any works which the law demands; epya Oɛou means, such works as God requires; and in cases of this nature it will not be said, I trust, that God and his law do not require any thing but external works.

(7) Τοῖς μὲν.... αἰώνιον, to those who by patient continuance or perseverance in well doing, seek for glory and honour and immortality, or immortal glory and honour, [he will render] eternal life or happiness.— Ὑπομενήν means perseverance or patient continuance.—Κατά, before the Accusative, frequently designates the modus in which any thing is done, or the state and condition in which it is; e. g. karà rákır, κατὰ ζῆλον, κατὰ γνῶσιν, &c.—Έργου here has the epithet ἀγαθοῦ in order to distinguish it from the generic pya used in the preceding

verse.

Δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν καὶ ἀφθαρσίαν is cumulative or intensive; i.e. it expresses happiness or glory of the highest kind. We may translate the phrase thus: immortal glory and honour, making ap0apoiar an adjective to the other nouns ; or we may render it, glorious and honourable immortality, or honourable and immortal glory. I prefer the first. The idea is indeed substantially the same in all; but all do not seem equally congruous, as to the method of expression. The joining of run and dóža, in order to express intensity, is agreeable to a usage which is frequent in the New Testament; e.g. 1 Tim. i. 17. Heb. ii. 7, 9. 2 Pet. i. 17. Apoc. iv. 9, 11. So the Hebrew

The μέν at the beginning of the verse is the μὲν προτάσεως, i. e. μέν designating the protasis in a sentence; the dródoσiç here is ver. 8, which commences with dé apodotic, i.e. marking the apodosis, and standing as the counterpart of μév in ver. 7.

(8) Toìç dè ¿1⁄2 épilɛías, but to those who are contentious. 'Ek (¿§) before the Genitive of a noun, is often employed as an adjective in designating some particular description of persons or things. Thus ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ = οὐράνιος· ἡ ἐκ φύσεως, natural; τὸν ἐκ πίστεως, credens ; ὁ ἐξ ὑμῶν, yours; οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς, the circumcised ; so the classical οἱ ἐκ σTоãs, &c. The apostle means here to designate those who contend against God, or rebel against him. The Seventy use ¿pɛ0íw in order to translate, Deut. xxi. 20. xxxi. 27. What it means, moreover, is explained in the next clause by απειθοῦσι.

Καὶ ἀπειθοῦσι . . . . ἀδικίᾳ, and are disobedient to the truth, but obedient to unrighteousness. Here (in a subordinate member of the apodosis of the sentence begun in ver. 7) is a second μév protatic and ce apodotic. The contrast of the two respective clauses in which they stand, is made very plain by ἀπειθοῦσι and πειθομένοις. The

exact expression of this μév and dé, cannot be made out by any translation which the English language will permit. We have no words capable of designating such nice shades of relation as μév and dé signify here, and in like cases; shades very plain and palpable, indeed, to the practised critic in Greek, but such an one is still left without the power of expressing them in his own vernacular language. I have not in this case attempted an exact translation, for the reason just mentioned. The nearest to the original that I am able to come, is by the following version: And those who disobey indeed the truth, but obey unrighteousness. How imperfect an exhibition this is of the nicer colouring of the Greek expression, every one must feel who has σε διὰ τὴν ἕξιν τὰ αἰσθητήρια γεγυμνασμένα προς διάκρισιν.”

Αληθείᾳ here means true doctrine. As the proposition of the apostle is general here, i. e. as it respects all, whether Jews or Gentiles, who disobey the precepts of religion and morality, so áλnoɛią must be taken in a latitude that embraces the truths of both natural and revealed religion. On the other hand ȧdikią means that which is unrighteous, that which the truth forbids, it being here (as in i. 18) the antithesis of ἀληθείᾳ.

