The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 130

tenRble. though against it is tho ral't thl\t mnoh more, bemw reoonolled, ,n llhall be deet.h in behalf of Pff'l'()fls is being spoken aaved by (literally, in) his life. In tb01e of all along. The remaining l\nd most com- verses, the second being an amplifl0&tion of monly &('('8pted '"iew is that by" the good the finrt., our rell\tions to God are set forth, man'' (the Rrticle pointing him out generally &B before, by the nul\logy of auoh oe may &S a well-1.-nown type of ohlU'llct<>r) is meant subsist between man nud man. Men do not the bc-nefic-ent~ne who inspires attach- usually die for their enemies, but they do ment and devotion- oppo..-ed t,o one who seek the good of their friends. If, then, ie merely just.. Cicero (' De Oft'.,' iii. 15) God's superhume.n love reconciled us to ie quoted in support of this distinction be- himself through the death of bis Son when we tween the words: " Si tir bonus is est qui were still his enemies, what assurance may prodest quibus potest., nemini nooct, reote we not now feel, being no longer at enmity, jmt.um tlru.m, bonum non facile reperiemus." of being saved from the wrath (rijs op")'7is, Tholuck quotes, &S a Greek instance, Kupov ver. 9) t.o which, as sinners and enemies, wo 4"CIKGAOun-£S ...1w £1,,p;,,.,..,,,,, TOI' ,,,spa 'l"OI' were exposed I There is also 11, significance crya86P (lElian, • Var. Histor.,' iii. 17). Pos- (ver. 10) in the words" deatll" e.ncl "life." sibly the term l, cr,,a6os would have a well- Christ's death wa.s for atonement, and in it undenrtood meaninc to the readers of the we e.re conceived as having died with him Epistle, which is not equally obvious t.o us. to our former state of alienRtion from God. , er_ 8.-But God oommendeth his own love His resurrection was the inauguration of a towards us, in that, while we were yet new life to God, in which with him we live silmen, Christ died for ua. The emphatic (cf. eh. vi. 8, et seqq.). The words "enemies" .. his o-im" is lost sight of in the Authorized (ix6pol) and "reconciled" (1ta.,-aJ\Jl.d-y71µ,v, T ersion. It i;; not m contmst to our love to tta.,-a>.>.a-y.,,.,.,s) invite attention. Does the God, but expressive of the thought that the former word imply mutual enmity, or only love of God himseU towards men was dis- that u,e were God's enemies? We may played in the death of Christ. This is im- answer that, though we cannot attribute portant for our true conception of the light enmity in its proper human sense to God, in which the mysterious doctrine of the or properly spea.k of him &s under any oir- MOnement is regarded in Holy Scripture. cnmstances the enemy of man, yet the ex- It is not (&S represented by some schools of pression might perhaps be used with regard theologians) that the Son, considered apart to him in the we.y of accommodation to from the Father, o:ffered himseU to appease hnman ideas, as are anger,jealousy, and the his wrath-u seems to be expressed in the like. There seems, however, to be no neces- lines, " Actns in crucem factus es Irato Deo sity for this conception here, the idea being victim& "-but mther that the Divine love rather that of man's alienation from God, it.aelf purposed from eternity and provided aud from peace with him, through sin ; as the atonement, all the Persons of the holy in Col. i 21, "And yon, the.t were sometime and undivided Trinity concmring to effect alienated and enemies in your mind by it (et eh. iii 24; viii. 82; Eph. ii 4; 2 wicked works." So Theodoret interprets: Th-. ii 16: John iii 16; I John iv. 10, 01 lx6pol 8¾, -re.iv tnoll.c.iv aTs µ7181; wo1t1J1<0a,n, d aL). IC it be asked how this Divine love, -y,11&µ,1101 lfur".'P ,plll.01, ol ~aJC711<oln-,s. So too, displayed in the atonement, nnd therefore Clem. Alex., Strom., I. m.: Kai µ-1, 'TE 1ta6d.- previons to it, is consistent with what is '"!' l-irl 'TOU 0,ou, oM,vl µ~v IWTll<E11T6a1 elsewLere 80 continne.Ily said of the Divine ll.,-yoµ,v .,.b,, 0,bv, ouB~ lx6pov ,Tva, .,...,&s· wrath, we answer that the ideas are not .,,.,1.,,.,."'" -yap ,,.,.iu.,..,,s, l<IU o/,8lv lu-r, .,.c,., Vll"O• izreconcilable. The wrath expresses God's ,r-r,I.,,.,.,,,,, & µ¾, 6Ell.EI. +aµ~v B~ au"fcj lx6pol,, necessary antagonism to sin, and the retri- ,lva, .,.ol,s Cl.1TE16,is Kai µ¾, 1ta'ra. "f(l,S lv'l"OA(l,J bution doe to it, inaeparable from a true al,.,.oi, 1rop,voµlvovs. With regard to "reoon• c:onception of the Divine right.eowmeas; e.nd ciled," it me.y be first observed thnt, how- 1111 long ea men e.re under the dominion of ever orthodox and capable of a true sense lli.n they are of nooeaBity involved in it: it may be to speak of God being reoonciled but thia iB not incoruristent with ever-abiding to man through Christ (IUI in Art. ii., "to Divine lme towards the -penuna of sinnera, reconcile his Father to us"), the expres- or with an eternal purpose to redeem them. sion is not scriptural. It is e.l ways man It may be added here that the pas11age who is said to be reconciled to God; and it before t11 intimates our Lord's essential is God who, in Christ, reconciles the world Deity; for his sacrifice of himself is 1poken 11nto himself (2 Oor. v. 19; of. oleo Eph. ii. c,f w; tlH, di~plny of ( ;orl'H 'lWD Jo,·e. 16; Col. i. 20, 21). Still, mQre iH ovi<lently Vt:rs. !.I, JO.-lllu.ch more then, being now irnpliw til1111 thut God rcconcilos mon to juati1if,d by (Jiten.lly, fr.) hill blood, we lhall himllClf by changing tlu,il" bc11rtH ond 0011- ~ eaved from the wrath through him. 'l'or v,,rting thelll from ain by thci mo.nifcatu,lion if, wb.fm ,re were enemiel, we were recon- r,J' liiH love in Christ. 'l'ho reooncif-ia tion i1 eil.ed io God through the death of Jail Ion, 1poken of u eifectecl once for all for o.11 m1.11.1• ou. v.1-21.J THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 125