preeminence of the Jew? or what the advantage of circumcision? In the interrogations there is doubtless the embodiment of thoughts which would be regarded by the Apostle as probable objections to the doctrine, which, toward the conclusion of the second chapter, he had been engaged in inculcating. And thus, in proposing the interrogations, he wisely anticipates the objections to his doctrine, which some of his readers might be disposed to start. By anticipating them, he gets the opportunity of meeting and removing them.

In this anticipation, however, of possible and probable objections, the Apostle does not formally summon an objector into the arena of dispute; and consequently he does not formally transfer to the objector's mouth the queries which he proposes. Ewbank puts the case far too artificially when he says, "Here a Jewish objector starts up, and interrupts the argument." Taylor commits a still greater exaggeration, when he says of the Apostle," Here he "seasonably introduces a dialogue between himself and "the Jew, which," he adds, "would amuse, and, at the same "time, instruct the latter, and possibly cool his resentment: especially as the Apostle's answer to the first question is "much in his favour." Taylor accordingly supposes,-and he is followed by Macknight, Adam Clarke, and others,that it is a Jew who speaks in verses 1, 3, 5, 7, and the 1st clause of verse 9, while the Apostle, as he imagines, replies in verses 2, 4, 6, 8, and the 2nd clause of verse 9. Others arrange the dialogue in a somewhat different manner. Some, for instance, suppose that it is the Apostle who speaks in verse 1, and a Jew who replies in verses 2 and 3: the Apostle is supposed to speak again in verse 4, the Jew in verse 5, and the Apostle again in verse 6, &c. Heumann supposes that the dialogue extends to the close of verse 22. With respect to the first verse of the chapter, in particular, many critics, in addition to those already specified, have regarded it as spoken in the person of a Jewish objector, as, for example, Pelagius (ex persona Judæi interrogantis dicitur), Hunnius, Oertel, Walford. But it is far more in harmony with the Apostle's standpoint to

suppose, with Origen, that he anticipatingly proposes the interrogations to himself, (occurrens, proponit sibi ipsi). "He proposes to himself an objection," says Ecumenius, (ἀντιτίθησιν ἑαυτῷ). He proposes these things to himself by way of objection," says the scholiast in Matthæi, (avròç ἑαυτῷ ταῦτα ἀντιτίθησι). The best modern critics, such as de Wette, Fritzsche, Meyer, Philippi, Tholuck (in his 4th and 5th editions), Oltramare, are of the same opinion. There is no need for a formal refutation of the notion of Seb. Schmidt,-adopted by Ch. Schmid,-that the interrogations are proposed in the person of a Gentile zealot, who felt that he could not let the opportunity pass of glorying over the Jew, and asking exultingly, "What then is the superiority of the Jew? and what the advantage of circumcision?" There is nothing whatever to indicate the intrusion of such an exultatory element.

§ 3. What then is the preeminence-the prerogative-of the Jew? (Τί οὖν τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ιουδαίου ;) The illative particle then (ovv) connects the interrogation with the concluding statements of the preceding chapter. It is in these statements that we find the originating occasion of the interrogation. It is as if the Apostle were to say,But if indeed it be the case that it is the inward Jew who is the true Jew, and the inward Circumcision which is the true Circumcision;-if it be the case that the outward Uncircumcision of the Gentiles, who keep the statutes of the law, shall be counted to them for Circumcision, and that they shall condemn the outwardly circumcised transgressors of the law;-if all this be the case, then the question may be forcing itself upon the minds of not a few, -What is the prerogative of the (ethnological) Jew?What is the superior condition of the (ethnological) Jew? -Wherein consists the peculiar privilege or preeminence which we must ascribe to the (ethnological) Jew? The expression, which, with Calvin, Er. Schmid, H. A. Schott (in his 3rd and 4th editions), and others, we may freely render prerogative, (rò TEOLOσÓv), means surplus:- What is the surplus of the Jew? that is, What is the surplus of privilege

-

which belongs to the Jew? (Compare the Hebrew,,, The whole expression is well rendered by the Vulgate, "What therefore is there over and above to the Jew?" (Quid ergo amplius Judaeo est ?) It is translated in the Rhemes,-" What preeminence then hath the Jew?" Tyndale gives it,-"What preferment then hath the Jew?" The Eng. Geneva better, "What is then the preferment of the Jew?" Not so happily Coverdale, "What furtberaunce then have the Jewes?" Erasmus's version is, "What therefore hath the Jew in which he excels?" (Quid igitur habet in quo praecellat Judaeus?) Melancthon's, "In what therefore does the Jew excel?" (Qua igitur re antecellit Judaeus ?)

