unworthy of his character, rather than
abandon his preconceived opinion of a
Judeo- Christian majority in this
church. In his Commentaire sur les
e8pi<tres pauliennes he expresses
himself somewhat differently: “It is
thus evident,” he says, “that the author
considers the Christian community of
Rome as not being exclusively
composed of Jews.” That is certainly
very evident, and no one ever
denied that there were at Rome other
Christians than those of Jewish
origin. But this confession is
altogether insufficient. Instead of not
exclusively , he should have said not
essentially , to deal fairly with the
text before us. The violent expedient
attempted by Mangold, in his desire
to evade this conclusion, demonstrates
it better than anything else. And
when Schultz, acknowledging that the
strong are Paulinists, and at the
same time that they form the majority
in the church, concludes therefrom
that the whole passage, 14:1- 15:6,
cannot have been addressed to the
church of Rome, seeing that the
majority of it was Jewish-Christian , he
will allow us to regard this simply as
a naive confession of the falsity of the
latter opinion, and to conclude by
saying, to the contrary effect: As this
passage cannot have been written to a
Jewish-Christian church, and as it
is addressed to the church of Rome,
the majority of this church was not
Jewish-Christian.
Epistolary Conclusion. 15:14-16:27.
WE have said that the Epistle to the
Romans is a didactic treatise,
doctrinal and practical, contained in
a letter. The treatise is now closed,
and the letter begins again. It is
easy to show, indeed, that the part about
to follow is closely correlated to the
epistolary preface which preceded the
treatise (1:1-15). The apostle
apologizes for the liberty with which he
writes to the Christians of Rome, by
reminding them of his mission to the
Gentiles (15:14-16). This passage
corresponds to 1:14 and 15, where he
declares himself a debtor for the
gospel to all Gentiles, the Romans
included. He explains (15:17-24) what
has kept him hitherto in the east.
Thus he completes what he had said,
1:11-13, of the impossibility he had
before found in the way of visiting
Rome. The personal salutations which
we find in the first part of chap. 16
correspond to the address, 1:7: “To all
that are at Rome, beloved of God.”
Finally, the doxology which closes at
once chap. 16 and the whole Epistle
(vv. 25-27) brings us back to the idea
with which the letter had opened (1:1,
2): that of the fulfilment of the divine
plan by the gospel promised beforehand
in the O. T. Thus the circle is
completed; on every other view
(whether the end of the Epistle be put at
chap. 11 or at chap. 14) it is broken.
This conclusion contains the following
passages:
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
(1) 15:14-33, where the apostle gives
explanations of a personal nature
regarding his letter, his work in
general, his approaching visit to Rome,
and the journey which he must first
make to Jerusalem.
(2) 16:1-16: Recommendations and
salutations of the apostle.
(3) Vv. 17-20: A warning in regard to
the probable arrival of Judaizers in
the church of Rome.
(4) Vv. 21-24: The salutations of his
fellow-workers.
(5) Vv. 25-27: The doxology which
closes the Epistle.
Twenty-ninth Passage (15:14-33).
Personal Explanations.
This passage is intended to convey to
the minds of his readers full light as
to the apostle's conduct toward them.
These explanations relate first to
this letter itself.
Vv. 14-16.
Vv. 14, 15. “ Now I myself also am
persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye
also yourselves are full of goodness,
filled with all knowledge, able also to
admonish one another.But brethren , I
have written the more boldly unto
you, as in some measure to put you in
remembrance again of these
things, because of the grace that is
given to me of God; ”—The form of
address: my brethren , is occasioned
by the return to the epistolary
style.—By saying: myself also , the apostle
hints that the very full
instruction which he has given them in
this Epistle is not caused by a want
of confidence in their Christian
attainments; myself: “though my letter
might make you suppose the contrary.”
This meaning seems to me more
natural than that of many commentators
who suppose that Paul means: “I,
as well as others,” or: “without
needing any one to remind me of what you
are.”—The kai; aujtoiv , ye also , is
certainly authentic, notwithstanding the
omission of the words by the Greco-Latins;
the meaning is: “you to whom I
am thus writing.” The qualities on
which the apostle rests this favorable
judgment are at once of a moral and
intellectual nature. They are full of
goodness , ajgaqwsuvnhv ; this word
denotes practical solidity, the full
maturity of spiritual life; then they
possess in abundance every kind of
Christian knowledge , pa'sa
gnw'si" . We may remark the difference
between this testimony and the
eulogium passed on the Corinthians (1st
Ep. 1:5), where Paul brings out only
this second sort of gifts ( knowledge
and speech ).—From these two kinds of
qualities it followed that there was
among them the capacity for providing
in a certain measure for their own
edification and their mutual instruction.
The true reading is avllhvlou" , one
another , and not as it is in one Mj.
and the Syriac version, a[llou" , others.
The kaiv , also or even , which
accompanies this pronoun, means: even
among yourselves, without the help of
any master from without. There is
nothing in the expressions of this
verse which goes beyond what the
apostle could say with all sincerity,
nor anything to support the judgment
of Baur: that these sayings are the
work of a later writer, who, seeing the
bad effect produced by this letter on
the Judeo-Christians of Rome,
sought to soothe them by adding these
chaps. 15 and
16. The apostle might well think the
church of Rome very advanced in all
respects, without its following that a
letter like this was a work of
supererogation. He himself (1:8) gave
thanks for the faith of his readers,
“which is spoken of throughout the
whole world;” and if the terms which he
uses in our verse could not be applied
fully to all the individuals
composing the church, they were
nevertheless strictly true when applied
to the church as a whole; for, as
chap. 16 will show, it possessed a very
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
great abundance of teachers and
evangelists who could carry out within it
the functions of instruction and
admonition.
Ver. 15. The dev is adversative: but;
nevertheless; and the comparative
tolmhrovteron , more boldly , is
explained precisely by this contrast with
ver. 1: “more freely than it seemed I
should do in the case of such a
church.” The repetition of the form of
address: brethren , is perfectly
natural in these conditions; it
expresses anew the feeling of equality with
which the apostle loves to approach
them.—In the explanation of what
follows, everything depends on the grammatical
meaning and construction
of ajpo; mevrou" , which we have
translated by: in some measure , and
which literally signifies: in part.
Some refer this restriction to the verb: I
wrote you (Meyer, for example), and
apply it solely to some particularly
forcible passages of the letter, such
as 11:17-25, 12:2, 14:1 et seq. But
what is there in these passages so
different from the rest of the Epistle,
and which should have called forth a
special apology? Hofmann refers
this “in part” to what is fragmentary
in the teaching of the Epistle to the
Romans. But in no letter does Paul
give a statement of evangelic doctrine
which less deserves to be called
fragmentary. It is impossible to get an
appropriate meaning for ajpo;
mevrou" , in part , except by referring this
restriction to ejpanamimnhvskwn ,
putting you in remembrance , and
applying it, not to the extent and
contents of the teaching, as if the readers
had had certain parts of the truth
present to their mind, and not others, but
to the mode of giving instruction. The
apostle has written to them, not with
the view of teaching them things that
were new to them, but to bring back
to their memory, in a way not to be
forgotten, things which he knew to be
already known to them to a certain
degree. Thus is explained the wJ" , as;
it is much more as reminding than as
instructing them that he has written.
He wished to treat them not as
catechumens, but as Christians and
brethren.—And if he has taken the
liberty of acting thus toward them, it is
not arbitrarily and at his own hand,
it is in virtue of the mission which he
has received and of the gift which has
been bestowed on him in order to
its fulfilment. Such is the meaning of
the dia; th;n cavrin , on account of the
grace , an expression which we must
beware of rendering “ through the
grace,” which is forbidden by the
regimen in the accusative. The thing
referred to, as is shown by the
following verse, is his commission as
apostle of the Gentiles, which he has
only been obeying by writing thus to
the church of Rome. Thus he apologizes
for his letter:—(1) By declaring
that he wished merely to remind his
readers of what they already knew;
and (2) by tracing his right of acting
thus to the apostleship which he has
received. There is room for hesitating
between the two readings, upov , “
by God,” and ajpov , “ on the part of
God.” The former is perhaps
preferable in the context, as denoting
a more direct divine interposition.
The right understanding of these two verses
suffices to set aside Baur's
view regarding the entire Epistle to
the Romans. According to this critic,
the apostle aimed at nothing less than
to bring over the church from the
Judeo-Christian legal standpoint to
his own evangelical conception. Now,
to say that all he did was only to
bring back to the memory of his readers
what they already knew, would, if such
had been his aim, be an act of
gross hypocrisy; to make one change
his opinion is not to remind him of
what he knows. It is true that Baur
has sought to give a quite different
meaning to the expression: “as putting
you in mind.” He applies it, not to
the contents of the Epistle, but
solely to the communications which are
about to follow regarding the work
which Paul has accomplished in the
world. But such is not the natural
meaning of the word e[graya , I have
written unto you; and the restriction:
ajpo; mevrou" , in part , no longer in
that case admits of explanation. It is
with good reason that Mangold
himself declares that it is impossible
to found a hypothesis on
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
exegetical processes of such violence.
Ver. 16. “ That I should be a minister
of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles,
ministering as a priest in the gospel
of God, that the offering of the
Gentiles might be made acceptable,
being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
”—The grace of apostleship had been
given to Paul for the
accomplishment of a sublime task. The
word leitourgov" denotes a public
functionary. In this case the function
involved is nothing less than
presenting to God the Gentile world as
an offering which may be
acceptable to Him. This world-wide
service to which Jesus Christ Himself
had called St. Paul was not only that
of a preacher, it had a priestly
character. This is certainly what is
expressed by the term iJerourgei'n (see
Meyer): “to offer as a priest;” not
that the preacher of the gospel is in any
sense a mediator who comes between God
and the believer; but his
function does not consist in simple
teaching; each time it is an act of
consecration whereby the messenger of
salvation offers to God his own
person as well as the persons of all
his hearers. We know how Paul
prayed constantly for the churches
which he had already founded (comp.
1:8-10, and the beginning of all the
Epistles), and we can thus imagine
what the work of their founding was.
Thus was his whole apostolate a
priestly function. In the expression:
“to fulfil sacerdotally (minister) the
gospel of God,” we must understand,
here as elsewhere (see on 1:8), by
“the gospel,” not the contents, but
the act of preaching.—The end of this
priestly office confided to the
apostle is to transform the world of the
Gentiles into an offering well-pleasing
to God. Comp. Phil. 2:17.— Tw'n
ejqnw'n , of the Gentiles , is a
genitive of apposition: the offering which
consists of the persons of the
Gentiles. The verb gevnhtai , might be (
become ), indicates progress; this
progress does not consist only in the
growing extension of the work; but
also, and especially, as is shown by
the following words, in the
transformation of those who are its subjects:
being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
The word of salvation received with
faith must be sealed in the heart by
power from on high, that the soul may
be truly gained, and that it may
belong to God; comp. Eph. 1:13. The
apostle probably alludes to the
Levitical ordinance, according to which the
sprinkling of salt over the meat-offering
was the condition of its
acceptance on the part of God.
If it is true, according to the
natural meaning of these verses 14-16, that
the apostle justifies his Epistle to
the Romans by his commission to be the
apostle of the Gentiles, it clearly
follows that the majority of the Christians
of Rome were of Gentile origin. The
defenders of the Jewish-Christian
composition of this church have had to
seek to parry this decisive blow.
They have tried to do so in two ways.
Mangold explains these verses in
this sense: “I have required, as
apostle of the Gentiles, to express myself
more than once in this letter more
forcibly than seemed fitting in
addressing Jewish-Christians like you;
but I had to uphold the rights of
those of whom God made me the
apostle.” But what is there to give us the
right to restrict the application of
the word tolmhrovteron , more boldly , to a
few passages of the Epistle relative
to the calling of the Gentiles? This
expression bears on the character of
the entire writing as a doctrinal
composition; this is shown by the
connection of ver. 15 with ver. 14. Filled
with knowledge, as the Romans were,
they seemed to have no need of
this complete instruction. Then the
description of Paul's apostolate, from
ver. 16 to ver. 20, proves that we
have here the positive indication of the
motive which led him to write this
Epistle, and not only the justification of
some passages of his letter.
Weizsacker correctly observes that the apostle
explains his letter by the duty which his
task of providing for the edification
of the Gentiles imposed on him, and
not by the right which he has to
uphold their cause before Jewish-
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Christians.—Volkmar, who pursues the
same object as Mangold, has
attempted another explanation: “I do
not forget, Paul would say, that I am
only the apostle of the Gentiles, and
I have no thought, in writing you as I
do, to intrude on a church which does
not belong to me, since it is of
Jewish-Christian origin; and that is
the very reason which has prevented
me hitherto from visiting you, for my
intention is not to build on a
foundation laid by another; but now
that I have no more place in the
countries of the east, I am about to
proceed to Spain, and I shall see you
in passing”
(vv. 17-24). This construction is
ingenious, but impossible. The dia; th;n
cavrin , “ because of the grace given
unto me,” depending on e[graya , I
have written unto you , is absolutely
opposed to it; and in what follows the
apostle does not for a moment say that
he has not yet visited Rome
because of the Judeo-Christian
character of the church, but that he has
not done so because he was still
detained in the east by nearer duties.
Whether the founders of the church of
Rome were or were not Judeo-
Christians, whether the believers
gathered in by them were or were not of
this character, the apostle makes no
allusion to this side of the question; a
proof that it was not this which concerned
his inference.—Lucht has
attempted to find a proof of
unauthenticity in the absence of the title
apostle , ver. 16. The forger sought,
he holds, by avoiding this title, to
spare the susceptibilities of the
Jewish-Christians of Rome. But, answers
Hilgenfeld, “If the word is not there,
the thing is.” And, in fact, ver. 16 is
nothing else than the paraphrase of
the term: apostle of the Gentiles. And
if Paul has here preferred the
paraphrase to the title itself, it is because it
was much more suitable than the latter
to explain the course which he had
followed in writing such a letter to
this church which he had not founded,
and which he did not even yet know.
As to this mission to the Gentile
world with which he has been invested,
God has crowned it with such successes
that it is now finished in the east,
and that it only remains to the
apostle to continue it in the west, which will
lead him next to Rome. Such are the
contents of the following verses, vv.
17-24, the somewhat free connection of
which with what precedes is not
hard to understand.
Vv. 17-24.
Vv. 17-19. “ I have therefore whereof
I may glory through Jesus Christ in
the service of God. For I will not
dare to speak of any of those things
which Christ hath not wrought by me,
for the obedience of the Gentiles, by
word and by deed, in the power of
signs and wonders, in the power of the
Spirit of God;so that from Jerusalem,
and the countries round about, as
far as Illyria, I have accomplished
[the preaching of] the gospel of Christ.
”— Therefore: in virtue of that
weighty commission by which I have felt
myself authorized to write you as I
have done. If we read the article thvn
before kauvchsin , “ the glorying,”
the meaning is: “I have therefore this
cause of glorying (that of being
Christ's minister to the Gentiles).” But the
last words: in the service of God ,
are thus made superfluous. The article
must therefore be rejected; the
meaning is this: “I have truly occasion to
glory in what concerns the service of
God.” The expression ta; pro;" Qeovn
, literally, “what concerns God,” is a
sort of technical phrase in the Jewish
liturgical language to denote the
functions of worship (Heb. 2:17,5:1, etc.).
This term therefore belongs to the
same order of ideas as all those of the
preceding verse ( iJerourgei'n,
leitourgov", prosforav,
hJgiasmevnh ).—The words: through
Jesus Christ , soften the too startling
force which the term glorying might
have. This verse, while recalling the
work already done by
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Paul in God's service, completes the
justification of what Paul had called
the tolmhrovteron , the somewhat bold
character of his conduct. Nothing
assuredly could have a more authentic
character than such a passage.
This ver. 17 is at the same time the
transition to what follows. As a
confirmation of his apostolic mission
to the Gentiles, Paul expounds the
extraordinary results which he has
obtained—(1) from the viewpoint of the
nature of the work, vv. 18, 19 a; (2)
from the viewpoint of the extension of
the work accomplished, ver. 19b
Ver. 18. The words: “I will not dare
to speak of any of those things,”
signify, according to Meyer and
others, that to exalt himself he will not
take the liberty of inventing facts
which Christ had not really wrought by
him. But did this odious supposition
need to be denied? Such a defence of
his veracity might be in place in the
Epistles to the Corinthians, but not in
that to the Romans. Besides, the
expression ti w|n , any of the things
which , naturally refers only to real
facts. To designate fictitious facts, he
must have used, not ti w|n , but ti o{
, anything which. Finally, all the
following qualifications: “ for the
obedience..., by word and by deed ”...,
can be applied only to real facts.
Hofmann thinks Paul means that he will
not take advantage here of any other
grounds of glorying than those
which enter into the service of
Christ; that he will omit, for example, all
those he enumerates (Phil. 3:4 et
seq.). But in that case the subject
Cristov" , Christ , should be at
the head of the proposition. And what
motive could the apostle have to
allude in this passage to the advantages
which he might have possessed before
being a Christian? The only
possible meaning of these words: I
will not dare , is this: “It would imply
some hardihood on my part to indicate
a single mark of apostleship
whereby God has not deigned to set His
seal on my ministry to the
Gentiles.” It is a very delicate form
of saying, that it would be easier to
convict him of falsehood in the signs
of apostolic power which he might
omit in speaking of his work, than in
those which he enumerates here.
This: I will not dare , is, as it
were, the acme of the kauvchsi" , of that
glorying of which he spoke in ver. 17.
It would be vain for him to seek a
divine manifestation which Christ has
not wrought by him; he would not
discover it. This mode of speaking
does not come of boastfulness; it is the
expression of a holy jealousy in
behalf of the Gentiles, that domain which
God has assigned him, and which He has
privileged by the apostleship of
Paul, no less than the Jewish world
has been by the apostleship of the
Twelve; comp. 2 Cor. 12:11, 12.—In the
expression: by word , are
embraced all his teachings, public and
private; and in the expression: by
deed , his labors, journeys,
collections, sufferings, sacrifices of all kinds,
and even miracles, though these are mentioned
afterward as a category
by themselves.—The expression: the
power of signs , is explained by
Meyer in this sense: “the power (my
power over men) arising from signs.”
It seems to me more natural to
understand: “the (divine) power breaking
forth in signs.” Miraculous facts are
called signs in relation to the meaning
which God attaches to them and which
men ought to see in them, and
wonders ( tevra" ) in relation to
nature and its laws, on the regular basis of
which the miracle is an inroad.— The
power of the Spirit may designate
the creative virtue inherent in this
divine breath; but here the complement
seems to me to be the person of Paul:
“the power with which the Spirit fills
me.”—It is better to read, with the T.
R., the Spirit of God than the Holy
Spirit (with 6 Mjj.), for it is force
that is in question rather than holiness.
In the second part of the verse Paul
passes from the nature of his activity
to the extent of the results obtained.
The latter is the effect of the former;
hence the w{ste , so that. For the
previous subject, Christ , there is
substituted the personal
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
pronoun I , because in the act of
preaching it is the human agent who is in
view. There has been found (by Hofmann
and others) in the word kuvklw/
, in a circle , an indication of the
course followed by the apostle in his work
of evangelizing, to the effect that
Paul did not proceed from Jerusalem to
Illyria by a straight line, but by
describing a vast ellipse. This idea is far
from natural, and would have a shade
of boastfulness. It is much simpler
to understand the word in a circle (or
with its surroundings ) as intended to
widen the point of departure indicated
by the word Jerusalem: “Jerusalem,
with the surrounding countries.” In
fact, it was strictly at Damascus, then in
Arabia, that Paul had begun to
evangelize. But Jerusalem being the point
best known to western Christians, he
names only this capital.—If we
refuse, with Meyer, to give to the word
eujaggevlion the meaning of
preaching of the gospel , it is
impossible to find a natural meaning here for
the word plhrou'n , to fill. To
translate, with Luther: “to fill every place with
the gospel,” is contrary to grammar.
Meyer understands: to give the
gospel its full development (by
spreading it everywhere). But one feels
how forced this manner of expression
would be in this sense. We have
only to represent to ourselves the act
of preaching the gospel in the east
as a task to be fulfilled or an ideal
to be reached, and the meaning of
plhrou'n becomes clear. It is in this
same sense that we have seen
plhvrwma novmou signify the fulfilment
of the law , 13:10. Baur has here
found manifest exaggeration, and
therein a sign of unauthenticity. But it is
clear that Paul was not claiming to
have finished the work of preaching in
relation to the small towns and
country districts of the lands he had
evangelized. He regarded his apostolic
task as entirely fulfilled when he
had lighted the torch in the great
centres, such as Thessalonica, Corinth,
and Ephesus. That done, he reckoned on
the churches founded in those
capitals continuing the evangelization
of the provinces. The same critic
has pronounced the fact here mentioned
of the apostle's preaching in
Illyria to be inadmissible. None of
the apostle's journeys known to us had
led him into this “rude and
inhospitable country.” The rudeness of a
country did not arrest St. Paul. From
the fact that this mission is not
mentioned in the Book of Acts, must it
be concluded that it is a fable? But
this book does not speak of the three
years passed by Paul in Arabia,
according to Gal. 1:17; must it
therefore be concluded that the statement
is false, and that the Epistle to the
Galatians is unauthentic? A forger
would have taken good care, on the
contrary, not to implicate himself in
other facts of the apostle's life than
those which were generally known.
Besides, what is there improbable in
the statement that during the time
which elapsed from his leaving Ephesus
(Pentecost 57 or 58) till his
arrival at Corinth (December 58) the
apostle, who spent that time in
Macedonia, should have made an
excursion to the shores of the Adriatic?
For that only a few days were needed.
The Book of Acts is not at all
intended to relate in detail the life
of Peter or of Paul.
Vv. 20, 21. “ And that while making it
my ambition to preach the gospel,
not where Christ was already named,
lest I should build upon another
man's foundation: but as it is
written, They to whom nothing was said of
Him shall see Him; and they that have
not heard shall know Him. ”—To
confirm the reality of his apostleship
to the Gentiles, Paul has referred to
the successes with which his activity
thus far has been crowned in the
east; and now, to pass to the idea of
his fnture work in the west and of his
visit to Rome, he recalls the
principle by which he has always been guided
in the direction of his labors. The
participle filotimouvmenon has something
of the force of a gerund: while making
it my ambition. The reading
filotimou'mai , I make it my ambition
, must be unhesitatingly rejected; for
the apostle does not mean here to
express a new idea, but merely to
define the manner of his procedure in
the work to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the goal of which he is now
approaching. The term filotimei'sqai should not
be generalized in the sense of: to
strive or bind myself to; it must be kept
in its strict sense: to esteem it a
matter of honor. Not that Paul sought his
personal honor in the method followed
by him: what he was concerned
about was his apostolic dignity. An
apostle is not a simple pastor or
evangelist; his mission is, as Paul
himself says, 1 Cor. 3:10, to “ lay the
foundation” on which others after him
may build, consequently to preach
where others have not yet come. Paul
might have said: “to preach the
gospel where Christ has not yet been
named,” but he prefers to give his
expression a still more negative turn,
and to say more precisely: “to
preach the gospel, not where He has
been named.” He wishes to preach
the gospel, but not where any one has
done so before him.
