δοῦλος … εὐαγγ. Θεοῦ is the exhaustive statement of his official dignity, proceeding from the general to the particular, by which Paul earnestly-as dealing with the Church of the metropolis of the world, which had as yet no personal knowledge of him-opens his Epistle as an official apostolic letter; without, however, having in view therein (as Flatt thinks) opponents and calumniators of his apostleship, for of the doings of such persons in Rome the Epistle itself contains no trace, and, had such existed, he would have set forth his dignity, not only positively, but also at the same time negatively (comp Gal 1:1).
In the first place Paul describes by ΔΟῦΛΟς Ἰ. Χ. his relation of service to Christ, as his Ruler, whose servant he is, and that in general (comp on Php 1:1), just as the Old Testament עבד יהוה expresses the relation of service to Jehovah, without marking off in itself exclusively any definite class, such as the prophetic or the priestly (see Jos 1:1; Jos 14:7; Jos 22:4; Jdg 2:8; Psa 131:3; comp Act 16:17). This relation of entire dependence (Gal 1:10; Col 4:12) is then specifically and particularly indicated by κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, and for this reason the former ΔΟῦΛΟς Ἰ. Χ. cannot be rendered merely in general Christi cultor (so Fritzsche), which is inadequate also at 1Co 7:22; Eph 6:6. Paul was called to his office, like all the earlier Apostles; he did not arrive at it by his own choice or through accidental circumstances. For the history of this divine calling, accomplished through the exalted Christ Himself, see Acts 9 (Act 22:26), and the remarks thereon. This κλητός presented itself so naturally to the Apostle as an essential element[276] in the full description of his official position which he meant to give (comp 1Co 1:1), that the supposition of a side-glance at uncalled teachers (Cameron, Glöckler) seems very arbitrary.
ἈΦΩΡΙΣΜΈΝΟς ΕἸς ΕὐΑΓΓ. ΘΕΟῦ] characterizes the ΚΛΗΤῸς ἈΠΌΣΤΟΛΟς more precisely: set apart (definitely separated from the rest of mankind) for God’s message of salvation, to be its preacher and minister (see on Eph 3:7). The article before εὐαγγ. elsewhere invariably given in the N. T., is omitted here, because Paul views the message of God, of which he desires to speak, primarily under its qualitative aspect (comp also van Hengel and Hofmann). Concrete definiteness is only added to it gradually by the further clauses delineating its character. This mode of expression implies a certain festal tone, in harmony with the whole solemn character of the pregnant opening of the Epistle: for a gospel of God, which He promised before, etc. Still we are not to understand, with Th. Schott, a work of proclamation, since εὐαγγ. is not the work of conveying a message, but the message itself. Θεοῦ is the genitive subjecti (auctoris), Rom 1:2, not objecti (Chrysostom). See on Mar 1:1. It is God who causes the message of salvation here referred to, which is His λόγος (Act 10:36), to be proclaimed; comp Rom 15:16; 2Co 11:7; 1Th 2:2; 1Th 2:8-9; 1Pe 4:17. The destination of Apostle to the Gentiles is involved in ἀφωρ. εἰς εὐ. Θ. though not expressed (as Beza and others think). Further, since ἈΦΩΡ. is parallel with the previous ΚΛΗΤΌς, it is neither to be explained, with Toletus and others, including Olshausen, by Act 13:2, nor with Reiche, Ewald and van Hengel (following Chrysostom and others) by Gal 1:15, comp Jer 1:5; but rather by Act 9:15 (ΣΚΕῦΟς ἘΚΛΟΓῆς), comp Act 26:16 ff. The setting apart took place as a historical fact in and with his calling at Damascus. Entirely different is the mode of presenting the matter in Gal 1:15, where ἈΦΟΡΊΣΑς ΜΕ ἘΚ ΚΟΙΛ. ΜΗΤΡ as the act of predestination in the counsel of God, is placed before the καλέσας, as the historically accomplished fact. The view of Drusius (de sectis, ii. 2, 6) and Schoettgen (comp Erasmus and Beza), which Dr. Paulus has again adopted, viz. that Paul, in using the word ἈΦΩΡ., alludes to his former Pharisaism (“the true Pharisee in the best sense of the word”), is based on the Peschito translation (see Grotius), but is to be rejected, because the context gives no hint of so peculiar a reference, for which also no parallel can be found in Paul’s other writings.
[276] See Weiss in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 97 ff.
Rom 1:2. A more precise description of the character of this εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ, according to its concrete peculiarity, as far as Rom 1:5 inclusive, advancing and rising to a climax under the urgent sense of the sacredness of his office, which the Apostle has frankly to assert and to establish before the church of the metropolis of the world, personally as yet unknown to him.
ὃ προεπηγγείλατο κ.τ.λ[283]] How natural that the Apostle with his Old Testament training should, in the light of the New Testament revelation which he had received, first of all glance back at the connection divinely established in the history of salvation between the gospel which he served and ancient prophecy, and should see therein the sacredness of the precious gift entrusted to him! To introduce the idea of an antithetic design (“ut invidiam novitatis depelleret,” Pareus, Estius, Grotius and others, following Chrysostom and Theophylact) is quite arbitrary, looking to the general tenor of Rom 1:1-7. The news of salvation God has previously promised (προεπηγγείλατο, 2Co 9:5; Dio Cass. xlii. 32) through His prophets, not merely in so far as these, acting as the organs of God (αὐτοῦ), foretold the Messianic age, with the dawn of which the εὐαγγέλιον, as the “publicum de Christo exhibito praeconium” (Calovius), would necessarily begin, but they foretold also this praeconium itself, its future proclamation. See Rom 10:18, Rom 15:21; Isa 40:1 ff; Isa 42:4; Isa 52:1 ff.; Zep 3:9; Psa 19:5; Psa 68:12; Deu 18:15; Deu 18:18. It is the less necessary therefore to refer ὅ, with Philippi and Mehring, to the contents of the gospel.
τῶν προφητῶν] is not to be limited, so as either to include merely the prophets proper in the narrower sense of the word, or to go back-according to Act 3:24, comp Act 13:20-only as far as Samuel. The following ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγ. suggests, on the contrary, a reference to all who in the O. T. have prophesied the gospel (even Moses, David and others not excluded); comp Heb 1:1.
ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις] Not: in the holy Scriptures (so most expositors, even Fritzsche), in which case the article must have been used; but qualitatively: in holy writings. The divine promises of the gospel, given through the prophets of God, are found in such books as, being God’s records for His revelations, are holy writings. Such are the prophetic writings of the O. T.; thus designated so as to lay stress on their qualitative character. In a corresponding manner is the anarthrous γραφῶν προφητικῶν to be understood in Rom 16:26.
[283] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
Rom 1:3-4.[286] We must, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, set aside the view which treats τοῦ γενομένου.… νεκρῶν, and Rom 1:5-6, as parentheses, because we have to deal with intervening clauses which accord with the construction, not with insertions which interrupt it. See Winer, p. 526 [E. T. 707].
περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] “Hoc refertur ad illud quod praecessit εὐαγγέλιον; explicatur nempe, de quo agat ille sermo bona nuntians,” Grotius. So, also, Toletus, Cajetanus, Calvin, Justiniani, Bengel, Flatt, Reiche, Köllner, Winzer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Umbreit, Th Schott, Hofmann, and others. But it may be objected to this view, on the one hand, that περί is most naturally connected with the nearest suitable word that precedes it; and on the other that, εὐαγγ., frequently as it is used with the genitive of the object, nowhere occurs with περί in the N. T.;[287] and still further, that if this connection be adopted, the important thought in Rom 1:2 appears strangely isolated. Therefore, the connection of περί with Ὃ ΠΡΟΕΠΗΓΓ. is to be preferred, with Tholuck, Klee, Rückert, Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Philippi, van Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, and others, following Theodoret; so that the great personal object is introduced, to which the divine previous promise of the gospel referred; consequently, the person concerning whom was this promise of the future message of salvation. God could not (we may remark in opposition to Hofmann’s objection) have previously promised the gospel in any other way at all than by speaking of Christ His Son, who was to come and to be revealed; otherwise his προεπαγγέλλεσθαι εὐαγγέλιον would have had no concrete tenor, and consequently no object.
ΤΟῦ ΓΕΝΟΜΈΝΟΥ down to νεκρῶν describes under a twofold aspect (ΚΑΤᾺ) the exalted dignity of Him who had just been designated by τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ: (1) ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ, He entered life as David’s descendant; (2) κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσ., He was powerfully instated as Son of God by His resurrection. Nevertheless Ὁ ΥἹῸς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ, in the words ΠΕΡῚ ΤΟῦ ΥἹΟῦ ΑὐΤΟῦ (not ΑὙΤΟῦ), is not by any means to be taken in the general, merely historical theocratic sense of Messiah (Winzer, Progr. 1835, p. 5 f.; comp also Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 424; and Pfleiderer, l.c[289]), because this is opposed to the constant usage of the Apostle, who never designates Christ as υἱὸς Θεοῦ otherwise[290] than from the standpoint of the knowledge which God had given to him by revelation (Gal 1:16) of the metaphysical Sonship (Rom 8:3; Rom 8:32; Gal 4:4; Col 1:13 ff.; Php 2:6 ff. al[291]); and the hypothesis of a modification having taken place in Paul’s view (Usteri, Köllner; see, on the other hand, Rückert) is purely fanciful. Here also the υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is conceived in the metaphysical sense as He who had proceeded out of the essence of the Father, like Him in substance (not, as Baur thinks, as organ of the Spirit, which is the purer form of human nature itself), and is sent by Him for the accomplishment of the Messianic counsel. But since it was necessary for this accomplishment that He should appear as man, it was necessary for Him,-and these essential modal definitions are now added to the υἱοῦ τοῦ αὐτοῦ,-as a human phenomenon, (1) to be born κατὰ σάρκα, and indeed of the seed of David,[292] and yet (2) to be actually instated κατὰ πνεῦμα, as that which, although from the time of His birth in appearance not different from other men (Php 2:7; Gal 4:4), He really was, namely the Son of God. These two parallel clauses are placed in asyndetic juxtaposition, whereby the second, coming after the first, which is itself of lofty and honourable Messianic significance, is brought out as of still greater importance. See Bernhardy, p. 448; Dissen. a[293]. Pind. Exc. II., de Asynd. p. 275. Not perceiving this, Hofmann fails to recognise the contrast here presented between the two aspects of the Son of God, because Paul has not used κατὰ πνεῦμα δε ὁρισθέντος in the second clause.
ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ] in respect of flesh; for the Son of God had a fleshly mode of being on earth, since His concrete manifestation was that of a materially human person. Comp Rom 9:5; 1Ti 3:16; 1Pe 3:18; Php 2:7; Rom 5:15; 1Co 15:21; 1Ti 2:5. To the ΣΆΡΞ belonged in the case of Christ also, as in that of all men, the ΨΥΧΉ as the principle of the animal life of man; but this sensuous side of His nature was not, as in all other men, the seat and organ of sin. He was not ΣΑΡΚΙΚΌς (Rom 7:14), and ΨΥΧΙΚΌς (1Co 2:14), in the ethical sense, like all ordinary men, although, in virtue of that sensuous nature, he was capable of being tempted (Heb 2:18; Heb 4:15). Although in this way His body was a ΣῶΜΑ Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς (Col 1:22), yet He did not appear ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚῚ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς, but ἘΝ ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ ΣΑΡΚῸς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς (Rom 8:2). With reference to His fleshly nature, therefore, i.e. in so far as He was a materially-human phenomenon, He was born (γενομένου, comp Gal 4:4), of the seed (as descendant) of David, as was necessarily the case with the Son of God who appeared as the promised Messiah (Jer 23:5; Psa 132:11; Mat 22:42; Joh 7:42; Act 13:23; 2Ti 2:8). In this expression the ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυΐδ is to be understood of the male line of descent going back to David (comp Act 2:30, ἘΚ ΚΑΡΠΟῦ Τῆς ὈΣΦΎΟς), as even the genealogical tables in Matthew and Luke give the descent of Joseph from David, not that of Mary;[297] and Jesus Himself, in Joh 5:27 (see on that passage), calls Himself, in contradistinction to His Sonship of God, son of a man, in which case the correlate idea on which it is founded can only be that of fatherhood. It is, therefore, the more erroneous to refer ἐκ σπ. Δαυ. to Mary (“ex semine David, i.e. ex virgine Maria,” Melancthon; comp also Philippi), especially since Paul nowhere (not even in Rom 8:3, Gal 4:4) indicates the view of a supernatural generation of the bodily nature of Jesus (Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 328; Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 140 ff.; Pfleiderer, l.c[299]), even apart from the fact that the Davidic descent of the mother of Jesus can by no means be established from the N. T. It is the more unjustifiable, to pronounce the metaphysical divine Sonship without virgin birth as something inconceivable[300] (Philippi).
There now follows the other, second mode in which the Son of God who has appeared on earth is to be contemplated, viz. with reference to the spirit of holiness, which was in Him. The parallelism between κατὰ σάρκα and ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ἉΓ., apparent even in the position of the two elements, forbids us to understand ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΝ. ἉΓΙΩΣ. as denoting the presupposition and regulative cause of the state of glorious power ascribed to the Son of God (Hofmann). In that case Paul must have used another preposition, conveying the idea on account of, perhaps διά with the accusative (comp the ΔΙΌ, Php 2:9), in order to express the thought which Hofmann has discovered, namely, that the holiness of His spirit, and therefore of His life, was to make His divine Sonship a state of glorious power. Regarding the view taken of ἐν δυνάμει in connection with this, see the sequel. ἉΓΙΩΣΎΝΗ, in Paul’s writings as well as in the Sept. (in Greek authors and in the other writings of the N. T. it does not occur), invariably means holiness (2Co 7:1; 1Th 3:13; Psa 96:6; Psa 97:12; Psa 144:5), not sanctification (as rendered by the Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, and many others, including Glöckler and Schrader). So also in 2Ma 3:12. The genitive is the gen. qualitatis (Hermann, a[302] Viger. pp. 887, 891; Kühner, II. 1, p. 226), and contains the specific character of the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ. This ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ἉΓΙΩΣ. is, in contradistinction to the ΣΆΡΞ, the other side of the being of the Son of God on earth; and, just as the ΣΆΡΞ was the outward element perceptible by the senses, so is the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ the inward mental element, the substratum of His ΝΟῦς (1Co 2:16), the principle and the power of His INNER life, the intellectual and moral “Ego” which receives the communication of the divine-in short, the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος of Christ. His ΠΝΕῦΜΑ also was human (Mat 27:50; Joh 11:33; Joh 19:30)-altogether He was an entire man, and the Apollinarian conception is without support in the N. T. teaching-but it was the seat of the divine nature belonging to His person; not excluding the specialty of the latter (in opposition to Beyschlag, Christol. pp. 212, 231), but being rather that which contained the metaphysical υἱότης Θεοῦ, or-according to the Johannine type of doctrine-the seat and the organ of the ΛΌΓΟς, which became flesh in the human person of Jesus, as also of the fulness of the Holy Spirit which bore sway in Him (Joh 3:34; Act 1:2; 2Co 3:17). Consequently the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ of Christ, although human (comp Pfleiderer), was exalted above all other human spirits, because essentially filled with God, and thereby holy, sinless, and full of divine unpolluted life, as was no other human πνεῦμα; and for this reason His unique quality is characterized by the distinguishing designation πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, i.e. spirit full of holiness. This purposely-chosen expression, which is not to be abated to the studium sanctitatis (van Hengel), must, seeing that the text sets forth the two sides of the personal nature of Christ, absolutely preclude our understanding it to refer to the πνεῦμα ἅγιον,[304] the third person of the divine Trinity, which is not meant either in 1Ti 3:16, or in Heb 9:14. Nevertheless, the majority of commentators, since Chrysostom, have so explained it; some of them taking it to mean: “secundum Sp. S. ei divinitus concessum” (Fritzsche; comp Beza, Calixtus, Wolf, Koppe, Tholuck, and others);[306] some referring it to the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit (Theodoret), or to the bestowal of the Spirit which took place through Christ (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Estius, Böhme, and others). Since the contrast between σάρξ and ΠΝΕῦΜΑ is not that between the human and the divine, but that between the bodily and the mental in human nature, we must also reject the interpretation which refers the words to the divine nature (Melancthon, Calovius, Bengel, and many others); in which case some take ἁγιωσύνη as equivalent to ΘΕΌΤΗς (Winzer); others adduce in explanation of ΠΝΕῦΜΑ the here irrelevant ΠΝΕῦΜΑ Ὁ ΘΕΌς, Joh 4:24 (Beza, Winzer, Olshausen, Maier, Philippi); others take the expression as substantially equivalent to the Johannine ΛΌΓΟς (Rückert; comp Reiche, “the principle of His higher essence”), and thus have not avoided an Apollinarian conception. The correct interpretation is substantially given by Köllner, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald (also in his Jahrb. 1849, p. 93), and Mehring. Comp Hofmann (“spirit which supposes, wherever it is, a condition of holiness”), and also Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 49, who nevertheless understands the divine nature of Christ as also included.[309]
ὁρισθέντος] The translation of the Vulgate, qui praedestinatus est, based on the too weakly attested reading προορισθέντος (a mistaken gloss), drew forth from old writers (see in Estius) forced explanations, which are now properly forgotten. ὉΡΊΖΕΙΝ, however, with the double accusative, means to designate a person for something, to nominate, to instate (Act 10:42; comp Meleager in the Anthol. xii. 158, 7 : σὲ θεὸν ὥρισε δαίμων), nor is the meaning different here.[311] For although Christ was already the Son of God before the creation of the world, and as such was sent (Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4), nevertheless there was needed a fact, by means of which He should receive, after the humiliation that began with His birth (Php 2:7 f.), instating into the rank and dignity of His divine Sonship; whereby also, as its necessary consequence with a view to the knowledge and conviction of men, He was legitimately established as the Son. The fact which constituted instatement was the resurrection, as the transition to His δόξα; comp on Act 13:33; and ἘΠΟΊΗΣΕ in Act 2:36. Inaccurate, because it confounds that consequence with the thing itself, is the gloss of Chrysostom: δειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος, κριθέντος; and that of Luther: “shewn.” Umbreit’s rendering is erroneous: “separated,” namely from all men.
ἐν δυνάμει] Not: through omnipotence (Umbreit), but: mightily (Luther), forcibly; for this installation of the Son of God as Son of God was a work of divine power, which (see what follows) was accomplished by means of the resurrection from the dead. Thus commanding power, divinely-energetic and effectual, forms the characteristic quality, in which the ὁρισμός took place. On ἘΝ, as paraphrase of the adverb (Col 1:29; 2Th 1:11), see Bernhardy, p. 209. ἘΝ ΔΥΝ. is not, with Melancthon, Schoettgen, Pareus, Sebastian Schmid, and others, including Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Mehring, Holsten, Hofmann, and Pfleiderer, to be connected with ΥἹΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ (as the mightily powerful Son of God); for it was here of importance to dwell, not on a special predicate of the Son of God,[313] but, in contradistinction to the ἘΚ ΣΠΕΡΜ. ΔΑΥ. ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ, upon the divine Sonship in itself; of which Sonship He was indeed the hereditary possessor, but yet needed, in order to become instated in it with glorious power, resurrection from the dead. Thus, however, ἐν δυνάμει, even when rightly connected with ὉΡΙΣΘ., is not, with Chrysostom and Theophylact, to be taken as “per virtutem, i. e. per signa et prodigia” (Calovius, comp Grotius); nor with Fritzsche: vi ei datâ; for Paul himself defines the how of the mighty ὁρισμός by: ἘΞ ἈΝΑΣΤ. ΝΕΚΡῶΝ. This, namely, was the causal fact, by virtue of which that ὁρισμός was accomplished; for by the resurrection of Christ, God, who raised Him up (comp 2Co 13:4), accomplished in point of fact His instating declaration: Thou art my Son, this day, etc., Act 13:33. Paul might accordingly have written διά, but ἘΚ is more expressive of the thought that Christ in virtue of the resurrection, etc. On ἐκ, used of causal issuing forth, see Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 281; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 550 f. The temporal explanation, since or after (Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Toletus, and others, including Reithmayr; comp Flatt, Umbreit, and Mehring), is to be rejected, because the raising up of Jesus from the dead was itself the great divine act, which, completed through the majesty of the Father (Rom 6:4), powerfully instated the Son in the Son’s position and dignities; hence it was also the basis of the apostolic preaching, Act 1:22; Act 2:24 ff; Act 13:30; Act 17:31 f., Act 26:23; Rom 4:24; 1Co 15:3 ff. We are not to take the expression ἐξ ἀναστ. νεκρ., as is often done, for ἘΞ ἈΝΑΣΤ. ἘΚ ΝΕΚΡ., the second ἘΚ being omitted for the sake of euphony: but it must be viewed as a general designation of the category (νεκρῶν, see on Mat 2:20): through resurrection of the dead, of which category the personal rising of the dead Jesus was the concrete case in point. Comp Act 17:32. So, also, de Wette, Hofmann; comp Philippi, who however, following Erasmus and Bengel, introduces also the idea, foreign to this passage, that our resurrection is involved in that of Christ.
The following Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is in apposition to ΤΟῦ ΥἹΟῦ ΑὐΤΟῦ in Rom 5:3; not necessary in itself, but in keeping with the fulness of expression throughout this opening portion of the Epistle, which exhibits a character of majesty particularly in Rom 1:3-4.
Observe, further, that the exhibition of the holy and exalted nature of Christ in our passage serves to express the high dignity of the apostolic office. Of diversities in faith and doctrine in Rome regarding the person of Christ there is not a trace in the whole Epistle.[319]
[286] Comp. Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 502 ff.
[287] Hofmann erroneously thinks that Paul could not have added the object of his divine message otherwise than by περί. He would have only needed to repeat the εἰς εὐαγγέλιον with rhetorical emphasis, in order then to add the object in the genitive (τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀ.). Comp. Dissen. ad Dem. de cor. p. 315.
[289] .c. loco citato or laudato.
[290] Comp. Gess, v. d. Pers. Christi, p. 89 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 309.
[291] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[292] But at the same time the idea of “an accommodation to the Jewish-Christian mode of conception” (Holsten, z. Ev. Paul. u. Petr. p. 427), is not to be entertained. Paul gives the two main epochs in the history of the Son of God, as they actually occurred and had been already prophetically announced.
[293] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[297] In opposition to Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfüll. II. p. 49 (comp. the Erlangen Zeitschr. 1868, 6, p. 359 f.), who generalizes the sense of the words in such away as to convey the meaning that Christ appeared as one belonging to the collective body which traces its descent back to David. But in fact it is simply said that Christ was BORN of the seed of David. The reading γεννωμένου (in min., and MSS. used by Augustine) is a correct gloss; and Hofmann himself grants (heil. Schrift N. T., in loc.) that γίγνεσθαι ἐκ here signifies descent by birth. And even if γενομένου be taken as meaning: who appeared, who came (comp. on Mar 1:4; Php 2:7; so Ewald), still the genetic relation to the σπέρμα of David remains the same. He came κατὰ σάρκα of the seed of David, and that in no other way than through His birth. This remark holds good also against other obscure evasions to which Hofmann resorts in his Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 113; in his heil. Schr. N. T. he adheres substantially to his earlier view (“come of the race which called itself after David, because tracing its descent to his ancestry”). No, the σπέρμα of David is nothing else than his semen virile, out (ἐκ) of which, transmitted (comp. ἀπό, Act 13:23) through the male line from γενεὰ to γενεά (Mat 1:6 ff.), at length the Son of God κατὰ σάρμα-Christ, the David’s son of promise-was born. See besides, against Hofmann, Rich. Schmidt, l.c.-Because Christ was ἐκ σπέρματος of David, He might also Himself be called σπέρμα of David, in the same way as He is called in Gal 3:16 σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ; and He is so called Mat 1:1. Comp. further on ἐκ σπέρματος, in the sense of fatherhood, Soph. O. C. 214: τίνος εἶ σπέρματος.… πατρόθεν.
[299] .c. loco citato or laudato.
[300] This opinion rests on a premiss assumed ǎ priori, on an abstract postulate, the propriety of which it is impossible to prove. Comp. on Mat 1:18, note.
[302] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[304] This is called in the Test. XII. Patr. p. 588, πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, in so far as it produces holiness.
[306] Comp. also Zeller in the theol. Jahrb. 1842, p. 486. In his view (2Co 3:17), the πνεῦμα is the element of which the higher personality of Christ consists. According to Baur, Paulus II. p. 375, it is the Messianic spirit, the intrinsic principle constituting the Messiahship of Christ. According to Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 425, it is in itself a transcendent pneumatic force, which produces the ἁγιωσύνη, a radiance of the divine πνεῦμα ἅγιον.
[309] A more accurate and precise definition of the idea may be found in Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 313; also Rich. Schmidt, p. 105 f.; Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 169, 503 f.
[311] But not in the sense: destined to become something, as Hofmann thinks; nor generally, in the sense: qui destinatus est, but rather: qui constitutus est (was instated). For otherwise the aorist participle would be unsuitable, since it must necessarily indicate an act following the γενομένου, etc.; whereas the divine destination would be prior to the birth. Consequently, were that sense intended, it must have been, as in Act 10:42, ὡρισμένου.
[313] As if only a change of His attributes was concerned, or the transition into the full reality of the divine Sonship (Pfleiderer). The question concerned the installation of the Son of God as such, as it were His enthronisation, which had not taken place previously, but was accomplished by the resurrection with a mighty power. By means of the latter He received-as the Son of God, which from the beginning and even in the days of His flesh He really was-a de facto instatement, which accomplished itself in a way divinely powerful. What accrued to Him thereby, was not the full reality (see Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4), but the full efficiency of the Son of God; because He was now exalted above all the limitations of the state of His κένωσις (Philippians 2; 2Co 8:9); comp. e.g. Rom 6:9; Rom 11:33 f.; Rom 5:10; 2Co 13:4; and numerous other passages. The Son was now the κύριος πάντων, had the name above every name, etc, etc.
[319] Comp. Gess, von d. Pers. Chr. p. 56.
Rom 1:5. To the general τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, which designates Christ as the Lord of Christians in general, Paul now adds the special relation in which he himself stands to this common κύριος. He entertained too lively a consciousness of the bliss and dignity of that relationship, not to set it forth once more (comp Rom 1:1) in this overflowing salutation; this time, however, with closer reference to the readers, in accordance with his definite character as Apostle of the Gentiles.
Rom 1:5-6 are not to be enclosed in a parenthesis; and only a comma should be placed after Rom 1:6.
διʼ οὗ] through whom, denotes nothing else than the medium; nowhere, not even in Gal 1:1, the causa principalis. The view of the Apostle is, as Origen rightly perceived, that he had received grace and apostleship through the mediation of Christ, through whom God called him at Damascus. Regarding Gal 1:1, see on that passage.
ἐλάβομεν] He means himself alone, especially since in the address he specifies no joint author of the letter; not however-as Reiche, following Estius and many others, thinks-using the plural out of modesty (in the solemnity of an official epistolary greeting?), but rather (comp Rom 3:9) in accordance with the custom, very common among Greek authors, of speaking of themselves in the plural of category (Krüger, § 61, 2; Kühner, a[322] Xen. Mem. i. 2, 46). This is, no doubt, to be traced back to the conception “I and my equals;” but this original conception was in course of use entirely lost. The opinion, therefore, that Paul here includes along with himself the other apostles (Bengel, van Hengel) is to be all the more rejected as unsuitable, since the subsequent ἘΝ ΠᾶΣΙ ΤΟῖς ἜΘΝΕΣΙΝ points to Paul himself alone as the Apostle of the Gentiles. To understand Paul’s official assistants as included (Hofmann) is forbidden by the subsequent ἀποστολήν, which does not mean mission in general, but, as invariably in the N. T., specially apostleship.
χάριν κ. ἀποστολὴν] grace (generally) and (in particular) apostleship. Χάριν is to be understood, not merely of pardoning grace (Augustine, Calvin, Calovius, Reiche, Tholuck, Olshausen, and others), or of the extraordinary apostolic gifts of grace (Theodoret, Luther, and others, including Flatt and Mehring); for such special references must be demanded by the context; but on the contrary generally of the entire divine grace, of which Paul was made partaker through Christ, when he was arrested by Him at Damascus in his career which was hateful to God (Php 3:12; 1Co 15:10), converted, enlightened (Gal 1:16), and transferred into the communion of God’s beloved ones and saints. The special object (Gal 1:16) and at the same time the highest evidence of this χάρις which he had received, was his reception of the ἈΠΟΣΤΟΛΉ,[323] and that for the Gentile world. Others find here a ἓν διά δυοῖν (Chrysostom, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Glass, Rich. Simon, Wetstein, Semler, Koppe, Böhme, Fritzsche, Philippi, and others): ΧΆΡΙΝ ἈΠΟΣΤΟΛῆς. This might certainly be justified in linguistic usage by the explicative ΚΑΊ (Fritzsche, a[324] Matth. p. 856; Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, iii. 100); but it arbitrarily converts two elements, which taken separately yield a highly appropriate sense, into one, and fails to recognise-what is involved in the union of the general and the particular-the fulness and force of the discourse moving the grateful heart. This remark applies also against Hofmann, according to whom the Apostle terms one and the same vocation “a grace and a mission;” in which view ἀποστ. is erroneously rendered (see above), and in consequence thereof ΕἸς ὙΠΑΚ. Π. is then joined merely to ΧΆΡ. Κ. ἈΠ., and not also to ἘΛΆΒ.
