Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Romans 1:1 - 1:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rom_1:1-17
THE APOSTLESHIP OF PAUL, APPOINTED FOR THE GLORY OF THE NAME OF GOD THROUGH THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, AND FOR THE REVELATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD FOR FAITH IN ALL THE WORLD, AMONG THE JEWS AND GENTILES, AND ESPECIALLY ALSO IN ROME
I
Inscription and Salutation
Rom_1:1-7
TO THE Romans
Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
[General Remarks on the Apostolic Salutations.—On the grammatical structure of the two sentences, Rom_1:1-7, see textual note 12to Rom_1:7. St. Paul opens his Epistles with his name and official title, by which he challenges respectful attention to his inspired teaching, and with the assurance of his brotherly regard and love for the readers, by which he wins their affections. The ancient epistolary style unites in a brief inscription what we now distinguish as address, greeting, and subscription. Paul combines the heathen and the Hebrew form of salutation, and inspires both with a deep Christian meaning.
The Greek and Roman epistolary inscription contained simply the name of the writer in the nominative, and the name of the receiver in the dative (e.g., Ðëἀôùí Äéïíõóἰù , Cicero Attico), frequently with the addition of the wish for health and prosperity, by the words åὖ ðñἀôôåéí , more usually ÷áßñåéí , or ÷áßñåéí ëÝãåí , satutem, or salutem dicit. This form we find in the New Testament three times: once in the heathen sense, in the letter of Lysias to the Roman governor Felix, Act_23:26 ( Êëáὐäéïò Ëõóßáò ôῶ ... ÖÞëéêé ÷áßñåéí ), and twice in the Christian sense, namely in the circular letter of the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, which was probably written by James, Act_15:23 ( ïἱ ἀðüóôïëïé ... ôïῖò ... ἀäåëöïῖò ôïῖò ἐî ἐèíῶí ÷áßñåéí ), and in the Epistle of James, Rom_1:1 ( Ἰἀêùâïò ... ôáῖò äþäåêá öõëáῖò ... ÷áßñåéí ). From 2 John, Rom_1:10 ( ÷áßñåéí áὐôῶ ìὴ ëÝãåôå ), it appears that Greek Christians were in the habit of greeting one another with the usual ÷áῖñå (Vulg., ave, comp. Mat_26:49; Mat_27:29; Mat_28:9; Mar_15:18; Luk_1:28; Joh_19:3). But the heathen formula, as implying a prayer to the gods, had in it a taint of idolatry, or, at all events, it referred only to temporal prosperity, and had to give way before long to a change in accordance with Christian feeling.
The Hebrew (and Arabic) form of salutation is ùָׁìåֹí , åἰñÞíç , Peace, or ùָׁìåֹí ìְêָ , LXX., åἰñÞíç óïé , Peace be with you; comp. Gen_29:6; Gen_43:23; Exo_18:7; Jdg_6:23; 1Sa_10:4; Dan_10:19 : Luk_10:5-6, &c. (With the later Jews the usual formula was ééùׁø ). The risen Saviour greeted thus the assembled disciples, Joh_20:19; Joh_20:26, bringing the true peace of the soul with God, which He, the Prince of Peace, had bought by His atoning death and triumphant resurrection (comp. Joh_14:27; Joh_16:33; Mat_10:12-13).
Combining the Græco-Roman inscription and the Hebrew salutation, we would have this form: “Paul to the Romans. Health and peace be with you.”
But Paul transforms the Greek ÷áßñåéí and the Hebrew shalom from the prevailing idea of physical health and temporal comfort, into the deep meaning of the saving grace and peace of God in Christ, and comprehends in the two words ÷Üñéò and åἰñÞíç the richest blessings of the gospel; ÷Üñéò being the objective cause of the Christian salvation, and åéñÞíç its subjective effect in the soul of man. At the same time, there is, no doubt, a reference in this epistolary greeting to the Mosaic, or rather Aaronic benediction, Num_6:25-26 : “The Lord make His grace shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee ( åִéçֻðּêָּ , from çָðַï , gratiosus fuit, hence çֵï , ÷Üñéò ), the Lord lift up His countenance upon thee, and give thee peace ( ùָׁìåֹí , LXX., åἰñÞíçí ).” We find this salutatory grace and peace not only in the Epistles of Paul, but also in those of Peter and of John in the Apocalypse. In the Pastoral Epistles, 1Ti_1:2; 2Ti_1:2, and Tit_1:4 (text, rec.), Paul, with reference probably to the Greek version of the Aaronic benediction, Num_6:25 ( ἐëåÞóåé óå for åִéçֻðֶּêָּ ), adds to the prayer for grace and peace that of mercy ( ἔëåïò ), which ministers of the gospel need more than any other class of men. This threefold blessing, corresponding to the threefold Aaronic benediction, we find also in 2 John 3.
