James Morison.

A critical exposition of the third chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the ... online

. (page 37 of 40)
Online LibraryJames MorisonA critical exposition of the third chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the ... → online text (page 37 of 40)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

share in justification." It is by one or other of these
methods, or by a combination of several of them, that

Digitized by


ROMANS in. fP. SO. 881

Boman Catholic expositors and theologians in general, and
others who in this matter side with Roman Catholics, back
out of the natural import of the Apostle's phraseology.
Cardinal Cajetan, however, rose in a great measure superior
to the prejudices which surrounded him, and which too
often, indeed, exerted a warping influence on his own
judgement He says that the Apostle does not intend to
dissuade from performing the works of the law : he only
intends ''to exclude them from having any justificative
power," (non vntendii, inqaam, excludere ah executions aed a
justificatione, hoc est, a virtate justiflcatiYa hominia absolute,
quod est dicere a virtnte remiflsiva peccatormn). Nothing
more than this idea of the great Cardinal is required to
satisfy the requirements of enlightened Protestantism : — ^for
even in the a]:)ophthegms of Gregory the Great, that "we
get to works by faith, not to faith by works," — "to virtue
by faith, not to faith by virtue," — {^non operibus venitur ad
fidem, sed Jide venitur ad opera, — non virtutibus venitur
ad fidem, sed per fidem venitur ad virtutes), — ^require to be
interpreted as having reference to the highest element in
virtue and good works, — supreme love to Ood, or else to be
accepted with a grain of qualification. It is enough to
say that works of law have, — in the case of transgressors of
the law, — no justificative or remissive virtue or meritorious-
ness whatsoever. It is altogether uncalled for to deny that
an unbeliever may be in some, or perhaps in many, respects
a noble man, — noble in honesty, noble in honour, noble in
patriotism, noble in philanthropy. Yet his nobility of
character has no justificative element in it Perfect nobility
in all relations, God-ward and man-ward, — ^perfect or fiiU-
orbed righteousness from beginning to ending of the pro-
bationary career, — ^would be requisite, if man were to be
justified by works of law.

Veb. 29. "H ^loviuiofp 6 ^6og fjuovov, Oir/) l\ ««/
'^vSr, Nai kou i^vm' Veb. 30. Icrg/Vsp tig 6 ^sog og

Digitized by



Eng. AutL Ter. Is be the Ood of the Jews only ? is he
not also of the Gentiles i Yes, of the Gentiles also : Seeing
it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith,
and uncircumcision through faith

Bevised Version. Is Ood (the Ood) of Jews onlyf Is
he not, on the contrary, [the Ood) of Gentiles also t Yes, of
Gentiles also; seeing it is one Ood who shall justify cir-
cumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

§ 1. We shall consider the initial particle, fi, at the
conclusion of the exposition of the two versea The reason
of this postponement will then become sufficiently evident.
It is enough, in the meantime, to note that the interrogative
nature of the clause to which ^ is prefixed is not dependent
on the presence of the particle. Indeed, the particle is
omitted altogether in some few manuscripts, as also in
Theodoret's text. Mill regarded it as spurious, {praefixum
havd dubito i marg. ob majorem emphasin).

§ 2. Is Ood {flie Ood) of Jews only? ('Iou8a/wv 6 S^oc
liovovi) We say of Jews, rather than of the Jews; for this
is one of the cases in which our English idiom coincides so
far with the Greek as to enable us to preserve the indefinite-
ness of the original There is a fine and solemn significance
in this indefiniteness : for there is an inner circle of the
divine relationship within which God was peculiarly the
God of such Jews (and Gentiles) as were believers of the

The Apostle's query is exceedingly condensed; and has
hence occasioned considerable difference of opinion regarding
its construction. The Authors of our Evg. Auih Version,
following the English Geneva and Tyndale, have regarded
the articulated word Ood (6 SeJc) as belonging to the pre-
dicate of the preposition; and hence they have rendei-ed
the clause thus, — "Is he the Ood of the Jews onlyf*' T^n-
dale's translation is the same. The English Geneva is

