Albert Barnes Commentary Romans 1

ROMANS Chapter One

PREFACE

The Epistle to the Romans has usually been regarded as the most difficult portion of the New Testament. It is probably from this cause, as well as from the supposition that its somewhat abstruse discussions could not be made interesting to the young, that so few efforts have been made to introduce it into Sunday Schools and Bible Classes.

It will doubtless continue to be a fact that Sunday School instruction will be confined chiefly to the historical parts of the Bible. The Sacred Scriptures possess a fortunate suitability to the world's circumstances. A large portion of the volume can thus be made interesting to the minds of children and youth. This is because so much of it is occupied with historical narrative, with parables, with interesting biographies of holy men of former times, and with the life of our blessed Lord.

Yet, while this is true, there is a considerable portion of youth, in various ways under the instruction of the Bible, who may be interested in the more abstruse statements and discussions of the doctrinal parts of the Holy Scriptures. For such—for Sunday School teachers, for Bible Classes, and for the higher classes in Sabbath Schools—these Notes have been prepared. The humble hope has been cherished that this epistle might be introduced to this portion of the youth of the churches, and thus tend to imbue their minds with correct views of the great doctrines of the Christian Revelation.

This object has been kept steadily in view. The design has not been to make a learned commentary, nor to enter into theological discussions, nor to introduce, at length, practical reflections, nor to enter minutely into critical investigations. All these can be found in books dedicated to these subjects. The design has been to state, with as much brevity and simplicity as possible, the real meaning of the sacred writer; rather the results of critical inquiry, as far as the author has had ability and time to pursue it, than the process by which those results were reached.

The design has been to state what appeared to the author to be the real meaning of the Epistle, without any regard to any existing theological system, and without any deference to the opinions of others, further than the respectful deference and candid examination which are due to the opinions of the learned, the wise, and the good, who have made this Epistle their particular study.

At the same time that this object has been kept in view, and the reference to the Sabbath School teacher and the Bible Class has given character to the work, still it is hoped that the expositions are of such a nature as not to be uninteresting to Christians of every age and of every class. He performs a significant service in the cause of the church of God, and of truth, who contributes in any degree to explain the profound argument, the thorough doctrinal discussion, the elevated views, and the vigorous, powerful, and masterly reasonings of the Epistle to the Romans.

Of the defects of this work, even for the purpose contemplated, no one will probably be more deeply aware than the author. Of the time and labor necessary to prepare even such brief Notes as these, few persons, probably, are aware. This work has been prepared amid the cares and toils of a most responsible pastoral charge. My brethren in the ministry, should they have occasion to consult these Notes, will know how to appreciate the cares and anxieties amid which they have been prepared. They will be indulgent toward the faults of the book; they will not censure harshly what is well-meant for the rising generation; they will be the patrons of every purpose, however humble, to do good.

It remains only to add that free use has been made of all the resources within the reach of the author. The language of other writers has not been adopted without particular acknowledgment, but their ideas have been freely used where they were thought to express the sense of the text.

In particular, aid has been sought and obtained from the following works: the CRITICI SACRI, CALVIN'S COMMENTARY ON THE Romans, DODDRIDGE, MACKNIGHT, and ROSENMULLER; and the commentaries of THOLUCK and FLATT—to the extent that an imperfect knowledge of the German language made their aid accessible. A considerable portion was written before Professor STUART'S Commentary appeared.

In the remaining portion, important aid has been freely derived from that work. The aim of this work is substantially the same as that of the "Notes on the Gospels," and on the Acts of the Apostles; and the earnest wish and prayer of the author is that it may be one among many means of establishing the truth, and of promoting its advancement and ultimate triumph in the world.

Philadelphia, June 14, 1834.

For the Introduction to Romans, see Barnes' notes on Romans 1:2.

Romans.

CHAPTER 1.

Paul. The original name of the author of this epistle was Saul (Acts 7:58; Acts 8:1; Acts 9:1, etc.). This was changed to Paul (see Barnes' notes on Acts 13:9), and by this name he is generally known in the New Testament. The reason why he assumed this name is not certainly known. It was, however, in accordance with the custom of the times (see Barnes' notes on Acts 13:9).

The name Saul was Hebrew; the name Paul was Roman. In addressing an epistle to the Romans, he would naturally use the name to which they were accustomed and which would excite no prejudice among them.

The ancient custom was to begin an epistle with the name of the writer, as Cicero to Varro, etc. We record the name at the end.

It may be remarked, however, that placing the name of the writer at the beginning of an epistle was always done, and is still, when the letter was one of authority or conferred any peculiar privileges. For example, in the proclamation of Cyrus (Ezra 1:2): Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, etc. See also Ezra 4:11; Ezra 7:12: Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, etc.; and Daniel 4:1. The commencement of a letter by an apostle to a Christian church in this manner was peculiarly proper as indicating authority.

A servant. This name was that which the Lord Jesus himself directed his disciples to use as their general appellation (Matthew 10:25; Matthew 20:27; Mark 10:44).

And it was the customary name which they assumed (Galatians 1:10; Colossians 4:12; 2 Peter 1:11; Jude 1:1; Acts 4:29; Titus 1:1; James 1:1).

The proper meaning of this word servant—doulov—is slave, one who is not free. It expresses the condition of one who has a master or who is under the control of another.

It is often, however, applied to courtiers, or the officers who serve under a king, because in an eastern monarchy the relation of an absolute king to his courtiers corresponded closely to that of a master and a slave.

Thus the word is expressive of dignity and honour; and the servants of a king denote officers of high rank and station. It is applied to the prophets as those who were honored by God or peculiarly entrusted by Him with office (Deuteronomy 34:5; Joshua 1:2; Jeremiah 25:4).

The name is also given to the Messiah, Isaiah 42:1: Behold my servant in whom my soul delighteth, etc.; Isaiah 53:11: Shall righteous servant justify many.

