Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Romans 1:1 - 1:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
————
THE APOSTOLIC SALUTATION
1:1, 7.* Paul, a divinely chosen and accredited Apostle, gives Christian greeting to the Roman Church, itself also divinely called.
1Paul, a devoted servant of Jesus Christ, an Apostle called by divine summons as much as any member of the original Twelve, solemnly set apart for the work of delivering God’s message of salvation; 7Paul, so authorized and commissioned, gives greeting to the whole body of Roman Christians (whether Jewish or Gentile), who as Christians are special objects of the Divine love, called out of the mass of mankind into the inner society of the Church, consecrated to God, like Israel of old, as His own peculiar people. May the free unmerited favour of God and the peace which comes from reconciliation with Him be yours! May God Himself, the heavenly Father, and the Lord Jesus Messiah, grant them to you!
1:2-6. I preach, in accordance with our Jewish Scriptures, Jesus the Son of David and Son of God, whose commission I bear.
2The message which I am commissioned to proclaim is no startling novelty, launched upon the world without preparation, but rather the direct fulfilment of promises which God had inspired the prophets of Israel to set down in Holy Writ. 3It relates to none other than His Son, whom it presents in a twofold aspect; on the one hand by physical descent tracing His lineage to David, as the Messiah was to do, 4and on the other hand, in virtue of the Holiness inherent in His spirit, visibly designated or declared to be Son of God by the miracle of the Resurrection. He, I say, is the sum and substance of my message, Jesus, the Jew’s Messiah, and the Christian’s Lord. 5And it was through Him that I, like the rest of the Apostles, received both the general tokens of God’s favour in that I was called to be a Christian and also the special gifts of an Apostle. 6My duty as an Apostle is among all Gentile peoples, and therefore among you too at Rome, to win men over to the willing service of loyalty to Him; and the end to which all my labours are directed is the honour of His Holy Name.
1-7. In writing to the Church of the imperial city, which he had not yet visited, St. Paul delivers his credentials with some solemnity, and with a full sense of the magnitude of the issues in which they and he alike are concerned. He takes occasion at once to define (i) his own position, (ii) the position of his readers, (iii) the central truth in that common Christianity which unites them.
The leading points in the section may be summarized thus: (i) I, Paul, am an Apostle by no act of my own, but by the deliberate call and in pursuance of the long-foreseen plan of God (vv. 1, 7). (ii) You, Roman Christians, are also special objects of the Divine care. You inherit under the New Dispensation the same position which Israel occupied under the Old (vv. 6, 7). (iii) The Gospel which I am commissioned to preach, though new in the sense that it puts forward a new name, the Name of Jesus Christ, is yet indissolubly linked to the older dispensation which it fulfils and supersedes (vv. 2, 7; see note on κηοςἁίι). (iv) Its subject is Jesus, Who is at once the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God (vv. 3, 4). (v) From Him, the Son, and from the Father, may the blessedness of Christians descend upon you (ver. 7).
This opening section of the Epistle affords a good opportunity to watch the growth of a Christian Theology, in the sense of reflection upon the significance of the Life and Death of Christ and the relation of the newly inaugurated order of things to the old. We have to remember (1) that the Epistle was written about the year 58 a.d., or within thirty years of the Ascension; (2) that in the interval the doctrinal language of Christianity has had to be built up from the foundations. We shall do well to note which of the terms used are old and which new, and how far old terms have had a new face put upon them. We will return to this point at the end of the paragraph.
1. δῦο ἸσῦΧιτῦ δῦο Θο or Κρο is an Old Testament phrase, applied to the prophets in a body from Amos onwards (Amo_3:7; Jer_7:25 and repeatedly; Dan_9:6; Ezr_9:11); also with slight variations to Moses (θρπνJos_1:2), Joshua (Jos_24:29; Jud_1:2:8), David (title of Psa_36. [35]; Psa_78. [77], 70; 89. [88], 4, 21; also πῖ κρο, title of Psa_18. [17]), Isaiah (πῖ Isa_20:3); but applied also to worshippers generally (Psa_34. [33], 23; 113. [112], 1 πῖε; 136. [135], 22 of Israel, &c.).
This is the first instance of a similar use in the New Testament; it is found also in the greetings of Phil., Tit., Jas., Jude, 2 Pet., showing that as the Apostolic age progressed the assumption of the title became established on a broad basis. But it is noticeable how quietly St. Paul steps into the place of the prophets and leaders of the Old Covenant, and how quietly he substitutes the name of His own Master in a connexion hitherto reserved for that of Jehovah.
