Study of ROMANS 5:15-21

15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord

15. But—“Yet,” “Howbeit.”
not as the offence—“trespass.”
so also is the free gift—or “the gracious gift,” “the gift of grace.” The two cases present points of contrast as well as resemblance.
For if, &c.—rather, “For if through the offense of the one the many died (that is, in that one man’s first sin), much more did the grace of God, and the free gift by grace, even that of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.” By “the many” is meant the mass of mankind represented respectively by Adam and Christ, as opposed, not to few, but to “the one” who represented them. By “the free gift” is meant (as in Ro 5:17) the glorious gift of justifying righteousness; this is expressly distinguished from “the grace of God,” as the effect from the cause; and both are said to “abound” towards us in Christ—in what sense will appear in Ro 5:16, 17. And the “much more,” of the one case than the other, does not mean that we get much more of good by Christ than of evil by Adam (for it is not a case of quantity at all); but that we have much more reason to expect, or it is much more agreeable to our ideas of God, that the many should be benefited by the merit of one, than that they should suffer for the sin of one; and if the latter has happened, much more may we assure ourselves of the former [PHILIPPI, HODGE].
16. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift—“Another point of contrast may be mentioned.”
for the judgment—“sentence.”
was by one—rather, “was of one,” meaning not “one man,” but, as appears from the next clause, “one offense.”
to condemnation, but the free gift—“gift of grace.”
is of many offences unto justification—a glorious point of contrast. “The condemnation by Adam was for one sin; but the justification by Christ is an absolution not only from the guilt of that first offense, mysteriously attaching to every individual of the race, but from the countless offenses it, to which, as a germ lodged in the bosom of every child of Adam, it unfolds itself in his life.” This is the meaning of “grace abounding towards us in the abundance of the gift of righteousness.” It is a grace not only rich in its character, but rich in detail; it is a “righteousness” not only rich in a complete justification of the guilty, condemned sinner; but rich in the amplitude of the ground which it covers, leaving no one sin of any of the justified uncancelled, but making him, though loaded with the guilt of myriads of offenses, “the righteousness of God in Christ.”
17. For if by—“the”
one man’s offence death reigned by one—“through the one.”
much more shall they which receive—“the”
abundance of grace and of the gift of—justifying
righteousness … reign in life by one Jesus Christ—“through the one.” We have here the two ideas of Ro 5:15 and Ro 5:16 sublimely combined into one, as if the subject had grown upon the apostle as he advanced in his comparison of the two cases. Here, for the first time in this section, he speaks of that LIFE which springs out of justification, in contrast with the death which springs from sin and follows condemnation. The proper idea of it therefore is, “Right to live”—“Righteous life”—life possessed and enjoyed with the good will, and in conformity with the eternal law, of “Him that sitteth on the Throne”; life therefore in its widest sense—life in the whole man and throughout the whole duration of human existence, the life of blissful and loving relationship to God in soul and body, for ever and ever. It is worthy of note, too, that while he says death “reigned over” us through Adam, he does not say Life “reigns over us” through Christ; lest he should seem to invest this new life with the very attribute of death—that of fell and malignant tyranny, of which we were the hapless victims. Nor does he say Life reigns in us, which would have been a scriptural enough idea; but, which is much more pregnant, “We shall reign in life.” While freedom and might are implied in the figure of “reigning,” “life” is represented as the glorious territory or atmosphere of that reign. And by recurring to the idea of Ro 5:16, as to the “many offenses” whose complete pardon shows “the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness,” the whole statement is to this effect: “If one man’s one offense let loose against us the tyrant power of Death, to hold us as its victims in helpless bondage, ‘much more,’ when we stand forth enriched with God’s ‘abounding grace’ and in the beauty of a complete absolution from countless offenses, shall we expatiate in a life divinely owned and legally secured, ‘reigning’ in exultant freedom and unchallenged might, through that other matchless ‘One,’ Jesus Christ!” (On the import of the future tense in this last clause, see on Ro 5:19, and Ro 6:5).
18. Therefore—now at length resuming the unfinished comparison of Ro 5:12, in order to give formally the concluding member of it, which had been done once and again substantially, in the intermediate verses.
as by the offence of one judgment came—or, more simply, “it came.”
upon all men to condenmation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came—rather, “it came.”
upon all men to justification of life—(So CALVIN, BENGEL, OLSHAUSEN, THOLUCK, HODGE, PHILIPPI). But better, as we judge: “As through one offense it [came] upon all men to condemnation; even so through one righteousness [it came] upon all men to justification of life”—(So BEZA, GROTIUS, FERME, MEYER, DE WETTE, ALFORD, Revised Version). In this case, the apostle, resuming the statement of Ro 5:12, expresses it in a more concentrated and vivid form—suggested no doubt by the expression in Ro 5:16, “through one offense,” representing Christ’s whole work, considered as the ground of our justification, as “ONE RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (Some would render the peculiar word here employed, “one righteous act” [ALFORD, &c.]; understanding by it Christ’s death as the one redeeming act which reversed the one undoing act of Adam. But this is to limit the apostle’s idea too much; for as the same word is properly rendered “righteousness” in Ro 8:4, where it means “the righteousness of the law as fulfilled by us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit,” so here it denotes Christ’s whole “obedience unto death,” considered as the one meritorious ground of the reversal of the condemnation which came by Adam. But on this, and on the expression, “all men,” see on Ro 5:19. The expression “justification of life,” is a vivid combination of two ideas already expatiated upon, meaning “justification entitling to and issuing in the rightful possession and enjoyment of life”).
19. For, &c.—better, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so by the obedience of the One shall the many be made righteous.” On this great verse observe: First, By the “obedience” of Christ here is plainly not meant more than what divines call His active obedience, as distinguished from His sufferings and death; it is the entire work of Christ in its obediential character. Our Lord Himself represents even His death as His great act of obedience to the Father: “This commandment (that is, to lay down and resume His life) have I received of My Father” (Jn 10:8). Second, The significant word twice rendered made, does not signify to work a change upon a person or thing, but to constitute or ordain, as will be seen from all the places where it is used. Here, accordingly, it is intended to express that judicial act which holds men, in virtue of their connection with Adam, as sinners; and, in connection with Christ, as righteous. Third, The change of tense from the past to the future—“as through Adam we were made sinners, so through Christ we shall be made righteous”—delightfully expresses the enduring character of the act, and of the economy to which such acts belong, in contrast with the for-ever-past ruin of believers in Adam. (See on Ro 6:5). Fourth, The “all men” of Ro 5:18 and the “many” of Ro 5:19 are the same party, though under a slightly different aspect. In the latter case, the contrast is between the one representative (Adam—Christ) and the many whom he represented; in the former case, it is between the one head (Adam—Christ) and the human race, affected for death and life respectively by the actings of that one. Only in this latter case it is the redeemed family of man that is alone in view; it is humanity as actually lost, but also as actually saved, as ruined and recovered. Such as refuse to fall in with the high purpose of God to constitute His Son a “second Adam,” the Head of a new race, and as impenitent and unbelieving finally perish, have no place in this section of the Epistle, whose sole object is to show how God repairs in the second Adam the evil done by the first. (Thus the doctrine of universal restoration has no place here. Thus too the forced interpretation by which the “justification of all” is made to mean a justification merely in possibility and offer to all, and the “justification of the many” to mean the actual justification of as many as believe [ALFORD, &c.], is completely avoided. And thus the harshness of comparing a whole fallen family with a recovered part is got rid of. However true it be in fact that part of mankind is not saved, this is not the aspect in which the subject is here presented. It is totals that are compared and contrasted; and it is the same total in two successive conditions—namely, the human race as ruined in Adam and recovered in Christ).
20, 21. Moreover the law—“The law, however.” The Jew might say, If the whole purposes of God towards men center in Adam and Christ, where does “the law” come in, and what was the use of it? Answer: It
entered—But the word expresses an important idea besides “entering.” It signifies, “entered incidentally,” or “parenthetically.” (In Ga 2:4 the same word is rendered, “came in privily.”) The meaning is, that the promulgation of the law at Sinai was no primary or essential feature of the divine plan, but it was “added” (Ga 3:19) for a subordinate purpose—the more fully to reveal the evil occasioned by Adam, and the need and glory of the remedy by Christ.
that the offence might abound—or, “be multiplied.” But what offense? Throughout all this section “the offense” (four times repeated besides here) has one definite meaning, namely, “the one first offense of Adam”; and this, in our judgment, is its meaning here also: “All our multitudinous breaches of the law are nothing but that one first offense, lodged mysteriously in the bosom of every child of Adam as an offending principal, and multiplying itself into myriads of particular offenses in the life of each.” What was one act of disobedience in the head has been converted into a vital and virulent principle of disobedience in all the members of the human family, whose every act of wilful rebellion proclaims itself the child of the original transgression.
But where sin abounded—or, “was multiplied.”
grace did much more abound—rather, “did exceedingly abound,” or “superabound.” The comparison here is between the multiplication of one offense into countless transgressions, and such an overflow of grace as more than meets that appalling case.
21. That as sin—Observe, the word “offense” is no more used, as that had been sufficiently illustrated; but—what better befitted this comprehensive summation of the whole matter—the great general term sin.
hath reigned unto death—rather, “in death,” triumphing and (as it were) revelling in that complete destruction of its victims.
even so might grace reign—In Ro 5:14, 17 we had the reign of death over the guilty and condemned in Adam; here it is the reign of the mighty causes of these—of SIN which clothes Death a Sovereign with venomous power (1Co 15:56) and with awful authority (Ro 6:23), and of GRACE, the grace which originated the scheme of salvation, the grace which “sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world,” the grace which “made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin,” the grace which “makes us to be the righteousness of God in Him,” so that “we who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness do reign in life by One, Jesus Christ!”
through righteousness—not ours certainly (“the obedience of Christians,” to use the wretched language of GROTIUS) nor yet exactly “justification” [STUART, HODGE]; but rather, “the (justifying) righteousness of Christ” [BEZA, ALFORD, and in substance, OLSHAUSEN, MEYER]; the same which in Ro 5:19 is called His “obedience,” meaning His whole mediatorial work in the flesh. This is here represented as the righteous medium through which grace reaches its objects and attains all its ends, the stable throne from which Grace as a Sovereign dispenses its saving benefits to as many as are brought under its benign sway.
unto eternal life—which is salvat

Study of ROMANS 5:12-14

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

12. Wherefore—that is, Things being so; referring back to the whole preceding argument.
as by one man—Adam.
sin—considered here in its guilt, criminality, penal desert.
entered into the world, and death by sin—as the penalty of sin.
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned—rather, “all sinned,” that is, in that one man’s first sin. Thus death reaches every individual of the human family, as the penalty due to himself. (So, in substance, BENGEL, HODGE, PHILIPPI). Here we should have expected the apostle to finish his sentence, in some such way as this: “Even so, by one man righteousness has entered into the world, and life by righteousness.” But, instead of this, we have a digression, extending to five verses, to illustrate the important statement of Ro 5:12; and it is only at Ro 5:18 that the comparison is resumed and finished.
13, 14. For until the law sin was in the world—that is during all the period from Adam “until the law” of Moses was given, God continued to treat men as sinners.
but sin is not imputed where there is no law—“There must therefore have been a law during that period, because sin was then imputed”; as is now to be shown.
14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression—But who are they?—a much contested question. Infants (say some), who being guiltless of actual sin, may be said not to have sinned in the way that Adam did [AUGUSTINE, BEZA, HODGE]. But why should infants be specially connected with the period “from Adam to Moses,” since they die alike in every period? And if the apostle meant to express here the death of infants, why has he done it so enigmatically? Besides, the death of infants is comprehended in the universal mortality on account of the first sin, so emphatically expressed in Ro 5:12; what need then to specify it here? and why, if not necessary, should we presume it to be meant here, unless the language unmistakably point to it—which it certainly does not? The meaning then must be, that “death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not, like Adam, transgressed against a positive commandment, threatening death to the disobedient.” (So most interpreters). In this case, the particle “even,” instead of specifying one particular class of those who lived “from Adam to Moses” (as the other interpretation supposes), merely explains what it was that made the case of those who died from Adam to Moses worthy of special notice—namely, that “though unlike Adam and all since Moses, those who lived between the two had no positive threatening of death for transgression, nevertheless, death reigned even over them.”
who is the figure—or, “a type.”
of him that was to come—Christ. “This clause is inserted on the first mention of the name “Adam,” the one man of whom he is speaking, to recall the purpose for which he is treating of him, as the figure of Christ” [ALFORD]. The point of analogy intended here is plainly the public character which both sustained, neither of the two being regarded in the divine procedure towards men as mere individual men, but both alike as representative men. (Some take the proper supplement here to be “Him [that is] to come”; understanding the apostle to speak from his own time, and to refer to Christ’s second coming [FRITZSCHE, DE WETTE, ALFORD]. But this is unnatural, since the analogy of the second Adam to the first has been in full development ever since “God exalted Him to be a Prince and a Saviour,” and it will only remain to be consummated at His second coming. The simple meaning is, as nearly all interpreters agree, that Adam is a type of Him who was to come after him in the same public character, and so to be “the second Adam”).

