The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 61

repl'('i;._'uhl Ii n:- of lR w ; but he bRd hen<-e t.he expressioM in these verscR cRll for con- been lC'li to Rn R bst-ra<-t <'Onl'eption, e'l"er mdt'rat.ion. (I) Whl\t ia me1rnt by Tb tp-yov before bis mind, of law "" repre8C'.nting the .,.o;; voµ.oi,. roid to be "WJ·ithm in their princ-iple of enction of full obedience to hMrts" P Tb fpyov oannot bo pleonnetic, ne wquiJvments; and when he ro:ra, 1\8 ho so supposed by Tholnek. One view ia that it crten d,>t>s. thRt by law no mRn can be is equivalent to Tc& lp-yo. Toi) v&µou, which is jumfied. he means that none <'.Sn be so on nn expression frequently used eleewhera (oh, the principle of oomplete oonformity being iii. 27, 28; ix. 32; Go.I. ii. 16; iii. 2, 5, 10); required to the behests of Di\'ine righteous- 1md the singular number bas been expluined ness, whether as re'l"E"aled from l\louut Sinai as eoUective, as in 1 Cor. iii. 1~ ; Gal. vi. 4, or through the human conscience, or in any and ver. 7 above (so Meyer), or as "applying other way; for by luw is the knowledge of to each of the particular cases supposed in sin and consequent guilt, but not the power the llTo.v ••. ,rou»u,v" (so Alford). The of a"oiding Bin. Tho..-e who ignore the objection to this view is the.t it is not the distinction as abot"e ro.plained, saying, e.s works of the Law thl\t can be said to be eome do, that ,.&µos, whether with or without ,critlen, but rather the Law itself from wbioh the article, nlwa.ys meRns simply the Law the worJ..-a proceed. Seeing that -ypo..,..Tbv of Moses, fail to enter into the depth and implies evident reference to the tablee of the generality of the apostle's argument. The Law, it eeems best to take (p-yo" as denoting distinction will ~ obscrrc>d in this transla- the efficacy of the Law, as opposed to the tion throughout the Epistle ( 6 l'op.os being letter, which alone was written on the tables. translated •• the Law," and ,.&µos "Jaw"), So in effect Bengel: "Legem ipsam cum sno. and it will be found always to have a mean- activit.ate. Opponitur literm, qum est acci- ing. (For one instance in which it is hurdly dens.'' (2) How do they shou, (lvliel«vuno.,) possible to suppose St. Pan! to have omitted this tp-yo" voµou? Evidently, from the con- and inserted the article in the same sentence text of ver. 14, by doing Tc Tou v&µou; i.e. ,n!hout a meaning, cf. G1ll. iv. 21.) doing them (as is, of course, implied) o.s being T"er:s.. 14, 15.-For when Gentiles, which the right thinge to do, and approving them. have not law, do by nature (or, ham'llgnot lau, The very possibility of their doing thie is by nature, do; cf. ver. 27, T/ Etc tt,6u.~s lutpo- evidence of an innate moral sense in the /3urrri.a.) the thingl of the Law ( i.e. the Mosaic human heart, which, however it may often Law), these, not having law, are law unto be obscured or perverted, remains 11s e. cha- themselves; which ( oiTu,u, \\ith it.s usual racteristic of humanity, and is more or Iese signifioance of qvippequl) show the work of operative in ell communities. "Nulle. enim the Law written in their hearts, their con- gens nnquam sic ab buma'Di.tate abhorruit Kienae also bearing witness ( or, bearing ut non se intra. leges 11liquas contineret. tL'itnea Uu!Jreu,i.tJ,,), and their thoughtl be- Constat abaque dubio quaedam justitim et twixt ea.eh other BOC1llling or else excu&ing rectitudinis conceptiones, quas Grmci 7rpo• (not, as in the Autboriz.ed Version, meanwhile >..-1,,/,nr voce.nt, hominum e.nim.ie esse ne.tu- aa:u.ring or e1.ae e:r,curi1UJ Ofle another, p.cTo.{l, raliter ingenite.s" (Oe.lvin). (3) What is being nsed as a preposition. governing aJJ,:f,- exactly meant by the conscience witneesing, ,_,,). The "for " at the beginning of ver. and the thought,, accUBing or elee excusing? 14 CCIDill!Ct.! it with the preceding one thUB: ::!lwnlif,u1s is not the Law in the heart, but "Not 1.e.aren but doen of law will be jnstified.n rather our consciouaness, whereby wittingly, Th£: Jew, therefore, he.s no advantage in the in accordance with that Law, we approve or way af jllEtification over the Gentile from condemn. The compound verb uvµp.o.pTu- being in a. peculiar 11enae a hearer. For Gen- po6u11r seems to denote a joint witness of tile;; &lso may be dcn:r,, iliongh not of a conscience. In eh. viii. 16 e.nd ix. 1, whore poaitivt: rt:v£;a)ed Jaw, yet of the Jaw af con- alone the word occure elsewhere, it ie fol- sci.en(>:. It i. not, of comae, implied that on lowed by a dative, 11nd means certo.inly con- tb~ f!!Our..d of any l!llcb doing they " shall be current witneee. But, if so here, with what? Jwrtifi.ed ; '' only tbat, so far as they do, they Probably with the lvP/n(ir already spoken of. will, t:qnally with the Jews, be rewarded. Right conduct on principle, and conscience Nor is it si.id that any, in fact, do all that approving, witness together to the inward law enjoi= We observe the hypothetical law ; or, conduct and conscience together furm of expression, t,,-a.,, ,roi-p, and also, Tc\ witnees to a man's merits or demerits iD e.o- Toii ,,1,,,_..,, i.e. any of the Law's requirement.a. cordance with the.t law. Then, what is added The La.w, for irustan(:{e, MYB, "Thon shalt not about the >.o-y,uµol shows how conscience l!U:al;" and if a Gentile, thoogh knowing operates. Reason comes into play, evoked nothing of the ten co=nandmenm, on prin- by conscience, to re1lect on its witnep, e.nd ciple refraill8 from sttaling, hie corucientio111 d1:fi11it.cly condemn or approve who.t hu been honf:8ty will have ite own reward u much done. A kind of court of judicature iH sup- u that of the Jew who refrains iD obedienoo posed. Man calls himself to the bo.r of his kl tt... re,eriled com.mawlment. A few of own D10raljudgmeDt; his comolenoe addiwea  OH. u. 1-29.) 'l'HE EPIWfLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 55