Ver. 21. This conduct rested, as we
have just said, on the exalted feeling
which he had of the apostolic mission;
and, moreover, he found, as it
were, the programme for it in a
prophetical saying, Isa. 52:15. The prophet
speaks here of the Gentile kings and
peoples to whom the declaration of
the Messiah's work shall come for the
first time.—The expression: “as it is
written,” depends, as in ver. 3, on a
verb understood: “ but doing as it is
written.” Volkmar here finds proof of
the Jewish- Christian character of the
church of Rome, since this church is
to Paul like a foreign domain on
which he has denied himself the
satisfaction of entering. Weizsacker shows
indeed that Paul's words contain
nothing of the kind; for what he says
refers in general to every church not
founded by him, whether of Jewish or
Gentile origin. But it may be
questioned if Paul is even alluding to the
reason which has kept him hitherto
from visiting Rome. Does not Paul by
this digression, vv. 20 and 21, simply
mean to say that so long as there
still remained unevangelized countries
in the east, it was his duty to
remain in that part of the world? In
vv. 22-24, he calls to mind that now
circumstances are changed, and that
the application of the same principle
which had hitherto detained him in the
east, henceforth impels him to the
west, which will bring him at the same
time to Rome.—Baur has asked, if
to write a letter of so considerable
compass as this to a Jewish-Christian
church not founded by him, was not to
build on the foundation laid by
another? We first remove from the
objection the word Jewish-Christian;
then we call to mind that the founders
of the church of Rome were chiefly
disciples of St. Paul, who came from
churches founded by him in the east;
and finally, we cannot put on the same
footing a letter written by Paul, and
his personal intervention as a
preacher. He wrote to the Colossians and
the Laodiceans, though he had not
personally founded and known those
churches (Col. 2:1). It is precisely
for this reason that in beginning his
Epistle (1:1-7), and then again in
closing it (15:16), he has referred to his
mission to the Gentiles which imposes
on him duties to all churches of
Gentile origin.
Vv. 22-24. “ From which cause also I
have been hindered often from
coming to you; but now, having no more
place in these regions, and
having a great desire for many years
to come unto you, when I take my
journey unto Spain , I trust to see
you in passing, and to be brought on my
way thither ward by you , if first I
have somewhat satisfied the need I have
of seeing you. ”—The “for which cause
also” might be connected with vv.
20 and 21 in this sense: because I
still found parts in the east where
Christ had not been preached. But vv.
20 and 21 may also be regarded as
a disgression, and the “for which
cause” connected with the idea of ver.
19. The immense labor to which Paul
had to give himself to preach the
gospel from Jerusalem to Illyria has
not allowed him to carry out his often
formed project of going to preach it
at Rome (1:13).—The imperfect
ejnekoptovmhn is the true reading. It
is an imperfect of duration: “Ever and
again I was hindered.”— Ta; pollav
might signify: by
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
many things; but it is more natural to
understand it in the sense: many
times , like pollavki" , which is
read by the Vatic. and the Greco-Lats.
Vv. 23, 24. Yet, agreeably to the
principle expounded vv. 20 and 21, his
journey to Rome will not, strictly
speaking, be a mission, but rather a visit
as it were in passing, for the church
already exists in this capital. When,
Acts 19:21, Paul at Ephesus was
forming his plans for the future, it indeed
was to Rome that he wished to proceed;
but afterward he had no doubt
heard of the foundation of a church in
that city, and therefore he now no
longer says: to Rome , but: to Spain
by way of Rome. The unevangelized
country, Spain, is the goal (the
eij" ); Rome is now only the way (the diav ).
Yet it would be easy to go directly by
sea from Asia to Spain. But this is
what he will take good care not to do,
for he hungers and thirsts to enter
into personal communication with the
Christians of Rome, and he will
make a detour to visit them in
passing. Such is the perfectly obvious
meaning of these two verses.
The text of ver. 24 comes to us in
three forms. The T. R. and the Byzs.
read after the words: “into Spain,” a
principal clause: “ I will come to you; ”
which leads them to add a for with the
following verb: “ for I trust.” The
clause is simple, the sense clear;
only these words: I will come to you ,
are wanting in the documents of the
two other texts.—The Alex. is much
less intelligible. It begins at ver.
23 with two participles: “having no more
place...but having the desire”...;
then it continues with a subordinate
proposition: “when I shall go into
Spain;” and instead of the principal verb
expected, it closes by saying: “for I
hope to see you in passing”...; and in
ver. 25: “now then I go to Jerusalem.”
There would be but one way of
justifying this text, to make a long
parenthesis from: for I trust , to the end
of the verse, and to find the
principal verb on which the two participles of
ver. 23 depend in ver. 25: “now I go
to Jerusalem.” But this would require
us to reject the dev , but or now , at
the beginning of ver. 25, contrary to
the authority of all the documents;
then, there is no logical relation
between the idea of these two
participles: having no more place, having
the desire to come to you , and the
verb: I go to Jerusalem. To render this
reading admissible, it is absolutely
necessary to reject the gavr , for , after
ejlpivzw , I trust , and thus to make
this the principal verb.—This is
precisely what is done by the Greco-
Lat. reading, which is supported by
the ancient Syriac version. This is
not the only time that the Greco-Latin
text has the superiority over the
other two. We have already met with
some similar cases in the Epistle to
the Romans (13:1, for example), and
we beg the reader specially to compare
1 Cor. 9:10, which is not
intelligible except in the form
preserved by the Greco-Latin documents.
The meaning which we get by means of
this text is faultless: “Having no
more place..., but having the desire
to see you..., when I go into Spain, I
hope to see you in passing.”—The diav
in diaporeuovmeno" alludes to the
idea that Rome will only be a place of
rest and passage; the reason of this
has been explained. The church is already
founded there.—The verb
propemfqh'nai , to be conducted
farther , contains these two ideas: to be
accompanied by some of theirs, and to
be provided with everything
necessary for the journey; comp. Tit.
3:13 and 3 John 6.—The reading uJfj
uJmw'n , by you , which contains the
idea of the solicitude of the Romans
about Paul, is much to be preferred to
the reading ajfj uJmw'n , from
among you , which makes the church
only a point of departure.— jEkei' ,
the adverb of rest, is used, as it
often is, instead of ejkei'se , the adverb of
motion; the goal is considered as
reached: “to go thither and be there. ”
Comp. John 11:8.— jEmplhsqh'nai ,
literally to saturate himself with them ,
a very lively expression of the need
he feels to make their personal
acquaintance, and of the pleasure
which this relation will bring him; comp.
1:12. The word somewhat is not a poor
compliment which he pays to the
Romans, as if he meant to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
say that his stay among them will only
half satisfy him; Paul means, on the
contrary, that he will never see them
enough to satisfy completely the
want he feels of spiritual communion
with them.—Baur suspects this
whole passage, for the reason that
this journey to Spain is a pure fiction; a
notion, the realization of which is
wholly without attestation. But the
Fragment of Muratori says expressly:
“the departure of Paul, setting out
from Rome to Spain.” For the very
reason, answers Hilgenfeld, that this
journey never took place, a forger
would not have mentioned it. And
without examining the question of
fact, how is it possible to prove that
Paul could not have formed such a
project, which corresponded so well
with his noble ambition, even though he
had not been able to realize it?
But before setting out for the west,
the apostle has yet a task to fulfil; he
proposes to seal by a solemn act the
union between the two portions of
the church in that part of the world
which he is about to leave. Such is the
object of a last visit which he yet
reckons on making to Jerusalem. He
must transmit to the mother church of
Jerusalem, on behalf of the
churches of Greece, the fruits of a
collection which they have made
spontaneously for it. The apostle is
concerned to inform the Christians of
Rome on this point, not only because
this journey will detain him some
time yet in the east, but especially
because it may involve him in dangers,
and because he has a request to
address to them in this relation. Such
are the perfectly natural contents of
the end of the chapter.
Vv. 25-33.
Vv. 25-27. “ But now I go unto
Jerusalem ministering unto the saints. For it
hath seemed good to them of Macedonia
and Achaia to make a
contribution for the poor saints which
are at Jerusalem. For it hath
seemed good to them, and verily their
debtors they are; for if the Gentiles
have been made partakers of their
spiritual things, they ought also to
minister unto them in carnal things.
”—The nuni; dev , but now , does not
contrast, as that of ver. 22 did, his
approaching journey to Rome with
certain anterior obstacles; the matter
in question now is a near hindrance
which still retards his visit to Rome.
The word diakonw'n , putting myself at
the service of (ministering), shows
that the apostle is referring to a task
which is sacred in his eyes. The
participle present diakonw'n is preferable
to the participle future or to the
infinitive aorist: “in order to serve,” which is
read by some documents. For the
service is not only the object of the
journey; it consists of the journey
itself.
Ver. 26. The expression: the saints ,
characterizes the church of
Jerusalem as the most venerable of
Christendom; comp. 1 Cor. 16:1. But
it is not to all the church, it is the
most indigent of its members, that this
service is destined. The idea has
often been advanced, that the cause of
the poverty of so large a number of
believers at Jerusalem was the
community of goods which is thought to
have prevailed at the origin of this
church. This is to exaggerate and
mistake the import of the facts related in
the narrative of the Acts on this
subject. The state of things is quite
naturally explained in the following
way. From the beginning, the
preaching of Christ found but little
access except to the poorer classes;
“Blessed are the poor ,” said Jesus
(Luke 6:20). The indigence of those
first believers must have been
increased day by day by the violent hatred
of the Jewish authorities and of the
upper classes; comp. Jas. 2:4-6. What
easier for rich and powerful families
than to deprive poor artisans, who
had become the objects of their
reprobation, of their means of
subsistence! This is an event which is
reproduced everywhere when there
is a transition from one religious
form to another; so in Catholic countries
where Protestantism is preached;
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
among the Jews, among the heathen of
India or China, etc., when one of
their own becomes a Christian. Thus
are naturally explained the meals in
common (the service of tables) to
which the whole church was invited in
the first times, the collection made
at Antioch (Acts 11:29) in behalf of the
church of Jerusalem, and the request
which the apostles addressed to
Paul and Barnabas, Gal. 2:10.—
Koinwniva , strictly communion , and
hence material communication so far as
it arises from communion of
hearts; comp. Heb. 13:16. The word
tinav , “ some communication ,” brings
out with delicacy the free and at the
same time accidental character of this
collection, both as to the thing in
itself and as to its amount. It is the
churches which have spontaneously
taxed themselves for this purpose. It
is surprising that Paul speaks only of
the churches of Greece, for Acts 20:4
and 1 Cor. 16:1 put beyond doubt the
participation of the churches of Asia
and Galatia.
Ver. 27. The repetition of the: “it
seemed good to them,” emphasizes still
more forcibly the free-will of the
churches in this course. They felt
themselves impelled to pay this homage
to the church from which the gift
of salvation had come to them; they
even judged that it was a small matter
to act thus in a lower domain in
behalf of those to whom they owed
blessings of an infinitely more
precious nature. Paul evidently enlarges
thus on this subject, not only to
praise the churches of Greece, or with the
view of leading the church of Rome
immediately to carry out a similar
work, but with the intention of
awaking in the hearts of his hearers the
feeling of a duty which they shall
also have the opportunity of fulfilling
some time or other. After this episode
Paul returns to his principal subject.
Vv. 28-29. “ When, therefore, I have
accomplished this and have sealed to
them this fruit, I will go on by you
unto Spain. Now I know that when I
come unto you, I shall come in the
fulness of the blessing of Christ. ”—The
term sfragivzesqai , to seal , has
been understood here in many ways.
Erasmus explained it thus: “when I
have delivered to them this money well
enclosed and sealed.” This meaning is
grammatically impossible, and the
idea is rather vulgar. Theodoret
thought Paul was alluding to the duly
signed and sealed receipt which should
be given him by the receivers to
be transmitted to the donors. But the
aujtoi'" , to them , can only apply to
the former, while in this sense it
would require to refer to the latter.
Hofmann applies the idea of the seal to
the signed and sealed deed by
which the churches of Greece charged
Paul to take to Jerusalem the
deputies who were bearers of the
collection. But how could all that be
included in the simple expression: to
seal? The term sfragivzesqai is
frequently taken in a metaphorical
sense: to keep closed, to keep secret,
attest, confirm, consent. It is in
this wide sense that it must be explained
here. The word denotes the delivery
officially and in due form of the sum
collected. We can see, Acts 21:18, how
Paul, arrived at Jerusalem,
repaired to the assembly of the elders
called together in the house of
James, as to a solemn reception. It
was then no doubt that the letter of
commission from the churches was
communicated, with the sums
accompanying it, and that a receipt
duly signed was given by the
elders.—Paul declares that this
formality once accomplished, he will haste
to take up his project of a journey to
the west (ver. 29); and if things can be
so brought about, he is perfectly sure
of the happiness he will enjoy
among his brethren of the church of
Rome. Would a forger, writing in the
apostle's name in the second century,
have made him pen a plan of the
future so different from the way in
which things really fell out?—The Greco-
Latin reading plhroforiva , instead of
plhrwvmati
( fulness ), is evidently erroneous;
for this word signifies only “fulness of
conviction ,” a meaning which does not
suit the context. The words tou'
eujaggelivou tou' , of the gospel of
(Christ), in the Byz. documents, must be
regarded as an interpolation,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
unless we choose to explain their
omission in the other Mjj. by the four
terminations in ou which follow one
another consecutively.
The more assured the mind of the
apostle is when it is turned to Rome,
the more does disquiet take possession
of his heart when he thinks of
Jerusalem.
Vv. 30-32. “ Now I exhort you,
brethren , by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by
the love of the Spirit, that ye strive
together with me before God for me in
your prayers, that I may be delivered
from the disobedient in Judea, and
that this aid which I have for
Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints;
that coming with joy among you by the
will of God , I may with you find
rest. ”—The dev might be adversative (
but ); it would thus express the
contrasted impressions which we have
just indicated. But it is better to
take it simply as progressive: now.
The form of address: brethren , which
the Vatic. wrongly rejects, makes a
pressing appeal to the sympathy of
the readers. This appeal is addressed
in the name of Christ Himself,
whom Paul serves, then of the
affection by which he feels himself bound
to the Romans by the operation of the
Holy Spirit. The love of the Spirit is
opposed to that which exists between
persons who know one another
personally; “who have seen my face in
the flesh,” as Paul himself says,
Col. 2:1 (in opposition to 1:8).—The
request so solemnly prefaced is one
for a common struggle; for there are
hostile powers to be combated (ver.
31). The two phrases: for me (in my
behalf) and before God , are often
joined to the substantive
proseucai'" : “your prayers for me before God. But
would not the regimen before God
connected with the word prayers be
superfluous, and would not the
expression your prayers for me imply a
thing which Paul has no right to
assume: viz. that they make prayer for
him continually? The two regimens,
therefore, depend rather on the verb
strive. To strive before God , whose
arm can alone cover the apostle in
this journey with an impenetrable
buckler; and by your prayers , since they
are the efficacious means of moving
this almighty arm.—The phrase: with
me , reminds the Romans how he is
himself striving for the same end.
Ver. 31. The enemies to be removed
are, above all, the unbelieving Jews.
It is to them the first that refers;
the second intimates that there are other
adversaries within the church itself;
they are “those thousands of Jews
who have believed,” Acts 21:20 and 21,
and who have been filled with
prejudices against Paul's person and
work. All those hearts must be
prepared by God Himself to receive
well the offering which is about to be
brought them. The reading dwroforiva (
offering of a present ) instead of
diakoniva ( service ), in the Vatic.
and the Greco-Lats., seems to me
probable enough, considering the
rareness of the expression.—The kind
of anxiety which breathes throughout
this whole passage is in keeping
with the painful presentiments felt by
all the churches about this journey to
Jerusalem, and which found utterance
shortly afterward by the mouth of
the prophets wherever Paul stopped
(Acts 20:22, 23, 21:4 et seq., 11 et
seq.).
Ver. 32. If with a A C we read: “ that
coming ( ejlqwvn )... I may find rest
( sunanapauvswmai ),” the two clauses:
with joy and by the will of God ,
might refer to the principal verb:
“that I may find rest.” But it seems to me
that this relation is unnatural, for
the idea of joy is already contained in
that of finding rest , and the will of
God more naturally determines the
matter of arriving than that of
resting. It is therefore preferable to apply
these two clauses to the idea of
coming. Of the two readings ejlqwvn or
ejlqw...kaiv , the former is more in
keeping with the simplicity of the
apostle's style; the latter, more
elegant, seems to be an Alexandrine
correction.—We think we see the
apostle, after happily finishing his
mission in Palestine, embarking full
of joy and guided by the will of God,
then arriving at Rome
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
there to rest his weary heart among
his brethren in the joy of the common
salvation, and to recover new strength
for a new work.—The reading “By
the will of God ” is preferable to all
the others: Paul ordinarily rises to God
whenever the subject involved is
providential dispensations.
Ver. 33. “ The God of peace be with
you all! Amen. ”—The apostle's heart
seems constrained, in proportion as he
approaches the end, to transform
every particular subject he touches
into a prayer or request. The special
prayer contained in this verse is
suggested to him by his conviction of the
hostilities and dangers lying before
himself, and by the need of soon being
in full peace in the midst of his
readers.—The authenticity of the word
ajmhvn , amen , is doubtful. It is
found, no doubt, in most of the Mjj., but it
is wanting in three of them, and it is
easier to explain its addition by
copyists than its omission.
The authenticity of vv. 30-33 is
acknowledged by Lucht. Volkmar admits
only that of ver. 33, adding the first
two verses of chap. 16. We have seen
how little weight belongs to the
objections raised by Baur and those critics
to the authenticity of chap. 15 in
general; we have not therefore to return
to them. As to the opinions formerly
given out by Semler and Paulus,
according to which this whole chapter
is only a particular leaf intended by
the apostle either for the persons
saluted in chap. 16, or for the most
enlightened members of the church of
Rome, they are now abandoned.
The apostle was no friend of religious
aristocracies, as we have seen in
chap. 12; and he would have done
nothing to favor such a tendency.
Besides, what is there in this chapter
which could not be read with
advantage by the whole church? We have
proved the intimate connection
between the first part of the chapter
and the subject treated in chap. 14,
as well as the connection between the
second part and the Epistle as a
whole, more particularly the preface,
1:1-15. The style and ideas are in all
points in keeping with what one would
expect from the pen of Paul. As
Hilgenfeld says: “It is impossible in
this offhand way to reject chaps. 15
and 16; the Epistle to the Romans
cannot have closed with 14:23, unless
it remained without a conclusion.” M.
Reuss expresses himself to the
same effect, and we have pleasure in quoting
the following lines from him
in closing this subject: “The lessons
contained in the first half of the text
(chap. 15) are absolutely harmonious
with those of the previous chapter,
and of the parallel passages of other
Epistles, and the statement of the
apostle's plans is the most natural
expression of his mind and
antecedents, as well as the reflection
of the situation of the moment.
There is not the slightest trace of
the aim of a forged composition, nor
certainly of the possibility that the
Epistle closed with chap. 14.”
Thirtieth Passage (16:1-16).
Recommendations, Salutations,
Warning.
It is the apostle's custom, when
closing his letters, to treat a number of
particular subjects of a more or less
personal nature, such as special
salutations, commissions, or warnings;
comp. 1 Cor. 16:10-22 (particularly
ver. 22); 2 Cor. 13:11-13; Col.
4:7-18; Phil. 4:10-23; 1 Thess. 5:25-28. He
does so in our Epistle.
And first, vv. 1 and 2, the
recommendation of the deaconess Phoebe.
Vv. 1, 2. “ Now I commend unto you
Phoebe, our sister, which is a
deaconess of the church of Cenchrea,
that ye receive her in the Lord as
becometh saints, and that ye assist
her in whatsoever business she may
have need of you; for also she hath
been a succorer of many and of
myself. ”—Here, according to some,
begins a private note entrusted by
the apostle to the bearers (Semler),
or to the female bearer
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
(Eichhorn), of this Epistle, to
indicate the principal persons to be saluted in
the churches which were to be visited
by the way. Some moderns, D.
Schulz, Reuss, Ewald, Laurent, Renan,
etc., even think they can, either
from the starting-point (Cenchrea), or
from certain names in the
salutations which follow, positively
determine the church for which this
note was composed. It was, they hold,
the church of Ephesus. We shall
examine step by step as we proceed the
reasons alleged in favor of this
supposition. We only remark here, that
many of those who reject the
salutations, vv. 3-16, from the
Epistle to the Romans, yet regard vv. 1 and
2 as having belonged to it (Scholten,
Volkmar, Schultz). We note besides,
as to the rest of this chapter, the
following observation of Schultz: “As long
as the destination to the church of
Rome of all the parts of chap. 16 can
be maintained , this view ought to be
preferred to every other.” And,
indeed, it will always be difficult to
understand how a leaf of salutations
intended for the church of Ephesus, or
any other, should have strayed into
the copy of our Epistle deposited in
the archives of the church of Rome
(see the remarks at the end of this
chapter).
It has generally been admitted that
Phoebe was the bearer of our Epistle,
and no doubt with reason. For
otherwise how are we to explain this so
special personal recommendation? Comp.
Col. 4:7; Eph. 6:21. Paul
mentions two titles which point her
out for the interest of the Christians of
Rome; she is a sister , and, moreover,
a servant of the Lord , invested
consequently with an ecclesiastical
office. It has been denied that at so
remote a period the office of
deaconess could already be in existence. But
why, if there were deacons (12:7; Acts
6:1 et seq.; Phil. 1:1), should there
not have been also from primitive
times a similar office discharged by
women, members of the church? With
what right can we allege that the
office mentioned 12:8 belonged only to
men? It seems to us impossible to
think that the widows spoken of, 1
Tim. 5:3 et seq., were not persons
invested with an ecclesiastical
office. And in any case, the ministrations of
beneficence of a private nature,
mentioned in our Epistle (12:7), must
have been carried out in good measure
by sisters. And why should not a
rich and devoted woman, who had for a
time occupied herself with such
work, have borne, even without
ecclesiastical consecration, the title of
deaconess? If our passage had a later
origin than the first centnry, there
would certainly have been introduced
here, instead of the word diavkono" (
deacon ), which is the masculine term
originally applied to both sexes, the
feminine title diakovnissa ( deaconess
), already in use in the second
century. Comp. the letter in which
Pliny relates that he has been obliged
to torture two of those servants who
are called ministrae (evidently a
translation of diakovnissai ). There
were so many services to be rendered
to the poor, to orphans, to strangers,
to the sick, which women only could
discharge! As is observed by Schaff,
the profound separation between the
sexes in the East must also have
contributed to render a female diaconate
altogether indispensable.—The
participle ou\san , who is , expressly
denotes that Phoebe is still, at the time
of Paul's writing, invested with this
office.—Cenchrea was the port of
Corinth toward the east, on the Egean
Sea; and hence it has been inferred
that Phoebe was going rather to
Ephesus than to Rome. The proof is far
from convincing. “The person in
question,” says Schultz himself, “is
not a Corinthian who is passing
through Cenchrea, but, on the
contrary, a woman of Cenchrea who is
passing through Corinth, and who is
consequently on her way to the
west.” A good answer as an argument ad
hominem. But, speaking freely,
what a puerility is criticism thus
handled.