The apostle uses it here evidently to denote his acknowledging Jesus Christ as his Master; as indicating his dignity, as peculiarly appointed by Him to his great work; and as showing that in this epistle he intended to assume no authority of his own, but simply to declare the will of his Master, and the truths.

Called to be an apostle. This word "called" means, here, not merely to be invited, but has the sense of appointed. It indicates that he had not assumed the office himself, but that he was set apart to it by the authority of Christ himself. It was important for Paul to state this:

1. Because the other apostles had been called or chosen to this work (John 15:16, 19; Matthew 10:1; Luke 6:13).
2. And because Paul was not one of those originally appointed. It was therefore important for him to affirm that he had not taken this high office to himself, but that he had been called to it by the authority of Jesus Christ. His appointment to this office he frequently takes occasion to vindicate (1 Corinthians 9:1, etc.; Galatians 1:12–24; 2 Corinthians 12:12; 1 Timothy 2:7; 2 Timothy 1:11; Romans 11:13).

An apostle. One sent to execute a commission. It is applied because the apostles were sent out by Jesus Christ to preach his gospel and to establish his church (see Barnes' notes on Matthew 10:2; see Barnes' notes on Luke 6:13).

Separated. The word translated separated unto—aforizw—means to designate, to mark out by fixed limits, to bound as a field, etc. It denotes those who are separated or called out from the common mass (Acts 19:9; 2 Corinthians 6:17).

The meaning here does not materially differ from the expression called to be an apostle, except that perhaps this includes the idea of God's purpose or designation for this work.

Thus Paul uses the same word concerning himself in Galatians 1:15: God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace; that is, God designated me, marked me out, or intended me to be an apostle from my infancy. In the same way, Jeremiah was designated to be a prophet (Jeremiah 1:5).

Unto the Gospel of God. Designated or designed by God that I should make it my business to preach the gospel. Set apart to this, as the peculiar, great work of my life; as having no other object for which I should live. (For the meaning of the word gospel, see Barnes' notes on Matthew 1:1).

It is called the gospel of God because it is His appointment; it has been originated by Him and has His authority. The office of an apostle was to preach the gospel. Paul regarded himself as separated for this work. It was not to live in splendor, wealth, and ease, but to devote himself to this great business of proclaiming good news, that God was reconciled to men in His Son. This is the sole business of all ministers of religion.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

INTRODUCTION

This Epistle has been, with great uniformity, attributed to the apostle Paul, and received as a part of the sacred canon. It has never in the church been called in question as a genuine, an inspired book, except by three of the ancient sects deemed heretical—the Ebionites, the Encratites, and Cerinthians. But they did not deny that it was written by the apostle Paul. They rejected it because they could not make its doctrines harmonize with their views of other parts of the Scriptures. Their rejecting it, therefore, does not argue against its genuineness. That is a question to be settled historically, like the genuineness of any other ancient writing. On this point the testimony of antiquity is uniform. The proof on this subject may be seen in detail in Lardner's works. The internal evidence that this was written by Paul is stated in a most ingenious and masterly manner by Dr. Paley, in his Horae Paulinae.

It is agreed by all that this epistle was written in Greek. Although addressed to a people whose language was Latin, this epistle to them, like those to other churches, was in Greek. On this point, also, there is no debate. The reasons why this language was chosen were probably the following:

1. The epistle was designed, doubtless, to be read by other churches as well as the Roman. . Yet the Greek language, being generally known and spoken, was more suited to this design than Latin.

2. The Greek language was then understood at Rome and extensively spoken. It was a part of polite education to learn it. Roman youth were taught it, and it was the fashion of the times to study it, so much so as to make it a matter of complaint that Latin was neglected for it by Roman youth. Thus Cicero (Pro Archia) says, The Greek language is spoken in almost all nations; Latin is confined to our comparatively narrow borders. Tacitus (Oratio 29) says, An infant born now is committed to a Greek nurse. Juvenal (Satura 6, line 185) speaks of its being considered as an indispensable part of polite education to be acquainted with Greek.

3. It is not impossible that the Jews at Rome, who constituted a separate colony, were better acquainted with Greek than Latin. They had a Greek, but no Latin translation of the Scriptures; and it is very possible that they used the language in which they were accustomed to read their Scriptures, and which was extensively spoken by their brethren throughout the world.

4. The apostle himself was probably more familiar with Greek than Latin. He was a native of Cilicia, where Greek was doubtless spoken, and he often quotes Greek poets in his addresses and epistles (Acts 21:37; Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12; 1 Corinthians 15:33).

This epistle is placed first among Paul's epistles, not because it was the first written, but because of the length and importance of the epistle itself, and the importance of the church in the imperial city. It has uniformly had this place in the sacred canon, though there is reason to believe that the Epistle to the Galatians, the first to the Corinthians, and perhaps the two to the Thessalonians, were written before this.

Of the time when it was written there can be little doubt. About the year 52 or 54, the emperor Claudius banished all Jews from Rome. In Acts 18:2, we have an account of the first acquaintance of Paul with Aquila and Priscilla, who had departed from Rome in consequence of that decree.

This acquaintance was formed in Corinth; and we are told that Paul stayed with them and worked at the same occupation (Acts 18:3). In Romans 16:3-4, he directs the church to greet Priscilla and Aquila, who had laid down their own necks for his life. This service which they rendered him must have been, therefore, after the decree of Claudius; and of course, the epistle must have been written after the year 52.

In Acts 18:19, we are told that he left Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus. Paul made a journey through the neighboring regions and then returned to Ephesus (Acts 19:1). Paul remained at Ephesus at least two years (Acts 19:8–10) and while here probably wrote the first Epistle to the Corinthians. In that epistle (1 Corinthians 16:19) he sends the salutation of Priscilla and Aquila, who were of course still at Ephesus. The Epistle to the Romans, therefore, in which he sends his salutation to Aquila and Priscilla as being then at Rome, could not be written until they had left Ephesus and returned to Rome; that is, until three years, at least, after the decree of Claudius in 52 or 54.