ΕἸς ὙΠΑΚ. ΠΊΣΤ.] Object of the ἘΛΆΒ. ΧΆΡ. Κ. ἈΠΟΣΤ.: in order that obedience of faith may be produced, i.e. in order that people may subject themselves to the faith, in order that they may become believing. Comp Rom 16:26; Act 6:7; 2Co 10:5 f.; 2Th 1:8. To take ΠΊΣΤΙς for doctrina fidei (Beza, Toletus, Estius, Bengel, Heumann, Cramer, Rosenmüller, Matt, Fritzsche, Tholuck, and others), is altogether contrary to the linguistic usage of the N. T., in which πίστις is always subjective faith, although often, as in the present instance, conceived of objectively, as a power. Comp Rom 16:20; Gal 1:23. The activity of faith in producing works (Reithmayr), however, is not contained in the expression. The πίστις is, according to Paul, the conviction and confidence (assensus and fiducia) regarding Jesus Christ, as the only and perfect Mediator of the divine grace, and of eternal life, through His work of atonement. Faith alone (to the exclusion of works) is the causa apprehendens of the salvation promised and obtained through Christ; but, because it transfers us into living and devoted fellowship with Him, altogether of a moral character, it becomes the subjective moral power of the new life regenerated through the power of the Holy Spirit-of the life in Christ, which, however, is the necessary consequence, and never the ground of justification. See Luther’s Preface.
The genitive πίστεως, in accordance with the analogy of the expressions kindred in meaning ὙΠΑΚΟῊ ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ in 2Co 10:5, and ὙΠΑΚ. Τῆς ἈΛΗΘΕΊΑς in 1Pe 1:22, necessarily presents itself (comp Act 6:7; Rom 10:16; 2Th 1:8; also 2Co 9:13) as denoting that to which the obedience is rendered; not (Grotius, following Beza) the causa efficiens: “ut Deo obediatur per fidem,” in which explanation, besides, the “Deo” is arbitrarily introduced.[328] Hofmann is also wrong in taking the genitive ΠΊΣΤΕΩς as epexegetical (an obedience consisting in faith).
ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν] is to be joined with ΕἸς ὙΠΑΚ. ΠΊΣΤΕΩς, beside which it stands; the ἔθνη, however, are not all nations generally, inclusive of the Jews (so most expositors, including Rückert, Reiche, Köllner, Fritzsche, Baur), but, in accordance with the historical destination of the Apostle (Gal 1:16; Act 9:15; Act 26:17 f.), and in consequence of the repeated prominence of his calling as Gentile Apostle in our letter (Rom 1:13; Rom 11:13; Rom 15:16), all Gentile nations, to which also the Romans belonged (Beza, Tholuck, Philippi, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, Ewald, Hofmann and others); and these regarded not from a geographical point of view (Mangold, p. 76), but from a popular one, as גוים; which precludes us from thinking-not as to a section, but at any rate as to the mass, of the Roman congregation-that it was Jewish-Christian. This his apostolic calling for the Gentiles is meant by Paul in all passages where he describes the ἜΘΝΗ as the object of his labours (Gal 1:16; Gal 2:2; Gal 2:8-9; Eph 3:1; Eph 3:8; Col 1:27; 1Th 2:16).
ὙΠῈΡ ΤΟῦ ὈΝΌΜ. ΑὐΤΟῦ] belongs, in the most natural connection, not to ἘΛΆΒ.… ἈΠΟΣΤ. (Rückert) or to ΔΙʼ ΟὟ.… ἜΘΝΕΣΙΝ (de Wette, Mehring, Hofmann), but to ΕἸς ὙΠΑΚΟῊΝ.… ἜΘΝΕΣΙΝ; “in order to produce obedience to the faith among all Gentile nations for the sake of (for the glorifying of, comp Act 5:41; Php 2:13) His name.” Act 9:15; Act 15:26; Act 21:13; 2Th 1:12, serve to illustrate the matter referred to. The idea of wishing to exclude the glorifying of his own name (Hofmann) is not for a moment to be imputed to the Apostle. He would have needed a very special motive for doing so.
[322] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[323] Augustine aptly remarks: “Gratiam cum omnibus fidelibus, apostolatum autem non cum omnibus communem habet.” Comp. Bengel: “Gratia et singularis gratiae mensura apostolis obtigit.”
[324] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[328] So also van Hengel, on the ground of passages like v. 19; Php 2:12, where however the sense of obedience to God results from the context; and Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, II. p. 281 ff., who urges against our view that it makes ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόμ. αὐτοῦ superfluous. But the glory of Christ is precisely the lofty end of all ὑπακούειν τῇ πίστει. Where it takes place, it is acknowledged that Jesus Christ is Lord, Php 2:11.
Rom 1:6. Application of the contents of Rom 1:5 to the relation in which the Apostle stood to his readers, whereby he indicates how he is officially entitled to address them also, teaching, exhorting, and so forth
ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰ. Χ.] To be written thus, without a comma after ὑμεῖς, with Heumann, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette, Hofmann, and Bisping: among whom also are ye called (ones) of Jesus Christ. Among the Gentile nations the Roman Christians were, like other Gentile-Christian churches, called of the Lord; amidst the Gentile world, nationally belonging to it (in opposition to Mangold’s mere geographical interpretation), they also shared this high distinction. The reference of the καὶ to Paul (Th. Schott), and consequently the interpretation: as I, so also ye, is erroneous, because the Apostle has asserted concerning himself something far higher than the mere Christian calling. The common interpretation of κλητοὶ Ἰ. Χ. as an address (so too Rückert, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel, Mehring) makes the ἐν οἶς ἐστε κ. ὑμ. quite a meaningless assertion; for Bengel’s suggestion for meeting the difficulty, that ἐν οἶς has the implied meaning: among which converted nations, is purely arbitrary.
Since the calling (to the Messianic salvation; see on Gal 1:6; also 1Co 7:17) is invariably ascribed by Paul to God (Rom 8:30, Rom 9:24; 1Co 1:9; 1Co 7:15; 1Co 7:17; 1Th 2:12; 2Th 2:14; comp Usteri, p. 281; Weiss, bibl. Theol. § 127; what Schmidt urges in opposition, in Rudelbach’s Zeitschr. 1849, II. p. 188 ff. is untenable) we must explain it, hot as: called by Christ (Luther, Rückert, Mehring, Hofmann, and others), but as: called (by God) who belong to Christ (so Erasmus, Beza, Estius, and most modern commentators, also Winer, p. 183). The genitive is possessive, just as in the analogous τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ in Mat 24:31. With the substantive nature of κλητός (comp Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 147) the genitive by no means admits merely the interpretation which points to the calling subject, as in 2Sa 15:11; 1Ki 1:41; 1Ki 1:49; Zep 1:7; but admits of very different references, as e.g. in Homer, Od. xvii. 386, κλητοί γε βροτῶν are not those called by mortals, but those who are called among mortals (genitive totius).
Rom 1:7. Now for the first time, brought by Rom 1:6 nearer to his readers, Paul passes from the throng of the great intervening thoughts, Rom 1:2 ff., in which he has given full and conscious expression to the nature and the dignity of his calling, to the formal address and to the apostolic salutation.
πᾶσι κ.τ.λ[332]] directs the letter to all beloved of God who are in Rome, etc., and therefore to the collective Roman Christian church, Php 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1),[333] but not, as Tholuck thinks (comp Turretin, Wolf, and Böhme), at the same time also to those foreign Christians who were accidentally staying in Rome, for against this view Rom 1:8, in which ὙΠῈΡ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ ὙΜῶΝ can only refer to the Romans, is decisive. The ΠᾶΣΙ would be self-obvious and might have been dispensed with, but in this Epistle, just because it is so detailed and is addressed to a great church still far away from the Apostle, ΠᾶΣΙ carries with it a certain diplomatic character. Similarly, though from other grounds, Php 1:1.
ἀγαπητ. Θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις] Characteristic special analysis of the idea “Christians” in accordance with the high privileges of their Christian condition. For, as reconciled with God through Christ, they are beloved of God (Rom 5:5 ff., Rom 8:39; Col 3:12); and, as those who through the divine calling to the Messianic salvation have become separated from the κόσμος and consecrated to God, because members of the new covenant of grace, they are called saints; comp 1Co 1:2. This saintship is produced through the justification of the called (Rom 8:30), and their accompanying subjection to the influence of the Holy Spirit (1Co 1:30). De Wette erroneously interprets: “those who are called to be saints.” So also Baumgarten-Crusius. The calling always refers to the salvation of the Messiah’s kingdom. But that the ἁγιότης is to be understood in that Christian theocratic sense after the analogy of the Old Testament קדושׁ, and not of individual moral holiness (Pareus, Toletus, Estius, Grotius, Flatt, Glöckler, de Wette, and others), is plain from the very fact, that all Christians as Christians are ἅγιοι.
χάρις.… εἰρήνη] See Otto, in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff. Χάρις is the disposition, the subjective feeling in God and Christ, which the Apostle wishes to be entertained towards and shown to his readers; εἰρήνη is the actual result, which is produced through the manifestation of the χάρις: grace and salvation (שָׁלוֹס), the latter in every aspect in which it presents itself as the Christian issue of the χάρις. Comp Melancthon. The specifically Christian element in this salutation[337] lies in ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς.… Χριστοῦ. Comp 1Co 1:3; 2Co 1:2; Eph 1:2; Php 1:2; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1 f.; 1Ti 1:2; 2Ti 1:2; Tit 1:4; Phm 1:3. The special rendering of εἰρήνη, peace, which, following Chrysostom and Jerome, the majority, including Reiche, Olshausen, Tholuck, Philippi, Umbreit and others retain (the higher peace which is given, not by the world, but by the consciousness of divine grace and love, see especially Umbreit, p. 190 ff.), must be abandoned, because χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη represent the general epistolary χαίρειν (Act 15:23; Jam 1:1), and thus the generality of the salutation is expressed in a way characteristically Christian.
πατήρ ἡμῶν means God, in so far as we, as Christians, are His children through the υἱοθεσία (see on Gal 4:5; Rom 8:15).
καὶ κυρίου] i.e. καὶ ἀπὸ κυρίου, not, as Glöckler, following Erasmus, takes it, “and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” for against this view stands the decisive fact that God is never called our and Christ’s Father; see also Tit 1:4; 2Ti 1:2. The formal equalisation of God and Christ cannot be certainly used as a proof (as Philippi and Mehring contend) of the divine nature of Christ-which, however, is otherwise firmly enough maintained by Paul-since the different predicates πατρός and κυρίου imply the different conceptions of the causa principalis and medians. For this purpose different prepositions were not required; comp on Gal 1:1.
[332] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[333] With these parallels before us, it is unreasonable to ask why Paul does not designate the readers as a church. Bengel and van Hengel are of opinion that no regular congregational bond was as yet in existence. Th. Schott thinks that Paul as yet stood in no relation whatever to the church. The ὄντες ἐν ʼΡώμῃ κ.τ.λ. are the church, and it is to the churches that he has written where he does not write to specified persons.
[337] Regarding Otto’s attempted derivation of it from the Aaronic benediction, see on 1Co 1:3.
Rom 1:8. Πρῶτον μὲν] To that, which Paul desires first of all to write, there was meant to be subjoined something further, possibly by ἔπειτα δέ. But, amidst the ideas that now crowd upon him, he abandons this design, and thus the μέν remains alone. Comp Rom 3:2; and on Act 1:1; 1Co 11:18; Schaefer, a[341] Dem. IV. p. 142; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 410.
διὰ Ἰηροῦ Χριστοῦ] These words-to be connected with εὐχαριστῶ, not with μου, as Koppe and Glöckler think, against which Rom 7:25 and Col 3:17 are clearly decisive-contain the mediation, through which the εὐχαριστῶ takes place. The Apostle gives thanks not on his own part and independently of Christ, not διʼ ἑαυτοῦ, but is conscious of his thanksgiving being conveyed through Jesus Christ, as one who is present to his grateful thoughts; in so far, namely, as that for which he thanks God is vividly perceived and felt by him to have been brought about through Christ. Comp on Col 3:17; Eph 5:20. Thus Christ is the mediating causal agent of the thanksgiving. To regard Him as its mediating presenter (Origen, Theophylact, Bengel, and others, including Hofmann) cannot be justified from Paul’s other writings, nor even by Heb 13:15. Theodore of Mopsuestia well observes: τοῦ Χριστοῦ ταύτης ἡμῖν τῆς εὐχαριστίας τὴν αἰτίαν παρασχομένου.
ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν] quite simply: your faith (on Christ); the praiseworthy character of the πίστις is only set forth by the context (καταγγέλλ. ἐν ὅλῳ τ. κ.) afterwards. Everywhere one hears your faith openly spoken of. Comp Rom 16:19. Observe how this flattering expression of the Apostle and the thanksgiving coupled with it, as also the στηριχθῆναι κ.τ.λ[345], in Rom 1:11-12, point to the church not as Jewish-Christian but as Pauline. Mangold’s reference to Php 1:15-18, in opposition to this inference, leaves out of view the quite different personal situation under which the latter was written. Comp on Php 1:18, note.
ἐν ὅλῳ τ. κόσμῳ] a popular hyperbole, but how accordant with the position of the church in that city, towards which the eyes of the whole world were turned! Comp 1Th 1:8. It is, moreover, obvious of itself, that the subjects of the ΚΑΤΑΓΓΈΛΛΕΙΝ are the believers. As to the unbelievers, see Act 28:22.
[341] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[345] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
Rom 1:9. Γάρ] The pith of the following proof of the assurance conveyed in Rom 1:8 lies in ἀδιαλείπτως, not in the desire to come to Rome, which is not subjoined till Rom 1:10 (Th. Schott). The interest felt by the Apostle in the Romans, which was so vivid that he unceasingly remembered them, etc., had even now urged him to his εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ κ.τ.λ[348]
μάρτυς.… Θεὸς] The asseveration in the form of an oath (comp 2Co 1:23; 2Co 11:31; Php 1:8) is intended solemnly to strengthen the impression of what he has to say; viewed with reference to the circumstance which might readily excite surprise, that he, the Apostle of the Gentiles, had never yet laboured in the church-which nevertheless was Pauline-of the capital of the Gentile world. See Rom 1:10-13. The hypothesis of “iniquos rumores,” that had reached his ears from Rome (van Hengel), is unnecessary and unsupported by any trace in the letter.
ᾧ λατρεύω κ.τ.λ[350]] added to strengthen the asseveration with respect to its sacred conscientiousness: to whom I render holy service in my spirit, i.e. in my moral self-consciousness, which is the living inner sphere of that service.[351] This ἐν τῷ πν. μου, on which lies the practical stress of the relative clause, excludes indeed all ΛΑΤΡΕΎΕΙΝ of a merely external kind, exercising itself in works, or even impure; but is not intended to suggest a definite contrast to this, which would here be without due motive. It is rather the involuntary expression of the profoundly vivid feeling of inward experience. The Apostle knows and feels that the depths of his innermost life are pervaded by his λατρεύειν. Comp ᾯ ΛΑΤΡΕΎΩ.… ἘΝ ΚΑΘΑΡᾷ ΣΥΝΕΙΔΉΣΕΙ, in 2Ti 1:3; also Heb 12:28. ΤῸ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ΜΟΥ cannot be the Holy Spirit (Theodoret),[353] but Paul bore the witness of that Spirit in his own spirit (Rom 8:16; Rom 9:1.).
ἐν τῷ εὐαγγ. τ. υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] in the gospel of His Son, which I preach, defend, etc. That is the great sphere to which He is called in the service of God, in the consciousness of which he is impelled by an inward necessity to devote to his readers that fervent sympathy of which he assures them. Grotius and Reiche think there is an implied contrast to the λατρεία ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, which however is quite foreign to the connection. Can we think of a side-glance at the Jewish style of teaching-when the discourse breathes only love and warmth of affection?
ὡς ἀδιαλ.] ὡς does not stand for ὅτι (as following the Vulgate, the majority, including Fritzsche, think), but expresses the manner (the degree). God is my witness, how unceasingly, etc. Comp Php 1:8; 2Co 7:15; 1Th 2:10; Act 10:28; Calvin; Philippi; van Hengel; see also Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1000. The idea of modality must be everywhere retained, where ὡς takes the place of ὅτι. See the passages in Heindorf, a[355] Plat. Hipp. maj. p. 281, Jacobs. a[356] Ach. Tat. p. 566.
μν. ὑμ. ποιοῦμ.] make mention of you, viz. in my prayers. See Rom 1:10. Comp Eph 1:16; Php 1:3; 1Th 1:2.
[348] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[350] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[351] Comp. Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, II. p. 89 f.; see also on Joh 4:23.
[353] Holsten also (z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 386) understands it of the Holy Spirit as bestowed on the Apostle (μου). See, against this view, Rich. Schmidt, Paul. Christol. p. 33 ff.
[355] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[356] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Rom 1:10. Πάντοτε … δεόμενος] annexes to ὡς ἀδιαλ. the more precise definition: in that (so that) I always (each time) in my prayers request. ἐπί, which is to be referred to the idea of definition of time (Bernhardy p. 246), indicates the form of action which takes place. Comp 1Th 1:2; Eph 1:16; Phm 1:4; Winer, p. 352 [E. T. 470].
εἴπως ἤδη ποτέ] if perhaps at length on some occasion. For examples of ἥδη, already (Baeumlein, Part. p. 138 ff.), which, comparing another time with the present, conveys by the reference to something long hoped for but delayed the idea at length, see Hartung, Partikel. I. p. 238; Klotz, a[359] Devar. p. 607; comp Php 4:10, and the passages in Kypke. Th. Schott incorrectly renders πάντοτε, under all circumstances, which it never means, and ἥδη πότε as if it were ἤδη νῦν or ἄρτι. The mode of expression by εἴπως implies somewhat of modest fear, arising from the thought of possible hindrances.[361]
εὐοδωθήσομαι] I shall have the good fortune. The active εὐοδοῦν is seldom used in its proper signification, to lead well, expeditum iter praebere, as in Soph. O. C. 1437; Theophr. de caus. pl. v. 6, 7; LXX. Gen 24:27; Gen 24:48; the passive, however, never means via recta incedere, expeditum iter habere, but invariably (even in Pro 17:8) metaphorically: prospero successu gaudere. See Herod. vi. 73; 1Co 16:2; 3Jn 1:2; LXX. 2Ch 13:12; Psa 1:3, and frequently; Sir 11:16; Sir 41:1; Tob 4:19; Tob 5:16; Test. XII. Patr. p. 684. Therefore the explanation of a prosperous journey, which besides amounts only to an accessory modal idea (Beza, Estius, Wolf, and many others following the Vulgate and Oecumenius; including van Hengel and Hofmann), must be rejected, and not combined with ours (Umbreit).
ἐν τῷ θελ. τ. Θεοῦ] in virtue of the will of God; on this will the ευοδωθ. causally depend.
[359] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[361] Comp. Rom 11:14; and on Php 3:11; 1Ma 4:10.
Rom 1:11. Ἐπιποθῶ] not valde cupio, but denoting the direction of the longing. Comp on 2Co 5:2; Php 1:8.
χάρισμα πνευματικόν] Paul calls that, which he intends to communicate to the Romans through his longed-for personal presence among them (ἰδεῖν; comp Act 19:21; Act 28:20) a spiritual gift of grace; because in his apprehension all such instruction, comfort, joy, strengthening, etc., as are produced by means of his labours, are regarded not as procured by his own human individuality, but as a result which the πνεῦμα ἅγιον works by means of him-the gracious working of the Spirit, whose organ he is. While it was highly arbitrary in Toletus, Bengel, Michaelis and others to refer the expression to the apostolic miraculous gifts-against which the εὐαγγελίσασθαι in Rom 1:15 is conclusive-it was a very gratuitous weakening of its force to explain it (as is done by Morus, Rosenmüller, Köllner, Maier, Th. Schott) as a gift referring to the (human) spirit; “a gift for the inner life,” Hofmann. In such an interpretation the specifically Christian point of view (1Co 12:4; comp εὐλογία πνευματική, Eph 1:3) is left out of account; besides, πνευματικόν would imply nothing characteristic in that case; for that Paul did not desire to communicate any gifts of another sort, e.g. external, would be taken for granted.
The expression τι … χάρ. is modest (μετριάζοντος, Oecumenius). Note also the arrangement by which the words are made to stand apart, and this delicate τι, the substantial χάρισμα, and the qualifying πνευματικόν, are brought into the more special prominence.[365]
εἰς τὸ στηρ. ὑμᾶς] Object of the intended communication of such a gift; that ye may be established, namely, in the Christian character and life. See Rom 1:12; comp Act 16:5; Rom 16:25; 1Th 3:2. The στηρίξαι is conceived as being divinely wrought by means of the Spirit, hence the passive expression; it was to be accomplished however, as Paul hoped, through him as the instrument of the Spirit. Mangold, p. 82, has, without any ground in the text, assumed that this establishment has reference to “their abandoning their Jewish-Christian scruples regarding the mission to the Gentiles,” whereas Rom 1:12 rather testifies to the Pauline Christianity of the Romans. This remark applies also against Sabatier, p. 166, who understands “une conception de l’évangile de Jésus plus large et plus spirituelle.”
[365] On μεταδιδόναι τινί τι (instead of τινί τινος), comp. 1Th 2:8; Tob 7:9; 2Ma 1:35. So sometimes, although seldom, in classic authors, Herod. viii. 5, ix. 34; Xen. Anab. iv. 5, 5; Schaef. Melet. p. 21; Kühner, II. i. p. 295.
Rom 1:12. Τοῦτο δέ ἐστι] This, however, which I have just designated as my longing (namely, ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς, ἵνα … στηριχθ. ὑμᾶς) means, thereby I intend to say nothing else than, etc. By this modifying explanation, subjoined with humility, and expressed in a delicate complimentary manner (Erasmus puts the matter too strongly, “pia vafrities et sancta adulatio”), Paul guards himself, in presence of a church to which he was still a stranger, from the possible appearance of presumption and of forming too low an estimate of the Christian standpoint of his readers.[367]
ΣΥΜΠΑΡΑΚΛΗΘῆΝΑΙ] must be understood not, with the Peschito, Vulgate, Valla, Erasmus, Luther, Piscator, de Dieu, and many others, including Koppe and Ewald, in the sense of comfort or of refreshment (Castalio, Grotius, Cramer, Rosenmüller, Böhme)-which it would be necessary that the context should call for, as in 1Th 3:2; 2Th 2:17, but which it here forbids by the general ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς, ἱνα Κ.Τ.Λ[368]-but in the quite general sense of Christian encouragement and quickening. The συμ.-however is not to be explained by ὑμᾶς καὶ ἐμαυτόν; on the contrary, the ἐν ὑμῖν renders it necessary that Paul alone should be conceived as the subject of συμπαρακληθῆναι. He desires to be quickened among the Romans (ἐν ὑμῖν) at the same time with them, and this by the faith common to both, theirs and his, which should mutually act and react in the way of the Christian sympathy that is based on specific harmony of faith. That the readers are not the subject of the συμπαρακλ. (Fritzsche, van Hengel) is certain from ἐν ὑμῖν, which, if it meant in animis vestris (van Hengel), would be a perfectly superfluous addition.
The compound συμπαρακλ. occurs only here in the N. T., and is not found in the LXX. or Apocr.; but see Plat. Rep. p. 555 A; and Polyb. v. 83, 3.
ἡ ἐν ἀλλήλοις πίστις, more significant of the hearty character of the faith than ἡ ἀλλήλων πίστις, is the faith of both viewed in its mutual identity, so that the faith which lives in the one lives also in the other.
ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἐμοῦ] placed in this order with delicate tact.
[367] The delicate turn which he gives to the matter is this: “to see you, in order that I,” etc., means nothing more than “to be quickened along with and among you,” etc. Consequently συμπαρακλ. is parallel to the ἰδεῖν; for both infinitives must have the same subject. If συμπαρακλ. κ.τ.λ. had been meant to be merely a delicate explanation of στηριχθῆναι ὑμᾶς (the usual exposition after Chrysostom), then ἐμέ must necessarily have been added to συμπαρακλ. Grotius aptly says: “συμπαρακλ. regitur ab ἐπιποθῶ.” The true interpretation is given also by Bengel and Th. Schott; comp. Olshausen. Ewald, and Hofmann, who erroneously imputes to me the common view.
[368] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
Rom 1:13. My longing towards you has often awakened in me the purpose of coming to you, in order also among you etc. Paul might have placed a καί before προεθ., but was not obliged to do so (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection); and he has not put it, because he did not think of it. The discourse proceeds from the desire (Rom 1:11) to the purpose, which is coming nearer to realisation. Hence it is the less necessary to transfer the weight of the thought in Rom 1:13 to the clause expressive of purpose (Mangold).
οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμ. ἀγν.] The Apostle lays stress on this communication. Comp on Rom 11:25. The δὲ is the simple μεταβατικόν.
καὶ ἐκωλ. ἄχρι τοῦ δεῦρο] is a parenthesis separated from the structure of the sentence, so that ἵνα attaches itself to προεθ. ἐλθ. πρ. ὑμ. The καὶ, however, is not to be taken as adversative, as Köllner still thinks (see, in opposition to this, Fritzsche), but as the simple and marking the sequence of thought, which here (comp Joh 17:10) intervenes parenthetically. For the view which makes it still dependent on ὅτι, so that it introduces the second part of what the readers are to know (Hofmann), is precluded by the following clause of purpose, which can only apply to that resolution so often formed.
δεῦρο] used only here in the N. T. as a particle of time, but more frequently in Plato and later authors; see Wetstein. That by which Paul had been hitherto hindered, may be seen in Rom 15:22; consequently it was neither by the devil (1Th 2:18) nor by the Holy Spirit (Act 16:6 f.). Grotius aptly observes (comp Rom 15:22): “Magis urgebat necessitas locorum, in quibus Christus erat ignotus.”
ἵνα τινὰ καρπὸν κ.τ.λ[372]] is entirely parallel in sense with ἽΝΑ ΤΙ ΜΕΤΑΔῶ Κ.Τ.Λ[373] in Rom 1:11, and it is a gratuitous refining on the figurative καρπόν to find specially indicated here the conversion of unbelievers beyond the range which the church had hitherto embraced (Hofmann); comp also Th. Schott, and even Mangold, who takes the Apostle as announcing his desire to take in hand the Gentile mission also among his readers, so that the καρπός would be Gentiles to be converted. No; by καρπόν Paul, with a complimentary egotism flattering to the readers, describes that which his personal labours among the Romans would have effected-consequently what had been said without metaphor in Rom 1:11-according to a current figure (Joh 4:36; Joh 15:16; Php 1:22; Col 1:6), as harvest-fruit which he would have had among them, and which as the produce of his labour would have been his (ideal) possession among them. But in this view the literal sense of ἔχειν (comp Rom 6:21 f.) is not even to be altered by taking it as consequi (Wolf, Kypke, Koppe, Köllner, Tholuck, and others). To postpone the having the fruit, however, till the last day (Mehring) is quite alien to the context.
καθὼς καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιπ. ἔθν.] as also among the remaining nations, i.e. Gentiles (see on Rom 1:5), namely, I have fruit. In the animation and fulness of his thought Paul has inserted twice the καὶ of comparison, inasmuch as there was present to his mind the twofold conception: (1) “among you also,[376] as among;” and (2) “among you, as also among.” So frequently in Greek authors. See Baeumlein, Partikell. p. 153; Stallbaum, a[377] Plat. Gorg. p. 457 E; Winer, p. 409 [E. T. 547]. There is therefore no grammatical reason for commencing the new sentence with καθώς (Mehring), nor is it in accordance with the repetition of the ἐν.
[372] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[373] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[376] That the “you” must mean the Roman Christians, and not the still unconverted Romans (Th. Schott), is clearly shown by all the passages, from ver. 8 onwards, in which the ὑμεῖς occurs; and especially by the ὑμῖν τοῖς ἐν ʼΡωμῃ in ver. 15. As regards their nationality, they belong to the category of Gentiles. Comp. Rom 11:13, Rom 16:4; Gal 2:12; Gal 2:14; Eph 3:1. But if Paul is the Apostle of the Gentiles, the Gentiles already converted also belong to his apostolic sphere of labour, as, e.g., the Colossians and Laodiceans, and (vv. 5, 6) the Romans. Schott is compelled to resort to very forced suggestions regarding ἐν ὑμῖν and ὑμῖν, especially here and in ver. 15; as also Mangold, who can only find therein a geographical designation (comp. Hofmann: “he addresses them as a constituent portion of the people of Rome”). Comp. on ver. 15.
[377] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Rom 1:14-15. Fuller explanation regarding the previous ἵνα τινὰ καρπ. σχῶ καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, καθὼς καὶ ἐν τ. λοιπ. ἔθνεσιν.