Ver. 2. In the Lord: in the profound
feeling of the communion with Him,
which binds into one body all the
members of the church.—The
expression: as becometh saints , may
signify, becoming saints who are
received, like Phoebe, or saints who
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
are called to receive, like the
Romans. It is absolutely necessary to
choose between the two meanings?—There
is a correlation between the
two terms paristavnai , to stand
beside in order to hold up , and prostavti" (
protectress, patroness ), one who
stands before in order to guide or
protect. Hence it appears that Phoebe
had bestowed care on Paul
himself, perhaps during his stay at
Cenchrea, mentioned Acts 18:18, and
on occasion of an illness. M. Renan
informs us that “this poor woman
started on a wild winter journey
across the Archipelago without any other
resource than Paul's recommendation.”
Then he adds: “It is more natural
to suppose that Paul recommended
Phoebe to the Ephesians, whom he
knew, than to the Romans, whom he did
not know.” As if the titles given to
Phoebe, cited vv. 1 and 2, were not
enough to interest any church
whatever in her!
Vv. 3-16.
To the recommendation of Phoebe, the
apostle joins a list of salutations ,
which might indeed still be called
recommendations; for the imperative
ajspavsasqe , greet , fifteen times
repeated, is addressed to the whole
church. It is, in fact, the church
itself which he charges to transmit this
mark of affection to its different
objects. How was this commission carried
out? Probably, at the time when the
letter was read in full assembly of the
church, the president expressed to the
person designated, in some way or
other, the mark of distinction which
the apostle had bestowed on him.
Most critics of the present day hold
that this list of salutations cannot have
been written by Paul with a view to
the church of Rome, which he had not
yet visited. How then could he have
known so many persons in it? The
persons in question, therefore, were
friends of the apostle in a church
which he had himself founded, and, to
all appearance, in the church of
Ephesus. Accident has willed that this
list should be joined afterward to
the Epistle to the Romans (see
especially Reuss, Epi<tres Pauliniennes ,
pp. 19, 20). Bauer, Lucht, etc., go
still further: they think that this list was
composed later by a forger, who
thought good to make Paul pen the
names of several notable persons of
the church of Rome, in order to
produce an advantageous impression on
this church, which was always
somewhat unfavorably disposed toward
the apostle. “A very improbable
procedure,” observes Schultz. “And
how,” asks this writer with reason,
“would the forger in this case have
forgotten Clement,” who should surely
have figured at the head? For the
rest, let us study the list itself.
Vv. 3-5a. “ Salute Prisca and Aquilas,
my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus,
who have for my life laid down their
own necks—unto whom not only I
give thanks, but also all the churches
of the Gentiles—and the church that
meets in their
house. ”—Aquilas and his wife Prisca
(or Priscilla) were Jews, natives of
Pontus, in Asia Minor. They were
established at Rome as tent-makers,
when the edict of Claudius, which
expelled Israelites from the capital,
obliged them to emigrate. They had
been settled for a short time at
Corinth, when Paul arrived there for
the first time in the year 53. Their
common occupation drew them together,
and Paul soon brought them to
the knowledge of Christ (Acts 18:2).
For it is absolutely arbitrary to
represent them as already Christians
when they left Rome. This opinion
arises only from the tendency to
derive the propagation of the gospel at
Rome from the Jewish synagogue. But it
is excluded by the expression of
the Acts: tina; jIoudai'on , a certain
Jew. Luke would have added the
epithet maqhthvn , disciple; comp.
Acts 16:1. When, two years later, the
apostle left Corinth with the intention
of going to found a mission at
Ephesus, Aquilas and his wife repaired
to the latter city, while Paul
proceeded first
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
to visit Jerusalem and Antioch. Their
intention certainly was to prepare the
way for him in the capital of the
province of Asia, then to support his
ministry there, as they had done at
Corinth; comp. Acts 18:18-21.—It is
this salutation more than anything
else which has given rise to the
supposition that our entire list was
addressed to Ephesus. But could not
this husband and wife, who had
emigrated from Pontus to Rome, then
from Rome to Corinth, and lastly, from
Corinth to Ephesus, have returned
to Rome, their former domicile, after
the imperial edict had fallen into
desuetude? This is the more admissible
as the object of this return is
easily understood. We know from Acts
19:21, that even at Ephesus Paul
had already formed the plan of
proceeding to Rome as soon as he had
finished his work in Asia and Greece.
Aquilas and Priscilla, who had been
so useful to him at Corinth, who had
even gone to Ephesus with him with
a view to his approaching mission,
might a second time, by proceeding
from Ephesus to Rome, do for him what
they had done by leaving Corinth
for Ephesus. The passage, Jas. 4:13,
shows with what ease rich Jewish
traders travelled from one large city
to another. “To-day or to-morrow we
will go into such a city, and buy and
sell and get gain.” Objection is taken
from the short time which had elapsed
since the end of Paul's sojourn at
Ephesus: ten months only, it is said,
from the spring of the year 57, when
at Ephesus he wrote the First Epistle
to the Corinthians (chap. 16:8), and
when he conveys greetings from Aquilas
and Priscilla (16:19), to the
beginning of 58, when it is alleged he
wrote the Epistle to the Romans
from Corinth. But we think there is a
mistake in putting only ten months'
interval between the First Epistle to
the Corinthians and the Epistle to the
Romans.
A profound study of the Second Epistle
to the Corinthians, as well as of
the Acts, leads to a wholly different
result. From the spring of the year 57,
when Paul left Ephesus, to the time
when he made the stay at Corinth,
during which he composed our Epistle,
there elapsed, we think, nearly two
years, from Easter 57 to February
59. Such an interval fully suffices to
explain the new change of Aquilas
and Priscilla, and their return to
Rome. In the fact that many years later,
about the year 66, and perhaps on
occasion of the persecution of Nero (in
64), they are again settled at
Ephesus, where Paul sends them a
salutation, 2 Tim. 4:19, there is
nothing to surprise us.—The form Prisca is
certainly authentic in the Epistle to the
Romans; the diminutive Priscilla ,
which is read in the T. R., is found
only in some Mnn. In the Acts (18:2,
18, 26, and 1 Cor. 16:19), the latter
form is found in all the documents. In
2 Tim. 4:19, the two readings exist,
but the majority are in favor of Prisca,
as in Romans. There is also variation
in the reciprocal position of the two
names. The wife is placed here first,
as in Acts 18:18 and 2 Tim. 4:19.
Probably she was superior to her
husband, either in ability or Christian
activity.
Ver. 4. The qualitative pronoun
oi{tine" signifies: as people who ...The
expression: to put the neck under (
the axe ), is no doubt figurative; but in
any case it implies the act of
exposing one's life. We do not know where
or when this event took place. Was it
at Corinth, on occasion of the scene
described Acts 18:12 et seq.? or was
it not rather at Ephesus, in one or
other of the cases to which allusion
is made in the words, 1 Cor. 15:32
and 2 Cor. 1:8? The apostle reminds
the Romans that they had thereby
rendered service to all the churches
of the Gentile world, and
consequently to them also. This
passage proves two things—1st. That
these words, intended to recommend
Aquilas and Priscilla, were not
addressed to the church of Ephesus,
where the event referred to probably
too place; for Paul undoubtedly means
to give his readers information. 2d.
That the church to which he addressed
them was itself one of those
churches of the Gentile world whose
gratitude these two persons had
deserved; a new proof of the Gentile
origin of the Christians of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Rome. ver. 5a The expression: the
church that is in their house , may
have three meanings. Either it denotes
the entire assembly of the
servants and workpeople residing and
working with them; or it applies to
that portion of the church which had
its usual place of meeting in their
house; or finally, the words apply to
the whole church of the capital, which
held its plenary meetings at their
house; comp. 1 Cor. 14:23. This last
sense is incompatible with the
preposition katav , the meaning of which is
distributive, and supposes other
places of worship (vv. 14 and 15). The
first is improbable, for the term
ejkklhsiva , church , would not suit a purely
private gathering. The second is
therefore the only possible one; comp. 1
Cor. 16:19. Schultz thinks we may
conclude from these words that Aquilas
was invested with the office of elder
in the church of Ephesus where he
lived, and that, consequently, he
could not so easily change his domicile.
One must surely be at a loss for good
reasons to imagine such a one as
this.—What is certain is, that these
two persons are saluted here, not only
as particular friends of St. Paul, but
because of the important part they
played in the work of his apostleship.
The passage, Acts 18:24- 28,
presents an example of their activity,
and of the powerful influence they
exercised; and it is most probable
that what they had been at Ephesus,
they had also been at Rome, from the
day when they returned to it. In a
word, they were evangelists of the
first order. This is what recommends
them to the respectful attention of
the church, and assigns them the first
rank in this list of apostolic
salutations. This circumstance throws light on
the character of the whole list.
Vv. 5b, 6. “ Salute my well-beloved
Epenetus, who was the first-fruits of
Asia unto Christ.Salute Mary , who
bestowed much labor on us.
”—Epenetus is to us an unknown
personage. According to the Received
reading, he would be the first convert
of Achaia , consequently a native of
Corinth, which could hardly be
reconciled with 1 Cor. 16:15. This reading
probably arises from the copyist thinking
that Paul meant to speak of the
country from which he was writing. The
true reading is certainly of Asia.
Meyer concludes, from the fact that
Epenetus was the first convert in this
province, that he must have been a
Jew, because Paul preached first of
all in the synagogue; as if Aquilas
and Priscilla, who had preceded Paul at
Ephesus, might not have met with and
converted a Gentile in that city
before Paul arrived, and proclaimed
the gospel in full synagogue! The
Greek name of Epenetus would rather
lead us to think him a Gentile; he
was the first-fruits of the Gentiles
converted at Ephesus. Here again the
critics find an undeniable proof of
the destination of this list to the church
of Ephesus. But if, as is probable,
Epenetus was the fruit of the labors of
Aquilas, anterior even to those of
Paul, he might very naturally have
accompanied the evangelist-pair from
Ephesus to Rome, to take part in
their work in that great city. Hence
the intimate relation which the apostle
here establishes between these three
persons; hence also the honorable
title which he gives to this last
before all the church.—The regimen eij"
Cristovn , unto Christ , makes Christ
the person to whom the first-fruits are
offered.
Ver. 6. We know nothing of this Mary saluted
in ver. 6; her name indicates
her Jewish origin, even if, with some
Mjj., we read Marivan .—If, with
almost all the Mjj., we read eij"
uJma'" , on you , Mary would be one who
had rendered herself particularly
useful in the church of Rome, perhaps by
her devotion during some epidemic
which had raged in the church. But
would Paul thus remind the church of a
thing which, in that case, it knew
much better than himself? Besides, all
the persons saluted here are so
because of some connection or other
with the apostle; this is what makes
us prefer the reading eij"
hJma'" , on us. Like Phoebe, like Aquilas and
Priscilla, she had
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
actively taken part in the work of
Paul, and occupied herself by ministering
to those who surrounded him; and now
from the east she had gone to
Rome, like so many others.
Vv. 7, 8. “ Salute Andronicus and
Junias, my countrymen and my
fellowprisoners, who are of note among
the apostles, and who also have
been in Christ before me.Salute
Ampliatus , my beloved in the Lord.
”—The word Junian might be taken as
the accusative of a female name,
Junia , to denote the sister or wife
of Andronicus. But the end of the verse
leads us rather to think of a man of
the name of Junias. —The expression
suggenei'" mou may signify: my
kinsmen , or my countrymen (9:3). The first
meaning seems, in itself, the more
natural; but in vv. 11 and 21 this term
is applied to other persons, two of
whom (Jason and Sosipater) appear to
be Macedonians (Acts 17:5, and 20:4).
The wider meaning, that of
countrymen , thus becomes the more
probable. Even Schultz finds a proof
in these words that Paul wrote these
lines to a church of Gentile origin (“
my countrymen”). Hence it has been
concluded that these salutations
could not be addressed to the church
of Rome. From the same
circumstance we, for our part, on the
contrary, conclude that the church of
Rome was not Jewish-Christian. It has
been asked when these two
Christians of Jewish origin could have
been imprisoned with St. Paul?
Neither the Acts nor the previous
Epistles furnish an answer to this
question. But the descriptions in 2
Cor. 6:5 et seq., and 11:23 et seq.,
allude to so many unknown
circumstances in the apostle's life, that this
ignorance ought not to excite our
surprise. In chap. 15 of his Epistle to the
Corinthians, Clement of Rome
enumerates seven captivities of the
apostle, and we know of only four
(Philippi, Jerusalem, Caesarea, Rome).
Probably the event in question belongs
to a period anterior to his
missionary journeys (comp. the end of
the verse).—Most critics of the
present day agree in explaining the
following words in this sense: “well
known by the apostles” (the Twelve).
But what a strange title of honor: the
apostles know them! And can the ejn ,
in , have such a meaning:
“illustrious with , that is to say, in
the opinion of the apostles.” Meyer
quotes the phrase of Euripides:
ejpivshmo" ejn brotoi'" , illustrious with
mortals, or in their eyes. But why not
translate quite simply: illustrious
amidst or among mortals? And
similarly, and with still more reason, here:
illustrious among those numerous
evangelists who, by their missionary
labors in the countries of the East,
have merited the name of apostles.
This title, indeed, could in certain
cases have a wider sense than it has in
our Gospels; thus, Acts 14:4 and 14,
it is applied to Barnabas, as it is
indirectly, 1 Cor. 9:5. So we call the
missionary Brainerd, the apostle of
the Indians. Such another, the apostle
of China or of the Indies.—A last
title of honor: these two men preceded
Paul himself in the faith. They
belong, therefore, to that primitive
church of Jerusalem whose members,
as years elapse, take ever a more
venerable character in the eyes of all
the churches. The Greco- Latin
reading: “the apostles who were before
me ,” is an evident corruption of the
text.
Ver. 8. The Alexs.: Ampliaton; the
others, following an abridged form:
Amplian. Paul, having no special
distinction to mention as belonging to
this person, contents himself with
pointing him out to the respect of the
church by the expression of his affection;
and that is enough, for it is an
affection in the Lord , which
consequently implies in Amplias devotion to
His service.
Vv. 9, 10. “ Salute Urbanus, our
fellow-worker in Christ, and Stachys my
beloved. Salute Apelles [the brother]
approved in Christ. Salute them
which are of Aristobulus' household.
”—Urbanus, a Latin name signifying
citizen; Stachys, a Greek name
signifying an ear of corn. In speaking of
the former as his fellow-worker,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Paul says: our (comp. the on us , ver.
6), because it is the apostolic work
which is in question with all the
workers who engage in it along with him;
speaking of his personal friendship,
he says: my.
Ver. 10. Apelles: a frequent name for
freedmen at Rome, especially
among Jews. Every one knows the Credat
judoeus Apella of Horace.—
Dovkimo" , the Christian who has
passed his trials, who has shown
himself steadfast in his course.—The
last words may denote the
Christians who are of the number of
Aristobulus' children , or those who
belong to his house as servants. The
expression used agrees better with
the second meaning. It was a large
house, Jewish perhaps, to which the
gospel had found access.
Vv. 11, 12. “ Salute Herodion my
countryman. Salute them that be of the
household of Narcissus, which are in
the Lord. Salute Tryphena and
Tryphosa, who labor in the Lord.
Salute Persis the beloved, which labored
much in the
Lord. ”—Here, again, suggenhv"
may signify either countryman or kinsman
(see ver.
7). The Roman writers Suetonius,
Pliny, Tacitus, speak of a freedman of
Claudius, of the name of Narcissus. Is
it the house of this imperial favorite
which is here referred to? He himself
had been executed four years
before the composition of our Epistle;
but his house might still exist at
Rome.
Ver. 12. Paul speaks here of three
women, the two former of whom were
distinguished at this time, and the
third had been distinguished previously
in the service of the Lord and of the
church, like Priscilla and Mary. The
two former were probably sisters;
their almost identical names come from
the verb trufa'n , to live
voluptuously. Paul wishes evidently to contrast this
meaning of their name with that of the
epithet kopiwvsa" , who work
laboriously. They are in Christ the
opposite of what their name
expresses.—Persis, a woman of Persia.
Foreigners were often
designated by the name of their native
country (Lydia, a Lydian). Meyer
points out the delicacy with which
Paul here omits the pronoun mou ( my ).
Probably she was an aged woman: Paul
says: labored.
Ver. 13. “ Salute Rufus, chosen in the
Lord, and his mother and mine.
”—The term chosen cannot be taken here
in the sense in which it applies
to all Christians: it must denote
something special. Hofmann, judging from
what follows, understands: “The man
whom I have specially chosen as my
brother in the Lord.” But in this
sense the pronoun mou ( my ) could not be
wanting. As what is the better is
willingly chosen, the word ejklektov" ,
chosen , takes the sense of
distinguished, excellent. This is certainly the
meaning of the epithet here, as in 2
John 1 and 13. The following words:
“his mother and mine,” prove that Paul
was united to this family by the
closest ties—that he had even lived in
it. And if we remember that Mark,
writing his Gospel at Rome, was
pleased to designate Simon of Cyrene,
who carried the cross of Jesus, as
“the father of Alexander and Rufus ,”
we shall be naturally led to hold that
this family had removed from
Jerusalem to Rome, where Rufus
occupied a distinguished place in the
church. It was therefore during the
years of his youth, when he was
studying at Jerusalem, that Paul had
lived in the bosom of this family, and
had enjoyed the motherly care of
Simon's wife.
Vv. 14, 15. “ Salute Asyncritus,
Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and
the brethren which are with them.
Salute Philologus, and Julia , Nereus,
and his sister, and Olympas, and all
the saints which are with them.
”—The personages whose names follow
are not designated by any
epithet of distinction; but it was
honor enough to be marked out, were it
only by name, to the respectful
attention of the whole church of
Rome.—The last words of both of the
verses 14 and 15: and the brethren
who are with them , prove that the
persons just named are so, not simply
as
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
believers, but as directors of a whole
assembly which is accustomed to
meet around them. They lived, no
doubt, in different quarters, and formed,
besides the group which met in the
house of Aquilas, two distinct
assemblies.—Hermas was regarded by
Origen as the author of the work
famous in the primitive church,
entitled the Pastor of Hermas. But it seems
now established by the Fragment of
Muratori that this writing dates only
from the second half of the second
century, and that Hermas is a wholly
different person from the man who is
here saluted by the
apostle.— Olympas (perhaps an
abbreviation of Olympiodorus) is
certainly here a man's name.
Ver. 15. Julia (for such is the true
reading) is undoubtedly the wife of
Philologus.
Ver. 16. “ Salute one another with an
holy kiss. All the churches of Christ
salute you. ”—The apostle has just
saluted in his own name the influential
members of the different flocks of the
church of Rome; but he naturally
feels the need of also testifying his
affection to the whole church; and he
charges all its members to do so for
him toward another. For this purpose
they are to use the customary form of
the brotherly kiss. If we did not
know positively from the Fathers,
particularly Tertullian
( osculum pacis ) in the De Oratione ,
c. 14 (comp. 1 Pet. 5:14) that the
reference here is to an external rite,
we should be tempted to hold the
opinion of Calvin and Philippi,
according to which we must give the term
holy kiss a purely spiritual meaning:
the salutation of brotherly love. But
we learn from the Apostolic
Constitutions that at a later time rules were
laid down to remove from this custom
all that might be offensive in it, so
that it is more probable the term
ought to be taken literally. We may be
assured that in the apostolic churches
all was done with order and dignity.
This is what is expressed by the
epithet a{gion , holy , which recurs 1 Cor.
16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, and 1 Thess.
5:26. Probably the president of the
assembly gave the kiss to the brother
who sat next him, and he to his
neighbor, while the same thing took
place on the part of the women.
While the apostle in thought sees the
Christians of Rome saluting one
another by this sign of brotherhood, a
greater spectacle is presented to
his mind, that of all the churches
already composing Christendom, and
which are likewise united by the bond
of communion in Christ. He has just
himself traversed the churches of
Greece and Asia; he has spoken to
them of his already formed plan of
proceeding to Rome (Acts 19:21,
20:25), and they have all charged him
with their salutations to their sister
in the capital of the world. Now is
the time for him to discharge this
commission. Through his
instrumentality, the members of Christ's body
scattered over the earth salute one
another with a holy kiss, just like the
members of the church which he is
addressing. The T. R. has rejected the
word all , no doubt because it was not
understood how Paul could send
greetings from other churches than
those among which he was at the
time.—The Greco-Latin text has
transferred this second half of the verse
to the end of ver. 21, with the
evident intention of connecting it with the
salutations of Paul's companions. But
these have too private and personal
a character to allow of the apostle
appending to them so solemn a
message as that of all the churches of
the East to the church of Rome.
This message must form an integral
part of the letter; it is quite otherwise
with these salutations (see below).
We are now in a position to judge of
the question whether this passage
belongs to our Epistle. In it
twenty-six persons are individually
designated—twenty- four by their
names. Of these names it may be said
that one or two are Hebrew, five or
six Latin, fifteen to sixteen Greek;
three Christian communities assembling
in
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
different localities are mentioned
(vv. 5, 14, 15); besides two groups
having more of a private character
(vv. 10 and 11). It appears evident to
us that the apostle feels the need of
paying homage to all the faithful
servants and all the devoted handmaids
of the Lord who had aided in the
foundation and development of this
church, and before his arrival
completed the task of the apostolate
in this great city. Not only is the
apostle concerned to testify to them
his personal feelings; but he
expresses himself in such a way as to
force the church, so to speak, to
take part as a whole in this public
testimony of gratitude toward those to
whom it owes its existence and
prosperity. If such is the meaning of this
truly unique passage in St. Paul's
letters, does it not apply infinitely better
to a church which, like that of Rome,
had not yet seen an apostle within it,
than to those of Ephesus or Corinth,
where the entire activity of laying the
foundation was, as it were,
personified in a single individual? Hence those
different expressions used by the
apostle: “fellow-worker in the Lord,”
“who labored,” or “who labor,” “all
those who are with them,” and even
once the use of the title apostle. We
seem, as we read these numerous
salutations, to have before us the
spectacle of a beehive swarming on all
sides with activity and labor in the
midst of the vast field of the capital of
the world, and we understand better
the whole passage of chap. 12
relative to the varied gifts and
numerous ministries, as well as the
remarkable expression: pavnti tw'/
o[nti ejn uJmi'n , every man that is [as a
worker] among you (ver. 3). “Here is,”
says Gaussen, “a picture to the life
of a primitive church; we can see to
what height the most ignorant and
weak of its members can rise....We
wonder at the progress already made
by the word of God,
solely through the labors of
travellers, artisans, merchants, women,
slaves, and freedmen who resided in
Rome.” Not only did the apostle
know a large number of these workers,
because he had been connected
with them in the East (Andronicus and
Junias, Rufus and his mother, for
example), or because he had converted
them himself (Aquilas and
Priscilla); but he also received hews
from Rome, as is proved by the
intimate details into which he entered
in chap. 14; and he might thus know
of the labors of many of those
saluted, whom he did not know personally.
