The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 88

or tlrn LXX. mE1y be nnclerstood passively if the Jew's supposed plea were valid, in tho eonHo ot' Goel being callecl to r,ccount, Nay, in that case, the ap,,etle gooa on to ns mon might be, for the justice o! his deal- sa:r, he, or any of us, might justify all wrtmg- ings; or, perhaps, in a middle seuae for d01ng for a !Jllpposed good end. Why not? entering into a suit or controversy with his Vf!l. 8.-.&.nd not (i.e. why should we not people. Kplv,0'8111 means '' going to law " eay), a1 we be 1landero111ly r'3J)Orted, e.nd in 1 Oar. vi. 1, 6 (of. also Mo.tt. v. 40), and a■ 1ome affirm that we ay, Let 111 do evil, in t.bo LXX., with especial reference to a that good me.y come l Who10 (i.e. of those supposed controverl'JI or pleading of God with who do say so) condemnation isjuat. men, Jer. xxv. 31; Job ix. 2; xiii. 19. (See also Hos. ii. 2, Kpl811.,.• 1rpos T¾v µ71.,./pa Vere. 9-20.-(3) The testimony of~ Old ~µfiw.) The meaning of this concluding ex- Testament to human nnfuJ.fl.l'.,u. Objections pression does not, however, affect the main purport of the verse, or its relevancy e.s here having been thus raised and met, the apostle quoted. Occurring in what ia believed to now confirms hi.3 position, that a.II mankind, be David's penitential psalm after his sin Jew as well as Gentile, a.re under sin, by in the matter of Uriah, it declares, in con- adducing the Scriptures of the Jews them- junction with the preceding verse, that, sin selves. having been committed, man alone is gnilty, o.nd that God's truth and righteousness can Ver. 9.-What then 1 are we better than never be impugned. But it seems to imply they 1 No, in no wise : for we have be!are still more than this, viz. that man's sin baa proved (or, charged, a.a in the Vulge.te, rousati the establishment of God's righteousness as sum-us) both J'ews e.nd Gentiles, that they its consequence, or even, it may be, BB its are all under sin. The meaning of the fusi purpose; for the conclusion of ver. 4 in the pa.rt of this verse has been much discwsed.. psalm, naturally connected with "age.inst We may observe: (1) Tt obv eeems to be thee only have I sinned" preceding,ia so con- rightly separated (as in .Authorized Version) nected by 11...,.,s &v (in Hebrew, Jll'2?); and from -rpo•x&µ,Ba. because of the form of the it is not out of keeping with scriptural answer to the question, ou 1rcfnms : after .,.£ doctrine that David should have intended ..-poex&µ,Ba; we should expect ovliev. (2) to express even Divine purpose in that ti.e The Jews, with whom St. Paul identi.fi.03 had been permitted, for his sins, to fall into himself, must be !Jllpposed to put the ques- that deeper sin with the 'lliew of establishin~ tion; not the Gentiles, e.s some ha\"e sup- God's righteousness all the more. It does posed. For there is nothing in the context not, however, seem certain (whatever some to suggest the Gentiles as the speakers, nor grammarians may say) that the conjunction does what follow suit the supposition. (3) need of necessity be understood as telic; it The me.in queetion is as to the sense of may be embatic only. However this be, it ..-po.-x&µ,Ba., which occurs here ouly in the is the inference from 1/..-,.,s &it that suggests New Testament, e.nd has, therefore, to be the new objection of the following verse. interpreted from consideration of the sense Vere. 5, 6.-But if our umighteoumesa of which the verb is capable, 11nJ tile pro- oommend the righteousness of God, what bable drift of the e.rgwnent. Some ha,·e she.ll we say 1 Is God umighteoua who taken it as a passive verb, with the meaning, taketh vengeance 1 (so the Authorized Ver- " Are we snrplll!sed?" i.& a.re we Jews in sion; rather, brings the wrath upon ua wor86 ca.se than the Gentiles on account of ( 6 l..-,,plp"'" T¾v ~prl,v), with reference to the our greater privileges? The active verb. Divine wr11th 11g11inst sin, spoken of above). ..-polxew, in the sense of "to excel," being I speak after the me.nner of men. God for- both transitive e.nd intransitive, its ps...saive bid : for then how shall God judge the may be used in the s.ime sense. An iu,,--te.n.ce world 1 The purport of this reply appears quoted in oowmeutaries ia 1taT' oua~v r?o- sufiloiently in the po.raphrase given above. •xoµlvois in-o Toil tu&s (Plul, • Mor.,'), " cum Dut the intended benring on the argument Jove minores non sint" So the =nt Re- of ver. 7 is not nt once nppe.rent. visers, though dissented from by the Ameri- Ver. 7.-For if the truth of God in my can Committee. The strong objection to lie abounded to his glory, why am I also this interpretation ia that thenl has been still judged ILB a sinner 1 One view is thnt nothing so tar even to sug~t auy Mlp«M- this is IL continuo.tion or resumption of the ority of the Gentile to the ,Jew, and that quustion of ver. 6 on the pe.rt of tho Jew, wh1\t follows does not bear u~n ,wy such its drin being the s1Lmo. But the word idea. Thus to interpret woui,t be to :5aori- 1<.i;-.li, 11s woll 11s the position of the verse fioe the sense to supposed gre.mm11 t.io61 t>:ti- after ..-olr 1<pwi,, eto., suggt'sts rather its genoe, which, tlf'ter o.11, is uncertain. Tnking, boing intondod to express thnt any 0110 than, ,rpooxdµ.•9a ~ th,, whldfo rnko, wu th1·ou1-:hont tho world, 118 well 1\8 the Jew, h11ve two illterprotntious before us : either, miiht pload against doaorved judgm0Dt. with Meyer, tu render, Do '"" l"" f~ND<ll'\l UOMA?III, f}  BZ THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. [OH, m, 1-81.