======================================================================== COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF ROMANS by James Burtuon Coffman ======================================================================== Coffman's detailed commentary on Paul's Epistle to the Romans, providing verse-by-verse exposition of this foundational epistle on justification by faith, the righteousness of God, and the Christian life. Chapters: 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. 1 Romans Chapter One 2. 10 Romans Chapter Ten 3. 11 Romans Chapter Eleven 4. 12 Romans Chapter Twelve 5. 13 Romans Chapter Thirteen 6. 14 Romans Chapter Fourteen 7. 15 Romans Chapter Fifteen 8. 16 Romans Chapter Sixteen 9. 2 Romans Chapter Two 10. 3 Romans Chapter Three 11. 4 Romans Chapter Four 12. 5 Romans Chapter Five 13. 6 Romans Chapter Six 14. 7 Romans Chapter Seven 15. 8 Romans Chapter Eight 16. 9 Romans Chapter Nine ======================================================================== CHAPTER 1: 1 ROMANS CHAPTER ONE ======================================================================== Rom 1:1-32 Verse 1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God. All letters and other written communications, in New Testament times, were written upon parchments and conveyed to their recipients in rolled-up form; and that ancient style of letter required, as a practical consideration, that the signature of the writer be at the beginning. Otherwise, it would have been necessary to unroll the entire scroll to find the name of the sender. Therefore, Paul followed the custom of the times in placing his name along with the salutation in the beginning of the epistle. Up until the time of his conversion, Paul was known as Saul of Tarsus. SAUL, the first name under which this great man appears in the New Testament, means DEMANDED, and ranks among the great names in Jewish history, that being the name of their first king. PAUL, on the other hand, means LITTLE, and could have signified Paul’s smallness of stature; however, the name is Gentile, being the name of the apostle’s first distinguished convert, Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus, and Hodge suggested the possibility that the new Gentile name of the apostle derived from that conversion. F1 It was common among the Jews to mark some outstanding event in a person’s life with a change of his name, as in the case of Abraham (Gen 17:5), Jacob (Genesis 32:38), and Peter (John 1:42); and thus it appears that even in such a detail as this, Paul was "not a whit behind the chiefest apostles" (2Co 11:5). The first use of the name PAUL for this apostle is recorded in Acts 13:9 upon the occasion of the proconsul’s conversion; but, significantly, it appears to be a name that was already his, and is mentioned before the conversion took place. Despite this, the dramatic switch from one name to another certainly took place on that occasion; and if, indeed, the name PAUL was adopted at that time out of regard to so distinguished a convert, this great apostle reminds one of Hercules, who, in the first great labor of strangling the Nemean lion, took the lion’s skin and wore it ever afterwards, Paul forever afterwards wearing the name of the proconsul of Cyprus. Both names were appropriate for the great ambassador to the Gentiles, and it is altogether possible that his parents gave him both names, providentially, and that his great mission to the Gentiles naturally resulted in the shift of emphasis to his Gentile name. Servant of Jesus Christ ... The Greek word [doulos], from which the English translation "servant" is taken, actually means BONDSLAVE and is a very strong word indicating a number or very important things. It means that, as Christ’s slave, Paul was entitled to hearing and obedience on the part of all people, it being an ancient axiom that the honor and dignity of the owner were inherent in his slave, mistreatment of the slave being legally construed as mistreatment of the owner. Thus at the very outset, Paul announced the premise upon which he was entitled to be heard even in Rome. The use of the term BONDSLAVE also means that in conscience, doctrine, and conduct, Paul’s life was utterly in subjection to Christ. In the third place, due to the frequent use of this word in conjunction with APOSTLE, it implies an official capacity in the person so designated. Therefore, Paul was not claiming by use of this word, merely that he was living the Christian life, but that as a bondslave of Christ he had a message from God that all people are obligated to heed. That such was his intent derives from the fact that he immediately connected the office of a bondslave with that of an apostle. Called to be an apostle ... The words "to be" are usually printed in italics to show that they were not in the Greek and were merely supplied by the translators; and in this instance they would have been better left out. As Whiteside expressed it: "Paul was not telling what he was called to be, but what he was!" F2 Although the title of apostle has been somewhat loosely applied, the meaning is rather strict. As Hodge noted: As a strict official designation, the word "apostle" is confined to those men selected and commissioned by Christ himself to deliver in his name the message of salvation. F3 In this context, it should be noted that Christ himself is the one who selected the apostles and conferred upon them that name. "And of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles" (Luk 6:13). It is precisely in that strictest meaning of the title that Paul’s salutation and identification of himself as an apostle should be understood. He was a "called" apostle, not by men, but by Christ himself; and he invariably laid claim to the full authority of the office. CONCERNING APOSTLES The apostles of Jesus Christ constituted the most interesting group of men ever to live upon earth. They were men of humble origin, men that the world would hesitate to call learned or wise when measured by ordinary standards, men who were never honored by any university with a degree, or elected to any learned society of intellectuals, men who never wrote any books, as the term is usually understood, who were never elected to any pubic office, who never became wealthy, and who, with the possible exception of Paul, would never have been remembered by posterity, had it not been for their association with Jesus Christ. Their relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ, however, projected them into the spotlight and focal center of all subsequent history. For nearly two thousand years already, children have learned with eagerness the names of the Twelve Apostles, and gray-headed men and women have gone down to the grave repeating the blessed words these men delivered to the human race. It must be conceded that the apostles of Christ have exerted and continue to exert a greater influence upon humanity than that which may be attributed to any other human source. Who were permitted to serve as apostles? (1) Only those whom Jesus chose for this office were ever, in any real sense, apostles, this being a necessary deduction from Acts 1:24, "Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one whom thou hast chosen." In that remarkable event, the apostles themselves had been able to narrow the choice for Judas’ successor to the two men alone who fulfilled the other qualifications for the apostleship; (2) having been companions of the Master from the time of John’s baptism until Christ’s ascension (Acts 1:22); and (3) having been witnesses of the resurrection of Christ, that is, having seen him alive after his death and burial (Acts 1:22). Paul’s apostleship was different only in this, that he had not been a personal companion of Jesus during the Lord’s ministry, as were the others; but, by special appearances to Paul, the Lord commissioned him as a true "witness" of the resurrection (Acts 26:16), that commission as an apostle being by Christ himself and not by men (Gal 1:1). What were their powers? They were infallible teachers of God’s word, being inspired in the highest sense of that word, their infallibility being attested by the signs and miracles that accompanied their preaching (Mark 16:20). Peter raised the dead to life again (Acts 9:41); Paul suffered no hurt from the vicious bite of a deadly viper (Acts 28:5); and many other signs and miracles were wrought by them and all the apostles. They could convey the gift of the Holy Spirit, through the laying on of their hands; and one must agree with Charles Hodge that it was: The power of working miracles in confirmation of their mission ... (It was) this power they could communicate to others by the laying on of their hands. F4 It was never claimed by any of the apostles that any perpetual office could thus be transferred; and the notion of any line of succession to such an office as the apostleship is illogical and opposed to the scriptures. Who were their successors? Only one of the apostles ever had a successor, namely, Judas Iscariot, whose successor, Matthias, was chosen by the Lord to take the office from which Judas "by transgression, fell" (Acts 1:25Acts 1:25; Acts 1:25 ), the significance of this arising out of the circumstance that the death of two of the apostles is recorded in the New Testament, whereas only one of them required a successor, it being nowhere recorded that any successor was chosen for James (Acts 12:2). The difference in there having been chosen a successor for Judas, but none for James, may be explained only by the fact that the scriptures attribute the removal of Judas from his office to his transgression, and not to his death, which leads to the conclusion that death never removed, and indeed cannot remove, an apostle from his office. It is this tremendous truth that underlies the promise of Jesus to the Twelve that, "In the times of the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Mat 19:28). This promise of the Master established the principle that death could not remove an apostle, nor interfere with the discharge of their apostolic duties, their reign being co-extensive with that of Christ himself. As to HOW the apostles are reigning today, it appears that their word, the inspired message which they delivered, and which is still preserved and binding upon the Christians of all ages, that their word is the means of. their continual authority, or reign, over the church. That the apostolic office was unique and limited, absolutely, to the Twelve plus Paul, is further corroborated by the apostle John’s vision of the foundations of the Eternal City, upon which are inscribed "the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (Rev 21:14), Therefore, how impossible it is to believe the claims of any so-called successors to apostolic dignity and authority of the Twelve, whether in this age or any other! Separated unto the gospel of God ... This reference to separation corresponds to the setting apart of the prophets of the Old Testament for their divine mission, as mentioned in Jeremiah (Jer 1:5), and strongly suggests the parity of honor and authority which the apostles of the New Testament enjoyed, along with the mighty prophets of the Old Testament. This oneness of dignity, embracing both prophets and apostles, was mentioned by Peter, thus: "Ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles" (2Pe 3:2). There is, of course, a certain sense in which all Christians are separated, or sanctified; but far more is intended here. On Paul’s part, there was a total, absolute, and unvarying dedication to the work of preaching Christ to all people. Verse 2 Which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy Scriptures. This verse seals the identity of the Christian religion with that divine institution set forth prophetically and typically in the Old Testament. The redemptive gospel Paul preached was the very same system proclaimed and partially unfolded in the Old Testament. The identity and character of the Messiah, the nature of his kingdom, and the ultimate replacement of the old covenant with a new (Jer 31:31-35) - all of these things, and many others, are contained in the Old Testament. By so bold a claim, Paul at once established the principle that any believer of the Old Testament should likewise be a believer of the New Testament; for they surely answer, each to the other, as type and antitype, prophecy and fulfillment. Through his prophets ... Here is a distinction one meets constantly in the Bible, that the words therein contained are not the words of the prophets, but the word of God delivered "through his prophets" (as here), and "through the apostles" (2Pe 3:2). (See Mat 1:22Mat 1:22; Mat 2:5Mat 2:5; Mat 2:15Mat 2:15; Mat 2:17Mat 2:17; Mat 3:3Mat 3:3; Mat 4:14, and throughout the ). Paul’s summary of the gospel (1Co 15:3-4) stresses this same point through the recurrence of the phrase, "according to the scriptures." Bruce’s definition of the gospel is: (It is) his joyful proclamation of the victory and exaltation of his Son, and the consequent amnesty and liberation which we may enjoy through faith in him. F5 Verse 3 Concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. Having already announced the origin of the gospel in God himself (Rom 1:1), Paul immediately introduced God’s Son as the central fact of the good news, the gospel having but one center and that in Christ, Christ alone is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, the embodiment of all Jewish hopes, the willing sacrifice, the sin-bearer, and the atonement. He, and he alone, is the architect of the crucifixion, the deliverer of God’s redeeming word; indeed, he is that Word which was in the beginning with God, and which was God (John 1:1). Christ is the Hope of Israel, the Light of the Gentiles, the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and Morning Star, the Fairest of Ten Thousand, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace! Of the seed of David ... The dual nature of Christ, both his divinity and humanity, are affirmed by Paul in this passage. As for the body that Jesus took when he decided to enter our earth life, it was descended through David, as attested by the genealogies of both Matthew and Luke, the very first verse of the New Testament hailing him as "the Son of David." However, it was only the humanity of Jesus that descended through David. In his totality, Christ descended from no man but was co-existent with the Father. Heb 2:14-16 plainly declares that Christ "take hold of" the seed of Abraham, thus affirming that he had an existence before assuming a human body. Verse 4 Who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord. This verse is the antithesis of the preceding verse, that dealing with the human nature of Christ, and this with his heavenly nature. Declared to be the Son of God with power ... The key words in this passage are "with power." It is not affirmed that Christ was declared the Son of God, merely, but that he was declared so with power. As Greathouse expressed it: Paul does not say that Jesus was appointed Son of God but that he was appointed Son of God with power. Nygren brings all these ideas into focus: "To be sure, from the beginning, he was the Son of God, but in weakness and lowliness. The divine glory which formerly was hidden was manifest after the resurrection. From that hour, he is the Son of God in a new sense: he is the Son of God in power." F6 According to the spirit of holiness ... By capitalizing "Spirit of holiness," the RSV identifies the Spirit mentioned here as the Holy Spirit; and, although Paul nowhere else uses this designation of the Holy Spirit, there seems to be no good reason for denying that he did so here. Certainly, it was by the power of the Holy Spirit that the gospel was proclaimed, including the good news of the resurrection, which is an essential part of it. By the resurrection from the dead ... should be translated "by the resurrection of the dead," the change to "from" having been made by the translators for the purpose of giving a more accurate presentation of what they considered to be the meaning, most of them thinking that the resurrection of Christ was referred to; but the alternative translation in the English Revised Version (1885) margin is undoubtedly correct. This difficult passage was translated "after the resurrection from the dead" by Luther, Erasmus, and others. F7 Barrett translates it "after his resurrection from the dead." F8 Greathouse, however, protested such translations, writing: Literally the phrase means "resurrection of those who are dead." Paul says actually that Christ was designated the Son of God with power "by a resurrection of dead ones." Nygren understands Paul to mean: "Through Christ the resurrection age has burst upon us." F9 Whosoever believes that Christ is the Son of God has passed from death unto life (John 5:24), and thus the expression "resurrection of the dead" is the reference to the power of the gospel to awaken into new life them that were formerly dead in trespasses and sins. Thin does not exclude the resurrection of Christ, but goes beyond it to make the world-shaking power of the gospel to be included also as part of the declarative power demonstrating and advertising Christ as Son of God with power. Any further pursuit of the meaning of this difficult phrase would only multiply supporting reasons for various positions of scholars; and we shall, accordingly, construe the place as ambiguous, perhaps designed that way by the Holy Spirit, and content ourselves with a few certainties: (1) Christ was Son of God long before his resurrection, and was so confessed by the apostles. (2) Any declaration of Christ, and appointment of him to be the Son of God with power, by means of any such thing as the resurrection, would of necessity apply to some more powerful phase of his Sonship, rather than marking the absolute initiation of it. (3) The resurrection here mentioned, whatever was intended, is indeed one of the centers of the Christian faith. The resurrection of Christ, particularly, is the cornerstone and foundation of the Christian religion. It is the resurrection of Christ that gives credibility to the Gospels, explains the virgin birth, thrills the heart with the conviction that Jesus Christ is indeed God come in the flesh; and, without the hope of the resurrection, Paul himself declared that, "We are of all men most pitiable" (1Co 15:19). With the sure and certain hope of the resurrection, as set forth in the New Testament, the Christian is endowed with sufficient strength to meet all of life’s challenges. It is surely true, as Paul said in another place, that "Christ brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2Ti 1:10). Even Jesus Christ our Lord ... There can be no doubt that Paul accepted Christ as far more than a mere human being. This salutation, had there been nothing else, would make that certain. Paul presents himself as the bondslave of Jesus Christ in the very first line of the epistle, and it is impossible to think of Paul’s subjection to any person of mere mortal dignity. Here, Jesus Christ is adored as Lord. Verse 5 Through whom we received grace and apostleship, unto obedience of faith among all the nations, for his name’s sake. The use of "we" may be viewed either as the editorial plural applied to Paul, or as an inclusion with himself of all the other apostles, all of them having been shareholders in the apostolic commission and beneficiaries of the grace of God. Obedience of faith ... This is the first mention of faith in the Roman letter, and its being mentioned along with obedience is extremely significant. Paul was about to write the most important document on the subject of faith that the world would ever have, in which, of necessity, there would be written some of those things which even an apostle would consider "hard to be understood" (2Pe 3:16); therefore, it was a matter of gracious discernment upon his part that, in the very beginning of the letter, he made it clear that, throughout Romans, "faith" should be read "obedient faith." Evidence is totally lacking that Paul ever considered "faith only" as efficacious in the procurement of salvation; because, as noted here, the apostolic commission was designed to produce the obedience of faith, and not merely faith alone. These same words, conjoined by apostolic authority, stand at the beginning of Romans and at the end, where they are mentioned in the final doxology (Rom 16:26), thus forming the archway through which one enters the portal and by which one departs this magnificent cathedral of sacred literature. Among all the nations ... anticipates what Paul was about to say of the forthcoming visit to Rome; because, much as he personally wished to visit there, a much higher priority belonged to his heavenly commission to "all the nations," which, to be sure, included Rome also; but the gospel was already known there. For such reasons as these, therefore, he had refrained from gratifying his personal desire to visit the great capital until it could be fitted into the larger strategy of preaching the gospel wherever it had not previously been proclaimed. The word "nations" here means "Gentiles," and it is so translated by Locke and many others. "For his name’s sake" applies to the entire apostolic commission, with special emphasis upon the purpose of it, namely, to glorify and honor the Lord Jesus Christ. This is evident from the literal meaning of the phrase, which, according to Barrett, is "on behalf of his name." F10 Verse 6 Among whom are ye also, called to be Jesus Christ’s. A glimpse of what seems to have been in Paul’s mind when he wrote that line may be seen in Sanday’s paraphrase, as follows: Among these Gentile churches to which I am especially commissioned, you Romans too are called to the same obedience of faith, and therefore I have the more right to address you. F11 The "called" are not merely those who hear the gracious gospel invitation, but are a company made up of the ones who obey. In a certain sense, all are called, in the sense that the gospel is for all mankind; and yet, in the Pauline usage of the word, it is applied to those who have responded to the great invitation. Such a word as "called" emphasizes the divine initiative in redemption. Verse 7 To all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. All that be in Rome ... need not be restricted in meaning. As Macknight wrote: This epistle being written to persuade the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles to embrace the gospel, as exhibiting the only effectual method of salvation, it was fitly addressed to the whole inhabitants of Rome, to the heathens as well as to the Jews and Christians. F12 Beloved of God ... here has that great New Testament word for "love," [Greek: agape]. A supreme consciousness of such great love underlies every word of this great epistle; and, again and again, some reference to it surfaces in the main body of the letter. God’s great love for man is the reason for the Cross itself, where Christ died for all, "while we were yet sinners" (Rom 5:8) and even "when we were enemies" (Rom 5:10). So great love is shed abroad in the hearts of Christians by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5), and nothing in the whole universe can ever separate Christians from God’s great love (Rom 8:35-39). As Greathouse put it, "When Paul addresses the Christians as `God’s beloved,’ he uses the word in its deepest and most inclusive sense." F13 Called to be saints ... Here we have the same gratuitous insertion of "to be" which was noted in verse 1; and, again, the meaning is more evident without the insertion. It is the invariable New Testament teaching that Christians are not merely called to be saints, but they are so. They are called "saints," "holy," and "holy ones." But, of course, the word "saint" has been so abused by the historical church as to have almost totally lost its true meaning. The restriction of the term as a title for dead Christians who have been canonized is a contradiction of the New Testament meaning of the word; but the perverted meaning is so widely received that one is tempted to agree with Lard who wrote that "The word `saint’ should be wholly dropped from the sacred page. It is too vague and too much abused to be tolerated longer." F14 Another word with reference to "saints" is in order. There is no apostolic assertion of moral perfection in the apostolic application of the term to the Christians in Rome. They were thus designated out of respect to the ideals they had accepted and were striving to attain, rather than from any certainty that those sacred ideals had actually been achieved. Yet they were very properly addressed as "holy," because that was a means of inspiring them to greater purity and of keeping them in constant remembrance of their sacred duties as Christians. This divine acceptance of the Christian for what he is trying to become, rather than merely for what he is, appears as a dispensation of God’s grace, and is frequently emphasized in Paul’s letters. For example, it would be hard to imagine a church with more imperfections and outright sins than the church in Corinth; yet, even of them, Paul wrote, "I thank my God always concerning you"! (1Co 1:4). Moreover, they too, just like the Romans, were "called saints"! (1Co 2:1-16). Grace to you and peace ... Scholars have noted that Paul’s greeting combines the usual Greek salutation with the customary Hebrew greeting, thus forming a more noble greeting with the highest Christian implications, and yet retaining the best features of both the old ones. The usual Greek salutation, according to Greathouse, was [thairein] (greeting). He wrote thus: Paul uses a similar word [Greek: charis] (grace), which means the free, undeserved favor of God, and adds [Greek: eirene] (peace), the inner sense of serenity and well-being men enjoy through God’s grace. Since "peace" ([Hebrew: shalom]) was the common Jewish salutation. Paul’s "Grace ... and peace," the salutation of all his letters, combines the Greek and Hebrew forms of greeting. F15 This verse ends the longest salutation in the Pauline writings. The salutation proper, without the embellishing clauses, reads: "Paul, to all that are in Rome: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." The remainder of these first seven verses is actually a series of statements concerning: (1) himself; (2) the gospel; (3) God’s Son; (4) his apostolic commission; and (5) the Christian community in Rome. These five precisely logical clusters of statements touch upon many of the profoundest themes in Christianity. Attention is here directed to the technical, ingenious manner in which Paul arranged these five groups of statements, which is proof of the forethought that went into their composition. I. Of himself A. That he is a bondslave of Christ B. A called apostle C. Separated unto the gospel of God II. Concerning the gospel (mentioned in "C" above) A. It originated with God B. Was foretold by Old Testament prophecy C. And concerns the Son of God III. Regarding the Son of God (mentioned in "C" above) A. He descended from David according to the flesh B. Proclaimed Son of God with power C. Through the resurrection of the dead IV. Paul’s relationship to the risen Lord (mentioned in "C" above) A. Received grace and apostleship from Christ B. Commissioned by Christ to preach obedience of faith to all nations C. Such evangelism to be for Christ’s name’s sake V. Concerning the church in Rome (just such a congregation as could have been expected from the activity mentioned in "C" above) A. They are beloved of God B. Called saints C. They are the recipients of Paul’s "grace and peace" That this remarkable paragraph is capable of being so analyzed and outlined is an amazing proof of the planning and thought which preceded its production. Verse 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world. First, I thank my God ... There is no use to look for "second" and "third" in this epistle for no such outline ever entered Paul’s mind. His "first" in this place simply means, "The first thing I want to say is ..." "Thanks to God" is always a good first, no matter what is intended; and, besides, Paul usually began his letters to the churches with thanksgiving to God upon their behalf. In this case, his thanksgiving was no doubt amplified and intensified by the circumstances of the Roman community of believers being so favorably located in the very heart of the great Roman capital, where communications with all the world of that day were centered, where the crossroads of the earth met, and where travelers from all the provinces were going and coming every day. As a result of their strategic location, the Roman Christians had a wide stage upon which to enact their deeds of faith; and Paul’s appreciation of this may be deduced from the fact that most of his own great labors were directed to establishing the faith of Christ in great world-centers like Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch. My God ... Paul’s use of the possessive pronoun here was not unusual, the same construction appearing in 1Co 1:4; 2Co 12:21; Php 1:3; Php 4:19; and Phm 1:4. Old Testament precedent is "The Lord is my shepherd". And yet none of the apostles ever wrote, "My Father," an expression which our Saviour evidently reserved for himself alone, since he taught the disciples to pray, "Our Father, etc." Through Jesus Christ ... honors the mediatorial office of Jesus Christ; and as Hodge suggested: There is no need of the various forced interpretations of the words in the text, which have been given by those who are unwilling to admit the idea of such mediation on the part of Christ. F16 Upon the great doctrine of the mediatorial office of the Lord Jesus Christ, the New Testament leaves no grounds for misunderstanding. CHRIST, THE ONE MEDIATOR John Wesley’s statement that "The gifts of God all pass through Christ to us, and all our petitions and thanksgivings pass through Christ to God," F17 constitutes a concise summary of New Testament teaching on Christ’s mediation. The Lord said: And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in my name, that will I do (John 14:13-14). If ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name (John 16:23). Other New Testament instructions to the same effect are as follows: Give thanks always for all things in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father (Eph 5:20). And whatsover ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (Col 3:17). Through him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually (Heb 13:15). Paul himself always carefully followed this rule (Rom 7:25); and the fact appears that language could hardly be more comprehensive and emphatic in the description of exactly what communications were commanded to be addressed to the Father "through" Christ. "Anything ... whatsoever ... all things ... whatsoever ye do in word or deed" - thus the most comprehensive terminology is marshaled against any exceptions whatsoever. And, are there mediators other than Jesus Christ? No. Paul said, There is one God, one mediator also between God and man, himself man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all; the testimony to be borne in its own times (1Ti 2:5). Thus, there are exactly as many mediators as there are Gods, namely, only one. All superstitions to the effect that prayers may be offered to God through various so-called saints, or even through the blessed Mother of Jesus, are flatly contradicted by New Testament teaching. Likewise, prayers which are offered ambiguously, "In thy name," or "In his name," etc., or in no name at all except that of the petitioner, are sinful in the light of these solemn teachings of the word of God. Even the use of such a formula as "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," is not in keeping with the commandments of the apostles, nor did any of them ever use such words in a prayer. True, people were commanded to baptize into that sacred triple name; but no man can show any other example of those holy names thus being subjoined to any other command or petition in the entire Bible. In the verse before us, Paul was scrupulous to express his thanks to God "through Jesus Christ"; and there can hardly be any doubt that his doing so was in keeping with the revealed will of God. As Hodge summarized it, Such then is the clear teaching of the Bible, that in all our approaches to God in prayer and praise, we must come in the name of Christ, that is, in him, referring to him as the ground of our acceptance. F18 For you all ... is the plural of "you"; and the only possible plural of that pronoun capable of including everyone. "You both," "you two," etc., are also grammatical plurals of that pronoun. Thus, the expression "you all" is not a colloquialism but stands in the best tradition of classical English. Proclaimed throughout the world ... It was natural that the faith of Christians so favorably located in Rome should be widely known, but also implicit in the fact of their extensive reputation is their evangelical behavior. Their faith was not something which they held privately and selfishly, but a passionate conviction of which they spoke to everyone who would hear and which they preached as universally as possible. The use here of such a phrase as "throughout the world" is understood by some writers as hyperbole; and, although the use of that figure of speech is certainly found in the New Testament, as, for example, in Mat 3:5, that is not necessarily the explanation here. It could be that Paul here employed the prophetic tense (in which future events are spoken of in the present tense), and the view that Paul did so speak here is grounded in the amazing truth that, nearly twenty centuries after his writing, it is literally true that the Christians of Rome have been spoken of, and are continually being spoken of in every village and hamlet of the earth, everywhere the Bible is read! In view of the facts, then, it seems rather arbitrary to limit Paul’s meaning as, "Best understood as `throughout the Christian Church and wherever people knew of their faith.’ F19 The similar passage, "The gospel which is come unto you; even as it is in all the world, bearing fruit and increasing" (Col 1:5-6), may also be interpreted in the same way. Verses 9, 10 For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, how unceasingly I make mention of you, always in my prayers making request, if by any means now at length I may be prospered by the will of God to come unto you. The words "For God is my witness" are actually the highest form of that type of oath defined by Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary as "a reverent appeal to God in corroboration of what one says." Paul used that device frequently, as in 2Co 1:23; Gal 1:20; and Philp. 1:8. His special need for emphasizing his truthfulness here derived from the great length of time during which he had been speaking of and promising a visit to Rome; therefore, to protect himself against the possible insinuations of his enemies regarding that oft-promised, but yet non-existent visit to Rome, Paul affirmed, in the most emphatic manner possible, both the sincerity of his intentions and his determination yet to make the visit, provided only that it was God’s will. Some have seen in Paul’s repeated use of this sacred type of oath ample permission for Christians to take the judicial type of oath when giving testimony before a court of law; but, for those whose consciences will not allow even that, out of deference to the Saviour’s command, "Swear not at all," it is far better to use the alternate form permitted in United States courts, in which the witness is permitted to "affirm" rather than "swear." It will be noted that Paul does not "swear," either here or elsewhere in his writings. Whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son ... What people do with their bodies may be observed and reported by their fellows, but what one does in one’s own spirit is known certainly only to God; and that accounts for Paul’s appeal to God as a witness of his inner sincerity and devotion to the gospel of Christ. Paul’s almost vehement language here showed how deeply he felt the frustrations of being unable to go to Rome, and how diligent he was to counteract the deprecatory remarks that some might have made about it. There he stood in Corinth, not too far away from Rome, really; and to make it appear still worse, Paul was about to leave Corinth, not in the direction of Rome, but in the opposite direction toward Jerusalem, and all this in spite of many promises and expressed intentions of visiting Rome. His wide travels, covering so much of the great empire, were hard to reconcile with any true desire to go to the capital; and there were doubtless some of Paul’s enemies who were willing to suggest that he was ashamed to preach there. It was Paul’s concern for things like that which led him to write so forcibly, calling God to witness, making mention of ceaseless prayers, and assuring the Roman Christians of his sincerity and determination, even at that time, to make the visit, God willing. Always in my prayers ... The great apostle won many by his preaching, but it is possible that he won even more through his prayers. To the Roman Christians he sent assurance, as to all the churches, that he remembered them before the Throne, not in some perfunctory or occasional manner, but unceasingly and always. Making request ... that he might be permitted personally to visit them, is a prayer which he had been offering for many years. And why had such prayers remained unanswered? See under Rom 1:13, below. The will of God ... How significant are these words! It is under the sovereign will of the Father that all things are controlled, for it is in that will that they even exist. Paul made it clear that he was praying for it to be God’s will that the projected Roman visit might actually take place. The Lord himself prayed, "Not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Mat 26:39); and the prayers of all Christians should always be offered upon that same condition. Paul, at last, was privileged to make his journey to Rome; but the circumstances of it must have been utterly different from what Paul had hoped. He finally arrived in the city of Rome as a prisoner, subject to the fickle will of Nero, humiliated by a guard and a chain, and with no pulpit but a Roman barracks. How inscrutable is the will of God! Of mortal men, only they who can bow the head and say, "The Lord willing," shall ever know the real meaning of service to God. Verses 11, 12 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may, be established; that is, that I with you may be comforted in you, each of us by the other’s faith, both yours and mine. Here is revealed the reason why Paul wanted to go to Rome, namely, that he might establish the church there. In a sense, it had already been established there for many years, at least to the extent of its having been able to exist; but Paul saw the advantages that would accrue to the world-wide church by the building up, encouragement, and perhaps better organization of Christians in Rome. Significantly, the church there had no elders and deacons, else they would presumably have been mentioned in the salutation, as in Philp. 1:1. The particular spiritual gift Paul had in mind was not mentioned, and it is pointless to speculate; but one sure conclusion that seems justified from this verse is that no apostle had ever been in Rome at the time this letter was sent; otherwise, the intended spiritual gift would already have been conveyed. Rom 1:12 was written from considerations of tact. Paul, not wishing to appear as high and mighty above the band of believers in Rome, did not speak merely of his conferring some benefit upon them, but also of the mutual benefit in which he himself would also share. The use of the words "that is" indicates that Paul, after writing the preceding words, sought to soften their impact by mention of the blessing he himself would receive from them. The delicacy, understanding, and humility of this great Christian apostle stand out conspicuously in this warm, personal passage. Verse 13 And I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you (and was hindered hitherto), that I might have some fruit in you also, even as in the rest of the Gentiles. This verse shows that Paul had planned to go to Rome and that he had been hindered from doing so. It is immaterial whether the hindering came from Satan or from the Holy Spirit, because the Spirit could have overruled any Satanic hindrance; and, therefore, either the hindrance itself, or its being allowed, must be attributed to the Holy Spirit. Satan indeed was the hinderer on some occasions, as in 1Th 2:18, and, upon other occasions, the Holy Spirit was the hinderer, as in Acts 16:6. Whiteside made a very significant deduction from the circumstances revealed in this verse: This shows that he was not guided by inspiration in forming his plans, for the Holy Spirit would not have guided him into forming plans and then have allowed him to be hindered in carrying out his plans. Paul did sometimes form his own plans or purposes which the Holy Spirit did not allow him to carry out. F20 From this it is clear that the guidance of the Holy Spirit in Christian lives does not extend so far as helping them to devise ALL their plans. There is nothing in such a deduction to deny that the Spirit might help in forming SOME plans; but there is revealed no way of knowing, for sure, which plans may or may not be attributed to the guidance of the Holy Spirit; hence, the necessity, always, for people to pray, even as Christ did, "Not my will, but thine be done." Paul’s reasons for thinking he should go to Rome sprang out of his desire, as stated here, to have some fruit among them. Just how long he had wanted to make this journey is not known, but it was surely for "many years" (Rom 15:23). Verse 14 I am debtor both to the Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. In this verse appears that dual classification of all people which was so fashionable in the world of that era. The Hebrews classified all people as Jews and Gentiles; the Romans classified the whole world as Romans and pagans; the Greeks included everyone as Greeks or Barbarians. There were other dual classifications such as wise and foolish, male and female, freemen and slaves, etc. Actually in usage, such classifications really mean "us and everybody else"! Paul’s evident meaning is simply that he felt indebted to all people. Nothing that any man had done had laid this burden of debt upon Paul’s heart; but it was what Christ had done for Paul which had made him debtor to all people of all races and nations. Christ had died for Paul, appeared to him, commissioned him as an apostle, saved his soul from sin, and made him an heir of everlasting life. Such a mighty weight of blessing had produced Paul’s feeling of indebtedness, and where is the Christian who does not feel a similar debt, a debt of such weight and nature that the uttermost limits of one’s ability, resources, and time may be taxed without fully discharging it? This immense and overwhelming debt may, in the last analysis, be relaxed only by the grace of God, as in a court of last resort; because, when Christians have done everything possible for them to do, such payments on their part can never fully discharge such a debt as this. Verse 15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that are in Rome. Students of the Greek language are amazed to find that a single word in that language is translated "preach the gospel"; but Macknight’s explanation fully justifies it: The original word was first used by the LXX to signify the publishing of any good news: and, having inserted it in their translation of Isa 60:6; Isa 61:1, where Messiah’s preaching good tidings to the poor is foretold (Luk 4:21), the apostles justly appropriated it to the preaching of the gospel, as the best news mankind could hear. F21 This verse also supports the conclusion that Romans was addressed to all the inhabitants in Rome, and not merely to believers alone, but to Barbarians, foolish, and, in short, all people. The tremendous motivation of Paul’s life appears in the twin declarations, "I am debtor" (Rom 1:14) and "I am ready" (Rom 1:15). With this solid shot, Paul dispelled any notion that he had been holding back from a trip to Rome due to any considerations like being ashamed to preach there. Having already affirmed the credentials of his apostolic calling, he waived all privileges of rank and all the honors of such an office and presented himself in this verse to the total population of that great city, not merely as the great ambassador, which he surely was, but also as a human brother, a fellow-Christian who had long loved them, prayed for them, and longed to visit them. Choosing exactly the right words, Paul in this perfect introduction presented himself as one who actually considered himself in debt to the whole community, indeed to all people, and as a brother in Christ who was eager to preach to them. How tender and beautiful are the sentiments expressed upon this sacred page! As Beet put it, Our spirits bowed before one who stood so high in the service of so great a Master. But now the Ambassador of Christ comes to us like one of ourselves. Across the waters which roll between him and us, we hear a brother’s voice, and see a brother’s face. F22 Verse 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. With reference to any possible slander to the effect that he was ashamed to preach in the sophisticated capital of the empire, Paul challenged and refuted it with the smashing declaration here. A lesser man than Paul might indeed have quailed before the arrogant sophistication of Rome, but Paul was a man absolutely beyond the reach of snobbish intimidation. Brunner analyzed the situation thus: What Rome meant then is almost beyond our comprehension. We must imagine as one all of the capital cities of our own day, from New York and London to Tokyo. He, the itinerant Jewish preacher, is to conquer Rome for Christ. By what means? By the message of a Galilean who was executed as a criminal! In face of the wisdom and might of Rome, to set up "the foolishness of the Cross," this glorification of the powerless one! But the apostle’s thought barely touches upon what might have been so natural, namely, the failing of his courage when confronted by this contrast. There are no inferiority complexes here and no false humility, but an unbroken consciousness of power. "I am not ashamed; for it is the power of God." The gospel is not only an epoch-making power for salvation; its effect reaches into eternity, just as itself derives from eternity. F23 Ashamed ... Paul’s mention of not being ashamed of the gospel is appropriate, because in the city of Rome were all the trappings of human glory, pride, selfishness, power, and cruelty, also every extravagance of intemperance, vice, and idolatry. Raw, naked force was enthroned there. Those fierce Romans had controlled the world for centuries; and, in their lustful exploitation of power, they had shamelessly held all human honor and virtue expendable. Ruthless, unprincipled, power-politics sat naked and unmasked upon the throne of the Caesars; and, if there had been a place on earth where the gentle teachings of the Son of God were despised, the great harlot on the Tiber was that city. Jesus had warned his disciples that God himself would be ashamed of any who were ashamed of Jesus and his word (Mark 8.:38); and in this epistolary war-cry, Paul hurled the challenge of his faith in Christ like a steel gauntlet into the face of proud and arrogant Rome. How could he do it? The answer is in the next clause. It is the power of God unto salvation ... Ah, yes. Here is the power to save people from sin, from the inevitable fate of the wicked, and from eternal death. This gospel is power unlimited, eternal, and irresistible within the framework of God’s eternal purpose, and fully sufficient to achieve all that God intended. This tremendous power is primarily the power to save from sin and death, being fully efficacious unto redemption, the nature of which is revealed in the terms of the gospel itself. It is salvation from the wrath of God and eternal death of the soul, a salvation of such a nature that only God could provide it or make it available to people. No human scheme or device could ever be effectual for such a purpose as salvation from sin and death and the endowment of mortals with the glory of eternal life. The gospel ... And, pray tell, what is the gospel? In a word, the gospel is the good news of salvation from the wrath of God due to man’s sin, a salvation made possible through the death of Christ, and therefore pertaining (as Paul himself summarized it) to the death of Christ according to the scriptures, his burial, and his resurrection on the third day, according to the scriptures (1Co 15:3-4). By extension, this gospel of Christ is the sum total of divine revelation in the sacred scriptures, that is, the Bible, and is composed of: (1) facts to be believed; (2) commandments to be obeyed; and (3) promises to be accepted. It is a gospel which must be received as the word of God (Acts 17:11), a gospel which must be believed (as stated in this verse); and it is a gospel that must be obeyed (2Th 1:8). These plainly documented characteristics of the gospel should be kept in mind at all times, especially in the study of Romans; because advocates of human error have been very diligent to make Paul’s letter to the Romans a charter of salvation by "faith only." If the gospel means that people may be saved by faith only, why did Paul write the Thessalonians that the Lord Jesus would execute vengeance upon them that "obey not the gospel"? Lard named the three things that must be overcome in salvation as, The world, the flesh, and Satan. These powers must be overcome in salvation; nothing short of God’s power can do this; but the gospel does it, hence the propriety of calling it God’s power for salvation. It is his power because it proceeds from him; it is for salvation, because it is ordained to effect it. F24 The salvation under consideration, which is promised in the gospel, is no mere alleviation of social unrest, nor any such thing as the psychological easement of human tensions, nor an infusion of tranquillity for troubled minds. Such results indeed may come as collateral and tangential benefits, but the gospel is designed for something utterly beyond things like that. It is to save people from everlasting destruction from the presence of God and the glory of his power (2Th 1:9). Men should therefore reject a commentator’s mild compliment of Romans, which held that it is: A relevant message, for it describes with great accuracy the deep tensions and anxieties of life and holds forth the promise of peace. F25 The gospel is not a message of peace for the disobedient, but a message doom, and has the dual character, mentioned by Paul himself, of being either "unto life" or "unto death," as it may be received or rejected (2Co 2:14-16). The power of God ... The word "the" is inserted by the translators but does not add anything to the meaning. Whatever power is needed to convert sinful people, all of that power is available in the gospel; and there is no need for any special illumination of the heart, nor for any fiat on the part of the Holy Spirit, nor for any special act of God to strike the sinner down and convert him. The gospel itself is that illumination that can save him, the fiat of the Holy Spirit making salvation available to him, and the special act of God calling him to be saved. Let the gospel be preached; and, as Jesus himself said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). To every one that believeth ... is a synecdoche, that is, one of a group of related things being mentioned in place of and standing for all of them, and was absolutely not intended to announce faith as the sole condition of eternal life, in the manner declared by Lenski: "Believing" excludes everything except the confidence wrought in the soul by the divine power of the gospel and by this alone. F26 This expositor is absolutely certain that nothing Paul ever wrote was intended to exclude obedience as a precondition of salvation; and, although perfect obedience must surely be reckoned beyond the power of human achievement, the sincere intent to obey and some semblance of compliance with God’s commandments appears to be absolutely required by such statements as those of 2Th 1:8-9, etc. Upon what grounds do scholars like Lenski, and others, declare that "believeth," as used here, "excludes" everything else? If that is what Paul meant, could he not have said so? Was Paul ignorant of such words as "alone" and "only" which come so readily to the lips and pens of scholars today, but which he pointedly omitted using; or, on the other hand, is it that people are guilty of importing their own theories into Paul’s words? And, if it be inquired what are the group of related things represented by "believeth" in this passage, let it be answered that repentance (Luk 13:3-5), the new birth (John 3:5), holiness (Heb 12:14), and obedience (Heb 5:9; 2Th 1:8) are all, according to the scriptures, absolutely required of all who hope to be saved. When the Pauline theology, as "discovered" by some commentators, is thought to offer salvation without the new birth, without holiness, without repentance, and without obedience, somebody has simply got to be mistaken. To the Jew first, and also to the Greek ... means "to the whole world." The preference for the Jew, in that he should receive the message first, was just and derived from the Jew’s position among the chosen people. Throughout Paul’s apostleship, he was diligent to observe that priority; and only after the Jew rejected the message did he turn to the Gentiles. Even upon his final arrival in the city of Rome, Paul observed the same order of procedure. Verse 17 For therein is revealed a righteousness of God from faith to faith: as it is written, But the righteous shall five by faith. First, the expression "a righteousness of God" should be read "the righteousness of God," as in KJV and RSV. One may only conjecture as to why the English Revised Version (1885) translators gave such a rendition, especially in view of the fact that they rendered the parallel expression a moment later, in verse 18, as "the wrath of God." Barmby noted that "`A wrath of God’ has no intelligent meaning," F27 and the same is true of "a righteousness of God." As Barmby noted, the two expressions simply mean "God’s righteousness" and "God’s wrath." Regarding the broader question of "the righteousness of God," if this refers to the righteousness imputed by God to human beings (forensic righteousness), or the eternal righteousness of God’s character (intrinsic righteousnesS), the evidence indicates that the latter is meant, not only here, but throughout Romans. We shall not go into the exhaustive dissertations of scholars on this place. The writer finds himself in strong agreement with Barmby; and, therefore, Barmby’s critical exegesis is summarized in that commentator’s own words. Convincing as Barmby’s analysis is, however, the overriding consideration in accepting the "righteousness" of this verse as a reference to God’s intrinsic righteousness, rather than to man’s forensic, or imputed righteousness, is found in Romans itself (Rom 3:25-26), where God’s righteousness in "passing over the sins done aforetime" is the real key to the meaning of "righteousness" throughout the epistle, plainly referring to an attribute of God, and not to any imputed righteousness of people; and even in the places where the latter is spoken of, the great consideration in the background is always God’s intrinsic righteousness. A paraphrase of Barmby’s summary on this question is: It is usual to interpret this as meaning man’s imputed or forensic righteousness; but if Paul meant that, why did he not use the words he used in Php 3:9, where he WAS speaking of that? The phrase suggests the sense in which the words are continually used in the Old Testament. The quotation from Habakkuk does not refute this meaning. The Old Testament usage of the term "righteousness" in Psa 18:2 undoubtedly means "God’s righteousness"; and the constant use of the phrase in a known sense in the Orr would naturally lead us to think that when Paul used it, he would have used it in the same sense. It is maintained in this commentary (with all due deference to the distinguished ancients and moderns who have held otherwise) that not only in this opening passage, but throughout the epistle, this phrase means God’s own eternal righteousness, and that even in passages where a righteousness that is of faith is spoken of as communicated to man, the essential idea beyond is still that of God’s own righteousness including believers in itself. F28 From faith to faith ... Hodge declared this to mean "by faith alone"; F29 or "entirely by faith"; F30 Dodd, as quoted by Murray, rendered it, "by faith from beginning to end"; F31 and the New English Bible has "a way that starts with faith and ends with faith." F32 The student who strives for accuracy in understanding God’s word will at once be impressed with the truth that such paraphrases as those just cited can in no sense be honored as TRANSLATIONS of what the Holy Spirit wrote through Paul. Upon a disputed passage like this, the greatest degree of accuracy, according to Bruce, is the version used in this commentary, that is, the English Revised Version (1885). He said: The Bible text used throughout, except where otherwise indicated, is the English Revised Version of 1881. This remains, in spite of many more recent translations (including the New English Bible of 1961) the most helpful English version of the New Testament for purposes of accurate study. F33 Paul, therefore, wrote none of the phrases mentioned above, but "from faith to faith," and any paraphrase of the meaning would have to be something that does not violate that text. The Phillips New Testament has such a paraphrase, thus: "a process begun and continued by their faith. Certainly, the notion that Paul meant "faith alone" by this expression should be rejected out of hand, especially in view of the fact that the expression "faith alone" occurs never in Paul’s writings, and only once in the New Testament, where James declared that people are "not justified by faith alone" (Jas 2:24). "As it is written, But the righteous shall live by faith ..." is a quotation from Hab 2:4 and is understood as Old Testament support of the principle of salvation by faith, it being the great end of the Christian religion to produce faith in all people, inasmuch as it may be possible. Without faith, it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6); and the statement here that the just shall live by faith is emphasis upon the fact of man’s utter inability to live without it. The two verses just considered are the theme of Bhe book of Romans, namely, God’s Eternal Righteousness as Revealed in the Gospel. Immediately upon announcement of this theme, Paul launched into the section vindicating God’s righteousness in accounting all people sinners and fully deserving God’s wrath. Verse 18 For the wrath oJ God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness. The wrath of God was upon Jew and Gentile alike, but the Gentiles are that portion of humanity directly under consideration, beginning here and through Rom 2:16. The displeasure of God against the Gentiles resulted not from caprice, or happenstance, but from their unrighteousness and ungodliness, these two words standing for their irreverence and impiety toward God and for their faithless and immoral conduct toward their fellow human creatures. Whiteside noted that, Ungodliness is worse than unrighteousness, though not generally so regarded. Our first and primary duty is to God. If we revere God as we should, we will respect his word, his church, and his worship. Those who blaspheme the name of God, or speak lightly of any of his commands, are ungodly. Through passion, or some weakness, a person might do wrong to his fellow man, and then be filled with great penitence toward God for the wrong he had done. Such a one still retained his reverence for God. David did that. He did unrighteous things, but his reverence for God was unfailing and always brought him to repentance. The ungodly are not so; they do not take God into account in anything that they do. F34 The wrath of God ... is a phrase that describes the antagonism between the Creator and all sin and unrighteousness. As Barmby stated it, "The wrath of God" is an expression with which we are familiar in the Bible, being one of those in which human emotions are attributed to God in accommodation to the exigencies of human thought. It denotes his essential holiness, his antagonism to sin, to which punishment is due. F35 Revealed ... answers to the same word in the preceding verse, thus making the "righteousness of God" and the "wrath of God" antithetical, and both of them to be attributes of the Father. That wrath of God which is here said to be revealed should not be stripped of its emotional overtones when contemplated by sinful people; for it is obvious that the wrath of God is a personal thing. "It is God’s holy revulsion against that which is the contradiction of holiness." F36 This wrath is living, active, dynamic, and constantly operational against all evil. God has a score to settle with sin; and some Day he will settle it. Not one little sin will ever be able to crawl by the eyes of the eternal God without being either: (1) forgiven through the blood of Jesus Christ, or (2) punished with everlasting destruction from God’s presence. Hinder the truth in unrighteousness ... This is a reference to the fact that the pre-Christian Gentile world had the truth and that they suppressed it and denied it through their sins and wickedness. This is a most interesting verse, for it immediately raises the question of just to what extent those ancient Gentiles had "the truth." Certainly, they did not know the truth to the extent that it has now been revealed in Christ; and yet a little investigation will show that they had far more than sufficient truth to make their shameful conduct absolutely unjustifiable. Paul, in later verses, here speaks of the obvious truth to be gleaned from the observation of nature and the inner promptings of conscience; but those pre-Christian Gentiles also possessed other very pertinent and significant truth concerning God and his will, as the very next verse will indicate. Verse 19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them, for God manifested it to them. The argument of this verse is simply that those wicked Gentiles were sinners against the light, not being, in any absolute sense, ignorant of God. To be sure, they were not as privileged as the Jews, nor did they possess the type of revelation afterwards to be revealed in Christ; but they knew God. The Father himself had seen to that, for it is categorically stated here that God had "manifested it to them." The true meaning might actually be much stronger than this version indicates. Whiteside noted that: The pronoun "it" is not in the Greek; and it would be more in harmony with Paul’s argument to translate the last clause, "For God manifested himself to them." F37 The information thus revealed in this verse is of the first magnitude of importance, because there are still people in the world who ======================================================================== CHAPTER 2: 10 ROMANS CHAPTER TEN ======================================================================== Rom 10:1-21 Verse 1 Brethren, my heart’s desire and my supplication to God is for them, that they may be saved. Brethren ... is here an address to the disciples in Rome, to whom the book of Romans was written; and "them" is a reference to Israel, the great majority of whom had rejected the Lord and were thus in a lost condition. The fact of Paul’s praying for Israel is instructive, especially in view of Paul’s belief of the great prophecies which had predicted their stumbling on Christ, as mentioned at the end of the preceding chapter. This shows that there was no such thing as an "irrevocable decree" that Israel should be lost, and that there was actually no impediment to Israel’s salvation except Israel. Note too that Paul’s prayer was to the effect that Israel should accept the gospel, not that they should be saved in unbelief. This second reference to Paul’s emotional desire for the salvation of Israel is different from that at the beginning of Rom 9:1-33, because here there is a specific reference to his prayers on their behalf. Verse 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge. What made the loss of Israel so tragic was the fact that they were actually a very zealous and God-fearing people, superior in every way to the Gentiles, whose godlessness was the shame of all nations. Sanday’s quotation from Josephus stresses this character of the Jews, thus: They had a zeal of God .... The Jew knew the Law better than his own name .... The sacred rules were punctually obeyed .... The great feasts were frequented by countless thousands .... Over and above the requirements of the Law, ascetic religious exercises advocated by the teachers of the Law came into vogue .... Even the Hellenized and Alexandrian Jews under Caligula died on the cross and by fire, and the Palestinian prisoners ... died by the claws of African lions in the amphitheatre, rather than sin against the Law .... The tenacity of the Jews, and their uncompromising monotheism, were seen in some conspicuous examples. In the early part of his procuratorship, Pilate, seeking to break through their known repugnance to everything that savoured of image-worship, had introduced into Jerusalem ensigns surmounted with silver busts of the emperor. Upon this, the people went down in a body to Caesarea, waited for five days and nights in the marketplace, bared their necks to the soldiers that Pilate sent among them, and did not desist until the order for the removal of the ensigns had been given. Later, he caused to be hung up in the palace in Jerusalem certain gilded shields bearing a dedicatory inscription to Tiberius. Then again, the Jews did not rest until, by their complaints addressed directly to the emperor, they had succeeded in getting them taken down. The consternation caused by Caligula’s order for the erection of his own statue in the Temple is well known. None of the Roman governors dared to carry it into execution; and Caligula himself was slain before it could be accomplished. F1 It would take volumes and libraries to recount the heroic zeal of the Jews which finally culminated in the bloody sorrow of Masada, where Eleazar ben Yair made his courageous stand against the Tenth Legion of Rome. When all hope was cut off: Rather than become slaves to their conquerors, the defenders - 960 men, women, and children thereupon ended their lives at their own hands. When the Romans reached the heights next morning, they were met by silence. F2 How fitting it was that Paul should have here paid his tribute to the nobility and zeal of that wonderful people who were, until they rejected the Christ, God’s chosen people. But not according to knowledge ... is a reference far more than Israel’s rejection of our Lord and their failure to recognize him as the Messiah. As just noted, Josephus said that they knew the Law "better than" their own names; but it was such a knowledge as failed to take account of the spiritual nature of God’s word. Jesus said to the Jews of his day: Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God (Mat 22:29). Ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition .... But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men (Mat 15:6-9). Thus the Jewish ignorance of God’s word extended to the very heart of it, which they had so corrupted with human tradition and so glossed over with their own interpretations that many of the plainest precepts were countermanded. Thus, the failure of Israel, about to be mentioned in the next verse, refers not merely to their rejection of Christ (which they also did), but to their failure to keep even the commandments of the Law which they acknowledged, preferring their own traditions and precepts instead of it. Verse 3 For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. God’s righteousness ... as used here is not analogous to the usage of the same term elsewhere (Rom 1:17; Rom 3:24-25, etc.), but means "God’s commandments," as is the meaning in Psa 119:172 KJV, "For all thy commandments are righteousness." The inference in this verse that Israel should have subjected themselves to God’s righteousness requires that "righteousness" be understood in the sense of "commandments." This, of course, is no unusual meaning in scripture. For example, it is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth that They were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless (Luk 1:6). In view of this, the conclusion is justified that the great failure of Israel was in the substitution of their own religious devices and commandments for those of divine origin. Some reject this, of course; but, as Ironside said, The term, "God’s righteousness," is here used somewhat differently to the general expression, "the righteousness of God." F3 They did not subject themselves ... means that Israel had not obeyed the gospel; but their disobedience had not begun with refusing the gospel. It began when the vast majority failed to achieve any semblance of the righteousness of Zacharias and Elizabeth, a failure which was grounded in their human traditions and doctrines which they preferred to the commandments of the Lord, this being, of course, the great failing in religion today. Hundreds of churches have devised their own systems without regard to the New Testament, and frequently in opposition to its plainest teachings. Therefore, the sin of many today is the same as that of ancient Israel. Stressing their own precepts, walking in their own traditions, doing it all THEIR WAY, they simply do not obey the teachings of Jesus. Their own righteousness ... is not a reference to Israel’s seeking salvation through observance of the law of Moses, but to their reliance upon their own religious ceremonies and commandments which they had substituted for God’s true commands. Such works of the Israelites were the "works of human righteousness." See under Rom 2:6. Verse 4 For Christ is the end of the law unto righteousness to every one that believeth. End of the law ... does not refer to the abrogation of Moses’ law (though, of course, it was abrogated by Christ, as amply taught elsewhere), but to the goal, end, and fulfillment of the law’s purpose As Whiteside pointed out: It is true that the law ended at the cross, but it ended at the cross regardless of whether one believes or disbelieves. The end of which Paul here speaks is attained by those who believe in Christ. The end, or aim, of the law was righteousness. The believer in Christ is made righteous, and thus the end of the law for righteousness is reached in Christ. When a man’s sins are all blotted out, when he is cleansed from sin, he is righteous; that condition is reached in Christ by those who believe .... The modifying clause, "to every one that believeth," shows that Paul was not speaking of the abrogation of the law; that is taught abundantly elsewhere. And it was abrogated for all, believers and unbelievers alike. F4 For righteousness ... The end, or aim, of the law was to produce righteousness; but the only person who ever lived to achieve perfect fulfillment of the law, thus achieving that righteousness, is the Lord Jesus Christ. All who are "in Christ" therefore have fulfilled the law "in him"; that is, when viewed as Christ, they have fulfilled it. Verse 5 For Moses writeth that the man that doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby. This quotation from Lev 18:5 is further indication that the "righteousness" in view here regards keeping God’s commandments. The person who kept that ancient law was indeed righteous, a fact which is modified by the truth that none save Jesus Christ ever kept it perfectly. Even the ascription of righteousness to Zacharias and Elizabeth, cited above, must be understood in a relative, not an absolute, sense. The mountain fact concerning Christ is that he indeed kept the law perfectly, his faith and obedience reaching a state of absolute perfection for every second of his total life on earth. That is what God requires to save any man. That is the righteousness which alone can save; and it is available to people "in Christ"; the great device of God’s redemption plan being not that of transferring righteousness into sinners, but that of transferring sinners into Christ, where the righteousness is. Verses 6, 7, 8 But the righteousness which is of faith saith thus, Say not in thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down:) or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith which we preach. When Christ came, the Jews at first, impressed by his miracles, were inclined to received him; but they were repelled by the obscurity of his birth, the humility and meekness of himself and his disciples, and the denunciation which he heaped upon them because of their sins. They had, of course, expected a mighty Prince, exalted in splendor, riding roughshod over all of his enemies and restoring the glory of their earthly kingdom. But, when Jesus foretold the ruin of their sacred temple, the dispossession of their state, and the treading down of Jerusalem itself, their minds revolted from him completely. Furthermore, at the Passover, the whole Jewish nation had seen him shamefully crucified and buried. Therefore, the conclusion of all Israel (including the disciples themselves, at first) was negative regarding Christ. No dead man, they thought, could ever be the Messiah, or bring about the glorious deliverance which they expected. It was squarely against that prejudice that Paul directed these verses. Locke’s paraphrase catches the spirit of these words, thus: Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? that is, to bring down the Messiah from thence, whom we expect personally here on earth to deliver us. Or, Who shall descend into the deep? i.e., to bring up Christ from the dead, to be our Saviour. You mistake the deliverance you expect from the Messiah; there needs not the fetching of him from the other world to be present with you. The deliverance by him is a deliverance from sin, that you may be made righteous by faith in him .... The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith, or the doctrine of the Gospel which we preach. F5 Who shall ascend ... who shall descend ...? These questions are the taunts of unbelief. The Jews had said, Let him now come down from the cross and we will believe him (Mat 27:42). The taunting question regarding his coming up from the grave grew out of the fact that, when Jesus rose from the dead, he did not appear to his enemies at all, but only to his disciples. The reference to bringing Christ down from heaven was an echo of the disbelief that refused to see in our Lord the miracle of the incarnation. Putting the cavil all together, we may understand the enemies as saying, "All right, if Jesus is the Messiah, bring him down from heaven, or up from the grave, and let him lead our nation in throwing off the yoke of Roman bondage." The Jewish hierarchy seemed perpetually unaware that any such thing as an earthly kingdom was not in God’s plan at all. Even the kingdom they had once possessed was not of God’s will, but only of God’s permission; for, upon the occasion of their original request for a king, in order to be like the nations around them, the Lord had said to Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them (1Sa 8:7). Thus, the past glorious kingdom of Israel was not of God’s choice, but theirs; and their sin in seeking it was finally the sin that blinded their eyes to the true King when he came. It was that earthly kingdom that was the ceaseless undoing of Israel. Their evil kings led them repeatedly into rebellion against God; and the lives of many of their kings, as Solomon’s for example, were lives of shameless debauchery. The verses Paul quoted here are from Deu 30:11-14, reading thus: For this is the commandment that I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it down to us, that we may hear it and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. Paul’s use of this quotation has been the source of various opinions among scholars, because of his using the words out of context, borrowing, as it were, the expressions of holy Scripture and providing them with a new and more exalted meaning. Strong agreement is felt here with the words of Batey, thus: Paul quotes or paraphrases passages without regard to their original context or meaning whenever the words of that passage suit his purpose. It is as though the words of scripture convey a convincing power within themselves apart from their original context. The disregard of context is, in the eyes of contemporary exegetes, a glaring breach of the rules of acceptable interpretation. However, Paul’s dealing with the Old Testament should be evaluated first by the convincing quality which it had for its initial readers. F6 In this connection, it should be remembered that Paul was inspired, and therefore able to take liberties with the word of God which are not allowed to the uninspired. The strong similarity in the two uses of these passages is evident. In both, the essential point is that no outlandish miracle, such as going to heaven and back, was needed in order for people to know God’s will. God had already given at Sinai the vital commandments for Israel; and, in Christ, the gospel had already been provided for all people. Any thought that Christ should make a special appearance to unbelievers, either by rising from the dead or coming down from heaven in their sight, was preposterous and ridiculous. What could have been the point of such a thing? The Pharisees knew all about the resurrection, and they bribed the soldiers with gold to lie about it. What depths of hypocrisy, therefore, was in their taunt, "Bring him up from the dead"? Paul’s unconventional use of scripture should be understood as additional inspired light upon what the words truly mean. As Locke observed: It will be an ill rule for interpreting St. Paul, to tie up his use of any text he brings out of the Old Testament, to that which is taken to be the meaning of it there. We need go no farther for an example than the 6th, 7th, and 8th verses of this chapter. F7 Verse 9 Because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. First, it should be noted that this verse contains "doctrine of the gospel" as stated in the foregoing verse. Significantly, it is a pairing of CONFESSION and FAITH as coordinates among the conditions of salvation, that is primary salvation, or pardon from "old sins" (2Pe 1:9), such as takes place in conversion to Christ. If this passage stood alone in the New Testament, it might be fairly inferred that these are THE TWO conditions of salvation; but it does not stand alone, for there are other similar pairings of the elementary conditions of primary salvation, as in the case of REPENTANCE and BAPTISM (Acts 2:38), and that of FAITH and BAPTISM (Mark 16:16). There are no legitimate grounds for thinking that any one of these pairings excludes the conditions mentioned in the others. Faith, repentance, confession, and baptism are all divinely imposed conditions of salvation, none of them outranking any of the others. Faith is omitted in one of the pairings and mentioned second in another. Repentance is mentioned in only one, confession in only one, and baptism in two; but all alike are commanded, all alike are necessary; and all alike are prerequisite to justification. Confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord ... is a reference to the confession of faith preceding one’s baptism into Christ, as in the case of the eunuch (Acts 8:37; Acts 8:37). David Lipscomb rejected this understanding of this clause on the ground that a formal confession of faith is left out of all the precepts and examples concerning remission, and is to be found only in a reference in a letter to Christians as to what had been required. F8 The ground of dissent from Lipscomb is found in the words "with thy mouth," which certainly indicate a spoken confession. Moreover, Christ himself, upon the occasion of a FORMAL confession BY Peter (Mat 16:16-18), reciprocated with a FORMAL confession OF Peter, with his own precious promise almost certainly in view, wherein he had declared only a short while previously that Everyone therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven (Mat 10:32). In addition to these considerations, which are accounted weighty enough, there is the impressive witness of Acts 8:37, properly rejected from the text on sufficient critical grounds, but which, as a very ancient gloss, positively proves the custom of the early church in requiring a confession. Despite this, however, there can be no dissent from Lipscomb’s views as further expressed thus: It is necessary that at every step of the religious life, even after one has grown old in the service of the Lord, with the mouth confession must be made unto salvation, and with the heart he must believe unto righteousness. He must live and walk through faith unto the end. It is just as necessary that confession of Christ should be made at all times, or Christ will not own us. Verse 10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Some of the modern translations have obscured and altered the meaning of God’s word in this verse. Thus Phillips has: For it is believing in the heart that makes a man righteous before God, and it is stating his belief by his own mouth that confirms his salvation. This so-called translation changes the meaning of the word of God by making a difference in the FUNCTIONS of faith and of confession, by ascribing to faith the function of making one righteous, and to confession the function of merely confirming what is already a fact. Any student may observe that this kind of translation is not a translation at all, but it is undeniably an unjustifiable substitution of human opinion for what is written in the word of God. The preposition "unto" (in the English Revised Version (1885)) is here translated from a Greek word [eis], which means "for" in the sense of "in order to receive." No Greek scholar on earth would deny this. Attention is here called to two other New Testament passages where the same [eis] is involved: This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many UNTO remission of sins (Mat 26:28). Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ UNTO the remission of your sins (Acts 2:38). Putting the sense of these Scriptures in view together, we have this: blood of the covenant (Christ’s blood) ) ( remission of sins repentance and baptism ) [eis] ( remission of sins man believeth ) ( righteousness confession is made ) ( salvation) Thus, in the New Testament, faith, repentance, confession and baptism are all categorically said to sustain exactly the SAME relationship to salvation, being "unto" it, meaning that they are all, and all alike, divinely-imposed preconditions required of men, upon the fulfillment of which God gives them justification. This great truth should have been known even without what is said in Mat 26:28; but the statement there, in which the blood of Christ is also said to be "unto" the remission of sins, makes the understanding of this vital truth almost impossible, for the same word ([eis] in the Greek) "unto" relates the blood of Jesus Christ to remission of sins, in the sense of there being no remission of sins without it. This in no sense equates the blood of Christ with the primary steps of obedience leading to justification, because the blood of Christ is the causative and enabling factor making it possible for people to be saved, thus not resembling in any way the primary steps of obedience; but IN ONE SENSE, the sense of being absolutely necessary and prior to man’s salvation, the first principles of the gospel (faith, repentance, confession and baptism) are actually placed in the same time sequence leading to salvation as the blood of Christ, all of which, and each of which, are the sine qua non of salvation. The inexcusable rendition of Phillips, cited above, by its translating [eis] with two utterly different meanings in the same sentence, indicates the lengths to which advocates of salvation by "faith only" go in their efforts to represent God’s word as teaching their theory. In the passages before us, faith, repentance, confession and baptism are clearly and emphatically presented as coordinates with identical functions, facts which are made absolutely certain by the manner of these significant pairings in God’s word. As to the identification of what that function is, which pertains to each of these, that also is unmistakably clear from Mat 26:28. When the scriptures state that Christ shed his blood "unto" remission of sins, it would be impossible to construe that as meaning that he did so "because man was already saved"! Identically with that, people believe, repent, confess and are baptized, not because they are already saved but "in order to" be so. The significant "pairings" of the preconditions of salvation, mentioned in the above paragraph, are entitled to a little further consideration. Repent ye, and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15). He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16) Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Confess with thy mouth ... believe in thy heart thou shalt be saved (Rom 10:10). Repent ye and turn again that your sins may be blotted out (Acts 3:91). ("turn again" is here synonymous with "be baptized") It is the grossest error to view any of these pairings of the conditions on which God promises salvation to people as excluding any of the conditions omitted from any one of the pairs. All of the conditions mentioned in these pairs collectively are absolute requirements laid down in the word of God as being necessary in order to receive salvation. They are coordinates in every sense of the word. One passage in Hebrews mentions no less than three of these, all except confession, naming them as coordinates and designating them as the foundation doctrine of Christianity (Heb 6:1-2). In teaching that these are preconditions to be fulfilled prior to salvation, it is the primary justification that is meant. Upon the individual’s believing, repenting, confessing and being baptized, he is brought through such a response "into Christ," making him a child of God, whereupon he receives the Holy Spirit in consequence of his being a son (Gal 4:6). This is not the final condition either of his sanctification or of his final justification at the last day, for that is also contingent upon his remaining "in Christ," "quenching not the Spirit," and being found "in him" at the end of life. The skill and persistence with which people of marvelous intellectual endowments have tried to shout baptism out of God’s redemptive plan requires and demands the refutation of their contradiction of God’s word. All of the conversions recorded in Acts of the Apostles make it clear that there was only one way by which people became Christians in that first age. Without exception, all heard the word of God, all believed in Jesus Christ, all repented of their sins, and though it is not mentioned that all confessed Christ, necessary inference includes it and all were baptized into Christ. That is still the way to become a Christian. The widely-received, illogical SALVATION-BY-FAITH-ONLY contradiction of the word of God should not be permitted to deceive anyone. As the author of this epistle said, "Let God be true, but every man a liar" (Rom 3:4). Confess with the mouth ... Referring to this, Barrett wrote: The verb suggests that Paul may be using a recognized formula, and this is confirmed by 1Co 12:3. The form of the sentence, "If thou shalt confess ... and believe ... thou shalt be saved," suggests that the formula may be a baptismal confession. F9 Therefore, Rom 10:9-10 refer to primary obedience to the gospel of Christ, the big point that Paul was making being that the message of salvation is "nigh" unto people, one which was then (and ever afterwards) being preached to them, and a message which they were already obligated to accept and obey, and which needed not to be any further confirmed (as by Christ’s coming down from heaven, or back from the dead), because it had already been overwhelmingly authenticated. Verse 11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to shame. This verse is the occasion for the "faith only" advocates to repeat the doctrine they have imported into the book of Romans. For example, Moule said: There, in the summary and close of the passage, nothing but faith is mentioned. It is as if he would correct even the slightest disquieting surmise that our repose upon the Lord is to be secured by something other than Himself, through some means more complex than taking him at his word. The "confession with the mouth" is not a different something added to faith; it is its issue, its manifestation. F10 But, of course, "confession with the mouth" is something different from faith and is extravagantly more than enough to prevent its being dismissed, as Moule dismissed it, as a "disquieting surmise." Disquieting surmise indeed! If faith and confession are the same thing, why (?) is it written that Even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the glory that is of men more than the glory that is of God (John 12:42-43). Thus, when faith and confession are viewed as two distinct preconditions of salvation, there is no surmise at all; there is no guesswork or speculation. Paul viewed them as distinct conditions and here mentioned them separately, even putting confession first, which he would not have done if it had been merely something that went along with faith, and making exactly the same statement concerning one that he made of the other. (See under Rom 10:9-10.) Paul’s naming but one of the preconditions of salvation in Rom 10:11 is not a denial of the others, but is a synecdoche, a figure of speech in which one of a group of related things is intended to stand for all of them, as, for example, when one speaks of an automobile as a motor. Paul’s naming faith in this verse does not exclude repentance, confession and baptism any more than it excludes the blood of Christ, the latter not being mentioned either in this place. There are not merely a few, but a hundred instances in the New Testament where this use of the science of language is employed; and there is not any excuse for the overlooking of it by intelligent people. The apostle Peter wrote that "baptism doth also now save us" (1Pe 3:21); does that exclude faith, repentance and confession? Luke wrote, "To the Gentiles also hath God granted repentance unto life" (Acts 11:18); does that exclude faith, confession and baptism? Repeated mention in this commentary has been made of faith, repentance, confession and baptism as the divinely imposed preconditions of justification; and in this verse faith is an abbreviated reference to all of them, a form of synecdoche often found in the Bible. It was by the device of ignoring the synecdoche that Satan himself assailed the Lord Jesus Christ in the temptation, in which Satan presented a verse of Scripture which if taken alone, as Satan tried to induce, would have made it all right for Christ to jump off the temple; but the Lord foiled the tempter by saying, "It is also written, etc." (Mat 4:7). They who dare to take this verse as an exclusion of other God-commanded actions leading "unto" salvation would be well advised to consider what is "also written." Verse 11 is thus Paul’s way of saying that a Christian (a believing, penitent, confessed, baptized member of the body of Christ) shall not be put to shame. The mention of shame indicates that Paul was still thinking of the confession mentioned a moment before, and of what Jesus said of the confession, thus: For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels (Mark 8:38). Verses 12, 13 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Here is another synecdoche. Can it be believed that calling upon the Lord without faith, repentance, confession and baptism would avail anything? Oh, but one says this implies faith. Of course it does, and all of the other things required in becoming a Christian are also implied. But error dies hard; and the allegation immediately appears that none but believers can call upon the Lord. This is also true along with the fact that repentance, confession and baptism are all necessary to any effective calling upon the Lord. That is why Ananias said to Paul himself: Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on his name (Acts 22:16). But the argument here is that it takes more than calling on the name of the Lord to be saved, if such calling on his name is understood otherwise than inclusive of the preconditions of salvation we have been discussing. The proof is as follows: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity (Mat 7:21-23). Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say (Luk 6:46)? In these blessed words of the Master lies the compulsion to receive Paul’s words in Rom 10:13 an another synecdoche. No distinction ... These were the words that antagonized Israel, whose people had been so long accustomed to a distinction in their own favor as the chosen race of God. Paul had already made it clear that the favored position of Israel had perished in their rejection of Christ; and here he made it plain that Jews, as individuals, were by no means excluded from the new institution but were acceptable in it upon the same terms that applied to all others. The thrust of "Whosoever shall call, etc." is that "You Jews also may become Christians and receive God’s blessing." Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved ... is a quotation from Joe 2:32 and formed THE TOPIC of Peter’s opening sermon of the gospel age on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:21). The thesis maintained here, that calling upon the name of the Lord has reference to obeying the gospel (in its four primary steps), is remarkably supported by the apostle Peter’s interpretation of what his sermon topic really meant. When the people cried out, "What shall we do?" (the obvious meaning of their question being "How shall we call upon the name of the Lord and be saved?"), Peter commanded them to "repent and be baptized, etc." (Acts 2:21,Acts 37-38). Paul’s prior mention, only a moment earlier (Rom 10:9-10) of such a thing as the confession with its known relation to baptism and primary obedience, also indicates that the quotation from Joel is a synecdoche for all the things required of converts. And why not? Peter’s interpretation of Joel’s quotation was perhaps the most universally known and the most frequently repeated sermon of the entire New Testament age. Locke took the same position, thus: Whosoever hath with care looked into St. Paul’s writings must own him to be a close reasoner, that argues to the point; and therefore, if, in the preceding three verses, he requires an open profession of the gospel, I cannot but think that "all that call upon him" (Rom 10:12), signifies all that are open professed Christians; and, if this be the meaning of calling upon him (Rom 10:12), it is plain it must be the meaning of "calling upon his name" (Rom 10:13); a phrase not very remote from "naming his name" (2Ti 2:19), which is used by Paul for "professing Christianity." F11 Moreover, this interpretation cannot be overthrown by an appeal to the context in Joel. We have already observed that Paul’s meaning was not restricted to the context of Old Testament passages which he quoted. See under Rom 10:8. Paul’s own understanding of calling on the Lord’s name would inevitably have been associated with the words of Ananias quoted above (Acts 22:16) which associated them with his own baptism. Verses 14, 15 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things! Two of the big words Paul had just used were "no distinction" (Rom 10:12) and "whosoever" (Rom 10:13), and these amply supported his position of extending the gospel to all people, Jews and Gentiles alike, on the same terms. We noted that this great leveling of all people before God and considering them as one race lost in sin was offensive and repugnant to Jews, causing a deep resentment against Paul. Paul vindicated his own conduct in these two verses. Hodge has the following clear word on the construction of Paul’s defense here: As invocation implies faith, as faith implies knowledge, knowledge instruction, and instruction an instructor, so it is plain that if God would have all men to call upon him, he designed preachers to be sent to all, whose proclamation of mercy being heard, might be believed, and being believed, might lead men to call on him and be saved. This is agreeable to the prediction of Isaiah, who foretold that the advent of the preachers of the gospel should be hailed with universal joy .... It is an argument founded on the principle that if God wills the end, he wills also the means; if he would have the Gentiles saved, according to the prediction of the prophets, he would have the gospel preached to them. F12 These verses are the enabling charter of every true missionary labor on earth. God’s answer to the wretchedness of earth’s sin and squalor is a messenger, yes a preacher, with the message of redemption authenticated by the Name, For neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved (Acts 4:12). How beautiful the feet ... From heaven’s viewpoint, there is nothing more beautiful than the message-bearer of God’s merciful offer of salvation to people. Hope for lost and fallen humanity does not derive from anything that man can do for himself, nor from anything that he might either build on earth or hurl out into space. Nothing that man can send up into heaven can save him, for it is God’s message alone that can cleanse his sins, break the chains of his bondage, and endow his spirit with love and hope. How pitiful, ineffectual and utterly inadequate God’s plan appears to the dim eyes of mortal people. Save the world by preaching? Ridiculous. Paul himself acknowledged this when he wrote: It was God’s good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe (1Co 1:21). Therefore, people must look again at the method God has chosen; and, remembering the omnipotence of him who chose, the divinity of the message, and the power of the living word, they must dare to trust and use the means God elected as the instrument of his holy will. Churches should cease their striving after new methods, novel devices, and so-called "modern approaches" to saving people’s souls. There is only one way: preach the word! The last sentence of these two verses is a quotation from Isa 52:7; and, as Moule noted: The immediate reference of Isa 52:7 is to good news for Zion, rather than from her to the world. But the context is full not only of Messiah but of "many nations" (Rom 10:15). F13 Of course, as already noted twice in this chapter, Paul’s meaning was often extended beyond the context of his Old Testament quotations. How shall they believe him whom they have not heard ... has the significant implication of making Christ the one heard in his preachers and also the one believed. By the same sacred logic, Christ was said to have baptized more disciples than John, although the disciples, not the Lord, administered the ordinance; but still it was Christ who did it "through them." (See John 4:1-2.) In this remarkable clause is also the compelling inference that the preacher must preach the word of the Lord, for in no other way may his hearers hear Christ. The preacher who preaches the opinions of himself and his fellow mortals to the near exclusion of the scriptures fails in a double category: (1) his audience does not "hear Christ," and (2) he forfeits the dignity that belongs to the faithful messenger. Verse 16 But they did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? But they have not all obeyed the gospel ... (as in the KJV) is a far preferable rendition to the stilted words here, and one may only conjecture as to why a good rendition was replaced with a poor one; but Barrett gives a glimpse of what troubles translators and commentators in the KJV’s forthright rendition, thus: That "disobedience" means unbelief is shown by the quotation that follows. F14 Thus, it is the undeniable reference to obedience which the advocates of salvation by "faith only" would like to edit out of this passage; and Barrett did it by the simple assertion that "disobedience" means unbelief, an assertion that is denied by every dictionary of the English language ever written! That "disobedience" does not mean "disbelief" is proved millions of times by the believers who do not obey(See Romans 12:42-43 for New Testament example). The word translated "hearken," to be sure, means "to obey," as invariably spelled out in concordances and lexicons; but "hearken" has a secondary meaning of merely hearing (not intended in the Scriptural use at all), a meaning that is totally out of place in this verse. This word occurs eighteen times in the New Testament; and several of these are here cited (from Young’s Analytical Concordance) in order to show what is meant by the apostle in this verse: The winds and the sea obey him (Mat 8:27). Children obey your parents in the Lord (Eph 6:1). Servants obey in all things your masters (Col 3:22). That obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus (1Th 1:8). Even as Sarah obeyed Abraham (1Pe 3:6). Abraham, when he was called to go ... obeyed (Heb 11:8). Our translators could not have had any logical reason for rendering the same word as "hearken" in the verse before us, except, possibly, that of softening the impact of these words. For these reasons, the KJV is preferable in this verse. "They have not all obeyed the gospel." Locke’s explanation of this first sentence is thus: (Paul) you tell us that you are sent from God to preach the gospel; and if it be so, how comes it that all who have heard have not received and obeyed; especially, from what you insinuate, the messengers of good tidings were so welcome to them? To this Paul replied, out of Isaiah, that the messengers sent from God were not believed by all. F15 Who hath believed our report ... is Isaiah’s opening statement in Isa 53:1-12, a chapter rich with reference to the Messiah, and is therefore very appropriate here. Just as ancient Israel did not believe the prophets regarding the Messiah, that he should be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, despised and rejected by people, etc., just so the Jews of Paul’s day would not believe and obey the gospel in order to be saved. Verse 17 So belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. Conybeare and Howson translated this verse: So, then, faith comes by teaching; and our teaching comes by the word of God (There is no English word which precisely represents the word for teaching in its subjective as well as objective meaning, which is literally, "word received by hearing," that is, "the spoken word.") F16 Word of Christ ... instead of "word of God," as in KJV, does not alter the meaning, the word of Christ and the word of God being identical. Jesus said: For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak (John 12:49). The only thing capable of producing faith in human hearts is the word which receives its authority from God and has as its subject the life and work of Jesus Christ, together with all of his teachings through the apostles; and, since that is true, anything that reduces, obscures, or replaces the word of God in men’s preaching must be hailed as counter-productive. It is what God has revealed which, alone, can carry conviction to the human heart; and one can only deplore the amazing scarcity of Bible reference in modern pulpits. It is precisely in that omission that the widespread unbelief of this generation originates. Faith comes by hearing God’s word ... This means that faith does not come directly from the Holy Spirit, but comes from that Spirit through his authorship of the holy scriptures, and in the sense of his being the living and causative agent in that word We mean that the Holy Spirit does not enter people’s hearts to produce faith, that being the appointed function of the word of God, as revealed here. The Spirit enters our hearts "after we have believed" (Eph 1:13) and after we have become sons of God (Gal 4:6) and in consequence thereof. Hearing ... here is not the same as "hearkening" in the preceding verse, but refers merely to the sense of hearing, and should not even be understood as excluding "reading"; for a deaf person still might learn the word of God through reading it, as a blind person might learn it through yet another sense, that of touch. Verse 18 But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily, Their sound went out into all the earth, And their words unto the ends of the world. Paul’s use of the word "hear" in this place contrasts sharply with "hearken" in Rom 10:16, where obedience is meant, hence the necessity to distinguish between them. If the KJV had been followed in Rom 10:16, there could have been no confusion. But I say, Did they not hear? Yea, verily ... Paul had just said in Rom 10:16, "They did not all hearken," but this is not a contradiction. He meant there that they had not all obeyed, and here the meaning is that they certainly had heard. Here we have another instance of Paul’s using an Old Testament text out of context. Psa 19:4 speaks of the universal knowledge of God through the revelation of nature; but here Paul applied the words to the worldwide preaching of the gospel. As Murray noted: Since the gospel proclamation is now to all without distinction, it is proper to see the parallel between the universality of general revelation and the universalism of the gospel. The former is the pattern now followed in the sounding forth of the gospel to the uttermost parts of the earth. The application which Paul makes of Psa 19:4 can thus be seen to be eloquent, not only of this parallel, but also of that which is implicit in the parallel, namely, the widespread diffusion of the gospel of grace. F17 The ends of the earth ... translates a Greek expression which means literally, "the inhabited earth," as seen in the English Revised Version (1885) margin. Verse 19 But I say, Did Israel not know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy with that which is no nation, With a nation void of understanding will I anger you. Just as Rom 10:18 was concerned with whether or not Israel heard, this one addresses itself to the question of whether or not they knew. The answer in both cases is affirmative. The particular truth Paul here credited them with knowing was that God would call the Gentiles into his favor, at last producing jealousy and anger on Israel’s part. Thus, not merely the fact of extending God’s favor to the Gentiles is in view, but also the anger and jealousy of Israel that would result from it. Paul’s quotation of Moses in this place (Deu 32:21) was the equivalent of appealing to the supreme court of Jewish authority, for the Jews respected no authority as higher than that of the great lawgiver. Paul’s method in this place, as so frequently throughout the epistle, is that of the diatribe, in which theoretical questions are raised, as if from a hearer, and then refuted. The objection dealt with here might be stated thus, "Well, perhaps Israel did not know that the Gentiles were to be called." But, of course, they did know. Beginning with the great promise of Abraham that in him "all the families of the earth" should be blessed, and coming right on down to the words here spoken by Moses, as well as the warnings of all the prophets, the scriptures bore ample testimony to the calling of the Gentiles. God had repeatedly apprised Israel of what he would do. Verse 20 And Isaiah is very bold, and he saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I became manifest unto them that asked not of me. The passage Paul here quoted from Isa 65:2 reads thus in the Old Testament. I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found by them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name. Since God is the author of the words Paul quoted, the expression "is very bold" cannot refer to God, but is a comment on the dramatic plainness of the prophecy. The very word "Gentiles" means "nations," and a nation not called by God’s name could have no other signification than that of "Gentile." It is as though Paul had said, Look; here is a prophecy in bold face type and capital letters! As frequently elsewhere, and as we might even say, as usual, Paul rearranges the clauses. His purpose of introducing this text was to present the startling contrast between the attitude of the Gentiles who welcomed the gospel, and that of the Jews whose disobedience and gainsaying were scandalous. This verse shows the attitude of the Gentiles, the following verse that of the Jews. Verse 21 But as to Israel he saith, All day long did I spread out my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. This quotation of Isa 65:2 summarizes Isaiah’s whole paragraph at that place (through the 7th verse), where it is plain that God’s anger with Israel was not due merely to their disobedience, but also to the high-handed and arrogant manner of it. Their conduct was called "gainsaying" in Paul’s quotation; but in the passage from which he quoted, their state is defined as A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face ... which say, I am holier than thou ... and have blasphemed me upon the hills ... and walketh after their own thoughts (Isa 65:1-7). It was that same quality of arrogant presumption which Christ repeatedly pointed out in his parables, as in the marriage feast, where "they made light of it" (Mat 22:5), or as in the parable of the husbandmen who said, "This is the heir; come let us kill him and take his inheritance" (Mat 21:38). Despite all that presumptuous wickedness, the loving attitude of the Father is seen even here in Paul’s denunciation of it, where the figure is that of a loving Father with outstretched hands, pleading for his rebellious children to return. And yet, there is a limit to the patience, even of God; and before this letter was finished Paul would prophetically announce a fate of Israel that was worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah, or that overwhelmed Pharaoh in the Red Sea (Rom 11:25). Israel was totally to blame for the rejection and hardening that would fall upon them like an avalanche, indeed had already done so; only God would not formally announce it until the 11th chapter of Paul’s epistle. The dreadful task committed unto Paul in the necessity of announcing the fate of Israel was not discharged lightly on his part. He carefully marshaled the scriptures of the Jewish prophets and read the tragic record of their rebellion and obtuseness from their own inspired writers, showing how they had been forewarned, protected, favored, and tolerated again and again in all manner of rebellions, and how, at last, it was not merely just for God to reject them, but it would have been an injustice on God’s part not to have done so! Nor is there anywhere in any of Paul’s writings the slightest hint that any such thing as "God’s eternal decree" had required any such shameful conduct on the part of Israel. Their shame was of themselves: in the manner of their treatment of sacred privilege. J. Barmby quoted Tholuck’s remark in this context as follows: If from this passage we once more look back upon the tenth and ninth chapters, it is manifest how little Paul ever designed to revert to a decretum absolutum, but meant to cast all blame upon the WANT OF WILL in man, resisting the gracious WILL of God. F18 Murray wrote: Rom 10:21 brings us to the termination of the condemnation. We may well ask, what then? Is this the terminus of God’s loving kindness to Israel? Is Rom 10:21 the last word? The answer to these questions, Rom 11:1-36 provides. F19 The eleventh chapter will indeed provide the answer regarding Israel’s fate as a nation, but the fate of every Israelite, as an individual, is not revealed in God’s word, but will be determined, like the fate of all others, by the individual’s response to God’s gracious offer of salvation through the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is no separate plan for Jews, any more than there is for Australians or Canadians. Footnotes forRomans 10 1 : W. Sanday, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 244. 2: Yigael Yadin, Masada (New York: Random House, 1966), p. 12. 3: H. A. Ironside, Lectures on the Epistles to the Romans (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1928), p. 127. 4: Robertson L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to Saints in Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 214. 5: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston: 1832), p. 347. 6: Richard A. Batey, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Company, 1969), p. 134. 7: John Locke, op. cit., p. 348. 8: David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Colossians, 1969), p. 190. 9: C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1957), p. 200. 10: H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Pickering and Inglis, Ltd.), p. 273. 11: John Locke, op. cit., p. 348. 12: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 346. 13: H. C. G. Moule, op. cit., p. 274. 14: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 205. 15: John Locke, op. cit., p. 349. 16: Coneybeare and Howson, Life and Letters of St. Paul (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966), pp. 306, 524. 17: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), Vol. II, p. 61. 18: J. Barmby, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), Vol. 18 (ii), p. 296. 19: John Murray, op. cit., p. 64. 20: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 328. 21: H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Pickering and Inglis, Ltd.), p. 257. 22: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 329. 23: Ibid., p. 330. 24: Dean Plumptre, as quoted by R. Tuck, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961), Vol. 18 (i), p. 356. 25: John Wesley, Sermons, Vol. I, pp. 115-116. 26: Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 128. 27: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 179. 28: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 269. 29: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 236. 30: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 273. 31: John Murray, op. cit., p. 302. 32: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 272. 33: The Emphatic Greek Diaglott, p. 531. 34: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 270. 35: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston, Mass., 1832), p. 331. 36: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 37: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 98. 38: Ibid. 39: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. : F. Godet, op. cit., p. 315. 41: James Macknight, op. cit., p. 98. 42: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. 43: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 44: Ibid. 45: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 237. 46: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 277. 47: John Locke, op. cit., p. 333. 48: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 321. 49: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 50: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 77. 51: Sir Francis Bacon, in Bartlett’s Quotations, p. 109. 52: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 280. 53: Ibid. 54: Ibid., p. 281. 55: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 325. 56: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 57: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 323. 58: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 238. 59: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 285. 60: John Locke, op. cit., p. 335. 61: Ibid. 62: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 193. 63: H. C. G. Moule, op. cit., pp. 242-243. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 3: 11 ROMANS CHAPTER ELEVEN ======================================================================== Rom 11:1-36 Verse 1 I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Did God cast off his people ... This question regards the true Israel, not the nation, which certainly had been cast off, there being then "no distinction" (Rom 9:12) in the sight of God between either Jews or Gentiles. Paul guarded against confusing the people here mentioned with external Israel by saying immediately that it was "the people whom he foreknew" (Rom 11:2) who were not cast off. Many make the mistake of supposing this to mean that God had not cast off the nation. Even so perceptive a writer as Hodge missed this altogether, saying, When we consider how many promises were made to the Jewish nation (!), as God’s peculiar people; and how often it is said, as in Psa 94:14, "The Lord will not cast off his people," it is not surprising that the doctrine of the rejection of the Jews, as taught in the preceding chapters, was regarded as inconsistent with the word of God. F1 Hodge plainly failed to distinguish between nation and people. Paul refuted the allegation that God had cast off his people by appealing to his own conversion as proof of the validity of God’s promise; which fact demonstrates what Paul meant. Paul was not saved through his membership in the Jewish nation at all, but as an individual obedient believer in Christ, such salvation also being available to all who ever lived since Christ came (Jews and Gentiles alike), and upon identical conditions. How could God be supposed to need anything any better than that or any different arrangement? But the mania regarding the Jewish nation persists. Note what Wuest said: The covenant of God with Israel, having been NATIONAL, shall ultimately be fulfilled to them as A NATION; not by the gathering in merely of individual Jews, or of all Jews individually, into the Christian Church, - but by the restoration of the Jews, not in unbelief, but as a CHRISTIAN BELIEVING NATION. F2 Now Paul alleged his own redemption as the fulfillment of God’s promise not to cast off his people, but Wuest and many others do not accept Paul’s premise. Why? They have incorporated into their reasoning a major premise which is false, that being the opinion that God’s covenant was with a nation, state, or race of people. That is not true at all. God’s covenant was with the spiritual seed of Abraham, as Paul showed extensively in chapter 9, where he proved that the promise never was to the fleshly seed of Abraham, but to the people "whom he foreknew," the spiritual seed. God’s covenant was never with the state, or kingdom, of Israel, nor with any of their kings, AS SUCH. Even the Davidic kingdom was not the earthly state but the spiritual kingdom, upon the throne of which, even now, Christ indeed reigns. As noted at the head of this chapter, the earthly kingdom and the spiritual "people" of the promise were historically indistinguishable for centuries, but Paul here showed the separation as finally precipitated in the first advent of our Lord. The thought that God ever had any covenant with the ancient kingdom of Israel, in the sense of their state, through any of their kings, is repugnant. The very existence of their line of kings was contrary to God’s will, existing with his permission, but not with his approval, as a glance at 1Sa 8:7 proves. It was precisely in the events there recorded that Israel "rejected God" from reigning over them; and the great historical rejection of God by the fleshly Israel, in their irrevocable repudiation of God as their king and the elevation of one of themselves to rule over them, was the pivot upon which all their later apostasy turned. The Solomonic empire which they so ardently desired to be restored with its earthly glory was the concept that totally blinded them to the Christ, and which still blinds many as to what is meant by God’s "people." Think of it. If God should be thought of as owing anything at all to the fleshly descendants of Abraham, as viewed separately from the spiritual seed, why does he not owe it also to the Edomites, the Arabians, and the Ishmaelites? "Race," in the sense of fleshly descent, means absolutely nothing to God. And as to that southern portion of the divided kingdom, could there be any justice whatever in making them the recipients of any special dispensation of God’s grace, in view of the bitterest denunciations of them pronounced by God through the mouths of their noblest prophets? That southern state, historically identifiable as the present Israel, and also that of Paul’s day, could not possibly deserve anything at God’s hands which could be viewed as favoring them over the ten northern tribes who were swallowed up in oblivion, because Ezekiel plainly declared the sins of the southern kingdom to have been "more than" those of the kingdom that disappeared (Eze 23:16 ), even declaring that Judah’s sin exceeded that of both Samaria and Sodom. Thou wast corrupted more than they all (Samaria and Sodom) in thy ways (Eze 16:47). Now, if nothing but the flesh is considered, if Israel is to be viewed as any people identified with Abraham merely through fleshly descent, why should God have annihilated Sodom and Samaria and have spared Israel whom God himself declared to be worse than either of them? The reasons why God did spare fleshly Israel in preference over the ten tribes, until the historical fulfillment of their mission as flesh-bearers of the Messiah, and the reasons why fleshly Israel is still spared, contrary to all apparent righteousness, appears in the revelation of the great mystery of 1:25. But the fantastic notion that the true Israel now has, or ever will have, any identification with that fleshly remnant is contrary to the scriptures and to all reason. Lard has observed that The nation most certainly was cut off, deservedly. As a nation God cast them off; but at the same time, he has retained many individuals in his love, because of their belief in Christ. F3 The individuals mentioned by Lard are God’s "people" in the sense of this verse. Verse 2 God did not cast off his people whom he foreknew. Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he pleaded with God against Israel. His people which he foreknew ... See under preceding verse. Although Sanday also seems to have missed the distinction between "nation" and "people," his comment is nevertheless helpful. He said, This must not be pressed too far, as implying an absolute indefectibility of divine favor. F4 God’s promise of blessing to Israel was always founded upon the premise of their remaining faithful to God. The people God foreknew were those who would be faithful, the elect, the spiritual seed. Hodge expressed it thus: God has indeed rejected his external people, as such, but he has not cast away his people whom he foreknew. F5 Lard was very near the meaning of these first three verses in this comment: That God has rejected Israel as a nation is indisputable; and equally certain it is that he has not rejected them all. What is true then, and all that is true is, that he has not wholly rejected his people. F6 In Lard’s analysis, however, there is a failure to make the sharp distinction that is needed, due to the confusion of "nation" with "people." It is not true, exactly, as Lard stated it that God has not "WHOLLY rejected his people," but it is as Paul said, "God has not rejected his people," meaning that he has not rejected ANY OF THEM. The introduction of the historical case of Elijah here was Paul’s way of showing, not that in those times God had not rejected all of his people, but that EVEN IN THOSE TIMES God’s people were distinguished from the nation. The case of Elijah (1Ki 19:10) was here brought forward by Paul to demonstrate that God’s "people" during the period of the monarchy were not the state, or nation, in any sense, but were the faithful spiritual seed, whom God had not cast off, and never will cast off. The apostasy of Israel was so complete under Ahab, during the days of Elijah, that Elijah was convinced that God had no people at all except himself. Ahab, the head of the Jewish state, had murdered the prophets of God, overthrown the worship of God, and led the nation into total rebellion, as a nation, against God, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Samuel that Israel, through their demand of a king, had indeed rejected God from reigning over them (1Sa 8:7). The existence, along with Elijah, of 7,000 faithful persons as the true Israel during those terrible days when Jezebel sat on the throne in Jerusalem was revealed to Elijah by the Lord for his encouragement; but the existence of the true Israel even at that time was totally separate and apart from the nation, as such, for the nation was God’s unqualified enemy. Still, the true Israel was throughout that period concealed in and mingled with the other Israel. Verse 3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life. Was such a nation the people of God? God forbid. The people of God were that pitiful remnant with Elijah, and God had not cast them off. Verse 4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have left for myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal. Seven thousand men ... does not include the women and children which made up their families, after the Jewish method of reckoning (see Mat 14:21). The true Israel numbered at least 20,000 or more, and possibly much more, if "seven" should be understood as a sacred number. They err greatly who think Paul was here concerned merely with showing that God had not rejected "all of his people"; for God in fact had rejected none of his true people. Paul was showing that throughout Israel’s history, "they are not all Israel who are of Israel" (Rom 9:6), that being the key to making any sense at all out of what is stated here in Romans. Significantly, the separation between the two Israels, the true and the fleshly, was not the result of some whimsical "eternal decree" of God, choosing some and rejecting others; but it was based solidly in fundamental and profound differences between the true and the false. Paul stated the basis here as the fact that the true Israel "had not bowed the knee to Baal." God’s election is always based upon qualities in people themselves, but in no sense of such qualities actually meriting or earning God’s favor. Of those who will obey God’s gospel, or refrain from bowing the knee to Baal, as in those days, it is God’s "eternal decree" that SUCH PERSONS are his "people whom he foreknew." Lard explained it thus: Obedience is man’s own free act, to which he is never moved by any prior election of God. Choosing, on the other hand, is God’s free act, prompted by favor and conditioned upon obedience. This obedience, it is true, God seeks to elicit by the proper motives; but to this he is led solely by the love of man, and never by previous choice. True scriptural election, therefore, is a simple, intelligible thing, when suffered to remain unperplexed by the subtleties of men. F7 Verse 5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. See Lard’s quotation under preceding verse. The wretched apostasy under Ahab was a fit illustration of that same Israel (after the flesh) which in Paul’s day had not merely murdered the prophets, but the Christ, and had made the temple a den of thieves and robbers, who had decided to kill the true King and take his inheritance for themselves, and who, after the resurrection of the Lord, bribed witnesses to deny it, and sought with stones and bloodshed to exterminate the church of God itself from the earth! People who can see in fleshly Israel "the people of God" (!) need to look again. Even so then at this present time ... is Paul’s way of saying that, just as the true Israel in Elijah’s day was in no way part of the corrupt nation, just so then, at the beginning of the Christian era, the true Israel had no connection whatever with the hardened and apostate nation that murdered the Lord. Then as now, Paul was saying, God’s true people are of a different order, after the election of grace. They are the people who have accepted the gospel, have been baptized into the body of Christ, thus being Abraham’s true seed (Gal 3:29). A remnant ... means a part of fleshly Israel. And who were they? They were the 3,000 souls who obeyed the gospel on Pentecost. The original church of Christ was almost totally Jewish, including the Twelve, and many others of that first period. They are the remnant, the true spiritual seed, later extended by the inclusion of Gentiles and "whosoever will." Paul’s argument here is crystal clear. God’s keeping the covenant with Israel always had meant, and never meant anything else, keeping the covenant with the spiritual seed, the righteous remnant, the true Israel, not the other. Verse 6 But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. No more of works ... means "not of fleshly descent," as the expression is used in Rom 9:11, which see, especially the quotation from John Murray. The great objection to Paul’s preaching the gospel of Christ, on the part of the old Israel, had to do with his categorical rejection of all the elaborate ceremonial of Moses’ law, to which the fleshly Israel tenaciously clung, not in the sense of keeping it, as did Zacharias and Elizabeth, but in the sense of making it a device of their own glorification; and, upon such a basis, they denied that salvation could be extended to Gentiles. Further, the glaring fact that Paul had just shown that the righteous remnant, both in Elijah’s day and presently, had obeyed God, the former by not bowing to Baal, the latter by obeying the gospel, and the equally glaring fact and even notorious fact of the fleshly Israel’s thinking that salvation could be "earned" through the devices they followed, coupled with Paul’s passion to show that salvation was never, either then, nor previously, nor now, nor ever, something people could earn or merit - all this prompted Paul here to pause and stress again the great doctrine of grace. R. L. Whiteside has a perceptive paragraph on this as follows: There is no grace when a man merits salvation. Works by which a man merits justification and commands which one must obey to be saved are distinct matters. It is unfortunate that many cannot, or will not, see this distinction. Because of this, they conclude that a sinner must do nothing in order to be saved; but a man has no real understanding of either works or grace if he thinks that a sinner’s complying with the terms of salvation causes him to merit it. Many things are of grace, and are yet conditional. Is anyone so simple as to think that Naaman’s healing from leprosy was any less a matter of grace because he had to dip seven times in the Jordan river? Is any so blind that he cannot see that Jesus’ giving sight to the man born blind was any less of grace because he was required to wash in the pool of Siloam? F8 Verse 7 What then? That which Israel seeketh for, that he obtained not; but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened. That which Israel seeketh for ... refers to fleshly Israel’s "seeking" God and his approval, a thing which they did not truly seek at all, for if they had truly sought the Lord, they would have found him, as one of their great prophets said: And ye shall seek me and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart (Jer 29:13). Israel did not seek God in the sense of truly believing in him and walking as he commanded, but by the pursuit of their own righteousness (see under Rom 10:3). Thus, the "seeking" in this verse, as it pertained to the old Israel, is mentioned in the sense of what they really should have done, and not in the sense of what they actually did. Christ made the same distinction in Luk 13:24 and Mat 7:8. The election obtained it... refers to the true Israel who feared God and honored him in their lives. Specifically, these were the righteous remnant, as distinguished from the nation. And the rest were hardened ... This is past tense and refers to the nation in its entirely after the separation of the true Israel which was accomplished by the preaching of the gospel. It is understood as the rest of the COMMINGLED ISRAEL, as distinguished after the commingling ceased. The commingling of the two Israels had continued right up until the ministry of Jesus Christ, as witnesses by the fact that Zacharias and Elizabeth (part of the true Israel) were truly serving God within the institution of the law of Moses, and that Jesus Christ himself was born under the law and submitted to it in perfect obedience. But with Pentecost came the preaching of the gospel to all nations; and thereafter the separation of the two Israels was complete. What appears to be the total Israel, called here "the rest," were hardened. The true Israel had accepted Christ, and the total fleshly Israel were hardened. The totality here should be distinguished. It would have been incorrect to say that all Israel was hardened, for the spiritual Israel, until then commingled with the fleshly Israel, was not hardened; but the "rest" of that commingled Israel, meaning all of the fleshly Israel, were the ones hardened. The two Israels in this verse emerge clearly under two designations, "the election" being the true Israel, "the rest" being the fleshly Israel. The election received God’s blessing through the obedience of faith. The rest received it not through unbelief, rebellion, and self-hardening, terminating finally in God’s judicial hardening. The fact of fleshly Israel’s culpability in their terminal condition was stated by Christ thus: And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith: By hearing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, And their ears are dull of hearing, And their eyes they have closed; Lest haply they should perceive with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart, And should turn again, And I should heal them (Mat 13:14-15). It was Israel’s closing of their eyes against the light that made them guilty; and, given that conduct on their part, God did indeed harden them. The same condition is appropriately called "blindness" by the sacred writers. Paul also called it a "strong delusion" and a "working of error" (2Th 2:11). To Corinth he wrote that: The God of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving (2Co 4:4). Thus, there are three centers of participation in the hardening, or blinding (spiritually) of people who choose to be evil and close their eyes and ears against the truth, these being: (1) the wicked himself; (2) Satan, the god of this world, acting permissively under the will of God, and (3) God himself who wills that the willfully wicked shall be blinded, or hardened, in their condition. The hardening of Israel (all of the fleshly Israel) is of such tremendous importance to the remainder of this chapter, that a further study of it is appended here. THE HARDENING OF ISRAEL Biblically, God’s judicial hardening of the reprobate is extensively illustrated. The entire antediluvian world, Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon, Jericho and the 32 kingdoms displaced by the Jews, Babylon, Nineveh, Chorazin, Capernaum, and Bethsaida are all examples of kingdoms and cities that fell under God’s judicial sentence of hardening, and to these must be added the kingdom of Israel as made up of the ten lost tribes. What happened when God hardened such peoples? They were destroyed with cataclysmic destruction and fell never to rise again, eternal death also apparently being included in their doom. To this list of great cities and kingdoms, the scriptures add the names of various individuals who were hardened, such as Pharaoh (ominously introduced by Paul himself in this epistle as an example), and Judas Iscariot. They too perished almost simultaneously with their being hardened judicially. Something of the nature of judicial hardening and how it occurs was captured by the discerning words of Lenski, thus: Ten times Exodus reports that Pharaoh hardened himself; then, only in consequence of this self-hardening, we read ten times that God hardened this self-hardened man. In each instance, ten is the number of completeness. Even the hardening by God’s agency is not complete at once; it follows these stages, permissive, desertive, and judicial, only the last being final and hopeless. The door of mercy is not shut at once upon the self-hardened so that they crash into the locked door with a bang. WE might close it thus. God’s mercy closes it gradually and is ready to open it wide again at the least show of repentance in answer to his mercy; and, not until the warnings of the gradually closing door are utterly in vain does the door sink regretfully into its lock. F9 Pharaoh is the outstanding Biblical example of hardening, because of the details revealed in the scriptures, and the fullness of the description of it. The utmost significance of Paul’s pointed reference to Pharaoh (Rom 9:17) is seen in his application of that example to the hardening of Israel. The citation by the apostle is alone sufficient to justify the assumption of Israel’s judicial hardening in a manner like that of Pharaoh, but there are other considerations that make it absolutely certain,, as follows: There is the Saviour’s statement that the prophecy of Israel had been fulfilled in Israel (Mat 13:14-15). There is the express declaration of scripture that Israel’s conduct was every whit as bad as that of Sodom and Gomorra (Jer 23:14), and even worse than that of Samaria (Ezekiel), all of which other people were hardened and destroyed; and there can be no doubt that the thing alone which prevented the same fate for Israel was God’s plan of bringing in the Messiah through their race. Christ formally sentenced Israel to hardening and death in some of the most dramatic words ever written, in Mat 23:37 f. No one who reads Jesus’ heart-breaking denunciation there can fail to believe that his words were indeed the formal pronouncement of God’s judicial sentence upon them. The city of Jerusalem itself was consigned to the torch, the pestilence, and the sword, to famine and death, to the heel of the invader and the dashing of her little ones against the stones, a sentence so terrible that Christ wept as he uttered it; and it was all the more tragic and pitiable because it came of their own willful obduracy. The Lord said, How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Not merely the destruction of the great Jewish capital was announced by Christ. The religious hierarchy that governed the people were called a generation of vipers, the Lord promising that upon them would come the blood even of previous generations which had slain the prophets. He announced the destruction of their temple and the dissolution of their state and flatly declared that they should be trodden under the foot of the Gentiles for a period of time now known to have been at least nineteen centuries. "The King," Jesus said, "would send his armies, destroy those murders, and burn their city" (Mat 22:7)! There can be no doubt at all that Jerusalem and the nation of Israel were judicially hardened and condemned to death and subjection by none other than the Saviour himself. After such a sentence as that, who could have imagined that Israel (the old fleshly Israel) would still be around after nearly two thousand years? especially when viewed against what always happened before when God hardened a people? This mystery is that of Rom 11:25. In the analogy with Pharaoh and his changing his mind ten times, hardening himself repeatedly, Israel measured up fully in comparison with it. Their rebellions were so frequent, so willful, so arrogant and extensive that the entire Old Testament is required for the outline of them, thus providing the righteous basis for the declaration of Paul that God, in the case of Israel, "endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" (Rom 9:22). God indeed endured Israel, through necessity, that the promise of the Messiah through them should not fail; but upon their rejection of Christ and murder of the King himself, the cup of wrath overflowed. Verse 8 According as it is written, God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, unto this very day. Paul here quoted Deu 29:4, which reads, Yet the Lord hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. This was spoken to a generation that had witnessed the miracles of God through Moses in their fantastic deliverance from Egypt through the Red Sea. The thrust of the words here is that although they had indeed "seen" such wonders, in the sense of stimuli on the retina of the eye, they had not grasped the true meaning and significance. This was appropriate and applicable to Paul’s generation who had witnessed even the greater wonders of Christ but had somehow failed to get the message. The great realities are morally and spiritually understood. Thus, when Jesus condemned unbelief, he made it the consequence of moral blame rather than of intellectual doubt (John 3:19). There was doubtless another point in Paul’s introduction of this passage from Deuteronomy describing the lost generation of the wilderness. They themselves were another outstanding historical example of God’s judicial hardening and destruction. Due to the promise of the Messiah, God did not destroy them, but delayed their entry into Canaan until the death of the whole generation! Verses 9, 10 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, And a stumblingblock and a recompense unto them: Let their eyes be darkened that they may not see, And bow thou down their back always. Paul brought this forward from Psa 69:19 for the purpose of further proving from the scriptures that the hardening of Israel had long been foretold by the word of God. Let their eyes be darkened ... is a clear reference to hardening. Snare ... trap ... stumblingblock ... As Murray said, these words are closely related, and precise distinctions of meaning are not to be pressed. F10 That "their table" is to be made such, is a reference to the fact that the very devices which God had provided, by which Israel should have been restrained and purified, such as the law of Moses and all of the religious institution, (those very things) became the occasion of their fall, not through God’s fault at all, but through their abuse of sacred privilege. This also may have reference to such things as the monarchy, which, though contrary to God’s will, was permitted them as something they ardently wanted, being in that sense "their table," but being at the same time the very thing that blinded them to the Lord when he came. See under Rom 11:1. Their table ... is also suggestive of what Jesus said regarding the temple, "Behold your house is left unto you desolate" (Mat 23:38), indicating that even divine things, set up by God himself, if perverted and debased to serve human ends, lose all their sanctity, thus being no longer God’s but "theirs." Bow down thou their back always ... refers to the perpetual nature of the sentence imposed upon Israel, not referring exclusively to their being perpetually subjected, but to the endurance of the hardened condition finally imposed. Certainly, in this place, there is no suggestion that after certain centuries have passed, or after the Gentiles are saved, God will commute the sentence and restore them! Verse 11 I say then, Did they stumble that they might fall? God forbid: but by their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, to provoke them to jealousy. This verse is admittedly difficult because of the uncertainty of just what is meant by the pronoun "they." In view of there being TWO Israels in view throughout this portion of Romans, it may not be amiss to refer the first "they" to fleshly Israel and the second "they" to the true Israel. Although this usage of pronouns may be a little unusual, it is by no means ungrammatical, and would seem to be absolutely required by the difficulty of understanding the passage without this device. As Lard said, Did Israel stumble that they might fall? The answer is, "Not at all." But what is the precise point denied? Not certainly Israel’s stumbling, for this the question concedes. It must be the fall; and yet unqualifiedly a fall cannot be denied, for the next clause concedes one. F11 Lard resolved the difficulty by amending "fall" to mean "fall without remedy"; but there is far less authority for that than there is for understanding different antecedents for the two pronouns "they." It is plain that a fall is admitted and denied in this verse, and no logic occurs to this writer by which that can be understood otherwise than affirming a fall for fleshly Israel and denying it for spiritual Israel. A paraphrase of what Paul’s thought here probably was is thus: Did fleshly Israel then stumble so completely as to involve even the spiritual Israel also in their fall? God forbid. Just the opposite happened, because their fall has greatly advanced the conversion of Gentiles, thus provoking the old Israel to increased acts of violence against the faith, through their jealousy. Such appears to be the thought of this verse. The other device of understanding this place through imposing a different meaning upon "fall" so as to make it mean "fall without remedy as far as individuals are concerned," does no violence to the truth, if properly understood, but seems to this writer to be more cumbersome and unnatural than supposing the two Israels to be in Paul’s purview. However, Lard’s method of understanding this is subject to the gravest abuse. Allow God’s word, "fall," to mean anything else, or anything different from total and final apostasy and hardening of fleshly Israel; and the result will be all kinds of wild speculation about fleshly, or national, Israel and God’s supposed ultimate plans for them. Nothing that Paul wrote in Romans, or elsewhere, may rightly be construed as a plain promise that the hardening of Israel will ever cease; and although such a promise MIGHT be intended in Rom 11:25, through Paul’s use of the word "until," there is no authority in the word of God for so reading that word there (see 11:25). Against the possibility of so reading "until" in that place, is the prophetic statement of Psa 69:19, just cited by Paul (Rom 11:10), to the effect that Israel’s condition is for "always." Provoke them to jealousy ... is read as emulation by many commentators; but the word "provoked" does not go with that thought at all. What is intended is the explanation of why fleshly Israel should have been so murderously vindictive against the Christians of the Pauline age, not even the savage persecutions of Roman emperors exceeding it in fierceness. By their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles ... Hodge commented that The rejection of the gospel on the part of the Jews was the means of its wider and more rapid spread among the Gentiles, as clearly intimated in several passages of the New Testament. F12 This came about through persecutions which multiplied the centers of propagation of the new faith, like that which resulted from the martyrdom of Stephen, and also from the result of freeing the church of encumbering Jewish practices. Thus, as Hodge said: If Jews, for example, had made up the principal body of the primitive church, they would have proved a hindrance by their efforts to clog up the gospel with the ceremonial observances of the law, and such things as circumcision, abstaining from certain meats, and many others. F13 Verse 12 Now if their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? The first two clauses here are parallel, "fall" and "loss" meaning the same thing, and "riches of the world" and "riches of the Gentiles" having reference to identical results of the fall and the loss of Israel (fleshly); but by means of this parallel, Paul brought forward a rich new idea bearing upon the hardening of Israel, which is in the word "loss." Concerning this word, Barrett said, Paul uses a word which in strict etymology is derived from a verb meaning "defeat." Accordingly, some commentators, quoting from Isa 31:8, translate (this place), "Their defeat has lead to the wealth of the Gentiles." F14 Whiteside especially stressed this, observing that: The Jews were defeated in their efforts to destroy Christ and his teaching by crucifying him. F15 The defeat of the Jews in their opposition to Christianity was complete and extensive. Their efforts did not stop with the crucifixion of Christ, but extended to savage persecution and martyrdom of the earliest disciples, and included the most sustained and destructive opposition to the spread of Christianity upon the mission field; and their opposition did not really desist until God’s sentence upon Jerusalem was summarily executed by the legions of Titus and Vespasian in 70 A.D. Since Romans was written at least 12 years before that event, there might have been a prophecy intended in the word "loss" (defeat). Their fullness ... Upon these words is built the platform containing a great superstructure of future events, including a projected return in the future of the old fleshly Israel to a spirituality and obedience they have been void of for thousands of years, accompanied by a massive and universal conversion of the whole world to Jesus Christ. Would God it could be so! But, alas, the scriptures teach no such thing. Lenski’s perceptive understanding of this place was expressed thus: Paul does not say, "If their fall WAS or IS world riches, and their loss WAS or IS Gentile riches, much more WILL BE or SHALL BE their fullness in the future, at the millennium, or before the world ends." This is obviously untenable. What he writes is that already THEN (at that time), the Jewish fall and loss should be considered the world’s and the Gentile’s riches. Paul asks, If that is true, "by how much more" must not the fullness of salvation ATTAINED (already) by the Jewish remnant (the true Israel) be likewise considered the world’s and the Gentile’s riches, especially because their fullness (conversion) is void of the least trace of Jewish exclusiveness. F16 "Fullness" is thus a synonym for conversion to Christ, and, as such, is an instructive metaphor indeed. How vain and empty are the lives without Christ! With such a meaning, therefore, it is impossible to apply this word to the old fleshly Israel. Verses 13, 14 But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry; If by any means I may provoke to jealousy them that are my flesh, and may save some of them. What a brickbat this verse is to the air castles sometimes built on the preceding verse! Instead of Paul’s thought having to do with some vast ingathering of fleshly Israel at some future time, it is concerned with the near impossibility of saving any of them at all. As Barrett noted, Paul’s hope here seems surprisingly limited ... "and so save some of them" ... Out of the provocation of Israel as a whole ("my flesh and blood"), there may come a few conversions. F17 This verse certainly does not envision any wholesale conversion of Jews in Paul’s day or at any other time. Provoke to jealousy ... should still be viewed not as productive of emulation but as producing enraged opposition. Even that, Paul was prepared to endure in the hope of saving a few of them. This ascription of the meaning of "jealousy" derives from the connotation of "provocation" here associated with it, and also from the fact of its being produced, not in Paul’s brethren, else he would have used that word, but in his "flesh," which is a plain reference to the fleshly Israel. Whether or not it was Paul’s intention to arouse bitter opposition, that was surely what resulted from the jealousy of the fleshly Israel. Another reason for this understanding of "jealousy" is that it hardly seems a proper motive for becoming a child of God. I am an apostle of Gentiles ... Lard suggested this meaning of these words: As I am your apostle, I make bold to tell you (Gentiles) that both the fall and loss of Israel have proved blessings to you. Whatever they are to Israel, to you they are gain. F18 Perhaps Lard’s thought should be expanded to include the mention of "fullness" thus: "And if even their loss is your gain, think what the conversion of a few of them can mean; and, with that in view, I am ready to provoke all of them in the hopes of saving some." Verse 15 For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? This verse is another conspicuous example of the translators’ adding words to the text in order to clarify what they thought to be the meaning; but if there is a case of butchering a text in all the Bible, this is it. They put no less than five shafts into this one! They supplied two verbs, one in the present tense and another in the future tense, and also threw in a prepositional phrase to boot. Given this kind of liberty, there is hardly any meaning that might not be imported into any text. Our first concern is to rewrite this verse without its human additives, thus: Rom 11:15, For if the casting away of them the reconciling of the world, what the receiving but life from the dead? What was Paul saying? He had just mentioned the possibility of saving a few Jews; and it was of them that he said, "What the receiving but life from the dead"! Every Jew Paul converted was viewed by him as one baptized out of a cemetery. The hardened, judicially condemned and sentenced nation (fleshly Israel) was morally and judicially dead. Yet even from THAT NATION some were being saved, and the converts were indeed as life from deadness! Casting away of them the reconciling of the world ... as is the other clause, is a reference to the preceding verse, making Paul’s meaning respective of that and not directed to some future event. The future tense is not in this verse at all except by the gratuitous indulgence of the translators. "Shall be" is their word, not Paul’s. The millennial, or future wholesale Jewish conversion theories which are imported into this verse through the human additions to the text, encounter an impossible antithesis. Since the reconciling of the world (a universal concept) is said already to have been accomplished by the fall of Israel, their "fullness" if viewed as some future wholesale acceptance of Christianity would have to be viewed as accomplishing something even more wonderful than the "reconciling of the world," and, pray tell, what could that be? The scriptures do not teach any such thing, but quite the contrary, Jesus himself asking plaintively, Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? (Luk 18:8). It’s too bad that Jesus didn’t know about all that wholesale conversion of Jews out of fleshly Israel that our translators boldly said, "shall be"! How could people have done such a thing as importing such fantastic speculations into Paul’s word here? Perhaps no better example may be found of "how" such a thing happened than that which appears in the works of the beloved Lard himself. He wrote: Here again we supply "will be" or "shall be," and so make the apostle assert the future conversion of the Jews. This course seems necessitated by the nature of the case! F19 Ones does not question the sincerity of such a man as Lard; but the judgment of any person who will "supply" words to make an "apostle" of Jesus Christ "assert the future conversion of the Jews" can simply not be relied upon in that instance. It is precisely in what people have made Paul say here that the trouble lies. It is held as axiomatic by this writer that if Paul had believed in a future conversion of fleshly Israel, he would have trumpeted the fact to the skies in words that no one could avoid understanding. The above words of the beloved Lard are an admission that the future conversion theory regarding Israel is what people have made Paul say, and not what Paul wrote. Amen. Verse 16 And if the firstfruit is holy, so is the lump: and if the root is holy, so are the branches. Here are two simple parallel metaphors, both meaning exactly the same things, which is, that since God had so graciously accepted the first Jewish converts, all Jews who would accept the Lord would likewise be accepted. Firstfruit ... refers to Num 15:20, in which passage the Jews were instructed to "offer up a cake" of their dough to the Lord when they first prepared bread from the new harvest. After the sacrifice of that first symbolical portion of it, the remainder, or lump, was considered to be ready for general use. This illustration, by use of twin metaphors, is actually an appeal to the axiomatic truth that the whole partakes of the nature of its parts. Despite the obvious simplicity of this homely truth, it is true that Few passages have been loaded down with more fanciful interpretations than has this, or made to serve more foreign ends. F20 Barrett agreed that the firstfruit and the root in this verse "refer to Jewish Christians." F21 It should be particularly noted that nothing is said in this verse about the "whole lump" being holy, nor "all the branches" being holy. Lenski noted this omission thus: Paul does not write "the WHOLE lump ... ALL the branches," which he might have done but avoided doing, so as not to shift the emphasis and thus afford an occasion of misunderstanding. F22 To construe this verse, therefore, as a support of the theory that the whole Jewish nation, now morally dead, and sentenced to perpetual hardening, will some day accept Christianity, goes extravagantly beyond anything the verse says. Pray God it might even be true; and yet, it is not so declared. Verses 17, 18 But if some of the branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them, and didst become partaker with them of the root of the fatness of the olive tree; glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root thee. These two verses are only an extension of the homely metaphor of the preceding verse and are in no sense to be considered as some mysterious parable of the olive tree. Some of the branches were broken off ... is a reference to pruning, the implied thrust of such an illustration being "and men gather them into bundles and burn them." This is a metaphor of old fleshly Israel. And what of the branches not "broken off"? They are the true Israel, the spiritual seed, who accepted Christ, and formed the first community of believers in Christ (Acts 2:5-10,Acts 2:22). Thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among them ... is impossible of misunderstanding, because the only thing in five thousand years of recorded history into which Gentiles could have been "grafted in among" Jews is the church of Christ, established on the day of Pentecost. The grafting did not take place that day, for it was some time before the early church got around to accepting the full import of the worldwide nature of the gospel. Grafted in ... means converted to Christ. Wild olive ... is a reference to the inferiority of Gentiles, generally, in comparison with the more cultured and perceptive Jew, who had had the advantages of centuries of exposure to God’s true commandments. Among them ... never could mean "instead of them," as asserted by some. The Gentiles were not accepted into God’s church in place of anybody, nor did their coming in displace or exclude anybody. There is plenty of room for all; and "whosoever will may come." Regarding the alleged translation which some pretend, making this read, "instead of them," Lard said that The original is incapable without great violence, of bearing such a rendition. F23 The great error foisted off upon this verse is that the church built by Christ was but a continuation of the old Jewish "church" which, of course, had infants in it; and, by such a device, it is quite easy to premise an infant membership in God’s church now; but the church of our Lord Jesus Christ is not a continuation of anything, but an altogether new thing. Note: Wherefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things are passed away; behold they are become new (1Co 5:1). That he might create in himself of the two one new man (Eph 2:15). For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation (Gal 6:15). Christ is the mediator of the new covenant (Heb 12:24). Christians are not connected in any way with the old Jewish lump, but are a "new lump" (1Co 5:7). Here have been cited but a few of many passages which teach the total severance of Christianity from Judaism. Paul himself cut the umbilical cord that bound the infant church to the body of its parent Judaism. Glory not over the branches ... Exactly here surfaces what was probably an underlying motive of the first magnitude leading to the production of this epistle with its almost extravagant emphasis of salvation’s being "by grace," as contrasted with all human merit. This was Paul’s warning of the Gentile Christians not to fall into the same foolish and fatal error that had destroyed the old Israel. Of that Israel, their pride of possessing God’s law, and their superior knowledge, had led them into all kinds of boasting against the Gentiles; and, at the time Paul wrote (58 A.D.), the character of God’s church was leaning more and more toward a preponderantly Gentile composition; and, alas, this presented an opportunity for the Gentiles to develop the same boastful and inconsiderate attitude as that which once marked the feelings of the Jews toward them. Alas, Paul’s warning was not heeded. During the subsequent centuries, especially in the Dark Ages, the hatred of Christians for Jews, and their vigorous and relentless persecution of the once chosen people, extending even down into our own times, constitutes some of the blackest chapters of church history. The un-Christian conduct of the Christians toward the Jews surpassed anything the Jews ever did to them. "Glory not over the branches" burns like a branding iron in the conscience of the historical church. The root thee ... Salvation had come to the Gentiles through the Jews, Jesus himself having pointedly declared that "Salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22). Our Lord was Jewish, as were the apostles and practically all the original Christians. Judaism was the matrix in which had been formed the priceless jewel of Christianity, and no full understanding of Christianity is possible without knowledge of its Jewish origins. That the pagan-bred, low cultured Gentile, reeking with the stink of Bacchus and Aphrodite upon him, through his conceit at having been accepted as a child of God, should already have begun to manifest an attitude of superiority and disdain for the Jews, is a consideration demanded by Pauls’ introduction of these warnings here. What a pity they were not heeded, except, possibly, for a little while. The Gentile should have recognized that his blessings were of the grace of God and not of any merit on his part, but the general failure of people of all ages to comprehend this, and the specific failure of the Gentiles to grasp it, a failure exactly like that of the Jews, were doubtless the underlying reason why Paul diligently strove in Romans to prove the absolute unworthiness of all people, and to establish the golden premise that salvation is of grace through an obedient faith, as positively distinguished from all human merit. Paul’s awareness of the encroaching attitude of superiority in Gentile Christians must have produced emotions similar to those of a mother, whose entire family were ruined through alcoholic debauchery, beholding the start of the alcoholic habit in her only remaining son. In just a moment Paul would formally pronounce a doom upon Israel that should not be lifted for two millenniums. What must have been his thoughts as he contemplated the same godless self-righteousness which had destroyed fleshly Israel rearing its viperous head in the church of the living God? Alas, the Gentile Christian, proud and boastful of his hope of heaven, fell into the trap of supposing that he deserved it, whereas the truth was that he deserved it even less than the Jew whom he came to despise, disdainfully ignoring the truth that neither he nor the Jew could ever be saved except upon the basis of God’s unmerited love and favor. The Gentile’s wickedness in this regard produced the Medieval Church with its apparatus of inquisition and its engines of torture. Verse 19 Thou wilt say then, Branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. This was the Gentile’s way of saying, "God prefers me to the Jews; he broke them off and put me in their place." Oddly enough, that is exactly what some would make Paul say in Rom 11:17; but the Gentile boast was an arrogant lie, as proved by Paul’s reply. Barrett discerned that in Paul’s reply (Rom 11:20), the apostle, While admitting that branches were broken off, refused to admit that any preference was involved. F24 Verse 20 Well; by their unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear. How instructive! Admitting, of course, that branches had been broken off, as the Gentile indicated in his boasting, Paul would not emphasize the fact that God broke them off, but shifted the emphasis to the fact that it was Israel’s unbelief which had been the provocative cause. And thou standest by faith ... means that the Gentile had not been accepted in place of anyone, and that it was not his merit at all, but God’s grace that enabled him to stand. The standing of the Gentile in the church of God was totally without reference to anything that Israel did or did not do, and was and is exactly the same as it would have been if Israel did not exist. The Gentile’s place in the church was due to the unmerited favor of God, and came to him following his faith and obedience of the gospel, but, even so, being absolutely undeserving of so great salvation. Be not highminded, but fear ... is an eloquent warning, founded upon the long history of Israel as God’s covenant people, who, at last, had forfeited it all through unbelief; and the argument is that "If it could happen to them, it could happen to you." Back of this lies the divine principle that "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). Verse 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. In the event that Gentiles should manifest the same qualities of unbelief and obduracy which marred the life of fleshly Israel, the consequences for them will be the same, there being here another hint of the superiority of the Jews, as represented in the degree of preference pertaining to the natural branch over the wild branch. This verse shouts the conditional nature of God’s favor. Far from there being any such thing as an everlasting decree that this or that shall happen, people are endowed with freedom of the will to act as they choose to act; and the immutable election is to the effect that whichever way they act will determine their destiny. This verse shows that exactly the same principles of God’s judgment are applied to Jews and Gentiles alike with impeccable impartiality. It is God’s intrinsic righteousness, the basic theme of Romans, which required Paul to spell out the immutable quality of the eternal justice of the Creator, as in this passage. Verse 22 Behold then the goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee, God’s goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. Preeminent among all of the attributes God has revealed concerning himself, the quality of his everlasting goodness stands out, not in the sense of being more than other qualities of God, but in the sense of being most frequently stressed and emphasized in the word of God. God’s attribute of invariable righteousness undergirds the blunt warning here; and that warning is: all of the Father’s promises to sinners saved by grace are conditioned upon their continuation in his loving service. When even an angel sins, God will not ignore it. The possibility of Christians’ defecting from the divine favor is tersely stated here. The fact of it is proved by the history of Israel, by God’s dispossession of the fallen angels, by the spectacular warnings of the scriptures, and the ultimate impossibility of any sin’s being able to stand in God’s presence. Thou shalt be cut off ... These words were addressed to people who had just been encouraged with the marvelous sentiments of Paul’s 8th chapter, hence, the conclusion that these words are addressed to Christians, Spirit-filled, bona fide sons of the Highest; but this verse thunders a condition, "if thou continue in his goodness"! As the eloquent words of Trench have it: Nor may we leave out of sight that ALL FORGIVENESS, short of that crowning and last act, which will find place on the day of judgment, and will be followed by a blessed impossibility of sinning any more, is CONDITIONAL - in the very nature of things, so conditional, that the condition in every case must be assumed, whether stated or no; that condition being that the forgiven man CONTINUES in faith and obedience. F25 Severity of God ... is another of the divine attributes, but the minds of men are reluctant to dwell upon it. It was the loving and faithful God who swept the whole earth of the antediluvian race, and it has already been noted extensively in this chapter that when sin and rebellion reach their point of no return, God hardens and destroys. The current love-cult has, to some degree, perverted man’s conception of the divine goodness by leaving out of view the aspect of God’s character which Paul here commanded men to behold. The severity here mentioned derives from the righteousness and justice of him who is angry with the wicked every day, who abhors evil, and who must punish all who deserve it. God’s goodness ... is beyond the capacity of man to understand it. It is a goodness that loved people, even in their sins, gave the Beloved for their rescue, and waits in longsuffering patience upon man’s repentance, not willing that any should perish, but desiring the salvation of all. The divine goodness is not a weak and vacillating namby-pambyism, which is as revolting and disgusting as it is untrue of that divinity which gave us birth. Verse 23 And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again. This verse is not an assertion that the fleshly Israel will cease from unbelief, nor a promise that God will graft them in again, but is a continuation of Paul’s revelation at this place on the conditional nature of salvation. It works both ways. The wicked who believe and obey will be saved, regardless of who they are; the righteous who sin to defection shall be lost, no matter who they are. The POSSIBILITY of Israel’s return is stated here, but it is conditioned upon the cessation of their unbelief. No miracle or special manifestation on Israel’s behalf, other than the continuing miracle of themselves and the Holy Bible, may be expected. Paul here stated that "the gospel is the power of God unto salvation" (Rom 1:16), for both Jews and Gentiles. No special way is promised for any man. The very possibility of Israel’s conversion and being "grafted in" again is an intoxicating thought. If Israel (ah, there is that tragic word "if"), at last worn out with frustrations and dead hopes of some other Messiah’s ever arising to aid them, shall at last turn and believe in Christ, they would certainly be acceptable to God then, as always, upon God’s terms, not as Jews but as Christians, there being no longer, in the sight of God, any covenant difference whatever between Jew and Gentile. As long as the unbelief of Israel holds, that long they shall remain without; but, if they believe, they may enter. It must not be thought, however, that any such thing as a state or nation could ever be converted. People do not enter Christ as races, nations, ethnic groups, or parties of any kind. Paul did not enter the church on the basis of his being a Hebrew of the tribe of Benjamin; he entered as a believing, penitent, and baptized sinner saved by grace. No one, so far as the scriptures reveal, shall ever enter any other way. Verse 24 For if thou wast cut out of that which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree? Wild olive tree ... is an apt metaphor of the Gentiles who had continued for uncounted generations in pagan debauchery, without the knowledge of God in any degree comparable to that of the Jew. Gentile culture lacked the noble instincts which enhanced that of the Jew; and Gentile nature has proved to be difficult and slow of transformation, as attested by the experience of missionaries all over the earth until this day. If the Jew accepts Christ, he much more readily assimilates the great spiritual truths of the gospel, such being the meaning of "how much more." Contrary to nature ... emphasizes the looseness of Paul’s metaphor. People do not graft a wild olive into a good one, but vice versa. But the unbelievable had happened; Gentiles had been grafted into the spiritual Israel, exclusively identified since Pentecost as the church of Christ. Grafted into ... is the Pauline metaphor for "conversion." Their own olive tree ... is used accommodatively. In no actual reality can it be said that the institution of the body of Jesus Christ is "theirs," in the sense of belonging to fleshly Israel; and Paul could not have had anything of that kind in mind. Paul himself reiterated tbe truth of the newness of Christianity (see under 11:18), and was himself mightily used of God in the severance from the Jewish institution. Paul, in this verse, was still dealing with the problem of emerging self-righteousness among the Gentiles and their hauteur toward the Jews; and these words of Paul here are a reminder to Gentiles that all of the origins of Christianity are Jewish. In the sense that the church herself is the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, it may be spoken of as descending from Judaism, or more properly, as ascending out of it. The commingled Israels of the Old Testament were the matrix in which God formed the new institution, the entire Judaic heritage having been the enveloping sheath from which came the full corn in the ear. There was a striking weight of typical and prophetic excellence in Judaism looking forward to Christianity; and, in the sense of the essential kinship between type and antitype, the "olive tree" could be called "theirs." And the burden of the apostle’s thought here is Jewish excellence, as compared with Gentiles, which he stressed in order to diminish and restrain the rising vainglory of Gentile Christians. For generations, the Jews had lived under God’s law, heard his prophets, believed in the coming of the Messiah, and lived in daily hope of his appearance; but no such advantages had pertained to Gentiles. Therefore, IF the Jew should decide to become a Christian, he would certainly be a better one than the average Gentile. Thus, Gentile pride is throttled by Paul’s emphasis upon the natural superiority of the Jew, due to long privilege under God’s covenant. How much more ... is Paul’s way of saying, "You Gentiles are nothing to brag about, as Christians; IF the Jews were grafted in again, they would show you!" The tragedy of ages is that so few have done it. It is not correct to read this verse apart from the "if" which determines both this and the preceding one. Verses 25, 26, 27 For I would not, brethren, have you ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits, that hardening in part hath befallen Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved: even as it is written, There shall come out of Zion the, Deliverer; He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob. This mystery ... A mystery in the New Testament means something revealed, rather than something hidden, but implies that it had been hidden until revealed. The term is appropriate, however; because, even when God reveals a mystery, the knowledge of it still appears arcane or enigmatic, due to man’s imperfect understanding. This is especially true with the mystery revealed here. What is the mystery that Paul revealed? That Israel was hardened? No, for this had been open knowledge since the ministry of Christ. Was it that only part of Israel had been hardened? No, because the separation of the two Israels, the true Israel and the hardened Israel, had been in view for a whole generation. Was it that the hardening of Israel was scheduled to terminate? No, for that is not stated, either here or elsewhere in the word of God. So that is not the mystery. What, then, is the mystery? It is that HARDENING HAS BEFALLEN ISRAEL UNTIL THE FULLNESS OF THE GENTILES BE COME IN. But "hardening" (until that of Israel) had invariably meant the destruction and disappearance of the people hardened, as occurred with the ten northern tribes, and all the instances cited under Rom 11:7 (which see). Paul here knocked down the conceit of the Gentiles by the declaration that God had spared hardened Israel! They would not be destroyed in the final sense at all, nor would they disappear. Their continuation upon the earth was here revealed to extend until the entire harvest of Gentile Christians was reaped; and, in the light of what is now historical truth, God here spared, or announced through Paul that he had spared, hardened Israel for a period of two millenniums (at least) upon the earth. In view of the shocking disappearance, due to judicial hardening and destruction, of the great Gentile nations of Sodom, Gomorrah, Tyre, Sidon, Assyria, Nineveh, and Babylon, the Gentile Christians (some of them) were anticipating the same fate of the hardened Israel, and were GLORYING IN IT. It is impossible to understand this chapter without focusing upon that problem of Gentile pride and conceit which dominates the thought in Romans and which was concisely stated in Rom 11:25 as the reason for the revelation of the mystery: "lest ye be wise in your own conceits." Now, what was there in this revealed mystery to allay the conceit of Gentiles glowing against the Jews? It was the thundering fact that God had spared hardened Israel from the fate hitherto inseparable from the hardened; and Paul’s phrasing of this announcement was equivalent to saying, "The Jews will be here as long as any Gentiles are being saved." Furthermore, Paul brought dramatically to the spotlight in this that there was a fullness, or completion, in view for the Gentiles; even the saving of Gentiles was not to be thought of as something inevitable and eternally continuing. The Gentiles under God’s favor would run their course, just like the Jews; and in their "fullness" one must read the time when the Gentile position up stage center in God’s favor will be no more, and for the very same reasons that removed Israel from that favor. Fullness ... speaks of something else also. The fullness of Gentiles is not the whole of God’s concern (Where art thou, conceited Gentile?). In the same breath, Paul said, So all Israel shall be saved ... Could this possibly have any reference to hardened Israel? The very fact of their being "saved" identifies Israel here as the spiritual Israel. And what Paul was saying was that when the Gentile harvest had been reaped, that reaping, or fullness, is the means by which the determination of the whole body of the redeemed from earth shall at last be concluded. Thus, in that manner, God’s precious harvest of the earth shall be concluded. Or, as Paul stated that very truth, "So (in that manner) all Israel (the entire spiritual Israel of Jews and Gentiles and whomsoever) shall be saved. A final blow, a coup de maitre, to Gentile pride is in "all Israel," here said to be the Gentiles themselves who have been saved and brought into the spiritual Israel (!). They themselves are Jews (!), spiritual seed of Abraham. God could find no way of saving a Gentile, except by making him a Jew (!) (in Abraham through Christ). If such a thought as this could not kill Gentile pride, what could? Until the fullness, etc. ... This is sincerely thought by many to mean that the hardness will cease at whatever time is indicated by "until"; and, in all fairness, the word could mean that, and often does, as, for example, when it was written that Joseph knew not his wife Mary "until" she brought forth her firstborn son and laid him in the manger (Mat 1:25). The problem lies in the utter lack of authority in any man to affirm that a particular meaning must be understood here. The other frequent meaning of "until" leaves all thought of termination out of sight. R. L. Whiteside called attention to this, thus: "And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month" (Gen 8:5). That does not indicate any change after the tenth month: the record shows that the waters continued to decrease. "Thy servants have been keepers of cattle from our youth even until now" (Gen 46:32). This does not mean that they were then going out of the cattle business. "My Father worketh even until now" (John 5:17). And, of course, God kept on working as he always has. "For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth until now" (Rom 8:22). Nor did Paul mean that the creation quit groaning upon the publication of Romans. F26 Thus, in this very place where the future conversion theory regarding Israel is supposed to be promised, it does not appear. The choice of a meaning for "until" which could imply that is unjustified, for no such meaning may certainly be inferred from it. This verse simply does not tell what will happen after the fullness of the Gentiles is come in; the most probable event to follow that is the loosing of Satan for a little season, and then the end. When the Gentiles have run their course in God’s favor, as fleshly Israel have already run theirs, what, except the end, may be logically expected? THE MYSTERY OF HARDENED ISRAEL’S PERPETUATION The mystery, as more fully identified above, is that Israel, judicially condemned and hardened by God himself, in consequence of their own self-hardening, and formally and officially sentenced by Christ himself to condemnation and destruction (Mat 23:37f), shall nevertheless continue to exist in that condition until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, which may very well mean the end of time, and certainly does mean that, if the fullness of the Gentiles and the end of the world occur simultaneously, as many believe. God reduced the penalty of total destruction and oblivion for Israel, contrary to all that might have been expected. (See under Rom 11:7.) This commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment, as it were, was formally announced by Paul in Rom 11:25, for the purpose of countermanding the conceit of the Gentiles; but there were doubtless other valid reasons for God’s action of sparing hardened Israel which will be noted below. Israel’s hardening in part (the part hardened being the fleshly Israel) was made, through God’s commutation of their sentence, to be a perpetual thing. Far from perishing, the nation would stand in ceaseless petrifaction throughout the long ages of Gentile acceptance of the gospel, frozen and hardened against the God of their noble ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, a gaunt and terrible witness unto all ages of the absolute truth of every word of their sacred Old Testament, and also of the indisputable verity of the New Testament and all that is revealed there of the Lord Jesus Christ. The nation stands, a stark and awesome monument of God’s displeasure vented upon them throughout history in the dispersions and persecutions that have dogged their steps all over the world. Mystery indeed! There was never anything like it, nor shall there ever be. This judicially doomed nation, bound in a cohesive and indissoluble union, flowing through the oceans of earth’s populations like a human Gulf Stream, retaining an identity and destiny of their own across centuries and millenniums, is a manifestation of God so tragic and heartbreaking that the very thought of it mists the eyes with emotion. Behold the mystery of hardened Israel, worse than Sodom and Gomorra (Jer 23:14), but not annihilated like Sodom and Gomorra, but moving blindly through history, still hardened, still disobedient, still blaspheming the name of Christ, still enemies of the gospel of grace, still hating Christ and his religion; but, despite all this, being in themselves, by their very existence, the most eloquent and convincing proof on earth of the total truth of their sacred scriptures, and of the absolute truth and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ and the faith he revealed in the New Testament. And furthermore, even if God’s wisdom should have concealed from us such a thing as the future return of this hardened nation, and if human speculation should prove to be true, it would still stand that what is said here is the way it has been for nearly two thousand years! So all Israel shall be saved ... has been treated here as reference to the spiritual Israel, it being the conviction that both the Israels which dominated Paul’s mind throughout the epistle are in view in these two verses, being designated here as the hardened Israel (Rom 11:25) and the saved Isreal (Rom 11:26). Another widely held view construes both Israels as a reference to the hardened Israel. Although disagreeing with that, this writer offers the following as a viable meaning of this clause, in the event of referring it to hardened Israel, best understood by stating it negatively: No Israelite Will Ever Be Saved Any Other Way. Paul expounded throughout this letter the teaching that salvation is only in Jesus Christ, through union and identification with Christ, and by no other means whatsoever. The people who would be saved must believe and obey Christ, God making no distinction between Jews or Gentiles, That there is a definite emphasis upon "the manner" of salvation, inherent in the word "so," appears in these words of Lard: "And so ..." is of particular interest, because it means, "thus, or in this manner." F27 So much for the view of construing this as a reference to hardened Israel. It is precisely in the meaning of "so" that the difficulty of thus understanding it lies. By this word, Paul was saying, "In this manner of being saved"; and the only example in the context of any salvation having occurred is that implied in the fullness of the Gentiles, a reference to gathering God’s people out of the nations into the spiritual Israel and summing up into a single "all Israel" in the sense of spiritual Israel. That it is the spiritual Israel intended here is seen in Paul’s immediate introduction of two quotations from Isaiah (Isa 59:20; Isa 27:9), where, especially in the former, the new covenant is prophesied. This diverse use of "Israel" in two senses is not unusual with Paul, for in Rom 11:11 he used the pronoun "they" in exactly the same way (see under Rom 11:11). Of particular interest is a significant change Paul made in Isa 59:20, which reads thus in the Old Testament: And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and to them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. Paul quoted it, "shall come out of Zion." This change by Paul was due to his avoidance of a misunderstanding. Isaiah’s prophecy referred to the first advent of our Lord, in which the Lord both came out of Zion, and also to Zion; and without the change he made, the passage would have seemed to refer to the second advent. By the change, Paul said that the Lord has already come to Zion, and also has already come out of it. This forbids any supposition that Christ will return "to Zion," as some vainly suppose will be the case when all the Jews are converted! Paul’s use of Isaiah’s prophecy makes it mandatory to construe it as already fulfilled. As McGarvey has it, Christ the Deliverer Had Already Come, so that Part of the Prophecy Had Been Fulfilled. F28 These quotations make it certain that, in whatever sense "all Israel shall be saved," everything is contingent upon their acceptance of the Great Deliverer who has already come. Verses 28, 29 As touching the gospel, they are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sake: For the gifts and calling of God are not repented of. Who are these designated here as "enemies for your sake"? Their identity is clear from the last clause of the preceding verse, where the portion of Jacob whose sins were forgiven, and who had turned away from transgression, are the ones spoken of, making them the subject of this verse. At first, we are shocked that the true Israel (the redeemed portion of Jacob) should here be called "enemies." How is this true? Just as Christians on both sides of nations at war are technically enemies, so it is here. Part of the true Israel, through birth and environment, was then and continues to be, commingled with the old Israel. There are some of every generation of fleshly Israel that fall into this category. But within that environment, they are environmentally enemies of the truth, having been identified with the enemies of the gospel from birth, and afterward, by upbringing and education; but, despite this, there are some of that old Israel in every generation who are of the true Israel, who are of "the election" and the "righteous remnant" and therefore beloved "for the fathers’ sake" and being the true seed of Abraham, no less than Christians from among the Gentiles; but they become so only by obeying the gospel. They, upon their acceptance of the gospel, claim the inheritance that is theirs as "children of the promise." God has not abrogated his promise to THAT Israel. The true Israel has been separated from the fleshly Israel, but the inalienable right of every soul born into this world to decide which way his soul shall go, whether or not he will be of the true Israel, is not contravened. The physical descendants of Abraham in the national entity known as Israel, or scattered throughout earth’s populations, AS INDIVIDUALS are not lost and doomed through the accident of their birth, any more than others, the final right of choice still belonging to every man alive. Some of the old Israel are still being saved, the same as in Paul’s day, and the same as in Elijah’s day. Therefore no fatalism is taught in the revelation here regarding the hardening of fleshly Israel. To clear up any confusion, the separation of the two Israels which came about in the events connected with the rise of Christianity, simply reversed the situation that had existed prior to the first advent of Christ. In those days the Gentiles were hardened, and the Jews were the covenant people; but, even under that condition, INDIVIDUAL Gentiles now and again forsook the wickedness of their world and were received into the true spiritual seed of Abraham, Ruth the Moabitess being a conspicuous example. Now, the opposite situation prevails, and again and again, INDIVIDUAL Jews accept the Lord and claim their rightful inheritance as true Sons of Abraham in Christ. The hardening of the Jewish institution has not affected the sovereign right of any man, Jew or Gentile, to obey the gospel and be saved. That the earthly organization called Jewry, and including the state of Israel, shall ever be saved AS SUCH, in the light of the scriptures, appears to be an absolute impossibility, in the same way that it was impossible under reverse conditions before Christ for any state like Babylon or Rome to be accepted AS SUCH into the benefits of Gods’ redeeming covenant. "For the gifts and calling of God are not repented of ..." The gifts and calling of God are the great promise of God to Abraham that in him "all the families" of the earth shall be blessed with eternal life, such promise never having been confined to Abraham’s fleshly posterity alone, and never having included all of them, but only that portion of them who were Abraham’s kind of faithful obedient people, the "spiritual seed" as they are called (fully expounded in Rom 9:1-33). But the institution, or establishment, of Israel flatly rejected any thought that God’s blessing should be extended to Gentiles; and the very mention of God’s will in that regard precipitated the great riot in the temple which led to Paul’s imprisonment, the enraged Israelites crying that "It is not fit that he (Paul) should live" (Acts 22:22). The establishment had not merely murdered the Christ and suborned lying witnesses to deny the resurrection, they launched a campaign of eradication directed at the entire following of Jesus Christ, stoned Stephen to death, plotted to kill Paul, and sought by every possible means to thwart the preaching of the gospel on the mission field, Paul himself being on precisely that kind of mission of destruction when he was converted. If the hardened Israel, therefore, had had their way, God’s great promise would have failed. This great clause is an affirmation that it did not fail. God did not repent of his purpose, merely because people did not agree with it. What a glorious onward thrust of God’s will is envisioned by Paul in these words! The whole nation of Israel might oppose it; but the will of God moved inexorably to the achievement of the divine purpose. Verses 30, 31 For as ye in time past were disobedient to God, but now have obtained mercy by their disobedience, even so have these also now been disobedient, that by the mercy shown to you they also now may obtain mercy. In a word, Paul said here that the situation had been reversed (as elaborated under the preceding verses). In previous times the establishment of Gentile nations were the hardened, and any among them who were saved faced the necessity of forsaking their establishment and uniting with the covenant people, as did Rahab the harlot of Jericho. This was manifestly a harder requirement than was required of the spiritual seed in the co-mingled state of ancient Israel, for in those days the covenant was outwardly identified with their establishment. In the situation that long prevailed thus, it is not hard to see that there was an inevitable partiality, resulting not from God’s partiality (God has always been impartial), but from the human situation. But even that unavoidable "preference" which belonged to Israel has now been wiped out, for now it is THEY who must forsake their establishment and unite with the "spiritual seed" in Christ, the Christian religion being, in a sense, an establishment belonging to the Gentiles. That relatively greater numbers, in the times before Jesus Christ, were saved from Judaism than were saved from among the Gentiles was due to the hardening of the Gentiles and the residence of the covenant with outward Judaism; that relatively greater numbers since Christ are saved from among the Gentiles than from hardened Jewry is due to that hardening, the covenant lying (outwardly) with the Gentiles. Thus God has equalized his treatment of Jews and Gentiles. Even so ... are the big words here. They mean: even as it was once with Gentiles, so now it is with Jews. How about those here said to have obtained salvation from someone’s disobedience? Representatives of this class in the pre-Christian ages were that larger number saved because of the covenant’s resting with Israel, thus making it easier for Jews to be saved than Gentiles. Representatives of this class in the current age are that larger number of Gentiles saved, because it is easier to be saved with the covenant resting in their establishment. It is now harder for Jews to be saved, just as it was once harder for Gentiles to be saved, because it is their establishment which is now hardened. Behold the justice of God! There is still another sense in which some are saved by the disobedience of others. We have already seen that the hardening of Israel was the event which sent the preachers of the word to the Gentiles. When they rejected Paul, he said, "Lo, we turn to the Gentiles" (Acts 13:46). Now what did this mean? It meant that whatever remnant of the fleshly Israel were of the "spiritual seed" were totally reliant upon Gentile preaching for their salvation. Certainly, the old fleshly Israel, the establishment intent on destroying the Christian faith, would never have preached it to them in a thousand years. But the disobedience of hardened Israel triggered the extension of the gospel to Gentiles, whose preaching of it was then available to the "spiritual seed," making it a fact that it was the disobedience of hardened Israel that brought salvation to the Gentiles, as well as to their own remnant of the "spiritual seed." That by the mercy shown to you they also may now obtain mercy ... This is Paul’s statement of the fact that the mercy shown to Gentiles had its inevitable overtones in the conversion of certain Jews of Israel, who, without the Gentile ministry, could never have known the truth. Verse 32 For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all. This is the summary Paul made of the preceding explanation; and this shows that the subject of God’s intrinsic righteousness was principally in view. Shut up all unto disobedience ... means that with the hardening of Israel, God has thus hardened or "shut up" the whole world unto disobedience, the Gentiles in pre-Christian ages, the Jews now, in order that his mercy might be extended to all, equally, and without partiality, and upon the same terms, namely that of being his "people whom he foreknew," "the children of the promise," the true seed of Abraham. It is a gross error to interpret this as meaning that God has made sinners out of everybody so he can save the whole human race. "Mercy upon all" has reference to that mercy’s being extended impartially, and under the same conditions, to all alike. Moreover, it is "mercy upon all" in that it is truly available to all. Everyone on earth "may" receive it, in the sense that he has permission and is invited to receive it. This aspect of meaning is quite clear in Rom 11:31, where it is said, "They MAY now obtain mercy," not "WILL obtain mercy." Thus, "mercy upon all" has reference to God’s invitation and permission, not to any fiat of arbitrarily saving everybody. The tragic truth, so emphatically stated by the Christ himself that few shall be saved(Mat 7:13-14) does not compromise the fact that God’s mercy is "upon all." Attempts to make this verse teach universal salvation are denials of the entire corpus of Christian truth. Verse 33 O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! The magnificent doxology, here and to the end of the chapter, is an exclamation of adoration and praise to God, with which doxology Paul concluded his tremendous dissertation upon the Father’s attribute of righteousness. Paul traced the divine record of God’s dealings with humanity throughout all previous history and spelled out in the most concise and logical manner possible, the fairness and justice of God’s treatment of Jews and Gentiles alike, with the conclusion stated in Rom 11:33, that God had shut up all unto disobedience and that he had provided mercy for all, the two "all’s" there being the measure of God’s absolute justice and righteousness. Paul’s termination of this section of the epistle with such a warm and eloquent expression of loving truth of God is a source of great confidence to all the saved. Paul, who understood such things better than any other who ever lived, stated his absolute trust and confidence in the inscrutable ways of God, whether people understand them or not (and, in the very nature of things, people can never FULLY understand them), God is in control. Nothing else really matters. God’s ways cannot be fully known to mortals; and in the degree that they are known they are not fully comprehended; but true faith receives all that God does in full trust and confidence. He who gave his Son to die for people will grant eternal happiness to every possible recipient of it, provided only that people believe and obey him. Verse 34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? These words resemble this from the Old Testament: Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor, hath taught him? (Isa 40:13 hew:13 hew:13). God’s ways are higher than man’s. His wisdom does not need human acceptance or approval. God’s actions derive from considerations resident in himself and have no reference to men’s acceptance or rejection of them, and they are determined apart from and beyond any human factor whatever. In his holy revelation, God has now and again accommodated himself to human ignorance and misunderstanding; but where such was ever done, it derived from no need on God’s part that he should do it, but was solely a manifestation of his love and grace. Verse 35 Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? Once more, the apostle found a text from the Old Testament to be made the vehicle of his thought, thus: Who hath first given to me that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine (Job 41:11). Behold the true status of human and divine relations. God is all in all. Not God’s need of people, but their need of God, is the basis of all spiritual thought. Debt or obligation of God to human kind is not. Verse 36 For of him, and through him, and unto him, are all things. To him be the glory for ever. Amen. As the great philosopher, John Locke, noted: This emphatic conclusion seems, in a special sense, to regard the Jews, whom the apostle would hereby teach modesty and submission to the overruling hand of an all-wise God, whom they are very unfit to call to account, for his dealing so favorably with Gentiles. His wisdom and ways are infinitely above their comprehension, and will they take upon them to advise him what to do? Or is God in their debt? Let them say for what, and he shall repay it to them. This is a very strong rebuke to the Jews, but delivered, as we see, in a way very gentle and inoffensive, a method which the apostle endeavors everywhere to observe towards his nation. F29 Locke’s understanding this doxology as a rebuke would seem to be justified, as the application of its sentiments is undeniable. Macknight also took the same view of the passage, as have many others; but there is a message here for all people. No one should be slow to accept this message for himself, for the thrust of these noble sentiments is timeless, belonging to all times and nations. The supreme majesty and glory of the ineffable God, Creator and upholder of all things, whose existence is from everlasting to everlasting - let people contemplate such as this, and all of their petty misgivings and doubts will disappear. It is with such a God that we have to do, and people’s attitude should be that of Job, who said, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him" (Job 13:15). There are some who stumble because so much of this great epistle is concerned with what was essentially a racial problem. Paul, however, saw it in a larger light as having an application to the essential and inherent character of God himself. It is in that light that his extremely full treatise on this subject is more than justified. Furthermore, it must be remembered that Paul himself had lived in constant jeopardy of his very life for holding the views proclaimed here. The brutal beatings he received, the harassment before kings and governors, the imprisonments, the brutal purpose of slaying him, the whole evil tide that surged against his noble life - all that must indeed have bruised him. But, thanks be to God, in such bruisings the full fruit of his matchless intellect in the discernment of the profoundest questions ever pondered with reference to God’s dealings with people was brought forth unto perfection and made available to the people of all ages in the epistle to the Romans. Here indeed was one in Christ! Footnotes forRomans 11 1 : Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 353. 2: Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955); p. 186. 3: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 345. 4: W. Sanday, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 247. 5: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 354. 6: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 346. 7: Ibid., p. 349. 8: R. L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to Saints in Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 226. 9: R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing Company, 1963), p. 617. 10: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), Vol. II, p. 74. 11: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 354. 12: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 361. 13: Ibid., p. 362. 14: C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1957), p. 214. 15: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 230. 16: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 695. 17: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 215. 18: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 359. 19: Ibid., p. 361. 20: Ibid. 21: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 216. 22: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 703. 23: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 362. 24: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 218. 25: Richard Trench, Notes on the Parables (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 164. 26: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 241. 27: Moses E. Lard, op, cit., p. 370. 28: J. W. McGarvey and Phillip Y. Pendleton, The Standard Bible Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 473. 29: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston: 1832), p. 359. 30: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 273. 31: John Murray, op. cit., p. 302. 32: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 272. 33: The Emphatic Greek Diaglott, p. 531. 34: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 270. 35: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston, Mass., 1832), p. 331. 36: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 37: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 98. 38: Ibid. 39: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. : F. Godet, op. cit., p. 315. 41: James Macknight, op. cit., p. 98. 42: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. 43: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 44: Ibid. 45: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 237. 46: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 277. 47: John Locke, op. cit., p. 333. 48: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 321. 49: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 50: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 77. 51: Sir Francis Bacon, in Bartlett’s Quotations, p. 109. 52: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 280. 53: Ibid. 54: Ibid., p. 281. 55: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 325. 56: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 57: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 323. 58: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 238. 59: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 285. 60: John Locke, op. cit., p. 335. 61: Ibid. 62: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 193. 63: H. C. G. Moule, op. cit., pp. 242-243. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 4: 12 ROMANS CHAPTER TWELVE ======================================================================== Rom 12:1-21 Verse 1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service. How magnanimous is that authority which, having the power to command, stoops to plead for mortal compliance with God’s will! "I beseech you ..." means "I beg of you, please ..." F1 This admonition still lies under the spell of that heavenly love radiating from the great doxology just concluded in Rom 11:1-36, and relies strongly upon God’s great love as the basic motivation of all human obedience. Present your bodies ... The body here is from the Greek word [soma], meaning the physical body; and, despite that Batey and others refer it to "the whole man," F2 the contrast with "mind" in the next verse focuses the thought on the physical body here. Vincent, as quoted by Wuest, stated that: The body here is the physical body; and the word for "present" is the technical term for presenting the Levitical offerings and victims. F3 A living sacrifice ... Contrasts the slain offerings of the old institution with the living sacrifices of the new. The typical nature of the Old Testament regime, and the prophetic intent of its sacrifices and ceremonials, required, absolutely, that antitypes of the new covenant should be changed to accommodate the new information brought by the actual appearance of the Messiah upon the earth. For example, the sacrificial lamb, slain upon countless pre-Christian altars, was an eloquent and instructive type of the Lord Jesus Christ; but, when Christ came and died for man’s sins as the type indicated he would, there followed the resurrection of Christ from the dead, a fact incapable of being prefigured by the slaughter of a lamb. In lieu of the old sacrifice, therefore, God ordained that the Christian himself be presented as a living sacrifice, dying to sin, buried with Christ in baptism, and rising up to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:1-4), and thus providing a continual witness of the primary facts of the gospel (the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, 1Co 15:1-4), and pointing back to those blessed events similarly to the manner in which the sacrificial lamb pointed forward to them, but with the significant difference that the new sacrifice referred far more emphatically to Christ than did the ancient type. Thus, it is evident that, in the Father’s wise design, the Lord Jesus Christ is the focus of all true religion, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament alike. Every true Christian is himself a presented sacrifice witnessing to the great facts of the Christian gospel. Batey was correct in the view that: This living sacrifice can best be understood in terms of dying and rising with Christ (Rom 6:1-11). F4 Even more than this, however, is certainly included. The believer indeed presents his body for baptism, this being an important element in the new birth itself, and thus accomplishes a sacrifice which requires the volition and assent of the whole person; but the presenting does not end at the baptistry. There is also the formal and faithful presentation of the body in public corporate worship, regularly throughout the Christian’s probation. Now, as in Job’s day, "when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord" (Job 1:6), the sons of God still present themselves before the Lord in the Lord’s Day assemblies of the church (and other times also), a duty which Christians are categorically commanded not to neglect (Heb 10:25). Nor can it end there. The body is the chief instrument of the person and is to be presented to God through service to humanity, by preaching, teaching, ministering, and helping people, and not merely for some space of time, but throughout life. Holy ... modifies sacrifice; and, since the sacrifice in view is the body ([Greek: soma]), this amounts to an affirmation that the body, as such, is not evil. Paul noted in another place that the same body capable of being joined to a harlot, in the case of the Corinthians, was actually the "temple of the Holy Spirit" (1Co 6:12-20). Such teaching prohibits the view that the body is in itself sinful or evil. Acceptable to God ... is the pledge of inspiration that believers presenting themselves in the manner indicated shall indeed be accepted by God and blessed in so doing. The condition of acceptance, stated here, is holiness; and, as Sanday observed: The Christian sacrifice must be holy and pure in God’s sight; otherwise, it cannot be acceptable to him. F5 Which is your reasonable service ... (as in the KJV) appears to be a better rendition than the English Revised Version (1885), the commentators being all in agreement that "pertaining to the mind" is an essential element of the meaning here. Thayer said that this "reasonable service" is "worship which is rendered by the reason, or the soul." F6 The concept of what is the intended meaning, as viewed in this commentary, is that which sees that nothing could possibly be more reasonable, nor more in keeping with the conclusions of the highest intelligence, than the fact that mortal man, doomed to descend so shortly into the tomb, should rally all of his soul’s energies to seek the Lord and trust the Creator alone who has the power to redeem him from the rottenness of the grave and endow him with everlasting life, the agonizing desire of which is the great passion of mankind. Further, the most skillful exercise of intelligence, even of the greatest minds ever to appear on earth, reveals that such a seeking after God is fully consonant and harmonious with all that really blesses man, even in this life, and with all that in any way contributes to his peace and happiness now. Let a man employ his mind, his reason and intelligence, in the contemplation of one fact alone, namely, that God created man; and then let him ask if it is reasonable, or not, that such a being as God could have created man with such a nature as to make him happier in the service of the devil than in the service of God! In this single instance, and in a million others, the most ardent application of discerning intelligence will always reveal the reasonableness of serving God. It is believed that this is what Paul affirmed here. Verse 2 And be not fashioned according to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. The world is very much with Christians, who, though not of the world, are nevertheless still in it and subject to its fashions and allurements, unless these shall be rejected; and that rejection is the thing commanded here. The world ... is not a reference to the physical geography of the planet, but is spoken of the natural habits, desires, and value judgments of the natural man, the natural man being man apart from the loving guidance of his Maker. The things of God’s Spirit are "foolishness" to the unregenerated (1Co 2:14); but the Christian must adopt an utterly different set of value-judgments, based upon an utterly new and higher concept of life, and thus encompassing a view of the eternal things, rather than merely those of earth and time. Significantly, both the mind and the physical body, in these first two verses, are seen as consciously controlled and directed. Therefore, even the mind, which is often thought of as that portion of the person which does the controlling, must itself be brought into subjection to God. And what is the instrument by which that can be accomplished? It is the ego, the "I," the essence of the person itself that must do this; and, therefore, specific attention to that should be given. That the inner monitor of life does indeed have control over both mind and body is seen in the Old Testament statement: He that ruleth his own spirit is greater than he that taketh a city (Pro 16:32). Whatever it is that rules man’s spirit, that essential center of human control, is the seat of all authority over human thought and behavior. Man is so created that the inner throne of life may not be occupied by himself, because it was made for God’s occupancy, God being Spirit in nature; but, alas, due to the fall in Eden, Satan, also spiritual, has been allowed by man to occupy the place intended for God. Invariably, this throne, this inner monitor of the total life, must be occupied either by God or by Satan. Man may fancy that he may take the throne himself; but if he does, his very act of dethroning God has brought him under the sway of evil and elevated Satan to the seat of authority in his life. There are, thus, not three potential occupants of the soul-center, but only two. That is why God’s classification of human kind is always dual, and never otherwise. Thus, such metaphors as the sheep and the goats, the wheat and the chaff, the wise and the foolish, those on the left and on the right, God and Mammon, etc., are so prominent in scripture. Through heredity and environment both, man has a natural bent toward evil, thus giving Satan an advantage in seizing control of the person, which always happens shortly after man reaches an accountable age; but every soul ever born yet retains enough of the image of God within to enable the soul to dethrone the evil one and enthrone the rightful Occupant. This is done by believing and obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ. This change of masters within is the enabling charter, the validating act, which enables the renewing of the mind which Paul here commanded; but it cannot be accomplished in an instant. That is why the command is here given to Christians who were already baptized and risen with Christ to newness of life (Rom 6:1-10). After justification, which took place in the new birth, there is a growth process by which the mind is truly in a state of being renewed throughout life. Through the disciplines of prayer, study, worship, and meditation the inward man is gloriously renewed, as long as the true Occupant is maintained upon the proper eminence within. It was of this that Paul wrote: Though our outward man is decaying, yet our inward man is renewed day by day (2Co 4:16). This understanding that the mind itself is but one of the instruments of the true person explains the atheism and perversity which sometimes mark human intelligence. When Satan is on the throne, the mind itself is not free, but subservient to evil, all of the highest gifts of intelligence being absolutely denied by Satan. It was of such persons that Paul wrote: The God of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them (2Co 4:4). The renewing of the mind is not possible except through the maintenance of God upon that inner throne which monitors all human activity, physical and mental. Under many different expressions in the Holy Scriptures, the description of this divine inner Control is presented. Here are some of them: Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus (Php 2:5). Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38f). Which is Christ in you the hope of glory (Col 1:27). The Spirit that dwelleth in us (Jas 4:5). Even as God said I will dwell in them (2Co 6:16). Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly (Col 3:16), etc. Manifestly, all of the above scriptures have reference to exactly the same thing, the presence of God upon the inner throne of life. Of all the above, said to dwell in the child of God, none dwells without all the others. That ye may prove ... indicates that the soul which does indeed allow God to take over in his mind will enjoy the most overwhelming proof imaginable that such a state is the highest destiny of man, being in perfect harmony with the good and acceptable will of God. God’s way is the good way; his will is the perfect way for people; and the soul that tries it shall know it is true. His own experience will demonstrate it. Verse 3 For I say, through the grace that was given to me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think: but so to think as to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to each man a measure of faith. Even after Christ is enthroned in the heart, the old mental habits and value-judgments of the natural man are prone to reassert themselves, these being the most persistent and pernicious of human sins. The body is relatively easy to bring under control; but the pride, ambition, conceit, vainglory and self-love of the mind can only be driven out by the filling of the personality with the "mind of Christ" who "made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant" (Php 2:5f ), thus sacrificing the very thing to which the natural human mind clings most tenaciously. In this verse, Paul was still dealing with the problem of getting a new mind into Christians. Paradoxically, even the great spiritual emoluments of Christian service, the achievement of a degree of human righteousness, as viewed by human eyes, the gaining of respectability and reputation among fellow mortals, all of the rewards and honors of godly living, even such things as these, quite easily, and often do, lead to pride, conceit, arrogance, and self-righteousness, which are totally abhorrent to God. It cannot be doubted that this very fact led to the fantastic emphasis in this epistle to the effect that nobody, but nobody, ever deserved salvation. Even the fulfillment of conditions upon which God gives salvation cannot merit the gift. Salvation is the gift of God, and only that, even though no one may receive it while spurning the conditions upon which it is freely given. More highly than he ought to think ... It was the primary sin of Israel that they fell into the thinking prohibited here, a lapse which led at last to their tragic hardening. In chapter 11, Paul strongly warned against the same violation in the Gentiles, and that warning is in view here. (See under Rom 11:18-20) In this recurrence of the warning, he plainly forbade that conceit which so naturally rises in the minds of people who, through God’s mercy, are permitted to enjoy some little distinction of faith and piety. Despite the warning, Paul’s admonition was not directed to the utter negation of self, nor the sinful depreciation of the noble endowments God has granted mortal man; but it strikes a perfect balance, admitting that it is right and proper for one to think highly of himself, but not more highly than becomes a sinner without merit of salvation, and certainly not so highly as to produce any conceit that might arise from a comparison of his own gifts with those of his fellow Christians. Verses 4, 5 For even as we have many members in one body, and all the members have not the same office: so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another. These verses touch upon the same view of the body of Christ that Paul outlined in 1Co 12:1-31 th chapter, where it is declared that there "is but one body." All Christians are part of the same entity. (See article "Christ Incorporated" under Rom 3:4) Since Christians are all members of one body and therefore intimately joined in one communion and fellowship with each other, the savage competition for honors and preferments should give place to loving concern on the part of every member for every one of the others. The various gifts, abilities, and "offices," or functions, as distributed among the members of Christ’s body should not become the occasion of jealousy, envy, and deprecation on the park of the "have not’s," nor should arrogance, pride, conceit, and self-importance mar the attitude of the "have’s." To use the analogy that Paul used in 1 Corinthians, it would be as logical for the foot to be jealous of the ear, as for Christians to corrupt their love of one another through pride, envy or jealousy. In Christ ... is a key phrase, as often noted here, in the book of Romans. Those alone who have been "baptized into Christ" are truly in him; and this does not overlook the absolute necessity of faith and repentance also. Can it really be said of any man who will not be baptized, as Christ commanded all people to be - can it truly be said of such a man that he BELIEVES (!) in Christ? Let every man answer that one for himself. Verses 6, 7, 8 And having gifts differing according to the grace that was given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of our faith; or ministry, let us give ourselves to our ministry; or he that teacheth, to his teaching; or he that exhorteth, to his exhorting: he that giveth, let him do it with liberality; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness. In these verses, Paul enumerated, with appropriate admonitions, some of the various gifts of Christians, the overriding sentiment being that WHATEVER one does in Christ’s service, it should .be discharged with true faith in God who provided the ability to do it, and with the intention of doing it as perfectly as possible, and especially without reference to odious comparisons, rankings, and preferments which appear so generally in the patterns of human behavior. Prophecy ... Although there were prophets, in the usual present-day sense of the word, in New Testament times, as, for example, Agabus (Acts 21:10), the meaning of the word here has a wider application. Exo 4:16; Exo 7:1, shows that Aaron was Moses’ prophet, or spokesman; and, in that view, every preacher and teacher of God’s word is a prophet. This view is consistent with 1Co 14:3 : He that prophesieth speaking unto men unto edification, and exhortation, and consolation. Just what shade of meaning Paul had in mind, however, is not the important consideration, because the admonition attached is applicable to every kind of prophesying, being this, that it should be done in proportion to the faith of them doing it. Thus any preaching, or teaching, that does not flow out of the vibrant, living faith of the teacher or preacher himself is hollow, hypocritical, and ineffectual. Ministry ... technically means the service of a deacon in the church; but the word is used more generally to include even the work of the apostles themselves, as indicated by Paul’s word "our" in this verse. It refers to any kind of service undertaken for God’s glory in the church; and the instruction is that whatever is done should be done enthusiastically and faithfully. He that teacheth ... refers to teachers as distinguished from prophets, some of the latter, at least, being inspired, whereas teachers, in the sense here, are not; although they must be understood as being faithful students and expositors of the sacred word. 1Co 12:28 gives the proper ranking of "apostles, prophets, teachers, gifts of healings, miracles, helps, governments, and divers kinds of tongues." It is of surpassing interest that "governments" which receive such inordinate rankings among people are actually near the bottom. And as for "various kinds of tongues," that was the lowest thing in the church! That Paul intended in that passage to rank these things consciously, is proved by the repeated use of such words as first, second, third, etc. The Christian teacher is third in this echelon, being outranked only by the inspired apostles and prophets. Exhortation, liberality, showing mercy ... are reference to various Christian duties of a private and personal nature, the exhortation being that grace, humility, faith, simplicity, and consideration for others should always mark the services of them that have in mind to please the Lord. The suggestion of "cheerfulness" as an accompaniment of showing mercy is most appropriate, since many a merciful or charitable deed has been nullified by the grudging and censorious manner that accompanied it. Verse 9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. Hodge noted that: The love intended by this verse is probably love to all men, and not to Christians exclusively; as, in Rom 12:10, BROTHERLY AFFECTION is particularly specified. F7 Hypocrisy is, of all vices, one of the worst to which Christians may be addicted. The most vehement denunciations of the Master himself were directed against it (Mat 23:1-39). The last clauses here are two sides of the same virtue. Hating evil and loving good are not separate and distinct virtues, but part and parcel of each other. No man ever hated evil without loving good, or vice versa. Again from Hodge: The words rendered to ABHOR and to CLEAVE to are particularly forcible, and express the highest degree of hatred on the one hand, and of persevering devotion on the other. F8 Verse 10 In love of the brethren be tenderly affectioned one to another; in honor preferring one another. The Greek word for "love" in both this and the preceding verses is [agape], that great New Testament word which has captured the loving admiration of people in all generations, meaning love in its most comprehensive and selfless qualities. There are two qualifying words which are added here as specifically applicable to members of the Christian family and the kind of love they should bear each other. It is all that the other is, and more. These qualifying words are [Greek: philostorgio], meaning the kind of affection that exists in a family, and [Greek: philadelphia], literally meaning brotherly love. McGarvey described it as: (Like that) of an animal for its offspring, a parent for his child, a near relative for his close kin. Its use here indicates that the church tie should rival that of the family. F9 In honor preferring one another ... carries the connotation of setting an example and taking the lead in the honoring of others. Instead of coveting and trying to grasp honors for one’s self, the Christian should rather desire to exalt his fellow Christians, even taking the lead in the conveyance of such honors to them; and, as David Lipscomb stated it, Instead of waiting for others to honor us, we should lead them in the manifestation of esteem and respect. F10 Verse 11 In diligence not slothful; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord. A lazy Christian is a contradiction of terms. Having been saved from the guilt and ravages of sin, the Christian is man at the zenith of his best powers. Strength, zeal, enthusiasm, vigor, and the full thrust of his total energy should distinguish the Christian’s performance in business, trade, profession, study, artistic creation, or in anything else that he pursues as a vocation; and, above everything, such qualities should characterize his devotion and service in the church. The opposite of what Paul commanded here is lukewarmness, a negative condition represented as disgusting to God himself (Rev 3:16). Verse 12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing stedfastly in prayer. As the deeply spiritual R. C. Bell expressed it, Our difficulty lies not in comprehending but in obeying. F11 The glorious hope of the Christian is more than enough to flood the soul with rejoicing, even in the midst of abounding disappointments, provided it is kept in focus by the mind. This hope is the anchor of the soul (Heb 6:19) which enables the child of God to endure whatever storms may come, but not, however, without prayer. Prayer is the breathing of the redeemed soul, and the cessation or neglect of it will smother and destroy spiritual life. Verse 13 Communicating to the necessities of the saints; given to hospitality. Communicating ... refers to the giving of money or supplies and is the constant duty of every Christian, the first priority in such sharing of God’s gracious gifts going to Christians, rather than to the world generally; and even the Christian’s claim upon the generosity of his fellows being resident in his "necessities," and not merely in his desires and wants. Many of the commentators translate "distributing" for communicating; but, upon the assumption that the English Revised Version (1885) is founded upon a necessary implication of the word, it appears that the "sending of funds" is part of the meaning of this word. At least, many New Testament examples did involve the sending of contributions from one part of the world to another. In this light, therefore, there is indicated here the need for special concern for such needs as those of missionaries and of communities visited by calamity or disaster. Saints ... Regarding this, Thomas wrote: Its simple meaning is "belonging to God," and refers invariably to our position, not our condition, to our standing in Christ, and not to our actual state. It is most unfortunate that the word has been so frequently associated with exceptional holiness, when it means nothing of the kind, but only the actual fact that from the first moment of conversion every Christian soul is consecrated and devoted to God. The needs of God’s people were great when these words were written; and we know how keen Paul was in encouraging the Gentiles to help their poorer brethren in Jerusalem. In the same way, he appeals to all the Christians in Rome to communicate to their fellow believers whatever might be necessary. F12 In an affluent society like that in current U.S.A., the desires of the so-called poor are frequently substituted for necessities in the benevolent programs of both the church and the secular society and government, and, in this, failing to retain the Biblical concept of "need" as the basis of all true benevolence; but, despite this, there are always examples of Christian need in every community. It is the plain duty of the more able to supply such needs, and the widespread neglect of the Christian obligation of charity and hospitality must be deplored. Lard went so far as to say: I have never seen it practiced except upon a scale so parsimonious as to render it a virtual nullity. The scanty manner in which the rich disciples of the present day share the wants (and one supposes Lard meant the needs of the poor) of the poor is a sham. From their thousands, they dole out dimes; and from their storehouses full, mete out handfuls. This is no compliance with the precept; and it were better for a Christian that he were without a coat to his name, than, having two, not to give to his brother who has none. Such precepts as the present will, in the day of eternity, prove the fatal reef on which many a saintly bark is stranded. F13 Given to hospitality ... in the Greek is "pursuing hospitality" (margin); and, as Godet thought: We are not to confine ourselves to according it when it is asked, but we should ever seek opportunities of exercising it. F14 Verse 14 Bless them that persecute you; bless, and curse not. In this extended enumeration of Christian obligations, most of what Paul enjoined thus far was to have been expected as the natural duties arising from the close and affectionate relationship existing in God’s family of Christians; but the great and active principle of that great love which is the hallmark of true discipleship goes beyond what we might have expected. This principle begins to emerge in the preceding verse, where the "communicating" to the saints’ necessities is not confined to alleviation of distress before one’s very eyes, but extends to meeting those needs of which he has merely heard; and that principle emerges further in the admonition that hospitality is not merely for our friends and acquaintances, but is for strangers also. Now, in this verse, the principle is extended to encompass doing good to wicked and malevolent enemies of the child of God. Love is thus revealed as the Christian weapon against evil itself, the heavenly device by which evil itself may be overcome by good, that being the great thought with which the chapter concludes. Verse 15 Rejoice with them that rejoice; weep with them that weep. This teaches the community of mankind. The Christian does not exist in a state of isolation and indifference to the fate of others, but, like his holy Master, has compassion, being involved in and moved by the emotions of others, whether of joy or sorrow. Only the wicked or the thoughtless are calloused against the joys and sorrows of humanity; and, if one permits himself to become hardened against concern for fellow mortals, he thereby forfeits the likeness he might have had for him who wept at the grave of Lazarus, had compassion on the multitude, and replenished the wine at the wedding in Cana. Verse 16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Set not your mind on high things, but condescend to things that are lowly. Be not wise in your own conceits. Godet observed that this verse is commonly understood as a reference to good feeling among members of the church, a meaning which he rejected as being contrary to all sound exegesis, saying: The only possible meaning is: "aiming at the same object for one another as for yourselves"; that is to say, having each the same solicitude for the temporal and spiritual well-being of his brethren as for his own. F15 This verse is a prohibition of partiality and respect of persons within communities of Christians. The development within congregations of small coteries of the allegedly elite, the formation of inner circles of preference, the stratification of churches along social, economic, or other lines of demarcation these and all similar separations are evil. Regardless of how naturally and conveniently such divisions (yes, that is what they are) tend to appear, that magnanimous and outreaching love of the true Christian will resist and countermand them. Every member of the body of Christ is a sacred person, every Christian the brother of every other Christian; and God knows no aristocracy in his holy church except that of loving service. Set not your mind on high things ... does not contradict the Scripture which says, Set your mind on the things which are above (Col 3:2). The high things mentioned here are the so-called high things which constitute the difference between the preferred and neglected Christians, things like wealth, privilege, education, social grace, power, office, and position in the world. Not setting the mind on such things means not being influenced by them and not allowing them to be the basis of one’s attitude toward his brothers in Christ. The certainty of this meaning derives from the second clause in which Paul commanded the Christian to associate with the lowly. Instead of being carried away with admiration of the rich and powerful, Paul said, "Be carried away (this the exact meaning in Greek, see margin) with the lowly." This writer is personally indebted to the late philanthropist and devout student of the word of God, Andrew Mizell Burton, Nashville, Tennessee, for a focus upon the meaning of this verse. He often spoke of it as his favorite verse and attributed many of the greatest blessings of his remarkable life to an observance of its teaching. Be not wise in your own conceit ... This admonition was implied in Rom 11:25, being there a reflection of the sternest warnings against this vice earlier in that chapter, and here it is stated imperatively, having its immediate application to that form of conceit which allows petty little human arrangements of a "pecking order" among the sacred fellowship of the redeemed as the basis upon which some associations are cultivated, and others neglected. Verse 17 Render to no man evil for evil. Take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men. Evil for evil ... The child of God may not set himself to "get even" with another, nor retaliate in kind against any who might slight or wrong him. The one who receives the Lord upon the inner throne of his life and yields to the Divine Will will return good for evil, bless them that curse, and do good to them that despitefully use him. Such reaction to evil is the grand strategy of God who will overcome evil with good; and the announcement of that strategy, to be made at the end of the chapter, had been in Paul’s mind throughout the enumeration of the admonitions listed here. This has no reference at all to the duty of a magistrate commissioned under the law to render the required penalty against an evil doer as the just recompense of a crime. Murray stated that Misunderstanding of these admonitions arises from a failure to see that they are concerned with our private, individual, personal relations lo one another and not with magisterial and judicial administration. It is noteworthy that the apostle proceeds immediately after these admonitions to deal with the prerogatives and functions of the magistrate and therefore with the civil, judicial, and penal institution. To the magistrate is given the power of the sword to avenge the evil-doer (Rom 13:4). If he avenges wrongdoing he inflicts the evil of penalty. F16 Take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men ... is a restriction of Christian conduct to exclude anything held to be disreputable, dishonorable, reprehensible, or detestable by human opinion in society as a whole, or as officially expressed through the regulations imposed by government. All illegal activity is forbidden, being here condemned and proscribed, whether or not the law may be based upon absolute truth, the mere fact of a thing’s being illegal under the laws of the state being sufficient disqualification to deny it as permissible for a Christian. Gambling, for example, will never be permissible for any Christian, as long as it is illegal in fifty states. It is not honorable in the sight of all the police establishments in North America. Further, churches which stoop to finance their activities by gambling, even if legally permitted, fall under the judgment of this apostolic ban, because, despite the legal exemption sometimes grafted churches, vast numbers of enlightened people still consider it evil. Things that are tainted in the popular view of society as a whole are not for Christians, regardless of the specious logic which would deny this. Murray is correct in underscoring this verse as an additional principle of Christian behavior, thus: For the first time in this chapter, this type of consideration appears, namely, the need for maintaining a deportment that approves itself to men. The close parallel, "We take thought for things honorable not only in the sight of the Lord but also in the sight of men" (2Co 8:21), points up this consideration. F17 Such a decent respect to the opinions of mankind was frequently noted by Paul, who commended himself to "every conscience of men" (2Co 4:2), and who required that a Christian elder "must have a good report of those who are without" (1Ti 3:7). Verse 18 If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men. This instruction to be at peace with all people is conditioned upon the objective possibility of being so. The subjective impossibility of the Christian’s being unable to restrain himself, or some such thing, is not in view here at all. The impossibility allowed by Paul as a negation of this precept would lie only in the kind of a situation where truth and sacred duty would require resistance. Peace with some people under some circumstances, impossible without the sacrifice of sacred honor and duty, is not here enjoined. An apostle said: The wisdom which is from above is first pure, then peaceable (Jas 3:17). But, while allowing theoretical situations where peace could not honorably be maintained, we should strictly heed the principle of avoiding discord. Christ taught that people should give the cloak also, go the second mile, turn the other cheek, and avoid conflict by any honorable means whatsoever. What a shameful contrast is the conduct of some persons, allegedly Christian, who are ever spoiling for strife, and who, far from avoiding it, actually seek and enjoy all kinds of confrontations that lead to bitterness and contention. Verse 19 Avenge not yourselves, beloved; but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord. The child of God may not collect a blood debt, to borrow the euphemism of the North Vietnamese who murdered 9,000 civilians in one of their Tet offensives. Vengeance is not a Christian prerogative, this being true for a number of reasons, such as: (1) God has forbidden it; (2) it is illegal in any civilized state; and (3) it is contrary to the Christian principle of overcoming evil with good, the latter being the master strategy against evil. The punishment of evil-doers is a prerogative of God and may not be usurped by his children. The quotation here is from Deu 32:35, where the text has, To me belongeth vengeance and recompense; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. Significantly, Paul did not use the exact words of Deuteronomy, but stated the thought in a form found nowhere else in scripture except in Heb 10:30, where the appearance of exactly the same words strongly suggests Pauline authorship of Hebrews. Who but Paul, of all the people of that generation, could have paraphrased a portion of Deuteronomy in exactly the same words? There also seems to be a different meaning from that of Moses, as similarly in other passages of Romans (Rom 10:6-8), thus still further tying the peculiar arrangement of these words to Paul alone. In Deuteronomy, the emphasis is upon the occurrence of some disaster, accident, or calamity to check the evil-doer, with the implication that God’s agency might cause such to occur; but here Paul’s thought pointed to the function of the magistrate and the legal system as the agency through which God will execute vengeance upon wrongdoing, which is exactly the subject Paul was about to take up (Rom 13:1-14). Whiteside especially understood this to be the case. He said: To punish evil-doers is God’s prerogative; let him do the punishing in his own appointed way. Paul’s quoting that statement (Deu 32:35) did not change its meaning nor its application. It does not refer to the vengeance God will take on sinners at the final judgment. Under the law of Moses, God took vengeance upon evil-doers by the agency of chosen authorities. Paul’s quoting that part of the law did not change its application, and the vengeance here mentioned will be taken in the same way. A little later, Paul will show how this is to be done. F18 Whatever is the full meaning of the question of God’s taking vengeance upon wicked men, the use of constituted authorities is surely one way it is accomplished (see under 13:4); but this writer believes that God may, for sufficient reason, bring disaster upon a sinner, as surely implied in the Deuteronomic passage cited. Also, the final judgment is another theater of God’s vengeance upon the wicked. The fact of God’s taking vengeance is here revealed, as in the Old Testament; and at least three manifestations of that vengeance are visible: (1) in the matter of direct providence (the case of Herod in Acts 12:1-25); (2) through legal authorities; and (3) at the final judgment. There are also possibly other ways in which God executes vengeance which lie totally beyond our human knowledge or understanding. The fact that vengeance will truly be taken is a truth to be held in humility and awe. Verse 20 But if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. This is an amazing scripture. The writer once heard of a woman involved in bitter quarrels with her husband. Seeking counsel, she was asked, "Have you tried heaping coals of fire on his head?" She replied, "No, but I tried a skillet of hot grease!" She, like many others, failed to realize that Paul here used a figure of speech, a style of rhetoric often found in the sacred scriptures. As Batey noted: The original meaning of this figure of speech has been lost, but Paul suggests that the enemy will burn with shame for his abuse of one who loves him. F19 Paul, throughout this chapter, has consistently elaborated the strategy of overcoming evil with good, the same being the ancient strategy of the Lord, announced centuries earlier in the book of Proverbs, thus: If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee (Pro 25:21-22 ). Rather than delving into the strange and even bizarre interpretations people have suggested for this passage, it seems that it would be better to accept the explanation offered by Batey, to the effect that the actual meaning of the figure is lost. Whatever might have been the meaning, the motive of providing food and drink for an enemy cannot be that of increasing his punishment, nor of aggravating his guilt, the true purpose, or motive, being the effective discipline of the Christian’s own spirit and likewise the subduing of enmity within the adversary. This alone would fit the strategy announced in the next verse. Verse 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Here appears the real reason for extending kindness to enemies. If the child of God should retaliate in kind for all acts of enmity against himself, he would shortly find himself engaging in all kinds of shameful and wicked conduct. To prevent such an unwholesome development, the servant of the Lord must launch a counter-attack, returning good for evil, and deploying good actions against the evil actions of the enemy. Here in Rom 12:21 is the grand strategy of God with regard to human evil. The natural man finds himself living and operating in a world where one rotten apple can make a barrel of good apples rotten; but the spiritual man, having the mind of the Spirit, proceeds upon the premise that one good apple might make a barrel of rotten apples sound! The divine nature of this priceless precept has elicited the most extravagant praise, as well it should. Macknight wrote: Blackwell, after praising the language in which this precept is delivered, adds, "This is a noble strain of Christian courage, prudence, and goodness, that nothing in Epicitus, Plutarch, or Antonine can vie with. The moralists and heroes of paganism could not write and act to the height of this." F20 Greathouse has this: Dodd considers the last sentence of this chapter "an admirable summary of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount, about what is called non-resistance"; and it expresses, he thinks, "the most creative element in Christian ethics." F21 Thus, in view of the foregoing consideration, the spiritual instinct of the humble Christian, as represented by such congregations as the one mentioned at the head of this chapter, is demonstrated to be correct by focusing upon this magnificent chapter of practical Christian living. Footnotes forRomans 12 1 : Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), p. 204. 2: Richard A. Batey, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Company, 1969), p. 151. 3: Kenneth Wuest, op. cit., p. 205. 4: Richard A. Batey, loc. cit. 5: W. Sanday, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 251. 6: Kenneth Wuest, op. cit., p. 206. 7: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 395. 8: Ibid., p. 396. 9: J. W. McGarvey and Phillip Y. Pendleton, The Standard Bible Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 498. 10: David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1969), p. 226. 11: R. C. Bell, Studies in Romans (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1957), p. 138. 12: Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 341. 13: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 391. 14: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 436. 15: Ibid., p. 437. 16: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), Vol. II, p. 137. 17: Ibid., p. 138. 18: R. L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to Saints in Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 256. 19: Richard A. Batey, op. cit., p. 157. 20: James Macknight, Apostolic Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 121. 21: William M. Greathouse, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 248. 22: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 703. 23: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 362. 24: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 218. 25: Richard Trench, Notes on the Parables (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 164. 26: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 241. 27: Moses E. Lard, op, cit., p. 370. 28: J. W. McGarvey and Phillip Y. Pendleton, The Standard Bible Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 473. 29: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston: 1832), p. 359. 30: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 273. 31: John Murray, op. cit., p. 302. 32: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 272. 33: The Emphatic Greek Diaglott, p. 531. 34: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 270. 35: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston, Mass., 1832), p. 331. 36: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 37: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 98. 38: Ibid. 39: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. : F. Godet, op. cit., p. 315. 41: James Macknight, op. cit., p. 98. 42: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. 43: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 44: Ibid. 45: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 237. 46: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 277. 47: John Locke, op. cit., p. 333. 48: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 321. 49: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 50: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 77. 51: Sir Francis Bacon, in Bartlett’s Quotations, p. 109. 52: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 280. 53: Ibid. 54: Ibid., p. 281. 55: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 325. 56: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 57: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 323. 58: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 238. 59: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 285. 60: John Locke, op. cit., p. 335. 61: Ibid. 62: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 193. 63: H. C. G. Moule, op. cit., pp. 242-243. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 5: 13 ROMANS CHAPTER THIRTEEN ======================================================================== Rom 13:1-14 Verse 1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. The state itself, no less than God’s church, is a divine institution, existing by God’s permission and authority, and absolutely necessary for the continuity of the race of people upon the earth; and it is the unqualified duty of the Christian to submit to it, except in whose situations where doing so would break the commandments of God. This cannot mean that the shameful deeds, of evil rulers are ever in any manner approved of God. It is not any particular implementation of the state’s authority which is "ordained of God," but the existence of such an authority. Without such constituted authority, the whole world would sink in me chaos and ruin. Unbridled human nature is a savage beast that lies restless, and uneasy under the restraint imposed by the state, being ever ready, at the slightest opportunity, to break its chains and ravage the world with blood and terror. Civilization itself is but the ice formed in process of ages over the turbulent stream of unbridled human passions. To our ancestors, that ice seemed secure and permanent; but, during the agony of the great war, it has rotted and cracked; and in places the submerged torrent has broken through, casting great fragments of our civilization into collision with one another, and threatening by their attrition to break up and disappear altogether. F1 Thus, Stanley Baldwin described the disastrous effects which always accompany the dissolution of states and the breakdown of authority. Paul’s revelation that the state is "ordained of God" and an effective instrument of the holy will is not a new doctrine invented by him to ease the Christian community through a difficult political period, but it is essential element of Jesus’ teachings. In this connection, a little further attention to Christ’s teachings in this sector is helpful. CHRIST AND THE STATE Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). His kingdom lies, for the most part, within a sector totally removed and separated from the secular state, that institution being also "ordained of God" but charged with a different function, that of preserving order upon earth. Christ himself honored God’s ordained institution, the state, ordered the payment of taxes to Caesar (Mat 22:21), declared that the authority of the procurator, Pontius Pilate, was given to him "from above" (John 19:11), prophetically identified the armies of Vespasian and Titus as those of God himself sent for the purpose of destroying those evil men and burning their city, the city of Jerusalem (Mat 22:7), submitted to arrest, even illegal and unjust arrest (Mat 26:47-56), refused to allow Peter to defend with the sword against such an outrage, and meekly accepted the death penalty itself, which the state unjustly exacted, and which Christ had ample means of avoiding (Mat 26:53), but did not. Christ never led a riot, organized an underground, criticized the government, or took the part of the Jews against Rome. He did not offer himself as an advocate against society on behalf of any so-called victim of social injustice; and, once, he even refused to aid a man who claimed that he had been robbed of his inheritance (Luk 12:13). Jesus Christ was not a revolutionary in any sense of that word today. Although it is true that his holy teachings had the profoundest influence upon the course of history, it was always as leaven and not as dynamite that his influence worked. Some of Jesus’ parables had as their significant and active premises the institutions of civil government, as exemplified by the "king" who stood for God (Mat 22:2), the legal contract of the householder who let out his vineyard, and even the "unrighteous judge" who granted the plea of the importunate widow, his unrighteousness in no way preventing his appearance in the parable as analogous with God! Had the state and its institutions been otherwise than "ordained of God," it is unthinkable that Christ would have borrowed such illustrations and made them analogies for the conveyance of eternal truth. Christ’s usage of such terms as the officer, the judge, and the prison, in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:25) also fits this conclusion. All of the apostles understood and reiterated’ Jesus’ teaching in this field. Both Paul (here) and Peter (1Pe 2:13-17) emphatically underscored this teaching. Not merely those laws of the state conceived of as "just laws" are to be obeyed; but, as Peter said, "every ordinance of man" was to be obeyed. In the New Testament, there was never any hint of Christians organizing any kind of campaign to change or nullify laws. That some laws were unjust was clear to all; but Paul sent a runaway slave back to his Christian master (Phm 1:17), and provided specific instructions to both masters and slaves in his epistles to Ephesus and Colosse. There is no suggestion here that the evil laws of Rome may be justified, nor the evil laws of any other state; but, in the light of Christian acceptance of such laws under the direct guidance of Christ and the apostles, the conclusion is demanded that the constituted government must be viewed as "ordained of God" and entitled to Christian obedience. Over and above all this, there stands the commandment of the apostles that the public prayers of Christians should constantly be directed to God upon the behalf of the state and its lawful representatives, on behalf of "kings and all that are in high place" (1Ti 2:1-2), to the intent that Christians might be permitted to "lead a tranquil life in all godliness and gravity," thus, by implication, making the provision of such privilege for Christians being the state’s intended function. To those persons, present in every age, who reject the meek and submissive attitude of Christ regarding earthly governments, and prefer instead the belligerent posture of the aggressive revolutionary, it should be pointed out that this is not a new attitude but an old and discredited one. It existed contemporaneously with Christ and the apostles. The Jewish people preferred Barabbas the seditionist to the gentle Jesus; but it must be added that when they finally got the revolution they wanted, it terminated in a situation far worse than what existed previously. The tragic results of taking the route of Barabbas, instead of the way of Christ, may serve as a classical example of the superiority of Jesus’ way. In our own beloved America today, those people who are flirting with revolutionary schemes, if they should ever have their way, shall certainly overwhelm themselves and their posterity with sorrows, and far from attaining any worthy goals, will reap a gory harvest of tragedy and disappointment. Then, may it never be overlooked that the established order in the civilized world, in spite of its deficiency, despite the inequalities and injustices, despite its halting and stumbling, is still far better than anarchy; and that, even if some complete overthrow of established institutions should occur, the new order, judged in the light of what history invariably discloses, would be no better than the old and would probably be much worse, especially when contrasted with the magnificent and benevolent policies already existing in our own beloved United States. To that affluent host of Christians in present-day America, let it be thundered that they must not now allow the submerged torrent of blood, lust, and anarchy to break through. This may be prevented by their love, support, honor, and prayers for the present government, and by the necessity of their voting in a manner consistent with their prayers, to the end that the government may be able to survive the assaults being made upon it by forces of evil; and may their diligence in this be stimulated by the thought that if a breakthrough against the government succeeds, none will survive it, least of all, those who sought the tranquil life as God directed. Present-day Christians are the privileged heirs of the greatest earthly inheritance ever known in the history of the world, a fact that angers Satan. Don’t throw it away, or allow some revolutionary to rape you intellectually and rob you of it. And if, through indifference or tacit support, you should ever contribute to the overthrow of present institutions, and if you should live for a single day without the legacy you now hold in your hands, an ocean of tears could not ease your heartbreak or give you another inheritance like the one in which you now stand secure. Keep it! We currently pass through an era that glorifies the extremist; the seductive voices of the far left are calling; stop your ears and bind yourselves to the mast, like the sailors of Ulysses. Death and destruction shall reward you if you turn your back upon the teachings of the Saviour and cast in your destiny with the seditionists. The Marxists, revolutionaries, Rousseauists, and screaming agitators are not the friends of the people but enemies. To trust them is to have your throats cut and to lose your souls also. Take up the whole armour of God that ye may be able to stand against all the fiery darts of the evil one, and having done all, STAND (Eph 6:13f). Reject every form of extremism, and heed the apostolic injunction to "Let your moderation be known unto all men" (Php 4:5). Implications of the Christian attitude toward the state are far-reaching and include the deduction that Christians may serve in military or political capacity, vote, and engage freely in the participation allowed and encouraged by the state itself, the only restriction being that conscience, being under God above all, should not be defiled. It is a comment upon the extreme worthiness of our own government, as compared to other worldly states, that many Christians do share in the management of its institutions and hold offices of public trust, the nation being far better off for the presence of such citizens within the structure of its political and civil institutions. Verse 2 Therefore, he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. Not merely sedition and violent opposition to human government are proscribed for the child of God, but "resistance" which is inclusive of all forms of opposition and disobedience. Jesus Christ our Lord never disobeyed any law, nor did he ever advocate civil disobedience, or any other kind of disobedience. As he said, "I came not to destroy but to fulfill" (Mat 5:17). This verse teaches that breaking the laws of human governments is equivalent to breaking God’s laws, because such laws are also of God’s will and authority. The "judgment" in this place refers primarily to the legal punishment of violators of the state’s laws; but the displeasure of God regarding such violations implies that there will also be an eternal accounting to God for such sins. As Moule said, This is founded on the idea of law and order, which means by its nature the restraint of public mischief and the promotion of, at least the protection of, the public good. "Authority," even under its worst distortions, still so far keeps that aim that no human civic power punished good as good, or rewards evil as evil; and thus, for the common run of lives, the worst settled authority is infinitely better than real anarchy. F2 Verse 3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same. It is a comment upon the effectiveness and success of the state as God’s ordained institution that such a statement as this stands as truth. Aberrations may be catalogued and failures noted; but, in the principal part, and in the overwhelming number of examples afforded by history, Paul’s language here must stand as unchallenged truth. There has hardly been a state in history where the private exercise of Christian faith has been the object of governmental hatred and punishment. The glaring exception to this is in the ruthless Marxist governments which have appeared in the present century; and, should that type of government gain ascendancy in areas populated by Christians, there could well be another age of martyrs like that which descended upon the first century, shortly after these noble words were penned. The truth of Paul’s words here is not contravened, either by the persecutions of the first century or the threat of persecutions now. Verse 4 For he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger of wrath to him that doeth evil. The word rendered "he" in this verse could be translated "it"; but the translators are correct in making it personal, for only a person could be spoken of as bearing the sword. The person in view, therefore, is the policeman, the legally constituted arm of human government, making the law-enforcement men of cities, states, and nations to be every whir as much "ordained of God" as any minister of the gospel. A gutless namby-pambyism has come to characterize far too many Christians of this age, who naively and stupidly suppose that police departments are dispensable, that love can just take everything, and that our own enlightened (?) age does not need the old fashioned relics of barbarism, such as policemen and jails. Let all hear it from the word of God, if they are so blind as to be unable to read it in history, that the policeman also is God’s man, and that without him there is nothing. The writer once invited two New York policemen into his living room, gave them a cup of coffee, and read this chapter to them, with the same exposition as here. Their astonishment and gratitude were nearly incredible. One of them reached for the New Testament to read it himself and said, "I do wish that everyone knew this." The other spoke up and said, "Well, it would help a lot if all the clergymen in our city knew it!" We say the same. Much of the vilification, harassment, and warring against policemen in the current era has blinded some good people to the absolute indispensability of governmental authority, including an effective police establishment. Capital punishment is clearly allowed to be a legitimate prerogative of human government, by Paul’s statements here. Those states which have yielded to the naive "do-gooder-ism" of the present era by abolishing the capital penalty will eventually pay the price of their foolishness. Present-day lawgivers are not wiser than God who laid down such penalties and enforced them in the Old Testament dispensation. True, the Decalogue says, "Thou shalt not kill" (Exo 20:13); but the same God who said that also said, "Thou shalt surely kill him" (Num 15:35). These commandments do not nullify each other, because they speak of different things. Moffatt’s translation made the difference clear, thus: Thou shalt do no murder (Exo 20:13). The man must certainly be put to death (Num 15:35). Moffatt took account of the essential difference in two Hebrew words, [ratsach] and [harag], the latter meaning "put to death," the other meaning "murder." Murder is, of course, forbidden; but the imposition of the death penalty by government is not forbidden. Humanity will never find a way to eliminate such a penalty completely, because it is the threat of death alone which enables policemen to apprehend and capture perpetrators of crime. Taking the gun out of the policeman’s hands is the surest way to make all people victims of the lawless. Verse 5 Whereofore ye must needs be in subjection, not merely because of the wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. There are twin reasons for the Christian’s observance of society’s laws: first, as a matter of conscience, it is a sin for him to break the law; and second, in order that he might not incur the legal penalty of lawbreaking. The preeminent consideration is that of pleasing God, as Peter expressed it, "Obey every ordinance of man, for the Lord’s sake" (1Pe 2:13). Verse 6 For this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God’s service, attending continually upon this very thing. Thus, all that was said of policemen in Rom 13:1-5 is likewise applied here to all civil servants and officers of the secular state. Being part of the institution "ordained of God," which is the state, they partake of the dignity and authority pertaining to it, and are entitled to obedience, respect, courtesy, honor, and the cooperation of all Christians, who, in the discharge of such obligations, are doing so "as unto the Lord," and not "as unto men," for such is the commandment of the scriptures. Verse 7 Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due: custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Had there been any doubt, up to here, that the total establishment of human government is to be honored, respected, and obeyed by Christians, upon pain of God’s displeasure if they fail, it would have been effectively removed by this blanket inclusion of "all." Peter’s words, already referred to, are: Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether to the king as supreme; or unto governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to them that do well. For so is the will of God, that by well-doing ye should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God, Honor the king (1Pe 2:13-17). Before leaving this section of Romans which details the relationship of the Christian to his government, one other consideration needs emphasis. Such is the attractiveness to the masses of mankind of the idea of overthrowing governments which they consider unjust or oppressive, that even Christian ministers sometimes make a distinction between obeying "good" governments and "bad" governments, actually suggesting in their specious logic that it is all right for conscientious and well-intentioned activists to go forth and pull down the government if they think it is bad. No. A Christian is prohibited from any such role, nor may he even "resist" (Rom 13:2), a conclusion that is based not alone on what Paul wrote here, but also upon the fact that no Christian of the apostolic age ever did anything remotely akin to pulling down a government. The great apostle Paul was proud of his Roman citizenship, invoked its protection, and refused to pay a bribe to Felix, despite the fact that a bribe was solicited and would have procured his release from prison. As just noted, Paul commanded Christians to obey civil laws, honor policemen as ministers of God, pray for the establishment, and insisted that the total arm of human government be respected, honored, and obeyed. Paul spent many years in prison, being hailed before many judges; but there is no record that he was ever required to be bound and gagged to preserve order in the courtroom. No Christian, much less an apostle, ever organized an underground for runaway slaves, edited a radical newspaper, bombed the baths of the emperor, scrawled obscene slogans on the walls of the palace (even though it was Nero’s palace), nor disturbed the public peace. Was it because they did not care for injustices under such evil rulers as Nero? No, indeed. None ever cared as much as they; but, inspired men of God, they KNEW that extremist methods would have done no good, but would have, on the other hand, done much harm in the multiplication of human misery and sorrow. Thus, the conclusion must be allowed, that if one considers the vice, wickedness, and terror of that age, the consummate wickedness of human government under the control of men like Nero, Caligula, etc., coupled with the government’s support of such institutions as human slavery, witchcraft, and prostitution - that if one considers all this, along with the Christian community’s total refusal to engage in any actions of opposition or subversion against such a government, and if it be further understood that the Christian’s refusal to obstruct or oppose such a regime was due to reasons of doctrine and conscience, honoring the commandments of Jesus and the apostles - then the conclusion is inevitable and must be received as binding that it is a sin for a Christian to engage in the projected overthrow of an earthly government, despite any faults or injustices that might either correctly or falsely be ascribed to the state they would overthrow. The problem of military service and participation as a soldier in any kind of a war is also related to the questions in focus here; and those desiring to know further scriptural teaching in that sector are referred to "The Ten Commandments, Yesterday and Today," chapter 8. Verse 8 Owe no man anything, save to love one another: for he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law. Greathouse understood the first clause here as the negative statement of the first clause in Rom 13:7, thus referring it to the obligations of custom, tribute, honor, etc. He said: This means, do not continue in a state of owing any of the obligations referred to in Rom 13:7, but fulfill them and discharge them. There is only one debt of which you can never get rid - the debt of love. F3 The discharge of all debts and the keeping of all commandments is summed up in the one word of a man’s loving others as he loves himself. This applies to all commandments of a social or man-ward nature. There are other commands which spring out of the love of God, this dual direction of human obligation being demonstrated in the fact of there having been two tables of the Decalogue. Paul made this nice distinction by quoting only man-ward obligations in his next statement. Verses 9, 10 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is summed up in this word, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: love therefore is the fulfillment of the law. As noted above, Paul here adhered to the pattern of Jesus’ summation of all the Decalogue under the two headings of love to God, and love to people (Mat 22:34-40Mark 12:29-31), the latter division being the one considered here. The Christian life is realized, not by an item tabulation of commandments kept or broken, but by a conscious filling of the heart with love toward others, a fulfillment being made possible only by the sacred enthronement within, of the Holy Spirit. That Paul consciously followed the teachings of the Master throughout is observable in several particulars, as noted by Lenski: Already in connection with Rom 13:1-7, we noted that Paul is repeating the very teachings of Jesus with regard to government and taxation; he certainly repeats the Master’s instructions here, ... has the same order of the commandments as that found in Mark 10:19; Luk 18:20, where the sixth commandment is named before the fifth. F4 This passage does not teach that if one loves his neighbor he has license to break any of the commandments, but that truly loving one’s neighbor will positively restrain from any sinful action against one’s neighbor. This is profoundly true and means that the first and uppermost concern of God is that human hearts should indeed overflow with love to mankind, such love making it impossible that specific evil deeds in the social spectrum could be committed. Verse 11 And this, knowing the season, that already it is time for you to wake out of sleep: for now is salvation nearer to us than when we first believed. This is eternally true of them that sleep from either lethargy or sin, and it is positively not required in understanding this verse to believe that Paul thought the second advent of Christ was to be expected any day. True, he said the day is at hand in the next verse; and from this, the commentators have jumped to the conclusion that all the Christians of that era believed the end of the ages was upon them. Christ so mingled his prophecies of his final coming and of the coming destruction upon Jerusalem (Mat 24:1-51) that it was nearly impossible to avoid thinking that the two events would occur simultaneously, instead of being separated by many centuries. "The day" in the sense of Christ’s coming in judgment upon Jerusalem was indeed "at hand," and only a little over a decade removed from the time when Paul wrote this letter. Paul used the words exactly as Jesus used them; and there is a tremendous weight of material in Paul’s writings that shows he did not fall into the common error of confusing the two events as to their simultaneous occurrence. He knew, for example, that his own death would precede the final judgment (2Ti 4:6), that a space of time sufficient to allow the revelation of the man of sin would intervene before it (2Th 2:3ff), and that the fullness of the Gentiles would come in first (Rom 11:25), all of which knowledge on Paul’s part made it impossible for him to have considered the judgment day as being just around the corner. His reference to Christ’s coming, and such expression as "the day is at hand," applied to the impending destruction of Jerusalem and the judicial coming of Christ in that epic event. There is no ground for supposing that Paul was ignorant to the point of confusing the judicial coming with the final coming. CONCERNING SLEEP Paul’s mention here of a spiritual condition called "sleep," and his call for people to awaken out of it, provide strong emphasis upon the dangers of such stupor. The person who sleeps is in a state of insensibility, not knowing anything that is going on. A fire may sweep through the city, a revolution rage in the streets, or a tornado bear down upon him, but he knows it not. An assassin may slay him, a thief despoil him, or any unexpected peril overcome him; and, regardless of what might occur, he is vulnerable, asleep, in danger. It is also a state of inactivity. The sleeper is doing nothing, all activity being suspended. Further, it is a state of illusion, the dreamer and the sleeper being identical as to their state. Many a spiritual sleeper has delusions of grandeur and glory which pertain not at all to him. Many a soul has been lost while its possessor slept. Illustration: On the night of September 2, 1757, when the soldiers of the Marquis de Montcalm, commandant of the French army of Quebec, retired to their tents, they slept the sleep of insecurity. Only a few sentries were left to guard the heights overlooking the mighty St. Lawrence river; but, while they slept, the soldiers of General Wolfe scaled the heights of the river and defeated the French the next morning on the plains of Abraham. The Dominion of North America changed hands while people slept! A thousand examples from history could be brought forward to show what a disastrous thing sleep may be. Some sleep the sleep of Jonah, an unrealistic sleep. He went aboard a ship putting out to sea, descended into the hold of the vessel and went to sleep. Not even the mighty storm which descended upon them aroused him. What a perfect picture is that of a man who will not face reality! Many a sinner is sleeping the sleep of Jonah. Sin is a roaring tornado all around. It reaches out to destroy; it tosses to and fro; but people give no heed. They are asleep (Rom 13:11; Eph 5:14). Some sleep the sleep of the weary, as did the disciples Peter, James and John in the Garden of Gethsemane. They were tired. That tremendous week in Jerusalem had been enough nearly to overwhelm them. The tired fishermen of Galilee were not accustomed to being stretched out in such an endurance contest as that which marked the Lord’s final week in Jerusalem. They simply could not stand the strain and went to sleep. The spiritual counterpart of this is seen everywhere. People tire of the ceaseless struggle, become worn out with the dull routine, and, numbed by the deadly monotony, they fall asleep; but, while they nod Judas is making a deal with the high priest; and, in a little while, the soldiers will appear to lead the Lord away. Of such, one can hear the Master say, "What, could ye not watch with me one hour?" Some sleep the sleep of presumption, like Samson upon the knees of Delilah. There was a man who knew all the dangers, but slept anyway. He could always rise to the occasion. He could always go out and "shake himself as at other times," so he thought and was therefore contemptuous of the danger. Many today sleep like that. They know the folly and peril of the neglect of prayer, study, and worship; they know how deadly is the sting of sin; but they sleep. "I know! I know the truth!" they cry, but they sleep anyway; and, while they sleep, there comes inevitably the hour when it is too late, and for them, as for Samson, they are led away to the blinding irons and the mill and the work of an ass until life is ended. Why will not people wake up! Some sleep the sleep of the sluggard (Pro 24:30-34 ). These are they who are going to be saved tomorrow, who plan to stir themselves in a convenient season, who fully intend to obey the Lord, but not now. Some sleep the sleep of Eutychus, the sleep of the injured. Eutychus fell out the third-story window during one of Paul’s sermons and was taken up for dead; but Paul said, "His life is in him." Thus, it might be concluded that he was merely unconscious due to the fall. It is of that kind of sleep that we speak. Spiritually, some have sustained near-fatal injuries and continue in a state of sleep. Gross sin, terrible disappointment, the traumatic experience of church division or some other catastrophe has left them insensible through spiritual sleep, and they must be aroused or perish. Some sleep the sleep of the foolish, the negligent, or the careless. Jesus’ parable of the tares sown in the wheat emphasized that such a disaster took place "while men slept" (Mat 13:24-25). Someone just went to sleep when he should have been on guard. Many sleep like that. Parents sleep while the devil is seducing their children. Elders sleep while error is advocated in the church. Some young people sleep, thinking that they have many years in which to make their peace with God; but, while they sleep, they are taken away. Still others sleep the sleep of spiritual death, as did certain Christians in Corinth. "Some sleep ..." (1Co 11:30). This, of course, is a euphemism for death, the sleep from which one does not awaken until the sound of the trumpet and the gathering of the hosts for judgment. Some are already so far gone into such a fatal sleep that they cannot hear the cries of loved ones, nor the message of the gospel, nor the roar of the waves of Jordan. The sleep of those Christians had been induced by their neglect of the Lord’s Supper and public worship, which shows how easily people may slip into such a deadly sleep. May all the sleepers be aroused by the call of the apostle’s words here. They ever stand, electric, upon the sacred page: Awake, thou that sleepest. Arise from the dead and Christ shall shine upon thee (Eph 5:14). Nearer than when we first believed ... is far from being a statement that it was, even at that time, "near" in the sense of soon. This is invariably true of all, that salvation is nearer than when we first believed. Every man’s salvation is nearer as life unfolds; and, for every man, it is sealed and assured, when his faithfulness has been manifested even unto the end. Writing to Timothy, in the last of his apostolic messages, Paul said, I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day; and not to me only, but to all them that have loved his appearing (2Ti 4:7-8). Significantly, even in that last statement, Paul did not indicate that he expected the immediate second coming of Christ. "That day ..." as discreetly used here, leaves the time element of when it will occur absolutely out of sight. Verse 12 The night is far sent, and the day is at hand: let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Paul’s imagery here still refers to sleepers waiting too long to rouse out of slumber. They were such as had slept long past the normal time of awakening. It was not merely dawn, but daylight had fully burst upon them. This metaphor applied with specific force to the lifting of the long night of pagan darkness which had wrapped the world in Woe. Paul was saying that darkness was lifted a generation ago; the glorious daylight of the gospel is already shining. There are Christians, of all places, in Rome itself! The old sins and debaucheries of the pagan darkness must be cast off. The armor of light was available for all who would receive and wear it. That such was actually Paul’s meaning here is evident from a comparison with Eph 5:14, quoted under Rom 13:11, above, where "Christ will shine upon you," does not mean at the judgment, but right now! Thus, "day" in this passage, having reference to the same time, means "at the present time, in the gospel age." The armour of light ... is one of Paul’s favorite metaphors for the gospel of Jesus Christ, which he called the "whole armour" in Eph 6:13-17). In that exceptional passage, Paul made the "whole armour" to be the truth, or the gospel of salvation. Even in the piece-by-piece consideration of the armor, their intimate connection with and identity with the word of God is evident. Verse 13 Let us walk becomingly, as in the day; not in revelling and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and jealousy. Becomingly, as in the day ... suggests the beauty and adornment of Christian behavior, which is of a kind not to be ashamed of in broad open daylight, contrasting sharply with the Gentile debaucheries usually committed at night, and therefore called the works of darkness. Deeds that are becoming to Christians are those of virtue, integrity, faithfulness, purity, and love. It was becoming of Christ to fulfill all righteousness (Mat 3:15). Even the discussion of gross sins was forbidden to Christians upon the ground that such guarding of the conversation "becometh saints" (Eph 5:3). A further glimpse of the meaning of "becometh" is seen in the word chosen to replace it in the various translations. "Worthy of" (Php 1:27) and "befitting" (Tit 2:1) are two examples. Revelling and drunkenness ... refers to riotous and boisterous conduct, such as undisciplined behavior that follows indulgence in alcoholic beverages. Anyone familiar with this type of behavior will testify to its obscene, profane, and repulsive nature. Chambering and wantonness ... as retained in the English Revised Version from the KJV, mean "debauchery and licentiousness" (RSV), or "debauchery and vice" (New English Bible). Strife and jealousy ... refer to the animosities of men inflamed with liquor, sated with vice, and living the lives of debauchees. To say that such conduct does not become Christians must have been intended by the apostle as a meiosis, an understatement for the sake of emphasis. Verse 14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof. Paul had already mentioned (Rom 13:12) the new investiture of the Christian, calling it the armor of light; and here is a return to the same figure, only here it is Christ himself who is to be put on by the Christian. Barmby observed that Christians are said to have already put on Christ in their baptism; here they are exhorted still to do so. There is no real contradiction; they are but exhorted to realize in actual life the meaning of their baptism. F5 Provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof ... refers to the investment of time, preparation and money in such a manner as to allow or facilitate the gratification of fleshly lusts. When one thinks of the countless pleasure palaces, and other hideaways bought and provided for no other purpose than that of facilitating the fulfillment of fleshly lusts, the apostle’s wisdom in forbidding such investments to Christians is evident. Footnotes forRomans 13 1 : Sir Stanley Baldwin, Address: Truth and Politics, delivered at Edinburgh University, November 6, 1925. Modern Essays of Various Types (New York: Charles E. Merrill Company, 1927), p. 213. 2: H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Pickering and Inglis), p. 254. 3: William M. Greathouse, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1969), p. 253. 4: R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 799. 5: J. Barmby, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), Vol. 18 (ii), p. 392. 6: Kenneth Wuest, op. cit., p. 206. 7: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 395. 8: Ibid., p. 396. 9: J. W. McGarvey and Phillip Y. Pendleton, The Standard Bible Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 498. 10: David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1969), p. 226. 11: R. C. Bell, Studies in Romans (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1957), p. 138. 12: Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 341. 13: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 391. 14: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 436. 15: Ibid., p. 437. 16: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), Vol. II, p. 137. 17: Ibid., p. 138. 18: R. L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to Saints in Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 256. 19: Richard A. Batey, op. cit., p. 157. 20: James Macknight, Apostolic Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 121. 21: William M. Greathouse, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 248. 22: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 703. 23: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 362. 24: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 218. 25: Richard Trench, Notes on the Parables (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 164. 26: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 241. 27: Moses E. Lard, op, cit., p. 370. 28: J. W. McGarvey and Phillip Y. Pendleton, The Standard Bible Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 473. 29: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston: 1832), p. 359. 30: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 273. 31: John Murray, op. cit., p. 302. 32: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 272. 33: The Emphatic Greek Diaglott, p. 531. 34: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 270. 35: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston, Mass., 1832), p. 331. 36: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 37: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 98. 38: Ibid. 39: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. : F. Godet, op. cit., p. 315. 41: James Macknight, op. cit., p. 98. 42: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. 43: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 44: Ibid. 45: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 237. 46: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 277. 47: John Locke, op. cit., p. 333. 48: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 321. 49: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 50: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 77. 51: Sir Francis Bacon, in Bartlett’s Quotations, p. 109. 52: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 280. 53: Ibid. 54: Ibid., p. 281. 55: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 325. 56: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 57: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 323. 58: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 238. 59: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 285. 60: John Locke, op. cit., p. 335. 61: Ibid. 62: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 193. 63: H. C. G. Moule, op. cit., pp. 242-243. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 6: 14 ROMANS CHAPTER FOURTEEN ======================================================================== Rom 14:1-23 Verse 1 But him that is weak in faith receive ye, yet not for the decision of scruples. The sacred fellowship of Christians must not be broken over differences of opinion regarding things indifferent or secondary. Christ has received all Christians, and the least they can do is to receive each other. How utterly unlike Christ is the bitter and vindictive rejection of a brother in Christ over things involving his weak conscience! Paul’s teaching here clearly demands the conclusion that a Christian can be wrong about some things, and yet entitled to full fellowship. The weak brethren in view here were plainly wrong about their vegetarianism, but were to be retained in fellowship despite this. Of course, error in regard to vital truth is not the theme Paul had under consideration here. Yet not for the decision of scruples ... is translated in several ways; and perhaps the Holy Spirit chose words with a broad range of meaning in order to include a number of ideas. Without trying to decide which is the correct meaning, that seeming to be an insoluble problem, one might assume that several shades of meaning are intended. The weak brother should be received, but in such a way as not to make his petty scruples the rule of the congregation, and not for the purpose of disputing with him concerning those scruples ("not for doubtful disputations" as some translate), and not for the purpose of subjecting the weak brother to any pressure with regard to changing his scruples. He should be accepted, and loved, scruples and all! Verse 2 One man hath faith to eat all things: but he that is weak eateth herbs. Thus, it is plainly a vegetarian scruple that Paul was dealing with; and there is no evidence, as some fancy, that they had become so merely by the efforts to avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols; because, in many private situations, no such problem would have been involved. It goes without question that they were wrong in making such a dietary thing into a religious matter; but they had evidently done so. Paul taught that "every creature of God is" good for food (1Ti 4:1-5), and Jesus himself had made "all meats clean" (Mark 7:19). The nature of the weakness of those brethren is thus inherent in the fact that, either through ignorance or prejudice, they had not received the teaching of Christ and his apostles on the matters in question. This was a serious weakness; but, in fairness, it must be noted that the apostles themselves had difficulty receiving the full light on this question. Peter, for example, long after Pentecost, still insisted that he had never eaten "anything common or unclean," indicating that be still kept to the scruples of Judaism (Acts 10:14). It has always been an easy error for people to fall into the notion that they might attain heaven on the basis of a certain kind of diet. Verse 3 Let not him that eateth set at naught him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. What a natural thing it was for the Christian of strong faith to set a low value upon a brother with all those silly scruples! How easy it was for the scrupulous to judge others as "liberal" and condemn them for not accepting the more strict behavior! With some Christians thus tempted to set at naught some of their brethren, and others tempted to judge their brethren, the holy fellowship was in danger of being ruptured; and Paul moved to prevent yielding to either temptation upon the consideration that God had received both classes. There is a further echo in this chapter of the Jewish-Gentile relationship, since the Christians of Jewish background were far more likely to be among the scrupulous than were those of Gentile training. Thus, in all probability, their differences were reinforced by racial thoughts and might easily have resulted in division if Paul’s instruction had not been provided. From this, the nature of those questions which must be considered insufficient grounds for breaking the fellowship is indicated. Any question arising from the scruples people observe in their private lives, and not resulting in the violation of Christ’s commandments, is by such definition secondary and of minor importance. Verse 4 Who art thou that judgest the servant of another? to his own lord he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be made to stand; for the Lord hath power to make him stand. The presumption of one Christian judging another overlooks the fact that God judges all, a prerogative categorically withheld from mortal, fallible men, and wisely so. No man is capable of accurate judgment, in things pertaining either to himself or to his fellow Christians; and nothing is quite so detrimental to Christian fellowship as a censorious and condemnatory attitude displayed within the family of the redeemed. Judging the conduct of other Christians is a subject of such universal concern within the church that the collateral scriptures applicable to this question should be remembered here. ON JUDGING OTHERS Jesus said, "Judge not that ye be not judged" (Mat 7:1); and, while upon earth, not even the blessed Son of God himself judged people, saying, "I came not to judge the world but to save the world" (John 12:47). This is not a prohibition of discerning other people’s actions, but of presuming to utter a condemnation, break the fellowship, or disturb the unity of the church. Any Christian might lawfully make a private, personal, and tentative evaluation of another person’s conduct; but he is forbidden to pass judgment, in the sense of stating an opinion, announcing a conclusion, or otherwise making such an appraisal known to others. The trouble with judging is that it breeds a reciprocal adverse judgment from them that are judged, thus multiplying and proliferating all kinds of bitterness, recriminations, and vindictive hatreds. James declared that: He that speaketh against a brother, or judgeth his brother, speaketh against the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judgest the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. Only one is the lawgiver and judge, even he who is able to save and to destroy: but who art thou that judgest thy neighbor? (Jas 4:11-12). Judging fellow Christians tends to freeze them in the line of conduct judged; whereas, by the exercise of patience and forbearance, their undesirable conduct might, in time, become relaxed and changed, due to growth and development. Thus, all judging is premature, as indicated by Paul’s command, "Judge nothing before the time" (1Co 4:5). In the warmth and fellowship of Christian service, many Christians find the grace to grow and develop strength; and it should be remembered that every Christian begins as a babe in Christ. The admonition against judging is not unconditional, the exception having been noted by Hodge, thus: One Christian has no right to judge another, except where Christ has expressly authorized it, and given him the rule of judgment. F3 Whiteside also cautioned in regard to this, thus: This injunction against judging must be confined to such matters as Paul was discussing. How could anyone beware of false prophets, unless we first judge them to be false prophets? (Mat 7:15). And we must judge a man to be an evil worker, or we could not obey the command to "beware of evil workers" (Php 3:2). Neither could we obey Paul’s injunction (Rom 16:17-18) without judging which men belong to the class he mentions. F4 Despite the sad necessity, however, of observing certain exceptions, the master strategy for dealing with weak brethren is that of containing the situation in love and forbearance, wherever possible. Peter wrote that Christians should, above all things: be fervent in your love among yourselves; for love covereth a multitude of sins (1Pe 4:8). Another man’s servant ... is an appeal to an earthly situation in which one does not meddle in the business of judging the servants of other people; and thus, how much more appropriate it is for Christians to refrain from judging the servants of the Lord? The power of the Lord to make a man stand, despite his errors, is seen in the strength of believers to remain faithful to the church, a strength which comes only from the Lord, and a strength which exists in some instances coupled with all kinds of weakness, errors, and even sins. Verse 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind. Many Christians of Jewish background had faithfully observed the sabbaths, festivals, and celebrations of the Jewish institutions from childhood, and therefore counted such occasions more holy than others, continuing to mark and observe them even after their acceptance of Christianity, in such a manner "esteeming one day above another." Gentile Christians, on the other hand, more easily accepted the Christian teaching that all time is holy, every day of the week being sacred to the child of God; and thus, in that way, he esteemed "every day alike." The teaching of this verse does not relax the commandments to observe the Christian assembly, observe the Lord’s Supper, and lay by in store "on the first day of the week." Nor does "esteeming every day alike" authorize the Lord’s Supper to be observed on just any day. Paul was dealing here with an utterly different question, that of the Jewish holy days, such as various sabbaths. The Galatian churches had taken up such observances and were vigorously condemned for it (Gal 4:10-11). Let each man be fully assured in his own mind ... is an appeal for conscientious conduct on the part of every Christian. Although the word "conscience" does not appear in this chapter, it is nevertheless, in a sense, the subject of it, a subject of surpassing importance to every child of God. THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE CONSCIENCE From Rom 2:1-29, it has already appeared that conscience, like memory, reason, and imagination, is a noble endowment of humanity, and one that sets people apart from the lower orders of creation. The function of this priceless faculty, as noted by R. C. Bell, is: Not to ascertain the truthfulness of things, but to see that its owner is true to himself and follows his convictions; that, in violating his conscience, a man so destroys his moral integrity as to make moral, spiritual living impossible; and, therefore, the most deadly thing a man can do is to trifle with his conscience; for, in so doing, he is tampering with the compass of his soul. F5 The man who violates his conscience, as well as the person who might have influenced him to violate it, are both guilty of sin in such a transgression, as pointed out by an apostle, If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our hearts and knoweth all things (1Jn 3:20). Thinking that a thing is right cannot make it so; but thinking that a thing is wrong can indeed make it so for him who thus thinks. For further considerations on this subject, see my Commentary on Hebrews, p. 198. Verse 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto tke Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. Godet’s sharp comment on this is: The apostle states the reason why the two lines of conduct are equally admissible. It is because, opposed as they are, they are inspired by one and the same desire, that of serving the Lord. F6 It might be added that both lines of behavior were followed in good conscience, and also that this establishes the principle that sincere and conscientious behavior on the part of Christians (in all matters indifferent) is of greater importance than correctness in all opinions held. No man may actually suppose that all of his opinions are accurate; but any Christian may walk before the Lord in purity of intention and conscience. One of the glorious facts of Christian service is that God judges Christians with more regard to their sincere purpose than with reference to the degree of perfection in their attainment. It was this fact which enabled Paul to address the Corinthian church, which Was about as poor a specimen of Christian community as might have been found anywhere, in these significant words, "I thank my God always concerning you" (1Co 1:4). Verse 7 For none of us liveth to himself, and none dieth to himself. In a sense, every man is his brother’s keeper, a responsibility denied by Cain (Gen 4:9), and by many others in all generations; but that is not the principal idea of this verse, which is explained in the verse following. Paul meant here that whatever a man does, or however he lives, it is his relationship to the Lord that determines all. Not merely such things as eating, not eating, observing days, or not observing days, but life itself is sustained in a holy sense of belonging, not to one’s self, but to the Lord. Verse 8 For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; or whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s. Paul had already written that "neither life nor death" could separate the believer from the Lord (Rom 8:38), and here again is the same thought in other words. Life has many tedious and toilsome duties, but everything the child of God does is done in service to the Lord. In New Testament times, even such a thing as slave labor was discharged with that in view (Eph 6:6-8). What a golden glory this sheds upon all lifes’ prosaic sands! What a silver lining this bestows upon every cloud. Even death itself here appears in a new dimension, for Christians are the Lord’s even in death. Paul himself lived in daily contemplation of death, living a life that was constantly threatened and in jeopardy every hour. Enemies without and within, perilous travels, serpents, shipwrecks, robbers, and plots of murder made danger his daily bread; but here surfaces the secret spring of his life’s overflowing optimism and the source of his granite endurance. He was the Lord’s, not merely in life, but in death as well. Every child of God may claim the same legacy. O death where is thy victory? O death where is thy sting? ... But thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ (1Co 15:55-57>). Verse 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. Man’s tragic need is so overwhelmingly great that the remedy required is absolutely supernatural. Any system of philosophy or religion that operates only during man’s mortal life is worthless at last. The distinction of Christianity is that the Saviour is Lord of life and death, both alike lying totally within the perimeter of his omnipotent love and power. In such a sovereignty as Paul expressed here concerning Christ, he partakes of the godhead, as he himself said, "God is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Mat 22:32), Paul’s words here in no wise contradicting that, because two different sectors of the same meaning are spoken of, Paul having in mind the Christians who have passed through death, and Christ’s reference being to the state of them that have passed through it, their state being in no sense one of annihilation but a state of abeyance awaiting the judgment. Both statements emphasize the sovereignty of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ over the totality of life and death. Thus, life and death are viewed in scripture as two states of existence, both of which are under divine authority and control. It is also evident that God’s purpose of demonstrating this authority and control was served by the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. Godet expressed it thus: By transversing all domains of existence himself, he has so won them, that in passing through them in our turn as believers, we never cease to be his, and have him as our Lord. F7 Verse 10 But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or again, why dost thou set at naught thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. The plaintive manner of Paul’s question shows not merely disapproval, but wonder and incredulity that people could be so oblivious to their own need of mercy in the impending judgment, and so unreasonably conceited as to busy themselves with judging their fellow Christians. Thus, in this another instance, looms the large problem which is never very far out of sight in this entire epistle, namely, that of human pride and conceit. In fact, careful study of Romans shows quite clearly that practically all of it bears on this very thing. In the early chapters, the inclusion of all under sin, and the great emphasis throughout that salvation may not be deserved or earned by any, and the efforts in Rom 10:1-21; Rom 11:1-36 to remove the emerging conceit of the Gentiles, the blunt warning against it in Rom 12:16, and bearing on it throughout that entire chapter, as well as the outcropping of the problem here - all these things show how full was the apostolic awareness of this universal human trait and how thoroughly Paul strove to destroy it. As Greathouse observed: We are responsible to Christ: we shall appear before him; there is therefore no place for uncharitable judgments or self-righteous exclusiveness between Christian men. F8 The judgment seat of God ... What an antidote for conceit that is! This is the same as "the judgment seat of Christ" (2Co 5:10); and, again from Greathouse: Notice how easily Paul passes from "Lord" to "God." The Father and the Son were so united in his mind that they were often interchanged. God, or Christ, or God through Christ will judge the world. Our life is in God, or in Christ, or with Christ in God. The union of man with God depends upon the intimate union of the Father and the Son. F9 The direction of the thought here through the twelfth verse is: stop judging thy brother, for God will judge him AND YOU! Verse 11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, And every tongue shall confess to God. This quotation from Isa 45:23 was frequently in the apostle’s thoughts, as, for example, when he wrote the Philippians: In the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Php 2:10-11). As Lenski truly observed: In neither Isaiah nor here nor in Philippians (a most pertinent parallel) are "every knee" and "every tongue" restricted to the godly. Paul cites the passage here where he speaks only of Christians; but that means that what the Lord said about every person applies also to every Christian. To bend the knee to God and to confess him signify only that at the time of the last judgment all men shall acknowledge him as God; in more detail, "that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." F10 The composite picture of the final judgment, as gleaned from many scriptures, conclusively shows that infidelity will at last perish in the cataclysmic events of the Second Advent, when Jesus Christ shall suddenly appear with ten thousand of his holy angels to take vengeance upon them that know not God and obey not the gospel of the Lord Jesus. It will be a day of overwhelming sorrow for rebellious and wicked men; for Christ’s second coming shall not be realized by some universal blossoming of social peace and good will among people, nor by the emergence of some more noble and just society, but it will be a day of terror and remorse. Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Mat 24:30). That the quotation here from Isaiah has reference to the final judgment is implicit in the fact that only then could such a thing be. Certainly, NOW, there is no such thing as the universal acknowledgment of God, nor has there ever been; and, therefore, the great assize was the scene envisioned here. Verse 12 So then each one of us must give an account of himself to God. The Lordship of Jesus Christ, the inevitability of final judgment, the responsibility of every man to bear his own burden and give an account of himself to God, the certainty of every man’s need of mercy at last, and the common tie of filial love within the redeemed community - these and a thousand other considerations should make an end of censorious judgments passed upon the strong and deprecatory judgments upon the weak, and deal a mortal blow upon the human conceit in which such judgments are invariably formed. As Thomas said: Earthly Christians are not lords to pass judgment upon their fellows; and, although Christians are to judge angels (1Co 6:3), that time has not yet come. F11 With this verse, Paul ended one phase of teaching regarding weak brethren and strong brethren and passed to a consideration of the more comprehensive doctrine of Christian liberty and the proper exercise of it. Verse 13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumbling block in his brother’s way, or an occasion of falling. Paul here included himself, not as a confession of guilt in the matter of the judgments he was condemning, but in order to make a more delicate and persuasive appeal to his readers (just as he doubtless did in Heb 2:1-3); but, as noted by Lenski, Exhortations against wrong are in place for all of us, if for no other reason, then at least that we may keep on avoiding wrong. F12 Lenski also has a very dramatic translation of this verse, thus: But rather make this your judgment not to place a stumbling block or a deathtrap for your brother. In this, and to the end of the chapter, Paul spoke of the proper use of Christian liberty. Having shown that it is sinful to judge fellow Christians concerning things immaterial and unessential, he proceeded to show how the governing principle in such forbearance is that of love for men who are beneficiaries of the blood of Christ, who have been redeemed from sin and made to stand in the body of Christ himself. It is no trivial matter to cause a brother to stumble. The "falling" here means falling from God’s grace, falling away from the eternal inheritance, and falling so as to be lost eternally. Such consequence as this can follow the contemptuous "setting at naught" of a weak brother, in which case the disaster recoils in damnation upon the head of the "strong" offender, involving both in ruin. "Setting at naught" is a dangerous and deadly sin. Verse 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. See under Rom 14:2 and Rom 14:5, regarding clean meats and the power of conscience to make even an innocent action wrong. Paul did not here place himself upon either side of such a question and refrained utterly from making it a matter of faith. It was all a question of knowledge, and the weak brother simply did not have sufficient information, a deficiency that Paul sought to supply, not through any arrogant pronouncements of his own, but by humbly calling attention to the things he had received from the Lord. Paul did not cease to identify himself with a weak brother, while in the very act of correcting his deficiency of knowledge, and thus succeeded in projecting an attitude which said, whether or not the weak brother can be taught out of his ignorance, he is still loved and esteemed as a brother. There are no "elite" in Christ’s kingdom, whether from distinctions of knowledge, wealth, power, office, or anything else. All are one in Christ. Macknight’s paraphrase of this verse is: I know by the light of reason, and am persuaded by revelation from the Lord Jesus, that there is no kind of meat unclean naturally. Nevertheless, to him that believeth certain kinds to be unclean, to that man they are unclean; and he will sin if he eat them, either to indulge his own taste or to gain the favor of others. F13 Verse 15 For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died. With regard to how the weak brother may be grieved, Greathouse has: For one thing, it will pain his overly sensitive conscience to see you do what he (however wrongly) regards as sinful. But the real damage occurs when he is emboldened by your example to do what he believes God has forbidden him to do. He who eats with a bad conscience is a waverer who is condemned by his doubts. F14 Thou walkest no longer in love ... is a serious charge. The Christian’s credential of the hope of glory lies specifically in this, that he shall love the brethren. As an apostle said, We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not abideth in death (1Jn 3:14). The so-called fault, therefore, of setting a brother at naught, is no minor thing at all, but a mortal sin. Stated here in the negative, "Thou walkest not in love," this vice of not loving a brother was positively stated by John in the very next verse, thus: Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer; and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Paul was in complete harmony with John and all the apostles in denouncing lovelessness as a fatal offense. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died ... shows the fruit of a loveless attitude. It will destroy a fellow child of God. Paul wrote the same to the Corinthians, thus: For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose take Christ died. And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ (1Co 8:11-12). "Destroy" in this place is therefore synonymous with "perish" in the admonition to Corinth. These warnings teach emphatically that a brother’s soul may be lost because of a loveless attitude on the part of some "strong" Christian, who by such lovelessness himself incurs the penalty of sinning "against Christ." Verses 16, 17 Let not your good be evil spoken of: for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. The sin against Christ through lovelessness among Christians is an evil that reaches far beyond the congregation itself, bringing into dishonor and ineffectiveness the missionary outreach of the church, and actually resulting in blasphemy of outsiders against the Christian message. "Your" in this verse is plural, contrasting with the singular pronoun in Rom 14:15, and indicates that Paul here shifted the thought away from the individual consequences of setting at naught and judging the ,brethren and directed it to a consideration of the harm to the entire church which resulted from such violations of the principle of unity and love. When Christians are divided and viciously attack each other over such things as clothing, hair styles, dietary habits, etc., outsiders certainly make sport of their Christianity, the Christians themselves furnishing the basis of their deprecations, and thus becoming the principal hindrance of their missionary impact upon their community. "Joy" here is a subjective condition within the hearts of Christians, and from this it is likely that righteousness and peace are likewise subjective and refer to the righteous behavior and the inward peace of children of God. By contrast, God’s kingdom is far more than the privilege of merely eating and drinking what pleases one. The sacred privileges of the kingdom and the blessed fruit of the indwelling Spirit of God are of such surpassing benefit that any adjustment of the strong Christian’s behavior to accommodate the conscience of the weak is a trifle indeed. The great concern is not the exercise of liberty in such matters as food and drink, but the holy joy of the sacred communion of the fellowship in Christ. Verse 18 For he that herein serveth Christ is well-pleasing to God, and approved of men. In the two previous verses, Paul had in view the evil speaking of outsiders against the church which violated the principles taught here; here the approval of people in general is promised to churches which honor the commandment to walk in love, even toward the weak brother. As Murray noted: We may not rightly restrict the approval in view to those who are of the household of faith. The damage which befalls the church through inconsiderate conduct of strong believers has its repercussions in the judgments of those outside; and the good name of the church as the community of love and concord should be maintained so that adversaries may not have an occasion to speak reproachfully. F15 Conversely, nothing is so capable of endearing a congregation to the community at large as a reputation of loving concern for one another in the congregation itself. Many have been won to an acceptance of Christianity through the glowing warmth of a true fellowship of loving concern among a community of Christians. Paul was careful, here, to avoid making the reaction of outsiders the principal concern. That must ever be the approval of God. Verse 19 So then let us follow after things which make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one another. The admonition of these words demands that a true Christian follow a constructive program of doing the things that produce harmony, induce fellowship, and lead to fuller appreciation and love among the brethren. Again from Murray, The practical rule applied here is that when anything is morally indifferent to me, before I act on the conviction, I must ask how such action will affect the peace of the church, and the Christian growth of others. F16 Instead of channeling all his activities along the lines of what is personally pleasing to himself, the genuine Christian must so order his behavior as to make it a constructive and positive force of building love and harmony within the sacred body of the church, consciously directing all of his words and deeds to that end. Edify one another ... The root from which this word comes has reference to construction, as in the erection of a building, being related to the word "edifice," and thus conveying the thought of building up the church, instead of tearing it down. There are almost unlimited areas of thought and discussion which are absolutely without profit and can lead only to doubts, questionings, and loss of faith. These shall be avoided at all cost. Paul here prescribed, as a substitute for such negative activities, the positive and constructive type of behavior which is consciously directed to building up and strengthening one’s fellow Christians. This is a far different thing from merely refraining from what would do them harm. Every man should ask himself, "What am I doing to build up the church?" Verse 20 Overthrow not for meat’s sake the work of God. All things indeed are clean; howbeit it is evil for that man who eateth with offense. Rom 14:14-15 carry exactly this same admonition, which is repeated here for emphasis. Even if a Christian may conscientiously do certain things (eating meat is here only an example), he should avoid doing so under any circumstance that might jeopardize the conscience of others. A parallel case is seen in Paul’s word to Corinth: If one of them that believeth not biddeth you to a feast, and ye are disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no questions for conscience’ sake. But if any man say unto you, This hath been offered in sacrifice, eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience’ sake: conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other’s (1Co 10:27-29). Verse 21 It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth. This verse is significant in the broadening of the principles under discussion to include "anything" of a like immaterial or unessential nature, the doing of which might involve the disapproving conscience of another. A present-day application of this requires that no Christian, even if he is convinced that he may drink wine, should ever do so in a situation offensive to the consciences of brethren who hold that it is a sin so to do. Significantly, Paul here placed that very question, regarding the drinking of wine, in the category of things indifferent; but, in every generation, there have been Christians who would have it otherwise; and, in regard to them, "It is good not to drink wine." Besides that, the wine of Paul’s day bore little resemblance to the burning liquors which today are sold under such a label. The mention of drinking wine is the first in this chapter and shows that the problems in view here were somewhat different from those of Corinth and Galatia. Verse 22 The faith which thou hast, have to thyself before God. Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth. Have to thyself before God ... is a vindication of the strong in their possession of Christian liberty. They truly enjoy this liberty in God’s presence and are not called upon to surrender it; but, of course, they must not flaunt it to the discomfiture and destruction of the weak. As Denny observed: Rom 14:22 a is another exhortation to the strong and means that they are not to parade and protest their rights to the detriment of the weak and with the evil consequences delineated in the preceding verses. F17 Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth ... is rendered in some of the ancient manuscripts as "Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he putteth to the test," the same suggesting that the idea here is, "Happy is the man who does not condemn himself by overriding his own conscience to test things he inwardly believes to be wrong." There is a type of person who may be unduly influenced by what is held to be popular and who may thus go beyond his conscience in order to conform to the behavior pattern of others. Sanday was convinced of a different shade of meaning here, which, whether correct or not, is permissible. Thus: In the acts which he permits himself, he is a happy man who can eat what he pleases, and drink what he please, without any qualms of conscience to condemn him while he does so. F18 Verse 23 But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Once again, Paul affirmed the supremacy of a good conscience. Doubters who, through a desire to be popular, or other insufficient reasons, might override their own consciences, stand condemned. If one has been brought up to believe that certain things are wrong, being thereby in conscience opposed to the doing of them, he cannot merely wave such scruples aside. True, if through the word of God, he has learned and truly believes that old scruples are no longer binding, then he may go beyond them, or act contrary to them; in such a case, to use Paul’s words, he would be eating "of faith." But, if such knowledge and faith are not in him, the old prohibition stands for him; and he may not go beyond them and thus involve himself in condemnation. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin ... is enunciated here as a general principle, but only as a general principle covering this particular kind of case. Where the conscience is in doubt, the definition of proper conduct must be made on the basis of what the word of God says; and, lacking any clear knowledge of what the word says, or, if knowing it, lacking full confidence and faith in it, the person is bound by his scruple. This principle does not extend to situations where the conscience is not threatened. Thus, from Sanday: Nothing is said about those cases in which conscience is either not appealed to at all, or approves of what is done. Hence St. Augustine was wrong in arguing from this verse that even good actions, when done by unbelievers, were of the nature of sin. F19 Godet’s comment on this was: What a man cannot do as His redeemed one and in the joy of His salvation, must not be done at all. Otherwise this act, of which faith is not the soul, becomes sin, and may lead to the result indicated in Rom 14:20 : the total destruction of God’s work in us. F20 R. C. Bell had the following pertinent remarks: Who can read this chapter without realizing that Christian doctrines are of unequal value, and that big and little things should never exchange places? Men must not make things tests of fellowship which God does not make conditions of salvation; because, in so doing, they reject those whom God receives and make divisions in the church over trifles. To separate believers from unbelievers is right, but to separate believers from other believers is wrong. Blessed is the Christian who keeps Christian things in Christian proportions. F21 In the light of the solemn admonitions of this great chapter, how shall we behold the divisions among brethren over such matters as supporting a radio program, teaching the Bible in classes, supporting orphan homes, etc., except as tragic examples of failure to heed the warnings of the Holy Spirit? Regarding the doxology which, in some manuscripts, concludes this chapter, it is appropriate to remark that Rom 15:1 continues with no break in the thought and is such a logical continuation of the thought in this chapter that one is justified in supposing that Paul never even caught his breath between them. For more on this, see under Rom 16:27. Footnotes forRomans 14 1 : Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 417. 2: Richard A. Batey, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin, Texas: The R. B. Sweet Company, 1969), p. 165. 3: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 416. 4: Robertson L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to Saints in Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 271. 5: R. C. Bell, Studies in Romans (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1957), p. 161. 6: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 456. 7: Ibid., p. 458. 8: William M. Greathouse, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 280. 9: Ibid. 10: R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 830. 11: Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 370. 12: R. C. H. Lenski, loc. cit. 13: James Macknight, Apostolic Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 128. 14: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 262. 15: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 195. 16: Ibid. 17: James Denny, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1947), p. 706. 18: W. Sanday, Ellicott’s Bible Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 260. 19: Ibid., p. 261. 20: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 464. 21: R. C. Bell, op. cit., p. 169. 22: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 703. 23: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 362. 24: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 218. 25: Richard Trench, Notes on the Parables (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1953), p. 164. 26: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 241. 27: Moses E. Lard, op, cit., p. 370. 28: J. W. McGarvey and Phillip Y. Pendleton, The Standard Bible Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 473. 29: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston: 1832), p. 359. 30: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 273. 31: John Murray, op. cit., p. 302. 32: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 272. 33: The Emphatic Greek Diaglott, p. 531. 34: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 270. 35: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston, Mass., 1832), p. 331. 36: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 37: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 98. 38: Ibid. 39: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. : F. Godet, op. cit., p. 315. 41: James Macknight, op. cit., p. 98. 42: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. 43: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 44: Ibid. 45: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 237. 46: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 277. 47: John Locke, op. cit., p. 333. 48: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 321. 49: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 50: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 77. 51: Sir Francis Bacon, in Bartlett’s Quotations, p. 109. 52: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 280. 53: Ibid. 54: Ibid., p. 281. 55: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 325. 56: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 57: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 323. 58: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 238. 59: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 285. 60: John Locke, op. cit., p. 335. 61: Ibid. 62: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 193. 63: H. C. G. Moule, op. cit., pp. 242-243. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 7: 15 ROMANS CHAPTER FIFTEEN ======================================================================== Rom 15:1-33 Verse 1 Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. This is a recapitulation of all that was said in chapter 14 but sheds additional light upon the obligation of the strong toward the weak through the use of the word "bear," which is used here, not in the sense of endure, but in the sense of carry. Murray commented thus: "Bear" is not to be understood in the sense of "bear with" frequent in our common speech but in the sense of "bear up," or "carry." F1 Thus the strong have a definite responsibility for the week and the obligation to see that they make it. He must, in a sense, carry them in a manner like that of a strong man carrying a little child. In no instance must his personal liberty as a Christian be allowed to interfere with duty toward the weak. The claim which the weak brother has upon the aid and encouragement of the strong is based upon his redemption in Christ and may not be rejected by the strong, regardless of what personal inclinations and Christian liberties of his own should be sacrificed to the fulfillment of that duty. Verse 2 Let each one of us please his neighbor for that which is good, unto edifying. These two verses exhibit the positive and negative statements: (1) we should not please ourselves; (2) we should please our neighbor. However, there is a limitation upon the meaning of pleasing neighbors, for Paul wrote: If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. (Gal 1:10). Therefore, it is not right that the Christian should always defer to the whims and wishes of others, not even of believers, the critical issue always being the matter of the weak brother’s conscience; and, even when deferring to him upon that basis, the requirement is that such a yielding to his scruples should be practiced not merely for the purpose of confirming him in them, but for the purpose of teaching him out of them. The last two words here, "unto edifying," provide exactly the guidelines that are needed. As Greathouse wrote: The neighbor may be pleased to his hurt, so Paul adds that he must be pleased for his "good to edification." To afford him pleasure that does not build him up is not for his good. F2 One may safely follow the rule Paul observed himself in this situation. He wrote: I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved. Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ (1Co 10:33; 1Co 11:1). Verse 3 For Christ also pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell upon me. This quotation from Psa 69:9 is an appeal to the supreme example of love and unselfishness exhibited by the Saviour of the world. The reference to reproaches is significant, because the reproaches that fell upon Christ resulted from his not pleasing himself. If Christ had been willing to please people, rather than God, he could have avoided the bitter hatreds that fell upon him; but his living for the glory of the Father caused the enemies of God to heap all of their scorn and opposition upon him. By contrast, the sacrifice made by the strong brethren in accommodating themselves to the weak are extremely petty and trivial. The apostle’s use of the most exalted and supreme example of Christ for the enforcement of practical duty is characteristic of his writings, other examples being visible in 1Co 8:12 and Php 2:5-8. This appeal to Psa 69:1-36 stamps that Psalm as Messianic, especially when it is remembered that no less than five other New Testament passages refer to it, these being John 15:25 which quotes Psa 69:4, John 2:17 which quotes Psa 69:9, Mat 27:34 which quotes Psa 69:21, Rom 11:9-10 which quotes Psa 69:22-23, and Acts 1:20 which quotes Psa 69:25. Verse 4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that through patience and through comfort of the scriptures we might have hope. This verse has left a mighty impact upon the minds of all who ever contemplated it. Adam Clarke, the great scholar of the 19th century, made this the motto of his life’s work of a commentary on the entire Bible. The immediate application of the first clause in this verse is to the things writhed in Psa 69:1-36, just cited; but it has a wider scope of application to all of the sacred scriptures, showing that the Old Testament, no less than the New Testament, bears a precious freight of relevance to all people of all ages; and, although many of the forms and shadows of the old order have been replaced by the realities of the new institution of Christ, a proper understanding of those glorious principles which, in the New Testament, have supplanted the types of the Old Testament, is surely promoted and enhanced by the study of the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. John 5:39; 1Co 10:11, and many other New Testament passages affirm such to be the case, as well as the hundreds of New Testament quotations from the Old Testament, as here, and throughout the New Testament. Matthew alone quoted the Old Testament 66 times; and practically all of Hebrews is written with the Old Testament in view. The patience of the Old Testament heroes of faith provides strong encouragement for Christians who must struggle with many of the problems and situations which confronted them. Glorious comfort is provided in the record of their ultimate triumph. It is a mistake, therefore, for Christians to confine their studies to the New Testament alone. There is many a cup of joy awaiting the careful student of the Old Testament. Verses 5, 6 Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of the same mind one with another according to Christ Jesus: that with one accord ye may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is another of several doxologies in Romans. Rom 11:33-36 is a very special doxology which closed the great doctrinal section of this epistle; and this one seems to have been prompted by Paul’s reflections upon the patience and comfort afforded the children of God through the study of the sacred scriptures, making God, therefore, to be the God "of patience and of comfort." Of course, he is also the God of hope, and the apostle threw in another doxology a little later (Rom 15:13), hailing him so. Both this doxology and the one in Rom 15:13 were therefore prompted by the words patience, comfort, and hope, as used in Rom 15:4. Of the same mind one with another ... is the ideal of unity among brethren in Christ, a state of harmony which is mandatory for Christians, since it is "according to Jesus Christ," that is, according to his will and commandment. The purpose of such unity is that the praise and glorification of God should be uncorrupted by strife and division. "One mouth" and "one accord" are expressions forbidding that strife and contradictions should mar the praise of God by his children, and demanding that absolute unity should be the badge of their loving service. Verse 7 Wherefore receive ye one another, even as Christ also received you, to the glory of God. Paul wrote in 14:2 that "God hath received him," and here that "Christ also received you," the same being another example of the manner in which Paul used the terms God and Christ almost interchangeably, and making it absolutely clear that Paul received Christ as deity. (See under Rom 14:10). The same ground of appeal is stressed here that was stressed in the preceding chapter, namely, that since Christ has received us all as Christians, the least that we can do is to receive each other, at the same time being willing to overlook the mistakes and errors of the weak, just as Christ has forgiven us. Such a toleration of weakness and errors, with special reference to things unessential and secondary, will inhibit strife and division in the church and result in greater glory to God. Verses 8, 9 For I say that Christ hath been made a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, that he might confirm the promises given to the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, Therefore will I give praise to thee among the Gentiles, And sing unto thy name. Circumcision ... means the Jews; and the confirmation of "the promises given to the fathers" refers to God’s sending, at last, the Messiah, the true "seed" promised to Abraham. Thus, again, the long discussion of the relationship of Jews and Gentiles to God in earlier chapters of Romans came vividly to Paul’s mind, suggesting that the problem relating to scruples was related to the long conflict between Jews and Gentiles; and therefore, as a further reinforcement of his commandments here, he returned to the fact of God’s purpose of containing both Jews and Gentiles in one body in Christ. This thought appears also in this comment by Barrett: The coming of Christ may be viewed in two ways. On the one hand, he came to vindicate God’s promises which had been made within Judaism. On the other hand, he came that the Gentiles might, be included with Israel among the people of God. As the Jews glorify God for his faithfulness, so the Gentiles will glorify him for his mercy. F3 The Old Testament quotation Paul used here is found twice, in 2Sa 22:50 and Psa 18:49, and shows that the Gentiles, the heathen, or nations, as non-Jews were variously described, were certainly included in God’s ultimate purpose of redemption, "that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace" (Eph 2:15). Verses 10, 11, 12 And again he said, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people. And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; And let all the peoples praise, him. And again, Isaiah saith, There shall be the root of Jesse, And he that riseth to rule over the Gentiles; On him shall the Gentiles hope. These three quotations from Deu 32:43, Psa 117:1, and Isa 11:10, all make mention of the Gentiles, further strengthening Paul’s biblical evidence presented for the purpose of showing that God’s purpose always had envisioned the redemption of Gentiles as well as Jews. Behold here the manner of Christianity’s greatest preacher in the use of scripture. Paul did not hesitate to pile verse on top of verse and to marshal scripture after scripture in support of his thesis. His greatest writings were liberally salted with verses from the word of God; and the deduction would appear to be justified that God’s preachers today should base their sermons upon the sacred word and reinforce their every thought by repeated appeals to a "thus saith the Lord." Failing to do this does not elevate men above the supreme preacher Paul, but, on the other hand, exhibits their weakness and ineffectiveness. Hope ... at the end of the quotations in this verse seems to have reminded Paul of what he had just written in Rom 15:4; and this possibly accounts for the fact that the closing doxology of this section on the strong and weak brethren (next verse) begins with the expression, "Now the God of hope." Verse 13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, in the power of the Holy Spirit. The Christian era was ushered in with the double promise of peace and joy, the peace being prophesied by Zacharias, thus: The Dayspring from on high shall visit us ... to guide our feet unto the way of peace (Luk 1:78-79); and the joy having been announced by the angel of the Lord to the shepherds: Behold I bring you tidings of great joy which shall be to all people (Luk 2:10). Such a glorious peace and joy are available from no other source than the life of faith in Jesus Christ. These priceless endowments of the soul are the Christian’s badge of eternal inheritance, his true credentials of heavenly citizenship, and his impregnable defense against all the tribulations and temptations of life. Having peace with God and the joy of the Spirit in his soul, the Christian is redeemed indeed. Wilbur M. Smith wrote on this subject, thus: As a result of such a redemption, accomplished with such a sacrifice, the hearts and minds of Christians may forever be kept with the peace of God that passeth understanding. There is absolutely nothing in all the biographies of unbelievers, or rationalists, or modern skeptics, which can present any such testimony to the reality of peace and joy in the human heart, promised in the New Testament. Professor Robert Flint was right when he wrote, in his famous work on Theism, "The heart can find no secure rest except on an infinite God. If less than omnipotent, he may be unable to help us in the hour of sorest need. If less than perfectly benevolent, we cannot fully love him. The whole soul can only be devoted to One who is believed to be absolutely good." F4 The same author devoted a full chapter to the exposition of this verse; and the paragraph regarding the means of procuring peace and joy has this: This joy can come only through believing, and I pray you, brothers and sisters, never be drifted away from the child-like faith in what God hath said. It is very easy to obtain a temporary joy and peace through your present easy experience, but how will you do when all things take a troublous turn? Those who live by feelings change with the weather. If you ever put aside your faith in the finished work to drink from the cup of your own inward sensations, you will find yourself bitterly disappointed. Your honey will turn to gall, your sunshine into blackness; for all things which come to man are fickle and deceptive. The God of hope fill you with joy and peace; but it will only be through believing. You will have to stand as a poor sinner at the foot of the cross, trusting to complete atonement. You will never have peace and joy unless you do. If you once begin to say, I am a saint; there is something good in me, and so on, you will find joy evaporate and peace depart. F5 Wonderful as are Smith’s words, as regards the necessity of believing it is not by this "alone" that people shall receive the blessing. As Smith said, one must stand at the foot of the cross, etc., and this is only another way of saying that one must accept and obey God’s terms of justification, entering the body of Christ; for it is "in Christ" that all spiritual blessings are bestowed (Eph 1:3); and let none think to receive them by any other means than that of being found "in him." Tragically, this expression which occurs no less than 169 times in Paul’s writings seems to have gone through many minds without having made any impression at all! In the power of the Holy Spirit ... is Paul’s reminder that only God’s children, the baptized true believers "in Christ" who have received the Spirit as a consequence of their sonship shall ever possess this joy and peace. People may forget to tell how they are received, but the apostle failed not to declare it. Verse 14 And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another. Just having devoted a large section of his letter to questions regarding the maintenance of unity and love in the congregation, Paul, in this verse, said with great tact and consideration that he believed the Christians in Rome were full of goodness and able to handle all such problems themselves without any special admonitions from him. Such a statement on Paul’s part was doubtless for the purpose of avoiding any impression that he was critical of their congregations, or that he had been discoursing on the sins of a church which he had never seen. Furthermore, Paul’s words here must be understood in the light of their being actually true and complimentary in a very high degree of the body of Christ in the great imperial capital, which never having enjoyed the visit Of an apostle, having come from various lands and provinces, and being a truly cosmopolitan group, had, nevertheless, maintained unity of the faith, not being deficient in any vital knowledge, and truly exhibiting all the virtues and graces of Christianity. One limitation of Paul’s word regarding "all knowledge" was noted by Lenski, thus: "All knowledge" does not mean all possible knowledge, nor does it suggest that the Romans had nothing more to learn; but that they had all necessary knowledge so that they could proceed safely and securely. F6 I myself also ... shows that others had brought information to Paul regarding the Roman church and that the high opinion of such informants had been well attested to the extent that Paul was convinced of the truth of their favorable report of the Christians in Rome. With this verse, the last section of the epistle begins, in which there are many things of a personal nature, including greetings from personal friends to personal friends in the great city. This section is full of interest. Verse 15 But I write the more boldly unto you in some measure, as putting you again in remembrance, because of the grace that was given me of God. This is a continuation of the tactful remarks begun in Rom 15:14 and allows for the fact that the Romans might be assumed already to know many of the things he had written; but he justified his writing on the ground that he desired to refresh their memory of those things. The same device was employed by Peter who wrote: This is now, beloved, the second epistle that I have written unto you and in both of them I stir up your pure mind by putting you in remembrance, etc. (2Pe 3:1f). In some measure ... is capable of two meanings: (1) that of declaring such portions of the epistle as that dealing with weak brethren (Rom 14:1-23; Rom 15:1-15) were bold, and (2) that of suggesting that he had boldly gone beyond the information they already had. As Thomas observed, however: Whichever view we take of this expression, we again notice St. Paul’s courtesy and modesty. His boldness, as we shall see in a moment, is due to his position as the apostle to the Gentiles, but he was fully aware that the discussion of truths already familiar was only part of his design. The Epistle records some of the profoundest thoughts ever expressed by the human mind, and this also was "in part" his aim in writing. Yet, of this, he says nothing, for he is more than content to let them discover for themselves that in writing as he has they have unwittingly, but really, obtained unfathomable treasures of Christian truth. F7 Verse 16 That I should be a minister of Christ Jesus unto the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be made acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit. The word "minister" here, as Lard noted: is a sacerdotal term borrowed from the temple service and denotes "to officiate as a priest," or perform priestly duties; but that it is used here in any peculiar sense growing out of that circumstance is not apparent. It means simply to minister, or execute the functions of an apostle. F8 Paul’s metaphorical reference to his work of preaching the gospel is no basis at all for supposing a separate order of priests in God’s church. True, the apostle Peter wrote, "Ye are a holy priesthood, a royal priesthood" (1Pe 2:5-9); but, in the words of Moule: Who are the "ye"? Not the consecrated pastorate, but the consecrated Christian company altogether. And what are the altar sacrifices of that company? "Sacrifices SPIRITUAL": "the praises of him who called them into his wonderful light" (1Pe 2:5-9). F9 When God called Israel out of Egypt, he promised that, If ye will obey my voice indeed and keep my covenant ... ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exo 19:5-6). But, when such a status was offered to all of Israel, the chosen people were not ready for the privilege, and thus it came about that Levi and his tribe alone took the honor representatively (Exodus 32:36). Therefore, even under the Mosaic dispensation, the permission of a separate priesthood was accommodative only (much in the manner of their later permission to have a king), and was a departure from what had been intended. In the new Israel, which is the church, as Moule observed: The pre-Levitical ideal of the old Israel reappears in its sacred reality. F10 All Christians, therefore, are priests unto God, and there is only one high priest, even the Christ himself at God’s right hand. He made the great atonement and is now enthroned with the Father himself, and is the "one mediator" between God and man (1Ti 2:5). In this new Israel, all are sons in the Son, and all are priests in the Priest; and never in the New Testament is there any hint or suggestion of anything that could be analogous to Levi or Aaron. As for any notion that any exception to that principle may be found in the verse before us, Moule emphatically pronounced the negative which every student of the scriptures must feel: No; for it contains its own full inner evidence of its metaphorical cast. F11 Of further interest in this connection, it should be noted that the gospel is not offered as a sacrifice to God, but preached to people, the offering being the response of people themselves who present their bodies after the manner Paul commanded in Rom 12:1. Thus, it is not the preacher, even though an apostle, who offers people to God; people offer themselves. From this, it must be plain that "ministering the gospel of God" can only mean preaching it; and any concept of Christianity that would establish a priestly office for the purpose of "offering up the gospel" or any such thing is erroneous. Being sanctified by the Holy Spirit ... was commented upon thus by Macknight: According to the law, the sacrifices were sanctified, or made acceptable to God, by being salted and laid on the altar by the priest"; F12 but the Gentiles were made acceptable to God through the Spirit of God, as affirmed in this verse, that Spirit being sent by God into their hearts in consequence of their sonship through faith and obedience (Gal 4:6). Thus, in the new Israel, no priest is needed to salt the offering. Paul performed no such service for converted Gentiles; he did not give them the Holy Spirit; and, whatever examples there are of the Holy Spirit’s being given through "the laying on of the apostles’ hands," it was still God, and not the apostles, who gave it. Verses 17, 18 I have therefore my glorying in Christ Jesus in things pertaining to God. For I will not dare to speak any things save those which Christ wrought through me, for the obedience of the Gentiles, by word and deed. I have therefore, ... means, "I do have the right to tell of the things God has done through me." Such a right derived from Paul’s desire to enlist the aid and encouragement of the brethren in Rome for his projected missionary journey to Spain. If they were to aid Paul, they were entitled to know of Paul’s success; and, therefore, Paul had a right to speak of the success God had given him. Paul freely allowed that others had labored in the conversion of Gentiles, but he would speak only of the things God had accomplished through himself. Obedience of the Gentiles ... in word and deed ... brings into view the true definition of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith. It certainly was not the "faith only" of Protestant theology, but the "obedience of faith" as affirmed at the beginning and the end of this epistle (15:1:5; 16:26). If Paul had entertained any part of the theory of salvation by faith only, he could never have written anything like this verse. The Gentiles were obeying God! Indeed, does anything else really matter? By word and deed ... is usually edited out of this, as having no reference to Gentile obedience, and applied to Paul’s actions in preaching the gospel; but the proximity of the word to "Gentiles" and the obvious connection with their "obedience" leaves the overwhelming impression that they apply to the type of Gentile obedience which had been induced by Paul’s preaching. Verse 19 In the power and signs and wonders, in the power of the Holy Spirit; so that from Jerusalem, and round about even unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. MeGarvey suggested that people should: Note the calm, sane way in which Paul speaks of his miraculous powers as a trust from Christ, and a seal of his apostleship, both being mere accessories to that all-important task, the preaching of the gospel. F13 Moule also spoke of the same tranquil dignity, thus: (This is) a reference, strangely impressive by its very passingness, to the exercise of miracle-working gifts by the writer. This man, so strong in thought, so practical in counsel, so extremely unlikely to have been under an illusion about a large factor in adult and intensely conscious experience, speaks directly from himself of his wonder-works. And the allusion, thus dropped by the way and left behind, is itself an evidence to the perfect mental balance of the witness. This was no enthusiast, intoxicated with ambitious spiritual visions, but a man put in trust with a mysterious yet sober treasure. F14 Even unto Illyricum ... This province, under Rome, was part of Macedonia, but it cannot be certain that Paul preached there. He could have done so on the trip mentioned in Acts 20:1; but the book of Acts makes no positive mention of it. McGarvey paraphrased Paul’s description of the extent of his labors thus: Not in any limited field, but far and wide in that great curve of the earth which begins at Jerusalem in the east and ends at Illyricum in the west. F15 I fully preached the gospel ... may be taken to mean that Paul had declared the full counsel of God, that his preaching had thoroughly covered the great area he had mentioned, and that the full charge of his energies had been utilized in its accomplishment. Verses 20, 21 Yea, making it my aim so to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, that I might not build upon another man’s foundation; but, as it is written, They shall see, to whom no tidings came, And they that have not heard shall understand. This is a further point in Paul’s legitimate recommendation of himself to the church in Rome, namely, that he had not preached in those areas where others had already preached the gospel, but had sought out the places where the truth had not been taught. Paul had deliberately undertaken to proclaim the gospel of Christ to the entire world which he knew, evidently believing that every city on earth should hear the gospel once before any should hear it repeated. Paul’s plan of preaching only to those who had "not heard" was justified by his appeal to Isa 52:15, where the glory of the Messiah’s extended kingdom was that prophet’s theme. This was a wise plan; and, as McGarvey noted: Had Paul’s example been followed what needless overlapping of missionary effort might have been avoided. Sectarianism has caused and committed this sin, and it has been especially reprehensible where it has been done to foster points of difference that are matters of indifference as it is where factions of the same sect compete in the same field. F16 The manner in which Isaiah’s prophecy was fitted to Paul’s purpose of quoting it was explained thus by Whiteside: Till the gospel was preached to them no tidings came to the Gentiles. Paul was sent to open the eyes of the Gentiles to turn them from darkness to light, that they might see (Acts 26:14-20). Hence, those who had never heard were made to understand. F17 Verse 22 Wherefore also I was hindered these many times from coming to you. Paul’s apology for not already having fulfilled his purpose of visiting Rome is here made to include the fact that he had been in the business of preaching the gospel to people who had not heard it; and, of course, Rome had heard it, as evidenced by the company of true believers to whom this epistle was directed. And, moveover, even the visit projected at that late date had as its major purpose the gathering of support for the planned mission to Spain; although, to be sure, Paul welcomed the opportunity to preach in Rome and visit with the disciples there. Verse 23 But now having no more any place in these regions and having these many years a longing to come unto you. This does not mean that Paul was no more welcomed to preach in the great theater of his long and triumphal labors in the gospel, but that, under the rules Paul had laid down for himself relative to preaching the gospel only where it was not already known, he had used up all of the opportunities of the kind he sought. Therefore, he had projected the mission to Spain, including Rome as a necessary way-station, where he planned to request their aid and assistance. Paul’s remark here shows how widely the gospel had been diffused throughout the earth at that time, the marvel being that only a little more than a generation had elapsed since Pentecost. Paul could look at a map of Europe with the conviction that there was not a virgin field left in it, except for Spain. Verse 24 Whensoever I go unto Spain (for I hope to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first in some measure I shall have been satisfied by your company). Did Paul ever go to Spain? None can say, actually, that he did; although it is allowed that he certainly might have done so. Hodge wrote: Whether Paul ever accomplished his purpose of rising Spain, is a matter of doubt. There is no historical record of his having done so, either in the New Testament, or in the early ecclesiastical writers; though most of those writers seem to have taken it for granted. His whole plan was probably deranged by occurrences in Jerusalem, which led to his long imprisonment in Caesarea, and his being sent in bonds to Rome. F18 Brought on my way ... refers to a custom among early Christians of accompanying visitors for a part of the journey when they were departing. The Christians of Ephesus, for example, when Paul was about to leave, fell on Paul’s neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the word which he had spoken, that they should behold his face no more. And they brought him on his way to the ship (Acts 20:37-38). For other examples of this same custom, see 1Co 16:6; Acts 15:3; and 2Co 1:16. In some measure ... satisfied with your company ... does not imply any limitation of the intensity of Paul’s anticipated pleasure of seeing the disciples in Rome, but accepts a limitation upon the endurance of it. Paul’s projected visit was to have been a passing one, not designed for any great length of time. Verses 25, 26 But now, I say, I go unto Jerusalem, ministering unto the saints. For it hath been the good pleasure of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints that are at Jerusalem. Paul could not, even at that time, go on unto Rome, for he was committed to the task of delivering the funds which he had helped to raise for the poor saints in Jerusalem. Many commentators have expressed surprise, and even such a thing as disapproval, of Paul’s interruption of his great ministry to raise money, take up collections, and personally deliver the funds to the poor in Jerusalem. Thus, Murray wrote: It may surprise us that Paul would have interrupted his primary apostolic function for what is apparently secondary and concerned with material things. We think so only when we overlook the dignity of the work of mercy. F19 This noble concern for the poor on the part of Paul was not an occasional or expedient thing with him at all. On the occasion of that confrontation in Jerusalem with Peter, James, and John, the harmonious communique which closed the disputation was summed up thus by Paul: They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision; only they would that we should remember the poor; which very thing I was also zealous to do (Gal 2:9-10). An implied disapproval of Paul’s fund-raising is in this: There is a note of pathos in the fact that this apostle who proclaimed so eloquently God’s acceptance apart from works should seek to secure his own place among the Jerusalem Christians with his collection for the poor. F20 Two things of great interest challenge the attention in such a remark as that just quoted. Paul did not preach acceptance "apart from works’ but apart from "works of the law of Moses" and "circumcision," Paul’s position being exactly that of James that the "obedience of faith" is always absolutely required. Moreover, there is no cause for viewing Paul’s fund-raising for the poor as "pathetic." It was not a mere strategy of Paul’s to try and win favor in Jerusalem. He accepted the mission of aiding the poor in that city upon the basis that the Gentiles "owed" it to them (Rom 15:2); and his undertaking the personal delivery of that bounty was in order that he might seal "this fruit" to the credit of them that had given it. Paul had long advocated, encouraged, and promoted the collection for the poverty-ridden Christians in the great Jewish capital, finally delivering the money himself; and it would be impossible to find a nobler example of the scriptural status of a man who raises money for worthy ends than the one given here. Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ, perhaps the greatest preacher ever to set foot on earth; and he was not above the prosaic business of asking the brethren for money, not for himself, but for others. Ministers of the gospel who are loathe to touch such a thing as fund-raising forfeit all resemblance to the greatest apostle and preacher of them all. For the poor among the saints ... identifies the object of Christian charity from the viewpoint of apostolic Christianity. It was not the "poor in Jerusalem" but "the poor saints in Jerusalem" who were the objects of this charity, reminding one of the words of Jesus regarding "these my brethren" (Mat 25:40), such words are limiting the obligation of the church, at least in some degree, to the poor Christians, and not to the poor generally. Admittedly, where there is ability and opportunity to aid the alien poor, it may indeed be a righteous and effective work of the church; but, as regards the obligation, that begins with the household of God. The Gentile Christians of the ancient Roman Empire were not laid under tribute for the purpose of helping to support the relief load in the city of secular Jerusalem; and, likewise, the church of the present time should plan some nobler work than that of merely carrying the bed-pan for a sick society, a role to which some sociologists would restrict the holy mission of the church. In regard to the suggestion, already noted, that Paul was in any sense acting out of harmony with his doctrine of justification in the sight of God, apart from works, by his long and difficult fund-raising efforts for the Christian poor of Jerusalem, it must be said that Paul’s diligence in the discharge of such a Christian work, even though it seriously interfered for a time with his missionary journeys, demonstrates in the most dramatic manner possible that "faith" in Paul’s usage of it was impossible of standing "alone," but required absolutely the type of obedience which alone could validate it as a saving experience. It was precisely for this reason that "obedience of faith" was made by Paul to be both the beginning of this epistle (Rom 1:5), and the validating seal upon its conclusion (Rom 16:26). Verse 27 Yea, it hath been their good pleasure; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things they owe it to them to minister unto them in carnal things. Paul’s collection for the poor, therefore, was initiated and executed, not solely out of respect to the needs of the poor Christians in Jerusalem, but also because of the debt of Gentile Christians who had received spiritual benefit from those same poor, thus establishing categorically the spiritual nature of the obligation to charity. The Gentiles needed to give, as much as the Christian poor of Jerusalem needed to receive. The filial bond uniting them as members of the one body in Christ was the basis of Paul’s plea for the Gentiles to give, as well as the basis of the right of the Christian poor to receive. Without that filial bond, no obligation is here imposed by apostolic authority. It was not only the need of the poor that entitled them to receive, but their status as "brethren in Christ." This deduction is mandatory because, of the non-Christian poor in Jerusalem, it is not affirmed that the Gentile Christians "owed" them anything. Verse 28 When therefore I have accomplished this, and have sealed to them this fruit I will go on by you into Spain. The commentators differ in their interpretations of the sealed fruit. To whom was the fruit sealed, the donors or the recipients? The answer lies in determining whose fruit it was; and there can be no way of making the bounty taken up from the Gentiles to be the fruit of the Jerusalem poor. It was, on the other hand, the fruit of Gentile Christianity; and through the supervision and safe conveyance of it to its intended purpose, Paul, in a sense (for the words are admittedly metaphorical), sealed it to the heavenly credit of them that gave it. The existence of the aforementioned poor among the Christians in the city of Jerusalem in the sixth decade of the Christian era, when this letter was written, is proof that communal life was not practiced by the apostolic church. The so-called case of communal practice mentioned in Acts 4:32-35 was not really such a thing as communism at all. It was an effort of the Christian community to meet a tremendous need, upon an emergency basis, of the vast throng in Jerusalem for that first Pentecost of the Christian era, many of whom had remained in Jerusalem past the normal time of departure in order to hear the preaching of the gospel. If one should insist, to the contrary, that this incident was indeed communism, then the words of Batey are a thundering reply to it: The poverty of Jerusalem was not solved by their communal experiment but rather led to an even more serious financial crisis. F21 The view here, however, is that the so-called communism of Acts 4:32-35 was nothing remotely akin to communism. There were too many differences. In the New Testament situation, each one gave; in communism, the leaders take. In the church, all were free to participate or not; in communism, confiscation is enforced upon all. In the church, they were motivated by love; in communism, fear controls everything. People who draw any kind of parallel between the generous actions of the church in Acts, as compared with modern communism, are plainly mistaken. Verse 29 And I know that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fullness of the blessing of Christ. This verse arouses emotions of sorrow in the heart. Paul did indeed arrive at last in Rome, and none can deny that it was in the fullness of the blessing of Christ; but what dramatic and heartbreaking circumstances marked it! How different the actual experience must have been from what Paul had hoped and intended! Paul had in mind a great thing. He planned to finish delivery of the money to the poor in Jerusalem, then proceed to Rome, preach there and enjoy the company of the famous Christian community of the great capital for a brief season, and then he planned to be off for Spain where new victories of faith would be won, more churches established, and more territory won for the Master. Paul’s plans, as made, were never realized. He was arrested and imprisoned in Jerusalem; there was a diabolical plot to murder him; there were tedious delays, dangerous journeys, confrontations with kings and governors during the years of his imprisonment; then, there was an appeal to Caesar, a shipwreck, a poisonous viper on his hand; and, at last, up the Appian way he came, wearing a chain, as an animal is chained, and walking between the files of pagan soldiers! Was he indeed arriving in the fullness of the blessing of Christ? However it might have seemed to the grand apostle, it was true. During the years ahead of him in Rome, Paul would plant the gospel seed in the very heart of the pagan empire; that seed would germinate and grow, and at last shatter the mighty empire of the Caesars into fragments. There he would write the letters which, more than those of any other mortal, would define Christianity for all subsequent ages. There he Would indeed teach, not merely Spain, but twenty centuries of the generations of mankind. There he would baptize members of the royal establishment. There he would seal with his blood the truth and sincerity of his matchless life of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The blessing of Christ, indeed, not merely Paul’s but that of the world for ever afterward! Verse 30 Now I beseech you brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me. Paul was well aware of the dangers and difficulties that lay ahead, especially in Jerusalem; and this is an earnest plea for the prayers of his fellow Christians. Only God could protect Paul from those enemies whose vigorous hatred made Jerusalem a place of extreme hazard for him. Paul was especially warned by the Holy Spirit through Agabus (Acts 21:10) that bonds and imprisonment awaited him; and one may not accept the proposition that Paul continued his journey because of other considerations except the highest and purest motives. There were holy reasons for that trip to Jerusalem, reasons of the greatest magnitude and importance, not merely for Paul, but for the church of all ages. Those reasons are not all clearly visible from this time and distance; but that they did truly exist is absolutely certain. This appears from the fact of Paul’s making the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of the Spirit to be the basis of his request for the prayers of fellow Christians as he moved to accomplish it. Verse 31 That I may be delivered from them that are disobedient in Judea, and that my ministration which I have for Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints. Paul had a double concern, not merely his own safety, but the attitude of the church members themselves. Would they be willing to accept the collection which he had gathered through the expenditure of so vast a measure of time and energy? If they did trot, it would jeopardize the unity of the church and possibility destroy the Gentile missions he had worked to establish. No wonder he prayed to God and asked others to join. What if the racial prejudice in Jerusalem had caused the poor Christians to say, "We will not touch a gift from the Gentiles,"! In such a disastrous response, Paul’s gift of tears, blood, sweat and money would have been in vain. No wonder he prayed that they would accept it! Where, ever in history, was there another prayer like this? Paul’s fears and prayers were more than justified by the swift succession of tragic events which befell his mission to Jerusalem. God, however, had indeed heard his prayers. The Christian poor accepted the bounty of their Gentile brethren; the enemies were foiled, and Paul’s life was spared. An army guarded Paul’s life as he was transported out of Jerusalem; and, in time, the battlements of Rome loomed upon his horizon. Moreover, the Judaizing of Christianity, taking place at that very instant in Jerusalem, as evidenced by the testimony of the Jerusalem elders that: Many thousands of them (the Christians) ... are all zealous for the Law (Acts 21:24); - that Judaizing process God himself would summarily thwart by the utter destruction of Jerusalem within a few short years afterwards. Verses 32, 33 That I may come unto you in joy through the will of God, and together with you find rest. Now the peace of God be with you all. Amen. That I may come unto you in joy ... refers to the projected acceptance on the part of the poor Christians in Jerusalem of the bounty provided by the Gentiles. If they accepted it (which they did), Paul would be relieved of anxiety on that score and would come "with joy." Hodge’s discerning words on this passage are: Paul seemed to look forward to his interview with the Christians in Rome, as a season of relief from conflict and labor. In Jerusalem, he was beset with unbelieving Jews, and harassed by Judaizing Christians; in most other places, he was burdened with the care of the churches; but at Rome, which he looked upon as a resting place, rather than a field of labor, he hoped to gather strength for the prosecution of his apostolic labors in still more distant lands. F22 Now the peace of God be with you all ... Paul had asked them to pray for him; and some have thought that Paul here prays for them, not a long prayer, but one so rich and full of meaning that its single petition includes all others. Of course, this is a beautiful thought; but there are strong reasons for taking another view. This is another doxology, among many in this epistle; and a doxology differs from a prayer in three important particulars: (1) it is addressed to people, and not to God; (2) it does not contain or advocate any request or petition for the forgiveness of sins; and (3) it is not offered in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Footnotes forRomans 15 1 : W. Sanday, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 267. 2: Kenneth Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), p. 257. 3: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 447. 4: Kenneth Wuest, loc. cit. 5: Robertson L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to Saints in Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 292. 6: R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 899. 7: William M. Greathouse, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 279. 8: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 278. 9: Kenneth S. Wuest, op. cit., p. 259. 10: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 905. 11: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 448. 12: Kenneth S. Wuest, op. cit., p. 260. 13: R. C. H. Lenski, loc. cit. 14: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 456. 15: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 906. 16: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 449. 17: Moses E. Lard, loc. cit. 18: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 492. 19: Ibid. 20: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 135. 21: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 269. 22: H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Pickering and Inglis, Ltd.), p. 425. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 8: 16 ROMANS CHAPTER SIXTEEN ======================================================================== Rom 16:1-27 Verse 1 I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is in Cenchraea; that ye receive her in the Lord, worthily of the saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever matter she may have need of you: for she herself also hath been a helper of many, and of mine own self. CHURCH LETTERS The first two verses here are an apostolic example of what is called today a "church letter," or letter of recommendation borne by a Christian transferring from one place to another. The length of Phoebe’s projected stay in Rome was not given, being immaterial; because Christians, wherever they go, and for whatever length of time, should seek the faithful in Christ for worship and association. The fact that Phoebe might have required some assistance from the brethren on the business matters which occasioned her going to Rome was not the sole reason for this letter, other considerations of importance being evident in the status declared of her that she was "our sister" and "in the Lord," expressions meaning that she was a faithful member of the church. Also, she was presented as "a servant of the church and a helper of many," indicating the fullest extent of her faithfulness and devotion to the work of the Lord. That Phoebe presented her credentials as a Christian in good standing with her home congregation is to be inferred from the delivery of the entire epistle which contained it; and thus it is plain that she "put in her membership" with the Christians in Rome for whatever period she remained there. The purpose in calling attention to this is to stimulate more business-like attention on the part of both congregations and individual Christians to the problem of itinerancy of Christians, many of whom are lost to the church through their failure to enlist as working members of another congregation, following a transfer of residence. Many no doubt feel that they are already members wherever they happen to be; and, although there is a sense in which this is true, this formal commendation of Phoebe to the Christians in Rome shows that something more was required than merely hanging her hat in a new place. No one could have understood this problem any better than Paul; for there was a time when he himself came down to Jerusalem and "assayed to join himself to the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple" (Acts 9:26). Paul’s purpose of "joining" the Jerusalem congregation was realized through the intervention of Barnabas, thus setting the great example which would require every child of God to make it his first order of business, upon a change of residence, to "join himself to the disciples" in the new location. Why do Christians often neglect the duty indicated here? (1) They fear the new location is only temporary, or hope it is, and therefore hesitate to give full participation in the work and worship of a new congregation. (2) Some hesitate out of a sense of loyalty to the old congregation, not realizing that loyalty to the old one is best expressed and proved by ardent loyalty to the new one. (3) Others do not wish to be obligated in a new congregation and seize the chance to "float around" for a while without forming a stable relationship. (4) Still others are just weak Christians who do not have sufficient power to pursue the life of faith, apart from the encouragements of the old situation; and a change of residence for such weak disciples can be, and often is, the occasion of their permanent loss. Denny, as quoted by Wuest, pointed out that: "Commend" is the technical word for this kind of recommendation, which was equivalent to a certificate of church membership. F2 The word carries with it the meaning of "vouch for." Phoebe ... was said by Hodge to have been derived from Phoebus (Apollo), the name of a pagan deity, and from this reasoned that: Christians retained their names, although they were derived from the names of false gods, because they had lost all religious significance and reference. In like manner, we retain the use of the names of the days of the week, without ever thinking of their derivation. F3 Wuest and others declare that Phoebe was certainly a widow, making the deduction: On the ground that she could not, according to Greek manners, have been mentioned as acting in the independent manner described, either if her husband had been living, or if she had been unmarried. F4 DEACONESSES Servant of the church ... The term "servant" is translated deaconess in later versions of the New Testament, and is often alleged as proof that a separate order of female deacons existed in the early church. If that was true, why did Paul address the church at Philippi with a greeting of "the elders and deacons" without reference to deaconesses? . Perhaps Whiteside was correct in the conclusion that this word, as Paul here used it, does not prove that she occupied an official position. ... We let our minds run to officialdom too much. F5 Lenski stated categorically that Phoebe occupied an official position by appointment of the church. F6 This view is widely advocated among commentators, but is rejected here on the basis that Paul’s entire body of writings fails to disclose anything resembling an order of female deacons in the church, and upon the further fact that the scriptures alleged as teaching this do not actually teach it. Paul wrote to Timothy that: Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things, etc. (1Ti 3:11). and this is usually cited as outlining the qualifications of deaconesses; but, significantly, Paul said "women," not "deaconesses," with the overwhelming probability that the women in view were the wives of the deacons whose qualifications Paul had just enumerated, and who, unless they also met certain standards, would have disqualified their husbands from serving as deacons. There were no instructions given in the New Testament for the appointment of women as deacons; and, since there are instructions for the appointment of both elders and deacons, this omission is conclusive. Those who appoint deaconesses must do so without a clear mandate and without a scriptural list of what their qualifications should be. [Diakonos], the Greek word Paul here used, means "servant" and is usually so translated, being the same word used of policemen by Paul in Rom 13:4, also being translated as "minister." In the New Testament, it is nothing unusual for sacred writers to employ a word in more than one sense. For example, the words "covenant" and "testament" are both translated from exactly the same word in Heb 9:15-17; and the author of that epistle exploited both meanings in his argument there, showing that in some circumstances a true translation absolutely requires the rendition of different meanings for the same word; and so we believe it is here. "Deaconess" is not the proper rendition, which is "servant," as attested by the fact that the KJV and English Revised Version (1885) translators both so rendered it, taking account of the principle here stated which requires a different rendition from any that would imply such a thing as an order of female deaconesses. Therefore, the proposition is rejected that would make Paul’s reference here to Phoebe as a "servant of the church" as sufficient ground for the fantastic elaboration of this so-called office of deaconesses which abounds in some of the commentaries. There is just as much basis for alleging that there is a separate office of policemen in God’s church, for such secular officers are clearly called "servants of God" by Paul in Rom 13:4. The church which is at Cenchrea ... indicates how extensively the early evangelists had carried out their work. The town of Cenchrea was the eastern of two seaports, the other being Lecheum, which served the city of Corinth, situated on the isthmus of the same name. Cenchrea was about nine miles from Corinth. The existence of a church at one of these ports, and presumably in other similar places throughout the area, shows how widely the gospel had been preached. Temples of various pagan deities were located in this area, among them those of Isis, Venus, and Aesculapius. Receive her in the Lord ... means to receive her as a faithful Christian, or member of the body of Christ, and means far more than a mere perfunctory or courteous reception. She was commanded to be received in a religious manner and from religious motives and to be given whatever assistance she required, the expression "worth fly of the saints" applying to both the type of reception the church was to give and the quality of the reception Phoebe was entitled to receive. Reasons for such a warm and appropriate reception derived from her status as a Christian sister and from the record of her own helpfulness to others, a helpfulness which had extended to Paul himself, and which he mentioned here as further ground of Phoebe’s legitimate claim upon the loving help of the church in Rome. Verse 3 Salute Prisca and Aquila my fellow-workers in Christ Jesus. "Priscilla" is the diminutive form of the name Prisca and was probably the term used by her close friends and associates (Acts 18:2; but Paul, in such a formal letter as this to a congregation where he had never visited, would naturally have used her more formal name, Prisca. Amazingly, she is mentioned first, even ahead of her husband, and first of all those whom Paul was about to name. From this it has been concluded that she was more active and successful in Christian work than her husband Aquila; for not merely here, but in Acts 18:18; Acts 18:26, and 2Ti 4:19, the same preeminence of Priscilla is indicated; however, in Acts 18:2 and 1Co 16:19, Aquila is mentioned first. There were doubtless very good reasons why this couple should have headed the list of all whom Paul desired to salute in Rome, and some have supposed that Prisca was of the Roman nobility; but we cannot believe that anything of that nature would have carried any weight whatever with Paul. There were qualities of character and service involved in the bestowal of such honor as was given this great Christian woman, an honor above even that of her husband; and it is natural to think of their laying "down their own necks" on Paul’s behalf, an action in which Prisca might well have been the principal participant, encouraged and supported by her husband. My fellow workers in Christ Jesus ... This couple were citizens of Rome, where Aquila was engaged in tent-making; and its being written that they "were tentmakers" shows that Priscilla also had an active hand in the business. In 49 A.D., the emperor Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome; and thus it came about that Prisca and Aquila opened up a tent-making business in Corinth, where, in the providence of God, they became acquainted with Paul and were converted to Christ. What a glorious blessing, therefore, the cruel edict of the emperor proved to be for them; for if Claudius had not expelled the Jews, they might not ever have known the truth of the gospel. They aided Paul in the work of evangelism in Corinth; and, when Paul transferred his labors to Ephesus, they evidently followed him there (Acts 18:18) and were eyewitnesses of the turbulence and violence that resulted from his preaching there. Greathouse wrote that: They may have been involved in the troubles described in Acts 19:23-40 and, in these, they may have laid down their own necks for Paul’s life. F7 When the edict of Claudius was lifted, Prisca and Aquila returned to Rome, as proved by the salutation here; but, still later, as Sanday observed, "They seem to have returned to Ephesus (2Ti 4:19)." F8 As Dodd and others have pointed out, it would not have been necessary for Prisca and Aquila to have closed down their tent-making operation due to Claudius’ edict; they could merely have appointed a manager and have continued to maintain both their home and business in the great world capital. Similarly, they could have operated the establishments in Corinth and Ephesus, thus owning a home and a business in each of those cities. If such as this did occur, it would account for the fact that no less than five terms of residence in those various cities are visible in the New Testament account; and this would also help explain the immense influence of this tremendous Christian couple. Verses 4, 5 Who for my life laid down their own necks; unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles: and salute the church that is in their house. Salute Epaenetus my beloved, who is the firstfruits of Asia unto Christ. Paul here declared that he actually owed his life to this couple and that this laid the whole brotherhood of Gentile churches under a debt of gratitude to Prisca and Aquila for having saved Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. What a wonderful thing it would be to know just what happened. It was an event of the highest drama and significance, and known from one end of the pagan empire to the other; but now, alas, it is a deed buried under centuries of silence, with only this single finger of divine light having been left as a record of so brave and unselfish an act. Surely, the word of the Lord is not like the words of men. In view of what surely happened, all of the illustrious achievements of this great apostle must be credited to this noble couple who saved his life. No wonder the pen of inspiration wrote their names first. Laid down their own necks ... is perhaps the basis of the colloquial proverb regarding "sticking out one’s neck." Many acts of craven cowardice have been justified by their perpetrators who said, either to themselves or others, "I’m not going to stick my neck out!" Here on the sacred page is the shining record of a Christian couple who did stick theirs out, and, in doing so, saved Paul’s Gentile mission and stored up for themselves an eternal reward. And salute the church that is in their house ... A congregation was meeting regularly in their home for the purpose of Christian worship; and, although the group was probably not very large, it is here called a church, that is, a local congregation. This great couple had also similarly housed the church in Ephesus (1Co 16:19). Similar instances of household congregations revealed in the New Testament are those of Mary (Acts 12:12), of Nymphas (Col 4:15), of Philemon (Phm 1:2), and also, perhaps, the groups mentioned in Rom 16:14-15, below. This was probably the usual manner in which the Christians of that era solved: the problems of a place to worship. Bishop Lightfoot (quoted by Wuest) wrote that: There is no clear example of a separate building set apart for Christian worship within the limits of the Roman empire before the third century. The Christian congregations were therefore dependent upon the hospitality of prominent members of the church who furnished their homes for this purpose. F9 In view of this historical fact, and the inspired evidence of it before our eyes, one may only marvel at the divisions among brethren over the question of whether or not food may be served in a church house! From the facts, as evidenced in the example of Prisca and Aquila, it can safely be inferred that anything a Christian might do in his home could, under the proper circumstances, be done in a religious meeting house, the home in fact having been the original meeting house of the apostolic church. Salute Epaenetus my beloved ... Two facts regarding this person catch the attention: (1) that he was converted in Asia (probably at Ephesus) while Paul was there, and (2) that his name is here closely listed with those of Prisca and Aquila. This would give plausibility to the speculation of Lenski, thus: It is likely that Epaenetus was converted by Prisca and Aquila, and that for this reason his name is mentioned here after their names. It is even surmised that he was a tentmaker, worked in Aquila’s shop, and thus came to Rome with this couple. Paul would thus know him intimately, and "my beloved" would fit exactly. F10 Verse 6 Salute Mary who bestowed much labor on you. Despite the fact that "on you" is preferred in the rendition here, upon what the translators considered strongly sufficient technical grounds, there is much to commend an alternate reading "on us," meaning "upon the apostle Paul," that being the translation preferred by Hodge on the grounds of its being better suited to the context. He wrote: The assiduous service of Mary rendered to the apostle is a more natural reason of his salutation than that she had been serviceable to Roman Christians. F11 Wuest observed that: The name in the Greek text is Marian, a Jewish name, the same as Miriam. F12 Nothing is known of this diligent Christian woman but what is said here; and even this is not absolutely clear, due to the question of who was the beneficiary of her labors; but whether it was upon Paul or upon the saints in Rome that her labors were expended, it is the degree and diligence of those labors which are brought to view here. The Greek word here translated "much labor" indicates work sufficiently heavy to produce weariness and fatigue. Verse 7 Salute Andronicus and Juntas, my kinsmen, and fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me. Juntas ... a name like the English "Jean," is either masculine or feminine; but the coupling of both names here signifies that both were men. As Lenski said: This is Junias, a man, not Junia (Julia), a woman, wife or sister of Andronicus. F13 Kinsmen ... as applied here to Andronicus and Junias, and others in this chapter, is frequently alleged to mean racial or Jewish kinsmen, rather than a family connection with Paul; but, if that view is correct, why was not this word applied to Prisca and Aquila who were also Jews This consideration alone is enough to justify understanding this as a reference to some of Paul’s family, perhaps cousins or uncles. Lard agreed with this, thus: They were Paul’s real kin, according to the flesh, and not his kin merely in the loose sense of being of the same tribe or nation. F14 There is a problem in this view, that being the question of why Paul came to mention two of his kin in this verse, another in Rom 16:11, and three more in Rom 16:21, prompting the query by Lenski: Did Paul have six relatives of the family in Rome; and did he scatter them throughout his list of greetings instead of greeting them together in a group? F15 A careful study of this chapter reveals excellent, even compelling, reasons for Paul’s deployment of the names of his kinsfolk throughout this chapter and proves Lenski’s questioning of it to be wrong. For example, Lenski’s implication that Paul should have grouped them all together ignores the fact that three of the kinsfolk mentioned in Rom 16:21, Lucian, Jason, and Sosipater, were not receiving Paul’s greetings at all but were joined with Paul as sending greetings! Furthermore, the separation of the names of Andronicus and Junias here from that of Herodian in Rom 16:11 resulted from the fact that Herodian, probably a slave, was more logically included with the other slaves of the household of Aristobulus. Paul’s recognition of this enslaved kinsman by singling him out and stating his relationship is as tender and beautiful a thing as may be found in all Paul’s letters, and was a most effective way for Paul to have identified himself with all the Christians who were slaves (as so many were). It was perfectly in line with this desire to be one with all the Christians that Paul referred to himself in the very beginning of this letter as a "bondslave" of Christ (Rom 1:1). By his meaningful and sympathetic identification of himself with a kinsman who was bound to Aristobulus, Paul showed his utter disdain for those social distinctions so dear to the world. On the other hand, if Paul had pulled the name of Herodian out of the list of the other slaves and included it in this verse along with those of Andronicus and Junias, such an action could have been construed as due to shame on Paul’s part to acknowledge the true status of his slave kinsman, Herodian. Thus the problem of the separation of these names does not exist. It would have been impossible to have grouped them all together, due to some being senders and others recipients of greetings, and the further removal of Herodian to a separate listing was demanded by the circumstance of his slavery. My fellow-prisoners ... reveals a truth not otherwise recorded in the New Testament. When, where, and how were these kinsfolk fellow-prisoners with Paul? God knows. This does not necessarily mean that Andronicus and Junias were imprisoned at the same time and place with Paul, but that they were closely associated with him in such trials. Paul’s sufferings and imprisonments were much more extensive than those detailed in the New Testament, as proved by his own summary of them (2Co 11:23f), indicating that there were indeed ample opportunities for these two kinsmen to have suffered with Paul through one, or some, of his imprisonments; and, regardless of the possibility of other meanings, the likelihood is that these kinsmen were actually in jail with Paul on some occasion, or occasions, when the great apostle suffered for the faith. Who are of note among the apostles ... is a reference to the reputation of Andronicus and Junias who were known and respected within the circle of the twelve apostles themselves. This meaning is required by the facts: (1) of there at this time never having been an apostle in Rome, and (2) of Paul’s exclusive use of "apostle" in its primary meaning of himself, or the twelve apostles. Hodge stated that the word "apostle" is never used in Paul’s writing except in strict official sense. F16 The reasons for these kinsmen of Paul’s being so favorably known among the twelve apostles probably were lodged in the sufferings they had undergone, as mentioned here, and in the fact of their having been such a long while faithful members of the church, having preceded Paul in their acceptance of Christianity. Who also have been in Christ before me ... Lard thought that: These very two men, Andronicus and Junias, were not improbably among those strangers in Rome (Acts 2:10); and at that same Pentecost they might have become Christians, and there have formed the acquaintance with the apostles. This would account for their being "of note" with the apostles, and also for their having been "in Christ" before Paul. Besides, their case may throw no little light on the question, By whom was the gospel first preached in Rome? In them, we may have a clue to the answer. F17 In Christ ... is used here as the equivalent of being a Christian and shows that none were ever considered Christians by an apostle unless they had been baptized into Christ, that being the manner he himself had stated to be the way of entering Christ (Rom 6:1-4). Verse 8 Salute Ampliatus my beloved in the Lord. Regarding the brevity of this salutation, Godet noted that: Paul, having no distinction to mention as belonging to this person, contents himself with pointing him out to the respect of the church by the expression of his affection. F18 Nothing could possibly give a keener insight into Paul’s noble and affectionate nature than the epithets applied to various persons in this list. What a noble loving heart it was that took the trouble to remember Ampliatus with this warm expression of love, and that in the face of the fact that there was apparently nothing very distinguished about his Christian service! Paul loved him because he was "in the Lord," therefore beloved of the Saviour; and is that not enough? If, after all of life’s trials and tribulations, we may find ourselves loved of the Lords - that alone is everything! Verse 9 Salute Urbanus our fellow-worker in Christ, and Stachys my beloved. It is manifest here that Urbanus was not Paul’s fellow worker, but "ours," that is, of the whole Christian brotherhood, particularly that of Rome; but Paul claimed him in the sense of being a part of the brotherhood Urbanus served. Stachys, on the other hand, was personally known to Paul and honored in the same manner as Ampliatus, above. Godet gave the meaning of these two names as "Urbanus, meaning citizen, and Stachys, meaning ear of corn. F19 Our word "urban" is similar to Urbanus. Both of these names, which seem to be of the character of nicknames, might be roughly translated as City Boy and Ear of Corn, and may therefore be viewed possibly as the names of persons who were then, or had been, slaves. Verse 10 Salute Apelles the approved in Christ. Salute them that are of the household of Aristobulus. No one can say what test or trial was endured by Apelles that he should have won so favorable an accolade as that here bestowed by an apostle; but, whatever it was, it must have gained wide publicity among the Christians of that age, for it appears here that Paul had heard of Apelles but was not personally acquainted with him. Paul’s act of singling him out for such a salutation shows that his faith had distinguished him in Rome. Of the household of Aristobulus ... Macknight noted that in this verse Aristobulus is definitely not greeted, but only certain of his household, the same being true of Narcissus, mentioned next. He wrote: He and Narcissus seem to have had, each of them, a numerous family of slaves and others, some of whom were Christians, and the fame of whose virtues had reached the apostle. F20 Sanday had this word regarding these persons: Aristobulus, a grandson of Herod the Great, was educated and lived in a private station in Rome. From the friendly terms on which he stood with the Emperor Claudius, it seems not unlikely that, by a somewhat common custom, his household may have been transferred to the emperor upon his death. In that case his slaves would (continue to) be designated by such a term as we find in the Greek (that is, of the household of Aristobulus). F21 If such opinions of the scholars should be allowed, as it appears they should be, this and the following case of Narcissus go far to identify the Christians said to have been "of Caesar’s household" (Php 4:22). Moule also accepted this view, saying that: Aristobulus ... was a grandson of Herod the Great, and the brother of Agrippa of Judaea; a prince who lived and died at Rome. At his death, it would be no improbable thing that his "household" should pass by legacy to the Emperor, while they would still, as a sort of clan, keep their old master’s name, Aristobulus’ servants, probably many of them Jews (Herodian, St. Paul’s kinsman, may have been a retainer of this Herod), would thus now be a part of the "household of Caesar"; and the Christians among them would be thought of by Paul as among the "household saints." F22 Verse 11 Salute Herodias my kinsman. Salute them that are of the household of Narcissus, that are in the Lord. See under Rom 16:7 for notes regarding Herodian. The household of Narcissus is here to be understood as only that portion of them who were Christians, that is, "in the Lord," with the necessary inference that "household" as used in these verses has reference to a much larger group than would have been the case if it had referred only to the Christians. This fact strongly supports the view that the "households" in view here and in Rom 16:10 were the historical establishment households of the prince Aristobulus, and the emperor’s favorite, Narcissus. Of the latter, Conybeare and Howson noted that: There were two eminent persons by the name of Narcissus about this time; one being the well-known favorite of Claudius, who was put to death by Nero in 54 A.D. (four years before this letter was written). ... The other was a favorite of Nero, and is probably the person here named. Some of his slaves or freedmen had become Christians. This Narcissus was put to death by Galba. F23 We need not necessarily accept Conybeare and Howson’s choice of which Narcissus was mentioned by Paul here, especially in view of the custom of the slaves’ keeping their master’s name, as a kind of family, even after his death and their transfer to others. Thus, Paul might still have addressed those persons as "the household of Narcissus," despite their being then the property of the emperor. Lightfoot, as quoted by Murray, thought it was the other Narcissus (favorite of Claudius) who was mentioned here. He justified this by adding: Though deceased, his household would still go under his name as likewise the case of Aristobulus. F24 The sandwiching of the name of Herodian, Paul’s kinsman, in between these two households made up principally, if not totally, of slaves, is further evidence that Herodian was a bondservant. J. W. McGarvey was impressed with the writings of Lightfoot and others on this subject, making the following comment: Lightfoot argues very plausibly that most of those here greeted by Paul were Nero’s servants, once in Greece, especially Philippi, and now called in Rome, whence they later sent back greetings to Philippi (Php 4:22). An imperial burial ground at Rome bears names like most of these, and the parties there buried lived in Paul’s day. F25 See more on this under Rom 16:15. Verse 12 Salute Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who labor in the Lord. Salute Persis who labored much in the Lord. Batey observed that the first two names are of twin sisters, described as "Those workers in the Lord ..." Paul may wish by this description to point out that although their names were "Dainty" and "Delicate" - for this is what their Greek names mean they were like "iron butterflies" in their labors for Christ. F26 Batey’s contrast of the strong work done by those ladies with the fragile names is similar to saying, "Look what a strong job old Weakly is doing!" Of course, nothing whatever is actually known of these three Christian ladies singled out for special greetings from Paul, since this is the only place they are mentioned in the New Testament. Persis the beloved ... All three names in this verse are feminine, but there are marked differences in the way Paul presented them, the present tense being used for the labor of the twins, and the past tense for the work of Persis. "The beloved" designates only Persis, not the twins; but the reason for such significant variations is not discernible. Murray thought that the past tense with reference to Persis might have meant that age or infirmity had overtaken Persis and she was no longer active as she had been. F27 Who labor in the Lord ... was translated by Barrett thus: "Who labor in the Lord ..." means "who toil in the Lord," meaning to work as a Christian but not necessarily to do "Christian (that is, "church") work." F28 The distinction thus noted by Barrett is of the utmost importance; and the proper attention to it will prevent thinking of the various Christian ladies mentioned here as deaconesses, or, in any manner, formal official church employees. "Toiling in the Lord" is here used of persons who, in all probability, were slaves in the establishment of Nero; and their duties must be understood as having been arduous and nearly ceaseless, but their performance of every duty was in the spirit of being "unto the Lord"; and so their work was sanctified by their membership in the body of Christ. So it is with every person whose work, of whatever nature, is done in a spirit of loving submission to the will of God. Paul taught that all honorable employment engaged in by Christians was actually work being done "unto the Lord," a thought somewhat differently expressed by him, thus: And whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus (Col 3:17). Verse 13 Salute Rufus the chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine. Conybeare and Howson did not hesitate to identify this Rufus as the son of Simon of Cyrene who bore the Saviour’s cross (Mark 15:21), and many agree with this; but Batey dismissed such an identification as "mere conjecture." F29 The probability persists, however, that this Rufus is the one mentioned by Mark; for, as Barrett noted, He (Rufus) plays no part in Mark’s story and must have been named only for identification. This means that he must have been known in the church (probably Rome) for which the second gospel was written. F30 Conybeare and Howson’s comment is to the same effect, thus: Mark (Mark 15:21) mentions Simon of Cyrene as "the father of Alexander and Rufus"; the latter, therefore, was a Christian well known to those for whom St. Mark wrote, and probably is the same here mentioned. It is gratifying to think that she whom St. Paul mentions here with such respectful affection, was the wife of that Simon who bore the Saviour’s cross. F31 Chosen in the Lord ... is not a reference to anything such as the doctrine of election, but simply means "one of God’s choice men." Adam Clarke called attention to biblical expressions such as "choice gifts" (Deu 12:11) and "choice men" (Judges 22:16), and noted that: By the same use of the word, the companions of Paul and Barnabas are termed "chosen men," persons in whom the church of God could confide. F32 His mother and mine ... was very probably intended by Paul as a warm, personal, and respectful recognition of a gracious Christian woman who had treated him as a son and had aided and encouraged his marvelous work; but there is another possibility that cannot be omitted from consideration. When Paul became a Christian, it is possible that his own parents rejected him, and that he was adopted by the mother of Alexander and Rufus. The total absence from Paul’s writings of any mention of his parents, and the known custom of the Jews of holding a funeral for apostates from Judaism (funerals of the living dead, in their view), and withal, Paul’s plaintive cry: For whom I have suffered the loss of all things ... that I might gain Christ (Php 3:8). - all these things suggest a family crisis when Paul was converted to Christ. Then, there is also the problem of Paul’s wife. The fact that he was married may be inferred from his apparent membership in the Sanhedrin; and, although no absolute certainty exists with reference to such considerations as these, there certainly exists the possibility that when Paul became a Christian, he was cast out by all of his immediate family, though not by all the kin (as evidenced in this chapter); and, in view of such possibility, there could well be more implied by this tender reference to Rufus’ mother than merely a warm personal compliment. Verse 14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brethren that are with them. These persons, all people, along with other Christians who were doubtless associated with them, formed some kind of a Christian community in Rome, perhaps another household congregation rotating their meeting places in the homes of those singled out for salutation, or a grouping in some geographical area of the great city, or other. One can only be amazed at the knowledge Paul had concerning the progress of Christianity in the Roman capital. Verse 15 Salute Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints that are with them. Here again, five more people are mentioned, although Nereus’ sister’s name is not given. Both men and women are included. Julia was usually a feminine name, and the bearer of it might well have been the wife of Philologus, though not likely his sister, in view of Paul’s use of that word a moment later. This was another group of Christians in Rome; and the impression is received that here was another household congregation. Not many of the Christians of that day would have owned a house large enough to accommodate such a congregation regularly; and, therefore, it would have been quite logical for them to have taken turns, Sunday by Sunday, worshiping in the homes of various members with houses large enough or convenient enough to supply the need. Such a possibility is certainly suggested by the lack that there are only four or five Sundays per month, corresponding exactly with the four or five persons mentioned in each of these groups. Of course, Prisca and Aquila were able to provide a place in their home as a regular meeting place for all the services of their group, being obviously more able than most others to do such a thing (see under 16:3). This roll of names, so sacred to the Christian religion, is here completed; and it is no mere list of dry syllables, for these are among God’s redeemed ones from this earth. We do not know them, nor the distant world in which they lived; but it is our priceless privilege to know him in whom they lived and in whose service they lived and died. As Moule said: The roll of names is over, with its music, that subtle characteristic of such recitations of human personalities, and with its moving charm for the heart due almost equally to our glimpses of information about one here and there and to our total ignorance about the others. F33 There is only one other place on earth, apart from the New Testament, where one finds a record of such names as these. It was described by Moule, thus: A place of burial on the Appian way, devoted to the ashes of Imperial freemen and slaves, and other receptacles, all to be dated with practical certainty about the middle of the first century, yield the following names: AMPLIAS, URBANUS, STACHYS, APELLES, TRYPHAENA, TRYPHOSA, RUFUS, HERMAS, PHILOLOGUS, JULIUS, NEREIS (this last a name which might have denoted the sister of a man named NEREUS. F34 It is asking too much of the imagination to separate these names on the ashes of the dead from identity with the persons named by Paul in this astonishing chapter. Verse 16 Salute one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ salute you. The salutation here is not that of Paul, as if he had said, "Kiss everyone for me," but the salutation of the members themselves for one another with a sacred kiss of Christian love. Such a kiss, upon the brow, or cheek, sometimes on both cheeks, or upon the hands, as in the Greek orthodox church until this day, was a common form of salutation in ancient times. It was brought over into Christianity by apostolic commandment and continued for many centuries, prevailing as custom in many places yet. The sacred kiss as an affectionate greeting conveyed an evidence of mutual love, respect, honor, and equality, and was evidently used by Christ and the apostles themselves, hence the odium that attached to Judas’ use of such a greeting to betray the Son of God. All the churches of Christ ... refers to Christians wherever in that period of time, and especially to the congregations founded by the apostle Paul. Each community of believers was separately designated as a church of Christ, and all of them together were called collectively the churches of Christ. Verse 17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which ye learned: and turn away from them. This, and through Rom 16:20, form an apostolic warning against false and divisive teachers whom Paul expected to trouble the unity and harmony of the church in Rome. Paul had evidently received remarkably full and accurate reports on what was happening in Rome, and there were many things for which he was no doubt thankful; but his experience had taught him that the crooked zeal of false teachers would eventually reach Rome, hence this powerful warning. I beseech you ... is like the plea in Rom 12:1, and means "I beg of you, please." Mark them ... means "identify them," "watch out for them," and "be on your guard against them." Whiteside commented thus: Do not shut your eyes to what they are doing, nor make excuses for them, nor for any others who cause divisions and occasions of stumbling contrary to the gospel, but turn away from them. This means that the brethren should have no fellowship with them. F35 Apparently, at the time Paul wrote, the leadership of the congregations in Rome had been able to preserve unity; and Paul’s admonition here was given to strengthen their hands and warn them against heretical teachers already operating among the churches and sure to reach Rome in time. Verse 18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by their smooth and fair speech they beguile the hearts of the innocent. The contrast here is between what the false teachers are and do on the one hand and what they pretend to be and claim on the other hand. Pretending to serve Christ, they serve themselves alone, "belly" as used here being a reference to all of the carnal and fleshly desires. They were able speakers, with a ready flow of eloquent words; and impressive rhetoric and oratory were their stock in trade. Their deceitfulness and wickedness were masked and guarded with every possible camouflage of pretended piety and devotion. Intent upon causing division as a means of drawing away disciples after themselves, these false teachers are Satan’s attack forces (the shift to present tense is to focus on the problem as it still exists), not merely for the times and places known to Paul, but for all times and places, including the present now and here. The innocent ... is Paul’s reference to the naive, unsophisticated Christian, who is inclined to receive any "good speech" as the gospel truth, no matter what sacred truth may be denied by it, and never pauses to question anything, especially if the speech is a good one, and who thus unconsciously falls into the net of the false teacher. Verse 19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I rejoice therefore over you: but I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple to that which is evil. The threat of evil teachers and their seductive operations was pointed out by Christ himself (Mat 7:15-23), and the Saviour’s description of such persons is still the fountain source of the true knowledge concerning them. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, being recognizable principally by their fruits. The minister, or other teacher, who scatters the flock is a wolf, regardless of his pretensions. His sheepskin garb and pretended piety cannot disguise his true status as an enemy. Paul, of course, rejoiced that until the time then present, the Roman leadership had preserved harmony and unity among the Christians; but, by Paul’s warning here, he prophetically alerted them to certain danger ahead. Paul was careful, in giving such an alert, not to insinuate that the false teachers had already arrived there, hence the first clause of this verse; but it would have been folly not to warn them. Simple unto that which is evil ... seems a little ambiguous as applied to Paul’s argument here and has been explained in various ways; but its manifest reference to a desired reaction against the wiles of false teachers gives a clue to the false teacher’s modus operandi, which was invariably grounded in a pretended superiority of knowledge and intelligence. Their views were always "advanced," allegedly, and were represented to be very learned and complicated, and thus contrasting dramatically with the great simplicities of the true religion of Christ. As Paul wrote: But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his craftiness, your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity and purity that is toward Christ (2Co 11:3). The boldness of the false teacher is always evident in his blunt rejection of valid truth coupled with an arrogant charge of simple-mindedness against those who hold and believe it. Very well, Paul seemed to say in this place, I want you to stay simple with reference to the so-called erudition of the false teacher! The following verse, with its reference to bruising Satan under their feet, dramatically recalls that scene in Eden where God foretold such a bruising, a thing also clearly in Paul’s mind in the verse just cited, above, and in which primeval event there existed the same element of the false wisdom still being promised by Satan and his workers. Satan promised Eve that she should be "as God, knowing good and evil" (Gen 3:5); but the unfortunate mother of all living would have been wiser to have remained simple to the wisdom Satan offered. This is the thrust of Paul’s word here. Verse 20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Those commentators who view this eschatologically and allege that Paul expected the end of the world shortly, miss the plain point of this verse. Murray was absolutely correct when he saw this as an allusion to Gen 3:15. As he said: "God of peace" in this place clearly has reference to God’s maintaining peace in the church, because of its particular relevance to the bruising of Satan. The previous verses have in view the division caused by Satan’s instruments. It is God who bruises Satan and establishes peace in contrast with conflict, discord, and division. He is therefore the God of peace. The assurance given in this verse is the encouragement to heed the admonitions. Each element is significant. God will crush Satan; he will crush him under the feet of the faithful; and he will do it speedily. The promise of a victorious issue undergirds the fight of faith. F36 Likewise, Hodge commented: The apostle, in giving them the assurance of the effectual aid of God, calls him the God of peace. F37 Thus, the bruising of Satan is not something here promised for the remote future, but is a triumph over him to be won immediately and speedily by the Roman Christians who would have the effectual aid of God in maintaining the unity and peace of the Christians when they would be attacked by the false teachers. The entire thrust of this whole passage is not forward to the eternal judgment, but retrospective to Gen 3:15. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you ... is another of the numerous doxologies in Romans. Verse 21 Timothy my fellow-worker saluteth you; and Lucian and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen. This and the next two verses contain the greetings sent by Paul’s kinsfolk, his other fellow-workers, their host, and Paul’s amanuensis, there being no less than eight of these. Timothy, of course, was usually with the apostle when circumstances permitted it, and a great affection existed between them. Two of Paul’s epistles were addressed to him, and his name must be hailed as among the most illustrious in the Bible. The last three names in this verse are those of Paul’s kin, of whom practically nothing is known. Regarding these three, Greathouse thought: Lucius may be the one mentioned in Acts 13:1. Jason was once Paul’s host (Acts 17:5-9) in Thessalonica. "Sosipater" may be the longer form of "Sopater" mentioned in Acts 20:4. F38 The objection of some commentators to Paul’s not mentioning all of his kinsfolk in the same sentence is nullified by the fact that these three were not in Rome, but in Corinth with Paul, and were joined with Paul in sending greetings to others, including three more of the kinsfolk, who were in Rome. If this elaboration of this point seems somewhat overdone, it is to refute the insinuations which fail to take this into account. For more on this, see under Rom 16:7 and Rom 16:11. Verse 22 I Tertius, who write the epistle, salute you in the Lord. Tertius... means "third", many Roman names having been formed from the ordinal numbers, such as Primus, Segundus, Tertius, Quartus, Quintus, Sextus, Septimus, Octavius, etc. This Tertius was Paul’s amanuensis the person who transcribed Paul’s dictation, that usually having been the manner of Paul’s writing. He customarily wrote a few lines at the end of his epistles with his own hand as a kind of signature. However, Galatians was written entirely by himself as he said: Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with my own hand (Gal 6:11). We are indebted to Hodge for this: In order to authenticate his epistles, he generally wrote himself the salutation or benediction at the close; 1Co 16:21, "The salutation of me, Paul, with mine own hand"; 2Th 3:17, "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand; which is the token in every epistle: so I write." F39 Tertius was a Christian, and Paul honored him by asking that he write his own salutation to the brethren in Rome, which he did in these few words. Some have wondered at Tertius’ greeting coming so far from the end of the letter; but such may be easily explained, either upon the probability that Paul wrote the rest of the: epistle himself with his own hand, or that there was a pause, or break, in the dictation at this point where the personal greetings were being included, before Paul proceeded to dictate the magnificent final doxology. Tertius’ greeting belongs here where it was placed; and the custom of modern secretaries who type their initials at the very bottom of business letters does not reflect at all against the logic and appropriateness of the placement of Tertius’ salutation. Verse 23 Gaius my host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the treasurer of the city saluteth you, and Quartus the brother. This Gaius is doubtless that Gaius whom Paul baptized with his own hands (1Co 1:14), and in whose house he was a guest when Romans was written. Gaius appears here as a man of considerable means and great hospitality, being called a "host of the whole church." This could be understood to mean that his doors were continually open to Christians from many places, or that the congregation actually met in his house, as the church met in the house of Prisca and Aquila; and it could quite easily mean both these things. Gaius quite evidently requested Paul to include his greetings to the Roman Christians, some of whom, perhaps, had been partakers of his hospitality. Erastus was the treasurer of the city of Corinth, being therefore a man of consequence and power in that metropolis. Not many of his station in life accepted and obeyed the gospel; but it is refreshing to know that Erastus was an exception. A person, or persons, bearing this name were mentioned in Acts 19:22 and 2Ti 4:20; but there is no certainty, either that those references are to the same person, or that either of them refers to the treasurer of Corinth. Quartus the brother ... is here mentioned alongside the treasurer of the city, and with the same dignity and tenderness. The community of love in Christ was actually operating under a whole new set of value judgments which counted all people, rich and poor, weak and powerful, wise and foolish, learned or unlearned, bond or free, Jews or Gentile - all people one in Jesus Christ. Verse 24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen. Rom 16:24 is the same as Rom 16:20. Its inclusion in both places in some manuscripts is thought by scholars to have been accidental. In any case, there is no reason to suppose that it actually belongs in both places, nor can it be a matter of great consequence which place is the best one for it. Verse 25, 26, 27 Now to him that is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which hath been kept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all nations unto obedience of faith: to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory for ever. Amen. My gospel ... must not be understood as anything different from the gospel taught by the other apostles of Christ, with special reference to the great body of truth upon which Christianity is founded; nevertheless, as John Locke noted: St. Paul cannot be supposed to have used such an expression as this, unless he knew that what he preached had something in it that distinguished it from what was preached by others; which was plainly the MYSTERY, as he everywhere calls it, of God’s purpose of taking in the Gentiles to be his people, under the Messiah, and that without subjecting them to circumcision or the law of Moses. F Mystery ... in the scriptural frame of reference means a great truth, hidden and unknown for a long while, and at last revealed. Locke’s identification of the mystery with God’s calling the Gentiles and their acceptance without such things as law and circumcision is correct, but too limited in scope. The great mystery comprehends many lesser ones such as the calling of Gentiles, the hardening of Israel, the incarnation, the mystery of Christ and his church, and many others. The translation of those who remain alive at the second coming of Christ is part of the mystery. A work such as this does not permit the full exploration of the Great Mystery, which in its totality embraces the whole purpose of God in the scheme of human redemption. That the mystery was hidden before times eternal, as stated here, shows that all of the details of God’s great plan were clearly defined in God’s eternal purpose before the world itself was created. To sum it up in Paul’s own precise word: Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness (1Ti 3:16)! Through times eternal ... cannot mean merely "through history" or "through the ages"; as Wuest declared: The expression refers to the eternal ages before creation. F41 But is now manifested ... means that the mystery has been revealed, at least to a far more comprehensive degree than formerly; but it would doubtless be a mistake to conclude that the revelation of it is total, even now. Paul himself said of this mystery that it in other generations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles, etc. (Eph 3:5). Paul’s statement there merely affirms that present knowledge far surpasses former knowledge, the words "as it hath now been revealed" meaning "to the extent that it has now been revealed," and being in no sense a declaration that "all" is known about it, even now. Supporting this are the words of the apostle John: In the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound, then is finished the mystery of God, according to the good tidings which he declared to his servants the prophets (Rev 10:7). These thoughts are not presented as any disparagement of God’s great revelation already received, but are merely to point out that the mystery witl be finished at a time future. By the scriptures of the prophets ... shows that the mystery was embryonically revealed in the prophetic messages of the Old Testament (as, for example, in the matter of the calling of the Gentiles); but the complete understanding of those oracles did not arrive until the Saviour appeared upon earth. Paul, it seems, was the very first to realize and comprehend fully the totally new nature of the church and the abrogation that fell automatically upon the entire old institution; and yet that truth was surely there, embedded in the Old Testament through long centuries, despite the fact that the Jews seemed never to have had the slightest suspicion of it. The commandment of the eternal God ... is Paul’s appeal to the authority of God himself, as the complete justification of his opening the doors of salvation to the entire Gentile world. Unto all the nations ... refers especially to Gentile nations, but also means "all" in the total sense of that word, no exclusion of any kind of Jews or of anyone else, being in it. Of the greatest significance is the placement of these words in the text in such a manner as to serve as Paul’s own definition of what the mystery is. These words show that the mystery included preeminently the preaching of salvation to all nations. Unto obedience of faith ... The mystery was definitely not a brand new way to be saved by faith only, as some think; but, by Paul’s definition here, it included the preaching "unto obedience of faith." This expression, "the obedience of faith," standing here at the close of the epistle, is the same as that with which Paul opened this magnificent treatise (Rom 1:5). Together, these two dramatically placed enunciations, like great arches at opposite ends of a boulevard, make it impossible to misunderstand Paul’s many references to salvation "by faith." It is invariably and always of an obedient faith that he spoke. Without a single exception, in all of the great passages where the apostle spoke of "faith apart from works," or "faith without the works of the law of Moses," or "faith without circumcision," etc., the purpose of his words was not to question if obedience was required, but to determine what obedience was required. Paul made this principle: THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH to be an underlying foundation of everything taught in this epistle; and Paul did so by the double placement of these words, like the two mighty pillars, the Jachin and Boaz, in the porch of the temple of Solomon, so that all who enter the study of Romans might more readily discern what is taught. "To the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Footnotes forRomans 16 1 : Conybeare and Howson, Life and Letters of St. Paul (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1966), p. 535. 2: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), Vol. II, p. 231. 3: J. W. McGarvey, The Standard Bible Commentary (Cincinnati, Ohio: Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 547. 4: Richard A. Batey, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Company, 1960), p. 186. 5: John Murray, loc. cit. 6: C. K. Barrett, Commentary on Romans (New York: Harper and Row, 1957), p. 284. 7: Richard A. Batey, op. cit., p. 286. 8: C. K. Barrett, loc. cit. 9: Coneybeare and Howson, loc. cit. 10: Adam Clarke, Commentary (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), Vol. VI, p. 163. 11: H. C. G. Moule, op. cit., p. 429. 12: Ibid., p. 424. 13: Robertson L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 296. 14: John Murray, op. cit., p. 236. 16: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 451. 16: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 286. 17: Charles Hodge, loc. cit. 18: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston, Mass., 1832), p. 384. 19: Kenneth S. Wuest, op. cit., p. 266.PAUL’S FIRST LETTER TO THE CORINTHIANS 20: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. 21: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 22: Ibid. 23: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 237. 24: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 277. 25: John Locke, op. cit., p. 333. 26: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 321. 27: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 28: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 77. 29: Sir Francis Bacon, in Bartlett’s Quotations, p. 109. 30: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 280. 31: Ibid. 32: Ibid., p. 281. 33: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 325. 34: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 35: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 323. 36: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 238. 37: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 285. 38: John Locke, op. cit., p. 335. 39: Ibid. : R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 193. 41: H. C. G. Moule, op. cit., pp. 242-243. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 9: 2 ROMANS CHAPTER TWO ======================================================================== Rom 2:1-29 Verse 1 Wherefore thou art without excuse, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practice the same things. Thou art without excuse ... is the same condemnation Paul hurled at the Gentile (Rom 1:20), and here it is applied likewise to the Jew, "O man," as used in this passage, being more fully identified as bearing "the name of a Jew" (Rom 2:17), and as having the characteristic of judging other people. Thou dost practice the same things ... is a reference to the long list of abominations catalogued as the shame of the Gentiles in the last chapter (Rom 2:28-29); and those persons here addressed are condemned as guilty of "the same things." This is absolutely unreconcilable with such a view as Lenski’s: They have reformed, they see all this horrible wickedness of men, they turn against it, do it seriously, the Jewish moralist even with God’s own perfect law, and they deem this the way of escape for themselves as well as for others. F4 Absolutely no! The people here mentioned were non-Christian Jews who had refused to accept the Saviour, had projected their hatred of Christianity into the second generation, and at that very moment were intent on hunting Paul down and killing him, and who were declared by this apostle a little later in this very chapter to have been profaners of sacred things (Rom 2:22), thieves (Rom 2:21), adulterers (Rom 2:22), impenitent and hardhearted (Rom 2:5). Paul was affirming here that God’s conclusion of Jews under sin was upon exactly the same basis of his having so included the Gentiles, that is, upon the basis of their wickedness. They certainly had not reformed and seriously turned away from wickedness. The question of why, under the circumstances of their wickedness, Paul should have addressed any words at all to them is answered by the fact of the great influence those evil men were having upon Christians, especially those of Jewish background. No one besides Paul could have so appreciated the fact and power of that influence as did he; for he had been brought up a Pharisee, and was a noble Pharisee himself; and no person of that day could have better understood the Jewish syndrome than he. Paul was here concerned with destroying the hope of any person who ever thought or thinks that justification can ever come from anything except acceptance of and obedience to the gospel. Wherein thou judgest another ... It was the peculiar guilt of those persons here spoken of that, despite their wickedness, they imagined themselves to have been the heirs of eternal life because of descent from Abraham, membership in the chosen race, circumcision, etc. Having so long experienced God’s goodness and mercy, they had come to suppose themselves entitled to it, and assumed that they would be saved regardless of their conduct. Yet, strangely enough, their own sins did not prevent them from looking upon those identical actions, when visible in others, as reprehensible and damnable. To any person, especially those of Jewish heritage, in the first century, this false sanctuary of the Jewish people (false because: (1) they had not lived up to its holy requirements, and (2) because when Christ came, the old covenant itself had been abrogated) was indeed a temptation, for it advocated a cheap and easy salvation unrelated to any requirements of righteous living. The same temptation exists today when people think to be saved through membership in some group, or the acceptance of some theological doctrine, as for example, salvation by faith alone, or because they have been baptized, or because they attend church, or partake of the Lord’s supper - or upon any grounds whatever apart from obedient faith in Christ’s teaching and that holiness invariably identified with membership in the body of Christ. Thou condemnest thyself ... Here is the first of the ten principles of eternal judgment outlined by Paul in this passage. The well-known position of the adherent to Jewish privilege as the basis of hope was something like this: "Oh yes, of course, we deplore such sins as you mention; but you cannot put us in the class with that riff-raff, for we are the children of Abraham, heirs of the promises of God to the patriarchs, and members of the chosen people. God always looks after us; and we shall be judged upon the basis of who we are, rather than upon what we do!" If it be thought that this is too strong a statement of their views, the Jewish writings themselves fully corroborate the attitude thus attributed to them. For example, in the book of Akedath Jizehak (fol. 54, Col 2:1-23), it is taught that: "Abraham sits before the gate of hell, and does not allow that any circumcised Israelite should enter there." F5 So strong was the feeling on circumcision that Paul devoted a special section to it a little later. A whole generation earlier, John the Baptist had warned the Jews against trusting in any such thoughts (Mat 3:8), but his warning had not been taken to heart. Paul proceeded to refute this type of spiritual arrogance by outlining the true basis upon which God’s judgment rests; and the very first of ten principles laid down is: I. People are self-condemned when they practice what they condemn in others. This proposition, like all the others Paul outlined, is corroborated and backed up by the other sacred writers. Thus, "If our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things" (1Jn 3:20). Before leaving this first verse, an explanation of Paul’s style should be noted. As Greathouse observed: Paul is here addressing his readers in the ancient diatribe style. Throughout the epistle, it will be easier to follow his argument if we imagine the apostle face to face with a heckler who interrupts his argument from time to time with an objection, which Paul then proceeds to answer, first rebuking with a "God forbid!" (Perish the thought) and then demolishing with a reasoned answer. F6 Verse 2 And we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against them that practice such things. In this verse, as in the preceding, it is the CONDUCT of people which is condemned, a fact reiterated throughout this section. Paul was not speaking of "moralists," either Jewish or Christian, but of bold and arrogant sinners. Paul’s "we know" was his method of stating an axiom of truth relative to God, namely, that God’s judgments are righteous, and according to truth itself; and therefore God’s judgments, especially his condemnation of gross sinners, derive from the abhorrent character of their deeds, and will not be averted by any claimed exemptions on their part. According to truth ... Here is the second proposition of ten principles in God’s judgment of man. It will be "according to truth," that is, according to what God’s word in the Bible teaches, for this is a plain reference to the Sacred Scriptures which will form the grounds of man’s eternal judgment in the last day. Such passages as "Thy word is truth" (John 17:17), etc., show this is true. Also, Christ said, He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day (John 12:48). Thus the second of the ten principles is: II. People will be judged according to the Bible. Verse 3 And reckonest thou this, O man, who judgest them that practice such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? This verse makes it clear that Paul’s real subject in this paragraph is the judgment of God and the basis upon which same will be executed. Those persons who thought that God’s Judgment would ever be exercised upon partial and unequal judgments were fantastically wrong. Paul here exclaimed in utter astonishment at the foolishness of persons who fancied that they might escape the judgment of God when they were condemned even by their own consciences, a self-condemnation just mentioned in verse 1. If a man cannot escape his own judgment against himself, how could he ever hope to stand before the holy God? As Wuest expressed it: The Jew certainly thought, in many cases, that the privilege of his birth would of itself assure his entrance into the kingdom (Mat 3:8-9), this having been his practical conviction, whatever was his proper creed. F7 It was for the purpose of refuting such widespread errors regarding God’s judgment that Paul sternly propounded the true principles of it in these verses. Verse 4 Or despised thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? Here is the third great principle of divine judgment: III. God’s goodness to sinners is not a sign that he approves of sin but that he looks to their repentance. The goodness, forbearance and longsuffering, called here "the riches" of God, have reference to the special privileges of the covenant people, the Jews, who again were answered by Paul in the form of a diatribe. The argument which was refused is: "God has been very good to us, and therefore we shall continue to expect goodness and favor at his hands." The argument is false because it is founded on a misunderstanding of the purpose of God’s goodness, which is not to show approval of people’s sins, but to extend to them further opportunities of repentance, and to persuade them by means of such goodness. Despise ... means "to look down upon," or "to place a low estimate upon" something of far greater value than is recognized by the despiser. This is exactly what was done by those people, who treated the goodness and longsuffering of God as if it had been a tacit approval of their wickedness, and made it the basis of presumption that they would not finally be condemned. Of special interest is the revelation here that God’s goodness is designed to lead people to repentance, it being apparent that if God’s goodness cannot lead people to repentance, nothing else can. The response of the soul to all the mercies of heaven, the response of the human individual to all the joys, benefits, and privileges of life, as given to men by the heavenly Father that response is the God-implanted instinct of gratitude to the Creator, to the end that people should seek after God, draw near to him, and serve him with joy, and certainly not for the purpose of allowing people to feel presumptuously secure in their sins. Thus, in this verse there is continued emphasis upon the master theme, of Romans, that of the righteousness of God, his righteous JUDGMENT being the particular aspect of it considered here. Note that this is also true of the next verse. Verse 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up for theyself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. The day of ... Thus Paul followed the teaching of the Saviour who made repeated reference to "the day of judgment" (Mat 7:22; Rom 11:22-24, etc.). Impenitent heart ... shows the wrong response to God’s goodness, the purpose of which was to lead men to repent, but which had been perverted by some who had accepted it as tacit approval of THEIR wickedness, and with the result of hardness and impenitence in their hearts. How paradoxical that the very goodness of God which should have produced penitence, as intended, produced instead an arrogant, hard-hearted impenitent, who by such misuse of God’s goodness had treasured up for himself a terrible weight of wrath in the last day. The same paradox is evident in the influence of the gospel, as Paul said, For we are a sweet savor of Christ unto God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish; to the one a savor from death unto death; and to the other a savor from life unto life (2Co 2:15-16). Treasurest up ... God will reward iniquity. As Hodge noted, "To treasure up" is to lay up little by little, a store of anything whether good or evil The abusers of God’s goodness accumulate a store of wrath for themselves. F8 Verse 6 Who will render to every man according to his works. Those who fancy that Paul’s special brand of salvation was by faith without any works at all find here an insurmountable denial that he taught any such thing. On the other hand, it is plainly stated in this passage of holy writ that one of the great principles of eternal judgment is, IV. God will judge people according to their works. Moreover, Paul’s reason for so emphatically stating this principle in the beginning of Romans is apparent. Its inspired author was about to write the great dissertation which would stress salvation by faith in Christ, and was about to include many things in it that are capable of being misunderstood and abused; accordingly, he took caution here at the very outset to guard against those very misapplications of his words which he doubtless foresaw, and which misapplications have become in these present times the basic platform of a so-called "gospel" utterly unknown to Paul, at variance with practically the entire New Testament, and contradictory of Rom 2:6, above. We do not refer to the gospel of salvation by faith, or faith in Christ, or by grace, or by the grace of God, salvation in those terms being Pauline indeed; but reference is made to salvation by "faith alone," "faith only," or by "faith and nothing else." The great Protestant heresy founded upon the theory of an "imputed righteousness" solely as a result of faith alone contradicts Rom 2:6 in this place as well as countless other plain words of scripture. Rom 2:6 makes it clear that on the judgment day every man will be rewarded according to his deeds. Only the good will be saved; and only the bad will be lost. This was the same doctrine Paul wrote the Corinthians: For we must all be made manifest before the judgment seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, whether it be good or bad (2Co 5:10). Also, if Paul’s teaching with reference to salvation by faith in Christ had been intended to negate the teaching of this verse, it is inconceivable that he would have thrust this statement into such prominence here. Out of regard to the ages-old conflict of religious views in this sector of thought, and in recognition of their importance, both practically and theoretically, some little space is here devoted to an exploration of this theme. FAITH AND WORKS The New Testament declares definitely and positively that a man is justified by faith and that he is justified by works. That this is surely true appears from the following two verses, both of them from the New Testament, and here placed side by side for comparison: Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 5:1). Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith (Jas 2:24). In the light of the above two verses, it is just as true that a man is saved by works ALONE as that he is saved by faith ALONE; but, of course, the word of God says neither thing. Therefore, any proposition to the effect that man is saved, or justified, by work ALONE, or by faith ALONE, contradicts a plain statement of the word of God. Whatever the correct view may be, it must, of necessity, be one that does not contradict any statement of the scriptures; and from the two verses cited, it is revealed as a certainty that the justification of sinners in Gods sight is contingent upon BOTH faith and works. Significantly, Paul brought both faith and works together in a single text addressed to the Galatians: For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love (Gal 5:6). First, attention is directed to a class of New Testament statements which, upon first glance, appear to contradict James’ statement (Jas 2:24) that men are justified by works; but it must continually be borne in mind that James did not say people are justified by works ALONE. These are statements to the effect that man’s salvation is "not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph 2:8-9), "not by works of righteousness which we did ourselves" (Tit 3:5), and "therefore, by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Rom 3:20). In all such references to works which are alleged to have no part in justification, different classes, or kinds, of works are in view. Therefore, to determine what kind of work entered into the justification mentioned by James, it is necessary to classify works in the same manner that they were classified by the sacred writers. Seven classes of works are distinguished in the New Testament: (1) Works of the flesh (Gal 5:19-21), the same being principally the indulgence of lusts, passions, etc. (2) The works of Satan, specifically, lying and murder (John 8:44), all sins being in one sense works of Satan, but these being specifically so-called by Christ himself. (3) The works of men, including all human achievements from building of the Great Wall of China to walking on the moon. The works of the law of Moses (Rom 3:20). (5) The works of moral goodness. The moralist follows a path of behavior parallel in many places to the Christian life; but between the two ways there is a river wide and deep, the river of the blood of Christ. Both Cornelius and the rich young ruler are New Testament examples of morally upright persons who were unsaved. (6) The works of human righteousness (Rom 10:3) are those religious activities of people which derive their authority from people alone and not from God, being the ceremonies and doctrines people themselves devised and having not the Creator as their author. Such are the traditions, precepts, and commandments of men denounced by Christ himself (Mat 15:9). (7) A seventh New Testament classification of works is called the "work of faith" (1Th 1:3). This work is clearly in a class by itself and may be defined as any action whatever undertaken or discharged by man in OBEDIENCE to a divine commandment. Here is the key to untangling the most persistent theological problem from the days of Martin Luther and the Reformers until the present. The doctrine of justification by faith ALONE was first advocated by Martin Luther; but he ran into what seemed an impossible contradiction of his theory in Jas 2:24, which was said to have raised some question in Luther’s mind for a while regarding the canonicity of James. Modern reverberations of the supposed conflict between Paul and James (though actually between Luther and James) have continued to echo through succeeding generations, the wide-spread heresy that salvation "through faith" releases people from the necessity of obeying the Lord’s commandments, especially the commands requiring baptism, the Lord’s supper, etc. And how is the problem resolved? Quite simply. Where Paul stated that people are not justified by works, let it be determined which works he meant; and where James wrote that a man is justified by works, let it be determined what kind of works he meant. It is perfectly easy to discover both. Paul, in his repeated affirmations that men are not saved by works, never had reference to the work of faith (No. 7, above); and James never had in mind anything except the work of faith. Thus Paul’s teaching was directed against any notion that keeping the works of the law of Moses could save, or any personal morality apart from Christianity could justify. Another type of works which Paul categorically rejected as being the basis of salvation was called the work of human righteousness, and referred to religious practices of mere human authority (No. 6, above). A little diligence on the part of any student will show what a vital distinction this is. James gave examples of how certain persons were justified by works; and in every case, the "work" was an obedient act to a divine command, as when Abraham offered Isaac, etc. That Paul also accepted the principle stated by James that justification is due to such actions of obedient faith is clear from Rom 2:6 in this chapter and from Rom 1:5 and Rom 16:26. In fact, Rom 2:6 here is absolutely equivalent to saying that man is justified by works, not the other kinds, but the works of faith. Rom 2:6 harmonizes absolutely with Jas 2:24. Therefore, Paul’s frequent words, to the effect that people are not saved by works, never have reference to the "work of faith" which he himself announced as one of the glories of the Thessalonian church (1Th 1:3). If he had meant any such thing, he never could have written Rom 2:6. When James spoke of justification by works, he did not refer to any of the works set at naught by Paul, When James stated that Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar, that inspired author made it impossible to misunderstand the kind of works that justified Abraham. What kind of work was the offering of Isaac? It was an act of obedience to God’s command; had it not been that, it would have been murder, hence a work of the devil; and that is exactly the difference that turns upon the question of who commanded a given action. Specifically, this principle applies to every humanly derived innovation in worship and to all human religious ordinances without divine authority. But for the Christian, the kind of works by which he is justified are, as in Abraham’s case, the doing of what God has commanded. Such things as repentance, baptism, the Lord’s supper, etc., are thus not acts of human righteousness, nor works of human beings in any sense whatever, but are the work of faith. Thus there can be no excuse for minimizing the great imperatives of the gospel of Christ on the basis that people are saved by faith, for they are also saved by the work of faith and will be thus judged eternally (Rom 2:6). People are saved by faith when they believe and obey the gospel. Tit 3:5 has this: Not by works done in righteousness, which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit. This passage is frequently cited in support of the view that such acts of obedience as baptism are not necessary, but the specific reference to baptism in the last clauses of that verse proves that the ordinance of baptism, even when submitted to by believers, is not to be considered a work of human righteousness in any sense. It is, on the contrary, a work of faith, having been commanded and required of all people by none other than Christ himself. "Works done in righteousness" is a reference to religious actions outside of God’s commands, that is, to works other than those of faith. To set aside one of Jesus’ own commands on the basis that such is a work of human righteousness is to ignore distinctions made by the holy apostles themselves. Therefore, it is not out of harmony with the true teachings of scripture to declare that people are saved by faith and that they are also saved by works, or the work of faith. Note the following passages of the word of God: If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments (Mat 19:17). Men and brethren, what shall we do? ... Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that worketh in you, both to will and to work (Php 2:12). Repent and do the first works, or else I will come unto thee quickly and remove thy candlestick out of its place (Rev 2:6). Faith without works is dead, being alone (Jas 2:17). Then may people trust God, believing in Christ with all their hearts, and obey the gospel. Even when they have done that, and everything else within their power to do, people do not become their own saviour; although, in a sense, those who obey are scripturally said to "save themselves" (Acts 2:40). No amount of righteous living, or of good works, can place God in the position of owing salvation to any person. Salvation is the free gift of Almighty God; but it is also conditional, there being revealed in the New Testament pre-conditions which must be fulfilled by people in order to comply with the terms upon which the free salvation is given. Faith is such a pre-condition; and the obedience of faith is another. Reference to these distinctions will be made throughout this commentary. Verses 7, 8 To them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that are factions, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation. Here is another unequivocal declaration of a master principle underlying God’s judgment, the fifth in this passage: V. God will reward well-doing and punish disobedience. These verses connect closely with Rom 2:6 and show the manner of God’s judging people according to their works. Together, these verses declare dogmatically that well-doers shall inherit eternal life and that the disobedient shall receive wrath and tribulation. Whiteside saw a definition of eternal life in Rom 2:7. So far as this text shows, eternal life consists of glory, honor, and incorruption - a happy existence in the heavenly kingdom. ... Eternal life is conditional, for eternal life must be sought by patience and well-doing. In the 8th and 9th verses, Paul affirms that tribulation and anguish will be visited upon those who do evil. If damnation is conditional, then salvation also must be conditional. One cannot be conditional and the other unconditional, if doing wrong causes a person to be lost, then to be saved, he must leave off the wrong and do right. If being lost is conditional, so is being saved. F9 "Doing" and "obeying" are made to be the basis of being saved, and "obeying not" is established as the basis of being lost; and such was no new concept with the apostle Paul. It invariably entered into all his letters. For example, he wrote the Thessalonians: Rest with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus, who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might (2Th 1:7-8). It should be noticed in the above reference that Paul did not set up a special category for "disobedient believers," who through faith and nothing but faith would be saved anyway! Nor yet was there provision made for another class of disobedient who had had God’s forensic righteousness transferred to them through faith only. Verses 9, 10 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek; but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. "To him that worketh not," which Paul was to write in Rom 4:5, must be understood in conjunction with these verses where "worketh evil" and "worketh good" dogmatically are affirmed to be the basis of being saved or being lost. They cover exactly the same ground, but in the reverse order. In the previous two verses, the patient seekers of eternal life are contrasted with them that obey unrighteousness; and in these two verses, the soul that worketh evil is mentioned first and contrasted with him that worketh good. It is as though Paul had written: "Take it either going or coming, the judgment will be based upon what people do, whether or not they obey the Lord." But more appears here in the repeated mention of "the Jew first." This established the sixth principle of judgment, thus: VI. Greater privilege will only entail greater, responsibility. Far from having any kind of exemption, the Jew, due to his greater blessings, will actually receive priority in judgment, making either their damnation more severe, or their redemption more glorious than that of others. The same principle was enunciated by the apostle Peter thus: For the time is come for judgment to begin at the house of God: and if it begin first at us, what shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel? And if the righteous is scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and sinner appear? (1Pe 4:17). Verse 11 For there is no respect of persons with God. This, of course, is the seventh principle of judgment: VII. There is no respect of persons with God. This crystal-clear statement of God’s impartiality hardly needs an interpretation. It simply means that God will judge people on the basis outlined in these verses, upon the basis of their deeds, whether good or bad, and not upon the basis of any fancied exemptions. The Jew will not be able to claim exemption on the basis of his descent from Abraham; and the Christian will be unable to claim exemption because he was a member of "good old Mother Church"! As in all the scriptures, the writings of the apostles complement each other and corroborate the doctrines taught. Thus, Peter’s comment on this same principle is just what one should have expected. He wrote: Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respector of persons: but in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him (Acts 10:34-35). Respect of persons ... according to Thayer, means: Partiality, the fault of one who is called on to requite or to give judgment, has respect to the outward circumstances of men, and not to their intrinsic merits, and so prefers as the more worthy, one who is rich, high born, or powerful, to another who is destitute of such gifts. F10 How reassuring it is to know that God will give just judgment, not after the prejudices of people, but according to truth and righteousness; and, although there is ground here for great assurance, there is likewise the basis of dreadful apprehension, when the essential unworthiness of all flesh in God’s sight is contemplated. Verses 12, 13 For as many as have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. In these verses, Paul began to deal with a dramatic difference between Jews and Gentiles. In the preceding verses, he had shown that God was no respector of persons, and that he would judge Jew and Gentile alike upon the basis of their deeds, whether good or bad; but until these verses Paul had taken no account of the fact that the Jews had been the custodians of God’s divine revelation called "the law," here and throughout Romans. The Gentiles had possessed no such advantage; and Paul, to continue his great argument relative to God’s intrinsic righteousness, was here concerned with showing how, under those diverse circumstances, God’s judgments would still be fair and impartial. The two great facts with regard to the Gentiles were: (1) that they had sinned, and (2) they had not received the law of Moses. For good and righteous reasons, already set forth in chapter 1, the Gentiles perished anyway because of their dreadful rebellion against God. The Jews, on the other hand, did have God’s law; but they never kept it. However, they were still to be judged upon the basis of the law they never kept, the mere fact of their having had it being in no sense a guarantee of a favorable judgment; "For not the hearers of the law, ,but the doers of the law shall be justified." Not the hearers ... is of interest and contrasts with "readers of the law," which might have been expected; but Paul’s terminology was correct because most of the Jews, every sabbath day in the synagogues, heard the scriptures read, very few, if any of them, having copies of God’s word in their homes. Again, the words of an apostle confirm Paul’s declaration (rather they confirm each other), thus: But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves. For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But he that looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth, but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing (Jas 1:22-25). That the actual doing of God’s law, whether the Old Testament law as it concerned the Jews or the perfect law of liberty as it concerns Christians (for James was talking about the latter), is required of those who would be saved is thus taught both by Paul and by James; and significantly, the very first reference to justification in the whole Roman letter is right here! There is no intimation in these words that any true justification, in the absolute sense, was ever achieved by any under the law of Moses; but, inasmuch as there were countless persons under that system who were saved, a justification sufficient to that Paul’s meaning is therefore to the effect that whoever was saved under the law of Moses was of the class called "doers" of God’s commandments, rather than mere hearers. Verses 14, 15 (For when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them). These verses reveal the eighth principle of divine judgment, namely, VIII. That God’s righteous judgment will take into account the light people had or did not have. Paul never implied in these verses that the ancient Gentiles were all saved, because they had lived up to all the light they had; for he repeatedly made it clear that they did not do that. This parenthesis, therefore, would best be viewed, it seems, as setting forth the basis of judgment. Those who believe that they find some basis for what is called Paul’s universalism in this passage must go beyond what is written in order to do so. Paul’s intimation that Gentiles might do by nature the things of the law shows that the eternally righteous God will certainly take into account all of the good conduct of any Gentiles whose lives might warrant doing so, even though they were not under a specific law like the Jews; but the practical verdict had already been stated in verse 12, "that as many as sinned without law shall also perish without law." From this, and the whole tenor of Paul’s letter, it is clear that Paul’s great proposition is that both Jews and Gentiles have failed to achieve any true righteousness, or to be justified in any adequate sense. This was due to the failure of the Jews, who, having the law, treated it as a charm or a talisman rather than honoring it by their obedience; and it was also due to the failure of the Gentiles who were not any more proficient in living up to the light they had than were the Jews. Thus, these two verses are an apostolic enunciation of the great truth that God will judge every man according to the light he has, and not according to the light he has not. If there were, in antiquity, any Gentiles who truly lived up to the light they had, one may rest assured that God will reward them. In speaking of these things, so utterly beyond the unaided knowledge of man, it should always be assumed as an axiom that "God is too wise to make a mistake and too good to do anything wrong." Verse 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ. This concluding statement of the paragraph shows that the theme of the general judgment on the last day was under discussion; and two more propositions relative to that final scene are added here, as follows: IX. The final judgment will be according to the New Testament. X. The judgment will be by Christ as Judge. According to my gospel ... Since Paul was the principal author of the New Testament, the extended meaning of the world’s being judged by Paul’s gospel is that it will be judged by the New Testament, there being no disunity whatever between Peter’s Gospel, Paul’s Gospel, and Matthew’s Gospel, etc. It is the entire New Testament that shall confront people in judgment. Jesus Christ declared of his word, that the same should judge men in the last day (John 12:48); and there is no other authentic source than the New Testament for either the words of the Master or the gospel of Paul. By Jesus Christ ... The fact of the judgment’s being "by Jesus Christ" is comprehensive: (1) Christ is to be the judge (John 5:22). (2) Christ’s word is the basis of judgment (John 12:48). (3) The word of the apostles is also part of the platform of eternal judgment (2Pe 3:2). (4) All authority in heaven and upon earth belongs to Christ (Mat 28:18-20). My gospel ... does not imply any difference between Paul and other New Testament authors. It is simply a term of endearment, such as "my God" (Rom 1:8). Paul’s use of this expression in the context could also be his way of emphasizing the truth that the doctrine of eternal judgment was indeed a valid and prominent element in his teaching. As Murray suggested, And when Paul says, "my gospel," he is reminding his readers that the gospel committed to him, unto which he is separated (Rom 1:1), and with which he was identified, though it was truly the gospel of grace, was also one that incorporated the proclamation of judgment for all, just and unjust. Grace does not dispense with judgment. Only in the gospel does this proclamation come to full fruition. F11 Thus, right down to the very last word of this section (Rom 2:1-16), the final judgment of all mankind is the theme, with special emphasis on the principles upon which that judgment will be executed. The secrets of men ... include the inner thoughts, hidden motives, all actions concealed or hidden from others. In fact, the judgment will be of the whole man, as only God sees, knows, and understands him. By way of summarizing thoughts on these 16 verses (Rom 2:1-16), two things should be kept in mind: (1) that the subject treated in this section is that of the final judgment, handled in such a manner by the apostle as to vindicate the righteousness of the just Judge who shall conduct it, and to reveal the basic principles of God’s law that will form the basis of it; and (2) that the persons to whom this passage was particularly addressed were the antagonistic Jews, who, unlike the noble Jews who formed the very first nucleus of Christians (including Paul), were in a state of utmost wickedness and rebellion against God, despite which they still imagined that they would inherit salvation because of the privileges of Judaism. As Murray expressed it, We cannot overlook the fact that in this passage as a whole the apostle is concerned with the unbelieving Jew. F12 Therefore, when it is reflected upon that these entire 16 verses are taken up completely by a discussion of judgment to come and directed to the enlightenment of an exceedingly wicked class of citizens who were in a state of totally rejecting Christ and denying the gospel, any allegation that this section pertains to self-righteousness and Phariseeism among Christians must be denied; although, to be sure, the principles Paul taught here are applicable to the entirety of mankind. Rom 2:17-19, following, constitute a section where Paul pointedly applied the principles just enunciated to those persons he had in mind. They were Jews, that is, certain wicked Jews, and not necessarily all Jews, Paul himself being a noble and righteous Jew. The class confronted with these words were those who felt that their knowledge of the law of Moses, the fact of their having been circumcised, their descent from Abraham, and other high privileges which they enjoyed - that all these things would entitle them to be judged upon some other basis than a mere question of whether they were wicked or holy. It seems nearly incredible that any rational being with the most elementary knowledge of God could possibly be so self-deceived; and yet, from what is written here, it must be received as fact that the people Paul had in view were certainly so deceived. In this section, there is first an enumeration of the prerogatives upon which certain Jews based their false hopes (Rom 2:17-20); then comes a withering charge of hypocrisy (Rom 2:21-24); and next follows a particular discussion of circumcision, the truth regarding that rite being so presented that not even that honored ceremony could any longer be claimed as efficacious by those whose lives did not measure up to the covenant of which that rite was only a sign (Rom 2:25-29). Verses 17-20 But if thou bearest the name of the Jew, and restest upon the law, and gloriest in God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness, a corrector oy the foolish, a teacher of babes, having in the law the form of knowledge and of the truth. "But if you call yourself a Jew" (RSV) would indicate that Paul did not consider the persons here addressed as worthy of so honorable and worthy a name as that of "Jew." He made the same distinction at the end of this chapter where he denied them any right to be so called. It is as though Paul had said, "I do not associate myself with you in your usurpation of this honored name." The name "Jew" first occurs in 2Ki 16:6; but after the Babylonian exile, it was used frequently. It is thought to be derived from "Judah," the name of the principal tribe of Israel, especially of the southern kingdom, after the division. It was an honored and sacred name. Murray said, It was a name associated in the mind of the Jew with all upon which he prided himself. F13 "Judah" means "praised," being the name given by Leah to her fourth son, because, as she said, "Now will I praise the Lord" (Gen 29:35). The same meaning of "praise" is therefore attached to the name Jew. The name had the highest status among the Hebrews. Even upon his death-bed, Jacob said, "Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise" (Gen 49:8), which is an evident reference to the glorious name of the fourth son, which came, in time, to be adopted by all the Hebrews in the abbreviated form. This is an appropriate place to note that the noblest of those who wore that name deserved it in every sense of the word. Antiquity reveals no more noble persons than those great Jews whose names adorn the pages of the Old Testament. All of the patriarchs and prophets, some of the kings, and many God-fearing members of this chosen nation must be reckoned among the noblest ever to live on earth and surely met Paul’s specifications for persons worthy to be called Jews (Rom 2:28-29). To be sure, none of those ancient worthies was perfect; but their lives as a whole established new bench-marks of character in an age when virtue itself had been almost banished from the earth. Thus, it is clear that Paul thought that some who called themselves Jews were utterly unworthy to wear the name. And restest upon the law ... Here Paul began to list the prerogatives that surely pertained to the honorable but were falsely claimed by those whom Paul addressed. They rested in the law, not by keeping its teachings but by glorying in it as a national possession ministering to their pride and conceit, and as having nothing at all to do with their behavior. And gloriest in God ... Paul did not mean that any of the things in this list were wrong in themselves, but that they were, like a jewel in a swine’s snout, wrong by circumstance, that circumstance being the wickedness of those glorying in God, etc. Of course, they were not actually glorying in God in the sense that it was lawful and commendable to do so. True glorying in God is right and proper, as the scriptures teach: He that glorieth let him glory in the Lord (1Co 1:31). Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might; let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercises lovingkindness, judgment, righteousness in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord (Jer 9:23-24; Jer 9:23-24 ). What kind of glorying was it then which Paul enumerated here as reprehensible? It was a vain and empty glorying of wicked men which nourished their conceit that they were something special in God’s sight, and in which they attributed to God an attitude of indifference, or even approval of their sins. And knowest his will ... Just as above, knowing God’s will is very well indeed; and it is the solemn duty of every man ever born to know God’s will as perfectly as possible; but it is a mark of honor to know God’s will, only if the knowledge is accompanied by a sincere intention to do it. On the other hand, when mere knowledge is made to support human conceit and causes the possessor to fancy that such knowledge endows him with some kind of superiority over his fellow man, or when it may be supposed that the mere possession of the knowledge of God, apart from the true obedience to God’s will, conveys any eternal merit - then occurs the condition reproved here. Approvest the things that are excellent ... A glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin shows an alternate translation of this clause as "dost distinguish the things that differ"; and Murray stated that it was impossible to decide exactly what Paul means. F14 A probable meaning of both clauses taken together might be expressed thus: "You have the ability to make accurate moral judgments and to distinguish and appreciate moral values." That ability was derived from God’s law in which those people had been instructed. Every Jew, through parental training and weekly attendance of the sabbath worship, was instructed in the law, at least to the extent of hearing it repeatedly read, and of hearing the public discussion of it. And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind ... These men were precisely the same kind of persons of whom Jesus said, They are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into a pit (Mat 15:14). There was a certain superficial sense in which those people might indeed have led the blind and served as the light of the world; but the moral cancer within them negated such an ability completely. Moreover, their minds had already been darkened in the manner Paul described in Rom 1:21; and the mere fact of their clinging to the external and superficial glories of the old covenant and conceitedly glorying in it could not take away their essential blindness in spiritual things. A corrector of the foolish, a teacher of babes ... Here Paul completed the list of Jewish prerogatives begun in Rom 2:17. The things listed here are synonymous with some already mentioned. Collectively, the expressions listed provide an excellent picture of the way Gentiles were regarded by the enlightened Jews of Paul’s day. Tragically, the picture is accurate. The Gentiles were indeed blind, ignorant, babes, walking in darkness, an extremely foolish people who desperately needed the wisdom and guidance which properly instructed Jews might have given them. These covenant people detested the ridiculous idolatry of the Gentiles and were in full possession of the most wonderful revelation that ever came from God until Christ appeared upon Calvary. Having in the law the form of knowledge ... identifies the source of all Jewish knowledge and superiority as the law of Moses. The words strongly suggest Paul’s words to Timothy, For men shall be lovers of self, etc. ... holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof: from these also turn away (2Ti 3:2-5). Greathouse thought that Paul’s use of "form" is the same in both references; F15 but Murray wrote, "Form" in this instance does not have the same meaning as in Timothy. There is no suggestion of semblance or unreality. In the law the Jew had in his possession the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth in well-defined and articulated form. F16 Nevertheless, a comparison of Paul’s words in the two places leaves a strong impression that Greathouse was right. Certainly, as Murray said, the law was absolutely genuine; but when the power of that law had been negated by the sinful rebellion of them that knew it, it was only a mere shadow of the real thing that they had left. Jesus said of the temple itself, "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" (Mat 23:38). The same principle holds with regard to the gospel itself, wherein is mighty power to save; but when sin corrodes the life of Christians, they are invariably left holding to a mere form, a feeble shadow of reality. Verses 20-24 Thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou rob temples? thou who gloriest in the law, through thy transgression of the law, dishonorest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written. This devastating blast is a charge of hypocrisy, immorality, dishonesty and general wickedness leveled against the persons Paul addressed. The interrogative form of the charges is idiomatic and does not raise the slightest uncertainty concerning their sins, and should be understood as the bluntest and most dogmatic affirmation of their unmitigated guilt. Paul evidently selected the very sins which were most odious to the Jews, at least in theory; for, of all the sins of the pagans around them, the Jews particularly detested their idol worship and the abominable sexual excesses. Theft and blasphemy were also regarded similarly. Therefore, it is amazing that Paul charged them with guilt in all these areas. Although there were doubtless many personal exceptions to the gross wickedness Paul charged against the Jews, the tragedy lies in the fact of its being so generally true of that particular generation. Christ himself supported Paul’s charge of theft thus: And he saith unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer: but ye make it a den of robbers (Mat 21:13). The persons charged in Jesus’ indictment were none other than the social, religious, and political leaders of the nation. Paul’s charge of adultery was supported by all the Old Testament prophets, especially Jeremiah, who wrote, (They) assembled themselves by troops in the harlots’ houses. They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbor’s wife (Jer 5:7-8). Jeremiah even went so far as to say that the Israelites had committed adultery "under every green tree" (Jer 2:20). The charge of robbing temples is more difficult to understand because, grammatically, it does not seem to fit in. For that reason commentators take it in a secondary sense, like "profaning sacred things" or robbing God through non-payment of tithes (as in Mal 3:8-10); but there is no need of any attempt to soften this. Those addressed were guilty as charged. True, we are unable to cite specific examples, as of adultery and theft; but, what is more important, their reputation for doing just that is established in the word of God. Again, from Murray, Since the town clerk at Ephesus defends Paul and his colleagues against any such charge as robbing temples (Acts 19:37), we cannot suppose this wrong was one to which the Jews were entirely immune! F17 How strangely perverse is the human heart, which, in the midst of abounding depravity and sin, and while participating in and sharing in the very sins known to be prohibited and abominable, the heart is yet capable of indulging in delusions of spiritual safety and security; and never in history were there any more pitiful examples of such a phenomenon than those persons Paul addressed in these verses. Thou who gloriest in the law ... This and the following clause constitute a summary of what Paul wrote in Rom 2:17-20, and the second clause of Rom 2:23, whether understood as affirmative or interrogatory, is a pronouncement of guilt upon those people in all points as charged, namely, theft, profanation, adultery, etc. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you ... is the pinnacle of Paul’s indictment, the same being a paraphrase of Isa 52:5, last clause, which reads, "And my name continually every day is blasphemed." It is worth noting that the blaspheming of God’s name mentioned by Isaiah was due to the captivity of Israel, it being the view of the pagans that any god who could not protect his people from captivity could be blasphemed with impunity; but this circumstance does not invalidate Paul’s appeal to this verse for support of what he said, because the captivity itself was due to the sins of Israel, thus making their sin to be the originating cause of the blasphemy. Verse 25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision. Beginning here, and to the end of the chapter, Paul discussed circumcision, which was to the Jew, and especially to them here addressed, a refuge of last resort, wherein, if all else failed, he still might claim eternal life as his just inheritance. Charles Hodge noted that: It is obvious that the Jews regarded circumcision as in some way securing their salvation. That they did so regard it may be proved, not only from such passages of the New Testament where the sentiment is implied, but also by the direct assertion of their own writers. Such assertions have been gathered in abundance from their own works by Eisenmenger, Shoettgen, and others. For example, Rabbi Menachem, in his commentary on the Book of Moses (folio 43, column 3), says, "Our Rabbis have said, that no circumcised man will see hell." F18 Circumcision, as Paul discussed it here, refers to the rite itself, not to the whole law of which that rite was a covenant seal. The fact that Paul began with a declaration that circumcision was profitable for them that kept the law was apparently in anticipation of the advantages pertaining to the Jew which he discussed immediately afterwards in Rom 3:1-31. But, while allowing the validity of the rite when used as God intended it, Paul did not hesitate to blast this last refuge of apostates by showing that not even circumcision could do a man any good eternally, if he did not keep the law. To transgressors of the law (not occasional and inadvertent transgressors, but the hardened and impenitent) circumcision became uncircumcision. Every Israelite should have known that already. Historically, circumcision had never been alleged as any reason why the death penalty should not have been executed upon sabbath breakers (Num 15:35) and such men as Achan (Jos 7:24), nor as any impediment to their Rabbi’s casting out of their synagogues persons they judged unworthy. From these well-known facts, they should have been able to deduce the great corallaw that no such thing as circumcision could possibly prevent the judgment of God upon apostates. Verse 26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinance of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? In Rom 2:18, the alternative translation of a key clause was noted: "distinguish the things that differ"; and the crying need to do just that becomes apparent in the study of a verse like this. All kinds of false teachings are advocated as a result of Paul’s statement here. For example, Hodge wrote in his comment on this place, If circumcision is in itself nothing, its presence cannot protect the guilty; its absence cannot invalidate the claims of the righteous. F19 In Hodge’s statement there is a failure to distinguish things that differ. If he had said, "Its absence in those persons of whom God has not required it cannot invalidate the claims of the righteous," then his: statement would have been true. To take Hodge’s statement as it stands, it would have to mean that a "righteous Jew" who had refused to obey God’s commandment regarding circumcision would not thus have invalidated his righteousness. The tremendous importance of this distinction will be seen a little later as applied to the subject of baptism. Obviously, Paul taught nothing like that. The above raises the question at once of who were those uncircumcised people keeping the ordinances of the law; and which law and which ordinances are meant? Without any doubt, Godet’s identification of those uncircumcised keepers of the law is correct. He said, We are to regard the apostle as referring to those many Gentiles converted to the gospel who, all uncircumcised as they were, nevertheless fulfilled the law in virtue of the Spirit of Christ, and thus became the true Israel, the Israel of God (Gal 4:16). F20 Here then is the instance where uncircumcision had become circumcision, and here is the case where uncircumcision could not invalidate the claims of the righteous; Hodge’s statement noted above does not take into account this distinction and is not correct. Many of the Christians of Jewish descent in the early church insisted upon circumcision for Gentile converts, a requirement Paul fought vigorously and never allowed; and it is the shadow of that old controversy that looms here. The law required circumcision; and, therefore, any person credited with "keeping the ordinances of the law" would positively have to be a person of whom God had never required circumcision in the first place, and who was fulfilling the law, not in the shadow of its old ordinances, but in the realities of the new life in Christ. Every Christian, though literally uncircumcised, is nevertheless circumcised "in Christ;" in the same sense that he has paid the penalty of death due to sin, "in Christ." All who are truly "in Christ" thus fulfill the law. Verse 27 And shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who with the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law? The words "by nature" in this verse are made the basis of referring this statement to pagans, or Gentiles, of the nobler variety, who were presumably living up to all the light they had; and, in that vein of thought, Hodge declared: The idea is that the obedient uncircumcised heathen would be better off; he would stand on higher ground than the disobedient circumcised Jew. F21 While Hodge’s paraphrase might in itself be true, in a sense, it is the conviction here that the words "if it fulfill the law" absolutely preclude Paul’s having had any such thing in mind. The only way that the law can possibly be fulfilled is "in Christ," and that mountain fact solidly identifies the "uncircumcision which is by nature" as those Gentiles who had become Christians, the expression "which is by nature" being but another way of saying they had been Gentiles. Any notion that unregenerated Gentiles had indeed "fulfilled the law" dissolves in light of Paul’s extensive argument in Rom 1:18-21, where Hodge’s noble unregenerated Gentile is simply not visible! However that may be, that author, in the very next sentence makes one of those deductions from this verse which no Christian should allow. He said, It is only putting the truth taught in this verse into different words to say "the unbaptized believer shall condemn the baptized unbeliever." F22 The fallacy in this bastard deduction is startlingly clear, for it is resident in the fact that God never required of any Gentile that he should be circumcised. Therefore the uncircumcised Gentile was not violating any ordinance of God by remaining so; but this is nowise the case with so-called "unbaptized believers." Consider the monstrosity of the "unbaptized believer," who in truth does exist necessarily for that small time between the coming of faith in his heart and his actual submission to God’s ordinance of baptism, but who is not the "unbaptized believer" spoken of by the commentators. All no, he is presented with full status as a believer with no intention of being baptized; and what of him? He is a contradiction of terms, because no believer can remain a believer in the true sense while willfully continuing in an unbaptized state. May God open men’s eyes to see the truth. Charles Hodge was selected out of many exponents of this false teaching imported into these verses, because of the clarity of his views and obvious sincerity of his arguments. Judge thee ... refers to the same thing Jesus mentioned when he declared that the people of Nineveh should rise in judgment and condemn that (the Lord’s) generation (Mat 12:41). Verses 28, 29 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not is the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. In these two verses, the principle is stated both negatively (Rom 2:28) and positively (Rom 2:29) that the rite of circumcision is useless unless the moral values of the law, which were pledged and symbolized by that circumcision, are also maintained. The false circumcision would therefore be the circumcision of one whose life showed no regard for the moral values of God’s law; and the true circumcision would be the case of the circumcised person who regarded and honored such values. To make Paul’s statement in this context mean that every external rite, such as baptism, which was commanded by the Lord himself, may be dispensed with, and that some vague inward experience or strong emotional commitment may be substituted for it, is to make it speak a falsehood. There is not a particle of evidence that Paul here had in mind Christian baptism, or that these words may be forced into an application to that rite. Paul was only declaring that the only circumcision that could avail the Jew anything was a circumcision honored by a life consistent with the rite. In the spirit not in the letter ... does not mean that the external rite of circumcision, as commanded by the law, might have been dispensed with by the Jew and replaced by some "spiritual" experience, but simply that the external rite ALONE, without the God-honoring life that was supposed to accompany it, was worthless. The question before Paul in these verses is not a Christian question, but a Jewish one, and to get this all mixed up with baptism, as so: many of the commentators have done, is an error. These words, "in the spirit not in the letter" do not mean that the external rite of circumcision was not necessary under the law, any more than Peter’s "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" (1Pe 3:21) means that the outward ceremony of baptism was to be omitted, but only that there was an inward meaning designed to accompany the outward act. The legitimate deduction is that: just as there was an absolute necessity under the law of Moses to combine the external rite of circumcision with a holy life, so there is for the Christian the absolute necessity of combining with the external ordinance of baptism that newness of life which there begins. These verses refer back to Paul’s introduction of this paragraph in Rom 2:17, where he said, in effect, "You call yourself a Jew"; and it is plain, from the definition Paul gave of who may qualify to wear such an honored name, that he did not consider the reprobate type of Jew under discussion in this chapter as any fit subject to wear it. True, the word "Jew" means praise; but Paul pointed out forcefully enough that "praise of God," not "praise of men," was meant. Lenski, Hodge, and many others have built theological castles upon the five verses which conclude this chapter, expressed in many pages of eloquent denunciations of "moralists" who trust in outward rites instead of genuine faith in the Lord, no less than fifteen pages, for example, in Lenski being devoted to these five verses: But to borrow a word from Shakespeare, "Methinks thou dost protest too much!" It has already been noted that Christians, and things pertinent to their redemption, are not even under discussion in these verses, where Paul was dealing with the presumption of reprobate Jews whose reliance upon such an external rite as circumcision was both naive and unrealistic. What Paul said here, therefore, in order to take away that delusion from their hearts, and to prevent their influence from spreading among weak Christians, has no direct reference to Christians and can become meaningful to Christians only when Christians become blinded with the same delusions which deceived those ancient Jews. Has this occurred? There is the possibility, at least, that it might occasionally have occurred in a few instances; but in general, the answer to this question is ABSOLUTELY NOT. The stereotype "moralist" who is usually made the whipping boy by certain commentators, and who is heralded as the modern counterpart of those reprobate Jews, is nothing but a figment of feverish imagination, a straw man that does not exist, and probably never has existed within the confines of the Christian faith since the Middle Ages, and whose stereotype description fits nobody at all. Where is that so-called "moralist" who thinks that merely because he has been baptized, he is thus, per se, entitled to heaven, regardless of his conduct? Within the forty years and more of this writer’s experience as a minister of the gospel, he has never met even one Christian who believed anything like that. Where, then, do a hundred or more commentators, from Calvin and Luther to Lenski and Barrett, find their specimens of this strange, perverse person who is said to believe that baptism alone leads to eternal life, regardless of holiness or the lack of it, and who is diligently intent on leading the whole world through that door which, according to Lenski, is "not the door of heaven but the door of hell"? Any knowledge of Christians during the half-century immediately past, especially any knowledge of their earnest efforts to serve the Lord, must surely result in the conviction that the straw man so effectively shot at by so many for so long must long ago have disappeared. The stylized definition of that straw man is not only void of any resemblance whatever to the countless thousands of Christians this writer has been privileged to know, but is also void of any likeness to those reprobate Jews who were the object of Paul’s warning here. Despite the straw man mentioned above, to which such impossible attitudes are attributed, there is, nevertheless, real danger in supposing that mere outward compliance with the Lord’s commandments, any or all of them, removes the need for true and genuine spirituality and devotion which are always the hallmark of authentic Christian faith. As Griffith Thomas summed it up: While we must ever insist with all clearness and firmness on obedience to the ordinances of God, we must never fail to remember that the ordinances themselves, apart from genuine spiritual disposition of the recipients, never convey or guarantee the reception of grace. Ordinances are visible signs to which are annexed promises. Faith lays hold on the promises, and the signs are the pledges of God’s fulfillment of them; but, if there be no faith in the divine promise, there is nothing left for the ordinance to seal. F23 Thomas’ final sentence, quoted above, seems to imply that submission to the ordinance of God is dissociated from "laying hold of God’s promises," but such a view is wrong. In the case of baptism, for example, the submission to the ordinance is itself a part of the laying hold, for in that ordinance, faith becomes obedient; and the salvation Paul taught in Romans has nothing to do with anything else, other than an "obedient faith" (Rom 1:5; Rom 16:26 , etc.). Having at this point completed his argument concerning the sinfulness of all people, Jew and Gentile alike, and having established the broad principles of it, Paul then proceeded in the next chapter to answer some objections to it, employing the device of the diatribe as a vehicle for the conveyance of his thought. Footnotes forRomans 2 1 : R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 128. 2: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston: 1832), p. 262. 3: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), vol. I, p. 55. 4: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 129. 5: Charles Hodge, Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 63. 6: William M. Greathouse (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 60. 7: Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), p. . 8: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 49. 9: R. L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome (Fort Worth, Texas: The Mannery Company, 1945), pp. 53-54. 10: Kenneth S. Wuest, op. cit., p. 43. 11: John Murray, op. cit., p. 77. 12: Ibid. 13: Ibid., p. 82. 14: Ibid. 15: Wm. M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 71. 16: John Murray, op. cit., p. 83. 17: Ibid. 18: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 64. 19: Ibid. 20: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 130, 21: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 64. 22: Ibid. 23: W. H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 92. 24: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 38. 25: Richard A. Batey, op. cit., p. 23. 26: R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 76. 27: J. Barmby, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), Vol. 18 (iii), p. viii. 28: J. Barmby, op. cit., pp. x, xi. 29: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 32. 30: Ibid. 31: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), Vol. 1, p. 31. 32: New English Bible. 33: F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1961), p. 7. 34: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 34. 35: J. Barmby, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), Vol. 18, iii, p. 9. 36: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 35. 37: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 36. 38: R. C. Bell, Studies in Romans (Austin, Texas: Firm Foundation Publishing House, 1957), p. 12. 39: James Macknight, op. cit., p. 58. : As quoted by Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 68. 41: From Bartlett’s Quotations (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1939), p. 542. 42: Dr. Andrew Conway Ivy, in The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe (New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1958), p. 229. 43: Ibid., p. 231. 44: John Murray, op. cit., p. 41. 45: R. C. Bell, op. cit., p. 12. 46: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 207. 47: J. Barmby, op. cit., p. 12. 48: Chester Warren Quimby, The Great Redemption (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950), pp. 45-46. 49: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 207. 50: Ibid. 51: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 39. 52: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 38. 53: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 108. 54: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 53. 55: Ibid., p. 74. 56: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 58. 57: John Murray, op. cit., p. 51. 58: The Houston Chronicle, front page, December 2, 1971. top save<59> Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the saveCorinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 86. 60: Frank S. Mead, The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 11. 61: Frank S. Mead, op. cit., p. 11. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 10: 3 ROMANS CHAPTER THREE ======================================================================== Rom 3:1-31 Verses 1, 2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way; first of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. This is a reply to the question of an objector who might have said, "Well, if both Jews and Gentiles stand on exactly the same grounds of judgment, and if God is no respector of persons, what was the use of the whole Mosaic system? Why be a Jew, or be circumcised? What was the advantage of it? Answer: The great advantage was in their being custodians of the Sacred Scriptures. Many other advantages accrued to the Jewish nation as a result of their possession of God’s oracles; but rather than outlining a list of such blessings, Paul went to the source of them all and named their custodial possession of the holy revelation through the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament as their greatest advantage, since that was the fountain source from which all others derived. This teaches that the greatest advantage any person can have is that of knowing God’s will. By promptly naming such an advantage, Paul did not allow for one moment that God’s impending judgment against Israel because of their sins could have the effect of canceling out the marvelous advantages possessed by the chosen people. Paul would return in later chapters of this epistle to a fuller discussion of the peculiar favor of God to the Jews; but, for the moment, this one great advantage was enough to cite. The profit of circumcision was dealt with by Paul a little later in Rom 4:1-25. They were entrusted with the oracles of God ... Although it might not have been in Paul’s mind when these words were written, there is a necessary deduction from this inspired statement that stands in the first magnitude of importance. The fact of the Jews having been the divinely appointed custodians of the scriptures in the pre-Christian ages has the necessary effect of denying the allegations of the Roman Catholic Church, or of any other church, that their opinion of what belongs or does not belong in the Old Testament canon has any weight at all. If one desires to know what writings truly belong in that portion of the Bible called the Old Testament, the judgment of the Jews during apostolic times must be accepted. The so-called Protestant Bible, therefore, instead of the Catholic versions, is the true Bible. Josephus, the great Jewish historian of the first century, lists the canonical books of the Jewish Scriptures; and Josephus’ list corresponds exactly with the 39 books of the Old Testament received by non-Catholics as the true Old Testament. Josephus arranged all the books of the Old Testament so as to make twenty-two books in all, corresponding exactly to the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament as generally received, and also corresponding to the twenty-two letters of the Jewish alphabet. These were divided into three large divisions: 1. The Torah, including the five books of the Pentateuch, II. The Nebhiim, with eight books in all: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the eighth book of this division being all twelve of the Minor Prophets counted as one book, and III. The Kethubhim, which actually had eleven books, with Ruth assigned as a part of Judges, and Lamentations assigned as a part of Jeremiah, in order to reduce this division to nine books and round out the total of exactly twenty-two in all. The nine books of the Kethubhim are: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Cantictes, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel (Ezra and Nehemiah counted as one), and Chronicles. F2 Any prejudice, therefore, to the effect that the apocryphal writings belong in the Old Testament fails in the light of the truth that the Jews, God’s appointed custodians of the scriptures, rejected them. As Halley said, concerning the apocryphal books, They were not in the Hebrew Old Testament. They were written after Old Testament prophecy, oracles, and direct revelation had ceased. Josephus rejected them as a whole. They were never recognized by the Jews as a part of the Hebrew scriptures. ... They were not recognized by the early church as on canonical authority, nor as of divine inspiration. F3 Josephus’ limitation of the sacred books of Jewish scripture to exactly 22, as he arranged them, corresponding precisely to the 39 generally accepted books of the Old Testament, was stated thus, For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have), but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all past times; which are justly believed to be divine. F4 Verses 3, 4 For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God? God forbid: yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy words, And mightest prevail when thou comest into judgment. What if ... is a connective with the previous line of thought, the same expression occurring in Philp. 