VERSE 17. Instead of cos, Iwlwld, which is in the common text, most of the ancient manuscripts, many of the versions, and of the Fathers, read et os, but if; which reading is adopted by Bengel, Griesbach, Knapp, and Lachmann, and is followed by almost all the recent commentators. We- have then the protasis of a, sentence of which the apodosis does not follow: ' J>ut if thou art called a Jew, and hast the law, thou xhouldst a<;t according to it;' comp. 2 Pet. ii. 4. Or the answering clause may be found in ver. 21, ' If thou art called a Jew,' tfcc., 'tcachest thou then (<>u^) not thy>elf"r' Win>'r, § 0 4, 11. 1. Art caff i'il, i-f>^i>>!.('i.''yr I'ullt'd «ft(i\ or in <t>l>liti»n f»; a. sense insisted on here by Theodoret, who says, " obx il~-^ u\,otul~7n d//' k~OKorj.d^7j.".IJcngcl, Kb'llner, Clever, and others, take the same view of the meaning of the word: 'Besides your proper name, you call yourself a Jew.' JJut as the compound word is used for ilie simple one in (Jen. iv. 17, 2o, 20, and elsewhere, and as.lew was then the common name of the people, it is better rendered, tf<<m <irt called. ' /ouoaioz, a •/<•!/',;i descendant of Judah, in the New Testament applied to all the Israelites, as inhabitants of Judea. It was considered a title of honour, not only on account of its etymology, r—rrr, meaning ///v/.svW, Gen. xlix. 8, but because it designated the people of God. Comp. vs. 28, 21), and llev. ii. 9: "I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews, and are not." To be a Jew in this sense, was to be one of the covenant people of God, a member of the theocracy, or of the true Church. As this was the principal ground of the false confidence of the Jews, the apostle mentions tt before all others. It was not enough that they were the children of Abraham; if they sinned, they were exposed to the displeasure of that God who will render to every man according to his works, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile. And rcstest on the law. That is, Thou placest thy confidence upon the law. In the Scptuagint, the word occurs in Micah iii. 11, a passage illustrative of the one before us, "The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, the prophets thereof divine for money; yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? none evil can come upon us." The law here means the whole Mosaic system, the civil and religious polity of the Jews. This they relied upon; the fact that they were within the Church, were partakers of its sacraments and rites; that they had a divinely appointed priesthood, continued in unbroken succession from Aaron, and invested with the power to make atonement for sin, was the ground on which they rested their hope of acceptance with God. Within that pale they considered all safe; out of it, there was no salvation. Such was the false confidence of the Jews; such has been and is the false confidence of thousands of Christians. And malceM % boast of 6rod. See Winer, § 13. 2, on the form of the word xau-^aaae. To boast, or glory in any person or thing, is to rejoice in him or it as a source of honour, happi ness, or profit to ourselves. We are forbidden thus to glory in ourselves, or any creature, as the ground of our confidence and source of our blessedness. "Let no man glory in men; but he that glories, let him glory in the Lord." This glorying in God may be right or wrong, according to the reasons of it. If it proceeds from a sense of our own emptiness, and from right apprehensions of the excellence of God, and from faith in his promises, then it is that glorying which is so often commanded. But if it arises from false notions of our relation to him, as his peculiar favourites, then it is vain and wicked. The Jews regarded themselves in such a sense the people of God, as to be secure of his favour, let their personal character be what it might. They boasted that he was their God, that they mono polized his favour, all other nations being his enemies.
VERSE 18. And knowcst tlie will &c., of God. Superior knowledge was another of the peculiar distinctions of the Jews. The particulars to which the apostle refers in this, as well as in the preceding and succeeding verses, constituted real and great privileges, by which the Jews were distinguished from all other people. To he the people of God, to have the law, to know the divine will, were indeed great advantages; but these advantages only increased the obligations of those who enjoyed them. They did not of themselves constitute any ground of confidence of acceptance with God; much less did the mere possession of these distinguishing favours give exemption from those princi ples of just retribution, according to which God will judge the world. The apostle, however, grants the Jews all they claimed: he grants that they were the people of God; that they had the law. knew the divine will. ^e.. and then shows that they were nevertheless exposed to condemnation. If real advantages, such as distinguished the.lews above all other nations, were of no avail to their justification or acceptance before God, what is to be said or thought of those who place their confidence in fictitious advantages, in mere imaginary superiority to their fellow men or fellow Christians; as belonging to the true Church, having the true succession, the real sacraments, when in fact in these respects they are even less favoured than thoso whom they look upon as outside the Church and the covenant? And <i in>r<>r,'xt (//<> t/n'n</x t/mt arc more e.r<'c?/<-nf. Aoxtfuii^stv is tn fr//. t» examine, as in 1 Cor. iii.!•'>; and then. 1» regard <i* trt'i'if. i. e. 1<> approve, as in 1 Cor. xvi. o. Jefjufsostv means to ditfi'i\ as in Gal. ii. • >: and also, to excel, as in Matt. x. •>!. See also Matt. vi. '2(\, Luke xii. 7, <N:c. This is the most common meaning of the word in the Xc\v Testament. We have then the choice of the two interpretations, Tlinii approved tJ/c tliunj* f//<ft arc more excellent, or, Tlum dost distinguish the things that <rre. different. Our version gives the former, both here and in Philip, i. 10, where the same words occur. The latter is adopted by Theodorct, who explains dtaupspovra by IW&T'KI d.)J^Xoe^ dtxaioa'JWjV xal <wr/:av; and Theophylact, r/ os? r.nv.tuj. xt/.i ri jjj] f?£? r:nn.~~(u. The same view is taken by most of the recent com mentators. It is suitable to the context, inasmuch as the apostle is here speaking of the peculiar advantages of the Jews, one of which was their superior knowledge, and their ability to do what others could not, that is, decide what was and what was not consistent with the will of God. On the other hand, however, to approve of what is right, to discern it to be right, is a higher attainment than merely to discriminate between good and evil. And as the apostle is here conceding to the Jews everything they could claim, it is better to give his words their highest sense. lie admits that theoretically they were right in their judgments. It was not their moral judgments, but their moral conduct that was in fault. Being instructed, xar/j%ou/jizvoz, (orally instructed, as the word literally means,) out of the law, i. e. the Scriptures, as i^o/jto^ often means. The word or law of God was a light to their feet, to which they could at all times refer to guide their steps.
VERSES 19, 20. And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind. The apostle in these verses states the effect which the peculiar advantages of the Jews produced upon them. They considered themselves to be greatly superior to all other nations; capable of instructing them; and of being the guides and light of the world. This idea is presented in different lights, in what follows — a ligltt of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes. They looked upon themselves as qualified to act as the instructors of others, e£oi/r«, having, i. e. because they had the form, &c. Having the form of knowledge and of truth in the law. Mbn<fto0cz occurs in the New Testament only here and in 2 Tim. iii. 5. In the latter passage it is opposed to the reality (d'jva/jtcz,) and means mere appearance. This however cannot be its meaning here; for the clause in which it occurs, assigns the reason which the Jews felt themselves to have, and which they had in fact, for their superior knowledge. They supposed themselves to be able to guide others, because they had the form of know ledge in the law. It therefore here means, forma quce rem exprimat, as Grotius expresses it. The form of knowledge, is knowledge as represented or expressed in the law. In other words, the exhibition of knowledge and truth in the law is given in a form which expresses their true nature. The words f\>M(ttZ and dtf&sta do not essentially differ. The former, says De Wette, is truth as known; the latter, truth in itself.
VERSES 21, 22. Thou therefore that teachest another. We have here the virtual apodosis of ver. IT. ' If thou, although a Jew, and related to God as one of his peculiar people, and well instructed out of the law, violate the law, and do the things thou condemnest in others, how canst thou escape the judgment of that God who will render to every man according to his works?' It is evident the apostle means to assert that the Jews were guilty of the crimes here specified; and it matters little whether the several clauses be read interrogatively or amrmatively. The former, as the more forcible, is generally preferred. To set ourselves up as instructors, and yet not to apply our prin ciples to ourselves, is riot only an inconsistency, but offensive arrogance and hypocrisy. To steal and to commit adultery are great sins, but for those who preach against them and con demn them in others, to commit them, is to quadruple their guilt. The Jews, therefore, who committed the sins which they so loudly condemned in the heathen, were more guilty in the bight of God than the heathen themselves. While flattering themselves that they were secure from the divine wrath, in the enclosure of the theocracy, they were the special objects of God's displeasure; so that publicans and harlots were nearer to the kingdom of God than they. Tlum that abhorrcst /</"/*, dnxt thou rob temples.* That the Jews, subsequently to the captivity, did abhor idols, is a well known fact; that tliev robbed the temples of idols is not known. Hesidcs, robbing the temples of idols was not sacrilege; for in the mind of the Jew there was no sacredne>s in those' temples. It was to him robbery, and nothing mure: probably something less. The objurgatory cha racter of these several clauses requires that the thing hen; charged should be of the same nature with idolatry, not its opposite. The Jew taught that men should riot steal, yet he himself stole; he said, Commit not adultery, yet he was guilty of that crime; he abhorred idols, yet was guilty of idolatry. It is something analogous to idolatry that is here charged, not the despoiling of heathen temples, which would be the natural expression of the abhorrence of idols. The essence of idol atry was profanation of God; of this the Jews were in a high degree guilty. They had made his house a den of thieves. Instead therefore of taking the word h^oa'jhl^ literally, which the context forbids, it should be understood in a secondary sense. It expresses the sin of irreverence in its higher forms; either as manifested in withholding from God his due, which the prophet denounces as robbery — "Will a man rob God? yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings," Mai. iii. 8: or it may be taken in the still more general sense of profanation, the irreverent disregard of God and holy things. This is all the context requires: 'You profess great reverence for God, in eschewing idolatry; and yet, in other forms, you are guilty of the greatest irreverence.'
VERSES 23, 24. Another striking instance of the incon sistency between their principles and their conduct was, that while they made a boast of the law, they so disregarded its precepts as to lead the heathen to think and speak evil of that God who gave the law, of whose character they judged by the conduct of his people. This charge he expresses in the language of their own prophets; see Isa. Iii. 5, and Ezek. xxxvi. 20, 23. In the former passage we find in the LXX. nearly the same words as those used by the apostle: " 61 6/^C dca-av-cbz TO ovoud /JLOL> fttaff<pyfJL£iiTae Iv ro?c ed-vzae." Both Isaiah and Ezckiel, indeed, refer to that blaspheming of God by the heathen, which arose from the misery of his people, whose God they were thus led to regard as unable to protect his worshippers. This however does not render the reference of the apostle less appropriate; for it is the mere fact that God's name was blasphemed among the Gentiles, on account of the Jews, that the apostle means to confirm by this reference to the Scriptures. And besides, as their sins were the cause of their captivity, their sins were the cause also of the evil speaking of God, of which their sufferings were the immediate occasion.