Ὀργὴ καὶ θύμος, indignation and wrath. Ammonius says, θύμος μέν ἐστι πρόσκαιρος, ὀργὴ δὲ πολυχρόνιος μνησικακία, i. e. θύμος is of short duration, but opyn is a long-continued remembrance of evil. I apprehend, however, that in the case before us, the expression is merely intensive; which (as usual) is effected by the accumulation of synonymous terms. In respect to the construction of these nouns in the Nominative case, it is an evident departure from the structure in the preceding verse, where wv aiwviov is in the Accusative governed by ἀποδώσει understood. Here ὀργὴ καὶ θύμος are the Nominative to GovTaι implied. Such departures in the latter portion of a sentence, from a construction employed in the former part of it, grammarians call ávaкóλov✪ov* which means, that a construction begun, is not followed up or completed in the like manner.

(9) Θλίψις καὶ στενοχωρία are words which correspond to ὀργὴ καὶ θύμος, and designate the effects of the latter. The meaning is, intense anguish, great suffering. It is evident, at first sight, that the 9th verse is a repetition of the general sentiment contained in ver. 8; while the 10th verse repeats the sentiment of ver. 7. This repetition, however, is evidently introduced with the design of making a specific application, and of shewing definitely whom the apostle means to include in what he had said.

I

The construction in ver. 8 is here followed; inasmuch as tσortaι is plainly implied after θλίψις καὶ στενοχωρία. These two words, used in the way of expressing intensity, are often joined by classic writers;

צְרָה וְצוּקָה and so in Hebrew we have

Ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ἀνθρώπου, [great distress shall be] upon every soul of man, i. e. upon every man. In Hebrew, the soul of the righteous, of the wicked, of the poor, of the rich, of the hungry, of the thirsty, &c., means the righteous, the wicked, &c. So here, the soul of man means man. - Ἰουδαίου . . . . Ἕλληνος, first of the Jew, and then of the Greek; i. e. the Jew, to whom a revelation has been imparted, shall be judged and punished first in order, because he sustains a peculiar relation to revealed truth which calls for this; compare i. 16. Here the apostle comes out, and openly shews, that what he had been thus far saying only in general terms, is applicable to Jews as well as to Greeks.

(10) Δόξα δὲ . . . . Ἕλληνι, but glory and honour and peace to every one who doeth good, first to the Jew and then to the Greek. That is, both threatenings and rewards are held out to Jews and Greeks, in the same manner and on the same condition. With God there is no Tроσwπоλnia. This verse is a repetition of ver. 7, with the addition οἱ Ἰουδαίου τε πρῶτον καὶ Ἕλληνος. But here εἰρήνη is substituted for ἀφθαρσίαν there. We might translate, but happiness glorious and honourable, &c. The meaning of the whole is plain. Intensity of description or affirmation is intended.

(11) Oỷ yàp .... Oεw, for with God there is no partiality, or no respect of persons. The Hebrew means, to deal partially, to look not at things but at persons, and pass sentence accordingly. The phrases πρόσωπον λαμβάνειν or βλέπειν, and also προσωποληψία, are entirely Hebraistic in their origin; the classic writers never employ them. The apostle here explicitly declares, that there is no difference in regard to the application of the general principle which he had laid down, the Jew as well as the Greek being the proper subject of it. The yap at the beginning of the verse is yáp confirmantis.

(12) A confirmation or explanation of what he had said in the preceding verse; for if God judges every man according to the advantages which he has enjoyed, then there is no partiality in his proceedings; and that he does, the present verse explicitly declares.

Όσοι γὰρ .... ἀπολοῦνται, since as many as have sinned without a revelation, shall perish without a revelation. Nóμos, like the Hebrew in, often means the Scriptures, the revealed law; e. g. Matt. xii. 5. xxii. 36. Luke x. 26. John viii. 5, 17. 1 Cor. xiv. 21. Gal. iii. 10.

Matt. v. 18. Luke xvi. 17. John vii. 49, et alibi. Here most plainly it means the revealed law, revelation, or the Scriptures; for ver. 15 asserts directly that the heathen were not destitute of all law, but only of an express revelation. The classical sense of avóμws would be unlawfully, = παρανόμως. But plainly this meaning is here out of question.

'Avóμwç άлоλоuvraι means, that when adjudged to be punished, they shall not be tried by the precepts of a revealed law, with which they have never been acquainted; but by the precepts of the law of nature, which were written on their own hearts; see ver. 15.

...