1:18, where Moffatt translated it, "What does it matter?" Paul was still addressing himself to the task of meeting Jewish objections; and the background fact here was Jewish reluctance to allow their conduct as fair grounds upon which they would be judged. Hodge explained that position thus: "What if we are unfaithful," says the Jew. "Does that invalidate the faithfulness of God? Has he not promised to be a God to Abraham and his seed? Has he not entered into a solemn covenant to grant his people all the benefits of Messiah’s kingdom? This covenant is not suspended on our moral character. If we adhere to the covenant by being circumcised and keeping the law, the fidelity of God is pledged for our salvation. We may therefore be as wicked as you make us out to be; that does not prove that we shall be treated as heathen." F5 Their want of faith ... refers to the evil conduct of the chosen people due to their unbelief in God, and is not an indictment of their sin of rejecting the Messiah, the latter being a subject Paul had not yet dealt with. Again, from Hodge, The apostle has not come to the exposition of the gospel; he is still engaged in the preliminary discussion designed to show that the Jews and Gentiles are under sin, and exposed to condemnation. F6 This verse continues in the main line of Paul’s theme in Romans, a demonstration of the righteousness of God, that is, of the righteousness that marks God’s character; and, therefore, to the insinuation that God would be unfaithful if he refused (on the basis of human sin) to convey eternal salvation to the Jews, the allegation that such a refusal would make God blameworthy - to all such thoughts, Paul bluntly replied, "God forbid! "Be it not so ..." is the rendition in the English Revised Version (1885) margin, and it means "Certainly not!" It is precisely the faithfulness of God that does deny to wicked men the fulfillment of God’s promises to them, which promises were from the first and always, contingent upon human faithfulness. As Macknight pointed out: To understand this, we must recollect that the performance of the promises to the natural seed of Abraham is, in the original covenant, tacitly made to depend on their faith and obedience (Gen 18:19); and that it is explicitly made to depend on that condition in the renewal of the covenant (Deu 28:1-14). Besides, on that occasion, God expressly threatened to expel the natural seed from Canaan, and scatter them among the heathens, if they became unbelieving and disobedient (Lev 26:33; Deu 28:64). The rejection, therefore, and expulsion of the Jews from Canaan, for their unbelief, being a fulfilling of the threatenings of the covenant, established the faithfulness of God instead of destroying it. F7 Let God be true, but every man a liar ... means "Let it be obvious that God is true, in spite of the fact that every man may prove to be false." God is eternally true and righteous; and, upon those occasions when God judges people guilty of sin and unworthy of his benefits, it is because they are so. It was the major premise underlying the great life of Abraham that God will always do right, regardless of human behavior. "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" was Abraham’s great question, addressed to God in prayer, and understood in that context as an affirmation that "Of course, the Judge of all the earth will always do right" (Gen 18:25). This disposition to justify God under all circumstances, Paul illustrated, as Hodge pointed out, By the conduct and language of David who acknowledged the justice of God even in his own condemnation, and said, "Against thee only have I sinned; that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and overcome when thou art judged." F8 That thou mightest be justified ... prevail ... when thou art judged ... These two clauses are a quotation from Psa 51:4; and the circumstance under which David wrote that Psalm reveals the true meaning of these first four verses of chapter 3 The fact under consideration was God’s intrinsic righteousness; and here, Paul was disposing of the quibble that, merely because God had promised it, and despite human sin, the Jews were entitled to possess eternal life and Messiah’s kingdom; he dramatically refuted such a notion by appealing to the example of so distinguished a Jew as David, the man after God’s own heart, who, when he sinned, was under God’s condemnation. David acknowledged the justice of his own condemnation in order, as he wrote in Psa 51:1-19 (and quoted by Paul), that God might be justified in his words and prevail when he came into judgment. Of course, this means "in order that God might be justified "in the eyes of men," since it is the human view of God’s righteousness Paul was discussing. The two clauses of the quotation (Psa 51:4) form a Hebrew parallel thus: That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, And overcome when thou comest into judgment. The second clause refers to God’s coming into judgment (merely in a figure, of course) before the bar of human opinion. God is here presented as appearing before people’s minds, as in a form of arraignment, and as receiving approval of all that is highest and best in human intelligence. Lard’s perceptive thoughts on this are helpful. He wrote: God is judged when he is arraigned in human thought, on his dealings with men. When thus arraigned, he must always come off victor. It is not enough that he must gain his cause, he must gain it triumphantly. This is the force of [Greek: nikesis]. He must be shown to be absolutely innocent of every charge. Nor let it be imagined that God is seldom arraigned. He is arraigned in the very charge here considered; and, in countless ways, we, as it were, arraign him every day. We arraign him for creating us capable of sin, for exposing us to temptation, for subjecting us to death for another’s sin, for appointing us to a life of hardship, for requiring us to be holy in the midst of great trials, for not revealing to us more of the future - on these counts, and many more, we arraign him. Not that we formally arraign him and accuse him of wrong; but we arraign him in our perplexities, in our discontents - in a word, in the very modes in which we think of him. Not to be wholly reconciled to God is to arraign him. F9 Let all people, therefore, believe in and trust the absolute righteousness of God through whatever uncertainties, perplexities, disasters, sorrows, and tribulations life may bring. Fortunate indeed are they, like Job of old, who can exclaim in the midst of abounding calamities and throes of misery, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him" (Job 13:15). Verses 5, 6 But if our unrighteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath? (I speak after the manner of men). God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? Paul was still dealing with the quibbler. He had just proved that sin, even though in the best of people, as was the case with David, resulted in a demonstration of God’s justice and righteousness. The quibble was to the effect that since sin served to display God’s glory in such manifestations of his justice, it would be unrighteous of God to punish the sins which had been the occasion of advertising his justice. Paul wasted little time on that quibble, disposing of it in ten words. Here is Brunner’s paraphrase of this place: But if our wickedness serves to show the justice of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? F10 This quibble fitted into the Jewish objection against Paul thus: If unbelief (as you say) does not make void God’s faithfulness, but renders it more conspicuous, or serves to exhibit more clearly the righteousness of God, then God would be unrighteous in inflicting his wrath upon the ungodly. F11 Of course, there is more to this quibble than meets the eye, for it touches upon one of the truly great mysteries, that of how God can overrule sin, which is contrary to his will, and do so in such manner as to bring about the accomplishment of his purpose. In a more familiar setting, for example, "How could it be just for God to punish Judas, who only did what the prophets had foretold he would do?" As Brunner said of this mystery, It is part of God’s incomprehensibly wise government of the world that he can also use man’s evil doings for the purpose of his kingdom, which is the essence of everything that is good. F12 Commendeth the righteousness of God ... has reference to the mystery just mentioned. People of small minds and evil hearts can abuse such a doctrine as God’s overruling of sin for good; but, if they do, it shall be to their ruin. Paul dealer with the abuse of the doctrine a little later; and, in view of his emphasis upon it, it might be profitable to explore it a little further. Holy does God overrule sin that good may come from it? SIN THAT RESULTS IN GOOD Under the great Mormon organ in the tabernacle in Salt Lake City, a great pit has been opened up to give the mighty organ its deeper tones; and, similarly, people who have been scarred and burned in the pits of sin are generally more conscious and appreciative of God’s grace and mercy than those persons who have lived conventionally respectable lives. That might be one of the underlying reasons why the publicans and harlots of Jesus’ day entered the kingdom of God before the Pharisees (Mat 21:31). What are some of the ways God overrules sin for the good of his children? Sin increases man’s appreciation for the goodness and holiness of God. People’s lives are disciplined through the sorrows suffered because of sin. Through pitiful experience, man learns what he should have known all the time, that God’s word is altogether true and faithful, that "the wages of sin is death"! God’s teaching regarding sin is verified and confirmed by every sin ever committed, whether by saint or sinner; and this overwhelming verification of the word of God is a strong inducement to trusting and serving God. Sin also induces sympathy for other sinners on the part of them that sin. All of this may be only another way of saying that God uses two kinds of vessels in the achievement of his wise designs, those unto honor, and those unto dishonor; and the freedom of the human will enables man to choose the kind of vessel he will become; but it is not within the sphere of human prerogative to avoid the divine use of his life altogether. If one becomes a gross sinner, God will make an example out of him. God overruled the sin of Judas to make it serve his holy purpose of Jesus’ being offered up during the Passover, thus fulfilling the scriptures. Sin is overruled in the lives of Christians, provided always that sin is fully repented of and forgiven. Rom 3:6 is Paul’s blunt, almost horrified denial of any unworthiness that might be attributed to God for his judgment of wicked men; thus, here, as so frequently in the New Testament, judgment is held to be axiomatic with reference to God. Some commentators, as Lenski, apply these words to Christians primarily; but it seems to this expositor that Paul is plainly dealing with Jewish objections; and, although there may be an application of the principles mentioned here to Christians, the passage is plainly addressed to the Jewish objector. Whiteside wrote, That this is another objection that a Jew might make is shown by the fact that Paul immediately adds, "(I speak after the manner of men)." F13 Verses 7, 8 But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I still judged as a sinner? And why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil that good may come? whose condemnation is just. Why am I still judged as a sinner ... shows that the addressees are Jewish, for the Christians did not so judge Paul. Lenski’s view that "from verse I onward, Paul addresses the Roman Christians" F14 cannot be true, for there is no way to put the charge of falsehood against Paul in the mouths of any kind of Christians, much less those whom Paul had never met, as a body, and who are addressed in this epistle. The misunderstanding of some in reference to these verses lies in their failure to consider the subject matter. Paul, in this place, is absolutely not discussing the abuse of the doctrine of salvation by grace, which subject he had not even presented at this point in the epistle; but he is still defending the intrinsic righteousness of God. As Murray put it: What then is Paul’s answer to the distortion he is dealing with in Rom 3:5-8? We might expect a lengthy argument after the pattern of Paul’s rebuttal of the antinomian bias in Rom 6:1-23. This we do not find. We must bear in mind that the distortions in view in the respective passages are not identical, though they are similar. In Rom 6:1-23, Paul is dealing with the abuse applied to the doctrine of grace, whereas in Rom 3:5-8 he is dealing with an assault upon the justice or rectitude of God. "The righteousness of God" (Rom 3:5) is the attribute of righteousness. ... It is the inherent equity of God and is to be coordinated with the truth or faithfulness of God (Rom 3:5-7). The abuse with which Rom 3:5-8 deal is therefore of a different cast, and it is significant that Paul has no lengthy refutation. The consideration that he pits against the distortion is simply, "God forbid; in that event, how will God judge the world?" F15 These verses are an argumentum ad hominem (an argument from what people do) ably explained by Lard as follows: You Jews cannot deny that you have been unjust; but this injustice, you say, has displayed the justice of God. You therefore cannot see how he can be just and punish you. Now, I will prove that your reasoning is false. In order to do this, I take my own case and show you how you view me. I am held by you to be false to the religion of my fathers. I am consequently condemned by you as a sinner. But in all this I am wronged, according to your own reasoning. For if the truthfulness of God has abounded the more to his honor by my being false, why do you still condemn me as a sinner? If, according to your reasoning, you should not be punished, neither should I. F16 Let us do evil that good may come ... Paul here reduced the arguments of Jewish objectors to an absurdity, as it might be paraphrased, "If your method of judging is correct, then why not do evil to procure the good that would come of it?" Whose condemnation is just ... was Paul’s way of saying that any such notion was absolutely incorrect and sinful, and justly condemned by God. My lie ... means, "the lie that I am now dealing with," or "our lie," thus identifying himself with the objector for the sake of a more effective rebuttal. Since the passage is directed against Jewish objectors, the thought is, "My lie, that is, my lie according to your view of things!" Whatever the exact construction put on this expression, it positively forbids the conclusion that Paul addressed these words to the Christians in Rome. "As we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say ... is a parenthetical statement; and we are in darkness as far as knowing who made any such slanderous reports against Paul, or upon what grounds they were fabricated. Certainly, it is going beyond the word of God to make the supposed grounds of those slanders the basis for concluding what kind of gospel Paul preached. That gospel is abundantly clear and concise in the light of a major portion of the New Testament which Paul wrote; and no reliance whatever should be placed upon the deductions which some have dared to make, basing their deductions, so they say, upon the grounds slanderers had for attacking Paul. Reference is made to the extensive deductions of Griffith Thomas who wrote: Evidently his teaching had been charged with giving an excuse for sinning. Salvation by grace was said to have an immoral tendency, as we shall see again in Rom 6:1. This (by the way) shows quite evidently the meaning of the Pauline doctrine of righteousness without works, for against no other teaching could such a charge be made. F17 The fallacy in Thomas’ deduction stems from the consideration that Paul was not discussing salvation by grace in this passage, and from the further consideration that it is illogical and dangerous to base a deduction upon the alleged basis of a slander, especially where there is total ignorance of what that basis, if any, was. Slander needs no basis, and more frequently than not, has no basis other than the wickedness of the slanderers. The doctrine of salvation by "faith only" is certainly hard up for support, when its advocates appeal to alleged grounds of slander in order to try to sustain it. Moreover, Thomas’ assertion that "salvation by grace is said to have an immoral tendency" is without foundation. Who said that it has such a tendency? Paul declared that it does not have such a tendency and named as slanderers any persons who might allege that it does. There are doctrines that tend to immorality, one of them being the theory of salvation by "faith only;" but salvation by grace, as taught by Paul, is of an utterly different category. In the next dozen verses (Rom 3:9-20), the scriptural proof that all people are sinners in the eyes of God is set forth in the form of a number of Old Testament quotations; but it is likely that even more was intended than the mere conclusion of universal sinfulness. The apostle here pronounced a verdict, not only against sin, but also against mankind as now constituted, against all people and their systems, even against the Jew with his God-given system, and against the Gentiles and their pagan religions, and, in all this, showing how utterly helpless is man, apart from God, in his pitiful efforts to achieve any such thing as justification. What was so desperately needed was the revelation of God’s way really to save people, to make them actually righteous, and to reveal the system of true reconciliation with God. Brunner thus expressed it: And now Paul has reached the stage where he can strike the decisive blow against every kind of human presumption, so that he can crush it before going on to speak of what the whole letter points to: God’s gracious act of reconciliation in Jesus Christ. F18 Verses 9, 10 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the: charge of both Jews and Greeks that they, are all under sin; and as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one. Are we better then they ... is a reference to any supposed Jewish superiority over the Gentiles. Paul had already identified himself, for the purpose of those arguments (Rom 3:7), with the Jews; and that identification is continued here in the words, answer is taken from the Old Testament, from which Paul quotes the sense, but not always the exact words, of a number of passages, the first being Psa 14:1 f and Psa 53:1 f. This blanket inclusion of all people "under sin" is a far greater thing than a mere charge that every man has committed some sin. Griffith Thomas’ illuminating passage on this is, Observe carefully that it is not, as in the KJV, "proved," for he is about to do this from scripture. He has charged them with being under sin. The phrase is very striking: "Not merely sinners, but under the empire of sin" (Liddon). It occurs again with equal force in Rom 6:14; Rom 7:14 and Gal 3:22. This is the first occurrence of the word "sin" out of nearly fifty places in Rom 1:1-32; Rom 2:1-29; Rom 3:1-31; Rom 4:1-25; Rom 5:1-21; Rom 6:1-23; Rom 7:1-25; Rom 8:1-39. The various New Testament words for "sin" are deeply significant. The most familiar and frequent of them means "missing the mark"; another means "overstepping a boundary"; another, "falling instead of standing"; another, "being ignorant instead of knowing"; another, "diminishing what should be rendered in full"; another, "disobeying a voice"; another, "disregarding a command" and another, "willfully careless." These are but a few of the aspects of sinning suggested by the etymology of the terms used. F19 There is none that doeth good ... is quoted from Psa 14:1, and Psa 53:1; Psa 53:3, and was here directed by Paul against the last stronghold of Jewish presumption, that of any alleged superiority over the Gentiles. This single quotation, reiterated in the Old Testament, was more than enough to sustain Paul’s proposition; but he went much further and listed specific sins of Israel and confirmed each with an Old Testament reference. This larger list of twelve specifics was presented by Paul in two sections: (1) sins against their relationship with God (Rom 3:10-12) and (2) sins against fellow creatures (Rom 3:12-18), each class of sins being introduced by the quotation from Psa 53:3, "There is none righteous, etc." Verse 11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God. Paul here charged the Jew in an area where he might have supposed himself to be invulnerable; for, of all the sins the Jew considered himself above, it was spiritual ignorance due to a failure to seek God; and yet, right here it was in their own Bible. They neither understood nor sought after God. True, they knew many things; but they had never understood that their entire system was temporary, typical, and comparable to the scaffolding of a building, and due to be torn down when the great antitype was revealed. They had somehow missed the overriding fact that Judaism was nat designed to be God’s permanent order of things. Their greatest specific error was doubtless their failure to understand the dual nature of the Messiah, the great Immanuel (God with us, or God in flesh) who would take away human sin (Mat 22:41-45). They indeed knew what the Old Testament said of Messiah, but they split the prophecies into two categories, supposing that there would be two Messiahs, one of them the suffering priestly Messiah, and the other the glorious kingly Messiah; and it was that tragic error of not understanding that all of the Old Testament prophecies spoke of one Messiah, that blinded their eyes to the identity of the Christ when he came. But that was the fatal error that resulted in utter blindness, in a religious sense, of Israel’s leaders. Christ exclaimed, concerning this, "Ye fools, and blind" (Mat 23:17; Mat 23:19), going so far as to say, "Woe unto ye lawyers! for ye took away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered" (Luk 11:52). They had so cluttered the word of God with their traditions and interpretations that they had even lost the key of knowledge, which was hopelessly buried beneath the rubbish mountain of trivia regarding tithing of mint, anise, and cumin, and a thousand other things. Thus the great sin here charged, and scripturally supported against Israel, was their reprehensible ignorance of God’s word. There is none that seeketh after God ... What a paradox was this, that the chosen nation who had received the revelation of God and who had studied it so meticulously, were, in all that study, not seeking God at all, due to the lack of any proper motive, and having forgotten the warning of Hosea, "Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord" (Hos 6:3). Knowing what the scripture says is one thing; following on to know the Lord is another. Since the Jews were not seeking after God, what was the point of all their study? Christ himself pinpointed the trouble: it was this, that they desired the praise of men rather than the praise of God (John 12:43). Christ said, Ye are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God (Luk 16:15). Moreover, they did not seek to glorify God, but only to glorify one another (John 5:44). Verse 12 They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not so much as one. Because Israel did not understand and did not seek after God, they turned aside to follow foolish and hurtful things, even in many instances departing to follow after the gods of the pagans, thereby becoming unprofitable to God. All of the care and favor that God lavished upon them, with the intention that they should recognize and honor the Messiah when he came, and present him to the world - all that was lost. They were so unprofitable that they lost the key of knowledge, and far from recognizing and receiving the Lord when he at last came, they failed to recognize him, hated him, and murdered the Son of God! The profoundly adverse judgment of God in the perpetual hardening of that nation should always be considered against this background. They were to blame for not recognizing the Lord. Verse 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; With their tongues they have used deceit: The poison of asps is under their lips. This progression to sins against fellow creatures was introduced by the last clause of Rom 3:12, quoted from Psa 53:2. Paul did not invent this charge of wickedness, but only read it out of the Old Testament, the indictment being further detailed and stated in Psa 5:9; Psa 140:3. The figure of speech here shows how utterly repugnant to God was their unprincipled conduct. The thought is that the words coming from their throats were as foul as any odor that ever came out of an opened grave. Their language and conversation were full of deceit. No credibility could be given to anything that they said; and, in this light, it must not be thought of as anything unusual when they tried to sustain charges against the Saviour by means of suborned testimony, and bribed the Roman soldiers to lie about the resurrection of the Lord. "A generation of vipers" indeed were they (Mat 3:7). Verse 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Paul was continuing to pile up scriptures to prove the wickedness of that generation which rejected Christ. This verse is a paraphrase of Psa 10:7; and, like the three charges listed in Rom 3:13, deals with sins of the tongue. The fact that this class of sins is mentioned at such length in this context shows how important the tongue is as an indicator of character. Verse 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood. This is quoted from Isa 59:7 and contains the charge of being swift and ready killers. The propensity of the chosen people for committing murder is well-documented in scripture; and Christ himself addressed his lament over Jerusalem thus, "Thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee" (Mat 23:37). In that amazing passage, Christ documented the long list of murders of the prophets and concluded by revealing to the public a murder hitherto concealed by the Pharisees, and unknown until Jesus revealed it! Christ also prophesied that the same murderous hatred would be vented against the apostles and preachers of the new covenant. Verses 16, 17 Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace have they not known. These verses are a continuation of the prophecy of Isa 59:7 f; and here one may see the end result of not knowing and not seeking after God. Turning away from the Father always brings the defector into a destructive and miserable way of life, a way of turbulence, wretchedness, violence, and conflict. Verse 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes. It should be borne in mind that all these charges must be understood, not as mere prejudice on Paul’s part, but as the pronouncements of the true prophets of God in the old institution. These things are what the Jewish scriptures say about the Jews. This verse is a quotation from Psa 36:1, and seems to be presented here as a climax of all the wickedness already documented. Where there is no fear of God in the hearts of people, there is no practical restraint of any kind upon their deeds. The unregenerated man who does not fear God or, for that matter, even believe that God exists - such a man quickly proves what a vicious and unprincipled beast the natural man becomes, once he has drifted, or fallen, beyond the reach of heavenly influence. This statement is the final in a list of twelve classes of wickedness charged against Israel by Paul, every one of which he documented by quotations from the prophets of the Old Testament. That the sins catalogued in these verses must be understood as the crimes of Israel is apparent, not merely from the fact that Paul directed these words to Israel, but from the further fact of their being mentioned in the Old Testament. Verse 19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God. Thus Paul sharpened the impact of his charges of Israel’s being under the complete dominion of sin. A paraphrase of what he said here is, "This is what your own law says about you, and that should shut up every mouth which would deny that Israel is under sin exactly like the rest of the world." These words make it absolutely clear that the Jews are the principal subject of the apostle in this section; but the final clause makes it also clear that Paul was not concerned merely with concluding Israel under sin, but all people. That every mouth may be stopped ... Paul was determined to convict the total race of Adam, and the devastating charges he had just sustained against Israel have the collateral effect of condemning the Gentiles as well, for they were admittedly worse than the Jews. Paul’s mention of "the law" in this verse is significant, in that it reveals an inspired definition of what is meant by "the law." It means not merely the Torah, or Pentateuch, but the entire Old Testament, as Paul here quoted from the prophets and from the Psalms, referring to all of his quotations as being from "the law." Whiteside summarized the teaching of this verse thus: The Jew readily granted that the Gentile was under the judgment of God, and now Paul proves from the Jewish scriptures that the Jew likewise was under the judgment of God. F20 Verse 20 Because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin. A glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin shows that Paul here used a word for "law" that seems to be broader than Moses’ law, and some of the commentators have made much of that; but what is unanswered is why Paul who had just mentioned the law in a context where it was positively identified as the Old Testament (Rom 3:19), should here be thought of as having introduced another subject. It would seem, from this consideration, that the English Revised Version (1885) committee did well in rendering it "the law" here as in the previous verse. It is true, of course, that the fact of justification being impossible to attain through the law of Moses, which is the highest law ever given, would surely allow the deduction that justification would likewise be impossible of attainment through any lesser law. Why was justification impossible of attainment under Moses’ law? First, no man, as people are constituted, is capable of perfectly living up to all the provisions of Moses’ law, or any other. Moses’ law made no allowance for any violations whatsoever and provided no means of forgiveness for violators. The Holy Spirit, at that time, not having been provided to dwell in people’s hearts, could not be claimed for either help or encouragement. For these reasons, the practical result of the law was to demonstrate that every man who tried to keep it was a sinner! That is the thought of the last clause in this verse. Macknight’s thoughts on why law condemns are as follows: That the apostle is here speaking of a meritorious justification, by moral as well as ceremonial works of Iaw, is evident from the universality of his proposition; and from this, that the only condition on which law allows justification to any person, is his performing all its requisitions. Therefore, as in the present state of human nature, a perfect obedience to law is impracticable, the apostle’s assertion in this verse remains invariably true. F21 Paul was about ready in this epistle to announce a means of justification by which man may be forgiven of his sins, truly possess a genuine righteousness, and claim the inheritance among the saints in light; but, before doing so, he evidently felt that it was imperative to remove all notions that any man might have to the effect that he might ever earn, or merit, salvation through living a life of strict conformity to the law of Moses; and the denial that it was possible under that law, which was indeed the best ever devised, was equivalent to a denial that it could be accomplished under any kind of law whatsoever. The ability to merit or earn salvation is simply not in mortal people; and that fact underlies Paul’s extensive argument presented thus far in the epistle with the design of bringing all people to realize their condemnation under God, due to their sin, and to impress upon them the glorious nature of the true means of justification about to be announced. Justification, as a practical thing, is the equivalent of salvation; but a more precise definition is given by Hodge, thus: (Justification) is always used in the sense antithetical to condemnation. To condemn is not merely to punish, but to declare the accused guilty or worthy of punishment; and justification is not merely to remit punishment, but to declare that punishment cannot be justly inflicted. F22 The inability of people to achieve a state of justification by means of law should not be held as a reason for despising law, especially God’s law; because, as Brunner expressed it, The Law cannot make us righteous, but it can reveal to us what is wrong. Through the Law comes the knowledge of sin. This is no small matter. If there still had to be something other than the way of the Law, we do not bypass the Law to reach this other thing but only go right through the Law. The Law, taken seriously, breaks the arrogance of man; yes, it breaks man himself. But only as someone who is broken, as a person who is thoroughly shaken, as someone who has come to the end of his tether, can he understand what has to be said of him now as being the one and all of the gospel message. F23 Rom 3:21-31 contain Paul’s statement of that one and all just referred to above in Brunner’s paragraph on the Law. In Paul’s small paragraph here, one of the most significant revelations in sacred scripture, the great mystery of redemption, is at last announced; the mystery hidden from the foundation of the world is finally declared, that being the device by which God can forgive the sins of people and procure their absolute justification in Jesus Christ. How could even God devise a vehicle for the conveyance of so great a blessing? How could God be just, that is, accounted by men to be just, while at the same time passing over sins and blessing the perpetrators of sins as if they had never sinned at all, even forgiving them? How could God receive fallen and sinful people unto himself without, in so doing, bestowing a tacit approval of their horrible wickedness, thereby compromising his just government of the universe itself? The answer to all such questions is embryonically contained in the glowing sentences which make up this small section of Paul’s letter to the Romans. Verse 21 But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets. But now ... These words are the pivot between the old and the new, the hinge upon which the door closes upon the old and shameful darkness of human history and opens upon the new and living way in Christ Jesus. Paul had concluded all people under sin, under the judgment of God; but at this point he would announce the means by which Paradise lost may be recovered; he was about to announce the revelation of the mystery hidden before times eternal, the mystery of "how" God would provide forgiveness of fallen man. In this connection, it should be remembered that in all previous history there was never any such thing as the forgiveness of sins, except conditionally and typically, and that the justification and forgiveness to be made available through Jesus Christ constituted an utterly new thing. Good news indeed it was, the gospel. This gospel (which means good news) was, and is still, provided for all races and conditions of people, without regard to prior privilege, not upon the basis of merit, but upon the basis of God’s gracious favor to mankind, and provided actually by and through the righteousness of Christ. Paul was ready to discharge that debt to all mankind he had acknowledged in 1:14, and he would do it by preaching that gospel. Apart from the law ... Whiteside and others are quick to point out that Paul here used a term which includes more than the law of Moses, F24 but, as pointed out under Rom 3:20, the impossibility of procuring justification under God’s divine law automatically argues the impossibility of such a thing’s being possible under any other similar kind of law; and, therefore, the translators have wisely left it to read "the law." Of a different category is the law of the gospel. A righteousness of God hath been manifested ... is identical with the translation in Rom 1:17, and is, without any doubt whatever, an incorrect rendition. See notes on that place. Enough here to note that RSV, Phillips, and the New English Bible all reject the rendition of "a" righteousness, making it read "the righteousness" as in KJV. Apparently, the English Revised Version (1885) committee believed that "a righteousness" favored the popular theory of a forensic or imputed righteousness, which God bestows upon believers under certain conditions; but in that they were doubtless wrong; for what is in view in this passage is God’s intrinsic righteousness, not an imputed righteousness at all, the particular proof of God’s righteousness lying in this, that salvation has at last been made available to all people who will receive it. Being witnessed by the law and the prophets ... This refers to the Old Testament witness to Christianity and shows the intimate connection between them. The Old Testament revealed, through a number of types and shadows, the marvelous teachings of the new covenant, there being no less than four distinctive Old Testament witnesses to the identity, character, mission and teaching of Jesus Christ the Son of God. This is a matter of such consequence that a fuller discussion of it is inserted here. THE OLD TESTAMENT WITNESS OF JESUS CHRIST The four great Old Testament witnesses to Jesus Christ and the new institution he came to establish are: (1) the verbal prophecies; (2) typical persons; (3) the tabernacle in its plan of construction and in various devices within it; and (4) the grand ceremonial functions of Jewish religion, such as the Day of Atonement, the Passover, etc. The verbal prophecies, numbering some 333, foretold the coming of the Messiah in such detail and clarity that hardly any phase of our Lord’s life and character was omitted. The time and exact place of his birth, the particular tribe of Israel through whom he would be born, the fact of his betrayal by a friend, even the very amount of the betrayal price, the details of his crucifixion, that he should be buried but not see corruption, that he would speak in parables, that he would be despised and rejected by human beings, and that not a bone of him should be broken - and on and on, literally hundreds of such facts as these were faithfully predicted in the Old Testament prophecies. Great typical men in the extensive history of Israel were laid under the burden of setting forth the nature, character, attitude, mission, and even the name of Christ. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Jonah, Aaron, and Melchizedek, to name only a few, were all typical, in one way or another, of Jesus Christ, and all reflected in one degree or another the coming glory of Messiah. To take, as an example, one of the very least of those men, Jonah, will show the wealth of particulars by which each one of them bore witness to Christ. Both Jonah and Jesus were asleep in a ship at sea in a storm, and both were awakened. Both were involved in the safety of the vessel, though in opposite ways, Jesus being responsible for the safety of his, and Jonah for the danger to his. Both produced a great calm, Jesus by fiat, Jonah by being thrown overboard. Both willingly consented to die for the salvation of others. Both came from approximately the same spot on earth, Gath-hepher, the home of Jonah, being less than three miles from Nazareth. Repentance of the Gentiles resulted from the mission of both. Likewise, the tabernacle, and later the temple patterned after it, typified the ultimate scheme of redemption as it would be revealed in Christ. The candlestick typified the word of God; the table of shewbread the providence of God; the veil the flesh of Christ; the mercy seat the supremacy of Gods’ mercy, etc. The design and Construction of the three courts represented various aspects of the world, the church, and heaven. Such things as the great bronze altar, the bronze laver, the golden altar of incense, and even the checkered squares of the floor of the sanctuary, symbolizing life’s joys and sorrows - all of these things, and many others, bore a mighty weight of symbolism looking to the new institution, so great a weight, in fact, that volumes would be required to give full treatment to so vast a subject. The fourth Old Testament witness of Christ and the New Testament was that of the religious services themselves, things like the thank offering, the sin offering, the Passover, the Day of Atonement, etc. Thus, Christ is the true atonement; he is our Passover, having been slain at the very hour the paschal lambs were being slain; and the exact correspondence between type and antitype is so extensive as to be utterly amazing. In fact, all four of these witnesses being taken together provide the most overwhelming proof that can be imagined of the true identity and authenticity of Christ. The God-inspired preparation for Christ’s entry into the world was so abundantly adequate that it seems almost incredible that Israel should not have recognized the King when he came. The pre-Christian Jew could not look in any direction without beholding some eloquent symbol of Jesus Christ. He could not heed any major voice of Jewish prophecy without hearing (or reading) some majestic prophecy of the coming Redeemer. There was hardly any truly significant man in the whole history of the Hebrews who was not typical of Christ; nor was there any honored institution among them that did not share the burden of enlightenment looking to the revelation of the Son of God; and, added to all this, there was the extravagant symbolism of their most sacred religious services and ceremonials. This combined testimony of men and institutions, in the aggregate, embracing practically all that was of any significance in Jewish history - this total testimony was designed for one thing only, and that was to reveal the Christ when he came. The entire national life of the Jews was so totally permeated, pervaded, and infused with pre-knowledge of the coming Saviour, and with such an intensity and profusion as to approach a surcharge! No wonder, then, that Paul who was about to announce to all people the salvation that Christ had made available would have paused at this point to recall that it was all witnessed by the law and the prophets. Verse 22 Even the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction. It will be noted that "faith of Jesus Christ" has been used instead of "faith in Jesus Christ," as appears in the English Revised Version (1885) and many other versions. There are many reasons for staying with the KJV in this place, and similar places, of which there are a number, throughout the New Testament; because the same tampering with the word of God which resulted in the monstrosity of "a" righteousness of God (3:21 and 1:17) is in evidence here. The true scriptural justification "by faith" has no reference at all to the faith of stinking sinners, but to the "faith of the Son of God." Note the following: The scriptures hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe (Gal 3:22). In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him (Eph 3:12). And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith (Php 3:9). Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law (Gal 2:16). I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me (Gal 2:20). Now, all of the above scriptures were changed in the English Revised Version (1885) to read, in each instance, "faith in Christ," the translators taking note of the alternate translation only in the form of a single note on Rom 3:22. Without a doubt the KJV is correct in all these places, a fact confirmed by the total agreement of the Emphatic Diaglott in each case. Most of the older commentators, such as James Macknight and Adam Clarke, likewise agree with the KJV rendition of these places. Even Greathouse, although in disagreement, mentioned some interpreters who, Insist that the phrase [Greek: pisteos Iesou Christou] means "the faith of Christ" (like the "faith of Abraham" in Rom 4:16). F25 This interpreter is not convinced by the reasons alleged as the grounds of changing these passages in God’s word and is certain that the only end served by their change was that of bolstering the "faith only" theory of justification. That the true grounds of justification cannot ever be in a million years the faith of fallible, sinful people, would appear to be axiomatic. How could it be? The very notion that God could impute justification to an evil man, merely upon the basis of anything that such a foul soul might either believe or do, is a delusion. Justification in any true sense requires that the justified be accounted as righteous and undeserving of any penalty whatever; and no man’s faith is sufficient grounds for such an imputation. On the other hand, the faith of Jesus Christ, as revealed in the scriptures, is indeed a legitimate ground of justification, because Christ’s faith was perfect. "Faithful is he that calleth you" (1Th 5:24); and, in the absolute sense, only Christ is faithful. Only he is called "the faithful and true witness" (Rev 3:14). Moreover the faith of Christ was obedient. It was a perfect and complete obedience, lacking nothing whatever; and therefore the obedient faith of the Son of God, sinless and holy, is the ground and only ground of any justification of any such thing as a human being; and Christ only therefore might righteously be justified in God’s sight. How then are people saved at all? They are saved "in Christ," having been incorporated into him, and thus being justified as a part of him. See under "Christ, Incorporated," below. Hodge was very close to this truth when he wrote: Faith is not the ground of our justification; it is not the righteousness which makes us righteous before God. F26 And, as long as the "faith" mentioned by Hodge is construed as "sinners’ faith" the statement is profoundly correct; but the "faith of the Son of God" is indeed the ground of our justification, because that faith is definitely included in the "righteousness of God" mentioned in this verse. Even the righteousness of God through faith of Jesus Christ ..." shows the principal constituent of God’s righteousness. God’s righteousness, in short, is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, his absolute, intrinsic, unalloyed righteousness, implicit in his perfect faith (mentioned here) and his perfect obedience (implied). The contrary notion that God’s righteousness is some imputation accomplished by the sinner’s faith is unfounded. Any righteousness that could commend itself to the Father and become the ground of anything truly worthwhile would, by definition, have to be a true and genuine righteousness. That righteousness was provided by the sinless life of the Christ, summarized in this verse as "through faith of Jesus Christ," the idea being much clearer in the KJV, The righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ. Unto all and upon all them that believe ... That believer’s faith is not in the first clause of this verse is proved by its being introduced in the final phrase, "believe" here having reference to sinners’ faith, which is no part of God’s righteousness at all, but a mere condition of his salvation, like baptism, being neither any more important nor any less important than baptism. Its being affirmed here that the true righteousness of God is "unto all them that believe" is primarily a part of Paul’s argument for the intrinsic righteousness of God, the supporting fact in view being that God’s righteousness had been made available unto all, not being restricted, as formerly, to Israel. The sole condition mentioned in this place as prerequisite to procurement of that righteousness is BELIEVING, and it must be understood as a synecdoche, a form of metaphor, where a part stands for the whole, such as "sail" for ship. In the employment of this figure, the part mentioned must be outstanding and conspicuous. Thus, a ship ’could not be called merely "a rudder." Faith, being an outstanding and conspicuous condition of redemption, is here used as a synecdoche for all the conditions God has imposed and made to be prerequisites of salvation. The most conspicuous theological error of Biblical interpretation in the past five hundred years is that of interpreting this synecdoche as a denial of the other conditions of salvation. Verse 23 For all have sinned any fall short of the glory of God. This is Paul’s statement of the fact of God’s justice in making salvation to all who complied with the terms upon which it was extended. All people are in fact sinners; and the same basis for saving one, or making salvation available, is the basis for extending it to all. Verse 24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Glorious is the thought that justification in God’s sight is now available to all people, not upon the basis of their success in keeping the commandments of any law, nor upon the basis of their having achieved any degree of moral perfection, or even excellence, and not upon the basis of their fulfilling any kind of law whatever, except that of meeting the terms upon which God provided it. True, those terms are called "a law of faith," a "perfect law of liberty," and a "royal law"; but such "law" is not in view here. Freely ... is appropriate, because nothing that man could ever do in a million years of righteous living could ever earn the tiniest fraction of the salvation God gives to people in Christ. The redemption that is in Christ ... The expression "in Christ" is, in some ways, the most important in all the Pauline writings, where this expression, or its equivalent, "in whom," "in him," etc., is used no less than 169 times. F27 What does it mean to be "in Christ"? It means to be in his spiritual body, called the church, the body of which Christ is the head, of which he is declared to be the Saviour, and which means having a spiritual relationship to Christ, a relationship of intimate union and identification with him. Redemption is not in faith, or baptism, or in anything else except being "in Christ." Right here is that device contrived by God himself by which a man might truly and legitimately be justified; and it might be looked upon as a divine corporation. This writer is indebted to John Mackay, former President of Princeton Theological Seminary, for this concept of a divine corporation. He wrote: Which God designated to give historical fulfillment to the "plan of the mystery." That organ is a community, the community of the "chosen in Christ," of "the destined in love." In the Epistle of the Ephesians, which is supremely interested in the corporate side of Christianity, "The People of God" occupy a central place. In the Old Testament they formed the "Commonwealth of Israel" in the New Testament the Christian Church, "the Body of Christ." F28 JESUS CHRIST, INCORPORATED Inherent in the very fact of Christ’s having a spiritual body is the concept of its being extra-literal. What kind of body is it? That it is a community of believers on earth is implicit in the fact that the Corinthians had "by one Spirit" all been baptized "into it" (1Co 12:13). That, in the last analysis, it includes more than the church is plainly set forth in Ephesians where "every family" in heaven and upon earth are a part of it. All the saved of all ages are in it, because only in Christ has salvation ever been possible for anyone. The wonder of this body is that it is truly spoken of as a person, like any other corporation, being, in fact, a fully legal person, hence the propriety of saying that one is "in Christ." Christ’s absolute righteousness cannot be separated from himself and conferred or imputed to others, true righteousness being non-transferable; but it is possible, thanks to the wise provision of God in forming the corporate "in Christ," for all who will to enter that body, becoming one with Christ, fully identifiable with him, and being in fact "in him." All such then share Christ’s righteousness. It is truly theirs. This is what Paul means by "redemption that is in Christ Jesus." The shares of this corporation are the righteousness of Christ. In Christ is a bank of all the righteousness ever accredited to people. All spiritual blessings are categorically said to be in this corporation, "in Christ" (Eph 1:3). This means that there are no spiritual blessings anywhere except in Christ. Who are those who make up Christ’s spiritual body, thus being "in Christ"? The New Testament gives the following clues to their identity: They are those who have been born again. Christ’s spiritual body, also called by Christ "the kingdom," cannot be entered except by the new birth (John 3:3-5). They are those who are the "new" creatures. "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature" (2Co 5:17). And, like every other corporation, Jesus Christ, Incorporated, has a seal. Paul wrote to the Ephesians: In whom (that is, in Christ), having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13). Thus, the members of Jesus Christ, Incorporated, are those who have been sealed with the Holy Spirit. They are also the saved, for the author of Acts declared that The Lord added to them day by day those that were saved, (or as more accurately in the English Revised Version (1885) margin) those that were being saved (Acts 2:47). The true members of Jesus Christ, Incorporated, are the saved, the sealed with the Holy Spirit, the new born, the new creatures. In a word, they are baptized believers in Christ. The reception of the Holy Spirit of promise, in the first sermon of the gospel age, was made contingent upon the repentance and baptism of those who believed (Acts 2:38), and Paul’s mentioning "of promise" in Eph 1:13, above, shows that he had that in mind. Baptism is an essential element in the new birth, though not the whole of it; and the "newness of life" which belongs to every person "in Christ" follows his being baptized into Christ (Rom 6:4). There can be no marvel, therefore, at the fact of baptism’s being mentioned three times in the New Testament as an act of obedience that results in the believer’s having a new status, that of being "in Christ." "Baptized into Christ" is found in Rom 6:3 and Gal 3:27; and, in 1 Corinthians, it is written: "For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body" (Rom 12:13). From these Holy Scriptures, there comes the certain conclusion, then, that faith is not the sum and all of salvation; it was not even so in the case of Christ whose faith and perfect obedience wrought salvation for all; nor can it be supposed that "faith alone," defined by James as "dead" (Jas 2:17f ), can ever avail anything except the eternal disappointment of them that trust in it. In that all have sinned, a fact Paul was at great labor to prove, there resides the absolute necessity for every man to die as the penalty of sin, that penalty to be understood not merely as mortal but as eternal death; and God’s justice will require that every man ever born on earth pay it, unless exempted through being in Christ. Thus, in the final judgment, only those who are truly "in Christ," members of that entity called the spiritual body, or, as here, Jesus Christ, Incorporated, can truly be exempted, and that not upon the basis of their faith alone, but upon the basis that Christ actually died for them, and that they died "in the person of Christ." That is the thrust of Paul’s thought that Christians have been "baptized into his death" (Rom 6:3). Jesus Christ, Incorporated, is the corporation set up through purchase by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28), the device God had planned before all time, and the mystery hidden before times eternal, and now made "known through the church" (Eph 3:10), and called the "mystery of the gospel" (Eph 6:19). These thoughts are offered in the prayerful hope that people may forsake human theories of salvation, that they might believe and be baptized, as Christ commanded, and give glory to God "in the church" as directed by an apostle (Eph 3:21). Like every figure of speech used to convey eternal truth, this one also results in certain distortions, as, for example, above where Christ is spoken of as being alone entitled to salvation. Of course, he was never lost; but the inheritance of the saints is scripturally noted as that which they shall receive as joint-heirs with Christ. Thus, subject to the limitation of all metaphor, this one is conceived of as a vehicle for vital truth, taught abstractly, throughout the New Testament; and, it is hoped, made a little plainer in this comparison. Thus, only the righteous, the perfect, the truly faithful and obedient shall be saved; and there will be no basis for any man to boast of having anything such as that, because such is not in man; but it is in Christ, and those in Christ may through absolute identification with Christ truly say that they are perfect, etc. That is what Paul meant when he wrote: "That we may present every man perfect in Christ" (Col 1:28). Thus, it will not be an imputed righteousness, procured by the sinner’s faith, but a real, actual righteousness wrought by Christ, that can save such a one as sinful man, and then only if he will die to himself and become utterly one with Christ in Christ. As Paul said of himself: It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me; and that life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me (Gal 2:20). Before leaving Rom 3:24, the seeming paradox of how God’s grace is free and at the same time all people do not receive it, should be observed. Paul wrote Titus: For the grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world (Tit 2:11-12). From this, it is plain that God’s grace having appeared, and salvation having been brought to all people, refer to the availability of that grace and salvation, and not to their being unconditionally bestowed. From the farmer who reaps down his fields to the fishermen off the Grand Banks, all men receive God’s gifts conditionally, and never unconditionally. Thus, it is no surprise that God’s grace and salvation came "instructing men," with the necessary deduction that rejection of the instructions was automatically rejection of the grace and salvation. Failure to comply with divinely imposed conditions is forfeiture of all benefits conditionally given. Verses 25, 26 Whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God: for the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season: that he might himself be just and the justifier of him that is of faith of Jesus. Here the final clause is rendered with respect to the Greek text mentioned in the English Revised Version (1885) margin, the reasons for which are set forth under the preceding verses. This is done to make it clear that Paul was not promising salvation to all them that believe in Christ, but to those who believe in such a way as to be participants in the "faith of Jesus," that is, by being in his spiritual body. Whom God set forth ... These words reveal the initiative of God in the offering of Christ for the world’s sin; and, although there were others involved in that offering, one of the preeminent facts of Christianity looms in this verse, namely, that God paid the price of human redemption. There are no less than seven centers of initiative in the crucifixion of Christ, but the first of these is God himself, the fountain source of all authority and power. This is plainly evident thus: We did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted (Isa 53:4). Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin (Isa 53:10). The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isa 53:6). Paul’s words here are worthy to be placed alongside the great Old Testament texts which identify God as the payer of the penalty of human transgression. Paul also wrote the Corinthians: Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2Co 5:21). Thus, the profound promise of God to Abraham that "God will provide himself a lamb" (Gen 22:8) was indeed fulfilled. It is precisely in this one tremendous fact that Christianity differs utterly from all the ethnic and natural religions, in which it is always man who pays and pays. It is the fairest maiden bound over to the dragon, the boldest Warrior who gives himself to save others; but in Christianity, God in Christ paid it all. God was not alone in offering Christ; but God, Christ, Satan, the Jews, the Romans, all people and every man participated in it, as detailed below. WHO CRUCIFIED CHRIST? In the verse noted above, it is plain that God crucified Christ. It was the Eternal Father himself who "so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son" (John 3:16); and it was under the broad umbrella of his permissive will that the entire drama of Jesus’ crucifixion was enacted upon the darkened summit of Golgotha. It should never be thought, therefore, even for a moment, that Satan was successful in thwarting the will of God upon the Cross. The Cross was in God’s plan from the beginning; Jesus was "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8). The very purpose of Christ’s coming into the world was to die for the sins of the world. This is emphasized by Jesus’ conversation on the Mount of Transfiguration, where he discussed his impending death with Elijah and Moses, not with any attitude of frustration, but in the view that Jesus’ death was a magnificent thing which Christ himself should accomplish (Luk 9:30). The mystery of how God overrules all things, while at the same time allowing for the freedom and responsibility of the human will, appears here, as frequently, in scripture. God used evil men in the pursuit of their own evil designs, the pride and vanity of Israel, and even the devil himself, as well as the indifference and blindness of the Romans - all these things being made to subserve the divine purpose in Christ’s death upon the cross. Yes, God crucified Christ. Christ also crucified Christ, being the architect of his own death. This is clearly stated in Luk 9:30; but, beyond that, all of the details of his crucifixion, involving such things as: (1) the charge upon which he elected to receive the death penalty; (2) the exact time of his death, and (3) the place of his execution, were all specifically chosen by Jesus and ordered in keeping with his gracious will. The consent to die was Christ’s alone to give; and he declared publicly: I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again (John 10:17-18). At the very moment when the Pharisees had decided against killing Christ during the Passover, Christ announced to his disciples that he was going up to Jerusalem to die (Mat 26:1-5), thus bringing it about that his death coincided exactly with the slaying of the paschal lambs on the preparation of the Jewish Passover, antitype perfectly fulfilling the type, as God intended. Satan crucified Christ, bruising his heel, according to the ancient prophecy in Gen 3:15 : I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; and it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Yes, Satan crucified Christ. Who but the devil could have contrived the betrayal kiss, or induced a soldier to prick his own fingers gathering thorns for the brow of a man the governor had publicly declared to be innocent? Who but Satan could have inspired the atrocious ugliness, humiliation, suffering, shame, and repugnance that reached such a crescendo upon Calvary? If there was ever an instance of doing a complete job of diabolical cruelty upon any person in human history, Satan did it in the case of Jesus’ death. The Cross must have exhausted the capacity of the devil himself for the heaping up of sufferings upon a single individual; for Satan did not merely contrive, with God’s permission, the death of Christ on the Cross, he embellished the torture with every conceivable refinement of sadistic cruelty and humiliation. Jesus said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega" (Rev 1:8), which is the English equivalent of "I am the `A’ and the `Z.’" Certainly, Satan threw the alphabet at the Master on the Cross: "A" is for his arrest, like a criminal hunted by the law. "B" is for his betrayal by a friend. "C" is for his crucifixion and the Cross. "D" is for the desertion of his disciples. "E" is for the encirclement of his enemies. "F" is for his fainting and falling under the weight of the Cross. "G" is for the Garden of Gethsemane, scene of tears and blood. "H" is for the hall of Herod where they mocked him. "I" is for the inscription above his head. "J" is for Judas. "K" is for the kiss. "L" is for the lies they swore. "M" is for the malefactors on the right and on the left. "N" is for the nails in his hands and feet. "O" is for the order of the governor under which he died. "P" is for Pontius Pilate, the priests and the Pharisees. "Q" is for the quaking earth that shuddered as the deed was done. "R" is for his rejection and the release of Barrabas. "S" is for the smiting of his cheek, the spitting, and the shame. "T" is for the thorns with which they crowned him. "U" is for unjust trials, six in all, unjust, unthinkable, ungodly. "V" is for the vituperation of his foes. "W" is for water where Pilate washed his hands. "Y" is for the yells of those who hated him. "Z" is for the zeal of those who slew him. - and if it should be supposed that there is no word for "X," let it be remembered that "X" stands for the unknown, that Christ on Calvary was the Great Unknown, and, in that, perhaps, was the bitterest part of it all for Jesus. Yes, Satan pressed his attack against the Lord in every conceivable manner, perhaps hoping to the very last that he could make death so repulsive to the Son of God, so humiliating, and repugnant to him, that Christ would simply reject it, call for the legions of angels, abort the mission of redemption, and return to God; in which event, if such a thing had happened, Satan would have thwarted the divine purpose of human redemption. The Jews crucified Christ; and, despite the findings of Vatican II, which is said to have absolved Israel of the blame, the Jews themselves, in the person of their highest court, and all the leaders of the people, with the concurrence of the hierarchy and the entire ruling establishment in Jerusalem itself, publicly accepted the blame for it in the cry: His blood be upon us and upon our children (Mat 27:25). Not even the alleged clearance of Vatican II can wipe that out; and besides, even Vatican II did not absolve the Jews of any blame whatever, but removed the unjust charge that the Jews ALONE were to blame. The benefit of Vatican II is that it reversed the historic position of the Medieval church to the effect that the Jews were alone guilty of Christ’s death, a position which was doubtless the source of much anti-Semitism, and which the Roman church quite properly repudiated. A careful reading of that document, however, will show that there was no intention whatever of clearing the Jews of any guilt at all in Christ’s crucifixion, and thus rejecting their King when he came. The Jews indeed were guilty, the only amelioration of it lying in those true Israelites who became Christ’s followers and formed the first nucleus of his church. This frequently neglected fact is the glory of the Jews. The great body of the primeval church was Jewish; and Jesus’ declaration that "salvation is of the Jews" pertains with great force to the make-up of the original church. The position of the Medieval church, noted above, was the cause, or one of the causes, of a fierce anti-Semitism which has been a frequent disgrace of history; and the courage of the Roman church to alter that position is commendable. It never was true that Israel alone was guilty of Jesus’ murder, not even if all of Israel had concurred in it, which they did not; and even if that generation had totally concurred in it, no possible blame could pertain to their posterity, regardless of their screams for Jesus’ blood to be upon them and upon their children (Mat 27:25). Despite all this, the truth is plain enough that the Jews did crucify Jesus, the nation itself overwhelmingly and officially rejecting him, and contriving his execution by a cunning combination of political pressure, suborned testimony, and mob violence. Speaking of those Jews, it is profoundly correct to say that they were a fourth center of responsibility for the crucifixion of our Lord. A fifth center of responsibility lies in the Gentiles, particularly the Roman government of that era. Like Israel, the Romans were not alone guilty, but guilty just the same. Romans and Jews had the same status in Crist’s crucifixion as that of two men robbing a filling station and killing the operator, both being totally guilty, but neither of them exclusively so. Both Rome and Jerusalem were totally guilty of Christ’s death, though neither was exclusively so. Pontius Pilate was the Roman governor of Judaea. The chiliarchs and their legions in the tower of Antonio were under Pilate’s command; and Pilate knew and admitted the innocence of Jesus Christ and could have released him. When Pilate said, "I find no fault in him," that should have been the signal to summons the legions and disperse the mob. The military might of Jerusalem was firmly in his hands; and the battle flags that decorated the stage of that dark drama on Golgotha were the storied banners of the Roman legions. The official order under which Christ was put to death bore the seal and signature of the Roman government, in the person of the procurator. True, the Sanhedrin had condemned the Lord, but they were powerless to move against him unless Pilate had allowed it. It was a Roman court of justice, no less than the highest religious tribunal of the Jews, that consented to the Lord’s execution. There is no way to diminish the blame that shall attach forever to the name of Pilate and the nation he represented, the proud nation of Rome being itself, therefore, a fifth center of motive and responsibility for the crucifixion of the Son of God. This brings us to the sixth center of responsibility for Christ’s crucifixion, a center as wide as all humanity; for, in a sense, the whole race of man crucified Jesus. In that all have sinned, no one is totally free of blame. The Cross marked the total breakdown of the most respected institutions of all history, Roman justice and Jewish religion alike failing the crucial test, No single race, group, or condition of human beings deserves total blame; but by the same token, no one may deny any guilt at all, or claim absolution from complicity in this profoundest tragedy Of all time. All people, in the collective sense, are guilty, even the disciples of Jesus, for they forsook him and fled. The human race in its entirety crucified Jesus. The seventh and final center of responsibility is every man’s heart, the taint of sin being universal. Every person who knows and fully appreciates the truth can receive this. It was my sins, every man’s sins, that nailed him up. The Lord was not crucified by some world-shaking monstrosity of sin, but by the little, ordinary, everyday sins, just as up-to-date as this morning’s newspaper. Christ was harried to death because of pride, envy, and scorn. He was betrayed, not for a million dollars, but for about twenty dollars worth of silver. Such petty considerations as social position, political expediency, graft, timidity, cowardice, greed, jealously, lust, and indifference - all on a rather small scale; these were the sins that crucified him. "Were you there when they crucified my Lord?" Every man conscious of sin knows that he was indeed there. To be a propitiation ... The Greek usage of the word here translated "propitiation" applies it to the making of sacrifices to gods or men for the purpose of mollifying their anger or procuring their favor; but the scriptural usage of this term is not like that of the ancients. God makes the propitiation, but, at the same time, is the one propitiated; moreover, God does not need to be reconciled to man, but man need to be reconciled to God. As Paul expressed it, "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" (2Co 5:19). Other New Testament examples of this word or its root are found in 1Jn 2:2; 1Jn 4:10; and Luk 18:13. There must certainly be far more in the meaning of this word than people can fully comprehend in this life. Some of the meaning lies in the eternal justice that requires punishment of every sin. God’s laying upon Christ "the iniquity of us all" it part of the meaning of "propitiation." There is also in it the mystery of the attraction that the Cross has for people. Jesus said, "If I be lifted up, I shall draw all men unto myself" (John 12:32); and every succeeding century has revealed new dimensions of that mysterious truth. Greathouse noted that: When we speak of Christ’s sacrifice as a propitiation, we do so against the background teaching of this epistle that "the wrath of God" is revealed from heaven against all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men" (Rom 1:8). Of course, this does not mean that God has to be appeased like an angry man. Such a perversion of the biblical doctrine of propitiation misses the fundamental point made everywhere in the Bible, that it is God himself who puts forward the propitiatory offering for man’s sin. Propitiation means that God found a way to uphold the law and safeguard his justice while extending mercy to a guilty sinner who trusts in Christ. "Expiation" means that in Christ the guilty rebel is forgiven of his sin and cleansed from his demerit. F29 There is no human experience which fully qualifies as an illustration of what God did for humanity in providing a propitiation for human transgression; but the nearest thing to an adequate illustration of so magnificent a mercy is the legendary story of Lycurgus, semi-mythical character of the ninth century before Christ, said to have been the founder of the Spartan constitution, and whose legendary justice is memorialized on the south frieze of the grand audience chamber of the Supreme Court of the United States. This ancient king of Sparta proclaimed a law carrying the penalty of blindness for violators. The law was unpopular, and the king’s son, and heir apparent, was maneuvered into breaking it. Calmly, Lycurgus ordered the executioner to heat the blinding irons, commanded the trembling prince to kneel, and the executioner burned out one of his eyes; whereupon the king interrupted the executioner, explained that the law required two eyes to be blinded, and that the king himself would give one of his own, thus sparing his son. Whether fact or fable, that ancient story illustrates the administration of justice tempered with mercy, and suggests the far greater thing that God did for his human children when he paid the penalty of their sins by dying upon the Cross in the person of his Son. The fact noted above, that God is at once the propitiation and the propitiated, is strongly suggestive of the similar paradox in Heb 9:11-12, where Christ is typified at one and the same time both by the victim whose blood is shed and by the high priest by whom it was offered. "Propitiation" is thought by some commentators to suggest the covering of the ark of the covenant, which also served as the platform upon which was enthroned the mercy seat in the ancient tabernacle, such authors as Wuest, Lenski, Macknight, and Locke holding that view, with others, as Hodge, offering detailed arguments to the contrary. Leaving the resolution of such questions to those more able to decide them, this student finds the possible allusion to the mercy seat stimulating and helpful. This allusion, if that is what it is, is in line with what Paul had already said concerning the witness of the law and the prophets to the great realities of the new covenant (Rom 3:21); and it was exactly in that ancient device called the mercy seat, especially in its peculiar position above and on top of the ark of the covenant, that one finds the most dramatic symbol in the Old Testament suggesting Gods’ mercy as being enthroned even above God’s law. There, in the placement of that mercy seat, was revealed the key fact of God’s dealings with the race of man. There it was clear that, even under the Old Testament, mercy was higher than law. No more significant truth than this was ever revealed by the typical devices of the old covenant. Thus it is most appropriate that Jesus Christ our Lord, who is the agent and the grounds of that mercy, should be called (in this interpretation of the word) the base of the mercy seat and the covering of the law. Either view of what is meant by propitiation leads directly to the heart of Paul’s teaching here; which is simply this, that Christ is the sole ground of salvation. He is the basis of that mercy which outranks the law of God itself. Here too is the basis of the scriptural teaching that salvation is free, unmerited, the gift of God, or of the grace of God. Regardless of the conditions set forth in the word of God (and there ARE conditions), there can never be any thought of man’s achieving, earning, or meriting salvation. It is indeed the gift of God. Even an obedient faith which must be manifested by all who aspire to receive God’s unspeakable gift of salvation, can never be thought of as adequate grounds of it, the true basis of it being Jesus Christ alone. Christ’s perfect faith (as a man), and his perfect obedience, produced the sum total of human righteousness ever achieved on earth; and since Christ is the God-man, it is nothing less than God’s righteousness which is in Christ. Without that perfection of the Saviour, there could have been no such thing as salvation for people. Through faith in his blood ... This expression stands in the KJV without having the comma after "faith," making the meaning to be "through faith in the efficacy of Christ’s blood," or "faith in the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice"; however, RSV, Phillips, and the New English Bible refer "in his blood" back to the beginning of the sentence, thus: Whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith (RSV). God has appointed him as the means of propitiation, a propitiation accomplished by the shedding of his blood, to be received and made effective in ourselves by faith (Phillips). It will be observed that the obvious reason for rearranging this verse is to have Paul say that we are saved "by faith," which is true, of course, only if it be understood as a synecdoche. The meaning in the KJV is far preferable; and, since there is an admitted change in the meaning, the reasons for such change must be looked upon with suspicion. Both the translations cited close the verse with "by faith"; but the Greek New Testament has the word for "faith" (twenty words earlier) in that verse; and from this, we are certain that a distortion of Paul’s meaning has been made. Moses E. Lard commented on this place, justifying the meaning given in the KJV, thus: Now the conditional efficacy of his blood seems to me to be the very point the apostle is guarding, by placing "through belief" where it stands. Christ is an atoning sacrifice through belief. Without belief he is not one. We must believe in his blood in order to be ransomed by it. This is the fact which the apostle is seeking to protect. F30 To show his righteousness ... Here in the heart of this magnificent passage, called by Olshausen "the Acropolis of the Christian faith," F31 a true definition of the kind of righteousness which constituted Paul’s principal theme in Romans is delivered. It is the intrinsic righteousness of God. It is true that there is some reference to the other class of righteousness (imputed, or forensic); but, throughout this great letter, it is the character of God that Paul discussed. At the beginning of this verse, Paul mentioned the offering of Christ; and here, in these words, the reason for God’s so doing is stated. It was for the purpose of showing, or making known to all people, the righteous character of God. God was not merely winking at sin in those long pre-Christian ages; in the fullness of time, God would sacrifice the Son himself, "whom he made to be sin on our behalf," that he might show just what a terrible thing sin is, and to demonstrate that no sin will at last be tolerated by God. Such a view of God’s eternal righteousness could never have been known until God gave his only begotten Son. Because of the passing over of the sins done aforetime ... These words have resulted in questions of what is meant: (1) Does it mean that the ancients were forgiven of their sins, or (2) does it mean that their sins were "passed over," in a sense ignored, without adequate explanation of the reason for God’s so doing, the position here being that the latter meaning is correct. There are learned arguments to the effect that God actually forgave the sins of ancients, but Paul’s statement that under Moses law there was "a remembrance of sins year by year" (Heb 10:3) disproves that thesis. It may well be doubted that there was ever any such thing on earth as the forgiveness of sins, prior to the death of Christ; and, even if it should be allowed, as some affirm, that there was forgiveness before Calvary, it would have been on the basis of what God would do on the Cross, in the same way that the forgiveness of people since Calvary is founded upon what God has already done there. Jeremiah’s treatment of the subject of forgiveness in his grand prophecy of the new covenant (Jer 31:31-35) makes forgiveness to be a distinctive hallmark of the new covenant, which it could not have been if sins were truly forgiven under the old. The particular aspect of showing God’s righteousness which is here given as one of the reasons for the offering of Christ seems to take into account some of the things people might have unjustly thought concerning God and his government of man. For example, from of old, the absolute righteousness of God is the basic attribute of his character; but people might have thought otherwise, when it was considered by them that God had passed over the sins of ancients without either punishing them or displaying any adequate grounds of their forgiveness. For example, when Abel died, he was a sinner like all the others who had ever lived; but upon his death the angels bore his soul away to the mansions of the blessed (called in later generations Abraham’s bosom); and, as Milligan noted, If there was a time when any of God’s creatures might be supposed to be ready to charge him with partiality and injustice, it seems to me that that was the time. The fact that man had sinned was known in heaven, earth, and hell; and the fact that justice demanded satisfaction was also known. But when, where, and how had this satisfaction been given? Nothing had yet appeared within the horizon of even the tallest angel in glory that was sufficient to justify such an event as the salvation of a soul that had been defiled by sin. F32 The fact that such allegations against the character of God actually did occur in the thoughts of people is proved by Paul’s tacit acknowledgment of them in their refutation. Paul’s words here show that God’s righteousness in passing over ancient sins was grounded in his holy purpose of ultimately paying the penalty of their sins himself in the person of Christ. The pledge, in fact, that God would indeed do that very thing was constantly reiterated throughout the entire pre-Christian era, as more fully explained under Rom 3:25. The purpose of the death of Christ, as mentioned in this verse, should be understood in the sense of "one of the purposes" of his death, and not in an exclusive sense. The death of Christ was of such overwhelmingly extensive importance that any single citation of what was accomplished by it could by no means exhaust the subject. As Hodge pointed out: The death of Christ answers a great number of infinitely important ends in the government of God. It displays his manifold wisdom (Eph 3:10-11); it was designed to purify unto himself a people zealous of good works (Tit 2:14); to break down the distinctions between the Jews and Gentiles (Eph 2:15); to effect the reconciliation of both Jews and Gentiles unto God (Eph 2:16); to deliver us from this present evil world (Gal 1:4); to secure the forgiveness of sins (Eph 1:7); to vindicate his ways to men, in so long passing by, or remitting, their sins (Rom 3:25); to reconcile the exercise of mercy with the requirements of justice (Rom 3:26); etc. F33 To the above list, cited by Hodge, should be added: the fact that the death of Christ condemned sin in the flesh (Rom 8:3); that it fulfilled the words of the prophets who had foretold it (1Co 15:3); and that it had the effect of drawing all people unto Christ (John 12:32). In the forbearance of God ... This phrase proves what was said above regarding God’s "passing over" the sins of the ancients. In the fullness of time, all would be made plain; but for generations, it must have appeared to many that God "winked at" human wickedness (Acts 17:30). Those long periods of God’s forbearance, however, would at last be explained and understood in Christ’s death on the Cross. There it was perfectly plain that not one little sin would ever crawl by the eyes of the eternal God without the execution of its due penalty. And behold how terrible is the penalty of sin, as demonstrated in the death of Christ. The personal meaning for every descendant of Adam, as revealed in Christ’s crucifixion, is that God will exact the penalty due every sin, unless it shall be remitted in Jesus Christ. Sanday has this: (One) object of the death of Christ was to remove the misconceptions that might be caused by the apparent condoning of sins committed in times anterior to the Christian revelation. A special word is used to indicate that those sins were not wiped away and dismissed altogether, but rather "passed over" or "overlooked." This was due to the forbearance of God, who, as it were, suspended the execution of his vengeance. Now the apostle shows by the death of Christ that justice that had apparently slept was vindicated. F34 For the showing, I say, of his righteousness at this present season ... This is a repetition, for emphasis, of what Paul had already said. That he himself might be just ... means "that God might be just in the eyes of men." The death of the Son of God served notice upon all creation that the eternal justice was absolute and that all sin must suffer punishment, unless covered by the blood of Christ. And the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus ... As the English Revised Version (1885) margin shows, this clause in the Greek New Testament reads, "the justifier of him that is of faith of Jesus," and the true meaning of the passage is not that the believer’s "faith, faith alone, has God’s righteousness." F35 "Him that is of the faith of Jesus" does not indicate that the believer’s faith is the ground of salvation, but that the faith of the Son of God is the ground of it. Who is he that is "of the faith of Jesus"? Such a one is the person "in Christ," who is dead to himself, walking in newness of life, sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, and having been baptized into God’s corporate reality, the spiritual body of Christ, and who is, therefore, possessed of a new identity, being no longer his own self, but Christ. As Paul wrote, "For me to live is Christ" (Php 1:20). No person whatsoever may expect salvation upon any other foundation than his total identity with Christ. Only the faith of Christ is sufficient to save any person; and the believer’s faith, which is merely one of the conditions upon which he may become possessor of Christ’s faith, can never justify him, apart from his being in the Lord Jesus Christ, and actually having put on Christ, in the sense of clothing himself with the Lord, and having taken upon him the name of Christ. As to when a person has such status, the Scriptures are clear. When does the believer put on Christ? For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ (Gal 3:27). And when does the believer take the name of Christ? They were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus (Acts 19:5). For neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved (Acts 4:12). And when does the believer enter that "one body" (Christ) wherein is EVERY spiritual blessing? For in one Spirit were ye all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free (1Co 12:13). And how is it stated in the word of the Lord that people are admitted "into Christ"? All we ... were baptized into Christ (Rom 6:3). And how do believers die to themselves and participate in the newness of life in Christ, and when do they begin to do so? We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4). When the believer dies through the denial and repudiation of himself and begins to live the new live in Christ, what is such a change called, and how is it accomplished? Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). And when is the believer sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, indicating that he is truly "in Christ"? After that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13). It should be noted that the English Revised Version’s use of the past participle does not alter the truth that reception of the Holy Spirit comes AFTER the sinner has faith, and that it is something apart from faith; but if the believer stops short of receiving the Holy Spirit, is he nevertheless a child of God? But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his (Rom 8:9). But is not the reception of the Holy Spirit achieved when people believe, and without regard to any other condition? Peter addressed a group of believers on the day of Pentecost thus: Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). Thus, the Holy Spirit "of promise," mentioned above, has reference to this and proves that it was promised conditionally to believers, the reception of the Spirit being contingent upon their repentance and baptism (they were already believers). And may the Holy Spirit be received apart from the new birth which makes people sons of God? And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts (Gal 4:6). Thus, the reception of the Holy Spirit is contingent also upon the recipient’s being already a son of God. The Spirit is sent not to make him a son, but because he is so. But, since the Holy Spirit "of promise" (and to be distinguished from certain miraculous manifestations, as in the case of Cornelius) is received only upon fulfillment of the conditions mentioned on Pentecost, the deduction is absolutely mandatory that no person is a Son of God without repentance and baptism. Any theory of justification by "faith only" on the sinner’s part is refuted by the above considerations, and countless others. Of supreme significance is the fact that all such things mentioned above, namely, reception of the Holy Spirit, repentance, baptism, putting on Christ, being born again, walking in newness of life, etc., are possible only for those who are already believers. No unbeliever can be baptized, although he might be wet; no unbeliever can put on Christ, etc. Therefore, all of the above named conditions of salvation are conditions to be fulfilled by believers and are thus conditions in addition to faith which are anterior to justification, making it impossible to believe that justification is by "faith only." But not even these conditions, faith included, are the ground of justification; THAT GROUND is in Christ alone; and all conditions people must fulfill as prerequisites to entering Christ are utterly void of any power in themselves to justify. The profound mistake of the past half a millennium has been in the supposition that ANYTHING, even faith, on the sinner’s part, can justify. In the passages that affirm salvation to be "by faith," or justification "by faith," the language is only accommodative, the idea being that a person complying with the divine conditions of being "in Christ" is thereby justified, not on the grounds of his compliance, but upon the ground of Christ into whom the sinner is thus brought and swallowed up completely in the identity of the Saviour. People are saved by their own faith in exactly the same sense that they are saved "by baptism" (1Pe 3:21), namely in the secondary sense of these things being prerequisite to salvation, true justification "in Christ" being not at all due to ANYTHING that the sinner might either believe or perform, but entirely founded upon Christ’s perfect faith and obedience, the true righteousness of God, in Christ. Accessory to this view is the obvious truth that synecdoche is used in all of those passages where it is declared that people are saved "by faith," "by baptism," "by grace," "by hope," etc., or justified "by works" - in all such places, it is never affirmed by scripture, though often by people, that "only" is a lawful word to use with any of these things. What, then, of the New Testament passages which speak of persons "saving" themselves? Save yourselves from this crooked generation (Acts 2:40). Thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee (1Ti 4:16). Work out your own salvation (Php 2:12). Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins (Acts 22:16). All such language is accommodative and has respect to the fact that a person who does indeed perform what God has required does, in a certain limited sense, save himself, no human faith or performance being sufficient of itself to save. But this is not inconsistent with the truth that faith and certain acts of obedience are absolutely prerequisite to salvation. The foregoing Rom 3:21-26 are the theme of Romans; it is the doctrine of salvation "in Christ." The resolution of the problem of how God can make men righteous is determined thus: God himself, in the person of Christ, entered our earth life, lived the absolutely perfect life, fulfilling all the law of God, and paying the penalty of all sin through death upon the Cross. Through God’s regard for the perfect righteousness of Christ, called by Paul "the faith of Christ," a descendant of Adam, through perfect union with and identification with Christ, can receive the benefits of Christ’s righteousness (the righteousness of God) as his own, not while retaining his identity as a sinner, but upon the condition of his dying to himself, clothing himself with Christ, even taking his name, and being faithful to that new identity "in Christ." The righteousness which God, by such a device, "imputes" to people is no mystical or magical by-product of sinners’ faith, but is a BONA FIDE, honest-to-goodness righteousness that was lived and wrought by Jesus Christ upon this earth; and all who receive it shall not be able to do so within the perimeter of their own identity, but only through their identity and union with Christ. And what of any who might not remain "in Christ"? Jesus himself declared, If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned (John 15:16). It is thus, not merely true that one must be "in Christ" to be saved, but he must also remain "in Christ." It is one thing to have been in Christ and a far different thing to be "found in him." "Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord" (Rev 14:13). There is no hesitation on the part of this writer to accept the corollary that to be "in Christ" is to be "in the church." It is impossible to think of the body of Christ as being anything other than the church, as far as earth is concerned. The book of Ephesians makes it clear that all things in heaven and upon earth will eventually be part of that body; but, in the present dimensions of time and place, the church is the body of Christ. If it should be objected that this makes too much of the church, let it be replied that Christ shed his blood for the church, and none other than Paul himself made the blood of Christ to be the purchase price of the church (Acts 20:28), a fact which, by any interpretation whatsoever, makes the church an absolutely essential organization. It is precisely here that the theory of the exegetes that salvation is by "faith only" collides with and is shattered upon the rock of eternal truth. By any fair interpretation whatever, the "faith only" theory offers salvation without and apart from the church; and that view reduces the crucifixion and shedding of Christ’s blood to the status of a mere murder. There are difficulties in the interpretation accepted here, but these do not touch the essential heart of it, that the church is Christ’s body. What of the claims of various institutions that they are the church, the true body of Christ? What of the prevalence of so much deadwood in every church? No man can fully answer such questions. The marred image of the church which confronts all who look for the real thing in this generation is pitiful indeed; but the deformities and aberrations are of Satan and not of Christ. The major premise stands that the church is the spiritual body of Christ and that to be in either is to be in both. Only in Christ’s spiritual body is it possible for people to be accounted righteous in God’s sight. Sinedes expressed it thus: When we ask what the body of Christ is, we must remember that it is the community committed to the ongoing service of reconciliation in the power of the cross. Within the community, faith is directed to the cross. The life the community lives is the life styled by the cross - the sacrificial life of loving service. The cross stands at the center of the reality of the body. F36 The final necessity of finding Christ’s spiritual body in the form of an earthly community, the church, is imperative; and the responsibility for finding, to the best of his ability, devolves upon every man, who with bended knee and open Bible must seek and find the Lord. Verse 27 Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay: but by a law of faith. The glorying that Paul spoke of in this verse is the type of boasting that a man might indulge in if he had always lived an absolutely perfect life, never having committed any sin whatever, and never having violated in the slightest instance any commandment of God. Such a man, if any had ever so lived, might presume that he stood justified in God’s sight, upon the basis of his own glorious record of a spotless life; but in the first part of this chapter, Paul proved from the scriptures that all have sinned and have fallen short of God’s glory, and that both Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin and utterly unable to claim justification on the basis of any kind of moral, upright conduct, regardless of any relative superiority over one’s fellow-creatures. True, the Jew might have been closer to God than Gentiles; but, whether from a greater or lesser distance, both are hopelessly separated from God. In Rom 3:21-26, Paul outlined the plan of redemption, through which Jews and Gentiles alike might "in Christ" share the benefits of God’s righteousness in Christ; and why is boasting excluded by such a plan? Because it was achieved, not by man, but by Christ, being grounded upon nothing that people might either believe or do, but totally upon the achievement of Christ. As Whiteside expressed it: In recognizing oneself as a condemned sinner, there is cause for humility, but no grounds for boasting. And the greatest ground for humility is the knowledge that an innocent Person died to save me from my folly. Instead of being the proud possessor of a spotless character, I have to rely on another to cleanse me from my own defilement; and this depending on the innocent to justify the guilty is what Paul calls the `law of faith." F37 Of works? Nay, by a law of faith ... Here, and in Rom 3:28, below, there are two laws in view, these being: (1) the law of works and (2) the law of faith. Paul’s purpose in bringing both laws into view was to avoid confusion of anything that he had written with the proposition that people are saved without any obedience at all. True salvation is not of the works of the law of Moses, nor of any other ceremonial or morality system; but, nonetheless, justification is still by means of "a law," that of faith (justification here meaning "in the secondary sense" of that which the sinner must do to enter a state of justification, and not meaning the ground of his actual justification in Christ). And what is the law of faith? It is defined thus in the word of God: A law of faith (Rom 3:27). The law of the Spirit of life (Rom 8:2). The perfect law (Jas 1:25). The royal law (Jas 2:8). The law of liberty (Jas 2:12). I will write my laws in men’s minds (Heb 8:10). In a word, the law of faith is the law of the gospel of Christ and is inclusive of all that people must do to be united with and identified with Christ, as being "in him," as well as all that may be necessary to remaining "in Christ" and being found "in him" at the last day. Paul, in these words, categorically excluded the law of faith as being in any wise under consideration when he wrote that works could form no basis of man’s glorying. The law of faith, through which sinners believe and obey the gospel, excludes all glowing on man’s part in that it requires the sinner to die to himself, mortify the members of the body, forsake his own identity, and become perfectly united in love with Jesus Christ "in him." The saved therefore cannot glory, for his own works are dead, through the operation of the law of faith, and he lives "in Christ." Thus it is true that the law of faith nullifies the glorying through any works at all of the sinner; and even such things as the work of faith performed under the law of faith, necessary as those things are, cannot be the basis of any human glorying. Verse 28 We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Works of the law ... as used in the last of this verse, is a reference to the works of the law of Moses, and is excluded, by the distinction noted in the previous verse, from any reference to the works of the law of faith. And are there certainly any such works? Indeed, for Paul wrote of the "work of faith" as follows: Remembering without ceasing your work of faith and labor of love and patience of hope (1Th 1:3). "Works of law" in the RSV would have the effect of including other laws than that of Moses in Paul’s statement here; but, in any case, the law of Moses is the one primarily in view, the inclusion of any such similar laws being immaterial, since the law of faith was excluded in the previous verse. Phillips and the New English Bible both reject the RSV rendition, Phillips even going so far as to capitalize Law, thus referring it exclusively to Moses’ law. Greathouse noted that: Here (in Rom 3:28) is the basis for the Protestant doctrine of sola fide, "by faith alone." F38 This great Protestant heresy came about from a stubborn failure to heed a number of surpassingly important considerations. Both at the beginning (Rom 1:5) and the end (Rom 16:26) of Romans Paul hurled forth like a great banner at the entrance to a city, that the end and all of his apostleship was UNTO OBEDIENCE OF FAITH AMONG ALL NATIONS, indicating that wherever Paul spoke of sinner’s faith, it was an obedient faith which was meant. Justification "by faith" is not from sinner’s faith, but from "the faith of the Son of God," there being nothing of the sinner, either of faith or obedience, that can justify him in the ultimate sense. Justification "by faith," in the secondary sense of meaning that a sinner has entered a state of justification, is "by faith" in the degree that faith is required of all who are to be saved; but "faith" in this usage is invariably a synecdoche and does not exclude other conditions of salvation. "By faith of the Son of God" is even a synecdoche, since it was not even Christ’s faith ALONE that wrought redemption, but his perfect faith and obedience. Thus it can be confidently affirmed that there are no scriptural examples of "by faith" being used in any other way except as a synecdoche. For more on this figure of speech, see under Rom 3:22. Paul never wrote anywhere at any time that people are saved "by faith alone," or by "faith only"; and the ease with which commentators use those expressions is absolutely astounding, it seemingly never having occurred to any of them that the word of God says no such thing, the single reference in all holy writ to this monstrous anti-Scriptural contradiction of the truth, being this from James: You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (Jas 2:24). Sola fide is thus a clever contrivance of people, nothing but a groundless speculation, added to the word of God and contrary thereunto. Dear as this false theory appears to be to so many, it seems that the crumbling towers of Protestantism should alert some of the blind leaders of the blind to the fact that something is wrong. And what is wrong? Half the world have been taught that they are saved by faith ONLY; and, upon a man’s acceptance of such a proposition, why should he bother with religious chores of any kind? The commentators who glorify sola fide should take note of the fruits of it. Whiteside wrote on this same subject thus: Paul is not contrasting faith and the obedience of faith, but he is contrasting justification by works of law and justification by faith. In Rom 1:5, he speaks of "the obedience of faith" - that is, obedience of which faith is the source and foundation, an obedient faith. When Paul talks about faith, he means an obedient faith. Many have stumbled through Romans without ever recognizing the fact that Paul made that plain in the very beginning of his letter. To make "works of law" refer to the obedience of faith is to enshroud ourselves in a fog of confusion from which we will not be able to emerge with any clear idea of the gospel plan of salvation. F39 For one to be justified by the works of any law (except that of faith outlined above) would require that he should have kept it perfectly throughout every moment of his existence; and it is obvious that no man could so procure justification. The great good news of the gospel is that, regardless of universal human inability to acquire justification through perfect obedience of law, God has made the perfect righteousness to be available to all people "in Christ." Verses 29, 30 Or is God the God of Jews only? is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yea, of Gentiles also: if so be that God is one, and he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith. Israel’s long familiarity with God constitutes the ground of their reluctance to admit salvation as a Gentile prerogative, and was also the basis of their feeling that God was a tribal, or national, God to themselves alone. Paul here disposed of that bias by two statements: (1) since there is only one God, he is God of both Jews and Gentiles, and (2) the salvation God offers to all people is offered upon the same conditions to them all, "by faith," and "through faith" being the summary of those conditions in a magnificent synecdoche. The expressions "by faith" and "through faith" are a kind of gobbledegook, as rendered in this place. Lard wrote: The two expressions should be translated in the same words. In speaking of them, Winer says: "Paul certainly does not have in view a difference of meaning between them." When we translate, God will justify the Jews BY belief and the Gentiles THROUGH belief, we bewilder, not enlighten. F In these glorious thoughts of the great apostle to the Gentiles, one is overwhelmed with the grandeur, holiness, and justice of God’s great scheme of human redemption; nor can the intrusion of any human system, such as sola fide, take away the joy of thinking these great thoughts after him. That error should have been imported into this chapter is unfortunate; but it is such an error that any man may see it and avoid the pitfalls of accepting it. Martin Luther, the great reformer, was the man who, more than any other, was responsible for the error; and an understanding of the circumstances by which he fell into it goes far to explain why it happened. Lard observed that: It was over this passage that Luther made his famous translation, "We are justified by faith ONLY," which daring act gave rise to that doctrine. But Luther’s act was prompted solely by his aversion to the Papal tenet of justification by works. It is without defense, either from scripture or philology. I admire Luther’s bold opposition to the error of Rome, but deeply regret the extreme to which it led him. Not that the doctrine of justification by faith only is as dangerous as the Roman position. This I do not hold. On belief in Christ, absolutely taken, it would be difficult in my judgment to lay too great stress. ... It is only when belief is affirmed to be the sole condition of justification that I put in my demurrer. F41 There looms in these two verses a further phase of Paul’s argument that God was righteous in calling both Jews and Gentiles "through the faith," that is, by means of the Christian religion, with no regard whatever for any distinctions at all between Jews and Gentiles. (The rendition "through the faith" is in the English Revised Version (1885) margin). Paul, beginning here and continuing throughout the fourth chapter, had under discussion, not the question of how either Jew or Gentile was justified, but rather the problem of how God could be righteous in wiping out all the glorious privileges of Judaism and saving both Jews and Gentiles, without distinctions between them, in the new system of Christianity. That issue was a "hot" one in those times; and the principal theme of Romans was directed to a defense of God’s righteousness in doing such a thing. Circumcision ... and the uncircumcision ... Paul here shifted to another pair of words expressing the distinction, "Jews and Gentiles"; and he followed this terminology throughout Rom 4:1-25, in which these two words are found twelve times. It will be much easier for the student to follow Paul’s meaning in that chapter if the subject Paul was discussing is kept constantly in view. He was not, repeat not, explaining how either Jews or Gentiles are justified, but was still discoursing on how God was righteous in calling both groups to salvation within the framework of Christianity. Verse 31 Do we then make the law of none effect through faith? God forbid: nay, we establish the law. This is another case of Paul’s using the term "law" without the article, as a glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin will reveal; nevertheless, the law of Moses would seem to be the principal one in view, though, as explained below, the principle is not limited to that law alone. Faith cannot void any law. The statement, like many in the word of God, is true either in or out of its context. FAITH CANNOT VOID LAW It cannot void the law of Moses. The ultimate scheme of redemption as set forth in Christianity is the very system foretold in the law and the prophets (Rom 1:2), witnessed by the law and the prophets (Rom 3:21); and, therefore. it should not be thought for a moment that the gospel and the faith therein enjoined could have the effect of voiding that great Old Testament system. Rather, that system was fulfilled by Christ and the new institution. The types and prefigurations of the old system were all fulfilled and brought to perfect fruition in the new; and what Paul said of faith establishing law applies with dramatic force to the law of Moses. Furthermore, the very justification of every believer stems from Christ’s perfect fulfillment of and obedience to that law. He broke not a jot or tittle of it. The righteousness of God in Christ, which is the only true ground of justification, is precisely the righteousness of Christ in fulfilling every iota of that law. That law was not voided by faith, but established by the "faith of the Son of God." Physical law is not voided by faith. In apostolic times, of course, there were miraculous events that suspended physical law, as in the case of Christ’s walking on the water; but such things were for the purpose of confirming his word, and must be viewed as the exceptions that prove the rule that faith cannot set aside physical law. The presumed faith of the young man who went to sleep hearing Paul preach did not suspend the law of gravity. They took him up for dead (Acts 20:9). Faith cannot void the moral law of God. One of the first heresies was to the effect that it did release people from moral obligations. The Nicolaitans taught that faith voided the moral law; and Jezebel taught that it was all right for believers to commit fornication (Rev 2:6,Rev 2:20). Such teaching was false, of course; for faith imposes even stricter standards of morality than those taught under the law of Moses. Thus, Christ said, Ye have heard it was said to them of old time (in the law of Moses), Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire (Mat 5:21-22). Faith cannot void political law. Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1:7, and Peter’s in 1Pe 2:13-17 dogmatically affirm the duty of Christians to obey civil law. Faith cannot void the law of faith, mentioned by Paul in Rom 3:27. See under that verse for full definition of the law of faith. It requires absolutely,, with no exceptions, that people shall be born again (John 3:5), that they shall believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, repent of their transgression, be baptized into Christ, receive the Holy Spirit of promise, and abide "in Christ" on pain of being "cast forth" unless they do. Does faith void the law of faith? Indeed no! God forbid, as Paul put it in this verse. Footnotes forRomans 3 1 : Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 100. 2: J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. xii. 3: Henry H. Halley, Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Pub. House, 1961), p. 372. 4: Josephus, Antiquities, Book I, Paragraph viii. 5: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 70. 6: Ibid., p. 71. 7: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1954), p. 61. 8: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 71. 9: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 103. 10: Emil Brunner, The Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959), p. 25. 11: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), vol. i, p. 96. 12: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 25. 13: R. L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome (Fort Worth, Texas, The Manney Company, 1945), p. 69. 14: R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 219. 15: John Murray, op. cit., p. 98. 16: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 105. 17: W. H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 96. 18: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 25. 19: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 102. 20: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 74. 21: James Macknight, op. cit., p. 71. 22: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 82. 23: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 27. 24: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 75. 25: William M. Greathouse, Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1968), p. 86. 26: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 88. 27: John Mackay, God’s Order (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953), p. 97. 28: John A. Mackay, op. cit., p. 67. 29: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 92. 30: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 119. 31: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 94. 32: New English Bible. 33: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 95. 34: W. Sanday, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 218. 35: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 265. 36: Lewis B. Smedes, All Things Made New (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 230. 37: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 82. 38: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 95. 39: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 83. : Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 126. 41: Ibid., p. 123. 42: Dr. Andrew Conway Ivy, in The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe (New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1958), p. 229. 43: Ibid., p. 231. 44: John Murray, op. cit., p. 41. 45: R. C. Bell, op. cit., p. 12. 46: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 207. 47: J. Barmby, op. cit., p. 12. 48: Chester Warren Quimby, The Great Redemption (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950), pp. 45-46. 49: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 207. 50: Ibid. 51: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 39. 52: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 38. 53: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 108. 54: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 53. 55: Ibid., p. 74. 56: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 58. 57: John Murray, op. cit., p. 51. 58: The Houston Chronicle, front page, December 2, 1971. top save<59> Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the saveCorinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 86. 60: Frank S. Mead, The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 11. 61: Frank S. Mead, op. cit., p. 11. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 11: 4 ROMANS CHAPTER FOUR ======================================================================== Rom 4:1-25 This chapter is a development of the thought expressed in Romans 4:28-29 near the close of Rom 3:1-31, that is, the vindication of God’s righteousness in calling Jews and Gentiles in one body, that of Christ, with no distinctions between them. Paul followed throughout this chapter the terminology introduced in those verses, calling the Jews "the circumcision" and the Gentiles "the uncircumcision." That such is indeed the subject of this chapter appears in the use of those two words a dozen times in four verses. Of course, reference is also made to the rite of circumcision. In this chapter, Paul was not discussing the question of how either Jews or Gentiles are justified; and therein is the explanation of why James in his epistle is thought by some to have contradicted Paul. Their arguments touched each other but were concerned with different objectives. James was dealing with justification and Paul with the righteousness of God. Abraham, the example Paul cited to show God’s justice in calling the Gentiles, was the possessor of Gentile status himself at the time God called him, in the sense of his having been called prior to the giving of the covenant of circumcision and prior to the giving of the law of Moses. What a beautiful argument. In effect, Abraham, the father of all the Jews (specifically pointed out in the first verse), was himself without those very things (the law, circumcision, etc.) which the Christians of Jewish background were attempting to bind upon Gentile converts to Christianity; that is, Abraham was without all those things "when he was called." The word "when" in Rom 4:10 is the pivot upon which the whole argument was based. One of the tragic mistakes people have made in the interpretation of this chapter is that of making Abraham to be a type of the alien sinner’s conversion. He is no such thing, as will be shown in the notes below. Regarding the so-called contradiction between the inspired authors, James and Paul, it simply does not exist. Paul wrote of justification "by faith," and James of justification "by works." So what? Justification is obviously by both! It would require a statement by one of them to the effect that salvation is by one or the other "only," in order for there to be a contradiction (this is merely basic English); but of course, neither writer said any such thing; and James went so far as to guard against anyone’s ever saying such a thing when he wrote: "Ye see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (Jas 2:24). The alleged contradiction is thus between human error and the word of God, not between the apostolic authors. Verse 1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, hath found according to the flesh? Both the KJV and the English Revised Version (1885) are ambiguous in the translation of this verse; and, despite the fact that various shades of meaning are ably advocated by scholars, one can hardly go wrong, as regards the English meaning of this disputed verse, in accepting the concurrent testimony of reputable versions and translations. This verse, according to Phillips, the New English Bible, and the RSV, means essentially what the RSV has given, namely, "What shall we say then about Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?" The words "hath found according to the flesh" (as in the English Revised Version (1885) version which is used in this commentary) have no clear meaning in English. Therefore, we construe this first verse as a simple introduction of Abraham, father of all the Jews, who was called before either the law or circumcision was given. Paul was arguing that to require Gentile converts to accept the law and circumcision would require what was not even required of Abraham. The Gentiles, at the time Paul wrote, were being called to accept Christianity; and, as far as the law of Moses and the rite of circumcision were concerned, the Gentiles had an equivalent status to that of the Jews themselves in the person of their great ancestor, who had neither the law nor circumcision "at the time God called him." Therefore, it was perfectly right for God to call all the Gentiles without respect to the law or circumcision, the lack of such being no impediment to their call. Also, by the choice of such an example, Paul was making it obviously ridiculous to require Gentile converts to the faith to submit to a system that was not even a prerequisite for the call of Abraham. Verse 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not toward God. By works ... is an unfortunate rendition, because the expression seems to take sides in an old controversy, appearing to be antithetical to salvation "by faith only" as advocated by the commentators; and the implicit denial of it here is construed as support of their theory. Nothing like that is here. "Works" simply means the law of Moses, "works of law," the alternate reading (English Revised Version (1885) margin), having no other possible meaning here. James of course said that Abraham was justified by works; but he did not say that he was justified by the works of the law of Moses. James, in making Abraham’s justification "by works" (Jas 2:21), clearly excluded the works of the law of Moses and identified the class of works he had in mind by naming the offering up of Isaac, which was anterior to the law of Moses. Paul was here emphasizing the fact that Abraham was not justified by the law of Moses, a truth that should have been obvious, because the law had not even been given at that time. Despite Paul’s intention in this verse, it has been made the vehicle for some of the wildest theories ever advocated in the history of Christianity, among them being the proposition that Abraham was justified by faith alone without any works whatever. That no inspired writer contradicts another inspired writer is axiomatic. Therefore, Paul’s denial in this place that Abraham was justified by works must not be construed as meaning that Abraham was saved without any works whatever, because the holy scriptures affirm that such indeed was not the case. James has this: Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar (Jas 2:21)? This declaration of James could not possibly be contradictory of Rom 4:2, unless it stated that Abraham was justified by the works of the law of Moses, which, of course, it does not do. Further, James identified the class of works involved in the justification of Abraham as works of faith, not works of Moses’ law. For a discussion of various scriptural classification of works, see under Rom 2:6 the article, FAITH AND WORKS. By works ... in Rom 4:2 means "by works of Moses’ law," and so understood is a reasonable, even obvious, declaration that Abraham was not saved by the works of a system not even then in existence. This simple meaning has been distorted by reading "works" in the sense of the stereotyped opposite of "faith only," neither of those concepts being in the Bible, and then by the outlandish, illogical deduction to the effect that in denying one thing, Paul affirmed another! This is the equivalent of saying, "Saturday is NOT Sunday, therefore Friday IS Sunday." Paul’s suggestion here that "if" Abraham had been justified by works of law, he would have had a ground of boasting toward people is a tribute to the majesty and accuracy of Moses’ law. By that, Paul had no reference at all to any boasting toward God, for even a perfect fulfillment of Moses’ law would have been no grounds for any such boasting as that. One cannot fail to be astounded at the millions of words people have poured forth on these verses, alleging and affirming in the most positive and extravagant language that people are "saved by faith alone." From whole libraries of teaching to this effect, here is presented a concise statement by Greathouse, for the purpose of showing the logic (?) of such writings. He said: We have already seen that a "man is justified without the deeds of the law" (Rom 3:28). It is by faith alone (sola fide) because it is by grace alone (sola gratia). F1 It apparently never entered that author’s mind that if justification is by faith "alone," it is not simultaneously by grace also; and if it is by grace "alone" it cannot be by faith also. Faith and grace are not identical; and if one is saved by either of them "alone," the other is excluded. Such is the denotation of the word "alone." What mysterious affliction has seized the minds of so many learned men that they cannot understand the simple answers, that they are blinded to the consequences of adding to God’s word such a delimitative as "only" or "alone"; and why is this great Protestant heresy so dear to its advocates as to leave them powerless to grapple with the question objectively and unable to distinguish dream from reality? The theory of salvation by faith alone throws the entire corpus of revelation into a jumble of uncertainty and communicates its devastating implications to every major doctrine of the word of God, as witnessed by these further words of Martin Luther: Everything is outside us and in Christ ... for God does not want to save us by our own but by an extraneous righteousness which does not originate in ourselves but comes to us from beyond ourselves, which does not arise on our earth but comes from heaven. F2 Martin Luther’s words are profoundly true except for the final words which imply that salvation comes to us, and even that is true, in a sense, but untrue in another. This wonderful righteousness from without and beyond us is indeed from heaven; but it is nevertheless on earth in the sense that the spiritual body of Christ is on earth. All of that righteousness which justifies is "in Christ," being from heaven in the sense that Christ was sent from heaven, but being of earth also, because here, on this very planet, is where Jesus Christ wrought that righteousness, and the mortal beings who make up his spiritual body are of this earth. That spiritual body was planned in heaven; and the great righteousness "in Christ" indeed came from heaven in the sense of its origin and may be said to come to people in the sense of being available to them; but, in the last analysis, the salvation from above does not come to us, we go to it. Christ said, "Come unto me," and not "Just believe, and I will bring it to you"! Verse 3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. This is a quotation from Gen 15:6, introduced to show that Abraham could not possibly have been justified by the law, because in that reference, such a long while before the law, and even before the covenant of circumcision, Abraham appears in scriptures as already a believer in God, in fact, God’s faithful servant, being already reckoned as righteous in God’s sight on the basis of obedient faith. The justification of Abraham (God’s reckoning him as righteous) was upon exactly the same basis of the justification of Christians, namely, obedient faith. The type of justification he received upon that basis is exactly the kind received by Christians, which is the status of having a covenant relationship with God. The preliminary state of justification, by which one is admitted to the community of God’s people on earth and receives remission of past sins, follows the exhibition of an obedient faith; but the actual ground of forgiveness for any sin is in the sacrifice of Christ. It was reckoned unto him for righteousness ... The faith which God reckoned as righteousness unto Abraham is spelled out at length in scripture; and a little patience will show what it was. For many years previous to God’s reckoning righteousness to Abraham and entering into a covenant that in Abraham all the families of the earth should be blessed, Abraham had exhibited an obedient faith in all that God said: (1) God called Abram to leave Ur of the Chaldees (Gen 12:1-3); Abram believed and obeyed, not even knowing whither he went (Heb 11:8). (2) When Abram reached Shechem in the land of Canaan, he built an altar and worshiped God (Gen 12:1-20; Gen 11:1-32; Gen 10:1-32; Gen 9:1-29; Gen 8:1-22; Gen 7:1-24; Gen 6:1-22; Gen 7:1-24). (3) Abraham built an altar unto Jehovah and called upon God’s name on a mountain between Bethel and Ai (Gen 12:8). (4) After his journey to Egypt, he returned to that same altar and worshiped God (Gen 13:3-4). (5) In the encounter with Melchizedek, Abraham appears as a devout and faithful worshiper of God (Gen 14:14-24). All of these events, and others, show that Abraham’s faith was an obedient faith, which is the only kind of faith that can lead to any kind of justification. In the light of the above, the observation of R. L. Whiteside is fully in harmony with the truth. He said, One of the strangest things in all the field of Bible exegesis is the contention so generally made that this language (Rom 4:3) refers to the justification of Abraham "as an alien sinner" (italics mine). It seems to be taken for granted that up to the time spoken of in this verse, Abraham was an unforgiven, condemned sinner. ... The facts are all against such a supposition. But what are the facts? For a number of years previous to the promise of Abraham of a son and numerous posterity, Abraham had been a faithful servant of God. F3 That Abraham was already an obedient believer in God when the reckoning of righteousness to him took place is seen in the very verse cited by Paul here (Gen 15:16). That passage is introduced by God’s words to Abraham, "Fear not Abram, I am thy shield and exceeding great reward." This removes all possibility that the justification of that patriarch has anything whatever to do with the justification of an alien sinner. Why? God would not have told an alien sinner that he need not fear and that God was his exceeding great reward. The justification of Abraham in Gen 15:6 has to be retrospective; and the faith which God counted to Abraham for righteousness was not faith apart from obedience, but faith demonstrated by Abram’s prompt and unqualified obedience in all that God commanded, covering a period of many years prior to Gen 15:6. Verse 4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. This verse is a simple statement of the truth that if one’s hope of salvation is based upon his having kept the law of Moses perfectly, then such a person could claim that God owed him salvation; and it would not be by virtue of God’s grace at all in such an event. To be sure, no person could possibly achieve such a thing as perfect fulfillment of the law. No objection can be raised to what Paul here stated. It is what people declare that Paul meant which outrages every careful student of God’s word. Some of the false deductions that people have thought they derived from this verse are: That salvation does not depend upon any human effort. That there is nothing anyone can do to be saved. That faith and works are opposites. That obeying the gospel makes man his own Saviour. Etc. We shall note each of these. That salvation does not depend upon any human effort. If this were true, all people would be saved; and, if human effort as a precondition of salvation is not involved, why did Jesus teach that many people will be lost (Mat 7:13-14)? It is a fact that no amount of human effort can earn salvation; but no person with even a casual knowledge of the Bible could possibly have the impression that salvation is unconditionally bestowed upon the entire human race. If so bestowed, it would be universal; but Christ spoke of the narrow gate and the broad way leading to the destruction of many. That there is nothing anyone can do to be saved. If such is true, what did Peter mean by "Save yourselves from this crooked generation" (Acts 2:40). A multitude of people heard Peter preach the first sermon of the gospel age; and at the end of it, having believed all that Peter preached, and thus having believed in Christ, they cried out, "What shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). Wouldn’t it have been a wonderful opportunity for Peter to have said, "There is nothing you can do to be saved"? But he said no such thing, but this: "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you" (Acts 2:38). That faith and works are opposites. On the other hand, they are intimates; and James declared that faith cannot even exist apart from works, except in a barren and dead condition, insufficient to save (Jas 2:14-26). Faith without works is dead, useless for anything, much less for salvation. Upon the basis of such considerations, people ought not therefore to impute any teaching to Paul in this place that would make his words say that God will impute righteousness to any person who will not obey him, to the persons who simply do nothing except believe. That obeying the gospel makes man his own Saviour. This confuses two truths: (1) that when one has done everything that he can, it does not merit salvation, and he is still an unprofitable servant (Luk 17:10); and (2) that obeying the gospel is a condition div4nely imposed and made prerequisite to salvation; all who do not fulfill this condition will be lost (2Th 1:8-9); therefore, in a sense, but only in a sense, people will save themselves when they obey the gospel. It is scriptural to speak thus, for Peter did it on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:40). In the more exalted sense of actually procuring the discharge of man’s sins, Christ alone saves. We have already seen that Abraham’s justification is in no way parallel to the alien sinner’s justification; therefore, to the degree that this verse applies in any way to Christians, the thing in view is their continuing justification as members of Christ’s body, all Christians standing in continual need of forgiveness, due to the universal inability to live the perfect life. If there is any application of these words to children of God, it must pertain to their status as Christians in covenant relationship .with God (as Abraham the prototype was), their "faith in Christ" being the basis of their continual justification, and not their success, or, as more likely, their failure in keeping all the holy commandments. In no sense whatever can these words of Paul refer to the alien sinner’s becoming a Christian; but, of course, that is precisely the application so often made. Verse 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. Worketh not ... is a reference to one who rests from any thought that he could merit salvation by keeping the law of Moses. It is not a reference to one who will not obey the gospel of Christ. Believeth on him that justifieth ... is a reference to obedient faith, the kind exemplified by Abraham and discussed at length under Rom 4:3; the fact of obedience not being mentioned is not significant, "believeth" being another example of the synecdoche, in which one of a related group of actions stands for all of them. What is significant is the omission of "only" or "alone" as a qualifier. Worketh ... worketh not ... in this verse and Rom 4:4, are terms Paul used to describe "keeping the law perfectly," and "resting from the notion that any such thing is possible." Neither of these terms has any reference to obeying the gospel, and the primary steps of obedience such as repentance and baptism. To understand Paul’s teaching, a comparison with Jas 2:1-26 is necessary. Paul was affirming that works cannot justify apart from faith in Jesus Christ; and James was stressing that faith in Jesus Christ cannot save without works. To fail to believe, to exclude either faith, or the work of faith, is to fail of justification. Both James and Paul referred to the example of Abraham to corroborate their teaching. Paul pointed out that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith. James pointed out that Abraham was not justified by faith only but by the work of faith, a far different thing from works of the law; and the teachings of those two inspired writers harmonize perfectly, as a careful attention to what they REALLY wrote easily shows. A study of the kinds of works mentioned in the scriptures was made under Rom 2:6; but the two different classes of works mentioned by Paul and James, to the effect that Abraham was "not justified by works" and "was justified by works" are more plainly separated thus: the forms and ceremonies of the law of Moses are the works of which Paul said a man is not justified by doing them; and the conditions of salvation given through Jesus Christ and the apostles constitute "the work of faith" (2Th 1:3), concerning which James said a man is justified by them and not by faith only. To him that worketh not ... is thus a reference to that person who knows that he is not capable of living a life of sufficient holiness to merit eternal life, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ; but who believes in Christ, obeys the gospel, his faith "in Christ" (faith manifested as a member of Christ’s body) thereupon being accounted to him as righteousness. A great deal of the exegesis on this chapter is devoted to a single end, that of removing Christian baptism as a valid precondition of redemption in Christ. The sacred ordinance is belittled and set at naught on the grounds that it is a work of human righteousness, in no way related to salvation. Of course, baptism is, in one sense, a work of faith, a thing commanded by the Head of our holy religion; but in another sense, it is a work of Christ himself. Jesus "made and baptized more disciples than John" (John 4:1); and yet the same passage reveals that it was not Jesus, but his disciples, who were physically baptizing people. The same is true today; Christ baptizes those persons who faithfully submit to the ordinance, even though the physical administration of the ordinance is accomplished by other disciples of the Lord. Thus, any notion that baptism is purely a work of human righteousness is false. Strangely, some who would make a sinner’s baptism to be "works," and thus exclude it as a precondition of salvation, are strong to insist that faith is not "works" and the sole condition of salvation; but faith itself is a work of faith, in exactly the same sense as baptism. No less a scholar than Charles Hodge pointed that out. He wrote: But faith considered as an act, is as much a work as prayer, repentance, almsgiving, or anything of the kind. And it is as much an act of obedience to the law, as the performance of any other duty. F4 Therefore, if obeying the gospel and being baptized should be classed as "works" in any derogatory sense, then the same thing applies to faith, Christ himself making it a "work." He said, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent" (John 6:29). Thus, of both baptism and faith, the scriptures teach that they are "works" in the sense of being things people must do in order to be saved; and both are, in a higher sense, "the work of God," having originated with God and being commanded of him. Faith and baptism are, therefore, absolute coordinates, a fact that made it possible for Jesus to say, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). All of the apostles so recognized them, as in Hebrews, where faith and baptism are named together as coordinates, each of them being a part of the foundation doctrine of Christianity (Heb 6:1-3). In the light of truth, it seems incredible that people should seriously advocate the possibility of being saved by faith only. Of all the preconditions of entering a covenant relationship with God, these being faith, repentance, confession, baptism (obedience to these conditions bringing the believer into Christ), baptism is less of a work than any of the others. Lipscomb discoursed on that, as follows: Baptism has fewer of the qualities of a work than either faith or repentance. Faith is an act of the heart, the soul, the inner man - something the man does. It is a work. ... So of repentance. "Believe" and "repent" are both active - both done by the subject. The person baptized gives himself up into the hands of the administrator, and is buried out of self, to be raised up in Christ, and, as a servant of God, to "walk in the light as he is in the light" (1Jn 1:7). When a man dies, and his friends take his body and bury it, no one would call it a work of the man buried. This is the true type of him who is baptized. Baptism is a work of God performed upon the man baptized through God’s servant to bring him dead in trespasses and sins into the state of life with God. The life is imparted through faith, turns from sin in repentance, and puts off the body of sin in baptism. F5 Further attention to the position of this sacred ordinance in God’s scheme of redemption will be given in Rom 6:1-23; but here it may be noted that one of the best examples shedding light on this question is that of the man born blind, who was commanded by Jesus to "Go wash in the pool of Siloam" (John 9:7). The blind man obeyed, receiving his eyesight in his act of obedience; and it may be viewed as certain that if he had refused or neglected to obey Jesus’ command, he would have died as blind as he was born. The blind man received his eyesight in the pool, but there was no efficacy in the water; and in exactly the same manner, the believer receives forgiveness of sins in his act of being baptized, with no efficacy whatever attributed to the water. Salvation from alien sins is promised upon the word of Jesus thirst in the New Testament thus: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16), instructions that are as simple as "Go wash in the pool of Siloam"; why should people have any trouble understanding either? Why all the allegations of people who should know better that if one accepts the Lord’s proposition, he is thereby nullifying salvation by faith? Why all the arrogant assertions that "water cannot save anyone"? There has positively not been anyone born in the current century so stupid as to believe that water washes away sins, or that water saves anybody. If it can be understood that the blind man was given his sight in the pool, with the water having nothing to do with it, it should also be as easily understood that the sinner is saved in the baptismal font, not by the water, but by Jesus Christ our Lord. Such a view as this is the only interpretation that harmonizes with what the scriptures say of Paul’s own baptism. The inspired preacher, Ananias, spoke to Paul thus: "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16). Also, the blind man did not "earn" his eyesight, any more than the baptized believer "earns" salvation by being baptized. Verses 6, 7 Even as David also pronounce the blessing upon the man, unto whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not reckon sin. Having already shown that Abraham was justified by an obedient faith in God, rather than by perfect fulfillment of a law not even then in existence, Paul next introduced David’s remarkable pronouncement, with apparent emphasis on the fact that David spoke of justification as something imputed or reckoned, rather than as something earned or merited. The terms translated "iniquities," "sins" and "sin" are said by Lenski to regard three characteristics of sin, namely, "rebellion," "missing the mark" and "turning deliberately aside." F6 Nothing in David’s statement (Psa 32:1) suggests any basis of justification; and, therefore, the point of Paul’s bringing this scripture forward lies in the fact that it refutes, by implication, the thought that anyone ever earned salvation. David’s thoughts on justification show that not even the Jews had earned redemption, and this carried the implication that the Gentiles were as entitled to be saved as the Jews. But the Jew might have replied, "Oh yes, but we are circumcised." Paul then proceeded to deal with that. It will be noted that the classical diatribe method of discourse was used by Paul throughout. Verses 8, 9 Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say, To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness. How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. Paul here dealt with the last stronghold of Jewish objection to Gentile admission to Christianity, an objection not offered by unbelieving Jews, for they did not care, but by the Jews who had accepted the faith of Christ but were insisting on a continuation of the rite of circumcision, not only for themselves but also for Gentile converts. It has already been noted that the Jews attributed near-miraculous powers to that rite, their learned teachers declaring unequivocally that no circumcised person would ever be in hell. But Paul here showed that Abraham was justified a full thirteen years before that rite was given. The evident deduction intended by Paul was that, since Abraham was justified so long before circumcision was ever commanded, it is not illogical to expect that the uncircumcised (Gentiles) should also partake of God’s salvation in Christ. Thus, Abraham was truly the father of the faithful, Jews and Gentiles alike, circumcised or uncircumcised. When ... is the big word in these verses, the time of Abraham’s justification being the entire basis of Paul’s reasoning to the effect that Gentile converts should not be subjected either to Moses’ law or the rite of circumcision, the logic of thus relaxing such requirements being in the fact of Abraham’s justification before either was in existence. This thought is the overriding consideration throughout this chapter. Such an extraneous thing as how an alien sinner is converted does not enter the consideration here in any manner. Verses 10, 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness which he had while he was in uncircumcision: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them. Abraham’s prior justification before either the law or circumcision is the logical reason advanced by Paul to prove that Gentiles could be admitted to the faith of Jesus Christ without regard to circumcision or Moses’ law. The great promise of salvation was made to Abraham. The blessing to "all the families of the earth" was promised in his seed, that is, "in Christ" (Gal 3:16). But the Jew had so glorified Moses’ law and the rite of circumcision that they unconsciously, but erroneously, identified both with Abraham. Paul was at great pains to explain that law and circumcision had absolutely nothing to do with the great promise of salvation to all the seed of Abraham, which the Jews had mistakenly supposed to be themselves only. Paul wrote: Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many (reference to the Jewish nation); but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ (Gal 3:16). The great error of the Jews was therefore in misunderstanding the number of the noun "seed" in the great promise to Abraham; it was singular, and they thought it was plural! It pays to find out exactly what God said. What about the law of Moses, and its alleged connection with the promises to Abraham’s seed "in Christ"? Paul continued: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the promise of none effect (Gal 3:17). Of what value, then, was the law; and why did God give it? Paul answered thus: It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made (Gal 3:19). Thus the law of Moses expired by limitation when Christ came. The law was given only "till the seed should come"; and, therefore, salvation "in Christ" bypasses the law of Moses completely. The very identification of Abraham’s seed (in the plural sense) also bypasses the law of Moses, Abraham’s children being, not those of fleshly descent, but those redeemed "in Christ," as Paul explained in another place: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus. And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:27-29). The father of all them that believe ... shows that all of the saved are children of Abraham, both Jews and Gentiles called here circumcision and uncircumcision. We have now dwelt at length upon the great deduction which Paul himself made from what he wrote; and, as shown above, it harmonizes perfectly with what he also wrote to the Galatians. Another alleged deduction made from Paul’s writings in this chapter is in no wise apostolic, but human and diabolical, being this: that since Abraham was justified by faith only, so are the Gentiles. It has already been outlined here that Paul was not teaching that Abraham was justified by faith only, but by faith without the law of Moses and the rite of circumcision. The faith that saved Abraham, the great patriarch, was an obedient faith. See under Rom 4:3. Therefore, it is only by a disregard of what the word of the Lord says that one might receive such a proposition as this: All Paul had to say about circumcision he would say equally about baptism. F7 There are, of course, certain resemblances between baptism and circumcision; but the differences are extensive: (1) Circumcision did not bring the Jew into covenant relationship with Christ. A person born in the fleshly line was per se, of the children of Abraham; but Christians are of the seed of Abraham only if they have been baptized. See quotations from Galatians, above. R. L. Whiteside has this: Every child of Jewish parentage was a member of that covenant by virtue of descent from Abraham. "And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant" (Gen 17:14). It could not be said that a person broke the covenant by not being circumcised, if he were not in the covenant. F8 (2) Baptism is "unto the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), but circumcision was never anything like that. (3) At the time Abraham was justified without circumcision, the rite did not even exist, but came thirteen years later. Therefore: Abraham’s justification without performing a rite he had never heard of, is a false parallel to a Christian’s alleged justification without baptism, a rite which he HAS heard of, and to which he is commanded to submit by none other than Christ himself. Therefore, any suggestion that Paul here laid down a doctrine of justification without baptism must be rejected as utterly beyond the perimeter of anything in Romans, or in the whole New Testament. What, then, did Paul mean? Macknight explained it thus: To this example, the apostle appealed with great propriety ... because Abraham, being the father of believers, his justification is the pattern of theirs. Wherefore, if circumcision contributed nothing to Abraham’s justification, the Jews could not hope to be justified thereby, nor by the other rites of the law; and were much to blame in pressing those rites on the Gentiles as necessary to their salvation, and in consigning all to damnation who were out of the pale of the Jewish church. F9 It is absolutely clear that Paul was dealing with a perplexing problem that persisted in the apostolic age, and that was the efforts of Christians of Jewish background to graft circumcision and law-keeping onto the coattails of Christianity. It was with that problem that Paul dealt in this chapter; and justification by faith ONLY is nowhere in it. For such to be in it, there would have had to be a statement that Abraham was justified by faith ONLY. Where is it? (4) A fourth distinctive difference between baptism and circumcision is in the initiative performing the rites. Circumcision was performed upon babies of eight days in age, without either their knowledge or consent; whereas baptism is never scripturally administered except upon one who is of accountable age, believes with all of his heart in Christ, confesses his faith, repents of his sins, and presents himself as a candidate for the administration of the ordinance of God, the initiative for his baptism thus coming from the believer himself, and not from the administrator, or anyone else. This is especially clear in Peter’s wording of the first commandment on this subject ever announced in the current dispensation. He said, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins (Acts 2:38). A reference to Vine’s Greek Dictionary will show that the words rendered "be baptized every one of you" stand thus in the Greek: "have yourselves baptized." The scriptural teaching on baptism thus refutes the misconception, as advocated by Hodge, to the effect that: This (circumcision) is the broad and enduring base of infant church membership. F10 Circumcision was both the sign and the seal of the ancient covenant, as here stated by Paul; but the revelation of a completely new system of redemption in Christ made circumcision obsolete, a fact that Paul did not state dogmatically in this place, out of deference to the feelings of his Jewish countrymen; but he implied it here, and did not hesitate to state his position dogmatically upon any occasion when the Judaizers sought to bind it upon Gentiles, as in any way pertinent to their salvation (Gal 5:2). Verse 12 And the father of circumcision to them who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision. Who also walk after the steps of that faith of our father Abraham ... These words mean "who have an obedient faith like Abraham." Abrahamic faith was not any such thing as faith ONLY, but it was a faith that walked after God’s commandments, as pointed out under Rom 4:3; and Gentiles (or others) who would participate in the promise of salvation God gave through Abraham are here identified as those who "walk" in the steps of that faith, which is a way of saying they must have an obedient faith as did Abraham. Some of the so-called translations and modern speech renditions of the New Testament have butchered this verse by eliminating all reference to obedience. For Abraham found favor with God by faith alone, before he was circumcised (The Living Word New Testament, paraphrased). For those who have the faith of Abraham (NEB). Because they live the same life of faith (The New Testament in Today’s English). Etc. The word "walk" or "tread" is in the Greek New Testament, and it should be in all valid translations of the word of God; but that expression is so obviously a reference to obedience that it cannot fit into the theories of salvation by faith alone; and the conviction persists that this fact influenced some of the so-called translations. It is admitted by all that Christians are saved by the same kind of faith Abraham had, before circumcision and the law; and a further study of the steps of Abraham’s faith will reveal that obedience was coupled with it, and that it was by obedient faith that Abraham was justified. THE STEPS OF ABRAHAM’S FAITH Now the Lord said unto Abram, get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing (Gen 12:1-2). There are discernible three things in the steps of Abraham’s faith, these being: (1) leave something, (2) enter something, and (3) become something. The same essential steps of that faith must be followed today by those who would be saved. 