Romans 1 - Vincent's Word Studies vs Calvin John

Romans 1

The Epistle to the Romans

The Roman Church had been for some time in existence when Paul wrote this epistle (see Romans 1:8, Romans 1:10, Romans 1:12, Romans 1:13; Romans 15:23). That he was acquainted with many of its members appears from the salutations in the sixteenth chapter. In Acts 28:15, the existence of the Church is assumed as well known, and the company which meets the apostle at Appii Forum has clearly the character of a deputation. The date and circumstances of the origin and organization of the Church cannot, however, be certainly determined.

The Church consisted of both Jews and Gentiles; but the predominance of the Gentile element is apparent from the epistle itself (see Romans 1:5, Romans 1:12-16; Romans 3:27-30; Romans 4:6; Romans 6:19; Romans 11:13, Romans 11:25, Romans 11:28, Romans 11:30; Romans 15:1, Romans 15:8, Romans 15:16).

Paul had long desired to preach the Gospel at Rome, but when, apparently, on the eve of accomplishing his wish, his plan was complicated by the necessity of visiting Jerusalem with the collection for "the poor saints." He did not, in any event, contemplate a long stay in Rome, intending to take it en route for Spain. Being thus delayed, he determined to write at once, in order both to meet the immediate needs of the Church and to prepare the way for his personal presence. The epistle was written during his last visit at Corinth (Acts 20:2, Acts 20:3), and was despatched by the hands of Phoebe the deaconess, about a.d. 59. Its authenticity is generally conceded, together with the fact that it was written in Greek, though some Roman Catholic critics have maintained that it was written in Latin. There is nothing surprising in its having been written in Greek, since the Greek language was prevalent at Rome, having become indeed the general language of the world, and the composition of the letter in Greek accords with Paul's Hellenic associations and training. The Latin fathers never claim their own language as the original of any part of the New Testament, and Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus all wrote in Greek to Romans.

The aim of the epistle is didactic rather than polemic, though it acquires a polemic flavor in its opposition of Christianity to legalism. It is distinguished among the epistles by its systematic character Its object is to present a comprehensive statement of the doctrine of salvation through Christ, not a complete system of christian doctrine. Its theme is, The gospel, the power of God unto salvation to Jew and Gentile alike; a power because of its revelation of a righteousness of God for believers.

In the development of this theme Paul shows that Jew and Gentile are alike violators of divine law, and are consequently exposed to the divine wrath, from which there is no deliverance through works or ordinances, but only through the Gospel of Jesus Christ accepted by faith.

In insisting upon this universal condition of salvation, God neither violates His original covenant with Israel, nor deprives Himself of the right to judge sin.

The truth of justification by faith is an Old-Testament truth, illustrated in the case of Abraham, and applicable to both Jews and Gentiles. The true seed of Abraham are those who follow him, not in circumcision but in faith. The saving provision in Christ is coextensive with the results of the fall in Adam, and assures present and future salvation to its subjects. The office of the law was to develop and manifest the sin which originated in Adam's fall, and thus to give full scope to the redemptive work of Christ.

This truth neither encourages immorality nor convicts God of unfaithfulness to His covenant with Israel. Justification by faith involves personal union with Christ, and consequent death to sin and moral resurrection to newness of life. Grace does not imply liberty to sin, but a change of masters and a new obedience and service. Grace does not do away with God's holy law, but only with the false relation of the natural man to that law; in which sin made use of the law to excite man's opposition to it, and thus to bring him into bondage and death. This is illustrated from Paul's own experience.

The deliverance from this bondage, which the law could not effect, is wrought by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which frees from condemnation and initiates a life of sonship inspired and controlled by the Spirit of God. The power of this life appears in the assurance of hope which it imparts amid the trials of this mortal state, a hope founded in the divine election.

To the claim that God cannot reject the unbelieving Jew without breaking His own covenant and stultifying His decree, is opposed the doctrine of absolute divine sovereignty, unconditioned by human merit or service, but exercised in perfect righteousness and mercy, which are vindicated by God's forming for Himself a people of believers, both Jew and Gentile. It is further shown that this divine economy includes the operation of human free agency no less than of divine sovereignty, and that the rejection of Israel was therefore due to their blind reliance on their original election, and their refusal of the righteousness which is through faith in Christ. This rejection is only partial and temporary. God has not cast off His people, but has overruled their unbelief for the salvation of the Gentiles, who, in turn, shall be the means of the restoration of the Jews. See note at the end of ch. 11.

The practical and hortatory portion of the epistle, which begins with ch. 12, treats of the cultivation of different graces, civil duties, the right of private judgment, and the doctrine of christian expediency in its relations to weak faith.

Critics are not unanimous as to the integrity of the epistle. The authenticity of the doxology has been questioned, and the Tubingen critics declared the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters to be spurious. By some, the greater part of ch. 16 is supposed to be addressed to the Ephesians. See on Romans 14:23; see on Romans 16:25.

The epistle is characterized by system, masculine vigor, logical acuteness, copiousness of thought, and depth of feeling. Logic is backed by history, and christian doctrine and precept are illumined from the Prophets and Psalms. Neither personal feeling nor national sentiment is allowed to turn the keen edge of truth. The opening theme - all alike under sin - is evolved with remorseless sternness. The picture of the moral condition of the pagan world is the work of an eye-witness, and is terrible in its stark realism. Yet the logic is aglow with intense feeling, which rises at times toward the level of the Ephesian epistle. The emotion is as deep as in Second Corinthians, but less turbulent. The irony of that epistle is almost wholly absent. The opening of the ninth chapter is a veritable sob. The personal expressions are affectionate and laudatory, but the companion and friend who appears in First Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon, mostly gives place to the apostle and teacher. The powerful dramatic element in the epistle is overlooked in the popular impression of a hard theological treatise. It appears in the forensic moulds in which the great spiritual processes are occasionally cast; in the embodiment of the antagonism of sin and holiness in a personal struggle; in the introduction of objections as by an interlocutor; in the vivid contrasts of life and death, spirit and flesh, bondage and freedom, condemnation and acquittal: in the impersonation of the whole creation groaning and travailing for deliverance from the bondage of corruption.

The transitions are as easy and natural as the contrasts are sharp. The nervous but steady movement of chs. 2, 3, 4, suddenly subsides with the opening of ch. 5, and one can pause and bare his forehead to the sweet air ere he begins upon the new ascent from Romans 5:19. The first words of the eighth chapter succeed the seventh like a quiet melody given out by flute or horn after the tumultuous harmonies of the orchestra; and one is conscious of no shock in the descent from the high themes of sovereignty and grace to their applications in common life and duty.

The epistle must be grasped entire. No portion of the New Testament lends itself to more dangerous distortions of truth through fragmentary use. No one of Paul's epistles is so dependent for its just effect upon the perception of the relation of its parts to the whole. Its logic and its feeling are inseparable. It answers the highest test of eloquence in stimulating emotion with profound thought, and in fusing thought in feeling.

But to acquire such a grasp is no easy task, especially for the English reader. It requires far more than close grammatical analysis, and adjustment of the special theological problems raised by the epistle. The letter must be studied in the light of the whole body of the Pauline writings, and with the largest possible acquaintance with the logical and rhetorical habits of the apostle. The fullness and impetuosity of his thought sometimes render him careless of its arrangement. Suggestions, striking into the main line of reasoning, are pursued with an eagerness and to a length which may easily divert the reader from the principal track. Possible qualifications of a truth are temporarily neglected in the concentration of thought upon a single aspect. It is not always easy to discover where the matter of a parenthesis gives place to the resumption of the main thought; sometimes indeed the parenthesis is carried on as if it were the main thought. The first member of a proposition often acquires a headway which makes him forget to offset it with its complementary member. His antitheses are not always evenly balanced, and one member may be literal and the other metaphorical. Certain expressions depend for their force upon word-plays which cannot be translated, and prepositions are accumulated with reference to shades of meaning which tax the utmost resources of the translator and commentator.

Note - Paul's Argument in Romans 9, 10 and 11

These chapters, as they are the most difficult of Paul's writings, have been most misunderstood and misapplied. Their most dangerous perversion is that which draws from them the doctrine of God's arbitrary predestination of individuals to eternal life or eternal perdition.

It can be shown that such is not the intent of these chapters. They do not discuss the doctrine of individual election and reprobation with reference to eternal destiny. The treatment of this question is subordinate to a different purpose, and is not, as it is not intended to be, exhaustive.

At the time when the epistle was written, this question was not agitating the Church at large nor the Roman church in particular. Had this been the case, we may be sure, from the analogy of other epistles of Paul, that he would have treated it specifically, as he does the doctrine of justification by faith, in this epistle, and the questions of idol-meats and the resurrection in first Corinthians.

Such a discussion would not have been germane to the design of this epistle, which was to unfold the Christian doctrine of justification by faith, as against the Jewish doctrine of justification by works.

The great question which was then agitating the Church was the relation of Judaism to Christianity. Paul declared that Christianity had superseded Judaism. The Jew maintained, either, that the Messiah had not come in the person of Jesus Christ, and that Christianity was therefore an imposture, or that, admitting Jesus to be the Messiah, He had come to maintain the law and the institutions of Judaism: that, therefore, entrance into the messianic kingdom was possible only through the gate of Judaism; and that the true Christian must remain constant to all the ordinances and commandments of the law of Moses.

According to the Jewish idea, all Gentiles were excluded from the kingdom of God unless they should enter it as Jewish proselytes. Paul himself, before his conversion, had undertaken to stamp out Christianity as heresy, verily thinking that he "ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth" (Acts 26:9). Hence the Jew "compassed sea and land to make one proselyte" (Matthew 23:15). Every Gentile who should resist the conquest of the world by Israel would be destroyed by Messiah. The Jew had no doubts as to the absoluteness of the divine sovereignty, since its fancied application flattered his self-complacency and national pride. All Jews were elect, and all others were reprobate. Paul's proclamation of Messianic privilege to the Gentiles did, perhaps, quite as much to evoke Jewish hatred against himself, as his allegiance to the Jesus whom the Jews had crucified as a malefactor.

The discussion in these three chapters fits perfectly into this question, It is aimed at the Jews' national and religious conceit. It is designed to show them that, notwithstanding their claim to be God's elect people, the great mass of their nation has been justly rejected by God; and further, that

God's elective purpose includes the Gentiles. Hence, while maintaining the truth of divine sovereignty in the strongest and most positive manner, it treats it on a grander scale, and brings it to bear against the very elect themselves.

What Is the Place of These Chapters in the Order of the Argument?

