Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Romans 15:1 - 15:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
15:1. The beginning of chap. 15 is connected immediately with what precedes, and there is no break in the argument until ver. 13 is reached; but towards the close, especially in vv. 7-13, the language of the Apostle is more general. He passes from the special points at issue to the broad underlying principle of Christian unity, and especially to the relation of the two great sections of the Church—the Jewish and the Gentile Christians.
ὀελμνδ. Such weakness is, it is true, a sign of absence of faith, but we who are strong in faith ought to bear with scruples weak though they may be. ο δντιnot, as in 1Co_1:26, the rich or the powerful, but as in 2Co_12:10, 2Co_13:9, of the morally strong.
βσάεν cf. Gal_6:2 ἀλλντ βρ βσάεε In classical Greek the ordinary word would be φρι, but βσάενseems to have gradually come into use in the figurative sense. It is used of bearing the cross both literally (Joh_19:17), and figuratively (Luk_14:27). We find it in later versions of the O. T. In Aq., Symm. and Theod. in Isa_40:11, 56:12; in the two latter in Isa_53:9; in Mat_8:17 quoting Isa_53:3: in none of these passages is the word used in the LXX. It became a favourite word in Christian literature, Ign. Ad Polyc. 1, Epist. ad Diog. §10 (quoted by Lft.).
μ ἑυοςἀέκι: cf. 1Co_10:33 κθςκγ πναπσνἀέκ, μ ζτντ ἐατῦσμέο, where St. Paul is describing his own conduct in very similar circumstances. He strikes at the root of Christian disunion, which is selfishness.
2. εςτ ἀαὸ πὸ οκδμν cf. 14:16 ὑῶ τ ἀαό, 19 τ τςοκδμςτςεςἀλλυ. The end or purpose of pleasing them must be the promotion of what is absolutely to their good, further defined by οκδμ, their edification. These words limit and explain what St. Paul means by ‘pleasing men.’ In Gal_1:10 (cf. Eph_6:6; 1Th_2:4) he had condemned it. In 1Co_9:20-23 he had made it a leading principle of his conduct. The rule is that we are to please men for their own good and not our own.
The γρafter ἕατςof the T. R. should be omitted. For ἡῶ some authorities (F G P ב Vulg., many Fathers) read ὑῶ.
3. κὶγρὁΧιτςκτλ The precept just laid down is enforced by the example of Christ (cf. 14:15). As Christ bore our reproaches, so must we bear those of others.
κθςγγατι St. Paul, instead of continuing the sentence, changes the construction and inserts a verse of the O. T. [Psa_48 (49):10 quoted exactly according to the LXX], which he puts into the mouth of Christ. For the construction cf. 9:7.
The Psalm quoted describes the sufferings at the hands of the ungodly of the typically righteous man, and passages taken from it are often in the N. T. referred to our Lord, to whom they would apply as being emphatically ‘the just one.’ Ver. 4 is quoted Joh_15:25, ver. 9a in Joh_2:17, ver. 9b in Rom_15:3, ver. 12 in Mat_27:27-30, ver. 21 in Mat_27:34, and Joh_19:29, ver. 22 f. in Rom_11:9, ver. 25a in Act_1:20. (See Liddon, ad loc.)
ο ὀεδσο κτλ In the original the righteous man is represented as addressing God and saying that the reproaches against God he has to bear. St. Paul transfers the words to Christ, who is represented as addressing a man. Christ declares that in suffering it was the reproaches or sufferings of others that He bore.
4. The quotation is justified by the enduring value of the O. T.
πογάη ‘were written before,’ in contrast with ἡεέα: cf. Eph_3:3; Jud_1:4, but with a reminiscence of the technical meaning of γάενfor what is written as Scripture.
δδσαίν ‘instruction’: cf. 2Ti_3:16 πσ γαὴθόνυτςκὶὠέιο πὸ δδσαίν
τνἐπδ: the specifically Christian feeling of hope. It is the supreme confidence which arises from trust in Christ that in no circumstances will the Christian be ashamed of that wherein he trusteth (Php_1:20); a confidence which tribulation only strengthens, for it makes more certain his power of endurance and his experience of consolation. On the relation of patience to hope cf. 5:3 and 1Th_1:3.
This passage, and that quoted above from 2Ti_3:16, lay down very clearly the belief in the abiding value of the O. T. which underlies St. Paul’s use of it. But while emphasizing its value they also limit it. The Scriptures are to be read for our moral instruction, ‘for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness’; for the perfection of the Christian character, ‘that the man of God may be complete, furnished unto every good work’; and because they establish the Christian hope which is in Christ. Two points then St. Paul teaches, the permanent value of the great moral and spiritual truths of the O. T., and the witness of the O. T. to Christ. His words cannot be quoted to prove more than this.