Respecting βάρ βαροῖ (ὄνομα τὸ οὐχ Ἑλληνικόν, Ammonius), which, according to Greek feeling and usage, denotes generally all non-Greeks (Plat. Polit. p. 262 D)-all who were strangers to Greek nationality and language-see Dougt. Anal. II. p. 100 f.; Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 6, 1. How common it was to designate all nations by thus dividing them into Ἑλλ. κ. βάρβ., see in Wetstein and Kypke, with examples from Philo in Loesner, p. 243. Of course the Hellenes included the Jews also among the βάρβαροι (a view which is attributed even to Philo, but without sufficient ground), while the Jews in their turn applied this designation to the Hellenes. See Grimm on 2Ma 2:21, p. 61. Now it may be asked: did Paul include the Romans among the Ἕλληνες or among the βάρβαροι? The latter view is maintained by Reiche and Köllner, following older writers; the former is held by Ambrosiaster, Estius, Kypke, and others, and the former alone would be consistent with that delicacy which must be presumed on the Apostle’s part, as in fact, since Hellenic culture had become prevalent in Rome, especially since the time of Augustus, the Roman community was regarded from the Roman point of view as separated from the barbaria, and only nations like the Germans, Scythians, etc., were reckoned to belong to the latter. Comp Cicero, de fin. ii. 15, “non solum Graecia et Italia, sed etiam omnis barbaria. But the following σοφοῖς τε καὶ ἀνοήτοις, as also the circumstance that the Romans, although they separated themselves from the barbarians (Greek authors included them among these, Polyb. v. 104, 1, ix. 37, 5, Krebs and Kypke in loc[379]), are nowhere reckoned among the Hellenes or designated as such, make it evident that the above question is to be entirely excluded here, and that Paul’s object is merely to set forth generally his obligation as Apostle of the Gentiles in its universality. This he does in the form of a twofold division, according to nationality, and according to condition of culture, so that the thought which he would express is: I am in duty bound to all Gentiles, without distinction of their nationality or of their culture; therefore I am ready, to you also etc.
ὀφειλέτης] Paul regards the divine obligation of office, received through Christ (Rom 1:5), as the undertaking of a debt, which he has to discharge by preaching the Gospel among all Gentile nations. Comp , in reference to this subject, Act 26:17 f.; Gal 2:7; 1Co 9:16.
οὕτω] so, that is, in accordance with this relation, by which I am in duty bound to the Ἕλλησι τ. κ. βαρβ., to the σοφ. τ. κ. ἀνοήτ. It does not refer to καθώς, Rom 1:13, which is dependent on the preceding καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, but gathers up in itself the import of Ἕλλησι.… εἰμι: so then, ita, sic igitur. See Hermann, a[381] Luc. de hist. conscr. p. 161; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 307. Bengel well says: “est quasi ephiphonema et illatio a toto ad partem insignem.”
The οὕτω τὸ κατʼ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον (sc[382] ἐστί) is to be translated: accordingly, the inclination on my part [lit. the on-my-part inclination] is, so that τὸ belongs to πρόθυμον, though the expression τὸ κατʼ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον is not substantially different from the simple τὸ πρόθυμον μου, but only more significantly indicative of the idea that Paul on his part was willing, etc. Comp on Eph 1:15. He says therefore: in this state of the case the inclination which exists on his side is, to preach to the Romans also. At the same time κατʼ ἐμὲ is purposely chosen out of a feeling of dependence on a higher Will (Rom 1:10), rather than the simple τὸ πρόθυμον μου, instead of which τὸ ἐμοῦ πρόθυμον would come nearer to the expression by κατʼ ἐμέ. On the substantival πρόθυμον, in the sense of προθυμία, comp 3Ma 5:26; Plat. Leg. ix. p. 859 B; Eur. Med. 178; Thuc. iii. 82, 8; Herodian, vii. 3, 15. The above connection of τὸ.… πρόθυμον is adopted by Seb. Schmid, Kypke, Reiche, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel, Mehring, and others. So also Th. Schott, who however takes οὕτω in a predicative sense; as does likewise Hofmann: Thus the case stands as to the fact and manner of the inclination on my part. This however is the less appropriate, because Rom 1:14 contains, not the mode, but the regulative basis of the προθυμία of Rom 1:15. If τὸ κατʼ ἐμέ be taken by itself, and not along with πρόθυμον, there would result the meaning: there is, so far as I am concerned, an inclination; comp de Wette. But, however correct in linguistic usage might be τὸ κατʼ ἐμέ (see Schaefer, a[386] Bos. Ell. p. 278; Matthiae, p. 734), which would here yield the sense pro mea virili, as in Dem. 1210, 20, the πρόθυμον without a verb would stand abruptly and awkwardly, because not the mere copula ἐστί, but ἐστί in the sense of πάρεστι, adest, would require to be supplied. Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Tholuck, Rückert, Köllner, Baumgarten-Crusius, take τὸ κατʼ ἐμέ as a periphrasis for ἐγώ, so that πρόθυμον must be taken as the predicate (I on my part am disposed). Without sanction from the usus loquendi; what is cited by Köllner from Vigerus, p. 7 f., and by Tholuck, is of a wholly different kind. The Greek would express this meaning by τὸ γʼ ἐμὸν πρόθυμον (Stallbaum, a[387] Plat. Rep. p. 533 A).
καὶ ὑμῖν] as also included in that general obligation of mine; and not: although ye belong to the σοφοί (Bengel, Philippi), which the text does not suggest. But τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ is added with emphasis, since Rome (“caput et theatrum orbis terrarum,” Bengel) could least of all be exempted from the task assigned to the Apostle of the Gentiles. Hofmann erroneously holds (comp Mangold, p. 84) that Paul addresses the readers by ὑμῖν, not in their character as Christians, but as Romans, and that εὐαγγελίσασθαι means the preaching to those still unconverted; comp Th. Schott, p. 91. No, he addresses the Christian church in Rome, to which he has not yet preached, but wishes to preach, the tidings of salvation, which they have up to the present time received from others. As in every verse, from the 6th to the 13th, so also here the ὑμεῖς can only be the κλητοὶ Ἰ. Χ., Rom 1:6 f., in Rome. See besides, against Mangold, Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 642 f.
[379] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[381] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[382] c. scilicet.
[386] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[387] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Rom 1:16. Γὰρ] Paul confirms negatively his προθυμία.… εὐαγγελίσασθαι, for which he had previously assigned a positive motive.
οὐ γὰρ ἐπαισχ. τ. εὐαγγ.] Written, no doubt, with a recollection of what he had experienced in other highly civilized cities (Athens, Corinth, Ephesus), as well as, generally, in reference to the contents of the Gospel as a preaching of the cross (1Co 1:18).[390] Hence the negative form of the expression, as in contrast with the feeling of shame which that experience might have produced in him, as if the Gospel were something worthless, through which one could gain no honour and could only draw on himself contempt, mockery, etc. Comp 2Ti 1:12.
ἘΠΑΙΣΧΎΝΟΜΑΙ (Plat. Soph. p. 247, D; 2Ti 1:8), and αἰσχύνομαι, with accusative of the object; see Kühner, II. i. p. 255 f.; Bernhardy, p. 113.
ΔΎΝΑΜΙς ΓᾺΡ ΘΕΟῦ ἘΣΤΙΝ] Ground of the ΟὐΚ ἘΠΑΙΣΧ. Τ. ΕὐΑΓΓ. Power of God (genitive of the subject) is the Gospel, in so far as God works by means of the message of salvation. By awaking repentance, faith, comfort, love, peace, joy, courage in life and death, hope, etc., the Gospel manifests itself as power, as a mighty potency, and that of God, whose revelation and work the Gospel is (hence τὸ εὐαγγ. τοῦ Θεοῦ, Rom 15:16; 2Co 11:7; 1Th 2:2). Comp 1Co 1:18; 1Co 1:24. The expression asserts more than that the Gospel is “a powerful means in the hand of God” (Rückert), and is based on the fact that it is the living self-manifestation and effluence of God, as ῬῆΜΑ ΘΕΟῦ (Eph 6:17). Paul knew how to honour highly the message of salvation which it was his office to convey, and he was not ashamed of it. Here also, as in Rom 1:1; Rom 1:9, ΤῸ ΕὐΑΓΓ. is not the work or business of conveying the message (Th. Schott), but the message itself.
εἰς σωτηρίαν] Working of this power of God: unto salvation, consequently with saving power. And what salvation is here meant, was understood by the reader; for σωτηρία and ΣΏΖΕΣΘΑΙ are the standing expressions for the eternal salvation in the Messianic kingdom (comp ΖΉΣΕΤΑΙ, Rom 1:17), the opposite of ἈΠΏΛΕΙΑ (Php 1:28; comp ΘΆΝΑΤΟς, 2Co 2:16). Comp generally, Jam 1:21, ΤῸΝ ΛΌΓΟΝ ΤῸΝ ΔΥΝΆΜΕΝΟΝ ΣῶΣΑΙ ΤᾺς ΨΥΧᾺς ὙΜῶΝ. As to how the Gospel works salvation, see Rom 1:17.
παντὶ τῷ πιστεύοντι] shows to whom the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Faith is the condition on the part of man, without which the Gospel cannot be to him effectually that power; for in the unbeliever the causa apprehendens of its efficacy is wanting. Comp Rom 1:17. Melancthon aptly says: “Non enim ita intelligatur haec efficacia, ut si de calefactione loqueremur: ignis est efficax in stramine, etiamsi stramen nihil agit.”
ΠΑΝΤΊ gives emphatic prominence to the universality, which is subsequently indicated in detail. Comp Rom 3:22.
ἸΟΥΔΑΊῼ ΤΕ ΠΡῶΤΟΝ Κ. ἝΛΛΗΝΙ] ΤΕ.… ΚΑῚ denotes the equality of what is added. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 99; Baeumlein, Part. p. 225. πρῶτον expresses the priority; but not merely in regard to the divinely appointed order of succession, in accordance with which the preaching of the Messiah was to begin with the Jews and thence extend to the Gentiles, as Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Grotius, and many others, including Olshausen, van Hengel and Th. Schott, have understood it; but in reference to the first claim on the Messianic salvation in accordance with the promise, which was in fact the ground of that external order of succession in the communication of the Gospel. So Erasmus, Calovius, and others, including Reiche, Tholuck, Rückert, Fritzsche, de Wette, Philippi, Ewald, Hofmann. That this is the Pauline view of the relation is plain from Rom 3:1 f.; Rom 9:1 ff.; Rom 11:16 ff.; Rom 15:9; comp Joh 4:22; Mat 15:24; Act 13:46. The Jews are the ΥἹΟῚ Τῆς ΒΑΣΙΛ., Mat 8:12.
ἝΛΛΗΝΙ] denotes, in contrast to ἸΟΥΔΑΊῼ, all Non-Jews. Act 14:1; 1Co 10:32 al[399]
[390] From his own point of view, viz. that the church in Rome was Jewish-Christian, Mangold, p. 98 f., suggests theocratic scruples on the part of the readers regarding the Apostle’s universalism. An idea inconsistent with the notion conveyed by ἐπαισχ., and lacking any other indication whatever in the text; for the subsequent Ἰουδαίῳ τε πρῶτον κ.τ.λ. cannot have been designed cautiously to meet such doubts (see, on the other hand, Rom 2:9); but only to serve as expression of the objective state of the case as regards the historical order of salvation, in accordance with the doctrinal development of principles which Paul has in view.
[399] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
Rom 1:17 illustrates and gives a reason for the foregoing affirmation: δύναμις Θεοῦ ἐστιν εἰς σωτ. π. τ. πιστ., which could not be the case, unless δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ κ.τ.λ[400]
δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ] That this does not denote, as in Rom 3:5, an attribute of God,[401] is plain from the passage cited in proof from Hab 2:4, where, by necessity of the connection, ὁ δίκαιος must denote the person who is in the state of the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ. Comp Rom 3:21 ff. It must therefore be an ethical relation of man that is meant; and the genitive Θεοῦ must (otherwise in Jam 1:20)[403] be rendered as the genitive of emanation from, consequently: rightness which proceeds from God, the relation of being right into which man is put by God (i.e. by an act of God declaring him righteous). Comp Chrysostom, Bengel, and others, including Rückert, Olshausen, Reiche, de Wette, Winer, p. 175 [E. T. 232]; Winzer (de vocib. δίκαιος, δικαιοσύνη, et δικαιοῦν in ep. ad p. 10); Bisping, van Hengel, Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 153; Mehring; also Hofmann (comp his Schriftbew. I. p. 627); Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 408 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 330 f.; Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 10. This interpretation of the genitive as gen. originis, acutely and clearly set forth anew by Pfleiderer (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1872, p. 168 ff.), is more specially evident from Rom 3:23, where Paul himself first explains the expression δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, and that by δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, which is turned in Rom 1:26 to the active form: δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως; comp Rom 1:30; Rom 8:33, according to which the genitive appears equivalent to ἐκ Θεοῦ (Php 3:9), in contrast to the ἐμή and ἰδία δικαιοσύνη (Rom 10:3), and to the δικαιοῦν ἐαυτόν (Luk 12:15). The passage in 2Co 5:21 is not opposed to this view (as Fritzsche thinks); see in loc[407]; nor are the expressions δικαιοῦσθαι ἐνώπιον Θεοῦ (Rom 3:20), and παρὰ Θεῷ (Gal 3:11), for these represent a special form under which the relation is conceived, expressing more precisely the judicial nature of the matter. Hence it is evident that the interpretation adopted by many modern writers (including Köllner, Fritzsche, Philippi, Umbreit), following Luther: “righteousness before God,” although correct in point of substance, is unsuitable as regards the analysis of the genitive, which they take as genitive of the object. This remark applies also against Baur, who (Paulus, II. p. 146 ff.) takes the genitive objectively as the δικαιοσύνη determined by the idea of God, adequate to that idea; whilst in his neutest. Theol. p. 134, he prefers to take the genitive subjectively: the righteousness produced through God, i.e. “the manner in which God places man in the adequate relation to Himself.”
The following remarks may serve exegetically to illustrate the idea of δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, which in the Gospel is revealed from faith:
Since God, as the holy Lawgiver and Judge, has by the law imposed on man the task of keeping it entirely and perfectly (Gal 3:10), He can only receive and treat as a δίκαιος (who is such, as he should be)-as one normally guiltless and upright, who should be so, therefore, habitually-the person who keeps the whole law; or, in other words, only the man who is perfectly obedient to the law can stand to God in the relation of δικαιοσύνη. Such perfection however no man could attain; not merely no Gentile, since in his case the natural moral law was obscured through immorality, and through disobedience to it he had fallen into sin and vice; but also no Jew, for natural desire, excited by the principle of sin in him through the very fact of legal prohibition, hindered in his case the fulfilment of the divine law, and rendered him also, without exception, morally weak, a sinner and object of the divine wrath. If therefore man was to enter into the relation of a righteous person and thereby of a future participator in the Messianic blessedness, it was necessary that this should be done by means of an extraordinary divine arrangement, through which grace and reconciliation should be imparted to the object of wrath, and he should be put forward for the judgment of God as righteous. This arrangement has been effected through the sending of His Son and His being given up to His bloody death as that of a guiltless sacrifice; whereby God’s counsel of redemption, formed from eternity, has been accomplished,-objectively for all, subjectively to be appropriated on the part of individuals through faith, which is the ὄργανον ληπτικόν. And, as this plan of salvation is the subject-matter of the Gospel, so in this Gospel that which previously, though prefigured by the justification of Abraham, was an unrevealed μυστήριον, namely, righteousness from God, is revealed (ἀποκαλύπτεται), inasmuch as the Gospel makes known both the accomplished work of redemption itself and the means whereby man appropriates the redemption, namely, faith in Christ, which, imputed to him as righteousness (Rom 4:5), causes man to be regarded and treated by God out of grace and δωρεάν (Rom 3:24) as righteous (δίκαιος), so that he, like one who has perfectly obeyed the law, is certain of the Messianic bliss destined for the δικαιοί.[408] The so-called obedientia Christi activa is not to be included in the causa meritoria of the divine justification; but is to be regarded as the fulfilment of a preliminary condition necessary to the death of Jesus, so far as the justification of man was objectively based on the latter; without the complete active obedience of Christ (consequently without His sinlessness) His passive obedience could not have been that causa meritoria (2Co 5:21).
ἀποκαλύπτεται] is revealed; for previously, and in the absence of the Gospel, the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ was and is something quite hidden in the counsel of God, the knowledge of which is first given in the Gospel (comp Rom 16:25; Act 17:30). The prophecies of the Old Testament were only preparatory and promissory (Rom 1:2), and therefore were only the means of introducing the evangelical revelation itself (Rom 16:26). The present is used, because the Gospel is conceived of in its continuous proclamation. Comp the perfect, πεφανέρωται, Rom 3:21, and on the other hand the historical aorist φανερωθέντος in Rom 16:26. Through the ἀποκάλυψις ensues the φανεροῦσθαι, through the revelation the being manifest as object of knowledge.
ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν] may not be connected with δικαιοσ. (Luther, Hammond, Bengel, Koppe, Rückert, Reiche, Tholuck, Philippi, Mehring, and others), but rather-as the only arrangement which the position of the words admits without arbitrariness-with ἀποκαλύπτεται. So also van Hengel and Hofmann; comp Luk 2:35. The δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, namely, is revealed in the Gospel ἐκ πίστεως, inasmuch as in the Gospel faith on Christ is made known as the subjective cause from which righteousness comes. Thus the Gospel, as the ῥῆμα τῆς πίστεως (Rom 10:8) and λόγος τῆς καταλλαγῆς (2Co 5:19), makes the divine righteousness become manifest from faith, which it in fact preaches as that which becomes imputed; for him who does not believe the ἀκοὴ πίστεως (Gal 3:2), it leaves this δικαιοσύνη to remain a locked-up unrevealed blessing. But it is not merely ἐκ πίστεως, but also εἰς πίστιν; to faith (comp 2Co 2:16). Inasmuch, namely, as righteousness is revealed in the Gospel from faith, faith is aimed at, i.e. the revelation spoken of proceeds from faith and is designed to produce faith. This sense, equivalent to “ut fides habeatur,” and rightly corresponding alike with the simple words and the context, is adopted by Heumann, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Krehl, Nielsen, and van Hengel. It is not “too meaningless” (de Wette), nor “saying pretty nearly nothing” (Philippi); but is on the contrary emphatically appropriate to the purpose of representing faith as the Fac totum (“prora et puppis,” Bengel, Comp Baur, II. p. 161). See also Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 629 f. comp Rom 6:19; 2Co 2:16. Therefore εἰς πίστιν is not to be taken as equivalent to εἰς τὸν πιστεύοντα, for the believer (Oecumenius, Seb. Schmid, Morus, Rosenmüller, Rückert, Reiche, de Wette, Olshausen, Reithmayr, Maier, and Philippi), a rendering which should have been precluded by the abstract correlative ἐκ πίστεως. Nor does it mean: for the furtherance and strengthening of faith (Clem. Al. Strom. v. 1, II. p. 644 Pott., Theophylact, Erasmus, Luther, Melancthon, Beza, Cornelius à Lapide, and others, including Köllner; comp Baumgarten-Crusius, Klee, and Stengel); for the thought: “from an ever new, never tiring, endlessly progressive faith” (Ewald; comp Lipsius, Rechtfertigungsl. p. 7, 116, and Umbreit), is here foreign to the connection, which is concerned only with the great fundamental truth in its simplicity; the case is different in 2Co 3:18. Quite arbitrary, moreover, was the interpretation: “ex fide legis in fidem evangelii” (Tertullian; Comp Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret: δεῖ γὰρ πιστεῦσαι τοῖς προφήταις, καὶ διʼ ἐκείνων εἰς τὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου πίστιν ποδηγηθῆναι, Zeger, and others). Finally, to take πίστιν as faithfulness, and to understand πίστις εἰς πίστιν in the sense of faith in the faithfulness of God (Mehring), is to introduce what is neither in the words nor yet suggested by the context. Ewald in his Jahrb. IX. p. 87 ff., interprets: faith in faith, the reference being to the faith with which man meets the divine faith in his power and his good will (?). But the idea of “faith from beneath on the faith from above,” as well as the notion generally of God believing on men, would be a paradox in the N. T., which no reader could have discovered without more clear and precise indication. After ἐκ πίστ. every one could not but understand εἰς πίστ. also as meaning human faith; and indeed everywhere it is man that believes, not God.
καθὼς γέγραπται] represents what has just been stated, δικαιοσύνη.… πίστιν, as taking place in accordance with a declaration of Scripture, consequently according to the necessity of the divine counsel of salvation. He who from faith (on Christ) is righteous (transferred into the relation of the δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ) shall live (be partaker of the Messianic eternal life). This, as the Messianic sense intended to be conveyed by the Spirit of God (2Pe 1:21) in the prophetic words, Hab 2:4, “the righteous shall by his faithfulnessl[418] live” (attain the theocratic life-blessedness), is recognised by Paul, and expressed substantially in the language of the LXX., rightly omitting the μου, which they inaccurately add to πίστεως. In doing so Paul might, in accordance with the Messianic reference of the passage, connect ἘΚ ΠΊΣΤΕΩς (בֶאֱמוּנָתוֹ)-seeing that on this causal definition the stress of the expression lies-with ὁ δίκαιος; because, if the life of the righteous has ΠΊΣΤΙς as its cause, his ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ itself can have no other ground or source. That he has really so connected the words, as Beza and others rightly perceived (see especially Hölemann, de justitiae ex fide ambab. in V. T. sedibus, Lips. 1867), and not, as most earlier expositors have supposed (also de Wette, Tholuck, Delitzsch, on Hab. l.c[419], Philippi, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, Ewald, and Hofmann), ἐκ πίστ. ζήσεται, is plain from the connection, according to which it is not the life ἐκ πίστ., but the revelation of righteousness ἐκ πίστ. that is to be confirmed by the Old Testament. The case is different in Heb 10:38. See further, generally, on Gal 3:11.
The δέ is, without having any bearing on the matter, adopted along with the other words from the LXX. Comp on Act 2:17. A contrast to the unrighteous who shall die (Hofmann) is neither here nor in Hab 2:4 implied in the text.
[400] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[401] It has been understood as the truthfulness of God (Ambrosiaster); as the justitia Dei essentialis (Osiander); as the justitia distributiva (Origen, and several of the older expositors, comp. Flatt); as the goodness of God (Schoettgen, Semler, Morus, Krehl); as the justifying righteousness of God (Märcker). According to Ewald it is the divine righteousness regarded as power and life-blessing, in the goodness of which man may and must fully participate, if he would not feel its sting and its penalty. Comp. Matthias on Rom 3:21 : a righteousness, such as belongs to God, consequently, “a righteousness which exists also inwardly and is in every respect perfect.”
[403] Where what is meant is the rightness required by God, which man is supposed to realise through exerting himself in works.
[407] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[408] Justification is simply imputative, an actus forensis, not inherent, and therefore not a gradual process, as Romang anew maintains, but produced by the imputation of faith. The new moral life in Christ is the necessary consequence (Rom 6:8), so that regeneration comes after justification-a divine order of salvation inconsistent with all Osiandrian views. See Ritschl, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 795 ff., altkath. Kirche, p. 76 ff. The regenerate life is neither a part (Baumgarten-Crusius) nor the positive side (Baur) of justification, the conception of which is not to be referred either to the consciousness of liberation from guilt given with conversion (Schleiermacher); or to the unity of forgiveness with the instilling of love (Marheineke); or to an anticipation of the judgment of God on faith in respect to the divine life which develops itself from it as its fruit (Rothe, Martensen, Hundeshagen, and others, including Tholuck on Rom 5:9, and Catholics like Döllinger, see on Rom 4:3)-so that, with regard to its truth it would have to be made dependent on sanctification (Nitzsch), or the dying out of sin (Beck), and so forth,-or to the establishment of the new sanctified humanity in the person of Christ (Menken-Hofmann). The Form. Conc., p. 687, rightly warns: “ne ea, quae fidem praecedunt et ea quae eam sequuntur, articulo de justificatione, tanquam ad justificationem pertinentia, admisceantur.” Respecting the sensus forensis of justification, which is by no means a product of mediæval scholasticism (in opposition to Sabatier, p. 263), comp. Köstlin in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 89 ff.; and in its purely exegetical aspect, especially Wieseler on Gal 2:16, Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1872, p. 161 ff., and Weiss, bibl. Theol. § 112. We may add that with Luther’s doctrine of justification Zwingli substantially concurs. See, for defence of the latter (against Stahl), Ritschl, Rechtfert. u. Versöhnung, 1870, I. p. 165 ff.
[418] This faithfulness, in the prophet’s sense, the אֱמֶוּנָה, and the πίστις in the Christian sense, have the same fundamental idea, trustful self-surrender to God: Comp. Umbreit, p. 197.
[419] .c. loco citato or laudato.
Rom 1:18. This great fundamental proposition of the Gospel, Rom 1:17, is proved (γὰρ) agreeably to experience, by the fact that, where there is no πίστις, there is also no ἀποκάλυψις of righteousness, but only of the wrath of God. “Horrendum est initium ac fulmen,” Melancthon, 1540.
ἀποκαλύπτεται] Emphatically placed, in harmony with the ἀποκαλ. in Rom 1:17, at the beginning.
ὀργὴ Θεοῦ] The antithesis of δικαιοσ. Θεοῦ, Rom 1:16. The ὀργὴ of God is not to be explained with several of the Fathers (in Suicer), Erasmus, and many later authorities, as poena divina, which is nothing but a rationalizing interchange of ideas, but rather in the proper literal sense: wrath, an affection of the personal God, having a necessary connection with His love. The wrath of God, the reality of which is indisputable as the very presupposition of the work of atonement, is the love of the holy God (who is neither neutral nor one-sided in His affection) for all that is good in its energy as antagonistic to all that is evil.[421] Even Lactantius has aptly remarked, de ira Dei, v. 9 : “Si Deus non irascitur impiis et injustis, nee pios justosque diligit; in rebus enim diversis aut in utramque partem moveri necesse est, aut in neutram.” See on Mat 3:7; Eph 2:3.
ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ] is neither to be connected with ὈΡΓῊ ΘΕΟῦ, as Beza, Estius, and many others hold, nor with the bare ΘΕΟῦ (Mehring), but, as the order of the words and the parallel definition ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ in Rom 1:17 require, belongs to ἈΠΟΚΑΛΎΠΤΕΤΑΙ; so that heaven, the dwelling-place and throne of God (comp on Mat 6:9), is designated as the place from which the ἈΠΟΚΆΛΥΨΙς of the ὈΡΓῊ ΘΕΟῦ issues. “Majestatem irati Dei significat,” Bengel. The revelation of righteousness takes place ἐν εὐαγγελίῳ, Rom 1:17, as something spiritually brought home to the consciousness through the medium of the Gospel; but that of the divine wrath descends from heaven, manifested as a divine matter of fact; by which description, however, the destructive character of this working of divine power is not expressed (Th. Schott), although it is in fact implied in the entire context. But what revelation of divine wrath is meant? Paul himself supplies the information in Rom 1:24 ff., in which is described what God in His sufficiently well-grounded (Rom 1:19-23) wrath did (παρέδωκεν αὐτούς). God’s wrath therefore is revealed from heaven in this way, that those who are the objects of it are given up by God to terrible retribution in unchastity and all vice. Against this interpretation (comp Mehring), which is adopted also by Tholuck, Weber (vom Zorne Gottes, p. 89), and Th. Schott, it cannot be objected, with Hofmann, that Paul must have written ἀπεκαλύφθη; for he here in fact expresses the general proposition of experience, to which the concrete historical representation subsequently shall correspond; the divine axiom is placed first (present), and then the history of it follows (aorist). Irrelevant is also the objection of Philippi, that ἀποκαλύπτειν always denotes a supernatural revelation. For ἀποκαλύπτειν means to reveal what was previously unknown, what was veiled from our cognition, so that it now becomes manifest; and, in reference to this, it is a matter of indifference whether the revelation takes place in a natural or in a supernatural manner.[424] The mode of revealing is not indicated in the word itself, but in the context; and hence according to the connection it is used also, as here, of a revelation in fact, by which a state of things previously unknown comes to our knowledge (Mat 10:26; Luk 2:35; 2Th 2:3; 2Th 2:6; 2Th 2:8). Moreover, even according to our interpretation, a divine revelation is meant, by which there is certainly brought to light a μυστήριον, namely, the connection of the phenomenon with the divine ὈΡΓΉ. According to others, Paul means the inward revelation of the divine wrath, given by means of reason and conscience (Ambrosiaster, Wolf, and others, including Reiche and Glöckler), in support of which view they appeal to Rom 1:19. But, on the contrary, ἀπʼ οὐρανοῦ requires us to understand an ἈΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙς cognisable by the senses; and Rom 1:19 contains not the mode of the manifestation of wrath, but its moving cause (διότι). Others hold that the ἈΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙς of the divine wrath has come through the Gospel (“continens minas,” Grotius), and that ἐν αὐτῷ is to be again supplied from Rom 1:17. So Aquinas, Bellarmine, Corn, à Lapide, Estius, Grotius, Heumann, Semler, Morus, Böhme, Benecke, Maier; comp Umbreit, who includes also the Old Testament. It is decisive against this view that ἈΠʼ ΟὐΡΑΝΟῦ, just because it is parallel to ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ in Rom 1:17, lays down a mode of manifestation quite different from ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ. Had the latter been again in Paul’s mind here, he would have repeated it with emphasis, as he has repeated the ἈΠΟΚΑΛΎΠΤΕΤΑΙ. Others hold that the manifestation of wrath at the general judgment is meant (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Toletus, Limborch, Koppe, Philippi, Reithmayr, and Ewald). The present, considered in itself, might be chosen in order to express a vivid realisation of the future, or might be accounted for by the ἐν αὐτῷ, which, it is alleged, is to be again mentally supplied (Ewald); but the former explanation is to be rejected on account of the preceding purely present ἈΠΟΚΑΛ. in Rom 1:17; and against the latter may be urged the very fact, that ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ is not repeated. Had this been the meaning, moreover, the further course of the exposition must have borne reference to the general judgment, which it by no means does; and therefore this interpretation is opposed to the connection, as well as unwarranted by Rom 2:5 (where the mention of the revelation of judgment belongs to quite a different connection); and not required by the idea of ἈΠΟΚΑΛΎΠΤΕΙΝ itself, since that idea is adequately met by the divine matter-of-fact revelation of wrath here intended (see above), and besides, the word is repeated intentionally for rhetorical effect. Lastly, while others have contented themselves with leaving the ἈΠΟΚΑΛΎΨΙς here in its entire generality (Olshausen, Tholuck; comp Calovius), and thus relieved themselves from giving any explanation of it, the reference to the religion of the O. T. (Bengel and Flatt) seems entirely arbitrary and groundless, and the interpretations which apply it to evils generally affecting the world as an expression of the divine wrath (Hofmann), or to the external and internal distress of the time (Baumgarten-Crusius), are too general and indefinite, and thereby devoid of any concrete import in keeping with the text.
