VEUSI-: -'2. Even the righteousness of God. The repetition of the subject from the preceding verse; ds is therefore notadversative, but is properly rendered even. This righteousness, of which God is the author, and which is available before him, and which is now revealed, is more particularly described as a (dexatoa'JU'q (oixra) oca rJ.aiKJLi'} righteousness which is of faith, i. e. by means of faith, not d:a ~'.cfciv, on account of faith. Faith is not the ground of our justification; it is not the righteousness which makes us righteous before God, (it is not itself the dtxcuoauvq roy 6soi),) nor is it even represented as the inward principle whence that righteousness proceeds. It is indeed the principle of evangelical obedience, the source of holiness in heart and life; but such obedience or holiness is not our justi fying righteousness. Holiness is the consequence and not the cause of our justification, as the apostle proves at length in the subsequent parts of this epistle. This righteousness is through faith, as it is received and appropriated by faith. It is, more over, not faith in general, not mere confidence in God, not simply a belief in the Scriptures as the word of God, much less a recognition of the truth of the spiritual and invisible, but it is faith of Cltrist; that is, faith of which Christ is the object. A man may believe what else he may; unless he receives and rests on Christ alone for salvation, receives him as the Son of God, who loved us and gave himself for us, he has not the faith of which the apostle here speaks as the indispensable condition of salvation. This important doctrine is not only clearly but frequently brought into view in the New Testament. What our Lord constantly demanded was not merely religious faith in general, but specifically faith in himself as the Son of God and Saviour of the world. It is only faith in Christ, not faith as such, which makes a man a Christian. "If ye believe not that I am he," saith our Lord, "ye shall die in your sins," John viii. 24. " To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to as many as believed on his name," John i. 12. "That whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life," John iii. 14, 16. "Whoso ever believeth on him, shall not be confounded," Rom. ix. 33. "How shall they call on him on whom they have not believed," x. 14. Such passages are almost innumerable. So when the object of saving faith is designated, it is said to be not truth in general, but Christ himself. See ver. 25, (through faith in his blood,) Gal. ii. 16, 20, iii. 24, Eph. iii. 12, &c. ^The act there fore which the sinner is required to perform, in order to be made a partaker of the righteousness of God, is to believe on Christ; that is, to receive him as he is revealed in the gospel as the eternal Son of God, clothed in our nature, loving us and giving himself as a propitiation for our sins. As there is no verb in the text, of which otxcuoffwy (righteousness) is the nomi native, we must either borrow the verb 7r£<pavstoa)TGu from vcr. 21, 'the righteousness of God is manifested unto all;' or what better suits what follows, supply soyzra!, comes (or simply s<rr.', in) unto all and upon all. The words xa: i~c -u.^-<i.' (and upon all) are omitted in the MSS. A. c. 20. 31. 47. <>i>. <>7: in the Coptic and Ethiopic versions; and by several of the Fathers. Griesbach and Lachmann leave them out of the text: most modern critical editions retain them, both on external and internal grounds. This righteousness is e^ rra^rwc, extending unto all, xa: l~l ravr^c, and over all, as covering them or over flowing them. "Eine Gnadenfluth," says Olshausen, " die an alle herandringt und sogar iibcr alle hmiiberstromt." There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile recognized in this method of salvation. The <niestioii is not as to whether men are of this or that race, or of one or another rank in life, or in the Church visible or out of it. This righteousness is unto all who believe. Faith is all that is demanded. The reason why the same method of salvation is suited to all men is given in the following clause: For there is no difference among men as to their moral state or relation to God, or as to their need o[ sal vation, or as to what is necessary to that end. "What one man needs ail require, and what is suited to one is suited to and sufficient for all. The characteristics, therefore, of the plan of salvation presented in this verse are: 1. That the righteousness of God which is revealed in the gospel is to be attained by faith, not bv works, not by birth, not by any external rite, not by union with any visible Church, but simply and only by believing on Christ, receiving and resting upon him. '2. That this righteousness is suited to and sufficient for all men; not only for all classes, but lor all numerically; so that no one can perish for the want of a righteousness suitable and sufficient, clearly revealed and freely offered.