There are in this verse a few idiosyncrasies of B which may be noted but need not be accepted; ἐρφ (with Vulg. Orig.-lat.) for πογάη πναbefore εςτνἡ. (with P); τςπρκήεςrepeated after ἔωε (with Clem.-Al.). The T. R. with אא A L P ב &c. substitutes πογάηfor ἐρφ in the second place, and with Ccor D E F G P, &c., Vulg. Boh. Harcl. omits the second δά
5. After the digression of ver. 4 the Apostle returns to the subject of vv. 1-3, and sums up his teaching by a prayer for the unity of the community.
ὁδ Θὸ τςὑοοῆ κὶτςπρκήες cf. ὁΘὸ τςερνς(ver. 33; Php_4:9; 1Th_5:23; Heb_13:20), τςἐπδς(ver. 13), πσςπρκήες(2Co_1:3), πσςχρτς(1Pe_5:10).
τ ατ φοεν cf. Php_2:2-5 πηώαέμυτνχρν ἵατ ατ φοῆε…τῦοφοετ ἐ ὑῖ ὅκὶἐ Χ. Ἰ
κτ ΧιτνἸσῦ: cf 2Co_11:17 ὅλλ, ο κτ Κρο λλ: Col_2:8 ο κτ Χ.: Eph_4:24 τνκιὸ ἄθωο τνκτ Θὸ κιθνα(Rom_8:27, which is generally quoted, is not in point). These examples seem to show that the expression must mean ‘in accordance with the character or example of Christ.’
δηfor δί, a later form, cf. 2Th_3:16; 2Ti_1:16, 2Ti_1:18; 2Ti_2:25; Eph_1:17 (but with variant δῃin the last two cases). Χ. Ἰς (B D E G L, &c., Boh. Chrys.), not Ἰς Χ. אA C F P בVulg., Orig.-lat. Theodrt.
6. Unity and harmony of worship will be the result of unity of life.
ὁουαό, ‘with unity of mind.’ A common word in the Acts (1:14, &c.).
τνΘὸ κὶπτρ τῦΚρο ἡῶ ἸσῦΧιτῦ This expression occurs also in 2Co_1:3; 2Co_11:31; Eph_1:3; 1Pe_1:3. In Col_1:3, which is also quoted, the correct reading is τ ΘῷπτὶτῦΚρο ἡῶ Ἰ Χ Two translations are possible: (1) ‘God even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (Mey.-W.. Gif. Lid., Lips.). In favour of this it is pointed out that while πτρexpects some correlative word, Θό is naturally absolute; and that ὁΘὸ κὶπτρoccurs absolutely (as in 1Co_15:24 ὅα πρδδῖτνβσλίντ Θῷκὶπτί an argument the point of which does not seem clear, and which suggests that the first argument has not much weight. (2) It is better and simpler to take the words in their natural meaning, ‘The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ’; (Va. Oltr. Go. and others), with which cf. Eph_1:17 ὁΘὸ τῦΚρο ἡῶ Ἰ Χ Mat_27:46; Joh_20:17; Heb_1:9.
7. The principles laid down in this section of the Epistle are now generalized. All whom Christ has received should, without any distinction, be accepted into His Church. This is intended to apply especially to the main division existing at that time in the community, that between Jewish and Gentile Christians.
δὸπολμάεθ ἀλλυ κτλ the command is no longer to the strong to admit the weak, but to all sections of the community alike to receive and admit those who differ from them; so St. Paul probably said ὑᾶ, not ἡᾶ. The latter he uses in ver. 1, where he is identifying himself with the ‘strong,’ the former he uses here, where he is addressing the whole community. On δόcf. Eph_2:11; 1Th_5:11: on πολμάεθ see 14:1, 3.
ὑᾶ is read by אA C E F G L Vulg. Boh. Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. ἡᾶ by B D P ב B is again Western, and its authority on the distinction between ἡᾶ and ὑᾶ is less trustworthy than on most other points (see WH. ii. pp. 218, 310).
εςδξνΘο with ποεάεο ‘in order to promote the glory of God.’ As the following verses show, Christ has summoned both Jews and Greeks into His kingdom in order to promote the glory of God, to exhibit in the one case His faithfulness, in the other His mercy. So in Php_2:11 the object of Christ’s glory is to promote the glory of God the Father.
8. St. Paul has a double object. He writes to remind the Gentiles that it is through the Jews that they are called, the Jews that the aim and purpose of their existence is the calling of the Gentiles. The Gentiles must remember that Christ became a Jew to save them; the Jew that Christ came among them in order that all the families of the earth might be blessed: both must realize that the aim of the whole is to proclaim God’s glory.
This passage is connected by undoubted links (δόver. 7; λγ γρver. 8) with what precedes, and forms the conclusion of the argument after the manner of the concluding verses of ch. 8. and ch. 11. This connexion makes it probable that ‘the relations of Jew and Gentile were directly or indirectly involved in the relations of the weak and the strong.’ (Hort, Rom. and Eph. p. 29.)
