ThML Template

^ft1 His original name was Wangler, but he Grecised it, as Erasmus had done, and as others did in that age.
^ft2 This work must have been published before the year 1615, for his patron died in that year. The copy seen by the writer is the third edition and was published in 1633.
^ft3 “The writers of the New Testament, or rather (with reverence be it Spoken!) the Holy Spirit, whose penmen they were, wisely chose, in expressing evangelical notions, to employ such Greek terms as had been long before used for the same purposes by the Greek Translators of the Near Testament: and thus the Septuagint version, however imperfect and faulty in many particulars, became in this respect, not to the first age of the Church only, but also to all succeeding generations, the connecting link between the languages of the Old and New Testament, and will be regarded in this view as long as sound judgment and real learning shall continue among men.” —ParkHurst.
^ft4 It was while a prisoner at this time at Rome that he wrote his Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and the Hebrews also, as it is generally supposed.
^ft5 See Horne’s Introduction, volume 4 part 2 chapter; 3 section 1.
^ft6 The inconsistencies of what the retailers of this tradition say, are quite palpable. Irenœus affirms, that “the Church at Rome was founded and constituted (fundata et constituta) by the two Apostles, Peter and Paul.” Epiphanius says, that they were the first “Bishops” at Rome, as well as Apostles, while Irenœus declares, that they both “delivered the episcopal office into the hands of Linus ;” and it is said in what are called the Apostolic Constitutions, that “Linus was ordained bishop by Paul, and Clement after the death of Linus by Peter.” — see Dr. Barrow on the Pope’s Supremacy, pages 127-129.
^ft7 But this cannot be admitted, as the same informant, Tradition, tells us , that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at the same time. The only thing which Peter appears to have had to do in forming and founding a church at Rome, was to have been the instrument in the conversion, at the day of Pentecost, of those who in all probability were the first who introduced the gospel into Rome: and it is probable that it was this circumstance which occasioned the tradition, that he bad been the founder of that church. Less occasion has often produced tales of this kind.
^ft8 Let it not be supposed, that by discrediting some things, we discredit every thing said by the Fathers. They ought to be treated as all other historians. What we find on examination to be unfounded, ought to be so viewed: and what we have every reason to believe to be true, ought to be so received. Even such a man as Dr. Lardner seemed unwilling to reject this tale, from fear of lessening the credit of history; evidently mistaking the ground on which history has a title to credit. The many authorities adduced respecting Peter being at Rome may be reduced almost to two — Irenœus and Tertullian. They were the first to stamp as it were a kind of authority on this report, and also on others to which no credit is given even by those who would have the Fathers to have been almost infallible.
The learned Dr. Copleston, the present Bishop of Landaff, in his pamphlet on the Errors of Romanism, justly says, “It is even a matter of serious doubt whether St. Peter was ever at Rome. There is no good historical evidence of the fact; and there is much probability against it.” —P. 87.
^ft9 The account given of Grynæus by Watkins in his Biographical Dictionary, taken from Moreri, is the following: — “ A learned German, born at Veringen, in Hohenzollern, in 1493. He studied at Vienna, after which he became Rector of the school at Baden, but was thrown into prison for espousing the Lutheran doctrines. However, he recovered his liberty, and went to Heidelberg, afterwards to Basil, and, in 1531, he visited England. 1536 he returned to Basil, and died there in 1540.” It is somewhat singular, that in the same year, 1540, another learned man of the same name, John James Grynæus, was born at Berne, and was educated at Basil, and became distinguished for his learning — Ed.
^ft10 There were at least two other Reformers who had written on the Epistle to the Romans: but whether they were published at this time the writer is not able to say. There is by Luther an Introduction to it, which has been much praised, and has attained the name of the golden preface. Peter Martyr wrote a large comment on this Epistle, which was translated into English early in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, in the year 1568. It is rather remarkable that there was no commenter among our English Reformers, while on the Continent there were a great many commentators. — Ed.
^ft11 “The inscription of the Pauline Epistles,” says Turrettin, “is according to the manner of the ancients, both Greeks and Romans. They were wont to prefix their name; and to those to whom they wrote they added their good wishes.” We have an example in ^<442326>Acts 23:26. — Ed.
^ft12 Thereby expressing the meaning of Paulus, which in Latin is little. “Paul,” says the quaint Elnathan Parr, as signifies little, and indeed not unfitly, for he is reported to have been low in stature, and to have had a very small voice, which is thought to have been objected to him in ^<471010>2 Corinthians 10:10 — Ed.
^ft13 Most writers agree in this view, regarding Saul as his Hebrew name and Paul as his Roman name. — Ed.
^ft14 “A called Apostle — vocatus apostolus — klhto<v apo>stolov;” our version is, “called to be an Apostle. Most consider “called” here in the sense of chosen or elected, “a chosen Apostle.” Professor Stuart observes, that klhto<v in the writings of Paul has always the meaning of efficient calling, and signifies not only the invited, but the effectually invited. He refers to ^<460101>1 Corinthians 1:1, 2; ^<460124>1 Corinthians 1:24; ^<450106>Romans 1:6, 7; ^<450828>Romans 8:28; compared with ^<480115>Galatians 1:15; ^<650101>Jude 1:1; Hebrews 3:l; ^<451129>Romans 11:29; ^<490401>Ephesians 4:1.
He was an Apostle by a call, or as Beza renders it, “by the call of God — ex Dei vocatione apostolus.” The meaning is the same as what he himself expresses it in ^<480101>Galatians 1:1. Turrettin renders it, “Apostolus vocatione divina — an Apostle by divine vocation.”
The difference between “a called Apostle” and “called to be an Apostle,” is this, that the first conveys the idea that he obeyed the call, and the other does not. — Ed.
^ft15 Afwrisme>nov separated, set apart; “segregatus,” Vulgate; “ separatus, Beza. “The Pharisees,” says Leigh, “were termed ajfwrisme>nov we may English them Separatists: they separated themselves to the study of the law, in which respect they might be called ajfwrisme>nov eijv to<n no>mon, separated to the law. In allusion to this, saith Drusius, the Apostle is thought to have styled himself, ^<450101>Romans 1:1, ajfwrisme>non eijv ejuagge>lion, separated unto the Gospel, when he was called from being a Pharisee to be a preacher of the Gospel.” Separated is the word adopted both by Doddridge and Macknight, as well as by our own version. — Ed.
^ft16 Some combine the four separations. “Set apart in the eternal counsel of God, and from his mother’s womb, ^<480115>Galatians 1:15, and by the special commandment of the Holy Ghost, ^<441302>Acts 13:2, confirmed by constitution of the Church, ^<441303>Acts 13:3; ^<480209>Galatians 2:9.” — Parr. But the object here seems to have been that stated by Calvin: nor is it just or prudent to connect any other idea with the word except that which the context requires; for to do so only tends to create confusion. — Ed.
^ft17 Moses, Joshua, David, Nehemiah, etc., where, in a similar sense, called servants; and also our Savior. They were officially servants. — Ed
^ft18 The verb is proephggei>lato only here; it comes from epagge>llomai, which Schleusner says, means in the middle voice, to promise. “Which he had before promised.” is then the proper rendering, and not “Which he formerly published,” as proposed by Professor Stuart. Both Doddridge and Macknight have retained our version, with which that of Beza agrees. — Ed.
^ft19 “Declaratus,” oJrisqe>ntov. Some of the ancients, such as Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others, have given to this verb the meaning of is “proved — deicqe>ntov;” demonstrated — ajpofanqe>ntov;” “exhibited — ajpodeicqw>ntov;”etc. But it is said that the word has not this meaning in the New Testament, and that it means, limited, determined, decreed, constituted. Besides here, it is found only in ^<422222>Luke 22:22; ^<440223>Acts 2:23; ^<441042>Acts 10:42; ^<441129>Acts 11:29; ^<441726>Acts 17:26; ^<580407>Hebrews 4:7. The word, determined, or constituted, if adopted here, would amount to the same thing, that is, that Christ was visibly determined or constituted the Son of God through the resurrection, or by that event. It was that which fixed, settled, determined, and manifestly exhibited him as the Son of God, clothed and adorned with his own power. Professor Stuart has conjured a number of difficulties in connection with this verse, for which there seems to be no solid reason. The phrase, the Son of God, is so well known from the usage of Scripture, that there is no difficulty connected with it: the full phrase is the only-begotten Son. To say that Christ’s resurrection was no evidence of his divine nature, as Lazarus and others had been raised from the dead, appears indeed very strange. Did Lazarus rise through his own power? Did Lazarus rise again for our justification? Was his resurrection an attestation of any thing he had previously declared? The Revelation A. Barnes very justly says, that the circumstances connected with Christ were those which rendered his resurrection a proof of his divinity.
Professor Hodge gives what he conceives to be the import of the two verses in these words, “Jesus Christ was, as to his human nature, the Son of David; but he was clearly demonstrated to be, as to his divine nature, the Son of God, by the resurrection from the dead.” This view is taken by many, such as Pareus, Beza, Turrettin, etc. But the words, “according to the Spirit of Holiness” — kata< pneu~ma aJgiwsu>nhv, are taken differently by others, as meaning the Holy Spirit. As the phrase is nowhere else found, it may be taken in either sense. That the divine nature of Christ is called Spirit, is evident. See ^<461545>1 Corinthians 15:45; ^<470317>2 Corinthians 3:17; ^<580914>Hebrews 9:14, ^<600318>1 Peter 3:18. Doddridge, Scott, and Chalmers, consider The Holy Spirit to be intended. The last gives this paraphrase: — “Declared, or determinately marked out to be the Son of God and with power. The thing was demonstrated by an evidence, the exhibition of which required a putting forth of power, which Paul in another place represents as a very great and strenuous exertion, ‘According to the working of his mighty power when he raised him from the dead.’ — The Spirit of Holiness, or the Holy Spirit. It was through the operation of the Holy Spirit that the divine nature was infused into the human at the birth of Jesus Christ; and the very same agent, it is remarkable, was employed in the work of the resurrection. ‘Put to death in the flesh,’ says Peter, 4 and ‘quickened by the Spirit.’ We have only to do with the facts of the case. He was demonstrated to be the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit having been put forth in raising him from the dead.” As to the genitive case after “resurrection,” see a similar instance in ^<441732>Acts 17:32.
The idea deduced by Calvin, that he is called here “the Spirit of Holiness,” on account of the holiness he works in us, seems not well-founded, though advanced by Theodoret and Augustine. — Ed.
^ft20 “Hypellage,” a figure in grammar, by which a noun or an adjective is put in a form or in a case different from that in which it ought grammatically to be. — Ed.
^ft21 If this view be taken, the best mode would be to render kai, even “favor, even the apostleship.” But, as Wolfius says, “both words would perhaps be better rendered separately, and “grace” or favor be referred to the conversion of the Apostle himself, and “ apostleship” to his office. See ^<540112>1 Timothy 1:12-14, and ^<440915>Acts 9:15, ^<441302>Acts 13:2; ^<442221>Acts 22:21. — Ed
^ft22 He has taken this clause before that which follows, contrary to the order of the text, because he viewed it as connected with the receiving of the apostleship.
“Pro nomine ipsius,” — uJpe<r tou~ ojno<matov aujtou~; “ad nominis ejus gloriam –to the glory of his name,” Turrettin; “for the purpose of magnifying his name,” Chalmers. Hodge observes, “Paul was an apostle that all nations might be obedient, to the honor of Jesus Christ, that is, so that his name may be known.” Some, as Tholuck, connect the words with “obedience to the faith,” as they render the phrase, and, in this sense, “that obedience might be rendered to the faith among all nations for the sake of his name.” But it is better to connect the words with the receiving of the apostleship: it was received for two purposes — that there might be the obedience of faith, and that the name of Christ might be magnified. — Ed.
^ft23 It might be rendered, “that there might be the obedience of faith,” or, “in order to produce,” or, “Promote the obedience of faith.” The obedience is faith. The command is, “believe,” and the obedience must Correspond with it. To obey the faith, as in ^<440607>Acts 6:7, is a different form of expression: the article is prefixed there, it is the faith, meaning the gospel. — See ^<530108>2 Thessalonians 1:8. Professor Stuart and Haldane, agree in this view. The latter refers to ^<451003>Romans 10:3, where the Israelites are charged for not submitting to God’s righteousness; and, in verse 16, it is said, that they had not all obeyed the gospel, “for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?” Then to believe the gospel is in an especial manner to obey it. — Ed.
^ft24 “The called of Jesus Christ,” i.e., the called who belong to Christ Klhto<v means, not only those to whom the external call of the gospel has been addressed, but those who have been also internally called.”–Stuart. The same author renders the words klhtoi~v aJgi>oiv, in the next verse, “chosen saints,” or, “saints effectually called.” — Ed.
^ft25 “The ancient Greeks and Romans,” says Turrettin, “wished to those to whom they wrote, in the inscription of their epistles, health, joy, happiness; but Paul prays for far higher blessings even the favor of God, the fountain of all good things, and peace, in which the Hebrews included all blessings.” — Ed.
^ft26 “From God our Father, — if God, then able; if our Father, then willing to enrich us with his gifts: and from our Lord Jesus Christ, — from our Lord, who has purchased them for us; from Jesus, for without these we cannot be saved; from Christ, for he is anointed with grace and peace, ^<430116>John 1:16.” — Parr.
^ft27 Margin, “in all my prayers.”
^ft28 “It does not mean here the first in point of importance, but first in the order of time.” — Stuart. The same author thinks that men here has its corresponding de in ^<450113>Romans 1:13, Ouj qe>lw de> uJma~v, etc., — Ed
^ft29 “Faith is put here for the whole religion, and means the same as your piety. Faith is one of the principal things of religion, one of its first requirements, and hence it signifies religion itself.”–Barnes. It is indeed the principal thing, the very basis of religion. ^<581106>Hebrews 11:6. — Ed.
^ft30 The passage in ^<400533>Matthew 5:33-37, has been often wholly misunderstood. That oaths in common conversation are alone prohibited, is quite evident from what the passage itself contains. In solemn oaths there was no swearing by “heaven,” or by “God’s throne,” or by “the earth,” or by “Jerusalem,” or by “the head.” such forms were only used in conversation, as similar ones are still used: and these kinds of swearing art alone condemned by our Savior. — Ed.
^ft31 “Sincerè et verè — sincerely and truly,” Wolfius, “not merely externally, but cordially,” Hodge.
^ft32 ejn tw~ eujaggeli>w tou~ uiJou~ aujtou~ “by the preaching of the gospel, etc.” Stuart. “In predicando evangelio — in preaching the gospel,” Beza. “I serve God, not in teaching legal rites, but a much more celestial doctrine,” Grotius.
^ft33 The order of the words, as arranged by Calvin, is better than that of our version; he connects “always in my prayers,” or, “in all my prayers,” with “requesting.” The simpler rendering would be as follows: —
9. My witness indeed is God, whom I serve With my spirit in thegospel of his Son, that I unceasingly make mention of you, always requesting in my prayers,
10. That by some means now at length I may, through the will of God, have a free course to come to you.
“In the gospel,” may either mean “according to the gospel,” or, “in preaching the gospel.” Hodge prefers the first. The particle ei clearly means “that” in this connection. That it is used in this sense in the New Testament there can be no doubt; see ^<442608>Acts 26:8, 23; ^<580715>Hebrews 7:15.
^ft34 The words, ti ca>risma pneumatiko<n, some spiritual gift, or benefit, seem to be of general import. Some, such as Chalmers and Haldane, have supposed that a miraculous power is intended, which the Apostles alone conveyed, such as the power of speaking with tongues: but most Commentators agree in the view here given. The phrase is not found in any other place: ca>risma, in the plural number, is used to designate miraculous powers. ^<461209>1 Corinthians 12:9; and ta< pneumatika> mean the same, ^<461401>1 Corinthians 14:1. But here, no doubt, the expression includes any gift or benefit, whether miraculous or ordinary, which the Apostle might have been made the means of conveying. — Ed.
^ft35 The verb is sumparaklhqh~nai, which Grotius connects with epipoqw~ in the preceding verse; and adds, “He softens what he had said, by showing, that he would not only bring some joy to them, but they also to him.” “Ut percipiam consolationem — that I may receive consolation,” Piscator; — “Ut unà recreemur — that we may be together refreshed,” Castelio. “Ad communem exhortationem percipiendam — in order to receive common exhortation,” Beza; “Ut gaudium et voluptatem ex vobis precipiam — that I may receive joy and pleasure from you;” vel, “Ut mutuo solatio invicem nos erigamus atque firmemus — that by mutual comfort we may console and strengthen one another,” Schleusner.
The verb with the prefix, sun, its only found here; but the verb parakale>w frequently occurs, and its common meaning is, to beseech, to exhort to encourage, and by these means to comfort.
With regard to this passage, Professor Stuart says, “I have rendered the word, comfort, only because I cannot find any English word which will convey the full sense of the original.”
“The word rendered to comfort,” says Professor Hodge, “means to invite, to exhort, to instruct, to console, etc. Which of these senses is to be preferred here, it is not easy to decide. Most probably the Apostle intended to use the word in a wide sense, as expressing the idea, that he might be excited, encouraged, and comforted by his intercourse with his Christian brethren.” — The two verses may be thus rendered: —
11. For I desire much to see you, that I may impart to you spiritual
12. benefit, so that you may be strengthened: this also is what I desire, to be encouraged together with you, through the faith which is in both, even in you and in me.
Grotius observes, “ejn ajllh>loiv impropriè dixit pro in utrisque, in me et vobis. Dixit sic et Demosthenes, ta pro<v ajllh>loiv –Ed.
^ft36 Chalmers paraphrases the text thus — “I am bound, or I am under obligation, laid upon me by the duties of my office, to preach both to Greeks and Barbarians, both to the wise and the unwise.”
In modern phraseology, the words may be rendered, “Both to the civilized and to the uncivilized, both to the learned and to the unlearned, am I a debtor.” The two last terms are not exactly parallel to the two first, as many unlearned were among the Greeks, or the civilized, as well as among the Barbarians. — Ed.
^ft37 to< kat ejme< pro>qumon, literally, “As to me there is readiness;” or, according to Stuart “There is a readiness so far as it respects me.” But, “I am ready,” or “I am prepared,” conveys the meaning sufficiently, without the other words, “As much as in me is.” By saying that he was prepared, he intimates that the event depended on another, even on God. — Ed.
^ft38 On the power of God, Pareus observes, that the abstract, after the Hebrew manner, is put for the concrete. Power means the instrument of God’s power; that is, the gospel is an instrument rendered efficacious by divine power to convey salvation to believers: or, as Stuart says, “It is powerful through the energy which he imparts, and so it is called his power.” Chalmers gives this paraphrase, “It is that, which however judged and despised as a weak instrument by the men of this world — it is that, to which he, by his own power, gives effect for the recovery of that life which all men had forfeited and lost by sin.”
“The gospel is a divine act, which continues to operate through all ages of the world, and that not in the first place outwardly, but inwardly, in the depths of the soul, and for eternal purposes.” — Dr. Olshausen.
^ft39 “The causative, ga<r, indicates a connection with the preceding, that the gospel is the power of God: the reason is, because by the gospel is revealed the righteousness of God, that is, made known by it is a way of righteousness and of obtaining life before God, which neither the law, nor philosophy, nor any other doctrine, was able to show.” — Pareus.
^ft40 “The righteousness of God,” dikaiosu>nh qeou~, has been the occasion of much toil to critics, but without reason: the very context is sufficient to show its meaning, it being what the gospel reveals, and what the gospel reveals is abundantly known from other passages. Whether we saw, it is the righteousness which is approved of God, as Calvin says, or provided by God, or contrived by God, or imputed by God, the meaning does not materially differ, and indeed all these things, as it is evident from Scripture, are true respecting it.
There is more difficulty connected with the following words, ejk pi>stewv eijv pi>stin pistin. The view which Calvin gives was adopted by some of the Fathers, such as Theophylact and Clemens Alexandrinus; and it is that of Melancthon, Beza, Scaliger, Locke, and many others. From Poole we find that Chrysostom gave this exposition, “From the obscure and inchoate faith of the Old Testament to the clear and full faith of the New;” and that Ambrose’s exposition was the following, “From the faith or fidelity of God who promises to the faith of him who believes.” But in all these views there is not that which comports with the context, nor the construction very intelligible-”revealed from faith,” What can it mean? To render the passage intelligibly, ejk pi>stewv must be connected with dikaiosu>nh qeou~, as suggested by Hammond, and followed by Doddridge and Macknight. Then it would be, “The righteousness of God by faith or, which is by faith:” this is revealed in the gospel “to faith,” that is, in order that it may be believed; which is often the force of eijv before a noun; as, eijv th<n ajnomi>an — in order to do wickedness; or, eijv aJgiasmo>n in order to practice holiness, ^<450619>Romans 6:19. Chalmers, Stuart, Barnes, and Haldane take this view. The verse may be thus rendered, —
For the righteousness of God by faith is in it revealed in order to be believed, as it is written, “The just shall by faith live.” The same truth is conveyed in ^<450322>Romans 3:22; and similar phraseology is found in ^<500309>Philippians 3:9.
Barnes seems fully to express the import of the passage in these words, “God’s plan of justifying men is revealed in the gospel, which plan is by faith, and the benefits of which plan shall be extended to all that have faith or that believe.” — Ed.
^ft41 Here is an instance in which Paul quotes the Old Testament, neither exactly from the Hebrew nor the Septuagint. The Hebrew is “the just, — by his faith shall he live,” hyh wtnwmab qydx: and the Septuagint, turns “his” into my,” oJ de< di>kaiov ejk pi>stewv mou~ zh>setai — “The just shall by my faith live,” — “by my faith,” that is, according to the tenor of the passage, “by faith in me.” The passage is quoted by him twice besides, in ^<480311>Galatians 3:11, and in ^<581038>Hebrews 10:38, but exactly in the same words, without the pronoun “his” or “my.” His object in this, as in some similar instances, was to state the general truth contained in the passage, and not to give a strictly verbal quotation. — Ed.
^ft42 The connection here is not deemed very clear. Stuart thinks that this verse is connected, as the former one, with ^<450116>Romans 1:16. and that it includes a reason why the Apostle was not ashamed of the gospel: and Macknight seems to have been of the same opinion, for he renders gar, besides. In this case the revelation of wrath from heaven is that which is made by the gospel. This certainly gives a meaning to the words, “from heaven” which is hardly done by any other views. That the gospel reveals “wrath,” as well as righteousness to be obtained by faith, is what is undeniable. Salvation to the believer, and condemnation to the unbeliever, is its sum and substance. The objection made by Haldane is of no force, — that the Apostle subsequently shows the sins of mankind as committed against the light of nature, and not against the gospel; for he seems to have brought forward the evidence from the light of nature, in order to confirm the evidence from the light of revelation. The expression is, “Revealed is the wrath of God,” and not has been. See ^<441730>Acts 17:30, 31.
This is the view taken by Turrettin; and Pareus says, “There is nothing to prevent us from referring the revelation of wrath, as well as the revelation of righteousness, to the gospel” — Ed.
^ft43 It is true that the immediate subject is the neglect of religion; but then injustice towards men is afterwards introduced, and most critics take it in this sense. — Ed.
^ft44 This clause, tw~n th<n ajlh>qeian ejn ajdiki>a kateco>ntwn is differently rendered, “Veritatem injuste detinentes — unjustly detaining the truth,” Turrettin;
“Who stifle the truth in unrighteousness,” Chalmers; “Who hinder the truth by unrighteousness,” Stuart; “Who wickedly oppose the truth,” Hodge; “Who confine the truth by unrighteousness,” Macknight.
“They rushed headlong,” says Pareus, “into impiety against God and into injustice against one another, not through ignorance, but knowingly, not through weakness, but willfully and maliciously: and this the Apostle expresses by a striking metaphor, taken from tyrants, who, against right and justice, by open violence, oppress the innocent, bind them in chains, and detain them in prison.”
The sense given by Schleusner and some others, “Qui cum veri Dei cognitione pravitatem vitæ conjungunt — who connect with a knowledge of the true God a wicked life,” seems not to comport with the context.
“The truth” means that respecting the being and power of God afterwards specified. — Ed.
^ft45 Some take ejn aujtoi~v, to mean among them, i.e., as Stuart says, “in the midst of them, or before their eyes,” that is, in the visible world; though many refer it with Calvin, to the moral sense, and that the expression is the same with “written in their hearts,” in ^<450215>Romans 2:15. — Ed.
^ft46 There is a passage quoted by Wolfius from Aristotle in his book De Mundo, which remarkably coincides with a part of this verse — “pa>sh| qnhth|~ fu>sei genomenov ajqew>rhtov ajp aujtw~n tw~n e]rgwn qeorei~tai oJ qeo>v — God, unseen by any mortal nature, is to be seen by the works themselves.” — Ed.
^ft47 Divinitas, qei>othv, here only, and not qeo>thv as in ^<510109>Colossians 1:9. Elsner and others make a difference between these two words and say, that the former means the divinity or majesty of God, and the latter his nature or being. There seems to be the idea of goodness conveyed in the word, qei>othv: for in the following verse there are two things laid to the charge of the Gentiles which bear a reference to the two things said here — they did not glorify him as God, and they were not thankful. He made himself known by power as God, and by the beneficent exercise of that power, he had laid a claim to the gratitude of his creatures. See ^<441415>Acts 14:15; and ^<441725>Acts 17:25, 27.
Venema, in his note on this passage, shows, that goodness was regarded by many of the heathens as the primary attribute of Deity. Among the Greeks, goodness — to< ajgaqo<n, was the expression by which the Supreme Being was distinguished. And it appears evident from the context that the Apostle included this idea especially in the word qei>othv. –Ed.
^ft48 The conjunctive, h], is for oute, says Piscator: but it is a Hebraism, for w is sometimes used in Hebrew without the negative, which belongs to a former clause. — Ed.
^ft49 The original words are, ejmataiw>qhsan ejn toi~v dialogismoi~v aujtw~n, “Vani facti sunt in ratiocinationibus suis — they became vain in their reasonings” Pareus, Beza, Turrettin, and Doddridge; “They became foolish by their own reasonings,” Macknight.
“Whatever the right reason within,” says Pareus, “or the frame of the world without, might have suggested respecting God, they indulged in pleasing speculations, specious reasonings, and in subtle and frivolous conclusions; some denied the existence of a God, as Epicurus and Democritus — others doubted, as Protagoras and Diagoras — others affirmed the existence of many gods, and these, as the Platonics, maintained that they are not corporeal, while the Greeks and Romans held them to be so, who worshipped dead men, impious, cruel, impure, and wicked. There were also the Egyptians, who worshipped as gods, brute animals, oxen, geese, birds, crocodiles, yea, what grew in their gardens, garlic’s and onions. A very few, such as Plato and Aristotle, acknowledged one Supreme Being; but even these deprived him of his providence. These, and the like, were the monstrous opinions which the Gentiles deduced from their reasonings. They became vain, foolish, senseless.”
“And darkened became their foolish heart,” — hJ ajsu>netov aujtw~n kardi>a; “Corinthians eorum intelligentia carens — their heart void of understanding;” “their unintelligent heart,” Doddridge. Perhaps “undiscerning heart” would be the most suitable. See ^<401516>Matthew 15:16. Heart, after the manner of the Hebrews, is to be taken here for the whole soul, especially the mind. — Ed.
^ft50 Calvin is peculiar in his exposition of this verse. Most critics agree in thinking that those referred to here were those reputed learned among all nations, as Beza says, “Such as the Druids of the Gauls, the soothsayers of the Tuscans, the philosophers of the Greeks, the priests of the Egyptians, the magi of the Persians, the gymnosophists of the Indians, and the Rabbins of the Jews.” He considers that the Apostle refers especially to such as these, though he speaks of all men as appearing to themselves very wise in their insane devices as to the worship of God. The wiser they thought themselves, the more foolish they became. See ^<240808>Jeremiah 8:8, 9; ^<460119>1 Corinthians 1:19-22.
“This is the greatest unhappiness of man, not only not to feel his malady, but to extract matter of pride from what ought to be his shame. What they deemed to be their wisdom was truly their folly.” — Haldane.
It is a just remark of Hodge, “That the higher the advancement of the nations in refinement and philosophy, the greater, as a general rule, the degradation and folly of their systems of religion.” As a proof he mentions the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, as compared with the aborigines of America. — Ed.
^ft51 On this subject Augustine, as quoted by Poole, uses a stronger language than which we find here: — Tradidit non solum per patientiam et permissionem, sed per potentiam et quasi actionem; non faciendo voluntates malas, sed eis jam malis utendo ut voluerit; multa et intra ipsos et exrtra ipsos operando, a quibus illi occasionem capiunt gravius peccandi; largiendo illis admonitiones, flagella, beneficia, etc., quibus quoque eos scivit Deus ad suam perniciem abusuros — “He delivered them up, not only by sufferance and permission, but by power, and as it were by an efficient operation; not by making evil their wills, but by using them, being already evil, as he pleased; by working many things both within and without them, from which they take occasion to sin more grievously, by giving them warnings, scourges, benefits, etc., which God knew they would abuse to their own destruction.” — This is an awful view of God’s proceedings towards those who willfully resist the truth, but no doubt a true one. Let all who have the opportunity of knowing the truth tremble at the thought of making light of it.
The preposition ejn before desires or lusts, is used after the Hebrew manner, in the sense of to or into; for b beth, means in, and to, and also by or through; and such is the import of ejn as frequently used by the Apostle. It is so used in the preceding verse — ejn oJmoiw>mati — into the likeness, etc. Then the verse would be, as Calvin in sense renders it, —
God also on this account delivered them up to the lusts of their own hearts to work uncleanness, that they might dishonor their bodies among themselves.
The import of eijv ajkaqarsi>an, in order to uncleanness, is no doubt, to work uncleanness; the Apostle frequently uses this kind of expression. Stuart labors here unnecessarily to show, that God gave them up, being in their lusts, etc., taking the clause as a description of those who were given up; but the plainest meaning is that which Calvin gives. — Ed.
^ft52 The words, “the truth of God,” and “falsehood,” or, a lie, are Hebraistic in their meaning, signifying “the true God,” and “an idol.” The word, which means a lie, is often in Hebrew applied to any thing made to be worshipped. See ^<234417>Isaiah 44:17, compared with 20; ^<241325>Jeremiah 13:25. Stuart renders the sentence, “Who exchanged the true God for a false one.” Wolfius objects to this view, and says, “I prefer to take ajlh>qeian tou~ qeou~, for the truth made known by God to the Gentiles, of which see ^<450118>Romans 1:18, and the following verses: they changed this into a lie, i.e., into those insane and absurd notions, into which they were led by their dialogismoi~v — reasonings, ^<450121>Romans 1:21.” The expression — para< to<n kti>santa has been rendered by Erasmus, “above the creator,” by Luther, “rather than the Creator;” by Beza, “to the neglect of the Creator — præterito conditore;” and by Grotius, “in the place of the Creator.” The two last are more consonant with the general tenor of the context; for the persons here spoken of, according to the description given them, did not worship God at all; para< is evidently used in the sense of exclusion and opposition para< to<n no>mon — contrary to the law, ^<441813>Acts 18:13; para< fu>sin — contrary to nature, Romans 1: 26. See ^<480108>Galatians 1:8 — Ed.
^ft53 There is a correspondence between the words oujk ejdoki>masan — they did not approve, or think worthy, and ajdo>kimon — unapproved, or worthless, which is connected with nou~n, mind. The verb means to try or prove a thing, as metal by fire, then to distinguish between what is genuine or otherwise, and also to approve of what is good and valuable. To approve or think fit or worthy seems to be the meaning here. Derived from this verb is ajdo>kimov, which is applied to unapproved or adulterated money, — to men unsound, not able to bear the test, not genuine as Christians, ^<471305>2 Corinthians 13:5, — to the earth that is unfit to produce fruits, ^<580608>Hebrews 6:8. The nearest alliteration that can perhaps be presented is the following, “And as they did not deem it worth while to acknowledge God, God delivered them up to a worthless mind,” that is, a mind unfit to discern between right and wrong. Beza gives this meaning, “Mentem omnis judicii expertem — a mind void of all judgment.” Locke’s “unsearching mind,” and Macknight’s “unapproving mind,” and Doddridge’s “undiscerning mind,” do not exactly convey the right idea, though the last comes nearest to it. It is an unattesting mind, not capable of bringing things to the test — doki>mion not able to distinguish between things of the most obvious nature.
“To acknowledge God” is literally “to have God in recognition to<n qeo<n e]cein ejn ejpignw>sei.” Venema says, that this is a purely Greek idiom, and adduces passages from Herodotus and Xeonphon; from the first, the folloing phrase, ejn alogi>h| e]cein — to have in contempt, i.e., to contemn or despise. — Ed.
^ft54 The two words are ponhri>a and kaki>a. Doddridge renders them “mischief and malignity.” Pareus says that kaki>a is vice, opposed to th areth — virtue. — Ed.
^ft55 “Pornei>a has an extended sense, comprehending all illicit intercourse, whether fornication, adultery, incest, or any other venus illicita.” —Stuart.
^ft56 Improperly rendered “debate” in our version — e]ridov, “strife”, by Macknight, and “contention,” by Doddridge. — Ed.
^ft57 In our versions “malignity;” by Macknight, “bad disposition;” and by Doddridge, “inveteracy of evil habits.” Schleusner thinks that it means here “malevolence.” — Ed.
^ft58 Katala>louv, literally gainsayers, or those who speak against others, — defamers, calumniators; rendered “revilers,” by Macknight. — Ed.
^ft59 The three words, uJbista<v uJperhfa>nouv, and ajlazo>nav seem to designate three properties of a proud spirit — disdainful or insolent, haughty and vainglorious. The uJbristai are those who treat others petulantly, contumeliously, or insultingly “Insolent,” as given by Macknight, is the most suitable word. The uJperhfa>nov is one who sets himself to view above others, the high and elevated, who exhibits himself as superior to others. The alazwn is the boaster, who assumes more than what belongs to him, or promises more than what he can perform. These three forms of pride are often seen in the world. — Ed.
^ft60 Unsociabiles — ajsunqetouv. “Faithless,” perhaps, would be the most suitable word. “Who adhere not to compacts,” is the explanation of Hesychius.
To preserve the same negative according to what is done in Greek, we may render ^<450131>Romans 1:31 as follows: —
31. Unintelligent, unfaithful, unnatural, unappeasable, unmerciful. — Ed.
^ft61 Calvin has “justitiam” here, though “judicium” is given in the text. — Ed.
^ft62 It is confessed by most that the illative, dio<, at the beginning of the verse can hardly be accounted for. The inference from the preceding is not very evident. It is, in my view, an instance of Hebraism; and the reference is not to what has preceded, but to what is to come. It is not properly an illative, but it anticipates a reason afterwards given, conveyed by for, or, because. Its meaning will be seen in the following version: —
On this account, inexcusable art thou, O man, whosoever thou be who condemnest another, because, in what thou condemnest another thou condemnest thyself; for thou who condemnest doest the same things.
The verb, kri>nw, has here the idea of condemning, or of passing judgments; to judge is not sufficiently distinct. — Ed.
^ft63 “According to truth” — kata< ajlh>qeian, means, according to the true state of the case, without any partiality, or according to what is just and equitable; so Grotius takes it. Its corresponding word in Hebrew, tma, is sometimes rendered dikaiosu>nm, It is found opposed to ajdiki>a in ^<461306>1 Corinthians 13:6. The expression here may be deemed to be the same in meaning with dikaiokrisi>a — righteous judgment, in verse 5. — Ed.
^ft64 Lenitatis — makroqumi>av, tarditatis ad iram. “Long-suffering” expresses the meaning very exactly. There is here a gradation — “goodness” — crhsto>thv, benevolence, kindness, bounty; — “forbearance” — ajnoch<, withholding, i.e., of wrath; — then “long-suffering,” that is, bearing long with the sins of men. “Riches” mean abundance; the same as though the expression was, “the abounding goodness,” etc. — Ed.
^ft65 What follows in the text, according to Calvin, is this, “et Corinthians pœni tere nescium — and a heart that knoweth not to repent;” kai< ajmetano>nton kardi>an, which Schleusner renders thus, “animus, qui omnem emendationem respuit — a mind which rejects every improvement.” It is an impenitable rather than “an impenitent heart,” that is, a heart incapable of repenting. See ^<490419>Ephesians 4:19. — Ed.
^ft66 It has appeared to some difficult to reconcile this language with the free salvation which the gospel offers, and to obviate the conclusion which many are disposed to draw from this passage — that salvation is by works as well as by faith.
To this objection Pareus answers, that the Apostle speaks here of salvation by the works of the law, not indeed as a thing possible, which he subsequently denies, but as a declaration of what it is, that he might thereby show the necessity of a gratuitous salvation which is by faith only. And this is the view which Mr. Haldane takes.
But there is no need of having recourse to this hypothesis: for whenever judgment is spoken of even in the New Testament, it is ever represented in the same way, as being regulated in righteousness, according to the works of every individual. See ^<441731>Acts 17:31; ^<470510>2 Corinthians 5:10; ^<510324>Colossians 3:24, 25; ^<662012>Revelation 20:12; ^<662212>Revelation 22:12.
It will be a judgment, conducted according to the perfect rule of justice, with no respect of persons, with no regard to individuals as such, whether high or low, much or little favored as to outward privileges, but according to what their conduct has been, under the circumstances of their case. The rule, if heathens, will be the law of nature; if Jews, the law which had been given them. Judgment, as to its character, will be still the same to those under the gospel; it will be according to what the gospel requires. — Ed.
^ft67 With regard to the construction of this passage, 6-10, it may be observed, that it is formed according to the mode of Hebrew parallelism, many instances of which we meet with even in the prose writings of the New Testament. None of the ancients, nor any of the moderns, before the time of Bishop Lowth, understood much of the peculiar character of the Hebrew style. All the anomalies, noticed by Calvin, instantly vanish, when the passage is so arranged, as to exhibit the correspondence of its different parts. It consists of two general portions; the first includes three verses,^<450206>Romans 2:6, 7, and 8; the other, the remaining three verses. The same things are mainly included in both portions, only in the latter there are some things additional, and explanatory, and the order is reversed, so that the passage ends with what corresponds with its beginning. To see the whole in a connected form, it is necessary to set it down in lines, in the following manner —
6. Who will render to each according to his works, —
7. To those indeed, who, by perseverance in well — doing, Seek glory and honor and immortality, — Eternal life
8. But there shall be to them who are contentious And obey not the truth, but obey iniquity, —Indignation and wrath: Then follow the same things, the order being reversed —
9. Distress and anguish shall be On every soul of man that worketh evil, — On the Jew first, and then on the Greek;
10. But glory and honor and peace, To every one who worketh good, — To the Jew first and then to the Greek;
11. For there is no respect of persons with God.
The idea in the last and the first line is essentially the same. This repetition is for the sake of producing an impression. The character of the righteous, in the first part, is, that by persevering in doing good they seek glory, honor, and immortality, and their reward is to be eternal life: the character of the wicked is that of being contentious, disobedient to the truth, and obedient to unrighteousness, and their reward is to be indignation and wrath. The character of the first, in the second part. is, that they work good; and of the other, that they work evil: and the reward of the first is glory, honor, and peace, and the reward of the other, distress and anguish; which are the effects of indignation and wrath, as glory honor, and peace are the fruits or the constituent parts of eternal life It is to be observed that priority in happiness, as well as priority in misery, is ascribed to the Jew. — Ed.
^ft68 The word proswpolhyi>a, respect of persons, is found in three other places, ^<490609>Ephesians 6:9; ^<510325>Colossians 3:25; and ^<590201>James 2:1; and in these the reference is to conditions in life. In ^<441034>Acts 10:34, the word is in another form proswpolh>pthv, a respecter of persons, and as a verb in ^<590209>James 2:9. The full phrase is pro>swpon lamba>nw, as found in ^<422021>Luke 20:21, and ^<480206>Galatians 2:6. It is a phrase peculiar to the Hebrew language, and means literally, to lift up or regard faces, that is, persons, µynp açn. See ^<031915>Leviticus 19:15; ^<051017>Deuteronomy 10:17; ^<141907>2 Chronicles 19:7.
An argument has been hence taken to oppose the doctrine of election; but this is to apply to a particular thing what belongs entirely and exclusively to another. This belongs to the administration of justice, but election is the exercise of mercy. Even Grotius admits, that God manifests a difference in bestowing benefits, but not in exercising Judgment. Indeed, in the present instance, with regard to the subject handled by the Apostle, there was a manifest difference; the Gentile had only the law of nature, but the Jew had a revealed law. Yet when brought to judgment there was to be no respect of persons, each was to be judged impartially according to the circumstances of his condition. And further, election does not proceed on the principle of showing respect of persons, that is, of regarding men according to their privileges or outward circumstances, or kindred or relation in life, or any thing in man; but its sole and exclusive ground or reason is the good pleasure of God. — Ed.
^ft69 Ano>mwv commonly means unlawfully, wickedly, lawlessly; but here, as it is evident from the context, it signifies to be without law. The adjective ajno>mov is also used once in this sense in ^<460921>1 Corinthians 9:21. — Ed.
^ft70 The word “condemned” would be better in the text than “judged;” it would then more plainly Correspond with the former part, where the word “perished” is used: and that it means “condemned” is evident, for those who have “sinned” are the persons referred to. — Ed.
^ft71 On the expression “hearers of the law,” Stuart has these remarks — “The Apostle here speaks of oiJ ajkroatai< tou~ no>mou, because the Jews were accustomed to hear the Scriptures read in public; but many of them did not individually possess copies of the sacred volume which they could read.”
^ft72 As to the phrase, “these are a law unto themselves,” Venema adduces classical examples — pa~n to< be>ltiston faino>menon e]stw soi no>mov ajpara>batov “Whatever seems best, let it be to thee a perpetual law.” — Epict. in Ench., c. 75. “to< me<n orqo<n no>mov ejsti< basilhko>v What is indeed right, is a royal law.” — Plato in Min., page 317.
The heathens themselves acknowledged a law of nature. Turrettin quotes a passage from a lost work of Cicero, retained by Lactantius, which remarkably coincides with the language of Paul here — Ed.
^ft73 By the work of the law, to< e]rgon tou~ no>mou, is to be understood what the law requires. The “work of God,” in ^<430629>John 6:29, is of the same import, that is, the work which God requires or demands; and the same word is plural in the former verse, ta< e]rga — “the works of God.” So here, in the former verse, it is ta< tou~ no>mou — “the things of the law,” where we may suppose e]rgato be understood. The common expression, “the works of the law,” has the same meaning, that is, such works as the law prescribes and requires. — Ed.
^ft74 Calvin seems to consider that the latter part of the verse is only a expansion or an exposition of the preceding clause respecting “conscience:” but it seems to contain a distinct idea. The testimony of conscience is one thing, which is instantaneous, without reflection: and the thoughts or the reasonings — logismw~n, which alternately or mutually accuse or excuse, seem to refer to a process carried on by the mind, by which the innate voice of conscience is confirmed. This is the view taken by Stuart and Barnes, and to which Hodge is inclined.
Another view of the latter clause is given by Doddridge, Macknight, Haldane, and Chalmers. The last gives this paraphrase of the whole verse, — “For they show that the matter of the law is written in their hearts — both from their conscience testifying what is right and wrong in their own conduct, and from their reasonings in which they either accuse or vindicate one another.”
But to regard the two clauses as referring to conscience and the inward workings of the mind, appears more consistent with the context. The Gentiles are those spoken of: God gave them no outward law, but the law of nature which is inward. Hence in the following verse he speaks of God as judging “the secrets of men,” as the inward law will be the rule of judgment to the Gentiles — Ed.
^ft75 In accordance with some of the fathers, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, Calvin connects this with the immediately preceding verse: but almost all modern critics connect it with the 12th verse, and consider what intervenes as parenthetic. This is according to our version. In the ^<450212>Romans 2:12, both the Gentile and the Jew are spoken of, and that with reference to judgment. In this verse the time and the character of that judgment are referred to, and its character especially as to the Gentile, as his case is particularly delineated in the parenthesis. The Apostle then, in what follows, turns to the Jew. “According to my gospel” must be understood, not as though the gospel is to be the rule of judgment to the Gentile, but as to the fact, that Christ is appointed to be the Judge of all. See ^<441731>Acts 17:31. — Ed.
^ft76 These texts are referred to, ^<235206>Isaiah 52:6; ^<263620>Ezekiel 36:20.
^ft77 Griesbach has since found a majority of MSS. in favor of this reading, and has adopted it. But the difficulty is to find a corresponding clause. There is none, except what begins in ^<450221>Romans 2:21; eij de< and ou+n do not well respond, except we render the first, though indeed, and the other, yes or nevertheless somewhat in the sense of an adversative. It will admit this meaning in some passages. See ^<401212>Matthew 12:12; ^<402664>Matthew 26:64; ^<451014>Romans 10:14. — Ed.
^ft78 This is not quite correct. They were called Jews even before the captivity, and during the captivity, but most commonly and regularly after it. The words Jews, first occurs in ^<121606>2 Kings 16:6. See ^<170403>Esther 4:3; ^<243819>Jeremiah 38:19; ^<270308>Daniel 3:8; ^<150412>Ezra 4:12; ^<160216>Nehemiah 2:16. — Ed.
^ft79 There are two expositions of the words, dokima>zeiv ta< diafero>nta, which may be sustained according to what the words signify in other places. The first word means to prove, or test, or examine, and also to approve; and the second signifies things which differ, or things which are excellent. “Thou provest, or, distinguishest things which differ,” is the rendering of Beza, Pareus, Doddridge, and Stuart: “Thou approvest things excellent or useful,” is the rendering of Erasmus, Macknight, and others. The first is the most suitable to the context, as knowledge, and not approval, is evidently intended, as proved by the explanatory clause which follows, — “being instructed out of the law.” — Ed.
^ft80 Calvin has passed over here several clauses: they are so plain as to require no remarks, except the two last. “The instructor of the unwise — insipientium,” ajfro>nwn, of such as were foolish from not understanding things rightly. “The teacher of the ignorant — imperitorum,” nhpi>wn, babes, that is, of such as were ignorant like babes. But these and the foregoing titles, “the guide of the blind,” and, “light to those in darkness,” were such as the Jewish doctors assumed, and are not to be considered as having any great difference in their real meaning. There seems to be no reason to suppose, with Doddridge and some others, that “the blind, foolish, ignorant” were the Gentiles, for the Jews did not assume the office of teaching them. It is to be observed that Paul here takes the case, not of the common people, but of the learned — the teachers.
^ft81 The same word occurs only in ^<550305>2 Timothy 3:5, “mo>rfwsin eujsebei>av — the form of godliness.” It is taken here in a good sense, as meaning a sketch, a delineation, an outline, a representation, or a summary. Chalmers renders the words thus, — “The whole summary of knowledge and truth which is in the law.” Some understand by knowledge what refers to morals or outward conduct, and by truth what is to be believed. Others regard them as an instance of Hebrewism, two substantives being put, instead of a substantive and an adjective; the phrase would then be, “true knowledge. — Ed.
^ft82 This clause, and those which follow, are commonly put in an interrogatory form, that is, as questions: but some, as Theophylact, Erasmus and Luther, have rendered the clauses in the form here adopted. There is no difference in the meaning.
It is worthy of notice, that the Apostle, after the Hebrew manner, reverses the order as to the points he mentions; he, as it were, retrogrades, and begins to do so at ^<450221>Romans 2:21. The passage may be thus rendered, —
17. Seeing then, thou art named a Jew, And reliest on the law, and gloriest in God,
18. And knowest his will, And decernest things which differ, being taught by the law,
19. And art confident that thou art A leader to the blind, a light to those in darkness,
20. An instructor to the foolish, a teacher to babes, Having the form of knowledge and of truth according to the law:
21. Yet thou, who teachest another, teachest not thyself, Thou, who preachest, “Steal not,” stealest,
22. Thou, who sayest, “Commit no adultery,” committest adultery, Thou who detestest idols, committest sacrilege,
23. Thou who gloriest in the law, by transgressing the law dishonorest God; For the name of God, as it is written, is through you blasphemed by the Gentiles.
^<450221>Romans 2:21, and part of the 22nd, refer to what is contained in Romans 19 and the 20th; and the latter part of the 22nd to the 18th verse; and ^<450223>Romans 2:23 to the 17th. The latter part of the 22nd helps us to fix the meaning of the latter part of the 18th; the man who hated idols and committed sacrilege proved that he did not exercise his boasted power of making a proper distinction between right and wrong. Then the man who is said, in ^<450217>Romans 2:17, to rely on the law and glory in God, is charged, in ^<450223>Romans 2:23, with the sin of dishonoring God by transgressing the law — Ed.
^ft83 “Sacrilege,” mentioned here, is by some taken literally as meaning the robbing of God as to the sacrifices he required, and the profanation of sacred rites; “many examples of which,” says Turrettin, “are recorded by the Prophets, and also by Josephus, both before and during the last war.” But some extend its meaning to acts of hypocrisy and ungodliness, by which God’s honor was profaned, and the glory due to him was denied. The highest sacrilege, no doubt, is to deprive God of that sincere service and obedience which he justly requires. “They caused,” says Pareus, “the name and honor of God to be in various ways blasphemed by their wicked hypocrisy; and hence they were justly said by the Apostle to he guilty of sacrilege.” He then adds, “we must notice, that idolatry is not opposed to sacrilege, but mentioned as a thing closely allied to it. Indeed all idolatry is sacrilegious. How then can the Monks, Priests, and Jesuits clear themselves from the charge of sacrilege? for they not only do not detest idolatry, being in this respect much worse than these hypocrites, but also greedily seek, like them, sacred offerings, and under the pretense of sanctity devour widows’ houses, pillage the coffers of kings, and, what is most heinous, sacrilegiously rob God of his due worship and honor and transfer them to saints.” Yet the world is so blind as not to see the real character of such men! — Ed.
^ft84 On this remarkable passage Haldane has these very appropriate, just, and striking observations, —
“The Apostle, in these verses, exhibits the most lively image of hypocrisy. Was there ever a more beautiful veil than that under which the Jew presents himself? He is a man of confession, of praise, of thanksgiving — a man, whose trust is in the Law, whose boast is of God, who knows his will, who approves of things that are excellent, a man who calls himself a conductor of the blind, a light of those who are in darkness, an instructor of the ignorant, a teacher of babes; a man who directs others, who preaches against theft, against adultery, against idolatry, and to sum up the whole, a man who glories in the commandments of the Lord. Who would not say that this is an angel arrayed in human form — a star detached from the firmament, and brought nearer to enlighten the earth? But observe what is concealed under this mask. It is a man who is himself untaught; it is a thief, an adulterer, a sacrilegious person; in one word, a wicked man, who continually dishonors God by the transgression of his law. Is it possible to imagine a contrast more monstrous than between these fair appearances and this awful reality?”
No, certainly; but it is a contrast which still exists, with various modifications, in many instances. — It ought to be observed, that when the author calls the Jew “a man of confession, of praise, of thanksgiving,” he alludes to the import of the word, Jew, in Hebrew, which is derived from a verb, which includes these ideas: and it is supposed by some, that there is an allusion in the last words of this chapter, “whose praise,” etc., to what the name signifies. — Ed.
^ft85 Hypallage, substitution, a figure of speech, by which a noun or an adjective is put in a form different from its obvious import. — Ed
^ft86 The rendering of this clause is rather obscure, “who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law.” The preposition, dia<, has no doubt the meaning of ejn or su>n, as in some other passages, as in ^<450411>Romans 4:11, dij ajkrobusti>av — in uncircumcision, and in ^<450825>Romans 8:25, dij u~pomonh~v — in or with patience. Then the version should be, “who, being with, or having, the letter and circumcision, dost transgress the law.” The “letter” means the written law. That this is the meaning is evident from the context. Both Grotius and Macknight give the same construction. It is better to take “letter,” i.e., the law, and “circumcision” separate, than to amalgamate them by a rhetorical figure, as is done by Calvin and others. Hodge justly says, that this is “more suited to the context, as nothing is said here of spiritual circumcision.”
The word gra>mma, letter, has various meanings — 1. What is commonly called letter, the character, ^<422338>Luke 23:38, — 2. What is written, a bond or contract, ^<421606>Luke 16:6; — 3. In the plural, letters, epistles, ^<442821>Acts 28:21; — 4. The written law, as here, and in the plural, the Old Testament Scriptures, ^<550315>2 Timothy 3:15; — 5. What is conveyed by writing, learning, ^<430715>John 7:15; ^<442624>Acts 26:24; — and, 6. The outward performance of the law, it being written, as opposed to what is spiritual or inward, as in the last verse of this chapter, and in ^<470306>2 Corinthians 3:6. — Ed
^ft87 “Prærogativa — prerogative,” to< perisso<n, rendered “pre-eminence” by Macknight; “præstantia — superiority” by Beza and Pareus; and “advantage” in our version, and by Doddridge and Stuart. — Ed.
^ft88 The word prw~ton is thus used in other places. See ^<400633>Matthew 6:33; ^<410727>Mark 7:27; ^<610120>2 Peter 1:20. — Ed.
^ft89 Lo>gia, oracula, mean, in Greek authors, divine responses. Hesychius explains it by Qe>sfata — divine dictates. The word is used four times in New Testament. In ^<440738>Acts 7:38, it means specifically the law of Moses; here it includes the whole of the Old Testament; in ^<580512>Hebrews 5:12,and in ^<600411>1 Peter 4:11, it embraces the truths of the Gospel. The divine character of the Scriptures is by this word attested; they are the oracles of God, his dictates, or communications from him. — Ed.
^ft90 The references in the margin are the following: — ^<450906>Romans 9:6; ^<550213>2 Timothy 2:13; ^<430333>John 3:33; ^<19B611>Psalm 116:11; ^<195104>Psalm 51:4.
^ft91 Whenever there is a material agreement between the Greek and the Hebrew, we ought not to make it otherwise. If the verb kri>nesqai, as admitted by most critics, may be taken actively and be thus made to agree with the Hebrew, what reason can there be to take it in another sense? The only real difference is in one word, between nikh>shv, overcomest,” and hkzt, “art clear:” but the meaning is the same, though the words are different. To overcome in judgment, and to be clear in judgment, amounts to the same thing. The parallelism of the Hebrew requires kri>nesqai to be a verb in the middle voice, and to have an active meaning. The two lines in Hebrew, as it is often the case in Hebrew poetry, contain the same sentiment in different words, the last line expressing it more definitely; so that to be “justified,” and to be “cleared,” convey the same idea; and also “in thy word,” or saying — ˚rbdb and “in thy judgment” ˚fpçb In many copies both these last words are in the plural number, so that the first would be strictly what is here expressed, “in thy words,” that is, the words which thou hast declared; and “in thy judgments,” that is, those which thou hast announced, would be fully rendered by “when thou Judgest.”
Commentators, both ancient and modern, have differed on the meaning of the verb in question. Pareus, Beza, Macknight, and Stuart, take it In an active sense; while Erasmus, Grotius, Venema, and others, contend for the passive meaning. Drusius, Hammond, and Doddridge render it, “when thou contendest in judgment,” or, “when thou art called to judgment:” and such a meaning no doubt the verb has according to ^<400540>Matthew 5:40, and ^<460601>1 Corinthians 6:1, 6. But in this case regard must be had, especially to the meaning which Corresponds the nearest with the original Hebrew. Some have maintained that “in thy judgment” ˚fpçb may be rendered “in judging thee;” but this would not only be unusual and make the sentence hardly intelligible, but also destroy the evident parallelism of the two lines. The whole verse may be thus literally rendered from the Hebrew, —
Against thee, against thee only have I sinned;
And the evil before thine eyes have I done;
So that thou art justified in thy words,
And clear in thy judgments.
The conjunction ˆ[ml, admits of being rendered so that; see ^<193012>Psalm 30:12; ^<234120>Isaiah 41:20; ^<300207>Amos 2:7; and o[pwv in many instances may be thus rendered; see ^<420235>Luke 2:35; Philemon 6; ^<600209>1 Peter 2:9. It is what Schleusner designates ejkbatikw~v, signifying the issue or the event.
Pareus connects the passage differently. He considers the former part of the verse parenthetic, or as specifying what is generally stated in the previous verse, the third; and with that verse he connects this passage: so that the rendering of the two verses would be the following, —
3. For my transgression I acknowledge, And my sin is before me continually, —
4. (Against thee, against thee only have I sinned, and the evil before thine eyes have I done,) That thou mightest be justified in thy saying, And clear in thy judgment.
This is certainty more probable than what Vatablus and Houbigant propose, who connect the passage with the second verse, “Wash me thoroughly,” etc. But the sense given by Calvin is the most satisfactory — Ed.
^ft92 Or, “For if” — Si enim — eij ga<r. The particle ga<r here gives no reason, but is to be viewed as meaning then, or indeed, verily; see ^<421258>Luke 12:58; ^<430930>John 9:30; ^<441637>Acts 16:37; ^<508027>Philippians 2:27. Stuart renders it, still, and says, that it “points to a connection with verse. 5, and denotes a continuance of the same theme.” Macknight often renders it by further, besides, and no doubt rightly. — Ed.
^ft93 It is remarkable how the Apostle changes his words from the third verse to the end of this, while the same things are essentially meant. His style is throughout Hebraistic. Stuart makes these just remarks, “Adiki>a is here [^<450305>Romans 3:5] the generic appellation of sin, for which a specific name, ajpisti>a, was employed in ^<450303>Romans 3:3, and yeu~sma, in ^<450307>Romans 3:7. In like manner the dikaiosu>nh, in ^<450305>Romans 3:5, which is a generic appellation, is expressed by a specific one, pi>stin, in ^<450303>Romans 3:3, and by ajlh>qeia, in ^<450307>Romans 3:7. The idea is substantially the same, which is designated by these respectively corresponding appellations. Fidelity, uprightness, integrity, are designated by pi>stin, dikaiosu>nhn, and ajlh>qeia; while ajlh>qeia, and ajpisti>a ajdiki>a, designate unfaithfulness, want of uprightness and false dealing. All of these terms have more or less reference to the tyrb, covenant or compact (so to speak) which existed between God and his ancient people.” — Ed.
^ft94 Grotius thinks, that in the beginning of this verse there is a transposition, and that o[ti, after the parenthesis, ought to be construed before mh< which precedes its and that o[ti is for cur, why, — as in Mark 9:11, and 28. The version would then be, “and why not, (as we are reproached, and as some declare that we say,) Let us do evil that good may come?” This is the rendering of Luther. But Limborch and Stuart consider legwmen to be understood after mh<; and the latter takes mh< not as a negative but an interrogative, “and shall we say,” etc.? Amidst these varieties, the main drift of the passage remains the same. — Ed.
