Barnes' New Testament Notes

Notes on the New Testament Explanatory and Practical
Part 47

By Albert Barnes

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 1

PREFACE

THE Epistle to the Romans has been usually regarded as the most difficult portion of the New Testament. It is from this cause, probably, as well as from the supposition that its somewhat abstruse discussions could not be made interesting to the young, that so few efforts have been made to introduce it into Sunday Schools and Bible Classes. It will doubtless continue to be a fact, that Sunday School instruction will be confined chiefly to the historical parts of the Bible. In the Sacred Scriptures there is this happy adaptedness to the circumstances of the world, that so large a portion of the volume can thus be made interesting to the minds of children and youth; that so much of it is occupied with historical narrative; with parables; with interesting biographies of the holy men of other times, and with the life of our blessed Lord. But still, while this is true, there is a considerable portion of the youth, in various ways under the instruction of the Bible, who may be interested in the more abstruse statements and discussions of the doctrinal parts of the Holy Scriptures. For such—for Sunday School teachers; for Bible Classes; and for the higher classes in Sabbath Schools—these Notes have been prepared. The humble hope has been cherished that this epistle might be introduced to this portion of the youth of the churches; and thus tend to imbue their minds with correct views of the great doctrines of the Christian Revelation.

This object has been kept steadily in view. The design has not been to make a learned commentary; nor to enter into theological discussions; nor to introduce, at length, practical reflections; nor to enter minutely into critical investigations. All these can be found in books professedly on these subjects. The design has been to state, with as much brevity and simplicity as possible, the real meaning of the sacred writer; rather the results of critical inquiry, as far as the author has had ability and time to pursue it, than the process by which those results were reached. The design has been to state what appeared to the author to be the real meaning of the Epistle, without any regard to any existing theological system; and without any deference to the opinions of others, further than the respectful deference and candid examination, which are due to the opinions of the learned, the wise, and the good, who have made this Epistle their particular study. At the same time that this object has been kept ill view, and the reference to the Sabbath School teacher, and the Bible Class, has given character to the work, still it is hoped that the expositions are of such a nature as not to be uninteresting to Christians of every age and of every class. He accomplishes a service of no little moment in the cause of the church of God, and of truth, who contributes in any degree to explain the profound argument, the thorough doctrinal discussion, the elevated views, and the vigorous, manly, and masterly reasonings of the Epistle to the Romans.

Of the defects of this work, even for the purpose contemplated, no one will probably be more deeply sensible than the author. Of the time and labour necessary to prepare even such brief Notes as these, few persons, probably, are aware. This work has been prepared amidst the cares and toils of a most responsible pastoral charge. My brethren in the ministry, so far as they may have occasion to consult these Notes, will know how to appreciate the cares and anxieties amidst which they have been prepared. They will be indulgent to the faults of the book; they will not censure harshly what is well-meant for the rising generation; they will be the patrons of every purpose, however humble, to do good.

It remains only to add, that free use has been made of all the helps within the reach of the author. The language of other writers has not been adopted without particular acknowledgment, but their ideas have been freely used where they were thought to express the sense of the text. In particular, aid has been sought and obtained from the following works: the CRITICI SACRI, CALVIN'S COMMENTARY ON THE Romans, DODRIDGE, MACKNIGHT, and ROSENMULLER; and the commentaries of THOLUCK and FLATT—So far as an imperfect knowledge of the German language could render their aid available. A considerable portion was written before Professor STUART'S Commentary appeared. In the remaining portion, important aid has been freely derived from that work. The aim of this work is substantially the same as that of the "Notes on the Gospels," and on the Acts of the Apostles; and the earnest wish and prayer of the author is, that it may be one among many means of establishing the truth, and of promoting its advancement and ultimate triumph in the world.

Philadelphia, June 14, 1834.

To see the Introduction to Romans, See Barnes "Ro 1:2"

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

CHAPTER 1.

Verse 1. Paul. The original name of the author of this epistle was Saul, Ac 7:58; 8:1; 9:1, etc. This was changed to Paul, See Barnes "Ac 13:9, and by this name he is generally known in the New Testament. The reason why he assumed this name is not certainly known. It was, however, in accordance with the custom of the times. See Barnes "Ac 13:9".

The name Saul was Hebrew; the name Paul was Roman. In addressing an epistle to the Romans, he would naturally make use of the name to which they were accustomed, and which would excite no prejudice among them. The ancient custom was to begin an epistle with the name of the writer, as Cicero to Varro, etc. We record the name at the end. It may be remarked, however, that the placing the name of the writer at the beginning of an epistle was always done, and is still, when the letter was one of authority, or when it conferred any peculiar privileges. Thus in the proclamation of Cyrus, Ezr 1:2, "Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia," etc. See also Ezr 4:11; Ezr 7:12, "Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest," etc.; Da 4:1. The commencement of a letter by an apostle to a Christian church in this manner was peculiarly proper as indicating authority.

A servant. This name was that which the Lord Jesus himself directed his disciples to use, as their general appellation, Mt 10:25; Mt 20:27; Mr 10:44.

And it was the customary name which they assumed, Ga 1:10; Col 4:12; 2 Pe 1:11; Jude 1:1; Ac 4:29; Tit 1:1; Jas 1:1. The proper meaning of this word servant— doulov is slave, one who is not free. It expresses the condition of one who has a master, or who is at the control of another. It is often, however, applied to courtiers, or the officers that serve under a king; because in an eastern monarchy the relation of an absolute king to his courtiers corresponded nearly to that of a master and a slave. Thus the word is expressive of dignity and honour; and the servants of a king denote officers of a high rank and station. It is applied to the prophets as those who were honoured by God, or peculiarly entrusted by him with office, De 34:5; Jos 1:2; Jer 25:4.

The name is also given to the Messiah, Isa 42:1, "Behold my servant in whom my soul delighteth," etc.; Isa 53:11, "Shall righteous servant justify many."

The apostle uses it here evidently to denote his acknowledging Jesus Christ as his Master; as indicating his dignity, as peculiarly appointed by him to his great work; and as showing that in this epistle he intended to assume no authority of his own, but simply to declare the will of his Master, and thefts.

Called to be an apostle. This word called means, here, not merely to be invited, but has the sense of appointed. It indicates that he had not assumed the office himself, but that he was set apart to it by the authority of Christ himself. It was important for Paul to state this,

(1.) because the other apostles had been called or chosen to this work, Joh 15:16,19; Mt 10:1; Lu 6:13

and,

(2.) because Paul was not one of those originally appointed. It was of consequence for him, therefore, to affirm that he had not taken this high office to himself, but that he had been called to it by the authority of Jesus Christ. His appointment to this office he not unfrequently takes occasion to vindicate, 1 Co 9:1, etc.; Ga 1:12-24; 2 Co 12:12; 1 Ti 2:7; 2 Ti 1:11; Ro 11:13.

An apostle. One sent to execute a commission. It is applied because the apostles were sent out by Jesus Christ to preach his gospel, and to establish his church. See Barnes "Mt 10:2" See Barnes "Lu 6:13".

Separated. The word translated separated unto—aforizw —means, to designate, to mark out by fixed limits, to bound as a field, etc. It denotes those who are separated, or called out from the common mass, Ac 19:9; 2 Co 6:17. The meaning here does not materially differ from the expression, called to be an apostle, except that perhaps this includes the notion of the purpose or designation of God to this work. Thus Paul uses the same word respecting himself, Ga 1:15, "God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace;" i.e., God designated me; marked me out; or designed that I should be an apostle from my infancy. In the same way Jeremiah was designated to be a prophet, Jer 1:5.

Unto the Gospel of God. Designated or designed by God that I should make it my business to preach the gospel. Set apart to this, as the peculiar, great work of my life; as having no other object for which I should live. For the meaning of the word gospel, See Barnes "Mt 1:1".

It is called the gospel of God because it is his appointment; it has been originated by him, and has his authority. The office of an apostle was to preach the gospel. Paul regarded himself as separated to this work. It was not to live in splendour, wealth, and ease, but to devote himself to this great business of proclaiming good news, that God was reconciled to men in his Son. This is the sole business of all ministers of religion.

{a} "a servant of" Ac 27:23

{b} "called" Ac 9:15; 1 Co 1:1

{c} "separated" Ac 13:2; Ga 1:15

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 2

INTRODUCTION

THIS Epistle has been, with great uniformity, attributed to the apostle Paul, and received as a part of the sacred canon. It has never in the church been called in question as a genuine, an inspired book, except by three of the ancient sects deemed heretical—the Ebionites, the Encratites, and Cerinthians. But they did not deny that it was written by the apostle Paul. They rejected it because they could not make its doctrines harmonize with their views of other parts of the Scriptures. Their rejecting it, therefore, does not militate against its genuineness. That is a question to be settled historically, like the genuineness of any other ancient writing. On this point the testimony of antiquity is uniform. The proof on this subject may be seen at length in Lardner's works. The internal evidence that this was written by Paul is stated in a most ingenious and masterly manner by Dr. Paley, in his Horae Paulinae.

It is agreed by all, that this epistle was written in Greek, Though addressed to a people whose language was the Latin, yet this epistle to them, like those to other churches, was in Greek. On this point, also, there is no debate. The reasons why this language was chosen were probably the following.

(1.) The epistle was designed, doubtless, to be read by other churches as well as the Roman. Compare Col 4:16. Yet the Greek language, being generally known and spoken, was more adapted to this design than the Latin.

(2.) The Greek language was then understood at Rome, and extensively spoken. It was a part of polite education to learn it. The Roman youth were taught it; and it was the fashion of the times to study it, even so much so as to make it matter of complaint that the Latin was neglected for it by the Roman youth. Thus Cicero (Pro. Arch.) says, The Greek language is spoken in almost all nations; the Latin is confined to our comparatively narrow borders. Tacitus (Orat. 29) says, An infant born now is committed to a Greek nurse. Juvenal (vi. 185) speaks of its being considered as an indispensable part of polite education, to be acquainted with the Greek.

(3.) It is not impossible that the Jews at Rome, who constituted a separate colony, were better acquainted with the Greek than the Latin. They had Greek, but no Latin translation of the Scriptures; and it is very possible that they used the language in which they were accustomed to read their Scriptures, and which was extensively spoken by their brethren throughout the world.

(4.) The apostle was himself probably more familiar with the Greek than the Latin. He was a native of Cilicia, where the Greek was doubtless spoken, and he not unfrequently quotes the Greek poets in his addresses and epistles, Ac 21:37; 17:28; Tit 1:12; 1 Co 15:33.