Early in the discussion, Paul had asserted that the messianic salvation had been decreed to the Jew first (Romans 1:16; Romans 2:10 : compare John 1:11). In the face of this stood the fact that the Jewish people generally had rejected the offer of God in Christ. Paul himself, after offering the Gospel to the Jews at Antioch in Pisidia, had said: "It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46; compare Acts 18:6). The Jew had fallen under the judgment of God (Romans 2:1, Romans 2:2). Resting in the law, making his boast of God, claiming to be a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, and having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law, he had made him self a scandal in the eyes of the Gentiles by his notorious depravity, and had proved himself to be not a Jew, since his circumcision was not of the heart (Romans 2:17-29)

Notwithstanding these facts, the Jew claimed that because he was a Jew God could not reject him consistently with His own election and covenant promise. If the Gospel were true, and Jesus really the Messiah, the promises made to the Jewish people, who rejected the Messiah, were nullified. Or, if the election of God held, Israel was and forever remained the people of God, in which case the Gospel was false, and Jesus an impostor. "Thus the dilemma seemed to be: either to affirm God's faithfulness to His own election and deny the Gospel, or to affirm the Gospel, but give the lie to the divine election and faithfulness." (Godet.)

Paul must face this problem. It lies in the straight line of his argument. Hints of it have already appeared in Romans 3:1 sqq; Romans 4:1. The discussion necessarily involves the truth of the divine sovereignty and election.

In studying Paul's treatment of this question, mistake and misconstruction are easy, because the truths of divine sovereignty and elective freedom require to be presented in their most absolute aspect as against man's right to dictate to God. The parallel facts of man's free agency and consequent responsibility, which are equally patent in these chapters, are, at certain points, thrown into the shade; so that, if the attention is fastened upon particular passages or groups of passages, the result will be a one-sided and untruthful conception of the divine economy, which may easily run into a challenge of God's justice and benevolence. The assertion God must act according to my construction of His promise and decree, can be met only by the bare, hard, crushing counter-statement God is supreme and does as He will, and has the right to do as He will. This assertion, we repeat, does not exclude the element of individual freedom; it does not imply that God will do violence to it; it is consistent with the assumption of the most impartial justice, the most expansive benevolence, the tenderest mercy, the purest love on God's part. The argument merely sets these elements aside for the time being and for a purpose, only to emphasize them at a later stage. As Meyer aptly says:

"As often as we treat only one of the two truths: God is absolutely free and all-efficient,' and 'Man has moral freedom, and is, in virtue of his proper self-determination and responsibility as a free agent, the author of his salvation or perdition,' and carry it out in a consistent theory, and therefore in a one-sided method, we are compelled to speak in such a manner that the other truth appears to be annulled. Only appears, however, for, in fact, all that takes place in this case is a temporary and conscious withdrawing of attention from the other. In the present instance Paul found himself in this case, and be expresses himself according to this mode of view, not merely in a passing reference, but in the whole reasoning of 9:6-29. In opposition to the Jewish conceit of descent and works, he desired to establish the free and absolute sovereign power of the divine will and action, and that the more decisively and exclusively, the less he would leave any ground for the arrogant illusion of the Jews that God must be gracious to them. The apostle has here wholly taken his position on the absolute stand-point of the theory of pure dependence upon God, and that with all the boldness of clear consistency; but only until he has done justice to the polemical object which he has in view. He then returns (Romans 9:30 sqq.) from that abstraction to the human moral stand point of practice, so that he allows the claims of both modes of consideration to stand side by side, just as they exist side by side within the limits of human thought. The contemplation - which lies beyond these limits - of the metaphysical relations of essential interdependence between the two - namely, objectively divine and subjectively human, freedom and activity of will - necessarily remained outside and beyond his sphere of view; as he would have had no occasion at all in this place to enter upon this problem, seeing that it was incumbent upon him to crush the Jewish pretensions with the one side only of it - the absoluteness of God."

That the factor of human freedom has full scope in the divine economy is too obvious to require proof. It appears in numerous utterances of Paul himself, and in the entire drift of Scripture, where man's power of moral choice is both asserted, assumed, and appealed to; where the punishment of unbelief and disobedience is clearly shown to be due to man's own obstinacy and perverseness. Were this not the case, if human destiny were absolutely and unchangeably fixed by an arbitrary decree, the exhortations to carry out our own salvation, to obedience and perseverance in rightdoing, the cautions against moral lapse, the plain suggestions of the possibility of forfeiting divine blessings, the use of the divine promises themselves as appeals to repentance and holiness, the recognitions of the possibility of moral transformation, would assert themselves as a stupendous farce, a colossal and cruel satire.

It must suffice for us that these two factors of divine sovereignty and human freedom are both alike distinctly recognized in Scripture. Their interplay and mutual adjustment in the divine administration carry us out of our depth. That matter must be left with God, and faced by man with faith, not with knowledge. That there is a divine election - the act of God's holy will in selecting His own methods, instruments, and times for carrying out His own purposes - is a fact of history and of daily observation. It appears in the different natural endowments of men; in the distribution of those natural advantages which minister to the strength or weakness of nations; in the inferiority of the Ethiopian to the Caucasian; in the intellectual superiority of a Kant or a Descartes to a Chinese coolie.

"It is true, and no argument can gainsay it, that men are placed in the world unequally favored, both in inward disposition and outward circumstances. Some children are born with temperaments which make a life of innocence and purity natural and easy to them; others are born with violent passions, or even with distinct tendencies to evil, inherited from their ancestors and seemingly unconquerable; some are constitutionally brave, others are constitutionally cowards; some are born in religious families and are carefully educated and watched over; others draw their first breath in an atmosphere of crime, and cease to inhale it only when they pass into their graves. Only a fourth part of mankind are born Christians. The remainder never hear the name of Christ except as a reproach." (Froude, "Calvinism.")

Such election must needs be arbitrary; not as not having good and sufficient reasons behind it, but as impelled by such reasons as are either beyond human apprehension or are withheld from it in God's good pleasure. All that we can say in our ignorance of these reasons is: God did thus because it pleased Him. Certain it is that, could we penetrate to these reasons, we should come, in every case, at last, upon perfect wisdom. and perfect love, working out along hidden lines to such results as will fill heaven with adoring joy and wonder.

The Course of the Argument

This we shall follow in detail through ch. 9, and in general outlines through chs. 10 and 11.

(Romans 9:1-3) I have great sorrow of heart for my Jewish kinsmen because of their spiritual condition arising from their rejection of Jesus, and their consequent exclusion from the blessings of Messiah's kingdom.

(Romans 9:4, Romans 9:5) This condition is the more lamentable because of their original privileges involved in God's election of them to be His chosen people - adoption, visible manifestations of God, covenants, a divine legislation, a divinely arranged order of worship, messianic promises, descent from the revered fathers, selection as the race from whom the Christ was to spring (compare Isaiah 45:3, Isaiah 45:4).

(Romans 9:6) There is, however, no inconsistency between their possession of these original privileges and their present exclusion. The case does not stand so as that God's word has failed of fulfillment. Those who make this charge, assuming that they are entitled to acceptance with God on the mere ground of descent, are to remember the general principle that messianic blessing is not conditioned by mere descent; that not all who are physically descended from Israel are the true, ideal Israel of God (compare Romans 3:28).

(Romans 9:7-9) This appears from the history of the patriarchal lineage. Though Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac, Isaac was selected as the channel of the messianic seed of Abraham, according to the promise, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" (compare Galatians 4:23), and not Ishmael, who was the child of Abraham in a physical sense merely, and not the child of the promise which is recorded in Genesis 18:10.

(Romans 9:10-13) Not only have we an example of divine selection in the case of children of different mothers, but we have an example in the case of the children of the same mother. Between Jacob and Esau, representatives of the two nations of Israel and Edom (Genesis 25:23), a divine choice was made, and it was declared by God that the elder should serve the younger. This choice was not based upon purity of descent, since both children were by the same father and lawful mother. Nor was it based upon moral superiority, since it was made before they had done either good or evil. The choice was made according to God's sovereign will, so that His messianic purpose might remain intact; the characteristic of which purpose was that it was according to election; that is, not determined by merit or descent, but by the sovereign pleasure of God.

(Romans 9:14) If it be asked, therefore, "Is there unrighteousness with God? Does God contradict Himself in His rejection of unbelieving Israel?" - it must be answered, "No!" If there was no unrighteousness in the exclusion of Ishmael and Edom from the temporal privileges of the chosen people, there is none in the exclusion of the persistently rebellious Israelites from the higher privileges of the kingdom of heaven. If not all the physical descendants of Abraham and Isaac can claim their father's name and rights, it follows that God's promise is not violated in excluding from His kingdom a portion of the descendants of Jacob. Descent cannot be pleaded against God's right to exclude, since He has already excluded from the messianic line without regard to descent. This choice Israel approved and cannot, therefore, repudiate it when the same choice and exclusion are applied to unbelieving Israel. God is not restricted to the Hebrew race, nor bound by the claims of descent. As He chose between the children of the flesh and the children of the promise, so He may choose between mere descendants and true believers, whether Jew or Gentile.

It is to be remarked on this passage that the matter of eternal, individual salvation or preterition is not contemplated in the argument, as it is not in Malachi 1:2, Malachi 1:3, from which the words "Jacob have I loved," etc., are quoted. The matter in question is the part played by the two nations regarded from the theocratic standpoint.

(Romans 9:15) God cannot be unrighteous. This is apparent from your own Scriptures, which, as you admit, glorify God's righteousness, and which give you God's own statements concerning Himself in the cases of Moses and Pharaoh. There can, therefore, be no discrepancy between God's righteousness and the principle for which I am contending, since God represents Himself as acting on this very principle: Divine choice is not founded upon human desert. Man has no right to God's favors. For when Moses asked God to show him His glory, God, in complying, assured him that He did not grant the request on the ground of Moses' merit or services, but solely of His own free mercy. He would have mercy and compassion upon whom He would. Moses had no claim upon that revelation.

(Romans 9:16) Thus it appears that the divine bestowment proceeds from sovereign grace, and not from the will or the effort of the recipient. Hence the Jew cannot claim it on the ground of race or of moral striving.

It is right to wish and right to run. Paul elsewhere says, "So run that ye may obtain" (1 Corinthians 9:24). But that is not now the point in view. The point is to emphasize the fact of God's sovereign right to dispense His favors as He will, in opposition to the Jew's claim that God must dispense His favors to him on the ground of his descent. Hence the argument bears also on the divine dealing with the Gentiles. The Jew says, "The Jews alone are subjects of the divine mercy; the Gentiles are excluded." Paul replies, "Your own Scriptures show you that God has the right to show mercy to whom He will. The fact that He originally did not choose the Gentile, but chose the Jew, does not exclude Him from extending His salvation to the Gentile if He so will. The fact that He did so choose the Jew, does not save the Jew from the peril of exclusion and rejection."

