1848.] A second distinguishing mark. = 279 (1) The first clause here must impliedly include within itself that which the subsequent development and confirmation comprised in tò μèv zào x. 7. 2. contains. But according to this interpretation, both κατάκριμα and δικαίωμα are excluded, and all hangs merely upon έvós. (2) This exegesis makes diáέx, or the reverse. But διά marks the original cause, (and as the cause of the donua no one would think of Adam), and ex the occasion. In the first clause, Theophylact and Reiche anticipatively supply zò xaráxqua; Bengel, Tholuck, Köllner, prefer zò xoiua. Paul could not well have intended for a supplement here the principal assertion in v. 12, ǹ áμagría eis τὸν . . . ὁ θάνατος, because the idea of sin is already comprised in εἷς ἁμαρτήσας. Neither did he regard ὁ θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν as a supplement (Grotius, Estius, Koppe), because he thought here in an indefinite way of the consequences of having sinned, and intended afterwards to give a more particular explanation. Paul gives here merely the original cause; for he virtually repeats here what is said in v. 12, δι ̓ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου κ. τ. λ, merely substituting ἁμαρτήσαντος for ἀνgázov, because the idea of sin committed could not here be dispensed with. Beza deals arbitrarily here with the laws of grammar, since he converts into a substantive the whole clause, by prefixing ró. He however very nearly hits upon the true sense. This seems strictly to be as follows: And not like to that which took place through one that sinned, is the free gift. The word donua is more indefinite than zágoμa; and this corresponds well with the somewhat indefinite di ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ κρίμα . . . κατάκριμα, scil. ἐγένετο, judgment was by reason of one unto condemnation. Rothe's construction: zò μèv [scil. δι ̓ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος] γάρ ἐστι κρίμα, does not at all fit the passage. —Εξ ἑνός of course implies ἁμαρτήσαντος (Meyer), or else ανθρώпoν, comp. vs. 12, 15, 17. To make a complement here of άuagrypazos (Beza, Thol., Rothe) is forbidden by the laws of language, and by no means rendered necessary on account of the ἐκ πολλῶν παραzzoμárov, since the like contrast is presented between one sinner and many sins, as between one sin and many sins. Τὸ κρίμα . . . κατάκριμα Fritzsche explains thus: 'The forbidding of the fruit, and the sentence against Adam and all who sinned after him.' Reiche thus: The sentence against Adam, and that against his posterity.' Rückert (2) Thus: The one who had sinned was stricken by the divine sentence and the consequence thereof, viz. death; from him has gone forth sentence throughout all, and become a sentence of condemnation to all.' Theophylact: 'Sin, deservedly condemnable, flowing from one, Adam, became a matter of condem nation, i. e. of death, or of more sins, ever after to his posterity.' That zarázoua has reference to posterity, and that the sentiment is to be completed by an implied ἐγένετο and εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους, (which Meyer names anticipative), is certain from v. 18. One must comprise under it what lies in vs. 12, 19; and consequently not merely θάνατος (Reiche), but also ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν. Τὸ κρίμα cannot mean merely the prohibition before the fall, because ¿§ évós does not mean through one (Fritzsche), but from or out of one; and zoíua therefore is conceived of as something which had befallen Adam, and by reason of this had also befallen others. The sentiment of Reiche and Rückert, then, as given above, seems to be correct. Τὸ δὲ χάρισμα . . . εἰς δικαίωμα, scil. ἐγένετο. Χάρισμα again introduces the more definite idea of the gracious gift on account of the 8txaíopa, which is not to be understood as in v. 18 (Rothe), but as the opposite of xarázqua, with the meaning that attaches itself to the Pauline use of dixαiour, viz. sentence of absolution. It is parallel with the dixaiwots of v. 18, i. e. acquittal (Fritzsche).-Ex пohlar naоалTwμátov, springing from or occasioned by many offences, i. e. as the zarάxqua was incurred by men who sinned much, this gave occasion for the large manifestations of pardoning and justifying grace.