In the Epistle to the Romans, where Paul, contrary to his habit, addressed a congregation which he had not founded, or even visited, he amplifies the Græco-Hebrew inscription and salutation still more, and inserts parenthetically some of the fundamental doctrinal ideas of the Epistle, as suggested by the mention of “the gospel of God,” namely: (1) The connection of the gospel with the Old Testament revelation, Rom_1:2; (2) the divine-human nature of Christ, who is the subject of that gospel, Rom_1:3-4; (3) his call to the apostleship of all the Gentiles by Christ, which gives him a right to address himself also to the Romans, Rom_1:5. In the richness of this salutation we see the overflowing fulness of Paul’s mind, and the importance he attached to this Epistle. Calvin: Epistola tota sic methodica est, ut ipsum quoque exordium ad rationem artis compositum sit.—P. S.]
Rom_1:1.—Paul.—Saul as Paul, i.e., the Small, in opposition and contrast to Bar-Jesus, Elymas the Sorcerer of Cyprus, Act_13:8. [Saul and Paul. Paulos is the Hellenistic, Paulus the Latin form for the Hebrew Saul, though differing from it in meaning. It was chosen as the nearest allusive and alliterative equivalent, and as a name already familiar to the Greeks; while Saul, as a proper name, was unknown to them. The name Saul—the most distinguished name in the genealogy of the tribe of Benjamin, to which Paul belonged (Rom_11:1; Php_3:5; comp. Act_13:21)—the Apostle used among the Jews, the name Paul among the Gentiles, and in the later part of his life exclusively. The Jews and early Christians often had two names, either similar in sound and identical in meaning, as Silas and Silvanus (the former occurring uniformly in the Acts thirteen times, the latter four times in the Epistles), Lucas and Lucanus (Col_4:14; 2Ti_4:11; Phm_1:24); or similar in sound but different in meaning, as Jesus and Justus (Col_4:11), Saul and Paul, Hillel and Pollio; or different in sound but identical in meaning, as Cephas (Hebrew) and Peter (Greek); or different both in sound and meaning, as Jacob and Israel, Simon and Peter, Bartholomew and Nathanael, John and Mark (Act_12:12; Act_12:25), Simeon and Niger (Rom_13:1), Barsabas and Justus (i. 23). It is possible that the Apostle Paul, as a Roman citizen, received this name in early youth in Tarsus (Lightfoot), or inherited it from some ancestor, who may have adopted it in becoming a freedman, or in acquiring the Roman citizenship; Paul being the well-known cognomen of several distinguished Roman families, as the gens Æmilia, Fabia, Julia, Sergia, &c. It is more probable, however, that he chose the name himself after he entered upon his labors among the Gentiles, as a part of his missionary policy to become a Greek to the Greeks, in order to gain them more readily to Christ (1Co_9:19-23). At all events, the name Paul is first mentioned during his first great missionary journey, when he, taking henceforth precedence of Barnabas in words and in acts, struck Elymas the sorcerer with blindness, and converted Sergius Paulus, the pro-consul of Cyprus, to the Christian faith (Act_13:8). After this striking fact, he is uniformly called Paul in the latter chapters of the Acts, and in all the Epistles. But we have no right, for this reason, to infer (with Jerome, Olshausen, Meyer, Ewald, and others) that the name Paul was a memorial of the conversion of Sergius Paulus as his first-fruit. For (1) he may have converted many Jews and Gentiles before that time; (2) pupils are called after their teachers and benefactors, and not vice versâ; (3) Luke gives no intimation to that effect, and connects the name Paul, not with that of the proconsul of Cyprus (Rom_13:7; Rom_13:12), but with that of Elymas the sorcerer (Rom_1:8). The last circumstance favors the ingenious hypothesis of Dr. Lange, that the name expresses the symbolical significance of the victory of Paul, the small man of God, over Elymas, the mighty magician of the devil, as a New Testament counterpart of the victory of David over Goliath, or of Moses over the sorcerers of Egypt. Dr. Lange, however, admits the probability that Paul had his Roman name before this occasion. At all events, the change of name has nothing whatever to do with his conversion; and all allegorical interpretations of Chrysostom, Augustine, Wordsworth, and others, which go on this assumption, are merely pious fancies, which are sufficiently refuted by the fact that the Apostle is repeatedly called Saul long after his conversion, as in Act_9:25; Act_9:30; Act_12:25; Act_13:1-2; Act_13:7; Act_13:9; and that it is said of Saul in one passage (Rom_13:9), that he was “filled with the Holy Ghost.”—P. S.]
