Commentary on Paul's Epistle to Romans; with an excursus on the famous passage in James (chap. II.: 14-26).

Front matter

\f fy

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

{In Cloth.)

Preface

I. There is a vast difference between the sentence " I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" (E. V., Rom. 9 : 15), and the sentence " I will have mercy on whomsoever I can have mercy." It would be worth a life-time of an exegete to establish this rendering, especially if he added to it, " So, then, it is not of the willing, nor of the running, but of the mercy showing God " (v. 16), and also, " Therefore, one man whom He has a desire after (see Matt. 27 : 43), He shows mercy to, and another man whom He has a desire after. He hardens " (v. 20). This nest of proof texts which have done awful service for doubt, would sweeten the whole of Paul if they can give this bettered idea of Jehovah's sovereignty.

II. There is a vast difference between the sentence " obedience to the faith " (E. V., 1:5), and the sentence " obedience of faith." One favors the view of doctrinalism, or our believing our way into the kingdom. The other makes faith obedience, and itself a moral act, or the beginning of a better life.

III. There is a vast difference between the sentence, " justified by faith" (E. V. 3 : 28), and the sentence, "made righteous in the shape of faith " {inate7'ial dative). One builds a doctrine not lisped of till the Reformation, and the other rests upon the atonement, and considers righteousness that imparted righteousness which Paul means by what we have already noticed in the " obedience of faith."

IV. There is a vast difference between the sentence, *' for that all have sinned " (E. V., 5 : 12), and the sentence, "on Him at whose charges all did the sinning." We quit looking for an apodosis across a quarter of a chapter ; we put an end to the champion parenthesis of Holy Writ (E. V., vs. 13-17) ;

8 PREFACE,

we unearth an orthodox sense ; we shut up protasis and apodosis in a single verse ; and we reduce this most baffling sentence of the ten (vs. 12-21) to a similarity to all the rest in its balanced signification, " Wherefore as by one man sin came into the world, so death by sin, and thus to all men death passed through on to Him at whose charges all did the sinning."

V. There is a vast difference between the sentence, " Until the law sin was in the world " (E. V., 5 : 13), and the sentence, ^* As far as there was law." One is thrown away upon a case that never happens, while the other is the soundest ethic. In proportion as there is law, men sin. And as all men have law, at least in an original conscience, all sin. Even the Devil has law. It is necessary to accountability. For, as this same apostle expresses it. Without law ** there is no transgression "

VI. There is a vast difference between the sentence, " I was alive without the law once" (E. V., 7 : 9), setting men to dreaming when that could be, and the wholesome moral fact that sin is the punishment of sin. Paul is full of this conception of " death." " The wages of sin is death." " The strength of sin is the law." '^ Without the law sin is dead ; " and then the present verse following immediately after : — " I had been alive without the law at any time." That is, sin would be no cause of sin but for a law, and release God from the obligation of law, and no poor sinner would continue a moment under the power of sin.

VII. There is a vast difference between the sentence, " All things work together for good " (E. V., 8 : 28), and the sentence, God " works as to all things for good with them that love " Him. In the other way it is true, but irrelevant. In the literal way it agrees with prayer. Prayer, we have just been hearing (vs. 26, 27), is made prayer by God working m us and with us in intercessions otherwise unutterable ; and Paul, wishing to complete the idea, adds, " And we know " that prayer is not peculiar in this concursus, " We know that He works as to all things for good with them that love God."

PREFACE. 9

VIII. There is a vast difference between the sentence, " declared to be the Son of God " (E. V., i : 4), and the sentence, " determined on as the Son of God." One postulates an eternal Sonship, and that it is only " declared " in time. The other ranges itself with such expressions as ** Mine elect ; " it agrees with the account " by that man whom he hath ordained " (E. v.. Acts 17 : 31, the same word, bpi^ui^ determined on) ; it agrees with Gabriel where he is satisfied with the word *'be called" (E. V., Lu. i : 35) ; it agrees with Gabriel's reasons marked by his expressive ^''therefore,'' and with Paul's (see Commentary) ; and best of all, it agrees with the same root three sentences before (Rom. 1:1), employed as of Paul himself, and translated by King James, " separated unto the gospel of God."