δάοο …πρτμς not ‘a minister of the circumcised,’ still less a ‘minister of the true circumcision of the spirit,’ which would be introducing an idea quite alien to the context, but ‘a minister of circumcision’ (so Gifford, who has an excellent note), i. e. to carry out the promises implied in that covenant the seal of which was circumcision; so 2Co_3:6 δαόοςκιῆ δαήη. In the Ep. to the Galatians (4:4, 5) St. Paul had said that Christ was ‘born of a woman, born under the law, that He might redeem them which were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.’ On the Promise and Circumcision see Gen_12:1-3,Gen_17:1-14.
The privileges of the Jews which St. Paul dwells on are as follows: (1) Christ has Himself fulfilled the condition of being circumcised: the circumcised therefore must not be condemned. (2) The primary object of this was to fulfil the promises made to the Jews (cf. Rom_2:9, Rom_2:10). (3) It was only as a secondary result of this Messiahship that the Gentiles glorified God. (4) While the blessing came to the Jews ὑὲ ἀηεα to preserve God’s consistency, it came to the Gentiles ὑὲ ἐέυ for God’s loving-kindness.
γγνσα, which should be read with אA E L P ב(γγνῆθ); it was altered into the more usual aorist γνσα (B C D F G), perhaps because it was supposed to be co-ordinated with δξσι
τςἐαγλα τνπτρν cf. 9:4,5.
9. τ δ ἔν …δξσι Two constructions are possible for these words: (1) they may be taken as directly subordinate to λγ γρ(Weiss, Oltr. Go.). The only object in this construction would be to contrast ὑὲ ἐέυ with ὑὲ ἀηεα. But the real antithesis of the passage is between ββισιτςἐαγλα and τ ἔν δξσι and hence (2) τ δ …ἔν …δξσιshould be taken as subordinate to εςτ and co-ordinate with ββισι(Gif. Mey. Lid., Va.). With this construction the point of the passage becomes much greater, the call of the Gentiles is shown to be (as it certainly was), equally with the fulfilment of the promise to the Jews, dependent on the covenant made with Abraham (4:11, 12, 16, 17).
κθςγγατι The Apostle proceeds, as so often in the Epistle, to support his thesis by a series of passages quoted from the O. T.
δὰτῦοκτλ taken almost exactly from the LXX of Ps. 17:50 (18). In the original David, as the author of the Psalm, is celebrating a victory over the surrounding nations: in the Messianic application Christ is represented as declaring that among the Gentiles, i. e. in the midst of, and therefore together with them, He will praise God. ἐοοοήοα, ‘I will praise thee’: cf. 14:11.
10. Εφάθτ κτλ from the LXX of Deu_32:43. The Hebrew, translated literally, appears to mean, ‘Rejoice, O ye nations, His people.’ Moses is represented as calling on the nations to rejoice over the salvation of Israel. St. Paul takes the words as interpreted by the LXX to imply that the Gentiles and chosen people shall unite in the praise of God.
11. Ανῖεκτλ Psa_116(117):1. LXX. An appeal to all nations to praise the Lord.
There are slight variations in the Greek text and in the LXX. For πνατ ἔν τνΚρο C F G L have τνΚ π τ ἔ agreeing with the order of the LXX. ἑανστσνis read by אA B C D E Chrys. (so LXX A אανστσν ἐανστ by late MSS. with later LXX MSS.
12. Ἔτιἡῥζ κτλ from Isa_11:10, a description of the Messianic kingdom, which is to take the place of that Jewish kingdom which is soon to be destroyed. The quotation follows the LXX, which is only a paraphrase of the Hebrew; the latter runs (RV.) ‘And it shall come to pass in that day, that the root of Jesse, which standeth for an ensign of the peoples, unto him shall the Gentiles seek.’
13. The Apostle concludes by invoking on his hearers a blessing—that their faith may give them a life full of joy and peace, that in the power of the Holy Spirit they may abound in hope.
ὁΘὸ τςἐπδς cf. ver. 5. The special attribute, as in fact the whole of the benediction, is suggested by the concluding words of the previous quotation.
πσςχρςκὶερνς The joy and peace with God which is the result of true faith in the Christian’s heart. On ερν see 1:7.
For πηῶα (most MSS.) B F G have the curious variant πηοοῆα. B reads ἐ πσ χρ κὶερν and omits εςτ πρσεεν the peculiarities of this MS. in the last few verses are noticeable. D E F G omit ἐ τ πσεεν
The general question of the genuineness of these last two chapters is discussed in the Introduction (§9). It will be convenient to mention in the course of the Commentary some few of the detailed objections that have been made to special passages. In 15:1-13 the only serious objection is that which was first raised by Baur and has been repeated by others since. The statements in this section are supposed to be of too conciliatory a character; especially is this said to be the case with ver. 8. ‘How can we imagine,’ writes Baur, ‘that the Apostle, in an Epistle of such a nature and after all that had passed on the subject, would make such a concession to the Jewish Christians as to call Jesus Christ a minister of circumcision to confirm the promises of God made to the Fathers?’ To this it may be answered that that is exactly the point of view of the Epistle. It is brought out most clearly in 11:17-25; it is implied in the position of priority always given to the Jew (1:16; 2:9, 10); it is emphasized in the stress continually laid on the relations of the new Gospel to the Old Testament (ch. 4, &c.), and the importance of the promises which were fulfilled (1:2; 9:4). Baur’s difficulty arose from an erroneous conception of the teaching and position of St. Paul. For other arguments see Mangold, Der Rö pp. 81-100.