Still further, when Paul wrote this epistle, he was about to depart for Jerusalem to convey a collection which had been made for the poor saints there by the churches in Macedonia and Achaia (Romans 15:25–26). When he had done this, he intended to go to Rome (Romans 15:28). Now, by looking at the Acts of the Apostles, we can determine when this occurred.

At this time he sent Timothy and Erastus before him into Macedonia, while he remained in Asia for a season (Acts 19:22). After this (Acts 20:1–2), Paul himself went into Macedonia, passed through Greece, and remained about three months there. In this journey, it is almost certain that he went to Corinth, the capital of Achaia, at which time it is supposed this epistle was written.

From this place he set out for Jerusalem, where he was made a prisoner and after remaining a prisoner two years (Acts 24:27), he was sent to Rome about A.D. 60. Allowing for the time of his traveling and his imprisonment, it must have been about three years from the time that he purposed to go to Jerusalem—that is, from the time that he finished the epistle (Romans 15:25–29)—to the time when he reached Rome. Thus, the epistle must have been written about A.D. 57.

It is clear, also, that the epistle was written from Corinth. In Romans 16:1, Phoebe, a member of the church at Cenchrea, is commended to the Romans. She probably had charge of the epistle or accompanied those who had it. Cenchrea was the port of the city of Corinth, about seven or eight miles from the city. In Romans 16:23, Gaius is spoken of as the host of Paul, or he whose hospitality Paul shared; but Gaius was baptized by Paul at Corinth, and Corinth was clearly his place of residence (1 Corinthians 1:14). Erastus is also mentioned as the chamberlain of the city where the epistle was written; but this Erastus is mentioned as having his abode at Corinth (2 Timothy 4:20). From all this, it is clear that the epistle was written at Corinth, about the year 57.

Of the state of the church at Rome at that time, it is not easy to form a precise opinion. From this epistle, it is evident that it was composed of Jews and Gentiles, and that one design of writing to it was to reconcile their jarring opinions, particularly about the obligation of the Jewish law, the advantage of the Jew, and the way of justification.

It is probable that the two parties in the church were endeavoring to defend their peculiar opinions, and that the apostle took this opportunity and method to state to his converted countrymen the great doctrines of Christianity, and the relation of the law of Moses to the Christian system.

The epistle itself is full proof that the church to whom it was addressed was composed of Jews and Gentiles. A considerable part of it is an argument expressly with the Jews (chapters 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11). And a considerable part of the epistle also is designed to state the true doctrine about the character of the Gentiles, and the way in which they could be justified before God.

At this time, there was a large number of Jews at Rome. When Pompey the Great overran Judea, he sent a large number of Jews as prisoners to Rome to be sold as slaves. But it was not easy to control them. They persevered resolutely and obstinately in adhering to the rites of their nation, in keeping the Sabbath, etc., so that the Romans eventually chose to give them their freedom and assigned them a place in the vicinity of the city across the Tiber.

Here a town was built, which was principally inhabited by Jews. Josephus mentions that 4,000 Jews were banished from Rome at one time to Sardinia, and that a still greater number were punished who were unwilling to become soldiers (Antiquities 18, chapter 3, section 5). Philo (Legatio ad Caium) says that many of the Jews at Rome had obtained their freedom; for, says he, being made captive in war, and brought into Italy, they were set at liberty by their masters, neither were they compelled to change the rites of their fathers.

See also Josephus (Antiquities 17, chapter 2, section 1), Suetonius (Life of Tiberius, 36), and Notes on Acts 6:9. From that large number of Jews, together with those converted from the Gentiles, the church at Rome was collected. It is easy to see that in that church there would be a great diversity of sentiment and, no doubt, warm discussions about the authority of the Mosaic law.

At what time, or by whom, the gospel was first preached at Rome has been a matter of controversy. The Roman Catholic Church has maintained that it was founded by Peter, and has from there drawn an argument for their high claims and infallibility. On this subject, they make a confident appeal to some of the fathers. There is strong evidence to be derived from this epistle itself, and from the Acts, that Paul did not regard Peter as having any such primacy and ascendency in the Roman church as are claimed for him by the papists.

1. In this whole epistle, there is no mention of Peter at all. It is not suggested that he had been, or was then, at Rome. If he had been, and the church had been founded by him, it is incredible that Paul did not make mention of that fact. This is the more striking, as it was done in other cases where churches had been founded by other men. (See 1 Corinthians 1:12–15). Especially is Peter, or Cephas, mentioned repeatedly by the apostle Paul in his other epistles (1 Corinthians 3:22; 1 Corinthians 9:5; 1 Corinthians 15:5; Galatians 2:9; Galatians 1:18; Galatians 2:7–8, 14).

In these places, Peter is mentioned in connection with the churches at Corinth and Galatia, yet never there as appealing to his authority, but, in regard to the latter, expressly calling it in question. Now, it is incredible that if Peter had been then at Rome, had founded the church there, and was regarded as invested with any peculiar authority over it, Paul should never once have even suggested his name.

2. It is clear that Peter was not there when Paul wrote this epistle. If he had been, he could not have failed to have sent him a salutation, amid the numbers that he saluted in the sixteenth chapter.

3. In the Acts of the Apostles, there is no mention of Peter's having been at Rome; but the presumption from that history is almost conclusive that he had not been. In Acts 12:3-4, we have an account of his having been imprisoned by Herod Agrippa near the close of his reign . This occurred about the third or fourth year of the reign of Claudius, who began to reign A.D. 41. It is altogether improbable that he had been at Rome before this. Claudius reigned more than three years, and all the testimony that the fathers give is that Peter came to Rome in his reign.

4. Peter was still at Jerusalem in the ninth or tenth year of the reign of Claudius (Acts 15:6 and following). Nor is there any mention made then of his having been at Rome.