VERSE 25. The apostle, in vs. 1—16 of this chapter, had proved that God would judge both Jews and Gentiles accord ing to their works; in vs. 17 — 24, that the Jews, notwith standing their peculiar privileges, were no less sinful than the Gentiles; the obvious conclusion therefore was, that they were no less liable to condemnation. It is with this conclusion implied, but not expressed, that this verse is connected by the particle ydf): i You are exposed to condemnation, for circum cision, in which you trust, profits only on condition that you keep the law.' Comp. chap. iv. 2, and iv. 0, and other places in which f6.o refers to a thought omitted. Circumcision is not here to be taken for Judaism in general, of which that rite was the sign, but for the rite itself. It is obvious that the Jews regarded circumcision as in some way securing their salvation. That they did so regard it, may be proved not only from such passages of the New Testament where the sentiment is implied, but also by the direct assertion of their own writers. Such assertions have been gathered in abundance from their works.by Eisenmenger, Schoettgen, and others. For example, the Rabbi Menachem, in his Commentary on the Books of Moses, fol. 43, col. •>, savs, "Our Rabbins have said, that no circum cised man will sec hell." In the Jalkut Rubeni, num. 1, it is taught, "Circumcision saves from hell." In the Medrasch Tillim, fol. T, col. -, it is said, "God swore to Abraham, that no one who was circumcised should lie sent to hell." lu tho book Akedath Jizehak, fol. f>4. col. i\ it is taught that "Abra ham sits before the gate of hell, and does not allow that any circumcised Israelite should enter there."* The apostle con siders circumcision under two different aspects. First, as a rite supposed to possess some inherent virtue or merit of its own; and secondly, as a sign and seal of God's covenant. In the former view. Paul IHTC as well as elsewhere, says, "Circum cision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing," Gal. vi. 15; in the latter, it had its value. As a seal it was attached in the first place to the national covenant between God and the Jews. It was a sign of the existence of that covenant, and that the person to whom it was affixed was included within its pale. It was a pledge on the part of God that he would fulfil the pro mises of that covenant. If any Jew fulfilled his part of the national covenant, and in that sense kept the law, his circum cision profited him. It secured to him all the advantages of Judaism. But this rite was, in the second place, attached to the spiritual covenant formed with Abraham; that is, " it wag a seal of the righteousness of faith;" it was designed as an assurance that Abraham was, in virtue of his faith, regarded a? righteous in the sight of God. To all those Jews who had the faith of Abraham, and thus kept the covenant established with him, circumcision was in like manner profitable. It was the visible sign and pledge that all who believed should be justified. On the other hand, if either the national or spiritual covenant was broken, circumcision was of no avail. The fact that an Israelite was circumcised, did not save him from excision from the people, if he broke any of the fundamental laws of Moses; neither could circumcision save those who, being destitute of the faith of Abraham, appeared as sinners before the bar of God. Paul therefore teaehes that circumcision had no inherent, magical efficacy; that it had no value beyond that of a sign and seal; that it secured the blessings of the covenant to those who kept the covenant; but to the transgressors of the law it was of no avail. This latter idea he expresses by saying, rj T^OIIO^ ao') dxpofjua-cta fsyovsv, tliy circumcision has become uneireumcision. That is, it is of no use. It cannot prevent your beino dealt with as a transgressor, or treated as though you had nevei been circumcised.
VERSE 26. Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the right eousness of the law. This verse is an inference (obv} from the preceding. It was there taught that everything depends upon obedience to the law. God will judge every man according to his works. If a Jew, though circumcised, break the law, he shall be condemned; and if a Gentile, though uncircumcised, keep the law, he shall be justified. The one proposition flows from the other; for if circumcision is in itself nothing, its pre sence cannot protect the guilty; its absence cannot invalidate the claims of the righteous. dcxauop.aTa^ decrees, precepts, what the law prescribes as right. The apostle does not mean to intimate that the Gentiles do in any case keep the righteous ness of the law; contrary to his own explicit assertion, that there is none righteous, no not one. It is a mere hypothetical statement, designed to show that everything depends on obedi ence, and that circumcision cannot be the ground either of justification or condemnation. Shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? The phrase lo-fi^za&ai re d'c r<, in accordance with the Hebrew b -~n? 1 Sam. i. 13, Isa. xxix. 17, often means to reckon or regard one thing as another. Uncircumcision shall be taken for circumcision.
VERSE 27. Calvin makes this verse a part of the interro gation begun in vcr. 26, a mode of pointing followed by Koppe, Lackinann, Fritzsche, and many others. 'Shall not uncircumcision be reckoned circumcision, and condemn you who break the law?' Our translators supply o'j'/J before %pu,z~, and make vcr. 27 a distinct interrogation, 'and shall not the uncircumcision condemn you,' <&c. Meyer takes ver. 27 cate gorically, and -/.a* in the sense of even or moreover, so that ver. 27 is virtually an answer to the preceding question. * Shall not uncircumcision be taken for circumcision? (Yes, verily,) it will even condemn you,' &c. In either way the idea is, that the obedient uncircumcised heathen would be better off, he would stand on higher ground, than the disobe dient circumcised Jew. It is only putting the truth taught in this verse into different words, to say, 'the unbaptized believer shall condemn the baptized unbeliever.' TJic uwlrcunK'ision which is ly nat>ir<\ ^ zz ^''jaiwz, dxpofiuffTta, The position of the article shows plainly that Iz (f'jffsco^ qualifies axoofijaria, and is not to be connected with the following par ticiple TiXo~jff(/.. The sense is, "the uncircumcision which is natural," and not 'which by nature keeps the law.' Jf it fulfil tltf l<in\ i. e. provided it is obedient, and therefore right eous.,S'//'///,///'/'/*', %'ni'zZ. by implication, $li<tll <'<>n<l<'iiin; the judgment is bv the context supposed to be a condemnatory one. Comp. Matt. xii. 41. Thee irlio In/ the. letter, &c.; <TS rov oca •fndtttiaroz, tliec with the letter, i. e. the written law. In the present case it is not used in a disparaging sense, for the mere verbal meaning in opposition to the spirit. The context rather requires that ftHutuft. and —fHro/q should be taken as expressing the real and substantial benefits of the Jews. Our version renders did fy/, Beza also has per. He understands the apostle to mean that external circumcision being profaned only rendered the Jews so much the worse. But as did with the genitive so often means with, as expressing the circumstances under which anything is done, (as oc bnofj.6v/]C with patience, OM -ooazbtiita-oz, with offence,) the meaning is, T*i, qui literal et circumcisionem habens, contra legem fads.
Notwithstanding they had the law and circumcision, they were transgressors of the law. Calvin makes letter and circumcision to mean literal circumcision; but this is unnecessary, and unsuited to the context; for when speaking of the advantages of the Jews, the law is of too much importance to allow of the word which expresses it being merged into a mere epithet.
VERSES 28, 29. For not he who is externally a Jeiv, is a Jeiu, &c. These verses assign the reason why the external rite of circumcision can avail so little. God looks upon the heart, and does not regard mere external circumstances. It is not, therefore, mere descent from Abraham, nor connection with the external theocracy or church, that can secure his favour; but the possession of those internal dispositions which external rites are intended to symbolize. Verse 28 contains the negative, ver. 29 the affirmative statement of this gene ral truth. The word ' loudaioz is to be supplied in the first member of the sentence, as the subject is b iv rw (fauspaj ' /oudatoz, and the predicate 'Joooaioz kffTev. The same remark may be made with regard to the following clause, where the subject is $ lv rw <paisepw, £v aapxs xeptTO/j>ij, and the predicate Ttspt-ofjt'/j io-w. External circumcision in the flesh is not circum cision. (Po.v*pbz apparent, visible, what falls under the observa tion of the senses, hence external. The word Jew is of course to be taken as the designation of the people of God. ' He is not one of the people of God who is such externally/ It is nothing external that constitutes or secures this peculiar relation to God. The affirmative statement is, «//' 6 kv TCJJ xpUTirw VouoaToc, [Voi»<5#o>c ctfr^y,] but the Jeiv in secret is a Jew. As in the preceding verse, part of the subject is bor rowed from the predicate, so here and in the following clause the predicate is to be borrowed from the subject; that is, lortv is to be supplied after the first clause, and Ttv after the second clause of this verse, so that the whole reads thus: "But he who is inwardly a Jew, is really a Jew; and the circumcision of the heart, in spirit and not in letter, is circumcision." This is the construction of the passage almost universally adopted. Kpunroz hidden, and as opposed to yovzpbz, inward; hence ly TW xpuxTtp inwardly, in heart. Comp. 1 Pet. iii. 4. True circumcision is described as xspeTO/jy xapoiaz, Iv nvzunart, oj These latter words admit of different interpretations. The apostle contrasts rrvsiy^ and j-pd/jL/jia in Rom. vii. 6, and 2 Cor, iii. 6, much as he does here. In chap. vii. 6, oldness of the letter may mean the condition and spirit of those who were under the law, now become old; and neiuness of the spirit may mean that new condition and temper which the Holy Spirit gives. In 2 Cor. iii. G, Paul says he was made a minister of the new cove nant, o'j fpdp.fj.aTOZ) d/j.a ~is£'jfJ.aTOZ, not oj~ the letter, but of the spirit, i. e. not of the law, but of the gospel; not of a mere ob jective, legal covenant, but of that which derives its whole cha racter from the Spirit, and therefore is spirit, or in the widest sense of the word, spiritual. Coinp. also Gal. iii. 3. Guided by these passages, Ruckcrt understands rrvsiy^ here to mean the new principle of life imparted by the Holy Spirit, and Iv to ex press instrumentality. Thus the sense is: The circumcision of the heart is not produced or effected by the law. but by this new divine principle of life. The same interpretation substantially is given bv Kollnc-r. It is not, however, strictly in accordance with the mode of representation adopted in the Scriptures, to speak of the circumcision of the heart, i. e. sanctification, as effected by anything implanted in us. Beza makes £v xvsufjLart simply exegetical of zapuiaz. and gives the sense thus: "• Cujus vis est interior et in animo, sive <[ua circumcisi sunt affectus." Erasmus: " Qiue Spiritu constat, referens ad Spiriturn Sanc tum, eujus unius opus est ista circumcisio d^scpOTTolr^TO^. Mihi vero videtur £v ~i<s'j(tv-: additum partini pmpter antithesin Ypd/i/jiaToz, partini ut explicarct, <[iiid vocaret circumcisionem cordis." According to this view, Iv xvz'jfj>aTt is in heart, and is tautological with the clause (circumcision of the heart) which it should explain. And besides, the opposition between TTI/C-W/ and 'fiiditna is thus destroyed. Others again take iv xvz'jtKJit! and £v j'orz^«arr adverbially, "after a spiritual, not after a literal or external way;" or adjectively, spiritual, not literal. The most common, and on the whole the preferable interpretation refers ~^z~j<ia to the Holy Spirit, and gives iv the sense of by. The circumcision of the heart is then described as effected by the Spirit, and not by the letter, i. e. in obedi ence to the prescriptions of the law. Whose praise is not of men, but of G-od. The relative ol) is to be referred to ^ The true Jew, or child of God, is one whose excellence is inter nal, seen and acknowledged by God; not in its nature external, securing the notice and approbation of men. If the relative ob be taken as neuter, then the idea is the same, but presented in another form: ' Of which (i. e. of this spiritual Judaism) the praise is of God.' As, however, *Iouofuoz is the main subject in the context, the former explanation is the more natural. ' The spiritual import of circumcision was clearly taught in the Old Testament, as in Deut. xxx. 6: "I will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your children, to love the Lord thy God." See Deut. x. 16, Jer. iv. 4: "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart." The wicked are therefore called "the uncircumcised in heart," Jer. ix. 29, Ezek. xliv. 9, Acts vii. 56. Comp. Col. ii. 11: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands." This is what he calls "the circumcision of Christ," or Christian circumcision; that which Christ secures and gives. As circum cision thus signifies inward purification, and was a seal of the righteousness of faith, it was, as to its import and design, iden tical with baptism. Hence what in Col. ii. 11, Paul expresses by saying, Ye are circumcised, he expresses in ver. 12, by saying, Ye are buried with him in baptism. What, therefore, he teaches of the worthlessness of external circumcision, without internal purity, and of the possibility of the external sign being received without the internal grace, is no less true of baptism See 1 Cor. vii. 18, 19, Gal. vi. 15.