This epistle is placed first among Paul's epistles, not because it was the first written, but because of the length and importance of the epistle itself, and the importance of the church in the imperial city. It has uniformly had this place in the sacred canon, though there is reason to believe that the Epistle to the Galatians, the first to the Corinthians, and perhaps the two to the Thessalonians, were written before this. Of the time when it was written there can be little doubt. About the year 52 or 54 the emperor Claudius banished all Jews from Rome. In Ac 18:2, we have an account of the first acquaintance of Paul with Aquila and Priscilla, who had departed from Rome in consequence of that decree. This acquaintance was formed in Corinth; and we are told that Paul abode with them, and worked at the same occupation, Ac 18:3. In Ro 16:3,4, he directs the church to greet Priscilla and Aquila, who had for his life laid down their own necks. This service which they rendered him must have been, therefore, after the decree of Claudius; and of course the epistle must have been written after the year 52.

In Ac 18:19, we are told that he left Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus. Paul made a journey through the neighbouring regions, and then returned to Ephesus, Ac 19:1. Paul remained at Ephesus at least two years, (Ac 19:8,9,10) and while here probably wrote the first Epistle to the Corinthians. In that epistle (Ac 16:19) he sends the salutation of Priscilla and Aquila, who were of course still at Ephesus, The Epistle to the Romans, therefore, in which he sends his salutation to Aquila and Priscilla, as being then at Rome, could not be written until they had left Ephesus and returned to Rome; that is, until three years, at least, after the decree of Claudius in 52 or 54.

Still further. When Paul wrote this epistle, he was about to depart for Jerusalem to convey a collection which had been made for the poor saints there, by the churches in Macedonia and Achaia, Ro 15:25,26. When he had done this, he intended to go to Rome, Ro 15:28. Now, by looking at the Acts of the Apostles, we can determine when this occurred. At this time he sent Timotheus and Erastus before him into Macedonia, while he remained in Asia for a season, Ac 19:22. After this, (Ac 20:1,2) Paul himself went into Macedonia, passed through Greece, and remained about three months there. In this journey it is almost certain that he went to Corinth, the capital of Achaia, at which time it is supposed this epistle was written. From this place he set out for Jerusalem, where he was made a prisoner and after remaining a prisoner two years, Ac 24:27 he was sent to Rome about A.D. 60. Allowing for the time of his travelling and his imprisonment, it must have been about three years from the time that he purposed to go to Jerusalem; that is, from the time that he finished the epistle. (Ro 15:25-29) to the time when he reached Rome, and thus the epistle must have been written about A.D. 57.

It is clear, also, that the epistle was written from Corinth. In Ro 16:1, Phebe, a member of the church at Cenchrea, is commended to the Romans. She probably had charge of the epistle, or accompanied those who had it. Cenchrea was the port of the city of Corinth, about seven or eight miles from the city. In Ro 16:23, Gaius is spoken of as the host of Paul, or he of whose hospitality Paul partook; but Gaius was baptized by Paul at Corinth, and Corinth was manifestly his place of residence, 1 Co 1:14. Erastus is also mentioned as the chamberlain of the city where the epistle was written; but this Erastus is mentioned as having his abode at Corinth, 2 Ti 4:20. From all this it is manifest that the epistle was written at Corinth, about the year 57.

Of the state of the church at Rome at that time it is not easy to form a precise opinion. From this epistle it is evident that it was composed of Jews and Gentiles, and that one design of writing to it was to reconcile their jarring opinions, particularly about the obligation of the Jewish law; the advantage of the Jew; and the way of justification. It is probable that the two parties in the church were endeavouring to defend each their peculiar opinions, and that the apostle took this opportunity and mode to state to his converted countrymen the great doctrines of Christianity, and the relation of the law of Moses to the Christian system. The epistle itself is full proof that the church to whom it was addressed was composed of Jews and Gentiles. No small part of it is an argument expressly with the Jews, chapters 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11. And no small part of the epistle also is designed to state the true doctrine about the character of the Gentiles, and the way in which they could be justified before God.

At this time there was a large number of Jews at Rome. When Pompey the Great overran Judea, he sent a large number of Jews prisoners to Rome, to be sold as slaves. But it was not easy to control them. They persevered resolutely and obstinately in adhering to the rites of their nation, in keeping the Sabbath, etc.; so that the Romans chose at last to give them their freedom, and assigned them a place in the vicinity of the city across the Tiber. Here a town was built, which was principally inhabited by Jews. Josephus mentions that 4000 Jews were banished from Rome at one time to Sardinia, and that a still greater number were punished who were unwilling to become soldiers, Ant. xviii, ch. 3, § 5. Philo (Legat. ad Caium) says, that many of the Jews at Rome had obtained their freedom; for, says he, being made captive in war, and brought into Italy, they were set at liberty by their masters, neither were they compelled to change the rites of their fathers. See also Josephus, Ant. xvii. ch. ii. § 1. Suetonius' Life of Tiberius, 36, and Notes on Ac 6:9. From that large number of Jews, together with those converted from the Gentiles, the church at Rome was collected, and it is easy to see that in that church there would be a great diversity of sentiment, and, no doubt, warm discussions about the authority of the Mosaic law.

At what time, or by whom, the gospel was first preached at Rome has been a matter of controversy. The Roman Catholic Church have maintained that it was founded by Peter, and have thence drawn an argument for their high claims and infallibility. On this subject they make a confident appeal to some of the fathers. There is strong evidence to be derived from this epistle itself, and from the Acts, that Paul did not regard Peter as having any such primacy and ascendency in the Roman church as are claimed for him by the papists.

(1.) In this whole epistle there is no mention of Peter at all. It is not suggested that he had been, or was then, at Rome. If he had been, and the church had been founded by him, it is incredible that Paul did not make mention of that fact. This is the more striking, as it was done in other cases where churches had been founded by other men. See 1 Co 1:12-15. Especially is Peter, or Cephas, mentioned repeatedly by the apostle Paul in his other epistles, 1 Co 3:22; 1 Co 9:5; 15:5; Ga 2:9; 1:18; 2:7,8,14.

In these places Peter is mentioned in connexion with the churches at Corinth and Galatia, yet never there as appealing to his authority, but, in regard to the latter, expressly calling it in question. Now, it is incredible that if Peter had been then at Rome, and had founded the church there, and was regarded as invested with any peculiar authority over it, that Paul should never once have even suggested his name.

(2.) It is clear that Peter was not there when Paul wrote this epistle. If he had been, he could not have failed to have sent him a salutation, amid the numbers that he saluted in the sixteenth chapter.

(3.) In the Acts of the Apostles there is no mention of Peter's having been at Rome; but the presumption, from that history, is almost conclusive that he had not been. In Ac 12:3,4 we have an account of his having been imprisoned by Herod Agrippa near the close of his reign, (comp. Ac 5:23.) This occurred about the third or fourth year of the reign of Claudius, who began to reign A.D. 41. It is altogether improbable that he had been at Rome before this. Claudius reigned more than three years; and all the testimony that the fathers give is, that Peter came to Rome in his reign.

(4.) Peter was at Jerusalem still in the ninth or tenth year of the reign of Claudius, Ac 15:6, etc. Nor is there any mention made then of his having been at Rome.

(5.) Paul went to Rome about A.D. 60. There is no mention made then of Peter's being with him, or being there. If he had been, it could hardly have failed of being recorded. Especially is this remarkable when Paul's meeting with the brethren is expressly mentioned, Ac 28:14,15; and when it is recorded that he met the Jews, and abode with them, and spent at Rome no less than two years. If Peter had been there, such a fact could not fail to have been recorded, or alluded to, either in the Acts or the Epistle to the Romans.

(6.) The epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, to Philemon, and the second Epistle to Timothy, (Lardner, vi. 235,) were written from Rome during the residence of Paul as a prisoner; and the Epistle to the Hebrews probably also while he was still in Italy. In none of these epistles is there any hint that Peter was then, or had been, at Rome; a fact that cannot be accounted for, if he was regarded as the founder of that church, and especially if he was then in that city. Yet in those epistles there are the salutations of a number to those churches. In particular, Epaphras, Luke the beloved physician, Col 4:12,14 and the saints of the household of Caesar are mentioned, Php 4:22. In 2 Ti 4:11, Paul expressly affirms that Luke only was with him—a declaration utterly irreconcilable with the supposition that Peter was then at Rome.

(7.) If Peter was ever at Rome, therefore, of which indeed there is no reason to doubt, he must have come there after Paul: at what time is unknown. That he was there cannot be doubted, without calling in question the truth of all history.

When, or by whom, the gospel was preached first at Rome, it is not easy, perhaps not possible, to determine. In the account of the day of Pentecost, Ac 2:10 we find, among others, that there were present strangers of Rome, and it is not improbable that they carried back the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and became the founders of the Roman church. One design and effect of that miracle was doubtless to spread the knowledge of the Saviour among all nations. See Barnes Notes on Acts chapter 2. In the list of persons who are mentioned in Romans chapter 16 it is not improbable that some of those early converts are included; and that Paul thus intended to show honour to their early conversion and zeal in the cause of Christianity. Thus in Ro 16:7 he designates Andronicus and Junia, his kinsmen and fellow prisoners, who were distinguished among the apostles, and who had been converted before himself, i.e. before a.D. 34, at least eight years before it was ever pretended that Peter was at Rome. Other persons are mentioned also as distinguished, and it is not improbable that they were the early founders of the church at Rome, Ro 16:12,13, etc.

That the church at Rome was founded early, is evident from the celebrity which it had acquired. At the time when Paul wrote this epistle, (A.D. 57,) their faith was spoken of throughout the world, Ro 1:8. The character of the church at Rome cannot be clearly ascertained. Yet it is clear that it was not made up merely of the lower classes of the community. In Php 4:22, it appears that the gospel had made its way to the family of Caesar, and that a part of his household had been converted to the Christian faith. Some of the fathers affirm that Nero, in the beginning of his reign, was favourably impressed in regard to Christianity; and it is possible that this might have been through the instrumentality of his family. But little on this subject can be known. While it is probable that the great mass of believers in all the early churches was of obscure and plebeian origin, it is also certain that some who were rich, and noble, and learned, became members of the church of Christ. See 1 Ti 2:9; 1 Pe 3:3; 1 Ti 6:20; Col 2:8; 1 Co 1:26; Ac 17:34.

This epistle has been usually deemed the most difficult of interpretation of any part of the New Testament; and no small part of the controversies in the Christian church have grown out of discussions about its meaning. Early in the history of the church, even before the death of the apostles, we learn from 2 Pe 3:16, that the writings of Paul were some of them regarded as being hard to be understood; and that the unlearned and unstable wrested them to their own destruction. It is probable that Peter has reference here to the high and mysterious doctrines about justification and the sovereignty of God, and the doctrines of election and decrees. From the epistle of James, it would seem probable also, that already the apostle Paul's doctrine of justification by faith had been perverted and abused. It seems to have been inferred that good works were unnecessary; and here was the beginning of the cheerless and withering system of Antinomianism—than which a more destructive or pestilential heresy never found its way into the Christian church. Several reasons might be assigned for the controversies which have grown out of this epistle.

(1.) The very structure of the argument, and the peculiarity of the apostle's manner of writing. He is rapid; mighty; profound; often involved; readily following a new thought; leaving the regular subject, and returning again after a considerable interval. Hence his writings abound with parentheses, and with complicated paragraphs.