5. Paul went to Rome about A.D. 60. There is no mention made then of Peter's being with him or being there. If he had been, it could hardly have failed to be recorded. Especially is this remarkable when Paul's meeting with the brethren is expressly mentioned (Acts 28:14–15), and when it is recorded that he met the Jews, stayed with them, and spent no less than two years at Rome. If Peter had been there, such a fact could not fail to have been recorded or alluded to, either in the Acts or the Epistle to the Romans.

6. The epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, to Philemon, and the second Epistle to Timothy (Lardner, volume 6, page 235) were written from Rome during Paul's residence as a prisoner; and the Epistle to the Hebrews probably also while he was still in Italy. In none of these epistles is there any hint that Peter was then, or had been, at Rome—a fact that cannot be accounted for if he was regarded as the founder of that church, and especially if he was then in that city. Yet in those epistles, there are salutations from a number of people to those churches. In particular, Epaphras, Luke the beloved physician (Colossians 4:12, 14), and the saints of Caesar's household are mentioned (Philippians 4:22). In 2 Timothy 4:11, Paul expressly affirms that Luke only was with him—a declaration utterly irreconcilable with the supposition that Peter was then at Rome.

7. If Peter was ever at Rome, therefore, of which indeed there is no reason to doubt, he must have come there after Paul; at what time is unknown. That he was there cannot be doubted without calling in question the truth of all history.

When, or by whom, the gospel was first preached at Rome, it is not easy, perhaps not possible, to determine. In the account of the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10), we find, among others, that there were present strangers of Rome; and it is not improbable that they carried back the knowledge of Jesus Christ and became the founders of the Roman church.

One design and effect of that miracle was doubtless to spread the knowledge of the Savior among all nations. (See Barnes' Notes on Acts chapter 2). In the list of persons mentioned in Romans chapter 16, it is not improbable that some of those early converts are included, and that Paul thus intended to show honor to their early conversion and zeal in the cause of Christianity.

Thus, in Romans 16:7, he designates Andronicus and Junia, his kinsmen and fellow prisoners, who were distinguished among the apostles and who had been converted before himself (i.e., before A.D. 34, at least eight years before it was ever pretended that Peter was at Rome). Other persons are also mentioned as distinguished, and it is not improbable that they were the early founders of the church at Rome (Romans 16:12–13 and following).

That the church at Rome was founded early is evident from the celebrity it had acquired. At the time when Paul wrote this epistle (A.D. 57), their faith was spoken of throughout the world (Romans 1:8).

The character of the church at Rome cannot be clearly ascertained. Yet it is clear that it was not made up merely of the lower classes of the community. In Philippians 4:22, it appears that the gospel had made its way to Caesar's family and that a part of his household had been converted to the Christian faith.

Some of the fathers affirm that Nero, in the beginning of his reign, was favorably impressed regarding Christianity; and it is possible that this might have been through the instrumentality of his family. But little on this subject can be known. While it is probable that the great mass of believers in all the early churches was of obscure and plebeian origin, it is also certain that some who were rich, noble, and learned became members of the church of Christ (See 1 Timothy 2:9; 1 Peter 3:3; 1 Timothy 6:20; Colossians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 1:26; Acts 17:34).

This epistle has usually been considered the most difficult of interpretation of any part of the New Testament; and a significant part of the controversies in the Christian church has grown out of discussions about its meaning.

Early in the history of the church, even before the death of the apostles, we learn from 2 Peter 3:16 that some of Paul's writings were regarded as hard to be understood, and that the unlearned and unstable wrested them to their own destruction.

It is probable that Peter here refers to the high and mysterious doctrines about justification and the sovereignty of God, and the doctrines of election and decrees. From the epistle of James, it would also seem probable that the apostle Paul's doctrine of justification by faith had already been perverted and abused.

It seems to have been inferred that good works were unnecessary; and here was the beginning of the cheerless and withering system of Antinomianism—than which a more destructive or pestilential heresy never found its way into the Christian church. Several reasons might be assigned for the controversies that have grown out of this epistle:

1. The very structure of the argument and the peculiarity of the apostle's manner of writing. He is rapid, mighty, profound, often complex, readily following a new thought, leaving the regular subject, and returning again after a considerable interval. Hence his writings abound with parentheses and with complicated paragraphs.

2. Objections are often introduced, so that it requires close attention to determine their precise bearing. Though he employs a considerable part of the epistle in answering objections, an objector is never once formally introduced or mentioned.

3. His expressions and phrases are many of them liable to be misunderstood and capable of perversion. Of this class are such expressions as "the righteousness of faith," "the righteousness of God," etc.

4. The doctrines themselves are high and mysterious. They are those subjects on which the profoundest minds have in all ages been exercised in vain. On them, there has been, and always will be, a difference of opinion.

   Even with the most honest intentions that men ever have, they find it difficult or impossible to approach their investigation without the bias of early education or the prejudice of previous opinion. In this world, it is not given to men to fully understand these great doctrines. And it is not wonderful that their discussion has given rise to endless controversies, and that they who have

   Reasoned high
   Of Providence, foreknowledge, will, and fate—
   Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute—
   Have found no end, in wandering mazes lost.

5. It cannot be denied that one reason why Paul's epistles have been regarded as so difficult has been an unwillingness to admit the truth of the plain doctrines which he teaches. The heart is by nature opposed to them and comes to believe them with great reluctance. This feeling will account for a considerable part of the difficulties felt regarding this epistle.

   There is one great maxim in interpreting the Scriptures that can never be departed from: men can never understand them correctly until they are willing to allow them to speak out their fair and proper meaning. When men are determined not to find certain doctrines in the Bible, nothing is more natural than that they should find difficulties in it and complain much of its great obscurity and mystery. I add,

6. That one principal reason why so much difficulty has been felt here has been an unwillingness to stop where the apostle does. Men have desired to advance further and penetrate the mysteries which the Spirit of inspiration has not disclosed.

   Where Paul states a simple fact, men often advance a theory. The fact may be clear and plain; their theory is obscure, complex, mysterious, or absurd. By degrees, they learn to unite the fact and the theory; they regard their explanation as the only possible one. And as the fact in question has the authority of Divine revelation, they insensibly come to regard their theory in the same light; and he that calls in question their speculation about the cause or the mode is considered heretical and as denying the doctrine of the apostle.