1. Membership in the true Church, considered as a visible society, is no security that we shall obtain the favour of God. The Jews, before the advent, were members of the true and only Church, and yet Paul teaches that they were not on this account the more acceptable to God. Multitudes of Jewish converts were members of the apostolic Church, and yet. retaining their former doctrines and spirit, were in the gall of bitterness, ver. 17.
sanctifies the heart, nor of itself renders men more useful. When made the ground of confidence, or the fuel of pride and arrogance, it is perverted and destructive, vs. 18 — 20.
3. Superior knowledge enhances the guilt of sin, and in creases the certainty, necessity, and severity of punishment, without in itself increasing the power of resistance. It is, therefore, a great mistake to make knowledge our sole depend ence in promoting the moral improvement of men, vs. 18 — 20.
4. The sins of the professing people of God, are peculiarly offensive to him, and injurious to our fellow-men, vs. 22 — 24.
5. Here, as in the former part of the chapter, the leading idea is, that God is just, lie asks not whether a man is a Jew or a Gentile, a Greek or barbarian, bond or free, but what is his character? Does he do good or evil? vs. IT — 24.
6. According to the apostle, the true idea of a sacrament is not that it is a mystic rite, possessed of inherent eHu-acy, or conveying grace as a mere opus operatiun; but that it is a seal and sign, designed to confirm our faitli in the validity of the covenant to which it is attached; and, from its significant character, to present and illustrate some great spiritual truth,
7. All hopes are vain which are founded on a participation of the sacraments of the Church, even when they are of divine appointment, as circumcision, baptism, and the Lord's supper; much more when they are of human invention, as penance, and extreme unction, vs. 20, 27.
8. Religion and religious services, to be acceptable to God, must be of the heart. Mere external homage is of no account,
1. The sins and refuges of men are alike in all ages. The- Jew expected salvation because he was a Jew, so does the Roman Catholic because he is a Roman Catholic, the Greek because he is a Greek, and so of others. Were it ever so cer tain that the Church to which we belong is the true, apostolic, universal Church, it remains no less certain that without holi ness no man shall see God, ver. 17, &c.
2. The possession of superior knowledge should make us anxious, first, to go right ourselves, and then to guide others right. To preach against evils which we ourselves commit, while it aggravates our guilt, is little likely to do others much good, ver. 18, &c.
o. Christians should ever remember that they are the epistles of Jesus Christ, known and read of all men; that God is honoured by their holy living, and that his name is blasphemed when they act wickedly, vs. 23, 24.
4. Whenever true religion declines, the disposition to lay undue stress on external rites is increased. The Jews, when they lost their spirituality, supposed that circumcision had power to save them. i Great is the virtue of circumcision,' they cried; 'no circumcised person enters hell.' The Chris tian Church, when it lost its spirituality, taught that water in baptism washed away sin. How large a part of nominal Chris tians rest all their hopes on the idea of the inherent efficacy of external rites! ver. 25, &c.
5. While it is one dangerous extreme to make religion con sist in the observance of external ceremonies, it is another to undervalue them, when of divine appointment. Paul does not say that circumcision was useless; he asserts its value. So, likewise, the Christian sacraments, baptism and the Lord's supper, are of the utmost importance, and to neglect or reject them is a great sin, ver. 26, &c.
6. If the heart be right in the sight of God, it matters little what judgment men may form of us; and, on the other hand, the approbation of men is a poor substitute for the favour of God, ver. 29.
TuiS chapter may be divided into three parts. The first con tains a brief statement and refutation of the Jewish objections to the apostle's reasoning, vs. 1 — 8. The second, a confirma tion of his doctrine from the testimony of Scripture; and a, formal drawing out and declaration of his conclusion, that by the works of the law no flesh living can be justified before God, vs. 9 — '20. The third, an exposition of the gospel method of justification, vs. '21 — ol.
ItOMANS III.
THE first objection to Paul's reasoning here presented is, that according to his doctrine the Jew has no advantage over the Gentile, ver. 1. The apostle denies the correctness of this inference from what he had said, and admits that the Jews have great advantages over all other people, ver. '1. The second objection is, that God having promised to be the God of the Jews, their unfaithfulness, even if admitted, does not release him from his engagements, or make his promise of no effect, ver. 3. Paul, in answer, admits that the faithfulness of God must not be called in question, let what will happen, vs. 4, 5; but he shows that the principle on which the Jews expected exemption from punishment, viz. because their unrighteousness commended the righteousness of God, was false. This he proves by showing first, that if their principle was correct, God could not punish any one, Gentile or Jew, vs. 5 — 7; and secondly, that it would lead to this absurdity, that it is right to do evil that good may come, ver. 8.
VERSE 1. What then is the advantage of the Jew? The conclusion at which the apostle had arrived at the end of the preceding chapter was, that the Jews, no less than the Gentiles, are to be judged according to their works, and by their know ledge of the divine will; and that being thus judged, they arc exposed to condemnation, notwithstanding their circumcision and all their other advantages. The most obvious objection in the mind of a Jew to this conclusion must have been, that it was inconsistent with the acknowledged privileges and supe riority of his nation. This objection the apostle here presents; the answer follows in the next verse: Lhcuaaoz, over and above, abundant; and in a comparative sense, better, and substantively, as in the present instance, excellence, preeminence. What is the preeminence or superiority of the Jew? Comp. Eccles. vi. 11, ri TiSntaabv raJ dv&pcbftqj; what advantage has man? The second question in this verse, what is the benefit of circum cision? is by some considered as a repetition of the first; cir cumcision being taken as the mere sign of Judaism. ' What is the advantage of the Jew? or what is the benefit of Judaism?' But circumcision as a rite was so important in the estimation of the Jews, and is made so prominent by the apostle in the preceding context, that it is better to consider the second ques tion as referring to the rite itself.
VERSE 2. Much, in every way. The answer to the objection implied in the preceding verse, is a denial of its correctness as an inference from the apostle's reasoning. It does not follow, because the Jews are to be judged according to their works, that there is no advantage in being the peculiar people of God, having a divine revelation, &c. IIpcoTou IJLGV fdp. These words are rendered by Beza, primarium enim (illud est;) comp. Luke xix. 47, Acts v. 2. Calvin says, "xp&Tov significat proecipue vel prsesertim, hoc sensu, Etsi unum istud esset, quod habent Dei oracula sibi commissa, satis valere debet ad eoruin digni tatem." Our translators adopt the same view. But to both of the interpretations the particle f&p furnishes an objection. The third and simplest view is, that the words in question mean first, in the first place, as in 1 Cor. xi. 18; fdf is then namely.
for example. That the enumeration is not carried on, is no serious objection to this explanation, as we have other examples of the same kind. Sec chap. i. 8. Because tliey were entrusted with the oraelcs of Grod. The subject of l-Hjrz'Jfyaay, viz. ' lo'jdaio'. is implied by the connection; ~<J.).o-fia is the accusa tive; comp. Gal. ii. 7: TTcTr/tfrsiy/.ar TO sbafyehoV) 1 Cor. ix. 17, 1 Thcss. ii. 4. Some, as Theodorct, Beza, &c., understand by ra lofla TO~J Osorj, the law; others, as Grotius, Tholuck, &c.. the Messianic promises; others, as Calvin, Rosenmiiller, Do Wette, the whole Scriptures. In favour of this last is the usage of the phrase which in the Old Testament is used for the reve lation of God in general, and in the Xew Testament, for any divine communication, lleb. v. 1-, 1 Pet. iv. 11. The words therefore are general in their meaning, and there is nothing in the context to limit them; foi *he apostle is speaking of the treasure committed to the safe custody of the Jews; that deposit of divine knowledge by which they were distinguished from all other nations. Here, as in innumerable other places, the sacred writers of the Xew Testament use forms of ex pi-ession which clearly imply that they regarded the sacred writings of the Jews as really the word of God.