Let our Preface deal with samples, therefore. We are content that way. If they are new, they should be watched. If they are true, they should be treasured. But if they are both new and true, that is not what has roused us to the work. These and a multitude of others are not simply new texts, adding, if they are supported by the Greek, new paragraphs to the Word of God, but they bring to bay a concerted system of mistakes. Protestantism has ascribed too little morality to God, and demanded too little morality of men. Paul has been the arch-priest of horrors, and the world is beginning to move. To sweeten Paul is not only hermeneutically right, but theologically the thing required, as the curse of the Reformed just now is, that they build Rome with a faith that has no works, and place at the top of their creed Sovereignty instead of Holiness.

JOHN MILLER.

Princeton, Oct. 16, 1885.

COMMENTARY.

THE EPISTLE TO CERTAIN ROMANS OF PAUL THE APOSTLE.

Paul does not call himself " the apostle to the Romans " (E. V.), for he had possibly never seen Rome. The like mistake is made by the Revisionists. It occurs in all his epistles. We are not to say " Apostle to the Corinthians," or " Apostle to the Hebrews " (E. V. and Re.), but " Epistle to " each of these different people. Moreover we are not to say, " Epistle to the Romafis," but " Epistle to Romans,'' for it was written only to a few in Rome. Paul wrote to "the Church of God," or to " the saints," or to " the faithful in Christ Jesus " (Rom. 1:7; I. Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1). Hence there is reason for the wording, " The Epistle to Romans (or to certain Romans) of Paul the Apostle."

But these titles, writ as we may please, were not inspired ; they are of uncertain date ; they are different in different MSS. ; they were sometimes changed ; were not always necessarily correct ; and, in the instance of the " Epistle to certain Hebrews/' not necessarily to be relied on to authenticate that as an " epistle of Paul" (E. V. and Re.).

Chapter I

I. Paul, a bondman of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, having been set apart to a Gospel of God.

I- "Paul;" Paul's Greek name. It occurs first in the thirteenth chapter of Acts (v. 9) ; " Then Saul, who also is called Paul." Saul is Hebrew, and m.^2Ci\<i asked for y and Paul is Greek, and means little. All kindred Greek is transferred into the English in two syllables ; as, for example, Festus, not Fest, Justus, not Just, Gains, not Gai. That Saulos should be rendered Saul is natural, for that is the shape of the word in the Hebrew language ; but that Paulos should be rendered " Paul^'' is probably to be accounted for by what is accident in this similarity of sound ; and perhaps to the same sort of accident of sound may be chiefly attributed the whole choice of the name. '' Paul^'' moving about among the Greeks, did what was customary then, took a name from among that people, and called himself '■'- Paulus ;'' not necessarily because he was little (Augustine, De Spir. et Lit. 6, 7, vol. x. p. 207), nor probably in honor of Sergius Paulus, who is marked as his convert in the very same passage (Acts 13 : 7-9, see Jerome) ; but as Joseph was called Hegesippus, and Eliakim, Alkimos, because of the alliteration, or because of the affinity, of some sort, the one for the other. We may say with confidence that there is nothing practically discoverable that is of moment in the change. " A bond-man." t^ovkoq is from 6'ei^ to bind. It is a prime rule for exegetes to translate by the original meaning as far as possible. The force, too, of general usage should be felt in assigning a signification. We shall presently see that '•'■ declared " is a most vicious rendering in the fourth verse, because in the seven other places where the original occurs, it never once means declared^ h\xt always '■'■ determi?ied on.'' So '■''but'' (E. V.) is a very vicious translation in Gal. 2 : 16 ; for