Καὶ ὅσοι . . . . κριθήσονται, and so many as have sinned under revelation, will be condemned by revelation. Here vópos is employed in the sense pointed out in the preceding paragraphs. Ἐν νόμῳ—with ἐν conditionis, as we may call it; for én is often put before nouns designating the state, condition, or relation of persons or things; see Bretschn. Lex. ¿v, No. 5. The sentiment is, that those who enjoyed the light of revelation (as the Jews had done), would be condemned by the same revelation, in case they had been transgressors.

(13) This declaration is followed by another which is designed to illustrate and confirm it, and which is therefore introduced with another γάρ, (γάρ illustrantis et confirmantis). Οὐ γὰρ .... δικαιwhoovrai, for not those who hear the law are just with God, but those who obey the law shall be justified; i. e. not those to whom a revelation has been imparted, and who hear it read, are counted as righteous by their Maker and Judge, but those who obey the law shall be counted righteous. The apostle here speaks of οἱ ἀκροαταὶ τοῦ νόμου, because the Jews were accustomed to hear the Scriptures read in public; but many of them did not individually possess copies of the sacred volume which they could read. The sentiment is: Not those who merely enjoy the external privilege of a revelation have any just claim to divine approbation; it is only those who obey the precepts of such a revelation, who have any ground to expect this.'

(14) To this sentiment the apostle seems to have anticipated that objections would be made. He goes on to solve them, or rather to prevent them by anticipation. He had said, that the doers of the law would be justified. It was natural for the Jew to reply and say: 'The Gentiles have no revelation; and therefore this statement cannot be applied to them, or this supposition cannot be made in relation to them.' The answer to this is, that the Gentiles have a law as really and truly as the Jews, although it is not written on parchment, but on the tablets of their hearts. Flatt refers vs. 14, 15 back to ver. 12, and

thinks that rar yap, к.7.λ. in ver. 14 stands as co-ordinate with oử yap, K. 7. A. in ver. 13. But Tholuck and Turretin construe the "rav yap, K. T.A. as I have done.

No,' says the

An objection to this has often been made, viz. that in this way we may represent the apostle as affirming, that there were some of the heathen who did so obey the law as to be just before God. But this is a mistake. The apostle no more represents the heathen as actually attaining to this justification here, than he represents the Jew as attaining to it in ver. 13. Surely he does not mean to say in ver. 13, that there are any Jews who are actually oinτai toυ vóμov in the sense which he attaches to this phrase; compare chap. iii. 19, 20, 23, 27, 30, 31. He is merely illustrating a principle, in both cases. The Jew expected justification on account of his external advantages. the apostle, this is impossible; nothing but entire obedience to the divine law will procure justification for you, so long as you stand merely on your own ground. And here the heathen may make the like claims. If you say that a heathen man has no law, because he has no revelation; still I must insist that he is in as good a condition to attain justification, as you Jews are; for although he has no Scripture, (and in this respect, no law), yet he has an internal revelation inscribed on his heart, which is a rule of life to him, and which, if perfectly obeyed, would confer justification on him, as well and as truly as entire obedience to the written law could confer it upon you. The principle is the same in both cases. You can claim no preeminence in this respect.'

It is plain, then, that the apostle is only laying down or illustrating a principle here, NOT relating a historical fact; and this being duly apprehended, all difficulty about the sentiment of the passage is removed. Certainly there is no more difficulty in ver. 14, than must arise in regard to the ποιηταὶ τοῦ νόμου of ver. 13. The writer means to say neither more nor less, than that the Gentiles may have the same kind of claims to be justified before God as the Jews, (which of course has an important bearing on ver. 11); but, as the sequel shews most fully, neither Jew nor Gentile has any claim at all, since both have violated the law under which they have lived.

....

Φύσει . . To, do in their natural state such things as revelation requires. duoc, in a classical sense, means the nature or natural state of a thing, the natural condition of any thing; just in the same way as we use the word nature, in our own language; e.g. the Greeks said, ὁ κατὰ φύσιν θάνατος, natural death; ὁ κατὰ φύσιν πατήρ, natural father: quo ixu yéresday, it naturally happens, &c. In the verse