ἐπὶ πᾶσ. ἀσέβ. κ. ἀδικ. ἀνθρ.] contains the hostile direction (comp Dem. 743, 22) of the ἈΠΟΚΑΛΎΠΤΕΤΑΙ.… ΟὐΡΑΝΟῦ: against every ungodliness and immorality of men, which, etc. Ἀσέβεια and ἈΔΙΚΊΑ (Plat. Prot. p. 323 E; Xen. Cyr. viii. 8, 7; Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 48) are distinguished as irreligiousness and immorality, so that both describe the improbitas, but under different aspects, in reference to the fear of God and to the standard of morals; hence the former, as involving the idea of impiety, is the stronger expression. Comp Dem. 548, 11 : ἈΣΈΒΗΜΑ, ΟὐΚ ἈΔΊΚΗΜΑ ΜΌΝΟΝ. That the distinction between them is not to be understood, with Köllner, following Theophylact, Grotius, Calovius, Wolf, and many others, as profanitas in Deum and injuria in proximum, is proved by the following ἐν ἀδικία κατεχ.
τῶν τ. ἀλήθ. ἐν ἀδικ. κατεχ.] who keep down the truth through immorality, do not let it develop itself into power and influence on their religious knowledge and their moral condition. The article (quippe qui) introduces that characteristic of the ἀνθρώπων, not yet more precisely defined, which excites the divine wrath. Rightly in the Vulgate: eorum qui. See Winer, p. 127 [E. T. 174]. It may be paraphrased: “of those, I mean, who.” Comp Kühner, a[430] Xen. Anab. ii. 7, 13. Bengel, moreover, aptly remarks: “veritas in mente nititur et urget, sed homo eam impedit.” This is the peculiar, deeply unfortunate, constant self-contradiction of the heathen character. Comp Nägelsbach, Homer. Theol. I. p. 11 ff. On κατέχειν, to hinder, comp 2Th 2:6; Luk 4:42; 1Ma 6:27; Plat. Phaed. p. 117 C; Soph. El. 754; Pind. Isthm. iii. 2, and Dissen in loc[433] Against the interpretation of Michaelis, Koppe and Baur, who take ΚΑΤΈΧΕΙΝ here as meaning to possess (1Co 7:30; 2Co 6:10), “who possess the truth in unrighteousness, who know what God’s will is, and yet sin,” Rom 1:21 is decisive, where the continuous possession of the truth is negatived by ἐματαιώθησαν.… καρδία; wherefore also it cannot he rendered with Melancthon and van Hengel: who hold the truth in the bondage of immorality (Rom 7:6; Gen 39:20; Gen 42:19). The ἀλήθεια is correctly interpreted in the sense of divine truth generally; the mode of revelation, in which it is presented to man’s knowledge, is furnished by the context, here, by Rom 1:19 f., as the truth apparent by natural revelation in the works of God; not therefore in the sense of the doctrine of the Gospel, which is hindered in its diffusion by Jews and Gentiles (Ammon, comp Ewald).
ἘΝ ἈΔΙΚΊΑ] instrumental. To make it equivalent to ἀδίκως (Reiche, following Theophylact, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Raphel, and others; comp ἘΝ ΔΥΝΆΜΕΙ in Rom 1:4) arbitrarily deprives the representation of an element essential to its fulness and precision, and renders it tame; for it is self-evident that the ΚΑΤΈΧΕΙΝ Τ. ἈΛ. is unrighteous or sinful, but not so much so that it takes place through sin.
Finally, it is to be noted that Paul, in ἀνθρώπ. (correlative of ΘΕΟῦ) ΤῶΝ Τ. ἈΛΉΘ. ἘΝ ἈΔΙΚ. ΚΑΤΕΧ., expresses himself quite generally, making apparent by ἀνθρώπ. the audacity of this God-opposing conduct; but he means the Gentiles, as is indicated even by ἐν ἀδικίᾳ (comp 1Co 6:1), and as is confirmed beyond doubt by the continuation of the discourse in Rom 1:19 ff. Koppe supposed that Paul meant the Jews especially, but included also the Gentiles; Benecke, that he speaks of the whole human race in general, which view Mehring specially defends. But the peculiar character of what is contained in Rom 1:21-32 shows that the Jews are to be entirely excluded from the description which is carried on to the end of the chapter. It is not till ch. Rom 2:1 that the discourse passes over to them, and makes them suddenly see themselves reflected in the Gentile mirror.
[421] The idea of the divine ὀργή is diametrically opposed to every conception of sin as a necessity interwoven with human development.
[424] In this case it cannot make any difference whether God is or is not the revealing subject, as is most plainly seen from Mat 16:17.
[430] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[433] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Rom 1:19. Διότι] propterea quod-only to be separated by a comma from the foregoing-specifies more precisely the causal relation, on account of which the wrath of God comes upon such men, etc. (Rom 1:18). They keep down the truth through immorality; if they did so out of ignorance, they would be excusable: but they do not do so out of ignorance, and therefore God’s wrath is manifested against them. This view of the connection is suggested by the literal meaning of διότι itself, and confirmed by εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογ. Comp Hofmann. So also Fritzsche, who, however, takes ΔΙΌΤΙ as equivalent to ΓΆΡ, as does also Philippi,-a use of it that never occurs, not even in Act 18:10. This linguistically erroneous interpretation of ΔΙΌΤΙ condemns also the view of Tholuck, Rückert, de Wette, and Reithmayr, who discover here the proof, that the Gentiles keep down the truth by immorality; or (so Th. Schott) that Paul rightly describes them as κατέχοντες Κ.Τ.Λ[438] No; for the very reason that they have the γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, which renders them inexcusable, does the wrath of God go forth against the κατέχοντες; Rom 1:18.
τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ] that which is known concerning God, not: that which is knowable concerning God, a signification which, though adopted by Origen, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, Piscator, Estius, Grotius, Wolf, Koppe, Rückert, Kollner, Baumgarten-Crusius, Maier, Ewald, Umbreit, Mehring, Hofmann, and others, is never conveyed by γνωστός in the N. T. or in the LXX. and Apocrypha, though it frequently occurs in classic authors (see the passages from Plato quoted by Ast, Lex. I. p. 401; Dorvill. a[439] Charit. p. 502; Hermann, a[440] Soph. Oed. T. 361; comp ἄγνωστος, which in Plato invariably means unknowable). In all the places where it occurs in the Scriptures, as also, though less frequently, in the classics (Xen. Cyr. vi. 3, 4; Arrian. Epict. ii. 20, 4; Aesch. Choeph. 702; Beck, Antiatt. p. 87, 25), it means quod notum est (Vulgate), and is therefore equivalent to γνωτός or γνώριμος, also in Act 4:16; Sir 21:7. The opposite: ἄγνωστος, Act 17:23. Comp Luther, 1545: “das (nicht: dass) man weiss, das (nicht: dass) Gott sei.” That which is known of God excludes that which needed a special revelation to make it known, as in particular the contents of the Gospel; the former is derived from the general revelation of nature. If we should take γνωστόν as knowable, the assertion of the Apostle would he incorrect without some limiting qualification; for the positively revealed belonged to that which was knowable, but not to that which was known of God,[443] into which category it was brought only through special revelation, which it would otherwise not have needed.
ἐν αὐτοῖς] i.e. in their consciousness, ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, Rom 2:15. Comp Gal 1:16. The explanation inter ipsos, which Erasmus and Grotius (both referring it arbitrarily to the Gnosis of the philosophers among the Gentiles), Köllner and Baumgarten-Crusius give, is to be rejected for this reason, that αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσε, compared with νοούμενα καθορᾶται, points to a manifestation of the γνωστόν τοῦ Θεοῦ which is inward, although conveyed through the revelation of nature.
ἐφανέρωσε] God-and this subject is again named with emphasis-has laid it clearly before them, made it lie openly before their view as an object of knowledge. Comp on the matter itself Act 14:17; Act 17:26 f.; 1Co 1:21.
[438] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[439] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[440] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[443] Which, however, is not to be transformed, with Fritzsche, Tholuck, Krehl, and others, into the subjective scientia Dei-which has no precedent in usage, is unsuitable to the following φανερόν ἐστι, and is not to be supported even by the LXX. Gen 2:9; in which passage, if the text be not corrupted, τὸ ξύλον τοῦ εἰδέναι γνωστόν καλοῦ κ. πονηροῦ must be rendered: the tree by which they were to learn what is known of good and evil, i.e. by which they were to become aware of that which they-by the very enjoyment-had known of good and evil.
Rom 1:20 f. Τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα.… θειότης] Giving a reason for, and explaining, the previous ὁ Θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσε.
τὰ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ] His invisible things, the manifold invisible attributes, that constitute His nature. Paul himself explains it afterwards by ἡ ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης; therefore it is not actiones Dei invisibiles (Fritzsche; comp Theodoret).
νοούμενα καθορᾶται] through the works are seen becoming discerned; νοούμενα defines the manner in which the καθορᾶται takes place, otherwise than through the senses (the νοεῖν, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ὄμμασι θεωρεῖν, Plat. Rep. p. 529 B), in so far as it is effected by means of mental discernment, by the agency of intelligent perception. The καθορᾶται forms with ἀόρατα a striking oxymoron, in which the compound selected for that purpose, but not elsewhere occurring in the N. T., heightens still further the idea conveyed by the simple form. Comp Xen. Cyr. iii. 3, 31.: εἰ γὰρ.… ἡμᾶς οἱ πολέμιοι θεάσονται.… πάλιν καθορῶντες ἡμῶν τὸ πλῆθος. Pind. Pyth. ix. 45.: οἶσθα.… εὖ καθορᾷς. On the oxymoron itself, comp Aristotle, de mundo, 6, p. 399, 21. Bekk: ἀθεώρητος ἀπʼ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔρων θεωρεῖται (ὁ θεός).
τοῖς ποιήμασι] embraces all that God as Creator has produced, but does not at the same time include His governing in the world of history, as Schneckenburger thinks, Beitr. p. 102 f.; for מַעַשֱׂה, with which ποίημα corresponds (LXX. Ecc 3:11; Ecc 7:13, al[449]), is the formal expression for God’s works of creation; as also Paul himself, in Eph 2:10, describes the renewing of man as analogous to creation. It is only of the works of creation that the Apostle could assert what he here says, especially as he adds ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου. Since, moreover, ΤΟῖς ΠΟΙΉΜΑΣΙ, by means of the works, contains the instrumental definition appended to νοούμενα καθορᾶται,[450] ἀπὸ κτίσ. κόσμου cannot be taken in a causal sense (see Winer, p. 348 [E. T. 463]), as the medium cognoscendi (so Luther and many others, including Calovius, Pearson, Homberg, Wolf, Heumann, Morus and Reithmayr), but only in the sense of temporal beginning: since the creation of the world they are so perceived.
ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύν. κ. θειότης] A more precise definition of the previous ΤᾺ ἈΌΡΑΤΑ ΑὐΤΟῦ. ἈΐΔΙΟς, everlasting, belongs to both substantives; but καί annexes the general term, the category, of which the ΔΎΝΑΜΙς is a species. See Fritzsche a[451] Matth. p. 786. Its relation to the preceding ΤΈ consists in its completing the climax and cumulation, for which ΤΈ prepares the way. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 98. Hofmann is unsupported by linguistic usage in inferring from the position of τέ, that ἈΐΔΙΟς is not meant to apply also to ΘΕΙΌΤΗς. It is just that position that makes ἈΐΔΙΟς the common property of both members (see especially Hartung, l.c[452] p. 116 f.), so that, in order to analyse the form of the conception, we may again supply ἡ ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ after ΚΑῚ (Stallbaum, a[453] Plat. Crit. p. 43 B.; Schaefer, Poet. gnom. p. 73; Schoemann, a[454] Is. p. 325 f.; also Winer, p. 520 [E. T. 727]). The ΘΕΙΌΤΗς is the totality of that which God is as a Being possessed of divine attributes, as ΘΕῖΟΝ, the collective sum of the divine realities.[455] This comprehensive sense must by no means be limited. The eternal power-this aspect of His θειότης which comes into prominence at first and before all others-and the divinity of God in its collective aspect, are rationally perceived and discerned by means of His works. Arbitrary is the view of Reiche, who holds that Paul means especially wisdom and goodness, which latter Schneckenburger conceives to be intended; and also that of Hofmann (comparing Act 17:29; 2Pe 1:4), that the spiritual nature of the divine being is denoted. We may add that Rückert holds the strange view, that θειότης, which could not properly be predicated of God, is only used here by Paul for want of another expression. It might be and was necessarily said of God, as being the only adequate comprehensive expression for the conception that was to be denoted thereby. For analogous references to the physico-theological knowledge of God, see Wetstein, and Spiess, Logos spermaticos, 1871, p. 212. The suggestion of Philo as the Apostle’s source (Schneckenburger) is out of the question. Observe further how completely, in our passage, the transcendental relation of God to the world-the negation of all identity of the two-lies at the foundation of the Apostle’s view. It does not exclude the immanence of God in the world, but it excludes all pantheism. See the passages from the O. T. discussed in Umbreit.
εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολ.] has its logically correct reference to the immediately preceding ΤᾺ ΓᾺΡ ἈΌΡΑΤΑ.… ΘΕΙΌΤΗς, and therefore the parenthesis, in which Griesbach and others have placed τὰ γὰρ ἀόρ.… θειότης, must be expunged. The ΕἸς cannot be said of the result, as Luther, and many others, including Reiche, Köllner, de Wette, Rückert, Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Philippi, Ewald, following the Vulgate (ita ut sint inexcusabiles), have understood it; for the view, which takes it of the purpose, is not only required by the prevailing usage of εἰς with the infinitive[456] (see on 2Co 8:6), but is also more appropriate to the connection, because the καθορᾶται is conceived as a result effected through God’s revelation of Himself (Rom 1:19), and consequently the idea of the divine purpose in εἰς τὸ εἶναι κ.τ.λ[457] is not to be arbitrarily dismissed. Comp Erasmus (“ne quid haberent” etc.), Melancthon (“propter quas causas Deus” etc.), Beza, Calvin (“in hoc ut”), Bengel and others. But Chrysostom, even in his time, expressly opposes this view (comp also Oecumenius), and at a later period it became a subject of contention between the Lutherans and the Reformed, See Calovius. The view, which interprets it of the result, hesitates to admit the conception of a divine decree, under which Paul places the inexcusableness of men; and yet not only may this stand to the perception of God from His works which has existed since the beginning in the relation of result, but, in accordance with the thoroughly Scriptural idea of destiny (comp e.g. Rom 5:20), it must stand to it in the relation of that decree. In this connection, which inserts the results in the divine counsel, the inexcusableness of man appears as telically given with the self-manifestation of God. Rom 1:21, as in general even Rom 1:18, contains the perverse conduct of men manifesting itself in the course of human history, on account of which God, who foresaw it, has in His natural self-manifestation made their inexcusableness His aim. Inexcusable they are intended to be; and that indeed on account of the fact, that, although they had known God (namely from that natural revelation), they have not glorified Him as God.
διότι] as in Rom 1:19, only to be separated by a comma from what precedes: inexcusable on this account, because.
γνόντες] not: cum agnoscere potuissent (Flatt, Nielsen; also as early as Oecumenius); nor yet: although they knew God, so that it would be contemporaneous with οὐχ.… ἐδόξασαν. So Philippi and van Hengel; also Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol, p. 346. They had attained the knowledge from the revelation of nature (for to this, according to Rom 1:19-20, we must refer it, and not, with Rückert, to the history in Genesis of the original revelation), but only actu directo, so far as that same self-manifestation of God had presented itself objectively to their cognition; the actus reflexus remained absent (comp Delitzsch, p. 347), and with them who keep down the truth ἘΝ ἈΔΙΚΊᾼ, Rom 1:18, the issue was not to the praise of God, etc.; so that ΓΝΌΝΤΕς is thus previous to the οὐχ.… ἐδόξασαν. Paul sets forth the historical emergence of that for which they were inexcusable. They had known God, and yet it happened that they did not praise Him, etc.
οὐχ ὡς Θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ ηὐχαρ.] It would have been becoming for them to have rendered to God as such, agreeably to His known nature, praise and thanks; but they did neither the one nor the other. Regarding Ὡς in the sense: according to the measure of His divine quality, comp on Joh 1:14. The praising and thanksgiving exhaust the notion of the adoration, which they should have offered to God.
ἀλλʼ ἐματ. ἐν τοῖς διαλ. αὐτῶν] but they were frustrated in their thoughts (comp 1Co 3:20), so that the conceptions, ideas, and reflections, which they formed for themselves regarding the Deity, were wholly devoid of any intrinsic value corresponding with the truth. Comp Eph 4:17. The ΜΑΤΑΙΌΤΗς is a specific attribute of heathenism. Jer 2:5; 2Ki 17:5; Psa 94:11. Comp also Act 14:15; Jdt 6:4.
ΚΑῚ ἘΣΚΟΤΊΣΘΗ Κ.Τ.Λ[466]] forms a climax to the foregoing. Comp Eph 4:18; Eph 1:18. Their heart that had been rendered by the ἐματαιώθησαν unintelligent, incapable of discerning the true and right, became dark, completely deprived of the light of the divine ἀλήθεια that had come to them by the revelation of nature. καρδία, like לֵב, denotes the whole internal seat of life, the power which embraces all the activity of reason and will within the personal consciousness. Comp on Eph 1:18; Delitzsch, p. 250. To take ἈΣΎΝΕΤΟς here in a proleptic sense (see on Mat 12:13) is quite inappropriate, because it destroys the climax. Comp moreover on ἈΣΎΝΕΤΟς, Wis 11:15; as also on the entire delineation of Gentile immorality, Rom 1:20 ff.; Wisdom 13-15. This passage as a whole, and in its details, presents unmistakeable reminiscences of this section of the book of Wisdom. See Nitzsch in the Deutsch. Zeitschr. 1850, p. 387; Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1853, p. 340 f. Without reason Tholuck argues against this view.
[449] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[450] Not merely to νοούμενα (Hofmann), which is closely bound up with καθορᾶται as showing the manner of it, so that both together are defined instrumentally by τοῖς ποιήμασι. On νοεῖν, as denoting the intellectual animadvertere in seeing (Hom. Il. λ. 599, in the inverse position: τὸν δὲ ἰδὼν ἐνοήσε), comp. Nägelsb. z. Ilias, p. 416, ed. 3; Duncan, ed. Rost, p. 787.
[451] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[452] .c. loco citato or laudato.
[453] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[454] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[455] On the difference between this word and θεότης (Col 2:9), which denotes Deitas, Godhead, the being God, see Elsner, Obss. p. 6, and Fritzsche in loc. Van Hengel has erroneously called in question the distinction. In Wis 18:9, namely, ὁ τῆς θειότητος νόμος is not the law of the Godhead, but the law whose nature and character is divinity,-of a divine kind; and in Lucian, de Calumn. 17, ἡ Ἡφαιστίωνος θειότης is the divinity of Hephaestion, his divine quality. In Plutarch θειότης very frequently occurs. Appropriately rendered in Vulgate by divinitas.
[456] Εἰς, with an infinitive having the article, is not used in a single passage, of the Epistle to the Romans in particular, in any other than a telic sense. See Rom 1:11, Rom 3:26, Rom 4:11; Rom 4:16; Rom 4:18, Rom 6:12, Rom 7:4-5, Rom 8:29, Rom 11:11, Rom 12:2-3, Rom 15:8; Rom 15:13; Rom 15:16. Far too hastily de Wette terms this interpretation in our passage senseless, and Baumgarten-Crusius agrees with him. Tholuck calls it grammatical terrorism. Hofmann recognises the telic view as the true one in all cases where εἰς is used with the infinitive.
[457] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[466] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
Rom 1:22-23. In a false conceit of wisdom (comp 1Co 1:17 ff.) this took place (viz. what has just been announced in ἘΜΑΤΑΙΏΘΗΣΑΝ.… ΚΑΡΔΊΑ), and what a horrible actual result it had!
The construction is independent, no longer hanging on the διότι in Rom 1:21 (Glöckler, Ewald); the further course of the matter if described. While they said that they were wise (comp 1Co 3:21) they became foolish. Comp Jer 10:24 f. This becoming foolish must be understood as something self-incurred-produced through the conceit of independence-as is required by the description of God’s retribution on them in Rom 1:24; therefore the “dirigente Deo,” which Grotius understands along with it in accordance with 1Co 1:21, is here foreign to the connection. The explanation of Köllner, Baumgarten-Crusius, and others, including Usteri: “they have shown themselves as fools,” is erroneous, because the aorist passive in Rom 1:21 does not admit of a similar rendering.
For examples of φάσκειν, dictitare, in the sense of unfounded assertion (Act 24:9; Act 25:19; Rev 2:2), see Raphel, Xenoph. and Kypke. Comp Dem. Phil. i. 46, iii. 9; Herodian, iii. 12, 9. Their pretended wisdom was a μάταιος δοξοσοφία, Plat. Soph. p. 231 B. We may add that this definition is not aimed at the Gentile philosophers, who came much later and in fact did not do what is declared in Rom 1:23 (comp Calvin), but generally at the conceit of wisdom (1Co 1:21), which is necessarily connected with an estrangement from divine truth, and from which therefore idolatry also, with its manifold self-invented shapes, must have proceeded. For heathenism is not the primeval religion, from which man might gradually have risen to the knowledge of the true God, but is, on the contrary, the result of a falling away from the known original revelation of the true God in His works. Instead of the practical recognition and preservation of the truth thus given comes the self-wisdom rendering them foolish, and idolatry in its train.
καὶ ἤλλαξ. Κ.Τ.Λ[475]] and they exchanged the majesty of the imperishable God for a likeness of an image of a perishable man, etc., i.e. instead of making, as they ought to have done, the glory of the eternal God manifested to them in the revelation of nature-כְּבוֹד יְהֹוָה, i.e. His glorious perfection (Rom 1:20)-the object of their adoration, they chose for that purpose what was shaped like an image of a perishable man, etc.; comp Psa 106:20; Jer 2:11. The ἐν (comp Sir 7:18) is instrumental, as is elsewhere the simple dative (Herod vii. 152; Soph. Niob. fr. 400, Dind.): thereby, that they made and adored such an ὁμοίωμα, and on the other hand rejected the glory of God, which they ought to have worshipped. Comp LXX. Ps. l.c[479]; ἠλλάξαντο τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν ἐν ὁμοιώματι μόσχου. On the genitive εἰκόνος comp also 1Ma 3:48; Rev 9:7; and on ὁμοίωμα itself in the sense of likeness, Rom 5:14, Rom 6:5, Rom 8:3; Php 2:7; Sir 38:28; 2Ki 16:10; Isa 40:18; 1Sa 6:5; Plat. Phaedr. p. 250 A; Parm. p. 132 D. It is not mere similarity, but conformity with the object of comparison concerned as agreeing therewith in appearance; see also Holsten, z. Ev. des Paul. u. Petr. p. 440; Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. p. 523 f.
καὶ πετειν. κ. τετραπ. κ. ἑρπ.] No doubt as Paul, in using ἀνθρώπου, thought of the forms of the Hellenic gods, so. in πετειν. κ.τ.λ[481] he had in his mind the Egyptian worship of animals (Ibis, Apis, serpents). Philo, Leg. a[482]. Caj. p. 566, 570. For passages from profane authors respecting the folly (at which the φθαρτοῦ here also points) of image-worship, see especially Dougtaeus, Anal. 69, p. 102, Grotius and Wetstein. We may add that, like the previous φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου, the genitives ΠΕΤΕΙΝῶΝ Κ.Τ.Λ[483] are dependent on εἰκόνος, not on ὁμοιώματι (van Hengel), which is less natural and not required by the singular εἰκόνος, that in fact refers to each particular instance in which a man, birds, etc. were copied for purposes of divine adoration by means of statues and other representations.
[475] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[479] .c. loco citato or laudato.
[481] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[482] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[483] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
Rom 1:24. Wherefore (as a penal retribution for their apostasy) God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity. καὶ, also, indicates the giving up as a thing corresponding to the guilt. Comp on Php 2:9.
ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθ. τ. κ. αὐτ.] contains that, in which they were involved, i.e. the moral condition in which they were found when they were given up by God to impurity. Comp Rom 1:27; Eph 2:3; Bernhardy, p. 209. The instrumental rendering (Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Glöckler and Krehl) is unnecessary, because the immediate literal sense of ἐν is quite sufficient, and the former is less suitable as to sense, since it conveys something which is obvious of itself.
παρέδωκεν] expresses the real active giving up on the part of God. The favourite explanation of it by εἴασε, so often resorted to since Origen and Chrysostom, is nothing but a rationalising gloss at variance with the literal meaning. To the Apostle God is the living God, who does not passively permit the retributive consequences of fidelity or of apostasy-thus, as it were, letting them run their course, as an artificer does with his wheel work-but Himself, everywhere active, pervades and effectively develops the arrangements which He has made. If then God has so arranged that man by apostasy from Him should fall into moral impurity, and that thus sin shall be punished by sin (and this connection of sin with sin is in accordance both with experience and Scripture, Isa 6:10; Job 8:4; Psa 69:28; Psa 81:13; Mar 4:12), this arrangement can only be carried out in reality through the effective action of its originator; and God Himself must give up the apostates unto impurity, inasmuch as it is by His doing that that moral connection is in point of fact accomplished. Comp Act 7:42; Rom 9:19; also 2Th 2:11 f.; and the rabbinical passages quoted by Schoettgen, especially from Pirke Aboth, c. 4 : “Festina ad praeceptum leve tanquam ad grave, et fuge transgressionem; praeceptum enim trahit praeceptum, et transgressio transgressionem: quia merces praecepti praeceptum est, et transgressionis transgressio.” Consequently, if the understanding of παρέδωκεν in its strictly proper and positive meaning is quite in keeping with the universal agency of God, in His physical and moral government of the world, without, however, making God appear as the author of sin, which, on the contrary, has its root in the ἐπιθυμίαι τ. καρδ., we must reject as insufficient the privative interpretation[487], that became current after Augustine and Oecumenius, which Calovius has adopted in part, and Rückert entirely. Comp Philippi, who thinks of the withdrawal of the Divine Spirit and its results, though in the sense of a positive divine infliction of punishment. This withdrawal, through which man is left in the lurch by God, is the immediate negative precursor of the παρέδωκεν (Sir 4:19). Reiche thinks that Paul here avails himself, with more or less consciousness of its being erroneous, of the general view of the Jews regarding the origin of the peculiar wickedness of the Gentiles (Psa 81:13; Pro 21:8; Sir 4:19; Wis 10:12; Wis 13:1; Act 7:42); and that this representation of moral depravity as a divine punishment is to be distinguished from the Christian doctrinal system of the Apostle. But how very inconsistent it is with the character of Paul thus consciously to bring forward what is erroneous, and that too with so solemn a repetition (Rom 1:26; Rom 1:28)! And is it not an arrangement accordant with experience, that apostasy from God is punished by an ever deeper fall into immorality? Can this arrangement, made as it is by God “justo judicio” (Calvin), be carried out otherwise than by God? Analogous are even heathen sayings, such as Aesch. Agam. 764 ff., and the heathen idea of the θεοβλάβεια; comp also Ruhnken, a[490] Vellej. ii. 57, 3. But just as man, while his fidelity is rewarded by God through growth in virtue, remains withal free and does not become a virtuous machine; so also he retains his freedom, while God accomplishes the development of His arrangement, in accordance with which sin is born of sin. He gives himself up (Eph 4:19), while he is given up by God to that tragic nexus of moral destiny; and he becomes no machine of sin, but possesses at every moment the capacity of μετάνοια, which the very reaction resulting from the feeling of the most terrible misery of sin-punished through sin-is designed to produce. Therefore, on the one hand, man always remains responsible for his deterioration (Rom 1:32; Rom 2:6; Rom 3:5; Rom 7:14); and, on the other, that punishment of sin, in which the teleological law of the development of evil fulfils itself, includes no contradiction of the holiness of God. For this reason the view of Köllner-that the Apostle’s idea is to be separated from its Jewish and temporal form, and that we must assume as the Christian truth in it, that the apostasy of men from God has brought them into deepest misery, as certainly as the latter is self-inflicted-is a superfluous unexegetical evasion, to which Fritzsche also has recourse.