CHAPTER I, 13

of the fifty-eight other places where the Greek Mv iin occurs, not one will bear the meaning of bid, and in no other case does our version imagine so. An attention to this rule alone would make a vast difference as against the prepossessions of translators. AovAof is found a hundred and twenty-two times in the New Testament. " Bondman " will translate it always. It literally means a slave. But as it would be needlessly harsh to say, "Well done good and faithful slave" (Matt. 25 : 21), or " He sent and signified it by His angel to His slave, John " (Rev. I : i), or, " These men are slaves of the Most High God " (Acts 16 : 17), we sacrifice the advantage where slave would be better, as, for example, " slave of sin " (Jo. 8 : 34), or "slaves of corruption" (2 Pet. 2 : 19), and translate everywhere hondjnan. That leaves the word ^lLkovoq [deacofi), which has grown technical in an office of the church, to mean a higher " servant,'' and to be translated in every instance in that way in its thirty passages. " Paul,'' then, " a bondman,'" bought with Christ's blood, and sealed forever to his service !

" Of Jesus Christ." These names are of different languages, and one describes the God in our Redeemer, and the other the Man. " Jesus " was a corruption of Joshua j and, though Gabriel assigned the name, yet it was a common name (often under the form of Jason) at this time among the Israelites. Joshua was a name given by Moses, (Num. 13 : 8, 16). Joshua's original name was Hoshea. Hoshea meant o?ie who saves, Moses added the idea of Jehovah's salvation. And though the name fell back to Jeshua (Neh. 8, 17), and in the Greek to " Jesus," which means little more than help, yet, to a Jew's eye it had all its early significance, and the mere shrinkage by use did not blot out Jehovah's part of it. ^' Christ," on the contrary, meant Anointed. It was a translation of Messiah. And as God is not anointed, it is the title of the Man. ^^ Jesus " is Christ's Godlike name as being the Jehovah who saves. " Christ " is a human designation, not simply as of one anointed to office. He being Prophet, Priest and King, but, as, what that unction means, anointed of the Spirit, not simply in all these respects, officially, but in all respects, and chiefly in unspotted holiness, and in a form hereafter to be explained of moral recovery (6 17). Paul, therefore, pictures himself as a slave of this unspotted God-Man.

" Called to be an apostle." "^ called apostle '' would be more after the Greek, but then " called saints " in the seventh verse would be ambiguous, and might mean named saints. Therefore, to translate alike in so near a context, we say " called to be " (E. V. & Re.).

The word a-Koarokoq occurs but once in the Septuagint scriptures. " I am sent to thee as a hard messenger" (i Ki. 14 : 6). ' k.'Koarokrj^ which occurs four times in the New Testament, and always means apostleship (E. V.), occurs ten times in the Septuagint, and has the wildest variety of meaning. It means ^^ pestilence'' (Jer. 32 : 36, E. V.) ; it means gift or ^'•present'' (i Ki. 9 : 16, E. V.) ; it means ^^ plants'' (Cant. 4 : 13, E. V.) ; it means some sort of missive in some of the other places. It is clear that these words were of no technical use two centuries before Christ. Our only light upon their meaning, therefore, is in two facts : first, that Christ " chose twelve whom also He named apostles " (Lu. 6 : 13) to be eye-witnesses (i Cor. 9 : i) of His ministry and the first preachers and founders of His church (Eph. 2 : 20), and second, that, true to this origin of the title, a certain fourteen men, viz. Christ's original twelve, and one appointed in the place of one of them (Acts 12 : 26), and one miraculously appointed afterward, to wit, Paul, always appropriated this name ; and that in the eighty-one New Testament passages where it occurs, it is used of no one else, save once of Christ (Heb. 3 : i), twice of "false apostles " (2 Cor. 11 : 13 ; Rev. 2 : 2), twice of Barnabas (Acts 14 : 4, 14), once of a man and woman probably (Rom. 16 : 7), twice of common messengers (2 Cor. 8 : 23 ; Phil. 2 : 25), once of Paul and two of his companions (i Thess. 2 : 7), and once of '' James the brother of the Lord " (Gal. I :i9) ;* from all which we are to infer that " apostle" like presbyter (Acts 2:17;! Pet. 5:5); and like deacon (Jo. 2:5,9),

* Perhaps it is not altogether certain that this James was not the son of Alpheus, and, therefore, from the first, one of the twelve.