Such is probably the case with the
last persons designated, and to whose
names he adds no description. The
Greek origin of the most of these
names constitutes no objection to the
Roman domicile of those who bear
them. What matters it to us that, as
M. Renan says, after Father Garucci,
the names in Jewish inscriptions at
Rome are mostly of Latin origin? If
there is any room for surprise, five
or six Latin names would perhaps be
more astonishing at Ephesus than
fifteen or sixteen Greek names at
Rome. Have we not proved over and over
that this church was recruited
much more largely from Gentiles than
from Jews, and that especially it
was founded by missionaries who had
come from Syria, Asia, and
Greece? M. Reuss no doubt asks what
became of all those friends of
Paul, when, some years later, he wrote
from Rome his Epistles to the
Colossians and Philippians; and later
still, the Second to Timothy. But, in
writing from Rome to the churches of
Colosse and Philippi, he could only
send salutations from individuals who
knew them. And a little before the
Second to Timothy, there occurred the
persecution of Nero, which had for
the time dispersed and almost
annihilated the church of Rome. Our
conclusion, therefore, is not only
that this passage of salutations may
have been written to the church of
Rome, but that it could not have been
addressed to any other more suitably.
As at the present day, Paris or
even Rome is a sort of rendezvous for
numerous foreign Christians of
both sexes, who go thither to found
evangelistic works; so the great pagan
Rome attracted at that time the
religious attention and zeal of all the
Christians of the East.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Let us remark, in closing, the
exquisite delicacy and courtesy which guide
the apostle in those distinguishing
epithets with which he accompanies
the names of the servants or handmaids
of Christ whom he mentions.
Each of those descriptive titles is as
it were the rough draft of the new
name which those persons shall bear in
glory. Thus understood, this
enumeration is no longer a dry
nomenclature; it resembles a bouquet of
newly-blown flowers, which diffuse
refreshing odors.
Vv. 17-20.
In the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, the apostle, after a passage of
salutations, 16:19-21, stops all at
once to address to the church, as in the
form of a postscript, a solemn warning
(ver. 22). It is as if the salutation
which he had just written awoke in him
once more before closing the
feeling of the danger which lies in
the way of his readers. It is the same
here, with this difference, that at
Corinth the danger was present and
pressing, as is shown by the whole
Epistle, whereas at Rome it is still
remote, though inevitable. The tone
also of the warning is distinctly
different in the two cases; for
Corinth a threatening, for Rome a simple
putting on their guard in the most
affectionate and fatherly tone.—Renan,
Weizsacker , Schultz, agree in
thinking that this passage can only have
been addressed by Paul to a church
which he had himself founded—that
of Ephesus, for example. We shall
examine their reasons as we study this
passage. In the eyes of Baur, Lucht,
Volkmar, it is not even St. Paul's; it
falls under the judgment of
condemnation which, according to these
critics, is due to the two chaps. 15
and 16 mostly or totally.
Vv. 17, 18. “ Now I exhort you,
brethren, to mark them which cause [the]
divisions and offences contrary to the
doctrine which ye have learned; and
turn away from them. For these persons
serve not Christ our Lord, but
their own belly; and by fair speeches
and benedictions deceive the hearts
of the simple. ”—As observed by Hofmann,
the apostle had regulated
(chaps. 14 and 15) all that related to
the internal differences which might
exist in the church of Rome. But now
the unity of all Christendom has just
presented itself vividly to his mind;
and remembering the divisions which
trouble it in other churches, he
thinks that they might penetrate from
without into the bosom of this one. He
has evidently in view those
Judaizers who from Jerusalem had come
down to trouble the church of
Antioch, who from Syria had followed
Paul step by step to Galatia, and
even to Corinth, and who would be sure
as soon as they heard of a
church founded at Rome, to arrive on
the spot, seeking to monopolize it
for themselves. Facts proved that the
anticipation of Paul was well
founded. The beginning of the Epistle
to the Philippians, written from
Rome four or five years after ours,
proves the pernicious activity of those
fanatical partisans of the law in the
church of Rome. Probably the party of
the weak , chap. 14, had opened it to
their entrance.
The description which follows contains
details which are too minute to
allow us, with Hofmann, to apply this
warning to all false teachers in
general, Gentile or Jew.—The article
before the words divisions and
offences , shows that the apostle has
in view facts already known. But it
does not follow that they had
transpired in the church to which he was
writing, as is alleged by those who
maintain that this passage cannot have
been addressed to the church of Rome.
It was enough that these
disorders were facts of notoriety in
other churches, to warrant St. Paul in
speaking as he does. And how could
those who had labored with him in
the churches of the East, and whom he
has just been saluting in such
numbers, Aquilas and Priscilla, for
example, who had shared with him at
Ephesus all the agonies of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the great Corinthian conflict, have
failed to know intimately the burning
enmity with which the apostle was
regarded by a certain number of Judeo-
Christians? The term divisions refers
to ecclesiastical divisions; the term
offences , to the moral disorders
which had so often accompanied them,
particularly at Corinth; comp. 2 Cor.
10- 13—It is entirely false to conclude
from the words: “contrary to the
doctrine which ye have learned,” that Paul
himself was the founder of the church
to which this passage was
addressed. He would have said more
clearly in that case: “which ye
learned of me; ” comp. Phil. 4:9. This
passage says nothing more than
6:17, where Paul gives thanks “because
the Romans have obeyed from
the heart the form of doctrine
according to which they were taught.” The
reference, here as there, is to Paul's
gospel which had been taught to the
Romans, not by himself, but by those
of his fellow-laborers whom he has
just saluted. The teaching opposed to
this gospel is the legal system,
which, according to this passage, as
well as 1:8, 11, 12, 6:17, and the
whole Epistle in general, had not yet
got a footing at Rome.—These
words are obviously sufficient, if
they were really addressed to this church,
to overthrow Baur's opinion as to its
composition and tendency. As the
expression: to mark, have the eyes
open to ( skopei'n ), refers to an enemy
expected rather than present, we must
apply the last words of the verse:
avoid them , to the time when they
shall be present, and shall seek to do
their work. Then there will be no need
even to enter into communication
with them; all that is necessary will
be simply to turn the back to them; and
why? The following verse answers this
question.
Ver. 18. The parties referred to are
men at once sensual and hypocritical;
it is therefore under the influence of
a deep moral aversion that the
Christians of Rome are called to avoid
them. They serve their sensual
appetites, and not Christ. This
feature reminds us of Phil. 3:19, words
which apply to the same individuals:
“whose god is their belly, and who
mind earthly things;” comp. also 2
Cor. 11:20 and 21: “If a man bring you
into bondage, devour you, take of you,
ye suffer it.” It is this sensual and
insolent conduct which Paul
characterizes, Phil. 3:2, in the severe terms:
“Beware of dogs; beware of evil
workers.” The gospel ministry was to
these people a means of gain, and gain
the means of satisfying their
gross passions. They were the
Tartuffes of the period. Another point of
resemblance identifies them more
completely still with the type drawn by
Molie:re : they present themselves
with a benignant style of speech (
crhstologiva ), and with fatherly
benedictions ( eujlogivai ); and the simple (
a[kakoi , literally, the innocent ),
who suspect no evil, allow themselves to
be caught with these devout airs and
paternal tone. Was it necessary, as
Schultz holds, that these men should
be already present to account for
Paul speaking thus in regard to them?
Had he not learned to know them
in this light in Galatia and at
Corinth, and could he not portray them to the
church of Rome, that they might be
recognized immediately on their
appearing?
Ver. 19. “ For the report of your
obedience is come abroad unto all; I am
glad therefore on your behalf.But yet
I would have you wise unto that
which is good, and simple unto that
which is evil. ”—This verse has been
connected with the preceding in
different ways. Thol., Mey., Philip. find in
it a reason for peace: “You will be
able to resist them; for every one knows
your obedience to the pure gospel.”
But the for in this sense cannot be
explained except in a forced way (see
Meyer), and Paul would have
required to say in any case: “For I
know”..., and not: “For all
know”...Origen explains: “I warn you
thus; for ye are yourselves of the
number of those simple
( a[kakoi ), whose obedient docility
is well known.” But how are we to
reconcile such a statement with the
eulogies bestowed on the knowledge
and experience of the readers, 15:14
and 15? It is to no purpose to
answer that this very saying proves
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
that the passage is not addressed to
the Romans. For the Ephesians, who
had for three years enjoyed Paul's
presence and his teaching in public
and private, and who had been
witnesses of his most strenuous conflicts
with the Judaizers, might far less be
designated a[kakoi , innocent , than
the Christians of Rome, who had never
seen an apostle. Calvin and
others understand thus: “I warn you in
this way, because I desire that to
your obedience, universally known, you
would add both the wisdom and
simplicity which shall secure you from
seduction.” This meaning is good;
but it does not account for the idea
placed at the head of the verse: “Your
obedience has come abroad unto all.”
It is on these words that Ruckert has
with good reason rested his
explanation; for they are the key to the
following sentences. He explains: “If
I warn you as I have just done (vv.
17, 18), it is because the report of
your obedience to the gospel having
already spread everywhere, those men
will not fail to hear your church
spoken of, and to break in on you to
make gain of your faith, as they have
done elsewhere.” Taken in this sense,
the saying is a repetition of 1:8:
“Your faith is spoken of throughout
the whole world.” The apostle adds
how rejoiced he is because of their
evangelical convictions, but how
indispensable it is that in order to
preserve them, they should join to the
wise discernment of what it is good to
do, the simple and hearty horror of
what is evil.—The reading of the T.
R.: to; ejfj uJmi'n , in that which
concerns you , must be set aside. It
is too slenderly supported, and there
is no reason for here contrasting the
Romans with other churches. Of the
two other readings, the Greco-Lat.,
which places the verb caivrw , I rejoice
, first, ought to give place to that
of the Alexs., which begins with the
words: ejfj uJmi'n ou\n , on your
behalf therefore. This clause connects the
sentence closely with the preceding.
Their attachment to evangelical truth
rejoices the apostle (comp, the:
Thanks be to God , 6:17). Only they must
persevere, and for that end the
apostle desires that to their obedience to
the truth they should add two things:
discernment and simplicity.—A
moralist writing on this subject would
probably have said: “wisdom as
concerning evil , and simplicity as
concerning good. ” St. Paul does the
opposite. And here again we can show
that he is speaking “by the grace
given unto him.” In regard to what is
evil, there are no two questions. The
sentence once pronounced in the
conscience: it is evil! everything is said.
Woe to him who thereafter still
disputes and reasons? An abler than he
(comp. ver. 20) will not fail to take
him in the snare. There is but one thing
to be done: to turn from it (ver. 17).
Hence, as concerns evil, the one thing
needed is simplicity. It is not so in
regard to good. When a thing is
recognized as good, all has not yet
been said. Here, on the contrary, it is
that there is need of prudence not to
spoil a good thing by the unwise or
unskilful way in which it is gone
about. Different questions present
themselves: Is it the time for doing
it? How should one address himself to
it to succeed? Who should put his hand
to the work? etc., etc. All,
questions which demand a certain
measure of wisdom, of discernment, of
practical ability, of sofiva . In the
case of evil, woe to the able! Ability
makes dupes. In the case of good, woe
to the simple! Simplicity is the
parent of mistakes.—The T. R. places
mevn , without doubt , after the
word sofouv" , wise; which would
lead to the sense: “I would, that while ye
are wise in good, ye should be simple
as regards evil.” This form makes
all the weight of the recommendation
fall on the second proposition. But
the word wise , sofouv" , too
evidently forms a contrast to the word a[kakoi
, innocent , to allow us to give it so
secondary a position. The first
proposition should, in Paul's
recommendation, be on the same line as the
second. As much clear-sightedness is
needed to discern the corruption of
adversaries under their fair
exteriors, as of simplicity to avoid them after
having discerned them.—It is to be
remarked, that to denote simplicity ,
Paul in this verse uses quite a
different
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
term from that in the preceding. There
he had in view men ignorant of evil,
who are easily duped; hence the use of
the term a[kako" , innocent. Here
Paul wishes to speak of the moral
rectitude which, the instant it knows
evil, breaks with it. Hence the term
ajkevraio" , literally, not mixed , exempt
from impure alloy. This saying of the
apostle may serve to explain the
precept of Jesus, Matt. 10:16: “simple
as doves, wise as serpents.” Comp.
also 1 Cor. 14:20 and 2 Cor. 11:3.—We
should like to know what forger
would have hit on such a word?
Ver. 20. “ Now, the God of peace shall
bruise Satan under your feet
quickly. The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ be with you. ”—From the
visible enemy who threatens, the
apostle's eye turns to thine visible world,
where he discovers on the one side the
more formidable enemy of whom
his earthly adversaries are the
instruments, and on the other, the allpowerful
ally on whose succor the church can
reckon in this struggle. The
connection between vv. 19 and 20 may
find its explanation in vv. 13-15 of
2 Cor. 11, where the apostle thus
expresses himself in regard to Judaizing
disturbers: “Such are false apostles,
deceitful workers, transforming
themselves into apostles of Christ;
and no marvel, for Satan himself is
transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his
ministers also be transformed as the
ministers of righteousness. Their end
shall be according to their
works.”—The expression: God of peace , is
designedly chosen to describe God as
one who, if the church fulfils its
task well in these circumstances, will
take care to overthrow the designs
of its adversaries, and preserve
harmony among the faithful.—The term
suntrivyei , shall bruise , is
evidently an allusion to the ancient promise,
Gen. 3:15, which—strange to say—is
referred to nowhere else in the N.
T.—The words ejn tavcei are ordinarily
translated by soon , which would
signify: “at a time near this when I
write you.” It is because of this
translation that Schultz and many
others find here the idea of Christ's near
return. But the word tacuv" and
its derivatives do not denote the
imminence, the nearness of the event.
They denote the celerity with which
it is accomplished. The taceve"
povde" , in Homer, are feet which move
quickly and not soon; a tachygraph is
a man who writes quickly and not
near one. The Greek has the word
eujquv" ( straight , who goes right to his
end) and its derivatives to express
imminence. Paul means, therefore, not
that the victory will be near, but
that it will be speedily gained, once the
conflict is begun. When the believer
fights with the armor of God (Eph. 6),
the conflict is never long.—Victory
will result from two factors, the one
divine ( God shall bruise ), the other
human ( under your
feet ). God communicates strength; but
it passes through the man who
accepts and uses it.
To this warning there is attached in
the T. R. and in the Alexs. a prayer of
benediction, with this difference,
that in the former this prayer is repeated
word for word in ver. 24. The
Greco-Lats. place it only in ver. 24. Of these
three forms, that of the Alex. is the
most probable; for it easily explains the
other two. The Greco-Lats. have
transposed this prayer, putting it after the
salutations, vv. 21-23, to conform to
the ordinary usage of the apostle; the
Byz. text has combined the two forms.
What confirms this supposition is,
that the Greco-Lats. in general omit
the doxology at the end of our
chapter; now, they could not close the
Epistle to the Romans with the
words: “and Quartus our brother.” They
were therefore obliged to transfer
thither the prayer of ver. 20.
Regarded here as authentic, this prayer is the
counterpart of that which we find 1
Cor. 16:23. It forms the general
conclusion of the Epistle; for it has
nothing sufficiently special to be
applied only to the preceding warning.
But why the salutations which still
follow, vv. 21-23, and the final
doxology, vv. 25-27? This is what we shall
have to explain.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Critical conclusion regarding the
passage , vv. 17-20.—The objections of
Baur and Lucht to the composition of
this passage by the Apostle Paul are
of no weight. The only serious
question is, whether the warning forms part
of the Epistle to the Romans, or
whether it was addressed, as is thought
by so large a number of our modern
critics, to the church of Ephesus. First
of all, we have a right to ask how it
could have happened that a warning
addressed to Ephesus, and which had no
force except in relation to those
whom it personally concerned, made the
journey from Ephesus to Rome,
and was incorporated into the Epistle to
the Romans? For ourselves, we
know no probable explanation of such a
phenomenon, nor any example of
such a migration. But it is still more
the intrinsic reasons which prevent us
from holding this supposition. This
passage applies more naturally to a
church which was not instructed by the
apostle personally, than to a
church founded by him. He rejoices in
its docile attitude to the gospel, as
in a thing which he has learned, and
the news of which will spread to
many other ears than his (ver. 19). This
is not how one writes to his own
disciples. Besides, is it conceivable
that he would address to the church of
Ephesus, that church within which he
had recently passed three whole
years, and where he had composed the
Epistle to the Galatians and the
First to the Corinthians, a passage in
which the readers are reckoned as
still strangers to the manoeuvres of
the Judaizing adversaries, and
ignorant of their character? What!
Paul pass all this time in this church,
between Galatia on the one side and Corinth
on the other, and speak to
them of those parties as persons
against whom they still require to be put
on their guard! No, such a warning can
only concern a church situated at
a distance from the theatre of
conflict. This church is therefore quite
naturally that of Rome.—If it is so,
Weizsacker's opinion as to the state of
this church and the object of our
letter is at once set aside. This critic
thinks that the Epistle to the Romans
was called forth by the necessity of
combating a Judaizing movement which
at that very time showed itself in
the church. But our passage evidently
points to the danger as yet to
come. The letter may not have been
written without the intention of
forearming the church; but it cannot
have had the intention of combating
the enemy as already present.
Vv. 21-23. “ Timothy my fellow-worker,
saluteth you, and Lucius, and
Jason, and Sosipater, my countrymen.I
Tertius, who wrote this Epistle,
salute you in the Lord. Gaius mine
host, and of the whole church, saluteth
you. Erastus the treasurer of the city
saluteth you, and the brother
Quartus. ”—After the farewell prayer,
ver. 20, this passage of salutations
excites surprise; for usually the
salutations of Paul's fellow-laborers are
placed before the final prayer. But
there is a circumstance fitted to throw
light on this exceptional fact; the
mention of Timothy, ver. 21. Ordinarily,
when Paul has this faithful
fellow-laborer beside him, he mentions him in
the address of the letter, as if to
associate him in the very composition of
the writing; comp. 1 and 2 Thess., 2
Cor., Col., Philip., Phil. If he does not
do so in 1 Cor., it is because,
according to the letter itself, Timothy was
absent. In the Epistle to the
Galatians, Timothy is embraced no doubt preeminently
in the general expression: “And all
the brethren who are with
me” (ver. 2). There remain, therefore,
only Ephesians and Romans. This
conjunction serves exactly to explain
the particular fact which we are
pointing out. For these two letters
have this in common: that Paul wrote
them in his capacity of apostle to the
Gentiles , a dignity which he shared
with no one; for it followed from a
personal and special call (1:1). And
hence it is, that though Timothy was
with him at the time he composed
them (as appears in the case of the
Romans from ver. 21, and in the case
of the Ephesians from the addresses to
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
the Colossians and Philemon written at
the same time), he could not
associate his disciple with him in an
act so solemn, and which had a sort
of official character. Now this is
also the reason why those salutations
from his fellowlaborers have been in this
case placed outside of the letter
properly so called. The official
Epistle must first be closed before a place
could be granted to a communication of
an entirely private
character.—We know that Timothy was at
that moment at Corinth with the
apostle, ready to join him in the
journey to Jerusalem; this appears from
Acts 20:4. This same passage explains
to us the presence in this city, and
at the same time, of another of the
three fellow-laborers afterward named,
Sosipater of Berea, in Macedonia. This
name, which is probably identical
with that of Sopater, Acts 20:4,
belonged to one of the deputies delegated
by the churches of Macedonia to
represent them in the mission which
Paul was about to carry out for them
at Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:18 et seq.).—
Jason was also of that province; for
he is probably identical with Paul's
host at Thessalonica, of whom mention
is made, Acts 18:1-7. He had
accompanied the deputies of
Thessalonica and Berea whom Paul had
appointed to meet together at Corinth,
because he reckoned on
embarking there for Palestine (Acts
20:3). The third person, Lucius ,
cannot be, as Origen thought, the
evangelist Luke; for the Greek name of
the latter ( Lucas ) is an
abbreviation of Lucanus, while Lucius certainly
comes from the word lux. But it is not
improbable that we have here again
the Lucius of Cyrene, who had played
an important part as prophet or
teacher in the church of Antioch soon
after its foundation. He was now
fulfilling the same ministry in other
churches, and so had come to Corinth.
Paul designates these three last as
his countrymen; for the meaning
kinsmen , which some give to
suggenei'" , cannot, as we have already
seen, apply to so large a number of
persons (comp. vv. 7 and 11).—Very
probably these four fellow-laborers of
the apostle had come into contact in
the East with many of the persons whom
Paul had just saluted at Rome in
his own name—for example, Aquilas,
Epenetus, and the first of those who
follow. Delicacy accordingly required
Paul to add to his own, the
salutations of these brethren who
surrounded him.
Ver. 22. But Paul had beside him at
this very time a fellow-laborer of a
different kind, to whom he must also
give a place. This was the friend who
had lent him the help of his pen in
his long work, the Tertius of this verse.
Only, could he dictate to him his own
salutation as he had dictated the
preceding? No, that would have been to
treat him as a simple machine.
The apostle had too exquisite a sense
of propriety to follow such a course.
He ceases to dictate, and leaves
Tertius himself to salute in his own
name: “I Tertius.” This detail,
insignificant in appearance, is not without its
value. It lets us see what St. Paul
was better than many graver actions.
Here we have what may be called the
politeness of the heart. Would a
forger have thought of this?
Ver. 23. Yet another fellow-laborer,
but of a wholly different kind: he is
Paul's host, under whose roof he is
composing this work. This Gaius can
neither be the Gaius of Derbe in Asia
Minor, Acts 20:4, nor the Gaius of a
church in the neighborhood of Ephesus,
3 John 1. He is evidently the
person of whom Paul speaks 1 Cor.