(2.) Objections are often introduced, so that it requires close attention to determine their precise bearing. Though he employs no small part of the epistle in answering objections, yet an objector is never once formally introduced or mentioned.

(3.) His expressions and phrases are many of them liable to be misunderstood, and capable of perversion. Of this class are such expressions as the righteousness of faith, the righteousness of God, etc.

(4.) The doctrines themselves are high and mysterious. They are those subjects on which the profoundest minds have been in all ages exercised in vain. On them there has been, and always will be, a difference of opinion. Even with the most honest intentions that men ever have, they find it difficult or impossible to approach the investigation of them without the bias of early education, or the prejudice of previous opinion. In this world it is not given to men fully to understand these great doctrines. And it is not wonderful that the discussion of them has given rise to endless controversies; and that they who have

Reasoned high

Of Providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate—
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute—
Have found no end, in wandering mazes lost.

(5.) It cannot be denied, that one reason why the epistles of Paul have been regarded as so difficult has been an unwillingness to admit the truth of the plain doctrines which he teaches. The heart is by nature opposed to them, and comes to believe them with great reluctance. This feeling will account for no small part of the difficulties felt in regard to this epistle. There is one great maxim in interpreting the Scriptures that can never be departed from. It is, that men can never understand them aright, until they are willing to suffer them to speak out their fair and proper meaning. When men are determined not to find certain doctrines in the Bible, nothing is more natural than that they should find difficulties in it, and complain much of its great obscurity and mystery. I add,

(6.) that one principal reason why so much difficulty has been felt here, has been an unwillingness to stop where the apostle does. Men have desired to advance farther, and penetrate the mysteries which the Spirit of inspiration has not disclosed. Where Paul states a simple fact, men often advance a theory. The fact may be clear and plain; their theory is obscure, involved, mysterious, or absurd. By degrees they learn to unite the fact and the theory; they regard their explanation as the only possible one; and as the fact in question has the authority of Divine revelation, so they insensibly come to regard their theory in the same light; and he that calls in question their speculation about the cause, or the mode, is set down as heretical, and as denying the doctrine of the apostle. A melancholy instance of this we have in the account which the apostle gives (chapter 5) about the effect of the sin of Adam. The simple fact is stated, that that sin was followed by the sin and ruin of all his posterity. Yet he offers no explanation of the fact. He leaves it as indubitable; and as not demanding an explanation in his argument-perhaps as not admitting it. This is the whole of his doctrine on that subject, Yet men have not been satisfied with that. They have sought for a theory to account for it. And many suppose they have found it in the doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed, or set over by an arbitrary arrangement to beings otherwise innocent and that they are held to be responsible for a deed committed by a man thousands of years before they were born. This is the theory; and men insensibly forget that it is mere theory, and they blend that and the fact which the apostle states together; and deem the denial of the one heresy as much as the denial of the other; that is, they make it as impious to call in question their philosophy, as to doubt the facts stated on the authority of the apostle Paul. If men desire to understand the epistles of Paul, and avoid difficulties, they should be willing to leave it where he does; and this single rule would have made useless whole years and whole tomes of controversy.

Perhaps, on the whole, there is no book of the New Testament that more demands a humble, docile, and prayerful disposition in its interpretation than this epistle. Its profound doctrines; its abstruse inquiries; and the opposition of many of those doctrines to the views of the unrenewed and unsubdued heart of man, make a spirit of docility and prayer peculiarly needful in its investigation. No man ever yet understood the reasonings and views of the apostle Paul but under the influence of elevated piety. None ever found opposition to his doctrines recede, and difficulties vanish, who did not bring the mind in a humble frame to receive all that has been revealed; and that, in a spirit of humble prayer, did not purpose to lay aside all bias, and open the heart to the full influence of the elevated truths which he inculcates. Where there is a willingness that God should reign and do all his pleasure, this epistle may be, in its general character, easily understood. Where this is wanting, it will appear full of mystery and perplexity; the mind will be embarrassed, and the heart dissatisfied with its doctrines; and the unhumbled spirit will rise from its study only confused, irritated, perplexed, and dissatisfied.

Verse 2. Which he had promised afore. Which gospel, or which doctrines, he had before announced.

By his prophets. The word prophets here is used to include those who wrote as well as those who spake. It included the teachers of the ancient Jews generally.

In the holy Scriptures. In the writings of the Old Testament. They were called holy because they were inspired of the Holy Ghost, and were regarded as separated from all other writings, and worthy of all reverence. The apostle here declares that he was not about to advance anything new. His doctrines were in accordance with the acknowledged oracles of God. Though they might appear to be new, yet he regarded the gospel as entirely consistent with all that had been declared in the Jewish dispensation; and not only consistent, but as actually promised there. He affirms, therefore,

(1.) That all this was promised, and no small part of the epistle is employed to show this.

(2.) That it was confirmed by the authority of holy and inspired men.

(3.) That it depended on no vague and loose tradition, but was recorded, so that men might examine for themselves. The reason why the apostle was so anxious to show that his doctrine coincided with the Old Testament was, because the church at Rome was made up in part of Jews. He wished to show them, and the remainder of his countrymen, that the Christian religion was built on the foundation of their prophets, and their acknowledged writings. So doing, he would disarm their prejudice, and furnish a proof of the truth of religion. It was a constant position with the apostle that he advanced nothing but what was maintained by the best and holiest men of the nation: Ac 26:22,23 "Saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come," etc. There was a further reason here for his appealing so much to the Old Testament. He had never been at Rome. He was therefore personally a stranger, and it was proper for him then especially to show his regard for the doctrines of the prophets. Hence he appeals here so often to the Old Testament; and defends every point by the authority of the Bible. The particular passages of the Old Testament on which he relied will come before us in the course of the epistle. See particularly chapters 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11.

We may see here,

(1.) the reverence which Paul showed for the Old Testament. He never undervalued it. He never regarded it as obsolete, or useless. He manifestly studied it; and never fell into the impious opinion that the Old Testament is of little value.

(2.) If these things were promised—predicted in the Old Testament, then Christianity is true. Every passage which he adduces is therefore proof that it is from God.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 3

Verse 3. Concerning his Son. This is connected with the first verse, with the word gospel. The gospel of God concerning his Son. The design of the gospel was to make a communication relative to his Son Jesus Christ. This is the whole of it. There is no good news to man respecting salvation except that which comes by Jesus Christ.

Which was made. The word translated was made means, usually, to be, or to become. It is used, however, in the sense of being born. Thus, Ga 4:4, "God sent forth his Son made of a woman," born of a woman. Joh 8:58, "Before Abraham was [born,] I am." In this sense it seems to be used here—who was born, or descended from the seed of David.

Of the seed of David. Of the posterity or lineage of David. He was a descendant of David. David was perhaps the most illustrious of the kings of Israel. The promise to him was, that there should not fail a man to sit on his throne, 1 Ki 2:4; 8:25; 9:5; 2 Ch 6:16.

This ancient promise was understood as referring to the Messiah; and hence in the New Testament he is called the descendant of David, and so much pains is taken to show that he was of his line, Lu 1:27; Mt 9:27; 15:22; 12:23 Mt 21:9,15; 22:42,45; Joh 7:42; 2 Ti 2:8.

As the Jews universally believed that the Messiah would be descended from David, Joh 7:42, it was of great importance for the sacred writers to make it out clearly that Jesus of Nazareth was of that line and family. Hence it happened, that though our Saviour was humble, and poor, and obscure, yet he had that on which no small part of the world have been accustomed so much to pride themselves—an illustrious ancestry. To a Jew there could be scarcely any honour so high as to be descended from the best of their kings; and it shows how little the Lord Jesus esteemed the honours of this world, that he could always evince his deep humility in circumstances where men are usually proud; and that when he spoke of the honours of this world, and told how little they were worth, he was not denouncing that which was not within his reach.

According to the flesh. The word flesh—sarx—is used in the Scriptures in a great variety of significations.

(1.) It denotes, as with us, the flesh literally of any living being. Lu 24:39, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones," etc.

(2.) The animal system, the body, including flesh and bones, the visible part of man, in distinction from the invisible, or the soul. Ac 2:31, "Neither did his flesh" (his body) "see corruption." 1 Co 5:5; 15:39.

(3.) The man, the whole animated system, body and soul. Ro 8:3, "In the likeness of sinful flesh." 1 Co 15:50; Mt 16:17; Lu 3:6.

(4.) Human nature. As a man. Thus, Ac 2:30, "God had sworn with an oath that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, [i.e., in his human nature,] he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne." Ro 9:5, "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever." The same is its meaning here. He was a descendant of David in his human nature, or as a man. This implies, of course, that he had another nature besides his human; or that, while he was a man, he was also something else; that there was a nature in which he was not descended from David. That this is its meaning will still further appear by the following observations.

(1.) The apostle expressly makes a contrast between his condition according to the flesh, and that according to the spirit of holiness.

(2.) The expression, "according to the flesh," is applied to no other one in the New Testament but to Jesus Christ. Though the word flesh often occurs, and is often used to denote man, yet the peculiar expression according to the flesh occurs in no other connexion. In all the Scriptures it is never said of any prophet or apostle, any lawgiver or king, or any man in any capacity, that he came in the flesh, or that he was descended from certain ancestors according to the flesh. Nor is such an expression ever used anywhere else. If it were applied to a mere man, we should instantly ask in what other way could he come than in the flesh? Has he a higher nature? Is he an angel, or a seraph? The expression would be unmeaning. And when, therefore, it is applied to Jesus Christ, it implies, if language has any meaning, that there was a sense in which Jesus was not descended from David. What that was appears in the next verse.

{d} "was made" Ps 89:36

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 4

Verse 4. And declared. In the margin, determined. tou orisyentov. The ancient Syriac has, "And he was known to be the Son of God by might and by the Holy Spirit, who rose from the house of the dead." The Latin Vulgate, "Who was predestinated the Son of God," etc. The Arabic, "The Son of God destined by power peculiar to the Holy Spirit," etc. The word translated "declared to be" means, properly, to bound, to fix limits to, as to a field, to determine its proper limits or boundaries, to define, etc. Ac 17:26, "And hath determined the bounds of their habitation." Hence it means, to determine, constitute, ordain, decree; i.e., to fix or designate the proper boundaries of a truth, or a doctrine; to distinguish its lines and marks from error; or to show or declare a thing to be so by any action. Lu 22:22, "The Son of man goeth as it was determined," as it was fixed, purposed, defined, in the purpose of God, and declared in the prophets. Ac 2:23, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel," the definite, constituted will, or design of God. Ac 4:28; Heb 4:7, "He limiteth a certain day," fixes it, defines it. In this sense it is clearly used in this place. The act of raising him from the dead designated him, or constituted him the Son of God. It was such an act as in the circumstances of the case showed that he was the Son of God in regard to a nature which was not "according to the flesh." The ordinary resurrection of a man, like that of Lazarus, would not show that he was the Son of God; but in the circumstances of Jesus Christ it did; for he had claimed to be so; he had taught it; and God now attested the truth of his teaching by raising him from the dead.

