[1230] mss. the evil mind and negligence (or self-will, rhathumias) to which the sins belonged. See St. Aug. Conf. b. 3, c. 16, b. 5, c. 18, b. 7, c. 4, Oxf. Tr. pp. 40, 78, 110, etc.
[1231] Chrys. is correct in denying that Paul refers sin to the flesh (in the sense of the body), as its cause and seat. With the apostle sarx is not the same as soma in its relation to sin. Sarx comprehends the whole unregenerate man and not merely his body or the impulses and passions connected with his physical life. It is true that Paul regards the body as the sphere in which sin makes many of its worst manifestations. It may be due to this that he chose the word sarx to denote unrenewed human nature. With Paul the cause and seat of sin are in the will. He nowhere identifies evil with the body and therefore lays no basis for asceticism or for the contempt or ill-treatment of the body. Of the "works of the flesh" which he enumerates in Gal. v. 19-21 more than half are sins having no special relation to the body and not manifesting themselves through physical appetites or passions, as, e.g. "idolatry, enmities, jealousies, divisions, heresies."--G.B.S.
[1232] adokimos, usually rendered "reprobate" as in the text, here seems to be used with a consciousness of its etymology, as St. Paul plays on the word in ouk edokimasan.
[1233] The author seems here to overlook the fact that Paul at the beginning of ch. ii. turns to the Jews. Chrys. speaks as if he were now addressing specifically "rulers." But as the argument goes on, the language shows more and more clearly that he is here thinking of the Jewish world (see v. 12 sq and esp. 17). The "therefore" grounds the fact of universal condemnation upon the description of sin as universal, contained in i. 18-32. The only peculiarity is that the statement that this picture of Gentile depravity is a picture of universal application, is made afterwards, "For wherein," etc. The argument proceeds as if after i. 32 the apostle had been interrupted with the objection, "But your description does not apply to us." The apostle answers: "It does, for you do the same things." The "therefore" is proleptic so far as it assumes as shown what he now asserts: ta gar auta prasseis ho krinon. The conclusion is thus stated before the major premiss.--G.B.S.
[1234] So Field, from mss: the old reading would have to mean "For it is not that thou shouldst not suffer any punishment, but that thou mayest suffer a worse if thou abide unamended, that He delayeth--and may that never befall thee."
[1235] Or, "he" (St. Paul, according to Field) "is terribly severe upon him who:" for most mss. omit "he shows that."
[1236] 'Eritheia is probably derived from erithos, a hired laborer and not from eris (strife) as commonly. Hence the meaning is: labor for hire--Lohnarbeit, party spirit. Better translate "factious" (R.V.) than "contentious" (A.V.). So Weiss, Thayer's Lex.--G.B.S.
[1237] taxei kechretai, see on v. 16.
[1238] epeteichisen, strictly, attacked him by planting in his heart the thought of that fearful day.
[1239] Verse 12 assigns the ground of v. 11. "Sin brings penalty and death whether committed under the Mosaic law or under the ethical law of conscience." The first member of the sentence (v. 12) applies to the Gentiles. They have sinned without the standard and guidance of positive law; they are, therefore, not brought to the test of that law's demands, but to the tests of natural, moral law (which the apostle will directly describe), and by that test their sins meet their penalty. Death, as sin's penalty, is coextensive with sin, not with the Mosaic law. Sin existed before the Mosaic law and apart from it; it is imputed to the Gentiles--not, indeed in the same way and degree (Rom. v. 13)--because they have a law of conscience. Each class is judged by the standard which has been given to them. All the terms relating to law here signify the Mosaic law, which was to Paul the specific statutory expression of the divine will and the embodiment of moral principles and duties.--G.B.S.
[1240] protos sou cf. St. John i. 30.
[1241] autarkes, writing before the Pelagian controversy, he does not notice the distinction between a sufficiency of knowledge, etc., and a supply of grace which must be presupposed. See Aug. ad Dardanum, Ep. 188, al. 143, c. 11, 12. See also De C. D. x. c. 29 and 32. Conc. Araus. a.d. 529, cap. 19. Labbe IV. 1670, B. declares grace needed even before the fall, much more after. See Bp. Bull on the state of man before the fall, Works, II. also Vinc. Lir. c. 24. The question is here whether men had means to attain salvation. It is taken for granted they had power given them to choose the right, but whether in the way of nature or of grace it is not defined. The grace given to Christians was always regarded as so distinct from and superior to everything granted to Jews or Heathens, that it was difficult to speak of the manner in which they received Divine assistance. But the gift spoken of by Justin Martyr, Ap. i. 13, is clearly supernatural. See also, St. Basil, Const. Mon. 16, t. 2, p. 559, B. and Macarius, Hom. 56.
[1242] Perhaps human "messengers," inspired teachers other than those strictly called Prophets.
[1243] The ms. reading means no more: but the Edd. have muriomakariotes "Countless blessedness," which is more like St. Chrysostom than a copyist.
[1244] Origen on Matt. xxvi. 69, notices the same. Ed. Ben. p. 913, D.
[1245] eros...philia: the whole of this glorious passage suffers grievously in translation, owing to the impossibility of expressing the climax from agapan, the common ecclesiastical word, to philein and even eran.