A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans

declared has, in this case, that meaning, may be argued, 1. From its etymology. It comes from a word signifying a limit or boundary, and literally means to set limits to, to define, and such, in usage, is its frequent signification. To define is nearly related both to appointing, and to naming, declaring, exhibiting a person or thing in its true nature. In the New Testament, indeed the word, as in common Greek, is used generally to express the former idea, viz. that of constituting, or appointing; but the sense which our version gives it is in many cases involved in the other, Acts 10: 42. 17: 31. 2. The Greek commentators, Chrysostom and Theodoret, both so explain the word. So does the Syriac version. 3. This explanation supposes the word to be used in a popular and general sense, but does not assign to it a new meaning. 3. Reference may be made to that familiar biblical usage, according to which words are used declaratively. Thus, to make guilty, is to pronounce to be guilty; to make just, is to pronounce to be just; to make unclean, is to declare to be unclean. Hence, admitting that the words literally mean, made the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead,' they may, with the strictest regard to usage, be interpreted, exhibited as made, declared to be. 4. The necessity of the place requires this interpretation; because it is not true that Christ was made the Son of God by his resurrection, since he was such before that event. 5. The passage, unless thus explained, is inconsistent with other declarations of the sacred writers, Acts 1: 22, &c., which speak of Christ's resurrection as the evidence of what he was, but not as making him either Son or King.

According to the spirit of holiness; that is, as to his divine nature. That this is the correct interpretation of this phrase appears, 1. Because the term spirit is obviously applicable to the nature of God, and the word holiness, which here qualifies it adjectively, expresses every thing in God which is the foundation of reverence. It therefore exalts the idea expressed by spirit. According to that spiritual essence in Christ, which is worthy of the highest reverence.' 2. The divine nature in Christ is elsewhere called Spirit, Heb. 9: 14, "If the blood of bulls and of goats sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, with an eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot unto God." That is, if the blood of animals was of any avail, how much more efficacious must be the sacrifice of Christ, who was possessed of a divine nature.' In our version this passage is rendered through, instead of with an eternal Spirit; but this does not so well suit the context, nor give so good a sense. In 1 Tim. 3: 16, "God was manifest in the flesh; justified in the Spirit," the meaning probably is, the

fact that God was incarnate was proved, and his claims vindicated by the divine nature, which exhibited its power and glory in so many ways, in the words and works of Christ. In 1 Pet. 3: 18, Christ is said to have been put to death as to the flesh, but to have remained alive as to the Spirit, by which Spirit he preached to the spirits in prison. If this preaching refers to the times before the flood, then does Spirit here also mean the divine nature of Christ. 3. The antithesis obviously demands this interpretation as to the flesh, Christ was the Son of David, as to the Spirit, the Son of God: if the flesh means his human, the Spirit must mean his divine nature. 4. It is confirmed by a comparison with ch. 9:5; there the two natures of Christ are also brought into view and contrasted; as to the flesh he was an Israelite, but as to his higher nature he is God over all and blessed for ever. So the latter clause of that passage answers to the latter clause of this; to be the Son of God, is equivalent to being God over all.

By the resurrection from the dead. That is, the resurrection of Christ wa the great decisive evidence that he was the Son of God; it was the public acknowledgment by God of the validity of all the claims which Christ had made. Hence the apostles were appointed as witnesses of that fact, Acts 1: 22. see on v. 1. This, of course, does not at all imply that the resurrection of Christ in itself was any proof that he was the Son of God, any further than it was a proof that he was all that he had claimed to be, and as, in its attending circumstances, it was a display of his divine power. He had power to lay down his life, and he had power to take it again. This clause is sometimes rendered "after the resurrection from the dead." The preposition used in the Greek admits of either rendering; but the former is better suited to the context, and more in accordance with the manner in which Paul speaks elsewhere of the resurrection. See the passages cited above.

The expression Son of God' is used in scripture almost exclusively in reference to Jesus Christ. Adam, indeed, is so called in the genealogical table given in Luke ch. 3. to express the idea of his immediate creation by God. But the expression is applied to Christ in a sense in which it is applicable to no other being. It appears from this and other passages that it implies that Christ is of the same nature with God, partaker of the same essence and attributes. Thus in John 5: 17, Christ calls God his father in such a sense as thereby to claim equality with God. Compare John 1: 14. 10: 30-39. Heb. 1:4-7.

