Comentários bíblicos

Παύλου ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους.

The simplest and most ancient superscription is: πρὸς Ῥωμαίους, in A B C א.

CHAPTER 1

Romans 1:1. Ἰησοῦ Χ.] Tisch., following B, reads Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ against decisive testimony.

In Romans 1:7 ἐν Ῥώμῃ, and in Romans 1:15 τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ, are wanting in G. Börn.; and on Romans 1:7 the scholiast of cod. 47 remarks: τὸ ἐν Ῥώμῃ οὔτε ἐν τῇ ἐξηγήσει, οὔτε ἐν τῷ ῥητῷ μνημονεύει (who? probably the codex, which lay before the copyist). This quite isolated omission is of no critical weight; and is in no case to be explained by the very unnatural conjecture (of Reiche) that Paul in several Epistles (especially in that to the Ephesians) addressed the readers simply as Christians, and that then the place of residence was inserted by the copyists in accordance with the context or with tradition. In Romans 1:7 the omission might be explained by the reading ἐν ἀγάπῃ, which G and a few other authorities give instead of ἀγαπητοῖς; but, since τοῖς ἐν Ῥ. is wanting in Romans 1:15 also, another unknown reason must have existed for this. Perhaps some church, which received a copy of the Epistle from the Romans for public reading, may have, for their own particular church-use, deleted the extraneous designation of place, and thus individual codices may have passed into circulation without it. Rückert’s conjecture, that Paul himself may have caused copies without the local address to be sent to other churches, assumes a mechanical arrangement in apostolic authorship, of which there is elsewhere no trace, and which seems even opposed by Colossians 4:16.

Romans 1:8. ὑπέρ] A B C D* K, א, min[264], Dam. read περί, which Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted: justly, on account of the preponderant attestation, since both prepositions, though ὑπέρ less frequently (Ephesians 1:16; Php 1:4), were used for the expression of the thought (in opposition to Fritzsche).

Romans 1:13. The less usual construction τινὰ καρπόν (Elz. κ. τ.) is established by decisive testimony; as also ὁ Θεὸς γάρ (Elz. ὁ. γ. Θ.) in Romans 1:19; and δὲ καί (Elz. τὲ καί) in Romans 1:27, although not on equally strong authority.

Instead of οὐ θέλω in Romans 1:13, D* E G, It. and Ambrosiaster read οὐκ οἴομαι. Defended by Rinck. But the very assurance already expressed in Romans 1:10-11 might easily cause the οὐ θέλω to seem unsuitable here, if due account was not taken of the new element in the progress of the discourse contained in προεθέμην.

After εὐαγγ. in Romans 1:16 τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Elz.) is omitted on decisive authority; πρῶτον, however, which Lachmann has bracketed, ought not to be rejected on the inadequate adverse testimony of B G, Tert. as it might seem objectionable along with πιστεύοντι (not so in Romans 2:9 f.).

Romans 1:24. The καί is indeed wanting after διό in A B C א, min[265], Vulg. Or. al[266]; but it was very easily passed over as superfluous; comp Romans 1:26; Romans 2:1. Nevertheless Lachm. and Tisch. (8) have deleted it.

ἐν ἑαυτοῖς] Lachm. and Tisch. read ἐν αὐτοις, following A B C D* א, min[268] But how frequently was the reflexive form neglected by the copyists. It occurred also in Romans 1:27 (B K).

Romans 1:27. ἄῤῥενες] B D* G, 73, Or. Eus. Oec. read ἄρσενες. Adopted by Lachm. Fritzsche and Tisch. (7). Since two different forms cannot be supposed to have been used in the same verse, and in that which follows ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσι is undoubtedly the true reading (only A* א, min[269], and some Fathers reading uniformly ἄῤῥ. ἐν ἄῤῥ.), we must here adopt the form ἄρσενες almost invariably used in the N. T. (only the Apocal. has ἄῤῥ.).

Romans 1:29. πορνείᾳ] wanting after ἀδικ. in A B C K א, min[270], and several vss[271] and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Fritzsche, and Tisch., and rightly so; it is an interpolation introduced by those who did not perceive that the naming of this vice was not again appropriate here. It was written in the margin, and introduced at different places (for we find it after πονηρίᾳ also, and even after κακίᾳ), so that it in some instances even supplanted πονηρίᾳ.

The placing of κακίᾳ immediately after ἀδικίᾳ (Lachm. on weak authority), or according to A א, Syr[272], after πονηρίᾳ (Tisch. 8), is explained by the aggregation of terms of a similar kind.

Romans 1:31. After ἀστόργους Elz. and Scholz read ἀσπόνδους, which Mill condemned, and Lachm. and Tisch. have omitted. It is wanting in A B D* E G and א*, Copt. Clar. Germ. Boern. and several Fathers. It is found before ἀστόργ. in 17, 76, Theophyl. Taken from 2 Timothy 3:3.

Romans 1:32. After ἐπιγνόντες, D E Bas. read οὐκ ἐνόησαν, and G, οὐκ ἔγνωσαν. That death is the wages of sin—this Christian doctrinal proposition seemed not at all to correspond with the natural knowledge of the Gentiles.

Instead of ΑὐΤᾺ ΠΟΙΟῦΣΙΝ, ἈΛΛᾺ ΚΑῚ ΣΥΝΕΥΔΟΚΟῦΣΙ B reads ΑὐΤᾺ ΠΟΙΟῦΝΤΕς, ἈΛΛᾺ ΚΑῚ ΣΥΝΕΥΔΟΚΟῦΝΤΕς; so Lachm. in margin. This arose from the fact, that ΕἸΣΊΝ was erroneously taken for the chief verb in the sentence; or else it was a consequence of the introduction of ΟὐΚ ἜΓΝΩΣΑΝ, which in other witnesses led to the insertion of ΓΆΡ or ΔῈ after Οὐ ΜΌΝΟΝ.

[264] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[265] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[266] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[268] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[269] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[270] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[271] ss. versions. These, when individually referred to, are marked by the usual abridged forms.

[272] yr. Peschito Syriac

Romans 1:1. Παῦλος] See on Acts 13:9.

δοῦλος … εὐαγγ. Θεοῦ is the exhaustive statement of his official dignity, proceeding from the general to the particular, by which Paul earnestly—as dealing with the Church of the metropolis of the world, which had as yet no personal knowledge of him—opens his Epistle as an official apostolic letter; without, however, having in view therein (as Flatt thinks) opponents and calumniators of his apostleship, for of the doings of such persons in Rome the Epistle itself contains no trace, and, had such existed, he would have set forth his dignity, not only positively, but also at the same time negatively (comp Galatians 1:1).