-The second point of difference between Adam's influence and that of Christ consists in this, that in the first case sentence occasioned by one sinner became condemnation; in the second, the gracious gift in the way of justification was on the occasion of many sins. (V. 17.) Here Paul confirms (yág) the last thought of the preceding verse, ɛis dizaíoua (Fritzsche), inasmuch as he, by a conclusion like that in v. 15, renders prominent the glorious consequences of justification. At the same time, however, he brings to view a third point of difference between the influence of Adam and of Christ, viz. that of much greater dominion. Rothe denies this connection, and attaches v. 17 to v. 15, making v. 16 a parenthesis. It is decisive against this, that the ris dopeus ris dixαioovvns of v. 17 presupposes the εis dixaíoμa of v. 16, and connects itself with it. (Comp. Rückert.) Τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώμα. The various reading, ἐν (ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ παραπτώματι corresponds to the erroneous reading above, viz. άμαρTiparos for άuagrioarros, v. 16, and belongs to the same Codices, only here some other witnesses are wanting. On the other hand, A. has ἐν ἑνί, and Origen ἐν ἑνός. Lachmann reads arbitrarily, ἑνὶ παραπτώματι, which Koellner and Rothe approve. Meyer holds ἐν ἑνί as original, while Fritzsche supports the common Var. Lect. on account of consistency. Plainly tov irós is superfluous, on account of the fol 1848.] Reign of Death and of Grace. 281 lowing διὰ τοῦ ἑνός. The apostle, in the first place, employs τῷ τοῦ ivòs лαqanτóμarоs as corresponding to v. 15; then, as corresponding to δι ̓ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος and ἐξ ἑνός in v. 16, he employs διὰ τοῦ vós; the last particularly, because at the close of this investigation he wishes to make prominent the parallel between Adam and Christ. The contrasts, on the other hand, which he intends to bring particularly into view, are (1) By the offence of one (with the implied spread of its consequences)—and they who receive abundance of grace and the gift of justification. (2) Death reigned — they shall reign in life. Paul has put in contrast with τῷ τοῦ ἑνος παραπτώματι the opposite phrase τῇ περισσείᾳ, κ. τ. λ ; and in opposition to ὁ θάνατος ἐβασίλευσε he has not opposed (on Buoihevos, as we expect; but he has chosen another turn of expression which brings into view free moral personality, the predicates of which are life and dominion (Basılɛía), (comp. Rothe). The form of the conclusion is the same as in v. 15; and πολλῷ μᾶλλον is to be taken here as there. Οἱ . . . λαμβάνοντες is equivalent to οἱ πολλοὶ εἰς οὓς ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ κ. τ. λ, and of like import with ἐπερίσσευσε in v. 15, and καὶ τὸ χάρισμα εἰς δικαίωμα ἐγένετο in v. 16. The ή περισσεία answers to ἐπερίσσευσε; the τῆς χάριτος to the ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ, only that here, as in 1: 5, it is conceived of as an operation, or as something introduced and appropriated; 7ns dopeus is used as in v. 15, only with a meaning adapted to justification borrowed from the sentiment of v. 16. The omission of tns dopeas in B. 49. Orig., Chrys., al.; likewise the omission of tys dixaioovvns in C. 70* Orig. ; as also the various readings, τὴν δωρεάν and καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς καὶ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ; are all mere corrections for the sake of avoiding many Genitives. The connection of τῆς δωρεάς with τὴν περισσείων is proper on account of v. 15, and the common various reading gives a correct meaning. Οἱ λαμβάνοντες (pres. Part.), one might expect λάβοντες (Aor.), so Fritzsche, Meyer; but the Part. pres. here marks the continued appropriation of grace (Rothe).-Ev Con, the opposite of dávaros, and not merely the resurrection of the body is meant, but also a spiritual and moral resurrection; just as in the άvaros which is by sin (v. 12), a spiritual and moral death is included. Baotlevoovat is here employed, because in the contrasted clause we have ὁ θάνατος ἐβασίλευσε. However, the same expression is elsewhere (2 Tim. 2: 12), employed with the like meaning, i. c. to designate future happiness. The like in Rev. 20: 4: 22: 5, but there partly with reference to an objective Messianic kingdom, and partly in a subjective moral sense, because to reign implies the highest development of freedom and the highest gratification of every desire. (V. 18.) "Aqa ovv, a well known inference particle of Paul, and contrary to Greek usage placed at the beginning, (7: 3, 25. 