ἸσῦΧιτῦ A small question of reading arises here, which is perhaps of somewhat more importance than may appear at first sight. In the opening verses of most of St. Paul’s Epistles the MSS. vary between ἸσῦΧιτῦand ΧιτῦἸσῦ There is also evidently a certain method in the variation. The evidence stands thus (where that on one side only is given it may be assumed that all remaining authorities are on the other):—
1Th_1:1 ἸσῦΧιτ unquestioned.
2Th_1:1 ἸσῦΧιτ Edd.; Χιτ ἸσῦD E Fgr G, Ambrstr. (sic ed. Ballerini).
Gal_1:1 ἸσῦΧιτῦunquestioned.
1Co_1:1 ΧιτῦἸσῦB D E F G 17 al. pauc., Vulg. codd., Chrys. Ambrstr. Aug. semel, Tisch., WH. marg.
2Co_1:1 ΧιτῦἸσῦאB M P 17 marg., Harcl., Euthal. cod. Theodrt. Tisch. WH. RV.
Rom_1:1 ΧιτῦἸσῦB, Vulg. codd., Orig. bis (contra Orig.-lat. bis) Aug. semel Amb. Ambrstr. al. Lat., Tisch. WH. marg.
Php_1:1 ΧιτῦἸσῦאB D E, Boh., Tisch. WH. RV.
Eph_1:1 ΧιτῦἸσῦB D E P 17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Goth. Harcl., Orig. (ex Caten.) Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV.
Col_1:1 ΧιτῦἸσῦאA B F G L P 17, Vulg. codd. Boh. Harcl., Euthal. cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. Hieron. al., Tisch. WH. RV.
Phm_1:1 ΧιτῦἸσῦאA Dc F G K P (def. B), &c., Boh., Hieron. (ut vid.) Ambrstr. al., Tisch. WH. RV.
1Ti_1:1 ΧιτῦἸσῦאD F G P (def. B), Vulg. codd. Boh. Harcl., Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr., Tisch. WH. RV.
2Ti_1:1 ΧιτῦἸσῦאD E F G K P (def. B) 17 al., Vulg. codd. Boh. Sah. Harcl., Euthal. cod. Jo.-Damasc. Ambrstr. al., Tisch. WH. RV.
Tit_1:1 ἸσῦΧιτῦאDc E F G &c., Vulg. codd. Goth. Pesh. Arm. Aeth., Chrys. Euthal. cod. Ambrstr. (ed. Ballerin.) al., Tisch. WH. (sed Χιτῦ[Ἰσῦ marg.) RV.; ΧιτῦἸσῦA minusc. tres, Vulg. codd. Boh. Harcl., Cassiod.; Χιτῦtantum Dg2.
It will be observed that the Epistles being placed in a roughly chronological order, those at the head of the list read indubitably ἸσῦΧιτῦ(or Χιτ), while those in the latter part (with the single exception of Tit., which is judiciously treated by WH.) as indubitably read ΧιτῦἸσῦ Just about the group 1 and 2 Cor. Rom. there is a certain amount of doubt.
Remembering the Western element which enters into B in Epp. Paul., it looks as if the evidence for χ ι in Cor. Rom. might be entirely Western; but that is not quite clear, and the reading may possibly be right. In any case it would seem that just about this time St. Paul fell into the habit of writing ΧιτςἸσῦ. The interest of this would lie in the fact that in ΧιτςἸσῦ the first word would seem to be rather more distinctly a proper name than in Ἰσῦ Χιτς No doubt the latter phrase is rapidly passing into a proper name, but Χιτςwould seem to have a little of its sense as a title still clinging to it: the phrase would be in fact transitional between Χιτςor ὁΧιτςof the Gospels and the later ΧιτςἸσῦ or Χιτςsimply as a proper name (see Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 289 f., and an article by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead in Expos. 1888, i. 386 ff.). The subject would repay working out on a wider scale of induction.
κηὸ ἀότλς κῆι is another idea which has its roots in the Old Testament. Eminent servants of God become so by an express Divine summons. The typical examples would be Abraham (Gen_12:1-3), Moses (Exo_3:10), the prophets (Isa_6:8, Isa_6:9; Jer_1:4, Jer_1:5, &c.). The verb κλῖ occurs in a highly typical passage, Hos_11:1 ἐ Αγπο μτκλσ τ τκαμυ For the particular form κηό we cannot come nearer than the ‘guests’ (κηο) of Adonijah (1Ki_1:41, 1Ki_1:49). By his use of the term St. Paul places himself on a level at once with the great Old Testament saints and with the Twelve who had been ‘called’ expressly by Christ (Mar_1:17; Mar_2:14 ||). The same combination κηὸ ἀότ occurs in 1Co_1:1, but is not used elsewhere by St. Paul or any of the other Apostles. In these two Epistles St. Paul has to vindicate the parity of his own call (on the way to Damascus, cf. also Act_26:17) with that of the elder Apostles.