YKII.SI-] 3. 7V;-ao; What then.- See Philip, i. 18 — a formula used to introduce an explanation, confirmation, or vindication of a preceding assertion; or to start an objection f«>r the pur pose of answering it. In the present instance it is agreed that the apostle de>ign< to vindicate what he had previously taught; but whether ver. o refers to ver. -. or to the conclusion that the Jews were as much exposed to condemnation as the Gentiles, is not so plain. According to the former view, the design of this verse is to confirm what is said in ver. 2: 'To the Jews were committed the promises of God, or oracles of God. This is a great advantage; for if some of them disbelieve those promises, and reject the Messiah, God remains faithful, and will accom plish all his gracious purposes.' Thus substantially, Calvin, Beza, Tholuck, Fritzsche, Rilckert, Meyer, and many others. According to the other view, the apostle here presents and answers another objection to his previous reasoning: ' What if we are unfaithful,' says the Jew, ' does that invalidate the faith fulness of God: lias he not promised to be a God to Abraham and to his seed? Has he not entered into a solemn covenant to grant his people all the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom? This covenant is not suspended on our moral character. If we adhere to the covenant by being circumcised and observing the law, the fidelity of God is pledged for our salvation. We may therefore be as wicked as you would make us out to be; that docs not prove that we shall be treated as heathen.' For the latter view it may be urged, 1. That it is better suited to the context. It is plain that the whole of the first part of this chapter is an answer to the objections of the Jews to the apos tle's doctrine that they were exposed to condemnation. This is clear as to the first verse, and to the fifth and those that follow it. It is therefore more consistent with the design of the pas sage, to make this verse an answer to the main objection of the Jews, than to consider it a mere confirmation of what is said in ver. 2. This consideration has the more force, since on the other view of the passage the principal ground of confidence of the Jews, viz. their peculiar relation to God, is left unnoticed. Their great objection to Paul's applying his general principles of justice to their case was that their situation was peculiar: ' God has chosen us as his people in Abraham. If we retain our relation to him by circumcision and the observance of the law, we shall never be treated or condemned as the Gen tiles.' Traces of this opinion abound in the New Testament, and it is openly avowed by the JeAvisli writers. "Think not," says our Saviour, "to say within yourselves, We have Abraham for our father," Matt. iii. 9. "We be Abraham's seed," John viii. 33. Comp. Rom. ii. 17, ix. 6, and other passages, in which Paul argues to prove that being the natural descendants of Abraham is not enough to secure the favour of God. That such was the doctrine of the Jews is shown by numerous passages from their writings. "If a Jew commit all manner of sins," says Abarbanel, "he is indeed of the number of sinning Israel ites, and will be punished according to his sins; but he has notwithstanding a portion in eternal life." The same sentiment is expressed in the book Torath Adam, fol. 100, in nearly the same words, and the reason assigned for it, " That all Israel has a portion in eternal life."* This is a favourite phrase with tne Rabbins, and frequently occurs in thar writings. Justin Martyr, as quoted by Grotius on chap. ii. 13, attributes this doctrine to the Jews of his day: " They suppose that to them universally, who are of the seed of Abraham, no matter how sinful and disobedient to God they may be, the eternal kingdom shall be given." This interpretation therefore makes the verse in question present the objection which the Jews would be most likely to urge. 2. A second consideration in its favour is, that it best satisfies the meaning of the words. The other view makes Paul say that the unfaithfulness of some of the Jews, some here and there, could not render the promise of no effect. It would be natural for the Jews thus to soften down the state ment of the case. But Paul had not said that some of the Jews were unfaithful, but that they were all under condemnation; that as to this point there was no difference between them and the Gentiles, since all had sinned and come short of the glory of God. It canimt escape notice how coniph'tel v the doctrine of the Jews has been transferred by ritualists to Christianity. They held that if a man was circumcised and remained within the Theocracy, lie might be punished for his sins, but he would J-*- ultimately be.saved. So ritualists hold that all who are bap tized and remain within the pale of the true Church, though they may suffer for their sins here or hereafter (in purgatory,) are certain to he finally saved.
Jt KU/HI' tint >/»f believe? The word ~/—!f777fTw mav mean dtsfu'liwil, or lucre uiif<iithfn1. Tholuck, Fritzsche, Kiickert (2d edition.) Mever, sav the former, and explain the passage thus: 'The promises (roc /.o^a) committed to the Jews are a great distinction; and though some of the Jews have not believed those promises, nor received the Messiah, still (Jod is faithful.' The great majority of commentators say the latter, and consider the apostle as stating the want of fidelity of the Jews to the trust committed to them, i. e. to the covenant made with their fathers, as no reason for assuming a want of fidelity on the part of God. That ar^rsTv may have the sense here assigned to it is plain from 2 Tim. ii. 18; and from the sense of d/T.'<Tr/tt in Ileb. iii. 12, 10, and of fctfroc in Luke xii. 46, Rev. xxi. 8. To understand the passage as referring to want of faith in Christ, seems inconsistent with the whole context.
The apostle has not come to the exposition of the gospel; he i& still engaged in the preliminary discussion designed to show that the Jews and Gentiles are under sin, and exposed to con demnation; an exposure from which no peculiar privileges of the former, and no promise of God to their nation, could pro tect them.
VERSE 4. Let it not be; the frequently recurring formula to express strong aversion or denial. The objection presented in the preceding verse is, that the apostle's doctrine as to the condemnation of the Jews is inconsistent with the faithfulness of God. Is the faith of God without effect? asks the objector. By no means, answers the apostle; that is no fair inference from my doctrine. There is no breach of the promises of God involved in the condemnation of wicked Jews. How the con demnation of the Jews is consistent with the promises of God, he shows in a subsequent part of his epistle, chaps, ix. — xi.; here he merely asserts the fact, and shows that the opposite assumption leads to an absurdity. Let Crod be true, but every man a liar. That is, the truth and fidelity of God must be acknowledged, whatever be the consequence. This is said to express the strongest aversion to the consequence charged on his doctrine. Fc^sa^co has its proper sense, fiat, let him become, i. e. be seen and acknowledged as true. This disposi tion to justify God under all circumstances, the apostle illus trates by the conduct and language of David, who acknowledged the justice of God even in his own condemnation, and said, "Against thee only have I sinned; that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and overcome when thou art judged;" i. c. that thy rectitude, under all circumstances, might be seen and acknowledged. In the Hebrew, the last verb of the verse is active, ivlien thou judgest; in the Septuagint, a passive form is used, ivhen thou art judged. This latter Paul follows, because the sentiment in either case is the same. God is seen and acknowledged to be just. The sacred writers of the New Testament often depart from the Avords of the Old Testament in their citations, being careful only to give the mind of the Spirit. " Scinms," says Calvin, " apostolos in recitandis Scripturas vorbis sa?pe esse liberiores; quia satis habebant si ad rem appo site citarcnt; quarc non taiita illis fuit vcrboruiu rcligio."
VERSE 5. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteous ness of G'od, what shall we then say? Adr/ia is not to be taken in the restricted sense of injustice, nor as equivalent to a-iaiia. in the preceding verse, but in the comprehensive sense of un righteousness, wickedness. It is the opposite of dtxaeocruvy, rectitude, righteousness, which includes all moral excellence. The righteousness of God is here, not his goodness, which the context does not require and usage does not authorize, but rectitude, that attribute which is manifested in doing right. 2uv'.arr]fj.i, in the New Testament, is to place with or before any one; and hence either to commend, to recommend, Horn. xvi. 1, 2 Cor. iii. 1, v. 1~; or to set forth, to render conxniruvHs; see Horn. v. 8, '1 Cor. vi. 4. The latter is obviously the sense required in the present instance. That this verse is in answer to an objection is obvious; but that objection is nut derived from the language of ver. 4. Paul had said nothing there to give any colour to the suggestion, that he himself held that it would be unrighteous in God to punish the wicked. lie had simply said, that the truth of God was to be admitted and acknowledged, though all men were liars. From this it could not be made an inference that we may do evil that good may conic. It is not a false inference from ver. 4, but a new objec tion to his general conclusion that he is here answering: 'Not only is God's fidelity pledged to our salvation, but the very fact of our being unrighteous will render his righteousness the more conspicuous; and consequently it would be unjust in him to punish us for what glorifies himself.' This is the thought; the form in which it is presented is determined by the fact that the apostle does not introduce the person of the objector, but states the objection in his own person, in the form of a question. It is plain, however, that the point of the argument is that God cannot consistently punish those whose unrighteousness serves to display his own rectitude; arid this is supposed to be urged to show that the Jews, notwithstanding their sins, were not exposed to condemnation. If our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God is the suggestion; the inference, which the Jews were disposed to draw, and which Paul asks, whether they would venture to make, is that God is unjust who taketh vengeance: 6 6=.b~ o kxtyifmv rr^ fyffv, Crod the taker of vengeance; he whose prerogative it is to inflict the punishment due to sin. That the apostle is not in this verse expressing his own sentiments, he intimates by saying, xo.ra d.v$c)a)7iov Ae-fto, 1 speak as a man. This formula, which is of frequent occurrence, means to speak as men are accustomed to speak; and as men are in general wicked, to speak or act after the manner of men, is to speak or act wickedly. It depends, however, entirely on the context whether this idea is implied. When Paul asks, "Are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" 1 Cor. iii. 8, the case is plain. But when in Gal. iii. 15, he says, "Brethren, I speak as a man,'" he means merely to appeal to what was commonly acknowledged as true amon£ men. See also 1 Cor. ix. 8. When in Rom. vi. 19, he says, av/^ow^vov ttfto, it is plain from the context that he means, in a manner adapted to the comprehen sion of men. And in the present case, where he is not express ing his own sentiments, xara av&oto-ov Asfto is designed to declare that he is not speaking in his character of an apostle or Christian, but speaking as others speak, expressing their thoughts, not his own.
VERSE 6. In answer to the question whether God is unjust in punishing those whose unrighteousness renders his own righteousness the more conspicuous, he says: By no means, since in that case how can Grod judge the world? There is here an answer to the question, and a proof of the correctness of that answer. There are three views which may be taken of the nature of this proof. The first supposes xov/w:; to mean the Gentiles as distinguished from the Jews. The sense then is: If God cannot punish sin under the circumstances supposed, he cannot even punish the heathen, for their unrighteousness serves to commend his righteousness. This view is clear and satisfactory as far as the argument is concerned, and is adopted by Koppe, Reiche, Olshausen, &c. Besides the pertinency of the argument as thus explained, this interpretation is supported by the frequent use of xocrtw- to designate the world in dis tinction from the Theocracy, or the Church. 1 Cor. vi. 2, xi. 32, Rom. xi. 12, John xii. 31, 1 John iv. 17, &c. The principal objection to it arises from the difficulties in which it involves the explanation of the following verse. The second view of the passage supposes the argument to rest on the admitted fact that
God is the judge of all the earth; if so, he must be just. It is impossible that God should be unjust, if he is to judge the world; but he is to judge the world, therefore he is not unjust. ''Sunlit argumentum ab ipsius Dei officio," says Calvin, "quo probet id esse impossibile; judicabit Dens Jtunc tnundian, ergo injustus esse non potest." To the same purpose Grotius says: "Nullo modo possumus Dcum injustum imaginari quern cum Abrahamo judicem miuidi agnoseimus." This view is given also by Tholuek, DC AVette, RUckert, Kollner, and Meyer. The obvious objection to it is, that it makes the apostle assume the thing to be proved. He says, 'God cannot be unjust, because he is the judge of the world, and the judge of the world must be just.' But it is no more certain that the judge of the world must be just, than that God is just, which is the point to be established. RUckert, in his characteristic assumption of superiority to the apostle, admits that the argument is "weak, very weak;" but lie not the less confidently asrribc-s it to tie apostle. The misapprehension of the argument in this vei so arises out of a misapprehension of the previous reasoning, a id of the precise point of the objection which is here answer) d. Paul is not guarding;i gainst any false inference from his o vu reasoning; he is not teaching that though God is seen to bo just when he speaks, and clear when lie judges, we must i.ut hence infer that he is unjust in punishing the sin which com mends his own righteousness, which would be indeed k* enio erbiirmliche Einwendung," (a pitiable subterfuge,) as Rei( lio calls it; but he is answering the objections of the Jews to his doctrine, not their false inferences. To the declaration that they were exposed to condemnation, the Jews pleaded the pro mise of God, which their unfaithfulness could not render of no effect, and the less so because their unrighteousness would serve to render the righteousness of God the more conspicuous. Paul ' says on this principle God cannot judge the world. The ground i assumed by the Jews might be assumed by all mankind, and if valid in the one case it must be in all. In this view the answer is complete and satisfactory; it is a redw.'tlo ad a^urdum. The correctness of this explanation is confirmed by what follows.