VKUSK *2;]. For all have sinned. This is the reason why there is no difference as to the condition of men. All are sinners. The apostle uses the aorist ^ww-ov, xinni'J. and not the perfect, 1/aee sinned. Riickert says this is an inaccuracy; Bengel explains it by assuming that the original act in paradise, and the sinful disposition, and also the acts of transgression flowing from it, are all denoted. Olshausen says that the reference is mainly to original sin; for where there are no peccata actualia, there is still need of redemption. Dr. "Words worth, Canon of Westminster, gives the same explanation: "All men sinned in Adam, all fell in him." Meyer says, "The sinning of each man is presented as an historical fact of the past." The idea that all men now stand in the posture of sinners before God might be expressed either by saying, All have sinned (and are sinners,) or all sinned. The latter is the form adopted by the apostle. And come short, uo-c-otywcat, in the present tense. The sinning is represented as past; the present and abiding consequence of sin is the want of the glory
'I approbation of God, the ob~a which comes from God; comp. John xii. 43, "They love the praise of men rather than the praise (obzav) of God." Calvin explains it as the glory quce coram Deo locum habet, glory before God, i. e. in his estimation, as he explains OC/JJMO'J^ 6sorj to be righteousness in his sight, what he regards as such. This is against the natural force of the genitive. Others understand ooza in the sense of glorying, non habent, unde coram Deo glorientur, Estius; so also Luther,
1 Tholuck, (who refers to John v. 44, oo-a^ ~aoa roD 0so5,) arid others. This idea would be expressed by the word xwjyrptz, ver. 27, or xo:r/rt<m, iv. 2, 1 Cor. v. 6, ix. 16, &c. Others again say that the glory of God here means that glory which God promises to the righteous, as in v. 2. So Beza, who says, " c/ora est meta ad quam contendimus, id cst, vita retcrna, quse in glorice Dei participatione consistit." Ruckcrt and Olshausen say it means the image of God: ' Men are sinners, and are destitute of the image of God.' But this is not the sense of the words; 'the glory of God' does not mean a glory like to that of God. The first interpretation, which is the simplest, is per fectly suited to the context. All men are sinners and under the disapprobation of God. In this respect there is no differ ence between them; and therefore all need a righteousness not their own, in order to their justification before God.
VERSE 24. Being justified freely b// his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The apostle continues his exhibition of the method of salvation by using the participle
'being justified,' instead of the verb 'we are justified,' agreea bly to a mode of construction not unusual in the Greek, though much more frequent in the Hebrew. Aaawj n&ot therefore depends on 5ff7£nowTcu, i all come short of the favour of God, being justified freely. That is, since justification is gratuitous, the subjects of it are in themselves unworthy; they do not merit God's favour. Justification is as to us ocoozdv, a matter of gift; on the part of God it is an act of grace; we are justified r;/y a>JTOrj yd-furc ly his grace. The act, so far as we are concerned, is altogether gratuitous. We have not the slightest degree of merit to offer as the ground of our acceptance. This is the third characteristic of the method of justification which is by the righteousness of God. Though it is so entirely gratuitous as regards the sinner, yet it is in a way perfectly consistent with the justice of God. It is through "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," that is, of which he is the anther.