Study of ROMANS 5:6-11

6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement

6. For when we were yet without strength—that is, powerless to deliver ourselves, and so ready to perish.
in due time—at the appointed season.
Christ died for the ungodly—Three signal properties of God’s love are here given: First, “Christ died for the ungodly,” whose character, so far from meriting any interposition in their behalf, was altogether repulsive to the eye of God; second, He did this “when they were without strength”—with nothing between them and perdition but that self-originating divine compassion; third, He did this “at the due time,” when it was most fitting that it should take place (compare Ga 4:4), The two former of these properties the apostle now proceeds to illustrate.
7. For scarcely for a righteous man—a man of simply unexceptionable character.
will one—“any one”
die: yet peradventure for a good man—a man who, besides being unexceptionable, is distinguished for goodness, a benefactor to society.
some—“some one.”
would—rather, “doth.”
even dare to die—“Scarce an instance occurs of self-sacrifice for one merely upright; though for one who makes himself a blessing to society there may be found an example of such noble surrender of life” (So BENGEL, OLSHAUSEN, THOLUCK, ALFORD, PHILIPPI). (To make the “righteous” and the “good” man here to mean the same person, and the whole sense to be that “though rare, the case may occur, of one making a sacrifice of life for a worthy character” [as CALVIN, BEZA, FRITZSCHE, JOWETT], is extremely flat.)
8. But God commendeth—“setteth off,” “displayeth”—in glorious contrast with all that men will do for each other.
his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners—that is, in a state not of positive “goodness,” nor even of negative “righteousness,” but on the contrary, “sinners,” a state which His soul hateth.
Christ died for us—Now comes the overpowering inference, emphatically redoubled.
9, 10. Much more then, being—“having been”
now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being now—“having now been”
reconciled, we shall be saved by his life—that is “If that part of the Saviour’s work which cost Him His blood, and which had to be wrought for persons incapable of the least sympathy either with His love or His labors in their behalf—even our ‘justification,’ our ‘reconciliation’—is already completed; how much more will He do all that remains to be done, since He has it to do, not by death agonies any more, but in untroubled ‘life,’ and no longer for enemies, but for friends—from whom, at every stage of it, He receives the grateful response of redeemed and adoring souls?” To be “saved from wrath through Him,” denotes here the whole work of Christ towards believers, from the moment of justification, when the wrath of God is turned away from them, till the Judge on the great white throne shall discharge that wrath upon them that “obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”; and that work may all be summed up in “keeping them from falling, and presenting them faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy” (Jud 1:24): thus are they “saved from wrath through Him.”
11. And not only so, but we also joy—rather, “glory.”
in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by—“through”
whom we have now received the atonement—rather, “the reconciliation” (Margin), as the same word is rendered in Ro 5:10 and in 2Co 5:18, 19. (In fact, the earlier meaning of the English word “atonement” was “the reconciliation of two estranged parties”) [TRENCH]. The foregoing effects of justification were all benefits to ourselves, calling for gratitude; this last may be termed a purely disinterested one. Our first feeling towards God, after we have found peace with Him. is that of clinging gratitude for so costly a salvation; but no sooner have we learned to cry, Abba, Father, under the sweet sense of reconciliation, than “gloriation” in Him takes the place of dread of Him, and now He appears to us “altogether lovely!”

Study of ROMANS 5:1-5

1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

1. Therefore being—“having been.”
justified by faith, we have peace with God, &c.—If we are to be guided by manuscript authority, the true reading here, beyond doubt, is, “Let us have peace”; a reading, however, which most reject, because they think it unnatural to exhort men to have what it belongs to God to give, because the apostle is not here giving exhortations, but stating matters of fact. But as it seems hazardous to set aside the decisive testimony of manuscripts, as to what the apostle did write, in favor of what we merely think he ought to have written, let us pause and ask—If it be the privilege of the justified to “have peace with God,” why might not the apostle begin his enumeration of the fruits of justification by calling on believers to “realize” this peace as belonged to them, or cherish the joyful consciousness of it as their own? And if this is what he has done, it would not be necessary to continue in the same style, and the other fruits of justification might be set down, simply as matters of fact. This “peace” is first a change in God’s relation to us; and next, as the consequence of this, a change on our part towards Him. God, on the one hand, has “reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ” (2Co 5:18); and we, on the other hand, setting our seal to this, “are reconciled to God” (2Co 5:20). The “propitiation” is the meeting-place; there the controversy on both sides terminates in an honorable and eternal “peace.”
2. By whom also we have—“have had”
access by faith into this grace—favor with God.
wherein we stand—that is “To that same faith which first gave us ‘peace with God’ we owe our introduction into that permanent standing in the favor of God which the justified enjoy.” As it is difficult to distinguish this from the peace first mentioned, we regard it as merely an additional phase of the same [MEYER, PHILIPPI, MEHRING], rather than something new [BEZA, THOLUCK, HODGE].
and rejoice—“glory,” “boast,” “triumph”—“rejoice” is not strong enough.
in hope of the glory of God—On “hope,” see on Ro 5:4.
3, 4. we glory in tribulation also; knowing that tribulation worketh patience—Patience is the quiet endurance of what we cannot but wish removed, whether it be the withholding of promised good (Ro 8:25), or the continued experience of positive ill (as here). There is indeed a patience of unrenewed nature, which has something noble in it, though in many cases the offspring of pride, if not of something lower. Men have been known to endure every form of privation, torture, and death, without a murmur and without even visible emotion, merely because they deemed it unworthy of them to sink under unavoidable ill. But this proud, stoical hardihood has nothing in common with the grace of patience—which is either the meek endurance of ill because it is of God (Job 1:21, 22; 2:10), or the calm waiting for promised good till His time to dispense it come (Heb 10:36); in the full persuasion that such trials are divinely appointed, are the needed discipline of God’s children, are but for a definite period, and are not sent without abundant promises of “songs in the night.” If such be the “patience” which “tribulation worketh,” no wonder that
4. patience worketh experience—rather, “proof,” as the same word is rendered in 2Co 2:9; 13:3; Php 2:22; that is, experimental evidence that we have “believed through grace.”
and experience—“proof.”
hope—“of the glory of God,” as prepared for us. Thus have we hope in two distinct ways, and at two successive stages of the Christian life: first, immediately on believing, along with the sense of peace and abiding access to God (Ro 5:1); next, after the reality of this faith has been “proved,” particularly by the patient endurance of trials sent to test it. We first get it by looking away from ourselves to the Lamb of God; next by looking into or upon ourselves as transformed by that “looking unto Jesus.” In the one case, the mind acts (as they say) objectively; in the other, subjectively. The one is (as divines say) the assurance of faith; the other, the assurance of sense.
5. And hope maketh not ashamed—putteth not to shame, as empty hopes do.
became the love of God—that is, not “our love to God,” as the Romish and some Protestant expositors (following some of the Fathers) represent it; but clearly “God’s love to us”—as most expositors agree.
is shed abroad—literally, “poured forth,” that is, copiously diffused (compare Jn 7:38; Tit 3:6).
by the Holy Ghost which is—rather, “was.”
given unto us—that is, at the great Pentecostal effusion, which is viewed as the formal donation of the Spirit to the Church of God, for all time and for each believer. (The Holy Ghost is here first introduced in this Epistle.) It is as if the apostle had said, “And how can this hope of glory, which as believers we cherish, put us to shame, when we feel God Himself, by His Spirit given to us, drenching our hearts in sweet, all-subduing sensations of His wondrous love to us in Christ Jesus?” This leads the apostle to expatiate on the amazing character of that love.

Study of Romans 4:16-25

Abraham’s faith was in God.

16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

4:16. Paul then drew his conclusion. Therefore (lit., “On account of this”) the promise comes by (ek, “out of”) faith so that it may be by (kata, “according to the standard of”) grace. Responding in faith to God’s promise is not meritorious, since the promise springs from His grace, His disposition of favor toward those who deserve His wrath. The human exercise of faith is simply the prerequisite response of trust in God and His promise. Since faith and grace go together, and since the promise is by grace, the promise can be received only by faith, not by the Law.
Another reason the promise is by faith is so that it may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring, not only the Jews (those … of the Law) but to all who exercise faith in God. If the promise were fulfilled for those who keep the Law, then no Gentiles (or Jews either) could be saved! But this cannot be, because Abraham … is the father of us all, that is, all who believe (cf. “our” in v. 1; also cf. Gal. 3:29).
4:17. Paul then supported his conclusion in verse 16 with scriptural authority, quoting God’s covenantal promise from Genesis 17:5. The fact that believers in this Church Age are identified with Abraham and God’s covenant with him does not mean that the physical and temporal promises to Abraham and his physical descendants are either spiritualized or abrogated. It simply means that God’s covenant and Abraham’s response of faith to it have spiritual dimensions as well as physical and temporal aspects (cf. comments on Rom. 4:13). The quotation is in effect a parenthesis. Therefore the latter part of verse 17 connects with the close of verse 16: “He is the father of us all …” in the sight of God. (The words He is our father are not in the Gr., but are added in the NIV for clarification.) God … gives life to the dead and calls things that are not (lit., “the nonexisting things”) as though they were (lit., “as existing”).
Identifying God in this way obviously refers to God’s promise in Genesis 17 following the statement quoted above that Abraham and Sarah would have a son of promise when Abraham was 100 and Sarah was 90 (Gen. 17:17, 19; 18:10; 21:5; cf. Rom. 4:19). That he would be the ancestor of many nations seemed impossible in his and Sarah’s childless old age.
. BY FAITH IN GOD’S PROMISE (4:18–25).
4:18. Though humanly there was no hope of ever having a child, the old patriarch believed God’s Word. Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed. God honored his faith, and he became the father (ancestor) of many nations. This was in accord with God’s promise, So shall your offspring be (a quotation of Gen. 15:5).
4:19. Verses 19–21 restate in specific details the first part of verse 18 about Abraham’s hope. Abraham without weakening in his faith … faced the fact (lit., “considered carefully”) that his body was as good as dead (some Gr. mss. add the word “already”), a reference to the patriarch’s advanced age (Gen. 17:17; 21:5). Abraham also considered carefully that Sarah’s womb was also dead. She was unable to conceive a child, as had been demonstrated through their life together (cf. Gen. 16:1–2; 18:11) and as was certainly true for her at age 90 (Gen. 17:17).
4:20–21. In spite of the humanly impossible situation, Abraham did not waver through (lit., “by”) unbelief. “Waver” (diekrithē) means “to be divided” (sometimes trans. “doubt,” as in James 1:6). The patriarch was strengthened in his faith (lit., “was empowered [enedynamōthē, from endynamoō] by means of faith”). God, responding to Abraham’s faith, empowered him and Sarah physically to generate the child of promise. Also he gave glory to God, that is, he praised God by exalting or exclaiming His attributes. Abraham was fully persuaded that God had power (dynatos, “spiritual ability”) to do what He had promised. What confidence in God this spiritual forefather possessed! He “in hope believed” (Rom. 4:18); he was not weak in faith despite insuperable odds (v. 19); he was not divided in his thinking by unbelief (v. 20a); he was empowered by faith (v. 20b); and he was fully persuaded God has the ability to do what He had said (v. 21).
4:22. Paul concluded his illustration about Abraham by saying, This is why (dio kai, “wherefore also”) it was credited to him as righteousness. Abraham’s response of faith to God and God’s promise to him was the human requirement for God’s justifying Abraham, for God’s declaring that Abraham stood righteous before Him. No wonder God credited such faith with righteousness!
4:23–24. Verses 23–25 apply the truth about justification and its illustration in Abraham to the apostle’s readers—from the believers in Rome who first read this letter to people today. The divine declaration of Abraham’s justification was written not for him alone, but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness. Such an act of justification, however, is not for everyone. It is for us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead (lit., “out from dead ones”; cf. 6:4; 8:11). Repeatedly in this chapter Paul referred to Abraham and other believers having righteousness credited to them because of their faith (4:3, 5–6, 9–11, 23–24).
4:25. Mentioning the Lord Jesus led Paul to state again the Savior’s central place in God’s program of providing righteousness for sinful people by grace through faith. Both Christ’s death and His resurrection are essential to that work of justification. He was delivered over (by God the Father; cf. 8:32) to death for our sins (lit., “on account of or because of” [dia with the accusative] “our trespasses” [paraptōmata, “false steps”; cf. 5:15, 17, 20; Eph. 2:1]). Though not a direct quotation, these words in substance are taken from Isaiah 53:12 (cf. Isa. 53:4–6). Also He was raised to life for (“on account of” or “because of” [dia with the accusative]) our justification. Christ’s death as God’s sacrificial Lamb (cf. John 1:29) was to pay the redemptive price for the sins of all people (Rom. 3:24) so that God might be free to forgive those who respond by faith to that provision. Christ’s resurrection was the proof (or demonstration and vindication) of God’s acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice (cf. 1:4). Thus because He lives, God can credit His provided righteousness to the account of every person who responds by faith to that offer.
In chapter 4, Paul presented several irrefutable reasons why justification is by faith: (1) Since justification is a gift, it cannot be earned by works (vv. 1–8). (2) Since Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, circumcision has no relationship to justification (vv. 9–12). (3) Since Abraham was justified centuries before the Law, justification is not based on the Law (vv. 13–17). (4) Abraham was justified because of his faith in God, not because of his works (vv. 18–25).

Study of ROMANS 4:13-15

Romans 4:13

Remember the context. The key word in the chapter is "faith" ("believe"). Abraham’s children are "all them that believe" (v.11). We need to bear the family resemblance! We need to follow in Abraham’s faithful steps (v.12). We need to believe like he believed! We need to take God at His Word like Abraham did (v.3).

Heir = possessor

The promise mentioned in verse 13 is not found anywhere in the Old Testament in these exact words. Nowhere in the O.T. does God say, "Abraham, you will be heir of the world." There is no such verse. This is Paul’s way of describing the blessings and the riches which would belong to Abraham and to his seed.