A servant of Jesus Christ.— òֶáֶø éְäåָֹä . This is not merely the general designation of the pious man (Fritzsche: Christi cultor, Eph_6:6), but the designation of his office (Tholuck); 1Co_4:1; Php_1:1; Jam_1:1. Reiche: The word implies unlimited obedience. Schott: “ äïῦëïò denotes the Christian, so far as he, in the discharge of a special Christian calling, surrenders himself completely to God’s will, and excludes his own preference.” Here the Christian call in its universal character is meant, just as it appears in the apostleship, after the absolute service of the one great servant of God, Isaiah 53. Nevertheless, there is no tautology in the addition: called to be an apostle. Calvin: Apostolatus ministerii est species. The same office, related to Christ, makes the äïῦëïò , in the absolute sense (comp. Isaiah 53.); but, related to the world, it makes the ἀðüóôïëïò . [A servant, literally bondsman ( äïῦëïò , from äÝù , to bind), denotes generally, like the corresponding Hebrew òֶáֶã éְäåָֹä , a relation of dependence on God, and cheerful obedience to His will. Paul glories in this service, which is perfect freedom. The more we feel bound by the authority of Christ, the more we are free from the bondage of men. Deo servire vera libertas est (Augustine). In a wide sense, the term applies to all believers, who are both children and servants of God (Isa_65:13; Dan_3:26; Rom_6:22; Rom_14:4; Eph_6:6; 1Co_7:22; 1Pe_2:16; Rev_19:2; Rev_19:5); in a special and emphatic sense, it is used of the chosen office-bearers in the kingdom of God, as Moses, the prophets, and kings in the Old Testament (Deu_34:5; Jos_1:1; Isa_49:5; Jer_25:4), and the ministers of the gospel in the New, particularly the apostles (so here; Php_1:1; Tit_1:1; Col_4:12; Jam_1:1; 2Pe_1:1; Rev_1:1). Hodge: “Servant is a general official designation, of which, in the present case, apostle is the specific explanation.” Paul “rejects all human authority in matters of faith and duty, and yet professes the most absolute subjection of conscience and reason to the authority of Jesus Christ.” Wordsworth: “Other men, in the beginning of their epistles, especially those which they addressed to the Roman people, recited their own titles as rulers, kings, or conquerors; but the apostles claim to be heard as äïῦëïí , bondsmen, bondsmen of Jesus Christ.” Comp., however, my annotation on ἀðüóôïëïò , which is a title of dignity and authority.—P. S.]—Jesus Christ. That is, Jesus is the Christ. Dealing with the Roman Christians, the Apostle had no ground for saying the reverse: Christ Jesus, i.e., The Christ is Jesus.
Called to be an apostle.—As he had had to defend his call before the Corinthians and Galatians on account of opponents, he does it here because he was not yet personally known to the Roman Church. [Called; chosen, appointed, not self-called, but called by Christ, in opposition to an arbitrary self-constituted authority ( áὐôü – êëçôïò , self-appointed), and called directly by Christ, without the intervention of church authority, comp. Gal_1:1 : “Not of men ( ἀð ̓ ἀíèñþðùí ), nor by any man ( äἰ ἀíèñὠðïõ ), but by Jesus Christ,” &c. The word refers to the historical call, not to the eternal election. Calvin: Neque enim iis assentior, qui eam de qua loquitur vocationem ad eternam Dei electionem referunt.—P. S.] The expression, apostle, has here its widest significance. Christ, the Risen One, has called him; he is therefore, in the most positive sense, a witness of His resurrection, and this implies the apostolic witness of the whole of His miraculous person and work. [Apostle is a title of dignity, signifying the highest order of servant; every apostle being a servant of Christ, but not every servant an apostle of Christ. The one brings out the dependence of Paul on Christ, the other his authority over the congregations, and the latter is conditioned by the former. The term apostle may designate, etymologically, any delegate, commissioner, or missionary, but more particularly, as here, and in most passages, a chosen eye and ear witness of the life of Christ, who was personally instructed and selected by Him for the work of laying the foundation of the Christian Church, and teaching her through all subsequent generations. The apostles were inspired messengers of Christ, not to a particular charge, but to the whole world. The term is therefore generally restricted to the twelve (Luk_6:13), and to Paul, who was likewise directly called by the Lord (Gal_1:1; Gal_1:12; Act_9:15; Act_26:17). The sudden call of the persecuting Paul to the apostleship of the Gentiles corresponds to the sudden call of the Gentiles to Christianity, just as the gradual instruction of the Jewish apostles accords with the long training of the Jewish nation for the gospel.—P. S.]
