mm
STUDIA
IN

Presented to

THE LIBRARY
of

VICTORIA UNIVERSITY
Toronto

by

Dr. Robert Dobbie

S~

V>e

;

Inttrnational Critical Cammenlarg
on

%

ffiolg

gcrtptttria of
ffiiro

%

€Hft anb

gfcatanunts

UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF

The Rev. CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D.
Edward Robinson
Professor of Biblical Theology, Union Theological Seminary, New York

The

Rev.

SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER,
ALFRED PLUMMER,
College,

D.D.

Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford;

The

Rev.

Master of University

M.A., D.D. Durham.

t

International
on
t\)t
ffiolt)

Critical
t\)t

(fommentarg
CDRr gnlr

0cripttirc0 of

TSim <&t8tammts.

EDITORS'

PREFACE.

There

are

now

before

the

public

many Commentaries,
of a popular or
Schools,

written by British
homiletical

and American
The

divines,

character.

Cambridge Bible for

the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Student's,
Speaker's

The
their

Commentary,
s

The Popular

Commentary
series,

(Schaff),

The Expositor
special place

Bible,

and other similar

have

and importance.

But they do not enter into
exegetisches

the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such
series

of

Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes

Handbuch zum A. T.; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes

exegetisches

Handbuch zum N. T; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar; Keil and Delitzsch's Biblischer Commentar uber das A. T.; Lange's Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk ; Nowack's

Handkommentar zum A. T. ; Holtzmann's Handkommentar zum N. T. Several of these have been translated, edited, and in some cases enlarged and adapted, for the EnglishBut others are in process of translation. speaking public no corresponding series by British or American divines has hitherto been produced. The way has been prepared by special Commentaries by Cheyne, Ellicott, Kalisch, and the time has Lightfoot, Perowne, Westcott, and others come, in the judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, when it is practicable to combine British and American
;
;

scholars

in

the

production

of

a

critical,

comprehensive

EDITORS
Commentary
ship,

PREFACE
modern
biblical scholar-

that will be abreast of
its

and
T.

in

a measure lead

van.

Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of

New

York, and Messrs.

Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a series of Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments,
T.

&

and of
in

under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., in America, Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and

the Rev.

Alfred Plummer, D.D.,

for the

New

Testament,

Great Britain.

The Commentaries
fessional,
bias.

and

will

They

will

will be international and inter-conbe free from polemical and ecclesiastical be based upon a thorough critical study of

the original texts of the Bible, and
interpretation.

upon

critical

methods

of

They

are designed chiefly for students and

clergymen, and

book

will

will be written in a compact style. Each be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results

of criticism
still

upon

it,

and discussing impartially the questions

remaining open.

The
will

details of criticism will

appear

in their

proper place in the body of the Commentary.

Each

section of the

Text

or

summary

of contents.

be introduced with a paraphrase, Technical details of textual and

philological criticism will, as a rule,

be kept distinct from

matter of a more general character

;

and

in the

Old Testaas
far

ment the

exegetical

notes

will

be

arranged,

as

possible, so as to

with Hebrew.
will

be serviceable to students not acquainted The History of Interpretation of the Books
in

be dealt with, when necessary,
critical

the

Introductions,
literature

with
the

notices

of

the

most important
Archaeological

of as

subject.

Historical

and

questions,

well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical Exegesis. The Volumes will constitute a uniform series.

THE

INTERNATIONAL

CRITICAL

COMMENTARY.

X
The
eminent Volumes named below
following
:

Scholars

are

engaged upon

the

THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Genesis.

The Rev. T. K. Cheyne, D.D.,
Interpretation of

Oriel Professor of the

Holy Scripture, Oxford.

Exodus.
Leviticus.

The Rev.

A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh.

The Rev. H.
Oxford.

A.

White, M. A., Fellow

of

New

College,

Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua.
Judges.

G.

Buchanan Gray,

field College,

B.A., Lecturer in Hebrew, MansOxford.

The Rev.

S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready.

The Rev. George Adam Smith, D.D.,
Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow.

Professor of

The Rev. George Moore, D.D.,

Professor of Hebrew, Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.

[Now Ready.
Samuel.
Kings.

The Rev. H. P. Smith, D.D., Lane Theologic Seminary,

late Professor of

Hebrew,

Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Rev. Francis Brown, D.D.,

Professor of

Hebrew

and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.
Chronicles.

The Rev. Edward
The Rev.
L.

L.

brew, Yale University,

Curtis, D.D., Professor of HeNew Haven, Conn.

Ezra and Nehemiah.
Isaiah.

W. Batten,

P. E. Divinity

Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, School, Philadelphia.
of

The Rev. The Rev.

A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor Hebrew, Free Church College, Edinburgh.

Jeremiah.

A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.

Minor Prophets.
Psalms.

W.

R. Harper, Ph.D., President of the University of Chicago, Illinois.
Rev.

The

Charles

A. Briggs, D.D.,

Professor of

Biblical

Theology,

Edward Robinson Union Theological

Seminary,

New

York.

Proverbs.

The Rev.
The Rev

C. H.

Toy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Har-

vard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Daniel

P. Peters, Ph.D., late Professor of E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New York City,

John
P.

Hebrew,

Dean fessor of Exegesis.. Galatians. logical C. Ireland's Pro- Romans. All Souls' College. Professor of New Testa- ment Exegesis. The Rev.. The Rev. D. B. Fellow The Rev. Charles. Robert H. and Exeter College. The Rev.. Gould.A. Fellow of Corinthians. Alfred Plummer. and the Rev. M. . Oxford. formerly Professor of Biblical Greek. Master of College. University Durham. Oxford. Chase. Burton. Professor of Bib- lical Literature.D.A. [In the Press. Abbott. M. Dublin. of Magdalen College.D. Oxford. Edwards. New York Hebrews..D. of The Rev. William Sanday. M.Lit. T. Acts. E. Fellow Christ's College.. Trinity College.THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY— continued. E. Principal of the TheoCollege.. Mark. Bala. Professor of New Testament Literature. The Rev. Vincent. Other engagements will be announced shortly. Marvin R. T. A. The Pastoral Epistles.A Dublin. Robertson. Principal of Bishop The Rev. THE NEW TESTAMENT. Philadelphia. Ephesians. Union Theological Seminary. late Principal of University College of Wales. The Rev. Durham.D... . Arch. Ernest D. Oxford. LAM. C. A. Frederick H. The Rev.D.D. Cambridge. P. City.D. D. Luke. Revelation. Aberystwyth. D. The Rev. D.D. K.. P. and Tutor of Keble College. Head{Ready.. Trinity College. D.. Philippians.B. Hatfield's Hall. D. D. University of Chicago. D. Divinity School. The Rev. Walter Lock.

D. HEADLAM.THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS Rev. Rev. AND D.D. SANDAY. B. W. A. C. LL..D. .

.

ARTHUR C..D. LL.J-^-d ^J~ The International Critical Commentary CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS BY THE Rev. FELLOW OF ALL SOULS COLLEGE. LADY MARGARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY.D. B. OXFORD NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1895 . AND CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH. AND THE D.D. OXFORD Rev. WILLIAM SANDAY. HEADLAM.

BS S37 1835 Human un .

In a series of commentaries on the New Testament it was impossible that the Epistle to the Romans should not be included and should not hold a prominent place. under no tribution. this would be true in an eminent degree of the Epistle to the Romans. are so good and so varied that to add to their number may well seem superfluous. revivals of If it is a historical fact that the spiritual Christendom have been usually associated with closer study of the Bible. Some experience in teaching has shown that if a difficult . unlike those on some other Books of the New Testament.PREFACE The commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans which already exist in English. Perhaps the nearest approach to anything at all diswould be (i) the distribution of the subject-matter of the commentary. There are few books which it is more difficult to exhaust and few in regard to which there is more to be gained from renewed interpretation by different minds working under different conditions. (2) the attempt to furnish an interpretation of the Epistle which might be tinctive in the present edition described as historical. its illusion as to the value of their The own it editors are special con- and they will be well content that left should find it proper level and be assimilated or behind as deserves. Fortunately for the present editors the responsibility for attempting this does not rest with them.

of making our exposition of the Epistle historical.VI PREFACE be understood and argument should be presented in several different ways and on several different scales at the same time. when a number of words had not yet come to have a fixed meaning. It was written when a large part of the phraseology of the newly created body was still fluid. The problem which a commentator ought to — — propose to himself in the first instance is not what answer . And it is an advantage when the matter of a commentary can be so broken up that by means of headlines. the reader Epistle like the is Romans really to grasped at once as a whole and in its parts. a general idea. but rather that of greater or less directness of bearing upon the is large and small print for the notes may not be carried was an experiment the effect of which could not always be judged until the commentary was in print but when once the type was set the possibility of improvement was hardly worth the trouble and expense of resetting. in We have endeavoured always to bear mind not only the Jewish education and training of the writer. but also the position of the Epistle in Christian literature. While we are upon we may explain that the principle which has guided the choice of and longer discussions not exactly that of greater or less importance. or slur crowd of over details in seeking to obtain this subject. that of assigning to it is its true position in place and time —on the one hand in relation to contemporary Jewish thought. the may not either lose the main thread of the argument in the details. and large and small print notes. This principle : out with perfect uniformity it . and on the other hand in relation to the growing body of Christian teaching. The other main object at which we have aimed is that exegesis of the text. summaries. paraphrases. when their origin and associations to us obscure were still fresh and vivid. which must clearly have given him the framework of thought and language in which his ideas are cast. headings to sections.

It is by a continuous and careful study of such works that any advance in the exegesis of the New Testament will be For the later Jewish literature and the teaching possible. and cerour was at material as such have used we do not possess. Dogmatics tainly to ourselves it suggesting the common are indeed excluded taries. and a perfectly trustworthy standard of criticism seems to be wanting. of the Rabbis we have found ourselves in a position of greater difficulty. nor would students of the New has been of great assistance. We cannot therefore feel At the same time we altogether confident of our ground. or which have occupied them in any past period of Church history. Our object is historical and not dogmatic. In the former direction attention which we have been much has been assisted by the bestowed in recent years on these writings. disposal. Paul. partly by the striking contrasts which it has afforded to Christian teaching. and ioo A. and It is in the pursuit drawn illustrations (although less fully) from later Jewish literature. but they are by the plan of this series of commenexcluded also by the conception which duty as commentators.C. all we have formed for ourselves of our We have sought before things to understand St.. literature A first-hand acquaintance with this it be easy for most Testament to acquire it. but what were the questions of the time at which the Epistle was written and what meaning did himself. . particularly by the excellent editions of the Psalms of Solomon and of the Book of Enoch. partly as origin of systems of thought which have developed very differently.PREFACE Vli does the Epistle give to questions which are occupying men's minds now.D. Moreover complete agreement among the specialists on the subject does not as yet exist. both from the Apocryphal literature which is mainly the product of the period between ioo B. his words and thoughts convey to the writer of this original meaning that we have somewhat freely from Jewish writings.

Hort's forthcoming Introductions to Romans and Epkesians. New Testament grammar we deal with questions of or New Testament diction but grammar and just so far as they contribute to the exegesis of the text before us. we thought it best to be quite independent. and they desire to accept a joint responsibility for the whole. exegesis it is less for the sake of that history in itself than as helping to throw into clearer relief that interpretation which we believe to be the right one. And in like manner we have not made use of the Epistle as a means for illustrating diction. but here again when we have reached what seemed to us a satisfactory explanation we have held our hand. No doubt there is will be omissions which are not Epistle to have to be excused in this way. which. Bruce's St. If we touch upon the history of . In regard to one book in particular. equally divided between the two editors but they have each been carefully over the work of the other. have been in our possession since December last. On the other hand we have been glad to have access to the sheets relating to Romans in Dr. Dr. to the really Romans so vast The literature on the that we cannot pretend mastered it. Paul's Conception of Christianity. We have tried to take account of monographs and commentaries of the most recent date. It is no part of our design to be in the least degree exhaustive. which came out as our own work was far advanced. It is possible that in so far as we may succeed in doing this. The . The Commentary and the Introduction have been about . data may be supplied which at other times and in other hands may be utilized for purposes of dogmatics but the final adjustments of Christian doctrine have not been in our thoughts. To this general aim all other features of the commentary are subordinate. through the kindness of the editors.Vlll PREFACE and to understand him not only in relation to his surroundings but also to those permanent facts of human nature on which his system is based.

The reader is requested to note the table of abbreviations on p. Dr. Whitsuntide. friends who have helped them and E. Plummer. 444 ff). SANDAY. C. ex ff. and the explanation there given as to the Greek text made use of in the Commentary. W. HEADLAM. set off and they hope that this gain may be against a certain amount of unevenness which was inevitable. Brightman they are indebted for spending upon the proof-sheets of one half of the Commentary greater care and attention than many men have the patience to bestow on work of their own. A. . more especially to Plummer and Rev. has read through the whole of the Commentary more than once. 1895. F. the directly or indirectly in various parts of the work.. as editor of the series. Oxford. It only remains for them to express their obligations and thanks to those many Dr. Brightman of the Pusey House. To Mr. and to his courteous and careful criticism they owe much. Some additional references are given in the Index (p.PREFACE editors themselves are conscious of having gained IX much by this co-operation.

.

.. 3. .. . xxxvi xliv lii 6.. .51 91 The History St. D.. 5.. Occasion and Purpose Argument Language and Style Text Literary History Integrity xviii xxv . Commentaries xcviii Abbreviations cx-cxii COMMENTARY Detached Notes: The Theological Terminology of Rom.. xiii 2. Paul Individual the n6 proper object of I2 2 Is the Society or the Justification? .. 1-7 The word Sixmos and its cognates The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and Jewish Writings !_ 4 3 6 . 7- 8. 49 . 58 . of God 34 Paul's Description of the Condition of the Heathen World Book of Wisdom in Chapter The Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice Use of the i . of Abraham as treated by St.. in 17 28 some 31 The Righteousness St. .CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION § I. 9. 4. xiii-cix Rome in a.. The Jews in Rome The Roman Church Time and Place. i. Paul and by I0 2 James of the Resurrection of Christ in the teaching of Jewish Teaching on Circumcision 108 The Place St. . l lxiii lxxiv xxxv 10. ..

Paul's View of the Law The Person and Work of the Holy . ix. II Latin III Words Greek Words 443 443 . .136 • St.. Fall in Jewish Theology . . . . . ix to of Wisdom A History of the Interpretation of Rom. . 3°° 3° 2 316 33° 34 l St.162 * 84 187 Spirit . 5 The Divine Election The Divine Sovereignty in the Old Testament The Power and Rights of God as Creator The Relation of St. . 6-29 .. Paul's Use of the Old Testament The Doctrine of the Remnant The Merits of the Fathers The Argument of Romans ix-xi : Responsibility . . . Paul's Argument in chap.257 266 267 the Book . 399 4 l8 INDEX : I Subjects 437 . xiv ? Aquila and Priscilla 3^9 374 37^ napovaia . . Paul's Philosophy of History 342 : The Salvation of the Individual Free-Will and Predesti- nation Spiritual Gifts 347 35 8 The Church and the Civil Power The History of the word aya-nrj The Christian Teaching on Love The early Christian belief in the nearness of the The relation of Chapters xii-xiv to the Gospels What sect or party is referred to in Rom. ix. 21 Human St. . 269 The Argument of ix. 143 SlKUlOOO-lS *47 Christ . . The Doctrine of Mystical Union with The Inward Conflict St. . 379 3 Sl . .199 210 232 233 248 The Renovation of Nature The Privileges of Israel The Punctuation of Rom.. . .x ii The The Adam's CONTENTS PAGE Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement Effects of .129 . . . Paul's Conception of Sin and of the Fall History of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrine of . . 30-x.

58. d. xxiii. that St. ii. : ' ' also at Rome V The imagery . ii. 19. comprehension of Paul's own mind. Even if there be some slight error in the calculations. PhU. he wishes to preach the Gospel he prays for a prosperous journey that by the will of God he may come unto them he longs to see them the universality of the Gospel makes him desire to preach it in the universal city 2 And the impression which we gain from the Epistle to the Romans is supported by our other sources of information. Wherever Christianity had been preached the Roman authorities had appeared as the power which restrained 1 The main Tacitus. 21 . and that we thus obtain the first trustworthy information about the Roman Church. 3 Acts xix. 20. It was during the winter 57-58. iii. of citizenship has impressed itself upon his language 4 And this was the result both of his experience and of his birth. i. it is in any case impossible that this date can be far wrong. i. 27 . and the Epistle must certainly have been written during the early years of Nero's reign. Eph. In Rome. Geschichte des Rbmischen Kaisserreichs unter des Nero. It would be unwise to attempt a full account either of the city or the empire of the Epistle and for the a brief reference to a few leading features in the history of each is necessary \ For certainly St. and to Romans. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans. n. 1. I must also see Rome/ As thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem. but for the St. great as it is. The desire to visit Rome dominates the close of the Acts of the Apostles After I have been there. Acts xxiii. or early in the spring of the year 58. according to almost all calculations. so must thou bear witness illustration at this date.INTRODUCTION § i. 4 authorities used for this section are Furneaux. 8—15. Rome in a. Paul was influenced by the name of Rome. der Regierung 2 Rom. The Annals of and Schiller. : : : . . vol.

Nero. and remembered as the happiest period of the Empire since the death of Augustus 1 — 3 . and this he calls the 'mystery of But everywhere iniquity.. prophets. Epit. The Church in the Roman Empire. p. a Ramsay. 147. pp. the power of the civil government. the Christians of his earliest travels were not men of Iconium and ' ' they were a part of the Roman world. became This privilege. Paul first came into contact with the Roman Church. The only argument of any value for a later date and the unauthentic character of the whole Epistle or of the eschatological sections (ii. Traianum solitum dicere. Paul's experience unnecessary. cf. and to him the grand unity.tcx ov ) and visibly personified in the Emperor (o Karix<»v). the first bold step to carry it out. Nor was the judgement unfounded. The expression .' and describes in the language of the O. and it is significant that the first clear conception of the universal character inherent in Christianity. 60. Paul emphasizes the duty of obedience to the civil government. 12. himself a it the forces of evil opposed to it K Christians had been while Judaea worst persecution of the Roman later. also pp. cannot fail to be struck with the strong hold that Roman ideas had on the mind of St. but such an interpretation is quite St. does not destroy their deeper spiritual meaning for the writers of the New Testament. Such an interpretation. And so both in this Epistle and throughout his life St. 54 A. pp. and prince.procul distare cunctos principes a Neronis quinquennio. restrained these forces.). XIV EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS The [§ L was under the rule of a native Everywhere the Jews had stirred up persecutions. as the prophets of the Old. Unde quidamprodidere. reveal to us and generalize the spiritual forces of good and evil which underlie the surface of society. Biblical Essays. Paul had conceived the great idea of Christianity as the religion of the Roman world. and does not particularly suit the words. iii. ii. 5. See also Lightfoot. would naturally broaden the view and impress the imagination of a provincial . the imperial officials had interfered and protected the Apostle. It is It is we U known that the 2 Thess. and the capacity to realize the importance of the Roman Church should come from an Apostle who was We not a Galilaean peasant but a citizen of a universal empire. Paul/ writes Mr. had taught him that there were lying restrained and checked great forces of evil which might at any time burst out. 7 6 Karix^t 6 rb tcarix™commonest interpretation of these words among the Fathers was the Roman Empire (see the Catena of passages in Alford. we feel compelled to suppose that St. And the period is It was what later times called the Quinquennium of significant. Paul was necessity of fulfilling our obligations to it. 70. 158 n. 1-12) is the attempt to explain this passage of the return of Nero.). and that he thought of the various districts and countries in which he had preached as parts of He had the mind of an organizer . 3 Aur. not then so common as citizen. and the But also St. T. either of the eschatological passages of the Epistle or of the Apocalypse.D. as embodied in the Roman Empire {rb ko. Ramsay. and this accords most suitably with the time when the Epistle was written \e. Victor. 148. 56 ff. 202-205. and were of Antioch addressed by him as such 3 / It was during the early years of Nero's reign that St. Caes.

even at the end of Nero's reign the appointment of Vespasian to Judaea. 47-65.. the 'Cilician pirate. CO. quinq. Vipsanius Laenas. or any one acquainted with the provinces had been questioned. Nero 12. Capito.] ROME IN A. It was due also to the wise administration of Seneca and of Burrus. did little harm to the mass of the people even in Rome and many even of the faults of the Emperors assisted in working out the new ideas which the Empire was creating. Eckhel. shows that the Emperor still had the wisdom to select and the courage to appoint able men. But at present we have not to do with faults. § 1. cer. The structure which had been sketched by the genius of Caesar. proves that it was becoming more and more possible to obtain justice. but neither in Rome nor in the provinces would the populace be offended . governor of Sardinia. as soon as the serious character of the revolt was known. tales might have been circulated of hardly pardonable excesses committed by the Emperor and a noisy band of companions wandering at night in the streets . . In the year 56.' Amongst the accusations against The quinquennium may have been suggested by the certamen quinquennale which Nero founded in Rome. During the early years a long list is given of trials for repetundae . as Dio tells us. more far-seeing observers might be able to detect worse signs. while it shows that provincial government was not free from corruption. This was due mainly to the gradual development of the ideas on which the Empire had been founded. 58 XV probable that even the worst excesses of Nero. and the drama. like the worst cruelty of Tiberius. if allowed to develop freely.' was struck down by the senate 'with a righteous thunderbolt. was condemned for extortion. 20. 21 Tac. he would certainly have answered that the government of the Empire was good. The difficulties in Armenia were met at once and vigorously by the appointment of Corbulo the rebellion in Britain was wisely dealt with . the . 264 . in 57. signs of degradation. i. and built up by the art of Augustus. Ann. Dio. Cohen. Members of court circles might have unpleasant and exaggerated stories to tell about the death of Britannicus. of. guaranteed naturally certain conditions of progress and good fortune. Judaea was at this time preparing for insurrection under the rule of Felix. It was due apparently also to flashes of genius and love of popularity if on the part of the Emperor himself. but if any ordinary citizen. imtp rrjs acoTrjpias 777s re Siafnovrjs tov tcparovs avrov. the more respectable of the Roman aristocracy would consider an illicit union with a freedwoman and a taste for music. Suet. xiv. literature. lxi. provinces were well governed. It was the corruption of the last reign that was condemned by the justice of the present. coins described. ROM. p. 282. Epit. and the number of convictions. but he was a legacy from the reign of Claudius.D. vi..

50. cit. Law was growing in exactness owing to the influence of Jurists.000 sesterces at the time of the great fire When. may have been an act of dramatic folly. he tribute and is giving directions to pay thinking of a great and beneficent power which ' ' travel for him possible. It And the provinces seemed almost as if career of a Roman noble might depend upon the goodwill most part under . Schiller. when he is custom . in der Ausbildung und Forderung der Rechtswissenschaft. in that of Lyons. p. many to cases. 30. welchen ihnen fruhere Regierungen angewiesen hatten. and was justly administered except where the Emperor's personal wishes intervened 3 Once the Emperor was it a mere freak or was it an act of far-seeing political insight? proposed a measure of free trade for the whole Empire.000. Die kaiserliche Regierung liess die Verhaltnisse hier ruhig den Gang gehen. selbst auf dem Gebiete der Appellation konnen gegrundete Vorwurfe fahrens. this rule. at any rate the tendency of the Empire. Governors of provinces were forbidden to obtain condonation for exactions by The proclamation of freedom to Greece the exhibition of games. and probably of Ephesus. Paul speaks of the powers that be as being ordained by God ' . 137 xiii. . 31. and Lyons could 5 contribute 4. 56. but the extension of Latin rights meant that the provincials were being gradually put more . Suetonius. then. Nero 16. 53-57. 57 The Roman System of Provincial Administration. 382: 'In dem Mechanismus des gerichtlichen VerPrivatrecht. im kaum erhoben werden. . 2 An police regulations of the city were strict and well executed attack was made on the exactions of publicans.' * Tac. And not only were Suillius in 58 was the misgovernment of Asia. the favourites of Claudius condemned. by acts of stress generosity and benevolence \ We may perhaps. Schiller. a 3 For the provincial administration of Nero see Furneaux. pp. prosperity and civilization. op. which had often interfered to him against an angry mob of his own countrymen. St. xv. Tac. And the Emperor was able in procurators of imperial provinces. better men were appointed It is recorded that freedmen were never made in their place. 420. Laodicea was so rich that the inhabitants could rebuild the city without aid from Rome. 33. Arnold. p. and on the excessive power of freedmen. under which he had seen the towns through which he passed enjoying peace. has made protect 1 W. Ann. 21.— XVI EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 1. pp. of Cyrene. when he says that the ruler is a minister of . lay too . Ann. . And wherever trade could flourish there of his provincial subjects 4 wealth accumulated. 137. T. — and more on a flourished for the the future level with Roman citizens. . 51. the provincials assist and pacify easily. much on some of the measures attributed to Nero but many of them show. pp. 20. 381. if not the The policy of his reign. ' ' 1 God 1 for good ' . 135. 8 Arnold.

3 Chrysostom Horn. Paul persuaded a concubine of Nero to accept Christianity the conjecture that this concubine illustrate how it was through the and forsake the Emperor has probably little foundation was Acte is worthless but it may . for it was Stoicism which provided the philosophic basis for the new imperial system. It is a strange irony that makes Stoicism the creed which inspired the noblest representatives of the old regime. translated by Warr. and in acting. Ann. What is important for our purpose is to notice that the humanitarian and universalist ideas of Stoicism were already beginning to permeate society. The statement of Chrysostom that St. 42-45. 46. but a study of the names in any of the Columbaria of the imperial period 1 See Lightfoot. 268. . in recitation and in fluteand few of these would be Romans. 58 was Seneca 1 xvii also But was not only Nero. and it was the passion for luxury. and the taste for philosophy and literature. 42. St. there Christianity. the De Vita Beata. even the vices of the court. it who was ruling in The attempt to Paul wrote to the Church there. St. To this period of his life belong the ano/eoXoicvvTajms. find any connexions literary or otherwise between St.] ROME it IN A. teachers in philosophy. See Teuffel. in Act. and shaping the future of the Empire. the equality but it was the populace who in some sense of all men. The Emperor must have playing. even slaves a few years later (a. Paul and Seneca. It was the first public appearance of Stoicism in Rome. If we turn from the Empire to Rome. Philippians. 2 Tac. ii. non-Roman element of Roman It is not possible to estimate the society that Christianity spread. still more perhaps for that of the principles which prepared the way for the spread of Christianity. which demanded Greek and Oriental assistance. for example. we shall find that just those vices which the moralist deplores in the aristocracy and the Emperor helped to prepare the Roman capital for the advent of If there had not been large foreign colonies. the De Beneficiis. 61) protested when the slaves of the murdered Seneca and many Pedanius Secundus were led out to execution 2 of the Jurists were permeated with the Stoic ideas of humanity and benevolence and however little these principles might influence their individual conduct they gradually moulded and changed the law and the system of the Empire. the De dementia.§ 1. the fact is of extreme significance. could never have been any ground in the world where Christianity could have taken root strongly enough to influence the surrounding population. as largely influencing politics.D. and the De Constantia Sapientis. and this was not the last time that an aristocracy perished in obedience to their own morality. 3. 3 . but for the growth of Christian principles. b . . History of Roman Literature. p. exact proportion of foreign elements in a Roman household. Seneca taught. xiv. d. App. Paul and Seneca may be dismissed . Rome when .

But he had at the same time a smaller and a narrower object. will illustrate how large that element was. which has enabled him to correct some current misconceptions. was entrusted to her husband for trial on the charge of . 505 ff. There are not inconsiderable grounds for this view.nd"Acrrrovpyos Biopnaov vlos (pp. The Jews it in Rome 3 . 1893). Lezbius 5221. . Mithres 5344. M. Geschichte d.Juden in Rom (Frankfurt a. Diadumenus 5355. Serapio {bis) 5187. Amaryllis 5258. Graniae Nicopolinis 5419. 2.XVlii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 1.r)vevs 2app6. seems to have a S| ecial interest 'Hdvtcos EvoSov rrpeo0tvTT)s Qavayopeircov rSiv Kara Bwairopov. Philumenus 5401. Melitene 5490. but in any case the accusation against her is an illustration that there was a path by which a new and foreign religion like Christianity could make its way into the heart of the Roman aristocracy 2. The following. § i. It dates from a period rather earlier than this. 941).TO)v Pwanopavos 5207. Amaranthus 5 1 80. xiii. Lesbus 5529. Perseus 5279. Rome Paul thought of as the seat 1 We have collected the following names from the contents of one columbarium (C. L. Men and women of every race lived together in the great Roman slave world. Judaism came near to the throne with Poppaea Sabina. ii. but is known to us best as Astarte . Melicus 5217. : Tac. Cypare 5229. Apamea 5287 a. 30. a. or when they had received the gift of freedom remained attached as clients and friends to the great houses. 'foreign superstition' and whose long old age was clouded with continuous sadness. Ann. Eucharistus 5477. While the story of Pomponia Graecina who. Clement. Chrysantus 5183. whose influence over Nero is first traced in this year 58. Phyllidianus 5331. Alexandrianus 5316. who was called by many names. 32 Lightfoot. has been taken as an instance of Christianity. Lucan in his Pharsalia celebrates the worship of Isis in Rome Nero himself reverenced the Syrian Goddess. Creticus 5197. It must be remembered that the proportion of foreigners would really be larger than appears. often united by ties of the closest intimacy with their masters and proving the means by which every form of strange superstition could penetrate into the highest circles of society K foreign superstition And was beginning to spread. The earliest monuments of the worship of Mithras date from the time of Tiberius. Pylaemenianus 5188. Antigonus 5227. contained among the above. in the year 57. I. Mystius 5527. for many of them would take a Roman name. i. Athenais 5478. Antiochis 5437. p. s Since this section was written the author has had access to Berliner. Zeitgesch. Samothrace. There are indications enough that when he looked towards and centre of the Empire. Ephesia 5299. Neutest. His chief interest lay in those little scattered groups of Christians of whom he had heard through Aquila and Prisca. The facts are also excellently put together . a by Schurer. vi. and probably St. Corinthus 5439. Philogenes 5410. Asclepiades 5201.

at Jerusalem. going by night as well as by day to his funeral pyre 7 . when the struggling patriots of Judaea had some interests in common with the great Republic and could treat with it on independent terms. III. 1-4. Caesar 84. and made use of good sources. The first relations of the Jews with to the time of the Rome go back Maccabaean princes. 63 s A number of the prisoners were sold as slaves. Val.c. Max. They passionately bewailed the death of Julius. Berliner however is more probably right in supposing lhat there must have been other and older settlers in Rome to account for the language of Cicero so early as B.' which was removed to the left bank of the river in 1556. 10).\ who points out that Philo. makes no mention of Pompey. The policy of the early emperors favoured the Jews. from which the statement is taken. . 9 Mace. (i) History. Leg. 5 This too is questioned by Berliner (p. Hispalus 4 .) Judaeos qui Sabazi Jovis cultu Romanos inficere mores conati sunt. It 7 8 ba . come 6 for purposes of trade. At the same time. ' away with 1 since the Italian occupation.] THE JEWS IN ROME XIX through others Christian whom he met on his travels. viii. ad Caium 23. 15-24. xii. And the thought of the Church would at once connect itself with that larger community of which it must have been in some sense or other an offshoot. The first considerable settlement of the Jews in Rome dates from the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey in b. xv. 1 Mace. 139 3 It was characteristic that on this last occasion the members of the embassy attempted a religious propaganda and were in consequence sent home by the praetor ' . This was only preliminary contact. This was the quarter usually assigned to prisoners of war {Beschreibung d. repetere domos suas coegit. but without sufficient reason.c. These settlers may have 1 8 1 : . c. 24. These released slaves were numerous and important enough to found a synagogue of their own 6 to which they might resort when they went on pilgrimage. xiv. Mace. Doubt is thrown upon it by Bei liner (p.§ 2. wrote under Tiberius. but their obstinate adherence to their national customs proved troublesome to their masters and most of them were soon manumitted. and has been finally done . 59 (see below). Parid. what he says about Jupiter Sabazius is very probably based on a misunderstanding nor need we suppose that the action of some members of the embassy affected the relations of the two peoples. * This statement is made on the authority of Valerius Maximus I. 16. iii. 4). and at last a formal alliance was concluded by Simon Maccabaeus in 140. But it is difficult to see what other occasion could answer to the description. 17-32. was called after them the 'synagogue of the Libertini' (Acts vi. Embassies were sent under Judas (who died in 160 b. 578). . Sueton. as this does very well. and under Augustus they were allowed to form a regular colony on the further side of the Tiber 8 roughly speaking opposite the site of the modern Ghetto. 2 (Excerpt. Stadt Rom. iii.) and Jonathan 2 (who died in 143). the Jewish settlement in the imperial city. 5 ff.

which have been carefully collected and commented upon by Schiirer in the work quoted above (Leipzig. no less than 8000 Roman Jews attached them2 Though the main settlement was beyond the Tiber selves to it The it must soon have overflowed into other parts of Rome. 21). Ant. led to the adoption of repressive measures at once against the Jews and the Egyptians.) ii. 16) we may suppose that the synagogue itself was without the walls. one near the Porta Portuensis. p. There were synagogues of Avyovarfjaioi and Ay pnnrrjcnoi (i. half-crazy emperor dragged the deputation after him from one point to another of his gardens only to jeer at them and refuse any further critical victims to the climate no one would have cared . have been found in several out-lying regions. . 1879). 3 Jews had a synagogue in connexion with the crowded Subura and another probably in the Campus Martius. Joseph. ' . 5 Data relating to the synagogues have been obtained from inscriptions. Ge?neindeverfassimg d. 16. but that its frequenters came from the Subura. either of the household or under the patronage of Augustus * and his minister Agrippa). one connected with the priests of Isis. 19 two scandalous flourished without interruption. 85 si ob gravitatem caeli interissent. B. As synagogues were not allowed within the pomoerium {ibid. and the other with a Roman lady who having become a proselyte to Judaism was swindled of money under pretence It . d. the harbour at the mouth of the Tiber Till some way on in the reign of Tiberius the Jewish colony But in a. cases occurring about the same time. I. 1 . Tacitus. Juden in Rom. but the historian scornfully hints that if they 6 anxious and Philo has given us a graphic picture of time for the Jews. 6447 (Schiirer. 46 6 ff.c. 94). the reception of a deputation which came with himself at its head The to beg for protection from the riotous mob of Alexandria.J. pp. p. was still under the Republic (b.worship {op. that the 2 3 p. II.i&ovprjaiajv. Four thousand were banished to Sardinia. G. There is mention of an apx<uv ^. Here the Jews soon took root and rapidly increased in numbers. the position of which is uncertain but which in any case bespeak Traces of Jewish cemeteries the importance of the community. Cicero's speech makes it clear Jews of Rome were a formidable body to offend. XVII. Berliner. C. Annal. nominally to be employed in putting fell down banditti. Callisto. a ^ so more recently by Berliner {pp. cit. xi. e. of sending it to Jerusalem. two near the Via Appia and the catacomb of S. 59) that Cicero in his defence And of Flaccus pretended to drop his voice for fear of them \ when a deputation came from Judaea to complain of the misrule of Archelaus. vi. p.XX EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 2. 35 . cit. The end of the reign of Caligula was another The Jews were money collected for 1 the interested in this trial as Flaccus had laid hands on the Temple at Jerusalem. vile damnum. I. 5 and one at Portus. 4 Berliner conjectures that the complimentary title may have been given as a sort of equivalent for emperor.

45. In the early part of the reign of Claudius the Jews had friends But a at court in the two Herod Agrippas. 5 xiv. 2). Cassius. Sed et cum perperam Chrestianus pronunciatur a vobis (nam nee nominis certa est notitia penes vos) de suavitate vel benigni' ' ' ' compositum est {Apol. If we suppose some such very natural confusion. (i) The words may be taken literally as they stand. Justin. ad Caium 44. that in this enigmatic guise we have an allusion to the effect of the early preaching of Christianity. . § 2. 41). 6 tous re 'lovSaiovs. that the disturbing cause was not the Messianic expectation It is in general but the particular form of it identified with Christianity. Sueton. tate . mysterious notice of which we would fain know more shows them once again subject to measures of repression. At a date which is calculated at about a. were forbidden. Apol. 3 Dio . who is more precise. rep Si 5f) narpicp vo/jlco fi'up xP a)lA ^ V0Vi (Ke\€vae fit) avvadpoifeadai.] THE JEWS 1 . Claud. Any one of three interpretations may be put upon impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes. a general edict of expulsion. would lead us to infer that the edict stopped short of this. . This is the view of Lange and others including in part Lightfoot {Philippians p. but Dio Cassius. father and son.. lx. i. Chrestus was a common name among slaves. irkeovdaavras avOis &ctt€ xa ^ (n® s "" avtv rapaxfjs iivb rod ox^ov a<p5)v rijs voKtais dpxOi)t/ai. (ii) Or it is very possible that there may be a confusion between ' Chrestus and ' Christus. IN ROME XXI their petition Caligula insisted on the setting up of bust in the Temple at Jerusalem. then the disturbances may have had their origin in the excitement caused by the Messianic expectation which was ready to break out at slight provocation wherever Jews congregated. And Suetonius in describing what is probably the same event sets it down to persistent tumults in the There is at Jewish quarter 'at the instigation of ChrestusV least a considerable possibility. § 4). ovk f^-qXaae \ikv. and so bearing unconscious witness to the gentle and kindly character of those who owned it. and his opportune death alone saved the Jews from worse things than had as yet befallen answer to his own them (a.' Tertullian accuses the Pagans of pronouncing the name ' Christians wrongly as if it were Chrestiani. The clubs and meetings (in the synagogue) which Caligula had allowed. This is the view of Meyer and Wieseler. 169). 1 2 Leg. (iiij There remains the third possibility. but there was at least no wholesale expulsion 3 . 52 we find Aquila and Prisca at Corinth 'because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome' (Acts xviii.d. 19. rds t« kratpuas tiravaxOcioas virb rov Yatov 8ii\vo€. and there may have been an individual of that name who was the author of the disturbances. certain that Christianity must have been preached at Rome as early as this and the preaching of it was quite as likely to lead to actual violence and riot as at Thessalonica or Antioch or Pisidia or Lystra (Acts xvii. for which some preference has been expressed above. 25 Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit. 3 cf. in which in one way or another Aquila and Prisca would seem to have been involved and on that account Suetonius and the Acts speak of specially singled out for exile.d. not to say probability.

They saw that they had to deal with a people which it was at once difficult to repress and useful to encourage. Dio Cassius sums up the history of the Jews under the Empire in a sentence which describes well their fortunes at Rome. edict of Claudius was followed in about three years by his Under Nero the Jews certainly did not lose but death (a. 50). Not only were they allowed the free exercise of their religion. 2 Vit. that it was "everywhere spoken against "' 1 « (P-I75).XXli EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 2. Ko\ova9lv avftOtv h\ kvi tt\u(ttoi>. but exceptional privileges were granted them in connexion with it. . and they freely conceded the rights which the Jews demanded. 17 eari ko.d. Josephus [Ant.d. 3. As late as the end of the second century (in the pontificate of Victor 189-199 a. but the last would fit in well with all that we know and would add an interesting touch if it were true l . that the dislocation of the Jewish community caused by the edict of Claudius may explain why the Church of the capital did not grow to the same extent as elsewhere out of the synagogue. they increased to such an extent as to force their way to the recognition and toleration of their peculiar customs 3 . And the wonder is that in spite of all their fierce insurrections against Rome these rights were never permanently withdrawn. securing to the Jews exemption from service in the army (on religious grounds). XIV. 1894. of forming clubs and collecting contributions (especially the didrachma) for the Temple Besides this in the East the Jews were largely permitted to have their own courts of justice. 11. Even when St. The mime Aliturus was a Jew by birth and stood in high favour 2 Herod Agrippa II was also. viz.) quotes a number of edicts of the time of Julius Caesar and after his death. x. 54). xxxvii. Paul arrived there in bonds the chiefs of the restored Jewish organization professed to have heard nothing. 3 Dio Cassius 7roAA<S«ts ptv Ant. It is impossible to verify any one of the three hypotheses . of the Apostle. probably rather gained ground. of building synagogues. . Jewish nationality was on the whole liberal and judicious. xiii. A suggestion was made in the Church Quarterly Review for Oct. freedom of worship. which deserves consideration. We have seen that just as St. some of them Roman and some local. The policy of the emperors towards the (2) Organization. and that this is the fact alluded to by Suetonius is the opinion of the majority of German scholars from Baur onwards. viii. That it did so. The Though their privileges were often curtailed. Joseph. XX. and to know about the Christian sect just what we may suppose the rioters ten years earlier knew. officially or unofficially. Like many of her class she dallied with Judaism and befriended Jews. Paul wrote his Epistle Poppaea was beginning to exert her influence. a persona grata at the Roman court.1 irapa tois 'Pwfxaiois rb yivos tovto.) at Jerusalem. &arf ical tls iraponoiav rns vouiaews tnviKTjoai. like his father.

administrative body was the Sanhedrin . Under him would be the imrjptTrjs (Chazari) who dpxurvuayaryot). and he spenks of this office as if it were confined to the Dispersion of the West {Life and Times. There were certainly Jews of rank and position at Rome. XVII. 3. Haer. i. The senate had its ' president ' (ytpovatapxr)*) among the rulers one or more would seem to have and . discussed by Berliner.' and the apx^vvaywyos as chief would make the functions of the yepovainpxqs political rather than religious. 17). Dr. 1 .] Callistus. § 2. was banished to the Sardinian mines for forcibly breaking up a Jewish meeting for worship (Hippol. These We ' ' ' would be found 1 in the more aristocratic quarters. on the other hand. This would consist of a * senate ' (ycpovo-ia). central board or senate. Refut. and at one time Herod Agrippa I). the Jews of the Dispersion voluntarily submitting to At Alexandria also there was an Ethnarch. 12). The ' Jews' The point is not the view of Schurer {Gemeindeverf. and Philip the tetrarch ). inflicted scourging (Matt. for the management of the affairs of the community. 438). p. and The priests as such had no special status acted as schoolmaster. hear at Rome of wealthy and influential in the synagogue.' . a-TaTTjs or pa tr onus. a 2). who would on occasion act for the synagogue in its relation to the outer world. These are points which must be regarded as more or less open. (apxovrfs) is not quite clear : the two terms may be practically or the apxovrcs may be a sort of committee within the equivalent ' . ix. x. Ant. THE JEWS IN ROME xxiii who afterwards himself became Bishop of Rome. There was some natural difference between the East and the West corresponding to the difference in number and concentration In Palestine the central judicial and of the Jewish population. it would appear that each synagogue had its own separate organization. people who were called father or mother of the synagogue ' There is also mention of a npothis would be an honorary title. i. the members of which were the The exact relation of these to the ' rulers elders ' (npeafivTepoi). x. the younger Aristobulus. Edersheim appears to regard the elders ' as He of the body. There were also Jews attached in one way or another to the imperial household (we have had mention of the synagogues of the Agrippesii and Augustesii). At a later date other members of the family made it their home (Herod the first husband of Herodias. been charged with the conduct of the services in the synagogue (apxHrwayayos. identical with the 'rulers. XV. This is 3 Jos. performed the minor duties of giving out and putting back the sacred rolls (Luke iv. Sec. Herod the Great had sent a number of his sons to be educated there (the ill-fated Alexander and 2 Aristobulus as well as Archelaus. Antipas. 20). . (3) Social status and condition. larger body *. as well as a him. after the Jewish War the place of the Sanhedrin was taken by the Ethnarch who exercised great powers. At Rome.

Mendicancy: Juvenal. I. collectors of broken glass. whose habitual expression was a scowl. They looked upon the Jew as a gloomy fanatic. obstinate tenacity with which they held to their own customs. the heathen laxity around him. sellers of lucifer matches. this description is based are well known. the Jews impressed the observer by their strict performance of the Law. Martial. They haunted the Aventine with their baskets and wisps of hay l Thence they would . Sat. Sat. iv. And his neighbours. . The fairly plentiful notices which have come down to us in the works of the Satirists lead us to think of the Jews of Rome as largely a population of beggars. ix. v. I. offended a society which had come to embrace all the varied national religions with the same easy tolerance and which passed to the other as curiosity or caprice dictated. xiv. Juvenal. 111. 14. that He whom they served did not dwell in temples made with hands. 13. It was true that he condemned. lvji. fortune-tellers of both sexes. vi. At the same time 1 all —and there were : many it — who were in search The purpose of this is somewhat uncertain may have been used to pack their wares. Small 3-5 XII. 69 f. 142 f Juvenal. The distinction of meats was also carefully maintained 3 But along with these external observances the Jews did succeed in bringing home to their Pagan neighbours the contrast of their . . 3 Horace. The Jewish sabbath was proverbial. educated and populace alike. both from the success which at this period . xiv. 76. had begun to attend the Jews in trade and from the existence of the numerous synagogues (nine are definitely attested) which it must have required a considerable amount and some diffusion of wealth to keep up. I. 2 The passages on which : Trades Sat. (of proselytes) Persius. 189^). . and that He was not to be likened to gold or silver or stone. quarter proper was the reverse of aristocratic. . as everywhere. . Sat. graven by art and device of man/ It is difficult to say which is more conspicuous. In Rome. Sat. 542 ff. retaliated with bitter from one hatred and scorn. . Aug. Proselytism: Horace. purer faith to the current idolatries. 96 ff. Epig. xlii. vendors of small wares. Sat. The texts of Greek and Latin authors relating to Judaism have recently been collected in a complete and convenient form by Theodore Reinach {Textes relatifs aujudaisme. 96 ff. on whose superstitious hopes and fears they might play and earn a few small coins by their pains 2 Between these extremes we may infer the existence of a more substantial trading class. Paris. the rigid exclusiveness with which they kept aloof from all others. 184 Sueton. sally forth and try to catch the ear especially of the wealthier Roman women.XXIV EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 2. . 14. the repulsion or ' the attraction which the The and Jews exercised upon the heathen world. But of this class we have less direct evidence. as he had reason to condemn.

(1) The Roman Church. the student of the origin of the Christian Church this class is of great importance. Romanis autem irasci non debuit. Zeitgesch. sed et laudare fidem illorum . It was not necessary that he should at once accept circumcision and the whole burden of the Mosaic Law but as he made good one step another was proposed to him. propterea quod sub regno Romano agerent. Neutest. there was a place for consulted. He thinks that it arose does not claim for it an apostolic origin. . art^6y. because it more than any other was the seed plot of Christianity. Legem servarent . The seeker wants to be told something that he can do to gain the Divine favour.tmi ' after if ' . and also as we may believe by the gorgeous apocalyptic visions which the Jews of this date were ready to pour out to them. § 10). tradiderunt Romanis ut Christum projitentes. and the children became in many cases more zealous than their fathers \ So round most of the Jewish colonies there was gradually formed a fringe of Gentiles more or less in active sympathy with their religion. quia nulla insignia virtuium 2 . every one who showed a real sympathy for the faith of Israel. of the origin of the Origin.' those who worshipped God (evo-efiels. See the very ample collection of material on this subject in Schiirer. 96 ff. a Constat itaque temporibus apostolorum /udaeos.§ 3. ' ' ' i a-fj36fX(voi tov Qe6v. The most probable view in Christian tator Church Rome is substantially that of the commen- known as Ambrosiaster (see below. ii. the devout men and women.] THE ROMAN CHURCH XXV of a purer creed than their own. Juvenal. 1 . xiv. and of such demands and precepts there was no lack. Sat. among the Jews of Rome and that the Gentiles to whom they conveyed a knowledge of Christ had not seen any miracles or any of the Apostles 3 Some such conclusion as this fits in well with . This fourthcentury writer. himself probably a member of the Roman Church. The inquiring Pagan was met with a good deal of tact on the part of those whom he He was drawn on little by little . knew that the Jew had something The heathen to give them which they could not get elsewhere. and thoughtful minds were feeling haply they might find the one God who made heaven and Nor was it only the higher minds who were conscious of earth. Komae habitasse : ex quibus hi qui crediderant. Pantheon was losing its hold. in it more than in any other the Gospel took root and spread with ease and rapidity 2. 558 ff. a strange attraction in Judaism. Weaker and more superstitious natures were impressed by its lofty claims. For § 3. <fioj3ov/ievoi t6u Q(6v) of the Acts of the Apostles.

If we may make use of the data in ch. and rapidity. one provincial governor succeeded another . It was not however \o found a Church. were such as in part have only been reached again in Europe since the beginning of the present century' (Friedlander. safety. and that St. the moving of troops general conclusion he is more right than we might have expected. 13 xv. Sittengeschichte videntes. ii. all his missionary labours that he not build upon another mans foundation (Rom. . 3). At a date so early as this it is not in itself likely that the Apostles of a faith which grew up under the shadow of Jewish particularism would have had the enterprise to cast their glance so far west as Rome. a community not in substantial proportions both all shall see) implies a mixed of one colour. i. over the greater part of the Roman empire. Paul deliberately conceiving and long cherishing the purpose of himself making a journey to Rome (Acts xix. as — — definite directions.XXVI the EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3.) and in this very Epistle he lays phenomena of if as he does the . but the letter itself (as we community. and its general trend was to and from Rome. 14 f. the one who risked the most in the effort to realize them. 1 'The conditions of travelling. We see St. shall see that Ambrosiaster exaggerates the strictly Jewish influence on the Church. Ballenni). i. at least in the sense of first foundation.. 373 f. Ambrosii Opp. 22-24). The constant coming and going of Roman officials. . xvi and reasons will be given for using them with some confidence the origin of the Roman Church will be fairly clear. St. susceperant fidem Christi ritu licet Indaico (S. iii. and it will agree exactly with the probabilities of the case. 21 . xv. Paul wrote only to the latter. 20). But not only is there no hint of such a state of it down as a principle governing ' will ' things. It was but natural that the first Apostle to do this should be the one who both in theory and in practice had struck out the boldest line as a missionary the one who had formed the largest conception of the possibilities of Christianity. He clearly regards it as coming within his own province as Apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. and who as a matter of principle ignored distinctions of language and of race. Rom. for ease. existed with sufficient unity to have a letter written to it. but embracing Jews and Gentiles. Paul would hardly have written the Epistle. 6. but in his We Rows. nee aliquem apostolorum. ed. one JewishChristian the other Gentile-Christian. Never in the course of previous history had there been anything like the freedom of circulation and movement which now existed in the Roman Empire \ And this movement followed certain definite lines and set in certain It was at its greatest all along the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean. for a Church already . Church had really been founded by an Apostle. If an Apostle had been before him to Rome the only supposition which would save his present letter from clashing with this would be that there were two distinct churches in Rome.

Paul. xvi may be taken as typical of the circumstances which would bring together a number of similar groups of Christians at Rome. a career were to be sought there . Paul. Epaenetus is described as the first convert ever made from Asia that may of course be by the preaching of St. Corinth. — — : ' ' ' ' — : . Paul himself had for the last three years been stationed at one of Rome. possibly like him natives of Tarsus. Among the crowds there would inevitably be some and those of very varied nationality and antecedents. In several cases he adds some endearing little expression which implies personal contact and interest Epaenetus. And so we may assume that all the owners of the names mentioned in ch. Andronicus and Junias. Christians. The same pair. In this way. were Christians of older standing than himself.§ 3 ] THE ROMAN CHURCH xxvii from place to place with the sending of fresh batches of recruits and the retirement of veterans the incessant demands of an everincreasing trade both in necessaries and luxuries. Paul sends greeting in ch. if we are to take the expression literally. If the Aristobulus whose household is mentioned is the Herodian prince. That Prisca and Aquila should be at Rome is just what we might expect from one with so keen an eye for the strategy of a situation as St. Andronicus and Junia (or Juniis) and Herodion are described as his kinsmen perhaps his i. that he should send them back to Rome where they were already known. xvi had some kind of acquaintance with him. Urban has been his helper '. we can easily understand that he might have Christians about him. the previous histories of the friends to whom St. the mother of Rufus had been also as a mother to him. while in his immediate surroundings they were almost superfluous. fellow-tribesmen. But not by any means all were St. e. So that instead of presenting any difficulty. cities at We may say that the three great which he had spent the longest time Antioch. Some from Palestine. is most natural. Stachys are all his beloved '. had shared one of his imprisonments. the greatest of the Levantine emporia. the attraction which the huge metropolis naturally exercised on the imagination of the clever young Orientals who knew that the best openings for . Andronicus and Junias. When he was himself established and in full work at Ephesus with the intention of visiting Rome. but it is also possible that he may have been converted while on pilgrimage to Jerusalem. it would at once occur to him what valuable work they might be doing there and what an excellent preparation they might make for his own visit. Ampliatus. a thousand motives of ambition. We may be sure that not a few of his own disciples would ultimately find their way to Rome. some from Corinth. business pleasure drew a constant stream from the Eastern provinces to St. Paul's own converts. Ephesus were just the three from which (with Alexandria) intercourse was most active.

It is true that there is hardly an item in the evidence which is not subject to some deduction The evidence which is definite is somewhat late. we could imagine that their faith would be gradually consolidated. If the view thus given of the origin of the Roman Church is correct. still less would they be in a position to evangelize others. better our idea of the Roman Church on and to form grounds than conjecture. and (ii) that its true founder was St. We . which would as yet be informal and not accompanied by any regular system of Catechesis. they would not know enough to make them in the full sense 'Christians'. Peter's address on the Day of Pentecost were some who came from Rome. may say at once that we are not prepared to go the length of those who would deny the connexion of St. But unless they remained for some time in Jerusalem. Peter with the Roman Church altogether. John the Baptist.xxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3. nothing concerted in their going . Peter. possibly some from Tarsus and more from the Syrian Antioch. Church. Among this first group there would doubtless be some who would go back predisposed and prepared to receive fuller instruction in Christianity. Peter. both bom Jews of the Dispersion and proselytes. the freemasonry common amongst Christians would soon make them known to each other. (i) are told expressly that among those who listened to St. vigorous preaching of St. 2 ff. If coming from such a source we should expect the Jewish Christianity of Rome to be rather of the freer Hellenistic type than marked by the narrowness of it is to Pharisaism. For other influences than those of St. as we may believe. at Ephesus (Acts xix. Paul we are left to general probabilities. with the further fact that regular communication would be kept up by Roman Jews frequenting the feasts. Stephen would set a wave in motion which would be felt even at Rome. When these returned they would naturally take with them news of the strange things which were happening in Palestine. and the evidence which is early is either too uncertain or too slight and vague to We . But it would take more than they brought away from the Day of Pentecost to lay the foundations of a . and unless they attended very diligently to the teaching of the Apostles. not exactly an organized Church. (ii) The traditional founder of the Roman Church is St. But it is best to abstain from anticipating. there was in the first instance. some from Ephesus and other parts of proconsular Asia. but such a fortuitous assemblage of Christians as was only waiting for the advent of an Apostle to constitute one. one of which at least has imposing authority viz. But from the fact that there was a synagogue specially assigned to the Roman 'Libertini' at Jerusalem and that this synagogue was at an early date the scene of public debates between Jews and Christians (Acts vi. they might be at a similar stage to that of the disciples of St. But it is only in a very qualified sense that this tradition can be made good.) and under the successive impact of later visits (their own or their neighbours') to Jerusalem. and they would form. it involves the rejection of two other views. (i) that the Church was founded by Jewish pilgrims from the First Pentecost. but when once they arrived in the metropolis. fail equally clear that Palestinian Christianity could hardly We may well believe that the have its representatives. 9).

155). and a like consideration must be taken to qualify the statements of Irenaeus 7 . xvi. Peter wrote his Mist Epistle from Rome. . v. For statements of the opposing views see Eipsius. see Bnsenlhal. and for a defence of the view that St. &c). Ptter and St. and although peihaps not absolutely certain it is in accordance with all probability. 4 ff. and the points of contact between I Peter and Romans) find an easy and natural explanation 3 . Eus. 1 The summary which indirect evidence. Peter's own First Epistle if the ' Babylon from which he writes (i Pet. The latter writer points to the * trophies ' {to. 115 a. 13) is really a covert name for Rome. The Roman Catholic authorities would refer it to the ' tombs ' or • memorial chapels ' {memoriae). 3 ff. Rom iv 3 6 7 Eus. a number of details in the Epistle (such as the mention of Silvanus and Maik. 171 A. p. who had paid special attention to this Epistle. Clement ii. 105 f. By the beginning of the third century we get in Tertullian 8 and Caius of Rome 9 explicit references to Rome as the scene of the double martyrdom. . but Renan and the Tubingen school generally. 158 and it should be remembered that the advocates of this view include men of the most diverse opinions. ii. ffaer. v. even where there was less occasion for secresy. //. &c. xxv.) appeals to both Apostles as authorities which the Roman Church would be likely to recognize 5 but at the utmost this proves nothing as to the origin of the Church. Eightfoot. V.. might have fallen into the habit of using a secret language among themselves. . we may believe that Christians also. 7. and Eipsius. 3 There is a natural reluctance in the lay mind to take Iv BafivXwn in any other sense than literally. . 8 9 Scorp. 8.d. Pet. et Paul. 6. iii.d. xxv. and when we remember the common practice among the Jewish Rabbis of disguising their allusions to the oppressor 2. and the Epistle of Ignatius addressed to Rome {c. And it is followed by another piece of evidence which is good and precise as far as it goes. E. ii. 14ft. Sibyll v. The genuine Epistle of Clement of Rone (c. . 3. Trostschreiben an die ffebrder. Adv. 8. 15 Be Praescript. follows contains only the main points and none of the For a fuller presentation the reader may be referred to Clement ii. p. 19. It seems to us probable that buildings of some kind were already in existence. Dionysius of Corinth (*. ' xxix carry a clear conclusion 1 Most decisive of all. This was the view of the Early Church. Apostelgesch. De Waal. xiv. 63) and a ' pine-tree ' near the road to Ostia. 491 f Von Soden in Handcommcntar IIP ii. Die Apostelgruft ad. The Apocalypse confessedly puts • Babylon ' for Rome (Rev. if it held good. St. seems to have . 490 ff. II.] THE ROMAN CHURCH . This is conclusive evidence as to the belief of the Roman Church about the year 200. Lightfoot. 97 a. 21 . held the same opinion {Judaistic Christianity. it could not be in the sense of first foundation. The leading Protestant archaeologists (Eipsius. Hort. Apostelgesch. 2. Schultze) hold that it refers to some conspicuous mark ot the place of martyrdom (a famous ' terebinth' near the naumachium on the Vatican {Mart.On this practice.) does indeed couple the two Ap*ostles as having joined in 'planting' the Church of Rome as they had done previously that of Corinth 6 . would be the allusion in St. . St. But this Epistle alone is proof that if St. 36.D. Paul could be said to have 'planted' the Church. rpWaia 10 ) of the two Apostles as existing in his day on the Vatican and by the Ostian Way. not only the English scholars mentioned above and Dollinger. III. Dr. 10 There has been much discussion as to the exact meaning of this word.§3. Apokr. II. 11 ff. when they had once become suspected and persecuted. E.) couples together St. ff. When we descend a step later. Still it is certainly to be so taken in Orac. Paul in a context dealing with persecution in such a way as to lend some support to the tradition that both Apostles had perished there*. Ad . 4 s Ad Cor. Apokr. Erbes. Catacttmbas. p. When once we adopt this view.

So Lipsius. Peter presents some points of resemblance. the treasured relics were transferred to . Apokr.) .d. 333. p. Lipsius would carry back this list a little further. for a year and seven months. 333fi . Peter to Rome at a date so early as the year 42 (which seems to be indicated) are so great as to make the acceptance of this chronology almost impossible. Li btfoot PP. best account of this transfer is that given f. Here they remained. Gentile Christians in Die Apostelgruft ad Catacumbas. 8Apostelgesch. are coming back to a time when a continuous tradition is beginning to be possible. op. pp. would almost compel some allusion to such a visit if it had taken place. ' » Ibid. if not by the beginning of the last quarter of the second. 391 ff. The relations between the two Apostles and of both to the work of missions in general. Peter certainly believed in towards the end of the first quarter of the third century. The tradition as to the twenty five years' episcopate of St.2 37. 500. Ihe travels of the Apostles are usually dated from the end of this period . . By skilful analysis it is traced back a full hundred years earlier. Between the years 58 or 61-63 and 170 there is quite time for legend to grow up and Lipsius has pointed out a possible way . 69. cit. And yet the difficulties in the way of bringing St. A . Not only do we find St. also Lightfoot Clement 11.) and his follower Jerome. There is some the site known as Ad Catacumbas adjoining the present Church of St. Duchesne. 333. 6 . And it is hardly less 1 ™PF.. a Vepositio Martyrum Two fourth-century documents. 325 a. a tradition at that date already firmly established and associated with definite well-known local monuments. the Martyrologium liter onymianum (ed.* It appears to be derived from a list drawn up probably by Hippolytus*. 175-190 a. the first century : see the latter's full 49 3 R. the so-called ' chronographer of ihe year 354. Apostelgesch.. writing under Eleutherus 5 [c..). p. Peter to all appearance still settled at Jerusalem at the time of the Council in a d. Thus we have the twenty-five years' episcopate of St.d. 27. ii. i. ambiguity as to the localities from and to which the bodies were moved but the most probable view is that in the Valerian persecution when the cemeteries were closed to Christians. 33 f.d.s and Bassus in the year 258. Col. was current towards the end of the second century. cahs 2 evi by Duchesne. according to one version.' connect a removal of the bodies of the two Apostles with the consulship of Tuscr. That too appears for the first time in the fourth century with Eusebius (c..) 2 Here we have a chain of substantial proof that the Roman Church fully believed itself to be in possession of the mortal remains of the two Apostles as far back as the year 2co. but we have seen that it is highly improbable that he had visited Rome when St. This work contains a logical details. and would make it composed under Victor in the last decade of the second century*. according to another for forty years.in which it might arise 6 There is evidence that the tradition of our Lord s command to the Apostles to remain at Jerusalem for twelve years after His Ascension.. 259 ff. Philem. after Erbes.obable that a visit had been made between this and the later Epistles (Phil. both in texts which have undergone some corruption. and Lightfoot seems to think it possible that the figures for the duration of the several episcopates may have been present in the still older list of Hegesippus. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Church there. Liber PontifiJ . Sebastian l. ii. Apokr. 84) and in the woik of Philocalus. The later story of an attempt by certain Orientals to steal them awav seems to have grown out of a misunderstanding of an inscription by Pope Damasus (366-384 a. We « . Kraus and De Waal would connect the story with the jealousies of Jewish and . Eph. 1 The 1. The Roman Catholic writers. survey of the controversy with new archaeo- 6 Lightfoot. 335 f.XXX EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3.

Paul 3 Not only does Lipsius think that this is the earliest form of the tradition. Peter's First Epistle and the traditions relating to St. Professor Ramsay's arguments have greatly shaken the objections to the traditional date of the death of St. which under the figure of Simon Magus made a disguised attack upon St. 279 ff.e. 485). It is true that the two Apostles are commemorated upon the same day (June 29).D. On the one hand there is the Petro-pauline tradition which regards the two Apostles as establishing the Church in friendly co-operation 2 The outlines of this have been sketched above. Peter in is . The claim of the Roman Church to joint foundation by the two Apostles seems to have been nowhere disputed.) would place the First Epistle of St. It is otherwise with fact or series of facts the question as to its composition. Rome. Peter to Rome 4 the only historical ground for it which he would allow is the visit of St. 1 1 ff. . (2) Composition. p. cit. p. Then the traditional date of the death of St. The question as to the origin of the interest . 64 . a. substantial reason for supposing the death of St. 68 Hieron. Fete* 67 or 68 and subtracting 42 from 67 we get just the 25 years required was assumed that St. The traces of the ' . But when Lipsius goes further than this and denies the Roman visit in toto. He arrives at his result thus. Paul. But the day is probably that of the deposition or removal of the bodies to or from the Church of St. . and that the Chronicle of Eusebius re. The Roman church . There is practically no conflicting tradition. . but he regards it as the original of all other forms which brought St. p.). This does not seem to us to be a satisfactory explanation. Peler with Simon Magus. He traces a double stream in the tradition. but the state of things implied in the Epistle does not look as if it were anterior to this. Armen. Paul. Jbi 2 g ff £ * 5 Ibid. . 75-80. The way in which they are introduced is free from all suspicion They are supported by collateral evidence (St. and it must be admitted that the authoiities are not such as to impose an absolute veto on this view. The visit' of St.'ers their deaths to the same year (a. a 3 Op. Roman Church has little more than an antiquarian it is an isolated which does not greatly affect either the picture which we form to ourselves of the Church or the sense in which we understand the Epistle addressed to it. Mark) the weight of which is considerable. p. Professor Ramsay {The Church in the Roman Empire. Peter's episcopate dated from his first arrival in : Petro-pauline tradition are really earlier than those of the Ebionite legend. Peter to Rome. X xxI is It the ground is fairly clear.d.D. So far about 41-42 A.] (i. Sebastian (see above) and for the year the evidence is very insufficient. And even the Ebionite fiction is more probable as a distortion of facts that have a basis of truth than as pure invention. Peter to have taken place at the same time as that of St. his criticism seems to us too drastic l . and his death there at some uncertain date 5 seem to us. 62 ff. Paul. There no the middle of the Flavian period.d. The fact that tradition connects the death of St.§3. Zeitalt. Throughout the Apostolic age problems is the determining factor in 1 most historical the relative It is significant that on this point Weizsacker parts company from Lipsius {Apost. 6>j Vers. On the other hand there is the tradition of the conflict of St.). Peter with the Vatican would seem to point to the great persecution of A. if not removed beyond all possibility of doubt jet as well established as many of the leading facts of history. On the other hand.

XXX11 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3. To that however it was obvious to reply that in i Cor. very considerable. Which of these two elements are we to think of as giving its character to Directly contrary answers have been given the Church at Rome ? to the question and whole volumes of controversy have grown up around it but in this instance some real advance has been made. and it is to the Old Testament It is fair to ask. writer The rately who has worked It is out this view of Baur's most elabodifficult to is a large element in it which is essentially Jewish. the principle on which man is to become righteous in the sight of God. i St. the special choice of Israel— its privileges and the promises made to it all fell to the ground. ix-xi. iv. Paul there of gravity of the Epistle he found in chaps. and he himself gradually drew back from it. preponderance of the Jewish element or the Gentile. when the Epistle is teaching of the Old Testament. Paul of Israel. The questions wiih which it deals are Jewish. His own views are linked on directly to the that Mangold. the nature of Redemption. grapples at close quarters with the objection that if his doctrine held good. x. The true centre St. the choice It is also true that the arguments with which St. Here as in so many other cases elsewhere the sharper statement of the problem dates from Baur. relevance arguments of this character would have as addressed to Gentiles. and the margin of difference among the leading critics is not now . — which he took up on this point. i where Abraham is described (in the most probable text) as our forefather according to the flesh (top 7rpoir6. Paul's object was to argue with the Jewish Christians and to expose the weakness of their reliance on formal obedience disciples criticized the position to the Mosaic Law. Paul spoke of the Israelites in the ' ' . whose powerful influence drew a long and here as so often elsewhere the train of followers after him manner in which Baur himself approaches the question is determined not by the minute exegesis of particular passages but by a broad and comprehensive view of what seems to him to be the . what sort of that he goes in support of them. It was also possible to point to one or two expressions in detail which might seem to favour the assumption of Jewish readers. argument of the Epistle as a whole. meets these questions are very largely such as would appeal specially to Jews. closely examined. is not there show.Tupa Tjfxwu Kara aapKa). At first there is no doubt that the stress laid by Baur on these three chapters in comHis own parison with the rest was exaggerated and one-sided. There loo St. the validityof the Law. To him the Epistle seems to be essentially directed against Jewish Christians. chiefly by showing that a like tendency ran through the earlier portion of the Epistle. Such would be Rom.

Paul regards the Church as broadly and in It is the Gentile element which gives the main a Gentile Church. of which the Law of Moses was only the most conspicuous example. Rom. 3 where the force of the article is different) and a later state of freedom from the Law. Paul Gentile. Still that would only show Roman Church were asks for on their behalf is toleration. Indeed in this instance the contrary would seem to be the case. indeed there is real weight in the argument drawn from the section. xiv are probably in part at least addressed That turbulent race. It is a minor point.\.' though no one would maintain that the There is more weight Corinthian Christians were by birth Jews. 13-15. Paul numbers the Church at Rome among the Gentile Churches. In the first St. It is true that this could not have been written to a Church which consisted wholly of Gentiles. c .) would be proof sufficient of this. Rom. In the third he in like manner excuses himself courteously for the earnestness with which he has written by an appeal to his commission to act as the priest who lays upon the altar the Church of the Gentiles as his offering. 4. as a period of Law. 2. In the second he also connects the obligations he is under to preach to them directly with the general fact that all Gentiles without exception are his province. and bases on his own apostleship to the Gentiles his right to address them. pressed too far. is further clear that St. Apostle had forgotten himself for the moment more entirely than Still such expressions should not be he is likely to have done.t. vii. 13 ff. Paul addresses the Gentiles in ch.] THE ROMAN CHURCH XXXlll wilderness as 'our fathers. xi. ference of the civil power some six or seven years before. i. but also to some extent a real one. and that in substantial numbers. (vfilv But it 8e Xe'yo) rols Wvcvlv k. The direct way in which St. because their opponents seem to have the upper hand and all that St. not that they formed a majority. needed And the party which had scruples a warning to keep the peace. just as we also cannot doubt that there was a substantial number of Gentiles.§ 3. Nor was as if their spiritual ancestry was the same as his own. xv. He regards the whole pre-Messianic period this without reason. about the keeping of days is more likely to have been Jewish than that some members of the Jews. r. that the exhortations in chs. 1-6. 5. xiii. the passages. 5-7. This inference cannot easily be explained away from it its colour. 6 not vv. which had called down the interto Jews. unless the — — . where not only are the readers addressed as a8f\(poi finv (which would be just as possible if they were converts from heathenism) but a sustained contrast is drawn between an earlier state under the Law (6 vofios vv. may take it then as established that there were Jews in the We Church. He associates his readers with himself in a manner somewhat analogous to that in which he writes to the Corinthians. 14-16.

100). general complexion but at the same time it contains so many born Jews that he passes easily and freely from the one body to the other. — — (3) Status and Condition. If he had stayed to form a more exact estimate we may take the greetings in ch. We shall see in the next section that the force which impels the Apostle is behind rather than in front. if not also Prisca \ we know to have been a Jew (Acts xviii. The same list of names may give us group of Roman Christians. Hort {Bom. Mary (Miriam) is a Jewish name and Apelles reminds us at once of Iudaeus Apella (Horace. In any case the households of Narcissus and Aristobulus would belong to this category. And there is besides 'the household of Aristobulus.. xvi as a rough indication of the lines that it would follow. that a large proportion even of the Gentile Chris. . Andronicus and Junias and Herodion are described as kinsmen (avyyevels) of the Apostle precisely what this means is not certain perhaps 'members of the same tribe but in any case they must have been Jews. would tend to set him still more at his ease in this respect. xvi. though of course not proveable. that Prisca was a Roman lady belonging to the well-known family of that name. put to death in the year 54 a. 3. v. Sat. He does not feel" bound to measure and weigh his words. p. Four names (Urbanus.). ' ' : ' — — . We know that at the time when 1 See the note on ch.XXXIV EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3. The collection of names there points to a mixture of nationalities.' Some such proportions as these might well be represented in the Church at large. Rufus. tians would have approached Christianity through the portals of a previous connexion with Judaism. 2). Ampliatus. and Aristobulus the the social status of a representative some idea of scion of the house of Herod. that Narcissus may be the well-known freedman of Claudius. where reference is made to the view favoured by Dr. 12 ff. This then is the natural construction to put upon the Apostle's The Church to which he is writing is Gentile in its language. It is not inconceivable. The rest (ten in number) are Greek with an indeterminate addition in 'the household of Narcissus. I. It was enough that he was aware that a letter such as he has written was not likely to be thrown away. The names are largely those of slaves and freedmen. and Eph. and Julia) are Latin.d. because if he writes in the manner which comes most naturally to himself he knows that there will be in the Church many who will understand him.' some of whom if Aristobulus was really the grandson of Herod or at least connected with that dynasty would probably have the same nationality. It is not to be supposed that he had any exact statistics before him as to the composition of the Church to which he was writing. The fact to which we have already referred. Aquila at least.

the near relations and victims of Domitian. not many noble/ the wife in think that Pomponia Graecina. II. ' ' When we ' xxv. as we observe. It may well be Church did not in the strict sense owe to these Apostles its origin. St. Eus. and that the . iii. Paul is writing. and where there is life sure to be a spontaneous tendency to definite articulation of function. i. 8) by St. Paul and i. iv. 17). there is we should expect of them. 'and the brethren that are with them/ of Philologus and certain companions and all the saints that are with them. THE ROMAN CHURCH xxxv Paul wrote to the Philippians Christianity had penetrated into Emperor himself (Phil. 1 . and the Church that is in their house/ of the household of Aristobulus and the Christian members of the household of Narcissus. Clement. name like Philologus seems to point to a certain degree of culture. for the quasi-technical sense of Komav 1 Thess. If there was any Church in which the not many wise men after the flesh. We hear of Prisca and Aquila. it did owe to them its first existence as an organized whole. H. each with its own rendezvous but without any complete and centralized organization. and they were well in St. C 2 . must not however exaggerate the want of organization at the time when St. Paul's methods. scattered over the great city. conqueror of Britain. ' had an exception. It is evident that Prisca and Aquila took the lead which trained Apostle. 3) or 'planted' (Dionysius of Corinth in that although the We 1 ' — — v. women points to some kind of regular ministry (cf. not many mighty. Haer. of Asyncritus. III. The repeated allusions to labouring (ki^lclv) in the case of Mary. 22). E. Peter and St. There is good reason to it of Aulus Plautius the next generation Flavius Clemens and Domitilla. 12. 30-39. and Persis all. had come under Christian influence 1 We should therefore be justified in supposing that even at this early date more than one of the Roman Christians possessed a not inconsiderable social standing and importance. 1 Tim.' It would only be what we should expect if the Church of Rome at this time consisted of a number of such little groups. Paul. &c. Even without the help of an the Church had evidently a life of its own. 1 When St. Peter arrived we Lightfoot. v.§ 3. And the retinue of the A must be remembered that the better sort of Greek and some Oriental slaves would often be more highly educated and more refined in manners than their masters. &c. Tryphaena and Tryphosa. it was at Rome. We should therefore probably not be wrong in supposing that not only the poorer class of slaves and freedmen is represented.] St. Adv. In more than one of the incidental notices of the Roman Church it is spoken of as founded (Iren. ' look again at the list we see that it has a tendency to fall into groups.

of the Epistle. believe that they would find the work half done . ix. . and incidental as they are in the two documents. Part of this programme has been accomplished. At the time of writing St. 321 ff. Paul seems to be at the capital of Achaia. The allusions St. 1 ff. Kendall in The Expositor. 2 Cor. ii. In the Acts it is not mentioned before the fact. Though the collection is not mentioned in the earlier chapters of the Acts. but at the moment of writing his face is turned not westwards but eastwards. 1 . 17). He feels that his own relation and that of the Churches of his founding to the Palestinian Church is a delicate matter. 13. . slight. 21). and he does not know how it will be received We hear much of this collection in the Epistles written about this date (1 Cor. and that desire he hopes very soon to see fulfilled. (Rom. to go to Jerusalem.XXXVI EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 3. xv. And the simple and natural way in which the notes of both in the Epistle itself dovetail into the narrative of the Acts. — — objections which have been brought against the Paul had long cherished the desire of paying a visit to Rome i. 14). Paul's address before Felix allusion is made to it: 'after many years I came to bring alms to my nation and offerings' (Actsxxiv. . when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia. 23). I must also see Rome' (Acts xix. 1 fT. 1 On this collection see an excellent article by Mr. at once strongly confirms the truth of the history and would almost alone be enough to dispose of the doctrinaire Epistle. but it has been with him the subject of long and earnest deliberation it is the olive-branch which he is bent upon offering. 1893. but retrospectively in the course of St. A collection has been made in the Greek Churches. Great issues turn upon it . still it would wait the seal of their presence. Occasion and Purpose.). The time and place at which the Epistle (1) Time and Place. . After I have been there. the proceeds of which he is with an anxious mind about to convey to Jerusalem. saying. When his stay at Ephesus was drawing to an end we read that 'Paul purposed in the spirit. together with the perfect consistency of the whole group of data subtle. as the Church of Samaria waited for the coming of Peter and John (Acts viii. 1 fF. viii. the order of the journey is mentioned. xvi. was written are easy to determine. may § 4. The Time and Place. the collection is no lightly considered act of passing charity.

i. p. iii [1857].D. who would place it after Romans. Many other subtler traces of synchronism in thought and style have been pointed out between all four (especially by Bp. 2. In England Bp. Halle. 57-58. xvi.§ 4. xvi. This would agree with Corinth. Paul did not contemplate slaying in Ephesus longer than the next succeeding Pentecost. In regard to Galatians the data are not so decisive. i). The date thus clearly indicated brings the Epistle to the Romans into close connexion with the two Epistles to Corinthians. and a Gaius St. 14). Paul has in his company at this time greeting of the Epistle in Timothy and Sosipater (or Sopater) who join in the (Rom. and less certainly with the Epistle to Galatians. who is described as 'oeconomus' or 'treasurer' of the city. nor can this opinion be at once ruled out of court. though it seems opposed to 1 Cor. of Class. 289 ft. If Romans was written in the early spring of A. member of the Church of Cenchreae. 21. ed. cf. p. The relative position of 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans is fixed and certain. also Galatians. 1893). 8. the harbour of Corinth (Rom. and points to a city of some importance. St. and that which would seem to be still dominant in Germany (it is maintained by Lipsius writing in 1891). 3. 58. xvi. 62. is that Galatians belongs to the early part of St. A. xvi. 57 l .. 20 that an Erastus was left behind on St. which is also the meeting-place of the local Church. 21) and are also mentioned 4. The house in which St. Acts xx. The older opinion. Paul's long stay at Ephesus. and Sacr. Just the lightness and unobtrusiveness of all these mutual coincidences affixes to the works in which they occur the stamp of reality. The bearer of the Epistle appears to be one Phoebe who is an active.D. which on the most probable reckoning would fall at the beginning of the year 58. perhaps an official. 23). Paul's latest journey— naturally enough if it was his home.D. He sends a greeting also from Erastus. 54 or 55. separates the two Epistles to the Corinthians by an interval of eighteen months . Paul is staying.] TIME AND PLACE xxxvn this would none of them taken separately be but in combination they amount to a degree of probability which is little short of certainty. then 1 Corinthians would fall in the spring and 2 Corinthians in the autumn of A. The visit to Achaia then upon which these indications converge is that which is described in Acts xx. iv. from which we gather that when he wrote the first Epistle St. about the winter of A. Lightfoot found a number of followers in bringing it into closer juxtaposition with Romans. 6). belongs to which point to certain. It occupied three months. and just at Corinth we learn from 2 Tim. 2). Of the remaining four we recognize at least who send their greetings Jason of Thessalonica (Rom. Paul had baptized at Corinth (1 Cor. .. The question however has been recently reopened in two opposite directions: on the one hand by Dr. have seen how the collection for the Churches We of Judaea is one of the links which bind together the first three. and on the other hand by 1 Jiilicher. Philol. The office is of some importance. C. 43 ff.D. Clemen [Ch> onologie der paulinischen Brief e. Gaius (Rom. Lightfoot in Journ. Acts xvii. and different views are held. in his recent Einleitung. p. xvi.

He went up to Jerusalem and then (2) the .D. with the controversy reopened by Professor Ramsay as to the identity of the Galatian Churches. Then follow the Council at Jerusalem. Occasion. 254 ff. We know that his intention was fulfilled in substance but not in the manner of its accomplishment. and Tavium). 53-54. the Epistle to the If the time and place of the Epistle are clear. Iconium. which he places towards 1 His chief argument is that Galatians represents the end of the latter year a more advanced and heated stage of the controversy with the Judaizers. Ep.as Acts xx. ii.. would interpose the Council of Jerusalem (which he identifies with the visit of Acts xxi and not with that of Acts xv) between Romans. i-viii) and a genuine fragment of Ep. 64. Romans marks rather the gradual subsidence of troubled waters than their first disturbing. the Apostle's arrival at Rome in A. and Galatians. occasion of it is still clearer. much that is arbitrary in the whole of this i. In the course of it would fall our 1 Corinthians and two out of the three letters which are supposed to be combined in our 2 Corinthians (for this division there is really something of a case). 12 ff. There is. Epp. Epp.. The argument which Bishop Eightfoot based on resemblances. then the Epistle cannot be earlier than St. The Expositor for April.). but over some two years in Macedonia and Greece. Paul's settlement at Ephesus on his thiid journey in the year 54. 19-21. The whole scheme stands or falls with the place assigned to the Council of Jeiusalem. And at the end of the Epistle (ch... 6 ff. XXXV111 Mr. 53 54. Ancyra. extending not over three months . 3). iii. with another genuine fragment.D. 12-14). To this he refers the last Corinthian letter (2 Cor. to Galatians. to Phil. For those who see in them the Churches of South Galatia (Antioch in Pisidia. however. There is more to be said for Mr.D. and a fourth journey in Asia Minor. 2 Tim.D. and telling them how he hopes to make his stay with them the most important stage of his journey to Spain. Epistle (Rom. He then inserts a third . Ep.). Col. Paul's life generally. Paul's first Galatians opinion that The question is closely connected visit to Corinth in the year 51 (or 52). iv. Dr. Paul's long stay at Ephesus (2| years on his reckoning) in 50-52 A. and one or two more fragments of Past. and the common view seems to us far more probable that reconstruction . 61 and his death in A D. Clemen. Lystra and Derbe) the earlier date may well seem preferable. 22-33) he repeats his explanation detailing all his plans both for the near and for the more distant future. to Romans is written from Corinth in the winter of A. This fills the interval which ends with the arrest at Jerusalem in the year 58. If we take them to be the Churches of North Galatia (Pessinus. F. and he accounts for this by the events which followed the Council (Gal. . Rendall place it EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS in [§ 4. Paul himself explains it At the beginning of the in unmistakable language twice over. the dispute at Antioch. who would some years earlier. x missionary journey. 1894 (p. 10-15) he tells the Romans how much he has longed to pay them a visit and now that the prospect has been brought near he evidently writes to prepare them for it. xv. which he assigns to the winter of A. St. Clemen places St. Philem.of thought and language between Galatians and Romans rests upon facts that are indisputable. to Titus (Tit. RendalPs was written during the early part of St. . who propounds a novel view of the chronology of St. and the estimate formed of the historical character of the Acts. but does not carry with it any certain inference as to date. i.

In Galatia St. and that the Apostle wished to deal with it in a manner correspondingly milder and more tempered ? There was truth in all this. A little reflexion will show that the cases of the Churches of Corinth and Galatia were not exactly parallel to that of Rome. Did it not follow that the circumstances of the Roman Church might be directly inferred from the Epistle to the Romans. It was willed that such a letter should be written for the admonition of after-ages. Rome. the essence of which was that it claimed to be historical. but it was truth to some extent one-sided and exaggerated. the other presupposes readers who are predominantly Gentile Christians.§ 4. they will be found to be reducible to two main types. It was Baur who first worked out a coherent theory. No doubt there is a providence in it. and as A more complicated question meets us when (3) Purpose. But through what psychological channels did that providence work ? Here we pass on to much debated ground. and that the Epistle itself was written with deliberate reference to them? Why all this Jewish-sounding argument if the readers were not Jews ? Why these constant answers to objections if there was no one to object? The issues discussed were similar in mnny respects to those in the Epistle to the Galatians. The Apostle's reasons for writing to Rome lie upon the particular letter he the surface . from the occasion or proximate cause of the Epistle to the Romans we pass to its purpose or ulterior cause. the other primarily dogmatic. only milder and more tempered. When the different views which have been held come to be examined. the other mainly to the writer. Here again the epoch-making impulse came from Baur. Paul was dealing with a perfectly definite state of things in a Church which he himself had founded. the circumstances of the Galatian Churches come out clearly from that to the Galatians.] to OCCASION AND PURPOSE forcible xxxix detention. at troversy Rome. At Corinth he had spent a still longer . and the circumstances of which he knew from within and not merely by hearsay. He argued from the analogy of the other Epistles which he allowed to be genuine. The circumstances of the Corinthian Church are reflected as in a glass in the Epistles to the Corinthians . Must it not therefore be assumed that there was a like controversy. In Galatia a fierce conwas going on. One might be described as primarily historical. one directs attention mainly to the Church addressed. his reasons for writing did write will need more consideration. one adopts the view of a predominance of Jewish-Christian readers. and it will perhaps help us if w^ begin by presenting the opposing theories in as antithetical a form as possible. which differ not on a single point but on a number of co-ordinated points. but only after two years' a prisoner awaiting his trial.

but looks at another side of it from that which caught the eye of Baur. and his language would be moulded now by one and now by another. time. the Epistle is doctrinal. xl EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 4. xvi. it was especially the school of Baur which denied the genuineness of ch. These contradictions were avoided in the older theory which prevailed before the time of Baur and which has not been without adherents. Let us try to do justice to the different aspects of the problem. and in the case of i Corinthians he had actually before him a letter containing a number of questions which he was requested to answer. ability sitting down to write a letter on matters of weight would be likely to have several influences present to his mind at once. would be wrong to It view — : at least in its recent it unhistorical. of whom the most prominent perhaps is Dr. His intercourse with them would probably give the first impulse to that wish which he tells us that he had entertained for many years to visit Rome in — It moment. Bernhard According to this theory the main object of Weiss. Paul had not founded. Paul's rest. and others of which we have not yet spoken. had not even seen and. A man of St. since his day. The first of these will be that which Baur took almost for the only one. is it is a letter . Here we see the importance of his connexion with Aquila and Prisca. there had been frequent communications between the Church and the Apostle. The theories which have so far been mentioned. What could there be like this at Rome? The Church there St. its purpose to instruct the rather a theological treatise than Roman Church in central little principles of the faith. if we are to believe Baur and the great majority of his followers.. he had not even any recognizable correspondents to keep him For by what may seem a strange inconsistency informed about it. The Apostle had some real knowledge of the state of the Church to which he was writing. Three factors may be said to have gone to the shaping of this letter of St. and for which he found a fit recipient in a Church which seemed to have so commanding a future before it. The leading idea is no longer the position of the readers. Paul might have really learnt something about Roman Christianity. when he wrote he was not far distant. takes account of the situation as . while in that of 2 Corinthians he had a personal report brought to him by Titus. are only at fault in so far as they are exclusive and emphasize some one point to the neglect of the Nature is usually more subtle than art. Paul's. and so cut away a whole list of persons from one or other of whom St. and has but call this reference to the circum- stances of the forms presented itself. but the position of the writer every thing is made to turn on the truths which the Apostle wished to place on record.

will He will ' — — . and which he therefore thinks it unnecessary to repeat without special reason. Paul and the Church he had set his first When arrived from the capital — — on visiting. OCCASION AND PURPOSE xli he met them at Corinth they were newly he would hear from them of the state of . not 'lay again' a foundation which is already laid. We may well believe if the speculations about Prisca are valid. iii.] person. but will go on unto perfection. 17-120) it is from his friends in Rome that the Apostle draws his knowledge of the conditions with heart spot. If the argument is addressed now to Gentiles by birth and now to Jews. 2 Thess. or apply it in new and unforeseen directions. things they left behind them.: § 4. xi. the value of His Death. 6). Paul's Epistles it implies a common batis ' of Christian teaching. They nearly always add something to the common stock of teaching. the nature of the Sacraments are assumed rather than stated or proved. if we catch a glimpse of parties in the Church. And now. 2 . because like all St. and a spark would be enough to fire his imagination at the prospect of winning a foothold for Christ and the Gospel in the seat of empire itself. very probably at the instance of the Apostie. ii. and even without drawing upon these that the two wanderers would keep up communication with the Christians of their home. The second factor which helps in determining the character of the Epistle has more to do with what it is not than with what it is it prevents it from being as it was at one time described.' Hence it is that just the most fundamental doctrines the Divine Lordship of Christ. The last charge that could be brought against the Epistle would be that it consisted of Christian commonplaces. He may have had other correspondents besides. which the Apostle is able to take for granted as already known to his readers. 'the strong' and 'the weak'. those rrapaduaets as they are called elsewhere (1 Cor. — which he is dealing. but they would be the chief. a compendium of the whole of Christian doctrine/ The Epistle is not this. xvi. Two of his most trusted friends are now on the and they would not fail to report all that it was essential to the Apostle to know. 15. give to it a profounder significance. It is one of the most original of writings. No Christian can have read it for the first time without feeling that he was introduced to heights and depths of Christianity of which he had never been conscious before. if there is a hint of danger threatening the peace and the faith of the community (as in ch. they had returned to prepare the way for his coming. We cannot afford to lose so valuable a link between St. Such allusions as we get to these are concerned not with the rudimentary but with the more developed forms of the doctrines in question. To this source we may look for what there is of local colour in the Epistle. He not speak of the 'first principles' of a Christian's belief.

i. 13). . 1 This is impressively stated in Hort. as in the rest of the Gentile world (Rom. in a marvellous manner from above. That new personal relation of the believer to his Lord was henceforth the motive-power which . For. unusual powers of healing. a word of instruction. They were the characteristic mark of Christians. stimulus. which is itself the outcome of a irvtvuaTiKov ^apnr/uo. an unusual magnetic influence upon others partly they consisted . he meant the effect of his own personal presence. The Apostle has reached another tuj-ning-point in his career. lastly. but the gift was one that could be exercised also in absence. Partly they took a form which would be commonly described as supernatural.' these were the watchwords and the Apostle felt that they were pregnant with intense meaning. as it seemed. going up to Jerusalem. This gives an added solemnity to his utterance and it is natural that he should cast back his glance over the years which had passed since he became a Christian and sum up the result as he felt it for himself. p. It was also met. He is aware that the step which he is taking is highly critical and he has no confidence that he will escape with his life *. but it is the momentum of this past experience which guides his pen. and warning. Paul found himself endowed with extraordinary energies. He has exercised it by this letter. unusual gifts of utterance. and Eph. The main object which he has in view is really not far to seek. When he thought of visiting Rome his desire was to have some fruit there. Rom. but he makes no distinction between those which were miraculous and those which were not. He Deep in the background of all his thought lies that one great event which brought him within the fold of Christ. were widely diffused. To believe in Christ/ to be baptized into Christ. this it By to Christendom is for all time. energies similar in kind if inferior to his own in degree. ' ' ' .xlii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 4. . but prepared for the worst.' such as he knew that he had the power of imparting (i. the most powerful of all the influences which have shaped the contents of the Epistle is the experience of the writer. addressed in the first instance to the Church at Rome. and through 29). It is not exactly a conscious summing up. And when he looked around him over the Christian Church he saw that like endowments. Some of them were what we should call miraculous. not knowing what will befall him there. dominated the whole of his life. ' ' . For him it had been nothing less than a revolution and it fixed permanently his conception of the new forces which came with Christianity into the world. We cannot doubt that from his conversion onwards St. He set them all down as miraculous in the sense of having a direct Divine cause. He longed to impart to the Roman Christians some spiritual gift. 42 ff. 11 xv.

head . kindness. goodness. There had been the great question as to the terms on which Gentiles were to be admitted to the new Paul could have no doubt. to lay down calmly and deliberately the conclusions to which he has come. the chosen recipient of the promises of the Old Testament. His own ruling principles. viii. the philosophic or theological assignment of the due place of Jew and Gentile in the Divine scheme would naturally come afterwards. insignificant . The active contending for Gentile liberties would come first. Paul called 'fruits of the on the part of man. faithfulness. and at The Epistle least one emphatic warning (ch. 17-20) against a danger which had not reached the Church as yet. the forces to men. is the ripened fruit of the thought and struggles of the eventful years by which it had been preceded. vi. should be excluded from the benefit now that those promises came to be fulfilled. These are the postulates of which the Apostle has to appeal for the solution of practical problems as they present themselves.§ 4. . 1-14. faith' and 'the Spirit/ made no distinction between Jew and Gentile he had no choice but to contend for the equal rights of both— a certain precedence might be yielded to the Jews as the chosen people of the Old Covenant. < On society. but any day might reach 1 See the notes on ch. This more his advanced stage has now been reached the Apostle has made up mind on the whole series of questions at issue and he takes .] in OCCASION AND PURPOSE spirit xliii a strange elation of which made suffering and toil seem but most of all the new impulse was moral in its working. were the two outstanding which made the lives of Christians differ from those of other Christianity. longsuffering. This battle had been fought and won. It is no merely abstract disquisition but a letter full of direct human interest in the persons to whom it is written . peace. Clearly this question belongs to the later reflective stage of the controversy relating to Jew and Gentile. Spirit. joy. but as a rule spurned and rejected by the Jews— how it could be that Israel. But it left behind a question which was intellectually more troublesome— a question brought home by the actual effect of the preaching of Christianity this St. it blossomed out in a multitude of attractive traits 'love. it is a letter which contains here and there side-glances at particular local circumstances. very largely welcomed and eagerly embraced by Gentiles. 9-17 . but that was all. xvi. light and meekness. compare also ch. the opportunity of writing to the Romans at the very centre of the empire.' temperance/ act of faith 1 The These St. . His time had been very largely taken up with such problems. the influence of the Spirit Christ Himself facts (which was only another way of describing the influence of ) from the side of God.

— EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 4. Paul set himself to give the external events what it was. the sixth and eighth are primary. and the way in which. and eleventh Furthermore. fixed by a scientific criticism of Paul's line of thought. eloquent. Matthew Arnold maps out contents of the Epistle as follows < If a somewhat pedantic form of expression may be forgiven : the sake of clearness. and the full urgency of which the Apostle knew only too well j of the harvest. for the purpose of a scientific criticism of Paul's essential theology only secondary' (St. however. but the main theme of the letter is the gathering in departure of its Master.). This extract may serve as a convenient starting-point for our examination of the argument and it may conduce to clearness of apprehension if we complete the summary analysis of the Epistle given by the same writer. the seventh chapter is sub-primary. The Argument. Paul and Protestantism. but just for that . second. the first. Roman Church of his best he has given it what was perhaps in some ways too good for it— more we may be sure than it would be very digest and assimilate at the moment. he the the for In the interesting essay in which. Paul directly from standpoint of the nineteenth century. say that of the eleven first chapters of the Epistle to the Romans— the chapters which convey Paul's with any scholastic purpose or in any theology. it pierces through the conditions of a particular time and place to the roots of things which are permanent and universal. like Bible in general. the eighth is primary down only to the end of the twentyeighth verse from thence to the end it is. the ninth. though not . in a scale of importance. discarding all tradition. . formal scientific mode of exposition— of these eleven chapters. to the contents of the chapters are secondary. 92 f. p. and third are. at once of the Church's history since the which and of the individual history of a single soul. . xliv it. the sixth and eighth. due to the incomparable hold which it shows on the essential the principles of Christ's religion. able to reason a body of teaching which eighteen centuries of Christian Its richness in this respect is interpreters have failed to exhaust. so far as two great primary chapters. tenth. that one soul of under God had had the most active share in making the course St. sub-primary the fourth and fifth are secondary. we may . § 5. with the additional advantage of presenting : it in his fresh and blight manner : . yet mark that of the . separate chapters themselves this scale to must be carried on. seeks to re-interpret the teaching of St.

Paul. The second to the No more have you. The seventh illustrates and explains the answer. The third : The chapter is to the Gentiles— its purport is not is righteousness. tenth. Paul's all . with history of : question is that faith in Christ which I. it is not so much a part of his fundamental teaching as a consequence arising from its collision with an unbelieving world.• to set the Epistle in relation to the circumstances of its composition. " What The sixth chapter comes this design. though you think : chapter assumes faith in Christ as the one source of righteousness for all men. On that assumption his view was partially though still not more than — partially— justified. mean ? "— and answers it. The problem discussed in these chapters doubtless weighed heavily on the Apostle's mind in the circumstances under which he was writing it was doubtless a problem of very considerable urgency but for all that it is a problem which belongs rather to the circumference of St.§ 5. and applies illustratively. Matthew Arnold's ' object on the other hand ' was what he by which he seems to mean (though perhaps he was not wholly clear in his own mind) an attempt to discriminate in it those elements which are of the highest permanent value. however. so easy to us— that righteousness is not by the Jewish law . of starting with a clear understanding of the point of view from which the degrees of relative importance are to be assigned. The fourth chapter gives to the notion of righteousness through faith the sanction of the Old Testament and of the history of Abraham. It is true that Baur threw the centre of gravity upon chapters ix-xi. the to the all-important chapter's thesis so hard to a Jew. and held that the rest of the Epistle was written up to these but this view would now on : hands be regarded as untenable. The rest of the eighth chapter expresses the sense of safety and gratitude which the solution is fitted to inspire. thought than to the centre . almost . should attach the greatest importance to those elements in particular which seemed to be capable 01 direct personal verification. The fifth insists on the causes for thankfulness and exultation in the boon of righteousness through faith in Christ.] * THE ARGUMENT first xlv is You have Jews— its purport you have. develops and completes the answer. From . The ninth. in any attempt to determine what is primary and what is not primary in the argument of the Epistle. Baur's object was historical. But the eighth down to the end of the twenty-eighth verse. p. and eleventh chapters uphold the second ^ Adam. It was natural that he calls scientific a criticism of Paul's thought . points. — Some such vestigation outline as ttiis would be 93). but dwell with hope and joy on a final result of things which is to be favourable to Israel' {ibid. On this head the scholarship of the present day would be on the It side of Matthew Arnold. at the present stage of in- generally accepted. to the necessity.

How is man to become righteous in the sight of God ? . answer which St. 163 f. ' It is quite true that faith in Christ a strong emotion of love and gratitude. we need not question his assignment of a primary significance to chapters vi and viii. His reproduction of the thought of these chapters is the best thing in his book. The 1-30 (rather than 1-28). Whatever the force of this presumption to the outer world. but we also feel bound to place by their side the culminating verses of chapter The really fundamental passages in the Epistle we should say iii. We therefore do not feel at liberty to treat as anything less than primary that which was certainly primary to St. and yet were of primary importance to St.). 17. There is more in the same connexion that well deserves attentive study. viii. We entirely accept the view that chapters vi and viii are primary. and iii. he and they alike are led up into regions where direct spiritual things which — human verification ceases to ' be possible. and such as aptly fit into the eternal order. Paul would give. And yet a certain kind of indirect The thousands and tens of thousands of verification there is. and we have drawn upon it ourselves in the commentary upon them (p. But that emotion is not ' we say. which states the problem. Paul himself and may be equally of primary verification precisely in the importance to those of us in who lie are willing to accept his testimony beyond the reach of our personal Matthew Arnold is limited by the method which he experience. were. risen and ascended to St. the emotions and But there is a further efforts which it generates in Christians. 1-14. as means attachment to Christ.' ' not only Him who walked the earth as it has for its ^object Jesus of Nazareth ' it is . and we also believe. do really afford no slight presumption that the beliefs which have enabled them to do this are such as the Ruler of the universe approves. 21-26. 16. it is one truth of these supersensual realities. Christians who have lived and died in the firm conviction of the and who upon the strength of them have reduced their lives to a harmonious unity superseding the war of passion. vi. the right hand of God.xlvi this EPISTLE TO THE point of view ROMANS [§ 5. We cannot pretend to be able to verify them as we can verify that which passes in our own minds. which the Christian at least will cherish.i. and which the main body of Christians very largely on his authority would also give to that question. ch. Paul believed. directed towards the same Jesus crucified. problem is. But there are other portions of the Epistle which are not capable of same manner. and which others would no doubt join with him in applies applying— to the subjective side of Christianity. to ' the historical Christ. confined.' that His transit across the stage of our earth was accompanied by consequences in the celestial sphere which transcend our faculties. And in the question how and why they came to be generated. Paul. which supply its solution.

§ 5. Of course it is liable to be impugned. 21).] THE ARGUMENT the XiVll (i) by certain great redemptive acts on the take effect in the sphere above though their consequences are felt throughout the sphere below. by contrast. in the interest of what is thought to be a stricter science. . It is superfluous to say that there is nothing whatever that is new in this statement. But whatever the value in itself of the theory which is substituted for it. just as a knowledge of anatomy conduces to the better understanding of the living I. Paul. Righteousness as a (i. Jew or Gentile <n. to every kind of moral depravity (28-31). 1. . ) '> . 17). but by God's gift. 8-15).1-16). even to perversion of conscience (32) [Transitional] Future judgement without respect of persons such as /3. 1-7"). then further defined and is And answer part of God which emphasized more vigorously on some of its sides at the Reformation lastly brought to a more even balance (or what many would fain make a more even balance) by the Church of our own day.) hence judicial abandonment to abominable sins (26. of the Early Church . we may be sure that it does not adequately represent the mind of St. in part implicit rather than explicit. through Faith. In the present commentary our first object is to do justice to this. But it is undoubtedly helpful to set before ourselves the framework of his thought. 27). —Introduction —Doctrinal. It does but reproduce the belief. and (3) through his continued self-surrender to Divine influences poured out freely and unremittingly upon him. Problem: How is Righteousness to be attained? Not by man's work. and For the sake of the student it may be well to draw out the contents of the Epistle in a tabular analytical form. 18-32). (i. St.. it lies beyond our scope to consider. is no Schoolman. The Great Answer : 1— 1 5 a. a scene which bespeaks impending Wrath]. (2) through a certain ardent apprehension of these acts and of their Author Christ.) Natural Religion (i. as it is impugned by the attractive writer whose words have been quoted above. The Apostolic Salutation .. £. 18-iii. on the part of the Christian . and his method is the very reverse of all that is formal and artificial. II. Paul. 18-20) (ii. (i. 20). or (i. St. as Matthew Arnold rightly reminds us. Failure of the Gentile (i. A. . [Rather. loyal attachment to Christ 16. Righteousness not hitherto attained (i. deserted for idolatry (i. How it is afterwards to be worked up into a complete scheme of religious belief. a. state or condition in the sight of God (Justification) 18-v. 21-25) (iii. Thesis. Paul and the Roman Church (i.(i. human frame.