   A melancholy instance of this we have in the account which the apostle gives (chapter 5) about the effect of Adam's sin. The simple fact is stated that that sin was followed by the sin and ruin of all his posterity. Yet he offers no explanation of the fact.

   He leaves it as unquestionable and as not demanding an explanation in his argument—perhaps as not admitting it. This is the whole of his doctrine on that subject. Yet men have not been satisfied with that. They have sought for a theory to account for it. And many suppose they have found it in the doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed, or set over by an arbitrary arrangement to beings otherwise innocent, and that they are held responsible for a deed committed by a man thousands of years before they were born.

   This is the theory; and men insensibly forget that it is mere theory. They blend that and the fact which the apostle states together and deem the denial of the one heresy as much as the denial of the other; that is, they make it as impious to call in question their philosophy as to doubt the facts stated on the authority of the apostle Paul.

   If men desire to understand the epistles of Paul and avoid difficulties, they should be willing to leave it where he does; and this single rule would have made useless whole years and whole tomes of controversy.

Perhaps, on the whole, there is no book of the New Testament that more demands a humble, docile, and prayerful disposition in its interpretation than this epistle. Its profound doctrines, its abstruse inquiries, and the opposition of many of those doctrines to the views of the unrenewed and unsubdued heart of man, make a spirit of docility and prayer peculiarly needful in its investigation.

No man ever yet understood the reasonings and views of the apostle Paul but under the influence of elevated piety. None ever found opposition to his doctrines recede, and difficulties vanish, who did not bring the mind in a humble frame to receive all that has been revealed, and who, in a spirit of humble prayer, did not purpose to lay aside all bias and open the heart to the full influence of the elevated truths which he inculcates.

Where there is a willingness that God should reign and do all His pleasure, this epistle may be, in its general character, easily understood. Where this is wanting, it will appear full of mystery and perplexity; the mind will be embarrassed, and the heart dissatisfied with its doctrines; and the unhumbled spirit will rise from its study only confused, irritated, perplexed, and dissatisfied.

Verse 2. Which he had promised afore. Which gospel, or which doctrines, He had announced before.

By his prophets. The word prophets here is used to include those who wrote as well as those who spoke. It included the teachers of the ancient Jews generally.

In the holy Scriptures. In the writings of the Old Testament. They were called holy because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit and were regarded as separated from all other writings and worthy of all reverence. The apostle here declares that he was not about to advance anything new. His doctrines were in accordance with the acknowledged oracles of God. Though they might appear to be new, yet he regarded the gospel as entirely consistent with all that had been declared in the Jewish dispensation; and not only consistent, but as actually promised there. He affirms, therefore:

1. That all this was promised, and a considerable part of the epistle is employed to show this.

2. That it was confirmed by the authority of holy and inspired men.

3. That it depended on no vague and loose tradition, but was recorded, so that men might examine for themselves.

The reason why the apostle was so anxious to show that his doctrine coincided with the Old Testament was because the church at Rome was made up in part of Jews. He wished to show them, and the remainder of his countrymen, that the Christian religion was built on the foundation of their prophets and their acknowledged writings. By so doing, he would disarm their prejudice and furnish proof of the truth of religion. It was a constant position with the apostle that he advanced nothing but what was maintained by the best and holiest men of the nation: Acts 26:22–23, Saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come, etc.

There was a further reason here for his appealing so much to the Old Testament. He had never been at Rome. He was therefore personally a stranger, and it was proper for him then especially to show his regard for the doctrines of the prophets. Hence he appeals here so often to the Old Testament and defends every point by the authority of the Bible. The particular passages of the Old Testament on which he relied will come before us in the course of the epistle. See particularly chapters 3, 4, 9, 10, and 11.

We may see here:

1. The reverence which Paul showed for the Old Testament. He never undervalued it. He never regarded it as obsolete or useless. He clearly studied it and never fell into the impious opinion that the Old Testament is of little value.

2. If these things were promised—predicted in the Old Testament, then Christianity is true. Every passage which he cites is therefore proof that it is from God.

Concerning his Son. This is connected with the first verse, with the word gospel. The gospel of God concerns His Son. The purpose of the gospel was to communicate information about His Son, Jesus Christ. This is the whole of it. There is no good news for humanity regarding salvation except that which comes through Jesus Christ.

Which was made. The word translated was made usually means to be, or to become. It is used, however, in the sense of being born. Thus, Galatians 4:4 says, God sent forth his Son made of a woman, meaning born of a woman. In John 8:58, Before Abraham was [born], I am. It seems to be used in this sense here—meaning He was born, or descended, from the seed of David.

Of the seed of David. Of the posterity or lineage of David. He was a descendant of David. David was perhaps the most illustrious of the kings of Israel. The promise to him was that a man would not fail to sit on his throne (1 Kings 2:4; 1 Kings 8:25; 1 Kings 9:5; 2 Chronicles 6:16).

This ancient promise was understood as referring to the Messiah. Therefore, in the New Testament, He is called the descendant of David, and much care is taken to show that He was of his lineage (Luke 1:27; Matthew 9:27; Matthew 15:22; Matthew 12:23).

Matthew 21:9, 15; Matthew 22:42, 45; John 7:42; 2 Timothy 2:8.

Since the Jews universally believed that the Messiah would be descended from David (John 7:42), it was very important for the sacred writers to clearly establish that Jesus of Nazareth was of that line and family. Consequently, although our Savior was humble, poor, and obscure, He nevertheless possessed what a significant part of the world has typically prided itself on—an illustrious ancestry. For a Jew, there could hardly be any honor higher than being descended from the best of their kings. This demonstrates how little the Lord Jesus valued the honors of this world, as He consistently showed deep humility in circumstances where people are usually proud. Furthermore, when He spoke of worldly honors and their insignificance, He was not condemning something that was beyond His own reach.

