A TABLE OF REFERENCE

TO A FEW OF THE MORE SALIENT TOPICS CRITICALLY AND EXEGETICALLY ELUCIDATED IN THE FOLLOWING MONOGRAPH.

PAGE

1. "The oracles of God," rà λóyia Tou Dɛou, what?
2. 'ATTIOTEw, does it mean to be unfaithful, or to be unbe-

14

3. My yévoiтo not always to be translated, with propriety, God forbid!.

31

4. Πᾶς δὲ ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης. Is it the case that every man is a liar?

35

5. Kpívεodal, in verse 4, middle, not passive; and thus the Septuagint version vindicated,

41

80

6. Пlonowμev, in verse 8, how to be construed,

7. ПРОЕXОMEOA, in verse 9, does not mean, Are we better (than they)? but, Do we put forth pleas in our

own behalf?-Do we screen ourselves?

93-104

8. "Iva, in verse 20, means, in order that,

141

9. Yπódikos Tη Je does not mean guilty before God, but,

liable to pay penalty to God,..

147

10. Works of law, what does the expression mean?
11. Law,—the chief references, in the New Testament writ-

ings, of this several-sided term,

12. JUSTIFICATION.-The meaning of the word,
Its usage in the New Testament,
Its interpretation in the Patristic
writings,

Its interpretation by the Council

of Trent,

The classical importof δικαιόω, 179-189
Reason of the peculiar meaning

of Sikatów in New Testament, 189

154

156

163

JUSTIFICATION.The Hebrew synonyms of δικαιόω,
and the passages in which
they occur,

13. God's evangelical righteousness, what is it?
14. Πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, in verse 22, what does it mean?
15. Unto all, and upon all the believing, in verse 22. The
genuineness of the two clauses vindicated, and
their import discriminated,

16. Fallen short of the glory of God, -the meaning of the

expression,

EMPTION,

PAGE

190

. 207

219

224

312

17. 'АПОлYТPQZIZ, or REDEMPTION, what is it? 251-266 18. 'IAAΣTHPION, in verse 25,-what does it mean? 279-305 19. Christ's blood,-in what respect the object of faith, 20. The necessity of the propitiatory blood. It was needed "for demonstration of God's righteousness,"

21. ПАРEZIE or PRETERMISSION of sins committed before the death of Christ,-what is it?

22. The improper division of verses 25 and 26 by Robert Stephens,

314

323

23. "Just and the Justifier," Síkαιov Kai Sikaιouvтa. It should be translated "righteous even in justifying," 341

24. Legitimate and illegitimate "glorying,"

25. Rationale of the expression "law of faith,"

26. Whether should we read ouv or yάp in verse 28?

368

27. The explicit and implicit object of justifying faith, 28. Luther's "alone" in verse 28,

29. Solafidianism,

30. The rationale of the different prepositions in the expres sions ἐκ πίστεως and διὰ τῆς πίστεως,

31. The particle, in verse 29,-should it be translated or, or should it, as in our English version, remain untranslated?

32. Karapyśw, one of the Apostle's favourite words,—its meaning and manifold applications,

400

404

33. Should we read ἱστῶμεν or ἱστάνομεν in verse 311 34. The involution of sanctification in justification,

413

414

THE SUM OF

ROMANS, CHAPTER III.

INCLYTA JUDÆÆ QUAMVIS SIT GLORIA GENTIS,

CRIMINIBUS PENAS COMMERUERE TAMEN :

NON ETENIM PROSUNT DIVINE DOGMATA LEGIS; SOLA JUVAT MISEROS GRATIA LÆTA DEI.

RODOLPHUS GUALTHERUS

(Argumenta).

"ET AMANDA ET MAGNIFACIENDA EST GRAMMATICA

ENARRATIO VOCABULORUM, QUORUM USUS EST IN PRAE

CIPUIS LOCIS DOCTRINAE COELESTIS. ECCLESIA ENIM

INTERPRETATIONE SUA NON GIGNIT NOVA DOGMATA; SED QUE TRADITA ET PATEFACTA SUNT VOCE DIVINA, SCRUTATUR, DISCIT, ET ACCIPIT."-CHEMNITIUS.

(De Justificatione, Cap. iii.)

THE THIRD CHAPTER

OF

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

VERSE 1.—Τί οὖν τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου; ἢ τίς ἡ ὠφέλεια τῆς περιτομῆς;

English Authorized Version. What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Revised Version. What then is the preeminence of the Jew? or what the advantage of circumcision?

§ 1. Koppe thinks that the new chapter should not have commenced here. (Male hic novi capitis initium constituitur.) De Brais, long before, had expressed a similar opinion. These critics would undoubtedly be right in their idea, if we were to suppose that the division of the Epistle into chapters must represent the partition of its contents into exceedingly distinct sections. There is no such partition: and, probably, Hugo de Sancto Caro did not aim at very great precision in the way of effecting a correspondence between his capitular divisions and the logical groupings of the inspired text. His aim was, predominantly, one of convenience for purposes of reference.

§ 2. This first verse consists of two affiliated interrogations, the second echoing the first, but substituting a particular, instead of a general, idea:-What then is the

B