Digitized by



similar in principle, but more awkward, — ^**God, is he the God
of the Jews only?'* The French Geneva is identical with
the English, — (Dieu est il seulement le Dieu des Juifaf)
The translation is almost identical with Calvin's French
version, — "Dieu est il eevlement Dieu dee Juifs?" It is
more natural, however, and more in harmony with the
unfolded expression in Matt. xxiL 32, to regard the arti-
culated noun as being the subject of the proposition : — " la
Ood (the God) of Jews only?" (If both the subject and
the predicate had been expressed, the query would have
run thus, — 6 dio^ dcoc ^lovSalwv jnovov; See Matt.
xxiL 32.)

Fritzsche supposes that there is the ellipsis only of the
substantive verb. He would render the expression thus, —
" Is God of the Jews only ? " that is, " Does God belong to
the Jews only ? " (An ad Judaeoa Dene pertinet tantum-
Tnodo?) His authority swayed the judgement and carried
the concurrent votes of de Wette and Meyer, in their second
and subsequent editions, as also of Maier, Oltramare, Philippi,
&c We rather think, however, that the view taken of the
construction by Luther and Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius,
Krehl, van Hengel, and Matthias, — the view given in our
translation, — is more correct. It assumes the ellipsis of the
predicate God, as weU as of the substantive verb ; — la God
the God of Jews only ? This view of the construction is
favoured by a comparison of Luke xx. 38 with Matt. xxii.
32, as also by the expressions that occur in 1 Cor. xiv. 33,
and in Rom. ii. 28, 29. Even although Fritzsche's inter-
pretation were to be so far accepted, it would still be
requisite, in order to unfold completely the Apostle's idea,
to add, as a secondary supplement, the expression, " as their
God:" — Does God belong to the Jews only, viz,, as their
God ? Thus the ellipsis would be enlarged, instead of being

Tischendorf (1849 and 1859) supposes that, in the correct
reading of the query, the adjective alone is used, instead of
the adverb only, {'lovSatwv 6 ^eoc fJi6v(t)v; instead of
^lovSalwv 6 S^iog fiovov). He is supported by the Vatican
MS., and a few of the cursives. But the overwhelming

Digitized by


884 ROMANS IIL 29, 30,

majority of the. cursives, as well asHACFGKL, sastain
the reading of the Received Text. It is supported likewise
by the Vulgate (tantum) and d. e. f. g. There can be little
doubt that Lachmann, therefore, was right in abiding by
the received text ; and so Scholz, Oriesbach, &a

The Apostle does not query whether or not Ood is the
Ood of Jew8. He would be ready to acknowledge that God
was AbrcJiam's God, and the God of Abraham's seed, (Gen.
xvii. 7, 8.) He was the God of AbraJuim, and of Isaac, and
of Jacob. (Matt. xxiL 32.) He was the God of the
Hebrews. (Lev. xxvi. 45.) The word God in such ex-
pressions is used relatively and appeUatively. God was
the God of the patriarchs and their seed, in the sense of
being to them the Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-
suffering, and abundant in goodfiess and truth. All that
is involved in his Godhead was laid under contribution for
the promotion of their weal, so far as promoting that weal
was consistent with their moral state on the one hand, and
his wide oecumenical relations on the other. But within
the circle which embiuced the divinely beneficent influences
which -Vere made to convei-ge upon the Jews, there was an
inner circle. And there was also a circle beyond. In the
inner circle God was and is, in an emphatic sense, the God
of Abraham and of Abraham's spiritual seed, — the God of
believers of the Gospel, — the God of the good These
enjoyed and enjo}'' his selecteat influences — his richest
blessings. {Want wat grooter, wot uitnemender goed kan
*er boven dit genoemt wmxien, als dat God hein tot een God
zij : vxint dit moet van even soo veel h*agt zijn, ah dat God,
al wat dat 'er is en z^n kan, tot voordeel en dienst des son-
daars sal aantuende ji.-YitriugtL) In the circle beyond,
God was and is the God of all flesh — of all mankind. He
is "good unto all, and his tender mercies are over all his
works." He is pouring out of the inexhaustible cornucopia
of his fulness all the blessings that are needed to make all
men blessed. If any lack, they are straitened in themselves^
not in God. There is thus, in the moral administration of
the human world, -concentric circles of divine efflux and
influence. In one of those circles the Jews were situated.