.) Jewish critic and Gentile sinner in the same Standard of judgement: deeds. (ii.) in like. 5"")Law of Moses for the Jew Law of ConRule of judgement science for the Gentile (ii. 25-29). Jew 1 Law point (ii. a type of the Christian's [he too believed in a birth from the dead]. 21-31) of it. death. That hope guaranteed a fortiori by the Love displayed Christ's Death for sinners (v. nor Law. 12-21) : (i. Blissful effects of hope of final sala. 1-2 1).) e. Contrast of these effects with those of Adam's Fall (v. 1-25). Yet God's greater glory no excuse for human sin (iii. Failure of the (i. the unlike. Consequent Exposition of (i ) New System (iii. Relation of this (i. in that where one brought sin. (ii. from this: £. which promises are not invalidated by Man s unfaithfulness The " . « . 4.) y.) New System to O. 1. Relations of Fall. Answer 1-8). 1-4). considered in reference to the crucial case of Abraham (iv. Death (iv. Circumcision (ii. 13-17) believers. 2. the antithesis of Promise (iv. propitiatory in the method of its realization through the (21). T. . (iii. 1-8) . Preliminary note of two main consequences (i. : . (iv. 3.) Boasting excluded (27. a declaration of unmerited righteous- ness. : a in its relation to Law. not Works (iv. not privileges (a.Profession and reality. (iii. 5-11). (i. earn acceptance Universal failure to attain to righteousness and illustrated from Scripture (iii.) (iii ) in its universality. but Grace more than cancels the ill effects of Law].) (Hi. condemnation. to casuistical objections from Jewish stand* .) (ii. as regards (ii. other brought grace.) nor Circumcision (iv. life (15.) (v. [so that he might be the spiritual father of all not of those under the Law only]. /8. 8.-17). 12-16). independent yet attested by it (ii. Righteousness by Faith (v. occupied under the of God's righteousin its final cause— the twofold manifestation pardon conveying and sin against itself asserting ness.) Dispensation the of Christ. (i. as the free gift of God (22-24) . [§ 5. [Parenthetic!.) : vation (ii. which occupies under the New same place which Sacrifice. to the sinner (26).) (ii. 28) (ii. Abraham's acceptance (like that described by David) turned on Faith. Xlviii (i ) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS position (ii. (iii. 17-24^. 5-8). Law increased it. 17-25) (iv. 9-12) him from [so that there might be nothing to prevent being the spiritual father of uncircumcised as well as circumcised (11.) Summary. 12)]. in the transition from one to all (12-14). at once .) Abraham's Faith. especially the ceremonies of the Old (25) Day of Atonement. 9-20). Law. Grace (18-21) [The Fall brought sin.) It leads by sure degrees to a triumphant (iii. 7-29).2)..) (ii ) Divine Promises Jew's advantage as recipient of (iii. 1-4).) Jew and Gentile alike accepted (29-31).

a. 14-18). 30-x. 27) 6. and union with the risen Christ.) The and 3. The Spirit's presence a guarantee of bodily as well as moral resurrection (viii. 14-17). y> C. henceforth free to live with Him]. €. a.) The absoluteness of God's choice shown from the O. That glorious inheritance the object of creation's yearning (viii. T. sin (vi. i. 28-30). Progressive Righteousness in the Christian (Sanctification) (vi-viii). itself sinful is not The conflict ended by the interposition of (viii). in their own not in God's way (ix.5-9). Problem of Israel's Unbelief. why not go on sinning ?' The immersion of Baptism carried with it a death to sin. 5 |8. %.) Not difficult and remote but near and easy (x. (ix. 10-13). Jew and Gentile alike (x. 5-10) (ii. 1-14).2 3)(iii. Nor can Israel pltad in defence want of opportunity or warning (i. 6-29). way and this And d . and gives an impulse or handle to sin. Christian's old self dead to the Law with Christ. Human infirmity assisted by the Spirit's intercession (viii. 26. also a guarantee that the Christian enjoys with God a son's relation. 4). a. 15-23). Inviolable security of the Christian in dependence upon God's favour and the love of Christ (viii. I. 7. xi). alternate choice of Jews and Gentiles expressly reserved foretold in Scripture (ix. Servitude and emancipation (vi. and sustained by the knowledge of the connected chain by which God works out His purpose of salvation (viii. and will enter upon a son's inheritance (viii. rejection of the The Gospel in history (ix. n-13). although God's method was (i. Christ (25). Judaistic objection from seeming disparagement of analysis of the moral conflict in the soul. and what two metaphors. 23-25). . The a. /3. what it is. 6.) The Gospel has been fully and universally preached (x. The new a gime contrasted with the old — the regime of the Spirit with the weakness of unassisted humanity (viii. Reply to further casuistical objection ' If more sin means more grace. New Career Failure of the previous system made good by Christ's Incarnation and the Spirit's presence (viii. 14-29). but (vii. 1-5). 1. 4. 1-4).) Within the reach of all. Christian's Release : it is not : shown by The marriage-bond [The he is (vii. — . §5-] THE ARGUMENT : xlix B.) A 14-18). The Christian therefore cannot. 2. /3. Perspective of the Christian's The Indwelling Spirit. The Chosen People a sad contrast to its high destiny and privileges (ix. 31-39). necessary deduction from His position as Creator (ix.. i9. 18-22) and of the Christian's hope (viii. 7-24). Law Law is : met by an impotent. 1-6). (ii. Cause of the Rejection. x. The Rejection of Israel not inconsistent with the Divine promises (ix. Israel sought righteousness by Works instead of Faith. 24-29). 6-13) nor with the Divine Justice (ix. must not. Justice of the Rejection (ix. so thai 3. (i. £. — ..

The day approaching (xiii 11-14). The one is the old Jewish system. by the Apostle's companions and amanuensis Benediction and Doxology (xvi. Christian's vengeance (xii. The Unbelief of Israel is now as in the past only partial (xi. Motive of the Epistle. Pauls mind. This idea of the Gospel then is a fundamental thought of the Epistle . 1-7). /3. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) The The The The Christian sacrifice (xii. I. It — — III. to a beneficent result restoiation of all (xi. 8-10). in the statement of the thesis of the Epistle.) Their fall has a special purpose Gentiles (xi. Paul himself of its contents. is only temporary the introduction of the (i. 33-36). 7. a. Church and State (xiii. the other is the Christian system. #. a knowledge of which is presupposed . Proposed visit to A warning Postscript 21-23). The first idea which comes prominently before us is that of * the Gospel' . 28 it is incidentally shown that what St. Christian as a member of the Church (xii.) That Israel will be restored is vouched for by the holy stock from which it comes (xi.— 1 EPISTLE TO THE (ii. (xvi. 1-16). 2). — Epilogue. i-xv. 25-31). 3. ' . Doxology (xi. (xvi. 14-33). 7-13). 17-20). it remains only to make use of it to help us to understand the argument which St. Christian in his relation to others (xii. and it has been shown in the commentary how clearly it refers to all the leading thoughts of the Epistle . 19-21). (ii. In all this may be seen the purpose of God working upwards the final through seeming severity. and it seems to mean this. Greetings to various persons (xvi. Paul is describing is the method or plan of the Gospel. IV. Paul is working out and the conclusion to which he is leading us. The purpose of God (xi). The Christian's one debt . There are two competing systems or plans of life or salvation before St. 9-21).) ROMANS [§ 5 Israel had been warned beforehand by the Prophet that they would reject God's Message [x. Personal explanations. 6). and strength of an argument by starting from its conclusion. it meets us in the Apostolic salutation at the beginning. Rome (xv. Mitigating considerations. . has been discussed elsewhere. a. in the doxology at the end where it is expanded in the somewhat unusual form according to my Gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ/ So again in xi. 3-8). 19-21). Toleration the strong and the weak (xiv. 1 1-1 5). and we possess in the doxology at the end of the Epistle a short summary made by It is often easiest to bring out the force The question of its genuineness St. 1-10). 24-27). — Practical and Hortatory. 16-24). The Jew and the Gentile (xv. the law of love (xiii.

! as succeeding to and taking the place of the old method. But this must not blind us to the lact that the whole is one great argument. But Dr. which have helped We are able to analyze to shape different portions of the Epistle. can trace incidentally the various difficulties. and lastly he vindicates — for it its true place in history. and to show its' efiects on human life. Paul's writings. revived by Dr. the latter represents his own personal exposition of its plan and meaning. partly suggested by his own thought. but also in a sense as embracing : ' ' ' ' and continuing St. it will enable us to bring out the essential unity and completeness of the argument of the We do not agree as we have explained above with the Epistle. Hort. enable us to learn. and at the same time proving that it is the necessary and expected outcome of that old system. that 'mystery which has been hidden from the foundation of the world/ but which has always guided the course of human history— the purpose of God to sum up all things in Christ/ If this point has been made clear. Paul begins then with a theological description of the new method. That is certainly a one-sided view. that chap. Paul's argument and plan. and in the history of the race. This may perhaps explain the manner in which he varies between the expressions the Gospel. to which all the earlier part is but an introduction. and partially revealed. The rejection of the Jews. and thus to vindicate for it the right to be considered the ultimate and final revelation 01 God's purpose for mankind. he explains what it is emphasizing its distinctive features in contrast to those of the old system.] THE ARGUMENT li St. he is writing to Christians what he aims at expounding is the meaning of the new system. the calling of the Gentiles. ' opinion of Baur. it. ix-xi represent the essential part of the Epistle. he must now trace the plan by which it is to attain this universality.§ 5. Paul is not a knowledge of which again is presupposed. Hort's examination of the Epistle is valuable as reminding us that neither are these chapters an appendix accidentally added which might be omitted without injuring St. He then proceeds to describe the working of this system in the Christian life . d2 . are both steps in this process and But the method and plan pursued in these cases necessary steps. and separate the different stages in the argument more accurately and distinctly than in any other of St. The main purpose of the argument then is an explanation of the meaning of the new Gospel of Jesus Christ. He shows the need for it. partly raised by We opponents. The universal character of the new Gospel has been already emphasized. expounding the Christian religion.' or the Gospel of God/ or the Gospel my Gospel/ The former represents the of Jesus Christ/ and Christian religion as recognized and preached by all. if we have faith to do so. the purpose "of which is to explain the Gospel of God in Jesus the Messiah.

(1) The first century. III. C. suffered . The early history of the into three periods. of his work Quellen zur Geschichte des Tatif 1 The question for tiania. an African by Version and edited by Mr. Juv. or Both of the Early Church. of ends braced at once classes at both among slaves and in the trading classes there were swarms of Greeks and Greek-speaking Orientals. . The inscriptions referred to are also one in Greek fiom Portus. 1875). Out of 7 eight only thirty-eight collected by Schurer no less than thirty are Greek and . and whose Apology and Acts have been recently recovered in an Armenian 3 and Victor.ui epistle to the romans § 6. 29 ff. vi. the writings of Novatian and the correspondence between the Church of Rome and Cyprian at Carthage. d. either to the classical to the ecclesiasacquainted with the history of the Early Empire. the evidence of Juvenal and Martial refers to the latter half of Juvenal speaks with indignation of the extent to which Rome Greek of ignorance Martial regards was being converted into « a Greek city 5 Indeed. Rome (2) Next of birth. iii. xiv. and in particular of those sections readers of among. Tertullianus presbyter nunc demu?n primus post Victorem Apollonium Latinorum ponitur. 187 ff. there was a double tendency which emas a mark of rusticity . capital of the Western or Latin world should scholar who is Yet there is no paradox. V after life the use of it was carried to the pitch of affectation For the Jewish colony we have the evidence of the inscriptions. letter addressed to the reader a rather strange paradox that a be written in Greek. 2 et De Vir. 58. zum is Cemeindeverfassung. Conybeare about 189 a. but the classical treatment of the late Dr. there would be of of the West which followed upon the transference of the seat empire to Constantinople dating from 330 a. Caspari. 5 4 Epig. iii. Professor at Christiania. 33 ff. of ance of the first Church of Rome might be said to tall which the landmarks would be (i) the appear2 to be Apollonius Latin writers. 6 and the evidence of the use of Greek at Rome has been often discussed the subject is by it set forth. who became Bishop would come in the middle of the third century a more considerable body of Latin literature. [§ 6- Language and Style.d. the definite Latinizing of the capital (3) Then. 60 f. Sat. p. P. 1894). p. 3 Monuments of Early Christianity (London. Quellen sites. On the other hand in the higher ranks it was and in the fashion to speak Greek . 286 f. iii. liii. 6 7 Caspari. lastly. in an Excursus of 200 symbols (Chrispages to vol. the uninitiated It will seem at first sight to (i) Language*. Roman There Tau/symbol. tical historian who follows the fortunes the was Greek half and a centuries two fully are aware that for whole yet of if not of the city of Rome as a predominant language large sections of its inhabitants. On the one hand the social scale. all from . children were taught it by Greek nurses . said by Jerome who under Commodus in the year 185.which was to be sought the main body of the the Epistle. cf.

Aurelius and Septimius Severusat about 160.) to the Corinthian Church was evidently in Greek and Tatinn who were settled in Rome wrote in Greek so too did Rhodon. extant Epistle of Clement is written in Greek 3 the author of The Shepherd. Ap. and if not whence it came. This is a problem Asia Minor would derive it from which we may look to have solved by Dr. 166-174 A. 54. Caspari is whether it was also composed there. and wrote his great work Indeed all .) are twelve in number of these not more than three (Clement. described in the Liber Pontificalis as natione Italus . Irenaeus himself spent some time at Rome in the Episcopate of Eleutherus. To this period may also be traced back the oldest form of the Creed of Roman Church now known as the Apostles' Creed". ' . p. Bd. //. Valentinus left behind a considerable school. i. and some others) lections were read in Greek as well as Latin hymns were occasionally sung in Greek and at the formal committal of the Creed to the candidates for baptism (the so-called Traditio and Reddiiio Symbol!) both the Apostles' Creed (in its longer and shorter forms) and the Nicene were . Kyrie eleison and Christe eleison. like half would be Greek. Greek for the vehicle of their teaching so Cerdon. Greek was the a pupil of Tatian's at Rome who carried on their tradition language of Polycarp and Hegesippus who paid visits to Rome of shorter number of Gnostic writers established themselves there and used duration. 5 Eus. Pius . . . Kattenbusch of Giessen.D. 303.' was the brother of Pius and he wrote in Greek. This was in Greek. John. And there are stray Greek fragments of Western Liturgies which ultimately go back to the same place and time. also Berliner. Easter. 6 It was in pursuit of the origin of this Creed that Caspari was drawn into It is generally agreed that it was in use at Rome by his elaborate researches. Sixtus I = Xystus. E. A : We in Greek. Caspari.D. The bishops of Rome from Linus to Eleutherus (c. H. and if one of the Greek inscriptions three of the Latin are in Greek characters. IV. that of inscriptions the proportion of Greek to Latin would seem to be But the great mass of these would belong to a period later than which we are speaking. we know also that Hermas. the literature that we can in anyway connect with Christian Rome down to the end of the reign of M. E. . Aurelius is Greek. xiii. xxiii. : . de civitate Aquikia but there is reason to think that Hermas was a native of Arcadia. and later in the period.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE is Iiii Latin . Ptolemaeus may assume the same thing of the and Heracleon. both wrote in Greek. who were all in Rome about 140 A. conversely in There do not seem to be any about 1:2. 14) repeated in Greek at Christmas. of which something Beyond this we can hardly go. 2 3 is . . Pius) bear But although the names of Clement and Pius are Latin the Latin names. Tne assignments of nationality to the earliest bishops are of very doubtful 1 Comp. V. and the circle of St. other Gnostics combated by Justin and Irenaeus. I. *. 11). Besides the works of Clement and Hermas we have still surviving the letter addressed to the Church at Rome by Ignatius . 1. Ember days. On certain set days (at Christmas. But as to the Christian Church there is a quantity of other evidence. in Latin characters.§6. 1894). value. the Trishagion. and Valentinus. The main question at the present moment the middle of the second century. Such would be the Hymnus angelicus the (Luke ii. 4 It was to be kept in the archives and read on Sundays like the letter of Clement (Eus. 174-189 A. De Rossi 2 estimates the number for the period between M. who is continuing Caspari's labours {Das Apostolische Symbol. Marcion.D. the letter written by Soter 4 Justin (c. Hebrew Of Christian 1 . Leipzig. and the leading representatives of the ' Italic ' branch.

the Octavius of Minucius Felix. recited and the questions put first in Greek and then in Latin 1 . Epp. Altchristl. Op. 2 Thess. The period which then begins and extends from c. More ff. Col. cit. (2) The dates of Apollonius and of Bp. These are all survivals of Roman usage at the time when the Church was bilingual. Under leaders like Tertullian. had now a substantial literature of its own. Rome ceases to be the centre of the Empire to become in a still more exclusive sense the capital of the West. These groups are 1. 88. . : . but at the same time stand out with much distinctness. . Rom. Philem. perhaps at the end of the reign of M. but rather more uncertainty hangs over that of the first really classical Christian work in This has been much debated. and Novatian it had begun to develop its proper individuality. The stream set from that time onwards towards the Bosp'horus and no longer towards the Tiber. but Latin. 1. this intercourse was greatly interrupted.. was given to its independent career by the founding of Constantinople. . shows a more even balance of Greek and Latin. on the other.. The tendency of critical inquiry at the present moment is in favour of Colossians and somewhat less decidedly in favour of Ephesians. Phil. and the very strong presumption in favour of the genuineness of the latter Epistle reacts upon the former.d. 180-250 a. (3) The Hellenizing character of Roman Christianity was due in the first instance to the constant intercourse between Rome and the East. Philem. Hippolytus and Caius. The four Epistles of the second group hang very closely together. It is. The grounds perhaps preponderate for regarding the Muratorian Fragment as a translation. Gal. Of side this from style is the . Thus Greek influences lost their strength. and Latin begins to have the upper hand in the names of bishops. Paul present (2) Style. significant that 1 Julicher in his recent Einleilung be found in Caspari's Excursus. Col.liv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 6. It could stand and walk alone without assistance from the East. And a decisive impulse. and Gothic piracies breaking up the pax Romana on the Aegean. with the decay of wealth and trade. Victor are fixed. precise and full details will p. 2 Cor. Lit. Aurelius. 466 8 Kriiger. But at the beginning of the period we have Minucius Felix and at the end Novatian. Cyprian. all the same author. opinion seems to be veering round to the earlier date 2 . on the one hand. and Eph. It is well known that the Pauline Epistles fall into four groups which are connected indeed with each other.. The two prominent writers.. To such an extent is this the case that the question is seriously raised whether they can have had the arguments urged on the negative most substantial and whatever decision we come to on the subject there remains a problem of much complexity and difficulty. from Philem. The Epistles which bear the name of St. The Latin Church. p. Eph. which would bring him into near proximity to Apollonius. In the troubled times which followed the middle of the third century. Phil.. still make use of Greek. for instance. a considerable diversity of style. It is hard to dissociate Col. Past. those of the third group subdivide into two pairs.. The glimpse which we get of the literary activity of the Church of Rome through the letters and other writings preserved among the works of Cyprian shows us at last Latin in possession of the field. Rome reinforced by Africa.

it reminds us of a fencer with his eye always on his antagonist. we may institute a comparison with it. of dissimilarity reaches its height when we turn from the materials (if we may so speak) of the style to the way in which they are The discrepancy lies not in the anatomy but in the put together.. but these are so balanced by points of coincidence. hardly of energy . outcome of strongly moved is but the eloquence is spontaneous. . and more especially Eph. is characterized by a remarkable energy and vivacity. its The rapid argumentative cut and thrust is place like a glacier we have a slowly-moving onwards-advancing working its way inch by inch down the valley.) than that between Ronians and the Pastorals. in temperament to which the two Epistles seem to give expression. Paul's authorship would certainly not be warranted. the writer seems to stagger under his load. stand at confessed that Col. side The difference between these Epistles on the we are considering is greater {e. the furthest possible remove from Romans. He has weighty truths to express. the We surface distribution of light and shade. incisive the conducted by a quick cut and thrust of dialectic . g. There are. But in the matter of style it must be will be the ultimate verdict. . but certainly with little to express them The truths unfolded read like flexibility or ease of composiuon. 1894) sums up rather on this side of We believe that this points to what the question than the other. as marking the extreme poles of difference within the Any other member of the second Epistles claimed for St. periods are of unwieldy length. rising repeatedly to passages of splendid eloquence the of laboured oratory. will enlarge a little on this point. mass. but as we are concerned specially with Rom. Paul K group would do as well . argument The language is rapid. We may take Eph. and Eph. a certain number of new and peculiar later Epistle .] LANGUAGE AND STYLE Iv (Freiburg i. expressions in the it is true. as the contrast may help us to understand the individuality of the Epistle to the This Epistle. The difference is not so much a difference of ideas and of vocabulary as a difference of structure and composition. It is calm in the sense that it is not aggressive and that the rush of words is always well under control. ideal verities. like all the others of the group. abstract truths. Still there is a rush of words. that to draw a conclusion adverse to The sense St.and he struggles not without success. laid up in the heavens rather than The — ' ' embodying themselves 1 in the active controversies of earth.. We shut the Epistle to the Romans and we open that to the We cannot speak here of Kphesians how great is the contrast if there is energy it is deep down vivacity. — — and Rom.§ 6. Romans. B. in the play of feature. and Leipzig. ! . and the novel element has so much of the nature of simple addition rather than contrariety. terse. feeling . below the In gone. there is nothing about it . surface.

) Ch. 563:789 = 1 in 1-418. 47 45 47 42 49 70 55 37 _6_3 4 20 6 6 8 12 16 14 15 — 7 16 '7 8 14 20 26 19 16 27 8 5 14 10 9 11 88" X. III. 64 5i 13 J H 7 — 8 II. anything over half a line being reckoned as a whole line. and when we examine the Epistle to the Ephesians we shall find in it much to remind us will however leave the comof characteristics of Romans.4.— lvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 6. as we shall see. Supposing the two Epistles to be really the work of the same man. and anything less than half a line not reckoned. XIV. XVI. There is. V. and ask ourselves what means we have of explaining it. 1 The counting of these is approximate. VII. or 1 in 55. parison as it has been made for the moment. This last item is instructive. can the difference between We them be adequately accounted There is for ? always an advantage in presenting proportions to the eye and reducing them to some sort of numerical estimate. We have perhaps exaggerated the opposition for the sake of making the difference When we come to look more closely at the Epistle to the clear. This can be done in the present case without much difficulty by reckoning up the number of This is done below for the two Epistles. and for the whole Epistle not very different. : 63 50 789 8 _7 1 24 28 290 563 — 92 Epistle Si Here the proportion of major points to arixoi is for the doctrinal chap402:570 = '(approximately) 1 in 1.) (. (•) (. It will be worth while to compare the Epistles chapter by chapter : Romans.5. and for the practical portion only. or I in 6. another side. 36 29 41 XHI. 88:570. I. and the estimate of length is based on the number of arixoi or printed lines 1. 92 789. IX. The proportion of interrogative sentences is for the whole Epistle. VIII. VI. sians. The standard used is that of the Revisers' Greek Text. arixoi. . IV. H n 11 12 — 1 15 27 3 XV. XL trinal 6 16 portion 57° 130 184 402 XII. Romans and Ephelonger pauses. 4 : 219. Romans we shall find in it not a few passages which tend in the direction of the characteristics of Ephesians . because it shows how very ters : . or 1 in 8-6 for the doctrinal chapters only.

and the multiplication of new Churches with the growing organization of intercommunication between those of older standing. and set down some of the influences which may have been at work which we may be sure were at it. V.— § 6. 1 in 4. as against 1 in 1-4 for Rom. but by far the greater number are significant. we turn to Ephesians. In illustrating the nature of the difference in style between Romans and Ephesians we have left in suspense for a time the question as to its cause. (TTIXOI (0 (•) (. Elsewhere means elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles. The Epistles of the second group are all very largely concerned with the controversy as to Circumcision and the relations of Jewish and Gentile Christians. These facts are reflected on the vocabulary of the two Epistles. brings to the front the conception of the Church as a whole. and are not distributed equally throughout the Epistle.) Ch. I. VI. To this we will now return.418. 40 36 [121 III.5. and for the whole Epistle rather more than 1 in 3. Ideas are abroad as to the mediating agencies between God and man which impair the central significance of the Person of Christ. ters Epistle. as against 1 in 1. ' ' . i-iii. The proportion of major points is for Eph. In the later Epistle this the background. They lie indeed in patches or thick clusters. IV. This will appear on the face of the statistics of usage as to the frequency with which the leading terms occur in these Epistles and in the rest of the Pauline Corpus. and invests it with increased impressiveness. The controversy with the Judaizers gives a marked colour to the whole group which includes the Epistle to the Romans. even in the LANGUAGE AND STYLE same lvii the subject-matter. Total 55 15 8 11 2 3 6 6 15 13 17 13 — — -] 50 _44 — — 1 1 270 36" 58 95 This gives a very different result. The proportion of interrogations is 1 in 270 compared with 1 in 8«6 or 6. the amount of interrogation varies with also observe that in two even of the doctrinal chapinterrogative sentences are wanting. i-xii. for which the data are as follows We Now : Eph ESIANS. work — and — which would go a long way to account for (1) First would be the natural variation of style which comes from dealing with different subject-matter. and other topics have taken controversy has retired into its place. Those which follow have a direct bearing on the Judaistic controversy.] greatly. Of course some of the instances will be accidental. 45 4 9 2 II. roughly speaking.

[anipp. not elsewhere in St. I. 3. 1 I. 'APpaap. Gal.. I. 2 (1 v. 2. Gal. Paul. 4. I Cor.eu0f/>i>{)j' Rom. other points may be notice!. !A. 5 not elsewhere. 2 Cor. Gal. 9. Gal. the circumstances under which it is presented Romans belongs to a period of controversy. one in connexion with the large use of the O. 1 Cor. 2. d(p(i\r]fxn Rom. Gal. 2. 1 Cor. Cor. essay These examples are selected from the lists in Bishop Lightfoot's classical 'On the Style and Character of the Epistle to the Galatians. 1. . Gal. . Gal. 2. 3 elsewhere 3. 1 Cor. 32 v(piTOfir) Rom. elsewhere 2. 2 Cor. and Sacr. . and their disappearance from the later Epistle is perfectly intelligible cessante causa. 2 '. 1 These examples stand out very distinctly. Gal. 1 Cor. Gal. 2 Cor. though not quite so . 10. 1 Rom Cor. has left its marks behind. itavxnais Rom. 2. in these Epistles. The treatment of his subject is concrete and not abstract. 4. . 5. . . I elsewhere 1. 4. 1 e\evdepia Rom. 1 Cor. elsewhere. aoBtvtis Rom. I. elsewhere 6. KaraKavx'^'Oai 6<paTr)s Rom. .) . Kavxaodai Rom. it makes the blood pergonal debate. 5 (1 v. Sucaicofxa Rom. 3. . of Class. 2 KarapyeTv Rom. 1 Cor. 3 elsewhere 4. This acts as a stimulus. 1 Cor. Gal. . 1 elsewhere 2. elsewhere 1. 2 Cor. 1 . 1. and he argues much as he might have argued in the synagogue. 6. Gal. 2.a Rom. not elsewhere i<p' oaov \p6vov Rom. . 1. 1 Cor. Gal. daOevrjfia Rom. Gal. (1857) 308 ff. 2 . 3. 5. Gal. 8. I. Gal. not elsewhere. elsewhere 1. not elsewhere. directly. i Cor. 1 not elsewhere. 2. 6. 1. 16. Rom. Gal. not elsewhere in St. 20. 2 elsewhere 1 .T. 1. 6. neither elsewhere.l. still the crisis through which he has passed The echoes of war are still in his ears. Rom. 1 . 1. 1 Cor. 1. 1 not elsewhere. 1 Cor. 1 Cor. and the other in connexion with the idea of successive periods into which the religious history of mankind is divided yiypanrai Rom. \oitav§aXi&iv I Cor.' mjomti. 2. not elsewhere. 1 6. . also differ. Connected with uoOevrjs this controversy. 2 Cor. . &xpts ov Rom. 9 not elsewhere in St. elsewhere 8. Rom. elsewhere 1.] : Rom. 2. anepfxa Rom. 1. 1. Gal. 1. : (2) But it is not only that the subject-matter of Ephesians differs from that of Romans.— lviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ' [§ 6. 1 Cor.l. Paul. iii. 7.] aKpopvorta Rom. and although at the time when the Epistle is written the worst is over. oKavhakov Rom. fiiKaiwois Rom. 2 Cor. He sees in imagination his adversary before him. 2 Cor. not elsewhere. l.). elsewhere Gal. . 2. 1 uxpiXtia Rom. and the Apostle is able to survey the field calmly. cbepek tv Two : . Cor. 1 Cor. 1. 1. 2 Cor.Ppadfj. I. airoaroX-q Rom. or in the presence of The atmosphere of the Epistle is that of refractory converts. 1 v. not elsewhere. elsewhere 2. 3. and to state his case uncontroversially. 15. 9. Gal. 4. IXtvdepos Rom. 6. not elsewhere. 1 Cor. 2. Gal. 6. 1. 3. 15. I 2. Kavxnp-a Cor. Fhilol. 2. 3. j/o/xos Rom. 4. Cor. 7. 1 Cor. 2 Cor. 76. would be : Rom. I . I. 1 Siicaiovv Rom. 1 aoOeptia Rom. Paul. 9. I. not 2. cessat effectus. Gal. Gal. 2 Cor. 2 Cor.

8 (or 9 v. \eyw 8e irdkiv \iyai 2 tovto oti Cor. lix to the style a liveli- and gives the pressure was Between Romans. its absence on the other. it would be natural that there should be a difference. but with an intensity and power not vouchsafed to other men. Paul. Heb. Once more we should expect antecedently that they would leave a strong impress upon the style. the allowance which ought to be made for the special temperament of the Apostle. would seem to be very largely a difference in the amount of vital energy thrown into the two Epistles. Gal. Gal. There will be lucid moments/ and more than lucid moments— months together during which the brain will work not only with ease and freedom. 2. Now the physical conditions under which St. 1 (or 2 v. 1 Cor. to be the following Rom. His writings furnish abundant evidence of a highly strung nervous organization. in Eph. It is likely enough that the physical infirmity from which he suffered. prepared to meet all comers. the direct outcome of prolonged discussion in street and house and school. And times such as these will alternate with periods of depression when body and mind alike are sluggish and languid. elsewhere dpa without ovv Rom. we have the champion of Gentile Christendom with his sword drawn. beginning a sentence. 1 Cor. 3. 2.' Among Romans would dpa. and Ephesians. 2. In Rom. ness and directness which might be wanting when removed. 1 . was of nervous origin. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans would as naturally belong to the first head as those under which he wrote the Epistle which we call Ephesians ' would to the second. i Cor. and written too under confinement after some three years of enforced inaction.— ' §6-] circulate LANGUAGE AND STYLE more rapidly in the veins. I. the frequency of interrogation on the one hand. 5 . may trace to this cause the phenomena which have been already noted the shorter sentences of Romans. \iycv Se Gal. written in all probability not to a single Church but to a group of Churches. \iyco ovv Rom. . I. Heb. the long involved periods of Ephesians. and now a prisoner also of We — Jesus Christ. 1. But constitutions of this order are liable to great fluctuations of physical condition.). 2. with its personal edge thus taken off. [dpa ovv Rom. the thorn in the flesh which had such a prostrating effect upon him. 2. 2. Vivacity is a distinguishing mark of the one as a certain slow and laboured movement is of the other. 2. 9. (3) This brings us to a third point which may be taken with the last.] 3 : : [Xiyai] d\a \iyco Rom. elsewhere Epp. 2 Cor. ' ' ' The difference in style between Rom. we have ' such an one as Paul the aged. Gal. written to a definite Church and gathering up the result of a time of great activity. 1. and when an effort of will is needed to compel production of any kind. 3. 1. the expressions specially characteristic of this aspect of Ep. and Eph.).

vnepcppoveiv Rom. E. But we can well believe that if were the case some scribes would be more expert than others. Rom. We believe this to have been the case from the double fact that dictation was extremely common so that even as early as Horace and Persius dictare had already and from the wide diffusion of the come to mean to compose We know that Origen's lectures were taken art of shorthand. viTfpeKTeiveiv 2 Cor. may possibly have been at (4) A last cause which we suspect work. not I. this may have filled in for himself. not elsewhere. I. It is however interesting to note that if we look below the superficial qualities of style at the inner tendencies of mind to which it gives expression the resemblance between Ephesians and Romans becomes more marked. [§ 6. It seems to us probable that they were in the first they written ? much as our own merchants or instance taken down in shorthand public men dictate their correspondence to a shorthand writer and then written out fair. 1 . xxiii. 8. we should suppose. 1. lx EPISTLE TO tovto Si K(yo} Gal. though this is more a matter of conjecture. in which one clause is as it were drawn out of another. down the main words correctly. 2. until the main thought of the paragraph is reached again often by a circuitous route and not seldom with a somewhat violent twist or turn at the end. unusual compounds of irov . Gal. I . is the employment of We know that St. 2. more broken. 3. 1 StaTt Rom. 2). vrrepTttpiaatvav Rom. (A*y€i. vrrepvircav Rom. i Cor. Paul is the sort of telescopic manner. ovv elsewhere. 5. 1. Tertius. Paul employed for this purpose. so that we may well ask whether we have not before us in both the same hand. and more direct form of address is adopted in the exhortations relating to matters of practice. One of the most striking characteristics of St. This is rather speculation. I. Rom. 2 Cor. down in this way. not elsewhere.. — — THE ROMANS I. VI. But then the question arises. and would reproduce what was dictated to them more exactly. u. ris oZv.Tv on Gal. will place side by side one or two passages which may help to show [For a defence of the fundamental resemblance between the two Epistles. &c. Paul did not as a rule different amanuenses. eyaJ ttov . [ri ovv f Rom . 1 Cor. and that fair copies were made of them at — — ' ' — H. Rom. and we should not wish to lay stress upon it in any particular instance. vfJ. Gal. How were write his own letters. but the little connecting links he leisure (Eus.iav 2 Cor. A certain laxity of grammatical structure is common to both.) Rom. This is specially noticeable in abstract doctrinal passages. 2 Cor. I. i. the punctuation of the extract from Romans reference may be made to the notes ad toe] We . ri epov/xtv not elsewhere. VTT(p\. Uav\os Keyoi . ri oiv. I Cor. Gal. vrrep. I I. was one of the best of those whom An inferior scribe would get St. 6. I.] epovpev. just as a briefer. each new idea as it arises leading on to some further new idea. ri Ac'70.

12-14. its object. followed in loose construction (see the note ad loc. then gives a fuller description of its character.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE Rom. iv. SiKaiovvra tov mareas rov cvayyfXiov ov iyivr)Oriv Sidkovos Kara rr)v Swpeav rrjs \dpiros tov ®eov rrjs SoOuorjs pot Kara tt)v kvipyeiav rrjs Swdptcus avrov. like those Chinese boxes in which one box cunningly fitted within another. avrov aipari. (i. lxi 21-26. . A wonderful series of contents come from a single sentence. ii. Ihaarrjpiov avvrjs rrjs drroXvrpwaews bv vpotOero 6 &tbs Sid rrjs mortals kv ra> rw .1 irpofrjrais kv Uvivpane7vatrdk0vrj ovyKXrjpovopafcalavoaajpa avrov X"P lTL Std ttjs kv X. to is ment works round in Eph. are not so much argumentative as expository. to Galatians. 8. to the same word pvarrjpiov as in Rom. then goes off to explain why specially for the Gentiles. iii. 6. But the general tendency to the formation of periods on what we _ have called the 'telescopic' method— not conforming to a plan of structure deliberately adopted from the first. ench smaller than the last.ds to iivai kic avrbv Sitcaiov teal 'Irjaov. ujs vvv dirftcaXiKpOrj rots dyiois cltiootuXois avrov ko. 22-29. . but linking on clause to clause. 1-7.Kai varepovvrai rrp 8o£i?s tov ©eop. i*. In this instance we may strengthen the impression by printing for comparison a third passage from Ep. 18-24.. indicated by the frequent use of yap whereas those from Eph. tls $vtiei£tv jfjs Sinaio- avrov. "• -I 6 . 26) how the arguit necessary. The particular passage of Ephesians was chosen as illustrating this peculiarity. 14-28). II Nvvl Se x^is vdpov Simioavvij ®eov n€<pavipajTai.) by an announcement of the free character of the redemption wrought by Christ. 16 and iii. Sutaioovvrjs *pbs^ rr)v evSu£tv avrov kv T<p vvv mipa>. then a fuller comment on the method of this redemption. the cause which rendered a its object again. and consist rather of a succession of clauses connected by relatives.Taiv kv dvoxfj rov ®eov rrjs rwv rrj /cat avppiroxa rrjs trrayytXias kv X. where two distinct trains of thought and of construction converge upon a clause whLh is made to do duty at the same time for both. 'I. Just one other specimen may be given of marked resemblance of a somewhat different kind— the use of a quotation from the O. The passages from Rom. which the readers are advised to consult.T.StKaiovpevoi Swptdv rfj Tovrov x&pw kyw rov Xpiarov 'Irjaov kOvwv.aprrjp6. and at last states definitely its substance. tca6ws trpokypatya kv bXiycp. then a specification of the particular aspect of that righteousness with stress upon its universality. iii. iii. . 215 26. The passage from Ephe ians in like manner begins with a statement of the durance which the Apostle is suffering for the Gentiles. then refers back to the previous mention of this pvarrjpiov.irdvrts yap rjpaprov. they have a more argumentative cast. on Kara pioOrj dirorcaXviptv pot rb pvarrjpiov. And we have similar examples in Rom. then the more direct assertion of this universality. Eph. <uAos 6 Marios — vrrip vpwv rwv oUovopiav pot kyvco- tiye rjKovaare rr)v rrjs x<*P lT0S T °v ®eov rrjs So9eiarjs us vpas. are as we have said somewhat more lively than those from Eph. and the underlying resemblance is great.' so leading on to the pvarrjpiov on which that mission to the Gentiles is based. and has abundant analogues in Rom. Sid In the Romans passage we have first the revelation of the righteousness of God. each suggested by the last— runs through the whole of the first three chapters of Eph. vpbs 6 SvvaaOe dvayivwo/covrfs vorjrrai rr)v avvtotv pov kv pvarrjpicp rod X b krtpais yeveais ovk kyvwpioQrj r< is vlois rwv avdpuirajv. paprvpoynivrj vnb tov vopov ml tu!v vpocprjruv SiKaioavvrj Sk &eoy Sid moreajs 'Irjaov Xpiarov els rrdvras tovs martvovTasov yap kan SiaaroXr). 11-17 v. iii. to the same word tvSu^iv. xv. But the difference is really superficial. 1-7. 'I. Sid rr)v irdpeoiv irpoyiyovQ-rwv dp. and its motive. Gifford has pointed out (on Rom. with running comments. Dr..

xv. 6 narafias avros Ian (is tt)v dfivaaov (tovt tan. It does not seem to be anywhere so great as to necessitate the assumption of different authorship.lv rraiSiaKTjs T(Kva. 1 1 . it is probably from these Epistles that we get our general impression of St. Cor. there may quite Besides the passages commented upon here. Philol. 6 . to Ephesians. 7 with Cor. fjris fori pr)TT)p r)pojv.f) (to 8( 'Avtffy ri kariv on ttjs teal Karkfir/ (Is ra Karwrfpa Xp arov Karayayeiv) l3r)a(rai r\. V look back over the whole of the data the impression which they leave is that although the difference. d5(\(poi. 816. d\Xa ri \kyei "EK@a\( ri)v rraiSiaKrjv Kal rdv vlov avrtjs. it is yet sufficiently bridged over. 25-31. iv. of Class. zeal (8ojk( hdpara rrjs dcvpeas to pirpov 810 uwTji kv rf) KapSia aov lis dvafir)atrai (Is rdv ovpavdv . el p. Eph. Ev(ppdv6rjn. rjptis 8e. interesting. 5-8.to work out the comparison of 2 . tois dvOpdjrrois.K. iVa irKrjpdjar} ra irdvra. Enough will have been said both to show the individuality of style in Ep. The normal st)le of the Apostle is rather to be sought for in the Epistles to the Thessalonians and those of the Roman captivity It would be Eph. [§ 6.) Kal avros (8ojk( robs p.lxii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS Rom. . this passage of by phrase (e. cp. xii. It is usual. called forth by peculiar circumstances. and Sacr. iv. x. this group of Epistles having been written under conditions of high tension which in no writer are likely to have been permanent. as seen in a somewhat extreme example. d\d ttjs kkevGkpas. reference may be made to the maiked coincidences between the doxology. with the xii. 'Avafids (is v\pos rjxpa\wrevocv alxpa. kKevOkpa kariv. taken at its extremes. .. d\k' ojair(p Tore o Kurd aapKa yevvrjOds t8iajK( rdv Kara T\v(vpa. especially in Germany. Paul's style yet their style is in some sense an exceptional one. To iv. g. avaroixd 8e rfj vvv 'l(povaaXf)pouv\(v(t yap perd tojv TkKVojv avrrjs. 'Evl 8k (Kaaroj /carol 7-1 1. and Ep. Lightfoot has pointed out that this is an error. to Romans 1 and also to show its place in connexion with the range of style in the Pauline Epistles generally. kv tw aropari aov Kal kv Ty /eapoiq aov tovt' ean to prjpa rrjs mareojs b KtjpvaaopKV.. 25-27. is no doubt considerable. 'Owing to their greater length in proportion to the rest.t. Tri<TT(0JS diKacoavvT] ovtoj r) r)/. Maiu^j yap ypd<p(i on rr)v Sikcuoavvr/v tt)v (k vopov 6 rroi^aas dvdpa-nos ftcrfTai kv avrfj. to take Ep. ykyparrrai yap. Kara 'laadu (wayy(kias rkKva kapkv. . ov yap pi) K\rjpovopf)ar) 7) yna(pf) 6 vlus rrjs Trai8iaKT)s p(rd tov vlov rrjs k\(v9tpas. 9 of this Introduction. ut sup. These are fully pointed out ad loc. p.Xojaiav.lv dirooToXovs k. 3. But Bp. M7) tov Xpiarov. ovk kap. just as at a late period the style of the Pastoral Epistles is also exceptional though in a different way. Rom. .) d\Xd ri \ey(i '£771'? aov to prjpd kanv. Gal. . yei. x. Xpiarov (K vacpojv dvayaytiv. 302. . Even though any single cause would hardly be enough to account for it. earlier Epistles phrase 1 Rom. ovtoj Kal vvv. to Romans with its companion Epistles as a standard of style for the whole of the Corpus Paulinum. (tovt tori. 13) but to do this would be really endless and would have too remote a beaiing on our present subject. Era. Kal 6 dvafids vrr(pavoj navrcov tojv ovpavwv. r) 81 avoj 'Iepovaa\r)p. and the genuineness of the When we doxology 2 is defended in § /own.iS)v tduOr) r) x^P ls 8e ck Xkyd. ol ''Ayap 2ivd dpos earlv Iv rfj 'Apafilq. pkpr] yr)s. d8(\(poi. arupa r) ov TiKrovaa . lis Kara.

Two about A. Between the limits thus set. p. The Text. For a fuller account of these authorities the student must be referred to the Prolegomena to Tischendorf's edition (mainly the work of Dr. it seems to Us that the phenomena of style in the Epistles attributed to St. Cod. And on the other hand the positive reasons for supposing that the two Epistles had really the same author. date are sometimes distinguished as hands of N ca and B. Test. Sinaiticus. and representing a second N6 N c attributed by Tischendorf to saec. . in the earlier rrsts. C. 8. are weighty enough to support the conclusion. Gregory would carry back the evidence further. iv. and now in the British Museum. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St. Batiffol could find no trace of the MS.: § 7. . Petersburg. Ephraemi Rescriptus. Vaticanus. Some six centuries later the faded characters were retraced. Its correctors are N" contemporary. attributed to the beginning of saec. or MS. They may be enumerated as follows (1) Greek Manuscripts. this vii. and a few new readings introduced by J3\ Cod. saec. Dr. Paul may be ranged without straining. vol. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles I in 1628. Complete. The 1872). 1894). of high value. authorities quoted for the various readings to the text of the Epistle are taken directly from Tischendorf's great collection (Nov. ed. though not quite so good as the original. . 1884. nearly so. . Graec. Catherine on Mt. * the following passages 1 : ii. In the Vatican Library certainly since 1533 (Batiffol. saec. vi . § 7(i) Authorities. Contains the whole Epistle. and to the Miller. The corrector B 2 is nearly of the same date and used a good copy. Sinai now at St. Alexandrinus. with some verification of the Patristic testimony. latest edition of Scrivener's briefly Introduction (ed. In the National Library at Paris. saec. 5 [ko\tcl de ttjv . La Vaticane de Paul Hi a Pant v. v. Contains the whole Epistle complete. N Cod. iv. saec. Complete. Cod. Gregon . R. Lipsiae. London. ii. vno tov vofiov p. 86).] THE TEXT lxiii well have been a concurrence of causes. to 152 1 {Proleg. 1894). but M. 360). C. Primary uncials. 1890. v. with the exception of .

.a xiii. i. Trio-Tew Rom. 9-128). D. efavperas kcikuv i. vi. which is also ascribed to a Sedulius Scotus. xi. Cambridge.). Gall. . Cod. 16 ra Kpynra Originally formed part of the same MS. Once at Graeco-Latinus. . . The commentary presents none of the characteristic readings of the MS. 41) that this MS. iii. as may be seen by comparing the facsimile of the Paris Psalter published by Omont in the Milanges Graux. pi. Paldographie. and probably written at Reichenau (Augia Major). Fault Epistolas Migne. saec. p. i.. It is more probable that the scribe belonged to the fratres hellenici who formed a sort of guild in the monastery of St. The answer Lat. There are several instances of the name Sedulius Scotus (^Migne. naOXo? . and appears to represent a higher grade of scholarship. 1 a<fia pianos St. was written by the same hand as a well-known Psalter in the library of the Arsenal at Paris which bears the signature S^SuXios 2/cottos kyw Zypaipa. 137). . ix ex. Formerly [This MS. exists only in see below. 313. ciii. dycnrrjTois Qeov Pauline Epistles. The resemblance of the handwriting is close. EPISTLE TO THE 21 . Cod. . ut step. G. Graeco-Latinus. with that of the This St. however. 6 ovx olov 10. 31 [j]7re'i]dr)(Tav ra 7r\rjpcofJ. . ed. 27 i^Kavdrja-nv 24-27) is supplied by a . Cod. F.' must be in the negative. ix. of of the comSt. In Westcott and Hort's .] Cod. . Coislinianus (H or H 2 ). 1. 1 TlavXos . is unfortunately wanting for this Epistle : 2 3 . Gall (see the authorities quoted in Caspari. gallensis^ of the Gospels. saec. Sangermanensis. Boernerianus. saec. and i. Hutoire de la Vulgate. with A (Cod. . SABCare parts of what were once complete Bibles. as it is nothing more than a faulty copy of D. 475 n. . 3. p. and are designated by the same letter D E F G are all throughout the LXX and Greek Testament Graeco-Latin. in the Greek and Latin texts. . ( ' ' ' It should be noted that of these MSS. San. 7. Written at Graeco-Latinus. 1895. . 5. saec. Paul's Epistles is not al<o to be identified with the compiler mentary entitled Collectanea in omnes B. Augiensis. L. iav X. fragments. 25 are missing. Petersburg. and ii. Anleitung zur Griech. at St. now at Dresden. ROMANS 15 : [§ 7. (in the Latin i. fact naturally raises the further question whether the writer of the MS. Patrol. from those which bear the same notation on the Gospels and Acts. i. Bought by Bentley in Germany. . Claromontanus. An important . It has been suggested by Traube (Waltenbach. Introduction they are distinguished as D E F G 2 3 MS. ix. Clermont.ov $s ii. 19 is missing. Cod. which. Gall Gospels in the Palaeographical Society's series (i. might well be allowed to drop out of the list. . i. . Germain-des-PreX now at St. now in the National Library at Paris. ix. i.. 30 later hand E. eu To> v6[nq>~\ iii. but Rom. v6p. Quellen zum Taiifsymbol. and are different MSS.lxiv iii. near Beauvais (if the statement of Beza is to be Contains the trusted). both Rom. and compare Berger. Graeco-Latinus. is missing. p. . now in the Library of Trinity College. 179). . P.

Cod. P. ix in. Rom. few only of the leading minuscules can be given. Epp. . ix (Omont. The well-known 'Leicester Act. 15 [dno\oyov^ fj. v. Apoc. 263. The possession of Arsenius. 166). • ' e . Said to have Act.). study of readings from this MS. Act. saec. . Romans complete. Epp.'. may have come Vatican. Paul. and paitly those which Bousset connects with his Codex Pamphili (see below). 71-74). ii.d. 48Q. xi. Mosquensis. 33. Wiitten on Mount Sinai in the year 1316. Dionysius on Mount Athos.. 31. In the Vatican. At Paris. L. Ferrar group. 25. 22 fcal diroTo/xiav Cod. 26\ (=Evv. xii. but as yet collated only in = = 137. (. 9. archbishop of Monemvasia in Epidaurus. saec. 260 Scrivener = Evv. A 5. Cath. Written 10S7 a. At Paris. iVa jy /«i[t' kK\oyr]V~\ iii. Has a similar history to the last. I3\ saec. These MSS. 73).' the archetype of which was probably written in Calabria. one of the (= Act. 71. These include Rom. (= Evv. Apoc. Paul. In the monasteiy Laura on Mount Athos. Epp. At Naples. Belonged to John Covell. S. 5). Now in the Bodleian. xiii. 69. has not yet been collated. 252. 32. This MS.. of Pamphilus. In the library of Trin. Romans complete. 35 fc>eos 6 8iKaiu>v Ovaiav xii. II . 117). 37. . Epp. Called by Eichhorn the queen of cursives. At Vienna. pp... Now at Vienna: at one time in the MS. 5 viii. 6. of Acts. Cath. 1 8 d\Xd \tya> to the end is missing. (Gregory. xiii-xiv. Thought to have been written in Calabria. A palimpsest brought from the East by Tischendorf and called after its present owner Bishop Porphyry. saec. Cath. M ( ( 93. Patiriensis. Contains Acts. xi.. Cath. Act. 17. Athous Laurae. Batiffol.] THE TEXT Secondary uncials. 34). Acts. saec. partly thos? on which stress is laid by Hort {Introd. Cath. xv. Apoc. Paul. Contains Acts. 507 Scriv. x. 2. now in the There is some reason to think that the MS. Maria de lo Patire near Rossano. Paul. Act. but at one time belonged to the monasSaec. Saec. 1895. 80. xii (Gregory). 224 Scriv. . 1 are missing. xiv. Cambridge. 47. marginal corrector (67**) drew from a MS. saec ix. saec. Museum. xi. 67. At Paris. Apoc. xi.. containing portions 79 and 62. Formerly belonging to the Basilian monks Cud. 4-xv.. Cod. Epp. .. Greg. .Evv. 31. originally from Constantinople (cf. In the Angelican Library of the Augustinian monks at Rome. Angelicus. is published in the Revue Biblique 77 ddiKia fjifxaiv'] .ivwv . saec. viii-ix.. Epp. Epp. saec. 7). Twenty-one palimpsest leaves. tery of the Holy Trinity on the island of Chalcis. lxv K. atone time in Calabria. Porphyrianus.. Coll. which is not and ancient readings akin to those of Ep. . ( = Evv. 195 Greg. Act. of the abbey of Sta. V A for April. Brought to Moscow from the monastery of St. saec. Epp. (=Act 66. Minuscules. Contains Rom. now in the British English chaplain at Constantinople about 1675 ' . Act. containing many peculiar for extant Paul. Contains Acts. saec. Epp. 83. ix-x Gregory). saec.' (=Act.§7. been compared with a MS. are partly those which have been noticed as giving conspicuous readings in the commentary. ix. Paul. . to Romans. 5. saec. 99). p. Cod. . Abbaye de Rossano. a few places. ix. Apoc. x-xi. 14). Epp.

). d (as necessarily e) follows an Old-Latin text not in all cases altered to suit the Greek g is based on the Old Latin DE G . saec. The Vulgate (Vulg. These are : .). Harl.). xiv. saec. 5. 5 . 3-5 viii. Cod.). Paul's Epistles is a revision of the to be hardly an independent authority. which may also serve to illustrate the problems raised in connexion with the history of the Version. . Paul's Epistles will be found in Ziegler. Of these the Vetus Latina is very imperfectly preserved to us.).). The Armenian (Arm. It Old Latin so slight was however made . and quotations in the Latin Fathers. the Latin Irenaeus (saec. closely akin to g. The Vulgate and cursory as of St. 1775. 17-xiii. Hilary of Poitiers (saec. 10-xv. The Gothic (Goth. The fullest treat- Museum Cod. avi. r. a Spanish two specimens are given in the course of the commentary of the evidence furnished by the Old-Latin Version (see on i. 30. Saec. but the subject has not as yet been sufficiently worked at for a general ment of the Vetus Latina of St. Vet. Cod. For the Vulgate the following MSS. 9-20 xv. v or vi. Cod. 16-vi. Toletanus. 546 a. Fuldensis c. are occasionally quoted: am. vi or vii. Die lateimschen Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hieronymtis. The Vetus Latina (Lat. possess only a small number of fragments of MSS. agreement to be reached. however. containing Rom. iv). . The Syriac (Syrr.). The texts of these fragments are. xii. \±). xiv. The Egyptian (Aegypt. The Sahidic (Sah. The Harclean (Hard. 33-xti. His- toire de la Vulgate. vi or vii. We gue. Saec. The Peshitto (Pesh. xi. 6-19. 36). Amiatinus c. British tol. d. neither early (relatively to the history of the Version) nor of much interest. 700 A.^. Frisingensis saec. or rather perhaps viii (see Berber. iii). For the Fathers we are mainly indebted to the quotations in Tertullian (saec. The former do not strictly represent the underlying Greek of the Version. ii iii). vi. Gottvicensis. Cyprian (saec.). To supplement them we have the Latin versions of the bilingual MSS. as they are too much conformed to their own Greek. The Ethiopic (Aeth. D. r3 Cod. 3-13.). One in the Latin diction of the Version than with its text. v. F mentioned above. usually quoted as d e f g.: lxvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (2) [§ 7 Versions. altered with the help of g or a MS. They have however more to do with the changes or . Guelferbytanus. v. fuld. The Bohairic (Boh. but is very much modified f is the Vulgate translation. hail. 1879. Cod. ii. or more probably iv). Miinchen. Augustini (cited as text also of the fourth century [see below. which contains fragments of Rom. m). containing Rom. 13.).). The versions quoted are the following The Latin (Latt.). p. 124). and to the so-called Speculum S. x.

.' WH. he substituted Domino servientes for tempori servientes of the older Version (Ep. It is of more importance to know that the types of text which they represent are in any case early. 159 ff. ii. 4.* me. Introd. e 2 . 'hi. This suggests that not only a fresh edition of the text.T. ex). 5 xvi. Eulhal. N^H. p. These fragments contain vi. and in less degree a number of minuscules . Introd.) is a recension made by the Monophysite Thomas of Harkhel or Heraclea in 616 A. 121. Introd. Introd. and Dr. xii. . That is a view which has been held for some time past (e. 31-36.... there is no other form in its present much of the Version extant for the Pauline Epistles. p. are questions still being debated. special importance attaches to the readings. The abbreviations in references to the Patristic writings are such as it is hoped will cause no difficulty (but see p. NB. 15-38 ix. 7-23 xi. And it must always be remembered that so excellent a palaeographer as Dr. ccxxxiv. viii. The proofs seem to be thickening which connect these two great MSS. of the older Philoxenian Version of 508 A. Sprache. The dates of the two Egyptian Versions and of the Ethiopic are still uncertain (Scrivener. 3 ad Marcellam). two) approved and accurate Greek copies in the monastery of the Enaton near Alexandria (WH..) and cited by Tisch.] THE TEXT lxvii with the help of the Greek MSS.' WH.). . 27. posterior]' Tisch. is much needed. 106. gather from this letter that Jerome's edition had been issued in the year 385 A. and what amount of change it had previously undergone. How much earlier than this it was in use. . the Egyptian somewhat the older. The reader may be reminded that the Peshitto Syriac was certainly current n We W ' ' . 6. It is usually cited according to Tischendorf (who appears in the Epistles to have followed Wilkins. and we have the express statement of St..' which make it correct to describe it as Bohairic see Scrivener. For the Pauline Epistles the groups most affected by recent researches are NB . D. and that Dr.§7. 4) thought that B was written in Italy (Magna Gratcia). ' A ' (2) Internal successful of all Grouping of Authorities.' Tisch. In any case. and investigating their mutual relations and origin. The most promising and the directions in which textual criticism is being pursued at this moment is that of isolating comparatively small groups of authorities. 'the. but also a fresh collation with the Greek. ed. Of the Egyptian Versions.) some few readings have been added from thj fragments published by Amelineau in the Zeitschrift fur Aegypt. 156 f. which appear to be derived from < three (v. D [E] F G. x. ed. N. p. xxxvii f. as Coptic (' cop. Hort . Bohairic is that usually known as Memphitic H. xii. but in some few instances on referring to the original it has become clear that his quotations cannot always be trusted: see the notes on v. The Harclean Syriac (= syr.). 154. Ceriani of Milan {ap. 28. which for this part of the N. ed. xxvii. 105 f. 4). 1-21 viii. Arm. 7). D. Collation of Cod. ii. Scrivener. The Gothic Version is also definitely dated at about the middle of the fourth century. is now lost. sometimes in the text but more often in the margin. Scrivener. For the reasons (. 1887. but without resting upon any very solid arguments. D. In the Sahidic (Thebaic) Version ( = -sah. p.T. 20-23 vii.. ed. Eevised Version of the First Three Gospels. . by the late Canon Cook. 1-9. see Tisch. with the library of Eusebius and Pamphilus at Caesarea..g. i. 1. form early in the fourth century. Sinaiticus. and the Armenian at about the middle of the fifth.'). Jerome himself that in Rom.

and the actual MSS. some reasons for ascribing an Italian origin to this MS. to form a mental picture of the process by which our present MS. on grounds which seem to be sufficient. Acta Apostolorum. 1892. The text of B must needs be older than the end of the third century. that B was an Egyptian MS. That the date of their common readings is in fact extremely early appears to be proved by the number of readings in which they differ. the fortunes of each had been quite distinct. He regards the modern text based on as nur ein Spiegelbild einer willkiirlich fixierten Recension des vierten Berlin. It was first pointed out by Tischendorf (N. but on a number of successive occasions. pp. to pick to pieces the different elements of which the text 01 the MS. The conditions would be satisfied if it were possible. Apart from such external data as coincidences of handwriting which connect the two MSS. the view that X had its Origin in Palestine would not be inconsistent with the older view. for the same scribe to have a hand in both.T. if they were not written in the same place had at least in part the same scribes... which is the date assigned to Hesychius. We are however confronted by the fact that there is a distinct probability that both MSS. This analysis will doubtless be carried further than it has been. these divergent readings being shared not by any means always by the same but by a great variety oi other authorities. p. 1867. portion of B. now of the colour which we call ' Western and now 'Alexandrian'. Arm. Not only on a single occasion. as they have come down to us there can be no doubt that they had also a common ancestor far back in the past. Indeed the history of N since it was written does but reflect the history of its ancestry. tf would seem in part independently to have succeeded in proving an intimate relation between this group of 1 A number of scholars working on A N B similar view is held by Corssen. If we admit that the MS. to arrange them in their order and determine their affinities. Euthal. at least prima facie. may be Egyptian. 24). then those of N b first inserted in the margin and then embodied in the text of a succeeding MS. Lipsiae. From this variety it may be inferred that between the point of divergence of the ancestors of the two MSS. and as it seems to us. Vat. The provenance of N would only carry with it approximately and not exactly that of B. especially among the followers of Origen. lxviil also gives EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 7. Nothing can as yet be ' regarded as proved. p. N especially has received several side streams in the course of its history. It is possible that all these may have come in from a single copy but it is less likely that all the Western or all the 'Alexandrian' readings which are found in N had a single origin. It remains for critical analysis to reconstruct this process. consists. 71 ff.. or not difficult. Jahrhunderts {Der Cyprianische Textd.. But when Herr Bousset goes further and maintains that the text of B represents the recension of Hesychius l . it is only as one amongst several possibilities. that the writer whom he calls the 'fourth scribe of N wrote also the N. T. became what it is. and the essay of Bousset referred to below). that they would belong virtually to the same region. Stichometry. and B also (as we shall see) in the Pauline Epistles has a clear infusion of Western readings. . ' ' N C H. as it has been said. that is another matter. And. by no means probable. additional arguments are becoming available for connecting N with the library at Caesarea (see Rendel Harris. xxi-xxiii). recently revived and defended by Bousset.. The weight which their agreement carries does not depend on the independence of their testimony so much as upon its early date. then those of N ca in a third and N cb in a fourth. ' . For instance. There would be so much coming and going between Palestine and Egypt. new strains of text have been introduced on one or other of the lines. We have only to suppose the corrections of N a embodied in the text of one MS.

Paulin. In an essay written in 1871 (reprinted in Lightfoot. adopted by Scrivener {Introd. Mr. Codd. was corrected 'with the copy at Caesarea in the library of the holy Pamphilus written with his own hand. Not F and ' : him led writer of this regrets that pressure of other occupations compelled to put aside Herr Bousset's article when it first appeared. P. but also brought into the group the third corrector of N (N c ). to Titus states expressly that the MS. just before his death in the persecution of Diocletian). A note at the end of the Book of Esther said to be by his hand speaks in graphic terms of a MS. Christianity received D F G. 181. 893. its greatest expansion the prestige not only of Eusebius and Pamphilus. Early in 1894 Herr W. Aug. The MS. p. especially in the Greek. Rendel Harris pointed out a connexion between this MS. attached to it. not extant for Romans) bears upon its face the traces of its connexion with the library of Caesarea. 3) and maintained with detailed arguments in two elaborate programmes by Dr. ^ Goth. The essays which have been mentioned all contain some more speculative matter in addition to what has been mentioned. Later {Introd. ed. Biblical Essays. of Ep. 46. C. Untersuchnngen a series of Text-kritische Studien zum N. p. Attention had often been drawn to this note. as the subscription to Ep. 321 ff. but there is a very close relation between G. it was also the greatest centre of literary and copying activity just at the moment when H 1 H ' H . compared by Antoninus a confessor. and will doubtless lead by degrees to more or less definite results. Paul. only is E a mere copy of D. Bousset brought out in Gebhardt and Harnack's Texte u. or it would have to pay closer attention to some of the less-known minuscule MSS. e. 88).' §7. F Latin a Vulgate text partly assimilated to the Greek and with intrusive readings from the Latin of G. 1 The him . T. to Rom. P. in the course of which (without any concert with Dr. p. 150) he writes that F is as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of G as E of D if not it is an inferior copy of the same immediate exemplar. 1895) and maintains a further connexion of the group with the Armenian Version.' Now in June. and corrected by Pamphilus in prison (i. Paul. (unfortunately. It would have been strange if it had not been consulted trom far and wide and if the influence of it were not felt in many parts of Christendom... He found on examination that the presumption raised by it was verified and that there was a real and close connexion between the readings of N c and those of and Euthalius which were independently associated with Pamphilus 1 Lastly. Hort states his opinion that F Greek is a direct copy of G. The library founded by Pamphilus at Caesarea was the greatest and most famous of all the book-collections in the early Christian centuries. These researches are at present in full swing. Corssen {Epp. but Herr Bousset was the first to make the full use of it which it deserved. but it is also probable that they have a certain amount of solid nucleus. as we have said. which if the speculations mentioned above as to N B should be made good would also bring it into some juxtaposition with them. and Euthalius (Stichometry. It is only just what we should have expected. p.) Dr.' This second alternative is the older view. but of the still more potent name (for some time yet to come) of Origen. Boern. This had also been noticed by Dr.] authorities THE TEXT lxix and in tracking it to its source. but perhaps with some knowledge of Corssen) he not only adduced further evidence of this connexion. Dr. Conybeare comes forward in the current number of the Journal of Philology (no. Rendel Harris. . 12). Corssen in the second of the two programmes cited below (p. Clarom. F. It is not as yet absolutely determined what that relation is. to complete the series of novel and striking observations. corrected by the Hexapla of Origen. 1887 and 1889).

25-27). readings. or in clauses corresponding to the sense (sometimes called aTi\oi). Hort's original view is not to be preferred. Chrysostom. of Evv. The instances in which the Greek has been conformed to the Latin {m) The will probably be found to be late and of little real importance. and therefore that it is in correction in part more correctly preserved in G. In any case it Gk. The textual (3) The Textual Criticism of Epistle to Romans. Corssen admits that there are some phenomena which he cannot explain 1887. 64). is a copy of arguments on the other sice do not seem to be decisive. For the inter-connexion and he of this group he adduces a striking ins. pi.Ixtf EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 7. should be carefully collected and peculiar and ancient readings in An opportunity might be found of testing more closely the hypostudied. or 407 a. D used for reconstructing it with caution. Bezae and the Old-Latin MSS. . as may be seen in the Palaeographical Society's facsimile of Here again we have another coincidence of inde(ser. which holds a like place in the G Paul. are not sure that the question can still be regarded as settled in this and that Dr. Corssen reached a number of other interesting conclusions. (the other half. and the These would fall naturally in'o their place if F Gk. regret that we cannot undertake here the systematic inquiry which certainly ought to be made into the history of this group. for in 1891 Dr. that not only did the same system of colometry lie behind Cod.' the Latin of which was more in agreement with Victorinus Ambrosiaster and the Spanish Speculum. Gothic Version to the group should be determined as accurately as possible. as we remember. k (Cod. (iv) The relations of the thesis propounded in § 9 of this Introduction. Bezae. is not likely to have been written before the time of St. which however in its turn can only be # . pendent workers. Dr. and that this archetype was written per cola et comma/a. Corssen probably puts the limit too late when he says that such a MS. of the Gospels We D Gg D DG and Acts. xiii. though we cannot express our entire agreement with it. The lines which it should [i) It should reconstruct as far as follow would be something of this kind. criticism of the Pauline Epistles generally is inferior in interest to . Thus Dr. 13). xvi. (Cod. The edition did not contain the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle to the Romans in it ended at Rom. and G. Act. Corssen thinks that there arose early in the fifth century a Graeco-Latin edition. 14 (see § 9 below) it was entirely without the doxology (Rom. p.). 1 argues that the locality in which it arose was more probably Italy than Africa. If that were so an(j indeed without this additional evidence Dr. As to the place of origin we are more inclined to agree with him than as to the date. Rendel Harris carrying further a suggestion of Rettig's had thrown out the opinion. Like all that Dr. Dr. xv. are practically one witness and should be remembered that F Gk.) and Paul. and even to the Curetonian Syriac —to which we suppose may now be added the Sinai palimpsest. Corssen thinks that this Graeco-Latin edition has undergone some by comparison with Greek MSS. i. ( We G 5 G not two. (ii) It should isolate the possible the common archetype of between earlier and later distinguish and peculiar element in both MSS. D. Bobiensis). A Evv. DFG D D D — — ' . Examining he showed that they were ultimately derived the common element in from a single archetype (Z). should be and of the archetype of (v) The characteristics both of compared with those of Cod. Dr. and sense. 63. Corssen writes this sketch is suggestive and likely to be only fruitful. though the Speculum contains an African element. .ance from 1 Cor. He then points out that this Graeco-Latin edition has affinities with the Gothic Version. but that it also extended to the other imporGospel and Acts to tant Old-Latin MS.

and just for that section of it which diverged most we have but little evidence. is called Western N B appear (with other leading MSS. rest of the the Romans to same main lines of distribution as in the glance at the apparatus.' and which others have called Antiochene. It might be proposed to substitute names suggested in most cases by the leading MS. conspicuous instance of both conditions is supplied by the state of what is called the Western Text/ It is probable that this text never diverged from the other branches so widely as so that there are parts of the history interesting parts — which we cannot ' — A does in the Gospels and Acts. Epistles to we observe N. . what is meant is that the textual phenomena are less marked. but would not be identical with.' 'Byzantine. And yet when we look broadly at the variants to the Pauline it . the group which they call into the DEFG. they would simply describe facts.' The later uncials generally (with accessions every now and then from the older ranks) would constitute the family ' Syrian. . added) to mark the line which they would call Neutral i^ACLP would include. of the Gospels and Acts nothing like forms of the Syriac Versions such as the Curetonian and Sinaitic nothing like the Diatessaron. When this is not meant that investigations such as those outlined above Anyare not full of attraction. ' ' ' Alexandrian. and in their way full of promise. we might speak of the 8-text ( Western').criticus of the Epistle will show the tendency of the authorities to fall the A groups NB.' which is only retained because of its long-established use.' Exception is taken to some of these titles. thing which throws new light on the history of the text will be found But in the end to throw new light on the history of Christianity. never from the first so great and on the other hand the evidence which has come down to us is inferior both in quantity and quality. but geneialized so as to cover other authorities as well.T. These really correlike groups in the other Books correspond to the group which. : spond DEFG ' .§ 7. the |3-text (= Neutral'). both of which have really been On the one hand. For the oldest forms of this text we are reduced to the quotations in Tertullian and Cyprian. and no doubt gives but a very imperfect geographical description of the facts. the a-text ( Alexandrian '). For instance. .' or 'Ecclesiastical. Such terms would beg no questions. especially to the term Western. and those just the most reconstruct simply for want of material. and the c-text or a-text (=' Ecclesiastical* or 'Syrian'). This may be due to two causes.' Constantinopolitan. NACLP. and have a less distinctive and individual character. the latitude of variation was probably at work. in the nomenclature of Westcott and Hort.] that of the Historical said it THE TEXT is Ixxf Books of the New Testament. It would be an advantage that the ' ' ' ' which they designate as = ' ' = ' . We have nothing like the best of the Old-Latin MSS. of the group.

Such being the broad outlines of the distribution of authorities on the . The specific characteristics of the textual apparatus of Romans may be said to be these : (i) the general inferiority in boldness and originality of the 8. This deprives us of one important criterion . For instance.' while suggested by B. . and in the Pauline Epistles the term p-text. That may be due mainly to the fact that the interpolations in question are for the most part historical. What are its distinctive and individual These are for the mo-t part shared with the rest of the Pauline features? Epistles. would carry with it no assumption would recall equally Alexandrian and a-text of superiority and e-text or a-text would not imply Codex Alexandrinus any inherent inferiority. the student will observe carefully the readings of N c and Arm. as the clue was not in the writer's hands when it was written. and Epistles) appears in the fourth century in this region. texts. to Romans the more important 8-variants are not interpolations but omissions (as e.or Western) text (ii) the fact that there is a distinct Western element in v . and therefore would naturally be looked for in the Historical Books. Sufficient note has unfortunately not been taken of them in the commentary. and Acts. either that the text in question was that generally accepted by the Church throughout the Middle Ages. Still it is B. and spread from it while as to the debated point of its previous history nothing would be either affirmed or denied. 6). ' ' ' ' ' ' . o-1 or2 &c. which therefore when is combined with authorities of the (iii) type diminished in value. proceed to say a few words on each of these heads. In this respect the reader must be asked to supplement it. in the Gospel of St. . It would also have to be noted that although in the vast majority of cases the group would include the MS. This would occur most often with the a-text and A. we ask. and it might even be ranged on the opposite side. If some such nomenclature as this were adopted a further step might be taken by distinguishing the earlier and later stages of the same text as 8 1 8 2 &c. . Luke). from which it took its name. Epistle to the Romans. ' ' ' ' .or Western the consequent rise in importance of the group ^ (iv) the existence of a few scattered readings either of B alone or of B in combination with one or two other authorities which have considerable intrinsic probability and may be right. sweeping propositions and absolute rules are seen to be out of : H : place. One of the advantages which most of the other Epistles possess. 8. It is certain that this text (alike for Gospels. and judge each case on its merits only careful use can show to what When we consider the mixed origin of nearly all ancient extent it is valid. (i) The first must be taken with the reservations noted above. . He should of course apply the new test with caution. but would only describe the undoubted facts. xi. still in some instances it would not include it.g. The Western or 8-text has not it is true the bold and interesting variations which are found in the Gospels and Acts. same term in 1 the Gospels . AC . but it would occur also occasionally with the |3-text and B (as conspicuously in Rom.lxxii EPISTLE TO THE '8-text' ROMANS [§ 7. or that in its oldest form it can be traced definitely to the region of Antioch and northern Syria. In Ep. It has none of the striking interpolations which in those Books often bring in ancient and valuable matter. would be equally suggested by the leading MS. belong to it. We . but conclusions obtained for the other Epistles may be applied to this. Acts. Romans is without none of the extant fragments of Cod.

Mops. ins. rfj ikVtk v. Chrys. Lat. It is perhaps significant that in all the instances marked with * the group is joined by N<=.-lat. Epp. (111) When Bthus i^oes over to the Western or S-group the main support of the alternative reading is naturally thrown upon N A C. 77 34 4. 21 Sid t6 . Aug. [rots] x. Orig. 13 rafs prfffais dyiwv D* F G. Ambrstr.-lat. al. 11 (where however there is a great mass of other authorities). The combination is strengthened where are joined by the Westerns as in iii. It becomes in fact the main group wherever B is not extant. We also note that the latest and worst of all the readings found in B. ^crovs and *om. as in a few others. Ambrstr. om. Iv D We . dnoSwaei. tw @ea> xiv. dLaOrjKt) ix.. This ambiguity besets us (e. 21 rp. Ambrstr. 5 om. after notrjaas x. om. diroOavov™ rel. [These two readings were perhaps due in the first instance to accidental errors of transcription. Codd. . 13 Tr\r) ocpo r)oai. 9 ri TrpoKaTi X oixti> -nipiaaov Trpo^x^yiiQa .'Theod. and Apoc. Orig. 19 ov tcarevdrjaev E F G. 34 (om. Appearances may bq . 11 icv Kat pw SovKevorrcs D* F G. rel. 'Irjorovs) and in xv. yap xiv.-<?/. *om. but a still further investigation of them in connexion with allied phenomena in other Epistles is desirable. «/.g. . does not stand out quite clearly. rats xp«ats tSjv dylcvu rel. al. 67**. tvoiKovv avTovJIvtdva viii. tpyov al. Hieron.-lat. Epiph. D* G.-lat. t<2 Kup/a. 63. This is a group which outside the Gospels and Acts and especially in Past. 6Wfl. 5 .) is shared by B with N<=L. 19. tori B) X doir kirel to tpyov ov/cirt earl x dpi<> (sicB. 12 *add r) 20 oitavOaX^trat rj uaOfvu xiv. 16. a/.] THE TEXT lxxiii these variants preserve some of the freedom of correction and paraphrase to which we are accustomed elsewhere.-lat.-lat. and in xv. Orig. ovv. It may be through a copy related to the Codex Pamphih thai these readings came into B. they are opposed by BC. The most interesting aspect of this branch of the text is the history of its antecedents as represented by the common archetype of G. D NA # it is deserted by all or nearly all other uncials. ovv ix. Codd. but the value of B seems to rise when . D • I4M : D : : tw : XV. 2 *ins. In the other instances both and G are represented. xii.§ 7. And this phenomenon is in point of fact frequently repeated. iii. have it also in the omission of fnpwrop 1. al /caTtuorjw N A B C al. The principal difficulty— and it is one of the c'lief of the not very numerous textual difficulties in Romans— is to determine whether these MSS. the long addition in xi. a pair which do not carry quite as much weight in the Epistles as they would in the Gospels. The most prominent of these readings are discussed below in § 9. . . *uTt after vo/xov and *fauro ins. S. . Hil. vii. In this instance. fom. yap ni. Codd. robs dfxapT^aavras 62. Ik vwpwv viii. ap.np T r]aavias rcl. rd noWd : 31 8<opo(popia B D* F G.] iv. ttju [mvxTja'iu'] xv. g. em tovs ^7) dp. 6 toO flara™ E F G. really retain the original text or whether their reading is one of the finer Alexandrian corrections. 7.ds xv. Orig. : ri olv • ' rel. (iv) It may appear paradoxical. Ambrstr. and even more by the peculiar element in G. (with or without other support) has not seldom preserved the right reading. In the instances marked with f. 6 el 51 If Zpywv ovtceri (om. 28. 13 n\T)po<pop7i(Tai 22 iroWatcis BDEFG: BFG : irXrjpwam rel. ap. &c. Heb. Soi/AtiWrtj . v. Lot. ap. B agrees not with P P D but with G but on the other hand in vm. afi.) in the very complex attestation of viii. fxiv vi. (ii) It will have been seen that in the last three readings just given B joins with the unmistakably Western authorities. Orig. al. 7 it agrees with D against G so that the resemblance to the peculiar element in the latter MS. 11.aicovia rel. E. . 17. Orig. < « . . 2 om. Ambrstr.

ix. In the following table the passages in which there is a similarity between the two Epistles are compared : Rom. Rom. 24 b yap (3\enei. 7/. xv. Ti6r)p. (2. kmOvpiais. I Rom. deceptive. 14 p. 4. 01 ovk r)XeT]piivoi. but even within the N. 5 avevtyKai vvevp.. . Such exceptions the rule that the more difficult reading is to be preferred. evprjKtvai. 13. We shall begin with the first Epistle of St. readings of B will be found in xv. 30. vii. 13 om. VpMlV. there undoubtedly are and it is at least a tenable view that these are among them. I om. Other singular. § 8.T. fcal rr)v piivrjv fjyaTrrjp:tvT]v. vvv vvv ovk 8k Xads ®eov. 'ISov. lxxiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 7.aTos Kai rrirpa OKavoaXov. viii. o\ irpoo kotttovoi ra> Xoyco diT(iOovvT€S.r) <rvoxVfJLaTl" Peter i. . The literary history of the Epistle to the Romans begins earlier Not only is it clearly than that of any other book of the N. . yiypairrai. ix. p. evopeaXoytKTjv Xarptiav Ovoias tvirpoodiKTovs ©€<£ Xp. xvi. Peter. ov pi) Karaioxwdfi tis . xii. ris f\m£(i . or subsingular. evrip-ov' ical 6 itiGTtvoiv lir' avrw XiOov n pooKopmaros Kai irirpav oKavBdkov' xai 6 JTiorevcuv kir' avTtp ov Karat oxvvdr)Otrai. 10 01 irore ov Kaos. canon there are very close resemblances both in thought and language between it and at least three other books these resemblances we must first consider. w ov Xadv rjyaTrr]- I Peter ii. TiOrjpii kv ~Siwv XiOov dicpoycuviatov ckXcktSv. 27 om. 9 to p'rjp. fcoOf t£> xii. 32. dyiav.(voi reus npoTtpov \v o vo~xVfiaTl {6ttj dyvoia vpMV .ix. But these are less attractive and less important.T. on Kvpios 'Irjoovs. ovtos 8 kyivr)6r] K«f>aXr)v ywvias.. but there is not a little reason for thinking that the following readings belong to the soundest innermost kernel of the MS. 33 jrpoaeKorpav t£> Kadcbs Xl0w tov TtpoaKopp-aTOs. vpLwv I napaoTrjcrai rrjv rd ocupara Peter ii. They are however open to some suspicion of being corrections to ease the The question is whether or not they are valid exceptions to construction. 25 x«/" s T V . v. 25 KaXeoa) fiov Xaov /Jiov. . Kai XiOos irpooKop:p. they need only be referred to heie.a xiv. 23 om. ..ariKas dvoiav tov t$ &ew. I did 'I. Rom. /rat. ds t Kai IreOrjoai'. As all these readings have been discussed more or less fully in the com mentary.r) alaivi tovtw.i iv 'Siwv I Peter ii. ® ( V. iv. 19 Tlvtvparos without addition. 32. Trp6oKop. dk kXet]9evT(s.ua . and distinctly quoted in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Two more readings present considerable attractions. 6-8 'iSov. X. ^Sjoav. 6 (l ye. 2 p. Literary History.

Jjs yia Qeov' ei eaiTovs dyaTTTjv <piko£evoi 3 kKaoTa) &s 6*®ebs iTLOTioJS. Cl)S KaXol OIKOVOflOl ttoik'iXtjs x«P'tos &eov' et tcs XaXei. Cf.T}ar)Te . el pif) virb &eov. d>s 81' . 9. 16 to ccuto els dWrjXovs cppovovvres. 1 Pet. us &eos. K\r)povop. ii. 3 01 rw dyaOS) 8ikos govti . t\wn6icpiros. eit. dAAd . xii. ev tt\ SiaKoviq. dAAd rS> KaKw . ix. on els tovto inKrj- l^ Peter iii. 3 . dvdpcvirtvr) yap eaTiv k£ovaia 8k . /xt) yiveade <ppovijxoi nap tuvTois.acotypovrjaaTe ovv Kal els wpoGevxds. . irdvTes (pt\d5e###BOT_TEXT###lt;pot.T. etre at olaai iirb . J 7 prjSevl KaKov dvrl Kanov irporoovpuvoi airobibovTes' Taneivocppoves.a tov &eov Ttdvras t 1 fir) nare' ri]V d8eX<porr]ra ay air are. o-v/x-rradets.ff0-&u. Tovvavriov 8£ evXoyovvTes. xii.. xii.. 6 we have a quotation from the O. also xii. such as the metaphorical use of the idea of sacrifice (Rom. . and the same rare words. .irpb ttovtwv 77- tt}i/ eKrevi) exovres. t£> rby <po(3ov Toy <p6fiov t TW TTjV TiprjV T7> TlflTJV. vire pexovTi. 13. ejxepioe perpov Cf. rb e£ vp. fir) dvrl Ka/eov 7) Xoidopiav dvrl ###BOT_TEXT###180pias. 4 &eov yap .6<ppoves. ii. 9. Tts 6 oiaKovei. xiii. 22 rds ipvxds vjxwv r)yviKoTes . TO) to tc'Aos to reXos. 8-10. Kpnov e/c KapSias dA.tov (debv (pofieiade. . <ppoveiv els rb 1 Peter iv. .tov BaoiXea rifxare. xii. yap dpxovres ovk tlal (p60os (pya>.ur) rd iif/r/Xd <ppovovvres. . . 1 1 Pet. Although equal stress cannot be laid on all these passages the resemblance is too great and too constant to be merely accidental. bp. ii. II eKKXivaTOj irotTjcraTa} dyaOov Kaitov. §8. 1-7. Rom. Rom. xpare tls rjyyi/te.A77A. Gaxppoveiv 7-1 1 wdvrwv Se to re\os j 6 exovres 81 x a p' L ° vara kcltcL tt)v X<*piv tt)v SoOtiaav rjpuv 8id(popa . Sia/covos eanv. fxerd navrwv dvdpwiTwv tlprjv evovres. d>s 13-17 bnoTdyrjTe -ndarf did rbv Kvpiov. tls opyr)i> rS> rb KaKov itpaa- avrov -nepLtroixevois els eKSiKTjaiy KaKowoiujv e-rraipov 8k dyaOo-noiwv on ovrws ear 1 to OeXr]p. 9 r) 0707777 dvviro- IO if <pi\a8e###BOT_TEXT###lt;piq dWrjKovs I Peter i. 11-14. Kal £r]T7]oaTto elpr\vi]V dirb Kal 8iou£aTcv avTrjv. . 8. . els eavTovs avrb StaKovovvres. Not only do we find the same thoughts. 9 t3 oe re\os. but in one passage (Rom.ovs dyairr)- aare CKTeyais. such as t™a «T. <pi\uOTOpyoi.<uv. dAAd tois Taireivois cvi away 6^*1/01. 5). Kptros els . 32 (see the note). xiii.] LITERARY HISTORY be Ixxv St. evanXayxyoi. dvev yoyyvo-fiov'eKao-Tos Ka6ws e\a0e Y<i/>*fffia. Rom. . 1 irdaa ipv\r) e£ovoiais vnepexovaais viroraa aeoOoj' oil 1 Peter ii. 14. xiii. ore dydirrj KaXvirrei it\rj0os a/iapTiuiw els dWrjKovs. If laxvos rjs xopW" Rom. with the same variations from the LXX that we find in Rom. . The following passages seem to thoughts and words : modelled on Paul's Rom. 7 dwoSore waai rds ocpeiXds' t<3 to> <f>6pov tov (popov. etre KTiaet ^aaiXeT. riyeiioGiv. els (pi\adeX(piav dvviro. 13-17) we W . diro8t8o^Tes itaicbv Ka\d 6r]Te i'va evXoyiav Be evwniov TravTOJV dvOpdnrcvv 18 el 8vvar6v. &eov Terayjxevat dcrtv . . also vv. . eire Siaucoviav. In 1 Pet.

the resemblance between brought out in the is very close and has been and Heb xi. Paul works the earlier. Peter and the Epistle to the Romans is also Ephesians. although no other passages resemble one that many other of the to be quoted. two Epistles of We may Paul and these the most important. the same ideas have what must be accepted as conclusive Nor can there be any doubt that of occurring in the same order. Peter out of the sequence of thought and ideas come . marked diverpassage of Deuteronomy quoted with the same itself conclusive gences from the text of the LXX. xiii. n . iv. as is proved by is possible. the First Epistle of St. This is not in the version there may have been an earlier form of evidence thinking so . 19. and if it were. St Peter clearly influenced by In St. we have the same notes. Paul. St. x. been used for the they are adopted because they had already same supported by other This relation between the two Epistles is The same relation which pievails between independent evidence. as far as they go with the notice that these conclusions harmonize founder of the Roman view taken in § 3. while in Rom. yet it is quite conceivable character words and phrases in the Hebrews which are Pauline in this Epistle. Peter was not the to the Romans was Epistle the when it visited not had Church and conclusive In early church history arguments are rarely written of investigation and the even partial coincidence of different lines St.but it at least it in its turn quotes as we see while it quote who Fathers : .. book closelv connected with the its accounted another sufficiently and. for. the to written them being We cannot perhaps be quite certain as beino. adds greatly to the strength of each. Heb.Paul the language conduct. We a Roman Church. maxims for which he is largely indebted to St. but the current in fact there are strong grounds for Romans is hypothesis that the author of the Hebrews used the again notice that the Hebrews is certainly the simplest. . written early use in that Church. 30. 7 we have a broad the phraseology of that passage. 17 indebted to the Romans. For example.written from it. must be earlier than the Apostolic to the date of 1 Peler. the two the Epistle to the Romans is St. that St.lxxvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8- evidence. with acquaintance an from derived ma\ have been . Peter gives a series of out a thesis clearly and logically. of rules three merely Aves in St. and found to exist between it and the Epistle to the with the fact in that case the same hypothesis harmonizes best of The three Epistles are all connected with Rome one also in all probability two other the city. general principle laid down. as would be from Rome or Italy its indebtedness to this Epistle The two passages referred to are quoted below. xii. . in Rom. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews again was probably Rom.

iv. James we approach a much problem. x. Rom. St. 4'xei Kavxrjpa. eyu avTanoSucroo*. Svvarbs eon on b kirrjyyekTai Kal troirjaai. 19 epol eKSUrjais. Mayor in his edition of the Epistle of St. 77 8k SoKipi) kkniSa' 77 8k kkirh ov Karaiaxvvei. <S ttcLs b Kpivwv avTa kv & yap b Kpiveis rbv to. iva qre Tekeioi. 6 alTehco b 8k kv mo~Tei dvapii- pirjhkv 8iaKpivbp.ovi) 8oKip. 81b dvavokbyqros ft.. ^-^ -qpiepa eKSiK^aeojs dvTairo8wooj. 13 ov ydp 01 aKpoaral 8'acaioi irapa [t£] ®e£> dkk' ol irotrjral vupiov SiKaiwOrjOovrai. 20 els 8k ttjv kirayyekiav rov Qeov ov 8t€Kpi6rj rfj dmaria. dkkd KptTTjS. 12 itiarei Kalavij) /ca. otov . 2-4 ndaav xapdv rjyrjffaaOe Okiipeaiv. The When we pass to the Epistle of more difficult following are among the most important of these. b Karakakcuv d8ek<pov. avOpwrre Kpivets' Kp'lVOJV. 3-5 Kavxdup^Oa kv rats 77 James i. elf ores oti dkiif/is viro- ftovijv Kar epy d^trai. ekafiev xi. Karakakei vupiov. dvtveyKas 'laaaK tov vlbv avrov enl to Bvaiaar-qpiov epywv kbiKaiudr]. I novv kpovpiev eupr/Kerat Afipadp. ii. . for it is a theological as well as a literary question. The passages which resemble one another in the two Epistles are given at length by Prof. 22 yiveaOe 8k Troirjral Kuyov. The relation between it and the Epistle to the Romans has been often and hotly debated. * e °/ Deut. fjpiuiu Rom. tj 8k vnopovrj epyov Tekeiov kx^TW. \eyet Kvpios. veveKpoopievov (eKaToiTaerrjs veKpojffiv ttjs poppas' eh 8k ri)v I 77-07yekiav tov Qeov ov SieKpidrj ttj amGTiq. 77 Kpivaiv rbv d8e\(f)bv avrov. iv. we have not all his thought it necessary to repeat 1 instances : Rom. 17-21 ffrevo'e &eov tov Vf/epoiis. xciii. Sovs 8u£av ra> 06a).r)v.. James i. Kal prj pbvov aKpoaral irapakoyi^upevoi kavrovs. Rom. 77 8k vnop. Heb. erepov. moTuv qy/jaaro tov kirayyeika. Rom. xxxii.ci. yivojaKovres on to 8oKipiov vpwv ttjs marews Karepyd^erai vno pLov-qv. kyw dvTanoSwaco. Kal fxrjTpas TtKr]po(poprj9ils ttov iirapxcoi') . . ical ttjv pievov Sib Kal a<f> kvbs eyevvqdrjaaVy Kal ravra veveKpwpevov . Kal niOTei i]8r] Heb. who argues strongly in favour of the later date of the Romans. vupov ii. k £ James ii. p. II /*?} KarakaketTe dkkrjkwv. b irarrip ovk kp epy<uv kSiKaidoOrj.Ta(io)V ~S. 11. Kal Kp'ivei vupov el 8k vbpov Kpiveis. rbv irpoiraTOpa 77 pwv Kara adpica .: §8. Rom.(Vos' yap SiaKpivb- pievos eoiKf kKvSouvi Oakdaffrjs {opievcp Kal pim£op:evq>. dkk' eveSvvapwOr) rfj TTiarei. xii. aeavTuv Kara-npdaaeis yap James iv. dSek^oi. 19 koyiadpevos kyeipeiv on 6 Kal ex veKpwv Svvarbs Oeos. tov Qeov eKKexyrai. James i.] LITERARY HISTORY passages referred to are the following Karivavri ov kmfaonoiovvros tovs p. ovk el voiTjTi)s vopov. James. el yap 'Afipadp.r) lxxvii The Rom. on 77 dyditrj brav netpiapois TrepnrearjTe iroiKikois. 30 kpol eKdiKTjffis. dkk' kvebwapujuOrj rrj Trio ret. 35 reads kv T*l a<paky b irovs avruiv. 21 'APpadp. iv.ppa Svvapiiv teal eh anepparos kirel fcaTevoTjffe dadevqaas rfj rb kavrov aupa -napd Kaipuv rjkiKias. v.

James deals with the same controversy as does it that to the possibly be directed against St.ov. expressing an excessive scepticism. but these resemblances seem to us hardly close enough to be convincing. quoted with the same The variations either of which would form stronger evidence. Rom. and the The problem of literary priority of St. and in which certain questions early acquired prominence. It is quite possible that the Epistle of St. Paul or St.e\eoi p. to. 1. vii. if we turn to the polemical passages.. it is very difficult to find indebtedness is always a delicate one and writers of competence draw a definite objective standpoint In order to exactly opposite conclusions from the same facts. The contrast between aKpoarai and 73-0177™/ was not made by either St. 2-4 and in = James but these are not sufficient by them- selves to establish a case.ev ov rw vupw tov voos fiov. 23 is closest in iv. Paul's teaching or the teaching of St. expressions like ev rj^pa dpyrjs compared with ev fjpepa acpay^s (both occur in the O. evSvowpieOa S£ oirka rov (pcoTos.eva>v ev tois pieXeaiv vpwv rw ovrt ev tois p. James i. Ixxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS James fxa\oi rjdovuov iv. There is. [§ 8. any passages where we find the same order of thought (as in 1 Peter) or the same passage of the O. The two Epistles were written in the same small and growing community which had inherited or created a phraseology of its own. the phrase vopos Nor are there eXevdcpias might all have independent sources. Paul's followers. T(i 12 diroOoJixeOa o\iv epya tov ckutovs. nuXeixm /rat iroOev ovk evievdev. no marked resemblance in style in the controversial passage further than would be the necessary result of dealing with the same subject-matter. v. and it is equally probable that both alike may be dealing with the problem as it came before them for discussion or as it was inherited from the schools of the Rabbis (see further the note on p.T. xiii. . may even . Again. /rat alxpo. we may add.' But the controversy must have been carried on elsewhere than in these writings. . James for the first time metaphors like edr)o-avpi(fis. Rom. but there is no Romans. . justify our sceptical attitude we may point out that resemblances in phraseology between two Christian writers do not necessarily imply literary connexion.). 2^P\(ircoBeeTfpovv6pov tois fxtKeai pov. 102). uvTiarpa- ev vpiv t evop. There is nothing decisive to prove obligation on the part of either Epistle to the other or to prove that ' the priority of either. James cannot be proved. I iroOev . 3-5 = James i. Ik toiv ev Rom.T. We may be — resemblance Rom. we may admit Paul betrays a consciousness that Abraham had been cited as an example of works and endeavours to show that the word \oy[(opai is inconsistent with this.XwTi^ovTa pe ev t£> vupcv 777? dpLaprias vpwv twv o~t par evop. 21 atroOt pevoi vaaav pvncpiav k>u irfpiaadav na/cias kv irpavttjti bi^aaBe tov epcpvrov Xuyov rov Svvdpievov awcrai tcls if/vxas vpuvv.vii.

.. 25-27 neve? [c3j rj ra> . the discussions on irlans and diKaioavvT] (see p. and among them are undoubted quota- used tions from the Romans.T. . Cor. . pi6vq> Swa/iivy ml arfjaai ®cw aajTTjpi Tj/xwu. Corroborative evidence of this might be found in the desire he shows to make a collection of the letters of Ignatius. 8vva. d/xai/xovs . It is not so much that he quotes as that he can never break away from the circle of Apostolic ideas. If we turn to Ignatius' letters what will strike us is that the words and ideas of the Apostle have become incorporated with the mind of the writer. &(w. The references to it in Clement of Rome are numerous. may just be mentioned. One other book of the N. their writings have become subjects of discussion. lxiv. Phil.. in Eph. 2 Mart. and it is really impossible to maintain 1 Rom. it is difficult not to believe that he possessed and made use of a collection of the Pauline Epistles. We same type as these two xx . It Romans it is difficult to believe that they are quite independent. 8e . Polyc. d/j. If the doxology at the end of Jude be compared with that at the end of other. can go further than this. /JL€ya\ojnvv7].§ 8. He would-be more likely to do this if he already possessed collections of letters . xn. His Epistle is almost a cento of N. The books of the N.-Rom. Rom. 86£a els roiis aluvas. . Kparos Kal igovaict) rrpb iravrbs rov oISjvos Kal vvv zeal ds iravras tovs aiwvas. Cor. have given him his vocabulary and form the source of his thoughts. iii.T. Sid'lrjaov Xpio-rov rov Kvpiov 86 £ a. . rjfAUJv. 25 t<£ 8£ <pv\o£at v/xds unTaiarovs. 8ta Iijaov Xptarov. enter the sub-apostolic age the testimony to the use of the Epistle is full and ample. 2 As the quotations of Polycarp come from Eph. but the is Romans formed more probable that the concluding verses of a model which was widely adopted in the certainly i seem to find doxologies of the Clem.T... . The resemblance in form of the doxologies may be seen by comparing them with one Christian Church. Clement is already beginning to build up.rjf. vpas <tt rjpt£ai jxdvcp Jude 24. passages.nother. it is followed also in . however inadequately. The Apostles belong to an older generation. Bishop Lightfoot has well pointed out how he appears as reconciling and combining four different types of Apostolic teaching. lxv. 1 Tim. a Christian theology combining the teaching of the different writers of an earlier period. may be that they follow a common form derived from Jewish it doxologies. 20. Polycarp quotes more freely and more definitely. Gal. r. ..] LITERARY HISTORY Ixxix proof that either Epistle was written with a knowledge of the There are no resemblances in style sufficient to prove literary connexion. 147) show clearly that Clement When we We this Epistle at any rate as a theological authority... 2 Tim.

ias ttjv tiftas PXaocprjptiTat kv rois eOveaiv. pieoTovs <p9ovov.kvrj Sidvoia rjpaiv^ dvaOaXXd ds to OavpaGTov avrov (px's. Clem. as we are entitled to those of St. 51 avTiov rds dovvkTovs napSias. trovrjpiq. v(£iav. dXXa ical «araXaXids.r) XoyiffrjTai Kvpios afxapriav. epiSos. Epistle The following are quotations and reminiscences of the in Clement of Rom. tca/cia. dveXefjfiovas' oitivcs. . Rom. 24 to yap ovojxa tov Clem. kyicaTaXeiTTa)p. ovvtvSoicovaiv tols Siv . kmp. wore 6 avrnaoaopifvos ttj k£ovoiq Clem. Seo-iroTa. Qeov I k.atcdpios dvfjp w ov p. 61 (TV. Siv ol rrarepis.bs ovv ovrns knl tt)v Clem.r)v . f) ical km tt)v kitXeXeypkvovs vtto tov aKpofivoTiav . 6eocTvyeis. dovvdiTovs. Rome : 21 kffKOTio0r) r) acv- veros avTuv icapSia.virt prjcpaviav T€ teal dXa^oveiav. tSatcas ttjv k£ovoiav rf}s tHaoiXtias avTois Sid tov peyaXoirpeirovs ton avftcSivy-qrov tepdtovs aov. . Rom. Kal Rom. 47 were koX pXao-<pr)p.ev tx)v dyairrjv . <povov. 5 r) Xarpua knayyeXiai. first quarter ol the do that the Apostolic Fathers represent the the Romans at that time to Epistle the find we century second on Apostolic teaching. 35 diroppi\pavTes d(p' ndaav dSiKiav teal dvoplav.!£ avTov PaaiXets ical apxovres koi rjyovfxtvoi Kara tov 'lovSav. @€ov Si' ii. yovevoiv un(i9(Ts.ev t?i dprnpTiq. rd roiavra ol oti vpdooovTdS a£ioi Oavdrov tloiv.- Clem. rt ovv kpovfiev. Kadojs ykypairrai. 4. teal i£ Siv 6 Xpioros to Kara odpKa. 36 Sid tovtov r) davveros koKOTwp. Rom. kyivero kirl toxjs TT(pnop. ciais yap xiii. ovSk koTiv kv t£> OTopaTi ovtos 6 piaicapio p. dXa^ovas. ds to yiPwOKOVTas rjp. Rom. Zpeis. to SiKaioo^a tov &eov kmyvovTes. 33 rt ovv TToiT\aoj\itv. dX\a fcal ol ovvevSoicovvTes avrois. ov povov avrd iroiovoiv. keptvpeTas kokuiv. fir) ha r) \dpis <poi /cat Clem. tcaKorjdeias SoXovs. oovtcs OTvyrjTol tS> Oea) vnapxovo-iv ov p.lxxx EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS L§8. ica nor] d(ias." o 6 paicapio p. kmcpipeoOai to> ovopari Kvp'wv Sid v fieri pav deppoavvrjv. treated as a standard authority and taking its place in a collection of Pauline letters. that the Ignatian letters were formed into one collection before Assuming then. al ok ovaai biro ®cov T(Taypkvai eloiv. 29 ireirXrjpojpivovs iracrr) dSiiciq.6vov Sk ol irpdo aovTis avra. . vireprjipdvovs. Clem.ds ttjv vtto oov ai/Tois 5e8op. prj- dapious rovro kdoai 6 SeanuTijs k(p' Tjpiv 76 yivrjdrjvai. npaaoovaw.kva>p. trXcove^iq. us avTov SoXos.kpT]v Su£av ical . Paul had been. dSeXdpyrjocopifv and tt}s dyaOoirodas . S6Xov. 2 irdaa tpvxr) k£ovhTtipi\ovoais viroTaaakoOoJ' ov tiTiv (tovoia d jut) vttu Qtov. i. doTopyovs. ical al ix.t.apTiac p. widely read. Rom. ipiQvpiauovs tc ical kavruiv irXeoT€ nai TaXaXovs. iv. to oK\r]pvv07Jvai Sid Clem.6eoOTvyiav. 7 " Maieapioi Stv d<pkQr)oav al dvopiai teal £>v kireKa\v(p0T]<Tav at afxapriai' ov pr) 3> 8 piaicapios dvr)p XoyiorjTai Kvpios dpapTiav.X.1 TavTa yap ol vpaad<piXo£€v'iav. I.ipiOvpi eras. 50 NLandpioi Siv d<j>kQr\aav al dvopiiai ical Siv kiracaXv(f>9r)0-av al ap. dawetovs. 32 !£ avrov yap lepeis ical AeviTai -ndvTCS ol XtiTovpyoiiPTts tS> ®eov k£ avTov 6 QvaiaaTr\plcx> tov Kvpios 'Irjaovs to Kara aapna. ica. icevoSo£iav re ko. i. ykvoiro. iiPpioids. irXeovdarj vi.