VERSES 7, 8. These verses are the amplification and con firmation of the answer given in the sixth to the objection of the Jews. These verses are designed to show that if the ground assumed by them was valid, not only may every sinner claim exemption, but it would follow that it is right to do evil that good may come. The connection by fdp is therefore with the sixth verse: ' God could not judge the world, for any sinner may say, If the truth of God more abounds through my lie, to his glory, why am I yet judged as a sinner?' The truth of Grod. As dty&eca is not unfrequently opposed to adc/ia, it may have here the sense of dtxacoauv/j^ and designate the divine excellence: then (peuafia, in the following clause, must mean falsehood towards God, wickedness: 'If the excellence of God is rendered more conspicuous by my wickedness.' But as it was on the truth or veracity of God, his adherence to his promises, that the false confidence of the Jews was placed, it is probable that the apostle intended the words to be taken in their more limited sense. Hath more abounded unto Jit's glory. JJzotffffS'Jzw, to be abundant., rich, or great; and by implication, in a comparative sense, to be more abundant, or conspicuous, Matt. v. 20, 1 Cor. xv. 58. The latter is the sense here, 'If the truth of God has been made the more conspicuous;' st£ ryv do~av ttiroO, so that he is glorified. Why am I also still judged as a sinner? xdfcb, either even /, or I also; I as well as others; or even I a Jew; or, according to another view of the context, even I a Gentile: ere, yet, i. e. notwithstanding my falsehood is the means of displaying the glory of God. According to the view now given, the use of the first person is sufficiently ex plained by saying, as has often been done, "suam. personam ponit pro quavis alia." 7, therefore, stands for any one: 'Any one may say, Why am I also judged as a sinner?' Those how ever who understand xb(T/jtoz, in the preceding verse, to mean the Gentiles, suppose that the apostle here personates a heathen, who is made to ask, 'If the divine majesty is the more displayed by my idolatry, why am even I judged as a sinner?' This interpretation gives a very good sense, because the Jews readily admitted that the Gentiles were exposed to condemnation, and therefore any principle which was shown to exculpate them, the Jews must acknowledge to be false. The objections to this view of the passage are the unnecessary limitation which it imposes on the word teapoy ver. G, and the unusual, if not unauthorized sense, which it requires to be given to the words d/y&sta and (p&Jtifjia, the latter not being elsewhere used for idolatry, and the former, in this connection at least, riot ad mitting of the version, truth concerning Grod, i. e. the true God.
in considering this verse as a continuation of the question com menced in the seventh, and in assuming an irregularity in the construction, arising from the introduction of the parenthetical clause in the middle of the verse: 'If your principle is correct, why am I judged as a sinner; and wltji not let u* d<> evil, that good may come?' Having commenced the question, he inter rupts himself to notice the slanderous imputation of this doc trine to himself — as we arc *l<tn</>'rrd, and </x' x<>//ie </////•/// we say, that id1- should d<> evil that good may come, Ho^aion^, therefore, instead of being connected with the (ri) ur/ at the beginning of the verse, is connected by o~c with the immediately preceding verb. See Winer, § u'->. \Vh<>ne condemnation /x jnxt. Paul thus expresses his abhorrence of the principle that we may do evil that good may come. Tholuck and others refer wi> to the /9/atf^/^oyvrec, to the slanderers of the apostle; but that clause is virtually parenthetical, and it is not blaspheming the apostle, but teaching a doctrine subversive of all morality, that is here condemned. Calvin unites, in a measure, both views of the passage: "Duplici autem nomine damnabilis fuit eorum perversitas; primum quibus venire haec impietas in mentem potuerit usque ad ipsum assensum, deinde qui traducendo evangelio calumniam inde instruere ausi fucrint."
Such is the apostle's argument against the grounds of confidence on which the Jews rested their hope of exemption from condemnation. 'Our unfaithfulness serves to commend the faithfulness of God, therefore we ought not to be punished.' According to this reasoning, says Paul, the worse we are, the better; for the more wicked we are, the more conspicuous will be the mercy of God in our pardon; we may therefore do evil that good may come.' By reducing the reasoning of the Jews to a conclusion shocking to the moral sense, he thereby refutes it. The apostle often thus recognizes the authority of the intuitive moral judgments of our nature, and thus teaches us that those truths which are believed on their own evidence, as soon as presented to the mind, should be regarded as fixed points in all reasonings; and that to attempt to go beyond these intuitive judgments, is to unsettle the foundation of all faith and knowledge, and to open the door to universal skepti cism. Any doctrine, therefore, which is immoral in its ten dency, or which conflicts with the first principles of morals, must be false, no matter how plausible may be the arguments in its favour.
1. The advantages of membership in the external Church, and of a participation of its ordinances, are very numerous and great, vs. 1, 2.
2. The great advantage of the Christian over the heathen world, and of the members of a visible ecclesiastical body over others not so situated, is the greater amount of divine truth presented to their understandings and hearts, ver. 2.
o. All the writings which the Jews, at the time of Christ and his apostles, regarded as inspired, are really the word of God, ver. 2.
4. No promise or covenant of God can ever be rightfully urged in favour of exemption from the punishment of sin, or
' of impunity to those who live in it. God is faithful to his promises, but he never promises to pardon the impenitently guilty, vs. 3, 4.
5. God will make the wrath of men to praise him. Their unrighteousness will commend his righteousness, without, on that account, making its condemnation less certain or less severe, vs. 5, 6.
6. Any doctrine inconsistent with the first principles of morals must be false, no matter how plausible the metaphysical argument in its favour. And that mode of reasoning is correct, which refutes such doctrines by showing their inconsistency with moral truth, ver. 8.
1. We should feel the peculiar responsibilities which rest upon us as the inhabitants of a Christian country, as members of the Christian Church, and possessors of the word of God; as such, we enjoy advantages for which we shall have to render a strict account, vs. 1, 2.
2. It is a, mark of genuine piety, to be disposed always to justify God, and to condemn ourselves. On the other hand, a disposition to self-justification and the extenuation of our sins, however secret, is an indication of the want of a proper sense of our own unworthiness and of the divine excellence,
3. Beware of any refuge from the fear of future punish ment, founded upon the hope that God will clear the guilty, or that he will not judge the world and take vengeance for our sins, vs. 0, 7.
4. There is no better evidence against the truth of any doc trine, than tLat its tendency is immoral. And there is no greater proof that a man is wicked, that his condemnation is just, than that ho does evil that irood may come. There is commonly, in such cases, not only the evil of the act com mitted, hut that of hypocrisy and duplicity also, ver. 8.
o. Speculative and moral truths, which arc believed on their own evidence as soon as they are presented to the, mind, should he regarded as authoritative, and as fixed points in all reasonings, \Vhen men deny such first principles, or attempt to push beyond them to a deeper foundation of truth, there is no end to the obscurity, uncertainty, and absurdity of their speculations. What (lod forces us, from the very constitution of our nature, to believe, as, for example, the existence of the external world, our own personal identity, the difference be tween good and evil, &c., it is at once a violation of his will and of the dictates of reason to deny or to question. Paul assumed, as an ultimate fact, that it is wrong to do evil that good may come, ver. 8.
THE apostle having demonstrated that the Jews cannot expect exemption from condemnation, on the ground of their being the peculiar people of God, except on principles incom patible with the government of the world, and inconsistent with the plainest moral truths, draws, in ver. 9, the conclusion, that the Jew, as to the matter of justification before God, has no preeminence over the Gentile. lie confirms his doctrine of the universal sinfulness of men by numerous quotations from the Scriptures. These passages speak of men in general as depraved, vs. 10 — 12; and then of the special manifestations of that depravity in sins of the tongue, vs. 13, 14; and in sins of violence, vs. 15 — 18. The inference from all his reasoning, from chap. i. 18, derived from consciousness, experience, and Scripture is, that "the whole world is guilty before God," ver. 19; and that " no flesh can be justified by the deeds of the law," ver. 20.
VERSE 9. What then? do we excel? What then? i. e. what is the conclusion from the preceding discussion? are we Jews better off than the Gentiles? Wahl points the passage thus: Ti obv Trpoe^o^e&a; What then do tve, or can we. pretend or pre sent as an excuse? Then, however, as Ruckert and others remark, the answer should be, OLJOSV, nothing, and not oi> TidvTOj;;. The principal difficulty in this verse is to determine the meaning of ~tooe%d/jLs&a. The most commonly received and the most satisfactory explanation assumes that the middle form has here the sense of the active. Ilpoly^w means to hold before, or intransitively and topically, to have before another, to excel. In the middle voice, the verb means to hold before oneself, as a shield, or figuratively, to use as a pretext. Though the middle does not elsewhere occur in the sense of the active, its use in the present instance in that sense, may be justified either by the remark, that the later writers often use the middle form where the earlier authors employ the active, (Tholuck); or by assuming the sense of the active to be here somewhat modi fied, since the apostle is speaking of a superiority which the Jews attributed to themselves, so that the strict sense is: "Licetne nobis tribuere major em dignitatem?" Bretschneider. The context suits the sense commonly attributed to the word. The whole discussion has brought the apostle to the conclusion, that the Jews as sinners have no advantage over the Gentiles, and this is the conclusion which lie here confirms. If the middle force of the verb be retained, then the sense is, as given by Meyer: 'What then? Have we protection or defence?' That is, are we Jews and Gentiles, men as sinners, protected from the justice of God? The answer is, By no means. But this does not so well suit the context or the form of the answer to the question presented. The verb 7if>o£%6fj.$$a should, as Riickert says, in that case have an accusative, designating the excuse or pretext: ' Have we anything fur a pretext?' And the answer would be, Nothing. The passive sense, Are we excelled? adopted by Wetstein and others, is still less suited to the con text. For whether the Gentiles or the Jews be supposed to ask the question, there is nothing to account for it, or to suggest it. Paul had given no reason to either to ask, Are we excelled? He had not proved that the Gentiles were worse oft' than the Jews, or the Jews than the Gentiles, but that both were alike under condemnation. The question, therefore, Do we excel? are we Jews better off than the Gentiles? is the only one which the occasion calls for, or that the answer suits. This is the view given by Theophylact, who says, OZWDCSI /t^asi; r/.vro'JC s^c.'V Trsf^iTrrov, QGOV Ix T«>V olxtuov ~<>d~£(ov; and which is adopted by Calvin, Beza, Grotius, and the modern commentators, Tholuck, Riickert (-d edition,) llciche, and De Wette.
Not at all, not in the least, (o-j -d^Tco^i) the -d^raj- strength ening the negation. Grotius, Wetstein, and Kollncr translate, not altogether, not in all respects. But the former version is shown by Winer, § 65, to be consistent with usage, and is much better suited to the context; for it is the obvious design of the apostle to show that, as to the point in hand, the Jews did not at all excel the Gentiles. This strong negation the following clause confirms. The Jews are not better off; for we have before charged both Jews and Gentiles with being under sin. AiTtaa&cu is properly, to accuse, here as in other cases followed by an accusative and infinitive. Our version, we have before proved, though it may be justified by implication, is not in strict accordance with the meaning of the words. The same sense, however, is expressed by Erasmus, "ante causis redditis ostendimus," and is adopted by Reiche and others. There is force in the remark of Calvin: "Verbum Grsecum curtaad-at proprie est judiciale: ideoque reddere placuit constituimus. Dicitur enim crimen in actione constituere accusator, quod testimoniis ac probationibus aliis convincere paratus. Citavit autem apostolus universum hominum genus ad Dei tribunal, ut totum sub unam damnationem includeret." To be under sin means to be under the power of sin, to be sinners: whether the idea of guilt, just exposure to condemnation, or of pollution, or both, be conveyed by the expression depends on the context. Comp. 1 Cor. xv. IT, Gal. iii. 10, 22, John xv. 22. Here both ideas are to be included. Paul had arraigned all men as sin ners, as the transgressors of the law, and therefore exposed to condemnation.