(Romans 9:17) Again, God is vindicated against the charge of injustice by His declaration of the same principle applied to the matter of withholding mercy in the case of Pharaoh. The one statement implies the other. The right to bestow at will implies the right to withhold at will. Thus He says to Pharaoh that He has raised him up in order to show His power through his defeat and destruction.

(Romans 9:18) Hence the conclusion. God has the absolute right to dispense or to withhold mercy at pleasure. "He hath mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth."

This last statement, on its face, appears to be the assertion of a rigid, inexorable predeterminism. But let it be at once said that Paul commits himself to no such theory. For to interpret this passage as meaning that God takes deliberate measures to harden any man against holy and gracious influences, so as to encourage him to sin in order that He may show His power in destroying him, is:

1. To ascribe to God the most monstrous cruelty and injustice, according to the standard of His own revealed character and law.

2. To make God the author and promoter of sin.

3. To contradict other declarations of Scripture, as 1 Timothy 2:4; James 1:13; 2 Peter 3:9.

4. To contradict the facts in Pharaoh's own case, since God gave Pharaoh abundant warning, instruction, and call and inducement to repentance.

The key-note of the discussion must be kept clearly in mind as shaping this particular form of statement. To repeat: Paul is striking sharply at the assumption of the Jew that God must dispense messianic blessing to him, and must not exclude him, because he is a Jew. Paul meets this with the bare statement of God's sovereign right to dispose of men as He will. He does not ignore the efforts which God makes to save men from blindness and hardness of heart, but the attitude of the Jew does not call for the assertion of these: only for the assertion of God's absolute sovereignty against an insolent and presumptuous claim.

Bearing this in mind, we are here confronted with a class of facts which we cannot explain - certain arrangements the reasons for which lie back in the sovereign will of God. Moses was placed under circumstances which promoted his becoming the leader and lawgiver of God's people. Pharaoh was born to an inheritance of despotic power and inhaled from his birth the traditions of Oriental tyranny. These influences went to harden him against God's command. Apparently the circumstances favored Pharaoh's becoming a cruel tyrant. Why the difference? We cannot tell. These causes operated according to their natural law. There was also the operation of a psychological and moral law, according to which the indulgence of any evil passion or impulse confirms it and fosters its growth. Pride begets pride; resistance intensifies obstinacy, encourages presumption, blunts susceptibility to better influences. Again, the penal element entered into the case. Persistent disobedience and resistance, working their natural result of inflated pride and presumptuous foolhardiness, wrought out a condition of heart which invited and insured judgment. A parallel is found in the first chapter of this epistle, where it is said that the heathen, having a certain revelation of God, refused to improve it; wherefore, as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them up to uncleanness, vile passions, and a reprobate mind (Romans 1:24, Romans 1:26, Romans 1:28).

"It is psychologically impossible that such determined impenitence could be cherished by the monarch, and yet produce no effects in the sensibilities of his heart. In such necessary working the hand of God must needs be immanent. When we impersonally say 'must' and speak impersonally of 'necessity' in reference to the conditions of the human sensibility, we either expressly or implicitly point to the operation of God. God did harden of old, and still He hardens when sin is cherished." (Morison.)

And yet the operation of these forces did not exclude moral agency or moral freedom. No irresistible constraint compelled Pharaoh to yield to this pressure toward evil. His power of choice was recognized, assumed, and appealed to. He could not plead ignorance, for God instructed him through Moses. He could not plead doubt of God's power, for God wrought before his eyes an unexampled series of wonders. If any "visitings of nature" could have power over him, the misery of his slave population was before his eyes. Only when all these influences had been repelled, and all opportunities for yielding scornfully rejected, did God have recourse to judgment. God raised up Pharaoh in order to show His power; but two opposite exhibitions of God's power in Pharaoh were possible. If he had yielded, he would have been a co-worker with God in the evolution of the Jewish commonwealth. God's power would have been displayed in the prosperity of his kingdom, as it was through the presence of Joseph. He resisted, and God's power was terribly manifested in his torment and final destruction.

"No one," as Muller observes, "can withdraw himself from the range and influence of God's revelations, without altering his moral status." Hence, though it is affirmed that God hardened Pharaoh's heart - the side of the statement which best suits the immediate purpose of Paul's argument - it is also affirmed that Pharaoh hardened his own heart (compare Exodus 4:21; Exodus 7:3; Exodus 9:12; Exodus 10:20, Exodus 10:27; Exodus 11:10; and Exodus 8:15, Exodus 8:32; Exodus 9:34) The divine and the human agencies work freely side by side.

The cases of both Moses and Pharaoh make against the charge of God's injustice toward the unbelieving Jews, since they show that He acts consistently on the principle of exercising His divine sovereignty according to His supreme will; but they also furnish another argument to the same effect, by showing that He exercises His sovereignty with long-suffering and mercy. The God who acts with mercy and forbearance cannot be unrighteous. God's revelation to Moses was a display of His great mercy. In it He revealed "the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty" (Exodus 34:6, Exodus 34:7). God's dealing with Pharaoh was marked by forbearance, opportunities for repentance, instruction, and chastisement.

Romans 9:19, Romans 9:20, Romans 9:21 are not properly part of the proof, but are introduced by way of rebuke to a presumptuous question or challenge; so that, in the regular line of the argument, we may proceed directly from the close of Romans 9:18 to Romans 9:22.

(Romans 9:19) The objector now catches at the words, "whom He will He hardeneth," as an opportunity for shifting the responsibility from himself to God. If God hardens, why blame the hardened? If God ordains, who can resist His will?

The fault of interpretation at this point lies in construing Paul's answer as a counter-argument; whereas Paul does not entertain the objector's words as an argument at all. He neither admits, denies, nor answers them as an argument. His reply is directed solely at the objector's attitude as a challenger of God. It is a rebuke of the creature for charging his sin upon the Creator. Paul is not dealing with the objector's logic, but with the sublime impudence of the objector himself. He is not vindicating God against the charge, nor exposing the falsity of the charge itself.

For if this answer of Paul, with the similitude of the potter and the clay, is to be taken as an argument for God's right to harden men at His arbitrary pleasure, then Paul is open to rebuke quite as much as his opponent. For, in the first place, the answer is a tacit admission of the Jew's premise, and, in the second place, regarded as an answer to an argument, it is a specimen of the most brutal dogmatism, and of the most fallacious and shallow logic, if it can be called logic at all. This is the case, in brief. The Jew. "God hardens at His arbitrary will and pleasure. If, therefore, He hardened me so that I could not believe, He is to blame, not I. Why does He find fault with me for not believing? If He is supreme, who can resist His will?" Paul. "Suppose He did harden you so that you could not believe, what have you to say about it? Shut your mouth! God does as He pleases with you. You are simply a lump of clay in the hands of a potter, and must be content to be what the potter makes you."

From this point of view it must be said that the objector has the best of it, and that Paul's answer is no answer. Regarded as an argument, it is an argument from an analogy which is no analogy. Man, on God's own showing, is not a lump of senseless clay. He is a sentient, reasoning being, endowed by God with the power of self-determination. God Himself cannot and does not treat him as a lump of clay; and to assert such a relation between God and man made in God's image, is to assert what is contrary to common sense and to God's own declarations and assumptions in Scripture. The objector might well turn upon Paul and say, "Well, then, if man is only a lump of clay, and therefore without right or power to reply, who, pray, art thou that repliest for God? Thou art, on thine own showing, a lump of clay like myself. If clay cannot and must not reason nor answer, what is the peculiar quality of thy clay which entitles thee to speak as God's advocate?"

It is quite safe to say that Paul is too good a reasoner, and too well acquainted with the character, the word, and the economy of God as displayed in the history of his own race, to be betrayed into any such logical absurdity as this; too thoroughly humane, too mindful of his own deep doubts and questionings, too transparently candid to meet even a conceited and presumptuous argument with a counter-argument consisting of a bare dogma and a false analogy. Paul does not admit that God made the Jew sin. He does not admit that God made the Jew incapable of believing. He does not admit that the responsibility for the Jew's rejection lies anywhere but with himself.

Yet even the figure of the potter and the clay, properly understood, might have suggested to the angry Jew something beside the thought of sovereign power and will arbitrarily molding helpless matter.

The Potter and the Clay

The illustration is a common one in the Old Testament, and it is reasonable that Paul's use of it should be colored by its usage there.

It occurs in Jeremiah 18:1-10. Jeremiah, in great despondency over the demoralization of Israel was bidden to go down to the potter's house. The potter shaped a vessel on the wheel, but, owing to some defect in the clay, the vessel was marred. So the potter made, of the same lump, another vessel different from that which he had at first designed. He did not throw away the clay, but his skill prevailed to triumph over the defect, and to make a vessel, perhaps inferior to the first, yet still capable of use. So God had designed Israel for a high destiny, a royal nation, a peculiar people; but Israel defeated this destiny by its idolatries and rebellions. Hence God made it another and baser vessel. "The pressure of the potter's hand was to be harder. Shame and suffering and exile - their land left desolate, and they themselves weeping by the waters of Babylon - this was the process to which they were now called on to submit." The potter exercised his power by making the vessel unto dishonor which he originally designed unto honor. Side by side with the potter's power over the clay, there goes, figuratively speaking, in the prophet's representation, the power of change and choice in the lump. "Ye are in my hand as this clay in the hand of the potter. If, when I am about to degrade the nation, they turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil. On the contrary, when I am planning for an honorable and powerful kingdom, if the people turn to evil, then I will repent of the good wherewith I said that I would benefit them." Israel has a power of choice. If it is made into a vessel unto dishonor, the fault is its own, but repentance and submission may change the issue.

Look again at Isaiah 29:16. This passage occurs in the prophecy concerning Jerusalem under the name of Ariel. The prophet predicts siege, thunder, and earthquake. He says that the Lord hath poured on the people the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed their eyes and covered their heads, so that the prophetic vision appeals to them as a sealed letter to a man who can read, or as a writing to one who cannot read.

This is on the same line with the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. It is ascribed to the direct agency of God. But immediately there follows the statement of their own responsibility for their sin. The people have removed their heart from the Lord and worship Him with the lips only. Therefore, God will proceed to do marvelous and terrible works among them. O your perverseness! Think you can hide your counsel from God? "Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay, for shall the work say of him that made it, 'He made me not?' or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, 'He hath no understanding?'" In other words, why do men think that they can escape God by hiding their purposes from Him? Shall God (the potter) be accounted as clay (the man)? Shall man ignore the fact that he was made by God, and act as if God had no understanding? The parallel between this utterance and that in Romans 9 will be evident at a glance.