Separated, set apart.—Not equal to chosen of God (De Wette), nor to appointed by the Church (with reference to Act_13:2; Olshausen), but directed to and appointed for this particular calling, through the whole providential course of his life (comp. Gal_1:15). An ἀöïñßæåóèáé first took place with him [at his birth, comp. Gal_1:15 : ὁ ἀöïñἰóáò ìå ἐê êïéëßáò ìçôñüò ìïõ , êáὶ êáëÝóáò , ê . ô . ë .; then.—P. S.] when he was sent from Tarsus to Jerusalem [?]; a second [third], at his conversion and retreat into Arabia; and a third [fourth], at his special appointment as the Apostle to the Gentiles (Act_13:2 ff.; Galatians 2.). The biblical ὁñßæåéí must be distinguished from ðñïãéíὠêåéí or ἐêëÝãåóèáé as well as from êáëåῖí ; it denotes the Divine determination of the historical career of the man (see Act_17:26). [Meyer refers ἀöùñéóìÝíïò to the historical call at Damascus, and compares óêåῦïò ἐêëïãῆò , Act_9:15; Act_26:16 ff. The word is an explanation of êëçôὸò ἀðüóôïëïò , and gives us the additional idea of destination. It implies that Paul was selected from the world, singled out, consecrated to, and destined for the gospel service, at the time of his conversion. It refers to the Divine appointment for the apostolic office in general, while ἀöïñßóáôå , in Act_13:2, refers to a special mission, ἀöïñὶæåéí , like êáëåῖí , looks to the historical call, ðñïïñßæåéí to the eternal decree, but the former is only an execution in time or actualization of the latter.—P. S.]
Unto the gospel of God.—That is, not the gospel having God for its object (Chrysostom), but the gospel given by God (2Co_11:7) for promulgation. [It is the genitive, not of the object, but of origin and possession; God’s gospel, whose author is God, and whose theme is Christ and His salvation by free grace; comp. Rom_1:3-4; Rom_15:16; 1Th_2:2; 1Th_2:8-9.—P. S.] Gospel. Without the article. According to De Wette and Schott, it is here not the internal matter or contents of the gospel, but the åὐáããåëßæåóèáé . [De Wette: zur Verkündigung des Evangeliums.—P. S.] Tholuck, on the contrary: “ ÅὐáããÝëéïí does not stand for the infinitive åὐáããåëßæåóèáé , as we learn from the relative ὅ , but it is only an indefinite method of expression, as 2Co_2:12; 2Co_10:14.” We would say, rather, that it is the concrete method of expression, implying that the knowledge of salvation cannot be without preaching, and preaching cannot be without the matter of the gospel.
Rom_1:2. Which He promised before by His prophets in the holy Scriptures.—[So that God stood pledged, as it were, to reveal the gospel.] The second verse must not be read, with Beza [and the authorized English version, which often closely follows Beza], as parenthesis. The same expression occurs, 2Co_9:5 [ ôἡí ðñïåðçããåëìÝíçí åὐëïãßáí ὑìῶí , your bounty before promised.—P. S.] The mention of the Old Testament promise of the gospel must not only authenticate the Apostle to the Jewish Christians, but it must also enforce the gospel for the Gentile Christians. This preceding promise lay specifically in the Messianic passages (De Wette); and, at the same time, according to the New Testament view, in the meaning of the whole of the Old Testament, which promised the universal Pauline gospel (see Romans 10.). The expression ãñáöáß , without the article, does not denote passages of Scripture (Dr. Paulus [Meyer] ), but ãñáöáß ἅãéáé has become, according to De Wette, a nomen proprium. [The second verse teaches that the gospel is no abrupt innovation or afterthought, but the forethought of God, the fulfilment of His promise, and “the desire of all nations.” This harmony of the New and Old Dispensations should be a convincing proof of the Divine origin of Christianity, not only to the Jews, who already believe in the Old Testament, and need only be convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was really the promised Messiah, but also to the heathen, who well know that it is the exclusive prerogative of God to foresee and prearrange the future. In this view, Christianity is the oldest as well as the latest religion, going back to the first promise in Paradise, and even beyond the beginning of time, to the eternal counsel of God. Augustine says: “The New Testament is concealed in the Old; the Old Testament is revealed in the New.” By his prophets, is not to be confined, of course, to the sixteen prophetical books, but extends to the whole Old Testament Scriptures, as far as they contain the gospel, from the promise of the serpent-bruiser, Gen. 3:25, to Mal_4:2. In fact, the entire Scripture is one organic system of prophecies and types bearing testimony to Christ; Joh_5:39.—P. S.]