Verses 10 — 18, contain the confirmation of the doctrine of the universal sinfulness of men by the testimony of the Scrip tures. These passages are not found consecutively in any one place in the Old Testament. Verses 10 — 12 are from Psalms xiv. and liii.; ver. 13 is from Ps. v. 10; ver. 14 is from Ps. x. 7; vs. 15 — IT are from Isa. lix. 7, 8; and ver. 18 is from Ps. xxxvi. 1. These passages, it will be observed, are of two different classes; the one descriptive of the general character of men; the other referring to particular sinful acts, on the principle, "by their fruits ye shall know them." This method of reasoning is common and legitimate. The national character of a people may be proved by the prevalence of certain acts by which it is manifested. The prevalence of crime among men is a legitimate proof that the race is apostate, though every man is not a shcdder of blood, or guilty of robbery or violence.
VERSE 10. There is none righteous, no not one. Ps. xiv. 1,^ I in the Hebrew is, " there is none doing good; " in the Septua-j fgint it is, TTOiwv ^prio-ror^ra; Paul has, OVK SCTTI Sitccuos, there is\ none righteous. The sense is the same. Paul probably uses &'xa.'oc, righteous, because the question which he is discuss ing is, whether men are righteous, or can be justified on the ground of their own righteousness in the sight of God. This is a declaration of the universal sinfulness of men. The two ideas included in the negation of righteousness, want of piety and want of rectitude, are expressed in the following verses.
VERSE 11. There is none who understands, there is none who seeks after G-od. In the Psalms it is said: "God looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there was one wise, seeking after God." Here again the apostle gives the thought, and not the precise words. Instead of "if there was one wise," he gives the idea in a negative form, "There is none who under stands," o'jx ZGTI o a'juiov. The participle 6 o'jvuov, der vcrstundige, the wise, is stronger than the verb, who understands; as the former expresses a permanent characteristic, the latter properly only an act. The words o-vvt'tj/ju. and crwecrt? are irequentlv used in the New Testament to express the right appre hension of divine truth. See Matt. xiii. 1">, Acts vii. 25, Eph. iii. 4, v. IT, (Y>1. i. l>, ii. "1. In this ease, awtow (avviwv^ Wi>i<')\ 14, § •),) answers to ^'Ptp, a ^-ord often used in a reliirious sense, as in the Scriptures, wisdom and religion are convert ihlc terms. This riu'lit apprehension or spirit tial discern ment of divine tiling's is always attended with riu'ht affections and rijrht conduct — he that understands seeks after (Jod — which latter expression includes all those exercises of desire, worship, and obedience, which are consequent on this spiritual discernment.
VERSE VI. Tltey are all gone out of the way. Blinded by sin to the perfections and loveliness of God and truth, they have turned from the way which he has prescribed and which leads to himself, and have made choice of another way and of another portion. Here, as in the first chapter, the loss of the knowledge of God is represented as followed by spiritual blind ness, and spiritual blindness by moral degradation. Men do not understand, i. e. have no right apprehension of God; then they turn away from him, then they become altogether unprofit able, -fypetcb&yffav, worthless, morally corrupt. This depravity is universal, for there is none that doeth good, no not one. The words oux eax; ivoc, not so much as one, are a Hebrewism for ouos efc- Tliis passage is taken from the Septuagint transla tion of Psalm xiv. 3.
VERSES 13, 14. These verses relate to the sins of the tongue. The passages quoted are from Ps. v. 9, cxl. 3, and x. 7. Their throat is an open sepulchre. The point of comparison may be the offensive and pestiferous character of the exhalations of an open grave. This is forcible, and suited to the context. Or the idea is, that as the grave is rapacious and insatiable, so the wicked are disposed to do all the injury with their tongues which they can accomplish. In Jer. v. 16, it is said of the Chaldeans, "Their quiver is an open sepulchre," i. e. destruc tive. But as in the following verses sins of violence are brought distinctly into view, the former explanation is to be preferred. What issues from the mouths of the wicked is offensive and pestiferous. With their tongues they have used deceit. The word kdoAtoiHjav is in the imperfect, for idoAtow, implying con tinuous action. In the Hebrew it is, " They make smooth their tongue," i. e. they flatter. The LXX. and Vulgate give the version which the apostle adopts. The poison of asps is under their lips. This is the highest expression of malignity. The bite of the adder causes the severest pain, as well as produces death. To inflict suffering is a delight to the malignant. This is a revelation of a nature truly diabolical. Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. The Hebrew in Ps. x. 7, is, " His mouth is full of deceit and violence; " the Septuagint, " His month is full of cursing, bitterness, and deceit." The 'Vulgate follows the LXX.; Paul condenses the idea.
VERSES 15 — 17. These verses adduce the sins of violence common among men, in proof of the general depravity of the race. Their feet are swift to shed blood. That is, on the slightest provocation they commit murder. The life of their fellow-men is as nothing in their estimation, in comparison with the gratification of their pride or malice. The words are quoted from Isa. lix. 7: " Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood." Here the Septuagint agrees with the Hebrew, and Paul again condenses the sense. Destruction and misery are in their ways. Their path through life is marked not only with blood, but with the ruin and desolation which they spread around them. In Isaiah the passage runs, "Their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths." The way of peace tlieij have not known. "The way of peace" is the way that leads to peace, or pacific ways. "They have not known," means they have not approved or fre quented. The idea is to be taken in its most comprehensive form, as the apostle designs to prove, not from any specific form of violence, but from the general prevalence of sins of violence among men, that human nature is depraved. The tree which produces such fruit so abundantly must be evil.
VERSE 18. There is no fear of God before their eyes. This is taken from Psalm xxxvi. 1: " The dictum of depravity con cerning the wicked man in my heart is, There is no fear of God before his eyes." That is, his depravity proves or reveals to me that he does not fear God. See Alexander on the Psalms, who proposes this witli other versions of the passage. However the previous part of the verse may be understood, the clause quoted by the apostle is plain. The course of wicked men, as previously described, is proof that they are destitute of the fear of God. And by "the fear of God," we may understand, accord ing to Scripture usage, reverence for God, piety towards him; or fear, in the more restricted sense, dread of his wrath. In either way, the reckless wickedness of men proves that they are desti tute of all proper regard of God. They act as if there were no God, no Being to whom they are responsible for their conduct, and who has the purpose and power to punish them for their iniquity.
VERSE 10. Now we know; it is a thing plain in itself, and universally conceded, that what things soever the laio saith, it saith to them that are under the law. The word i^ofto^ means that which binds, that to which we are bound to be conformed. It is that which binds the reason, the conscience, the heart, and the life, whether it be revealed in the constitution of our nature, or in the decalogue, or in the law of Moses, or in the Scrip tures. It is the word or revelation of the will of God, consisidered as the norm or rule to which men are to conform their faith and practice. It depends on the context, under what aspect this rule is in any particular case contemplated. It may be the rule as written on the heart, ii. 14, or the law of Moses, or the whole Scriptures, as John x. 34. In this passage it obvi ously means the whole Old Testament, for the quotations given above are taken from the Psalms and the Prophets. In every instance the principle applies, that what the law says, it says to those who have the law. Those to whom any revelation of the divine will is made, are bound to be conformed to it. What the law written in the heart says, it says to those who have that law; and what the law as written in the Scriptures says, it says to those who have the Scriptures. The declarations therefore contained in the Old Testament, which was the revelation of God's will made to the Jews, were the norm or rule to which they were obliged to conform their judgments and conduct. If the Old Testament declared that all men are under sin, that there is none righteous, no not one, the Jews could not deny the truth of this universal declaration in its application to them selves. These passages speak not of heathen as heathen, but of fallen men as such, and therefore are to be understood of all men, of the Jews as well as of the Gentiles. That every mouth may be stopped. The word is «W, in order that. That is, the design of God in these general declarations was, that every mouth should be stopped; that all men should be reduced to silence under the conviction that they had nothing to say against the charge of sin. This idea is expressed in another form in the following clause: That the whole world (~u.~ b z6<7/w~,) all man kind, Jews and Gentiles, should become (^swyrctf,) in their own conviction, guilty before God. That is, that all men should be convinced of guilt. Guilt, here, as always in theological lan guage, means liability or exposure to punishment on account of sin. It is not to be confounded either with moral pollution, or with mere demerit. It may exist where neither pollution nor personal demerit is to be found. And it may be removed where both remain. Christ is said to have borne the guilt of our sins, although immaculate and without personal demerit; and justifi cation removes the guilt (or just exposure to punishment) of the sinner, but it does not change his inward character. This is the proper meaning of uxodcxo:; (Ivo^o^ dixr^J) guilty, satisfactionem alteri debens, obnoxious to punishment. Before Grod, TW 6soj, in relation to God, as it is to him that satisfaction for sin is due. It is he whom we have offended, and under whose sentence we lie. There are three things involved in the con-i sciousness of sin; sense of moral turpitude, sense of demerit or of ill-desert, and the conviction that we ought to be punished. This last element is often the most clearly revealed; so that a criminal often voluntarily gives himself up to justice. It is this that is denominated guilt, the obligation to suffer punishment; so that the guilty are not merely those who may be punished, but those who justice (or moral rectitude) demands should be punished. It is this that stops the sinner's mouth; and it is this which is met by satisfaction, so that although in the justi fied believer a sense of pollution and of ill-desert remains, there is no longer this dreadful conviction that God is bound to, punish him. The conclusion to which the apostle's argument, from experience and Scripture, has thus far led is, that all men are guilty in the sight of God; and if guilty, they cannot be justified on the ground of their personal character or conduct, To justify is to declare not guilty; and therefore the guilty cannot, on the ground of character, be justified.