Digitized by


ROMANS in, 29, SO, 385

And hence the Apostle recognizes, as a fact/, that Ood was
ike God of the Jews.

In asking whether " God be the God of the Jews only,"
he makes reference to imaginations of spiritual monopoly
that were too common among his Jewish brethren. They
misunderstood the intention of God regarding their situation
in the divine circle in which they lived, and moved, and
had tlieir being. They erroneously fancied that within the
expanding sphere of blessings in which their lot had been
cast, and in which they enjoyed the presence of God as their
God, there was no room for any but themselves. Hence the
Apostle's query. Hence, too, his next query.

^ 3. Is he not, on the contrary, of Gentiles also? (oix^
Bl Koi i&vwv;) that is, Is he not, on the contrai^, (the God)
of Gentiles also? Is it not the case that, as regards both
the outer and the inner circles of blessings, God is the God
of Gentiles also? Are not the resources of God thrown open
to all Gentiles, and made available, so far as their own moral
receptivity will admit? Are not these same resources
lavished, without stint on the one hand or partiality on
the other, upon all such GerUHes cw, through faith, have
their moral receptivity enlarged? Such is the expansion of
idea contained in the Apostle's query, and suggested by the
indefinite form of his expression ; — Gentiles, not the Gentiles,
The Apostle's eye swept, as we conceive, over Oie outer zone
of gracious relationship, and took cognizance of it. But its
aim was directed toward the inner zone, in which justifica-
tion for everlasting life is realized.

The word which we translate Gentiles, though originally
signifying nations, (jt^vri), is here, as frequently elsewhere
in the New Testament, employed to designate individuals.
In other words, the collective force of the term is merged ;
and the units which constitute the collection or collections
which it originally denoted rise into view. See Matt. xx.
19; Acts xiii. 48; xiv. 2, 5; xxi. 25; Rom. xi. 13; Gal. ii.
12; &c.

We freely translate Si, on the contrary: — " Is he not, on
the contmry, of Gentiles also?" {oifyl 81 koI i^viov\) The

2 c

Digitized by



force of the expression, on the supposition that the Si is
genuine, might be thus represented: — "Is God the God of
Jews only? They are too apt to think so; but is he not also
the God of Gentiles?"

Almost all the critical editors have thrown out the 81
Mill condemned it. He supposes it to have been spuriously
intruded, {elegantiae causa). Griesbach ejected it from the
text, and has been followed by Knapp, Tittmann, Scbott^
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Scholz, as also by Vater, Hahn, &c.
The great body of Uncial MSS. omit it, viz., HABCDEFGK.
It is also omitted in several quotations from the Greek
fathers. And there is nothing to represent it in the Italic
and Vulgate versions. Why, then, should it not be
banished? Fritzsche would approve of its banishment; and
so does Meyer, and Oltramare, and van Hengel. And yet
we hesitate.

The matter is, indeed, of no significance, exegetioal or
doctrinal. And hence there need not be anxiety. Never-
theless, the overwhelming .mass of cursive manuscripts are
on the side of the Keceived Text ; and there must doubtless
have been older manuscripts from which these cui-sives
copied their reading. L too has the particle. It is found
also in the texts of Theodoret, Theophylact, and CEcumenius.

