Fourth Section.—Proper conduct toward the world in general. Legal fellowship with the world. Recognition of the rights of the world in the justice and also in the strength of love for our neighbor. Separation from the ungodliness of the ancient world (the darkness of heathenism). Universalism, and its sanctification through true separatism.
Rom_13:7-14
7Render therefore [omit therefore] to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.8Owe no man any thing, out [except] to love one another: for he that [who]loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness [omit Thou shalt not bear false witness], Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling [love therefore is the fulfilment] of the11law. And that [this the rather because], knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when webelieved. 12The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast offthe works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. 13Let us walk honestly [seemly], as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chamberingand wantonness, not in strife and envying: 14But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not [do not make] provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Preliminary Remark.—This section is connected by Rom_13:7 with the preceding. While the previous section defines the relation of Christians to the State to which they belong as citizens, the present section, on the other hand, regulates their relation to the world in general, in its friendly and hostile side, in fellowship and repulsion; and Rom_13:7 treats of their relation to authorities in the world in general. We have not merely to do with our own civil authorities and our own State, but also with foreign States and dignitaries. The traveller does not have to pay tribute to a foreign State, but he has to pay duty; in all cases we should exhibit becoming honor and respect toward every one. According to Tholuck, Rom_13:7 contains “a summary of the various duties toward all kinds of authorities; first of all, toward the subordinate tax-officers, then to judges and magistrates.”
[The view of Tholuck, which is that of Meyer, Philippi, Alford, and most, implies that Rom_13:7 belongs to the preceding section. At first sight this division seems correct; but, really, Rom_13:7 is both a hortatory summing up of what precedes, and a transition to the more general admonitions which follow. If
ïὖí
be read (see Textual Note1), the former becomes more prominent; if omitted, the latter.—R.]
Rom_13:7. Render to all their dues [
ἀðüäïôå ðᾶóéí ôὰò ὀöåéëÜò
].
Ðᾶóéí
. According to Estius, Klee, and others, this refers to all men; according to Meyer [Philippi, and many others], it refers merely to magistrates, as if our respect were due to them alone! The antithesis is: Owe no man any thing.
Tribute to whom tribute is due [
ôῷ ôὸíöüñïí ôὸí öüñïí
]. Tholuck, Meyer, and others, would supplement
ἀðüäïôå
by a
ἀðáéôïῦíôé
. But the addition is already indicated in the
ôὰò ὀöåéëÜò
, and
ὀöåßëåôå
follows immediately afterward. Fear and honor are asked from nobody, not even by magistrates, in the form of paying tribute and duty; and even with tribute and duty we should not wait until compelled to pay them. Grotius has supplied
ὀöåßëåôáé
; Köllner,
ὀöåßëåôå
; against which Meyer observes, that it is philologically incorrect, because
ôῷ
does not stand for
ᾧ
. But were
ᾧ
the reading, the idea of an organic distribution would easily arise; this was avoided by the Apostle’s placing
ôῷ
contractively for
ôïýôù
̣. According to Grotius, simply the Art. prœpositivus is placed for the subjunctives, which is reversed in Rom_14:2-5.
Custom [
ôὸ ôÝëïò
]. Grotius: Vectigalia pro mercibus dantur, tributa pro solo aut capite. We must, at all events, understand here, by custom, the Roman internal tax on goods. [As tribute was due to home authorities, while custom, duties, &c., are due to foreign authorities as well, there seems to be an extension of thought beyond the obligations referred to in Rom_13:1-6. Bengel is quite incorrect in making
öüñïò
the genus, and
ôÝëïò
the species.—R.]
[Fear,
ôὸí öüâïí
; honor,
ôὴí ôéìÞí
. Those who confine the reference to magistrates, apply the former word to the proper sentiment and conduct toward the higher magistrates, especially judges, the latter to magistrates in general (Meyer, Philippi). De Wette, however, refers the former to judges, the latter to magistrates in general, especially the higher ones; while Alford refers “
öüâïò
to those set over us and having power;
ôéìÞ
, to those, but likewise to all on whom the State has conferred distinction.” If the wider view of the verse be accepted, then (with Hodge, Webster and Wilkinson, and others) the one means the reverence paid to superiors, the other, the courtesy due to equals.—R.]
Rom_13:8. Owe no man any thing [
ìçäåíὶ ìçäὲí ὀöåßëåôå
. Dr. Lange renders: Bleibt Niemand und Nichts schuldig, which he considers an improvement of the old version: Niemand nichts.—R.] The four preceding categories are here generalized to the idea of the universal duty to our neighbor. Tholuck is doubly inexact when he says: “The Apostle proceeds from the duties of subjects to universal Christian duties.” [De Wette: “The Apostle proceeds at once from the vestibule of morality into her very domain.”—R.]
Except to love one another [
åἰ ìὴ ôὸἀëëÞëïõò ἀãáðᾷí
. Philippi: “A Pauline argute dictum or acumen.”—R.] In relation to the definite discharges of duty, the Christian should strive to perfectly discharge, and to keep discharged, his duty in every direction; in relation to love, as the source of duties, he should, on the other hand, be conscious, and constantly be more so, of an infinite and permanent indebtedness. The duties are externally a finitum, but the duty of loving our neighbor remains an infinitum. And the more clear the Christian becomes on one, the more clear he becomes on the other. [Bengel: “Amare, debitum immortale. Si amabatis, nil debetis, nam amor implet legem. Amare, libertas est.” So most commentators from the times of Chrysostom. Augustine: “Semper debeo charitatem quœ sola etiam reddita retinet debitorem” (Ep. 62).—R.]
