Ver. 32. διὰ τί; Why? Aresult so confounding needs explanation. ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ ἔργων: it seems too precise to supply with Weiss ἐδίωξεν vépov δικαιοσύνης. The reason of Israel's religious failure was that its whole re- ligious effort and attitude was not of faith, but (so they conceived the case) of works. By inserting ὡς Paul dissociates himself from this conception, and leaves it to Israel; he does not believe (having
6658
προσέκοψαν yap? τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ προσκόµµατος, 33. καθὼς γέγραπται,
«Ιδού, τίθηµι ἐν Σιὼν λίθον προσκόµµατος, καὶ πέτραν σκανδάλου ᾿
Ν a2. , CES) 7A > , » καὶ Tas” 6 πιστεύων ἐπ αὐτῷ οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται”.
1 yap Ν ΡΟΚΙ,Ρ om. ΝΜΙΑΒΡΙΕ.
learned the contrary by bitter experience) that there is any outlet along this road. Everything in religion depends on the nature of the start. You may start ἐκ πίστεως, from an utter abandonment to God, and an entire dependence on Him, and in this case a righteousness is possible which you will recognise as δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, God’s own gift and work in you; or you may start ἐξ ἔργων, which really means in independence of God, and try to work out, without coming under obligation to God, a righteousness of your own, for which you may subse- quently claim His approval, and in this case, like the Jews, all your efforts will be baffled. Your starting-point is unreal, impossible ; it is not truly ἐξ ἔργων, but only ὡς ἐξ ἔργων ; it is an idea of your own, not a truth on which life can be carried out, that you are in any sense independent of God. Such an idea, however, rooted in the mind, may effectually pervert and wreck the soul, by making the Divine way of attaining righteousness and life offensive to it; and this is what happened to the Jews. Because of that profoundly false relation to God προσέκοψαν τῷ λίθῳ τοῦ προσ- κόµµατος. The stone on which they stumbled was Christ, and especially His Cross. The σκάνδαλον of the Cross, at which they stumbled, is not simply the fact that it 7s a cross, whereas they ex- pected a Messianic throne ; the Cross offended them because, as interpreted by Paul, it summoned them to begin their religious life, from the very be- ginning, at the foot of the Crucified, and with the sense upon their hearts of an infinite debt to Him, which no “ works” could ever repay.
Ver. 33. Yet paradoxical as this may seem, it agrees with the words of Scrip- ture. The quotation is a mixture of Isa. xxviii. 16 and viii. 14: and it is interesting to remark that the same passages are quoted in conjunction, though they are not mixed as here, in 1 Pet. ii. 6-8. The original reference of them is not exactly Messianic. The stone laid in Zion (Isa. xxviii. 16) is indeed interpreted by Delitzsch of the kingdom of promise as identified with its Sovereign Head, but the stone of
2 gras om. NABDF 47 and all edd.
stumbling (Isa. viii. 14) is unequivocally God Himself: all who do not give Him honour are broken against His govern- ment as on a stone, or caught in it as in a snare. Paul inserts ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ after 6 πιστεύων (as Peter also does), and applies the figure of the stone in both cases to Christ, and to the contrary relations which men may assume to Him. Some stumble over Him (as the Jews, for the reasons just given); others build on Him and find Him a sure foundation, or (without a figure) put their trust in Him and are not put toshame. Cf. Ps. CxXVIs 22. ΜΕ, xxi. 42) 1. (Corgi, τα, Acts. iv. 12, Eph. ii. 20.
CHAPTER X.—Ver. 1. The Apostle cannot enlarge on this melancholy situa- tion without expressing once more the deep grief which it causes him. Since the Jews are referred to in the third person (ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν) it is clear that the persons addressed are a Gentile Church. ἀδελφοί: Paul’s heart seems drawn to his spiritual kindred as he feels the deep gulf which separates him mean- while from his kinsmen according to the flesh. pév εὐδοκία τῆς ἐμῆς καρδίας: the meaning of εὐδοκία must be gathered from such examples as Mt. xi. 26, Eph. i. 55/9) Phils,1,. 15ο αι μπα τετ. His heart’s εὐδοκία is that in which his heart could rest with complacency ; that which would be a perfect satisfaction to it. This is virtually the same as ‘‘de- sire,” and an “' Etymologicum ineditum”’ quoted in Schleusner explains it by βούλημα, γνώµη, προαίρεσις, ἐπιθυμία. His inmost desire and his supplication to God are in their interest, with a view to their salvation. The μὲν has no cor- responding 8€; the sad reality which answers to it does not need again to be expressed, :