What sect or party is referred to in Rom_14?
There has been great diversity of opinion as to the persons referred to in this section of the Epistle to the Romans, but all commentators seem to agree in assuming that the Apostle is dealing with certain special circumstances which have arisen in the Church of Rome, and that the weak and the strong represent two parties in that Church.
1. The oldest explanation appears to be that which sees in these disputes a repetition of those which prevailed in the Corinthian Church, as to the same or some similar form of Judaizing practices (Orig. Chrys. Aug. Neander, &c.). In favour of this may be quoted the earlier portion of the fifteenth chapter, where there is clearly a reference to the distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians. But against this opinion it is pointed out that such Jewish objections to ‘things offered to idols,’ or to meats killed in any incorrect manner, or to swine’s flesh, have nothing to do with the typical instances quoted, the abstinence altogether from flesh meat and from wine (vv. 2, 21).
2. A second suggestion (Eichhorn) is that which sees in these Roman ascetics the influence of the Pythagorean and other heathen sects which practised and taught abstinence from meat and wine and other forms of self-discipline. But these again will not satisfy all the circumstances. These Roman Christians were, it is said, in the habit of observing scrupulously certain days: and this custom did not, as far as we know, prevail among any heathen sect.
3. Baur sees here Ebionite Christians of the character represented by the Clementine literature, and in accordance with his general theory he regards them as representing the majority of the Roman Church. That this last addition to the theory is tenable seems impossible. So far as there is any definiteness in St. Paul’s language he clearly represents the ‘strong’ as directing the policy of the community. They are told to receive ‘him that is weak in faith’; they seem to have the power to admit him or reject him. All that he on his side can do is to indulge in excessive criticism. Nor is the first part of the theory really more satisfactory. Of the later Ebionites we have very considerable knowledge derived from the Clementine literature and from Epiphanius (Haer. xxx), but it is an anachronism to discover these developments in a period nearly two centuries earlier. Nor again is it conceivable that St. Paul would have treated a developed Judaism in the lenient manner in which he writes in this chapter.
4. Less objection perhaps applies to the modification of this theory, which sees in these sectaries some of the Essene influence which probably prevailed everywhere throughout the Jewish world (Ritschl, Mey.-W. Lid. Lft. Gif. Oltr.). This view fulfils the three conditions of the case. The Essenes were Jewish, they were ascetic, and they observed certain days. If the theory is put in the form not that Essenism existed as a sect in Rome, which is highly improbable, but that there was Essene influence in the Jewish community there, it is possible. Yet if any one compares St. Paul’s language in other Epistles with that which he uses here, he will find it difficult to believe that the Apostle would recommend compliance with customs which arose, not from weak-minded scrupulousness, but from a completely inadequate theory of religion and life. Hort (Rom. and Eph., p. 27 f.) writes: ‘The true origin of these abstinences must remain somewhat uncertain: but much the most probable suggestion is that they come from an Essene element in the Roman Church, such as afterwards affected the Colossian Church.’ But later he modified his opinion (Judaistic Christianity, p. 128): ‘There is no tangible evidence for Essenism out of Palestine.’
All these theories have this in common, that they suppose St. Paul to be dealing with a definite sect or body in the Roman Church. But as our examination of the Epistle has proceeded, it has become more and more clear that there is little or no special reference in the arguments. Both in the controversial portion and in the admonitory portion, we find constant reminiscences of earlier situations, but always with the sting of controversy gone. St. Paul writes throughout with the remembrance of his own former experience, and not with a view to special difficulties in the Roman community. He writes on all these vexed questions, not because they have arisen there, but because they may arise. The Church of Rome consists, as he knows, of both Jewish and heathen Christians. These discordant elements may, he fears, unless wise counsels prevail produce the same dissensions as have occurred in Galatia or Corinth.
Hort (Judaistic Christianity, p. 126) recognizes this feature in the doctrinal portion of the Epistle: ‘It is a remarkable fact,’ he writes, ‘respecting this Epistle to the Romans …that while it discusses the question of the Law with great emphasis and fulness, it does so without the slightest sign that there is a reference to a controversy then actually existing in the Roman Church.’ Unfortunately he has not applied the same theory to this practical portion of the Epistle: if he had done so it would have presented just the solution required by all that he notices. ‘There is no reference,’ he writes, ‘to a burning controversy.’ ‘The matter is dealt with simply as one of individual conscience.’ He contrasts the tone with that of the Epistle to the Colossians. All these features find their best explanation in a theory which supposes that St. Paul’s object in this portion of the Epistle, is the same as that which has been suggested in the doctrinal portion.