Ὀöåßëåôå
is not indicative (Reiche, and others), but imperative, by which the sentence, “except to love one another,” must be understood thus: except that which you cannot pay as a debt. Meyer emphasizes the subjective rendering: Consider yourselves as debtors of love. Even in the “Owe no man any thing” there is undoubtedly an appeal made to the consciousness and its method of action.
Hath fulfilled the law.
ÐåðëÞñùêå
. [Perfect of completed action (Meyer).—R.] It is by love that the fulfilment of the law is fundamentally decided; Rom_14:13. Reiche, and others: Id quod in lege summum est. Instead of this, we must place: Quod legis principium est. That no justification is here implied, is plain, first, from the fact that the Apostle regards this loving as possible only on the ground of justification; and second, from the fact that he lays down this loving, emphatically construed, as an ideal which has not been reached so long as we are still universal debtors in individual matters.
[Although Rom_13:9 shows that the Mosaic law is meant, yet it is to be doubted whether there is any “apologetic reference to the upholders of the law” (Alford). When De Wette says: “He who practises love, the higher duty, has, even before he does this, fulfilled the law, the lower,” he seems to ignore the true position of the law in the Christian dispensation. “The law, as a rule of gratitude, is completely fulfilled by love,” seems a better view. For the former part of the verse implies that we never attain to this, but still “owe” this love increasingly. Hence the reference here is to the completed ideal. “The expression implies more than a simple performance of the precepts of the law; true love does more than this: it adds a completeness to the performance. It reaches those lesser courtesies and sympathies which cannot be digested into a code and reduced to rule. To the bare framework of law, which is as the bones and sinews, it adds the flesh which fills it, and the life which actuates it” (Webster and Wilkinson).—R.]
Rom_13:9. For this, Thou shalt not, &c. [
ôὸãὰñ ïὐ
,
ê
.
ô
.
ë
.] It is self-evident that the Apostle does not take the negative commandments of the Decalogue in a merely literal sense. This is clear also from the prominence which he gives to the last: Thou shalt not covet (Luther: Covet nothing; an emphasizing of the object; Rom_7:7 is against this). It also follows, from the fact that this perfect negative conduct is not conceivable without a corresponding positive conduct. Tholuck: “In the enumeration of the commandments in Rom_13:9, that respecting adultery precedes the one respecting! murder. There is the same order in Codd. Alex. LXX., Exodus 6.; the same in Philo, and in the New Testament, Jam_2:11; Mar_10:19; Luk_18:20. Philo establishes it, by saying: adultery is the most heinous crime.” For further particulars, see Tholuck, p. 694.
Briefly comprehended.
Ἀíáêåöáëáéïῦí
; see Eph_1:10. In the expression there is comprised the idea, that all which is explained from the principle (for example, the Ten Commandments from the law of love) is again summed up in the fulfilment of the principle. Therefore not merely
óõíôüìùò ἀðáñôßæåôáé
(Chrysostom). [So Meyer, Tholuck, Philippi: recapitulated; De Wette, Alford: brought under one head. Dr. Lange includes both ideas. Briefly might be omitted from the E. V. with propriety.—R.]
Rom_13:10. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor. [Philippi remarks that the Greeks usually write
ἐñãÜæåóèáὶ ôéíÜ ôé
, while Paul here has:
ôῷðëçóßïí êáêὸí ïὐê ἐñãÜæåôáé
.—R.] The Apostle’s maxim, in the form of an oxymoron, substantiates what has already been said, since love appears as the great positive fulfilment of the law, because it worketh no ill to the neighbor. The perfection (defined, in the main, negatively) of the Decalogue becomes the measure of the perfection (defined, in the main, positively) of the gospel.
[Love therefore is the fulfilment of the law,
ðëÞñùìá ïὖí íüìïõ ἡ ἀãÜðç
. Fulfilment, rather than “fulfilling,” which would be the proper rendering of
ðëÞñùóéò
. Meyer: “In the love to one’s neighbor, that takes place by means of which the law is fulfilled.” He further adds, that, in 1Co_13:4-7, Paul gives a commentary on love’s working no ill, &c. Comp. Gal_5:14, Lange’s Comm., pp. 135 ff.—R.]
Rom_13:11. And this, knowing the time [
êáὶôïῦôï åἰäüôåò ôὸí êáéñüí
. Dr. Lange: “And knowing this, we know also the time,” &c. See below.—R.] According to Bengel,
êáὶ ôïῦôï
must be supplemented by
ðïéåῖôå
; according to Estius, by agere debemus (Tholuck,
ðïéῶìåí
). Meyer goes back to the precept in Rom_13:8 :
ìçäåíὶ
. Yet not only is that precept quite remote, but there is also here a change from the second person to the first. If we look at the actual connection, the Apostle cannot simply say: Let us do that—love our neighbor as ourselves. The more direct thought is: Let us discharge all our obligations, for we know that the end is nigh. But the Apostle does not say: “the end is nigh,” but, “the day of salvation is nigh.” Therefore it is advisable to accept an ellipsis:
êáὶ ôïῦôï åἰäüôåò ôὸí êáéñὸí ïἲäáìåí
, or,
åἰäüôåò ἐóìÝí
. Because we know that love, which fulfils the law, is present, we know the importance of the time, namely, that the time of perfect salvation is nigh. To what extent? Because, by love, the works of night must vanish—adultery, murder, theft, covetousness; therefore the day of the complete righteousness of life must dawn. If this combination be deemed doubtful, Meyer’s construction should then be preferred.