1:14, one of the first believers of
Corinth whom he had baptized with his
own hand before the arrival of
Silas and Timothy. Paul calls him at
once his host and that of the whole
church. These last words might signify
that when the church of Corinth
held a full meeting (1 Cor. 14:23), it
was at the house of Gaius that these
assemblies took place. But there
attaches to the term xevno" , host , rather
the idea of welcome given to
strangers. Paul means, therefore, no doubt
that the house of Gaius is the place
of hospitality by way of eminence, that
which at Corinth is ever
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
open to receive Christian strangers.
From Gaius, the first member of the
church of Corinth named here, the
apostle naturally passes to two other
distinguished Christians of the same
church, and who had personal
relations to some of the Christians of
Rome. Erastus , occupying an
exalted post in the administration of
the city (probably as treasurer),
cannot be the evangelist of this name
mentioned Acts 19:22; he is more
likely the person of whom Paul speaks
2 Tim. 4:20. We know nothing of
Quartus. —One sees, then, that all
these persons are placed with the
order, tact, and discernment which
never failed the apostle, even in the
minutest details of his letters.
Ver. 24 in the T. R. is certainly unauthentic.
Meyer quotes, to defend it,
the repetition of the apostolic
prayer, 2 Thess. 3:5 and 18; but there no
MS. omits it, while here it is not
found in any of the four oldest MSS. It is
easy to see that certain copyists have
transposed it hither from ver. 20, to
place it, as is customary, at the
close of the salutations.
Critical conclusion regarding the
passage , vv. 21-24.—This short
passage is acknowledged to be
authentic, and to belong to the Epistle to
the Romans, by Volkmar and Schultz. The
latter has brought out forcibly
the proof in its favor arising from
the enumeration of the deputies of
Macedonia, Acts 20:4. He also rebuts
the objection taken from the Latin
origin of several of these names, by
recalling the fact that Macedonia was
peopled throughout with Roman
colonists, which explains the propagation
of Latin names in this province.—M.
Renan infers from the salutations
addressed in the name of several
Macedonians, that we have here the
conclusion of the copy intended for
the church of Thessalonica. In arguing
thus, he does not take account of the
assembling in the city of Corinth of
all the deputies of Greece and Asia
who were to accompany Paul to
Jerusalem.—We cannot discover in this
passage the least word
calculated to inspire doubts either as
to its being composed by the
apostle, or as to its original
connection with the Epistle to the Romans.
Thirty-first Passage (16:25-27). The
Look Upward.
Could the apostle have closed such an
Epistle with the words: “and the
brother Quartus”? After the final
benediction, he had added the salutations
of some eminent brethren who
surrounded him, and who were connected
with certain members of the church of
Rome. But could he, having
reached the close of such a writing,
fail once more to lift his eye upward
and invoke on this work, the gravity
of which he knew, and on the church
for which it was intended, the
blessing of Him who alone truly builds up
and strengthens? He had done so
several times, in the course of his
writing, when concluding some
important development. How could he
avoid doing it with stronger reason at
the close of the entire Epistle? In the
somewhat exceptional presence of a
doxology at the end of this letter,
there is therefore nothing which of
itself can inspire the least suspicion.
Our one task is to examine whether
this passage comes up to the
elevation of the apostle's mind, and
agrees with his mode of writing; and
then, if as a whole and in its details
it possesses satisfactory
appropriateness.
Vv. 25-27. “ Now to him that is able
to stablish you according to my
gospel, and the preaching of Jesus
Christ, according to the revelation of
the mystery, which was kept secret
during the eternal times, but now is
made manifest, and by prophetical
writings, according to the
commandment of the eternal God,
published to all the Gentiles for the
obedience of faith: to God only
wise..., by Jesus Christ,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
whose is the glory for ever and
ever.Amen. ”—Paul had in the preface of
the Epistle expressed his desire to
visit the Christians of Rome, that they
might receive by his means an increase
of strength , “ eij" to; sthricqh'nai
uJma'" .” This desire he has
partly gratified by addressing to them this
letter of instruction. But what are
man's words when the obtaining of a true
spiritual result is in question? A
sounding brass. Hence the need of lifting
his soul to Him who can do what man is
incapable of producing: tw'/
dunamevnw/ , to Him that is able. The
particle dev , now , serves here to
form the transition from the weak man
who has just been writing, to the
Almighty God, who can act. It is
exactly the same connection as in the
discourse of Paul at Miletus, Acts
20:31 and 32.—We shall afterward
inquire after the verb, expressed or
understood, on which this dative
depends: to Him that is of power. The
verb sthrivzein , to stablish , is
absolute. There is no special
reference to stablishing in faith or love. Paul
means to speak of the firmness of the
inner life in general, of that spiritual
consistency against which all attacks
from within and from without are
defeated. He would have them all to
become of the number of those
strong , dunatoiv , of whom he has
spoken, 15:1. This strength embraces
both inward emancipation of conscience
in relation to legal forms, and
new life by the power of the Holy
Spirit.—The increasing communication
of this spiritual strength is
connected by the apostle with a definite
standard: my gospel. —He means thus to
indicate the type of Christian
doctrine which had been personally
revealed to him (Gal. 1:11-16), and
the two characteristic features of
which were, as we have seen throughout
this Epistle, the perfect freeness ,
and, as a consequence, the absolute
universality of salvation. Salvation
without any condition of previous
working , salvation offered without
distinction to all: such is, in two words,
what Paul called his gospel; an
expression which is found only in our
Epistle (2:16) and 2 Tim. 2:8. The
power of God can act only in agreement
with the thought of God. Now, Paul's
gospel being the supreme thought of
God, it follows that God's power can
only be put forth in the heart of man
in so far as this gospel is by it
received and understood. Such is the
meaning of the preposition katav ,
according to , which must not be
confounded either with ejn , in
(stablish in the faith of ...), or with diav ,
through (stablish by means of
...).—The following words: and according to
the preaching of Jesus Christ , have
been understood in this sense: “the
preaching of which Jesus Christ is the
author;” some, like Meyer,
understanding thereby the preaching
which Christ causes to sound
through the world by the mouth of
Paul; others, like Hofmann: the word as
Christ preached it while He was on the
earth. This last meaning is
inadmissible; for Paul never alludes
to the earthly preaching of Jesus
Christ, which had been circumscribed
within limits traced by His
pedagogical condescension toward
Israel. But neither does Meyer's
meaning commend itself. Paul has no
motive for here raising the
particular idea that it is Christ
Himself who preaches by his mouth. If we
consider that the words: “the
preaching of Jesus Christ,” depend equally
with the preceding term: “my gospel,”
on the preposition katav , according
to , we shall easily see that this
complement: of Jesus Christ , can only
designate here the subject of the
preaching. The apostle wishes to efface
what seemed too strongly personal in
the standard: “according to my
gospel. ” Hence it is that he takes
care to add: “and (in general) according
to the preaching of which Christ is
the subject.” Indeed, the Christ
proclaimed by the Twelve is the same
whom Paul preaches; comp. 1 Cor.
15:11. It is Christ crucified and
risen for us. And if the peculiar revelation
which Paul received had for its effect
to unveil new and unexpected
consequences of the work of this
Christ, it is nevertheless true that the
Christ preached by him is the same as
the Christ of apostolic preaching in
general. We are not diverted from this
so natural
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
sense by the objection which Lucht
draws from it: that this expression
reveals a conciliatory tendency in
regard to the Twelve which is
incompatible with St. Paul's
character. For we have found that this spirit of
union was that of the apostle's whole
ministry. Paul and Peter felt
themselves radically at one, whatever
even M. Renan may say, for each
acknowledged the other's ministry as
proceeding from the same God, who
had confided to each what was
peculiarly his own (Gal. 2:7, 8).
We again find a clause dependent on
the preposition katav , according to:
according to the revelation of the
mystery ...And the question is, whether
this clause is parallel to those which
precede, or whether, on the contrary,
it depends on them. In the former
case, it might be made to depend on the
verb stablish (Meyer), or on the whole
phrase: to Him that is of power to
stablish you (Philippi). But in either
construction it is impossible to escape
from a sort of tautology with the
preceding regimen. And it cannot be
allowed that Paul would have thus
co-ordinated two katav , according to ,
without joining them by a copula. I
think, therefore, that the second
regimen must be regarded as dependent
on the first. There is in the words
eujaggevlion and khvrugma ( gospel and
preaching ) an active verbal
notion: “ the act of evangelizing,
preaching,” which allows this grammatical
relation. The act of preaching is
subject to a standard. The man does not
discharge it in an independent and
arbitrary manner. So Paul is careful to
conform his evangelic preaching to the
revelation he has received of the
divine mind for the salvation of
mankind. The clause: according to the
revelation , depends therefore on the
two previous substantives.—God
from eternity has conceived a plan on
our behalf (1 Cor. 2:7). This plan
was kept secret for ages; and so long
as man was not initiated into it, it
remained a mystery , a thing
inaccessible to man left to himself; comp.
11:25. But now this eternal plan has
been unveiled. Realized through the
appearing and work of Jesus Christ, it
has been revealed by the Holy
Spirit (1 Cor. 2:7-12) to those who
are called to make it known to the
world, and specially to Paul, so far
as concerns the Gentiles (Eph. 3:2 and
3).—The contents of this mystery are,
generally speaking, salvation in
Christ, but more particularly in our
passage, that salvation as it is to be
preached to the Gentiles (Gal.
1:16)—to wit, that through faith they
become one body in Christ with Jewish
believers (Eph. 3:4-6).— The
eternal times are the numerous ages
which have elapsed between the
creation of man and the appearing of
Christ; comp. Tit. 1:2.
Ver. 26. With these times of silence
there is contrasted that of divine
speaking. The word nu'n , now ,
strongly expresses this contrast. The
participle fanerwqevnto" ,
manifested , refers to the inward revelation of the
divine mystery by the Holy Spirit,
which the apostles have received; comp.
the perfectly similar expressions,
Eph. 3:5.—This act of revelation must
necessarily be completed by another,
as is indicated by the following
participle: gnwrisqevnto" ,
published, divulged. What the apostles received
by revelation, they are not to keep to
themselves; they are called to
proclaim it throughout the whole
world. These two participles are joined by
the particle tev , and. This mode of
connection applies in Greek only to
things of a homogeneous nature, and
the one of which serves to complete
the other. This peculiarity of the tev
suffices to set aside Hofmann's
explanation, who translates:
“manifested now and by the prophetical
writings.” For the two notions of the
time and mode of revelation are too
heterogeneous to be thus connected.
And, moreover, it would follow from
this explanation that the second
participle ( gnwrisqevnto" , published )
would be unconnected with the first by
any conjunction, which is
impossible. The Greco-Lats. and some
versions omit the particle tev . But
it is a copyist's error well explained
by Meyer. The words: by
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
prophetical writings , were connected
with the preceding participle (
fanerwqevnto" , manifested ), as
nearer than the following one, and from
this false connection arose the
suppression of the tev .—The second
participle, gnwrisqevnto" , made
known , is defined by four clauses. The
first refers to the cause: the divine
command; the second to the means:
the prophetical writings; the third to
the end: the obedience of the faith; the
fourth to the object: all the
Gentiles.
The command of God sounded forth by
the mouth of Jesus when He said:
“Go ye and teach all nations.” This
command was not the expression of a
transient or secondary thought; it was
the immutable and eternal thought,
to which all the rest were
subordinated, even the decree of creation. This
is what the epithet eternal , given to
God, is intended to remind us of. He
remains exalted above all the phases
through which the execution of His
designs passes.
By the prophetical Scriptures , which
are the means of the making known,
all critics understand the prophetical
books of the O. T. But how could
Paul say: The gospel is proclaimed by
these books? He has just declared,
on the contrary, that they mystery had
been kept secret up to the present
time. It is answered, that the apostle
is alluding to the use made of the
writings of the prophets in apostolic
preaching. But though these writings
were a means of demonstration, they
were not a means of making known;
and yet this is what is expressed by
the participle lnwrisqevnto" . And,
besides, why in this case reject the
article which was necessary to
designate these prophetical books as
well-known writings; why say: “by
writings ”...and not: “by the writings
of the prophets?” It might be
answered, that Paul expresses himself
in the same way in the passage
1:2; but there, the term prophets
which precedes, and the epithet holy
which accompanies, the word Scriptures
, sufficiently determine the idea.
It is not so here, where these
writings are represented as the means of
propagating a new revelation, and
should consequently designate new
prophetical writings. I think that the
only explanation of this term in
harmony with the apostle's thought is
got from the passage which we
have already quoted, Eph. 3:3-6: “For
God by revelation made known
unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore
in few words, whereby when ye
read ye may understand my knowledge in
the mystery of Christ, which in
other ages was not made known unto the
sons of men, as it is now
revealed unto His holy apostles and
prophets by the Spirit, that the
Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and of the
same body, and partakers of His
promise in Christ by the gospel.” The
apostles are here called prophets ,
inasmuch as they are bearers of a new
revelation. What then are their
writings, if not prophetical writings?
Paul himself feels that the letter which
he has just written has this
character, and that it ranks among the means
which God is using to carry out the
publication of the new revelation. It is
therefore of this very letter, as well
as of the other letters which had
proceeded from his pen, or from that
of his colleagues, that he is speaking
in our passage. And from this point of
view the absence of the article is
easily explained. Paul really means:
“by prophetical writings.” It is as it
were a new series of inspired writings
coming to complete the collection of
the ancient and well-known books, even
as the new revelation is the
completion of the old.—The end is
denoted by the words: for the
obedience of faith; an expression
which reproduces that of 1:5, and the
meaning of which is, as we have proved
there, the obedience to God
which consists of faith
itself.—Finally, the object of the publication: to all
the Gentiles (nations); an expression
similar to that of 1:5: among all the
Gentiles. Paul thus ends where he had
begun: with his apostleship to the
Gentiles, which follows from the
appearance of a new and final revelation,
and of the full realization of God's
eternal plan. The return to the ideas of
1:1-5 is evident.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Ver. 27. The dative tw'/ dunamevnw/ ,
to Him that is able , in ver. 25, has
not yet found the verb on which it
depends. It is evidently this same dative
which, after the long developments
contained in vv. 25 and 26, reappears
in the words: to God only wise. The
idea of God's power in ver. 25 was
naturally connected with that of
stablishing; and so the idea of the divine
wisdom is joined here with the notion
of the divine plan and its
accomplishment, expounded in vv. 25
and 26. But on what does this
dative of ver. 27, as well as that of
ver. 25 which it takes up again,
depend? Some answer: on the
proposition following: “To Him is (or be)
the glory!” But why in this case
introduce the relative pronoun w|/ , to
whom? Why not say simply aujtw'/ , to
Him? (Eph. 4:20, 21). To make this
construction admissible, all that
would be necessary would be to reject
this pronoun, as is done by the Vatic.
and some Mnn. But these
authorities are insufficient. And the
reason of the omission is so easy to
understand! Must it then be held, as
Meyer and many others do, that we
have here, exactly in the last
sentence of the Epistle, an inaccuracy? It is
supposed that Paul, carried away by
the great thoughts expressed in vv.
25 and 26, forgot the dative with
which he had begun the sentence in ver.
25, and continues as if the preceding
proposition were finished. But this
remote dative, which Paul is thought
to have forgotten, is evidently
reproduced in this one: to God only
wise! He has it therefore still present
to his mind. Tholuck, Philippi, and
others refer the relative pronoun w|/ , to
whom , not to God , but to Jesus
Christ; they hold that, according to the
apostle's intention, the doxology was
originally meant to apply to God, the
author of the plan of salvation, but
that Paul, on reaching the close of the
period, applied it to Christ, who
executes the plan: “To God powerful...and
wise [be glory], by Jesus Christ, to
whom be glory forever.” This
explanation would certainly be more
tolerable than Meyer's. But we doubt
whether the apostle's real meaning is
thereby obtained. In fact, when he
began his period with the words: To
Him that is of power to stablish you ,
his intention was certainly not to
terminate with this idea: To Him be glory!
We glorify Him who has done the work;
but as concerning Him who is able
to do it, we look to Him to do it; we
ask His succor; we express our
confidence in Him and in His strength.
Such was the inward direction of
the apostle's heart when he began ver.
25 by saying: “To Him that is of
power”..., exactly as when he closed
his discourse to the elders of
Ephesus, Acts 20:32, by saying: “And
now I commend you to God and to
the word of His grace, to Him that is
of power ( tw'/ dunamevnw/ ) to build
you up and give you the
inheritance”...The idea understood, on which the
dative of ver. 25 depends, is
therefore that of commendation and
confidence: “My eye, in closing, turns
to Him who is able , and from whom
I expect everything.” This impulse God
ward, in which he desires his
readers to join him, is so lively
within his soul that he does not even feel
the need of expressing it; he includes
it in this reduplicated dative tw'/
dunamevnw/ and movnw/ sofw'/ Qew'/ ).
And hence the proposition may be
regarded as complete, and as
terminating without any real inaccuracy in
the doxological formula which closes
the period and the whole Epistle:
“whose is the glory”...The full form
would be: “I look with you all to Him
who can stablish you...to God only
wise, through Jesus Christ whose is [or
be] the glory!”
The clause: through Jesus Christ , is
connected by Meyer with the word
wise: “to God whose wisdom is
manifested in Jesus Christ, in His person
and work.” But the expression: only
wise through Christ , would not
signify: who has shown himself wise
through Christ, but: who is really wise
through Christ. And that is an idea
which Paul could not enunciate. The
words: through Jesus Christ , must
therefore be referred to the understood
thought which forms the basis of the
whole preceding sentence: “I look to
God, I wait on Him, for all that
concerns you, through Jesus
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Christ.” It is through Jesus Christ
that the apostle sends up his
supplication, as it is through Jesus
Christ that there will come down on the
Romans the help of God only strong and
only wise.—If it is so, the relative
pronoun to whom refers rather to Jesus
Christ than to God. But it must be
added that in his view the author and
executor of the plan of salvation are
so closely united, that it is
difficult in this final homage to separate God to
whom He looks, from Jesus Christ in
whose name he looks. In the
passage 1:7, the two substantives: God
and Jesus Christ , are placed
under the government of one and the
same preposition; they may
therefore be embraced here in one and
the same pronoun.—The verb to
be understood in the last proposition
would certainly be e[stw , let it be , if
Paul had used the word dovxa , glory ,
without article. But with the article (“
the glory”) the verb ejstiv , is ,
must be preferred: “whose is the glory.” It
belongs to Him wholly throughout all
eternity. For He has done everything
in that work of salvation just
expounded in the writing now closed.
Critical conclusion regarding the
doxology , vv. 25-27, and regarding
chaps. 15 and 16—The authenticity of
vv. 25-27 has been combated in a
thoroughgoing way by Reiche, Lucht,
and Holtzmann. Hilgenfeld, who
against these critics defends the
authenticity of chaps. 15 and 16 in
general, agrees with them on this
point. M. Renan, on the contrary,
ascribes the composition of this
passage to the apostle; but he regards it
as the final particular of the copy
addressed to a church unknown. In this
copy these verses joined on
immediately, according to him, to the end of
chap. 14 M. Reuss also supports their
authenticity, and regards them as
the conclusion of our Epistle, with
which, according to him, they are
intimately connected.
The following are the principal
reasons alleged against the authenticity of
the passage:—(1) The entire omission
of these verses in Marcion and in
two Mjj., and their transposal to the
end of chap. 14 in three Mjj. and in
most of the Mnn. (2) The absence of
similar sayings at the end of St.
Paul's other Epistles. (3) The
emphasis of the style and the heaping up of
expressions which contrast with the
ordinary sobriety of the Pauline
language. (4) Certain echoes of
expressions in use in the Gnostic
systems of the second century. (5) The
want of appropriateness and of all
definite object.
1. As to Marcion, it is not surprising
that he suppressed this passage, as
well as so many others, in the letters
of the one apostle whose authority
he recognized. For this passage, by
mentioning the prophetical writings ,
appeared to Marcion to connect the new
revelation closely with that of the
O. T., which absolutely contradicted
his system.—We think we have
explained at the end of chap. 14 the
transference of these verses to that
place in some documents, as well as
their omission or repetition in a very
few documents. The position of the
doxology at the end of the Epistle
certainly rests on the concurrence of
the most numerous and weighty
authorities. 2. It is not surprising
that in a letter so exceptionally important
as this the apostle should not be
satisfied with concluding, as usual, with a
simple benediction, but that he should
feel the need of raising his soul
heavenward in a solemn invocation on
behalf of his readers. This writing
embraced the first full exposition of
the plan of salvation. If, on closing the
different parts of the statement of
this plan, his heart had been carried
away by an impulse of adoration, this
feeling must break forth in him still
more powerfully at the moment when he
is laying down his pen. 3. It is
true the heaping up of clauses is
great; but it arises from the strength of
this inward impulse, and has nothing
which exceeds the natural measure
of Paul's style. The participle
gnwrisqevnto" , made known , ver. 26, is
accompanied by four regimens; but in
that there is nothing suspicious.
The participle oJrisqevnto" ,
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
established (1:4), has three, and an
attribute besides; and the verb
ejlavbomen , we received (i, 5), has
three also, and, moreover, two objects.
The passage, chap. 5:15- 17, has given
us a specimen of the way in
which Paul's nimble and fertile mind
succeeded in cramming into a single
sentence a wonderful mass of
expressions and ideas. The one question,
therefore, is whether there is a
superfluous accumulation of identical
expressions; now this is what cannot
be proved. We have established the
deliberate intention and precise
import of every term in these verses, 25-
27, as well as throughout the rest of
the Epistle. 4. The analogies which
Lucht thinks he has discovered with
certain Gnostic terms are purely
imaginary. The reader will judge of
this from the examples quoted by
Meyer. The expression eternal ages ,
Lucht would have it, refers to the
aeons of the Valentinian system. The
term sesighmevnou , kept secret , is
related to the divine principle
designated by the name sighv , silence , in
this same system. In speaking of
prophetical writings , the author is
alluding to the allegorical exegesis
in use among the Gnostics.—Such
criticism belongs to the domain of
fancy, not of science. 5. The absence of
definite aim cannot be charged against
this passage, except in so far as
the critic fails to understand the act
of having recourse to God, which
forms its essence, and which is
intended to bring the whole church to the
footstool of the throne from which
strength comes down.
According to Reiche, the author of
this doxology was an anagnost (public
reader), who composed it with the help
of the end of Jude's Epistle (vv.
24, 25), and of the last words of Heb.