Notice that this promise is not to Abraham alone, but to all his seed also (see verse 13 and verse 16--"to all the seed"). Thus the promise is to Abraham and to all his spiritual, children ("all them that believe"--v.11). The promise is that Abraham and all believers will be heirs of the world and will possess the earth!

See Matthew 5:5--"the meek shall inherit the earth" ("meek" does not mean weak; it refers to a person who is broken and submissive to the will of God). See Matthew 25:34--when Christ returns to earth certain ones will inherit the kingdom. They will possess it and enjoy it! Certain others will be excluded (see verse 41).

See Luke 13:27-29. Some are in the kingdom (included) and others are out (excluded). Abraham and other believers are included! They shall possess the world and enjoy the kingdom. Those who are not Abraham’s seed (unbelievers) will not be heirs (they will be excluded from the kingdom).

Abraham’s true Seed is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ (see Galatians 3:16). It is Jesus Christ (God’s Messiah, God’s anointed King--Psalm 2:1-2) who will possess the earth according to Psalm 2:8 (compare also verse 12). The earth belongs to Him. It is His Kingdom! Abraham and all His spiritual seed (believers) will share in the blessings of this kingdom.

Thus the expression "heir of the world" essentially means "to be part of Christ’s kingdom." According to Romans 4:13, how does a person become part of the kingdom? How does a person become heir of the world? Not through the law but through faith! If it were through the law, then this would involve the following: works, seeking to meet God’s requirements as given in the law, trying to earn God’s favor by obeying God’s law, trying to earn God’s blessings, trying to make yourself worthy, looking to get a reward as payment for work done, striving, achieving, etc. Faith operates on another principle entirely: God gives and I receive. I’m not worthy of any of it but God gives me what I do not deserve (that’s grace!).

Romans 4:14

For the sake of argument Paul assumes something to be true which is not true. There are great contrasts here: law in contrast to grace; works in contrast to faith; a system of merit in contrast to God’s free gift and unmerited favor; fulfilling God’s Law in contrast to believing God’s promise. The law requires perfect obedience; salvation requires God’s mercy and grace. The way of the law is based upon man’s best efforts which are never enough; the way of faith is based on Christ’s finished work on the cross (Jn.19:30) which is totally sufficient. God’s holy law utterly condemns the best man; God’s amazing grace freely justifies the worst man. By the law the sinner is condemned and under God’s wrath; by grace the sinner is saved and under God’s wing. Law and grace are always opposing principles (see Romans 11:6).

If they who are of the law be heirs, then it is not my believing that counts but it’s my doing that counts! I must earn my way into the kingdom by my works and by my obedience to the law. Of course, the legal way of salvation is totally impossible (see Luke 10:25-28--"this do and thou shalt live!", but no sinner could ever do these things!). Thus the promise would be made of none effect! No one would be an heir and no one would make the kingdom! All unrighteous lawbreakers would be excluded (compare 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Eph. 5:5).

Romans 4:15

The law produces only wrath. The law can only produce a curse, not a blessing (Gal. 3:10). Why? Because of my condition as a sinner. A sinner cannot keep God’s holy law and thus I am a lawbreaker. God’s wrath must fall on me! Lawbreakers deserve death! Law-keepers deserve life, but how many of us have really kept God’s holy law and kept it perfectly all the days of our life?

The law does not bring righteousness or blessing or an inheritance but it only brings God’s wrath. If man could keep God’s holy and perfect law, then the law would bring life and blessing (Luke 10:28). The law works wrath because of sinful man’s transgression of the law. Where there is law there is transgression, and where there is transgression there must be God’s wrath. The law worketh wrath, condemnation and death (compare 2 Cor.3:7,9). How foolish are those who want to put themselves under the awesome demands of God’s holy law. Paul says that such people do not even keep the law themselves (Gal. 6:13). Peter agrees with Paul (Acts 15:9-11). The Lord Jesus said, "None of you keepeth the law" (John 7:19).

Study of ROMANS 4:9-12

9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

4:9–10. Paul again raised the question of the Jews’ special position (cf. 2:17–21a; 3:1–2). The way the question is worded in the Greek suggests the answer, that this blessedness is for the uncircumcised (Gentiles) as well as for the circumcised (Jews). But in response Paul turned again to the example of Abraham. He repeated the authoritative scriptural declaration that Abraham was declared righteous on the basis of his faith. Then Paul asked whether Abraham’s justification occurred before or after he was circumcised. Answering his own question, Paul stated, It was not after, but before! (The Gr. has lit., “not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.”) Abraham’s age when he was declared righteous (Gen. 15:6) is not stated. But later when Hagar bore him Ishmael, he was 86 (Gen. 16:16). After that, God instructed Abraham to perform the rite of circumcision on all his male descendants as a sign of God’s covenant with him; this was done when Abraham was 99 (Gen. 17:24). Therefore the circumcision of Abraham followed his justification by faith by more than 13 years.
4:11–12. Therefore, Paul argued, the sign of circumcision was a seal of Abraham’s being declared righteous because of his faith which he received while he was still uncircumcised (lit., “in uncircumcision”). Circumcision, as a “sign” or “seal,” was an outward token of the justification Abraham had already received. God’s purpose was that Abraham be the father of all who believe and are thereby justified. This included both the uncircumcised (Gentiles) and the circumcised (Jews). Jews must do more than be circumcised to be right with God. They must also walk in the footsteps of … faith, like Abraham (cf. 2:28–29). Obviously, then, the rite of circumcision, which many Jews rely on for salvation, contributes in no way to one’s status before God. It gives them no special standing before Him because they must be declared righteous on the basis of faith in God.

Study of ROMANS 4:1-8

1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

1. What shall we say then that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?—that is, (as the order in the original shows), “hath found, as pertaining to (‘according to,’ or ‘through’) the flesh”; meaning, “by all his natural efforts or legal obedience.”
2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God—“If works were the ground of Abraham’s justification, he would have matter for boasting; but as it is perfectly certain that he hath none in the sight of God, it follows that Abraham could not have been justified by works.” And to this agree the words of Scripture.
3. For what saith the, Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it—his faith.
was counted to him for righteousness—(Ge 15:6). Romish expositors and Arminian Protestants make this to mean that God accepted Abraham’s act of believing as a substitute for complete obedience. But this is at variance with the whole spirit and letter of the apostle’s teaching. Throughout this whole argument, faith is set in direct opposition to works, in the matter of justification—and even in Ro 4:4, 5. The meaning, therefore, cannot possibly be that the mere act of believing—which is as much a work as any other piece of commanded duty (Jn 6:29; 1Jn 3:23)—was counted to Abraham for all obedience. The meaning plainly is that Abraham believed in the promises which embraced Christ (Ge 12:3; 15:5, &c.), as we believe in Christ Himself; and in both cases, faith is merely the instrument that puts us in possession of the blessing gratuitously bestowed.
4, 5. Now to him that worketh—as a servant for wages.
is the reward not reckoned of grace—as a matter of favor.
but of debt—as a matter of right.
5. But to him that worketh not—who, despairing of acceptance with God by “working” for it the work of obedience, does not attempt it.
but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly—casts himself upon the mercy of Him that justifieth those who deserve only condemnation.
his faith, &c.—(See on Ro 4:3).
Second: David sings of the same justification.
6. David also describeth—“speaketh,” “pronounceth.”
the blessedness of the man unto whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works—whom, though void of all good works, He, nevertheless, regards and treats as righteous.
7, 8. Saying, Blessed, &c.—(Ps 32:1, 2). David here sings in express terms only of “transgression forgiven, sin covered, iniquity not imputed”; but as the negative blessing necessarily includes the positive, the passage is strictly in point.

Study of ROMANS 3:21-31

Verse 21. But now. The apostle, having shown the entire failure of all attempts to be justified by the law, whether among Jews or Gentiles, proceeds to state fully the plan of justification by Jesus Christ in the gospel. To do this was the main design of the epistle, Romans 1:17. He makes, therefore, in the close of this chapter, an explicit statement of the nature of the doctrine; and in the following parts of the epistle he fully-proves it, and illustrates its effects.

The righteousness of God. God's plan of justifying men. See Barnes "Romans 1:17".

Without the law. In a way different from personal obedience to the law. It does not mean that God abandoned his law; or that Jesus Christ did not regard the law, for he came to "magnify" it, Isaiah 42:21 or that sinners after they are justified have no regard to the law; but it means simply what the apostle had been endeavouring to show, that justification could not be accomplished by personal obedience to any law of Jew or Gentile, and that it must be accomplished in some other way.

Being witnessed. Being borne witness to. It was not a new doctrine; it was found in the Old Testament. The apostle makes this observation with special reference to the Jews. He does not declare any new thing, but that which was fully declared in their own sacred writings.

By the law. This expression here evidently denotes, as it did commonly among the Jews, the five books of Moses. And the apostle means to say that this doctrine was found in those books; not that it was in the ten commandments, or in the law, strictly so called. It is not a part of law to declare justification except by strict and perfect obedience. That it was found in those books the apostle shows by the case of Abraham, Romans 4. See also his reasoning on Leviticus 18:5, and Deuteronomy 30:12-14, in Romans 10:5-11; comp. Exodus 34:6,7.

And the prophets. Generally, the remainder of the Old Testament. The phrase "the law and the prophets" comprehended the whole of the Old Testament, Matthew 5:17; 11:13; 22:40; Acts 13:15; 28:23. That this doctrine was contained in the prophets, the apostle showed by the passage quoted from Habakkuk 2:4, in Habakkuk 1:17, "The just shall live by faith." The same thing he showed in Romans 10:11 from Isaiah 28:16; 49:23 and Romans 4:6-8, from Psalms 22. The same thing is fully taught in Isaiah 53:11; Daniel 9:24. Indeed, the general tenor of the Old Testament-- the appointment of sacrifices, etc.--taught that man was a sinner, and that he could not be justified by obedience to the moral law.

{z} "by the Law and the Prophets" Acts 26:22

Verse 22. Even the righteousness of God. The apostle, having stated that the design of the gospel was to reveal a new plan of becoming just in the sight of God, proceeds here more fully to explain it. The explanation which he offers makes it plain that the phrase so often used by him, "righteousness of God," does not refer to an attribute of God, but to his plan of making men righteous. Here he says that it is by faith in Jesus Christ; but surely an attribute of God is not produced by faith in Jesus Christ. It means God's mode of regarding men as righteous through their belief in Jesus Christ.

By faith of Jesus Christ. That is, by faith in Jesus Christ. Thus the expression, Mark 11:22, "Have the faith of God," (margin,) means, have faith in God. So Acts 3:16, the "faith of his name," (Greek,) means, faith in his name. So Galatians 2:20, the "faith of the Son of God" means, faith in the Son of God. This cannot mean that faith is the meritorious cause of salvation, but that it is the instrument or means by which we become justified. It is the state of mind, or condition of the heart, to which God has been pleased to promise justification. (On the nature of faith, See Barnes "Mark 16:16".) God has promised that they who believe in Christ shah be pardoned and saved. This is his plan in distinction from the plan of those who seek to be justified by works.

Unto all and upon all. It is evident that these expressions are designed to be emphatic, but why both are used is not very apparent. Many have supposed that there was no essential difference in the meaning. If there be a difference, it is probably this: the first expression, "unto all"--\~eiv pantav\~--may denote that this plan of justification has come (Luther) unto all men, to Jews and Gentiles; i.e. that it has been provided for them and offered to them without distinction. The plan was ample for all, was fitted for all, was equally necessary for all, and was offered to all. The second phrase, "upon all"--\~epi pantav\~--may be designed to guard against the supposition that all therefore would be benefited by it, or be saved by the mere face that the announcement had come to all. The apostle adds, therefore, that the benefits of this plan must actually come upon all, or must be applied to all, if they would be justified. They could not be justified merely by the fact that the plan was provided, and that the knowledge of it had come to all, but by their actually coming under this plan, and availing themselves of it. Perhaps there is reference in the last expression, "upon all," to a robe, or garment, that is placed upon one to hide his nakedness, or sin. Comp. Isaiah 64:6, also Philippians 3:9.

For there is no difference. That is, there is no difference in regard to the matter under discussion. The apostle does not mean to say that there is no difference in regard to the talents, dispositions, education, and property of men; but there is no distinction in regard to the way in which they must be justified. All must be saved, if saved at all, in the same mode, whether Jews or Gentiles, bond or free, rich or poor, learned or ignorant. None can be saved by works; and all are therefore dependent on the mercy of God in Jesus Christ.

{a} "faith of Jesus Christ" Romans 5:1

Verse 23. For all have sinned. This was the point which he had fully established in the discussion in these chapters.

And come short. Greek, Are deficient in regard to; are wanting, etc. Here it means, that they had failed to obtain, or were destitute of.

The glory of God. The praise or approbation of God. They had sought to be justified, or approved, by God; but all had failed. Their works of the law had not secured his approbation; and they were therefore under condemnation. The word glory--\~doxa\~--is often used in the sense of praise, or approbation. John 5:41,44; John 7:18;; 8:50,54; 12:43.

{b} "all have sinned" Ecclesiastes 7:20

Verse 24. Being justified. Being treated as if righteous; that is, being regarded and treated as if they had kept the law. The apostle has shown that they could not be so regarded and treated by any merit of their own, or by personal obedience to the law. He now affirms that if they were so treated, it must be by mere favour, and as a matter not of right, but of gift. This is the essence of the gospel. And to show this, and the way in which it is done, is the main design of this epistle. The expression here is be understood as referring to all who are justified, Romans 3:22. The righteousness of God, by faith in Jesus Christ, is "upon all who believe," who are all "justified freely by his grace."

