The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 86

CHAPTER m. to the Jew. And (2) it eome (more or fewer, it maf;l-..ers not) have failed to rrnlize V81'11. 1-8.-(2) Certain objectiom with these advantages, it has been their fault. regard t.o the Jews suggested and met. In not God's. It is man's unfaithfulness, not this pBB86ge, before proceeding with his his, that has been the ea.use of the failure. argument, the apostle meets certain objec- Nay, though, a.c.cording to the hasty saying tions that might be made to what has been of the psalmist, all men were fa.lee, God'a so far said. Some difficulty in determining truth remains; nay, further, as is e::i:pre~sed his exact meaning arises from the concise in another psalm (Ps. Ii.), man's ,ery un- and pregnant form in which the objectiona faithfulness is found to commend h.is fa.ith- are put a.nd a.nswered, a.nd from fresh ones fulne99 the more, e.nd redonnd to his greater arising out of the answers, which ha.ve also glory. to be met. The objections are from the Objection 2 (ver. 5). Based on the la.at Jewish sta.ndpoint, though not put into the assertion. But if man's unfaithfulness ho.a mouth of an objecting Jew, but ra.ther this resnlt, how can God, consistenUy with suggested as likely ones by St. Paul him- his juslice, be wmth with us and pnnish us self. To the original readers of the Epistle, for it? Surely the Jew (whose caae we who were familiar with the tone of Jewish a.re now considering) may claim e3:emption thought, the sequence of the ideas would from "the wrath" of God spoken of above, probably be more obvious than to us. his unfaithfulness being allowed to have Reserving special consideration of suoces- served only to establish God's truth ant! aive ola.uses for our exposition of each verse, to enhance his glory. we mny, in the :flrst pla.ce, exhibit thus the .Answer (ver. 6-8). I have snggested genera.I drift. this objection as though the matter conld Objection 1 (ver. 1). If being a Jew, if be regarded from a mere human point of oircumcision itself, gives one no advantage view, as though it were one between man over the Gentile, what we.a the use of the a.nd man ; for it is true that a. man ce.nnot old oovenant nt all? It is thus shown to justly take vengeance on another who has have been illusory : and God's own truth not really harmed him. But such a vie'lt' and faithfulness are impugned, if he is is inapplicable to God in his dealings with supposed to have given, e.s conveying man: it does not touoh our doctrine of his advnntages, what really conveyed none. righteous wre.th &,,"IWISt sin e.s snoh. I (Thie Inst thought, though not expressed, oe.n only meet it with a ~~ -ye,o,.,.o. For must be supposed to be implied in the (1) it would preolude God from judging objection, since it is replied to in the the world at all, e.s we till believe he will answer.) do. Ally hsatllm sinner might put in the .AM1Der (vers. 2-4). (1) It was not same plea., se.ying, Why am I too (1<11-y,l,) illusory; it did 0011.vey great advantages judged as a sinner? Nay, (2) ainoo it in the way of privilege and opportunity; iuvolvea the principle of siu being evil, not this o.d Vl\ntage fll'st, not to mentiou other~, in itself, but only with regard to it.i cou- t.hat " the ore.oles of God " weie entr~ sequeuoes, i~ would, if aiutied out,juatify t.he  THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. [on. m.1-81.