VKKSH 20. Therefore!>>/ the. deeds <>f the ltn> shall no flesh be justified in I/is si<//>t. Thc.rcforc. The particle is wore, which is equivalent to di o re, on account of which thin<j, wherefore. In this sense it indicates a conclusion from preceding premises. This would suit this connection, as ver. 20 is a fair conclusion from what is said in ver. 19: 'All the world is guilty before (rod. wherefore^ hence it follows that, no one can be justified by works.' Tin's is the conclusion which the apostle has had in view from the be^innin^ of his arinunont. His whole design is to prove that men cannot be justified by their own righteous ness, in order to prepare them to receive the righteousness of God. This view of the connection is assumed in our version, by Beza, Turrettin, Rosemmiiller, and others. But in the New Testament, ororr is almost uniformly, perhaps in every case, used in the sense of oca TO~JTO or.', on this account that, or of the simple OTC, that. The great majority of commentators there fore render it here, because, as in i. 19, viii. 7, &c. Verse 20 then assigns the reason of what is said in ver. 19: 'Every mouth must be stopped, because no flesh can be justified by works.' This view is to be preferred, not because more suita ble, but because more consistent with the common use of the particle in question. No flesh. When men are called flesh, in the Bible, there was originally a reference to their weakness and faults, as the flesh is earthly and perishable. But in many cases there is no such implication; "no flesh" is simply equiva lent to no man. The Greek is here 710.00. capz ou x.r.X, every flesh shall not; according to the familiar Hebraism, no flesh shall. The future is used not in reference to the day of final judgment, for the act of justification takes place in this life, jit expresses the certainty of the thing affirmed: No flesh shall ever be (i. e. ever can be) justified. The apostle seems evi dently to have had in his mind the passage in Psalm cxliii. 2: a Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified." Aaaioco, to justify, is not simply to pardon. A condemned criminal, in whose favour the executive exercises his prerogative of mercy, is never said to be justified; he is simply pardoned. Nor is it to pardon and to restore to favour. When a king pardons a rebellious subject, and restores him to his former standing, he does not justify him. Nor is it to make just inwardly. When a man accused of a crime is acquitted or declared just in the eye of the law, his moral character is not changed. To justify is a forensic term; that is, it expresses the act of a judge. Justification is a judicial act. It is a declaration that the party arraigned is dixaiot;, just; and dcxatoz means right, conformed to the law. / To justify, therefore, is to declare that the party implicated is I rectus in foro judieii; that dixy, justice, does not condemn, but pronounces him just, or declares herself satisfied. This is the i uniform meaning of the word, not only in Scripture, but also in ordinary life. We never confound justification with pardon,! or with sanctification. It is always used in the sense antithe- |j tical to condemnation. To condemn is not merely to punish, but to declare the accused guilty or worthy of punishment; and justification is not merely to remit that punishment, but to declare that punishment cannot be justly inflicted. Much less does to condemn mean to render wicked, and therefore neither does to justify mean to render good. When we justify God, we declare him to be just; and when God justifies the sinner, he declares him to be just. In both cases the idea is, that there is no ground for condemnation; or that the demands of justice are satisfied. Hence the terms and expressions used in Scrip ture, convertibly with the word to justify, all express the sumo idea. Thus, in ii. lo, it is said: "Not the hearers of the laware just before God (uixruot ~aoa -at 6zw,) but the doers of the law shall be justified (dixata)&7jaovTat.') Here, to be just before God, (in his sight or estimation,) and to be justified, mean the same thing It is clearly impossible that the apostle should mean that the doers of the law shall be pardoned. What should they be pardoned for? Doing the law does not call for pardon: it is declared to be the ground of justification. Pardon ' and justification therefore are essentially distinct. The one is the remission of punishment, the other is a declaration that no ground for the infliction of punishment exists. Quite as evident is it that the apostle does not mean, in the passage referred to, to say that the- doers of the law shall be made holy. To justify, therefore, cannot mean to make inherently just or good. In iv. U, he speaks of the •'blessedness of the man to whom the Lord imputeth righteousness without works." To impute right eousness is to justify. To impute is to ascribe to, to reckon to| one's account. J3ut when we pardon a man, we do not ascribe righteousness to him; and therefore, again, justification is seen! to be different from pardon. It is quite as clear, that to impute righteousness cannot mean to render holy; and therefore to justify, which is to impute righteousness, cannot mean to mako good. In viii. 1, the apostle says, ••there is no condemnation ( to th >se who are in Christ Jesus." Not to condemn is neither, to pardon nor to sanctify, but it is to pronounce just. Nothing can be clearer as a question of exegesis, than that the word dtxcuoco (to justify) expresses a judicial, as opposed to an execu | tive, and also to an ellieient act. This indeed is plain from the very form of the statement in this and other passages. It would be utterly unmeaning to say that "no flesh shall be par doned by the works of the Jaw," or that "no man shall be sanc tified by the deeds of the law." In the fifth chapter of this epistle, Paul uses the phrase "sentence unto condemnation (xf)l/w ef~ xa'dx(>>iia") in antithesis to "sentence unto justifi cation (xii'i[ia sc- oexwwffrs.") Justification therefore is as much a sentence, a xniim, a judgment, a declarative act, as condemna tion. It need not be remarked that this is a point of vital
^importance. How can man be just with God? is the question which of all others most immediately concerns our eternal interests. The answer which Pelagians and Remonstrants give to this question is, that to justify is simply to pardon and to restore to divine favour. The Romanists say, that it is to render inwardly pure or good, so that God accepts as right eous only those who are inwardly conformed to the law, and.because of that conformity. Protestants say, that to justify is I to declare just; to pronounce, on the ground of the satisfaction of justice, that there is no ground of condemnation in the sinner; or that he has a righteousness which meets the demands of the law. The Romish doctrine of subjective justification, against which the Protestants contended as for the life of the
Bcrklart werdcn, was es nicht ist;" i. e. Gf-od can never acknow ledge or declare that just, which is not so in itself. This is said to prove that God cannot pronounce the sinner just, unless he is l| inherently righteous. If this is so, then no flesh living can be ' justified; for no human being in this life, whether under the law or the gospel, is inherently just, or inwardly conformed to the law of God. The conscience of the holiest man on earth con demns him, and God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all f things. If not righteous in our own eyes, how can we be right eous in the sight of omniscient and infinite holiness? Agreea bly to the principle just stated, Olshausen defines dixcuoauvT), conformity to law, so that "not only the outward act, but the inward feeling and disposition answer to the divine law;" and o'xacoco is said to express "die gottliche Thatigkeit dcs Hervorrufcns dcr dcxa.coa'j^, welches natlirlich das Anerkennen derselben als solcher in sich schlicsst." That is, to justify is to produce moral rectitude, and to acknowledge it as such. See Olshausen s Commentary, Rom. iii. 21. Justification therefore includes two things; first, making a man inwardly just; and secondly, acknowledging him to be so. No man tnerefore can 5 be justified who is not inwardly conformed to the perfect law of God. This is a sentence of eternal condemnation on all mankind; for there is none righteous, no not one; neither by works nor by faith, neither by nature nor by grace. Blessed be God, this is not the doctrine of the Bible. God justifies the ungodly; that is, he pronounces just, those who, personally con sidered, are unjust. lie imputes righteousness to those without works; that is, to those who are in themselves unrighteous. In no instance in the Scriptures has o'./jj.cno) the sense of producing d!%fu<HT''jyrt. We do not make God holy when we justify him; the unrighteous judge does not make the wicked holy when he justifies him for a reward, Isa. v. '2-\. lie surely is not an abomination to the Lord, who makes the unrighteous good, but lie is declared to be such an abomination, who either justifies the wicked or condemns the just. Pmv. xvii. lo. This doctrine is not less inconsistent with the faith of the Church, than it is with the plain meaning of the Scriptures. The people of God of every denomination are led as by instinct to renounce all dependence upon anything done by them or wrought in them, and to cast themselves, for acceptance before God, on what Christ has done for them. Their trust is in him, and not on their own inward conformity to the law. Xo previous training, and no trammels of fal-e doctrine can prevent those who are truly under the guidance of the Spirit of (rod from thus renouncing their own inward righteousness, and trusting to the righteousness of the S"ii of God.
To justify then is not merely to pardon and restore to favour; h nor is it to make inwardly ju<t or holy, but it is to declare or pronounce just; that is, judicially to declare that the demands of justice are satisfied, or that there is.10 just ground for con demnation. The apostle here as everywhere teaches that no human being can be thus pronounced just, on the ground of his personal character or conduct, because all have sinned and are guilty before God. This is here expressed by saying, that no flesh can be justified //// works of the biw. Bv works of the law ] are not meant works produced or called forth by the law as a | mere objective rule of duty, as opposed to works produced by an i inward principle of faith, but works which the law prescribes.
It is not by obedience to the law, by doing the works which the law enjoins, that any man can be justified. As to the nature of the works which are thus expressly declared not to be the ground of justification, there are different opinions arising out of the different views taken of the plan of salvation revealed in the Scriptures. 1. The Pelagian doctrine, that the works j intended are the ceremonial works prescribed by the Mosaic law. The doctrine assumed to be taught by the apostle is, that men are not justified by any external rites, such as circumcision and sacrifice, but by works morally good. 2. The Homish doctrine, that the works of the law are works performed under the stress of natural conscience. The Homish theory is, that works done before regeneration have only the merit of congruity; but those done after regeneration, and therefore from a, principle of grace, have the merit of condignity, and are the ground of acceptance with God. 3. The Remonstrant or Arminian doctrine is, that by the works of the law is to be understood the perfect legal obedience enjoined on Adam as the condition of eternal life. Under the gospel, such perfect
(obedience is not required, God for Christ's sake being willing to accept of imperfect obedience. Men therefore are not justi-
'fied by the works of the law, but by the works of the gospel, which requires only a fides obsequiosa. 4. The modern doc trine already referred to is only a philosophical statement of
• the Romish theory. Olshausen, Nearidcr, and the school to which they belong, teach that the law as an objective rule of duty cannot produce real inward conformity to the will of God, but only an outward obedience, and therefore there is need of a new inward principle which produces true holiness in heart and life. "Das Gcsetz," says Olshausen, " konnte es nicht liber eine aussere Legalitat hinausbringen, (lurch die Wiedergeburt wird aber (lurch Gnade ein innerer Zustand, die dtxouoffuvy Osoi>, im Glalibigen geschaffen, der den hochsten Forderungen entspricht;" (see his Comment, on i. 17.) "The law can only effect an external legal obedience; but by regeneration, an inward state, the 8rxato06uy 6zo~j, is produced by grace, which meets the highest demands." The works of the law, therefore, according to this view, the dixcuoa'jyq ro~j vbfj.oo, or lx isbiwj, or dtxatcauv/i loia^ are those vorks or that righteousness which men by their own power, without the cooperation of divine grace, can effect; ("der Mensch sic gleichsam mit semen eignen, riach dem Fall ihm gebliebenen sittlichen Kriiften, ohnc Wirkung der Gnade, zu Stande bringt.") Such works or such righteousness cannot justify; but the inward righteousness pro duced by the grace of God, and therefore called the owuoa'jyq 6zorj or £* TtlffTscoz, meets the demands of the law, is the true ground of justification. Uklutux'-n. •>, -1. See also Zander's G-eschichte der Pjlanzung, pp.;3U3 — 51<>. The doctrine of the divines of the school of Schleiermacher, presented in formulas more or less mystic and transcendental is, that as we derive a corrupt nature from Adam, and on the ground of that nature are condemned, so we derive a holy nature from Christ, and on the ground of that nature are justified, o. In opposition to all these views, which place the ground '^f justification, so far as i is a declarative act, in man's own inward character or state, Protestants with one heart and one voice teach that l»v the ivorks n f f/ir /<(tv, which are excluded from the ground of Justin fication, are meant not only ceremonial works, not merely the works of the unregenerate done without grace, not only the perfect obedience required by the law originally given to Adam, but works of all kinds, everything either done by IH or wrought in us. In proof of this, it maybe urged: 1. That the law of which the apostle speaks, is the law which binds all man kind. It is the law, the violation of which renders all men guilty IK- fore God, as stated in ver. ID. The whole of the pre ceding argument is designed to >linw that both Jews and Gen tiles, viewed as to their personal diameter, are under sin and incapable of justification on the ground of their own character or conduct. '2. This law which thus binds all men, demands the highest kind of moral obedience. It is spiritual, extendiii"
not merely to the external act, but to the secret motives. It says, uthou shalt not covet;'' thus condemning all irregular or inordinate desires. It is holy, just, and good. It required us to love God with all the heart, and our neighbour as our selves. There can therefore be no form or kind of righteous ness, whether natural or gracious, higher than that which the law demands, and which is comprehended in the works of the law. 3. The contrast or opposition is never between one kind
) justified by ceremonial works, but are justified by good works; he does not exclude merely opera ex soils natures viribus, i. e.