Freely--\~dwrean\~. This word stands opposed to that which is purchased, or which is obtained by labour, or which is a matter of claim. It is a free, undeserved gift, not merited by our obedience to the law, and not that to which we have any claim. The apostle uses the word here in reference to those who are justified. To them it is a mere undeserved gift. It does not mean that it has been obtained, however, without any price or merit from any one, for the Lord Jesus has purchased it with his own blood, and to him it becomes a matter of justice that those who were given to him should be justified, 1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 Peter 2:9, (Greek.) Acts 20:28; Isaiah 53:11. We have no offering to bring, and no claim. To us, therefore, it is entirely a matter of gift.

By his grace. By his favour; by his mere undeserved mercy. See Barnes "Romans 1:7".

Through the redemption--\~dia thv apolutrwsewv\~. The word used here occurs but ten times in the New Testament, Luke 21:28; Romans 3:24; 8:23; 1 Corinthians 1:30 Ephesians 1:7,14; 4:30; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:15; 11:35. Its root--\~lutron\~ lutron--properly denotes the price which is paid for a prisoner of war; the ransom, or stipulated purchase-money, which being paid, the captive is set free. The word here used is then employed to denote liberation from bondage, captivity, or evil of any kind, usually keeping up the idea of a price, or a ransom paid, in consequence of which the delivery is effected. It is sometimes used, in a large sense, to denote simple deliverance by any means, without reference to a price paid, as in Luke 21:28; Romans 8:23; Ephesians 1:14. That this is not the sense here, however, is apparent. For the apostle in the next verse proceeds to specify the price which has been paid, or the means by which this redemption has been effected. The word here denotes that deliverance from sin, and from the evil consequences of sin, which has been effected by the offering of Jesus Christ as a propitiation, Romans 3:25.

That is in Christ Jesus. Or, that has been effected by Christ Jesus; that of which he is the author and procurer. Comp. John 3:16.

Verse 25. Whom God hath set forth. Margin, Fore-ordained --\~proeyeto\~. The word properly means, to place in public view; to exhibit in a conspicuous, situation, as goods are exhibited or exposed for sale, or as premiums or rewards of victory were exhibited to public view in the games of the Greeks. It sometimes has the meaning of decreeing, purposing, or constituting, as in the margin, (comp. Romans 1:13; Ephesians 1:9) and many have supposed that this is its meaning here. But the connexion seems to require the usual signification of the word; and it means that God has publicly exhibited Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men. This public exhibition was made by his being offered on the cross, in the face of angels and of men. It was not concealed; it was done openly. He was put to open shame; and so put to death as to attract towards the scene the eyes of angels, and of the inhabitants of all worlds.

To be a propitiation--\~ilasthrion\~. This word occurs but in one other place in the New Testament: Hebrews 9:5, "And over it (the ark) the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat." It is used here to denote the lid or cover of the ark of the covenant. It was made of gold, and over it were the cherubim. In this sense it is often used by the LXX. Exodus 25:17, "And thou shalt make a propitatory--\~ilasthrion\~, of gold," \\Ex 25:18-20,22 30:6 31:7 35:12 37:6-9 40:20 Le 16:2,13\\. The Hebrew name for this was capphoreth, from the verb caphar, to cover, or conceal. It was from this place that God was represented as speaking to the children of Israel: Exodus 25:22, "And I will speak to thee front above the Ilasterion," the propitiatory, the mercy-seat; Leviticus 16:2, "For I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy.seat." This seat, or cover, was covered with the smoke o{ the incense, when the high priest entered the most holy place, Leviticus 16:13. And the blood of the bullock offered on the great day of atonement was to be sprinkled "upon the mercy-seat," and "before the mercy-seat," "seven times," Leviticus 16:14,15. This sprinkling or offering of blood was called making "an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel," etc., Leviticus 16:16. It was from this mercy-seat that God pronounced pardon, or expressed himself as reconciled to his people. The atonement was made, the blood was sprinkled, and the reconciliation thus effected. The name was thus given to that cover of the ark, because it was the place from which God declared himself reconciled to his people. Still the inquiry is, why is this name given to Jesus Christ? In what sense is he declared to be a propitiation? It is evident that it cannot be applied to him in any literal sense. Between the golden cover of the ark of the covenant and the Lord Jesus the analogy must be very slight, if any such analogy can be perceived. We may observe, however,

(1.) that the main idea, in regard to the cover of the ark called the mercy-seat, was that of God's being reconciled to his people; and that this is the main idea in regard to the Lord Jesus, whom "God hath set forth."

(2.) This reconciliation was effected then by the sprinkling of blood on the mercy-seat, Leviticus 16:15,16. The same is true of the Lord Jesus --by blood.

(3.) In the former case it was [by] the blood of atonement; the offering of the bullock on the great day of atonement, that the reconciliation was effected, Leviticus 16:17,18. In the case of the Lord Jesus it was also by blood--by the blood of atonement. But it was by his own blood. This the apostle distinctly states in this verse.

(4.) In the former case there was a sacrifice, or expiatory offering; and so it is in reconciliation by the Lord Jesus. In the former, the mercy-seat was the visible, declared place where God would express his reconciliation with his people. So in the latter, the offering of the Lord Jesus is the manifest and open way by which God will be recon- ciled to men.

(5.) In the former, there was joined the idea of a sacrifice for sin, Leviticus 16:1. So in the latter. And hence the main idea of the apostle here is to convey the idea of a sacrifice for sin; or to set forth the Lord Jesus as such a sacrifice. Hence the word "propitiation" in the original may express the idea of a propitiatory sacrifice, as well as the cover to the ark. The word is an adjective, and may be joined to the noun sacrifice, as well as to denote the mercy-seat of the ark. This meaning accords also with its classic meaning to denote a propitiatory offering, or an offering to produce reconciliation. Christ is thus represented, not as a mercy-seat, which would be unintelligible; but as the medium, the offering, the expiation, by which reconciliation is produced between God and man.

Through faith. Or, by means of faith. The offering will be of no avail without faith. The offering has been made; but it will not be applied, except where there is faith. He has made an offering which may be efficacious in putting away sin; but it produces no reconciliation, no pardon, except where it is accepted by faith.

In his blood. Or, in his death--his bloody death. Among the Jews, the blood was regarded as the seat of life, or vitality, Leviticus 17:11, "The life of the flesh is in the blood." Hence they were commanded not to eat blood: Genesis 9:4, "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat." Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:23; 1 Samuel 14:34. This doctrine is contained uniformly in the sacred Scriptures. And it has been also the opinion of not a few celebrated physiologists, as well in modern as in ancient times. The same was the opinion of the ancient Pharisees and Hindoos. Homer thus often speaks of blood as the seat of life, as in the expression \~porfureov yanatov\~, or purple death. And Virgil speaks of purple life,

Purpuream vomit ille animam. AEniad, ix. 349.
Empedocles and Critias, among the Greek philosophers, also embraced this opinion. Among the moderns, Harvey, to whom we are indebted for a knowledge of the circulation of the blood, fully believed it. Hoffman and Huxham believed it. Dr. John Hunter has fully adopted the belief, and sustained it, as he supposed, by a great variety of considerations. See Good's Book of Nature, pp. 102, 108, Edit. New York, 1828. This was undoubtedly the doctrine of the Hebrews; and hence with them to shed the blood was a phrase signifying to kill; hence the efficacy of their sacrifices was supposed to consist in the blood, that is, in the life of the victim. Hence it was unlawful to eat it, as it was the life, the seat of vitality; the more immediate and direct gift of God. When therefore the blood of Christ is spoken of in the New Testament, it means the offering of his life as a sacrifice, or his death as an expiation. His life was given to make atonement. See the word blood thus used in Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:12,14; Hebrews 13:12; Revelation 1:5; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:7. By faith in his death as a sacrifice for sin; by believing that he took our sins; that he died in our place; by thus, in some sense, making his offering ours; by approving it, loving it, embracing it, trusting it, our sins become pardoned, and our souls made pure.
To declare. \~eiv endeixin\~. For the purpose of showing, or exhibiting; to present it to man. The meaning is, that the plan was adopted; the Saviour was given; he suffered and died; and the scheme is proposed to men, for the purpose of making a full manifestation of his plan, in contradistinction from all the plans of men.

His righteousness. His plan of justification. The method or scheme which he has adopted, in distinction from that of man, and which he now exhibits, or proffers to sinners. There is great variety in the explanation of the word here rendered righteousness. Some explain it as meaning veracity; others as holiness; others as goodness; others as essential justice. Most interpreters, perhaps, have explained it as referring to an attribute of God. But the whole connexion requires us to understand it here as in Romans 1:17, not of an attribute of God, but of his plan of justifying sinners. He has adopted and proposed a plan by which men may become just by faith in Jesus Christ, and not by their own works. His acquitting men from sin; his regarding them and treating them as just, is set forth in the gospel by the offering of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice on the cross.

For the remission of sins. Margin, Passing over. The word here used (\~paresin\~) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, nor in the Septuagint. It means passing by, as not noticing; and hence forgiving. A similar idea occurs in 2 Samuel 24:10; Micah 7:18: "Who is a God like unto thee, that passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance?" In Romans it means for the pardoning, or in order to pardon past transgression.

That are past. That have been committed; or that have existed before. This has been commonly understood to refer to past generations, as affirming that sins under all dispensations of the world are to be forgiven in this manner, through the sacrifice of Christ. And it has been supposed that all who have been justified have received pardon by the merits of the sacrifice of Christ. This may be true; but there is no reason to think that this is the idea in this passage, for

(1.) the scope of the passage does not require it. The argument is not to show how men had been justified, but how they might be. It is not to discuss an historical fact, but to state the way in which sin was to be forgiven under the gospel.

(2.) The language has no immediate or necessary reference to past generations. It evidently refers to the past lives of the individuals who are justified, and not to the sins of former times. All that the passage means, therefore, is, that the plan of pardon is such as completely to remove all the former sins of the life, not of all former generations. If it referred to the sins of former times, it would not be easy to avoid the doctrine of universal salvation.

Through the forbearance of God. Through his patience, his long-suffering. That is, he did not come forth in judgment when the sin was committed; he spared us, though deserving of punishment; and now he comes forth completely to pardon those sins concerning which he has so long and so graciously exercised forbearance. This expression obviously refers not to the remission of sins, but to the fact that they were committed while he evinced such long-suffering. Comp. Acts 17:30. I do not know better how to show the practical value and bearing of this important passage of Scripture, than by transcribing a part of the affecting experience of the poet Cowper. It is well known that before his conversion he was oppressed by a long and dreadful melancholy; that this was finally heightened to despair; and that he was then subjected to the kind treatment of Dr. Cotton in St. Alban's, as a melancholy case of derangement. His leading thought was, that he was doomed to inevitable destruction, and that there was no hope. From this he was roused only by the kindness of his brother, and by the promises of the gospel. (See Taylor's Life of Cowper.) The account of his conversion I shall now give in his own words. "The happy period,, which was to shake off my fetters, and afford me a clear discovery of the free mercy of God in Christ Jesus was now arrived. I flung myself into a chair near the window, and, seeing a Bible there, ventured once more to apply to it for comfort and instruction. The first verse I saw was the 25th of the third chapter of Romans, Whom God hath set forth, etc. Immediately I received strength to believe, and the full beam of the Sun of Righteousness shone upon me. I saw the sufficiency of the atonement he had made for my pardon and justification. In a moment I believed, and received the peace of the gospel. Unless the almighty Arm had been under me, I think I should have been overwhelmed with gratitude and joy. My eyes filled with tears, and my voice choked with transport. I could only look up to heaven in silent fear, overwhelmed with love and wonder. How glad should I now have been to have spent every moment in prayer and thanksgiving. I lost no opportunity of repairing to a throne of grace; but flew to it with an earnestness irresistible, and never to be satisfied."

{1} "set forth" or, "fore-ordained"
{2} "remission of sins" or, "passing over"

Verse 26. At this time. The time now since the Saviour has come, now is the time when he manifests it.

That he might be just. This verse contains the substance of the gospel. The word "just" here does not mean benevolent, or merciful, though it may sometimes have that meaning, (See Barnes "Matthew 1:19", also See Barnes "John 17:25") but it refers to the fact that God had retained the integrity of his character as a moral Governor; that he had shown a due regard to his law, and to the penalty of the law, by his plan of salvation. Should he forgive sinners without an atonement, justice would be sacrificed and abandoned. The law would cease to have any terrors for the guilty, and its penalty would be a nullity. In the plan of salvation, therefore, he has shown a regard to the law by appointing his Son to be a substitute in the place of sinners; not to endure its precise penalty, for his sufferings were not eternal, nor were they attended with remorse of conscience, or by despair, which are the proper penalty of the law; but he endured so much as to accomplish the same ends as if those who shall be saved by him had been doomed to eternal death. That is, he showed that the law could not be violated without introducing suffering; and that it could not be broken with impunity, he showed that he had so great a regard for it, that he would not pardon one sinner without an atonement. And thus he secured the proper honour to his character as a lover of his law, a hater of sin, and a just God. He has shown that if sinners do not avail themselves of the offer of pardon by Jesus Christ, they must experience in their own souls for ever the pains which this substitute for sinners endured in behalf of men on the cross. Thus, no principle of justice has been abandoned; no threatening has been modified; no claim of his law has been let down; no disposition has been evinced to do injustice to the universe by suffering the guilty to escape. He is in all this great transaction, a just moral governor, as just to his law, to himself, to his Son, to the universe, when he pardons, as he is when he sends the incorrigible sinner down to hell. A full compensation, an equivalent, has been provided by the sufferings of the Saviour in the sinner's stead, and the sinner may be pardoned.