CHAPTER I. 15

and V^t church (Acts 19 : 32, 40), and like spirit (Lu. 8 : 55), and like flesh (Lu. 24 : 39), had not left their primary meaning and hardened altogether in the Greek into ecclesiastical terms, but that they had done so enough to be usually definite, and that Paul was " called to be an apostle " in the sense of being one of fourteen men 'designated by Christ to be "eye-witnesses of His majesty." In all other senses they were official ^''elders " (i Peter 5 : i), instructed by God to make elders of others (i Tim. 1:6), but not instructed to make apostles^ even though hundreds of men had seen their common Master.

"Having been set apart." Commentators have lost much by not studying this word in connection with that translated '■''declared''' in verse fourth. 'Opt'Cw coming from hpoq di boundary, means to bound off, or fix a limit. It occurs eight times in the New Testament, and in every case means to determine or deter77iine up07i {terminus, lijnit). The word is so important that we will quote every case. " The Son of Man goeth as it was determined" (Lu. 22 : 22, E. V.). " Him being delivered by the determinate counsel " (Acts 2 : it,, E. V.). '' It is He which was determined upon (ordained E. V.) of God to be the judge of quick and dead" (Acts 10 : 42). •' The disciples determined to send relief" (Acts 11 : 29, E. V.). " Hath determined the times before appointed " (Acts 17 : 26, E. V.), " A day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath determined upon (ordained, E. V,, Acts 17 : 31). "Who was determined on as God's Son (declared to be the Son of God, E. V.) in power" (Rom. i : 4). " Again, He determines upon (limiteth, E. V.) a certain day " (Heb. 4 : 7). It will be noticed that it is translated (E. V.) but once declared, and that under an obvious theological bias, being never so understood in the Septuagint, and really without any warrant in the general usage of the language. And yet to say " appointed'' would be too far from the meaning of bpi(,u, A boundary is sttfor reasofis. " Appointed the Son of God " would be too naked. " Detertnined upon " is the v^ry word, and agrees with the speech of Gabriel, — " Therefore " — as though there were intrinsic reasons, apart from mere appointment —

" Therefore " — because " the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore, also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God " (Matt, i : 35). Let it be noticed farther \h.2X predestined (E. V.) is the same verb compounded with a preposition. Determined upon beforehand (irpo) is the meaning. Predestined is a little too arbitrary, like appointed. " Whom He did foreknow, them He also did determine upon beforehand" (not predestinate E. V., 8 : 29). The word is a delicate one, and unites the ideas of appointment and of reasons for it, just as exist in the fixing of a boundary. Now it is this opiC"? with a different preposition before it, viz. cTTo, out from among ^ or away from, that we are concerned with at present. It was fitting that Paul should have a different description from his Master. Christ " was determined upon as God's Son " at once (aorist), and without any calling out from among the wicked. Paul had been [perfect) airo determined upon, that is bounded off , or set apart, called out from very bad relations, and that not at a single stroke (like Christ), such as the aorist would express, but by successive fixings of his case [perfect tense), not only " from (his) mother's womb " (Gal. I : 15), where this word a(i)opiC,cj is also used, but under Gamaliel, and on the way to Damascus, and in successive stages of divine preparation. ^^ Separated'' (E. V.) would do very well, but it is awkward English, and still more awkward where it speaks of being *' separated from my mother's womb " (Gal. i: 15). 6'<?/ ^/^r/ will answer everywhere. Set apart the righteous from the wicked (Matt. 13 : 49) ; set them apart from each other (Matt. 25 : 32) ; set apart the sheep from the goats [ib.) ; set you aside or apart (Lu. 6 : 22) ; set apart for me Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13 : 2) ; set the disciples aloof or apart (Acts 1919); be ye set apart (2 Cor. 6:17); he who set me apart from my mother's womb ; put himself aloof or set himself apart (Gal. 2 : 12) ; these are all the nine instances of d^op/c^J in the N. T. Greek, and answer perfectly to show that Paul meant that he had been " set apart " from other wicked men to preach the gospel.