[Dr. Lange’s view is indeed doubtful. On the whole, it seems unnecessary to supply any thing, but rather (with Hodge, Meyer, Philippi, and many others) to take
êáé
as = et quidem, and indeed, the rather, and to refer
ôïῦôï
to what precedes—i.e., to the injunction of Rom_13:8, as afterwards expanded. This is classical usage, though
ôáῦôá
is more common in such cases than
ôïῦôï
. The demonstrative pronoun is thus used “to mark the importance of the connection between two circumstances for the case in hand” (Hodge). Luther and Glöckler confuse the construction, by joining
ôïῦôï
with
åἰäüôåò
. The participle is not = considering (Grotius, Hodge, and others), but is causal, since ye know.—The time. This is explained by the next clause, that it is high time.—R.]
To awake out of sleep [
ἐî ὕðíïõ ἐãåñèῆíáé
. Dr. Lange paraphrases thus in his text: “to fully arise, or, that we should immediately have arisen.”—R.] How very metaphorical a meaning the Apostle gives to the word, as a designation of the sleep of sin, and of the darkness and bondage of the judgment of conscience by the blindness of sin, is plain from his subsequently describing just this excited, external watching, as works of darkness. According to Reiche,
ὕðíïò
is an image of the Christian’s condition on earth; this is opposed by Meyer, p. 481. [This condition of sleep is that of Christians also, as the verse obviously implies, but only relatively so (Philippi, De Wette, and others).—R.]
For now is our salvation nearer [
íῦíãὰñ ἐããýôåñïí ἡìῶí ἡ óùôçñßá
]. With Luther, and most commentators, we refer the
ἡìῶí
to
ἡ óùôçñßá
, and not, with Meyer, to
ἐããýôåñïí
; because it would not be like Paul to say that salvation, absolutely considered, is already brought nearer to us believers.
Óùôçñßá
is here the completion of the redemptive salvation of the messianic kingdom. Therefore Meyer says: “This kingdom begins by means of the second coming of Christ, which Paul regarded near (Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 355). It was by not recognizing this—although Paul brings so impressively into the calculation the short time from his conversion to the period of his writing—that men have been induced to accept very preposterous interpretations; for example, that salvation by death is meant (Photius, and others), or the destruction of Jerusalem, which was of good results for Christianity (according to the earlier commentators, and also Michaelis), or the inward
óùôçñßá
, the spiritual salvation of Christianity (Moras, and others).”
According to Tholuck, we can only grant that Paul indulged the hope of the speedy coming of Christ—perhaps even to live to see it—but yet that he had no fixed period of time for it. According to Meyer’s rude view, we would have to imagine, with the Ebionites, a twofold
óùôçñßá
; one of which, the spiritual salvation, has already happened; the other, the second coming of Christ, is near at hand, while between the two there is to be a gloomy period. But this is not the view of the Apostle. Rather, the first or principial
óùôçñßá
, which is already the saving possession of Christians, is in the course of permanent and full development toward the final, peripherical salvation. There is a daily progress from
óùôçñßá
to
óùôçñßá
. And, particularly with Paul, a new era of the development of
óùôçñßá
will come, after Christianity shall have spread from Rome throughout the whole West, which, according to the purpose of the Epistle, is near at hand; and, with this Christianization of the Roman world, the completed
óùôçñßá
will be brought nearer. These great, vital, and dynamic views of the Apostle are very different from the modern assumptions of the Parousia imputed to him. Tholuck: “The period from the appearance of the regnum gloriœ, when compared with its glory, is described as a nocturnal period. Spiritual sleep will be shaken off when the regnum gratiœ comes to men (Col_1:12-13); and how much more will this be the fact when the regnum gloriœ approaches!”