And the justifier of him, etc. Greek, Even justifying him that believeth, etc. This is the peculiarity and the wonder of the gospel, Even while pardoning, and treating the ill-deserving as if they were innocent, he can retain his pure and holy character. His treating the guilty with favour does not show that he loves guilt and pollution, for he has expressed his abhorrence of it in the atonement. His admitting them to friendship and heaven does not show that he approves their past conduct and character, for he showed how much he hated even their sins by giving his Son to a shameful death for them. When an executive pardons offenders, there is an abandonment of the principles of justice and law. The sentence is set aside; the threatenings of the law are departed from; and it is done without compensation. It is declared that, in certain cases, the law may be violated, and its penalty not be inflicted. But not so with God. He shows no less regard to his law in pardoning than in punishing. This is the grand, glorious, peculiar feature of the gospel plan of salvation.

Him which believeth in Jesus. Gr., Him who is of the faith of Jesus; in contradistinction from him who is of the works of the law; that is, who depends on his own works for salvation.

{c} "that he might be just" Acts 13:38,39

Verse 27. Where is boasting then? Where is there ground or occasion of boasting or pride? Since all have sinned, and since all have failed of being able to justify themselves by obeying the law, and since all are alike dependent on the mere mercy of God in Christ, all ground of boasting is of course taken away. This refers particularly to the Jews, who were much addicted to boasting of their peculiar privileges. See Barnes "Romans 3:1", etc.

By what law? The word law here is used in the sense of arrangement, rule, or economy. By what arrangement, or by the operation of what rule, is boasting excluded? Stuart. See Galatians 3:21; Acts 21:20.

Of works? The law which commands works, and on which the Jews relied. If this were complied with, and they were thereby justified, they would have had ground of self-confidence, or boasting, as being justified by their own merits. But a plan which led to this, which ended in boasting, and self-satisfaction, and pride, could not be true.

Nay. No.

The law of faith. The rule, or arrangement which proclaims that we have no merit; that we are lost sinners; and that we are to be justified only by faith.

Verse 28. Therefore. As the result of the previous train of argument.

That a man. That all who are justified; that is, that there is no other way.

Is justified by faith. Is regarded and treated as righteous, by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Without the deeds of the law. Without works as a meritorious ground of justification. The apostle, of course, does not mean that Christianity does not produce good works, or that they who are justified will not obey the law, and be holy; but that no righteousness of their own will be the ground of their justification. They are sinners; and as such can have no claim to be treated as righteous. God has devised a plan by which they may be pardoned and saved; and that is by faith alone. This is the grand peculiarity of the Christian religion. This was the peculiar point in the reformation from popery. Luther often called this doctrine of justification by faith the article on which the church stood or fell--articulus stantis, vel earlentis ecclesiae--and it is so. If this doctrine is held entire, all others will be held with it. If this is abandoned, all others will fall also. It may be remarked here, however, that this doctrine by no means interferes with the doctrine that good works are to be performed by Christians. Paul urges this as much as any other writer in the New Testament. His doctrine is, that they are not to be relied on as a ground of justification; but that he did not mean to teach that they are not to be performed by Christians is apparent from the connexion, and from the following places in his epistles: Romans 2:7; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Ephesians 2:10; 1 Timothy 2:10; 5:10,25; 6:18; 2 Timothy 3:17; Titus 2:7,14; Titus 3:8; Hebrews 10:24. That we are justified by our works is a doctrine which he has urged and repeated with great power and frequency. See Romans 4:2,6; 9:11,32; 11:6; Galatians 2:16; 3:2,5,10; Ephesians 2:9; 2 Timothy 1:9.

{d} "that a man" Romans 3:20-22; 8:3; Galatians 2:16

Verses 29, 30. Is he the God, etc. The Jews supposed that he was the God of their nation only, that they only were to be admitted to his favour. In these verses Paul showed that as all had alike sinned, Jews and Gentiles, and as the plan of salvation by faith was adapted to sinners, without any special reference to Jews, so God could show favours to all, and all might be admitted on the same terms to the benefits of the plan of salvation.

Verse 30. It is one God. The same God; there is but one, and his plan is equally fitted to Jews and Gentiles.

The circumcision. Those who are circumcised--the Jews.

The uncircumcision. Gentiles; all who were not Jews.

By faith--through faith. There is no difference in the meaning of these expressions. Both denote that faith is the instrumental cause of justification, or acceptance with God.

{e} "which shall justify" Galatians 3:8,28

Verse 31. Do we then make void the law. Do we render it vain and useless; do we destroy its moral obligation; and do we prevent obedience to it, by the doctrine of justification by faith ? This was an objection which would naturally be made; and which has thousands of times been since made, that the doctrine of justification by faith tends to licentiousness. The word law here, I understand as referring to the moral law, and not merely to the Old Testament. This is evident from Romans 3:20,21, where the apostle shows that no man could be justified by deeds of law, by conformity with the moral law. See Note.

God forbid. By no means. See Barnes "Romans 3:4". This is an explicit denial of any such tendency.

Yea, we establish the law. That is, by the doctrine of justification by faith; by this scheme of treating men as righteous, the moral law is confirmed, its obligation is enforced, obedience to it is secured. This is done in the following manner:

(1.) God showed respect to it, in being unwilling to pardon sinners without an atonement. He showed that it could not be violated with impunity; that he was resolved to fulfil its threatenings.

(2.) Jesus Christ came to magnify it, and to make it honourable. He showed respect to it in his life; and he died to show that God was determined to inflict its penalty.

(3.) The plan of justification by faith leads to an observance of the law. The sinner sees the evil of transgression. He sees the respect which God has shown to the law. He gives his heart to God, and yields himself to obey his law. All the sentiments that arise from the conviction of sin; that flow from gratitude for mercies; that spring from love to God; all his views of the sacredness of the law, prompt him to yield obedience to it. The fact that Christ endured such sufferings to show the evil of violating the law, is one of the strongest motives prompting to obedience. We do not easily and readily repeat that which overwhelms our best friends in calamity; and we are brought to hate that which inflicted such woes on the Saviour's soul. The sentiment recorded by Watts is as true as it is beautiful :--

'"Twas for my sins my dearest Lord Hung on the cursed tree, And groan'd away his dying life For thee, my soul, for thee.
"Oh, how I hate those lusts of mine That crucified my Lord; Those sins that pierc'd and nail'd his flesh Fast to'the fatal wood.

"Yes, my Redeemer, they shall die, My heart hath so decreed, Nor will I spare the guilty things That made my Saviour bleed."

This is an advantage in moral influence which no cold, abstract law ever has over the human mind. And one of the chief glories of the plan of salvation is, that while it justifies the sinner, it brings a new set of influences from heaven, more tender and mighty than can be drawn from any other source, to produce obedience to the law of God.

Study of ROMANS 3:1-20

ROMANS 3:1-20.

THIS chapter consists of three parts. The first part extends to the 8th verse inclusively, and is designed to answer and remove some objections to the doctrine previously advanced by the Apostle. In the second part, from the 9th to the 20th verses, it is proved, by the testimonies of various scriptures, that the Jews, as well as the Gentiles, are involved in sin and guilt, and consequently that none can be justified by the law. The third part commences at verse 21, where the Apostle reverts to the declaration, ch. 1:17, with which his discussion commenced, and exhibits the true and only way of justification for all men, by the righteousness of God imputed through faith in Jesus Christ.

Ver. 1 — What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

If the preceding doctrine be true, it may be asked, What advantage hath the Jew over the Gentile; and what profit is there in circumcision, if it does not save from sin? If, on the contrary, the Jews, on account of their superior privileges, will be held more culpable before the tribunal of Divine justice, as the Apostle had just shown, it appears obviously improper to allege that God has favored them more than the Gentiles. This objection it was necessary to obviate, not only because it is specious, but because it is important, and might, in regard to the Jews, arrest the course of the Gospel. It is specious; for if, in truth, the advantages of the Jews, so far from justifying them, contribute nothing to cause the balance of Divine judgment to preponderate in their favor — if their advantages rather enhance their condemnation — does it not appear that they are not only useless, but positively pernicious? In these advantages, then, it is impossible to repose confidence. But the objection is also important; for it would be difficult to imagine that all God had done for the Jews — His care of them so peculiar, and His love of them so great, — in short, all the privileges which Moses exalts so highly — were lavished on them in vain, or turned to their disadvantage. The previous statement of the Apostle might then be injurious to the doctrine of the Gospel, by rendering him more odious in the eyes of his countrymen, and therefore he had good reasons for fully encountering and answering this objection. In a similar way, it is still asked by carnal professors of Christianity, Of what use is obedience to the law of God or the observance of His ordinances, if they do not save the soul, or contribute somewhat to this end?

Ver. 2. — Much every way; chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Paul here repels the foregoing objection as false and unfounded. Although the privileges of the Jews cannot come into consideration for their justification before the judgment-seat of God, it does not follow that they were as nothing, or of no advantage; on the contrary, they were marks of the peculiar care of God for that people, while He had, as it were, abandoned all the other nations. They were as aids, too, which God had given to deliver them from the impiety and depravity of the Gentiles; and, by the accompanying influences of His Spirit, they were made effectual to the salvation of many of them. Finally, the revelation made to the Jews contained not only figures and shadows of the Gospel, but also preparations for the new covenant. God had bestowed nothing similar on the Gentiles: the advantage, then, of the Jews was great. Much every way. — This does not mean, in every sense; for the Apostle does not retract what he had said in the preceding chapter, namely, that their advantages were of no avail for justification to the Jews continuing to be sinners, — for, on the contrary, in that case they only enhanced their condemnation; but this expression signifies that their advantages were very great, and very considerable. Chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. — The original denotes primarily , which is not a priority of order, but a priority in dignity and advantage; that is to say, that of all the advantages God had vouchsafed to them, the most estimable and most excellent was that of having entrusted to them His oracles. The word here used for oracles signifies the responses or answers given by an oracle; and when the Scriptures are so designated, it implies that they are altogether, in word, as well as in sense, the communications of God. By these oracles we must understand, in general, all the Scriptures of the Old Testament, especially as they regarded the Messiah; and, in particular, the prophecies which predicted His advent. They were oracles, inasmuch as they were the words from the mouth of God Himself, in opposition to the revelation of nature, which was common to Jews and Gentiles; and they were promises in respect to their matter, because they contained the great promise of sending Jesus Christ into the world. God had entrusted these oracles to the Jews, who had been constituted their guardians and depositories till the time of their fulfillment, when they were to be communicated to all, Isaiah 2:3; and through them possessed the high character of the witnesses of God, Isaiah 43:10, 44:8, even till the time of their execution, when they were commanded to be communicated to the whole world, according to what Isaiah 2:3, had said, — ’For out of Sin shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. These oracles had not, however, been entrusted to the Jews simply as good things for the benefit of others, but also for their own advantage, that they might themselves make use of them; for in the oracles the Messiah — who was to be born among them, and among them to accomplish the work of redemption — was declared to be the proper object of their confidence, and through them they had the means of becoming acquainted with the way of salvation.

But why were these oracles given so long before the coming of the Messiah? It was for three principal reasons: — First , To serve as a testimony that, notwithstanding man’s apostasy, God had not abandoned the earth, but had always reserved for Himself a people; and it was by these great and Divine promises that He had preserved His elect in all ages.

Secondly, These oracles were to characterize and designate the Messiah when He should come, in order that He might be known and distinguished; for they pointed Him out in such a manner that He could be certainly recognized when He appeared. On this account Philip said to Nathaniel, John 1:45, ‘We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and the Prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph’ Thirdly , They were to serve as a proof of the Divine origin of the Christian religion; for the admirable correspondence between the Old Testament and the New is a clear and palpable demonstration of its divinity. It is, moreover, to be observed that this favor of having been constituted the depositories of the sacred oracles was peculiar to the Jews, and one in which the Gentiles did not at all participate. This is what the Apostle here expressly teaches, since he considers it as an illustrious distinction conferred upon his nation, a pre-eminence over all the kingdoms of the world.

But why, again, does the Apostle account the possession of these oracles their greatest advantage? Might not other privileges have been considered as equal, or even preferable, such as the glorious miracles which God had wrought for the deliverance of the Israelites; His causing them to pass through the Red Sea, in the face of all the pride and power of their haughty oppressor; His guiding them through the sandy desert by a pillar of fire by night, and of cloud by day; His causing them to hear His voice out of the fire, when He descended in awful majesty upon Sinai; or, finally, His giving them His law, written with His own finger, on tables of stone? It is replied, the promises respecting the Messiah, and His coming to redeem men, were much greater than all the others. Apart from these, all the other advantages would not only have been useless, but fatal to the Jews; for, being sinners, they could only have served to overwhelm them with despair, in discovering, on the one hand, their corruption, unmitigated by the kindness of Jehovah, and, on the other, the avenging justice of God. In these circumstances, they would have been left under the awful impossibility of finding any expiation for their sins. If, then, God had not added the promises concerning the Messiah, all the rest would have been death to them, and therefore the oracles which contained these promises were the first and chief of their privileges.