In the first place Paul describes by ΔΟῦΛΟς Ἰ. Χ. his relation of service to Christ, as his Ruler, whose servant he is, and that in general (comp on Php 1:1), just as the Old Testament עבד יהוה expresses the relation of service to Jehovah, without marking off in itself exclusively any definite class, such as the prophetic or the priestly (see Joshua 1:1; Joshua 14:7; Joshua 22:4; Jdg 2:8; Psalm 131:3; comp Acts 16:17). This relation of entire dependence (Galatians 1:10; Colossians 4:12) is then specifically and particularly indicated by κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, and for this reason the former ΔΟῦΛΟς Ἰ. Χ. cannot be rendered merely in general Christi cultor (so Fritzsche), which is inadequate also at 1 Corinthians 7:22; Ephesians 6:6. Paul was called to his office, like all the earlier Apostles; he did not arrive at it by his own choice or through accidental circumstances. For the history of this divine calling, accomplished through the exalted Christ Himself, see Acts 9 (Acts 22:26), and the remarks thereon. This κλητός presented itself so naturally to the Apostle as an essential element[276] in the full description of his official position which he meant to give (comp 1 Corinthians 1:1), that the supposition of a side-glance at uncalled teachers (Cameron, Glöckler) seems very arbitrary.

ἈΦΩΡΙΣΜΈΝΟς ΕἸς ΕὐΑΓΓ. ΘΕΟῦ] characterizes the ΚΛΗΤῸς ἈΠΌΣΤΟΛΟς more precisely: set apart (definitely separated from the rest of mankind) for God’s message of salvation, to be its preacher and minister (see on Ephesians 3:7). The article before εὐαγγ. elsewhere invariably given in the N. T., is omitted here, because Paul views the message of God, of which he desires to speak, primarily under its qualitative aspect (comp also van Hengel and Hofmann). Concrete definiteness is only added to it gradually by the further clauses delineating its character. This mode of expression implies a certain festal tone, in harmony with the whole solemn character of the pregnant opening of the Epistle: for a gospel of God, which He promised before, etc. Still we are not to understand, with Th. Schott, a work of proclamation, since εὐαγγ. is not the work of conveying a message, but the message itself. Θεοῦ is the genitive subjecti (auctoris), Romans 1:2, not objecti (Chrysostom). See on Mark 1:1. It is God who causes the message of salvation here referred to, which is His λόγος (Acts 10:36), to be proclaimed; comp Romans 15:16; 2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 2:8-9; 1 Peter 4:17. The destination of Apostle to the Gentiles is involved in ἀφωρ. εἰς εὐ. Θ. though not expressed (as Beza and others think). Further, since ἈΦΩΡ. is parallel with the previous ΚΛΗΤΌς, it is neither to be explained, with Toletus and others, including Olshausen, by Acts 13:2, nor with Reiche, Ewald and van Hengel (following Chrysostom and others) by Galatians 1:15, comp Jeremiah 1:5; but rather by Acts 9:15 (ΣΚΕῦΟς ἘΚΛΟΓῆς), comp Acts 26:16 ff. The setting apart took place as a historical fact in and with his calling at Damascus. Entirely different is the mode of presenting the matter in Galatians 1:15, where ἈΦΟΡΊΣΑς ΜΕ ἘΚ ΚΟΙΛ. ΜΗΤΡ as the act of predestination in the counsel of God, is placed before the καλέσας, as the historically accomplished fact. The view of Drusius (de sectis, ii. 2, 6) and Schoettgen (comp Erasmus and Beza), which Dr. Paulus has again adopted, viz. that Paul, in using the word ἈΦΩΡ., alludes to his former Pharisaism (“the true Pharisee in the best sense of the word”), is based on the Peschito translation (see Grotius), but is to be rejected, because the context gives no hint of so peculiar a reference, for which also no parallel can be found in Paul’s other writings.

[276] See Weiss in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 97 ff.

Romans 1:1-7.

The Apostolic salutation.

Romans 1:2. A more precise description of the character of this εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ, according to its concrete peculiarity, as far as Romans 1:5 inclusive, advancing and rising to a climax under the urgent sense of the sacredness of his office, which the Apostle has frankly to assert and to establish before the church of the metropolis of the world, personally as yet unknown to him.

ὃ προεπηγγείλατο κ.τ.λ[283]] How natural that the Apostle with his Old Testament training should, in the light of the New Testament revelation which he had received, first of all glance back at the connection divinely established in the history of salvation between the gospel which he served and ancient prophecy, and should see therein the sacredness of the precious gift entrusted to him! To introduce the idea of an antithetic design (“ut invidiam novitatis depelleret,” Pareus, Estius, Grotius and others, following Chrysostom and Theophylact) is quite arbitrary, looking to the general tenor of Romans 1:1-7. The news of salvation God has previously promised (προεπηγγείλατο, 2 Corinthians 9:5; Dio Cass. xlii. 32) through His prophets, not merely in so far as these, acting as the organs of God (αὐτοῦ), foretold the Messianic age, with the dawn of which the εὐαγγέλιον, as the “publicum de Christo exhibito praeconium” (Calovius), would necessarily begin, but they foretold also this praeconium itself, its future proclamation. See Romans 10:18, Romans 15:21; Isaiah 40:1 ff; Isaiah 42:4; Isaiah 52:1 ff.; Zephaniah 3:9; Psalm 19:5; Psalm 68:12; Deuteronomy 18:15; Deuteronomy 18:18. It is the less necessary therefore to refer ὅ, with Philippi and Mehring, to the contents of the gospel.

τῶν προφητῶν] is not to be limited, so as either to include merely the prophets proper in the narrower sense of the word, or to go back—according to Acts 3:24, comp Acts 13:20—only as far as Samuel. The following ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγ. suggests, on the contrary, a reference to all who in the O. T. have prophesied the gospel (even Moses, David and others not excluded); comp Hebrews 1:1.

ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις] Not: in the holy Scriptures (so most expositors, even Fritzsche), in which case the article must have been used; but qualitatively: in holy writings. The divine promises of the gospel, given through the prophets of God, are found in such books as, being God’s records for His revelations, are holy writings. Such are the prophetic writings of the O. T.; thus designated so as to lay stress on their qualitative character. In a corresponding manner is the anarthrous γραφῶν προφητικῶν to be understood in Romans 16:26.