ἀκαθαρσίαν] spurcitia, impurity, and that lustful (comp Gal 5:19; Eph 4:19; Col 3:5), as is plain from the following context; not generally: “all action and conduct dishonouring the creaturely glory of man” (Hofmann). The τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι may be taken either as the genitive of the purpose: that they might be dishonoured (Rückert, Philippi, van Hengel), or as the genitive of more precise definition depending on ἀκαθαρσ. (impurity of the becoming dishonoured, i.e. which consisted therein; so Fritzsche, Winer, Tholuck and de Wette). The latter (see Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 230 f.) is the more probable, partly because the ἀτιμάζεσθαι κ.τ.λ[492] already constitutes the impurity itself, and does not merely attend it as a result; and partly on account of the parallel in Rom 1:28, where ΠΟΙΕῖΝ Κ.Τ.Λ[493] is likewise epexegetical. ἀτιμάζεσθαι is not however the middle, whereby the αὐτοπαθές would be expressed, for which there is no empirical usage, but the passive: that their bodies were dishonoured among themselves, mutually. This ἐν ἑαυτοῖς refers to the persons (αὐτῶν, not to be written αὑτῶν), not asserting that the ἀτιμάζασθαι takes place on themselves, which is in fact already conveyed by τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν,[494] but rather based on the nature of participation in unchastity, according to which they bring one on the other reciprocally the dishonouring of the body. In this personal reciprocity of those who practise unchastity with each other lies the characteristic abominableness of the dishonouring of the body; and this point is designated by ἐν ἑαυτοῖς more expressly, because in contrast to non-participating third persons, than it would have been by ἐν ἀλλήλοις (Kühner, a[495] Xen. Mem. ii. 6, 20).
The vices of unchastity, which moreover are still here referred to quite generally (it is otherwise in Rom 1:26 f.), and not specially as unnatural, according to their disgraceful nature, in whatever forms they may have been practised, are specifically heathen (in fact, even partially belonging to the heathen cultus), as a consequence of apostasy from the true God (comp 1Th 4:5). As they again prevail even among Christians, wherever this apostasy spreads through unbelief, they must verify even in Christendom their heathen nature, and, along with the likewise essentially heathen πλεονεξία, pre-eminently exclude from the salvation of the Messiah (Eph 5:5 f.; Col 3:5; 1Co 6:9 f.).
With ἀτιμάζ. τ. σώμ. compare the opposite, 1Th 4:4, where τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος must be explained of the body as the vessel of the Ego proper.
[487] It is at bottom identical with the permissive rendering. Therefore Chrysostom not only explains it by εἴασεν, but illustrates the matter by the instance of a general who leaves his soldiers in the battle, and thus deprives them of his aid, and abandons them to the enemy. Theodoret explains it: τῆς οἰκείας προμηθείας ἐγύμνωσε, and employs the comparison of an abandoned vessel. Theophylact illustrates the παρέδωκεν by the example of a physician who gives up a refractory patient (παραδίδωσιν αὐτὸν τῷ ἐπὶ πλέον νοσεῖν).
[490] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[492] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[493] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[494] Hofmann refers the reading which he follows, ἐν αὐτοῖς, to the σώματα, but explains this: the body of each person in himself; consequently, as if the expression were ἐν αὐτοῖς, and that in the sense in semet ipsis. With the reading ἐν αὐτοῖς we should rather render it simply: in order that among them (i.e. in their common intercourse) their bodies should be dishonoured. Such was to be the course of things among them.
[495] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Rom 1:25. Οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν κ.τ.λ[497]] as those who exchanged, etc. In this description of the character of those who are given up, attached to Rom 1:24, Paul makes once more apparent the motive which determined God to give them up. The words are a renewed tragic commentary (comp Rom 1:22-23) on the ΔΙΌ, Rom 1:24. On ὍΣΤΙς, quippe qui, which brings up the class to which one belongs, and thereby includes the specification of the reason, see Hermann, a[499] Soph. Oed. R. 688; Matthiae, p. 1073. Hofmann erroneously makes a relative protasis begin with ΟἽΤΙΝΕς, with which then ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦΤΟ Κ.Τ.Λ[500], Rom 1:26, would be connected by way of apodosis: them, who exchanged etc., God has therefore given up. This would not be inconsistent with αὐτούς in Rom 1:26, which would then be resumptive; but the very praise of God, in which Rom 1:25 terminates, and still more the concluding ἀμήν, which can only indicate the end of the sentence (comp Rom 9:5, Rom 11:36; Gal 1:5; Eph 3:21), ought to have decidedly precluded such a forced intermixture of sentences, which is not to be justified by subtleties.
The compound μετήλλ. (exchanged) is more significant than ἤλλαξαν (changed) in Rom 1:23.
τὴν ἀλήθ. τοῦ Θεοῦ] to be taken entirely in harmony with the expression τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ in Rom 1:23; therefore τοῦ Θεοῦ is to be taken as genitive of the subject: the truth of God, the true divine reality,[502] so as to make it in point of actual meaning, though not in the abstract form of the conception, identical with: “true God” (Luther, and most expositors, including Rückert, de Wette, Tholuck, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel). It is differently rendered by Wolf, whom Köllner follows: the truth revealed to the Gentiles by God. Reiche and Mehring (following Pareus, Camerarius, Estius, Seb. Schmid, and Cramer) take it as the true knowledge of God, so that Θεοῦ would be genitive of the object. Compare Piscator, Usteri and Glöckler, who understand by it the original consciousness of God. Opposed to these views is the exact parallel in which Rom 1:25 stands to Rom 1:23, so that τοῦ Θεοῦ ought not to be taken without necessity as having a different reference in the two verses. ΤῊΝ ἈΛΉΘ. Τ. ΘΕΟῦ is explained concretely by ΤῸΝ ΚΤΊΣΑΝΤΑ in the second half of the verse.
ἘΝ Τῷ ΨΕΎΔΕΙ] with the lie; ἐν as in Rom 1:23. By this Paul means, in contrast to ΤῊΝ ἈΛΉΘ. Τ. ΘΕΟῦ (but otherwise than in Rom 3:7), the false gods, which are κατʼ ἑξοχὴν the ΨΕῦΔΟς in concreto, the negation of the truth of God. Comp on 1Co 8:4 f., 1Co 10:20. Grotius has aptly said: “pro Deo vero sumserunt imaginarios.” Comp Isa 44:20; Jer 3:10; Jer 13:25; Jer 16:19, al[505]; Philo, vit. Mos. p. 678 C, p. 679 A.
καὶ ἐσεβάσθησαν.… κτίσαντα] more precise explanation of the first clause of the verse.
ἘΣΕΒ. Κ. ἘΛΆΤΡ.] The former is general (coluerunt), the latter took place through sacrifices, and other definite rites and services; hence Paul designates his own specific service of God in Rom 1:8 by λατρεύω. σεβάζομαι, in Homer: to be afraid of (Il. vi. 167, 417), is employed in the later Greek like σέβομαι in the sense to revere, Orph. Arg. 550, Aq. Hos. x. 5. In the N. T. it only occurs here.
τῇ κτίσει] Corresponding with the verb standing next to it, so that the accusative is to be supplied with ἘΣΕΒ. See Matthiae, § 428, 2.
ΠΑΡᾺ Τ. ΚΤΊΣΑΝΤΑ] in the sense of comparison: prae creatore, in which case the context alone decides whether the preference of the one before the other is only relative, or whether it excludes the latter altogether (see on Luk 18:14; and van Hengel on our passage). The second case is that which occurs here, in accordance both with the nature of the case, seeing that the Gentiles did not worship the Creator at all, and with the immediate connection (μετήλλαξαν.… ἐν τῷ ψεύδει). The sense therefore substantially amounts to praeterito creatore (Hilary), or relicto creatore (Cyprian), i.e. they honoured the creature and not the Creator, whom they ought to have honoured. Theophylact says aptly, with reference to the comparative παρά: ἐκ τῆς συγκρίσεως τὸ ἔγκλημα ἐπαίρων. So in substance also Beza, Estius, and others, including Reiche, Tholuck, Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi, van Hengel. The relative interpretation: more than the Creator (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Grotius, Ammon, Rückert, and others), is therefore in point of fact erroneous. The contra creatorem, which Hammond, Koppe, Flatt, Fritzsche and Mehring find here, may likewise be traced to the sense of comparison (see Bernhardy, p. 259; Winer, p. 377 [E. T. 504]; and the passages from Plato in Ast. Lex. III. p. 28), but has against it the fact, that in the whole context Paul presents the matter in the light of a μετάλλαξις, of an exchanging the true for the false, not of hostility to the true. From that point of view the Gentiles have worshipped the creature, and not the Creator. Quite parallel is παρʼ ἐκεῖνον in Luke, Luk 18:14, Lachm.
The doxology: who is praised, בָּרוּךְ, not: celebrandus (comp on Eph 1:3; 2Co 11:31; Mar 14:61), for ever! Amen,-is a natural effusion of deeply-moved piety, called forth by the detestable contrast of the Gentile abominations just described, without any further special design (Koppe: “ne ipse in majestatem divinam injurius videri possit;” comp Tholuck).
[497] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[499] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[500] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[502] Not “the truth, which God Himself is” (Hofmann); but that, which God is in true reality. That is just the adequate substance of His δόξα.
[505] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
Rom 1:26-27. Διὰ τοῦτο] Beginning an independent, sentence (against Hofmann, see on Rom 1:25), refers to the description οἵτινες.… κτίσαντα contained in Rom 1:25. The giving up is set forth once more (comp Rom 1:24, διό) as the punishment of apostasy, and now indeed with such increasing force of delineation, that out of the category which is kept quite general in Rom 1:24 unnatural sensual abominations are specially adduced.
εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας] Genitive of quality. Comp on πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης in Rom 1:4, and Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 21. Parallel to the passions of a disgraceful character is εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν in Rom 1:24; comp Col 3:5; but the stronger expression here selected prepares the way for the following description of a peculiarly abominable form of vice. Still the unnatural element is not implied in πάθη ἀτιμίας itself (Hofmann: they are a dishonouring, not merely of the body, but of “humanity”), since morally dishonouring passions are the agents, not only in the case of unnatural, but also in that of natural unchastity.
Respecting τὲ γάρ, namque, for.… indeed (Rom 7:7; 2Co 10:8), see Hermann, a[511] Soph. Trach. 1015; Hartung, I. p. 115; Klotz, a[512] Devar. p. 749 ff.
The expressions θήλειαι and ἄρσενες, their females and their males, not γυναῖκες and ἄνδρες, are chosen because the predominant point of view is simply that of sex; Reiche thinks: out of contempt, because the words would also be used of beasts; but in fact, such unnatural things are foreign to the very beasts. Besides, the words are used even of the gods (Homer, Il. viii. 7, and frequently).
τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν] of their sex, not: of the male, which is unsuitable to the vice indicated. Regarding χρῆσις in the sense of sexual use, see Wetstein and Kypke, also Coray, a[513] Heliodor. Aeg., p. 31.
How very prevalent among the Gentiles (it was found also among the Jews, see Schoettgen, Hor. in loc[514]) was the so-called Lesbian vice, λεσβιάζειν (Lucian, D.Mer. 5. 2), women with women abusing their sex (tribades, in Tertullian frictrices), see Salmasius, foen. Trapez. p. 143 f., 152 f.; and the commentators on Ael. V. H. iii. 12. Comp the ἑταιρίστριαι in Plat. Symp. p. 191 E, and the ασέλγεια τριβακή in Luc. Amor. 28; and see Ruhnken, a[516] Tim. p. 124, and generally Rosenbaum, Gesch. d. Lustseuche im Alterth. ed. 2, 1845.
That ὁμοίως δὲ καί after the preceding τέ makes the latter an anakoluthon, is commonly assumed, but altogether without foundation, because in τὲ γάρ the τέ does not necessarily require any correlative. See Klotz l.c[517] If it were put correlatively, we should have in ὁμοίως δὲ καί the other corresponding member really present (as is actually the case, e.g. in Plat. Symp. p. 186 E), which however would in that case inappropriately stand out with greater emphasis and weight than the former[518] (Stallbaum, a[519] Plat. Polit. p. 270 D, Rep. p. 367 C; Dissen, a[520] Pind. Ol. viii. 56; Klausen, a[521] Aesch. Choeph. p. 199). The reading τέ (instead of δέ) in Elz., as well as the entire omission of the particle (C, min[522], Origen, Jerome), is a too hasty emendation.
ἐξεκαύθησαν] Stronger than the simple form. Comp Alciphr. iii. 67; ἐξεκαύθην εἰς ἔρωτα. Such a state is the πυροῦσθαι in 1Co 7:9. Moreover, Paul represents here not the heat that precedes the act of unchastity, but that which is kindled in the act itself (κατεργαζόμενοι.… ἀπολαμβάνοντες).
ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσι] whilst they, males on males, performed the (known, from Rom 1:26) unseemliness. On the emphatic juxtaposition of ἄρσ. ἐν ἄρσ. comp generally Lobeck, a[525] Aj. 522, and in particular Porphyr. de abstin. iv. 20; and Wetstein in loc[526] On κατεργαζεσθαι, which is used both of evil (Rom 2:9, Rom 7:9, Rom 15:17 f.) and good (Rom 5:3, Rom 15:18; Php 2:12), but which, as distinguished from ἐργάζεσθαι, always expresses the bringing to pass, the accomplishment, comp especially Rom 2:9, and van Hengel thereon; 1Co 5:3; 2Co 7:10, and the critical remarks thereon. On ἀσχημ. see Gen 34:7.
τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν κ.τ.λ[528]] The aberration, which Paul means, see in Rom 1:21-23; Rom 1:28; it is the aberration from God to idols, not that implied in the sexual perversion of the divine order (Hofmann), which perversion, on the contrary, is brought by διό in Rom 1:24, and by ΔΙΆ ΤΟῦΤΟ in Rom 1:26, under the point of view of penal retribution for the πλάνη. By the recompense for the πλάνη Paul does not at all mean that the men “have that done to them by their fellows, which they themselves do to theirs” (Hofmann), but rather, in harmony with the connection of cause and effect, the abominable unnatural lusts just described, to which God has given up the Gentiles, and thereby, in recompensing godlessness through such wicked excesses (Rom 1:18), revealed His ὀργή. Therefore also ἭΝ ἘΔΕΙ is added, namely, in accordance with the necessity of the holy divine order. See Rom 1:24; Rom 1:26; Rom 1:28. On ἈΝΤΙΜΙΣΘΊΑ comp 2Co 6:13; Clem. Cor. II. 1. It occurs neither in Greek authors, who have the adjective ἈΝΤΊΜΙΣΘΟς (Aesch. Suppl. 273), nor in the LXX. or Apocrypha.
ἐν ἑαυτοῖς] on themselves mutually (ἐν ἀλλήλοις), as in Rom 1:24. It enhances the sadness of the description. For a number of passages attesting the prevalence of unchastity between man and man, especially of paederastia among the Gentiles, particularly the Greeks (it was forbidden to the Jews in Lev 18:22), see Becker, Charikl. I. p. 346 ff.; Hermann, Privatalterth. § 29; Bernhardy, Griech. Lit. ed. 2, p. 50 ff. Moreover, Bengel aptly observes regarding the whole of this unreserved exposure of Gentile unchastity: “In peccatis arguendis saepe scapha debet scapha dici. Pudorem praeposterum ii fere postulant, qui pudicitia carent.… Gravitas et ardor stili judicialis proprietate verborum non violat verecundiam.” Observe, nevertheless, how the Apostle delineates the female dishonour in less concrete traits than the male. He touches the matter in Rom 1:26 briefly and clearly enough, but with delicate avoidance of detailed description.
[511] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[512] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[513] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[514] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[516] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[517] .c. loco citato or laudato.
[518] Hofmann thinks that with ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κ.τ.λ. the argument ascends to the greater danger for the continuance of the human race. But that is a purely imported thought. The Apostle’s point of view is the moral ἀτιμία, which, in the case of female depravity, comes out most glaringly. And therefore Paul, in order to cast the most tragic light possible on these conditions, puts the brief delineation of female conduct in the foreground, in order then symmetrically to subjoin, with ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ, the male vice as the second part of the filthy category.
[519] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[520] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[521] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[522] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.
[525] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[526] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[528] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
Rom 1:28. From the previous exclusive description of the sensual vice of the Gentiles, Paul now proceeds to a summary enumeration of yet other vices to which they had been given up by God in punishment of their apostasy.
καθώς] is not causal, but quemadmodum. The giving them up was something corresponding to their disdainful rejection of the knowledge of God, proportionate as punishment.
οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν] they deemed God not worth (1Th 2:4); οὐ γὰρ ἀγνοίας, ἀλλὰ μελέτης εἶναι φησὶ τὰ τολμήματα, Chrysostom.
ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει] Their γνῶναι τὸν Θεόν, derived from the revelation of nature (Rom 1:21), ought to have been brought by cultivation to an ἐπιγνῶναι, that is, to a penetrating and living knowledge of God (see on Eph 1:17; 1Co 13:12); thus they would have attained to the having God ἐν ἐπιγνώσει; but they would not, and so became τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν Θεόν, 1Th 4:5; Gal 4:8; Eph 2:12; Act 17:30. On ἔχειν ἐν with an abstract noun, which represents the object as appropriated in the action, so that it is possessed in the latter (here in ἐπιγνῶμναι), comp Locella, a[531] Xen. Eph. p. 255. Similar is ἘΝ ὈΡΓῇ ἜΧΕΙΝ, and the like, Krüger on Thucyd. ii. 8, 3.
εἰς ἀδόκ. νοῦν] An ingenious paronomasia with ΟὐΚ ἘΔΟΚΊΜ., to set forth the more prominently the recompense, to which the emphatically repeated ὁ Θεός also contributes: as they did not esteem God worthy, etc., God gave them up to an unworthy, reprobate νοῦς (the collective power of the mind’s action in theoretic and moral cognition[532]). The rendering judicii expers (Beza, Glöckler and others) is opposed to the genius of the language, even as Bengel turns it, and Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 280, defines it. The ἀδόκιμον of the ΝΟῦς is its blameworthiness according to an objective moral standard, but does not express the mode of thinking which they themselves must condemn among one another (Th. Schott; comp Hofmann), which is neither to be taken by anticipation from Rom 1:32, nor extracted from ΜῊ.
ΠΟΙΕῖΝ ΤᾺ ΜῊ ΚΑΘΉΚΟΝΤΑ] to do what is not becoming, what is not moral. Comp 3Ma 4:16. The Stoical distinction between ΚΑΘῆΚΟΝ and ΚΑΤΌΡΘΩΜΑ Paul has not thought of (as Vitringa conceives). The infinitive is epexegetical: so that they do. The participle with μή indicates the genus of that which is not seemly (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 296); τὰ οὐ καθήκοντα (comp Eph 5:4), would be the unseemly. The negative expression is correlate to the ἀδόκιμος νοῦς.
[531] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[532] Comp. on Rom 7:23, and Kluge in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1871, p. 329. The νοῦς is ἀδόκιμος when, not receptive for divine truth, it does not determine the ethical conduct in accordance with it.
Rom 1:29-31. Πεπληρωμένους πάσῃ ἀδικίᾳ] a more precise definition of ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκ.: as those who are full of every unrighteousness (Rom 1:18). This is the general statement, and all the points subsequently introduced are its several species, so that μεστοὺς φθόνου and then ψιθυριστὰς κ.τ.λ[536] are appositions to πεπληρ. π. ἀδικ. Similar catalogues of sins are 2Co 12:20; Gal 5:19 ff.; Eph 5:3 f.; 1Ti 1:9 f.; 2Ti 3:2 ff.
πονηρίᾳ.… κακίᾳ] malignity (malice), comp Eph 4:31; Col 3:8; Tit 3:3.… vileness (meanness), the latter, in Aristotle and other writers, opposed to ἁρετή, and translated in Cicero, Tusc. iv. 15, 34, by vitiositas. Comp 1Co 5:8.
φόνου] Conceived here as the thought which has filled the man, the μερμηρίζειν φόνον, Homer, Od. xix. 2, comp Act 9:1. On the paronomasia with φθόνου comp Gal 5:21. The latter is just the σημεῖον φύσεως παντάπασι πονηρᾶς, Dem. 499, 21.
κακοηθείας] malicious disposition, whose peculiarity it is ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον ὑπολαμβάνειν τὰ πάντα (Aristotle, Rhet. ii. 13). As the context requires a special vice, we may not adopt, with Erasmus, Calvin, and Homberg, the general signification perversitas, corruptio morum (Xen. Cyn. xiii. 16; Dem. 542, 11; Plat. Rep. p. 348 D). See regarding the word generally Homberg, Parerg. p. 196; Kypke, II. p. 155 f.
ψιθυρ.] whisperers, talebearers, consequently secret slanderers (Dem. 1358, 6); but κατάλαλοι, calumniators, detractors generally, not precisely open ones (Theophylact, Köllner, de Wette and others). Comp ψιθυρισμούς τε καὶ καταλαλιάς, Clem. Cor. i. 35. The construction of καταλάλους as an adjective with ψιθυρ. (Hofmann), must be rejected, because none of the other elements has an adjectival definition annexed to it, and because καταλάλ. would not add to the notion of ψιθυρ. anything characteristic in the way of more precise definition. ψιθυρ. would be better fitted to form a limiting definition of καταλ. But in 2Co 12:20 also, both ideas stand independently side by side.
θεοστυγεῖς] hated by God, Deo odibiles (Vulgate). This passive rendering of the word which belongs especially to the tragedians (Pollux, i. 21), so that it is equivalent to Θεῷ ἐχθαιρόμενος (comp Soph. Aj. 458), is clearly attested by the usus loquendi as the only correct one. See Eurip. Troad. 1213, Cycl. 395, 598, Neophr. ap. Stob. serm. 20, p. 172. Comp θεοστύγητος in Aesch. Choeph. 635, Fritzsche in loc[544], and Wetstein. Since no passage whatever supports the active signification, and since even Suidas and Oecumenius clearly betray that they knew the active meaning adopted by them to be a deviation from the usage of the ancient writers,[545] we must reject, with Koppe, Rückert, Fritzsche, de Wette, Philippi, Baumgarten-Crusius, and Hofmann, the interpretation, Dei osores, that has been preferred by the majority since the time of Theodoret.[546] Even the analogous forms that have been appealed to, θεομισής, βροτοστυγής (Aesch. Choeph. 51, Prom. 799), are to be taken as passives, and therefore testify against the active interpretation.[547] Comp θεοβλαβής, stricken of God, Herod. viii. 137, al[549] In particular, θεομισής is quite the same as θεοστυγής, the opposite of θεοφιλής, beloved of God. (See Plat. Rep. p. 612 E, Euth. p. 8 A; Dem. 1486, ult.; Arist. Ran. 443.) Comp θεῷ μισητοί, Wis 14:9; and, as regards the idea, the Homeric ὅς κε θεοῖσιν ἀπέχθηται μακάρεσσιν, Od. κ. 74. The accentuation θεοστύγης, approved of even by Grotius and Beza, to distinguish it from the passive θεοστυγης, is nothing but an ancient (Suidas) unsupported fiction. See Buttmann, II. p. 371, Winer, p. 53 [E. T. 61]. God-hating is expressed by μισόθεος, Lucian, Tim. 35, Aesch. Ag. 1090; comp φιλόθεος, God-loving. The adoption, nevertheless, of the active sense was occasioned by the consideration: “ut in passivo positum dicatur, nulla est ratio, quum P. hic homines ex vitiis evidentibus reos faciat,” Calvin; but even granting a certain unsuitableness in the passive sense, still we should not be justified in giving an explanation contrary to the usus loquendi; we should be obliged to abide by the view that Paul had mixed up a less suitable term among the others. But this objection is diminished, if we take θεοστ., in accordance with the idea of divine holiness, as a characteristic designation of infamous evil-doers in general. So Fritzsche, and also Philippi. Comp Plat. Legg. viii. p. 838 B: θεομισῆ.… καὶ αἰσχρῶν αἴσχιστα. And it vanishes altogether, if, leaving the word in its strict signification, hated of God, we recognise in it a summary judgment of moral indignation respecting all the preceding particulars; so that, looking back on these, it forms a resting point in the disgraceful catalogue, the continuation of which is then carried on by ὑβριστὰς κ.τ.λ[553] According to Hofmann, ΘΕΟΣΤΥΓ. is an adjective qualifying ὑβριστάς. But we do not see why precisely this single point[554] in the entire catalogue, insolence (the notion of which is not to be arbitrarily heightened, so as to make it denote “the man-despiser who treads upon his fellows”), among so many particulars, some of them even worse, should be accompanied by an epithet, and one, too, of so extreme severity.
The continuation begins with a threefold description of self-exaltation, and that in a descending climax. Regarding the distinction between ὑβρισταί, the insolent (qui prae superbia non solum contemnunt alios, sed etiam contumeliose tractant, comp 1Ti 1:13), ὑπερήφανοι, the proud (who, proud of real or imaginary advantages, despise others), and ἀλαζόνες (boasters, swaggerers, without exactly intending to despise or insult others with their vainglory), see Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 73 f. Comp Grotius and Wetstein; on ἀλαζ. especially Ruhnk. a[557] Tim. p. 28, Ast, a[558] Theophr. Char. 23. If ὑπερηφ. be taken as adjective with the latter (Hofmann), then the vice, which is invariably and intrinsically immoral,[559] would be limited merely to a particular mode of it.
ἐφευρ. κακῶν] devisers (Anacr. xli. 3) of evil things, quite general; not to be limited to things of luxury, with Grotius; nor, with Hofmann, to evils which they desire to do to others. Comp 2Ma 7:31, and the passages from Philo in Loesner; also Tacit. Ann. iv. 11, and Virg. Aen. ii. 161.
ἀσυνέτους] irrational, unreflecting, who, in what they do and leave undone, are not determined by the σύνεσις, by morally intelligent insight. Luther rightly says: “Mr. Unreason going rashly to work [Hans Unvernunft, mit dem Kopfe hindurch].” So also Sir 15:7. The rendering devoid of conscience (according to Suidas) deviates from the proper signification of the word.
ἀσυνθέτους] makes a paronomasia with the foregoing, and means, not unsociable (Castalio, Tittmann, Ewald, comp Hofmann), for which there is no warrant of usage, but covenant-breakers (Jer 3:8; Jer 3:10 f.; Suidas, Hesychius; see also Dem. 383, 6). On ἀστόργ. (without the natural affection of love) and ἈΝΕΛΕΉΜ. (unmerciful), see Tittmann, Synon. p. 69.
The succession of the accumulated particulars is not arranged according to a systematic scheme, and the construction of such a scheme leads to arbitrary definition of the import of individual points; but still their distribution is so far in accordance with approximate categories, that there are presented:-1st, The general heathen vices, πεπληρωμένους.… κακίᾳ; 2nd, dispositions inimical to others, μεστοὺς.… κακοηθείας, and calumniatory speeches, ψιθυρ., καταλάλ.; both series concluding with the general ΘΕΟΣΤΥΓΕῖς; then, 3rd, The arrogant character, ὑβριστὰς.… ἀλαζόνας; and finally, 4th, A series of negative particulars (all with a privative), but headed by the positive, general ἐφευρ. κακῶν. This negative series portrays the want of dutiful affection in family life (ΓΟΝ. ἈΠΕΙΘ.), of intelligence (ἈΣΥΝΈΤ.), fidelity (ἈΣΥΝΘ.), and love (ἈΣΤΌΡΓ. ἈΝΕΛ.),-consequently the want of every principle on which moral action is based.
[536] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[544] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[545] Suidas says: Θεοστυγεῖς θεομίσητοι, οἱ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ μισούμενοι καὶ οἱ Θεὸν μισοῦντες· παρὰ δὲ τῷ ἀποστόλῳ θεοστυγεῖς οὐχὶ οἱ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ μισοῦμενοι, ἀλλʼ οἱ μισοῦντες τὸν Θεὸν. Oecumenius: Θεοστυγεῖς δὲ οὐ τοὺς ὑπὸ Θεοῦ μισουμένους, οὐ γὰρ αὐτῷ τοῦτο δεῖξαι πρόκειται νῦν, ἀλλὰ τοὺς μισοῦντας Θεὸν. These negative definitions, which both give, manifestly point to the use of the word in other authors, from which Paul here departs. It is doubtful whether Clement, Cor. I. 35, where there is an echo of our passage, had in view the active or the passive sense of θεοστυγεῖς. He uses indeed the evidently active θεοστυγία, but adds at the close of the list of sins: ταῦτα οἱ πράσσοντες στυγητοὶ τῷ Θεῷ ὑπάρχουσιν. Chrysostom does not express his opinion regarding the word.