1. Leave something. What a sorrow must have swept over Abraham’s heart as he turned his back for the last time upon the battlements of Ur! Walter Scott caught something of the mystic charm which lies for every man in the scenes of his nativity. Breathes there the man with soul so dead Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land, Whose heart has never in him burned As home his footsteps he has turned From wandering on a foreign strand? F11 How fond and tender must have been the farewells of Abraham as he kissed his loved ones goodbye forever, placed his life in the care of God, and set his face toward an unknown destination! Abraham did not shrink from leaving all behind. He obeyed God. If he had not done so, God would have chosen another for the office to which he called Abraham. It is the same with all who would walk in the steps of that faith now. Those who would follow the Lord are commanded to "leave all" that they have (Luk 14:33), and to subordinate the love of father, mother, brother, sister, son, or daughter (Mat 10:37), and to follow Christ even unto death (Rev 2:10). James and John left their nets and Zebedee their father; Paul left the honor of the Sanhedrin; they "left all and followed" Christ (Mark 10:28). Likewise, people today must forsake the dead past, leave all their yesterdays, and follow the Lord. For people who have never left anything, who never intend to leave anything, not even their sins, and who stubbornly remain in the world, accepting utterly the world’s value judgments, wallowing in its excesses, and being fully identified with the world for such people to think that they have the faith of Abraham is blindness. 2. Enter something. God spoke to Abram of a "land that I will show thee," and God’s plan called for him to enter that land. Did Abraham obey? Let the word of the Lord reply: By faith Abraham when he was called to go out into a place which he would afterwards receive as an inheritance, OBEYED, and he went out not knowing whither he went (Heb 11:8). And did Abraham actually enter that land? Let God’s word answer: And they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came (Gen 12:5). And what if Abraham had demurred, had decided that he could believe ONLY, without obeying, and returned home? The obvious deduction thunders in the mind that contemplates such questions as these. For those who will walk in the steps of Abraham’s faith, there is something for every man to enter, no less than there was for Abraham. All who aspire to walk after the steps of Abraham’s faith must enter into the rest which is in Christ. For we who have believed do enter into that rest (Heb 4:3). They must enter into the kingdom of God, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of the Son of his love. Failure to enter the kingdom is forfeiture of eternal life. The verse cited above from Hebrews shows who may enter, "we who have believed"; and Christ himself explained how the entering is accomplished: Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). Entering the kingdom is equivalent to entering Christ, in whom is "every spiritual blessing" (Eph 1:3); and the scriptures repeatedly affirm that one is baptized "into Christ" (6:3; Gal 3:27). But, what of him who fancies that he is walking in the steps of Abraham’s faith while neglecting or refusing baptism, thus refusing to enter the kingdom? Abraham ENTERED! Have we? 3. Become something. Implicit in all God’s plans for people is the heavenly intention that they shall not merely do certain things, but that they may become a blessing. God said to Abraham, "Thou shalt become a blessing." Likewise, the person walking in the steps of that faith of Abraham will have a lot of "becoming" to do. He is to become the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Mat 5:13-16). He is to become heir of all things, "joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom 8:17). He is to become a citizen of heaven (Php 3:20-21). He is to become a messenger, bearing the good news to all people: "Go preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:15-16). He is to become an example of the believers, "in spirit, in faith, in purity" (1Ti 4:12). Abraham became a blessing; those who walk in the steps of his faith will do likewise. By way of summary, to walk in the steps of Abraham’s faith is to believe in the Lord Jesus with all the heart, repent of transgressions, obey his everlasting gospel by being baptized "into Christ" for the remission of sins, thus entering the kingdom of light and leaving the kingdom of darkness, receiving also, at last, the crown of life that fadeth not away. Anything less than this is not walking in the steps of Abraham’s faith. Verse 13 For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith. The law ... is here a reference to Moses’ law; but, since that was the best ever given, it includes, by extension, every other kind of legal system. The promise ... is the new element under consideration in this verse. Previously, in this chapter, Paul had shown that Abraham’s righteousness had been reckoned unto him upon the basis of an obedient faith, prior to the giving of the law, and that even circumcision was only a seal of the righteousness that he already had; and here Paul showed that the great promise to Abraham, defined as "the promise ... that he should be the heir of the world," was given by God to Abraham long before the law of Moses (Gen 12:1-5), thus being "not through the law." There being no Old Testament report of God’s promise to Abraham in words like these, "the promise," as here stated, means all of the spiritual blessings that were to come eventually through the Messiah and his heavenly kingdom. Murray’s perceptive words regarding this are: We cannot exclude from the scope of this promise, as defined by the apostle, the most inclusive messianic purport. It is defined as the promise to Abraham that HE should he the heir of the world, but it is also a promise to his seed and, therefore, can hardly involve anything less than the worldwide dominion promised to Christ and to the spiritual seed of Abraham in him. It is a promise that receives its ultimate fulfillment in the consummated order of the new heavens and the new earth. F12 The word "seed," as it is used of Abraham, has four distinct meanings. In the singular, it means Christ (Gal 3:16); in the literal plural it means all the fleshly descendants of Abraham, those through Keturah and Hagar, as well as through Sarah; in the legal plural, it refers to the Jews, those who possessed the law of Moses; in the spiritual plural, it refers to baptized believers in Jesus Christ (Gal 3:27-29); and, in the extended spiritual plural, it refers to all of the redeemed under both the old and new covenants. Verses 14, 15 For if they that are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect: for the law worketh wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression. This is a continuation of the reasoning of the previous verse. The worldwide inheritance promised to Abraham was destined to be fulfilled in the singular seed, Jesus Christ, as indicated in Psa 2:7-8 and Heb 1:2. Whiteside noted: This promise of worldwide inheritance was not made to Abraham through the righteousness of the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Paul had shown the Judaizing teachers that Abraham was not righteous by law, but by faith. Now he shows briefly that the promise of the Messiah was through the righteousness of faith, and not through the righteousness of law. F13 They that are of the law ... refers to persons who desired to be justified by keeping the Mosaic covenant, and more, wanted to bind it on the Gentiles as well. If keeping the law of Moses was the means of becoming heirs of God’s promise, faith as a basis for it was voided. If the promise was merely to those who kept the law, the promise was ineffective, because no one ever did or ever could keep the law. The law worketh wrath ... is but another way of saying that all anyone ever got out of keeping the law of Moses was condemnation, due to violation of it. The statement that there is no transgression where there is no law is an inverted way of saying that the only way to avoid human transgression (with its consequent condemnation) would be through having no law at all. Of course, this does not imply that there ever was a people who had no law. Also, Paul had already concluded Jews and Gentiles alike under sin. Verse 16 For this cause it is of faith, that it may be according to grace; to the end that the promise may be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. For four definitions of "seed," see under Rom 4:13. If only the literal seed of Abraham were to be heirs, and only the legal portion of that, called the legal seed, the spiritual seed would be disinherited. According to grace ... The most basic thing of all, regarding the salvation which Almighty God has provided for his erring human children, is the fact of its derivation, in the last analysis, from the unmerited favor bestowed upon them by the heavenly Father. Look: when the angels sinned, no salvation was provided for them; and God certainly did not owe salvation to people; and it was contrary to all precedent that any was provided. The fact that people, as such, cannot merit this generous treatment at the hands of God is absolutely axiomatic. Of course, they cannot. Therefore, what an incongruous thing it would have been if the blessed Messiah himself should have been through such a device as the law of Moses, especially since that law was only a temporary device anyway, and applied to a tiny fraction of earth’s populations, and not even they kept it! Therefore the promise was made to Abraham upon the premise of his obedient faith, a faith which God repeatedly tested and proved, even to the extent of requiring the offering up of Isaac. Abraham obeyed! Abraham’s obedience is not emphasized in this chapter, although stated clearly enough; but it is most certainly a part of the total picture. The reason that Paul did not stress obedience here lies in the fact that even Abraham’s obedience was not perfect, as, for example, in the matter of taking Terah with him; therefore, his obedience in any perfect sense could not have been made the ground of God’s promise; but his obedience was indeed sufficient to exhibit and prove his faith. Despite that, Paul was correct in leaving obedience in the background in this chapter. That obedience was not excluded from the definition of Abraham’s faith as the ground of his justification is implicit in two things: (1) Paul did not say that it was Abraham’s faith alone. The commentators certainly have no trouble finding that word, their exegesis being filled with it from one end to the other, which only points up the significance of the fact that never, not even once, did Paul use such an expression as "faith only" or "faith alone." We are absolutely safe, therefore, in the conviction that Paul designedly avoided such, and it is equally certain that the quality of Abraham’s obedience entered into and formed a part of the consideration on God’s part when Abraham was selected to be the "father of the faithful." (2) The second consideration is this: The obedient nature of Abraham’s faith appears in the twelfth verse where those who shall inherit are described as those who will "walk in the steps of" Abraham’s faith, the same being an inspired statement that would have been impossible to make without considering the "faith" so frequently mentioned in this chapter to have been an "obedient faith." (The seed) ... which is the law ... is a reference to those faithful Jews who believed God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, such as Zacharias, and countless others of the old institution, who also are part of the extended spiritual seed which includes many nations, peoples, and tongues. Paul was careful to make it plain that no Israelite was excluded from the promise; for they also would inherit through obedient faith. Verse 17 (As it is written, A father of many nations have I made thee) before him whom he believed, even God, who giveth life to the dead, and calleth the things that are not, as though they were. Upon the occasion of God’s making the land covenant, sealed by circumcision, with Abraham, God made mention of another covenant previously made with Abraham, and used the past tense to show that the previous covenant had nothing to do with the covenant of land and circumcision about to be made. Paul’s introduction of the quotation from Gen 17:5, included in parenthesis in this verse, and especially God’s use of the past tense, "have I made thee," proves that the previous covenant was distinct from the land covenant about to be made in the immediate future, and also indicated that the previous covenant (the great promise) was fulfilled by ,Christ the Saviour of the world. The law of Moses, which the Judaizing teachers were so zealously seeking to fasten upon Gentile Christians, has nothing to do with the promise, or covenant, to make Abraham the father of a multitude of nations. F14 The last two clauses of this verse refer to Isaac’s being born to Abraham and Sarah, contrary to nature, when both the parents were of advanced age, and "as good as dead" (Heb 11:12). A father of many nations have I made thee ... At the time God said these words to Abraham, the birth of Isaac was still far in the future, and those "many nations" existed only as a promise of God; but God had promised them and, therefore, did not hesitate to speak of them as already born. This is prophetic tense, in which God speaks of the future as though it were past, and in which, also, God’s prophets, speaking in his name, foretell future events. Verse 18 Who in hope believed against hope, to the end that he might become a father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken. Paul in these words was showing the quality of Abraham’s faith, which consisted in this, that he truly believed God, even though God’s words were contrary to all natural and human expectations. Abraham was old, and Sarah’s womb was dead, but he believed God, believing that, indeed, he would become the father of many nations. This quality of believing in "things not seen as yet" was made the theme of the entire eleventh chapter of Hebrews; from which it is to be concluded that genuine faith accepts what God has said, no matter what considerations of human wisdom and experience seem to nullify it. Such is Abrahamic faith. So shall thy seed be ... is a quotation from Gen 15:5, where is recorded God’s commandment for Abraham to number the stars, saying, "So shall thy seed be." Brunner’s definition of true faith is thus: The existence of faith in God’s promise is completely clear only where God’s promise runs counter to human expectation and calculation. Whether one really relies on God’s word alone becomes manifest only where God’s word is not supported by any rational basis, but where, on the contrary, it is opposed to what one must consider probable on the basis of reason. F15 Of course, Abraham truly had such faith. Verses 19, 20, 21 And without being weakened in faith he considered his own body now as good as dead (he being about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; yet, looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what he had promised, he was able also to perform. These three verses are a restatement in depth of what Paul had already written in Rom 4:18, and are a further elaboration of Abraham’s remarkable faith, wherein he believed God, contrary to every earthly consideration against it, and did surely receive the fulfillment of all that God had promised. Giving glory to God ... is further enlightenment upon the spiritual attitude of the great patriarch. Since the thesis of Paul’s discourse in this chapter dealt with the fact that God accepted Abraham’s faith for righteousness, it was absolutely imperative that the nature of that faith should be made perfectly clear. It was a faith that staggered at absolutely nothing that God either promised or commanded. It has been noted repeatedly that it was an obedient faith, an obedience that went even as far as offering his son Isaac upon the altar, the very son through whom the promise of many nations had been prophesied; and that was only the culmination of a long series of tests and demonstrations of Abraham’s faith, beginning with his obedient response to God’s call to leave Ur, his kindred, and his father’s house. Theologians who speak of the great patriarch’s faith as "faith only" have apparently not taken into account the biblical record of just what that faith actually was. It has already been noted, but attention is again directed to the fact that Paul’s lack of emphasis on obedience in this chapter stemmed from the imperfect nature of Abraham’s obedience. Abraham, in the response to God’s call, took, Terah and Lot with him; and those loved ones should have been left behind. Despite certain lapses, however, the faith of Abraham could never be called disobedient, or non-obedient. The so-called "faith" of people who refuse baptism and spurn membership in the church, and then claim that they are being saved according to the "faith of Abraham," is actually without anything that even remotely resembles the faith of Abraham. Verse 22 Wherefore also it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Wherefore also ... gives the reason why Abraham’s faith was reckoned unto him for righteousness, the reason being that Abraham truly believed, despite all human considerations to the contrary, the reality of which was not merely assumed upon Abraham’s assertion that he believed, but which was proved by a long and exhaustive series of tests, beginning with the call to leave Ur and reaching the climax in the offering of Isaac. Though Abraham’s obedience was not perfect, it was quite good enough to prove his faith. His obedience of every command, though not perfect, was practically sufficient. That obedience was the only ground upon which even God evaluated the faith of Abraham is implicit in the following: And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the Lord called to him out of heaven, and said ... Lay not thine hand upon the lad; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me (Gen 22:11-12). The inspired author James categorically stated that the justification of Abraham occurred "WHEN he brought up Isaac his son to the altar" (Jas 2:21). F16 Paul revealed that Abraham’s faith justified him, without saying when; but James pinpointed the time. His faith justified him at that point in time when it was proved to be genuine, and that was in the instance of offering up Isaac. God said, "Now I know"; and this is fully equivalent to saying, "Before this, I did not know"! Verses 23, 24 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him; but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification. Who believe on him that raised Jesus ... These words focus upon a point of similarity in the faith of Abraham, and that of Christians. One great mark of identity between his faith and ours is in the fact that only an obedient faith avails, or availed, either for Abraham or Christians; but, in these verses, attention centers upon what he believed, and the similarity of it to what Christians believe. Abraham believed in God’s power to raise the dead, a faith which was manifested in the offering of Isaac; Christians believe in the resurrection of the dead: (1) that God raised Christ from the dead; (2) that all shall at last be raised from the dead by Christ (John 5:28-29), and, in the spiritual sense; (3) that all who hear Christ’s voice and obey him shall be raised from the deadness of trespasses and sins (John 5:25). In Rom 4:17 Paul specifically mentioned, "God, who giveth life to the dead," as a conspicuous aspect of Abraham’s faith. Another similarity between Abrahamic and Christian faith lies in the manner of regarding the "seed," Christ, Abraham truly believing that he would in time appear ("Abraham rejoiced to see my and he saw it, and was glad )), and Christians truly believing that he indeed did appear in his first advent, and also that the Christ shall appear the second time to judge the world. Who delivered us from our trespasses ... It is not mere faith on the part of Christians that Jesus Christ lived, but also that he is the sin-bearer, that he is the propitiation for sin, that in him alone is the righteous ground for the plenary discharge of all human transgression - it is faith in Christ as "my Redeemer" that marks the genuine faith. Inherent in this is the conviction that Christ died for us, while we were yet in our sins. And was raised for our justification ... The final two verses of this chapter bring the reader’s mind to rest upon Christ as man’s only Saviour, with special emphasis upon his death and resurrection. Moreover, the oneness of all the faithful of all ages, as they shall at last be summed up in Christ, appears here. As Brunner noted: Only in Christ Jesus does that inheritance in which Abraham believed become a reality; for only through him, by his atoning death and victory over death and the grave, are all nations included in the history of redemption that began with Abraham and the setting apart of Israel. And only the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, which is the center of the message about Christ, makes manifest the meaning of God creating life out of death. What Abraham experienced was indeed a beginning, but yet only a beginning, of what Christ’s Community experiences in the realization of the divine promise of inheritance. F17 Paul’s mention of both the death and resurrection of Christ in these verses shows how intimately the two are joined to form the solid ground of human forgiveness and justification. The introduction of such essential elements of the Christian gospel into this resume of Abrahamic faith shows the intimate connection between them, and that the New Testament answers to the Old Testament as antitype to type. All that is in the Old Testament points beyond itself and contains the seed that comes to flower in the New Testament. All that happened to the Jewish fathers happened unto them "for our example" (1Co 10:11); and all the shadows and prefigurations of the old covenant are now fulfilled in the new institution, which is the church of the Lord Jesus Christ. In this great chapter, the relationship between the faith of Abraham and that of Christians was brought forward by the apostle Paul, the great design of his doing so being that he might prove that Gentiles were just as entitled to salvation as Jews, and that God’s eternal, intrinsic righteousness was in no way compromised by the calling of the Gentiles. Abraham was definitely not presented in this chapter as an example of how alien sinners accept the gospel of Christ. True, Abraham’s faith was exactly like that of Christians in the matter of its being an obedient faith; but the tests God required of Abraham were utterly different from the tests required of sinners who would become Christians, therefore, what Abraham did to prove his faith before God cannot stand in any manner as an indication of what people must do now to prove their faith in God’s sight. The very thought that God would have required proof of Abraham’s faith, and that now a sinner’s mere assertion of it is enough, is illogical. The force of Paul’s stressing the fact that Abraham was justified "apart from works" of the law of Moses (Rom 4:6), and apart from "circumcision" (Rom 4:10), was not for the purpose of showing that Abraham’s justifying faith was accepted by God, without any tests at all, but that the law and circumcision were not the tests, the logic of Paul’s argument appearing from the fact that certain Christians of Jewish origin were intent upon making God’s testing of faith to include both law and circumcision. Footnotes forRomans 4 1 : William M. Greathouse, Beacon’s Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 100. 2: Ibid. 3: R. L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome (Fort Worth, Texas: The Manney Company, 1945), pp. 89-90. 4: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 109. 5: David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles (Nashville, Tennessee: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1969), p. 82. 6: R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 296. 7: Wm. M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 103. 8: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 100. 9: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 73. 10: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 117. 11: Sir Walter Scott, The Lay of the Last Minstrel. 12: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), i. p. 142. 13: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 104. 14: Ibid., p. 106. 15: Emil Brunner, The Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959), p. 37. 16: From the Emphatic Diaglot. 17: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 39. 18: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 25. 19: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 102. 20: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 74. 21: James Macknight, op. cit., p. 71. 22: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 82. 23: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 27. 24: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 75. 25: William M. Greathouse, Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1968), p. 86. 26: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 88. 27: John Mackay, God’s Order (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953), p. 97. 28: John A. Mackay, op. cit., p. 67. 29: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 92. 30: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 119. 31: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 94. 32: New English Bible. 33: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 95. 34: W. Sanday, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 218. 35: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 265. 36: Lewis B. Smedes, All Things Made New (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 230. 37: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 82. 38: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 95. 39: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 83. : Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 126. 41: Ibid., p. 123. 42: Dr. Andrew Conway Ivy, in The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe (New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1958), p. 229. 43: Ibid., p. 231. 44: John Murray, op. cit., p. 41. 45: R. C. Bell, op. cit., p. 12. 46: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 207. 47: J. Barmby, op. cit., p. 12. 48: Chester Warren Quimby, The Great Redemption (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950), pp. 45-46. 49: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 207. 50: Ibid. 51: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 39. 52: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 38. 53: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 108. 54: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 53. 55: Ibid., p. 74. 56: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 58. 57: John Murray, op. cit., p. 51. 58: The Houston Chronicle, front page, December 2, 1971. top save<59> Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the saveCorinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 86. 60: Frank S. Mead, The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 11. 61: Frank S. Mead, op. cit., p. 11. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 12: 5 ROMANS CHAPTER FIVE ======================================================================== Rom 5:1-21 Verse 1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Justified by faith ... has invariably the meaning of "justified by an obedient faith," as in the case of Abraham. See the preceding chapter. Also, for further explanation of this synecdoche, see under Rom 3:22. Both at the beginning and ending of Romans, Paul defined "faith" in the sense of its being "the obedience of faith"; and although this has been cited before, the extravagant and vociferous claims to the effect that Paul really meant "faith only" require repeated attention to the truth. Note: Through whom we received grace and apostleship, unto obedience of faith among all the nations, for his name’s sake (Rom 1:5). But now is manifested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all nations unto obedience of faith (Rom 16:26). It would be impossible to overestimate the significance of Paul’s placement of these two verses, situated like the lions on each side of the throne of Solomon, standing as the Alpha and the Omega, guarding the portals of this great treatise of God’s righteousness, but necessarily dealing with justification by faith, and making sure that "he who runs may read" and not be deceived as to the degree of faith Paul was discussing. One may not enter or leave this epistle without confronting the fact that it was "the obedience of faith" which summed up the end and all of Paul’s apostleship (Romans 5:1:5), and that it is "the obedience of faith" of all nations which enables them to participate in redemption (Rom 16:26). Thus, "obedience of faith" must be understood as included in Paul’s salvation "by faith." The following example from Paul’s writings shows how and when faith makes one a child of God: For ye are all sons of God, through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ (Gal 3:26-27). Thus, faith saves one by leading him to accept forgiveness of sins in God’s appointed institution, the spiritual body of Christ; and salvation is accomplished when faith becomes obedient to the degree of causing him to be baptized into Christ, and to put on Christ. As Lipscomb expressed it: To be saved through faith in Christ Jesus, to be baptized unto the remission of sins, to be baptized into Christ, and to put on Christ, all mean exactly the same thing. F6 Even in the very epistle we are studying, and where so many allegations to the contrary are allegedly grounded, Paul went so far as to define exactly the point in the time sequence of the believer’s obedient actions when his salvation actually occurs. Thus: But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being THEN made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness (Rom 6:17-18). The omission of "then" in some of the translations does not remove the meaning, for it is implied anyway; and even Phillips retained it in his rendition. Thus, a man is saved "by faith" WHEN he obeys the gospel, and not before. It is not amiss, then, to declare unequivocally that baptism for the remission of sins on the part of a true and penitent believer is salvation "by faith." If that is not true, how could Christ have said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16)? We have peace with God ... should read "Let us have peace with God," according to many scholars; and that rendition is given as an alternate reading in the English Revised Version (1885) margin. The difference turns upon two very similar Greek words, [echomen] and [echoomen], the latter meaning "we have," and the other meaning "let us have." The scholars assure us that the preponderance of manuscript authority favors the first, "let us have"; and Lenski went so far as to say: The assertion that textual authority for "we have" is also good is not true. ... A number of expedients are advanced in order to justify the use of the indicative ("we have"), such as that, when speaking, Paul had in mind the short vowel, but that his amanuensis Tertius wrote the long vowel by mistake. "The sense must conquer the letter," we are told; but the letter alone conveys the sense, and we change the sense when we change the letter. F7 Lenski’s comment is introduced here because of the clear and forceful way in which he emphasized that what the holy writers said, the actual letter of what we have received from them, must take precedence over what any man thinks they might have meant! The application of this principle will resolve the question of "faith" vs. "faith only," since it was of "faith" that Paul wrote, and never of "faith only," the latter being urged as Paul’s "meaning," even by Lenski! The decision of whether "we have" or "let us have" is correct cannot logically be attempted by this writer. In any event, the difference is of no consequence either way; and thus. after noting what appears to be a valid objection against the rendition in both KJV and English Revised Version (1885) in this instance, the sentence will be discussed as it stands in those versions, since that is the text which most people have. Peace with God ... means that the fierce rebellion against God is no longer within the heart; the war is over, and man has submitted to his Maker; and the ensuing new status changes everything. God is angry with the wicked every day; and Paul described the Gentiles in their state of rebellion as "children of wrath." That wrath pertains to every man who has not come into the inheritance of peace with God in Christ. It was to that peace which Augustine referred when he said, "Thou, O God, hast touched me and translated me into thy peace!" CHRIST AND MAN’S PEACE Peace is the great legacy of Christ to them that love and obey him. In the annunciation, the angels brought word of "peace on earth to men of good will" (Luk 2:10); Zacharias prophesied of the Dayspring from on high who would "guide our feet into the way of peace" (Luk 1:79); and Paul spoke of the "joy and peace in believing" (Rom 15:13). Jesus said: Peace I leave with you; my peace I give unto you, not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid (John 14:27). This peace, like every other spiritual blessing, is in Christ (Eph 1:3), a thought also expressed thus: And the peace of God that passeth understanding, shall guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus (Php 4:7). This marvelous peace is exactly the blessing which troubled man most needs and so incessantly seeks, even if his seeking is but an unfulfilled subconscious longing after it. The insatiable desire for that heavenly peace is never abated until people rest in Christ. In the great invitation (Mat 11:28-30), Jesus spoke of the rest people would find and of the rest that he would give; and both are what Paul referred to here (Rom 5:1). Despite the eternal truth that no worthwhile peace may be procured by means of any human device, people are, nevertheless, in constant pursuit of it, employing all kinds of strategies in their sad efforts to possess it; and, no matter how frequently time has demonstrated the ineffectiveness of one device or another, people still strive in the same old discredited ways to establish their peace, overlooking the availability of this dearest of all possessions as a free gift from God in Christ. Note the various ways in which people strive vainly for that peace, a peace which God is willing and ready to give them when they turn to him: (1) People seek peace by moving to the suburbs, planting a garden, and building a hedge, only to discover that peace is not a commodity that any realtor can sell. (2) Some seek it by going to a psychiatrist, only to learn that no psychiatrist can convey to another the peace that he does not himself possess. (3) Some seek peace through the ardent advocacy of this or that social system, or by participation in campaigns for the alleviation of alleged human woes; but it would be just as reasonable to suppose that one could cure twenty cases of measles by putting them all in the same room, as it is to suppose that any scheme for better housing, for example, could cure the agony of human beings whose wretchedness is due to their sin and not to their circumstances. The savage tides which swell and flow in the hearts of millions of unregenerated people will never yield to the magic of some political solution, nor disappear through any readjustment of earth’s material wealth. (4) Others seek peace by means of the bottle, the needle, and the pillbox; but the reliance upon such pitiful devices cannot evoke some miraculous genie, as in Moslem mythology, that can pour the oil of peace upon the turbulent waters of the raging storms that trouble the hearts of people. Alcohol, narcotics, and drugs produce death instead of life, hell instead of heaven, agony instead of peace. (5) Still others seek peace through the pursuit of the pleasures of life, only to find as sage, philosopher, and poet alike have found, that peace comes not from pleasures. But pleasures are like poppies spread, You seize the flower, its bloom is shed; Or like the snow falls in the river, A moment white, then melts forever. F8 Alexander Maclaren said: Sooner or later, the mad, whirling dervish of life will slow down, falter, and grind to an irresistible stop, where the facts of unrest and soul disquietude must inevitably be faced. F9 (6) And some even think to find peace by means of human achievement; but efficacy for the impartation of peace to the. human soul is not found in any such device. Alexander of Macedon found only dust and ashes at the end of that rainbow, and so will any other who follows that illusion to its wretched end. (7) Yet another device has commended itself, throughout history as being a source of peace for troubled people. It is a sacerdotal arrangement, in which a human contemporary is given a special kind of education, a special kind of garb, and a special kind of dignity in which such a one is elevated to a position of alleged sanctity, and then commissioned as an agent to procure peace and grant it to his fellow mortals. Thousands of years of the use of this elaborate device have demonstrated, alas, that sacerdotal man is no holier than ourselves and no more able to procure peace than others. It is time that people should be reminded again that: There is one God and one mediator between God and men, himself also man, Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all (1Ti 2:5). As for the old superstition that any man can absolve another of his sins and impart any peace worth having, it is hereby affirmed in the light of that Word that liveth for ever and ever, that the scriptures teach no such thing. "Only God can forgive sins"! (Mark 2:5). Through our Lord Jesus Christ ... The way of receiving that peace is plain. The source is Jesus Christ. It may not be procured, therefore, through people. Inscribed upon the north facade of the impressive tomb of William Rockefeller in Tarrytown cemetery, Tarrytown, New York, are these words of Augustine: OUR HEARTS, O GOD, WERE MADE FOR THEE; AND NEVER SHALL THEY REST UNTIL THEY REST IN THEE. How may people possess that peace of God through Christ? By means of the obedience of faith so perfectly expounded by Paul in Romans. Atheism is no refuge for the soul. Even the great achievers among the ranks of atheists, such as H. G. Wells, have confessed that peace is no part of their endowment. Wells declared: I cannot adjust my life to secure any fruitful peace. ... Here I am at sixty-five still seeking for peace ... that dignified peace is just a hopeless dream. F10 Wilbur M. Smith, in the summation of a remarkable chapter on the subject of peace and joy in believing, said, In skepticism and unbelief, there has always been, there cannot help but be, despair in the place of hope, a miserable unceasing restlessness in the place of peace, and either an ever-deepening sorrow or a chilling stoicism instead of true and abiding joy. For all who have come to know and love the Lord Jesus Christ, no matter what their previous life was, no matter what their circumstances in life, there is available a peace that passeth all understanding and a joy the world can never take away. There is peace and joy in believing; there is neither in unbelief. F11 By faith ... The emphasis in this commentary on "the obedience of faith" is not intended to diminish in any manner or degree the true necessity of wholehearted, unreserved faith in God and in the Lord Jesus Christ. Faith is still the strong man that carries the little child Reason upon his shoulders. Faith is part of the foundation of Christianity; and without faith, it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). Whenever and wherever in human hearts there is enough faith to lead one to walk in all the light he has and strive for more, there, it may be presumed, is enough faith to save. The reason for insisting throughout this work that "faith only" is a sinful addition to the word of God, and in fact a denial of it, stems from two reasons, the first being that God’s word nowhere says that justification is by faith only, and the second being that it is impossible to define faith as automatically including obedience. When pressed, the advocates of the "faith only" position will often fall back upon the presumption that if one truly believes, he will also obey. Opposed to that presumption is this statement from the New Testament. Even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees, they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the glory that is of men more than the glory that is of God (John 12:42-43). The Lutheran error of supposing salvation to be by faith only, sprang from overlooking the biblically stated truth that many people did "believe on" the Lord Jesus Christ but, through love of the world, refused to follow him. As to the thesis, then, that true faith automatically includes obedience, it is utterly disproved by the lives of millions in every age, including those cited in John 12:42-43. In this context, it is interesting to note that Christ said, "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments" (John 14:15); but he did not say, "If ye have faith in me, ye will keep my commandments," the latter being categorically untrue. Precisely in this, then, is the outrage of teaching that salvation is "by faith alone." Far from leading people to obey the gospel, that false doctrine is actually made the ground and excuse of millions for not obeying it! Verse 2 Through whom also we have had our access by faith into this grace wherein we stand; and we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. The observant student will already have noted that Paul’s writings in this letter lay great stress upon being "in Christ." Already, in this chapter, justification was said to have been through Christ; peace with God is through Christ; and here it was declared to be Christ "through whom" there is access by faith into this grace. The state of grace, or favor, into which Christians have access through faith, is that of the kingdom of God (Php 3:20). As Lard noted: That this state of favor is identical with the church or the kingdom of God, hardly admits of doubt. F12 Through Christ ... as used by Paul has exactly the same sense of "in Christ," and refers to the state of being united with Christ in his spiritual body. This appears from a comparison of Paul’s statement here that peace is through Christ with the statement of Christ himself that peace is "in" him. He said: These things have I spoken unto you, that in me ye may have peace (John 16:23). Access ... means entry into; and, as to just how the access of believers into the state of grace is accomplished, no less a scholar than Alford said: This access would normally take place in baptism. (Commenting on Alford’s remark, Lard continued) This remark he (Alford) doubtless made in view of the following: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5). To be in the kingdom is certainly to be in "this favor"; hence, the means of access into that is the means of access into this. In view of these facts, Alford’s remark would seem to fall little, if any, short of the truth. F13 "Access," as used here, is a big word with reference to Christian privilege, referring to the ability of Christians to come boldly into the very presence of God for such purposes as offering worship, prayer, thanksgiving, or praise. Thomas noted that: The thought includes the possibility of entrance, and also the privilege of introduction, as in a presentation at court. F14 In such a concept, Christ actually appears as a sponsor and advocate of sinful people who have been justified "in him," and are thus members of his spiritual body. Grace wherein we stand ... Macknight noted that the mention of "grace" here shows that it is a different blessing from "peace" mentioned in Rom 5:1 : It is the gracious new covenant which Christ procured for mankind, and which is the source of their peace. F15 Wherein we stand ... is a reference to the firm and sure establishment of the Christian hope in Christ, the same being not a precarious and uncertain position at all, but one of the uttermost security and confidence. We rejoice in the hope of the glory of God ... is a reference to the hope of eternal life, this great hope being a consequence of the security in Christ and a fountain of that peace which blesses the heart of the Christian. All of the judgments that Paul had revealed in earlier chapters against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people, and all the stern judgments that await sinners, and all of the death, suffering, and sorrow that all people must pass through, because of Adam’s transgression - all such things might form the basis of an antagonistic arraignment of God in human thoughts. How can a righteous God allow such suffering, injustice, and inhumanity of men against men, etc.? But the inherent, intrinsic righteousness of God, as opposed to all such thoughts, appears in this, that people, despite all sufferings, sorrows, and death, may yet attain unto eternal life, even unto the glory of God himself! Paradise lost can yet be Paradise regained! It is indeed a just and benevolent God who, although allowing the snake in Eden (in service of his own wise designs), stepped into the breach with the Remedy when man sinned, and that not upon any emergency or makeshift basis, but in perfect harmony with the plans God had made before times eternal. We exult in the hope of the glory of God ... is the translation of this place favored by Murray, who declared that it means, Rejoicing and boasting on the highest level. It is exultant rejoicing and confident glowing ... the object of this glowing is stated to be "the hope of the glory of God. F16 Earlier references to "boasting and glorying" in Romans (2:7; 3:27; 4:2) describe it as an undesirable action, even reprehensible; but in this place Paul was speaking of another kind of boasting, not merely permissible but commendable, and even commanded, as in Heb 3:6. The atmosphere that maintains a genuine Christian life is never the consequence of external conditions alone; but the climate for Christians living their life of faith is improved and made more favorable by Christians themselves who honor the divinely imposed obligation to glory in the grace wherein they stand. The basis of the glowing mentioned in this verse is the existence of something far down the corridors of the future, being the hope of the glory of God, which is but another way of saying the second coming of Christ, when he shall appear in his glory to judge the living and the dead. There are many teachings in the New Testament relative to the glory of God; and perhaps all of the overtones of this vast subject are gathered up and echoed here. God’s intrinsic glory will at last be discovered and demonstrated to all people at the time when "the books" are opened, and when all people appear before the judgment of the throne of God. The majestic glory of the Father on high must ever be a subject of the greatest interest to Christians; and the hope of seeing God at last, and of seeing our Pilot "face to face" - such things must be included in the meaning of "hope of the glory of God." The implication of Paul’s words here are profound. He most certainly meant to include eternal life, ultimate union with God, and the eternal felicity of the redeemed in Christ, as composing the ground of the "rejoicing" of the faithful in Christ. Regarding the kind of boasting which Christians should employ as a helpful device of their own encouragement, Sanday observed that, The Christian has his boasting, but it is not based upon his own merits. It is a joyful and triumphant confidence in the future, not only felt, but expressed. F17 Verses 3, 4 And not only so, but we also rejoice in our tribulations: knowing that tribulation worketh stedfastness; and stedfastness, approvedness; and approvedness, hope. The basis of the glorying considered in the preceding verse was revealed as the ultimate glory which Christians shall share with God himself in the final day, and therefore, invisible, far removed from the present time, and having nothing to do with the prosaic affairs of everyday living; but, in these verses, the basis of glowing is revealed as the very adversities through which Christians pass. Again, from Sanday: The Christian’s glorying is not confined to the future; it embraces the present as well. It extends to what would naturally be supposed to be the very opposite of a ground for glorying - to the persecutions that we have to undergo as Christians. F18 A comparison of what Paul wrote in these verses with what he wrote in Rom 5:2 reveals a circle: hope-tribulation-stedfastness-approvedness-hope, thus showing that the attainment of the glorious final hope depends upon the soul’s response to tribulations. What a sacred light this sheds upon the sorrows and disciplines of the Christian’s earthly pilgrimage! All of the misfortunes, sorrows, calamities, and bitter disappointments of Life are not meaningless tragedy to the Christian, but are luminous through their connection with the ultimate goals of faith in Christ. Here is the explanation of why Jesus said, Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you (Mat 5:11). Paul’s words in these verses harmonize with the rule of life he followed for himself. He said, I will glory in the things which concern my weakness. ... I take pleasure in weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong (2Co 11:30; 2Co 12:10). Thus, here is revealed the secret of what was written of the apostles when they: departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name (Acts 5:41). Here also appears the ground of Peter’s admonition to Think not the fiery trial strange, but rejoice (1Pe 4:12-13). The sequence of the words in the "circle" mentioned above is climactic, in which higher and higher degrees of Christian strength and loyalty are indicated. The great utility of Christian tribulations is that it does for the child of God what combat does for the soldier, making him to be no longer a novice, but a veteran. Paul’s stress of the required Christian response to tribulation is further proof that faith, in order to save, must be active and obedient. Moreover, the great theme of Romans, which is the righteousness of God, is very evident in passages such as this. The eternal God could prevent human suffering; but he does not do so, not through caprice or indifference to human misery, but because even the sufferings and tribulations of life are designed to contribute to the development of the child of God, leading at last to the full realization of his hope of the glory of God. Verse 5 And hope putteth not to shame; because the love of God hath been shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit which was given unto us. The reason that the Christian’s hope does not put to shame is because of the love of God in Christian hearts, shed abroad through the agency of the Holy Spirit which was (past tense) given to Christians upon the occasion of their being baptized into Christ (Acts 2:38f), the true ground of that hope not being the glorying of people through various tribulations, nor even their love of God, but rather God’s great love to them, the latter being proved by Paul’s description of that love in the following verses. For additional commentary on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within Christians, see under Rom 8:16. Of distinct interest are the words, "shed abroad in our hearts," showing that consciousness of the love of God is like an inflowing stream, permeating, filling, and flooding the soul with a rapturous awareness of the loving favor of God. Verses 6, 7, 8 For while we were yet weak, in due season Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: for peradventure for the good man some one would even dare to die. But God commendeth his own love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. While we were yet weak ... means while we were yet sinners, as shown by a comparison of the first and last clauses of these three verses. What a commentary on the true condition of the sinner is this, that for all of his vaunted power, established and reinforced by every worldly device of wealth, authority, and position, the sinner is "yet weak" until he shall find his true strength in Christ. In due season ... recalls the fact that the visit of the Dayspring from on high was nothing impromptu, but was the fulfillment of God’s purpose of the ages. Even before the foundation of the world, the plan of redeeming men through the death of Christ was clearly formed in God’s eternal purpose, which purpose he, in fact, declared in the great protoevangelium of the Bible (Gen 3:15). When even an earthly king visits a place, he announces his purpose in advance, displays his royal credentials to prevent misunderstanding, and, in due course, arrives "as planned"; thus it was with the coming of the Son of God into our poor world (see under Rom 3:21). But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4). Christ died for the ungodly ... This is credible only because it is true, for it never could have entered into the mind of man that such a thing was possible until the unspeakable event itself appeared upon Golgotha. What is meant by "the ungodly"? The answer is, evil and unrighteous people filled with every work of Satan - such were the beneficiaries of the blood of the Master. The ungodly are those who practice lawlessness, idolatry, profane swearing and impiety, disobedience of parents, murder, adultery, false witness, indifference to God, atheism, pride, vanity, and selfishness - to mention only a few characteristics of the ungodly! For people like that Christ died! However, in this connection, it is imperative to remember that Christ died not to save people in their sins but from their sins (Mat 1:21). For the good man some one would even dare to die ... It is notable that Paul prefaced that statement with the word "peradventure," meaning perhaps, or maybe; since it is far from certain that even such a milder form of dying for another as that could be counted upon, and even then under the rarest of circumstances. Adam Clarke observed in this connection: Such cases may be considered merely as possible: they exist, it is true, for romance; and we find a few rare instances of friends exposing themselves to death for friends. F19 God commendeth his love ... indicates that the "love of God" mentioned in Rom 5:5 is God’s love for people, not their love of God. The contrast between "righteous man" and "good man" (Rom 5:7), according to Thomas, is: To show the difference between one for whom, as upright, we have profound respect, and one who is also beneficent and elicits our love. F20 Christ died for us ... is the statement of the grandest truth in inspiration, it being the glory of humanity that Christ would die to save men. At the same time, this truth is the marvel of God that he would do such a thing in order to accomplish redemption. Of this great truth, Spurgeon wrote as follows: Shout it, or whisper it. Print it in capitals, or write it in a large hand. Speak it solemnly; it is not a thing for jest. Speak it joyfully; it is not a theme for sorrow. Speak it firmly; it is an indisputable fact. Speak it earnestly; for if there is a truth which ought to arouse all a man’s soul, it is this. Speak it where the ungodly live; and that is at your own house. Speak it also in the haunts of debauchery. Tell it in the gaol; and sit down at the dying bed and read it in a tender whisper, "Christ died for the ungodly!" F21 The purpose of these three verses is to show how firm is the basis of Christian hope, such being grounded upon the fact of Christ’s dying for men, even at a time when they were ungodly, and thus manifesting a greater love than any ever known on earth apart from this. Verse 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him. The wrath and judgment of God, mentioned in earlier chapters, must be understood in the light of God’s great love for people, a love great enough to give the only begotten Son, and in such a manner providing a way of escape from the judgment of wrath against sin. Thus Paul was still pursuing his master theme of God’s righteous character. Griffith Thomas observed that: It is very striking that after Rom 5:1, all mention of faith is suddenly dropped until Rom 9:30 (Rom 6:8 does not really apply). This omission is all the more remarkable because of the prominence of faith up to this time, the verb having appeared at least five times and the substantive twenty-seven. F22 This very significant fact is another indication that Paul’s master thesis is not justification by faith, as so many have supposed. The thrust of the apostle’s words in this verse is to the effect that because Christ died for people while they were yet sinners, it follows that he will continue to bless them, now that he is no longer dead but enthroned at the right hand of all Majesty and power, and especially in view of the fact that those erstwhile enemies have renounced their rebellion against God and have become his servants. Paul here made the blood of Christ the instrument of man’s justification, but not in any unconditional sense. It will always be necessary that people approach God in the "obedience of faith." Verse 10 For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. This is a fuller statement of the argument made in the preceding verse, a conclusion of logic identified by Hodge as a fortiori: If the greater benefit has been bestowed, the less will not be withheld. F23 Murray stated it more fully thus: The a fortiori argument of the apostle is thus apparent. It is to the effect that if, when we were in a state of alienation from God, God showed us his love to such an extent that he reconciled us to himself and instated us in his favor through the death of his own Son, how much more, when this alienation is removed and we are instated in his favor, shall the exaltation of Christ insure our being saved to the uttermost. It would be a violation of the wisdom, goodness, and faithfulness of God to suppose that he would have done the greater and fail in the lesser. F24 Saved by his life ... suggests the many things revealed in the New Testament that Christ is at the present time doing on behalf of the redeemed. He daily adds to the church those that are being saved (Acts 2:47); helps those who are tempted by providing a way of escape (1Co 10:13); provides mercy and grace to help in time of need (Heb 4:15-16); makes intercession for his own (Heb 7:25; Heb 9:24); is expecting until all his enemies become the footstool of his feet (Heb 10:13); and he is, in fact, reigning over all things (1Co 15:25-26). Verse 11 And not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Despite the awesome fact of God’s wrathful vengeance against sin, and the terrible judgment that awaits wicked people, the thought of God is a matter of rejoicing for Christians, because God has given them reconciliation in Christ. Hodge assures us that the true meaning of this verse is that, According to the majority of the commentators, we shall not only be ultimately saved, but we now glory in God. F25 In the matter of glowing, therefore, these eleven verses have come full cycle, as seen by a glance at Rom 5:2. The Christian life is a joyful life, not only because of the ultimate happiness in heaven, but because of present blessings as well; and not the least of present blessings is reconciliation through Jesus Christ. The ransomed soul is no longer at war with its Creator, no longer terrified at the very thought of a righteous, sin-punishing God, but a member of the Father’s own family. Note: The KJV translated "atonement" for "reconciliation"; but the thought is very similar, the atonement being, in fact, the true basis of the reconciliation. It is clear enough in these first eleven verses that Paul was justifying, through his masterful and logical reasonings, a different attitude toward God, an attitude of regarding him in love and thanksgiving, rather than an attitude of hatred and rebellion which marked the attitude of the wicked in pre-Christian ages. Paul attempted to bring about that change through explaining the righteous character of God, with special emphasis upon the love he had for his human creation. Verse 12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all people, for that all sinned. The righteousness of God’s character needed the apostle’s attention in another area, that being in respect of that incredibly awful truth that because of only one man’s sin, and only a single sin at that, death had passed upon the entire race of people. In this verse, one is confronted with the impenetrable mystery of the fall of the human family in that sad instance wherein the federal head of the race deliberately chose to reject the benign rule of his God and Creator and to become the servant of the devil. More is in that disaster than people shall ever know until they see their Saviour face to face. As Moule expressed it: Nowhere does the divine Book undertake to tell us all about everything. It undertakes to tell us truth, and to tell it from God; but it reminds us that we "know in part," and that even prophecy, even the inspired message is "in part" (1Co 13:9). F26 One of the most difficult questions related to the study of the Bible is situated squarely in this incredible thing that through only one person’s sin, and that only in a single instance, death came upon every one of earth’s teeming populations. What a vast consequence for such a little rebellion! But, however people may draw back from it, the sad facts are indisputable. Furthermore, life as it is still constituted upon this earth is an unvarying demonstration of the very same principle, as, for example, when a careless driver sends his automobile off a cliff; it is not the driver alone who pays the penalty, but the innocent passengers as well. The eternal righteousness of God who created and maintains such a system is in no way compromised by the way the system works. It operates according to God’s wise design; and the Father’s true righteousness, Paul vindicated at once, showing that, in the same manner that death came upon all through Adam, Christ, the second Adam, has brought life and salvation to all. Ironside has a perceptive summary of the significance of Christ as the second Adam, thus: Adam the first was federal head of the old race. Christ risen, the Second Man, and the last Adam, is head of the new race. The old creation fell in Adam, and all his descendants were involved in his ruin. The new creation stands eternally secure in Christ, and all who have received life from him are sharers in the blessings procured by his cross and secured by his life at God’s right hand. F27 For that all have sinned ... does not mean that every person ever born commits sin in exactly the same way as Adam. The heathen, the innocent, and the incompetent suffer the penalty of death, because the entire status of earthly life was altered by Adam’s transgression, and all people partake of Adam’s penalty. Even the Saviour, perfectly innocent though he was, through his entry into our life incurred its penalty. Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2Co 5:21). Thus, God’s law regarding sin and death was proved to be operative invariably and without partiality or exceptions, even upon God himself "come in the flesh"! How truly marvelous is the absolute righteousness of God. No thoughtful person could find fault with the justice and fairness of such a Governor of creation. Verse 13 For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. The subject Paul introduced in Rom 5:12 is left hanging until Rom 5:18; and the ensuing verses (Rom 5:13-17) are parenthetical. At first glance, this verse appears to be stating a paradox. In the pre-Mosaic period, sin was not imputed; how then can it be said that "sin was in the world"? Godet explained it thus: Even during the time that elapsed down to the giving of the law sin was in the world (as evidenced by the fact that all died); now sin is undoubtedly not reckoned in the absence of law. Nevertheless, that did not prevent sin from reigning during all the interval between Adam and Moses, which proves certainly that it was imputed in some measure. F28 Man was created in God’s image; but it is stated of Adam that when he begat a son, "Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image" (Gen 5:3), the significance of this appearing in the fact that Adam, through sin, had effaced the divine image which he bore previously; consequently, the contamination of the natural man was transferred through every birth ever recorded on earth. Thus it was that death reigned from Adam to Moses and till now, except upon those who live in Christ. It is not intended here to lend assent to the doctrine of original sin. It was not Adam’s guilt that was transferred, because the Saviour himself described the innocence of little children (Mat 18:1-10). This is the place, perhaps, to consider that Enoch and Elijah did not pass through death, but were translated, these two exceptions to the universal penalty of death standing alone and isolated in the sacred text. Why there were these two exceptions is not revealed; but they have the practical effect of teaching that death would not have come to Adam and his posterity except for the fall in Eden. There are a number of questions relative to Adam’s fall and its disastrous consequences to all who ever lived that may not be dogmatically answered, there being elements of a mystery in those primeval events which lie somewhat beyond the boundaries of finite understanding. Verse 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who is a figure of him that was to come. Both Adam and Moses are types of Christ, but here the focus is upon Adam, a figure also developed by Paul in 1Co 15:45-49. Adam was the great progenitor of the human race; Christ is the spiritual head and father of all that are saved. Adam brought shame and death to all mankind; Christ has made possible the salvation of all mankind. Adam’s bride, Eve, was taken from his side while a great sleep was upon him. Christ’s bride, the church (in a figure) was taken from the side of Christ while the sleep of death was upon our Lord, as evidenced by the blood and water that came forth from the thrust of the Roman soldier’s spear. As the Scriptures say: This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood (1Jn 5:6). Satan seduced and deceived the bride of Adam; and in the long, wretched story of the historical church, it is evident that Paul’s fear of the same fate for the bride of Christ was more than justified (2Co 11:3). It is clear, therefore, that Adam is to be considered as a type of Christ, more in the instance of contrasts than in similarities. Adam’s one sin contrasts with Christ’s entire life of perfect holiness. Death for all which followed Adam’s disobedience contrasts with life for all which followed as the consequence of Christ’s obedience. In this verse Paul took account of the alleged injustice of God in permitting death to fall even upon them that had not sinned as did Adam (infants, for example); and, in keeping with what is construed in this commentary as Paul’s great theme of vindicating God’s righteousness, the following words of Godet are appropriate: This imputation of Adam’s sin, as the cause of death to every individual man, would be absolutely incomprehensible, and incompatible with the justice of God, if it passed beyond the domain of natural life marked off by the mysterious relation between the individual and the species. The sequel will show that as soon as we rise to the domain of spiritual life, the individual is no longer dependent upon the solidarity of the species, but that he holds his eternal destiny in his own hands. F29 Thus the great and eternal righteousness of God appears in the fact of the Remedy provided, a remedy in which the reverse consequences of Adam’s fall may be received in Christ Jesus, and wherein all who apply it may find everlasting life through him. Verse 15 But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many. Godet’s opinion that this and the two following verses are "among the most difficult in the New Testament" F30 is surely justified; and the opinions of learned scholars as to the exact nature of the contrast between the two Adams intended by Paul are so diverse as merely to add to the confusion. As it stands in English, the first clause appears to mark a contrast between "a sad effect and a happy effect," F31 or the contrast between "just recompense and free grace." F32 In the second clause, there is plainly a contrast of numbers, as pointed out by Tholuck, F33 that is, a contrast in quantity. An objection against the view that a contrast of quantity is intended is lodged in the fact that death through Adam was universal; how then could Paul’s "much more" be applied to the consequences of Christ’s achievement? The problem is resolved in this, that except for the success of Christ’s earthly mission, the human family would long ago have terminated; and, therefore, it is most fitting to grant a greater quantity to the beneficial work of Christ than to the destructive work of Adam. Every man ever born on earth since Jesus Christ owes his physical existence, as well as his spiritual hope, to the Saviour; for if Christ had failed, there would no longer have existed any righteous basis whatever for the continuation of the race of people. Regarding the theoretical peccability of Christ, see my Commentary on Hebrews, p. 99. Verse 16 And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification. Paul was here pursuing a line of thought stressing the contrasts between Adam and Christ. In the verse immediately preceding, there was mentioned a contrast in quantity. Here the contrast is between the fact that condemnation resulted from the single sin of a single individual, and the fact that justification, on the other hand, applies, not to a single sin only, but to all sin. Verse 17 For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one: much more shall they receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ. Continuing the presentation of the contrasts between the two Adams, Paul here noted the contrast in the quality of the consequences deriving from the actions of each. The reign of condemnation deriving from Adam was through death; the reign of righteousness deriving from Christ was through life. Life is more than death, "much more"! Furthermore, the life in Christ reaches ultimately an eternal status. Paul had, with this verse, concluded the discursive detour that he began with Rom 5:13, and was about to affirm (Rom 5:18-19) that the universal justification in Jesus Christ (potentially) is the counterpart of the universal condemnation in Adam. Immediately, in the next two verses, Paul would state the great conclusion which he had in mind as far back as Rom 5:12, but which he did not state until he had laid the logical ground of it in the intervening paragraph, which although not set apart by marks of parenthesis, is, despite that, truly parenthetical. The gift of righteousness ... is a mistranslation, as a glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin reveals. The Greek text says, "an act of righteousness," meaning, of course, God’s act of righteousness. Thus this passage does not support the concept of "a righteousness" in the sense of Romans 5:1:17, although it appears that the translators might have had that in mind by such a rendition. Attention is again called to the admitted difficulties in the interpretation of these verses (Rom 5:13-17); and, in view of the extensive dissertations of scholars, and the many conflicting opinions of the learned, it is appropriate to enter a disclaimer of dogmatism. What has been advocated here is that which the words, as they stand in English, appear to this writer to say; and since our Lord himself said, "What is written in the law; how readest thou?" we have dared to put it down. There are striking contrasts in this chapter: (1) There is the contrast between the two Adams (see under Rom 5:14); (2) there is the contrast between the two reigns, (a) that of sin and death and (b) that of grace and righteousness; and (3) also the multiple contrasts heralded by Paul’s five successive "much more’s" (5:9,10,15,17 Rom 5:17; Rom 5:9-10; Rom 5:15; Rom 5:17 and ). A more detailed study of the latter is in order: (1) Contrasted with the fact that Christ died for us while we were sinners, is the truth that we are "much more" saved by his life. (2) Contrasted with our sinful condition, we are "much more" saved by Christ in our state of reconciliation. (3) Contrasted with the fact that worldwide condemnation resulted from one man’s sin, and that only in a single act, "much more" did the grace of God reach out to cover all the sins of all the men who ever lived (potentially). (4) Contrasted with the reign of death through the one (Adam), "much more" shall Christians receive abundance of grace through God’s righteous act in the one (Christ). (5) Contrasted with the abounding of sin because the law came in, is the abounding of grace "more exceedingly." These five "much more’s" loom like mountain peaks and are suggestive of the great "I am’s" of the Gospel of John. Verse 18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all people to condemnation; even so through the act of righteousness the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. The injection of no less than seven words into this verse by the translators to make Paul say what they thought he meant was altogether gratuitous. They do not clarify at all, but merely confuse. Stripping the verse of the italicized portions of it (which make up more that 20 percent of it), we have the following: So then as through one trespass unto all men to condemnation; so through one act of righteousness unto all men to justification of life. This is a terse way of saying that, just as through one act of Adam all people received condemnation, just so, through God’s one righteous act (of sending Christ), came the justification of life. Of course, Christ is indeed God’s free gift; but not the freedom of that gift, but its righteousness, is what Paul stated here. This is the great proposition Paul began to state at Rom 5:12. Just as a single act of Adam resulted in universal death to all mankind (as applied to natural death only), so God’s one righteous act of giving his only begotten Son, the second Adam, brought life to all people, physical life to all since he came, and eternal life to all who believe and obey him. (See under 5:15 ). What a righteous thing it was for God to provide a means to recover the lost inheritance of Paradise! As Ironside expressed it! A life is offered as a free gift to all who are involved in the consequences of Adam’s sin, which life is the eternal life manifested in the Son of God who once lay low in death under the sentence of condemnation, but arose in triumph, having abolished death, and now as Head of a new race, imparts his own resurrection life, a life with which no charge of sin can ever be linked, to all who believe in him. F34 This is the "new creation" of which Paul frequently wrote. Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold they are become new (2Co 5:17). Let it be noted that the new life is specifically limited to them that are "in Christ." Someone has described Romans as "The Theology of Salvation in Christ"; and that is the phase of Paul’s teaching that he was about to develop more fully in the next chapters. The gift of God, which is Christ with all that he means, is here said to be "unto all." Are all therefore saved? Paul wrote Titus thus: The grace of God hath appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to the intent that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this present world (Tit 2:11-12). Of course, the fact in view, both here and in Titus, is the availability of Salvation to all people, and this has no reference to their actually possessing it. An old minister was once asked a question as to why some are lost. The questioner asked, "Why is it, since salvation has been brought to all people, that some are lost?" The old minister replied, "Why is it that, in spite of all the crystal streams of water that have been flowing down the ermine peaks of snow-clad mountains for thousands of years, there are still dirty people?" Richard Batey has a wonderful exposition of HOW the act of Christ reversed the consequences of Adam’s act of rebellion. He wrote: Adam desired to be like God, knowing good and evil, and disobeyed God. In the desire to be like God, Adam transgressed the limits of his creaturely existence. ... On the other hand, Christ who did not count "equality with God a thing to be grasped" (Php 2:6), emptied himself and assumed the form of man the creature and servant. F35 Pride always has been and always will be the great temptation of man. It was by pride that Satan himself fell; it is pride that goeth before destruction, that leads the procession of the deadly sins, and that sets up the barriers across every pathway, whether of thought or action, that leads to life. Verse 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. This is a restatement, for emphasis, of what Paul had just written; but as Thomas noted, there is a significant addition to the thought. One point in the comparison is still incomplete. Adam’s sin has not been contrasted with Christ’s obedience, but with the cause of that obedience. ... It is now shown that these effects were wrought by means of Christ’s obedience, the exact contrast of Adam’s disobedience. F36 Fittingly, in view of all that Paul had written, touching upon justification through the "obedience of faith," he brought dramatically to the foreground in this, the climax of his thoughts in that connection, the obedience of Jesus Christ. Implicit in this is the great fact that only by a perfect faith and a perfect obedience is it possible to attain justification in the sight of God; and how, then, may people have such perfect faith and obedience available to them unto justification? Only "in Christ," that is, by being dead to themselves, by forsaking utterly their old identity, and by perfect identification with Christ, being "in him," and thus being saved by his perfect faith and obedience, and not by their own. The greatest heresy of all ages is the proposition that a stinking sinner’s faith can justify the sinner, either with or without obedience of the kind any man would be able to exhibit! On this verse, R. L. Whiteside observed that, "The many" here includes all that arrive at the years of responsibility. Paul does not say how these were made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, nor how they are to be made righteous by the obedience of Christ. It is pure assumption to argue that the disobedience of Adam is imputed to his offspring, or that the obedience of Christ is imputed to anybody. Neither guilt nor personal righteousness can be transferred from one person to another; but the consequences of either, to some extent, may fall upon others. F37 What Whiteside observed regarding the fact that it is absolutely impossible to transfer righteousness from one person to another is profoundly true. It is not by transferring the righteousness of Christ into sinners that God justifies and saves the lost, but by transferring the sinners into Christ! The sinner dies to himself, effaces himself utterly, dies to sin, puts off the old man, and enters Christ, thus having a new identity "in Christ," with the consequence that the perfect faith and obedience of Christ, called Christ’s righteousness, are thereupon his, actually his; for, in a very real sense, he IS CHRIST. Paul put it like this: It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me; and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith (not my own faith) which is in the Son of God (Gal 2:20). (Parenthesis mine; italicized additions to text omitted). For me to live is Christ (Php 1:21). It should be noted, especially, that Paul avoided the construction of this verse in such a manner as to require its application to infants. The salvation of infants who die before attaining an age when they might either believe or obey the Lord does not come within the purview of Paul’s teaching here, nor for that matter, of anything in the New Testament. The Lord did not see fit to enlighten people on how those dying in infancy are saved. Why? It was absolutely unnecessary. Human beings, however, are loathe to let a thing like that alone; and people have not hesitated to illuminate the void on this question with their own peculiar darkness. The following epitaph from St. Andrew’s churchyard in Scotland is a case in point. Bold infidelity, turn pale and die. Beneath this stone, four sleeping infants lie: Say, are they lost or saved? If death’s by sin, they sinned, for they are here. If heaven’s by works, in heaven they can’t appear. Reason, ah, how depraved! Turn to the Bible’s sacred page, the knot’s untied: They died, for Adam sinned; they live, for Jesus died! F38 It has already been noted that Rom 5:19 is so constructed as to avoid its application to infants; but people have thrust that meaning into it anyway, and then have perverted it to teach, as in the epitaph, that people do not have to obey to be saved! Of course, every falsehood has feet of clay; and the unwritten words in the epitaph are that "If heaven’s by faith, they still cannot appear"! But appear they will, of course. God has his own way of saving the innocent, and there is utterly no need to be concerned with it, for it has not been revealed in scripture. Verse 20 And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly. Here is the fifth of the great series of "much more’s" which mark this portion of Paul’s letter. See under Rom 5:17. Paul used "law" here without the article; but the translators are correct in supplying the article, for it cannot be doubted that the law of Moses was Paul’s subject, not merely here, but everywhere this term is mentioned in Romans. The abounding of sin which followed the giving of the law was the subject of this word of Lyth, The wise physician often gives medicine, to bring the disease from within to the surface, and make it abound, so to speak, with a view of driving away the disorder, and so enabling health to reign in the system of his patient. F39 Irenaeus was probably the first to use that illustration, thus: The law is a poultice to bring sin to a head. F Greathouse observed that, The law’s intrusion was not without divine point. It was introduced to increase consciousness of wrongdoing (Gal 3:19). Men will never see their sin or feel their need of a Saviour until their sin becomes transgression. F41 The connection here between the giving of the law and the abounding of sin cannot be construed as teaching that God’s intention was to increase sin. Whiteside noted that God did not give laws for the purpose of making people worse sinners, but to restrain people from wrong and guide them in the right way. There is this, however, the more things law prohibits, and the more things it requires, the more points there are where we may violate the law. In that way, law may increase the number of sins. F42 It would seem that there is also another sense in which law caused sin to abound, and that is in the sense of focusing the attention of the sinner upon a prohibition, and thus prompting him to commit an act that might not have occurred to him in the absence of the prohibition. There is a perversity in people that violates laws merely because they are laws. For example, if there were a law forbidding people to walk backward for one hundred yards, there would be people to violate it; or, if there were a law that no man might run more than one mile in a single day, there would be people to violate it who had never run a mile in all their lives previously. From the above, it would appear that the entrance of law caused sin to abound: (1) by focusing attention upon things prohibited; (2) by actually multiplying the number of violations; and (3) by making people more conscious of the fact that they were violators. As Thomas noted, As we review this great passage, we must take care to enter into the fullness of the apostle’s meaning. Not only does he teach that what we have derived from the first Adam is met by what we have derived from Christ, but that the transcendence of the work of Christ is almost infinite in extent. F43 Dr. Mabie, as quoted by Thomas in this same place, said: The full meaning of Paul is not grasped until we perceive that the benefits received from Christ, the second Adam, are in inverse ratio to the disaster entailed by the first Adam. Verse 21 That as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Sin is personified in this verse and represented as a heartless and cruel monarch ruling pitilessly over his victims in death, meaning that sin brings death to all that are contaminated by it. Whiteside believed that "death" here is a reference to "spiritual death" only; F44 but Lard took a more comprehensive view, declaring that, It would be quite as correct, I presume, to speak of sin reigning in the punishment after death of the finally impenitent, as of its reigning in death now. Sin reigns in all the evil that it has entailed upon man, whether time or eternity be in view. ... On the contrary, grace is here personified as a benignant king, whose reign is only partial now; but whose victory is sure in the end. Release from sin is the means or sceptre through which favor is to achieve its final victory. This blessed reign is to go on, and never cease, until its consummation in eternal life "through Jesus Christ our Lord." F45 Therefore, Paul had truly vindicated the righteousness of God in the vigorous arguments presented in this chapter. The first eleven verses showed the righteousness of God in the use of human sorrows and heartaches as disciplines leading to ultimate glory, and not to be understood as evidences of God’s indifference; and in the remaining verses, he showed that the disastrous consequences of Adam’s transgression had been more than offset by a righteous act of God himself through the giving of the Beloved for man’s redemption, the latter action of God not merely counterbalancing Adam’s disastrous behavior, but transcending it to infinity. Footnotes for Romans 5 1 : William M. Greathouse, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1969), p. 106. 2: R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 330. 3: J. M. Stiffler, The Epistle to the Romans, p. 87. 4: W. H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 146. 5: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 78. 6: David Lipscomb, Commentary on the New Testament Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1969), p. 92. 7: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 333. 8: Robert Burns, Tam O’ Shanter, stanza 7. 9: Alexander Maclaren, origin of this quotation unknown. 10: H. G. Wells, quoted by Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand (Boston: W. A. Wilde Company, 1945), p. 197. 11: Wilbur M. Smith, op. cit., p. 477. 12: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Des Moines, Iowa: Eugene S. Smith), p. 155. 13: Ibid. 14: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 148. 15: James Macknight, op. cit., p. 81. 16: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 160. 17: W. Sanday, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 223. 18: Ibid. 19: Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), Vol. VI, p. 68. 20: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 150. 21: Charles Haddon Spurgeon, quoted by Joseph S. Excell, The Biblical Illustrator (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 364. 22: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 152. 23: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 138. 24: John Murray, op. cit., i. p. 175. 25: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 140. 26: H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Pickering and Inglis Ltd.), p. 144. 27: H. A. Ironside, Lectures on the Epistle to the Romans (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1928), p. 69, 28: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 212. 29: Ibid. 30: Ibid., p. 213. 31: Ibid., p. 214. 32: Ibid., p. 213. 33: Tholuck, as quoted by F. Godet, op. cit., p. 213. 34: H. A. Ironside, op. cit., p. 75. 35: Richard A. Batey, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Company, 1969), p. 75. 36: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 158. 37: Robertson L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 125. 38: H. A. Ironside, op. cit., p. 77. 39: Lyth in Biblical Illustrator, op. cit., p. 431. : Irenaeus, quoted by Wm. M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 123. 41: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 122. 42: Robertson L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 126. 43: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 159. 44: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 127. 45: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 192. 46: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 207. 47: J. Barmby, op. cit., p. 12. 48: Chester Warren Quimby, The Great Redemption (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950), pp. 45-46. 49: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 207. 50: Ibid. 51: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 39. 52: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 38. 53: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 108. 54: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 53. 55: Ibid., p. 74. 56: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 58. 57: John Murray, op. cit., p. 51. 58: The Houston Chronicle, front page, December 2, 1971. top save<59> Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the saveCorinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 86. 60: Frank S. Mead, The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 11. 61: Frank S. Mead, op. cit., p. 11. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 13: 6 ROMANS CHAPTER SIX ======================================================================== Rom 6:1-23 Verse 1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? The objection Paul was about to answer here was founded upon allegations based upon a perverted understanding of justification by faith. See introduction to this chapter, above. Some of Paul’s hearers and readers had concluded that as long as a Christian had faith it made no difference at all what kind of life he lived, such a position arising from a misunderstanding of justification by faith, which they had understood to be "faith only," just as some still misunderstand it. Paul’s obvious reference here to Rom 5:20 shows that no new subject is being introduced. Verse 2 God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? It was pointed out by the apostle in previous portions of the letter that the basis of man’s justification is that of his being "in Christ," dead to self, and possessor of a new identity, that of Christ himself, being one with him. It was absolutely unthinkable that such a person could think of continuing the old sinful ways. We who died to sin ... Whatever can that mean? Clearly; it cannot mean that temptation to sin has ceased. Neither does it refer to repentance, nor to any other subjective or inward change wrought by the gospel in Christians themselves. Three times in this chapter it is stated that Christians are dead, or have died, unto sin (Rom 6:2; Rom 6:7; Rom 6:11). A careful reading of Rom 6:11 shows what is meant: Even so ye also reckon yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God, in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:11). Christ died to pay the penalty of sin; and the person who is truly "in Christ" therefore died unto sin "in the person of Christ." This was exactly the thought expressed by Paul, thus: For the love of Christ controls us, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died (2Co 5:14). Christians are thus dead to sin in exactly the same way that they are said to be dead to the law, namely, "by the body of Christ" (Rom 7:4). An old illustration that came of events in the Napoleonic wars emphasizes what is meant. Illustration: Napoleon’s war machine was impressing large numbers into the army; and a young gather was about to be inducted. His wife and children were gathered around him in as tearful a scene as can be imagined; and, in response to such a pathetic situation, one of the man’s neighbors stepped forward and took his place, as the laws and customs of that era allowed. The substitute was killed in battle; and several years later the draft apparatus was again operating in that same village, and the same father was haled before the board a second time for induction. That time, however, the prospective inductee boldly stepped before the board and produced a parchment, signed by the emperor himself: This man (name) perished upon the battlefield of Rivoli in the person of his substitute (name). SIGNED: NAPOLEON BONAPARTE It is exactly that type of immunity which Christians enjoy through having died to sin in the person of their Lord. Steele expressed this same conviction of what it means to be dead to sin. He wrote: That we "died to sin" is a phrase that frequently appears in the Pauline epistles in different forms, and uniformly alludes not to an inward deliverance from sin, but to the Christian’s objective relation, or to his personal standing before God in the vicarious work of Christ; it means that we are legally dead to sin in Christ. F8 That this analysis of the phrase "dead to sin" is correct is further corroborated by what Paul said of Christ, that "he died to sin once" (Rom 6:10); and that cannot possibly mean that the inclination to commit sin had died in Christ, but means rather that Christ abolished the legal penalty of sin by his death. Also, Paul said, "For he that hath died is justified from sin" (Rom 6:7). Again, from Steele: The justification of the Christian is thus based on his co-dying with Christ; that is, we are said to have died when Christ died, and to have done what Christ did. The words undoubtedly mean a co-dying with Christ in that one corporate, representative deed; that is, they mean that we were one with Christ in his obedience unto death, as we were one with Adam in his disobedience. F9 All of this underscores the importance and absolute necessity of being "in Christ," that is, being baptized into him, being made legally a part of him, putting him on, making his identity ours, coupled with the putting away of the old man. The grand argument of these first two verses is that justification involves the putting away of the old man and the discontinuation of the practice of sin. Greathouse put it thus: The justified believer has been justified FROM sin (Rom 6:7). He is no longer tyrannized by the revolt that has plagued the race since Adam fell. F10 Barth expressed the thought in these words: What is forgiveness of sins, however we understand it, if it is not directly accompanied by an actual liberation from the committal of sin? ... What is faith without obedience? F11 Verse 3 Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? This verse is proof that justification by faith, as possessed by those Christians to whom Paul addressed Romans, included baptism. Not a single one of them was ever justified without it; for Paul wrote, "ALL WE who were baptized." Paul’s focal purpose in this paragraph was to stress the fact that Christians who were dead to sin should not continue to live wickedly; but the manner of their being dead to sin necessarily brought the ordinance of baptism into his thoughts, with the consequence that many of the most positive teachings concerning that ceremony were included in this letter. In this verse, Paul explained HOW it is true that Christians are dead to sin, and WHEN they became so. Baptism being the ordinance which brings people "into Christ," as stated here and in Gal 3:26-27, and through means of the unity with Christ thus effected, the Christian actually enters the spiritual body of Christ, thus making it true that "in Christ" he is dead to sin, since Christ died. That is the thought here expressed by "baptized into his death," meaning "into the status of being dead to sin in Christ." Making the sinner dead to sin is a mighty act; and, as Wuest expressed it, Paul now proceeds to show how this mighty cleavage was effected. He says that it was brought about by God’s act of baptizing the believing sinner into Christ so that the person would share his death on the Cross, which identification of the believing sinner with Christ in his death, brought about the separation of that person from the sinful nature. F12 Wuest’s view of baptism as an act of God is correct, as a comparison with John 4:1-2 proves, thus making it impossible ever to classify baptism as a work of human righteousness. It is a work of God because God commanded it and because it is administered in God’s name by God’s servants. Nevertheless, inasmuch as this cannot be done except with the consent and submission of the believer, there is a sense in which baptism is an act of the believer himself. When Paul himself was baptized, the believer’s initiative in the act was clearly indicated in the divine command uttered by Ananias (Acts 22:16). Vine’s Greek dictionary has this: In Acts 22:16, it ([Greek: baptizo]) is used in the middle voice in the command given to Saul of Tarsus, "Arise and be baptized," the significance of the middle voice being, "get thyself baptized." F13 Again, the diligence of people to avoid the significance of baptism as a part of God’s plan of redeeming people, in the sense of bringing them into a status where they may receive redemption as God’s gift, is evidenced by such as the following statement: Nevertheless, a doctrine of justification by grace through faith necessitates a distinction between initiation into the spiritual body of Christ and identification with the visible body through baptism. F14 But there is no difference! It is by the one baptism (Eph 4:5) that believers are baptized into the one body (1Co 12:13), into Christ (as here), into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Mat 28:18-20), into his death (as here), and into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). The false theory that one might indeed be in some mystical form of the body of Christ and not be in the visible body of his church was explicitly proved untenable by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, thus: It is impossible to become a new man as a solitary individual. The new man means more than the individual believer. ... It means the Church, the Body of Christ; in fact it means Christ himself. F15 As the New Testament writer Luke expressed it: And the Lord added to them (the church) day by day those that were being saved (Acts 2:47). Luke’s statement justifies the deduction that if one has not been added to the church, neither is he saved. Melancholy rises in the heart as one contemplates the magnitude and extent of human efforts to obscure and even deny the scriptural teaching before us in this verse. Why should people have decided that baptism has nothing to do with salvation and then have set about shouting it out of the New Testament? Why has God permitted it? Is it in order that people who do not truly love God may have some rational platform to support their rebellion? Why should not every man who believes in God and Jesus Christ accept and obey the holy teachings on this subject? Christ himself made the baptism of "all nations" (Mat 28:18-20) to be the urgent and invariable mission of his church throughout ages; and no logic can support the view that Christ included a "non-essential" in the great commission. What human vanity it is to suppose that people have the right to take it out! Ten thousand angels swearing that baptism is not necessary to salvation could not make it so. Verse 4 We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. We are buried ... refers to immersion as the action known as baptism in the apostolic age. The fact that baptism, as administered by people today, differs from the rite as taught and administered by the apostles of Christ, is due to the unwillingness of people to abide in the teachings of the word of God. It is futile to appeal to the testimony of lexicons and histories, for all people already know that New Testament baptism was by immersion in water, the futility deriving from this, that people have arrogantly removed the entire ordinance from having, in their views, any significant utility in the scheme of redemption. This single verse of the holy scriptures is alone sufficient to show immersion as the original Christian baptism; and no man can misunderstand it without extensive help; but, lest there be any doubt regarding the testimony available, a few typical comments are here presented: Chrysostom: When we sink our heads in the water, as in a tomb, the old man is buried, and going down, is wholly hid once for all. Tholuck: In the early days of the church, persons, when baptized, were first plunged below, and then raised above the water. Macknight: For are you ignorant, that so many of you as have, by baptism, become Christ’s disciples, have been baptized into the likeness of his death, having been buried under the water, as persons who, like Christ, have been killed by sin. Conybeare and Howson: This passage cannot be understood unless it is borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion. Barnes: It is altogether probable that the apostle has allusions to the custom of baptism by immersion. Bloomfield: There is a plain allusion to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion. F16 Wuest: The word "baptized" is not the translation of the Greek word here, but its transliteration, its spelling in English letters. The word is used in the classics of a smith who dips a piece of hot iron in the water. F17 Thayer: Definition of [Greek: baptisma]: immersion, submersion. F18 Mosheim: In this century (the first) baptism was administered in convenient places, without the public assemblies; and by immersing the candidate wholly in water. Barrett: Paul here makes use of the picture suggested by the practice of baptism by immersion. F19 One hundred other concurring citations might easily be brought forward; but these are more than enough to show what is easily visible in the verse itself, that baptism in the age that knew the Lord was by immersion. Paul’s mention of the "burial" in baptism cannot refer to the interment of one already dead to sin, as affirmed by Godet, but to the action which constitutes baptism, this being true because one cannot be "dead to sin" unless and until he is in the body of Christ, which state is entered through baptism. The error of Godet and many others in this misunderstanding sprang from a failure to determine the true meaning of Paul’s phrase "dead to sin" which must not be confused with being "dead in sin." The person dead in sin is yet unsaved; the person dead to sin (through being in Christ) is saved. Therefore, baptism is not merely some kind of symbolical proof of our already being dead to sin, but is the divinely imposed condition of our becoming so. The scriptures do not teach that Christians are baptized to prove that they are dead to sin, but in order to bo `in Christ," and therefore truly dead to sin "in him." That like as Christ was raised from the dead ... Having shown that the baptized believer, upon his being thereby united with Christ, is then dead unto sin, Paul at once went a step further by pointing out that Christ rose from the dead to a higher type of life, and appealed to this as an analogy of the Christian’s rising from the watery grave of baptism to "walk in newness of life." In newness of life ... is a reference, not merely to the upright morality and integrity of the Christian pilgrimage, but also to an entirely new status that pertains to him following his union with Christ in baptism. The old man has been renounced, the old identity repudiated, self having been slain; and the Christian is, in a sense, no longer his old self, but "is Christ" (Gal 2:20). The newness of life mentioned here is such a wonderful thing as to justify the opinions of those who hold this to be the first resurrection, a view certainly permissible in the light of Jesus’ teaching in John 5:25. The newness of life is made possible by the reception of the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13), imparted after the believer’s repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38f ), and as a consequence thereof. Does this newness of life mean that the possessor of it cannot sin? No. The evil nature of man, his old self, is dethroned through conversion to Christ, and the rightful sovereign of the soul, who is Christ, is enthroned instead of the old man. The will of man, however, still free, can reverse the decision. As Wuest explained: When the believer sins, the dethroned king, the evil nature mounts to the throne, with the consequent dethronement of the Lord Jesus. Such a procedure cannot go on often, nor indefinitely, for God puts a curb upon such a thing by sending suffering, chastening, and the Christian is made miserable by a guilty conscience and the indwelling Spirit who is grieved at such conduct. ... God has so adjusted things in the Christian’s life that, while he remains a free moral agent capable of choosing between obeying the divine nature or the evil nature, yet the preponderance of his choices are Godward. ... Hence the impossibility of the Christian’s sustaining habitually the same relationship to the evil nature which he sustained before he was saved. F20 Wuest’s analysis is a good explanation of why the Christian cannot continue in sin that grace may abound. To be alive spiritually in Christ Jesus is to "walk in newness of life"; and what a difference there really is. Prior to their salvation, people are without hope or promise, alienated from God, children of wrath, walking in darkness, hateful, and hating one another; but in Christ, one is part of an utterly new creation. He is truly born again. Old things have passed away; behold all things are made new! Verse 5 For if we have been united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. This is a further allusion to Christian baptism, as Barrett noted, "the likeness of his death being baptism." F21 Most commentators refer to textual difficulties in this place, but regardless of those, the overall meaning is clear. Paul was making a comparison between the death and resurrection of Christ, on the one hand, and death to sin and rising to walk in newness of life, on the part of Christians. Brunner paraphrased the verse thus: If we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. F22 The "resurrection like his" is a reference to the wonderful new spiritual life of Christians, such being required by the argument, and not the eternal resurrection at the last day. Thus, Paul was still pressing the requirement of holy living on the part of Christians; and that fitted into his comprehensive theme of God’s righteousness by refuting the proposition that the holy and righteous God would tolerate a community of his alleged children on earth living lives of sin. For if we have been planted ... The big word here is "if." Net all shall partake of that new life, for not all will be planted in the likeness of Christ’s death, that is, not all will be baptized. This verse is a connective between two focal points of the Christian message. First, Christ died for us, having lived a perfect life of faith and obedience to God’s will, and through this means creating the ground of justification for sinful people, and containing within himself after his resurrection the only perfect righteousness ever known on earth, and without which no one can be saved. God’s mighty act of redemption does not consist in transferring the true righteousness of Christ to sinners, but in transferring sinners "into Christ," making them legally one with Christ; that is, causing them to be in Christ’s spiritual body, and thereupon being justly entitled to claim Christ’s righteousness as their very own. Paul here pointed out that, in the most appropriate manner possible, the believing sinner accepts Christ’s righteousness, not through any mere assumption of it, but by a valid act of response, in kind, to what Christ did. The sinner actually participates in the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord. We die to sin through the absolute denial of ourselves and renunciation of our evil nature with its pride by being baptized into Christ, that action constituting the death of our old identity, because by that action we have put on Christ (Gal 3:26-27). It is in that legal sense of being dead to sin through the body of Christ (since we are in him, we died with him) that Paul was speaking earlier; but at this point he spoke more of the demise of the old man, which is death to sin in a different sense. The believer is transformed through God’s creative act within him, having been born again, the old man dying and being replaced by the new man in Christ. Brunner commented on this as follows: We have been baptized into the death of Jesus. That means we enter into his death in faith, not only as a death on our behalf, but as our death. He has not only died for us, but he died in our place; his death was really valid for us, and this sentence of God executed upon him for our salvation we allow to be executed upon us. We surrender ourselves into his death; we are crucified with him; we sacrifice our old hitherto sinful life to this death, letting the old man be buried with Christ. F23 If one really wishes to know why people do not wish to be baptized and why every device ever known to human intelligence has been exercised in a fruitless effort to get baptism out of God’s plan, let him read Brunner’s words again. Death to sin has a double aspect in this chapter, meaning in fact two things: (1) It is the legal death to sin, which is the status of being dead to sin "in Christ," a legal state that one enters in the act of baptism, .the baptized believer being dead to sin in the same way that he is dead to the law "by the body of Christ." (2) It means the crucifixion of the old man, the utter and final rejection of self, what Jesus called "denying" one’s self, renouncing the old identity, repudiating the old system of value-judgments, mortifying the members of the fleshly body, etc. This is called the personal death to sin. The first aspect of being dead to sin is accomplished in one formal, dramatic act of conversion to Christ; but the second aspect, the personal death to sin, cannot occur in one blinding burst of light, but is a growth process, as correctly analyzed by Sanday: If so surely as we have grown into, become CONJOINED with (this) metaphor is taken from the parasitic growth of a plant, but applied to natural growth, not "planted together with" as in KJV. The idea would correspond with the growth of a bud or graft regarded as part of the stock in which it is inserted, but without reference to the operation of budding or grafting. F24 Sanday’s comment upon "if we have been planted" shows that dying to sin is a growth process (in the sense of phase 2, above). Unlike the legal death to sin which is accomplished dramatically, this is a continuing process and, in a sense never completely accomplished on earth. The glaring error often met with regarding the believer’s death to sin is that of making it some kind of subjective change wrought within the believer himself prior to his becoming a Christian. Impossible. The death to sin, in the personal sense, properly begins with the repentance of the believer and his denial of himself as preliminary to his baptism; but, as every young Christian quickly finds out, the old man is far from dead at that point! The Holy Spirit’s employment of the growth metaphor in this verse clearly shows the truth. Successfully crucifying the old man requires a lifetime of devotion and Christian service; and it cannot ever be done at all without the believer’s first achieving a legal status of deadness to sin, through his conversion to Christ. Verse 6 Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that we should no longer be in bondage to sin. Both aspects of the Christian’s death to sin are visible in this. It is a precious kind of knowledge that enables the Christian to do away with the body of sin, which is the old man, and that knowledge is .the consciousness that we have already been endowed with a legal status of deadness to sin through our being "in Christ" and therefore legally crucified with him. For a soul to have any success at all in living above sin, there must first be achieved a state of innocence, providing a fresh start. This is accomplished in conversion to Christ, wherein all past transgressions are forgiven, and the soul is endowed with the absolute and perfect righteousness of Christ through the heavenly mechanics of his having been, through his conversion, inducted into Christ, being part of Christ, "in him." This is the purging from "his old sins," as Peter called them (2Pe 1:9). What an electrifying challenge, what an incentive to holy living, what a joy to the soul, what a burst of heavenly sunlight in the soul that is instantly endowed with absolute perfection "in Christ"! If such a thing cannot inspire one to honor the holiness that is expected of him as a child of God himself, rest assured that nothing can. True righteousness of our own (though ever imperfect) is the goal God has for all Christians; and the powerful incentive to its attainment was presented by Paul in this verse. Before leaving these verses where the dual aspect of the believers death to sin is in view, there needs to be cited a solid scriptural proof that the personal aspect of death to sin is a growth process going on long after the believer has become a child of God. Paul wrote the Colossian church, composed of baptized believing Christians, of course, thus: Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. ... Put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, etc. (Col 3:5-8). Thus the personal aspect of death to sin presents a constant challenge; but thank God it is indeed possible of achievement through the Christian’s righteous legal status in the Lord. Verse 7 For he that hath died is justified from sin. Paul returned in this statement to the legal phase of justification "in Christ" (as fully discussed under preceding verses); but something new is added here. Justification, far from being accomplished by faith only, is also dependent upon the believer’s death to sin, in the sense of being "in Christ." He that died ... is another way of saying, "He that believed on the Lord Jesus Christ and was baptized into Christ for the remission of his sins" is justified. No others need apply! Verse 8 But if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. How enlightening is the fact that, after all Paul had written of faith in preceding chapters, when it comes down to speaking of the Christian’s justification and his hope of living eternally with Christ above, it is not faith which is mentioned, but dying with Christ. This does not imply that faith is not required, but shows that faith consummated by baptism into the death of Christ is the determinator. Again, Paul’s tremendous "if" is hurled into the consideration of man’s salvation, as also in Rom 6:5, thus stressing the conditional nature of human redemption, one of the conditions being stressed in this verse, that of dying with Christ, in the sense of being baptized "into Christ," etc. We shall also live with him ... is a pledge reaching into the eternal world. Verse 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death no more hath dominion over him. Christ’s resurrection was not like that of Lazarus, or the daughter of Jairus; because Christ dieth no more, the power of death having been completely broken by him. In consequence of this astounding victory, Paul hailed Jesus Christ as The King, eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God (1Ti 1:17). This verse is not a technical statement of the deity of Christ, but implies it. One who does not believe that Christ lives forever and "dieth no more" does not believe in Christ at all. Paul certainly believed in Christ as a supernatural being, identified with the one true and only God Almighty. Only a supernatural being could be able to procure and deliver to mortals any salvation worth having. It should never be overlooked that it is upon a supernatural basis that every valid concept of human redemption must be grounded. The predicament of humanity resulting from the fiasco in Eden is of such a pitiful and disastrous nature that only God could provide the remedy, and even God, only at such an awful cost to himself in the giving of his only begotten Son. Verse 10 For the death that he died, he died unto sin once: but the life that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Christ’s death unto sin was to pay the penalty due to sin, and the uniqueness of that event is expressed in the word "once," or "once for all," as it reads in the Greek (see English Revised Version (1885) margin). The Greek word is [hapax]; and for other New Testament uses of this remarkable word, see under Heb 7:27 in this author’s commentary on that book. The finality of Christ’s sacrifice for sin precludes any such thing as the daily sacrifice of the mass, or, for that matter, any kind of an offering whatever that might be proffered by people. The true sacrifice for sin is Christ, who offered himself, and that only once, the same being once for all and forever. Unto God ... stresses the unity of Christ with the Father. Christ is called "God" no less than ten times in the Greek New Testament, and for details on this see under Heb 1:8 in this series of commentaries. The New Testament conception of Christ in his present ascended and glorified state places him in heaven at God’s right hand, and upon the very throne of God itself, God’s throne actually being called "the throne of God and of the Lamb". Verse 11 Even so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus. This is one of the boldest and most daring statements imaginable. Paul had already explained that by reason of the Christian’s being in the spiritual body "in Christ," he was thereby a participant in God’s righteousness, was legally dead to sin, having died "in Christ" when he died, and as a consequence of such a heavenly arrangement was possessed of a status of absolute innocence and justification, all of this being retrospective in regard to what Christ has already done; but in this verse, the same marvelous arrangement of the Christian’s being "in Christ" and thus legally a part of Christ and justly identified with him, is projected heavenward. Christians are not merely dead to sin in him, but are upon the throne of God in him, as well! Our being "alive unto God" in this verse answers to Christ’s living "unto God" in the preceding verse. What an exalted view of the Christian’s Christ-identified life! It staggers the imagination itself. All of the glories and endowments of the upper and better existence into which Christ has already entered - all such things which are utterly beyond the power of human comprehension - already belong to the Christian, not in the sense of his actually possessing them in the present time, but they are all his legally "in Christ." So vast an inheritance is a legacy of such extravagant dimensions and a treasure of such surpassing value that no human description is capable of portraying the tiniest fraction of its true worth and glory. But all of that weight of glorious inheritance shall ultimately belong to the Christian only if Christ continues to reign in his heart and his identity with Christ is not effaced through sin. Is this motive enough to empower the Christian to reject the old reign of sin that ever and anon seeks to dethrone the Christ and resume it tyrannical sway over the human heart? Paul thought it was, as he immediately stated; and every Christian who has welcomed the Christ upon the throne of his heart knows that it is indeed motive enough! Verse 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof. The Christian has a king; that king is Christ who reigns in his heart (see quotation from Wuest under 6:4 ); and, in view of all that means, who could desire to dethrone him and put the monster of sin back in control of life’s inner citadel; for, make no mistake, sin indulged makes sin the king instead of Christ; and the experience of every mortal should be enough to convince the most obdurate that sin is a heartless and cruel sovereign who will bind his hapless slaves to their sordid sins and pay them all with rotten death! Verse 13 Neither present your members unto sin as instruments of righteousness; but present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. The encroaching power of sin must be continually thwarted; not only must sin be kept from seizing the inner monitor of life with the consequent dethronement of the true Master; but Christians themselves, through a firm and decisive assertion of the will must, through the power of the indwelling Spirit, take charge of the body particularly, commanding its members in such a manner as to preempt their service for God and to deny it to evil. From the exalted view of Christ with God on high, just mentioned, Paul evidently had in mind in this verse such a thing as the Christian’s presentation of himself in acts of adoration to his true king, as seen in the words, "Present yourselves unto God," That same thought recurred to Paul at the beginning of Rom 12:1-21, where a fuller discussion of the meaning will be found. This view of the Christian’s relationship to his body is instructive. The inner person has authority over the body and the mind. Although it is the body in focus here, the mind is also an "instrument" no less than members of the body; and all such instruments are used at the direction and according to the will of the true person, which, in the Christian, is the seat of the inner reign of Christ in human hearts. Deductions of the greatest concern flow out of this. All sins come from the heart, or spirit, of man; and it is absurd in the extreme for anyone to claim, as some do, that the body of a regenerated man may sin, but his spirit remains pure and sinless. Certainly the body, being merely an instrument, is not responsible for the sin; and if the spirit of the regenerate is not responsible for the sin, it would seem that a regenerate man is not in any sense responsible for any wrong that he does! F25 That there is indeed an inner seat of control in man, the essence of the person itself, and having authority over both mind and body, is seen in the following: He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city (Pro 16:32). This shows that there is an essence of the human person that has rule over the spirit; and from this it is certain that the same essence has final authority over the whole man, both in mind and body. In human creation, that essence has the shape of a throne and is so arranged that the person himself cannot sit upon it but must merely submit to the government