[283] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Romans 1:3-4.[286] We must, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, set aside the view which treats τοῦ γενομένου.… νεκρῶν, and Romans 1:5-6, as parentheses, because we have to deal with intervening clauses which accord with the construction, not with insertions which interrupt it. See Winer, p. 526 [E. T. 707].

περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] “Hoc refertur ad illud quod praecessit εὐαγγέλιον; explicatur nempe, de quo agat ille sermo bona nuntians,” Grotius. So, also, Toletus, Cajetanus, Calvin, Justiniani, Bengel, Flatt, Reiche, Köllner, Winzer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Umbreit, Th Schott, Hofmann, and others. But it may be objected to this view, on the one hand, that περί is most naturally connected with the nearest suitable word that precedes it; and on the other that, εὐαγγ., frequently as it is used with the genitive of the object, nowhere occurs with περί in the N. T.;[287] and still further, that if this connection be adopted, the important thought in Romans 1:2 appears strangely isolated. Therefore, the connection of περί with Ὃ ΠΡΟΕΠΗΓΓ. is to be preferred, with Tholuck, Klee, Rückert, Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Philippi, van Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, and others, following Theodoret; so that the great personal object is introduced, to which the divine previous promise of the gospel referred; consequently, the person concerning whom was this promise of the future message of salvation. God could not (we may remark in opposition to Hofmann’s objection) have previously promised the gospel in any other way at all than by speaking of Christ His Son, who was to come and to be revealed; otherwise his προεπαγγέλλεσθαι εὐαγγέλιον would have had no concrete tenor, and consequently no object.

ΤΟῦ ΓΕΝΟΜΈΝΟΥ down to νεκρῶν describes under a twofold aspect (ΚΑΤᾺ) the exalted dignity of Him who had just been designated by τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ: (1) ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ, He entered life as David’s descendant; (2) κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσ., He was powerfully instated as Son of God by His resurrection. Nevertheless Ὁ ΥἹῸς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ, in the words ΠΕΡῚ ΤΟῦ ΥἹΟῦ ΑὐΤΟῦ (not ΑὙΤΟῦ), is not by any means to be taken in the general, merely historical theocratic sense of Messiah (Winzer, Progr. 1835, p. 5 f.; comp also Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 424; and Pfleiderer, l.c[289]), because this is opposed to the constant usage of the Apostle, who never designates Christ as υἱὸς Θεοῦ otherwise[290] than from the standpoint of the knowledge which God had given to him by revelation (Galatians 1:16) of the metaphysical Sonship (Romans 8:3; Romans 8:32; Galatians 4:4; Colossians 1:13 ff.; Php 2:6 ff. al[291]); and the hypothesis of a modification having taken place in Paul’s view (Usteri, Köllner; see, on the other hand, Rückert) is purely fanciful. Here also the υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is conceived in the metaphysical sense as He who had proceeded out of the essence of the Father, like Him in substance (not, as Baur thinks, as organ of the Spirit, which is the purer form of human nature itself), and is sent by Him for the accomplishment of the Messianic counsel. But since it was necessary for this accomplishment that He should appear as man, it was necessary for Him,—and these essential modal definitions are now added to the υἱοῦ τοῦ αὐτοῦ,—as a human phenomenon, (1) to be born κατὰ σάρκα, and indeed of the seed of David,[292] and yet (2) to be actually instated κατὰ πνεῦμα, as that which, although from the time of His birth in appearance not different from other men (Php 2:7; Galatians 4:4), He really was, namely the Son of God. These two parallel clauses are placed in asyndetic juxtaposition, whereby the second, coming after the first, which is itself of lofty and honourable Messianic significance, is brought out as of still greater importance. See Bernhardy, p. 448; Dissen. a[293]. Pind. Exc. II., de Asynd. p. 275. Not perceiving this, Hofmann fails to recognise the contrast here presented between the two aspects of the Son of God, because Paul has not used κατὰ πνεῦμα δε ὁρισθέντος in the second clause.

ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ] in respect of flesh; for the Son of God had a fleshly mode of being on earth, since His concrete manifestation was that of a materially human person. Comp Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 3:18; Php 2:7; Romans 5:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21; 1 Timothy 2:5. To the ΣΆΡΞ belonged in the case of Christ also, as in that of all men, the ΨΥΧΉ as the principle of the animal life of man; but this sensuous side of His nature was not, as in all other men, the seat and organ of sin. He was not ΣΑΡΚΙΚΌς (Romans 7:14), and ΨΥΧΙΚΌς (1 Corinthians 2:14), in the ethical sense, like all ordinary men, although, in virtue of that sensuous nature, he was capable of being tempted (Hebrews 2:18; Hebrews 4:15). Although in this way His body was a ΣῶΜΑ Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς (Colossians 1:22), yet He did not appear ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚῚ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς, but ἘΝ ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ ΣΑΡΚῸς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς (Romans 8:2). With reference to His fleshly nature, therefore, i.e. in so far as He was a materially-human phenomenon, He was born (γενομένου, comp Galatians 4:4), of the seed (as descendant) of David, as was necessarily the case with the Son of God who appeared as the promised Messiah (Jeremiah 23:5; Psalm 132:11; Matthew 22:42; John 7:42; Acts 13:23; 2 Timothy 2:8). In this expression the ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυΐδ is to be understood of the male line of descent going back to David (comp Acts 2:30, ἘΚ ΚΑΡΠΟῦ Τῆς ὈΣΦΎΟς), as even the genealogical tables in Matthew and Luke give the descent of Joseph from David, not that of Mary;[297] and Jesus Himself, in John 5:27 (see on that passage), calls Himself, in contradistinction to His Sonship of God, son of a man, in which case the correlate idea on which it is founded can only be that of fatherhood. It is, therefore, the more erroneous to refer ἐκ σπ. Δαυ. to Mary (“ex semine David, i.e. ex virgine Maria,” Melancthon; comp also Philippi), especially since Paul nowhere (not even in Romans 8:3, Galatians 4:4) indicates the view of a supernatural generation of the bodily nature of Jesus (Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 328; Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 140 ff.; Pfleiderer, l.c[299]), even apart from the fact that the Davidic descent of the mother of Jesus can by no means be established from the N. T. It is the more unjustifiable, to pronounce the metaphysical divine Sonship without virgin birth as something inconceivable[300] (Philippi).