[546] The Dei osores was taken to refer to the heathen vice of wrath against the gods conceived as possessing human passions. See Grotius and Reiche. Others have understood it variously. Tholuck thinks of accusers of providence, Promethean characters; Ewald, of blasphemers of God; Calvin, of those who have a horror of God on account of His righteousness. Thus there is introduced into the general expression what the context gives no hint of. This applies also to Luther’s gloss: “the real Epicureans, who live as if there were no God.”
[547] Even in Clem. Hom. i. 12, there is nothing whatever in the connection opposed to the passive rendering of θεοστυγεῖς.
[549] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[553] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[554] For neither καταλάλ. nor ὑπερηφ. are to be taken as adjectives. See on those words. Hofmann seems to have adopted such a view, merely in order to gain analogies in the text for his inappropriate treatment of the objectionable θεοστυγεῖς as an adjective.
[557] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[558] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[559] See Xen. Mem. i. 7, 1 ff., where ἀλαζονεία is the antithesis of ἀρετή. It belongs to the category of the ψεύδεσθαι, Aesch. adv. Ctesiph. 99; Plat. Lys. p. 218 D. Compare also 2Ti 3:2; Clem. Cor. I. 35.
Rom 1:32. Οἵτινες] quippe qui, of such a character, that they, cannot be the specification of a reason, as in Rom 1:25, and cannot consequently be intended to repeat once more the laying of the blame on themselves, since Rom 1:32 merely continues the description of the wickedness. It rather serves to introduce the awful completion of this description of vice; and that in such a way, that the Gentile immorality is brought clearly to light as an opposition to knowledge and conscience, and is thereby at the last very evidently shown to be wholly inexcusable (comp Rom 2:1).
ΤῸ ΔΙΚΑΊΩΜΑ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ] i.e. that which God as Lawgiver and Judge has ordained; what He has determined, and demands, as right. Comp Krüger on Thuc. i. 41, 1; and see on Rom 5:16. Paul means the natural law of the moral consciousness (Rom 2:15), which determines: ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες Κ.Τ.Λ[564] This ὅτι κ.τ.λ[565] therefore is not to be treated as a parenthesis.
ἘΠΙΓΝΌΝΤΕς] although they have discerned (comp on Rom 1:28), not merely ΓΝΌΝΤΕς; but so much the greater is the guilt.
ΘΑΝΆΤΟΥ] What in the view of the heathen was conceived of as the state of punishment in Hades (comp Philippi and Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 277), which was incurred through vice and crime, Paul designates, in accordance with the truth involved in it (comp Plat. Rep. p. 330 D), from his standpoint as θανάτος, and by this he means eternal death (comp 2Th 1:8); not temporal (Bengel, van Hengel, Mehring); or execution (Grotius, Hofmann); also not indefinitely severe punishments,[570] the misery of sin, and so forth (so even Fritzsche and de Wette).
συνευδοκ. τοῖς πράσσ.] they are consenting with them that do them (comp Luk 11:48; Act 8:1; 1Co 7:12; 1Ma 1:60; 2Ma 11:24). They not only do those things, but are also in their moral judgment (so wholly antagonistic to conscience has the latter become in the abandonment unto which God has decreed them, Rom 1:28) in agreement with others who so act. Bengel well remarks: “pejus est συνευδοκεῖν; nam qui malum patrat, sua sibi cupiditate abducitur,” etc., and how sharply are we otherwise ourselves accustomed to see and judge the mote in the eye of another! (Mat 7:3). This climax[572] to the description of immorality, moreover, is neither to be referred with Grotius and Baumgarten-Crusius to the philosophers, who approved of several vices (paederastia, revenge, etc.) or regarded them as adiaphora; nor with Heumann and Ewald to the magistrates, who left many crimes unpunished and even furthered them by their own example; but, in harmony with the quite general delineation of Gentile depravity, to be taken as a general feature marking the latter, which is thus laid bare in the deepest slough of moral perversity.
The πράσσοντες and πράσσουσι are more comprehensive than the simple ποιοῦσιν (do), designating the pursuit of these immoralities as the aim of their activity. See on Joh 3:20. Comp Rom 2:3; Rom 7:15; Rom 13:4; Dem. de cor. 62: τί προσῆκον ἦν ἑλέσθαι πράττειν κ. ποιεῖν.
[564] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[565] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[570] Melancthon says well against this view: “P. non loquitur de politica gubernatione, quae tantum externa facta punit: verum de judicio proprio in cujusque conscientia intuente Deum.”
[572] The climax lies necessarily in ἀλλὰ καὶ (in opposition to Reiche, Comm. crit. p. 6).
1. Paul, etc. (11) — With regard to the word Paul, as it is a subject of no such moment as ought to detain us, and as nothing can be said which has not been mentioned by other expounders, I should say nothing, were it not proper to satisfy some at small expense without being tedious to others; for the subject shall be despatched in a very few words.
They who think that the Apostle attained this name as a trophy for having brought Sergius, the proconsul, to the faith of Christ, are confuted by the testimony of Luke, who shows that he was so called before that time. (Act 13:7.) Nor does it seem probable to me, that it was given him when he was converted to Christ; though this idea so pleased [Augustine ], that he took occasion refinedly to philosophize on the subject; for he says, that from a proud Saul he was made a very little (parvulum (12)) disciple of Christ. More probable is the opinion of [Origen ], who thought that he had two names; for it is not unlikely to be true, that his name, Saul, derived from his kindred, was given him by his parents to indicate his religion and his descent; and that his other name, Paul, was added, to show his right to Roman citizenship; (13) they would not have this honor, then highly valued, to be otherwise than made evident; but they did not so much value it as to withhold a proof of his Israelitic descent. But he has commonly taken the name Paul in his Epistles, and it may be for the following reasons: because in the churches to which he wrote, it was more known and more common, more acceptable in the Roman empire, and less known among his own nation. It was indeed his duty to avoid the foolish suspicion and hatred under which the name of a Jew then labored among the Romans and in their provinces, and to abstain from inflaming the rage of his own countrymen, and to take care of himself.
A servant of Jesus Christ, etc. — He signalizes himself with these distinctions for the purpose of securing more authority to his doctrine; and this he seeks to secure by two things — first, by asserting his call to the Apostleship; (14) and secondly, by showing that his call was not unconnected with the Church of Rome: for it was of great importance that he should be deemed an Apostle through God’s call, and that he should be known as one destined for the Roman Church. He therefore says, that he was a servant of Christ, and called to the office of an Apostle, thereby intimating that he had not presumptuously intruded into that office. He then adds, that he was chosen, (selectum — selected, (15)) by which he more fully confirms the fact, that he was not one of the people, but a particular Apostle of the Lord. Consistently with this, he had before proceeded from what was general to what was particular, as the Apostleship was an especial service; for all who sustain the office of teaching are to be deemed Christ’s servants, but Apostles, in point of honor, far exceed all others. But the choosing for the gospel, etc., which he afterwards mentions, expresses the end as well as the use of the Apostleship; for he intended briefly to show for what purpose he was called to that function. By saying then that he was servant of Christ, he declared what he had in common with other teachers; by claiming to himself the title of an Apostle, he put himself before others; but as no authority is due to him who willfully intrudes himself, he reminds us, that he was appointed by God.
Then the meaning is, — that Paul was a servant of Christ, not any kind of servant, but an Apostle, and that by the call of God, and not by presumptuous intrusion: then follows a clearer explanation of the Apostolic office, — it was ordained for the preaching of the Gospel. For I cannot agree with those who refer this call of which he speaks to the eternal election of God; and who understand the separation, either that from his mother’s womb, which he mentions in Gal 1:15, or that which Luke refers to, when Paul was appointed for the Gentiles: but I consider that he simply glories in having God as the author of his call, lest any one should think that he had through his own rashness taken this honor to himself. (16)
We must here observe, that all are not fitted for the ministry of the word; for a special call is necessary: and even those who seem particularly fitted ought to take heed lest they thrust themselves in without a call. But as to the character of the Apostolic and of the Episcopal call, we shall consider it in another place. We must further observe, that the office of an Apostle is the preaching of the gospel. It hence appears what just objects of ridicule are those dumb dogs, who render themselves conspicuous only by their mitre and their crook, and boast themselves to be the successors of the Apostles!
The word, servant, imports nothing else but a minister, for it refers to what is official. (17) I mention this to remove the mistake of those who too much refine on this expression and think that there is here to be understood a contrast between the service of Moses and that of Christ.
(11) “The inscription of the Pauline Epistles,” says [Turrettin ], “is according to the manner of the ancients, both Greeks and Romans. They were wont to prefix their name; and to those to whom they wrote they added their good wishes.” We have an example in Act 23:26. — Ed.
(12) Thereby expressing the meaning of Paulus, which in Latin is little. “Paul,” says the quaint [Elnathan Parr ], “as signifies little, and indeed not unfitly, for he is reported to have been low in stature, and to have had a very small voice,” which is thought to have been objected to him in 2. o 10:10 — Ed.
(13) Most writers agree in this view, regarding Saul as his Hebrew name and Paul as his Roman name. — Ed.
(14) “A called Apostle — vocatus apostolus— κλητὸς απόστολος; ” our version is, “called to be an Apostle”. Most consider “called” here in the sense of chosen or elected, “a chosen Apostle.” Professor [Stuart ] observes, thatκλητὸς in the writings of Paul has always the meaning of efficient calling, and signifies not only the invited, but the effectually invited. He refers to 1. o 1:1; compared with Gal 1:15
He was an Apostle by a call, or as [Beza ] renders it, “by the call of God — ex Dei vocatione apostolus.” The meaning is the same as what he himself expresses it in Gal 1:1. [Turrettin ] renders it, “Apostolus vocatione divina — an Apostle by divine vocation.”
The difference between “a called Apostle” and “called to be an Apostle,” is this, that the first conveys the idea that he obeyed the call, and the other does not. — Ed.
(15)Αφωρισμένος separated, set apart; “segregatus,” Vulgate; “separatus, [Beza ]. “The Pharisees,” says [Leigh ], “were termedἀφωρισμένος we may English them Separatists: they separated themselves to the study of the law, in which respect they might be calledἀφωρισμένος εἰς τὸν νόμον, separated to the law. In allusion to this, saith [Drusius ], the Apostle is thought to have styled himself, Rom 1:1, ἀφωρισμένον εἰς ἐυαγγέλιον, separated unto the Gospel, when he was called from being a Pharisee to be a preacher of the Gospel.” Separated is the word adopted both by [Doddridge ] and [Macknight ], as well as by our own version. — Ed.
(16) Some combine the four separations. “Set apart in the eternal counsel of God, and from his mother’s womb, Gal 1:15, and by the special commandment of the Holy Ghost, Act 13:2, confirmed by constitution of the Church, Act 13:3; Gal 2:9.” — Parr. But the object here seems to have been that stated by [Calvin ] : nor is it just or prudent to connect any other idea with the word except that which the context requires; for to do so only tends to create confusion. — Ed.
(17) Moses, Joshua, David, Nehemiah, etc., where, in a similar sense, called servants; and also our Savior. They were officially servants. — Ed
2. Which he had before promised, etc. — As the suspicion of being new subtracts much from the authority of a doctrine, he confirms the faith of the gospel by antiquity; as though he said, “Christ came not on the earth unexpectedly, nor did he introduce a doctrine of a new kind and not heard of before, inasmuch as he, and his gospel too, had been promised and expected from the beginning of the world.” But as antiquity is often fabulous, he brings witnesses, and those approved, even the Prophets of God, that he might remove every suspicion. He in the third place adds, that their testimonies were duly recorded, that is, in the Holy Scriptures.
We may learn from this passage what the gospel is: he teaches us, not that it was promulgated by the Prophets but only promised. If then the Prophets promised the gospel, it follows, that it was revealed, when our Lord was at length manifested in the flesh. They are then mistaken who confound the promises with the gospel, since the gospel is properly the appointed preaching of Christ as manifested, in whom the promises themselves are exhibited. (18)
(18) The verb isπροεπηγγείλατο only here; it comes from επαγγέλλομαι, which [Schleusner ] says, means in the middle voice, to promise. “Which he had before promised.” is then the proper rendering, and not “Which he formerly published,” as proposed by Professor [Stuart ]. Both [Doddridge ] and [Macknight ] have retained our version, with which that of [Beza ] agrees. — Ed.
3. Concerning his own Son, etc. — This is a remarkable passage, by which we are taught that the whole gospel is included in Christ, so that if any removes one step from Christ, he withdraws himself from the gospel. For since he is the living and express image of the Father, it is no wonder, that he alone is set before us as one to whom our whole faith is to be directed and in whom it is to center. It is then a definition of the gospel, by which Paul expresses what is summarily comprehended in it. I have rendered the words which follow, Jesus Christ our Lord, in the same case; which seems to me to be most agreeable with the context. We hence learn, that he who has made a due proficiency in the knowledge of Christ, has acquired every thing which can be learned from the gospel; and, on the other hand, that they who seek to be wise without Christ, are not only foolish, but even completely insane.
Who was made, etc. — Two things must be found in Christ, in order that we may obtain salvation in him, even divinity and humanity. His divinity possesses power, righteousness, life, which by his humanity are conveyed to us. Hence the Apostle has expressly mentioned both in the Summary he gives of the gospel, that Christ was manifested in the flesh — and that in it he declared himself to be the Son of God. So John says; after having declared that the Word was made flesh, he adds, that in that flesh there was a glory as of the only-begotten Son of God. (Joh 1:14.) That he specially notices the descent and lineage of Christ from his ancestor David, is not superfluous; for by this he calls back our attention to the promise, that we may not doubt but that he is the very person who had been formerly promised. So well known was the promise made to David, that it appears to have been a common thing among the Jews to call the Messiah the Son of David. This then — that Christ did spring from David — was said for the purpose of confirming our faith.
He adds,according to the flesh; and he adds this, that we may understand that he had something more excellent than flesh, which he brought from heaven, and did not take from David, even that which he afterwards mentions, the glory of the divine nature. Paul does further by these words not only declare that Christ had real flesh, but he also clearly distinguishes his human from his divine nature; and thus he refutes the impious raving of Servetus, who assigned flesh to Christ, composed of three untreated elements.
4. Declared (19) the Son of God, etc.: or, if you prefer, determined (definitus); as though he had said, that the power, by which he was raised from the dead, was something like a decree by which he was proclaimed the Son of God, according to what is said in Psa 2:7, “I have this day begotten thee:” for this begetting refers to what was made known. Though some indeed find here three separate evidences of the divinity of Christ — “power,” understanding thereby miracles — then the testimony of the Spirit — and, lastly, the resurrection from the dead — I yet prefer to connect them together, and to reduce these three things to one, in this manner — that Christ was declared the Son of God by openly exercising a real celestial power, that is, the power of the Spirit, when he rose from the dead; but that this power is comprehended, when a conviction of it is imprinted on our hearts by the same Spirit. The language of the Apostle well agrees with this view; for he says that he was declared by power, because power, peculiar to God, shone forth in him, and uncontestably proved him to be God; and this was indeed made evident by his resurrection. Paul says the same thing in another place; having stated, that by death the weakness of the flesh appeared, he at the same time extols the power of the Spirit in his resurrection; (2. o 13:4) This glory, however, is not made known to us, until the same Spirit imprints a conviction of it on our hearts. And that Paul includes, together with the wonderful energy of the Spirit, which Christ manifested by rising from the dead, the testimony which all the faithful feel in their hearts, is even evident from this — that he expressly calls it the Spirit of Holiness; as though he had said, that the Spirit, as far as it sanctifies, confirms and ratifies that evidence of its power which it once exhibited. For the Scripture is wont often to ascribe such titles to the Spirit, as tend to illustrate our present subject. Thus He is called by our Lord the Spirit of Truth, on account of the effect which he mentions; (Joh 14:17)
Besides, a divine power is said to have shone forth in the resurrection of Christ for this reason — because he rose by his own power, as he had often testified:
“Destroy this temple, and in three days
I will raise it up again,” (Joh 2:19;)
“No man taketh it from me,” etc.; (Joh 10:18)
For he gained victory over death, (to which he yielded with regard to the weakness of the flesh,) not by aid sought from another, but by the celestial operation of his own Spirit.
(19) “Declaratus,” ὁρισθέντος. Some of the ancients, such as [Origen ], [Chrysostom ], [Cyril ], and others, have given to this verb the meaning of is “proved— δειχθέντος; ” demonstrated — ἀποφανθέντος; ” “exhibited —ἀποδειχθώντος; ”etc. But it is said that the word has not this meaning in the New Testament, and that it means, limited, determined, decreed, constituted. Besides here, it is found only in Luk 22:22; Act 2:23; Act 10:42; Act 11:29; Act 17:26; Heb 4:7. The word, determined, or constituted, if adopted here, would amount to the same thing, that is, that Christ was visibly determined or constituted the Son of God through the resurrection, or by that event. It was that which fixed, settled, determined, and manifestly exhibited him as the Son of God, clothed and adorned with his own power. Professor [Stuart ] has conjured a number of difficulties in connection with this verse, for which there seems to be no solid reason. The phrase, the Son of God, is so well known from the usage of Scripture, that there is no difficulty connected with it: the full phrase is the only-begotten Son. To say that Christ’s resurrection was no evidence of his divine nature, as Lazarus and others had been raised from the dead, appears indeed very strange. Did Lazarus rise through his own power? Did Lazarus rise again for our justification? Was his resurrection an attestation of any thing he had previously declared? The Revelation A. [Barnes ] very justly says, that the circumstances connected with Christ were those which rendered his resurrection a proof of his divinity.
Professor [Hodge ] gives what he conceives to be the import of the two verses in these words, “Jesus Christ was, as to his human nature, the Son of David; but he was clearly demonstrated to be, as to his divine nature, the Son of God, by the resurrection from the dead.” This view is taken by many, such as [Pareus ], [Beza ], [Turrettin ], etc. But the words, “according to the Spirit of Holiness” — κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, are taken differently by others, as meaning the Holy Spirit. As the phrase is nowhere else found, it may be taken in either sense. That the divine nature of Christ is called Spirit, is evident. See 1. o 15:45; 2. o 3:17; Heb 9:14, 1. e 3:18 [Doddridge ], [Scott ], and [Chalmers ], consider The Holy Spirit to be intended. The last gives this paraphrase: — “Declared, or determinately marked out to be the Son of God and with power. The thing was demonstrated by an evidence, the exhibition of which required a putting forth of power, which Paul in another place represents as a very great and strenuous exertion, ‘According to the working of his mighty power when he raised him from the dead.’ — The Spirit of Holiness, or the Holy Spirit. It was through the operation of the Holy Spirit that the divine nature was infused into the human at the birth of Jesus Christ; and the very same agent, it is remarkable, was employed in the work of the resurrection. ‘Put to death in the flesh,’ says Peter, and ‘quickened by the Spirit.’ We have only to do with the facts of the case. He was demonstrated to be the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit having been put forth in raising him from the dead.” As to the genitive case after “resurrection,” see a similar instance in Act 17:32
The idea deduced by [Calvin ], that he is called here “the Spirit of Holiness,” on account of the holiness he works in us, seems not well-founded, though advanced by [Theodoret ] and [Augustine ]. — Ed.
5. Through whom we have received, etc. — Having completed his definition of the gospel, which he introduced for the recommendation of his office, he now returns to speak of his own call; and it was a great point that this should be proved to the Romans. By mentioning grace and apostleship apart, he adopts a form of speech, (20) which must be understood as meaning, gratuitous apostleship or the favor of the apostleship; by which he means, that it was wholly through divine favor, not through his own worthiness, that he had been chosen for so high an office. For though it has hardly any thing connected with it in the estimation of the world, except dangers, labors, hatred, and disgrace; yet before God and his saints, it possesses a dignity of no common or ordinary kind. It is therefore deservedly counted a favor. If you prefer to say, “I have received grace that I should be an Apostle,” the sense would be the same. (21)
The expression, on account of his name, is rendered by [Ambrose ], “in his name,” as though it meant, that the Apostle was appointed in the place of Christ to preach the gospel, according to that passage, “We are ambassadors for Christ,” etc. (2. o 5:20.) Their opinion, however, seems better, who take name for knowledge; for the gospel is preached for this end — that we may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1. o 3:23.) And Paul is said to have been a chosen vessel, to carry the name of Christ among the Gentiles. (Act 9:15.) On account then of his name, which means the same, as though he had said, that I might make known what Christ is. (22)
For the obedience of faith, etc. — That is, we have received a command to preach the gospel among all nations, and this gospel they obey by faith. By stating the design of his calling, he again reminds the Romans of his office, as though he said, “It is indeed my duty to discharge the office committed to me, which is to preach the word; and it is your duty to hear the word and willingly to obey it; you will otherwise make void the vocation which the Lord has bestowed on me.”
We hence learn, that they perversely resist the authority of God and upset the whole of what he has ordained, who irreverently and contemptuously reject the preaching of the gospel; the design of which is to constrain us to obey God. We must also notice here what faith is; the name of obedience is given to it, and for this reason — because the Lord calls us by his gospel; we respond to his call by faith; as on the other hand, the chief act of disobedience to God is unbelief, I prefer rendering the sentence, “For the obedience of faith,” rather than, “In order that they may obey the faith;” for the last is not strictly correct, except taken figuratively, though it be found once in the Act 6:7. Faith is properly that by which we obey the gospel. (23)
Among all nations, etc. It was not enough for him to have been appointed an Apostle, except his ministry had reference to some who were to be taught: hence he adds, that his apostleship extended to all nations. He afterwards calls himself more distinctly the Apostle of the Romans, when he says, that they were included in the number of the nations, to whom he had been given as a minister. And further, the Apostles had in common the command to preach the gospel to all the world; and they were not, as pastors and bishops, set over certain churches. But Paul, in addition to the general undertaking of the apostolic function, was constituted, by a special appointment, to be a minister to proclaim the gospel among the Gentiles. It is no objection to this, that he was forbidden to pass through Macedonia and to preach the word in Mysia: for this was done, not that there were limits prescribed to him, but that he was for a time to go elsewhere; for the harvest was not as yet ripe there.
Ye are the called of Jesus Christ, etc. He assigns a reason more nearly connected with them — because the Lord had already exhibited in them an evidence by which he had manifested that he had called them to a participation of the gospel. It hence followed, that if they wished their own calling to remain sure, they were not to reject the ministry of Paul, who had been chosen by the same election of God. I therefore take this clause, “the called of Jesus Christ,” as explanatory, as though the particle “even” were inserted; for he means, that they were by calling made partakers of Christ. For they who shall be heirs of eternal life, are chosen by the celestial Father to be children in Christ; and when chosen, they are committed to his care and protection as their shepherd. (24)
(20) “Hypellage,” a figure in grammar, by which a noun or an adjective is put in a form or in a case different from that in which it ought grammatically to be. — Ed.
(21) If this view be taken, the best mode would be to renderκαι, even “favor, even the apostleship.” But, as [Wolfius ] says, “both words would perhaps be better rendered separately, and “grace” or favor be referred to the conversion of the Apostle himself, and “apostleship” to his office. See 1. i 1:12, and Act 9:15, Act 13:2; Act 22:21. — Ed
(22) He has taken this clause before that which follows, contrary to the order of the text, because he viewed it as connected with the receiving of the apostleship.
“Pro nomine ipsius ,” — ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνὸματος αὐτοῦ; “ad nominis ejus gloriam — to the glory of his name,” [Turrettin ]; “for the purpose of magnifying his name,” [Chalmers ] [Hodge ] observes, “Paul was an apostle that all nations might be obedient, to the honor of Jesus Christ, that is, so that his name may be known.” Some, as [Tholuck ], connect the words with “obedience to the faith,” as they render the phrase, and, in this sense, “that obedience might be rendered to the faith among all nations for the sake of his name.” But it is better to connect the words with the receiving of the apostleship: it was received for two purposes — that there might be the obedience of faith, and that the name of Christ might be magnified. — Ed.
(23) It might be rendered, “that there might be the obedience of faith,” or, “in order to produce,” or, “Promote the obedience of faith.” The obedience is faith. The command is, “believe,” and the obedience must correspond with it. To obey the faith, as in Act 6:7, is a different form of expression: the article is prefixed there, it is the faith, meaning the gospel. — See 2. h 1:8. Professor [Stuart ] and [Haldane ], agree in this view. The latter refers to Rom 10:3, where the Israelites are charged for not submitting to God’s righteousness; and, in Rom 10:16, it is said, that they had not all obeyed the gospel, “for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?” Then to believe the gospel is in an especial manner to obey it. — Ed.
(24) “The called of Jesus Christ,” i.e., the called who belong to Christ. Κλητὸς means, not only those to whom the external call of the gospel has been addressed, but those who have been also internally called.” — [Stuart ]. The same author renders the wordsκλητοῖς ἁγίοις, in the next verse, “chosen saints,” or, “saints effectually called.” — Ed.
7. To all of you who are at Rome, etc. By this happy arrangement he sets forth what there is in us worthy of commendation; he says, that first the Lord through his own kindness made us the objects of his favor and love; and then that he has called us; and thirdly, that he has called us to holiness: but this high honor only then exists, when we are not wanting to our call.
Here a rich truth presents itself to us, to which I shall briefly refer, and leave it to be meditated upon by each individual: Paul does by no means ascribe the praise of our salvation to ourselves, but derives it altogether from the fountain of God’s free and paternal love towards us; for he makes this the first thing — God loves us: and what is the cause of his love, except his own goodness alone? On this depends our calling, by which in his own time he seals his adoption to those whom he had before freely chosen. We also learn from this passage that none rightly connect themselves with the number of the faithful, except they feel assured that the Lord is gracious, however unworthy and wretched sinners they may be, and except they be stimulated by his goodness and aspire to holiness, for he hath not called us to uncleanness, but to holiness. (1. h 4:7.) As the Greek can be rendered in the second person, I see no reason for any change.
Grace to you and peace, etc. Nothing is more desirable than to have God propitious to us, and this is signified by grace; and then to have prosperity and success in all things flowing from him, and this is intimated by peace; for however things may seem to smile on us, if God be angry, even blessing itself is turned to a curse. The very foundation then of our felicity is the favor of God, by which we enjoy true and solid prosperity, and by which also our salvation is promoted even when we are in adversities. (25) And then as he prays to God for peace, we must understand, that whatever good comes to us, it is the fruit of divine benevolence. Nor must we omit to notice, that he prays at the same time to the Lord Jesus Christ for these blessings. Worthily indeed is this honor rendered to him, who is not only the administrator and dispenser of his Father’s bounty to us, but also works all things in connection with him. It was, however, the special object of the Apostle to show, that through him all God’s blessings come to us. (26)
There are those who prefer to regard the word peace as signifying quietness of conscience; and that this meaning belongs to it sometimes, I do not deny: but since it is certain that the Apostle wished to give us here a summary of God’s blessings, the former meaning, which is adduced by Bucer, is much the most suitable. Anxiously wishing then to the godly what makes up real happiness, he betakes himself, as he did before, to the very fountain itself, even the favor of God, which not only alone brings to us eternal felicity but is also the source of all blessings in this life.
(25) “The ancient Greeks and Romans,” says [Turrettin ], “wished to those to whom they wrote, in the inscription of their epistles, health, joy, happiness; but Paul prays for far higher blessings even the favor of God, the fountain of all good things, and peace, in which the Hebrews included all blessings.” — Ed.
(26) “From God our Father, — if God, then able; if our Father, then willing to enrich us with his gifts: and from our Lord Jesus Christ, — from our Lord, who has purchased them for us; from Jesus, for without these we cannot be saved; from Christ, for he is anointed with grace and peace, Joh 1:16.” — [Parr ]
8. I first (28) indeed, etc. Here the beginning commences, altogether adapted to the occasion, as he seasonably prepares them for receiving instruction by reasons connected with himself as well as with them. What he states respecting them is, the celebrity of their faith; for he intimates that they being honored with the public approbation of the churches, could not reject an Apostle of the Lord, without disappointing the good opinion entertained of them by all; and such a thing would have been extremely uncourteous and in a manner bordering on perfidy. As then this testimony justly induced the Apostle, by affording him an assurance of their obedience, to undertake, according to his office, to teach and instruct the Romans; so it held them bound not to despise his authority. With regard to himself, he disposes them to a teachable spirit by testifying his love towards them: and there is nothing more effectual in gaining credit to an adviser, than the impression that he is cordially anxious to consult our wellbeing.