[Stuart, Hodge, Webster and Wilkinson, and a large class of commentators, understand by
óùôçñßá
, the consummation of salvation in eternity—deliverance from the present evil world. Dr. Hodge objects at some length to the reference to the second coming of Christ. On the other hand, most modern German commentators defend this reference. Olshausen, De Wette, Philippi, Meyer, and others, think no other view in the least degree tenable; and Dr. Lange, while careful to guard against extreme theories on this point, denies the reference to eternal blessedness, and admits that the Parousia is intended. This opinion gains ground among Anglo-Saxon exegetes. The main objection to it is thus met by Dean Alford: “Without denying the legitimacy of an individual application of this truth, and the importance of its consideration for all Christians of all ages, a fair exegesis of this passage can hardly fail to recognize the fact that the Apostle, here as well as elsewhere (1Th_4:17; 1Co_15:51), speaks of the coming of the Lord as rapidly approaching.” As to this being inconsistent with inspiration, he refers to Mar_13:32 : “Of that day and hour knoweth no man,” &c. “The fact that the nearness or distance of that day was unknown to the Apostles, in no way affects the prophetic announcements of God’s Spirit by them, concerning its preceding and accompanying circumstances. The ‘day and hour’ formed no part of their inspiration; the details of the event did. And this distinction has singularly and providentially turned out to the edification of all subsequent ages. While the prophetic declarations of the events of that time remain to instruct us, the eager expectation of the time, which they expressed in their day, has also remained, a token of the true frame of mind in which each succeeding age (and each succeeding age à fortiori) should contemplate the ever-approaching coming of the Lord. On the certainty of the event, our faith is grounded; by the uncertainty of the time, our hope is stimulated and our watchfulness aroused.” This ignorance of the time of the coming of Christ Dr. Hodge himself brings forward, yet not to account for the expectation so much as to deny it. It is difficult for an unlettered believer to read the New Testament and not find this expectation, while even the most learned commentators now find it.—R.]
Than when we believed. (Calvin, and others), Luther says incorrectly: Than when we believed it. [The aorist refers to the definite time, when we first believed. So 1Co_3:5; 1Co_15:2, &c.—R.]
Rom_13:12. The night is far spent, &c. [
ἡ íὺî ðñïÝêïøåí
,
ê
.
ô
.
ë
.] According to Meyer, the night would be the time before the second coming of Christ; and the near day, on the other hand, the second coming itself. Certainly we do not read: “The night is gone, but the day is come.” But it does not follow from this that Paul supposed that the day would not break until the second coming. The day will break a hundred times, in ever greater potencies, between the first and the second coming of Christ. Consequently, a chronological antithesis is not here in question. The night is the spiritual condition of heathen Rome; the breaking day is the future of Christian Rome.
Ἡ íὺî ðñïÝêïøåí
. [The sense of the passage in itself considered is perfectly plain; but the precise reference is determined by the view taken of Rom_13:11. Admitting such recurring daybreaks as Dr. Lange suggests, they are still only preludes to “that day” when there shall be “no night.”—R.]
Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness [
ὰðïèþìåèá ïὖí ôὰ ἒñãá ôïῦ óêüôïõò
. The verb should be rendered: put off, if the figure of clothing be admitted; put away, if Dr. Lange’s view be accepted.—R.] Meyer: “As one lays off his clothing. This view (against Fritzsche) corresponds to the correlative
ἐíäõóþìåèá
; comp. on Eph_4:22.” [So De Wette, Philippi, Harless, Hodge, Alford, Webster and Wilkinson, Jowett, and most.—R.] But the works of darkness are not the same as the clothing of night. There is a difference between nocturnal revels and nocturnal clothing. The moral side of the heathen, and especially the Roman, night-life, moves before the Apostle, and he makes it designate evil works in moral darkness in general. The Roman of that time, giving himself up to dissolute nocturnal feasts and works of debauchery, but, on the return of day, assuming the favorite Roman costume of arms—a very perceptible contrast to these Roman Christians—is presented to them by the Apostle as a picture of a moral and religious contrast.
And let us put on the armour of light [
ἐíäõóþìåèá äὲ ôἂ ὂðëá ôïῦ öùôüò
. See Textual Note7]. Not instruments (Morus), clothes (Beza, and others), shining arms (Grotius), but the armor which the Roman wears by day, as a figure of the spiritual means of conflict, and of the conflicts which belong to the light; they are presented by it, and wielded in its element (see Eph_6:13). The light is the master from whom, for whom, and with whom, this armor Isaiah 26—
Ἐíäýåóèáé
. Tholuck: “The figure of most intimate union with Christ, as the garment with the body; Gal_3:27; Eph_4:24; Col_3:10. Also in the classics, see Wetstein.”
Rom_13:13. Let us walk seemly, as in the day [
ὡò ἐí ἡìÝñᾳ åὐó÷çìüíùò ðåñéðáôÞóùìåí
]. As if that day had already come, when it will be a characteristic of public respectability to live a moral Christian life, and therefore to live decorously.
Åὐó÷çìüíùò
[referring to the moral decorum of the conduct (Meyer).—R.], 1Th_4:12; 1Co_7:35; 1Co_14:40, because that day is already breaking.
Not in rioting, &c. [Webster and Wilkinson: “Three classes of sins are specified, to each of which two words are appropriated, viz., intemperance, impurity, discord: the first, public or social vice; the second, private and secret vice; the third, ecclesiastico-political vice, the vice infecting communities even Christian.” To this must be added Meyer’s remark, that the three members stand in the internal relation of cause and effect. Comp. Gal_5:19-21 (Lange’s Comm., p. 138), where five of the six words are found.—R.]—
Êþìïéò
, carousals. Meyer translates, “with nocturnal riotings,” by regarding the following dative as the dative of manner. This will not apply well to
ðåñéðáôåῖí
. [Philippi takes the datives as local, which seems the simplest view. Fritzsche, dat. commodi.—R.]—Chambering,
êïὶôáéò
[congressibus venereis], feasts of debauchery, rendezvous, chambers and houses of debauchery, works of debauchery itself.—[Wantonness,
ἀóåëãåἰáéò
. On this word, see Tittmann, Syn., p. 151. The plural shows that the various manifestations of wantonness are referred to.—R.]—Envying,
æÞëù
̣, jealousy. The reverse side of nocturnal lusts and pleasures is nocturnal quarrels, especially matters of jealousy, and the forms still prevailing among the works of darkness in our day, especially in Italy and Spain.