Kal ndvras i/pas avrw kv 6/xoioTqri thai.eis kv KaivorrjT 1 vi. T. ^ojr)s irfpLnaTrjawpiiV. The Rom. to £r}v avrov ovk (otiv kv fjp.a 6s Kal qpas roiis marcvovras aitrai ovtcos tytpti o narfjp avrov kv X.). I ov evxopai KaroL 'I. 10 rfj <piXa5eX<plq dXXrjXovs tpiXoOTopyoi.kvoi ds oIko&eov -narpos.. 5 St' ov kdv fifj avOaiperais ex^Mc to urroOavetv ds to avrov nd6os. 24. vii. vpRs dyanqv.T. ol uvaarpafpkvres kv naXaiois Trpa. Rom. alterutri Domini mansuetudinem praestolentes. opioQivros vlov ®€ov Swapm. diligentes invicem. kvav- hk avOiGTtjKoTes kavrois xf/ovrai. Trail. Cf. vi.yp. xiii. 6 ds tv nov acpOapoias. 27 nov ovv 17 Eph. 8 6 yap ayanaiv rbv trepov vup.1v. pikvwv avvtTwv (Close to a quotation of Cor. 13 Kal tcL pikXrj vptSiv Pol. 3 tov yevop.iv. kv kcuv6tt)T' irvevpLaTOs ttjti ypaptfiaros. 9 /card to op.: : §8-] rrj LITERARY HISTORY oi rifxfjv lxxxi p. I.ov vtirXrjpuKtv «. x wP ls T ° Sioaxv v Rom. Rom.) Rom. ov dXrjOa'bv {771/ ovk ixop-tv. following resemblances occur in the Epistle of Polycarp vi.a teal 0vvap. Rom. Eph. Trail. amatores 10 fraternitatis Pol. fiaaiXda ttoois.rjv kyeipavTos avrov narpos avrov. Rom.v ItKtuoavvtjS' 6 yap (x wv dydrrriv paKpav koTiv ndorp apaprius.ds teal oi naXaio- Mag. els SiKaioavvrjs. . capita.aaiv ds KaivurrjTa kXnifios Rom.rj dXXrjXovs TrpoijyovfKvoi. 3 kdv yap rts tovtojv kvrbs y irenXr) paiKfv kvro. 9 8s Kal dXr)6ws -qyepOrj and tov VtKpUIV. 6 wore oovXeveiv r)p. vlov ®eov Kara 6iXrjp. xiii. 5 to axnb (ppovtiv kv tcaTcL X. Eph. 19 ©eoG uvOpwnivas cpavtpovptvov (is icaivorrjra didiov £a)r)s. 17 ov tov 0eou fipuicris yap kanv 7) Kal Trail. Mag. Sop.kvov Ik ankpkv Aa&lS Kara aapKa. 17 ds vvnov 6 8 a XV s 1 - bv vapfdodrjre Mng. Rom. Itf viii.oiojp. 8 ^both quote O. Rom. xii. nullum despicientes. xiv. 4 onXtcrupLfOa tois rrjs onKois onXa biKaiocvvrjs. 12 kvSvawpieOa 5k t& onXa tov (poxros.A. Rom. rjToipiaaev 23 o-tcevr) kXkovs h npods do£av.r]8kv tov ®tov Siarayrj avOtarrjKev Kpip. Eph.'r. Kal Rom. 4 ovtoj viii. iii. aWrjXois xv. 9 rjXOov. Rom. Pol. 29. fxaros i. 18 rrvv . 1 aXr]6Jl)s ovra (K yivovs Aa&lt) Kara. real r)p. 20. ix. Rom. vi. References in the letters of Ignatius are the following tov Rom. Trail. X. rrj Tip. 'I. ii. in veritate sociati.a vnoraaaeaOai avrois. \f)- Tiovpiivovs tw OtXrjfiaTi aov. 9 nporjroipao'p. vtKpwv. 5 . KavxV aiS l Smyr. 17. 11 6 kyeipas X. 'I. KavxV <Jls 1 T^ v ^*yoi. 2 ov yap Qpoopidrav Kal tiotSjv doiv Oiclkovoi.

SiKaioi tioi irapa to> 0€q). 14 and viii. ix.*i . i. 27-29 = Dial. v. EPISTLE TO IO TO) TTCLvres f$7] THE ROMANS Pol. x. 64. while the crude character of the Christology would suggest a considerably earlier date. . vop. 22 is exceedingly curious and interesting.ov diicaioi Test. . 20-26 Ibid. find quotations from the Epistle in writings ascribed to the Naassenes 5 the Valentinians of the Italian school 6 and to Basileides 7 In the last writer the use made of Rom. Hipp.pi. kavTov yov It is Scuerei 2 [t<£ ©€&] hardly worth while to give evidence in detail from later find distinct reminiscences of the Romans in Aristides and in Justin Martyr 4 Very interesting also is the evidence of the heretical writers quoted by Hippolytus in the Refutatio omnium haeresium it would of course be of greater value if we could fix with certainty the date of the documents he makes use of. viii. 64-140. . 18 koi ovvtjs 'iorai W avroh. fv i. writings of St. Rom. (3) The book is probably older than the time of Teriullian. 3 = Dial. Apol. 18 = 7 40 Rom.— lxxxii Rom. vii. 1 tov Xpiorov Western and Syrian. @ew om. xiv. 4 oi yap ayaOol dvSpes . 5 i. 19. . 19. 23 . . viii. 7. p. Ibid.. iii. but it may be noticed here (1) That the writer makes use of a considerable number of books of the N. irvevpa ayiw. 39. 6 ko. 13. 3 = Dial.. ix. We . The series of quotations appended from the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs can hardly be explained on any other hypothesis than that the writer was closely acquainted with the Epistle to the Romans. 9-10 = Rom. [§ 8. Rom. 22. 27 . This is not the place to enter into the various critical questions which have been or ought to be raised concerning that work.. The resemblances are not confined to the authors. . 13. 25. 75 = Rom. iravras ot? OTTJOOfXtOa (JLCLTITOV yap irapa1 06OU irtpl 3 . it.17 = Dial. 14. Qvvnp. 11. Aser. 80 = Rom. 32. p. ii. p. ibid. . cvvijs. vi. 1 Rom. 2 3 * B 4 D F G. (2) That the quotations occur over a very considerable portion of the book. 47 Dial. 370. 36. v. We . and in passages which might be supposed to belong to older works. Ref. Test. - Dial. both in passages omitted in some MSS. ii. 44 .1 irapa- OTTjVai Kal T<£ (Hf/paTl virtp TOV ~X. . 55. Rom. iv. pp. tKaaTov kavTov yov 12 apt \ovv\ Wkclotos rjpajv dovvai.OTOV. Rom. 4 rod opioOevros viov 0eoO Kara irvsvpa dyicu13 oi yap 01 ixpoaral irapa tw 0«a5. T. Rom. Paul. = 6 7 Rom. dnoSdjoti to. xi. 76 m Rom. v. Levi. Rom. 2. 368. 138. If we turn to another direction we find interesting evidence of a kind which has not as yet been fully considered or estimated. 286. BF G. .

eidpearov rr)v bo-pr)v Test. xii. xiii. Rom. 8 Kal Svo kvroXai ye vwvrai kv Ta£ei avrwv. (7) Laodic. Rom. 140) that we obtain Romans was one of the ten Epistles our first direct evidence. So far we have had no direct citation from the Epistle by name. 5 cx 0VT(s elpTJVTjS. neither they nor Polycarp. Rom. to" Test. v/xaiv. . as to the Epistles we find in our oldest MSS. dfxdpTiav irapexovaiv. Thess. Benj. dWd v'uca kv tw dya0w to" kokok. . Paul. It is with Marcion (c. Test. (rrpbs pwpmovs) implies that these Such a title would not be had formed part of a collection. Test. Rom. dyiav. expressly mentions Romans.. that he gives the same short that The titles very fact. 20 6 Sk &ebs ttjs elpfjvrjs ovvt piif/ei rbv XaTavdv virb tovs noSas Vfxwv kv rdx«. dyadonotwv Rom.. Aser. 33 b St Qebs ttjs Test. tw dyanwai t6v ®ebv irdvra avvepyet els dyaOov. Rom. v.] Rom. Sk \a&ovoa dpaprias tl pr) diiapria Teipydaaro kv tpol kvToKijs Kaudaav kmOvpiiav. sufficient unless the books were included in a collection which had In the Apostolicon of Marcion the a distinguishing title of its own.. Although Clement refers expressly to the First Epistle to the Corinthians. tt)s Sym... Dan. Rom. SeStKaiajTai dnb vii. 12 dno6wf-ie6a ovv epya tov okotovs.. t Se fis drifxiav. xii. Kaipbv vnep TT) daefiuiv aTToOavtiTai. d/xapTca. avvtt)v KecpaKty tov SpaKovros St' vSaros. (6) 2 Ephes. Rom. (2)1 Cor. ovtw Kal b Kvpios Test. 4 dyaOoiroiwv . Neph. I Trapaarrjaai rd awpara Karpeiav vfiwv Ovaiav £wo~av. tw ©fa). viii. rroaov \OJpeT. Rom. Zahn points out. 28 oiSa p. nor in fact any other writer. The origin of this i% . tlci' Kal Neph. (5) 1 Thess. he included in his Aposlolicon.. Levi.§8. ix. vi. and Ignatius may refer to an Epislle to the Ephesians. doefiujv dtreOave. Tpi@wv Test. Sk Test. 2 1 vikw virb tov tca/cov.. xvi. (4) Rom. vnkp fin&v daOevwv eri Kara. 4 oi dvOpwrroi dmaTovvTes reus dSiKtais. 2 ovtws oiSk kv o-k6t*i SvvrjaeaQe iroifjaai epya <pwr6s. elprjvrjs xv.ev St on to is Test. Levi 3 vpoa<pepovoi Se Kvpiw eiiwSias XoyiKr)v Kal aval- \oyiKr)v pf) jxaKTOv irfoo~(popdv. rbv &ebv ttjs nerd irdvTwv vpwv. Neph. 4 ovtws b vikS. 6 onus SutaiojQSi ditb tojv \pvx&v vpwv. (9) Phil. (10) Philem. = (3) 2 Cor.. b dyanwvTi tov &tbv avvepyei. 7 Kal kv T)avx'iq. Km rrpbs avrbv (pepei TtrjXbv. ascribing it directly to St. TO KaKOV. kvbvawpeOa ra oirXa tov <Pcotos. Ik tov avnoifjaai o piev (Is nptrjv toC (pvpapuiTos OKevos. Benj. (8) Col. tov nvevpaTos iroiet to awpa. €TTlfieVOJpeV b kmpevovo~iv kv vi. 2 KaOws yap b Kt papevs to ffKevos. Nor have we any reason to think that he originated the idea of making a collection of the Pauline Epistles. 8 d>popfXT)v Sid ttjs d^aprias. oiSe rrpbs bptoiwaiv Rom. Epistles were arranged in the following order: (1) Gal. t) 7 yap ttjs dnoOavwv Test. LITERARY HISTORY 6 lxxxiii 3 dvapdpTrjTos en yap Xpiarbs ovtojv Test. Benj. 21 i) ovk ?x« k£ovalav Kepapevs tov tttjXov.

5-xi. his reading has influenced our MSS. and here we find that there is a very marked Speaking roughly the earlier lists all place variation in the order. St. But two further questions remain statements must be admitted. ad Colossenses (quarta). again can we doubt that he omitted and altered short passages in For instance. whilst later it as for example the Canon of the received text place at the beginning. x. see Sanday. Another interestWe need ing point is the text of the Epistles used by Marcion. 32: xv. 24). ad Philippenses (tertia). 1-33. : On Harnaek's theory that the Pauline Epistles had at the close of the second century less canonical authority than the Gospels. while the four Epistles of the Captivity are grouped together at the conclusion. and has Marcion's text influenced the variations of our MSS. so is undoubted. 31-iv. not stop to discuss the question whether the charge against Marcion That he did of excising large portions of the Epistles is correct. arrangement we cannot conjecture with any certainty be noted that the Epistle placed first —the Galatians — . ad Romanos [septima). Nor i. Both these x.lxxxiv EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 8. Paul is most prominent. 3 he seems to have read dyvoovvres yap t6v Qe6v. We One more question remains to be discussed Paul's Epistles. p. 1. 16 (see the notes. sequens prodecessoris sui Iohannis ordinem. Paul were early divided and into two groups. 2. but the it may is one on judaism of which Marcion primarily rested his case and in which the antiSt. — its place in the collection of St. From the time of Irenaeus onwards we have full and complete citations in The Epistle is recognized as being by all the Church writers. and is a groundwork of Christian theology.. According to the . in order to harmonize the teaching with his own. 19-ii. Muratorian fragment on the Canon the Epistles of St. is looked upon as canonical *. Romans at the end of the collection. Can we in any case arrive at the text of the Epistles used by Marcion. 20. ad Nor does this Thessalofiicenses [sexto). Bampton ' Lectures. pp. those to churches and those to individuals this division permanently influenced the arrangement in the Canon. It is with the former group only that we are concerned. 66. For the earlier list our principal evidence is the Muratorian fragment on the Canon cum ipse beatus apostolus Paulus. In the Romans particularly he omitted chaps. iii. or does he preserve an early : variation or even the original text ? need not pursue the history of the Epistle further.-xvi. ad Galatas (quinla). Paul. ix. the Epistle to the lists. notinisi nominatim septem ecclesiis scribat or dine tali: ad Corifithios {prima). . ad Ephesios [secunda). ? An interesting reading from this point of view is the omisIs this a case where sion of irpa>Tov in i. 25. accounting of course incidentally for the varying place occupied by the Epistle to the Hebrews.

p. order later The that of all writers from the fourth century onwards. Geschichte. This widespread testimony implies an early date. variety of opinion. Phil. During the first quarter of the second century we find it forming part of a collection of Pauline Epistles used by the principal Church writers of that time in Antioch.) is (Rom. of all Greek MSS. which he cites in support of his theory... St. Rom. and of certain small variations which do not affect the point under discussion.. almost every Christian writer of the early and second century makes use of it. it is accepted at the present day by Harnack. in Rome. The survey which has been given of the literary history of the Epistle to in favour of its the Romans makes it perfectly clear that the external evidence Setting aside early date is not only relatively but absolutely very strong. by the end it appears to be definitely accepted as canonical. as definitely as by those who are usually classed as conservative.. will 1 hardly prove as much as he wishes To sum up briefly. During the first century the Epistle to the Romans was known and used in Rome and perhaps elsewhere. ii. it arose from the fact that the collection of Pauline Epistles was first made at Corinth. § 9. of haps found . with the exception of changes caused by the insertion of the Epistle to the Hebrews. But the arrangement is clearly not traditional. are almost quotations when Christian literature becomes extensive. 47. the strong So Epistle. longer. . and. Paul. It is roughly based on the length of the Epistles. Zahn's origin of the early order is by no means clear. The same place apparently was occupied by Romans in the collection used by Tertullian. It 1 On this subject see Zahn. probably in that of Cyprian. by Hilgenfeld. The conjecture. an abbreviated form in Marcion's Apostolicon. Integrity of the Epistle. who perin his copy of the Epistles Corinthians standing first. and in consequence by all members critics of every of the Tubingen school. and of all MSS. it was contained in Marcion's canon. Gal. probably also By the middle of that century it had been included in in Corinth. whole the numerous enough to enable us to reconstruct marks of authenticity that the is this evidence and so clear are the internal shall speak Epistle (with the exception of the last two chapters of which we almost universally admitted to be a genuine work of presently) has been was accepted as such by Baur. that while Clem.] INTEGRITY lxxxv stand alone. Col.§ 9. It is suggested that it influenced the order of Marcion. Lipsius.. part of the doubtful quotations.. Thess. is ingenious but not conclusive.. &c. 344. while the position of Romans at the end may be implied in l a passage of Origen Cor. in Smyrna. . Eph. Weizsacker. the Romans coming first as being the Versions. Holtzmann.

1805. notably Loman and Steck. Christianity itself was the embodiment of certain Jewish ideas. Philipper und Kolosser. A. Seneca. pp. All alike are he says built up under the influence of 2 Corinthians. Weisse (C. arranging them in the following order: Romans. Ed. He interprets xvi. His example has been followed with greater indiscrec tness by Pierson and Naber (1886). Michelsen (1886). 306-312. Van Manen (1891). The Dissonance of the four generally received Evanexamined.). and he finds passages in the Romans borrowed from Philo. 90). To this general acceptance there have been few exceptions. of Christianity would demand a miracle to account for its history a statement which we need not trouble ourselves to refute. 1792. Laceram condiiionem Novi Testamenli exhibentia. Theologisch Tijdschrift. Amstelodami. Bruno Bauer. These were made use of by a certain Paulus Episcopus.lxxxvi EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. . 1886. The arguments on which he relied are mainly historical. H. Quaestiones Paulinae. and in the case of the Romans the inconsistency of the various sections with one another the differences of opinion which had arisen with regard to the composition of the Roman Church prove (he argues) that there is no clear historical situation implied 3 Steck (1888) has devoted himself primarily to the Epistle to the Galatians which he condemns as inconsistent with the Acts of the Apostles. Kritik der pauL Brief Chris tus und die Casaren.372. . 257-261. Paul should have known such a number of persons in Rome. 4 Steck (Rudolf). 13 literally. who in addition to certain more reasonable theories with regard to the concluding chapters. Equally impossible is it that St. Voelter (1889. 6 Verisimilia. and Jewish Apocryphal works to which he assigns a late date such as the Assumptio Ajosis and 4 Ezra 4 Akin to these theories which deny completely the genuineness of the Epistle. but he did not write the Epistles which bear That he should have done so at such an early peiiod in the history his name. Galatians. St. Berlin. Pierson. Naber. Romer. Paul was a real person who lived at the time usually ascribed to him. 1882. professed to be able to distinguish by the evidence of style the genuine from the interpolated portions of the Epistle ». P. who produced a large number of apparently fiagmentary works distinguished by their lofty religious tone. are similar ones also having their origin for the most part in Holland. e. Earliest of these was Weisse (1867). 5 . pp. 1 Corinthians. Ed. D. 2. Loman ^1882) denied the historical reality of Christ. Jewish and Heathen writers. or that Aquila and Priscilla should have been there at this time. 22 must have been written after the l The same thesis was maintained by Bruno Bauer 2 and fall of Jerusalem has bten revived at the present day by certain Dutch and Swiss theologians. All alike he puts in the second century. . Pierson and Naber 6 basing their theory on some slight allusions in Josephus. 1883. which find large interpolations in our present text and profess to distinguish different recensions. Loman's arguments appear to be the silence of the Acts. 12. 1867.\ Beitrage zur Kritik der Paulinischen Brief e an die Galaler. Leipzig. and as dependent upon the other leading Epistles. 1. He thinks that xi. The earliest writer who denied the genuineness of the Epistle appears to have been the Englishman Evanson (1792). . 1888. and asks why the aged mother of the Apostle should have wandered to Rome. The Epistle implies the existence of a Church in Rome. A. Der Galaterbrief nach seiner Echtheit untersneht. et S. a Christian who incorporated them . — — . but we know from the Acts that no such Church existed. 21. and considered that all the Pauline Epistles dated from the second century. (A. 3 Loman 1886. 1 gelists 2 Evanson (Edward). 1852. consider that there existed about the beginning of the Christian era a school of elevated Jewish thinkers. but he incidentally examines these also. 15.

2 its Christology is primitive. 1-20. The basis of ch. then the study of There is no criterion of style or of language Christian history would be iutile. la. 1890. 2 Michelsen basing his theory to a certain extent on the phenomena of the last two chapters considered that towards the end of the second century three recensions of the Epistle were in existence. He begins with the foolish question ot ver. criticism. Epistle according to him i. 4 Van Manen (W. and vi. pp. p. 265 ff. has been somewhat tedious work enumerating these theories. vv. which will seem probably to most readers hardly worth while repeating. 1. (except v. 14. 5. 20 (except ii. Op. 1889. 7-25 viii.mid. i-xiv and xvi. 2 a fourth for xv. I. for basing his Van Manen 4 is distinguished for his vigorous attacks on his predecessors and own theory of interpolations on a reconstruction of the Marcionite . . 20. x xiv. 3-39. a seventh 14.. text It which he holds to be original. and we should be compelled to make use of a number of writings which we could not If the documents are not trustworthy. Theologisch Tijdschrift. De brief aan de Komeinen. 3 to ver. ib-4. the Western ch. a fifth for xvi. The only conclusion that we can arrive at is that if early Christian documents have been systematically tampered with in a manner which would justify any one of these theoiies. free from any theory of pre-existence or of two natures. xi . 70 was a determined Antinomian. To the first interpolator we owe i. 451-533.. 13. so subjective and arbitrary is the whole criticism. 15 . 24.. Volter's theory is more elaborate. 8-17. 11. p. and Paulus II. diiocdufxari in ver.'. Here the Christology is different. and it may be worth while to conclude this subject by pointing out certain reasons which enable us to feel confident in most at any rate of tne documents of early Christianity. a sixth for xvi. for xvi. Michelsen (J1887. The original contained the following portions of the Epistle.] in letters INTEGRITY lxxxvi. 25-27.6. undertakes to distinguish. 20. Itidem odoramur manum eius ver. To 1-6 ix. 14. which enables us to distinguish a document from the interpolations. But such a feeling of distrust is not necessary. i4-. 21 — is trie pre-existent Son of . If we omit rd. i. This writer who worked about the year who could not see anything but evil in the A third interpolator is responsible for vii. 7-13. Theologisch Tijdschrift. An examination of their treatment of a single chapter may be appended. C). i-xvi. 1891. . . are the work of this interpolator who spoiled the Jewish fragment. viii. 11). vi. the Marcionite ch. pp. 15 1 the second interpolator — we owe 6. 2 1 H - . vi is a Jewish fragment {admoJum memorabile) which extends from ver. 7 . This fragment Paulus Episcopus treated in his usual manner.. . 1887. Christ iii. 18. He added interpolations in ver. Law. Galaterbrief. 14. 2 which shows that he does not understand the argument that follows. Hauptbriefe. God. neither is our either trust or criticize. 14. This bears all the marks of originality xv. 139-143* A -)> Theologisch Tijdschrift. Leiden. 14. . 82-404. ii. §». 4. 3 Voelter (DanieP. and Die ComDer Rimer. 13. sed novimus tws vivere K xer. v. xv. The redactor who put together these recensions was however also responsible for a considerable number of interpolations which Michelsen : i 1 . iii. vi. 15): xii. vii. . 11-23 w tn the exception apparently of ver. 6 the difficulty in it vanishes. 1886. 372 ff. . The Eastern containing ch. position der paul. Marriotts Brief van Paulus aan de Galaties. Ver 8 again 'is feeble and therefore was the work of Paulus Episcopus non enim credimus nos esse vicluros. 15). pp. i-xiv. 24. 5. v. 14 15 which have been misplaced. 25-27. cit. and in these verses adapts what has preceded to the uses of the Church It will probably not be thought necessary to pursue this subject further. 473 ff. 21-23. 163 ff. xiii xvi. 25. iv. which he wrote in order to make up tor his own poverty of religious and philosophical ideas.

the variety. not solitary. 2 and the argument that follows. and influenced almost all subsequent documents the early character of the texts preserved to us in MSS. happened in other cases where we have little or no information? Now in dealing with a document which has come down to us in a single MS. xv. we have so many authorities going back independently to such an early period. he will see how each sentence leads on to the next. that suggests virepeirepiaatvafv. and it is necessary to be cautious in arguing from a single passage in a text which may have been interpolated. . kirXeovaotv). vi. or on any slight traditional evidence this possibility must always be considered. which are difficult . May we not then expect the same to have exactly the same characteristics. 10. and we shall see shortly that one displacement in the lext. there is almost always a verbal connexion. For the most part there is a clear and definite argument. the first part of v. . Those who doubted the genuineness of the Armenian fragment of Aristides for example. where the question of interpolation has been carefully examined. on the grounds that. Paul passes for a time to a side issue there is a subtle connexion in thought as in words which would certainly escape an interpolator's observation. and may have been very early. but the connexion of sin and death clearly suggests the words of ver.. has The number. The obvious examples are the Ignatian letters. If to these arguments we add the external evidence which is given in detail above.it contained the word Theotokos. For instance. Paul present for the most part a definite and compact literary unit. although the style of St. 20. v and the beginning of ch. Paul is certainly not text. almost the whole of the Apocryphal literature has undergone the same process so have the Acts of the Saints so has the Didache for example when included in the Apostolic Constitutions. but it is surely very gratuitous to imagine that everything which is genuine is easy. . When St. and even where the logical continuity is broken there is always a connexion either in thought or words. second line of argument which is used in favour of interpolation theories No doubt there are passages is the difficulty and obscurity of some passages. to change the order of his thoughts. and if any one will take the trouble to go carefully through the end of ch. is a guarantee that a text formed on critical methods represents within very narrow limits the work as it left its author's hands. The Epibtles of St. But in the case of St. It has been pointed out that interpolation theories are not as absurd as they might prima facie be held to be.lxxxviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. or version. to leap over intermediate steps in his argument. 1 . The same process may be worked out through the whole Epistle. Paul's Epistles must have separated as early as the beginning of the second century . The whole tendency of textual criticism is to prove that it is the custom of redactors' or 'correctors' or interpolators' to produce a text which is always superficially at any rate more easy than the genuine But on the other side. A ' ' . leads on immediately to the second (nXfovaari . and Fathers. which is omitted by some of these critics. that it is most improbable that any important variation in the text could escape our knowledge. Nor are we without evidence of the phenomenon of the Western text presents interpolations in the N. . T. 20. Paul we may go further. which must have been early. This has been pointed out in the notes on xi. The possibility of the commentaries which have been written proves conclusively the improbability of theories implying a wide element of interpolation. for we have instances of the process actually But these are taking place. . always perfectly smooth although he certainly is liable to be carried away by a side issue. T. The different lines of text in St. for that word as was suspected by many has now been shown to have been interpolated. yet no serious commentators of whatever school would doubt that there is a strong sustained argument running through the whole Epistle. we may feel reasonably confident that the historical conditions under . have been proved to be wrong. Versions. then comes irKtovaor) in vi. But in the case of the N. Even where there is a break in the argument.

In L minusc. plus quam 200. 12 .-lat. of all to enumerate these facts: i. 24. vols.-lat. d. Boh. both in the Greek and Latin text (F is here defective). ovre kv rp kfryq \u ovre kv tw 47 tip. and one by Dr. of margin in the adds 7 to kv 'Pa//*r. Hort. codd. attest the omission by placing the Benediction alter ver.-Damasc. and a careful examination of them and of the theories suggested to We explain (i) them is necessary 9 . codd. Hard. a space being left in F Indirectly D and Sedulius also in the Greek corresponding to these verses. 287-374. Carl Clemen. it is inserted in both places. Moreo er the cursive ver. ap. In Aeth. chap.. we might ascribe it to this might be sufficient the delinquencies of a single scribe. In 5. Chrys. 5). xiv. we must accept it as an existing variation supported by slight evidence. def Vulg. by Dr. and that very probably his excision of the words may have influenced the omission in Western authoiilies. g. flicting. but it may be doubtful if the latter is correct in his attempt to evidence is slight. explained AP . In reviewing this evidence it becomes clear (i) that the weight of good authority is in favour of placing this doxology at the end of the Epistle. a transposition which would be made (see below) owing to that verse being in these copies at the end of the Epistle. explain away the If it occurred only in one place it arose simply through transcriptional error. ap. b. Orig. Jo. In Fe r G codd. is made all the more striking by the existence of certain variations in the text chapters of two and certain facts reported on tradition with regard to the last These facts are somewhat complex and to a certain extent conthe Epistle. a. The leading discussion on the last two chapters of the Romans is confirst tained in three papers. it occurs at the end of chap.. pp. i33. The A express our obligations. Einheitlichkeit der Paulinischen Brief 1 The English Knowling. of (2) There is considerable variation in existing MSS. xiv and there only. Hieron. c. Lightfoot attempted to find corroborative evidence for otjto) iMrquovevu. Ambrstr. and there NBCDE only.-lat. probably earlier than the time of Origen. ii. — critics in reader will find a very full account of this Dutch school of verv Witness of the Epistles. (iii) That the evidence for complete omission goes back to Marion. two by Bp. Lightfoot. codd. Pelagius it occurs at the end of chap. 25-27).. if it occurred only in one MS.2 43Die careful compilation of the results arrived at is given by Dr. Pesh. and that f is taken direct from the Vulgate. Marcion {vide infra) it is It may be noted that G leaves a blank space at the end of entirely omitted. Hort in published in the Journal of Philology. demand an explanation.. minusc. as it is. concerning the place the final doxology (xvi. ap. and to them we must refer any who wish for further information. this'reading in Origen. although we is early. but it is hardly likely that The variation.§»•] INTEGRITY lxxxix which the Epistle has come clown to us make the theories of this new school l of critics untenable . 7 and 15 are omitted by the bilingual MS. pp. xvi. {in E| h. iii. and which must be (ii) That the variation in position— a variation there only. Orig. but evidence sufficiently good to It will be convenient first The words kv 'Po>/«? in G . To both these works we must e. and since reprinted Lightfoot. iii. Biblical Essays. Orig. can never have complete confidence in Rufinus' translation. have laid great stress on the complete absence of any textual justificaThis absence tions for any of the theories which have been so far noticed. pattc. Theodrt. and in the reading That he is wrong in doing so seems to be shown of D kv dyaiTT) for ayairrjTois. 17 Arm. in the writer cited as Ambrosiaster.

vii. a quo Scripturae Evangelicae atqne Apostolicae interpolate sunt. this is followed by the rifty-first and last section. some critics have discovered a certain amount of significance in two other points.XC (3) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. 5. xiv.' He applies the words to the Doxology alone. Some further evidence has been brought forward suggesting that an edition of the Epistle was in circulation which omitted the last two chapters. the last two chapters were omitted. states that they occur in clausula of the Epistle. 1. id est in his quae non sunt a Marcione tether at a. ut nunc est positum. The argument is not conclusive but the words probably imply that in Marcion's copy of the Epistle. nor is the attempt made by Hort to emend it at all successful. 10). quern supra diximus hoc est : omne autem quod non est ex ride. Adv. Origen Caput hoc Marcion. ubi scriptum est: orane autem quod nun est ex fide. The argument however is of little value. Hence chaps. int. An argument of greater weight is found in certain systems of capitulations in MSS. xv and xvi. But we have other evidence for Marcion's text Tertullian. and the fiftieth section is described thus De periculo contristante fratrem suum esca sua.' at xiv. but with this change the words that follow become quite meaningless usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit ca. : : . These two witnesses make it almost certain that Marcion omitted not only the doxology but the whole of the last two chapters. ed. in nonnullis etcnim codicibus post eum locum. There is very considerable evidence that Marcion omitted the whole of two chapters. beginning with the twenty-fourth at ix. In the Codex Fuldcnsis there are given in the table of contents fifty-one sections of these the first twenty-three include the whole Epistle up to the end of chap. &c. continent. et non solum hoc. and then added the remainder from where he could get them in order to make up what he felt to be the right number of fifty. hoc ipsum caput diverse positum invenimus. Alii vero codices in fine id. peccatum est: statim coherens habetur : ti autem.i : only apply to the whole of the two chapters. It is pointed out that Tertullian. a. This system appears to have prevailed very widely. de hac epistola penittis abstulit . Marcion. Then follow the last twenty-eight sections of the Amiatine system. Lastly. and translating and not only here but also. et quod non sit regnum Dei esca et potus sed iustitia et pax et gaudium in Spiritu Sancto . Lomm. ix-xiv are described twice. In aliis vero exemplaribus. whatever reason we may give for the phenomenon. post passionem vero ipsius revelato. qui polens est the last : vos confiimare. scd et ab eo loco. Ruf.one. Marc. and probably Cyprian never quote from these last two chapters.. b. He reads in for ab. 4. The chapters were not quoted because there was little or nothing in them to quote.) x. if not in all those known to Tertullian. of the Vulgate. b. Irenaeus. which is described as De mysterio Domini ante passionem in silentio habito. The changes in the text are slight and might be justified. ' quite to the end. In Codex Amiatinus the table of contents gives fifty-one sections. 453. peocatum est: usque ad finem cuncta dissecuit. and then emends hoc into hie reading et non solum hie sed et in eo loco. vol. This extract is quite precise. Both these systems seem to exclude the last two chapters. having for this the support of a Paris MS. p. 43. because the same may be said of 1 Cor. xvi. writes a. 14. If Origen meant the doxology alone they would be quite pointless. 23 'he cut out everything . quoting the words tribunal Christi (xiv. v. The obvious deduction is that this system was drawn up for a copy which omitted the greater part at any rate of chaps. the last sentence being headed Quod fideles Dei non debeant invicem iudicare cum unusquisque secundum regulas mandatorum ipse se debeat divitio iudicio praeparare ut ante tribunal Dei sine confusione possit operum steorum praestare rationem. The scribe seems to have had before him an otherwise unrecorded system which only embraced fourteen chapters.

: 1 ' St. xv is supposed to represent. 7-13 the Apostle connects the special subject of which he has been treating with the general condition of the Church. Pourquoi ur. The significance of this in corroborating the existence of an early text which omitted the doxology has been pointed out otherwise these verses will not support the deductions made from them by R R TR Renan. faussaiie aurait-il invente de si insignificants details? Pourquoi aurait-il ajoutt a l'ouvrage sacre une liste de noms propres 2 ? '. T. His arguments have been noticed (so far as seemed necessary) in the commentary. evidence which might have been the strongest support of his theory. The above. This opinion was held by Baur 1 . a conclusion of the Epistle. To attempt to enumerate all the different views would be beside our purpose : it will be more convenient to confine ourselves to certain typical illustrations. 144. Gifford. as was usual with him. In the first place a careful examination of the first thirteen verses shows conclusively that they are closely connected with the previous chapter. quoted by Lightfoot. 97. and others. As regards his literary criticism the ' On opinion of Renan may be accepted est surpris qu'un critique aussi habile que Baur se soit contente d'une solution aussi grossiere. pp. Paul's doctrine and he supported his contention by a vigorous examination of the style and contents of these two chapters.. Biblical Essays. although. Doctrinally his views were only consistent with a onesided theory of the Pauline position and teaching. probably incorrectly). 23 is purely arbitrary. pp. 393 Theologische Zeitung. An facts stated ' . The two conclusions xvi. . which were without the doxology (see above) moved it to their end of the Epistle after ver. 27. §9.. The main motive which induced him to excise them was the expression in xv. and with an only incidental reference to the MS. The double benediction of the arose by the ordinary process of conflation. But the consensus of a large number of critics in condemning the result may excuse our pursuing them in further detail. 1836. But we are not without strong positive arguments in favour of the genuine ness of at any rate the fifteenth chapter. p. lxxi. 8 that Christ was made a minister of circumcision. Griesbach (1777) and others developed elaborate theories to account for them. The prayer at the end of chap. this is based upon a misreading. Both in the appeal to Scripture and in the introduction of broad and general principles this conclusion may be exactly paralleled by the custom of St. and supports his main contention by a series of texts drawn from the O. 23. while in vv. and the passage that follows to the end of ver.' which is inconsistent with his view of St. No theory therefore can be accepted which does not 1. The reading of the T is a late conflation of the two older forms of the text. and Semler (1769). b. 1866. hypothesis which would account for most (although not all) of the would be to suppose that the last two chapters were not genuine. and may be paralleled from places in the body of the Epistle. without which the former chapter is incomplete. benediction stood 20 and only there. while certain others placed it after ver. Paulus. either with or without the dfxrju (which is omitted in some MSS. Paul. ff. 20 and 24 of the T are supposed to represent endings to two different recensions of the Epistle. Already in the seventeenth century some at any rale had attracted notice. Paul elsewhere in the Epistle. 290. p. The break after xiv. 6 is merely a conclusion of the previous argument. are the diplomatic facts which demand explanation. stated as shortly as possible. the verses that followed being a sort of postscript. The originally at ver. Certain MSS. and if that theory is given up then his arguments become untenable.] INTEGRITY xci a. But as will be seen by referring to the note on the passage. on purely a priori grounds. As a matter of fact the formula does not represent any known form of ending. and which it is inconceivable that an interpolator could have either been able 01 desired to insert.

293 ff. may dismiss then all such theories as imply the spuriousness of the last two chapters and may pass on to a second group which explains the phenomena of the MSS. G. as in the case of the Epistle to the Ephesians. Chap. Chap. St. 33 is not like any of the Lucht. and one which has the merit of He supposes that the so-called explaining all the facts. i-xiv and xvi. in the spuriousness combination of boldness in asserting his mission with consideration for the feelings of his readers. was addressed to the Ephesian Church. This theory is examined at great length by Bp. Hilgenfeld. 20. (iv) A letter to an unknown church. It has all the disadvantages of the broader theory and does not either solve the problem suggested by the manuFor the rejection of the last two script evidence or receive support from it. Zeller. pp. This theory has one advantage. (ii) (iii) : In the last three letters there would of course be some modifications in chap. Lightfoot. Each of these really represented the ending of a separate xvi. lxiii ff. and modified form is put forward by Lucht l. any such theory the arguments are conclusive. i. A letter to the Ephesians. This theory is supported by the following amongst other arguments (i) We know. i-xi and chap. chapters as a whole there is some support. but have been rejected by Mangold. xv. 21-24 su gg est tnat these verses were addressed to a Macedonian church. Uber die beiden letzten Capitel des Rbmerbriefs. xv shows every sign of being a genuine work of the Apostle. . of which we have a reminiscence in the variations of the MS. as we have seen . and others. An elaborate and typical theory of this sort. This contained chap. to the (see p. pp. all the most characteristic marks of the . recognize that xiv and xv. 25-27. xiv. The argument of Paley based upon the collection for the poor Christians at Jerusalem is in this case almost demonstrative The reference to the Apostle's intention of visiting Spain. Epistle to the Romans was a circular letter and that it existed in four different A : We forms (i) A letter to the Romans. 13 form a single paragraph which must not be split up. are all inconsistent with while most readers will feel in the personal touches. his hope of visiting Rome fulfilled in such a very different manner. 24. A letter to the Thessalonians. xv. Paul. Weizsacker. (iv) The Macedonian names occurring in xvi. But further than this the remainder of chap. 1-20 Epistle. 2 Renan. in fact he applies the interpolation theory to aie genuine and part spurious Against these two chapters (being followed to a slight extent by Lipsius). there are not four endings in the Epistle at all . cit. in chap. that St. the dangers he is expecting. (iii) There are strong internal grounds for believing that xvi. is that of Renan *. by supposing that our Epistle has grown up through the combination of different letters or parts of letters either all addressed to the Roman Church. xv than in chap.: XC11 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. i-xiv and xvi. 25-27. i-xiv and xvi. op. or addressed partly to the Roman Church. xxxvi circumstances in which he is placed. for believing that they contain interpolations (except in a form to be considered immediately) there There is no greater need for suspecting interpolations is no external evidence. in the strong and deep emotions which are occasionally allowed to come to the surface. 21-24. Holsten. (v) This explains how it came to be that such an elaborate letter was sent to a church of which St. (ii) The Epistle as we have it has four endings. Chap. 1871. 2. Paul had such little knowledge as that of Rome. Paul wrote circular letters. partly elsewhere. 1-20. 33. Pfleiderer. 1 . who considers that parts Lipsius. Apostle's writing. . xv. Baur's views were followed by von Schwegler. that it accounts for all the facts but there One is that are two arguments against it which are absolutely conclusive.

Paul's acquaintance with some twenty-four persons in the Roman community are of slight weight. but in the earlier. for as has been shown the only critical basis we can start from. Paul should have been acquainted with such a large number of persons in a church like that of Rome which he had never visited. INTEGRITY xciii endings of St. 17-21. Hitzig. Of the others many are Jewish. but not if it be addressed to the Roman. has been adopted by Ewald. That the warning against false teachers is quite inconsistent with the whole tenor of the letter. Aquila and Priscilla and the church that is in their house are mentioned shortly before this date as being at Ephesus. Holsten. xvi. and that this feeling is corroborated by the number of personal details that he adds: references to companions in captivity. It is admitted again that it would be natural that. first put forward by Schulz (1829). All these allusions are easily explicable on the theory that the Epistle is addressed to the Ephesian Church. The very next name Epaenetus is clearly described as a native of the province of Asia. Paul should lay special stress on all those with whom he was acquainted or . This opinion is corroborated. In examining this hypothesis we must notice at once that it does not in any way help us to solve the textual difficulties.§9-] . 2 Tim. 20 and 24. and it is more likely that they should be natives of Ephesus than natives of Rome. It is pointed out that it is hardly likely that St. Weiss. Ritschl. xv. Paul's Epistles. St. and the burden of proof is thrown on the opponents of the Roman destination of the Epistle. Christianity was preached amongst just that portion of the population of the Empire which would be most nomadic in character. is that it separates chap xiv from the first thirteen verses of chap. second argument. many Greek. Krenkel. that namely which considers that the list of names in chap. 19. Mangold. is that they have come down to us substantially in the form in which they were written unless very strong evidence is brought forward to the contrary. it is clear that the duplication simply arose from conflation. Kneucker. 20 and at ver. This view. by an examination of the list itself. Weizsacker. to relations. 1. It is admitted by Weiss and Mangold. which elsewhere never refers to false teachers as being at work in A Rome. but it may be pointed out that they are as conclusive against Renan's hypothesis as against that of Baur. to fellowlabourers. 3. The arguments on this subject need not be repeated. 3. the second the conclusion of the Roman. Paul s Epistles while. But this evidence cannot be called very strong. Farrar. 19). in writing to a strange church.edictiom xvi. and shortly afterwards they are again mentioned as being in the same city (1 Cor. xvi belongs to a letter addressed to Ephesus and not to one addressed to Rome. iv. Laurent. Nor is it quite certain where the Ephesian fragment ends. It is only if we insert a benediction both at ver. The theory therefore must be examined on its own merits. and receives no assistance from them. must be explained on purely textual grounds. but there is one portion of it which has been more generally held than any other with regard to these final chapters. Lipsius. it is said. 2. 16. As it is. Some consider that it includes vv. 24 that we get any assistance. Reuss. that the a priori arguments against St. the origin of the duplicate be . The arguments in favour of this view are as follows: 1. the textual phenomena do not support this view. Lucht. In that case we might explain the duplicate benediction by supposing that the first was the conclusion of the Ephesian letter. 2 to belong to the Romans. As we have seen. in our opinion equally conclusive against this theory. others consider them also part of the Ephesian letter. some hold ver. It has two forms. If Kenan's theory had been correct then we should not have both benedictions in the late MSS. The problems of the concluding doxology and of the omission of the last two chapters remain as they were. for instance. in discussing St. others make it stop at ver. as is shown above. Renan's theory has not received acceptance.

What is the value of the definite evidence in their favour? This is of two classes. Jewish. If we conceive it to be a warning against false teachers whom St. Bp. To this we may add the further evidence afforded by the explanation given by Bishop Lightfoot and repeated in the notes. and of these persons two are known to have originally come from Rome. while the third alone can hardly be considered sufficient support for this theory. 3-16 may be found amongst these. (ii) The archaeological and literary evidence for connecting any of the persons mentioned here with the Roman Church. we find that those actually connected with Ephesus are only three. and Latin could as a matter of fact only be found in the mixed population which formed the lower and middle classes of Rome. Nereus. The arguments against these verses are not strong. Mangold asks what is the value of this investigation as the same names are found outside Rome? The answer is that for the most part they are very rare. in order that he might thus commend himself to them. Some of these date a little earlier than the Epistle to the Romans. xvi in the light of Roman inscriptions. Lightfoot proceeds to examine the list of names in Rom. but it shows that there is no a priori improbability in the names being Roman. Besides these we have a large number of inscriptions containing names of freedmen and others belonging to the imperial household. although some of them 71 . Now what does this prove? It does not prove of course that these are the persons to whom the Epistle was written nor does it give overwhelming evidence that the names are Roman.XC1V EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. We happen to have preserved to us almost completely the funereal inscriptions of certain columbaria in which were deposited the ashes of members of the imperial household. . 22 aa d^ovrai vfias ixa\«TTa ol €K tov Kaiffapos o'lKias. starting from the text Phil. Practically every name may be illustrated in Rome. These points have been discussed sufficiently in the notes. are uncommon. It shows that such a combination of names was possible in Rome but it shows something more than this. and helps to explain the motives he had in writing the Epistle. when we come to examine the names. have attempted to institute some comparison. Lipsius makes various attempts to illustrate the names from Asiatic inscriptions. and almost every name in the Inscriptions of the household. but not very successfully nor does Mangold help by showing that the two common names Narcissus and Hermas may be paralleled elsewhere. When again we come to examine the warning against heretics. xvi. and it is only necessary to say here that it would be an excess of Roman . Now — heterogeneous collection. (i) In his commentary on the Philippians. and Apelles definitely with the early history of Christianity. it exactly suits the situation. . If we take the Greek Corptis we shall find that in the inscriptions of Ephesus only three names out of the twenty-four in this list occur if we extend our survey to the province of Asia we shall find only twelve. He definitely states that he is only warning them that they may be wise if occasion arise. of the households of Narcissus and Aristobulus evidence again only corroborative but yet of some weight. some of them are almost contemporary. but it is not very easy and will not be until we have more satisfactory collections of Greek inscriptions. Again. (i) The archaeological evidence for connecting the names in the Epistle with Rome. and the publication of the sixth volume of the Corpus of Latin Insciiptions has enabled us to add to the instances quoted. Amplias. we find that after all it is perfectly consistent with the body of the Epistle. . (ii) The more direct archaeological evidence is that for connecting the names : of Prisca. Paul fears may come but who have not yet done so. iv. We . This evidence is not conclusive. of whom he had heard. Now examples of almost every name in Rom. and that it would be difficult anywhere else to illustrate such an : . what this comparison suggests is that such a combination of names— Greek.

7 and 15 and then added the doxology at the end because he felt the need of some'more fitting conclusion. may admit this. and secondly that it exactly reproduces and sums up the whole argument of the Epistle. Lightfoot to a very close examination. the pericope adulterae is found in more than one place. It is to us inconceivable that St. he cut off the last two chapters which contained for the most part purely persona] matter. They are in fact more suitable for an encyclical letter than is chap. Dr. it does not explain how or why St. Paul turned this into a circular letter. It will be very strong. but at the same time the theory that it is not genuine will account for its omission altogether in some MSS. and any success we have had in the drawing of the picture which we have been able to present must be allowed to weigh in the evidence. On being examined they were found not to be valid while evidence not conclusive but considerable has been brought forward in favour of the Roman destination.§9-] INTEGRITY X CV scepticism to look upon such evidence as worthless. 5. xiv. 4. We . For these reasons we have used the sixteenth chapter without hesitation in writing an account of the Roman Church. xiv. Hort has subjected the arguments of Dr. in phraseology. he omitted the words kv 'Pw/xy in i. It would still be difficult to find a reason for the insertion of the doxology in the particular place at the end of chap. and its insertion in different places in others. Paul it belongs to rather a later period in his life. Paul contained all our present Epistle except xvi. This argument must tell in different ways to different critics. to those who consider that these Epistles are not Pauline. Lightfoot. To those however who accept them as genuine these arguments will rather confirm their belief in the Pauline authorship. There is no external evidence against this section. But there is an alternative hypothesis which may demand more careful consideration from us. It explains the existence of a shorter recension. it explains the peculiar style of the doxology. They can therefore have little value. and his opinion has been largely followed. He considers that the original Epistle to the Romans written by St. xiv. Lightfoot's theory. Paul should have himself mutilated his own argument by cutting off the conclusion of it. There is nothing in the next thirteen verses which unfits them for general circulation. 6. Paul made the division at the end of chap. that although it comes from St. in order to make the original Epistle complete the doxology was added from the later recension to the earlier. It is this consideration amongst others which forms the basis of the theory put forward by Dr. but there is one point it does not explain . and are confronted with a large number of arguments which inform us that it is clearly unpauline because it harmonizes in style. Dr. ask then what further evidence there is for this omission. combined in some cases with theories as to the omission of other parts. He begins by a careful study of the doxology and has shown clearly first of all that the parallels between it and passages in the four acknowledged Epistles are much commoner and nearer than was thought to be the case. This consideration therefore seems to us decisive against Dr. and in subject-matter with non-pauline Epistles— that to the Ephesians and the Pastoral Epistles. and we . On his investigation we have based our commentary. Lightfoot points out that this hypothesis solves all the problems. in some cases not. The arguments against the Roman destination are purely a priori. Then. at a later date. that at a somewhat later period— the peiiod perhaps of his Roman imprisonment. We . Reiche (in 1833) suggested that the doxology was not genuine. St. To sum up then. if not conclusive. It is well known that passages which did not originally form part of the text are inserted in different places in different texts. nor does the exclusion of it from the Roman letter help in any way to solve the problems presented by the text. it explains the presence of the doxology in both places. for instance. 25-27. although it might not weigh much if there were strong evidence on the other side.

no solution among those offered has attempted to explain what is really the most difficult part of the problem.' This latter is due to Marcion. and especially his defence of the genuineness of the doxology. xv are linked closely with chap. The difficulty of the question is of course obscured for us by the division into chapters. they might be omitted in systems of lectionaries while the doxology which was felt to be edifying was appended to chap. refer to that and to Dr. Gifford. a careful examination of the text shows that the first thirteen verses of chap. ourselves incline to an opinion suggested first we believe by 7. We . we might possibly ascribe this division to accident but as a matter of fact internal evidence and external have seen that there is contestimony alike point to the same cause. (4) ' When all is said. the insertion of the Doxology after xiv and its omission. xiv. xv we shall find that as far as regards the first thirteen verses hardly any other course was possible for him. On the whole it is morally certain that the omission is his only as having been transmitted by him. a rough and ready method might suggest itself in the excision of the last two chapters. — . we must express our belief that his manner of dealing with the evidence is somewhat arbitrary. Hort's own essay for the reasons which make us accept the doxology as not only a genuine work of St. but also as an That at the end he should feel compelled integral portion of the Epistle. of the shorter recension may be strong. As will have already become apparent. To us if we wished to cut off the more personal part of the Epistle. Dr. Hort then proceeds to criticize and explain away the textual phenomena. (2) Some such theory as this might explain the capitulations. ' The analogy of the common Greek capitulations shows how easily the personal or local and as it were temporary portions of an epistle might be excluded from a schedule of chapters or paragraphs. Paul. although not in the form of a doxology. but the combination of reasons is in our opinion too weighty to be explained away. that the break occurs ? seen. He does so in fact at the conclusion of the Galatian letter. in other words that it is a genuine Dr. Hort finally concludes that though a genuine reading it ancient reading/ is incorrect and perhaps arises through some accident such as the tearing off of the end of a papyrus roll or the last sheet in a book. siderable testimony for the fact that Marcion excised the last two chapters.' (3) The omission of the allusions to Rome is due to a simple transcriptional accident. certainly not a suitable one. we have strong grounds why is it for believing that in some editions chaps. but we are dealing with a time before the present or probably any division into chapters existed. if he held We — — ' We We . know that the doxology the place at which the division was made. xiv so closely that it is impossible to believe that they are not genuine. xiv. was in many copies inserted at the end of chap. two facts have to be explained. Nor again is it probable that any one arranging the Epistle for church services would have made the division at this place. that it might be read. and that his theory does not satisfactorily explain all the facts. Dr.XCV1 must EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. and if we examine the beginning of chap. or that the Apostle himself could have cut them off from the context in publishing a shorter edition of his Epistle intended for a wide circulation. xv and xvi were omitted As we have at this place. Dr. Now if there were no solution possible. have quoted his emendation of the passage in Origen and pointed out that No single argument in favour of the existence it is to us most unconvincing. Hort's own conclusions are: (i) He suggests that as the last two chapters were considered unsuitable for public reading. which must be explained to mean an omission agreeing with the reading in Marcion's copy. once more to sum up the great ideas of which the Epistle is full and put them clearly and strongly before his readers is quite in accordance with the whole mind of the Apostle. While admitting the force of some of Hort's criticisms on Lightfoot.

: G We out the last two chapters. T. If is to be added on the strength of the blank space after xiv. omission of xv. AP .' Fuldensis which again. made (p. yet again it may add also the capitulations of Codex leaves out the Doxology. It may be admitted indeed. The remainder of these two chapters could be omitted simply because they were useless for the definite dogmatic purpose Marcion had in view. Dr. The words \v "Pww could easily be omitted without injuring the context. if such it be. words at the end of chap. xvi. We should still have to explain how it was that the Doxology was inserted only at the end of chap. xiv. and the previous discussion would stand as it is a new fact would have to be accounted for. had considerable in the especially at Rome. 13. His edition was made with a strongly dogmatic purpose. Dr. D Even if his argument were correct. he suggests that the archetype from which these MSS. xiv might seem to make a more suitable ending than either of the next two verses. Corssen points out that in the section xv. but they present no solid argument for the existence of such a copy. 13. which directly contradicts the whole of his special teaching. Corssen on the allied MSS. When in adapting the text for the purposes of church use it was thought advisable to omit the last portions as too personal and not sufficiently edifying. Hort. In the second of these. 23. however.— representing a later but still authorities place it at the end. 4.§»•] INTEGRITY XCV11 the opinions which are ascribed to him. Corssen's arguments they hardly seem to support his contention. we come to examine Dr. the one direct testimony. Arm. Hort points out. arising either from carelessness of transcription (a cause which we can hardly accept) or from a desire to make the Epistle more general in its character. 23. Hort has pointed out against Dr. in which the omission occurs. it would are derived (Z) ended at xv. as Dr. respectable text— have it in both places later authorities for the most part place it only at xiv. His circulation. and it is from the West that our evidence mostly comes. 8 contains an expression contain quotations from the O. Local and personal allusions would have little interest to him. it was natural to make the division at a place where in a current The subsequent steps would then edition the break had already been made. Kiya) yap Xptarou Siateovov yzytvrjodai irepiTOfxrjs virep a\T)0tias &eov. If we once assume this excision by Marcion it may perhaps explain the phenomena. is that of Marcion and yet the one incontrovertible fact about him is that he omitted the Doxology. All our best place. and subsequently it dropped out at the later That is the order suggested by the manuscript evidence. that the capitulations of the Codex Amiatinus mifjht have been made for a copy which ended at xv. and the Doxology which he could not quite like would go with them. there are a considerable number : g . T. or to preserve it for public reading at this place. It remains to account for the omission of any reference to Rome in the first chapter of G. When. be similar to those suggested by Dr. lxix) to two dissertations by Dr. which he most certainly could not have used. Now some edition — it is if becoming more generally admitted that Marcion's Apostolicon had not great— influence on variations in the text of the N. not take away from the force of the other facts which have been mentioned. and therefore West. five of these verses but further ver. Still more is this the case with regard to The ver. have no trace of the Doxology. Lightfoot's theory of a shorter recension with the doxology that all the direct evidence for omitting ' For the the last two chapters is also in favour of omitting the Doxology.. and at this place the division was drawn. 14— xvi. This may of course be a mere idiosyncracy of that MS. To begin with. The opinion is perhaps corroborated by the character of the MS. Allusion has been F G. But it does not seem to us at all improbable that this omission may also be due to Marcion. Our evidence therefore points to the existence of a recension simply leaving . It was natural to add the presumably Doxology in order to give a more suitable conclusion.

adds the concluding Doxology. It is not likely that all would exactly correspond to the same model. The Apostle might now close the Epistle. The number of variations in the fericope adulterae are. Moreover. and in the same way he would argue that this portion which has all these variations must come from a separate source. and even after that dwells long and feelingly over his salutations. wishing perhaps. P. 13 there are as numerous and as important variations as in any of the following verses. 1. leads him to give a final and direct warning against them. as Dr. and it remains only to explain briefly the somewhat complicated ending. Dickson. After this a postscript with salutations from the companions of St. But the facts do not support his contention. Commentaries. to raise the Epistle once more to the serene tone which has characterized it throughout. but his sense of the danger to which the Roman Church may be exposed. This paragraph ends with a short prayer called forth by the mingled hopes and fears which these plans for the future suggest. and a sketch of his plans. and there is abundant proof throughout the Epistle that the Apostle felt earnestly the need of preserving the Roman Church from the evils of disunion and false teaching. although it does not perhaps prove.XCviii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 9. D G We We § 10. In our opinion then the text as we have it represents substantially the Epistle that St. The same difficulty of ending need not therefore surprise us when we meet it in the Romans. of variations in the text. then salutations (3-16). As a matter of fact. 1 he appears to be concluding. It also omits as we have seen kv 'Pdufiri in both places. This archetype is alone or almost alone amongst our sources for the text in omitting the Doxology. Hort pointed out against Dr. considerable . the bearer of the letter (xvi. Then finally the Apostle. Hort suggests. Dr. The scribe however was probably acquainted with a copy which omitted them. to the English translation of Meyer's Commentary. Then comes (xvi. 2-21). very complete and careful bibliography of the Epistle to the Romans was added by the editor. At xv. that the archetype contained the last two chapters. Paul wrote to the Romans. if it is visited by false teachers. xiv we shall find fourteen variations. the text of Marcion. the text of F presents exactly the same phenomena throughout the Epistle. Then comes the commendation of Phoebe. Corssen's arguments do not bear out his conclusion. 13 the didactic portion of it is concluded. especially such as have been most largely used in the preparation A . a still larger proportion. and suggests that that implies a different source for the text of that portion of the epistle. find a not dissimilar phenomenon in the Epistle to the Philippians. Dr. The form in each case would be altered and changed in accordance with the feelings of the Apostle. and the remainder of the chapter is devoted to the Apostle's personal relations with the Roman Church. There in iii. it is well known. would hazard the suggestion that all these variations were due directly or indirectly to the same cause. W. such as he is acquainted with in the East. 20) the concluding benediction. in xiv. But a few leading works may be mentioned. but if we examine the twenty-three verses of chap. even indignant warning against false teachers (iii. as Dr. summing up the whole argument of the Epistle. This need not be repeated here. and that suggests. Lightfoot. There is surely nothing unreasonable in supposing that there would be an absence of complete sameness in the construction of the different letters. but before he concludes he breaks out into a strong. Paul. It is true that in forty-three verses he is able to enumerate twenty-four variations .2).

Origen (Orig. in both its forms is given in Dr. which appeared in the latter year. Its text in particular is frequently adapted to that of the Old-Latin copy of the Epistles which he was in the habit of using so that Orig. 1844) . Lommatzsch. As it is he is hampered by defects of method and especially by the fatal facility of allegory the discursiveness and prolixity of treatment are also deterrent to the average reader. Westcott's article Origenes in Diet. or two which have not been used are added as links in the historical chain. H.-lat. ob. Field Oxon. There is no doubt that Rufinus treated the work before him with great freedom. The standard edition. P. The questions raised are often remarkably modern. 253: Comment.118. iv. Robinson. of the doctrine of ddcatWu at p. vii Berolini. Panli ad Romanos in Origenis Opera ed. so far as can be ascertained. If he had been as successful in answering as he is in propounding them Origen would have left little for those who followed him. An admirable account of the Commentary. 11 5.' more often represents Rufinus than Origen.: . ' : : g 2 . E. e. 1849. § 10.. vols. iv. The Commentary on our Epistle belongs to the latter part of Origen's life when he was settled at Caesarea. The Commentary on Romans comes in Tom. in Epist. in Germany by Dr.-lat/). 147 ff. an ^ completed after death by his nephew Charles Vincent Delarue in 1759. 1893). The reader is astonished not only at the command of Scripture but at the range and subtlety of thought which it displays. Tom. is that begun by Charles Delarue. ed. S. 6-29 on p. (Oxon. 1836. roughly speaking. a complete critical edition. Chrysostom (Chrys. in Epist.g. and in England by Prof. 407 Homil. his — — ' .). The arrangement writers are is. Chr. This work of Origen's is unique among commentaries. vi. Armitage Robinson and others is however much needed. Biog. A few fragments of the original Greek have come down to us in the Philocalia (ed. 1837. but for the greater part we are dependent upon the condensed translation of Rufinus (hence Orig. 269 ff. and in Cramer's Catena. ad Romanos. Cambridge. ix. and of the interpretation of ch. 1. A new edition for which the beginnings have been made. but modern their real affinities grouped rather according to than according to dates of publication which would be sometimes misleading. Greek Writers. ob. chronological. C.) . Koetschau.] COMMENTARIES One XC1X of this edition. Some conception may be formed of the general characteristics of the older commentators from the sketch which is given of their treatment of particular subjects. Bene- Maur in 1733. iv. A translation dictine of the congregation of St. on which that of Lommatzsch is based.

) played a well-known moderating He died in 458 a. Theodoret (Theodrt. . printed among his works (ed. best and are full of moral enthusiasm and of sympathetic human they are also the work insight into the personality of the Apostle of an accomplished scholar and orator. 413 of his Works (ed. 17 12. 1892). ed. Epistles were not published until 1887 (ed. part in the controversies of the fifth century. and is still living in 11 18. torn. It is prac: a Catena with some contributions by Oecumenius himself. . Schulze and Noesselt. Thdrt. ed. I754 . citation by their terseness. reason they have not been utilized in previous They deserve editions we have drawn upon them rather largely. Paul's emperor Alexius Comnenus. 1763. 1-60).-Zig. and general precision of thought.) died before 754 a. Halle. Euthymius Zigabenus (Euthym. Romans is contained in his Works. J. Chrysostom. the eminent it includes copious extracts patriarch of Constantinople (c. archbishop of Bulgaria under Michael tically VII Ducas(io7i-io78). Hentenius Paris. vii: Oxford. F. 820-c.) . 1631). ii.) living after 11 18. also ed. these are occasionally noted.-Damasc. Joan. His Commentary on the Ep. Halle. torn.d.. name are now known to be some two centuries earlier and probably in great part the work of Leontius of Byzantium (see the Studien iiber die dem Johannes brilliant researches of Dr..C EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10. point. The Homilies were delivered at Antioch vol. : Paris. Sirmond Tom.). — to the 1642. bishop of Tricca in Thessaly in the The Commentary on Romans occupies pp. kind {Opp.d. Loofs : : von Damascus zugeschriebenen Parallelen. Athens). They have at once the merits and the limitations of Antiochene . Oecumenius (Oecum. Lequien The so-called Sacra Parallela published under his pp. it is Paris. 1-119. but do not always sound the depths of the great problems with which the Apostle is wrestling. from Photius (Phot. 1841.) . His commentary is almost entirely an epitome of Chrysostom. exegesis. 1-118). by the Rev. Calogeras : and as for that but like all the writers of this date they follow closely in the foot- steps of Chrysostom. 195tenth century. They show the preacher at his probably between 387-397 a. Theophylact (Theoph. B. monk in a monastery near Constantinople and in high favour with the His Commentaries on St. 891) . Joannes Damascenus ( Jo. d. iii. Venet. was given in the Library of the Fathers. As a commentator he is a pedisequus but one of the best of the many pedisequi-r-oi St. its His Commentary one of the best specimens of ii. Morris. 1769-1774. (not of this but of Savile's text which is superior to Montfaucon's).

415-470. Kirche.§ 10. col. and the commentary is stili without an owner. but has since given the substance of them in his Geschichte d. p. a Roman pres[Dr. Augustine to sanctus Hilarius The commentary cannot really {Contra duas Epp. iii. proceed from the great Hilary (of Poitiers). Migne xi. which has been defended with more courage than success by the latest editor. The real authorship of this work is one of the still open 1877). pp. Augustine. 7). a certain Hilary the Deacon. though not so much as to imply identity of authorship. to vindicate the work for Faustinus. Jerome (ed. text than for the probably written before 410. with the Quaestiones ex utroque The comTestamento. [P. views in an address delivered at Bonn in 1880.). Nourry in 1690.] was replied to with arguments which appear to preponderate by Marold in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift for 1883.). Pelagius (Pelag. torn. In the Appendix to the works of St. . and from that circumstance came to be included in the printed The Benedictines. Mediolani. Dr. Langen first propounded his byter of the required date. P. 599A case of some strength seemed to be made out. L. printed among the works of St. Unfortunately the result is purely negative. Ambrose. but however the fact is More recently an to be explained it is probably he who is meant. Paul. 350 ff. It consists of brief but well written scholia rather dexterously turned so as not to clash with his But it has not come down to us as Pelagius left it. bear the name of St. Pelag. peculiar views. It are fairly fixed. made excisions in the interests of orthodoxy. ci Latin Writers. It has come out in the course of discussion that it presents a considerable resemblance. Ambrosii Opera. Du Frische and Le editions of his works. Langen. and (unless is corrupt) during the Episcopate of Damasus about the The author was for some time supposed to be year 380 a. . rbm. p. A. The date and place of composition was probably written at Rome. mentator was a man of intelligence who gives the best account we have from antiquity of the origin of the Roman Church (see above. but it has been used in this edition more for its interesting permanent value of its exegesis. pp. d. xxv). The Epistle to the Romans heads a series of Commentaries on thirteen Epistles of St. which in some (though not the oldest) MSS. xxx. and perhaps others.]. elaborate attempt has been made by the Old-Catholic scholar. problems of the text literary criticism. as a passage which appears in the commentary is referred by St. 659 rT. Ambrosiaster (Ambrstr. argued against their genuineness. Ballerini (S. iv.] COMMENTARIES 2. but it 610. Cassiodorius. Paul's Epistles which is now known to proceed The Commentary was really from the author of Pelagianism.) there is a series of Commentaries on St.

Hugh of Paris) 1097-1141. col. 12 25-1 274. often with great originality. 1467. Hugh c. St. twelfth century are published Allegoriae in Lib. H. Pauli. Tom. the Scriptures with the comments of the Fathers. 879). Dean of St. Paul's words fit a preconceived system is not unnatural. His Exposiiio in Epistolas omnes Divi Pauli Apostoli (Opp. 30). 1466-1536. and moral. Paul into the form of a scholastic syllogism. Reformation and Post.A. Victor (Hugo a S. Colet. there should be a tendency to make St. Desiderius. Allegoriae in ' his great Venetiis. Peter Abelard. John (c. Hugh was a typical representative of the mystical as opposed to the rationalizing tendency of the Middle Ages. cit. P. Erasmus. the friend of Erasmus. clxxv. 1.Cii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10. explains each phrase. Erasmus' Greek Testament . col. theological. Augustine. VI. and attempts (not always very successfully) to show the connexion of thought. So far as we have consulted it. Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos libri quinque (Migne. clxxv. often showing indications of the opinions for which he was condemned (Migne. of St. Lupton. That in attempting to fit every argument of St. Occasionally he discusses theological or moral questions. Novum Testamentum. 783). clxxviii. we have found it based partly on Origen partly on Augustine. Victore. col. and the works of Aristotle. Paul's School. delivered a series of lectures on the Epistle to the Romans about the year 1497 in the University of Oxford. in the careful study of the sentences of Peter 3. c. Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos (Migne.1 519). 431). Sur-Master of St. L. Its value is chiefly as a complete and methodical exposition from a definite point of view. and Quaes Hones et Decisiones in Epistolas D. They are full of interest as an historical memorial of the earlier English Reformation. xvi. His commentary works out in great detail the method of exegesis started by St. and rather weak and indecisive in its character.Reformation Periods. Paul's. col. L. The commentary is described as being 'literal. In Epistolam ad Romanos (Migne. Thomas Aquinas. The author follows the text exactly. The authenticity of both these is disputed.. These were published in 1873 *ith a translation by J. op. often each part of a phrase separately. Amongst the works of the great mystic of the . and in making every thought harmonize with the Augustinian doctrine of grace. 1593) formed part of the preparation which he made for work the Summa Theologiae a preparation which consisted — Lombard. M. called Doctor Angelicus. and by the precision and completeness of the logical analysis. 1079-1142. Petri Abaelardi commenlariorum super S. P. Colet. No modem reader who turns to it can fail to be struck by the immense intellectual power displayed.

A. his Commentarii in Ep. and straightforward. M. His exegetical notes could seldom be quoted. if in a one-sided way. He is clear. literature Luther. was first published at Strassburgin 1539. § 10. ad Galatas Mart. was the most scholarly of the Reformers. His aim was to reform the Church by publishing and interpreting the records of early Christianity an aim which harmonized ill with the times in which he lived. In epist. 1535. (iii) of the Lord's Prayer. He was more and his successful in raising questions than in solving them . In epist. As views the question re is an interesting one. how far Calvin brought his peculiar ady-made to the study of the Epistle and how far he derived them from it by an uncompromising exegesis. of the 1483. and his commentaries bristle with faults. Calvin was by far the greatest of the commentators of the Reformation. and the first commentary on it which made use of the learning of the Renaissance. This was published in a shorter form.1546. But as marking an epoch in the study of St. They are defective. He was greater always in what he conceived and planned than in the manner in which he accomplished it. commentaries surfer as much from timidity as did those of Luther from excessive boldness. Philip (149 7-1 560). first edition of the Institutes was published in 1536. Paul's writings was of a different character. Paul's writings. Principal of Mansfield College). ' The Fairbairn. ad Rom. Paul's leading ideas. Calvin. he produced conditions of religious life which made the comprehension of part of the Apostle's teaching possible. The value of his contribution to the study of St. Melanchthon. John (1 509-1 564). Paraphrasis Novi Testament! a popular work.. but he paved the way for a correct exegesis. It has hardly any detailed exposition of Expositions the higher Calvinistic doctrine.] COMMENTARIES cm new translation and annotations was published in 1516. His Commentarii in omnes epistolas Pauli Apost. Exegesis was not Luther's strong point. His Adnotationes in ep. Romans was in 1540. : . the most important place is occupied by his Commentary on the Galatians. P. P. and edited for the first time many of the early fathers. But in all that he did there are great defects of execution. honest. Martin. Luther i comment. published in 1523. (ii) of the Apostolic Creed . — Luther's contribution to the confined to a short Preface. with a his . some of St. and prolix full of bitter controversy and one-sided. lucid. commentarius ex praelectionibus Mart. He published the first edition of the Greek New Testament. we are glad to place before the reader a statement by one who is familiar with Calvin's writings (Dr. in 1522. in 15 19. Luiheri collectus. with a preface by Luther was published in 1522. but is made up of six parts (i) of the Decalogue . ad Gal. By grasping. P. ad Rom. and by insisting upon them with unwearied boldness and persistence. His work was rather to prepare the way for future developments. defects even for his own time. in a longer form.

had up to that time attained. publicist and statesman had been in his younger days a pupil of Scaliger at Leyden. In 1539 he published two things. I think. his Adnotaliones majores in N. and (2) of St. admirably illustrates the statement of Hallam that 'every one who had to defend a cause. Professor at Leyden. van Est). was Provost and Chancellor of His In omnes Pauli et aliorum apostolor. His Annotationes Grotius (Huig van Groot). T. The work of first half of the seventeenth century the philologists and scholars of the sixteenth and the on the Old and New Testament was summed up It in Critici Sacri. I ought to add however as indicating his philosophical bent that his earliest were on Seneca. As a typical example of the opposite school of interpretation 1603. certain: this development was due to his study (1) of Augustine. Estius (W. This distinguished in N. .. were published at Paris in 1644. T. Two English commentators belonging to the seventeenth century deserve notice. contains extracts from the leading scholars from Valla and Erasmus to Grotius. He his however were devoted to explaining Romans vii and ix. mentar. Cornelius a Lapide (van Stein). and he produced few commentaries. Paul read through Augustine. (v) of the Roman or false doctrine of Sacraments (iv) of the Sacraments and (vi) of Christian Liberty or Church Polity. The exegetical stamp is peculiarly distinct that his ideas should say in the doctrinal parts of the Institutes. Theodore (1519-1605). at Paris Beza. found no course so ready as to explain the Scriptures consistently with his own tenets/ The two principal Roman Catholic commentators of the seven- teenth century were Estius and Cornelius a Lapide. hardly the philological ability for the task he had undertaken. epislolas comDouay. published his Commeniaria in omnes d. Two tracts of paratively few. Civ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS . the first attempt to apply to its elucidation the more exact philoHe had logical methods which he had learnt from his master. J. 1583-1645. 1 560-1 609. was published after his death at Douay in 1614-1616. Paul. 1637. and although of great personal piety was too much destitute of dogmatic interest. And the latter are greatly expanded with all his distinctive doctrines fully developed. ob. [§ 10. and his Commentary on the Bible was J. first published in 1660. Two things are. But it was St. and so I were not so much philosophical as theological and exegetical in their basis. Stephanus in 1565. the Commentary on Romans and the 2nd edition of the Institutes. Arminius (Jakob Harmensen). a Jesuit. in 1594. oh. T. 1613. and represents the point which philological study in the N. especially the Anti-Pelagian writings. His works were comto that of Calvin may be taken Arminius. There is just a single paragraph on Election. De dementia? before he became a divine studies — — His edition of the Greek Testament with translation and annotations was first published by H. Pauli epts tolas at Antwerp in 16 14.

1752. Wetstein was one of those indefatigable students whose first-hand researches form the base of other men's labours. (Beng. His commentary undoubtedly deserves the title of historical/ In his interpretation he has detached himself from the dogmatic struggles of the seventeenth century. His Greek Testament appeared 1751. Paul's Epistles by consulting St. Period. Paul's Epistles. a few years before his death. at a time when the disturbances of the Civil War compelled him to live in retirement. among but of on the future development of Biblical Exegesis. devoted and in 1 705-1 707 were published A Paraphrase and Notes to the Epistle of St. Hammond was well known as a royalist. the well-known philosopher.] COMMENTARIES CV Hammond. a Lutheran prelate in Wurtemberg. and rabbinical sources Wetstein (or Wettstein). and must have had some A ' ' influence the exegetical literature not only of the eighteenth century all centuries for its masterly terseness and precision and for its combination of spiritual insight with the best scholarship of his time. But he has a further title to fame. Modern . which is still of great value. Tholuck. Paul study of this essay is of great. he collected a mass of illustrative matter on the N. 4. Tholuck was a man of large sympathies and strong religious character. and . and would amply vindicate the claim of the author to be classed as an historical interpreter. and certainly no considerable exegetical work before his time had appeared in this country.. 1687-1752. to the Gala/ians. F. G. patristic. Fellow of Magdalen College. He assisted in the production of Walton's Polyglott. 1 7 99-1 87 7 Professor at Halle.§ 10. Paul his last years to the study of St. the first and second Epistles to the Corinthians. Oxford. Appended is an Essay for the understanding of St. In the history of textual criticism he deserves to be named by the side of John Mill and Richard Bentley and besides his collation of MSS.. Henry (i 605-1 660). The commentaries were translated into German. from classical. himself It is full of acute ideas and thoughts.). after being deposed Basel on a charge of heterodoxy he became Professor in the Remonstrants' College at Amsterdam. His Paraphrase and Annotations of the New Testament appeared in 1653. and the Epistles to the Romans and Ephesians. His Gnomon Novi Testamenti (1742) stands out J. J. John (1662-1704). and Canon of Christ Church. Bengel. interest. T. J. from office at . A. 1693-1754. A. Locke. He has been styled the father of English commentators. and throughout he attempts to expound the Apostle in accordance with his own ideas and those of the times when he ' lived.

At a time when Biblical exegesis was not being very actively prosecuted in Great Britain two works of solid merit were produced in America. on Romans first published in 1832 (British edition with preface by Dr. Stuart. (Mey. H. Bernhard Weiss. Moses. this is specially marked in the American Professor at Giessen. W. Greek. Professor at Andover. at once scientific and popular scientific. He engaged in a controversy with Tholuck the asperity of which he regretted before his death. He was however no doubt the better scholar and stimulated Tholuck to self-improvement in this respect. Meyer's famous commentaries first began to appear in 1832. predecessor's vigour of style and is rather difficult to follow. like Lticke on St. 1 — — : ' . One of these was by Moses Stuart. F.').). but his commentaries are models of brevity and precision.W. P. Dickson in 1873. There is an excellent English translation of the Commentary on Romans published by Messrs. Dr. C. (Fri.. He expresses large obligations to Tholuck. Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament first appeared in 1 836-1848. who did much to naturalize German methods. and were carried on with unresting energy in a succession of new and constantly enlarged editions until his death. A. W. Meyer. but is independent as a commentator and modified considerably the Calvinism of his Fritzsche. Meyer's death the Commentary on Romans has been edited with equal conscientiousness and thoroughness by Dr. T.CV1 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10. and T. Comm. L. T. W. but his exegesis is hard and rationalizing. 1800-1873. Consistorialrath in the kingdom of Hanover. through its rigorous at times too rigorous application of grammatical and philological laws. Hodge. afterwards at Basel. 1797-1878. 1 780-1 849 Professor for a short His time at Berlin. C. founders of the modern style of commenting. . John is a vast quarry of materials to which all Fritzsche was one subsequent editors have been greatly indebted. A. Mass. l8 74may be said to have been the. De Wette. Dr. Germany . but especially in textual criticism marks a real advance. 1 801-1846. 836-1 843). M. Clark under the editorMeyer and De Wette ship of Dr. Pye-Smith in 1833). both personally and through his commentary (which came out first in 1824 and has been more than once translated) exercised a wide influence outside exegetes. Weiss has not all his Professor at Berlin (hence Mey. (De W.). and popular by reason of its terseness and power Since of presenting the sifted results of learning and research. De Wette was an ardent lover of freedom and rationalistically inclined. Fritzsche vols. 1780-1852.). surroundings. of those philologists whose researches did most to fix the laws of N. on Romans (3 and Bleek on Hebrews. whence he was dismissed. New Jersey. Professor at Princeton.

Beet. widely known as Master of Balliol College and Regius Professor of Greek in the University of Oxford. Richmond. and scholarship sound as far as it goes . rewritten in 1864 is a weighty and learned doctrinal exposition based on the principles of the Westminster Confession. its Kelly. and subsequently) was the first to import the results of German exegesis into many circles in England Nonconformists (headed by the learned Dr. associated at one time with the textual critic His Notes on the Epistle to the Romans (London. Dean Alford's laborious work is characterized by vigour. Like Moses Stuart. (Va. Dr. Vaughan's edition first came out in 1859. Agar. it is probably still the best complete Dr. and chiefly valuable for its patristic learning. but the exegesis is loose and disappointing. Dr. The author was not only a distinguished prelate but a literary scholar of a high order (as may be seen by his Athens and Attica. throughout as a contribution to systematic theology.. H. Pye-Smith) had been in advance of the Established Church in this respect. Dr. L. view of the Epistle. but they are the fruit of sound scholarship and of prolonged and devout studv. Alford. (Alf. It is a close study of the Epistle by a finished scholar with little further help than the Concordance to the Septuagint and Greek Testament greatest value lies in the careful selection of illustrative passages from these sources. Beet's may be described as the leading Wesleyan commentary: it starts from a very careful exposition of the text. C.: § 1 0«] COMMENTARIES CV11 His Comm. Bishop of Lincoln. Conjectural Enmidations of Ancient Authors and many other publications) but he wrote at a time when the reading public was less exigent in matters of higher criticism and interpretation. His Greek Testament (1849-1861. 1810-1871. the edition used for this commentary has been the 4th (1874). 1809-1885. Vaughan. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians. Dean of Llandaff. The essays contain much beautiful and suggestive writing. and subsequently) is of an older type than Dean Alford's. Jowett. B. 181 7-1893. J. Dr also owed much of his philological equipment to he had studied. The first . appeared in 1855. Bishop Wordsworth s Greek Testament (1 856-1 860. J. Professor Jowett's may be said to have been the first attempt in England at an entirely modern first and Romans Galalians.. Dr. Wordsworth. are written from a detached and peculiar standpoint . Campbell. Dean of Canterbury. His edition of St. second edition 1859.). and was afterwards enlarged. W. J. on Romans first published in 1835. 1873). Dr Christopher. and they deserve more attention than they have received. good sense. Hodge Germany J where • Greek Testament by a single hand. but is intended Tregelles. Tutor in the Wesleyan College.). recently re-edited by Prof.

but it shows hand of a most lucid writer and accomplished theologian. Godet and their comFranco-Swiss theologians with a German training and extremely are They character. much date that after but was first printed in 1876. &c. several others since. Oltramare seems to us to though the stronger grip and greater individuality in exegesis. but also published separately. G. 1879.Resembling have the Godet in many particulars. strongest in exegesis proper and weakest in textual Geneva.CViii EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [§ 10. Professor at Neuchatel. H. H. Mr. Hugues (Oltr. 1881. Rev. of 'their criticism. Oltramare. H. comother of independence seeming and its elegant scholarship The point of view approaches mentaries. (Go. Paris. in similar somewhat mentaries are interpretations under the names full giving and discussing divergent Both are learned and thoughtful works. Hall. (Mou. Dr. m . Gifford. but it is fuller in exegesis. 11 had appeared in 1843). published in 1 881.). . and subdivided. and there have been Godet Dr. and the few difficulties of exegesis which it does not fully scholarly and well solution which it offers is certain to be at once work both ancient and it takes account of previous considered with names and crowded not are pages the modern. 1813-1894. E. (Gif. Liddon s pupils in an earlier form circulated privately among The Analysis during his tenure of the Ireland Chair (1870-1882). Moule. Principal of Ridley Bible for Cambridge. Expositor's Bible.). It is enlarged. ' (a volume on chaps. Explanatory Analysis of after being in posthumously 1893. P. on : higher than to any other. though Our obligations to this commentary are probably references. Dr. an analysis of the argument It is perhaps true that the notes. the second in 1881.). Vaughan s Schools) appeared in 1879. F. with very lull what its name implies. Clark's series. # St. (Lid. edition appeared in 1877. English Oltramare are both T. supporters. believe that this all the whole the best as it English commentaries on the Epistle. Moule's edition (in the Cambridge in It reminds us of Dr. C. but not a complete edition. is We judicious of the most There are face. Pauls Liddon.) .). approach to Calas nearly as an English Churchman is likely to Epistle in Ihe the on commented also has Moule Mr. Epistle to the Romans. and T. Commentaire sur translation VEpitre 'aux Romains. Professor at 1882 Commentaire sur I Epitre aux Romains. Gifford. vinism. i-v. in divided excessively somewhat analysis is everywhere the exegesis it is largely based on Meyer. commend themoriginal views of which he is fond do not always selves as right. published Dr. The Epistle to the Romans is in sometime Archdeacon of London The Speakers Commentary (1881) is was contributed by Dr.

This is a great improvement on the earlier work. 1893. He early gave up his see and retired to a life of learning and devotion. Professor at Munster.] COMMENTARIES ClX Barmby. B. Schaefer's Erklarung d. Dr. (Lips. A. the ablest of Roman Catholic commentators. He had however written a popular commentary on Romans for the Protestantenbibel (English translation. His commentary on the Romans was published in 1890. . 1891) may be taken as a specimen of Roman Catholic commentaries. Theophanes. and is perhaps in many taries. especially it respects the best. Dr. Schaefer. pleasantly literature.. No other commentary is so different from those of our own countrymen.§ 10. 1830-1892 . Barmby contributed Romans to the Pulpit Commentary (London. Schanz. like him he sometimes fails to grasp the more profound points in the Apostle's teaching. 1891). Like him he is often historical in his treatment. Dr. W. as it is the latest.). through the kindness of a friend. and he edited the same Epistle along with Galatians and Philippians in the Handcommentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg i. James. Dr. old and to a certain extent antiquated school of exegesis.. 1890). with fair knowledge of exegetical but seems to us often just to miss the point of the Apostle's thought. R. ob. We are glad to have been able to refer. independent and vigorous exposition. Professor at Jena. a sound. It is and clearly written. formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield's Durham. A. He is described as belonging to an St. Dr. Theophanes has both the strength and weakness of his master. has not treated St. Lipsius. Williams & Norgate in 1883). Brief es an die Romer (Munster i. was Professor and Inspector in the Petersburgh Ecclesiastical Academy and afterwards Bishop of Vladimir and Suzdad.. of German commenon the side of historical criticism and Biblical is theology unsurpassed. Dr. or would serve so well to supplement their deficiencies. Paul's Epistles. His commentary is based mainly on that of Chrysostom. Hall. This most unwearied worker won and maintained his fame in other fields than exegesis. to a Russian commentary. published by Messrs.

Theophylact. Ruf. (Hieron. Ambrstr. . . Ign. Euthymius Zigabenus. .-Mops. .-Rom. . Theodore of Mopsuessia Theodoret. Novat. Sedul. Ambrose. Pelagius. Epiphanius. . . Cyr. Hippolytus. Tert. Jos.-lat. . Epiph. . . . Clem. . . . . . Euthym. Cyprian. Clem. . .. Methodius. . .).) . Method. Clement of Alexandria. . .-Alex. . . . Hippol. Theodrt. Eus. . Rufinus. . Chrys. Clement of Rome. Latin Version of Origen. Basil. . Phot. Athanasius.-Alex. Bas. Cypr. . Ath. Novatian. Ignatius. . . . . Photius. Eusebius. Jerome. Oecum. Origen. Pelag. . Augustine. Orig. . . .-Zig. Aug. . . Tertullian. Cyril of Alexandria. xcviii at. . Orig. f . . Cyril of Jerusalem. . Ambrosiaster. Theod. Josephus. . Chrysostom. . Amb. . Sedulius. Cyr. Theoph. .-Jerus. Jer. Oecumenius. ABBREVIATIONS Ecclesiastical Writers (see p.

Boh. Textus Receptus. Sah. Armenian. . Alf. cv AT. Lid. . Latin. . RV. Coverdale. . T. . Go. . . Lat. . Geneva. . « . . . Tisch. . Mey. Ethiopia Arm. Westcott and Hort. Syrr. Ell. .ABBREVIATIONS Versions (see p. V( it. Goth. Bengel. . Peshitto. . . Tyn. . Vetus Latina.). . Latt. Godet. . Alford. Meyer-Weiss. Lips. Gif. . . . . .R. . CX! Aegyptt. Cov. . Rhem. A. . Harcl. . De W. . . Bohairic. Ellicott. Mey. . Del. Vulg. Treg. . Rheims Wiclif. Lft. .-W. Syriac. Sahidic. Egyptian. . Ixvi f. . Authorized Version Revised Version. . . Fri. Tyndale. . Genev. . Va. . . Vaughan. Gifford. Delitzsch. Oltramare. . (or Douay) .). . . . . Lightfoot. Wic. Meyer. AV. Harclean. Gothic. Fritzsche (C. Lipsius. Beng. . . De Wette. Pesh. .). Oltr. . . . . . . Liddon. . J Aeth. Vulgate. . Tischendorf. . . Editors (see p. . WH. Tregelles. F.

codd: that which follows Epiph. semel. alii.I. {eaten}) catena. pauc. . The few instances in which the editors dissent from this text are noted as they occur. Win. reliqui. Journal of Biblical the Society of Literature and Exegesis. Grm. JBExeg. edd. alibi. pauci. praemittunt. Zeitschrifl fiir wissen- schaftliche Theologie.. twice out of three times. Exp. of the Vulgate.— The text commented upon is that commonly known as the Bevisers' Greek Text (i. or Epiph.I. codd. om. cod.cxn C. Expositor. .L. 4/5. . &c. C. four out of five times. cat. Syn. codd. editores. addunt. Inscriptionum Corpus Lalinarum. . edd. rel. Winer's Grammar. : ' — Epiphanius.B. pier. plures. &c. &c. 2/3. omittunt. plerique.-Thay. . praemittit. Vulg.= a MS. add. &c). edd. plur. &c. ZwTh.G. not qualify always &c. the Greek Text presupposed in the Kevised Version of 1881) published by the Clarendon Press. . e. %) and the word which precedes. ABBREVIATIONS Inscriptionum Corpus Graecarum. Trench on Synonyms. statistics {%. addit. pr. al. Trench. omittit.. «/. or some printed edition of In text-critical notes adverbs cod. praem. Grimm -Thayer's Lexicon. . {bis. &c. editores priores (older editors). . ed. some MSS. codices. N.

7. called out of the society of the Church. whose commission I bear.! \ THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION". the heavenly Father. and to treat its two main divisions separately. It none other than His Son. an Apostle called by divine summons as much as any member of the original Twelve. 2-6. May the free unmerited favour of God and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him be May God Himself. I. on one hand by physical descent tracing His lineage * In this one instance we have ventured to break up the long and heavilyweighted sentence in the Greek. * Paul. so authorized and commissioned. as His own peculiar people. I. : . and the Lord yours ! Jesus Messiah. launched upon the world without preparation. tures. Paul. solemnly set apart for the work of delivering God's message of salvation Jewish or Gentile). grant them to you I preach. But the second of these is not in the strict sense a parenthesis the construction of the whole paragraph is continuous. 2 The message which the direct I am commissioned to proclaim is no startling novelty. 1. fulfilment but rather of promises which God had 3 inspired the prophets of Israel to set relates to down it in Holy Writ. a the Roman Church. the whom presents in a twofold aspect . consecrated to mass of mankind into the inner God. 7 . 'Paul. like Israel of old. itself also devoted servant of Jesus Christ. a divinely chosen and accredited Apostle to gives Christian greeting divinely called. Christians (whether gives greeting to the whole body of Roman who as Christians are special objects of the Divine love. in accordance with our Jetvish ScripJesus the Son of David and Son of God.

4).New Dispensation the same position which Israel occupied under the Old (vv. received both the general tokens of in that I God's favour was called to be a Christian 6 and also the is special gifts of all an Apostle. 1-7. or within thirty years of the Ascension. that sum and substance of my 6 message. is the Son of God by the miracle of the Resurrection. Who is at once the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God (vv. 7). He. We have to remember (1) that the Epistle was written about the year 58 a. 7). is yet indissolubly linked to the older dispensation which it fulfils and supersedes (vv. . may the blessedness of Christians descend upon you (ver. and therefore among you too is Rome. am an Apostle by no act of my own. but by the (ii) and in pursuance of the long-foreseen plan of God You. and with a full sense of the magnitude of the issues in which they and he alike are concerned. I. (iii) The Gospel which I am commissioned to preach. Roman Christians. 7 Its subject is Jesus. This opening section of the Epistle affords a good opportunity to watch the growth of a Christian Theology. are also special objects of the Divine care. men to over to the willing service of loyalty to all Him and the end which my labours are directed the honour of His Holy Name. in the sense of reflection upon the significance of the Life and Death of Christ and the relation of the newly inaugurated order of things to the old. among to win Gentile peoples. Paul delivers his credentials with some solemnity. You inherit under the . He takes occasion at once to define (i) his own position. (2) that in the interval the doctrinal language of Christianity has had to be built up from the foundations. which he had not yet visited. though new in the sense that it puts forward a new name. leading points in the section may be summarized thus Paul. Jesus. spirit. (iv) see note on kk^rpis dyiois). (ii) the position of his readers. visibly virtue of the Holiness inherent in His designated or declared to be I say. in and on the other hand. the Jew's it Messiah. and how far old terms have had a new face put upon them. We will return to this point at the end of the paragraph. . and from the Father.. We shall do well to note which of the terms used are old and which new.d. In writing to the Church of the imperial city. deliberate call (vv. The (i) I. St. the Son. 1-7. 6. as the EPISTLE TO Messiah was THE ROMANS to do. (v) From Him. 4 [I.: 1 to David. and the Christian's Lord. 7). the Name of Jesus Christ. (iii) the central truth in that common Christianity which unites them. My duty as an Apostle at . 3. 2. like And was through Him the rest of the Apostles. i.

al. Ezra ix. Xpiarov tantum D^*. Jud.. Jas. Hieron... cod.j 23 .. Sah.. Hard.. 2). L] 1. 21.] 22 of Israel. Rom. xxxiv. marg. 1 2 Thess. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov BDEP17.-Damasc. Vulg. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov X BDE. There is also evidently a certain method in the variation. Paul steps into the place of the prophets own Master Old Covenant. Goth. Joshua (Josh. {def.. Vulg. WH. NAD FGKP WH. those at the head of the list read indubitably 'IrjioO Xpiarov (or Xpiara>\ while those in the latter part (with the single exception of Tit. codd. This is the first instance of a similar use in the New Testament it is found also in the greetings of Phil. 1 Xpiarov Jo -Damasc.— . i. semel Kvrib. Tisch. ix. It will be observed that the Epistles being placed in a roughly chronological order. cxiii. 17 al. Jo. pauc. Euthal. Pss. Vulg. Hieron.-Damasc. iii. Tisch. generally (Pss. Cassiod. cod. Aug. But it is noticeable how quietly St. codd. Ambrstr. &c. xxiv.. {ex Caten. Chrys.) B 2 as indubitably read Xpiarov 'Irjaov. [lxxxviii. Tit. applied to the prophets in a body from Amos onwards (Am. vary between 'Irjaov Xpiarov and Xpiarov 'Irjaov. vii. Boh. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov Boh. 1 Xparov 'Irjaov KABFGLP17. A small question of reading arises here.. i. 1 'Irjaov i. In the opening verses of most of St. Paul's Epistles the MSS. which is perhaps of somewhat more importance than may appear at first sight. RV..). i. Hard. 'Irjaov D E F gr G. Vulg. WH. . Tisch. 25 and repeatedly. Tisch. RV. ii. 2 Pet. Tim.) RV. RV. Lat. Theodrt. 1 'Irjaov Xpiarov i. Hard. Ambrstr. 29. Euthal. i. Ambrstr. 6. Chrys. Boh. xviii. {sed Xpiarov ['Irjaod~\ marg. cod. Eph.. Hard. also with slight variations to Moses (depd-n-aiu Josh. 1 Xpiarov "Irjaov B. the apostolic salutation SoGXos 'ItjctoG 3 an Old Testa- XpioroG : dovKos Qeou or Kvpiov is ment phrase.) Jo. Boh. al. . 1 Cor. i.. al. Vulg. [xxxiii. Hard. Tisch. Tim. NDEFGKP RV. XpiarS> 'Irjaov Xpiarai Edd. Pesh. marg. Goth. and how quietly he substitutes in a connexion hitherto reserved for that of Jehovah. 2 Cor. title of Ps. WH. 1 2 Vulg. WH.. [lxxvii. i. Tisch. BMP 17 marg. Tisch. Phil.] 1 cxxxvi. Jer. 'Irjaov NDFGP {def. Euthal. 3).]). Arm. Orig. Tit. Philem. WH. Ambrstr. Isaiah (vols Is.] worshippers n-atSes . i. i. semel. 1 Xpiarov unquestioned.j. WH. Col. SD EFG . Ambrstr. B) 17 al.. The evidence stands thus (where that on one side only is given it may be assumed that all remaining authorities are on the other) : Thess. codd. xxxvi. i Xpiarov 'Irjaov cod. B). RV.-lat. codd. B). Dan. &c. Boh.-Damasc.. also ndis <vpiov. [cxii. Tisch.. Ballerini). tres. Ambrstr. [xxxv. and leaders of the name of His 'It###BOT_TEXT###lt;tov Xpio-ToO. 1 Xpiarov 'Irjaov N Tisch. codd. {ut vid. Gal. Vulg. xx.] 4. but applied also to lxxviii. Ballerin. Ambrstr. i. codd. bis {contra Orig. Tisch. {sic ed.. RV. [xvii.. 70. Hard. lxxxix. showing that as the Apostolic age progressed the assumption of the title became the established on a broad basis. WH. Xpiarov 'Irjaov BDEFG WH. C &c.. 7. (ed. i. i. C {def. i. Euthal. Boh.) Ambrstr. Orig. Vulg.. Jo. Aeth. 8). Ambrstr.. RV. [cxxxv. Boh.) al.. minusc. 1 'Irjaov I Xpiarw unquestioned. 11)... . Jude. A which is judiciously treated by WH. WH. David (title of Ps. bis) Aug. I.. al. codd. Xpiarov 'Irjaov codd.

7). he lays stress. however. also Acts xxvi. i. obeyed. 14 v. whether or not they KknTol are all who are invited to enter Christ's kingdom. to special selected accept the invitation the UtKueroi are a smaller group. Eminent servants of God become so by an The typical examples would be express Divine summons. Rom. For the ' the guests particular form B y his use of the ie ™\ (rXijrof) of Adonijah (1 Kings i. justly on the fact that he is tion of the term virtue of possessing kX^tos a7rdo-ToAo ? i. 1. . xn. but that is not quite clear. Gal. 8. 4. i. vi kXtjtos &tt6cxto\os. p. Paul places himself on a level at once 'called' saints and with the Twelve who had been kXtjtos we cannot come nearer than Testament The same combinaexpressly by Christ (Mark i. 4. it entirely Western looks as if the evidence for xu »> in Cor. Didache xi. 17. given but K\rjr6s implies that the call has been not only . Lightfoot. Jer. Paul or any of the other Apostles. 49). 9 passage. In these two call (on the way St. . HoS. iii. on Col. the prophets (Isa.). Paul. 1 others many and xvi. not merely an Apostle by . same persons. Herbert Stead in Expos. 5. 92 11 . Xpioros simply as a proper name (see Sanday. F.. There is In the Gospels a difference between the usage of the Gospels and Epistles. but is not Epistles by St. L there is a certain amount of Just about the group i and 2 Cor. in the wider acceptaApostle an be to claim only could Paul St. .l. It is well known that this word is used in two . occurs in 1 Cor. ff. with the great Old St. might be In any right.). (cf. 11 iff. Bampton lne and an article by the Rev. I The verb KaXdv occurs in a highly typical tii e£ Alyimrov neTenakeo-a reKva fiov. 289 f. ii.' .. Paul both words are applied to the honour (Matt. 386 ff. 41. Harnack Strictly speaking in Texte u. No doubt the latter have a little of its passing into a proper name. xxii. Untersuch. xi. &c. 19). Eph. xii. p. and the reading may possibly be fell into the habit of case it would seem that just about this time St. iii. &c). subject would repay working out on a wider scale of induction. On the relation of kAtjtos to i*X«*T<5$ see Lft. 12. and a wider Mark vi. Junias (Rom. 4 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. Moses (Ex.). xii. . the Lord's brother (Gal.. distinctly a Xpiorbs 'Irjaovs the first word would seem to be rather more phrase is rapidly proper name than in 'hjoovs Xpurros. iv. • : the K^ats is another idea which has its roots in Old Testament. Paul The interest of this would lie in the fact that in writing Xpiorbs 'irjaovs. Rom. 17) with that of Apostles. 10). Paul has to vindicate the parity of his own the elder to Damascus. -c t> Remembering the Western element which enters into B in Epp. also esp. (Luke 13 Himself to the Twelve (Acts xiv. doubt. 14). senses our Lord a narrower sense in which it was applied by iii. In St. h\ 14 ll)used elsewhere tion kXvtos aTroVr. 1-3). i. 1.e. 28 Cor. but Xpiaros would seem to the phrase would be in fact transitional sense as a title still clinging to it Xpiaros Itjoovs or between Xpiaros or 6 Xpiaros of the Gospels and the later Lectures. 1888. 14) and in which it includes certainly Barnabas Andronicus and probably James. . dTrocrroXos. cf. Abraham (Gen.

which is quoted or A conspicuous passage The group of words is well established in 18. . At the same time it should be remembered that St. Matt. Paul lays stress on this fact not with a view to personal aggrandizement. terrarum pracparatus sum. to one particular aspect (' the Gospel of of which Christ is the subject ') all aspects are is the author. 1. sion may God (see below on kXtjtos. Paul in evidently took a strong hold on the {*bayye\iov sixty connexion with his own call to missionary labours a text in Luke iv. 8oi\o S xi). is in any way related to God and The fundamental passage for the use of this word evayyi\ioy. Luke ten. dfjxopio-fievos. even Apostles. 1). eiayyAifrcrftu. all doctrine that in the human And yet the three terms. where the thought is of the gradual unfolding els ' euayyekiov 0eou. Mark eight. i. hand of God. which St. and once for three] [or two only all in occurs word (where the ' the reward of It the more common form is efayyeXia). dJoyyeXffccrftu. Mark i. by God (as in Gal. : This conception is not confined to the Canonical Books it is found also qui ab initio orbis in Assump. The first sense is most prominent here . 14. It does not appear to be borrowed directly from times. ' elayy*\L(uv.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 5 such qualifications as are described in Acts i. ' which God of the gen. 22. that there was some influence . Matthew one. i. Matthew four times. We cannot doubt appears to be Mark i. good tidings from the would seem. however. imagination of St. lxi. with no initiative or merit of their own. ' The ' particular function for is set apart is to preach the ' ' ' God' is the more approin time of a plan conceived in eternity. but through a direct intervention of Christ. Synoptic usage It Acts fifteen). Paul Gospel of God. or rather it includes the second. Moys. ut sim arbiter testamenti illius. but only with a view to commend his Gospel with the weight which he knows that it deserves. The Gospel is sometimes described as of God and sometimes of Christ (e. 15 (cf.I. 15) and &<f>wp«rfjt. 23). 14 itaque excogitavit et invenit me. Acts (clayyiXw. iv.' or ' : included in which the Gospel Christ. g. news of the Great Deliverance or Restoration from the taken as is Isa. (or its Aramaic that our Lord Himself described by this term the Messianic equivalent) His announcement of the arrival of the LXX Time. of restrict the force It is probably a mistake in these cases to priate. 2 1. rather frequent use (twenty times) of in connexion with the Psalms the and Isaiah Second especially in Captivity. .€Vos by man (Acts xiii. two. Here. which marks the historic fulfilment of : The free acceptance of the human commisenable us to understand how there is room for free will even in the working out of that which has been pre-ordained by the Divine purpose. serve to emphasize the essentially Scriptural ministers. 1. in a double sense. 2). are but instruments ch.