^ft95 “Præcellimus?” proeco>meqa; “Have we the advantage?” Doddridge; “Do we excel?” Macknight; “Have we any preference?” Stuart. It is thus paraphrased by Theodoret ti> ou+n kate>comen perisso>n — “What advantages then, have we?” “Præcellimus” is the rendering of Erasmus, Pareus, and Beza. Venema says, that this verb, in the active voice only, has this meaning in Greek authors; but the context can allow it no other sense here. Wetstein indeed gives it a passive meaning, “an antecellimur — are we surpassed?” but it can hardly comport with the drift of the passage. — Ed.
^ft96 So do Grotius, Beza, and Stuart render the verb. Doddridge and Macknight have preserved our common version. “We have before charged,” Chalmers. “Antea idoneis argumentis demonstravimus — we have before proved by sufficient arguments.” Schleusner. It is charge rather than conviction that the verb imports, though the latter idea is also considered to be included. — Ed.
^ft97 The references given in the margin are these, — ^<191401>Psalm 14:1-3; ^<195303>Psalm 53:3 ^<190509>Psalm 5:9; ^<191403>Psalm 14:3; ^<190907>Psalm 9:7; ^<235607>Isaiah 56:7; ^<200116>Proverbs 1:16; ^<193601>Psalm 36:1.
^ft98 ^<191401>Psalm 14:1. The Hebrew is, “There is none that doeth good;” and the Septuagint, “There is none doing kindness, (crhsto>thta), there is not even one, (ojuk e]stin e[wv eJno>v.)” So that the Apostle quotes the meaning, not the words.
The eleventh verse (^<450311>Romans 3:11) is from the same Psalm; the Hebrew, with which the Septuagint agree, except that there is the disjunctive h} between the participles, is the following, — “Whether there is any one who understands, who seeks after God.” — Ed.
^ft99 This verse is literally the Septuagint, and as to meaning, a correct version of the Hebrew. “All have gone out of the way — pa>ntev ejxe>klinan” “is in Hebrew rs lkh, “the whole (or every one) has turned aside,” or revolted, or apostatized. Then, “they have become unprofitable” or useless, is wjlan, “they are become putrid,” or Corrupted, like putrified fruit or meat, therefore useless, not fit for what they were designed — to serve God and to promote their own and the good of others. Idolatry was evidently this putrescence. — Ed.
^ft100 This is from ^<190509>Psalm 5:9, that is, the first part, and is literally the Septuagint, which correctly represents the Hebrew. The last clause is from ^<19E003>Psalm 140:3, and is according to the Septuagint, and the Hebrew, too, except that “asps,” or adders, is in the singular number. Stuart gives the import of this figurative language different from Calvin: “As from the sepulchre,” he says, “issues forth an offensive and pestilential vapor; so from the mouths of slanderous persons issue noisome and pestilential words. Their words are like poison, they utter the poisonous breath of slander.” — Ed.
^ft101 ^<191007>Psalm 10:7. Paul corrects the order of the words as found in the Septuagint, and gives the Hebrew more exactly, but retains the word “bitterness,” by which the Septuagint have rendered twmrm, which means deceit, or rather, mischievous deceit. Some think that it ought to be twrrm, “ bitterness;” but there is no copy in its favor. — Ed.
^ft102 Romans 3:15, 16, and 17 are taken from ^<235907>Isaiah 59:7, 8. Both the Hebrew and the Septuagint are alike, but Paul has abbreviated them, and changed two words in the Greek version, having put oxeij for tacinoi, and e]gnwsan for oji>dasi, and has followed that version in leaving out “innocent” before “blood.” — Ed.
^ft103 It is taken from ^<193601>Psalm 36:1, and verbatim from the Greek version, and strictly in accordance with the Hebrew. It is evident from several of these quotations, that Paul’s object, as Calvin says, was to represent the general meaning, and not to keep strictly to the expressions.
There is a difference of opinion as to the precise object of the Apostle; whether in these quotations he had regard to the Jews only, or to both Jews and Gentiles. In the introduction, ^<450309>Romans 3:9, he mentions both, and in the conclusion, ^<450319>Romans 3:19, he evidently refers to both, in these words, “that every, mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”
The most consistent view seems to be, that the passages quoted refer both to Jews and Gentiles; the last, more especially, to the Jews, while some of the preceding have a special reference to the Gentile world, particularly Psalm 14, as it describes the character of the enemies of God and his people, to whose liberation the Psalmist refers in the last verse. — Ed.
^ft104 Obnoxius Deo — uJpo>dikov. . tw~ qew~: “Obnoxius condemnationi Dei — subject to the condemnation of God” Beza; “Liable to punishment before God,” Macknight; “Stand convicted before God,” Doddridge. The word means to be “under sentence” or under condemnation, and thus “to God,” i.e., before God. Tillotson gives this paraphrase, “Liable to the Divine justice.” It may be rendered “condemned before God.” The meaning is that the world is under condemnation. — Ed.
^ft105 To see the force and meaning of this verse, we must bear in mind that the former part was said to prevent the Jews from evading the application of the preceding testimonies; and then the words “that every mouth,” etc., and “that all the world,” etc., were added, not so much to include the Gentiles, as to include the Jews, who thought themselves exempted. No doubt the Gentiles are included, but the special object of the Apostle evidently seems to prevent the Jews from supposing that they were not included. In no other way can the connection between the two parts of the verse be understood. — Ed.
^ft106 The original is “ut in priorem opinionem concederent:” but the context shows clearly that “priorem” is a misprint for “posteriorem. In addition to the authors mentioned here may be added Ambrose, Theodoret, Pelagius, Erasmus, and Grotius. And yet, notwithstanding all those authorities, the opinion referred to is wholly inconsistent with the reasoning of the Apostle here and throughout the whole Epistle. It has indeed been given up as untenable by modern authors of the same school, such as Locke, Whitby, and Macknight.
To disprove this notion it is sufficient to notice the sins which the Apostle had referred to; they are not those against the ceremonial but the moral law, and it is because the moral law is transgressed that it cannot justify.
“If there be any law which man has perfectly kept, he may doubtless be justified by it; and surely no man can be justified by a law which condemns him for breaking it. But there is no law of God which any man has kept; therefore no law by the deeds of which a man can be justified. The Gentile broke the law of his reason and conscience; the Jew broke the moral law; and even the attempt to justify himself by observing the ceremonial law, contradicted the very nature and intent of it.” — Scott.
^ft107 The argument and the reasoning of the Apostle seem to require that ejx e]rgwn no>mou should be rendered here literally, “by works of law,” without the article, as the word “law” seems here, according to the drift of the argument, to mean law in general, both natural and revealed; and dia< no>mou in the next clause must be regarded as having the same meaning; the law of nature as well as the written law, though not to the same extent, makes sin known. This is the view taken by Pareus, Doddridge, Macknight, Stuart, and Haldane. — Ed.
^ft108 The expression is oju... pa~sa sa<rx — not all, that is, not any flesh, etc.; the word pa~sa, like lk in Hebrew, is used here in the sense of “any.” The sentence bears a resemblance to what is contained in ^<19E302>Psalm 143:2, “for justified before thee shall not all living,” or, not any one living, yj lk al. The sentence here is literally, “Hence by works of law shall not be justified any flesh before Him.” — Ed.
^ft109 Here again it is better, and indeed necessary for the Apostle’s argument, to render cwri<v no>mou, ““without law,” that is, without any law, either natural or revealed. The same sentiment is found in ^<480321>Galatians 3:21 — “For if a law had been given, capable of giving life, truly righteous would have been by law (ejk no>mou.)” The version of Macknight seems just, “But now a righteousness of God without law is discovered.” But we, may retain the tense (pefane>rwtai) “has been discovered,” or manifested, or made known. “A righteousness of God without law,” is a similar phrase to “the righteousness of God by faith,” in ^<450117>Romans 1:17. — Then in the following clause the “law” means not specifically the law of Moses, but the Old Testament, excepting the Prophets. — Ed.
^ft110 Professor Hodge very justly observes, “It never was the doctrine of the Reformation, or of the Lutheran and Calvinistic divines, that the imputation of righteousness affected the moral character of those concerned. It is true,” he adds, “whom God justifies he also sanctifies; but justification is not sanctification, and the imputation of righteousness is not the infusion of righteousness.” — Ed.
^ft111 “The foundation of your trust before God, must be either your own righteousness out and out, or the righteousness of Christ out and out. . . If you are to lean upon your own merit, lean upon it wholly — if you are to lean upon Christ, lean upon him wholly. The two will not amalgamate together, and it is the attempt to do so, which keeps many a weary and heavy-laden inquirer at a distance from rest, and at a distance from the truth of the gospel. Maintain a clear and consistent posture. Stand not before God with one foot upon a rock and the other upon a treacherous quicksand...We call upon you not to lean so much as the weight of one grain or scruple of your confidence upon your own doings — to leave this ground entirely, and to come over entirely to the ground of a Redeemer’s blood and a Redeemer’s righteousness.” — Dr. Chalmers.
^ft112 “The words but now may be regarded merely as marking the transition from one paragraph to another, or as a designation of tense; now, i.e., under the gospel dispensation. In favor of this view is the phrase, “to declare at this time his righteousness, ^<450326>Romans 3:26.” — Hodge.
^ft113 “Testimonio comprobata,” etc., so Beza and Pareus render marturoume>nh; “Being attested,” Doddridge; “Being testified,” Macknight. Schleusner gives a paraphrase, “Being predicted and promised;” and this no doubt is the full meaning. — Ed.
^ft114 Concurrent with what is said here is this striking and condensed passage from Scott, — “It has been witnessed by the law and the Prophets; the ceremonies typified it; the very strictness of the moral law and its awful curses, being compared with the promises of mercy to sinners, implied it; the promises and predictions of the Messiah bore witness to it; the faith and hope of ancient believers recognized it; and the whole Old Testament, rightly understood, taught men to expect and depend on it.” — Ed.
^ft115 The words which follow, dia< pi>stewv Ihsou~ Cristou~ “by or through the faith of Jesus Christ,” mean not the faith which is his, but the faith of which he is the object. They ought to be rendered “through faith in Jesus Christ.” The genitive case has often this meaning: “Ecete pi>stin Qeou~ — Have faith in (of) God,” ^<411122>Mark 11:22; “En pi>stei zw~ th| tou~ uiJou~ tou~ Qeou~ — I live by the faith of the Son of God;” it should be in our language, “I live by faith in the Son of God.” This genitive case of the object is an Hebraism, and is of frequent occurrence. — Ed.
^ft116 The original is this, “Ut ergo justificemur, causa efficiens est misericordia Dei, Christus materia, verbum cum fide instrumentum — When therefore we are justified, the efficient cause is God’s mercy, Christ is the material, the word with faith is the instrument.” — Ed.
^ft117 Eijv pa>ntav kai ejpi pa>ntav. He makes a similar difference in his expressions in verse 30. This righteousness, as some say, came to the Jews, as it had been promised to them, and upon the Gentiles, as a gift with which they were not acquainted, and it was conferred on them. But the possession was equal and belonged to all who believed, and to none else, whether Jews or Gentiles.
Stuart connects these words with “manifested,” or revealed, in verse 21. It is manifested to all, and manifested for all; that is, for the real benefit of all who believe; in other words, it is offered to all, but becomes of real advantage only to those who believe. But the simpler mode is to consider the words which is, as in our version, to be understood. ‘Ercome>nh is the word which Luther adopts. — Ed.
^ft118 Beza gives another view, that the verb uJsterou~ntai, refers to those who run a race, and reach not the goal, and lose the prize. The “glory of God” is the happiness which he bestows; (see ^<450502>Romans 5:2 ;) of this all mankind come short, however much some seemed to labor for it; and it can only be attained by faith. Pareus, Locke, and Whitby give the same view. Others consider it to be “the glory” due to God, — that all come short of rendering him the service and honor which he justly demands and requires. So Doddridge, Scott, and Chalmers. But Melancthon, Grotius and Macknight seemed to have agreed with Calvin in regarding “glory” here as the praise or approbation that comes from God. The second view seems the most appropriate, according to what is said in ^<450121>Romans 1:21, “they glorified him not as God.” — Ed.
^ft119 On this word iJlasth>rion, both Venema, in his Notes on the Comment of Stephanus de Brais on this Epistle, and Professor Stuart, have long remarks. They both agree as to the meaning of the word as found in the Septuagint and in Greek authors, but they disagree as to its import here. It means uniformly in the Septuagint, the mercy-seat, trpk, and, as it is in the form of an adjective, it has at least once, (^<022517>Exodus 25:17,) ejpi>qema, cover, added to it. But in the classics it means a propitiatory sacrifice, the word qu~ma, a sacrifice, being understood; but it is used by itself as other words of similar termination are. It is found also in Josephus and in Maccabees in this sense. It appears that Origen, Theodoret, and other Fathers, and also Erasmus, Luther and Locke, take the first meaning — mercy-seat; and that Grotius, Elsner, Turrettin, Bos, and Tholuck, take the second meaning — a propitiatory sacrifice. Now as both meanings are legitimate, which of them are we to take? Venema, and Stuart allude to one thing which much favors the latter view, that is, the phrase ejn tw ai[mati aujtou; and the latter says, that it would be incongruous to represent Christ himself as the mercy-seat, and to represent him also as sprinkled by his own blood; but that it is appropriate to say that a propitiatory sacrifice was made by his blood. The verb proe>qeto, set forth, it is added, seems to support the same view. To exhibit a mercy-seat is certainly not suitable language in this connection.
Pareus renders it “placamentum — atonement,” hoc est, “placatorem,” that is, “atoner, or expiator.” Beza’s version is the same — “placamentum;” Doddridge has “propitiation,” and Macknight, “a propitiatory,” and Schleusner, “expiatorem — expiator.”
The word occurs in one other place with the neuter article, to< iJlasth>rion, ^<580905>Hebrews 9:5, where it clearly means the mercy-seat. It is ever accompanied with the article in the Septuagint, when by itself, see ^<031602>Leviticus 16:2, 13-15; but here it is without the article, and may be viewed as an adjective dependent on on, “whom,” and rendered propitiator. Had the mercy-seat been intended, it would have been to to< iJlasth>rion. — Ed.
^ft120 The words are, dia< th<n pa>resn. They seem connected, not with the first clause, but with the one immediately preceding; and dia< may be rendered here in; see a note on ^<450226>Romans 2:26; or more properly, perhaps, on account of. “For a proof of his own righteousness in passing by the sins,” etc., Macknight; “In order to declare his justification with respect to the remission of sins,” Stuart.
What is God’s “righteousness” here has been variously explained. Some regard it his righteousness in fulfilling his promises, as Beza; others, his righteousness in Christ to believers, mentioned in chapter. 1:17, as Augustine; and others, his righteousness as the God of rectitude and justice, as Chrysostom. Some, too, as Grotius, view it as meaning goodness or mercy, regarding the word as having sometimes this sense.
It is the context that can help us to the right meaning. God exhibited his Son as a propitiation, to set forth this righteousness; and this righteousness is connected with the remission of, or rather; as the word means, the preterition of or connivance at sins committed under the old dispensation: and those sins were connived at through the forbearance of God, he not executing the punishment they deserved; and the purpose is stated to be, — that God might be or appear just, while he is the justifier of those who believe in Christ. Now, what can this righteousness be but his administrative justice? As the law allowed no remission, and God did remit sins, there appeared to be a stain on divine justice. The exhibition of Christ as an atonement is what alone removes it. And there is a word in the former verse, as Venema justly observes, which tends to confirm this view, and that word is redemption, ajpolutrw>siv, which is a deliverance obtained by a ransom, or by a price, such as justice requires.
Both Doddridge and Scott regard the passage in this light; and the latter gives the following version of it, —
“Whom God hath before appointed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his justice, on account of the passing by of sins, that had been committed in former times, through the forbearance of God; I say, for a demonstration of his justice, in this present time, in order that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” — Nothing can be clearer than this version.
The last words are rightly rendered, though not literally; to<n ejk pi>stewv Ihsou — “him of the faith of Jesus,” or, “him of faith in Jesus.” Him of faith is him who believes, as toi~v ouJk ejk peritomh~v — “them not of circumcision” means “them who are not circumcised,” ^<450412>Romans 4:12; and toi~v e>x ejriqei>av — “those of contention,” signifies, “those who contend,” or, are contentious, ^<450208>Romans 2:8. — Ed.
^ft121 There is a different preposition used here, pro<v, while eijv is found in the preceding verse. The meaning seems to be the same, for both prepositions are used to designate the design, end, or object of any thing. This variety seems to have been usual with the Apostle; similar instances are found in ^<450322>Romans 3:22, as to eijv and ejpi<, and in ^<450330>Romans 3:30, as to ejk and dia<. “By both,” says Wolfius, “the final cause (causa finalis) is indicated.” Beza renders them both by the same preposition, ad, in Latin; and Stuart regards the two as equivalent. There is, perhaps, more refinement than truth in what Pareus says, — that eijv intimates the proximate end — the forgiveness of sins; and pro<v, the final end — the glory of God in the exhibition of his justice as well as of his mercy. There is, at the same time, something in the passage which seems favorable to this view. Two objects are stated at the end of the passage, — that God might appear just, and be also the justifier of such as believe. The last may refer to ejiv, and the former to pro<v; and this is consistent with the usual style of the Apostle; for, in imitation of the Prophets, where two things are mentioned in a former clause, the order is reversed in the second. — Ed.
^ft122A A parallel passage to this, including the two verses, Romans 3:25 and 26, is found in ^<580915>Hebrews 9:15; where a reference, as here, is made to the effect of Christ’s death as to the saints under the Old testament. The same truth is implied in other parts of Scripture, but not so expressly declared. Stuart makes here an important remark — that if the death of Christ be regarded only as that of a martyr or as an example of constancy, how then could its efficacy be referred to “sins that are past?” In no other way than as a vicarious death could it possibly have any effect on past sins, not punished through God’s forbearance. — Ed.
^ft122 Gloriatio — kau>chsiv — glorying — boasting or rejoicing. “The result of the gospel plan of salvation is to prevent all self-approbation, self-gratulation and exaltation on the part of the sinner.” — Hodge.
^ft123 Grotius explains “law” here by “vivendi regula” — rule of living;” Beza, by “doctrina — doctrine or teaching,” according to the import of the word hrwt in Hebrew; and Pareus takes “the law of works,” metonymically, for works themselves, and “the law of faith,” for faith itself; and he quotes these words of Theophylact, “The Apostle calls faith a law because the word, law, was in high veneration among the Jews.” He uses the term, law, in a similar manner in ^<450802>Romans 8:2, “The law of the spirit of life,” etc. “He calls here the gospel; ‘the law of faith,’ because faith is the condition of the gospel covenant, as perfect obedience was the condition of the covenant of nature and of that of Moses, (conditio fœderis naturalis et fœderis Mosaici.)” — Turrettin.
^ft124 The phrase, cwri>v e]rgwn no>mou, may be rendered, “without the works of law,” that is, either natural or revealed; for Gentiles as well as Jews are here contemplated. — Ed.
^ft125 Ei=v oJ Qeov — unus Deus. Ei=v here means the same, see ^<460308>1 Corinthians 3:8; or if it be rendered one, it refers to God as being one in his purpose, and as to the way of salvation. See ^<381409>Zechariah 14:9. — Ed.
^ft126 The future is used for the present — “who justifies,” after the manner of the Hebrew language, though some consider that the day of judgment is referred to; but he seems to speak of a present act, or as Grotius says, of a continued act, which the Hebrews expressed by the future tense. — Ed.
^ft127 The law here, no doubt means, the law of which mention is made in the preceding verses — the law by the works of which we cannot be justified — the law that is in this respect opposed to faith. To refer us for its meanng to ^<450320>Romans 3:20 and 21, as is done by Stuart, “is wholly unwarrantable,” and to say that it means the Old Testament; for this is to separate it from it’s immediate connection without any satisfactory reason. Besides, such an interpretation obliterates an important doctrine, that faith does not render void, or nullify the authority, the use and sanctions of the moral law but on the contrary, sustains and confirms them. Though it does what the law does not, and cannot do, inasmuch as it saves the sinner whom the law condemns; it yet effects this without relaxing or dishonoring the law, but in a way that renders it, if possible, more binding, and more honorable, and more illustrious. It only renders the passage more intricate to include the ceremonial law, (for that has more of faith than of law in it,) to which no reference is made in the context: but there seems to be no objection to include the law of conscience, as well as the written law; for faith confirms both, and the word “law,” is here without the article, though this indeed of itself is not decisive. The moral law, then, as well as the law of conscience, is what is here intended: for the authority of both is confirmed and strengthened by faith. — Ed.
^ft128 This chapter, as Turrettin observes, divides itself into three parts. The first from 1 to 12 inclusive, the second from 13 to 17 inclusive, in which it is proved that the promises made to Abraham did not depend on the law; and the third from 18 to the end, in which the faith of Abraham is commended, and the Christian faith briefly referred to.
But Pareus makes a different division: 1, Four proofs of justification by faith, from 1 to 16; 2, The dispensation of Abraham, from 17 to 22; 3, The application of the subject, from 23 to 25. — Ed.
^ft129 So did all the fathers according to Pareus, and so does the Vulgate. But later commentators have taken the words as they stand, and with good reason, for otherwise the Correspondence between this and the following verse would not be apparent. Beza, Hammond, and Macknight take the words in their proper order; and this is what is done by the Syriac and Arabic versions.
Kata< sa>rka is rendered by Grotius and Macknight, “by (per) the flesh. Some understand by the word “flesh,” circumcision, as Vatablus; others, natural powers, as Grotius. But Beza and Hammond think that it is the same as what is meant “by works” in the next verse; and “flesh” evidently has this meaning: it signifies often the performance of what the law requires, the observance not only of ceremonial but also of moral duties. See ^<480303>Galatians 3:3; ^<480612>Galatians 6:12; and especially ^<500303>Philippians 3:3, 4; where Paul gives up “all confidence in the flesh,” and enumerates, among other things, his strict conformity to the law. — Ed.
^ft130 Epicheirema; in Greek ejpicei>rema, an attempted but an unfinished process of reasoning. It is not necessary to introduce this sort of syllogism, it being not the character of Scripture nor of any other writing to discuss matters in this form.
The word for “glorying” here, kau>chma, is different from that in ^<450327>Romans 3:27, kau>chsiv, and means reason, ground, or cause for glorying, and is rendered by Grotius “unde laudem speret — whereby he may hope for praise;” and by Beza and Piscator “unde glorietur — whereby he may glory.” To complete the following clause, most repeat the words e]cei kau>chma — “But he has no ground for glorying before God.” Vatablus gives another meaning, “But not with regard to God,” that is, with regard to what he has said in his word; and this view is confirmed by what immediately follows, “For what saith the Scripture?” In this case there is nothing understood. That pro<v qeo>n is used in a similar manner, is evident from other passages: ta pro<v qeo>n — “things which pertain to God,” i.e., to God’s work or service. See ^<580217>Hebrews 2:17; ^<580501>Hebrews 5:1. — Ed.
^ft131 The adoption is evidently included in the words, found in the first verse of this chapter, “I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward.” What follows is connected with this, and the promise of a numerous seed arose from what Abraham said respecting an heir. His believing them had an especial regard to the first promise, as the second, respecting his “seed,” was only, as it were, an enlargement of the first, or an addition to it. — Ed.
^ft132 The foregoing observations contain a lucid and a satisfactory view of the character of Abraham’s faith, perfectly consistent with what is said of it by Paul in this chapter, and in the epistle to the Galatians. Some think that the principle of faith was the only thing which the Apostle had in view in referring to Abraham’s faith, and that he had no special regard to the object of justifying faith, that is, Christ. But that Christ was, in a measure, revealed to him, is evident from the account given in Genesis, and from what Christ himself has said, — that Abraham saw his day and rejoiced, ^<430856>John 8:56. At the same time it was the promise of gratuitous mercy, as Calvin intimates, that formed the most distinctive object of Abraham’s faith, the promise of a free acceptance, without any regard to works. There are two things which the Apostle clearly intended to show, — that imputation of righteousness is an act of gratuitous favor, — and that it is alone by faith.
There is some difference in the wording, though not in the meaning, of the sentence from ^<011506>Genesis 15:6. Paul gives it literally according to the Septuagint. The word “Abraham,” is put in; instead of “Jehovah, it is “God;” the verb “count,” is made passive, and a preposition is placed before “righteousness.” The Hebrew is this, — “And he believed on Jehovah, and he counted it to him righteousness.” The “it,” no doubt, refers to what is included in the word “believed.” So Paul explains it in verse 9, where he expressly puts down pi>stiv, faith.
It has been said that this faith of Abraham was not faith in Christ, according to what the context shows in Genesis. And it was not so specifically: nor does Paul represent it as such; for this was not his object. He states it throughout as faith in God; it was believing the testimony of God; but that testimony embraced a promise respecting Christ; so that it included the Savior within its compass. We must remember that Paul’s object is to establish this truth, — that righteousness is attained by faith and not by works; and that for this end he adduces the examples both of Abraham and David. It was not his design to point out specifically the object of justifying faith. We must keep this in view, in order to understand the reasoning of the Apostle in this chapter: it is the power and efficacy of faith, in opposition to all works, that he particularly dwells upon, and the gracious promise of God was its object. — Ed.
^ft133 Some have stumbled at this sentence, — “his faith is counted for rghteousness,” and have misapplied it, as though faith were in itself the cause of righteousness, and hence a meritorious act, and not the way and means of attaining righteousness. Condensed sentences will not submit to the rules of logic, but must be interpreted according to the context and explanations elsewhere found. “His faith” means, no doubt, his faith in the Promise, or in God who promises, or in him who, as is said in this verse, “justifies the ungodly:” hence what is believed, or the object of faith, is what is counted for righteousness. This accords with the declarations, — that “man is justified by faith,” ^<450328>Romans 3:28, and that “the righteousness of God” is “by faith,” ^<450322>Romans 3:22. If by faith, then faith itself is not that righteousness.
“Beware,” says Chalmers, “of having any such view of faith as will lead you to annex to it the kind of merit, or of claim, or of glorying under the gospel, which are annexed to works under the law. This, in fact, were just animating with a legal spirit the whole phraseology and doctrine of the gospel. It is God who justifies. He drew up the title-deed, and he bestowed the title-deed. It is ours simply to lay hold of it...Any other view of faith than that which excludes boasting must be altogether unscriptural.” — Ed .
^ft134 Speaking of this righteousness, Pareus says, “It is not ours, otherwise God would not gratuitously impute it, but bestow it as a matter of right; nor is it a habit or quality, for it is without works, and imputed to the ungodly, who have habitually nothing but iniquities; but it is a gratuitous remission, a covering, a non-imputation of sins.”
It is a striking proof of what the Apostle had in view here, that he stop short and does not quote the whole verse from ^<193202>Psalm 32:2. He leaves out, “and in whose spirit there is no guile:” and why? Evidently because his subject is justification, and not sanctification. He has thus most clearly marked the difference between the two.
Sins may be said to be “forgiven” or remitted, because they are debts, and “covered,” because they are filthy and abominable in the sight of God: and they are said to be “not imputed,” or not put to one’s account, in order to convey an assurance, that they are wholly removed, and shall be no more remembered. — Ed.
^ft135 This “only” is not in the original, but is supplied by most commentators: yet it is not necessary, nor makes the meaning consistent with what follows in Romans 4:l0. The Kai<; in the next clause is omitted in many copies; but if retained, it will not alter the sense. We may render this part of the verse thus,
“Came then this blessedness on the circumcision, or even on the uncitcumcision?”
Then in the tenth verse he answerers in the negative, — that it was not to Abraham while “in circumcision,” but while he was a “in uncircumcision.” The reference is evidently to the first state of things, to the case of Abraham himself. Abraham is supposed to have been justified by faith about fourteen years before he was circumcised. — Ed.
^ft136 The word “sign” in this passage, shmei~on, seems not to mean an outward token of something inward, but a mark, circumcision itself, which was imprinted, as it were, as a mark in the flesh. So Macknight renders it, “The mark of circumcision.” That circumcision was a sign or a symbol of what was spiritual, is evident: but this is not what is taught here. Circumcision is expressly called “a token,” or a sign, in ^<011711>Genesis 17:11; but it is said to have been “a token of the covenant,” that is, a proof and an evidence of it. The design of circumcision is expressed by the next word, sfragi>da — seal. This sometimes signified the instrument, ^<112108>1 Kings 21:8; and sometimes the impression, ^<660501>Revelation 5:1: and the impression was used for various purposes, — to close up a document, to secure a thing, and also to confirm an agreement. It is taken here in the latter sense; circumcision was a “seal,” a confirmation, an evidence, a proof, or a pledge, “of the righteousness” obtained “by faith.” We meet not with any distinct statement of this kind in Genesis: it is what the Apostle had gathered, and rightly gathered, from the account given us of what took place between God and Abraham. — Ed.
^ft137 See a similar instance in ^<450227>Romans 2:27. — Ed.
^ft138 Critics have differed as to the disjunctive h], or, “or to his seed.” Some think it is put for kai<, and: but Pareus thinks that it has a special meaning, intended to anticipate an objection. The Jews might have said, “If the case with Abraham is as stated, it is not so with his seed who received the law.” Yes, says Paul, there is no difference, “The promise to Abraham, or to his seed, to whom the law was actually given, was not by the law.”
Hammond renders the whole verse more literally than in our version, — “The promise to Abraham or to his seed, that he should be the heir of the world, was not by the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” — Ed.
^ft139 There is in Genesis no expression conveyed in these words; but the probability is, that he intended to express in another form what he distinctly quotes in ^<450417>Romans 4:17, “I have made thee a father of many nations.”
The word “father,” in this case, has been commonly understood to mean a leader, a pattern, a model, an exemplar, a forerunner, as Abraham was the first believer justified by faith, of whom there is an express record. But the idea seems to be somewhat different. He was a father as the first possessor of an inheritance which was to descend to all his children. The inheritance was given him by grace through faith; it was to descend, as it were, to all his lawful posterity, to all his legitimate seed, that is, to all who possessed the like faith with himself. He is therefore called the father of many nations, because many nations would become his legitimate heirs by becoming believers; and in the same sense must be regarded the expression here, “the heir of the world;” he was the representative of all the believing world, and made an heir of an inheritance which was to come to the world in general, to the believing Jews and to the believing Gentiles. He was the heir, the first possessor, of what was to descend to the world without any difference. He was the heir of the world in the same sense as he was “the father of all who believe,” as he is said to have been in verse eleventh.
The inheritance was doubtless eternal life or the heavenly kingdom, the country above, of which the land of Canaan was a type and a pledge. See ^<581112>Hebrews 11:12, 13, 16. — Ed.
^ft140 It is better to take this sentence, “Where there is no law, there is no transgression,” according to its obvious meaning; as it comports better with the former clause. The reasoning seems to be this, — “The promise is by faith, and not by the law; for the law brings wrath or condemnation: but where there is no law, there is no transgression to occasion wrath.” The same idea is essentially conveyed in verse ^<450416>Romans 4:16, where it is said, that the promise is sure, because it is through faith and by grace. Had it been by the law, there would have been transgression and wrath, and hence the loss of the promise.
This verse is connected with the Romans 4:l3 rather than with the 14th. It contains another reason, besides what ^<450414>Romans 4:14 gives, in confirmation of what is said in ^<450413>Romans 4:13. Hence Macknight renders ga<r, in this verse, “farther,” which renders the connection more evident. “Where no law is, there is no transgression, and therefore no wrath or punishment; but where law is, there is transgression, wrath, and punishment.” — Pareus.
^ft141 It appears from Pareus and Hammond, that some of the Fathers such as Chrysostom, and Theophylact, regarded kate>nanti in the sense of oJmoi>wv, like, and have rendered the passage, “like God, in whom he believed;” that is, that as God is not partial, but the Father of all, so Abraham was. But this meaning is not consistent with the import of kate>nanti, nor with the context. The preposition is found in four other places, ^<411102>Mark 11:2; ^<411241>Mark 12:41; ^<411303>Mark 13:3; ^<421930>Luke 19:30, and invariably means before, or, over against. The Septuagint use it in ^<042504>Numbers 25:4, in the sense of before, kate>nanti tou~ hJli>ou — “before the sun,” not “against the sun” as in our version; for the word in Hebrew is dgn, Coram, in conspectu. The context also requires this meaning: Abraham was a father of many nations before God, or, in the view or estimation of God, and not in the view or estimation of men, because God, as it is said at the end of the verse, regards things which are not, as though they were. Hence Abraham was already in God’s view, according to his purpose, the father of many nations.
The collocation of the words is said by Wolfius to be an instance of Atticism, the word qeou~, being separated from its preposition: and ou= is put for w=| by the grammatical law of attraction; and Stuart brings three similar instances of the relative being regulated by the case of its noun, though preceding it in the sentence, ^<410616>Mark 6:16, ^<442116>Acts 21:16; and ^<450617>Romans 6:17.
^ft142 The idea of commanding to existence, or of effecting, is given by many Commentators to the word kalou~ntov; but this seems not necessary. The simple notion of calling, naming, regarding, or representing, is more consistent with the passage, and with the construction of the sentence: and the various modes of rendering it, which critics have proposed, have arisen from not taking the word in its most obvious meaning. “The literal version is, and who calls things not existing as existing,” — kai kalou~ntov ta< mh< o]nta wJv o]nta. The reference is evidently to the declaration, “I have made thee the father of many nations.” This had then no real existence; but God represents it as having an existence already. Far-fetched meanings are sometimes adopted, when the plainest and the most obvious is passed by. — Ed.
^ft143 “Ut esset:” this may indeed be rendered according to our version, “that he might become;” but the drift of the comment seems to favor the other view, that he believed that he should be, and not that he believed in order to be, or that he might be, the father of many nations eijv to< gene>sqai ajuto<n, “that he should be,” is the rendering of Hammond, Doddridge, and Stuart; and it is indeed what is consistent with the drift of the passage, and with what is recorded in Genesis. Wolfius says, that eijv here does not signify the final cause, but the subject or the object of faith and hope; Abraham believed the promise, that he should be the father of many nations. — Ed.
^ft144 This is a striking instance of the latitude of meaning which some words have in Scripture. Here hope, in the first instance, means the ground of hope; and in the second, the object of hope. So faith, in ^<450405>Romans 4:5, and in other places, must be considered as including its object, the gracious promise of God; for otherwise it will be a meritorious act, the very thing which the Apostle throughout repudiates with regard to man’s justification. Faith, as it lays hold on God’s promise of free acceptance and forgiveness, can alone, in the very nature of things, be imputed for righteousness: it is not indispensably necessary that the way, or medium, or the meritorious cause of acceptance and forgiveness, should be clearly known and distinctly seen; the gracious promise of God is enough, so that faith may become a justifying faith.
^ft145 The verb is diekri>qh, which Calvin renders “disquisivit.” The most Common meaning of the verb is to hesitate, to doubt: it has the sense of exploring and examining, in the active voice, as in ^<461131>1 Corinthians 11:31, but not in the passive — See ^<402121>Matthew 21:21, ^<411123>Mark 11:23, ^<441020>Acts 10:20. The version of Pareus is, “non disceptavit — he disputed not,” and also of Macknight. But the fathers, and many moderns, such as Beza, Hammond, Stuart, and others, have rendered the sentence, “He doubted not:” Phavorinus says, as quoted by Poole, that diakri>nesqai, is to doubt, to hesitate, to dispute, to distrust, (diffidere.) — Ed.
^ft146 “Doubt,” says Pareus, has two arguments — will God do this? and can God do this? Faith has also two arguments — God will do it, because he has promised; and he can do it, because he is omnipotent.”
^ft147 The verb is, ejph>ggeltai, used here, and perhaps in one other place, ^<581226>Hebrews 12:26, in an active sense. It is usually found, in the sense of promising, in the middle voice, as in ^<411411>Mark 14:11; ^<440705>Acts 7:5; ^<580613>Hebrews 6:13, etc. It is an anomaly that is to be met with sometimes in Greek authors. — Ed.
^ft148 As in a former instance in ^<450403>Romans 4:3, there is no nominative case to this verb: it is supplied by the sentence. This is the case not unfrequently in languages, such as Greek and Hebrew, in which the person is included in the verb itself. There is no nominative in the Welsh version, and there seems to be no need of it, Amhyny y cyvrivwyd iddo yn gyviawnder.
“It is most true, as Paul says to the Romans, that by faith Abraham was justified, and not by obedience: but it is just as true what he says to the Hebrews, that it was by faith that Abraham obeyed.” — Chalmers.
^ft149 It is dia< ya< paraptw>mata hJmwn, “for our offenses,” and dia< th<n dikai>wsin hJmwn, “for our justification.” The preposition dia<, has here clearly two meanings: the first signifies the reason why, and the second, the end for which. How is this to be known? By the character of the sentence, and by what is taught elsewhere. For, to which Johnson attaches forty meanings, is commonly understood here as having a different sense, and this is sufficiently indicated by what is connected with it. But in case a doubt arises, we have only to consult other passages in which the subject is handled.
Take the first instance — “for our offenses.” There are those who say that dia< here means because of, or, on account of; and this, in order to evade the idea of a propitiation. The preposition, no doubt, has this sense; but is this its sense here? If the sentence itself be deemed insufficient to determine the question, (though to a plain reader it is,) let us see what is said elsewhere of Christ’s death in connection with our sins or offenses. He himself said, that he came “to give his life a ransom (lu>tron — a redeeming price) for many,” ^<402028>Matthew 20:28. It is said, that he “gave himself a ransom (ajnti>lutron — a redeeming price for another) for all,” ^<540206>1 Timothy 2:6. It is expressly declared, that “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many,” ^<580928>Hebrews 9:28. And more to the purpose still, if possible, is the testimony of John, when he says that Christ “is the propitiation (iJlasmo>v — expiation) for our sins,” ^<620202>1 John 2:2. Now, can it be that we can give any other meaning to the text, than that God delivered his Son as a sacrifice for our offenses? This is the doctrine of Scripture throughout. — Ed.
^ft150 Christ is said here to have been raised from the dead by God, as well as delivered into death. “However much of the import of this,” says Chalmers, “may have escaped the notice of an ordinary reader, it is pregnant with meaning of the weightiest importance. You know that when the prison door is opened to a criminal, and that by the very authority which lodged him there, it envinces that the debt of his transgression has been rendered, and that he stands aquitted of all it’s penalties. It was not for his own, but for our offenses that Jesus was delivered unto the death, and that his body was consigned to the imprisonment of the grave. And when an angel descended from heaven, and rolled back the great stone from the door of the sepulchre, this speaks to us, that the justice of God is satisfied, that the ransom of our iniquity has been paid, that Christ has rendered a full disch of all the debt for which he undertook as the great surety between God and the sinners who believe in him.” — Ed.
^ft151 “Either therefore as the evidence of the acceptance of his suffering as our substitute, or as a necessary step toward securing the application of their merit to our benefit, the resurrection of Christ was essential to our justification.” — Professor Hodge.
^ft152 Calvin leaves out kai<, “also.” Griesbach retains it. The omission is only in one MS., and in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions: it is rendered nun by Theodoret. But its meaning here seems not to be “also,” but “even” or “yea:” for this verse contains in part the same truth as the former. The style of Paul is often very like that of the Prophets, that is, the arrangement of his sentences is frequently on their model. In the Prophets, and also in the Psalms, we find often two distichs and sometimes two verses containing the same sentiment, only the latter distich states it differently, and adds something to it. See, for example, ^<193201>Psalm 32:1, 2. such is exactly the case here. “Justified by faith,” and “this grace in which we stand,” are the same. “Through our Lord Jesus Christ” and “through whom we have access,” are identical in their import. The additional idea in the second verse is the last clause. That we may see how the whole Corresponds with the Prophetic style, the two verses shall be presented in lines, —
1. Having then been justified by faith,
We have peace with God,
Through our Lord Jesus Christ;
2. Through whom we have had, yea, the access by faith
To this grace, in which we stand,
And exult in the hope of the glory of God.
The illative, then, is to be preferred to therefore, as it is an inference, not from a particular verse or a clause, but from what the Apostle had been teaching. By the phrase, “the glory of God,” is meant the glory which God bestows: it is, to use the words of Professor Stuart, “genitivus auctoris.”
The word “access,” prosagwgh<n has two meanings, — introduction (adductio) — and access (accessio.) The verb prosa>gein, is used in ^<600318>1 Peter 3:18, in the sense of introducing, leading or bringing to. So Christ, as Wolfius remarks, may be considered to be here represented as the introducer and reconciler, through whom believers come to God and hold intercourse with him. “Introduction” is the version of Macknight; and Doddridge has also adopted this idea. — Ed.
^ft153 Gloriamur — kaucw>meqa. The same as in the preceding verse, and rendered “boast” by Macknight, and in the former verse by Doddridge and here, “glory.” “Boast” is certainly not a proper word, for it is commonly used in a bad sense. “Rejoice” is too feeble, for it means exultation and triumph. — Ed.
^Ft154 The word in James is doki>mion while here it is dokimh<. The first means a test, or the act of testing — trial; and the second, the result of testing — experience, and is rendered in our version “proof,” ^<470209>2 Corinthians 2:9, — “experiment,” ^<470913>2 Corinthians 9:13, — and in ^<470802>2 Corinthians 8:2, “trial,” which ought to be experience. Beza says, that the first bears to the second a similar relation as cause bears to effect: the one thing is testing or probation, and the other is the experience that is thereby gained.
The word is rendered here, not very intelligibly, “approbation,” both by Macknight and Stuart; but more correctly, “experience,” by Beza and Doddridge. — Ed.
^ft155 Chalmers observes, that there are two hopes mentioned in this passage, — the hope of faith in the second verse, and the hope of experience in this. “The hope of the fourth verse,” he says, “is distinct from and posterior to the hope of the second; and it also appears to be derived from another source. The first hope is hope in believing, a hope which hangs direct on the testimony of God...The second hope is grounded on distinct considerations — not upon what the believer sees to be in the testimony of God, but upon what he finds to be in himself. — It is the fruit not of faith, but of experience; and is gathered not from the word that is without, but from the feeling of what passes within.” — Ed.
^ft156 “The love of God” in this passage may mean either the love of which God is the object — love to God, or the love which he possesses — God’s love to us: the usus loquendi would admit either of these meanings; and hence commentators have differed on the point. The expression, th<n ajga^>phn tou~ Qeou~, in ^<421242>Luke 12:42, ^<430542>John 5:42, and in other places, means “love to God;” hJ ajga>ph tou~ Qeou~, in ^<620409>1 John 4:9, signifies clearly the love of God to us. The meaning then can alone be ascertained by the context and by the wording of the sentence. It stands connected with Christian graces, patience and hope; and this favors the first view, that it is love to God produced within by the Spirit. Then the verb, ejkke>cutai — is poured out or poured forth, seems more suitable to the idea of love being communicated as a gift, or as a holy feeling within. It is further what prevents hope from being disappointed; it is some good or enjoyment that now strengthens and satisfies hope; and to love God who first loved us is to realize in a measure what hope expects; and when it is said that it is diffused by the Spirit, we are reminded of what Paul says in (^<480522>Galatians 5:22, that “love” is one of the fruits of the Spirit. But it may, on the other hand, be alleged, that the verse stands connected with what follows, as the next verse begins with “for,” and that the subsequent context most clearly refers to the love of God to us; and this evidently decides the question.
The first view, our love to God, has been adopted by Augustine, Mede, Doddridge, Scott, and Stuart; and the other, God’s love to us, by Chrysostom, Beza, Pareus, Grotius, Hodge, and Chalmers, and also by Schleusner who gives this paraphrase, “Amor Dei abunde nobis declaratus est — the love of God is abundantly declared to us.” — Ed.
^ft157 On the argument of this verse, and on what follows to the tenth verse, Professor Stuart makes this remark, — “The passage before us seems to be more direct, in respect to the perseverance of the saints, than almost any other passage in the Scriptures which I can find. The sentiment here is not dependent on the form of a particular expression, (as it appears to be in some other passages); but it is fundamentally connected with the very nature of the argument.” — Ed.
^ft158 Others, as well as Calvin, such as Chrysostom and Erasmus, have connected kata< kairo<n with the preceding, and not with the following words. Pareus, who inclined to the same view, gives this explanation, — “He distinguishes the former from the present state, as though he said, ‘We who are now justified by faith were formerly ungodly.’” Chrysostom refers to the time of the law, and considers the weakness here to be that of man under the law. This gives an emphatic meaning to “weak,” which otherwise it seems not to have, and is countenanced by what is said in ^<450803>Romans 8:3, where the law is said to be weak, but weak on account of the weakness of the flesh. At the same time it must be observed, that most commentators, like Beza, connect these words, kata< kairo<n, with the death of Christ, as having taken place “in due time,” appointed by God, and pre-signified by the prophets, according to what is said in ^<480404>Galatians 4:4. — Ed.
^ft159 Calvin has omitted what is said of the “good” man; for whom, it is said, one would perhaps even dare to die. The “just,” di>kaiov, is he who acts according to what justice requires, and according to what the Rabbins say, “What is mine is mine, and what is thine is thine,” ˚lç ˚lçw ylç ylç: but the “good,” ajgaqo<v, is the kind, the benevolent, the beneficient, called bwf in Hebrew; who is described by Cicero as one who does good to those to whom he can, (vir bonus est is, qui prodest quibus potest.)
There is here an evident contrast between these words and those employed in Romans 5:6 and 8, to designate the character of those for whom Christ died. The just, di>kaiov, is the opposite of the “ungodly,” ajse>bhv; who, by not worshipping and honoring God, is guilty of injustice of the highest kind, and in this sense of being unjust it is found in ^<450405>Romans 4:5, where God is said to “justify the ungodly,” that is, him who is unjust by Withholding from God the homage which rightly belongs to him. Phavorinus gives ajqe>mitov, unlawful, unjust, as one of its meanings. — What forms a contrast with “good” is sinner, aJmartwlo>v, which often means wicked, mischievous, one given to vice and the doing of evil. Suidas describes aJmartwloi> as those who determine to live in transgression, oiJ paranomi>a| suzh~n proairou>menoi; and Schleusner gives “scelestus — wicked,” “flagitiosus — full of mischief,” as being sometimes its meaning.
But the description goes farther, for in ^<450510>Romans 5:10 the word “enemies ejcqroi<,” is introduced in order to complete the character of those for whom Christ died. They were not only “ungodly,” and therefore unjust towards God, and “wicked,” given to all evils; but also “enemies,” entertaining hatred to God, and carrying on war, as it were, against him. — Ed.
^ft160 The meaning given to suni>sthsi is not peculiar. It is used with an accusative in two senses, — to recommend, to commend, to praise, as in ^<451601>Romans 16:1; ^<470301>2 Corinthians 3:1; ^<470512>2 Corinthians 5:12; ^<471012>2 Corinthians 10:12, 18; and also, to prove, to demonstrate, to shew, to render manifest or certain, and thus to confirm, as in ^<450305>Romans 3:5; ^<470604>2 Corinthians 6:4; 7:11; ^<480218>Galatians 2:18; Schleusner refers to this passage as an instance of the latter meaning. That God proved, or rendered manifest, or conspicuously shewed, his love, seems to be the most suitable idea, as the proof or the evidence is stated in the words which follow. The Syriac version gives the sense of shewing or proving. Vatablus has “proves” or verifies; Grotius, “renders conspicuous,” Beza, “commends,” as our version and Macknight; Doddridge, “recommends;” Hodge, “renders conspicuous.” — Ed.
^ft161 “By his life,” the abstract for the concrete; it means, “through him being alive,” being at God’s right hand, having every power committed to him, and making intercession for us ^<450834>Romans 8:34. “Because I live, ye shall live also.” ^<431419>John 14:19. — Ed.
^ft162 The beginning of this verse has occasioned a vast number of conjectures, both as to the connection and as to the corresponding clause to the fist sentence. Most agree in the main with Calvin on these two points. Hodge announces a similar view as to the connection in these words, — “The idea of men being regarded and treated, not according to their own merits, but the merit of another, is contrary to the common mode of thinking among men. The Apostle illustrates and enforces it by an appeal to the great analogous fact in the history of the world.”
As to the corresponding clause, that it is found in the ^<450518>Romans 5:18, there is a common consent, — Pareus, Willet, Grotius, Doddridge, Scott, Stuart, Chalmers, etc.; the intervening verses are viewed as parenthetic.
The phrase, dia< tou~to, and also dio< and ou+n, are sometimes used anticipatively as well as retrospectively, as their corresponding particles are often in Hebrew. See note on ^<450201>Romans 2:1. That Paul uses dia< tou~to in this way appears evident from ^<450416>Romans 4:16; ^<451306>Romans 13:6; ^<461110>1 Corinthians 11:10. It anticipates here, as I think, what is afterwards expressed by ejf w=|, as in ^<450416>Romans 4:16, by i[na, in ^<451306>Romans 13:6, by ga<r, and in ^<461110>1 Corinthians 11:10, by dia< before angels. Then the meaning of the verse would be conveyed by the following rendering, —
12. For this reason — as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, even so death came on all men, because all have sinned.
According to this view, the corresponding clause is in the verse itself. The sentiment of the passage is this, — through one man sin entered and death followed; and death followed as to all mankind, because all had sinned. Then, according to his usual manner, the Apostle takes up the last subject, “sin,” issuing in the death of all; and at the end of the ^<450514>Romans 5:14 he goes back to “the one man,” Adam, who he says was a type of another: and this sentence is made the text of what follows till the end of the ^<450519>Romans 5:19. Having before referred to the state of things before the “law,” in the two remaining verses he refers to the bearing of the law on his subject, and shows that there is in Christ an abundant provision for the increase of sin occasioned by the law.
So abundant is grace that it is fully sufficient to remove original sin, actual sins — its fruits, and the sins discovered by the law, and by its means increased and enhanced. Hence superabundance is ascribed to it. — Ed.
^ft163 The particles ejf w+|, at the end of this verse, have been variously rendered, without much change in the meaning. “In quo — in which,” i.e., sin, Augustine; “in quo — in whom,” i.e., man, Chrysostom and Beza; “per quem — by or through whom,” Grotius; “propterea quod,” vel, “quia,” vel, “quoniam — because,” Luther, Pareus, and Raphelius; which is the same with that of Calvin. See ^<402650>Matthew 26:50; ^<470504>2 Corinthians 5:4; ^<500312>Philippians 3:12.
Wolfius quotes a singular passage from a Jewish Rabbi, Moses Tranensis, “In the sin which the first man sinned, the whole world through him (or in him, wb) sinned: for he was every man, or all mankind — µda lk hz yk.” The idea is exactly the same with that of the Apostle.
“There are three things,” says Pareus, “which are to be considered in Adam’s sin, — the sinful act, the penalty of the law, and the depravity of nature; or in other words, the transgression of the command, the punishment of death, and natural Corruption, which was the loss of God’s image, and in its stead came deformity and disorder. From none of these his posterity are free, but all these have descended to them; there is a participation of the transgression, an imputation of guilt, and the propagation of natural depravity. There is a participation of the sin; for all his posterity were seminally in his loins, so that all sinned in his sin, as Levi paid tithes in the loins of Abraham; and as children are a part of their parents, so children are in a manner partakers of their parents’ sin. There is also an imputation of guilt, for the first man so stood in favor, that when he sinned, not only he, but also all his posterity fell with him, and became with him subject to eternal death. And lastly, there is the propagation or the generation of a dreadful deformity of nature; for such as Adam became after the fall, such were the children he begat, being after his own image, and not after the image of God. ^<010501>Genesis 5:1. . . .All these things, as to the first sin, apply to the parent and also to the children, with only this difference — that Adam sinning first transgressed, first contracted guilt, and first depraved his nature, — and that all these things belong to his posterity by participation, imputation, and propagation.”
Both Stuart and Barnes stumble here; and though they denounce theorizing, and advocate adherence to the language of Scripture, they do yet theorize and attempt to evade the plain and obvious meaning of this passage. But in trying to avoid one difficulty, they make for themselves another still greater. The penalty, or the imputation of guilt, they admit; which is indeed undeniable, as facts, as well as Scripture, most clearly prove: but the participation they deny, though words could hardly be framed to express it more distinctly than the words of this verse; and thus, according to their view, a punishment is inflicted without a previous implication in an offense; while the Scriptural account of the matter is, according to what Calvin states, that “sin extends to all who suffer its punishment,” though he afterwards explains this in a way that is not altogether consistent. — Ed.
^ft164 This verse, as bearing on the argument, maybe viewed rather differently. This and the following verse contain an explanation or an illustration of the last, ^<450512>Romans 5:12. He states in this verse two things: a fact and a general principle; the fact is, that sin, the first sin in its evident effects, (for he speaks throughout of no other sin, as to Adam, or as producing death,) was in the world before the law of Moses was given; and the general principle he avows is, that no sin is imputed where there is no law. Having made this last admission, he proceeds in the ^<450514>Romans 5:14 to say, that “nevertheless,” or notwithstanding, death, the effect of sin, prevailed in the world, and prevailed even as to those who did not actually or personally sin as Adam did. He takes no account of personal sins, for his object was to show the effects of the first sin. And then he says, that in is respect Adam was a kind of type, a figure, a representative of Christ who was to come; and in the three verses which follow, ^<450515>Romans 5:15, 16, and 17, he traces the similitude between the two, pointing out at the same time the difference, which in every instance is in favor of the last Adam. That tu>pov signifies here likeness and not identity, is quite certain, whatever may be its common meaning because its import is exemplified and illustrated in the verses which follow. — Ed.
^ft165 Anako>louqon, not consequent: a figure in grammar when a word or a clause, required by a former one, is not put down. — Ed.
^ft166 Delicto — fault, para>ptwma — stumbling, fall, transgression. Perhaps the last would be the best word here. It is rendered sometimes in the plural number “trespasses,” ^<401835>Matthew 18:35; ^<470519>2 Corinthians 5:19; ^<490201>Ephesians 2:1. Macknight renders it here “fall,” but most “offense.” The comparison here is between the sin of one, which produced death, and the grace of God through one, which brings the “gift” of life; and the difference, “much more,” seems to refer to the exuberance of grace by which man is to be raised to a higher state than that from which Adam fell. “A little lower than the angels” was man in his first creation; he is by exuberance of grace to be raised to a state as high as that of angels, if not higher; or we may take “much more” as intimating the greater power of grace to recover than sin to destroy. Sin is the act of man, and issued in death; but grace is the act of God, and will therefore with greater certainty issue in life.
“Adam’s life after his fall was even as a slow dying, that reached its completion in his physical death; Christ’s zwopoi>hsiv of mankind is also gradual, the height of which is in the glorification of the body.” — Olshausen.
^ft167 “Sub contemptibili verborum humilitate.” This sort of derogatory language as to the style of Scripture, Calvin had evidently learnt from the fathers. Chrysostom and Jerome did sometimes say most unwarrantable things in this respect, and that in a great measure because they did not understand the style of the New Testament, and in part with the view of taking away, by an admission, the force of objections alleged by admirers of Grecian and refined diction. The style of the New Testament is that of the Old; and hardly any of the fathers, except Origen and Jerome knew Hebrew, and the latter learnt it only in his old age, so that he could have had no great insight into its peculiarities. One like Chrysostom brought up in the refinements of Grecian literature, was a very unfit judge of the style of the New Testament, and hence it is that the criticisms of the Greek fathers in general are comparatively of very little value.
The whole of this passage, 12-19, is constructed according to the model of the Hebrew style; and when rightly understood, it will appear to contain none of those defects ascribed to it. — Ed.
^ft168 It is evident that is the many oiJ polloi>, include those connected with the two parties — the many descendants of Adam, and the many believers in Christ. And “the many” was adopted to form a contrast with the “one.”