Ver. 3. — For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

This is not the objection of a Jew, but, as it might readily occur, is supposed by the Apostle. It is not ‘But what,’ as Dr. Macknight translates the first words, it is ‘For that.’ The Apostle answers the objection in stating it. ‘For what if some have not believed;’ that is, ‘the unbelief of some is no objection to my doctrine.’ ‘Will their unbelief destroy the faithfulness of God?’ This repels, and does not, as Dr. Macknight understands it, assert the supposition. The meaning is, that the unbelief of the Jews did not make void God’s faithfulness with respect to the covenant with Abraham. Though the mass of his descendants were unbelievers at this time, yet many of them, both then, as the Apostle asserts, ch. 11:2, and at all other times, were saved in virtue of that covenant. Paul, then, here anticipates and meets an objection which might be urged against his assertion of the pre-eminence of the Jews over the Gentiles, testified by the fact that to them God had confided His oracles.

The objection is this, that since they had not believed in the Messiah, whom these oracles promised, this advantage must not only be reckoned of little value, but, on the contrary, prejudicial.

In reply to this objection, the Apostle, in the first place, intimates that their unbelief had not been universal, which is tacitly understood in his only attributing unbelief to some; for when it is said that some have not believed, it is plainly intimated that some have believed. It does not, indeed, appear that it would have been worthy of the Divine wisdom to have given to one nation, in preference to all others, so excellent and glorious an economy as that of the Old Testament, to have chosen them above all others of His free love and good pleasure, and to have revealed to them the mysteries respecting the Messiah, while, at the same time, none of them should have responded to all this by a true faith. There is too much glory and too much majesty in the person of Jesus Christ, and in His work of redemption, to allow it to be supposed that He should be revealed only externally by the word, without profit to some, Isaiah 55:10,11.

In all ages, before as well as since the coming of the Messiah, although in a different measure, the Gospel has been the ministration of the Spirit. It was fitting, then, that the ancient promises, which were in substance the Gospel, should be accompanied with a measure of that Divine Spirit who imprints them in the hearts of men, and that, as the Spirit was to be poured out on all flesh, the nation of the Jews should not be absolutely deprived of this blessing. This was the first answer, namely, that unbelief had not been so general, but that many had profited by the Divine oracles; and consequently, in respect to them at least, the advantage to the Jews had been great. But the Apostle goes farther; for, in the second place, he admits that many had fallen in incredulity, but denies that their incredulity impeached the faithfulness of God. Here it may be asked whether the Apostle refers to the Jews under the legal economy who did not believe the Scriptures, or to those only who, at the appearing of the Messiah, rejected the Gospel? The reference, it may be answered, is both to the one and the other.

But it may be said, How could unbelief respecting these oracles be ascribed to the Jews, when they had only rejected the person of Jesus Christ? For they did not doubt the truth of the oracles; on the contrary, they expected with confidence their accomplishment; they only denied that Jesus was the predicted Messiah. It is replied, that to reject, as they did, the person of Jesus Christ, was the same as if they had formally rejected the oracles themselves, since all that was contained in them could only unite and be accomplished in His person. The Jews, therefore, in reality rejected the oracles; and so much the more was their guilt aggravated, inasmuch as it was their prejudices, and their carnal and unauthorized anticipations of a temporal Messiah, which caused their rejection of Jesus Christ. Thus it was a real disbelief of the oracles themselves; for all who reject the true meaning of the Scriptures, and attach to them another sense, do in reality disbelieve them, and set up in their stead a phantom of their own imagination, even while they profess to believe the truth of what the Scriptures contain. The Apostle, then, had good reason to attribute unbelief to the Jews respecting the oracles, but he denies that their unbelief can make void the faith, or rather destroy the faithfulness, of God.

By the faithfulness of God some understand the constancy and faithfulness of His love to the Jews; and they suppose that the meaning is, that while the Jews have at present fallen into unbelief, God will not, however, fail to recall them, as is fully taught in the eleventh chapter. But the question here is not respecting the recall of the Jews, or the constancy of God’s love to them, but respecting their condemnation before His tribunal of strict justice, which they attempted to elude by producing these advantages, and in maintaining that if these advantages only led to their condemnation, as the Apostle had said, it was not in sincerity that God had conferred them. ‘This objection alone the Apostle here refutes. The term, then, faith of God, signifies His sincerity or faithfulness, according to which He had given to the Jews these oracles; and the Apostle’s meaning is, that the incredulity of the Jews did not impeach that sincerity and faithfulness, whence it followed that it drew down on them a more just condemnation, as he had shown in the preceding chapter.

Ver. 4. — God forbid: yea, let and be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, that Thou might be justified in Thy sayings, and might overcome when Thou art judged.

God forbid. — Literally, let it not be, or far be it, a denial frequently made by the Apostle in the same way in this Epistle. It intimates two things, namely, the rejecting of that which the objection would infer, not only as what is false, but even impious; for it is an affront to God to make His faithfulness dependent on the depravity of man, and His favor on our corruption. Though the privileges of the Jew, and the good which God had done for him, terminated only in his condemnation, by reason of his unbelief, it would be derogatory to the Almighty to question His faithfulness, because of the fault of the unprincipled objects of these privileges. The Apostle also wished to clear his doctrine from this calumny, that God was unfaithful in His promises, and insincere in His proceedings. Let God be true, but every man a liar. — The calling of men, inasmuch as it is of God, is faithful and sincere; but the fact that it produces a result contrary to its nature and tendency, is to he attributed to man, who is always deceitful and vain. If the Jews had not been corrupted by their perversity, their calling would have issued in salvation; if it has turned to their condemnation, this is to be attributed to their own unbelief.

We must therefore always distinguish between what comes from God and what proceeds from man: that which is from God is good, and right, and true; that which is from man is evil, and false, and deceitful. Mr. Tholuck grievously errs in his Neological supposition, that this inspired Apostle ‘utters, in the warmth of his discourse, the wish that all mankind might prove covenant-breakers, as this would only tend to glorify God the more, by being the occasion of manifesting how great is His fidelity.’ This would be a bad wish; it would be desiring evil that good might come. It is not a wish. Paul states a truth. God in every instance is to be believed, although this should imply that every man on earth is to be condemned as a liar. As it is written, That thou mightest be justified in Thy sayings, and mightest overcome when Thou art judged. — This passage may be taken either in a passive signification, when Thou shalt be judged, or in an active signification, when Thou shalt judge. In this latter sense, according to the translation in Psalm 51:4, the meaning will be clear, if we have recourse to the history referred to in the Second Book of Samuel, ch. 12:7, 11, where it is said that Nathan was sent from God to David. In that address, God assumed two characters, the one, of the party complaining and accusing David as an ungrateful man, who had abused the favors he had received, and who had offended his benefactor; the other, of the judge who pronounces in his own cause, according to his own accusation. It is to this David answers, in the 4th verse of the Psalm: — ’Against thee, Thee only have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight, that Thou mightest be justified when thou speakest.’ As if he had said, Thou hast good cause to decide against me; I have offended Thee; I am ungrateful; Thou hast reason to complain and to accuse me; Thou hast truth and justice in the words which Thy prophet has spoken from Thee. He adds, that Thou mightest be clear when Thou judgest; that is to say, as my accuser Thou wilt obtain the victory over me, before Thy tribunal, when Thou pronouncest Thy sentence. In one word, it signifies that whether in regard to the found of that sentence or its form, David had nothing to allege against the judgment which God had pronounced in His own cause, and that he fully acknowledged the truth and justice of God. Hence it clearly follow that when God pleads against us, and sets before us His goodness to us, and, on the other hand, the evil return we have made, it is always found that God is sincere and true towards us, but that we have been deceivers and unbelieving in regard to Him, and therefore that our condemnation is juSt. This is precisely what the Apostle proposed to conclude against the Jews.

God had extended to them His favors, and they had requited them only by their sins, and by a base incredulity. When, therefore, He shall bring them to answer before His judgment-seat, God will decide that He had been sincere in respect to them, and that they, on the contrary, had been wicked, whence will follow their awful but just condemnation. Paul could not have adduced anything more to the purpose than the example and words of David on a subject altogether similar, nor more solidly have replied to the objection supposed.

The answer of the Apostle will lead to the same conclusion, if the passive sense be taken, Thou shalt be judged. Though so eminent a servant of God, David had been permitted to fall into his foul transgressions, that God might be justified in the declarations of His word, which assert that all men are evil, guilty and polluted by nature, and that in themselves there is no difference. Had all the eminent saints whose lives are recorded in Scripture, been preserved blameless, the world would have supposed that such men were an exception to the character given of man in the word of God. They would have concluded that human nature is better than it is. But when Abraham and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Peter and many others, were permitted to manifest what is in human nature, God’s word is justified in its description of man. God ‘overcomes when He is judged;’ that is, such examples as that of the fall of David prove that man is what God declares him to be. Wicked men are not afraid to bring God to their bar, and impeach His veracity, by denying that man is as bad as He declares. But by such examples God is justified. The passive sense, then, of the word ‘judge’ is a good and appropriate meaning; and the phrase acquitting, or clearing, or overcoming may be applicable, not to the person who judges God, but to God who is judged. This meaning is also entirely to the Apostle’s purpose. Let all men be accounted liars, rather than impugn the veracity of God, because, in reality, all men are in themselves such.

Whenever, then, the Divine testimony is contradicted by human testimony, let man be accounted a liar.

Ver. 5. — But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) Out of the answer to the question in the first verse of this chapter, another objection might arise, which is here supposed. It is such as a Jew would make, but is proposed by the Apostle classing himself with the Jews, as is intimated when he says, I speak as a man, just as any writer is in the habit of stating objections in order to obviate them. The objection is this: if, then, it be so that the righteousness of God, — that righteousness which is revealed in the Gospel, ch. 1:17, by the imputation of which men are justified, — if that righteousness which God has provided is more illustriously manifested by our sin, showing how suitable and efficacious it is to us as sinners, shall it not be said that God is unjust in punishing the sin that has this effect? What shall we say? or what answer can be made to such an objection? Is God, or rather, is not God unjust, who in this case taketh vengeance? This is a sort of insult against the doctrine of the Gospel, as if the objection was so strong and well founded that no reply could be made to it. I speak as a man. — That is to say, in the way that the impiety of men, and their want of reverence for God, leads them to speak. The above was, in effect, a manner of reasoning common among the Jews and other enemies of the Gospel. It is, indeed, such language as is often heard, that if such doctrines as those of election and special grace be true, men are not to be blamed who reject the Gospel.

Ver. 6. — God forbid; for then how shall God judge the world?

Far be it. — Paul thus at once rejects such a consequence, and so perverse a manner of reasoning, as altogether inadmissible, and proceeds to answer it by showing to what it would lead, if admitted. For then how shall God judge the world? — If the objection were well founded, it would entirely divest God of the character of judge of the world. The reason of this is manifest, for there is no sin that any man can commit which does not exalt some perfection of God, in the way of contrast. If, then, it be concluded that because unrighteousness in man illustrates the righteousness of God, God is unrighteous when He taketh vengeance, it must be further said, that there is no sin that God can justly punish; whence it follows that God can no longer be judge of the world. But this would subvert all order and all religion. The objection, then, is such that, were it admitted, all the religion in the world would at once be annihilated. For those sins, for which men will be everlastingly punished, will no doubt be made to manifest God’s glory. Such is the force of the Apostle’s reply.

Ver. 7. — For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto His glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

This verse is generally supposed to contain the objection here reiterated, which was before stated in the 5th verse. It would appear strange, however, that the Apostle should in this manner repeat an objection — in a way, too, in which it is not strengthened — which he had effectually removed, and that after proposing it a second time he should add nothing to his preceding reply, further than denouncing it. It is not, then, a repetition of the same objection, but a second way in which Paul replies to what had been advanced in the 5th verse. In the preceding verse he had, in his usual brief but energetic manner, first repudiated the consequence alleged in the 5th verse, and had next replied to it by a particular reference, which proved that it was inadmissible. Here, by the word for, he introduces another consideration, and proceeds to set aside the objection, by exposing the inconsistency of those by whom it was preferred. The expression kajgw> I also, shows that Paul speaks here in his own person, and not in that of an opponent, for otherwise he would not have said, I also, which marks an application to a particular individual. His reply, then, here to the objection is this: If, according to those by whom it is supposed and brought forward, it would be unrighteous in God to punish any action which redounds to His own glory, Paul would in like manner say that if his lie — his false doctrine, as his adversaries stigmatized it — commended the truth of God, they, according to their own principle, were unjust, because on this account they persecuted him as a sinner. In this manner he makes their objection reach upon those by whom it was advanced, and refutes them by referring to their own conduct towards him, so that they could have nothing to reply. For it could not be denied that the doctrine which Paul taught respecting the justification of sinners solely by the righteousness of God, whether true or false, ascribed all the glory of their salvation to God.

Ver. 8. — And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil that good may come; whose damnation is just.

This is the third thing which the Apostle advances against the objection of his adversaries, and is in substance, that they established as a good and just principle what they ascribed to him as a crime, namely, that men might do evil that good may come. They calumniously imputed to Paul and his fellow-laborers this impious maxim, in order to render them odious, while it was they themselves who maintained it. For if, according to them, God was unrighteous in punishing the unrighteousness of men when their unrighteousness redounded to His glory, it followed that the Apostles might without blame do evil, provided that out of it good should arise. Their own objection, then, proved them guilty of maintaining that same hateful doctrine which they so falsely laid to his charge. As we slanderously reported. — Here Paul satisfies himself with stigmatizing as a slanderous imputation this vile calumny, from which the doctrine he taught was altogether clear. Whose damnation is just. — This indignant manner of cutting short the matter by simply affirming the righteous condemnation of his adversaries, was the more proper, not only as they were calumniators, but also because the principle of doing evil that good might come, was avowed by them in extenuation of sin and unbelief.