If this theory be correct, then our interpretation of the passage is somewhat different from that which has usually been accepted, and is, we venture to think, more natural. When St. Paul says in ver. 2 ‘the weak man eateth vegetables,’ he does not mean that there is a special sect of vegetarians in Rome; but he takes a typical instance of excessive scrupulousness. When again he says ‘one man considers one day better than another,’ he does not mean that this sect of vegetarians were also strict sabbatarians, but that the same scrupulousness may prevail in other matters. When he speaks of ὁφοῶ τνἡέα, ὁμ ἐθω he is not thinking of any special body of people but rather of special types. When again in ver. 21 he says: ‘It is good not to eat flesh, or drink wine, or do anything in which thy brother is offended,’ he does not mean that these vegetarians and sabbatarians are also total abstainers; he merely means ‘even the most extreme act of self-denial is better than injuring the conscience of a brother.’ He had spoken very similarly in writing to the Corinthians: ‘Wherefore, if meat maketh my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I make not my brother to stumble’ (1Co_8:13). It is not considered necessary to argue from these words that abstinence from flesh was one of the characteristics of the Corinthian sectaries; nor is it necessary to argue in a similar manner here.
St. Paul is arguing then, as always in the Epistle, from past experience. Again and again difficulties had arisen owing to different forms of scrupulousness. There had been the difficulties which had produced the Apostolic decree; there were the difficulties in Galatia, ‘Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years’; there were the difficulties at Corinth. Probably he had already in his experience come across instances of the various ascetic tendencies which are referred to in the Colossian and Pastoral Epistles. We have evidence both in Jewish and in heathen writers of the wide extent to which such practices prevailed. In an age when there is much religious feeling there will always be such ideas. The ferment which the spread of Christianity aroused would create them. Hence just as the difficulties which he had experienced with regard to Judaism and the law made St. Paul work out and systematize his theory of the relation of Christianity to personal righteousness, so here he is working out the proper attitude of the Christian towards over-scrupulousness and over-conscientiousness. He is not dealing with the question controversially, but examining it from all sides.
And he lays down certain great principles. There is, first of all, the fundamental fact, that all these scruples are in matters quite indifferent in themselves. Man is justified by ‘faith’; that is sufficient. But then all have not strong, clear-sighted faith: they do not really think such actions indifferent, and if they act against their conscience their conscience is injured. Each man must act as he would do with the full consciousness that he is to appear before God’s judgement-seat. But there is another side to the question. By indifference to external observances we may injure another man’s conscience. To ourselves it is perfectly indifferent whether we conform to such an observance or not. Then we must conform for the sake of our weak brother. We are the strong. We are conscious of our strength. Therefore we must yield to others: not perhaps always, not in all circumstances, but certainly in many cases. Above all, the salvation of the individual soul and the peace and unity of the community must be preserved. Both alike, weak and strong, must lay aside differences on such unimportant matters for the sake of that church for which Christ died.
APOLOGY FOR ADMONITIONS
15:14-21. These admonitions of mine do not imply that I am unacquainted with your goodness and deep spiritual knowledge. In writing to you thus boldly I am only fulfilling my duty as Apostle to the Gentiles; the priest who stands before the altar and presents to God the Gentile Churches (vv. 14-17).
And this is the ground of my boldness. For I can boast of my spiritual labours and gifts, and of my wide activity in preaching the Gospel, and that, not where others had done so before me, but where Christ was not yet named (vv. 18-21).
14. The substance of the Epistle is now finished, and there only remain the concluding sections of greeting and encouragement. St. Paul begins as in 1:8 with a reference to the good report of the church. This he does as a courteous apology for the warmth of feeling he has exhibited, especially in the last section; but a comparison with the Galatian letter, where there is an absence of any such compliment, shows that St. Paul’s words must be taken to have a very real and definite meaning.
ππιμιδ: cf. 8:38, ‘Though I have spoken so strongly it does not mean that I am not aware of the spiritual earnestness of your church.’
κὶατςἐὼπρ ὑῶ, ὅικὶατί notice the emphasis gained by the position of the words. ‘And not I inquire of others to know, but I myself, that is, I that rebuke, that accuse you.’ Chrys.
μσο: cf. Rom_1:29, where also it is combined with ππηωέο.
πσςγώες ‘our Christian knowledge in its entirety.’ Cf. 1Co_13:2 κὶἐνἔωποηεα κὶεδ τ μσήι πνακὶπσντνγῶι, κὶἐνἔωπσντνπσι κτλ γῶι is used for the true knowledge which consists in a deep and comprehensive grasp of the real principles of Christianity.
τςis read by אB P, Clem.-Alex. Jo.-Damasc. It is omitted by A C D E F G L, &c., Chrys. Theodrt.