The Son of God. The word son is used in a great variety of senses, denoting literally a son, then a descendant, posterity near or remote, a disciple or ward, an adopted son, or one that imitates or resembles another. See Barnes "Mt 1:1".

The expression sons of God, or son of God, is used in an almost equal latitude of signification. It is

(1.) applied to Adam, as being immediately created by God, without an earthly father, Lu 3:38.

(2.) It is applied to saints or Christians, as being adopted into his family, and sustaining to him the relation of children, Joh 1:12,13; 1 Jo 3:1,2, etc. This name is given to them because they resemble him in their moral character, Mt 5:45.

(3.) It is given to strong men as resembling God in strength. Ge 6:2, "The sons of God saw the daughters of men," etc. Here these men of violence and strength are called sons of God, just as the high hills are called hills of God, the lofty trees of Lebanon are called cedars of God, etc.

(4.) Kings are sometimes called his sons, as resembling him in dominion and power, Ps 82:6.

(5.) The name is given to angels, because they resemble God; because he is their Creator and Father, etc., Job 1:6; 2:1; Da 3:25.

But the name THE Son of God is, in the New Testament, given by way of eminence to the Lord Jesus Christ. This was the common and favourite name by which the apostles designated him. The expression Son of God is applied to him no less than twenty-seven times in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and fifteen times in the Epistles and the Revelation. The expression my Son, and his Son, thy Son, etc., is applied to him in his peculiar relation to God, times almost without number. The other most common appellation which is given to him is Son of man. By this name he commonly designated himself. There can be no doubt that that was assumed to denote that he was a man, that he sustained a peculiar relation to man, and that he chose to speak of himself as a man. The first, the most obvious, impression on the use of the name Son of man is, that he was truly a man; and it was used, doubtless, to guard against the impression that one who manifested so many other qualities, and did so many things like a celestial being, was not truly a human being. The phrase Son of God stands in contrast with the title Son of man; and as the natural and obvious import of that is that he was a man, so the natural and obvious import of the title Son of God is that he was Divine; or that he sustained relations to God, designated by the name Son of God, corresponding to the relations which he sustained to man, designated by the name Son of Man. The natural idea of the term Son of God therefore is, that he sustained a relation to God in his nature which implied more than was human or angelic; which implied equality with God. Accordingly, this idea was naturally suggested to the Jews by his calling God his Father: Joh 5:18, "But said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." This idea Jesus immediately proceeded to confirm. See Barnes "Joh 5:19" and Joh 5:20-30. The same idea is also suggested in Joh 10:29,30,31,33,36, "Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest: because I said I am the Son of God?" There is, in these places, the fullest proof that the title suggested naturally the idea of equality with God; or the idea of his sustaining a relation to God corresponding to the relation of equality to man, suggested by the title Son of man. This view is still further sustained in the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, Heb 1:1,2. God hath spoken unto US BY HIS SON. He is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, Heb 1:3. He is higher than the angels, and they are required to worship him, Heb 1:4,5,6.

He is called God, and his throne is for ever and ever, Heb 1:8. He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and is IMMUTABLY THE SAME, Heb 1:10-12. Thus the rank, or title, of the Son of God, suggests the ideas and attributes of the Divinity. This idea is sustained throughout the New Testament. See Joh 14:9, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;" Joh 5:23, "That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the father." Col 1:19, "It hath pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" Col 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Php 2:2-11; Re 5:13,14; Re 21:23. It is not affirmed that this title was given to the Second Person of the Trinity before he became incarnate, or to suggest the idea of any derivation or extraction before he was made flesh. There is no instance in which the appellation is not conferred to express the relation after he assumed human flesh. Of any derivation from God, or emanation from him in eternity, the Scriptures are silent. The title is conferred on him, it is supposed, with reference to his condition in this world as the Messiah. And it is conferred, it is believed, for the following reasons, or to denote the following thing, viz:

(1.) To designate his peculiar relation to God, as equal with him, (Joh 1:14,18; Mt 11:27; Lu 10:22; 3:22; 2 Pe 1:17; ) or as sustaining a most intimate and close connexion with him, such as neither man nor angels could do—an acquaintance with his nature, (Mt 11:27,) plans, and counsels, such as no being but one who was equal with God could possess. In this sense I regard it as conferred on him in the passage under consideration.

(2.) It designates him as the anointed King, or the Messiah. In this sense it accords with the use of the word in Ps 82:6. See Mt 16:16, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Mt 26:63, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Mr 14:61; Lu 22:70; Joh 1:34; Ac 9:20, "He preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God."

(3.) It was conferred on him to denote his miraculous conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Lu 1:35, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, THEREFORE (dio) also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

With power. en dunamei. By some, this expression has been supposed to mean in power or authority, after his resurrection from the dead. It is said, that he was before a man of sorrows; now he was clothed with power and authority. But I have seen no instance in which the expression in power denotes office, or authority. It denotes physical energy and might—and this was bestowed on Jesus before his resurrection as well as after. Ac 10:38, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power." Ro 15:19; 1 Co 15:43. With such power Jesus will come to judgment, Mt 24:30. If there is any passage in which the word power means authority, office, etc., it is Mt 28:18, "All power in heaven and earth is given unto me." But this is not a power which was given unto him after his resurrection, or which he did not possess before. The same authority to commission his disciples he had exercised before this on the same ground, Mt 10:7,8. I am inclined to believe, therefore, that the expression means powerfully, efficiently; he was with great power, or conclusiveness, shown to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. Thus the phrase in power is used to qualify a verb in Col 1:29, "Which worketh in me mightily"—Greek, in power i.e., operating in me effectually, or powerfully. The ancient versions seem to have understood it in the same way. Syriac, "He was known to be the Son of God by power, and by the Holy Ghost." AEthiopic, "Whom he declared to be the Son of God by his own power, and by his Holy Spirit," etc. Arabic, "Designated the Son of God by power appropriate to the Holy Spirit."

According to the spirit of holiness. kata pneuma agiwsunhv. This expression has been variously understood. We may arrive at its meaning by the following considerations.

(1.) It is not the Third Person in the Trinity that is referred to here. The designation of that person is always in a different form. It is the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost— pneuma agion, or to pneuma to agion; never the Spirit of holiness.

(2.) It stands in contrast with the flesh, Ro 1:3, "According to the flesh, the seed of David: according to the spirit of holiness, the Son of God." As the former refers doubtless to his human nature, so this must refer to the nature designated by the title Son of God, that is, to his superior or Divine nature.

(3.) The expression is altogether peculiar to the Lord Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Scriptures, or in any other writings, is there an affirmation like this. What would be meant by it if affirmed of a mere man?

(4.) It cannot mean that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity, showed that Jesus was the Son of God by raising him from the dead, because that act is nowhere attributed to him. It is uniformly ascribed either to God, as God, (Ac 2:24,32; 3:15,26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30,33,34; 17:31; Ro 10:9; Eph 1:20,) or to the rather, (Ro 6:4,) or to Jesus himself, (Joh 10:18.) In no instance is this act ascribed to the Holy Ghost.

(5.) It indicates a state far more elevated than any human dignity, or honour. In regard to his earthly descent, he was of a royal race; in regard to the Spirit of holiness, much more than that, he was the Son of God.

(6.) The word Spirit is used often to designate God, the holy God, as distinguished from all the material forms of idol worship, Joh 4:24.

(7.) The word Spirit is applied to the Messiah in his more elevated or Divine nature. 1 Co 15:45, "The last Adam was made a quickening Spirit." 2 Co 3:17, "Now the Lord (Jesus) is that Spirit." Heb 9:14, Christ is said to have "offered himself through the eternal Spirit." 1 Pe 3:18, he is said to have been "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 1 Ti 3:16, he is said to have been "justified in the Spirit." In most of these passages there is the same contrast noticed between his flesh, his human nature, and his other state, which occurs in Ro 1:3,4. In all these instances, the design is, doubtless, to speak of him as a man, and as something more than a man; he was one thing as a man; he was another thing in his other nature. In the one, he was of David; was put to death, etc. In the other, he was of God; he was manifested to be such; he was restored to the elevation which he had sustained before his incarnation and death, Joh 17:1-5; Php 2:2-11. The expression, according to the spirit of holiness, does not indeed of itself imply Divinity. It denotes that holy and more exalted nature which he possessed as distinguished from the human. What that is, is to be learned from other declarations. This expression implies simply that it was such as to make proper the appellation, the Son of God. Other places, as we have seen, show that that designation naturally implied Divinity. And that this was the true idea couched under the expression, according to the spirit of holiness, appears from those numerous texts of Scripture which explicitly assert his Divinity. See Joh 1:1, etc., and See Barnes "Joh 1:1". ,

By the resurrection from the dead. This has been also variously understood. Some have maintained that the word by—ex—denotes AFTER. He was declared to be the Son of God in power after he rose from the dead; that is, he was solemnly invested with the dignity that became the Son of God after he had been so long in a state of voluntary humiliation. But to this view there are some insuperable objections.

(1.) It is not the natural and usual meaning of the word by.

(2.) It is not the object of the apostle to state the time when the thing was done, or the order, but evidently to declare the fact, and the evidence of the fact. If such had been his design, he would have said, that previous to his death he was shown to be of the seed of David, but afterwards that he was invested with power.

(3.) Though it must be admitted that the preposition by ex sometimes means AFTER, (Mt 19:20; Lu 8:27; 23:8) yet its proper and usual meaning is to denote the efficient cause, or the agent, or origin of a thing. Mt 1:3,18; 21:25; Joh 3:5; Ro 5:16; Ro 11:36.

"Of him are all things." 1 Co 8:6, "One God, the Father, of whom are all things," etc. In this sense I suppose it is used here; and that the apostle means to affirm that he was clearly or decisively shown to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. But here it will be asked, how did his resurrection show this? Was not Lazarus raised from the dead? And did not many saints rise also after Jesus? And were not the dead raised by the apostles, by Elijah, by the bones of Elisha, and by Christ himself? And did their being raised prove that they were the sons of God? I answer, that the mere fact of the resurrection of the body proves nothing in itself about the character and rank of the being that is raised. But in the circumstances in which Jesus was placed it might show it conclusively. When Lazarus was raised, it was not in attestation of anything which he had taught or done. It was a mere display of the power and benevolence of Christ. But, in regard to the resurrection of Jesus, let the following circumstances be taken into the account.

(1.) He came as the Messiah.

(2.) He uniformly taught that he was the Son of God.

(3.) He maintained that God was his Father in such a sense as to imply equality with him, Joh 5:17-30; Joh 10:36.

(4.) He claimed authority to abolish the laws of the Jews, to change their customs, and to be himself absolved from the observance of those laws, even as his Father was, Joh 5:1-17; Mr 2:28.