Aaj3i&. on 1 Cor. Led..). 13 (ii) the promises of the O. where kirayytXia is used of the promised gift of the Holy Spirit but we no sooner cross over lo the Acts than the use becomes frequent. &c. 1-3. 20 oaai yap enayytXiai Qeov (cf. i. neither kirayytXia nor knayyeXKeadai (in the technical sense) occur in the Gospels until we come to Luke xxiv. 2 Tim. 3. in particular the promise of the Holy Spirit (which is referred to the Father in Acts i. CTirc'pfjiaTos the Messiah from David ttus Xeyovaiv oi ypapparels For proof that the belief in the descent of was a living belief see Mark xii. T. Paul and the other N. This is contrasted with 6purd*progf ycvopivov denoting. 72) ' . and Gal. iii. . Synopt. ' transition from one state or mode of subsistence to another' (Sp. the books are holy ' as containing the promises of God Himself. Mark . Xii. Apoc. yci/ojj. some eight times each in Rom. The disparity between St. (iii) in a yet wider sense of promises. Kvpiov cf. We iv ypcujxus dytais : perhaps the p. . In ypafats ayiais the absence of the art.g. peril ftias dcpeiXovro : a group of passages which is characteristic of the attitude of wistful expecta- this USe is Ps.&'ou. the way is prepared for it by places like Mark i. 8 . earliest extant instance of the use . iv. i. No wonder Church as after that the idea it primitive find its one feature was eagerly seized upon by the pages of the O. so ewayyeXia three times in the Acts. Gal. and to another of the history of its Founder and of began to turn the own history foretold there. Bamp. i. as usually. p. and Apoc. 14. Acts xiii. T.' and is practically equivalent to the Johannean eXdopTos t6v Koapov. Led. 4 rj kirayyeXia ttjs irapovoias ai/rov... vii. 49. a Book lies beyond our limits (Sanday.6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. xxvi. so enayyeXta four times in Acts (note esp. in. cvayEpp. 6 Up6s yos but the use is evidently well established. fulfilled in Christianity. throws the stress on ayiais . 1) . T. written down by inspired men (81a ran 7rpocpr)Ta>v avTov). The words cover (i) the promises made by Christ. whether as yet fulfilled or unfulfilled. Paul. besides in Epp. 2 Cor. both tnayyeXia and h-nayyeXXtoOai repeatedly in Heb. and the idea of a collection of authoritative books goes back to the prologue to Ecclus. 6). on 6 Xpiaros vlos can Aa/3/S (cf. and Eph. writers The use of evayyiXiov for outside Evv. of this phrase (Philo prefers cf. i-nayyeXXeaQai OCCUr not in the technical sense of the great The first instance of to His people. tion in the Jewish people during the century before the Birth of Christ. I Tim. only twice . 6. The words several times in ' promises : ' LXX. Acts is striking. 2 Pet. vii. . 8 Kal oaioi Kvpiov KXrjpouoprja-atfv eVcryyeXi'as 9 rov eXerjaai rov oIkov IaKG>/3 els fjpepav iv 7/ enrjyyeiXu) avTois. times in Epp. Sanday. yeXiCeaOai twenty times in 2. 1 . 31772. 30) it is rightly paraphrased If pal ypatfiui. TrpoeTnjyyciXaTO.). but made by God eTrayyeXLa. ' [Who] was els born. e. iii. Paul. seven times pass. 32. 1 . Bamp. Sol. 35 ff. and Xvii. . Comm. i. 4) . . lepai ftifiXoi. 6 of? ovk eVr/yyei'Xo. xiv. notice that in strict accordance with what we may believe to have been the historical sequence. besides once mid.

Acts x. the First and Third Gospels. H. p. tov ftaaikevaai eVi 'laparjX 7rm8a aov K. 15-19). See on Kara ' human to ' divine/ but as body to ' spirit/ Christ are TTvevp. 14 'it is evident that our I. E. Kcrra in'cujxa are ' opposed ' to each other. Syr. But here the particular context is also neutral so that we must look to the wider context Now it is certain that St. Sol. vii. Altsyn. 3. 30 . installed. opio-deV-ros designated. . 49). Luke i. 7 xi. ko\ dvdaTrjo-ov o~v. 70 (cf. 8 (where the assertion is made a part of St.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION x. below. of the Mother of our Lord to Elizabeth (Luke i. 4 Ezra xii.). about it (Mark xii. 32 (in three of the extant versions. to Romans shows that Christians early pointed to His descent as fulfilling one of the conditions of Messiahship . vii.r. iv.A. . and the Talmud and Targums (passages in Weber. 9 cf. we find the theory of a double descent from Levi and from Judah (Sym. Paul's ' Gospel ') . 10 and 47 f. The word itself does not determine the meaning either way it must be determined by the context. 52). xvii. 4 viii. 35-37 II ).' It ' is word an being' stituted/ • alternative between (i) proved to be/ usual to propose for this ' marked out as ' (fieix^ e ro$'> V dirofyavOevTos Chrys. ii had assumed substantially its present shape before a. 2 Cor. gojttjp tw 'lapa-qK. In Test. Kvpie. avrols tov (BaaiXc'a (ivtwv vibv AaviS els tov Kaipbv bv olftas 6 Geo?. : kcit& aapica ' . Swete. 1 7 p. &ebv zeal dvOpoonov Gad. Neither St. But this Lord hath sprung out of Judah' (see Joseph and Mary from the same tribe). Heb. Armen. : ' 4. also Eus. 4. .I. though the Holiness which is the abiding property of His Spirit is something more than human.) : also Ps. 341). Creed. Arab. Paul of St. ii. 8 oirous riprjawaiv 'lovdav /cat Aevei on t£ avrwv avareKei Kvpios. Paul nor the Acts nor Epistle to Hebrews defines more For this we have to go to nearly how the descent is traced. Paul's teaching generally. i. • i'oV. 42 ovtos icmv lopio-pevos wo tov Qcov iv avdpl a> 31 /xe'XXfi Kpiveiv &piae. Our Lord Himself appears to have made little use of this title he raises a difficulty : verse of Ep. similarly 2 Tim. Pair. At the same time he did regard the if not in the transcendental Resurrection as making a difference relations of the Father to the Son (which lie beyond our cogni* {&VTWV Kal veicpwv. Harnack's This is no doubt an inference from the relationship note. The undoubted Epistles are clear on this point (esp. cf. f . 7 avaor-qati yap Kvpios etc rod Aevel us dpxifpea ml Ik tov 'lovba &s f$ao~i\ea. parallels are quoted. — . the early chapters of which embody wholly distinct traditions. : . XII Patriarch. • . did not hold that the Son of God became Son by the Resurrection. Apost i. . not as both of which in human. For this latter adopted by most modern commentators) the and xvii. Apost. Acts ii. Theol. but both converging on this point.). ayicocr. &c. Col. 230°. There is good reason to think that St. 36).d.' in fact is sense (which Kpirrjs that and (ii) 'appointed/ inand not merely in idea.

Nor is it surprising that the title should have been chosen by the Early Church to express its sense of that which was transcendent in the Person of Christ see esp. Thou art the Christ. 36. ii. 11. The crowning instance is the confession of ||. § 7). it cannot be said that He did It is more often used to describe the impression made not use it. * This is designated. iv. v. 6 eavTod vlos of pre-existence. kcu e^apttraro clvtco to ovoyni to inrep irav ovo\ia). sance). It is consistent with the whole of our Lord's method that He should have been thus reticent in putting forward his own claims. the Son of the living God. 9 8t6 icai 6 Qe6s airov {mcpvylraxre . sufficiently The Latin versions are not very helpful. find it used by our Lord Himself. as certain that when he speaks (viii. where recent attempts to restrict the Sonship of Christ to His earthly manifestation are duly weighed and discussed. . Apost. esp. xxvii. may be followed in Swete. John x. 32. 29. ' ' title of the Messiah . yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship as addressed to the understanding of men (cf. 28. 711). It is true that Christ becomes Judge in a sense in which He does not become Son . i. Paul regarded the Incarnate Christ as existing before His Incarnation i. Hilary of Poitiers has destinatus. were. Introd. 4. Mark iii. The common rendering was cf.. 24 ff. xxi. the teaching of which is very direct and explicit. 6 ||) and the voice from heaven (Mark utou 0€ou. in all which places the Almighty speaks of the 37.. Enoch cv. and this passage. g. Mark. 1 (where the words if not certainly genuine. xiv. . Tertullian reads definitus. 8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [i. 9. which Rufinus also prefers. in any case are an extremely early addition). but He is Judge too not wholly by an external The Divine declaration.' was a recognized (cf.-lat] ad loc. 3. and it is implied by the words of the Tempter (Matt. Son of God. of Him as 6 Xbios vl6s 32). praedestinatus (so expressly Rufinus [Orig. xiii. In this passage we have seen that the declaration of Sonship dates from the Resurrection but we have also seen that St.' which might expressed by our word perhaps with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts. ' . 1 : : and it (Rom. Phil. 11 St.. the cenupon others (e. ix. The further history of the term. Matt. though in face of Matt. 43. as that St. 52 Messiah as My Son. the demonized.' though the exact phrase Son of God 'does It is remarkable that in the Gospels we very rarely not occur). endorses and proclaims that right. Mark xv. he intends to cover the period John identifies the fiovoyevtjs with the 3). Creed. the common text of the Gospel of St. al.' Matt. as it creation but by an inherent right. 39 ||). xvi.' like Son of Man. p. is viii. 16. with its strengthening addition fiovoyevrjs. and that He should have left them to be inferred by the free and spontaneous working of the minds of His disciples. 37 f. 2 4 Ezra vii. cf. Peter in the version which is probably derived from the Logia. ' || . 7 turion.

6 'strength']. no sufficient the Early Church. 4. Pauline (2 Cor. If so. . ut sup. the last results of the Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries (Loofs. ii. Dogmengesch. 12 [xcvii. 2 Cor.and nvevpa requires that they shall be in the same person nor (ii).). XII. xcvi. (Pss. a remarkable phrase as applied to Christ. (iii) the Resurrection (Acts xiii. Patr. [cxlv. Heb.' lit. like the human adpg. 1 ||) ' . the use of the phrase is so different from that in the text. the Third Person in the Trinity (as the Patristic writers generally and some moderns). so far as reflected upon reason to think that these terms. There are three moments to each of which are applied with variations the words of Ps. of &Yi. but in 2 Mac*. 15 'it behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren . 5 In all three places it is used of the Divine attribute.. Levi 18 the identical phrase trvevfi. § 39. 33). I.) were coextensive with the <rdpg and the Divine Nature were coextensive with the irvevpa. . The same instance would show that the phrase does not of itself and alone necessarily imply divinity. &c. occurs three times in the Psalms. This parallel de- termines the connexion of Kcn-a urcGfAa dyiwaunris : iv 8w. : LXX For dyiaia. We can see here the origin of the Ebio- which is however held in check by the doctrine of the Logos in both its forms. 4. nite idea of progressive exaltation.. . but may belong to the original work and is in any case probably early. ii. of hwdpei not with vlov etoi). «XXa i< dwafxecos Qeov. = yet without sin'). 5 'honour']). In Test. 17. The passage is Christian in its character.a. Lips. and other moderns the Divine Nature in Christ as if the Human Nature (even Lid. though not the Divine nature. dyicoff. and others.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION There is it 9 pre-existent Logos. not always in agreement with Heb. 1 ff. Paul. because the antithesis of (rapt. but rather adverbially. 7 Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee.' (rj Comp. distinguished however from that of ordinary humanity by an exceptional and transcendent Holiness (cf. with Beng. The moments in question are so many steps in the passage through an earthly life of One who came forth from God and returned to God. see on ayioi ver. cxliv. but (iii) the human nvevp. e£ avaaTdaecos yeKpwy His was not a resurrection of dead persons' (' a3enrisynge of dead • . declared with might to be Son of God. as Weiss. that the presumption would be that it was not coined for the first time by St. iv. Son in power I opposed to the present state of humiliation. not found in profane literature. qualifying 6pLa8evros.) and Johannean (John i. not (i) = IIvevfia 'Ayiov. 1 .' They (ii) the Transfiguration (Mark ix. 'memorial']. 3). 4 iaravpadrj e£ do-Qevelas. iv. 6 [xcyi. iii. is that in which the Divinity The clear definition of this point was one of or Divine Personality resided. not stages in the gradual deification of one who began his career as xpiXos dvOpamos.' The Resurrection is regarded as a 'miracle' or iv ' : God ' 1 signal manifestation of Divine Power. xcv.coo-\)vti. under- stood them differently. 7. occurs of the saints in Paradise. 12 'holy name. xiii. 12 we have j) tov tuttov dyiwavvrj. which would be very like the error of Apollinaris . 7 ||) are (i) the Baptism (Mark i. The irvfvfm ayiaiavvTjs. esp.

' a sense going back to Homer '• (Od. 'unearned favour' with stress upon the fact that it is unearned. but without a full consciousness of its significance it was only after the Resurrection that the Apostles took it to express their central even in His lifetime (John : belief (Phil. The and great (xliv. Theol. St. v. in anthropomorphic scenes where God is represented as holding colloquy with man) it is used of finding favour in the sight of God. T. 'sweetness/ 'atviii. as in Zech. 17). But veicpcov coalesces closely in meaning with dvao-r. ' lO EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. Altsyn. Ps. 12 Xdyot o~Top. 3) . 4). On the lips of Christians Kvpws denotes the idea of Sovereignty. &c. (Luke ii. best explanation of the plur. ii. this word does not in itself necessarily involve Divinity. &c). ii. Lord (6 Kvpios) and ye say well . and to epya. 40 John i. xii. debt (Rom. The Jews applied it to their Messiah (Mark xii. i. 22 yoi xapiros. as equivalent of Adonai. so as to give it very much the force of a compound word. T. 16. Master (6 8i8do-Ka\os). 6 with v.) in many of these passages (esp. X<lpis is an important word with a distinctively theological use 5. regularly applied to God tou Kupi'ou iqfjiGJi'. esp. xi. 18. xlv. 36 fiaaikevs avrav xp^ros Kvpios) without thereby pronouncing Him to be 'God'. xvii. 37 . (Phil. 178). Thus the word comes to be used (3) of the favour ' or good will of God. T. 2). Rom. single dead person. most important in the commonest form of phrase ' ' ' ' .. &c).) but of a veicpov ' || ' ' as the society of believers (Col. &c). i.' primarily over themselves men' Wic. sons rise. and therefore as bestowed nOt upon the righteous but on sinners (cf. xviii. iv. for so I am ').. p. towards an inferior. : The was given to our Lord 13 'Ye call me.' ' good will. i.' especially as shown by a superior 3 i^xydr} \^P ls "*' X 61^ 60 °~ ov Eccl. X. 9 ff. (2) Subjectively 'favour. Sol. 14. . (#) by a usage which is specially characteristic of St. a resurrection such as that when dead perChrist is 'the first-born from the dead' (Col.' ' kindly feeling. In Eastern despotisms chieftain is this personal feeling : hence O.) variety of meaning: *v (1) objectively.' Although in O. eXdpo/xei'. Ps. 10 f^ew iTvevp. Rom. works (implying merit. i. 6). f ' ' ' — ' . they expressly distinguished between the Messiah and the Memra or Word ' of Jehovah (Weber. 3. and that (a) generally. 5. with opposition to dcpeiXrjpa. We might expect rather or etc veitpmv (as in i Pet. xiii. 175). and.ov but far more commonly in N.. 18).aTos o-ocpov x^P ls: Luke iv. In this sense the word takes a prominent place in the vocabulary of Justification. Jahveh. 'by a dead-rising' (Todlenauferstehung). but also over title all creation 10. Paul (though not confined to him).a xdpiros Ka\ oiKTipp. 4. 8 . 16. (Gen. vi. Col. tractiveness. 36. 11 . seems to be that Paul associates himself with the other Apostles. and it is probable that this form is only avoided because of e£ duaardaecos coming just before. cvpelv x^piv is on the part of the king or the .

it comes to mean simply 'thanks' (1 Cor. the lively act or impulse In confessing Christ the lips obey this of adhesion to Christ. ' minister of that revelation. may be rendered with Vulg. At this early date a body of formulated doctrine. x. T. and Eph. diro<rro\if]i' = the more observe that St. This is also clearly the sense in which of ' God in Christ (avrov. p. or (j3). vi. as the like gifts are described elsewhere as proceeding from the Spirit (1 Cor. esp. ad obediendum eis uiraKOT)!' moreus fidei provided that wUrr. 8). the word is used in ver. &c). ii. 2). 6). commend . though it is rapidly coming to exist. cvi.' The idea goes back to the O. &c). xviii. 2 1 f. i. xx. Paul regards this spiritual endowment as conferred upon him by Christ (81 ov) we may add. 41 among all Gif. x. xii. is not hardened too much into the sense which it afterwards acquired of a 'body of doctrine' (with art. e8ur] (cf. Faith is the act of assent by which the Gospel is We — : : ' ' ' See below on ver. Hort. [cv. and it is more pointed to tell the Roman Christians that they thus belong to his special province (ver. does not still exist irlans is still. revelation itself is made more so that by the fidelity of Israel the impressive and commended in the eyes of other nations. what it is predominantly to St. ii. argues for the rendering iv ttcuti tois eQveaiv. T. Gen. and to the proper meaning of the phrase iravra to. impulse of the heart (Rom. Israel is the instrument or connected with the revelation of God. for the Divine prompting and help which precedes and accompanies right action does not correspond exactly to the usage of N. 8). 17. of the Latin gratia. rfj Triers Jude 3). Mai. 14. (5) As x«P ls or 'kindly feeling' in the donor evokes a corresponding x^P ls or gratitude in the recipient. 16). any particular gift or gifts of grace (nXrjprjs x^P lTOi note however that the later technical use. 10). 11). But the Christian Church is the new Israel and hence the gaining of fresh converts and their fidelity when gained serves in like manner to cf. shares with all Xdtpiy here Acts We ' ' = Christians and by virtue of which he peculiar gifts of an Apostle. \ 3. the further revelation ' made Phil. From another point of view. 30). 5.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION II (4) The cause being put for the effect x<*P ls denotes (a) 'the state of grace or favour' which the Christian enjoys (Rom. v. 18.. Acts v. uirep tou dyojmciTos auTou. 9). Paul. like xa/J'<r/xu. ' : I. acting through His Spirit. (Ps. going a step further back. is one. nations on the ground that a comprehensive address is best suited to the opening of the Epistle. than to regard them merely as one among the mass of nations.] 8 The Name of God is intimately Ezek. x. . we may speak of obeying the Gospel (Rom. Rom. appropriated. This is rather more than simply for His glory. Paul's commission as an Apostle was specially to the Gentiles (Gal. But St. Cf. that general favour which the Ap.

the see question the of discussion full For a ver.e. xii.e. and the commentary of Ambrstr. convocation. and they personally receive the consecration under the Old Covenant was attached to times and seasons. Ex. LXX phrase which is translated in AV. 6. denoting apparently a special religious meeting. a technical term almost . 27.' the subject. and RV. or ' convocation. schol. i. 'shall be a called Num. Paul takes a phrase which was wholly through current and the of creation a instance appropriating it to Christian use. The same MS. has on such have ' such a day shall a day there shall be a holy convocation. 8. shall be kA^') <¥«> «• e This is a striking instance of the way distinguished. being one pears to be due to a misunderstanding. ™ G g. as he himself was k^toIs has the same sense as k\t)t6s in ver.T 2 : EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [l. the Heb. Driver:— kXtjtIj KXrjrfj ayia corresponds to K~>l?l? wholly confined to the Priests' from N"£ to call. Code. 'such a day - specially appointed. so all Christians were called which Christians. t et-rjyrjaei possession. e. where the Heb. with which the holy the phrase usually runs. word used Whereas in translators were not familiar. of m . 16). adj. some (similarly had before him). iv ols Church munity among Gentiles. •ndcrt rols oZvtv iv 'Pw/iiy to dydnr} together with the fluctaken facts. holy (day). iv 'p&w in would seem tuating' position of the final doxology. xii. to give iv 'PcSfAH : om.' the (or feast) LXX treat the word translated convocation as an and make 'day' the subject of the sentence. 15.' ing. chosen.t^ &yia represents consistently in § 6. G reads na<n rols ovo-iv iv aya*ji Seod seem to imply d* Vulg. cod. and recasts its meanit. It is represented by kKtjttj. they alter the form of the sentence. 'an LXX Heb. and use kXtjttj with its proper force as an adj. 7. xiv that the authorities which place the doxology at r here and in are quite different from those which omit iv PAj*g Introduction. 47 ttj some ground for the inference that there were in circulation times a few copies of the Epistle from which all local ancient in It is however important to notice references had been removed. Now LXX . commentator whom the Scholiast ofa <p fary ixv nfjiovtvu. 25-27.' clearly in the first in which St. 16 b. 1 called to be to be an Apostle. codd. the end of ch. xxviii. : < ' ' ' ' we For the following detailed statement of the evidence respecting are indebted to Dr. LXX Obviously substituting a theological sense for a liturgical. Lev. 35.' held on certain sacred days. These ver. omits rols OeoO). xvi. make day (i. xxiii and Ex. 7. 25. the holy convocation' The rendering ap(so eleven times in Lev. : « kXtjtoI 'Irjaou XpicrroG called ones of Jesus Christ (to iv *Pa>/i>7 ovre tv > : gen. kXtjtoTs dyiois. xxiii. 36. but clearly numbering the Roman among Gentile communities. ' on such a day there shall be a K\». 7. be kAtjtt) ayia. ' in all these passages. 15. comnot merely in a geographical sense of a Jewish 6.' i.

and dyias KaXtaert respectively. In this sense it might be applied even to God Himself. kmK\r)Tos. i.lv similarly xxix. 4 they also alter the form of the sentence. and did not know what it meant. (sc. They read analogously with Nipt? in Lev. In Lev. 1. or stain. I think it probable that they pro. k\. i. for the ordinary partic. (4) At first the idea of holiness. also moral. or stain' in the first instance physical. they express it by ImKXrjTos (the same word used (37 ijpipa 7} -npum) emKXrjTos ayia. ix. is supported by their rendering of N"}i?t? elsewhere. 21 Kal KaKeaere TavTT)v rrjv qpipav kXtjttjv' ayia earai v/miv. 7. such as to suggest that it have the form of a subst. Lev.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION ' . 9 al iroXets at kniicXrjToi rots vlois 'lapariX). kXtjt^ ayia. $ KaXearrf Kal r) . xxiii. : The usage of kKtjttj was probably felt to ' ' nounced dyiois. It is more probable that its meaning developed by a process of deepening from without inwards than by extension from within outwards. And in proportion as the conception of God itself became elevated and purified. 20).g. KXrjOrjaerai ayia. spot. and we find it so applied even in the earliest Hebrew literature (e. 2 at kopral Kvplov. till at last it becomes the culminating and supreme expression for the very essence of the Divine Nature. however. in //. 1 Kings vii. xxvi. holy (day) cf.' in itself and apart from any particular destination. in Lev. called.I. Its connotation would seem to have been at first physical and ceremonial. but by degrees. it occurs to me that the LXX were not familiar with the term N"lpD. This view of k\. 16. k\.e.' whether physical or moral. chosen. it not as a subst. but as a participle fcOJ?D (' called ').) cites from Phavorinus the gloss. i. xxiii. 18.iv) ib. word would seem to be very parallel to that of k\t)t<hs. and iv. ImKXrjros ayia earai vp. xxiii. In Ex. (1) The fundamental idea appears to be that of separation/ So the word holy came to be applied in all the Semitic languages. vi. xx. in i£ox<»TaTT). but it would gradually become detached from this connexion and denote 'freedom from blemish. the word which expressed this central attribute of His Being would contract a meaning of more severe and awful purity. But (3) inasmuch as 5 r [37] ) or persons (e. 26 (teal 7-77 rjpepq tuiv vtwv . that which was so set apart or consecrated to God was required to be free from blemish. I suppose in the same sense of specially appointed (cf. 31 [29] ). Josh. as moral ideas ripened. 5 'all her convocations' by rd input k\w avrijs From all this.. 1 Sam. When once this height had been reached the sense so acquired ' — * Biel (Lex. Ex. 165 and Rom. 12). K^pD. xii. the word would come to denote freedom history of this ' The ' ' ' ' ' ' ' from blemish.. xxviii.. spot. as KaaeTf avras kKtjtcIs dyias (cf. 1 6 a. 7. 1. 13 the calling of a convocation is represented in LXX by i/pepav HeyaXrjv. 9. 3 (cf. qpepa) cf. xxii. would be directly associated with the service of God. distinguished*). 371. and to have become gradually more and more ethical and spiritual. g. whether things (e. v. In Num. and render it by a verb.. v. 24). 13 a specially appointed. (2) to that which was 'set apart' for the service of God. summoned). Is. seems to be in apposition with avditavots. xxiii is. g. iarai vp. i. LXX.

and the tendencywould be more and more to assimilate the idea of holiness in the creature to that of holiness in the Creator. . some lower and some higher and he chooses on this occasion not that which is highest but one rather midway in the scale. p. Sol. When he describes the Roman Christians as . Peter. Theology of the Old Testament. ' ' Ye shall be holy . be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living (AV. Ye shall be holy. for I. Agar ' ' . 16). would be reflected back over all the lower uses. The common view (accepted also by Delitzsch) is that in the latter case it means ' separated ' or ' set apart for God. both things and persons. ii. ov d<f)r]yT)a€Tai ev SiKaioavvrj starting-point for the higher. ' . 6 Wvos ayiov). 2. they are to be 'transformed by the renewing' of their mind (Rom. The same phrase had been a designation for Israel in O.' tive discussions will be found in Davidson. Paul transfers to Christians a title hitherto appropriated to the Chosen People. conversation). . whether in the sense of exaltedness (Baudissin) or of purity (Delitzsch\ is derivative rather than primary. xii. cf. vi. J. 18-27. ed. He would find a series of meanings ready to his hand. he does not mean that they reflect in their persons the attributes of the All-Holy. f. 2) Schultz. The instances above given will show this. 19. InstrucHeiligkeit Gottes. because it is written. We note that Ps. 2). of which perhaps the best and the most accessible is that by Fr. Paul made use of it. v. Robertson Smith. 132 ff. As He which called you is holy. and in the former case that it means ' separate from evil (sejunctus ab omni vitio. 2. xvii. There are a number of monographs on the subject. ' ' sense of ' ' ' Similarly Enoch ciii. Yl ^ 2 4)« where books of the holy ones the roll of the members of the Kingdom (Charles). had already described the Messianic people as Xnos ayios (kou crvvd^ei Aa6r> ayiov. Delitzsch in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie. 6 xiv. xxviii. the Lord your God.. varied from Ex. 17. treatise by Dr. Religion of the Semites.14 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [i. 9. but only in Deut. Dan. This tendency is formulated in the exhortation. 15. s. At the same time he is not content to rest in this lower sense. 131. 1 ' cviii. for I am holy (1 Pet. He teaches in fact implicitly if not explicitly the same lesson as St. 150 ed. 28. T. but only that they are set apart or consecrated to His service. 140 (140 ft. pp. labis expers). (vii. The main problem is how to account for the application of the same word at once to the Creator and to His creatures. 3. xxxix. There is a certain element of conjecture in the above sketch. &c). We have thus another instance in which St. A . But in this case the Jewish Messianic expectation had been beforehand with him. but after his manner he takes it as a basis or ' ' ' ' Because Christians are holy in the consecrated/ they are to become daily more fit for the service to which they are committed (Rom. xix. vii. which is inevitable from the fact that the earlier stages in the history of the word had been already gone through when the Hebrew literature begins. 2. 2.. xix. am holy (Lev. ' = ' . ayioi. Ezekiel. 21 xxvi. Such would appear to have been the history of the word up to the time when St. 22). But the link between these two meanings is little more than verbal and it seems more probable that the idea of holiness in God. 18. i. 7. 167 ff.

too begins as a phrase of social intercourse. T. salutation x aiP" vi and Peace. : St.J II Kvpios cvXoyrjo-fi tou \aov avrov iv elpTjvT) lxxxv.] 8 XaXiyafi dprjVTju em tov \abv avrov ibid. 2 St. kA^ois ay lots <a\ ttkttoIs. Paul's ) WCJtX. Rom. but is somewhat affected by to the sequence of the documents. place earlier. cip^nr). xiv. xxix.] THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION is 1 on a good method. > . Jude. 'is ayiois ) I ayiois Eph. +t .' x"P l « and elpyvrj are both used elpr)VT) the cessation of hostility to which follows upon it. xvi. elpljinj in the Pastoral Epistles and 2 St. dyiois . as the number of local churches multiplied. where in the later. constantly stands for the religious assembly of the whole people. Paul. x<*P LS eXeos. &c). and as the Apostle himself came to see them in a larger perspective. with elp^pr) this process had taken xaipeiv . (except Pastorals) and in 1. Cor. and more particularly of the Pentateuch. . salutation Shalom. : cxix. liii. X<*pis •"*« eiprjnrj- Observe the combination and deepened re- ligious significance of the common Greek ' : the common Heb. On the other side may be urged the usage of the O. Beet critical questions as There is an interesting progression in the addresses of Epp. IO : I hiKaiovvvT) koi dyaTTcba-i (lpr)vr) I KaT((piXrjo-ap Is. James x«w *<» "pr) v V in Epp.] 1 65 dpr)vq iroXkr) rols : tou vopov 5 naidiia (Iprjvrjs tjpcov tn avrov Jer. navi tois 2 The idea of the local Church. Peter. Gal. 2 TheSS. It would however be a mistake to argue at once from this that the use of iKKXrjaia for the local Church necessarily came first in order of time. him and the peace of mind : There are four formulae of greeting in N. [xxviii. rrj Phil. 7. as compared with O. I. [cxviii. 25 .. xix. as a unit in itself. But the question is too large to be argued as a side issue. marking that stage in the advance of civilization at which the assumption that every stranger encountered was an enemy gave place to overtures of friendship (Elp^vrj o-oi Jud. bia6r}(ropai 13 akf)6eiav Kal clprjurju Sdxra) em rrjs yrjs : Ezek. the simple in St. 1892) starts from the assumption that the prior idea is that of the Church as a whole. But It the word soon began to be used in a religious sense of the cessation of the Divine anger and the restoration of harmony between God and man (Ps. XXxiv. Rom. Col.5 I. T. 20. roty Cor. — in the full theological sense x«P 4 f = the favour of God. 18.. T. T. eKKkrjala Rudolf Sohm's elaborate Kirchenrecht (Leipzig. that of individual Christians forming part of the great body of believers (the Church Catholic) is more prominent And it would be natural that there should be some such progression of thought. as well as the saying of our Lord Himself in Matt. is more prominent in the earlier Epp. But just this part of his learned work has by no means met with general acceptance. [lxxxiv. We have seen how x<*pu had acquired a deeper sense in N. rfj eKiOiTjcrlq (rats €V*Xj?o-iaty) I. John eXeoa Kai elpqvrj koi dydnr) in St.

) v/mTv v\rj6vv6ei-q. 0€ou Trarpos Kal Kupiou 'irjaou Xpiorou. 7 compared with Ps. 4 (other reff. &tt6 nearest parallel for the use of the word vi. in such fundamental passages as Ex. 26.16 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. d. 9. 12. 2 Thess. of human thought than the silent and imperceptible way in which this doctrine. Paul wrote his earliest extant Epistle This shows that even at that (1 Thess. to the Canonical Scriptures ad loc). The singling out of this title must be an echo of The doctrine its constant and distinctive use by our Lord Himself. 13). in a salutation as here e\pr\vi\ is iii.). It date (a. 15. 25 (Theodot. of It may also be a particular class such as the weak and friendless. Altsyn. Nor is this use confined cf. xxxii. viii. 98 [31]. lxiv. Is. xxxiii. The ' opposition in that passage between the gods of the heathen Christians' ' and the God seems ' to show that rjpup = at least primarily. 4. 5. the triple formula concludes an Epistle written a few months earlier There is nothing more wonderful in the history (2 Cor. 9. 16. is well also to remember that although in this particular verse of Ep. xxxvii. 1. Theol p. it was one of the functions of the Messiah to bring 'peace' (Weber. it also marks an important stage in the history of the doctrine of the Trinity. to Romans at the time when St. It is found already some six years before the composition of Ep. But this idea which lies as a partially developed germ in ciii. 7. of the Messianic King. lxviii. i. to us so difficult. — ' ' . SV ov ra iravra. iv. eg ov ra navta. xxii. to). Enoch v. iraTpos Tjjxwi'. Ixiii. Deut. xxxiv. 29. 30. 8. 52) the definition of the doctrine had begun. kcu repels els ' ' ' ' avTov. xxxi. but there is usually some restriction or qualification God is the Father of Israel. 14). if not formally enunciating a doctrine of the Divinity of Christ. It is stated in precise terms and with a corresponding assignment of appropriate prepositions in I Cor. Mai. The assignment of the respective titles of Father and Lord represents the first beginning of Christological speculation. 2). 1 . &c. 98 [31]. i.Giv . lxxxix. 362 f. Kal els Kvpios 'lrjaovs Xpiords. cf. Jer. 6. xiii.' Not only does the juxtaposition of ' Father' and Lord ' mark a stage in the doctrine of the Person of Christ . 6. of the Fatherhood of God was taught in the Old Testament (Ps. took its place without struggle and without controversy among accepted Christian truths. in Charles. : . i. The juxta- position of as Father and Christ as Lord may be added to the proofs already supplied by vv. that St. to Romans the form in which it appears is incomplete. 6. Jubilees i. 26]. The Dan. rw Aav 8ia0fjKTjv elprjvrjs [cf. 6 aXA' r\iiv els 0eo? 6 irarr]p. iii. ii. ' us Christians rather than us men. held a view which God cannot really be distinguished from it. said that the doctrine of Divine Fatherhood is implicitly contained in the stress which is laid on the loving-kindness of God (e. 34 (LXX) f\i. Paul. Ka\ r/pels bt avrov. g.

in the first instance. but perhaps not Eph. 6 narrjp is the natural term to use. On 20 the early history of the term see esp. Glaubensbekenntniss. and characteristic ing contained in them. ' peace ' irarrjp is occasionally used in N. ff. of a Christhe tian community (3) A clear apprehension of the relation of clear assertion of what we new order of things to the old . 3 . 2). iv. Apost. of God A c . In looking back over these opening verses it is impossible not to be struck by the definiteness and maturity of the theological teachIt is remarkable enough. in 1 Cor. viii. 2 Justin. xix. aov. 61 Tatian. Col. xii. The Theological Terminology of Rom. and the certainty that the Creed is based upon that usage (e. fjfxuv 'irja-ov Xpiarov (which is expressed in full in 2 Cor. that a mere salutation should contain so much weighty teaching of any kind . Graec. p. T. T. so that when the two are placed in juxtaposition. Rom. p. (4) should call summarily the Divinity of Christ. Swete. ii. cf. so that the Apostle widens the reference by throwing in fipwv. g. e.). where iruvraiv may be masc). but not Eph.1-7. i. 6.] the THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION 1 Old Testament breaks into full bloom in the New. no doubt true that ' more general sense of ' ' . airav] (e. 6) seem to be decisive against him. . the immense preponderance of N. Col. of this primitive Christian literature. It is and its recipients. i. Or. in the Father of lights/ Creator ' (James i. g. Matt. Paul regarded both in the light of its relation to the expectations of his complete set of ideas as to the status in the sight . and that similar phrases occur in the early post-apostolic writers (e. Creator of the heavenly bodies . Clem. phrase marks the distinction between the Son and the Father . to bring out the connexion between the source of grace and : . But when Harnack the earliest creeds prefers to give this interpretation to Pater in {Das Apost. especially of the Epistles of St. iii. Father of spirits'. Paul. ad Cor. twenty-three times in St. c. Rom. 3 3.). irarrjp rwv oAg>i> in this sense is common in Philo. i. which St. mere fact of juxtaposition sufficiently suggests the narrjp rod Kvplov Eph. 36. 6 It is true also that 6 narrjp 7rdvra>v. 20). i. g. xv. Creed. Apol. g. and 6 irarrjp pov [6 narrjp] In particular this second (e. 14. There are no less than five distinct groups of ideas all expressed with deliberate emphasis and precision: (1) A complete set of ideas as to the commission and authority of an Apostle (2) A .7 1. It takes however a two-fold ramification 6 irarrjp vpS>u [fjpa>v. twenty times in St. Acts xvii. usage. cf. 28. xi. 31. 4). 1 7 Heb. 2 Cor. as in the greeting of The this and other Epistles. 1-7. i. It is placed by our Lord Himself in the fore-front of the conception of God. Matt. 9 i. but it is still more remarkable when we think what that teaching is and the early date at which it was penned.

but to Christ Himself. g. (5) A somewhat advanced stage in the discrimination of distinct Persons in the Godhead. in others the transference involves a larger modification (doiXos 'lrjaov Xpta-rov. Paul or the other Apostles. God knows how long I have desired to see you I trust may at last be accomplished—and to —a 8 I. The Apostle has to the full that sense which is so impressive in the Hebrew prophets that he himself is only an instrument. my In writing to you I must first offer my humble thanks to God. and how every time I kneel in prayer is my petition. i. as message of salvation. and the Roman Christians come within inferred from the their range. countrymen. as revealed by or words and acts of Christ Himself. xa/ns. Ge6s narrjp) . which Christianity dyioi) appropriates (eVayyeXia [7rpoenr)yyft\aTo]. hope which to deliver to you. 8-15. i. ypcicpat ayiai. In some cases an idea which has been hitherto fluid is sharply formulated (kXtjtos. and perhaps elpfal). 15). and also in its transcendental reality. 5 and Gal. dvdaracris veKpcov. which however in these instances is due. the place and function of which are clearly foreseen. dcj>a>pi<Tn£pos) . PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH. in yet others we have a new coinage (dnoaToXn^ evayyeXiov). the rest of the Gentile world. not to St. in other cases an old phrase has been adopted with comparatively little modification (vnep rod ovSparos qvtov. I might appeal to God Himself hears that constant ritual of prayer which my spirit addresses Him in my work of preaching the glad tidings of His Son. T. . 8-15. that at some near day to it Who . for the accomplishment of God's gracious purposes (compare e. and sees in them so many parts of a vast Divine plan which covers the whole of human history. Jer. and indeed stretches back beyond its beginning. If witness were needed to show how deep is my interest in you. kXtjtoI dyioi. These purposes are working themselves out. Paul connects together these groups of ideas. for the world-wide fame which as a united Church you 9 bear for your earnest Christianity. When we come to examine particular expressions we find that a large proportion of them are drawn from the O. in others again we have a term which has acquired a significance since the close of the O. ST.8 1 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. through and Him Who as High Priest presents all our prayers praises. T. Kvpios. We observe too how St. 10 He knows how unceasingly your Church is upon my lips.

I must discharge " Hence.9 I. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH H For 1 I may at last. edification and the like) which the Holy Spirit has been pleased to bestow upon me. and so to strengthen 12 I do not mean that I am above your Christian character. is expressed in iii. 13 I by yours and you by mine. — far from it. I really have my way made you and have a great you some of those many gifts (of instruction. 22. decision rests with me.' which promises are precisely which are fulfilled in Christianity. offerre: et Agere autem Deo gratias. moris For a further discussion of it is this word see below on ver. that this is 1 should be sorry for you to suppose a new resolve on my part. velut per Pontificem ujjlu**'. as a mere abstraction without a determinate object.' And inasmuch as it is He Who both promised that Christ should come and also c 2 . Who or what is its object? It is extremely rare for faith to be^ used in In the N. comfort. Here practically equivalent to 'your Christianity. magnum rj Orig. or that may be cheered by my intercourse with you (<h we may be mutually cheered by each other's faith. The object faith in Christ! this Epistle faith is nearly always elsewhere. desire to see to impart to receiving or that that I myself you have nothing to bestow. clear to visit you. "There no limit to this duty of To without whether of language or of culture. I am bent on delivering the message of distinction salvation to 8.' the distinctive act which \ mentioned the question were always consciously asked. time there is always in the background the Supreme Author of that whole economy of which the Incarnation of Christ formed justifies though the moving cause of Thus it is God a part. to preach the Gospel. you too at Rome. in the promises of God. 17. Much confusion of thought would be saved if wherever 'faith' was the direct consequences of that act In the case of Abraham faith is not so much faith in God as those faith. Or it would perhaps be more ' ' ' ' • to say that the immediate object of faith is in most At the same cases Christ or the promises which pointed to Christ. intended to visit you —an mine intention until The now fact is that I often as often frustrated —in the hope of reaping some spiritual harvest from my all labours is among you. in the course which God's Will marks out for me. 8.] ST. hoc est sacrificium laudis ideo addit per Jesum Christum. —but vftiv). strictly true ' ' Who justification is usually defined as ' faith in Christ. so far as the the debt which Christ has laid upon me. 26 but is left to be understood ' ' ' makes a man a Christian carrying with it upon the character. 8id. T. as in the rest of the Gentile world.

' connected with Xarpis. xix. 10. . On has been reached so 7rore waiting $&j see Baumlein. i. Jud. . : . 2152 Kings iv.. Himself brought about the fulfilment of the promise. i. where it is used of profits gained in trade . p. cf. 138 «X06iv: probably for onrre kXOftv (Burton. eV tw Tn/euptTi p>u. 4. some near day at last. &c. after soon as it has. similarly in LXX and Test. Rom. . and with : ' . reference to it (e. cittcds.HO EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [i. Pair. &c. there is yet more or less conscious : . It does not.). ix. § 276. 1 Kings i. my times of prayer Thess. esp. however. i. I (ii) but on the other v. ' a difficult expression to render in English . 1. of the service rendered to Jahveh by the whole race of Israel (Acts xxvi. 'hire'! (i) already in classical Gk. 1 ' at my prayers/ . ea dicitur servitus quae pertinet ad colendum Deum (Trench. 23 B) Hence the service either of the true God or of heathen divinities. 5 tg> 8i pf) €pya£opev<p. even justifying The most conspicuous faith in God/ faith may be described as example of this is ch. 1 Cor. Apol.' and Xdtpov. ' ' a certain suggestion of surprise or relief that now. Gif. p. RV. Syn. On the construction see Burton. 4). 2 o n av (vo8a>Tai. The word has usually dropped the idea of 686s be prospered in any way (e. Xcn-peua) . Moods and Tenses. 7 to 8a>8« Ka<pv\ov kurovpytiv is appropriated to the kv ficTcveiq Karpdov. applied to the service of a higher power (ii) in LXX always of (Sta ttjv tov 8eov Xarpeiav Plato. it all this ' : Partikeln.) is more accu(Wic.) hand it is used of the service both of priest and people. Gad 7) and so here Mey. Eph. (Keirovpyos) is not strictly in this sense. 15. and RV. follow that because a metaphor is often dropped. Xo-yi^erat rj tt'httls clvtov els 8iKaioo~vvr)v. xvi. 2 .6»? In contrast with vvv (which denotes rate. indefinite. just as in ony maner sumtyme' sometime at the length' (Rhem. 9. 1. iv. hired servant. 6 and esp. the the Sphere in which the at all service is rendered. jxou : em tw -npoo-euxvv (cf.) omits ?. xv. § 371 c). in Rom. 16 Philem. 16). We are thus tempted to render with the earlier euo8w0T)o-ojxai.) omits irore. it may not be recalled where it is directly suggested by the context. aut semper aut tarn frequenter ut fere Aarpeia Augustine semper. 8-10. x.' present time simply) rjhrj denotes the present or near future in relation to the process by which it has been reached. &c). Griech. The nvevfm is evayytXiov (= to Krjpvyfia tov evayye'hiov) the organ of service. . . g. ' and means to ' . g. xiii. 11. 43. vi. i2of. 4) Where Xenovpyuv ministrations of priests and Levites (Heb. Aarpcveiv is at once somewhat wider and somewhat narrower in meaning than \fiTovpyeiv (i) it is used only (or almost wholly) of the service of God where \eiTovpyeiv (Xeirovpyos) is used also of the service of men (Josh. iriarTevovfi Se e7Tt rbv ' diKciiovvra tov do-eftf}. now at t]ot] Tro-re* length' (AV. So here rj^ = ' makes the moment more ff. XII.

according to (1) divisions of language. probably most.). ward ' what we should call natural and partly transcending the ordinary workings of nature— described in 1 Cor.-lat. : . Dieu dispose . St. and Eph. We note of course the delicacy with which the Apostle suddenly checks himself in the expression of his desire to impart from his own fulness to the Roman Christians he will not assume any airs of superiority. : 42 ff. which. an instance ctxw. His was conspicuously a case which came under the description of John vii. and he is very doubtful whether anything that he intends will be accomplished (Hort. 10-15. 1 Pet.aTi tov Qeov above. § 409). (Rufinus) who . Differently Orig. Rom. non arbitror d e g Ambrstr. In that case to kut tpi will I. so far as it rests 14. cmiroOw . St.. quod in me promtum est. Va. and he was assured that when he came to Rome he would be able to give the Christians there the fullest benefit of them (Rom. E\t](7i t€ Kal PapJ3<£pois Ta (Bvrj. He has a strong sense of the risks which he incurs in going up to Jerusalem (Rom. and Jas. aufA-irapaKXTjOTjmi <rvp. ' to youthus by laying stress on the personal object of the verb it rather strengthens its emotional character. 29 olda 8<? on ipxoptvos npbs vpas iv Tr\r)pa>pa. xv. is treated in the latter part of the sentence as equivalent to fjprfs. xiv. w ' I may get* : a resolution into its parts of iravra (ii) degrees of culture. ov 0«\o> ovk oiofnai (D*) G.— I. ' under God ' L'homme propose. : : 13.] ST.). An. but occurs also in Heb. out of his i. with Gif. from the aw in and iv vplv. 30 f.' (Burton. ds to with Infin. cf. xv. PAUL AND THE ROMAN CHURCH Vulg. t6 kcit c/xe.' rat i. of Western paraphrase. It is perhaps best. 11. to take to KaT ip€ as subject. 6 ff. but meets them frankly upon their own level if he has anything to confer upon them they in turn will confer an equivalent upon him. 38 partly 1 — Xapi<rjAa iri'cujuLaTiKoi'. prosperum iter 21 (' English Versions and a spedi wey Wic.).' e. Some. the believer in Christ should himself become a centre and abounding source of spiritual influence «ls and blessing <rrr)pix0TJvai : to others. of these gifts he possessed in an eminent degree himself (1 Cor.Ti evXoyias Xpiarov iXfvaopai). Rom. : the subject is ipi.marks the direction of the desire. expressing purpose 'is employed with special frequency by Paul. 15. p. xii. iv 6(\{]p. Paul has in his mind the kind of gifts He that believeth on Me as the scripture hath said.itapa.Kk. : = ' with me. e. Mou. t$ 12. 18). belly shall flow rivers of living water. xii-xiv. ' habeam I have iv t<5 6e\V]jxaTi tou 0€oO. np66vpou as predicate so g Vulg. Paul has a special reason for laying stress on the fact that all his movements are in the hands of God.

iv. he (1 Cor. Phil. Paul was well aware that his Gospel was 16. and others take written npoBvfios dpi. in the imperial city I am not ashamed of its my message. fl. pup together as subject of [etmv\ tvayyikio-ao-6aL. unto Jews a stumbling-block and unto Gentiles foolishness How could it be otherwise. 12 . Col. The ™ ' iv. or 16 loyal adhesion to Christ. while his proud oppressors perish. and sweeping on with it towards the haven of Messianic security first in order of precedence the Jew. erubesco super evangelium g. It was such an righteous attitude as this which the prophet Habakkuk meant when.' THESIS OF THE EPISTLE: THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH. — consists in a ? It is a revelation of the righteousness of God. or loyalty to Jehovah. seem. 21 . That message. was about to preach of One who 'passed for the son of a carpenter. 16. 7 to. § 1 . Even there. have an instance here of a corruption coming into the Greek text cvayy(\iov G. vi. through the Latin iva<ax: We M . i. a method. Paul see the Introduction. manifested is new method by which righteousness is acquired by man. . which Rome had for St. set in motion by God Himself. and after him every believer 17 Do you ask how this agency works and in what it the Gentile. itself. the secret of which as Messiah circles Faith. 17. as Chrysostom says. and who brought up in Judaea. i. ' 1% makes quod in me est promlus sum : so too objection to this is that St. ' in Studia Biblica. kclt ifti = my affairs. . 17.' St. Lips. which Faith its every day both widening its and deepening hold. ness on my part (is) to preach. Paul would have kot e/xc 7rp66vMey.' d e Ambrstr. also Hicks ' . or ardent loyalty to Jesus is and Lord . repellent and humiliating as some of features may For it is a mighty agency. eiraiaxuVofjiai. in view of the desolating Chaldaean invasion. when it is I.— EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS to kot' iju adverbial. humble as it may seem. met by Faith. in the house of a poor woman It hardly needed died like a criminal in the company of robbers ? On the attraction the contrast of imperial Rome to emphasize this. casts a new light on the righteousness of God: for it tells how His righteousness flows forth and embraces man. 23). 11. he wrote life : ' The man shall save his by his faith. 16. hence the eagerIn Eph.

that it practiSt. (iii) Thus by a natural transition 10. &c. 7. there is a natural progression corresponding to the growth in the conception of life and of the dangers by which it is threatened. 13. toIs pev i dnoXXvpevois pcopia ecrri. It is a principle operating on a vast and continually enlarging scale. removal of dangers menacing to life and the consequent placing of life in conditions favourable to free and healthy expansion. This conception only differs from the scientific conception of a force like heat' or electricity in that whereas the man of science is too apt to abstract his conception of force from its origin. Ex. 13. g. to be appropriated to the great deliverances of the nation (e. xiii. The barbarism in G. &c). not a sham force like so many which the Apostle saw around him. Benj. xv. its true nature might be misunderstood. is simply deliverance from physical peril (Jud. Bezae. and (£) in the higher form of the Christian hope (Acts iv. but the choice of dvvapu throws the stress rather more on the source than on the process. Sol. i. 13. 1 Cor. things a real force. 7. 20. 16. ii. 77). the Passage of the Red Sea. 1 Thess. xiv. ivtpytia here. Hence. 22. Jud. the Return from Exile). Sym. as notably in Cod. XII. Test. Is. 69. The word bvvayus in a context like this is one of those to which modern associations seem to give We shall not do wrong a greater fulness and vividness of meaning. But the two words and dvvapis is so often used for exerted power. 18 (ii) But the word has more and more a tendency xi. however. 26. SuVajxis is the word properly used of the manifestations of Divine indeed Svvupis is power. 17. 18 . Hi. arose from the attempt to find a Greek equivalent for every word in the Latin. 22.I. 2. 71. The fundamental idea contained in <ra>TT)pia is the els awTTjptW. as we might expect. rols 8e (rco^ofieuois rjplv dvvapis . and taking effect in a countless number of individuals. St. 4. Paul might quite well have written cally covers eWpyaa. xlv. iv. This is only mentioned as a clear case of a kind of corruption which doubtless operated elsewhere. Pair. 1 Sam. It is to be observed. T. o-ooT. are closely allied to each other ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . cf. i. if we think of the Gospel as a force in the same kind of sense as that in which science has revealed to us the great forces of nature. especially Divine superhuman power. xv.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 23 The Latin renderings need not imply any confimdor de evangelio Aug. x. 9. : Qeov iari Cor. Strictly the inherent attribute or faculty. xlvi. but that did not make it any less powerful 6 yos yap 6 tov aravpov ivepyeia is the attribute or faculty in operation. that readings of this kind are necessarily quite late. Luke i. (i) In the earlier books of the O. which it will be remembered has an interlinear version. and that both (a) in the lower forms of the Jewish Messianic expectation (Ps. 5. 10 [the form used in all these passages is ow/jpioi/] . it is associated with the Messianic deliverance . various reading. 9. 9. . Paul conthe Gospel ceives of it as essentially a mode of personal activity As such it is before all has all God's Omnipotence behind it. cf. &c). xii.

Abbott ad he.. both English and both. bracket. 1. v. 16. to which this particular reading may belong. Acts xiii. For some time past « be almost an ' But quite recently two protests bestowed by God upon man. 16. 30 || John iii.' a righteousness not so much 'of God' as 'from God/ i. because of the combination of B with Western authorities but they only bracket because in Epp. Paul. xv. [xcvii. that the protest is justified . 24 In EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. his converts their claim from their attacks. Marc. but he fully concedes the priority of and he is most anxious to. irpwToi': om. Both these sides are already 7T€pmoir)criu (rcoTTjplas 81a the earliest extant Epistle (on ovk cGero fjpas 6 Geo? tl$ tov Kvpiov rjpcov *lr)crov Xpiorov. adv. 24. also a There can be little doubt concise note by Dr. 22 xi. this latter sense cra>Tr)p[a covers the whole range of the Messianic deliverance. &c). associated with the University of Durham. xv. d\X eh rjpwv. iii. Tert. BGg. 1 ff. 9 point is important in view of Baur and his followers who exaggerate He defends himself and the opposition of St. ix. T. have been raised against this view. . 46. Lachmann Treg. is sense of the righteousness of God in the Old particularly in passages closely resembling the The Lord hath made present.) and in its positive aspect as the imparting of eternal life ' (Mark x. &c: see also Introduction § 4). may be due to his influence. xv.] 2. cf. such as Ps. 10). comp. (1) In proof that the righteousness intended here is primarily 'the righteousness of God Himself it may be urged: (i) that this The as that it is partial and incomplete. . . Sikcuoowt) 0€oG. Iva e'ire yprjyopapeu f'lre KaCevbu>peu apa (tvv avra tfcrapev Thess. Barmby in the Pulpit Commentary on Romans.. The also Matt. B itself has a slight Western element. 8. however. and the other by Dr. 16 ff. In Marcion that case it would rest entirely upon Western authority. and it is possible that the omission in this small group of Western MSS. xv. 15. Jo. conciliate them (Rom. Paul to the Jews. Robertson in The Thinker for Nov. a state or condition of righteousness 17. 31 . 1 ff. both in its negative aspect as a rescuing from the Wrath under which the whole world is lying (ver. K. as it happens. 9. tov dnodavouros vtrip i combined in opyrjv. 18 flf. righteousness of God is a great ' ' . 17. ix. . iv. For the precedence assigned to the Jew comp. one by Dr. Rom. beginning to attract some attention in Germany.e. not so much that the current view is wrong and comprehensive idea which embraces in its range both God and man and in this fundamental passage of the Epistle neither side must be lost sight of. x... ' it has seemed to accepted exegetical tradition that the righteousness of God means here a righteousness of which God is the author and man the recipient. WH. xcviii. iff. appears to have omitted rrpwrov as well as the quotation from Habakkuk.. 1893 *. consistently the Testament and more * ' The point is. A.

For (3) the very cogency of the arguments on both sides is enough to show that the two views which we have set over against each other are not mutually exclusive but rather inclusive. Observe the logical connexion of the two clauses. 'O be bUaios €K iria-Teas (iii) Lastly. first. Epistle. e.' For a fuller development righteous. or we may say traces the process of extension by bid ma-Teoos Xpio-rot). 22. not as inherent in the Divine Essence but as going forth and embracing the personalities of men. but iii. 'irjaov. 9 the thought of the Apostle is made quite explicit pfj e'xcov e'^v biKaioo-vvrjv t^v e< vdpov. 1 7 requires that the gen. however. 22 it is = qualified as ras.g. (ii) that elsewhere in the Epistle . : ' of the idea contained in ' the righteousness of God' see below. 5. 18 compared with biKaioo-vvr) yap Qeov airoKakvTrTcTai in ver. bin. 2 6 els to elvai avrbv bUaiov na\ biKaiovvra top e< nio~Te<DS half of this clause is in no way opposed to the but follows from it by natural and inevitable sequence God attributes righteousness/ to the believer because He is Himself : The second The whole scheme of things by which He gathers to Himself a righteous people is the direct and spontaneous expression of His own inherent righteousness a necessity of His own Nature impels Him to make them like Himself. nio'Teois 'lr]o-ov Xpio-rov els iravras roi/s marevou- recipient is quite unmistakThis relation is further confirmed by the quotation from Habakkuk where the epithet bUaios is applied not to God but to man. The righteousness of which the Apostle is speaking not only proceeds from God but is the righteousness of God Himself: it is this. (iii) that the marked antithesis arroKaXvirTerai yap opyfj Qeov in ver. .I. 26 are quite clear). . Cwerai. . the righteousness of the Divine Will as it were proand enclosing and gathering into itself human wills. : aX\a rrjv insertion God which etc Qeov biKaiocrvvrjv em 777 jrtar«. 8ik. iii. ch. iii. The story how He has done so is the burden of the Gospel. . e«o{.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 25 known His \v\jfeu) in words salvation : His righteousness hath He revealed (d-rreKdthe sight of the nations/ which contains the three keyof the verse before us. its where (ii) relation to the human able. ducaioo-vprj yap Qeov dTroKaXvirTerai icadcbs yey pa urai. in the parallel Phil. ttjv it passes from its source to its object. 3. 25. x. Paul fixes this sense upon it in another of the great key-verses of the iii. 17. It is righteousness active and jected energizing. 'the righteousness of God Himself (several of the passages. Qeov bid. and in the parallel passage iii. (2) But at the same time those which go to prove that bi*. have the same ambiguity as the text. 21. These are arguments too strong to be resisted. QeoZ shall be taken in the same sense in both places. Qeov is a gift of righteousness bestowed upon man are hardly less convincing. The of the preposition eVc transfers the righteousness from to man. St. (i) The righteousness in question is described as being revealed eie marten els nivrw .

17. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. but they occurred in connexion with two events which were as much his : turning-points in the history of Israel as the embracing of ChrisThe Jews were in tianity had been a turning-point for himself. Paul was a Jew. It is the ' Yes' of first the central proposition of Christianity is presented to hardly need more than this one fact. but they were all potentially won. Not that they were all actually won there. 4. an ardent Jew. who had spent his whole life before his conversion in the study of the Old Testament. Paul attached such immense importance It is so characteristic of his habits of mind to go to the root to it. moTtix* are not very common in the LXX. the affirmation of that primitive Christian Creed which we have already had sketched in vv. and seek there for the interpretation of it. One was his own experience. The conviction then decisively won sank into his soul. which was to take away their place and nation from the Jews but which was at the same time to purify them in : ' ' . did so two passages seemed to him to stand out above all others.' Again just before the beginning of the great Chaldaean or Babylonian invasion. whom he had persecuted as a pretender and blasphemer. when We system a principle which is only less prominent in other writers because they are content. was really exalted to the right hand of God. dealt with this was Gen. That was the moment at which he was anything else that came to as a brand plucked from the burning him later followed in due sequence as the direct and inevitable outcome of the change that was then wrought in him. And it was therefore natural to him. that we cannot be surprised at his taking for the centre of the soul it. and really charged with infinite gifts and blessings for men. 3. Paul to his more penetrative view. xv. a Pharisee. But St. to explain why it was that St. Paul means in the instance simply the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah and Son of God . as soon as he began to reflect on this experience of his that he should go back to When he his Bible. of things. if we may say so. This root-conception with St. The words nta-ns. It was then that there flashed upon him the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth. thus barely stated. to take their section of doctrine lower down the line and to rest in secondary causes instead Two influences in particular seem of tracing them up to primary. 6 and there it was distinctly laid down that this faith of Abraham's had consequences beyond itself another primary term was connected with it Abraham believed God and it (his belief) was reckoned unto him for righteousness. to have impelled the eager mind of St. and became the master-key which he applied to the solution of all problems and all struggles ever afterwards. the habit of speculating about Abraham's : faith. He dated all his own spiritual triumphs from the single moment of his vision on the road to Damascus.' : 26 €K mo-Tews. which was his The leading text which response to the promise made to him.

He regarded it as summing up under the New Covenant all the functions that the Mosaic Sacrifices had discharged under the Old. it too dated from the same moment. e. If besides this he also found by experience that in following with his eye in loyal obedience (like the author of Ps. strength and inspiration . we shall become aware that St. it had become so much easier for him to do right than it had been before and when he also brought into the account the conclusion. as to the significance of the Life and Death of Jesus for the whole Church or body of believers what could lie nearer at hand than that he should associate faith and class of persons should ' ' one . But even here the critical moment was the first. then he became strong. As they had the effect. faith/ Here once more faith was brought into direct connexion When therefore St. and associate them in the way of referring all that made the condition of righteousness so much more possible under Christianity than it had been under Judaism. On this side the influence of Christ upon the Christian life was a continuous influence extending as long as life itself. the Prophet be exempted on the ground of this faith/ The just or righteous man shall live by very quality. as far as anything outward could have the passage of placing the worshipper in a position of fitness for approach to God so once for all the sacrifice of Christ had placed the Christian worshipper in this position. . objectively to the that work of the Messiah. to which the same conversion had led him. his own experience and to ask why it was that since his conversion. so that when he was weak. righteousness together. because it established the . i. I. Paul glories in his infirmities because they threw him back upon Christ. and more particularly when we come to the great the iii.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH Habakkuk had announced 27 that the furnace of affliction. since his acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and Lord. yet even there Christ was the true source of effect. and subjectively to the appropriation of work by the believer in the assent which he gave to the one proposition which expressed its value ? It will be seen that there is more than one element in this conception which has to be kept distinct. . That was a fact objective and external to himself of which the Christian had the benefit simply by being a Christian in other words by the sole act of faith. that was indeed a different matter but that too was ultimately referable to the same cause. 17. And although in this case more might be said to be done by the man himself. cxxiii) his Master Christ the restraint of selfishness and passion became far easier for him than it had been. that St. As we advance further in the Epistle. . 21-26. Paul attached to Death of Christ what we may call a sacrificial efficacy. and the more reliance was placed on this strength and inspiration the more effective it became so much so . Paul began to interrogate with righteousness. the moment of the acceptance of Christ..

of St. < described more fully when we come to chapters vi-viii. 25. We shall have the magnetism which begins is complete. Neutest Kanons. A few authorities (C*. 22. as a quotation) in Gal. . Paul himself. but it was certainly not the meaning of Habakkuk. large ing of faith in the individual or to its spread in the world at both are (ex fide predicantium in fidem credeniium Sedulius) of included the phrase means starting from a smaller quantity intensively and exfaith to produce a larger quantity. Iff ir'uTTews fiov fraeTai) irom have omitted not only the LXX. this quite consistent from his antipathy to everything Jewish.) or 6 bk 8i'«. and of 2 Cor. Two main facts have and twuoofrrj. take the whole of this phrase righteousness is based on faith. fiov U iriarews. 16 the point here it lay if St.va. ambiguity. . Hieron. he is able which of the context (not. d. ' : tensively.28 relation. 16 e< seems to show that this phrase should be taken as els . 8 (lxxxiv. Ixxxiii. iii. a Jew to be borne m mind Greek or mediaeval or modern. Paul's teaching as expressed more fully in Rom. 7) Ik mVrews €is wCdW. as we should expect.' at once : t^.' as if between the man the contrast (not expressed but implied) were whose righteousness is based on faith and one whose righteousness with It is true that this is quite in harmony works. ii. The analogy of Ps. however. codd. though he was not T. Vulg. the ruling ordinary way of taking the verse it is implied that righteousmotive of the man. It EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS was like [I. The first is that in regard to the history of the words WPrds covered the whole although there was a sense in which the Greek Xmm . 17. Harcl. the motive which gives value to his faith. that is. Some together. and so because in the It is merely a question of emphasis.T0v els Odvarov i< dvuafiecos els bvvaynv. Marcion. Paul had intended to emphasize remove all very near at hand to write 6 he e< Trio-Teas Sinaios. the connexion to act as soon as Accordingly we find that stress is of being constantly laid upon this first moment—the moment is by no 'baptized into Christ' or putting on Christ/ although it means implied that the relation ceases where it began. 515 ff« The word bUaios and SCicaios its cognates. Zahn. ii. The man whose is based on : St. ii.-lat. contrary it is rather a relation which should go on Here too the beginning is an act of faith. 4. Gesch. ex Ca>?is It is a mistake to limit it either to the deepenwidely as possible. and on the strengthening. He retains the same quotation in cutting out all quotations from the O. of these Sucaioown. and iii. ness and gains for him the Divine protection is his insert opt. in the individual and in society. 6a. but the kind of faith process which proceeds U vLmm els nianv. In considering the meaning and application right point of view-at the terms it is important to place ourselves at the either not and the Jews of point of view. seems to would naturally follow ttowtos but the quotation from Habakkuk. For the best examination of Margion s text see to turn against the Jews. 6 Sikcuos ' Ik moreus.. non uov {6 5e 8i*. Gal. Orig.

] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH %g Pagan virtues were still further thrown into the shade by the Christian triad. but which could never wholly throw off the limiting conditions of its origin.' and then came to mean right because usage was the earliest standard ' « ' ' of larger idea of ' righteousness may have grown up out of the practice of primitive justice. p. 31). Temperance.' as a party to a suit in a court of law.) puts forward the view that this was the being in the right. But the danger lay in resting too much in the code as a code and losing sight of the personal Will of a holy and good God behind it. It had to fall back upon justitia. with the single qualification that it is -rrpbs erepov. 410 ff. 15 StKaioaivrj^reXda dp fT J. and the consequence was that his view of obedience to the law became formal and mechanical. who awarded 'the right' carefully and impartially. 'justice ' and ' righteousness. This is matter. His one idea of righteousness was that of conformity to this Law. is St. assigned no inadequate place to Righteousness. from the Stoics and Plato. that tendency was still more intensified when the scene was changed from Greece to Rome. . V. The Platonic designation of Zimioaivr) as one of the four cardinal virtues (Wisdom. the conception has gone far to recover its central importance. through the strength of the Biblical influence. the principle of all action. and that the four i. If the Jew had a fault it was not that righteousness occupied an inadequate place in his thoughts . It is impossible for an impartial mind not to be deeply touched by the spectacle * Aristotle quotes the proverb kv Se hinaioavvr) avWriPSr/i' iraa dperf) evi. and Courage or fortitude. though the German branch has but the single word Gerechtigkeit to express the two ideas. The same perhaps be said of the Teutonic nations generally. No doubt it was this in the first instance out of regard to the law as the expressed Will of God. the duty to one's neighbour*). Righteousness was for him essentially obedience to the law. whatever his faults. Happily for ourselves we have in English two distinct words for the two distinct conceptions. the goal of all effort. It may have been first applied to the litigant who was adjudged to be 'in the right. It is a subordinate question what was the origin of the fundamental idea. The real standard of Greek morals was rather rb KaX6v— that which was morally noble. In giving a more limited scope to the word Plato was only following the genius of his people. The Latin language had no equivalent at all for the wider meaning of di/caioa^vrj. more or less.' and to the judge. Paul's day. Nic. ' ' and of all those moral systems which have their roots in that fertile soil. which Christian circles indeed could not help being affected "by the dominant use in the Bible.). The Jew made this mistake. Religionsgesch. For a Jew the whole sphere of righteousness was taken up by the Mosaic Law. We have to remember that the Middle Ages derived one half of its list of virtues through Cicero. And if there was this tendency to throw the larger sense of biKatoaivrj into the background in Greek morals. yet in practice it was far more commonly used in the narrower sense of Justice (distributive or corrective ibid.I. This is the second fact of great and outstanding significance. Alttest. It may well be true that as 8ikij meant in the first instance usage. 17.' And so especially from the time of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular. range of right action {Eth. Paul's mournful verdict (Rom. 2 ff. of speculation. It was with him really the highest moral ideal. m righteousness may A recent writer (Smend. But at the time when St.ov ovk e<p9a<T€. in like manner the it. With them it is probably true that the wider sense takes precedence of the narrower. 'Iapa^j\ Be Siwkojv v6pov SiKaioovvqs (Is vop. In any case the Jew of St. admirable— than rb dbcaiov. Paul wrote the Jew stood alone in maintaining the larger sense of the word full and undiminished. it was rather that he went a wrong way to attain to ' right. being the others) had a decisive and lasting influence on the whole subsequent history of the word in the usage of Greek philosophy. impressive. ix.

vi. No one felt more keenly than St. And he too seized the heart of the secret. My . or even hinted at. The verb biitaiovv means properly to pronounce In so far as It has relation to a verdict pronounced by a judge. from God. rv<p\ovv. This rather sweeping proposition is made good by the following con- means 'to declare . and then yet again more searchingly still. the word itself neither affirms nor denies. xxii. Sp. holy. and (Matt. "to make blind. 17. . He too saw. So the Master . 2) he cannot withhold his testimony to their zeal. His heart bleeds for them (Rom. but That word they are not contained. to account. or to treat By n as worthy. and shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Matt. as a£iovv. but whether the person so declared. 'How can hwaiovv possibly signify "to make righteous!" Verbs indeed of this ending from adjectives of physical meaning may have this use.' the person * pronounced righteous is not really righteous it has the sense of ' amnesty or * forgiveness. The later disciple saw that if there was to be a real reformation. 2). ix. The specially Pauline feature in the conception expressed in this passage is that the ' declaration of righteousness on the part of God. For yoke is easy. Paul himself the full pathos of the situation. righteous. to base it on a personal relationship.' There may be other influences which go to make a person righteous.' . There came One Who laid His finger upon the weak place and pointed out the remedy at first as it would seem only in words in which the • Thou shalt love the Lord Scripture-loving Rabbis had been before Him thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind . . Comm. SikcuovjOcu. Sucaiovv. . And therefore he lays down that the righteousness of the Enough will have been said in Christian is to be a ' righteousness offaith? the next note and in those on in marews and SiKaioavvrj ®cov as to the nature of this righteousness. — — : . to prove. : ' . righteous. acquittal. yoke Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden . 15 ||) . Thou and then more searchingly and with greater fulness of illustration and application. and of course goes far deeper than any Pagan conception as to the motive of righteousness. . Hence it was that all this mass— we must allow of honest though illdirected effort reeded reforming. oaiovv. runs in c ' ' • to it may even mean righteous. treated as. x. the Divine verdict of . Sucaiovv. and which in a certain sense and measure really did come. 39 ||\ . Take burden is light' upon you and learn of Me . though one." But when such words are derived from adjectives of moral meaning. The more radical the reformation the better. or proved to be righteous is really so. what the Master had refrained from putting with a degree of emphasis which might have been misunderstood (at least the majority of His reporters might leave the impression that this had been the case. and then came the disciple. ' siderations (i) : the nature of verbs in -Sen: comp. e. g. the Fourth Evangelist.' ' to treat as righteous' prove righteous ' . 37. It is sharply contrasted with the Jewish conception of righteousness as obedience to law. ' There is nothing from without the man that going into him can defile him but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man ' (Mark vii. and comes forth at once on the sincere embracing of Christianity. My My ' advance of the actual practice of righteousness. makes Him speak more plainly). 28-30). and yet failing so disastrously as their best friends allow that they did fail in grasping the law's true spirit. the first thing to be done was to give it a personal ground. of the religious leaders of a nation devoting themselves with so much earnestness and zeal to the study of a law which they believed to come.' But it cannot mean to make righteous. they do by usage and must from the nature of things signify to deem. in the word dueaiovv. though unhappily it is not a zeal according to knowledge (Rom. on 1 Cor.— 30 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. xi. .

p. justifico 4 Ezr.' as in Luke i. (1) fidelity and (2) belief. on 1 Cor. T. Siicaicona. For the special shades of meaning in these passages see the notes upon them. mCTtvovTtde km ri>v SiKatodvra rhv uae0r). vin. iv. and practically viii. 16. iii. or promise of God or Christ. 2. Gospel of St. 1 Cor. the word seems to « 'pronounced righteous. . . lxxiii [Ixxii] 13 &pa fxaraiws Mueaiuoa rhv KafMaMfwv. xi. will appear later: see the notes on oiKaiooivn ®eov above and below. second sense. For the force of the termination -pa reference should be made to a note by the late T. m 'prove righteous. 1 -where the word is applied to those who are declared innocent as opposed to ' sinners/ (v) From the no less predominant and 111. Simlaj/xa is the definite concrete expression of the act of SiKaiwais we might define it as ' a declaration that a thing is h'maiov. ii 16 (ii) £rJ° LXX • : iv. . In the great majority of cases this sense is unmistakable. Baruch. 3 (in these passages the word is used consistently of 'vindicating' the character of God). 5 rS> U rf IpyaCofiiva. where. but yet which is probably right that there is no example in the whole of classical literature where the WO ***** "g ht eous. (i) belief in God. Sol. F. 9. Its place is taken by the verb Sticatovv. (in Ceriani's translation from the Syriac) xxi. however. 32.' 'statute.' content ourselves for the present with stating this result as a philological fact.' In Jer. T.' The word however is not of frequent occurrence. 4. m Biicciuoois. . 6 Rom. . 643)— all these passages are forensic Apoc. 18. v. f. . while the substantive maris is entirely absent. xn. iii. 37. 199) makes a bold assertion. This word occurs only twice just as in the N. which he is hardly likely to have verified. Paul. iv.). and this faith is taken as an equivalent for righteousness. iv 18 x 16 xn. 18). \ 01 1((tcu (vi) avvrjv. Luke vii. 14. Comm. 'I called my conscience clear. absolutely unambiguous. 25. . (iv) belief in some particular utterance. 20 {Libb. 1 Tim. What further consequences it has. 17. part of which is quoted in this commentary on Rom. 29 xvi. and Apocr. In meaning St/en'mais preserves the proper force of the termination -ais it denotes the ' process or act of pronouncing righteous. Evans in Sp. Rom. Matt. where the word occurs some forty-five times. g.' in other words. all besides in the : and not at in this Epistle (iv. ed. 27. Fritzsche. 5 7.I. ii. ' the act of acquittal. (111) From the constant usage of the (O. Here it is . 15 xviii. v. The nearest approach to an exception is Ps. 6. has its more exact significance determined by its object: it may mean. (ii) belief in the promises of God. v. The we have said.' in the case of sinners. and how it fits into the teaching of St. 35 x. 29. Ps. ii. 911. ii. 7 5 Ezr. 16— to quote only 4 passages which are • N . 11 • Ezek. S. or that a person is o'ikclios: From the first use we get the common sense of ' ordinance. Apocr. 26. ix. as in The word mans has two leading senses. The meaning is brought out in full in ch. i. unmistakable usage of the T 19.' (iv) From a like usage in the Pseudepigraphic Books e. always or almost always with the forensic or judicial sense. (in) belief in Christ. 4 from the second we get the more characteristically Pauline use Rom. .] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH By 31 the regular use of the word. niaris aired els dacatoexpressly stated that the person justified has nothing to show in the way of meritorious acts his one asset (so to speak) is faith. John the verb mareveiv occurs no less than ninety-eight times. . 31 . ' We : . xxiv.' The Meaning of Faith in the New Testament and some Jewish Writings. O. claim. • . iv. Godet (p. " xvi si 52 due. 13 111.

' used as an attribute of individuals {irXrjprjs marcws Acts vi. James mans is twice applied to prayer (Jas. Jude. . as we should say. find in that book also the faith over into the Acts (Acts iii. Peter faith is always Christian faith (1 Pet. The last of these senses is the one most common in the Synoptic Gospels. 9). xii. xxiv. viii. ii. 33 * EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. 22). xi. 2 vi. In the Epistle of St. 24). Faith is there usually belief in the miracle-working power of Christ or of through Christ. as we have seen. 5). Paul's conception we may say that faith with St. When the Son of Man asks whether when He comes He shall find faith on the earth (Luke xviii. We ' ' . 17. Faith with 21). John is rather contemplative and philosophic. ii.e. the faith intended is One example of it is the belief that God is One (Jas. 8) He means ' ' God — || . irpay^arcuv eKiyx os °& PtewofUpw* Heb. 29 Kara. 5. v. ii. . even where it is Christian faith. When St. miracle is usually proportioned to the strength of this response (Matt. i. ' ' ' . 4).' It is (a) the response of the applicant for relief whether for himself or another to the offer expressed or implied of that The effect of the relief by means of miracles (Mark v.' As the particular point against which the saints are to contend is the denial of Christ. 5. faith used in a more general sense. 1 ' ' faith in Himself. 1. i. &c). a firm belief of that which is still future and unseen (k\iri £o/xt vow viroaiaais. ' . xiv. 6. ii. Paul ' one thing needful. steadfastly held (Rev. 52 ||). — ' . 13. 3. it stops short of the Christian In St. where Faith is contrasted with Works.' Faith in the performance of miracles is a sense which naturally passes xiv. the essentials of Christianity. St. i.' St. 5. whose Epistle must on that account be placed late in the Apostolic age. ii. where it means the faith that God will grant what is prayed for. Twice In the controversial passage. ' . of the disciple that he can exercise the like miracle-working power when exThis kind of faith our Lord pressly conferred upon him (Mark xi. i. 1). This use not only runs through ch. i. xvi. 5). 20). 2 Pet. When mans is xiv. . 12 cf. . xiii. James is more often the faith which is common to Jew and Christian enthusiasm. &c). 10. and to believe in the promise of his birth (Jas. The distinctive use of ' faith ' in the Epistle to the Hebrews is for faith in the fulfilment of God's promises. also maros i. 'the faith distinctive ' A door of faith (Acts of Christians. though he makes up by his fondness for martvoj. 6 v. xiii. In the Apocalypse faith comes nearer to fidelity it is belief xiv. 34 x. very rarely uses the word mans (1 Jo. Compared with St. 10. ii. 5) his use approaches that of St. xi. it is the victory which overcometh the world. 1 x. 22-24 IDThere is one instance of in one place calls 'faith in God' (Mark xi. 14-26. ttjv mariv vfiwv ytvr]dT)TOJ v^iv: for degrees of faith see Matt. In the two Epistles of St. 5 . but is predominant in all the places where the word occurs (Heb. 23). iv. : . 2 . where with St.— ' . With him too faith is a very fundamental thing.' It is defined to be the belief 'that Jesus is the Son of God' (1 Jo. Peter speaks of Christians as 'guarded through faith unto salvafaith is treated as the tion (I Pet. 27) means 'an opening for the spread of this belief. faith has got the concrete sense of a 'body of belief not necessarily a large or complete body. In Acts iii. v.. 7) it is not . but. 16 the faith which has just before been described as ' faith in the Name ' (of Christ) is spoken of as ' faith brought Faith is also (/8) the confidence into being by Christ' (j) maris f) hi avrov). . . ix. 24 of Barnabas) it has the Pauline sense of the enthusiasm and force of character which come from this belief in Jesus. 7. 10 . 15). 5 of Stephen xi. 7-9 ii. i. Paul it is active and enthusiastic. ii. faith in God. 8. 22 f. 22. so the faith for which they are to contend would be the (full) confession of Christ (Jude 3 f. 1). Jas.' 19) another is the trust in God which led Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Jas.' belief that Jesus is the Son of God. 26 Luke xvii. 19. and usually faith as the foundation of character. 16 (17 mans Acts vi. John. it means 'Christian faith' (Jas. xiii.

and Assump. omnis qui salvus /actus fuerit et qui poterit effugere per opera sua vel per fidem in qua credidit. but not quite in the same connexion Apoc. . Rom. Paul does however use faith for the confidence of O. which enables a man to disregard small scruples. in Canonical Books as well as Extracanonical. in opposition to the use in St.s dneKSexofifea). iv. Thus 34 Veritas stabit . xiv. 17. In the other Books it is characteristic of 4 Ezr. Among all these various usages.T. we have the word (i) clearly used in the sense of 'fidelity' or 'faithfulness' (the faithfulness of God in performing His promises). i. the word has this sense. 3. So 4 Ezra ix. 23 ipse custodibit qui in periculo inciderint. Moys. v. . 8. the key-note of his character. and frequently enough to show that the idea was in the air' and waiting only for an object worthy of it. i. 1 7 xvi. Rom. Paul of promises the fulfilment of which is still future (for this he prefers €\ms cf. Paul quotes. . 8 et erit. In Apoc.] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH : 33 found in St. iii. This is the crowning and characteristic sense with St. Fritzsche). It forms a climax to them all with the single exception of St. Paul stands out markedly. T. deliberate faith in God. in ch. faith as the foundation for the exercise of spiritual gifts. 25 cl 5£ t ov QXeirofxev (\iri^ofi(v. We . passim. more exactly as 'faith in Jesus Christ. xvii. is relinquetur de praedictis periculis et videbit salutare meant in terra mea et infinibus meis x'ii. Paul. 3. to Romans. vi. . quoniam omnis incredulus in incredulitate sua morietur (Libb. p. 26.* In the Psalms of Solomon it is characteristic of the ' ' Messiah Himself: Ps. 1. O. St. ' Going outside the N. 7. To confine ourselves to Ep. 45 irotfxaivwv rb iroi/xviov Kvpiov kv mffra subjects. 2 we have it in the sense of faith in the prophecy of coming judgement fides iudicii futuri tunc gignebatur. abscissa est incredulitas In Apoc. Bar lvii. T. 17 . ed. iii. iv. Here it appears to have the sense of ' fidelity to the O.worker. A . F. Rom. The centre and mainspring of this higher form of faith is (vii) defined 17. 645. . The faith of Abraham however becomes something more than a particular attitude in regard to particular promises it is (iv) a standing attitude. hi sunt qui habent opera et fidem ad Fortissimum. religion.. Still the word is found. which has however both a lower sense and a higher sometimes (v) it is in a general sense the acceptance of Christianity. 22 f. Moys. ' Faith enters rather largely into the eschatological teaching respecting the Messianic time. though perhaps somewhat remotely. that firm planting of the character upon the service of Christ. Paul and it is really this which he has in view wherever he ascribes to faith the decisive significance which he does ascribe to it. 5 revelas abscondita immaculatis qui in fide subiecerunt se tibi et legi luae 2 1 glorificabis fideles iuxta fidem eorum lix. D . 26 . Baruch. 8 duae autem tribus permanebunt inpraepositafide. might well believe that both these passages were suggested. xv. Sol. We . 28 florebit auteni fides et vincetur corruptela\ et fides convalesced ( His vii. Rom. 4 nee turbent te incredulitates dicentium. : . x. Bar. iii. liv. by the verse of Habakkuk which St. saints in the fulfilment of particular promises made to them (so of Abraham < ' in Rom. There is hardly one of the ordinary uses which is not represented in the Pauline Epistles. 6. even though the object is not expressed (as in i. Rom. it is natural that the use of faith should be neither so high nor so definite. 44 soluta est intemperantia. 22 q. the last sense is constantly gliding into this. John. The same may be said of 5 Ezr. still in connexion with the ' last things ' but retrospectively with reference to the life on earth. 3 also (ii) in the sense of a faith which is practically that of the miracle.' Rom. viii. : . we find opera et fides combined. Several times. cf. Rom xii. faith like Abraham's is typical of the Christian's faith.: I. = dmaTia). but it is also (vi) that specially strong and confident 5 acceptance. Apocr. the usage of St. iv. iv). teal SiKaioavvp. 2 incredulis tormentum ignis reservatum Ass. 81' inrofiovf. have it (iii) for a faith like that of Abraham in the fulfilment of the promises of which he was the chosen recipient.

Paul has all these meanings before him . the Pure Being. and My salvation shall not . xxiv. of the Book of Exodus is very different from the oi/rws ov. It is well to remember that St. .34 . to look to what an extent the leading terms in this main proposition of the Epistle had been already combined in the Old Testament. . the Lord shall one say unto Me is righteousness and strength. . 1 The double combination of righteousness' ness to be revealed. 17. enthusiastic adhesion. is by no means essentially It is one of those fundamental Biblical ideas which a new one. run through both Testaments alike and appear in a great variety of The Hebrew prophets were as far as possible from application. xcviii. Reference has been made to the triple combination of We similarly Is. 1. We The Righteousness of God. a word which shall not return R. The idea of the righteousness of God. xlv. of the Old Testament seized on this idea and gave it grand and are apt not to realize until we come far-reaching expression. [xcvii. personal adhesion. imposing as it is in the development given to it in this Epistle. have seen that it is not merely assent or adhesion but 27 ff. and shall glory ' righteousness. marg. 2).. : tarry li. and he glances from one to another as the hand of a violin-player runs over the strings of his violin. . 21-25 ' There is no God beside Me . . V. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [i. 16. shall receive a [xxiii. conceiving of the I The as a metaphysical abstraction. v. In Ps. The essential properties of Righteousness and Holiness which characterized the Lord of all spirits contained within themselves the Godhead AM THAT I AM springs of an infinite expansiveness.' ' My My ' and the salvation ' is more common. 6 My righteousness is near. . 13 'I bring near My diKaiaetitrovrai). In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified (a™ Kvplov Is. My salvation gone forth . a just God and a Saviour (SUaios <a\ a-arftp).. xlvi.' In the Second Part of Isaiah occurs frequently: Is.) . Look unto Me and be ye saved . and lvi.] 2:^ righteoussalvation is near to come. the highest and most effective motive-power of which human character is capable. 5. .] 5 it is slightly obscured in the LXX : ' He blessing from Lord and righteousness (eXfrjfioavvrjv) from the God of his salvation (napa Qeov it <Ta>TTjpos avrov). Having brought into existence a Being endowed with the faculty of choice and capable of right and wrong action they could not rest until they had imparted to The Prophets and Psalmists that Being something of themselves. of the Platonizing philosophers. the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and shall not return (or righteousness is gone forth from My Only in mouth. without attributes because removed from all contact with matter. it shall not be far off. : and ' I will place salvation in Zion for Israel is My glory ' : Is. 'righteousness/ 'salvation' and 'revelation' in Ps.

(4) said as to the There is a further link of connexion between what is Death of Christ on Calvary and the leading pro- down in these verses (i. My righteousness shall not be abolished. According to St.1. Paul the manifestation of the Divine righteousFour of these may be ness takes a number of different forms. and The essence of it.) by virtue of which the Righteousness of God which reaches its culminating expression in it becomes capable of wide This is the great going forth ' of the diffusion amongst men. than we have warrant for if we set the Love of God in opposition to His Justice. 3. position laid ' Divine Righteousness. Paul. but the culminating event. where the one is the other immediately follows. iii. These passages seem to have made a deep impression upon St. 16. the fjnepa opyrjs <a\ dnoKaXv^tois SiKaiOKpurias rod Qeov (Rom. but we have the express warrant of Rom. flicted upon sin. shadow of it was cast before. an exhibition which in some mysterious way explains and justifies the apparent slumbering of Divine reThe inadequate punishment hitherto insentment against sin. v. the nature of which it one signal mani- possible. 25 q. Wrath is only the reaction of the Divine righteousness ii. righteousness of God is His salvation . 25. (2) which God metes out upon sin. (3) There is festation of righteousness. all looked forward as it were to that Without it they could not have been . 25 the process is . liv. scope all believers. D 2 . 4).] RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH and 35 My salvation shall be for ever. 5). 'Their righteousness [which] is of Me' and in Is. and the prospect of it made them it comes into collision with sin. ultimately it — is — embraces in its at least at first. in the Death of Christ. (1) It is seen in the fidelity with which God fulfils His It is seen in the punishment promises (Rom. the long reprieve which had been allowed mankind to induce them to repent. 16. 17 it is expressly said.' In all these passages the righteousness of God is conceived as 'going forth.' as projected from the Divine essence and realizing itself among men. 26 for regarding the Death on Calvary as a culminating exhibition of the Divine righteousness. that it should impress and diffuse itself as an active force in the world. 17) as to a righteousness The Death of Christ is of the of God apprehended by faith. described as one of justification ('in the Lord shall all the seed of In close attendance on the Israel be justified see above). specified. In Is. ' : when is difficult for us We are going further wholly to grasp. To him too it seems a necessity that the righteousness of God should be not only inherent but energizing. whatever it may be that it ' but in ' justifying consists not in making men actually righteous or treating them as if they were righteous. 17. however. iii. xlv. especially the great final punishment. nature of a sacrifice (iv ra avrov alfiari) and acts as an IXaarripiop (iii.

so that it may be well to dwell upon it in some detail. Paul gives to the process More often he uses in respect to is diKatWcv (iv. The full phrase which means that the believer. as an expression of the attitude of mind required in To the sinner. 18). 1. Paul. 25. The Christian No wonder that to have its beginning in a fiction. even though it should follow that the state described is (if we are pressed) a fiction. his sin-stained past The change is the great thing it is not reckoned against him. though takes place it issues forth from God. Here we reach a fundamental conception with St. When the process of Justification is thus reduced to its simplest elements we see that there is after all nothing so very strange about it. v. is 'accounted or treated as if he were righteous' More even than this: the person so 'acin the sight of God. and one which dominates all this part of the Epistle to the Romans. to adhere. 28. 5). 30. and that another sense is given to the words that SiKaiovaOai is taken to imply not the attribution of righteousThe facts ness in idea but an imparting of actual righteousness. He does not put him upon a long term of to be gracious. We have seen that a process of transference or conversion that the righteousness of which St. iv.17. is is made — : . it the verb 8iKaiov<r6ai is (iii. There life something sufficiently startling in this. when a man makes a great change such as that which the first Christians made when they embraced Christianity. but dcrefirjs (Rom. that God is regarded as dealing with men rather by the ideal standard of what they may be than by What this means is that the actual standard of what they are. robe' and the 'ring' and the 'fatted calf of the parable (Luke xv. are inexorable that they are SiKaiovo-Oai have the first sense and not the second rightly said to be forensic' . 22 f. : viii. however. Paul speaks. he is allowed to start on his career with a clean record. The Parable of the Prodigal Son is a picture of it which is complete on two of its sides. ' . but reinstates him at once in the full privilege of The justifying verdict is nothing more than the 'best sonship. counted righteous' may be. and of the reception accorded to him by God. v. and indeed is assumed to be. not diKaiovadai i< irlvTcats actually righteous. Free Forgiveness. As with the Prodigal Son in the is that at which God looks. we have seen that ducaiovv. 33).36 EPISTLE TO THE ROMAJNS [1. 9. that they have reference to a judicial To this conclusion we feel bound verdict. an offender against God. of language. . the fact is questioned. by virtue of his faith. parable the breakdown of his pride and rebellion in the one cry.16. and to nothing beyond. ends in a state or condition of man. It is simply Forgiveness. The father does not wait Father. How could this be? The name which St. 24. • . probation. I have sinned' is enough.).

17. Paul is really taking up the threads of grand and far-reaching ideas which had fallen from the Prophets inclined to call ' of Israel and had never yet been carried forwards to their legitimate The Son of Man goes straight. 30). By pressing the argument from silence in this way we should only make the Gospels inconsistent with themselves. as none other. much more to be said when we come to take that doctrine with its context and to put it in its proper place in relation to the whole system. is to forget the nature of a parable.16. the doctrine of Justification is to drop the curtain at the same issues. But even if we allow the name it is an encouragement to us to seek for the simpler meaning of more that we may be it scholastic' And we may also by a little inspection discover that in following out lines of thought which might come under this description St. It was pointed out a moment ago that in the Parable of the Prodigal Son the curtain drops at the readmission of the prodigal to his have no further glimpse of his home life. and that is surely not a valueless theology which has such facts as its foundation. Paul does not so isolate it. 25) and in the conse- — — . But St. We place. We may say roughly that the first five chapters of the Epistle are concerned with the doctrine in its relation to leading of Justification. 31 iv. 16 iii. because elsewhere they too (as we shall see) speak of further conditions besides the attitude and temper of the sinner. He takes it up and follows every step in that after-career till it ends in the final glory (oup 8e e?>iKaia>(T€. 30). tovtovs kuI e86ga<Tc viii. features of the Old Covenant (iii. In the first place it must be remembered that the doctrine belongs strictly speaking only to the beginning of the Christian's career. We see then that at bottom and when we come to the essence of things the teaching of the Gospels is not really different from the teaching of St. It marks the initial stage. and that excludes any further conditions of acceptance. but that does not exclude the right of philosophizing or theologizing on the facts of religion. Paul's doctrine of Justification. because no such conditions are mentioned. in itself (i. the entrance upon the way of life.1. It would be as reasonable to argue that the father would be indifferent to the future conduct of the son whom he has recovered because the curtain falls upon the scene of his recovery and is not again lifted. as if the justified believer had no after-career to be re- corded.] insist that RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH 37 it must also be complete in a negative sense. To isolate home. What has been thus far urged may serve to mitigate the apparent But there is strangeness of St. Paul. It may be said that the one is tenderly and pathetically human where the other is a system of Jewish Scholasticism. to the heart of our common humanity.

viz. (B) The Life of Justification and the Mosaic Law (vi. the Mystical Union of the Christian with the Risen Christ. vi-viii. But with ch. Liddon for instance summarizes their contents as Justification considered subjectively and in its effects upon life and conduct. 16 v. 16. 1-2 1). 18) by saying. but as much. and that with great fulness of detail the whole career 17-25) We shall speak of of the Christian subsequent to Justification. 1-14). But we have given the reasons which compel us to dissent from this view.' this description hangs together with the question as to the meaning the teaching of those chapters It is ' — of the term Justification. This subject is prosecuted through three chapters.). no doubt an arguable question how far these later chapters can rightly be included under the same category as the earlier. Justification and Sanctification or between the subjects of chaps. The older Protestant theologians distinguished between Justification and Sanctification . as are the arterial and nervous systems in the human body . At the same time we quite admit that the point at issue is rather one of clearness of thought and convenience of thinking than anything more material. whether we might not regard the whole working out of the influences brought to bear upon the Christian in chaps. Moral consequences of Justification. i. There is an organic unity in the Christian life. it (v. vi-viii is analogous to that between the arterial and nervous systems . 'Justification and sanctification may be tinguished by the student. Although separate the two subjects run up into each other and are connected by real links. — — . between body and soul. which really cover (except perhaps the one section vii. that they referring chaps. then we need not drspute the bringing of chaps. Paul does keep the two subjects separate from each other and it seems to us to conduce to clearness of thought to keep them separate. Dr. vi another introduced. and we think were right both in drawing this distinction and in second head rather than to the first. and chaps. vi-viii to the . Its different parts and functions are no more really separable than the different parts and functions And in this respect there is a true analogy of the human body. Liddon concludes his note dis(p. If Justification =Justitia infusa as well as imputata. 25). 17. quences which flowed from factor is — — when we come to them. 15 vii. vi-viii under that category. A further question may be raised which the advocates of the view we have just been discussing would certainly answer in the affirmative. On the whole St. (A) The Life of Justification and sin (vi. but in the living soul they are coincident and The distinction between inseparable/ we may cordially agree.38 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. it holds good as much and no more no more. When Dr. (C) The Life of Justification and the work The question as to the legitimacy of of the Holv Spirit (viii.

while they go on not merely ignorance. is Power to which there I mean. 18-32. But in spite of to that knowledge. upon all the once against morals and religion of which They stifle and suppress the Truth within still them. 18-32. 24-32). (2) the deliberate ignoring of this knowledge (vv. as energizing amongst men. in their wrong-doing 20 (eV dSt/c. are traced upon the fabric of the visible creation. though invisible in themselves. from a thundercloud. and idle specidation ending in idolatry 18 This message of mine is the one ray of hope for a all doomed around world. is The only other revelation. us.I. has a dark background in that other revelation of Divine Wrath at the gross wickedness of men (ver. which we can see a revelation not of the Righteousness but of the Wrath of God breaking forth— or on the point of breaking forth the lightning —from 19 heaven.] as yet a FAILURE OF THE GENTILES fifth 39 vi-viii. great expression of the Righteousness of God too think that he might certainly We It stands quite on a like footing with other so have regarded it. I. This revelation of Righteousness issuing forth •. For since the world has been created His attributes. All that can be said to the manifestations of that Righteousness. His no beginning and those other attributes which we sum up under the common name make 21 The it of Divinity. contrary is that St. 21-23). from God and embracing man. It is All that may be known of God He has revealed in their hearts and consciences. is all this as to it. (. Paul himself does not explicitly give it this THE UNIVERSAL NEED: FAILURE OP THE GENTILES. like countless offences at mankind are guilty. So plain ignorance. 19-20) . impossible to escape the responsibility of ignoring for they guilt of men lay not in their had a knowledge of God.). 18). they did not pay the homage due Him as . There are three stages: (1) the knowledge of God which all might have from the character imprinted upon Creation (vv.3) ^ie God by idolatry to those who provoke surrender judicial of every kind of moral degradation (vv.

31 dull of moral apprehension. futile God they gave Him no thanks but they gave the rein to speculations. Repro- who divinity. forsaking the natural use. " While they boasted of 23 their wisdom. pravity : their hearts brimming over with envy. so He mind which 29 rejected them. The world is lost without it. 32 : ' skilful plotters of evil. He condemns themselves but abet and applaud those who them. by shameful intercourse. And as a punishment God gave them up to moral corruption. insolent thought. Paul has just stated what the Gospel is. giving and them over to : as they rejected that led them acts disgraceful to abandoned them as men: replete as they were with every species of wrong-doing. with with thorough inward de- active wickedness. 30 slanderers . 25 even to the polluting of their bodies bates. backbiters. in act. God gave them up to the vilest passions. wrought shame own kind. their sex. with their Women behaved like monsters who had forgotten And men. with selfish greed. of bird. and their moral sense was obscured. Because of 27 this idolatry. braggarts in word towards man. knowing well the righteous sentence upon all who act thus. could abandon the living and true God for a sham and render divine honours and ritual observance to the creature. by which God denounces death are not content with doing the things which practise general agreement as to the structure of this St. [i. who. rank ill-nature. 28 They refused to Him. murderous thoughts. they were turned to perishable 24 folly. Following what was for a Jew the obvious division. leaving them to for it follow their own depraved desires wherever they might lead. . 18-32. is There part of the Epistle. he now goes on to show the necessity for such a Gospel.40 EPISTLE TO : THE ROMANS . I repeat. In place of the majesty of the Eternal God. void of natural duty and of humanity full Reprobates. bad sons. Such were the beginnings of idolatry. of quadruped or reptile. and received in their physical degradation make God into their study a punishment such as they deserved. untrue to their word. neglecting the Creator (Blessed 26 be His name for ever !). they lost all intelligence of truth. they worshipped some fictitious representation of weak and man. proof is given of a complete break-down in regard to righteousness (i) on the part of the Gentiles. (ii) on the 18. in open defiance of God. treacherous deceit. arrogant in quarrelsomeness.