“The many” are termed “all” in verse ^<450518>Romans 5:18, and again, “the many,” in ^<450519>Romans 5:19. They are called “the many” and “all” alike with regard both to Adam and to Christ. Some maintain that the terms are coextensive in the two instances. That the whole race of man is meant in the one instances cannot be doubted: and is there any reason why the whole race of man should not be included in the second? Most clearly there is. The Apostle speaks of Adam and his posterity, and also of Christ and his people, or those “who receive abundance of grace,’ or, “are made righteous;” and “the many” and the “all” are evidently those who belong to each separately. In no other way can the words with any consistency be understood. All who fell in Adam do not certainly “receive abundance of grace,” and are not “made righteous.” And it is not possible, as Professor Hodge observes, “so to eviscerate such declarations as these, as to make them to contain nothing more than that the chance of salvation is offered to all men.” This is indeed contrary to evident facts. Nor can they mean, that a way of acceptance has been opened, which is suitable to all; for though this is true, it yet cannot be the meaning here. Hence “the many” and the “all,” as to Adam, are all his descendants; and “the many” and the “all,” as to Christ, are those who believe. — Ed.
^ft169 Many copies have aJmarth>matov — sin; but it is a reading deemed by Griesbach of less authority than the received text, aJmarth>santov — sinning: yet there being good MSS. in its favor, and several versions, especially the Syriac and the Vulgate, and the passage requiring it, this reading is to be preferred. Then the rendering would be the following, —
And not as through one sin, is the free gift — (dw>rhma;) for judment was indeed from one sin to condemnation, but the free favor (ca>risma) is from many trespasses to justification.
It is the character of the Apostle’s style to change his words, while the same idea is often intended. he comparison here is between the one sin which issued in condemnation, and the many trespasses or offenses, from which a justification is the favor obtained. — Ed.
^ft170 This verse, according to the usual manner of the Apostle, whose style is that of the Prophets, includes the two main ideas of the two preceding verses, in another form, and in an inverted order, as it refers first to the one offense and then to the one man, in the first clause; and the same order is followed in the second; “the exuberance of grace” is to cover the many offenses before mentioned, as opposed to the one offense, and to one man is opposed one Christ Jesus.
The reading ejn tw~| eJni, though according to Griesbach, it is not, as to MSS., of equal authority with the received text, is yet to be preferred; for tou~ eJno<v makes a tautology, and destroys the order which we find preserved in the second clause. — Ed.
^ft171 The original is, “Habent enim in fœdere jus adoptionis, quo in Christi communionem transeunt.” — Ed.
^ft172 The meaning of this word is evident here; for it stands in contrast with para>ptwma — offense or transgression, in the former clause, and is identical in sense with uJpako>h — obedience, in the next verse. It means what is appointed and adjudged as right; and hence it is rendered “ordinance,” ^<420106>Luke 1:6; “judgment,” ^<450132>Romans 1:32; and, in ^<450516>Romans 5:16, “justification,” when it stands opposed to kata>krima — condemnation, and means absolution, acquittal, as the determination of the judge. It signifies here, that what Christ did was according to God’s appointment; it was something directly contrary to offense or transgression; and what it was is explained in the next verse by the word “obedience.” Wolfius says, that dikai>wma is the satisfaction of Christ, or his active and passive obedience, ^<450519>Romans 5:19, — that dikaiosu>nh is the merit of Christ, obtained by has death and applied to us by faith, ^<450322>Romans 3:22, — and that dikai>wsiv is the act of justification which follows from the satisfaction of Christ, apprehended by faith. — Ed.
^ft173 “Nam etsi passus est Christus pro peccatis totius mundi. atque omnibus indifferenter Dei benignitate offertur; non tamen omnes apprehendum.” It appears from this sentence that Calvin held general redemption. — Ed.
^ft174 It is an Hebraistic form of speaking, genitivus effectûs. Its meaning is that it is a justification unto life, whose end is life, or, which issues in life, that is, eternal life, according to its import in ^<450517>Romans 5:17, when reigning in life — ejn zwh|, is spoken of; and the word “eternal,” is added to it in the last verse. This life commences with justification, and therefore this view includes what Calvin says, though it extends farther. — Ed.
^ft175 In our version are introduced “judgment” and “free-gift,” from verse 16; and it is what has been done by most interpreters. The words are found here in no MSS.; but there is another reading countenanced by four MSS., as given by Griesbach, and two of them ancient; the word for offense is put in the nominative case, to< para>ptwma, and the word for righteousness the same, to g. Then the reading would be —
18. So then, as through one the transgression was, as to all men, unto condemnation; so also through one the righteousness is, as to all men, unto justification of life.
This agrees better with the following verse, though the meaning is substantially the same with what is given in our version. — Ed.
^ft176 Pleona>sh, which means to grow more and more, to increase, to multiply: it is a different verb from that in the last clause. What he calls “offense” or “fall” in this member of the sentence, he calls “sin” in the next. It is still “the fall” or “the sin” which caused it: for that is the parent of every other sin. — Ed.
^ft177 “Intercessisse legem — that the law came between,” i.e., Adam and Christ; pareish~lqen from para<, with, besides, or between, and eijse>rcomai, to enter. It occurs elsewhere only in ^<480204>Galatians 2:4, where it is rendered, “came in privily,” as required by the context. But it cannot he so rendered here. Schleusner says, that it simply means to enter, and that it is so used by Philo. It is thus rendered by the Syriac and Arabic versions. Erasmus has “obiter subiit, vel, irrepsit — came, or, crept in by the by;” Hammond has the same; but Beza attaches the idea of besides to para<, — præterea introiit — entered in besides,” i.e., in addition to the disease under which all men labored, having been contaminated by that of the first sin. “Intervenit — intervened,” is the rendering of Grotius; that is, the law intervened between the beginning of sin and the beginning of new righteousness. “The law,” says Hodge, “was superinduced on a plan already laid. It was not designed for the accomplishment of man’s salvation, that is, either for his justification or sanctification, but for the accomplishment of a very subordinate part in the great scheme of mercy.” — Ed.
^ft178 Chrysostom regarded i[na here as denoting not the final cause, but the event, and thought the meaning to be, that the law entered, so that the effect or event was, that sin increased. Its rendering would then be, so that: and this seems to be the meaning given to it by Calvin. The law did not create sin, but made it known, and by discovering it, increased its guilt when persisted in, and by discovering it showed the necessity of a Savior.
^ft179 The superabounding has a reference to the increasing of sin by means of the law. Grace not only abounded so as to be sufficient to remedy the first sin and the sins which followed it; but it abounded still more, so as to be an adequate provision for sin when increased by the law, through the perverseness of human nature. — Ed.
^ft180 The antithesis to “sin” is properly “righteousness;” but, as Calvin observes, “grace” is connected with it. To preserve the contrast, the sentence might be rendered, “grace through righteousness;” and then to show the medium or channel through which this “grace through righteousness” is to reign so as to issue in “eternal life,” it is added, “through Jesus Christ our Lord.” So that in this single sentence, we have the origin, “grace,” the means or the meritorious cause, “righteousness,” the agent, or the procurer of it, “Jesus Christ,” and the end, “eternal life.” Some take “grace” as antithetic to sin, and connect “righteousness” with “eternal life,” and render it “justification;” but this does not so well preserve the antithetic character of the clause. Those who render it “holiness” completely misunderstand the drift of the passage.
The first part is differently rendered: instead of “unto death,” Hammond renders it, like Calvin, “through death,” and Grotius, “by (per) death.” The preposition is en and not eij, and its common meaning is “in,” and it may be here translated, “in death,” i.e., in a state of death. The reign of sin was that of death and misery; the reign of grace through Christ’s righteousness is that of life and happiness, which is never to end. — Ed.
^ft181 That the antitheses of this remarkable passage, from verse 12 to the end, may be more clearly seen, it shall be presented in lines. The contrast in Romans 5:12 and 20 will be found in the first and last line and in the second and the third; and as to all the other verses, in the first and the third line and in the second and the fourth, except Romans 5:13 and 14, which are an explanation of the 12th. The 17th includes the two ideas of the 15th and 16th, in an inverted order. The 18th and l9th contain the summing up of the argument, —
12. For this reason, — as by one man sin entered into the world, And death by sin, Even so death came upon all men, — Because all had sinned:
13. Sin indeed was until the law in the world, But sin is not imputed when there is no law;
14. Yet reign did death from Adam to Moses. Even over those who had not sinned, After the likeness of the transgression of Adam, Who is the type of him who was to come.
15. But not as the transgression, So also the free favor; For if through the transgression of one Many died. Much more has God’s grace, and his free gift through the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, Abounded unto many:
16. And not as through one sin, So the free gift; For judgment was indeed Through one sir to condemnation, But the free favor Is from many transgressions to justification, —
17. For if for one transgression, Death reigned through one; Much more shall they, who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness, Reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.
18. So then, as through one transgression, Judgment was on all men to condemnation; So also through one righteousness, The free favor is on all men to justification of life:
19. For as through the disobedience of one man, Sinful were made many; So also through the obedience of one, Righteous shall be made many.
20. But the law entered in, That multiplied might be transgression; But where sin multiplied, Superabounded has grace: So that as sin reigned Into death; So also grace shall reign through righteousness, Into eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. — Ed.
^ft182 This phrase, “died to sin,” is evidently misapprehended by Haldane. Having been offended, and justly so, by an unguarded and erroneous expression of Stuart, derived from Chrysostom, and by the false rendering of Macknight, he went to another extreme, and maintained, that to die, or to be dead to sin, means to be freed from its guilt, while the whole context proves, that it means deliverance from its power as a master, from the servitude or bondage of sin. To live in it, does not mean to live under its guilt, but in its service and under its ruling power; and this is what the Apostle represents as a contrast to being dead to sin. Not to “serve sin,” in ^<450606>Romans 6:6, is its true explanation. See also Romans 6:11, 12, and 14.
The very argument requires this meaning. The question in the first verse, — Shall we continue in sin?” does not surely mean — shall we continue in or under the guilt of sin? but in its service, and in the practice of it. It was the chapter of practical licentiousness that the Apostle rebuts; and he employs an argument suitable to the purpose, “If we are dead to sin, freed from it as our master, how absurd it is to suppose that we can live any longer in its service?” Then be shows in what follows how this had been effected. This is clearly the import of the passage, and so taken by almost all commentators.
But it must be added, that Venema and Chalmers materially agree with Haldane. The former says that to “die to sin” is to give to sin what it demands and that is, death; and that when this is given, it can require nothing more. In this sense, he adds, Christ died to sin (^<450610>Romans 6:10); and in the same sense believers die to sin, being, as they are, united to Christ, his death being viewed as their death. However true this theology may be, (and Chalmers shows this in his own inimitable manner,) it does not seem to be taught here: though there may be something in one or two expressions to favor it; yet the whole tenor of the passage, and many of the phrase, seem clearly to constrain us to adopt the other view. — Ed.
^ft183 “Baptized into (eijv) Christ,” “baptized into (eijv) Moses,” ^<461002>1 Corinthians 10:2, “baptized into (eijv) one body,” ^<461213>1 Corinthians 12:13, are all the same forms of expression, and must mean, that by the rite of baptism a professed union is made, and, in the two first instances, a submission to the authority exercised is avowed. By “baptized into his death,” we are to understand, “baptized,” in order to die with him, or to die as he died; not that the death is the same; for it is a like death, as it is expressed in ^<450605>Romans 6:5, as the resurrection is a like resurrection. His death was natural, ours is spiritual; the same difference holds as to the resurrection. It is the likeness that is throughout to be regarded; and this is the key to the whole passage. It is true, that through the efficacy of Christ’s death alone the death of his people takes place, and through the operation of his Spirit; but to teach this is not the design of the Apostle here; his object seems to be merely to show that a change takes place in every true Christian, symbolized by baptism, and that this change bears a likeness to the death and resurrection of our Savior. He speaks of baptism here not merely as a symbol, but as including what it symbolizes; as he does in a similar passage, ^<510211>Colossians 2:11, 12, where he refers to this change, first under the symbol of circumcision, and then of baptism; which clearly proves that the same thing is signified by both. — Ed.
^ft184 That the mode of baptism, immersion, is intimated by “buried,” has been thought by most, by Chrysostom, Augustine, Hammond, Pareus, Mede, Grotius, Doddridge, Chalmers, and others; while some, such as Scott, Stuart, and Hodge, do not consider this as necessarily intended, the word “buried” having been adopted to express more fully what is meant by being “dead,” and there being another word, “planted,” used to convey the same idea, which cannot be applied to the rite of baptism.
“Buried with him,” means buried like him, or in like manner; and so “crucified with him,” in ^<450606>Romans 6:6, is the same: sun prefixed to verbs, has clearly this meaning. See ^<450817>Romans 8:17; ^<510301>Colossians 3:1; ^<550211>2 Timothy 2:11. “Into death” is not to be connected with “planted,” but with “baptism,” it was “a baptism into death,’ that is, which represented death, even death unto sin. — Ed.
^ft185 Beza takes dia<, by, before “glory,” in the sense of eijv, to, “to the glory of the Father;” but this is unusual. It seems to be a metonymy, the effect for the cause: it was done by power which manifested and redounded to the glory of God. The word “glory, do>xa, is used for power in ^<431140>John 11:40. The Hebrew word, zw[ strength, power, is sometimes rendered do>xa by the Septuagint; see ^<196703>Psalm 67:34, (in our version, ^<196834>Psalm 68:34;) ^<231202>Isaiah 12:2; 45:24. God’s power is often expressly mentioned in connection with the resurrection; See ^<460614>1 Corinthians 6:14, ^<471304>2 Corinthians 13:4; ^<510111>Colossians 1:11. — Ed.
^ft186 The word su>mfutoi, is rendered insititii by Calvin, and the same by Erasmus, Pareus, and Hammond. The Vulgate has “complantati — planted together; Beza, “cum eo plantati coaluimus — being planted with him we grow together;” Doddridge, “grow together;” and Macknight, “planted together.” The word properly means either to grow together, or to be born together; and fu>w never means to graft. It is only found here; and it is applied by the Septuagint, in ^<381102>Zechariah 11:2, to a forest growing together. The verb sumfu>w is once used in ^<420807>Luke 8:7, and refers to the thorns which sprang up with the Corinthiansn. It occurs as a participle in the same sense in the Wisdom of Solomon, 13:13. It appears from Wolfius that the word is used by Greek authors in a sense not strictly literal, to express congeniality, conjoining, union, as the sameness of disposition, or the joining together of a dismembered limb, or, as Grotius says, the union of friendship. It might be so taken here, and the verse might be thus rendered, —
For if we have been united (or, connected) by a similarity to his death, we shall certainly be also united by a similarity to his resurrection.
The genitive case here may be regarded as that of the object, as the love of God means sometimes love to God. Evidently the truth intended to be conveyed is, that as the Christian’s death to sin bears likeness to Christ’s death, so his rising to a spiritual life is certain to bear a similar likeness to Christ’s resurrection. Then in the following verses this is more fully explained.
“The Apostle,” says Beza, “uses the future tense, ‘we shall be,’ because we are not as yet wholly dead, or wholly risen, but are daily emerging.” But the future here, as Stuart remarks, may be considered as expressing what is to follow the death previously mentioned, or as designating an obligation, as in ^<400410>Matthew 4:10; ^<420310>Luke 3:10, 12, 14; or a certainty as to the result. — Ed.
^ft187 It is thought by Pareus and others, that “body” is here assigned to “sin,” in allusion to the crucifixion that is mentioned, as a body in that case is fixed to the cross, and that it means the whole congeries, or, as Calvin calls it, the whole mass of sins, such as pride, passion, lust, etc. But the reason for using the word “body,” is more probably this, because he called innate sin, man — “the old man;” and what properly belongs to man is a body. The “body of sin” is a Hebraism, and signifies a sinful hody. It has no special reference to the material body, as Origen thought. The “man” here is to be taken in a spiritual sense, as one who has a mind, reason, and affections: therefore the body which belongs to him must be of the same character: it is the whole of what appertains to “the old man,” as he is Corrupt and sinful, the whole of what is earthly, wicked, and depraved in him. It is the sinful body of the old man. — Ed.
^ft188 This verse has occasioned vanous explanations. The most obvious meaning of the first clause is, that to “die” here means to die with or in a similar manner with Christ, for in the next verse, where the idea is resumed, “with” or like “Christ,” is expressly stated. The verb, dedikai>wtai, “is,” or has been “justified,” has been considered by the early and most of the later commentators in the sense of being freed or delivered. This is the view, among others, of Chrysostom, Basil, Œcumenius, Beza, Pareus, Hammond, Grotius, Doddridge and Macknight. But it must be added, that it is a meaning of which there is no other clear instance in the New Testament, though the verb occurs often. Scott, aware of this, gives it its common meaning, “justified;” and though he does not take the view of Venema, Chalmers, and Haldane, as to the general import of the former part of this chapter, he yet considers that to be “justified from sin” here, is to be justified from its guilt and penalty. Nor is it irrelevant to the subject in hand to refer to justification: for it is a very important truth to declare, that to die to sin is an evidence of being justified from its guilt. — Ed.
^ft189 This difference may be gathered from the general tenor of the whole passage; for his death and our death are said to have a likeness, and not to be same. And farther, in mentioning our death in this connection, in the next verse, he changes his phraseology; it is nekrou<v and not ei+nai, which means those deprived of life — the lifeless. “The dead (nekrou<v) in trespasses and sins,” are those who have no spiritual life; and to be dead to sin is not to have life for sin, to be freed from its ruling power. See ^<450618>Romans 6:18.
It is usual with the Apostle to adopt the same form of words in different senses, which can only be distinguished by the context or by other parts of Scripture, as it has been noticed in a note on Romans 4:25. — Ed.
^ft190 That is, as a Corrupt being: literally it is “for the whole mass of man.” The “body” here may be the same with that of “the old man” in ^<450606>Romans 6:6; and the word for “lusts,” ejpiqumi>aiv, is often applied to designate the desires of the mind as well as the lusts of the natural body. The word, qnhtw, “mortal,” would in this case mean, doomed to die, having been crucified; it is a body in the process of dying. Innate sin is here personified as a king, a ruler, and as having a body, he being “the old man;” and this body is represented as belonging to Christians — “your,” as the old man is — “our old man.” — Ed.
^ft191 The idea of a king, a ruler, or a tyrant, is preserved throughout. Innate sin is a ruler, carrying on a warfare, and therefore has weapons which he exploys. In the preceding verse are mentioned the gratifications with which he indulges his subjects — “lusts,” here the weapons by which he defends his kingdom, and carries on an offensive warfare, committing acts of wickedness and wrong — “weapons of injustice, ajdiki>av.” “He who sins,” says an old author, “does wrong either to himself or to his neighbor, and always to God.” — Ed.
^ft192 “Vobis non dominabitur,” oju kurieu>sei — shall not be a lord over you, shall not have power or authority or control over you; or, it may mean, shall not domineer over you, so as to retain you, as it were by force, under its power: and the reason given favors this idea; for he says, “Ye are not under law, but under grace.” Law is the strength of sin; and by law it binds its subjects under its service. — Ed.
^ft193 The word “law” here, is taken by Scott and others, indefinitely, as meaning law as the ground of the covenant of works, written or unwritten; and the literal rendering is, “under law” — uJpo< no>mou; and it is the same in the next verse, “under law.” — Ed.
^ft194 Beza’s remark on this is, — that obedience is not the cause of life, as sin is of death, but is the way to life: and hence the want of Correspondence in the two clauses. But others, such as Venema, Turrettin, and Stuart, consider that the clauses really Correspond. They take eijv qa>naton — “unto death,” as signifying, unto condemnation; and eijv dikaiosu>nhn, they render “unto justification;” and uJpako>h, “obedience,” is in their view the obedience of faith. This construction might be admitted, were it not for the last clause of ^<450618>Romans 6:18, where we have, “Ye became the servants of righteousness,” the same word, dikaiosu>nh; except we consider that also, as Venema does, as signifying the righteousness of faith, by a sort of personification: and if so, we must attach the same meaning to “righteousness” dikaiosu>nh, in ^<450619>Romans 6:19, which issues in, or leads to holiness; and also to “righteousness,” dikaiosu>nh, in verse 20. As the Apostle personifies sin, he may also be supposed to personify righteousness, that is, the righteousness of faith. In this case, we might as well retain the word “righteousness” in this verse, and not justification, which it never strictly means; for the Correspondence in the terms would be still essentially preserved, as with the righteousness of faith eternal life is inseparably connected. — Ed.
^ft195 Our version of this verse conveys the idea, that the Apostle gave thanks that they had been the servants of sin; but o[ti is often rendered for, as in ^<400503>Matthew 5:3, 4; ^<421013>Luke 10:13; and in Matthew 6: 5, followed by de< as here, in ^<450606>Romans 6:6. The rendering may be this, —
But thanks be to God; for ye have been the servants of sin, but have obeyed the form of doctrine, in which ye have been taught. — Ed.
^ft196 The version of Calvin is, “Obedistis vero et animo typo doctrinæ in quem traducti estis.”
The word tu>pov, is rendered in ^<432025>John 20:25, print, that is, of the nails, — in ^<440743>Acts 7:43, in the plural, fiqures, that is, images, — in ^<440744>Acts 7:44, fashion, that is, pattern or model, — in ^<580805>Hebrews 8:5, pattern, — in ^<442325>Acts 23:25, manner, that is, form, — in ^<450514>Romans 5:14, figure, that is, representative, — in ^<560207>Titus 2:7, pattern; and in all other instances in which it occurs, except in this place, it is rendered example, and in the plural, examp1es, as afforded by the conduct of others, or by events; see ^<461006>1 Corinthians 10:6, 11; ^<500317>Philippians 3:17; ^<520107>1 Thessalonians 1:7; ^<530309>2 Thessalonians 3:9; ^<540412>1 Timothy 4:12; ^<600503>1 Peter 5:3. The idea of mould, which some give to it, is without an example in the New Testament.
Our version is that of Castellio, in the meaning of which most critics agree. Grotius gives this paraphrase, “Obedistis ad eum modum quem doctrina evangelii præscribit — Ye became obedient to that rule which the doctrine of the gospel prescribes.” Wolfius quotes from Iamblichus, in his life of Pythagoras, passages in which tu>pov is used for form, model, or manner, —”th~v paideu>sewv oJ tu>pov — the form of instruction;” and “tu>pov didaskali>av — the form or manner of teaching.”
The Grammatical difficulty is best removed by Stuart, who considers tu>pon to be for tupw, the case being changed by the preceding pronoun, no uncommon thing in Greek: the literal rendering would then be, —”Ye have obeyed the form of doctrine, respecting which (or, in which, see ^<410534>Mark 5:34) ye have been instructed.” — Ed.
^ft197 The phrase is taken differently: Anqrw>pinon le>gw “I speak what is human,” that is, what is proportionable to man’s strength, says Chrysostom — what is done and known in common life, as in ^<480315>Galatians 3:15, or, what is moderate, says Hammond — what is level to man’s understanding, says Vatablus. The first proposed by Hammond is the meaning most suitable here; for the Apostle had previously used reasons and arguments, and sacred similitudes; but he comes now to what is known in common life among men, the connection between masters and servants, and he did this in condescension to their weakness, which he calls the weakness of the flesh, that is, the weakness of which flesh, the depravity of nature, was the cause; it was weakness arising from the flesh. — Ed.
^ft198 The different clauses of this verse have been a knotty point to all commentators. Probably the Apostle did not intend to keep up a regular course of antithesis, the subject not admitting of this; because the progress of evil and the progress of its remedy may be different, and it seems to be so in the present case. Sin is innate and inward, and its character, as here represented, is vileness and iniquity, and it breaks out into acts of iniquity: he does not repeat the other character, vileness; but when he comes to the contrast he mentions holiness, and does not add what is antithetic to iniquity. This is a striking instance of the elliptical style of the Apostle. It is not neglect or carelessness, but no doubt an intentional omission; it being the character of his mode of writing, which he had in common with the ancient Prophets.
Then comes the word “righteousness,” which I am disposed to think is that which all along has been spoken of, the righteousness of faith; this is not innate, not inward, but which comes from without, and is apprehended by faith, by which sins are forgiven, and God’s favor obtained; and they who become the servants of this are to cultivate holiness both inward and outward; they ought to present all their members, that is, all their faculties, to the service of this master, so that they may become holy in all manner of conversation.
But if this idea of righteousness be disapproved of, we may still account for the apparent irregularity in the construction of the passage. It is an instance of an inverted order, many examples of which are found even in this Epistle. He begins with “uncleanness,” he ends with “holiness,” and then the intervening words which are in contrast Correspond, “iniquity” and “righteousness.” Here is also an inversion in the meaning; “uncleanness” is the principle, and “holiness” is the action; while “iniquity” is the action, and “righteousness” is the principle. If this view is right, we have here a singular instance of the inverted parallelism, both as to words and meaning. — Ed.
^ft199 That is, the law by which she was bound to her husband, or, the law by which he became her husband. It is an instance of the latitude in which the genitive case is used. — Ed.
^ft200 The connection of the beginning of this chapter with ^<450614>Romans 6:14 deserves to be noticed. He says there, that sin shall not rule over us, because we are not under law, but under grace. Then he asks, in ^<450615>Romans 6:15,
“Shall we sin, because we are not under law, but under grace?”
This last subject, according to his usual mode, he takes up first, and discusses it till the end of the chapter: and then in this chapter he reassumes the first subject — freedom from the law. This is a striking instance of the Apostle’s manner of writing, quite different from what is usual with us in the present day. He mentions two things; he proceeds with the last, and then goes back to the first. — Ed.
^ft201 This is a plausible reason, derived from Theodoret and Chrysostom; but hardly necessary. Commentators have felt much embarrassed in applying the illustration given here. The woman is freed by the death of the husband; but the believer is represented as freed by dying himself. This does not Correspond: and if we attend to what the Apostle says, we shall see that he did not contemplate such a Correspondence. Let us notice how he introduces the illustration; “the law,” he says in the first verse, “rules, or exercises authority, over a man while he lives;” and then let us observe the application in ^<450704>Romans 7:4, where he speaks of our dying to the law The main design of the illustration then was, to show that there is no freedom from a law but by death; so that there is no necessity of a Correspondence in the other parts, As in the case of man and wife, death destroys the bond of marriage; so in the case of man and the law, that is, the law as the condition of life, there must be a death; else there is no freedom. But there is one thing more in the illustration, which the Apostle adopts, the liberty to marry another, when death has given a release: The bond of connection being broken, a union with another is legitimate. So far only is the example adduced to be applied — death puts an end to the right and authority of law; and then the party released may justly form another connection. It is the attempt to make all parts of the comparison to Correspond that has occasioned all the difficulty. — Ed.
^ft202 “Obæratos” — debtors bound to serve their creditors until payment is made. — Ed.
^ft203 That his crucified body is intended, is clear from what follows; for he is spoken of as having “been raised from the dead.” — Ed.
^ft204A To be “in the flesh” has two meanings, — to be unrenewed, and in our natural Corrupt state, as Calvin says, see ^<450808>Romans 8:8, — and to be subject to external rites and ceremonies as the Jews were, see ^<480303>Galatians 3:3; ^<500304>Philippians 3:4. Its meaning here, according to Beza and Pareus, is the first; according to Grotius and Hammond, the second; and according to Turrettin and Hodge, both are included, as the context, in their view, evidently shows. — Ed.
^ft204 “Affectus peccatorum — affections of sins;” ta paqh>mata, etc., — “cupiditates — desires,” or lusts, Grotius.. The word is commonly taken passively, as signifying afflictions, sufferings; ^<450818>Romans 8:18; ^<470105>2 Corinthians 1:5; ^<510124>Colossians 1:24; but here, and in ^<480524>Galatians 5:24, it evidently means excitements, commotions, emotions, lusts or lustings. “Passion” in our language admits of two similar meanings — suffering, and an excited feeling, or an inward commotion.
These “emotions” are said to be through the law, — “made known by the law,” says Chrysostom; but “occasioned by the law,” is more correct, as it appears from ^<450708>Romans 7:8, or, “made to abound by the law,” as in ^<450520>Romans 5:20. The law, instead of making men holy, made them, through the perversity of human nature, to sin the more. “Emotions of sins” is an Hebraism for “sinful emotions” — “The members” are those of the “old man,” and not those of the material body, though it is commonly thought that they are the latter, and mentioned, because they are employed as the instruments of sin: but there are many sins, and those of the worst kind, which are confined to the mind and heart. It is therefore more consistent to regard them as the members of “the body of sin,” ^<450606>Romans 6:6. — Ed.
^ft205 That the moral, and not the ceremonial law, is meant here, is incontestably evident from what the Apostle adds in the following verses. He quotes the moral law in the next verse; he calls this law, in ^<450710>Romans 7:10, the commandment, thn ejntolh<n, which was unto life, see ^<401916>Matthew 19:16; and he says, that “by it” sin “slew” him, which could not have been said of the ceremonial law. — Ed.
^ft206 Our common version is evidently incorrect as to this clause. The pronoun aujtw~| or ejkeinw~|, is to be supplied. There is an exactly similar ellipsis in ^<450621>Romans 6:21. Beza and several others, as well as our version, have followed a reading, apoqanontoj, which Griesbach disregards as of no authority; and it is inconsistent with the usual phraseology of the Apostle. See ^<450704>Romans 7:4, and ^<480219>Galatians 2:19. — Ed.
^ft207 Perhaps the sentence ought to have been rendered, For lust (concupiscentiam) I had not known, except the law had said, “Thou shalt not lust” (non concupisces.) Then the word “coveting” in the next verse should be “lust” (concupiscentiam.) But “Thou shalt not covet,” is the commandment; and to retain a similarity of idea, for the lack of a more suitable word, it seems necessary to have coveting, as covetousness has not the meaning here intended. There is the same Correspondence in the words in Greek as in Calvin’s Latin. The noun is rendered first in our version “lust,” and then “concupiscence;” and the same is done by Doddridge; the “strong desire” of Macknight is by no means suitable; the “inordinate desire” of Stuart is better, though “Thou shalt not lust” cannot be approved. By ejpiqumi>a, desire, is meant the inward propensity that is sinful, It is called “sin” in the preceding clause; and, according to the usual stage of the Apostle, to show what sin was intended, it is called here desire: it is then sin in the wish, in the inclination or disposition within. And this very sinful desire the tenth commandment distinctly forbids. — Ed.
^ft208 It was the saying of Ambrose, “Lex index peccati est, non genitrix — the law is the discoverer, not the begetter of sin.” “The law,’ says Pareus, “prohibits sin; it is not then the cause of it: sin is made known by the law; it is not then by the law produced.” — Ed.
^ft209 As an instance of the frivolous and puerile mode of reasoning adopted by the Papists, the following may be adduced: quoting ^<590115>James 1:15, “When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death,” they reason thus: — “Lust is not simply a sin, for it brings it forth; and when it is sin, it is not mortal sin, for it afterwards brings forth death. “Taking advantage of a metaphor, they apply it strictly and literally, without considering that the Apostle is only exhibiting the rise, progress, and termination — of what? of sin no doubt. The like produces its like. If lust were not sinful, it could not generate what is sinful. such childish and profane reasoning is an outrage both on common sense and on religion. — Ed.
^ft210 Most commentators take the opposite view, — that the irritation of sin occasioned by the law is more especially meant here. The two ideas, the knowledge and the excitement, or the increase of sin by the law, are no doubt referred to by the Apostle in these verses. — Ed.
^ft211 This clause is rightly separated from the former verse; for it clearly announces what is illustrated in the following verses. “Without the law,” means without the knowledge of the law. The law is known and not known still. — Ed.
^ft212 “Aliquando;” pote — formerly, while he was a Pharisee, when be thought himself blameless. Critics often make difficulties when there are none. What is said here of being alive without the law, or when the law is not known, and of the commandment supposed to be for life being found to be unto death, is still exemplified in the character of men, and takes place in the experience of all who are brought out of darkness, as Paul was, unto marvellous light. Experience is often the best expositor.
To understand this passage, no more is necessary than to read what Paul says of himself in ^<500309>Philippians 3:9; and also in ^<480219>Galatians 2:19. — Ed.
^ft213 This verse will be better understood if we consider it as in a manner a repetition, in another form, of what the former verse contains, and this is perfectly consistent with the usual manner of the Apostle. His object seems to have been to prevent a misapprehension of what he had said, that the commandment which was for life proved to be unto death. He hence says, that sin availed itself of the commandment, and by it deceived him, that is, promised him life, and then by it killed him, that is, proved fatal to him. There is a Correspondence in meaning between the commandment unto life and deceiving, and between death and killing. In ^<450708>Romans 7:8, sin, as a person, is said to take advantage of the commandment to work every kind of sinful desires: but it is said here to take this advantage to deceive by promising life, and then to destroy, to expose, and subject him to death and misery. — Ed.
^ft214 This is doubtless true, and it is an example of what the Apostle’s manner of writing is, it being that of the ancient prophets. How various are the words used in the 119th Psalm to designate the law or the revealed will of God? and two different words are often used in the same verse.
Having spoken of the law in connection with sin, the Apostle may be supposed to have had the character of sin in view in characterizing the law. Sin works depraved desires and lusts; the law is holy: sin deceives and acts the traitor, the law is plain-dealing and just: sin leads to death and misery; the law is good and leads to happiness. The last contrast is evident from what follows in the next verse, “Was that which is good made death unto me?” — Ed.
^ft215 This can hardly be admitted. The Apostle in Corinthians evidently states a fact, as he often does, without going into an explanation; and the fact was, that the law proved to be the ministration of death: but it proved to be so through the sin and wickedness of man. — Ed.
^ft216 Erasmus, Beza, Pareus, Stuart, and others, make up the ellipsis by putting in, “was made death to me,” after sin.” But there is no need of adding anything. The sentence throughout is thoroughly Hebraistic. What is partially announced in the words, “that it might appear sin,” or, to be sin, etc., is more fully stated in the last clause; and the participle, “working” — katergazome>nh, is used instead of a verb, the auxiliary verb being understood. See similar instances in ^<451409>Romans 14:9-13. Calvin’s version is no doubt the correct one. What follows the last i[na more fully explains what comes after the first. — Ed.
^ft217 This is evidently the case here. As carnal means what is sinful and Corrupt, so spiritual imports what is holy, just, and good. As the works of the flesh are evil and depraved works, so the fruits of the Spirit are good and holy fruits. See ^<480519>Galatians 5:19, 22, and particularly ^<430306>John 3:6. — Ed.
^ft218 “He is ‘carnal’ in exact proportion to the degree in which he falls short of perfect conformity to the law of God.” — Scott.
It has been usual with a certain class of divines, such as Hammond and Bull, to hold that all the Fathers before Augustine viewed Paul here as not speaking of himself. But this is plainly contradicted by what Augustine declares himself in several parts of his writings. In his Retractations, B. 1:chapter 23, he refers to some authors of divine discourses (quibusdam divinorum tractatoribus eloquiorom) by whose authority he was induced to change his opinion, and to regard Paul here as speaking of himself. He alludes again in his work against Julian, an advocate of Pelagianism, B. 6, chapter 11, to this very change in his view, and ascribes it to the reading of the works of those who were better and more intelligent than himself, (melioribus et intelligentioribus cessi..) Then he refers to them by name, and says, “Hence it was that I came to understand these things, as Hilary, Gregory, Ambrose, and other holy and known doctors of the Church, understood them, who thought that the Apostle himself strenuously struggled against carnal lusts, which he was unwilling to have, and yet had, and that he bore witness as to this confiict in these words,” (referring to this very text,) — Hinc factum est. ut sic ista intelligerem, quemadmodum intellexit HILARIUS, GREGORIUS, AMBROSLUS, et cœteri Ecclsiœ sancti notique doctores, qui et ipsum Apostolum adversus carnales concupiscentias, quas habere nolebat, et tamen habebat, strenue conflixisse, eundemque conflictum suum illis suis verbis contestatum fuisse senserunt. — Ed.
^ft219 It appears from this, that Calvin did not apply the foregoing words, “I am carnal, sold under sin,” in the same way: but they are evidently connected together. They are indeed strong words, and some explain them in such a way as to be wholly unsuitable to a renewed man; but we ought to take the explanation as given by the Apostle himself in what follows, for he handles the subject to the end of the chapter.
Various fictions have been resorted to by critics on this point. The Apostle has been supposed by some to speak of himself as under the law, or as Stuart terms it, “in a law state,” and such is the scheme of Hammond. Others have imagined, that he personates a Jew living during the time between Abraham and the giving of the law; and this was Locke’s idea. A third party have entertained the notion, that the Apostle, speaking in his own person, represents, by a sort of fiction, as Vitringa and some others have imagined, the effects of the law in Jews and proselytes, as opposed to the effects of the gospel, as delineated in the next chapter. And a fourth party maintain, that the Apostle describes a man in a transition state, in whom God’s Spirit works for his conversion, but who is as yet doubtful which way to turn, to sin or to God.
All these conjectures have arisen, because the language is not taken in its obvious meaning, and according to the Apostle’s own explanation. As soon as we depart from the plain meaning of the text and the context, we open a door to endless conjectures and fictions. The Apostle says nothing here of himself, but what every real Christian finds to be true. Is not a Christian, yea, the best, in this world carnal, as well as spiritual? Is he not “sold under sin?” that is, subjected to a condition, in which he is continually annoyed, tempted, hindered, restrained, checked, and seduced by the depravity and Corruption of his nature; and in which he is always kept far below what he aims at, seeks and longs for. It was the saying of a good man, lately gone to his rest, whose extended pilgrimage was ninety-three years, that he must have been often swallowed up by despair, had it not been for the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. The best interpreter of many things in Scripture is spiritual experience; without it no right judgment can be formed. Hence it is that the learned often stumble at what is quite plain and obvious to the illiterate when spiritually enlightened. Critics sometimes find great difficulties in what is fully understood by a simpler minded Christian, taught from above. “Wayfaring men” are far better divines than any of the learned, who possess nothing more than natural talents and natural acquirements. — Ed.
^ft220 “Pii quod perpetrant non agnoscunt, non approbant, non excusant, non palliant;” — “What the godly do [amiss,] they know not, approve not, excuse not, palliate not.” — Pareus.
The verb ginw>skw is used here in the sense of the Hebrew verb [dy which is often so rendered by the Septuagint. See ^<190106>Psalm 1:6; ^<280804>Hosea 8:4; and ^<400723>Matthew 7:23. — Ed.
^ft221 “As the Apostle was far more enlightened and humble than Christians in general are, doubtless this clog (indwelling sin) was more uneasy to him than it is to them, though most of us find our lives at times greatly embittered by it. So that this energetic language, which many imagine to describe an unestablished believer’s experience, or even that of an unconverted man, seems to have resulted from the extraordinary degree of St. Paul’s sanctification, and the depth of his self-abasement and hatred of sin; and the reason of our not readily understanding him seems to be, because we are far beneath him in holiness, humility, acquaintance with the spirituality of God’s law, and the evil of our own hearts, and in our degree of abhorrence of moral evil.” — Scott.
“What some mistake as the evidence of a spiritual decline on the part of the Apostle, was in fact the evidence of his growth. It is the effusion of a more quick and cultured sensibility than fell to the lot of ordinary men.” — Chalmers.
^ft222 “I consent — consentio — sumfhmi, I say with, assent to, agree with, confirm.” — Ed.
^ft223 The last clause of this verse is worthy of notice, as the expression “indwelling sin” seems to have arisen from the words hJ oijkousa ejn ejmoi< — “which dwells in me.” Sin was in him as in a house or dwelling; it was an in-habiting sin, or that which is in-abiding or resident. — Ed.
^ft224 Non habitat . . . . bonum — oujk oijkei . . . . ajgaqo>n. — Ed.
^ft225 The Apostle here is his own interpreter; he explains who the I is that does what the other I disapproved, and who the I is that hates what the other I does. He tells us here that it is not the same I, though announced at first as though it were the same. The one I, he informs us here, was his flesh, his innate sin or Corruption, and the other I, he tells us in ^<450722>Romans 7:22, was “the inner man,” his new nature. The “inner man,” as Calvin will tell us presently, is not the soul as distinguished from the body, but the renewed man as distinguished from the flesh. It is the same as the “new man” as distinguished from “the old man.” See ^<490422>Ephesians 4:22, 24; ^<450606>Romans 6:6; ^<470517>2 Corinthians 5:17. But “the inward man,” and “the outward man,” in ^<470416>2 Corinthians 4:16, are the soul and the body; and “the inner man,” in ^<490316>Ephesians 3:16, the same expression as in ^<450722>Romans 7:22, means the soul, as it is evident from the context. The same is meant by “the hidden man of the heart,” in ^<600304>1 Peter 3:4. — Ed.
^ft226 “Insideat,” — para>keitai>; the same verb in ^<450718>Romans 7:18, is rendered adest — is present. It means, to lie near, to be at hand. — Ed.
^ft227 “Repugnantem, — ajntistrateu>omenon, placing itself in battle array, fighting or warring against, taking the field or marching against an enemy. Then follows “taking” an enemy “captive,” aijcmalwti>zonta. There are two sorts of captives, willing and unwilling. The latter is the case here; for the Apostle compares himself to captives of war, which are made so by force. The same is meant as by the expression, “sold under sin,” verse 14, — the constrained condition of being subject during life, to the annoyances, to the tempting, seducing, and deadening power of innate Corruption. — Ed.
^ft228 “Consentio,” sunh>domai: it is not the same verb as in ^<450716>Romans 7:16; this signifies more than consent, for it includes gratification and delight. See ^<190102>Psalm 1:2. The verb is found only here. Macknight’s version, “I am pleased with,” is very feeble and inexpressive; Stuart’s is better, “I take pleasure in;” but our common version is the best, “I delight in.”
The ga<r here would be better rendered “indeed:” the Apostle makes declaration as to his higher principle; and then in the next verse he states more fully what he had said in ^<450721>Romans 7:21. This exactly Corresponds with his usual mode in treating subjects. He first states a thing generally, and afterwards more particularly, in more spedfic terms, and with something additional. — Ed.
^ft229 Some consider the conclusion of ^<450723>Romans 7:23, “to the law of sin which is in my members,” as a paraphrase for “to itself;” as the Apostle describes it at the beginning as the law in his members: and the reason which may be assigned for the repetition is twofold, — to preserve the distinction between it and “the law of the mind” in the preceding clause, — and to give it a more distinctive character, by denominating it “the law of sin.” We in fact find a gradation in the way in which it is set forth: in ^<450721>Romans 7:21, he calls it simply “a law;” in this verse he first calls it “another law in his members,” and then, “the law of sin in his members.”
The construction of ^<450721>Romans 7:21, is difficult. Pareus quotes Chrysostom as supposing su>mfhnai from ^<450716>Romans 7:16, to be understood after “law,” so as to give this rendering, “I find then that the law assents to me desiring to do good,” etc., that is, that the law of God was on his side, “though evil was present with him.” He then gives his own view, it being essentially that of Augustine: he supposes o[ti kalo<v from ^<450716>Romans 7:16, to be understood after “law,” and that o[ti, in the last clause, is to be construed “though:” the verse is then to be rendered thus, — “I find then the law, that it is good to me desiring to do good, though evil is present with me;” The verse taken by itself may thus present a good meaning, but not one that harmonizes with the context, or that forms a part of the Apostle’s argument. The only other construction that deserves notice is that of our own version, and of Calvin, and it is that alone which Corresponds with the context. It has been adopted by Beza, Grotius, Venema, Turrettin, Doddridge, and others.
This verse, and the two which follow, conclude the subject, and also explain what he had been saying about willing and doing. He in fact accounts here for the paradoxical statements which he had made, by mentioning the operation and working of two laws, which were directly contrary to one another. It seems to be a mistake that he alludes to four laws; for the law of the mind and the law of God are the same, under different names; it is that of the mind, because it belongs to and resides in the mind: and it is the law of God, because it comes from him, and is implanted by his Spirit. To the other law he also gives two names, the “law in his members,” and the “law of sin.” This view is confirmed by the last verse in the chapter, which contains a summary of the whole.
The latter part of ^<450723>Romans 7:23 is in character with the Hebraistic style, when the noun is stated instead of the pronoun; see ^<010916>Genesis 9:16; ^<195023>Psalm 50:23; and it is also agreeable to the same style to add the same sentiment with something more specific appended to it. This part then might be rendered thus, — “and making me captive to itself, even to the law of sin, which is he my members.” — Ed.
^ft230 Talai>pwrov, miser, ærumnosus; “it denotes,” says Schleusner, “one who is broken down and wearied with the most grievous toils.” It is used by the Septuagint for the word dwdç, wasted, spoiled, desolated. See ^<19D708>Psalm 137:8; ^<233301>Isaiah 33:1. — Ed.
^ft231 “Eripere” — pluck out, rescue, take away by force; rJu>setai — shall draw, rescue or extricate; it means a forcible act, effected by power. — Ed.
^ft232 “This body of death” is an evident Hebraism, meaning “this deadly or mortiferous body;” which is not the material body, but the body of “the old man,” ^<450706>Romans 7:6; called the “body of sin,” when its character is described, and the “body of death,” when the issue to which it leads is intended: it conducts to death, condemnation, and misery. — Ed.
^ft233 There is a different reading for the first clause of this verse, ca>riv tw| Qe>w, “thanks to God,” which, Griesbach says, is nearly equal to the received text; and there are a few copies which have hJ ca>riv kuri>ou, “the grace of our Lord,” etc.; which presents a direct answer to the foregoing question: but a considerable number more have hJ ca>riv tou qe>ou, “the grace of God,” etc.; which also gives an answer to the preceding question. But the safest way, when there is no strong reason from the context, is to follow what is mostly sanctioned by MSS. Taking then the received text, we shal find a suitable answer to the foregoing question, if we consider the verb used in the question to be here understood, a thing not unusual; then the version would be, “I thank God, who will deliver me through Jesus Christ our Lord;” not as Macknight renders the verb, “who delivers me;” for the answer must be in the same tense with the question. — Ed.
^ft234 “Idem ego — the same I,” or, “I the same;” aujto<v ejgw<. Beza renders it the same — “idem ego,” and makes this remark, “This was suitable to what follows, by which one man seems to have been divided into two.” Others render it, “ipse ego — I myself,” and say that Paul used this dictlon emphatically, that none might suspect that he spoke in the person of another. See ^<450903>Romans 9:3; ^<471001>2 Corinthians 10:1, 12, 13. The phrase imports this, “It is myself, and none else.”
He terms his innate sin “the flesh.” By the flesh, says Pareus, “is not meant physically the muscular substance, but theologically the depravity of nature, — not sensuality alone, but the unregenerated reason, will, and affections.” — Ed.
^ft235 This clause, “who walk not,” etc., is regarded as spurious by Griesbach: a vast preponderance of authority as to MSS. is against it; and its proper place seems to be at the end of the fourth verse. It being placed here does not, however, interfere with the meaning. — Ed.
^ft236 Ca1vin has, in his exposition of this verse, followed Chrysostom, and the same view has been taken by Beza, Grotius, Vitringa, Doddridge, Scott, and Chalmers. But Pareus, following Ambrose, has taken another view, which Haldane has strongly advocated, and with considerable power of reasoning, though, as some may perhaps think, unsuccessfully. The exposition is this, — “The law of the spirit of life” is the law of faith, or the gospel, which is the ministration of the Spirit; and “the spirit of life” means either the life-giving spirit, or the spirit which conveys the life which is in Christ Jesus. Then “the law of sin and death” is the moral law, so called because it discloses sin and denounces death. It is said that this view Corresponds with the “no condemnation” in the first verse, and with the word “law” in the verse which follows, which is no doubt the moral law, and with the truth which the verse exhibits. It is also added that freedom or deliverance from the law of sin, viewed as the power of sin, is inconsistent with the latter part of the former chapter; and that the law of faith, which through the Spirit conveys life, makes us free from the moral law as the condition of life, is the uniform teaching of Paul. “This freedom,” says Pareus, “is ascribed to God, to Christ, and to the Gospel, — to God as the author, ^<450725>Romans 7:25, — to Christ as the mediator, — and to the Gospel as the instrument: and the manner of this deliverance is more clearly explained in the verse which follows.”
^ft237 Calvin is not singular in this rendering. Pareus and Grotius give “quia vel quandoquidem — because or since;” and the latter says, that ejn w=| is an Hebraism for ejf w=|; see ^<450512>Romans 5:12. Beza refers to ^<410219>Mark 2:19, and ^<420534>Luke 5:34, as instances where it means when or while, and says that it is used in Greek to designate not only a certain time, but also a certain state or condition. Piscator’s rendering is “co quod — because.” — Ed.
^ft238 The beginning of this verse, though the general import of it is evident, does yet present some difficulties as to its construction. The clause, as given by Calvin, is, “Quod enim impossibile erat legi,” — to< ga<r ajdu>naton ton no>mou. Pareus supposes dia understood, “For on account of the impotency of the law,” etc. Stuart agrees with Erasmus and Luther and supplies the verb “did,” or accomplish, — “For what the law could not accomplish . . .God . . . . accomplished,” etc. But the simpler construction is, “For this,” (that is, freedom from the power of sin and death, mentioned in the former verse,) “being impossible for the law,” etc. It is instance of the nominative case absolute, which sometimes occurs in Hebrew. The possessive case, as Grotius says, has often the meaning of a dative after adjectives, as “malum hominis” is “malum homini — evil to man.” The to< has sometimes the meaning of touto; it is separated by ga<r from the adjective. Some say that it is for o[ti ga<r, “Because it was impossible for the law,” etc. But changes of this kind are never satisfactory. The rendering of the whole verse may be made thus, —
3. For this being impossible for the law, because it was weak through the flesh, God having sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful a flesh and on account of sin, has condemned sin in the flesh.
God sent his Son in that flesh which was polluted by sin, though his Son’s flesh, i.e. human nature, was sinless; and he sent him on account of that sin which reigned in human nature or flesh; and for this end — to condemn, i.e., to doom to ruin, to adjudge to destruction, the sin which ruled in the flesh, i.e. in human nature as fallen and Corrupted. This seems to e meaning. Then in the following verse the design of this condemnation of sin is stated — that the righteousness of the law, or what the law requires, might be done by us. Without freedom from the power of sin, no service can be done to God. It is the destruction of the power of sin, and not the removal of guilt, that is contemplated here throughout; the text of the whole passage is walking after the flesh and walking after the Spirit. — Ed.
^ft239 The adjective to< ajsqene<v is applied to the commandment in ^<580718>Hebrews 7:18. “Impotent, inefficacious,” are the terms used by Grotius; “destitute of strength,” by Beza; and “weak,” by Erasmus. — Ed.
^ft240 The reference had better been made to tafj, a sin-offering, so called because afj, sin, was imputed to what was offered, and it was accepted as an atonement. See ^<030104>Leviticus 1:4; ^<030403>Leviticus 4:3, 4, 15; ^<031621>Leviticus 16:21. See also ^<023010>Exodus 30:10. The Septuagint adopted the same manner, and rendered sin-offering in many Instances by aJmarti>a, sin; and Paul has done the same in ^<470521>2 Corinthians 5:21; ^<580928>Hebrews 9:28. That “sin” should have two different meanings in the same verse or in the same clause, is what is perfectly consonant to the Apostle’s manner of writing; he seems to delight in this kind of contrast in meaning while using the same words, depending on the context as to the explanation. He uses the word hope both in Romans 8, and in ^<450418>Romans 4:18, in this way. And this is not peculiar to Paul; it is what we observe in all parts of Scripture, both in the New and in the Old Testament. A striking instance of this, as to the word “life,” yuch> is found in ^<401625>Matthew 16:25, 26, in the last verse it is rendered improperly “soul.”
Fully admitting all this, I still think that “sin” here is to be taken in its common meaning, only personified. Beza connects peri< aJmarti>av with the preceding clause, “God having sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and that for or on account of sin, (idque pro peccato,)” etc., that is, as he explains, for expiating or taking away sin. “A sin-offering” may indeed be its meaning, for the same expression is often used in this sense in the Septuagint. See ^<030507>Leviticus 5:7, 9, 11; ^<194006>Psalm 40:6.
The sense of taking away strength, or depriving of power or authority, or of destroying, or of abolishing, does not belong, says Schleusner, to the verb katakri>nein, to condemn; he renders it here “punished — punivit,” that is, God adjudged to sin the punishment due to it. The meaning is made to be the same as when it is said, that God “laid on him the iniquities of us all.”
By taking a view of the whole passage, from Romans 7:24 to ^<450805>Romans 8:5, for the whole of this is connected, and by noticing the phraseology, we shall probably conclude that the power of sin and not its guilt is the subject treated of. “Law” here is used for a ruling power, for that which exercises authority and ensures obedience. “The law of sin,” is the ruling power of sin; “the law of the spirit of life,” is the power of the Spirit the author of life; “the law of death” is the power which death exercises. Then “walking after the flesh” is to live in subjection to the flesh; as “walking after the Spirit” is to live in subjection to him. All these things have a reference to the power and not to the guilt of sin. The same subject is continued from ^<450805>Romans 8:5 to ^<450815>Romans 8:15. — Ed.
^ft241 Commentators are divided as to the meaning of this verse. This and the second verse seem to bear a relation in sense to one another; so that if the second verse refers to justification, this also refers to it; but if freedom from the power of sin and death be what is taught in the former verse, the actual or personal fulfillment of the law must be what is intended here. Some, such as Pareus and Venema, consider justification to be the subject of both verses; and others, such as Scott and Doddridge, consider it to be sanctification. But Beza, Chalmers, as well as Calvin, somewhat inconsistently, regard the second verse as speaking of freedom from the power or dominion of sin, and not from its guilt or condemnation, and this verse as speaking of the imputed righteousness of Christ, and not of that righteousness which believers are enabled to perform by the Spirit’s aid and influence. The verses seem so connected in the argument, that one of these two ideas must be held throughout.
There is nothing decisive in the wording of this verse, though the cast of the expressions seem more favorable to the idea entertained by Doddridge and Scott, and especially what follows in the context, where the work of the Spirit is exclusively spoken of. The word dikaiwma, is better rendered “righteousness” than “justification;” for “the righteousness to the law” means the righteousness which the law requires; and the words “might be fulfilled in us,” may, with equal propriety as to the uses loquendi, be rendered, might be performed by us.” The verb plhro>w has this meaning in ^<451308>Romans 13:8, and in other places.
Viewed in this light the verse contains the same truth with what is expressed by “serving the law of God,” in ^<450725>Romans 7:25, and the same with yielding our members as “instruments of righteousness unto God,” in ^<450613>Romans 6:13. That this is to establish a justification by the law, is obviated by the consideration, that this righteousness is performed through the efficacy of Christ’s death, and through the reviving power of the Spirit, and not through the law, and that it is not a justifying righteousness before God, for it is imperfect, and the law can acknowledge nothing as righteousness but what is perfect. The sanctification now begun will be finally completed; but it is all through grace: and the completion of this work wil1 be a complete conformity with the immutable law of God. — Ed.
^ft242 The verb frone>w as Leigh justly says, includes the action of the mind, will, and affections, but mostly in Scripture it expresses the action of the will and affections. It means to understand, to desire, and to relish or delight in a thing. It is rendered here by Erasmus and Vatablus, “curant — care for;” by Beza, Pareus, and the Vulgate, “sapiunt — relish or savour;” by Doddridge and Macknight, “mind,” as in our version; and by Stuart, “concern themselves with.” It evidently means attention, regard, pursuit and delight, — the act of the will and affections, rather than that of the mind.
“The verb,” says Turrettin, “means not only to think of, to understand, to attend to a thing; but also to mind it,to value it, and to take great delight in it. — Ed.
^ft243 Jerome says, that to be in the flesh is to be in a married state! How superstition perverts the mind! and then the perverted mind perverts the word of God. — Ed.
^ft244 It is difficult to find a word to express the idea here intended. It is evident that to< fro>nhma th~v sarko<v is the abstract of “minding the things of the flesh,” in the preceding verse. The mindedness, rather than the minding of the flesh, would be most correct. But the phrase is no doubt Hebraistic, the adjective is put as a noun in the genitive case, so that its right version is, “The carnal mind;” and “mind” is to be taken in the wide sense of the verb, as including the whole soul, understanding, will, and affections. The phrase is thus given in the next verse in our version; and it is the most correct rendering. The mind of the flesh is its thoughts, desires, likings, and delight. This carnal mind is death, i.e., spiritual death now, leading to that which is eternal; or death, as being under condemnation, and producing wretchedness and misery; it is also enmity towards God, including in its very spirit hatred and antipathy to God. On the other hand, “the spiritual mind” is “life,” i.e., a divine life, a living principle of holiness, accompanied with “peace,” which is true happiness; or life by justification, and “peace” with God as the fruit of it.