Rom_1:3. Concerning his Son.—This refers to åὐáããÝëéïí , gospel, Rom_1:1; Rom_1:24 and not to promised, Rom_1:2, as Tholuck, Meyer [Alford, Hodge], and others would have it. For the question further on is concerning the gospel in its complete New Testament development, and not merely in its Old Testament outline. Meyer says that the connection of ðåñὶ with åὐáããÝëéïí [instead of the gen. objecti] does not elsewhere occur in the New Testament. But it must be noticed that here the act of preaching the gospel of evangelization is connected with the gospel itself. Besides, the parenthesis has its influence upon the expression.
Rom_1:3-4. Who was born, &c.—The words from ãåíïìÝíïõ to íåêñῶí (Rom_1:3-4) are not an abrupt parenthesis (according to Griesbach and Knapp), but part of the sentence. They characterize the Son of God, not according to the antithesis of the human and divine nature of Christ in itself, but according to the revelation of this antithesis in the national Old Testament limitation, and in the universal New Testament expansion and elevation of the person of Christ to heavenly majesty, in accordance with the analogy of Php_2:6. Yet that ontological antithesis is reflected in this historical antithesis. The historical Christ has a double genealogy and history, which is represented in the following analogies and antitheses:
ãåíüìåíïò
“Concerning His Son,
Who was born [Son of Man in weakness]
from the seed of David,
as to the flesh,
Who was installed Son of God in power
from the resurrection of the dead,
as to the Spirit of holiness,—
Even Jesus Christ our Lord.”—P. S.]
The ãåíüìåíïò denotes not merely the being born, but, in a wider sense, the genealogical procession from the seed of David (see Mat_1:1 ff.). [The house of David represented the flower of the Jewish nation, and foreshadowed the kingdom of Christ. That the Messiah was to proceed from this royal family, was predicted in the Old Testament, Isa_11:1; Jer_23:5; Psa_132:11; and generally expected by the Jews, Mat_22:42; Joh_7:42; Act_13:23. Meyer, without good reason, confines ἐê óðÝñìáôïò Äáõåßä to the male line of descent, and refers both genealogies of Matthew and Luke to Joseph; Melanchthon, on the contrary, identifies ex sem ne David with ex virgine Maria; and Wordsworth infers from the words that Mary, as well as Joseph, was of the lineage of David. Comp. Com. on the genealogies in Matthew 1. and Luke 3. Alford: “The words ἐê óðÝñìáôïò Ä . cast a hint back at the promise just spoken of. At the same time, in so solemn an enunciation of the dignity of the Son of God, they serve to show that, even according to the human side, His descent had been fixed in the line of him who was Israel’s anointed and greatest king.”—P. S.]
In distinction from this appearance of Christ in human nature, the idea of the exalted Christ is expressed by the words, ὁñéóèåὶò õἱüò èåïῦ ἐí äõíÜìåé , established as Son of God in power. The attempt to analyze and divide this one conception (for example, in Luther’s German translation) has obscured the passage very much. The Son of God, in distinction from His Old Testament origin, is absolutely destined ( ὡñéóìἑíïò , Act_10:42) to be the Son of God in majesty, or in the majestic exercise of his power (see Php_2:6 ff.) The ὁñßæåéí of God constitutes the central point of all kindred conceptions—of the ὁñïèåóßáé , Act_17:26; of the ðñïïñßæåéí , Rom_8:29; and of the ἀöïñßæåéí , Gal_1:15. It expresses here God’s absolute determination or establishment concerning Christ as the centre of all the historical developments of the new world, the Head of all things (Mat_28:18; Eph_1:20 ff.). The expression refers not to the Son of God as such simply, but to the Son of God as exalted to heavenly majesty. As such, He is ὀñéóèåßò , not merely ðñïïñéóèåßò , prœdestinatus (Ambrose, Augustine, Vulgate, &c., according to the Greek fathers, and the gloss ðñïïñéóèÝíôïò ). But as He is the ãåíüìåíïò Ýê óðÝñìáôïò Äáõåßä , his descent from David being the human and historical antecedence for his higher dignity; so is He ὁñéóèåὶò õἱüò èåïῦ ἐî ἀíáóôἀóåùò íåêñῶí . The ἐê , according to the analogy of ἐê óðÝñìáôïò , cannot merely mean since the resurrection, or through (by) the resurrection, but it indicates the origin: out of the resurrection. The óðÝñìá Äáõåßä is the whole genealogy, or “the root of Jesse” (Rom_15:12), as it became manifest by the birth from the Virgin. Thus, likewise, the resurrection is not merely the fact of the resurrection of Christ, but with the fact of the resurrection there are brought to light the strength and root of the resurrection of the dead in the world, (Eph_1:19 ff.). It is in accordance with this that Christ can say: “I am the resurrection and the life.” Deep in the heart of the first world—for which Christ is the first-born of every creature ( ðñùôüôïêïò ðÜóçò êôßóåùò , Col_1:15)—there is at work the power, proceeding from the Logos, of a new world (Rom_8:23), for which Christ is the first-born from the dead ( ðñùôüôïêïò ἐê ôῶí íåêñῶí , Col_1:18). And this world of the resurrection, which became manifest in His personal resurrection, continues now to operate dynamically, and will continue to do so until the flower of the new world appears in the first resurrection of the elect (1Co_15:23), and the fruit in the last general resurrection. The Apostle therefore means here the power of the resurrection as the christological principle of life in the world, which has become manifest by the resurrection of Christ, and acts and works as the historical principle of the universal resurrection of the dead. Christ arose from his death and resurrection as the fixed and established, or instituted Son of God in power. (Comp. the Messianic passage, Psalms 2.: “This day have I begotten Thee;” which denotes the very day of the seditious rebellion against the Messiah as the grand day of his glorification). The destination which Christ had from the beginning, became inauguration or institution at His resurrection. The ὁñéï ̈ èåßò therefore, does not merely mean “shown,” “declaratively established” (Meyer, according to Chrysostom, äåé÷èÝíôïò ); the ἐê does not mean merely since or after (Theodoret, Erasmus, and others); and the ἀíÜóôáóéò íåêñῶí does not mean merely ἀíÜóôáóéò ἐê íåêñῶí . And Philippi, following Melanchthon, and others, has very properly connected the ἐí äõíÜìåé with õἱïῦ èåïῦ , and did not follow Luther, Meyer, and others in connecting it with ὁñéóèÝíôïò . Meyer has therefore no ground for opposing the explanation of Bengel—that our resurrection is comprehended in Christ’s resurrection—by remarking that the term the resurrection from the dead is only the general expression of the category.
In the third antithesis, êáôὰ óÜñêá , “according to the flesh,” means the fleshly or physical origin of Christ, but not according to the first conception of óÜñî , i.e., the sensuous, susceptible, vital fulness of corporeity, as distinct from and subjected to the spirit, or, in a more general sense, the “earthly man,” ἄíèñùðïò ÷ïúêüò (1Co_15:47; Genesis 2). Still less has flesh here the second meaning, viz., sinful sensuousness and susceptibility, as opposed to the spirit, and without it; or, in the more general sense, the “natural man,” ἄíèñùðïò øõ÷éêüò (Joh_3:6; 1Co_2:14). But óÜñî has here its third meaning, and expresses the physical human nature under the influence of the spirit (Joh_1:13; Joh_6:51), yet in historical relations, or man in his historical finiteness, limitation, and qualification (Gal_4:4). For Christ’s incarnation, and the growth of His physical nature, evidently involved no opposition to the “Spirit of holiness,” but took place under its consecrating influence.
[Flesh ( óÜñî , áָּùָׂø ) is here, and in all the passages where it is used of the incarnation (Rom_9:5; 1Ti_3:16; Joh_1:14; 1Jn_4:2), a strong Hebraizing term for human nature, with the implied idea, perhaps, of weakness and frailty, though not necessarily of sin (somewhat analogous to the occasional use of the German der Sterbliche, and the English mortal, for man). It is as correct to say: Christ became man (Menschwerdung), as to say: Christ became flesh (incarnatio, incarnation, Fleischwerdung), but the latter expression is more emphatic; it exhibits more strongly the condescension of Christ, the identity of His nature with our own, and the universalness of His manhood. The word óÜñî , therefore, when applied to Christ, must not be understood in an Apollinarian sense, as if Christ merely assumed a human body with the animal soul, but not the rational soul, whose place was supplied by the divine Logos. It implies the entire human constitution, body, soul, and spirit, sin only excepted, which does not originally and necessarily belong to man. It is not the flesh, as opposed to the spirit, that is here intended, but the human, as distinct from the divine. The flesh, as an organized system of life, is the outward tabernacle and the visible representative of the whole man to our senses. The óÜñî of Christ was the seat of a human øõ÷Þ , with its affections, and of a human íïῦò or ðíåῦìá , with its intelligence (comp. Mat_27:50; Joh_11:33; Joh_19:30), but not of the ἁìáñôßá . He was subject to temptation, or temptable (Heb_2:18; Heb_4:15), but neither óáñêéêüò (Rom_7:14), nor øõ÷éêüò (1Co_2:14). He appeared not “in the flesh of sin,” but only “in the likeness of the flesh of sin” (Rom_8:2). At the same time, the limitation, êáôὰ óÜñêá , plainly implies the divine nature of Christ. “Were He a mere man,” says Hodge, “it had been enough to say that He was of the seed of David; but as He is more than man, it was necessary to limit His descent from David to His human nature.”—P. S.]
