The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 265

coven1Lnt. 'H l\a;.-p,la le obviously the di- distinguisl,es him as the Ktp,0< from 0,,,,; vinely nppointed ceremonio.l worship, the Bnd that the pa.esages iu wh icb 0,~. haR typic,il s1gnifico.noe of which is explained at !ieen euppo11~ by some to apply to him (a~ longth in the Epistle to the ffobrewe, where m 2 Thees. 1. 12, Ka;,,-b, -r¾v x&pw -rou re,,,; tho sa.mo word is usod. "Tho fa.there" (ol -Jiµw11 _1<al K_upfou 'I11uoii Xp,u-roii; and Eph. v. .,a;,,-lpH) are the patrinrchs, Abrnham, Jeane, 5; Titus 1. 4) are wrongly 81) underHV>od; and Jacob, the original recipients of the 1/r! ~ot 0,br! be!ng aleo nndonbtedly the promises, descent from whom was made ongmal readrng rn 1 Tim. iii. 16. (Of St. such account of by the Jews, ne being the Paul's mmal distinction betwoon 0,b, and foundatio~. of the_~ privileges (~~- Matt. iii. K6pt0r, wb~ he is re~erring to the economy 9; Luke m. 8; xm. 28; John vm. 39; and, of redemption, other rnstancea are found in for the use of .,a;,,-/p,s in this sense, cf. Acts I Cor. viii. 6; xii. 4, 5, 6; Eph. iv. 4, 5, 6. iii. 22; xiii. 82; eh. xv. 8; Heh. i. 1). The That be does usually so distinguish is nn- last 1md crowning distinction of the Jewish donbted.) (2) That, according to the olcl race is mentioned last, viz. the fleshly de- ecclesiastical interpretation, " Christ woulcl scent thorefrom of Christ, even of him who be called here, not only God, but e,en God in his higher nature is" over all, God blessed cn,er all, and consequently would be desi"'- for ever." This is certainly the moat ob- nated as e,tlr 1ra.11.-orcpd.-r~p, which is ah~ vious meaning of the conclusion of ver. 5, lutely incompntible with the enfue new of as far as the language is concerned, and the the New Testament as to the dependence of one understood by all ancient commentators. the Son on the Father." (3) That"in the pro- Some modems, however, as is well known, perly apostolica.l writings (2 Pet. iii. 18 doeil have raised objections to this interpretation not belong to them, nor does Heh. xiii. 21) of the claUBe, based solely on the enpposed we never meet with a doxology to Christ improbability that St. Panl wonld have so in the form which is nsnal in doxologies to designated Christ. Some would, therefore, God." Meyer adds in a note, "2 Tim. iv. get over this imagined di.flionlty by putting 18 certainly refers to Christ; but this is jnet a full stop after ,ca;,,-ck ud.pt<a, and taking one of the traces of post-apostolic composi- what follows as a doxology to God the tion." Now, to these arguments it may be Father, thus : "God, who is over all, be replied as follows : To (1) that, though it blessed for ever." The apostle is supposed, may be true that St. Panl in no other pas- according to this interpretation, to have sage expressly ca.lls Christ 0,Js, yet his been moved to this parenthetical utterance doctrine with respect to his Divine nature is by hie contemplation of the Divine favonre in accordance with the expression; for surely to Israel, which he had been recounting. the term a,bs is applicable to him who is Some have suggested the full stop being spoken of, as e.g. in Phil. ii. 6 and Col. i. 15, put after .,cl.now, so as to refer o &11 ,.,1 .,c/.,,. eto.; that hie usual distinction between the ,,.,.,., to Christ, and te.ke only what follows as supreme God and Christ o.s Mediator by no a doxology, or, as some would have it, as a means precludes his cleclariBg in express statement. But, in either case, the idea of terms Christ's essential Deity in a passage so unlikely a. brOBking up of the sentence where such II declaration is suitable nnd may be dismissed as untenable. Others, called for; that e,en St. John, who is ac- without thus breaking up the sentence, take knowledged by ell to have peonliarly set the whole of it, beginning with 6 &11, to be, forth the Divine essence of Christ, only not o. doxology, but o. statement, thus at- once uses the expression, e,l>s ~" cl A&-yos, tempting to meet the objection to its being or any exactly equivalent to it. To argu- a doxology (to be noticed presently), a.rising ment (2) it may be replied that the lllilgut¾,,"'0 from the collocation of the words. But a used does noi identify Christ with the mere assertion that God is blessed for ever Father as cl .,a;v,,-o,cprfr01p a,l>s, especio.lly would seem peculiarly uncnlled for and pur- if we suppose a co=o. after 1rcl.vr0111, so tlmt poseless here. Meyer, being a critio of de- the meaning would be, "Christ who is o,er served repute, and an upholder of tile modem 1111, God blessed for e,er." That Christ is interpretation of the olause, taking the "over nll" is what is distinctly declared else- whole of it together a.e a. doxology to the where by St. Paul, 11Dd e,l>s, etc., ms.y be Fo.ther, it mny suffice to state his argu- appended predioa.tively to denote his Divina ments. (1) That St. Panl, thongh regard- essenc11. As to argument (3), it is neces- ing the Son of God ee the imnge of God, of sary to exclude not only 2 Peter nnd He- the essonoe of God, the agent in orention brews, but also 2 Timothy from the list of and preservntlon, the judge of all, the object 11postoliool writings in order to givo it any of prnyer, nnd the possessor of Divine glory force. But e,en so it would be irrelevant ; and fulness of grace (eh. i. 4; x. 12; Phil. for tho sentence before us is not II doxology, il. 6; Col. i. 15, etc.; ii. 9; Eph. i. 20, etc.; but au assertion: it is, according to the 1 Cor. viii. 6; 2 Cor. iv. 4; viii. 9), novor ancient interprotl\tion, not " Ilkssed he expressly ea.lie him Eletls, but always olenrly Christ as God for ever; " but " Christ, who  264 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. [oa. o:. 1--38.