CHAPTER I. 17

" A Gospel of God." We do not say " a good message of Gody' because the word had hardened enough into what was technical to make that awkward in many passages. " According to my good message " (2 : 16), or " the good message which I have good messaged " (i Cor. 15 : i), or "the good message of the circumcision " (Gal. 2 : 7), are sentences which show that the word had escaped from its original simplicity. " A gospel of God " means a gospel given by God (and not a gospel about God), as will appear in the succeeding verse.

2. As to which He announced Himself before by His prophets in holy scriptures.

^^ Promised" (E. V.) would do well enough were it not for the unhappy English. " Glad tidings promised" is not just the expression we would choose. An annu?iciation before announced is more what would come under a Grecian's eye, as the verb and the substantive are from the same dyyeAXw. But the verb is in the middle, and naturally means announced himself. As announcing oneself as to a thing which is of a promissory sort, is virtually to promise it, it is used that way (E. V.) thirteen times in the N. T. On the other two occasions of its use the word professing is brought in (E. V.), " which some professing have erred concerning the faith " (i Tim. 6 : 21) ; "professing godliness" (i Tim. 2 : 10). The compound with TT/oo (before) which occurs but once, and that in the present passage, may very properly, therefore, be rendered (" the glad annunciation) as to which He arinounced Himself before (or which He announced for Himself before), by His prophets in holy scriptures." That there should be no article before ^^ scriptures" was not unnatural, for it was not every scripture that foretold the gospel. But we are to notice how the ample predictions which there were, are thus early announced, and everywhere brought out by Paul, to confirm his representations.

His book might be called. The Gospel of Christ proved out of the Old Testament Scriptures.

3. Concerning His Son, the Jesus Christ our Lord, who came into being of David's seed through flesh.

"Concerning." Scripture is often ambiguous, and carelessly and purposely so when the ambiguity makes not the slightest difference (vs. 6, 17 ; 5 : 5, 17 ; 13 : 14 ; i6 : 2). The gospel " concerning " and the announcing of himself " concerning " would amount to the same thing. As the very Greek for annunciation {ajyk'KhS) is found in both noun and verb, the question as to which the preposition belongs to is not worth settling, and the comments as between Lange and Meyer are based upon nothing, and could not touch a shade of the significance, even if they could be made certain either way.

"His Son." This great personage Paul announces to be the sum of the gospel, and proceeds at once to give a definition the most complete in scripture. " The Jesus Christ our Lord who." Now we ought to watch every word. For there is nothing like them in elaborateness as to the Son of the Father. " Who came into being. " He ^^ came into deing " thtn. Let us fix the meaning of that verb first of all. It is used seven hundred times or more in the New Testament. Therefore what we are about to announce is very decisive. In all these seven hundred instances, if associated with a nominative in the predicate, it means became ; as for example, '* the Word became flesh'' If, on the other hand, it be the whole predicate itself, it means originated ; as for example " the world came to be.'' Its primary meaning is not to be born (so say most lexicographers), or, if it is, that has long sunk into a least frequent meaning. The text, therefore, is very manageable, unless the words that follow in some way alter or specialize the sense, which, we may say beforehand, they do not do.

"Of David's Seed." A common reader would understand that the '' Son of God" came into being nineteen centuries ago as a descendant of David. If he had heard of the '■^Eternal Sonship," he might look into his concordance for other sentences that would trace farther back, and these he would never find.