ἀαωύη: cf. 2Th_1:11; Gal_5:22; Eph_5:9; used only in the LXX, the N. T. and writings derived from them. Generally it means ‘goodness’ or ‘uprightness’ in contrast with κκα as in Psa_51:5. (52:5.) ἠάηα κκα ὑὲ ἀαωύη: defined more accurately the idea seems to be that derived from ἀαό of active beneficence and goodness of heart. Here it is combined with γῶι, because the two words represent exactly the qualities which are demanded by the discussion in chap. 14. St. Paul demands on the one side a complete grasp of the Christian faith as a whole, and on the other ‘goodness of heart,’ which may prevent a man from injuring the spiritual life of his brother Christians by disregarding their consciences. Both these were, St. Paul is fully assured, realized in the Roman community.
Forms in -σν are almost all late and mostly confined to Hellenistic writers. In the N. T. we have ἐεμσν, ἀχμσν, ἁισν, ἱρσν, μγλσν: see Winer, §xvi. 2 β(p. 118, ed. Moulton).
δνμνικὶἀλλυ νυεεν Is it laying too much stress on the language of compliment to suggest that these words give a hint of St. Paul’s aim in this Epistle? He has grasped clearly the importance of the central position of the Roman Church and its moral qualities, and he realizes the power that it will be for the instruction of others in the faith. Hence it is to them above all that he writes, not because of their defects but of their merits.
It is difficult to believe that any reader will find an inconsistency between this verse and 1:11 or the exhortations of chap. 14, whatever view he may hold concerning St. Paul’s general attitude towards the Roman Church. It would be perfectly natural in any case that, after rebuking them on certain points on which he felt they needed correction, he should proceed to compliment them for the true knowledge and goodness which their spiritual condition exhibited. He could do so because it would imply a true estimate of the state of the Church, and it would prevent any offence being taken at his freedom of speech. But if the view suggested on chap. 14. and throughout the Epistle be correct, and these special admonitions arise rather from the condition of the Gentile churches as a whole, the words gain even more point. ‘I am not finding fault with you, I am warning you of dangers you may incur, and I warn you especially owing to your prominent and important position.’
15. τληόεο. The boldness of which St. Paul accuses himself is not in sentiment, but in manner. It was ἀὸμρυ, ‘in part of the Epistle’; 6:12 ff., 19; 8:9; 11:17 ff.;12:3; 13:3 ff., 13 ff., 14.; 15:1, have been suggested as instances.
ἐααινσω. Wetstein quotes ἔατνὑῶ, κίε ἀρβςσδτ, ὅω ἐαανσιβύοα Demosthenes, Phil. 74, 7 The ἐίseems to soften the expression ‘suggesting to your memory.’ St. Paul is not teaching any new thing, or saying anything which a properly instructed Christian would not know, but putting more clearly and definitely the recognized principles and commands of the Gospel.
δὰτνχρντνδθῖά μι On St. Paul’s Apostolic grace cf. 1:5 δʼο ἐάοε χρνκὶἀοτλν 12:3 λγ γρδὰτςχρτςτςδθίη μι
It is probably preferable to read τληοέω (A B, WH.) for τληόεο. The TR. adds ἀεφίafter ἔρψ ὑῖ against the best authorities (אA B C Boh., Orig. Aug. Chrys.); the position of the word varies even in MSS. in which it does occur. ὑόis a correction of the TR. for ἀό(אB F Jo.-Damasc.).
16. λιορό seems to be used definitely and technically as in the LXX of a priest. See esp. 2 Esdras 20:36 (Neh_10:37) τῖ ἱρῦιτῖ λιοροσνἐ οκ Θο ἡῶ. So in Heb_8:2 of our Lord, who is ἀχεεςand τνἁίνλιορό: see the note on 1:9. Generally in the LXX the word seems used of the Levites as opposed to the priests as in 2 Esdras 20:39 (Neh. 10:40) κὶο ἱρῖ κὶο λιορο, but there is no such idea here.
ἱρυγῦτ, ‘being the sacrificing priest of the Gospel of God.’ St. Paul is standing at the altar as priest of the Gospel, and the offering which he makes is the Gentile Church.
ἱρυγῖ means (1) to ‘perform a sacred function,’ hence (2) especially to ‘sacrifice’; and so τ ἱρυγθναmeans ‘the slain victims’ and then (3) to be a priest, to be one who performs sacred functions. Its construction is two-fold: (1) it may take the accusative of the thing sacrificed; so Bas. in Ps. cxv κὶἱρυγσ σιτντςανσω θσα; or (2) ἱρυγῖ τ may be put for ἱρυγντνςενι(Galen, de Theriaca μσηίνἱρυγν so 4 Macc. 7:8 (v. l.) τὺ ἱρυγῦτςτννμν Greg. Naz. ἱρυγῖ στρα τνς(see Fri. ad loc. from whom this note is taken).