On the relation of κηό to ἐλκό see Lft. on Col_3:12. There is a difference between the usage of the Gospels and Epistles. In the Gospels κηο are all who are invited to enter Christ’s kingdom, whether or not they accept the invitation; the ἐλκο are a smaller group, selected to special honour (Mat_22:14). In St. Paul both words are applied to the same persons; κηό implies that the call has been not only given but obeyed.
ἀότλς It is well known that this word is used in two senses; a narrower sense in which it was applied by our Lord Himself to the Twelve (Luk_6:13; Mar_3:14 v. l.), and a wider in which it includes certainly Barnabas (Act_14:4,Act_14:14) and probably James, the Lord’s brother (Gal_1:19), Andronicus and Junias (Rom_16:7), and many others (cf. 1Co_12:28; Eph_4:11; Didaché11, 12, &c.; also esp. Lightfoot, Gal. p. 92 ff.; Harnack in Texte u. Untersuch. ii. 111 ff.). Strictly speaking St. Paul could only claim to be an Apostle in the wider acceptation of the term; he lays stress, however, justly on the fact that he is κηὸ ἀότλς i.e. not merely an Apostle by virtue of possessing such qualifications as are described in Act_1:21, Act_1:22, but through a direct intervention of Christ. At the same time it should be remembered that St. Paul lays stress on this fact not with a view to personal aggrandizement, but only with a view to commend his Gospel with the weight which he knows that it deserves.
ἀωιμνς in a double sense, by God (as in Gal_1:15) and by man (Act_13:2). The first sense is most prominent here; or rather it includes the second, which marks the historic fulfilment of the Divine purpose. The free acceptance of the human commission may enable us to understand how there is room for free will even in the working out of that which has been pre-ordained by God (see below on ch. 11). And yet the three terms, δῦο, κηό, ἀωιμνς all serve to emphasize the essentially Scriptural doctrine that human ministers, even Apostles, are but instruments in the hand of God, with no initiative or merit of their own.
This conception is not confined to the Canonical Books: it is found also in Assump. Moys. i. 14 itaque excogitavit et invenit me, qui ab initio orbis terrarum praeparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamenti illius.
εςεαγλο Θο. The particular function for which St. Paul is ‘set apart’ is to preach the Gospel of God. The Gospel is sometimes described as ‘of God’ and sometimes ‘of Christ’ (e. g. Mar_1:1). Here, where the thought is of the gradual unfolding in time of a plan conceived in eternity, ‘of God’ is the more appropriate. It is probably a mistake in these cases to restrict the force of the gen. to one particular aspect (‘the Gospel of which God is the author,’ or ‘of which Christ is the subject’): all aspects are included in which the Gospel is in any way related to God and Christ.
εαγλο. The fundamental passage for the use of this word appears to be Mar_1:14, Mar_1:15 (cf. Mat_4:23). We cannot doubt that our Lord Himself described by this term (or its Aramaic equivalent) His announcement of the arrival of the Messianic Time. It does not appear to be borrowed directly from the LXX (where the word occurs in all only two [or three] times, and once for ‘the reward of good tidings’; the more common form is εαγλα It would seem, however, that there was some influence from the rather frequent use (twenty times) of εαγλζι, εαγλζσα, especially in Second Isaiah and the Psalms in connexion with the news of the Great Deliverance or Restoration from the Captivity. A conspicuous passage is Isa_61:1, which is quoted or taken as a text in Luk_4:18. The group of words is well established in Synoptic usage (εαγλο, Matthew four times, Mark eight, Acts two; εαγλζσα, Matthew one, Luke ten, Acts fifteen). It evidently took a strong hold on the imagination of St. Paul in connexion with his own call to missionary labours (εαγλο sixty times in Epp. Paul, besides in Epp. and Apoc. only twice; εαγλζσα twenty times in Epp. Paul., besides once mid. seven times pass.). The disparity between St. Paul and the other N. T. writers outside Evv. Synopt. Acts is striking. The use of εαγλο for a Book lies beyond our limits (Sanday, Bamp. Lect. p. 317 n.); the way is prepared for it by places like Mar_1:1; Rev_14:6.