enthroned there, there being only two candidates for that seat of control, Satan and the Lord Jesus Christ, or, as Paul has it here, Christ and sin. The great endowment of the person itself is in the ability to choose the occupant of that throne. This power of decision is life’s greatest emolument, for it is the pivot upon which the destiny of every man turns to either shame and death or everlasting life. Verse 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. This verse brings into view the ability of the Christian to survive inevitable lapses of a sinful nature. If his justification had been such as that available to the Jew in the keeping of the law, his would be a hopeless predicament. Sooner or later, some little sin would lay him low; and, no matter how trivial a lapse, any infraction of law would have been enough to destroy him. But thanks be to God, the new system is in operation. Justified, absolutely, through identity with Christ and being in fact "in him," the Christian’s sins are truly banished forever. And what of the inadvertent slip, the occasional misstep, the conduct of one not truly himself? Even that cannot give sin its old place on the throne; "for ye are not under the law, but under grace." The forgiveness available to the child of God "in Christ" is a constant. Thus: If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin (1Jn 1:7). "Cleanseth" is present tense active and may be translated as the present participle, and it means that the Christian is being forgiven and justified every moment of his life! Thanks be to God that we are under grace instead of law! In the past few verses, Paul stressed the sovereignty of the human will and the personal responsibility of the Christian; but if the Christian’s endowment consisted only of will and responsibility, he would be in a bad way. Triumph over sin is simply not something which the Christian, alone, can achieve; and this verse shouts the true basis of his triumph. The Christian might lose specific battles to sin, but the war has already been won, not by the Christian but by the Lord. Gone forever are the old hopelessness and helplessness that dogged the steps of them that were under the law; now, for all who will accept it, grace has been provided. The remedy for all the sins ever committed or that ever could be committed has already been given. The Holy Spirit has been promised and will be received by them that obey the gospel (Acts 2:38ff ). The Saviour himself is interceding at God’s right band for the Christian; and the community of the Lord’s children on earth, called the church, are daily praying for and exhorting one another. What a glorious status to have, that of being under grace instead of under law! "Do this and live," the law commands, But gives me neither feet nor hands. A better word the gospel brings; It bids me fly and gives me wings! - Anonymous The statement that Christians are not under law was one that Paul dared not leave dangling, but immediately gave it his full attention. Verse 15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Sinning, persisted in, dethrones the Christ from the heart, as set forth under Rom 6:4; and, far from being an encouragement to sin, grace is the most effective ground ever revealed for the discouragement of it. But Paul here dealt with a slightly different problem from the similar question confronted in Rom 6:1. There it was a question of deliberate continuation in a state of rebellion, and here it is a question of the occasional sinful act, the isolated act of sinning even one time. Wuest translated this place: What then? shall we sin occasionally, because we are not under law but under grace? Away with the thought! F26 Griffith Thomas spelled out the contrast between this and verse 1, thus: The wording of the question is seen to differ. "Shall we continue in sin?" (Rom 6:1), "Shall we sin?" (Rom 6:15). ... The former deals with a permanent state; the latter with the isolated act. The apostle had already shown that the justified believer would not be able to continue the life of sin. ... He has now to show that he will not even commit a single act of sin. F27 In the last analysis, God’s children are those who act righteously, and the sons of the evil one are those who act unrighteously. Thus, the CONDUCT of men is the final criterion and determinator of what they are and where they will spend eternity. All of the theories and speculations of people regarding just when or where or how the believer is declared to be justified should never be allowed to obscure or contradict this principle, which extends from the garden of Eden to the great white Throne, and, as Paul had already outlined in this letter (Rom 2:8-9), will comprise the basis of the final judgment itself. The latter half of this present chapter removes any doubt that this is true. Whomever people OBEY, whether Christ or Satan, that one whom they obey is their God. Oh, but we are justified by faith! Indeed yes; but as Dykes put it, If free justification turns out on trial not to save a man from his sin, but to encourage him in it, then it turns out to be a cheat, like all other gospels or recipes for working deliverance which men have ever concocted or experimented with before Christ and after him! F28 Steele also gave emphatic expression to the same fundamental when he wrote: Every man belongs to the master whom he WILLINGLY serves, whether sin or righteousness. If we are "obedient slaves" to sin, we are not saved; but if we yield ourselves "obedient slaves" to righteousness, we prove ourselves to be true believers, and therefore truly saved. If a man can live at peace with sin, he has no peace with God. He is not justified. If a man voluntarily sins, on the pretext that he is not under law but grace, it is a proof that the grace of God is not in him. F29 Verse 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? It would be impossible to frame in English a more dogmatic declaration that faith is not the only thing required for salvation. Paul’s extensive writings hitherto in this letter, regarding salvation by faith, may in no sense, therefore, be construed as diminishing or omitting the requirement of obedience in all who hope to be redeemed. Paul’s gospel is emphatically that of "the obedience of faith" (1:5 Rom 1:5; Rom 16:26) and not, as foolishly thought by some, salvation by "faith alone"; but people are tenacious where their theories are concerned, and thus it remains to soften the impact of a sentence like this. Oh, that is not talking about justification at all, but about sanctification - so the quibble runs; but, so what? Sanctification itself, which is personal holiness, is categorically stated in tones of thunder in the word of God, to be, itself, a quality in the believer’s life, "without which no man shall see the Lord" (Heb 12:14)! Thus, as regards the practical question of whether a man is saved or lost, justification and sanctification may indeed be separated in theory and distinguished by this or that shade of meaning; but all such discriminations are distinctions without any difference. The man who is not sanctified to the extent of obeying God rather than Satan has not been justified either, making it an obvious fact that he is never saved without either. Sin is obedience of the evil one, as contrasted with righteousness, which is obedience of Christ. It is true of all people, even saved, regenerated, Christian people, that if, through exercise of free will, they shall elect to serve the devil, they inevitably become in such transgressions de facto servants of Satan, in exactly the same manner Adam did in the beginning, only with this marked difference: whereas Adam knew of no remedy and enjoyed no hope of forgiveness, the opposite is true of the Christian. This cannot mean, however, that the indulgence of sin has lost any of its dangerous consequences for humanity; because with every sin, with every temptation yielded to, and in every transgression, the spiritual life of the child of God is weakened and eroded, with the ever-existing possibility that. through dalliance with sin, the Christian may become. "entangled therein and overcome" (2Pe 2:20). Verses 17, 18 But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye become obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness. The KJV rendition "But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin" is improved in the English Revised Version (1885); because Paul did not mean, "Thank God you were servants of sin," but "Thanks to God that ALTHOUGH you were slaves of sin, etc.," F30 as translated by Lard. What Paul did not say in this verse is also significant in another instance. He did not say, "Thank God that ... you believed," but "Thank God that ... ye became obedient," proving that whatever was said of either faith or obedience was never intended to exclude the other. Certainly, obedience mentioned here cannot be thought of as excluding faith; why then should faith ever be thought of as excluding obedience? Two expressions in these verses are of particular interest: "from the heart" and "that form of teaching." We shall notice each. From the heart ... is a reminder that all obedience and submission to God’s will must flow out of a believing and loving heart, truly polarized with reference to the Creator, and which, without any reservation and in utter willingness, responds to the will of God. Philip the evangelist who expounded the terms of the Christian-gospel to the Ethiopian eunuch, responded to the eunuch’s question thus: "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest" (Acts 8:37Acts 8:37; Acts 8:37 ). Though not in the text, that verse is in the margin; and there can be no doubt that it reports exactly what was said, being, in all probability, a recognized portion of the formula of confession invariably followed from the earliest Christian times, as is still the custom in churches of Christ throughout the world. The confession of faith in Christ and the believer’s immediate baptism into Christ were clearly connected in Paul’s mind, such being evident in this verse; and it may be assumed that this prompted his injection of the words "from the heart" into this passage. That form of teaching ... which Christians are said to have obeyed and which delivered them into a state of freedom from sin can be nothing if not a reference to baptism mentioned by Paul only a moment before. The great features of the Christian gospel are the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1Co 15:1-4); and Paul had already shown in this chapter that by the means of believers’ baptism into Christ, they were therefore dead with him, buried with him, and risen with him. This, together with the overtones of the confession in this verse, makes it a certainty that Paul here had reference to baptism. Let it be considered that the only way in which the gospel (death, burial and resurrection of Christ) can be obeyed is through obedience to some distinctive FORM of it, or PATTERN of it. People deny this implication in vain; for it is not merely in this passage, but constitutes the burden of Paul’s teaching here. This conclusion is also supported by the words of Christ himself, who did not hesitate to use "baptism" and "gospel" as synonyms thus: `Go preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:15-16). If baptism is not used in this passage as synonymous, in a sense, with gospel, how could Christ have commanded the gospel to be preached and something else to be obeyed? Thus, baptism indeed is a form of the gospel, and precisely "that form of teaching" Paul spoke of here. Being then made free from sin ... (KJV) more clearly gives the sense than the English Revised Version (1885), in being to the effect that obedience to the "form of teaching" delivers the believer out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, and that in this action (baptism) he is freed from the bondage to sin and becomes bondservant of Christ. The English Revised Version (1885) and other versions, in the omission of "then," have somewhat softened the impact of Paul’s teaching in this verse; but the idea remains in the text anyway, even Phillips retaining the essential meaning thus: Then, released from the service of sin, you entered the service of righteousness (Phillips New Testament). Lard’s exegesis on this passage is: Here the disciples are said to have been freed from sin when they obeyed the model of teaching. F31 Justification of the believer in Christ therefore takes place THEN, when he obeys from the heart that form of teaching, that is, when he is baptized. Thus, apostolic authority has truly enlightened man as to the moment when his faith saves him, that being the exact time when his faith leads him to be baptized into Christ for the remission of his sins. Let those who deny that justification is truly in view here explain how "made free from sin" can possibly mean anything else. As Lard stated it, "To be freed from sin is to be justified." F32 Moreover, there is inherent in such an expression as "being made free from sin" a quality of meaning which indicates the formal and legal phase of justification, and not personal holiness identified as sanctification. "Being made free from sin," as used here, is a vast and comprehensive thing, and the application of it to personal holiness would make a claim for baptism that cannot be true, personal holiness not being something that is delivered in consequence of baptism; but the formal justification of the sinner as then having a new identity "in Christ" and being fully and irrevocably justified with reference to all past sins - all that is accomplished in baptism. It is in the act of baptism that the believer changes masters, kingdoms, and destinies. Adam Clarke noted that: The Greek expression for "being made free from sin" is a term that refers to the manumission of a slave. F33 The ancient ceremony of manumission was one in which the slave’s chains were actually cut by a smith, the anvil and chisel actually being brought into the church where such ceremonies were often held; and it was the slave’s legal status which was thereby changed, and not his personal nature: In the light of this, Paul’s use of such a word is impossible of application to the personal nature of Christians as affected in their sanctification. As noted above, to construe baptism as an ordinance related to sanctification rather than justification, is to endow the ordinance with something not in it. As a conditional act required for the legal and formal justification of a believer, it is God’s appointed command; but as a deliverer of holiness in the form of a changed nature, it will disappoint all who rely upon it for any such thing. Even "the newness of life" that follows baptism, and cannot begin without it, is not a result of baptism but of the believer’s new status and the indwelling of God’s Spirit in his heart. One gathers the impression from many of the commentators that their reluctance to allow baptism as a bona fide and divinely imposed condition of justification is their fear that to do so would imply the efficacy of the ordinance in the production of holiness; but it is not the nature of the believer which is changed in baptism, but the all-important status. Verse 19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity, of your flesh: for as ye presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification. Paul continued in these words to plead for personal righteousness on the part of every person who had named the name of Christ, the last clause of this passage being a commandment for the disciple to proceed toward that personal holiness without which no man shall see the Lord (Heb 12:14). This personal holiness is what is usually meant by sanctification. The basis upon which Paul dared to lay down such an assignment had just been explained. It was the legal justification of the believer which took place upon his baptism into Christ. Paul was a little apologetic here for introducing such an illustration as that of manumission of a slave, but he justified it on the basis that the weakness of people required such a dramatic and familiar comparison. Just as it was unthinkable that a manumitted slave would keep on working for his old master, so it is unthinkable that a Christian would go on serving Satan after being delivered from the bondage of sin through his faith and obedience of the gospel. To paraphrase this verse, without metaphor, Paul was simply telling the disciples that just as they once used all their time and resources in committing impure and lawless deeds, now they should use all their energies in doing the things that honor God and bless humanity. "Iniquity unto uniquity ..." means more and more iniquity. Servant ... as used in this chapter actually means "bondservant" or "slave," but the translators have wisely softened the impact of it, due to the repugnance of the term "slave." Yet it should never be forgotten that Christians are indeed "slaves" of Christ in the absolute sense of the word, having been purchased by him when they were sold unto death under sin; he redeemed them, and they owe him absolute and total obedience; they may not demur at anything Christ commands. Verse 20 For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free in regard of righteousness. This is a reason predicated upon what people themselves recognize as proper and correct, to the effect that the servant of one master is not expected to obey the commands of another. Whereas the disciples were formerly slaves of sin, and were at that time regarded as free of performing any righteous duty; just so, now the disciple is a slave of a new master, Christ; and it would be an incongruous thing, wholly abhorrent and repugnant to a sense of what is right and proper, for the Christian to serve the old master through commital of sin. Verse 21 What fruit then had ye at that time in the things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. Here is another inducement for the disciples to proceed in the development of holy lives (a growing see under Rom 6:5). Think of sin objectively, what good is it anyway? What fruit comes of impiety and licentiousness, except death? The so-called "pleasures" of sin; what are they except the fever of passion-torn souls? The prior behavior of the Christians while still in sin was such as they were then ashamed of, and this is testimony enough to the fact that becoming a Christian involves a reversal of the life-style. It is this dramatic fact that has been edited out of current editions of Christianity. In addition to the essential worthlessness, shame, and profitlessness of sinful living, there is the final and overwhelming consideration of "death," God’s sentence against sin. Thus Paul continued his plea for Christians to live like Christians are supposed to live. Verse 22 But now being made free from sin and become servants of God, ye have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end eternal life. Now being made free from sin ... refers to the justification of the believers which was accomplished by God upon the condition of their believing and being baptized into Christ; but there is also another sense in which the Christian must be "free from sin," namely in this, that he shall also be free from the practice and pursuit of sin, which is "sanctification" as Paul defined it here. And how does that come about? Your fruit ... meaning the holy and righteous deeds of Christians, is unto sanctification, meaning that it ends in sanctification, or produces sanctification, the true end, of course, as Paul stated, being "eternal life." The view of Christian baptism that would dissociate it from justification and connect it with sanctification does violence to the whole corpus of the word of God. The ordinance of baptism has nothing to do with sanctification, because no ceremony, however sincerely complied with, can change human nature. Millions of baptized believers will testify that holiness in their lives was no automatic result of their submission to this holy commandment. How then does baptism save? Only in this, that it is a divinely imposed condition of the primary justification involved in the sinner’s transfer out of Satan’s dominion into that of Christ. Therefore, baptism connects with sanctification only in the fact that without it, justification does not exist, and sanctification cannot even begin. The preposterous notion that justification is accomplished through faith ALONE, and that baptism has something to do with sanctification, is unsupported either in the sacred text or in the experience of believers. But isn’t baptism the new birth? Yes, of course, in the sense of its being necessary thereunto, and an integral part of it, being specifically that "water" of which people must be born (John 3:5); but the new birth is not of water only, but "of the Spirit" as well. These dual elements in the new birth relate justification and sanctification as follows: (1) The WATER of the new birth (baptism) is the condition upon which justification is dependent; and the SPIRIT (the Holy Spirit of promise) is the instrument of God in the believer’s heart which leads to his sanctification. The fruit of the Spirit is given in Gal 5:2; Gal 5:23, and such fruit constitutes sanctification, being in fact exactly the same "fruit" Paul mentioned in this verse. The differentiation being made here is that the baptismal element of the new birth is retrospective, looking to the washing away of past sins (and having nothing whatever to do with producing holiness in the nature of the Christian afterward), and that the Holy Spirit element in the new birth is prospective, looking to the fruits of sanctification unto eternal life, as here. (2) This is not to say that there are two new births, there being only one, but to note that it was not being born "of the water" alone that Jesus made prerequisite to entering his kingdom, but also being born "of the Spirit." The two elements are so closely joined that it is proper to speak of both as constituting the new birth, the reception of the Holy Spirit in Christians’ hearts being itself conditional upon their baptism (Eph 1:13; Acts 2:38f, ; 2:38 f, ). But, when baptism as an isolated element of the new birth is considered, the retrospective nature of it must always be understood. On the other hand, when baptism is mentioned as a synecdoche standing for the new birth, it also has a prospective function in that it leads to the impartation of the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13). Verse 23 For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. The wages of sin ... Paul did not say the wages of great sins, or of some sins, but the wages of "sin" is death. Such unsatisfactory wages of sin, it seems, should make sin a very unprofitable employer, and long ago have resulted in the cessation of all sin; but not so. True, if the full account of sin’s wages should be posted and paid at the end of every day, there would doubtless be far less sinning. It is the "buy now, pay later" aspect of the penalty of sin which commends it as an attractive employment for many; but this verse is a warning that payment is certain, and that "death" is the quid pro quo of sin. "This for that!" Such a word as "wages" also carries the information that the sinner will work for what he gets, that he therefore deserves it, and that the "wages" finally paid are exactly what he undertook to receive by his indulgence of sin. This conception of sin as the sale of one’s self is found also in the Old Testament, where is recorded the charge of Elijah against Ahab, Thou hast sold thyself to work evil in the sight of the Lord (1Ki 21:20). Thus, every man who consents to the practice of sin is selling himself, not for anything valuable or beautiful, but for the rottenness of death. Illustration: The late Grover Cleveland Brewer often preached from this text and illustrated the wages of sin thus: Some young men were watching the Tennessee river rising above flood stage when their attention was arrested by a little rabbit trapped on a diminishing little island in the raging flood. They decided to rescue it, but could find no way to do it. The group, all in their early teens, were strong and vigorous, and fully accustomed to outdoor activities. All knew the danger of the mighty river, especially at flood, and their parents had warned them again that very day to stay out of the river; but there was the problem of that trapped rabbit! One of the boys, stronger than the others and a powerful swimmer, decided to attempt the rescue. He made it to the little island, thrust the trembling little creature into the bosom of his overalls, and plunged in for the return swim. The end of a log riding the crest of the flood hit him in the temple; and four days later, they dredged his body up from the flood far downstream. The boys who had witnesses the tragedy were present for the recovery of the body; and one of them found the remains of the rabbit in his bosom and held it up a moment and then said, "This is what he gave his life for!" What people labor to receive through sin, they get! Death ... as used here means far more than physical death, though it includes that also. Spiritual death is part of the wages of sin, but even that is not the final payment. Beyond the present sphere of time, there looms the mystery of the "second death," described in Scripture with words so dark and dreadful that the mind draws back from contemplating them. Mortal man is not capable of knowing fully what the ultimate fate of the wicked will be; but every man should heed the warnings of it revealed by the Holy Spirit. The free gift of God ... comes from the translation of a word CHARISMA, which indicates the type of gift in which there can be no thought of the merit of the recipient. Thus, it is not merely the gift, but the free gift of God. If God had imposed a million conditions of salvation, and if man fully complied with them all, his obedience could not place God in the position of a debtor regarding the free gift of that salvation. Still, this glorious truth should never be confused with the error that salvation is unconditional, for it is not. "Free" indeed it is; "unconditional" indeed it is not. How is this true? Jesus explained thus: When ye shall have done all the things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which it was our duty to do (Luk 17:10). Macknight saw in the use of the expression "free gift" a reference to such a thing as A donative; because being freely bestowed, it may be compared to the donatives the Roman generals, of their own good will, bestowed on their soldiers, as a mark of their favor. F34 This view of Macknight’s is especially appropriate in the fact that such donatives were indeed "free gifts," but in no wise unconditional, the generals not bestowing such favors upon any except "their soldiers." Thus, although the soldier did not earn the donative, he qualified as a recipient through his faithful service as a soldier of the general giving the gift Eternal life ... is so magnificent a conception of so wonderful and comprehensive a gift as to be in its ultimate glorious essence something that lies beyond the perimeter of finite understanding. So unspeakably beyond all powers of fully knowing it, this is the end of all God’s gracious designs for his beloved human children. Eternal life will have the quality of possessing all that is best and joyous in the present life, with none of the impediments, and will be the ultimate reality of which the present life is only a type or shadow. Far more than could be imagined by any intelligence, however, will compose that final existence to which .the saints of God are invited. In Christ Jesus our Lord ... To miss the significance of these words is to miss everything Paul was teaching. At the end of each chapter (Rom 5:1-21; Rom 6:1-23; Rom 7:1-25; Rom 8:1-39), Paul returned to this expression, suggesting the recurrence of the mighty theme of a symphony, the intention of the apostle plainly being that of preventing the Christian’s forgetfulness, either of the source of such blessings, or the personal status of the believer "in Christ" which alone makes him eligible to receive them. Just think of what this being "in Christ" really is. "In Christ" the Christian is dead to sin, alive unto God, justified, redeemed servant of righteousness, and has the hope of eternal life. In this commentary, repeated emphasis on the importance of being in Christ has been due solely to the frequency of Paul’s stressing it in this letter, where the fact is reiterated over and over again in different contexts, suggesting the comparison with a jeweler who turns a beautiful gem over and over to view its luster from many angles. The apostle John said: And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son (1Jn 5:11). Supplementing what has already been written concerning how people come into Christ, the following exegesis of Moses E. Lard is pertinent: It is proper here to add that immersion is not the only means of transition into him. We believe into Christ, as well as are immersed into him, and the former just as certainly as the latter. "He that believes into the Son has everlasting life" (John 3:36). To be immersed and to believe are similar verb forms, with identical significations. Neither excludes the other, and both are alike essential to the end. We do not pass into Christ by immersion alone, nor by belief alone. We pass into him by the two jointly, and by neither separately. F35 Thus, there should be no marvel that Jesus declared that "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16; Lard’s exegesis has been included here, not from any perfect agreement with it, but for the purpose of showing that even if faith may be translated, it could not negate the obvious truth that faith and baptism are both prerequisite to justification, or being "in Christ," which is the equivalent of The weakness of Lard’s position is seen in the fact that no translation this writer has ever seen translates the Greek New As a matter of practical fact, how could it be possible for any person to believe himself into One certainly cannot believe himself into the Masonic Lodge, or the Democratic an d, therefore, it would truly be something marvelous under the sun, if one could believe himself into Christ! Footnotes for Romans 6 1 : H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Pickering and Inglis, Ltd.), p. 156. 2: David N. Steele, Romans, An Interpretative Outline (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1967), p. 47. 3: Joseph S. Exell, The Biblical Illustrator (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 443. 4: The Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Vol. II, p. 69. 5: J. Leslie Dunstan, Protestantism (New York: George Braziller, 1962), p. 43. 6: Ibid. 7: Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. II, p. 69. 8: David N. Steele, op. cit., p. 46. 9: Ibid. 10: William M. Greathouse, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1969), p. 128. 11: Karl Barth, Church Dogmatism (Napierville, Illinois: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1958), Vol. IV, part 2, p. 505. 12: Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), p. 96. 13: W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1940), p. 97. 14: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 130. 15: As quoted by Greathouse, op. cit., p. 138. 16: This and the five preceding quotations are from Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 200. 17: Kenneth S. Wuest, op. cit., p. 96. 18: R. L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 130. The quote from Mosheim is also found here. 19: C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York and London: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1957), p. 123. 20: Kenneth Wuest, op. cit., p. 95. 21: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 124. 22: Emil Brunner, The Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1959), p. 49. 23: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 49. 24: W. Sanday, Ellicott’s Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Pub. Company, 1970), p. 227. 25: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 137. 26: Kenneth S. Wuest, op. cit., p. 109. 27: W. H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1946), p. 175. 28: Quoted by J. Exell, op. cit., p. 445. 29: David N. Steele, op. cit., p. 50. 30: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1945), p. 213. 31: Ibid., p. 214. 32: Ibid. 33: Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), Vol. VI, p. 79. 34: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 88. 35: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 197. 36: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 158. 37: Robertson L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 125. 38: H. A. Ironside, op. cit., p. 77. 39: Lyth in Biblical Illustrator, op. cit., p. 431. : Irenaeus, quoted by Wm. M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 123. 41: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 122. 42: Robertson L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 126. 43: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 159. 44: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 127. 45: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 192. 46: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 207. 47: J. Barmby, op. cit., p. 12. 48: Chester Warren Quimby, The Great Redemption (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950), pp. 45-46. 49: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 207. 50: Ibid. 51: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 39. 52: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 38. 53: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 108. 54: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 53. 55: Ibid., p. 74. 56: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 58. 57: John Murray, op. cit., p. 51. 58: The Houston Chronicle, front page, December 2, 1971. top save<59> Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the saveCorinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 86. 60: Frank S. Mead, The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 11. 61: Frank S. Mead, op. cit., p. 11. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 14: 7 ROMANS CHAPTER SEVEN ======================================================================== Rom 7:1-25 Verses 1, 2, 3 Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long a time as he liveth? For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then, if while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man. These three verses have a bearing upon the Christian doctrine of marriage, as indicated by Hodge, thus: The doctrine concerning marriage, which is here incidentally taught, or rather which is assumed as known by Christians and Jews is, that the marriage contract can only be dissolved by death. The only exception to this rule is given by Christ (Mat 5:32); unless indeed Paul (1Co 7:15) recognizes willful and final desertion as a sufficient ground of divorce. F1 Regarding divorce, the Holy Scriptures teach that marriage is dissolved: (1) by death; (2) by adultery; and (3) by desertion, the latter not being strictly considered as ANOTHER ground beyond that given by Christ, but rather as prima facie evidence of the existence of ground (2), that of adultery. Paul did not here mention any exceptions, his analogy depending upon death as the terminator of Israel’s marriage with God, and thus making the mention of any exceptions unnecessary. Bearing in mind Paul’s purpose in this paragraph of showing that Christians are no longer under Moses’ law, the thrust of his words is simple and dramatic. In the Old Testament, God represented himself as being a husband to Israel and the relationship between them and God as a marriage contract (Jer 31:32). That marriage contract is no longer in force, for God died to Israel in the person of his Son upon Calvary! That really nullified the relationship between God and Israel. Thus, God is represented as a husband whose death has broken the ties that bound him to the wife Israel, not merely leaving Israel free to be united to another (Christ), but also leaving the old ties (the law of Moses, etc.) without any meaning or validity at all! Paul could have selected other grounds for affirming that God had annulled the marriage contract with Israel, such as Israel’s wanton disobedience and disregard of it as set forth by Jeremiah (Jer 31:32f); but Paul’s choice of the astounding fact of God’s death in the person of his Son was a far more appropriate expression of the absolute termination that had fallen upon Judaism. Israel’s wanton rebellion against God had come at last to full fruit when Christ himself was slain by them (see under Rom 3:26); and therefore, as far as the whole system of Judaism is concerned, it has exactly the same status as a marriage contract after the husband’s funeral. Christ as God risen from the dead is married to another, the new bride being his church (Eph 5:22-33); and what a preposterous thing it would be to suppose that the new wife should abide by the terms of the marriage contract of the old wife. Devastatingly, Paul removed all grounds upon which the Judaizing teachers in the church might seek to impose portions of the law upon Christians. Macknight’s discernment of Paul’s purpose in this paragraph is seen in this: (Paul’s purpose is) to wean the Jews from their extreme attachment to the law of Moses, and to make them sensible of the absurdity of pressing that law upon the Gentiles. F2 Thus, it was the annulment of God’s marriage contract with Israel through the death of Christ that abrogated and terminated that entire system, finally and irrevocably. As Paul himself expressed it: "He took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross" (Col 2:14). Scholars have made extensive efforts to view this chapter as applicable primarily to Christians with a consequent perplexity as to the meaning here. Griffith Thomas noted that "there are very few commentators clear on this point"; F3 and even Macknight considered that the "Jews were put to death by the body of Christ"; F4 and, from this, he reasoned that the Jews were free of the law of Moses because of their own death in the person of Christ; but to be "dead with Christ" and "in Christ" is to have eternal life, a result which cannot be claimed upon behalf of the people who rejected and crucified the Lord. The death of Christ did indeed have a consequence to Israel, as seen below. The death of Christ (God come in the flesh) meant that all things whatsoever that pertained to God’s relationship with Israel (viewed scripturally as a marriage contract), including the law of Moses, circumcision, the sacrifices, and the whole theocratic system perished on the cross of Jesus and were buried in the new tomb of Joseph of Arimathea; and don’t forget to include the sabbath day in all that. Thus, not even Israel, much less Christians, had any further spiritual benefit to be procured through keeping the religious regulations of the Old Testament. God was free of all prior obligations resulting from the covenants with Israel, free to be married to another; but this meant that Israel was also free of any further obligation or benefit in the law. The great promise to Abraham was not annulled, but was shown to have been upon a higher level and ultimately designed to include all the families of the earth, Jews and Gentiles alike, as the one new man "in Christ," and therefore Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise. Verse 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God. Paul thus drew the conclusion from the premises stated above (which see). In the relationship of the new institution, or church, to God, it was utterly incongruous to suppose that any of that old system pertained to the new relationship, especially in view of the total rejection of Christ by the old institution. Christians, whether of Jewish or Gentile descent, had nothing, either of benefit or blessing, in the old system. For Jewish Christians, Christ died to annul their old contract with God; thus they were free to be united with Christ as a portion of his bride the church, this being the import of the words, "that ye should be joined to another." For Gentile Christians, their freedom from the old system was also complete. Not only had it never applied to them; but additionally, the law was made repugnant to them because under the law, Christ himself was made a curse (Deu 21:23); and the epic fact of Jesus’ suffering "without the gate" (Heb 13:12) symbolized the total dissociation of Jesus Christ together with all spiritual blessings in him from everything connected with the law of Moses. How utterly unthinkable it was that true believers in Christ should have any regard for a system that crucified him, making him a curse, and casting him without the camp and beyond the pale! The most astounding failure of the law of Moses was seen in that very thing, that at last it cast forth upon what amounted to the city dump, the holy Christ himself, thus finalizing and sealing forever the utmost incompatibility between the law and Jesus Christ. By definition, to be "in Christ" is to be absolutely beyond and apart from the law and everything in it. Christians, all of them, Jewish and Gentile, are recipients of unbounded freedom in Christ who rose from the dead, to bring forth fruits of righteousness in him. Verse 5 For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. Under Rom 7:4 Paul’s teaching is viewed as applicable to both Jewish and Gentile Christians, the same being essentially one "in Christ"; but this should not obscure the fact that the Jewish element in the church was primarily in the focus of Paul’s words here. In the flesh ... refers to the nature of the Mosaic covenant, primarily one of flesh. It was the connection of the chosen people with the flesh of Abraham, and the rite of circumcision, which was a mark in the flesh, that Paul had in view. It should be noted that Paul was not here contrasting two methods of salvation in Christ, as sometimes alleged, but was contrasting life under the law of Moses with the life of faith in Jesus Christ. Regarding the unbearable nature of Moses’ law, Peter said, Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear (Acts 15:10). The inability of the Mosaic system to give the worshiper any valid victory over sin was due: (1) to the fact that no forgiveness was possible, (2) that there was no impartation of the Holy Spirit, and (3) that there was utterly no justification in the keeping of its precepts. No wonder that Peter referred to it as a yoke of bondage. Verse 6 But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. Now that we have ... shows that Paul was here identifying himself as a former disciple of the law, thus including himself with the Jewish Christians to whom he addressed this appeal. Paul’s use of the first person here should be noted. Newness of the spirit ... oldness of the letter ... These phrases refer to the life "in Christ Jesus" on the one hand, and to life under Moses’ law on the other. "Oldness of the letter" is a reference to exactly the same thing that that was signified by the use of "in the flesh" in the preceding verse. Paul’s various usage of the same phrase is again apparent in that. In this paragraph, "flesh" means the covenant of flesh, or the law of Moses; in Gal 2:20, it means alive in the physical body; and in Rom 8:9, it has reference to living after the lusts of the flesh. Sanday’s exegesis on the meaning of this verse is, The true reading runs thus: "But as it is, we were (we are) delivered from the Law, having died to that wherein we were held. In the act of our baptism which united us to Christ, we obtained a release from our old tyrant, the Law." F5 The insinuation that "oldness of the letter" has reference to obeying the commandments of Christ, and that "newness of the spirit" means being saved by "faith and nothing but faith" is unfounded, and such a construction of Paul’s words is an unjustifiable distortion. Verse 7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Is the law sin ...? Paul here identified what law was his subject by appealing to the tenth commandment in the law of Moses. How is it possible for people to affirm that Paul was speaking of the commandments of Jesus Christ by his use of the term "law" in this chapter? As noted in the paragraph heading this chapter, Paul here (Rom 7:7-13) expounded further the manner in which the law of Moses made sin "abound" (Rom 5:20-21). Also, Paul had mentioned again, only a moment earlier, that the law had wrought forth "in our members to bring forth fruit unto death"; and in the next few verses Paul more fully explained what was meant. To be sure, he had not meant that God’s law was sin. However, there was a way for sin to take advantage of it. Thus: The perverseness of human nature is such that the mere prohibition of an act suggests the desire to do that which is prohibited. The act when done is invested with the character of sin which it hitherto did not possess. It becomes a distinct breach of the law, where previously there had been no law to break. F6 It is exactly such facts regarding sin that may be observed in the example Paul gave from his own experience. Before the giving of the law of Moses, there were doubtless many who desired their neighbor’s ox, or his ass, or his wife; but that was, at that time, a violation of no known law, the inward desire of forbidden things having never been prohibited prior to the law of Moses. Paul here stated, of that very sin, that he would never have known what it was except the law had said, "Thou shalt not covet"! Verse 8 But sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead. This verse identifies sin in the human heart as the primary cause of violating God’s law; but, in the sense of multiplying violations, the law itself is an ally of sin. Thus it is true that "through the commandment," as a secondary cause, all manner of violations are multiplied. Human nature being what it is, the very existence of law, given a rebellious heart in people, becomes the occasion of sin "abounding." Verse 9 And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Alive apart from the law ... has reference to a state of innocence, or unconscious morality, as yet without instruction, and uncondemned, which condition may be assumed as a description of Paul’s childhood innocence; but, after being instructed in the law, that is, "when the commandment came," sin revived in him, and he fell into the deadness of transgression and sin. Significantly, the last two clauses show that the state of innocence was merely relative; sin had been there all along, from the date of accountability, but more or less dormant. Seizing the occasion of the commandment, sin leaped up and thrust Paul through with all manner of violations; as a result of which, he became consciously guilty and subject to the penalty of eternal death, that being the import of "I died." Verse 10 And the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death. The commandment ... is another synonym for Moses’ law; and by such an expression as this, that the law is "unto life," he wished to soften the impact of what he had said about the law bringing death and causing sin to abound. Paul had the utmost respect for the old law. Who but himself could have said that he "had lived in all good conscience" with reference to it? Paul here recognized the holy purpose of that law God gave through Moses; and the holy purpose of the law was not the thing Paul here denounced; it was the practical application of it, due to the perverseness af human nature. Although the law had indeed been given to people that they might keep it and live, they were unable to do it; and thus they found, as did Paul, that it was not "unto life," but "unto death." Verse 11 For sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me. The reaction of sinful people to God’s commandments is not due to the evil of the commandment but to the evil of human hearts. The sinful mind lyingly represents God’s commandments as being opposed to human freedom, to human interests, and as being barriers to legitimate human desires and needs. The command of God, as in Eden itself, is made to appear as a frustration of something that man might rightfully have expected, or as the prohibition of some achievement people might have attained, had it not been for the commandment! All such thoughts, and countless other falsehoods, appear as the deceitfulness of sin, causing the poor violator to fall into the ways of death. Lenski has the following perceptive word regarding this: The commandment is lyingly made to appear as a disagreeable obstacle to the gratification of our desires, to our "free self-expression," to our "living our own lives." Forbidden fruits are sweet; and the commandment which forbids them is thus used as an impetus by the sin power to make us reach out after those fruits just because they are forbidden. Hid from us by the lying deception are the consequences, that once tasted, those fruits turn to ashes in our mouths, or that we can escape the bitter results as little as all the millions that have tried it, or that we can atone for our passions by doing some good. Ovid writes, "The permitted is unpleasing; the forbidden consumes us fiercely," and again, "We strive against the forbidden and ever desire what is denied." F7 Regarding the manner in which the commandment becomes an occasion for sin, Whiteside has this: Concerning the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God said to Adam and Eve, "Thou shalt not eat of it." By his lying speech, Satan deceived Eve. He did not deceive her by means of the commandment; but he took the commandment as an occasion to approach her, and deceive her into believing that it would be greatly to her advantage to eat the fruit. Death was the penalty for that disobedience. Hence, the devil seized the occasion, or the opportunity, presented by the command, and by his artful speech deceived her, and by the command slew her. F8 Verse 12 So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous and good. The law of Moses was holy because it came from God, righteous because of the justice of its precepts, and good because of the benefit intended for mankind through the Father’s giving of it. This high estimate of Moses’ law will be further justified in the subsequent verses of this chapter, in which, not the law itself, but the sinful bent of human nature, will be shown as bearing the blame for the sin and death that abounded under God’s law. Again, from the homely wisdom of Whiteside, A good law is not to blame, if people disobey it and bring punishment upon themselves. F9 If there had been any doubt whatever of which law Paul spoke in this chapter, it would have been resolved in this. Of what other law could it ever have been said by an apostle that it was holy, righteous, and good? This overriding fact must be kept in view for a clear understanding of this chapter, where Paul was speaking of the law of Moses and its ineffectiveness as a power to enable people to live above sin. The law ... and the commandment ... actually may not require that a distinction between these entities be made, although one is possible, the first having reference to the whole Mosaic system, and the latter to specific laws. As Barrett noted, Often when Paul speaks of "law," the word might be paraphrased, "The Old Testament System of Religion." This equivalence is valid in the present chapter. F10 Verse 13 Did then that which is good become death to me? God forbid. But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good; - that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful. Here again, as often in Romans, the old diatribe style of discourse is followed, the objection Paul addressed being this: "Paul, you have praised the law as righteous and good; but since it has brought death, how can you say it is good?" Paul’s answer was his favorite "God forbid." Certainly not! The fault was not with the law but with the sin of human hearts. Barrett wisely observed that this verse betrays not the least interest in psychology! Paul simply states that sin led to death - the doom of creation separated from the Creator; and that this happened that sin might stand out in its true colors. The serpent had promised Eve that men should be as God (Gen 3:5); but the rebellion begun with the highest conceivable hope ended in condemnation and death. Sin might appear as human progress, or in any other attractive guise; but death proved it to be nothing but sin. The most damning feature of its disclosure was the fact that sin had used in its death-dealing work God’s gift, the law. F11 The exceedingly sinful and destructive nature of sin is supremely exhibited in this, that through deceit, seduction, and falsehood, sin (here personified) induces the sinner to break God’s commandment, thereby using the commandment which had been given and was intended solely for man’s good, to become the instrument of the sinner’s death, thus (in a figure) slaying the sinner with God’s own commandment, death ensuing from the penalty inherent in the broken commandment. Verse 14 For we know that the law is spiritual but I am carnal, sold under sin. Paul here began consideration of a third element in the law of Moses that made it an absurdity to accept the law as binding upon Christians, that being the fact that justification was absolutely impossible under that system. See paragraph heading this chapter. If proof had been wanting that it is the law of Moses under consideration, here it is again. Of what other law could it have been said that "it is spiritual"? Paul’s experience as a Christian is the last thing that could be considered as the topic here. "I am carnal, sold under sin ..." Are such words as these any fit comment of any child of God who has been redeemed by the blood of Christ? To use Paul’s words, God forbid! To refer these words to Paul’s status as a Christian, or to the status of any other Christian, is to torture the word of God. Such a construction upon these words approaches blasphemy Paul had just finished saying that Christians are "dead to sin" and "alive unto God" in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:11); and to apply these words to Christians is to contradict what had just been stated. What was Paul’s meaning? The grammatical impossibility of using this verse to cancel Rom 6:11, coupled with the fact that the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this chapter, the latter fact especially, provide the most eloquent proof possible that the conflict noted in the following verses resulted, not from any Christian experience whatever, but from the tragic efforts of truly noble souls (of whom Paul himself was numbered) who had diligently sought to please God under the old institution. All of the commentators who have applied the latter words of this verse to the redeemed in Christ have misunderstood the apostle. For example, Hodge has this: "Every Christian can adopt the language of this verse." F12 But, pray tell how can it ever be accepted as fact that a true Christian, one forgiven of all past sins, endowed with the Holy Spirit (conspicuously not mentioned here), dead to sin, alive unto God, risen with Christ, walking in newness of life, possessing all spiritual blessing "in Christ" - how can THAT person be spoken of as "sold under sin"? Never! I am carnal, sold under sin ... Of course, it is Paul’s use of the first person present tense in these words that is regarded as the principal support of the interpretation of this passage (here to the end of the chapter) as a Christian experience; but Paul’s thought here was retrospective, despite the present tense. The author of Hebrews (probably the same apostle) used the present tense and first person in Rom 6:1 of that epistle accommodatively, as is undoubtedly done here. A history teacher’s instruction of a class studying the American Revolution might say of Washington’s winter at Jockey Hollow: We are now with Washington’s army west of the great swamp in New Jersey. Cold and hunger are our enemies. Disease stalks us; desertion is increasing; and there is even mutiny. In such a presentation, the first person present tense cannot indicate the present time at all; and we are certain that Paul’s present condition when he wrote Romans was absolutely not indicated by his use of first person present tense in Rom 7:14 ff. But there is an even stronger reason for rejecting the application of this latter part of Rom 7:1-25 to the Christian and the construing of these words as a description of the Christian’s inner struggle over sin. That reason is grounded in the magnificent scope and sweeping comprehension of the word "NOW" in Rom 8:1, immediately after this passage. Paul’s reverberating "now" in that place imposes its antithesis "then" upon this whole passage. What Paul was speaking of here was a past condition. He was speaking of the fruitless struggle of noble souls under the law of Moses who, despite their efforts, found no justification thereunder. "THEN" is the word that flies like a banner over this part of Romans. True, it is not spoken here. but it is more than implied; it is demanded by the antithetical "now" that opens the eighth chapter. A great deal turns upon the proper understanding of this passage. It is not an inconsequential or indifferent matter, whether or not the miserable struggle outlined here applies to Christians or to Jews under the law. The advocates of false teaching, if permitted to preempt this passage through distortion of its meaning, use it to shore up the crumbling structure of their theory. For example, note this: It is plain, therefore, that Paul here means by THE LAW, the will of God as a rule of duty, no matter how revealed. From this law, as prescribing the terms of our acceptance with God, Christ has delivered us. It is the legal system, which says, "Do this and live," that Christ has abolished, and introduced another, which says, "He that believes shall be saved." F13 In these astounding words of Hodge, the scandal of the "faith only" heresy is concisely stated, including its invariable corollary that even the benevolent terms of the gospel of the Lord Jesus, constituting the ground of our acceptance with God, and delivered by the Christ himself - that even all this is abolished (!) by Jesus Christ. In such views as illustrated by the quotation above, Christ is represented not merely as abolishing his own terms of entry into the eternal kingdom, but as introducing "another" system. And what could that be? "He that believes shall be saved"! Of course, that is nothing but a misquotation of Christ’s words, as follows: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16). Certainly, Christ never said, "He that believes shall be saved"; Hodge said that! Furthermore, it is precisely in such a deduction as that of Hodge that there is discovered the error of the widely prevalent interpretation of Paul’s words here as a picture of "Christian experience." No interpretation, however plausible (and theirs is not even plausible), could be correct if it can be made to support such a bastard deduction as Hodge’s "He that believes shall be saved." Such a deduction is the noisome bubble that rises to the surface of the pond, betraying the rotten carcass on the bottom. During the first three centuries of the Christian era, the "Christian experience" interpretation of Paul’s words in this place was practically unknown. Godet summarized the views of ancient commentators thus: A large number of commentators, consulting the context more strictly, think that the apostle, in virtue of his past history, is here introducing himself as the personification of the legal Jew, the man who, being neither hardened in self-righteousness, nor given over to a profane and carnal spirit, seeks sincerely to fulfill the law without ever being successful in satisfying his conscience. F14 The "large number of commentators" mentioned by Godet includes most of the Ante-Nicene Fathers and a dozen other names of the most able commentators of a thousand years. Any thought that the view advocated in this commentary is novel or unusual is erroneous. It is the view of making this passage a description of Christian experience that is novel and opposed to thought which prevailed for centuries before Martin Luther and the doctrine of justification by "faith only." How did the change in style of interpreting this passage come about? Godet affirmed that Augustine changed from the historical interpretation to the new position "after his dispute with Pelagius," and then showed how Augustine’s view was adopted by Jerome, by the Reformers, and later by such men as Philippi, Delitzsch, and Hodge. Hodge denied that Augustine’s change came after the dispute with Pelagius, insisting that it came "long before the controversy commenced." F15 Neither Hodge nor Godet named any authority to support their opinion of the time of Augustine’s change; but all are agreed that the interpretation of Paul’s words in this passage as a Christian experience received its first great impetus in the teachings of Augustine; and thus the interpretation came at a date far too late (Augustine lived 354-430 A.D.) to be persuasive. Unless a person is prepared to throw the rest of the New Testament away, along with most of Romans, he simply cannot base a doctrine of salvation "by faith alone" on this epistle. Upon the basis of considerations set forth above, the premise accepted here is that Paul, using the first person present tense, made himself the personification of the legal Jew, of upright intent, who sought sincerely to please God under the law, Paul himself being perhaps the most perfect example of such a person ever to live on earth. Who but Paul could have said that he had lived "in all good conscience before God"? Verse 15 For that which I do I know not; for not what I would, that do I practise; but what I hate, that I do. Perhaps the RSV is nearest the true meaning of this first clause with "I do not understand my own actions." Phillips has "My own behaviour baffles me"; and the New English Bible (1961) translates, "I do not even acknowledge my own actions as mine." The second and third clauses mean that under the law of Moses, wherein was no promise of forgiveness and no impartation of the Holy Spirit, the best of human intentions fell far short of the worshiper’s intentions, to say nothing of the absolute perfection required by the law. The worshiper under that system was powerless to attain any success in doing either what he wished to do, on one hand, or in refraining from what he did not wish to do, on the other hand. Verse 16 But if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the law that it is good. This is an appeal to the conscience as a witness that God’s law is holy and good, as affirmed in Rom 7:12. When people violate God’s law, the inevitable feelings of guilt are sufficient evidence that the law is spiritual and holy. Hodge made the consent mentioned in this verse, the consent that the law is good, to be the ground of supposing the person in view was a Christian; but Paul had already revealed that even the reprobate Gentiles, suffering under God’s judgment of hardening, had such an inner witness of God’s righteousness and of the justice of his laws (see under Rom 2:15) Barrett understood this verse thus: The very fact that I am unhappy about my own deeds confirms that the law is just and good. Is the law sin? Certainly not; it is confirmed by conscience. F16 Verse 17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. In using the conscience of the inner man to affirm the justice of the law, Paul raised another problem which Barrett paraphrased thus: We find man in a state of rebellion against God, and under sentence of death. For this unhappy situation, the law is not to blame; but neither, it now appears, am "I," for I agree with the law and disapprove of the sins I commit. Who then is to blame? F17 Paul answered that problem by stating that it is not my real self who does evil works but sin dwelling in me. This fact of a person’s acting out of character is seen in the inspired words of the Master relative to the prodigal son, of whom it was said that "when he came to himself, etc." It is in this verse that the theory of applying these words to Christians relies on the fact that the conscience, or inner self, of the person spoken of approves of God’s law; but again, there is enough of the divine image left in every man, regardless of how reprobate, to produce this inward approval of God’s law (see under preceding verse). That Paul was still speaking of the noble Jew under the law is still evident, as attested by Brunner: Of course, Paul speaks of this contradiction in man, of him who is under the Law, who does not know Christ. Only he who disrupts the order of the verses can deny this. F18 And yet it is also a fact that there is an inward conflict in every man, as proved by the pangs of conscience upon wrongdoing; but the inward conflict in Christians is fantastically diminished and cannot be thought of in the terms used here. That there is in the child of God, even the best and truest, disturbing echoes of the old conflict is certain; and it may even be that Paul here fused the consideration of the two conflicts (the savage one under the law, and the far milder one for the Christian), speaking in a certain sense of both of them. In the same paragraph of Brunner’s quotation just cited, that author said, Of which (conflict) is Paul speaking? Does he speak of that experience which Ovid has expressed, "I perceive the better and approve of it but I follow that which is worse"? Yes, and no. Of course, Paul speaks of this contradiction in man, of him who is under the Law, who does not know Christ. Only he who disrupts the order of the verses can deny this. And yet, the Christian Paul speaks quite differently from the heathen Ovid of the misery of man under the Law! Paul thus does not speak of what man outside Christ knows of himself but of how matters really stand with the godless man outside Christ. This is one thing upon which the blunt Yes or No is wrecked. F19 We may be thankful for Brunner’s perception here; because, once this difference is noted, it is quite easy to account for some of Paul’s assertions in these verses, which apart from facts observed: by Brunner would be more difficult. Significantly, Paul’s words here go far beyond any analysis of the conflict under law that could have been made without the knowledge imparted through the acceptance and obedience of Christ. Thus, through his greater knowledge as a Christian, Paul was dealing here with the inward conflict of the legal Jew in terms of the way it actually was, rather than in terms of the legal Jew’s perception of it. Thus, if there is any reference whatever in this passage to the conflict within Christians (and this author cannot believe that there is), then it would have to be in the sense suggested here by Brunner. In any case, Paul’s analysis here is even far too strong a statement of even the Jew’s knowledge of his conflict, and thus even further removed from being a statement of any so-called Christian experience. Verse 18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but to do that which is good is not. Paul in this verse did not deny to man under the law of Moses any intention of doing right, for the power "to will" is allowed; only the ability to deliver on the good intention is denied. Here it is well to note some of the distinctions which theologians like to make when discussing such a thing as the will. Paul did not always use such terms in the sense of definitions accepted by people. Thus: When Luther and Calvin deny a good will to man under the Law, they understand by it something entirely different from what is meant here. F20 It is exactly in this, taking "will" to mean what Paul clearly did not mean, that the "converted Christian" is imported as the subject of this passage. It will be recalled from the statements Paul made in earlier chapters (2:14 Rom 2:14; Rom 2:14 ) that he did not deny a certain "good will" even to the reprobate Gentiles. Again from Brunner: The Gentile as well as the atheist knows something of this delight in the good, this approval of the Law, even though he swears a thousand times that he does not believe in God. We are not here concerned with the atheist; but one thing is clear: Just as Paul does not entirely deny the Gentile the knowledge of the Law, so he also does not deny him a certain delight in the Law, a certain approval of it; in which case, the Gentile, of course, does not know whose law it is. Paul the Christian knows. F21 Thus it is clear why Paul used language in referring to people under the Law that seems to have an application to Christians, especially when it is considered that there is a conflict (though nothing like that outlined here) in the heart even of Christians, this latter conflict being in the background of Paul’s thought here, but certainly not the topic of his argument. Verse 19 For the good which I would I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I practise. This knowledge of what it means to be out of Christ and under the law of Moses is imparted to us, not from the standpoint of the intellectual pagan, but from the viewpoint of the great Christian apostle who saw much more clearly than any unregenerated man could have seen it, just what an awful state of wretchedness and misery must ever pertain to the man who is unredeemed, who is not "in Christ." Apart from Jesus Christ, there is no way by which even the best intentioned of unregenerates could exist in any other state than the one depicted here. That wretchedness, truly considered, is the perfect description of every man who is out of Christ, whether or not he might be less or more aware of it; and it is also a description of the true state of every Christian who for any reason whatever failed to abide "in Christ." The interpretation which would make this marvelous description of every non-Christian to be a description of the true life in our blessed Lord partakes of the genius of the evil one himself, and it should be rejected out of hand. Think what a terrible description of humanity apart from the Saviour this passage presents. It is a picture of humanity unable to do what is approved and desired to be done, and at the same time a humanity condemned to the "practise" (yes, that is the word) of things which are acknowledged to be undesirable and reprehensible even by the victims themselves. If this is not a good description of our own sinful generation which has turned away from God to walk in their own foolish ways, where is there a better one? Verse 20 But if what I would not, that I do, it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. Humanity is helpless to live correctly until the sin-problem is solved. All of the enlightenment and lofty aspirations of all the ages go for naught, as long as sin dwells in human hearts. This verse, far from being a statement of the way it is with Christians, is the way it is with everyone on earth EXCEPT Christians. In the unregenerated man, sin reigns in his mortal body (Rom 6:12); and, until that sin is washed away and the man stands justified in Christ Jesus, this verse is the divine sentence against his life. Sure, the unregenerated has certain nobilities pertaining to all men created in the image of God, effaced and eroded though that image is; but the power to live the type of life that would be acceptable to the inner conscience of the victim himself is simply not in him, for, until he is redeemed in Christ, he is still a slave of sin; and he will never be anything else until he is made free "in Christ Jesus." This verse has the effect of softening somewhat the condemnation of sinners: it is not really they, but the evil master whom they serve who "does" the sin. How pitiful it is, then, that any should continue in sin! This fits the words of the Lord himself whose favorite word for sinner was the term "fool" or its equivalent. Thus the Saviour spoke of the foolish builder (Mat 7:26), the foolish virgins (Mat 25:2), the fool whose soul was required of him that night (Luk 12:20) and the foolish disciples who did not believe the prophets (Luk 24:25); etc. Even in the Old Testament, the denier of God is called "the fool" (Psa 14:1). This verse is one of the great ones in all the word of God. While not denying that unregenerated people (particularly those under Moses’ law) have certain knowledge of what is right and wrong and possess certain characteristics of nobility; such persons are absolutely incapable of overcoming sin. They are carnal, sold under sin, servants of the evil one, subject to the reign of sin in their mortal bodies; and the power to rise above their wretchedness can be imparted to them only if they shall receive the Lord Jesus Christ, die to sin, through union with him; and then only may they rise to walk in newness of life. It is the unspeakable victory of the Christian that he has the power to say "NO" to sin. See under Rom 6:15 ff. Absolutely nothing has ever been more hurtful to Christianity than the allegations of so-called Christian teachers to the effect that the child of God "cannot help sinning," this verse itself being quoted as teaching that! God forbid. It is true that the unregenerated cannot help it; but the child of God can live above sin, not in any absolutely perfect sense, of course, but practically. On this verse, Adam Clarke wrote: We find here that there is a principle in the unregenerate man stronger than reason itself; a principle which is, properly speaking, not of the essence of the soul, but acts in it as its lord, as a tyrant. F22 To this student of God’s word, the allegations of expositors to the effect that the awful conflict depicted here, with its inevitable fruition in sin and failure, is the norm of Christian experience is as near an approach to blasphemy as may be found in modern writings. If this is the norm of Christian experience, to be owned by all as the state of being Christ’s disciples, then the Christian redemption is a farce. Why? Look at Rom 7:19 again. The person described here is a practicing sinner. "I practice!" The elements of good will, knowledge of the law, approval of good and abhorrence of sin - these attributes mentioned in this passage refer to the elemental endowments of all human life; and Paul’s teaching here showed that not even the existence of such inherent attributes could deliver from the practice of sin; only Christ can do that! The conflict is exactly that described by the pagan writers themselves; and the curious reader is referred to the writings of Dr. Adam Clarke (Vol. VI, p. 88) for a list of statements similar to Paul’s words here, by such pagan writers as Euripides, Francis, Horace, Ovid, and others. If this is normal Christianity, the Christians are not a white above the pagans. The strong language of this verse led some ancient speculators to suppose that man had two souls, a good soul and a bad soul; and the counterpart of this has existed in the church throughout the ages in the aberrations of those who supposed that they could live in sin without incurring guilt, since it was their "baser selves" that did the wrong! Commenting upon such trifling improvisations upon God’s word by speculators, Adam Clarke wrote: Thus not only the ancients, but many moderns, have trifled; and all will continue to do so who do not acknowledge the Scriptural account of the fall of man, and the lively comment upon that doctrine contained in the seventh chapter of the epistle to the Romans. F23 Verse 21 I find then the law, that, to me who would do good, evil is present. The law spoken of here, which compels the unregenerate to do evil, is the rule of Satan in the soul of the unredeemed. Regardless of whatever high ideals and aspirations may be in the unregenerate heart, as long as Satan is the master within, evil will continue to be present. Not even the knowledge of God’s good law can change the bondage to which the sinner is sold. Christ can make him free, but nothing else can. Barrett and other commentators identified the controlling "law" which bound the sinner to sin as "self-righteousness"; F24 and Adam Clarke thought it was Any strong and confirmed habit, under the influence of which the man generally acts. F25 but the more reasonable identification of that force which binds the unregenerate to the mast of sin would be to refer it to Satanic power over the unsaved. After all, the great force of evil in this world is personal. Self-righteousness and bad habits are deplorable; but there is a power of evil mentioned in this verse which is beyond all such things, and from which man, alone, is utterly incapable of extricating himself. Verse 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man. This is said to be the verse, beyond all others, which shows that Paul was speaking of Christians in this passage; but a glance at Rom 2:17-20 reveals that the legal Jew is still the exclusive subject. The language: here is nearly identical with that, where it is said that the man "rested upon the law, gloried in God, knew his will, approved the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law," etc. In fact, Paul’s description of the legal Jew in that passage is even more flattering than his description here, where a relatively mild "I delight in the law of God" is used. Since the meaning in Rom 2:17-20 is most certainly the legal Jew, it is mandatory to assume that exactly the same person is in view here. Again we have recourse to the exegesis of the inimitable Adam Clarke, whose words on this verse are not merely good exegesis, but are also a refutation of the prejudice which affirms, quite inaccurately, that "all of the greats since Luther have construed this passage as a description of Christian experience." Clarke said: Every Jew and every unregenerated man, who receives the Old Testament as a revelation from God, must acknowledge the great purity, excellence, and utility of its maxims; and without the mercy of God can never be redeemed from the curse entailed upon him for his past transgressions. F26 The inward man ... does not mean regenerated man, or the regenerated portion of a man, since it is of unregenerates that Paul here spoke. This usage of the expression was followed by Paul in 2Co 4:16 and Eph 3:16, according to Clarke. He further stated: "The inwardman" as used here means the mind, without regard to the state, whether unregenerated or renewed. To say that the inward man means the regenerate part of the soul is supportable by no argument. F27 Verse 23 But I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity under the law of sin which is in my members. This "different law" is generally identified somewhat as follows: The nobler type of unregenerate, knowing about God’s law, approving of it, and deciding to live by it, has only himself to rely upon, because he does not know Christ. Regardless of his efforts, he cannot attain salvation, or even a free conscience. His life is rendered ineffectual through powerful human passions, and the frequent indulgence of them, which, from repeated gratification, have grown into the status of "a law" or rule of conduct for his life. Although such a view as this appears reasonable, it is the conviction here that the dominating power in unregenerated people is none other than Satan; and the different law mentioned here has reference to Satan’s rule in people’s hearts. The mention of a "warring" against the sinner requires that personal intelligence be understood as a part of the conflict, and that consideration points squarely at Satan. The tremendous figure of speech employed in this verse is that of the investment, siege, capture, and destruction of an ancient city, all of this being implied by such a term as "warring." First, the soul is surrounded with evil, the very nature of the mortal pilgrimage being that it shall be enacted among people, for the most part evil and unregenerated people, whose vile conversation, constant harassment, continual scorn, unremitting opposition, and daily rejection of Christian values are a normal accompaniment of all life on earth. Every soul is thus surrounded. The opposition is not merely tacit, or theoretical, but it is a warfare. Great engines of destruction were deployed against ancient cities; and so it is with every soul. Great battering rams, catapults, excavators, and demolishers of every description are brought forward by the enemy to do battle against the soul. It is a cruel, heartless, "no quarter" contest. In the verse before us, the soul resisted the siege, but to no final effect; it was taken by storm. The city fell; its inhabitants were carried into captivity and made the permanent slaves of the enemy. Such is the awful and inevitable fate of every soul which is not saved "in Jesus Christ." In Christ indeed is victory; out of him there is nothing but frustration, defeat, slavery, and death. No wonder that Paul cried out in the following verse with a cry that voices the agony and despair of unsaved humanity! Verse 24 Wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of this death! This is the cry of every man who is not saved. In the large view, it is the agonizing cry of all the world, especially of the benighted populations of the pre-Christian ages. Victory was impossible until Jesus came. The law of Moses was indeed a beautiful and spiritual law, but it did not provide people with the power to keep its noble precepts. This failure was due to the fact that the great Enabling Act of man’s redemption had not then taken place. The Saviour had not come. Indeed, there were learned pagans, as well as noble and upright Jews, who tried vainly to live as God directed, whether from their own inadequate notions of what God taught, or, as in the case of the Jew, from contemplating the higher and better revelation through Moses; but in every case, and without distinction, all fell short of the glory of God; all failed to acquire holiness; all were unable to achieve justification, sanctification, righteousness, or holiness. It was all a losing battle, start to finish; and the condition of the whole human race in those long pre-Christian ages was one of the uttermost pathos and misery. It was the long, long night of earth’ darkness, during which people turned their eager faces to the stars and prayed for daylight. It was truly a night of sin and death, during which the wretchedness of that disastrous defeat in Eden was communicated to every man that ever lived. Hopelessness, despair, shame, misery and death - what a legacy of the reign of the evil one - and then Jesus came! Body of this death ... is one of the most terrible metaphors in the Bible. The besieged soul resisted only to be overthrown. He was captured, enslaved, borne away in sorrow; but that was not all. He was chained to a dead body! Bruce, Clarke and others have explained the metaphor thus: There seems to be here an allusion to an ancient custom of some tyrants, who bound a dead body to a living man, and obliged him to carry it about, until the contagion from the putrid mass took away his life! Virgil paints this in all its horrors in the account he gives of the tyrant Mezentius. F28 The body of death to which every unregenerate is chained is that of his own unregenerated nature. It is his freedom from that, that a man must have to escape the wretchedness mentioned here. Acceptance of the gospel of Christ, through obedient faith, cuts the chains that bind people to their former selves, enabling them to be born again. After conversion, the sins that people commit do not remain upon them and bind them, as formerly, but are cleansed and forgiven continually during the Christian pilgrimage (1Jn 1:7). Verse 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then I of myself with the mind, indeed, serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord ... stands as the answer of the agonizing question of the previous verse respecting delivery from the body of death; and, although it is not framed grammatically as the answer to anything, the quality of its constituting an answer is inherent in the context. If there had been no answer, there would have been no reason to thank God; and this outburst of praise, somewhat like a stroke of lightning, illuminates the darkness of this terrible chapter, and permits a fleeting glance at all that Paul was about to say in the eighth. But, before proceeding to that, Paul was about to state formally, once more, the conclusion so carefully derived from the discourse in this chapter, namely this, that, regardless of how the unregenerated man might serve God with his mind, unless he had found refuge in Christ, he was yet chained to the body of death, and in consequence of that, he would serve the law of sin with his flesh. It is imperative to note that the last sentence of this verse is still dealing with the same subject as the whole seventh chapter, and that it does not apply to Paul as a Christian. Wuest noted that: This last summation does not describe Paul after he had found the way of deliverance through Jesus Christ, but is a recurrence to his discussion of his state before he found the victory, and closes the discussion with the question, "Is the law sin?" F29 Greathouse concurred in this thus: The balance of this verse summarizes the dreary state of man in the flesh, as set forth in the preceding section. F30 In Phillips’ and Moffatt’s translations, the last sentence is placed adjacent to Rom 7:24, leaving the final words of the chapter, "I thank God ..." One must admit that such an arrangement seems logical and would help men to outline what Paul wrote; but the fact remains that Paul did not slavishly follow the rules of grammarians. Bruce Barton once described Paul’s words and sentences as "tumbling all over each other, like hot rocks out of a volcano"! In the exegesis attempted in this chapter, it may appear shocking to some that the usual ascription of the depressions and conflicts of this chapter to the normal experience of Christians has been rejected; but it is the deepest conviction of this writer that incredible harm has derived from what has grown to be (since the Reformation) the usual method of explaining this chapter. True, great and learned men have taken the position rejected here; but others just as great and learned have opposed them, some of them in the most emotional way, and with as much feeling as possible; and this chapter will be closed with a quotation from Adam Clarke whose skill and understanding of the scriptures are certainly not surpassed by any in the other school of expositors, and who so accurately expressed what is in the heart of this student of God’s word, as pertaining to this question. The strong expressions in chapter seven have led many to conclude that the apostle himself in his regenerated state is the person intended. That all that is said in this chapter of the carnal man, sold under sin, did apply to Saul of Tarsus, no man can doubt; that what is said here can ever with propriety be applied to Paul the apostle, who can believe? Of the former, all is natural; of the latter, all here said would be monstrous and absurd, if not blasphemous. ... If we are to take what is said here as his (Paul’s) experience as a Christian, it would be presumptuous in us to expect to go higher; for he certainly had pushed the principles of his religion to their utmost consequences. But his whole life, and the account which he immediately gives of himself in the succeeding chapter, proves that he, as a Christian and as an apostle, had a widely different experience; an experience which amply justifies that superiority which he attributed to the Christian religion over the Jewish; and demonstrates that it is not only well-calculated to perfect all preceding dispensations, but that it affords salvation to the uttermost to all those who flee for refuge to the hope that is set before them. Besides, there is nothing here spoken of the state of a conscientious Jew, or of St. Paul in his Jewish state, that is not true of every genuine penitent; even before, and it may be, long before, he has believed in Christ to the saving of his soul. The assertion that every Christian, howsoever advanced in the divine life, will and musk feel all this inward conflict, is as untrue as it is dangerous. That many so-called Christians, and probably sincere, do feel all this may be readily granted; and such we must consider to be in the same state with Saul of Tarsus previous to his conversion; but that they must continue thus is nowhere intimated in the gospel of Christ. We must take heed how we make our experience, which is the result of our unbelief and unfaithfulness, the standard for the people of God, and LOWER down Christianity to OUR most reprehensible and dwarfish state. F31 One other word from Clarke regarding the opinion that would refer the conflict of Rom 7:1-25 to the norm of Christian experience is the famous quotation from Clarke by Tholuck, which was disapprovingly quoted by Hodge: This opinion (that of referring the conflict in chapter seven to the norm of Christian experience) has most pitifully and shamefully, not only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed its influence and disgraced its character. F32 Footnotes forRomans 7 1 : Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 220. 2: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1960), p. 88. 3: Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 183. 4: James Macknight, op. cit., p. 90. 5: W. Sanday, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 230. 6: Ibid., p. 231. 7: R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 468. 8: Robertson L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to Saints in Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 153. 9: Ibid., p. 155. 10: C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1957), p. 140. 11: Ibid., p. 145. 12: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 231. 13: Ibid., p. 217. 14: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 271. 15: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 239. 16: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 147. 17: Ibid. 18: Emil Brunner, The Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 63. 19: Ibid., p. 64. 20: Ibid., p. 65. 21: Ibid. 22: Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), Vol. VI, p. 79. 23: Ibid, p. 90. 24: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 149. 25: Adam Clarke, op. cit., p. 90. 26: Ibid., p. 89. 27: Ibid. 28: Ibid. 29: Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), p. 126. 30: William M. Greathouse, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 157. 31: Adam Clarke, op. cit., p. 93. 32: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 241. 33: Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1837), Vol. VI, p. 79. 34: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 88. 35: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 197. 36: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 158. 37: Robertson L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Saints at Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 125. 38: H. A. Ironside, op. cit., p. 77. 39: Lyth in Biblical Illustrator, op. cit., p. 431. : Irenaeus, quoted by Wm. M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 123. 41: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 122. 42: Robertson L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 126. 43: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 159. 44: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 127. 45: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 192. 46: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 207. 47: J. Barmby, op. cit., p. 12. 48: Chester Warren Quimby, The Great Redemption (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950), pp. 45-46. 49: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 207. 50: Ibid. 51: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 39. 52: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 38. 53: R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 108. 54: Griffith Thomas, op. cit., p. 53. 55: Ibid., p. 74. 56: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 58. 57: John Murray, op. cit., p. 51. 58: The Houston Chronicle, front page, December 2, 1971. top save<59> Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the saveCorinthians (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), p. 86. 60: Frank S. Mead, The Encyclopedia of Religious Quotations (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1965), p. 11. 61: Frank S. Mead, op. cit., p. 11. Copyright StatementJames Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 15: 8 ROMANS CHAPTER EIGHT ======================================================================== Rom 8:1-39 Verse 1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus. Seven times already in this letter, Paul had stressed the significance of being "in Christ." Faith (Rom 3:26), redemption (Rom 3:24), peace (Rom 5:1), rejoicing in God (Rom 5:11), abundance of grace and of the gifts of righteousness (Rom 5:17), being alive unto God (Rom 6:11), and eternal life (Rom 6:22), were all mentioned by Paul as blessings available to man "in Christ" and nowhere else. The expression "in Christ" opens and closes this chapter, and no understanding of Paul’s gospel is possible without emphasis upon this concept. What does it mean to be "in Christ"? Smedes wrote: Incorporation into Christ means, in practice, incorporation into the church. The church is the social organism which forms Christ’s earthly body now ... Being in the church, incorporated into it by baptism, the Christian is in Christ himself. F2 This view is disparaged by some as sacramentalist; but Paul himself stated exactly this conception in his declarations that people are baptized into "one body" (which is the church) (1Co 12:13), and that all Christians are likewise "baptized into Christ" (6:3; Gal 3:26-27). Of course, being "in Christ" means far more than mere enrollment in an earthly society that calls itself a church. Being truly "in Christ" means having been born again, having believed with all the heart, having received the remission of sins and the Holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13), walking in newness of life, rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God, etc.; in short, it means having become a partaker of the salvation Christ came to deliver. However, the participation in community is without any doubt included. No man is an island; and since it it true that, from the very beginning, God added to the church those that were being saved (Acts 2:47), it is axiomatic that one not in the church is not saved either. This view does not fit in with modern man’s passion to be relieved of any obligation toward the church; but it is nevertheless the viewpoint of the word of God. The Scriptures affirm that Christ gave his blood for the church (Acts 20:28); and no philosophy of religion that downgrades the church and reduces it to a non-essential status can ever be reconciled with such a truth as this. If men may truly be saved without the church for which Jesus shed his blood, then the death of Christ upon Calvary is reduced to futility. No condemnation ... refers to man’s justification, defined negatively as a state wherein is no condemnation. The ground of justification is the perfect righteousness in Christ; and it includes the perfect faith and obedience of Christ, in whom the righteousness of God truly exists; and the availability of that righteousness of Christ for the salvation of sinners does not derive from some magical transfer of Christ’s righteousness to them in consequence of the sinner’s faith nor of anything else that the sinner might either believe or do; but it derives from the fact of the sinner’s being transferred into Christ Jesus where the righteousness is. Briefly, salvation is not procured by the transfer of righteousness to the sinner, but by the transfer of the sinner into Christ. The addition to this verse found in the KJV has been rejected by the scholars on what surely appears to be sound critical judgment, because it is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts that have been handed down through history. There is a plausible explanation of the error by Murray, who wrote: It is most likely that it was inserted from the end of Rom 8:4 in the course of transcription. F3 Verse 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and death. The law ... as used here, has troubled the commentators, especially those who were concerned with removing the concept of law from Christianity and making it a system of "faith alone." Nevertheless, Paul here used exactly the same word that previously was applied to the Mosaic institution; and this affords dogmatic proof that there are indeed rules, regulations, commandments, and ordinances connected with faith "in Christ" that are in the fullest sense of that word, "the law of God." The new system of Christianity is here called "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus"; and, although a law of liberty, deliverance, and freedom from bondage, the requirements of it may not be ignored, but must be observed. Nor is this an isolated reference to Christianity in which such terminology is discovered. Paul himself wrote of certain persons who were spoken of as "without law," that is, without Moses’ law; but of the same persons, Paul said they were "under law to Christ!’ (1Co 9:21). Thus, freedom from Moses’ law does not mean freedom from the higher law "in Christ." All people are under obligation to obey Christ. Paul called such obligations "the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2); James called them "the perfect law of liberty" (Jas 1:25), "the royal law" (Jas 2:8), and "the law of liberty" (Jas 2:12). Thus, the very gospel itself is "a law" that mortals are required to observe and obey upon pain of eternal condemnation if they neglect, refuse, or fail to do so (1Pe 4:17; 2Th 1:8-9). Any and all of the commandments of Jesus Christ are components of that "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," which Paul mentioned here. That the commandments of Jesus Christ are actually endowed with binding and legal status as the irrevocable law of God appears in the words of the Master himself, and in that very portion of the scriptures usually recognized as the very constitution of Christianity. Christ said, Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Mat 5:19). If then Christianity is, at least in part, a system of law, what about the question of legalism? Who is a legalist? A legalist is one who obeys the rules and regulations of Christianity, at least to some extent, and then falls into the error of supposing that he has thereby merited salvation, and as a result of such error develops an attitude of self-righteousness similar to that of the ancient Pharisees. Never in a million years could it be correct to define a legalist as one who shah "do and teach" the commandments of Christ, for Jesus said of such a person as that, that he "shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." The practical use of the term "legalist" today is as an epithet hurled at persons who reject the heresy of salvation by "faith only." There are two laws in view in this verse, the law of Moses from which people have been liberated through Christ, and "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," the latter being synonymous with what might be called the law of the gospel of Christ. There is a sharp contrast between these two laws, one being called the law of sin and death, the other being referred to as the law of the Spirit of life. Although both systems are quite properly referred to by the Holy Spirit himself as "law," the difference between them is the difference between noon and midnight. On the very first day that the law of Moses went into effect, three thousand. souls disobeyed it and were put to death (Exo 32:28); on the very first day the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus went into effect, three thousand souls heard the word of God, believed in Christ, repented of their sins and were baptized for the remission of sins, thus being saved (Acts 2:37-47). Three thousand died at the unveiling of the law of Moses; three thousand were saved at the unveiling of the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Some writers make the "law of sin and death" here apply to the law Paul mentioned in Rom 7:23; but these words apply also. if not exclusively, to the law of Moses. Barrett’s paraphrase of this verse is: For the religion that is made possible in Christ Jesus, namely, that of the life-giving Spirit, liberates from the old religion which is abused by sin and leads to death. F4 Moule likewise understood this as a reference to the law of Moses, thus: To call that sacred Code, the Decalogue, "the law of sin and death" is not to say that it is sinful and deathful. It need only mean, and we think it does mean, that it is sin’s occasion and death’s warrant, by the unrelieved collision of its holiness with man’s fallen will. F5 The Spirit of life ... is the Holy Spirit, because of no other spirit could it be said that such is the Spirit of life. He is the blessed Spirit, a member of the godhead, who takes up residence in Christian hearts in consequence of their being sons of God (Gal 4:6), and in fulfillment of the apostolic promise of such an indwelling to all believers who will repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38f), and is thus identifiable as the "Holy Spirit of promise" (Eph 1:13). Thus the residence of the Holy Spirit in Christian hearts is not for the purpose of making them sons of God, but in consequence of their already being so; despite this, the continued indwelling of the Spirit is of such vast consequence that true sonship cannot exist without it (Rom 8:9). Moreover, even the resurrection of the believer at last is dependent upon this same Spirit, as indicated in Rom 8:11. Verse 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. The law of Moses could not make people perfect, due to the weakness of people themselves in being unable to live according to its tenets. There were also certain other limitations in that ancient divine law, there having been no provision for the impartation of God’s Spirit to help people, and no absolute forgiveness, there having been a remembrance of sin made again every year, even after observance of the ceremonies which typically "removed" them. (See under Rom 10:2; Rom 10:2 in my Commentary on ) The law could not extend justification to people except upon the premise of perfect obedience, and the weakness of all flesh prevented such a thing from ever occurring. God sending his own Son ... Jesus came into the world to achieve perfection as a man and upon man’s behalf. He came to fulfill the whole will of God, to obey God’s every word of commandment, and to "fulfill all righteousness." Christ’s faith was perfect; his obedience was perfect; his love of the Father was perfect; he was totally perfect. In Christ, therefore, is the righteousness which alone can save people; and, as to the manner of this righteousness being made available for the salvation of sinners, see under Rom 8:1. As David Lipscomb wrote: Jesus Christ came as the perfect embodiment of obedience to the law of God, and with the purpose of inspiring others with the same spirit and leading all who trust in him to the same obedience from the heart to the law of God. F6 In the likeness of sinful flesh ... Here is a precise distinction. The apostle did not declare that Jesus came "in" the sinful flesh, but "in the likeness" of it, the significance of this lying in the fact that our Lord’s flesh was not sinful, but only like the flesh of sinful people, their flesh being sinful, not from birth, but through the practice of sin. Perhaps people may never know why it was so absolutely necessary that God should become a man in the person of Christ, down to the very last details of conception and birth, and with all the normal attributes and characteristics of people, even to the suffering of weariness, pain, and death; but the fact of that necessity is apparent, not merely in the act of incarnation itself, but in all of the typical and prophetic representations of it, as for example when Moses lifted up the brazen serpent in the wilderness, the healing serpent being "like" poisonous ones (Num 21:8)! But why did Paul use such an expression as "the likeness of sinful flesh," an expression found nowhere else in the word of God? True, Paul used such expressions as "made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3), "manifested in the flesh" (1Ti 3:16), and "made in the likeness of men" (Php 2:7); but the use of such an expression here must have fulfilled some special purpose. Murray’s exegesis provides a plausible explanation, thus: He is using the term "likeness" not for the purpose of suggesting any unreality in respect of our Lord’s human nature. That would contradict Paul’s express language elsewhere in this epistle and in his other epistles. He is under the necessity of using this word here because he uses the term "sinful flesh"; and he could net have said that Christ was sent in "sinful flesh." That would have contradicted the sinlessness of Jesus for which the New Testament is jealous throughout. So the question is, Why did Paul use the term sinful flesh, when it is necessary to guard so jealously the sinlessness of our Lord’s flesh? He is concerned to show that when the Father sent the Son into this world of sin, of misery, and of death, he sent him in the manner that brought him into closest relation to sinful humanity that it was possible for him to have without becoming sinful himself. He himself was holy and undefiled - the word "likeness" guards this truth. But he came in the same human nature; and that is the purpose of saying "sinful flesh." No other combination of terms could have fulfilled these purposes so perfectly. F7 Let it be noted, however, that the flesh of humanity is sinful, not from birth or by nature, but from the practice of sin. And for sin ... is Paul’s way of stating the purpose of Christ’s coming into the world. It was on account of sin, to deal with sin, to provide an atonement for sin, to condemn sin in the flesh, as stated a moment later. Condemn sin in the flesh ... does not mean to condemn the people who sinned, the law of Moses having been far more than sufficient for such a purpose as that, but to condemn sin in the sense of taking away its dominion over people, stripping sin of its power to hold the entire race of man captive in sin. This expression reminds one of Paul’s saying that Jesus "led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men" (Eph 4:8). Here the meaning is that Christ condemned the condemnation due to sin, and sin, almost personified, is said to be itself condemned. The law of God to the effect that sin deserved the penalty of death could not be thrust aside and merely ignored; the penalty had to be executed; and, in the weakness and sinfulness of humanity, there appeared to be no hope whatever that this penalty could be removed by the actual living of a pure and holy life. Thus, it was necessary that if the penalty should be enforced and at the same time humanity spared, it was mandatory that the Holy One should descend from above and pay it himself upon their behalf. That is what Jesus did! To provide such a great gift on behalf of man was the purpose of Christ’s coming into this world. As Brunner commented: God’s Son had to assume the sinful flesh (the likeness of it) in order to be able to bear and take away its burden. Godhood and manhood had to be in an incomprehensible manner united in it so that God’s law could really be fulfilled. F8 Verse 4 That the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled is us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The great purpose of Christ’s redemptive act was this, that people might keep all the law of God. The purpose of salvation in Christ, far from being that of mere imputation from without of a righteousness to mankind through such a device as the sinner’s faith, was, on the other hand, concerned with the enabling of people to observe all of God’s commandments in a true spirit of love and obedience, such becoming possible through the means here presented, that of walking after the Spirit and not after the flesh. That the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us ... shows that God’s purpose with reference to his commandments has been invariable from all eternity, and that God’s purpose has not been diverted or diminished with regard to those who are called Christians. The manner of fulfilling God’s commandments, however, has undergone a marvelous transformation in the new covenant. Whereas under the Old Testament regime, attention was directed to specific commandments of "thou shalt not" do this and "thou shalt" do that, under the New Testament system the believer in Christ lives a life of love and harmony with the Spirit of God. Paul earlier said that the law of Moses was spiritual (Rom 7:14), and, therefore, the law coincides absolutely in all of its commandments of moral uprightness with the Spirit of God. Thus, to walk in the Spirit is to fulfill the will of God. Who walk not after the flesh ... This is an appropriate place to note Paul’s use of the term "flesh." For three separate senses in which Paul employs this term, see under Rom 7:6. Paul did not teach that all flesh is by nature and from birth sinful. As Whiteside observed: Human flesh is not sinful in and of itself; if so, the flesh of Jesus was sinful. ... Christ had in his nature all that the word "man" implies. "Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also in like manner partook of the same" (Heb 2:14). "Wherefore it behooved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren" (Heb 2:17). If Christ’s brethren were born sinful and he was not, then he was not like them in all things. But as Jesus was made in all things like unto his brethren and was without sin, it shows conclusively that sin is not a part of man’s nature. When Adam and Eve were created, they had all that belongs to human nature. Sin came into their lives as the result of a foreign element. Sin is no more a park of man’s nature than is dust in the eye. F9 The use of the word "likeness" in the preceding verse (which see) has led some to suppose that Christ partook of a human nature that was only similar to that of people, the dissimilarity being in that all other people possessed a sinful nature, and Christ did not. Such cannot be true because the author of Hebrews described Christ as one "tempted in all points like as we are, and yet without sin" (Heb 4:15). Now if Christ’s very nature had been different from that of other people, it could not have been true that he was tempted as people are tempted. He would have had, in such a view, a variation that would have made that statement in Hebrews impossible. Therefore, as already noted, the sole reason for Paul’s employment of the term "likeness" in the preceding verse was for the purpose of avoiding an implication that Christ’s flesh was sinful, and not for the purpose of suggesting that his flesh was different from that of all people. In the flesh ... as used here has reference to living in such a manner that the fleshly lusts, appetites and desires are the goals of life. That person who makes the satisfaction of temporal, bodily, social and animal instincts the end and all of living is walking after flesh. Thus Tertullian was correct: It is the works of the flesh, not the substance of the flesh, which St. Paul condemns. ... The apostle everywhere condemns the works of the flesh in such a way as to appear to condemn the flesh; but no one can suppose him to have any such view. F10 Verse 5 For they that are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. The Greek from which this verse comes, according to Wuest, may be translated literally thus: For those who are habitually dominated by the flesh put their mind on the things of the flesh. F11 Wuest also noted that the word "mind" carries with it the thought of "deliberately setting the mind upon a certain thing." From this, it is clear that "walking after the flesh" means deliberately shutting out from the mind all other considerations except those related to animal, bodily, social and temporal needs and desires. In such a definition appears the true reason why the flesh is called "sinful." It is not because of inherent or natural contamination, but it is due to domination of the flesh by a mind at enmity with God. Again, from Tertullian, Therefore the apostle says that "sin dwelleth in the flesh," because the soul by which sin is provoked has its temporary lodging in the flesh, which is doomed indeed to death, not however, on its own account, but on account of sin. F12 Once the stubborn soul of man, the inner man himself, as distinguished from the flesh, has become reconciled to God through faith and obedience to the gospel of Christ, and has received the Holy Spirit of promise, such a person is then endowed with a whole new set of values. He is born again! Thus the man walks "in newness of life," as Paul had already stated in Rom 6:4. This transformation from the old state to the new one is here identified as "minding the things of the Spirit"; but Paul also identified the same condition as that of permitting the mind of Christ to be in the believer (Php 2:5f). A legitimate deduction from this is that to possess a measure of God’s Spirit and to possess the mind of Jesus Christ are one and the same thing. Verse 6 For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace. Mind of the flesh ... cannot be thought of as identifying the mind with the flesh, that is, the substance of the flesh. Tertullian cautioned that The carnal mind must be referred to the soul (as distinguished from the flesh), although ascribed sometimes to the flesh (as here), on the ground that it is ministered to by the flesh and through the flesh. F13 The "mind" that Paul had in view here is the rebellious and perverse spirit of man’s inner self; and the meaning is not primarily that physical death is caused by such mind (though, of course, it can cause that also), but that a state of death derives from and automatically accompanies such a mind, a condition called death "in trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1). In a simplistic view, man’s entire trouble lies in his inmost mind. Who is in charge there? If the inner throne is occupied by Satan, sin and death reign. If Christ is on the throne, life and peace reign. Verse 7 Because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be. As Barrett noted, (The mind of the flesh) means a mind from which God is excluded. F14 This verse should be understood in the light of certain basic facts. There is a seat of authority within every person; it is the essential "I" whose choices and decisions determine destiny. Not merely the body, but also the intelligence itself, are both subject to this essence of the person, which is the monitor of the complete life of the individual. This inner throne of personal authority was designed by the Creator for his own occupancy, and is so created that the "I" itself cannot occupy it; although it is possible for the "I" to dethrone God and turn the occupancy of the throne over to Satan. This is what Adam did in Eden. This means that every life is under the authority of God or that of Satan. Man was so created that it is impossible for man himself to be the captain of his soul, his very nature requiring that the ultimate authority of his life shall belong to either one of two masters, and only two, God or Satan. Thus, when Paul spoke of the "mind of the flesh" in this verse as being at enmity with God, he referred to the mind of one who has put the Lord off the inner throne of his life. It is true that Satan deceives people into the vanity of believing that they might indeed get rid of God and "live their own lives"; but it is a delusion, for, in the very act of refusing God the adoration that is rightfully his, the person becomes automatically a de facto servant of the devil; and the inevitable result of such an exchange of masters is that the very highest human faculties (as well as all others), including the intelligence itself, are incapable of serving God as long as such a condition exists. This intelligence subordinated to Satan instead of God was called "the mind of the flesh" by Paul here, because such a mind no longer has any regard or concern for eternal things and is occupied completely with the earthly life of flesh. How utterly wrong, therefore, and how totally incredible, is the delusion that any such thing as total hereditary depravity was taught by Paul in this verse. Murray has this: In the whole passage we have the biblical basis for the doctrines of total depravity and total inability. ... "Enmity against God" is nothing other than total depravity, and "cannot please God" nothing less than total inability. F15 But, of course, the expressions cited by Murray refer to man’s mind, not as it was by the endowment of birth, but as it became through his rebellion against God. Paul’s teaching here corresponds exactly with that of Jesus regarding two masters (Mat 6:24). If one decides to serve one, he cannot serve the other; but in the teaching both of Paul and of Jesus, the question of the soul’s right to decide is never for an instant doubted. The impossibility of serving the other master cannot derive from any inborn condition, but it must always be viewed as the consequence of the soul’s decision to serve one or the other, that option being the only one that God has given people. The right of decision is never removed from man, no matter what his sins are; and therefore the "mind of the flesh" is morally accountable to God. Every gospel invitation, and even the great invitation of Jesus (Mat 11:29-30) are grounded in the principle that even the wickedest of people have the right of decision if they elect to exercise it. The doctrines of depravity and inability cited above are inimical to the word of God, being not founded in the teachings of Christ or his apostles, but derived from the speculations of people. The question of judicial hardening is another matter, and will be discussed under Rom 11:25. Christ’s teaching with regard to little children and his word that "unto such belongeth the kingdom of heaven" (Mat 19:14) is a denial of human theories of total depravity, etc. Verse 8 And they that are in the flesh cannot please God. The questions raised by this verse are discussed under Rom 8:7, above. "In the flesh" is here a reference to the condition that exists when the soul rejects its Creator, sacrifices all hopes of immortality and of the eternal world, and decides to make the present life of flesh its one and only concern. Verse 9 But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. This verse categorically defines the person who is "in the flesh." He is the man, any man, who does not have the Spirit of Christ. The great human delusion is to the effect that there are really three kingdoms, Gods, Satan’s, and OURS! But OURS apart from God is not ours at all, but Satan’s. It’s really that simple! Man, by the very nature of his creation, is free only to the extent of being able to choose between good and evil, between God and Satan. There are not ten thousand ways, but only two. Jesus called them the narrow way and the broad way (Mat 7:13-14). But that glorious right of decision makes all the difference. It is the most priceless endowment of life on earth. Man was created in God’s image; and, although sin has eroded and defaced the sacred likeness, enough divinity remains in every man, regardless of how wicked he is, to enable him to exercise the option of whom he wills to serve. Not even Satan can demur or countermand the soul’s high order to re-enthrone the Christ within! To every man there openeth A high Way and a low; And every man decideth The way his soul shall go. F16 The ability to establish an acceptable pattern of behavior in the sight of God is therefore dependent, first of all, upon a person’s decision. Once the right decision has been made by hearing and obeying the gospel invitation of Christ, God sends his Holy Spirit into the lives of his children, thereby enabling them to live "in the Spirit." Such a new manner of life frees them from "the mind of the flesh" and embarks them and sustains them upon the right pathway. The importance of God’s Spirit in the hearts of Christians is of the very first magnitude, and a more particular attention to what the word of the Lord reveals concerning this truth is appropriate. THE INDWELLING SPIRIT Not merely here (Rom 8:9), but throughout the New Testament, the fact of the indwelling Spirit of God is emphasized. The first promise of the gospel is that believers in Christ who repent and are baptized for the remission of sins shall "receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38f), and for this reason he is called "The Holy Spirit of Promise" (Eph 1:13). To the Corinthians, Paul spoke of "the Holy Spirit which is in you" and declared that "the Spirit of God dwelleth in you" (1Co 6:19), To the Galatians, likewise, he said, "God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts" (Gal 4:6); and the Saviour himself said of the Holy Spirit to his disciples that "he dwelleth with you, and he shall be in you" (John 14:17). The degree of impartation of this glorious gift is only a portion but marvelously sufficient. Paul called this partial infusion of the Holy Spirit "the earnest of our inheritance" (Eph 1:13-14) The token quantity of this gift is ample to supply the child of God with all the help that he needs, but it is not enough to make him independent, either of the community of believers or of the word of God. The limited nature of this impartation should ever be remembered. The Holy Spirit within Christians is not a full measure of prophetic, healing, and discerning power, such as that enjoyed by the apostles of Christ. No true Christian, by virtue of his possessing the Spirit, should ever consider himself free to discard the sacred scriptures and "feel" his way to glory; and yet one gets the impression that some feel that way about it. When does one receive the indwelling Spirit? The Scriptures are very plain with reference to this: (1) It occurs "after that ye heard the word of truth" (Eph 1:13); (2) It comes after people have believed in Christ (Eph 1:13); (3) the indwelling begins after believers have become sons of God and as a consequence of their being so (Gal 4:6); and (4) the blessed Spirit is promised as a gift contingent upon and following the believer’s repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38f). In the light of these sacred teachings, how true are the words of Brunner with reference to how the life of the Spirit is achieved. He said, "It is nothing less than being in Christ." F17 It may be accepted as absolutely certain therefore, that the Holy Spirit never enters a believer for the purpose of making him a son of God, and he, in fact, never enters any person whomsoever except those who decide to serve God and obey the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The results of the indwelling of the Spirit in the hearts of God’s children are also spelled out in Gal 5:22-23, where such results are defined as love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and self-control. Specifically it should be observed that certain things are not said to be the fruit of the Spirit. Such things as miracles, gifts of prophecy, and speaking in tongues are not included. The Holy Spirit is not a spirit of contradicting the scriptures, nor of noise and confusion, nor of dreams and illusions, nor of strife and sectarianism, nor of pride and envy, nor of unfaithfulness and division. There are many misconceptions regarding the Holy Spirit in Christians’ lives, perhaps more than with regard to any other major doctrine of the Bible. Some of these are: (1) that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a commandment of God; on the other hand, it is not a commandment at all but a promise; (2) that the Holy Spirit is promised to all believers; on the contrary, he is promised to all believers who repent and are baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38f); (3) that the Holy Spirit baptism was promised to all Christians; but this promise was to the apostles alone (Luk 24:49); (4) that the Holy Spirit is imparted to make people sinless; yet Peter sinned after he had received even the baptism of the Holy Spirit; (5) that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is a subjective experience within men’s hearts; to the contrary, it was a visible and outward manifestation of God’s power, as exemplified by the two New Testament examples of it at Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius; (6) that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is followed by speaking in tongues; and, while it is true that the apostles did speak in tongues on Pentecost, after the power of the Spirit came upon them, the kind of tongues manifested there was nothing like the incoherent, unintelligible jabberings of the so-called "tongues" affected today; (7) that the Holy Spirit must work directly upon an unbeliever before he can obey God; but this is wrong if any other type of work is expected beyond the preaching of God’s word, there being absolutely no New Testament example of any conversion in which the convert did not first hear the word of God preached and then upon believing it, obey it. Verse 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness. If Christ is in you ... is exactly synonymous with several other Pauline expressions, such as: being "in Christ," the Spirit "dwelling in" Christians, and "having the mind of Christ" (Php 2:5), etc. These expressions may not be precisely differentiated, for they all refer to the saved condition. The body is dead because of sin ... emphasizes the truth that the redemption in Christ does not remit the sentence of physical death upon all men. The body of the holiest Christian is dead (that is, under sentence of death), even as it is with all. Godet has this: The primeval sentence still holds sway THERE; the body is deathful still; it is the body of the Fall; but the Spirit is life. He is in that body, your secret power and peace eternal. "Because of righteousness" (means) because of the merit of your Lord, in which you are accepted, and which has won for you this wonderful Spirit life. F18 Some commentators insist that "spirit" in the second clause of this verse means the spirit of man, this being required as the antithesis of "body" in the first clause. Others, like Godet, interpret it as meaning the Holy Spirit. Godet wrote: We refer the word (Spirit) here, as throughout the passage, to the Holy Spirit. No other interpretation seems either consistent with the whole context, or adequate to its grandeur. F19 Another view is possible, and is broad enough to include both viewpoints. By understanding "spirit" to mean not merely the spirit of an unregenerated man, but the spirit of the Christian in the state of being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, the antithesis would be fulfilled and the appropriate emphasis upon the Holy Spirit would both be achieved by such an interpretation. This also harmonizes with the text. for it is not of any human spirit that Paul here wrote, but the spirit of Christians; and, furthermore, the life imparted is due absolutely to the Holy Spirit’s residence within the Christian’s spirit. Verse 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you. In the preceding verse, Paul mentioned the body’s being sentenced to death, due to that portion of the primeval sentence being still operative, even upon Christians; but even the death of the body is at last to be nullified by the salvation that is in Christ Jesus. Such a nullification will take place when the "dead in Christ" rise to meet the Lord in the air. The resurrection itself, in this verse, is made to depend upon the indwelling of the Spirit, for it is promised, "If the Spirit ... dwelleth in you." The resurrection of Christ appears here as a pledge of a similar resurrection of Christians, a resurrection of their "mortal bodies," just as Christ’s mortal body was raised and recognized by his disciples. Thus salvation is more than merely saving the soul, although that is likewise glorious; but this teaches that body and soul alike will participate in the ultimate glory of eternal life. The great connective between the resurrection of Christ and the ultimate resurrection of his disciples is the blessed ministry of the Holy Spirit in Christian hearts, and thus appears the absolute necessity of the Spirit’s residence in Christian hearts. This place, along with Rom 8:9 compels the conclusion that if one does not have the Spirit of God in his soul, he is not a Christian, not in Christ, not saved, and is not in any sense Christ’s. Verses 12, 13, 14 So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh: for if ye live after the flesh, we must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. The first clause here is a figure of speech called meiosis, a vast understatement for the sake of emphasis. "Not debtors to the flesh"! Indeed no; they are debtors to the Spirit and are charged with the responsibility of even putting the flesh to death, in a figure. These verses form an exhortation regarding the two ways to live, the consequences of which Paul had already fully outlined. To live after the flesh is death; to live after the Spirit is eternal life. Ye must die ... has reference to more than physical death, for Paul had already noted in Rom 8:10 that Christians are not exempt from that; therefore, it is of eternal consequences that he spoke here. Lenski was impressed with the contrast between the words "live" and "die." Men ever think that they are really living when they give way to the flesh, whereas in reality they are heading straight for eternal death. F20 Significantly, there is no relaxation of moral requirements for those who are in Christ. Believing and obeying the gospel, receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, and thereby rejoicing in the grace of God, do not for a moment cause sin to be any less sin for the Christian. Mortification of the. deeds of the body is the daily task of the soul in Christ. Greathouse’s comment is this: It is important that we try to grasp just what Paul means here. He is most certainly not advocating ascetic mortification, which is based upon the idea that the body is a weight upon the soul. Paul is not positing any Hellenistic body-soul dualism. As we have seen, the body [Greek: soma] is the soul expressed concretely. What the believer is obligated to do, if we may borrow Oswald Chambers’ happy expression, is to sacrifice the natural for the sake of the spiritual. By the Spirit, we are to reckon that the members of our body are dead to sin and that we are alive unto God (Rom 6:11-13) F21 Verse 15 For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but ye received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The spirit of adoption ... is doubtless another expression referring to the Holy Spirit, so-called here because of the appropriate contrast with the "spirit of bondage" which marked their lives in the service of Satan. Christians are sometimes called "bondslaves" to Christ; but here their status is compared to that of children adopted by a loving father. The point of the admonition forbids