The first thing worthy of remark is, that he so commends their faith, (29) that he implies that it had been received from God. We are here taught that faith is God’s gift; for thanksgiving is an acknowledgment of a benefit. He who gives thanks to God for faith, confesses that it comes from him. And since we find that the Apostle ever begins his congratulations with thanksgiving, let us know that we are hereby reminded, that all our blessings are God’s free gifts. It is also needful to become accustomed to such forms of speaking, that we may be led more fully to rouse ourselves in the duty of acknowledging God as the giver of all our blessings, and to stir up others to join us in the same acknowledgment. If it be right to do this in little things, how much more with regard to faith; Which is neither a small nor an indiscriminate (promiscua ) gift of God. We have here besides an example, that thanks ought to be given through Christ, according to the Apostle’s command in Heb 13:15; inasmuch as in his name we seek and obtain mercy from the Father. — I observe in the last place, that he calls him his God. This is the faithful’s special privilege, and on them alone God bestows this honor. There is indeed implied in this a mutual relationship, which is expressed in this promise,
“I will be to them a God;
they shall be to me a people.” (Jer 30:22.)
I prefer at the same time to confine this to the character which Paul sustained, as an attestation of his obedience to the end in the work of preaching the gospel. So Hezekiah called God the God of Isaiah, when he desired him to give him the testimony of a true and faithful Prophet. (Isa 37:4.) So also he is called in an especial manner the God of Daniel. (Dan 6:20.)
Through the whole world. The eulogy of faithful men was to Paul equal to that of the whole world, with regard to the faith of the Romans; for the unbelieving, who deemed it detestable, could not have given an impartial or a correct testimony respecting it. We then understood that it was by the mouths of the faithful that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed through the whole world; and that they were alone able to judge rightly of it, and to pronounce a correct opinion. That this small and despised handful of men were unknown as to their character to the ungodly, even at Rome, was a circumstance he regarded as nothing; for Paul made no account of their judgment.
(28) “It does not mean here the first in point of importance, but first in the order of time.” — [Stuart ]. The same author thinks that men here has its correspondingδε in Rom 1:13, Οὐ θέλω δέ ὑμᾶς, etc., — Ed
(29) “Faith is put here for the whole religion, and means the same as your piety. Faith is one of the principal things of religion, one of its first requirements, and hence it signifies religion itself.” — [Barnes ]. It is indeed the principal thing, the very basis of religion. Heb 11:6. — Ed.
9. For God is my witness, etc. He proves his love by its effects; for had he not greatly loved them, he would not have so anxiously commended them to the Lord, and especially he would not have so ardently desired to promote their welfare by his own labors. His anxiety then and his ardent desire were certain evidences of his love; for had they not sprung from it, they would never have existed. And as he knew it to be necessary for establishing confidence in his preaching, that the Romans should be fully persuaded of his sincerity, he added an oath — a needful remedy, whenever a declaration, which ought to be received as true and indubitable vacillates through uncertainty. For since an oath is nothing else but an appeal to God as to the truth of what we declare, most foolish is it to deny that the Apostle used here an oath. He did not notwithstanding transgress the prohibition of Christ.
It hence appears that it was not Christ’s design (as the superstitious Anabaptists dream) to abolish oaths altogether, but on the contrary to call attention to the due observance of the law; and the law, allowing an oath, only condemns perjury and needless swearing. If then we would use an oath aright, let us imitate the seriousness and the reverent manner exhibited by the Apostles; and that you may understand what it is, know that God is so called as a witness, that he is also appealed to as an avenger, in case we deceive; which Paul expresses elsewhere in these words,
“God is a witness to my soul.” (2. o 1:23.) (30)
Whom I serve with my spirit, etc. It is usual with profane men, who trifle with God, to pretend his name, no less boldly than presumptuously; but the Apostle here speaks of his own piety, in order to gain credit; and those, in whom the fear of God and reverence for his name prevail, will dread to swear falsely. At the same time, he sets his own spirit in opposition to the outward mask of religion; for as many falsely pretend to be the worshippers of God, and outwardly appear to be so, he testifies that he, from the heart served, God. (31) It may be also that he alluded to the ancient ceremonies, in which alone the Jews thought the worship of God consisted. He then intimates, that though he retained not observance of these, he was yet a sincere worshipper of God, according to what he says in Phi 3:3,
“We are the true circumcision, who in spirit serve God,
and glory not in the flesh.”
He then glories that he served God with sincere devotion of heart, which is true religion and approved worship.
But it was expedient, as I have said, in order that his oath might attain more credit, that Paul should declare his piety towards God; for perjury is a sport to the ungodly, while the pious dread it more than a thousand deaths; inasmuch as it cannot be, but that where there is a real fear of God, there must be also a reverence for his name. It is then the same thing, as though Paul had said, that he knew how much sacredness and sincerity belonged to an oath, and that he did not rashly appeal to God as a witness, as the profane are wont to do. And thus, by his own example, he teaches us, that whenever we swear, we ought to give such evidence of piety, that the name of God, which we use in our declarations, may retain its sacredness. And further, he gives a proof, even by his own ministry, that he worshipped not God feignedly; for it was the fullest evidence, that he was a man devoted to God’s glory, when he denied himself, and hesitated not to undergo all the hardships of reproach, poverty, and hatred, and even the peril of death, in advancing the kingdom of God. (32)
Some take this clause, as though Paul intended to recommend that worship which he said he rendered to God, on this account, — because it corresponded with what the gospel prescribes. It is indeed certain that spiritual worship is enjoined on us in the gospel; but the former interpretation is far the most suitable, — that he devoted his service to God in preaching the gospel. He, however, makes at the same time a difference between himself and hypocrites, who have something else in view rather than to serve God; for ambition, or some such thing, influences most men; and it is far from being the case, that all engage cordially and faithfully in this office. The meaning is, that Paul performed sincerely the office of teaching; for what he says of his own devotion he applies to this subject.
But we hence gather a profitable doctrine; for it ought to add no little encouragement to the ministers of the gospel, when they hear that, in preaching the gospel, they render an acceptable and a valuable service to God. What, indeed, is there to prevent them from regarding it an excellent service, when they know that their labor is pleasing to God, and is approved by him? Moreover, he calls itthe gospel of the Son of God; for Christ is in it made known, who has been appointed by the Father for this end, — that he, being glorified, should also glorify the Father.
That continually, etc. He still further sets forth the ardor of his love by his very constancy in praying for them. It was, indeed, a strong evidence, when he poured forth no prayers to the Lord without making mention of them. That the meaning may be clearer, I render παντοτε, “always;” as though it was said, “In all my prayers,” or, “whenever I address God in prayer, I join a mention of you.” (33) Now he speaks not of every kind of calling on God, but of those prayers to which the saints, being at liberty, and laying aside all cares, apply their whole attention to the work; for he might have often expressed suddenly this or that wish, when the Romans did not come into his mind; but whenever he had previously intended, and, as it were, prepared himself to offer up prayers to God, among others he remembered them. He then speaks peculiarly of those prayers, for which the saints deliberately prepare themselves; as we find to have been the case with our Lord himself, who, for this purpose, sought retirement. He at the same time intimates how frequently, or rather, how unceasingly he was engaged in such prayers, since he says that he prayed continually.
(30) The passage in Mat 5:33, has been often wholly misunderstood. That oaths in common conversation are alone prohibited, is quite evident from what the passage itself contains. In solemn oaths there was no swearing by “heaven,” or by “God’s throne,” or by “the earth,” or by “Jerusalem,” or by “the head.” such forms were only used in conversation, as similar ones are still used: and these kinds of swearing are alone condemned by our Savior. — Ed.
(31) “Sincerè et verè — sincerely and truly,” [Wolfius ], “not merely externally, but cordially,” [Hodge ].
(32)ἐν τῶ εὐαγγελίω τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ “by the preaching of the gospel, etc.” [Stuart ]. “In predicando evangelio — in preaching the gospel,” [Beza ]. “I serve God, not in teaching legal rites, but a much more celestial doctrine,” [Grotius ]
(33) The order of the words, as arranged by [Calvin ], is better than that of our version; he connects “always in my prayers,” or, “in all my prayers,” with “requesting.” The simpler rendering would be as follows: —
9. My witness indeed is God, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that I unceasingly make mention of you, always requesting in my prayers,
10. That by some means now at length I may, through the will of God, have a free course to come to you.
“In the gospel,” may either mean “according to the gospel,” or, “in preaching the gospel.” [Hodge ] prefers the first. The particleει clearly means “that” in this connection. That it is used in this sense in the New Testament there can be no doubt; see Act 26:8; Heb 7:15
10. Requesting, if by any means, etc. As it is not probable that we from the heart study his benefit, whom we are not ready to assist by our labors, he now adds, after having said that he was anxious for their welfare, that he showed by another proof his love to them, as before God, even by requesting that he might be able to advance their interest. That you may, therefore, perceive the full meaning, read the words as though the word also were inserted, requesting also, if by any means, etc. By saying, A prosperous journey by the will of God he shows, not only that he looked to the Lord’s favor for success in his journey, but that he deemed his journey prosperous, if it was approved by the Lord. According to this model ought all our wishes to be formed.
11. For I greatly desire to see you He might, indeed, while absent, have confirmed their faith by his doctrine; but as advice is better taken from one present, he had a desire to be with them. But he explains what his object was, and shows that he wished to undertake the toil of a journey, not for his own, but for their advantage. — Spiritual gifts (34) he calls those which he possessed, being either those of doctrine, or of exhortation, or of prophesy which he knew had come to him through God’s favor. He has here strikingly pointed out the use of gifts by the word, imparting: for different gifts are distributed to each individual, that all may in kindness mutually assist one another, and transfer to others what each one possesses. See Rom 12:3
To confirm you, etc. He modifies what he had said of imparting, lest he should seem to regard them such as were yet to be instructed in the first elements of religion, as though they were not hitherto rightly taught in Christ. He then says, that he wished so to lend his aid to them, that they who had for the most part made a proficiency, might be further assisted: for a confirmation is what we all want, until Christ be fully formed in us. (Eph 4:13.)
(34) The words, τι χάρισμα πνευματικὸν, some spiritual gift, or benefit, seem to be of general import. Some, such as [Chalmers ] and [Haldane ], have supposed that a miraculous power is intended, which the Apostles alone conveyed, such as the power of speaking with tongues: but most Commentators agree in the view here given. The phrase is not found in any other place: χάρισμα, in the plural number, is used to designate miraculous powers. 1. o 12:9; andτὰ πνευματικά mean the same, 1. o 14:1. But here, no doubt, the expression includes any gift or benefit, whether miraculous or ordinary, which the Apostle might have been made the means of conveying. — Ed.
12. Being not satisfied with this modest statement, he qualifies it, and shows, that he did not so occupy the place of a teacher, but that he wished to learn also from them; as though he said, “I desire so to confirm you according to the measure of grace conferred on me, that your example may also add courage (alacritatem — alacrity) to my faith, and that we may thus mutually benefit one another.”
See to what degree of modesty his pious heart submitted itself, so that he disdained not to seek confirmation from unexperienced beginners: nor did he speak dissemblingly, for there is no one so void of gifts in the Church of Christ, who is not able to contribute something to our benefit: but we are hindered by our envy and by our pride from gathering such fruit from one another. Such is our high-mindedness, such is the inebriety produced by vain reputation, that despising and disregarding others, every one thinks that he possesses what is abundantly sufficient for himself. I prefer to read with Bucer, exhortation (exhortationem — encouragement) rather than consolatim ; for it agrees better with the former part. (35)
(35) The verb isσυμπαρακληθὢναι, which [Grotius ] connects withεπιποθῶ in the preceding verse; and adds, “He softens what he had said, by showing, that he would not only bring some joy to them, but they also to him.” “Ut percipiam consolationem — that I may receive consolation,” [Piscator ] ; — “Ut unà recreemur — that we may be together refreshed,” [Castelio ]. “Ad communem exhortationem percipiendam — in order to receive common exhortation,” [Beza ]; “Ut gaudium et voluptatem ex vobis precipiam — that I may receive joy and pleasure from you;” vel, “Ut mutuo solatio invicem nos erigamus atque firmemus — that by mutual comfort we may console and strengthen one another,” [Schleusner ]
The verb with the prefix, συμ, is only found here; but the verbπαρακαλέω frequently occurs, and its common meaning is, to beseech, to exhort to encourage, and by these means to comfort.
With regard to this passage, Professor [Stuart ] says, “I have rendered the word, comfort, only because I cannot find any English word which will convey the full sense of the original.”
“The word rendered to comfort, ” says Professor [Hodge ], “means to invite, to exhort, to instruct, to console, etc. Which of these senses is to be preferred here, it is not easy to decide. Most probably the Apostle intended to use the word in a wide sense, as expressing the idea, that he might be excited, encouraged, and comforted by his intercourse with his Christian brethren.” — The two verses may be thus rendered: —
11. For I desire much to see you, that I may impart to you spiritual
12. benefit, so that you may be strengthened: this also is what I desire, to be encouraged together with you, through the faith which is in both, even in you and in me.
[Grotius ] observes, “ἐν ἀλλήλοις impropriè dixit pro in utrisque, in me et vobis. Dixit sic et Demosthenes, τα πρὸς ἀλλήλοις — Ed
13. I would not that you should be ignorant. What he has hitherto testified — that he continually requested of the Lord that he might visit them, might have appeared a vain thing, and could not have obtained credit, had he neglected to seize the occasion when offered: he therefore says, that the effort had not been wanting, but the opportunity; for he had been prevented from executing a purpose often formed.
We hence learn that the Lord frequently upsets the purposes of his saints, in order to humble them, and by such humiliation to teach them to regard his Providence, that they may rely on it; though the saints, who design nothing without the Lord’s will, cannot be said, strictly speaking, to be driven away from their purposes. It is indeed the presumption of impiety to pass by God, and without him to determine on things to come, as though they were in our own power; and this is what James sharply reprehends in Jas 4:13.
But he says that he was hindered: you must take this in no other sense, but that the Lord employed him in more urgent concerns, which he could not have neglected without loss to the Church. Thus the hinderances of the godly and of the unbelieving differ: the latter perceive only that they are hindered, when they are restrained by the strong hand of the Lord, so as not to be able to move; but the former are satisfied with an hinderance that arises from some approved reason; nor do they allow themselves to attempt any thing beyond their duty, or contrary to edification.
That I might obtain some fruit, etc. He no doubt speaks of that fruit, for the gathering of which the Lord sent his Apostles,
“I have chosen you, that ye may go and bring forth fruit,
and that your fruit may remain.” (Joh 15:16.)
Though he gathered it not for himself, but for the Lord, he yet calls it his own; for the godly have nothing more as their own than the work of promoting the glory of the Lord, with which is connected all their happiness. And he records what had happened to him with respect to other nations, that the Romans might entertain hope, that his coming to them would not be unprofitable, which so many nations had found to have been attended with so much benefit.
14. I am a debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians, etc. Those whom he means by the Greeks and the Barbarians, he afterwards explains by adding, both to the wise and to the foolish; which words Erasmus has not rendered amiss by “learned and unlearned,” (eruditos et rudes ,) but I prefer to retain the very words of Paul. He then takes an argument from his own office, and intimates that it ought not to be ascribed to his arrogance, that he thought himself in a manner capable of teaching the Romans, however much they excelled in learning and wisdom and in the knowledge of things, inasmuch as it had pleased the Lord to make him a debtor even to the wise. (36)
Two things are to be here considered — that the gospel is by a heavenly mandate destined and offered to the wise, in order that the Lord may subject to himself all the wisdom of this world, and make all variety of talents, and every kind of science, and the loftiness of all arts, to give way to the simplicity of his doctrine; and what is more, they are to be reduced to the same rank with the unlearned, and to be made so meek, as to be able to bear those to be their fellow-disciples under their master, Christ, whom they would not have deigned before to take as their scholars; and then that the unlearned are by no means to be driven away from this school, nor are they to flee away from it through groundless fear; for if Paul was indebted to them, being a faithful debtor, he had doubtless discharged what he owed; and thus they will find here what they will be capable of enjoying. All teachers have also a rule here which they are to follow, and that is, modestly and kindly to accommodate themselves to the capacities of the ignorant and unlearned. Hence it will be, that they will be able, with more evenness of mind, to bear with many absurdities and almost innumerable things that may disgust them, by which they might otherwise be overcome. They are, however, to remember, that they are not so indebted to the foolish, as that they are to cherish their folly by immoderate indulgence.
(36) [Chalmers ] paraphrases the text thus — “I am bound, or I am under obligation, laid upon me by the duties of my office, to preach both to Greeks and Barbarians, both to the wise and the unwise.”
In modern phraseology, the words may be rendered, “Both to the civilized and to the uncivilized, both to the learned and to the unlearned, am I a debtor.” The two last terms are not exactly parallel to the two first, as many unlearned were among the Greeks, or the civilized, as well as among the Barbarians. — Ed.
15. I am therefore ready, (37) etc. He concludes what he had before said of his desire — that as he knew it to be his duty to spread the gospel among them, in order to gather fruit for the Lord, he was anxious to fulfill God’s calling, as far as he was allowed to do so by the Lord.
(37)τὸ κατ ἐμὲ πρόθυμον, literally, “As to me there is readiness;” or, according to [Stuart ] “There is a readiness so far as it respects me.” But, “I am ready,” or “I am prepared,” conveys the meaning sufficiently, without the other words, “As much as in me is.” By saying that he was prepared, he intimates that the event depended on another, even on God. — Ed.
16. I am not indeed ashamed, etc. This is an anticipation of an objection; for he declares beforehand, that he cared not for the taunts of the ungodly; and he thus provides a way for himself, by which he proceeds to pronounce an eulogy on the value of the gospel, that it might not appear contemptible to the Romans. He indeed intimates that it was contemptible in the eyes of the world; and he does this by saying, that he was not ashamed of it. And thus he prepares them for bearing the reproach of the cross of Christ, lest they should esteem the gospel of less value by finding it exposed to the scoffs and reproaches of the ungodly; and, on the other hand, he shows how valuable it was to the faithful. If, in the first place, the power of God ought to be extolled by us, that power shines forth in the gospel; if, again, the goodness of God deserves to be sought and loved by us, the gospel is a display of his goodness. It ought then to be reverenced and honored, since veneration is due to God’s power; and as it avails to our salvation, it ought to be loved by us.
But observe how much Paul ascribes to the ministry of the word, when he testifies that God thereby puts forth his power to save; for he speaks not here of any secret revelation, but of vocal preaching. It hence follows, that those as it were willfully despise the power of God, and drive away from them his delivering hand, who withdraw themselves from the hearing of the word.
At the same time, as he works not effectually in all, but only where the Spirit, the inward Teacher, illuminates the heart, he subjoins, To every one who believeth. The gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but the power of it appears not everywhere: and that it is the savor of death to the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from their own wickedness. By setting forth but one Salvation he cuts off every other trust. When men withdraw themselves from this one salvation, they find in the gospel a sure proof of their own ruin. Since then the gospel invites all to partake of salvation without any difference, it is rightly called the doctrine of salvation: for Christ is there offered, whose peculiar office is to save that which was lost; and those who refuse to be saved by him, shall find him a Judge. But everywhere in Scripture the word salvation is simply set in opposition to the word destruction: and hence we must observe, when it is mentioned, what the subject of the discourse is. Since then the gospel delivers from ruin and the curse of endless death, its salvation is eternal life. (38)
First to the Jew and then to the Greek. Under the word Greek, he includes all the Gentiles, as it is evident from the comparison that is made; for the two clauses comprehend all mankind. And it is probable that he chose especially this nation to designate other nations, because, in the first place, it was admitted, next to the Jews, into a participation of the gospel covenant; and, secondly, because the Greeks, on account of their vicinity, and the celebrity of their language, were more known to the Jews. It is then a mode of speaking, a part being taken for the whole, by which he connects the Gentiles universally with the Jews, as participators of the gospel: nor does he thrust the Jews from their own eminence and dignity, since they were the first partakers of God’s promise and calling. He then reserves for them their prerogative; but he immediately joins the Gentiles, though in the second place, as being partakers with them.
(38) Onthe power of God, [Pareus ] observes, that the abstract, after the Hebrew manner, is put for the concrete. Power means the instrument of God’s power; that is, the gospel is an instrument rendered efficacious by divine power to convey salvation to believers: or, as [Stuart ] says, “It is powerful through the energy which he imparts, and so it is called his power.” [Chalmers ] gives this paraphrase, “It is that, which however judged and despised as a weak instrument by the men of this world — it is that, to which he, by his own power, gives effect for the recovery of that life which all men had forfeited and lost by sin.”
“The gospel is a divine act, which continues to operate through all ages of the world, and that not in the first place outwardly, but inwardly, in the depths of the soul, and for eternal purposes.” — [Dr. Olshausen ]
17. For (39) the righteousness of God, etc. This is an explanation and a confirmation of the preceding clause — that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. For if we seek salvation, that is, life with God, righteousness must be first sought, by which being reconciled to him, we may, through him being propitious to us, obtain that life which consists only in his favor; for, in order to be loved by God, we must first become righteous, since he regards unrighteousness with hatred. He therefore intimates, that we cannot obtain salvation otherwise than from the gospel, since nowhere else does God reveal to us his righteousness, which alone delivers us from perdition. Now this righteousness, which is the groundwork of our salvation, is revealed in the gospel: hence the gospel is said to be the power of God unto salvation. Thus he reasons from the cause to the effect.
Notice further, how extraordinary and valuable a treasure does God bestow on us through the gospel, even the communication of his own righteousness. I take the righteousness of God to mean, that which is approved before his tribunal; (40) as that, on the contrary, is usually called the righteousness of men, which is by men counted and supposed to be righteousness, though it be only vapor. Paul, however, I doubt not, alludes to the many prophecies in which the Spirit makes known everywhere the righteousness of God in the future kingdom of Christ.
Some explain it as the righteousness which is freely given us by God: and I indeed confess that the words will bear this sense; for God justifies us by the gospel, and thus saves us: yet the former view seems to me more suitable, though it is not what I make much of. Of greater moment is what some think, that this righteousness does not only consist in the free remission of sins, but also, in part, includes the grace of regeneration. But I consider, that we are restored to life because God freely reconciles us to himself, as we shall hereafter show in its proper place.
But instead of the expression he used before, “to every one who believeth,” he says now, from faith; for righteousness is offered by the gospel, and is received by faith. And he adds, to faith: for as our faith makes progress, and as it advances in knowledge, so the righteousness of God increases in us at the same time, and the possession of it is in a manner confirmed. When at first we taste the gospel, we indeed see God’s smiling countenance turned towards us, but at a distance: the more the knowledge of true religion grows in us, by coming as it were nearer, we behold God’s favor more clearly and more familiarly. What some think, that there is here an implied comparison between the Old and New Testament, is more refined than well-founded; for Paul does not here compare the Fathers who lived under the law with us, but points out the daily progress that is made by every one of the faithful.
As it is written, etc. By the authority of the Prophet Habakkuk he proves the righteousness of faith; for he, predicting the overthrow of the proud, adds this — that the life of the righteous consists in faith. Now we live not before God, except through righteousness: it then follows, that our righteousness is obtained by faith; and the verb being future, designates the real perpetuity of that life of which he speaks; as though he had said, — that it would not be momentary, but continue forever. For even the ungodly swell with the false notion of having life; but when they say, “Peace and safety,” a sudden destruction comes upon them, (1. h 5:3.) It is therefore a shadow, which endures only for a moment. Faith alone is that which secures the perpetuity of life; and whence is this, except that it leads us to God, and makes our life to depend on him? For Paul would not have aptly quoted this testimony had not the meaning of the Prophet been, that we then only stand, when by faith we recumb on God: and he has not certainly ascribed life to the faith of the godly, but in as far as they, having renounced the arrogance of the world, resign themselves to the protection of God alone. (41)
He does not indeed professedly handle this subject; and hence he makes no mention of gratuitous justification: but it is sufficiently evident from the nature of faith, that this testimony is rightly applied to the present subject. Besides, we necessarily gather from his reasoning, that there is a mutual connection between faith and the gospel: for as the just is said to live by faith, he concludes that this life is received by the gospel.
We have now the principal point or the main hinge of the first part of this Epistle, — that we are justified by faith through the mercy of God alone. We have not this, indeed as yet distinctly expressed by Paul; but from his own words it will hereafter be made very clear — that the righteousness, which is grounded on faith, depends entirely on the mercy of God.
(39) “The causative, γὰρ, indicates a connection with the preceding, that the gospel is the power of God: the reason is, because by the gospel is revealed the righteousness of God, that is, made known by it is a way of righteousness and of obtaining life before God, which neither the law, nor philosophy, nor any other doctrine, was able to show.” — [Pareus ]
(40) “The righteousness of God,” δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, has been the occasion of much toil to critics, but without reason: the very context is sufficient to show its meaning, it being what the gospel reveals, and what the gospel reveals is abundantly known from other passages. Whether we saw, it is the righteousness which is approved of God, as [Calvin ] says, or provided by God, or contrived by God, or imputed by God, the meaning does not materially differ, and indeed all these things, as it is evident from Scripture, are true respecting it.
There is more difficulty connected with the following words, ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν. The view which [Calvin ] gives was adopted by some of the Fathers, such as [Theophylact ] and [Clemens Alexandrinus ]; and it is that of [Melancthon ], [Beza ], [Scaliger ], [Locke ], and many others. From [Poole ] we find that [Chrysostom ] gave this exposition, “From the obscure and inchoate faith of the Old Testament to the clear and full faith of the New;” and that [Ambrose ] ’s exposition was the following, “From the faith or fidelity of God who promises to the faith of him who believes.” But in all these views there is not that which comports with the context, nor the construction very intelligible-”revealed from faith,” What can it mean? To render the passage intelligibly, ἐκ πίστεως must be connected with δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, as suggested by [Hammond ], and followed by [Doddridge ] and [Macknight ]. Then it would be, “The righteousness of God by faith or, which is by faith:” this is revealed in the gospel “to faith,” that is, in order that it may be believed; which is often the force ofεἰς before a noun; as, εἰς τὴν ἀνομίαν — in order to do wickedness; or, εἰς ἁγιασμόν in order to practice holiness, Rom 6:19 [Chalmers ], [Stuart ], [Barnes ], and [Haldane ] take this view. The verse may be thus rendered, —
For the righteousness of God by faith is in it revealed in order to be believed, as it is written, “The just shall by faith live.” The same truth is conveyed in Rom 3:22; and similar phraseology is found in Phi 3:9.
[Barnes ] seems fully to express the import of the passage in these words, “God’s plan of justifying men is revealed in the gospel, which plan is by faith, and the benefits of which plan shall be extended to all that have faith or that believe.” — Ed.
(41) Here is an instance in which Paul quotes the Old Testament, [Hab 2:4 ] neither exactly from the Hebrew nor the Septuagint. The Hebrew is “the just, — by his faith shall he live,” וצדיק באמונתו היה : and the Septuagint, turns “his” into “my,” ὁ δὲ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως μοῦ ζήσεται — “The just shall by my faith live,” — “by my faith,” that is, according to the tenor of the passage, “by faith in me.” The passage is quoted by him twice besides, in Gal 3:11, and in Heb 10:38, but exactly in the same words, without the pronoun “his” or “my.” His object in this, as in some similar instances, was to state the general truth contained in the passage, and not to give a strictly verbal quotation. — Ed.
18. For (42) revealed, etc. He reasons now by stating things of a contrary nature, and proves that there is no righteousness except what is conferred, or comes through the gospel; for he shows that without this all men are condemned: by it alone there is salvation to be found. And he brings, as the first proof of condemnation, the fact, — that though the structure of the world, and the most beautiful arrangement of the elements, ought to have induced man to glorify God, yet no one discharged his proper duty: it hence appears that all were guilty of sacrilege, and of wicked and abominable ingratitude.
To some it seems that this is a main subject, and that Paul forms his discourse for the purpose of enforcing repentance; but I think that the discussion of the subject begins here, and that the principal point is stated in a former proposition; for Paul’s object was to teach us where salvation is to be found. He has already declared that we cannot obtain it except through the gospel: but as the flesh will not willingly humble itself so far as to assign the praise of salvation to the grace of God alone, Paul shows that the whole world is deserving of eternal death. It hence follows, that life is to be recovered in some other way, since we are all lost in ourselves. But the words, being well considered, will help us much to understand the meaning of the passage.
Some make a difference between impiety and unrighteousness, and think, that by the former word is meant the profanation of God’s worship, and by the latter, injustice towards men; but as the Apostle immediately refers this unrighteousness to the neglect of true religion, we shall explain both as referring to the same thing. (43) And then,all the impiety of men is to be taken, by a figure in language, as meaning “the impiety of all men,” or, the impiety of which all men are guilty. But by these two words one thing is designated, and that is, ingratitude towards God; for we thereby offend in two ways: it is said to be ἀσέβεια, impiety, as it is a dishonoring of God; it is ἀδικία, unrighteousness, because man, by transferring to himself what belongs to God, unjustly deprives God of his glory. The word wrath, according to the usage of Scripture, speaking after the manner of men, means the vengeance of God; for God, in punishing, has, according to our notion, the appearance of one in wrath. It imports, therefore, no such emotion in God, but only has a reference to the perception and feeling of the sinner who is punished. Then he says that it isrevealed from heaven; though the expression,from heaven, is taken by some in the sense of an adjective, as though he had said “the wrath of the celestial God;” yet I think it more emphatical, when taken as having this import, “Wheresoever a man may look around him, he will find no salvation; for the wrath of God is poured out on the whole world, to the full extent of heaven.”