Tischendorf refers to Chrysostom as also supporting the
particle: but incorrectly, we presume. So far, at least, as our
edition (1723) is concerned, the authority of Chrysostom's
text is in the other scale. The particle is omitted. And
the omission was noticed by Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach,
Scholz, &c.

We incline, on the whole, to retain the particle, — just
because we can scarcely conceive of its arbitrary introduction
into the text, if it was originally absent. Its presence seems
rather to cumber the liveliness of the interrogative phrase-
ology. Its absence seems to leave the language tighter and
more nervous. Had the Apostle been fastidious in his use of
words: — had he aimed at that "wisdom of words" which
consists of elegance, and neatness, we can suppose that he
might not have inserted the SL Had a rhetorician been at
his side, he might perhaps have suggested that the point of his

Digitized by


ROMANS III, 29, 30, 387

query would be sharpened by the omission of the particle;
and mayhap, too, the Apostle would have assented, and added
that he was a stranger and foreigner in that whole region of
things that pertains to the minutiaB of the "wisdom of
words." We cannot, hence, conceive of any transcriber
studiously importing the word into the text We can easily
conceive, on the other hand, of many a transcriber thinking
it an intrusion and an encumbrance, and therefore cancell-
ing it. We would hence apply, in this case, Bengers maxim,
proclivi dictioni praestat ardita.

Mill's idea, that the particle was sun*eptitiously intro-
duced for the sake of elegance, seems to us to be, in its own
little world of things, a turning upside down of the entire
reality of the case. And hence, indeed, sa well as on
account of the difficulty of translation, it has happened, as
a matter of fact, that many translators, who never doubted
the canonicity of the particle, have nevertheless ignored
it in their versions : — Erasmus, for instance, and Luther,
and Calvin, and Beza, and Piscator ; as also Tyndale, and
our Authorized English Version, and the old- Dutch ; also
Diodati; and the French Geneva, and Martin, Ostervald,
le Cene, Beausobre et Lenfant, &c. In consequence of the
omission of the particle in these translations, we put little
weight upon the adduction, by Tischendorf and others, of
the Vulgate, and Italic, and other versions, in support of
the reading that omits it. Neither would we, on the other
hand, attribute much significance, in defence of the particle,
to the fact that the Peshito version runs thus, — " for is God
of the Jews only, and not of the Gentiles ?"

Fritzsche says that if the particle be inserted, then we
have simply one interrogation, instead of two, — Is God of
the Jews only, but not of the Gentiles ? His idea on this
matter has been received, and is echoed, by Meyer, Baura-
garten-Crusius, Maier, Oltramare, and van Hengel. But
we doubt its accuracy. For, in the first place, the yes
(vai) of the following clause would have been, — in the case
supposed, and especially when Ijhe Apostle's use of the
adverb is taken into account, and, indeed, its New Testa-
ment use in general, — somewhat inappropriate, — so inap-

Digitized by


388 ROMANS IIL 29, SO,

propriate as to have prevented, we should suppose, the
apocryphal intrusion of the connective 81. And, on the
assumption, again, that il is not apocryphal, it would be
unlikely that the Apostle should have answered the one
complex query, — which Fritzsche puts into his mouth, and
which necessarily shades off into a merely secondary posi-
tion the second member of the interrogation, — in such a
manner as to suggest, so far as the affirmative yea or yea
is concerned, that God is the God of Jews only. But,
in the second place, Fritzsche has overlooked the fact that
multitudes of editors of the text, as well as translators,
who never entertained a suspicion of the spuriousness of Si,
have neveiiheless recognized the duality of queries; — as
Erasmus, for example, and Robert Stephens, in their various
editions; and le F^vre, in. his Intelligervtia; and Luther,
and the other translators specified above. The same double
query is also found in the texts that were issued from
the presses of Henry Stephens (the great), of Robert
Stephens (the second), and of Platter, and the Elzevirs,
&c., &C.

We accept, then, — though hesitatingly, — the reading of
the Textus Beceptus in this case; and yet we would con-
tend for the duality of queries.