2. ποπγελτ. The words ἐαγλα ἐαγλεθιoccur several times in LXX, but not in the technical sense of the great ‘promises’ made by God to His people. The first instance of this use is Ps. Sol. 12:8 κὶὅιικρο κηοοήαε ἐαγλα κρο: cf. 7:9 τῦἐεσιτνοκνἸκβεςἡέα ἐ ᾗἐηγίωατῖ, and 17:6 οςοκἐηγίω μτ βα ἀελνο a group of passages which is characteristic of the attitude of wistful expectation in the Jewish people during the century before the Birth of Christ. No wonder that the idea was eagerly seized upon by the primitive Church as it began to turn the pages of the O. T. and to find one feature after another of the history of its Founder and of its own history foretold there.
We notice that in strict accordance with what we may believe to have been the historical sequence, neither ἐαγλαnor ἐαγλεθι(in the technical sense) occur in the Gospels until we come to Luk_24:49, where ἐαγλαis used of the promised gift of the Holy Spirit; but we no sooner cross over to the Acts than the use becomes frequent. The words cover (i) the promises made by Christ, in particular the promise of the Holy Spirit (which is referred to the Father in Act_1:4); so ἐαγλαthree times in the Acts, Gal_3:14, and Eph_1:13; (ii) the promises of the O. T. fulfilled in Christianity; so ἐαγλαfour times in Acts (note esp. Act_13:32, Act_26:6), some eight times each in Rom. and Gal., both ἐαγλαand ἐαγλεθ. repeatedly in Heb., &c.; (iii) in a yet wider sense of promises, whether as yet fulfilled or unfulfilled, e.g. 2Co_1:20 ὅα γρἐαγλα Θο (cf. v. 1:1); 1Ti_4:8; 2Ti_1:1; 2Pe_3:4 ἡἐαγλατςπρυίςατῦ
ἐ γααςἁίι: perhaps the earliest extant instance of the use of this phrase (Philo prefers ἱρὶγαα, ἱρὶββο, ὁἱρςλγς cf. Sanday, Bamp. Lect. p. 72); but the use is evidently well established, and the idea of a collection of authoritative books goes back to the prologue to Ecclus. In γααςἁίι the absence of the art. throws the stress on ἁίι; the books are ‘holy’ as containing the promises of God Himself, written down by inspired men (δὰτνποηῶ ατῦ
3. γνμνυ This is contrasted with ὁιθνο, γνμνυdenoting, as usually, ‘transition from one state or mode of subsistence to another’ (Sp. Comm. on 1Co_1:30); it is rightly paraphrased ‘[Who] was born,’ and is practically equivalent to the Johannean ἐθνο εςτνκσο.
ἐ σέμτςΔβδ For proof that the belief in the descent of the Messiah from David was a living belief see Mar_12:35 ff. πςλγυι ο γαμτῖ ὅιὁΧιτςυό ἐτ Δβδ (cf. Mar_11:10 and 10:47 f.): also Ps. Sol. 17:23 ff. ἴε κρε κὶἀάτσςατῖ τνβσλαατνυὸ Δυδεςτνκιὸ ὅ οδςσ, ὁΘό, τῦβσλῦα ἐὶἸρὴ πῖάσυκτλ 4 Ezra 12:32 (in three of the extant versions, Syr. Arab. Armen.); and the Talmud and Targums (passages in Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 341). Our Lord Himself appears to have made little use of this title: he raises a difficulty about it (Mar_12:35-37 ||). But this verse of Ep. to Romans shows that Christians early pointed to His descent as fulfilling one of the conditions of Messiahship; similarly 2Ti_2:8 (where the assertion is made a part of St. Paul’s ‘Gospel’); Act_2:30; Heb_7:14 ‘it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah’ (see also Eus. H. E. I. vii. 17, Joseph and Mary from the same tribe). Neither St. Paul nor the Acts nor Epistle to Hebrews defines more nearly how the descent is traced. For this we have to go to the First and Third Gospels, the early chapters of which embody wholly distinct traditions, but both converging on this point. There is good reason to think that St. Luk_1:2 had assumed substantially its present shape before a.d. 70 (cf. Swete, Apost. Creed, p. 49).