fear. If God’s children will love him and be faithful to him, there is absolutely nothing that they need to fear. The first fruits of the indwelling Spirit are love, joy, and peace; and it is unbecoming of a child of God to manifest a spirit of bondage and fear. After all, he is God’s CHILD! As a child of God, the Christian should live a life of joyful anticipation of those eternal benefits which are so emphatically promised in the word of God. Abba, Father ... "Abba" is the Aramaic equivalent of "Father"; and thus the expression literally means "Father, Father." Sanday explained the repetition as one of endearment and entreaty, taken from the natural impulse of children to repeat a beloved name in different forms. F22 Barrett was impressed with the profound implications of this verse, as follows: That it occurs twice (the expression "Abba, Father") in Paul’s Greek writings is a striking fact, which may be due to the impression made by Jesus’ direct and unconventional approach to the Father. It corresponds exactly to the opening of the Lord’s Prayer in the Lucan form (Luk 11:2), and Paul’s reference here may be to the use of this prayer in Christian worship. The very fact that you can address God as Abba proves that the Spirit is at work among you, and that you are Gods’ children. F23 Taking Barrett’s discerning thought a little further, the PROOF that God’s Spirit is actually working in people does not depend upon some outlandish manifestation but upon simple things like the willingness to address God as Father in prayer, the willingness to sing his praises in public assemblies, the willingness to attend public worship and to maintain public identification with God’s children in the church. It is dearly in such ways as these, and in countless so-called ordinary ways, that the proof of the indwelling Spirit is manifested in Christians. Such prosaic things as daily prayer and regular worship tend to be despised; but in this verse the Spirit himself reveals that these things are actually the sine qua non of walking in the Spirit, and that they prove the Spirit’s indwelling presence, only with this provision, that such conduct is truly the result of the Spirit’s influence and not merely the exercise of the person’s own will through selfish and social considerations. Verses 16, 17 The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him. If so be that we suffer with him ... Here again the great provisional is hurled into the consideration of the Christian’s inheritance. "If’" the child of God is faithful, even to the point of suffering with Christ, then, but not otherwise, shall he truly inherit eternal life. Again from Brunner: We are still only adopted; we have not yet taken over the inheritance. We have been appointed heirs apparent of eternal life and its fulfillment, but we do not yet enjoy it. We have the full assurance of future glory, but we are not yet out of the life where there is suffering and fighting. Indeed, a definite suffering actually belongs to true discipleship. Whoever does not take up his cross and follow him, cannot be his disciple (Mat 16:24 f). He who does not want to suffer with Christ cannot share in his glory either. The way of the Christian is not a path on the heights but down below. The way on the heights is in heaven, not on earth. F24 Notice the contrast between the use of "sons of God" (Rom 8:14) and "children of God" here. The latter terminology emphasizes the dependence of the redeemed upon their Saviour. They are not full grown, but are children; they cannot make it "on their own." Moreover, they are adopted, not heirs in their own right; and further, it is not as heirs SOLE, but as joint-heirs with Christ that they shall inherit, their ultimate inheritance being conditioned absolutely upon their identification with Christ, as being "in him" now and "found in him" at the last day. "The witness of the Spirit brought into view in these verses has occasioned some extravagant language by commentators. Thus, John Wesley said: (The witness of the Holy Spirit) is an inward impression on my soul, whereby the Spirit of God directly witnesses to my spirit, that I am a child of God; that Jesus Christ hath loved me, and given himself for me; and that all my sins are blotted out, and I, even I, am reconciled to God. F25 A further study of what the word of the Lord teaches on this subject is warranted. THE WITNESS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT Nothing associated with the Christian faith has been the occasion of more uncertainty, confusion, and misinformation, than has the function of the Holy Spirit as a witness. None can deny that the Holy Spirit does indeed witness with believers, for this is the plain affirmation of the verse before us. It is not of the fact, but of the manner of the witness, that we are concerned here. John Wesley (as cited above) and countless others have understood the witnessing as an inner and subjective experience; and in that view of what this verse means, all kinds of subjective impressions, experiences, and even dreams have been received as valid bona fide witnessing of the Holy Spirit. This writer still recalls an incident of many years ago, in which a man struck himself in the breast and said, "I would not give what I feel right here for all the Bibles on earth." He interpreted that "feeling" as the direct testimony of the Holy Spirit to him that he was a redeemed child of God, despite the fact that he was a known sinner in that community, who had never confessed the Lord, had never been baptized, and did not honor a church of any name with his membership! It is possible that such notions of the Spirit’s witness still exist; and, in the interest of providing true and accurate information on this subject, the following is presented. The New Testament gives certain examples of the Holy Spirit’s witnessing, and those inspired examples demand our attention. The author of Hebrews wrote: And the Holy Spirit beareth witness to us; for after he hath said, This is the covenant that I shall make with them ... then saith he, Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more (Heb 10:15-17). Here is an authentic case of the Holy Spirit’s witnessing to the author of the book of Hebrews. Let it be noted that the Spirit did not witness "in" him but "to" him, and that the content of that witness had nothing whatever to do with any inward "feelings" of the author. The witness did not consist of anything that he either felt or thought but was composed of what the Holy Spirit SAID. He said, "This is the covenant, etc." (Jer 31:33f ); and the prophet Jeremiah was the mortal author of the passage here said to be the witness of the Holy Spirit. This, of course, had been written in the sacred scriptures many centuries before the author of Hebrews wrote his epistle; and that author learned what that witness was, either by reading it himself, or through hearing others read it. As Griffith Thomas noted, This is the true witness of the Holy Spirit, not something dependent upon our own variable emotions, but that which is objective to us, and fixed, the word of God. F26 Take another example. Paul wrote: The Holy Spirit testifieth to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me (Acts 20:23). Here again the witness of the Holy Spirit consisted of a message in words spoken. Paul did not (in that passage) name the speakers through whom the message was delivered in each of the cities where such witnessing occurred; but a graphic revelation of how it was done in one city was recorded for our benefit by the Holy Spirit, through the author of Acts of Apostles. This occurred at Caesarea, thus: And as we tarried there some days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And coming to us and taking Paul’s girdle, he bound his own feet and hands, and said, Thus saith the Holy Spirit. So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles (Acts 21:10-11). Here again, the Holy Spirit did not witness "in" Paul but "to" him, and not by any such things as subjective feelings, dreams, impressions, or premonitions. The Holy Spirit’s witness came to him through words intelligibly spoken, dramatically illustrated, and plainly identified as being, not the words of Agabus, but the words of the Holy Spirit. That is the only kind of witness of the Holy Spirit that is worth the attention of the child of God. These two New Testament examples of the Spirit’s witnessing to people justify the conclusion that such witness is accomplished in two ways: (1) through the words of a living prophet, known to be true and authentic, and (2) through the words of the Bible, authored by the true and authentic prophets and inspired people of previous ages. In view of this, how does the Holy Spirit bear witness with our spirit that we are the children of God, the same being the affirmation of the verses before us? The Holy Spirit is the author of the commandments in the Bible, and of the promise of salvation connected with and related to those commandments, as for example when the Holy Spirit said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." The witness of the Holy Spirit, in one particular, is that verse in the New Testament (Mark 16:16). Now, when the spirit of a man has accepted heaven’s offer by believing and obeying such a command, then the spirit of such a person is also a witness that he has believed and obeyed God, and is therefore saved. Thus it comes about that the Holy Spirit bears witness, not "to" our spirit, merely, but "with our spirit" that we are children of God. Regarding such marvelous truths to the effect that God loves us, Christ loves us, he gave himself for me, he has forgiven my sins, etc. - such are indeed witnessings borne unto the sons of people by the Holy Spirit, but certainly not in such a subjective fashion as that fancied by Wesley. No. Witnessings such as these do not depend upon the fallible and variable emotions and feelings of mortals but are grounded solidly in the word that liveth and abideth forever. One cannot resist the conclusion that Wesley received the things he mentioned, at least some of them, from the New Testament, and not from any independent testimony within himself. At least, that is WHERE this writer receives testimony from the Holy Spirit! Thus, it is plain that the convert may properly say that the Holy Spirit bears witness to him in the New Testament, as indeed he does to all people, inviting people to accept salvation and revealing the conditions upon which they may have it; but the Spirit never bears witness "with" such a person until he accepts and obeys the gospel. Upon that event, the Spirit then bears witness "with" his spirit that he is a child of God. The Spirit witnesses as to the terms of salvation; the saved person’s spirit witnesses to the fact that he has complied with the terms; and, in that instance, there are two witnesses to the man’s salvation. The witness of the Holy Spirit is available to all people who are able either to hear or read the word of the Lord. If one wishes to know what the witness of the Holy Spirit is with reference to such a question as who is, or is not, a child of God, let him read there what is written. There is the true witness of the Holy Spirit. Paul’s subject in these verses (Rom 8:14-16) was not how to become a Christian, but how to remain so. It is a misuse of this passage for one to declare that "Since I feel that I am led by God’s Spirit, I know I am a Christian." Before the blessed Spirit will enter and dwell in any heart, its possessor must already be a Christian. No man who is not "in Jesus Christ" can possibly be host to God’s Spirit. It is "because ye are sons" that God sent his Spirit into people’s hearts (Gal 4:6). Verse 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to us-ward. Despite the fact that Christians are beneficiaries of the blood of Christ, heirs of everlasting glory, and destined at last to live in that upper and better kingdom where all the problems of earth shall be solved in the light and bliss of heaven, there is a present and urgent sorrow that falls upon all of them by reason of the sufferings in the flesh. Paul had revealed a moment before that the child of God might expect no exemptions but must suffer throughout the days of mortality; and therefore, by way of encouragement, he emphasizes as a motive for patience in such sufferings, their triviality, as compared with the ultimate glory of the children of God, a glory which they shall not merely see, but a glory in which they shall actually participate. The time of such a glorification of the redeemed will be at the second coming of Christ and following the judgment of the final day. That far-off reality is here made a motive of patient endurance of sufferings and tribulations. Greathouse thus expressed it: Sufferings then belong to this present age, between the advents of our Lord. Glory belongs to the age to come. As Moffatt puts it, sufferings are a mere nothing when set against the glory that shall be revealed in us." F27 Charles Hodge connected this verse with the remainder of the chapter thus: The main idea of Rom 8:18, obviously, is that the future glory transcends immeasurably the sufferings of this present state. All that follows tends to illustrate and enforce that idea. F28 Verse 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth for the reveling of the sons of God. The common interpretation of this verse, from which this writer differs, is represented by the following: The creation (means) the whole world of nature, animate and inanimate. F29 Paul, after the manner of other sacred writers, describes the external world (the sub-human world, animate and inanimate) as sympathizing with the righteous, and participating in the glories of Messiah’s reign. F30 Hodge refers to such an interpretation as "the common one," and Murray said that: This view is the one most widely maintained by the commentators. F31 Very extensive and learned dissertations are available to "prove" this viewpoint, the best of them, perhaps, being that of Hodge whose logic is persuasive and difficult of refutation; but Hodge himself admitted that In the early Christian church, this opinion was prevalent, and was the germ whence the extravagance of the Millenarians arose. F32 Before proceeding to what is here considered the correct interpretation of this verse, it should be pointed out that if the above view is taken poetically, or figuratively, to represent the "whole creation" now groaning beneath the consequences of the fall and anxiously awaiting the long expected day of redemption, then there would be no violence to the truth in such a view. But the word "creation" in this verse is exactly the word in Mark 16:15 and in Col 1:23, where, in both places, it means "human beings" only, and not animals and inanimate portions of the sub-creation; nor does there appear to be any good reason why the same restricted meaning should not be understood here. The following is from a footnote in the Greek Diaglott: [Greek: Ktisis] (as used in Romans 8:19,20,21, and 22), CREATION, has the same signification here as in Mark 16:15 : "Proclaim the glad tidings to the whole creation," that is, "all mankind;" and also Col 1:23, where a similar phrase occurs. That the brute and inanimate creation is not here spoken of, but mankind, is evident from the hope of emancipation from the "slavery of corruption" held out in the 21st verse, and the contrast introduced in the 23rd verse, between the [ktisis] and those possessing the "first fruit of the Spirit." F33 Despite the preponderance of the commentators alleged to support the other view, there are, nevertheless, many of the most distinguished expositors who hold the view advocated here. Hodge himself mentioned, as holding this persuasion, Hammond, Locke, Semler, Ammon, and others, who held that the word CREATION, as used here, means the race of mankind as distinguished from Christians. F34 Note the following: CREATION in the language of St. Paul and of the New Testament, signifies "mankind"; especially the Gentile world, as the far greater part of creation. F35 One cannot fail to recognize that this concept of CREATION mostly denotes "humanity" for Paul, and that he nowhere else speaks of the world of nature. F36 James Macknight summed up the position which seems to be correct, as follows: According to some commentators, the words "we know that every creature groaneth" denote the whole creatures of God, animate and inanimate, which, as they were cursed for the sin of the first man, may by a beautiful rhetorical figure be represented as groaning together under that curse, and earnestly wishing to be delivered from it. ... Nevertheless Rom 8:21, where it is said that "the creature itself shall be liberated from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God"; and the antithesis, Rom 8:23, "not only they, but ourselves also," show that the apostle is speaking, not of the brute and animate creation, but of mankind, and of their earnest desire of immortality. For these reasons, and especially because of Mark 16:15, "Preach the gospel to every creature," which means to every human creature, I think the words (creature and creation) in this verse and in the preceding three verses (this note was written on Rom 8:22), signify mankind in general, Jews as well as Gentiles. See also Col 1:23 where the words signify "every human creature." F37 If them, as assumed here, this verse is a reference to the unredeemed portion of humanity, which constitutes the overwhelming majority of all men, what is the meaning to be understood by the statement here that there is "an expectation" or longing and eager anticipation looking to the revelation of the sons of God? The most likely meaning is resident in that passionate desire of the human race for eternal life. Hodge downgraded such universal longings after immortality as insufficient to justify Paul’s words here; but it cannot be denied that there are deep and irrepressible longings in the human heart for something better than the poor years of agony and frustration on earth. How eagerly do the men of science seek to hurl back the frontiers of death; how persistently do they strive to extend the human life-span; and how pitiful is the reaction of every man to the inevitable claims of the tomb! That all such agony of frustration is indeed an "expectation" looking to the revelation of the sons of God appears reasonable enough, the greatest tragedy being that, for earth’s unredeemed billions, that expectation is but a subconscious thing, leading them to seek its fruition, not in the Lord Jesus Christ, through whom their most daring hopes might become reality, but in the futile and ineffectual devices which they themselves have contrived. Such is the darkness of the epic tragedy of mankind, lost in sin, without God, and without hope in the world, until they shall turn to the Lord Jesus Christ. Macknight’s fortunate paraphrase of this verse is thus: What a blessing a resurrection to immortality is, may be understood by this, that the earnest desire of mankind hath ever been to obtain that glorious endless life in the body, by which the sons of God shall be made known. F38 Verse 20 For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who subjected it, in hope. There are three statements in this verse: (1) the creation was subjected to vanity; (2) this subjection was not voluntary, but imposed by God; and (3) the very subjection is a basis of hope, for otherwise there would have been no point at all in granting to rebellious humanity any further tolerance at all. Vanity ... describes the wretchedness, sufferings, disappointments, frustrations, futilities and general tragedy of mortal life in a state of separation from God, due to man’s sin. The New English Bible translates this phrase, "was made subject to frustration." Not of its own will ... is understood by some commentators as meaning "not due to any act of its own"; but that interpretation confuses the reason of the subjection with the execution of the deserved punishment of man’s rebellion. The reason for the subjection was certainly due to man’s willful and rebellious act; but the execution of God’s sentence upon man for that rebellion was no part of man’s will. but contrary to it. It was the will of "him who subjected it," meaning God, humanity having had no choice whatever, except to submit to the subjection sentenced upon mankind by the Father. Thus the subjection was "not of its own will." John Locke insisted that Adam’s disobedience was not of his own will, since it occurred "not through his own choice, but by the guile of the devil." F39 However, Locke’s interpretation fails to give proper weight to Adam’s responsibility. Tempted or not, it was Adam’s free will that consented to the deed that plunged all of his posterity into ruin. Him who subjected it in hope ... is a reference to God, who alone had the authority and power to subject the creation to vanity, and also the option of totally destroying man because of sin, or subjecting him in hope of his redemption. The master plan of God called for the exercise of the latter option. Although many agree that God is spoken of here, Godet thought it was Adam who, through his rebellion, subjected the lower creation to the curse of God; and Hammond was quoted by him as applying the term "him" to Satan, the prince of the world, as Jesus calls him, who either by his own fall, or that of man, dragged the creation into the miserable state here described. F Neither of those views, however, takes into account the revelation here that the subjection was effected "in hope," a motive far from Satan, and likewise a stranger to Adam. That there is, of course, a grain of truth in such views, stems from the fact that both Adam and Satan had a part in it, Satan as the provocateur, and Adam as the rebellious instrument. It is, however, fully in keeping with the teachings of the Bible that God is said to do many things which, in a lesser sense, were done by others, as, for example, in the case of the crucifixion of Christ (see under Rom 3:26). Verse 21 That the creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. The first clause here is the expression of God’s hope for fallen man and should be read in close connection with the preceding verse. Here is the proof of what creation Paul meant in these verses, the same being the creation which is in "the bondage of corruption," terminology which excludes both the brute and inanimate creations and points dramatically at the sons of Adam. (See under Rom 8:19.) The corruption here ascribed to the "creation," as well as God’s hope of its redemption, and of its becoming partakers of the liberty of the glory of the children of God are statements that simply cannot fit animal or inanimate life. No animal, for example, could be thought of as being in the bondage of corruption, nor as having any prospect of ever getting out of it. Again we have recourse to Macknight’s paraphrase: In the resolution that, on account of the obedience of the second man, even the heathens themselves shall be set free from the bondage of the grave, and those who believe be brought into full possession of the happiness which belongs to the children of God. F41 Verse 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. The whole creation ... means all mankind, the word "creation" being the same as that used in all of these verses (see under Rom 8:19). Here the metaphor is that of the labor room in a hospital, only without modern anesthetics. Locke’s paraphrase is, For we know that all mankind, all of them, groan together, and unto this day are in pain, as a woman in labor, to be delivered out of the uneasiness of this mortal state. F42 As Brunner noted, human beings are not asked if they wish to suffer, they must do so: No one is asked! ... This expectation of the creature is different from the hope of Christians. (In their case) it is an apathetic, unconscious waiting, a waiting for something better, yet uncertain of its goal. But it is expounded by the apostle according to its true nature. What men actually mean without knowing it, is the goal in Christ which has been given to mankind: divine sonship, freedom, divine adoption, participation in the glory of God. F43 No adequate description of the groaning of humanity is possible; but all men are aware of it. Millions of hospital beds are freighted with agony and despair. The struggles of humanity are like the frenzy of a savage beast caught in a vicious trap. Tears stain every face, and blood lies upon every threshold. The problem of daily survival presses upon the hearts of millions who are snared in poverty, grounded in the mud and filth of human sin, facing a life of ceaseless want and toil, and, augmenting their wretchedness, is the soul-fever of aching desires which agitate their minds, stifling the nobler impulses, and condemning the unfortunate to the pursuit of goals which, even if attained, turn to dust and ashes in their hands. And to climax all that tragedy of agitation and failure, the very bodies of all people, after attaining some little strength for a day, wither and descend into the rottenness of the grave. Like a wounded serpent that sinks its poisonous fangs into its own flesh people vent the agony of their madness through vicious indulgence of wars and revolutions, only to face with each new generation the unremitting sentence to repeat the old follies, over and over again. The screams of the labor room are an apt metaphor indeed of the human condition, "subjected to vanity." Verse 23 And not only so, but ourselves also, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. But ourselves also ... Alas, not even Christians are exempt from the tragic consequences of Adam’s transgression. Universal sighing is also our lot. As Brunner expressed it: Of course, we have already become sons or children of God; but the effect of the redemption and the full realization of the sonship are still outstanding. We have only the "first-fruits" of the Spirit, the pledge of life in the glory of God, but the glory itself in its fullness is not yet here. F44 Our adoption ... which was mentioned so favorably in Rom 8:15 (which see), even that is by no means final but must be waited for. The adoption will be final and complete when man possesses his body, free of the sentence of death, thus being empowered truly to participate in the glory of God. The incompleteness of man’s salvation shall ever pertain to the earthly phase of the Christian’s existence. The adoption is not final, and even his possession of the Spirit of God is partial, in the extent of an "earnest" only, and bearing not the full fruit, but only the "firstfruits." Despite the partial and incomplete nature of the salvation Christians enjoy during the present life, it is nevertheless the end and all of living. The word of the Creator himself is signed to the title deeds of our hope. The blood of Christ is sufficient to redeem; the love of God for his children will finally prevail; and the ancient promise of God will be fulfilled when "the ransomed of the Lord" shall indeed enter into his presence "with songs of everlasting joy upon their heads, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away" (Isa 35:10). Verse 24 For in hope were we saved: but hope that is seen is not hope: for who hopeth for that which he seeth? Attention is directed to the English Revised Version (1885) margin where appears the alternate translation, "By hope were we saved." Translators and commentators are sensitive about salvation’s being ascribed to anything else except faith; but the word of God honors no such inhibitions, affirming positively that people are saved "by grace" (Eph 2:8), "by the gospel" (1Co 15:1-2), "by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (Acts 4:10-12), "by his (Christ’s) life" (Rom 5:10), "by the washing of regeneration" (Tit 3:5), "by his (Christ’s) blood (Rev 1:5), "by the foolishness of the preaching" (1Co 1:21), "by baptism" (1Pe 3:21), "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1Pe 1:3), etc. Any simplistic system whatever that would impose such a word as "only" upon any of the factors involved in human redemption is antagonistic to the scriptures. Hope belongs to the Christian’s status, and is a prerequisite of his salvation, no less than faith and love, all three, in fact, being mentioned as a trinity of Christian requirements in 1Co 13:13; and most significantly, faith does not climax that series; love does! Verse 25 But if we hope for that which we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. This verse explains how we are saved by hope, because, without hope, there could not be the patience which is required to prevent the child of God from falling into discouragement. The Christian’s salvation lies altogether within an area of what the world speaks of as "intangibles." It is a faithful trusting in "things not seen as yet" (see my Commentary on Hebrews, p. 250). Hope is far more than a mere wish that something might exist or be possessed; it is a valid claim, supported by faith, and grounded in confidence that the Lord is able to keep "that which I have committed to him" against that day (1Ti 1:12). This hope which saves is grounded in the Christian’s living faith, but it must also be distinguished from faith. As Sanday noted, Nor can it rightly be said that hope is an aspect of faith, because faith and hope are expressly distinguished, and placed as coordinates with each other in 1Co 13:13, "And now abideth faith, hope, and love, these three; and the greatest of these is love." F45 Going a little further with Sanday’s reasoning, "these three" are arranged in the ascending order of greatness, and therefore hope outranks faith in the constitution of God’s redemptive system. The KJV’s rendition of "We are saved by hope" is thus far better than the English Revised Version’s "for in hope were we saved." One may not resist the fear that the latter translation was encouraged by the jealousy of people to guard one of their popular theories that people are saved by "faith alone." Verse 26 And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered. There are two intercessors for the Christian: (1) Christ at the right hand of the Majesty on High (Heb 7:25), and (2) the Holy Spirit within the Christian himself. Thus, there are two sources of encouragement open to the Christian: (1) the blessed hope within himself, and (2) the help of the Holy Spirit. This entire arrangement supplies both human and divine encouragement to the child of God. We know not how to pray as we ought ... does not mean that Christians have no knowledge of prayer; but, as Lard noted: Our weakness and ignorance in this life are so great that in many respects, possibly as a rule, we know not what we should pray for as we ought. We want many things, and it may be pray for them, which, were they granted, would prove our greatest rots. fortune; while, we do not want, and never ask, for many things which would be our greatest blessings. Here then is ignorance of what we should pray for; and, as to how we should pray, I imagine we are equally at a loss. Confessedly then, we are weak and need aid. F46 With groanings that cannot be uttered ... is a reference to the dimly perceived and partially understood longings of the redeemed soul which are impossible for the Christian to frame into articulated petitions to the Father, but which needs, though inadequately understood, are nevertheless understood by the Spirit of God who transfers such inexpressible yearnings of the soul to the Throne itself. This identification of the groanings mentioned here with the believer’s inadequacy, rather than with any insufficiency of the Holy Spirit, follows the thought of Locke’s paraphrase, thus: Such therefore, are our groans, which the Spirit, in aid to our infirmity, makes use of. For we know not what prayers to make, as we ought, but the Spirit itself layeth for us our requests before God. F47 Therefore, when the Christian’s prayers have reached the boundary of language as a vehicle for the conveyance of thought, when such prayers become more of a heavenward sigh than a formal utterance, then the Christian may know that the inward Intercessor is fully able to convey the soul’s true desire to the Throne. Verse 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is in the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. The identification of the Holy Spirit in this verse indicates personality, from the consideration of his having a "mind," and also unity with God from the consideration of his access to the Father and the absolute harmony of his actions with "the will of God." Particularly, it should be noted that the Spirit’s intercession is not for all, but for the saints, the latter word emphasizing that the help of the Holy Spirit is available only for them that already have the Spirit within. God is represented here as searching people’s hearts; and, as Godet noted, "God is often called in the Old Testament the searcher of hearts." F48 People may not inquire exactly into the "how" of such things, nor as to the precise manner in which such marvelous activities on behalf of the redeemed soul are actually accomplished. That it was from the beginning, in God’s purpose, designed that the Holy Spirit would intercede for the saved, was pointed out thus by Locke: "The Spirit" promised in the time of the gospel, is called "the Spirit of supplications" in Zec 12:10. F49 Verse 28 And we know that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose. All things ... includes all sufferings, sorrows, infirmities, and everything else of a discouraging and calamitous nature which might befall God’s child on earth. "For good ..." cannot mean earthly prosperity, success, bodily health, or any other purely mortal benefit, but is rather a reference to the eternal felicity of the soul. Whatever might happen to the Christian in this life, absolutely nothing can happen to HIM, that is, his saved inner self. This is true because God is able to overrule every earthly circumstance in such a manner as to compel its contribution to the eternal redemption that awaits the children of God. As Brunner warned, No universal optimism is meant - (such as) everything will turn out all right for everybody in any case. There stands here the significant limitation, "to them that love God." F50 Work together for good ... speaks of a situation in which God is surely at work on the Christian’s behalf, but it also speaks’ of a situation in which the saved person’s reaction to life’s woes is a controlled response. Some ships sail east, and some sail west, By the selfsame winds that blow. It’s the set of the sails and not the gales That determines the way they go! -Anonymous The reaction of the child of God, or his response, to the ills of mortal life must be one of patience, submission, humility, prayer, love, hope, and faith. Even adversity of the severest kind must be made to yield its precious fruit in the heart of the Christian. It has been proved again and again by Christians that "Prosperity is the blessing of the Old Testament; adversity is the blessing of the New." F51 Them that love God ... identifies the persons who shall receive the blessing of having all things work together for good on their behalf, this identification being further pinpointed by the last clause, "them that are called according to his purpose." Who are the people who love God? Christ said: If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. ... He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me (John 14:15-21). Christ’s apostles stressed the same truth: This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments (1Jn 5:3). This is love, that we should walk after his commandments (2Jn 1:6). Them that are called according to his purpose ... At this point, the great Biblical doctrines of calling, foreknowledge, and foreordination (or predestination) begin to emerge, doctrines which have evoked entire libraries of discussions, theories, and explanations, and which, in the fullness of their total meaning, may not be fully comprehensible to finite intelligence. These great teachings point toward God, upward and heavenward, and are like massive mountain peaks reaching up into the clouds, the summits of which extend far beyond the boundaries of human vision. Despite this, the foothills reached by our understanding afford beautiful and breathtaking vistas of these "deep things of the Spirit of God." Moses E. Lard said that "Those who are called" is simply another mode of designating the saved. It and the expression "those that love God’ are descriptive, not of different persons, but of the same. The two clauses also express important facts in their lives. F52 Of deep interest is the "calling" mentioned here. Who are the called, and how does the calling occur? Paul gave the answer thus: Whereunto (unto which salvation) he called you through the gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ (2Th 2:14). In one sense, the totality of human kind are called by the gospel, as indicated by Christ’s express command that the divine call should be proclaimed to "the whole creation"; but the phrase "according to his purpose" delimits the persons here spoken of to them that fulfilled God’s purpose through their affirmative response to the call. Called according to his purpose ... means to be called "in one body (the church)" (Col 3:15), and that "through the church" there might be made known "the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Eph 3:10-11). This, properly understood, eliminates the widespread misunderstanding with regard to God’s calling of the redeemed. Paul here did not speak of individuals as such, but of the whole body of the saved. That body, composed of the whole number of the redeemed, is indeed called and foreordained to eternal glory; but of an individual person, it must be said that he is called from before all time and predestinated to everlasting life, only if his affirmative response to the divine call has brought him into union with Christ, and if he so continues. See under following verses. "Purpose ..." here is translated from a Greek term [prothesis], meaning God’s placing all future events before his mind so as distinctly to see them. F53 Thus, the germ of foreknowledge is found in the very first word of Paul’s revelation on this tremendous subject. God’s purposing was "kept in silence through times eternal" (Rom 16:25), and was an event prior to the creation of the world, "which in other generations was not made known" (Eph 3:5), "which hath been hid for ages and generations" (Col 1:26), "which God who cannot lie, promised before times eternal" (Tit 1:2). God’s eternal purpose of gathering the saved of all ages into one body "in Christ" was a design "which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory" (1Co 2:7), which must be identified with "the mystery of God." A careful study of the passages here cited shows that in all of the "mystery" passages Paul was speaking of "the wisdom of God" and of his "eternal purpose" of uniting all people in Christ through the church which is his body. A further word from Lard on this is: We now have but little difficulty explaining the clause "called according to his purpose." In the [Greek: prothesis] all things pertaining to man’s redemption were set before God, and among them his predetermination that man should be called by the gospel, "to which salvation he called you by our gospel." Hence, to be called according to God’s purpose, [prothesis], is to be called by the gospel. It is therefore not to be called by some secret impulse of the Holy Spirit; neither is it to be called "effectually," or "ineffectually," as the schoolmen phrase it. This call we are absolutely free to accept or reject; and, accordingly, as we do this or that, we shall be saved or lost. F54 Verse 29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be tke firstborn among many brethren. Godet’s incisive comment on the meaning of the word "foreknew" is helpful. There is not a passage in the New Testament where the word "know" does not above all contain the notion of "knowledge," for this is the first and fundamental meaning. The same is the case with the word "foreknow." ... In Acts 2:23, "foreknowledge" is expressly distinguished from "the fixed decree" and consequently can denote nothing but prescience; and, as to Rom 11:2, "His people whom God foreknew," the idea of knowledge is the leading one in the word "foreknew." F55 Therefore, the only thing meant by the word "foreknew" in this verse is that God knew in advance all that would happen. There is no reason at all why this thought should trouble people, but it does. People invariably suppose that by God’s foreknowledge of an event, he thereby became the cause of it, thus leaving no place for the freedom of the human will. That such a supposition is incorrect becomes clear in the analogy with human knowledge. A man knows an event that took place in the past; and yet his knowledge cannot be viewed as causing the event to happen. God’s knowledge of the future is just like that, only covering a different period of time; and his eternal knowledge of what will happen cannot be viewed as the cause of those future events, nor as imposing any responsibility upon God for their occurrence. That Almighty God did actually know everything that would happen from all eternity is a fact totally beyond human comprehension, but the scriptural teaching of this fact is indisputable. In the background of Paul’s thought here, there was evidently the epic problem of God’s choice of Israel and apparent neglect of the Gentiles; because in Rom 11:2, he returned to this very word "foreknew" for the introduction of that subject there. The evident connection between what is said here and the Jew-Gentile problem discussed later was set forth in Locke’s paraphrase, thus: Bear, therefore, your sufferings with patience and constancy, for we certainly know that all things work together for good, to those that love God, who are called according to his purpose of calling Gentiles. In which purpose, Gentiles, whom he foreknew, as he did the Jews, with an intention of his kindness, and of making them his people, he preordained to be comformable to the image of his Son. F56 Foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son ... A glance at various translations and versions reveals the following words rendered for "foreordained": did predestinate, predestined, ordained, pre-ordained, appointed, etc. Where there is so much disagreement among the greatest scholars, no one should fear to choose another meaning, especially when the true meaning is obvious, can be shown to be absolutely Pauline, and clears up all the problems. Much of the fog, as thick as the meringue on a pie, which has confused and obscured the meaning of Paul here, disappears in a little closer attention to the word "destined," the same being the principal part of the word "predestined," which is by far the favorite word of the scholars for this rendition. The syllable "pre" is simple enough and refers only to the time (before the foundation of the world) when God "destined" certain things to occur. Therefore, we shall let the time element rest for the moment and focus upon what is meant by "destined." God destined people to be conformed to the image of his Son, the meaning being obviously this that the destiny of every man ever born on earth was that he should obey God and be conformed to the image of God’s Son. "Destined" has special reference to the plan of God, his intention, the objective he had in view when man was created. Phillips translation of this place catches its meaning perfectly: He planned, in his purpose of love, that we should be adopted as his own children through Jesus Christ. That this is exactly what Paul meant is plain from what he wrote to the Ephesians: He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ (Eph 1:5). God’s plan for every man ever born was that he should love God and be conformed to the perfect image of God’s Son, Jesus Christ. To such a glorious end, God "destined him," every man. If God had destined only a few people to receive such an inheritance, such an act of discrimination would have been unjust; and it may therefore be set aside as preposterous that God showed any such partiality. Once more, the master theme of this great epistle, God’s righteousness, is in focus in the words here, where Paul’s meaning is that even the Gentiles also were included in God’s loving plans. But, if all people are thus "destined" by God to be Christians, why are not all saved? God gave every person the absolute freedom of his will, and any man can therefore accept or refuse the destiny to which God called him. A man can live against his destiny, as evidenced by the fact that so many do; but, despite human sin, the essential glory of man’s true destiny is undeniable. Something of the nature and quality of the destiny God intended for all people is illustrated by the various destinies of Other portions of God’s creation. Thus a tiger was destined to live in the jungle, the fish in the water, the mole in the earth, the bird in the bush, and the bat in a cave. It is in such a broad frame of reference that man was destined to be a Christian, meaning that his true happiness, not merely hereafter but NOW, is best served by his conformity to the image of God’s Son. It was for that purpose that God made him, and every one of the more than seven billion cells in his physical body bears the imprimatur of the Holy Spirit. No wonder the "wages of sin is death"! Man living against his destiny and contrary to it is like the restless tiger, pacing the concrete floor of his cell in the zoo, until he leaves his tracks in blood upon the unyielding stone of his prison. In such a tragic state, the beast reveals to man the pathos of living contrary to his destiny. Such a view of the meaning of "destined" raises only one question, while answering many others, and that regards the reason why Paul restricted the meaning of "destined" in this place, apparently making it applicable only to those who actually became Christians. Godet’s careful exegesis clears that up, thus: (First, let it be remembered that Paul was here speaking of those who were CALLED). All alike are seriously called. Only it happens that some consent to yield to the call, and some refuse. This distinction is indicated by Jesus in the saying, "Many are called, but few are chosen" (Mat 20:16). The chosen in this passage are those who accept the call ... those not accepting the call, remain called and nothing more, to their condemnation. In the epistles, the apostles addressing Christians, do not require to make this distinction, since the individuals they address are assumed to have answered the call from the very fact that they have voluntarily entered the church. The case is like that of a man who should say to his guests assembled in his house: "Use everything that is here, for you are my invited guests." It is obvious that by thus expressing himself, he would not be distinguishing invitation from acceptance, the latter being implied in the very fact of their presence. F57 In exactly the same manner, Paul’s reference to God’s having "destined" (or foreordained) certain ones to be Christians may not be restricted to mean that such was not the destiny of all people, for it is. In Godet’s illustration, above, the host’s reference to those assembled as his "invited guests" cannot mean that no others except those present had been invited. Paul’s use of "foreordained" here and "called" in the following verse may not be restricted to mean that no others were foreordained or called. From the above considerations, and many others, it appears that the true meaning of Paul in this verse is that God predestined every man ever born to be a Christian, that such a destiny, or plan, was in God’s original purpose before the world was, hence a pre-destiny, making Paul’s word here (foreordained or predestined) to be exactly correct and appropriate. If only all people could realize that they are, and were from all eternity, destined to serve Christ, such appearing in scripture as the sole reason for their creation, what an incentive would be provided for them to turn to the Lord. To be sure, a man can live against his destiny (the freedom of the will took care of that); but, if he does, he will get hurt (and God will take care of that!). The highest happiness attainable by mankind is procurable only in harmony with the intended destiny of humanity, that of being conformed to the image of God’s Son. There is no happiness comparable to that of the Christian life. Conformed to the image of his Son ... is another expression that means "becoming a Christian," but there is a specific reference also to the Christian’s being transformed into the image or likeness of Christ, in mind, character, obedience, and all other qualities and virtues of the soul; but it does not end there. Finally, the children of God will be raised from the dead in the true likeness of the risen Saviour. As John wrote: Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that if he shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is (1Jn 3:2). Verse 30 And whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified,: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. The last clause of this great statement of the apostle, through its use of the past tense with the ultimate glory of the child of God, is plainly prophetic, viewing the entire scheme of redemption, from the beginning plan in the purpose of God before the world was created, to the final glory, as a single great design, encompassing within one grand operation the whole of time and temporal things. The predestined include all people, although many refuse their destiny: the called include all people, although many shall not heed it; the justified are they alone who through the obedience of faith are transferred into Christ, in whom alone justification is possible; and the glorified are those finally redeemed above. In view of these considerations, the mysterious doctrines of predestination, calling, election, etc., dissolve into this: God’s eternal purpose from times eternal, before the world was, determined that his Son, Jesus Christ, should lead an innumerable company of the redeemed out of earth’s populations, that these should be made righteous through perfect identification with Christ, as being truly "in him," identifiable as his brethren, conformed to his likeness, and obedient to his will, this summing up of all thing in Christ being precisely the thing foreordained to happen. That body of Christ, the church, is destined to eternal glory, and to be presented before the throne of God’s glory in exceeding joy in absolute perfection; and all hell shall not prevent it, such having been foreordained from all eternity. All that is said in the New Testament regarding predestination refers to this eventual triumph of the redeemed" in Christ," absolutely nothing whatever being able to forbid or prevent it; but all this has nothing at all to do with any individual person, as an individual, of whom nothing could be predestined, due to the freedom of his will. The predestined are those found "in Christ"; and the fairness and justice of this is inherent in the right of "whosoever will" to enter that company destined for eternal glory. Before taking up the study of the next part of this chapter, one other word regarding predestination is in order. Sanday has this: All we can say is that it (predestination) must not be interpreted in any sense that excludes free will. Free will is a postulate upon which all the superstructure of morals and religion must rest. The religious mind, looking back over the course by which it has been brought, sees in it the predominating hand of God; but. however large the divine element in salvation may be, it must in the end be apprehended by faith, which is an act of the free will. F58 Lard commented upon these two great errors often committed in the exposition of these verses, thus: These two great errors ... consist, first, in assuming that an act of foreknowledge necessarily implies an act of unalterable pre-fixture by decree of every act of human life; and, secondly, that the predicates of "called," "justified," and "glorified" refer to (individual) human beings. If the reader will free his mind of these two errors, he will have no serious trouble in discovering the meaning of, perhaps, the sublimest passage in the Letter; but, unless he does this, he will find it a hopeless enigma. The ordinary modes of explaining this passage neither extract a ray of light from it, nor shed a ray of light upon it. F59 Verse 31 What then shall we say to these things? If God be for us, who is against us? Seeing, as just stated, that God’s eternal purpose relative to the redeemed in Christ is absolutely certain of fulfillment, how solid and secure is the state of the person in Christ. "In Christ" is absolute safety, the only mortal concern of the Christian having to do, not with any doubt or uncertainty of final glory, but only with his being "in Christ" and remaining so. Given the integrity of that relationship, salvation for the child of God is a certainty. For the person "in Christ," it is an unqualified fact that God is "for" him, with all that implies. God appears in this verse, not as a detached or disinterested judge, but as a helper, protector, and benefactor. As Paul put it, For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure (Php 2:13). Verse 32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things? The confidence of the apostle in this verse is founded upon the principle of logic called a fortiori, being a progression from the great to the lesser. The great gift is that of God’s only Son; and surely the love that provided such an unspeakable gift could not fail to provide whatever else might be required to accomplish his purpose of redeeming people, the particular things apparently in view here being whatever earthly encouragement and provision might be necessary to the achievement of the Christian’s ultimate salvation to the uttermost. Verses 33, 34 Who shalt lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Locke paraphrased these verses thus: Who shall be the persecutor of those whom God hath chosen? Shall God who justifieth them? Who, as judge, shall condemn them? Christ that died for us, yea rather that is risen again for our justification, and is at the right hand of God making intercession for us? F60 Justifying his paraphrase in a footnote, Locke added: Reading this with an interrogation makes it needless to add any words to the text to make out the sense; and it is more conformable to the scheme of his argumentation here, as appears by Rom 8:35, where the interrogation cannot be avoided. It is, as it were, an appeal to them themselves to be the judges whether any of those things he mentions to them (reckoning up these which had the most power to hurt them) could give them just cause for apprehension: "Who shall accuse you? Shall God who justifies you? Who shall condemn you? Christ who died for you? F61 Verses 35, 36 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Even as it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter. In this and following verses, Paul mentioned the things conceived of as hostile, and hindering to the Christian’s life; and most of the things here mentioned should be understood as lying within the ordinary daily experience of the Christians of that age. The love of Christ ... refers not to our love for him, but to his love for us. The scripture quoted by Paul here is Psa 44:22; and his employment of the expression "even as it is written" was his way of saying, "This is just our lot, exactly as the scriptures teach." Like many other lists found in the Pauline writings, this one should be understood as representative rather than exhaustive. Verses 38, 39 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers nor height, nor depth nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. All of the calamities mentioned here were suffered by Paul himself, as a glance at 2Co 11:1-33 will show; and, despite the fact of all things working together for good for Christians, the hardships and sufferings they endure prove that no exemption from life’s sorrows has been provided for them. On the contrary, it was doubtless a fact that the Christians of that age suffered far more than other groups of mankind; and, due to the natural discouragement arising from such extraordinary sufferings, there was a constant temptation for the Christians to fall into doubt and discouragement, or grow cold in their love to the Lord, or to acquire deep feelings of guilt arising from a view of their hardships as being caused by their sins. It has ever been the tendency of troubled individuals to become depressed and doubtful, as was the case with John the Baptist when thrown into prison (Mat 11:2). Paul in this marvelous peroration emphasized the fact that all guilt had been removed through the death of Christ, that condemnation of God’s children is impossible. God himself is "for them." What a shout of victory is this passage! Height ... depth ... Locke understood these to mean "the height of prosperity" or the "depth of misery." Life ... in this context was interpreted by Lard as meaning the hard life they were called upon to live in the flesh, life with its burdens, toils and persecutions. Angels ... if understood as a reference to good angels are only a conceptual hindrance to the Christian, meaning that even if an angel were to try to hinder them, such would be impossible; but if the word should be understood of Satan’s angels (Mat 25:41), the meaning is the same. Not even Satan’s angels may finally hinder the child of God. Whiteside pointed out that the impossibility of apostasy is not what Paul was teaching here. He wrote: All the things mentioned are things without. Nothing is here said of what corrupting influences may do to the heart. No powers of persecutions can compel one to stop loving God; if he quits, he does it of his own accord. Love cannot be destroyed by force of imperial command, but it may wax cold. Some even depart from their first love (Rev 2:4). Paul recognized that people depart from the faith, but he was persuaded that no evils coming on us from without could destroy the love of God. F62 Whiteside’s point is well taken; but it is God’s love for man, not the other way around, that Paul primarily had in view here. In Christ Jesus our Lord ... is the final word of this flourishing burst of eloquence; and it brings the mind back to the major proposition underlying all that Paul wrote, which is this, that salvation is "in Christ" alone, and that the totality of the Christian’s hope derives from the fact of his having been baptized into Christ (the only scriptural baptism being that of a true believer who is penitent), and from the presumption of his continuance therein (in Christ) "unto death." Paul wrote many things, but the expression "in Christ" or its equivalent is the theme of all that he wrote, being mentioned no less than 169 times; and any "system" that omits this is like a symphony from which both the tonic and dominant chords have been deleted. Paul never left it out! Here is the point where his mind always came to rest. One is reluctant to go on from the magnificent teachings of this wonderful chapter, even for the purpose of further studying Paul’s epic letter; and, by way of a final salute to the inspiring thoughts of this chapter, the following words of Moule are appended: Some years ago, we remember reading this close of the eighth chapter, under moving circumstances. On a cloudless January night, late arrived in Rome, we stood in the Coliseum, a party of friends from England. Orion, the giant with the sword, glimmered like a spectre of persecution over the huge precinct; for the full moon, high in the heavens, overpowered the stars. By its light, we read from a little Testament these words written so long ago to be read in that same city - written by the man whose dust now sleeps at Tre Fontane, where the executioner dismissed him to be with Christ; written to men and women, some of whom, in all human likelihood at least, suffered in that very amphitheatre, raised only twenty-two years after Paul wrote Romans, and soon made the scene of countless martyrdoms. ... We read the words of the Epistle, and gave thanks to him who had there triumphed in his saints over life and death, over beasts and men and demons. Then we thought of ourselves, in our circumstances so totally different on the surface, yet carrying the same needs in their depths. Are we too to overcome, in "the things present" of our modern world, and in the face of "the things to come" yet upon our earth? Are we too to be "more than conquerors," winning blessing out of all things, and really living in our generation as the bondmen of Christ and the sons of God? F63 Footnotes forRomans 8 1 : Emil Brunner, The Letter to the Romans (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 69. 2: Lewis B. Smedes, All Things Made New (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 86. 3: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), i, p. 275. 4: C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1957), p. 153. 5: H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Pickering and Inglis, Ltd.), p. 211. 6: David Lipscomb, A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles (Nashville, Tennessee: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1969), p. 143. 7: John Murray, op. cit., I, p. 280. 8: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 68. 9: Robertson L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to Saints in Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945), p. 170. 10: Tertullian, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1957), Vol. III, 578-579. 11: Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1955), p. 130. 12: Tertullian, loc. cit. 13: Ibid., p. 579. 14: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 158. 15: John Murray, op. cit., p. 287. 16: John Oxenham, The Ways. 17: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 68. 18: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 214. 19: Ibid. 20: R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963), p. 517. 21: William M. Greathouse, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 174. 22: W. Sanday, Ellicott’s Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), p. 236. 23: C. K. Barrett, op. cit., p. 164. 24: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 73. 25: John Wesley, Sermons, Vol. I, pp. 115-116. 26: Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 128. 27: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 179. 28: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 269. 29: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 236. 30: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 273. 31: John Murray, op. cit., p. 302. 32: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 272. 33: The Emphatic Greek Diaglott, p. 531. 34: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 270. 35: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston, Mass., 1832), p. 331. 36: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 37: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 98. 38: Ibid. 39: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. : F. Godet, op. cit., p. 315. 41: James Macknight, op. cit., p. 98. 42: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. 43: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 44: Ibid. 45: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 237. 46: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 277. 47: John Locke, op. cit., p. 333. 48: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 321. 49: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 50: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 77. 51: Sir Francis Bacon, in Bartlett’s Quotations, p. 109. 52: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 280. 53: Ibid. 54: Ibid., p. 281. 55: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 325. 56: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 57: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 323. 58: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 238. 59: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 285. 60: John Locke, op. cit., p. 335. 61: Ibid. 62: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 193. 63: H. C. G. Moule, op. cit., pp. 242-243. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== CHAPTER 16: 9 ROMANS CHAPTER NINE ======================================================================== Rom 9:1-33 Verse 1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing witness with me in the Holy Spirit. Although in no sense an oath, Paul here spoke in the most dogmatic and convincing manner possible, thus emphasizing the utmost accuracy and solemnity of what he was about to say. The use of both positive and negative statements for the sake of emphasis is common in scripture. For example, Isaiah has this: "Thou shalt die and not live" (Isa 38:1). Likewise, in the New Testament, there is this: "He confessed and denied not" (John 1:20). In Christ ... in the Holy Spirit ... These terms are synonymous, a person never being "in" Christ or the Holy Spirit unless he is in both. David Lipscomb stressed the certainty of this verse’s being in no sense an oath, quoting Hodge, Meyer, Lard, and Schaff in the technical arguments making it. impossible to view it as a form of oath. F2 Verses 2, 3 That I have great sorrow, and unceasing pain in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh. Paul had more than sufficient reason, if he had been of a mean and vindictive spirit, to hold bitterness against his Jewish kinsmen because of their unrelenting persecutions and harassment of his ministry and apostleship. Forty of them, on occasion, had bound themselves with an oath not to eat or drink until they had murdered him; and emissaries from the Jews in Jerusalem had dogged his every step on the mission field. They had preferred charges against him before kings and governors; and yet, despite all this, his love for Israel was undiminished. How noble are Paul’s thoughts in such a context as that which frames them here. Lard and others have pointed out that Paul here omitted a clause which is essential to his meaning, that being "I have great grief and continual sorrow in my heart ON ACCOUNT OF MY COUNTRYMEN." For Paul, that was the unspeakable thing, and he could not, at that point in this letter, bring it out; and thus he approached it from a different angle. Lard has this with reference to this amazing fact: His countrymen had repudiated Christ; that was the fact which caused his grief and sorrow; that any person should do this is painful enough; that one’s own kin should do it is exquisitely so. The apostle does not yet name the fact that gave him pain, but conceals it until he can bring it out with better effect. F3 I could wish ... is the key to understanding Rom 9:3. As Hodge wrote: The expression is evidently hypothetical and conditional, "I could wish, were the thing allowable, possible, or proper." F4 Paul’s grief was like that of Jesus who "had compassion on the multitude "(Mat 9:6), and like that of Moses who said, "Blot me out of thy book, I pray thee" (Exo 32:32); and yet it was not possible for Paul to do the thing which he mentioned, nor should his statement here be viewed as a true expression of what he actually desired to do. That this is true appears from God’s response to the similar request of Moses. The Lord said, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book (Exo 32:33). That Moses truly felt such a desire and expressed it to God in prayer is a scripturally-authenticated fact; and we may credit Paul with exactly the same emotion here. How great is such love! Anathema ... is used only five times in the New Testament, the other instances of its use being in Acts 23:14, 1Co 12:3; 1Co 16:22, and Gal 1:8-9. It means "accursed" and implies eternal death as well as physical death. After a careful and critical study of the New Testament texts where this word is used, Hedge declared that An anathema was a person devoted to death as accursed. F5 Verse 4 Who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises. Paul mentioned such things as these to show his appreciation for the position that Israel had indeed enjoyed in God’s plan of redemption. Paul loved Israel, and the fact of his becoming a Christian had not diminished this love nor his appreciation for the part Israel had had in bearing witness to God’s will on earth. Israelites ... is an extension of the word "Israel," which means "prince of God," or "one who contends with God," the same being the name given to Jacob by an angel of heaven at Peniel. This God-given name implied more than membership in the covenant race, imputing to them status as God’s children (Exo 4:22; Deu 14:1; Jer 31:9); but the sonship of Israel was of an inferior kind, compared to that of Christians, although sufficiently significant to stand as a type of the latter. "Israelites," as Paul used it here, included, by implication, the other privileges enumerated. The adoption ... refers to the sonship of Israel. In a very real and paternal manner, God made the Israelites his children and looked after them, despite their sins and rebellions, until the purpose of bringing in the Messiah was realized. The glory ... might not refer to any specific thing, such as the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night, or the halo that glowed upon the face of Moses, but would seem to signify the prosperity and progress of Israel through the long centuries of their enjoyment of the providential care and blessing of the Almighty. And the covenants ... The use of the plural is similar to Paul’s usage in Eph 2:12 and takes into account the many covenants that God made with Israel, especially including the one called in Hebrews "the covenant", or "the first covenant." And the giving of the law ... brings into view the exceedingly impressive events at Sinai when the decalogue was given. A reading of the Biblical account of the wonders connected with the giving of the law of Moses will convince anyone that the events there enacted were as spectacular and impressive as any ever seen on earth. And the service of God ... refers to the entire liturgical and sacerdotal system of the Hebrews, especially the great religious ceremonials connected with occasions such as the Day of Atonement, the Passover, etc. And the promises ... These were that great body of testimony looking to the advent of the Christ, and the hope of universal redemption in him. These great promises, sometimes called merely "the promise," were repeated, emphasized, and typified by numerous devices in the Mosaic system. Through: (1) the prophetic word; (2) the lives of typical people; (3) the typical meaning of the ceremonies and sacrifices, and through (4) architecture, furniture, the plan, and the arrangement of the tabernacle, and temple, etc. - in all these things there was only one purpose, that of foretelling the Christ and making certain of his identification when he should come. Significantly, all these were of Israel; and, for the great apostle who believed so intensely in Jesus Christ, the glory of the Lord as it had been prophetically witnessed in Israel intensified his love and appreciation for the great people through whom the witness had come. Verse 5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. One cannot but be ashamed of such a rendition of this verse, in which the translators stooped to the device of making the name of the ineffable God a common adverb, as when one might say, "This is a God beautiful day! ... God blessed for ever"! Godet translated this verse thus: Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen. F6 There is absolutely no doubt that Godet has the true meaning of this verse. The objections that people have to this rendition stem not from critical reasons, nor from gradations in the meaning of Greek words, but from theological reasons on the part of some who are reluctant to admit identification of Jesus Christ with deity, notwithstanding the fact that Christ is called "God" no less than ten times in the Greek New Testament, the other nine passages where this is done being John 1:1; John 20:28; Acts 20:28; Heb 1:8; Philp. 2:8; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; 2Pe 1:1; and 1Jn 5:20. Objectors to the obvious meaning here allege that Paul nowhere else makes such a statement of Christ’s deity. Barrett, for example, wrote: Nowhere else in any epistle does Paul call Christ God. F7 Barrett’s view is almost incredible when it is considered that no less than three of the passages cited above were written by Paul; and if, as we think probable, Paul authored Hebrews, then four places are found in Paul’s writings in which deity is unequivocally ascribed to the Lord Jesus - this passage (Rom 9:5) making five! Space forbids any lengthy analysis of the objections people make to the rendition in the English Revised Version (1885) (where the true meaning is clear enough, despite the ridiculous punctuation), where the words "over all" are unequivocally applied to Christ, thus affirming his godhead, and permitting the truth to glow even through the punctuation. The English Revised Version (1885) translators made only one concession to the objectors (that being the punctuation), but even that was too much to concede. Godet’s rendition above may be viewed with absolute certainty as the correct one. Whose are the fathers ... No people ever had more distinguished ancestors than the Jewish patriarchs. Such men as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were so noble, and so excessively beyond other men in character and integrity, that God himself deigned to identify himself as "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Exo 4:5). Abraham, especially, stands upon the horizon of pre-Christian history like a great monolith casting its shadow over centuries and millenniums of history. Three great religions, like streams coursing down from some mighty mountain and finding their issuance in various oceans, descend from Abraham; Muslims, Jews and Christians all alike hailing Abraham as their father. Paul truly appreciated the heritage that was his and Israel’s in such distinguished progenitors of their magnificent race. Of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh ... Even the Saviour of all the world was a descendant (in the fleshly sense) from Abraham, the first verse of the New Testament hailing the fact. That it was a signal honor for any race to be commissioned as the flesh-bearer for the Messiah, is evident from the exclamation in Hebrews: For verily not of angels doth he (God) take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham (Heb 2:16, alternate rendition). Christ who is over all ... Independently of the punctuation already discussed, and the attempt to pass the name of God off as an adverb, this expression thunders the message of the deity of Christ. The greatest of the Greek scholars are dogmatic and positive about the meaning here. Hodge, with reference to the words "over all," wrote: There is but one interpretation of this passage which can, with the least regard to the rules of construction, be maintained. The words "over all" mean "over all things," not "over all persons," being neuter, and not masculine (as in Acts 10:36 and 1Co 15:28). It is supremacy over the universe that is here expressed .... Paul evidently declares that Christ, who, he had just said was, as to his human nature, or as a man, descended from Israelites, is, in another respect the supreme God, or God over all, and blessed for ever. F8 Amen ... This word is hardly noticed by any of the commentators; but the impression prevails that this word was intended to affirm Paul’s dogmatic reference to the deity of Christ. If Paul did not mean to ascribe deity to Jesus Christ, why this "Amen"? Would the mild statement that Christ was God blessed (!) have called forth a word like this? Read again the glorious final paragraph of the eighth chapter, and consider that not even that called for Paul’s solemn "Amen"; therefore, this word proves that the world-shaking truth had just been uttered; and that truth could not possibly have been anything other than a statement of the deity of Christ. For those interested in an extensive study of this verse as a witness of Christ’s deity, John Murray’s Appendix A of Volume II, New International Commentary on the New Testament, is a lengthy treatise in which every critical aspect of the problem is examined exhaustively and the conclusion maintained that here indeed is a statement that Christ is God. Aside from the plain texts of the New Testament which affirm Christ’s deity, the implication of it is in every line of the New Testament. For example, who but God could say (in reference to himself), But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all the nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats (Mat 25:31-32). And every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundred fold, and shall inherit eternal life (Mat 19:29). It is no exaggeration to say that hundreds of New Testament passages carry the mandatory meaning that Christ is God come in the flesh. Amen! Verse 6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to naught. For they are not all Israel that are of Israel. Paul had not yet spoken plainly that Israel, through their rejection of Christ, was at that time itself rejected by God, although that thought dominated his mind. Before saying that unsayable thing, he would move to soften it by showing that what he was about to say did not apply to every Israelite. Paul stressed the fact that not all of Abraham’s children were Jews, that some were associated with Israel who were not really Israelites in the true sense, and that such a condition had extended back all the way to Abraham, Ishmael not being counted as Abraham’s seed at all, a fact which he would immediately stress. Verse 7 Neither because they are Abraham’s seed, are they all children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Abraham had many children besides Isaac, their number running perhaps into the hundreds, since he had a plurality of concubines, besides Hagar; and after Sarah’s death he was married to Keturah, thought by many to have already borne the sons attributed to her, during the period of her concubinage. From whatever source, the Bible states that 318 servants were born in his house (see more on this in my Commentary on Hebrews, p. 271). At the very least, all of the sons of Keturah and Hagar were among the "sons of Abraham" but were not so reckoned among the Jews, hence the validity of Paul’s reasoning here to the effect that mere fleshly connection with Abraham did not make one an Israelite. Paul had preparing to announce God’s rejection of Israel from being a favored nation, because of their rejection of Christ, and the great corollary of God’s calling all people (Jews and Gentiles) into His kingdom, without regard to physical descent from Abraham; and Paul knew the vehemence with which the Jews in general would reject such an idea. He knew the grounds on which they would base their utter rejection of such a concept, the principal one being that they were the children of Abraham, to the exclusion of all others, and that they alone were heirs of the great promise to Abraham. Both Christ and John the Baptist had addressed themselves to that same adamant Jewish position. They trusted in being Abraham’s seed, the Rabbis going so far as to say that no circumcised person could ever enter hell, regardless of life or character. Paul, in this verse, was showing tactfully (and tenderly, at first) that Abraham had sons, notably Ishmael, who were not regarded as the seed of Abraham, as indicated by the quotation from Gen 21:12, "In Isaac shall thy seed be called," and thus laying down the premise that, even from the very first, it was Abraham’s spiritual seed, as distinguished from his mere posterity, who were to receive the blessing and who were the legitimate heirs of the Abrahamic promise. To the Jews of Paul’s day, any suggestion to the effect that God would reject Israel would have been vociferously refused on the ground that such a rejection of themselves would have brought God’s word to naught, hence Paul’s introductory proposition that "It is not as though the word of God hath come to naught." Before Paul was through with this line of reasoning, he would show that, on the contrary, the word of God itself taught both the rejection of Israel and the calling of the Gentiles. The specific argument from this verse is that, just as God had rejected Ishmael who was a son of Abraham, so God was also free to reject the Jews of Paul’s day (for due cause, of course), although they too are Abraham’s sons (as was Ishmael), the determinator being something other than fleshly descent. Verse 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. With what deliberate caution Paul approached the dreadful announcement he was obligated to deliver to his beloved kinsmen! He first laid the logical support of what he had to say by citations from the Old Testament scriptures, and then built up the premises upon which he would rest his conclusion. This verse spells out the deduction to be made from the history of Abraham’s sons, only one of which, namely, Isaac, was his true seed, all the others being rejected. Just so it is today, Paul was saying, not merely the fleshly children of Abraham are his seed, but the children of the promise, this reference to the promise pointing to Gen 12:3, where not Jews only, but "all the families of the earth" were to be blessed. Children of promise ... has in view the fact that Isaac was not born in the due course of nature, but in respect of God’s promise, which was providentially fulfilled when both Abraham ana Sarah were long past the age of child production. This fact regarding Isaac is typical of Christians who, in another sense, are children of Abraham, by promise, as stated thus by Paul: Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise .... And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise (Gal 4:28; Gal 3:29). Paul’s argument from this, of course, was that, just as Ishmael did not inherit, though a literal son, the Jews of Paul’s day might not inherit, unless their claim was founded on something else, other than fleshly descent from Abraham. Only those who received and accepted God’s promise to Abraham of the Seed which is Christ, and honored and obeyed him, now that he had appeared upon the earth only those persons (the Christians) were the true children of Abraham and heirs according to the promise. Verse 9 For this is a word of promise, According to this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. In distinction from all the other sons of Abraham, Isaac was the child of promise; and Paul here left nothing unsaid with reference to it, citing the very passage that recorded God’s promise (Gen 18:10). Now, Christ is the antitype of Isaac (my Commentary on Hebrews, p. 277); and therefore Jesus Christ (along with the spiritual seed who are "in him") has the same preference over all the fleshly descendants of Abraham that Isaac had over his fleshly brothers. God’s righteousness, the great theme of Romans, was ever before Paul’s mind; and his purpose in these verses was to show that God’s actions in the calling of the Gentiles and rejection of Israel were in no degree blameworthy, but righteous. Even the rejection of Israel as a favored nation and the admission of Gentiles to the kingdom of God did not, in any sense whatever, exclude Jews, the only injury to them in such actions being the destruction of their sinful pride. All of the marvelous blessings of the kingdom of Christ were available to all Jews and Gentiles alike, without preference, and upon the same terms; and the blessings and privileges of the new kingdom were far superior in every way to anything the Jews had enjoyed under the old system. Verses 10-13 And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even our father Isaac - for the, children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad that the purpose of God according to the election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. This passage details another restriction upon the identification of who are, or are not, children of Abraham, all of the posterity of Esau being cut off, despite the fact that they were not merely children of Abraham, but of Isaac as well; and their being cut off did not derive from some visible reason for it, such as a rebellion, or refusal to honor Isaac; they were totally excluded even before the birth of Jacob and Esau. The proposition Paul was establishing by presenting these facts is that it was not by natural descent alone that the Jews themselves were reckoned to be children of Abraham, because the group identified as Jews were far from being his only natural descendants. There was a separation in the immediate family of Abraham when Ishmael was cut off, and there was another separation in Isaac’s immediate family when the Edomites (children of Esau) were cut off. But a dramatic new factor was involved in the separation of Esau and his descendants from the recognized posterity of Abraham. The Jews could have justified the exclusion of the Ishmaelites, etc., and the preference for Isaac; upon the premise that Isaac was the only legitimate son, the only son of his true wife, the only son of a free woman, or such; but, in the exclusion of part of Isaac’s posterity, no such distinctions were visible, Esau being not merely the son of Isaac’s lawful wife, but his firstborn at that! This shows that the choice of Jacob was altogether a sovereign act of God, not dependent upon anything that either Jacob or Esau had either done or left undone, the election coming before either of them was born. Before discussing the doctrine of election, as it is called, which surfaces in these verses, it is important to note exactly what the Lord said with reference to the election of Jacob in preference to Esau. And the Lord said unto her (Rebekah), Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger (Gen 25:23). There is no problem whatever regarding what God did. The problem lies in the reasons people suppose God had for doing it. God’s sovereign act of choice between Rebekah’s twins took place before their birth; but God’s decision was absolutely not capricious. Paul had already pointed out that God "foreknew" all people; and that foreknowledge on the part of God is revealed in the above citation from Genesis to have been the reasonable and righteous basis of God’s election of Jacob. God foreknew everything concerning the unborn twins, but he chose to tell Rebekah a part of what was foreknown. First, two DIFFERENT kinds of people were about to be launched into the stream of history, one weak, the other STRONGER. In the light of such knowledge, could God have chosen the weaker? And what is meant by "two manner of people"? Esau’s life quickly followed the pattern God had foreseen. He was a profane person and a fornicator (Heb 12:16). Thus, Esau was rejected and Jacob chosen because of God’s foreknowledge of what would take place in the lives of both of them. When Isaac blessed his sons, the scriptures relate that he did so "by faith concerning things to come" (Heb 11:20); and it is arbitrary and contrary to reason for anyone to suppose that God made choice between those brothers without taking into account the "things to come." Nothing in the election of Jacob and the exclusion of his brother had any bearing at all upon the eternal destiny of either, each individual having still been left free to choose the direction of his life; but it was concerned primarily, if not indeed totally, with the building of the nation of the covenant people. It appears impossible to view Paul’s words here as teaching that God determines the destinies of people before they are born, as taught by some, For example, Murray stated: We are compelled, therefore, to find in this word a declaration of the sovereign counsel of God as it is concerned with the ultimate destinies of men. F9 It should be remembered that Paul’s entire argument here is to the effect that other factors besides fleshly descent had always been involved in determining the seed of Abraham. God’s election was a factor in it; but that factor entered into the determination as a consequence of other factors. Esau was rejected because of what God knew he would become and of what Esau’s character would produce in the lives of his posterity. Not of works ... means "not of fleshly descent," as noted by Murray: "Not of works" and "not of natural descent" are correlative and point to the same principle. Thus the apostle can adduce the one in an argument that is mainly concerned with the other without any sense of incongruity. F10 This expression is just another way of saying that God’s election of Jacob came without regard to deeds of the unborn twins, there having been none at the time of the election. It cannot mean that the election was decided without any regard to deeds they would perform in the future, which deeds were truly foreknown of God and plainly formed the righteous basis of the election. If the election was "not of works," what was it of? It was of the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God. David Lipscomb has this further thought on the meaning of "not of works": It was not on account of works of their own that either might do, but Jacob would trust God and obey him. Those who do this God always selects as his beloved. F11 Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated ... was not written of Isaac’s sons before they were born, but centuries afterward, this being a quotation, not from Genesis, but from Mal 1:2 f. God’s foreknowledge of what the Edomites would become was proved to be accurate by the sins and excesses of that people who came, in time, to deserve the denunciation recorded by Malachi. Jacob and Esau, as individuals, were not the principal concern of the election, but the nations which they would produce. Despite that, the election had to begin with individuals. As Whiteside noted, The selection of Jacob was the selection of a people rather than an individual. F12 This harmonizes with Gen 25:23, where the "manner of people" looms as God’s great consideration. If Esau had been made the patriarch instead of Jacob, Israel would never have continued long enough to deliver the Messiah to mankind; but the overruling providence of the all-wise God interposed to prevent such a thing from taking place. God’s choice did not determine the eternal destiny of either twin, their subsequent lives determining that; but God’s choice did determine which would be the patriarch of Israel. The idea is here rejected that God ever chose any man to eternal life or death before he was born. Verse 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. Paul’s great theme of God’s righteousness was never far from his thoughts; and his letter, in its entirety, has that theme constantly in focus. What he had just said of God’s election of Jacob might have raised some question of God’s rectitude; and, if the doctrine of election is what some affirm it to be, it would indeed indicate God’s lack of righteousness, thus making it necessary to reject all such views of that doctrine. But there was another phase of the rectitude of God that Paul had in mind here, and that is the fact that God has mercy upon some, and not upon others. Upon the uniformly wicked populations of earth, God has decided to show mercy to those who have accepted through obedient faith the mercy which is freely offered to all; but the salvation of those thus receiving God’s grace does no injustice to the wicked who never obey the truth and are therefore lost. Paul explained why in the next verse. Verse 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy upon whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. This quotation is from Exo 33:19, and it affirms the sovereign right of Almighty God to save whomsoever he will. No basis of any kind is there stated as an explanation of God’s saving some and rejecting others; but any understanding whatever of God’s dealings with his human children demands the assumption that there is a just and rational foundation for everything that God does. This quotation from Exodus simply does no of a totally blind man separating a box of black and white marbles in a cellar at midnight without any light! Some say, of course, that it does. Thus, the choosing of Jacob was an act of grace and was not influenced by the moral character of Jacob or the immorality of Esau. On the other hand, Esau was discriminated against and made to serve his brother through no fault of his own. F13 That God chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not depend upon anything in them .... The choice depended solely on God’s gracious will. F14 Such opinions as these clearly go far beyond anything the word of God says and should be rejected unless they can be proved. Furthermore, there is abundant proof in God’s word that it was something "in men" that entered into God’s election of them. For example, God elected Abraham, and why? If God is to be understood as either rational or just, there had to be a reason why. Human intelligence demands to know what it is; and the gracious and righteous God deigned to reveal to his human children just what the reason was, thus: And the Lord said, For I know him (Abraham) that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him (Gen 18:19). In this epic passage of God’s word, God stated his reasons for the choice of Abraham. God categorically stated, that he knew that Abraham would command his posterity after him, that they would keep the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment, "that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him," the latter clause being a dogmatic affirmation that without the qualities God foreknew in Abraham, the fulfillment of the promise would have been impossible. Thus they greatly err who fancy that it "was nothing in" Abraham that entered into God’s election. That there was indeed something "in" Abraham that formed the basis of God’s just and righteous act should have been assumed, even without the statement of what it was; but such is the perversity of human thought that it is even denied AFTER the statement of it! Going a bit further, this example of why God chose Abraham is clearly applicable to the rejection of Esau. God saw in him a different "manner" of people from Abraham, making the fulfillment of the promise through Esau an utter impossibility; and that is something "in" Esau that resulted in God’s rejection of him. The insinuation that God "discriminated" against Esau capriciously is ridiculous. And to carry this postulate even further, in every case of election, there has to be an element in the elected that distinguishes him from those not elected; and to deny this is to make election to be a totally immoral and capricious thing, unworthy even of people, much less of God. Nor can such a certainty as this bear the slightest resemblance to any theory of anyone’s ever meriting salvation. Even when the election occurs, at least partially upon the basis of what is "in" the elected distinguishing them from the non-elected, the election is still without the merit of the elected and founded in God’s love and grace, but not upon "grace alone," the proof of this being that God’s grace has come alike upon the totality of mankind (Tit 3:11), which includes the non-elected. Factors others than grace are therefore involved in election. How could a so-called election, based on grace alone, discriminate between the elected and the non-elected, if no other factor was involved? The blind man in the cellar, maybe? Verse 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy. Paul’s words were still being directed at the Jews, primarily. Supposing that they were entitled to salvation, that God owed it to them, the nation as a whole, and the Pharisees as conspicuous examples of it, were wallowing in an arrogant self-righteousness that Paul struck down in the considerations brought forward here. No man merits salvation. In the last analysis, it is the gracious outflowing of God’s loving grace and mercy that makes salvation possible for any person whomsoever. This is the conclusion Paul drew from the quotation from Exodus, and the only conclusion. Godet understood this verse thus: When God gives, it is not because a human will ("he that willeth") or a human work ("he that runneth") lays him under obligation, and forces him to give, in order not to be unjust by refusing. It is in himself that the initiative and the efficacy are ("him that calleth") - it is from him that the gift flows. F15 The quotation from Exo 33:19 given in the preceding verse and made the basis of the conclusion stated here, relates to a request by Moses that God would show him his glory. God did so, not because he would have been unjust in refusing, but upon the basis stated in that verse of being free to show mercy upon whomsoever he would. Thus Moses received the glimpse of divine glory, not through merit, but from God’s gracious compliance with his request. Note, however, that the scriptures do not say that God’s compliance had nothing to do with Moses’ request, or with his life and character, or with his service as the great lawgiver; nor can it be believed that "nothing in" Moses was considered by God in granting him a glimpse of the glory. Certainly, the REQUEST was considered, and that was something in Moses; and, therefore, all that is taught here is that Moses’ great life and character, noble and outstanding as they were, could not have earned such a boon as that which God freely gave, nor could such admirable qualities in Moses have made it wrong for God to have denied his plea. Verses 17, 18 For the scriptures saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth. So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth. The most careful attention should here be directed to what is not said by Paul in this appeal to Exo 9:16. God did not say to Pharaoh that he had raised him up in order to destroy him, or to drown his army in the Red Sea, but that God had raised him up for the purpose of showing his power in Pharaoh and of having God’s name published throughout the earth. Just HOW God’s purpose would be fulfilled in Pharaoh, at the time God spoke, still remained within the circumference of Pharaoh’s free will to choose, whether by his own submission to God commands or by his rebellion against them, would be realized God’s purpose. If Pharaoh had submitted to God’s will, God’s name would have been magnified all over the world and his power would have been demonstrated in Pharaoh just as gloriously in that manner as it was in the manner of its actual occurrence. Pharaoh had the free choice of obeying or not obeying God; but God had purposed, either way, to use him as a demonstration of God’s power and a means of publishing the divine name all over the world; but the choice of HOW this would come about remained with Pharaoh until he was HARDENED. See more on the latter under Rom 11:7. What happened to the king of Nineveh, following the preaching of Jonah, should be remembered in the connection here. Both Pharaoh and the ruler of Nineveh heard the word of God, the one by Moses, the other by Jonah. Nineveh received mercy; Egypt did not. God had a perfect right to spare one and punish the other; but it is a falsehood to allege that God’s doing so was capricious and unrelated to what was in the two monarchs or to their response to God’s word. It definitely was related to their response. Pharaoh repeatedly to Nineveh, on the other hand, called his whole nation to sackcloth and ashes, leading the way in penitence himself, with all of his royal court. A mere glance at the two monarchs reveals why one was spared, the other not. And note too that even in the case of Nineveh, it was even there a matter of God’s grace; for God owed absolutely nothing to either monarch, either to the one who hardened his heart or to the one that repented - hence the propriety of Paul’s remark that God had mercy upon whom he would, and whom he would he hardened. But there was a dark and threatening shadow of doom for Israel in Paul’s introduction of the case of Pharaoh whose repeated triflings with God’s word had resulted, at last, in God’s judicial hardening of the evil monarch’s heart (after Pharaoh himself had hardened it ten times!). This was exactly what God had done to Israel, and the awful knowledge of it was almost breaking Paul’s heart. The thrust of that terrible word "hardened" at the end of Rom 9:18 was pointed squarely at Israel; and Paul would announce it formally in Rom 11:25, but here it was only mentioned. Before the dreadful truth would be thundered in the oracle of the eleventh chapter, Paul would continue to build the logical foundations leading up to it; and it cannot be doubted that herein lies the purpose of bringing Pharaoh into these verses. Verse 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will? Again the familiar diatribe raises a theoretical objection, described by Greathouse thus: If God treats men as Paul has explained, they have no moral responsibility. God has no right to condemn a sinner whom he himself has hardened. F16 Paul might have replied to such a theoretical objection in a number of ways; but he apparently did not consider that such an objection was even worthy of any direct or detailed answer. That human beings are responsible for what they do appears plainly enough in Rom 9:22 where Israel’s responsibility for refusing God’s call is sharply stated. As a response to the objection raised by means of the diatribe, Paul selected a surprisingly different reply, that being stated in the next verse. Verse 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Man has no right to arraign God in his thoughts and to charge him with unrighteousness and dispute his decisions. Even if, by the feeble lamp of human knowledge, no adequate reason appears as to "why" God did certain things, the creature is in no sense a judge of the Creator. The most fundamental of all considerations relative to God is that God is altogether righteous, holy, and good; and that, whatever of his decisions may appear to people as otherwise, the fact of their righteousness and justice remains unimpaired. It was a part of the honor of Abraham that he had such a conviction of God’s righteousness. In that patriarch’s great intercessory prayer for Sodom, he prayed, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen 18:25). Abraham’s prayer was founded in the deepest of inner convictions that God is good and righteous. Jesus himself expounded this same principle in the parable of the talents, wherein the one-talent man viewed God (his lord in the parable) as "a hard man" (Mat 25:24). God’s response to that accusation was the expulsion of the wicked and slothful servant. In the same manner here, Paul did not argue the point but cited the wickedness of the heart which will raise such a question, such a questioner being clearly one who interposes his own will as antithetical to that of God, vainly supposing that finite intelligence is capable of judging the actions of God. The evil judgment uttered by the one-talent man in the parable was the child of his own wicked heart and not due to any wrong doing on the part of his Lord. Paul taught here that any allegation to the effect that God would condemn a sinner that God had hardened himself can originate in none other than a wicked heart. Verse 21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? Paul taught here that man has no more right to question God than a pot has to criticize the potter; but here is exactly where the problem lies. Man is not a pot, and he does diligently strive to understand the workings of the divine government; and it is precisely because of such human strivings that works like Romans were provided by the Spirit of God. God’s mercy is extended to man, even in this, that his desire to know is honored through the sacred revelations of God’s will. The bearing of this analogy on the Jewish question, still in the forefront of Paul’s thought, was stated by Godet, thus: The lump represents the whole of humanity .... Let not Israel therefore say to God, "Thou hast no right to make of me anything else than a vessel of honor; and thou hast no right to make of that other body, the Gentiles, anything else than a base vessel." It belongs to God himself to decide, according to his wisdom. F17 The figure of the two kinds of vessels, honorable and dishonorable, made from the same lump is most instructive and was extended by Paul in his letter to Timothy (2Ti 2:20-21). Paul’s instruction from the same figure there reveals that caprice is not the determining factor in selecting which vessels are to be honorable; because Paul granted to those who will "purge themselves of wickedness" the precious promise that they should be made into vessels of honor, suitable for the Master’s use. The hardening of Israel and God’s rejection of that nation from having any further place as a favored portion of humanity is the great announcement Paul was leading up to, as noted by Locke, thus: By "the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction" (mentioned in Rom 9:22) he manifestly means the nation of the Jews, who were now grown ripe, and fit for the destruction he was bringing upon them. And by "vessels of mercy" he means the Christian church gathered out of a small collection of convert Jews, and the rest made up of Gentiles, who were together from thenceforward to be the people of God in the room of the Jewish nation, now cast off, as apparent in Rom 9:24. F18 Thus, Paul’s use of the analogy of honorable and dishonorable vessels from the same lump is a parallel argument and supplemental to the judgment of Pharaoh, both being applicable to the hardening of Israel, already a fact, and the subject throughout this whole section of Romans. Locke applied the example of Pharaoh to Israel, thus: How darest thou, O man, to call God to account, and question his justice, in casting off his ancient people, the Jews? What if God, willing to punish that sinful people, and do it so as to have his power known and taken notice of, in the doing of it: (for why may not God raise them to that purpose, as well as he did Pharaoh and the Egyptians?) What, I say, if God bore with them a long time, as he did with Pharaoh, that his hand might be the more eminently visible in their destruction; and that also, at the same time, he might with the more glory, make known his goodness and mercy to the Gentiles. F19 Verses 22, 23 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction: and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon vessels of mercy, which he afore prepared unto glory. The sense of these words is clearly presented in Locke’s paraphrase, above. Much longsuffering ... God’s almost endless patience with the repeated rebellions and departures of the chosen people is the burden of the Old Testament and the theme of many a prophetic message. In a sense, God was trapped by the promise of the Messiah’s revelation through the seed of Abraham, which holy intention necessitated the preservation of the covenant people (regardless of what they did) until the Messiah should at last appear. The Jews had absolutely no doubt whatever of the validity of the promise of the Messiah; and their leaders were accustomed to stabilize the people and allay their fears and apprehensions in the presence of any threatened calamity by saying, "The Messiah has not come, so we are safe!" They also extended this confidence to a state of presumption in regard to their sins. God judicially hardened the ten northern tribes and cast four-fifths of the whole Jewish nation into the ash can of history; but not even that quelled the overconfidence and self-righteousness in which Israel continued stubbornly in a course of sin against God. But the Messiah had indeed come at last; and, upon Israel’s rejection and murder of the Anointed One, no further reason existed for their perpetuation. God hardened them, as indeed they were already hardened for generations; and Paul was warning them in this letter that their doom was as certain as that of Pharaoh. In all revealed instances of God’s hardening, as in the case of Pharaoh (and now Israel), total destruction was the immediate and summary result. True, Israel was to be destroyed also, even their capital razed and burned, but there was to be a startling difference. That difference is the great mystery announced in Rom 11:25. Fitted for destruction ... Israel rejected Moses, their great deliverer, murmured against him, despised the manna, fainted in the wilderness, cried for a king like the nations around them, went a whoring after the gods of the Canaanites, slew God’s prophets, despised his mercies, and at last slew the King himself when he came. Such a nation had long been ripe for destruction; but, as noted above, God was, in a sense, "stuck with them" until Jesus came. The extent of Israel’s deserving God’s rejection is implicit in the fact that the prophet Jeremiah categorically stated that they were worse than Sodom and worse than the ten northern tribes. Thus, there was absolutely nothing unjust on God’s part in his rejection of Israel and the calling of all people (including Israel, of course) in Christ. Verses 24, 25 Even us whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? As he saith also in Hosea, I will call that my people, which was not my people; And her beloved that was not beloved. Rom 9:24 concludes the long question that began back in Rom 9:22 with the words "What if ..." The import of this long interrogation is "Who should think it extraordinary, or something to wonder about, that God would at last reject that nation which had so long been rejecting him?" Paul at this point proceeded to show, by the quotation of a number of prophecies, that just these very things, the calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of Israel had been exactly foretold by God’s prophets. The verse quoted here is from Hos 2:23 and can be understood in no other way except as a promise that Gentiles will finally become God’s people. Verse 26 And it shall be, in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, There shall they be called sons of the living God. This prophecy is also from Hosea (Hos 1:10) and is a clear promise of the coming of the Gentiles into the relationship with God as "sons." Hosea made this development to lie in the future, as it indeed was when he wrote; but under the preaching of the gospel this had already begun to be fulfilled, the letter to the Romans itself being proof that Gentiles were indeed called "sons of God," thus making them to share in the highest and holiest blessing life on earth has ever afforded. How incredible it seems that Israel’s leaders did not heed these prophecies, nor even the fulfillment of them taking place at that moment before their eyes! But Paul was by no means finished; he would pile prophecy upon prophecy.And Isaiah crieth concerning Israel, If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that shall be saved; for the Lord will execute his word upon the earth, finishing it and cutting it short. And, as Isaiah hath said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, We had become as Sodom, and had been made like unto Gomorrah. The first two verses of this passage are from Isa 10:22-23, which in the KJV reads thus: For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness. For the Lord God of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined, in the midst of the land. Paul’s use of that scripture is interesting. He quoted it giving the sense, not the exact words. Paul used Isaiah’s prophecy that only a remnant of Israel should return from captivity as an argument that only a small part of Israel would be saved. All of this fitted perfectly into Paul’s reasoning that merely being a Jew was insufficient grounds for expecting salvation. Paul next quoted Isa 1:9, thus: Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. Paul’s quotation in the English Revised Version (1885) has "Lord of Sabaoth" for "Lord of hosts," the meaning being the same. Hodge’s comment on the actual meaning of this expression is interesting: As the word "host" is used in reference to any multitude arranged in order, as of men in an army, of angels, of the stars, or of all the heavenly bodies, including the sun and moon, so the expression "Lord of hosts" may mean Lord of armies, Lord of angels, Lord of heaven, or of the universe as a marshaled host .... It is most probable, therefore, that God is called Lord of hosts being equivalent to the Lord of the universe. F20 Of particular significance, it seems, is the root meaning that clings to the expression "arranged in order." God is always to be understood as a God of order; and, as Paul said in another place, "God is not the author of confusion" (1Co 14:13). Moule explained Paul’s use of Isaiah’s words in this place, thus: Here again is a first and second incidence of the prophecy. In every stage of the history of sin and redemption, the apostle, in the Spirit, sees an embryo of the Great Development. So in the woefully limited number of the exiles who returned from the old captivity, he sees an embodied prophecy of the fewness of the sons of Israel who shall return from the exile of incredulity to their true Messiah. F21 Verses 30, 31 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, attained to righteousness which is of faith: but Israel, following after a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Concerning the meaning of "righteousness" as repeatedly used in this place, Hodge declared: The word "righteousness" as expressing the sum of the divine requisitions, that which fulfills the law, retains its meaning (throughout). F22 These two verses state the conclusion from previous argument, to the effect that the incredible has happened. The Gentiles whose history had been one long, miserable story of debauchery, godlessness, and shame, but whose debased condition was here rather mildly stated by Paul as following "not after righteousness" (!) - even the Gentiles, such Gentiles, had, by their belief of the gospel and their acceptance of it by means of obedient faith, "attained unto righteousness." Here is proof that the Gentiles had attained to an acceptable degree of righteous living; there had truly been a transformation in their lives. On the other hand, Israel, despite their possession of Moses’ law and their pride in all the privileges and prerogatives of the covenant people, described here as "following after a law of righteousness," had nevertheless failed to attain any acceptable degree of godly living. They "did not arrive." The Gentiles did! The reason why Israel failed, Paul would explain in the next chapter; but the thing in view here is that, in the rejection of Christ and in their refusal to accept his proffered mercy through loving, obedient faith, they, as a nation, were cut off from being any longer God’s people. Of course, any Israelite was still eligible, as were all people, to accept and obey the gospel of Christ, Paul himself being an outstanding example of the remnant that did so. Yet no Israelite, AS SUCH, was received into that kingdom of Christ, in which all such distinctions as Jew and Gentile, male and female, Greek and barbarian, bond and free, etc., were blotted out, and all people considered as "one" in Christ Jesus. Verse 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling. For the true meaning of "as it were by works" see under Rom 9:11, where it means "not of fleshly descent" just as it certainly does here. That is the very thing Paul had been writing of throughout this portion of Romans, the Jews thinking to have salvation through fleshly descent from Abraham. Any attempt to view "works" here as the efforts of the Jews at keeping the law of Moses is incorrect. The total unrighteousness of the vast majority of that nation, called in scripture "worse than Sodom," and worse than the northern tribes, makes any such interpretation of "works" here to be absolutely untenable. The law of God given through Moses is precisely what they did not keep. They relied solely upon fleshly descent, as taught by John the Baptist, Christ, and Paul. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling ... refers to their rejection of Christ; and for a full discussion of this subject, see below. Verse 33 Even as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence: He that believeth on him shall not be put to shame. This quotation is a fusion of two passages from Isaiah. They read thus in the Old Testament: Therefore, thus saith the Lord, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste (Isa 28:16). And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Isa 8:14). Hodge commented on the manner of Paul’s using these two quotations thus: In both these passages, mention is made of a stone; but the predicates of this stone, as given in the latter passage, are transferred to the other, and those there are omitted. F23 To be sure, such was permissible and right for Paul to do, because the stone in both passages is the Lord Jesus Christ. The great significance of Paul’s introduction of these quotations is the clear and emphatic prediction that Israel would stumble upon it. It was foretold in the most dramatic form that "both the houses of Israel would find this precious corner stone, not only a rock of stumbling and offence, but a gin and a snare." Again, the blindness of the religious hierarchy to such stark and dreadful warnings must ever remain a mystery. CHRIST, THE LIVING STONE If ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious: unto whom coming, a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Because it is contained in scripture, Behold I lay in Zion a chief corner stone, elect, precious; And he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame. For you therefore that believe is the preciousness: but for such as disbelieve, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; and A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence; for they stumble at the word, being disobedient (1Pe 2:3-8). With reference to this metaphor itself, a stone is among the most interesting things on earth; and every stone has a life story, the mystery of which encompasses the most fantastic dimensions of time and space. Compared to the life story of a stone, the lives of the most interesting men seem dull and commonplace. Take, as an example, the Star of Africa, which adorns the sceptre of England’s queen. It is old by millenniums and eons of time, but seems as little affected by the receding centuries as the stars themselves. And yet, at one time, it was a lump of black carbon, folded and pressured by the undulating layers of prehistoric earth; and how it came to be a jewel in a monarch’s regalia is a romance as exciting as the story of the earth itself. Again, glance at the seared residue of Ahnighito (79,000-pound meteorite in Museum of Natural History, New York). Like the angels cast out of heaven, it has fallen from its first estate, having once coasted through measureless reaches of the universe at thousands of miles an hour for numberless thousands of years; it was snared, at last, by the tricky atmosphere of the earth and sank in flaming robes of fire upon a mountain side, from whence it journeyed to its place as a gazingstock in a museum. And look at that great boulder, a mighty erratic, speaking of the ice age, the distinctive markings of its serrated surface witnessing to the power of the great glacier that plowed it up from the bed of a continent and floated it upon a sea of ice for a thousand miles to where it now rests in isolated splendor, a grey sentinel of yesterdays which preceded the race of people. That chalk-like limestone with its arms full of seashells (the San Jacinto Monument) was once the bottom of the ocean floor and was formed by innumerable generations of marine life that sank to the cold oblivion of its midnight depths, where it waited half an eternity for the buckling of the earth’s crust to lift it upward to the light and to the interest of a being called man. The same exciting story is everywhere a stone is found. That lump of lava that cooled only yesterday, as geologists count time, was boiling hot for five hundred centuries. Those flat pebbles on the beach were machined and polished by ocean waves and tides, not merely of centuries, but of millenniums. A grain of sand has a history that staggers the imagination. In the petrified forest of Arizona, one stands in amazement and awe. That stone forest was once a flourishing mantle of green growth; songbirds built their nests there; and God’s myriad children of the out-of-doors dwelt there through ages and cycles of time. But NOW, those great trees are stone, hard as flint, with the dead weight of time upon them, incredible things, lying stark and still there in the desert sun, but with a message in their stone branches that brings a catch in the throat and unwilling mist in the eyes. It is little wonder, therefore, that the sacred writers seized upon such a metaphor as that provided by the stone, in order to convey eternal truth concerning Jesus Christ: for Christ is many kinds of stone, as a glance at the scripture text just cited quickly reveals. Christ is the "living stone"; and, in this, our Lord infinitely surpasses the metaphor without in any manner diminishing the effectiveness of it, because the Living Stone partakes of the likeness of many other types of stones. Like the meteorite, he is a visitor from another sphere. The Dayspring from on High came from above and beyond our poor earth to bring redemption and eternal life to people. Like the diamond, he is exceedingly precious and is "the same yesterday, today, yea and for ever" (Heb 13:8). Like the glacial boulder, he bears upon himself the record of the infinite past and the prophecy of something yet to be. Surely, it could have been none other than the Spirit of God who gave the sacred writers so apt a metaphor of the Son of God. He is truly the Living Stone. This living stone is the foundation stone, as Isaiah said. He is the foundation of all that is good and desirable in human civilization. Especially of the church, he is the foundation. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus Christ (1Co 3:11). What is built upon Christ will endure. As he himself revealed, to build upon the rock is to keep the sayings of the Master (Mat 7:24). If people would only build upon the living stone, they would no longer be discouraged by the collapse of all that they build elsewhere. This living stone is a tried stone, as stated in both Testaments. He was in all points tempted as people are (Heb 4:5). The fact of our Lord’s being tried brings to the Christian supreme confidence in two important particulars, these being the infallibility of Christ and the perfect sympathy he has for his children. We know that he cannot fail, for he has already been tried and tested, and we know that he is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. This living stone is a precious stone (1Pe 2:7), precious by any standard of determination, precious because of his beauty (though his beauty is not of an earthly type, Isa 53:2), precious because of the love he showed to people, precious because of the hope he brings, and precious in every way. We shall see "the King in his beauty" (Isa 33:17). Whatever criteria people have ever used to determine value, or the quality of being precious, all of them are exhausted in Christ. He is unique, there being none other. He alone provides salvation. The ties of the heart’s highest and best affection attain their ultimate strength in Christ. This living stone is a corner stone (Isa 28:16), an appropriate designation indeed. In him law ended and grace began; in him God submitted to his deepest humiliation and humanity attained its greatest exaltation; in him time and eternity struck hands together; in him the Old Testament was fulfilled and the New Testament was established; in him the righteous shall be glorified and the wicked frustrated; he is a savor of life unto life in them that believe and a savor of death unto death in them that believe not; in him is the corner of all human destiny, those on the left departing from his presence forever, and those on the right entering into his joy forever! This living stone is a growing stone. In the dream of the mighty king of Babylon, centuries before Christ was born, he saw a little stone cut out of a mountain without hands, which struck the kingdoms of this world upon their feet of clay, overcame them, ground them to powder, and grew until it filled the whole world. That growing stone is Christ, and the growth is still in progress, nor shall it ever cease until the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. Amen. The living stone is a refuge, or sanctuary. As it is written: And he shall be a sanctuary (Isa 8:14). A man shall be a hiding place from the wind and a covert from the tempest, as rivers of water in a dry place, and as the shadow of a mighty rock in a weary land (Isa 32:2). Christ is our Rock and our Redeemer; blessed be the name of the Lord. In this concept of Christ as a sanctuary, or refuge, it is well to remember that none ever enjoyed a refuge in a sanctuary without being in it. This living stone is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. It was this particular aspect of him that prompted Paul’s introduction of this metaphor into this part of Romans. Christ’s being foretold as "a rock of stumbling" by Isaiah was a prophecy of Israel’s rejection of Christ. And how did they stumble on Christ? Peter explained it thus: They stumbled at the word, being disobedient. People stumbled upon Christ (and they still do), accounting his commandments as "hard sayings" (John 6:60); people stumble through pride which is offended at the lowliness of Jesus’ birth, and draw back from following one born in a stable, laid in a manger, nursed under the palms of Egypt, schooled in a carpenter’s shop, attended by fishermen, mocked by the soldiers in the common hall, crucified between two thieves, and buried in a borrowed grave. Christ has ever been, in such things as those, a stumbling stone to the proud. Paul said: We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, the power of God and the wisdom af God" (1Co 1:23-24). How strange that it should be thus with people in regard to spiritual things, but who nevertheless do not reject a diamond because God wrapped it in the mud of Africa, nor a lily because its roots take hold of the mire. Oh, then to the Rock let me fly, To the Rock that is higher than I! The living stone is also the rejected stone. This phase of this extensive metaphor is founded upon an historical incident, described by Dean Plumptre thus: The illustration seems to have been drawn from one of the stones used in the building of the great temple in Jerusalem, quarried, hewn, and marked away from the site of the temple, which the builders, ignorant of the head architect’s plans, had put to one side, as having no place in the building, but which was found afterwards to be that upon which the completeness of the structure depended, that on which, as the chief corner stone, the two walls met, and were bonded together. F24 In this analogy, the Jewish hierarchy in Jerusalem were the builders who rejected the Christ who is the head of the corner. May all people labor in all their lives, day and night, in prayers and devotions, in patient waiting and loving service, that they might avoid, at whatever cost, the folly of rejecting the Lord. Footnotes forRomans 9 1 : Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 291. 2: David Lipscomb, A Commentary on New Testament Epistles (Nashville: Gospel Advocate Company, 1967), p. 164. 3: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 292. 4: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 297. 5: Ibid., p. 296. 6: F. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970), p. 341. 7: C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1957), p. 179. 8: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 300. 9: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), ii, p. 25. 10: Ibid., p. 14. 11: David Lipscomb, op. cit., p. 172. 12: R.L. Whiteside, A New Commentary on Paul’s Epistles to Saints in Rome (Denton, Texas: Miss Inys Whiteside, 1945). p. 199. 13: Richard A. Batey, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin, Texas: The R. B. Sweet Company, 1969), p. 125. 14: William M. Greathouse, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City, Missouri: The Beacon Hill Press, 1968), p. 204. 15: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 352. 16: Wm. M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 206. 17: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 353. 18: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston: 1832), p. 342. 19: Ibid. 20: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 328. 21: H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Pickering and Inglis, Ltd.), p. 257. 22: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 329. 23: Ibid., p. 330. 24: Dean Plumptre, as quoted by R. Tuck, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1961), Vol. 18 (i), p. 356. 25: John Wesley, Sermons, Vol. I, pp. 115-116. 26: Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), p. 128. 27: William M. Greathouse, op. cit., p. 179. 28: Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), p. 269. 29: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 236. 30: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 273. 31: John Murray, op. cit., p. 302. 32: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 272. 33: The Emphatic Greek Diaglott, p. 531. 34: Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 270. 35: John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston, Mass., 1832), p. 331. 36: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 37: James Macknight, Apostolical Epistles (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1960), p. 98. 38: Ibid. 39: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. : F. Godet, op. cit., p. 315. 41: James Macknight, op. cit., p. 98. 42: John Locke, op. cit., p. 332. 43: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 75. 44: Ibid. 45: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 237. 46: Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul’s Letter to Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 277. 47: John Locke, op. cit., p. 333. 48: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 321. 49: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 50: Emil Brunner, op. cit., p. 77. 51: Sir Francis Bacon, in Bartlett’s Quotations, p. 109. 52: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 280. 53: Ibid. 54: Ibid., p. 281. 55: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 325. 56: John Locke, op. cit., p. 334. 57: F. Godet, op. cit., p. 323. 58: W. Sanday, op. cit., p. 238. 59: Moses E. Lard, op. cit., p. 285. 60: John Locke, op. cit., p. 335. 61: Ibid. 62: R. L. Whiteside, op. cit., p. 193. 63: H. C. G. Moule, op. cit., pp. 242-243. Copyright Statement James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved. ======================================================================== Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/coffman-james-burtuon-commentary-on-the-book-of-romans/ ========================================================================