8: 12, et saepe). It serves here as an introduction to the summing up of what precedes (vs. 16, 17). That it does not fall back upon v. 12 (Rothe), one may see from the words παράπτωμα and κατάκριμα (which are in vs. 16, 17). It is only in v. 19, that duagrohoi zaresráðŋo av looks back to the ἐφ ̓ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον of v. 12. After δι ̓ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος here, the supplement is commonly made of τὸ κρίμα ἐγένετο, (and so Rückert, Fritzsche); and after δι ̓ ἑνός δικαιώματος the supplement zò págioμa ¿yévero is regarded as implied. The better way is to supply the less definite éyévezo, anéßŋ, happened to, came to or upon. In the second clause, if a verb were supplied, it must be in the Future (Fritzsche); designedly therefore did the apostle omit the verb, so as to leave out the limitation of time, because he here extends his view to all, εἰς πάντας. Δι ̓ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος. To construe this as being of the masc. gender, (so do Koppe, Tholuck, Fritzsche), is against the idiom, and even against its conformity to v. 17, which joins the article with αqaлráμarı (Rothe), although the view of Koppe, etc., rests on a supposed conformity of the two passages. The same is true respecting di' ivòs dixαióμaros. This word is here employed in a sense different from that which it has in v. 16, and designates the opposite of лаqάлτшμα, i. e. righteous doing (Rev. 19: 8. Bar. 2: 19, not means of justification, Beza, Bengel), and is equivalent to vnaxoń in v. 19. (Meyer, sentence of acquittal; Rothe, fulfilment of justice, both erroneously). The word vлaxon refers to the death of Jesus, which was a proof of the most perfect obedience, and thereby was a moral action of the highest kind. Reiche and Fritzsche attach to the dixαıapatos here the idea of Jesus' incarnation, Phil. 2: 5 seq. The older theologians find their active obedience here, (Form. Concord. p. 684 seq.) Eis dixaiwoor Coons, to justification of life, i. e. to a justification which frees us from death, and makes us partakers of life. (V. 19.) Fág, before an explanatory sentence, as elsewhere in like way. The εἰς κατάκριμα of v. 18 is here explained by ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν, and the εἰς δικαίωσιν by δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται.— Αμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν, were made sinners. Αμαρτωλοί must here have its full meaning, i. e. that of active and then of suffering sinners. Chrys., Theophl., ὑπεύθυνοι κολάσει, erroneously. Καθιστάται means sistere, constituere, to present, to set forth, and then to make into something, 2 Pet. 1: 8. In the passive, to be made this or that, to become, without any exact parallel in the New Testament; for James 4: 4, 1848.] Culture of the Vine in the East. 283 xaviorarαι may be of the Middle Voice; pass. in Thucyd. II. 65 (Fritzsche). That it is altogether equivalent to yívεova (Phavorinus), is incorrect. It always means to be made something. On the other hand, one must not, with Grotius and Boehme, explain it as meaning they are treated as sinners; nor with Koppe, Reiche, and Fritzsche, they appear as sinners, viz. in consequence of the penalty of death coming upon them, (Fritz. "eorum mors eos peccavisse ostendit.") The simple thought is, They are become actual sinners; not merely through imputation, (Beza, Bengel). Comp. notes on v. 12. So in the after-clause, díxao xaraoradýoovrai, not, they shall be righteous; not, they shall be treated as righteous, but be made righteous be justified; and this, not through the imputation of active obedience of another, but in accordance with the usual idea of justification, i. e. pardoning mercy. The Fut. tense is employed here, as in 3: 30, because justification in respect to the many is not yet completed. Reiche refers it to the future revelation of the glory of Christians after the resurrection (?). ARTICLE IV. THE PRODUCE OF THE VINEYARD IN THE EAST. By Rev. Henry Homes, American Missionary at Constantinople. In a country where wine, as in America, is known as a great promoter of the crime of drunkenness, and where the vintage is supposed to be gathered chiefly for the purpose of making wine, it is difficult for the mind to do justice to the common language of Scripture which extols the vine and its products as one of the staffs of life. The fruits of the vine, designated by ten different words in the Bible, that are translated wine in our version, are in more than thirty different passages, associated with the tithes and offerings, or with corn and oil, as emblems of temporal blessings. Along with the field of grain is mentioned the vineyard; along with the harvest is mentioned the vintage; along with corn and oil, wine is almost always combined as the third representative of the three chief blessings of the year. We will quote but two of the many passages of this kind. "And he will love thee and bless thee and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine (tirosh) and |