Rom_1:4. According to the Spirit of holiness, êáôὰ ðíåῦìá ἁãéùóýíçò .—We accept, with Bengel, against Tholuck, that the ἁãéùóýíç is certainly distinguished from the ἁãéüôçò —just as sanctimonia is from sanctitas—in expressing the operation of the Spirit, though in a more comprehensive relation. This is the Spirit of God, who, as the sanctifying Spirit in the world, constitutes the complete opposition and counteraction to the entire corruption of sin; who was first the cause of the holy birth of Christ, and then of His resurrection; and who now proceeds from the glorified Christ as the principle of the sanctification of humanity and the world. Bengel: Ante resurrectionem latebat sub carne Spiritus; post resurrectionem carnem penitus abscondit Spiritus sanctimoniœ. We accept this statement in a wider sense. From the divina natura of Christ as sanctificationis omnis causa (Melanchthon, Calov, [Bengel, Olshausen], and others), we must distinguish the expression so far as it does not denote the individual, but the universal vital principle of the new birth of humanity. And we must distinguish it from the Holy Spirit, the ðíåῦìá ἅãéïí (Chrysostom, and most commentators; see Meyer), so far as it denotes this principle, not merely according to its complete New Testament revelation, but also according to the Old Testament preparation of the divine-human life. But we must not make the distinction so that the ðíåῦìá ἁãéùóýíçò will represent the difference between the absolute communication of the Spirit to Christ and the relative operation of the ðíåῦìá ἅãéïí (Tholuck, Baur). We shall be secure against confounding the ideas, ðõåῦìá ἁãéùóýíçò , ëüãïò or åἰêὼí ôïῦ èåïῦ (Rückert, Reiche), if we observe the difference between the universal and individual divine principle of life in revelation. This difference is most decidedly ignored by Baur, when he understands by the ðíåῦìá ἁã . the Messianic Spirit. When Clemens Romanus, Ephesians 2., terms Christ the first Spirit, he means the individual designation of the divine nature of Christ, yet according to its universal relation, just as the spirit of a man is the individual himself, but according to his universal relation.
[ Êáôὰ ðíåῦìá ἁãéùóýíçò is evidently the antithesis or counterpart of êáôὰ óÜñêá , and as óÜñî here means the human nature of Christ, ðíåῦìá must mean His divine nature, which is all Spirit, and intrinsically holy. ἁãéùóýíçò is the genitive of qualification, showing that holiness is the essential characteristic of Christ’s Spirit, and yet it distinguishes this from the ðíåῦìá ἅãéïí , which is the technical designation of the third person of the Trinity. Comp. Joh_4:24 : “God (i.e., the divine being or nature which the three persons of the Trinity have in common) is Spirit;” 2Co_3:17, where Christ Himself is called “the Spirit;” 1Ti_3:16 : “justified in Spirit” ( ἐí ðíåὺìáôé ); Heb_9:14 : “Who with an eternal Spirit ( äéÜ ðíåýìáôïò áἰùíßïõ ) offered Himself without spot to God;” and 1Pe_3:18, where a somewhat similar distinction is made between the flesh and the spirit, or the human and divine nature of Christ: “Being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit,” although this passage is not exactly parallel. Meyer takes ðíåῦìá ἁãéùóýíçò to mean the ἔóù ἄíèñùðïò , the whole inner life of Christ, which was elevated above all purely human spirits, filled with the Spirit of God, sinless and perfect. De Wette: “The spiritual side of the life of Christ, yet with the attribute of holiness partly as a quiescent quality, partly as an efficacious power emanating from it.” Substitute for this: “The Divine side of Christ’s person with the essential characteristic of holiness,” &c., and we can adopt this explanation. If flesh means the whole human nature, it implies a human spirit, but not the ðíåῦìá ἁãéùóýíçò , which is essentially Divine.—P. S.]