It was fitting, then, that an expression of abhorrence, containing a solemn denunciation of the vengeance of God, on account of such a complication of perversity and falsehood, should for ever close the subject. On these verses we may observe, that men often adduce specious reasonings to contradict the decisions of the Divine word; but Christians ought upon every subject implicitly to credit the testimony of God, though many subtle and plausible objections should present themselves, which they are unable to answer.

Ver. 9. — What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jew and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.

Here commences the second part of the chapter, in which, having proposed and replied to the above objections to his doctrine, Paul now resumes the thread of his discourse. In the two preceding chapters he had asserted the guilt of the Gentiles and of the Jews separately; in what follows he takes them together, and proves by express testimonies from Scripture that all men are sinners, and that there is none righteous, no, not one. In this manner he follows up and completes his argument to support the conclusion at which he is about to arrive in the 20th verse, which all along he had in view, namely, that by works of law no man can be justified, and with the purpose of fully unfolding, in verses 21, 22, 23, and 24, the means that God has provided for our justification, which he had briefly announced, ch. 1:17. In the verse before us he shows that, although he has admitted that the advantages of the Jews over the Gentiles are great, it must not thence be concluded that the Jews are better than they. When he says ‘are we better,’ he classes himself with the Jews, to whom he was evidently referring; but when, in the last clause of the verse, he employs the same term ‘we,’ he evidently speaks in his own person, although, as in some other places, in the plural number. What then? are we better than they? — The common translation here is juster than Mr. Stuart’s, which is, ‘have we any preference?’ The Jews had a preference. The Apostle allows that they had many advantages, and that they had a preference over the Gentiles; but he denies that they were better. Not at all. — By no means. This is a strong denial of what is the subject of the question. Then he gives the reason of the denial, namely, that he had before proved both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin. All not only signifies that there were sinners among both Jews and Gentiles, for the Jews did not deny this; on this point there was no difference between them and the Apostle; but he includes them all singly, without one exception. It is in this sense of universality that what he has hitherto said, both of Jews and Gentiles, must be taken. Of all that multitude of men there was not found one who had not wandered from the right way. One alone, Jesus Christ, was without sin, and it is on this account that the Scriptures call Him the ‘Just or Righteous One,’ to distinguish Him by this singular character from the rest of men. Under sin . — That is to say, guilty; for it is in relation to the tribunal of Divine justice that the Apostle here considers sin, in the same way as he says, Galatians 3:22, ‘The Scripture hath concluded (shut up) all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.’ That it is in this sense we must understand the expression under sin and not, as Roman Catholic commentators explain it, as under the dominion of sin, evidently appears, — 1st , Because in this discussion, to be under sin is opposed to being under grace. Now, to be under grace, Romans 6:14,15, signifies to be in a state of justification before God, our sins being pardoned. To be under sin, then, signifies to be guilty in the eye of justice. 2nd , It is in reference to the tribunal of Divine justice, and in the view of condemnation, that Paul has all along been considering sin, both in respect to Jews and Gentiles. To be under sin, then, can only signify to be guilty, since he here repeats in summary all that he had before advanced. Finally, he explains his meaning clearly when he says, in verse 19, ‘that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.’

Ver. 10. — As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.

After having proceeded in his discussion, appealing to the natural sentiments of conscience and undeniable fact, Paul now employs the authority of Scripture, and alleges several passages drawn from the books of the Old Testament, written at different times, more clearly to establish the universal guilt both of Jews and Gentiles, in order that he might prove them all under condemnation before the tribunal of God. There is none righteous. — This passage may be regarded as the leading proposition, the truth of which the Apostle is about to establish by the following quotations. None could be more appropriate or better adapted to his purpose, which was to show that every man is in himself entirely divested of righteousness. There is none righteous, no, not one. Not one possessed of a righteousness that can meet the demands of God’s holy law. The words in this verse, and those contained in verses 11 and 12, are taken from Psalms 14: and <195301> 53, which are the same as to the sense, although they do not follow the exact expressions. But does it seem proper that Paul should draw a consequence in relation to all, from what David has only said of the wicked of his time? The answer is, That the terms which David employs are too strong not to contemplate the universal sinfulness of the human race. ‘The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside; they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.’ This notifies universal depravity, so that, according to the Prophet, the application is just. It is not that David denies that God had sanctified some men by His Spirit; for, on the contrary, in the same Psalm, he speaks of the afflicted, of whom God is the refuge; but the intention is to say that, in their natural condition, without the grace of regeneration, which God vouchsafes only to His people, who are a small number, the whole human race is in a state of universal guilt and condemnation. This is also what is meant by Paul, and it is the use, as is clear from the context, that he designed to make of this passage of David, according to which none are excepted in such a way as that, if God examined them by their obedience to the law, they could stand before Him; and, besides this, whatever holiness is found in any man, it is not by the efficacy of the law, but by that of the Gospel, and if they are now sanctified, they were formerly under sin as well as others; so that it remains a truth, that all who are under the law, to which the Apostle is exclusively referring, are under sin that is, guilty before God. Through the whole of this discussion, it is to be observed that the Apostle makes no reference to the doctrine of sanctification. It is to the law exclusively that he refers, and here, without qualification, he asserts it as a universal truth that there is none righteous — not one who possesses righteousness, that is, in perfect conformity to the law; and his sole object is to prove the necessity of receiving the righteousness of God in order to be delivered from condemnation. The passage, then, here adduced by Paul, is strictly applicable to his design.

Dr. Macknight supposes that this expression, ‘There is none righteous,’ applies to the Jewish common people, and is an Eastern expression, which means that comparatively very few are excepted. There is not the shadow of ground for such a supposition. It is evident that both the passages quoted, and the Apostle’s argument, require that every individual of the human race be included. And on what pretense can it be restricted to ‘the Jewish common people’? Whether were they or their leaders the objects of the severest reprehensions of our Lord during His ministry? Did not Jesus pronounce the heaviest woes on the scribes and Pharisees? Matthew 23:15. Did He not tell the chief priests and elders that the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of heaven before them? Matthew 21:31.

Mr. Stuart also supposes that the charge is not unlimited, and justifies this by alleging that the believing Jews must be excepted. But it is clear that the believing Jews are not excepted. For though they are now delivered, yet they were by nature under sin as well as others; and that all men are so, is what Paul is teaching, without having the smallest reference to the Gospel or its effects. In this manner Dr. Macknight and Mr. Stuart, entirely mistaking the meaning of the Apostle and the whole drift of his argument, remove the foundation of the proofs he adduces that all men are sinners.

Mr. Stuart also appears to limit the charges to the Jews, and in support of this refers to the 9th and 19th verses. The 9th verse speaks of both Jews and Gentiles; and the purpose of the 19th evidently is to prove that the Jews are not excepted; while the 20th clearly shows that the whole race of mankind are included, it being the general conclusion which the Apostle draws from all he had said, from the 18th verse of the first chapter, respecting both Jews and Gentiles, of whom he affirms in the 9th verse that they were all under sin. And is it not strictly true, in the fullest import of the term, that there is none righteous in himself, no, not one? Is not righteousness the fulfilling of the law? ‘And do not the Scriptures testify and everywhere show that ‘there is no man that sinneth not’? Kings 8:46. ‘Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?’ Proverbs 20:9. ‘For there is not a just man upon earth; that doeth good and sinneth not,’ Ecclesiastes 7:20. And the Apostle James, including himself as well as his brethren to whom he wrote, declares, ‘In many things we all offend’. f15 Like Mr. Stuart, Taylor of Norwich in his Commentary, supposes that in this and the following verses to the 19th, the Apostle means no universality at all, but only the far greater part, and that they refer to bodies of people, of Jews and Gentiles in a collective sense, and not to particular persons. To this President Edwards, in his treatise On Original Sin , p. 245, replies, ‘If the words which the Apostle uses do not most fully and determinably signify a universality, no words ever used in the Bible are sufficient to do it. I might challenge any man to produce any one paragraph in the Scripture, from the beginning to the end, where there is such a repetition and accumulation of terms, so strongly and emphatically, and carefully, to express the most perfect and absolute universality, or any place to be compared to it. What instance is there in the scripture, or indeed any other writing, when the meaning is only the much greater part, where this meaning is signified in such a manner by repeating such expressions, They are all — they are all — they are all — together one — all the world, joined to multiplied negative terms, to show the universality to be without exception, saying, There is no flesh — there is none — there is none — there is none — there is none four times over, besides the addition of no, not one — no, not one, once and again! When the Apostle says, ‘That every mouth may be stopped, must we suppose that he speaks only of those two great collective bodies, figuratively ascribing to each of them a mouth, and means that those two mouths are stopped?’ Again, p. 241, ‘Here the thing which I would prove, viz., that mankind, in their first state, before they are interested in the benefits of Christ redemption, are universally wicked, is declared with the utmost possible fullness and precision. So that, if here this matter be not set forth plainly, expressly, and fully, it must be because no words can do it; and it is not in the power of language, or any manner of terms or phrases, however contrived and heaped one upon another, determinably to signify any such thing.’

Ver. 11. — There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Paul here applies equally to Jews and Gentiles that which he charges upon the Gentiles, Ephesians 4:18, ‘Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them because of the blindness (or hardness) of their hearts.’ This is true of every individual of the human race naturally. ‘The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him.’ In the parable of the sower, the radical distinction between those who finally reject, and those who receive the word and bring forth fruit, is, that they who were fruitful ‘understood’ the word, while the others understood it not, Matthew 13:19-23, and the new man, he who is born again, is said to be renewed in knowledge, after the image of Him that created him. The assertion, then, in this passage, requires no limitation with respect to those who are now believers, for they were originally like others. All men are naturally ignorant of God, and by neglecting the one thing needful, show no understanding. They act more irrationally than the beasts. Now that seeketh after God. — To seek God is an expression frequently used in Scripture to denote the acts of religion and piety. It supposes the need all men have to go out of themselves to seek elsewhere their support, their life, and happiness, and the distance at which naturally we are from God, and God from us, — we by our perversity, and He by His just wrath. It teaches how great is the blindness of those who seek anything else but God, in order to be happy, since true wisdom consists in seeking God for this, for He alone is the sovereign good to man. It also teaches us that during the whole course of our life God proposes Himself as the object that men are to seek, Isaiah 55:6, for the present is the time of His calling them, and if they do not find Him, it is owing to their perversity, which causes them to flee from Him, or to seek Him in a wrong way. To seek God is, in general, to answer to all His relative perfections; that is to say, to respect and adore His sovereign majesty, to instruct ourselves in His word as the primary truth, to obey His commandments as the commandments of the sovereign Legislator of men, to have recourse to Him by prayer as the origin of all things. In particular, it is to have recourse to His mercy by repentance; it is to place our confidence in Him; it is to ask for his Holy Spirit to support us, and to implore His protection and blessing; and all this through Him who is the way to the Father, and who declares that no man cometh to the Father but by Him.

Ver. 12. — They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Sin is a wandering or departure from the right way; that is to say, out of the way of duty and obligation, out of the way of the means which conduct to felicity. These are the ways open before the eyes of men to walk in them; he who turns from there wanders out of the way. The Prophet here teaches what is the nature of sin; he also shows us what are its consequences; for as the man who loses his way cannot have any rest in his mind, nor any security, it is the same with the sinner; and as a wanderer cannot restore himself to the right way without the help of a guide, in the same manner the sinner cannot restore himself, if the Holy Spirit comes not to his aid. They are together become unprofitable. — They have become corrupted, or have rendered themselves useless; for everything that is corrupted loses its use. They are become unfit for that for which God made them; unprofitable to God, to themselves, and to their neighbor. There is none that doeth good, no, not one — not one who cometh up to the requirements of the law of God. This is the same as is said above, there is none righteous, and both the Prophet and the Apostle make use of this repetition to enhance the greatness and the extent of human corruption.

Ver. 13. — Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips.

What the Apostle had said in the preceding verses was general; he now descends to something more particular, both respecting words and actions, and in this manner follows up his assertion, that there is none that doeth good, by showing that all men are engaged in doing evil. As to their words, he marks in this and the following verse, all the organs of speech, the throat, the tongue, the lips, the mouth. All this tends to aggravate the depravity of which he speaks. The first part of this verse is taken from Psalm 5:9, and the last from <19E003> Psalm 140:3. Open sepulcher. — This figure graphically portrays the filthy conversation of the wicked. Nothing can be more abominable to the senses than an open sepulcher, where a dead body beginning to putrefy steams forth its tainted exhalations. What proceeds out of their mouth is infected and putrid; and as the exhalation from a sepulcher proves the corruption within, so it is with the corrupt conversation of sinners. With their tongues they have used deceit — used them to deceive their neighbor, or they have flattered with the tongue, and this flattery is joined with the intention to deceive. This also characterizes in a striking manner the way in which men employ speech to deceive each other, in bargains, and in everything in which their interest is concerned. The poison of asps is under their lips. — This denotes the mortal poison, such as that of vipers or asps, that lies concealed under the lips, and is emitted in poisoned words. As these venomous creatures kill with their poisonous sting, so slanderers and evil-minded persons destroy the characters of their neighbors. ‘Death and life,’ it is said in the Book of Proverbs, ‘are in the power of the tongue.’

Ver. 14. — Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.