(5.) When God raised Him up, therefore, it was not an ordinary event. It was a public attestation, in the face of the universe, of the truth of his claims to be the Son of God. God would not sanction the doings and doctrines of an impostor. And when, therefore, he raised up Jesus, he, by this act, showed the truth of his claims, that he was the Son of God. Further; in the view of the apostles, the resurrection was intimately connected with the ascension and exaltation of Jesus. The one made the other certain. And it is not improbable that, when they spoke of his resurrection, they meant to include not merely that single act, but the entire series of doings of which that was the first, and which was the pledge of the elevation and majesty of the Son of God. Hence, when they had proved his resurrection, they assumed that all the others would follow. That involved and supposed all And the series, of which that was the first, proved that he was the Son of God. See Ac 17:31: "He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given ASSURANCE, unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." The one involves the other. See Ac 1:6. Thus Peter, (Ac 2:22-32) having proved that Jesus was raised up, adds, Ac 2:33, "THEREFORE being by the right hand exalted, he hath shed forth this," etc.; and Ac 2:36, "THEREFORE let all the house of Israel KNOW ASSUREDLY, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, Both LORD AND CHRIST."

This verse is a remarkable instance of the apostle Paul's manner of writing. Having mentioned a subject, his mind seems to catch fire; he presents it in new forms, and amplifies it, until he seems to forget for a time the subject on which he was writing. It is from this cause that his writings abound so with parentheses, and that there is so much difficulty in following and understanding him.

{1} "declared" or "determined"

{e} "to be the Son" Ac 13:33,34; Re 1:18

{f} "to the spirit" Heb 9:14

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 5

Verse 5. By whom. The apostle here returns to the subject of the salutation of the Romans, and states to them his authority to address them. That authority he had derived from the Lord Jesus, and not from man. On this fact, that he had received his apostolic commission, not from man, but by the direct authority of Jesus Christ, Paul not unfrequently insisted. Ga 1:12, "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ." 1 Co 15:1-8; Eph 3:1-3.

We. The plural here is probably put for the singular. See Col 4.3.

Comp. Eph 6:19,20. It was usual for those who were clothed with authority to express themselves in this manner. Perhaps here, however, he refers to the general nature of the apostolic office, as being derived from Jesus Christ, and designs to assure the Romans that he had received the apostolic commission as the others had. "We, the apostles, have received the appointment from Jesus Christ."

Grace and apostleship\. Many suppose that this is a figure of speech, hendiadys, by which one thing is expressed by two words, meaning the grace or favour of the apostolic office. Such a figure of speech is often used. But it may mean, as it does probably here, the two things, grace, or the favour of God to his own soul, as a personal matter; and the apostolic office as a distinct thing, he often, however, speaks of the office of the apostleship as a matter of special favour, Ro 15:15,16; Ga 2:9; Eph 3:7-9.

For obedience to the faith. In order to produce, or promote, obedience to the faith; that is, to induce them to render that obedience to God which faith produces. There are two things therefore implied.

(1.) That the design of the gospel and of the apostleship is to induce men to obey God.

(2.) That the tendency of faith is to produce obedience. There is no true faith which does not produce that. This is constantly affirmed in the New Testament, Ro 15:18; 16:19; 2 Co 7:15; Jas 2:1.

Among all nations. This was the original commission which Jesus gave to his apostles, Mr 16:15,16; Mt 28:18,19.

This was the special commission which Paul received when he was converted, Ac 9:15. It was important to show that the commission extended thus far as he was now addressing a distant church which he had not seen.

For his name. This means, probably, on his account, that is, on account of Christ, Joh 14:13,14; 16:23,24.

The design of the apostleship was to produce obedience to the gospel among all nations, that thus the name of Jesus might be honoured. Their work was not one in which they were seeking to honour themselves, but it was solely for the honour and glory of Jesus Christ. For him they toiled, they encountered perils, they laid down their lives, because by so doing they might bring men to obey the gospel, and thus Jesus Christ might wear a brighter crown, and be attended by a longer and more splendid train of worshippers in the kingdom of his glory.

{1} "for obedience", or "to the obedience of faith"

{g} "to the faith" Ac 6:7; Ro 16:26

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 6

Verse 6. Among whom. That is, among the Gentiles who had become obedient to the Christian faith, in accordance with the design of the gospel, Ro 1:8. This proves that the church at Rome was made up—partly at least, if not mainly—of Gentiles or pagans. This is fully proved in the sixteenth chapter by the names of the persons whom Paul salutes.

The called of Jesus Christ. Those whom Jesus Christ has called to be his followers. The word called (see ver. 1) denotes not merely an external invitation to a privilege, but it also denotes the internal or effectual call which secures conformity to the will of him who calls, and is thus synonymous with the name Christians, or believers. That true Christians are contemplated by this address is clear from the whole scope of the epistle. See particularly Roman chapter 8. Comp. Php 3:14; Heb 3:1.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 7

Verse 7. To all that be in Rome. That is, to all who bear the Christian name. Perhaps he here included not only the church at Rome, but all who might have been there from abroad. Rome was a place of vast concourse for foreigners; and Paul probably addressed all who happened to be there.

Beloved of God. Whom God loves. This is the privilege of all Christians. And this proves that the persons whom Paul addressed were not those merely who had been invited to the external privileges of the gospel. The importance of this observation will appear in the progress of these Notes.

Called to be saints. So called, or influenced by God who had called them, as to become saints. The word saints—agioi—means those who are holy, or those who are devoted or consecrated to God. The radical idea of the word is that which is separated from a common to a sacred use, and answers to the Hebrew word

HEBREW

—kadosh. It is applied to anything that is set apart to the service of God, to the temple, to the sacrifices, to the utensils about the temple, to the garments, etc., of the priests, and to the priests them- selves. It was applied to the Jews as a people separated from other nations, and devoted or consecrated to God; while other nations were devoted to the service of idols. It is also applied to Christians, as being a people devoted or set apart to the service of God. The radical idea, then, as applied to Christians is, that they are separated from other men, and other objects and pursuits, and consecrated to the service of God. This is the peculiar characteristic of the saints. And this characteristic the Roman Christians had shown. For the use of the word as stated above, see the following passages of Scripture: Lu 2:23; Ex 13:2; Ro 11:16; Mt 7:6; 1 Pe 1:16; Ac 9:13; 1 Pe 2:5; Ac 3:21; Eph 3:5; 1 Pe 2:9; Php 2:15; 1 Jo 3:1,2.

Grace. This word properly means, favour. It is very often used in the New Testament, and is employed in the sense of benignity or benevolence; felicity, or a prosperous state of affairs; the Christian religion, as the highest expression of the benevolence or favour of God; the happiness which Christianity confers on its friends in this and the future life; the apostolic office; charity, or alms; thanksgiving; joy, or pleasure; and the benefits produced on the Christian's heart and life by religion—the grace of meekness, patience, charity, etc. Schleusner. In this place, and in similar places in the beginning of the apostolic epistles, it seems to be a word including all those blessings that are applicable to Christians in common; denoting an ardent wish that all the mercies and favours of God for time and eternity, blended under the general name grace, may be conferred on them. It is to be understood as connected with a word implying invocation. I pray, or I desire that grace, etc., may be conferred on you. It is the customary form of salutation in nearly all the apostolic epistles, 1 Co 1:3; 2 Co 1:2; Ga 1:3; Eph 1:2; Php 1:2; Col 1:2; 1 Th 1:1; 2 Th 1:2; Phm 1:3.

And peace. Peace is the state of freedom from war. As war conveys the idea of discord and numberless calamities and dangers, so peace is the opposite, and conveys the idea of concord, safety, and prosperity. Thus, to wish one peace was the same as to wish him all safety and prosperity. This form of salutation was common among the Hebrews. Ge 43:23, "Peace to you, fear not;" Jud 6:23; 19:20; Lu 24:36.

But the word peace is also used in contrast with that state of agitation and conflict which a sinner has with his conscience, and with God. The sinner is like the troubled sea which cannot rest, Isa 57:20. The Christian is at peace with God through the Lord Jesus Christ, Ro 5:1. By this word, denoting reconciliation with God, the blessings of the Christian religion are often described in the Scriptures, Ro 8:6; 14:17; 15:13; Ga 5:22; Php 4:7.

A prayer for peace, therefore, in the epistles, is not a mere formal salutation, but has a special reference to those spiritual blessings which result from reconciliation with God through the Lord Jesus Christ.

From God our Father. The Father of all Christians. He is the Father of all his creatures, as they are his offspring, Ac 17:28,29. He is especially the Father of all Christians, as they have been "begotten by him to a lively hope," have been adopted into his family, and are like him, Mt 5:45; 1 Pe 1:3; 1 Jo 5:1; 3:1,2.

The expression here is equivalent to a prayer that God the Father would bestow grace and peace on the Romans. It implies that these blessings proceed from God, and are to be expected from him.

And the Lord Jesus Christ. From him. The Lord Jesus Christ is especially regarded in the New Testament as the source of peace, and the procurer of it. See Lu 2:14; 19:38,42; Joh 14:27; 16:33; Ac 10:36; Ro 5:1; Eph 2:17. Each of these places will show with what propriety peace was invoked from the Lord Jesus. From thus connecting the Lord Jesus with the Father in this place, we may see,

(1.) that the apostle regarded him as the source of grace and peace as really as he did the Father.

(2.) He introduced them in the same connexion, and with reference to the bestowment of the same blessings.

(3.) If the mention of the Father in this connexion implies a prayer to him, or an act of worship, the mention of the Lord Jesus implies the same thing, and was an act of homage to him.

(4.) All this shows that his mind was familiarized to the idea that he was Divine. No man would introduce his name in such connexions if he did not believe that he was equal with God. Comp. Php 2:2-11. It is from this incidental and unstudied manner of expression, that we have one of the most striking proofs of the manner in which the sacred writers regarded the Lord Jesus Christ.

These seven verses are one sentence. They are a striking instance of the manner of Paul. The subject is simply a salutation to the Roman church. But at the mention of some single words, the mind of Paul seems to catch fire, and to burn and blaze with signal intensity. He leaves the immediate subject before him, and advances some vast thought that awes us, and fixes us in contemplation, and involves us in difficulty about his meaning, and then returns to his subject. This is the characteristic of his great mind; and it is this, among other things, that makes it so difficult to interpret his writings.

{h} "called" 1 Co 1:2; 1 th 4:7

{i} "Grace to you" 1 Co 1:3; 2 Pe 1:2

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 8

Verse 8. First. In the first place, not in point of importance, but before speaking of other things, or before proceeding to the main design of the epistle.

I thank my God. The God whom I worship and serve. The expression of thanks to God for his mercy to them was fitted to conciliate their feelings, and to prepare them for the truths which he was about to communicate to them. It showed the deep interest which he had in their welfare; and the happiness it would give him to do them good. It is proper to give thanks to God for his mercies to others as well as ourselves. We are members of one great family, and we should make it a subject of thanksgiving that he confers any blessings, and especially the blessings of salvation, on any mortals.