Isaiah 45:9. The prophecy concerning Cyrus. God calls him, though a heathen, for the sake of Jacob His servant, and Israel His elect. In this call God asserts His sovereignty: "I am Jehovah and there is none else. I girded thee when thou knewest me not." This idea is further carried out by the figure of the potter and the clay. "Woe to him that striveth with his maker. Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioned it, 'What makest thou?' or thy work, 'He hath no hands?'" The same thought appears in Isaiah 45:10. Shall a child remonstrate with its parents because they have brought into the world a being weak, ugly, or deformed? And again, in Isaiah 45:11 : "Concerning the things to come will ye question me? Concerning my children and the work of my hands will ye lay commands upon me? It was I that made the earth and created the men upon it," etc.

Along with these declarations of absolute sovereignty, which silence the lips of men, stand exhortations which assume the power of free choice. "I said not unto the seed of Jacob 'Seek ye me in vain.'" "Assemble yourselves and come." "Let them take counsel together." "Turn ye unto me and be ye saved."

Isaiah 64:8. "And now Jehovah, thou art our Father. We are the clay, and thou art our fashioner, and the work of thy hands are we all." But Isaiah 64:5, "Behold thou wast wroth, and we sinned, and we went astray: our iniquities as the wind have carried us away. Thou hast delivered us into the hand of our iniquities." "Since thou art our fashioner, and we are the clay, look upon us: remember not iniquity forever."

By all these Old-Testament passages the idea of God dealing with men as lifeless clay, shaping them to eternal life or death according to His arbitrary will, is contradicted. The illustration points away from God's causing unbelief, to God's bearing with man's voluntary and persistent disobedience, and to His making of him the best that can be made consistently with divine justice and holiness. So far from accentuating rigid narrowness of purpose, arbitrary and inexorable destination of individuals to honor or dishonor, the illustration opens a vast range and free play of divine purpose to turn evil to good, and to shape men into obedient and faithful servants through divine chastisements. The potter does not make vessels in order to shiver them. God does not make men in order to destroy them. God ordains no man to eternal death. He desires to honor humanity, not to dishonor it; and the fact that men do become vessels unto dishonor, merely proves the power which God has lodged in the human will of modifying, and in a sense defeating, His sovereign purpose of love. He "will have all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth;" yet Christ comes to His own, and His own receive Him not, and He weeps as He exclaims, "Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life."

(Romans 9:22) The argument now proceeds in regular course from Romans 9:18, showing that the exercise of God's sovereign right is marked by mercy even toward those who deserve His wrath. Are you disposed to construe the words "whom He will, He hardeneth" into an assertion of the arbitrary, relentless, and unjust severity of God? Suppose it can be shown that God, though the spontaneous recoil of His holy nature from sin moved Him to display His wrath and make known His power against men who were fit for destruction - endured these with much long-suffering.

This could easily be shown from the case of the Israelites them selves and of Pharaoh.

Did not this endurance imply opportunity to repent, and assume that destruction was not God's arbitrary choice, but theirs?

Still further, what if God, through this same endurance, was working, not only to save the Jewish people if possible, but also to carry out a larger purpose toward a people which, in His eternal counsels, He had destined for the glory of the messianic kingdom?

Here He introduces the subject of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the messianic kingdom. God is merciful in carrying out His will, but in His mercy He none the less carries out His will. Both His sovereignty and His mercy will be vindicated in His making a people for Himself from the Gentiles and from the believing Jews. What has Israel to say? The word of God has not been brought to nought by his rejection. The principle of divine selection which operated in Abraham and Jacob is carried out in the selection of believing Israel from the unbelieving mass, and in the call of the Gentiles. The elective purpose of God was broader than Israel thought. In choosing Israel God was contemplating the salvation of the world, and did not abdicate His liberty to reject unbelievers, or to call others not Jews.

With this should be compared the discourse of Jesus in John 6. After having given a sign of His divine power and commission by the feeding of the multitudes, His announcement of Himself as the bread from heaven, the true and only life of the world, is met with a stupid, materialistic construction of His words, and with obstinate incredulity; whereupon He says, "Ye also have seen me and believe not" (John 6:36). At this point He seems to pause and contemplate His failure to reach the Jews, and to ask Himself if His mission is indeed for nought. It is the answer to this inward question which explains the apparent disconnection of John 6:37 with what precedes. Though the Jews reject, yet God will have a people for Himself. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me." There is a clear foreshadowing here of the call of the Gentiles.

(Romans 9:25, Romans 9:26) But not only is God's word not annulled; it is fulfilled. For He says, by the prophet Hosea, that He will call by the name my people those who are not His people, and that nation beloved which was not beloved; and in the Gentile lands, where God, by the punishment of exile, said to Israel, "Ye are not my people," there God would visit them and recall them along with the Gentiles.

Here the apostle applies to the Gentiles what Hosea said of the Jews only. The tribes, by their lapse into idolatry, had placed themselves on the same footing with the Gentiles (not His people), so that the general truth could be applied to both. In Isaiah 49:22, the Gentiles are represented as restored to grace along, with the Jews.

(Romans 9:27-29) But this people shall not consist of Gentiles only; for God says by Isaiah that a remnant shall be preserved out of Israel, a small number out of the great unbelieving mass, which shall attain to the salvation and privileges of the messianic kingdom: a remnant, for God in His righteous judgment will make a summary reckoning with the Jewish nation, and the great body of it shall be cut off; but a remnant shall be left as a seed by which the true people of God shall be perpetuated. This preservation of a remnant is a mark of divine mercy. But for this, the whole nation would have been destroyed like Sodom.

(Romans 9:30) Paul now turns to the facts of human agency, moral freedom, and consequent responsibility, which, up to this point, have been kept in the shadow of the truth of divine sovereignty. There is a correspondence between God's freedom in His government and the freedom of men in their faith and unbelief. He summarily states the truth which he develops in ch. 10; namely, that Israel was the cause of its own rejection, alluding at the same time incidentally to the cause of the Gentiles' reception.

The reason why the Jews were rejected was because they did not seek after the righteousness which is by faith, but clung to the law, and sought to be justified by its works. The Gentiles, who had no revelation, and who therefore did not seek after righteousness in the New-Testament sense, nevertheless attained it, accepting it when it was offered, and not being hindered by the legal bigotry and pretension of the Jew; but Israel, following after the law, which, in itself, is holy and just and good, and which was intended to lead to Christ, pursued it only as an external standard of righteousness, and on the side of legal observance, and so found a stumbling-block in the very Messiah to whom it led them.

Chapter 10

The general statement in Romans 9:30-33 is developed.

(Romans 10:1-3) Israel was zealous for God, but without discernment of the true meaning and tendency of the law. Hence, in the endeavor to establish its own legal righteousness, it missed the righteousness of faith, the nature of which is expounded in this epistle.

(Romans 10:4-11) They did not perceive that Christ brings the legal dispensation to an end in introducing Himself as the object of faith and the source of justifying righteousness. They accepted only the declaration of Moses concerning righteousness, that the man who keeps the law shall live by it, and did not see that the law, properly understood, implied also the work of grace and dependence on God. They regarded righteousness as something remote and to be attained only by laborious effort; whereas even Moses would have told them that Jehovah's help was near at hand to assist them in the daily understanding and keeping of the law. No one need be sent to heaven nor beyond the sea to bring back the explanation of its commandments, or to enable them to fulfill them. Still more plainly, to the same effect, spoke the righteousness of faith in Christ. No need to ascend to heaven to bring Him down. He has already descended to earth. No need to dive into the depths of the earth to bring Him up. He has already risen from the dead. They have only to accept by faith His death and his resurrection, and to confess Him who has accomplished in Himself the two great things which needed to be done. Such faith shall not put them to shame. They shall be saved as if they had fulfilled all the necessary conditions themselves.

(Romans 10:12, Romans 10:13) Not only is this salvation free. It is also universal, to whosoever shall believe. Thus it appeals to the Gentile no less than to the Jew. It strikes at the notion that the Jew alone is the subject of messianic salvation; that the Gentile must enter the kingdom through the gate of Judaism. Both Jew and Gentile enter through faith only. There is no difference between the Jew and the Gentile. The Lord, who is Lord of both alike, dispenses His riches to all of both nations who call upon Him.

(Romans 10:14-21) The Jew cannot plead in excuse for rejecting this salvation, either that he has not heard it announced, or that its universality is inconsistent with Old-Testament teaching. Both excuses are shattered upon Old-Testament declarations. It was prophesied by Isaiah that Israel would not all submit themselves to the Gospel. The good tidings has been proclaimed, but they have not believed the report. Faith comes by hearing, and they have heard the Gospel in their cities and synagogues. Had Israel any reason to be surprised at the universality of the Gospel - its proclamation to the Gentiles? On the contrary, did not Israel know? Had not Moses and Isaiah prophesied that God would manifest His grace to the Gentiles, and that the Gentiles would receive it - yea, that through the Gentiles Israel should be brought back to God? Did not Isaiah prophesy that, notwithstanding God's long-suffering and entreaty, Israel would prove a disobedient and gainsaying nation?

Thus the argument is, Israel is responsible for its own rejection. In blind reliance on its original election, it has claimed a monopoly of divine favor, has made a stand for legal righteousness, and has rejected the gospel message of salvation by faith. It has thus repelled the offer of a free and universal salvation. For this it is without excuse. It was warned by its own Scriptures of the danger of being superseded by the Gentiles, and the salvation of Christ was offered to it along with the Gentiles by Christ's ministers.

Chapter 11

In ch. 9 it is shown that when God elected Israel He did not abjure the right to reject them for good reason.

In ch. 10 this reason is shown to be their unbelief.

The question now arises: Is this rejection complete and forever? Paul proceeds to show that the rejection is not total, but partial; not eternal, but temporary; and that it shall subserve the salvation of mankind and of the Israelitish nation itself.

(Romans 11:2-6) From the history of Elijah he shows how, in the midst of general moral defection and decline, God preserved a remnant of faithful ones; and declares that the same is true at the present time.

In virtue of His free grace displayed in His original election, God has not left the nation without a believing remnant. The elective purpose holds, though operating in a way different from Israel's vain and narrow conception of its nature and extent. The preservation of this remnant is a matter of God's free grace, not of Israel's merit.

(Romans 10:7-10) The case then stands that Israel has not attained the righteousness which it sought (in the wrong way), but the chosen remnant has attained it, while the great mass of the nation was blinded according to the prophesy in Isaiah 29 and Psalm 69.

It is to be observed that, in those very chapters, the full responsibility of those who are punished is asserted; and that, in citing the Psalm, Paul renders the Hebrew for those who are in security by the words for a recompense, thus indicating a just retribution.

(Romans 11:11, Romans 11:12) The rejection of the Jews, however, is not total nor final, and it works for two ulterior ends: first, the conversion of the Gentile; second, the restoration of the Jews by means of the converted Gentiles.

(Romans 10:13-15) Hence Paul labors the more earnestly for the Gentiles, with a view to promote the salvation of his own race.