The word a-otirfHOffiz, r<'<l'irtptt<>n. has two senses in the New Testament. 1. It means properly 'a deliverance efYeeted by the payment of a ransom.' This is its primary etymological meaning. 2. It means deliverance simply, without any refer ence to the mode of its accomplishment, whether by power or wisdom. Luke xxi. 2S, fc-The day of redemption (i. e. of deli verance) draweth nigh:'' lleb. xi. 25, and perhaps Rom. viii. 23; compare Isa. 1. 2. " Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem'.''" &C. When applied to the work of Christ, as affect ing our deliverance from the punishment of sin, it is always taken in its proper sense, <l<'/^'crane<> effected l>f the p<ti/ment of a ransom. This is evident, 1. Because in no case where it is thus used, is anything said of the precepts, doctrines, or power of Christ, as the means by which the deliverance is effected; but uniformly his sufferings arc mentioned as the ground of deliverance. Eph. i. 7, "In whom we have- redemp tion through his blood;" lleb. ix. 15, "By means of death, for the redemption of transgressions," Col. i. 14. 2. In this pas sage the nature of this redemption is explained by the following verse: it is not by truth, nor the exhibition of excellence, but through Christ 'as a propitiatory sacrifice, through faith in his blood.' 8. Equivalent expressions fix the meaning of the term beyond doubt. 1 Tim. ii. 6, "Who gave himself as a ransom for all;" Matt. xx. 28, " The Son of man came to give his life as a ransom for many;" 1 Peter i. 18, "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ," &c. Accordingly Christ is presented as a Redeemer, not in the character of a teacher or witness, but of a priest, a sacrifice, a propitiation, &c. That from which we are redeemed is the wrath of God; the price of our redemption is the blood of Christ. That is in Christ Jesus. This may mean ly him, Iv having its instrumental force, as in Acts xvii. 31, (h avool w,) lij the man. As this use of the prepo sition with names of persons is infrequent, others retain its usual force, in. Compare Eph. i. 7, "In whom (sv w) we have redemption," &c.; and Col. i. 14, 'We are justified by means (did) of the redemption which we have in virtue of union to Christ,'
VERSE 25. Whom Grod hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, &c. This clause contains the ground of our deliverance from the curse of the law, and of our accept ance with God, and constitutes therefore the second step in the apostle's exhibition of the plan of salvation. He had already taught that justification was not by works, but by faith, and entirely gratuitous; he now comes to show how it is that this exercise of mercy to the sinner can be reconciled with the justice of God and the demands of his law. The word ~c>os- $£~o, Jiath set forth., also signifies to purpose, to determine, jtom. i. 13; compare viii. 28. If this sense be adopted here, the meaning would be, 'whom God hath purposed or decreed to be a propitiation.' But the context refers to a fact rather than a purpose; and the words ere ivdscgev (for the manifestation,) as expressing the design of the manifestation of Christ, is decidedly in favour of the common interpretation. There are three interpretations of the word iAaar/jpcov, (propitiation,) which are worthy of attention. It was understood by many of the Fathers, and after them by Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Olshauscn, and others, to mean the propitiatory, or mercy-seat, jver the ark of the covenant, on which the high priest, on the great day of atonement, sprinkled the blood of the sacrifices. Here it was that God was propitiated, and manifested himself as reconciled to his people. The ground of this interpretation is, that the original word here used is employed in the Septuagint as the designation of the niercy-seat, Exod. xxv. 18 — 20; and often elsewhere. The meaning would then be, 'that God had set forth Jesus Christ as a mercy-seat, as the place in which, or the person in whom he was propitiated, and ready to forgive and accept the sinner.' But the objections to this interpretation are serious. 1. The use of the word by the Greek translators of the Old Testament, probably arose from a mistake of the proper meaning of the Hebrew term. The Hebrew word means properly a cover; but as the verb whence it comes means literally, to cover, and metaphorically, to atone for, to propitiate, the Greek translators incorrectly rendered the noun iAaaTr/peov, the Latin propitiatorium, and our trans lators, the mercy-scat, a sense which rn£5 never has. It is, therefore, in itself a wrong use of the Greek word. 2. This interpretation is not consistent with the unalogv of Scripture. The sncred writers are not accustomed to compare the Saviour to the cover of the ark, nor to illustrate his work bv such:t reference. This passage, if thus interpreted, would stand alone in this respect. ->. According to this view, there is an obvious incongruity in the figure. It is common to speak of the blood of a sacrifice, but not of the blood of the mercy-seat. He-ides, Paul in this very clause speaks of "his blood." See /h't//i/ii/it Observationcs, Part II., sect. 41, and Krelxs Xew T<-xt<unent, illustrated from the writings of Josephus.