Through Jesus Christ. The duty of presenting our thanks to God, through Christ, is often enjoined in the New Testament, Eph 5:20; Heb 13:15; comp. Joh 14:14. Christ is the Mediator between God and men; or the medium by which we are to present our prayers, and also our thanksgivings. We are not to approach God directly, but through a mediator at all times, depending on him to present our cause before the mercy-seat; to plead for us there; and to offer the desires of our souls to God. It is no less proper to present thanks in his name, or through him, than it is prayer, he has made the way to God accessible to us, whether it be by prayer or praise; and it is owing to his mercy and grace that any of our services are acceptable to God.

For you all. On account of you all, i.e., of the entire Roman church. This is one evidence that that church then was remarkably pure. How few churches have there been of whom a similar commendation could be expressed.

That your faith. Faith is put here for the whole of 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. The readiness with which the Romans had embraced the gospel, the firmness with which they adhered to it, was so remarkable, that it was known and celebrated everywhere. The same thing is affirmed of them in Ro 16:19. "For your obedience is come abroad unto all men."

Is spoken of. Is celebrated, or known. They were in the capital of the Roman empire; in a city remarkable for its wickedness; and in a city whose influence extended everywhere. It was natural, therefore, that their remarkable conversion to God should be celebrated everywhere. The religious or irreligious influence of a great city will be felt far and wide; and this is one reason why the apostles preached the gospel so much in such places.

Throughout the whole world. As we say, everywhere; or throughout the Roman empire. The term world is often thus limited in the Scriptures; and here it denotes those parts of the Roman empire where the Christian church was established. All the churches would hear of the work of God in the capital, and would rejoice in it. Comp. Col 1:6,23; Joh 12:19.

It is not improper to commend Christians, and to remind them of their influence; and especially to call to their mind the great power which they may have on other churches and people. Nor is it improper that great displays of Divine mercy should be celebrated everywhere, and excite in the churches praise to God.

{l} "your faith" Ro 16:19

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 9

Verse 9. For God is my witness. The reason of this strong appeal to God is to show to the Romans the deep interest which he felt in their welfare. This interest was manifested in his prayers, and in his earnest desires to see them. A deep interest shown in this way was well-fitted to prepare them to receive what he had to say to them.

Whom I serve. See Ro 1:1, comp. Ac 27:23. The expression denotes that he was devoted to God in this manner; that he obeyed him, and had given himself to do his will in making known his gospel.

With my spirit. Greek—en—in my spirit, i.e., with my heart. It is not an external service merely; it is internal, real, sincere. He was really and sincerely devoted to the service of God.

In the gospel of his Son. In making known the gospel, or as a minister of the gospel.

That without ceasing, adialeiptwv. This word means constantly, always, without intermission. It was not only once, but repeatedly. It had been the burden of his prayers. The same thing he also mentions in regard to other churches, 1 Th 1:2; 2:13.

I make mention. I call you to remembrance, and present your case before God. This evinced his remarkable interest in a church which he had never seen, and it shows that Paul was a man of prayer; praying not for his friends and kindred only, but for those whom he had never seen. If with the same intensity of prayer all Christians, and Christian ministers, would remember the churches, what a different aspect would the Christian church soon assume!

Always. This word should be connected with the following verse, "Always making request," etc.

{m} "whom I serve" Ac 27:22

{1} "with" or, "in"

{n} "I make mention" 1 Th 3:10

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 10

Verse 10. Making request. It was his earnest desire to see them, and he presented the subject before God.

If by any means. This shows the earnest desire which he had to see them, and implies that he had designed it, and had been hindered. See Ro 1:13.

Now at length. He had purposed it a long time, but had been hindered, he doubtless cherished this purpose for years. The expressions in the Greek imply an earnest wish that this long-cherished purpose might be accomplished before long.

A prosperous journey. A safe, pleasant journey. It is right to regard all success in travelling as depending on God, and to pray for success and safety from danger. Yet all such prayers are not answered according to the letter of the petition. The prayer of Paul that he might see the Romans was granted, but in a remarkable way. He was persecuted by the Jews, and arraigned before king Agrippa. He appealed to the Roman emperor, and was taken there in chains as a prisoner. Yet the journey might in this way have a more deep effect on the Romans, than if he had gone in any other way. In so mysterious a manner does God often hear the prayers of his people; and though their prayers are answered, yet it is in his own time and way. See the last chapters of the Acts.

By the will of God. If God shall grant it; if God will, by his mercy, grant me the great favour of my coming to you. This is a proper model of a prayer, and is in accordance with the direction of the Bible. See Jas 4:14,15.

{o} "by the will" Jas 4:15

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 11

Verse 11. For I long to see you. I earnestly desire to see you. Comp Ro 15:23,32.

That I may impart. That I may give, or communicate to you.

Some spiritual gifts. Some have understood this as referring to miraculous gifts, which it was supposed the apostles had the power of conferring on others. But this interpretation is forced and unnatural. There is no instance where the expression denotes the power of working miracles. Besides, the apostle in the next verse explains his meaning— "That I may be comforted together by the mutual faith," etc. From this it appears that he desired to be among them to exercise the office of the ministry, to establish them in the gospel, and to confirm their hopes. He expected that the preaching of the gospel would be the means of confirming them in the faith; and he desired to be the means of doing it. It was a wish of benevolence, and accords with what he says respecting his intended visit in Ro 15:29, "And I am sure that when I come, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ." To make known to them more fully the blessings of the gospel, and thus to impart spiritual gifts, was the design he had in view.

To the end, etc. With the design, or purpose.

Ye may be established. That is, that they might be confirmed in the truths of the gospel. This was one design of the ministry, that Christians may be established, or strengthened, Eph 4:13. It is not to have dominion over their faith, but to be "helpers of their joy," 2 Co 1:24. Paul did not doubt that this part of his office might be fulfilled among the Romans, and he was desirous there also of making full proof of his ministry. His wish was to preach not simply where he must, but where he might. This is the nature of this work.

{p} "For I long" Ro 15:23,32

{q} "that I may impart" Ro 15:29

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 12

Verse 12. That I may be comforted, etc. It was not merely to confirm them that Paul wished to come. He sought the communion of saints; he expected to be himself edified and strengthened; and to be comforted by seeing their strength of faith, and their rapid growth in grace. We may remark here,

(1.) that one effect of religion is to produce the desire of the communion of saints. It is the nature of Christianity to seek the society of those who are the friends of Christ.

(2.) Nothing is better fitted to produce growth in grace than such communion. Every Christian should have one or more Christian friends to whom he may unbosom himself. No small part of the difficulties which young Christians experience would vanish if they should communicate their feelings and views to others. Feelings which they suppose no Christians ever had, which greatly distress them, they will find are common among those who are experienced in the Christian life.

(3.) There is nothing better fitted to excite the feelings, and confirm the hopes of Christian ministers, than the firm faith of young converts, of those just commencing the Christian life, 3 Jo 1:4.

(4.) The apostle did not disdain to be taught by the humblest Christians. He expected to be strengthened himself by the faith of those just beginning the Christian life. "There is none so poor in the church of Christ, that he cannot make some addition of importance to our stores." Calvin.

{1} "with you" or, "in you"

{r} "mutual faith" 2 Pe 1:1

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 13

Verse 13. That oftentimes I purposed. See Ro 1:10. How often he had purposed this we have no means of ascertaining. The fact, however, that he had done it, showed his strong desire to see them, and to witness the displays of the grace of God in the capital of the Roman world. Comp. Ro 15:23,24. One instance of his having purposed to go to Rome is recorded in Ac 19:21: "After these things were ended, (viz., at Ephesus,) Paul purposed in the spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem; saying, after I have been there, I must also see Rome." This purpose expressed in this manner in the epistle, and the Acts of the Apostles, has been shown by Dr. Paley (Horae Paulinae on Ro 1:13) to be one of those undesigned coincidences which strongly show that both books are genuine. Comp. Ro 15:23,24 with Ac 19:21. A forger of these books would not have thought of such a contrivance as to feign such a purpose to go to Rome at that time, and to have mentioned it in that manner. Such coincidences are among the best proofs that can be demanded, that the writers did not intend to impose on the world. See Paley.

But was let hitherto. The word "let" means to hinder, or to obstruct. In what way this was done we do not know, but it is probable that he refers to the various openings for the preaching of the gospel where he had been, and to the obstructions of various kinds from the enemies of the gospel to the fulfillment of his purposes.

That I might have some fruit among you. That I might be the means of the conversion of sinners, and of the edification of the church, in the capital of the Roman empire. It was not curiosity to see the splendid capital of the world that prompted this desire; it was not the love of travel, and of roaming from clime to clime; it was the specific purpose of doing good to the souls of men. To have fruit means to obtain success in bringing men to the knowledge of Christ. Thus the Saviour said, (Joh 15:16) "I have chosen you, and ordained you, that you should bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain."

{1} "among" or, "in"

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 14

Verse 14. I am debtor. This does not mean that they had conferred any favour on him, which bound him to make this return, but that he was under obligation to preach the gospel to all to whom it was possible. This obligation arose from the favour that God had shown him in appointing him to this work. He was specially chosen as a vessel to bear the gospel to the Gentiles, (Ac 9:15; Ro 11:13) and he did not feel that he had discharged the obligation until he had made the gospel known as far as possible among all the nations of the earth.

To the Greeks. This term properly denotes those who dwelt in Greece. But as the Greeks were the most polished people of antiquity, the term came to be synonymous with the polished, the refined, the wise, as opposed to barbarians. In this place it doubtless means the same as "the wise," and includes the Romans also, as it cannot be supposed that Paul would designate the Romans as barbarians. Besides, the Romans, claimed an origin from Greece, and Dionysius Halieaxnassus (book i.) shows that the Italian and Roman people were of Greek descent.

Barbarians. All who were not intended under the general name of Greeks. Thus Ammonius says, that "all who were not Greeks were barbarians." This term barbarian—barbarov—properly denotes one who speaks a foreign language—a foreigner; and the Greeks applied it to all who did not use their tongue. Comp. 1 Co 14:11. "I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian," etc.; i.e., I shall speak a language which he cannot understand. The word did not therefore of necessity denote any rusticity of manners, or any want of refinement.

To the wise. To those who esteemed themselves to be wise, or who boasted of their wisdom. The term is synonymous with "the Greeks," who prided themselves much in their wisdom. 1 Co 1:22, "The Greeks seek after wisdom." Comp. 1 Co 1:19; 3:18,19; 4:19; 2 Co 11:19.

Unwise. Those who were regarded as the ignorant and unpolished part of mankind. The expression is equivalent to ours, "to the learned and the unlearned." It was an evidence of the proper spirit to be willing to preach the gospel to either. The gospel claims to have power to instruct all mankind, and they who are called to preach it should be able to instruct those who esteem themselves to be wise, and who are endowed with science, learning, and talent; and they should be willing to labour to enlighten the most obscure, ignorant, and degraded portions of the race. This is the true spirit of the Christian ministry.