The word fro>nhma is only found in one other place, in ^<450827>Romans 8:27, — “the mind,” wish, or desire “of the Spirit.” — Ed.
^ft245 The order which the Apostle observes ought to be noticed. He begins in ^<450805>Romans 8:5, or at the end of ^<450804>Romans 8:4, with two characters — the carnal and, the spiritual. He takes the carnal first, because it is the first as to us in order of time. And here he does not reverse the order, as he sometimes does, when the case admits it, but goes on first with the carnal man, and then, in ^<450809>Romans 8:9 to 11, he describes the spiritual. — Ed.
^ft246 Stuart attempts to evade this conclusion, but rather in an odd way. The whole amount, as he seems to say, of what the Apostle declares, is that this fro>nhma sarko>v itself is not subject, and cannot be, to the law of God; but whether the sinner who cherishes it “is actuated by other principles and motives,” the expression, he says, does not seem satisfactorily to determine. Hence he stigmatizes with the name of “metaphysical reasoning” the doctrine of man’s moral inability, without divine grace, to turn to God — a doctrine which Luther, Calvin, and our own Reformers equally maintained. The Apostle does not only speak abstractedly, but he applies what he advances to individuals, and concludes by saying, So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.” Who and what can bring them out of this state? The influence of “other principles and motives,” or the grace of God? This is no metaphysical question, and the answer to it determines the point. Our other American brother, Barnes, seems also to deprecate this doctrine of moral inability, and makes distinctions to no purpose, attempting to separate the carnal mind from him in whom it exists, as though man could be in a neutral state, neither in the flesh nor in the Spirit. “It is an expression,” as our third American brother, Hodge, justly observes, “applied to all unrenewed persons, as those who are not in the flesh are in the Spirit.” — Ed.
^ft247 There are mainly two explanations of this verse and the following, with some shades of difference. The one is given here; according to which “the body,” and “bodies,” are taken figuratively for nature Corrupted by sin; the “body,” as it is flesh, or Corrupted, is “dead,” is crucified, or doomed to die “on account of sin;” and this “body,” or these “bodies,” which are mortal, and especially so as to their Corruption, are to be quickened, revived, and made subservient to the will of God. It appears that this is essentially the view taken by Chrysostom, and also by Erasmus, Locke, Marckius, and by Stuart and Barnes. It is said that ne>kron and qnhta have the same meaning with “crucified” and “destroyed,” in ^<450606>Romans 6:6, and “dead,” in ^<450607>Romans 6:7, 8, and “dead,” in ^<450611>Romans 6:11, and “mortal,” in ^<450612>Romans 6:12. And as to the meaning of zwopoi>hsei, is shall quicken,” reference is made to ^<510212>Colossians 2:12, 13; ^<490119>Ephesians 1:19, 20; ^<490205>Ephesians 2:5, 6. It is also added, that the words “mortify the deeds of the body,” in ^<450813>Romans 8:13, confirm this view.
The other explanation, adopted by Augustine, and also by Pareus, Vitringa, Turrettin, Doddridge, Scott, Chalmers, Haldane, and Hodge, is the following, — The “body,” and “bodies,” are to be taken literally, and the spirit, in the 10th verse, is the renewed man, or the renewed soul, which has or possesses “life” through the righteousness of Christ, or is made to enjoy life through the righteousness implanted by the Spirit. The meaning then is this, “The body is dead through sin, is doomed to die because of sin; but the spirit is life through righteousness, the soul renewed has life through Christ’s righteousness: but the dying body, now tabernacled by the Spirit, shall also be quickened and made immortal through the mighty power of the divine Spirit.” Thus salvation shall be complete when the “redemption of the body” shall come. See ^<450823>Romans 8:23.
While the two views are theologically correct, the latter is that which is the most consonant with the usual phraseology of Scripture, though the former seems the most suitable to the context. The subject evidently is the work of the Spirit in mortifying sin, and in bestowing and sustaining spiritual life. The inference in the next verse seems favorable to this view. — Ed.
^ft248 “Deeds of the body” is our version, and the preponderance of authority, according to Griesbach, is in its favor, though he admits that the other reading, thj sarkoj, is nearly equal to it, and deserves farther inquiry. –Ed.
^ft249 He did not mention the other part, says Pareus, “because it was so evident.” Besides, what he had already stated, and what he proceeds to state, are so many evidences of our obligations to live after the Spirit, that it was unnecessary to make such an addition. — Ed.
^ft250 Agontai — are led or conducted: “A metaphor taken from the blind or those in darkness, who know not how to proceed without a conductor. So we have need to be led by the Spirit in the way of truth, for we are blind and see no light. Or it is a metaphor taken from infants, who can hardly walk without a guide; for the regenerated are like little children lately born. Thus we are reminded of our misery and weakness; and we ought not to ascribe to ourselves either knowledge or strength apart from the Spirit of God.” — Pareus.
^ft251 By the Spirit, pneu~ma, (without the article,) some, as Augustine, Beza, and others, understand the Holy Spirit, and so Calvin, for the most part, seems to do. Then “the Spirit of bondage” means the Spirit the effect of whose administration was bondage; and “the Spirit of adoption” must signify the Spirit, the bestower of adoption. But we may take spirit here, in both instances, as it is often taken, in the sense of disposition or feeling; according to the expression, “the spirit of meekness” — pneu>mati pra>|othtov, ^<460421>1 Corinthians 4:21, and “the spirit of fear” — pneu~ma deili>av ^<550107>2 Timothy 1:7. The word for adoption, uiJoqesi>a, may be rendered sonship, or affiliation, or filiation, as Luther sometimes renders it: and as the Spirit of meekness means a meek spirit, so we may translate the two clauses here, “a servile spirit” and “a filial spirit.” At the same time it may be better to take the “spirit” throughout as the divine Spirit, as in several instances it must evidently be so taken. — Ed.
^ft252 Wolfius gives a quotation from the Talmud, by which it appears that “servants” or slaves, and “maids” or bondmaids, were not allowed among the Jews to call their master Abba (aba), nor their mistress Aima (amya), these being names which children alone were permitted to use. And Selden says, that there is an evident allusion in this passage to that custom among the Jews. Under the law the people of God were servants, but under the gospel they are made children; and hence the privilege of calling God Abba. Haldane, quoting Claude, gives the same explanation. The repetition of the word is for the sake of emphasis, and is given as an expression of warm, ardent, and intense feeling.. See an example of this in our Savior’s prayer in the garden, ^<411436>Mark 14:36, and in what he said on the cross, ^<402746>Matthew 27:46. The idea mentioned by Calvin, derived from the Fathers, seems not to be well founded. — Ed.
^ft253 The words aujto< to< pneu~ma, seem to mean the divine Spirit. The reference is to “the Spirit of God” in ^<450814>Romans 8:14; “This self-same Spirit,” or, “He the Spirit,” for so autoj, or auto, may be rendered, especially when the article intervenes between it and its noun. See ^<422415>Luke 24:15; ^<431627>John 16:27.
Beza renders summarturei~ tw~ pneu>mati hJmw~n, “testifies together with our spirit — una cum nostro spiritu,” and the Vulqate “testifies to our Spirit,” as though the verb had not its compound; and it is said to have only the simpler meaning of testifying, though compounded, in ^<450901>Romans 9:1; and in ^<662218>Revelation 22:18, where it has a dative case after it as here, “I testify to every man,” etc. The soul appears to be here called “spirit,” because the renewed soul is intended, or the soul having the spirit of adoption; or it may be an instance of the Apostle’s mode of writing, who often puts the same word twice in a sentence, but in a different meaning. The Holy Spirit testifies to our spirit, say Origen and Theodoret, by producing obedience, love, and imitation of God, which are evidences of our adoption; but Chrysostom and Ambrose say, by enabling us to cry Abba, Father, according to to former verse. The latter seems to be the meaning adopted by Calvin. It is said by Estius, according to Poole, that the compound verb is never used without the idea of a joint-testimony being implied, and that in ^<662218>Revelation 22:18, it is a testimony in conjunction with Christ. Then the import of this text would be, that the Holy Spirit testifies, together with the spirit of adoption, to our spirit, to our soul or renewed mind, that we are the children of God. Thus a direct influence of the Spirit, in addition to that which is sanctifying and filial, seems to have been intended. See ^<470122>2 Corinthians 1:22; ^<490113>Ephesians 1:13.14, ^<620220>1 John 2:20, 27.
Professor Hodge gives this paraphrase, — “Not only does our filial spirit towards God prove that we are his children, but the Holy Spirit itself conveys to our souls the assurance of this delightful fact.” This seems to be the full and precise import of the passage. — Ed.
^ft254 “The [Roman] Catholic Church, with which all sects that proceed from Pelagian principles agree, deters from the certainty of the state of grace, and desires uncertainty towards God. such uncertainty of hearts is then a convenient means to keep men in the leading-strings of the priesthood or ambitious founders of sects; for since they are not allowed to have any certainty themselves respecting their relation to God, they can only rest upon the judgments of their leaders about it, who thus rule souls with absolute dominion; the true evangelic doctrine makes free from such slavery to man. — Olshausen.
There is no doubt much truth in these remarks; but another reason may be added: Those who know not themselves what assurance is, cannot consistently teach the doctrine; and real, genuine assurance, is an elevated state, to which man, attached to merely natural principles, can never ascend. — Ed.
^ft255 The particle ei]per is rendered the same as here by Ambrose and Beza, “si modo — if in case that;” but by Chrysostom and Peter Martyr, in the sense of ejpeida<n, “quandoquidem — since,” “since we suffer together, in order that we may also be together glorified.” The Vulgate has, “si tamen — if however.” It may be suitably rendered “provided.” — Ed.
^ft256 The particle ga<r cannot be causal here. It has its primary meaning truly, indeed, or verily, though it has commonly its secondary meaning for, because, therefore. The context is our guide; when there is nothing previously said, for which a reason is given, then it has only an affirmative sense: or as some think, it is to be viewed as a particle of transition, or as signifying an addition, and may be rendered besides, further, moreoverse Perhaps this latter meaning would be suitable here. In the preceded verse the Apostle says, for the encouragement of Christians, that their conformity to Christ in suffering would terminate in conformity to him in glory: and then, as an additional consideration, he states his full conviction, that present sufferings are as nothing to the glory which they would have to enjoy. The connection can hardly be otherwise seen, except indeed we consider something understood, as, “Not only so;” and then it may be rendered for, as giving a reason for the qualifying negative. An ellipsis of this kind is not without examples in Greek authors, as well as in the New Testament. — Ed.
^ft257 The various opinions which have been given on these verses are referred to at some length by Start; and he enumerates not less than eleven, but considers only two as entitled to special attention — the material creation, animate and inanimate, as held here by Calvin, and the rational creation, including mankind, with the exception of Christians, which he himself maintains. In favor of the first he names Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Œcumenius, Jerome, Ambrose, Luther, Koppe, Doddridge, (this is not correct,) Flatt, and Tholuck; to whom may be added Scott, Haldane, and Chalmers, though Scott, rather inconsistently with the words of the text, if the material creation including animals be meant, regards as a reverie their resurrection; see ^<450821>Romans 8:21.
After a minute discussion of various points, Stuart avows his preference to the opinion, that the creature” means mankind in general, as being the least liable to objections; and he mentions as its advocates Lightfoot, Locke, Turrettin, Semler, Rosenmüller, and others. He might have added Augustine. Reference is made for the meaning of the word “creature” to ^<411615>Mark 16:15; ^<510123>Colossians 1:23; and ^<600213>1 Peter 2:13.
It appears from Wolfius, that the greater part of the Lutheran and Reformed Divines have entertained the first opinion, that the “creature” means the world, rational and animal; to which he himself mainly accedes; and what he considers next to this, as the most tenable, is the notion, that the “creature” means the faithful, that “the sons of God” are the blessed in heaven, and that the Apostles and apostolic men were those who enjoyed “the first-fruits of the Spirit.”
This last opinion relieves us from difficulties which press on all other expositions; and it may be extricated from objections which have been made to it; only the last sentence needs not be introduced. The whole passage, from ^<450818>Romans 8:18 to the end of ^<450825>Romans 8:25, is in character with the usual style of the Apostle. He finishes the first part with ^<450822>Romans 8:22; and then in the second part he announces the same thing in a different form, in more explicit terms, and with some additions. The “waiting” in ^<450819>Romans 8:19, has a Correspondent “waiting” in ^<450823>Romans 8:23; and “the hope” in ^<450820>Romans 8:20, has another “hope” to Correspond with it in ^<450824>Romans 8:24; and Correspondent too is “the manifestation of the sons of God” in verse 19, and “the redemption of our body” in ^<450823>Romans 8:23. To reiterate the same truth in a different way was to make a deeper impression, and accordant with the Apostles manner of writing. He begins the second time, after ^<450822>Romans 8:22, in which is stated the condition of the whole world; and it is in contrast with that alone that ^<450823>Romans 8:23 is to be viewed, which restates and explains what had been previously said, so that “the creature” are the “we ourselves;” and the Apostle proceeds with the subject to end of the 25th verse. Instances of the same sort of arrangement are to be found in ^<450217>Romans 2:17-24; ^<451133>Romans 11:33-36.
^<450821>Romans 8:21 may be considered as an explanation only of the “hope,” at the end of ^<450820>Romans 8:20; “For even it, the creature,” though subjected to vanity, “shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption;” which means the same as “this body of death,” in ^<450724>Romans 7:24.
The word kti>siv, means, 1. creation, the world, ^<411006>Mark 10:6; ^<411319>Mark 13:19; ^<450120>Romans 1:20; ^<610304>2 Peter 3:4: — 2, what is created — creature, what is formed — a building, what is instituted — an ordinance, ^<450125>Romans 1:25; 8:39; ^<580413>Hebrews 4:13; ^<580911>Hebrews 9:11; ^<600213>1 Peter 2:13: — 3, mankind, the world of men, ^<411615>Mark 16:15; ^<510123>Colossians 1:23: — 4, the renewed man, or renewed nature — Christians, ^<470517>2 Corinthians 5:17; ^<480615>Galatians 6:15. There are only two other places where it is found, and is rendered in our version “creation,” ^<510115>Colossians 1:15, and ^<660314>Revelation 3:14.
It is objected to its application here to Christians, because where it has this meaning, it is preceded by kainh<, new. The same objection stands against applying it to mankind in general, for in these instances push precedes it. Its meaning must be gathered from the whole passage, and we must not stop at the end of verse 23, but include the two following verses. — Ed.
^ft258 The impropriety, which Calvin notices, is according to the usual phraseology of Scripture. What commences in this world and is completed the next is called by the same name. The word salvation is used in this way as designating its commencement and its progress as well as its completion. Besides, adoption here has a particular regard to the body, as it is explained the words which follow — Ed.
^ft259 When we are said to be saved by hope, the meaning is that we are not fully or perfectly saved now, and that this is what we hope for. “Eternal salvation,” says Grotius, “we have not yet, but we hope for it.” There is present salvation, but that which is perfect is future. The Scripture speaks of salvation now, see ^<490208>Ephesians 2:8; Titus 3:4, 5; and of salvation as future, see ^<411313>Mark 13:13; ^<411009>Mark 10:9. — Ed.
^ft260 “Patience,” says Pareus, “is needful for three reasons, — the good expected is absent, — there is delay, — and many difficulties intervene.” — Ed.
^ft261 The connection here is not ver evident Wsau>twv — “similiter — in like manner,” by Calvin; “itidem — likewise,” by Pareus and Beza; “præterea — besides,” by Grotius; “moreover,” by Doddridge. The word usually means, in the same, or, the like manner: but the two last seem to render it suitably to this place; for what follows is mentioned in addition to what had been stated respecting hope and patience. — Ed.
^ft262 Pareus says, that this verb is taken metaphorically from assistance afforded to infants not able to support themselves, or to the sick, tottering and hardly able to walk.
“Coopitulatur” is Calvin’ Latin — co-assist,” Beza’s “una sublevat — lifts up together,” that is, together with those who labor under infirmities. The Vulgate has “adjuvat — helps,” like our version. Schleusner says, that it means to succor those whose strength is unequal to carry their burden alone. It is found in one other place, ^<421040>Luke 10:40. It is given by the Septuagint in ^<198921>Psalm 89:21, for ≈ma — “to _vstrengthen, to invigorate,” and in ^<021822>Exodus 18:22, for ˚ta açn — “to bear with,” that is, “a burden with thee,” — the very idea that it seems to have here — Ed.
^ft263 The opinions of Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Origen, are given by Pareus; and they are all different, and not much to the purpose. The view which Augustine gives is materially what is stated here. He gives a causative sense to the verb in the next clause, “Interpellare nos facit — he causes us to ask.” — Ed.
^ft264 “Intercedit — uJperentugca>nei — abundantly intercedes,” for so uJper, prefixed to verbs, is commonly rendered. This is the proper action of an advocate, a name given to the Spirit by our Savior, a]llon para>klhton — “another advocate,” not “comforter,” as in our version, and Christ is called by the same name in ^<620201>1 John 2:1, and the same work, “interceding,” is ascribed to him, ^<580725>Hebrews 7:25. But we learn in ^<431416>John 14:16, that the Spirit is an advocate with us — “that he may abide with you for ever;” and in ^<620201>1 John 2:1, that Christ is an advocate in heaven — “with the Father.” The same name and a similar kind of work are ascribed to both. Some, as Doddridge, to avoid the blending the offices of the two, have rendered the verb here by a different term, but not wisely. — Ed.
^ft265 Or, “the comprehension of our mind — ingenii nostri captum.” Schleusner says, that the word ajla>htov, has been improperly rendered ineffable or unutterable, and that the word to express such an idea is ajnekla>lhtov, (^<600108>1 Peter 1:8,) and that from the analogy of the Greek language it must mean, “what is not uttered or spoken by the mouth;” and he gives ajki>nhton, “what is not moved,” as an instance. Bos and Grotius give the same meaning, “sine voce — without voice;” and the latter says, that this was expressly said, because the Jews entertained a notion that there could be no prayer except it was expressed by the lips. It is however considered by most to have the meaning given here, “inutterable,” or ineffable or inexpressible. — Ed.
^ft266 Hammond has a long note on the expression, kata<pro>qesin and quotes Cyril of Jerusalem, Clemens of Alexandria, and Theophylact, as rendering the words, “according to their purpose,” that is, those who love God, — a construction of itself strange, and wholly alien to the whole tenor of the passage, and to the use of the word in most other instances. Paul has never used the word, except in one instance, (^<550310>2 Timothy 3:10,) but with reference to God’s purpose or decree, — see ^<450911>Romans 9:11; ^<490111>Ephesians 1:11; ^<490311>Ephesians 3:11; ^<550109>2 Timothy 1:9. It seems that Chrysostom, Origen, Theodoret, and other Fathers, have given the same singularly strange explanation. But in opposition to these, Poole mentions Ambrose, Augustine, and even Jerome, as regarding “the purpose” here as that of God: in which opinion almost all modern Divines agree.
Grotius very justly observes, that klhtoi<, the called, according to the language of Paul, mean those who obey the call, (qui vocanti obediunt) and refers to ^<450106>Romans 1:6; ^<460124>1 Corinthians 1:24; ^<661714>Revelation 17:14. And Stuart says that the word has this meaning throughout the New Testament, except in two instances, ^<402016>Matthew 20:16. and ^<402214>Matthew 22:14, where it means, invited. He therefore considers it as equivalent to e]klektoi, chosen, elected, or true Christians. — Ed.
^ft267 Much controversy has been about the meaning of the verb proe>gnw, in this place. Many of the Fathers, such as Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, regarded it in the sense of simple prescience, as having reference to those who would believe and obey the gospel. The verb is found only in this place, and in the following passages, ^<451102>Romans 11:2; ^<442605>Acts 26:5; ^<600120>1 Peter 1:20; ^<610317>2 Peter 3:17. In the second, and in the last passage, it signifies merely a previous knowledge or acquaintance, and refers to men. In ^<600120>1 Peter 1:20, it is applied to Christ as having been “foreordained,” according to our version, “before the foundation of the world.” In this Epistle, ^<451102>Romans 11:2, it refers to God, — “God hath not cast away his people whom he foreknew;” and according to the context, it means the same as elected; for the Apostle speaks of what God did “according to the election of grace,” and not according to foreseen faith.
The noun derived from it is found in two places, ^<440223>Acts 2:23, and ^<600102>1 Peter 1:2. In the first it evidently means decree, foreordination, and in the second, the same; where it is said, that those addressed by the Apostle were elected, “according to the foreknowledge of God, kata< pro>gnwsin Qeou~, through the sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience;” they were not then elected, according to God’s foreknowledge or foreordination, because of their obedience. This entirely subverts the gloss put on the verb in this passage.
The usual meaning given to the verb here is fore-approved, or chosen. Grotius, Turrettin, and others, consider that ginw>skw has the same meaning with the verb [dy, in Hebrew, which is sometimes that of approving or favoring, or regarding with love and approbation. So the compound verb may be rendered here, “whom he fore-approved, or foreknew,” as the objects of his choice: and this idea is what alone comports with the rest of the passage.
Stuart prefers another meaning, and that which it seems to have in ^<600120>1 Peter 1:20, “foreordained.” He says that ginw>skw means sometimes to will, to determine, to ordain, to decree, and brings examples from Josephus, Plutarch, and Polybius. Then the compound verb would be here, “whom he foreordained,” or foredetermined. — Ed.
^ft268 Turrettin gives somewhat a different reason: “Paul speaks of these things as past, because they are as already done in God’s decree, and in order to show the certainty of their accomplishment.”
^ft269 “Ad hæc,” — pro<v tau~ta. Wolfius says, that it should be “de his — of these things;” and ^<580413>Hebrews 4:13, is quoted as an instance,? “pro<v o[n hJmi~n oJ lo>gov — of whom we speak.” — Ed.
^ft270 “Quis intentabit crimina — who shall chapter crimes ti>v ejgkale>sei kata< ejklektw~n Qeou~ — who shall implead, or bring a charge against the elect of God.?” See ^<441938>Acts 19:38.
Many, such as Augustine, Grotius, Locke, Doddridge, and Griesbach, have made the next clause also a question; and also the clauses in the next verse. There is not much difference in the sense, but the passage will thus appear more striking, —
33. Who will lay a charge against God’s elect? God the justifier?
34. Who is he who condemns? Christ who died, or rather who rose again, who is also at God’s right hand, and who intercedes for us?
What favors this construction is, that the Apostle proceeds in the same strain. — Ed.
^ft271 Calvin renders cari>setai by “donaret;” Capellus more fully, “gratis donabit — will gratuitously give.” Christ himself, and everything that comes with or through him, is a favor freely bestowed, and not what we merit. This shuts out, as Pareus observes, everything as meritorious on the part of man. A11 is grace. The “all things” include every thing necessary for salvation — every grace now and eternal glory hereafter. — Ed.
^ft272 “Dirimet — break us off,” divide or part us; cwri>sei — set apart, sever, separate: ti>v, “who,” may be rendered, “what,” as ym in Hebrew. It is not put, it may be, in the neuter gender, because of the gender of the nouns which follow. As the Hebrews use often the future for the potential mood, so the case may be here — “What can separate us from the love of Christ? tribulation, or distress?” etc. It ought also to be added, that the verb “separate,” is used to designate divorce or separation between man and his wife. See ^<401906>Matthew 19:6; ^<460720>1 Corinthians 7:20, 11, 15. — Ed.
^ft273 According to Poole, several of the Fathers entertained this opinion, such as Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Ambrose: but even Hammond and Grotius, great admirers of the Fathers, regard this love as that of God or of Christ to us. Wolfius says, that all the Lutheran divines give this exposition. It is indeed impossible rightly to view the whole passage without seeing that this explanation is the true one. In verse 32, it is incontestably evident that God’s love to us is what is spoken of: then inverse 37, it is expressly said, “through him who loved us;” and the last verse seems sufficient to remove every possible doubt. The difficulty of Barnes, in thinking it “not conceivable how afflictions should have any tendency to alienate Christ’s love from us,” arises from a misconception: for when we speak of not being separated from the love of Christ, the obvious meaning is, that nothing can separate us from participating in the effects of his love, that He, on account of his love, will sustain us under the greatest trials, and make “us more than conquerors.” The substance of what is here said, is contained in the last clause of ^<450832>Romans 8:32, — “How shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” It was the assurance of this truth that the Apostle obviously intended to convey. — Ed.
^ft274 “Supervincimus” — uJpernikw~men; Beza’s version is, amplius quam victores sumus;” Macknight’s, “we do more than overcome;” Schleusner gives this as one of his explanations, “plenissime vincimus — we most fully overcome.” Paul commonly uses uJpe<r in an enhansive sense; so the version may be, “we abundantly overcome,” as though he said, “We have strength given us which far exceeds the power of evils.” Some say that the faithful abundantly overcome, because they sustain no real loss, but like silver in the furnace, they lose only their dross; and not only so, but they also carry, as it were from the field of battle, chapter spoils — the fruits of holiness and righteousness. ^<581210>Hebrews 12:10,11. It is further said, that the victory will be this, — that Christ, who has loved them, will raise them from death and adorn them with that glory, with which all the evils of this life are not worthy to be compared.
Beza says, Not only we are not broken down by so many evils nor despond, but we even glory in the cross.” — Ed.
^ft275 “Per eum qui dilexit nos — dia< tou ajgaph>santov hJma~v — through him who has loved us.” The aorist participle, says Wolfius, extends to every time, “who has loved and loves and will love us.” From the fact that believers are overcome by no calamities, he draws the inference, that God’s love is constant and most effectual, so that he is present with the distressed to give them courage, to strengthen their patience, and to moderate their calamities. See ^<600510>1 Peter 5:10. — Ed.
^ft276 Neither death threatened by persecutors, nor life promised on recantation. — Ed.
^ft277 Some of the Fathers, Jerome, Chrysostom, etc., have taken the same view, regarding the Apostle as speaking of good angels, as it were, hypothetically, as in ^<480108>Galatians 1:8. But Grotius, and many others, consider evil angels to be meant. Probably, angels, without any regard to what they are, are intended. — Ed.
^ft278 Grotius considers the words as being the abstract for the concrete, Princes and Potentates; being called ajrcai<, as some think, as being the first, the chief in authority, and duna>meiv, as haying power. “By these words,” says Beza, “Paul is wont to designate the character of spirits, — of the good in ^<490121>Ephesians 1:21; ^<510116>Colossians 1:16, — and of the bad in Ephesians 6:l2, ^<510215>Colossians 2:15.” Hence the probability is, that the words designate different ranks among angelic powers, without any reference to their character, whether good or evil. — Ed.
^ft279 “Neither the evils we now feel, nor those which may await us,” — Grotius; rather, “Neither things which now exist, nor things which shall be.” — Ed.
^ft280 The words, “neither height nor depth,” are left unnoticed u[ywma. The first, says Mede, means prosperity, and the latter, adversity. Grotius regards what is meant as the height of honor, and the depth of disgrace. “Neither heaven nor hell,” say others; “neither heaven nor earth,” according to Schleusner. “Things in heaven and things on earth,” is the explanation of Chrysostom. The first, u[ywma, is only found here and in ^<471005>2 Corinthians 10:5. Like µwrm in Hebrew, it means what is high and elevated, and may, like that, sometimes signify heaven: and ba>qov is not earth, but what is deeper; it means a deep soil, ^<401305>Matthew 13:5, — the deep sea, ^<420504>Luke 5:4, — and in the plural, things deep and inscrutable, ^<460210>1 Corinthians 2:10; it may therefore be very properly taken here for hell.
That the words are to be thus taken seems probable from the gradation evident in the passage. In the first catalogue in ^<450835>Romans 8:35, he mentions the evils arising from this world, its trials and its persecutions, and those ending in death. In the second, after repeating the utmost length to which worldly persecutors can go, “death or life,” he ascends the invisible world, and mentions angels, then their combined powers, then the powers which do and may exist, then both heaven and hell, and, that he might include everything, except the uncreated God himself, he finishes with the words, “nor any created thing.”
The whole passage is sublime in an extraordinary degree. The contrast is the grandest that can be conceived. Here is the Christian, all weakness in himself, despised and trampled under foot by the world, triumphing over all existing, and all possible, and even impossible evils and opposition, having only this as his stay and support — that the God who has loved him, will never cease to love, keep, and defend him; yea, were everything created, everything except God himself, leagued against him and attempting his ruin. — Ed.
^ft281 The connection seems to be this: he had been speaking of the impos sibility of separating God’s people from the protecting influence and pre serving power of his love; he had clearly shown, that no divorce or separa tion can take place through any possible circumstances. Then the Jews might say, “If this be true, then we are safe, we are still God’s people.” Hence he proceeds to remove this objection, and in order to prepare their mind to receive what he is going to say and to prove, he speaks first of his deep concern for their welfare: and then he resumes the doctrine he touched upon in Romans 8:28, 29, and 30, and illustrates it by a reference to the past dealings of God with the Jews, and proves it by passages from the ancient Prophets. He shows that God’s people are the called according to his purpose, and not all who wear the outward sym bol of his covenant. — Ed.
^ft282 “Idem valet ac secundum Christum, — it is the same with According to Christ ;” “le>gw ejn Cristw| — I speak in Christ,” that is, as a Christian; to be in Christ and to be a Christian is the same. This idea bears on the import of the passage more than any other. It is as though he said, “Though I am in Christ or a Christian, yet I tell you this as the truth or the fact, and I have the testimony of conscience enlightened by the Spirit, that I have great grief and unceasing sorrow on your account.” The Jews had the impression that the Apostle, having become the follower of Christ, must have necessarily entertained hatred towards them, and must have therefore felt no concern for them; for this is really the case with all real apostates, that is, with those who leave the truth for error, but not with them who leave error for the truth. To obviate this impression seems to have been the object here. How the idea of an oath comports with what follows it is difficult to see. It is no argument to say that is here means the same as in ^<400534>Matthew 5:34, where it follows the verb “to swear.” There is a passage similar to this in ^<490417>Ephesians 4:17; but ejn kuri>w| there clearly signi fies “by the Lord’s authority.” We may add, that to swear by Christ would have had no influence on the Jews. — Ed.
^ft283 “Ut ad aras usque procedat.” Ainsworth gives a similar phrase and explains its reason, “Usque ad aras amicus — As far as conscience permits,” Gell., because in swearing they held the horns of the altar. — Ed.
^ft284 Most of those who take this view of the passage express the implied condition more distinctly than is done here. They have regarded the wish in this sense, “I could wish were it right or law fid.” So thought Chrysostom, Photius, Theophlylact, Luther, Parcus, Beza, Estius, Lightfoot, Witsius, Mode, Whitby, and others. The words of Photius are given by Wolfius, “lie says not, I wish to be separated, but I could wish, that is, were it possible — hjuco>mhn a}n tout ejstin eij dunato<n h+n,” Stuart and Hodge adopt the same view. “It was a conditional wish,” says Pareus, “like that of Christ in ^<402639>Matthew 26:39. Christ knew and Paul knew that it could not be granted, and yet both expressed their strong desire.” See ^<023232>Exodus 32:32.
Almost all critics agree that the Vulgate is wrong in rendering the verb optabam — “I did wish,” as though the Apostle referred to the time, as Ambrose supposed, when he was a Pharisee; but this is wholly incon sistent with the tenor of the passage. Erasmus, Grotius, Beza, and most others regard the verb as having an optative meaning; a}n being under stood after it, as the case is with ejboulo>mhn in ^<442522>Acts 25:22, and h]qelon in ^<480420>Galatians 4:20.
There are two other opinions which deserve notice. The first is, that “anathema” here means excommunication, and that “from Christ” sig nifies from his Church, Christ the head being taken for his body the Church, as in ^<461212>1 Corinthians 12:12, and in ^<480327>Galatians 3:27, according to the manner of the Hebrews, as Grotius says, who called the wife by the name of the husband. Isaiah. 4:1. This is the view taken by Hammond, Grotius, and some of the Lutheran divines. But the word “anathema” has not in Scripture this meaning, though in after-ages it had attained it both in the Church and among the Rabbins. In the New Testament it occurs only here and in ^<442314>Acts 23:14; ^<461203>1 Corinthians 12:3; 16:22; and ^<480108>Galatians 1:8, 9; and the verb ajnaqemati>zw is found in ^<411471>Mark 14:71; ^<442312>Acts 23:12, 14, 21; and with kata< prefixed in ^<402674>Matthew 26:74. The corresponding word in Hebrew, µrh, rendered “anathema” by the Septuagint, means two things: what is separated for a holy purpose and wholly devoted to God, incapable of being redeemed, ^<032728>Leviticus 27:28; and what is set apart and devoted to death or destruction, ^<060617>Joshua 6:17; ^<151008>Ezra 10:8. It never means excommu nication, but cutting off by death. Compare ^<022220>Exodus 22:20, and ^<051301>Deuteronomy 13:1-11. It has hence been applied to designate a man that is execrable and accursed, deserving death. So the Apostle uses it in ^<461622>1 Corinthians 16:22, and ^<480108>Galatians 1:8, 9.
The other view is more in accordance with the meaning of the term. It is thought that “anathema” means an ignominious death, and that of one apparently separated from Christ; or that he wished to be made “an anathema” by Christ, or for the sake of Christ, or after Christ, that is, his example. The words ajpo< tou~ Cristou~ create all the difficulty in this case. This is the explanation given by Jerome, Locke, Limborch, Doddridge, and Scott. The first meaning, however, as materially given by Calvin, is the most obvious and natural.
Both Haldane and Chalmers follow the Vulgate, and put the clause in a parenthesis, as expressing the Apostle’s wish when unconverted; but there is altogether an incongruity in the terms he employs to express this wish; he surely would not have said that he wished to be separated from Christ as an accursed thing, for that is the meaning of anathema; for while he was a Pharisee he deemed it a privilege and an honour even to persecute Christ. And we cannot suppose that the Apostle would now describe his former wish in terms unsuitable to what it really was, but as he now regarded it. — Ed.
^ft284a Vitriaga thinks that “the glory” was the pillar of fire and the cloud in the wilderness: but Beza, Grotius, and Hammond agree with Calvin, that the ark is meant. See ^<197861>Psalm 78:61. It seems to refer to those manifestations made in the tabernacle, and afterwards in the temple, by peculiar brightness or splendour. See ^<024034>Exodus 40:34; and I Kings 8:11. This splendour or glory signified God’s presence, a privilege peculiar to the Israelites. — Ed.
^ft285 Why he mentions “covenants,” aiJ diaqh~kai, in the plural number, has been variously accounted for, — “there were various things included — the land of Canaan, prosperity, and the priesthood, — there were three laws — the moral, ceremonial, and judicial, — there were several repetitions of the covenant made to the patriarchs :” but if we read ^<480317>Galatians 3:17, we shall see the true reason, for the Apostle there makes a distinct difference be tween the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenant; but both these belonged to the Jews. See also ^<490212>Ephesians 2:12. — Ed.
^ft286 Stuart has in a most convincing manner vindicated the true and obvi ous meaning of this clause. There is no reading of any authority, nor any early version, that affects the genuineness of’ the received text: and it is amazing what ingenuity has been exercised by various critics to evade the plain construction of the passage, — a remarkable instance of the debasing power of preconceived notions. It is somewhat singular too, that some who professed at least the doctrine of’ Christ’s divinity, such as Erasmus, Whitby, and Locke, have attempted to make changes in the text, and those for the most part conjectural, by which the obvious meaning is wholly altered.
It is very clearly shown by Sacart, that the very position of’ the words, and their connection with the context, will admit of no other construction than that which our version contains.
It is well known, that in Hebrew the word “blessed” is always placed before “God,” or Jehovah, when it is an ascription of praise; and it ap pears that the Septuagint has in more than thirty instances followed the same order, and, indeed, in every instance except one, (^<196701>Psalm 67:19,) and that evidently a typographical mistake. The same is the case with all the examples in the New Testament. So that if the phrase here was a doxology, it must have been written eujloghto<v oJ Qeo>v. In the Welsh language, which in many of its idioms is identically the same with the Hebrew, the order of the words is the same: when it is a doxology, the word “blessed” invariably precedes the word “God ;” and when other wise it follows it.
The opinion of Chrysostom on this sentence, to which Erasmus attaches some importance, is of no value whatever, as he did not understand Hebrew; and Paul, for the most part, wrote as a Hebraist.
The participle w}n, being put for ejsti, is what is common in Hebrew and in the New Testament. See a remarkable instance of two participles and a verb in the middle, in Revelaion 1: 4. It has been said, that “amen” un suitably follows a declarative sentence; but see an instance in ^<450125>Romans 1:25.
It is justly observed by Stuart, that the context requires the application of this sentence to Christ, as otherwise there would be no antithesis to the words “according to the flesh.” — Ed.
^ft287 Were this the case, the verb which follows, as Wolfius says and proves by an example, must have been in the infinitive mood. Piscator says the same. But Pareus and Beza take this to be the meaning; and so does Macknight, “Now it is not; possible that the promise of God hath fallen.” — .Ed.
^ft288 ^<011810>Genesis 18:10. The quotation is not from the Septuagint, but is much nearer a literal version of the Hebrew: the only material difference is in the words, “at this time,” instead of” according to the time of life.” The words in different forms occur four times, — ^<011721>Genesis 17:21; ^<011810>Genesis 18:10,14; ^<012102>Genesis 21:2; we meet with the same words in ^<120416>2 Kings 4:16,17. It appears that the Apostle here took this expression, “at this time,” from ^<011721>Genesis 17:21, while he mainly followed the text in ^<011810>Genesis 18:10. The meaning of the phrase, “according to the time of life,” as given in Genesis and in Kings, evidently is the time of child-bearing, what passes between conception and the birth. This was repeatedly mentioned in order to show that the usual course of nature would be followed, though the conception would be miraculous; the child to be born was to be nourished the usual time in the womb, — “ according to the time of producing life,” or of child-bearing.
The exposition of Gesenius, adopted by Tholuck and Stuart, “when the time shall be renewed,” does not comport with the passage, as it introduces a tautology. Hammond says, that the Hebrews interpret the expression in Kings as meaning the time between the conception and the birth. — Ed.
^ft289 Here is a striking instance of a difficulty as to the construction, while the meaning of the whole passage is quite evident. The ellipsis has been variously supplied; “and not only this,” i.e., what I have stated; “and not only he,” i.e., Abraham to whom the first communication was made; “and not only she,” i.e., Sarah, mentioned in the preceding’ verse; “but Rebecca also is another instance.” But it may be thus supplied, — “ and not only so,” i.e., as to the word of promise; “but Rebecca also had a word,” or a message conveyed to her. That the verse has a distinct meaning in itself is evident, for the next begins with a ga<r, “for;” and to include ^<450911>Romans 9:11, in a parenthesis, seems by no means satisfactory. The three verses may be thus rendered, —
10. And not only so, but Rebecca also received a message, when she conceived by the first, (i.e., son or seed,)even our father Isaac:
11. for they being not yet born, and having not done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not
12. through works, but through him who calls, it was said to her, “The elder shall serve the younger.”
The words ejx eJno<v, rendered commonly “by one,” have never been satis factorily accounted for. It. seems to be an instance of Hebraism; the word dja, “one,” means also “first.” We have other instances of this in the New Testament; eijv mi>an twn sabba>twn — “on the first (i.e., day) of the week,” ^<402801>Matthew 28:1; see also ^<411602>Mark 16:2; ^<432019>John 20:19. “The first day” in ^<010105>Genesis 1:5, is rendered by the Septuagint, hJme>ra mi>a. Isaac was the.first son or seed of promise: and a difference was made in the children of the very first seed. But this meaning of eijv is said by Schleusner to be sanctioned by Greek writers, such as Herodotus and Thucydides. There is no necessity of introducing the word “children,” at the beginning of ^<450911>Romans 9:11; the antecedent in this case, as it sometimes happens, comes after the pronoun; and it is the “elder” and “younger” at the end of ^<450912>Romans 9:12. — Ed.
^ft290 Archbishop Usher asks this question, “Did God, before he made man, .determine to save some and reject others?” To this he gives this answer, — “Yes, surely; before they had done either good or evil, God in his eter nal counsel set them apart.” It is the same sentiment that is announced here by Calvin. But to deduce it from what is said of Jacob and Esau, does not seem legitimate, inasmuch as they were in a fallen condition by nature, and the reference is evidently made to anything done person ally by themselves. Election and reprobation most clearly presuppose man as fallen and lost: it is hence indeed, that the words derive their meaning. That it was God’s eternal purpose to choose some of man’s fallen race, and to leave others to perish, is clearly taught us: but this is a different question from the one touched upon here, — that this purpose was irrespective of man’s fall, — a sentiment which, as far as I can see, is not recognised nor taught in Scripture. And not only Calvin, but many other divines, both before and after him, seem to have gone in this re spect somewhat beyond the limits of revelation; it is true, by a process of reasoning apparently obvious; but when we begin to reason on this high and mysterious subject, we become soon bewildered and lost in mazes of difficulties. — Ed.
^ft291 Nothing can be conceived more conclusive in argument than what is contained here. The idea of foreseen works, as the reason or the ground of election, is wholly excluded. The choice is expressly denied to be on ac count of any works, and is as expressly ascribed to the sovereign will of God.
“He does not oppose works to faith, but to him who calls, or to the calling, which precedes faith, that is, to that calling which is according to God’s purpose. Paul means, that the difference between Jacob and Esau was made through the sole will and pleasure of God, not through their wills or works, existing or foreseen.” — Poli. Syn.
Yet some of the Fathers, as Chrysostom and Theodoret, as well as some modern divines, ascribe election to foreseen works. How this is reconcil-able with the argument of the Apostle, and with the instances he adduces, it is indeed a very hard matter to see. One way by which the Apostle’s argument is evaded, is, that the election here is to temporal and outward privileges. Be it so: let this be granted; but it is adduced by the Apostle as an illustration — and of what? most clearly of spiritual and eternal election. He refers both to the same principle, to the free choice of God, and not to anything in man. “God foresaw the disposition of each.” — Theodoret and Chrysostom. “His election corresponds with the foreseen dis position of men.” — Theodoret. “It was done by the prescience of God, whereby he knew while yet unborn, what each would be.” — Augustine. These are quotations made by a modern writer (Bosanquet) with appro bation: but surely nothing could be suggested more directly contrary to the statements and the argument of the Apostle. There is a mistake, I apprehend, as to the last quotation; perhaps similar to that made in quot ing Augustine on the latter part of the 7th chapter of this Epistle, where the writer quotes a sentiment of Augustine, which he afterwards retracted, a thing which has been often done by the advocates of Popery, but by no means becoming a Protestant. — Ed.
^ft292 The meaning of the words “loving” and “hating” is here rightly explained. It is usual in Scripture to state a preference in terms like these. See ^<012931>Genesis 29:31; ^<421426>Luke 14:26; ^<431225>John 12:25. — Ed.
^ft293 The quotation is from ^<023319>Exodus 33:19, and literally from the Septuagint. The verb ejlee>w is to be taken here in the sense of showing favour rather than mercy, according to the meaning of the Hebrew word; for the idea of mercy is what the other verb, oijktei>rw, conveys. Schleusner renders it here and in some other passages in this sense. The rendering then would be — “I will favour whom I favour,” that is, whom I choose to favour; “and I will pity whom I pity,” which means whom I choose to pity. The latter verb in both clauses is in Hebrew in the future tense, but rendered pro perly in Greek in the present, as it commonly expresses a present act. — Ed.
^ft294 These two words clearly show that election regards man as fallen; for favour is what is shown to the undeserving, and mercy to the wretehed and miserable, so that the choice that is made is out of the corrupted mass of mankind, contemplated in that state, and not as in a state of innocency. Augustine says, “Deus alios facit vasa irae secundum meritus; alios vasa miserieordiae secundum gratiam — God makes some vessels of wrath accord~ ing to their merit; others vessels of mercy according to his grace.” In another place he says, “Deus ex eadem massa damnata originaliter, tan-quam figulus, fecit aliud vas ad honorem, aliud in contumeliam — God, as a potter, made of the same originally condemned mass, one vessel to honor, another to dishonor.” “Two sorts of vessels God forms out of the great lump of fallen mankind.” — Henry.
^ft295 The terms “willing” and “running” are evidently derived from the circumstances connected with the history of Esau. “In vain,” says Turrettin, “did Esau seek the blessing. In vain did Isaac hasten to grant it, and in vain did Esau run to procure venison for his father; neither the father’s willingness nor the running of the son availed anything; God’s favour overruled the whole.” But the subject handled is God’s sovereignty in the manifestation of his favour and grace. Esau was but a type of the unbelieving Jews, when the gospel was proclaimed, and of thousands of such as are in name Christians. There is some sort of “willing,” and a great deal of “running,” and yet the blessing is not attained. There was much of apparent willing, and running in the strict formality and zeal of Pharisaism, and there is much of the same kind still in the austerities and mechanical worship of superstition, and also in the toils and devotions of self-righteousness. The word or the revealed will of God is in all these instances misunderstood and neglected.
Isaac’s “willingness” to give the blessing to Esau, notwithstanding the announcement made at his birth, and Rebecca’s conduct in securing it to Jacob, are singular instances of man’s imperfections, and of the overruling power of God. Isaac acted as though he had forgotten what God had expressed as his will; and Rebecca acted as though God could not effect his purpose without her interference, and an interference, too, in a way highly improper and sinful. It was the trial of faith, and the faith of both halted exceedingly; yet the purpose of God was still fulfilled, but the improper manner in which it was fulfilled was afterwards visited with God’s displeasure. — Ed.
^ft296 “For,” at the beginning of this verse, connects it with ^<450914>Romans 9:14; it is the second reason given for what that verse contains: this is in accordance with Paul’s manner of writing, and it may be rendered here, moreover, or besides, or farther. Macknight renders it “besides.” Were ga<r rendered thus in many instances, the meaning would be much more evident. — Ed.
^ft297 It is somewhat remarkable, that Paul, in quoting this passage, ^<020916>Exodus 9:16, substitutes a clause for the first that is given by the Septuagint: instead of “e{neken tou>to diethrh>qhv on this account thou hast been preserved,” he gives, “eijv aujto< tou~to ejxh>geira> se — for this very end have I raised thee.” The Hebrew is, “And indeed for this end have I made thee to stand, ˚ytdm[h“ The verb used by Paul is found only in one other place in the New Testament, ^<460614>1 Corinthians 6:14; where it refers to the resur rection. In the Septuagint it often occurs, but never, as Stuart tells us, in the sense of creating, or bringing into existence, but in that of exciting, rousing from sleep, or reudering active. References are made to ^<012816>Genesis 28:16; ^<070512>Judges 5:12; ^<190707>Psalm 7:7: ^<240104>Jeremiah 1:41; ^<290309>Joel 3:9, etc. Hence it is by him rendered here, “I have roused thee up.” But to make the Hebrew verb to bear this sense is by no means easy: the three places re ferred to, ^<160607>Nehemiah 6:7, and ^<271111>Daniel 11:11 and 13, do not seem to afford a satisfactory proof. ^<19A725>Psalm 107:25, is more to the point. Its first meaning is, to make to stand, and then, to present persons, ^<041306>Numbers 13:6, — -to establish or make strong a kingdom or a city, ^<111504>1 Kings 15:4, — to fix persons in office, ^<143502>2 Chronicles 35:2, — to set up or build a house, ^<150909>Ezra 9:9, — to appoint teachers, ^<160607>Nehemiah 6:7, — and to arrange or set in order an army, ^<271113>Daniel 11:13. Such are the ideas included in this verb. “I have made thee to stand,” established, or made thee strong, may be its meaning in this passage. To establish or to :make one strong, is more than to preserve, the word used by the Septuagint: and hence it was, it may be, that Paul adopted another word, which conveys the idea, that Pharaoh had been ele vated into greater power than his predecessors, which the Hebrew verb seems to imply.
Venema, as well as Stuart, thought that the idea of exciting, rousing in to action, or stimulating, is to be ascribed to the verbs here used, and that what is meant is, that God by his plagues awakened and excited all the evil that was in Pharaoh’s heart for the purposes here described, and that by this process he “hardened” him; and the conclusion of ^<450928>Romans 9:28 seems to favour this view, for the hardening mentioned there can have no reference to anything in the context except to what is said in this verse.
But the simpler view is that mentioned by Wolfius — that reference is made to the dangers which Pharaoh had already escaped. God says, “I have made thee to stand,” i.e., to remain alive in the midst of them. We hence see the reason why Paul changed the verb; for “preserve,” used by the Septuagint, did not fully express the meaning; but to “raise up,” as it were from the jaws of death, conveys more fully what is meant by the original. — Ed.
^ft298 Much has been unnecessarily written on this subject of hardening. Pharaoh is several times said to have hardened his own heart, and God is said also several times to have hardened him too. The Scripture in many instances makes no minute distinctions, for these may be easily gathered from the general tenor of its teaching. God is in his nature holy, and therefore hardening as his act cannot be sinful: and as he is holy, he hates sin and punishes it; and for this purpose he employs wicked men, and even Satan himself, as in the case of Ahab. As a punishment, he affords occasions and opportunities to the obstinate even to increase their sins, and thus in an indirect way hardens them in their rebellion and resistance to his will; and this was exactly the case with Pharaoh. This, as Calvin says, was the operation or working of his wrath. The history of Pharaoh is a sufficient explanation of what is said here. He was a cruel tyrant and oppressor; and God in his first message to Moses said, “I am sure that the king of Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand.” God might indeed have softened his heart and disposed him to allow them to depart: but it pleased him to act otherwise, and to manifest his power and his greatness in another way: so that “whom he wills, he favours, and whom he wills, he hardens;” and for reasons known only to himself.
Reference is at the end of this section made to ^<201604>Proverbs 16:4. The creation mentioned can be understood in no other sense than the continued exercise of divine power in bringing into existence human beings in their present fallen state. But “creation” is not the word.used, nor is the pas sage correctly rendered. It is not arb nor hç[, but l[p; and it is not a verb but a substantive. Literally rendered the passage is the following —
Every work of Jehovah is for its (or, his) purpose,
And even the wicked is for the day of calamity.
The Rev. G. Holden is very indignant that this text has been applied ‘to support the doctrine of reprobation. Be it, that it has been misap plied; yet the doctrine does not thereby fall to the ground. If Paul does not maintain it in this chapter anti in other passages, we must hold that words have no meaning. The history of God’s providence is an obvious confirmation of the same awful truth. — Ed.
^ft299 The clause rendered by Calvin, “Quid adhue conqueritur — why does he yet complain?” is rendered by Beza, “quid adhuc suecenset — why is he yet angry?” Our common version is the best, and is followed by Doddridge, Macknight, and Stuart. The ga<r, in the next clause, is omitted by Calvin, but Griesbach says that it ought to be retained. — Ed.
^ft300 “But” is not sufficiently emphatieal here; menou~nge; “yes, verily,” in ^<451018>Romans 10:18; “yea, rather,” in ^<421128>Luke 11:28; “doubtless,” in ^<500308>Philippians 3:8; it may be rendered here, “nay, rather.” — Ed.
^ft301 “Quis es qui contendas judicio cum Deo ;” ti>v ei+ oJ ajntapokrino>menov tw| Qew| that repliest against God,” is the rendering of Macknight and Stuart; “who enterest into a debate with God,” is what Doddridge gives. The verb occurs once in another place, ^<421406>Luke 14:6, and “answer again” is our version. Schleusner says that ajnti< prefixed to verbs is often redun dant. In ^<181608>Job 16:8, and 32:12, this compound is used by the Septua gint simply in the sense of answering, for hn[ He renders it here, “cure Deo altercari — to quarrel, or, dispute with God.” — Ed.
^ft302 The words in ^<450920>Romans 9:20 are taken almost literally from Isaiah 29: 16, only the latter clause is somewhat different; the sentence is, “mh< ejrei~ to< pla>sma tw|~ pla>santi aujto< ouj su> me e]plasav — shall what is formed say to its former, Thou hast not formed me?” This is a faithful rendering of the Hebrew.
Then the words in ^<450921>Romans 9:21 are not verbally taken from either of the two places referred to above; but the simile is adopted. — Ed.
^ft303 The metaphor in these verses is doubtless to be interpreted according to the context. Not only Calvin, but many others, have deduced from it what is not consistent with what the next verse contains, which gives the necessary explanation. By the” mass” or the lump of day, is not meant mankind, contemplated as creatures, but as fallen creatures; or, as Augustine and Pareus call them, “massa damnata — the condemned mass;” for they are called in the next verse vessels of wrath, that is, the objects of wrath; and such are all by nature, according to what Paul says in ^<490203>Ephesians 2:3; “we were,” he says, “by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”
“The words, ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,’ imply that all deserved wrath; so that the lump of clay in the hands of the pot ter must refer to men already existing in God’s foreknowledge as fallen creatures.” — Scott.
In all the instances in which this metaphor is used by Isaiah and Jere miah, it is applied to the Jews in their state of degeneracy, and very pointedly in ^<236408>Isaiah 64:8: where it is preceded, in the 6th verse, by that remarkable passage, “We are all as an unclean thing,” etc. The clay then, or the mass, is the mass of mankind as corrupted and depraved. — Ed.
^ft304 Critics have in various ways attempted to supply the ellipsis, but what is here proposed is most approved. Beza considered the corresponding clause to be at ^<450930>Romans 9:30, and viewed the intervening verses as parenthetic, “And if God,” etc., — “ What then shall we say?” Grotius subjoined, “Does God do any wrong?” Elsner,” Has he not the power?” and Wolfius,” What canst, thou say against God?” Stuart proposes to repeat the question in ^<450920>Romans 9:20, “Who art thou?” etc. Some connect this verse with the question in ^<450920>Romans 9:20, and include the latter part of it and ^<450921>Romans 9:21 in a parenthesis. Whatever way may be adopted, the sense is materially the same. It has also been suggested that eij de< is for ei]per, since, seeing, ^<530106>2 Thessalonians 1:6; ^<600203>1 Peter 2:3. In this case no apodosis is necessary. But we may take eij as meaning since, and de< as an iliatire, and render the three verses thus, —
22. “Since then God willed (or, it was God’s will) to show His wrath and to make known his power, he endured with much forbearance the vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction;
23. So he willed to make known the riches of his glory towards the vessels of mercy, whom he has fore-prepared for glory,
24. Even us, whom he has called not only front the Jews but also from the Gentiles.”
The verb ejsti, or h+n, is often understood after participles, especially in Hebrew; and kai< has the meaning of so in some instances, ^<400610>Matthew 6:10; ^<440751>Acts 7:51; ^<480109>Galatians 1:9; and in some cases, as Schleusner says, without being preceded by any particle of comparison, such as ^<401226>Matthew 12:26, and ^<620227>1 John 2:27, 28; but eij; here stands somewhat in that character.
The beginning of ^<450923>Romans 9:23 presents an anomaly, if, with Stuart and others, we consider “willing:” or wills to be understood, as it is followed in the preceding verse by an infinitive, and here by a subjunctive mood. But Beza, Grotius, and Hammond, seem to regard the verb” endured,” to be here, as it were, repeated, which gives the same meaning to the pas sage as that which is given to it by Calvin. — Ed.
^ft305 “In righteousness,” left out. The word rendered “matter” is “sermo,” But it is explained in this sense in the comment. — Ed.
^ft306 It is an instance of Hebraism, the use of a double pronoun — whom and us, governed by the same verb. — Ed.
^ft307 ^<280223>Hosea 2:23. See ^<600210>1 Peter 2:10.
^ft308 The quotation is from ^<280223>Hosea 2:23, and :is not literal either from the Hebrew or from the Septuagint. The order of the verse is reversed; and the word “beloved” is taken from the Septuagint. “Not beloved,” in Hebrew, is lo-ruhamah, i.e., one not pitied, or one who has not received mercy: which is the same in meaning.
In ^<450926>Romans 9:26, the words are taken from ^<280110>Hosea 1:10 and are not verbatim either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint, but the difference is very trifling. — Ed.
^ft309 Sermonem enim consnmmans et abbrevians,” etc.; Lo>gon ga<r, etc. It is literally the Septuagint except in two instances: Paul puts in ga<r, and substitutes ejpi< th~v gh~v for ejn th|~ oijkoume>nh| o[lh|. It is a difficult passage in Hebrew: but the following rendering will make it materially consistent with the words of the Apostle, who evidently did not intend to give the words literally.
A destruction, soon executed,
Shall overflow in righteousness;
For completed and soon executed shall it be;
The Lord, Jehovah of hosts, shall do it,
In the midst of the whole land.
The word rendered above “soon executed,” means literally, abbreviated or cut short, signifying the quick execution of a thing or work. “Shall overflow in righteousness,” imports, “shall justly or deservedly overflow.” — Ed.
^ft310 There are many venerable names in favour of this opinion, such as Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, etc. Not knowing the Hebrew language, they attached a classical meaning to the expression, lo>gon suntetmhme>non, wholly at variance with what the Hebrew means, as Calvin justly observes. The word, suntetmhme>non, in this passage, as Schleusner says, bears a mean ing different from what it has in the classics; it imports what is cut short, that is, quickly executed. — Ed.
^ft311 ^<230109>Isaiah 1:9. The words of the Septuagint are given literally, and differ only in one instance from the Hebrew; “seed” is put for “remnant ;” but as “seed” in this; ease evidently means a small portion reserved for sowing, the idea of the original is conveyed. Schleusner refers to examples both in Josephus and Plato, in which the word “seed,” is used in the sense of a small reserved portion. Its most common meaning in Scripture is posterity.