(10:16-11:24) The Gentiles, however, are warned against entertaining contempt for the Jews on account of their own position in the messianic kingdom. However lapsed, Israel still retains the character of God's holy nation impressed in its original call; and this original call, represented in the fathers, implies its future restoration. So far from despising them, the Gentiles are to remember that they themselves are not the original stock, but only a graft; and to take warning by the history of Israel, that the called may be rejected, and that they, by unbelief, disobedience, and rebellion, may, like Israel, forfeit their high privilege. "If God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest He also spare not thee." "Behold, therefore, the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity, but toward thee goodness, if thou continue in His goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be out off" Israel, too, shall be restored to its place in God's kingdom, graffed in again, if they continue not in unbelief; much more, since they are natural branches, and the tree is their own native stock.

(Romans 11:25-32) Thus, then, the plan of God shall work itself out: the purpose, so much of which was enshrouded in mystery, shall at last reveal its full, grand proportions. Through the Gentile, Israel shall attain the righteousness of faith in the Deliverer out of Zion. God has made no mistake. He does not repent His original call, nor the displays of His divine grace to Israel, nor the special aptitudes with which He endowed it, in order to make it the special vehicle of His salvation. Jew and Gentile have alike been unbelievers and disobedient, but the unbelief of both has been overruled to the inclusion of both in God's messianic kingdom. Thus the argument which opened at the beginning of the epistle with the condemnation of all, closes with mercy upon all.

Romans 1:1

Superscription (Romans 1:1, Romans 1:2)

Dr. Morison observes that the superscription is peerless for its wealth of theological idea.

Paul (Παῦλος)

A transcript for the Latin paulus or paullus, meaning little. It was a favorite name among the Cilicians, and the nearest approach in sound to the Hebrew Saul. According to some, both names were borne by him in his childhood, Paulus being the one by which he was known among the Gentiles, and which was subsequently assumed by him to the exclusion of the other, in order to indicate his position as the friend and teacher of the Gentiles. The practice of adopting Gentile names may be traced through all the periods of Hebrew history. Double names also, national and foreign, often occur in combination, as Belteshazzar-Daniel; Esther-Hadasa; thus Saul-Paulus.

Others find in the name an expression of humility, according to Paul's declaration that he was "the least of the apostles" (1 Corinthians 15:9). Others, an allusion to his diminutive stature; and others again think that he assumed the name out of compliment to Sergius Paulus, the deputy of Cyprus. Dean Howson, while rejecting this explanation, remarks: "We cannot believe it accidental that the words 'who is also called Paul,' occur at this particular point of the inspired narrative. The heathen name rises to the surface at the moment when St. Paul visibly enters on his office as the apostle of the heathen. The Roman name is stereotyped at the moment when he converts the Roman governor."

A servant (δοῦλος)

Lit., bond-servant or slave. Paul applies the term to himself, Galatians 1:10; Philippians 1:1; Titus 1:1; and frequently to express the relation of believers to Christ. The word involves the ideas of belonging to a master, and of service as a slave. The former is emphasized in Paul's use of the term, since Christian service, in his view, has no element of servility, but is the expression of love and of free choice. From this stand-point the idea of service coheres with those of freedom and of sonship. Compare 1 Corinthians 7:22; Galatians 4:7; Ephesians 6:6; Plm 1:16.

On the other hand, believers belong to Christ by purchase (1 Corinthians 6:20; 1 Peter 1:18; Ephesians 1:7), and own Him as absolute Master. It is a question whether the word contains any reference to official position. In favor of this it may be said that when employed in connection with the names of individuals, it is always applied to those who have some special work as teachers or ministers, and that most of such instances occur in the opening salutations of the apostolic letters. The meaning, in any case, must not be limited to the official sense.

Called to be an apostle (κλητὸς ἀπόστολος)

As the previous phrase describes generally Paul's relation to Christ, this expression indicates it specifically. "Called to be an apostle" (A.V. and Rev.), signifies called to the office of an apostle. Yet, as Dr. Morison observes, there is an ambiguity in the rendering, since he who is simply called to be an apostle may have his apostleship as yet only in the future. The Greek indicates that the writer was actually in the apostolate - a called apostle. Godet, "an apostle by way of call."

Separated unto the gospel of God (ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ)

Characterizing the preceding phrase more precisely: definitely separated from the rest of mankind. Compare Galatians 1:15, and "chosen vessel," Acts 9:15. The verb means "to mark off (ἀπό) from others by a boundary (ὅρος)." It is used of the final separation of the righteous from the wicked (Matthew 13:49; Matthew 25:32); of the separation of the disciples from the world (Luke 6:22); and of the setting apart of apostles to special functions (Acts 13:2). Gospel is an exception to the almost invariable usage, in being without the article (compare Revelation 14:6); since Paul considers the Gospel rather as to its quality - good news from God - than as the definite proclamation of Jesus Christ as a Savior. The defining elements are added subsequently in Romans 1:3, Romans 1:4. Not the preaching of the Gospel, but; the message itself is meant. For Gospel, see on superscription of Matthew.

Romans 1:2

Had promised afore (προεπηγγείλατο)

Only here in the New Testament. Rev., He promised afore. Paul's Old Testament training is manifest. Naturally, in beginning the more precise description of the new revelation, he refers first to its connection with ancient prophecy. The verb ἐπαγγέλλομαι; means more than to proclaim. It occurs frequently, and always in the sense of profess or promise. See Mark 14:11; Acts 7:5; 1 Timothy 2:10; 1 Timothy 6:21.

Prophets

Not limited to the prophets proper, but including all who, in the Old Testament, have prophesied the Gospel - Moses, David, etc. Compare Hebrews 1:1.

In the holy scriptures (ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις)

Or, more strictly, in holy writings. The scriptures would require the article. See on John 5:47; see on John 2:22. Here again the absence of the article denotes the qualitative character of the phrase - books which are holy as conveying God's revelations. On ἅγιος holy, see on Acts 26:10. This is the only passage in which it is applied to scriptures.

Romans 1:3

Concerning His son

Connect with promised afore. Christ is the great personal object to which the promise referred.

Romans 1:4

Declared (ὁρισθέντος)

Rev., in margin, determined. The same verb as in the compound separated in Romans 1:1. Bengel says that it expresses more than "separated," since one of a number is separated, but only one is defined or declared. Compare Acts 10:42; Acts 17:31. It means to designate one for something, to nominate, to instate. There is an antithesis between born (Romans 1:3) and declared. As respected Christ's earthly descent, He was born like other men. As respected His divine essence, He was declared. The idea is that of Christ's instatement or establishment in the rank and dignity of His divine sonship with a view to the conviction of men. This was required by His previous humiliation, and was accomplished by His resurrection, which not only manifested or demonstrated what He was, but wrought a real transformation in His mode of being. Compare Acts 2:36; "God made," etc.

With power (ἐν δυνάμει)

Lit., in power. Construe with was declared. He was declared or instated mightily; in a striking, triumphant manner, through His resurrection.

Spirit of holiness

In contrast with according to the flesh. The reference is not to the Holy Spirit, who is nowhere designated by this phrase, but to the spirit of Christ as the seat of the divine nature belonging to His person. As God is spirit, the divine nature of Christ is spirit, and its characteristic quality is holiness.

Resurrection from the dead (ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν)

Wrong, since this would require the preposition ἐκ from. Rev., correctly, of the dead. Though this resurrection is here represented as actually realized in one individual only, the phrase, as everywhere in the New Testament, signifies the resurrection of the dead absolutely and generically - of all the dead, as exemplified, included, and involved in the resurrection of Christ. See on Philippians 3:11.

Romans 1:5

We have received (ἐλάβομεν)

Aorist tense. Rev., we received. The categorical plural, referring to Paul, and not including the other apostles, since the succeeding phrase, among all the nations, points to himself alone as the apostle to the Gentiles.

Grace and apostleship

Grace, the general gift bestowed on all believers: apostleship, the special manifestation of grace to Paul. The connecting καὶ and, has the force of and in particular. Compare Romans 15:15, Romans 15:16.

For obedience to the faith (εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως)

Rev., unto obedience of faith. Unto marks the object of the grace and apostleship: in order to bring about. Obedience of faith is the obedience which characterizes and proceeds from faith.

Nations (ἔθνεσιν)

Or Gentiles. Not geographically, contrasting the inhabitants of the world, Jew and Gentile, with the Jews strictly so called, dwelling in Palestine, but Gentiles distinctively, for whom Paul's apostleship was specially instituted. See on Luke 2:32, and compare note on 1 Peter 2:9.

Romans 1:6

Ye also

As Romans among other Gentiles: not, called as I am called.

Romans 1:7

In Rome (ἐν Ῥώμῃ)

The words are omitted in a MS. Of the tenth or eleventh century, and in a cursive of the eleventh or twelfth. The words ἐν Ἑφέσῳ in Ephesus, are also omitted from Ephesians 1:1, by two of the oldest MSS. On which fact has arisen the theory that the Ephesian Epistle was encyclical, or addressed to a circle of churches, and not merely to the church at Ephesus. This theory has been very widely received. With this has been combined the omission of in Rome from the Roman Epistle, and the attempt has been made to show that the Roman Epistle was likewise encyclical, and was sent to Ephesus, Thessalonica, and possibly to some other churches. Archdeacon Farrar advocates this view in "The Expositon," first ser., 9, 211; and also in his "Life and Work of Paul," ii., 170. This theory is used to defend the view which places the doxology of Romans 16:25-27 at the end of ch. 14. See note there.

Called to be saints (κλητοῖς ἁγίοις)

Or, saints by way of call. See on called to be an apostle, Romans 1:1. It is asserted that they are what they are called. The term ἅγιοι saints is applied to Christians in three senses in theNew Testament. 1, As members of a visible and local community (Acts 9:32, Acts 9:41; Acts 26:10); 2, as members of a spiritual community (1 Corinthians 1:2; Colossians 3:12); 3, as individually holy (Ephesians 1:18; Colossians 1:12; Revelation 13:10).

Romans 1:8

First (πρῶτον μὲν)

Not above all, but in the first place. The form of the phrase leads us to expect a succeeding clause introduced by secondly or next; but this is omitted in the fullness and rapidity of Paul's thought, which so often makes him negligent of the balance of his clauses.

Through Jesus Christ

As the medium of his thanksgiving: "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." Compare Romans 7:25; Colossians 3:17; Ephesians 5:20. In penitence and in thanksgiving alike, Jesus Christ is the one mediator through whom we have access to God.

For you all (περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν)

The preposition means rather concerning, about.

Is proclaimed (καταγγέλλεται)

The different compounds of the simple verb ἀγγέλλω to announce, are interesting. The simple verb occurs only at John 20:18. Ἁναγγέλλειν is to report with the additional idea of bringing tidings up to or back to the person receiving them. So John 5:15. The impotent man brought back information to the Jews. Compare Mark 5:14. So Christ will send the Comforter, and He will bring back to the disciples tidings of things to come. John 16:13-15. See Acts 14:27; 2 Corinthians 7:7; 1 Peter 1:12.