{s} "debtor" 1 Co 9:16

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 15

Verse 15. So, as much as in me is. As far as opportunity may be offered, and according to my ability.

I am ready, etc. I am prepared to preach among you, and to show the power of the gospel, even in the splendid metropolis of the world. He was not deterred by any fear; nor was he indifferent to their welfare; but he was under the direction of God, and as far as he gave him opportunity, he was ready to make known to them the gospel, as he had done at Antioch, Ephesus, Athens, and Corinth.

This closes the introduction or preface to the epistle. Having shown his deep interest in their welfare, he proceeds in the next verse to state to them the great doctrines of that gospel which he was desirous of proclaiming to them.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 16

Verse 16. For I am not ashamed, etc. The Jews had cast him off, and regarded him as an apostate; and by the wise among the Gentiles he had been persecuted, and despised, and driven from place to place, and regarded as the filth of the world, and the offscouring of all things, (1 Co 4:13) but still he was not ashamed of the gospel. He had so firm a conviction of its value and its truth; he had experienced so much of its consolations, and had seen so much of its efficacy, that he was so far from being ashamed of it that he gloried in it as the power of God unto salvation. Men should be ashamed of crime and folly. They are ashamed of their own offences, and of the follies of their conduct, when they come to reflect on it. But they are not ashamed of that which they feel to be right, and of that which they know will contribute to their welfare, and to the benefit of their fellow-men. Such were the views of Paul about the gospel; and it is one of his favourite doctrines that they who believe on Christ shall not be ashamed, Ro 9:33 Ro 10:11; 5:5; 2 Co 7:14; 2 Ti 1:12; Php 1:20; Ro 9:33; 2 Ti 1:8; comp. Mr 8:38; 1 Pe 4:16; 1 Jo 2:28.

Of the gospel. This word means the good news, or the glad intelligence. See Barnes "Mr 1:1".

It is so called because it contains the glad annunciation that sin may be pardoned, and the soul saved.

Of Christ. The good news respecting the Messiah; or which the Messiah has brought. The expression probably refers to the former, the good news which relates to the Messiah, to his character, advent, preaching, death, resurrection, and ascension. Though this was "to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness," yet he regarded it as the only hope of salvation, and was ready to preach it even in the rich and splendid capital of the world.

The power of God. This expression means, that it is the way in which God exerts his power in the salvation of men. It is the efficacious or mighty plan, by which power goes forth to save, and by which all the obstacles of man's redemption are taken away. This expression implies,

(1.) that it is God's plan, or his appointment. It is not the device of man.

(2.) It is adapted to the end. It is fitted to overcome the obstacles in the way. It is not merely the instrument by which God exerts his power, but it has an inherent adaptedness to the end, it is fitted to accomplish salvation to man, so that it may be denominated power.

(3.) It is mighty: hence it is called power, and the power of God. It is not a feeble and ineffectual instrumentality, but it is "mighty to the pulling down of strong holds," 2 Co 10:4,5. It has shown its power as applicable to every degree of sin, to every combination of wickedness. It has gone against the sins of the world, and evinced its power to save sinners of all grades, and to overcome and subdue every mighty form of iniquity. Comp. Jer 23:29, "Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" 1 Co 1:18, "The preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

Unto salvation. This word means, complete deliverance from sin and death, and all the foes and dangers that beset man. It cannot imply anything less than eternal life. If a man should believe and then fall away, he could in no correct sense be said to be saved. And hence when the apostle declares that it is the power of God unto salvation "to every one that believeth," it implies that all who become believers "shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation," (see #1 Pe 1:5) and that none shall ever fall away and be lost. The apostle thus commences his discussion with one of the important doctrines of the Christian religion, the final preservation of the saints. He is not defending the gospel for any temporary object, or with any temporary hope. He looks through the system, and sees in it a plan for the complete and eternal recovery of all those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. When he says it is the power of God unto salvation, he means that it is the power of God for the attainment of salvation. This is the end, or the design of this exertion of power.

To every one that believeth. Comp. Mr 16:16,17. This expresses the condition, or the terms, on which salvation is conferred through the gospel. It is not indiscriminately to all men, whatever may be their character. It is only to those who confide or trust in it; and it is conferred on all who receive it in this manner. If this qualification is possessed, it bestows its blessings freely and fully. All men know what faith is. It is exercised when we confide in a parent, a friend, a benefactor. It is such a reception of a promise, a truth, or a threatening, as to suffer it to make its appropriate impression on the mind, and such as to lead us to act under its influence, or to act as we should on the supposition that it is true. Thus a sinner credits the threatenings of God, and fears: this is faith. He credits his promises, and hopes: this is faith. He feels that he is lost, and relies on Jesus Christ for mercy: this is faith. And, in general, faith is such an impression on the mind made by truth as to lead us to feel and act as if it were true; to have the appropriate feelings, and views, and conduct, raider the commands, and promises, and threatenings of God. See Barnes "Mr 16:16".

To the Jew first. First in order of time. Not that the gospel was any more adapted to Jews than to others; but to them had been committed the oracles of God; the Messiah had come through them; they had had the law, the temple, and the service of God, and it was natural that the gospel should be proclaimed to them before it was to the Gentiles. This was the order in which the gospel was actually preached to the world, first to the Jews, and then to the Gentiles. Comp. Acts Chapters 2 and 10; Mt 10:6; Lu 24:49; Ac 13:46, "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." Comp. Mt 21:43.

And also to the Greek. To all who were not Jews, that is, to all the world. It was not confined in its intention or efficacy to any class or nation of men. It was adapted to all, and was designed to be extended to all.

{t} "ashamed of the gospel" Mr 8:38; 2 Ti 1:8

{u} "power of God" Jer 23:29; 1 Co 1:18

{u2} "that believeth" Mr 16:16

{v} "to the Jew" Ac 3:26

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 17

Verse 17. For. This word implies that he is now about to give a reason for that which he had just said, a reason why he was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ. That reason is stated in this verse. It embodies the substance of all that is contained in the epistle. It is the doctrine which he seeks to establish; and there is not perhaps a more important passage in the Bible than this verse, or one more difficult to be understood.

Therein. In it—en autw—i.e. in the gospel.

Is the righteousness of God—dikaiosunh yeou—. There is not a more important expression to be found in the epistle than this. It is capable of only the following interpretations.

(1.) Some have said that it means that the attribute of God, which is denominated righteousness or justice, is here displayed. It has been supposed that this was the design of the gospel to make this known; or to evince his justice in his way of saving men. There is an important sense in which this is true, (Ro 3:26.) But this does not seem to be the meaning in the passage before us. For

(a) the leading design of the gospel is not to evince the justice of God, or the attribute of justice, but the love of God. See Joh 3:16; Eph 2:4; 2 Th 2:16; 1 Jo 4:8.

(b) The attribute of justice is not that which is principally evinced in the gospel. It is rather mercy, or mercy in a manner consistent with justice, or that does not interfere with justice.

(c) The passage, therefore, is not designed to teach simply that the righteousness of God, as an attribute, is brought forth in the gospel, or that the main idea is to reveal his justice.

(2.) A second interpretation which has been affixed to it is to make it the same as goodness, the benevolence of God is revealed, etc. But to this there are still stronger objections. For

(a) it does not comport with the design of the apostle's argument.

(b) It is a departure from the established meaning of the word justice, and the phrase "the righteousness of God."

(c) If this had been the design, it is remarkable that the usual words expressive of goodness or mercy had not been used. Another meaning, therefore, is to be sought as expressing the sense of the phrase.

(3.) The phrase, righteousness of God, is equivalent to God's plan of justifying men; his scheme of declaring them just in the sight of the law, or of acquitting them from punishment, and admitting them to favour. In this sense it stands opposed to man's plan of justification, i. e. by his own works. God's plan is by faith. The way in which that is done is revealed in the gospel. The object contemplated to be done is to treat men as if they were righteous. Man attempted to accomplish this by obedience to the law. The plan of God was to arrive at it by faith, here the two schemes differ; and the great design of this epistle is to show that man cannot be justified on his own plan—to wit, by works; and that the plan of God is the only way, and a wise and glorious way of making man just in the eye of the law. No small part of the perplexity usually attending this subject will be avoided if it is remembered that the discussion in this epistle pertains to the question, "How can mortal man be just with God?" The apostle shows that it cannot be by works; and that it can be by faith. This latter is what he calls the righteousness of God which is revealed in the gospel.

To see that this is the meaning, it is needful only to look at the connexion; and at the usual meaning of the words. The word to justify—dikaiow—means, properly, to be just, to be innocent, to be righteous. It then means to declare or treat as righteous; as when a man is charged with an offence, and is acquitted. If the crime alleged is not proved against him, he is declared by the law to be innocent. It then means to treat as if innocent, to regard as innocent, that is, to pardon, to forgive, and consequently to treat as if the offence had not occurred. It does not mean that the man did not commit the offence; or that the law might not have held him answerable for it; but that the offence is forgiven; and it is consistent to receive the offender into favour, and treat him as if he had not committed it. In what way this may be done rests with him who has the pardoning power. And in regard to the salvation of man, it rests solely with God, and must be done in that way only which he appoints and approves. The design of Paul in this epistle is to show how this is done, or to show that it is done by faith. It may be remarked here, that the expression before us does not imply any particular manner in which it is done; it does not touch the question whether it is by imputed righteousness or not; it does not say that it is on legal principles; it simply affirms that the gospel contains God's plan of justifying men by faith.

The primary meaning of the word is, therefore, to be innocent, pure, etc.; and hence the name means righteousness in general. For this use of the word, see Mt 3:5; 5:6,10,20; 21:32; Lu 1:75; Ac 10:35; Ac 13:10; Ro 2:26; 8:4, etc.

In the sense of pardoning sin, or of treating men as if they were innocent, on the condition of faith, it is used often, and especially in this epistle. See Ro 3:24,26,28,30; 4:5; 5:1; 8:30; Ga 2:16; 3:8,24; Ro 3:21,22,25; 4:3,6,13; 9:30, etc.

It is called God's righteousness, because it is God's plan, in distinction from all the plans set up by men. It was originated by him; it differs from all others; and it claims him as its Author, and tends to his glory. It is called his righteousness, as it is the way by which he receives and treats men as righteous. This same plan was foretold in various places, where the word righteousness is nearly synonymous with salvation. Isa 51:5, "My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth." 6, "My salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished." Isa 56:1, "My salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed." Da 9:24, "To make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness."

In regard to this plan, it may be observed,

(1.) that it is not to declare that men are innocent and pure. That would not be true. The truth is just the reverse; and God does not esteem men to be different from what they are.

(2.) It is not to take part with the sinner, and to mitigate his offences. It admits them to their full extent; and makes him feel them also.