ἡποφρ. With this use of sacrificial language, cf. 12:1, 2. The sacrifices offered by the priest of the New Covenant were not the dumb animals as the old law commanded, but human beings, the great body of the Gentile Churches. Unlike the old sacrifices which were no longer pleasing to the Lord, these were acceptable (επόδκο, 1Pe_2:5). Those were animals without spot or blemish; these are made a pure and acceptable offering by the Holy Spirit which dwells in them (cf. 8:9, 11).
For the construction of ποφρ cf. Heb_10:10 π τῦσμτςἸ Χ.
17. ἔωοντνκύηι. The τνshould be omitted (see below). ‘I have therefore my proper pride, and a feeling of confidence in my position, which arises from the fact that I am a servant of Christ, and a priest of the Gospel of God.’ St. Paul is defending his assumption of authority, and he does so on two grounds: (1) His Apostolic mission, δὰτνχρντνδθῖά μι as proved by his successful labours (vv. 18-20); (2) the sphere of his labours, the Gentile world, more especially that portion of it in which the Gospel had not been officially preached. The emphasis therefore is on ἐ Χ. Ἰ and τ πὸ τνθό. With κύηι cf. 3:27, 1Co_15:31; with the whole verse, 2Co_10:13 ἡεςδ οχ εςτ ἄερ κυηόεα…17 ὁδ κυώεο ἐ Κρῳκυάθ.
The RV. has not improved the text by adding τνbefore κύηι. The combination אA L P, Boh., Arm., Chrys., Cyr., Theodrt. is stronger than that of B D E F G in this Epistle. C seems uncertain.
18. ο γρτλήωκτλ ‘For I will not presume to mention any works but those in which I was myself Christ’s agent for the conversion of Gentiles.’ St. Paul is giving his case for the assumption of authority (κύηι). It is only his own labour or rather works done through himself that he cares to mention. But the value of such work is that it is not his own but Christ’s working in him, and that it is among Gentiles, and so gives him a right to exercise authority over a Gentile Church like the Roman.
With τλήω(אA C D E F G L P, Boh.. Harcl., etc.) cf. 2Co_10:12; there seems to be a touch of irony in its use here; with κτιγστ 2Co_12:12, Rom_7:13, &c. with λγ κὶἔγ, ‘in speech or action,’ 2Co_10:11.
19. ἐ δνμισμίνκτλ cf. 2Co_12:12 τ μνσμῖ τῦἀοτλυκτιγσηἐ ὑῖ ἐ πσ ὑοοῇ σμίι τ κὶτρσ κὶδνμσ: Heb_2:4 σνπμρυονο τῦΘο σμίι τ κὶτρσ κὶπιίαςδνμσ κὶΠεμτςἉίυμρσοςκτ τνατῦθλσν 1Co_12:28.
The combination σμῖ κὶτρτ is that habitually used throughout the N. T. to express what are popularly called miracles. Both words have the same denotation, but different connotations. τρςimplies anything marvellous or extraordinary in itself, σμῖνrepresents the same event, but viewed not as an objectless phenomenon but as a sign or token of the agency by which it is accomplished or the purpose it is intended to fulfil. Often a third word δνμι is added which implies that these ‘works’ are the exhibition of more than natural power. Here St. Paul varies the expression by saying that his work was accomplished in the power of signs and wonders; they are looked upon as a sign and external exhibition of the Apostolic χρς See Trench, Miracles xci; Fri. ad loc.
There can be no doubt that St. Paul in this passage assumes that he possesses the Apostolic power of working what are ordinarily called miracles. The evidence for the existence of miracles in the Apostolic Church is twofold: on the one hand the apparently natural and unobtrusive claim made by the Apostles on behalf of themselves or others to the power of working miracles, on the other the definite historical narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. The two witnesses corroborate one another. Against them it might be argued that the standard of evidence was lax, and that the miraculous and non-miraculous were not sufficiently distinguished. But will the first argument hold against a personal assertion? and does not the narrative of the Acts make it clear that miracles in a perfectly correct sense of the word were definitely intended?
ἐ δνμιΠεμτςἉίὺ cf. ver. 13, and on the reading here see below. St. Paul’s Apostolic labours are a sign of commission because they have been accompanied by a manifestation of more than natural gifts, and the source of his power is the Holy Spirit with which he is filled.
This seems one of those passages in which the value of the text of B where it is not vitiated by Western influence is conspicuous (cf. 4:1). It reads (alone or with the support of the Latin Fathers) πεμτςwithout any addition. אL P &c., Orig.-lat. Chrys. &c., add θο, A C D F G Boh. Vulg. Arm., Ath. &c. read ἁίυ Both were corrections of what seemed an unfinished expression.
ἀὸἹρυαὴ κὶκκῳμχιτῦἸλρκῦ These words have caused a considerable amount of discussion.
1. The first question is as to the meaning of κκῳ
(1) The majority of modern commentators (Fri. Gif. Mey.-W.) interpret it to mean the country round Jerusalem, as if it were κὶτῦκκῳ and explain it to mean Syria or in a more confined sense the immediate neighbourhood of the city. But it may be pointed out that κκῳin the instances quoted of it in this sense (Gen_35:5; Gen_41:48) seems invariably to have the article.
