2. Hcliriws. — The persons addressed had to the full the sense of sin which the OT had prepared and developed, and they had had to part with the ritual which had hitherto cleansed them and brought them nigh. A main purpose of the Epistle is to show them that better provision than the Law could offer is made for these needs in Christ and His priestly sacrifice. Hence the prominent aspect of sin in this Epistle is that of sin as guilt, as the cause of the separation between man .and God, barring access to Him. The work of Christ is the restoration of communion, and the earlier portion of the Epistle reaches its goal in He 101^ Besides the general teaching as to the removal of guilt, the Epistle deals with a particular form of sin, that of falling away from grace. It is written to men in danger of lapsing into their former Judaism, not merely as individuals, but as a body (.see 6'* lO^''*'). The sin as to which the Hebrews are warned is not ordinary sin after baptism to which every Christian is liable, but nothing less than apostasy. It should also be observed that He 2'' sets a final seal on the gradually developed conviction that much of human suffering is not a consequence of sin, but a means to perfection.
3. .S't. Piiul. — Lechler (Apiistolic Tim'S, Eng. tr. vol. i. p. 341)) asks what is the kernel, the life- centre of St. Paul's Christian feeling and doctrine, and replies, 'God's grace in Christ towards the guilt-laden sinner.' It is not merely that St. I'aul as a theologian felt that the most important aspect of the gospel was that of a remedy for sin, but that the gospel Wiis that remedy for himself. He had felt ius few men have felt, his own sinful- ness. In this respect we recognize a contrast be- tween him and other NT writers. If it is in the Epistle to the Homans that we find the full develop- ment of St. Paul's hamartiology, it is because the (juestion there propounded is, How is man to be righteous before God ? For that purpose man's present sinfulness must first be set forth, and that is done systematically in Ro l-:i-', and incidentally throughout the Epistle. The teaching of St. Paul, esp. in Romans, on the subject will be considered under the following heads : (a) universality of sin ; (ft) heredity of sin ; (c) the seat of sin ; (d) .sin a.s a power ; (<?) sin and law ; (/) sin and death ; (g) death to sin.
(a) Universality of sin. — The Jewish and the Gentile worlds had to be dealt with separately. In the Jewish world there had been preparation, but sin against ceremonial law had been .so exaggerated as to put out of sight sin against moral law. Here
St. Paul follows Christ Him.self, and his exposure in Ko 2'""' reminds us of Mt 'S.i and many scattered sayings in the Gospels. Another point regarding Jewish sinfulness has already been noticed under II. {Pniin'r of Manas.ies). St. Paul rejects the supposed sinlessness of the patriarchs. \Ve next take his condemnation of the Gentile world, which in Romans comes first. This had become necessary now that the gospel of forgiveness was offered to the Gentiles. It was true that they had had their preparation. The notion of sin is clear enough in Habylonian, Egyptian, and Persian religion, but it is mainly ceremonial sin. In Greek religion there was a truer conception of sin, which reaches its highest representation in vEschylus, the poet of Divine retribution on the sinner. 'The '•Pro- metheus," the "Seven against Thebes," and the " Orestes " contain a natural testimony of the soul to the reality of sin, and the inevitable penalty which it carries in itself (Westcott, Jieligious Thouijlu in the West, p. 94).
But to accompany a gospel of forgiveness some clear arraignment was needed. So, in an epistle addressed to the centre of the Gentile world, this clear arraignment stands in the front. And here the doctrine of the universality of Gentile sin is .set on a true foundation, not on the popular Jewish conception that every Gentile was a sinner sim))ly as not knowing the Mosaic law (cf. Gal 2'^ and Lightfoot, in loc). But, as the sin of the Gentiles did not consist in not having the Mosaic law. so neither did their want of it excuse them. They had the law of conscience or reason (Ro 2''' "'), and sin again.st this was sin against God.
(It) Heredity of sin. — Here we must distinguish two separate ideas, both of which find expression in Romans, namely, (1) participation in guilt ; (2) inheritance of sinful disposition.
(1) In the OT (to use Dorner's words. System Chi: Doct., Eng. tr. vol. ii.p. 325) are already found 'the materials for a conception of moral evil as a generic characteristic, and not merely a matter of the in- dividual person.' A family, a tribe, a nation are conscious of a solidarity in respect of guilt and innocence difficult to realize in an age of strongly developed individual responsibility. It is enough to refer to the guilt in the sense of liability to puni.sh- ment brought about by the sin of Achan, and by David's census ; and to the effect of sin on the land itself (Dt 2i*}. So St. Paul, contemplating not merely a family, tribe, or nation, but all mankind, sees them all affected by the sin of Adam — all recon- ciled by the obedience of Christ (Ro 5'---' and cf. Sir 25-*). The correspondence between Adam and Christ lias taken hold of his mind, it helps him to set forth the work of salvation which the Lord has accomplished. It is not that Adam's siu is actually reckoned against us, but that we are because of it involved in punishment.*