Page images
PDF
EPUB

the instrumentality of his family. But little on this subject can be known. While it is probable that the great mass of believers in all the early churches was of obscure and plebeian origin, it is also certain that some who were rich, and noble, and learned, became members of the church of Christ. See

1 Tim. ii. 9. 1 Pet. iii. 3. 1 Tim. vi. 20. Col. ii. 8. 1 Cor. i. 26. Acts xvii. 34. This epistle has been usually deemed the most difficult of interpretation of any part of the New Testament; and no small part of the controversies in the Christian church have grown out of discussions about its meaning. Early in the history of the church, even before the death of the apostles, we learn from 2 Pet. iii. 16, that the writings of Paul were some of them regarded as being hard to be understood; and that the unlearned and unstable wrested them to their own destruction. It is probable that Peter has reference here to the high and mysterious doctrines about justification and the sovereignty of God, and the doctrines of election and decrees. From the epistle of James, it would seem probable also, that already the apostle Paul's doctrine of justification by faith had been perverted and abused. It seems to have been inferred that good works were unnecessary; and here was the beginning of the cheerless and withering system of Antinomianism-than which a more destructive or pestilential heresy never found its way into the Christian church. Several reasons might be assigned for the controversies which have grown out of this epistle. (1.) The very structure of the argument, and the peculiarity of the apostle's manner of writing. He is rapid; mighty; profound; often involved; readily following a new thought; leaving the regular subject; and returning again after a considerable interval. Hence his writings abound with parentheses, and with complicated paragraphs. (2.) Objections are often introduced, so that it requires close attention to determine their precise bearing. Though he employs no small part of the epistle in answering objections, yet an objector is never once formally introduced or mentioned. (3.) His expressions and phrases are many of them liable to be misunderstood, and capable of perversion. Of this class are such expressions as the righteousness of faith, the righteousness of God, &c. (4.) The doctrines themselves are high and mysterious. They are those subjects on which the profoundest minds have been in all ages exercised in vain. On them there has been, and always will be a difference of opinion. Even with the most honest intentions that men ever have, they find it difficult or impossible to approach the investigation of them without the bias of early education, or the prejudice of previous opinion. In this world it is not given to men fully to understand these great doctrines. And it is not wonderful that the discussion of them has given rise to endless controversies; and that they who have

Reasoned high

Of Providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate;
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute,
Have found no end, in wandering mazes lost.

(5.) It cannot be denied that one reason why the epistles of Paul have been regarded as so difficult has been an unwillingness to admit the truth of the plain doctrines which he teaches. The heart is by nature opposed to them; and comes to believe them with great reluctance. This feeling will account for no small part of the difficulties felt in regard to this epistle. There is one great maxim in interpreting the scriptures that can never be departed from. It is, that men can never understand them aright, until they are willing to suffer them to speak out their fair and proper meaning. When men are determined not to find certain doctrines in the Bible, nothing is more natural than that they should find difficulties in it, and complain much of its great obscurity and mys

tery. I add, (6.) That one principal reason why so much difficulty has been felt here, has been an unwillingness to stop where the apostle does. Men have desired to advance farther, and penetrate the mysteries which the Spirit of inspiration has not disclosed. Where Paul states a simple fact, men often advance a theory. The fact may be clear and plain; their theory is obscure, involved, mysterious, or absurd. By degrees they learn to unite the fact and the theory :-they regard their explanation as the only possible one; and as the fact in question has the authority of divine revelation, so they insensibly come to regard their theory in the same light; and he that calls in question their speculation about the cause, or the mode, is set down as heretical, and as denying the doctrine of the apostle. A melancholy instance of this we have in the account which the apostle gives (ch. v.) about the effect of the sin of Adam. The simple fact is stated that that sin was followed by the sin and ruin of all his posterity. Yet he offers no explanation of the fact. He leaves it as indubitable; and as not demanding an explanation in his argument-perhaps as not admitting it. This is the whole of his doctrine on that subject. Yet men have not been satisfied with that. They have sought for a theory to account for it. And many suppose they have found it in the doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed, or set over by an arbitrary arrangement to beings otherwise innocent, and that they are held to be responsible for a deed committed by a man thousands of years before they were born. This is the theory; and men insensibly forget that it is mere theory, and they blend that and the fact which the apostle states together; and deem the denial of the one, heresy as much as the denial of the other, i. e. they make it as impious to call in question their philosophy, as to doubt the facts stated on the authority of the apostle Paul. If men desire to understand the epistles of Paul, and avoid difficulties, they should be willing to leave it where he does; and this single rule would have made useless whole years and whole tomes of contro

versy.