(5) By whom we have received grace and apostleship, &c. Having in the preceding verses set forth the character of Jesus Christ, as at once the Son of David and the Son of God, Paul says it was from him, and not from any inferior source, that he received his authority. This point he often insists upon, Gal. 1: 1. 1 Cor. 1: 1, &c. The word grace means favour, kindness, and is often metonymically used for any gift proceeding from kindness, especially unmerited kindness. Hence all the gifts of the Spirit are graces, unmerited favours. The greatest of God's

The words with power may either be connected adjectively with the preceding phrase, and the meaning be the powerful Son of God;' or, which is preferable, adverbially with the word declared, he was powerfully, i. e. clearly declared to be the Son of God.' As when the sun shines out in his power, he is seen and felt in all his glory, so Christ, when he arose from the dead, was recognised at once as the Son of God. According to the spirit of holiness; that is, as to his divine nature. That this is the correct interpretation of this phrase appears, 1. Because the term spirit is obviously applicable to the nature of God, and the word holiness, which here qualifies it adjectively, expresses every thing in God which is the foundation of reverence. It therefore exalts the idea expressed by spirit. According to that spiritual essence in Christ, which is worthy of the highest reverence.' 2. The divine nature in Christ is elsewhere called Spirit, Heb. 9: 14, "If the blood of bulls and of goats sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, with an eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot unto God." That is, if the blood of animals was of any avail, how much more efficacious must be the sacrifice of Christ, who was possessed of a divine nature.' In our version this passage is rendered through, instead of with an eternal Spirit; but this does not so well suit the context, nor give so good a sense. In 1 Tim. 3: 16, "God was manifest in the flesh; justified in the Spirit," the meaning probably is, the

By the resurrection from the dead. That is, the resurrection of Christ was the great decisive evidence that he was the Son of God; it was the public acknowledgment by God of the validity of all the claims which Christ had made. Hence the apostles were appointed as witnesses of that fact, Acts 1: 22. see on v. 1. This, of course, does not at all imply that the resurrection of Christ in itself was any proof that he was the Son of God, any further than it was a proof that he was all that he had claimed to be, and as, in its attending circumstances, it was a display of his divine power. He had power to lay down his life, and he had power to take it again. This clause is sometimes rendered "after the resurrection from the dead." The preposition used in the Greek admits of either rendering; but the former is better suited to the context, and more in accordance with the manner in which Paul speaks elsewhere of the resurrection. See the passages cited above.

gifts, after that of his Son, is the influence of the Holy Ghost; this, therefore, in the Bible, and in common life, is called, by way of eminence, grace. The word may be so understood here, and include all those influences of the Holy Spirit by which Paul was furnished for his work. The two words grace and apostleship may however be taken together, and mean the grace or favour of being an apostle;' but the former explanation is to be preferred.

For obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name. Literally unto obedience of the faith. This expresses the design or object for which the office of apostle was conferred upon Paul. It was that all nations might be made obedient. Similar modes of expression are frequent; Baptism unto repentance," i. e. that men might repent; "unto salvation," that they might be saved, &c. It is doubtful whether the word faith is to be understood here as in Gal. 1: 23, "He preacheth the faith which he once destroyed;" and frequently elsewhere, for the object of faith; or whether it is to be taken in its ordinary sense for the exercise of belief. Either interpretation gives a good sense; according to the former, the meaning is, that all nations should be obedient to the gospel;' according to the latter, that they should yield that obedience which consists in faith.' The former is the most common explanation, see Acts 6:7. Among all nations is most naturally connected with the immediately preceding clause,' that obedience might be promoted among all nations.' They may, however, be referred to the former clause, we have received the apostleship among all nations.' The words for his name are still more doubtful as to their connexion. Some join them with the middle clause, for obedience of faith in his name,' see Acts 26: 18. But this the words will hardly bear. Others connect them with the first clause, apostleship in his name,' 2 Cor. 5: 20. Others again, and more naturally, to the whole preceding clause. Paul was an apostle that all nations might be obedient to the honour of Jesus Christ;' that is, so that his name may be known.

(6) Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ. If the gospel contemplated all nations as the field of its operation, the Romans of course were not to be excluded. They, i. e. the persons addressed, were of the number of those who had become obedient to the faith. The called of Jesus Christ means those who are effectually called, not invited merely, but made actually partakers of the blessings to which they are called. The word called is often, therefore, as in the first verse, equivalent with chosen, see the passages cited on that verse. In 1 Cor. 1: 24, Christ is said to be a stumbling-block to one class of men, and foolishness to another; "but to those that are called, the power of God," &c. Rev. 17: 14, "those who are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful," see, too, the frequent use of different forms of the verb signifying to call, Rom. 8:30; "them he also called," Jude 1; "to the called," 1 Pet. 5: 10. 2:9. Such a call is in fact a choice; it is a taking one from among many. Hence, to be called, is to be chosen, as just remarked. Called

« Előző Tovább »

Könyvek