Ἁπαγγέλλειν is to announce with a reference to the source from (ἀπό) which the message comes So Matthew 2:8; Acts 12:14. Compare Luke 7:22; Luke 8:34, Acts 5:22.

Καταγγέλλειν is to proclaim with authority, as commissioned to spread the tidings throughout, down among those that hear them, with the included idea of celebrating or commending. So here. Compare Acts 16:21; Acts 17:3. Thus in ἀναγγέλλειν the recipient of the news is contemplated; in ἀπαγγέλλειν the source; in καταγγέλλειν the relation of the bearer and hearer of the message. The first is found mostly in John, Mark, and Acts; the second in the Synoptists and Acts; the third only. in the Acts and Paul.

Throughout the whole world

Hyperbolical, but according with the position of the metropolitan church. Compare 1 Thessalonians 1:8.

Romans 1:9

I serve (λατρεύω)

See on Luke 1:74. The word was used in a special sense to denote the service rendered to Jehovah by the Israelites as His peculiar people. See Romans 9:4; Acts 26:7. Compare Hebrews 9:1, Hebrews 9:6. As in his Philippian letter, Paul here appropriates the Jewish word for the spiritual Christian service. See on Philippians 3:3.

Romans 1:10

I might have a prosperous journey (εὐοδωθήσομαι)

Rev., I may be prospered. The A.V. brings out the etymological force of the word. See on 3 John 1:2.

Romans 1:11

Some spiritual gift (τι χάρισμα)

Note the modesty in some. Χάρισμα is a gift of grace (χάρις) a favor received without merit on the recipient's part. Paul uses it both in this ordinary sense (Romans 5:15, Romans 5:16; Romans 6:23), and in a special, technical sense, denoting extraordinary powers bestowed upon individuals by the Holy Spirit, such as gifts of healing, speaking with tongues, prophecy, etc. See Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 1:7; 1 Corinthians 12:4, 1 Corinthians 12:31; 1 Peter 4:10. In 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6, it is used of the sum of the powers requisite for the discharge of the office of an evangelist.

To the end ye may be established (εἰς τὸ στηριχθῆναι ὑμᾶς)

Not that I may establish you. The modest use of the passive leaves out of view Paul's personal part. For established, see on Luke 22:32; see on 1 Peter 5:10. The word shows that he had in view their christian character no less than their instruction in doctrine.

Romans 1:12

That is (τοῦου δέ ἐστιν)

The A.V. and Rev. omit δέ however, thus losing an important shade of meaning. That is is not merely an explanatory repetition of the preceding phrase, but modifies the idea contained in it. It is a modest and delicate explanation, by which Paul guards himself against the possible appearance of underestimating the christian standpoint of his readers, to whom he was still, personally, a stranger. Hence he would say: "I desire to impart some spiritual gift that you may be strengthened, not that I would imply a reproach of weakness or instability; but that I desire for you the strengthening of which I stand in need along with you, and which I hope may be wrought in us both by our personal intercourse and our mutual faith."

Romans 1:13

I would not have you ignorant

An emphatic expression calling special attention to what follows. Compare 1 Corinthians 10:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:13.

Have some fruit (τινὰ καρπὸν σχῶ)

For the phrase, compare Romans 6:22. A metaphorical statement of what is stated literally in Romans 1:11. Not equivalent to bear fruit, but to gather as a harvest. Compare John 4:36; Philippians 1:22; Colossians 1:6. Fruit is a favorite metaphor with Paul. He uses it in both a good and a bad sense. See Romans 7:4, Romans 7:5; Romans 6:22; Galatians 5:22.

Romans 1:14

Debtor (ὀφειλέτης)

All men, without distinction of nation or culture, are Paul's creditors, "He owes them his life, his person, in virtue of the grace bestowed upon him, and of the office which he has received." (Godet).

Greeks - Barbarians

Gentiles without distinction. Paul takes the conventional Greek division of all mankind into Greeks and non-Greeks. See on Acts 6:1. The question whether he includes the Romans among the Greeks or the Barbarians, is irrelevant.

Romans 1:15

To you also that are in Rome

To you refers to the christian Church, not to the population generally. In every verse, from Romans 1:6 to Romans 1:13, ὑμεῖς you refers to the Church.

Romans 1:16

For (γὰρ)

Marking the transition from the introduction to the treatise. "I am ready to preach at Rome, for, though I might seem to be deterred by the contempt in which the Gospel is held, and by the prospect of my own humiliation as its preacher, I am not ashamed of it." The transition occupies Romans 1:16, Romans 1:17.

The Gospel

Omit of Christ.

Power (δύναμις)

Not merely a powerful means in God's hands, but in itself a divine energy.

First

Not principally, nor in preference to the Greek; but first in point of time. Compare John 4:22; Romans 3:1; Romans 9:1; Matthew 15:24.

Romans 1:17

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed (δικαιοσύνη γὰρ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀυτῷ ἀποκαλύπτεται).

Rev., more correctly, therein is revealed a righteousness of God. The absence of the article denotes that a peculiar kind of righteousness is meant. This statement contains the subject of the epistle: Righteousness is by faith. The subject is not stated formally nor independently, but as a proof that the Gospel is a power, etc.

This word δικαιοσύνη righteousness, and its kindred words δίκαιος righteous, and δικαιόω to make righteous, play so important a part in this epistle that it is desirable to fix their meaning as accurately as possible.

Classical Usage. In the Greek classics there appears an eternal, divine, unwritten principle of right, dwelling in the human consciousness, shaping both the physical and the moral ordering of the world, and personified as Themis (Θέμις). This word is used as a common noun in the phrase θέμις ἐστὶ it is right (fundamentally and eternally), like the Latin fas est. Thus Homer, of Penelope mourning for Ulysses, θέμις ἐστὶ γυναικός it is the sacred obligation of the wife (founded in her natural relation to her husband, ordained of heaven) to mourn ("Odyssey," 14, 130). So Antigone appeals to the unwritten law against the barbarity of refusing burial to her brother.

"Nor did I deem thy edicts strong enough,

That thou, a mortal man, shouldst overpass

The unwritten laws of God that know not change."

Sophocles, "Antigone," 453-455.

See, also, "Odyssey," 14, 91; Aristophanes, "Clouds," 140; "Antigone," 880.

This divine ordering requires that men should be shown or pointed to that which is according to it - a definite circle of duties and obligations which constitute right (δίκη). Thus what is δίκαιος righteous, is properly the expression of the eternal Themis. While δίκη and θέμις are not to be distinguished as human and divine, δίκη has a more distinctively human, personal character, and comes into sharper definition. It introduces the distinction between absolute right and power. It imposes the recognition of a moral principle over against an absolutely constraining natural force. The conception of δίκη is strongly moral. Δίκαιος is right; δικαιοσύνη is rightness as characterizing the entire being of man.

There is a religious background to the pagan conception. In the Homeric poems morality stands in a relation, loose and undeveloped indeed, but none the less real, to religion. This appears in the use of the oath in compacts; in the fear of the wrath of heaven for omission of sacrifices; in regarding refusal of hospitality as an offense against Zeus, the patron of strangers and suppliants. Certain tribes which are fierce and uncivilized are nevertheless described as δίκαιοι righteous. "The characteristic stand-point of the Homeric ethics is that the spheres of law, of morals, and of religion are by no means separate, but lie side by side in undeveloped unity." (Nagelsbach).

In later Greek literature this conception advances, in some instances, far toward the christian ideal; as in the fourth book of Plato's "Laws," where he asserts that God holds in His hand the beginning, middle, and end of all things; that justice always follows Him, and punishes those who fall short of His laws. Those who would be dear to God must be like Him. Without holiness no man is accepted of God.

Nevertheless, however clearly the religious background and sanction of morality may be recognized, it is apparent that the basis of right is found, very largely, in established social usage. The word ethics points first to what is established by custom. While with Mr. Grote we must admit the peculiar emphasis on the individual in the Homeric poems, we cannot help observing a certain influence of social sentiment on morals. While there are cases like the suitors, Paris and Helen, where public opinion imposes no moral check, there are others where the force of public opinion is clearly visible, such as Penelope and Nausicaa. The Homeric view of homicide reveals no relation between moral sentiment and divine enactment. Murder is a breach of social law, a private and civil wrong, entailing no loss of character. Its penalty is a satisfaction to the feelings of friends, or a compensation for lost services.

Later, we find this social aspect of morality even more strongly emphasized. "The city becomes the central and paramount source of obligation. The great, impersonal authority called 'the Laws' stands out separately, both as guide and sanction, distinct from religious duty or private sympathy" (Grote). Socrates is charged with impiety because he does not believe in the gods of the state, and Socrates himself agrees that that man does right who obeys what the citizens have agreed should be done, and who refrains from what they forbid.

The social basis of righteousness also appears in the frequent contrast between δίκη and βία, right and force. A violation of right is that which forces its way over the social sanction. The social conception of δίκαιος is not lost, even when the idea is so apprehended as to border on the christian love of one's neighbor. There is a wrong toward the gods, but every wrong is not in itself such. The inner, personal relation to deity, the absolute and constraining appeal of divine character and law to conscience, the view of duty as one's right, and of personal right as something to be surrendered to the paramount claim of love - all these elements which distinguish the christian conception of righteousness - are thus in sharp contrast with a righteousness dictated by social claims which limit the individual desire or preference, but which leave untouched the tenacity of personal right, and place obligation behind legitimacy.

It is desirable that the classical usage of these terms should be understood, in order to throw into sharper relief the Biblical usage, according to which God is the absolute and final standard of right, and every wrong is a sin against God (Psalm 51:4). Each man stands in direct and primary relation to the holy God as He is by the law of His own nature. Righteousness is union with God in character. To the Greek mind of the legendary age such a conception is both strange and essentially impossible, since the Greek divinity is only the Greek man exaggerated in his virtues and vices alike. According to the christian ideal, righteousness is character, and the norm of character is likeness to God. This idea includes all the social aspects of right. Love and duty toward God involve love and duty to the neighbor.