There now follows the other, second mode in which the Son of God who has appeared on earth is to be contemplated, viz. with reference to the spirit of holiness, which was in Him. The parallelism between κατὰ σάρκα and ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ἉΓ., apparent even in the position of the two elements, forbids us to understand ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΝ. ἉΓΙΩΣ. as denoting the presupposition and regulative cause of the state of glorious power ascribed to the Son of God (Hofmann). In that case Paul must have used another preposition, conveying the idea on account of, perhaps διά with the accusative (comp the ΔΙΌ, Php 2:9), in order to express the thought which Hofmann has discovered, namely, that the holiness of His spirit, and therefore of His life, was to make His divine Sonship a state of glorious power. Regarding the view taken of ἐν δυνάμει in connection with this, see the sequel. ἉΓΙΩΣΎΝΗ, in Paul’s writings as well as in the Sept. (in Greek authors and in the other writings of the N. T. it does not occur), invariably means holiness (2 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; Psalm 96:6; Psalm 97:12; Psalm 144:5), not sanctification (as rendered by the Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, and many others, including Glöckler and Schrader). So also in 2Ma 3:12. The genitive is the gen. qualitatis (Hermann, a[302] Viger. pp. 887, 891; Kühner, II. 1, p. 226), and contains the specific character of the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ. This ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ἉΓΙΩΣ. is, in contradistinction to the ΣΆΡΞ, the other side of the being of the Son of God on earth; and, just as the ΣΆΡΞ was the outward element perceptible by the senses, so is the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ the inward mental element, the substratum of His ΝΟῦς (1 Corinthians 2:16), the principle and the power of His INNER life, the intellectual and moral “Ego” which receives the communication of the divine—in short, the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος of Christ. His ΠΝΕῦΜΑ also was human (Matthew 27:50; John 11:33; John 19:30)—altogether He was an entire man, and the Apollinarian conception is without support in the N. T. teaching—but it was the seat of the divine nature belonging to His person; not excluding the specialty of the latter (in opposition to Beyschlag, Christol. pp. 212, 231), but being rather that which contained the metaphysical υἱότης Θεοῦ, or—according to the Johannine type of doctrine—the seat and the organ of the ΛΌΓΟς, which became flesh in the human person of Jesus, as also of the fulness of the Holy Spirit which bore sway in Him (John 3:34; Acts 1:2; 2 Corinthians 3:17). Consequently the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ of Christ, although human (comp Pfleiderer), was exalted above all other human spirits, because essentially filled with God, and thereby holy, sinless, and full of divine unpolluted life, as was no other human πνεῦμα; and for this reason His unique quality is characterized by the distinguishing designation πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, i.e. spirit full of holiness. This purposely-chosen expression, which is not to be abated to the studium sanctitatis (van Hengel), must, seeing that the text sets forth the two sides of the personal nature of Christ, absolutely preclude our understanding it to refer to the πνεῦμα ἅγιον,[304] the third person of the divine Trinity, which is not meant either in 1 Timothy 3:16, or in Hebrews 9:14. Nevertheless, the majority of commentators, since Chrysostom, have so explained it; some of them taking it to mean: “secundum Sp. S. ei divinitus concessum” (Fritzsche; comp Beza, Calixtus, Wolf, Koppe, Tholuck, and others);[306] some referring it to the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit (Theodoret), or to the bestowal of the Spirit which took place through Christ (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Estius, Böhme, and others). Since the contrast between σάρξ and ΠΝΕῦΜΑ is not that between the human and the divine, but that between the bodily and the mental in human nature, we must also reject the interpretation which refers the words to the divine nature (Melancthon, Calovius, Bengel, and many others); in which case some take ἁγιωσύνη as equivalent to ΘΕΌΤΗς (Winzer); others adduce in explanation of ΠΝΕῦΜΑ the here irrelevant ΠΝΕῦΜΑ Ὁ ΘΕΌς, John 4:24 (Beza, Winzer, Olshausen, Maier, Philippi); others take the expression as substantially equivalent to the Johannine ΛΌΓΟς (Rückert; comp Reiche, “the principle of His higher essence”), and thus have not avoided an Apollinarian conception. The correct interpretation is substantially given by Köllner, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald (also in his Jahrb. 1849, p. 93), and Mehring. Comp Hofmann (“spirit which supposes, wherever it is, a condition of holiness”), and also Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 49, who nevertheless understands the divine nature of Christ as also included.[309]

ὁρισθέντος] The translation of the Vulgate, qui praedestinatus est, based on the too weakly attested reading προορισθέντος (a mistaken gloss), drew forth from old writers (see in Estius) forced explanations, which are now properly forgotten. ὉΡΊΖΕΙΝ, however, with the double accusative, means to designate a person for something, to nominate, to instate (Acts 10:42; comp Meleager in the Anthol. xii. 158, 7 : σὲ θεὸν ὥρισε δαίμων), nor is the meaning different here.[311] For although Christ was already the Son of God before the creation of the world, and as such was sent (Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4), nevertheless there was needed a fact, by means of which He should receive, after the humiliation that began with His birth (Php 2:7 f.), instating into the rank and dignity of His divine Sonship; whereby also, as its necessary consequence with a view to the knowledge and conviction of men, He was legitimately established as the Son. The fact which constituted instatement was the resurrection, as the transition to His δόξα; comp on Acts 13:33; and ἘΠΟΊΗΣΕ in Acts 2:36. Inaccurate, because it confounds that consequence with the thing itself, is the gloss of Chrysostom: δειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος, κριθέντος; and that of Luther: “shewn.” Umbreit’s rendering is erroneous: “separated,” namely from all men.