Paul has given “Sabaoth” from the Septuagint, which is the Hebrew untranslated. This word, in connection with God, is variously rendered by the Septuagint.: for the must part in Isaiah, and in some other places, it; is found untranslated as here; but in the Psalms and in other books, it is; often rendered tw~n duname>wn, that is, Jehovah or Lord “of the powers,” and often pantokra>twr, “omnipotent;” and sometimes oJ a{giov “the holy one.” But our version, “Jehovah” or “Lord of hosts,” is the proper rendering. It means the hosts of animate and inanimate creatures; in fact, the whole universe, all created things; but, according to the context, it often specifically refers to material things, or to things immaterial. — Ed.
^ft312 There seems to be no necessity for this transposition. “A law (not the law) of righteousness” means a law which prescribes righteousness, and which, if done, would have conferred righteousness. But the Jews following this did not attain to a law of righteousness, such a law as se cured righteousness. The Apostle often uses the same words in the same verse in a different sense, and leaves the meaning to be made out by the context. Grotius takes “law” as meaning way, “They followed the way of righteousness, but did not attain to a way of righteousness.”
What follows the question in the next verse stands more connected with ^<450930>Romans 9:30 than with ^<450931>Romans 9:31; and we must consider that the word righteous ness, and not law, is referred to by “it” after the verb “pursue,” which is evidently to be understood before the words, “not by faith,” etc., as the sentence is clearly elliptical.
The verb diw>kw, rendered “sector” by Calvin, means strictly to pursue what flees away from us, whether a wild beast or an enemy; it signifies also to follow a leader, and to run a race, and further, to desire, to attend to, or earnestly to seek a thing: and in this latter sense Paul often uses it. See ^<451213>Romans 12:13; ^<451419>Romans 14:19; ^<461401>1 Corinthians 14:1. Similar is the application of the corresponding verb, ãdr in Hebrew. See ^<051620>Deuteronomy 16:20; Psalm. 34:14. “Quaero — to seek,” is the word adopted by Grotius.
But Pareus and Hammond consider that there are here three agonistic terms, diw>kwn kate>labe, and e]fqase. The first signifies the running; the third, the reaching of the goal; and the second, the laying hold on the prize: and with this corresponds the stumbling afterwards mentioned. The Gentiles did not run at all, but the Jews did, and in running, they stumbled; while the Gentiles reached the goal, not by running, or by their own efforts, but by faith, and laid hold on the prize of righteousness. — Ed.
^ft313 “Error is often a greater obstacle to the salvation of men than care lessness or vice... Let no man think error in doctrine a slight practical evil. No road to perdition has ever been more thronged than that of false doctrine. Error is a shield over the conscience and a bandage over the eyes.” — Professor Hodge.
^ft314 The citation in this verse is made in a remarkable manner. The first part, “Behold I lay in Zion,” is taken from ^<232816>Isaiah 28:16; what follows, “a stone of stumbling and rock of offense,” is taken from ^<230814>Isaiah 8:14; and then the last words, “and whosoever believes in him shall not be ashamed,” are given from the preceding passage in ^<232816>Isaiah 28:16. The subject is the same.
With respect to the last clause Paul has followed the Septuagint, “shall not be ashamed.” But the Hebrew word, rendered in our version “shall not make haste,” will bear a similar meaning, and may be translated, shall not hurry or be confounded. — Ed.
^ft315 The ga<r, “for,” at the beginning of ^<451004>Romans 10:4, connects it with the latter part of the preceding, as the ga<r, “for,” in the preceding connects it with the latter part of ^<451002>Romans 10:2; and ga<r also in ^<451005>Romans 10:5 expresses a reason for what ^<451004>Romans 10:4 contains. So that we have a regular chain; the following sentence gives a reason for the one immediately preceding in four instances. — Ed.
^ft316 Calvin’s Latin for this verse is: “Fratres, benevolentia certe cordis mei et deprecatio ad Deum super Israel est in salutem — Brethren, the goodwill indeed of my heart and prayer to God for Israel is for their salvation.” The word for “goodwill,” eujdoki>a, means a kind disposition towards another, it means here a benevolent or a sincere desire, or, according to Theophylact, an earnest desire. Doddridge renders it “affectionate desire;” Beza, “propensa voluntas — propense wish;” and Stuart, “kind desire.”
At the beginning of the last chapter the Apostle expressed his great grief for his brethren the Jews, he now expresses his great love towards them, and his strong desire for their highest good — their salvation. — Ed.
^ft317 “A zeal of God,” zh>lon Qeou~, is a zeal for God, a genitive case of the object. Some regard “God” here as meaning something great, as it is sometimes used in Hebrew, and render the phrase, as Macknight does, “a great zeal;” but this is not required by the context. The Jews had professedly “a zeal for God,” but not accompanied with knowledge. The necessity of knowledge as the guide of zeal is noted by Turrettin in four particulars: 1. That we may distinguish truth from falsehood, as there may be zeal for error and false doctrine as well as for that which is true; 2. That we may understand the comparative importance of things, so as not to make much of what is little, and make little account of what is great; 3. That we may prosecute and defend the truth in the right way, with prudence, firmness, fidelity, and meekness; 4. That our zeal may have the right object, not our own interest and reputation, but the glory of God and the salvation of men. — Ed.
^ft318 “Complementum — the complement,” the filling up, the completion. The word te>lov, “end,” is used in various ways, as signifying — 1. The terminations of any thing, either of evils, or of life, etc., ^<401022>Matthew 10:22; ^<431301>John 13:1; — 2. Completion or fulfillment, ^<422237>Luke 22:37; ^<540109>1 Timothy 1:9; — 3. The issue, the effect, the consequence, the result, ^<450621>Romans 6:21; ^<600109>1 Peter 1:9; ^<471115>2 Corinthians 11:15; — 4. Tribute or custom, ^<451307>Romans 13:7; — 5. The chief thing, summary or substance, ^<600308>1 Peter 3:8.
The meaning of the word depend on what is connected with it. The end of evils, or of life, is their termination; the end of a promise is its fulfillment; the end of a command, its performance or obedience; the end of faith is salvation. In such instances, the general idea is the result, or the effect, or the consequence. Now the law may be viewed as an economy, comprising the whole Jewish law, not perfect, but introductory; in this view Christ may be said to be its end — its perfection or “its landing place.” But we may also regard the law in its moral character, as the rule and condition of life; then the end of the law is its fulfillment, the performance of what it requires to attain life: and Christ in this respect is its end, having rendered to it perfect obedience. This last meaning is most consistent with the words which follow, and with the Apostle’s argument. The first view is taken by Chrysostom, Beza, Turrettin, as well as Calvin; the second, by Mede, Stuart, and Chalmers. There is really not much difference in the two views; only the sequel of the verse, “for righteousness to every one who believes,” and the opposite sentiment in the next verse, “the man who doeth these shall live in (or through) them,” seem to favor the latter view. — Ed.
^ft319 Righteousness is here personified, according to the usual manner of the Apostle: law and sin had before been represented in the same way. — Ed.
^ft320 It seems not necessary to have recourse to the distinctions made in the foregoing section. The character of the quotation given is correctly described in the words of Chrysostom, as quoted by Poole, “Paulus ea transtulit et aptavit ad jusitiam fidei — Paul transferred and accommodated these things to the righteousness of faith.” He evidently borrowed the words of Moses, not literally, but substantially, for the purpose of setting forth the truth he was handling. The speaker is not Moses, but “the righteousness of faith,” represented as a person. Luther, as quoted by Wolfius, says, that “Paul, under the influence of the Spirit, took from Moses the occasion to form, as it were, a new and a suitable text against the justiciaries.” It appears to be an application, by way of analogy, of the words of Moses to the gospel; but Pareus, Wolfius, Turrettin, and Doddridge, consider the words as applied by way of accommodation. — Ed.
^ft321 “The righteousness of faith” is evidently the “it” in this question: See ^<451006>Romans 10:6. — Ed.
^ft322 It is “the word” which requires “faith,” and is received by faith; or it is the word entitled to faith, worthy of being believed; or it is the word which generates and supports faith. — Ed.
^ft323 “He puts ‘mouth’ before ‘heart,’” says Pareus, “for he follows the order in which they are given by Moses, and for this reason, because we know not faith otherwise than by profession.”
This is one of the many instances both in the New and Old Testament, in which the most apparent act is mentioned first, and then the most hidden, or in which the deed is stated first, and then the principle from which it proceeds. See ^<451313>Romans 13:13; Romans15:13. And we have here another instance of the Apostle’s style; he reverses the order in ^<451010>Romans 10:10, mentioning faith first, and confession last. The two verses may be thus rendered, —
9. That if thou wilt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
And believe in thine heart that God raised him from the dead,
Thou shalt be saved.
10. For with the heart we believe unto righteousness,
And with the mouth we confess unto salvation.
He begins and ends with confession, and in the middle clauses he mentions faith. — Ed.
^ft324 “Creditur;” pisteu>etai, “it is believed.” It is an impersonal verb, and so is the verb in the next clause. The introduction of a person is necessary in a version, and we may say, “We believe;” or, as “thou” is used in the preceding verse, it may be adopted here, — “For by the heart thou believest unto righteousness,” i.e., in order to attain righteousness; “and with the mouth thou confessest unto salvation,” i.e., in order to attain salvation. “God knows our faith,” as Pareus observes, “but it is made known to man by confession.” Turrettin’s remarks on this verse are much to the purpose. He says, that Paul loved antitheses, and that we are not to understand faith and confession as separated and applied only to the two things here mentioned, but ought to be viewed as connected, and that a similar instance is found in ^<450925>Romans 9:25, where Christ is said to have been delivered for our offenses, and to have risen again for our justification; which means, that by his death and resurrection our offenses are blotted out, and justification is obtained. In the same manner the import of what is here said is, that by sincere faith and open confession we obtain justification and salvation. — Ed.
^ft325 As in ^<451133>Romans 11:33, the Apostle quotes from the Septuagint; for to “make haste,” as the Hebrew is, conveys the same idea as “to be ashamed:” for he who hastens, acts for the most part foolishly and brings himself to shame, as Saul did, when he did not wait for Samuel, but hastened to sacrifice, and thereby brought shame on himself. — Ed.
^ft326 “Pro benigno et benefico:” the word “rich,” is rather to be taken as meaning one who possesses abundance, or an exuberance of things, and here, of gifts and blessings, of mercy and grace to pardon, to cleanse, and to endow with spiritual privileges. — Ed.
^ft327 The passage referred to is in ^<290232>Joel 2:32. It is taken verbatim from the Septuagint; and it is literally according to the Hebrew, except that the last verb flm, in that language, means to be set free, rescued, or delivered, rather than to be saved; but the idea is nearly the same. — Ed.
^ft328 “This prophecy,” say Gomarus, “has not two meanings — the proper and the allegorical, as the Papists foolishly assert, but two fulfillments; the first wen heralds announced the return of the people from Babylon to their own country; and the second, (shadowed forth by the first as its destined type,) when the heralds of the gospel announced and proclaimed its tidings to the world.” — Ed.
^ft329 This passage is taken from ^<235207>Isaiah 52:7. This is a striking instance that the Apostle quotes not from the Septuagint, when that version materially departs from the Hebrew, as is the case here. Though it appears to be a version of his own, he yet gives not the original literally, but accommodates it to his own purpose: he leaves out “on the mountains,” and adopts the plural number instead of the singular, both as to the participle “announcing” or evangelizing, and as to the word “good.” The words peace, good, and salvation, in Hebrew, seem to refer to the same thing, according to the usual style of the Prophets.
The words of Paul, as rendered by Calvin, coincide more with the Hebrew, than as the are rendered in our common version. The verb eujaggeli>zw, is often used simply in the sense of announcing, publishing, declaring or preaching, as in ^<420318>Luke 3:18; 4:43; ^<440542>Acts 5:42, etc.; and in this sense it exactly Corresponds with rçb, which means the same, though the other idea of the Greek verb, that of evangelizing, has been wrongly given to it; for it is applied to the announcing of bad as well as of good news. — Ed.
^ft330 Or, what is heard; it being a noun from [mç, to hear, in its passive sense, it signifies a report, a message, or any tidings conveyed to the hearing of men. The Greek word ajkoh> is used in various senses, as signifying the act of hearing, ^<401314>Matthew 13:14, — the faculty of hearing, ^<461217>1 Corinthians 12:17, — the organ of hearing, the ear, ^<410735>Mark 7:35, — and what is heard, a word, a report, as here and in ^<431238>John 12:38. Schleusner refers to instances in the classics in which the word is used in all these meanings. It is not necessary, nor is it in accordance with the usual manner of the Apostle, to give the word the same meaning in the next verse as in this. It is the practice of the Apostle to use the same words in different senses in the same passage. See ^<450418>Romans 4:18; ^<450824>Romans 8:24. Here it means what is heard, report; and in the following verse, the act, that is, hearing. — Ed.
^ft331 Intepreters have been very much at a loss to account for this difference. The Apostle adopts the rendering of the Septuagint, as though the Hebrew word had been µlwq. Though there is no copy, yet consulted, that favors this reading, it is yet the probable one; not only because the Apostle sanctions it, but it is what the context demands, and especially the parallelism which prevails in Hebrew poetry. In the next line “words” are mentioned, and “voice” here would be the most suitable corresponding term. But we may go back to the preceding distich, and find not only a confirmation of this, but also an instance of terms being used in the same passage in different senses, while yet the meaning is obvious to a common reader, and at the same time intricate and puzzling to a critic. The two distichs may be thus rendered, —
4. Without speech, and without words!
Not heard is their voice! —
5. Through all the earth goes forth their voice,
And through the extremity of the world their words.
They have no words, and yet they have words; they have no voice, and yet they have a voice. Here the first and the last line Correspond, and the second and the third. There is indeed a different term used for “words” in the last line from that which is adopted in the first, but in the first there are two, “speech,” rma, and “words,” µyrbd, which are expressed by one, µylm, in the last. It seems then most probable, that the true reading has been retained by the Septuagint.
The “sound,” or voice, as applied in this passage, means the report, the news, respecting the gospel; and the “words,” the actual preaching of it. — Ed.
^ft332 The quotation is from ^<053221>Deuteronomy 32:21, and it is literally the Hebrew as well as the Septuagint, except that “you” is put for “them.” The contrast in Hebrew is very striking; the whole verse is this, —
21. They have made me jealous by a no-God,
They have provoked me by their foolish idols;
And I will make them jealous by a no-people,
By a foolish nation will I provoke them. — Ed.
^ft333 ^<236501>Isaiah 65:1. The two sentences are reversed; the Septuagint and the Hebrew are the same. The reason for changing the order does not appear; but it may be observed, that it is an instance common in Hebrew, where essentially the same idea is expressed in two successive lines, so that it is immaterial which of them is put first. — Ed.
^ft334 The passage is taken from ^<236502>Isaiah 65:2. The Septuagint is followed, except that the order of the words in the first part of the sentence is changed, thought the Septuagint has preserved the order of the original. The version is according to the Hebrew, with the exception of the last word, which from its form, the last radical letter being doubled, can hardly be expressed in another language by a single term, and so the Septuagint has employed two. It means “revolting again and again,” or willfully revolting. The simple verb rs, signifies to turn aside, to revolt, to apostatize: and in a reduplicate form, as here, it means either a repeated or an obstinate revolt. Indeed the revolt or the apostasy of the Jews was both reiterated and perverse, as their history abundantly testifies. — Ed.
^ft335 “Oraculum,” oJ crhmatismo>v, the oracle, the divine response. The answer is put for him who gave the answer, for it is “Jehovah” in the passage that is quoted; as “Scripture” in ^<451102>Romans 11:2, and in other places, means him who speaks in the Scriptures. — Ed.
^ft336 That foreknowledge here includes election or predestination, as Augustine maintains, is evident from what follows in verse 5, where “the remnant” is said to be reserved “according to the election of grace,” or gratuitous election. If it be gratuitous, then it cannot be according to any foreseen works: and works are expressly excluded in ^<451106>Romans 11:6. Were it otherwise, were foreseen works the ground of election, there would be no suitableness nor congruity in such terms as foreknowledge and election on the subject. It would have been much more appropriate in this case for the Apostle to say, “God will receive every Jew who will render himself worthy by his works.” On this supposition there was no necessity for him to go back to election to remove the objection which he had stated; he had only to refer to the terms of the gospel, which regard Jews and Gentiles without any difference. But instead of doing this, which seems adequate to the purpose, he gives an answer by referring to the foreknowledge and free election of God. There is no way to account for this, except by admitting, that election is an efficacious purpose which secures the salvation of those who are its objects, who have been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. — Ed.
^ft337 “Quomodo appellet Deum adversus Israel — how he appeals to or calls on God against Israel;” wJv eJntugca>nei tw|~ Qew|~ kata< tou~ Israh<l; “how he solicits (interpellet) God against Israel,” Beza; “when he pleadeth with God against Israel,” Doddridge; “when he complaineth to God against Israel,” Macknight. To “complain to God against, or, with respect to, Israel,” would probably be the most suitable rendering. See ^<442524>Acts 25:24.
The quotation in the following verse is from ^<111910>1 Kings 19:10, and is not taken literally, either from the Hebrew, or from the Septuagint. The order of the two first clauses is changed; “prophets,” and not “altars,” are mentioned first; in these he has adopted the words of the Septuagint, but in this clause which follows he has changed the terms; instead of kai< uJpole>leimmai ejgw< monw>tatov, the Apostle has kajgw< uJpelei>fqhn mo>nov; and he has left out the words, “to take it away” after life. The case is similar with the quotation in ^<451104>Romans 11:4, from ^<111918>1 Kings 19:18. The sense is given, but not exactly the words, either from the Hebrew or the Septuagint. — Ed.
^ft338 Pareus observes, that these seven thousand had no public ministry, for that was idolatrous; and that yet they were preserved by such instruction as they derived from the written word. — Ed.
^ft339 Calvin, as some others, has supplied “image” before “Baal,” as the feminine article th~| is by Paul prefixed to it. In the Septuagint it is tw~|, and a masculine pronoun is found at the end of the verse in ^<111918>1 Kings 19:18, so that it could not have been a female deity, as some have supposed. It is indeed evident, especially from a passage in Tobit, chapter 1:5, that there was a female deity of this name, but the text in Kings will not allow us to regard this goddess to be intended. — Ed.
^ft340 The last half of this verse is considered spurious by Griesbach, being not found in the greatest number of MSS., nor in the Vulgate, nor in the Latin Fathers; but it is found in some of the Greek Fathers, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Photius, and in the text, though not in the comment of Chrysostom, and in Theophylact, with the exception of the last clause, “Otherwise work,” etc. The Syriac and Arabic versions also contain the whole verse. The argument is complete without the last portion, which is, in fact, a repetition of the first in another form. But this kind of statement is wholly in unison with the character of the Apostle’s mode of writing. He often states a thing positively and negatively, or in two different ways. See ^<450404>Romans 4:4,5; ^<450901>Romans 9:1; ^<490208>Ephesians 2:8,9. Then an omission more probable than an addition. Beza, Pareus, Wolfius, etc., regard it as genuine, and Doddridge and Macknight have retained it in their versions. Every reason, except the number of MSS., is in favor of its genuineness. — Ed.
^ft341 Literally it is, “what Israel seeks, this he has not obtained.” The pronoun for “this,” tou>tou Griesbach has displaced, and introduced tou~to in its stead, as the most approved reading. — Ed.
^ft342 “Excaecati fuerunt,” ejpwrw>qhsan; it means hardened, stupified, rendered callous or obdurate. Occalluerunt — “were hardened,” Beza; both Macknight and Doddridge render it, “blinded.” It is applied to the heart in ^<410652>Mark 6:52; 8:17; ^<431240>John 12:40, — to the mind in ^<470314>2 Corinthians 3:14. — Ed.
^ft343 The foregoing reasoning is not satisfactory: it goes beyond the evident meaning of the Apostle. He no doubt quoted the texts according to their original design, and to say he did not is to assert what is incapable of being proved, and what is even contrary to the Apostle’s reasoning throughout. The hardening or blinding spoken of by the Prophets, is stated uniformly as a punishment for previous unbelief and impenitence, as admitted by our author himself, and the obvious fact as to the Jews in the Apostle’s days, was an evidence of the same, and though he states not this fact here, he states it in the sequel of this Epistle. But why some were hardened, and others were softened, is what must be resolved altogether to the will of God. This, and no more than this, is what the Apostle evidently teaches here: and it is neither wise nor right to go beyond what is expressly taught, especially on a subject of a nature so mysterious and incomprehensible. — Ed.
^ft344 The quotation in this verse is taken from two passages: the first clause is from ^<232910>Isaiah 29:10, and the rest from ^<230609>Isaiah 6:9, or ^<052904>Deuteronomy 29:4. The first clause is not exactly according to the Hebrew or the Septuagint; instead of “God gave them,” etc., it is in the Septuagint, “the Lord hath made you drink,” etc., and in Hebrew, “Jehovah has poured upon you,” etc. It is the “spirit of slumber” in both, or rather, “of deep sleep” — hmdrt, a dead or an overwhelming sleep; and katanu>xiv, though not as to its primary sense the same, is yet used according to this meaning. The verb means to puncture, to prick, either with grief or remorse, and also to affect with stupor. The latter idea the noun must have in this place, for the Hebrew does not admit of the other. The latter part is found in substance, though not in the same form of words in the two places referred to. — Ed.
^ft345 Some consider this passage as taken from ^<052904>Deuteronomy 29:4, and regard the last words as part of the quotation. — Ed.
^ft346 Grotius understands by “table” guests, or friends, who partake of the provisions spread on the table. The wish is, that these should be a snare, etc. “Table,” according to Pareus, means luxury or festivity: and he adds, that there are here three metaphors, — the ensnaring of birds — the entrapping of wild beasts — and the stumbling in the dark, or that of blind men. Then the recompense or retaliation implies, that this evil of being ensnared and entrapped, and of stumbling, are only just retaliations for similar acts on their part; as they had ensnared, entrapped, and caused others to stumble, it was but just that they should be treated in the same way. And if we take “table” as a metonymy for friends or guests, the meaning would be very striking. And we know that the very friends and confederates of the Jews became their enemies and effected their ruin. See ^<243822>Jeremiah 38:22.
The subject of imprecations is attended with some difficulty. To imprecate, or to pronounce a curse on others, or to wish others accursed, was forbidden even under the law, and it is expressly forbidden under the gospel, ^<400545>Matthew 5:45; Romans 12;14; we have the example of our Savior praying for his enemies even on the cross; and yet we find that God pronounced a curse on all the transgressors of the law, ^<052726>Deuteronomy 27:26, — that Christ pronounced a curse on Chorazin and Bethsaida, — that the Psalmist often imprecated vengeance on his enemies, ^<190510>Psalm 5:10; ^<19A907>Psalm 109:7-15, — that the Apostle cursed Alexander the coppersmith, ^<550414>2 Timothy 4:14, — and that John bids us not to pray for him who sins the sin unto death, ^<620516>1 John 5:16.
The truth is, that circumstances make the difference; what is forbidden in one respect is allowed in another. The rule to man is, not to curse, but to bless, except to pronounce on God’s enemies as such the judgment which God has already denounced on them. But to curse individuals is what no one is allowed to do, except he be inspired so as to know who those are who are given up by God to final judgment; which may be supposed to have been the case with the Psalmist and with St. Paul. — Ed.
^ft347 ^<196922>Psalm 69:22,23. The passage is given as in the Septuagint, except that kai< eijv qh>ran is added, and the two following words are transposed, with aujtoi~v put after them, and ajntapo>doma is put for ajntapo>dosin. ^<451110>Romans 11:10 is given without any variation from the Septuagint. The Hebrew is in words considerably different, and more so in our version than it really is. The word, µymwlç, is improperly rendered “welfare,” while it ought to be “recompenses,” or, according to Tremelius and Bp. Horseley, “retributions,” or “retribution.” See ^<233408>Isaiah 34:8. The last clause of ^<451110>Romans 11:10, though in meaning the same, is yet wholly different in words from the Hebrew, which is thus correctly rendered in our version, “and make their loins continually to shake.” The idea in both instances is the taking away of vigor and strength. — Ed.
^ft348 This is not quite correct: the first part is a mere announcement of a fact — the fall of the Jews; and then in what follows, according to the usual style of Scripture, the same thing is stated in other words, and a corresponding clause is added; and the antithesis is found to be suitable — the diminution and the completion. The reason for the restatement of the first clause seems to be this, — that the fall might not be deemed as total, but in part; it was h{tthma, a less part, a diminution, a lessening of their number in God’s kingdom. A contrast to this is the plh>rwma, the full or complete portion, that is, their complete restoration, as it is said in ^<451126>Romans 11:26. To preserve the antithesis, the first word must have its literal meaning, a diminution or lessening, that is, as to the number saved. Hammond renders the phrase, “their paucity.” — Ed.
^ft349 The meaning attached here to the words th<n diakoni>an mou doxa>zw, is somewhat different from what is commonly understood. Its classical sense, “highly to estimate,” is what is generally given here to the verb: but Calvin takes it in a sense in which it is mostly taken in Scripture, as meaning, “to render illustrious,” or eminent, “to render glorious.” The construction of the two ^<451113>Romans 11:13 and 14, is somewhat difficult, and the meaning is not very clear. To include the words, “as I am indeed the Apostle of the Gentiles,” in a parenthesis, as it is done by some, would render the sense more evident, and to add “this” after “say,” and “that” before “I render.” The version then would be as follows, —
13. For I say this to you Gentiles (as I am indeed the Apostle of theGentiles,) that I render my ministry glorious,
14. If I shall by any means excite to emulation my own flesh and save some of them.
The sentiment in the last clause is the same as that at the end of ^<451111>Romans 11:11. The Vulgate, and some of the Latin Fathers, and also Luther, read doxa>sw in the future tense; which would make the passage read better, — “that I shall render,” etc. These two verses are not necessarily connected with the Apostle’s argument; for in the following verse he resumes the subject of ^<451112>Romans 11:12, or rather, as his usual manner is, he states the same thing in other words and in more explicit and stronger terms. So that the ga<r in the next verse may very properly be rendered “yea,” or as an illative, “then.” — Ed.
^ft350 Some view the last words, “life from the dead,” as understood of the Jews and not of the Gentiles. But the antithesis seems to require the latter meaning. The rejection or casting away, ajpobolh< of the Jews was the occasion of reconciliation to the world, that is, the Gentiles; then the reception, pro>slhyiv, of the Jews will be “life from the dead” to the Gentiles or to the world. He expresses by stronger terms the sentiment in ^<451112>Romans 11:12, “the riches of the world,” only intimating, as it appears, the decayed state of religion among the Gentiles; for to be dead sometimes means a religious declension, ^<660301>Revelation 3:1,2; or a state of oppression and wretchedness, as the case was with the Israelites when in captivity, ^<263701>Ezekiel 37:1-14; ^<232619>Isaiah 26:19. The phrase is evidently figurative, and signifies a wonderful revival, such as the coming to life of those in a condition resembling that of death. The restoration of the Jews unto God’s favor will occasion the revival and spread of true religion through the whole Gentile world. This is clearly the meaning.
Some of the fathers, such as Chrysostom and Theodoret, regarded the words as referring to the last resurrection: but this is wholly at variance with the context. — Ed.
^ft351 There were two kinds of first-fruits: the sheaf, being the first ripe fruit, ^<032310>Leviticus 23:10; and the dough, the first kneaded cake, ^<041520>Numbers 15:20. It is to the last that the reference is here made.
The first-fruits are considered by some, such as Mede and Chalmers, to have been the first Jewish converts to Christianity — the apostles and disciples; but this is not consistent with the usual manner of the Apostle, which is to express the same thing in two ways, or by two metaphors. Besides, the whole context refers to the first adoption of the Jewish nation, or to the covenant made with Abraham and confirmed to the patriarchs. — Ed.
^ft352 That the holiness here mentioned is external and relative, and not personal and inward, is evident from the whole context. The children of Israel were denominated holy in all their wickedness and disobedience, because they had been consecrated to God, adopted as his people, and set apart for his service, and they enjoyed all the external privileges of the covenant which God had made with their fathers.
Pareus makes a distinction between what passes from progenitors to their offspring and what does not pass. In the present case the rights and privileges of the covenant were transmitted, but not faith and inward holiness. “Often,” he says, “the worst descend from the best, and the best from the worst; from wicked Ahaz sprang good Hezekiah, from Hezekiah descended impious Manasse, from Manasse again came good Josiah, and from Josiah sprang wicked sons, Shallum and Jehoiakim.” But all were alike holy in the sense intended here by the Apostle, as they were circumcised, and inherited the transmissible rights and privileges of the covenant.
“The holiness,” says Turrettin, “of the first-fruits and of the root was no other than an external, federal, and national consecration, such as could be transferred from parents to their children.”
“The attentive reader,” says Scott, “will readily perceive that relative holiness, or consecration to God, is here exclusively meant. . . . Abraham was as it were the root of the visible Church. Ishmael was broken off, and the tree grew up in Isaac; and when Esau was broken off, it grew up in Jacob and his sons. . . . When the nation rejected the Messiah, their relation to Abraham and to God was as it were suspended. They no longer retained even the outward seal of the covenant; for circumcision lost its validity and baptism became the sign of regeneration: they were thenceforth deprived of the ordinances of God.” — Ed.
^ft353 There is a difference of opinion as to the precise meaning of the words ejnekentri>sqhv ejn aujtoiv Calvin’s version is, “insitus es pro ipsis — thou hast been ingrafted for them,” or in their stead; that of Beza and Pareus is the same, and also that of Macknight; but Grotius has “inter illos — between them,” that is, the remaining branches; and Doddridge renders the words “among them,” according to our version. What is most consonant with the first part of the verse, is the rendering of Calvin; what is stated is the cutting off of some of the branches, and the most obvious meaning is, that others were put in for them, or in their stead. It has been said, that it was not the practice to graft a wild olive in a good olive, except when the latter was decaying. such may have been the case; but the Apostle’s object was no so much to refer to what was usual, as to form a comparison suitable to his purpose; and this is what our Savior in his parables had sometimes done. Contrary to what the case is in nature, the Apostle makes the stock good and the graft bad, and makes the stock to communicate its goodness to the graft and to improve the quality of its fruit. But his main object is to show the fact of incision, without any regard to the character of the stock and of the graft in natural things; for both his stock and his graft are of a different character.–Ed.
^ft354 “Be not elated in mind — ne animo efferaris;” mh< uJyhlofro>nei; “be not high-minded,” as in our version, is the literal rendering. — Ed.
^ft355 Some have deduced from what Paul says here the uncertainty of faith, and its possible failure. This has been done through an entire misapprehension of the subject handled by the Apostle. He speaks not of individuals, but of the Gentile world, not of living faith but of professed faith, not the inward change, but of outward privileges, not of the union of the soul to Christ, but of union with his Church. The two things are wholly different; and to draw an argument from the one to the other is altogether illegitimate; that is to say, that as professed faith may be lost, therefore living faith may be lost.
Augustine, in commenting on ^<243240>Jeremiah 32:40, says, “God promised perseverance when he said, ‘I will put fear in their heart, that they may not depart from me.’ What else does it mean but this, ‘such and so great will my fear be, which I shall put in their heart, that they shall perseveringly cleave to me.’”
“As those,” says Pareus, “who believe for a time never had true faith, though they seem to have had it, and hence fall away and do not persevere: so they who possess true faith never fail, but continue steadfast, for God infallibly sustains them and secures their perseverance.” — Ed.
^ft356 “Lenitatem;” crhsto>thta; “indulgentiam — indulgence,” Jerome; “benignitatem — benignity,” Beza. Its most literal meaning is “beneficence,” as chsto<v is useful or beneficial: but “goodness,” as in our version, expresses its sense here perhaps better than any other word. It is rendered “kindness” in ^<470606>2 Corinthians 6:6; ^<490207>Ephesians 2:7; ^<510312>Colossians 3:12; ^<560304>Titus 3:4; — “gentleness” in ^<480522>Galatians 5:22, — and “good” in ^<450312>Romans 3:12. It is nowhere else found and has a similar meaning in the Septuagint, and stands often for bwf, which signifies good, goodness, benevolence. — Ed.
^ft357 “Severitatem;” ajpotomi>an; “rigorem — rigor,” Erasmus, “praecisam severitatem — a cut-off severity,” Beza. It means literally excision, cutting off, amputation, and metaphorically, rigor, severity; and it is taken, says Schleusner, not from the amputation of infected limbs, but from the cutting off of barren and useless branches of trees. It occurs here only, and is not found in the Septuagint. Apotmi>a tw~n no>mwn — rigor of the laws, Diod. Sic. It is used adverbially in two places, ^<471310>2 Corinthians 13:10, and ^<560113>Titus 1:13; where it means rigidly, sharply, severely. The adjective, ajpo>tomov, is found in Wisdom of Solomon 5:20, and Solomon 6:6, connected with “wrath” and “judgment,” and means rigid or severe. — Ed.
^ft358 “Ne apud vos superbiatis;” i[na mh< h~te par eJautoi~v fro>nimoi; “ut ne sitis apud vosmetipsos sapientes — lest ye should be wise in yourselves,” — Beza and Piscator. The meaning, as given by Grotius, is, “Lest ye think yourselves so wise as to suppose that ye can by your own understanding know what it is to come.” But the object of the Apostle seems to have been, to keep down self-elevation on account of the privileges they had attained. The phrase seems to have been taken from ^<200307>Proverbs 3:7; where the Septuagint render, “in thine own eyes,” ˚yny[b, para< seautw~|, “in thyself,” that is, in thine own esteem. And it appears to be its meaning here, “Lest ye should be wise in your own esteem,” which signifies, “Lest ye should be proud,” or elated, that is, on account of your now superior privileges and advantages. Doddridge’s version expresses the idea, “Lest you should have too high an opinion of yourselves.” — Ed.
^ft359 The mystery is accounted for in rather a singular way. The most obvious meaning is, that the mystery was the fact of the restoration, and not the manner of it. No doubt the word sometimes means what is obscure, sublime, or profound, as “great is the mystery of godliness,” ^<540316>1 Timothy 3:16: but here the mystery is made known, in the same manner as Paul mentions a fact respecting the resurrection, ^<461551>1 Corinthians 15:51, and also the call of the Gentiles, ^<451625>Romans 16:25. — Ed.
^ft360 The explanation of this verse is by no means satisfactory. It does not Correspond at all with what the Apostle has already declared in ^<451111>Romans 11:11,12, and 15; where the restoration of the Jews to the faith is most clearly set forth. Besides, by making Israel, in the next verse, to mean generally the people of God, the contrast, observable through the whole argument, is completely destroyed.
The word for “blindness” is pw>rwsiv, hardness, callousness, and hence contumacy. “In part,” is generally regarded as having reference both to extent and duration: the hardness did not extend to all the Jews, and it was not to endure, but to continue for a time; and the time is mentioned, “until the fullness of the Gentiles come in.” This is obviously the meaning, and confirmed by the whole context. The attempt of Grotius and Hammond, and of some of the Fathers, to confine what is said to the Apostolic times, is wholly irreconcilable with the drift of the whole passage and with facts.
Much as been written on the words, a]criv ou+ to< plh>rwma tw~n ejqnw~n eijse>lqh|. That the event was future in the Apostle’s time, (and future still as history proves) is evident, especially from the following verse, “and so all Israel shall be saved.” The plain construction of the passage is, “until the fullness of the Gentiles shall come.” What this “fullness” is to be has been much controverted. But by taking a view of the whole context, without regard to any hypothesis, we shall, with no great difficulty, ascertain its meaning. The “fullness” of the Jews in ^<451112>Romans 11:12, is determined by ^<451126>Romans 11:26; it includes the whole nation. Then the “fullness of the Gentiles” must mean the same thing, the introduction of all nations into the Church. The grafting more particularly signifies profession. It then follows that all nations shall be brought publicly to profess the gospel prior to the removal of the hardness from the whole nation of the Jews. There may be isolated cases of conversion before this event, for “in part” as to extent the hardness is to be: but all shall not be brought to the faith, until the faith spread through the whole world: and the effect of their restoration will be a great revival of vital religion among the professing Gentiles, according to what is said in ^<451115>Romans 11:15. This is clearly the view presented to us in this extraordinary passage, when all its parts are compared with each other.
Hammond tells us, that many of the Fathers wholly denied the future restoration of the Jews, and we are told by Pareus, who mentions some of the same Fathers, that they maintained it. But it appears from the quotations made by the first, that the restoration disallowed was that to their own land, and that the restoration referred to by the latter was restoration to the faith; two things wholly distinct. That “Israel” means exclusively the Jewish nation, was almost the unanimous opinion of the Fathers, according to Estius; and that their future restoration to the faith is here foretold was the sentiment held by Beza, Pareus, Willet, Mede, and others, and is generally held by modern divines. — Ed.
^ft361 There is more discrepancy in this reference than any we have met with. The Apostle follows not literally either the Hebrew or the Septuagint, though the latter more than the former. In the Hebrew, it is, “to Sion,” ˆwyxl, and in the Septuagint, “for the sake of Sion,” e[neken Siw>n. Then the following clause is given verbatim from the Septuagint, and differs materially from the Hebrew, at least as translated in our version. The Syriac and Chaldee give the verb a causative meaning, so as to make the sense the same as here. But it may be regarded as an infinitive with a pargogic y, and in a transitive sense, which it sometimes has. See ^<110216>1 Kings 2:16; ^<19D210>Psalm 132:10. If so, the verse will agree with the Apostle’s words, and may be thus rendered, —
Come to Sion shall a deliverer,
And to turn away the ungodliness that is in Jacob.
He shall come to Sion, and shall come “to turn away,” etc.; or the w may be rendered even, “Even to turn away,” etc. This rendering Corresponds more than that of our version with the substance of the verse which follows. — Ed.
^ft362 The former part of it is, “This is my covenant,” but not the latter, “when I shall take away their sins.” Some suppose that this is taken from ^<232709>Isaiah 27:9, where we find this phrase in the Septuagint, “When I shall take away his sins,” th<n aJmarti>an aujtou: but the Hebrew is somewhat different and farther from the form of the sentence here. We must therefore consider it as an abridgment of what is contained in ^<243133>Jeremiah 31:33, and quoted in ^<580810>Hebrews 8:10. — Ed.
^ft363 Pote — formerly, left out.
^ft364 Our common version departs here from the original by connecting “your mercy” with the last clause. Calvin keeps the proper order of the words, though he paraphrases them, tw|~ uJmete>rw| ejle>ei, “eo quod adepti estis misericordiam.” They might have been rendered, “through your mercy,” that is, the mercy shown to you, or the mercy of which you are the objects. — Ed.
^ft365 They were “enemies” to Paul and the Church, say Grotius and Luther, — to the gospel, says Pareus, — to God, says Mede and Stuart. The parallel in the next clause, “beloved,” favors the last sentiment. They were become God’s enemies, and alienated through their rejection of the gospel; but they were still regarded as descendants of the Fathers and in some sense on their account “beloved,” as those for whom God entertained love, inasmuch as his “gifts and calling” made in their behalf, were still in force and never to be changed. — Ed.
^ft366 Hypallage — transposition, a change in the arrangement of a sentence.
^ft367 It is not desirable to amalgamate words in this manner; nor is it necessary. The Apostle ascends; he mentions first the “gifts,” the free promises which God made to the Jews; and then he refers to the origin of them, the calling or the election of God, and says that both are irreversible, or, as Castellio well explains the word ajmetame>lhta, irrevocable. See a similar instance in ^<451313>Romans 13:13.
Calvin seems to regard “the gifts and calling” as having reference to the adoption of the Jewish nation, and their adoption to certain privileges included in the Abrahamic covenant, probably those mentioned in ^<450904>Romans 9:4. But Pareus, Mede, and others, extend the meaning farther, and consider “the gifts” as including those of “faith, remission of sins, sanctification, perseverance and salvation;” and they understand by “calling,” not the external, which often fails, but the internal, made by the Spirit, and every efficacious, of which the Apostle had spoken, when he said, “Those whom he has predestinated, he has called, justified, and glorified.” according to this view the Apostle must be considered to mean, that according to what is said in ^<451105>Romans 11:5, the gifts and callings of God shall be effectual towards some of the Jews throughout all ages, and towards the whole nation, when the fullness of the Gentiles shall come in; or, that though they may be suspended, they shall yet be made evident at the appointed time; so that what secures and renders certain the restoration of the Jews is the covenant of free grace which God made with their fathers.
Some, as Pareus informs us, have concluded from what is here said, that no Gentile nation, once favored with “the gifts and calling of God,” shall be wholly forsaken; and that though religion may for a long season be in a degenerated state, God will yet, in his own appointed time, renew his gifts and his calling, and restore true religion. The ground of hope is the irrevocability of his gifts and calling. — Ed.
^ft368 The verb which Calvin renders conclusi, sune>kleise means to shut up together. The paraphrase of Chrysostom is, that “God has proved (h]legxen) all to be unbelieving.” Wolfius considers the meaning the same with ^<450309>Romans 3:9, and with ^<480322>Galatians 3:22. God has in his providence, as well as in his word, proved and demonstrated, that all mankind are by nature in a state of unbelief and of sin and of condemnation.
God has shut up together, etc., “how?” asks Pareus; then he answer, “by manifesting, accusing, and condemning unbelief, but not by effecting or approving it.” — Ed.
^ft369 “Incomprehensibilia,” so the Vulgate; “ajnexereu>nhta — inscrutabilia — inscrutable,” Beza. It means what cannot be found out by searching. Our version conveys the correct idea — “unsearchable.” — Ed.
^ft370 “Impervestigabiles,” so Beza; “ajnexicni>astoi — investigabiles — ininvestigable,” Vulgate; what cannot be investigated, and of which there are no footsteps — untraceable; “cannot be traced out” is the version of Doddridge. — Ed.
^ft371 It has indeed been thought by many that plou>tou, riches, is a noun belonging to wisdom and knowledge, used, after the Hebrew manner, instead of an adjective. It means abundance or exuberance. The sentence, according to our idiom, would then be, “O the profundity of the abounding wisdom and knowledge of God!” The Apostle, as in the words, “the gifts and calling of God,” adopts an ascending scale, and mentions wisdom first, and then knowledge, which in point of order precedes it. Then in the following clause, according to his usual practice, he retrogrades, and states first what belongs to knowledge — “judgments,” decisions, divine decrees, such as knowledge determines; and then “ways,” actual proceedings, for the guiding of which wisdom is necessary. Thus we see that his style is thoroughly Hebraistic.
It appears from Poole’s Syn., that Origen, Chrysostom, and Theodoret connected “riches” with “depth,” “O the abounding depth,” etc.; but that Ambrose and Augustine connected it with “wisdom,” etc. The use of the term in ^<490107>Ephesians 1:7, favors the last; for “the riches of his grace” mean clearly “his abounding grace.”
But some, with Stuart, suppose that by “riches” here is meant God’s goodness or mercy, according to ^<451112>Romans 11:12, and ^<490308>Ephesians 3:8. And Stuart gives this version, “O the boundless goodness, and wisdom, and knowledge of God!” But this destroys the evident Correspondence that is to be found in the latter clause of the verse, except we take in the remaining portion of the chapter, and this perhaps is what ought to be done. But if we do this, then plou>tou means “treasures, or blessings,” or copia beneficiorum,” as Schleusner expresses it. “Riches of Christ” mean the abounding blessings laid up in him, ^<490308>Ephesians 3:8. God may be viewed as set forth here as the source of all things, and as infinite in wisdom and knowledge; and these three things are the subjects to the end of the chapter, the two last verses referring to the first, and the end of the thirty-third and the thirty-fourth to the two others, and in an inverted order. The depth or vastness of his wealth or bounty is such, that he has nothing but his own, no one having given him anything, (^<451135>Romans 11:35,) and from him, and through him, and to him are all things, (^<451136>Romans 11:36.) Then as to the vastness of his wisdom and of his knowledge; what his knowledge has decided cannot be searched out, and what his wisdom has devised, as to the manner of executing his purposes, cannot be investigated; and no one can measure the extent of his knowledge, and no one has been his counselor, so as to add to the stores of his wisdom, (^<451134>Romans 11:34.) That we may see the whole passage in lines —
33. Oh the depth of God’s bounty and wisdom and knowledge!
How inscrutable his judgments
And untraceable his ways!
34. Who indeed hath known the Lord’s mind,
Or who has become his counselor?
35. Or who has first given to him?
And it shall be repayed to him:
36. For from him and through him and to him are all things:
To him the glory for everse — Amen. — Ed.
^ft372 The words of this verse seem to have been taken literally from ^<234013>Isaiah 40:13, as given in the Septuagint. The Hebrew is in some measure different, but the words will admit of a rendering approaching nearer to the meaning here than what is presented in our version, as follows —
Who has weighed the spirit of Jehovah,
And, being a man of his counsel, has taught him?
To “weigh the spirit” is to know it thoroughly: the same verb, ˆkt, is used in this sense in ^<201602>Proverbs 16:2; ^<202412>Proverbs 24:12. It indeed means to compute by measure or by weight; so that it may be rendered “measure” as well as “weigh,” and if we adopt “measure,” it will then appear that to “know the mind of the Lord,” is to know the extent of his understanding or knowledge; an idea which remarkably Corresponds with the passage. — Ed.
^ft373 There is a passage in ^<184111>Job 41:11, 12, in the Hebrew Bible,) of which this verse seems to be a translation, made by the Apostle himself, as totally another meaning is given in the Septuagint. The person is alone changed. The Hebrew is literally this,
Who has anticipated me,
And I will repay?
To “anticipate” means here with favor or gift; for the remainder of the verse is the following, —
Everything under the whole heaven, mind it is. — Ed.
^ft374 By “mercies,” the Apostle refers, as some think, to the various sects of God’s mercy, such as election, vocation, justification, and final salvation. Grotius considers that God’s attributes are referred to, such as are described in ^<023406>Exodus 34:6,7. Erasmus, quoting Origen, says, that the plural is used for amplification, in order to show the greatness of God’s mercy, as though the Apostle had said, “by God’s great mercy.” Schleusner renders the clause, “per summam Dei benignitatem — by God’s great kindness,” that is, in bringing you to the knowledge of the gospel. So “Father of mercies,” in ^<470103>2 Corinthians 1:3, may mean “most merciful Father,” or the meaning may be, “the Father of all blessings,” as mercy signifies sometimes what mercy bestows, (^<500201>Philippians 2:1,) as grace or favor often means the gift which flows from it. according to this view, “mercies” here are the blessings which God bestows, even the blessings of redemption. — Ed.
^ft375 The word sw>mata, “bodies,” he seems to have used, because of the similitude he adopts respecting sacrifices; for the bodies of beasts we are to consecrate our own bodies. As he meant before by “members,” chapter 6:13, the whole man, so he means here by “bodies,” that is, themselves.
They were to be living sacrifices, not killed as the legal sacrifices, they were to be holy, not maimed or defective, but whole and perfect as to all the members, and free from disease. See ^<032219>Leviticus 22:19-22. They were to be acceptable, euja>reston; “placentem — pleasing,” Beza; “well-pleasing,” Doddridge. It was not sufficient under the law for the sacrifices themselves to be holy, blameless, such as God required; but a right motive and a right feeling on the part of the offerer were necessary, in order that they might be accepted or approved by God. Without faith and repentance, and a reformed life, they were not accepted, but regarded as abominations. See ^<195119>Psalm 51:19; ^<230111>Isaiah 1:11-19.
It is said by Wolfius, that all the terms here are derived from the sacrificial rites of the law, and that Christians are represented both as the priests who offered, and as the sacrifices which were offered by them. — Ed.
^ft376 The word logikh<n, “reasonable,” was considered by Origen, and by many after him, as designating Christian service consonant with reason, in opposition to the sacrifices under the law, which were not agreeable to reason. But Chrysostom, whom also many have followed, viewed the word as meaning what is spiritual, or what belongs to the mind, in contradistinction to the ritual and external service of the law; but there is no example of the word having such a meaning, except it be ^<600202>1 Peter 2:2, which is by no means decisive. Rational, or reasonable, is its meaning, or, what agrees with the word, as Phavorinus explains it. There is no need here to suppose any contrast: the expression only designates the act or the service which the Apostle prescribes; as though he said, “What I exhort you to do is nothing but a reasonable service, consistent with the dictates of reason. God has done great things for you, and it is nothing but right and just that you should dedicate yourselves wholly to him.” This seems to be the obvious meaning. To draw this expression to another subject, in order to set up reason as an umpire in matters of faith, is wholly a perversion: and to say, that as it seems to refer to the word in ^<600202>1 Peter 2:2, it must be so considered here, is what does no necessarily follow; for as lo>gov sometimes means “word,” and sometimes “reason,” so its derivative may have a similar variety. — Ed.
^ft377 Ut probetis, eijv to< dokima>zein uJma~v; “ut noscatis — that ye may know,” Theophylact; “ut diligenter scrutemini — that ye may carefully search,” Jerome, “That ye may experimentally know,” Doddridge; “that ye may learn,” Stuart. The verb mans chiefly three things, — to test, i.e., metals by fire, to try, to prove, to examine, ^<600107>1 Peter 1:7; ^<421419>Luke 14:19; ^<471305>2 Corinthians 13:5, — to approve what is proved, ^<451422>Romans 14:22; ^<461603>1 Corinthians 16:3, — and also to prove a thing so as to make a proper distinction, to discern, to understand, to distinguish, ^<421256>Luke 12:56; ^<450218>Romans 2:18. The last idea is the most suitable here, “in order that ye may understand what the will of God is, even that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”
What Stuart says on the last clause seems just, that it is to be taken by itself, and that the words do not agree with “will,” but stand by themselves, being in the neuter gender. Otherwise we cannot affix any idea to “acceptable;” for it would be unsuitable to say that God’s will is “acceptable” to him, that being self-evident.
“Good,” ajgaqo<n, is useful, advantageous, beneficial; “acceptable,” eujareston, is what is pleasing to and accepted by God; and “perfect,” te>leion, is complete, entire, without any defect, or just and right.
It ought to be borne in mind, as Pareus observes, that in order to discern, and rightly to understand God’s will, the Apostle teaches us, that “the renewing of the mind” is necessary; otherwise, as he adds, “our corrupt nature will fascinate our eyes that they may not see, or if they see, will turn our hearts and wills, that they may not approve, or if they approve, will hinder us to follow what is approved.” — Ed.
^ft378 “Ne supra modum sapiat,” so the Vulgate and Beza; mh< uJperqro>nein, “ne supra modum de se sentiat — let him not think immoderately of himself,” Mede; “not to arrogate to himself,” Doddridge; “not to overestimate himself,” Stuart. This and the following clause may be thus rendered, “not to think highly above what it behooves him to think,” that is, of himself. Then what follows may admit of this rendering, “but to think so as to think rightly,” or modestly, (eijv to< swfro>nein.) The last verb occurs elsewhere five times; thrice it means “to be of a sane mind,” ^<410715>Mark 7:15; ^<420835>Luke 8:35; ^<470513>2 Corinthians 5:13; and twice it means “to act prudently,” ^<560206>Titus 2:6; ^<600407>1 Peter 4:7; or, it may be, in the last passage, “to live temperately.” As it refers here to the mind, it must mean such an estimate of one’s self as is sound, just, and right, such as becomes on who is sound and sane in his mind. Pride is a species of insanity; but humility betokens a return to a sane mind: and an humble estimate of ourselves, as Professor Hodge observes, is the only sound, sane, and right estimate. — Ed.
^ft379 We find a similar transposition in ^<460305>1 Corinthians 3:5. — Ed.
^ft380 “It is better,” says Augustine, “to doubt respecting hidden things, than to contend about things uncertain.” — Ed.
^ft381 The expression “the measures of faith,” me>tron pi>stewv, is differently explained. Some, as Beza and Pareus, consider “faith” here as including religion or Christian truth, because faith is the main principle, “as God has divided to each the measure of Christian truth or knowledge.” Others suppose with Mede, that “faith” here is to be taken for those various gifts and endowments which God bestowed on those who believed or professed the faith of the gospel; “as God has divided to each the measure of those gifts which come by faith, or which are given to those who believe.” The last view is most suitable to the context. We may, however, take, “faith” here for grace, and consider the meaning the same as in ^<490407>Ephesians 4:7. The subject there is the same as here, for the Apostle proceeds there to mention the different offices which Christ had appointed in his Church. — Ed.
^ft382 The Apostle pursues this likeness of the human body much more at large in ^<461212>1 Corinthians 12:12-31. There are two bonds of union; one, which is between the believer and Christ by true faith; and the other, which is between the individual member of a church or a congregation and the rest of the members by a professed faith. It is the latter that is handled by the Apostle, both here and in the Epistle to the Corinthians. — Ed.
^ft383 The ellipsis to be supplied here is commonly done as in our version, adopted from Beza. The supplement proposed by Pareus is perhaps more in unison with the passage; he repeats after “prophecy” the words in verse 3, changing the person, “let us think soberly,” or “let us be modestly wise.” — Ed.
^ft384 It is somewhat difficult exactly to ascertain what this “prophecy” was. The word “prophet,” aybn, means evidently two things in the Old Testament and also in the New — a foreteller and a teacher, or rather an interpreter of the word. Prophecy in the New Testament sometimes signifies prediction, its primary meaning. ^<441202>Acts 12:27; ^<610121>2 Peter 1:21; ^<660103>Revelation 1:3; but most commonly, as it is generally thought, the interpretation of prophecy, that is, of prophecies contained in the Old Testament, and for this work there were some in the primitive Church, as it is supposed, who were inspired, and thus peculiarly qualified. It is probable that this kind of prophecy is what is meant here. See ^<461210>1 Corinthians 12:10; ^<461302>1 Corinthians 13:2,8; ^<461403>1 Corinthians 14:3,6,22; ^<520520>1 Thessalonians 5:20.
That is was a distinct function from that of apostles, evangelists, pastors, and teachers, is evident from ^<490411>Ephesians 4:11; and from the interpretation of tongues, as it appears from ^<461210>1 Corinthians 12:10; and from revelation, knowledge, and doctrine, as we find from ^<461406>1 Corinthians 14:6. It also appears that it was more useful than other extraordinary gifts, as it tended more to promote edification and comfort, ^<461401>1 Corinthians 14:1,3. It is hence most probable that it was the gift already stated, that of interpreting the Scriptures, especially the prophecies of the Old Testament, and applying them for the edification of the Church. “Prophets” are put next to “apostles” in ^<490411>Ephesians 4:11. — Ed.
^ft385 “Secundum analogiam fidei,” so Pareus; kata< th<n ajnalogi>an thv pi>stewv; “pro proportione fidei — according to the proportions of faith,” Beza, Piscator; that is, as the former explains the phrase, “according to the measure or extent of the individual’s faith;” he was not to go beyond what he knew or what had been communicated to him by the Spirit. But the view which Calvin takes is the most obvious and consistent with the passage; and this is the view which Hammond gives, “according to that form of faith or wholesome doctrine by which every one who is sent out to preach the gospel is appointed to regulate his preaching, according to those heads or principles of faith and good life which are known among you.” The word ajnalogi>a means properly congruity, conformity, or proportion, not in the sense of measure or extent, but of equality, as when one thing is equal or comformable to another; hence the analogy of faith must mean what is conformable to the faith. And faith here evidently signifies divine truth, the object of faith, or what faith receives. See ^<451008>Romans 10:8; ^<480323>Galatians 3:23; ^<560104>Titus 1:4; ^<650103>Jude 1:3. — Ed.
^ft386 Critics have found it difficult to distinguish between these offices. The word diakoni>a, ministry is taken sometimes in a restricted sense, as meaning deaconship, an office appointed to mange the temporal affairs of the Church, ^<440601>Acts 6:1-3; ^<540308>1 Timothy 3:8-13; and sometimes in a general sense, as signifying the ministerial office, ^<470603>2 Corinthians 6:3; ^<490307>Ephesians 3:7; ^<510123>Colossians 1:23. As the “teacher” and “exhorter” are mentioned, some think that the deaconship is to be understood here, and that the Apostle first mentioned the highest office, next to the apostleship — prophecy, and the lowest — the deaconship, and afterwards named the intervening offices — those of teachers and exhorters.
But what are we to think of those mentioned in the following clauses? Stuart thinks that they were not public officers, but private individuals, and he has sustained this opinion by some very cogent reasons. The form of the sentence is here changed; and the Apostle, having mentioned the deaconship, cannot be supposed to have referred to the same again. The word that seems to stand in the way of this view is what is commonly rendered “ruler,” or, “he who rules:” but oJ proi`sta>menov, as our author shows, means a helper, an assistant, (see ^<451602>Romans 16:2,) as well as a ruler; it means to stand over, either for the purpose of taking care of, assisting, protecting others, or of presiding over, ruling, guiding them. Then ejn spoudh~|, with promptness or diligence, will better agree with the former than with the latter idea. The other two clauses correspond also more with this view than with the other. It has been said, that if a distributor of alms had been intended, the word would have been diadidou<v and not metadidou<v. See ^<490428>Ephesians 4:28. The expression aJplo>thti, means “with liberality, or liberally.” See ^<470802>2 Corinthians 8:2; ^<470911>2 Corinthians 9:11,13; ^<590105>James 1:5. — Ed.
^ft387 “Love,” says an old author, “is the sum and substance of all virtues. Philosophers make justice the queen of virtues; but love is the mother of justice, for it renders to God and to our neighbor what is justly due to them.” — Ed.
