as though he had said, “I might, by comparing sin and righteousness, show how much more ardently
ye ought to be led to render obedience to the latter, than to serve the former; but from regard to
your infirmity I omit this comparison: nevertheless, though I treat you with great indulgence, I may
yet surely make this just demand — that you should not at least obey righteousness more coldly or
negligently than you served sin.” It is a sort of reticence or silence, a withholding of something
when we wish more to be understood than what we express. He does yet exhort them to render
obedience to righteousness with so much more diligence, as that which they served is more worthy
than sin, though he seems not to require this in so many words.^198
As ye have presented,etc.; that is, “As ye were formerly ready with all your faculties to serve
sin, it is hence sufficiently evident how wretchedly enslaved and bound did your depravity hold
you to itself: now then ye ought to be equally prompt and ready to execute the commands of God;
let not your activity in doing good be now less than it was formerly in doing evil.” He does not
indeed observe the same order in the antithesis, by adapting different parts to each other, as he does
in 1 Thessalonians 4:7, where he sets uncleanness in opposition to holiness; but the meaning is still
evident.
He mentions first two kinds — uncleanness and iniquity; the former of which is opposed to
chastity and holiness, the other refers to injuries hurtful to our neighbour. But he repeats iniquity
twice, and in a different sense: by the first he means plunders, frauds, perjuries, and every kind of
wrong; by the second, the universal corruption of life, as though he had said, “Ye have prostituted
your members so as to perpetrate all wicked works, and thus the kingdom of iniquity became strong
in you”^199 By righteousness I understand the law or the rule of a holy life, the design of which is
sanctification, as the case is when the faithful devote themselves to serve God in purity.
(^198) The phrase is taken differently: “I speak what is human,” that is, what is proportionable to man’s strength, says
Chrysostom — what is done and known in common life, as in Galatians 3:15, or, what is moderate, says Hammond — what is
level to man’s understanding, says Vatablus The first proposed by Hammond is the meaning most suitable here; for the Apostle
had previously used reasons and arguments, and sacred similitudes; but he comes now to what is known in common life among
men, the connection between masters and servants, and he did this in condescension to their weakness, which he calls the
weakness of the flesh, that is, the weakness of which flesh, the depravity of nature, was the cause; it was weakness arising from
the flesh. — Ed.
(^199) The different clauses of this verse have been a knotty point to all commentators. Probably the Apostle did not intend to
keep up a regular course of antithesis, the subject not admitting of this; because the progress of evil and the progress of its remedy
may be different, and it seems to be so in the present case. Sin is innate and inward, and its character, as here represented, is
vileness and iniquity, and it breaks out into acts of iniquity: he does not repeat the other character, vileness; but when he comes
to the contrast he mentions holiness, and does not add what is antithetic to iniquity. This is a striking instance of the elliptical
style of the Apostle. It is not neglect or carelessness, but no doubt an intentional omission; it being the character of his mode of
writing, which he had in common with the ancient Prophets.
Then comes the word “righteousness,” which I am disposed to think is that which all along has been spoken of, the
righteousness of faith; this is not innate, not inward, but which comes from without, and is apprehended by faith, by which sins
are forgiven, and God’s favor obtained; and they who become the servants of this are to cultivate holiness both inward and
outward; they ought to present all their members, that is, all their faculties, to the service of this master, so that they may become
holy in all manner of conversation.
But if this idea of righteousness be disapproved of, we may still account for the apparent irregularity in the construction of
the passage. It is an instance of an inverted order, many examples of which are found even in this Epistle. He begins with
“uncleanness,” he ends with “holiness,” and then the intervening words which are in contrast correspond, “iniquity” and
“righteousness.” Here is also an inversion in the meaning; “uncleanness” is the principle, and “holiness” is the action; while
“iniquity” is the action, and “righteousness” is the principle. If this view is right, we have here a singular instance of the inverted
parallelism, both as to words and meaning. — Ed.