L contrast imperfect obedience under the gospel with the perfect obedience required of Adam; but the opposition is always
Titus iii. 5; that is, works of the highest order, for there is no ftively stated, it is declared to be the obedience, the death, the blood or work of Christ. 7. The objection to the apostle's doctrine, which he answers at length in chap, vi., supposes that
Aground of justification, then wre may live in sin. There could be no room for such an objection, had the apostle taught that
1 their own inward excellence, and cast themselves on the work or merit of Christ. In reference to this cardinal doctrine,
Calvin says: "Neque vero me latet, Augustinum secus expo-
nere; justitiam enim Dei esse putat regenerationis gratiam; et
hanc gratuitam esse fatetur, quia Dominus immerentes Spiritu
suo nos rcnovat. Ab hac autcm opera legis excludit, hoc est
quibus homines a seipsis citra renovationein conantur Deum
promereri. Mihi etiam plus satis notum est, quosdam novos speculatores hoc dogma superciliose proferre quasi hodie sibi revelaturn. Scd apostolum omnia sine exceptionc opera complecti, etiam qiue Dominus in suis efficit, ex contextu plunuui fiet. Nam certc regeneratus erat Abraham, et Spiritu Dei agebatur quo teinpore justificatum fuisse operibus negat. Ergo a justificatione hominis non opera tantum moraliter bona (ut vulgo appellant) et quie fiunt natune instinctu excludit, sed quoecunque etiam fidelcs habere possunt. Deinde si ilia est justitiie fidci definitio, Beati quorum remissai sunt iniquitates, Ps. xxxii. 1; non disputatur do hoc vel illo genere operum; sed abolito operum merito sola peceatorum remissio justitiae causa statuitur. Putant luec duo uptime convening, li<le justificari hominem per Christi gratiam; et tameii operibus justificari, qiue ex regeneratione spiritual! proveniant; quia et gratuito nos Deus renovat, et ejus domim lido percipimus. At Paulus longe aliud principium suinit: nunqiiam scilicet tranquillas fore conscientias, donee in solam Dei misericordiam recumbant; ideo alibi postquani docuit Deum t'uisso in Christ*.), ut homines justificaret, inoduin simul exprimit, non imputando illis peccata."
Fur l»j the law is the knowledge <>f sin. No llesli can be* justified by the law, fur by the law we arc convinced of sin.) The law condemns by bringing sin clearly to our knowledge as deserving the wrath of God, which is revealed against all sin, and therefore it cannot justify. "Ex radrm scatebra," says Calvin, "non prodeunt vita et mors." A'-rpwtf.'C (J'uff <>r accurate knowledge) is stronger than the simple word pr^'C (kti'Kclcdi/c..) When the object of knowledge is something in our own consciousness, as in the case of sin, knowledge involves a recognition of the true nature of that object, and a cor responding experience. The knowledge of sin is therefore not a mere intellectual cognition, but an inward conviction, includ ing both an intellectual apprehension and a due sense of its turpitude and guilt. This is the office of the law. It was not/ designed to give life, but so to convince of sin that men may bej led to renounce their own righteousness and trust in the right eousness of Christ as the only and all "Sufficient ground of their j acceptance \vitU God.
1. However men may differ among themselves as to indivi. dual character, as to outward circumstances, religious or social, when they appear at the bar of God, all appear on the same level. All are sinners, and being sinners, are exposed to con demnation, vcr. 9.
2. The general declarations of the Scriptures, descriptive of the character of men before the advent of Christ, are applicable to men in all ages of the world, because they describe human nature. They declare what fallen man is. As we recognize the descriptions of the human heart given by profane writers a thousand years ago, as suited to its present character, so the inspired description suits us as well as those for whom it was originally intended, vs. 10 — 18.
3. Piety and morality cannot be separated. If men do not understand, if they have no fear of God before their eyes, they become altogether unprofitable, there is none that doeth good,
4. The office of the law is neither to justify nor to sanctify. It convinces and condemns. All efforts to secure the favour of God, therefore, by legal obedience must be vain, ver. 20.
1. As God regards the moral character in men, and as we are all sinners, no one has any reason to exalt himself over another. With our hands upon our mouth, and our mouth in the dust, we must all appear as guilty before God, ver. 9.
2. The Scriptures are the message of God to all to whom they come. They speak general truths, which are intended to apply to all to whom they are applicable. What they say of sinners, as such, they say of all sinners; what they promise to believers, they promise to all believers. They should, there fore, ever be read with a spirit of self-application, vs. 10 — 18.
3. To be prepared for the reception of the gospel, we must be convinced of sin, humbled under a sense of its turpitude, silenced under a conviction of its condemning power, and prostrated at the footstool of mercy, under a feeling that wo cannot satisfy the demands of the law, that if ever saved, it must he by other merit and other power than our own, ver. 20.
HAVING proved that justification, on the ground of legal obedience or personal merit, is for all men impossible, 1'aul proceeds to unfold the method of salvation presented in the gospel. With regard to this method, he here teaches, 1. Its nature. 2. The ground on which the offer of justification is made. 8. Its object. 4. Its results.
I. As to its nature, he teaches, 1. That the righteousness which it proposes is not attainable bv works, but hv faith, vs. 21. 22. 2. That it is adapted to all men, Jews as well as Gentiles, since there is no difference as to their moral state, vs. 22, 28. 3. It is entirely gratuitous, ver. 24.
II. As to its ground, it is the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, or Jestts Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, vs. 24. 2-3.
III. Its object is the display of the divine perfections, and the reconciliation of the justice of God with the exhibition of mercy to the sinner, ver. 2<>.
IV. Its results. 1. It humbles man by excluding all ground of boasting, vs. 27, 2S. 2. It presents God in his true charac ter as the God and father of all men, of the Gentile no less than of the Jew, vs. 2t>, 30. 8. It confirms the law, ver. 3L.
VERSE 21. But now the ri<iltt<>nu*Hi>xx of G-od ivithout tJt<> law is manifested, &c. Having demonstrated that no flesh can be justified by the deeds of the law in the sight of God, the ap-K-tle proceeds to show how the sinner can be justified. With regard to this point, he teaches, in this verse, 1. That the righteous ness which is acceptable to God is not a legal righteousness; and, 2. That it had been taught already in the Old Testament.
The words but now may be regarded as merely marking the transition from one paragraph to another, or as a designation of time, now, i. e. under the gospel dispensation. In favour of this view is the phrase, "to declare, at this time, his righteous ness," in ver. 20; compare also i. 17. Is manifested, i. e. clearly made known, equivalent to the phrase is revealed, as used in i. 17. The words righteousness of Grod, are subjected here to the same diversity of interpretation that was noticed in the passage just cited, where they first occur. They may mean, 1. A divine attribute, the justice, mercy, or general rectitude of God. 2. That righteousness which is acceptable to God, which is such in his estimation. 3. God's method of justifica tion; compare i. 17. The last interpretation gives here a very good sense, and is one very commonly adopted. ' The method of justification by works being impossible, God has revealed another, already taught indeed, both in the law and prophets, a method which is not legal (without law,) i. e. not on the condi tion of obedience to the law, but on the condition of faith, which is applicable to all men, and perfectly gratuitous,' vs. 21 — 24. But for the reasons stated above, in the remarks on i. 17, the interpretation which best suits both the force of the words and Paul's usage is, ' The righteousness of which God is the author, which comes from him, which he gives, and which consequently is acceptable in his sight.' The word righteousness is employed to designate that excellence which the law demands, or which constitutes a man or/ato^ (righteous) in the sight of the law, and the genitive (TO~J 0so7j) of Crod, indicates the source or author of that righteousness. As men therefore cannot attain such righteousness by the deeds of the law, God has revealed in the gospel another righteousness, which is not legal, but is attained or received by faith, and is offered to all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, as a free gift. The words %copiz UOJJLO'J, without law, may qualify the word righteousness. It is a righteousness without law, or with which the law has nothing to do. It is not a product of the law, and does not consist in our inward conformity to its precepts; so that %io<n~ WIJIOD is equivalent to Xtof/iz Zcrftov w/wu, Gal. ii. 16. The connection however may be with the verb: ' Without the law (i. e. without the coopera tion of the law) the righteousness of God is revealed. But the whole context treats of justification without works, and there fore the interpretation which makes the apostle say that a righteousness without the works of the law is made known in the gospel, is more suited to the connection. The perfect 7:nf(j.^i<>toi:Lu has its appropriate force. The revelation has been made and still continues. This righteousness, which, so to speak, had long been buried under the types and indistinct utterances of the old dispensation, has now in the gospel been made (<ffrs=.od) clear and apparent. The apostle therefore adds, beinij testified l>y the law and the prophets. The word is f*uf>- T'Joo'jiJLivrn leintj testified t<>; the present is used because the testimony of the Old Testament to the gospel was still con tinued. The Jews were accustomed to divide the Scriptures into two parts — -the Latu including the live books of Moses, and the 7 V'/yy//r/.v including all tin; other books. The word prophet means one who speaks for God. All inspired men are prophets, and therefore the designation applies to the historical, as well as to the books which we are accustomed, in a more restricted sense of the word, to call prophetical. The Law and the Pro phets therefore mean the Old Testament Scriptures. Matt. v. IT, vii. 12, Luke xvi. •]!, Acts xiii. 15, kc. The words desig nated a well known volume, and had to the minds of the Jews as definite a meaning as the word />////<' has with us. The con stant recognition of that volume in the ]Se\v Testament as of divine authority, relieves us of the neeessitv of proving sepa rate Iv the inspiration of its several books. In sanctioning the volume as the word of God, Christ and his apostles gave their sanction to the divine authority of all that the volume contains. That the Old Testament does teach the doctrine of "a right eousness without works," Paul proves in the next chapter, from the case of Abraham, and from the declarations of David.