§ 4. yes, of Gentiles also, {vat, kuX iS^vwv). The Apostle,
instead of answering his first question, — Is God the God
of Jews onlyt runs it on, as we have seen, into its
obverse phase. Is he not, on the contrary, the God of
Gentiles too f and then he contents himself with answering
this second question : — Yes, yea, ceHainly, assuredly, — he is
the God of Gentiles also. All that is implied in the God-
head of God is, according to the mind of the Apostle, on
the side of Gentiles as really as of Jews, so far as they are
morally susceptible of availing themselves of the fulness of
his essential goodness. Zinzendorf translates the affirmative
particle, without doubt, (phne zweiffel). It is strongly
affirmative, and turns up in the Latin nae; and yet it is
interestingly connected with the English nay, and the
Latin and Gothic ne. There is a point of thiags at which

Digitized by


ROMANS III. fS9, SO. 389

afBiTnation and negation shake hands, as it were. When
we deny a question as a question, — when we deny, that is
to say, that a question needs to be proposed, we ajffirvi that
the thing questioned is unquestionable.

§ 6. seeing ii is one Ood who will justify circumcision
by faith, and un/iircumcision [through faith, (iirednp elc o
dcoc oc BiKaiwtru wipiTOfirjv ck wttrreiM)^, xa] aKpo^vfrTiav Sect
rr/c ircoTgwc). The literal translation would be, — seeing the
God who will justify circumcision by faith, and undr-.
eitmcision through faith, is one. The numeral adjective
one (tig) is the predicate of the proposition. The articulated
noun Ood (6 Sii6g) is the subject. The clause, who will
justify circumcision by faith, and uncircuTncision through
faith, is analytically illustrative or explicative of the sub-

The Apostle is rendering a reason for his strong affirma-
tion at the conclusion of the preceding verse. But, in
rendering it, he does not aim at a strict logical demonstra-
tion. There is, indeed, a genuine syllogistic filament
running through his thoughts and worda But it is not
stiff. It is free and easy. He is taking his breath, as it
were, after his somewhat elaborate discussion, extending
from chap, i 16 to chap. iii. 26. He is pausing and looking
back on what he has been exhibiting and establishing.
Hence his corollary of verse 27. Hence, too, his corol-
lary of verse 28 ; and hence, too, his corollary of verses
29, 30.

§ 6. It is remarkable that, in many editions of the New
Testament, either a full point or a colon is interposed
between verses 29th and 30th. Before the versicular division
by Robert Stephens, a full point was inserted by Erasmus.
It is found, too, in Platter's edition of 1540, and in Froben's
of 1545. Robert Stephens contented himself with a colon in
his 1549 and 1550 editions. But in his versiculated edition
of 1551 he, too, inserts a full point, which is also found
in Henry Stephens's edition of 1587,; and in all Beza's
editions ; and in the Elzevirs ; and in Maestricht's editions,

Digitized by


390 ROMANS III. 29, SO.

too, of 1711 and 1735 ; and in the editions of Courcelles; in
Mill also, and Wetstein, Bengel, Schoettgen; Griesbach
too, and Matthaei ; Knapp also, and Tittmann, Naebe,
Goeschen, Vater, Hahn, Muralto, Ornsby, &c. But certainly
there should be only a comma. ' And this is the point that
Lachmann, Fritzsche, Tischendorf, Alford, Buttmann, have
inserted, and of which Meyer approves.

§ 7. seeing that, {iwdwep), — eince at all events. We may
in some such way represent the force of this compound
conjunction. The Apostle's idea is substantially this, since,
as must be admitted; — since, as will be admitted, what-
ever else may be denied.