Obad. vi. 17. xvi. 5. Paul lays stress on these signs : he develops the d7roKa\vTTT€Tai. Korah. Rom. is Marcion retained ver. stands guilty before God. See on this subject esp. xxxvi. Joel iii. T. : I. 46 ff. Even 1 Thess. i. similarly frere but. T. i. 18. 'living in unrighteousness the while'' kcitcxoVtwi'. The condition of the world seems to the Apostle ripe for judgement. the : Similarly Euthym. 10. Baal-peor). 16. How is this revelation made ? Is the reference Judgement. He may have been jealous of this trenchant attack upon the Gentiles.8. 15 . dpyrj God x. N. Paul saw it. ii. ii. if not altogether. Observe the links which connect the two sections diroKaXvirreTai airoKakv^is ii. of the heathen world ? Probably not to either exclusively. perhaps through some accident on his own part or in the MS. 3 upon non-Israelites for oppression of the Chosen People (Jer. 'ArroKaX^irTcrat k. the rather important cursive 47 has the same omission). xxv. 18. (ii) 'to hold down/ 'hold in check' 2 Thess. It is inflicted either (a) upon Israelites for gross breach of the Covenant (Lev. 19. 8 ff. 5. &c. ii. or (0) ' . iii. 1 he seems to have excised. 6.-Zig. &c. Thus the way is prepared for a further statement of the means of removing that state of* guilt offered in the Gospel. iii. 10-22. 2 Nadab and Abihu.t. the conception of the Wrath of has special reference to the Covenant-relation. 5. 2. dvanoAoyrjTOS i. SrjKovorf /cpicrews. p. 1.X. We must remember however that iv dSiKta. \v ^fiipq. 18 — iii. Zeph. ed. . 'AiroKaXuirreTai. 33. 1 Cor. as St.). omitting ®€ov (Zahn. 11-17. (1) In the O. (2) In the prophetic writings this infliction of wrath' is gradually concentrated upon a great Day of Judgement. OeoG. ut sup. xi. 5). xxx. 20: it is that the whole world.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 20 41 The summary conclusion of the whole section given in the two verses iii. Kare\fii/ Moule. the Day of the Lord (Is. 516. 7. v. Gentile and Jew alike. in a bad . he sees around him on all hands signs of the approaching end. 8 ff. Num. but to both in close combination. = is (i) ' to hold fast' Lk. Versohnung. or to the actual condition. In the latter half of this chapter St. Paul to be only a foretaste of the final woes. where to Karix ov o Kar€x<ov= the force of [Roman] Law and Order . 18. 8 . i. ii. 18 to the Final : = ii. Rev. 7. 20. 124 ff. 12 ff. 1 6 does not seem to be an exception the state of the Jews seems to St. opyr) i. Ritschl. part of the Jews. which he copied. eschatological cf. present. In the first half of the next chapter he brings out the final doom to which the signs are pointing. 9. The rest of the chapter with ii. ii. St. ii. Ezek. 2. Rechtfertigung u. Paul regarded the Day of Judgement as near at hand.. 2. 7. use seems to be mainly. (3) Hence Jer. viii. xv. 1. 1. Matt. . by which Antichrist restrained. 1 Thess.

dnb KarapoXris Koa-fiov (Matt. ' : ' tion where we might expect a different one (cf.' : Melanchthon discoursing Compare also Luther. qua?nobrem." asked whether God in person spoke with them or no. ' quod. 15): any revelation must pass through the human consciousness so Mey. as in the phrase \a\uv tv rivi (Habak. seem to show that the force of the prep.. Aph.' ' :' 42 sense. v.' introducing for 8ia tovto 6ti propterea quod.' hindered. H. Oltr. &c. 4) where the context favours so Orig. Lips.' giving a reason for what has gone before . Green. ii. Paul is writing as one who had himself an ' abundance of revelations (2 Cor. 34 Rev." It is however possible that allowance should be made for the wider Hebraistic use of kv. 16. 14. Gal. 10. Mey. Sioti for 6V o and expansive operation. because. Acts i. : experience. and the parallel phrases aw dpxrjs Koapov Luke xi. . T. within them. 3 iv. Go.). Gif. 9. 'that.. Weiss. xii. There is the more room for this stricter use here as the word does not occur elsewhere in St. xiii. ii. and uses the language which corresponded to his own : ' : : . Paul repeatedly uses this preposilv auTOis. Rom. it EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS is [i. 15 angelus qui loquebatur in me. . that sense De W. iii. . Test. 14. Zech. 4. ' since the creation of the universe (d(j> rather temporal.' creation (in the sense of : ' things created being regarded as the source of knowledge he alleges Vulg.' St. (ii) because. 18. 20. who continually boast thus " Thus saith the Lord. not exactly as Gif.g. ' 4). who seriously contemplated replied upon holy and divine things: therefore God spake with them in their consciences.' Herod. but esp. thwarted. against Chrys.' There are three uses = ' ti = propter a consequence . This is a similar case to that of etodcoBrjaropai above to y^wotoV. aif dpxr\s nrla-eas (Mark x. case too much stress must not be laid on the preposition as describing an internal process. Paul and the induction does not cover his writings. . yvcoaros in Scripture generally (both and N. * wherefore. The idea of knowledge being derived from . checked (i) in its free : 19. 4. 5. ii. Table Talk. dird KTio-ews itoVfjiou. always in Gk. is inclined to translate this ' ' from ') the created universe. xxiv. xv. p. 19. 6 xiii.-Zig. 13. (' in their very nature and constitution as men ') or Moule ('among them). ' Gif. 8 xvii. 19 2 Pet. 19 In that v. Theoph. downwards. 7). . .i. vi. also 4 Ezr.) not follow that it may not be used in the stricter sense of knowable. i. (iii) from on. But it is not clear that Vulg. 5 iTivaoj rod IStiv rt \a\rjcrei ev k/xoi: cf. The Witness of God.' ' what may be known ' (' the intelligible nature T. xxv. was intended to have this sense. 18-20- the truth which is 'held down. = = : LXX . a creatura mundi. 8). Luther " They were very holy. ov x^ vov ° oparbs irVcrw-Aj is Koorfios Euthym. in later Gk.) means as but it does a rule 'known' (e. At the same time the analogy of \a\uv ev does not cover and we must remember that the very explicit (pavepov kartv kv avrois St. which the prophets held as sure and certain revelations. or quia. (Matt. spiritual people. dxlix with Luther touching the prophets. 1 anoffKoii. 50. Va. 21).

detorrji a summary term : those other appears in Biblical Gk. as in KarapavOdveiv. diSios ai8ioTT]s a Divine attribute in Wisd. xix. 23. This argument is very fully set forth by Philo. 39. 13. cxliii. the Creator of the world. 5. . 5. The argument from character of its . But these admirable men superior as they are to all others. iv opovoia bUdfvro. aggregate of created things (Wisd. because it is a law of nature that the Creative Power (to TremHrjKos) must take care of that which has come into being. the nature of the created world to the Author is as old as the Psalter. xxixx. xlv. i. P. vii. xiii. 6eioTT)s : OeoTTjs : = Divine attributes Personality. 23 (v. xvi. xxxvi. Both senses are represented in the two places in which (i) in Job x. viii. and that there must needs be a Providence (npovoiav) . Wisd. It is certainly somewhat strange that so general a term as OtiSrrjs should be combined with a term denoting a particular attribute like dvvapts. 19 ff. Didymus {Trin. Job and Isaiah Pss.-Thay. It may however relate rather to the direction of sight. q. iv. &c. advanced from below upwards as if by a kind of celestial ladder guessing at the Creator from His works by probable inference (ola did twos olpaviov icXlpaKos diro tS>p epycou tbcori XoyifT/xoi crro^«crd/Xf voi top brjpiovpyouj. 9 t6v ttjs detoTrjTos vopov Migne. they arrived at a conception consistent with what they had seen. that all these beauties so admirable in their arrangement have not come . and it is ... whether (a) the . Karavoeiv) so Fri. or (/3) a creature. 26 cpcoros dV>iov. 11 reading deorijs here. Jude 6. It is common Arist. Gif. the word occurs in : . Job xii. 20.' 'contemplated' (' are under observation Moule). : * into being spontaneously (owe diravTopaTiadtpra yeyovev). Kara qbvXds. G. et Poen. 1.' ' : I. 9. ii. 415). p. a single created thing (Heb. and perhaps Rom. cf. but are the work of some Maker. 2 BaXadp. After describing the order and beauty of Nature he goes on: Admiring and being struck with amazement at these things. 15 and KTio-ews: probably Rom. 14. xxvi. see below). : XXiv. Grm. 24 ff. 1 xciv. 664) accuses the heretics of found in one MS. LXX is : (ii) in Num. first the word which constitute Divinity in Wisd. Is. 18. ii. P. also Wisd. Col. . viii.). 18 . 'are surveyed. 4 ^ wo-rrep pporbs Spa icaOopas . deiorrjs = Divine is nature and properties for dvvapis is a single attribute.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES is 43 in the the fabric of the created world in any case contained context. (i) the (ii) the result of that act. ii.). nadopa top 'iapajjX io tpar oirebev koto. v. ii. 9. as I said. . De Mundo 6 dd«apT)Tos to Greek thought as well as Jewish air avrwv tcov Zpyvv dewpuTai [6 Geo's] (Lid. 1. 214. Col. To meet this difficulty the attempt has been made to narrow down Ouottjs to .5. 24. v. xlii. act of creating (as here) ktio-is has three senses: see Lft.). commonly explained to mean ' are clearly seen KaGop&Tai (Kara with intensive force. De Praem. &c. xviii. 7 (Mang.

and N. reason of the Comp. viii. or of the Son (To. . . 8. € The two words occur 'things of nought. T. secondary or conditional purpose. ' to form merely in accordance with the slighter sense of od£a it = an opinion about Plato. &c). Enoch xcix. x. eo6|ao-ai>. iii. 20. here as ex P ressin g not takes els {Moods and Tenses. Ap. whether of the Father by His xi. with a varying sense according in (i) Of the honour done by to whom it is applied 6 pao-iXevs 'Apra^'p^s.' then later with a gradual rise of signification to do praise ' (eV aperrj feftofur/uVoi dvdpes Polyb. xii. 2) . honour to ' or io). John. It is suggested the signification of 86£a. Die Anschaimngen 188S. xiii.. because of the causal clause which follows. 28).' as 'idols' done by man J to God (Lev. 44 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. In classical Greek significance in their religious and Biblical use.a. and their eyes will be dreams. i ' ' ' LXX : ®6&m % tj) Of that which is owayvyh 8o£«rAj<roftai) (iii) Of the glory bestowed on man by God (Rom. liii. 31 were frustrated. . or of the Son by His own act (Jo. or of xvu. 1. T. Ess. own act manifestation of the glory. the by the act of the Father (Jo. &c). reasonings or speculations ' Gk.' In LXX >aTaiw0Tjaa^. because they work all their become they worship a stone. Through these they will their hearts and through visions in their works in a lie and godless and fearful.' rendered futile. tig to for mere result is not we believe generally bo&Cv is one of the words which show a deepened 21. els t6 denotes here not direct and primary purpose els t6 cTkcu God did not but indirect. 13 Father by the Incarnate Son (Jo. xiv.Taib>6r)0~av. 9 « And they will become godless by blinded through the fear of foolishness of their hearts. 39. and seems therefore to require that els to eluat be interpreted as expressing result.4. the divine glory or splendour. d. purpose but result. 30 ovs Se e'Si/ccuWe. This clause could be forced to an expression of purpose only by : . in a bad sense of SiaXov^ois: as usually in (cf. p. : §4") ™ ' supposing an ellipsis of some such expression as kcu ovtcos ela-lv.hpav) (Esth. Heidentums. VI. 21. Leipzig. Charakt. p. inadequate to describe the that this word was not used because it seemed d. ' ' ™ ti6rata= together in 2 Kings xvii. 15 eu. von d. xii. vii. 8).. 23. tovtovs koI e'8o£ao-e) (iv) In a sense of the visible specially characteristic of the Gospel of St.' Kapoia . Paulus uniqueness of the Divine Nature (Rogge. I am held to be unrighteous.' There is force in this reasoning. LXX in Bibl. self-willed. Rep. Hatch.: the most comprehensive term for the human faculties. 3 iv naag . 16. 4). mt eiropevdrjo-av ottiVw ™v fiaTalav Koi ' and N.) religios-sittl. perverse. ' And to so to the subject man (ii) man (bo^Cofim 8&ucos. but He did design that if they sinned design that man should sin on His part all was done to they should be without excuse Burton however give them a sufficient knowledge of Himself. io f. though the use ' of recognized.

TUVTO OV VOifl.ovs ihrjpioiipyqoav. 21-24. Talmud. &c. 'manifested perfection. Notes on Heb. Theodrt. to Rom.*).I. 6. a classified collection of figures and modes of speech employed in Holy Scripture.ijs p. : (Rom. . irapeSwKei/ ver. 18). (cv. — Tip. or of the Spirit cf.kvr\v aXXwv rots iptvda)vvp. 440 A. Theol. p. 1) will (1 Cor. not merely permissive (Chrys. Altsyn. the conception of its functions being connected with the Jewish idea that life resided in the blood morally it is neutral in its character. i. 2 . 20 Uiav = also for the expression Jer.' See on iii. 161) ot rbv Comp. aXr]9r) 6(01/ KaraXtTroi'Tes doffieiav —to yapKaTfipydo-aro . 2 « Every fulfilment of duty is rewarded by another. ii. Kal Oeov rifxrjs dKoyovaiv ol ra 6vrjTa eetouaavTes ols ovk k^pKtaev -qXiov Kal otXrjvqs tiKovas 8iairXdoaodai. 20 (Mang. 374) nap' o Kal OfOTrXao-Teiv dp£dp. . Gif. DcEFGKLP. vi. . The balance is strongly iv au-roTs NABCD*. Physically tapdia belongs to the o7rXdyX va (2 Cor. 8). Theodrt. Euthym. ' : several cursives. : 23. 45 ix. iv. 66). Ps.-Zig. priate evil punishment of their defection it works automatically. 28. Orig.) an imitation of a Heb. x.evus dyaXfidrwv Kal £odvcov Kal /xvpiojy .) &c. 24). an Antiochene writer (c. 11. iv. and he who gives himself over is given over (from Delitzsch. . . vii. Version of Ep. ' ' . 11 (Del. 5 .) in his Elo-aycayrj (Is rds dtias ypatyds. Vulg. 28 (Mang. 23. arid whosoever will be impure to him is it [the door of vice] thrown open Jerus. 'He who erects a fence round himself is fenced. xvi. The Jews held that the heathen because of their rejection of the Law were wholly abandoned by God the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from them (Weber. 5). so that it may be either the home of lustful desires (Rom. Vit. in ver. ad loc. <p6aprais Kal yfvrjTais ovoiais ttjv rov dyfvrjrov Kal dipedprov npoaprjaiv km<pr)fiiaavT(s also De Ebriet. through God permitting men to have their way or privative. dX

77877 koI dXdyois £wois Kal (pvrois rrjs twv dtpedprwv o\Kovp. printed * Similarly Adrian. tv eavroU editions of Fathers. with this verse Philo. dfiEpv p. 26 and in These however do not mark so many distinct stages in the punishment of the heathen it is all one stage. TJMa^ai/ iv cvi. refers this verse to the head Ttjv enl twv dv8pa:mva>v KaKwv crvyxojpvaiv tow 0eoO <bs vpa£iv avrov Xtyer twecdf) KuXvaai Swd/xevos. dvrl 6o~iott)tos TroXvOeov kv rats tcuv dcppovwv ipvxats d6e6rr]s. construction : cf. but in all is a proof of God's displeasure. («/ contumeliis adficiant corpora sua in ipsis). the seat of feeling Rom.drcx)v vXais 8ia<p6pois TeTexviTevptvcvv KarkirXTjcf rriv to kvavriov ov irpoatSoKrjo-fV. 37 . ' . Mos. three times repeated. and every transgression is punished by another Shabbath I04a Whosoever strives to keep himself pure receives the power to do so. i.).] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES (Rom. here.. Chrys. . y. thoughts (Rom. through His withdrawing His gracious aid but judicial. iii. x.eT(8o<jav. 12). the approrrapkdcoKev is .D. Idolatry leads to moral corruption which may take different forms. : : This is a Jewish doctrine Pirqt Aboth. one leading to another by natural sequence. has proved that the force of : 24. : ii.

144. hi.' 9. is mid.). with subj. iv. De Mund.' (ii) it frequently makes the adjectival sentence assign a cause for it is used like qui.= (i) ' to receive lack 1 (as in Luke vi. diroXappdj/oi/Tes . of the aspirated avrov and it is true that there is no certain proof of aspiration such as the occurrence before it of ovx or an elided preposition in early MSS. for concrete. only where the reflexive character is emphasized (not merely suum. on Phil. 22. breathings are rare).j. in Hort. drip. Gk. avrrjs. the common form is <ri$eo-6ai (see Va. rois r/z-euoWt 6eois. 13. hence 12. p. tw *J/eu8ei : abstr. knowledge 16. This use of o-e$a£to-6cu is an airai- \cy6fxevov . its nature. . &c.' ' = to the neglect of the Creator. T. . and iv in favour of avrols. See esp.. and thus its character (' one who. Introd. 25. €ffe|3da0r)<rai'. and : (ii) ' to receive one's due' (as in Luke xxiii. vii. &c. called forth either 27. esp. Notes on Orthography.' ' : imyvcao-is = . I ThesS. and are a spontaneous expression of devout feeling by the thought of God's adorable perfections or sometimes (as here) by the forced mention of that which reverence would rather hide. xii. 9. 15 vovs may be good sense see Rom.ipas Rom. xvii. Comm. Lk. oitii'cs of quality. i. of N. where the omission of the aspirate would be against all Greek usage. but in a few strong cases. = * 41) . but suum ipsius) is kavrov used (hence the importance of such phrases as rbv kavrov vlbu Tre/A. On the forms.g. Greek there is a tendency to the disuse of strong reflexive forms.' ' reprobates. and so here. : : ( So-™. Sp. on Cor. Qavjxaaavres (Loesner). 34) (i) 'to test' 8oKifj. T. Some critics have denied the existence in the N.). as : concerned with vovs moral action. i. ' ' not merely more than the Creator (a force impel rbv KTiaai'Ta which the preposition might bear). .' Cf. xiii. avrov and kavrov see Buttmann. : either 23. . = the reasoning faculty. its capacities. (e. the intellectual part of conscience combined in Tit. . (i) . avrov. 3). or quippe qui. 12). (1 Cor. but 'passing by the Creator altogether. ' this reading dTijjid£eo-0ai is pass. similarly c186kihov iv iinyv(o(Tei : = ' rejected after testing.d(a> 28. cooKi/ido-ay (ii) 'to approve after testing' (so here. &c. cf. for the .) ii. 2) rivh yap rbv Koa/xov /xaWov f] in the os eaTiK cuXoyTjTos. xiv. 24-28. recogni- &c. ='to or 1 ' recognize.' Matt. avrois =. rbv tcoa /JLoiroibv Opif. Thayer) p. viii. Doxologies like this are of constant occurrence Talmud. 2 Eph.. for rbv dXrjOivbv Qtov . 12 Lft. 46 EPISTLE TO THE With ' : ROMANS [I. i.' knowledge. after ' tion (vb. among them . T.) (^'ad- vanced voxsv ' further knowledge. in Jo. full i. . Simple possession is most commonly expressed by avrov.' (i) denotes a single object with reference to its kind. the main sentence : ' ' : -ri]v dX^Oeiai' . and o-weidijo-is are bad or good . 18. Gr. being of such 'a kind as that ') . : a7roX. it is retained by WH. 1 (Mangey. Philo. xxiii. (as Vulg. with iv iavrols.. In N. ii. (tr. 24. often called rel.

Bill. Va. The word 38). backbiting. Rhet. so Euthym. Syn. read irovrjp. 5. where the word is not uncommon or (ii) active. irXeovcgia. vi. in 1 Thess. N A B C probably suggested by similarity in . Lid. with some support from Clem. Lips.Nyss. Kcxiaa as compared with trov^pia denotes rather inward viciousness of disposition (Trench. including all that follows. and no doubt the use of the word is extremely wide but where ' : definition : is needed it is in this direction that it must be sought. though he follows it by vTvyrjToi GfoJ. om. «a«. 303). Dei osores = abhorrentes Deo Cypr. cf. . 13 .. not in the second: yfi0.] t& KaO. with NA. 5. KaTaXdXous. to Trovrjplq.' The three terms : : : ™ ' . the order of the three words irovrjpla. Vulg.g. 97) rather contests the assignment of this specific meaning to novrjpia . Vulg. Dr. Ambrstr. susurratores Cypr.-Zig. Aug. VVH. As one among a catalogue of vices this would give the more pointed sense. Weiss Fri. Rom. On the attempt which is sometimes made to give to this word the sense of < impurity see Lft. deiradores Cypr. selfish greed.. ir\(ov. also 2 We terms for wickedness tive 4>06Vou. dttrectatores {detract-) Lucif. then follows a group headed by the allitera. vovtjp.). 6 TtKeovtKTtlv is used of adultery. then a somewhat miscellaneous assortment. with BL. dSiicuj : irop^ta : a comprehensive term. Go. Boh. so Mey. must beware of attempting to force the catalogue 29. : . The word itself means only WH. though here and there a certain amount of grouping is noticeable. irXtov^ia. The idea of secresy is contained in the first of these words. 4. occurs several times in 3 and 4 Maccabees. Lucif. cf. (tovs tov Q(bv ptaovvrai). p. also recognizes icaie. The MSS.. p. 28-30. Syn. marg. Gk. and other English versions not derived from Vulg. at. who in paraphrasing this passage uses tfeoorirym clearly with an active signification. also Gif. irXtov..' J KaKOY)0eias the tendency to put the worst construction upon everything (Arist. K. but rather as a wrong done to another than as a vice. on Col. Ambrstr. ii. Bas. Trench. Greg'. The first four are general fitting . Arm. I. Deo odibiles Vulg. a technical term with the Stoics. then a group in descending climax of sins of arrogance . retain this order WH. <f>6^oo. vary as to text RV. which follows into a logical order. : iro^pta contains the idea of active mischief (Hatch. p. Pesh. at.: Tisch. Gk. at. Tyn. susurrones Aug.. . leana. unless we might suppose that dfoo-rvyels had come to have a meaning like our desperadoes. ' which may however be exhibited under circumstances where impurity lies near at hand: e. at : marg. with C. ad Cor. Trench. 30. &c. xxxv. Syn.. Hard.. Oltr. Abbott (Essays. iii. eeoffTuyets may be either (i) passive. \|u0upio-T<is.iKoi'Ta • FAILURE OF THE GENTILES : 47 * what is morally Mace. with other kindred vices then two forms of . iv. p. in which again alliteration plays a part. 77 f. 36 f. on the ground that this is the constant meaning in class. K SOUnd p. T. kutoX.

iactantes sui. Urbin. in the first instance diKaitofxa K 95 ff. Jer.' Rom. comparing k\a<pr)P6\os from eXacpos and fidWcv he explains it as meaning ' conspicuous beyond others. T. [But is not this a gloss. 6) derives this word from the adjectival form vntpos (rather than vnep Trench) and <f>aipa>. but from another point of view to set up a public opinion in favour of vice is worse than to yield for the moment to temptation (see the quotation from Apollinaris below). p. Vulg. Syn. 32. Ambrstr. fuld. the text here : . LXX. and so too E Vulg. to act as facere. ' ' ' : «iti"Yv6vt€s : imyivwoKovres (B) 80. and Pss. hence.-Zig. superbi. 95 ff. npdaaeiv moral agent there may be also some idea of repeated action. 30-32. marg. viii. teal in N. xxvi.' ' haughty ' : see his note. ? It is found in the margin of Cod. 31. : do-rdpyovs Syn. St. 209) Troiouaii' . closely the two words avvtais and awtidrjais are related will appear from Polyb. cf.6jv. Boern. Clarom. Kal 6 ovv^pap. dcnroVSous after iii. XVIII. 1. has gloriantes either would be better than the common rendering elatos (Cod. and the exx. et i6 ecu pas KKiirTTjv. v. owcuooKouo-i. 13 ovbds ovtcos ovre fiaprvs karl <popfpos ovre tcarrfyopos fiavbs ihs ff avveais 57 kyfcaTomovoa rats knaaruv ipv-^ms. . to produce a certain result . . ofni'es t6 8iicaiwfi. 25 above. Note that iroidv agere. i. Epp. WH. from 2 Tim. Lucif. ix. 6 rb ovvivhoKtiv x € ^P 0V Ti0J7<n Kara. 10) or (ii) a declaration that a person a verdict of not guilty/ an acquittal is dUaioi. owcu&okoGo-i denotes hearty approval (Rendall on Acts xxii. well preserved in the Cyprianic Latin. 4] . iii. iniuriosi. 7.a a thing is dixaiov [ro : L P]. D : = = : ' ' .' and so ' proud. d<ruv«TOvs : aovvti Stjtovs (' without conscience ') Euthym. Rom. . and apparently Clem. have iroiovvres avvevboKovvres . . an ordinance (Luke i. WH.g. Paul. 1 Mace. Rom.) Orig.) is added (i) a declaration that which the Law lays down as right. 1888. .). 57 awevBoKel tw v6p<p 20.' so esp. and other Latin Fathers. . Rom. There has been some disturbance of B.48 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [I. Kardp^as. 16). Aug. vir6pTi<j>avos.' ' outshining them.ov ' = ' that ' ' . but inserting. (am. in But see also note on p. : the word occurs four times besides apuporepoi 8^ irovrjpoi. If the participles are wrong they have probably been assimilated mechanically to irpdaaovres. tov v6/j.). (Luke. in Expos. ii. non intellexerunt (ovk evorjo-av D). iv. ' false to their engagements (Trench. 26 Heb. obelize the common text as prob. prob. because to applaud an action in others is not so bad as to do it oneself . 3 [C see on ver. 6 .. ii. For the distinction between them see Trench. Sol. tov Se ttoulv to Keyopevov. Cod. Paul (e. last phrase Lucif. corrupt they think that it involves an anticlimax.] It is For the . 31.-lat. there quoted from Ecclus. on the text of Polyb. : How dcrui/0€Tous. Mayor (onjas. p. ' (ovvOtjkcu) . cf. which follow remind us of the bullies and braggarts ®f the Elizabethan stage.

and his verdict was not less sweeping. The Jew of the Dispersion.). p. of] the lieth in wickedness/ rather perhaps. And St. The Jews were like a patient who was sick but with hope of recovery.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 6 fxiv 49 0VviT(>*X<* avr$. The Heathen were like a patient who was sick unto death and beyond all hope. It would be wrong to expect from St. Theol. Paul an investigation of the origin of different forms of idolatry or a comparison of the morality of heathen religions. Therefore they had a law given to them to be a check upon their actions. St. He knew that the heathen myths about their gods ascribed to them all manner that idolatry He saw of immoralities. Paul on his travels must come across much to justify the denunciations of this chapter. Paul's Description of the Condition of the Heathen World. 58. Paul recounts in this chapter. Paul looks at things with the insight of a religious . v. The John. fieOvcav tS> iraOei. with the Law of Moses in his hand. The lax Hellenic religion and the at still and easy-going anthropomorphism of more degraded representations. yap iroiwv. 1S-32. 68). such as is now being instituted in the was necessary to which has only become possible within the present century and is still far from this it Comparative Science of Religion. teacher . < Christian teacher brought with him no lower standard. ^Trdrai rfjs wpa^&us' xpwptvos. So far have they gone as to lose their {ibid. he describes facts which he sees around him and he con- nects these facts with permanent tendencies of human nature and with principles which are apparent in the Providential government of the world. 69). could not but revolt at the vices which he found prevailing among the heathen. He looked upon the heathen as given over especially to sins of the flesh. irovTjpiq o St ffwtvSoKwv. Altsyn. (Apollinaris in Cramer's Catena). awTpeyti rS> naitS> St.1. such as those which St. 'The whole world/ ' said St. (kt6s &v rov vd9ovs. in [the power Wicked One' have 19). and licence went together. p. of gods of Egypt and the . (1 Jo. on whom therefore the physician put no restrictions {ibid. pp. humanity altogether and become like brute beasts 67 f. with the times still more degraded worship. For wait for a large and comprehensive collection of data complete. He turned with disgust from the circus and the theatre (Weber.

enough for the belief that it was judicially inflicted. demnation of the insufficiency of Pagan creeds did not make him shut his eyes to the good that there In the next chapter he distinctly contemplates the case of Gentiles who being without law are a law unto themselves. Leipzig. The human imagination. shame the Jew with to facts. 15). scattered and broken which the Apostle recognizes with the warmth of genuine sympathy. We It therefore cannot say that a priori reasoning or prejudice makes him untrue had little its The Pagan world was lights. . not wholly bad. Such gods as these left them free to own unbridled passions. religios-sittlichen Heidentums. 1888. not interfere to check their angered at their wilful disloyalty. in Paul is measuring the religious forces it is the world. the suspension or withholding. and for external who ' find in their consciences a substitute law is (ii. Anschauungen d. following evil its own devices. this It was natural he should give the account he does of invented their follow their degeneracy. Ap. he speaks without clear from other contexts that conmight be in Pagan characters. Die Charakter d. And the Majesty on High. East. all advantages 26-29). Paulus von d. which however does not fairly add much beyond what upon the surface : Rogge. in this passage. of such supernatural influence . Paganism was unequal to the task of reforming and regenerating mankind. and there was reason where St. 18-32. were thrown into dark relief by his the severe conception of Divine Holiness. did downward career. 14. There is a monograph on lies the subject. At the same time. is And strict made worse. He to frankly allows that the ' uncircumcision which his greater by nature put (ii.5° EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS own that [i. because the worshipper his worship. projects even into the it is Pantheon the streak of so the mischief rise is by which itself disfigured. But there can be equally that doubt that the moral condition of Pagan civilization was such as abundantly to prove his main proposition. though limitation or qualification. The lawless fancies of men own divinities. The state of the Pagan world betokened the absence. It is all literally true. It not likely to above the objects of was in the sense due to supernatural influ- ence that the religion of the Jew and of the Christian was kept clear of these corrupt and corrupting features.

[6 0eos tKTiae . to Romans. I. with due allowance for the nature of the authorities.) (Cod.] FAILURE OF THE GENTILES 5l If the statements of St. xiv. there are clear indications of the use by the Apostle of the Book of Wisdom. e'lKova tt)s idias ouSiottjtos al. so neither can they be held to furnish data which can be utilized just as they stand by the historian. Kal Ik twv opcopivcov ayaQGiv ovk Xa\vaav tlSivai tov ovra ovre rots epyois iviyvctffav rbv irpoo~ex ovTes xiii. The standard which St. I. TOV TT/S OeiOTTJTOS VOfXOV. Paul cannot be taken at once as supplying the place of scientific inquiry from the side of the Comparative History of Religion. It still would not be certain that St. i.'" to have known but did not. ttov . ix. parallel here is ' exact. (Is t6 etvai avrovs dva-noXoyq T ovs' 21. Kal tf\a£av 7-7)1/ 86£av rod d<pOdprov &eov kv 6p. Use of the Book of Wisdom in Chapter i. tov dvOpca* &c. 24. I. ch. We Romans. I. .016jp. A Sittengeschichte Roms. voovp. but relinquished ' passage in his mind. 1 869-1 871. 8. ndXiv Si ovo' avTol ovvyvw- aroi. They did know their They ought knowledge. 8. pdraioi yap irdvTes avOpwnot naprjv Otov fiois avrSiv. . 5. 77 T€ diSios avrov Svvapus Kal 6(i6tt]s' ii. to 8k (pOaprov ®eos divopa- Kal kpTT(TUV. 248 emthat they are right bodies very ancient elements and the context generally favours diStoTrjTos. (K yap ficylOovs Kal KaWovfjs Kriapdrwv dvaKoycos 6 ytveaiovpyos avrwv Oecvpurai. (pda/eovT€s eivai o*o</>ot xii. not quite Paul says.. t/j.-Alex.~\ Method. and that of the earlier work by which it is illustrated. xiii. 9. T. xiii. Paul most striking. 18-32. vrjmwv Siktjv dcppovcuv ipevadivtcs. Epiph. 23. calm and dispassionate weighing of the facts. He does not judge by the average level of moral attainment at different epochs but by the ideal standard of that which ought to be attained. St. . Clem. . 26 f. * The more recent editors as a rule read 18i6tt]tos with the uncials and Gen.- (HdvovTcs T(i Kal kv fcJo<? tuiv kxOpuv aTipa. In two places in Epist. Paul applies is not that of the historian but of the preacher. ra yap aopara avrov and kti- trecus Koapiov rots voirjfxaai KaQoparai. /cat koKOTiadtj dovveros kpuwpdv- (pvaei. Wisdom. TaKaiirojpot di Kal kv veKpois al k\ni8es avTwv. Kal ydp tSjv irXavqs 6Swv Orjaav uaKpoTfpov €TT\avr)9T)0~av dtovs vnoKap. : Paul had this t The Wisd. 10. but we have thought it best to call attention to them especially at the points where they are most continuous and begin by placing side by side the language of St.tva 20. 248 18i6tt}tos iTroir)<jtv. Athan. 18-32.aTi tiKovos tpOaptov dvOpcuirov Kal irerewwv Kal rerpaTToScUV xii. kv rots 81a: oyto7) xiii. will be found in Friedlander.. Such indications are not wanting elsewhere. to acpOaprov aov wvevpa. 23. i and ch. xiii. o~6r).' £ 2 . T€XVITT}V.aTai<ij9r)(Tav Xviii. 22. . oh dyvwaia *|\ avraiv Kapdia. i. Leipzig. oItivcs kKaKeaav Oeovs tpya x* l P& v dvOpuvuv. but it is by no means clear Cod. NAB.

18-32.ovs dyovrfs. dpxf) ydp iropveias% kirivoia dScuXcov. dveXefjpiovas. Theol. It did not extend to any of the leading ideas of Christianity.V. dXa£6vas. 11. 81a tovto kcu kv &8wXols kOvwv hmoKoirri karai. €?t' ovk rjpKeae t6 a0ai irepl t?)v tou ®eov yvcvaiv. fj direifcacrev dvOpwnov. gIto. B. SoXov. vrjpia. Freiburg. Xiv 21. (pOopd. tre- ydpovs KaOapovs pos 8' iTfpov bhvvq. t. Sia rovro vapkhuKiv k. virtpr](pdvovs f KctKuiv. 25. dcvvkrovs. ovk rod &eov kv tS> if/ev8ei. von Weizsacker gewidmet. XP^ V V xpaTvvOiv rb wXava- affects edos ws vupos kfpvXdxOrj. TO aKOlVCJVTJTOV ovopia XiOois Kal £vXois TTtpiidiaav. dmo~Tia 7 (povov. Rom. 1192. expands this as ' [spiritual] fornication ' and so most moderns. t. Paul must have bestowed upon the Book of Wisdom a considerable amount of study. In this essay will be found a summary of previous discussions of the question and an estimate of the extent of St. irfirXrjpajptvovs -nady atiiKiq. Natural religion discarded.6s. catalogue of immorality) and in the details of thought and to some extent of expression as to make it clear that at some time in his life St. ix. ii. vfipi- rdpaxos. eiriopKia. xiv. 14. xiv. epiSos. But even so the phrase might have . 25. ovre ffiovs ovTt Zti (puXdaaovaiv. Oopvfios dyaOwv. p. 19-29 below. /caiciq. x"/" T0S dpvrjaia.] % A. X. yevfoews (sex) kvaXXayrj. 13. rj Xox&v dvaipei k"x €l ij voOevwv 29. h\b iraptSwKev k. ydptxuv dragta. Oeoarvytts. dXXd Kal kv fxcyaXcv ^aivTts dyvoias TroXkfio) r<i Toaaxna «a«d elpfjvrjv irpocrayopevovaiv. avro. It will be seen that while on the one hand there can be no question of direct quotation. iii. on the other hand the resemblance is so strong both as to the main lines of the argument (i. and affected the form rather than the matter of the arguments to which it did extend. tvpeaeis 8k avTwv <p6opd £cu77?. xiv. 16. 251 [Compare the note on ix. Kal kae@do9r]aav Kal kXdrptvaav 777 KTiati irapd toj/ KTlOaVTOL. had something thought of to do in suggesting the St. a\pv\cp TTpoaXaXojw /cat irepl alax^veTai T(? pkv vyielas to daOevls kiriKaXeirai. k(f>€vp(Tas yovtvaiv direiOeis. oiTives ix€TT}k\a£av ttjv dXr)&eiav xiii. -ndvTa 8k kmpl£ a fy«* Kal (povos kXott^ Kal 80X05. iropfffrovs (pdovov. on kv KTiffpan &eov ets (iSkXvypa kyevrjOrjcrav. also an essay by E. KaicoTjOcias. X. 27. nepl 8k fafjs to" viKpuv d£ioT k. TrXfovegiq. dcTTOpyovs.iaap. 19-23 are the most conspicuous examples. poixeia Kal dakXyeia. 22. 18-32. 2 3-V 7"P TtKvocpovovs TfXtrds ^ Kpixpia fxvaTrjpia fj kppaveis kgaXXwv Oeapcuv Kwp. ff. X. 26. . £wa> rivl evreXe? avrb (Ikuvi ijpoiwow 17 sqq. idolatry. i. Paul's indebtedness which agrees substantially with that expressed above. T. 12. xiv. 24.5* EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS xiii. ij ydp twv dvojvvpwv (ISojXojv 6pr)OKeia iravrbs dp\rj KaKov Kal a'nia Kal ntpas kariv. 26. 1. ipiOvtcaraXaXovs. Grafe in Abhandlungen C. kv 24. Paul. if/vx&v fj. davvdtTovs. [I. (jTas. picrrcis.

6-1 1). and that you personally (a-6 emphatic) will are so ready to in who — escape 4 ? forbearance. the Gentile by the Law of Conscience. when God will stand revealed in His character suffering not that you 6 you to repent. of sin? If is are you presuming upon all that abundant goodness. critic BOTH This state of things puts out of court the [Jewish] himself no better than the Gentile. the Strict justice will be meted out to all — Jew coming first then the Gentile (vv. 2 And we are aware that it is at his conduct that God will look. you make a great mistake. he has done.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 53 TRANSITION FROM GENTILE TO JEW. 6 The principle of His judgement by no is clear and simple. as the Righteous Judge. 12-16). but only aggravates his sin by im- who is penitence (vv. critic only passes sentence upon himself.II. The Jew. even though [like the Jew] he imagines himself to be on a platform of In fact the lofty superiority. He can claim no exemption. II. The object of that long- Or may evade punishment but only to induce While you with that callous impenitent heart of yours are heaping up arrears of Wrath. 1-16. which will burst upon you in the Day of Wrath. ALIKE GUILTY. will be judged by the Law of Moses. of He 7 will render to every man his due. is reality. s and not a man's suppose birth or Jew or Gentile. No such platform really exists. and patience with which God delays His punishment so. 1 The he Gentile sinner is without excuse . The standard of His judgement status as either critic. at the Great Assize which Christ will hold (vv. and his own conduct is identical with that which he condemns. . fictitious standard (such as birth or status) but strictly according to what To those who by steady persistence in a life-work good strive for the deathless glories of the Messianic Kingdom. sit Do you —you Jewish judgement on those who copy your own example do you suppose that a special exemption will be made in your favour. 1-16.1-5). ever may be — and his critic —who- is equally without excuse. for by the fact of his criticism he shows that he can distinguish accurately between right and wrong.

nay crushing. 16 These hidden workings of the conscience God can see . pain are in store. but only n for God regards no distinctions of race. He hold through His Deputy. eternal life. 54 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS will give that for [II. and an approving conscience also bears while in their dealings with one another their inward thoughts take sometimes the side of the prosecution and some- more rarely) of the defence. their 15 own moral sense supplies them with the law they need. so also will they be punished without one [see vv. will be judged. human being who carries out to the end his course of evil. it is true. 9 galling. whether he be Jew or whether he be Gentile dence. His verdict That does not make a man righteous before God. although written law. no I say -that Gentiles too. The live Gentiles. .). have no law but as they have sinned. 8 He which they strive. 49. at that Great Assize which I teach that will 1. 10 — the Jew again having prece- On the other hand the communicated glory of the Divine Presence.. for such there in store for every anger and they exploding. though for the ' suspense the direct affirmation. Jesus Messiah. while the Gentile has no law by which he can be judged.' holds in . For whenever any of them instinctively put in practice the precepts of the Law. Be- cause their actions give visible proof of commandments written not on stone but on the them witness times (but tables of the heart. and by that law they it be judged. moment the Apostle Thou art the man. The against himself. from Gentile to Jew is conducted with much somewhat after the manner of Nathan's parable to David. These actions themselves bear witness to them . 14. It is now turned transition rhetorical skill. 15]. But to those mutinous spirits who are disloyal to the right is : and loyal only settled to unrighteousness. Under cover of a general statement St. 1. viz. will The Jews ls under a law. will pronounce righteous only those who have done 14 what the they have Law commands. the approval of God and the bliss of reconciliation with be he is good Jew or Gentile . sup. precedence await the labours on at that which : Him man who — 12 Do not object that the this Jew has a position of privilege which will exempt him from judgement. and therefore He will judge Gentile as well as Jew. Such an one would assent cordially to all that had been said hitherto (p. For it is not enough to hear read in the synagogues. Paul sets before himself a typical Jew. here too the Jew having precedence.

g) Boh. 22. Allegor. 69 There may be an element of popular misunderstanding.. oiSavev Se ABD &c. dvex°H-"t i. 8. hi. RV. but ava-nok. 6a\a.II. 2. 4 Evigilabit contra te furor qui nunc in longanimitate tanquam in frenis retinetur. The following is also an impressive statement of this side of the Divine attributes: 4 Ezr. p. to dgvOvfxla a 'short' or 'quick temper. Chrys.TTT]s. drawing their evidence from varied quarters. Altsyn. al. text RV. Baruch.ia on Gal. 12-14. the passages quoted by Gif. f. Ambrstr. moral as well as ceremonial. But in any case there must have been a strong tendency to rest on supposed religious privileges apart from the attempt to make practice conform to them. pauc. . 20 shows that the Apostle had Orig.-lat. Leg.iv Karat. Hard. xP Tl°"r(>TT] TO s 'kindly disposition'. but the retention of the last clause of ver. rrfv vTTfp&oXfjV tov T( itKovtov koi tt}s dyaOoTrjTos avTov With p. there is certainly an element of inconsistency. thou. et longanimis. 33 Gal. Comp. forbearance/ i. . pointing back to more than this in his mind. qui peccaverunt quasi suis operibus .anpoOvp. v. for the rest evidence fails. see = to know for a fact. J 6. ' tW^ = 50) "Orav ycip vy p. which record (however ironically) the privileges of the Jew. 299. Tert.' 'irasci(cf. 1. i. for we know that they insisted strenuously on the performance of the precepts of the Law. i. iii. 17 al..' There is abundant illustration of the view current among the Jews that the Israelite was secure simply as such by virtue of his descent from Abraham and cf. (exc. Additional note on 1 Cor. marg. 13 (Mang. iii.ei' : olba yiyvaxrKw = to : priation 3. Theol. would hardly be justified. 20 is against this. in eo qtiod miscrcatur his qui nondum in saeculo advenerunt . 1-4. 20 (from €\ovTa)-2g\ We might suppose that Marcion would omit vv. 4 benignitas: see 4. 62-68 Scio. Latt.. quoniam quidem donare . 2. = ' bonitatis Vulg. . 15.ias comp. Arm. a graphic image in Apoc. WH. viii. both sides Tisch. xii. text: NC A oiSafx. An even balance of authorities. in some of these passages.. RV. quoniam longanimitatem praestat his Philo. 9 Think not to say of his possession of the Law within yourselves. Matt. The story of Abraham sitting at the gate of Paradise and refusing to turn away even the wicked Israelite can hardly be a fair specimen of the teaching of the Rabbis. quoniam (>=oti 'that') nunc vocatus est Altissimus misericors . of all men. have Abraham to our father'. Weber. delay of punishment/ cf. 17-20. Lft. Comm. xP r)<rT° TT] s : — 'patience/ opp. Domine. 1 9) to hold one's hand.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS is 5$ evidence that Marcion keptvv. more positive decision than that of WH. bility' fipadvs els 6pyi)v Jas. ri trepov irapioTrjcriv 1j . in Tit. marg. There 816 links this section closely to the last . . Jo. ir-qyas 5k kv ruls eprjiuoraTOis enopfiprj . et miserator in eo quod miseretur illis qtd conversionem faciunt in lege eius . : • We . viii. ii. by external testimony know by inner personal experience and approSp. Theodrt. i. et munificus. it is well led up to by 32. ' ad emphatic . vii. p:aicpo8vp. WH..

naturally suggests the idea of attempt A (Burton. 'According to R. .'yixaTos Kvpiov kv ttj dtKaiofcpiffiq tov Qeov. X l ° va i upvaraXXov eroi/xa els fi\x. 15 Xfyeade oveidtcrfAov ical aiaxvvrjv alwviov Ttapk ttjs SiKaioKpicrias tov Qeov. So also said God Anger and Wrath are the messengers of destruction. 18 ff. I will send them far away to a distance. verb which of itself suggests effort when used in a tense which implies action in progress. though in accord with the The principle here laid teaching of the N. Jiid. Mai. non potent decies millesima pars vivificari hominum. xlvi. .' 56 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. Apoc. vi. they may come. Jer. Is. xii. Joel ii. : . full 1 2 (LXX).ipav npooTa.fi irvp. Zech. 6pyr)v iv fip-tpa opyrjs inflicted) in a to be taken closely together. Apoc. 2 ff. i. xiii. Ps. vi. said R. 13] mean: God removes to a distance His Wrath.' wrath (to The doctrine of a ' day of the Lord ' as a day of judgement is taught by the Prophets from Amos onwards (Amos v. i. which Until He opens His treasure-chamber and shuts it again. Ii. Litt. 4-6. 6 dUaios Kpirrjs 2 Tim. os diroSwaei : Prov. 1 . . et douator. 5 it is also found twice in Test. xiii. (and the passages collected in Charles' Note) . quoniam muliiplicat magis misericordias his qui praesentes sunt et qui praeterierunt et qui futuri sunt : si enim non tmcltiplicaverit. SiKcuoKpicrias : 41 . &c. 8). Jizchak. and I may accept their repentance (cf. 7 ff. Winter u. Baruch. 1 ap. . 10. non vivificabitur saeculum cum his qui inhabitant in eo . Levi 3 devrepos 6 ex. 18 . Sol. . Thaanith ii. ed. 6. iv. ii. 12 ff. Levi the words [Joel ii. 1. man means returns to God and He accepts him' {Iract. Ibid. lv. encamp near me in the country they will rise against my subjects when they provoke me to anger. down. 77 ff. vii. xxiv. . 1 literature Enoch xlv. Bensly] . 1 ff. Zeph. 2 iv. Kard : : ' in accordance i. 13 ff.' secundum duritiam tuam Vulg. 20 Innotescat potentia tua Mis qui KaTa<j>pov€is putant longanimitatem tuam esse infirmitatem. cf. T.. Is. 207). Then if my subjects provoke me to anger before I send for them (the legions) they may appease me and I shall be willing to be appeased. xxiv.). 1 The Conative Present is merely a species of the Progressive Present. occurs in the Quinta (the fifth version included in Origen's Hexapld) of Hos. . Ezek. . but he locks them up (Anger and Wrath) out of their way see Jer. not quite the same as 8c<aias Kplaeas 2 Thess. and hence incomplete. : €is |A€Tcu'oiai' ae ayei : its purpose or tendency is to induce you to repent. xv. 5 {oX. day of wrath. 1. 5). so that when the Israelites provoke Me to anger. i. Like a king who had two fierce legions. thought he. xxx. 3 ff. and repent. Baruch. : Wiinsche. If these. 34. iii. vult pro exigere. And not only that. quoniam si non donaverit de bonitate sua ut alleventur hi qui iniquitate?n fecerunt de suis iniquitatibus. . It also enters largely into the pseudepigraphic xiv. : with. 25. 102 ff. Therefore I will send them far away. The word 6. . 21 . xii. denoting not so much the character of the judgement as the character of the Judge (diKaioKpirrjs 2 Mace. et multae tnisericordiae. : . justijudicii Vulg. XII Patriarch. [vii. ' dpy^ be see on 18 above. 6 ff. § 11). xxi. 5. 7 ff. cf. before I send for them. 4 Ezr.

xx. From ZpiBos ' a hired labourer' = ad loc. and derives it from e>a 077? agricola mercede conductus Greg. 23. Gal. iii. St. See Lft. ii. Fri. Paul's doctrine of Justification by Faith. 27 .' II. Vulg. 6pyr) p. Observe too that there is between Faith and Works in themselves. : the settled feeling.' fpidcvopai a political term 'hiring paid canvassers and promoting party spirit:' hence epiOela the spirit of faction. The ancients were strangely at sea about this word. The true antithesis is between earning salvation and receiving it as a gift of God's bounty. Karavv^tcvs xi. Gal. as in of a man's actions. Works and Faith has its necessary outcome in Works. tois 8e e£ epi0€tas : collective use of epyov. vi. 0\i\J/is Kal oreyoxwpia tribulatio (pressura in the African form of the Old Latin) et angustia Vulg. of the Christian's career (see on ^iKmcodijo-ovTai in ver. vi. : to the spirit of single-minded unquestioning obedience. 3. . . But the etymological sense is probably lost in usage: : ' : = l calajnitas et angustiae h. 24. v. those whose motive is factiousness. . ©vpiov 8k opifrvrai dpyrjv dvaOvfiioj/xivrjv /cat SioiSaivovaav Orig. but esp. whence our word anguish ' (TTevoxapia is the stronger word torturing confinement ' (cf.' opp. resulting in a present state: it belongs properly to the beginning. 12). the works were not real antithesis no are the evidence of Faith. iii. 3 . . Eph. 6vp:6s the outward manifestation. 5. 13). Hesychius (cent. 8. Nyssen. But as a matter of fact the Law was not kept. summa calamitas Fri. Col. xvi. his qui ex con tentione [per contentionem Phil.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 57 generally (Matt. ebullitions of wrath.. 5) derived tpiOos from epa ' earth the Etymologicum Magnum (a compilation perhaps of the eleventh century) goes a step further.' the sum ' 8. v. 7. 7. on Gal. kirapwdrjoav xi. and Ell. though there is no real connexion between the two words (see notes on ' . Rev. 20. 'a lifework. 12. done. not to the end. 10. v. x. 20. v. 25. the spirit which substitutes factious opposition for the willing obedience of loval subjects of the kingdom of heaven. 9. 106. 12). 2 Cor. rixae Gal. 20] ). Trench. Paul himself would have allowed that there might have been a question of earning salvation if the Law were really kept (Rom. 2 Cor. ii. xxii. on Phil. may seem at first sight to conflict with St. on Gal. ii. (in Cramer's Catena). those who use all for epidevco 'to act as a hireling. mands we get the arts of unscrupulous faction to contest or evade comwhich they ought to obey. connects it with epiou ' wool (ZpiOos was used specially of woolworkers) but most common of all is the connexion with e>s (so Theodrt. 8).' dpyf) 8e eariv 6 enopievos tois apuapTavovaiv cnl Tipiajpia v6vos. But Justification is a past act. There can be little doubt that the use of kptfc'ia was affected by association with (pis. 8). iv. p. Syn. kcx6' uirofAoi'Tjj' epyou dyc^ou ver. cf. 6-9. 7. 15. . 0uja6s is ' 125 : 6pp ' outbursts or see Lft.e. and Ell. ' .

os. iii. 47 ff. quae apud nos possunt articuli nominari. iii. . 12. p. : = 7rpoau)7ro\rj7tT€lv cf. Trpoaumo\T]i|/ia ' . of tribulation &c. is accounted for by the influence of the of heads. as per in perficere. Sol. 13. when He says that He will execute judgement on each if one gave him everything that is on the earth. 1 9. 19 (p. 31 ' He is about to judge with whom there is no iniquity. 17 6 &ebs . 12. vi. . give corrupt judge(Lev. Si quando igitur Mosis legem nominat. The distinction between these two forms did : not escape the scholarship of Origen. 2.' Kara either strengthening carry to the end ' KaTepYa^ofxeVou the force of the simple vb. does not cover all the There are really three main uses: ti) 6 vopos = the Law of Moses. 20.' of suffering and tribulation. ii. = Jas. 201) Graecos nominibus apdpa praeponi. nor accept anycf. 17): irpovunov (i) to give a gracious reception to a suppliant or suitor Xa/i/3aj/et«/ and hence (ii) to show partiality. . This will explain passages like Rom.) For similar combinations (' day of tribulation and pain. 4. 19 6 ®ebs tcpi^s 8inaios nal irpoawirov and explained in Jubilees v. 21 reads Moris est apud thus in Rnfinus' translation (ed. 46). v. iv. which do not come under any of these the art. even where he is vopos this he uses bring out when he wishes to referring to the Jews. but in its quality as law. x. Jas.' and great shame. i. 12. solitum nomini praemittit articulum This si quando vero naturalem vult intelligi. ed. usually acting through the law of grammatical sympathy by which when one word in a phrase drops the article another also drops it some of these passages involve rather nice points of scholarship (see the notes on ' ' — . as in perpelrare Fri. Freiburg 1 B. without art. ii. between v6pos and 6 vopos.: 58 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ' [II. T. always with a bad sense. The ov idea goes back to Deut.' represented . denotes something with which the readers are familiar. calls attention to it not as proceeding from Moses. Gif. Die paulinische Lehre von Gesetz. 107.. 34 25. xiii. 20 f. 'their own law] which Christians in some sense inherited from the Jews through the O. iii. nor taking of a bribe. 15. Apoc. (3) But (2) v6pos = \avt in general (e.os and 6 vop. ' affliction. . Hence period as essentially a period of Law.. both for Jew and for Gentile. peculiar to Biblical and Ecclesiastical Greek 11. &c). 15 'And He is not one ' . 15) In N. really means the Law of Moses. things that was universal. ment. 9. non quia Mosis sed quia lex as Gif. . (Eph. 13. whose comment on Rom. On the whole subject compare esp. Trpoo-wn-oX^TrrTys Acts x. xix. 9-12. p. cases. Baruch. the art. vop. T. . 7. ov 6avpa£ei irpoaw-nov owS' pi) Xa/3?7 8a>pov. nor forgetfulness. there is yet a third usage where vopos without art. 2. distinction however. 1884. Col. ii. sine articulo nominat legem.. 1893. ii. (mpoar<o7ro\r}TrT(os I Pet. ii. or giving it a bad sense. x. but his paper contains many just remarks and . criticisms. Grafe goes rather too far in denying the distinction Dr. xiii. 8). because his main point is that they were under who gave it and what name it bore was a secondary cona legal system The Law of the Jews was only a typical example of a state of sideration. nor respect of persons. Lommatzsch. v. iii. vi. TJjjtapTov. There will remain a few places. expresses St. Paul regards the Pie-Messianic it in his comment on Gal. He will not regard the gifts or the person (of any). thing at his hands. 31 . monograph by Grafe.g. Burton (§ 54) calls this a ' collective Aorist.14. : . 25 also a ii. though it holds good generally. ov davpao'ei who will regard the person (of any) nor receive gifts which is adopted in Ps.' ' of anguish and see Charles' note on Enoch xlv.' . for he is a Righteous Judge Pirqt Aboth iv. but the absence of the art. where the absence context.

But inasmuch as this series is not separated from the time of speaking we must as in iii. technical use of the term Justification which is characteristic of St. tense throws forward that verdict to the Final Judgement. ol dKpocn-a! vo^ov KaTrjxov/jifvos Ik : i. : Cf. 9. fifj 6vra 28 (quae pro nihilo habentur Grimm). doctrine of this verse was liberal doctrine for a Jew. 23. reff. the special or.] in English TRANSITION TO THE JEWS Perfect. This use must be distinguished from that which has been explained above (p. 23 employ an English Perfect in translation. Ewald. 1. bis KABDG. 30 f. Paul's own class-mate and son of Gamaliel his teacher. 4 Ezr. from Delitzsch). Thus they have become enemies of God and as such are doomed to destruction (Weber. Theol : p. cf. also Pereq R. is this 'not learning but doing is the groundwork. constituting a past fact. 65). ra %6vr) would mean all or most Gentiles. 36 homines quidem tua. v. his right to approach the presence of God as if he were righteous. 12-14. to. to.' &c. Taylor.II. Cor. v. 12 are against this. but the parallels of iii. The Talmud recognizes no merit in the good deeds of heathen unless they are accompanied by a definite wish for admission to the privileges of Judaism. p. « 59 the point of view from which the Apostle is speaking. /xtj i/6jAoi/ per nomina invenies servasse mandata a law/ I whom we i. iv. See on ver. If he prays to Jehovah his praver is not The . the prominent point being their character as Gentiles. It is interesting to note that among the sayings ascribed to Simeon. 18 . ed. tov vo/jiov ver. last verse) generalizes art. cf. very possibly St.. gentes autem non invenies. Altsyn. m eauTots eio-i cojaos : ubi legis impletio. so to speak. it marks the initial step in his career. by a listening ear. by learning. the number is quite indefinite.' but the fut. It is not that the word has any different sense but ' referred to the past rather than to the future (8iKaia>6epTes 1. by the From d^ojAws. cf. 60nr) only some Gentiles . . Burton suggests an alternative possibility that the aor. cf.' Prof. the sin of each offender is simply a past fact. the acquittal there dates from the moment at which the man becomes a Christian. vonov sine artic.. as if it were spoken looking backwards from the Last Judgement of the sins which will then be past. vii. Even if a heathen were to keep the whole law it would avail him nothing without circumcision {Dtbarim Rabba 1). Meird {Sayings of the Jewish Fathers. The word is used here in its universal sense of a judicial verdict. 13. and whoso multiplies words occasions sin' (Pirqi Aboth. it that is aor. 18. ed. Wvrj means 14. The absence of the ' the form of statement. and the sin of all a series or aggregate of facts together.). 6 above. exorra the force of is ' who ex hypoihesi have not conceive of as not having a law . may be proleptic. ibi lex P. Taylor. law' (whatever that law may be). Paul. The heathen are represented as deliberately rejecting not only the Law of Moses but even the Noachic ordinances. again (as in the the hearers and the doers of 8iK<u&>8i]o-on-ai. 115) 'Thorah is acquired .

Paul : doctrine. course of conduct belonging to yo'fAou in this context 'required by' or 'in accordance with') 'the ' collective use of cpyov as in ver.e. 1 crv^apT. contained Protestant expositors." thus was pleased Spirit of God. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS If [II.] aumjtapTupou<rr|s auTWJ' rfjs oweiSiqo-ews. Of of those Rel. exactly conformable to their own views (John Wilkins [1614-1672]. &c. quod nempe cognitio liciti et il/iciti. 597 It is sig101. demonstratio Ewald. in those in which God sets down c heathen) there is no desert' (Shir Rabba 86 ). oiTii'es: see on i.' 15. that too does not help him b Even for his alms he gets no credit {Pesikta I2 ).. opus legis est id. eVSeumirrai : c*ftn£u implies an appeal to facts. See Weber. which = ' co-knowledge. interpretaSince the time of Augustine \De Spir. Aristotle. St. ix. poi rrjs o-weid. The two forms. 103). cases the conscience is separated from the self and personified as Here the quality of the a further witness standing over against it. meaning and use of the word avvubrjais. either to the Gentile converts. : cit. ' ii.' the knowconjunction ledge or reflective judgement which a man has by the side of ox in with the original consciousness of the act. 654) airaoiv ^/xTv 57 aweiSrjffis 9e6s . effect. to put into the hearts of men " by nature. 7 above. § 27) the orthodox the favoured tion had applied this verse. Rom. Their opinions are summed up concisely by Mark Pattison. e. sedulously Augustinian explanation. 17 after Grotius. 9).g. This phrase is almost In both exactly repeated in ch. [Probably not as Ewald op. . 15. on Art. the comment science to a Traidayaiyos in a passage which is closely parallel to . rationalists. or to The few among the heathen who had extraordinary divine assistance. Dubit. 66 f. 1. Even the Pelagian Jeremy Taylor is obliged to " By fears and secret opinions which the gloss the phrase " by nature. II. vi. Law the work. XVI II. pp. Rom." in its literal sense. p. ' : Be Vocis Sweio^o-ecos. (cf. This second consciousness is easily projected and personified as confronting the first. The word is quoted twice from Menander (342-291 B. fiov. lex injudaeis efficit. and the salvation of those who do them. to epYoi/ tou (i. 25. nificant that both the word and the idea are completely absent from They rise into philosophical importance in the more introspective moral teaching of the Stoics. acts themselves is one witness. to aweidos and 1) avvei^ms Epictetus (Fragm. opinions without in his usual confused style of eclecticism. 14.e. The " (Duct. and have no difficulty in supposing the acceptableness Burnet.. 97) compares the conto be practically convertible. (ed. ch. Theol. c. 14. Monost. Essays. however.' 60 heard (ibid. Lommatzsch. who is never wanting to men in things necessary. rebtis gestis facta (P. he commits sin and repents. and the approving judgement passed upon them by the conscience is another concurrent witness. Book II. 'In accordance with this view they interpreted the passages in which speak of the religion of the heathen.).). find the expression Nat. appear . ii. Altsyn. C). 107) spintus . § 3). of Origen on this verse of Ep. suggests both seeming to see that they are incompatible relics of divergent schools of 61. Some such distinction as this is suggested by the original avveidrjffeojs. ed. et Lit. Christian theologians have expressed themselves much to the same p. (Pesikta 156°). Didot. works. 'In the actions of the their books' (i. 16 n. p. to whom the words " do by nature the things the served prt in the law" could never bear their literal force.

vi ac . ' . both their own (2 Cor. 2 1 . p. et non coepit earn inceptionem creaturae palamfacere. . not so much the general source of moral obligation. which suggests a contrast between the two clauses. xviii. Paul corresponds accurately to that of his Stoic contemporaries. Ewald. Shakspeare's When to the sessions of sweet silent : 1 ' of things past ') . Epp. i. 15).' between man and man. 12) and those of others (2 Cor. elsewhere only in 1 Pet.) . N. XXxii. T. Ps. not ' arguments ' used in external debate. iv. 2). 13 Creavit enim orbem terrarum propter plebem suam. Conscience. . In Philo t6 avveidos is the form used. was the faculty which passed judgment upon actions after they were done (jn technical language the conscientia consequent moralis). then peragv dWfoeov will ' between one another. and arguments arising now on the one side. I summon up remembrance = acts. tit in ea gentes arguantur et humiliter inter se disputationibus arguant se. The usage of St. [il] del 5e TTpoaiiXrjcpt t<* xa * €7rti [vovijpia] avvexofxivrj rfj (rvveiSrjati. vi. animae] quidam sociatus et rector ut earn de melioribus moneat vel de culpis casliget et arguat. 10. (ii) taking the previous part of the verse as referring to the decisions of Conscience when in private it passes in review a man's own fiera^v aXX^Xcoi/ thought. adult. 2. In N. T. P. Lips. The 'Conscience' of St. 15.' ' in the intercourse of man = « with man and XoyurpStv will be the arguments which now take one side and now the other. personified. 1 and 2 Cor. Conscience being in debate with itself. x. John viii. 18): is used of secret 'plots' (Jer. It is one of the few technical terms in St. This clause is taken in two ways (i) of the thoughts/ as it were.€Ta£u dXX^Xwy. Paul speaks of such a source (eavTois elai vo/xos) but the law in question is rather generalized from the dictates of conscience than antecedent to them. . in this case almost 'alternately. See on the whole subject a treatise by Dr. and now on the other (cf. i. 9. Prov. xvii. which is frequently combined with : Kapbia (n-oXXoi Xo-ytcr fxoi iv it Kapdia dvdpos Prov.II. with the ancients. but is blunted or ' seared ' by neglect of its warnings (1 Tim. ii. i. Gif. 25). Past. also in Heb. Paul is a natural faculty which belongs to all men alike (Rom. as if they described two different processes and not merely different parts or aspects of the same process. ' ' There is a curious parallel to this description in Assump. In Biblical Greek the word occurs first with its full sense in Wisd. the word is mainly Pauline (occurring in the speeches of Acts xxiii. potestate (Lipsiae. but is somewhat more restricted than that which obtains in modern times. 18S3). and pronounces upon the character of actions. and the perk. j8 fovrc . 16. xix.. v.] TRANSITION TO THE JEWS 6l velut paedagogus ei [sc. Dt Vocis Xvvali\otus apud script.. xxiv. 11). The principal argument in favour of this view (which is that of Mey. Moys. It can be over-scrupulous (1 Cor. and this latter clause as dealing rather with its judgements on the acts of the others . Paul which seem to have Greek rather than Jewish affinities. 1 1 .) is the emphatic position of pera$v d\r]\a)v. iv. Rom. In the passage before us St. Twf Xoyio-jAwi' the \oyiafiol are properly ' thoughts ' conceived in the mind.' 'in mutual debate'. cf. This appears from the usage of the word.

) : Sta Xpiarod 8ia 'I-qaov XpuaToO (fit WH.' implying that d7ro\. III. not from pcTa£v. support of this (Matt. marg. WH. 15. 13. We ' . of the specially resurrection of Pauline doctrine of 'free grace'. marg. (ii) of His descent from the seed of David. 25. xlv. though the Jews expected the Messiah to act as Judge. text: \v ijpepq. now. ' WH. 8^. ii. iv. taking up again the b f^uipa of ver. who has written at length on the passage ' before us (Paulinische Studien.. 5. not that God will judge the world (which was an old doctrine). though one which is destined to find external expression . Orig. ita in corde nostro. 'Irjaov NB. H. Pesh. 16. 15 ver. Tisch. with Orig.: 6% EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. Luke. xvi.1 clvtov of its meaning from povov. E. xxix [xxxvi] 1 1 \oyioi>pai e(f> vpas \oyia-p6v eip^s). or rather forms a conclusion to the whole paragraph. but that He will judge it through applicaJesus Christ as His Deputy (which was at least new in its Enoch tion. 13-15 is to explain how it comes about that Gentiles who have no law may yet be judged as if they had one they have a second inferior kind of law. and a semi-colon at the end of ver. the rule. 109). The 'thoughts but day the last up at rising accusing and condemning' are not conceived as They leave however marks behind. KaTTjy. follow that both the conscience and the thoughts are objects. Boh. • men upon The is conscience rightly seen ' This and ' the thoughts both belong to the same persons. 8. that wherever St. ore (et marg. Kpiyei might be Kplvei. ' devise devices '). Lomm. Konigsberg. The best way to punctuate is probably to put (in English) a colon after ver. \oyivconeQa eVi 'icpepiav \oyurfx6v.. r\ p. fiov occurs Rom. xlvi. WH. it is the process by which are formed the moral judgements of their fellows. rj A. p. Paul's Gospel. WH. when ver. by faat note in passing the not very intelligent tradition (introduced of his Gospel* he Si. regarded as certain. The The phrase Kara rb evayy. fut. : RV.. point to which St. by this law they will be judged quick and dead are put upon their trial. The object of vv. (i) of the Christ from the dead. as KaTd t6 euayYeXioi/ fxou. 13. 1887. bears witness is. 16 and gives an answer which is substantially right. 15 ptra^v aov ko. text. 16 goes back to SiKai(o6t}<Tovrai in ver. but it does not 10) exercised upon the same to the thoughts in the The parallel quoted in povov) derives that part . sees the difficulty of connecting ver. xviii. Paul spoke meant the Gospel of St. with his usual acuteness. Eus. al. These marks God can see 4v f|jji€p(j (ed. velnt in certs. is the ex- ception. or habitual teaching.) : hv jf fjpipa B. and of the Divine intentions (Jer. Paul is describing an internal process. In the present passage St. 2 Tim. with Charles' notes). marg. by Klopper. if not any written precepts : yet the law of conscience . 15-16. or that peragv ak\r]\wv must be referred sense that influences from without are excluded. kcu : ' or even/ ' or it may be.

but shows that he and spiritual circumcision the Gentile also may share (vv. who have for knowledge and 21 visibly embodied you in the Law? Boastful ? theory self? Jew So ready eighth How 22 does your practice comport with your to teach others. True it is that behind the Law you have also the privilege of Circumcision. FAILURE OF THE JEWS. 1 7-24). cision has its And Circum- you are a law-performer.] FAILURE OF THE JEWS 6$ II. that you adopt for yourself a high standard and listen to the reading of the Law every Sabbath-day ? 19 Do you call give yourself out with so much assurance as a guide to ? the poor blind Gentile.you are 2e a law-breaker you might as well be uncircumcised. that you repose on a written law as the charter of your salvation ? Do you boast that Jehovah is your God. And if he takes his stand on Circumcision. The Jew may boast of his possession of a special is really all the time his practice no better than the Gentile (vv. The do you need no teaching yourand seventh commandments which you hold up to others do you yourself keep them ? You profess to loathe and abhor idols but do you keep your hands from robbing their temples? 2s You vaunt the possession of a law. owing to his Gentile birth. a luminary to enlighten his darkness 20 Do all you they your pupils dullards and yourself their schoolmaster? infants all ! Are mere and you truth their teacher? You.II. Does it not value if follow that if the uncircumcised Gentile keeps the weightier statutes if of the Moral Law. In this moral Revelation and a written Law. that too is of value only so far as it is moral and spiritual. — 24 As Isaiah wrote that the Gentiles held the Name of God in contempt because they saw His people oppressed and enslaved. 17 Do you tell me that you bear the proud name of Jew. 17-29. and by the violation of that law you affront and dishonour God Who gave it. so do they now for a different reason because of the gross incon- — sistency in practice of those 25 who claim to be His people. 35-29). . 18 that you are fully acquainted with His revealed Will. But if. he will be treated as 27 he were circumcised if ? And uncircumcised as he is. which marks the people of Promise. yet he . 17-29.

The Jew ' — descendant of Judah —means *1& the 'praise' (Gen. Ezek. to have a name : ' : «ABD*. (though The word 'lovSatos does not occur in § xxxix. Ocw: suggested by Jer. the Lord.' to the Jew from the possession of a law. 17. xxix.. Mic. al. And such a Jew has his 'praise/ not from man but from God. El S^ABD* all at. Syn..6s is found four times in 2 Mace). 35). 'lo. the word implies (requiescis Vulg. gentes) nil esse. For the Jew's pride in his privileges comp. : which resulted icauxaarai iv glory in this. 4 Ezra vi. quoniam dixisti eas (sc. : 'EWrjviar^. E\r]v. Domine. Reading ei fie the apodosis of the sentence begins it here approaches in meaning (as in the mouth of a Jew 'lou&aios would have a tendency to do) to 'io-pa^XiV^?. calls attention to language v opp. 7 at once the sense of support and the saving of ill-directed labour iirovoy. .dlri ' : ' bearest the pass.. 'lovSatos. opposed to the heathen. Aeth. and the moral the spiritual circumcision is that ' which really deserves name.). 17. xxix.) 'but it is not surprising that the later MSS. This is one of the forms which used . at ver. but at this date it is the common themselves. the other to describe their esoteric status. word . 21. tl : DC L al. et quoniam salivae assimilatae sunt. 'E/3/xxfos.' ciramirauY) i'ojjiw have a law to lean upon ' so (without art. et quasi stillicidiu?n de vase similasti habundantiam eorum. The authorities for 8e include all : i8e is the leading versions. Boh. outward and is 29 visible 28 For marks of a Jew who it is who has Jew . ' lean upon the Law. 64 fulfils EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS the [II. 'EPpatos and 'loparjX'iTrjs are terms reserved by the Jews the one to distinguish between the two main divisions of their race (the Palestinian and Greek-speaking). Hard.' For few. that I am Kauxaom : for «aux?> stopping at the first step in the process of con- traction {Kavx^fCfai. Strictly speaking. slightly easier. a member of the Chosen People.. Pesh. &c. only break the law of which you boast. p.. But he who and is inwardly and secretly a Jew very word is the true Jew . his example will (by contrast) condemn you who not he with the formal advantages of a written law and circumcision. 24 'let him that glorieth that he understandeth and knoweth Me. haec autem omnia dixi coram te. 1 1 . Kavxaaat. iii. calls attention to nationality 'laparjXirijs — a member of the theocracy. opp. Kavx^). and the oldest Fathers an itacism favoured by the fact that it makes the construction oldest MSS. Law. 132 ff. LXX name ' : iwovofiatwxz' to impose a name/ imposed. ix.) cf. Chrys. Arm. Latt. 55 f. should make the statement more definite. the is the true true neither an outward and bodily circumcision the circumcision.vhaiap. in possession of full theocratic privileges (Trench.

thinks that the first saying was . It seems better. as in 1 Cor. ' ' p. Baba Kama fol. ttavxacrai occurs also in 1 Cor. element in things Nor does the Lft. 31. and art persuaded as to thyself that thou art. probas utiliora Cod.II. marg. see Win. ('provest the things that differ. xi. ('approvest the things that are excellent') is adopted by Latt.a. so that see (TxvH. and RV. The common construction after iriiroi$as is oti ace. p. when God determines to punish the 6877701 TV(pXu>v k. Comm. Va is undecided). dvvaaai Matt. . is very rare. 1. 8ia<|>epoi'Ta : tA ambiguous approve ' 8oKipd((iv = (i) ' to i. present passage conflict with this distinction.e. assay.' 'hast experience of good and bad Tyn. Erldut. 12 {On Revision. and infin. The same epithet was given by a Galilaean to R.] ' FAILURE OF THE JEWS 65 to be called Alexandrine. As a rule embodiment/ outline. 14 rv<p\oi elffiv ' . with Vaughan. v. De W. vii. 7. i. cf. it)tiw 'infants. (ii) ' to 28). to reXnoi. 2. . Heb. . Orig. and ra duKpepovra may be either things which differ/ or things which stand out. most English Versions. ed. 24. (Chrys. so constantly used for the Divine Will that even without the art. i. Wiinsche. He gives : them unworthy rulers. where the phrase recurs exactly. ' test. Clarom. 106 . v. iv.X. TraiSeuTTji' : : ' ' ' = = : . xvi. 8. with a like division of commentators. 52a. Introd. p.a outward form as opp. . (pdytaai . Lft. Sp.a i s tne variable. . : 8oici|md£€is Vulg. odvvaaai Luke xvi.' with the idea of discipline. Gif. The rendering of RV. Lips. Gr. (ita ut non solum quae sint bona scias. to take oeavrov closely with niiroiOas. Israelites. 304). also xxiii. as well as teaching . though that too is possible.K. XV. on Both words are 10. Mey. Fri. 125 ff. 18 comp. The Law was a real 20. The rendering of RV. more pointed. marg. 21. trUaai Luke xvii. Acts. non modo prae malis bona sed in bonis optima Beng. Lid. or excel. it might have that signification. and from uncontracted verbs. Phil. xxiii.' delineation.t. 17-20. Phil. Go. Mou. 2 b (p. on 1 Cor.' &c. Lips. Chasda. 'adults. correction.' as in Heb. KaranavxaffaL Rom. to inward substance. 16.' opp. oStjyov tu<|>\wv. It is natural to compare Matt. 118 ed. (SiaKpiveu ra after testing' (see on ' 8ia<p€povTa aWrfKayW olov kov k<u kcikov. discern ' . The second rendering is the Oltr.' fxop<J>uo-ti' <r\rip. xv.' When the Shepherd is angry with the sheep he blinds their leader. p. does not distinguish . on Matt..t. It would not of course follow that it was current in writing.) has the support of Euthym. present to the mind of the Apostle. 36 (but dvvri Mark ix. 16.' 'a schoolmaster. d. 14. Rufin.' Thus arise the two interpretations represented in RV.' but which simply belong to the popular Greek current at the time (Hort. 22) . 9. r . Bp. Evang. pbpcpf) the permanent. On the other hand the expression may have been more or less proverbial : comp. verum etiam quae sint meliora et utiliora discernas). Lightfoot has shown that this phrase was 18. 13. : 19 > iremnOas k. while popepfj outward form as determined by inward substance . xiii. 90).-Zig. xii. 2).. t6 0Arjji. eic KaTrjXoufAeeos tou vo\iov : cf. dperfjv Kal Kaiciav).

. iii. Paul does speak of that is unreal or at least external. introducing the apodosis to the long protasis in vv. by which the Apostle describes the Jew's complacency. ouV : he now is at last comes down with art the the ' Thou : man ' his emphatic accusation. Rhem. Joseph. : ' . IV. esp. suspended as it were in the air. Ess. 5 fX 0VTes pop(pco(riv (iae^das ttjv avrrjs rjpvrjfiepoi. ' There were provisions in the Talmud which expressly guarded against everything which had to do with an idol was a Btekvyim to him unless it had been previously desecrated by Gentiles. . of the Jew's horror at idolatry. vii. 2 Tim. AV. xxiv.. Cran. The Church in the Roman Empire. Gif. Philol. The questions which go before are collected by a summary accusation. Ant. One of the ignominies of captivity was to be compelled to carry 15. 21. which must not be interpreted too narrowly. 1." Can this quite be made good ? 1 They which ' resumptive. and does not employ oyjipa. The Eng. Here which we have been expecting since ver. Genev. sees a hint of this in the change from participles to the relative and 23. Ret. p. 144 n. also on Upoavkia. Ramsay. vii. 66 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [II. "The passage just quoted (Deut. kcli tar) avaOrjfia wGircp tovto. Paul and his companions were not lepoa-vXoC) show that the robbery of temples was a charge to which the Jews were open in spite of their professed horror of idol-worship. : 22. (1857) iii. viii. Note the piling up of phrases in Deut. . 5). viii. &c. 16 ieal ovk claoiaeis PoeXvypa [here of the gold and silver. . marg. he still avoids using popcp-q as inappropriate.iv See however Lft. ' . Comp. 299 f. 20-23. It is more account for 2 Tim. Moys. Lft. because K-qpvaaojv contains the idea of command. 17-20. so far as it went. xii. : Upoo-uXeis. 115 will observe that in two passages where St. and Acts xix. also Dan. on Supern. 4 cogentur palam baiulare idola eorum inquinata. 37 (where the town-clerk asserts that St. RV. where it is noted that UpoavXia was just one of the crimes which a provincial governor could proceed against by his own imperium. 26 with 25). in Journ.plates with which idols were overlaid] its rbv oTkov gov. (6 diddo-Kcw . and adopts pdpQwais instead (Rom. expression of Divine truth. difficult to 8e bvvap. 10. where the termination -wais denotes "the aiming after or affecting the ^0^77. with a delicate sense of Greek composition. p. Versions of Upoavkeis group themselves thus robbest God of his honour' Tyn. this : . See the passages in Delitzsch ad loc. pSeXuo-aofjici'os used of the expression of physical disgust. the idols of the heathen Assump. It is indie. After the string of points. dost rob temples RV. ' probably best not to treat this verse as a question. of Class. os /cav^ao-at). ii. 'doest sacrilege' (or equivalent) Wic. KXtTpmv infin. 1 1 Matt. and Sacr. irpoaoxOicfiari irpoaoxOiiis Kal Pfi(\vypaTi @5c\v£ri. . 20.. But for this the Jew might have thought that in depriving the heathen of their idol he was doing a good work. iii.. on avadrjpa kanv.

Hi. tinually all the this 81 vpas (XOV day long My Name St. see especially the scholarly It is almost as if vofiov Trpaaaeiv and .] FAILURE OF THE JEWS 5 67 24. vofio5i8daKa\os.-Thay.. traces this reviling to the scandal caused by Israel's inconsistency. . The fact that the formula of quotation is thrown to the end shows that he is conscious of applying the passage freely it is almost as if it were an after-thought that the language he has just used is a quotation at all.. 1 Jo. vop. and RV. &c. 2. The of tyrants : Name St. &c. xiv. judged. one compound word: if thou be a law-doer if thou be a law-transgressor. 11. ' re\uv . which claims obedience. See Westcott on Jo. . The distinction between the literal Israel which is after the flesh and the true spiritual Israel is a leading idea with St. See the longer note on ch.o9(Tr]s. 25. Anglice with/ with all your advantages of circumcision and the possession of a written law. Paul. angel to remove the marks of circumcision on the wicked. as in Matt. : = ' We F 2 . viii. 'the uncircumcision which by nature fulfils the law' (i< <£ua-.II. \sup. reXuv from that of the law which ' . original meant that the and oppressors of Israel God was reviled by the following up a suggestion in the (81 vfxas). 26. ii. see also pp. indicating the character of the person. Burton's rendering. ' ' AV.' form y«-yov€v: 'is by that very fact become. rather than calling attention to designation of particular or the the law. (pvXaooeiv. The order of the words seems opposed to Prof. On the absence of the art. xvii. 8id of 'attendant circumstances' as in iv. <pv\aaativ = ' reXeiv = ' to to preserve intact against violence from without or within bring (a law) to its proper fulfilment ' in action . 14). 24-27. rrjpfiv = to observe carefully (and then do) .' Del. A free adaptation of Is. xii. els ircpiTopji' \oyKrQ-f\aerai ' : \oyi£taBai eiy ti = \oyi(tadai ' els to ds denoting result. 3. 12. clvai ti. below. keep an eye upon. s. r-qpuv and <pv\aooziv are both from the point of view of the agent. quotes the realistic expression given to this idea in the Jewish fancy that God would send his : ' 25. Paul and may is worked out at length in ix. reckoned as \oyi£o(iai 1 a). t} ck <j>uaews dicpopucrrta uncircumcision which physically remains as it was born. v6|aov note in Va. &c. Kpiyei: most probably categorical and not a question as by comparison and contrast. 42 'the men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgement with this generation and shall condemn it/ &c. . And conblasphemed LXX adds to Paul omits Stanavros and changes is ' : to tov Qeov. 6 ff. Heb. Again we are pointed back to vv. Of the synonyms ' ' Tijpeiv.' to guard as a deposit/ ' to is obeyed. irpao-<TT|s. = condemn . LXX : vofiov Ttapa^arnjs were severally like vofxodcruv. x. v. (LXX). </)uo-ei v. 27. 41. 20. Grm. and cV rois eduea-tv. so as to be in place of/ a substitute or equivalent for' (Fri. 1-3 the judge of others shall be himself . vofiocpvKaKtiv.

(i) the — — 7 (iii) If that is the result of his action. making the missing words in both clauses belong to the subject (' Not he who is but he who is [a Jew] in secret is a Jew ') [a Jew] outwardly is a Jew but it is a drawback to this view of the construction that it separates nepiTOfxr] and icapSias Gif. 5-8).e'ia-Be irepiTojxT) KapSias. 1-2).) are the promises (vv. xlix. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 3. iv. iii.a>v ttju TrepLTfxrjflrjTe tg> '. combines these (' he which is inwardly a Jew [is truly a Jew]. ^> <TK\r)poKapftlav vp. Paul claims that Christians represent the true circumcision. should — 1 If the qualifications which God requires are thus inward and urge. Vaughan differ. Do evil that good may come (vv. circumcision ']). 26 Justin works out elaborately the idea of the Christian circumcision. believe that Dr. moral If what becomes of the Jew's advantages ? ANSWER. Tryph 114. ness (vv. [XL 27-29.. where St. 8). Dial. gain by his circumcision He does gain much The first gain is that to the Jews were committed . [is true and there is to the predicate. No unbelief on the part of man can affect the pledged word of God: it only serves to enhance His faithfulIII. :. as it seems to us rightly. fi. 6 4v Ttp 4>av€pai. He still has many.. Similarly Lips. We c. The : idea of a spiritual (heart-) circumx.€(rd€ Acts vii. cision goes ttjv back to the age of Deuteronomy. . 51. name = Jew : Judah ' ' CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. (ii) But has not the Jews unbelief cancelled those promises? ANSW ER.68 compare Phil. He certainly will be judged: we may not say (as I am falsely accused of saying). Gifford and much Dr. Gifford was the first ' to point ' out that there is here an evident play on the Praise (cf. 4). Ezek. The Greek of this and the next verse is elliptical. Jer. Weiss (but not Mey. . 6 cirau'os. and the like What does he on all sides. Jer. 28.g. xxix. and circumcision of heart . This argument may suggest three objections: Gentile is better off than the immoral Jew. .. why 3. 29. kcu 7reptTep.). . Deut. some ambiguity as to how much belongs to the subject and how Even accomplished scholars like Dr. spiritual.S>v cf. an objector may his What becomes 2 ? of the privileged ? position of the Jew. 35 . 1-8. The latter has some advantage in symmetry. 4 I 16 irepirc- (TK\r)poKap&iau vp. man be judged? Answer. Gen. IX. QeS vfiaiv. descent from Abraham. xliv. His {e.

to It is characteristic of this Epistle that St. blasphemy. iff. iv. A new objection arises. No doubt this is a way of presenting the dialectical process in his own mind. We are told expressly . God do not depend on man. and gain His case when If brought to 6 trial. He will keep His 4 To suggest otherwise were word. 1-8. provided only that the end you have in view I will say is that is the judgement which these richly deserved. the prophecies [Here the subject breaks ix. Never mind what your actions is right. vi. why am I (*<«') brought up for judgement as a sinner objector. 7 ff. sophistical reasoners will receive Iff. as in the case before is us.). And admit that some Jews have What then ? in which they are fulfilled. 15 ff. our unrighteousness is only a foil to set off the righteousness of for sin ? 6 who punishes men God would (Speaking of God not as God be unjust if He were man to think ! can hardly be avoided. li. Therefore the reasoning must be fallacious.) That too were blasphemy If any such objection were sound. whatever man may do. 4. God could not judge the world. given in ch. rejected Christianity. though all man- The promises of kind are convicted of falsehood. iff.. iff. confesses that the forensic metaphor) Just as in Ps. the truthfulness relief of God in performing His promises only thrown into by my like infidelity. 7 If... God must be seen to be true. But at the same time it is a way which would seem to have been suggested by actual experience of controversy with Jews and the narrower Jewish Christians. But we know that He will judge it. the Psalmist only effect of his own sin will ' be that (in God will be * declared righteous in His sayings it is [the promises just mentioned].] a fuller 3 enumeration say. are. evil that still ? So the And me I know ' that this charge is of saying ' Let us do good may come brought with slanderous exaggeration against — as if the stress which I lay on faith compared All with works meant.. vii. You But the Jews by their unbelief I have forfeited their share in those prophecies.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED of the Messiah. Paul seems imagine himself face to face with an opponent. you say.III. other offenders 8 which thus redounds to His glory. and that he discusses and answers arguments which an opponent might bring against him (so iii. 5. Nay. is 69 off.

2. remains unchanged (Buttmann. of «irio-T€u0T]orav.. A list of privileges such as might have followed here is given in ch. downwards Xoyiov = * oracle ' as a brief condensed saying and so it came to = any inspired. divine utterance e. Jo.. ad Phil. T. xxxii. 7). make dimin. 15 restate this charge in Pauline language. of Xoyios on the ground that Koyidiov is the proper form ###BOT_TEXT###yi810v is rather a strengthened dimin.' in 7rep«rcrds. the thing entrusted. irpwTOf piv of argument is broken off and not resumed. Paul is there rather following out his own thought than contending with fact against the was brought as a matter of — — an adversary. and he propounds it in the order in which it would naturally arise in that stress of reasoning. of the person . 9) shows that St. 1. 1 bs av imMfitj t& yia tov Kvpiov cf. mania). pp. 4.. And the other charge of levelling down all the Jew's privileges. 24 6 Se 'Irjaovs ovk kmarevev eavr6v [rather avrbv or avrov] avrois. of ignoring the Old Testament and disparaging its saints. 17 . ntpav. And vi. in the sense of ' entrust. 287] . pauc. 175. of yos is probably correct. 190 "Winer. but he seems to have in view rather those utterances in it which stand out as most unmistakably Divine . 1. g. . Chrys. but the line 2. [yap'] WH. regarded as the Word of God. plur. pro and con.' which is appropriated rather by nepa.' takes ace. The modified form in which the question comes up the second if our interpretation is correct time (ver. ix. Stephen (Acts vi. -ret Xoyia. that the charge of saying Let us do evil that good may come Apostle (ver. it.). which by a process in language took the place of yiov when it acquired the special sense of ' oracle. 5 [p. The old account Mey.-lat.: . I Cor. cxix [cxviii]). al. 13 f. 8). 189. the Law as given from Sinai and the promises relating to the Messiah. but comes out that which is in excess/ over and above. vii. ii. though neut. ix.' ' confide. Orig. It is probable however that St. e.' From Herod. dat. From this usage it was natural that it should be transferred to the 'sayings' of the Lord Jesus (Polyc. in Philo of the prophecies' and of the ten commandments {ntpi tSjv oiica Xoyiwv is the title of Philo's treatise). to Tvepiao-oV. which went to the shaping of his own system. verss. That lies ' outside Hence irepi ' ' : irpuTov (iev yap : om. yap B D* E G minusc. Iren. The Apostle as it were takes it up and gives it out again as if it came in the logic of his own thought. ' 7© EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ' [ill. ii. and the ace. St. Gal. i. Paul had himself wrestled with this question long before it was pointed against him as a weapon in controversy . cf. it The of yiov as a dimin. g. Paul as the like charges were brought against St. In the passive the dat. which encircles a thing necessarily would seem to have a latent meaning beyond. intended to be followed by t-nara 8e. So in LXX the expression is used of the word of the Lord five times in Isaiah and frequently in the Psalms (no less than seventeen times in Ps. common ' ' ' ' ' ' ' : .-W. was one which must as inevitably have been brought against St. becomes nom. Paul might mean by this the whole of the O.

. causative and dpyos ' .ov Rom. (cf. 71 Adv. 20 At the Same time 777 anMTTiq i^eKKda6t]crav. on the whole. Va. 7. Weiss Probably. Paul. ^ formula of negation. T. : ' ' : . Kel. T. 172 ff. and dma-Tia eleven times.). Heb. Y^ otTO : It is characteristic of the vehement impulsive style of this group of Epp. once in 1 Cor. KaTapY^aei.' ci\t]9tjs as keeping His plighted word. rendered powerless . 3 above . a characteristic word with St.' III. . T\TTiaTf]<Tav . Matthew. xi. as well as his own \oyicuv /cvpiaKuiv igrjyqaeis (Eus. p. ywio-Qw see on i. xxii. to render inert or inactive occurring twenty-five times in his writings (including 2 Thess.). 7. twice It occurs five times in LXX. Gen. I praef. 23 noWf] to His promises 7ri(TTis aov peff fjpaiv. 29. Go. 3. Va. that the phrase is confined to them (ten times in Rom. whether discourse or narrative so that it is a disputed point whether the Koyia rov Kvpiov which Papias ascribes to St. 4). but worked into the body of the sentence (cf. Do these words refer to ' unbelief Lid. ii. ix-xi show that the problem of Israel's unbelief weighed heavily on the Apostle's mind . 1 Kings xx [xxi]. Lam. in which the only apparent exception to this sense is 2 Tim. — cf. an instrument of sin may be paralysed. in Gal. 3). and in twelve of them it expresses the Apostle's abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be falsely drawn from his argument' (Burton. § 5. 31). 1 7 . xliv. : mani' ' faithfulness TriaTis arov : JPs. III. 17 17 = ' ' : : = • ' ' ' ' ' (rr)v enayyeXiav Gal. xiii.' be seen to be. also Lft. repelling with horror Fourteen of the fifteen N. M. 2-4. on Gal. : O. But from the time of Philo onwards the word was used of any sacred writing. Haer. Josh. and 7. xxxix. and so here. Ess. so that the the one sense rather suggests than excludes the other imiaTia of man is naturally contrasted with the mans of God . abrogate. (i) in Eph. with no clear exception) . not however standing alone as here. ' . xxiv. .). 17). fir) iii. 13. vi. Rom. instances are in Paul's writings.' (ii) in a figurative sense. 35 dtpyos) Karapyelv (from Kara.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED . cf. Sol.). 16 and 1) were or were not limited to discourse (see especially Lightfoot. 16 . and only twice elsewhere (Lk. the former because (i) the Lips. 6 Xva Karapy^dp to acopa tt}? apaprlas. something previously suggested. viii. H.. 17 . the transition which the verb denotes is often from a latent condition to an apparent condition. vop. E. iii. (iii) unbelief is the constant sense of the word (dir«TTea> occurs seven times. § 177 . ' iii. 4. Gif.) to make sterile or barren/ of soil Lk. a material sense.. dmoria. on Supern. 2 Tim.' abolish to render invalid. av de 177 7ri'oTfi eaTrjKas. that the body as cf. Einl.) or to 'unfaithfulness' (De W. ii. Oltr. and the refusal to accept them as fulfilled in Christ (ii) chaps. also Weiss. prove to be. (iv) there is a direct parallel in ch.) ? main point in the context is the disbelief in the promises of the (Mey.

19 Test XII . iv. iii. but pass. original is that the Psalmist acknowledges the justice of God's judgement upon him. 4. auntmjo-i: avvlanjfu (avpia-rdvoi) has in N. is In manner Qeov 8ncaioo-vi>r)v general. see p.) for in and declared guiltless in respect to the promises which fulfilled. . xi. avo-TciTiKdi eVtoroXai 2 Cor. 2. li [1]. Test. see the arguments as in ver. 'to prove. viktio-TISj . two conspicuous meanings (i) to bring together ' as two persons.' Heb. not ' pleadings (Va. T. Even as it stands written.' The quotation is Ka0ws YcypairTai Note the mistranslations in exact from LXX of Ps. rently belongs to the small Western element in that MS. Lk.. . iii. though man will not believe in their fulfilment. 1) . 1 2 Cor. lv : ' LXX ™ The sense of the iudicando or dum iudicas. &c). together' or 'make good' by argument. De Vet. Paul adopts). 35) aoCpla anb tqhv Zpyoov (v. &c. cf. minusc aliq. Va. 12. . to TjTraaBat i/iktjo-tis full phrase is vmdv ti\v diiajv (Eur. EL 955. &c.% ' y \|i€uoty)s : EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. which would seem There is a similar that than to in D.' SiKaiwGrjs: 'that thou mightest the judgement of mankind Ka\ idiKaiaGr) i] . Rom. e. Paul applies it as if the Most High Himself were put upon trial Kplveo-Oai (pass. A). vnajaas N A E. 1.' opp. in Kautzsch. The usage fyvx&v vpS>v. the like vincere. the lv tois Xoyois o-oo judicial sentence. : ' ' = ' ' : : is right. He has owtos dv: av points to an unexpressed condition. LXX 24 a Paulo 5. rather that in allied to to be viK-qaris is the reading of N B (def.).) but sayings. vii. (which St.' i. 6 on-toy 8iKaia>da> dno ttjs apaprias rwv Ps. cf. be pronounced righteous* by 30 f.. L &c. including dmaTia. Lid. Paul differs The text of viKrjoeis of some fourteen cursives. GK D NA G LXX : LXX probably not mid. 'in case a decision is given. though the particular instance which St. ctSiKta tjjawi': a general statement. n. to introduce or ' commend to one another (e. thus representing two great families. (ii) 'to put v. of the used by St. li. reicvav Patr. and Heb. free from blame in His judging. Sym. Go. : avrrjs. like rj allegatis. fluctuation in MSS. in asserting that God's promises have not been fulfilled. not seldom from that of the great uncials.' ' go to law. occurs repeatedly in this book see Ryle and James ad loc. Paul has in his mind is the faithfulness of God to His promises. Locis from the usage of KpiycaOcu : lit. Weiss Kautzsch. The result of his sin is that God is pronounced righteous in His sentence. 6. 1.g. St. above. probably Aoyia just mentioned. 7 (so Vulg. 16 cyo) diKaiaxrco are 6 Qeos. 5. Probably vucqaeis B with the older types of Western because of the agreement of The reading viicqaris in B appaText. Sol. (' to enter upon trial. and compare Matt. xvi.' 'get judgment for oneself) as Mey. of gaining a suit. mkwbc (or vi^o-et?) for insons sis. p.' 'establish' : ' ' ' .

But the objection belief.' as well as others. ix. where the eager argumentation of the Apostle leads him to press the analogy between human and The exact divine things in a way that he feels calls for apology. 15 Kara avOpatirou ravra AaAco 2 Cor.' 'if not' ('or else'). 19. 61 aveffTtjaav kirl tovs 8vo irpeopvTas. of N. not elsewhere : in N. Gk. 11 • Gal. (jiff : xii.' 'End gets the meaning 'if so. Buttmann. Syrr. as in Lft. but comp. 7. ov Kara Kvpiov fif) icaT& ayOpwirov teristic . T.). Vulg.' : III. 4). marg. the inflicter of the anger 6 iiTL^ipiav rt]v 6pyY\v (Va. Vulg. p. etrcl irws Kpivct : St. The second reading may be in its origin Western. d dSitcos tarai 6 kirupipcuv tj)v dpyfjv (cf. and T. ihv el ko'ojaoi' : all mankind. 18 (where see and Ell. ii. 1 7 6 XaXa>. 18. at. but it is rather strange that neither comes out clearly in the varied uses of the word in the second is found in Susann. iii. Rom. Both meanings are recognized by Hesych. LXX . xi. <pai/epovv. 5-7.' &c). RV. Tisch. Fritzsche). v. on avviaTijatv avroiis Aavir}\ (Theod. d\ii0eia: the truthfulness of God in keeping His promises. (IT) aSiKos : the form of question shows that a negative answer originally ' ' is expected meant Don't say that. yap B E L P &c. also 1 Cor. matic the belief that just fall God would Paul and his readers alike held as axiojudge the world. 8< KA . if the inflicting of punishment necessarily implied injustice. WH. the clause to which it points being supposed to be repeated here tirei sc. Orig. RV. like pfj -yeVon-o. T.-lat. minusc. and therefore must €i«C: 'since. from the context. ti ipoup-ev teristic another phrase. the falsehood of man in denying their fulfilment (as The position laid it had just in ver. and like a relative clause suggest a reason ('Who visiteth ' = * because He visiteth') M. 5 is now discussed from the side been discussed from the side of God. Burton however makes 6 em<p€p<»v strictly equivalent to a relative clause. d D GK . § 428. text. cod.. yjfevapa. most exactly. 8 2 Cor. The reference is to the Last Judgement: see on i. urged was inconsistent with that to the ground.. W H. : XaXa>. Gr. as down in ver. 8 phrase recurs only in Gal. Boh. if that were so. where it occurs seven times . Chrys. which is characof this Epistle. Kayw : ' I too. tnarg. fifficuovv. 359). 6.).).-Damasc.] CASUISTICAL OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 73 (compositis collectisque quae rem contineant argumentis aliquid doceo . (o-vviaraveiv' kiraivdv. Jo. text. pauc. Xiyw: a form of phrase which is also characof this group of Epistles. vii. though my falsehood thus . irapandevai) . of man.

6 he transfers by a fiction (Dr. St. icplvofiai rives rjfjias J ko. And if . 26. not only does ' ' ' — here but in vi. v.. The same accusation covers both. (i) 8. in the one case connected in idea and construction with in the other with Xeyovcnv on. 15 ff. III. Paul uses the first person from redounds to God's glory. iv. tL This could be brought fir]. What he said was. are the Gentiles any better ? No.t. Paul does not argue the point. This points back to W fr« icdyoo Kplvo/xai. cxl. There are two trains of thought in the Apostle's mind the excuse which he supposes to be put forward by the unbeliever that evil may be done for the sake of good . 25. tls [77/369] tt)v evda^w rrjs ducaioo-vvtis airov. or say anything further about the calumny directed against himself. the first as well as the second.X. Field's elegant rendering of /ueT-efT^/ncmo-a) to himself and his friend Apollos what really applied to his opponents. afiaprcokos.X. kcu Kadcos (pacri Xe'yeiv on noir)fT<ofX€v k. 8. just as in i Cor. in ch.1 iri J /xt) — : Kadoos j3\acr(pr}povfj. ver. 9-20. There is a very similar con- struction in vv. xxxvi. . It is somewhat similar when and St. wk to Kplfxa 1 ff. the plea which such persons put in will avail them nothing . The Scriptures speak of the universality of human guilt. dyadd is made to do duty for both these trains of thought. The single clause 7roir)cra>pev tci Kcuta tta er) to. which is laid down in Ps. St. and again in Ps. k. .— EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ' 74 [ill. and the words which follow the second time are meant to complete both clauses. x. The state of righteousness is not to be attained through legal works . the judgement (of God) which will fall upon them is just. UNIVERSAL FAILURE TO ATTAIN TO RIGHTEOUSNESS. . where the argument works up twice over to the same words. in Is. he contents himself with brushing away an excuse which is obviously unreal. 15 13. (ii) the accusation brought as a matter of fact against himself of saying that evil might be done for the sake of good. Paul was accused (no doubt by actual opponents) of Antinomianism. If the case of us Jews is so bad. lix. 7.t. out more clearly by modern devices of punctuation rt en icdyco &>$• ' : . xiv and graphically described in Pss.' He was represented as saying therefore it does not matter what a man an inference which he repudiates indignantly. motives of delicacy. it is the gift of God. 16 at once carries on and completes vv.e6a. ii.

of 16 Is. So then the whole system of Law and works done in fulfilment of L. 1 LXX] : The 19 fear of God supplies no standard for their actions. v. What ? draw Are the tables completely turned 32. for the Law which threatens him with punishment is his own. 189 To ? return from this digression. Lazu can reveal sin. escape inference are we to Are we Jews not only equalled but surpassed (npoexofifQa passive) by the Gentiles ? Not at all. 7. still less can he punishment . 3 [also exactly quoted] the poison-bag of the asp lies smooth and 15 flattering lips. The indictment which we have just brought against both (in i. lix. but not remove it. none to show any desire for the knowledge of God. 7. so the throat of the wicked only opened to vent forth depraved is and lying speech. character of the ungodly in a word [from Ps. Just as a grave stands fill it yawning to receive the corpse that will is soon with corruption. that has turned sour and bad. 9-20 ] UNIVERSAL FAILURE 75 the Jew is equally guilty zvitk the Gentile. : Their course is marked by ruin and misery. it claim exemption from the consequences of his For when the Law of Moses denounces those consequences speaks especially it to the people to whom it was given. of sin. xiv [here with none to show any intelligence of moral and religious truth. 12 They have all (he says) turned aside from the straight path. 13 There is not so They are like milk much as a single right-doer among them. 17-29) proves that they are equally under the dominion 10 The testimony of Scripture is to the same effect. There is really nothing to choose between Jews and Gentiles. as it is described in Ps. tongue. and lips are full of nothing but cursing and venom. throat. Thus some abridgment and variation]. has proved a failure. under their Their tongue : practised in fraud. And not even the Jew can sin. 8] Then of Israel it is said [with abridgment from LXX They run with eager speed to commit murder.azv. cxl. ii. x. Or in Ps. the Psalmist complains that he cannot find a single righteous man. 9 [exactly quoted].III. xxxvi To sum up the (xxxv). 18 17 With smiling paths of peace they have made no acquaintance. By which was designed . u So. " that there is in Ps. This picture of universal wickedness may be completed from such details as those which are applied to the wicked in Ps. Thus all the world has sinned.

but still one which is sufficiently substantiated (cf. all mankind might be held accountable to God. ? ' method of works. and as passive. Paul implies that Gentile and Jew might really change places (ii. not ov Tram-as. 1' '. 31 . (i) npoexo^Ba mid. Have we any pretext defence?' Mey. ii. : ' the possession of superior privileges . (ii) 7rpoex6fX(8a trans. in its more ordinary middle sense. Field) incline to which has been adopted in the text of RV. the ' ' ' ' ' 1 ' loc). 25-29). The superiority of the Jew to the Gentile is historic. marg. Antiochene Fathers (Chrys. St.. Field] Theodt. ex°Jue ti Ttktov Ka\ cvdoKinovpev oi 'iouSmot . is This (i. g. put forward as an excuse or (' Do we excuse ourselves ? RV. ti ouv that What then [follows] Not with : npoexofifda.. is to open men's eyes do better. 7rpo«aT€X°At€l/ mpiaaov D* G. Ill ad npoexopfv. Some of the best scholars (e. i. But then the object must be expressed. Va. ' seems to be no reason why St.in the same . but not the best. 1. alsoOrig. Ambrstr. and that 20 Jew too might have his mouth stopped from all excuse. Field. St. as trans. the practical equality of Jew and Gentile is in regard to their present moral condition In this latter respect (ch. but give it the same sense as npoe'xopfv. Are we excelled ? Are we Jews worse off (than the Gentiles) ? a rare use. ' 9. 7rpoex"H-^ (praecel/imus eos Vulg. fulfilment of Law Law them e.(Ba passive. Lightfoot. : v. 9. Paul has just asserted how then (ver. as intrans. (in) Trpo€x6p. Severianus'. [ed. ' *A/)« 7T€picra6v ex°lxfV7ta P a tovs "EWrjvas Euthym. 18-32).Lid. 17-29 balanced against ch. the conclusion of the whole argument. few scholars (Olsh.) take npoexop-fdn as pass. to their own the sinfulness. But no examples of this use are to be found. A new method must be . and there = . Theoph. by an attempted By works of Law) no mortal may hope For the only effect of to be declared righteous in God's sight. Go. and so the majority of commentators. (some MSS.). with its proper middle force. it this view.' ' ' y6 that the EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. Do we think ourselves better ?' Gif. Now. Are we (Jews) preferred lies in A ' (to the Gentiles) in the sight of God ? irpotxoiJ*Oa. not to enable to That method. ancient and modern.).-lat.-Zig. Paul should not have written common form in such contexts. in the same irpoexofJteda is explained in three ways sense as the active Trpoexco. found. and as we have just seen ri ovv cannot be combined with npoexop-^n because of oh navTcos. tenemus amfliut) : a gloss explaining vpo^x. The principal objection to it is from the context. because would require in reply oibev irdvrcos. Ot. has failed. 2) that the Jew has an advantage over the Gentile does he come to ask if the Gentile has an advantage over the Jew ? The answer would seem to be that a different kind of advantage is meant.

ap-ap-nav. and the later Greek commentators quoted above. 449). 9 [10] exact. lxi. 8 abridged . The in e. 1-3 (=Ps. from the Prophets and the Hagiographa (Edersheim. upon the text of O. ou irdn-ws. 29. lix. T. cxl. xii. frequently LXX \ U LXX . 3 exact. vtro with ace. xiv [xiii]. i. v. as here. made up of a number of passages taken from different parts of the O. nida/xws Theoph.' i. and they have done so here: vv. Compare the similar idiom in ov trdw . ical ovtoi vtto ak et<n. We may judge from this instance that the first quotation did not always necessarily come from the Pentateuch though no doubt there is a marked tendency in Christian as compared with Jewish writers to equalize the three divisions of the O. also into his second edition (the ' Gallican. e.d. LXX . which is practically the Gallican. ver. 2 abridged. The obelus dropped out. i. xxxiii. ver. . unrevised text current in the time of Origen).. 27 f. They are still found in Codd. . 16. The long quotation which follows. N* B R and many cursive MSS. : of quotations has had a curious history. 3 navrfs ol rds x € ?pds oov.III. &c. 1. liii. though marked with an obelus after the example of Origen. g Deut. ver. A favourite method was that which derived ' when a preacher having quoted a passage or section from the Pentateuch. vi. which in the react As a whole this conglomerate The quotations in N. Life and Times. has given place entirely to Matt. AL read Strictly speaking ov should qualify irdvrcn.. The degree of relevance of each of these passages to the argument is indicated by the paraphrase see also the additional note at the end of ch. 5. Here the passages are from Pss.). 28] free Is. 10.-Vet. 1-3 [lii. of (om. Ps.e. such as these they found their way into Lat. . 4 in the 'common' text of the the 17 koivtj. 7 [ix.' 1 : ' ' ' irpoT)TiaadfA€0a v<j)' : in the section i. viii. 19 f. N Cft A). 1535) from thence into Matthew's (Rogers') Bible. 9. though the Greek commentators on the Psalms do not recognize them. Gr. is strictly in accordance with the Rabbinical practice. and they are commonly printed in the Vulgate text of the Psalms. 13-18 got imported bodily into Ps. and with no apparent break between them.. 9 dvOpanrus elfu vno i£ovoiav is a strong case. and so into Jerome's first edition of the Psalter (the 'Roman'). strung on to it another and like-sounding.T. Other examples of such compounded quotations are Rom. . 34 f. 2 Cor.' based upon Origen's Hexapla). T. . ' — . xiv [xiii LXXj as an appendage to ver. 1 8 — ii. ix. 2-4]). v. Trduras qualifies ov. io oC naurm to'is nopvms tov Koafiov tovtuv but in some cases. 26 f.T. * not not entirely/ as in i Cor. not at all (nequaquam Vulg.] UNIVERSAL FAILURE 77 way as Vulg. : . 10. From interpolated MSS. ' altogether.. 3 [exxxix. 7. altogether not/ entirely not. its name from the stringing together of beads (Charaz). or really similar. and see Win. xi. 1 free. 4] exact x. x. From the Vulgate they travelled into Coverdale's Bible (a. xxxvi [xxxv]. 25 f. change has already taken place qyiaaixivoi vitb In Biblical Greek xmo with dat.

non est requirens Deum (Vulg. xvi. in 1540^. found. 12. WH. xiv. and either accentuation. The diKaios shall live by faith . text. WH.) There is no one of understanding.' ' become sour. 8 . The Psalter of the Great Bible was incorporated in the Book of Common Prayer. Paul of what follows. The editing of the Great Bible was due to Coverdale. 568 f.' like milk comp. lix. Notes on Orthog. there is no inquirer after God. Anglice.J . the preface to the same book. quod multi ignorantes. may be adopted probably : 1 . the dxpeios 8ovXos of Matt. the Koivrj of the LXX] additi sunt et in Hebraico non habentur (Hieron. Jerome himself was well aware that these verses were no part of the Psalm In his commentary on Isaiah. Paul there keeps to his text . 3 E. with the idea of rather than specially of kindness.' as in ii. 34. there none to understand/ = ' 6 o-vviwv on the form see Win. Opp. 16. 1 74 f. as also (B)C WH. p. iv. xiv with nothing to distinguish them from the rest of the text. and perhaps Latt. 4. but we cannot be surprised that in the opening words he should choose a simpler form of phrase which more directly suggests the connexion with his main argument. 16 (ed. whence it also bears the name of Cranmer's Bible. but till the coming of Christianity there was no true Stjaurc and no true faith. 7. Fri. 30. he notes that St. p. 9-12 Psalter reproduces Coverdale (a. tfcpie from a<pia) Mk. also the newly discovered Commentarioli in Psalmos. i. § xiv. xxv. ' ' XpTjaTOTT]Ta ' utility ' goodness in the widest sense. cf. These marks however had the same fate which befell the obeli of Jerome.. ed. In the this clause a kind of refrain which is repeated exactly in ver. Paul quoted Is. . = ' to go bad. and he adds.' e<rriv 11. 67 Both forms. SUmos for ttoivv XprjaTOTrjTa is and ovSe ds for ovk eartp e<os evos. 601 comp.). Orig. fi/m : one and : all.-lat. St. ovviwv or the latter is to be preferred .. text read crvwdr. but a summary by St. and afterwards with a preface by Cranmer. ' xi. Some have thought that this verse was not part of the quotation. Hort. ed. It does indeed present some variants from the original. ouk 6 truviav: ' non is est . also for the accentuation. 10. qui versus \pTi\oi\ in editione Vulgata [i. after LXX. without the art. 3. Ambrstr. e. 8 in Ep.d. in which it was retained as being familiar and smoother to sing. even in the later revision which substituted elsewhere the Authorized Version of 161 1.. p. de tertio decimo psalmo sumptum putant. ibid. are avvlwv. This would non est intelligens. text (KCnriyy. Gvutco and awiu. ' ' LXX intelligit) qui intelligat (rather than qui [But A B G.' fjxpeiej0T]CTay Heb. and also into the 'Great Bible' (first issued by Cromwell in 1539. iroiwv (sine artic. 1895.) . to Rom. Intr. lib. . 24 f. who put an * to the passages found in the Vulgate but wanting in the Hebrew. : Gr. Migne. They were not repeated in the Prayer-Book so that English Churchmen still read the interpolated verses in Ps. T. 78 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. ' = . The verse runs too much upon the same lines as the Psalm to be other than a quotation. Paul. Morin.) ABG&c. 1537). col. though it is handled in the free and bold manner which is characteristic of St.