According to the flesh. The word flesh—Greek sarx—is used in the Scriptures with a great variety of meanings:

1. It denotes, as it does for us, the literal flesh of any living being. For example, Luke 24:39 states, A spirit hath not flesh and bones, etc.
2. The animal system, the body, including flesh and bones—the visible part of a human being, as distinct from the invisible part, or the soul. For instance, Acts 2:31 says, Neither did his flesh see corruption (his body). (See also 1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Corinthians 15:39).
3. The human being, the whole animated system, body and soul. For example, Romans 8:3: In the likeness of sinful flesh. (See also 1 Corinthians 15:50; Matthew 16:17; Luke 3:6).
4. Human nature. As a man. Thus, in Acts 2:30: God had sworn with an oath that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh, [i.e., in his human nature,] he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne. And Romans 9:5: Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.

This is its meaning here. He was a descendant of David in His human nature, or as a man. This implies, of course, that He had another nature besides His human one; or that, while He was a man, He was also something else—that there was a nature in which He was not descended from David. That this is its meaning will become even clearer from the following observations:

1. The apostle expressly makes a contrast between His condition according to the flesh and His condition according to the spirit of holiness.
2. The expression, according to the flesh, is applied to no one else in the New Testament but Jesus Christ. Although the word flesh often occurs and is often used to denote a human being, the peculiar expression according to the flesh occurs in no other connection.

Nor is such an expression ever used anywhere else. If it were applied to a mere man, we would instantly ask, in what other way could he come than in the flesh? Does he have a higher nature? Is he an angel or a seraph? The expression would be meaningless. Therefore, when it is applied to Jesus Christ, it implies, if language has any meaning, that there was a sense in which Jesus was not descended from David. What that was appears in the next verse.

And declared. In the margin, determined. tou orisyentov. The ancient Syriac has, "And he was known to be the Son of God by might and by the Holy Spirit, who rose from the house of the dead." The Latin Vulgate, "Who was predestinated the Son of God," etc.

The Arabic, "The Son of God destined by power peculiar to the Holy Spirit," etc. The word translated "declared to be" means, properly, to bound, to fix limits to, as to a field, to determine its proper limits or boundaries, to define, etc. Acts 17:26, And hath determined the bounds of their habitation. Hence it means, to determine, constitute, ordain, decree; i.e., to fix or designate the proper boundaries of a truth, or a doctrine; to distinguish its lines and marks from error; or to show or declare a thing to be so by any action.

Luke 22:22, The Son of man goeth as it was determined, as it was fixed, purposed, defined, in the purpose of God, and declared in the prophets. Acts 2:23, Him being delivered by the determinate counsel, the definite, constituted will, or design of God. Acts 4:28; Hebrews 4:7, He limiteth a certain day, fixes it, defines it.

In this sense it is clearly used in this place. The act of raising Him from the dead designated Him, or constituted Him the Son of God. It was such an act as in the circumstances of the case showed that He was the Son of God in regard to a nature which was not according to the flesh. The ordinary resurrection of a man, like that of Lazarus, would not show that he was the Son of God; but in the circumstances of Jesus Christ it did; for He had claimed to be so; He had taught it; and God now attested the truth of His teaching by raising Him from the dead.

The Son of God. The word son is used in a great variety of senses, denoting literally a son, then a descendant, posterity near or remote, a disciple or ward, an adopted son, or one that imitates or resembles another. (See Barnes on Matthew 1:1).

The expression sons of God, or son of God, is used in an almost equal latitude of signification. It is:

1. Applied to Adam, as being immediately created by God, without an earthly father (Luke 3:38).
2. It is applied to saints or Christians, as being adopted into His family, and sustaining to Him the relation of children (John 1:12–13; 1 John 3:1–2, etc.). This name is given to them because they resemble Him in their moral character (Matthew 5:45).
3. It is given to strong men as resembling God in strength. Genesis 6:2, The sons of God saw the daughters of men, etc. Here these men of violence and strength are called sons of God, just as the high hills are called hills of God, the lofty trees of Lebanon are called cedars of God, etc.
4. Kings are sometimes called His sons, as resembling Him in dominion and power (Psalms 82:6).
5. The name is given to angels, because they resemble God; because He is their Creator and Father, etc. (Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Daniel 3:25).

But the name THE Son of God is, in the New Testament, given by way of eminence to the Lord Jesus Christ. This was the common and favorite name by which the apostles designated Him. The expression Son of God is applied to Him no less than twenty-seven times in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and fifteen times in the Epistles and the Revelation.

The expression my Son, and His Son, your Son, etc., is applied to Him in His peculiar relation to God, times almost without number. The other most common appellation which is given to Him is Son of man. By this name He commonly designated Himself. There can be no doubt that that was assumed to denote that He was a man, that He sustained a peculiar relation to man, and that He chose to speak of Himself as a man.

The first, the most obvious, impression on the use of the name Son of man is, that He was truly a man; and it was used, doubtless, to guard against the impression that one who manifested so many other qualities, and did so many things like a celestial being, was not truly a human being.

The phrase Son of God stands in contrast with the title Son of man; and as the natural and obvious import of that is that He was a man, so the natural and obvious import of the title Son of God is that He was Divine; or that He sustained relations to God, designated by the name Son of God, corresponding to the relations which He sustained to man, designated by the name Son of Man.

The natural idea of the term Son of God therefore is, that He sustained a relation to God in His nature which implied more than was human or angelic; which implied equality with God. Accordingly, this idea was naturally suggested to the Jews by His calling God His Father: John 5:18, But said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. This idea Jesus immediately proceeded to confirm.

(See Barnes on John 5:19) and John 5:20-30. The same idea is also suggested in John 10:29-31, 33, 36, Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest: because I said I am the Son of God? There is, in these places, the fullest proof that the title suggested naturally the idea of equality with God; or the idea of His sustaining a relation to God corresponding to the relation of equality to man, suggested by the title Son of man.