Here must be noted a peculiar usage of δίκαιος righteous, and δικαιοσύνη righteousness, in the Septuagint. They are at times interchanged with ἐλεημοσύνη mercy, and ἔλεος kindness. The Hebrew chesed kindness, though usually rendered by ἔλεος, is nine times translated by δικαιοσύνη righteousness, and once by δίκαιος righteous. The Hebrew tsedakah, usually rendered by δικαιοσύνη, is nine times translated by ἐλεημοσύνη mercy, and three times by ἔλεος kindness. Compare the Heb. and Sept. at Deuteronomy 6:25; Deuteronomy 24:13 (15); Genesis 19:19; Genesis 24:27. This usage throws light on the reading δικαιοσύνην, Rev., righteousness (kindness?), instead of ἐλεημοσύνην mercy, A.V., alms, Matthew 6:1. Mr. Hatch ("Essays in Biblical Greek") says that the meaning kindness is so clear in this passage that scribes, who were unaware of its existence, altered the text. He also thinks that this meaning gives a better sense than any other to Matthew 1:19 "Joseph, being a kindly (δίκαιος, A.V., just) man."

1. In the New Testament δίκαιος is used both of God and of Christ. Of God, 1 John 1:9; John 17:25; Revelation 16:5; Romans 3:26. Of Christ, 1 John 2:1; 1 John 3:7; Acts 3:14; Acts 7:52; Acts 22:14. In these passages the word characterizes God and Christ either in their essential quality or in their action; either as righteous according to the eternal norm of divine holiness (John 17:25; 1 John 3:7; Romans 3:26), or as holiness passes into righteous dealing with men (1 John 1:9).

2. Δίκαιος is used of men, denoting their normal relation to the will and judgment of God. Hence it means virtuous, upright, pure in life, correct in thinking and feeling. It stands opposed to ἀνομία lawlessness; ἁμαρτία sin; ἀκαθαρσία impurity, a contrast wanting in classical usage, where the conception of sin is vague. See Romans 6:13, Romans 6:16, Romans 6:18, Romans 6:20; Romans 8:10; 2 Corinthians 6:7, 2 Corinthians 6:14; Ephesians 5:9; Ephesians 6:14; Philippians 1:11; James 3:18.

Where δικαιοσύνη righteousness, is joined with ὁσιότης holiness (Luke 1:75; Ephesians 4:24), it denotes right conduct toward men, as holiness denotes piety toward God. It appears in the wider sense of answering to the demands of God in general, Matthew 13:17; Matthew 10:41; Matthew 23:29; Acts 10:22, Acts 10:35; and in the narrower sense of perfectly answering the divine demands, guiltless. So of Christ, Acts 3:14; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:1.

3. It is found in the classical sense of it is right, Philippians 1:7, or that which is right, Colossians 4:1. This, however, is included within the Christian conception.

Δικαιοσύνη righteousness, is therefore that which fulfills the claims of δίκη right. "It is the state commanded by God and standing the test of His judgment; the character and acts of a man approved of Him, in virtue of which the man corresponds with Him and His will as His ideal and standard" (Cremer).

The medium of this righteousness is faith. Faith is said to be counted or reckoned for righteousness; i.e., righteousness is ascribed to it or recognized in it. Romans 4:3, Romans 4:6, Romans 4:9, Romans 4:22; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23.

In this verse the righteousness revealed in the Gospel is described as a righteousness of God. This does not mean righteousness as an attribute of God, as in Romans 3:5; but righteousness as bestowed on man by God. The state of the justified man is due to God. The righteousness which becomes his is that which God declares to be righteousness and ascribes to him. Righteousness thus expresses the relation of being right into which God puts the man who believes. See further, on justified, Romans 2:13.

Is revealed (ἀποκαλύπτεται)

Emphasizing the peculiar sense in which "righteousness" is used here. Righteousness as an attribute of God was revealed before the Gospel. Righteousness in this sense is a matter of special revelation through the Gospel. The present tense describes the Gospel in its continuous proclamation: is being revealed.

From faith to faith (ἐκ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν)

Rev., by faith unto faith. According to the A.V. the idea is that of progress in faith itself; either from Old to New Testament faith, or, in the individual, from a lower to a higher degree of faith; and this idea, I think, must be held here, although it is true that it is introduced secondarily, since Paul is dealing principally with the truth that righteousness is by faith. We may rightly say that the revealed righteousness of God is unto faith, in the sense of with a view to produce faith; but we may also say that faith is a progressive principle; that the aim of God's justifying righteousness is life, and that the just lives by his faith (Galatians 2:20), and enters into "more abundant" life with the development of his faith. Compare 2 Corinthians 2:16; 2 Corinthians 3:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Romans 6:19; and the phrase, justification of life, Romans 5:18.

Romans 1:18

For

All men require this mode of justification, for all men are sinners, and therefore exposed to God's wrath.

The wrath of God (ὀργὴ Θεοῦ)

Not punishment, but the personal emotion. See on John 3:36.

Ungodliness and unrighteousness (ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν).

Irreligiousness and immorality. See on godliness, 2 Peter 1:3; also 2 Peter 2:13.

Hold (κατεχόντων)

Not possess: compare Romans 1:21. Rev., correctly, hold down; i.e., hinder or repress. Compare 2 Thessalonians 2:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:7; Luke 4:42.

The truth

Divine truth generally, as apparent in all God's self-revelations.

Romans 1:19

That which may be known (τὸ γνωστὸν)

So A.V. and Rev., as equivalent to that which is knowable. But that which is knowable was not revealed to the heathen. If it was, what need of a revelation? Better, that which is known, the universal sense in the New Testament, signifying the universal objective knowledge of God as the Creator, which is, more or less, in all men.

In them

In their heart and conscience. The emphasis should be on in. Thus the apparent tautology - what is known is manifest - disappears.

Romans 1:20

The invisible things of Him

The attributes which constitute God's nature, afterward defined as "His eternal power and divinity."

From the creation (ἀπό)

From the time of. Rev., since.

Are clearly seen (καθορᾶται)

We have here an oxymoron, literally a pointedly foolish saying; a saying which is impressive or witty through sheer contradiction or paradox. Invisible things are clearly visible. See on Acts 5:41. Illustrations are sometimes furnished by single words, as γλυκύπικρος bittersweet; θρασύδειλος a bold coward. In English compare Shakespeare:

"Dove-feathered raven, fiend angelical;

Beautiful tyrant, wolfish-ravening lamb."

Spenser:

"Glad of such luck, the luckless lucky maid."

Godhead (θειότης)

Rev., better, divinity. Godhead expresses deity (θεότης). θειότης is godhood, not godhead. It signifies the sum-total of the divine attributes.

So that they are (εἰς τὸ εἶναι)

The A.V. expresses result; but the sense is rather purpose. The revelation of God's power and divinity is given, so that, if, after being enlightened, they fall into sin, they may be without defense.

Without excuse (ἀναπολογήτους)

See on answer, 1 Peter 3:15. Only here and Romans 2:1.

Romans 1:21

Knowing - glorified not

"I think it may be proved from facts that any given people, down to the lowest savages, has at any period of its life known far more than it has done: known quite enough to have enabled it to have got on comfortably, thriven and developed, if it had only done what no man does, all that it knew it ought to do and could do" (Charles Kingsley, "The Roman and the Teuton").

Became vain (ἐματαιώθησαν)

Vain things (μάταια) was the Jews' name for idols. Compare Acts 4:15. Their ideas and conceptions of God had no intrinsic value corresponding with the truth. "The understanding was reduced to work in vacuo. It rendered itself in a way futile" (Godet).

Imaginations (διαλογισμοῖς)

Rev., better, reasonings. See on Matthew 15:19; see on Mark 7:21; see on James 2:4.

Foolish (ἀσύνετος)

See on συνετός prudent, Matthew 11:25, and the kindred word σύνεσις understanding, see on Mark 12:33; see on Luke 2:47. They did not combine the facts which were patent to their observation.

Heart (καρδία)

The heart is, first, the physical organ, the center of the circulation of the blood. Hence, the seat and center of physical life. In the former sense it does not occur in the New Testament. As denoting the vigor and sense of physical life, see Acts 14:17; James 5:5; Luke 21:34. It is used fifty-two times by Paul.

Never used like ψυχή, soul, to denote the individual subject of personal life, so that it can be exchanged with the personal pronoun (Acts 2:43; Acts 3:23; Romans 13:1); nor like πνεῦμα spirit, to denote the divinely-given principle of life.

It is the central seat and organ of the personal life (ψυχή) of man regarded in and by himself. Hence it is commonly accompanied with the possessive pronouns, my, his, thy, etc.

Like our heart it denotes the seat of feeling as contrasted with intelligence. 2 Corinthians 2:4; Romans 9:2; Romans 10:1; 2 Corinthians 6:11; Philippians 1:7. But it is not limited to this. It is also the seat of mental action, feeling, thinking, willing. It is used -

1. Of intelligence, Romans 1:21; 2 Corinthians 3:15; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Ephesians 1:18.

2. Of moral choice, 1 Corinthians 7:37; 2 Corinthians 9:7.

3. As giving impulse and character to action, Romans 6:17; Ephesians 6:5; Colossians 3:22; 1 Timothy 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:22. The work of the law is written on the heart, Romans 2:15. The Corinthian Church is inscribed as Christ's epistle on hearts of flesh, 2 Corinthians 3:2-3.

4. Specially, it is the seat of the divine Spirit, Galatians 4:6; Romans 5:5; 2 Corinthians 1:22. It is the sphere of His various operations, directing, comforting, establishing, etc., Philippians 4:7; Colossians 3:15; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 2 Thessalonians 2:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:5. It is the seat of faith, and the organ of spiritual praise, Romans 10:9; Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16.

It is equivalent to the inner man, Ephesians 3:16, Ephesians 3:17. Its characteristic is being hidden, Romans 2:28, Romans 2:29; Romans 8:27; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 14:25.

It is contrasted with the face, 1 Thessalonians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 5:12; and with the mouth, Romans 10:8.

Romans 1:22

Professing (φάσκοντες)

The verb is used of unfounded assertion, Acts 24:9; Acts 25:19; Revelation 2:2.

Wise, they became fools

Another oxymoron; see on Romans 1:20. Compare Horace, insaniens sapientia raving wisdom. Plato uses the phrase μάταιον δοξοσοφίαν vain-glorying of wisdom ("Sophist," 231).

Romans 1:23

Image made like (ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος)

Rev., more literally, the likeness of an image. See on Revelation 13:14. Equivalent to what was shaped like an image. Likeness indicates the conformity with the object of comparison in appearance; image, the type in the artist's mind; the typical human form. See, further, on Philippians 2:7.

Birds and beasts and creeping things

Deities of human form prevailed in Greece; those of the bestial form in Egypt; and both methods of worship were practiced in Rome. See on Acts 7:41. Serpent-worship was common in Chaldaea, and also in Egypt. The asp was sacred throughout the latter country. The worship of Isis was domesticated at Rome, and Juvenal relates how the priests of Isis contrived that the silver images of serpents kept in her temple should move their heads to a suppliant ("Satire" vi., 537). Many of the subjects of paintings in the tombs of the kings at Thebes show the importance which the serpent was thought to enjoy in the future state. Dollinger says that the vestal virgins were intrusted with the attendance upon a holy serpent, and were charged with supplying his table with meats on festival days.