Rom_13:14. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Ἐíäýåóèáé
, Gal_3:27; Eph_4:24; Col_3:10. [Hodge: “To be intimately united to Him, so that He, and not we, may appear.” So De Wette, Philippi, &c.—R.] Tholuck: “Christ was already put on at baptism, Gal_3:27; but this
ἐíäýåóèáé
, just as the being light, must also be continually renewed. Besides, we must take into consideration the aorist form: The putting on as a garment denotes the entrance of the most intimate communion.” Meyer: “Even in the classics,
ἐíäýåóèáὶ ôéíá
denotes assuming somebody’s manner of thought and action.”
And make not provision for the flesh, &c. [
êáἰ ôῆò óáñêὸò ðñüíïéáí ìὴ ðïéåῖóèå åἰò ἐðéèõìßáò
. Dr. Lange: Und die Pflege des Fleisches macht euch nicht zur pflege der Lüste; and of the care of the flesh do not make for yourselves a care of its lusts. The order of the Greek seems to favor this, but this implies a proper care of the flesh; so that this can only be a tenable view provided
óÜñî
does not have an ethical sense here. On this point, see below.—R.] Luther’s translation is doubly incorrect: Take care of the body, yet so that, &c. First, the sentence is not divided into a positive and negative precept; second, the question is concerning the
óÜñî
, and not concerning the
óῶìá
. The sentence contains the expression of the moral limitation of the external perception of a self-evident duty. The duty is
ðñüíïéá ôῆò óáñêüò
; the enjoined limitation is the
ìὴ åἰò ἐðéè
. According to Fritzsche,
óÜñî
can only be understood as care libidinosa, and therefore the whole sentence is a prohibition. Tholuck and Meyer, on the other hand, observe that the
óÜñî
, understood in this sense as sensual lust, should even be crucified; Gal_5:24. Meyer describes the
óÜñî
, as it is here understood, as the lower animal part of man, the fountain and seat of sensual and sinful desires, in antithesis to the
ðíåῦìá
. His calling
óÜñî
the material of the
óῶìá
, is better. [Philippi: “
óÜñî
has here a purely physiological sense.”—R.] Tholuck cites Galen’s medical usus loquendi to prove that the
ðñüíïéá
must be understood as care sensu bono; but Eph_5:29 and 1Co_12:23 are of special application here. The distinction between what is vicious in the true care of the flesh, as is shown particularly in respectable clothing—to which the antithesis, “put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ,” specially refers—is not merely expressed by the
ìὴ åἰò ἐðéèõìὶáò
: not so that the
ἐðéèõìßáé
arise from it; but also by the middle:
ðïéåῖóèå
, make for yourselves, in which reference is made to the subjective self-deception, the
ðñÜîåéò ôïῦ óþìáôïò
in the gratification of sensuous necessities.
[The view given above is, in the main, that of De Wette, Philippi, and many others. It opposes Luther’s limitation of the negative to
åἰò ἐðéèõìßáò
, but does not take the whole passage as prohibitory. Hodge, Stuart, Alford, and others, render (as in E. V.): Make no provision (whatever) for the flesh (the carnal nature, in the ethical sense) to fulfil its lusts (so as to fulfil them, and also, because such provision would fulfil them; the result and object blended in the thought). The objections to this view are, that
ðñüíïéá
is used generally in a good sense; that the prohibition is too mild, if flesh were used in the ethical sense, &c. But the ethical sense has been the prevalent one in the Epistle. The grammatical difficulty is very slight, since
ìÞ
has suffered a slight trajection. Besides, the order seems to have been chosen to give prominence and emphasis to
óáñêüò
; such emphasis is altogether unnecessary, unless it has its ethical force. Its prominent position brings it into obvious contrast with
Ἰçóïῦí ÷ñéóôüí
; this contrast of itself seems to determine the meaning. These latter considerations seem to have escaped the German commentators. Comp. Alford also, who claims that the order would have been different had Paul designed to convey the meaning defended by Meyer, &c.—R.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The debt of love denotes the duty of love for our neighbor, as, according to the law, it is a requirement of infinite force; and, according to the believer’s new principle of life, it is an infinitely impulsive power. The unity of this debt divides itself into the differently formed obligations of various duties to our neighbor.
2. Love is the fulfilment of the law: (1) So far as the whole law is only an outline of love to be filled up. (2) So far as it precludes every transgression of the law. (3) On the other hand, every commandment is realized as a vital principle in the new life. It is as love that God has given the law, as our call to our destination. It is as love that Christ has fulfilled the law for our reconciliation. It is as love that the law of the Spirit lives in our faith, and, by the fellowship of Christ, supplies the defects of our deeds, so that, in the imitation of Christ, that fellowship may ever be elevated higher and higher.