ἐν δυνάμει] Not: through omnipotence (Umbreit), but: mightily (Luther), forcibly; for this installation of the Son of God as Son of God was a work of divine power, which (see what follows) was accomplished by means of the resurrection from the dead. Thus commanding power, divinely-energetic and effectual, forms the characteristic quality, in which the ὁρισμός took place. On ἘΝ, as paraphrase of the adverb (Colossians 1:29; 2 Thessalonians 1:11), see Bernhardy, p. 209. ἘΝ ΔΥΝ. is not, with Melancthon, Schoettgen, Pareus, Sebastian Schmid, and others, including Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Mehring, Holsten, Hofmann, and Pfleiderer, to be connected with ΥἹΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ (as the mightily powerful Son of God); for it was here of importance to dwell, not on a special predicate of the Son of God,[313] but, in contradistinction to the ἘΚ ΣΠΕΡΜ. ΔΑΥ. ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ, upon the divine Sonship in itself; of which Sonship He was indeed the hereditary possessor, but yet needed, in order to become instated in it with glorious power, resurrection from the dead. Thus, however, ἐν δυνάμει, even when rightly connected with ὉΡΙΣΘ., is not, with Chrysostom and Theophylact, to be taken as “per virtutem, i. e. per signa et prodigia” (Calovius, comp Grotius); nor with Fritzsche: vi ei datâ; for Paul himself defines the how of the mighty ὁρισμός by: ἘΞ ἈΝΑΣΤ. ΝΕΚΡῶΝ. This, namely, was the causal fact, by virtue of which that ὁρισμός was accomplished; for by the resurrection of Christ, God, who raised Him up (comp 2 Corinthians 13:4), accomplished in point of fact His instating declaration: Thou art my Son, this day, etc., Acts 13:33. Paul might accordingly have written διά, but ἘΚ is more expressive of the thought that Christ in virtue of the resurrection, etc. On ἐκ, used of causal issuing forth, see Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 281; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 550 f. The temporal explanation, since or after (Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Toletus, and others, including Reithmayr; comp Flatt, Umbreit, and Mehring), is to be rejected, because the raising up of Jesus from the dead was itself the great divine act, which, completed through the majesty of the Father (Romans 6:4), powerfully instated the Son in the Son’s position and dignities; hence it was also the basis of the apostolic preaching, Acts 1:22; Acts 2:24 ff; Acts 13:30; Acts 17:31 f., Acts 26:23; Romans 4:24; 1 Corinthians 15:3 ff. We are not to take the expression ἐξ ἀναστ. νεκρ., as is often done, for ἘΞ ἈΝΑΣΤ. ἘΚ ΝΕΚΡ., the second ἘΚ being omitted for the sake of euphony: but it must be viewed as a general designation of the category (νεκρῶν, see on Matthew 2:20): through resurrection of the dead, of which category the personal rising of the dead Jesus was the concrete case in point. Comp Acts 17:32. So, also, de Wette, Hofmann; comp Philippi, who however, following Erasmus and Bengel, introduces also the idea, foreign to this passage, that our resurrection is involved in that of Christ.

The following Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is in apposition to ΤΟῦ ΥἹΟῦ ΑὐΤΟῦ in Romans 5:3; not necessary in itself, but in keeping with the fulness of expression throughout this opening portion of the Epistle, which exhibits a character of majesty particularly in Romans 1:3-4.

Observe, further, that the exhibition of the holy and exalted nature of Christ in our passage serves to express the high dignity of the apostolic office. Of diversities in faith and doctrine in Rome regarding the person of Christ there is not a trace in the whole Epistle.[319]

[286] Comp. Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 502 ff.

[287] Hofmann erroneously thinks that Paul could not have added the object of his divine message otherwise than by περί. He would have only needed to repeat the εἰς εὐαγγέλιον with rhetorical emphasis, in order then to add the object in the genitive (τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀ.). Comp. Dissen. ad Dem. de cor. p. 315.

[289] .c. loco citato or laudato.

[290] Comp. Gess, v. d. Pers. Christi, p. 89 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 309.

[291] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[292] But at the same time the idea of “an accommodation to the Jewish-Christian mode of conception” (Holsten, z. Ev. Paul. u. Petr. p. 427), is not to be entertained. Paul gives the two main epochs in the history of the Son of God, as they actually occurred and had been already prophetically announced.

[293] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[297] In opposition to Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfüll. II. p. 49 (comp. the Erlangen Zeitschr. 1868, 6, p. 359 f.), who generalizes the sense of the words in such away as to convey the meaning that Christ appeared as one belonging to the collective body which traces its descent back to David. But in fact it is simply said that Christ was BORN of the seed of David. The reading γεννωμένου (in min., and MSS. used by Augustine) is a correct gloss; and Hofmann himself grants (heil. Schrift N. T., in loc.) that γίγνεσθαι ἐκ here signifies descent by birth. And even if γενομένου be taken as meaning: who appeared, who came (comp. on Mark 1:4; Php 2:7; so Ewald), still the genetic relation to the σπέρμα of David remains the same. He came κατὰ σάρκα of the seed of David, and that in no other way than through His birth. This remark holds good also against other obscure evasions to which Hofmann resorts in his Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 113; in his heil. Schr. N. T. he adheres substantially to his earlier view (“come of the race which called itself after David, because tracing its descent to his ancestry”). No, the σπέρμα of David is nothing else than his semen virile, out (ἐκ) of which, transmitted (comp. ἀπό, Acts 13:23) through the male line from γενεὰ to γενεά (Matthew 1:6 ff.), at length the Son of God κατὰ σάρμα—Christ, the David’s son of promise—was born. See besides, against Hofmann, Rich. Schmidt, l.c.—Because Christ was ἐκ σπέρματος of David, He might also Himself be called σπέρμα of David, in the same way as He is called in Galatians 3:16 σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ; and He is so called Matthew 1:1. Comp. further on ἐκ σπέρματος, in the sense of fatherhood, Soph. O. C. 214: τίνος εἶ σπέρματος.… πατρόθεν.

[299] .c. loco citato or laudato.

[300] This opinion rests on a premiss assumed ǎ priori, on an abstract postulate, the propriety of which it is impossible to prove. Comp. on Matthew 1:18, note.

[302] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[304] This is called in the Test. XII. Patr. p. 588, πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, in so far as it produces holiness.

[306] Comp. also Zeller in the theol. Jahrb. 1842, p. 486. In his view (2 Corinthians 3:17), the πνεῦμα is the element of which the higher personality of Christ consists. According to Baur, Paulus II. p. 375, it is the Messianic spirit, the intrinsic principle constituting the Messiahship of Christ. According to Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 425, it is in itself a transcendent pneumatic force, which produces the ἁγιωσύνη, a radiance of the divine πνεῦμα ἅγιον.

[309] A more accurate and precise definition of the idea may be found in Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 313; also Rich. Schmidt, p. 105 f.; Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 169, 503 f.

[311] But not in the sense: destined to become something, as Hofmann thinks; nor generally, in the sense: qui destinatus est, but rather: qui constitutus est (was instated). For otherwise the aorist participle would be unsuitable, since it must necessarily indicate an act following the γενομένου, etc.; whereas the divine destination would be prior to the birth. Consequently, were that sense intended, it must have been, as in Acts 10:42, ὡρισμένου.