(2) It may be suggested therefore that it is better to take it as do the majority of the Greek commentators and the AV. ‘from Jerusalem and round about unto Illyricum.’ So Oecumenius κκῳἵαμ τνκτ εθῖνὁὸ ἐθμθς ἀλ κτ τ πρξand to the same effect Chrys. Theodrt. Theophylact. This meaning is exactly supported by Xen. Anab. VII. i. 14 κὶπτρ δὰτῦἱρῦὄοςδο πρύσα, ἢκκῳδὰμσςτςΘᾴη, and substantially by Mar_6:6.
2. It has also been debated whether the words ‘as far as Illyria’ include or exclude that country. The Greek is ambiguous; certainly it admits the exclusive use. μχιθλση can be used clearly as excluding the sea. As far as regards the facts the narrative of the Acts (τ μρ ἐεν Act_20:2; cf. Tit_3:12) suggests that St. Paul may have preached in Illyria, but leave it uncertain. A perfectly tenable explanation of the words would be that if Jerusalem were taken as one limit and the Eastern boundaries of Illyria as the other, St. Paul had travelled over the whole of the intervening district, and not merely confined himself to the direct route between the two places. Jerusalem and Illyria in fact represent the limits.
If this be the interpretation of the passage it is less important to fix the exact meaning of the word Illyria as used here; but a passage in Strabo seems to suggest the idea which was in St. Paul’s mind when he wrote. Strabo, describing the Egnatian way from the Adriatic sea-coast, states that it passes through a portion of Illyria before it reaches Macedonia, and that the traveller along it has the Illyrian mountains on his left hand. St. Paul would have followed this road as far as Thessalonica, and if pointing Westward he had asked the names of the mountain region and of the peoples inhabiting it, he would have been told that it was ‘Illyria.’ The term therefore is the one which would naturally occur to him as fitted to express the limits of his journeys to the West (Strabo vii. 7. 4).
The word Illyria might apparently be used at this period in two senses. (1) As the designation of a Roman province it might be used for what was otherwise called Dalmatia, the province on the Adriatic sea-coast north of Macedonia and west of Thrace. (2) Ethnically it would mean the country inhabited by Illyrians, a portion of which was included in the Roman province of Macedonia. In this sense it is used in Appian, Illyrica 1, 7; Jos. Bell. Iud. II. xvi. 4; and the passage of Strabo quoted above.
ππηωέα τ εαγλο τῦΧιτῦ cf. Col_1:25 ἧ ἐεόη ἐὼδάοο κτ τνοκνμα τῦΘο τνδθῖά μιεςὑᾶ, πηῶα τνλγντῦΘο. In both passages the meaning is to ‘fulfil,’ ‘carry out completely,’ and so in the AV. ‘to fully preach.’ In what sense St. Paul could say that he had done this, see below.
20. οτ δ φλτμύεο κτλ introduces a limitation of the statement of the previous verses. Within that area there had been places where he had not been eager to preach, since he cared only to spread the Gospel, not to compete with others. οτ is explained by what follows. φλτμύεο (1Th_4:11; 2Co_5:9) means to ‘strive eagerly,’ having lost apparently in late Greek its primary idea of emulation. See Field, Otium Norv. iii. p. 100, who quotes Polyb. i. 83; Diod. Sic. xii. 46; xvi. 49; Plut. Vit. Caes. liv.
ὠοάθ: ‘so named as to be worshipped.’ Cf. 2Ti_2:19; Isa_26:13; Amo_6:10.
ἀλτινθμλο. For ἀλτινcf. 2Co_10:15, 2Co_10:16. St. Paul describes his work (1Co_3:10) as laying a ‘foundation stone’: ὡ σφςἀχτκω θμλο ἔηα ἀλςδ ἐοκδμῖ and so generally the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph_2:20).
21. ἀλ κθςγγατι St. Paul describes the aim of his mission (the limitations of which he has just mentioned) in words chosen from the O. T. The quotation which follows is taken verbally from the LXX of Isa_52:15, which differs but not essentially from the Hebrew. The Prophet describes the astonishment of the nations and kings at the suffering of the servant of Jehovah. ‘That which hath not been told them they shall see.’ The LXX translates this ‘those to whom it was not told shall see,’ and St. Paul taking these words applies them (quite in accordance with the spirit of the original) to the extension of the knowledge of the true Servant of Jehovah to places where his name has not been mentioned.
Verses 19-21, or rather a portion of them (ὥτ μ …ἀλ), are still objected to by commentators (as by Lipsius) who recognize the futility of the objections to the chapter as a whole. In a former case (11:8-10) the clumsiness of an excision suggested by Lipsius was noticed and here he has not been any happier. He omits ver. 20, but keeps the quotation in ver. 21, yet thi