This view is still further sustained in the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 1:1–2). GOD HATH SPOKEN UNTO US BY HIS SON. He is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person (Hebrews 1:3). He is higher than the angels, and they are required to worship Him (Hebrews 1:4–6).

He is called God, and His throne is for ever and ever (Hebrews 1:8). He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and is IMMUTABLY THE SAME (Hebrews 1:10–12). Thus the rank, or title, of the Son of God, suggests the ideas and attributes of the Divinity. This idea is sustained throughout the New Testament.

See John 14:9, He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;John 5:23, That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father.Colossians 1:19, It hath pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;Colossians 2:9, For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Philippians 2:2–11; Revelation 5:13–14; Revelation 21:23).

It is not affirmed that this title was given to the Second Person of the Trinity before He became incarnate, or to suggest the idea of any derivation or extraction before He was made flesh. There is no instance in which the appellation is not conferred to express the relation after He assumed human flesh.

Of any derivation from God, or emanation from Him in eternity, the Scriptures are silent. The title is conferred on Him, it is supposed, with reference to His condition in this world as the Messiah. And it is conferred, it is believed, for the following reasons, or to denote the following thing, namely:

1. To designate His peculiar relation to God, as equal with Him (John 1:14, 18; Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22; Luke 3:22; 2 Peter 1:17), or as sustaining a most intimate and close connection with Him, such as neither man nor angels could do—an acquaintance with His nature (Matthew 11:27), plans, and counsels, such as no being but one who was equal with God could possess. In this sense I regard it as conferred on Him in the passage under consideration.
2. It designates Him as the anointed King, or the Messiah. In this sense it accords with the use of the word in Psalm 82:6. See Matthew 16:16, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.Matthew 26:63, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.Mark 14:61; Luke 22:70; John 1:34; Acts 9:20, He preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
3. It was conferred on Him to denote His miraculous conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Luke 1:35, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, THEREFORE (dio) also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

With power. en dunamei. By some, this expression has been supposed to mean in power or authority, after His resurrection from the dead. It is said, that He was before a man of sorrows; now He was clothed with power and authority. But I have seen no instance in which the expression in power denotes office, or authority.

It denotes physical energy and might—and this was bestowed on Jesus before His resurrection as well as after. Acts 10:38, God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power. (Romans 15:19; 1 Corinthians 15:43). With such power Jesus will come to judgment (Matthew 24:30). If there is any passage in which the word power means authority, office, etc., it is Matthew 28:18, All power in heaven and earth is given unto me. But this is not a power which was given unto Him after His resurrection, or which He did not possess before.

The same authority to commission His disciples He had exercised before this on the same ground (Matthew 10:7–8). I am inclined to believe, therefore, that the expression means powerfully, efficiently; He was with great power, or conclusiveness, shown to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead.

Thus the phrase in power is used to qualify a verb in Colossians 1:29, Which worketh in me mightily—Greek, in power i.e., operating in me effectually, or powerfully. The ancient versions seem to have understood it in the same way. Syriac, "He was known to be the Son of God by power, and by the Holy Ghost." Ethiopic, "Whom He declared to be the Son of God by His own power, and by His Holy Spirit," etc. Arabic, "Designated the Son of God by power appropriate to the Holy Spirit."

According to the spirit of holiness. kata pneuma agiwsunhv. This expression has been variously understood. We may arrive at its meaning by the following considerations:

1. It is not the Third Person in the Trinity that is referred to here. The designation of that person is always in a different form. It is the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost—pneuma agion, or to pneuma to agion; never the Spirit of holiness.
2. It stands in contrast with the flesh (Romans 1:3), According to the flesh, the seed of David: according to the spirit of holiness, the Son of God. As the former refers doubtless to His human nature, so this must refer to the nature designated by the title Son of God, that is, to His superior or Divine nature.
3. The expression is altogether peculiar to the Lord Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Scriptures, or in any other writings, is there an affirmation like this. What would be meant by it if affirmed of a mere man?
4. It cannot mean that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity, showed that Jesus was the Son of God by raising Him from the dead, because that act is nowhere attributed to Him. It is uniformly ascribed either to God, as God (Acts 2:24, 32; Acts 3:15, 26; Acts 4:10; Acts 5:30; Acts 10:40; Acts 13:30, 33-34; Acts 17:31; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:20), or to the Father (Romans 6:4), or to Jesus Himself (John 10:18). In no instance is this act ascribed to the Holy Ghost.
5. It indicates a state far more elevated than any human dignity, or honor. In regard to His earthly descent, He was of a royal race; in regard to the Spirit of holiness, much more than that, He was the Son of God.
6. The word Spirit is used often to designate God, the holy God, as distinguished from all the material forms of idol worship (John 4:24).
7. The word Spirit is applied to the Messiah in His more elevated or Divine nature. 1 Corinthians 15:45, The last Adam was made a quickening Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3:17, Now the Lord (Jesus) is that Spirit.Hebrews 9:14, Christ is said to have offered himself through the eternal Spirit. 1 Peter 3:18, He is said to have been put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. 1 Timothy 3:16, He is said to have been justified in the Spirit. In most of these passages there is the same contrast noticed between His flesh, His human nature, and His other state, which occurs in Romans 1:3-4.

In all these instances, the design is, doubtless, to speak of Him as a man, and as something more than a man; He was one thing as a man; He was another thing in His other nature. In the one, He was of David; was put to death, etc. In the other, He was of God; He was manifested to be such; He was restored to the elevation which He had sustained before His incarnation and death (John 17:1–5; Philippians 2:2–11).

The expression, according to the spirit of holiness, does not indeed of itself imply Divinity. It denotes that holy and more exalted nature which He possessed as distinguished from the human. What that is, is to be learned from other declarations. This expression implies simply that it was such as to make proper the appellation, the Son of God.

Other places, as we have seen, show that that designation naturally implied Divinity. And that this was the true idea couched under the expression, according to the spirit of holiness, appears from those numerous texts of Scripture which explicitly assert His Divinity. See John 1:1 and following, and (See Barnes on John 1:1).