Knight translates the interrogation thus,-"What advantage, or use, then, was there of the Jew?"-that is -"What was the advantage of their calling?"-"What was the use of separating them at all as a nation from the mass of mankind?" He supposes that the question "points to the object of the calling of the Jews, in connection with God's intentions towards mankind, and as introductory to the proclamation of the Gospel; and not with reference to the advantage of their calling to the Jews themselves." He adds,-"St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Ecumenius, and Melancthon, are, I think, the only commentators who at all adopt this interpretation.” But not one of these commentators really adopts his interpretation: although Chrysostom and Melancthon run up the Apostle's query, very naturally, into this,- What reason had God for conferring peculiarities of prerogative upon the Jews, if these peculiarities involved after all no real privilege? Theophylact echoes Chrysostom. But Knight misquotes Ecumenius for Theodoret, who is quoted by Ecumenius. And he did not know that many other expositors express exactly the same ideas, as those quoted. by him from Chrysostom and Melancthon; as, for example, Musculus, Gualther, Grotius, Spener, Klee, Rückert, Gilpin. It ill became one who knew nothing of the host of German critics, and nothing of the Dutch and French, and but little even of others, whether ancient, medieval, or modern, to

say that he thinks the four expositors, whom he names, stand alone in their interpretation. His view, moreover, of the interpretation of his four precursors, and thus his view of the import of the Apostle's interrogation, is inconsistent with the possibilities of the inspired phraseology. The expression which we have freely rendered, preeminence or prerogative, (Tò TEρiσσóv), cannot possibly mean "advantage or use." It brings into view, as we have seen, the idea of surplus, or relative abundance. It may denote relative advantage; but it cannot denote use.

§ 4. or what the advantage of circumcision? (ŷ rís ú ὠφέλεια τῆς περιτομῆς;)-or what is the benefit of that ceremonial circumcision which is so distinguishing a characteristic of the (ethnological) Jew?-The Apostle subjoins to his first and chief interrogation this second and subordinate one in reference to circumcision, because circumcision was regarded as the principal badge of outward Judaism, and because he had occasion to specify it, in a prominent manner, in verses 25-29 of the preceding chapter. "Circumcision," says he, " verily profiteth ("pɛdɛī), if thou keep the law." (ver. 25.) It is no doubt, however, singled out and signalised representatively in the interrogation before us. It is as if the Apostle had said,—What is the benefit accruing to the Jews from all the peculiarities, which constitute them a separated people?

VERSE 2. Πολὺ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον. Πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ὅτι ἐπιστεύθησαν τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ.

Engl. Auth. Vers. Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Revised Version. Much in every respect. For, in the first place, they were intrusted with the oracles of God.

§ 1. The Apostle answers his own questions thus:Much in every respect, (Πολύ κατὰ πάντα τρόπον). The

gender of the adjective translated much is neuter, (πoλú), and some expositors, such as Meyer and van Hengel, suppose that, as such, it refers indifferently to the two objects, which are queried in the preceding verse, that is, both to the surplus of privilege belonging to the Jew, and to the benefit of ceremonial circumcision. Erasmus, on the other hand, conjectured—(inaniter et intempestive,— Este) that the word should be written, not as neuter, but as feminine (oλλ); supposing that its reference is exclusively to the second interrogation,—“ What is the benefit ( wpéλɛa) of circumcision?" In this conjecture he had been anticipated by at least one unimportant manuscript, viz. 120; and he has been followed by several of the obscurer editors of the text. In Bebelius's edition, for example, of 1535, and in Platter's of 1540, and in the Froschouiana edition of 1547, we read oλλý. According to Calvin, the second interrogation of the foregoing verse explains the meaning of the first and thus, in substantial agreement with the exegesis of Erasmus, he supposes that in the answer, "much in every respect," there is a predominating reference to the advantage of circumcision. A wider view, however, of the Apostle's reference is requisite. The neuter gender of the adjective (Todú) naturally leads the thought back to the neuter word in the first interrogation, (rò περiσoóv), the surplus (of privilege). And when the Apostle proceeds to disintegrate the "much," and to say "for, in the first place, they were intrusted with the oracles of God," we see that his mind was thinking rather of the Jews, in their personality, than of their ceremonial circumcision. And thus,-as in relation to the 29th verse of the preceding chapter, we may legitimately conclude that the idea of the second clause, concerning circumcision, becomes merged in the idea of the first, concerning the circumcised Jew. And hence the answer to the second query is implicitly involved in the explicit answer to the first:-The surplus of privilege belonging to the Jew-the preeminence of the Jew-is much.

When the Apostle says that the Jew's surplus of privilege is "much in every respect” (karà távra τpúπov), his