Of Jesus Christ our Lord.—[ Ἰçóïῦ ×ñéó ôïῦ ôïῦ êõñßïõ ἡìῶí , Rom_1:4, in apposition with ôïῦ õἱïῦ èåïῦ , anticipated in the E. V. Rom_1:3]. This expresses the relation of the exalted Son of God to the Apostle and the Roman Christians as the ground and bond of their union. They together accepted Jesus as the Christ of God, and served Him as their common Master. [Alford: “Having given this description of the person and dignity of the Son of God, very man and very God, he now identifies this divine person with Jesus Christ, the Lord and Master of Christians—the historical object of their faith, and (see words following) the Appointer of himself to the apostolic office.” De Wette: “ ’̓ Éçó . ×ñ . bezeichnet den Sohn Gottes als historisch-kirchliche Erscheinung.” So Tholuck, Philippi. Jesus is the personal, Christ the official name; the former expresses His true character and mission and relation to the world, the latter His connection with the Old Testament and the promise of God. Jesus, i.e., Saviour, was the Hebrew name, announced by the angel before His birth, Mat_1:25; Luk_1:31, and given at His circumcision, Luk_2:21; Christ, the Greek equivalent for the Hebrew Messiah, i.e., the Anointed, exhibits Him as the fulfiller of all the prophecies and types of the Old Testament, as the divinely promised and anointed Prophet, Priest, and King of Israel, who had for ages been the desire of all nations and the hope of all believers. Lord is here, and often, applied to Christ in the same sense in which the Septuagint uses êýñéïò for the Hebrew àֲãåֹðָé and éְäåָֹä . See the Lexica. Christ is so called as the supreme Lord of the New Dispensation, or the sovereign Head of Christendom, to whom all believers owe allegiance and obedience.—P. S.]
Rom_1:5. Through whom we received.—After stating the common relation of believers to Christ, there follows the account of the special relation of the Apostle to Him. It is plain that neither Rom_1:5 nor Rom_1:6 can be parenthetical; but here is prepared the whole treatment of the Epistle on the relation between the call of the Apostle and the call of the church at Rome. äἰ ïὖ . Christ is the personal means of communicating his call on God’s part [or the mediatorial agent in conferring grace from God to man, comp. Gal_1:1; 1Co_1:9.—P. S.]. ἐëÜâïìåí (received) denotes not only the free divine gift, but also the living religious and moral appropriation by faith. It is plain that the plural here has reference to the call of Paul alone (not to the apostles in general, according to Bengel), from the following signature of his apostleship, by which he is the Apostle to the Gentiles.
Grace [in general] and apostleship [in particular.—P. S.]. Grace, as the operative call to salvation and to the full experience of salvation in justification, is the preliminary condition for every Christian office, and, above all, to the apostleship. The grand unfolding of his apostleship was therefore preceded by an extraordinary degree of grace [in his conversion]. The explanation, ÷Üñéí ἀðïóôïëῆò , grace of apos leship (Hendiadys, so Chrysostom, Beza, Philippi, and others), obliterates the force of that preliminary condition; but when the grace is regarded merely as pardoning grace (Augustine, Calvin), the fundamental part is mistaken for the whole. Thus, also, the extraordinary apostolic gifts ( ÷áñßóìáôá ) to which Theodoret, Luther, and others refer ÷Üñéí , presuppose grace ( ÷Üñéò ) already. Meyer understands the expression to mean Divine grace in general; that is, the translation into the communion of the beloved of God.
Unto obedience of faith [ åἰò ὑðáêïὴí ðßóôåùò , zum Glaubensgehorsam, comp. Rom_16:26.—P. S.]. That is, for the purpose of establishing obedience to the faith. The åἰò denotes not merely the purpose, but also the operation of the apostleship;—an instance of Pauline conciseness. It may be asked here, whether the genitive ðßóôåùò indicates the object, or must be read as apposition: the faith which consists in obedience [to the Word and Will of Christ.—P. S.]. But this question is limited by the second, whether ðßóôéò can stand in the objective sense as fides quæ creditur [quod credendum est, doctrina Christiana.—P. S.]? Meyer denies this, and asserts that ðßóôéò , in the New Testament, is constantly subjective faith [fides qua creditur, fides credens.—P. S.], though it is often made objective, as here, and is regarded a power, or controlling principle. But this would give us the idea of obedience toward the faithful. The obedience here meant is either identical with faith (the obedience which consists in faith, according to Theophylact, Calvin ), or it is obedience to faith in its objective form. The latter interpretation is supported by the expressions ὑðáêïὴ ôïῦ ×ñéóôïῦ , 2Co_10:5 [ ὑðáêïἠ ôῆò ἀëçèåὶáò , 1Pe_1:22], and particularly Act_6:7 [“a great company of priests ὑðÞêïõïí ôῇ ðßóôåé , became obedient to the faith,” comp. Rom_10:16 : ὑðÞêïõóáí ôῷ åὐáããåëßῳ .—P. S.]. Comp. 1Pe_1:2;