In Test. XII. Patriarch. we find the theory of a double descent from Levi and from Judah (Sym. 7 ἀατσιγρΚρο ἐ τῦΛυὶὡ ἀχεέ κὶἐ τῦἸύαὡ βσλα Θὸ κὶἄθωο: Gad. 8 ὅω τμσσνἸύα κὶΛυί ὅιἐ ατνἀαεε Κρο, στρτ Ἰρή, &c.; cf. Harnack’s note, Patr. Apost. i. 52). This is no doubt an inference from the relationship of the Mother of our Lord to Elizabeth (Luk_1:36).
κτ σρα̣̣̣κτ πεμ are opposed to each other, not as human` to ‘divine,’ but as ‘body’ to ‘spirit,’ both of which in Christ are human, though the Holiness which is the abiding property of His Spirit is something more than human. See on κτ πεμ ἁις below.
4. ὁιθνο: ‘designated.’ It is usual to propose for this word an alternative between (i) ‘proved to be,’ ‘marked out as being’ (διθνο, ἀοαθνο Chrys.), and (ii) ‘appointed,’ ‘instituted,’ ‘installed,’ in fact and not merely in idea. For this latter sense (which is that adopted by most modern commentators) the parallels are quoted, Act_10:42 οτςἐτνὁὡιμνςὑὸτῦΘο κιὴ ζνω κὶνκῶ, and 17:31 μλε κίεν̣̣̣ἐ ἀδὶᾦὥιε The word itself does not determine the meaning either way: it must be determined by the context. But here the particular context is also neutral; so that we must look to the wider context of St. Paul’s teaching generally. Now it is certain that St. Paul did not hold that the Son of God became Son by the Resurrection. The undoubted Epistles are clear on this point (esp. 2Co_4:4; 2Co_8:9; cf. Col_1:15-19). At the same time he did regard the Resurrection as making a difference—if not in the transcendental relations of the Father to the Son (which lie beyond our cognisance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship as addressed to the understanding of men (cf. esp. Php_2:9 δὸκὶὁΘὸ ατνὑεύωε κὶἐαίαοατ τ ὅοατ ὑὲ πνὄοα This is sufficiently expressed by our word ‘designated,’ which might perhaps with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts. It is true that Christ becomes Judge in a sense in which He does not become Son; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external creation but by an inherent right. The Divine declaration, as it were, endorses and proclaims that right.
The Latin versions are not very helpful. The common rendering was praedestinatus (so expressly Rufinus [Orig.-lat.] ad loc.; cf. Introd. §7). Hilary of Poitiers has destinatus, which Rufinus also prefers. Tertullian reads definitus.
υο Θο. ‘Son of God,’ like ‘Son of Man,’ was a recognized title of the Messiah (cf. Enoch cv. 2; 4 Ezr_7:28, 29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9, in all which places the Almighty speaks of the Messiah as ‘My Son,’ though the exact phrase ‘Son of God’ does not occur). It is remarkable that in the Gospels we very rarely find it used by our Lord Himself, though in face of Mat_27:43, Joh_10:36, cf. Mat_21:37 f. al., it cannot be said that He did not use it. It is more often used to describe the impression made upon others (e.g. the demonized, Mar_3:11, Mar_5:7 ||; the centurion, Mar_15:39 ||), and it is implied by the words of the Tempter (Mat_4:3, Mat_4:6 ||) and the voice from heaven (Mar_1:11 ||, 9:7 ||). The crowning instance is the confession of St. Peter in the version which is probably derived from the Logia, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ Mat_16:16. It is consistent with the whole of our Lord’s method that He should have been thus reticent in putting forward his own claims, and that He should have left them to be inferred by the free and spontaneous working of the minds of His disciples. Nor is it surprising that the title should have been chosen by the Early Church to express its sense of that which was transcendent in the Person of Christ: see esp. the common text of the Gospel of St. Mar_1:1 (where the words, if not certainly genuine, in any case are an extremely early addition), and this passage, the teaching of which is very direct and explicit. The further history of the term, with its strengthening addition μνγνς may be followed in Swete, Apost. Creed, p. 24 ff., where recent attempts to restrict the Sonship of Christ to His earthly manifestation are duly weighed and discussed. In this passage we have seen that the declaration of Sonship dates from the Resurrection: but we have also seen that St. Paul regarded the Incarnate Christ as existing before His Incarnation; and it is as certain that when he speaks of Him as ὁἴιςυό (Rom_8:32), ὁέυο υό (8:3), he intends to cover the period of pre-existence, as that St. John identifies the μνγνςwith the pre-existent Logos. There is no sufficient reason to think that the Early Church, so far as it reflected upon these terms, understood them differently.