This is taken from Psalm 10:7. Paul describes in this and the foregoing verse the four principal vices of the tongue, — filthy and infected discourse; deceitful flatteries; subtle and piercing evil-speaking; finally, outrageous and open malediction. This last relates to the extraordinary propensity of men to utter imprecations against one another, proceeding from their being hateful and hating one another. Bitterness applies to the bitterness of spirit to which men give vent by bitter words. All deceit and fraud is bitter in the end, — that is to say, desolating and afflicting. ‘They bend their bows to shoot their arrows, even bitter words.’ ‘Their teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword,’ Psalm 64:3, 57:4. ‘The tongue,’ says the Apostle James, ‘is set on fire of hell.’

Ver. 15. — Their feet are swift to shed blood.

After having spoken of men’s sinfulness, as shown by their words, the Apostle comes to that of actions, which he describes in this and the two following verses. This passage is taken from Isaiah 59:7, and from Proverbs 1:16, which describe the general sinfulness of men; the injustice and violence committed among them, and how ready they are to shed blood when not restrained either by the consideration of the good of society, or by fear of the laws. Every page of history attests the truth of this awful charge.

Ver. 16. — Destruction and misery are in their ways.

This declaration, taken also from Isaiah 59:7, must be understood in an active sense, — that is to say, men labor to destroy and to ruin one another; proceeding in their perverse ways, they cause destruction and misery.

Ver. 17. — And the way of peace have they not known.

They have not known peace to follow and approve of it; and are not acquainted with its ways, in which they do not walk in order to procure the good of their neighbor, — for peace imports prosperity, or the way to maintain concord and friendship. Such is a just description of man’s ferocity, which fills the world with animosities, quarrels, hatred in the private connections of families and neighborhoods; and with revolutions, and wars, and murders, among nations. The most savage animals do not destroy so many of their own species to appease their hunger, as man destroys of his fellows; to satiate his ambition, his revenge, or cupidity.

Ver. 18. — There is no fear of and before their eyes.

This is taken from Psalm 36:1. After having followed up the general charge, that there is ‘none righteous, no, not one,’ by producing the preceding awful descriptions of human depravity, and having begun with the declaration of man’s want of understanding and his alienation from God, the Apostle here refers to the primary source of all these evils, with which he sums them up. There is ‘no fear of God before their eyes.’ They have not that reverential fear of Him which is the beginning of wisdom, which is connected with departing from evil, and honoring and obeying Him, and is often spoken of in Scripture as the sum of all practical religion; on the contrary, they are regardless of His majesty and authority, His precepts and His threatenings. It is astonishing that men, while they acknowledge that there is a God, should act without any fear of His displeasure. Yet this is their character. They fear a worm of the dust like themselves, but disregard the Most-High, Isaiah 51:12,18. They are more afraid of man than of God — of his anger, his contempt, or ridicule.

The fear of man prevents them from doing many things from which they are not restrained by the fear of God. That God will put His fear in the hearts of His people, is one of the distinguishing promises of the new covenant, which shows that proof to this it is not found there.

The Apostle could have collected a much greater number of passages from the law and the Prophets to prove what he intended, for there is nothing more frequent in the Old Testament than the reproaches of God against the Israelites, and all men, on account of their abandoning themselves to sin; but these form a very complete description of the reign of sin among men. The first of them, ver. 10, prefers the general charge of unrighteousness; the second, vers. 11, 12, marks the internal character or disorders of the heart; the third, vers. 13, 14, those of the words; the fourth, vers. 15, 16, 17, those of the actions; and the last, ver. 18, declares the cause of the whole. In the first and second, we see the greatness of the corruption, and its universality: its greatness, in the extinction of all righteousness, of all wisdom, of all religion, of all rectitude, of all that is proper, and, in one word, of all that is good; its universality, in that it has seized upon the whole man, without leaving anything that is sound or entire. In the third, we observe the four vices of the tongue, which have been already pointed out, — namely corrupt conversation, flattery and deceit, envenomed slander, outrageous malediction. In the fourth, justice violated in what is most sacred — the life of man; charity subverted, in doing the evil which it prohibits; and that which is most fundamental and most necessary — peace — destroyed. And in the last, what is most essential entirely cast off, which is the fear of God. In this manner, having commenced his enumeration of the evils to which men are addicted, by pointing out their want of understanding and desire to seek Gods the Apostle terminates his description by exposing the source from whence they all show, which is, that men are destitute of the fear of God; His fear is not before their eyes to restrain them from evil. They love not His character, not rendering to it that veneration which is due; they respect not His authority. Such is the state of human nature while the heart is unchanged. From all this a faint idea may be formed of what will be the future state of those who shall perish, from whom the Gospel has been hid, — of those whose minds the God of this world has blinded, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine into them. Then the various restraints which in this life operate so powerfully, so extensively, and so constantly, will be taken off, and the natural depravity of fallen man will burst forth in all its unbridled and horrible wickedness.

Ver. 19. — Now we know that whatsoever thing the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

The article is in this verse prefixed to the term law, while it is wanting in the following verse. This shows that here the reference is to the legal dispensation, and applies in the first clause specially to the Jews; while, in the law clause, the expression ‘all the world,’ and, in the following verse, the term ‘law,’ without the article, refers to all mankind.

Paul here anticipates two general answers which might be made to those passages which he had just quoted, to convict the Jews, as well as all other men, of sin. First, that they are applicable not to the Jews but to the Gentiles, and that, therefore, it is improper to employ them against the Jews. Second, that even if they referred to the Jews they could only be applied to some wicked persons among them, and not to the whole nation; so that what he intended to prove could not thence be concluded, namely, that no man can be justified before God by the law. In opposition to these two objections, he says, that when the law speaks, it speaks to those who are under it, — to the Jews therefore; and that it does so in order that the mouths of all, without distinction, may be stopped. If God should try the Jews according to the law, they could not stand before His strict justice, as David said, ‘If Thou, Lord, shouldst mark iniquity, O Lord, who shall stand?’ <19D003> Psalm 130:3. And, in addition to this, whatever there was of piety and holiness in some it was not by the efficacy of the law, but by that of the Gospel — not by the spirit of bondage, but by the spirit of adoption; so that it remains true that all those who are under the law are under sin. That, or in order that. — This must be taken in three senses. 1st , The law brought against the Jews those accusations and reproaches of which Paul had produced a specimen in the passages quoted, in order that every mouth may be stopped; this is the end which the law proposed. 2nd , This was also the object of God, when He gave the law, for He purposed to make manifest the iniquity of man, and the rights of justice, Romans 5:20. 3rd , It was likewise the result of the legal economy. Every mouth may be stopped. — This expression should be carefully remarked. For if a man had fulfilled the law, he would have something to allege before the Divine tribunal, to answer to the demands of justice; but when convicted as a sinner, he can only be silent — he can have nothing to answer to the accusations against him; he must remain convicted. This silence, then, is a silence of confession, of astonishment, and of conviction. This is what is elsewhere expressed by confusion of face. ‘O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto Thee; but unto us, confusion of faces,’ Daniel 9:7. And all the world. — That is to say, both Jews and Gentiles. The first clause of this verse, though specially applicable to the Jews, proves that since they, who enjoyed such peculiar privileges, were chargeable with those things of which the law accused them, the rest of mankind, whom the Apostle here includes under the term ‘all the world,’ must also be under the same condemnation. The law of nature, written on their consciences, sufficiently convicts the Gentile’s; and as to the Jews who try to stifle the conviction of their consciences by abusing the advantages of the law, that law itself, while it accuses, convicts then; also. This expression, then, must include the whole human race. It applies to all men, of every age and every nation. None of all the children of Adam are excepted. Words cannot more clearly include, in one general condemnation, the whole human race. Who can be excepted? Not the Gentiles, since they have all been destitute of the knowledge of the true God. Not the Jews, for them the law itself accuses. Not believers, for they are only such through their acknowledgment of their sins, since grace is the remedy to which they have resorted to be freed from condemnation. All the world, then, signifies all men universally. May become guilty. — That is, be compelled to acknowledge themselves guilty. The term guilty signifies subject to condemnation, and respects the Divine judgment. It denotes the state of a man justly charged with a crime, and is used both in the sense of legal responsibility and of blame worthiness. This manifestly proves that in all this discussion the Apostle considers sin in relation to the condemnation which it deserves. Before God — When the question respects appearing before men, people find many ways of escape, either by concealing their actions, by disguising facts, or by disputing what is right. And even when men pass in review before themselves, self-love finds excuses, and various shifts are resorted to, and false reasonings, which deceive. But nothing of this sort can have place before God. For although the Jews flattered themselves in the confidence of their own righteousness, and on this point all men try to deceive themselves, it will be entirely different in the day when they shall appear before the tribunal of God; for then there will be no more illusions of conscience, no more excuses, no way to escape condemnation. His knowledge is infinite, His hand is omnipotent, His justice is incorruptible, and from Him nothing can be concealed. Before Him, therefore, every mouth will be stopped, and all the world must confess themselves guilty.

Ver. 20. — Therefore by the deeds of law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight; for by law is the knowledge of sin.

This is the final conclusion drawn from the whole of the preceding discussion, beginning at verse 18th of chapter first. The Apostle had shown that both the Gentiles and the Jews are under sin; that is, they have brought down upon themselves the just condemnation of God. He had proved the same thing in the preceding verse, according to the scriptures before quoted. Therefore. — The conclusion, then, from the whole, as containing in this verse, is evident. By the deeds of the law, or, as in the original, of law. — The reference here is to every law that God has given to man, whether expressed in words, or imprinted in the heart. It is that law which the Gentiles have transgressed, which they have naturally inscribed in their hearts. It is that law which the Jews have violated, when they committed theft, adulteries, and sacrileges, and which convicted them of impiety, of evil-speaking, of calumny, of murder, of injustice. In one word, it is that law which shuts the mouth of the whole world, as had been said in the preceding verse, and brings in all men guilty before God. The deeds, or works of law. — When it is said, by works of law no flesh shall be justified, it is not meant that the law, whether natural or written, was not capable of justifying. Neither is it meant that the righteousness thus resulting from man’s fulfillment of all its demands would not be a true righteousness, but that no man being able to plead this fulfillment of the law before the tribunal of God — that perfect obedience which it requires — no man can receive by the law a sentence pronouncing him to be righteous. To say that the works of the law, if performed, are not good and acceptable, and would not form a true righteousness, would contradict what had been affirmed in the preceding chapter, verse 13, that the doers of the law shall be justified. The Apostle, then, does not propose here to show either the want of power of the law in itself, or of the insufficiency of its works for justification, but solely to prove that no man fulfills the law, that both Gentiles and Jews are under sin, and that all the world is guilty before God. No flesh — This reference appears to be to <19E301> Psalm 143 David there says, ‘no man living.’ Paul says, ‘no flesh.’ The one is a term which marks a certain dignity, the other denotes meanness. The one imports that whatever excellence there might be supposed to be in man, he could not be justified before God; and the other, that being only flesh, — that is to say, corruption and weakness, — he ought not to pretend to justification by himself. Thus, on whatever side man regards himself, he is far from being able to stand before the strict judgment of God. Shall be justified in His sight. — The meaning of the term justified, as used by the Apostle in the whole of this discussion, is evident by the different expressions in this verse. It appears by the therefore, with which the verse begins, that it is a conclusion which the Apostle draws from the whole of the foregoing discussion. Now, all this discussion has been intended to show that neither Gentiles nor Jews could elude the condemnation of the Divine judgment. The conclusion, then, that no flesh shall be justified in the sight of God by the works of law, can only signify that no man can be regarded as righteous, or obtain by means of his works a favorable sentence from Divine justice. It is in this sense that David has taken the term justify in Psalms 143, to which the Apostle had reference, Enter not unto judgment with Thy servant; for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified. The terms in His sight testify the same thing, for they accommodate themselves to the idea of a tribunal before which men must appear to be judged. It is the same with regard to the other terms, by the deeds of law; for if we understand a justification of judgment, the sense is plain: no one can plead before the tribunal of God a perfect and complete fulfillment of the law, such as strict and exact justice demands; no one, therefore, can in that way obtain justification. In justifying men, God does all, and men receiving justification, contribute nothing towards it. This is in opposition to the justification proposed by the law by means of obedience, in which way a man would be justified by his own righteousness, and not by the righteousness which God has provided and bestows. For by law is the knowledge of sin. — Paul does not here intend simply to say that the law makes known in general the nature of sin, inasmuch as it discovers what is acceptable or displeasing to God, what He commands, and what He forbids; but he means to affirm that the law convicts men of being sinners. For his words refer to what he had just before said in the preceding verse, that all that the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God, which marks a conviction of sin. But how, it may be said, does the law give that knowledge or that conviction of sin? It does so in two ways. By the application of its commandments, and its prohibitions in the present state in which man is placed, for it excites and awakens the conscience, and gives birth to accusing thoughts. This is common both to the written law and the law of nature. It does this, secondly, by the declaration of punishments and rewards which it sets before its transgressors and observers, and as it excites the conscience, and gives rise to fear and agitation, thus bringing before the eyes of men the dreadful evil of sin. This also is alike common to the law of nature and the written law.

Here it is important to remark that God, having purposed to establish but one way of justification for all men, has permitted, in His providence, that all should be guilty. For if there had been any excepted, there would have been two different methods of justification, and consequently two true religions, and two true churches, and believers would not have had that oneness of communion which grace produces. It was necessary, then, that all should become guilty. The Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe, Galatians 3:22; Romans 11 32.