In vef. more it lit. The terminafrom imperf. v. 8. .. is xiii. This quotation of LXX freely abridged from the . 32). lyvcoaav marg. 15-17. xxi. changes iriKpia into the plural aroaa avrcov Is. WH. 7. and is called by one grammarian a Boeotian form. 34): 'their tongue do they make smooth' Cheyne . iii. The venom is more correctly referred to the bite (as in Num. Cypr. T. WH. is The position of the poison- bag of the serpent rightly described. literally usque ad UHtini). 3 [cxxxix. 7. 'Serpent' in D. and as is also of some interest it from its the text of the used by St. B 67**. o£fis ul Tropes avrcov eVf^fcu alfia' (Tvurpififxa nobes avrcov [eVt novr/piav eVc^e'cu kcu rakamcopia iv rdls 686v elprjvrjs rpc'xoutn] ra^tvot alpa [/<ai ol citto 0801s avrcov. 8 xiii. it . is 15-17. omit the second ovk Iotiv [ovk tonv roiv* XPV^TOTTjTa Zcos Ms]. 2/. of LXX. B 8 [ix. of verbs in -fu to verbs in -co. =/raudes. T.os =0. Gr. . 28]. it 19. and probably also Aquila and Symmachus. 12-19. Ps. x. and 2nd aor. but by 'no means confined to it it is frequent in Boeotian inscriptions. is common in LXX and in Alexandrian Greek. The LXX of Ps. &c. (TTofia 1 v 14. marg. as by others ' Alexandrian. ol 8e Is. sponds pretty nearly to Heb.] ?o)s f'vos UNIVERSAL FAILURE 79 idiom ad unum omnes (Vulg. . 28]: ol dpZs to Paul retains the rel. crvvrpiufia raXaiircopia (IprjVTJS iv TOLS 68o'lS aVTCOU KCU 6$6v ovk otdaai [ical ovk eon Kpicrts iv rdls 68dis avrcov\. lix. E. Prov.] 1 and cpovcov) oihaai N B Q*. ' * 13. 14 B 17 add uvtuiv ($)v to aro/xa avrcov) corresponding to avrov in B's text of Ps x 7 : cp. 7 avToi yefxei it : somewhat : freely from LXX St.. ' ' = 9 [10] corre- § 14 (ed. LXX bearing upon may be well to give the Rom. but 17. icdi ovk 8ia\oyio~pol avrcov (povcov]. 9. the Latin [ix. atfia [From a<ppovcov (for dvairtov Theodotion. . Heb. xxiii.). marg. ' ' ids <Woa>i>: Ps. iZokioOaav. cxl. Paul. smooth speech glideth from their tongue De Witt. XII Holmes) minusc. lix. The last clause rather linguam suam blandam reddunt (poliunt). p. tf A 1 : : (Q = Cod. t<*<J>o S . or perhaps lingua sua blandiuntur (Kautzsch.ol /cat eyvcocrav. Marchalianus. III.' : ISoXioOo-av Win. ku\ TTocplas koI 86\ov. What is the meaning of this verse ? Does passages just quoted are addressed to Jews (6 mean that the vop. the Hexapla this reading has got into several MSS. 8ia\oyio-p. than to the forked tongue (Job xx. 16): see art. 4]. The readings of B and its allies in these verses are open to some suspicion of assimilating to a text of LXX. tion -Tav. extended widely found .B. original and the quotation side by side. AQ aliq.

Mankind is liable nothing else to afford them protection. c Clellan. 19) must narrower sense (iii) that in ver. Note on o ddvaros in ch. xv. Paul where 6 vop-os clearly =0. xxviii. 21. which is contrary to the use of 6 vopos. the the connexion Law (6 vopos = the Pentateuch) affirming between sin and punishment. (i Cor. that all men are guilty but only that the Jews are guilty. and for the Jew the law of Moses). So here God. lxxxii. 846 B). M Gospels.80 Popov rffP EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [ill. but makes abstract (covering at once for the Gentile the law of conscience.and therefore they are as much guilty before God as the Or does it mean that the Gentiles ? So most commentators. because the Jews were apt to explain away the passages which condemned them. 19. . (see on i. ii. . p. spoken. vop. rraXaiav ypa(f>fjv ovofidfci. God. but cannot remove it. So Gif. : . v. other (cf. Yet these arguments are hardly decisive for (i) the evidence is sufficient to show that St. 11) The : compare however xxxv. 20. cf. Paul always rigidly distinguished which sense he was using the use of the word in one sense would call up the = the . Both interpre[For though (i) does not strictly prove tations give a good sense. (ii) Jo. mankind has offended against Note the use of a forensic 20. Sioti: 'because/ not 'therefore. $>po-yr\ : 383 ff. 6). vo/xa Law. x. Xfyci is XaXei \eyciv calls attention to the substance of what . this was really the main point which needed proving. and held whatever happened to the Gentiles they would escape. esp. urged. uttoSikos: not exactly 'guilty before God/ . vii. : . also goes a way of his own. of the crime dat. 2 1 the Law is expressly distinguished from the Prophets.os = Law in the Oltr. the idea comes up at each step in the argument. 1 2). (i) that there is only a single passage in St. i. rjs fiepos ra npoCprjTiKd Euthym. God/ to vttoSikos takes gen. because there is Law can open men's is so is shown in 7 ff. guilt of the Jews being now proved. the whole context righteous/ certainly not (iva ndv oro>a . XaKclv to the outward utterance . 19).). Him satisfaction. 25 that in the corresponding clause. : 8iKcuw0^aeTai ' ' shall be pronounced ' shall be made righteous (Lid.] that — — It is question really turns upon the meaning of 6 vofxos. (= r<» Ps. I . 34 (= Ps. and owes term. a quotation of Is. expect punishment. .) . as they sinned they must also Zig. Legg.' as for penalties as against AV. rots iv in the . Paul might have used 6 vopos in the wider and (ii) we must sense for this one instance is as good as many not suppose that St. of the but 'answerable to person injured whom satisfaction is due {ra>v : JWXao-iW all vit68ikos eara) to> fikacpdcvri Plato. T. xiv. Why this eyes to sin. cf. dvairoyr)Tos 20.

it. (ii) it is apprehended by faith in Christ. 24. irao-a a<£pi i. and gives 21 the most decisive expression to His righteousness (vv.] 4>payfj. is independent of any legal system (ver. : man 'clear in his weakness and frailty (i Cor. in their relation to God accepts them as righteous for no merit or change by an act of His own free favour. vnoducos. All The universal gift corresponds to the universal need. j men alike have sinned and all alike feel themselves far 24 from the bright effulgence of God's presence. THE NEW SYSTEM cvamov avrov) has reference to a judicial trial 8 and Pet. since the coming of Christ God has asserted itself in visible concrete form. are Yet estranged as they service of theirs. 23) (iii) it is made possible by the propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ (vv. the being due to the Great Deliverance wrought at the price of the 25 When the Messiah suffered upon the Death of Christ Jesus. 22 particular people like the Jews.1 III. It is precisely such a method which is is offered in Christianity.e. 25) . thrown open without distincwhether they be Jews or Gentiles. things comes in. ciriyrwais : knowledge'. 21). though the Sacred Books which contain the Law and the writings of the Prophets bear witness to time — This new method of acquiring righteousness does not turn upon works but on faith. Him G . 21-26. verdict. it is Here then the new order of In offered a Righteousness mans need (vv. 26). THE NEW SYSTEM. 21-26. it. and is as wide as III. on ardent attachment and devotion to And it is therefore no longer confined to any Jesus Messiah. by no deserts of his but as a free gift on the part of God. 22. 1 24). This righteousness. 25. i. but is tion to all. see on i. (i) though attested by the Sacred Books. We have seen what the state of the world without the righteousness of But now. which comes from God but embraces man. 28. but so as to furnish at the same and that in a means of acquiring righteousness to man complete independence of law. 29 . i. which Sacrifice at once explains the lenient treatment by God of past sin . 32. on the 23 sole condition of believing.

and others contend for the rendering as it is. the state under Law and the state without Law. . but as an alternative for Law and destined ultimately to supersede it (Rom. i. or accepting as vw\ 8e Mey. to as- be viewed as a Mosaic sacrifice might be viewed by the crowds sembled in the courts of the Temple. 4. in addition to the Gal. 26 \iv(TTr\p'iov 21. righteous Himself and pronouncing righteous. its way to larger <rr((pavepc0Tat. an man must by The object of the whole being this public and decisive act to vindicate the righteousness of sins of God. Heb. . . x. . i. 2 Tim. which had the effect of making propitiation appropriate through or atonement for faith. . But here the two states or relations correspond to two periods succeeding each other in order of time so that wvi may well have its first and most obvious meaning. passages already enumerated Acts xvii. . The righteousness which he has in view is essentially though the aspect from which it is the righteousness of God regarded is as a condition bestowed upon man. .' under the Christian dispensation. De now. Eph. . Paul goes on to define see on ch. . God Who set Him there as a public spectacle. working One step in this realization amongst men. . 3. 17. . 27 pvarrjpiov to dnoKCKpvppevov . IO X It ll l >lv T h v 8o6(7crav vvv\ Se . which is confirmed by the parallel passages. i. i. 26 ana£ (i) eVi o~WT(\fia Tu>v ala>va>v N. . 13 vvvl (fxivepcodevros 25. T. npb xpovcov (pavepcoBflcrav . Heb. i. 23. 21. vvv 8e alcoviLov f(pav€p(i)6rj. . iii. his meaning. 12. . 30 iv. Oltr. 3 Kaipois 18101s. 8e 9. . Go. Col. In previous ages the or atonement mankind had been passed over without adequate punishment 26 but this long forbearance on the part of God had in : view throughout that signal exhibition of His Righteousness which He purposed to enact when the hour should come as in now it has come. vvv.8a Cross it EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS was fill. 26. that condition is the direct outcome of the Divine attribute of righteousness.' on the ground that the opposition is between two states. 4). which The shedding effect of His Blood was in fact a sacrifice sin. the loyal follower of Jesus. fytvr)6r)T€ cyyvs. so as to reveal Himself His double character as at once righteous. The leading English commentators take tl is view. ' : W. oppose the pre-Christian and the Christian dispensations to each other as periods (comp. ii. Sikcuoowt] 0€oG St. ' . 1) and (ii) that cpavepovo-dai is constantly used with expressions denoting time (add to passages above Tit. apart from law. xvi. . 8e . : ' ' : . may be observed that the writers constantly . 20 eV eo-xarov tcov \p6va>v). 25. ix. vvv. Rom. 1 Pet.' independently of it/ not as X&>pls w>f*ou a subordinate system growing out of Law. i.

2. is subjective not objective. 8-12. 16. Dr. Mark xvi. transition in thought ii. 14. faith in Jesus Christ. i. i. 10. of the 1 Tim. Adv. i. in Christ and embracing the body of believers. ii. i. 1 Pet. Tim. ix. the method of An allusion of Tertullian's makes it probable that Marcion retained this verse. iv. 2. happens to be from the general ' 1 Cor. Marc. 22. that G 2 . Gal. v. 1-10. 4). Under the old system the only waylaid down for man to attain to righteousness Law the . 1891). 20. : : . 10. 28. Haussleiter contends that the gen. X. 26-29. Trc^ayepurrcu. 12. St. 25). xi. to the particular. substituted. 8) which here (as in ch. along with most other references to the history of Abraham (Tert. the whole of ch. 16 ) its : the used for the Incarnation with * accompani' ments and sequents secret counsels of as outstanding facts of history prepared in the at the fitting moment manifested to of the whole process of the Incarnation. the next step is the subjective apprehension of what is thus done for him by faith on the part of the believer (ver. xvi. iii. and it is probable that he cut out the whole of ch. i. Rom. Phil. on Gal. oe turns" to the particular aspect of the Divine righteousness which the Apostle here wishes to bring out . 8 Atonement. 14 1 Jo. v. iii. Contrast the completed in (f»ivepa><ns in Christ and verb the continued imoKahvtyis fyavepovaOai is regularly the Gospel (ch.] THE NEW SYSTEM 83 Death of realization. ii. iv. 30. 1 Jo.' This is the hitherto almost universally accepted view. der christliche Glaube. irurreus 'It]<toG XpioroG : gen. the sight of men. 2 . iv. of object. but rather a development which was duly foreseen and provided for: cf. 22).III. 16-21. iv. it is righteousness the manifestation of Divine 'righteousness' are 2 ' ' : apprehended by faith The ii. 16. ix. xv. The nearest parallels to this verse which speaks of God and so.' and 1 Jo. evidence fails as to the rest of the chapter. that like the 'faith of Abraham' in ch. of the future coming to Judgement. but in itself only marks the 6 . particle thus introduces a nearer definition. Leipzig. 21. is the Sacrificial Christ for sin (ver. the first great objective step. iii. Haussleiter of Greifswald {Der Glaube Jesu Christiu. 21-26. 22. 25-33. 31. 1 Pet. i. t. x. 26 &c. which describes the Incarnation as the appearing on earth of the principle of life. which speaks of a like manifestation of Divine grace. Paul insists that the new order of things is in no way contrary to the old. 5. 26: of the risen Christ. 2 Tim. which has however been recently challenged in a very carefully worked out argument by Prof. Heb. ix. it denotes the faith (in God) which Christ Himself maintained even through the ordeal of the Crucifixion. now that was by the strict performance of the Mosaic heavy obligation is removed and a shorter but at is same time more effective method attachment to a Divine Person.' another instance of the care with which jxapTupoujxeVY] k. 4 John xxi.

the Prodigal begins to/eel his destitution). the theory brings together things. on Col. Tt)cto€ XpicTTOti. In English we may translate this 'have sinned' in accordance with the idiom of the language. and it has so far. 20 rl en la-repw 'feel want/ (objective. § 8 (3). A A DEFGKL 23. ii. in the pillar of cloud (Ex. and apparently Marcion as quoted by Tertullian. iii. 17. well compares Matt. If it were the true reading els would express 'destination for' all believers. 14). and specially between the cherubim on the lid of the ark (Ps. If this view held good. codd. and this faith is here put forward as the central feature of the that it is to be grasped or appropriated by the Christian in a similar manner to that in which he reproduces the faith of Abraham. Cyr.. uorepoGVTai see Monro. 22. John xii. 6. Did.-Alex. 10. "rto3 : : = ' : = LXX = (Acts xxii. both alike need a righteousness which is not their own . 2 2 . Aeth. 11 . lxxx. e. 2 err e\mdi ttjs . men' (iv) (Lightfoot 6. 3. Rom. 14 Ka\ avros fjpgaro va-repeladai (subjective. although ably carried out. the interpretation of some of these passages seems to us forced . Arm. B. Orig. 2 Chron. -Alex. Kal krrl irivTas om. Rom. xvi. like the maris 'Iijaov Xpiarov here with the marts &(ov in iii. Cor. partially here. as a matter of fact. . Eph. 30 eboi-aaev with Rom. iv. 17) would be affected by it. But. completely hereafter (comp. 47. xix. a number of other passages (notably i. 34) or temple (1 Kings viii. communicated to man through Christ Both morally and physically a 18). iii. xv. There are two wholly distinct uses of this word ttjs 8o|tjs. 67**. (esp. met with no acceptance. 16). V. 'Irjaov (so too niarg. 1 Ex.: ins. voice Gif. T. ou ydp his con 8ia<rro\f}. and to both it is offered on the same terms. 43 &c). (2) by a use which came in with the (i) ' visible brightness or as translation of Heb. xxiv. or combination of two readings originally alternatives. main positions. which are really disparate . km 'extension to' them. The Apostle is reminded of one of The Jew has (in this respect) no real advantage over the Gentile . 4 &c. 23. 'the majesty or goodness of splendour' God i..). Clem. g. km irdvras alone is found in Jo. certain transfiguration takes place in the Christian. Vulg.) . (iii) this visible splendour symbolized the Divine perfections. the visible glory conceived as resting on Mount Sinai (Ex. Tjjxap-roi'. as manifested to 12. 'opinion' (a use not found in N. i. 11 comp. v. 2 Cor. N* B C. is wanting to me ? ') with Luke xv. reads kv XpiarZ 'l-qaov. Atonement. What. 12.. ) drop WH. mid. we believe. 7. 11. ix.' 'reputation' (Rom. in the tabernacle (Ex. these perfections are in a measure . Homeric Grammar. Boh. 84 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. &c. which prefers to use the perfect where a past fact or series of facts is not separated by a clear interval from the present see note on ii. xxv.) and thence in (1) particular 'favourable opinion. and hence 1 (ii) the brightness which radiates from the presence of God. Aug. so that els irdvras Kal km irdvras would seem to be a conflation. 10). 16). viii. Damasc. xl. 40 ff.

vv. Many leading scholars (De W. xiii. 98 [Bensly = 71. Fritzsche. and to prove it by the gratuitousness of the justification would be an inversion vo-reof the logical order.' No doubt such a construction would be irregular. Mey. Clearly St. because the they do nothing for state of righteousness has to be given them No such proof or further But this is rather far-fetched. = = . the fruit of the field. of Sofa in this connexion is well illustrated by 4 Ezr. to make ov yap . difficult. 24. . 85 airoKa\v<p6rjvai. Win.] 86£t]s tov ii. an anacoluthon. xxi. . Matt.' the Divine glory which before the Fall brightened Adam's face (Weber. and we must supply some such phrase as ira>s But that would be harsh. The meaning Dominus enim erit lux omnium (cf. the In this case there would be condition described by vo-rfpovvrai. a slight stress on do>p«xv: men are far from God's glory.\ neque nitorem. and which was withdrawn from it and reserved for the righteous in the world It is explained that the glory was a reflection from to come).). 607]. 42 = vi. Altsyn. nisi solummodo splendorem claritatis Altissimi [perh. In quoting this passage Ambrose has sola Dei fulgehit [ed. Qfov. Rev. 6 b) make 8iKaiovp. . = drravyacrua So^tjs 'Tif/i<TTov]. (Hi) Sucaiovpevoi is not taken with what In that case there is precedes. 6>. 23. 24). but is made to begin a new clause.: III. • and to take the nom. are (i) The construction and connexion of this word and perhaps not to be determined with certainty. by the Fall lost (immortality). neque noctem. for antelucium vid. 43). but it may be questioned whether it is too biKaiovpevoi . neque ante lucem [perh. or assign a proof of. by the actual condition of Jews as well as Gentiles . 'the glory. THE NEW SYSTEM viii. 97. and a connecting KcivxvptOa. F. The Rabbis life six things. and the light (by which the world was created. povvrai teal SiKaiovvrai (Fri. Lips. but in sense referring rather to tovs Trio-revoi/ras in ver. p. neque lucem. as suggested by irdvres in ver. 22. neque claritatem.) or But this is dubious Greek. and Ewald. Theol. 23. particle seems wanted. claritas . SiKaioufjici'oi. Fritzsche] quomodo incipiet (peWei) vultus eorum fulgere sicut sol. Bensly is . . 14 O. The blessed themselves shine with a brightness which is reflected from the face of God ibid. 10 fidtqy alu>viuv). Paul conceives of this glory as in process of being recovered the physical sense is also enriched by its extension to attributes that are moral and ' ' : spiritual. 24. it. F.festinant enim videre vultum [eius\ cui serviunt viventes et a quo incipient gloriosi mercedem rtcipere (cf. et quomodo incipient stellarum adsimilari lumini . 214). where the state of the blessed described as neque meridiem. with Va. 72 O. vvTcpovvTai practically a parenthesis. (ii) vo-rfpowrai bwaiovpevoi is taken as vo-repovpevoi 8iKmovvrai (Tholuck). 18 tt)v neWovaav ho^av held that 2 Tim. Lid. p. It had already been proved description of vo-repovvrai is needed. the fruits of trees. vii.ivoi mark a detail in. (Oltr. his stature (which was Adam above that of his descendants). § xlv. (iv) Easier and more natural than any of these expedients seems to be. Bensly ad loc.

ii. 24. 45 (Matt. but this necessity is far beyond our powers to grasp p.' or release on ransom. vi. 24 woXicov al)(paXcoTa>v dnoXvrpdjaeis. by Oltramare. v. esp. fF. dnoXiirpuiois occurs only in one place. viii. because in other combinations the kv 'Irjaov Xpiarw. vii. the position of avrov further laying stress on the fact that this manifestation of free favour on the part of God is unprompted by any other external cause than the one which Xvrpoco ' is mentioned (8m It is rr)s aTroXvrpoiaeais). 28. Gal.' as a conqueror releases his prisoners (the only example given of cmo\vTpaiais is Plut. 28) dovvai rr)v yjfvxrjv avrov \vrpov dvr\ ttoWgov. aSfX^o^ . contended. from his madness. ii. 116) the interesting observation that XpiaT$ Haussleiter {Der Glaube Jesu Christi. Heb. 8. Dan. u. Supe&p tt] auTou yj&pm.' There is no doubt that this part of the metaphor might be dropped. 26. irregular for St.) ' that here and simply without any idea of 'ransom. 13. Pomp. the metaphor yet a step further by asking (as the ancients did) to whom the ransom or price was paid. xiii. LXX diroXuTpwo-ews. that it is identical with the npr). vii. 9: cf. Versbhn. Each of these phrases strengthens the other in a very emphatic way. 30 [29 or 32]. and that both are ways of describing the Death of Christ. 1 . The need not press emphasis is on the cost of man's redemption. 1 Pet. and Ritschl. &c. where (ii) that in LXX the word has this sense of putting to ransom ') Aurpovcr&u is frequently used of the Deliverance from Egypt. ttjs «v Xpio-T$ 'lT)orov. 18. 2 Pet. we can hardly resist the conclusion that the idea p. . (i) that to pay a ransom. . xv. But in view of the clear resolution of the expression in Mark x.86 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS The Apostle [III. 6 6 bovs eavrbv dvTikvTpov V7rep irdvrw. iv. ii. ix. of the 'release' of a slave by her master). Hence it inferred also Westcott. Rechtfert. 5.' to put to ransom. Paul. would be 2 Cor. ' 220 in similar passages diruXiirpaHris denotes deliverance of the Xvrpov retains its full force. 19 6 enaivos iv to> evayyeXico os ZiraiveiTai . Ex. 296. also uTroXvrpvo-ei. xxi. d\a ku\ \ ei P0T0pr)6eis (as had preceded). vi. in which there is no question of ransom (so Ex.' but to take a ransom. 6. . Acts xx. and d-no\vTp6a> in classical ' Greek = not ' ' ' . 23. i. a sentence under the influence of frequently gives a new turn to some expression which is really parallel as subordinate to the main idea. and in I Tim. and in view also of the many passages in which Christians are said to be 'bought/ or 'bought with a price' (1 Cor. ov if ov povov fie. Deut. wherever the phrase (v XpiarS) or iv 'Irjcrov or occurs there is no This is significant. xx. 8. 20. Rev. : 6 xpovos pov rr}s d7ro\vTpu>o-€cos rjXde is of Nebuchadnezzar's recovery (cf. The subst. cf. It was required by that We ultimate necessity which has made the whole course of things what has been or gauge. the Exodus. iii. We owe to 'Irjaov single instance of the variants Iv . it . 1 8. Perhaps as near a o-vvtircptyapev 8e tov any . 19). 13.

But when We turn to the For (i) immediate context we find it so full of terms denoting publicity (n-KpaveptoTai. of adj. number of the best authorities (esp. once . u. Versohn. Ritschl. The Death of Christ is not only a manifestation of the righteousness of God. as in iXaorrjpioj' : propitiation/ LXX for the ' lid of the ark/ or mercy-seat/ so called from the fact of its being sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement. 8. The Christian IXavrfyiov. p. THE NEW SYSTEM It is also 'Irja. ' the true Shekinah/ and it is natural to connect with His Death the culminating rite in the culminating service of Atonement. arguing (i) that it suits the emphatic avrov in iv tw alrov atpari. proposed to Himself. n)j 2 Tim. there is great harshness. n-14. Va. ed. 5. (ii) that through it would be by far the most familiar usage. But although there is a partial analogy for this in Heb. Pesh. . has shown in detail) unanimously give it this sense (iv) that the idea is specially appropriate inasmuch as . or place of sprinkling/ in the literal sense. in making Christ at ' Heb. . Both meanings St. meaning strictly 'place or vehicle of but originally neut. whom God set forth cordance with the teaching of would be in full acPaul both elsewhere and in this Pet. 11 (i.] variants are frequent. iii. xapuTTijpiov. 87 and iv Xpiory always relate to the glorified Christ. Lid. in ch. 1 ofr kut 6(pda\pov S Xpto-Tos irpneypacpr) iaravpcop^vos.^ For (ii) compare esp. npos tt)v evfeigip) that the latter sense seems preferable.) or (ii) (proposuit Vulg. In of the Pentateuch. 169 ff. 24. iii. reXear^piou. IXacrTrjpios {iKa^piov C7ri6epa Ex. is rather the Cross. 1 (Orig. iii. 22. Gif. 23-x. ds (vdugiv. xxv. It is also something of a point (if we are right in giving the sense of publicity to npoideTo) that the sprinkling of the mercy-seat was just the one rite which was withdrawn from the sight of the people. on Christ rests the fulness of the Divine glory. This too is strongly . Gal. 25.). 2) take the word here in this sjnse. 213 Lomm. ix.III. to identify 1 Another way of taking ikao-rqpiov is to supply with it 6i>pa on the analogy of acjTrjpcov.' < publicly Epistle. because \v X «ttS> p Jesus. 20. • purposed/ ' 25. Eph. ix.). Him with the IXaar^piov. the word constantly stands A LXX priest and victim and place of sprinkling. also i. it is straining the image yet further . where Christ is both priest and victim. 'Itjo-ovs we may compare the idea of the Divine «p66t<n9 ix. Origen it is true does not shrink from this he says expressly invenies igitur esse ipsum et propitiatorium et ponlificem et hosiiam quae offertur pro populo (in Rom. But. not to the historic what we should expect. usually subst. (iii) that the Greek commentators (as Gif. but a visible manifestation and one to which appeal can be made. 28). 7rpo«#€To may designed ' = either ' (i) « whom God . 1 6 [17]. takes the two words as substantives in apposition). where however Gif. i. Rechifert. 11 (viii. 9. on the other hand. ii. not to say confusion.

accus. 'When a man thinks.' It appears therefore simplest to take it as adj. because it is written in Lev. Jiid. 23 [22]). at this date (iXacrnj/noi/ lu^pa Joseph. 98). iii. proSyr. Wiinsche. There is evidence that the word was current as an adj. Joma. tov IXaarrjplov tov davarov avraiv (O. 9. and repents is at once forgiven according to the Scripture. Joma. sufferings on the remaining days of the year atone one third. such an one gets no forgiveness through the Day of Atonement. given satisfaction to his fellow. but repentance and the Day of Atonement atone one third. 154). I will just go on sinning and repent He who later. according to the Scripture.man' get Tract. We : This teaches that the day of death completes the atonement. ap. p. . Offences of man against God the Day of Atonement can atone offences of man against his fellow.). no help is given him from above to make him repent. 33 [32 J). transgresses a negative command or prohibition and repents has the atonement held in suspense by his repentance. and the Day of Atonement has not the power to atone. otherwise he obtains no atonement' (op. when he turns from his evil way does he obtain atonement. XVI. because of the extreme rarity of the sacrifice of Here however it is just this personal element which is a person. It may be of some interest to compare the Jewish teaching on the subject of Atonement. his repentance has not the power to keep atonement in suspense. Fri. xvii. . added as predicate to ov. supported (esp. masc. instrument or means of propitiation. i The Mace. = in a general sense such sacrifice. and the Day of Atonement makes it effectual. "I will visit their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes" (Ps. and other exx. p. Sin-offering and trespass-offering and death and the Day of Atonement all being no atonement without repentance. pitiatorhim. a more advanced system of casuistry in Tosephta. Lit. xxii. Antt.e. Tract. according to the Scripture. 21 (?) "Only. is also ambiguous. his repentance and the Day of Atonement together keep the atonement in suspense. 30). If a man commits a sin for which is decreed extermination or capital punishment and repents. I will heal your backslidings " (Jer.). Ismael He who transgresses a positive command said. But there seems to be no clear instance of fkavrriptw Neither is ' there satisfactory proof that tXaor. v * R. But when a man profanes the Name of God and repents. The Coptic clearly favours the masc.) this sense. vii. I will but just sin and the Day of Atonement will bring me forgiveness. " Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated by you till you die " (Is. De W. F. and propitiationem. * Fritzsche Some MSS. is not applied properly to persons counts for very little. Lips. cit. viii. German commentators. lxxxix. " For on this day shall atonement be made for you " (Lev. Winter u. and the day of death completes the atonement according to the Scripture. " Return. rendering adopted above. and suffering brings it home. ad loc). 14). It agrees with the context that the term chosen should be rather one which generalizes the character of propitiatory sacrifice than one which exactly reproduces a particular feature of used in (subst. ye backHe who sliding children. thinks. 88 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. IXa'JTTipiov Cavarov 4 objection that the adj. The Latin . ." i.man the Day of Atonement cannot atone until he has and more to the same effect (Mishnah. xxiii.. by the leading Mey. : versions do not help us they give all three renderings. 22 *. xvi. propitiatorem. Atonement is of four kinds. read here 5id . 2f. most important. .

ii. 23). p. B is not infallible in such % .). €is ccSetftv els denotes the final and remote object. The whole Sacrificial system was symbolical . but which particular analogies to the rite of sacrifice. The blood was regarded by the Hebrew as essentially the seat of life (Gen. xi. To meet this fact and to remove this bar. Hence the death of the victim was not only a death but a setting free of life . and the offering of the blood to God was an offering of life. The art. n Heb. but with vpokBtTo : . 34 ff. not secondary. p. And the same exhibition of righteousness was kept in view in a subordinate part of that plan. and its wide diffusion showed that it was a mode of religious expression specially at least presents appropriate to that particular stage in the world's development. 22 it is found in B and the mass of later authorities. npos the nearer object. IXoa-rrjpiov : the shedding and sprinkling of the blood is a principal idea. xvii. III. Deut. the great fact of sin and guilt remained . 4. the nature of which we are not able wholly to understand. In what sense can the Death of Christ be said to demonstrate the righteousness of God? It demonstrates it by showing the impossibility of simply passing over sin. seems here rather more correct. pointing back as it would do to 5«i mareus X. but there is a strong phalanx on the other side .' els evbeifru tt)s 8ik<uoo-uVt]s au-rou.. The significance of the Sacrificial Bloodshedding was twofold. ix. Lev. 15 : here too the sense is that of ' proof by an appeal to fact. 6). ad loc). and to that form of the rite which had for its object propitiation. T. 89 company 8td tt)s irCo-rews: Sici marecas 67** al. In this lay more especially the virtue of the sacrifice (Westcott. The whole plan of redemption from its first conception in the Divine Mind aimed at the exhibition of God's Righteousness. there had been enacted an Event which possessed the significance of sacrifice. xii. 25. viz. For '4vb(i&v : see on ch. It does so by a great and we may say cosmical act.] THE NEW SYSTEM NC*D*FG WH. The necessity for it still existed. there was still the same bar to the offering of acceptable worship. text. writers appealed as satisfying ihe conditions which the righteousness . Tisch. No. .Jo. Was it to lapse entirely with Christianity? The writers of the New Testament practically answer. For the punctuation and structure of the sentence see below. (cf. iv tw auTou ai/xan not with TnVreto? (though this would be a quite legitimate combination see Gif. Ep. For the prominence which is given to the Bloodshedding in connexion with the Death of Christ see the passages collected below. the application of the blood was an application of life. 293 f.. And to that event the N. the forbearance which God displayed through long ages towards sinners. in ver.

also Rom. and the biKawavvq £k ' the same display ' : . op. as we shall see' on iv. 25. dp. : = ' y punishment which may at some later date be inflicted putting away. seems to be successful in proving that this is the true construction (i) otherwise it is difficult to account for the change of the preposi(ii) the art. (iii) tS>v irpoyeyoseems to be contrasted with iv tg> vw KaipS . ii.. See the longer Note on The Death of Christ of God required. voruiv apapTrjpdrcov as that just mentioned . 26. 90 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ' [III. considered as a Sacrifice below. ' . &c. apapT^fxa the permanent principle of which such an act = = the expression iv TT] : see below on ' denotes motive. 5 e) or (ii) it is temporal. for.. during the forbearance of God. This is the key-phrase which establishes the connexion between the diKaioaCvr) ©eoO. because the whole context deals with the scheme as it lay in the Divine Mind. : xapts is related to afaais.aT a avOpwnuv tis p-travoiav. Lex. irpos clause €k&ei£u': to be connected closely with the preceding the stop which separates this verse from the last should be wholly removed. 14-16. and the relation of its several parts to each other. a<peats = It is possible that the thought of this passage may have been suggested by Wisd.' Gif. temporary suspension of putting aside mipeo-is p. oid -n\v ir&pcaiv: not 'for the remission/ as AV. v. (iv) the construction thus most thoroughly agrees with St.apTTjfjidTwi' : act of sin. so that He might be at once righteous (Himself) and declaring righteous him who has for his motive faith in Jesus. Syn. (Grimm. 4. at. 8. and the pause before Sid ttjv ndpecnv somewhat 26.' complete and unreserved forgiveness. There will be found in Trench. Paul's style elsewhere see Gifford's note and compare the passage quoted Eph. or passing over. not ' impossible) sense to did. Sikcuoi/ Kal SiKcuourra. ap. in. s. tV : lengthened colon. and note that 01/0*17 is related to irdpeo-is as dVoxf} d>oxfj : (v either (i) . 3-5. iii.apTqp. an account of a controversy which arose out of this verse in Holland at the end of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth centuries. see on ii. is on this view perfectly accounted tion from etV to np6i in : — We may represent the various pauses in the passage in some Whom God set forth as propitiatory — through way as this His own blood — . . we should : ' represent it in English by a dash or semi- such faith for a display of His righteousness because of the passing-over of foregone sins in the forbearance of God with a view to the display of His righteousness at the present moment. and also a wrong sense to napcaiv.apria is the single as contrasted with apapria. as Mey.. of foregone sins. iii.' Of these (i) is preferable. p. 7. Iv. 23 [24] kclI irapopqs ap. but 'because of the pretermission. which gives a somewhat unusual (though. 25. noff.' For the difference between irdpea-it and afao-is see Trench. xi.

dpvov 7. It is the essential righteousness of God which impels Him to set in motion that sequence of events in the sphere above and in the sphere below which leads to the free forgiveness of the believer and starts him on his way with a clean ' ' page ol «£ to his record. Rather that which seems to us and which really is an act of mercy is the direct outcome of the righteousness which is a wider and more adequate name than justice. Ep. 20]). so elsewhere.aTi i it for St. declares righteous the believer. 24 [perhaps not Luke xxii. 21-26.' Nor is it possible to separate this propitiation from the Death of the Son. xii.III. 10. 25 with Malt. to Hebrews (especially in capp. in agreement with ov the fundamental idea which underlies the word must be that of propitiation. or whether we take it as an adj. xiii). ovoi e£ i^yav vopov (' as many as depend on works of law') Gal. 1 Cor. 7. — whether we directly supply <%a. Ktu i. out distinctly in several places in 5.' but that He is righteous and also. Paul. vii. the stress which is on alpa is directly connected with the idea of sacrifice. the Apocalypse (i. alparos rov araupov. i. or whether we supply eVn&jua and regard it as equivalent to the mercy-seat. . v. case the phrase iv r<5 avrov alpan carries with it the idea of sacrificial bloodshedding. in Rom. 20 (81a rod . It John we have Jo. Who is propitiated ? the answer can only be God. There is also the strongest reason to think that this Apostolic teaching was suggested by words of our Lord Himself. Quite apart from this passa^e-iUsnot difficult to prove that these — ' two ideas^ofsa£jdfic_e_ajidJ)r^^ not only of St. We have it in St. 8). rbv in mo-Tew? : 'him whose ruling motive 8 . 28.' The words indicate no opposition between justice and mercy. i. is faith'. ii. 13 Col. It is a leading idea very strongly represented in 11. We in have atp. 9 Eph. impossible to get rid from this passage of the double idea (i) of a sacrifice In any (2) of a sacrifice which is propitiatory. ix. Peter in I Pet. Mark xiv. v. (1) laid at the root of the teaching NewTestament generally. 8. ap. xiii. who spoke of His approaching death in terms proper to a sacrifice such as that by which the First Covenant had been inaugurated (comp. 6.ov aanikov). The Death of Christ considered as a It is Sacrifice. also For comes . ii. when we ask. And further. Before may be well first to summarize this As in the passage before us. 2 (paunapiiv and 1 9 (ripioa it oas i. iii. 14. x. And whatever sense we assign to IXao-Trjpiov .] Trlvreas. we might almost say and therefore. THE NEW SYSTEM ' ' 9* It is not that God is righteous andyet declares righteous the believer in Jesus. contrast epideias ch. and in v.oap. Paul but of the considering their significance it evidence briefly. aiparos) St. xi. 9. xxvi.

xn. 24). 24. and the death of the victim (Apoc. to from which passage the in apparently (so Atonement of of the Day Heb. both (2) In a number of these and from other Apostolic writings. 7 Col.iv. iii. kgi gttptf The use aiVai-flcxt/o-iM ol yiWrtu &<pe<ns). to the if not (Rom. 14 and 20 Tit. 18). 28. 2. 17. ii. 12.g. xxvi. 8. 1 ii. 1 Jo. 2. but is interwoven with the very weft and trust our may we (if start its taking thinking. of from the Epistles the forgiveness of the Death of Christ is directly connected with apparently. 22 condition of fitness to approach the Divine Presence . iii. ii. Apoc. under the earlier head. . call attention to other details in the i Pet. 3 sins (e. 30 f. bloodshedding of these passages besides the mention of v. 15-22). 5). passages as well as in others.i. ii. 14. 24 Death of Christ is compared not only forms of Levitical sacrifice to leading the of to one but to several v. iv. 3. xix. iPet. 21 1 Jo. 11. ix. 10 and This strong convergence of Apostolic writings of different Sacrifice as applied varied character seems to show that the idea of as a merely passing to the Death of Christ cannot be put aside warp of metaphor. 10. fiavrurrfs cf. 19. Acts v. 36. Paul St. xxvi. ii. 8 fyvbv {afayphw: act of sacrifice (e.ix. ix. 10. xv. x. 1. I2. 2 Cor..xiii. 18. sacrifices of real more than a system of meaningless butchery. 21-26. 2. Heb. 3. 29. Eph. spiritual age to which they religion in forms suited to the apprehension of the and capable of gradual refinement and purification. 10. i. : we perhaps and 25. ika<rK«r6ai Heb. . Many cf. iv. I Pet. 11. 2 . 6. To. iii. or nearly in every case. also in Heb. m kcu o-ycSoj/ iv ai/xaTi iravra icaBaplfarm kcltIi tov vdfiov. and possibly start. 15. of the different words effect (IXao-rrjpiov Rom. viii. to place the (Heb.. 14. v. to the ratification of the sin-offering Covenant (Matt. that they had a principles of deep embodied they that and significance. 25 IXaanos 1 Jo. 21). light over the Old It will be seen that this throws back a them but over the over only not indeed and Testament sacrifices— something ethnic religion— and shows that they were . ii. 28. and Apoc). Heb. xiii. 2. ix. Rom. not central of its one as sacrifice idea of the Old. denoting < propitiation ' is all to the same iii. conceptions.. We 13. like the religion of the is that the religion of the New Testament. Matt. 9) the sprinkling of the blood. 12 al.iv. Heb. ii. Heb. and the passages the Passover (John i.. i. g2 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [III. has concenhowever scattered over an elaborate ceremonial system but trated in a single many-sided and far-reaching act. the sacrifices which speak of the 'lamb' in 1 Pet. to Hebrews generalizes from the ritual system is necessary of the Old Covenant that sacrificial bloodshedding worshipper in a every case. 1 Cor. were given . The author of Ep. observe also that the ix. g. v. 17). i. 1 Cor. ii. . 1 Pet. 28. primitive Christian What it all amounts to traditions) from words of Christ Himself. &c.

was revealed once and for all time in Isaiah liii. but which when it has done so turns upon it the light of truly prophetic and divine inspiration. which is probability the great difficulty and stumblingof the acceptance of Bible teaching on this head. must be bought still. Some day or other probably now very soon -too probably by heavy afflictions of the State. for Dr. and shows beneath its unspeakable value in the working out of human redemption and regeneration and the sublime consolations by which for those who can enter into them it is accompanied. This idea of Vicarious Suffering. p. It may be hoped that the Preacher too may be willing to purify his own conception and to strip it of some quite unbiblical accretions. and then we transfer our gaze and we recognize them all translated that is . Mr.] THE NEW SYSTEM 93 In this connexion it may be worth while to quote a striking passage from a writer of great. 21-26.). who have the least acquaintance with the general tenor of my own teaching. — . will suspect me of any bias towards the doctrine of vicarious Sacrifice. insight. if intermittent. It gathers it up as it were in a single typical Figure. we shall be taught that all the true good and glory even of this world not to speak of any that is to come. since the world became peopled. The idea of Vicarious Suffering is not the whole and not perhaps the culminating point in the conception of Sacrifice. is founded on the secret truth of benevolent energy which all men who have tried to gain it have learned that you cannot save men from death but by facing it for them.III. which has been manifested as one united and ) v solemn instinct by all thoughtful and affectionate races. We look at the lineaments of that Figure. as it is taught by the modern Evangelical Preacher. . . I said that this chapter gathers up in one all that is most pathetic in the world's history. • But the great mystery of the idea of Sacrifice itself. No one who reads that chapter with attention can fail to see the profound truth which lies behind it a truth which seems to gather up in one all nevertheless in all block in the way — most pathetic in the world's history. Ruskin wrote as follows: 1 None of you. 1884. " tears/ After all the writer of this and the Evangelical Preacher whom he repudiates are not so very far apart. In his last series of Slade lectures delivered in Oxford The ( Art of England. Westcott seems to have sufficiently shown that the centre of the symbolism of Sacrifice lies not in the death of the victim but in the offering of its life. nor from sin but by resisting it for them . and he will then find that the central verity for which he contends is not inadequately stated in the impressive words just quoted. . and with our — — — . 14 f. with our toil. as it always has been. who approaches the subject from a thoroughly detached and independent standpoint. gently lifts the veil from the accumulated mass of pain and sorrow.

means of acceptance zvith An objector its may say that Him (vv. it may still be objected. for us to know that through the virtue of the One Sacrifice our sacrifices are accepted. 30). Note) we believe condition on which a man is pronounced righteous. but see Cril. Law is thus abrogated. and that it was His Will that we should use But it is a word which we must leave it to Him to this word. All This. which we call 'Propitiation. is of the nature of fiction. We drop our plummet into the depth. John and the Epistle Hebrews we speak of something in this great Sacrifice. 22] is that and not a round of acts done in obedience to law. The attached to it is too short. On the contrary deeper principles are fulfilled. for there is no merit in Faith (vv. shall not our Heavenly Father do the same ? ' ' ' CONSEQUENCES OF THE III. from this. all forgiveness.94 from idea into Calvary. is but a fiction of mercy. and it does not -touch the bottom. 29. Hence it follows (i) that no claim can be ground of human merit. as the history of Abraham 27 will show (ver. I is There are two consequences which draw. ver. and Faith is the only made on the . and exercise it not rarely out of consideration for the merit of someone else than the offender. It consists in And if we 'being evil' treating men better than they deserve. to the EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS reality. for there is but one God. For the Christian system for not one of works — in which there might have been room 28 merit —but one of is that Faith the Thus (ovv. that the barrier which Sin places between us and God is removed. and one that an that such a objector may draw. Paul and St. 28) (2) that Jew and Gentile are on the same footing. The first method of obtaining righteousness leaves no room for human claims or merit. [ill. Any such is thing is once for all shut out. 27. Sufficient awful processes of the Divine Mind we cannot fathom. and embodied in marvellous perfection upon Following the example of St.' We believe that the Holy Spirit spoke through these writers. but the line interpret. Faith.' mercy. and that there is a sprinkling which makes us free to approach the throne of grace. 27-31. 27-31. 29 The second consequence [already hinted at in . exercise the property of mercy towards each other. 31). NEW SYSTEM.

-lat. 31. On the other hand B admits in this Epistle some comparatively late readings (cf. Arm. marg. But it must be confessed that yap gives the better sense.' : ' Paul has his eye rather upon the decisiveness of the act than upon its continued result In English it is more natural to us to express decisiveness by laying stress upon the result—' is shut out. 23 . marg.) .' Under what kind of system is this result obtained ? Under a system the essence of which is Faith. altogether Far from teuch) lays down principles (Faith Law' itself (speaking through the Pentaand Promise) which find their true fulfilment in Christianity. &c. ouv recapitulates and summarizes what has gone before. Who requires but one condition— Faith. helps that coherence. We prefer the . 31 The objector asks ? : Does not such a system throw over Law it. as we might expect they would be. is Is that so Not if I am right in affirming that there but one God. : ' ' ' — ' Similar metaphorical uses of vdfios would be ch.-Harcl. viii. al. (Vet.] CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW SYSTEM same in 30 95 Jew and Gentile are on the the footing. aorist .) Boh. WH. xi. &c. The alternative reading. RV. 27. seeing that they have the same God. is not so strong a combination as BC in Gospp. 'KoytCofj. The olv BCD'KLP . reading yap.III. 21.\ Latt. . . The evidence . Ambr^t. result of the whole matter stated briefly is that God declares righteous. x. plur. 2 . 28. then God must be God of He is not God of the Jews some exclusive sense in which ? Gentiles. Aug. vii. Boh. If they are not. And so Gentile and Jew are on the same footing.' St. on which see the Notes. 28. €£ei<\£tCT0T) ' it is an instance of the * summarizing ' force of the shut out once for all/ by one decisive act. but it is combined with an element vN A.\ yap N A D* E F G al. Tisch. . 6) and the authorities associated with it are inferior (B C in Epp. 27. We do not want a summary statement in the middle of an argument which is otherwise coherent. 8td iroiou yofxou vdfiov here may be paraphrased system/ Law being the typical expression to the ancient mind of a constituted order of things. [The Jew's] boasting is excluded. Theodrt. Chrys. because justification turns on nothing which is the peculiar possession of the Jew but on Faith. Weiss for yap is largely Western. text RV. (Pesh.) which in this instance is probably not Western so that the reading would be carried back beyond the point of divergence of two most ancient lines of text. on which alike the circumcised He is ready to treat as 'righteous' whom the Faith is and the uncircumcised— the circumcised with the moving cause. WH.fda yap. and the uncircumcised with whom is same Faith both moving cause and sole condition of their acceptance. Orig. Syrr.).-Vulg.

. way it is of course Christian faith. p. exceedingly. . 28-31. Homeric Grammar.' The Jew is justified vUrtt*s 8ta jrr/wrojw/r the force at work is faith. There is but one law (Faith).: 96 WcuoGo-eai avGpwiroi' : : EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS we must hold ' [III. and there asserts his main position. not Law but said. hence if really (Lat. 64). or as true. But in any case both et -nep and ei ye lay some stress ' Particle as a condition: cf. it can hardly hold for the condition.. faith in Christ. 354 Tne nep is evidently a shorter form of the Preposition -nepi. eiTT€p : decisively attested in place of eireiirep. Partikeln. 29.' 8id * attend- ant circumstances. 8ta Tfjs mcrrews : ' = ' tioned. which in its adverbial use has the meaning beyond. and you will see— Promise. but only calls attention to the word hence Protasis (with os. we must needs think. or insist on the Conditional In a . on N. in word is used like trip to emphasize a particular . always supposing that. an alternative hypothesis on the assumption of which the Jew might still have had something to In rejecting this. fast to ' . supposing ever so much. but only to dismiss. Obedience St. ii presents. on i... ye emphasizes the condition as such: On the other ^ hand et nep means et ye if only. The old distinction drawn between et -nep and et ye was that et -nep is used of a condition which assumed without implying whether it is rightly or wrongly assumed. is this abstract Though faith is spoken of in but one Judge to administer it. i 7. the channel through which it works is The Gentile is justified e\ mo-Teas nal 81a rfs mo-reus circumcision. WH. . 7* its fullest sense. any human being. fact. Kal I6vu)v. et ye is of a condition which carries with it the assertion of its own reality (Hermann It is doubtful on Viger. 30. ch. whether this distinction holds in Classical Greek. Circumcision. no special channel. vopov must the Pentateuch not mately and virtually the Pentateuch. iv contains the ultiproof of the proposition laid down in this verse. Look again and look deeper. It does not however intensify the meaning. 831 .T. plur. KaTapYounee : see as v6pov i(TTWfji€i>. not literal descent from Abraham but spiritual Law these things are realized in Christianity. &c.. If. %% 353. si quidem)! . Paul or Works. Monro. Griech. perhaps assimilated to # 'lovSaicov . at the The Jew looked to O. not works but Faith— of which Circumcision is only the descent All seal. denoting that the word to which it is subjoined is true in a high degree.. .. p. &c). the rendering 'is declared righteous. Descent from Abraham. T. Baumlein. 8101 ty]s morews : e\ denotes e* ' source. no special conditions are marked out . and he saw there Law. ore.' 1 men' the faith just the same faith.' 31. tnarg. Accordingly nep is intensive. jjiovov: fxovojv B al. Paul once more emphatically boast of. . . 3 above. ck TTurrews . el. St. it is itself both law and impulse. faith is the one thing needful. But it as an isolated Book but as the most conspicuous and representative expression of that great system of Law which prevailed everywhere = = until the coming of Christ.' not is made righteous cf. fact or phrase. on ver.

Just as again David in Ps.' righteousness without any reference to works savs> Happy he have been guilty of no breaches of law/ but 'whose breaches of law have been forgiven and whose sins are 8 A happy man is he whose sin Jehovah will veiled from sight.' H . but by the free gift of God in And David The happiness of which he speaks is due. ' — no t w ho not enter in His book. e. claims his pay as a debt due to him. whereas Law and any Law) was only an elaborate machinery for producing right action. the Christian. as if with the stroke of a wand. not on account of his describes a similar state response to his faith. not to sinlessness but to 1 God 's free forgiveness of sins. but not before God. xiii. race. we Jews are right in supposing that God of accepted him as righteous for his works his —he has something at the —those illustrious acts to boast of. xv. 1-8. was declared righteous. 1-8. it (i. but to « Abraham if it put faith in God. like works —as something earned. as ture.' and his faith) was credited him 4 were righteousness. Word of God.IV. Take the crucial case of Abraham. 6. the ancestor by natural descent of our Jewish If might plead privilege and merit. You speak 2 Abraham. 10 n-Xr/po/xa ovv vofiov fj dyairt] compared with Gal. that well-known passage of ScripWhat do we find there ? Nothing about works. 3 Perhaps he has before men. THE FAITH OP ABRAHAM. v. of the history of Objector. IV. Paul. For look Gen. xxxii describes ' how God * 'pro- nounces happy (in the highest sense) those to : whom 7 he attributes they. Surely he. faith in But to one who is not concerned with works but puts (in pronounces righteous not the actually righteous would be nothing wonderful) but the ungodly to which there God Who — such an one his 6 faith is credited for righteousness.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM Law (all 97 kind of And then further. there too Christianity stepped in and accomplished. This proves that there was no question of works. 6 it For a worknot an act of man is favour. St. 6 tiIcftis bi ayan-qs evcpyovfievi]}. of things. He. all that the Law strove to do without success (Rom.

(1) L P. (2) sives. which still influence from the last chapter. Vulg. variant turning upon the position or presence of eupTjiceVai. but St. Paul left NACDEFG. ' our natural progenitor. There is an important 1.a>v which it simply defines. and later Fathers (the Syriac Versions which are quoted by Tischendorf supply no evidence) place it after tov What shall we It is then taken with koto. Boh. drops out and we translate simply What shall we say as to Abraham our forefather? ' &c. ch. takes koto. say that A. with top npoitdTopa rjp. still a supposed objector. St. and the pride For the sake of clearness we He is of course put these thoughts into the mouth of the objector. Paul held to be But the way of putting some ' been considered in the broadest and most general manner. The main argument of this chapter is quite clear but Iff. Paul now narrows them down to the particular and crucial case The case of Abraham was the centre and strongof Abraham. and more particularly the Pentateuch. and others. 47*. Arm. which the Jewish system generated.' or special privilege. &c. question is without it. however. If therefore it could be shown hold of the whole Jewish position.-lat. is not destroyed but fulfilled by the doctrine which he preaches.98 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. Paul now undertakes to prove but at the outset he glances at the two main issues in ch. The not. iv ' — the claim of — but the arguments are such as he might very possibly have met with in actual controversy (see on iii. has gained by his natural powers unaided by the grace So Bp. Orig. Theodrt. the latter broke This is what St. and apparently Chrysostom from the tenor of his comment. of God ? even with this reading. down . The first question is one of reading. [Euthym. some curhim any gain or advantage at all. the opening clauses are slightly embarrassed and obscure. exert this is affected by two thoughts. K : ' ' : to Kara <rdpica]. iii which become side issues in side issues altogether.). advantage. 1. what Abraham had gained by the grace of God or but whether the new system professed by St. that this case made for the Christian conclusion and not for the Jewish. Ambrstr. Paul is really arguing with himself. (ii) the pride or boasting which was a characteristic feature in the character of the Jew but which excluded/ Hitherto these two points have St. place In that Case Kara adpKa goes not with evprjKevai but after ipovpev. due as it would seem to the crossing of other lines Of thought with The proposition which the Apostle sets himthe main lines. (i) the question as to the advantage of the Jew. self to prove is that Law. u-dpua with narepa vnfp&aTou yap .. Bull after Theodoret. adpica Trpondropa rjficop. Aeth. ' the sense thus given is suspiciously easy : it is certainly more .-Zig. omit evpyicevai altogether. though the printed editions give it Then the idea of 'gain' in his text.' (3) But a small group. 1 ff. B. The opponents of B will say that But this is inconsistent with the context.

but not in others. It seems best to explain the introduction of this clause by some such ellipse as that which is supplied in the : ' ' 1 1 ' &W . Introd. In ver. 23 f. on 1 Cor. It would not be wrong to translate here 'has a ground of boasting. Does not what the nature of A. 2. : .-Zig. ed. imported from ch. There is no reason why a right reading should not be preserved in a small group. or with St. and Eph. marg. that the question is put as proceeding from a Jew: along with Orig. 157 f. 9. Hort {Rom. Paul wrote 'A0p6p (with Heb. Evans in Sp. 1. 1). In this instance the attestation may be wholly Western. or rather in the context. The termination -pa denotes not so much the thing done as the completed. and the fluctuating position of a word often points to doubtful genuineness. 8 Tisch. for other examples see esp. This description of Abraham as our foreone of the arguments used by those who would make the majority of the Roman Church consist of Jews. Win Gr. x. . For instance in writing to the Corinthians.' Gif. Evans ut sup. St. There is the less reason why he should discriminate here as he is just about to maintain that Abraham is the father of all believers.) is decisively attested for -naripa. ou irpos top Qeov. but rather gloriatio. Lips. Comm. 1-5. 5 in ver. he connects t6v irponar. 6). 6tc al.1 the acute and sleepless critic Origen thinks that St. Chrys. In ver. 15 ovtos rjv ov enrov. notes the further point. Paul's? The idea of 'gain' was naturally satisfactory than that of either of the other readings. vi. Paul had before his mind the established and significant name throughout he quotes Gen. 8. as Bengel. p. of Gen. who were undoubtedly for the most part Gentiles.'s righteousness agree better with the Jewish system. act . which ABC* 1 is found in the later MSS.' but the idea of ground is contained in ex«. though it is true that he would have added top irpoirdTopa ' ' father is ' — not after the flesh but after the spirit.' IV. but that Gentile scribes who were less scrupulous as to the text of Scripture substituted 'APpaap. who however might have added facta (T. S. 19. It is more probable that St. In ver. Paul is not very careful to distinguish between himself and his readers in such a matter. xvii. 2] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 99 The point is Abraham got by his righteousness. One irpoTTCLTopa (K* or two small questions of form may be noticed. iii. Still does not take Kara adpKa with tou irpoTTuropa r)pa>v. with Kara (rap™. however. 17. text Tr. tjjxwp. but how he got his righteousness— by the method of works or by that of faith. that Dr. Euthym. Jew and Gentile alike.) though relegating evprjKfvui to the margin. and commentators. § ix. on which form see WH. p. Phot. xv cf. fpx. For the construction comp. xvii. Gen. It should be mentioned. determinate. 5 a small group (N D* F G) have aat^v. 5). App. v. . We therefore regard the omission of cvprjice'vai as probable with WH. RV. he speaks of our fathers as being under the cloud and passing through the sea (1 Cor. John i. Kau'xTjjia Not materies gloriandi as Meyer. . on Heb. i.

3. see Charles on Enoch xlvii. and sufferings of the saints. That however is not {ibid. He was the first of seven righteous men whose merit brought back the Shekinah which had in cf. 229. cv [cvi]. and Test. Moulton). t<5 ' avdpa>7T(o alpa.— IOO ' EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - [IV. manner on 1 books the judgement day Jehovah would have the brought out before Him (Dan.g. xx. comp. 2. xviii. ov avT<o f Xvii. § xxix. not rarely look'). vii. and in like The &C. 13. 12. io. 17 (= .' ' LXX Lev. ' . Paldst. 23 (24). 255 ff.). Weber. 3 a. 3 wherein the eyes of God Cowper's sonnet There is a book . . notion arises from that of the book of remembrance 16) in which men's good or evil deeds. He might have done so if he could have taken his stand on works . 233). on which and in more modern times. Theol. lxv. A. Win. Paul There should be a colon after Kavxw a paraphrase. also the books of the living/ the heavenly tablets/ a common expression in the Books of Enoch. : was reckoned as equivalent to. Abraham was the only righteous man of his Theologie. history and application of the text Gen. vii. (Mai. XII Patr. are entered (Ps. 2). was set down. viii.. vi. could not boast before God. as e\oYia0T) ciutw els 8iKaiooruVT)i' The construction is standing in the place of. (p. Lam. quality — righteousness. generation. or non-imputation of Xoyi(r6r](T€Tai guilt. xxix. 8 iav de (fiaykv <t>dyu (fcciwy . eKoyiaQt] : metaphor from accounts. ed. 12. e. On the righteousness of Abraham see esp. but works did not — ' On the In God he put faith/ enter into the question at all. The idea of imputation in this sense was familiar to the Jews They had also the idea of the (Weber. does not question the supposed claim that Abraham has a Kavxw a before man he might have it and the Jews were not absolutely wrong in the veneration with which they regarded his memory. or credited. zeal of Phinehas. St. ' righteousness.) i. a stress upon rbv eeov which is taken up by r<3 Gew in the quotation. the point is that one quality faith is set down. transference of merit and demerit from one person to another John ix. Hos. 6). see below. . 8 . 2 in question here . xv. 1 LXX: xxxii. i if. p. 2. Alisyn. There is but it was another thing to have a Kavxwa before God. . therefore he was chosen to be ancestor of the holy He kept all the precepts of the Law which he knew People. 15. Ezek. recurs in Ps. the wrongs. beforehand by a kind of intuition. 280 ff.lvi. ' . 31 o f the On the grammar cf. Is. iv.' common Reg. Altsyn. Oriental monarchs had such a record by which they were reminded of the merit or demerit of their subjects (Esth. ' iii. with legal sense of imputation Frequently in the credit side. to the individual (here to Abraham) in place of another . Job xli. p. (Sam. . The exact phrase eXoyiaOrj ovtm ch StKaioo". Jubilees. 6.' here ' on 3. Rev. Is. p. \ XoytaBrjcreTai.

God. Both Heb. akka Hal Sinaiov iroiTJaai (comp. xii. not meant as a description of Abraham. . ' on Him who 1 acquits/ e. The Psalm describes who thus pronounces a how He does so. 30 f. xcv. 7) Psalms are quoted as David's which have no title in the Hebrew (though Ps. above. iv.IV. xiv. p. felicitation is ').' It might however be inferred from l£ai<pvqs that dUaiov Troifjaai was to be taken somewhat loosely in the sense of ' treat as righteous. 5. 1. Paul uses the word again Gal. the same writer on ver. by faith.' which would be paicapioTrjs but a pronouncing blessed to call a person paKaplfciv nva David. But the Jews also (on the strength of Gen. 25. An illustration from common and can claim it as a right. Ps. 31. 7 (= Ps. p. iv. 26 (= Ps. that is proof that the gift must be called forth by something other than works. rovrov SiKoiovs rjpas noirjay) . 2). rbv do-epTJ St. The strong word darepij is probably suggested by the quotation which is just coming from Ps. 3-6. According Abraham. comp. as constituting merit (see Mechilia on Ex. . viz. from whose now generalizing and applying the conclusion to his own time. xcv [xciv] bears the name ot David in the LXX). 357. It is rather scheme. and faith in God is faith in Him as the alternative Author of that 5. The workman earns Therefore when God bestows the gift of righteousness. Aa{3i8 (Aau€i'8). Who is it man blessed ? God. I. (2) by his anticipatory fulfilment of the Law. T. See on i. and by Lightfoot in the to the Jews the original righteousness of serve God at the extract given below). pronounces righteous ' or a departure from St. xxxii was one of those which Ewald thought might really be David's see Driver. xxxii.' The Greek theologians had not a clear conception of the doctrine of Justification. p. . of His own bounty and not as a right. 118) was perfected (1) by his circumcision. : : ' ' ' . : em rbv SiicaioGrra i. Nic. Heb. = ' blessed Or Zig.-Zig. life.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM IOI retired into the seventh heaven. 183). 4. xv. showing that by this date the whole Psalter was known by his name. : case Paul is 6. happy (tovs t€ yap deovs paKapi^opev . TOk jutaKapiajAoV not blessedness. i. 15. and LXX ascribe Ps.1 KopvCpr) Ttpijs Kal 86£tjs 6 pnKapiupos. 8. the strongest and highest form of honour and praise St. We must not be misled by the comment of Euthym. Introduction. xxxii to In two places in the N.) that SiKaiovv »= not ' to make righteous ' but ' to declare righteous as a judge. Euthym. But even here the Christian scheme is in view. who began to age of three (ibid.' eirirao-is 8e ko. rovriffri marfvovrt i^a^vqs ov puvov ekevKokaaews. 17. 4 . sup. ii. <a\ twv dv8pa>v tovs OeioTarovs ptaKapiCop-ev Arist.. Otpuicrai 'iva oti Svvarat 6 ©efo tov kv aaffieiq fiefiiwKOTa. Acts iv. quoted by Delitzsch ad loc. his pay. Eth. 25 The evidence is too decisive (p. so that in the days of Moses it could take up its abode in the Tabernacle {ibid. 6) attached a special importance to Abraham's faith. Paul's more usual practice to make the object of faith God the Father rather than God the Son.

iv. 8. THE ROMANS [IV. also the reading of R<*). James treat at some length of the history of Abraham. James as expressly. 15 [p. So N C F L &c. iv. ii. EPISTLE TO Maicdpioi. § lvi. : oZ ov rf oS is (?) G. St. St. 18). Paul keeps more strictly to his text. 2 is the same introduced by St. foundations of his system. 8. k. iv. James. they both quote the same verse. Paul also appeals to Abraham's belief in the promise that he should have a numerous progeny (Rom. and in the more express prediction of the birth of Isaac (Rom. cf. iv. A Dc LXX K N™ KBDE ( 06 ^t) XoytoTfjTai. 6.X. 6 than that ov has been assimilated to the preceding Sn> or to the O. pfj. The difference is that St. James. « 3» P- 634 f- The History of Abraham as treated by and by St.T. experience confirms the unqualified affirmation of the and he is therefore able to take it as one of the . James supports his contention of the necessity of works by appeal to a later incident in Abraham's — life. Paul and St. 3. 6 speaks only of faith. that he is accounted righteous eg epycov ml ovk ck nio-Teajs fiouov (Jas. It is This quotation of Ps. Both St. 7. as the salient characterization of that history . 154]. 5. Paul as confirming his interpretation of Gen. 28 . (<£ The authorities for oS are superior as they combine the oldest evidence on the two main lines of transmission N B + D) and it is on the whole more probable that w has been assimilated to the construction of \oyifaeai in vv. xv. 19-21). It is at first sight a remarkable thing that writers should use the same leading example St. xv. and LXX. 24). ii. as we have seen. Paul two New Testament and should quote the same leading text as it would seem to directly opposite effect. 6. xxxii. occupying a less exceptional spiritual Book of Genesis . 1-8). 4. or that it has been affected by the following ov : y naturally established itself as the more euphonious reading. 21). iii. c state of the gods and those nearest <S ot.t. pxicapioi is. In the quotation just given to the from Aristotle it is applied to the gods among men. 67**. Gen. and Win. and they draw from it the conclusion St. Paul that a man is accounted righteous wim-tt x ^s epyw (Rom. xv. St. the offering of Isaac (Jas. i. Paul makes use of a more searching exegesis. There is a natural tendency in a declining language to the use of more emphatic forms . We notice at once that St. but here a real emphasis appears to be intended. Gen. the highest term which a Greek could use to describe a state of felicity. Whose sin the Lord will in no wise reckon': see Ell. His own particular incidents. in Heb. St. on 1 Thess.IOS 7.

When St. But to himself it appears a truism. It is like the stream of molten lava pouring down the volcano's side. ii.' He demands that his readers them in practice.' he understood by it what the letter of the Book of Genesis allowed him to understand by it. ' ' . ' The faith/ and as ' 1 ' . He will almost suspect the questioner of attempting to bring back under a new name the old Jewish notion of religion as a round of legal observance. IV. he would put it on the same footing as his belief in God. Christianity is with him a tremendous over-mastering force.rst of their conclusions to them. and. 12. as we should say. St. a certain belief.. 1-8. vi. less . as his opponents compel him to say it. With him too Christianity is something God but the process by which it was than a convulsion of his whole nature. 1. The crisis came at the moment when he confessed his faith in Christ there was no other crisis worth the name after that. — therefore demands —and from his point of view rightly shall authenticate their beliefs by putting St.). has recourse to the context of Abraham's life. and adapt the . James and St. which is hardly worth definitely enunciating. a good man and this fact is that St. Christianity is with him so much a supplement to the Jews' ordinary creed that it does not seem to be specially present to his mind when he is speaking of Abraham. The believer in Christ.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 103 standpoint. must needs to the very utmost of his power endeavour to live as Christ would have him live. 1). added to an earlier added was nothing belief in . is given of its sincerity ? Belief must be followed up by action. But St. Of course he too believes in the Lord Jesus Christ. To say that a man is a Christian should be enough. Ask such an one whether his faith is not to be proved by action. 19). and the question will seem to him trivial and superfluous. by a line of conduct conformable to it. James heard speak of faith. and he speaks from a very different experience. who has put on Christ. ii. James was a thoroughly honest. belief in God. If he were questioned about it. belief that God was One (Jas. It is what a Jew would consider the fundamental belief. Paul's is a very different temperament. He takes that belief for granted it is the substratum or basement of life on which are not to be built such things as a wrong or corrupt partiality (rrpoaaTro'Xrj^ia. and so harmonizes the text with the requirements of his own moral sense. St. who has died with Christ and risen again with him. Paul mean different things by was natural they impose these different meanings on the Book of Genesis. and taking words in the average sense put upon them. James would have echoed Matthew Arnold's proposition that Conduct is three-fourths of did not satisfy his moral sense. Of course action will correspond with faith. What is belief unless proof ' life. 15). the Lord of Glory (Jas. Paul is going on presently to say this (Rom.

or did St. ed. It might therefore be contended with considerable show of reason so . seen the Epistle to the Romans and wished to answer it. St. James mean to controvert Neither hypothesis seems probable.. 'Was not It is referred to in the First Book of Maccabees: Abraham found faithful in temptation. p. but On the other hand. and it was imputed unto him for righteousness' (1 Mace. 52)? It is repeatedly quoted and commented upon by Philo (no less than ten times. It does not amount to more than the fact that both quote the same verse. For as a reward for Israel's having believed in the Lord. In like manner thou allegory. Paul had too effectually guarded himself against the moral hypocrisy which he was con- demning. if St. and both treat it with reference to the antithesis of Works and Faith. ii. Paul. It would thus appear that when it is examined the real meetingground between the two Apostles shrinks into a comparatively narrow compass. it is clear that attention : this particular text and it was being very widely drawn to was indeed inevitable that it should be when we consider the place which Abraham held in the Jewish system and the minute study which was being given to every part of the Pentateuch. it had no relevance to a faith such as that conceived by St. it to him for righteousness " ' (quoted by Lft. when once he looked beneath the language to the ideas signified by the language. 2) that Gen. 1-8. James. James. St. 6. xv. what he Whatever value has written would have been totally inadequate. James had that would have been all. Are we to suppose that Did St.). ut sup. Paul had St. The whole history of Abraham is made the subject of an elaborate The Talmudic treatise Mechilta expounds the verse at ' length Great is faith. 157 ff. his criticism might have had for those who spoke of ' faith ' as a mere matter of formal assent. He would have been aware that it was not his own way of putting things. p. Gen. Lft.thesis for discussions in the Jewish schools. " and he believed in the Lord. If we thus understand the real relation of the two Apostles. and He counted . Paul either was writing with direct reference to the other ? mean to controvert St. and he might have thought that such teaching was not intended for men at the highest level of spiritual attainment . Taking these examples with the lengthened discussions in St. Paul? had before him the Epistle of St. it will be easier to discuss their literary relation. If St. whereby Israel believed on Him that spake and the world was. Besides. 1 60). Now Bp. he would have found nothing to which he could seriously object. 6 was a standing .104 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV.. : findest that to Abraham our father inherited this world and the world come solely by the merit of faith. Paul and James. Lightfoot has shown {Galatians. the Holy Spirit dwelt in them . xv. whereby he believed in the Lord for it is said..

in places And like Rom. Paul.James's carefully guarded language. or against him in person. should . Paul's hearers had really understood him 1) and often more or less seriously distorted. but the same thing cannot be said of the antithesis of The controversy connected with this was Faith and Works. Paul's fanatical enemies. see Introduction § 8.. can grasp and appropriate. James sate in his place in the actually was) put upon it. it had its origin in the special essentially a Christian controversy and characteristic teaching of St. action. do. or The view which appears to us St. It seems to us therefore that the passages in the two Epistles have a real relation to that controversy.' find that the . and against the perverted construction which might be (and perhaps to some slight extent As St. thus. the most probable is that the argument of St. Church at Jerusalem. 1-8. We It does not follow that the relation was a literary relation. as Christian pilgrims of Jewish birth were constantly coming and going to attend the great yearly feasts. James is directed not against the writings of St. 148. James. which is also though not such as all more powerful in proportion as it is deeper. We are not sure It is true that the that we are prepared to go quite so far as this. He sounds a note of warning which seems to him of the matter. Hort. It is a satisfaction to view here taken is substantially that of Dr. 1 ff. and that there is no ground for supposing a controversial relation between them.. two complementary sets of truths. and so at least indirectly to each other.] that the THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 105 two New Testament writers are discussing independently of each other a current problem. We do not think that either St. suited to different types of mind and different circumstances. reach him. 'it seems more natural to suppose that a misuse or misunderstanding of St. bearing of Gen. of his brother Apostle's teaching. are We have at once the deeper principle of stated side by side. scarcely ever adequate (for how few of St. Paul. Paul. He does not assume that the reports which he has heard are full and true At the same time he states in plain terms his own view reports. Paul had seen the Epistle of St. especially from the flourishing Jewish colonies in Asia Minor and Greece. 6 was a subject of standing debate among the Jews . to be needed. 15 ff. vi. as yet the true centre and metropolis of the Christian world. and attacks no man's person. xv. it would be impossible but that versions. James the Epistle of St. Paul's teaching on the part of others gave rise to St. p. . He did what a wise and considerate leader would He names no names. shows to have been really needed. but against hearsay reports of his teaching. and the plainer * Besides what is said above. Paul.IV. have seen that there are strong reasons against this *. the scene of St. Judaistic Christianity. as so often in Scripture. Paul's labours and as there was always at his elbow the little coterie of St. and which the very language of St.

a seal affixed to a document.106 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [IV. confirmed by circumcision. as righteousness. The reason being that Abraham might have for his spiritual descendants the unIV. it could not be due to it or conditioned by be it. 9-12. the righteousness based on faith which was his before he was circumcised. 9 Here we have certain persons pronounced Certainly his ' happy. between God is said to and the . The declaration made to Abraham did not For it was made before he was circumcised . — which was 10. 6. 9-12. which is on a more every-day level and appealing the check and safeguard against possible misconstruction. viz. at once of believing his.' Is this then to be confined to the circumcised Jew. to It is faith that 10 credited Abraham it. ev arifieia diadrjKrjs Circumcision at its institution (Gen. cnjfieToi' irepiTOfiTJs. and Circumcision only came in after the fact. that of believing Jews but whose faith files who do not depend on their circumcision march duly in the steps of Abraham's faith his before his circumcision. FAITH ANT> CIRCUMCISION". practical teaching pitched to larger numbers. to ratify a verdict already given. xv. spiritual father alike The reason being that he might be the : of two divergent classes 12 . And circumstances of the case prove that Circumcision had nothing to do with was made 11 to him Was Abraham circumcised when No he was at the time ? : the declaration uncircumcised. St. who though uncircumcised have a faith like they too might be credited with righteousness and at the same time only. like And circumcision was given to him afterwards. depend upon Circumcision. to authenticate a state of things already existing. that Gentiles. the For there say was historical no mention of circumcision. n). Paul appeals to the historic fact that the Divine recognition of Abraham's faith came in order of time before his the one recorded in Gen. the other in circumcision : Therefore although it might be (and was) Gen. io ff. or ? may we it also apply to the uncircumcised Gentile is it may. xvii. 11. circumcised as well as the circumcised. xviii.

' Comp. and Hatch. p. and sealed His offspring with the sign of a holy covenant.t.IV. e. a sign consisting in circumcision/ 'which was circumcision. els t6 efrai. The true descendants of Abrawere not so much those who imitated his circumcision (i.' He also adduces a passage. in Paul's view looked beyond its immediate exclusiveness to an ultimate inclusion of Gentiles as well as Jews. The fact that so many heathen nations were circumcised proved that circumcision could not be the seal of a special covenant. also ' : ' ' Delitzsch). At a very early date the same term acppayU was transferred from the rite of circumcision to Christian baptism. Even St. Hibbert Lectures. A similar view is taken by Anrich. a new division was made. that all this was contemplated in the Divine purpose. Das collected ' ' . Delitzsch (ad loc. 6 {Clem. The prayer pronounced at the circumcising of o-<f>payi8a. Faith was the real motive power .e. ii. e. believing Jews and believing Gentiles). i. Abraham's faith in the promise had its counterpart in the Christian's faith in the fulfilment of the promise (i. Hatch connects the use of the term with the p. and refute. apa ovv kclkuvoi Ik ttjs SiaOrjKrjs . the strongest mark of Jewish separation. : avrwv tlcriv aWa Kal 01 Alyvirrtoi kv nepiTopr) daiv. 19 'Ye shall not eat of the passover unless the seal of Abraham be in your flesh. iii. antike Mysterienwesen in seinem ff. (cf. Gemara on Biccurim.) quotes one iraTcpa -ndvTOiv rStv moreuoi'Twi'. mysteries and some forms of foreign cult and it may have coalesced with language borrowed from these but in its origin it appears to be Jewish. aWa iras ~2. 120 a(ppayis is fully discussed. Shemoth B. and as applied to the present condition of things. and put His ordinance upon His flesh.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 107 circumcised. in Christ). Dr. of the prayers for the Day of Atonement in which Abraham is called the first of my faithful ones. all Jews whether believing or not). 1894). Einfluss auf das Christentum (Gottingen. See the passages by Lightfoot on 2 Clem.' Many other parallels will be found in Wetstein ad loc.X.' Some authorities (A C* al. . It was nothing more than a ratification of Abraham's faith. Rom.) read nepiTopfy. 8 The seal of circumcision is in your flesh as it was sealed in the flesh of Abraham'. vii. 7r(piToprjs is a genitive of apposition or identity. but those who imitated his els to denotes faith (i. circumcision. Blessed be He who sanctified His beloved a child runs thus from the womb. The gen. Jerus. 295. in which it is proved that even the proselyte may claim the patriarchs as his ^O^K because Thus ham • .. 226). 11. also Gebhardt and Harnack ad loc. 1. Targum Cant. where the Christian use of the word Barnabas (ix. 6) seems to refer to.vpos Kal "Apaxp Kal ttclvtcs 01 Upeis twv tldwXajv. the Jewish doctrine which he puts in the mouth of an objector dAA' eptts' Kal fx-qv TrfpiTtT/xrjTat 6 \ads (Is acppayida. k.

and to be rooted out of the earth. 20. depth or in marching abreast otoixw' (Wets. for he has broken the covenant of the Lord our God. And now I will announce unto thee that the children of Israel will not keep true to this ordinance. ™ 8ta irpooKoixfiaros iaQiovri xiv. and no passing over one day out of for it is an eternal ordinance. And every one that is born. has been some corruption. those who are circumcised one set of persons. but (he is destined) to be destroyed and slain from the earth. than pr) \jlqvov in this is £uyeii>. multitude .' 6m of Si' dKpoPuorias attendant circumstances as in 8ia ypapparos ko. meaning Pollux viii. tois CTToixoGo-t.' though in a state of uncircumcision. Abram became Abraham. The fierce fanaticism is of Circumcision : ' vividly . belongs riot to the children of the covenant which the Lord made with Abraham. . and they will not circumcise their . because he taught ' : ' them to believe. a slip of the pen in following St.' lit. omission of the art. ' our present copies. 9 t6 8e fiiiOos o-toIxos koKcItcu. But toIs ot. before o-roixovariv. with which the Jews insisted upon the rite brought out in the Book of Jubilees This law is for all generations for ever. the follow the certainly not St. and there is (xv. which meaning.and T. verse and in ver. 25 ff. and that this If the slip was not made by Tertius remained uncorrected. think that toT? may be the remains of an original avrols but that would not seem to be a very Or (2) we may think that Tertius made natural form of sentence. he was so/ the Glossator adds. 16 see Burton. sons according to all this law.108 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS ' [IV.). it must have been made in some very early copy. Paul's dictation. WH. for marching in On ov jaovov rather M. ' 11. for he belongs to the children of destruction . and those who : example of Abraham's faith another distinct set.1 irepiToprjs ii. is found in all We must suppose therefore either (1) that there existing MSS. 27.) no circumcision of the time. Jeivish Teaching on Circumcision. Paul's : parent of strictly to all (rroixoGai. the flesh of whose foreskin is not circumcised on the eighth day. is a solecism it would 12. He is speaking of Jews who This requires in Greek the are both circumcised and believe. ' the technical term for file. ' ' a great father of many nations. 12. nor is there moreover any sign on him that he is the Lord's. ordained and written the eight days on the heavenly tables. march in file ' : kcu to fiev efagrjs clviu Kara prjicos (vytuf to 8e ((pegrjs Kara fiddos eTOCgejl'. for in the flesh of their circumcision . himself. o-Toixew is a well-known military term. make is As it stands the art. § 481. .

It was his circumcision and anticia part in the act {ibid. Again the to declaration Abraham had nothing do tvith Law. because they have forsaken His covenant and turned away from His word. p. and that just those privileges and promises which the Jew connected with Circumcision ' ' ' were really due to Faith. that The reason being that Abraham might be the spiritual father of all believers. It only . 13-17. them. 253). Indeed it was just through holy seed. so also upon Law. according as they have not observed the ordinance of this law. Theol.IV. so that they may be removed and rooted And there will be no pardon or forgiveness for out of the land. Paul the current doctrine. patory fulfilment of the Law which qualified Abraham to be the father of many nations (ibid. 256). 51 f. Altsyn. will have their sons uncircumcised as they were born. 13 The promise made Messianic Another proof that Gentiles were contemplated as well as Jews. that the latter was wholly subordinate to the former. strikes by showing that Faith was prior to Circumcision. Gentiles as well as Jews. but on a righteousness which was dependent was not l4 If this world-wide inheritance really the product of Faith. and provoked and blasphemed. for they treat their members like the Gentiles. p. and all of them. so that there should be pardon and release from all the sin of this error for ever. there would be no place left for Faith or Promise Faith were an empty name and Promise a dead letter. sons of Belial. Faith and Promise which are the was made to For it turned on very antithesis of Law.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 109 they will omit this circumcision of their sons. : 15 For Law is in its effects the very opposite of Promise. depended upon any legal system. and if it was limited to those who were under such a system. as it was not dependent upon Circumcision. And there shall be great wrath from the Lord against the children of Israel. and that Gentiles might have an equal claim to the Promise.' So absolute is Circumcision as a mark of God's favour that if an Israelite has practised idolatry his circumcision must first be removed before he can go down to Gehenna (Weber.). PROMISE AND LAW. When Abraham was circumcised God Himself took p. 13-17.' This was his circumcision that Isaac was born of a And it was at the root of it that St. to Abraham and his descendants of world-wide rule. IV.

time of the Coming of Christ the attention of the whole Jewish race and in was turned to the promises contained in the O. the father of Gentiles as well as Jews. but that the true principles of things held out a prospect so much brighter and more hopeful. The immediate point which this paragraph is that Abraham might be. 81a yojxou t| : without art. i. 2 (irpoerrrjyyeiXaTo). For faith on man's side implies Grace. Grace. Law and Promise therefore are mutually 16 exclusive.e. . *. T. the guilt of sin. k. 'A I father' in spiritual fatherhood) 'of many xvii. * There is 4 Ezra iv. — had really intended. no transgression. or free So that the Promise depending as it favour. 5 nations have made thee Paul brings up the key-words of his and marshals them in array over against the leading points in the current theology of the Jews Law. there is Where — of all Christians (i. did not on Law but on these broad conditions. the one brings death. eirayYeXta: see on ch.110 serves to bring EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS down God's wrath by enhancing no law. on the side of God. it was a relief to find that it was not what God 13-17. not on Law and obedience to Law. In this section St.D. suggested to him by the verse which he quotes in proof of what has gone before. which implies a law to be transgressed. Hence it is that the Divine plan was made to turn.. Faith and Grace. 13. Paul glides after his manner into a new subject. ou ydp. and one which furnished such abundant justification for all that seemed new in Christianity. where the uses of At the the word and its place in Christian teaching are discussed. St. Merit. Because the working of this latter system had been so disastrous.' (fj/xav). there is [IV. in a true though The ulterior spiritual sense. Works or performance of Law. i. 2 to illustrate the diffusion of this idea of Promise among the Jews in the first century A. Christianity these promises were (so to speak) brought to a head and definitely identified with their fulfilment. The following examples : may be added ' to those quoted ' on ch. own system Faith. 27 non capiet portare quae in temporibus iustis a slight awkwardness in making our break in the middle of a verse and of a sentence. as it is expressly stated in Gen.t. . but on Faith. object of the whole argument is to show that Abraham himself 13. the other life. ending only in condemnation. is introduced to prove is rightly claimed not as the Jews contended by themselves but by Christians. Promise. but for all who could 17 Thus Abraham is the true ancestor lay claim to a faith like his.X. any system of law. might hold good equally for all Abraham's descendants not only for those who came under the Mosaic Law.

20. 4) taken as a type of the world-wide Messianic reign. nos vera mortalia opera egimus? 8cc Afioc ^ j ? ( - - e 2. vi. and oiKaio<ruVT. (11) that this son should have numerous descendants. should have a son and descendants like the stars of heaven. upon them and not upon Law.'s seed should enjoy world-wide dominion.>6>oi. the wrong called done as it were accidentally and unconsciously .P ° /p f *">»«* is vague and future the Christian idea 5 defimte and associated with a state of things already inaugurated. 236). The direct breach of a known a far law see is iii. or with Faith to which that Promise was annexed ? In that case Faith and Promise would be pushed aside and cancelled altogether. more heinous v. (2) others think that it must refer to the particular is • mWcus: this 'faith-righteousness' which St. ^ promise faith in which called down the Divine blessing— that A. it cannot be by the name of transgression.s 8iA before him of Abraham. . 8. ff. is vii. This verse is parenthetic. 15. proving that Law and Promise cannot exist and be in force side by side.' Se apocalyptic and eschato . but the whole series of promises goes together and it is implied (i) that A. They are too much opposed in their effects and operation. . Ex. 3. xii. what can it have to do either with the Promise originally given to Abraham. Law presents itself to St. cf. Syn.' such as were the Jews. But they cannot be cancelled . On this disastrous effect of Law 20.IV. xv 18 • 7 . 14. tLw^ S» . a code. the guilt of sin. If the right to that universal dominion P o. Paul has been describing as characteristic of the Christian. 13-15. like that of Moses. oi iK y6>ou: 'the dependants of law/ 'vassals of a legal system. 13. quid enim nobis 49 prodest si promissum est . 3 (ap. It irapripcKus the appropriate means : . p. matter. It increases So long as there is no commandment. What Promise is this? There l none in these words. Hence (i) some think that it means the possession of the Land of Canaan (Gen. xiii. xxvi. and therefore the inheritance must depend k\t. should have a son. 7 word for the direct violation of to overstep a line clearly defined peccare est transilire lineas Cicero.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM l Ill II \tJ Wical Th JCW1Sh is *» ™> relinquuntlundZt ^ IrfSl^ggZ^l?*'* Sp an ™<P»™ mundum quem promisisti ?!? T tha Z n these assa are ti sierSonon ingredientes ingressi fuerint qui vivunt ZtZi*™/™'' t non poterunt angustaet vana haec recipere quae sunt repostta = rd dZraGen * h x IO ) '** ff. nobis tmmortale tempus. Parad. rb K\r]P oy6 liov airbv €hai K6a iou. (111) that in One of those descendants the whole world should be blessed (iv) that through Him A. act is Paul chiefly in this light as entailing punishment. Probably this is meant in the first instance. 14 f xvn. which will belong to the Messiah and His people is confined to those who are subject to a law. Trench.

17-22. and it who 18 issues His summons (as He issued then) to generations yet unborn. to xv. Paul contents himself with a few bold strokes. 15. ABRAHAM'S FAITH A TYPE OF THE CHRISTIAN'S. and enabling him to become the father not of Jews only but of wideof spread nations. In his rapid and vigorous reasoning St. strength Abrahams Faith was remarkable its both for its and for believed object : the birth of Isaac in ' which the Abraham dead! might be described as a it is birth from 23-25. In this which rection is annexed a a ' like acceptance a type of the Christian s Faith^ to and which also has for the its object birth from dead ' the Death and Resur- of Christ. took its start.).) or fj eirayyiKia iariv from v. 16.e. a hundred years old) his own vital powers were decayed he took . ov 84 for ov yap is [IV. 14 (Lips. be. but as rr\v inayytXiau is defined just below it seems better to have recourse to some wider thought which shall include The Divine plan was. In such a God Abraham believed. = ' to the els whole chapter. which he leaves it to the reader to fill in. grounded in hope.ia eariv from V. this light "In (as Abraham is regarded by God before life whom he is lepresented as standing — that God who it infuses into the dead He was about to infuse into Abraham's dead body). from both these. Working round again all before the object of all these pre-arranged conditions call away with old blessings to i. 5) ' whom the Promise alluded when it said (Gen. Against all ordinary hope becoming a father he yet had faith. . understood if not directly expressed. IV.' to believing Gentile as well as to believing Jew. t6 etwu. 13 (Fri. 16. form the background. who in and to any true sense could same conclusion as was to do throw open the Messianic to the Abraham ' father. restrictions. Jk morews.' full Like the stars of the heaven shall thy descendants 19 Without showing weakness in his faith. the Providential ordering of things.— 1 13 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS 15. 'It was' faith. decisively attested (X ABC &c). he took note of the fact that at his advanced years (for he was now about . It is usual to supply with e< Trio-rem either T) Kkr)povop. Mey.' The bold lines of God's plan.

' issue His commands (iv) in the dogmatic sense 'to call. i. patrem frementis iurbae.). to put the crown and seal to the Atonement wrought by His Death.t. The tones down somewhat the strongly figurative expression of the Heb. (1) the Birth of Isaac. as we have a like faith. . seems to be negatived by as ovra. (iii) = 'to ' = ' . he gave praise to God for the miracle that was to be wrought in him. xvii. Bar. xvii. Gif. rightly points out. it was not Abraham alone who was in view 24 but we too the future generations of Christians. Of these (iv) may be put on one side as too remote from the context. The choice remains between (i) and (iii). SwottoioGi'tos maketh alive/ St. xxi. Paul has in his mind the two acts which he compares and which are both embraced under this word. p.IV. in Bibl.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 20 113 note of the barrenness of Sarah his wife. full 17. '6vra as Svraj. things non-existent as if they : LXX LXX Kcu-fVam ou cmoreucrc ©cou . 23 Now when all this was recorded in Scripture. (2) the Resurrection of Christ. to' (Mey. £ss.= 'to name. 25 who was delivered into the hands of His murderers to atone for our sins. On the Hellenistic use of the word see Hatch. If the former seems the simplest. 5.). Abraham believed on Him who caused the birth — : and we too on the same God who raised up from the dead Jesus our Lord. the latter is the more forcible rendering.X. credited to 22 And for this reason that faith of his was him as righteousness. power which he seemed to lack. Greek. KaXourros [to. Exactly from of Gen. irare'pa.). et (ii) existed' (Va. In favour of this view may also be quoted Apoc. 21 having a firm conviction that what God had promised He was the faith endowed him with able also to perform. and rose again to effect our justification (i. and (ii) as Mey. 5. 1 ff. speak of. who will find a like acceptance. 25).. p. = 'to call into being. and yet with the promise in view no impulse of unbelief made him hesitate his .). a-revae Karevavn : ' /jlt) : His creative fiat' (most or summon. e. commentators). or describe. e. qui vocasti ab initio mundi quod nondum erat. ingentis multitudinis populorum (Kautzsch. and as such more in keeping with the imaginative grasp of the situation displayed by St. and believe at the of Isaac from elements that seemed as good as dead same time to evoke the faith which makes the Atonement effectual). Paul. . 4 qui fecisti terram audi me . There are four views (i) ko\. issue call. or invite to life and salvation (Fri. attraction for Karlvavri Qfov « «rtdescribing the posture in which Abraham is represented as holding colloquy with God (Gen. k. 17.

(and pass. 8toKpivtaBai mid. has a much wider range than in the earlier language. on 1 Cor." (virdpxtiv) is difficult it seems to mean sometimes " to be originto be substantially or fundamentally. some MSS. of Vulg. Lat. Rom. and is therefore negatived by the dependent negative (ifi and not by the absolute ov. 4.' except that being weakened should be rather ' showing weakness or becoming weak. 31) or persons (Acts xv. and Sac.. ' : vnrApxwv: 'being already about a hundred years old. and therefore did not doubt. T. EPISTLE TO For the use of THE ROMANS koXcIp [IV. praesto esse' last Schmidt) '*. in Journ. of Vulg. dasein. xi. Synonymik.' or 'contend' (Acts xi. iii. of Class. Syr. 9 1 Cor. ouTws e<rrcu Gen.' but with the underlying idea that his faith in this was but carrying out the great Divine purpose which ordered all these events. M. 19. vi. 2 Jas. Philol. Orig. 5 (LXX). ' The New Testament use of nrj with a participle .' : * ' .' The other senses are all found in LXX (where the word occurs some thirty times). but that vnapxtiv denotes a present state as a product of past states. 26 : 'the ally. (i) to ' discriminate.. gr. ov Kartvorjo-e NA DEFGKLP &c. It is however well ijnap£is. u. In the latter case the sense will be. ? See esp. though it is more probable that the negative has come in from the Old Latin and that it was not recognized by Jerome). as in Demosthenes." ' This is well expressed in RV. (including _/*/</. xv. 5). 20. and yet did not doubt' ov unrevoke.' Both readings are also early: but the negative ov mtcv6t)<t( is clearly of Western origin. : ' ' ' ' § J 45- KaT€v<5T)a€ B C some good cursives. . xvi. S.) = [\) 'to get a decision. 18. bis. see also the note ' on ix. It is viewed as an accident or condition of the principal event described by the finite verb. 19 . Boh. Lat. ' 114 obediunt tibi.^ do-0€VT|o-as. but this is wanting. existere. : = become the : = Comp.-Harcl.. Pesh. Lft.' 'doubt. 3 cf.. and T. Epiph. dtaKpivav act.' See also Burton. or at least a state in present time as related to past time (' vor/iandensein. al. Schmidt. and others . (including am). ov 8i6Kpt0T] did not hesitate (tovt{<ttiv ovSl htSoiaaev ovSl dpupePa\( Chrys.. vii. Yet this is no violation of principle. is a case in point whether we retain ov or omit it with Lachm. p. iv. § 74.' May we not say that (Tfat denotes a present state simply as present. some MSS. 1 Cor. Evans in Sp. 'without being weakened.' or 'distinguish between two things (Matt.-lat. 17-20. iv. he did consider. as not to be weak in the (?) faith. (ii) to 'be divided against oneself.' ' dispute. Jude 9). adesse. 29. " to be stored in readiness. Comm. (ii) to 'arbitrate' between two parties (1 Cor. Both readings give a good sense Karevorjae." An idea of propriety sometimes attaches to it: comp.' 'waver. Chrys. 4. but rather an extension of a particular mode of looking at the subordinate event contained in the participial clause." or. "he so considered his own body now dead. Orig. word "property" or "substance. : * . (which probably here preserves Origen's Greek). 106 n." The word however asks for further Comp. he did not consider. 7 below. Ambrstr. ii.). investigation. . =diiudicare... 7). €is to yeviaQai &crre yeveadai his faith enabled him to father.-lat. and must probably be set down to Western laxity the authorities which omit the negative are as a rule the most trustworthy. .' 'litigate.

ap. (^eveSwapcadr) (Is irai8oyoviav Tjj wia-Tti' rj (V(8vvapaidq The other (common) interpretation is preferred by irpbs tt)v via™). : = ' According to the Talmud. I Chron. to vevcKpafievov li/eSuyajAwGir] rfj respect. but appears to have had its beginning in near Jas. The two words seem to belong to the same cycle of ideas. 23 6 bi SiaKpivofXiVos. Paul compares the miraculous birth of Isaac with the raising of Christ from the dead. Chrys.-Zig. like rfj dma-nq. 20.e. &c). Jac. 19.-Zig. where it appears as the proper opposite of mans mareua}.. And we can urn die Zeugung zu vollbringen (Weber. of 'he was strengthened in his faith.] THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM : 11^ established for N. It is not likely to be in the strict sense a Christian coinage.— : IV.' In favour of this would be and the surrounding terms (p^KplOt). xxi. 7r\-qpo(f>opT)d(is) rfi 7n'o-T« above might seem to point to a mental process.iv els . v€V€Kpcopevov). KarafioXrjv aTTfpparos tkafie Kal irapa Kaipbv rjKiKtas to. II. In the name of Isaac was found an indication that with him the history the Holy One began to work wonders' {Beresh. p. xvi 28.^1 oiafcpidy \v rfj napbiq. vii. 256).(uis 8(lrai nXdovos. Kal ravra aarpa tov ovpavov rw TrXrjBet (observe CSp. 'his faith was dadevfjo-as strengthened. who appears to have had it directly in mind comp. 5. Heb.T. ^ . 12 nia-Tei Kal avrr) "lappa bvvap. vi.g.\. &c. . But it is of course a wholly new point when St. prjoiv 8iaKpiv6/xevo$ : also probably Jude 22. 20 irepl rfjs irapaooOriarjs aoi d\i]0(ias oiaKpiOrjoji 40 irepl tov p6vov Kal dyaOcw ®tov StaKpiOrjvai. 6) Clem. seems to get his 6 itlanv VfveKpcopevov. But it is tempting to make tjJ iriam instrumental or causal. 1 Sam. Sous o<5 5 ai': a Hebraism: cf. k. 21 kav tx rTr( iri-OTtv. avrov d\a maTtvy : : Rom. in seiner : xi. . . Weber. Allsyn. eine neue Creatur {Bammidbar Rabba xi).. James.. 6 alrdnv Si like use is found in Christian writings of the second century and later: e. Homil. It is remarkable that a use which (except as an antithesis to marcveiv) there is no reason to connect specially with Christianity should thus seem to be traceable to Christian circles and the Christian line of tradition.a>dri). Kal /xi) 5iaicpi6f)Te Mark xi. Protev. 1. Abraham wurde Natur erneuert. So Matt. avrov o-wp-a €V€dvuap. (quoted by Mayor on i. would then endowed with power by means of his faith (sc. 11 aicovaaaa de Mapidp SieKpiOrj kv (avrfj \iyovaa. Herm.. hardly doubt that the passage was taken in this way by the author of Heb.t. came into existence With him with him ' the people of revealed Religion — 1 2 . Rom. from whom Euthym. Didachi. Theol. p.1v €Xa/3r. 816 Kal d(f) hos iycvvr)6r)(rav. Josh.' i. 8vvap. 256). proximity to Christianity. Rabba liii. KO-TaKttcpiTat. : parallel case is that of the word Uif/vxos (St. : of Revelation began.. i. on ovk Ik iriarews iv mora. Kal p. Clem. rfj nlaret is here usually taken as dat. The Talmud lays great stress on the Birth of Isaac. or confirmed. This sense is also distinctly recognized by Euthym. The parallel consists not only in the nature of the two events both a bringing to life from conditions which betokened only death but also in the faith of which they were the object. Ka6a>s €7n8(iKvvp(vos 8vvdp. rfj mar. . (olv <payfi. xiv. 23 6s &v (tiry . ii. to which it ' he was stands in immediate antithesis eWS. A morci. A Jas.

who is followed by Meyer. Paul. to bring it about. Wetstein also quotes Taanith ii. xl. 5 Col. ii. the assurance of the special character of the object of that faith. and the stimulus to that moral relation of the Christian to Christ in which the victory which Christ has won becomes his own victory. Col. a word common amongst the Stoics.-Vet. ch. vi. Which it is in any particular case must ' = be determined by the context. Paul asserts that 'to us who believe. the proof that the Sacrifice which is the ground of justification is an accepted sacrifice. ' because of our to irapanr. things the meaning is more doubtful: cf. 1. 'in order to atone for them/ In any case 8m ttjv bucnimmv is prospective. de Ninevitis non dictum est: et respexit Deus saccum eorum. xiv. " ' ' pp. tois iTKneuouaiv Not ' if we believe. p. Here 8m ' = trespasses . St. 12. 109. 81' ainbv 6vov. 5 .' 24. 1-11). The manifold ways in which the Resurrection of Christ is connected with justification will appear from the exposition below. may be retrospective. but prospective with reference to the execution.e. inasmuch as the idea or motive precedes the execution. with a view to our conceived as a motive. 21. Vulg. The Place of the Resurrection of Christ in the teaching of St. (which made the death of Christ necessary) or it may be prospective. 8 'Thou findest that all 23. where some take it as accomplished ' (so Lat. 108. 17 and fully or satisfactorily proved. 21-25. . Paul. See also the notes on ch.' especially Thess. iv. R.Il6 EPtSTLE TO THE ROMANS 7r\r}po<jx>(Ha [XV. as Gif. Beresh. . Gifford's two excellent notes i. 5. On others as Revision. justification/ because of our justification See Dr. 'because of our trespasses/ i. 142): see note ad loc. because of: but primarily retrospective. It is at once the great source of the Christian's faith. fills an immense place in the teaching and the fact that it does so accounts for the emphasis and care with which he states the evidence for it (1 Cor. 5-8. and Delitzsch ad loc). 81a with ace. 2 . Tr\T]po<})opT]0eis: i = 'full assurance/ 'firm conviction. as used of persons. 1 Fratres nostri. Sid may be retrospective with reference to the idea. = ' assured or convinced/ as here. xv. iv. The Resurrection of Christ of St. is (sine artic).e. be fully As used of to = ' = ' : which would be invTevovaiv 25.' his readers are among the class of believers. RV. i. that is recorded of Abraham is repeated in the history of his children' (Wetstein. 2 Tim. Hence Trkr)po<f>opii<r6ai.' Luke i. text Lft.

i-n. In virtue of his union with Christ. intimate relation of his spirit with Christ's. Rom. vi. and that the cloud of Divine Wrath the dpyrj so long suspended and threatening to break (Rom. But if the Victim of the Cross had been man and nothing more. Rom. that . But would have been nothing to show at least no clear and convincing sign to show— that He who died upon the Cross was more than man. p. xv. 2 Cor. Schader. Herr Schader (who since writing his treatise has become Professor at Konigsberg) insists strongly on the personal character of the redemption wrought by Christ that which redeems is not merely the act of Christ's Death but His Person (kv w 6x°At£J/ T V V o. . without wholly endorsing. Hort's ' significant aphorism Reconciliation or Atonement is one aspect of redemption. spiritual sense is the recent monograph on the subject of this note (E. vi. is called this And moral and them. iv. xv. Die Bedeutung des lebendigen Christusfilr die Rechtfertigung nach Paulus. xv. 20-23. the Sacrifice — of of Christ is the strongest guarantee for the resurrection of the Christian (1 Cor. 25. 1 Cor. Gutersloh. Cor. 25 . i. And therefore in certain salient passages (Rom. The Resurrection is proof that this * Wrath is at an end. The treatise is well deserving of study.] (i) THE FAITH OF ABRAHAM 117 Resurrection is the most conclusive proof of the Divinity of Christ (Acts xvii.— IV. 14. 34) the Resurrection is even put before the Death of Christ as the cause of justification. i. This is the thought which lies at the bottom that Sacrifice the . 15). We only sense in which he can repeat shall have this doctrine fully expounded in ch. It may be right also to mention. 18). vi. 13. i. In yet another way the Resurrection proved the efficacy of the Death of Christ. and resurrection one aspect of life' \Hulsean Lectures. v. 10 .no\vTpa}(Tiv Eph i. a future rising again to physical and moral a present rising from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. 17). there would have been no sufficient reason for attaching to His Death any peculiar efficacy the faith of Christians would be 'vain. viii. Col. 7 Col. It is as a Person that He takes the place of the sinner and endures the Wrath of God in his stead (Gal. This can more readily be accepted if ' one aspect in each case is not taken to exclude the validity of other aspects. (iv) The Resurrection n (v) But that resurrection has two sides or aspects life. the Christian upon to repeat in himself the redeeming acts of Christ. Rom. and redemption one aspect of resurrection. 210). 2 Cor. (ii) As proving the Divinity of Christ the Resurrection is also The His Death. 9. viii. 17-25. . The Resurrection placed (1 (iii) upon stamp of God's approval it showed that was accepted. 14. 4 . there the most decisive proof of the atoning value of — .' they would be 'yet in their sins' for the Resurrection. iii. At the same time such a saying is useful as a warning. which is especially needed where the attempt is being made towards more exact definitions. 21). Dr. 14). iii. ' : ' A . 31. : it is not only physical. 7-10. the close and but it is also spiritual. iv. 1893) has worked out in much careful detail the third of the above heads. Without the Resurrection the Sacrifice of Calvary would have been incomplete. 26) had passed away.

this reserve exegesis may well seem to lead to a revived Scholasticism. The nearer consequences. the object of our the sheltered circle of that favour faith (iv. V. and 5 that in turn strengthens the hope out of which it originally sprang. because (and here a new factor introduced. but we exult hope of one day 3 participating as in the favour of God so also in His glory. of great doctrines have a relative rather than an absolute value. whose Death and Resurrection. endurance and then fortitude leads on to the approved courage of the veteran. They We BLISSFUL CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION. are partial symbols of ideas which the human mind cannot grasp in If we could see as God sees we should doubtless find them their entirety.8 II all definitions EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 1-4) the remoter consequence. Christians then ought to enter We upon our privileges. More : our hope is one that cannot prove is illusory first is . floods our hearts with the conscious- . 25). peace with God and hope which gives cotirage under persecution (vv. the second step (our ultimate salva- follows naturally from the first (vv. Within we stand as Christians. so far from being shaken by per- secutions actually founded upon them. 1-11. of our final salvation and glory. Yes. By that strong Christ's it and eager impulse with which we enroll ourselves as we may be accepted as righteous in the sight of God. through whom God Spirit brought into man — that Holy which we received when we became Christians. Without it exact in regard to our own attempts to define. have brought us within the range of the Divine favour. and becomes our duty to enjoy to the full the new state of peace 2 He it is with Him which we owe to our Lord Jesus Messiah. sJionld The state which thus lies before the Christian have consequences both near and remote. and this exultation is of ours. in no in the merely passive attitude. or resolute For persecution only under trials 4 : generates fortitude. 5-11). desire to make running up into large and broad laws of His working. an : assurance. derived from the proof of God's love. 1-11. The first step (our present acceptance with God) tion) 1 is difficult . for the time in this connexion) the Holy personal contact with Spirit.

