earthly life. The is quoted with corresponding αμ» νὰ. in Rom.
ili. 20. Ver.17. εἰ δὲ . . . ὁ The last verse arrived at the conclusion that
Jewish converts by their own act con-
16—19.
165
καὶ αὐτοὶ ἁμαρτωλοὶ, ἄρα Χριστὸς ἁμαρτίας διάκονος ; μὴ γένοιτο,
18. εἰ γὰρ ἃ κατέλυσα, ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἐμαυτὸν
συνιστάνω.ὶ
10. ᾿Εγὼ γὰρ διὰ νόµου νόμῳ ἀπέθανον, ἵνα Θεῷ ζήσω.
1συνιστανω SABCDFGP.
demned themselves to be guilty of a brokenlaw. The argument now proceeds on this assumption ‘Jf it be true (as has been shown) that we by seeking to be justified in Christ were found to be our- selves also sinners as well as the Gentiles —if our sin was then discovered, and it be admitted that confession of sin lies at the root of all Christian life, what then is the attitude of Christ toward sin ?”’— ἄρα X. a. διάκονος; This clause is clearly interrogative, and the true reading is ἄρα, not ἄρα (inferential). For here, as always elsewhere in Pauline language, μὴ γένοιτο repudiates a monstrous sug- gestion, put forward in the form of a question, the mere statement of which is repugnant to the moral sense.
It was objected to this doctrine of God’s free grace in Christ to guilty sinners that it held out a license to sin by doing away the wholesome restraints of the Law, and so encouraged men to continue in sin by its assurance of pardon. The fallacy is here dismissed with scorn on the strength of the very nature of Christ, but is more fully exposed in the sixth chapter to the Romans.
Ver. 18. ‘If, indeed, I do reestablish the authority of the Law over Christian life, it becomes true that Christ did lead me to transgression.” So argues the Apostle as he turns to his own life for an illustration of the incompatibility of allegiance to Christ with the continued supremacy of the Law.
Ver. 19. Ἐγὼ. The stress laid on the personal pronoun shows that Paul is here referring to the facts of his personal his- tory. Hesingles out his own conversion for the sake of the crucial example which it afforded of the difficulty of reconciling the commands of Christ with the tra- ditional law of Israel, for he was actu- ally bearing the commission of the high priest, and carrying out the orders of the Sanhedrim when Christ met him in the way and laid His commands upon him. He had to choose between the two: and at Christ’s word he flung up his office and renounced for ever the service of the Law. —8ia νόμου : though under law. The translation of these words in our versions through the law seems to me fatal to the sense: for the death to
Law which is here recorded was not due to the instrumentality of Law, but was the immediate effect of the vision and words of Christ; and the express object of this reference to the conversion of Saul is to show how union with Christ annihilates the authority of an outward law. διὰ νόμου is really akin to διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς in Rom. ii. 27, and to δι ἀκροβυστίας in Rom. iv. 11. In all these cases διά denotes the en- vironment, whether of the letter, of cir- cumcision, of uncircumcision, or of law, which was subsisting at the time. Saul was on official duty, surrounded by the circumstances and machinery of Law when Christ stayed him, and he became at once dead to the claim of Law upon him. —vép@ ἀπέθανον. These words give a vivid description of the spiritual revulsion produced by his conversion in the heart of Saul. Whereas, hitherto, his whole mind had been set on fulfilling the whole Law, and he had counted its obli- gations all in all to him, he now entirely renounced the duty of obedience to its commands and repudiated its authority. And just as death works a final change, and leaves behind an indelible effect, so did his conversion affix a permanent stamp of lifelong change on all his after years: thenceforth he served another Master, owned absolute obedience to His will, listened for His inward voice or outward revelation, and drank of His Spirit.