^ft388 It is difficult to render this clause: Calvin’s words are, “Fraterna charitate ad vos mutuo amandos propensi;” so Beza. The Apostle joins two things — mutual love of brethren, with the natural love of parents and children, as though he said, “Let your brotherly love have in it the affectionate feelings which exists between parents and children.” “In brotherly love, be mutually full of tender affection,” Doddridge. “In brotherly love, be kindly disposed toward each other,” Macknight. It may be thus rendered, “In brotherly love, be tenderly affectionate to one another.”
Calvin’s version of the next clause is, “Alii alios honore praevenientes;” so Erasmus; th~| timh~| ajllh>louv prohgou>menoi; “honore alii aliis praeuntes — in honor (that is, in conceding honor) going before one another,” Beza, Piscator, Macknight. It is thus explained by Mede, “Wait not for honor from others, but be the first to concede it.” The participle means to take the lead of, or outrunning, one another.” See ^<500803>Philippians 2:3 — Ed.
^ft389 “Studio non pigri,” th~| spoudh~| mh< ojknhroi; “Be not slothful in haste,” that is, in a matter requiring haste. “We must strive,” says Theophylact, “to assist with promptness those whose circumstances require immediate help and relief.” — Ed.
^ft390 The balance of evidence, according to Griesbach, is in favor, of tw~| kairw~|, “time,” though there is much, too, which countenances the other reading. Luther, Erasmus, and Hammond prefer the former, while Beza, Piscator, Pareus, and most of the moderns, the latter. The most suitable to the context is the former. — Ed.
^ft391 There is here an instance of the depravation of the text by some of the fathers, such as Ambrose, Hilary, Pelagius, Optatus, etc., who substituted mnei>av, monuments, for crei>av, necessities, or wants: but though there are a few copies which have this reading, yet it has been discarded by most; it is not found in the Vulgate, nor approved by Erasmus nor Grotius. The word was introduced evidently , as Whitby intimates, to countenance the superstition of the early Church respecting the monuments or sepulchres of martyrs and confessors. The fact, that there were no monuments of martyrs at this time in Rome, was wholly overlooked. — Ed.
^ft392 The first clause is omitted. The text of Calvin is, “Mutuo alii in alios sensu affecti;” to< aujto< eijv allh>louv fronou~ntev; “Itidem alii in alios affecti — Feel alike towards on another,” Beza; “Be entirely united in your regards for each other,” Doddridge; “Be of the same disposition towards one another,” Macknight. The verb means to think, or to feel, or to mind, in the sense of attending to, or aspiring after a thing. It is used also in the next clause, evidently in the last sense, minding. There is no reason why its meaning should be different here; it would then be, “Mind the same things towards one another,” that is, Do to others what you expect others to do to you. It is to reduce to an axiom what is contained in the former verse. We may indeed give this version, “Feel the same, or alike towards one another,” that is, sympathize with one another: and this would still be coincident in meaning with the former verse; and it would be in accordance with the Apostle’s mode of writing.
But another construction has been given, “Think the same of one another,” that is, Regard one another alike in dignity and privilege as Christians, without elevating yourselves, and viewing yourselves better than others. This would well agree with the sentence which follows.
The two following clauses are thus given by Doddridge, “Affect not high things, but condescend to men of low rank,” — and by Macknight, “Do not care for high things; but associate with lowly men.” The word tapeinoi~v, is not found in the New Testament to be applied to things, but to persons. “Associate” is perhaps the best rendering of sunapago>menoi, which literally means to withdraw from one party in order to walk with another: they were to withdraw from those who minded high things, and walk or associate with the humble and lowly. “And cleave to the humble,” is the Syriac version. — Ed.
^ft393 “Providentes bona;” pronoou>menoi kala<; “procurantes honesta — providing honest things,” Beza, providing thins reputable,” Doddridge; “premeditating things comely,” Macknight. The participle means to mind beforehand, to prepare, to provide, and also to take care of or to attend to a thing. “Attending to things honorable” may be the rendering here. The adjective kalo<v, means fair, good; and good in conduct as here is not “comely,” but just, right, or reputable, as Doddridge renders it. The word “honest” does not now retain its original idea or honorable. — Ed.
^ft394 Many have been the advocates of this exposition, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Beza, Hammond, Macknight, Stuart, etc. But there is no instance of the expression, “to give place,” having this meaning. In the two places where it occurs, it means to give way, to yield. See ^<421409>Luke 14:9; ^<490427>Ephesians 4:27. Then to give place to wrath, is to yield to and patiently to endure the wrath of the man who does the wrong. Some have maintained that the meaning is, that the injured man is to give place to his own wrath, that is, allow it time to cool: but this view comports not with the passage. The subject is, that a Christian is not to retaliate, or to return wrath for wrath, but to endure the wrath of his enemy, and to leave the matter in the hand of God. With this sense the quotation accords as much as with that given by Calvin. Not a few have taken this view, Basil, Ambrose, Drusius, Mede, Doddridge, Scott, etc. — Ed.
^ft395 Calvin has in this exposition followed Chrysostom and Theodoret. The former part no doubt contains the right view; the following verse proves it, “Overcome evil with good.” The idea of “heaping coals of fire” is said to have been derived from the practice of heaping coals on the fire to melt hard metals; but as “the coals of fire” must mean “burning coals,” as indeed the word in ^<202522>Proverbs 25:22, whence the passage is taken, clearly means, this notion cannot be entertained. It seems to be a sort of proverbial saying, signifying something intolerable, which cannot be borne without producing strong effects. such is represented to be kindness to any enemy, to feed him when hungry and to give him drink when thirsty, has commonly such a power over him that he cannot resist its influence, no more than he can withstand the scorching heat of burning coals. Of course the natural tendency of such a conduct is all that is intended, and not that it invariably produces such an effect; for in Scripture things are often stated in this way; but human nature is such a strange thing, that it often resists what is right, just, and reasonable, and reverses, as it were, the very nature of things.
It is not true what Whitby and others have held, that “coals of fire” always mean judgments or punishments. The word indeed in certain connections, as in ^<191813>Psalm 18:13; ^<19E011>Psalm 140:11, has this meaning, but in ^<202522>Proverbs 25:22, it cannot be taken in this sense, as the preceding verse most clearly proves. There is no canon of interpretation more erroneous than to make words or phrases to bear the same meaning in every place. — Ed.
^ft396 “Anima,” yuch<, not only the Hebrews, (see ^<011421>Genesis 14:21; 46:27,) but the Greeks also designate man by this word. Man is sometimes designated by his immaterial part, soul, and sometimes by his material part, flesh, or body, as in ^<451201>Romans 12:1. One author says that the word soul is used here in order to show that the obedience enforced should be from the soul, not feigned, but sincere and genuine. Let every soul, that is “every one,” says Grotius, “even apostles, prophets, and bishops.” — Ed.
^ft397 “Potestates supereminentes — pre-eminent powers.” Hammond renders the words ejxousi>aiv uJperecou>saiv, supreme powers, meaning kings, and refers to a]rcontev in ^<451303>Romans 13:3, as a proof; but this word means magistrates as well as kings. See ^<441709>Acts 17:98. The ruling power as exercised by those in authority is evidently what is meant here, without any reference to any form of government. Of course obedience to kings, or to emperors, or to any exercising a ruling power, whatever name they may bear, is included. — Ed
^ft398 Grotius qualifies this obedience by saying, that it should not extend to what is contrary to the will of God. But it is remarkable, that often in Scripture things are stated broadly and without any qualifying terms, and yet they have limits, as it is clear from other portions. This peculiarity is worthy of notice. Power is from God, the abuse of power is from what is evil in men. The Apostle throughout refers only to power justly exercised. He does not enter into the subject of tyranny and oppression. And this is probably the reason why he does not set limits to the obedience required: he contemplated no other than the proper and legitimate use of power. — Ed.
^ft399 “Judicium,” kri>ma; some render it “punishment;” Beza, “condemnation.” The word is used in both senses: but according to the tenor of the former part of the verse, it seems that the Apostle means that which is inflicted by God. — Ed.
^ft400 The words, “Vindex in iram adversus eos qui male agunt,” can hardly be translated; and the latter part is improperly put in the plural. — Ed.
^ft401 Vindex in iram, e]kdikov eijv ojrgh<n; “ a revenger to execute wrath,” Com. Ver., Doddridge; “a revenger for wrath,” Hammond. Wrath is here taken to mean punishment, by Luther, Beza, Grotius, Mede, etc. see ^<450205>Romans 2:5; ^<450305>Romans 3:5; ^<450415>Romans 4:15. The phrase then might be rendered, “condemning to punishment the doer of evil.” There is a contrast between “for wrath” and “for good” at the beginning of the verse. — Ed.
^ft402 “Ministri,” leitourgoi<, administrators, functionaries, the performers of public service, or public ministers, according to Macknight. Rulers were called before, in ^<451304>Romans 13:4, dia>konoi, servants, deacons, ministers. The same titles are given to them as to the Apostles and ministers of the gospel, and even to Christ himself: and they are said to be the ministers and functionaries of God, being so in civil matters, as those are in spiritual things who preach the gospel. — Ed.
^ft403 The words “to this very thing,” eijv aujto< tou>to, seem to be an instance of Hebraism, as taz, “this,” in that language is both singular and plural, and means “this,” or “those,” according to the context. “To these very things,” before mentioned as to the works and duties of magistrates, appears to be the meaning here: and so the words are rendered in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions. A singular instance is found at the beginning of ^<451309>Romans 13:9, “For this,” to< ga<r, and then several commandments are mentioned; “for this” is the law, says Stuart; but the word for “law” is of a different gender. What we would say in English is, “for these,” etc. It is a Hebrew idiom transferred into Greek. — Ed.
^ft404 The distinction commonly made between the two words is this, — fo>rov, “tribute,” is a tax on the person or on lands, and te>lov, “custom,” is what is levied on merchandise. — Ed.
^ft405 The debt of love is to be always paid, and is always due: for love is ever to be exercised. We are to pay other debts, and we may pay them fully and finally: but the debt of love ever continues, and is to be daily discharged. — Ed.
^ft406 The preceding explanation of night and day, as here to be understood, does not comport with what is afterwards said on ^<451312>Romans 13:12. The distinction between night and day of a Christian, ought to be clearly kept in view. The first is what is here described, but the latter is what the passage refers to. And the sleep mentioned here is not the sleep of ignorance and unbelief, but the sleep, the torpor, or inactivity of Christians.
That the present state of believers, their condition in this world, is meant here by “night,” and their state of future glory is meant by “day,” appears evident from the words which follow, “for nearer now is our salvation than when we believed.” Salvation here, as in ^<450824>Romans 8:24, and in ^<600109>1 Peter 1:9, means salvation made complete and perfect, the full employment of all its blessings. Indeed in no other sense can what is said here of night and day be appropriate. The night of heathen ignorance as to Christians had already passed, and the day of gospel light was not approaching, but had appeared. — Ed.
^ft407 The words kai< tou>to, according to Beza, Grotius, Mede, etc., connect what follows with the preceding exhortation to love, “And this do, or let us do, as we know,” etc. But the whole tenor of what follows by no means favors this view. The subject is wholly different. It is evidently a new subject of exhortation, as Calvin says, and the words must be rendered as he proposes, or be viewed as elliptical; the word “I say,” or “I command,” according to Macknight, being understood, “This also I say, since we know the time,” etc. If we adopt “I command,” or “moreover,” as Calvin does, it would be better to regard the participle eijdo>tev, as having the meaning of an imperative, este being understood, several instances of which we have in the preceding chapter, ^<451209>Romans 12:9,16,17. The whole passage would then read better in this manner, —
11. Moreover, know the time, that it is even now the very time for us to awake from sleep; for nearer now is our salvation than when we
12. believed: the night has advanced, and the day has approached; let us then cast away the works of darkness, and let us put on the
13. armor of light; let us, as in the day, walk in a becoming manner, etc. — Ed.
^ft408 The case is the same with the two preceding instances; the vice which seems to follow is placed first. Revelling is first mentioned, though drunkenness goes before it; and “chambering,” or concubinage, or indulgence in unlawful lusts is first stated, though lasciviousness or wantonness is the source from which it proceeds. It is an example of the Apostle’s mode of writing similar to what we find in ^<451129>Romans 11:29, as to “the gifts and calling of God,” and in verse 33, as to “the wisdom and knowledge of God.” — Ed.
^ft409 Many have explained “the putting on” here in a manner wholly inconsistent with the passage, as though the putting on of Christ’s righteousness was intended. Calvin keeps to what accords with the context, the putting on of Christ as to his holy image. Sanctification, and not justification, is the subject of the passage. To put on Christ, then, is to put on his virtues and graces, to put on or be endued with his spirit, to imitate his conduct and to copy his example. This is in addition to the putting him on as our righteousness, and not as a substitute for it. Both are necessary: for Christ is our sanctification, the author, worker, and example of it, as well as our righteousness. — Ed.
^ft410 Some, as Haldane, have found fault with this classification, as there is nothing in the chapter which countenances it. But as the Apostle’s object throughout the epistle was to reconcile the Jews and Gentiles, there is reason sufficient to regard them as the two parties here intended: and, as Chalmers justly observes, it is more probable that the Gentiles were the despisers, inasmuch as the Jews, who, like Paul, had got over their prejudices, were no doubt disposed to sympathize with their brethren, who were still held fast by them. — Ed.
^ft411 Non ad disceptationes quaestionum, mh< eijv diakri>seiv dialogismw~n; “non ad altercationes disceptationum — not for the altercations of disputings” or debatings, Beza; “not to debates about matter in doubt,” Doddridge; “not in order to the strifes of disputations,” Macknight. Both words are in the plural number; therefore to give the first the sense of “judging,” as Hodge does, cannot be right; for in that case it would have been in the singular number. The words may be rendered, “no for the solutions of doubts.” One of the meanings of the first word, according to Hesychius, is dia>lusiv — untying, loosening, dissolving; and for the latter, see ^<422438>Luke 24:38, and ^<540208>1 Timothy 2:8. according to the frequent import of the preposition eijv, the sentence may be thus paraphrased, “Him who is weak in the faith receive, but not that ye may solve his doubts,” or, “debate in reasonings,” or, “contend in disputations.” — Ed.
^ft412 Scott’s remarks on this verse are striking and appropriate, — “Notwithstanding,” he says, “the authority vested by Christ in his Apostles, and their infallibility in delivering his doctrine to mankind, differences of opinion prevailed even among real Christians; nor did St. Paul, by an express decision and command, attempt to put a final termination to them. A proposition indeed may be certain and important truth; yet a man cannot receive it without due preparation of mind and heart; — so that a compelled assent to any doctrine, or conformity to any outward observances, without conviction, would in general be hypocrisy, and entirely unavailing. So essential are the rights and existence of private judgment, in all possible cases, to the exercise of true religion! and so useless an encumbrance would an infallible judge be, for deciding controversies, and producing unanimity among Christians!”
^ft413 This is true, but the passage here seems not to require such a construction. Both sentences are declarative, announcing a fact respecting two parties: the one believed he might eat everything; the other did eat only herbs. The relative o{v, when repeated, often means “one,” as in ^<451305>Romans 13:5, and in ^<461121>1 Corinthians 11:21: and the article oJ stands here for that repetition; an example of which Raphelius adduces from the Greek classics.
Some think that this abstinence from meat was not peculiar to the Jews; but that some Gentiles also had scruples on the subject. It is true that heathens, who held the transmigration of souls, did not eat flesh: but it is not likely that abstinence, arising from such an absurd notion, would have been thus treated by the Apostle. It indeed appears evident, that the abstinence here referred to did arise from what was regarded to be the will of God: and though abstinence from all animal food was not enjoined on the Jews, yet it appears from history that Jews, living among heathens, wholly abstained, owing to the fear they had of being in any way contaminated. This was the case with Daniel and his companions, ^<270108>Daniel 1:8-16. Professor Hodge says, in a note on this passage, “Josephus states in his life (chapter 23) that certain Jewish priests, while at Rome, lived entirely upon fruit, from the dread of eating anything unclean.” We may also suppose that some of the Essenes, who abstained from meat and from wine, were among the early converts. — Ed.
^ft414 The last clause is by Haldane confined to the strong, and he object to this extension of it; and certainly the following verse is in favor of his view, for the weak, the condemner, is the person reproved, and therefore the strong is he who to his own master stands or falls. The condemner throughout is the weak, and the despiser is the strong. — Ed
^ft415 “Unusquisque sententiae suae certus sit;” e[kastov ejn tw~| ijdi>w| noi< plhroforei>sqw; “unusquisque in animo suo plene certus esto — let every one be fully sure in his own mind,” Beza, Pareus; “let every one be convinced in his mind,” Macknight; “let every one freely enjoy his own sentiment,” Doddridge. This last is by no means the sense: Our own version is the best and the most literal, “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind;” and with which Calvin’s exposition perfectly agrees. For the meaning of the verb here see ^<450421>Romans 4:21. “The Greek word is a metaphor borrowed from ships, which are carried with full sail, and signifieth a most certain persuasion of the truth.” — Leigh. The certain persuasion here refers to both parties — the eater and the abstainer: both were to do what they were fully convinced was agreeable to the will of God. — Ed.
^ft416 It has been suggested as a question by some, whether the Christian Sabbath is included here? The very subject in hand proves that it is not. The subject discussed is the observance of Jewish days, as in ^<480410>Galatians 4:10, and ^<510216>Colossians 2:16, and not what belonged to Christians in common. — Ed.
^ft417 The words, kai ajne>sth, are dismissed by Griesbach as spurious, and he substitutes e]zhsen for ajne>xhsen. The difference in meaning is none; only it comports with the style of the Apostle to add words of similar import for the sake of greater emphasis, as the case often is in the Prophets. — Ed.
^ft417a The words, kai ajne>sth, are dismissed by Griesbach as spurious, and he substitutes e]zhsen for ajne>xhsen. The difference in meaning is none; only it comports with the style of the Apostle to add words of similar import for the sake of greater emphasis, as the case often is in the Prophets. — Ed.
^ft418 It appears from the order of the words su< de> ti> — , and h{ kai< su< ti> — , that the address was made to two parties. “But thou, the weak, why condemnest thou thy brother? and thou also, the strong, why dost thou despise thy brother?” — Ed.
^ft419 The words “We shall all stand,” etc., may be rendered, “We must all stand,” etc. It is indeed the future tense, but this is according to what is often the case in Hebrew, for in that language the future has frequently this meaning. ^<451312>Romans 13:12 may be rendered in the same manner, “So then every one of us must give account of himself to God.” — Ed.
^ft420 The passage is from ^<234523>Isaiah 45:23. In two instances the Apostle gives the sense, and not the words. Instead of “by myself have I sworn,” he give the form of the oath, “As I live.” This is the manner in which God swears by himself, it is by his life — his eternal existence. Then the conclusion of the verse in Hebrew is, “every tongue shall swear,” that is, “unto me.” To swear to God or by his name is to avow allegiance to him, to profess or to confess his name. See ^<194301>Psalm 43:11; ^<236301>Isaiah 63:1; ^<360105>Zephaniah 1:5. The Apostle therefore does no more than interpret the Hebrew idiom when he says, “every tongue shall confess to God.” — Ed.
^ft421 The two words, pro>skomma and ska>ndalon, mean nearly the same thing, but with this difference, that the first seems to be an hindrance or an obstacle which occasions stumbling or falling, and the other is an obstacle which stops or impedes progress in the way. See ^<401623>Matthew 16:23. The two parties, the strong and the weak, are here evidently addressed; the former was not, by eating, to put a stumblingblock in the way of the weak brother; nor was the weak, by condemning, to be a hindrance or impediment in the way of the strong so as to prevent him to advance in his course. Thus we see that forbearance is enjoined on both parties, though the Apostle afterwards dwells more on what the strong was to do.
The clause might be thus rendered, —
“But rather judge it right to do this, —
not to lay before a brother a stumbling-stone, or an impediment.” — Ed.
^ft422 “At the very time of giving forth the sentence, and on the highest of all authority, that there was nothing unclean of itself, he yet leaves others at liberty to esteem anything unclean. We are not sure if anywhere else in Scripture, the divine authority of toleration is so clearly manifested.” — Chalmers.
^ft423 To elicit this meaning, which is in itself true, Calvin must have construed the sentence thus, “I know, and I am persuaded, that through the Lord Jesus nothing is of itself unclean:” but this is not the meaning. What the Apostle says is, that he knew, and was fully assured by the Lord Jesus, that is, by the teaching of his word Spirit, that nothing was in itself unclean, all ceremonial distinctions having been now removed and abolished. — Ed.
^ft424 From the words “destroy not,” etc., some have deduced the sentiment, that those for whom Christ died may perish for everse It is neither wise nor just to draw a conclusion of this kind; for it is one that is negatived by many positive declarations of Scripture. Man’s inference, when contrary to God’s word, cannot be right. Besides, the Apostle’s object in this passage is clearly this, — to exhibit the sin of those who disregarded without saying that it actually effected that evil. Some have very unwisely attempted to obviate the inference above mentioned, by suggesting, that the destruction meant was that of comfort and edification. But no doubt the Apostle meant the ruin of the soul; hence the urgency of his exhortation, — “Do not act in such a way as tends to endanger the safety of a soul for whom Christ has shed his blood;” or, “Destroy not,” that is, as far as you can do so. Apostles and ministers are said to “save” men; some are exhorted here not to “destroy” them. Neither of these effects can follow, except in the first instance, God grants his blessing, and in the second his permission; and his permission as to his people he will never grant, as he has expressly told us. See ^<431027>John 10:27-29. — Ed.
^ft425 “Vestrum bonum,” uJmw~n to< ajgaqo>n. Some, such as Grotius and Hammond, Scott, Chalmers, etc., agree with Calvin, and view this “good,” or privilege, to be Christian liberty, or freedom from ceremonial observances, (see ^<461029>1 Corinthians 10:29;) but Origen, Ambrose, Theodoret, Mede, etc., consider that the gospel is meant. The first opinion is the most suitable to the passage. — Ed
^ft426 What is here said is no doubt true of the kingdom of God; but by considering what is afterwards said in the two following verses, we cannot well accede to this exposition. Righteousness, peace, and joy, mentioned here, are things acceptable to God and approved by men: they must then be things apparent and visible, which men see and observe; and to follow “the things of peace,” refers to the conduct. “Righteousness” then must mean here the doing of what is right and just towards one another; “peace,” concordand unanimity, as opposed to discord and contentions; “joy,” the fruit of this peaceable state, a cheering delight, a mutual rejoicing, instead of the sorrow and grief occasioned by discord; and these come “through the Holy Spirit” and are produced by him; and they are not the semblances of such virtues and graces, presented in some instances by false religions. See ^<480522>Galatians 5:22,23. Doddridge, Stuart, and Chalmers have viewed the passage in this light, though the latter, as well as Scott, seemed inclined to combine the two views: but this is to mix up thing together unnecessarily, and to destroy the harmony of the context. — Ed.
^ft427 Jerome often employed the former part of this verse for the purpose of encouraging nomasticism; and by thus disconnecting it from the context, he got a passage quite suitable to his purpose. Even Erasmus condemned this shameful perversion. — Ed.
^ft428 This is a similar, but not the same sentence as in ^<451301>Romans 13:15. The verb is different, kata>lue; which means to undo, to loosen, to pull down; and as “work” follows, which, as Calvin and others think, is to be understood of God’s building, the work of edifying or building up his people, the verb may in this sense be rendered here, “Pull not down the work of God.” But here, as in ^<451301>Romans 13:15, it is the tendency of the deed that is to be considered, and the effect as far as man’s doing was concerned. The Apostle says nothing of what God would do. — Ed.
^ft429 What is said here proves what is stated in a note on ^<451313>Romans 13:13; that is, that ska>ndalon is a less evil than pro>skomma, only that the idea of stumbling, instead of hindrance or impediment, is given here to the former word. The Apostle still adopts, as it were, the ascending scale. He first mentions the most obvious effect, the actual fall, the extreme evil, and then the next to it, the obstacle in the way; and, in the third place, the weakening of the faith of the individual. The real order of the process is the reverse, — the weakening, then the impediment, and, lastly, the stumblingblock which occasions the fall. — Ed.
^ft430 The version of Calvin is, “Beatus qui non judicat seipsum in eo quod examinat,” mokka>riov o[ mh< kri>nwn eJauto<n ejn w|+ dokima>zei; the latter part is rendered by Beza, and Piscator, “in eo quod approbat — in that which he approves;” by Doddridge, “in the thing which he alloweth;” by Macknight, “by what he approveth.” The reference is no doubt to the strong, who had “faith,” who believed all meats lawful. The verb means to try, to examine, as well as to approve; but the latter seems to be its meaning here. To approve and to have faith appears in this case to be the same: then to have faith and not to abuse it by giving offense to a brother was to be a happy man, who did not condemn himself. The meaning then most suitable to the passage is this, “Happy the man! who condemns not himself by what he approves,” that is, by eating meat to the annoyance and stumbling of the weak. — Ed.
^ft431 The Greek is oJ diakrino>menov, “he who discerns,” that is, a difference as to meats; so Doddridge, Macknight, and Chalmers regard its meaning. Beza has “qui dubitat — who doubts,” and so our version. The word used by Calvin is dijudicat, which properly means to judge between things, to discern, but according to his explanation it means to judge in two ways, to be undecided.
The verb no doubt admits of these two meanings; it is used evidently in the sense of making or putting a difference, but only, as some say, in the active voice. There are indeed two places where it seems to have this meaning in its passive or middle form, ^<590204>James 2:4, and ^<650122>Jude 1:22. But as Paul has before used it in this Epistle, ^<450420>Romans 4:20, in the sense of hesitating, staggering, or doubting, we may reasonably suppose that it has this meaning here, and especially as in every place where he expresses the other idea, he has employed the active form. See ^<460407>1 Corinthians 4:7; ^<461129>1 Corinthians 11:29,31; etc. — Ed.
^ft432 Introduced here, as the conclusion of the last chapter, by Griesbach and other collators of MSS., are the three last verses of the Epistle, 25-27. It appears that the largest number of copies is in favor of this arrangement, countenanced by the Greek fathers, and the Syriac and Arabic versions. In favor of the present order, as in our version, there are some good MSS., the Latin fathers, and the Vulgate, etc. What strongly favors and decidedly confirms the order which we have, is the evident connection as to matter between this and the last chapter, which shows the impropriety of having those verses intervening between them. — Ed.
^ft433 The word for “strong” is dunatoi<, “able,” which Calvin renders potentes, powerful, or able. They were the more advanced in knowledge and in piety. They were to “bear,” basta>zein, in the sense of carrying or sustaining the infirmities of the weak, impotentium, “the unable,” ajduna>twn, such as were unable to carry their own burdens. The duty is not merely to bear with or tolerate weaknesses, (for this is not the meaning of the verb,) but to help and assist the weak and the feeble to carry them. The most literal rendering is —
“We then who are able ought to bear (or carry)
the infirmities of the unable.” — Ed.
^ft434 The ga<r in this verse is considered by Griesbach as wholly spurious; and Beza has left it out. — Ed.
^ft435 The intention of producing Christ’s example here is to enjoin disinterestedness. He denies himself for the sake of glorifying God in the salvation of men: so his followers ought to show the same spirit; they ought to inconvenience themselves, and undergo toil, trouble, suffering, and reproaches, if necessary, in order to help and assist their fellow-Christians. — Ed.
^ft436 “The object of this verse is not so much to show the propriety of applying the passage quoted from the Psalms to Christ, as to show that the facts recorded in the Scriptures are designed for our instruction.” — Hodge.
^ft437 Or, That we might possess, enjoy, or retain hope. He does not describe this hope, it being sufficiently evident — the hope of the gospel. — Ed.
^ft438 Some take “patience” apart from “consolation,” — “through patience, and the consolation of the Scriptures;” but what is evidently meant is the patience and consolation which the Scriptures teach and administer, or are the means of supplying; for it is the special object of the passage to show the benefits derived from the Scriptures. Then it is no doubt “consolation,” and not exhortation, though the word has also that meaning; for in the next verse it clearly means consolation. It is thus rendered, and in connection with “patience,” by Beza, Pareus, Doddridge, Macknight, etc.
In our version it is “comfort” in ^<451504>Romans 15:4, and “consolation” in ^<451505>Romans 15:5; but it would have been better to have retained the same word. — Ed.
^ft439 There is a difference of opinion as to the unity contemplated here, whether it be that of sentiment or of feeling. The phrase, to< aujto< fronei~n, occurs in the following places, ^<451216>Romans 12:16; ^<451505>Romans 15:5; ^<471311>2 Corinthians 13:11; ^<500502>Philippians 2:2; ^<500316>Philippians 3:16; ^<500402>Philippians 4:2. Leigh says, that the phrase signifies to be of one mind, of one judgment, of one affection, towards one another. But though the verb fronei~n may admit of these three significations, yet the Apostle no doubt had in view a specific idea; and when we consider that he had been inculcating the principle of toleration as to unity of sentiment with regard to the eating of meats and of observing of days, and that he has been enforcing the duty of forbearance, and of sympathy, and of love towards each other, it appears probable that unity of feeling and of concern for each other’s welfare is what is intended here. Beza, Scott, and Chalmers take this view, while Pareus, Mede, and Stuart take the other, that is, that unity of sentiment is what is meant.
What confirms the former, in addition to the general import of the context, is the clause which follows, “according to Christ Jesus,” which evidently means, “according to his example,” as mentioned in verse 3.
Then in the next verse, the word oJmoqumado<n refers to the unity of feeling and of action, rather than to that of sentiment. It occurs, besides here, in these places, ^<440114>Acts 1:14, ^<440201>Acts 2:1,46; ^<440424>Acts 4:24; ^<440512>Acts 5:12; ^<440757>Acts 7:57; ^<440806>Acts 8:6; ^<441220>Acts 12:20; ^<441525>Acts 15:25; ^<441812>Acts 18:12; ^<441929>Acts 19:29. It is used by the Septuagint for djy, which means “together.” It is rendered “unanimiter — unanimously,” Beza; “with one mind,” by Doddridge; and “unanimously,” by Macknight. It is thus paraphrased by Grotius, “with a mind full of mutual love, free from contempt, free from hatred.” — Ed.
^ft440 In gloriam Dei, eijv do>xan Qeou~, i.e., in order to set forth the glory of God, or, in other words, that God might be glorified. So Erasmus, Chalmers, and Stuart. Others regard this “glory” as that which God bestows, even eternal happiness, according to this meaning, — “Receive ye one another into communion and fellowship, as Christ has received you into the glory of God,” that is, into that glorious state which God has provided and promised. See ^<431724>John 17:24. For “you,” our version has “us;” but Griesbach considers “you” as the true reading. — Ed.
^ft441 The beginning of this verse, “Now I say,” Dico autem, Le>gw de<, is read by Beza and Grotius, Le>gw ga<r, “For I say,” and Griesbach regards it of nearly equal authority. If we retain de<, it may be rendered “moreover,” or “further;” and to render the clause more distinct, the word “this,” as proposed by Beza and Pagninus, may be added, — “I further say this,” etc. The two verses may be thus rendered, —
8. I further say this, that Christ became a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, that he might confirm the promises made to
9. the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy, as it is written, “I will therefore confess thee among the nations, and to thy name will I sing.”
The reasons for this rendering are given in the next note. — Ed.
^ft442 The construction of this first sentence is differently viewed. Grotius and Stuart connect it with “I say” at the beginning of the former verse; but Beza and Pareus connect it with the last clause, and consider eijv to< as being here understood: and this seems to be the best construction. Christ became the minister of the circumcision, a minister under the Abrahamic economy, for two objects, — that he might confirm the promises made to the Fathers, — and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. Mercy was destined to come to the Gentiles through the covenant made with Abraham, of which circumcision was the sign and seal. The promise, “In thee shall the nations of the earth be blessed,” was made to Abraham, and not to the Gentiles. Hence it is called “mercy” to them, there being to previous promise made distinctly to them, while the same mercy as to the Jews is called “truth,” because it was the fulfillment of a promise. A remarkable instance of this difference, noticed by Haldane, is found in ^<330720>Micah 7:20. What is said to be “mercy” to Abraham, to whom the promise was first made, is said to be “truth” to Jacob, to whom it was confirmed. It may also, by the way, be observed, that this verse in Micah affords an example of what we often find in Paul’s style; for in mentioning two or more things, he often reverses the regular order. What Micah mentions first is “truth” to Jacob, and then he goes back to God’s “mercy” to Abraham.
The quotation from ^<191849>Psalm 18:49, is verbatim from the Septuagint. The Hebrew verb with its postfix, ˚dwa, in our version, “I will give thanks to thee,” may more properly be rendered, “I will confess thee.” — Ed.
^ft443 This passage is evidently taken from ^<053243>Deuteronomy 32:43, given literally as it is found in the Septuagint, and literally too from the Hebrew, if the reading of two copies, referred to by Kennicalt, be adopted, in which ta, “with,” is placed before wç[, “his people.” It is no objection that “adversaries” are mentioned in the context. There have ever been adversaries to God’s people; and God even now denounces his judgments on his adversaries, though the Gentiles as a people, as a separate class from the Jews, have been long ago admitted to the privilege of rejoicing with his people. — Ed.
^ft444 ^<231110>Isaiah 11:10. The whole of this quotation is given as it is found in the Septuagint. The difference, as noticed by Calvin, between the words as given in Hebrew, is considerable. The language of the Prophet is metaphorical, the Septuagint interpreted it, and this interpretation the Apostle approved and adopted. The Messiah is represented by the Prophet as a general or a leader of an army, raising his banner for the nations, (çym[, not “people,” as in our version:) and the Gentiles repair or resort to this banner for protection; and so Lowth renders the verb wçrdy, only he does not preserve the metaphor, by rendering wyla, “unto him,” instead of “to it,” as in our version. It hence appears evident, that the passage is substantially the same; and indeed the verb a]rcein, retains in some measure the idea of the original, for it strictly means to be a leader, to rule as a chief. — Ed.
^ft445 The God of hope may mean one of two things, — the giver or author of hope, as in ^<600103>1 Peter 1:3, — or the object of hope, he in whom hope is placed, as in ^<540617>1 Timothy 6:17.
Why does he mention joy before peace? It is in accordance with his usual manner, — the most visible, the stream first, then the most hidden, the spring. — Ed.
^ft446 That is eijv to<, instead of ejn tw~|. — Ed.
^ft447 This is the view approved by Theophylact, Beza, Grotius, Mede, and Hammond: but Doddridge, Scott, Stuart, and Chalmers consider “peace” here to be that with God, and “joy” as its accompaniment; while Pareus and Hodge view both as included, especially the latter. If we consider the subject in hand, that the Apostle was attempting to produce union and concord between the Jews and the Gentiles, we shall see reason to accede to Calvin’s explanations. This joy and peace seem to be the same as in ^<451417>Romans 14:17. Concord, union, and mutual enjoyment, are graces which come by believing, or by faith, as well as concord or peace with God, and its accompanying joy; and these graces have no doubt an influence on hope, so as to make it brighter and stronger, when they are produced by the Holy Spirit. There are three things which distinguish these graces from such as are fictitious, — they proceed from faith, — they increase hope, — they are produced by the Spirit. — Ed.
^ft448 It does not clearly appear what meaning Calvin attached to the words ajpo me>rouv, which he renders ex parte. Some, like Origen, connect the expression with the verb, “I have written to you in part,” that is, not fully, which seems to have no meaning consistently with the evident tenor of the passage. Others, as Chrysostom, Erasmus, and Pareus, connect the words with the adjective, “I have in part (or somewhat) more boldly (or more freely, or more confidently) written to you.” Macknight connects them with the following clause, “partly as calling things to your remembrance.” Doddridge and Stuart render them “in this part of the Epistle.” The most suitable view is to consider them as qualifying the adjective. — Ed.
^ft449 “Consecrans evangelium, so Augustine; iJerourgou~nta to< eujagge>lion, “operans evangelio — being employed in the gospel,” Beza and Pareus; “docens sacrum evangelium — teaching the holy gospel,” Vatablus. The verb means to “perform sacred rites,” or to officiate in holy things. It has no connection, as some think, with a sacrificing priest; indeed iJereu<v itself, that is a priest, is a holy person, who did sacrifice no doubt among other things, but the word does not import a sacrificer any more than ˆhk in Hebrew. The word here does not mean to consecrate, or to sanctify, or to sacrifice, but to discharge a holy function. Perhaps the most literal rendering would be “performing a holy office as to the gospel,” but dispensing, administering, or preaching the gospel would be the best version. The Apostle had previously called himself leitourgo<n, a public functionary, a public minister of Jesus Christ; he now designates his work as such, being a sacred administrator of the gospel, and then he states the object, that the offering of the Gentiles, that is, that the Gentiles being offered, might be an acceptable sacrifice to God, sanctified by the Spirit. See ^<451201>Romans 12:1. — Ed.
^ft450 Some, as Beza and Grotius, understand by the last clause, “through the power of the Spirit of God,” the internal power of speaking with tongues, etc., and by “signs and wonders,” the external work of healing the sick, etc. But this passage is evidently an instance of the Apostle’s usual mode of stating things. “Word” means preaching; and “work,” the doing of miracles. He first specifies the last, the work was that of “signs and wonders;” and then he mentions what belongs to the first, and shows how it became effectual, that is, through the power of the Spirit. See a similar arrangement in ^<460611>1 Corinthians 6:11; where he mentions washed, sanctified and justified; and then he mentions first what belongs to the last, “in the name of the Lord Jesus,” and afterwards what appertains to the first words, “and by the Spirit of our God.” “Signs and wonders” are often mentioned together: they designate the same things by different names: miracles were called “signs,” because they were evidences of divine power, and they were called “wonders,” or prodigies, because they were not according to the course of nature, but were extraordinary things. By these words their design and character are set forth. — Ed.
^ft451 The clause is rendered by Beza and Grotius, “Impleverim praedicandi evangelii Christi munus — I have fulfilled the office of preaching the gospel of Christ.” The gospel is put for preaching the gospel. See ^<441225>Acts 12:25; ^<510125>Colossians 1:25. Vatablus renders the verb “plene annunciaverim — I have fully announced;” and Mede, “propagaverim — I have propagated.” Some, as Wolfius and Vitringa, think the verb is used in a sense borrowed from Hebrew: the verb rmg, which in its common meaning is to fill or to finish, is used in the sense of teaching, not indeed in the Hebrew bible, but in the Talmud. That the idea of teaching, or propagating, or preaching, belongs to it here, and in ^<510125>Colossians 1:25, is evident. The notion of filling up, which Calvin gives to it, is hardly consistent with what the Apostle says in ^<451520>Romans 15:20. The full preaching is referred by Erasmus, not to its extent, but to its fidelity, “omitting nothing which a faithful evangelist ought to have proclaimed.” — Ed.
^ft452 The participle, “striving,” rendered annitens by Calvin and by Erasmus, is filotimou>menov, which means to strive honorably: it is to seek a thing as an object of honor or ambition. It may be rendered here, “honorably striving;” Doddridge has, “It hath been the object of my ambition;” Stuart, “I was strongly desirous;” and Wolfius, “honori mihi ducentem — esteeming it an honor to me.” It is used to express both an honorable and an earnest or diligent pursuit. It is found in two other places, teeming it an honor,” or, “Being ambitious.” — Ed.
^ft453 ^<235215>Isaiah 52:15. The quotation is literally from the Septuagint, and is nearly according to the Hebrew, only the tense is altered, it being the past in that language, as prophecies are often found to be, in order to show their certainty. The Hebrew is as follows, —
For what had not been told them, have they seen,
And what they had not heard, have they understood.
To render the last verb “consider,” as in our version, is not proper; it means to distinguish between things, to discern, to understand. It bears strictly the same meaning with the Greek verb here used. — Ed.
^ft454 This clause, and ga<r in the next, Griesbach dismisses as being spurious: then the verse would be, —
24. “Whenever I go into Spain, I hope, in passing through, to see you, and to be by you sent there, when I shall first be in a measure refreshed by you;” or, literally, “filled with you;” or it may be rendered, “satisfied with you.”
The Vulgate renders the words, “Si vobis primum ex parte fruitus fuero — when I shall first in part enjoy you, i.e., your society. Stuart’s version is, “When I am in part first satisfied with your company.” The expression, “in part,” seems to imply that his stay would not be long. — Ed.
^ft455 On this subject Wolfius says, “Paul’s journey to Spain we unknown to Origen and Eusebius; nor does it comport with the records connected with him. The Apostle, when freed from the chains of Nero, did not go to Spain, but to Asia; and there is no vestige of a Church founded by Paul in Spain. Basnage has carefully examined this subject as well as W. Wall in his critical Notes in English on the New Testament.” As is common in many things connected with antiquity, fathers later than Origen and Eusebius came to know of this journey, but how, it is not easy to know: and in process of time various particulars were discovered, or rather invented, in connection with this journey. It is something similar to the story of Peter being the founder of the Church of Rome. — Ed.
^ft456 “In carnalibus;” ejn toi~v sarkikoi~v. The word “carnal” in our language does not convey the meaning. The Apostle uses it here in opposition to what is “spiritual,” and therefore “temporal” expresses its meaning. See ^<460911>1 Corinthians 9:11. It sometimes means “human,” as in ^<470112>2 Corinthians 1:12, where man’s wisdom is set in contrast with God’s wisdom. In ^<471004>2 Corinthians 10:4, it means “weak,” or feeble, or powerless, being opposed to the “mighty” weapons of God. It has its own proper meaning in ^<450714>Romans 7:14, and in ^<600211>1 Peter 2:11, “carnal,” that is, wicked, sinful, corrupt, depraved. In ^<460301>1 Corinthians 3:1, it signifies weak, ignorant, imperfect in knowledge, as opposed to spiritual and enlightened persons. And in ^<580716>Hebrews 7:16, it expresses what is fleeting and transitory. In no language is there one word which can convey all the meanings of a similar word in another: hence the necessity of changing a word sometimes in a translation. — Ed.
^ft457 The words are, koinwni>an tina< poih>sasqai, “to make a certain contribution,” or, “some contribution,” or, as Doddridge has it, “a certain collection.” There seems to be no necessity for leaving out the word tina<. — Ed.
^ft458 More satisfactory is the explanation of Stuart: he says, that the word “sealed” means that the instrument to which a seal is applied is authenticated, made valid, i.e., “sure to answer the purpose intended. So here the Apostle would not stop short in the performance of his duty, as the almoner of the Churches, until he had seen the actual distribution of their charity.” It seems then that “sealed” here means “secured,” or safely conveyed. “Delivered to them safely,” is the paraphrase of Hammond. — Ed.
^ft459 This explanation is that of Chrysostom; but how to make the words to give such a meaning is a matter of some difficulty. The obvious import of the passage corresponds with ^<450111>Romans 1:11. All the authors quoted by Poole, except Estius, take the other view, such as Grotius, Beza, Mede, etc. The last gives the following as the sentiments of Origen and Anselm — “My preaching and conversation shall impart to you an abundant knowledge of the gospel mysteries, love, comfort, grace, and spiritual fruit.” The word “blessing,” eujlogi>a, is said by Grotius to mean everything that is freely bestowed on us. See ^<480314>Galatians 3:14; ^<490103>Ephesians 1:3. The words tou~ eujaggeli>ou tou~, are not considered genuine by Griesbach and by most critics. This makes no difference in the meaning: the clause then would be, — “With the fullness of the blessings of Christ,” or, with the abounding blessings of Christ; or, as Beza renders it, “with the full blessing of Christ.” — Ed.
^ft460 The word “Amen,” is regarded as spurious: Griesbach and other have left it out. — Ed.
^ft461 Scott quotes the following from Whitby, — “If Paul, saith Estius, might desire the prayers of the Romans, why might not the Romans desire the prayers of Paul? I answer, they might desire his prayers, as he did theirs, by a letter directed to him to pray for them. He adds, If they might desire his prayers for them when living, why not when dead and reigning with Christ? I answer, Because they could direct no epistle to him, or in any other way acquaint him with their mind.” — Ed.
^ft462 “Ut concertetis mihi,” sunagwni>sasqai> moi; “ut mecum certetis — that ye strive with me,” — Beza; “ut mecum laboretis — that ye labor with me,” — Tremelius, from the Syriac. Literally it is, “that ye agonize with me.” It is an allusion, says Grotius, to Jacob’s wrestling with the angel. ^<013224>Genesis 32:24. A strenuous and earnest supplication is intended. Pareus says, that it is a metaphor taken from warfare, when a soldier comes to the help of another: but rather from the games, when there is a striving for the prize. He would have the Romans to make a similar strenuous effort for him in prayer to God. The word ajgw<n, is an agonistic and not a military term. — Ed.
^ft463 It was a mutual refreshment, according to ^<450112>Romans 1:12. The verb here used, says Grotius, means to give and to receive comfort. The verb without its compound su<n, is found in ^<461618>1 Corinthians 16:18; ^<470713>2 Corinthians 7:13; ^<570107>Philemon 1:7, etc. — Ed.
^ft464 Lover, author, or bestower of peace. This intimates that there were strifes and contentions among them. Paul often speaks of God as the God of peace, especially when referring to the discords which prevailed among Christians. See ^<461433>1 Corinthians 14:33; ^<471311>2 Corinthians 13:11; ^<500409>Philippians 4:9; ^<520523>1 Thessalonians 5:23; ^<530316>2 Thessalonians 3:16; ^<581320>Hebrews 13:20. — Ed.
^ft465 “Ministra,” dia>konov — minister, or servant, or deaconess, one who ministers. Origen and Chrysostom considered her to be a deaconess, but the word does not necessarily prove this; for it is used often to designate generally one who does service and contributes to the help and assistance of others. She was evidently a person of wealth and influence, and was no doubt a great support and help to the Cenchrean Church. Those spoken of by Paul in ^<540510>1 Timothy 5:10, and ^<560203>Titus 2:3, were widows and aged, and they are not called aiJ dia<konoi, deaconesses. There arose, as it appears, an order of this kind in the early Church, and Grotius says that they were ordained by imposition of hands before the Laodicean Council, which forbade the practice. Their office was, according to Bingham and Suicer, referred to by Schleusner, to baptize women, to teach female catechumens, to visit the sick, and to perform other inferior offices in the Church. But this was the state of things after the apostolic times, and there is no reason to believe that Phoebe was of this order. She was evidently a great helper of the Christian cause, as some other women also are mentioned in this chapter, and she had been the helper of many, (^<451602>Romans 16:2,) and not of one Church, and also of Paul himself; and from what is said in ^<451602>Romans 16:2, it appears probable that she was a woman carrying on some business or traffic, and that she went to Rome partly at least on this account. — Ed.
^ft466 So reads Griesbach; it is the same with Priscilla. See ^<441802>Acts 18:2,26, and ^<550419>2 Timothy 4:19, where she is also called Prisca. Names in former times, as well as now, were sometimes used in a abbreviated form. — Ed.
^ft467 Whether Aquila was a laymen or not, the Apostle connects his wife with him in the work of cooperation with him in his ministerial work; and we see by ^<441826>Acts 18:26, that they both taught Apollos. It is somewhat singular, that the wife, not only here but in several other instances, though not in all, is mentioned before the husband. — Ed.
^ft468 The occasion is not mentioned. It was probably at Corinth, according to the account given in Acts 18.
^ft469 Some of the Fathers considered that the family, being all religious, was the Church; but this is wholly inconsistent with the mode of expression that is used, and with the state of things at that time. They had no churches or temples to meet in; private houses were their churches. Superstitious ideas as to places of worship no doubt led men to seek such following, if he meant only the family, — “Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with (su<n — together with) the Church that is in their house,” ^<461619>1 Corinthians 16:19. — Ed.
^ft470 Epenetus, who is here called the first-fruit of Achaia, may have been off the family of Stephanas, who is said to have been the first-fruit in ^<461615>1 Corinthians 16:15. But the majority of copies has Asia, Asi>av, here, instead of Achaia, Acai>av. By Asia is often meant Asia Minor, and so here, no doubt, if it be the right reading. — Ed.
^ft471 It is said of Mary, that she “labored much,” eijv hJma~v, towards us, or among us; “inter nos — among us,” Beza; “pro nobis — for us,” Grotius. The reading eijv uJma~v, towards you, has many MSS. in its favor, and also ejn uJmi~n, among you. — Ed.
^ft472 It is not certain to what the Apostles refers; for we have no particular account of him hitherto as a prisoner, except for a short time at Philippi, ^<441623>Acts 16:23-40; and it is probable, that it was on that occasion that they had been his fellow-prisoners; for it appears from the narrative, that there were more prisoners than Paul and Silas, as it is said that the “prisoners” heard them singing, ^<451625>Romans 16:25; and Paul’s saying to the jailer, in ^<451602>Romans 16:28, “we are all here,” clearly implies that he had some with him besides Silas. — Ed.
^ft473 The words ejpi>shmoi ejn toi~v ajposto>loiv, noted among the Apostles, can hardly admit of a meaning different from what is here given, though some have explained the sense to be, that they were much esteemed by Apostles, or that they were “distinguished in the Apostles’ judgment,” or that they were well known to the Apostles. But as “Apostles” in some other instances mean teachers, as Barnabas was, (^<441414>Acts 14:14,) the explanation here given is most to be approved. — Ed.
^ft474 It appears from Justin Martyr and Tertullian, that the early Christians kissed one another always after prayers, or at the end of the service. They did so, says Grotius, to “show that they were all equal; for the Persians and the orientals kissed the mouth of those only of the same rank, and gave their hands to be kissed by their inferiors.” It was evidently a custom among the Jews. See ^<102009>2 Samuel 20:9; ^<420745>Luke 7:45; ^<402649>Matthew 26:49. This “holy kiss” is mentioned in ^<461620>1 Corinthians 16:20; ^<471312>2 Corinthians 13:12; ^<520526>1 Thessalonians 5:26. It is called the kiss of love, or charity, by Peter, ^<600514>1 Peter 5:14. It was one of those things which arose from peculiar habits, and is not be considered as binding on all nations, any more than the washing of feet. The Apostle’s object seems to have been, not to enjoin a rite, but to regulate a practice, already existing, and to preserve it from abuse: it was to be a holy kiss. — Ed.
^ft475 Griesbach approves of ta>sai, “all,” after Churches: then it would be “all the Churches;” that is, of Greece, says Grotius, but of Corinth, says Wolfius, even those which assembled at different private houses: and this is a more likely supposition, than that Paul, according to Origen and others, took it as granted that all the Churches which he had founded wished well to the Church of Rome. That they wished well to it there can be no doubt; but it is not probable that Paul acted on such a supposition. — Ed.
^ft476 The two words are dicostasi>ai and ska>ndala, divisions and offenses, or hindrances. He had, no doubt, in view, what he noticed in chapter 14, about eating and observing of days; and according to his usual manner he mentions first the effect — “divisions,” and then the cause — “offenses.” The Gentile Christians, by eating, gave offense to the believing Jews, and this offense led to a division or separation. The evils which he had previously attempted to correct were doubtless those referred to here. “Serving their own belly,” in the next verse, has in this respect an emphatic meaning. Instead of denying themselves in the use of meats for the sake of Christ, and for the pace of his Church, they preferred to gratify their own appetites. And being led away by their lust, they covered their real motive by kindly or plausibly addressing (eujlogi>a) and eulogizing (crhstologi>a) those who joined them, imitating in this respect the arts of all false professors and zealots, whatever be the false principle by which they may be guided. — Ed.
^ft477 This he calls “faith” in ^<450108>Romans 1:8: so that obedience to the gospel is faith in what it declares. To believe is the special command of the gospel: hence to believe is the special act of obedience that is required; and he who believes is he who shall be saved. But this faith is that of the heart, and not of the lips; and a faith which works by love and overcomes the world, the mighty power of which we learn from Hebrew 11. — Ed.
^ft478 “Good” and “evil” in this clause, is beneficence and mischief. To be wise as to good, is to be wise in acts of kindness, in promoting good, as Beza seems to take it; and to be harmless or guileless, or simple as to evil, is to exercise no arts, by plausible speeches and flatteries, as was done by those referred to in ^<451617>Romans 16:17, in order to do mischief, to create divisions. The Apostle’s object throughout seems to have been to produce unanimity between the Jews and Gentiles. Hence in the next verse he speaks of God as “the God of peace,” the author of peace among his people; and he says that this God of peace would soon tread down Satan, the author of discord, the promoter of divisions and offenses; or, as most consider the passage, he prays that God would do this; for the future, after the manner of the Hebrew, is sometimes used by the Apostle as an optative. And indeed the verb is found in some copies in this mood (suntri>yai) and in the Syriac, Ethiopic, and Vulgate versions. — Ed.
^ft479 This conclusion bears an evident reference to the point the Apostle had especially in view — the reconciling of the Jews and Gentiles. He connects the gospel with the ancient Scriptures, and mentions the gospel as being in unison with them. Then the Jews had no reason to complain. As in ^<451617>Romans 16:17 to 20 inclusive, he reproved the Gentiles who caused divisions; so in these verses his special object is to put an end to the objections of the Jews. — Ed.
^ft480 The words are cro>noiv aijwni>oiv, rendered improperly by Hammond and others, from the eternal ages, or eternity. We find them preceded by pro< before, in ^<550109>2 Timothy 1:9, and in ^<560102>Titus 1:2: “before the eternal ages,” could not be right rendering; nor is “before the world began,” as in our version, correct; for a reference in Titus is made to God’s promise. “In the times of the ages” is the rendering of Deza and of Macknight; and, in “ancient times,” is that of Doddridge and Stuart. The same subject is handled in two other places, ^<490305>Ephesians 3:5, and ^<510126>Colossians 1:26: and the words used by him are “in other ages,” eJteraiv geneai~v, and, “from ages and generations,” ajpo< tw~n aijw>nwn kai< ajpo< tw~n genew~n. Theodoret explained the terms by a]nwqen —-in past times; and Theophylact by pa>lai—formerly; and Schleusner by a similar word, olim.—Ed.
^ft481 This clause is differently construed: some connect “prophetic Scriptures” with “manifested,” or made manifest. So Doddridqe and Stuart; but Beza, Pareus, and Macknight agree with Calvin, and connect the words with “made known” or proclaimed. The conjunetive te after dia< favors this construction; and dia< means here “by the means,” or by the aid and sanction, “of the prophetic Scriptures.” Then the meaning is—”that the mystery, hid for ages, is now manifest, that is, by the gospel, and by means of the prophetic Scriptures, and consistently with the decree (ejpitagh<n) or ordination of the eternal God, is made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.” According to this view is the exposition of Calvin, which is no doubt correct.
But it is more consistent with the tenor of the latter part of this epistle, and with the other passages, such as ^<490304>Ephesians 3:4-6, and ^<510126>Colossians 1:26, 27, where he mentions the same mystery, to consider the reference here to be exclusively to the union of Jeers and Gentiles, and not generally to the gospel, as Calvin and others have thought.
There is a grammatical difficulty in the last verse: the relative w+| is found before “glory.” Beza and others considered it redundant. The verse is literally as follows,—
27. To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever. Amen.
It is omitted in a few copies; several copies have aujtw~|, which would read better: but its genuineness is rejected by Griesbach and others. The ascription of praise is evidently given to God, as one who has contrived and arranged his dispensation of grace and mercy: and his wisdom here refers to the same thing, as in ^<451133>Romans 11:33. However mysterious may his dispensation appear to us with regard to the Jews and Gentiles, in leaving the latter for so long a time in ignorance, in favoring the former only in the first instance with a revelation of himself, and then in showing favor to the Gentiles, and in rejecting the Jews for a time, and afterwards restoring them — however mysterious all these things may appear, the Apostle assures us that they are the arrangements of the only wise God. — Ed.
^ft482 Here is repeated in a different way what had been before stated, only the reference before was to the weakness of good, but here to the power of evil.
^ft483 To exhibit the meaning of this passage according to what is advanced in a note in pp. 306, 307, it shall be presented here in lines, —
19. Truly the intent expectation of the creature Waits for the revelation of the sons of God;
20. For to vanity has the creature been subjected, not willingly, But on his account who has subjected it in hope;
21. For even the creature itself shall be freed from the bondage of corruption, Into the glorious liberty of the sons of God;
22. For we know that every creature groans together, And together travails in pain to this day:-
23. And not only they, but we also ourselves, Who possess the first-fruit of the Spirit, Even we ourselves groan within ourselves, Anxiously waiting for our adoption, The redemption of our body;
24. For in hope are we saved, But hope seen is not hope; For what one sees, why does he yet hope for it?
25. But if what we see not, we hope for, We wait for it in patience.
We may indeed consider “every creature” in verse 22 as referring to every renewed creature then living, (except the Apostles and those endowed with the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit,) and all such from the beginning of the world. In this case, “to this day” has a striking import. All God’s servants from the beginning had been groaning under the body of sin, and not only they, but even?hose who had enjoyed the first outpouring of the Spirit, and had been endued with extraordinary gifts. The gifts of the Spirit, however abundant, did not free any from the bondage of corruption, from the body of sin; but this was an object of hope, for which they were to wait. The context, before and after, clearly shows that the present condition of God’s people is the subject. — Ed.
^ft484The Jewish convert.
^ft485 The Gentile believer.
^ft486 “I have supplemented,” is what Calvin approves: the gospel had already been partially preached, but Paul had filled up or supplied what was deficient.

