5—9.
605
9. Τί οὖν ; προεχόµεθα ; οὐ πάντως ’ προῄῃτιασάµεθα γὰρ Ιουδαίους d Ch. vi. 14,
τε καὶ Ἕλληνας πάντας fbb ἁμαρτίαν εἶναι, καθὼς γέγραπται, IO.
is not that all that is required? Why am I, too, like the rest of the world, whose relation to God is so different, and whose judgment is so necessary, still brought into judgment?” This would be legitimate enough, probably, if it were not for what follows. But the slander of ver. 8, which forms part ofthe same question as τί ἔτι κἀγὼ κ.τ.λ., and to which reference is made again in chap. vi. I, 15, had not the Jews, but the Apostle in his Christian character, for its object ; hence it seems preferable to take the κἀγὼ as referring strictly to himself. That Paul would come into judgment, in spite of the fact that his faithlessness in becoming a Christian had only set off the faithfulness of God to Israel, no unbelieving Jew questioned : and Paul turns this conviction of theirs (with which, of course, he agrees, so far as it asserts that he will be judged) against themselves. If he, for his part, cannot evade judgment, on the ground that his sin (as they think it) has been a foil to God’s righteousness, no more can they on their part: they and he are in one position, and must be judged to- gether: to condemn him is to expose themselves to condemnation; that is his point. The argument of νετ. 7 is both an argumentum ad hominem and an ar- gumentum ad rem : Paul borrows from his opponents the premises that he himself is to be judged as a sinner, and that his lie has set off God’s truth: there is enough in these premises to serve his purpose, which is to show that these two proposi- tions which do not exclude each other in his case do not do so in their case either. But, of course, he would interpret the second in a very different way from them. The question is continued in ver. 8, though the construction is changed by the introduction of the parentheses with καθὼς and the attachment to λέγειν ὅτι of the clause which would naturally have gone with τί py; If judgment could be evaded by sinning to the glory of God, so Paul argues, he and other Christians like him might naturally act on the principle which slander imputed to them—that of doing evil that good might come. No doubt the slander was of Jewish origin. The doctrine that righteousness is a gift of God, not to be won by works of law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, can always be misrepre- sented as immoral: ‘sin the more, it
15; Gal. iii. 10.
will only the more magnify grace”. Paul does not stoop to discuss it. The judgment that comes on those who by such perversions of reason and con- science seek to evade all judgment is just. This is all he has to say.
Vers. g-20. In these verses the Apostle completes his proof of the uni- versality of sin, and of the liability of all men, without exception, to judgment. The τί οὖν of ver. ϱ brings back the ar- gument from the digression of vers. 1-8. In those verses he has shown that the historical prerogative of the Jews, as the race entrusted with the oracles of God, real and great as it is, does not exempt them from the universal rule that God will reward every man according to his works (ii. 6): here, according to the most probable interpretation of προεχό- µεθα, he puts himself in the place of his fellow-countrymen, and imagines them asking, “‘ Are we surpassed? Is it the Gentiles who have the advantage of us, instead of our having the advantage of them?”
Ver. ο. Τί οὖν; What then? i.e., how, then, are we to understand the situation? It is necessary to take these words by themselves, and make προεχό- µεθα a separate question: the answer to τί could not be ov, but must be οὐδέν. The meaning of προεχόµεθα has been much discussed. The active προέχειν means to excel or surpass. Many have taken προεχόµεθα as middle in the same sense: So the Vulg. praecellimus cos ? and the A.V. ‘Are we better than they?” But this use, except in inter- preters of this verse, cannot be proved. The ordinary meaning of the middle would be “(ο put forward on one’s own account, as an excuse, or defence”. This is the rendering in the margin of the R.V. ‘‘Do we excuse ourselves ?”’ If τί οὖν προεχόµεθα could be taken to- gether, it might certainly be rendered, What then is our plea? but it is impos- sible to take προεχόµεθα in this sense without an object, and impossible, as already explained, to make this com- bination. The only alternative is to re- gard προεχόµεθα as passive: What » then? are we excelled? This is the meaning adopted in the R.V. ‘ Are we in worse case than they?” It is sup- ported by Lightfoot. Wetstein quotes one example from Plut. de Stoic.contrad., 1038 D.: τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς πᾶσι προσήκεις.