Romans 1:24

Gave them up (παρέδωκεν)

Handed them over to the power of sin. See on Matthew 4:12; see on Matthew 11:27; see on Matthew 26:2; see on Mark 4:29; see on Luke 1:2; see on 1 Peter 2:23.

Romans 1:25

Who changed (οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν)

Rev., for that they exchanged. The double relative specifies the class to which they belonged, and thereby includes the reason for their punishment. He gave them up as being those who, etc. Μετήλλαξαν exchanged (so Rev.), is stronger than the simple verb in Romans 1:23. Godet renders travestied. Compare the same word in Romans 1:26.

Truth of God

Equivalent to the true God.

Into a lie (ἐν τῷ ψεύδει)

Better, as Rev., exchanged, etc., for a lie. Lit., the lie; a general abstract expression for the whole body of false gods. Bengel remarks, "the price of mythology."

Worshipped and served (ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν)

The former of worship generally; the latter of worship through special rites or sacrifices. On the latter verb, see on Revelation 22:3.

More than the Creator (παρά)

The preposition indicates passing by the Creator altogether; not merely giving preference to the creature. Hence Rev., rather than. Compare Luke 18:14, where the approved reading is παρ' ἐκεῖνον rather than the other, implying that the Pharisee was in no respect justified.

Blessed (εὐλογητὸς)

See on 1 Peter 1:3.

Romans 1:26

Vile affections (πάθη ἀτιμίας)

Lit., passions of dishonor. Rev., passions. As distinguished from ἐπιθυμίαι lusts, in Romans 1:24, πάθη passions, is the narrower and intenser word. Ἐπιθυμία is the larger word, including the whole world of active lusts and desires, while the meaning of πάθος is passive, being the diseased condition out of which the lusts spring. Ἐπιθυμίαι are evil longings; πάθη ungovernable affections. Thus it appears that the divine punishment was the more severe, in that they were given over to a condition, and not merely to an evil desire. The two words occur together, 1 Thessalonians 4:5.

Women (θήλειαι)

Strictly, females. This, and ἄρσενες males, are used because only the distinction of sex is contemplated.

Romans 1:27

Burned (ἐξεκαύθησαν)

The terms are terrible in their intensity. Lit., burned out. The preposition indicates the rage of the lust.

Lust (ὀρέξει)

Only here in the New Testament. It is a reaching out after something with the purpose of appropriating it. In later classical Greek it is the most general term for every kind of desire, as the appetite for food. The peculiar expressiveness of the word here is sufficiently evident from the context.

That which is unseemly (τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην)

Primarily, want of form, disfigurement. Plato contrasts it with εὐσχημοσύνη gracefulness ("Symposium," 196).

Which was meet (ἔδει)

Rev., was due, which is better, though the word expresses a necessity in the nature of the case - that which must needs be as the consequence of violating the divine law.

The prevalence of this horrible vice is abundantly illustrated in the classics. See Aristophanes, "Lysistrata," 110; Plato, "Symposium," 191; Lucian, "Amores," 18; "Dialogi Meretricii," v., 2; Juvenal, vi., 311; Martial, i., 91; vii., 67. See also Becker's "Charicles;" Forsyth's "Life of Cicero," pp. 289, 336; and Dollinger's "Heathen and Jew," ii., 273 sqq. Dollinger remarks that in the whole of the literature of the ante-Christian period, hardly a writer has decisively condemned it. In the Doric states, Crete and Sparta, the practice was favored as a means of education, and was acknowledged by law. Even Socrates could not forbear feeling like a Greek on this point (see Plato's "Charmides"). In Rome, in the earlier centuries of the republic, it was of rare occurrence; but at the close of the sixth century it had become general. Even the best of the emperors, Antoninus and Trajan, were guilty.

On the Apostle's description Bengel remarks that "in stigmatizing we must often call a spade a spade. The unchaste usually demand from others an absurd modesty." Yet Paul's reserve is in strong contrast with the freedom of pagan writers (see Ephesians 5:12). Meyer notes that Paul delineates the female dishonor in less concrete traits than the male.

Romans 1:28

Even as

Expressing the correlation between the sin and the punishment.

They did not like to have God in their knowledge (οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν).

Lit., did not approve. Rev., refused. They did not think God worth the knowing. Compare 1 Thessalonians 2:4. Knowledge (ἐπιγνώσει) is, literally, full knowledge. They did not suffer the rudimentary revelation of nature to develop into full knowledge - "a penetrating and living knowledge of God" (Meyer). In Dante's division of Hell, the section assigned to Incontinence, or want of self-control, is succeeded by that of Bestiality, or besotted folly, which comprises infidelity and heresy in all their forms - sin which Dante declares to be the most stupid, vile, and hurtful of follies. Thus the want of self-restraint is linked with the failure to have God in knowledge. Self is truly possessed only in God. The tendency of this is ever downward toward that demoniac animalism which is incarnated in Lucifer at the apex of the infernal cone, and which is so powerfully depicted in this chapter. See "Inferno," ix.

Reprobate mind (ἀδόκιμον νοῦν)

Lit., not standing the test. See on is tried, James 1:12; and see on trial, 1 Peter 1:7. There is a play upon the words. As they did not approve, God gave them up unto a mind disapproved. This form of play upon words of similar sound is perhaps the most frequent of Paul's rhetorical figures, often consisting in the change of preposition in a compound, or in the addition of a preposition to the simple verb. Thus περιτομή circumcision, κατατομή concision, Philippians 3:2, Philippians 3:3. "Our epistle known (γινωσκομένη) and read (ἀναγινωσκομένη)." Compare Romans 2:1; 1 Corinthians 11:29-31; Romans 12:3. The word reprobate is from re-probare, to reject on a second trial, hence, to condemn.

Romans 1:29

Filled

The retribution was in full measure. Compare Proverbs 1:31; Revelation 18:6.

Wickedness (πονηρίᾳ)

See on Mark 7:22.

Covetousness (πλεονεξίᾳ)

Lit., the desire of having more. It is to be distinguished from φιλαργυρία, rendered love of money, 1 Timothy 6:10, and its kindred adjective φιλάργυρος, which A.V. renders covetous Luke 16:14; 2 Timothy 3:2; properly changed by Rev. into lovers of money. The distinction is expressed by covetousness and avarice. The one is the desire of getting, the other of keeping. Covetousness has a wider and deeper sense, as designating the sinful desire which goes out after things of time and sense of every form and kind. Hence it is defined by Paul (Colossians 3:5) as idolatry, the worship of another object than God, and is so often associated with fleshly sins, as 1 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:3, Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5. Lightfoot says: "Impurity and covetousness may be said to divide between them nearly the whole domain of selfishness and vice." Socrates quotes an anonymous author who compares the region of the desires in the wicked to a vessel full of holes, and says that, of all the souls in Hades, these uninitiated or leaky persons are the most miserable, and that they carry water to a vessel which is full of holes in a similarly holey colander. The colander is the soul of the ignorant (Plato, "Gorgias," 493). Compare, also, the description of covetousness and avarice by Chaucer, "Romaunt of the Rose," 183-246.

"Covetise

That eggeth folk in many a guise

To take and yeve (give) right nought again,

And great treasoures up to laine (lay).

.....

And that is she that maketh treachours,

And she maketh false pleadours.

.....

Full crooked were her hondes (hands) two,

For Covetise is ever woode (violent)

To grippen other folkes goode."

"Avarice

Full foul in painting was that vice.

.....

She was like thing for hunger dead,

That lad (led) her life onely by bread.

.....

This Avarice had in her hand

A purse that honge by a band,

And that she hid and bond so strong,

Men must abide wonder long,

Out of the purse er (ere) there come aught,

For that ne commeth in her thought,

It was not certaine her entent

That fro that purse a peny went."

Maliciousness (κακίᾳ)

See on naughtiness, James 1:21.

Full (μεστοὺς)

Properly, stuffed.

Envy, murder (φθόνου, φόνου)

Phthonou, phonou. A paronomasia or combination of like-sounding words. Compare Galatians 5:21. Murder is conceived as a thought which has filled the man. See 1 John 3:15.

Debate (ἔριδος)

In the earlier sense of the word (French, debattre, to beat down, contend) including the element of strife. So Chaucer:

"Tales both of peace and of debates."

"Man of Law's Tale," 4550.

Later usage has eliminated this element. Dr. Eadie ("English Bible") relates that a member of a Scottish Church-court once warned its members not to call their deliberations "a debate," since debate was one of the sins condemned by Paul in this passage. Rev., correctly, strife.

Deceit (δόλου)

See on John 1:47.

Malignity (κακοηθείας)

Malicious disposition.

Romans 1:30

Haters of God (θεοστυγεῖς)

Rev., hateful to God. All classical usage is in favor of the passive sense, but all the other items of the list are active. Meyer defends the passive on the ground that the term is a summary of what precedes. The weight of authority is on this side. The simple verb στυγέω to hate, does not occur in the New Testament. Στυγητός hateful, is found Titus 3:3. The verb is stronger than, μισέω I hate, since it means to show as well as to feel hatred.

Proud (ὑπερηφάνους)

Rev., haughty. See on pride, Mark 7:22.

Boasters (ἀλαζόνας). Swaggerers

Not necessarily implying contempt or insult.

Romans 1:31

Without understanding, covenant-breakers (ἀσυνέτους ἀσυνθέτους)

Another paronomasia: asynetous, asynthetous. This feature of style is largely due to the pleasure which all people, and especially Orientals, derive from the assonance of a sentence. Archdeacon Farrar gives a number of illustrations: the Arabic Abel and Kabel (Abel and Cain); Dalut and G'ialut (David and Goliath). A Hindoo constantly adds meaningless rhymes, even to English words, as button-bitten; kettley-bittley. Compare the Prayer-book, holy and wholly; giving and forgiving; changes and chances. Shakespeare, sorted and consorted; in every breath a death. He goes on to argue that these alliterations, in the earliest stages of language, are partly due to a vague belief in the inherent affinities of words ("Language and Languages," 227).

Romans 1:32

Judgment (δικαίωμα)

Rev., correctly, ordinance.

Commit (πράσσοντες)

Rev., better, practice. See on John 3:21.

Paul would have been familiar with the abominations of the pagan world from the beginning of his life. The belief in paganism was more firmly rooted in the provinces than in Italy, and was especially vigorous in Tarsus; which was counted among the three Kappa Kakista, most villainous K's of antiquity - Kappadokia, Kilikia, and Krete. Religion there was chiefly of an Oriental character, marked by lascivious rites. See Farrar's "Life and Work of Paul," ii., 24-34

Romans 1

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. Unintelligent, unfaithful, unnatural, unappeasable, unmerciful. — Ed.



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.