ROMANS 1:1-7
1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,	1. Paulus, servus Iesu Christi, vocatus Apostolus, selectus in Evangelium Dei,
2. (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)	2. Quod ante promiserat per Prophetas suos in Scripturis Sanctis,
3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,	3. De Filio suo, qui factus est è semine David secundum carnem,
4. And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:	4. Declaratus Filius Dei in potentia, per Spiritum sanctificationis, ex resurrectione mortuorum, Iesu Christo Domino nostro:
5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations for his name;	5. Per quem accepimus gratiam et Apostolatum, in obedientiam fidei inter omnes gentes, pro nomine ipsius;
6. Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:	6. Inter quas estis etiam vos, vocati Iesu Christi:
7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.	7. Omnibus qui Romæ estis, dilectis Deo, vocatis sanctis: gratia vobis, et pax a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Iesu Christo.

ROMANS 1:8-12
8. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.	8. Primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Iesum Christum super vobis omnibus, quia fides vestra Prædicatur in universo mundo.
9. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;	9. Testis enim mihi Deus, quem colo in spiritu meo in Evangelio Filii ipsius, ut continenter memoriam vestri faciam;
10. Making request (if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God) to come unto you.	10. Semper in orationibus meis, ^f27 rogans, si quomodo prosperum iter aliquando mihi, obtingat per voluntatem Dei, veniendi ad vos.
11. For I long to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;	11. Desidero enim videre, vos, ut aliquod impertiar vobis donum spirituale ad vos confirmandos;
12. That is, that I may be comforted together with you, by the mutual faith both of you and me.	12. Hoc est. ad cohortationem mutuo percipiendam in vobis per Mutuam fidem, vestram atque meam.