[313] As if only a change of His attributes was concerned, or the transition into the full reality of the divine Sonship (Pfleiderer). The question concerned the installation of the Son of God as such, as it were His enthronisation, which had not taken place previously, but was accomplished by the resurrection with a mighty power. By means of the latter He received—as the Son of God, which from the beginning and even in the days of His flesh He really was—a de facto instatement, which accomplished itself in a way divinely powerful. What accrued to Him thereby, was not the full reality (see Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4), but the full efficiency of the Son of God; because He was now exalted above all the limitations of the state of His κένωσις (Philippians 2; 2 Corinthians 8:9); comp. e.g. Romans 6:9; Romans 11:33 f.; Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 13:4; and numerous other passages. The Son was now the κύριος πάντων, had the name above every name, etc, etc.

[319] Comp. Gess, von d. Pers. Chr. p. 56.

Romans 1:5. To the general τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, which designates Christ as the Lord of Christians in general, Paul now adds the special relation in which he himself stands to this common κύριος. He entertained too lively a consciousness of the bliss and dignity of that relationship, not to set it forth once more (comp Romans 1:1) in this overflowing salutation; this time, however, with closer reference to the readers, in accordance with his definite character as Apostle of the Gentiles.

Romans 1:5-6 are not to be enclosed in a parenthesis; and only a comma should be placed after Romans 1:6.

διʼ οὗ] through whom, denotes nothing else than the medium; nowhere, not even in Galatians 1:1, the causa principalis. The view of the Apostle is, as Origen rightly perceived, that he had received grace and apostleship through the mediation of Christ, through whom God called him at Damascus. Regarding Galatians 1:1, see on that passage.

ἐλάβομεν] He means himself alone, especially since in the address he specifies no joint author of the letter; not however—as Reiche, following Estius and many others, thinks—using the plural out of modesty (in the solemnity of an official epistolary greeting?), but rather (comp Romans 3:9) in accordance with the custom, very common among Greek authors, of speaking of themselves in the plural of category (Krüger, § 61, 2; Kühner, a[322] Xen. Mem. i. 2, 46). This is, no doubt, to be traced back to the conception “I and my equals;” but this original conception was in course of use entirely lost. The opinion, therefore, that Paul here includes along with himself the other apostles (Bengel, van Hengel) is to be all the more rejected as unsuitable, since the subsequent ἘΝ ΠᾶΣΙ ΤΟῖς ἜΘΝΕΣΙΝ points to Paul himself alone as the Apostle of the Gentiles. To understand Paul’s official assistants as included (Hofmann) is forbidden by the subsequent ἀποστολήν, which does not mean mission in general, but, as invariably in the N. T., specially apostleship.

χάριν κ. ἀποστολὴν] grace (generally) and (in particular) apostleship. Χάριν is to be understood, not merely of pardoning grace (Augustine, Calvin, Calovius, Reiche, Tholuck, Olshausen, and others), or of the extraordinary apostolic gifts of grace (Theodoret, Luther, and others, including Flatt and Mehring); for such special references must be demanded by the context; but on the contrary generally of the entire divine grace, of which Paul was made partaker through Christ, when he was arrested by Him at Damascus in his career which was hateful to God (Php 3:12; 1 Corinthians 15:10), converted, enlightened (Galatians 1:16), and transferred into the communion of God’s beloved ones and saints. The special object (Galatians 1:16) and at the same time the highest evidence of this χάρις which he had received, was his reception of the ἈΠΟΣΤΟΛΉ,[323] and that for the Gentile world. Others find here a ἓν διά δυοῖν (Chrysostom, Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Glass, Rich. Simon, Wetstein, Semler, Koppe, Böhme, Fritzsche, Philippi, and others): ΧΆΡΙΝ ἈΠΟΣΤΟΛῆς. This might certainly be justified in linguistic usage by the explicative ΚΑΊ (Fritzsche, a[324] Matth. p. 856; Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, iii. 100); but it arbitrarily converts two elements, which taken separately yield a highly appropriate sense, into one, and fails to recognise—what is involved in the union of the general and the particular—the fulness and force of the discourse moving the grateful heart. This remark applies also against Hofmann, according to whom the Apostle terms one and the same vocation “a grace and a mission;” in which view ἀποστ. is erroneously rendered (see above), and in consequence thereof ΕἸς ὙΠΑΚ. Π. is then joined merely to ΧΆΡ. Κ. ἈΠ., and not also to ἘΛΆΒ.

ΕἸς ὙΠΑΚ. ΠΊΣΤ.] Object of the ἘΛΆΒ. ΧΆΡ. Κ. ἈΠΟΣΤ.: in order that obedience of faith may be produced, i.e. in order that people may subject themselves to the faith, in order that they may become believing. Comp Romans 16:26; Acts 6:7; 2 Corinthians 10:5 f.; 2 Thessalonians 1:8. To take ΠΊΣΤΙς for doctrina fidei (Beza, Toletus, Estius, Bengel, Heumann, Cramer, Rosenmüller, Matt, Fritzsche, Tholuck, and others), is altogether contrary to the linguistic usage of the N. T., in which πίστις is always subjective faith, although often, as in the present instance, conceived of objectively, as a power. Comp Romans 16:20; Galatians 1:23. The activity of faith in producing works (Reithmayr), however, is not contained in the expression. The πίστις is, according to Paul, the conviction and confidence (assensus and fiducia) regarding Jesus Christ, as the only and perfect Mediator of the divine grace, and of eternal life, through His work of atonement. Faith alone (to the exclusion of works) is the causa apprehendens of the salvation promised and obtained through Christ; but, because it transfers us into living and devoted fellowship with Him, altogether of a moral character, it becomes the subjective moral power of the new life regenerated through the power of the Holy Spirit—of the life in Christ, which, however, is the necessary consequence, and never the ground of justification. See Luther’s Preface.

The genitive πίστεως, in accordance with the analogy of the expressions kindred in meaning ὙΠΑΚΟῊ ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ in 2 Corinthians 10:5, and ὙΠΑΚ. Τῆς ἈΛΗΘΕΊΑς in 1 Peter 1:22, necessarily presents itself (comp Acts 6:7; Romans 10:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; also 2 Corinthians 9:13) as denoting that to which the obedience is rendered; not (Grotius, following Beza) the causa efficiens: “ut Deo obediatur per fidem,” in which explanation, besides, the “Deo” is arbitrarily introduced.[328] Hofmann is also wrong in taking the genitive ΠΊΣΤΕΩς as epexegetical (an obedience consisting in faith).

ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν] is to be joined with ΕἸς ὙΠΑΚ. ΠΊΣΤΕΩς, beside which it stands; the ἔθνη, however, are not all nations generally, inclusive of the Jews (so most expositors, including Rückert, Reiche, Köllner, Fritzsche, Baur), but, in accordance with the historical destination of the Apostle (Galatians 1:16; Acts 9:15; Acts 26:17 f.), and in consequence of the repeated prominence of his calling as Gentile Apostle in our letter (Romans 1:13; Romans 11:13; Romans 15:16), all Gentile nations, to which also the Romans belonged (Beza, Tholuck, Philippi, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, van Hengel, Ewald, Hofmann and others); and these regarded not from a geographical point of view (Mangold, p. 76), but from a popular one, as גוים; which precludes us from thinking—not as to a section, but at any rate as to the mass, of the Roman congregation—that it was Jewish-Christian. This his apostolic calling for the Gentiles is meant by Paul in all passages where he describes the ἜΘΝΗ as the object of his labours (Galatians 1:16; Galatians 2:2; Galatians 2:8-9; Ephesians 3:1; Ephesians 3:8; Colossians 1:27; 1 Thessalonians 2:16).

ὙΠῈΡ ΤΟῦ ὈΝΌΜ. ΑὐΤΟῦ] belongs, in the most natural connection, not to ἘΛΆΒ.… ἈΠΟΣΤ. (Rückert) or to ΔΙʼ ΟὟ.… ἜΘΝΕΣΙΝ (de Wette, Mehring, Hofmann), but to ΕἸς ὙΠΑΚΟῊΝ.… ἜΘΝΕΣΙΝ; “in order to produce obedience to the faith among all Gentile nations for the sake of (for the glorifying of, comp Acts 5:41; Php 2:13) His name.” Acts 9:15; Acts 15:26; Acts 21:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:12, serve to illustrate the matter referred to. The idea of wishing to exclude the glorifying of his own name (Hofmann) is not for a moment to be imputed to the Apostle. He would have needed a very special motive for doing so.

[322] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[323] Augustine aptly remarks: “Gratiam cum omnibus fidelibus, apostolatum autem non cum omnibus communem habet.” Comp. Bengel: “Gratia et singularis gratiae mensura apostolis obtigit.”

[324] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[328] So also van Hengel, on the ground of passages like v. 19; Php 2:12, where however the sense of obedience to God results from the context; and Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, II. p. 281 ff., who urges against our view that it makes ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόμ. αὐτοῦ superfluous. But the glory of Christ is precisely the lofty end of all ὑπακούειν τῇ πίστει. Where it takes place, it is acknowledged that Jesus Christ is Lord, Php 2:11.

Romans 1:6. Application of the contents of Romans 1:5 to the relation in which the Apostle stood to his readers, whereby he indicates how he is officially entitled to address them also, teaching, exhorting, and so forth

ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰ. Χ.] To be written thus, without a comma after ὑμεῖς, with Heumann, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette, Hofmann, and Bisping: among whom also are ye called (ones) of Jesus Christ. Among the Gentile nations the Roman Christians were, like other Gentile-Christian churches, called of the Lord; amidst the Gentile world, nationally belonging to it (in opposition to Mangold’s mere geographical interpretation), they also shared this high distinction. The reference of the καὶ to Paul (Th. Schott), and consequently the interpretation: as I, so also ye, is erroneous, because the Apostle has asserted concerning himself something far higher than the mere Christian calling. The common interpretation of κλητοὶ Ἰ. Χ. as an address (so too Rückert, Fritzsche, Philippi, van Hengel, Mehring) makes the ἐν οἶς ἐστε κ. ὑμ. quite a meaningless assertion; for Bengel’s suggestion for meeting the difficulty, that ἐν οἶς has the implied meaning: among which converted nations, is purely arbitrary.

Since the calling (to the Messianic salvation; see on Galatians 1:6; also 1 Corinthians 7:17) is invariably ascribed by Paul to God (Romans 8:30, Romans 9:24; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 1 Corinthians 7:15; 1 Corinthians 7:17; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:14; comp Usteri, p. 281; Weiss, bibl. Theol. § 127; what Schmidt urges in opposition, in Rudelbach’s Zeitschr. 1849, II. p. 188 ff. is untenable) we must explain it, hot as: called by Christ (Luther, Rückert, Mehring, Hofmann, and others), but as: called (by God) who belong to Christ (so Erasmus, Beza, Estius, and most modern commentators, also Winer, p. 183). The genitive is possessive, just as in the analogous τοὺς ἐκλεκτοὺς αὐτοῦ in Matthew 24:31. With the substantive nature of κλητός (comp Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 147) the genitive by no means admits merely the interpretation which points to the calling subject, as in 2 Samuel 15:11; 1 Kings 1:41; 1 Kings 1:49; Zephaniah 1:7; but admits of very different references, as e.g. in Homer, Od. xvii. 386, κλητοί γε βροτῶν are not those called by mortals, but those who are called among mortals (genitive totius).

Romans 1:7. Now for the first time, brought by Romans 1:6 nearer to his readers, Paul passes from the throng of the great intervening thoughts, Romans 1:2 ff., in which he has given full and conscious expression to the nature and the dignity of his calling, to the formal address and to the apostolic salutation.

πᾶσι κ.τ.λ[332]] directs the letter to all beloved of God who are in Rome, etc., and therefore to the collective Roman Christian church, Php 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:1),[333] but not, as Tholuck thinks (comp Turretin, Wolf, and Böhme), at the same time also to those foreign Christians who were accidentally staying in Rome, for against this view Romans 1:8, in which ὙΠῈΡ ΠΆΝΤΩΝ ὙΜῶΝ can only refer to the Romans, is decisive. The ΠᾶΣΙ would be self-obvious and might have been dispensed with, but in this Epistle, just because it is so detailed and is addressed to a great church still far away from the Apostle, ΠᾶΣΙ carries with it a certain diplomatic character. Similarly, though from other grounds, Php 1:1.

