The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 294

or r11rpn.•e, wbicb is the e'l'ident ru('nnillg of intends it to bo, in connection with othors, thc- word in 1 Tim. i. 5 and 1 Pet. i. 9. 1'his suoh as Deut. xxvii. 26, cited with it in )ast ~,•ems best to suit the line of thought Gal. iii. 10, "Cursed is every one that con- 1n this pl6<'e. The Jews evinced ignorane-6, tinueth not in all things whioh e.re written i.e. or the real meaning and purpose of Law, in tile book of the Lt1w to do tllem." It is in rest.ing on it for justification. This is his way to refer to familiar texts, or such as 8t. Psul's oonstant position in epea.1..-ing of most readily occur to him, 11.e suggestive of the offi<.-e of law-that it oould not and Wll.!I Old Testament ideas which he expeots his nel'er meant to justifv, but rather to oon• ree.dera to be 11.oquainted wilh, Calvin's nnre of sin ; to 8$t&blish the need of, and remarks on this whole po.ssage deserve exci~ a craving for, redemption; and BO attention: "Lex bife.rie.m aocipitur. Nuno p_repare men to appreciate and accept the enim significat universo.m dootrine.m a Mose nghteonsness of God in Christ which was its prodite.m, nuno pe.rtem ille.m qum ministerii .,-,i>..os (see eepeoially oh. ni.; and cf. Gal. ejus propri11 erat; qum soilioet prmceptis, iii. 24, •.a.r,,-, 1, vdp.os w-a,3..,..,.,,os .,,...,, -ybyov,11 prmmis. et pamis contil!.etur. , .. Quod ergo as Xpurrlw, T,,,. l1< -ritT'r,o,s 3uca,o,8o,µ,v). hie de justitia Legis dicitur referre convenit N dp.os being here ana.rt.hrous, we translate it non e.d tote.m Mosis funotionem, sed e.d eooording to the rule observed in this Com- pe.rtem ist.am qum peoulie.riter quode.mmodo mentary. The apostle has, indeed, in view ei commissa fuit." His drift is, that the the Mosaic Law; hut it is the principle of pe.sse.ge before us intimates the striot law, as such, that he is speaking of. He principle of law, which it we.s the peculiar nert proceeds, as elsewhere throughout the function of Moses to promulgate, where88 Epistle, to quote from the Old Testament in the passage whioh follows from Deuteronomy illustration of the contrast between the two is significant of it.s universa d,octrina. This principles of .iusti.fication, and this with the distinction may help us to understand St. intention of showing that even in the Paul's drift, in referring, e.s he proceeds Pent.ateuch that of justification by faith to do, to Dent. x:u.. 11-14. The deter- Wail intimated, and thns that it was al.I mination of this drift is attended with some along the real TElvJs of the Law. "Ne.m si difficulty. First, we obse"e the.t, whereas prophetas S1llll sentential testee cite.saet, the original passage certainly refers to the h.ll!rebat ta.men hie scrnpulua, cum Lex Law given to the Israelites through Moses- ali&m jnstitial forme.m pnescriberet. Huno to the same "st.atntes e.nd jndgments" the.t ergo optime discutit, qun.m ex ipsa Legis were the subject of the previous quote.tion- doctrina sta.billi fidei jnstiti.e.m" (Calvin). St. Paul applies it to describe justification "\"er. 5.-1'or Koses descriheth the right- through faith in Christ; and. seoondly, that, eo1l111111118 whiah is of the Law, That the man in order to apply it, he e.lters some parts which doeth those things ahall live by of it, and interposes comments of his own. (literally, in) them (Lev. xviii. 5). This One view is the.t he is only making a free q notation is intended t.o express, in the nse of the words of the passe.ge to clothe words of Moses himself, the principle of his own thoughts. Bo Bengel: "Ad huno Le.w, viz. the requirement of entire obse"• locum quasi parodia suavissi.me e.lludit, sine ance of it, such e.s the apostle elsewhere expressa e.llege.tione." But his obvious contends is impossible (cf. Gal iii 10-12). intention, here as elsewhere, to support his It may be objected that MoBeB himself, in positions from the old Scriptures surely tLe o~<>inal pe.ssage, doe! not seem to be precludes this view. Nor co.n be be sup- setting forth e.ny snch impossible require- posed to cite the passage e.s simply pro- ment. He says,in the name of the Lord. "Ye phetical of the gospel which we.s to supersede Eball therefore keep my statutes e.nd my the Le.w, since it evidently was not so, judgments, which, if e. man do, he she.I.I live The proper view seems to be that he in them ; " implying, it would seem, that e. adduces it e.s illustrating, in the first place, me.n might so keep them e.s to live in them; what Calvin co.I.ls the 'IIITliversa doctrina of elae were the injunction delusive. In the the Le.w itself, with regard to its actual quotation also of the •me text in Ezek. XL application e.s e. norma vivendi to the needs 11, 13, 21 and Neh. ix. 29, only such a re- of man. Here, he would se.y, the very quirement u might he.ve been fnlfilled Mose.ic dispensation is presented to us, not appears io be undentood. But St. Paul (as e.s exacting e.ny impossible obedience to ~he appea.rs from the context, and from Gal iii. strict behests of law, but only such e.s the 12, where the text is similarly cited) refers to "circumcised in heart" could render, ond it e.s expreslling the strict principle of 1.e.w, be e.ccepted still ; it is presented to us, not u abov1, defined. If, then, the text, in its 0.11 a rigid external code, enjoining rmd origiwJ connection, seems to fall 11hort of threatening, but e.s e. word very nigh 1111to th£, een.M, put upon it, we me.y understand ns, even in our bee.rt, the.t we may do it; it the apostle io quote it u e. well-known ia, in fact, e.n anticipation and foreshadow- ODe, 11nfllciently suggestive, ii taken, u he ing of gospel sol ve.t1on. In conflrmation oC on. x. 1-21.] THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.