3. The new era of love, a dayspring of the new era of light, with which the completion of salvation approaches.
4. If we would define more specifically the relation of Paul, as well as of all the apostles, to the second coming of Christ, we must distinguish: (1) Between the religious measure [Zeitmass, measure of time] of God’s kingdom, and the chronological measure of the world; (2) Between the apostolical prospect of a future of glory which will be unfolded every day in new morning periods, and the meagreness of the Ebionitic idea, which has only a marvellous meteor of the Parousia, on the one hand, far behind it, and, on the other, far before it, while it finds itself placed in a troublous period and an ordinary course of the world. The present age in principle ceased at the death and resurrection of Christ, and the future age is already present in the heart of the Church and in the world’s great crisis of development, though everywhere still externally surrounded by the nocturnal shades of the old age. And because it has been long present in principle, and in power breaks forth every day more gloriously, our full salvation is brought continually nearer, particularly in all the great epochs of the extensive and intensive enlargement of God’s kingdom—all of which are presages of the Parousia, which is infinitely near to religious anticipation, and yet, chronologically, is indeterminably remote. All that must still precede that external Parousia, Paul indicates in Romans 11. and 2 Thessalonians 2, and John elaborately describes in figures in the Book of Revelation.
5. The very fact that wickedness seeks the veil of night, is a witness for God’s word; and as night is an image of spiritual darkness, and day is an image of spiritual and heavenly light, so are the works of night—sleep, on the one hand, and sinful nocturnal deeds on the other—images of different forms of spiritual corruption, the gross sins, which, indeed, are not only figures, but also phenomena, of spiritual corruptions. On the other hand, the putting on of the day, the armor of the day, have their spiritual meaning. The armor was a very striking figure to the Romans in particular.
6. The two great antitheses of nocturnal life: Lust and strife, pleasure and murder.
7. With the salvation of Christianity to the believer there has also broken for humanity the morning of morality, of good manners, and of true decorum.
8. The 13th verse is an imperishable reminder of Augustine’s conversion (see Conf. Rom_8:12; Rom_8:28).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Rom_13:7. To every one his due! The Christian’s royal motto: 1. In reference to his relation to the civil authority; 2. In his intercourse with every man.
Heubner: The respect which we, as Christians, owe to the civil authorities, is more than the external fulfilment of duty.
Rom_13:8-10. Perseverance in love. It is: 1. In respect to our neighbor a debt, which never can be paid; 2. In respect to the law, it is its fulfilment (Rom_13:8-10).—The debt of love toward our neighbor. 1. It is a very great debt; a. because there are so many creditors; b. because their demands constitute a very important total; c. because it can never be completely cancelled. 2. But it is nevertheless a sweet debt; a. because it is not thoughtlessly paid; b. because it harmonizes with God’s commandment; c. because even the attempt to discharge it makes the heart very happy (Rom_13:8-10).—The debt of love is the only debt of the Christian toward his neighbor which is not only permissible, but even commanded (Rom_13:8).—The commandment of love toward our neighbor as the substance of all the commandments of the second table (Rom_13:9).—Why does love work no ill to the neighbor? 1. Because it proceeds from the root of God’s eternal love for men; 2. Because it will serve God in the neighbor (Rom_13:10).—Love the fulfilment of the law: 1. The truth of this apostolic sentiment; 2. The importance of it (Rom_13:10).
Starke: The heart is known by its behavior, just as the sun is by its beams (Rom_13:9).—Christ’s garden not only produces no injurious trees, but even no useless ones (Rom_13:10).—Hedinger: The eternal debt of love! Be not weary, brethren! He who loves, will be loved in return; though it be not by the thankless world, it will be by God (Rom_13:8).—Let no one excuse himself on the ground of ignorance; let no one say, “Who would know the many commandments and prohibitions?” The whole law is contained in the one word love;Mic_6:8 (Rom_13:9).
Spener: There is one debt which we all owe—to love one another; that is such a debt, that, if we should daily count it up, it would always remain just as great as it had been (Rom_13:8).—Though a thing may sometimes appear to be forbidden, if love requires it, it is not forbidden, but rather commanded; on the other hand, sometimes something may appear to be commanded, but if it is in conflict with love, it is not commanded (Rom_13:10).
Gerlach: The debt of love is never wholly payable; its fulfilment increases the demands made upon it, for it makes love warmer (Rom_13:8).
Lisco: The believer’s holy love fulfils its obligations even toward every body without exception (Rom_13:8-10).—The one requirement of love is divided into two chief commandments, in Mat_22:37-40.—Heubner: The magnitude of the commandment of love (Rom_13:8-10).—The harmonizing of the Divine should and the human would can only take place by love; by it, compulsion is transformed into freedom (Rom_13:9).—Every wicked thing is invariably an unkindness (Rom_13:10).
Besser: He who shows love to another in order to get clear of him, has not love (Rom_13:8).
Schweizer: Love, the fulfilment of the law, or, love performs what the law cannot obtain. The law does not deliver us: 1. Because it is a multiplicity of commandments and prohibitions, which perplex us; 2. Because it pronounces a curse on every one who transgresses a single point; 3. Because it is presented to us as an external power issuing its commands to us; 4. Because it takes refuge in threats and promises. Christian love is the contrary of all this.