All the words, " Son," with a big S, centre about Nazareth. The only trace of what is otherwise is in Daniel (Dan. 3 : 25). It is from the lips of a heathen. It is without the article. It is not " the Son of God " (E. V.), but " a son of a god." The

CHAPTER I. 19

'•'■ gods " of Nebuchadnezzar had been quoted to him in the plural (E. v.), see the twelfth verse, but a few sentences before. There is not a single passage of the Old Testament Scriptures that asserts a " Son " then existing, or even alludes to such a person in all those four thousand years.

God was existing ; and we long for the opportunity when we can explain this. And God became incarnate in the child of Mary. But God was not before incarnate, and therefore had no earlier " 6'^;z." Or, rather (that we may not hasten anything), it appears by this third verse, that there came into being of the seed of David, nineteen centuries ago, " tAe Jesus Christ our Lord^' who therein and thereupon became '■'■the Son of God''

"Through flesh." '■'■ According to the flesh'' (E. V.) would answer very well, but it is more awkward than through^ and is still less eligible when applied to the Spirit (v. 4). One sense of Kara is " by virtue of," so says Robinson ; though, as he represents, " the idea of accordance lies at the bottom ; " as for example "through ignorance" (E. V., Acts 3 : 17). "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for (/card) any cause ? " (E. v.. Matt. 19 : 3). " Through flesh," therefore, means, that by His sinful mother He became the child of David, and " Mr^2^^/z " this fleshly origin came into being nineteen centuries ago.

Though there is no passage in the Old Testament that speaks of the " So7t " as anciently existing, yet it is time now to say that there is a passage that speaks of the " Son," and that a very celebrated one. It is quoted three times by the apostle (Acts 13 : 33 ; Heb. i : 5 ; 5 : 5). "Thou art my Son ; this day have I begotten Thee" (Ps. 2 : 7). Here is a distinct assertion of a begetting at a certain time. All agree that it is a Messianic prophecy. Its prophet-guise i7t situ is quite spectacular. No one doubts that. Men have made endless efforts to get rid of this sentence. Some have said that ^^ begotten " means exhibited or manifested (Calvin on Ps. 2:7). Some fly to two begettings, one eternal and one in Nazareth, imagining, therefore, two Sonships (Hodge, Syst. Theol., Vol. i :

p. 474). Some expound thus : — " Thou art My Son, this dajr I am Thy Father " (Alexander) ; others, " Thou art My Son ; this day I declare it " (Calvin), making the begetting a mere asseverance. Some say that Acts 13 : '^2^ spoils the argument for a local and temporal creation (Meyer, Calvin),, still another objector overthrowing this last by showing that the " resurrection " there spoken of is not the rising on the third day, but really the raising up or originating that we are now contending for (Hodge). Which comments might be pardoned if there were strong scriptures to make them necessary ; but, as will be seen in the next verse, when the time might seem to have come to speak of the Spirit as. distinct from the flesh, or an eternal Sonship as distinct from that in Galilee, the trencf is the other way, and the very look of the English shows the violence of the steps against it.

V. 4. For example, opiaOkQ does not mean " declared" (E. V.). When ^^ begotteji'' (Ps. 2: 7) is tortured into '''- inanifested'* (Calvin), just as ^^ except'' (Gal. 2 : 16) is strained into ^^ but'* (E. V.) in a case already mentioned, the very violence of the strain should turn us against the commentator. 'Op/C^ means bounding off or determining^ and the very attempt to understand it as ^'■declared" (E. V.) should awaken our full suspicion. The fourth verse thoroughly agrees with the third. For while the third announces that the '' Son " originated, the fourth favors that view by announcing, not that He was ^^ declared'' (E. V.) what He had been ages before, or, to take in the whole view, not that He was born " Son " in one nature and ^^ declared" Son in another, as though He had really been that from all eternity, but, according to the simple Greek, that He came into being such as He was by a fleshly birth, and was ^'' determined upon" (Acts 11 : 29, E, V.) or ^'■ordained" (Acts 10 : 42, E. V.) " Son of God" in certain ways or through certain agencies, as a thing happening in time, and justifying the language, ** This day have I begotten Thee."