There are three moments to each of which are applied with variations the words of Psa_2:7 ‘Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.’ They are (i) the Baptism (Mar_1:11 ||); (ii) the Transfiguration (Mar_9:7 ||); (iii) the Resurrection (Act_13:33). We can see here the origin of the Ebionite idea of progressive exaltation, which is however held in check by the doctrine of the Logos in both its forms, Pauline (2Co_4:4, &c., ut sup.) and Johannean (Joh_1:1 ff.). The moments in question are so many steps in the passage through an earthly life of One who came forth from God and returned to God, not stages in the gradual deification of one who began his career as ψλςἄθωο.
ἐ δνμι not with υο Θο, as Weiss, Lips. and others, ‘Son of God in power,’opposed to the present state of humiliation, but rather adverbially, qualifying ὁιθνο, ‘declared with might to be Son of God.’ The Resurrection is regarded as a ‘miracle’ or ‘signal manifestation of Divine Power.’ Comp. esp. 2Co_13:4 ἐτυώηἐ ἀθνίς ἀλ ζ ἐ δνμω Θο. This parallel determines the connexion of ἐ δν
κτ πεμ ἁισνς not (i) = Πεμ Ἅιν the Third Person in the Trinity (as the Patristic writers generally and some moderns), because the antithesis of σρ and πεμ requires that they shall be in the same person; nor (ii), with Beng. and other moderns (even Lid.) = the Divine Nature in Christ as if the Human Nature were coextensive with the σρ and the Divine Nature were coextensive with the πεμ, which would be very like the error of Apollinaris; but (iii) the human πεμ, like the human σρ, distinguished however from that of ordinary humanity by an exceptional and transcendent Holiness (cf. Heb_2:17; Heb_4:15 ‘it behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren.. yet without sin’).
ἁισν, not found in profane literature, occurs three times in LXX of the Psalms, not always in agreement with Heb. (Psa_95:6 [96:6 ‘strength’]; 96:12 [97:12 ‘holy name,’ lit. ‘memorial’]; 144:5 [145:5 ‘honour’]). In all three places it is used of the Divine attribute; but in 2 Macc. 3:12 we have ἡτῦτπυἁισν. In Test. XII. Patr. Lev_18 the identical phrase πεμ ἁις occurs of the saints in Paradise. The passage is Christian in its character, but may belong to the original work and is in any case probably early. If so, the use of the phrase is so different from that in the text, that the presumption would be that it was not coined for the first time by St. Paul. The same instance would show that the phrase does not of itself and alone necessarily imply divinity. The πεμ ἁισνς though not the Divine nature, is that in which the Divinity or Divine Personality resided. The clear definition of this point was one of the last results of the Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries (Loofs, Dogmengesch. §39, 3). For ἁις see on ἅιιver. 7.
ἑ ἀατσω νκῶ: a remarkable phrase as applied to Christ. His was not a ‘resurrection of dead persons’ (‘azenrisynge of dead men’ Wic.) but of a single dead person. We might expect rather νκο or ἐ νκῶ (as in 1Pe_1:3); and it is probable that this form is only avoided because of ἐ ἀατσω coming just before. But νκῶ coalesces closely in meaning with ἀατ so as to give it very much the force of a compound word, ‘by a dead-rising’ (Todtenauferstehung), ‘a resurrection such as that when dead persons rise.’ Christ is ‘the first-born from the dead’ (Col_1:18).
τῦΚρο ἡῶ. Although in O. T. regularly applied to God as equivalent of Adonai, Jahveh, this word does not in itself necessarily involve Divinity. The Jews applied it to their Messiah (Mar_12:36, Mar_12:37 ||; Ps. Sol. 17:36 βσλὺ ατνχιτςκρο) without thereby pronouncing Him to be ‘God’; they expressly distinguished between the Messiah and the Memra or ‘Word’ of Jehovah (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 178). On the lips of Christians Κοο denotes the idea of ‘Sovereignty,’ primarily over themselves as the society of believers (Col_1:18, &c.), but also over all creation (Php_2:10, Php_2:11; Col_1:16, Col_1:17). The title was given to our Lord even in His lifetime (Joh_13:13 ‘Ye call me, Master (ὁδδσαο), and, Lord (ὁΚρο): and ye say well; for so I am’), but without a full consciousness of its significance: it was only after the Resurrection that the Apostles took it to express their central belief (Php_2:9 ff., &c.).