ἀγαπητ. Θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις] Characteristic special analysis of the idea “Christians” in accordance with the high privileges of their Christian condition. For, as reconciled with God through Christ, they are beloved of God (Romans 5:5 ff., Romans 8:39; Colossians 3:12); and, as those who through the divine calling to the Messianic salvation have become separated from the κόσμος and consecrated to God, because members of the new covenant of grace, they are called saints; comp 1 Corinthians 1:2. This saintship is produced through the justification of the called (Romans 8:30), and their accompanying subjection to the influence of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 1:30). De Wette erroneously interprets: “those who are called to be saints.” So also Baumgarten-Crusius. The calling always refers to the salvation of the Messiah’s kingdom. But that the ἁγιότης is to be understood in that Christian theocratic sense after the analogy of the Old Testament קדושׁ, and not of individual moral holiness (Pareus, Toletus, Estius, Grotius, Flatt, Glöckler, de Wette, and others), is plain from the very fact, that all Christians as Christians are ἅγιοι.

χάρις.… εἰρήνη] See Otto, in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1867, p. 678 ff. Χάρις is the disposition, the subjective feeling in God and Christ, which the Apostle wishes to be entertained towards and shown to his readers; εἰρήνη is the actual result, which is produced through the manifestation of the χάρις: grace and salvation (שָׁלוֹס), the latter in every aspect in which it presents itself as the Christian issue of the χάρις. Comp Melancthon. The specifically Christian element in this salutation[337] lies in ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς.… Χριστοῦ. Comp 1 Corinthians 1:3; 2 Corinthians 1:2; Ephesians 1:2; Php 1:2; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1 f.; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:3. The special rendering of εἰρήνη, peace, which, following Chrysostom and Jerome, the majority, including Reiche, Olshausen, Tholuck, Philippi, Umbreit and others retain (the higher peace which is given, not by the world, but by the consciousness of divine grace and love, see especially Umbreit, p. 190 ff.), must be abandoned, because χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη represent the general epistolary χαίρειν (Acts 15:23; Jam 1:1), and thus the generality of the salutation is expressed in a way characteristically Christian.

πατήρ ἡμῶν means God, in so far as we, as Christians, are His children through the υἱοθεσία (see on Galatians 4:5; Romans 8:15).

καὶ κυρίου] i.e. καὶ ἀπὸ κυρίου, not, as Glöckler, following Erasmus, takes it, “and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” for against this view stands the decisive fact that God is never called our and Christ’s Father; see also Titus 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:2. The formal equalisation of God and Christ cannot be certainly used as a proof (as Philippi and Mehring contend) of the divine nature of Christ—which, however, is otherwise firmly enough maintained by Paul—since the different predicates πατρός and κυρίου imply the different conceptions of the causa principalis and medians. For this purpose different prepositions were not required; comp on Galatians 1:1.

[332] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[333] With these parallels before us, it is unreasonable to ask why Paul does not designate the readers as a church. Bengel and van Hengel are of opinion that no regular congregational bond was as yet in existence. Th. Schott thinks that Paul as yet stood in no relation whatever to the church. The ὄντες ἐν ʼΡώμῃ κ.τ.λ. are the church, and it is to the churches that he has written where he does not write to specified persons.

[337] Regarding Otto’s attempted derivation of it from the Aaronic benediction, see on 1 Corinthians 1:3.

Romans 1:8. Πρῶτον μὲν] To that, which Paul desires first of all to write, there was meant to be subjoined something further, possibly by ἔπειτα δέ. But, amidst the ideas that now crowd upon him, he abandons this design, and thus the μέν remains alone. Comp Romans 3:2; and on Acts 1:1; 1 Corinthians 11:18; Schaefer, a[341] Dem. IV. p. 142; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 410.

τῷ Θεῷ μου] οὗ εἰμὶ, ᾧ καὶ λατρεύω, Acts 27:23; comp 1 Corinthians 1:4; Php 1:3; Php 4:19; Philemon 1:4.

διὰ Ἰηροῦ Χριστοῦ] These words—to be connected with εὐχαριστῶ, not with μου, as Koppe and Glöckler think, against which Romans 7:25 and Colossians 3:17 are clearly decisive—contain the mediation, through which the εὐχαριστῶ takes place. The Apostle gives thanks not on his own part and independently of Christ, not διʼ ἑαυτοῦ, but is conscious of his thanksgiving being conveyed through Jesus Christ, as one who is present to his grateful thoughts; in so far, namely, as that for which he thanks God is vividly perceived and felt by him to have been brought about through Christ. Comp on Colossians 3:17; Ephesians 5:20. Thus Christ is the mediating causal agent of the thanksgiving. To regard Him as its mediating presenter (Origen, Theophylact, Bengel, and others, including Hofmann) cannot be justified from Paul’s other writings, nor even by Hebrews 13:15. Theodore of Mopsuestia well observes: τοῦ Χριστοῦ ταύτης ἡμῖν τῆς εὐχαριστίας τὴν αἰτίαν παρασχομένου.

ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν] quite simply: your faith (on Christ); the praiseworthy character of the πίστις is only set forth by the context (καταγγέλλ. ἐν ὅλῳ τ. κ.) afterwards. Everywhere one hears your faith openly spoken of. Comp Romans 16:19. Observe how this flattering expression of the Apostle and the thanksgiving coupled with it, as also the στηριχθῆναι κ.τ.λ[345], in Romans 1:11-12, point to the church not as Jewish-Christian but as Pauline. Mangold’s reference to Php 1:15-18, in opposition to this inference, leaves out of view the quite different personal situation under which the latter was written. Comp on Php 1:18, note.

ἐν ὅλῳ τ. κόσμῳ] a popular hyperbole, but how accordant with the position of the church in that city, towards which the eyes of the whole world were turned! Comp 1 Thessalonians 1:8. It is, moreover, obvious of itself, that the subjects of the ΚΑΤΑΓΓΈΛΛΕΙΝ are the believers. As to the unbelievers, see Acts 28:22.

[341] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[345] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

Romans 1:8-15. First of all the Apostle now—as under various forms in all his epistles, with the exception of that to the Galatians (also not in 1 Timothy and Titus)—expresses with thanksgiving towards God his pious joy at the faith of his readers; and then assures them of his longing to be with them and to labour among them personally. The thanksgiving is short, for it relates to a church not only personally unknown to him, but also far removed from the sphere of labour which he had hitherto occupied; but the expression of it is in accordance with the position of the church in the metropolis of the world.