Perhaps, on the whole, there is no book of the New Testament that more demands a humble, docile, and prayerful disposition in its interpretation than this epistle. Its profound doctrines; its abstruse inquiries; and the opposition of many of those doctrines to the views of the unrenewed and unsubdued heart of man, make a spirit of docility and prayer peculiarly needful in its investigation. No man ever yet understood the reasonings and views of the apostle Paul but under the influence of elevated piety. None ever found opposition to his doctrines recede, and difficulties vanish, who did not bring the mind in a humble frame to receive all that has been revealed; and that, in a spirit of humble prayer, did not purpose to lay aside all bias, and open the heart to the full influence of the elevated truths which he inculcates. Where there is a willingness that God should reign and do all his pleasure, this epistle may be in its general character easily understood. Where this is wanting, it will appear full of mystery and perplexity; the mind will be embarrassed, and the heart dissatisfied with its doctrines; and the umhumbled spirit will rise from its study only confused, irritated, perplexed, and dissatisfied.

[blocks in formation]

CHAPTER I.

1. Paul. The original name of the author of this epistle was Saul. Acts vi. 58; vii. 1; viii. 1, &c. This was changed to Paul (see Note, Acts xiii. 9), and by this name he is generally known in the New Testament. The reason why he assumed this name is not certainly known. It was, however, in accordance with the custom of the times. See Note, Acts xiii. 9. The name Saul was Hebrew; the name Paul was Roman. In addressing an epistle to the Romans, he would naturally make use of the name to which they were accustomed, and which would excite no prejudice among them. The ancient custom was to begin an epistle with the name of the writer, as Cicero to Varro, &c. We record the name at the end. It may be remarked, however, that the placing the name of the writer at the beginning of an epistle was always done, and is still, when the letter was one of authority, or when it conferred any peculiar privileges. Thus in the proclamation of Cyrus (Ezra i. 2), "Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia," &c. See also Ezra iv. 11; vii. 12. "Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the Priest," &c. Dan. iv. 1. The commencement of a letter by an apostle to a Christian church in this manner was peculiarly proper as indicating authority. A servant. This name was that which the Lord Jesus himself directed his disciples to use, as their general appellation. Matt. x. 25; xx. 27. Mark x. 44. And it was the customary name which they assumed. Gal. i. 10. Col. iv. 12. 2 Pet. i. 1. Jude 1. Acts iv. 29. Titus i. 1. James i. 1. The proper meaning of this word servant, douxos, is

c

tle, separated unto the gospel of God,

2 (Which he had promised

c Ac.13.2. Ga.1.15.

slave, one who is not free. It expresses the condition of one who has a master, or who is at the control of another. It is often, however, applied to courtiers, or the officers that serve under a king; because in an eastern monarchy the relation of an absolute king to his courtiers corresponded nearly to that of a master and a slave. Thus the word is expressive of dignity and honour; and the servants of a king denote officers of a high rank and station. It is applied to the prophets as those who were honoured by God, or peculiarly intrusted by him with office. Deut. xxxiv. 5. Josh. i. 2. Jer. xxv. 4. The name is also given to the Messiah, Isa. xlii. 1, "Behold my servant in whom my soul delighteth," &c. liii. 11, "Shall my righteous servant justify many." The apostle uses it here evidently to denote his acknowledging Jesus Christ as his master; as indicating his dignity, as peculiarly appointed by him to his great work; and as showing that in this epistle he intended to assume no authority of his own, but simply to declare the will of his master, and theirs. Called to be an apostle. This word called means here not merely to be invited, but has the sense of appointed. It indicates that he had not assumed the office himself, but that he was set apart to it by the authority of Christ himself. It was important for Paul to state this, (1.) Because the other apostles had been called or chosen to this work (John xv. 16. 19. Matt. x. 1. Luke vi. 13); and (2.) Because Paul was not one of those originally appointed. It was of consequence for him, therefore, to affirm that he had not taken this high office to himself, but that he had been called to it by the au

11

afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures.)

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was

had before announced. By the prophets. The word prophets here is used to include those who wrote as well as those who spake. It included the teachers of the ancient Jews generally. In the holy scriptures. In the writings of the Old Testament. They were called holy because they were inspired of the Holy Ghost, and were regarded as separated from all other writings, and worthy of all reverence. The apostle here declares that he was not about to advance any thing new. His doctrines were in accordance with the acknowledged oracles of God. Though they might appear to be new, yet he regarded the gospel as entirely consistent with all that had been declared in the Jewish dispensation; and not only consistent, but as actually promised there. He affirms, therefore, (1.) That all this was promised, and no small part of the epistle is employed to show this. (2.) That it was confirmed by the authority of holy and inspired men. (3.) That it depended on no vague and loose tradition, but was recorded, so that men might examine for themselves. The reason why the apostle was so anxious to show that his doctrine coincided with the Old Testament