By the resurrection from the dead. This has been also variously understood. Some have maintained that the word by—ex—denotes AFTER. He was declared to be the Son of God in power after He rose from the dead; that is, He was solemnly invested with the dignity that became the Son of God after He had been so long in a state of voluntary humiliation. But to this view there are some insuperable objections:

1. It is not the natural and usual meaning of the word by.
2. It is not the object of the apostle to state the time when the thing was done, or the order, but evidently to declare the fact, and the evidence of the fact. If such had been His design, He would have said, that previous to His death He was shown to be of the seed of David, but afterwards that He was invested with power.
3. Though it must be admitted that the preposition by ex sometimes means AFTER (Matthew 19:20; Luke 8:27; Luke 23:8), yet its proper and usual meaning is to denote the efficient cause, or the agent, or origin of a thing (Matthew 1:3, 18; Matthew 21:25; John 3:5; Romans 5:16; Romans 11:36).

Of him are all things. 1 Corinthians 8:6, One God, the Father, of whom are all things, etc. In this sense I suppose it is used here; and that the apostle means to affirm that He was clearly or decisively shown to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead.

But here it will be asked, how did His resurrection show this? Was not Lazarus raised from the dead? And did not many saints rise also after Jesus? And were not the dead raised by the apostles, by Elijah, by the bones of Elisha, and by Christ Himself? And did their being raised prove that they were the sons of God?

I answer, that the mere fact of the resurrection of the body proves nothing in itself about the character and rank of the being that is raised. But in the circumstances in which Jesus was placed it might show it conclusively. When Lazarus was raised, it was not in attestation of anything which He had taught or done. It was a mere display of the power and benevolence of Christ. But, in regard to the resurrection of Jesus, let the following circumstances be taken into the account:

1. He came as the Messiah.
2. He uniformly taught that He was the Son of God.
3. He maintained that God was His Father in such a sense as to imply equality with Him (John 5:17–30; John 10:36).
4. He claimed authority to abolish the laws of the Jews, to change their customs, and to be Himself absolved from the observance of those laws, even as His Father was (John 5:1–17; Mark 2:28).

When God raised Him up, therefore, it was not an ordinary event. It was a public attestation, in the face of the universe, of the truth of His claims to be the Son of God. God would not sanction the doings and doctrines of an impostor. And when, therefore, He raised up Jesus, He, by this act, showed the truth of His claims, that He was the Son of God.

Further; in the view of the apostles, the resurrection was intimately connected with the ascension and exaltation of Jesus. The one made the other certain. And it is not improbable that, when they spoke of His resurrection, they meant to include not merely that single act, but the entire series of doings of which that was the first, and which was the pledge of the elevation and majesty of the Son of God.

Hence, when they had proved His resurrection, they assumed that all the others would follow. That involved and supposed all. And the series, of which that was the first, proved that He was the Son of God. See Acts 17:31: He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given ASSURANCE, unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. The one involves the other.

See Acts 1:6. Thus Peter (Acts 2:22–32), having proved that Jesus was raised up, adds (Acts 2:33), THEREFORE being by the right hand exalted, he hath shed forth this, etc.; and (Acts 2:36), THEREFORE let all the house of Israel KNOW ASSUREDLY, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, Both LORD AND CHRIST.

This verse is a remarkable instance of the apostle Paul's manner of writing. Having mentioned a subject, his mind seems to catch fire; he presents it in new forms, and amplifies it, until he seems to forget for a time the subject on which he was writing. It is from this cause that his writings abound so with parentheses, and that there is so much difficulty in following and understanding him.

By whom. The apostle here returns to the subject of the salutation of the Romans, and states to them his authority to address them. That authority he had derived from the Lord Jesus, and not from man. On this fact, that he had received his apostolic commission not from man, but by the direct authority of Jesus Christ, Paul often insisted. Galatians 1:12, For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:1–8; Ephesians 3:1–3.

We. The plural here is probably used for the singular. See Colossians 4:3.

Compare Ephesians 6:19-20. It was usual for those who were clothed with authority to express themselves in this manner. Perhaps here, however, he refers to the general nature of the apostolic office, as being derived from Jesus Christ, and intends to assure the Romans that he had received the apostolic commission as the others had. "We, the apostles, have received the appointment from Jesus Christ."

Grace and apostleship. Many suppose that this is a figure of speech, hendiadys, by which one thing is expressed by two words, meaning the grace or favour of the apostolic office. Such a figure of speech is often used. But it may mean, as it probably does here, the two things: grace, or the favour of God to his own soul, as a personal matter; and the apostolic office as a distinct thing. He often, however, speaks of the office of the apostleship as a matter of special favour, Romans 15:15–16; Galatians 2:9; Ephesians 3:7–9.

For obedience to the faith. In order to produce or promote obedience to the faith; that is, to induce people to render that obedience to God which faith produces. Two things are therefore implied:

1. That the design of the gospel and of the apostleship is to induce people to obey God.
2. That the tendency of faith is to produce obedience. There is no true faith which does not produce that. This is constantly affirmed in the New Testament, Romans 15:18; Romans 16:19; 2 Corinthians 7:15; James 2:1.

Among all nations. This was the original commission which Jesus gave to his apostles, Mark 16:15–16; Matthew 28:18–19.

This was the special commission which Paul received when he was converted, Acts 9:15. It was important to show that the commission extended this far, as he was now addressing a distant church which he had not seen.

For his name. This probably means on his account; that is, on account of Christ, John 14:13–14; John 16:23–24.

The design of the apostleship was to produce obedience to the gospel among all nations, so that the name of Jesus might be honoured. Their work was not one in which they were seeking to honour themselves, but it was solely for the honour and glory of Jesus Christ. For him they toiled, they encountered perils, they laid down their lives, because by doing so they might bring people to obey the gospel, and thus Jesus Christ might wear a brighter crown, and be attended by a longer and more splendid train of worshippers in the kingdom of his glory.