13:21. But when from the parallel in
Jude there is removed the word sofw'/
, wise, which is unauthentic, and
the tw'/ dunamevnw/ , which proves
nothing (Acts 20:32; Eph. 4:20), what
remains to justify the supposition of
its being borrowed? The liturgical
formula, Heb. 13:21, is so common that
it can prove nothing. Would a
compiler so servile as the one
supposed by Reiche have composed a
piece of such originality as this, in
which there are found united as in a
final harmony, corresponding to the
opening one (1:1-7), all the principal
ideas of the preceding
composition?—Holtzmann, in his treatise on the
letters to the Ephesians and to the
Colossians, supposes this passage to
be the work of the unknown author,
who, about the end of the first
century, took to collecting St. Paul's
Epistles. He began by giving in the
Epistle to the Ephesians an
amplification of a very short Epistle addressed
by Paul to the Colossians; then he
revised this latter by means of his
previous work; finally, he set himself
also to complete the Epistle to the
Romans by this doxology by means of
some passages of Ephesians and
Colossians, where the same
hymnological tone and the same tendency to
amplification are to be remarked. The parallels
which we have quoted in
the course of exegesis undoubtedly
prove a certain analogy of thought
and expression between our passage and
these letters. But if Paul himself
composed the latter three years after
our Epistle, there is nothing
wonderful in this coincidence. If, on
the contrary, their author is a forger of
the end of the first century, he must
have had some point of departure in
Paul's authentic writings for a
composition of this kind, and the authenticity
of our doxology is thus rendered
probable by this very forgery. In any
case, a forger would hardly have
committed the apparent inaccuracy
which is remarked in ver. 27. For it
supposes an exaltation of feeling and
thought which is at variance with a
composition in cold blood.—Finally, to
refute M. Renan's supposition, to
which we have referred above, it is
enough to read again the last verse of
chap. 14: “What is not of faith is
sin,” and to attempt to follow it up
with our ver. 25: “To Him that is of
power to stablish you,” etc., to
measure the diametrical distance of ideas
which separate these two verses, the
one of which on this theory
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
would be the sequel of the other!
There is but little more for us to add
on chaps. Q5 and 16 taken as a
whole. We have stated the numerous and
contradictory hypotheses in
which critics have indulged for more
than a century in regard to these
chapters. We have examined them
passage by passage; they have
appeared to us of little weight in
detail; is it possible they have more force
when applied to the whole? That
Marcion rejected all, or perhaps only
some parts of these chapters, is of no
importance; for the dogmatic nature
of the motives which guided him is
evident. As to the fact that the Tubingen
school feel themselves obliged to
follow this example, by rejecting the
whole or nearly the whole, the reason
of this critical procedure is not less
clear; for these chapters, accepted as
authentic, overturn Baur's
hypothesis regarding the composition
of the church of Rome, the aim of
our Epistle, and in general the
position taken up by Paul in relation to
Judaism.—If Irenaeus and Tertullian do
not yet quote any passage from
these last two chapters, it may only
be an accident, like the absence of
any quotation from the Epistle to
Philemon in Irenaeus or in Clement of
Alexandria.—The apparent multiplicity
of conclusions is the thing which
seems to have told most forcibly on
the mind of modern critics. Some
have even been led by this
circumstance to regard the whole closing part
of our Epistle as an accidental
collection of detached leaves, unrelated to
one another. We think this impression
superficial; it is dissipated by a
profounder study. We have found that
the conclusion, 15:13, is intended
to close the exhortation to union
begun in chap. 14, and that the prayer,
15:33, is occasioned by the details
which Paul has just given about his
personal situation, and by the anxious
fears he has expressed in regard to
the journey which still lies between
him and his arrival at Rome. The
salutation of the churches, 15:16,
naturally attaches itself to those of the
apostle. The prayer, 16:20
a , is closely connected with the
warning, in the form of a postscript, by
which he has just put the church on
its guard against the disturbers whose
coming cannot be distant. Finally, the
prayer which closes this verse is
that which in all the other letters
concludes the Epistle. As to the passage,
vv. 23, 24, it is an appendix
containing salutations of a private nature, of a
very secondary character, and which
lie, strictly speaking, beyond the
Epistle itself. The prayer, ver. 24 is
certainly unauthentic. Finally, the
doxology is a last word fitted to sum
up the whole work, by raising the
eyes of the readers, with those of St.
Paul himself, to the heavenly source
of all grace and strength. This forms
a natural whole; if we examine the
details closely, there is nothing in
them betraying a conglomerate.
Besides, when indulging in such
suppositions as those before us,
sufficient account is not taken of the
respect with which the churches
cherished the apostlic writings which
they might possess. They preserved
them as precious treasures in their
archives, and it would not have been
so easy for an individual to introduce
into them unobserved changes. The
Epistle of Clement of Rome was
regularly read at Corinth in the second
century. It was therefore always in
hand. As much certainly was done for
the apostolic writings. We know from
declarations of the Fathers that
these writings were kept at the house
of one of the presbyters, and that
they were copied and reproduced for
other churches, which asked to have
them, only under strict control, and with
the sort of attestation formally
given: correctly copied. We are
therefore entitled to say, that so long as
peremptory reasons do not force us to
suspect the general tenor of the
transmitted text, it has on its side
the right of the first occupant.
CONCLUSIONS.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
I ANNOUNCED a chapter of conclusions,
in which the results of the
exegesis should be summed up. These
conclusions will bear on three
points—
1. The critical questions stated and
left open in the Introduction.
2. The importance of the writing.
3. Its true character.
I. Critical Results.
The integrity of the commonly
transmitted text has been verified as a
whole. We have found, in particular,
how little weight there is in the
numerous and contradictory
suppositions by which modern criticism seeks
to dismember the last part of the
Epistle from chap. 12. But we have
pointed out in detail a considerable
number of variants; about 270 in all,
and among them a certain number on
which it has been impossible for us
to pronounce with certainty. We have
remarked with tolerable distinctness
three principal varieties of text:
that which bears the name of Alexandrine;
that which represents the form
received in the countries of the West; and
the third, which reproduces the text
adopted in the Byzantine Church. The
comparison of these three forms of the
text has not made it possible for us
to give in a general way the preference
to any one over the two others. In
every particular case in which they
diverge we have been obliged to try
them by the context, without being
unduly influenced either by antiquity or
number; and that all the more because
we have frequently found the
representatives of each of the three
groups at variance with one another,
and allying themselves capriciously
with some members of the two other
families to support one and the same
variant. In the few cases in which
the three texts are well distinguished,
and the witnesses of each precisely
grouped, if our exegetical
appreciation has not deceived us, the
preference must be given to the
Alexandrine text. In fourteen cases in
which some documents of the three
texts are at one, the true reading has,
in every case, been preserved by their
means. The Alexandrines are
found in twenty-one cases in harmony
with the Greco-Latin against the
Byzantine, which in these cases has
been judged thrice only superior to
the two others. The Greco-Latins and
the Byzantines are agreed eighteen
times in opposition to the
Alexandrine, which has proved in six cases
superior to its two rivals. The
Alexandrines and Byzantines harmonize
thirty-five times against the
Greco-Latin, which in four cases appears to us
to have preserved the better
reading.—In many cases experience has
proved that a weakly supported and
apparently more recent reading may
be that which exegetical tact forces
us to prefer.—In no case has a variant
appeared to us of a nature to modify the
apostolic conception of the
gospel.
Relatively to the founding,
composition, and religious tendency of the
church of Rome , we have found in the
way of exegesis the confirmation
of the results to which we were led in
the Introduction by the historical
data.
Though we knew absolutely nothing of
the history of the church of Rome
during the first two centuries, we
should be forced by our Epistle itself,
impartially consulted, to recognize in
its founding the work of Paul's
disciples and friends, in the majority
of its members Gentiles by birth, and
in its religious conception the type
of the apostle to the Gentiles. For the
first point we refer especially to
16:3 et seq.—For the second, to 1:5 and
6, 13-15, 7:1, 11:1, 13, 14, 28, 30,
31, 15:12, 13, 15, 16, 16:26.—For the
third, to 1:8, 11, 12, 6:17, 14:1,
15:1, 14, 15, 16:25.—The manner in which
Paul expresses himself in these
passages forces us to choose between
two alternatives: to accept the
results which we have just expressed, or to
ascribe tactics
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
to the apostle according to which he
would deliberately represent the state
of things in such a way as to make it
appear different from what it really
was. Who would not judge such
procedure unworthy of the character of
such a man?
A third critical result is
consequently this: The aim of our Epistle cannot
have been to transform the convictions
and tendency of the majority of the
church of Rome, but solely, as St.
Paul himself declares, both in
beginning and concluding (1:11 and
16:25), to strengthen them. He
wished to confirm the believers of
Rome by making the church rest on the
foundation of solid and thorough
instruction.—Neither does the Epistle
present the least trace of a struggle
already existing within the church. For
this name cannot be given to the
secondary ground of difference to which
chap. 14 applies; and the only passage
which is directed against the
Judaizing adversaries is found quite
at the end of the Epistle (16:17-20),
and speaks of them as of enemies still
at a distance. But it follows from
this same passage that St. Paul foresaw
their arrival as a thing certain,
which naturally explains the need he
felt of putting the church in a
condition to resist such an attack. He
had just seen his most flourishing
creations in Galatia and Achaia
threatened with destruction by these
relentless disturbers; and yet he had
lived among those churches; he had
himself founded and instructed them;
what, then, was there not to be
dreaded for the church of the capital
of the world, founded merely by
apostolic fellow-workers, when once it
was put to the proof? It is also quite
natural that before setting out for
Jersualem he should calmly propound
his dogmatical and practical
catechism, as he teaches it in all the
churches which he is called to found,
the gospel of salvation by faith
which was revealed to him personally
by the Lord, and that while taking
account of the experiences made in the
hot conflict which he has just
been maintaining. The Epistle to the
Romans is thus found to be at once
the most perfect expression of his
preaching and of his inner life, the
triumphal arch raised on the
battle-field after his recent victory, the normal
conclusion of that period of his
apostleship now brought to an end, and, if
one may so speak, the Ebenezer of the
apostle of the Gentiles.
II. Importance of the Epistle.
From the theological point of view,
the Epistle to the Romans appears to
us as the first powerful effort of
human thought to embrace in one survey
the divine salvation realized in Jesus
Christ, and to sum it up in a few
fundamental points connected with one
another by the closest possible
rational and moral bond. It is not
only the first Dogmatic which has
continued to be the basis of all
others, but also the first Christian Ethic.
For, as we have seen, the practical part
is not less systematically
arranged than the doctrinal part. The
plan of both is perfectly logical.
Salvation in its objectivity in Christ
, and as it is freely apprehended by
faith; salvation realized in the
individual by sanctification, the work of the
Holy Spirit; salvation wrought out in
the whole of humanity through the
great passages of history, the plan of
which God's finger has
traced;—such is the doctrinal part.
The life of the saved believer,
explained first in its inward
principle: consecration to God by the sacrifice
of the body; this life manifesting
itself in the two spheres, the religious and
civil , there by humility and love,
here by submission and righteousness;
this life finally moving on to its
glorious goal: the return of Him who is to
impress on it the seal of
perfection;—such is the practical part. We doubt
whether the precision of this
primordial conception of Christ's work has
ever been surpassed.
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
Apologetic also finds in this Epistle
the most precious materials. Twentynine
years after our Lord's death,
Christianity had traversed continents
and seas, and created a new society at
Rome. What power of expansion
and renovation!—A quarter of a century
after the earthly existence of
Jesus, His life was regarded as that
of the second Adam, as the
appearance of a new personal centre of
the human species, as the
principle of a universal restoration.
The contemporaries of Jesus were still
living, and His death was, in the eyes
of the church, the expiatory sacrifice
offered for all mankind, the supreme
manifestation at once of God's
righteousness and mercy. The fact of
His resurrection was not only
accepted and believed without
question, but regarded as the revelation of
a justification virtually pronounced
in favor of every sinful man. Jesus had
scarcely disappeared when already the
eye of faith followed Him to the
invisible world, and contemplated Him
there as the Sovereign who, from
the midst of His glory, filled all
things, from heaven to the very place of the
dead (chap. 14); the expectation of
His return was the soul of the
collective and individual life of all
believers. The facts of His human life
were still present to all minds, and
already from Jerusalem to Rome the
church recognized Him as a being whose
name was to be invoked like
that of God Himself (Rom. 10:12), and
to whom the title of God could be
applied without blasphemy (9:5). What
an impression, then, must have
been produced by that public activity
of two or three years! And what must
He have been, who in so short a time
had graven so profound a mark in
the consciousness of humanity?
It is not theology only, but human thought
in general, which, by coming to
this writing of Paul, drinks from new
fountains. In the first two chapters,
the Philosophy of religion can learn
these two decisive truths: primitive
revelation and human responsibility in
the origin of polytheism. In chap. 5
Anthropology can gather the fruitful
propositions of the unity of the human
species and of the successive
concentration of our race in two
manifestations of a character at once
generic and individual, the one
issuing in ruin, the other in salvation.
In pondering chap. 6, Psychology
finds itself face to face with the
terrible law in consequence of which man
is every moment alienating something
of his liberty of choice, by
spontaneously subjecting himself to
the good or bad principle to which he
surrenders himself, and which will not
fail henceforth to control him ever
more completely. Chap. 7 furnishes the
same science with an
incomparable analysis of the natural
state of the human soul created for
good, and yet the slave of evil. Chap.
8 hands over to the Philosophy of
nature the great idea of a future
renovation of the universe, proceeding
from the physical and moral
regeneration of humanity. In chap. 11 there
are traced the great lines of the Philosophy
of history , and chap. 13 is a
no less sure guide for the Philosophy
of law in investigating its
fundamental notion, that of the state.
On all these points, in regard to
which human thought labors in all
directions, the thought of Paul goes
straight to the mark. The entire
domain of truth seems to lie unveiled
before him, while that of error seems
on all sides to be closed to him.
But the essential matter, when it is
sought to estimate the importance of
such writing, is the full light which
it casts on the way of salvation opened
to sinful man. The apostle knows the
unrest which troubles the depths of
the human heart, and which keeps it
separate from God and imprisoned in
evil. And he understands that it is
within those depths of the conscience,
where the echo of divine condemnation
resounds, that a saving
transformation must first of all be
wrought. Hence the first gift of grace
which the gospel offers to man is,
according to him, the gift of his
justification, without any other condition
than that which every one may
fulfil at once—faith. This first act
done, man is free from his guilt in relation
to his God; no
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
cloud any longer troubles his relation
to Him; peace takes the place of the
inward unrest; and in this state of
inward tranquillity there may be sown
the fruit of righteousness ,
sanctification. The reconciled man becomes
open to the communication of the
Divine Spirit. As naturally as this guest
must withdraw from a condemned heart,
so necessarily does He come to
dwell in the man whom nothing any
longer separates from God; and he
realizes within him Christ's life and
death in the measure in which this life
and death have been apprehended by his
faith. Finally, to him who walks
in this way there opens up in the
distance a new gift, the renewing of his
body and the inheritance of glory,
through his complete transformation
into the likeness of the glorified
Christ. What clearer, what simpler, what at
once more really divine and human,
than this order of salvation traced by
the apostle; and what a seal has not
the experience of ages impressed on
this exposition contained in the first
eight chapters of our Epistle! Let not
him who desires to see such a work
accomplished within himself, or who
proposes to carry it out in others,
emancipation from guilt and victory over
sin, take to the task in any other
way, if he would not fail miserably!
III. The True Nature of this Apostolic
Writing.
There remains to us a last question to
be examined: Is the conception of
the way of salvation, which St. Paul
has expounded in the Epistle to the
Romans, a creation of his powerful
understanding, or a revelation of God's
mind on the subject? This dilemma may
be thought imperfect; it may be
said that a certain divine
illumination does not exclude the exercise of the
understanding, and that inward
meditation is a means of bringing help
from above. Of this there is no doubt,
and yet in the case before us the
question must be pressed more closely.
Does Paul give us here a view to
which he has raised himself by the
exercise of his mind, or, on the
contrary, the thought of God which was
communicated to him by a direct
operation of the Spirit for the
purpose of initiating him, and through him
the world, into the eternal plan of
divine salvation? In the latter case we
have a witness speaking, in the former
a genius speculating. In this case
we find here a sublime thought, but a
thought which may some day be
surpassed by one more elevated still;
in the former case, it is the thought
of God re-thought and expounded by man
at a given time, not to be
perfected in the future, but to be
appropriated as it is by every soul
desirous of salvation. In the first
case, the Epistle of Paul deserves our
admiration; in the second, our faith.
It is clear that the difference is great,
and that the question cannot be
declared idle.
We know of no peremptory answer to
this question except that which
Paul's own consciousness gives to it.
With the first words of his Epistle, he
places the contents of this writing
under the warrant of the Christ who
called him to it, that Christ who,
born a son of David, has by His
resurrection recovered His essential
dignity as the Son of God, by means
of which He embraces in His salvation
not only the Jews, but the whole
Gentile world. His apostleship is the
work of this universal Lord, and his
writing the fruit of this apostleship.
To this first word of the Epistle must be
added the last, 16:25: “according to
my gospel and the preaching of Jesus
Christ, according to the revelation of
the mystery which was kept secret
during eternal ages, and now is made
manifest.” The evangelical
conception which the apostle develops
is therefore, according to him,
God's eternal thought, which He had
kept secret from the creation, and
which, after the coming of Jesus
Christ, was revealed to him—to him,
Paul—with the mission to make it known
to the Gentiles whom it more
directly
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
concerned; and hence it is that he can
justly call it his gospel. Such is the
apostle's inward conviction. It is
likewise expressed, Gal. 1:11 and 12: “I
certify you that the gospel which was
preached of me is not after man; for
I neither received it of man, neither
was I taught it, but by the revelation of
Jesus Christ.” And hence he writes to
the Thessalonians (First Epistle,
4:8): “He that despiseth us, despiseth
not man, but God;” and to the
Ephesians (3:2-4): “It was by
revelation God made known unto me the
mystery, as I wrote afore in few
words;” and this is what constitutes the
allotment of evangelical grace and
light which God has specially imparted
to him for the accomplishment of his
task within the apostleship common
to him and to the Twelve (ver. 2). By
appearing to him on the way to
Damascus, Christ made Saul an apostle;
and by the revelation which
followed, He bestowed on him the
endowment necessary for the fulfilling
of his apostleship.
In all this, could Paul have been the
victim of an illusion? Could this divine
calling, this supernatural revelation,
be only a fruit of his pious
imagination? We have examined this
question in the Introduction of this
commentary, and from the historical
viewpoint at least we have not to
return to it. But there are two points
which we feel bound to bring out here,
which seem to us in a peculiarly
striking way to characterize the Epistle to
the Romans. The first is the
penetrating logic, the sure sweep of vision
which the apostle shows in the
discussion of the different subjects which
he takes up. Not an exaggeration, not
a digression. The hot conflict which
he had been maintaining in the
previous years with the partisans of the
legal system, might have predisposed
him to go beyond the limit of truth
on some points in estimating Judaism
The incline was slippery; of this we
may easily convince ourselves, by
seeing into what errors it carried the
authors of the so-called Epistle of
Barnabas and of the letter to Diognetus,
and finally Marcion. And yet these men
had guides before them, Paul's
writings and the Epistle to the
Hebrews, which might have helped them to
weigh their judgments. Paul had none
but himself; he was under the
influence of the strong reaction
against the law into which his sudden
change had thrown him, and of the
violent resentment which must have
been produced in him by the injustice
and hatred of his Judaizing
adversaries. And yet he moves, without
wavering for an instant, on the
straight line of truth, exhibiting the
divinity of the ancient dispensation, and
at the same time its profound contrast
to the new, so that the result of his
exposition is a complete view both of
the difference and of the harmony
between the two economies of
salvation. And the same is the case, as we
have seen, in all the questions which
he touches. In matters where we still
detect our modern writers, even the
most sagacious and Christian,
flagrantly guilty of exaggeration to
the right or to the left, we discover in
the apostle's view a fulness of truth
which constantly excludes error.—The
second feature which strikes us in his
writing is the perfect calmness with
which he seems to handle truth. He
does not seek it, he has it. Compare
the Epistle to the Romans with
Pascal's Thoughts , and the distance will
be seen between the apostle and the
thinker of genius. It is also evident
that the apostle himself draws his
life from the faith which he preaches; he
has faith in his faith as one cannot
have in his thought, for the very simple
reason that this faith is not his
discovery, but the gift of God. Besides, St.
Paul was not unaware of the illusions
which a man may form in regard to
false inspirations. If we bear in mind
how he has put the Corinthians on
their guard against the abuse of the
gifts of the Spirit (First Epistle, xiv.), it
will suffice to show us that in such a
domain he could not easily be the
dupe of his imagination.
And let us not forget that the
experience of ages has spoken. It has put its
seal to the conviction which the
apostle bore within him, that in his Gospel
he was
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
giving to the world, not his own
thought, but that of God. For history shows
that a truly powerful and healthy Christianity
has never developed except
on the way of salvation traced by St.
Paul. Where can we find a sinner
who has found full relief for his
conscience in relation to God, otherwise
than by the gift of free
justification? A sinner who has been put in
possession of a sanctification
decisively cutting short the dominion of sin
over the heart and body, otherwise
than through the spirit of life bestowed
in Jesus Christ on the sinner
justified by Him?
The New Testament contains two
writings which admirably complete one
another, the Epistle to the Romans and
the fourth Gospel. The one
presents for our contemplation the
object of faith in its grander and perfect
beauty: the union of man with God
realized in One, in order to be at length
realized through Him, in all; the
other initiates us into the means of
apprehending the salvation thus
realized in one for all, and of
appropriating it: the act of faith.
There, the ideal realized, shining as on a
celestial summit; here, the arduous
pathway by which sinful man may
succeed in reaching it. Let the church
constantly possess herself of the
Christ of John by means of the faith
of Paul—and she will be preserved,
not from persecution, but from a more
terrible enemy, death.
APPENDIX.
A. Probation after Death. (P. 119.)
THE author appends some peculiar views
to his discussion of the
apostle's assurance of eternal life to
those who continue in well doing
(2:7). He remarks, justly enough, that
the apostle does not here treat of
the means of attaining to well doing,
but merely affirms that no one will be
saved apart from the doing of good.
But then he adds that Paul “assumes
that the man who is animated with this
persistent desire will not fail, some
time or other, in the journey of life,
to meet with the means of attaining an
end so holy and glorious. This means
is faith in the gospel.” But how does
Professor Godet know that Paul makes
this assumption? It is not
expressed or implied anywhere in his
writings. If it had been, doubtless
the author would have quoted the
words. But he has not done so, and we
are compelled to think that he has
attributed to the apostle what is only his
own assumption. There was no call in
this portion of the Epistle to
consider the question as to the
dependence of salvation upon faith. That
matter was not before the apostle's
mind at this time. He is treating not of
the gospel, but of the law. In the
entire section from the 6th verse to the
16th he is describing the legal
position of the race by their creation, quite
irrespective both of apostasy and of
redemption. He simply sets forth the
principles of divine legislation for
moral beings. At first blush the
utterances do seem to be inconsistent
with the doctrine of gratuitous
salvation by faith. But the answer to
an objection made on this ground is
not the weak and illogical escape of
our author, but the simple and truthful
affirmation that the apostle treats
one thing at a time, that the whole
Epistle is an emphatic denial of the
notion that fallen man can attain
salvation as the reward of his merits,
and that here there was no necessity
of interposing a caveat on the point,
since the single theme is the ethical
ground of judgment for the whole human
race. This is given in the 6th
verse with the 11th: “Who will render
to every man according to his
deeds:...for there is no respect of
persons with God.” All that Dr. Godet
says about “the love of goodness which
is the spring of life” is quite aside
from any utterance of the apostle. It
is not implied in his words, or even
suggested by them. The whole
atmosphere of the passage is filled with
the strict
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
administration of law, nor is there
even a hint that “the desire of goodness
is the acceptance of the gospel by
anticipation.”