thority of Jesus Christ. His appointment to this office he not unfrequently takes occasion to vindicate. 1 Cor. ix. 1, &c. Gal. i. 12-24. 2 Cor. xii. 12. 1 Tim. ii. 7. 2 Tim. i. 11. Rom. xi. 13. An apostle. One sent to execute a commission. It is applied because the apostles were sent out by Jesus Christ to preach his gospel, and to establish his church. Note, Matt. x. 2. Luke vi. 13. Separated. The word translated separated unto, gw, means to designate, to mark out by fixed limits, to bound as a field, &c. It denotes those who are separated, or called out from the common mass. Acts xix. 9. 2 Cor. vi. 17. The meaning here does not materially differ from the expression, called to be an apostle, except that perhaps this includes the notion of the purpose or designation of God to this work. Thus Paul uses the same word respecting himself. Gal. i. 15, "God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace," i. e. God designated me; marked me out; or designed that I should be an apostle from my infancy. In the same way Jeremiah was designated to be a prophet. Jer. i. 5. Unto the gospel of God. Designated or designed by God that I should make it my busi-was, because the church at Rome was ness to preach the gospel. Set apart to this, as the peculiar, great work of my life; as having no other object for which I should live. For the meaning of the word gospel, see Note, Matt. i. 1. It is called the gospel of God because it is his appointment; it has been originated by him, and has his authority. The office of an apostle was to preach the gospel. Paul regarded himself as Beparated to this work. It was not to live in splendour, wealth, and ease, but to devote himself to this great business of proclaiming good news, that God was reconciled to men in his Son. This is the sole business of all ministers of religion.

2. Which he had promised afore. Which gospel, or which doctrines, he

made up in part of Jews. He wished to show them, and the remainder of his countrymen, that the Christian religion was built on the foundation of their prophets, and their acknowledged writings. So doing, he would disarm their prejudice, and furnish a proof of the truth of religion. It was a constant position with the apostle that he advanced nothing but what was maintained by the best and holiest men of the nation. Acts xxvi. 22, 23. "Saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come," &c. There was a further reason here for his appealing so much to the Old Testament. He had never been at Rome. He was therefore personally a stranger, and it was

proper for him then especially to show | xxi. 9. 15; xxii. 42. 45. John vii. 42. his regard for the doctrines of the pro- 2 Tim. ii. 8. As the Jews universally phets. Hence he appeals here so often believed that the Messiah would be deto the Old Testament; and defends scended from David (John vii. 42), every point by the authority of the it was of great importance for the saBible. The particular passages of the cred writers to make it out clearly that Old Testament on which he relied Jesus of Nazareth was of that line and will come before us in the course of family. Hence it happened, that though the epistle. See particularly ch. iii. iv. our Saviour was humble, and poor, and ix. x. xi. We may see here, (1.) The obscure, yet he had that on which no reverence which Paul showed for the small part of the world have been acOld Testament. He never under- customed so much to pride themselves, valued it. He never regarded it as obso- an illustrious ancestry. To a Jew lete, or useless. He manifestly studied there could be scarcely any honour so it; and never fell into the impious opi- high as to be descended from the best nion that the Old Testament is of little of their kings; and it shows how little value. (2.) If these things were pro- the Lord Jesus esteemed the honours of mised--predicted in the Old Testament, this world, that he could always evince then Christianity is true. Every pas- his deep humility in circumstances sage which he adduces is therefore where men are usually proud; and that proof that it is from God. when he spoke of the honours of this world, and told how little they were worth, he was not denouncing that which was not within his reach.

flesh, rag, is used in the Scriptures in a great variety of significations. (1.) It denotes, as with us, the flesh literally of any living being. Luke xxiv. 39, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones," &c. (2.) The animal system, the body, including flesh and bones, the visible part of man, in distinction from the invisible, or the soul. Acts ii. 31, "Neither did his flesh" (his body)" see corruption." 1 Cor. v. 5; xv. 39. (3.) The man, the whole animated system, body and soul. Rom. viii. 3, "In the likeness of sinful flesh." 1 Cor. xv. 50. Matt. xvi. 17. Luke iii. 6. (4.) Hu

3. Concerning his Son. This is connected with the first verse, with the word gospel. The gospel of God concerning his Son. The design of the gos-¶ According to the flesh. The word pel was to make a communication relative to his Son Jesus Christ. This is the whole of it. There is no good news to man respecting salvation except that which comes by Jesus Christ. Which was made. The word translated was made means usually to be, or to become. It is used, however, in the sense of being born. Thus, Gal. iv. 4, "God sent forth his Son made of a woman," born of a woman. John viii. 58, 66 'Before Abraham was [born], I am." In this sense it seems to be used here, who was born, or descended from the seed of David. Of the seed of David. Of the pos-man nature. As a man. Thus, Acts terity or lineage of David. He was a ii. 30, "God had sworn with an oath descendant of David. David was per- that of the fruit of his loins according haps the most illustrious of the kings to the flesh, i. e. in his human nature, of Israel. The promise to him was he would raise up Christ to sit on his that there should not fail a man to sit throne." Rom. ix. 5, "Whose are the on this throne. 1 Kings ii. 4; viii. 25; fathers, and of whom as concerning ix. 5. 2 Chron. vi. 16. This ancient the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, promise was understood as referring to God blessed for ever." The same is its the Messiah, and hence in the New meaning here. He was a descendant Testament he is called the descendant of David in his human nature, or as a of David, and so much pains is taken man. This implies, of course, that he to show that he was of his line. Luke had another nature besides his human, i. 27. Matt. ix. 27; xv. 22; xii. 23; or that while he was a man he was B

« PreviousContinue »