(3.) It is not that we become partakers of the essential righteousness of God. That is impossible.

(4.) It is not that his righteousness becomes ours. This is not true; and there is no intelligible sense in which that can be understood. But it is God's plan for pardoning sin, and for treating us as if we had not committed it; that is, adopting us as his children, and admitting us to heaven on the ground of what the Lord Jesus has done in our stead. This is God's plan. Men seek to save themselves by their own works. God's plan is to save them by the merits of Jesus Christ.

Revealed. Made known, and communicated. The gospel states the fact that God has such a plan of justification; and shows the way or manner in which it might be done. The fact seems to have been understood by Abraham and the patriarchs, (Heb 11:1,) but the full mode or manner in which it was to be accomplished was not revealed, until it was done in the gospel of Christ. And because this great and glorious truth was thus made known, Paul was not ashamed of the gospel. Nor should we be.

From faith—ek pistewv. This phrase I take to be connected with the expression, "the righteousness of God." Thus, the righteousness of God, or God's plan of justifying men by faith, is revealed in the gospel. Here the great truth of the gospel is brought out, that men are justified by faith, and not by the deeds of the law. The common interpretation of the passage has been, that the righteousness of God in this is revealed from one degree of faith to another. But to this interpretation there are many objections.

(1.) It is not true. The gospel was not designed for this. It did not suppose that men had a certain degree of faith by nature, which needed only to be strengthened in order that they might be saved.

(2.) It does not make good sense. To say that the righteousness of God— meaning, as is commonly understood, his essential justice—is revealed from one degree of faith to another, is to use words without any meaning.

(3.) The connexion of the passage does not admit of this interpretation. The design of the passage is evidently to set forth the doctrine of justification as the grand theme of remark, and it does not comport with that design to introduce here the advance from one degree of faith to another as the main topic.

(4.) The epistle is intended clearly to establish the fact that men are justified by faith. This is the grand idea which is kept up; and to show how this may be done is the main purpose before the apostle. See Ro 3:22,30; 9:30,32; 10:6, etc.

(5.) The passage which he immediately quotes shows that he did not speak of different degrees of faith, but of the doctrine that men are to be justified by faith.

To faith. Unto those who believer (comp. Ro 3:22;) or to every one that believeth, Ro 1:16. The abstract is here put for the concrete. It is designed to express the idea, that 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.

As it is written. See Hab 2:4.

The just shall live by faith. The LXX. translate the passage in Habakkuk, "If any man shall draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him; but the just by my faith" (or by faith in me) "shall live." The very words are used by them which, are employed by the apostle, except they add the word "my, mou", my faith. The Syriac renders it in a similar manner, "The just by faith shall live." The meaning of the Hebrew in Habakkuk is the same. It does not refer originally to the doctrine of justification by faith; but its meaning is this, "The just man, or the righteous man, shall live by his confidence in God." The prophet is speaking of the woes attending the Babylonish captivity. The Chaldeans were to come upon the land and destroy it, and remove the nation, Hab 1:6-10. But this was not to be perpetual. It should have an end, Hab 2:3, and they who had confidence in God should live, Hab 2:4 that is, should be restored to their country, should be blessed and made happy. Their confidence in God should sustain them, and preserve them. This did not refer primarily to the doctrine of justification by faith, nor did the apostle so quote it; but it expressed a general principle that those who had confidence in God should be happy, and be preserved and blessed. This would express the doctrine which Paul was defending. It was not by relying on his own merit that the Israelite would be delivered, but it was by confidence in God, by his strength and mercy. On the same principle would men be saved under the gospel. It was not by reliance on their own works or merit; it was by confidence in God, by faith that they were to live.

Shall live. In Habakkuk this means to be made happy, or blessed; shall find comfort, and support, and deliverance. So in the gospel the blessings of salvation are represented as life, eternal life. Sin is represented as death, and man by nature is represented as dead in trespasses and sins, Eph 2:1. The gospel restores to life and salvation, Joh 3:36; 5:29,40; 6:33,51,53; 20:31; Ac 2:28; Ro 5:18; 8:6.

This expression, therefore, does not mean, as it is sometimes supposed, the justified by faith shall live; but it is expressive of a general principle in relation to men, that they shall be defended, preserved, made happy, not by their own merits or strength, but by confidence in God. This principle is exactly applicable to the gospel plan of salvation. Those who rely on God the Saviour shall be justified and saved.

{w} "therein" Ro 3:21,25

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS - Chapter 1 - Verse 18

Verse 18. For. This word denotes that the apostle is about to give a reason for what he had just said. This verse commences the argument of the epistle, an argument designed to establish the proposition advanced in Ro 1:17. The proposition is, that God's plan of justification is revealed in the gospel. To show this, it was necessary to show that all other plans had failed; and that there was need of some new plan or scheme to save men. To this he devotes this and the two following chapters. The design of this argument is to show that men were sinners. And in order to make this out, it was necessary to show that they were under law. This was clear in regard to the Jews. They had the Scriptures; and the apostle in this chapter shows that it was equally clear in regard to the Gentiles, and then proceeds to show that both had failed of obeying the law. To see this clearly it is necessary to add only, that there can be but two ways of justification conceived of: one by obedience to law, and the other by grace. The former was the one by which Jews and Gentiles had sought to be justified; and if it could be shown that in this they had failed, the way was clear to show that there was need of some other plan.

The wrath of God—orgh yeou. The word rendered wrath properly denotes that earnest appetite, or desire, by which we seek anything, or an intense effort to obtain it. And it is particularly applied to the desire which a man has to take vengeance who is injured, and who is enraged. It is thus synonymous with revenge. Eph 4:31, "Let all bitterness, and wrath," etc. Col 3:8, "Anger, wrath, malice," etc. 1 Ti 2:8; Jas 1:19. But it is also often applied to God and it is clear that when we think of the word as applicable to him it must be divested of everything like human passion, and especially of the passion of revenge. As he cannot be injured by the sins of men, (Job 35:6-8,) he has no motive for vengeance, properly so called; and it is one of the most obvious rules of interpretation that we are not to apply to God passions and feelings which, among us, have their origin in evil. In making a revelation, it was indispensable to use words which men used; but it does not follow that when applied to God they mean precisely what they do when applied to man. When the Saviour is said (Mr 3:5) to have looked on his disciples with anger, (Greek, wrath, the same word is here,) it is not to be supposed that he had the feelings of an implacable man seeking vengeance. The nature of the feeling is to be judged of by the character of the person. So, in this place, the word denotes the Divine displeasure or indignation against sin; the Divine purpose to inflict punishment. It is the opposition of the Divine character against sin; and the determination of the Divine Mind to express that opposition in a proper way, by excluding the offender from the favours which he bestows on the righteous. It is not an unamiable or arbitrary principle of conduct. We all admire the character of a father who is opposed to disorder, and vice, and disobedience in his family, and who expresses his opposition in a proper way. We admire the character of a ruler who is opposed to all crime in the community, and who expresses those feelings in the laws. And the more he is opposed to vice and crime, the more we admire his character and his laws; and why shall we be not equally pleased with God, who is opposed to all crime in all parts of the universe, and who determines to express it in the proper way for the sake of preserving order and promoting peace. The word Divine displeasure or indignation, therefore, expresses the meaning of this phrase. See Mt 3:7; Lu 3:7; 21:23; Joh 3:36; Ro 2:5,8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22; 12:19; Ro 13:4,5; Eph 2:3; 5:6; 1 Th 1:10; 2:16, etc. The word occurs thirty-five times in the New Testament.

Is revealed. That is, revealed to the Jews by their law; and to the Gentiles in their reason and conscience, as the apostle proceeds to show.

From heaven. This expression I take to mean simply that the Divine displeasure against sin is made known by a Divine appointment; by an arrangement of events, communications, and arguments, which evince that they have had their origin in heaven; or are divine, How this is, Paul proceeds to state, in the works of creation, and in the law which the Hebrews had. A variety of meanings have been given to this expression, but this seems the most satisfactory. It does not mean that the wrath will be sent from heaven; or that the heavens declare his wrath; or that the heavenly bodies are proofs of his wrath against sin; or that Christ, the executioner of wrath, will be manifest from heaven, (Origen, Cyrill, Beza, etc.;) or that it is from God who is in heaven; but that it is by an arrangement which shows that it had its origin in heaven, or has proofs that it is divine.

Against all ungodliness. This word properly means impiety failed to honour the true God, and had paid to idols the homage which was due to him. asebeian. Multitudes also in every age refuse to honour him, and neglect his worship, though they are not idolaters. Many men suppose that if they do not neglect their duty to their fellow-men, if they are honest and upright in their dealings, they are not guilty, even though they are not righteous, or do not do their duty to God; as though it were a less crime to dishonour God than man, and as though it were innocence to neglect and disobey our Maker and Redeemer. The apostle here shows that the wrath of God is as really revealed against the neglect of God as it is against positive iniquity; and that this is an offence of so consequence as to be placed first, and as deserving the Divine indignation more than the neglect of our duties towards men. Comp. Ro 11:26; 2 Ti 2:16; Tit 2:12; Jude 1:15,18.

The word does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament.

Unrighteousness of men. Unrighteousness, or iniquity towards men. All offences against our neighbour, our parents, our country, etc. The word ungodliness includes all crimes against God: this, all crimes against our fellow-men. The two words express that which comprehends the violation of all the commands of God: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, etc., and thy neighbour as thyself," Mt 22:37-40. The wrath of God is thus revealed against all human wickedness.

Who hold the truth. Who keep back, or restrain the truth. The word translated hold here, sometimes means maintain, to keep, to observe, (1 Co 7:30; 2 Co 6:10) but it also means to hold back, to detain, to hinder. Lu 4:42, "The people sought him, (Jesus,) and came to him, and stayed him." (Greek, the same as here.) Phm 1:13, "Whom I would have retained with me," etc. 2 Th 2:6, "And now ye know what withholdeth," etc. In this place it means also that they held back, or restrained the truth, by their wickedness.

The truth. The truth of God, in whatever way made known, and particularly, as the apostle goes on to say, that which is made known by the light of nature. The truth pertaining to his perfections, his law, etc. They hold it back, or restrain its influence.

In unrighteousness. Or rather, by their iniquity. Their wickedness is the cause why the truth had had so little progress among them, and had exerted so little influence. This was done by their yielding to corrupt passions and propensities, and by their being therefore unwilling to retain the knowledge of a pure and holy God, who is opposed to such deeds, and who will punish them. As they were determined to practise iniquity, they chose to exclude the knowledge of a pure God, and to worship impure idols, by which they might give a sanction to their lusts. Their vice and tendency to iniquity was, therefore, the reason why they had so little knowledge of a holy God; and by the love of this, they held back the truth from making progress, and becoming diffused among them.

The same thing is substantially true now. Men hold back or resist the the truth of the gospel by their sins in the following ways:

(1.) Men of influence and wealth employ both in directly opposing the gospel.