There is then no room for the
corollary which the author draws, that the
gospel is to be preached “before the
judgment to every human soul, either
in this life or next.” That position
does not rest upon anything said by the
apostle Paul, here or elsewhere. Yet
if it has anything like the importance
attached to it in our day, it ought to
have been enunciated clearly and
unequivocally, or at least we should
naturally expect such a distinct
statement. It assumes that every human
being is entitled to an offer of the
divine mercy. But this reverses the
very idea of mercy, which is the
bestowment of that to which there is
no claim. Mercy that may be
demanded is no longer mercy. And every
unsophisticated conscience
speaks to the contrary. Such a
conscience condemns a man for violating
his own sense of duty without any
regard to the fact whether he had or
had not access to any remedial
provision. A healthy moral nature
acknowledges at once that sin deserves
punishment per se. And this is
what the apostle affirms: “As many as
have sinned without law shall also
perish without law.” Not having
possession of the written or Mosaic law,
they will of course not be judged by
it, but still having violated the law of
conscience they must suffer its
penalty, and therefore perish. If hereafter
they are to have an offer of
salvation, this was the place to mention it. The
silence of the author of the Epistle
on this point is unaccountable if he held
the view of Dr. Godet. His theodicy
would be different from what it is if this
feature belonged to it, and I submit
that it is not reasonable to interpret
into his utterances a sentiment which
contradicts their general tenor and
their underlying principles, and
which, moreover, is not reasonable in
itself, and has never in any age found
admission into the creeds of the
church.
The author finding no citation from
Paul suitable to his purpose gives us
two from Peter. The first one (I.
3:19, 20), as given in the Revised Version,
speaks of our Lord as “being put to
death in the flesh, but quickened in the
spirit; in which also he went and
preached to the spirits in prison, which
aforetime were disobedient when the
long-suffering of God waited in the
days of Noah while the ark was a
preparing.” The meaning of these words
has long been stoutly contested, but
there is a general agreement now
among critical expositors that the
translation above given is correct, and
indeed the only one possible of the
true text (which omits the article
before pneumati ). They hold therefore
that the passage relates an
experience of our Lord's human soul
after death, and cannot be explained
consistently or grammatically of the
preaching of the pre-existent Logos
through the agency of Noah, although
that opinion has been held by
eminent men in all ages, such as
Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Beza,
Pearson, and Hofmann. These scholars
seem to have been influenced
more by their theological views, or
what is called the analogy of faith, than
by the laws of exegesis. It may be
said in opposition to this explanation,
that (1) it is not the natural sense
of the passage, that which would occur
to an unprejudiced person on first
reading it. (2) It is inconsistent with the
word pneuvmati as contrasted with
sarki; ; not that these two words do not
at times denote respectively the
divine side of Christ's person and the
human, but that here the exact balance
of the clauses requires both
datives to be rendered in the same
way. If the one is to be understood as
meaning in the flesh or as to the
flesh, then the other must be, in the spirit
or as to the spirit. Consequently, the
latter cannot be interpreted of
Christ's divine nature or of the Holy
Spirit, for in no conceivable sense
could He be said to be made alive in
either of these. (3) No account is
made of poreuqei;" which here,
just as in verse 22, “who is on the right
hand of God, having gone into heaven,”
must refer to a local transfer, a
real change of place, which certainly
did not occur in what
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
was done through Noah. (4) There is an
unauthorized and capricious
separation of pote from the word
ajpeiqhsasiv , to which it must belong by
Greek usage (=“which aforetime were
disobedient”), and an equally
capricious connection of it with
ejkhvruxen (=“aforetime preached”).
Followed as pote is immediately by
o{te , it is impossible to allow such a
violent disjunction as is here
proposed: (5) Moreover, the occurrence of
pneuvmasi in verse 19, in the
undoubted sense of human spirits, gives a
very strong probability that the same
noun in the singular in verse 18 is
used in the same sense.
On the other hand, it must be admitted
that there is a difficulty in the word
zwopoihqei;" on the modern
critical view. For how could Christ's human be
said to be made alive, when as we all
believe it never died? Some escape
the difficulty by rendering “preserved
alive,” but this is not the fair, natural
sense of the word. It is better to
regard the term as stating that while
Christ did really die as to the
flesh— i.e. , ceased to live any
longer in the body—yet as to his human
soul he was quickened to fresh
energies, to a higher spiritual life than was
compatible with an existence hampered
by flesh and blood.—It may be
added that any reference to our Lord's
resurrection is out of the question,
for that change takes place in the
body and not in the spirit, which alone is
spoken of in this clause.
This is the view taken by Alford, by
Froumuller in Lange, by Huther in
Meyer, by the Speaker's Commentary,
and by Ellicott's Commentary. Nor
can it well be doubted by any one who
will consider the well-marked
antithesis of the two modal datives
and the force of the participle
represented by the verb “went.” The
act reported must have been
performed by our Lord in person— i.e.
, by his disembodied spirit—and
therefore took place between His death
and His resurrection. But as the
statement stands alone in the New
Testament, and we have no aid from
parallel passages, it must be
interpreted strictly, neither adding to nor
taking from the natural force of the
words employed. The “spirits in prison”
of course were those of the persons
who perished in the flood, and it is of
little consequence whether we consider
them as being in penal durance
as condemned criminals, or simply in
custody as prisoners awaiting the
day of doom. It is enough to know that
they were persons who had died in
sin. The question is, What did Christ
do to them? Prof. Godet would
answer at once, He preached the
gospel. But this is by no means clear. It
is true that the Greek word khrussw is
often employed without an object to
denote preaching the gospel, but in
all such cases the omitted object is
easily or rather necessarily supplied
from the connection. There are,
however, other instances in which it
neither has nor can have such a
meaning. Matthew 10:27: “What ye hear
in the ear, proclaim upon the
housetops.” Mark 1:46: “He went out
and began to publish it much;” 7:36:
“So much the more a great deal they
published it.” Rev. 5:2: “I saw a
strong angel proclaiming with a great
voice.” It is certain, therefore, that
our Lord made a proclamation in the
unseen world, but what the tenor of
that proclamation was is not said, nor
is it necessarily implied. To assume
that it was the gospel is to beg the
question. Some have said that he went
there to proclaim his own triumph, or
to predict his deliverance from
Sheol, or to announce the completion
of the work for which he became
incarnate. But no man can pronounce
authoritatively in favor of any of
these views. The materials for a
decision are not at hand.
But whatever may be concluded on this
point, it is very certain that the
parties our Lord addressed were not of
the class who had been left to
themselves, and who had sinned only
against the law written on their
hearts. For they had enjoyed the
teaching of Noah, whom the apostle (II.
2:5) expressly styles a preacher of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
righteousness ( dikaiosuvnh"
keruka ). It is obvious then that their
experience can shed no light upon the
fate of others differently situated,
such as the heathen. And it is very
singular that they who insist that every
man must have the opportunity of
learning God's revealed will, appeal to a
case which is not at all in point,
even if their interpretation of its meaning
be correct. For the impenitent in the
antediluvian world had a very
prolonged space in which to obtain the
divine favor. The long-suffering of
God waited upon them for more than a
century. “His days [ i.e. , the days
of the race then existing] shall be an
hundred and twenty years.” During
all this period Noah uttered the
warning message by his voice, by his
walking with God, and still more by
his patient perseverance in the
building of the ark. But all was vain.
Even the very workmen who labored
upon the singular vessel gave no heed
to its purpose. All filled up the
measure of their iniquity, and when
the appointed time was accomplished,
the overwhelming flood came, and every
soul perished. And that this was
final and irrevocable seems to be
plain from the use which our Lord twice
makes of the fact, as recorded in the
address given by Luke (17:26, 27),
and also that given by Matthew
(24:37-39). The former runs thus: “And as
it was in the days of Noah, even so
shall it be also in the days of the Son
of man. They ate, they drank, they
married, they were given in marriage,
until the day that Noah entered into
the ark, and the flood came and
destroyed ( ajpwvlesen ) them all.” It
is impossible to see the force of this
historical reference if it does not
imply the spiritual overthrow of the
antediluvians. If our Lord intended,
and knew that He intended, to give
them another opportunity of salvation
by a personal summons made after
His death in the unseen world, how
could He with any show of reason
adduce their case as an example of the
danger of neglecting spiritual
things and giving oneself up to the
pursuit of the earthly and the
perishing? Such a course would seem like
trifling with his hearers.
But again, even admitting (which,
however, is not admitted) that the words
do mean or may mean that our Lord
proclaimed a gospel to the spirits in
prison, this proves nothing in respect
to the case of others, before or since
the time of the proclamation in
question, for the simple reason that then
the circumstances were peculiar and
extraordinary. And what is done on
momentous occasions is no precedent
for ordinary days. Because the
conduits run wine instead of water
when the king receives his crown, we
are not to expect that they will do
the same after the coronation is over. If
on the completion of our Lord's
humiliation by His death, His disembodied
spirit passed the interval before his
resurrection in setting forth the fruits of
His now finished work to some of the
other disembodied spirits to be
found in Hades, what reason is there
for thinking that such an exceptional
experience will ever be repeated, much
less become a normal feature in
the administration of the divine
government? Exceptional procedures are
to be confined to exceptional
occasions.
Still further, there is no intimation
anywhere that the preaching, if made
was successful, nor is it at all
necessary for the purposes of the
connection of the passage that it
should have been. The apostle is setting
forth the sufferings of Christ
together with His subsequent exaltation, and
He simply intercalates between the
death on the cross and the exaltation
to God's right hand, something that
was done in the intermediate state.
Our Lord's disembodied spirit did not,
even in the short interval during
which it was fitting that His flesh
should dwell in the grave, lie in a state of
unconsciousness, or simply be in
expectancy of the victory of the third
day, but, in triumphant and assured
conviction of that victory, did make
announcement to other disembodied
spirits of the work of redemption.
The point in question is not what they
did, but what He did; and even if, as
we suppose and as other Scriptures
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
show, they neither received nor
accepted an offer of salvation, yet the
other fact remains, that our Lord's
human soul did while apart from the
body make statements to other like
souls; and the reason why this
particular class of sinners—viz., the
antediluvians—is mentioned, is that
the flood was to be cited presently as
a figure of baptism. The cause,
therefore, of Peter's silence as to
the result of the proclamation is that that
result had no bearing upon the matter
in hand. It may then, upon all these
grounds, be safely asserted that this
solitary text cannot be made to bear
the huge weight of dogma attached to
it; that the premises are far too
small for the conclusion that is
drawn, and that therefore the question of a
new probation after death must be
determined altogether by other
Scriptures in detail or the general
tenor of revelation as a whole.
Nor is the case otherwise in respect
to the other obscure utterance of the
apostle, in the 6th verse of the next
chapter: “For unto this end was the
gospel preached even to the dead, that
they might be judged according to
men in the flesh, but live according
to God in the spirit.” It is argued that
here is a plain case of the preaching
of the gospel to the dead. But if so,
how could it be said of these dead
persons thus preached to and
converted that they should be judged
according to men in the flesh? How
can such a result in the case of any
be made known on earth so as to be
followed by any kind of judgment here?
It is therefore far more reasonable
and consistent to understand the
passage as referring to what took place
during the life-time of the dead. They
had the good news efficaciously
declared to them, so that they might
indeed be condemned by their
fellows in “the fiery trial” (verse
12), but nevertheless their spirits enjoyed
immortal life with God. If, however,
it be insisted that “the dead” here
spoken of were dead when the gospel
was preached unto them, then the
rest of the verse is made to teach
that these and all the dead of preceding
generations (for there is no limit
annexed) not only heard the gospel offer,
but accepted it and were saved—a
conclusion at war with all the
teachings of our Lord and His
apostles. The same reasoning would apply
to all the dead of following
generations, and so we would reach the
conclusion that the day of judgment is
a day of general jail-delivery. None
are condemned. And then what becomes
of our Lord's solemn utterance:
“These shall go away into everlasting
punishment”?
The only other passage of Scripture
referred to is the well-known
utterance of our Lord in Matthew
(12:32): “Whosoever shall speak against
the Holy Spirit, it shall not be
forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that
which is to come.” From this it is
inferred that there are sins which if not
forgiven in this world may be in the
next. To which the answer is, that this
is turning rhetoric into logic. The
32d verse is merely a repetition in
concrete form of what was said in the
31st verse, but in that verse the
Lord simply says that “blasphemy
against the Spirit shall not be forgiven,”
an utterance that is complete and
states the whole point at issue—viz.,
whether for a certain class of sins
there was or was not forgiveness. What
is added in the 32d verse is an
emphatic rhetorical expansion of the
foregoing. This is made apparent by
considering the origin of the phrase.
The Jews divided time into two
portions ( a = oJ
aijw;n ou|to", oJ aijw;n mevllwn
), this world or age, and the world or age
that is to come. In the former they
comprehended all duration up to the
time of the Messiah's appearance, and
in the latter all that followed up to
the judgment day. Now our Lord avails
Himself of this usage in order to
give force and vividness to His
declaration. He combines these two great
periods in order to express an
absolute negation, and show that the sin
He is speaking of shall never be
forgiven.
Nor does it make any difference if we
take the age to come ( aijw;n
mevllwn ) as
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
referring to the period that follows
the general judgment—a reference
which it and its equivalents
undoubtedly have in the New Testament. Mark
10:30, Luke 18:30: “In the world to
come ( aijw'n. tw'/ ejrcom .), eternal life.”
In Luke 20:34 our Lord contrasts the
children of this age or world with
those counted worthy to obtain that
age or world and the resurrection from
the dead. 1 Tim. 4:8, Paul speaks of
the life that now is and of that which
is to come. Even in this view of the
words, it is still apparent that our Lord
is not using them with exegetical
exactness. The question He was
considering was not the time of
forgiveness, but the fact whether there
was forgiveness at all in certain
cases. First, he says there is no
forgiveness; then he adds that there
never shall be. This view is confirmed
by the parallel passage in Mark
(3:29), where it is said, according to the
accurate rendering of the New
Revision, “Whosoever shall blaspheme
against the Holy Spirit hath never
forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal
sin.” No one would infer from the
language of Mark any idea of the kind
which has been drawn from Matthew's,
and we have a right to interpret
the obscure passage by that which is
plain, and to conclude that both
evangelists mean the same thing,
though they express it in somewhat
different ways. That is, to say that a
sin hath never forgiveness is
precisely equivalent to saying that it
shall not be forgiven, neither in this
world nor in that which is to come.
It is further to be said that this
notion of a possible forgiveness after death,
or a fresh probation in the unseen
world, stands opposed to the whole
current of gospel teaching. Take as an
illustration the commencement of
the gospel. John the Baptist began,
saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand.” Our Lord followed
him with the very same words
(Matt. 3:1, 4:17). Now what John meant
is very plain from his reference to
the threshing-floor and the winnowing
shovel. Wheat is destined to the
garner, but the chaff to the fire
unquenchable. The ground, the urgency of
the call, lies in the consequences of
neglect. To repent means escape, but
to refuse and turn away means
irretrievable ruin. And what John said our
Saviour approves. But if forgiveness
is possible after death, how are we to
explain the solemn warning of the
Baptist? All the life is taken out of his
tremendous imagery. There is a new
seed-time, a new harvest, a new
cleansing of the threshing- floor.
Such a view strikes out the entire
underpinning of the gospel. Again,
Paul in 2 Cor. 5:10 says that in the
judgment each one is to “receive the
things done in the body, according to
what he hath done, whether good or
bad.” But persons in the intermediate
state are not “in the body,” and
therefore cannot do or receive anything to
interfere with the result determined
by their previous lives. So, in Hebrews
9:24, it is said, “It is appointed
unto men once to die, but after this cometh
judgment,” an appointment which leaves
no room for a fresh probation
between these two dread events.
In truth, the whole subject is treated
in the wrong way. Men conclude from
their subjective views of what is
right and becoming on the part of their
Maker and Judge, that every human soul
must hear the gospel in this life
or the next, and then look around for
Scripture to buttress up this view.
Yet it appears that the passage to
which all with one consent first turn is
one that says nothing about persons
who lived and died without a
revelation, but is confined to those
who heard an inspired preacher of
righteousness, and which therefore, if
it proves anything, proves, not a
probation to those who had none
before, but a second to those who had
one and abused it. Then they appeal to
another divine utterance, which, if
it means what they say it means,
teaches that to all the dead, past,
present, and future, the gospel is
preached, and therefore the next life,
instead of being a period of
retribution, merely reproduces the
characteristic features of the
present. Finally, recurrence is had to an
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
utterance of our Lord, which,
interpreted without reference to its
connection or to its form in the
second Gospel, might allow the vague and
dubious inference that there is some
kind of forgiveness in the life to
come, although our Lord's parabolic
teachings, especially that of the Rich
Man and Lazarus, are clear and strong
against any such inference. It is
proper, therefore, to insist that the
provisions of mercy being purely matter
of revelation, the divine oracles are
to be consulted in the first instance as
decisive. They are to be regarded as
original and all-sufficient sources of
truth, and not to be employed merely as
lending support to conclusions
reached in some other way.
B. The Christian Conflict. (P. 176.)
The precise application of this
remarkable passage has been a subject of
dispute for fifteen hundred years. It
was hotly debated in the days of
Augustine, and many centuries
afterward was the pivotal point in the
conflict between the Remonstrants and
the Contra-Remonstrants in
Holland. And the division of opinion
still continues. Prof. Shedd's able
exposition (1879) and Dr. Sanday in
Ellicott's Commentary for English
Readers (1880) take one view, while
Dr. Gifford in the Speaker's
Commentary (1881) takes the
other—viz., that which is presented with so
much force by Prof. Godet. In a matter
of so much difficulty, one in which
men of equal learning, acuteness, and
piety have differed so widely, it
does not become any to speak with
dogmatism. Having, however, come
to a conclusion different from that
reached by the author of this book, I
venture to suggest some considerations
in reply to the argument with
which he closes the seventh chapter.
1. The Professor speaks of the studied
avoidance by the apostle of every
expression specially belonging to the
Christian sphere. Such avoidance
certainly occurs, but it is to be
accounted for by the nature of the case.
The object of the apostle was to show
the impossibility of securing
sanctification by the law. Being
occupied with this negative side of the
subject, he does not anticipate what is
to be said afterward in setting forth
the positive side. This is done in the
eighth chapter, which continues and
completes his view of the relation
between justification and progressive
sanctification.
2. As to the very striking parallels
found in profane literature, their aptness
and force are just the same whether we
compare them with the struggle
between inclination and duty in an
unregenerate man, or with that
between the new nature and the old in
the regenerate.
3. The change of tense in this passage
is very remarkable, and is by no
means explained away by Prof. Godet's
reasoning. In the former part of
the chapter
(vv. 7-14) the apostle uses past
tenses describing a former
condition—viz., that of one still
unregenerate, as all admit—but in the
remainder he persistently uses the
present, “I am carnal,” “sin is present,”
etc. It is hardly conceivable that
this sudden and total change of the
tenses can have been accidental, and
if it was intentional, then the only
explanation of it is a change of the
point of view. Before, the apostle was
discussing his condition prior to
conversion; now, he is setting forth his
condition after that change.
4. This view suits admirably the
general scope of the Epistle and the
course of the argument. The apostle,
having shown that the law is
helpless as a means of justification,
proceeds to set forth its utter inability
as a method of sanctification. This is
done in the seventh chapter by a
vigorous statement of its working, first
in relation to original sin in man in a
state of nature (vv. 7-14), and then
in relation to indwelling
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
sin in one who is in a state of grace.
In neither case does the law manifest
any power to conquer depravity. A new
element is necessary, which is
introduced with great fulness in the
eighth chapter, where the inward
struggle is once more described, but
with growing assurances of success
which finally culminate in a song of
unmingled triumph.
5. Particular expressions occur in the
section which cannot without great
violence be applied to the natural
man. For example, the words with which
5:22 opens: “For I delight in the law
of God after the inward man.” The
force of the verb here is very
inadequately given in Prof. Godet's
translation, “I applaud” ( j'applaudis
). To praise a person or a thing is by
no means the same as to delight in
them. Natural men may and often do
admire and commend the law of God, but
they do not have pleasure in it.
Nay, the full approbation of the
conscience may coexist with deadly hatred
in the heart. Again, in the last
verse, the apostle says, “With the mind I
serve the law of God.” The word serve
( douleuvw ) is very strong,
denoting a total subjection of the
will. The man voluntarily enslaves
himself to righteousness. Can this be
said of any mere natural man?
6. The view which denies that this
section describes a Christian
experience goes to wreck on the
Scripture account of man's condition
apart from grace. That view supposes
an element of holiness, slight and
weak but real, still remaining in man
after the fall, which accounts for the
struggle here recounted. But there is
no basis for this opinion. Fallen
man's condition is one of total alienation
from God. The fearful
ungodliness and immorality described
in the first chapter is the natural
development of the evil heart cut off
from God and seeking its gratification
in the creature. Now this inborn
corruption, however veiled or qualified by
outward graces, or domestic
affections, or civic virtues, or actings of
conscience, cannot possibly be the
subject of such a conflict as is here
described. Consent to sin, the act and
dominion of sin, is the permanent
condition of the unregenerate. Hence
the Scripture defines so sharply
everything truly spiritual in man as a
supernatural, gracious effect. What is
born of the flesh only is flesh (John
3:6); the psychical (or natural) man
understands nothing of spiritual
things (1 Cor. 2:13); he is one having not
the Spirit (Jude 19); his mind is
enmity against God. No such man in the
innermost centre of his personality is
at one with the law of God. He
neither knows nor feels what is its
interior essence, the very secret of its
excellence, its exact reflection of
the nature of its divine author.
7. On the other hand, the view of the
passage here contended for puts it
in harmony with the frequent
representation of S. S. that there is a
remnant of corruption in the believer
and that this occasions a continual
conflict. Witness the outcry of the
prophet beholding the heavenly vision
(Isa. 6:5): “Woe is me! for I am
undone,” or the pleading of David (Ps. 19):
“Cleanse thou me from secret faults:
keep back thy servant from
presumptuous sins.” The same writer
who says (Ps.