There is some difficulty in determining the proper
reading. Instead of iTrciVep, H A B C read fJircp, {if at all
events). Griesbach hesitated, — ^retaining, however, ivdiriQ.
Lachmann accepted cTircp, and it was ultimately approved
of by de Wette. Alford, too, has accepted it. So did
Tischendorf in his 1849 edition. In his 1859 edition,
however, he has restored imlir cp, which is the reading of
the Received Text, and of the great body of the cursive
manuscripts ; as also of D E F G K L, and of Clirysostom,
Theodoret, Theophylact, and (Ecumenius; as likewise of
the text from which the Vulgate was made, and its
prae-Hieronymian precursors, {quoniam quidem). The
great body of modem expositors — though Matthias is an
exception — ^approve of retaining eTrdirep. They are right,
we apprehend; as seems to be rendered the more ap-
parent when we take into account that eiretinp occurs
nowhere else in the New Testament, whereas elirep occurs
repeatedly. Some transcribers might stumble at the
unusual word. Others, who were copying at a common
bench, from the dictation of a reader, might lose the slight
initial sound Itt-, — made by the simple compression of the
lips. And as that sound would be immediately followed by
the full toned -elirep — ^a familiar acquaintance to the ear of
the New Testament copyist, — we can easily suppose that its
indistinct echo might readily die away, or be altogether

Digitized by


ROMANS IIL SO, 30, 391

§ 8. Ood is one, (cTc 6 Scoc). It is in the admitted idea
of monotheism that the Apostle finds the basis of his con-
fident conviction that God is the God of Gentiles as well as
of Jews. The Jews and Judaizers would not be disposed to
challenge the idea. The very first principle of the Mosaic
theocracy is thus expressed : — ^" Hear, O Israel, the Lord our
God is one Lord/* (Deut. vL 4.) " Is there a God beside
me?" asks God himself by the mouth of his prophet Isaiah;
and he answers his own question thus ; — ^*' Yea, there is no
God; I. know not any." (Isai. xliv. 8.)

Koppe has the strange notion that a full point should be
placed afler ihe expression, since God is one, and that the
relative pronoun which follows should be interpreted as
meaning He then. (Post de6g, punctum poaui, ut argumen-
tatio finiatur, — Sc pro ovroq ovv.) Tholuck, in his first
edition, acquiesced in Koppe's notion. But such an inter-
pretation of the relative is the extreme of arbitrariness ; and
the abscission of the whole relative clause is almost tanta-
mount to cutting ofi* a right hand. It involves the sacrifice
of that peculiar aspect of the unity of God which stood out
prominently to t^e eye of the Apostle. Some expositors
imagine that, strictly speaking, there is no reference in the
Apostle's expression, to the monotheistic idea. They think
that the word one is " not numeral." So Sclater expresses
it It has reference, he says, either to the divine unchange-
ableness or to the divine impartiality. Such a notion,
however, altogether fails to sound the depths of the
Apostle's reasoning. If we do not go down to the unity
of the divine substance, relatively at least to mankind,
we shall find no real basis for the impartialities of pro-
vidence and propitiation. And, so far as unchangeable-
ness is concerned, — unchangeableness either of essence or of
principles of procedure, — it has nothing to do with the
Apostle's argumentation. The inspired man's thoughts
draw deeper, and have reference to the area, or extent of
sphere, within which the attribute of unchangeableness
finds scope. Is this area bounded off* by the limits of the
Jews? — or does it comprehend the whole world of man-

Digitized by


392 ROMANS III. 29, SO.

§ 9. ^ Ood. who will justify circumcisimi by faHh, ami
uncircumcision throv^h faith, (6 Stoc &q SiKaiwarn wipiTOfiifv
€K irfcTTcwc Koi aKpo€>v(TTiav Sia rijc Trdmwg). The Apostle
might have said, who justifies. And so, indeed, the Vulgate
has rendered his expression, (qui juatiflcat). Luther, too,
has given the same rendering; and Tyndale; and the authors
of our Authorized English Version; and many others besides.

Online LibraryJames MorisonA critical exposition of the third chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the ... → online text (page 37 of 40)