Which he had before promised, etc. -- As the suspicion of being new subtracts much from the authority of a doctrine, he confirms the faith of the gospel by antiquity; as though he said, "Christ came not on the earth unexpectedly, nor did he introduce a doctrine of a new kind and not heard of before, inasmuch as he, and his gospel too, had been promised and expected from the beginning of the world." But as antiquity is often fabulous, he brings witnesses, and those approved, even the Prophets of God, that he might remove every suspicion. He in the third place adds, that their testimonies were duly recorded, that is, in the Holy Scriptures. We may learn from this passage what the gospel is: he teaches us, not that it was promulgated by the Prophets but only promised. If then the Prophets promised the gospel, it follows, that it was revealed, when our Lord was at length manifested in the flesh. They are then mistaken who confound the promises with the gospel, since the gospel is properly the appointed preaching of Christ as manifested, in whom the promises themselves are exhibited. [1]

Footnotes

1 - The verb is proepengeilato only here; it comes from epangellomai, which Schleusner says, means in the middle voice, to promise. "Which he had before promised." is then the proper rendering, and not "Which he formerly published," as proposed by Professor Stuart. Both Doddridge and Macknight have retained our version, with which that of Beza agrees. -- Ed.

Which he had promised afore - Which gospel, or which doctrines, he had before announced.
By the prophets - The word "prophets" here is used to include those who wrote as well as those who spake. It included the teachers of the ancient Jews generally.
In the holy scriptures - In the writings of the Old Testament. They were called holy because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and were regarded as separated from all other writings, and worthy of all reverence. The apostle here declares that he was not about to advance anything new. His doctrines were in accordance with the acknowledged oracles of God. Though they might appear to be new, yet he regarded the gospel as entirely consistent with all that had been declared in the Jewish dispensation; and not only consistent, but as actually promised there. He affirms, therefore:
(1) That all this was promised, and no small part of the Epistle is employed to show this.
(2) that it was confirmed by the authority of holy and inspired men.
(3) that it depended on no vague and loose tradition, but was recorded, so that people might examine for themselves.
The reason why the apostle was so anxious to show that his doctrine coincided with the Old Testament was because the church at Rome was made up in part of Jews. He wished to show them, and the remainder of his countrymen, that the Christian religion was built on the foundation of their prophets, and their acknowledged writings. So doing, he would disarm their prejudice, and furnish a proof of the truth of religion. It was a constant position with the apostle that he advanced nothing but what was maintained by the best and holiest men of the nation. Acts 26:22-23, "saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come," etc. There was a further reason here for his appealing so much to the Old Testament. He had never been at Rome. He was therefore personally a stranger, and it was proper for him then especially to show his regard for the doctrines of the prophets. Hence, he appeals here so often to the Old Testament; and defends every point by the authority of the Bible. The particular passages of the Old Testament on which he relied will come before us in the course of the Epistle. See particularly Romans. 3;4; 9; 10; 11. We may see here,
(1) The reverence which Paul showed for the Old Testament. He never undervalued it. He never regarded it as obsolete, or useless. He manifestly studied it; and never fell into the impious opinion that the Old Testament is of little value.
(2) if these things were promised - predicted in the Old Testament, then Christianity is true. Every passage which he adduces is therefore proof that it is from God.

Which he had promised afore - Both in the law and in the prophets God showed his purpose to introduce into the world a more perfect and glorious state of things; which state was to take place by and under the influence of the Messiah, who should bring life and immortality to light by his Gospel.

Which he had promised afore,.... The Gospel is here further commended from the antiquity it: it was no novel doctrine, an upstart notion, but what God had conceived in his own breast from eternity. This mystery was hid in him from the beginning of the world, and was ordained before the world was; in time God was pleased to make it known to the sons of men; he "promised" it, he spoke of it, and declared it
by his prophets, Isaiah and others, "afore" the Apostle Paul was called forth to be a preacher of it; which promise, or promises of it, lie
in the Holy Scriptures; the books of the Old Testament, so called from the author, matter, and usefulness of them. The apostle speaks in the language of his nation, for the Jews frequently call the Bible, writings, Holy Ones; "for", say they, , "all the Scriptures are holy" (c), and style them, , "Scriptures of holiness", or holy Scriptures (d).
(c) Misn. Yadaim, c. 3. sect. 5. (d) Misn. Parah, c. 10. sect. 3. T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 116. 2.

Which he had promised afore . . . in the holy scriptures--Though the Roman Church was Gentile by nation (see on Romans 1:13), yet as it consisted mostly of proselytes to the Jewish faith (see on Introduction to this Epistle), they are here reminded that in embracing Christ they had not cast off, but only the more profoundly yielded themselves to, Moses and the prophets (Acts 13:32-33).

Which he promised before - Of old time, frequently, solemnly. And the promise and accomplishment confirm each other. Deuteronomy 18:18; Isaiah 9:6-7; Isaiah 53:1; Isaiah 61:1; Jeremiah 23:5.