1-11. the second costs nothing. a place of sanctuary. it is clear throughout this context. the end of the last chapter recalls St. 25 ankQavi V. That change he attributes ultimately. but cannot shake it. and his intense hold upon the objective facts which are the grounds of a Christian's confidence. the first much more now we are reconciled to we were Him. 1-11. 11 bis) but more particularly to the Death of Christ (irapedoOr) iv. 6. not merely in general terms to Christ (did v. 2. The fact that we have been actually declared righteous by coming within the influence < ' of Christ's sacrificial Blood— this fact which implies a stupendous change in the whole of our what there is is far easier — our escape If relations to God final is a sure pledge of 10 from His judgement. and from its shelter he looks out exultingly over the physical dangers which threaten him they may . 6 Think what are the facts to which we can appeal. 1. He con9 ceives of that Death as operating by a sacrificial blood-shedding (eV aXfian: cf. but as godless sinners ! 7 there qualities of goodness) one here and there 8 face death. iv ra> aijtiart V. Paul's personal experience. strengthen his firmness of purpose. Within this he is safe. but follows naturally from the share which we have in His Life. The word diKaiaartv at Paul to his main topic. though perhaps for a good man (with the loveable ! righteous men. at the moment of our deepest despair. ™ 1. may be brave enough to But God presses home the proof of His unmerited Love towards us. 9 Here then is an a fortiori argument. After expounding the nature of his new . If • Death of His Son.. Christ died for us. in that. but we are buoyed up by an exultant sense of that nearness to God into which we have been brought by Christ to whom we owe that one great step of our reconciliation. 25 and the passages referred to in the Note on the Death of Christ considered as a Sacrifice). io). sinners as we still were. and forms a sort of hallowed enclosure. n And not only do we look for this final salvation. Every line of this passage breathes St. into which he enters. God that intervened for us while His enemies. He believes that the ardour with which he himself sought Christian baptism was met by intervention cost the an answering change in the whole relation in which he stood to God. For a double contrast. The Blood of that Sacrifice is as it were sprinkled round the Christian. 8ta tov davdrov V. . 8. Christ died for us—not as ness of the Love of What a proof of love was For an upright or righteous man it would be hard to find one willing to die.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 119 God for us. iii. V. When we were utterly weak and prostrate.

. 25 also in vv. Did. aor. and others exwp-ey.-lat. (strictly the Legal System which had its charter in the O. (ii) that o and <o are frequently interchanged in the MSS. (1). 9. place: 'inference not exhortation is the Apostle's purpose' (duplicate G MSS. 120 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS (iii.). Introd. 27-31. As to the ' meaning of peace. Vulg. and substitutes for it a state of peace which he has only to realize. The : ^ * : be remembered) in the Greek though not in the Latin. in Clearly overwhelming authority for three places out of four. Epiph. he had begun to deathblow to Jewish This Gentile) in iii. Syrr. Aeth. diKaicuQiVTes in relation to dpr\vr)v ex Al€I'' He contends that it denotes not so much the reason for entering upon the state ct.) discusses the exact shade of meaning conveyed by the aor. and the equality of Jew and 21-26). 31 rj fxev elprjvrjv Aa/3eii> Kal boQelaav Karaax^v Chrys. iv. xv. 12 . under by a heartfelt embracing of Christianity. part. T. as in this very word Gal. 4).: . . viii. repeatedly Chrys. Agar Beet (Comm. part. Paul is apt to pass from arguweight of direct testimony. ' ' . but are 8m rot) Kvpiov f]p£>v 'I^o-ov Xpio-rot) how is explained more fully in iii. he is that the Christian faces persecution and death so joyfully has a deep spring of tranquillity at his heart. ad loc. It is argued however (i) that exhortation is here out of %x<»pev. (15). Dr.-Alex. T. Arm. but Now he goes back to 'consequences' and rather the contrary. method of obtaining righteousness in draw some of the consequences from pride. ment to exhortation. (iii) it is possible that a mistake might have been made by Tertius in copying or in some very early MS. S. to prove that notwithstanding there was no breach of God's purposes as declared in the O. ' : Evans). we should have ' (T. Boh. .' ' not = make ' ' ' ' ' ovv eKKkrja-ia . e'x e " »W*Vi continued ' in a state of peace '). suggested the digression in ch. Acts ix. [V. and a confident hope this (the : of future glory. 1 Cor. 380 ed. F evidence for this reading stands thus ix M v K cursives.. 10 below. AB*CDEKL. %x . at once does away with the state of hostility in which he had stood to God.»Vxv & should be observed that it does obtain peace ' (which would be or get ffX&ptp). (i) St. 1. The of the state elprjvrjv The declaration of not guilty/ which the sinner comes ex<opev. P and many cursives. He explains why it traces them out for the individual Christian. but rather keep ' or enjoy peace (ov ydp ia-nv laov pfj ovaav cf. vi. J. it will (Scrivener. 10 (cf. from which the mass of the uncials and versions now extant may have deBut these reasons seem insufficient to overthrow the scended. 49) . ex°ll€V correctors of N B. . SiKatco&Wes initial ' marks the moment This declaration of not guilty and the peace which follows upon it are not due to himself. 12. Cyr. ii. Ambrstr. so in the near context vi. (ii) in e'xapev inference and exhortation are really combined it is a sort of light exhortation.. Orig.

B D E F G. Either reading can be easily enough accounted for. 2. 'our introduction/ is a connecting link between this Epistle and Ephesians (cp. "through whom we have by faith got or obtained our access into this grace wherein we stand. a). See on iii. or 8 only?). in one.-Thay.' aor. All the other evidence is Western. at the same state of oo£a. RV.V.). s. but) in full measure when he enters into that Presence .-lat. marks the initial means of entering upon tenable on the score of grammar and it in question as the d in the state. and SiKcuwd. 12) the idea is that of introduction to the presence-chamber of a monarch. tV Trpo(7aY wY^. as we have said. S Evans in 'Exp. conceived of as a space fenced in (Mey. The phrase time that it is a characteristic of the points forward to a future — obtained. Both grammar and logic will run in perfect harmony together if we render. man's whole being will be transfigured by it. 2. &c. .. Christ faith the hand which moves the door to open and to admit' (T. 169). though different language is used about them diK<u<»&W i. Lat. = « obtain peace. Va. Eph. Gal. v. d). v.. 1. 23. . There is the further point that omissions in the Western text deserve more attention than additions. the door' €is who 4 : v. 2. and Grm. The balance is sufficiently represented by placing tj) marei in brackets as Treg. Christ: the other subjective. iv. as an obvious gloss on the one hand or the omission of a superfluous phrase on the other. The weight of this evidence depends on the value which we assign to B.' which we have seen to be erroneous. : iir eXmSi as in 18.) into which the Christian enters cf. and Grm.-Thay. |X. but 'we have got or : • ' state of X "pis. It is the Glory of the Divine Presence (Shekinah) communicated to man (partially here. iax^Kofiev: not 'we have had' (Va. 'stand fast or firm' (see Va. 111. r% ir£o-T€i om. WH. 121 moment it. the KavX r. 2 npoorayoyi. i. mare (Weiss * v omits). 18.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION . Two stages only are described in vv. The sense is exactly that of x * v tlpfap in the passage quoted from the Acts. bis. as it leaves out of sight the fact that we do not come in our own strength but need an introducer Christ. x dpts 3. ' and perf.(ns r. 1 Pet..' But the argument goes too much upon the assumption that dp. taTTjpi 3 ii. -ri\v xapii' Taimyr the ' state of grace' or condition of those are objects of the Divine favour. so that the question is whether the omission here in B is an independent corroboration of the Western group or whether it simply belongs to it (does the evidence . : co-TYiKajxcj/ 12 (Va." This rendering will bring to view two causes of getting the access or obtaining the introduction into the state of grace one cause objective. 1882.v. npoo-ay. s.p 4 8. faith. No doubt this is perfectly is also true that 'justification necessarily involves peace with God. elprjurj = xdpc : =^ S . Orig. Tfjs 8o'£t]s. and B also (as we have seen) has a Western element. The rendering 'access' is inadequate. Vet. ii.

Rom. But Ritschl also claims the support of the earlier Epp. e. 32 vnep els f]p. viii. (cf. even all their sins . and more particularly in the : . § 82 b. rfv but also in I Jo. Bibl.: : e. 43 of ff. 2. referred to by Schader). Col.t. 9 f. 18. (2) The second argument is derived from the exegesis of the N»T. it is true. . IO iT€pterrotr](TaTO bia roii alficiTos tov Ibiov 1 Pet. 1. Theol. 160). and because of their transgressions. . The society is. p. v. even all their sins' This argument gains in force from (Lev. such. Iva XvrpaxrrjTiU fffias . and (Comp. T. Tit.g. because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel. reply the ii. xii. iii. x. 2 iv. 102 n.g. accomplished once for all. 6? eavra Xabu . Kvpiov]. but all the congregation ' of Israel are to keep it (Ex. And : still more the high priest is to 'make atonement for the holy place. u. generally (most clearly perhaps in Acts XX. irepiovaiov 7rape8ancev I Eph. Is the Society or the Individual the proper object of Justification ? It is well known to be a characteristic feature of the theology of Ritschl that he regards the proper object of Justification as the Christian Society as a collective whole. Epistles of St. he is to lay both his hands on the head of the goat. It is natural to think of it as having children of Israel. 16.). The great (i) The first is derived from the analogy of the O. . V. . most clearly indicated in the later Epp. and confess over him all the iniquities of the distinctly as to the ritual of the ' ' Day Atonement all their transgressions. 25 f. T. also Gloel. 2<) U. 21. 28 t))v eKKkqviav rov Oeov [v. Paul does use language which This points to the direct justification of the individual believer. Recht: of Ritschl appeal to the distinctly individualistic cast of such expressions as Rom. also ml eavrbv Eph.X. . 14). 6 Xpiarbs rj-yaTrrjo-e rrjv eKitkrjaiav. sacrifices of the O.. 216 f. ii. Apoc. xvi. Clt. 1. 5 f . 18.. Paul.. Weiss. Op. i. 47).H>v iravrcov napedooKev 2 2 diKaioavvT) 8e Oeov . X. ii. avTOv iii.) the concentration of the Christian Sacrifice upon a single event. 5 e7ri rbv diKaiovvra rbv acre fir/. ###BOT_TEXT###gt;. Der Heilige Geist. Kadaplaas k. vnep avrjjs' tva avrrjv dyiacrj] i. 14 o-arripos ripvv '1. 4 els 8lKClLO(TVVT)V TTaVTl TTKTTeVOVTl TW . with the context In critics : Versohn. iii. and not the individual as This view is based upon two main groups of arguments. and also a single and permanent object.. : (Schader. ii. It is undoubtedly true that St. Kai Kadapiar) ebanev eavrbv vwep rj/xcov.1 21 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V.' for down expressly that no alien is to eat of it. ) cf. iii. . also 33 f. 12. navras tovs TriarevouTas the repeated ypels in the contexts of three passages fert. 26 biKdiovvra t6v eK ni<TTf(os 'irjtrov iv. were undoubtedly meant in the first instance So in regard to the Passover it is laid the congregation.

and future. It is thus neither in a spirit of exclusiveness nor yet in that of any hard and fast Scholasticism. often drops the intervening link. consummated once for all and in its effects reaching down through the ages it is in Rom. But in proportion as his maturer insight dwells more and more upon the Church as an organic whole he also conceives of it as doing for the individual believer what the congregation did for the individual Israelites under the this ' .] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 123 no an ideal entity. must remember also that in the age and to the thought of Paul the act of faith in the individual which brings him within the range of justification is inseparably connected bt. especially in the earlier Epistles. as the Church is in this connexion faith perhaps comes out most clearly We But this entity is prior in less natural to let the mind dwell on the conception which alone embraces past. on relation is about (in the next chapter) to lay there. may if we like. stress tion in baptism. thought to the members who compose it and when we think of the Great Sacrifice as . 2.' And even the condition of baptism is introduced as an inseparable adjunct to faith. And therefore when at the beginning of chapter he speaks of the entrance of the Christian into grace in metaphors which present that state under the fenced-off enclosure. The Christian theologian has to do with what is normal the abnormal he leaves to the Searcher of hearts. and it is perhaps the more natural that he should do so. We with its ratifica- But the significance of baptism lies in the fact that whoever undergoes it is made thereby member of a society and becomes at once a recipient of the privileges and immunities of that society. the greater might be taken to include the less. describes the of spiritual union into which the Christian enters with St. 1. as St. it is natural to identify the area within which grace and justification operate with the area of the society. But need we on that account throw over the other passages above quoted. that we speak of Justification as normally mediated through the Church. present. iv. in other words with the Church. which seem to be quite as unambiguous? That which brings benefit to the Church collectively of necessity brings benefit to the individuals of which it is composed. but only in accordance with the free and natural tendencies of the Apostle's thought. as well as elsewhere. where the personal and personal justification of Abraham are taken as typical of the Christian s. and alone binds all the scattered particulars into unity. so that if through any exceptional circumstances the two were separated. He Christ as established the society. The Church however of the present the state of figure of a in member by the same act which makes him also connexion can have no narrower definition than all baptized persons. St. leave out of sight the intervening steps. Paul very often does. as we have seen. Paul this point. ' ' . Paul himself.V.

Paul. in iii. (cf. writers 98 [Bensly = vi. verum etiam exultantes Tert. 28. 1 ff .. The Tewish vii. prob vero spes vero Hil. 10 viii. which iv. . Orig. Hilary with changed and in this instance Tertullian goes with Cyprian. as pressura are venhed tor the European texts. v. v. Clarom.. bis and others a good group. fidebunt non confusi. 19 . . another place Hilary has allusively tribulatio : 5 - - . est nobis. of The Day Christian Sacrifice with effects. 35. . 19). - . quia dilectio Dei infusa est cordibus nostris per Spiritum Sanctum qui datus est autem. 1 Rom. . ov jmSiw oe ({<TTT)Kaiiev d\a <al Kav X Kav^fxevot) : in this elliptical esp. 22. sed et gloriamur in tribulatiombus saentes quod tribuoperatur. doubtless due.viii 35. c^o is excluded Note the contrast between the Jewish fca^cm which The one rests on supposed 27) and this Christian Karats. 42 John xiii. Cyprian.) . iv> \V £' 4} dilectio (to which also Col. . Cod. et Non solum aictem. i. (ed. the Bible of the Spaniard Priscillian {Classical Review. with that of Hilary (tribulatio represents The passage is also quoted in the so-called Speculum (m). 35 Rom . also found a similar group. a>^da. ii. probatio autem spem . Paul reprehends). matter tol. Fritzsche] exultabunt cumfiducia know : . : but open to suspicion KavYiiaevoi B C. (Cod. the human privileges and merit. 416 f.) Luke xi. xii. n . If «av X structure which is example of that broken and somewhat inconsecutive to an amanuensis. . quia caritas Dei diffusa est in cordibus^ Non solum . enough to give colour But the salient expressions are that a single translation lies at their root. F. . its it older dispensation. to the habit of dictating . 3-5 The two leading types of the Old-Latin Version of the Epistle stand able to compare the out distinctly in these verses. viii. ' 124 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. assurance of Divine love. there is a considerable amount of to the supposition to all forms of the Version. . I2 1 Cor vii 28 2 Cor l 8. 24. i. Or iarrjKOTfS ak\a k<u 3. certi quod Tert.). group of Epistles form characteristic of St. 39 * Cor nil. Thess. . though note however that Hilary and Tertullian agree in perficit iperfiaat). 11 (q. as Va. scicntes quoniam pressura tolerantiam operatur. which St. vero Tert. 14). 72 O. The renderings tolerantia and Here as elsewhere . probatio autem stem . but et of another mix*)™ (besides the empty boasting Paradise 4 Ezr. vii. Apoc. spes vero Tert. as but which is found in the quotation does not extend in this passage. tolerantia autem probationem. spes autem non confundit. patientia patientiam latio autem probationem. on the of conforming to ver. suggests. Vindob. perficit Hil. We are fortunately confundit) and the Cyprianic text with that of Tertullian (non solum confundit). 2-5. spes aictem non confundit. the other draws all its force from ' (iii. Clarom. .) we have were right it would be another t whole inferior. ^Aj . Paul and ix. like is typified. 1 4 pressura Tertullian elsewhere {tolerantia Luke xxi. common in Epp. perficiat Tert. Clarom. m). 2 Thess. 5 - We ! in Perhaps this coincidence may point to an older rendering. 4. m Hil.. it is reserved for the blest in conet . European text of Cod. . gaudebunt non reverentes. the sacrifices of the reach the individual Atonement by which through the community. &c . 23 2 Cor. sed gloriamur in pressuris. nostris per Spintum Sanctum qui noo is datus . . patientiam operatur. of this viii.

33 t) q. our sense of God's love. xv. 1 Pet. James i. is that the hope which It is quite intelligible as a fact of experience in its origin doctrinal should be strengthened by the hardening and bracing of character which come from Still the ultimate basis of it is the overwhelming sense of God's love.' (' : ix. 8ict necufAdTos 'Ayiou without the art.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 125 iv tcus e\u|/€<ri. vii. &c. 37 the whole passage is parallel. Aug. He is so absorbed in his Gospel' that this makes very little impression upon him. 4. Rom. : 6. Soicip) the temper of the veteran as opposed to that of the raw recruit .' just as flp^wj our sense of peace with God. Paul seems to have had in his mind Is.' See on ii. Such passages give us glimpses of the stormy background which lies behind St. tude. dyd-rrT) tou Oeou ' ' love for God : = ' ' : My : . 3 to 8oKipiov t^ ttiWgjs produces : : James had seen this Epistle (which is doubtful) we might suppose that he had this passage in his mind. « exultation of spirit that bodily suffering not only weighs like dust in the balance but positively serves to strengthen his constancy. 3-5. V. brought home through the Death of Christ actual conflict. and the assurance by which this was followed he that believeth shall not be put to shame ') was confirmed to them by their own experience the verse is directly quoted Rom. ii. the overwhelming sense of God's mercy and love fills him with such Christian. t) 8e Sokijxt) c'XiriSa. 3 I will pour water upon him that is thirsty. as this chapter shows. 12. St. 26-32.fi must not be pressed too far in St. for the Spirit as imparted..' eKKe'xuTai. The idea of spiritual refreshment and encouragement is usually conveyed in the East through the metaphor of watering. 1 Cor. 3-10. ou Kcn-cno-x^i ' The text Is. &c). 23-27.. The conception is that of 2 Tim.' &c. If St. 2 Cor. The exact order of iiropoul} and 80Kip. xxviii. ii. 11-13. does not disappoint. The ffKtycu are the physical hardships and sufferings that St. and to this the Apostle returns. xliv. v. Paul's Epistles. James i.' 16 (LXX) caught the attention of the early Christians from the Messianic reference contained in it (' Behold. 3 (in the revised as well as the received vTrofiovfj. 30-32. 35 ff. Paul regards as the inevitable portion of the viii. . uTTopon^ not merely a passive quality but a masculine constancy in holding out under trials (Waite on 2 Cor. certainly ' the love of God for us. ' : 5. iv.' not * our (Theodrt. < forti4). vi. cf. and streams upon the dry ground I will pour Spirit upon thy seed. I lay in Zion. xi. and some moderns) dydnrj thus comes to mean. 7 above. cf. Indeed. The same feeling comes out in the inepviK^v of viii. : : ' ' the character which results from the process of trial. i. text).' does not prove illusory..

6. e. Paul refers all his conscious experience of the privileges of Christianity to the operation of the Holy Spirit. 176 f. 1 above). Faustin still Scriv.^ It thus appears: (1) that the reading most strongly with double en.\ mid. eVi at the beginning of the verse only. 30 above.. i.) see T. bis eiydp. portant.-Vet. on the whole that it is not improbable that here. of supposing that the original reading 1 . iv. dating from the time when he definitively enrolled himself as a Christian. through overlooking the commas in Tisch.. The statement which is at once fullest and most exact will be found in WH. Evans in Exp. the evidence for which may be thus summarized : m ydp at the beginning of the verse with en also after d<r6cvS>v. the Western ft text (Latin authorities). . Paul or his amanuensis. [The readings are wrongly given by Lips. But the problem is.. (2) The Western reading is els ri iva ydp.. 1882. ' on iii. which might be confused with each other through the We think Fuller details are given below. double en. from ut quid enim of Iren. : el ye B. which is impossible unless we suppose a lapsus calami between St.. partly Latin. eiifAp. It is not easy to select from these a reading which shall account That indeed which has the best authority. Paul and his amanuensis. eTirAp). en Boh. i. some inferior MSS. = h ut quid enim Lat. en here only D E ei ydp (104 Greg. ydp or et ye. (' For if. use of an abbreviation. S.] supported is en ydp. Isid. els ri ydp (possibly representing Iva ri ydp. where the reading of B alone strongly commends itself (cf. and not quite correctly even by Gif. but not really very im6. and the note . or vice versa. els ri ydp b F G aoOevwv N A C D* al. yap few authorities.' Sec) ei oe Pesh.-lat. through the doubling or dropping of IN from the preceding word hmin nor would it be difficult to explain en ydp from el ydp.-Pelus. how to account for the other readings? It would not be dittography of difficult palaeographically from (I ydp to get en ydp by ydp through ditto(eirAP.. Vulg. ut quid enim). 5. the mass of MSS. T. (3) Another sporadic reading is So far as sense goes this is the best. : In more detail the evidence stands thus en ydp here with en also after c L P &c. unless we suppose an accidental repetition of the word either by St.— 126 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. St. variety of reading. which may conceivably be a paraphrastic equivalent for an original doubt a very ri ydp (Gif. (4) B alone early reading. Aug.-lat. i. and there are not a few cases in et ye. Iren.. the for all the variants. B has For the meaning of el ye (' so preserved the original reading e 1 ye.. (later stage of the Ecclesiastical text). There is here a difficult. &c): this is no gives ei ydp. : K : D : : : : _ N. or from this again to get els ri graphy of e and confusion with c (ecnrAp) or we might take the alternative was iva ingeniously suggested by Gif. or We might then work our way back to an alternative el vice versa. surely as Va. et ye B. does not seem to be tenable. It would not be difficult to get ?n ydp from Ua H ydp. as in iv. en yap. from his baptism. we being weak..

may also 7 be the original reading. 6 . Graec. Specim. ii. which has more easily confused both in sense and in writing. 26.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 127 which the first two letters had been absorbed by the previous fip. . iv. We ^o*/^ - W - ' . Handschriften (Leipzig. 9 and pi. VI. still fewer for a righteous man. fioyts.] Where we have such a tangled skein to unravel as this it is impossible "to speak very confidently but we suspect that d f. 2). Lips. vi. But we know that shorthand was very largely practised in the early centuries (cf. ri yap. 2 .6\i$ the first attestation in Luke ix. the other 7. hand Eph.iv (hmin in] ati rap). : * incapable St. p.1. 7. 9. Die tachygraphischen Abkurzungen d. read The two words were 39. E. There is clearly in this passage a contrast between and vnep tov dyadov. Paul strongly impressed with the fitness of the moment in the world's history which Christ chose for His intervention in it.-W. H. y^P- 10 . Fragmentum Mathematicum eT pe (ei rib) ei . 2 Cor. Eus. There would thus be no great difficulty in accounting for the origin either of Irt yap or of the group of Western readings and the primitive variants would be reduced to the two. 91 f. vnep diKalov . Dr. 15 yap explains how this dying for sinners is a conspicuous proof of love. as it makes the best sense. ei j-Ap and ei re.V. We might however escape the necessity of resorting to conjecture by supposing confusion between rt and the abbreviaFo th S (° rm See T Allen Notes on Abbreviations in Greek t 5 o MSS. and it may have been used by Tertius himself. A few may face death for a good man. but in the case of Christ there is more even than this . He died for declared enemies of God. and on Tit. €1 ^p €Ti rap [Fn]a t'i r<*p eic t'i rAp ut quid enim AoQcpum selves. This idea is a striking link of connexion between the (practically) acknowledged and the disputed Epistles . Rom. Hort proposed to account for these by a conjectural ei nep. Script. iii. 6. taf. which would be a con. (Oxford. i. griech. tab 8).1 re 1 ei y^p €TI fAp . &c). 1889). where the abbreviation appears in a corrupt form. jao'Xis The For p. They are not expressions which may be taken as roughly synonymous (Mey. ' of working out any righteousness for ouris k<xt& KcupoV. but it uircp SiKtuou. p. of ceivable root for all the variations— partly through paraphrase and partlv through errors of transcription. 1880). 4 . 1 Tim. i. hand of N and Orig. . xxm. compare on the one hand Gal. 3. vi. iii Lehmann. believe that the oldest extant example is in the Bobiense of the seventh century (Wattenbach.

between justification. Adv.u>v 6nr4Qav€. referred to the will of the Father. T.. 6 0«d? eh ^fxds lavTOv d-ydirqv €is T|p.' 138 is EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS it is [V. 58. In face of the clear and obvious parallel supplied by Irenaeus. There is no substantial difference of meaning. p. indicates. 123).. . to show that this doctrine Paul uses emphatic language. &Vcaio9. it should not be argued as it is by Weiss and Lips. owiorrjox ' His ti\v 4auToO &y&Tn)v own love/ emphatic.' towards us drawn from the death of Christ is strong in proportion : : ' ' to the closeness of the death of tt\v One who : is union between nothing less than God and ' Chiist. We go therefore with most English and American scholars (Stuart. other passages and authorities quoted by Gif. before dyaOov and not before bucalov need not stand This is sufficiently explained by Gif. prompted from Observe that the death of Christ is here within not from without.as 6 0e6s N A C om. and Dr. ' ' ' sense of the passage. : K uirep r\i. calling the one SUaios and the other dyaQos (Iren. Abbott (JEssays.. (who make tov dyaOov neut. T. comp. St. was not confined to himself but ' was a common property of 1 Christians. 92.' It is the the Son. which lies behind the whole of what is commonly (and not wrongly) called the scheme of reGif. 1 Cor. not to speak of others. 9. not with dydirrjv. He also clearly connects the act of justification with the bloodshedding of Christ: he would have said with the author of Heb. We ourselves often use righteous and good as equivalent without effacing the distinction between them when there is any reason to emphasize it. i . while the affirmative clause implies a definite instance which the art. The stumblingblock of the art. xv. Gif. 6 ®eos B. 7-9. 1-3. 22 jptfric alfjuiTcuxvaLas ov yuvrot afaais. excellently remarks that the proof of God's love demption.' the pronouncing not guilty' of sinners in the past and their final salvation from the wrath to come. see on iii. an easier thing to die for the dyaOik than for the Gnostics drew a distinction between the God of the O. that the clause beginning with /xdXis is virtually negative. p. Hodge. Lid. K. St. I. xxvii. The Siicaios keeps about the dya36 s there is something to the letter of his bond warmer and more genial such as may well move to self-sacrifice and devotion. and the God of the N. ix. Va. so that faicaLov is indefinite and does not need the art.' D E F GL as tls P &c. Paul here separates above. Haer. who points out in the way. see p. 75) that there is no substantial difference between dUatos and dya66s.) and even by Mey.) against some leading Continental names in maintaining what appears to be the simple and natural implied that Similarly the ' ' . rifias in any case goes with avviorrjai. T.

the other a change operated within us. neutralizes the sin.' Such phrases as " proSimilarly Westcott on 1 Jo.' : ' / l <\£v thought hardly tenable distinction.) decisively attested for Kavx&pfOa. The love of God is the same throughout. which was doubtless due 24. n.. full meaning of is notes on ch. Rom. vi. In any case it is present and not future (as if constructed with <ra>dr)<r6neda). 85) pitiating God" and "God being reconciled" are foreign to the Man is reconciled (2 Cor.fuov9.).. to 11. language of the N. though in different ways. ii. natural this mutual and prima facie view is that the view appears to verify itself on this see the examination kv rfj : see below. and the term iXaafios is properly K . and must be taken as in sense equivalent to KavxvptOa. which must undergo a change. elprjvjj is the same as the flpfjpi) and the question necessarily meets us. v. the IXaapos.. The part. icauxwfiei'oi (N B C D.ei'. which (as commonly in the N. 2 (p. proceed from — Christ. 81" auToG explained by the next verse iu rfj which saves the Christian from final judgement : far} avrov. KaTTjMdyrjfi. It is the mind of man. What does this or KaraXXayr] mean ? Is it a change in the attitude of man to KaraWayrj described in these verses 1.V. T. 1 . not " hateful to God. The active rather than the passive sense of c'xdpovs is required by the context. 18 ff. £wfj auToG. 9 11. iii. when it is applied to the [A difficult and it may be sinner. 8-1 viii. T. an attempt to improve the construction." as it is taken by some. not the mind of God.] CONSEQUENCES OF JUSTIFICATION 129 No clearer passage can be quoted for distinguishing the spheres of justification and sanctification than this verse and the next the one an objective fact accomplished without us. We may compare a similar loose attachment of ducaiovpevoi in ch." as the opposite of drrr)\oTpL(op. The relation of God to sin is not merely passive but active. " hostile to God. For the 10. Both. 21 exOpovs. 10 f. but He " cannot " in virtue of His very nature welcome the impenitent and sinful: and more than this. That in his union with the living Christ. &c. The Idea of Reconciliation or Atonement The of ver. This being so. is loosely attached to what precedes. that a reunion may be effected. sinner. i. so to speak. reconciliation is The . Many high authorities contend or in that of God to man ? is only a change in the attitude of man to God. 10. There is "propitiation" in the matter of sin or of the v.) speaks of the sinner as reconciled to God. not of God as reconciled to the God that it : ' sinner . Thus Lightfoot on Col. He "cannot" treat sin as if it were not sin.

(2) In Rom. (1) In the immediate context we have rrjv KaTaWayrjv {kd&ofup. where aymrrjTol must be passive (' beloved by God '). For so it is true that as Christ brought righteousness and If death prevailed throughout the pre-Mosaic period. i. that could not be due solely Adams Fall brought sin and death. and is not directly due to any act of his own. but also at this When that Anger ceases to be present time (Rom. of Christ ! indeed parallelism as well as contrast. so directed there is surely a change (or what we should be compelled to call a change) on the part of God as well as of man. and who can this be. xi. not merely at the end of all things. . Vers. 230 ff. 12-14. to which is usually added 0776 . propitiated ' used in reference to a personal agent. At the same time we must be well aware that this is only our Kara avOpoa-rrov Xe'yo) must be written imperfect way of speaking We are obliged to use anthropolarge over all such language. though it may be partly so seems to correspond to our word hostile. but God ?] The same idea is a characteristic feature in the theology of ii. V. We infer that the natural explanation of the passages which speak of enmity and reconciliation between God and man is that they are not on one side only.: 130 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS Some one is ' [V. What a There is contrast does this last description suggest between the Fall of Adam and the justifying Work life. doubt there are passages where i###BOT_TEXT###p6s denotes the hostility and tcaraWayrj the reconciliation of man to God but taking the language of Scripture as a whole. it does not seem that it can be explained in this way. We may compare the familiar x^P' s Kai "ph vr). 2) from the idea of propitiating a person. &c). but are mutual. so that it is hardly possible it that e'xfyoi can be entirely active. No eeou in the greetings of the Epistles. 28 irfpot is Opposed tO dyanrjToi. neither shadow of turning/ THE FALL OP ADAM AND THE WORK OF CHRIST. IXaa-fios (1 Jo. implying that the reconciliation comes to man from the side of God. u. ii. 12-14. (4) There is frequent mention of the Anger of God as directed against sinners. iii. 25).' (3) It is difficult to dissociate such words as lka(TTT)piov (Rom. Ritschl (Recht. morphic expressions which imply a change of attitude or relation on the part of God as well as of man and yet in some way which we cannot wholly fathom we may believe that with Him there is : ' : . 18.). ' no variableness.

or to vv. or to the whole discussion from i. like whose fall thus had consequences extending beyond the redeeming act of Christ. 1-11 (Rothe.. Philippi. or to vv. It is this transmitted effect of a single act which made Adam a type of the coming Messiah. say ' they sinned sense I must insert a and died as he had died. Death is the punishment of but they had not sinned against law as Adam had. 12 sq. at This proved that something deeper was work : and that could only be the transmitted effect of Adam's sin. We cannot lay down so precisely how much was consciously present to the mind of the Apostle. 1 1 only (Fricke. 9-1 1 (Fri. word of qualification.. but Adam's itself. V. even though those who died had not sinned. Hofmann). it seems natural to include at least as much as contains a brief outline of that work. 8ia touto It cedes. to first justifying and reconciling the of final salvation. Lipsiae. through Adam's death pervaded the whole body of his descendants. K 2 . as Adam had. De Mente dogmatica loci Paulini ad Rom. at somewhat disproportionate length. as far as vv. 12-14.... sin and they had as the full no law sin.] to the ADAM AND CHRIST Io T sin. whether this refers to ver. : 12. principle. they for that attaches only to sin against law. could not sin: yet 13 When In the strict of full responsibility.e. in violation of an express command. 1-11. The act by which Adam fell. 17 onwards (Beng. v. the tyrant Death held sway. Schott. So that. Work of Christ. because they one and I all fell ' into sin. 1880. to against. like the act of Christ. i. as an active . gained an entrance among the human race and Sin brought with Fall. Mey. Reiche. Beet). Through his Fall. u Yet they suffered penalty of All through the long period which intervened between Adam and the Mosaic legislation. had a far-reaching effect first upon mankind. But as the leading idea of the whole section is the comparison of the train of consequences flowing from the Fall of Adam with the train of consequences flowing from the Justifying Act of Christ. act of those who died. and then holding out him the hope the brings out forcibly the contrast between two great Representatives of Humanity— Adam and Christ.). points to the logical connexion with what prehas been argued. The true cause then was not their own sin. 12 The description just given of the sinner. Sin. it the doom of (physical) Death. Rfickert).

is personified: it is a malignant force let loose among mankind see the fuller note at the end of . Compare 16. specially of St. 14. (2) the liability to die as the punishment of sin. 19. 17. eternal life. ovtoh fj 8l dvOpwnov ftiKaioavvr] clar)\dc. But St. di™ 1 to 6 edm-ros. but he attaches the clause comparing Christ to Adam by a relative (os ten rimos rav peWovros) and so what should have been the to the end of his digression main apodosis of the whole paragraph becomes merely subIt is a want of finish in style due to eagerness and ordinate. AH turns on this. iii. Heb. strenuous supporter of this is the most simpler and better to take it of 'physical because (1) this is clearly the sense of ver. 15. : intensity of thought ~#ju H**~ but the meaning is quite clear. 17. 5> Tim. Adam's Fall were transmitted to his descendants. Paul nowhere says how they were transmitted nor does he even define He seems. 12. so. x. Paul. reminds us 14. . <3<nr€p. This is important for the understanding of the anything new. the construction of ii. as so often. &c). is right in case with that of life in the other. Paul does not draw the . Paul is evidently idea It seems probable that even in vv. 1 1 that Paul only wishes to compare the result of death in the one Fricke. the alluding. «is * ov k^o" «iarjX9e : a phrase which. St. : He begins the sentence as f) he intended r) it to run t?js &o"ntp 81 ivos dvOpatnov . St. iii. tW**t*' the chapter. ii. i. he does not return to the form of sentence which he had originally planned. here it is applied to the impersonal 39. 21. apply it to the personal incarnation of the Logos. to which St. (2) it is death' the sense of Gen. ^ djxapTia: Sin. we cannot with Fricke infer from ver. 26. that the effects of bearings of the passage. «. is not peculiar to him (cf. viz. . 36. 17. it vi. Ka\ 81a tP/s ftiKaioavvrjs far). 1 - self-diffusion of evil. The structure of the ver. : ' °$u^Jr Hl. 5). and when he has discussed it sufficiently for his purpose. however. 10. Paul is intending to raise.: 13a That being EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 1 John and the author of Heb. 14) is word istic (to the end of paragraph introduced by this broken in a manner very characterif of St. chiefly ' Some have taken ground is this to mean it > 'eternal to be death. though i. not propounded as or sin. to mean in precise terms what is transmitted. 19. where seems opposed view. 8. the connexion of sin and death with the Fall of Adam he goes off upon this. saying that his object is not to inquire into the origin of death The origin of both is assumed. 21. (1) the liability to sin. John (John 9. cf. But the words 81a rrjs Apap- rlas 6 edvaros bring up the subject which St. but St. iii. however. 17. Koi 81a Apaprlas 6 Qavaros . But far : is in the first instance physical. Apapria ko\ els tou Koapou evos eiofJAtfe. x. on the of vv.' it Oltr.

if there Though this expression has been much fought over. with antecedent 'ASa/x : Adam.' tion (2) . }£ Sjv. in so far as all sinned'). 113 anopSas iroiTja&pevoi «</>' : OT(va£o(Atv (2apovp. in would not be the right preposiremoved from its antecedent. It is not necessary that the two sides of the antithesis should exactly corIn each particular the scale weighs heavily in favour respond. (where ' seeing that ' or So Phavorinus (d. 1 2 * because appears ' i<p' y Kal Kart\rn}>6T)v bird X. of the Christian. v. vTTfpeTTfpLo-o-fvo-fv makes the F G. that we do between this life is The mention of death in any sense r) x (l P ls i s tne keynote of the passage. (4) «S is rightly taken as neut. But the Greek will not bear either of these senses. common. Ewald. and the phrase «$' a> as conj.' (' all died. V. &c. tovs dvbpas Kopiovvrai. a lexicoto be the more probable rendering). not death but sin inserting 6 davaros. older of contents the grapher of the Renaissance period. contains the force of distribution. but here seems to be inventing his examples) !</>' $ u. followed by the Latin commentators took the rel. and the mass This is in agreement with Greek of modern commentators. in whom.. 'I.) by Theodrt. Euthym. the phrase occurs three cf. always as it would seem =propte rea quod. T. ' in death. . as in dvO' wv. ' means 'on condition that': cf. 1856) and others. text (D he accuses the Pelagians of subject of the vb. rel. = because' ('for that' AV.' i. ' : his children').t.t. But <» in that case (i) «rt (ii) would be too Odvaros : ' far Aug. e. (3) Some moderns. and RV. iii. Phot.K. as masc. <(/>' $ r^v K\oitijv eipydau ('because you com- . olov mitted the theft ') k. have tried to So (i) in like because.. The Western : E *.*ti tov Bioti kiyovotv 'Attiko'i.] ADAM AND CHRIST distinction 133 and the life to enough to suggest The Apostle's argument the contrast of life in all its senses. (= oa-ov) in proportion as.K. and Ambrstr.) omits this word altogether. usage and is alone satisfactory.' i. 1537. which is even more impossible. taking w as neut.' ' ' manner (ii) as' c<p' ('all * died. 2 Cor. 'on conThe plural «</>' ofs is more dition of getting back their prisoners. i. in so far as ' De Wette. and the whole phrase as equivalent to a conjunction. Ang. Phil. just as all ' sinned'). 5t* Siv. Rothe.' get out of it other meanings than Some Greeks quoted by antecedent Photius also took the which. In N.-Zig. 'made its way to KaOcmtp ns tempos irarpbs Staphs fVl tovs iyyovovs ('like a father's inheritance divided among SiTjXGei': ' each individual member of the race Euthym. with in e. ' ' as masc.-Zig.(voc «</>' $ ov 8(\optv kKo~voaoQai k. who incorporated works.' (J. Tholuck (ed. can now be little doubt that the true rendering is because.' &c. 12. ' jq t (1) Orig. . the benefits wrought by Christ are is that the gift of life and altogether wider in their range than the penalty of Adam's sin marked come. 4 times. 'because' i<f>' $ in classical writers more often <£ Thuc.

have 13. why did to be left to be understood. Baruch.. : w > ' ' . that they could not sin in the . yet give to the sentence as a whole a meaning practically equivalent Bengel has to that which it has if the antecedent of <a is 'Addp.apTov in its usual sense all : ' in their Zig.134 c<|>' EPISTLE TO THE u> ROMANS [V.Kara. same way that Adam but Adam's descendants had no law. Adamo peccante. showing how there was something else at work That something is the effect besides the guilt of individuals.ou K. He has already laid down most distinctly that Gentiles. Weiss. In what sense did 'all sin'? (1) Many. ^>c jyA^J i ' Here lies the crux of this difficult pasirdvTes qjxapToi'.' tg> So Euthym. he not say so? The insertion of iv 'Addp. &c. the writer goes on to describe this sin as a repetition of Adam's due to the fact that they too had within them the cor malignum as he had Et deliquerunt qui habitabant civitatem. their sin was due in part to tendencies inherited from Adam. St. St. (2) The Greek commentators for the most part all sinned supply nothing. 13. Sin implies law : a further argument in favour of the view taken above that a very similar sequence of thought is found in 4 Ezra. and of Adam's Fall. though explaining e<p' <a as neut.X. Fricke. There is an under-current all through St. Paul goes on to show : same breath did. 25 f. ' ambiguity. The objection is that the words supplied are far too important If St.). There still remains the difficulty as to the connexion of this clause with what follows see the next note. Immediately after laying down that the sin of Adam's descendants is due to that malignitas radicis which they inherit from their forefather (see the passage quoted in full below). rather than masc. 8i6tc rravres duoXovdrjcravTes rrporraTopi ye to &p. The Fall gave the predisposition to sin. would have removed sage.aprrj(rai. though without such written law. the Fall linked together sin and death. : own persons. reason for just the opposite of what is wanted it seems to prove aPTOV but that however much men might sin i vVV not t ^iat 7r""res This is really what they had not at least the full guilt of sin. utebantur enim et ipsi corde maligno (4 Ezra iii.' his sin involved theirs. 12. Paul would not say that the absence of written law did away with all responsibility.T. including even Meyer. It is : : ('£ At first sight this seems to give a axpi y^P ^H. but take rjp. The between in the Adam objection to this is that it destroys the parallelism and Christ besides. Paul aims at proving. which lay stress at once on the inherited tendency to sin and on the freedom of choice in those who give way to it see the fuller note below. in omnibus facientes sicut fecit Adam et omnes generationes eius. Paul had meant this. and fjpaprov on their own initiative. the passage. all sinned implicitly in the sin of Adam. So practically Stuart. (3) It is possible however to take fjpaprov in its ordinary sense without severing the connexion between Adam and his posterity. given this classical expression: omnes peccarunt. Other passages may be quoted both from 4 Ezra and from Apoc. If they sinned.

known to Aug. 13. ePao-t'Xeuo-ei/ 6 Bdvaros. A : : 14. 3 ed. but including also the important margin of Cod. Perhaps it might be regarded as an open question whether. in a one which on iv. making the reign of death extend only over those who had sinned after the likeness of Adam. Notes on Orthography in Appendix to Introd. to know the real state of the evidence. 15. 18. nam quod magnum solet esse solatium extrema passuris. As to the form of the verb: iXXoya is decisively attested in Philem. kWoydrai N d : ev€\oy(tTo N*. rb auifxa (De Gigant. and the Greek of Orig. number of authorities. as he thinks.t. is interesting as showing a certain grasp of critical principles. to an extent and in a way which he does not define. quorufti eadem causa et sors eadem est. The comment of Ambrstr. omit the negative. (Rufinus) repeatedly and expressly. pre-Mosaic death. Paul appeals to the universal prevalence of death. in proof of the mischief wrought by Adam's Fall. and Sedulius.. Nothing but the Fall could account for that universal prevalence. Ambrstr. . there is perhaps a slight balance of probability in favour ol eWoyarai see Westcott and Hort. . the first hand of d. 67 with three other cursives. and is eXXoYeiTcu : ledger. Mang. What St. So Orig. see below.). A . from Adam. i.-lat. Baruch. under the figure of a grim tyrant. €irl tovs p. . Quaest. 18 . because those with which he is acquainted are older than the Greek. or as that of the Jews after the Mosaic legislation. regarded as a penalty. Ambrstr. apart sins would have been punishable with Paul wishes to bring out is that prior to the giving of the Law.. St. . Latin MSS. p.] ADAM AND CHRIST *35 law enough to be judged by (ii. at least once. imputabatur Vulg. 12-16). Paul: see the parallels there quoted.X. eWoyaro 52 108. For parallels in 4 Ezra and Apoc. Similarly Philo speaks of rbv av/Mpva vt/cpdv rjixwv. but it would not follow that the same form was used here where St. the 'older Latin MSS. mostly Latin Fathers.V. . where see Lightfoot's note. appears to be a (mistaken) correction due to the context. the fate of mankind. which is personified. codd. He claims that this form has the support of Tertulljan. as of an entry made also occurs in Philem. ' / A t^ m* C \hjJJ^ djiapTia 8e ouk eXXoyeiTai k. iWoyeiTCLL (or kv\oyeiTai N C &c. ^ On the certainty and universality of Death. al. But the degree of their guilt could not be the same either as that of Adam. . as sin had been just before.' according to Ambrstr. Elsewhere he goes a step further and asserts on iravrl ytvvT]Tu> avfupves to dixaprdveiv. The imperf. was directly traceable to Adam's Fall. though it was difficult for any one in those days to have sufficient command of MSS. 264). 166 ff. ' brought into account The word ' (Gif. as the tendency of the MSS. Seneca.T| &(jiapTT|cravTas. prefers in this case the evidence of the Latin MSS. BCDEFGKLP. comp. The thought had evidently taken strong hold on St. is rather to obliterate vernacular forms than to introduce them. . 59 Eodem citius tardiusve veniendum est In omnes constitutum est capitate supplicium et quidevi constitulione iustissima. and represent. ii. Nat. Paul is employing a different amanuensis however. and Jews before the time of Moses were only in the position of Gentiles. an older form of text. and they were propagated side by side. 14. Sin and death had their beginnings together.

(3) The context makes ' it clear enough who race as the human is intended The first representative of such prefigured its second Great Repre- sentative. 25). 668. i. Heb.. he would have written tov peWovros 'Abdp. ' toC jxe'Mon-os. copy. though a most truthful expression of Jewish expectancy. 5.v. 19.' type. which we have adopted from the Greek of the N. 3. (4) hence in the special sense of the word an event or type. If St. iii. in particular the 'stamp' struck by a die. he would have written tov pAWros ala>vos. If St. 19 it inserts it. as neut. not who is (still) to come (Fri. as it is sometimes regarded. was not one ordinarily used of the Messiah. person in history corresponding in certain characteristic features to another That which comes first in order of time is properly the event or person.' or representation '. In two out of the three cases the Western text omits the negative. Isaiah.' 'figure. Three points come out clearly in these verses: (1) the Fall of brought death not only to Adam himself but to his descendants (2) the Fall of Adam also brought sin and the tendency to sin (3) and yet in spite of this the individual does All three propositions receive some not lose his responsibility. whose coming lay in the future : this is sufficiently brought out by the expression 'of Him who was to be. a statement which we are not at present able to accounts for the Greek reading by the usual theory of heretical There is a similar question of the insertion or omission of a Rom. . 47).). iv. De W. (3) by a common transition from effect to cause. that which comes afterwards the antitype {olvtItvitos i Pet. These correspondences form a part of the Divine economy of revelation see esp. x. T. (1) The entirely personal nature of the whole comparison prevents us from taking tov fie'XX. ii. negative in : ' ' ' : ' v^. 19 (q. .. as that which was to come' (Beng. Paul had intended this. tv-itos (tvtttcd) (1) the 'impression' left by a sharp blow (tov rvirov tSjv tfKcov John xx. Oltramare). <Sr» T. 21). Cheyne. but in ch. a standing designation In any case tov peWovros Him who was to for the Messiah *. Paul had intended this.' 6 fieXXcov thus approximates in meaning to 6 ipxfyxvos (Matt.136 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. p. verify. iv. 14. xv. partial illustration from Jewish sources. 45. which however appears not to have been. (2) Neither is it probable that we have here a direct allusion to the Rabbinical designation of the Messiah as 6 devrepos or 6 eo-Yaros 'Aoa/x (1 Cor.' 'pattern. though the Talmud does Adam . come when Adam fell. On the Christian Element in the Book of Isaiah ').\ Gal. * ' The designation " The Coming One " (Habba). 170 ff.' Edersheim. (Essay III.' 'exemplar'. xi. ii. 37). Z. 'mould. = ' ' ' ' The Effects of Adams Fall in Jewish Theology. Luke vii. Cyprian and Victorinus — He corruption. (2) inasmuch as such a stamp bears the figure on the face of the die.

This appears in the passage quoted above 12 (ad fin. 15. Edersheim in Sp. 216) By the Fall man came under a curse. To the same effect are 4 Ezr. i. . and his right relation to God is rendered difficult. And yet along with all this we have the explicit assertion of responsi(3) Adam? on the part of all who sin.) the initium peccandi. ii. Edersheim. xxiii. 12-14. : tuam. . nisi animae suae tantum . et generat usque dum veniat area radicis : : tbid. vii. xxv. 48 O tu quid fecisti Si enim tu peccasti. 19 Si enim Adam prior peccavit. et lex cum corde popiili. doctrine of Original Sin still it points in that direction we have just seen that the writer deduces from Eve the death of all mankind. xxv. who can only resist it by the greatest efforts before the Fall it had had power over him. the other to Adam's guilt' (op. It is however allowed that the latter view greatly preponderated. (2) We are warned (by Dr. 3 {Adam) mortem attulit et abscidit annos eorutn qui ab eo geniti fuerunt ibid. Paul's phrase . 165). to which the bent and leaning had already been planted in man by creation. : . 21 f. The latter is thus summarized by Weber (Altsyn. the Fourth Book of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch. sed ipsi qui creati sunt coinquinaverunt nomen eius quifecit eos ibid. 4 Quando peccavit Adam et decretafuit mors contra eos qui gignerentur. 1 1 qui fastidierunt legem meam cum adhuc erant habentes libertatem. <p66vcj) 8^ dia(36\ov Qavaros tlorjKQev tt's rbv k6<t/xov. bility on ver. 30 Quoniam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio. Sin. : ' had become a fact the " evil impulse " ( — cor malignum) gained the mastery over mankind. where we note the occurrence of St. viii. two divergent opinions—the one ascribing death to personal. T. nos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam. cit. is guilty of death. ad toe. especially in the writings on which we have drawn so freely already.: V. Wisd. p.] not* ADAM AND CHRIST : *37 seem to have had any consistent doctrine on the subject.). et discessit quod bonum est. xvii. liv.) not to identify the statement of Ecclus. sed et omnes qui de eo nati sunt et facta est permanens infirmitas. non est fact us solius tuus casus. Dr. et mansit malignum . Theol. but not such a thing as trans- . 6 Qeos enTioev rbv dvOpamov kit' u<pOap<riq . cum malignitaie OKOfiev rravres. Cor enim malignum baiulans primus Adam transgressus et victus est. • there is such a thing as transmission of guilt. 24 [33] 8t avrfjv (sc. sed et nostrum qui ex te advenimus. Non enim Altissimus voluit hominem disperdi. were not held by the ancient Rabbis' (Life and Times. Ecclus. More explicit are 4 Ezra iii. Baruch. iii. ibid. 5<) f. ix. et statim instituisti in eum mortem et in nationibus ( = generationibus) eius Apoc. but no such ascendancy Hence ( Uebermacht)? when the same writer says a little further on that according to the Rabbis . 166). et attulit mortem super omnes immaturam . . 23 f. The teaching of these passages does not really conflict with that of the Talmud. iv. unusquisque ex eis praeparavit animae suae tormentum futurum: et iterum unusquisque ex eis elegit sibi gloriam futuram Aon est ergo Adam causa. Baruch. doctrine is also abundantly recognized in 4 Ezra and 4 Ezr. Baruch. 7 et huic (sc. More than this cannot be said. et praeterivit : : : . Edersheim says expressly So far as their opinions can be gathered from their writings the great doctrines of Original Sin and of the sinfulness of our whole nature. 24 [33] dirb yvvaiKus dpxfj afxaprias with the N. &c. * (1) The evidence is strongest as to the connexion between Adam's sin and the introduction of death. sed etiam illi qui ex eo nati sunt. et quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc. and in like manner he also seems to deduce from her (and -yvv. Apocr. rfjv yvvai/ta) dnoevr]' . ' There were/ says Dr.g. i. Comm. . Traces of it are found as far back as the Sapiential Books: e. The Apoc. Still there are approximations. But the classical passage is Apoc. Adamd) mandasti diligere viam earn.

He does not affirm or deny the existence of the cor malignum before the Fall. 18-21). 267 below). subject (see p. CHRIST. and those of his contemporaries.' the negative proposition is due chiefly to the clearness with which the Rabbis (like Apoc.) It insist upon free-will and direct individual responsibility. call it) In else the false step (or Fall. 7 ff. Can we an act of such gift different quality — the free unearned favour of God. 15-21. ADAM AND V. as we of Adam and the free gift of God's bounty are most unlike. contrast. and yet he must not be allowed to shift responsibility from himself: there is that within him by virtue of which he is free to choose . and on that freedom of choice he must stand or fall. as elsewhere in dealing with this mysterious (ii. and a multitude of sins collected together in one only to be forgiven I (ver. Baruch. seems to us a mistake to place the teaching of St. aber keine Erbsunde). 17). mode of working : one act tainting the whole race with sin. (2) How different in quantity.138 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. the effect Law (vv. 15-21. 16). 15 In both cases there is a transmission of effects: all but there the resemblance ends. : Law increased it: but the Work of Grace has of and more than cancelled. but note also the So far the parallelism: How I superior the Work of Christ! (1) How different in quality: the one act all sin. and the of righteousness bestowed through . vii. the other act all bounty or grace or (ver. entailed death The fall of that one representative man many members of the race to which he be surprised if upon the then belonged. 12-15). he practically contents himself with Man inherits leaving the two complementary truths side by side. mission of sin (Es gibt eine Erbschuld. (3) How different and surpassing in its whole cliaracter and consequences : a reign of Death and a reign of Life ! (ver. his nature .) and without it But here. 15). nor does he use such explicit language as nos vero unusquisque fuil animae suae Adam: on the other hand he does define more exactly than the Rabbis the nature of human responsibility both under the Law (ch. Summarizing: Adams Fall brought sin cancelled. Paul in too marked opposition between his views indeed either There is no fundamental inconsistency to this.

Trapa-iTTWfxa ' a lapse ' : ' a lit. and as effect. a single absolving act all. slip or fall sideways/ a false step/ hence metaph. like the lapse or of Adam. 17 God it It took its rise in many and the had result a verdict declaring sinners righteous. and therefore destined not for death life but for eternal — through the mediation of Jesus Messiah. condemnation. also it life. effect. were breaches of express command. ' as a sort of in ' afterthought/ a secondary and subordinate stage. 15-21. for its bestowed by faults. V. enthroned in a kingdom of the dead have been sunk in moral and spiritual death. Christ. . in a sense not very dissimilar to dfiaprrma : ' . of righteouslife. the whole multitude of believers shall be placed 20 in the class and condition of righteous/ Then Law came in. and sweeping verdict of condemnation. On the other as cause. shall they also reign. 18 On one side all we have the cause. not in death but in through the sole agency of Jesus Messiah. Jesus Messiah —should have not only cancelled the effect of the Fall.. Yet once more. but also brought further blessings to the whole race? "There is and the had gift a second difference between this boon bestowed through Christ ill effects of one man's sinning. causing the indefinite multiplication of sins fall which. but only with the result of calling forth a Hitherto Sin subjects its more abundant stream of pardoning grace. But this still has sat has been permitted only in order that the Grace or Goodwill of God might by the Lord. But the inverts this procedure. carrying with For as through the disobedience of the one man Adam all mankind were placed in the class and condition of 'sinners. a single Fall and the side extending to men. 21 Multiplied indeed they were. the Divine plan.. our 15. Through the single fault of the one Death began its reign through that one Much more then shall the Christian recipients of and of the inestimable gift that overflowing kindness ness — much more To sum we have up.' so through the obedience (shown in His Death upon the Cross) of the one man. The sentence pro- nounced upon for its Adam result a took its rise in the act of a single man.] the kindness ADAM AND CHRIST 139 of that other Representative Man. tyrant man Adam sole agency. extending to 19 a like process of absolution. gift also set up its throne over a people fitted for its sway of righteousness.

navras dvOpa- very misleading to translate ' as AV. p. individual by the 2 Cor. . all. Ret).. with the And not as through one man's sinning. just as dpdpr. 237 f. On Revision.' 'all i. 97. Leg. 17) as 17 dcopea tT/s the condition of righteousness into which duped. exclusive only of the one' What we know of the character of God as dis-rroXXw |uiaXXo»\ played in Christ makes us more certain of the good result than of the evil. p. and comprehend the whole multitude. 12. 17. Our English readers had then seen. so Philo. p.' practically = irdvras ver. and its effects extend not only to many but to novs in ver. recovery. have had the art. is reserved for the highest and best gifts. 16. 'missing a mark'). are equivalent to iravres. boon. without repetition of the art. By this accurate version some hurtful mistakes about partial redemption and absolute reprobation had been happily prevented. mankind/ It is ' ' ' all '—to is ' all/ that is potentially. ignoring the article. that 01 ttoWo'i. viii. : .I 4o EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS is [V. the entire species of mankind. ev x<*P lTL fr° m V the Father. (which that Trapanr. ' See Bentley. 18.a. also the ascending scale of expression in Jas. 9) (2) the same active favour shown to the Father and the Son conjointly (Rom. in ver. iii.) separate doped and connect it with eTreplaaevo-e. but in Hellenistic Greek a qualifying phrase is attached to a subst. toG kv6% : ' the ' one man. Alleg. quoted by Lft. In classical Greek we should iv xdpin goes closely with f) doped. e. if through the offence of one. fj ev xoptrt. Syn. i. Adam. what several of the Fathers saw and testified. the sinner enters. 16. For the judgement sprang from one to condemnation. if they embrace the redemption which offered them. 15. by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous/ Redemption like the Fall proceeds not from any chance member of the human race. As applied to Christ it is (1) that active favour towards mankind which moved Him to intervene for their salvation (cf.). rj Swped is more fully is btKaioavvrjs : the gift ' 70 epcpaaiv peyiBovs reXeicov dya6a>v drjXoviriv (Lft. is used of the failure of efforts towards On the word see Trench. many be dead. 01 ttoXXoi : the many. defined below (ver. i. so is the second ryivero but boon. v. in an antithesis to the one. 77/ 5 COmp. the many. declarathe free gift sprang from many trespasses (and ended in) a In the one case there is expansion outtion of righteousness. however and some others (including Lid. and is exhibited in the x dpis is more often applied to God whole scheme of salvation. 1 2 . esp. The absence : ' of verbs first is thetic style.' like 8S>pov contrasted with 86p. be used for a 'fall' or first deflection from uprightness. 7 q. With the clause another mark of compressed antiwe may supply eW.' in the other case there is contraction many to one from wards. should It is however appropriate prop. Mey.

Lips. 31 sup. The sense is determined by^he antithels t0 hKaia>(Tls the reIation of an act completed f F process (see fc«5 ™ *J£ in the lies powerful in working than man's . Lid. Va. 20. and through the union with Him which follows that his whole being is vitalized and transfigured through time into eternity. 18. 1 his and the three following verses.Te S. The S«i here covers the whole mediaSon in reference to man it is through His Death that the sinner on embracing Christianity enters upon the state of righteousness. 30 f. or ordinance by which (that vvhich gives thin ^ the here the decision. 8ta too it in the sense more familiar to a Christian of Messianic blessings. the difference and vast preponderance of the tion of the : : Again we have a condensed antithesis— the -reat salient strokes confronting each other without formal construction origin. through one justifying act to all men. through one lapse! to all men. it is the sentence by which God declares men righteous on account of Christ's Death.' There are two difficulties' the interpretation of &' eVAs dtKariparos and of du«uWi» f«. 25. naturally recurs to his share in the Every g hte ousness here described as man himself. 21. of Christ ? number of scholars (Holsten. ri rTih^ : to the • a heightened and glorified already in germ. not wrought within him but coming to him. 17. 36 above. the righteous act/ or i™^. sum up the results of the whole comparison between Adam and Christ the resemblance is set m vv. It has its source in the overflow of God's free favour. Here the a fortiori argument nature of the two contrasted forces Jr*"" m its usually the decision.^. bfo VoG XpiaToG. introduced by the strongly illative particles apa otv.] ADAM AND CHRIST all inwards. So too Euthym.-Zig. 18. Does &«u'«/xa here mean the same thing as ver.). the movement originates with many sins which are embraced in a single sentence of absolution W^a: ) declared •A ^£?£ rright tnTn' to an act p. The metaphor is present to St. Or is it the merit of that Death itself. decree.. dt hhs d^aicofiaros tov X.a V. 16-18. imputed not infused. ttoXX£ paXXo. 81' ivbs SiKcu^dTos. As then. Paul's mind and having used it just before of the prevalence of Death he *V «pwr«iy xrjs Swpeas P 0mtS t0 th l gift ° f K f something objective and external rrjs SiKtuoauVrjs Xap|3<£„o. Tt]i> &Kp : ' m < A av hiKawfrvv^v .) argue that it must be the latter in order to correspond with di' hbs irapmrr&paTos. unto condemnation— so also. that 'eternal life' which is his scale ol blessing in vv.or sentence by which persons are t0 . extent issue alike parallel and alike opposed. of which the foremost was vitality. . 16? If so. 1 God's grace must be more sin.. unto justification of life. PooiXcdoouai. . 19. it is a gift which man 8 receives see pp.

' ' ' : deliberate act of sin. and it covers on the other hand the whole result of the redeeming act of Christ so far as that too is accomplished objectively and apart from active concurrence on the own part of the Christian. ' in agreement with Sikcu'oo/a. KaTeaTci0if)aaj' shall KaracrraOrio-orrai: were constituted be constituted/ But in what sense constituted ? The Greek word has the same ambiguity as the English.) rather neut. X. with Mey. Heb. 16. . ovv toxjs pev fiovXopivovs TroX\. Paul wrote in Gal. ' ' . I. 19. It is natural that this aspect of the Fall as irapaKorj should be made prominent in a context which lays stress on the effect of law or express command It is natural also that in in enhancing the heinousness of sin. . It is best also to follow the natural construction of the ivos and make Gif.: 142. Here the context is the definition must come from the context. KaTao-TaB^novrai has reference not to . and thence inobedientid) see Trench. Va. xxvi. Gif. . 18. 12-14. OTaoQai there is a good parallel in Xen. Judgement but to future generations of Christians to all who reap the benefit of the Cross. Christ its special aspect as vnaKar] 39 Phil. 2 SiKaiajOivres ovv [kit marews] tlp-qvqv €x°^ v (contained in Zxwpev) *pbs rbv &€ov 8id tov Kvpiov jjpcuv 'I. 8ict ttjs irapctKOTJs • • .-W. If we define further. 234. ' to justify its place in that class. Sid ttjs u-iraKOTJs. . give the as the other. . sufficiently clear it covers on the one hand the whole result of Adam's Fall for his descendants prior to and independently of their . : . SiKaiwffik £wt]s. 15 ^/xcfs <pv<rei 'IovSafoi. The meaning of the text it is very similar so far as it relates to the effects of the Fall of it Adam by vv.' God's sentence and the act of Christ are so inseparable that the one may be used in the antithesis as naturally ireTT^rjpcoKoTos. Mem.a trpdypara ex €iu eLS T " vs ap\iKobs KaTaoT-qoaipi. to same sense to SiKa'iwpLa as in ver. On the word irapaKor] (' a failing to hear/ incuria. 9 '£70. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. . 8. 9 Matt. 6V ov Kal rty TTpoaayojyrjv eaxv fca /X€V c '* T For the use of KadiX"*P IV * v V karrjKapev. Life is both the immediate and ultimate result of that state of things into which the Christian enters when he is declared righteous or receives his sentence of absolution. Greek (Mey. . 8. Syn.) and ip. On the other hand it is doubtful whether biKaiupa can quite = 'a righteous act. which is repeated in the present verse. ii. an d so far as relates to the effects of the must be interpreted Death of Christ parallel to w. than masc. ii. When a/xapTcuKoi. where KaraffT.). We saw that there the sense was fixed by KaraKptpa. But it seems better. Kal ovk l£ tOvwv he implied (speaking for the moment from the stand-point of his countrymen) that Gentiles would be regarded as <pva*i apaprwXoi: they belonged ' to the class ' of sinners just as we might speak of a child as belonging to the criminal class ' before it had done anything by its own act St. v. ii. antithesis to this there should be singled out in the Death of cf.. (Lips. the Last in fact The fut. and others. — eh tows dpxiKoiis raTTopw (suj>.evovs {inf. p. ' ' ' 19. 1.avruv rdrTw els tovs it is W - • • (5ov\op.).

21.6 13-16 it . 11).. and which opens up for him the prospect F of eternal life.^ n te Whkh sh0WS that the ancients were H on xi. not the first and contingent object: law is broken °and so converts if I aware WO &&. V. The corresponding term in Hebrew has much the same original sense . but is more probably intransitive. St. ' doomed empire are men as good as dead. because of enXeomaeu h dpapr. iv ™ Oa^Tw. Paul's Conception of Sin and of the Fall. convey what is substantially a different idea to the mind. over a charnel-house to die physically (see on vi. ^v 4). 2 o the multiplication of transgression and direct object of law. W TrWdar. SZZt Tr8* : of the ecbatic sense of iva ? (see rovvavnov ov napd rijv rod vopov tpiotv. ^ beginning: . 21.] : ADAM AND CHRIST . dead in every sense of the word. (cp. 8 below). 8i& SucaioauVrjs. and therefore the subjects of St. . but its second * Am airoi> is s <Wo~ : only multiplies trangression because into it deliberate sin acts which would not have had that character they had not been so expressly forbidden. iv . might be transitive. if" rTn K d nti Moses ! iv. irapeiaijXeeK « come in to the side of a state of thugs already Paul re rded Law as a g 'parenthesis' in the DMne . The word dpapria with its cognates is a case in point.? x. 43 & 20.s a sort of and jt ended *** Here i however he has in view only ' Ss late its- after-thought • (see the Paraphrase) J ? a TrXeo^ar. and some of those which he uses cannot be said to have essentially a different meaning from that which attached to them on their native soil and yet the different relations in which they are placed and the different associations which gather round them. which follows to TOpdimijia seems expressly chosen in order to remind us that all sins done in defiance of a definite command are as such repetitions of the sin of Adam. For the force of Iva comp. dead morally and spiritually. 20. its Sin reigns. The reign of grace or Divine favour is made possible by the gift of righteousness which the Christian owes to the mediation of Christ.. remarks. Paul uses Greek words. dXXd riv 4. as Va. r6 r Xoynroysi. (ChryS quhe °. as it were. .

4). and the extent of that knowledge determines the degree of guilt. evil in Thee only.). and in both the higher meaning belongs to the So that the difference between them is not in sphere of religion. It causes an estrangement. i. xxxix. it is a positive quality. The Hebrew in general. this proportion is utterly reversed.. We have travelled a long way from Hellenic religion in such utterances as these. a deep gulf of separation. calling forth thing more than a negation It is a personal offence against a personal a positive reaction. When we turn to the Bible. the rare. 144 of 'missing a mark/ Both words are used with a higher and a lower meaning. It is an injury or wound if the reaction which it involves may be described in such human terms as injury ' or wound directed against the Holy One whose love is incessantly going forth towards man. ance to the averaging not much less than eighty instances to the column. and sin against God . had this It is not a mere defect. . This appears upon the face of it from the mere bulk of literary In classical Greek hpaprla. 9). iv. of the Jews stamped with Divine authority. li. — ' < ' between God and man. It is someof an ideal. . 1 3 cf. as the soul of the father. I do this great wickedness. in the lighter senses of ' missing an aim/ of ' error in judgement or in the graver sense of serious wrong-doing they are opinion' and the N. 4). xviii. the coming short intense reality to them. And along with it we must take the deepening of meaning which the words have undergone through the theological context in which they are placed. so also the soul of the son is Mine the soul that sinneth. 19 f. But as a matter of fact few or none can take advantage of this because everywhereeven among the heathen there is some knowledge of God and of right and wrong (Rom. This fact alone tells its own story. have I sinned. ledge that they are wrong are not imputed to the doer (dpapria 8e ovk AXoyelmt pfj outos vdfiov Rom. so much so that in the Concordthis group of words fills some thirteen columns. 1 5). the mark of an imperfect development. and and that is why Sin is such an St. dpaprdvav are common enough usage. guilt of sin is proportioned to the extent to The which it is Wrong actions 'done without the knowconscious and deliberate. v. Where there is a written : — law like that at its height. LXX LXX ' Against Thee. it shall die ' (Ezek. 12-21. : an adequate conception of God. the guilt is But this is but the climax of an ascending scale in . God. always religious wrong-doing. ' How can ? (Gen.— EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. and done that which is 'Behold.T. Paul in particular. all souls are Mine. It is impossible to have an adequate conception of sin without Thy sight' (Ps. ii. 12. the words themselves but in the spirit of the religions with which they are connected. and from being in the background they come strongly to the front . The words denote nearly alike. 14 f.

vii. It is clear enough that. 20. vii. 5 ' In other words. 12-14). 14). Paul did believe in a personal agency of Evil. The corruption alone would not have been enough apart from the consentient will . and is made up of. neither would the will have been so acted upon if it had not been for the inherited corruption (Rom. vi and vii the personified Sin is set over against the individual. n).). vii. impulses of human nature. v. . What is the nature of this Power ? Is it personal or impersonal ? We could not tell from this particular context. v. but there was another influence which operated without him. p. 17.] ADAM AND CHRIST is 145 which the heinousness of the offence and opportunities. Sin is not to be permitted to reign within the body (vi. like the rest of his countrymen (see Charles. No doubt personal attributes and functions are assigned to it. 17. 5). In all this the usage is consistent a clear distinction is drawn at once between the will and the bodily impulses which act upon the will and a sort of external Power which makes both the will and the impulses subservient to it. and the personification in this instance does not always bear exactly the same meaning. Now personifications are not like dogmatic definitions. They operated through the man himself. but the direct temptation of individual Christians (1 Cor. 2 Cor. 6. Book of Enoch. ii. v. St. 12). V. independent of both these. and from Sin he is emancipated (vi. human nature inherited from Adam. it is to Sin that he dies (vi. 11). 52 f. Rom. To answer our questions we shall have to consider the teaching of the Apostle elsewhere. vi. when it is said that Sin entered into the world. 18. It is remarkable how St. to Sin the man is enslaved (vi. The Law condemned illicit desires. vii. and expressly distinguished from him. constantly personifies Sin as a pernicious and deadly force at work in the world. 13). But there was yet a third element. and so is fatal to him (vii. ii. 9. proportioned to advantages Why sin? did men When break the the act of sin contain three elements. using the commandment as its instrument. 18.. Why did they be analyzed it was found to Proximately it was due to the wicked Law ? came to ' : . Paul throughout these chapters. In ch. But in chaps. 12-21. the sins of individuals. Sin takes up its abode within his heart (vii. 20): it works upon him. v. 22).' the general term Sin' includes. he has his followers on whom he is sometimes invited to wreak his will (1 Cor. The reason of this was partly a certain corruption of V ff. but perhaps only figuratively as part of the personification. n). He repeatedly uses the personal name Satan he ascribes to him not only mischief-making in the Church (1 Thess. or in other words. 8. but men had such desires and they succumbed to them (Rom. the Incarnation of Christ and the Gospel. the members are not to be placed at the disposal of Sin (vi.). not dissimilar in kind to the other great counteracting forces.

f£ovaiai. which like other characteristics of the race is capable of transmission. naturally arises. The really essential truths all come out in that narrative the recognition of the Divine Will. 8 f 1 Cor. vi.I46 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 2 Cor. we see that in the last resort he would have said that there was a personal agency at work. Whatever it was we may be sure that it could not have been presented to the imagination of primitive peoples otherwise than in such simple forms as the narrative assumes in the Book of Genesis. supernatural powers of deceiving or perverting are attributed to him (2 Thess. ' ' — . in deliberate disregard of a known distinction between right and wrong. that it is not to be taken as a literal record of historical fact. and in the acting upon him way in which spiritual forces act. vii. where St. there has been implanted in the human race this mysterious seed of sin. In some way or other as far back as history goes. But the tendency does not become actual sin until it takes effect in defiance of an express command. 1 Tim. How men came to be possessed of such a command. if we accept the view which is pressed upon us by the comparative study of religions and largely adopted by modern criticism. evil is referred to a personal cause.T. Paul regards the beginnings of sin as traceable to the Fall of Adam. . for the surest pledge of immortality is the relation of the highest part of us. though here we get into a region of surmises. cf. 20). 24 f. ii. the perpetuation of the tendency to such disobedience and we may add perhaps. and the other Apostolic Epistles. St. And although it is doubtless true that in chaps. we can but vaguely speculate. the Apocalypse. 4). and Satan has a court and a kingdom just as God has. when we take it in connexion with other language elsewhere. by what process they arrived at the conscious distinction of right and wrong. It is at least clear that he is speaking of an influence external to man. yet. the act of disobedience to the Will so recognized. 9 kut ivtpytiav tov laram eV men 77-0077 fivvdpei Ka\ o-qfxziois Kai Tepaai yj/evbovs : cf. 12-21. . 15). Koo-poKpdropes tov (tkotovs Eph. . iv. He is the god of the existing age' (6 0e6s tov al£>vos tovtov 2 Cor. this vi. and exercises his rule till the final triumph of the Messiah (2 Thess. i. see therefore that just as in the other books of the N. the Gospels. 21). necessarily imply a person . Paul speaks most directly of the baleful activity of Sin. 1 4). The Power of Evil does not stand alone but has at its disposal a whole army of Subordinate agents (apxal. but as the Hebrew form of a story common to a number of Oriental peoples and going back to a common root ? When we speak of a Hebrew form of this story we mean a form shaped and moulded by those principles of revelation of which the Hebrew race was chosen to be the special recipient. From this point of view it becomes the typical and summary representation of a series of facts which no discovery of flint implements and half-calcined bones can ever reproduce for us. tovtov ' . he does not intend to lay special stress on We his language is of the nature of personification and does not . Paul draws from it. XI. 12. Col. ii. There is indeed a whole hierarchy of evil spirits as there is a hierarchy of good (Eph. and we may believe much further. iii and the question What becomes of that account and of the inferences which St. i. In this he is simply following the account in Gen. the connexion between moral evil and physical decay. ii. xv. The tendency to sin is present in every man who is born into the world.). the soul.

may well also believe that the tentative gropings of the primaeval savage were assisted and guided and so led up to definite issues. In order to complete our commentary on the earlier portion ol the Epistle. that of Abraham. T. T. confine ourselves to certain typical names. and in the interpretation of primitive beliefs we may safely remember that a thousand years in the sight of God are but as one day. and to us they furnish an abundant explanation of all that God has done to counteract them. The need for an Incarnation and the need for an Atonement are not dependent upon any particular presentation. take these facts as we see them. but on the great outstanding facts of the actual sin of mankind and its ravages. as shortly as is possible. ' ' We are justified by works and not 30 epyois 8iko. Corinthians. in his Epistle to the Romanus subject of Justification meets us. but not before. (§ ' by words' : L 2 . of the origin of sin. ' Wherefore was our father Abraham blessed?' The answer combines that of St.' It would be absurd to expect the language of modern science in the prophet who first incorporated the traditions of his race in the Sacred Books of the Hebrews. then the application which St. They rest. We . and asks. at least has but a very slight bearing on the History of the Interpretation of the Pauline doctrine Of 8lKCtU00-l?. it well form a legitimate subject for curiosity. How they are in ' ' We their turn to be explained may but the historical side of interpretation of the N.V.' and from them constructs a system of life and action. He too expresses truth through symbols. To pursue the subject further than that would be beside our purpose but so much is necessary since the exposition of the preceding chapters has been shall of course be obliged to almost entirely from one point of view.] ADAM AND CHRIST I4? through righteousness to God. 12-21. James. it will be convenient to sum up. ' Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith ? (§ 31 ovxl Simioavvrjv ko. writes clearly guarding against any practical abuses which may He has before him the three writers of the arise from St.).1 And throughout there is the same coahr)6tiav SicL marecos iroiTjoas . N. He takes the typical example. But again (§ 32) 'And so we. Just at the close of the Apostolic period the earliest speculation on the Clemens Clement of Rome.iovij.' and the tendency to which later ages also saw to have been handed on from generation to generation in a way which we now describe as ' heredity. Paul's teaching. not on theory or on anything which can be clothed in the forms of theory. who deal most definitely with ' faith and ' righteousness. which may have been due in fact to a process of gradual accretion through long periods. He uses the only kind of language available to his own intelligence and that of his contemporaries. Paul and St.cvoi nal ^7) Xoyois). the history of the doctrine of Justification.' We who believe in Providence and who believe in the ' active influence of the Spirit of God upon man. having been called through His will in Christ Jesus.' But ordination of different types of doctrine. are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart. These salient principles. to which he himself perhaps at the time could hardly give a name but which he learnt to call sin ' and disobedience. Paul makes of it is equally justified. Their essential character is not altered. But if the language which he does use is from that point of view abundantly justified. so far as it is definitely connected with exegesis. . but through faith whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning. which may be liable to correction with increasing knowledge. are naturally and inevitably summed up as a group of single incidents. and in the days when men can dispense with symbols his teaching may be obsolete.

iii. p. Clement. and consequently the Fathers contented themselves as Clement had done with a clear practical solution. v. a peace which has been purchased for us by the blood of Christ (iv. non ergo rather faith is the root from which they spring (iv. 1. The same criticism which was passed on Origen applies in an equal or even greater degree to Chrysostom. Opp. 28).' Righteousness. 9. Theologically and practically the teaching is vigorous and well balanced. Bishop Lightfoot. i. 96. 9. ilia scilicet radice iustitiae. . which have become part of the Christian life the need of definition has not arisen. . . 24 the iustitia Dei is clearly interpreted as the Divine attribute. while showing how Clement has caught the spirit of the Pauline teaching. etiamsi nihil ab eo operis fuerit expletum). 234) ex operibus radix iustitiae. brethren ? Must we idly abstain from doing good. Paul. . p. and is represented as who were followers of the the bringing to an end of a state of enmity. and forsake love ? We have seen that May the Master never allow this to befall us at least all the righteous were adorned in good works Seeing then that we have let us this pattern. 5. 194. 217 et dicit sufficere solius fidei iustificationem. Paul's thought may be operilms igitur legis quod non iustiseen by his comment on Rom. . 37-42). on Rom. ita ut credens quis tantummodo iustificetur. can if we will by laying down his arms and We Chrysostorn. vi. 219. may further note that in the comment on Rom.' Clement writes as a Christian of the second generation who inherits the teaching and phraseoFaith. ' . little Origen had grasped some points in St.' are ideas logy of the Apostolic period. see also the comment on Rom. ed. For the St. sed ex radice iustitiae fructus operum crescit. our tyrant and enemy. taking up the banner of Christ have peace with God. 1. Paul's language. on the defect in the dogmatic statement/ (See Lightfoot. 1. James each in his different way arrived at is accomplished. iv. on Rom.I48 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. . hoc modo intelligendum puto : quia omnis qui caro est et secundum carnem vivit. iustificationem si iniuste quis agat. quia qui in came sunt Deo placere non possunt {in Rom. • ' ' . The process of justification is clearly one of 'imputation {fides ad iustitiam reputetur iv. dangerous theories as to conduct. torn. are at once guarded against (§ 33) we do.' W'orks. We cannot find in them either an answer to the more subtle questions which later theologians have asked or : ' . let us conform ourselves with all diligence to His will with all our strength work the work of righteousness. . on Rom. sine dubio iustificationis gratiam sprevit indulgentia namque non futurorum sed praeteritorum criminum datur . 240. 27. 1). 12 21. Paul's conception and point of view are not understood. Paul and the different elements of this life is clearly realized. : : . 17 and iii. All Justification is by faith alone (iii. 81). iii. The system of conduct which should be exhibited as the result of What St. The circumstances which had created these conceptions no longer existed. exact meaning of St. Lommatzsch). p. ad quern dicemus. assistance as to the exact exegesis of St. iii. 285. and is identified with the Gospel teaching of the forgiveness of sins the two instances of it which are quoted being the penitent thief and the woman with the alabaster box of ointment (Luke vii. Faith without works is impossible (iii. 20 How Ex ficabitur omnis caro in conspectu eius. i.' yet dwells. 397. p. But in many points his teaching is clear and strong. 6. 6 in ii. . ' ' much Origen. non potest iustificari ex lege Dei. sicut et alibi dicit idem Apostolus. and the understanding of his teaching. but so far as exegesis is concerned St. qua Deus accepto fert iustitiam sine operibus We (iv. But the need for good works is not excluded: sed fortassis haec aliquis audiens resolvatur et bene agendi negligentiam capiat. It is the beginning of the Christian life. p. quia post si quidem ad iustificandum fides sola sufficiat. 8. devil. p. 1-8). 241 .) The question of Justification never became a subject of controversy in the early church. 4. and dwells rightly. which arise from holding such beliefs in What then must too crude a manner. however. we get no aid. ii. p.

ei yap patcdpios ovtojs cision ' . and the written Law was of no advantage. what signifieth the accuser?' No purpose would be served by entering further into the views of the Theodoret Greek commentators.lv vpuv 180^77aaro rSiv dfxapTTjfxaTOJV rrjv dcptatv Kal d/xwfxovs Kal ScKaiovs did rrjs rod Xovrpov : God xap l ™s rro\q> pidWov 6 dataioodeis. The historical situation is clearly grasped and is brought out very well at the beginning of Horn. but not the merits.) duvarai 6 0eds rbv iv doepeiq faPiaKora tovtov k£ai(pvqs oi>xl Kokdatws iKev6epuj(Tcu fiovov. Yet his not consistent. not upon circumcision or uncircummaking a distinction which the Apostle does not between the moral and ceremonial law.' even in passages where it will least bear such an interpretation .' The opinions of St. 33 he writes He does not say. . . but that He doth also make them that are filled with the putrefying scars of sin suddenly righteous' {Horn. giving ndpeais the meaning of ' paralysis/ the paralysis of spiritual life which has resulted from sin. but both weighed down those' that used them not aright. He explains did tt}p ndpeatv rwv irpoycyovoTOJv dfxapTijfxdTajv thus : did ttjv ndpeaiv. but one passage of Theodoret may be quoted as an instance of the way in which all the fathers connect Justification and Baptism. : . and made it plain that they were worthy of greater punishment. and such a judge too. to he writes: 'it is upon works that punishment and reward depend. for instance on iv. 1.' ' Faith ' and ' Works. His most important expositions are those contained in De Spiritu et Litera and In Psahnum Enarratio II: this Psalm he describes as Psalmus gratiae Dei et iustificationis nostrae nullis fraecedentibus meritis nostris. so much so indeed that as is well known even the possibility of pardon for post-baptismal sin was doubted by some but they have no theory of Justification as later times demand it they are never close and exact in the exegesis of St. 5 (Horn. and on iv. For if the law of nature availed not. 24.' ' Merit ' and Grace. commenting on Rom. ' ' XXXI . 53) he writes: 17 mans p. : : : . he represents the source from which came the mediaeval tendency which created that theology. yiii. On Rom. They put in the very front of everything. Paul and they are without the historical conditions which would enable them to understand his great antithesis of ' Law' and Gospel. . vii < He has accused the Gentiles. viii. . : ' — traWtyyeveaias dire<pijve' irpoarjKH 5k vfxds tt\v irpos rbv Qebv ytyevrjuivrjv <pV\aTT(lV dpTJVTJV. Augustine are of much greater importance. vii. ovtqj teal ij ^u X ^ viKpajBeiaa. v. on iii. he has accused the Jews what follows to mention next is the righteousness which is by faith." For when the Judge's sentence declares us just (Bwaiovs d-no<paivu). of good works they seem all very definitely to connect Justification with Baptism and the beginning of the Christian life. Reformation theologians. d\d Kal ditcaiov -noirjoai. 25 (Horn. Although St. yap nal dirkOave Kal dvkarr) Xva diicaiovs kpydarjrai. It may be interesting to quote the exposition of the passage which follows. .] ADAM AND CHRIST I49 For example. . o \a&wv is d<p€<Tiv dirb ix) knl tovtco usage^ it is that forgave our sins. rovrkari tt\v vkupuoiv. without as a rule elaborating any theory concerning it this characteristic we find from the very beginning: it is as strong in Ignatius as in any later Father: they all think that it is by faith we are justified. Augus he does not approach the question from the same point of view as the tine. ii. p. for on Rom. 25). Generally SmaiSco seems clearly to be taken as 'make righteous. ovKiji yap iryeias kkms fy. the Atonement through the death of Christ.V. ' The declaring of His righteousness is not only that He is Himself righteous. but what is much greater " It is God that justifieth.' The meaning of biKaioovvq Qeov is well brought out. then the salvation which is by grace was henceforth necessary. d\' wairep aw/xa irapa\v$kv rrjs dvco0ev kSeiTo X*tp6s. 2 i^vid. sed praeveniente nos misericordia Domini Dei nostri His purpose is to prove . 12-21. To sum up the teaching of the Fathers. and at the same time lay immense stress on the value.

and not a gift given by God to man but gratia in St.' and that Augustine in one place admits the possibility of interpreting it either as 'making just' or 'reckoning just' {De Sp. It had the tendency indeed to transfer the central point in connexion with human salvation from the atoning death of Christ accepted by Faith to the gift of the Divine Grace received from God. So gratiae infusio . ii. 1 ). § 45). et Lit.T. Prima Secundae Qu. Paul's argument. . there can be no doubt that it leads directly to the doctrine of infused ' grace.T. The conclusion arrived at is quum iustitiae Dei repugnet poenam dimittere vigente culpa. of view really represents St. (i) three main characteristics in his exposition of the Romans. et Lit. but also an infusion of grace. practically his whole theory is that of an infusion of the grace of faith by which men are made just. Augustine's exposition goes on somewhat 49). : ' ' : : : : : : donum. Apostle is referring to the Gentiles who have accepted the Gospel and the 'Law written in their hearts' is the law not of the O. et Lit. as against any form of Pelagianism that our salvation comes from no merits This leads to of our own but only from the Divine grace which is given us. . 26 {De Sp. nullius autem hominis qualis modo nascitur. aim of the early portion of the Romans to be the proof of the necessity of Men have failed without grace. The point of view is clearly not that of St. done those who not in state works by are a of grace are firstly. §§ 44(2) Then. St. (1) In the first place it elaborates the Augustinian theory of Grace instead of the Pauline theory of Justification. Paul x<*P ls is tne favour of God to man. « 18) imphtm deputatur fides eius ad iustitiam. 5. 3). ^Wimpertiendo earn iustos and again credenti inquit in eum qui iustificat facit {De Sp. enables them to produce works good and acceptable to God. ' : . quae in Testamento Veteri velata. § f 6 haec est itcstitia Dei. as often. si iustificatur impius ex impio so non tibi Deus reddit debitam poenam. remissionem. infundit donum gratiae iustifialso donum gratiae cantis (cxiii. : .I50 EPtSTLE TO THE ROMANS [V. 12-21. Augustine's theory is in fact this fused into men. . iii. 24 iustificati gratis per gratiam . He makes the whole different lines from those of the Apostle's argument. bonttm opus non erat {Enarratio § 4) In ii. and it is only by means of it that grace. But although he admits the two interpretations so far as concerns the words. et Lit. Augustine's exposition is deeper than that of the Greek fathers. This theory as we find it elaborated in the Summa Theologiae. It is quite clear that in St. has so far as it concerns us three main characteristics. from another it is very much removed from it. Although in this relation. (3) For. . verum etiam dat per Spiritus : . St. Paul. sed fit iustus {Enarratio § 6) donat indebitam gratiam so De Sp. cxii. 13 the 13 ff. in Novo revelatur: quae ideo iustitia Dei dicitur. It is quite true that Chrysostom has perhaps even more definitely interpreted ducaiovoOai of making just. and it is the source of the mediaeval theory of grace with all its developments. quam non solum docet per legis praeceptum. 1 7 he writes haec est iustitia Dei. eo quod nihil aliud sit quam participatio quaedam divinae naturae quae omnem aliam naturam excedit {Summa Theologiae. 3 and Rom. but of the N. Thomas has evidently this latter signification cum gratia omnem naturae crealae facultate7n excedat. secondly. Art. 2. iii.' and in consequence looks upon justification as not only remissio peccatorum. The primary text on which this conclusion is based is Rom. faith is a gift of grace which inSt. ail culpae quoque hominis qualis modo nascitur. : Aquinas. of works done not in a state of nature but of grace. . {2) Secondly. This from one point they can do any works which are acceptable to God. it interprets iustificare to make just. good nemo computet bona opera sua ante jidem : ubi fides non erat valueless Hence he explains Rom. For. reatus poenae absque gratia tolli queat . thirdly. So in his comment on i. gratiae infusionem requiri manifestutn est. ii. This question is discussed fully in Qu. it leads to a much less correct interpretation. he naturally compares 2 Cor. cxiii.

He describes them thus talia monstra portenta et horribiles blasphemiae debebant propotii Turcis et Iudaeis.: V. • life ' (dignus vita aeterna) introduce us to a third point in the mediaeval theory of justification indirectly by its theory of merit de congruo and de condigno it introduced just that doctrine of merit against which St. it is needless to point out that he attacks. was very much developed. 2) a man cannot deserve life eternal in a state of nature. there is no doubt that nothing so complicated can be grasped by the popular mind. and that therefore remission of guilt cannot be understood unless it be accompanied by the infusion of grace. all theories of merit de congruo and de condigno. Opp. Paul's conceptions are understood better. : : non of ecclesiae Christi. and that with great vigour. It is especially stated that we are not free from sin. ed. The attempt that had been made to evade the meaning of St. Through the law man learns Luther. Paul. The A ways resembling . my son. clearly in many that which St. (3) Thirdly. in this way we are freed from sin. And then arises the cry 1 Who can give me any help ? ' Then in its due season comes the saving word of the Gospel. thy sins are forgiven. with him it is fides informis. (3) The words quoted above. Although it arose primarily against the teaching of the later Schoolmen. viii. Luther's main doctrines were the following. ADAM AND CHRIST 151 which is therefore clearly interpreted to mean ' made just by an infusion of grace and it is argued that the effect of the Divine love on us is grace by which a man is made worthy of eternal life. his sinfulness he learns to say with the prophet. not on account of our own merits and works. by which a man is made worthy of eternal » . yet (Art. 1) that in a sense we can deserve something from God. This is supported by Rom. but charity faith becomes useless and good works are brought in. Believe in Jesus Christ who was crucified for thy sins. teaching of the Reformation worked a complete change in the exegesis Calvin.] ipsius. He argued that if it were necessary that iaith should be united with charity to enable it to justify. Although (Art. The ablest of the Reformation commentaries is certainly that of Calvin and the change produced may be seen most clearly in one point. Paul had directed his whole system. by applying them only to the ceremonial St. and that the teaching it represents led to a wide system of religious corruption which presented a very definite analogy with the errors which St. (1) In the first place Justification is quite clearly a doctrine of ' tustilia imputata': Deus acceptat seu reputat nos iustos solum propter fidem in Christum. 3) after justification he can Homo meretur uitam aetemam ex condigno. Paul's words as to Law. Luther inherits from the Schoolmen the distinction of fides informis and fides formata cum charitate but whereas they had considered that it was fides formata which justifies. (a) Secondly. However defensible as a complete whole the system of the Summa maybe. and to put it in direct contrast with the teaching of Aquinas. where it is argued (Art. 16. 'Be of good cheer. especially on the subject of merit de congruo and de condigno. : : . Paul combated it is equally clear that it is not the system of Justification put forward by St. no not one. (Luther on Galatians ii. 1 7 sifilii et haeredes. then it is no longer faith alone that justifies.) As against the mediaeval teaching the following points are noticeable. whose teaching. cxiv. we are justified and there is given unto us life eternal. : : . This subject is worked out in Qu. It will be convenient to pass on directly to the teaching of Luther. Paul combated.' This is the beginning of salvation . p. Paul. substantially it represents a revolt against the whole mediaeval theory. ' there is none that doeth good. 308. condition of practical error had arisen. . 12-21.' He learns his own weakness. 1554. but on account of faith by which we approached Christ. As long as we live we are subject to the stain of sin only our sins are not imputed to ns. it being argued that we are sons to whom is owed the inheritance ex ipso iure adoptionis. and hence St.

Sanctification.' may notice that on ii. the death and merits of Christ. all that is preached in the Gospel. the promises. VI. which became the basis of much unreal systematization. He argues from ii. [V. typical commentary on the Romans from this point of view is that of Cornelius a Lapide. The Reformation theology made St. added to Luther's own extravagant language. and the Council of Trent defined Justification thus iustificatio non est sola peccatorum remissio. 5 he points out that the words can be taken in quite a natural sense. 5. entirely brushes away (on iii. but says that the words mean that although Gentiles had knowledge and opportunity they had sinned. The scheme of Justification as laid down by Luther is applied to the interpretation of the Epistle. Salvation. in order that we may realize that unless we come to Christ in the self-surrender : .. Cornelius a Lapide. 13 that he applies the passage to Gentiles not in a state of grace. but introduced errors of exegesis of its own. cap. Paul's meaning. Paul means by works being unable to justify is not that they cannot do so in themselves. of grace and charity and other : The Reformation A . The unreal distinction of fides informis and formata. that of Remission of sins.' Moreover. for the ordinary expression of St. Paul.' a phrase which. and was an incorrect interpretation of St. Faith' almost comes to be looked upon as a meritorious cause of justification an unreal faith is substituted for dead works and faith becomes idc ntified with personal assurance or self-assurance. vii). the sacraments.' in accordance with the meaning of the Greek word and the context of iv. and it is necessary for us that this should be so. he interprets iustificare as 'to reckon just. but that no one can fulfil them so completely as to be 'just. being made partakers of then if our life is consistent all the spiritual blessings which that implies with these conditions we may hope for life eternal not for our own merits : but for Christ's sake. became divorced ' . These two ideas are connected in time in so far as the moment in which our sins are forgiven begins the new life but they are separated in thought. 153 Law. Paul's teaching of 'imputation' a theory of the imputation of Christ's merits. On i. 20) again. We sarily condemned. . The first step. is Justification the life that follows in the Christian community is the life of Sanctification. was only so used in the somewhat vague sense of aw&iv. he EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS . the precepts. virtues. but his extravagant language is avoided. 13 that works have a place in justification and that our justification consists in the gift to us of the Divine justice.' was substituted 'we are saved by faith. 12 21. Paul's point of view comprehensible. teaching created definitely the distinction between iustitia imputata and iustitia infusa. and on ii. rightly separated in idea from justification. produced a strong antinomian tendency. in fact from the Christian life. although once used by St Paul. The distinction of fides informis and formata is condemned as unreal and it is seen that what St. and therefore would be neces. Paul's language that he makes a definite distinction in thought between three several stages which may be named Justification. namely. Our Christian life begins with the act of faith by which we turn to Christ that is sealed in baptism through which we receive remission of sins and are incorporated into the Christian community. • ' ' . . at another to our present and the whole Christian scheme of life within the fold of the Church sanctification. 17 he makes a very just distinction between our justification which comes by faith and our salvation which comes through the Gospel. 'we are justified by faith. It is clear from St. sed etiam sanctificatio et renovaiio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum (Sess. for reward does not imply merit. that at one time applies to our final salvation. This summary has been made sufficiently comprehensive to bring out the main points on which interpretation has varied. It added to St. that is.