The truth of God means, the true knowledge of God; and to hold in that, is to suppress or to obscure it: hence they are charged as guilty of robbery. — What we renderunjustly, is given literally by Paul, in unrighteousness, which means the same thing in Hebrew: but we have regard to perspicuity. (44)
(42) The connection here is not deemed very clear. [Stuart ] thinks that this verse is connected, as the former one, with Rom 1:16. and that it includes a reason why the Apostle was not ashamed of the gospel: and [Macknight ] seems to have been of the same opinion, for he rendersγαρ, besides. In this case the revelation of wrath from heaven is that which is made by the gospel. This certainly gives a meaning to the words, “from heaven” which is hardly done by any other views. That the gospel reveals “wrath,” as well as righteousness to be obtained by faith, is what is undeniable. Salvation to the believer, and condemnation to the unbeliever, is its sum and substance. The objection made by [Haldane ] is of no force, — that the Apostle subsequently shows the sins of mankind as committed against the light of nature, and not against the gospel; for he seems to have brought forward the evidence from the light of nature, in order to confirm the evidence from the light of revelation. The expression is, “Revealed is the wrath of God,” and not has been. See Act 17:30
This is the view taken by [Turrettin ]; and [Pareus ] says, “There is nothing to prevent us from referring the revelation of wrath, as well as the revelation of righteousness, to the gospel” — Ed.
(43) It is true that the immediate subject is the neglect of religion; but then injustice towards men is afterwards introduced, and most critics take it in this sense. — Ed.
(44) This clause, τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικία κατεχόντων is differently rendered, “Veritatem injuste detinentes — unjustly detaining the truth,” [Turrettin ] ; “Who stifle the truth in unrighteousness,” [Chalmers ] ; “Who hinder the truth by unrighteousness,” [Stuart ]; “Who wickedly oppose the truth,” [Hodge ] ; “Who confine the truth by unrighteousness,” [Macknight ]
“They rushed headlong,” says [Pareus ], “into impiety against God and into injustice against one another, not through ignorance, but knowingly, not through weakness, but willfully and maliciously: and this the Apostle expresses by a striking metaphor, taken from tyrants, who, against right and justice, by open violence, oppress the innocent, bind them in chains, and detain them in prison.”
The sense given by [Schleusner ] and some others, “Qui cum veri Dei cognitione pravitatem vitæ conjungunt — who connect with a knowledge of the true God a wicked life,” seems not to comport with the context.
“The truth” means that respecting the being and power of God afterwards specified. — Ed.
19. Inasmuch as what may be known of God, etc. He thus designates what it behoves us to know of God; and he means all that appertains to the setting forth of the glory of the Lord, or, which is the same thing, whatever ought to move and excite us to glorify God. And by this expression he intimates, that God in his greatness can by no means be fully comprehended by us, and that there are certain limits within which men ought to confine themselves, inasmuch as God accommodates to our small capacities what he testifies of himself. Insane then are all they who seek to know of themselves what God is: for the Spirit, the teacher of perfect wisdom, does not in vain invite our attention to what may be known, τὸ γνωστὸν; and by what means this is known, he immediately explains. And he said, in them rather than to them, for the sake of greater emphasis: for though the Apostle adopts everywhere Hebrew phrases, and ב, beth, is often redundant in that language, yet he seems here to have intended to indicate a manifestation, by which they might be so closely pressed, that they could not evade; for every one of us undoubtedly finds it to be engraven on his own heart, (45) By saying, that God has made it manifest, he means, that man was created to be a spectator of this formed world, and that eyes were given him, that he might, by looking on so beautiful a picture, be led up to the Author himself.
(45) Some takeἐν αὐτοῖς, to mean among them, i.e., as [Stuart ] says, “in the midst of them, or before their eyes,” that is, in the visible world; though many refer it with [Calvin ], to the moral sense, and that the expression is the same with “written in their hearts,” in Rom 2:15. — Ed.
20. Since his invisible things, (46) etc. God is in himself invisible; but as his majesty shines forth in his works and in his creatures everywhere, men ought in these to acknowledge him, for they clearly set forth their Maker: and for this reason the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews says, that this world is a mirror, or the representation of invisible things. He does not mention all the particulars which may be thought to belong to God; but he states, that we can arrive at the knowledge of his eternal power and divinity; (47) for he who is the framer of all things, must necessarily be without beginning and from himself. When we arrive at this point, the divinity becomes known to us, which cannot exist except accompanied with all the attributes of a God, since they are all included under that idea.
So that they are inexcusable. It hence clearly appears what the consequence is of having this evidence — that men cannot allege any thing before God’s tribunal for the purpose of showing that they are not justly condemned. Yet let this difference be remembered, that the manifestation of God, by which he makes his glory known in his creation, is, with regard to the light itself, sufficiently clear; but that on account of our blindness, it is not found to be sufficient. We are not however so blind, that we can plead our ignorance as an excuse for our perverseness. We conceive that there is a Deity; and then we conclude, that whoever he may be, he ought to be worshipped: but our reason here fails, because it cannot ascertain who or what sort of being God is. Hence the Apostle in Heb 11:3, ascribes to faith the light by which man can gain real knowledge from the work of creation, and not without reason; for we are prevented by our blindness, so that we reach not to the end in view; we yet see so far, that we cannot pretend any excuse. Both these things are strikingly set forth by Paul in Act 14:16, when he says, that the Lord in past times left the nations in their ignorance, and yet that he left them not without witness (amarturon ,) since he gave them rain and fertility from heaven. But this knowledge of God, which avails only to take away excuse, differs greatly from that which brings salvation, which Christ mentions in Joh 17:3, and in which we are to glory, as Jeremiah teaches us, Jer 9:24
(46) There is a passage quoted by [Wolfius ] from [Aristotle ] in his book [De Mundo ], which remarkably coincides with a part of this verse— “πάσὟ θνητὣ φύσει γενομενος ἀθεώρητος ἀπ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων θεορεῖται ὁ θεός — God, unseen by any mortal nature, is to be seen by the works themselves.” — Ed.
(47) Divinitas , θείοτης, here only, and not θεότης as in Col 1:9 [Elsner ] and others make a difference between these two words and say, that the former means the divinity or majesty of God, and the latter his nature or being. There seems to be the idea of goodness conveyed in the word, θείοτης: for in the following verse there are two things laid to the charge of the Gentiles which bear a reference to the two things said here — they did not glorify him as God, and they were not thankful. He made himself known by power as God, and by the beneficent exercise of that power, he had laid a claim to the gratitude of his creatures. See Act 14:15; and Act 17:25
[Venema ], in his note on this passage, shows, that goodness was regarded by many of the heathens as the primary attribute of Deity. Among the Greeks, goodness — τὸ ἀγαθὸν, was the expression by which the Supreme Being was distinguished. And it appears evident from the context that the Apostle included this idea especially in the wordθείοτης. — Ed
21. For when they knew God, etc. He plainly testifies here, that God has presented to the minds of all the means of knowing him, having so manifested himself by his works, that they must necessarily see what of themselves they seek not to know — that there is some God; for the world does not by chance exist, nor could it have proceeded from itself. But we must ever bear in mind the degree of knowledge in which they continued; and this appears from what follows.
They glorified him not as God. No idea can be formed of God without including his eternity, power, wisdom, goodness, truth, righteousness, and mercy. His eternity appears evident, because he is the maker of all things — his power, because he holds all things in his hand and continues their existence — his wisdom, because he has arranged things in such an exquisite order — his goodness, for there is no other cause than himself, why he created all things, and no other reason, why he should be induced to preserve them — his justice, because in his government he punishes the guilty and defends the innocent — his mercy, because he bears with so much forbearance the perversity of men — and his truth, because he is unchangeable. He then who has a right notion of God ought to give him the praise due to his eternity, wisdom, goodness, and justice. Since men have not recognized these attributes in God, but have dreamt of him as though he were an empty phantom, they are justly said to have impiously robbed him of his own glory. Nor is it without reason that he adds, that they were not thankful, (48) for there is no one who is not indebted to him for numberless benefits: yea, even on this account alone, because he has been pleased to reveal himself to us, he has abundantly made us indebted to him. But they became vain, (49) etc.; that is, having forsaken the truth of God, they turned to the vanity of their own reason, all the acuteness of which is fading and passes away like vapor. And thus their foolish mind, being involved in darkness, could understand nothing aright but was carried away headlong, in various ways, into errors and delusions. Their unrighteousness was this — they quickly choked by their own depravity the seed of right knowledge, before it grew up to ripeness.
(48) The conjunctive, ἤ, is for ουτε, says [Piscator ] : but it is a Hebraism, for ו is sometimes used in Hebrew without the negative, which belongs to a former clause. — Ed.
(49) The original words are, ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν, “Vani facti sunt in ratiocinationibus suis — they became vain in their reasonings” [Pareus ], [Beza ] , [Turrettin ] , and [Doddridge ] ; “They became foolish by their own reasonings,” [Macknight ]
“Whatever the right reason within,” says [Pareus ], “or the frame of the world without, might have suggested respecting God, they indulged in pleasing speculations, specious reasonings, and in subtle and frivolous conclusions; some denied the existence of a God, as Epicurus and Democritus — others doubted, as Protagoras and Diagoras — others affirmed the existence of many gods, and these, as the Platonics, maintained that they are not corporeal, while the Greeks and Romans held them to be so, who worshipped dead men, impious, cruel, impure, and wicked. There were also the Egyptians, who worshipped as gods, brute animals, oxen, geese, birds, crocodiles, yea, what grew in their gardens, garlic’s and onions. A very few, such as Plato and Aristotle, acknowledged one Supreme Being; but even these deprived him of his providence. These, and the like, were the monstrous opinions which the Gentiles deduced from their reasonings. They became vain, foolish, senseless.”
“And darkened became their foolish heart,” — ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία; “Corinthians eorum intelligentia carens — their heart void of understanding;” “their unintelligent heart,” [Doddridge ]. Perhaps “undiscerning heart” would be the most suitable. See Mat 15:16. Heart, after the manner of the Hebrews, is to be taken here for the whole soul, especially the mind. — Ed.
22. While they were thinking, etc. It is commonly inferred from this passage, that Paul alludes here to those philosophers, who assumed to themselves in a peculiar manner the reputation of wisdom; and it is thought that the design of his discourse is to show, that when the superiority of the great is brought down to nothing, the common people would have no reason to suppose that they had any thing worthy of being commended: but they seem to me to have been guided by too slender a reason; for it was not peculiar to the philosophers to suppose themselves wise in the knowledge of God, but it was equally common to all nations, and to all ranks of men. There were indeed none who sought not to form some ideas of the majesty of God, and to make him such a God as they could conceive him to be according to their own reason. This presumption I hold is not learned in the schools, but is innate, and comes with us, so to speak, from the womb. It is indeed evident, that it is an evil which has prevailed in all ages — that men have allowed themselves every liberty in coining superstitions. The arrogance then which is condemned here is this — that men sought to be of themselves wise, and to draw God down to a level with their own low condition, when they ought humbly to have given him his own glory. For Paul holds this principle, that none, except through their own fault, are unacquainted with the worship due to God; as though he said, “As they have proudly exalted themselves, they have become infatuated through the righteous judgment of God.” There is an obvious reason, which contravenes the interpretation which I reject; for the error of forming an image of God did not originate with the philosophers; but they, by their consent, approved of it as received from others. (50)
(50) [Calvin ] is peculiar in his exposition of this verse. Most critics agree in thinking that those referred to here were those reputed learned among all nations, as [Beza ] says, “Such as the Druids of the Gauls, the soothsayers of the Tuscans, the philosophers of the Greeks, the priests of the Egyptians, the magi of the Persians, the gymnosophists of the Indians, and the Rabbins of the Jews.” He considers that the Apostle refers especially to such as these, though he speaks of all men as appearing to themselves very wise in their insane devices as to the worship of God. The wiser they thought themselves, the more foolish they became. See Jer 8:8; 1. o 1:19.
“This is the greatest unhappiness of man, not only not to feel his malady, but to extract matter of pride from what ought to be his shame. What they deemed to be their wisdom was truly their folly.” — [Haldane ].
It is a just remark of [Hodge ], “That the higher the advancement of the nations in refinement and philosophy, the greater, as a general rule, the degradation and folly of their systems of religion.” As a proof he mentions the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, as compared with the aborigines of America. — Ed.
23. And changed, etc. Having feigned such a God as they could comprehend according to their carnal reason, they were very far from acknowledging the true God: but devised a fictitious and a new god, or rather a phantom. And what he says is, that they changed the glory of God; for as though one substituted a strange child, so they departed from the true God. Nor are they to be excused for this pretense, that they believe that God dwells in heaven, and that they count not the wood to be God, but his image; for it is a high indignity to God, to form so gross an idea of his majesty as to dare to make an image of him. But from the wickedness of such a presumption none were exempt, neither priests, nor statesmen, nor philosophers, of whom the most sound-minded, even Plato himself, sought to find out some likeness of God.
The madness then here noticed, is, that all attempted to make for themselves an image of God; which was a certain proof that their notions of God were gross and absurd. And, first, they befouled the majesty of God by forming him in the likeness of a corruptible man: for I prefer this rendering to that of mortal man, which is adopted by [Erasmus ] ; for Paul sets not the immortality of God in opposition to the mortality of man, but that glory, which is subject to no defects, to the most wretched condition of man. And then, being not satisfied with so great a crime, they descended even to beasts and to those of the most filthy kind; by which their stupidity appeared still more evident. You may see an account of these abominations in Lactantius, in [Eusebius ] , and in [Augustine ] in his book on the city of God.
24. God therefore gave them up, etc. As impiety is a hidden evil, lest they should still find an evasion, he shows, by a more palpable demonstration, that, they cannot escape, but must be held fast by a just condemnation, since such fruits have followed this impiety as cannot be viewed otherwise than manifest evidences of the Lord’s wrath. As the Lord’s wrath is always just, it follows, that what has exposed them to condemnation, must have preceded it. By these evidences then he now proves the apostasy and defection of men: for the Lord indeed does so punish those, who alienate themselves from his goodness, that he casts them headlong into various courses which lead to perdition and ruin. And by comparing the vices, of which they were guilty, with the impiety, of which he had before accused them, he shows that they suffered punishment through the just judgment of God: for since nothing is dearer to us than our own honor, it is extreme blindness, when we fear not to bring disgrace on ourselves; and it is the most suitable punishment for a reproach done to the Divine Majesty. This is the very thing which he treats of to the end of the chapter; but he handles it in various ways, for the subject required ample illustration.
What then, in short, he proves to us is this, — that the ingratitude of men to God is incapable of being excused; for it is manifest, by unequivocal evidences, that the wrath of God rages against them: they would have never rolled themselves in lusts so filthy, after the manner of beasts, had not the majesty of God been provoked and incensed against them. Since, then, the worst abominations abounded everywhere, he concludes that there existed among them evidences of divine vengeance. Now, as this never rages without reason, or unjustly, but ever keeps within the limits of what is right, he intimates that it hence appears that perdition, not less certain than just, impended over all.
As to the manner in which God gives up or delivers men to wickedness, it is by no means necessary in this place to discuss a question so intricate, (longam — tedious.) It is indeed certain, that he not only permits men to fall into sin, by allowing them to do so, and by conniving at them; but that he also, by his equitable judgment, so arranges things, that they are led and carried into such madness by their own lusts, as well as by the devil. He therefore adopts the word, give up, according to the constant usage of Scripture; which word they forcibly wrest, who think that we are led into sin only by the permission of God: for as Satan is the minister of God’s wrath, and as it were the executioner, so he is armed against us, not through the connivance, but by the command of his judge. God, however, is not on this account cruel, nor are we innocent, inasmuch as Paul plainly shows, that we are not delivered up into his power, except when we deserve such a punishment. Only we must make this exception, that the cause of sin is not from God, the roots of which ever abide in the sinner himself; for this must be true,
“Thine is perdition, O Israel; in me only is thy help.”
(Hos 13:9) (51)
By connecting the desires or lusts of man’s heart with uncleanness, he indirectly intimates what sort of progeny our heart generates, when left to itself. The expression, among themselves, is not without its force; for it significantly expresses how deep and indelible are the marks of infamy imprinted on our bodies.
(51) On this subject [Augustine ], as quoted by [Poole ], uses a stronger language than which we find here: — Tradidit non solum per patientiam et permissionem, sed per potentiam et quasi actionem; non faciendo voluntates malas, sed eis jam malis utendo ut voluerit; multa et intra ipsos et exrtra ipsos operando, a quibus illi occasionem capiunt gravius peccandi; largiendo illis admonitiones, flagella, beneficia, etc., quibus quoque eos scivit Deus ad suam perniciem abusuros — “He delivered them up, not only by sufferance and permission, but by power, and as it were by an efficient operation; not by making evil their wills, but by using them, being already evil, as he pleased; by working many things both within and without them, from which they take occasion to sin more grievously, by giving them warnings, scourges, benefits, etc., which God knew they would abuse to their own destruction.” — This is an awful view of God’s proceedings towards those who willfully resist the truth, but no doubt a true one. Let all who have the opportunity of knowing the truth tremble at the thought of making light of it.
The prepositionἐν before desires or lusts, is used after the Hebrew manner, in the sense of to or into; for ב beth, means in, and to, and also by or through; and such is the import ofἐν as frequently used by the Apostle. It is so used in the preceding verse— ἐν ὁμοιώματι — into the likeness, etc. Then the verse would be, as Calvin in sense renders it, —
God also on this account delivered them up to the lusts of their own hearts to work uncleanness, that they might dishonor their bodies among themselves.
The import ofεἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν, in order to uncleanness, is no doubt, to work uncleanness; the Apostle frequently uses this kind of expression. [Stuart ] labors here unnecessarily to show, that God gave them up, being in their lusts, etc., taking the clause as a description of those who were given up; but the plainest meaning is that which Calvin gives. — Ed.
25. Who changed, etc. He repeats what he had said before, though in different words, in order to fix it deeper in our minds. When the truth of God is turned to a lie, his glory is obliterated. It is then but just, that they should be besprinkled with every kind of infamy, who strive to take away from God his honor, and also to reproach his name. —
And worshipped, etc. That I might include two words in one, I have given this rendering. He points out especially the sin of idolatry; for religious honor cannot be given to a creature, without taking it away, in a disgraceful and sacrilegious manner, from God: and vain is the excuse that images are worshipped on God’s account, since God acknowledges no such worship, nor regards it as acceptable; and the true God is not then worshipped at all, but a fictitious God, whom the flesh has devised for itself. (52) What is added, Who is blessed for ever, I explain as having been said for the purpose of exposing idolaters to greater reproach, and in this way, “He is one whom they ought alone to have honored and worshipped, and from whom it was not right to take away any thing, no, not even the least.”
(52) The words, “the truth of God,” and “falsehood,” or, a lie, are Hebraistic in their meaning, signifying “the true God,” and “an idol.” The word, which means a lie, is often in Hebrew applied to any thing made to be worshipped. See Isa 44:17, compared with Isa 44:20 [Stuart ] renders the sentence, “Who exchanged the true God for a false one.” [Wolfius ] objects to this view, and says, “I prefer to takeἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ, for the truth made known by God to the Gentiles, of which see Rom 1:18, and the following verses: they changed this into alie, i.e. , into those insane and absurd notions, into which they were led by theirδιαλογισμοῖς — reasonings, Rom 1:21.” The expression— παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα has been rendered by [Erasmus ] , “above the creator,” by [Luther ] , “rather than the Creator;” by [Beza ], “to the neglect of the Creator — præterito conditore;” and by [Grotius ], “in the place of the Creator.” The two last are more consonant with the general tenor of the context; for the persons here spoken of, according to the description given them, did not worship God at all; παρὰ is evidently used in the sense of exclusion and oppositionπαρὰ τὸν νόμον — contrary to the law, Act 18:13; παρὰ φύσιν — contrary to nature, Rom 1:26. See Gal 1:8 — Ed.
26. God therefore gave them up, etc. After having introduced as it were an intervening clause, he returns to what he had before stated respecting the judgment of God: and he brings, as the first example, the dreadful crime of unnatural lust; and it hence appears that they not only abandoned themselves to beastly lusts, but became degraded beyond the beasts, since they reversed the whole order of nature. He then enumerates a long catalogue of vices which had existed in all ages, and then prevailed everywhere without any restraint.
It is not to the purpose to say, that every one was not laden with so great a mass of vices; for in arraigning the common baseness of men, it is proof enough if all to a man are constrained to acknowledge some faults. So then we must consider, that Paul here records those abominations which had been common in all ages, and were at that time especially prevalent everywhere; for it is marvelous how common then was that filthiness which even brute beasts abhor; and some of these vices were even popular. And he recites a catalogue of vices, in some of which the whole race of man were involved; for though all were not murderers, or thieves, or adulterers, yet there were none who were not found polluted by some vice or another. He calls those disgraceful passions, which are shameful even in the estimation of men, and redound to the dishonoring of God.
27. Such a reward for their error as was meet. They indeed deserved to be blinded, so as to forget themselves, and not to see any thing befitting them, who, through their own malignity, closed their eyes against the light offered them by God, that they might not behold his glory: in short, they who were not ashamed to extinguish, as much as they could, the glory of God, which alone gives us light, deserved to become blind at noonday.
28. And as they chose not, etc. There is an evident comparison to be observed in these words, by which is strikingly set forth the just relation between sin and punishment. As they chose not to continue in the knowledge of God, which alone guides our minds to true wisdom, the Lord gave them a perverted mind, which can choose nothing that is right. (53) And by saying, that they chose not, (non probasse - approved not,) it is the same as though he had said, that they pursued not after the knowledge of God with the attention they ought to have done, but, on the contrary, turned away their thoughts resignedly from God. He then intimates, that they, making a depraved choice, preferred their own vanities to the true God; and thus the error, by which they were deceived, was voluntary.
To do those things which were not meet As he had hitherto referred only to one instance of abomination, which prevailed indeed among many, but was not common to all, he begins here to enumerate vices from which none could be found free: for though every vice, as it has been said, did not appear in each individual, yet all were guilty of some vices, so that every one might separately be accused of manifest depravity. As he calls them in the first instance not meet, understand him as saying, that they were inconsistent with every decision of reason, and alien to the duties of men: for he mentions it as an evidence of a perverted mind, that men addicted themselves, without any reflection, to those vices, which common sense ought to have led them to renounce.
But it is labor in vain so to connect these vices, as to make them dependent one on another, since this was not Paul’s design; but he set them down as they occurred to his mind. What each of them signifies, we shall very briefly explain.
(53) There is a correspondence between the wordsοὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν — they did not approve, or think worthy, andἀδόκιμον — unapproved, or worthless, which is connected withνοῦν, mind. The verb means to try or prove a thing, as metal by fire, then todistinguish between what is genuine or otherwise, and also to approve of what is good and valuable. To approve or think fit or worthy seems to be the meaning here. Derived from this verb isἀδόκιμος, which is applied to unapproved or adulterated money, — to men unsound, not able to bear the test, not genuine as Christians, 2. o 13:5, — to the earth that is unfit to produce fruits, Heb 6:8. The nearest alliteration that can perhaps be presented is the following, “And as they did not deem it worth while to acknowledge God, God delivered them up to a worthless mind,” that is, a mind unfit to discern between right and wrong. [Beza ] gives this meaning, “Mentem omnis judicii expertem — a mind void of all judgment.” [Locke ] ’s “unsearching mind,” and [Macknight ] ’s “unapproving mind,” and [Doddridge ] ’s “undiscerning mind,” do not exactly convey the right idea, though the last comes nearest to it. It is an unattesting mind, not capable of bringing things to the test— δοκίμιον not able to distinguish between things of the most obvious nature.
“To acknowledge God” is literally “to have God in recognitionτὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει. ” [Venema ] says, that this is a purely Greek idiom, and adduces passages from [Herodotus ] and [Xenophon ] ; from the first, the following phrase, ἐν αλογίῃ ἔχειν — to have in contempt, i.e., to contemn or despise. — Ed.
29. Understand by unrighteousness, the violation of justice among men, by not rendering to each his due. I have rendered πονηρίαν, according to the opinion of Ammonium, wickedness; for he teaches us that πονηρον, the wicked, is δραστίκον κακου, the doer of evil. The word (nequitia ) then means practiced wickedness, or licentiousness in doing mischief: but maliciousness (malitia ) is that depravity and obliquity of mind which leads us to do harm to our neighbour. (54) For the word πορνείαν, which Paul uses, I have put lust, (libidinem .) I do not, however, object, if one prefers to render it fornication; but he means the inward passion as well as the outward act. (55) The words avarice, envy, and murder, have nothing doubtful in their meaning. Under the word strife, (contentione ,) (56) he includes quarrels, fightings, and seditions. We have rendered κακοηθείαν, perversity, (perversitatem ;) (57) which is a notorious and uncommon wickedness; that is, when a man, covered over, as it were, with hardness, has become hardened in a corrupt course of life by custom and evil habit.
(54) The two words areπονηρία and κακία [Doddridge ] renders them “mischief and malignity.” [Pareus ] says thatκακία is vice, opposed to τη αρετη — virtue. — Ed.
(55)“Πορνεία has an extended sense, comprehending all illicit intercourse, whether fornication, adultery, incest, or any other venus illicita .” — [Stuart ]
(56) Improperly rendered “debate” in our version— ἔριδος, “strife”, by [Macknight ] , and “contention,” by [Doddridge ]. — Ed.
(57) In our versions “malignity;” by [Macknight ] , “bad disposition;” and by [Doddridge ], “inveteracy of evil habits.” [Schleusner ] thinks that it means here “malevolence.” — Ed.
30. The word θεοστυγεῖς, means, no doubt, haters of God; for there is no reason to take it in a passive sense, (hated of God,) since Paul here proves men to be guilty by manifest vices. Those, then, are designated, who hate God, whose justice they seem to resist by doing wrong. Whisperers (susurrones ) and slanderers (obtrectatores ) (58) are to be thus distinguished; the former, by secret accusations, break off the friendships of good men, inflame their minds with anger, defame the innocent, and sow discords; and the latter through an innate malignity, spare the reputation of no one, and, as though they were instigated by the fury of evilspeaking, they revile the deserving as well as the undeserving We have translated ὑβριστὰς, villanous, (maleficos ;) for the Latin authors are wont to call notable injuries villanies, such as plunders, thefts, burnings, and sorceries; and these where the vices which Paul meant to point out here. (59) I have rendered the word ὑπερήφανους, used by Paul, insolent, (contumeliosos ;) for this is the meaning of the Greek word: and the reason for the word is this, — because such being raised, as it were, on high, look down on those who are, as it were, below them with contempt, and they cannot bear to look on their equals. Haughty are they who swell with the empty wind of overweeningness. Unsociable (60) are those who, by their iniquities, unloose the bands of society, or those in whom there is no sincerity or constancy of faith, who may be called truce-breakers.
(58)Καταλάλους, literally gainsayers, or those who speak against others, — defamers, calumniators; rendered “revilers,” by [Macknight ]. — Ed.
(59) The three words, ὑβιστὰς ὑπερηφάνους, and ἀλαζόνας seem to designate three properties of a proud spirit — disdainful or insolent, haughty and vainglorious. Theὑβρισται are those who treat others petulantly, contumeliously, or insultingly “Insolent,” as given by [Macknight ], is the most suitable word. Theὑπερηφάνος is one who sets himself to view above others, the high and elevated, who exhibits himself as superior to others. Theαλαζων is the boaster, who assumes more than what belongs to him, or promises more than what he can perform. These three forms of pride are often seen in the world. — Ed.
(60) Unsociabiles — ἀσυνθετους. “Faithless,” perhaps, would be the most suitable word. “Who adhere not to compacts,” is the explanation of [Hesychius ]
To preserve the same negative according to what is done in Greek, we may render Rom 1:31. as follows: —
31. Without the feelings of humanity are they who have put off the first affections of nature towards their own relations. As he mentions the want of mercy as an evidence of human nature being depraved, [Augustine ], in arguing against the Stoics, concludes, that mercy is a Christian virtue.
32. Who, knowing the judgement (61) of God, etc. Though this passage is variously explained, yet the following appears to me the correctest interpretation, — that men left nothing undone for the purpose of giving unbridled liberty to their sinful propensities; for having taken away all distinction between good and evil, they approved in themselves and in others those things which they knew displeased God, and would be condemned by his righteous judgment. For it is the summit of all evils, when the sinner is so void of shame, that he is pleased with his own vices, and will not bear them to be reproved, and also cherishes them in others by his consent and approbation. This desperate wickedness is thus described in Scripture:
“They boast when they do evil,” (Pro 2:14.)
“She has spread out her feet,
and gloried in her wickedness,” (Eze 16:25.)
For he who is ashamed is as yet healable; but when such an impudence is contracted through a sinful habit, that vices, and not virtues, please us, and are approved, there is no more any hope of reformation. Such, then, is the interpretation I give; for I see that the Apostle meant here to condemn something more grievous and more wicked than the very doing of vices: what that is I know not, except we refer to that which is the summit of all wickedness, — that is, when wretched men, having cast away all shame, undertake the patronage of vices in opposition to the righteousness of God.
(61) [Calvin ] has “justitiam “ here, though “judicium “ is given in the text. — Ed.