ROMANS 1:13-15
13. Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.	13. Nolo verò vos ignorare, fratres, quod sæpe proposui venire ad vos, et impeditus sum hactenus,ut fructum aliquem haberem in vobis, sicut et in reliquis gentibus.
14. I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians, both to the wise and to the unwise.	14. Et Græcis et Barbaris et sapientbus et stultis debitor sum.
15. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.	15. Itaque quantum in me est, paratus sum vobis quoque qui Romae estis Evangelizare.

ROMANS 1:16-17
16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.	16. Non enim pudet me Evangelii Christi, quandoquidem potentia est Dei, in salutem omni credenti, Iudæoprimum, deinde Græco.
17. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith as it is written, The just shall live by faith.	17. Nam justitia Dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem, sicut scriptum est, Justus ex fide sua vivet.

ROMANS 1:18-23
18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;	18. Revelatur enim ira Dei e cœlo, super omnem impietatem et injustitiam hominum, veritatem Dei injuste continentium;
19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them: for God hath shewed it unto them.	19. Quia quod cognoscitur de Deo manifestum est in ipsis: Deus enim illis manifestavit.
20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:	20. Si quidem invisibilia ipsius, ex creatione mundi operibus intellecta, conspiciuntur, æterna quoque ejus potentia, et divinitas; ut sint inexcusabiles.
21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.	21. Quoniam quum Deum cogno vissent, non tanquam Deo gloriam dederunt, aut grati fuerunt; exinaniti sunt in cogitationibus suis, et obtenebratum est stultum coreorum.
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,	22. Quum se putarent sapientes, stulti facti sunt,
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.	23. Et mutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei similitudine imaginis corruptibilis hominis, et volucrum, et quadrupedum, et serpentum.

ROMANS 1:24-32
24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:	24. Propterea tradidit illos Deus in cupiditates cordium suorum in immunditiem, ut ignominia afficerent corpora sua in seipsis:
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.	25. Qui transmutarunt veritatem ejus in mendacium et coluerunt ac venerati sunt creaturam supra, Creatorem, qui est benedictus in secula: Amen.
26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:	26. Propterea, inquam, tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiosas: ac enim feminæ ipsorum transmutarunt natura- lem usum in eum qui est præter naturam:
27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.	27. Similiter et viri quoque, amisso naturali usu feminæ, exarserunt mutua libidine, alii in alios; masculi in masculis fœditatem per petrantes et quam decebat erroris sui mercedem in seipsis recipientes.
28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;	28. Et quemadmodum non probaverunt Deum habere in notitia, tradidit illos Deus in reprobam mentem, ad facienda quæ non decerent;
29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,	29. Ut essent pleni omni injustitia, nequitia, libidine, avaritia, malitia; referti invidia, homicidio, contentione, dolo, perversitate; susurrones,
30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,	30. Obtrectatores, osores Dei, malefici, contumeliosi, fastuosi, repertores malorum, parentibus immorigeri,
31. Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:	31. Intelligentiæ expertes, insociabiles, affectu humanitatis carentes, fœdifragi, sine misericordiæ sensu;
32 Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.	32. Qui, quum Dei judicium cognoverint, quod qui talia agunt, digni sunt morte, non tantum ea faciunt, sed assentiuntur facientibus.

ROMANS 2:1-2
1. Therefore 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.	1. Propterea inexcusabilis es, O homo, quicunque judicas: in quo enim judicas alterum, teipsum condemnas; eadem enim facis dum judicas.
2. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.	2. Novimus autem quod judicium Dei est secundum veritatem in eos qui talia agunt.

ROMANS 2:3-10
3. And thinkest thou this, o man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the Judgment of God?	3. Existimas autem, O homo, qui judicas eos qui talia faciunt, et eadem facis, quod ipse effugies judicium Dei?
4. Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering; ^f64 not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?	4. An divitias bonitatis ipsius tolerantiæque, ac lenitatis contemnis; ignorans quod bonitas Dei te ad pœnitentiam deducit?
5. But, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;	5. Sed, juxta duritiam tuam, et cor pœnitere nescium, thesaurizas tibi iram in diem irae et revelations justi judicii Dei;
6. Who will render to every man according to his deeds:	6. Qui redditurus est unicuique secundam ipsius opera:
7. To them who, by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life;	7. Iis quidem, qui per boni operis perseverantiam, gloriam et honorem et immortalitatem quærunt, vitam æternam;
8. But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,	8. Iis vero qui sunt contentiosi, ac veritati immorigeri, injustitiæ autem obtemperant, excandescentia, ira, tribulatio,
9. Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile:	9. Et anxietas in omnem animam hominis perpetrantis malum, Iudæi primum simul et Græci:
10. But glory, honor, and peace, to every man that worketh good; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.	10. At gloria et honor et pax omni operanti bonum, Iudæo primum simul et Græco.

ROMANS 2:11-13
11. For there is no respect of persons with God.	11. Siquidem non est acceptio personarum apud Deum.
12. For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law;	12. Quicunque enim sine Lege peccaverunt sine Lege etiam peribunt; quicunque vero in Lege peccaverunt per Legem judicabuntur.
13. (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.	13. Non enim Legis auditores justi sunt apud Deum, sed qui Legem faciunt justificabuntur.

ROMANS 2:14-16
14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:	14. Quum enim Gentes, quæ Legem non habent, natura quæ Legis sunt faciant, ipsæ, Legem non habentes, sibi ipsæ sunt Lex:
15. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;	15. Quæ ostendunt opus Legis scriptum in cordibus suis, simul attestante ipsorum conscientia et cogitationibus inter se accusantibus aut etiam excusantibus,
16. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.	16. In die qua judicabit Deus occulta hominum, secundum Evangelium meum, per Iesum Christum.

ROMANS 2:17-24
17. Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,	17. Ecce, tu Iudæus cognominaris, et acquiescis in Lege, et gloriaris in Deo,
18. And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;	18. Et nosti voluntatem, et probas eximia, institutus ex Lege;
19. And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,	19. Confidisque teipsum esse ducem cæcorum, lumen eorum qui sunt in tenebris,
20. An instructer of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.	20. Eruditorem insipientium, doctorem imperitorum, habentem formam cognitionis ac veritatis in Lege:
21. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?	21. Qui igitur doces alterum, teipsum non doces; qui concionaris, non furandum, furaris;
22. Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?	22. Qui dicis, nom mœchandum, mœcharis; qui detestaris idola, Sacrilegium perpetras;
23. Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law, dishonorest thou God?	23. Qui de Lege gloriaris, Deum per Legis transgressionem dehonestas:
24. For the name of God is blasphremed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. ^f76	24. Nomen enim Dei propter vos probro afficitur inter gentes, quemadmodum scriptum est.

ROMANS 2:25-29
25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.	25. Nam circumcisio quidem prodest, si Legem observes; quod si transgressor Legis fueris, circumcisio tua in præputium versa est.
26. Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?	26. Si ergo præputium justitias Legis servaverit, nonne præputium ejus pro circumcisione consebitur?
27. And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?	27. Et judicabit quod ex natura est præputium (si Legem servaverit) te qui per literam et circumcisionem transgressor es Legis?
28. For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh:	28. Non enim qui est in aperto Iudæus est; ne quæ in aperto est circumcisio in carne, ea est circumcisio:
29. But he is a Jew which is one inwardly: and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.	29. Sed qui est in occulto Iudæus; et circumcisio cordis in spiritu non litera; cujus laus non ex hominibus est sed ex Deo.

ROMANS 3:1-2
1. What advantage ^f87 then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?	1. Quae igitur praerogativa Iudaei, aut quae utilitas circumcisionis?
2. Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.	2. Multa per omnem modem; ac primum quidem, quod illis credits sunt oracula Dei.

ROMANS 3:3-4
3. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?	3. Quid enigma si quidem fuerunt increduli? Num incredulitas eorum fidem Dei faciet irritam?
4. God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.	4. Ne ita sit; quin sit Deus verax, omnis autem homo mendax; quemadmodum scriptum est, ut justificeris in sermonibus tuis, et vincas quum judicaris. ^f90

ROMANS 3:5-8
5. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)	5. Quod si injustitia nostra Dei justitiam commendat, quid dicemus? Num injustus est Deus qui infert iram? Secundum hominem dico.
6. God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?	6. Ne ita sit: nam quomodo judicabit Deus mundum?
7. For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?	7. Si enim veritas Dei per meum mendacium excelluit in ejus gloriam; quid etiammum et ego velut peccator judicor;
8. And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.	8. Et non (quemadmodum exprobratur nobis, et quemadmodum aiunt quidam nos dicere) Faciamus mala, ut veniant bona? quorum judicium justum est.

ROMANS 3:9
9. What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.	9. Quid ergo? præcellimus? ^f95 Nequaquam: ante enim constituimus tam Judæos quam Græcos, omnes sub peccato esse.

ROMANS 3:10-18
10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:	10. Sicut scriptum, Quod non est justus quisquam, ne unus quidem;
11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.	11. Non est intelligens, non est qui requirat Deum;
12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.	12. Omnes declinarunt, simul facti sunt inutiles; non est qui exerceat benignitatem, ne ad unum quidem:
13. Their throat is an open sepulchre: with their tongues they have used deceit: the poison of asps is under their lips:	13. Sepulchrum apertum guttur eorum; linguis dolose egerunt: venenum aspidum sub labiis eorum:
14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:	14. Quorum os execratione et amarulentia plenum:
15. Their feet are swift to shed blood:	15. Veloces pedes eorum ad effundendum sanguinem;
16. Destruction and misery are in their ways:	16. Contritio et calamitas in viis eorum;
17. And the way of peace have they not known:	17. Et viam pacis non noverunt:
18. There is no fear of God before their eyes.	18. Non est timor Dei præ oculis eorum. ^f97

ROMANS 3:19-20
19. Now we know, that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.	19. Scimus autem quod quæcunque Lex dicit, iis qui in Lege sunt loquitur; ut omne os obstruatur, et obnoxius fiat omnis mundus Deo. ^f104
20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.	20. Quoniam ex operibus Legis non justificabitur omnis caro coram ipso; per Legem enim agnitio peccati.

ROMANS 3:21-22
21. But now the righteousness of God without the law ^f109 is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;	21. Nunc autem sine Lege justitia Dei manifesto est, testimonio comprobata Legis et prophetarum;
22. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference:	22. Justitia, inquam, Dei per fidem Iesu Christi, in omnes et super omnes credentes; non est sanè distinctio:

ROMANS 3:23-26
23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God:	23. Omnes enim peccaverunt, et destituuntur gloria Dei;
24. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;	24. Justificati gratis ipsius gratia per redemptionem quæ est in Christo lesu:
25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;	25. Quem proposuit Deus propitiatorium per fidem in sanguine ipsius, in demonstrationem justitiae suæ, propter remissionem delictorum,
26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.	26. Quæ prius extiterunt in tolerantia Dei; ad demonstrationem justitiae suae, in hoc tempore; ut sit ipse justus et Justificans enum qui est ex fide Iesu.

ROMANS 3:27-28
27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.	27. Ubi ergo gloriatio? ^f122 exclusa est. Per quam legem? operum? Nequaquam; Sed per legem fidei.
28. Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.	28. Constituimus ergo, fide justificari hominem sine operibus Legis.

ROMANS 3:29-30
29. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:	29. Num Iudæorum Deus tantum? an non et Gentium? certe et Gentium.
30. Seeing it is one God ^f125 which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.	30. Quandoquidem unus Deus, qui justificabit circumcisionem ex fide, et Præputium per fidem.

ROMANS 3:31
31. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.	31. Legem igitur irritam facimus per fidem? Ne ita sit: sed Legem stabilimus.

ROMANS 4:1-3
1. What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?	1. Quid ergo dicemus, invenisse Abraham patrem nostrum secundw carnem?
2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.	2. Si enim Abraham ex operibus justificatus est. habet quo glorietur, sed non apud Deum.
3. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. ^f128	3. Quid enim Scripture dicit’ Credidit Abraham Deo, et imputa tum est illi in justitiam.

ROMANS 4:4-5
4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.	4. Ei quidem qui operatur merces non imputatur secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum:
5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for Righteousness.	5. Ei vero qui non operatur, credit autem in eum qui justificat impium, imputatur fides sua in justitiam.

ROMANS 4:6-8
6. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,	6. Quemadmodum etiam David finit beatudinem hominis cui Deus imputat justitiam absque operibus,
7. Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.	7. Beati quorum remissæ sunt iniquitates, et quorum tecta sunt peccata:
8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.	8. Beatus vir, cui non imputavit Dominus peccatum.

ROMANS 4:9-10
9. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, ^f135 or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.	9. Beatudo ergo ista in circumcisionem modo, an et in præputium competit? Dicimus enim quod imputata fuit Abrahæ fides in justitiam.
10. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision but in uncircumcision.	10. Quomodo igitur imputata fuit? In Circumcisione quum esset, an in præputio? Non in circumcisione, sed in præputio.

ROMANS 4:11-12
11. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:	11. Et signum accepit circumcisionis, sigillum justitiæ fidei quæ fuerat in præputio; ut esset pater omnium credentium per præputium, quo ipsis quoque imputetur justitia;
12. And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.	12. Et pater circumcisionis, non iis qui sunt ex circumcisione tantum, sed qui insistunt vestigiis fidei, quæ fuit in præputio patris nostri Abrahæ.

ROMANS 4:13
13. For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.	13. Non enim per Legem promissio Abrahæ et semini ejus data est, ut esset hæres mundi; sed per justitiam fidei.

ROMANS 4:14-15
14. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:	14. Si enim ii qui sunt ex Lege hæredes sunt, exinanita est fides et abolita est promissio:
15. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.	15. Nam Lex iram efficit; siquidem ubi non est Lex, neque etiam transgressio.

ROMANS 4:16-17
16. 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 to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,	16. Propterea ex fide, ut secundum gratiam, quo firma sit promissio universo semini non ei quod est ex Lege solum, sed quod est ex fide Abrahæ, qui est pater omnium nostrum,
17. (As it is written, l have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.	17. (sicut scriptum est. Quod patrem multarum gentium posui te,) coram Deo, cui credidit, qua vivificat mortuos et vocat ea quæ non sunt tanquam sint.

ROMANS 4:18
18. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.	18. Qui præter (vel supra) spem super spe credidit, ut esset ^f143 pater multarum gentium, secundum quod dictum erat, Sic erit semen tuum.

ROMANS 4:19-22
19. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb:	19. Ac fide minime debilitatus, non consideravit suum ipsius corpus jam emortuum, centenaries quum fere esset, nec emortuam vulvam Saræ:
20. He staggered not at the promise of God through umbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;	20. Nec vero in Dei promissionem nec emortuam vulvam Sarre: per incredulitatem disquisivit; sed roboratus est fide, tribuens gloriam Deo;
21. And being fully persuaded, that what he had promised, he was able also to perform.	21. Ac certe persuasus, quod ubi quid promisit, possit etiam præstare.
22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.	22. Ideo et imputatum illi est in justitiam.

ROMANS 4:23-25
23. Now, it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him,	23. Non est autem scriptum propter ipsum tantum, imputatum fuisse illi;
24. But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;	24. Sed etiam propter nos, quibus imputabitur credentibus in eum, qui excitavit lesum Dominum nostrum ex mortuis:
25. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.	25. Qui traditus fuit propter delicta nostra, et excitatus propter nostram justificationem.

ROMANS 5:1-2
1. Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ:	1. Iustificatus ergo ex fide, pacem habemus apud Deum per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum;
2. By whom also we have access by faith into this grace where in we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.	2. Per quem accessum habiumus fide in gratiam istam in qua stetimus, et gloriamur super spe gloriæ Dei.