Dedicate all your powers Be not afraid . =. 12-14).'] (vv.) 1 Objector. If more sin only means more grace shall we go on sinning ? Impossible. As Christ by His death on the Cross ceased from all contact with sin. Immersion = Death. and the initial act of faith has been the hand which we stretched out to receive the divine mercy. and this is so that we may realize that our life. must be holy. and in so far as the first step is the essential one the life of the Justified on earth can be and is spoken of as the life of the saved but the two are separated both in thought and in time. so close that it may be fitly described as union with Him. There is a close connexion again between Justification and Salvation the one represents the beginning of the process of which the other is the conclusion. as we are accepted by faith. endowed with the gift of God's Holy Spirit. sin. is superseded in to God. united with Christ in his baptism. 13) we must strive to make our character such as befits us for the life in which we hope to share but we are saved by Christ's death. has sin. VI. are we not encouraged If more ? go on sinning ? sin . 6. and incorporated into the Christian community. Resurrection to All these the Christian has undergo in a moral and and by means of his union with Christ. and lives henceforth a reformed zvhatever [ This at least is the ideal. Emergence spiritual sense. 1-11. : : THE MYSTICAL UNION" OP THE CHRISTIAN WITH CHRIST. 1-14. so the Christian. (2) It expresses symbolically a series of acts corresponding to the redeeming acts of Christ. Baptism has a double function. its hold over you by Grace (vv.] UNION WITH CHRIST 1 53 of faith nothing can profit us. By our life we shall be judged (see the notes on ii. done once for all with life dedicated to God.VI. Act then as men who have thrown off the dominion of Sin. Submersion — Burial [the ratification of Death). may be the reality. Is not this dangerous doctrine to means more grace. . The baptized Christian cannot '. Sin's ally. . 1-14. Our historical review has largely been a history of the confusion of these three separate aspects of the Gospel scheme. (1) It brings the Christian into personal contact with Christ. Sin is a direct contradiction of the state of things which baptism assumes. Law.

and Resurrection. implies a great deal more. in a moral and spiritual sense. I mean 8 ' that the Christian. e. home and haunt might be so paralyzed and . not only professes to Christ but enters into a relation to obedience it Him so intimate that may be described as actual union. at once and physical resurrection. 1-14. in such a way as would make it fiat contradiction to live any longer it. 6 we must i.' into the closest allegiance and adhesion to Him. so we henceforth conduct ourselves as must from men in whom has been implanted a new 6 principle of it life. As Christ was raised from also among dead by a majestic exercise of Divine power.154 2 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. When we descended into the baptismal water. Him by spiritual. undergoing a resurrection like His. Paul. shall And acts. as our Christian phrase runs into Christ. Burial. repeat those e. of may share in the And the object of this crucifixion of our Old Self was that the bodily sensual part of sin. prolific associations of His Crucifixion. at his baptism. in proof that our the the death to sin. in Surely you do not need reminding that all of us who were immersed or baptized. in undergoing also be His. that meant that we died with Christ — to we sin. tree into grows. that meant that lay buried with Him. was But this carries with it third step in the process. were so i. one thing and not join with a death like Him in another. in our own 4 persons. like His death. e. For it is matter of experience that our Old Self Christians it — what like we were before we became : —was nailed to the Cross with Christ in our baptism the Death of Christ and that it was killed by a process so so wrought in conjunction with Him too name and us. immersed or baptized into a special relation to His Death. we are become one with which it Christ as the graft becomes one with the one with a moral. For is not to be supposed that we can join with Christ in If. took the decisive St. taken in connexion with the peculiar symbolism of Baptism. Now this union. i. A horrible thought ! When we step and became Christians we may be said to have died to sin. the water closed over our heads. When real. That symbolism acts of Christ recalls to us with great vividness the redeeming — His Death. our in union with Christ involves that we such sense as we may.

In like manner do you Christians regard yourselves as dead. eye. in all that relates to sin. the ranks of the dead and breathe a new spiritual tongue be weapons of righteous temper for God let hand. that good may come (iii. have to left . you have the regime of Law (which. that He has done once for all with Sin. as weapons but dedicate all. . 12 1 exhort you therefore not to let Sin exercise its tyranny over this frail not. is a stronghold of Sin) for that of Grace. there tians. now it. as well as ethically for a fact that Christ Himself. 14 You will may rest assured that in so for doing Sin left have no claims or power over you. another side to the process. 10 For He has done with Death. 8). stop at the death to sin? If.VI. when we became Chris(morally and spiritually). stained with unrighteousness. is open to this charge . so one who is (ethically) dead is certified « Not Guilty and exempt from ' all the claims that Sin could 8 But is is this all? make upon Are we to him. Death has to lost its hold over Him state for ever. and Him to wield. and tongue. eye. not have the process of death to undergo again.] UNION WITH CHRIST *55 7 disabled as henceforth to set us free from the service of Sin. place hand. He is conscious that his own teaching. yourselves once for like men who life. as we shall shortly see. died with Christ with we No. For just as no legal claim can be made upon the dead. if pressed to its logical conclusion. we believe that (physically. will we that shall also live 9 : Him and spiritually) because we know now He has been once raised from the dead. at the service of Sin. 13 Do as you are wont. by bringing an end that incarnate Henceforth which alone brought lives in Him in contact with He 11 uninterrupted communion with God. 1. and he states it in terms which are not exactly those which would be used by his adversaries but such as might seem to Of course express the one-sided development of his own thought. The fact that he has just been insisting on the function of sin to act as a provocative of Divine grace recalls to the mind of ' the Apostle the accusation brought against himself of saying Let us do evil. body of yours by giving way to its evil passions. 1-14. but life and responding in every nerve to those Divine claims and Divine influences under which you have been brought by your union with Jesus Messiah. inert instinct with and motionless as a corpse. he does not allow the consequence for a moment he repudiates ' .

Tert. the Christian Life which effectually prevents any antinomian conclusion such as might seem to be drawn from different premises. There can be no (vaofxcv question that we should read impivwptv for km/xivovfifv in ver. This points back The Christian above. 'were baptized unto union It###BOT_TEXT###lt;tovv €0a-nria0T)fi. 1-3. iii. II. Paul does is such a changed condition.) omits it altogether.' &c. Gal. Paul draws follow from this union. 2 and that t<2 Kvpiw f/fxwv should be omittedat the end of ver.vop. This conception lies at the root of the whole passage. Paul does not assume that his readers are ignorant of that which is to him so fundamental. the Western text (A vtKpobs txiv . force and the St.-Damasc. ' we. of the conception. Union of the Christian with Christ dating from his Here we have another of those great elemental forces in Baptism. In that verse the true position of thai is after kavrovs (N* B C. being what we are. and he is enabled to realize His death through his union with Christ. Hence. also Pesh. Naturally the relative of quality died (in our baptism) to sin. The deep significance of Baptism was universally recognized .) some inferior authorities place it after E F G. or is it ? possible that ' you are not aware of like to all that your baptism involves St.fv els T6f Qdvarov auTou ej3cnrTia6T]|Aei'. The various readings in this chapter are unimportant. Jo. Comp. train of however not by proving a non sequitur. incor- On the origin poration. : 2. . Cyr. '? But why is baptism said to be specially 'into Christ's death The reason is because it is owing primarily to the Death of Christ that the condition into which the Christian enters at his baptism We have seen that St.' was an act of incorporation into Christ. though it is hardly likely that any other teacher would have expressed that significance in the profound and original argument which follows. as so is it the Death it is Baptism which makes a man a Christian. to aire 6a.€y els Xpiordk The act of baptism with' (not merely 'obedience to') 'Christ. Arm. is the Mystical thus led to bring up the second of his great pivot-doctrines. . 1 and not £qo<»ptv in ver. dies because Christ died. : : D Aeth. Boh. but by showing how this thought is crossed by another. All the consequences which St. The central point in the passage is death. the ascribe to that Death a true objective efficacy in removing carrier which sin has placed between God and man. see below. even more fundamental. t) men who byvoeire : ' Can you deny this. dircOdi'OfAei'.Alex. Paul now proceeds to explain the nature of this He way in which the Christian is related to it.. 27 3 : 00-01 yap (Is Xpio-Tov £3aiTTLo~6r)T€. omi'es 3. . of Christ which wins for the Christian his special immunities The sprinkling of the Blood of Christ seals that and privileges. esp. Xpiarou eveduaaade.156 it EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. identification of the Christian with Christ. cf.

• : = ' - : = ' ' . I7trv 8i dyptfKaios a>v iveKfvrpio-drjs iv avrois.X. <tvv€t&$i)ii. and the word would come in appropriately to and is . where iv rta avrov aipan goes with irpoidero and not with ha rfjs mo-rfcis. crufi<j>uToi the process by which a graft becomes united with the life of a tree. See thy brother shall rise again. (ii) a certain incongruity in the connexion of awcTacp. but 8id ttjs 86|tjs tou irarpos the stress is it is power viewed externally rather than internally laid not so much on the inward energy as on the signal and Va. xi. tls t. 'united by growth'. . Go. (ii) The ideas of burial and death are so closely associated that they may be treated as correlative to each other burial is only death sealed and made certain. 23. who prefer the sense into death ' (in the abstract). . ' ' ' ' — ' ' the transition from Christ to the Christian. Still these arguments do not amount to proof that the second connexion is right.' Va. Lips. ' ' = ' : So the Christian becomes ' grafted into ' Christ. For the mark idea compare esp. and it is perhaps best to yield to the weight of authority. the word exactly expresses 5. but not Mey. 25 61* npoidtTo bth rfjs niaTcws iv ra avrov ai/ifirt. or whether we are to supply t£ Xotory and make . Paul does not avoid these ambiguous constructions. 4. as may be seen by iii.t. Paul does not yet detach the death of the Christian from the death of Christ. A : not a result or object of it.) would connect <h rbv Bavaxov with 81a tov ^airrlapaTos and not with avveTdcJirjfiev. just before. a solemn act of consigning us to that death of Christ in which we are made one with Him. Va. because of (i) ificmT. So^r here practically power .-W. with tU top Bdvarov death precedes burial . Oltr. 6av.. k. (iii) There is a special reason for saying here not we were buried into burial. But this is only the first step the Apostle goes on to show how the Death of Christ has a subjective as well as an objective side for the : believer. els tov QdvaTov is best taken as into that death (of His). 3-5. ' Our baptism was a sort of funeral ..VI. strong majority of the best scholars (Mey.-W. (i) St. 12 o-vvra<pivres avTto iv tg> f3airTiap. Kai ttjs pi't'/* Kai ttjs TrioTrjTos Trjs iXaias iyivov. Mou. 40. For the metaphor and Tennyson's We may compare avyKoivoivos ' xi.' It is a question whether we are to take avfM<f>. Go. We are not sure that this reasoning is decisive. ii. Gif. Gif.€v OtfyaToi'. directly with ra opotup. but the clause and the verse which follow will show that St. 23. In any case there is a stress on the idea of death . .ari iv u> Kai o~vvqyipdr)TC. ytydv. Col.] UNION WITH CHRIST 157 covenant with His People to which Baptism admits them. air.' the death just mentioned so Oltr. grow incorporate into thee.' but ' we were buried into death. .' shalt see the glory of God note on iii.' because ' death is the keynote of the whole passage. where thou glorious manifestation. compares Jo.

which is to be killed. rw 6/xotco/i. 1 (p. cp. II.) but here he is going back to that which is its root. noting this/ as of the idea involved in the fact. 20 XptcrrS) awtoTavpanai. but the way of the holy cross. viii.. 24 tov o-vnaTos tov Oavarov tovtov KaTapynQf. cf. and may be a. has the general sense of belonging to/ but acquires a special shade of meaning in each case from the context the body which is given over to death/ the body in its present state of degradation/ the body which is so apt to be the instrument of its own carnal impulses. 6 Kareyvoiapevos (ilos Euthym. There is a difference between the thought here and in Imit. St. 21 to aa>pui ttjs Tarreiuaxrecos r)p<av : Col. because it is not the body. as being simpler and more natural. avBpojiros. s. iii. with its correlative o icaivbs &v9pa}iros. ' ' * . so far at least as construction is concerned. 22. ' where yivwaKco as contrasted with 018a is explained as signifying tive is apprecia- or experimental acquaintance. but the . 5. 3 ' Behold in the cross all doth consist. : For Karapyciv see on iii. Gal. : i. &c. 3. Parallel phrases are vii. : 6. 352. The coincidence is the more remarkable as the phrase wonld hardly come into use until great stress began to be laid upon the necessity for a change of life. though no doubt there is an ellipse in meaning which would be more exactly represented by the fuller phrase.' This is rather the 'taking up the cross* of the Gospels. Comm. xii. iii. St.e. v. coinage of St. Xti. priately : * : : Phil. as if it were dead.wi' a^Gptoiros 'our old self. dat. (cf. 24. .aprias must be taken closely together. yiywcrKoi/Tes see Sp. Suicer. ii. ii. i. Svo-ei] ' iii. iv. Eph. Such condensed and strictly speaking inaccurate expressions are common in language of a quasi-colloquial kind. . This phrase. 15. a knowledge which results from the exercise of understanding ' A (yovs). on 1 Cor. 5. to o-wfjia ttjs djiapTias the body of which sin has taken possession. esp. 6 iraXaios rjp. <rw€a-Tavpu>Br\ : ! . II ###BOT_TEXT###lt;fa rfj ancic- tov o-wparos tt)s crapKos. Paul's. and of daily mortification. and unto true inward peace. 299). Probably the former.). Thes. Paul no doubt leaves room for such a process (Col. Col. is a marked link of connexion between the acknowledged and disputed Epp. Thay. simply as such. ii. the one decisive ideal act which he regards as taking place in baptism in this the more gradual lifelong process is anticipated. Paul uses these freer modes of speech and is not tied down by the rules of formal literary composition. &c).' slightly different explanation given by Gif.158 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. and all lieth in our dying thereon for there is no other way unto life. ad loc. 9).-Zig. where the patristic interpretations are collected (r) npoTepa noXiTeiu Theodrt. The gen. It should be noted however that 6 kvrds avdpwnos goes back to Plato (Grm. which is a daily process. of respect. 6. The word is approthat the body of sin may be used in this connexion paralyzed/ reduced to a condition of absolute impotence and inaction.' Here t6 o-wfia rrjs ap.

but is transitional. after the second unedaveu (Win. Sin loses its suit. in ver.. now on the ethical 8. 6 y&p 6. as throughout this passage. . . 9 the future eternal life is most prominent . Euthym. the human sin with which He was brought in contact by His Incarnation. a dead man has his quittance from any claim can make against him what is obviously true of the physically dead is inferentially true of the ethically dead. loses . icupieuei. clearly physical ' : — that Sin ' : I Pet.€i'. Westcott. p. If the Resurrection opened so also to the Christian.noQav(i)v du. which set Him free for ever. paraphrases top Qavarop op dniOave bia tt)v apapriav aivtdavc rfjv Tjp.-Zig. The different senses of life and death always near together with St. when a from the law and the commandments. That which gave Death its hold upon Him was sin. The primary sense is however . Death dominium over Christ altogether. Comp. T. and his thought glides backwards and forwards from one to another almost imperceptibly . 4.t)K6ti SouXeuW. where however 17/ apaprla is not rightly represented by 8td ttju apapriav. so that 6 aitoBavvv must be taken in the widest sense. 10 stand-point of the present. The argument is thrown into the form of a general proposition. The sense of fofiiKaiWai is still declared righteous. iv. Paul. 6-10. tov with inf. On 7. VI.] body as its UNION WITH CHRIST of sin. 10. 9. so that Sin may lose slave. o y&P dVn-c'Oavc. ScSiKaiWTai dir6 : force ttjs dfiapTias. now he lays a little more stress on the physical sense. This is [ 59 the seat to be killed. : too u. is personified as a hard^ taskmaster: see the longer note at the end of the last chapter. ' he who has undergone death in any sense of the term' physical or ethical. ' ' ' ' lie at one moment on the present Here and ver. p. 11 we are back again at the up eternity to Christ it will do Still the idea of master and slave or vassal. esp.eTepav. The connexion was severed once for all by Death. Hebrews.apTias. § xxiv. forensic ' is : ctu£t)o-ou. its state and at another on the future.' parallel man ' dead he is free Delitzsch goes so far as to describe the idea as an acknowledged locus of the literary communis? which would considerably weaken the coincidence between the two Apostles. acquitted from guilt. the verdict must needs be that the claims of law are satisfied and that he is no longer answerable .). The whole clause forms a kind of cognate accus. I on 6 naOiov aapKi treiravrai dpaprias ' : also the Rabbinical is quoted by Delitzsch ad toe.' The idea is that of a master claiming legal possession of a slave proof being put in that the slave is dead. as expressing purpose see 342. and in ver. 209 E. r|] afiapTia anapria.

). and for ever. (as Beng.' The 'self is not the 'whole : ' ' ' 88 cp. : with the Levitical sacrifices (cf. ix.t] yvovra ufxapTuiv xmep f]p. This phrase is the summary expression of lv XpiaTw 'It)<tou. Death of Christ is specially This is the great point of conthey did and it did not need to 12. as a local relation. not to the historical Christ. [VI. 26. The old chain which by binding Him to sin made also liable to death. for the direct exhortation of the next paragraph. through its union with the risen Christ. No other power Kvpuvei avrov Cfj but God. 10. 18). 10. We find however eV roi 'irjaov in Eph. Paul's theology. be repeated iii.] the man is dead. Christ died for (in relation to) Sin. see below). also 1 Pet. (4) The corresponding expi ession Xptarbs Zv nvt is best explained by the same analogy of . v. not ei> 'irjaov Xpio-n5 (Deissmann. iv. the doctrine which underlies the whole of this section and forms. as plants in living creatures ' in ' the air. 27. preparing the way. (1) The relation is conceived as The Christian has his being in ' Christ. But how could Sin have a claim upon Him 'who had no acquaintance with sin' (2 Cor. The in decisiveness of the insisted trast upon Ep. is broken. This part of in mind in the interpretation of the next chapter. to Gfo> naturally suggests * the moral ' application his 'self are distinguished. one of the main pillars of St. but was His Death that this pressure of human sin also in His Death that it came to an end. also Haussleiter. X always relates to the glorified Christ regarded as wvei'pa. as we have seen. 86 sup. Heb. 24). (2) The order of the words is invariably £v Xpiarw 'lyo-ov. 21)? The same verse which tells us this supplies the answer rbv p.' l6o tt) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS dfiapTia &TtiOav€v.) but imper. 1 Pet. . and alive for God. This phrase to the believer. so that sin has lost its slave and is balked of its prey. to Hebrews. The chief points seem to be these. The : : * ii. . in ' the water.. 28. £rj forth for Him tu 0€w. 7 above Sin ceased to have any claim upon Him. It was it in culminated decisively &t>rfira£. and lives henceGod. vii. Lips. who also lives only for God. but his true self is alive. Xoyt£€a0€ eauTou's. The man and self. as fish the earth (Deissmann. (3) In agreement with the regular usage of the words p. Xoyi^caOe not indie. 84 . but only that part of the man [It will help us to bear this which lay under the dominion of sin.a>v afxaprlav fnoirja-fv. 22. the Sinless One for our sake was treated as if He were sinful/ The sin which hung about Him and wreaked its effects upon Him was not His but ours (cp. 21. x. as referred to on p. p. Paul's manner. but not in the same strict application. 11. 11. after St. In what sense did Christ die to sin ? phrase seems to point back to ver. in this order h Xp.

6. . kv t£> via/ elvat. It is like ' ' : ' ' . In spite of the silence of Evv. it seems more probable that the suggestion came in some way ultimately from our Lord Himself. Eph. And it is true that it is not found in the Synoptic Gospels.' Man and breathes p. 4 xxxviii.orw and iv Xpiorw 'Itjoov is by this time obliterated. 39 kv tovtoi uas o m<TTevwv StKaiovrai). as you used to be. fitveiv kv ifxoi. 21). xvi. 7 (Mang. Paul to set up a finger-post. 11-17. v. Paul. somewhat too rigorous in pressing all examples of the use into the same mould. irapaa-niaaTe. anct in full volume in the Fourth Gospel (kv iyioi. vii just like St. 2 kv ra> 'Irjoov: 9. Ign. in the last clause of a paragraph. dedicate by one decisive act. 56. 14. 21 of Sin . whose usage should be investigated with reference to the extent to which it is directly traceable to St.' 13. Fathers. 20. vi. 3. Philo. xiii. There is more to the point in the excellent monograph on Ignatius by Von der Goltz in Texte u Unters. Herr Deissmann regards it as a creation and naturally as one of the most original creations of St. 11-14. Trail. Rom. Jo. 266) av€moTrjp. T. 5. 16. esp. 1 . Observe the change of tense by the weakness which succumbs to temptation whenever it presses. in the air/ and the air is also 'in the man' (Deissmann. 1252 Cor. Rom.' pointing to the course his argument is to take. v. 30. vi. 10. metaphor more fully worked out comp. 92). 1 . esp. 7 x. vi. 4). 2 . John (kv avrw. 1892. go on yielding. ix. 13). 33. 2. Synopt.oovvr]s pitytorov r) oap£ koX t) irpdi aapna olice'twais. Rom. v. 17 of Death. 24. 20. The commoner phrases are kv Xpiorw in Clem. in the Acts (iv. 9 kv Kvpia) xiv. oirXa For a like military aSut'as and 8acaioo-vvT)s are gen. xiv. v. xv. piveiv ii. Yo u are not. but the particular group of phrases is not directly treated. - . xxxii. Hi. The phrase kv Xpiorw 'Ir/oov occurs in I Clem. always in the correct text kv Xpiorw). qualitatis. . 1 . Paul*. Marburg.— VI. The fuller explanation of this aggravating and it is effect of Law is coming in what follows. djxapTia yapharassed by the assaults of sin. xii. Paul. M . i. : Ainov o\ rr}s irapiordi'CTe. xvii. 2-7.] 1 UNION WITH CHRIST lives l6l the air. i. Deissmann's monograph is entitled Die neutestamentliche Formel in Christo Jesu. Approximations however are found more or less sporadically. ii. and rather inclined to realistic modes of conception. De Gigant. i. aggravated to your consciences by the prohibitions of Law. and expansion. 8. It is a careful and methodical investigation of the subject. in the First Epistle of St. constantly 14. 24. and kv The distinction between kv 'Irjoov 'Itjoov Xpiorw which is frequent in Ignat. Eph. 12. This would not be the only instance of an idea which caught the attention of but few of the first disciples but was destined afterwards to wider acceptance St. Lightfoot or by Gebhardt and Harnack. ii. it is natural to ask whether all can be accounted for on the assumption that the phrase originates entirely with A — : . tx eiv T ° v V10V v I2 )> an d also in the Apocalypse Besides the N. in ch. 10 iv tw ovufiaTi 'Irjaov Xpiorov 12 xiii. ' * It is rather strange that this question does not appear to be touched either by Bp. 28. there are the Apostolic (iv 'Irjaov i. paaiXcueTCD : cf. In view of these phenomena and the usage of N. one resolute effort/ weapons (cf. 14. in I St. very interesting question arises as to the origin of the phrase. Xp. With this verse comp. T. 27. Peter (Hi. 6.

And then his thoughts were so concentrated upon the culminating acts in the Life of Christ the acts which were in a special sense associated with man's redemption His Death. to see in it something corresponding to death. it was natural to him to see in it certain stages. and something corresponding ship — — • — — to resurrection. The basis of the doctrine is the Apostle's own experience. the life It was an intense personal apprehension of Christ. Burial and Resurrection that when he came to analyze his own feelings. operated through natural and human channels. the process of identification had a more than common strength and completeness. But that apprehension was so persistent and so absorbing. corresponding to those great acts of Christ. Master. something corresponding to burial (which was only the emphasizing of death). and looking at it from another side. How The channel in this instance would seem to be psychological. He spoke of himself as one with Christ. Paul arrive at this doctrine of the Mystical Union ? Doubtless by the guiding of the Holy Spirit. did St. and to dissect this idea of oneness. that those who are joined together by this invisible and spiritual bond seem to act and think almost as if they were a single person and not two. and so to permeate thought and feeling. as it usually does. But we can understand that in St. returning to the subject with which the chapter opened. An imagination as lively as St.162 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. Here there came in to help the peculiar symbolism of Baptism. him too to go off at the word vo\iov into a digression. The Doctrine of Mystical Union with Christ. His conversion was an intellectual change. But that guiding. but it was also something much more. 1-14. In the case of ordinary friendand affection it is no very exceptional thing for unity of purpose and aim so to spread itself over the character. That plunge beneath the running waters was like . It was accomplished in that sphere of spiritual emotion for which the Apostle possessed such remarkable gifts gifts which caused him to be singled out as the recipient of special Divine communications. it was such a dominant element in of the Apostle that by degrees it came to mean little less than an actual identification of will. Paul's soon found in it analogies to the same process. Paul's case with an object for his affections so exalted as Christ. as Redeemer and Lord. Hence it was that there grew up within him a state of feeling which he struggles to express and succeeds in expressing through language which is practically the language of union. and with influences from above meeting so powerfully the upward motions of his own spirit. Nothing short of this seemed to do justice to the degree of that identification of will which the Apostle attained to.

in a man for whom the moral sympathies and the desire for faith which he recognizes. Paul's teaching. before he became a Christian. Paul are his own.h and resurrection the great moving factor was that one fundamental principle of union with Christ. Nor did the likeness reside only in the outward rite. To what did he rise again ? Clearly to that new life to which the Christian was bound over. To what was it that the Christian died ? He died to his old self. Matthew Arnold saw. There is then. Paul has not as yet spoken of faith in this conI". whether as Jew or Gentile. the being begotten again of incorruptible seed (1 Pet. iii. whatever its defects and whatever its one-sidedness. the foundation is of simple psychological fact on which the Apostle's mystical language He gives to it the name of faith. a meeting and coalescence of a number of diverse trains of thought in this most pregnant doctrine. 20. as ' ' M 2 . Peter.was nexion. and there is his practical assumption of the duties and obligations to which baptism and the embracing of Christianity commit him— the breaking with his tainted past. And in this spiritual dea. It is the great merit of Matthew Arnold's St. James (Jas. which lies at the bottom the language of identification and union. the living apprehension of Christ. of all really faith. and how apt it is to shoot over the head of reader or hearer. St. Then on the side of the man there is his formal ratification of the process by the undergoing of Baptism. John and St. power of attach1 If ever there was a case in which the wonder-working righteousment. And the merit is all the greater when we consider how really high and difficult that teaching is. 17. identification of will with His. 23). 5). On the side of Christ there is first the loyal acceptance of Him as Messiah and Lord. the New Birth through water and Spirit (John Hi. the entering upon a new and regenerate career for the future. 1-14. iii. ' in giving the process this name. but the fundamental conception has close parallels in the writings of St. it will be seen. i. Peter. Paul and Protestantism. the moment's pause while they swept on overhead was like a burial the standing erect once more in air and sunlight was a species of resurrection. converges to the same end . i. that it did seize with remarkable force and freshness on this part of St.] UNION WITH CHRIS? 163 a death . to all that he had been. and there is a certain coincidence even in the dn-fK^aev of St. and the adhesion growing into an identification of will and purpose which is not wrongly described as union. It was this which enabled the Christian to make his parting with the past and embracing of new obligations real. it extended to its inner significance.' and it is indeed the only kind of based. that acceptance giving rise to an impulse of strong adhesion. Burial and Resurrection. it Nor is he wrong though. the comparison of baptism to the ark of Noah partial (1 Pet.VI. and does not so speak of it until he comes to Eph. happens. the symbolism of which all . and expressed with all his own lucidity. 21) in St. there is the distributing of this sense of union over the cardinal acts of Christ's Death. The vocabulary and working out of the thought in St. 18). Further.

. If any man be in ness. pp. . then. . . . by the philosopher. his disciple. and he has expressed it with great To this the brief extracts given will do but force and moral intensity. your In an ordinary human faith. ness were all-powerful. and in no other way. secondly. must be one that goes but a very little way. out of love to a woman.. ' The death and rising again of the Christ. to live with Christ to the law of the mind. is what drove govern. 75—78). First. could he ever get the confidence and force to do as Christ did. . your attachment.). volume. how did Paul's faith. sense of pleasing trieth the hearts. you can die to them also. 69 f. and which hitherto you have obeyed. and there are traces of Hegelianism in what follows for which allowance should be made. says Paul to itself without respect of the universal order. and rise with Him. It is indeed a crowning evidence of that piercing practical religious sense which we have attributed to Paul. here. Paul's central doctrine. 1-14. you can suppress quite easily. presented His body a living sacrifice to God every self-willed impulse. working through In the love. Another striking presentation of the thought of this passage will be found in a lay sermon. and sets it to work with all its strength and in all its variety. how by perfectly identifying himself through it with Christ. what Christ did. are to do the same. also. it was power penetrate him and he felt. — : attachment so that he enters into his feelings and lives with his life. ' It is impossible to be in presence of this Pauline conception of faith without remarking on the incomparable power of edification which it contains. it enabled him to say that is.. said Paul. he calls into full play. duty. and the doctrine which makes his profoundness and originality. Paul almost to despair. and the sermon is well worth reading in its entirety. but his mind had a natural affinity for this side of St. Paul] conceived them. which we cannot measure and control. help him here? It enabled ham to reinforce duty by affection. and the weak world The struggling stream of inside him. . blindly trying to assert You. iv. reason and conscience could yet not This. . he died to. attachment. But one unalterable object is assigned by him to this power: to die with Christ to the law of the flesh. Mr. Well.he is a new creature he can do. because by sympathy you become one with them and their feelings. Green was as far removed as Matthew Arnold from conventional theology. which had not volume enough to bear him to his goal. this or that impulse of selfishness which happens to conflict with them. . imperfect justice. and had to yield to them. Green (London. He showed it by dying to them all if you are one with Him by faith and sympathy. and mode of manifestation. This is the doctrine of the necrosis (2 Cor. as we have seen. p. and God who which grows more and more till it becomes glory' {ibid. employ itself and work its wonders. secned to combine for his salvation. which is life . [VI. you become trans. The elemental power of sympathy and emotion in us. . All impulses of selfishness conflict with Christ's feelings. he suffers with him. central need of his nature. and does. new and . Him to that harmonious conformity with the real and eternal order. Christ.164 EPISTLE TO THE Paul ROMANS . T. that . Those multitudinous motions of appetite and self-will which reason and conscience disapproved. as [St. if you thus die with Him. throughout His life and in His death. 1883 also in Works). a power which extends beyond the limits of our own will and conscious activity. Paul and Protestantism. You rise with formed by the renewing of your mind. He thus found a point in which the mighty world outside man. and which in each of us differs immensely in force. if any man identifies himself with Christ by Christ. If you cannot. 10). Then. . Paul's teaching. out of love to a child. was suddenly To this reinforced by the immense tidal wave of sympathy and emotion. The Witness of God. might felt this potent influence Paul gave the name of faith ' {St. and peace. out of love to a friend. H. the desire to govern these motions of unrighteousDie to them I Christ did. .

but most fully. we slip the natural man and appropriate that mind which we behold. a predisposed pattern or plan. but a back-way always open into the life of sensual licence. VI. in seeking a scriptural illustration in St. 'first that the whole seeming maze of history in nature and man. Paul's teaching as to the Death. In other words. — ' : . . and their historical reality. religious aspiration and attainment. and Christ is God's. that it may be in us. we cease to be our own that Christ may become ours' {The Witness of : ' God. Hort's posthumous The Way. One of the services which Mr. which transforms the will and is the source of a new moral life. and the Life (Cambridge and London. God did. however. God was in [Christ]. as the eternal self-surrender of the Divine Son to the Father. has it been very different from that which is the ground of Christianity.. but is not of us. all died in Him all were buried in His grave to be all made alive in His resurrection .. 1-14.' There is special value in the way in which the difference is brought out between the state of things to which the individual can attain by his own effort and one in which the change is wrought from without. just for that reason. 7-10). which other human lives have to follow. and has been finally mechanized in the artificial vacancy of the dervish or fakir' {ibid. But there it has never been realized in action. is the birth of a new life relatively to God. Burial. and to be re-enacted. p. Nay. p. They did so take place. perhaps all. If Christ died for all. the Truth. Because it is the mind of Christ. we can hardly be wrong. has not been wanting nor. the tumultuous movement of the world in progress. 20 f. When it is contended. as a mere idea. They were two sides of the same act— an act which relatively to sin.' ' life growing out of death. In the religions of the East. These to him are not merely isolated historical events which took place once for all in the past. &c. ' It is in Christendom that. though exhibited once for all in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. must be insisted upon. to the flesh. and the beginning of a divine life. to the old man. though the point might have been brought out more clearly. It has not issued in such a struggle with the superficial view of things.' is the inner principle or secret. by man. in the contemplation of it we are taken out of ourselves. either intellectually or morally. and Resurrection of Christ. to all which separates from God. applied in an indefinite variety of ways. pp. . as has gradually constituted the science of Christendom.] UNION WITH CHRIST 165 were not separate and independent events.). this power has been exhibited not indeed either adequately or exclusively. has running through it one supreme dominating Way and second. Everywhere there must be the death of an old self and the birth of a new. He constitutes in us a new intellectual consciousness. Constrained by God's manifested love. For that very reason. 1893). It has had no outlet into the life of charity. The idea of the withdrawal from sense has remained abstract. Green's lay sermon may do us is in helping us to understand not the whole but part of the remarkable conception of 1 The Way in Dr. is death .. In like manner that of self-renunciation has never emerged from the esoteric state. as well as their direct significance in the Redemption wrought out by Christ. was yet eternal the act of God Himself. But they are more than this they constitute a law. that He who on earth was called Jesus the Nazarene is that Way' {The Way. The first would be a self-renunciation which would be really the acme of self-seeking. 21). it was one perpetually re-enacted. so that what He did. it is just because not of us. the idea of a death to the fleshly self as the end of the merely human. A death unto life. must then be in some way the essence of the divine nature— must be an act which. presented as the continuous act of God Himself. a life out of death. On the other hand. but running through the history of most. but which.. It must be . according to the providence of God.. We may quote lastly an estimate of the Pauline conception in the history of Religion. it is for us and may be in us. ' Death unto life.

Paul. Paul. thank God. servitude ' seems a poor and harsh metaphor. ANALOGY OF SLAVERY. and the end before you righteousness. : : THE TRANSITION FROM LAW TO GRACE. have brought to bear a freshness of insight in certain directions which has led them. only to enter upon that Am we should take advantage of our liberty as to sin ? subjects of Grace and not of Law. VI. yet more widely extended by St. than it has rather considerable length. if not exactly to discoveries. his business Take an illustration from common life— the zvas condition of slavery. Yours must be an un- divided service. time is past when you were instructed slaves of Sin . as we see it in St. 15-23. just by their detachment from ordinary and traditional Christianity. 1 66 EPISTLE TO THE kOMANS [VI. and were transferred 1 am using a figure of speech taken from every-day If human it relations. But the conception belongs to the length and depth and height of the Gospel here. John. . power to which obedience is You are either slaves of Sin. admitted that the group of conceptions united by St. that to render service Impossible to 16 ! Are is you not aware rendered? and obedience any one to be the slave of that person or And so it is here. death. is one which the remains of the natural will man that still cling about you at least permit you to understand. and. it bears all the impress of his intense and prophetand there can be little doubt that it is capable of exercising like penetration a stronger and more dominating influence on the Christian consciousness This must be our excuse for expanding the doctrine at done. Devote the members of your body as unreservedly . The Christian a slave of sin has been another 16 — that of Righteousness. 15-23. I told was unc leanness . Thus you were emancipated to the service of from the service of Righteousness. as it would seem. and "But. yet to new and vivid realization of truths which to indolent minds are obscured by their very familiarity. his wages. the at your baptism you and conduct in the end before you death or you are true to your rightful Master. 19 Sin. and gave cordial assent to that standard of life which you were first and to the guidance of 18 which you were then handed over by your teachers.. But he emancipated from this service. and for invoking the assistance of those who. is difficult to grasp intellectual ly. and has doubtless been acted upon in many a simple unspeculative life in which there was never any attempt to formulate it exactly in words.

A general proposition to which our Lord Himself had . 22 But now that. Emancipation from Sin is but the prelude to a new service of Righteousness. found in LXX (Veitch. our Lord. goal. For the wages which Sin pays its votaries is Death while you receive— no wages. Paul's reply in effect to sin but in is that Christian sin. and others.] LAW AND GRACE to 167 God. 21 were slaves to to think of? you to this. But the cessation of emancipated from one service only to enter upon with the wife who. So is it with the slave. In the remaining verses of this chapter St. it only means the substitution of new ties for the old. 15-23 vii. So is it strictness of the Law. St. Chrys. Why ? Because while you you were freemen in regard to Righteousness. 49). In it he entered into a wholly new relation of self-identification with Christ which was fraught with momentous consequences looking both backwards and forwards. eternal Life . Paul deals with the case of Slavery. The next two sections (vi. 15-23. which is ours through our union with Jesus Messiah. but the freedom of the state of grace as opposed to the is who another. Theodrt. The Apostle once more reverts to the point raised at the beginning of the chapter. freedom consists not in freedom S|jiapTT|croo(Ji€v : freedom from Verbs.VI. dfiapT-qaofiev. as Christians. Irreg. when released by the death of one husband. Paul now more fully expounds the nature of the change. but with the variation that the incentive to sin is no longer the seeming good which Sin works by calling down grace. : one from the state of slavery. by which the convert to conversion. is free to marry again. St. what it is and what it is not. The receiving of Christian Baptism was a great dividing-line across a man's career. from the state of wedlock. From his sin-stained past he was cut off as it were by death towards the future he turned radiant with the quickening influence of a new life. read from a late aor. to the service of righteousness for progressive consecration to as you once devoted them 20 Pagan uncleanness and daily increas- ing licence. 16. but the bountiful gift of God. you have something and your to show for your ! service— closer and 23 fuller consecration. to which it leads is you are emancipated from Sin and enslaved to God. the other ti Each state implied certain s. codd. 1-6) might be described summarily as a description of the Christian's release. What good then did you get from conduct which you now blush 1 exhort Sin. 15. with minuscules. Much indeed ! For the goal death. like those Christianity was bound before his these ties does not carry with it the cessation of all ties . He does so by the help of two illustrations. 15-23. . the eternal Life. ^(xaprTjaa.^ p.

Two explanations are possible : (1) ' because of the moral hindrances which prevent the practice of Christianity' (Chrys. 16-19. 244 . 314). 34 however which do not so much prove direct dependence on St. as some leading Continental scholars (De W. rjyovv all tuv kcivovo. 8i8axt]S * ov 7rapeS66t]Te. from defective spiritual experience. like that in the ' Two Ways or first part of the Didachi (see the reff. .-W. For rwros see the note on ch. iii. deeper truths' (most In . 14. and it is p. So among the ancients Chrys. To suppose.aiv ) (TVPTjQeia yivop. (first and twv iv explanation) 8id tt)^ eAryei'. av6pamlva>v \oyicrp. 5). . and the English commentators with Oltr. p. There passages 2 Pet. implying that one limb or the other must be chosen (Baumlein.l68 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VI. Hibbert Lectures.. vi. . €is o> . Hort. 19 are still nearer parallels in John viii. that some special type of doctrine/ whether Jewish-Christian or Pauline. quite out of harmony with the context'). is to look with the eyes of ' among moderns the nineteenth century Rom. in Hatch. Theodrt. 15 Kara avdpooTTov Xeyco) where he wishes to apologize for having recourse to some ' common anb (or as he carnal ') illustration to express spiritual truths. underwent a course of simple instruction. : . is meant. 19. laa-avii would have called it So Chrys.eva)v. The third of the senses there given (' pattern/ exemplar. Paul as that the thought was 'in the air' and might occur to more writers than one. Paul uses however expresses ing. and there can be little doubt that that is the meaning here. Gal. daOeVciai/ tt)s aapicos. With baptism this course of instruction ceased. kcu opov rrjs evatftovs 7roXireicry).) have done. and they were left with its results impressed upon their minds. Christian rinroi and not with those of the first (cf. and Lips.-Zig. 32 'Nothing like this notion of a plurality of tk&axv* occurs anywhere else in the N. . 17. . v. Paul. Tu-nw 8i8axT]S. Paul uses this form of phrase (cf. Clearly this is more in keeping with the context. Gram. Before baptism they well the experience of Christian converts. ii. tikeliehre. and Eph. § 540. 24). (2) 'because of the difficulties of apprehension. Stands for [yirrjicovcraTe] ti'tto) StSn^s ds expect rather os vyuv Trapedodrj it seems more natural to say that the teaching is handed over to the persons taught than that the persons taught are handed over to the teachThe form of phrase which St. Go. which prevent the understanding of its moderns). (tis 8e 6 rvnos rrjs didaxrjs'f opBSas £tjv ml fiera noXireias ap'«rrqs) Euthym. T. Weiss and others). ParKiihner. This was to be henceforth their standard of living.' ' standard ') is by far the most usual with St. p. St. avQputnvoy y<a. : tjTot fj these disjunctives state a dilemma in a lively and emphatic way. appealed in 'No man can serve two masters' (Matt. Mey. We : ' ' (els tvttov.

(Is ttjv dvofxiav describes the effect of that mastery 'to the practice of iniquity. 2 yd\a vftas (ironaa. 15. g. where it is joined with Tirf 1 Tim.' &c.' With these verses (19-21) compare especially and 1 — Pet. 19-21. It is intellectual weakness in so far as this is determined by moral. i. dyiao-fios Mey. Weiss Lips. iv.. 7. ('course of purification').). . iii. e. as it would seem. oo<pol Kara adpxa I Cor. by the limitations of character cf.' a sense which comes OUt clearly in Heb. (2) On the other hand several leading Germans (Tisch. <ppovi}jxa rfjs aapKos Rom. dnodavovres iv <p KareLxofifBa vii. is more simple and natural * So. viii. The idea of this passage is similar to that of 1 Cor. ii.' epajTrjaiv dnoKpiatv possible. i.-Mops. = tendency in language and in some of the places in which the word used it seems to have the sense of the resulting state (e. Theod. But in the present passage the word may well retain its proper meaning the members are to be handed over to Righteousness to be (gradually) made fit for God's service. 21.) to what follows. . ov : Ppu>p. ' . Go. gratifications of sense] of which you are now ashamed : for their : end is death. ftra Kara ols vvv ciraiax vvfo~fi f Both interpretations are c(f>' but the former. iv. 5 f. 14 diaxere t6v dyiaapov ov xwpis ovbds .] LAW AND GRACE what has gone 169 before. (in . tt] dKa0ap<ria. features of Pagan and avofiia fitly describe the characteristic 24 ff. but secondarily intellectual.) put the question at rdn.a.? [None :] for the end. Oltr. As throughout the context these forms of sin are personified. (but not Weiss) Lips. 1 Thess. not (as Orig.ovirai yap TjdvvaaOe. primarily physical and moral. and make <<p' ots irraiaxyveodc * What part of the answer. eW^ What fruit had ye . Va. . WH. Sol. and its omission might be due to the reflex effect of in the sentence following (comp. Davidson. 4. would make here practically dytcoavvrj. i. not so much the process of consecration as the result of the process. though not Mey. and Dr. but is not classical. xii. 6 below). For the radical meaning see the note on ayios ch. There would then be a common enough ellipse before to ydp reXos. A. . any case the clause refers to Chrys. : : = ' . 33. ouc i-naHTxvveoQe Where does the question end and the answer begin? (1) Most English commentators and critics (Treg. 1-5.. tIvo. Va. RV. p. The word LXX . octroi top Kvpiov. There is certainly this €is dyiaajioy. fruit had ye then ? Things [pleasures. . xvii. where it is joined with mans and dydnrj).) carry on the question to inaia\vvea6f. aKaOapala life (cf. Cramer) expressly kot dvayvcoo-Tcov to riva ovv ndpnov fi^ere Tore. 26. they obtain a mastery over the man. occurs some ten times (two vv. i. . In that case (Ktiucop must be supplied before €#' of?. &c. <ppovuv rd rfjf aapitos. as well as Gif.VI. not to become fit all at once. 206 dyiao-pos the process of fitting for acceptable worship. <rap£ = human nature in its weakness. 11. So Weiss Gif. Mou. . too.) in and in Ps. Hebrews. B. is .

6\J/wvia. donativum autem dei vita aeterna). Maced.we get 'irpw. So with the Christian.c. Take another illustration from the Law of The Marriage Lazv only binds a woman while her husband lives. with his usual picturesque boldness. her husband ' should the die.170 (Gif. Dial. or the rations in kind given to troops. &c. VII. 47 Stipendia enim delinquentiae mors. Hence the compound bxpuviov (ouvtofjiai. He was zvedded. ration-money.). The probability is that the reading belongs to the Western element in B. Paul had this particular antithesis in his mind. Carn. as contrasted with bread. nor does there appear to be sufficient ground for distinguishing between near consequences and remote. p. for the Law will readily suggest to during his lifetime. and all that time he was But this old life subject to the law applicable to that state. ' to buy ') = (1) provision-money. It is not probable that St. (Sturz. Teitullian. 187). From a root veir. When two There is the usual ambiguity of to Yap to fiiv yap X C readings in which B alone joins the Western authorities. THE TRANSITION FROM LAW TO GRACE ANALOGY OP MARRIAGE. ' wages. is only in force for instance a woman in wedlock is But if forbidden by law to desert her living husband. 23. 1-6. 1 Mace. it is a mistake to separate them except for strong reasons . Marriage. and that \iiv was introduced through erroneous antithesis to vw\ hk. in a more general sense. no longer dead but risen: and the fruit of that marriage should be a new life quickened by the Spirit. but found freely in Polybius. fish. so as to set him free to contract a new marriage with Christ. translates this by donativum (De A'es. fact You how : unless you need to be reminded of a which your acquaintance with the nature of you. «&c. — 1 1 say that will see you are free from the Law of Moses and from Sin. that Law. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. oipov. she will be siyled an adulteress if she marry another man : but if her .' with Menander it is proscribed by the Atticists. 1-6. 'cooked' meat. xdpio-p-a. the death of through his zvith killed identification his was of Christ . phrases link together so easily as e$' oh iivaiax. she is 3 absolved from the provisions of the statute Of Husband/ ' Hence ' while her husband is alive. \apiafia. to his old sinful state . with what precedes. as it were. The word is said to have come in (2. 2 Thus man who comes under it. though no doubt he intends to contrast dipwua and : : BD*EFG.

But now all that has been brought to an end. When we had nothing better to guide all of us Christians. The text of Ye are ' — ' ' — . so that no one can is call her an adulteress. In the working out of this illustration there is a certain amount of intricacy. state we were absolved this discharge or discharged from the Law. The impressions of sense. The Apostle begins by showing how with the death of her husband the law which binds a married woman becomes a dead letter. of sin Law and the state of sin are so inextricably linked together. suggestive of sin. free from that statute. and the Apostle brings forward another illustration to show how the transition from Law to Grace has been effected. had this old state killed in you to an abrupt and violent end —by your identification with the crucified Christ. us than this frail humanity of ours. 1-6.— VII.' but You are dead to which looks like a change of position. though a the Law' legitimate one* — 1-6. the ruling principle of which in place of that old state. this section and indeed of the whole chapter not under Law.] husband 4 LAW AND GRACE she is * 1 71 die. burdened with then. due to an apparent shifting of the stand-point in the middle of the paragraph. whose death you reproduce spiritually. a moral death. is still. in which the wife first the Christian's 'self or 'ego'. to that old the penalties to which sin laid us open. as our old marriage was. — and indeed may be fruitful in good works. so liable to temptation. his old unregenerate it. at that time too a process of generation was going on. and what should be its consequences. He goes on to say in the application. husband. who triumphed over death which you too share that in union with Him you. kept plying this bodily organism of ours in such a way as to engender acts that only went to swell the garners of 6 Death. all the penalties attaching to You — brought And this my brethren in Christ. but under Grace ' . stimulated into perverse activity by their legal prohibition. at our baptism. death of your old self with the marriage a triumph in left you free to enter upon a new same Christ. not The Law is dead to you. presided over by Written Law. which used to hold us prisoners under And through we are enabled to serve is Spirit. though she be married to another man. God in a new state. to 6 the glory and praise of God. We may apply this in an allegory. that in dying. the state. Our new marriage must be fruitful.

and that Grace has accounts. See the note ad loc. = the union upon which the According to is t>juU MamrMrrre in ver. vi. through different find the states. am talking ) to article and the -the of absence the once At acquainted with Law/ is meant here is not nature of the case go to show that what that Roman Law (Weiss). Paul as two correlative phrases are treated by the law. p. ' ' rather .. 6.) absolved or discharged' Ihe is abolished). but a death clears an obvious axiom of political justice— that be prosecuted or longer no can man dead a that and all scores. or ego.that mystical ' . of Law 1 *H dyroeiTe [' surely you know this—that the regime superseded it. Bearing this in mind we shall metaphor work out consistently. but it passes or rather the 'self remains the same Gif. The Wife all = the true Husband self.* Christ is a holy life.] Or do you has come to an end. and the law convertible: 'the woman is annulled from For Karapyiiv see on 111. punished (cf. 3. (first) The = the old state before conversion to Christianity. self and a new self self of the man is double there is an old throughout.' *«Wai: is . viz. : m (lit. The 'law of the husband' = the law which condemned that old convert enters The new Marriage with Christ. and Eph. 4. Hort. of this may be proved by 2..] in a case a classical word. detailed any possess Paul would . 24). in with There is yet another train of thought which comes of offspring the suggests naturally marriage vv 4-6. differently.I tog EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. Rom. : last . 1.. 2. ' however may be right in explaining the transition 1 he by means of the iniKaibs fo$p<avos of ch.. and therefore that require to be told that death closes all ceased through the death the state of things to which Law belongs death spoken of in the of the Christian with Christ.). n ti men yAp npov \a\S>: I speak (lit. the which we explain this will be our explanation of whole passage. which is permanent through change. .. or phases. . A yap uWSpos yvWj: ['the truth state of wedlock is bound the in woman a For point. of which there is no reason to suppose of yet the Law nor knowledge. wife a as status her 'annulled. found (mavbpos husband/ by law to her living Law . annulled to the woman. Ms completely (perf. The idea of union with In the case of the Christian the fruit of his The crucial phrase the way in # marriage.' 'nullified' or practically St. . chapter V viirio-Rouai ' ' St Moses more of all general principle particularly considered (Lips.

xiv. Gif. xi. 22 . . 6. revelations. So six times in of Jerem. introduces a consequence which follows as a matter of fact.. 4.' 'giving audience to' a person. and KaTrjpyrjdrjpeu ano tov v6p.x\ dvat = ware thai the stress is thrown back upon lXsv9ipa. &c.' * causing her not to be. and T.' Sid tou awjmaTos tou XpicrroG. my readers. from Polybius onwards (1) to bear a name or title' (xPVf**' • . the old state of the self which was really 'crucified with Christ' (ch. This moral death of the Christian to his past also does away with the Law. compares the law of the leper Lev. 'to be warned or admonished' by God (Matt. but in discarding his sins he discards also the pains and penalties which attached to them. in a special sense. We have said that the exact interpreta' upon this phrase. viii. Hence also subst. It is commonly explained as another way of saying You had the Law killed to yOU. vi. 6). Euthym.-Zig. 4. 'A\V ovk flircv ovtojs. dv8p\ yevopifvot ere'pa). ii. 26 kyivero xPl^^Tioai irpwrov tv 'hvTioxtiq tovs fiaOrjTas Xp anavois) and on the other hand (2) from the notion of 'having dealings with.4rov vopov TtAevT.' Hence we get on the one hand. 6 below. from the notion of doing business under a certain nnme. here a ' gnomic future as stating what will customarily happen when occasion offers. aXXa 7700s.ds not the whole self but the old self. ii. 2). aitoKovdov rju €iir€lv. 2-4. xpT)\iaTi<rei. The Law had its hold upon him only through sin. Antiq. The way is the ' old man' is brought about in which the death of through the identification of the . 2 'the law of the Nazirite' Num. lvii. 5. xPW a ™fi6s. In favour of this is the parallel KarrjpyrjTai dno rov vo/xov tov dv8pos in ver. vi. V. The meanings of xmf**rifap ramify in two directions. But on the other hand it is strange to speak of the same persons at one moment as 'killed' and the next as 'married again.' given by an oracle or by God. 'a Divine or oracular response. . His old heathen or Jewish antecedents have passed away . 'so as not to be. Plutarch. . he is under obligation only to Christ.e. . of the 'answers.). Joseph. ' ' : ' ' Kai u/xets c'6avaTw0T]T6. The fundamental idea is that of transacting business' or 'managing affairs. 13.' tov y. and the death of which really leaves the man (= the wife in the allegory) free to contract a new union. and so simply. 2. 'to be called or styled' (Acts xi.'— not so that she is.rjo-avTos ov Kplveade fioixdas. ' You.' According to Burton tov n-q here denotes conceived result ' . § 69) calls the fut.. tocrre with indie. 22 Acts x.. tion of the whole passage turns = Kal vjjicts. The force of Kai here is. 7)..] LAW AND GRACE : ' 1 73 from that section of the statute-book headed The Husband/ the section which lays down his rights and duties. 3. i. who makes vp. Heb. Burton (M. as well as the wife in the allegory. Nothing can touch him further. *E8avaTa>6r)Te tw vofiw (cf. From this sense we get pass.' 2 Mace. communications. 12.ov in ver. So Chrys. 4 Rom. LXX . but see the note on ware SovXevfiv in ver. diro tou mojaou toC d^Spos is which ' ' Tifa BaaiKevi Polyb. VII.' There is therefore a strong attraction in the explanation of Gif. as here. xi.

The phrase Sia rod vofiov is explained at length in the next ful = ' ' ' . See esp. as The Christian takes his place. Paul. the other is a life permeated by the Although o-dpg is human nature especially on the side of Spirit. 1 = The Husband Husband: to Y«v«o-0at vp. tained in Kapirocpoprjacopev the new marriage ought to be fruitful.pa>v cyepdevn. as Lips. to anything but the offspring of marriage. This verse develops the idea con5.as iTtpw. Paul also throws in an allusion The two lines of symbolism really run in ro> Ik vtK. • Marriage/ The 'fruit' : : The in the body ' without being in the flesh/ is possible to be it may be body. it were. Indeed this very passage proves the contrary. crucified. av6. 24). pp. because the old one was. ot6 Y&p Tjfiti/ Iv ttj aapKi.' but of 'joining another master. a painas our word passion/ ' ' : ' ' ' impression' or suffering. to which St. the gratification of the senses. as his manner is. t&v connected with sins/ leading to sins/ afiapTiwv Td Sid tou i>o'fJiou. with Christ upon the Cross. which it is clearly forced and against the context to refer. marriage to the ' old man carries with it subjection to the Law. wedded to Christ. It implies that it Kapiro<|>opr)(rwfxei' to> 06w. Gal. or it may be worked upon by the Spirit. In either case the motive-force comes from without. iraGTJfxaTa riav dp. 5. 48-52. its frailty. Christian with the Death of Christ. v. Lips. the excellent discussion in Gifford. * throws up a finger-post which points to the coming section of his argument. as such.' esp. We are thus taken back to the symbolism of the last chapter (vi. and there has his old self ' ' ' The body of Christ here meant is the* crucified body': the Christian shares in that crucifixion. so that the dissolution of the marriage involves release from the Law by a step which is close and inevitable (2) it is wrong. because is no marriage to the Law.: : 174 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. Paul's conception or that he regards the body as inherently sinful. takes this not of • being married to another husband. 6). is plastic to influences of either kind worked upon by Sin through the senses. €ts ' . ira\. because of KapnoQoprjacu. does. and so gets rid of his sinful past. to. on the ground that there This however (i) is unnecessary. The gen. 6 iraXaios avBpconos Crucifixion of the Resurrection £j}v } 8ov\cvfiv rep = Death of the = Re-Marriage 06W = Kapno(popelv tw 0eo>. (2) the reaction which follows upon some strong impression of sense (cf. The natural sequel to the metaphor of which the Christian. is to bear is of course that of a reformed life. Here St. 4. it does not follow that there is any dualism in St. clvai h rfj aapn is the opposite of tZrai the one is a life which has no higher object than iv rw irvevnari.apnwi': 7rd6rjpa has the same sort of ambiguity It means (1) an impression. The body itself is neutral. parallel to each other and it is easy to connect them.

ed. The 1 pricks ii. commodi. this old sinful state which brought man under the grip of the Law . ' .. 6. though not a better sense. But as it is we (in our peccant part. 1889.e0a. i. 12 j &c). contrasted with Kapnocp. apparently read diroOavuvTos. and for N. AV. airo0avovT€S. Freiburg i. Vulg.). or better neutr. ' thrown back upon KaTrjpyrjBrjfiev. states the definite result which as a matter of fact does follow . De Fals. S. mehr da Weizsacker {Das Neue The antecedent of eV <» is taken by nearly all Iv <5 KaTeix<5p. 6. Test. 6. and which gives an easier After anodav6pTts we must supply construction. soluti sumus Codd. just as in vi. enrjpyeiTo. Sangerm. and Siare with indie. for 1882. and show the difficulty of finding an exact equivalent in other languages: evacuati sumus Tert. ' we are loosed ' Rhem. 2). which would go with rod vo/xov. Thess. The enabling us to serve. § 584 (with the quotation from Shilleto. nous avons ite degagis Oltr. which is not always observed in RV. ncos ffpfls Karqpyr]8r)p. here practically comes round to the same side as Gif. . i.] LAW AND GRACE it 175 in calling forth paragraph aggravating i refers to the effect of Law and sin.. 3 ff. Moods and Tenses. Gif.. 7 . members Gal. were active in our 2 Cor. T. uwl oe KaTr\pyr\Or]y. is well stated by Goodwin. v. ' when the sinful life ceased the Law lost its hold. ii. : ' dat. napa rr/s afiaprias We observe how dvdpanrov naKaiov airoOavovTos nai ra(peuTos ChryS. Genev. by the death of our old man there was nothing left on which the Law could wreak its vengeance we were struck with atrophy in respect to it See On ver. wore with indie. 'we are discharged' RV. authority. Western text (D E F G. stings of passion 2 Thess. ap. e.e. 5. ed. suggested by the context.: VII. . we had an end put to our relations with the Law. so that the use It was of the term dnodavovrts alone seems enough to suggest it.ev diro tou yo'fAou. ' ' : . Orig. codd. and most com' mentators). 4«eiVy. 1882. in the note). Leg. 2).-lat. ad loc). Chrys. &ore with infin. 1874). The renderings of Kar-qp^-qd-q^v are rather interesting. Geneva.' we were so completely — discharged as to set us free to serve.ev tov Karex°^vov t<3 0afdT&) ' ' . the old man) were discharged or annulled from the Law' (i. B. but stress is so as to serve/ i. by the late Canon T. 6. tw Ofw above. wore oouXeuciy: not 'so that we serve' (RV. Clarom. states the contemplated result which in the natural . and most Latins) boldly corrects to tou 6a arov. for which there is no MS. Cran. The true distinction between &ffre with infin. nun aber sind wir fur das Gesetz nicht ' . (Le Nouveau Test. and 13. iv. . App.) we are delivered Tyn. (cf. argues against referring it to the 'old state/ 'the old ' ' man/ that this ' is ' not sufficiently But wherever death is spoken of it is primarily this old state/ or old man which dies. 2 1 we had to supply Ikuvuv. but which seems to be derived by a mistake of Beza following The Erasmus from a comment of Chrysostom's (see Tisch. commentators as equivalent to tq> rd/zw (whether tiaivy or tovto> is regarded as masc. (= ' we were unbounden ' Wic. Evans in the Expos. AV.

Comm. // is equally impotent to make me do right be exposed (w. course ought to follow. iii. 7-25. LAW VII. thanked. This is what takes place. i. not on an fuller explanation elaborate code of commands and prohibitions. The Christian life turns on an inspiration from above.' &c. of the old state. 6). deliverance.t?6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. I from God 7 which. won with infin. In this antithesis ypdfji. iv KaiMOTrjTi -nrcofiaTos is . I have a dotible self. There is thus a constant conflict going on. viii. Rom. No. But my better self is impotent to prevent me from doing wrong (vv. ad loc. 32 yivtrai StvSpov. Thus in I Cor. of the kcuvottjs nvevfiaTos is given in ch.ua is with St. — on and by this very revelation stirs tip the But this is not because the Law good the contrary it is — but that Sin may and its guilt aggravated (vv. lays stress on the effect . iraXaioTTjTi ypdfjijxaTos. Law reveals identify Law with Sin ? to action. on the cause. wore with indie. 7-25. In each case denotes that in which the newness. . the sinfulness of Sin. 18-21). it and of the death to Sin as carrying with a release from the Law. (vv. wore k(iv ra TreTtiva nal KaTaaKrjvovv = ' becomes a tree big enough for the birds to come. through Christ deliverance comes 31-25). ANT> SIN. 1 spoke a moment ago of sinful passions working through Law. The essential feature of the new state is that it is one of Spirit'. be I can hope for no But. . 7 wore voTepeiodai = 'causing or inspiring you to feel behindhand' (see Sp. 29 ' ' ' . xiii. Paul always the Law of Moses. as a written code. consists. 7-13).) in Matt. Does it follow that the Law itself is actually a form of Sin ? An . the gen.a is the operation 2 Cor. ii. . of the Holy Spirit characteristic of Christianity (cf. that it is regulated by ' written Law/ The period of the Paraclete has succeeded to the period which took its character from the Sinaitic legislation. 14-17). while irvevp. what is called of ' apposition ' : it ' A It is perhaps well to remind the reader who is not careful to check the study of the English versions by the Greek that the opposition between ypdnjxa and irvdfia is not exactly identical with that which we are in the habit of drawing between * the letter ' and the spirit as the ' literal and 'spiritual sense' of a writing. or oldness. unaided. must we then dormant Sin itself is evil If release from Sin means release from Law. It will be seen that the distinction corresponds to the difference in the general character of the two moods.

demon Sin which wrought the mischief. in order that through it perverted use of the Divine hideousness. in happy unconsciousness. so that I fell and the comof it. knew ' the sinfulness of covetous or saying Thou shalt not covet. 7-25. life.my inner self— was alive. instrument. It is not the Law. following into all provoking to that which prohibited. this commandment which very commandment — . mandment was that the the weapon with which is it slew me. as a whole.] intolerable thought else I ! LAW AND On SIN it 177 the contrary through which I learnt the true nature of Sin.VII. 14 commandment might be seen in all its utter the The blame cannot attach Law has its origin from flesh to the the I. led me my to bent with no pangs of conscience excited by Law. sold 15 like any slave in the market into the servitude of Sin. And while sin was dead. was the Law and nothing For instance. I and beneficence. to And the reason why its it was permitted fact do so was it might be shown it true colours. It was in is. kinds of conscious and sinful covetousness. this Law.' 8 illicit desire only by the Law But the lurking Sin within me started into activity. For we Spirit of human self. and blood. this . while all know that God and derives its poor mortal. I . advantage and by the help of the commandment at once confronting me with the knowledge of right and provoking me to do that which was wrong— it betrayed me. inasmuch as proceeds from God : and each justice. to work out upon me the doom of permitted to have For reason Sin was its way. But then Tenth Commandment and with its coming Sin awoke while I— sad and tragic contrast— died the living death of 10 precursor of eternal death. cuted blindly with no proper concurrence of the I purpose one N . commandment 13 has the like character of holiness. to point And to the n For Sin took in my case to lead to death. am made of frail Law. Am then to ? say that a thing so excellent in itself to rather the me proved fatal Not that for a moment. and by the help of it that express command. single holy. For without Law to bring it 9 out Sin lies dead—inert and passive. and not . convicted of being the pernicious thing that that it by the made its use of a good death. which is the cause of the evil because my own deliberate my actions are exewill. came sin. character from that Spirit. it 12 The result i> Law. was given was found men the way life.

And I can only thank God. through deliverance is Him left to whom the due— Jesus Messiah. The is will indeed to do I good I is mine. and 19 I can command but the performance cannot command. hate a thing. and making takes the field in arms against Law dominating this bodily me do its behests. Law But then I see a different organism of mine. . that much I as I stem necessity laid upon wish to do what is good. And by this very fact that I hate the thing that I do. For ' I am aware that that does in me as I appear to the outer world — in this body me grievous wrong. This other Law the Law of Reason and Conscience. the upon my body. this sin . body which this body its which free is thus dragging it ? me down to death. my if moral agency appears in the wish to avoid. with my bodily organism the Law of Sin. In my innermost thinking and reasoning part of me.— EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS I 178 [VII. true self. Without His intervention unaided self — so long as I am I to my own briefly : — the In state that I this have been describing may be summarized. with twofold capacity of mine I serve two masters my conscience serve the Law of God. its excellence. wish to do 20 For the actual thing but that I do not the good that evil that I .' there dwells (in any permanent and is it . predominating shape) nothing that good. but do 16 it. if 1 find therefore this law so it may 22 be called — without. For 2S am a divided being. But I thus do what I do not wish to do. Power which Unhappy man that I am— ! torn with a conflict from which there seems to be no issue This body from which proceed so many sinful impulses makes itself the instrument of so many acts of . but the tyrant Sin which holds possession of me. but Sin which has possession of me. I respond joyfully to the of God. my who put into act what 18 repugnant to me. the evil this me from lies at self. and recognizes this. the agent that carries out the rather seen in the wish to 21 act. my conscience bears testimony 17 to the Law. So that the state of the is case is It is not I. way. I act another. approach- ing His Presence in humble gratitude. then the active force in self me. 24 and drags has such a me away fatal grip captive in the fetters of Sin. 7-25. our Lord. my the door. is not my true (which is do right). —How shall I ever get from What Deliverer will come and rescue me from oppression 26 ? A Deliverer has come.

On a\& contradicts emphatically the notion that the Law is Sin. p. As the context is a sort of historical retrospect the simple statement seems most in eyvav ovk place. yap emOupiav. or. Gr. Lips. The general proposition is proved by a concrete example.).' adopt a suggestion . tt|v tc ' ' (Gif. and others adopt the hypothetical sense both here and with ovk jj&uv below. Gra?nm. re yap is best explained as = for also.) or whether it is simply temporal. T.r) a base of operations (Thuc. Ep. 8. more intimate experimental acquaintance. It is not quite certain whether this is to be taken hypothetically (for ovk av eyiw. otherwise Va. . Sid ttjs erroXrjs. 2. 7. ad Carpianum eVe tov novrjfMTos tov Trpoeiprj' covet . Si taliter It is evident that St. Mey. which Marcion ascribed to the Demiurge Abominatur apostolus criminationem legis . cf. 90. ' something to take hold of. .' finding a point dappui. ii. make both ovk and ovk rjSeiv plain statement of fact. there was such a thing as lust. . 145. : veneratur legem creatoris. Quid deo imputas legis quod legi eius apostolus imputare non audet ? Atquin et accumulat Lex sancta. of producing rj And so here in a moral sense Sin Law it has nothing to work upon. : . ' rfdtiv is ' I learnt. like every pious Jew. e-yvwv . but apart from guilt. d^opp-V Xapouo-a getting a start. exists. 561 E.' In a military sense d<popp. ovk jjduv hypothetically. &c). . av omitted to give a greater sense of actuality.' implies simple knowledge that The Greek word has a wider sense than our includes every kind of illicit desire. 5) that Sin makes to effect the destruction of the sinner. The prep. €m6up. ouk eyvuv. In discussing this the Apostle is led to consider the action of both upon the character and the struggle to which they give rise in the soul. It had just been shown <?/"the Law (ver. Gif. did and the position of the word N 2 .apTia: see p. 6 use i/ofxos dfAap-ria. quomodo ipsum deslruat nescio. Eus. it : ' = ' ' = ' ' ' fievov dvdpos (l\i](pa)s d<poppds. § liii.TJ<r€is.' for indeed Win. 7. In a literary sense dfopwv hape'iv to take a hint.-W. sup. the contrary the Law first told me what Sin was.J LAW AND SIN 179 So it that far Sin and Law have been seen in such close connexion becomes necessary to define more exactly the relation between them. Va. take eyvw temporally. 176 f. Kiihner. Paul. Oltr. as Tertullian turns against him Paul's refusal to listen to any attack upon the Law. repels this conclusion with horror.' VII. 8. no means Law gives it just the opportunity it wants. et pi aeceptum eius iustum et bonum. Go. TjSeiv retain their proper meanings : eyvcw. : dp. Marcion had this section. as we should say. Does it follow that Sin is to be identified with the Law ? Do the two so overlap each other that the Law itself comes under the description of Sin ? St. i.

not until it has the help of the Law does it become an active power of mischief. e(ow 1 7). 9. Paul had probably intended to write h 8e apapria KaTrjpydo-aTo h ipo\ tov Qdvarov. tion of the Fall (Gen. . viii. 6 \ikv yojxos. e^irdTrjae jxe. ii. Paul's view of the nature and functions of the Law see below. before. 13: cf. . and so he fails to complete the sentence on the same plan on which he had begun it. The pcv expects a following Se. v6pos the code as a whole. not of course with the full richness of meaning which He is describing he sometimes gives to it (i. the state prior to Law primarily in himself as a child before the consciousness of law has taken hold upon him but he uses this experience as typical of that both of individuals and nations before The natural man they are restrained by express command. trouble its enjoyment of to-day. acknowledged only to be broken cases the 'commandment' is the instrument which is made use of to bring about the disase£wi> (e (rjv . 3. A iii. The language is suggested by the descrip11. is is better . • • • " € Kpd. K. It is hardly safe to argue with Zahn {Gesck. commandment . 517) from the language of Tertullian (given above on ver. 2 Cor. v. 14). K. : — — 13.— ' l8o show Aa/3. he puts forth all his vitality. in De It is more probable that Tert. Why was this strange ? perversion of so excellent a thing as the Law permitted This very perversion served to aggravate the . or something of the kind but he digresses to explain how a good Law can have evil consequences. St. 1 Tim. which is seen at its best in some of the productions of Greek art. cf. iii. 17. ayla /cal Simla. d. : : ' ' — trous and fatal end. 7) that that writer had before him a corrupt Marcionitic text not. Sin at first is sprang into life (T. but dormant . ' B . 13. ii. 12. 15. &c). EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS that €pt it [VII. 6 he leaves out teal Sutaia. Paul uses a vivid figurative expression. Xwpls y^P iv. Zahn thinks. Abbott). 8-13. lex quidem sancta est et praeceptum sanctum et optimum (the use of superlative for positive is fairly common in Latin versions and writers). flourishes he does freely and without hesitation all that he has a mind to do.\rj the single taken with KaTftpydaaro than with dtyopp. Greek life had no doubt its deeper and more serious side but the frieze of this comes out more in its poetry and philosophy the Parthenon is the consummate expression of a life that does not look beyond the morrow and has no inward perplexities to See the general discussion below. On St. xi. actually due to Marcion. In both Sin here takes the place of the Tempter there. is reproducing his text rather freely Pudic. St. unembarrassed by It is the kind of life the checks and thwartings of conscience. standing thought which we have had 20. but corrupted since his time 77 \vto\t\ avrov Sacaia for -q evr. . avilr)aev there. 13 LXX.

In the present passage (Rom. Gifford (Aomans. Reference may also be made to the well-considered statement of Dr. 1 . 14-25) the opposing principle is dfxapria. so that in Gal. 4 ff.peipetro. H. It has been maintained that this antithesis amounts to dualism. The section which follows explains more fully by a psychological analysis how it is that the Law is broken and that Sin works such havoc. There has been considerable controversy as to the bearing of the antithesis Paul between the o6. Wendt. There is a germ of good in human nature. pp. (<ra P KiK<>s adpKit'os ^C LP is iii. Ka. v. viii. which was originally physical. 2 Cor. Schmidt (1870). and as such exposed to all the tempta- tions which act through the body.) denotes simply the material of ' which human nature (1 Cor. that St. Its result is The controversy may now be regarded as practically closed. * to carry into effect. In this we need not greatly differ from him.' ' put into execution : itpaoaoi = ago.] The most elaborate reply was that of H. of which all else is but the variant expression. according to Lipsius. x. composed. Paul. 1878). Paul's teaching on this head as seems to go beyond the O. and that this dualistic conception is Greek or Hellenistic and not Jewish in its origin.' VII. are the sharper contrast between the Divine m/tvixa and the human ipvxn. the oap£ becomes a principle directly at war with the irvevpa. and to some extent Pfleiderer (1873). T. so that the whole world might see ($019) of what extremities (taff vncppoXrjv) Sin was capable. [In the second edition of his Paulinismus (1890). summed up by Lipsius in these decisive words The Pauline : ' .'' The points peculiar to St.p£ and Trvfvjm. 15. Glasgow. So. Holsten (. 136 ff. in St. which was made the basis of an excellent treatise in English by Dr. Paul regards the oap£ as inherently evil and the cause of evil. ' : . and the reading of a more ethical sense into oap£. 4) in the sense of being Spirit-caused or Spirit-given/ but with the further connotation that the character of the Law is such as corresponds spiritual « Water from ' the (1 to its origin. iii. To say this was to pronounce its condemnation it was like giving it full scope. W.1855. Paul's Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit. a genuine desire to do what is right. anthropology rests entirely on an Old Testament base the elements in it which are supposed to be derived from Hellenistic dualism must simply be denied (sind einfach zu bestreiten). p.<u = perficio . 14. Ludemann (1872). al. P. and the odp£ is only the material medium (Substrat) of sensual impulses and desires. St. made of flesh and blood 3). Pfleiderer refers so much of St. not to Hellenism.] : LAW AND SIN l8i horror of Sin not content with the evil which it is in itself it must needs turn to evil that which was at once Divine in its origin and beneficent in its purpose. We may add that this is St. Rom. 19 ff. but this is overborne by the force of temptation acting through the bodily appetites and : 'passions. Die Begriffe Fleisch unci Geist (Gotha. 1868). 48-52). The Law Rock were ' is ' 'spiritual/ as ' the Manna and the Cor. much as it has been expounded above. wcujAaTiicos. but with differences among themselves. vii. 1883. but to the later Jewish doctrine of the Fall.T«pYa£oji. Rich. Dickson.. 13-15. to act as a moral and responsible being voiu =/acio. Paul's essential view. 3.

that of Va. the contrast is logical.' this straining principle. 9).' which.' ' within my reach/ ' : ' ov 47 67** al. 9(\q} on the more emotional aspect of will : in this context it is evidently something short of the final act of volition. The vopos here It is = : : ' . Gr. non autem ap. Edd.' desire. is too easily made the instrument of evil. Method. Synonymik.)] This indwelling Sin corresponds to the indwelling Spirit of the next chapter a further proof that the Power which exerts so baneful an influence is not merely an attribute of the man himself but has an objective oLKoCcm iv (ap. and simply as it might be produced by inanimate mechanism (see also the notes on ch. so to speak.' mentioned is akin not merely the observed fact that the will to do good is forestalled by evil.X. his conscience. Of course the specific sense may not be always marked by the context. The exact distinction between 0(###BOT_TEXT###lt;u and ^ovXofxni has been much 8 0cAo>. the former deliberately accepting and carrying out the promptings of the latter. al. die objectiv mir auferlegte NoihwendigkeiL Many commentators. ' I find then with regard to the Law. to the erepov vSfiov of ver. Lat. D E F G K L P &c. dfxapTta. 32 ii. N. to me (I say) that which is evil is present/ He supposes a double break in the construction (1) tov vo\iov put as if the sentence had been intended to run I find then the which would be too modern. 15-21. t| not temporal. and practically = ' wish. Tisch. The man acts. from Chrysostom onwards. and is difficult to mark. t ov 6t\a) ey<» 20. tout eo-nv. or (ii) they give to the The sentence a construction which is linguistically intolerable.. For a fuller account of the distinction see Schmidt. ov\ tvpioico. who translates. wA Z4: 'as efxol it is. h. ov -yivu>o-Ka> appears to describe the harmonious and conscious working of will and motive. On the whole it seems that. RV. Epiph. have tried to but either (i) they read into the make top vo/jlov the Mosaic Law passage more than the context will allow. u. but the coercion of Lips. 294 ff. deliberation. -irapdicciTai u. ' 17. NABC BCDEFG ' : : NAKLP con- 21. : existence. &ov\o/Aai lays the greater stress on the idea of purpose. best attempt in this direction is prob. blindly he is not a fully conscious agent : a force which he cannot resist takes the decision out : : of his hands.01 lies to my hand..-Thay. to produce a certain result without reference to its moral character. das Gesetz d. especially in disputed. [Read ivoixovaa. i.' ' as the case really lies ' .' hardly this constantly recurring experience. cod. Sin thus establishes itself is not his higher self. Phot. T. p. mark. eupioxw Spa t6m v6pov : ' I find then this rule. WH. The part of the man in which 18. the flesh. usage. y WH. k. but here it is well borne out throughout. marg. but his lower self.1 8^ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII.' See especially the full and excellent note in Grm. that to me who would fain do that which is good. with fc$ B. seems to be nearest to the the will that is thus exercised. lv iu\ol. if not itself evil. h oi d€\w &c. 23.t.

but there are ideal traits in the ' — : picture as welL . makes great use of this phrase &v6Pvtros. iv. 16). Paul. 21-24. that proceeding from the action of Sin upon the body. as a Pharisee : . One of these Imperatives is the moral law. the performance of Pharisaic righteousness was too well within the compass of an average will.VII.' or the body (6 e£w avdpunos 2 Cor. with the 'inner man. I find. I below it self-satisfaction was too ingrained in the Pharisaic temper. what with his knowledge of himself. I gladly and cordially approve. But the anacoluthon after t6v v6hov seems too great even for dictation to an amanuensis.' So that. so that sooner or later the self-satisfaction natural to the Pharisee must give way: and his experience as a Christian would throw back a lurid light on those old days of which he was now ashamed. 7). 23 avaveoxxrOai ra> irvivixan tov voos cf. 2). 16. Other expedients like those of Mey (not Mey. St. With respect to the law. I : Law— when ' ' 16). another. It is difficult to think of this as exactly St.] LAW AND SIN ^3 wish to do good— powerless to help me \. p. 23. irepov vo\iov eWpor. as we should say.' a second. the other.-W. that of conscience. 'Thou shalt and Thou shalt not . i. See esp. Rom. Paul was not an ordinary Pharisee. JUSt as on the other hand it may be corrupted by the flesh (Rom.' i. he had doubtless materials enough for the picture which he has drawn here with such extraordinary power. He has sat for his own likeness. the 'old' with the 'new self) . 6. the faculty which decides between right and tw vopta tou ^oos fiou. 28 : it is the rational part of conscience. It is apparently in a similar sense that Dr. iv. Now he contrasts the old ' with the ' new man (or. are still more impossible. xii. 145. and what with his sympathetic penetration into the hearts of others. Gif. which goes back as far as Plato. Ew. from the depths of despair. T. K. There are two Imperatives (»>o>ot) within the man one. Paul's own experience as a Christian he seems above it. Eph.) Fri. o-u^oojuu t<5 vojxw tou ©eou what it approves. iii. He dealt too honestly with himself. A heart-rending cry. Abbott proposes as an alternative rendering (the first being as above). &c. Additional Note. 6).' see the commenon Gal. For vovs see on i. But St. 24.vQpbntov. 28). 22. : ' a different law ' ' (for the di* tinction ' between and aXXos. as we have seen (on vi. or religion but it may be associated with and brought under the influence of the irvcvpa (Eph. wrong strictly speaking it belongs to the region of morals rather than to that of intercourse with God. different. now he contrasts the 'outer man. iv.and (2) ifxoi repeated for the sake of clearness. Kcn-d toi/ law S. the other is the violent impulse of tators : ' ' ' passion.' the conscience or reason (2 Cor. TaXaitrwpos eyu> afOpwiros.

Orig. edd. vid. de Vulg. Arm Cyr. aliq. (rafxuTos (' go with from this body of death : ' . need further explanation. Sah. cvxapioru) tS) ©6(2 N* A L P &c. terse compressed summary of the previous 25. 24. Theodrt. cf. Syrr. A comes from deep feeling. D K £ \ von Olympus. Epiph..-lat. TOYTOY[eY]x A P lc [ TC°] TO:) e00 - The descent of the other readings may be best represented by a table. f g. i. paragraph. The expression is that which are inseparable in mortality . semel Ambrstr. €i>xapi<rrw t<£ 0€(S. Paul hhmself ? 1 (a). bis Hieron. Goth.X. apa ouV k.Alex. 14. But this must have taken place very early. 7-24. 204. X^pic no 0ea> eY'xApiCToo tco Gecp X*pic he tw Oecp h x<*P'C toy Oeo9 (6?) h x^P lc to y Kyp'ioy (Ky) J The other possibility would be that (vxapicrru) tS> ®(£> had got reduced to Xapis to) (. Boh. ^ X&pi-s T °v Kvplov F G. 25. by this section. cod. the death of the body by the death of the soul. Origen and the mass of Greek Fathers held that the passage refers to the unregenerate man. tw @(w B. ap. KaTfpyd^n/xai Two if as .-lat.-)*£ by successive dropping of letters. Orig.. semel Hieron.. S« rw ®ea> K* C 2 [de C* non liquet) minusc. (i) Appeal is made to Such expressions as n€7rpafi€VOs vno ttjp ctpapriav ver. the experience of St. The Inward Conflict. or are commonly treated they were raised. \_evx a P^ T ^> ® f £ Method.. ' as the body involves me in sin it also involves me : physical death to be followed by eternal. Sin and death this death ck tou acjfxaTOS tou Qavdrov toutou. The reading of the mass of MSS.] It is easy to see how the reading of B would explain all the rest. pr. Jo. or is it not. sed x"Pty T V ®eS> vel x«/> * 5 « T £ ® f # Epiph.-Damasc. vv. Bonwetsch. It is also conceivable that x^P 15 *>* preceded x^P 15 only. would be derived from it (not at once but by successive steps) by the doubling of two pairs of letters. The particular phrases hardly seem to The true reading is probably x°P ls T<? ® e $- The evidence stands thus.t. Methodius Xapts- X a pu . semel.1 84 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. (1) Is the experience described that of the regenerate or unregenerate man? (2) Is it. Iren. f) x«P s tov &(ov E 38.. Orig. al. subjects for discussion are raised. describing in two strokes the state of things prior to the intervention of Christ.. bis Chrys. In construction tovtov might but it is far better to ') take it in the more natural connexion with tiavdrov the body of which already has me in its clutches.

Three steps appear to be distinguished. on the ™ 7. This shows that the present tenses are in any case not to be taken too literally. awSjio^ . The Apostle throws himself back into the time which he is describing. viii. 25 marks a dividing line between a period of conflict and a period where conflict is practically ended. Z7r? v K. (H) Another group of writers. the video hat anguage (iii) The use of the present tense is explained as dramatic. Methodius (ob. The state of things : the present tenses ence. ^r& r& ««&. happy but only from ignorance and thoughtlessness (ii) then the sharp . 24. reference is is laid and on in J™^ is certainly a conflict in for the mastery.g. [ woutu to Kau ver. rakaincapos f y i> &v 0pco7ro S ver. Oi) When other expressions are adduced which seem to make for the opposite conclusion. That even the regenerate may have this mixed experience is thought to be proved. 27 %ov to acopa Kai 8ov\aycoyS>. In the lower sense it is applied to all baptized Christians. 1* *A. regarded Christianity as ' ' operating . collision between law and the sinful appetites waking to activity (111) Whether such a state belongs to the regenerate or the unreman seems to push us back upon the further question. 22. which opposite forces are struggling 55 6 generate a lower sense. e. (i) An opposite set of expressions is quoted. S > iUgS meliora of Ovid and Epictetus Calvimstic-side. Paul. In that sense there caji be little doubt that the experience described may fairly come within it. the higher stages of the spiritual life seem to be really excluded.V Augustine and the Latin Fathers generally. P see Dr. 8. But on the other hand. 3 10 a. e. T. It is said that these are inconsistent with the AnjXXorp^W ml ix 8P oL of Col. The sigh of relief in ver. it is true. LAW AND ' SIN ^5 19 20. i \ ul on ver. VII. ix. Or perhaps we should do better still to refuse to introduce so technical a term as regeneration into a context from which it is wholly absent. (ii) Stress described proof that these imply a present experimade to passages like 1 Cor. 9). by Gal vi 17 Clearly there is a double strain of language.d. it is urged that parallels to them may be quoted from Pagan literature. 7-25..] [t6 kok6u] vv. Abbott 15 of this chapter). i. after Dean Jackson). the prolonged struggle which precedes seems to be more rightly defined as inter regenerandum (Gif. What we mean by regenerate.] ver. 21.o>o) ver. refer the passage rather to the regenerate. Seneca. the Reformers especially inEuri ides Xenophon.' The word is used in a higher and < the collision which more described is end which is at last put to the stress and strain of this by the intervention of Christ and of the Spirit of Christ. The state there that of the truly and fully regenerate. (i) the life of unconscious morality (ver.g. It is argued like this is nowhere found of the regenerate state. of will be said in the next chapter. 21 and with descriptions like that of Rom. St.

such as might exist along with a severe moral struggle. ness of the Law to do anything but aggravate sin was brought home to him. . to face with each other. We may well believe that the regretful reminiscence of bright unconscious innocence goes back to the days of his own childhood before he had begun to feel the The incubus of the Law he had felt most conviction of Sin. to anat different times and in different degrees in one man it would lead up to Christianity. It is not a literal photonot so much imaginary as imaginative. ' Not there is nothing between them. On the other hand. until and is we come to ver. at whatever date. to one early. And all his experience. in any case abstraction Law and the soul are brought face is made of all that is Christian. graph of any one stage in the Apostle's career. say with the Apostle. In any case it is the mark of a genuine faith to be able to rule. But here. but it is a constructive picture drawn by him in bold lines from elements supplied to him by self-introspection. viii is the true conclusion to occurs at a very suitable place : ch. but it is at least not an intellectual conviction. the whole description is so vivid and so sincere. whether the moment described is a change in man.1 86 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VII. ch. It is really that it is difficult to think of it as purely imaginary. 'Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ together . so evidently wrung from the anguish of direct personal experience. turning upon the acceptance of The decisive the proposition that Jesus was truly the Messiah. vii. there a single expression used which And the use of it marks that the conflict (2) As to the further question whether St. there it was in the first instance intellectual.' It is just in his manner to sum up thus in a senThe break tence what he is about to expand into a chapter.' Here the crisis is moral . before or after the embracing of Christianity. in one it would be quick and sudden. . point in the conflict may be indeed the appropriation of Christ ' through His Spirit. 7-25. of the struggle of the natural man with temptation is here gathered and concentrated in a single portraiture. in other later another it might follow it. our Lord. 25 is belongs to Christianity. We cannot lay down any in another the slow growth of years.' putting an exact date to the struggle which follows we shall probably not be wrong in referring the main features of it especially to It was then that the powerlessthe period before his Conversion. It would obviously be a mistake to apply a generalized experience like The process described comes to different men this too rigidly. ended. Without keenly when he was a 'Pharisee of the Pharisees. Paul is speaking of himself or of some other man ' we observe that the crisis which is described here is not at least the same as that which is commonly known as his Conversion.

25. It pointed severely to the path of right and duty. However much it drew him one way there were counter influences which drew him another. he is bringing out most forcibly the ineffectiveness . Paul had found that really to keep the Law was a matter of infinite difficulty. i. and a little lower down (ver. With the best will in the world St. 14 Phil. Paul's SIN jSy Vieiv of the Law. as we have seen. It was only because of his intense sincerity and honesty in facing facts that St. The Law itself was cold.) This old feeling of his comes out in emotional passages like Rom ix 4 (cf. 14) he gives it the epithet spiritual/ which is equivalent to ascribing to it a direct Divine origin. Paul ever brought himself to give up his belief in the sufficiency of the Law. Paul's conversion was due to the tenacity with which he held on to his Jewish faith and his reluctance to yield to conclusions which were merely negative. as in the section before . And even where. in psychological experience. 111. us. he followed out the whole subject into its inmost recesses. 7-25. 5 f. And these counter influences proved the stronger of the two. inert. but there its function . It was not till a whole group of positive convictions grew up within him and showed their power of supplying the vacant place that the Apostle withdrew his of the Law passion the Apostle still lays down expressly holy and righteous and good'. &c). and when he had done so came by degrees to see the true place of the Law in the Divine economy. From the time that he came to write the Epistle to the Romans the process is mapped out before us pretty clearly. and which would only lead to it then because a new and a better solution had been found. The apparent suddenness of St. iii. We can hardly to restrain be a mistake to suppose that he ever lost that reverence for the Law as a Divine institution in which every Jew was born and bred and to which he himself was still more completely committed b V his early education as a Pharisee (Gal.VII. The doubts began. passive. was in his view of the Mosaic Law that St. 2 11. and there is no greater proof of his power and penetration of mind than the way in which when once his thoughts were turned into this channel. And yet it would It human that the Law itself is ' < The allegiance. It represents just the kind of difficulties and struggles which would be endured long before they led to a complete shifting of belief. process described in this chapter clearly belongs to a period when the Law of Moses was the one authority which the Apostle recognized. doubt that his criticism of the Law as a principle of religion dates back to a time before his definite conversion to Christianity. Paul must have seemed most revolutionary to his countrymen.J LAW AND St.

iii. 8). 20). 7-25. by a certain strange perversity in human nature. it brought St. most complete just because that law was the best. In the infancy of the world. and nothing more. supplementing which Christianity brought. . . heaping up the pile of human guilt. the imyvmru apaprias. It stood out led to visit a in history as a monument. The very fact that a thing greater was worse than the The one sentence in which St. same verdict held. with it law had been kept. was not with the Law. 3). The dividing line across it is the Coming of All previous to that is a period of Law— first of the Messiah. And so the to make its attractions all the kind under a curse (Gal. iv. Law was this dark shadow. not much of all mankind in their privileges. v. it brought manlast state : was forbidden seemed (Rom. Paul sees spread before him the whole the Divine plan. The truth must be acknowledged . impulse was followed wherever it led the primrose path of enjoyment had no dark shadow cast over it. vii. On a large scale for the race. 15). such law as was supplied by natural religion and law. as on a small scale for the the individual. iii. required. as a system. Its effect of Law is &ia vofxov ar/yyeMW afxaprias (Rom. but morally they were In the course of his travels St. 20). as a code of commandments. gave no help towards the performance of that which it Nay.!88 ended it . or where law was kept. Paul was better than the Gentiles. And it was just this to do. The fault viii. 17-29). 10). the law given God from Sinai. 81a vopov all this Clearly the fault of panse of history. revealing the right and condemning wrong. but to a serious spirit like as if the law was never kept -never satisfactorily it seemed . lay in the miserable weakness of human nature (Rom. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS it [VII. Paul sums up his experience first. The Law. and by bringing it set evolution of the Law in its true light and in its right place in the exSt.sum of human happiness. Law of whatThe breakdown of the Jewish Law was ever kind had failed. If In proportion as it became stricter. It was not to be supposed that this gift of law Rather the contrary. and number of the scattered colonies of Jews. and when he compares them with the Gentiles he can only turn upon them a biting irony (Rom. imperfect by conscience and then of relatively perfect law. there individual. ii. it deepened the gloom. And better this was equally fuller the true of the individual and of the race j the law the more glaring was the contrast to the The Jews were at the head practice of those who lived under it. increased the. it multiplied sin therefore was only to increase the condemnation (Rom. did all that it was intended But it needed to be supplemented. seemed actually to provoke to disobedience. as in the infancy of the was a blithe unconsciousness of right and wrong. it worked wrath (Rom. Paul's a new kind of happiness.

and to Thus what the Law 1 of Moses tried to do but failed\ the Incarnation has accomplished. Gal. This being so. St. The Spirit of Christ. the medium of that union. LIFE IN THE SPIRIT. Paul himself saw the gloomy period of law through to its end (rAo? yhp will heavens when their vofiov Xpicrros (Is 8iicaio(TvvT)v iravrl t<5 ntcrrfvovTi his own pages reflect. and break just at that moment darkness is felt to be most oppressive.' all. vii marks the point at which the great burden which lay upon the conscience rolls away. He lives closest union with Christ. kept— at rule of self. is to dethrone Sin from its tyranny in the human instal in its stead the Spirit of Christ.VIII. no verdict of ' Guilty in ' goes forth any longer against the 2 Christian. cf. the was succeeded. a stern which was fatal to peace of mind Whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet stumble in one point he is become guilty of all' (Jas. the God Himself has interposed by sending the Son of His love to . 1-4. Rom. THE FRUITS OF THE INCARNATION". Any true happiness therefore.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT 189 There was a Rabbinical commonplace. Paul sought and found in Christ. ii. with its all its life- giving energies. better it energies by which than any other. Rom! x. putting an end to to the fatal results authority and which it brought with it. All God's ways are not bright upon the surface. ' thus in connexion with that new order of things into to pass and empty itself. The last verse of ch. iii. The weak place in its action was that our poor human nature was constantly tempted and fell. For where the old new system has succeeded. The Law of Moses could not get rid of Sin. The result of Christ's interposition heart.judgement. must be sought elsewhere. 5). and the next chapter begins with an uplifting of the heart in recovered peace and serenity There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. But now system failed. 4) and new hopes and . 16. 1-4. And it was this happiness and relief which St. : ' . dis- possessing the old usurper Sin. It remained as a stage of salutary and necessary discipline. 10. X. But the very clouds which He draws over the Taken it which was break in blessings . enters and issues laws from 8 his its heart. VIII. the old order of Law had at last its difficulties cleared away. any true relief.

It describes the innermost circle of the Christian Life from its beginning to its end that life of which the Apostle speaks elsewhere hid with Christ in God. expresses the effect wrought the Spirit brings life because it (Gif. all its : 1. tou nfeupxTos rr|s £an]s. clause a\a Kara. probably with no very noticeable variation from the text which has come down to us (we do not know which of the two competing readii gs he had in ver. There is evidence that Marcion retained vv. 7-10).os rrjs a/iapTias it is no code but an authority producing regulated action such as would be produced by a code. / OASSlfaflZ introduced (from ver. has been left behind and the further stage of union with Christ has succeeded to it. died to free us from sin and this Death of His carried with a verdict of condemnation against Sin 4 and of acquittal for its victims so that from henceforth what the Law lives lays down as right might be fulfilled by us who regulate our not according to the appetites and passions of sense. . This chapter is. 1-11 of this chapter.os rov voos. 6 v6p. Arm. however. The gen. 1-1 7 to the rmore impassioned outlook and deeper introspection of vv. Vulg. . implying that much was cut out. irvtvpa in the mass of later authorities N c the older uncials with the Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions. the Latin Version of Origen and perhaps Origen himself with a fourth-century dialogue attributed to him. One : and KaraKpipa are correlative to oucauoo-is. . Kcn-dicpiaa. Him that same human nature with attributes except sin in that nature it He .. — and thence to the magnificent climax of vv. Pesh. 4) at two steps the first clause pi) d / / V JT'dfi*' b : An interpolation Kara. 6 yofAos tou nycuficiTos = the authority exercised by the Spirit.' (Col. Athanasius and others omit both. f c E L P &c. 1 ff. 18-30. iv X. but we cannot determine how much. ouoMt/ca. 190 take EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS upon : [VIII. ' . AD m D K 2.. but it also expresses more longer a ' ' ' : essentially is life. which follows shows that the is initial stage in the Christian career. Tertullian leaps from viii. in ver. 31-39. iii. capita irepiira. Bas. 11 to x. free use of vofios in the last : 5 ijj- We have had the same somewhat chapter. the second rovaiv in 137. Chrys. dXXd icard irvevu-a. of the formulae of justification KaraKpio-is both sets of Here. Goth. 236 v6p. 10). esp. In this stage too there is the same freedom from condemnation. 3) as It works gradually up through the calm exposition and pastoral entreaty of vv. 'I. sinner now falls upon his oppressor Sin. 1. Qea> bia 'iqo-oC Xpiarov rov Kvp'uw r)na>v in the last verse of ch. but at the dictates of the Spirit. jLsfJUM^ Fl KaTa o-dpKa ircpnraTotiaiv. secured by a process which is explained more fully The KaraKpia-is which used to fall upon the in ver. as we have seen. the phrase toIs phrases being properly forensic. 2.. 2. vi.). an expansion of x<*P l * T<? vii. which in the strictest sense the stage of Justification. 3 (cf.

James Riddell. in his ' Digest of Platonic Idioms' {The Apology of Plato. : . it was a very general tendency among scribes to supply an object to verbs originally without one. 1/2 vel potius 2/2 Chrys. 603 ieal tu>i>8' (kty ov tt(v9ov. going back to the time before the Western text diverged from the main body. . Gif.apTias koi tou Qclv&tou the authority exercised by Sin and ending in Death: see on vii. and on 6 v6fjL. frfltf4L>HA^»Mi n€. 3. x^ = adopted also by Gif. the impotence (see below) of the Law being this that. sing. (1) What is their construction? The common view.K. 1. is that they form a sort of nom. The prevalence of the Neuter Gender makes this difficult to prove but such instances as are decisive afford an . while the sentence itself is the Subject.) has Jj\(v0tpa>aiv oe.' diro tou vo\i.. 489). but this is not certain). The combination of N B with Latin and Syriac authorities shows that this reading must be extremely early. (who compares Eur. but that from Theaet. absolute in apposition to the sentence. and it is more probable that <re is only a mechanical repetition of the last syllable of rjXtvetpcwe (ce). p. or portion of a sentence. Cf. freed me. translates. of Arm. after rofy kv X. For ( 1 ) in most of the instances the sense points out that the Noun-Phrase or Pronoun stands over against the sentence. and although the evidence for this is confined to some MSS. 'I. Two questions arise as to these words. 3. (a) in many of them.g. t. Dr. 23. vi. would be inadequate to the facts.] LIFE IN THE SPIRIT : 101 the authority of the Spirit operating through the union with Christ. irvtvu. God [effected that is He] condemned sin in the flesh.t. and the scanty evidence for omission may be to some extent paralleled. Hort would add 'perhaps' the commentary of Origen as represented by Rufinus. who regards rd aUv. Still it can hardly be right. t6 yap dStfrarov tou yojxou. e. or in Apposition with the (unexpressed) Cognate Accus. and X . Hort suggests the omission of both pre nouns (j)/xas also being found). 2. &c.. It seems. which is not expressed The impossible thing of the Law . as a whole. however. not the internal force but merely the rhetorical or logical form of the sentence is in view. lays down two propositions about constructions like this: * (i) These Noun-Phrases and Neuter-Pronouns are Accusatives. the late Mr. by that for the rjkevQipuvi m omission of tvprjKtvai in iv. 13 r^v 5e avrriv dvrifuaeiav -nXarvvB-qr* Kai vfxtis but this would seem to come under the same rule. . .o\) tt)s &u. For the phrase itself see on ch. had been accus. Troad. that they are Cognate Accusatives. but practically explains it as in apposition to a cognate ' accus. by Apposition or Substitution. for d ye in v. given above is as clear as any.' &c. O.' [Examples follow. The argument that if rd dSvv. " lesh.] This seems to criticize by anticipation the view of Va. But we should hardly be justified in doing more than placing ixt in brackets. somewhat better to regard the words in ' apposition not as nom. above. 1 iv Xpurno'iTjaou goes with tjUvdepaxre A small group of important authorities ^N B F G. (to which Dr. To say. A the Adverbs apxrjv.' It is true that an apt parallel is quoted from 2 Cor. as accus. 1877. most accomplished scholar. or for r V ®«£ in vii. codd. it would probably have stood at the end of : analogy for the rest: Theaet. It might be said that they are Predicates. 153 C i-nl tovtois tov Ko\o<pu>va.. t)v nptvrrjv. . T. Oxford.1 VIII. 25. (ii) They represent. &c. . Tert. farf". but as accus. Soph. We do not expect a return to first pers. avay/edfa Trpoafripafav k. the sentence itself. vi. 6. as the second person is nowhere suggested in the context. 122).

use (§ lix. But Law being it this that. p. of nature between the Father and the Son tou viov ttjs dydmjs avrov Col. sentence) to dftvvarov. the sentence. as given in Cramer's Catena. was always passive (so five times in LXX.. On the whole the passive sense appears to us to be more in accordance with the Biblical use of dhvv. and also to give a somewhat easier construction if to dbvv. nom. 46) gives the phrase an active sense and retains the But on the other hand if not Origen gen. and the Greek of Origen. tov to. quod invalidum erat legis. p. (Be Res. on the ground that if abvv. seems to prefer to take to abvv. 9. twenty-two times [3 w. 290 E. impossibilis in an active sense in his comment . Gif. % xxxii. appears to make t6 Saa-mp yap t) aptTi) I8ia (pvcrei lo-\vpd. Similarly Cyr. Clarom. were Tertullian passive it should be followed by ru v6p<p not tov vopov.-Alex. also Win. &c. but frail humanity is tempted and falls. and fem. T. xvii. Win. — and N. tovtco-ti t6 do6tvovv. but must be explained as a sort : : of Gif. but in N. 3. Win. himself.) contends for the former. So too Mey. T. are slightly more literal: quod impossibile erat legis. (cf. 11. toO Idiov vloi ver. and so the Law's good counsels come to nothing. LXX h • <S : not ' because ' (Fri. and that on a point language— where ancient authority is especially valuable.).). 125. active or passive ? ut sup. 7. ion. is active it is not quite a simple case of apposition to the sentence. absolute (' The impotence of the which seems rather strained. in Luke xviii. ovrco leal r) KaKia kcu dhvv. active toiovtov vopov f) (pvais dSvvaTos . The emphatic eavrov brings out the community rbv lauTou utoi'. The Law points the way to what is right. . of the Law consisted.). and Cod.] in LXX. above. 14 tt\v dlvvaTov ovtois vvkto. after Fri. (who finds fault with the structure of the : . Alf. (2) Is to d8vv. but ' in which ' or wherein. while dhvv. like tt/v XoyiK^v Xarptiav tfj. an our?}* aa6(vq kcu abvvara . Wisd. k<u !£ uSwdrov qSov pvxa/v lir(ovoav. L 13* : cf. xii. being alone somewhat ambiguous and peculiar) . * The text is not free from suspicion. 1.: 19a EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS [VIII. 22. that must be confessed the balance of ancient authority is strongly in favour of this way of the natural interpretation of taking the words. was always active (so twice in N.wv in Rom. Mey. 23. appears to be ref