Rom_13:8-10. The Pericope for the Fourth Sunday after Epiphany.—Thym: The royal law of love toward our neighbor: 1. Its great necessity; 2. Its inward nature; 3. Its indescribable blessing.—Harless: Love is the fulfilment of the law. 1. The law, a. which makes love for us an indebtedness; b. and therefore proves it to be our debt. 2. Love, a. which knows no indebtedness except to love; b. and therefore does not come from the law, but from faith.—Heubner: The simplicity of Christian virtue: 1. It proceeds from one spirit of humility and love; 2. All its effects harmonize in one—the manifestation of love.
Rom_13:11-14. The decided breach of believing Christians with darkness: 1. Wherefore should we break off from it? a. because it is time to do it; b. because it is high time. 2. In what should this breach consist? a. in laying off the works of darkness;
á
. gross, sensual sins;
â
. subtle, inward sins; b. in putting on the armor of light; a. in walking honestly as in the day;
â
. in putting on the Lord Jesus Christ (or,
á
. civil righteousness;
â
. righteousness of faith).
Luther: Do not torture the body excessively by the intolerable holiness of watching, fasting, and freezing, as the hypocrites do (Rom_13:14).
Starke: I must show outwardly what I am inwardly. Those who are inwardly good, must also have a good form and color (Rom_13:13).—Quesnel: Time passes by, and eternity presses on (Rom_13:11).—Müller: There is many a thing and idea comprised in putting on Christ; our Christianity is not a stagnant existence, but a growth; it is no leap, but a walk (Rom_13:12).—The armor of light well becomes a Christian. We must either clothe ourselves with darkness or with light (Rom_13:12).
Spener: Let us put on the Lord Jesus Christ. But we put Him on once by the belief that we receive, as our possession, His righteousness and merit, which He has imparted to us, and that we shall appear in them alone before God’s throne. We afterward put Him on also by godly imitation, in walking as Christ has walked (Rom_13:14).
Lisco: The one care for the body, in bestowing upon it what is necessary, is natural; the other is sinful, when the lusts and desires of the body are provided for (Rom_13:14).
Heubner: Christian watchfulness (Rom_13:11-14). Christian knowledge of the time. The time of Christianity is a time of salvation (Rom_13:11).—There are many awakening voices: Public services—preachers—every stroke of the bell—the Bible (Rom_13:11).—The Christian is not a night-walker, a nocturnal rioter, but a walker by day (Rom_13:13).—Temperance, chastity, love—three great prime virtues (Rom_13:13).—Schweizer: Blissful joy at the Reformation as a rising light (Sermon on the Anniversary Day of the Reformation).
Rom_13:11-14. The Pericope for the First Sunday of Advent.—Heubner: The call of Christianity is a call to awake from spiritual sleep.—The appeal of Christian watchmen: 1. It is day; the sun is risen! 2. Awake, arise! 3. Be purified to new life! 4. Put on Christ!—Nagel: The awakening voice with which the Church appeals to us on its holydays, tells us: 1. What time it Isaiah 2. What it is high time to do.—Kapff: The advent message: 1. As a message of salvation and joy; 2. As a message for penitence and renewal.—Florey: The advent season is a holy morning-time of the heart and life.—Harless: The festal ornament well-pleasing to Christ: 1. A watchful eye, to see the night that covers the earth; 2. An enlightened eye, to behold the day which has come; 3. A willing heart, to do what the day requires.—Petri: What time is it for us? 1. To arise from sleep; 2. To put on the armor of light.—Rautenberg: What belongs to rising from sleep? 1. To open the eyes aright; 2. To put on the right garment; 3. To take up the right armor.—Thym: Paul’s vigorous advent preaching: 1. On the advent time; 2. On the advent duties; 3. On the advent blessing.
[Farindon, on Rom_13:14 : Look into Christ’s wardrobe, and you will find no torn or ragged apparel. Christ had the robe of righteousness, the garment of innocency, the spotless coat of temperance and chastity, and with these He went about doing good. Out of this wardrobe we must make up our wedding garment. We must be conformable to Christ. In the rule of our obedience, we must not wear a garment of our own fancying, an irregular, an unprescribed devotion; in the ends of it, we must glorify God on the earth; and in the parts of it, we must not have a parcel-garment. This garment must fit every part, and be universal.
[Leighton: He that truly loves his neighbor as himself, will be as loth to wrong him as to wrong himself, either in that honor and respect that is due to him, or in his life, or chastity, or goods, or good name, or to lodge so much as an unjust desire or thought, because that is the beginning and conception of real injury. In a word, the great disorder and crookedness of the corrupt heart of man consists in self-love; it is the very root of all sin both against God and man; for no man commits any offence, but it is in some way to profit or please himself. It was a high enormity of self-love that brought forth the very first sin of mankind. That was the bait which took, more than either the color or the taste of the apple—that it was desirable for knowledge.
[John Howe, on Rom_13:10 : Would it not make a happy world, if we all so loved our neighbor: 1. That we would no more hurt him than we would ourselves; 2. Would no more cheat him than we would ourselves; 3. No more oppress and crush him than we would ourselves.—What a spring of mischief and misery in the world would be shut up, dried up, if that proneness to hard, harsh, and frequently unjust thoughts, were, by the workings of such a spirit of love, erased out of the minds and hearts of men!
