Detached Notes to Chapter XII
I
Εἰρήνην ἔχομεν, "We have peace": Εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν, "Let us have peace." Which did St Paul write? On the whole, after long thought upon the evidence, we decide for the former reading. The documentary witness is strong for the latter. For those who place the great Uncial manuscripts in the place of practical decision, ἔχωμεν has a clear verdict in its favour. But the other class of copies, the Cursive, later on the whole than the Uncials, but probably often representing correction rather than corruption, are greatly in favour of ἔχομεν. The evidence of ancient Versions, and of quotations by early Christian writers, inclines on the whole for ἔχωμεν. But in the study of a reading the argument and context of course claim attention; for most surely the original reading, whatever it was, was pertinent. Now here the question of pertinence seems to us to lead to a decided verdict for ἔχομεν. The Apostle is engaged here altogether with assertion, instruction; exhortation is to come later. Through this whole paragraph he does nothing but assert facts and principles. Is it to be believed that he begins it with a disjointed exhortation?
In itself the exhortation would bear a meaning perfectly intelligible. "Let us have peace" would mean "Let us enjoy peace." So ἔχωμεν χάριν, Heb. xii. 28, means, practically, "Let us use grace." Neither exhortation would mean that we do not yet possess, in respect of the Lord's gift, "peace" and "grace" respectively. But, we repeat it, the context here seems decisive against the presence here of any exhortation. We want, logically, assertion.
The interchange of ω and ο in manuscripts is, as a fact, frequent.
See the case carefully considered, and decided for ἔχομεν, in Dr Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T., p. 625.
II
Καταλλάσσειν, Καταλλαγή. It is sometimes held that these words denote "reconciliation" in the sense of man's laying aside his distrust, reluctance, resistance towards God, not of God's laying aside His holy displeasure against man; and that for this latter idea, that of persuading an offended superior to grant peace, we should need the words διαλλάσσεσθαι (which we have Matt. v. 24, and in the Lxx. in e.g. 1 Sam. xxix. 4, where the English has, "Wherewith should he reconcile himself to his master?") and διαλλαγὴ (which does not occur in the N. T.). But καταλλαγὴ (and its verb) is as a fact used in the Greek of the Apocrypha in connexions where the thought is just that of the clemency of a king, induced to pardon. See e.g. 2 Macc. v. 20, where the English Version reads, "the great Lord being reconciled (ἐν τῇ καταλλαγῇ τοῦ μεγάλου Δεσπότου) [the temple] was set up." So 2 Macc. i. 5, where we have the prayer (English Version), "God be at one with you," καταλλαγείη ὑμῖν. Thus no elaborate distinction can safely be drawn between the two sets of compounds. And there is no place in the N. T. where the meaning, conciliation of an offended party, would not well suit καταλλάσσεσθαι, etc. The present passage (Rom. v. 10, 11) would be practically meaningless otherwise. The whole thought is of the divine mercy, providing a way for accepting grace. To "receive τὴν καταλλαγὴν" is a phrase which, by its very form as well as its connexion, points to the thought not of reluctance overcome but mercy found.
The word "atonement" (A.V., ver. 11) needs remark. It seems certain that its derivation is "at-one-ment" (See Skeat, Etymol. Dict., s.v.), though an etymological connexion with ver-söhnen, (Dutch, ver-zoenen) has been maintained (see Hofmeyr, The Blessed Life, p. 25). But as Trench remarks, (Synonyms of the N. T., s.v. καταλλαγὴ,) the usage of English has now long attached the idea of propitiation (ἱλασμὸς) to the word "atonement"; which should therefore be avoided as a rendering for καταλλαγή.
[63] Ἐκ πίστως: "out of faith." The phrase has often met us in the Greek before. It calls for various renderings in various contexts; that given above seems best to paraphrase it here.
[64] See detached note, p. 140, for an account of the various reading here, ἔχωμεν εἰρήνην, "Let us have peace."
[65] Ἐσχήκαμεν: "we have had," "we have got."
[66] Καυχᾶσθαι, καύχησις: see above ii. 23, iii. 27, iv. 2.
[67] Ὑπομονὴ is more than "patience." By usage it implies "patience in action"; "perseverance."
[68] It is quite possible, of course, to explain ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, grammatically, to mean "our love to God." And some, more mystically, explain it of God's faculty of love conveyed to us that we, with it, may love Him. But the following context, especially ver. 8, is clearly against such expositions. Verses 6-11 are in fact an explanation of the thought of ver. 5.
[69] The writer ventures to refer to his Commentary on Ephesians in The Cambridge Bible.
[70] Observe the aorist form of the participle.
[71] Ὑπὲρ is literally "over," and in itself imports simply "concern with"; as when we say that a man is busy "over" an important matter; as it were stooping over it, attending to it. Its special references depend altogether upon context and usage. In itself it neither teaches nor denies the doctrine of a vicarious and substitutionary work; ἀητὶ is the preposition which guarantees as true that great aspect of the Lord's death. But ὑπὲρ of course amply allows for such an application of its meaning, where the context suggests the idea.
[72] We incline more than formerly, though still with some doubt, to see a rising climax here, as indicated in the paraphrase, from δίκαιος to ὁ ἀγαθός.
[73] On the meaning of καταλλαγή see detached note, p. 141.
[74] Ἐλάβομεν: but the English perfect best represents the idea.