5. ἐάοε. The best explanation of the plur. seems to be that St. Paul associates himself with the other Apostles.
χρςis an important word with a distinctively theological use and great variety of meaning: (1) objectively, ‘sweetness,’ ‘attractiveness,’ a sense going back to Homer (Od. viii. 175); Psa_45. (44.), 3 ἐεύηχρςἐ χίείσυ Ecc_10:12 λγισόαο σφῦχρς Luk_4:22 λγιχρτς (2) subjectively ‘favour,’ ‘kindly feeling,’ ‘good will,’ especially as shown by a superior towards an inferior. In Eastern despotisms this personal feeling on the part of the king or chieftain is most important: hence ερῖ χρνis the commonest form of phrase in the O. T. (Gen_6:8; Gen_18:3, &c.); in many of these passages (esp. in anthropomorphic scenes where God is represented as holding colloquy with man) it is used of ‘finding favour’ in the sight of God. Thus the word comes to be used (3) of the ‘favour’ or ‘good will’ of God; and that (α generally, as in Zec_12:10 ἐχῶ̣̣πεμ χρτςκὶοκιμῦ but far more commonly in N. T. (Luk_2:40; Joh_1:14, Joh_1:16, &c.); (β by a usage which is specially characteristic of St. Paul (though not confined to him), with opposition to ὀελμ, ‘debt’ (Rom_4:4), and to ἔγ, ‘works’ (implying merit, Rom_11:6), ‘unearned favour’—with stress upon the fact that it is unearned, and therefore as bestowed not upon the righteous but on sinners (cf. esp. Rom_5:6 with 5:2). In this sense the word takes a prominent place in the vocabulary of Justification. (4) The cause being put for the effect χρςdenotes (α ‘the state of grace or favour’ which the Christian enjoys (Rom_5:2), or (β like χρσα any particular gift or gifts of grace (πήη χρτςAct_6:8). We note however that the later technical use, esp. of the Latin gratia, for the Divine prompting and help which precedes and accompanies right action does not correspond exactly to the usage of N. T. (5) As χρςor ‘kindly feeling’ in the donor evokes a corresponding χρςor ‘gratitude’ in the recipient, it comes to mean simply ‘thanks’ (1Co_10:30).
χρνhere = that general favour which the Ap. shares with all Christians and by virtue of which he is one; ἀοτλν=the more peculiar gifts of an Apostle.
We observe that St. Paul regards this spiritual endowment as conferred upon him by Christ (δʼο)—we may add, acting through His Spirit, as the like gifts are described elsewhere as proceeding from the Spirit (1Co_12, &c.).
εςὑαονπσες may be rendered with Vulg. ad obediendum fidei provided that πσ. is not hardened too much into the sense which it afterwards acquired of a ‘body of doctrine’ (with art. τ πσε Jud_1:3). At this early date a body of formulated doctrine, though it is rapidly coming to exist, does not still exist: πσι is still, what it is predominantly to St. Paul, the lively act or impulse of adhesion to Christ. In confessing Christ the lips ‘obey’ this impulse of the heart (Rom_10:10). From another point of view, going a step further back, we may speak of ‘obeying the Gospel’ (Rom_10:16). Faith is the act of assent by which the Gospel is appropriated. See below on ver. 17.
ἐ πσ τῖ ἔνσν Gif. argues for the rendering ‘among all nations’ on the ground that a comprehensive address is best suited to the opening of the Epistle, and to the proper meaning of the phrase πνατ ἔν (cf. Gen_18:18, &c.). But St. Paul’s commission as an Apostle was specially to the Gentiles (Gal_2:8), and it is more pointed to tell the Roman Christians that they thus belong to his special province (ver. 6), than to regard them merely as one among the mass of nations. This is also clearly the sense in which the word is used in ver. 13. Cf. Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 21 f.
ὑὲ τῦὀόαο ατῦ This is rather more than simply ‘for His glory.’ The idea goes back to the O. T. (Psa_106. [105], 8; Eze_20:14; Mal_1:11). The Name of God is intimately connected with the revelation of God. Israel is the instrument or minister of that revelation; so that by the fidelity of Israel the revelation itself is made more impressive and commended in the eyes of other nations. But the Christian Church is the new Israel: and hence the gaining of fresh converts and their fidelity when gained serves in like manner to commend the further revelation made of God in Christ (ατῦ cf. Act_5:41; Php_2:9).
6. ἐ ος not merely in a geographical sense of a Jewish community among Gentiles, but clearly numbering the Roman Church among Gentile communities.