139): “How precious are thy thoughts
unto me, O God!” adds the entreaty,
“Search me and know my heart, and see
if there be any wicked way in
me.” Our Lord said to the Twelve, “The
spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh
is weak,” and in Gal. 5:17 the apostle
sets forth this perpetual struggle in
very plain words: “The flesh lusteth
against the Spirit, and the Spirit
against the flesh; for these are
contrary one to the other; that ye may not
do the things that ye would.” As
Lightfoot ( in lo. ) says, “Between the spirit
and the flesh there is not only no
alliance, there is an interminable feud.
You feel these antagonistic forces
working in you: you would fain follow
the guidance of your conscience, and
you are dragged back by an
opposing power.”
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
It may be added in conclusion that
while mediatizing views are apt to be a
snare, yet there is one given in this
case by Prof. M. B. Riddle (Schaff's
Pop. Com. 3:74), which is worthy of
attention. It is here subjoined in the
author's own words: “It seems best to
hold that the apostle does not have
in mind any sharp distinction between
the unregenerate and regenerate
states, but gives the experience of
man attempting to become better
through the law; of an awakened man,
before he comes to Christ; but also
of a Christian man so far as he feels
the pressure of law rather than the
power of the Spirit. Hence it is not
always possible to discriminate, if the
distinction between the regenerate and
unregenerate states is
emphasized. Yet the apostle himself,
as a Jew, before his conversion,
probably passed through this entire
experience.”
C. Foreordination. (P. 329.)
The learned author says that some may
hold a different view of
predestination from the one he
advocates, but if so, he frankly expresses
his conviction that “it will not be
that of the apostle.” To which it may be
replied with equal frankness that the
great objection to his view is that it is
not Pauline, being opposed alike to
the words of the great apostle and to
the general tenor of his teaching. The
opinion which resolves divine
foreordination into a mere prescience
of human volition makes man the
originator of his own salvation—a
doctrine contradicted on every page of
Scripture, and nowhere more directly
than in the utterances of Paul. With
him God is ever on the throne. Of Him
and through Him and to Him are all
things. Salvation is by grace from
beginning to end, and the apostle
delights to trace its origin back to a
period before the foundation of the
world (Eph. 1:4). He is not concerned
about any metaphysical difficulties,
but presses the divine efficiency even
where one would least expect it, as
when he tells the Philippians, “Work
out your own salvation with fear and
trembling, for it is God which worketh
in you both to will and to work for his
good pleasure.” Repentance is a divine
gift, faith results from divine
illumination, every excellence of the
Christian is a fruit of the Spirit, and no
man has anything which he has not
received. It is therefore in exact
consistency with the unvarying purport
of the apostle's doctrine that the
Agent who is supreme in all the
believer's history in this life should have
the same pre-eminence in all that
preceded. He who is sovereign in
bestowing grace is equally sovereign
in the determination to bestow it.
And that determination runs back to
the ages before time, indeed is
pronounced strictly eternal (Eph.
3:11). The difficulty with Prof. Godet is
that he cannot reconcile this view
with human liberty. But he is under no
necessity of doing this, any more than
he is obliged to explain how Peter's
assertion at Pentecost that Christ was
delivered up by God's deliberate
counsel and foreknowledge is
consistent with his charge in the same
breath that his death was effected by
the hand of lawless men. As Prof.
Riddle well says, “The difficulty
which arises in reconciling God's
sovereignty and man's free will
confronts us whenever we accept the
existence of a Personal God, and is
not peculiar to Christianity, much less
to some one school of Christian
theology.” (Pop. Com. 3:39.) It is every
way better to take the Scripture just
as we find it, boldly insisting in all
cases on the two factors, divine
causation and human freedom, but
refusing to draw the line between them
or to insist that we have the
means of adjusting their respective
claims.
In the passage immediately before us
the entire difficulty arises in the first
clause, Whom He did foreknow (ver.
29). Of course it cannot mean that
prescience of which all men and all
things are the objects. For then it
would say nothing, and the
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
bitterest of Paul's enemies never
charged him with writing nonsense. Nor
can the phrase mean whom he determined
upon , both because there is
nothing in the usage of the word to
sustain this meaning, and because in
this way it would be confounded with
the next verb, whereas the Scripture
keeps the two ideas of foreknowledge
and election distinct, as in 1 Peter
1:2: “Elect according to the
foreknowledge of God.” Nor can it mean, as
Godet says, that God foreknows those
who were sure to fulfil the
condition of salvation—viz., faith.
For this adds an idea which is contained
neither in the word itself nor in the
context. And besides, this would
directly contradict what Paul says
elsewhere. For example (1 Tim. 1:9):
“Who hath called us not according to
our works, but according to His own
purpose and grace, given us in Christ
Jesus, before the world began.” Nor
is it of any avail to say that faith
is not a work, but rather a renunciation of
all merit; for it certainly is an act
or work, and, according to the Professor,
is a free adherence of man to the
solicitation of God. And if it be assumed
here, it puts as the ground of our
calling and election something in
ourselves, which is just what the
Scripture emphatically denies. Cremer in
his Biblico-Theological Lexicon
suggests a meaning drawn from the word
itself. He says that ginwskw in New
Testament Greek often denotes a
personal relation between the person
knowing and the object known = to
suffer oneself to be determined
thereby; for anything is known only so far
as it is of importance to the person
knowing and has an influence upon
him, so that a personal relationship
is established between the knowing
subject and the object known. The
prefix of pro to this word simply carries
us back to an anterior period, and
here it denotes that the ginwskein is
already present in the divine decree
before its manifestation in history—
i.e. , the union takes place between
God and the objects of his sovereign
grace. Hence we may render, “Whom God
had beforehand entered into
fellowship with.” Thus the word is a
conception complete in itself and
needing no addition from without. This
view preserves the distinction
between foreknowledge and foreordination,
the former being an act of
conscious perception, the latter one
of specific volition. Augustine insists
upon this distinction:
Praedestinatio...sine praescientia non potest esse;
potest autem esse sine
praedestinatione praescientia (De Praed.
Sanctorum, cap. 4.). Whatever is
implied in God's knowing His people
now (“The Lord knoweth them that are
His.” 2 Tim. 2:19) existed from all
ages in the divine mind, and was the
ground of His gracious decree. That
decree depended upon something in God,
but in no sense or degree upon
anything in man.
And this is the uniform voice of
Christian experience. Whatever the devout
believer's head may say, his heart is
right, and he feels instinctively that
he owes everything to God and nothing
to himself. The simple but
touching stanzas of Faber express the
religious consciousness of
Christendom in every age from the
apostle's to our own.
“O gift of gifts! O grace of faith!
My God! how can it be That Thou who
hast discerning love
Shouldst give that gift to me?
“How many hearts Thou mightest have
had
More innocent than mine: How many
souls more worthy far
Of that sweet touch of Thine!”
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
The author's conception of
foreordination, if I understand him rightly, limits
the divine purpose to the future glory
of the redeemed as its object. That
is, it secures to them who endure to
the end a blessed reward in the life to
come. But their repenting and believing,
their calling and justification, their
growth in grace, their victory over
sin and death and the devil—all these
are outside of the divine decree, and
depend simply upon the due
exercise of their freedom. At any
moment they may be lost. There is
nothing to secure the believer that he
shall not one day fall into the hand
of the Philistines. Surely such a
truncated election as this, such a bald and
useless foreordination, is not what
the apostle is laboring upon.
Something larger, grander, more
comprehensive is required to reach the
full meaning of his fervid rhetoric,
his profound thought, his acute dialectic.
His vision takes in the whole range of
the believer's experience from first
to last. In his view foreknowledge,
foreordination, calling, justification and
glorification are simply successive
links in one and the same chain,
stretching from before times eternal
down to the ages of ages, world
without end. The child of God delights
to trace each step of his progress
to “the sweet will of God,” conceived
in eternity but manifested in time,
choosing alike the means and the end,
and securing not simply future
glory to those who are worthy, but the
grace that renders them worthy,
thus making the crown of life only the
natural culmination of all that had
gone before.
D. Freedom and Sovereignty. (P. 373.)
The ingenious statement of the author
in this re8sume8 of opinions seems
to require some further notice. All
admit that the apostle teaches a
predestination of some kind, and the
only, or certainly the chief, question
is in respect to its nature? Is it
absolute or conditional? The former is the
common faith of the Reformed. This is
not quite accurately expressed by
the author when he says that in the
salvation of some and the perdition of
others it sees only the effect of the
divine decree. A more correct
statement is that the decree is the
direct and efficient cause of the
salvation of the saved; it is only
negatively concerned with the perdition of
the lost, since it simply passes them
by. Their own sin is the direct cause
of their ruin. A sovereign God leaves
them to themselves. It is different
with the others. These he foreordains
not simply to glory, as Prof. Godet
says, but to salvation, that term
comprehending their whole experience
from the first act of saving faith to
the final acquittal in the great day. This
foreordination is absolute, i.e. ,
depending only on God, but is not
therefore arbitrary or capricious,
i.e. , exercised without reason. The
nature of God forbids such a thought.
The infinite Mind always acts in
accordance with its own perfections.
But here, as in many other cases,
the Lord does not see fit to inform us
of the ground of His procedures, but
that there is such a ground seems a
just and necessary inference from
His own very being as a God of
infinite wisdom and holiness.
Now that the apostle teaches such a
self-determination on the part of
God, entirely independent of anything
external to himself, is apparent alike
from a cursory and a critical reading
of his words. This is the natural
meaning of his language, and it is
confirmed by careful and prolonged
study, as is shown by the fact that
many of the learned who reject the
doctrine yet admit that Paul taught
it. An opinion held by such scholars as
De Wette and Meyer must have some
basis, and cannot be so
unceremoniously dismissed.
It is declared that the future of
Jacob and Esau (and of the peoples who
sprang from them) was decided before
they were born, and that the very
reason of
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
this was that it might be seen that
God's purpose was not founded on
works, but on His own good pleasure.
For neither of the two had done
either good or evil, and the choice of
the one and the rejection of the other
was determined by the will of “Him
that calleth.” Prof. Godet says that the
matter of eternal salvation was not in
view in this case. Even if this were
true it would not affect the principle
involved, for the point at issue is
whether God's sovereignty is
unconditional or not, and that can be
determined as well in reference to
temporal as to spiritual benefits. And
besides, the choice to the means is
usually a choice to the end, and the
blessings by which Jacob was
distinguished were the sine qua non of
eternal life to multitudes of his
descendants. But the assertion is incorrect.
For what reason did the apostle cite
the case except to show the liberty of
God to choose whom He pleases to be
the recipients of His blessing?
Apart from its illustration of this
principle, the case had no bearing upon
his argument.
So again (verse 16) it is expressly
declared that salvation is not the result
of human will or human effort, but
simply the fruit of God's mercy. Now
mercy is indeed a necessary feeling in
the divine nature, but its
manifestation in any given case is
optional. As Charnock finely says: “God
is not like the sun, which shines
indiscriminately because it has no choice
in the matter, being an unintelligent
agent, whereas God, as a being of
infinite understanding, has a
sovereign right to choose His own subjects,
nor would His goodness be supreme
unless it were voluntary.” Indeed: the
whole doctrine is but the expansion of
the words in our Saviour's parable,
“Is it not lawful for me to do what I
will with mine own” (Matt. 20:15)? The
entire race being involved in guilt
and ruin, God is pleased for reasons
known only to Himself to have mercy
upon some, and to leave others to
the just and natural result of their
evil ways.
The same thing appears from the
character of the objections raised
against the doctrine. “Why doth He yet
find fault, for who hath resisted His
will?” A reference to the original
here shows that it is the will of decree and
not the will of desire that is
intended. Now this question evidently implies
that it is God's sovereignty that is
complained of. If it were otherwise, how
easily could the apostle have set
aside the objection by showing that God
was not the final arbiter in the case.
But he does no such thing, but rather
reaffirms his previous assertions.
After rebuking the folly which leads
weak and erring man to call to account
his infinite Creator, he introduces
the striking figure of the potter, as
if to say, the sovereignty I claim is
inherent in the commonest artificer,
how much more in the Lord of all! The
potter claims not only the power but
the right ( exousian ) to put the clay to
a noble or an ignoble use at his
pleasure, and the form it is to take rests
solely with him. Now, the apostle
reasons, fallen humanity is before God
just as the clay is before the potter.
All sinners are alike destitute of claim;
they are “the same lump.” If God
chooses to save some and not others,
He does no injustice to those who are
left. He did not make them sin. But
when they had sinned and became
guilty, He, acting as a moral governor,
forbore to interpose, and so they
became vessels of wrath. And so far
from His procedure here being
questionable, it displays His glory. For on
one hand He endures with much
long-suffering and patience the evil
courses of some, long delaying their
punishment. and on the other He
magnifies the riches of His mercy in
the salvation of the rest.
The chief difficulty which Prof. Godet
finds in accepting the Augustinian
view, which, as shown above, is the
correct exegetical view, of the
apostle's reasoning, is philosophical
and speculative. He says that it
cannot be reconciled with “man's
entire freedom in the acceptance or
rejection of salvation” (2:4, 6-10,
6:12, 13). But
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
this is no reason for denving the
plain meaning of words. The apostle may
have seen and felt this antinomy, and
have decided not to touch it. The
Professor indeed thinks that Paul's
logical power would not have allowed
him “to stop short in the study of a
question until he has thoroughly
completed its elucidation.” But it is
much safer to reason from what he did
say than from what our view of the
nature of his mind would lead us to
deem him likely to say. He does touch
the very point at issue (verses 19,
20), but how? Not by a metaphysical
inquiry into the nature and limits of
human freedom, but by an animated
declaration that the created being
cannot investigate the causes which
may have determined the will of his
Creator. His language implies that man
is compelled by the constitution of
his nature to acknowledge that certain
actions are sinful and deserve
punishment, and this being so, no view
of his dependence upon God can
make these actions innocent; hence it
is vain to argue against
incontrovertible facts. And this is
all that need be said on the subject.
“Scripture considers men under two
points of view: first as created by
God, and secondly, as free moral
agents themselves. These two points of
view are, to the intellect of man,
irreconcilable; yet both must be true,
since the reason convinces us of the
one, and the conscience of the
other” (Conybeare). It is necessary
therefore to hold both, whether we can
frame a system of reconciliation or
not. In fact, the serious errors on the
subject have arisen from the tendency
to neglect or deny one side of the
complex facts for the sake of making a
consistent theory. Pelagians and
Arminians have denied the dependence
of man's will on God, and
Fatalists have denied the freedom of
moral agency. Our author sides with
the former by making certain “moral
conditions” in men the ground of their
election. We prefer the method of the
apostle, who sides with neither.
Another of his arguments is “the
possibility of one converted falling from
the state of grace through want of
vigilance or faithfulness” (8:13; 1 Cor.
10:1-12; Gal. 5:4; Col. 1:23; a
passage where he says expressly: “ if at
least ye persevere”). This he thinks
wholly inconsistent with an
unconditional decree of election. But
the particle in the case last cited
(which he thinks decisive), “ If
indeed ,” does not express doubt (compare
Eph. 3:2, 4:21, where it rather means
certainty by challenging the
opposite), but is simply intended to
call attention to the necessity of faith
to secure the result spoken of in the
preceding verse. And so with all the
hypothetical statements and promises
in the Scripture. These are simply
parts of the series of means by which
the Lord carries out His eternal
purpose. That purpose cannot fail,
simply because it is God's purpose. If it
rested upon man's strength or resources,
it would utterly fail. But believers
are kept by the power of God through
faith unto salvation, ready to be
revealed in the last time.
“Finally,” the Professor says, “the
decree of the rejection of the Jews is
explained, not by the impenetrable
mystery of the divine will, but by the
haughty tenacity with which they
affected to establish their own
righteousness,” etc. This is very
true, but nothing to the purpose. The
rejection of the Jews and the
perdition of any that are lost are the just
results of their own sin. This is a
real and sufficient cause, and none
farther need be sought. The relation
of sovereignty to the event is simply
negative. God refuses to interfere,
and justice takes its course.
E. The Mystery respecting Israel's
Future. 11:25, 26. (P. 411.)
The importance of this utterance of
the apostle in its bearing upon
eschatology suggests some further
remark. It is not an incidental
statement, nor a burst of rhetoric,
nor yet a lofty poetical expression like
8:19-23, but a link in a
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First Next ->
sustained argument carried all through
the chapter, and is therefore to be
interpreted strictly. It is the
explanation of what is called a mystery, i.e. , as
well stated by our author, not a truth
incomprehensible by reason, which is
the accepted theological sense of the
word, but one which can be known
only by revelation from above, yet
when revealed can be fully understood
by those who receive it. It is stated
in plain words, without the use of
metaphor, by one who well knew the
force of language. It treats of a point
in the future which man's unaided
faculties could never have discovered,
and it was intended to vindicate the
divine purpose in the application of
redemption, and to furnish guidance
and admonition to the believers not
of the stock of Israel. Occurring,
then, as it does in the course of the most
didactic portion of the New Testament,
and being the last utterance in that
book on the subject, it is not to be
explained by other preceding
Scriptures, but to be used to explain
them, and this the more as the
inspired author was fully acquainted
with the prophecies of the Old
Testament, and indeed proceeds at once
to cite from them in confirmation
of his views. So that we have here in
brief a divine interpretation of what is
contained in the writings of the holy
men of old.
The passage asserts ( a ) a fact, ( b
) a limitation of the time of its
continuance, and ( c ) the final
result. The fact is that Israel in part has
been hardened against the gospel, or
rather are subjects of a process
going on in this direction, a process
in which God judicially withdraws the
providential and gracious influences
by which men are restrained. Now
there are cases in which this
hardening is allowed to work out its natural
result in the utter destruction of its
subjects, as is seen in the cities of the
plain, in Tyre and Sidon, in Nineveh,
etc. But in the case of the Jews it is
otherwise. Their induration has a
limit. It will come to an end upon the
occurrence of a certain event: until
the fulness of the Gentiles come
in—i.e. , to the church or people of
God. (Comp. Luke 13:24, where the
verb is used absolutely, as it is
here.) The meaning of the phrase
rendered until is clear and certain.
But the Reformers were led, by their
fears of Chiliastic ideas, which in
their age assumed a very dangerous
form, to depart from the natural sense
and give the meanings, in order
that , or as long as , which, however,
are now universally repudiated on
the ground of both etymology and
usage. And, as the author shows, such
a rendering is against the whole sense
of the passage. The event, then,
which is to limit the hardening of
Israel is the coming in of the fulness of
the Gentiles. The term fulness may be
understood, like the verb from
which it is derived, either
relatively, as complementum, that which fills up
what is lacking, like the patch put
upon a rent in a garment (Mark 2:21), or
absolutely, as totality, completeness.
It is in this latter sense that it is
usually employed by the apostle, as in
Colos. 2:9: “All the fulness of the
Godhead.” Eph. 1:23: “The fulness of
him that filleth all in all.” Here, then,
the meaning must be the totality of
the Gentiles, not necessarily including
every individual, but the nations as a
whole. It will not do to render it “a
great multitude”
( magna caterva ), for this is a
limitation for which there is no warrant. It is
“the full number,” “the whole body,”
as contrasted with the part which had
already been gathered into the church.
Opinions may reasonably differ as
to the intensive force of this
expression— i.e. , to what degree the coming
in of the Gentiles reaches in respect
to their practical appropriation of
saving truth—but as to the extensive
import there can be little or no doubt.
The gospel must extend its sway over
the peoples who sit in darkness; it
must penetrate every continent; it
must be spoken in every tongue, and
have its adherents in every nation and
tribe. Nothing less than this would
seem to answer the legitimate scope of
the apostle's words.
When this takes place, a blessed
result is to follow—viz., the salvation of
all
<- Previous First Next ->
<- Previous First
Israel. This does not deny the
occurrence of conversions among the Jews
previously. Such are to be expected,
but not any widespread or general
movement. Dogmatic views and perhaps
anti-Semitic prejudices have led
many to endeavor to limit the natural
meaning of the words: “And so all
Israel shall be saved.” Sometimes, and
that even by such astute men as
Augustine and Calvin, the term has
been understood spiritually as
denoting the whole number of
believers, Jews and Gentiles, a sense
which Israel certainly has in certain
cases (as in Rom. 9:6; Gal. 6:16), but
which here is simply impossible, since
there is an express contrast
between Jews and Gentiles in the
immediate connection. Nor can the
term when understood of the national
Israel be narrowed down to “the
remnant according to the election of
grace,” understanding by this the
number of those who from time to time
in the course of the ages shall be
brought into the fold. Had this been
the meaning, the apostle would have
expressed it otherwise. Nor, on the
other hand, can the phrase be
extended so as to include the whole
nation numerically without any
exception. For this would be contrary
to usage. When Rehoboam went to
Shechem, all Israel came there to make
him king (1 Kings 12:1), and
when David brought up the ark from
Kirjath Jearim (1 Chron. 13:5), it is
said that he gathered all Israel
together; but in neither case is it necessary
or even possible to hold that every
individual of the nation was included. It
was enough that the people as a whole
could be this described. And so
the passage before us must be
understood as indicating a national
conversion, forever ending the old
division into “an elect remnant” and
“the rest who were hardened,” and
uniting the entire body with the
Gentiles as fellow- heirs in the grace
of life. Nothing less than this can be
the meaning of the apostle, and
certainly it is sustained by that great
miracle of Providence, the
preservation of the nation in its distinctive life
amid defeats, exiles, dispersions,
persecutions, and enmities, such as in
any other case would have caused an
utter extermination of the sufferers.
But with this conversion of the Jews
as a nation there have often been
conjoined other views which receive no
countenance from this passage,
such as their restoration to
Palestine, the renewal of the theocratic royalty,
and the re- erection of the temple
with its priesthood and its ritual just as
in the palmiest days of the old
Covenant. There is not a word of this in the
New Testament, but much that points
the other way. As Meyer well says,
“Israel does not take in the church,
but the church takes in Israel.” And
this is all that need be asked. The
self-invoked curse which has rested
upon the race is to be removed, and
dawn breaks in at last upon the long,
long night of affliction. If all
Israel is to be saved, if anti-Semitic prejudices
and hatreds are to be removed, if the
old distinction which has outlived all
other differences of nation or of race
and run the deepest groove in
human society the world has seen, is
to be forever effaced, and Jew and
Gentile are to become really one in
Christ Jesus, then the domicile of the
covenant people is of small
consequence. Whether they live in Canaan or
elsewhere, they still would retain the
ancestral glories recited by the
apostle (9:4. 5), would still be
beloved for their fathers' sakes, and would
still feel the tie of the elder
brother more than any others, because as to
His human nature He too was of the
stock of Israel. No earthly priority, no
civil distinctions, no headship in
ritual services, no national privilege of any
kind, would be anything more than a
wretched exchange for the adoption
and the blessed hope which belong to
all Christians as fellow-heirs and
fellow-members of the body and
fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ
Jesus.
<- Previous First