[Burkitt, on Rom_13:14 : This implies: 1. That the soul of man, since the fall, is in a naked state, destitute of those divine graces of the Holy Spirit which were its original clothing in the day of undefiled innocency; 2. That Jesus Christ is our spiritual clothing; a. in His righteousness, to pardon and justify us, He is our clothing, to cover the guilt of sin out of God’s sight; b. In His grace, to sanctify us, by which He cleanses us from our sins, pollution, and filthiness; c. that Jesus Christ, in order to our spiritual clothing, must be put on by faith: an unapplied Christ justifies none, saves none. It was not sufficient, under the law, that the blood of the sacrifice was shed, but it was also to be sprinkled, in order to the expiation of guilt.
[Doddridge, on Rom_13:14 : By putting on the Lord Jesus: 1. We make the gospel day yet brighter in the eyes of all around us; 2. We anticipate, while here in this world of comparative darkness, the lustre with which we hope, through Christ’s influence and grace, to shine forth in the celestial kingdom of our Father.
[John Wesley: The whole law under which we now are, is fulfilled by love. Faith, working or animated by love, is all that God now requires of man. He has substituted, not sincerity, but love, for angelic perfection.
Very excellent things are spoken of love—it is the essence, the spirit, the life of all virtue. It is not only the first and great command, but all the commands in one.
[Richard Watson, Sermon on the Armor of Light (Rom_13:12): I. What the armor of light is, with which the Apostle exhorts us to invest ourselves. II. Why it has the appellation of “armor of light:” (1) Because of its heavenly origin; (2) Because it is only found where Christianity exists and exerts its proper influence; (3) Because it corresponds to the character of our dispensation, which is a dispensation of light. III. The motives which should induce us, in compliance with the exhortation, to array ourselves with it: (1) From a consideration of the degraded state of man, who is not invested with this armor; (2) The moral elevation which this armor gives to every one who is invested with it; (3) We must either conquer or be conquered.
[Hodge, on Rom_13:14 : All Christian duty is included in putting on the Lord Jesus; in being like Him, having that similarity of temper and conduct which results from being intimately united to Him by the Holy Spirit.—J. F. H.]
Footnotes:
Rom_13:7.—[Rec.,
à
3. D3. F. L., insert
ïὖí
(Philippi, De Wette); omitted in
à
1. A. B. D1., by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Tregelles, and many others. Dr. Lange thinks the omission favors his view, that a new section should begin here; while Philippi and De Wette think this view of the connection led to the early omission.
Rom_13:9.—[The Rec. inserts
ïὐ øåõäïìáñôõñÞóåéò
on insufficient authority (
à
., versions and fathers). It is omitted in A. B. D. F. L., many cursives, &c.; by Lachmann, and modern editors and commentators without exception. Even Dr. Hodge, who rarely deviates from the Rec., except under overwhelming authority, rejects it. The insertion is at once explained by the Decalogue itself.
Rom_13:9.—[B. F. omit
ἐí ôῷ
. It is found in
à
. A. D. L.; adopted by many editors, bracketted by Lachmann, Alford, Tregelles. It might easily have been omitted as unnecessary, hence to be retained.—Rec., with A. L.:
ἐí ôïýôù
̣
ôῷ ëüãù
;
à
. B. D. F., Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and most:
ἐí ôῷ ëüãù
̣
ôïýôù
̣.
Rom_13:9.—[
à
. A. B. D. (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, Tregelles):
óåáõôüí
, instead of
Ýáõôüí
(F., fathers, Rec., Meyer, Philippi, &c.). The latter is for the second person, however; and may have been changed, either as a grammatical correction, or from the repetition of the
Ó
, which precedes. On
ἑáõôüí
for the second person, see Winer, p. 142.
Rom_13:11.—[Dr. Lange’s text reads: Und Solches wissend, wissen wir auch. See the Exeg. Notes on this interpretation, and that given above in brackets.
Rom_13:11.—[The subject of the infinitive is omitted in the E. V. The Rec.,
à
3. D. F. L., have
ἡìᾶò
;
à
1. A. B. C.:
ὑìᾶò
. The former is adopted by most editors; Alford, however, having discovered that B. gives the latter, has adopted it. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and most, place
ῆäç
before
ἡìᾶò
(so
à
. A. B. C. D.). Hence: it is already time that we should awake, is the correct rendering.
Rom_13:12.—[The Rec. (with
à
3. C3. D2 3. F. L., and fathers) reads
êáß
before
ἐíäõóþìåèá
. A. B. C1. D1., versions and fathers:
ἐíä
.
äÝ
.
à
1. omits the conjunction altogether. Lachmann, Tischendorf, De Wette, Alford, Wordsworth, Tregelles, accept
äÝ
, since
êáß
might be substituted on account of the failure to recognize the contrast. Philippi and Meyer accept
êáß
, because
äÝ
might have been inserted from the previous part of the verse, or to correspond with it. No change is required in the E. V., to express the slightly contrastive force of
äÝ
.
Rom_13:13.—[Amer. Bible Union, Noyes: becomingly; Five Ang. Clergymen: seemly. The latter is more in keeping with the style of the E. V. 1Co_14:40 : decently (and in order). Seemly is found in Chaucer in precisely the sense here intended