κηο Ἰσῦχιτῦ ‘called ones of Jesus Christ’: gen. of possession.
7. ἐ ʼώῃ om. G g, schol. cod. 47 (τ ἐ ʼώῃοτ ἐ τ ἐηήε οτ ἐ τ ῥτ μηοεε, i. e. some commentator whom the Scholiast had before him). G reads πσ τῖ οσνἐ ἀάῃΘο (similarly d* Vulg. codd. and the commentary of Ambrstr. seem to imply πσ τῖ οσνἐ Ῥμ ἐ ἀάῃΘο). The same MS. omits τῖ ἐ Ῥμ in ver. 15. These facts, taken together with the fluctuating position of the final doxology, 16:25-27, would seem to give some ground for the inference that there were in circulation in ancient times a few copies of the Epistle from which all local references had been removed. It is however important to notice that the authorities which place the doxology at the end of ch. 14 are quite different from those which omit ἐ Ῥμ here and in ver. 15. For a full discussion of the question see the Introduction, §9.
κηοςἁίι. Κηὴἁί represents consistently in LXX the phrase which is translated in AV. and RV. ‘an holy convocation’ (so eleven times in Lev_23 and Exo_12:16). The rendering appears to be due to a misunderstanding, the Heb. word used being one with which the LXX translators were not familiar. Whereas in Heb. the phrase usually runs, ‘on such a day there shall be a holy convocation,’ the LXX treat the word translated convocation as an adj. and make ‘day’ the subject of the sentence, ‘such a day (or feast) shall be κηὴἁί, i. e. specially appointed, chosen, distinguished, holy (day).’ This is a striking instance of the way in which St. Paul takes a phrase which was clearly in the first instance a creation of the LXX and current wholly through it, appropriating it to Christian use, and recasts its meaning, substituting a theological sense for a liturgical. Obviously κηοςhas the same sense as κηό in ver. 1: as he himself was ‘called’ to be an Apostle, so all Christians were ‘called’ to be Christians; and they personally receive the consecration which under the Old Covenant was attached to ‘times and seasons.’
For the following detailed statement of the evidence respecting κηὴἁί we are indebted to Dr. Driver:—
κηήcorresponds to מקרא from קרא to call, a technical term almost wholly confined to the Priests’ Code, denoting apparently a special religious meeting, or ‘convocation,’ held on certain sacred days.
It is represented by κηή Exo_12:16 b; Lev_23:7, Lev_23:8, Lev_23:27, Lev_23:35, Lev_23:36; Num_28:25. Now in all these passages, where the Heb. has ‘on such a day there shall be a holy convocation.’ the LXX have ‘such a day shall be κηὴἁί, ’ i. e. they alter the form of the sentence, make day subject, and use κηήwith its proper force as an adj. ‘shall be a called (i.e. a specially appointed, chosen, distinguished* ), holy(day)’; cf. κ. in Il. ix. 165 and Rom_1:1. They read analogously with מקראin Lev_23:2 α ἑρα κρο, ἂ κλστ ατςκηὰ ἁίς(cf. 5:37), 21 κὶκλστ τύη τνἡέα κηή·ἁί ἔτιὑῖ. In Lev_23:3 (cf. 5:24), κηὴἁί seems to be in apposition with ἀάασς The usage of κηήin Lev_23 is, however, such as to suggest that it was probably felt to have the form of a subst. (sc. ἡέα cf. ἐίλτς
This view of κ. is supported by their rendering of מקראelsewhere. In Exo_12:16a, Lev_23:4 they also alter the form of the sentence, and render it by a verb, κηήεα ἁί, and ἁίςκλστ respectively.
In Num_28:18, Num_28:26 (κὶτ ἡέᾳτννω. …ἐίλτςἁί ἔτιὑῖ: similarly 29:1, 7, 12), they express it by ἐίλτς(the same word used (ἡἡέαἡπώηἐίλτςἁί ἔτιὑῖ) ib. 1:16; 26:9, for the ordinary partic. called, summoned), i.e. I suppose in the same sense of specially appointed (cf. Jos_20:9 α πλι α ἐίλτιτῖ υοςἸρή).
Isa_1:13 ‘the calling of a convocation’ is represented in LXX by ἡέα μγλν and 4:5 ‘all her convocations’ by τ πρκκῳατς
From all this, it occurs to me that the LXX were not familiar with the term מר, and did not know what it meant. I think it probable that they pronounced it not as a subst. מקרא but as a participle מקרא(‘called’).
&#