The second interpretation supposes that the word //O//// (sacrifice) is to be supplied: 'Whom he has set forth as a pro pitiatory sacrifice.' 1. In favour of this interpretation is the etymology of the word. It is derived from tidaxowu, t<> (tjijtense, to conciliate. Hence Ikacrcrjocoz, as an adjective, is applied to anything designed to propitiate; as in the expressions "pro pitiatory monument," fci propitiatory death." (Josephus, Ant, XVI. 7. 1 Lib. <!<>• Mace., sect, IT. See Krcls on this verse.) 2. The use of analogous terms in reference to the sacrificial services under the old dispensation, as acoTypioy, sacrijieium pro salute, Exod. xx. 24, xxviii. 20, for which we have in Exod. xxiv. 5, &'j(r!a ffcoTr/plou; so #^/'.'T^w#, thank-offerings^ TO xa&dpffiov, the offering for jmrifaation. In keeping with all these terms is the use of tiaa-cypeov (dr>/j.a) in the sense of propitiatory sacrifice. 3. The whole context favours this ex planation, inasmuch as the apostle immediately speaks of the blood of this sacrifice, and as his design is to show how the gratuitous justification of men can be reconciled with the justice of God. It is only a modification of this interpretation, if llaaTifjOiov be taken substantively and rendered propitiation, as is done in the Vulgate and by Beza.
The third interpretation assumes that IhaGryptov is here used in the masculine gender, and means propitiator. This is the explanation given by Scmler and Wahl; but this is contrary to the usage of the word and inconsistent with the context. The obvious meaning, therefore, of this important passage is, that
'God has publicly set forth the Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of the intelligent universe, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the
• sins of men. It is the essential idea of such a sacrifice, that it is a satisfaction to justice. It terminates on God. Its primary design is not to produce any subjective change in the offerer,
,but to appease God. Such is the meaning of the word, from which we have no right to depart. Such also is the idea which it of necessity would convey to every Gentile and every Jewish reader, and therefore such was the idea which the apostle intended to express. For if we are not to understand the language of the Bible in its historical sense, that is, in the sense in which the sacred writers knew it would be understood by those to whom they wrote, it ceases to have any determinate meaning whatever, and may be explained according to the private opinion of every interpreter. But if such be the mean ing of these words, then they conclusively teach that the ground of our justification is no subjective change in us, but the propi tiatory sacrifice of Christ. Olshausen, who elsewhere plainly teaches the doctrine of subjective justification, in his comment on this verse, admits the common Church doctrine. lie denies that the work of Christ terminates on the sinner. "Every sacrifice," he says, "proposed to expiate the guilt of man, and to appease the wrath of God, consequently the sacrifice of all sacrifices, in which alone all others have any truth, must accomplish that which they only symbolized." The doctrine of the Scotists, he adds, of gratuita acceptatio, refutes itself, because God can never take a thing for what it is not, and therefore cannot accept as a satisfaction what is no satisfaction. Grotius's view of an acceptilatio, which amounts to the same thin" with the doctrine of Scotus, and resolves the atonement into a mere governmental display, (a popular theory reproduced as a novelty in the American Churches,) he also rejects. lie says, "So there remains nothing but the acute theory of Ansclm, properly understood, of a satisfactio vivaria, which completely agrees with the teachings of Scripture, and meets the demands of science."* According to Olshausen, therefore, ("die tiefste Erorterungen,") the profoundest disclosures of modern science have at last led back to the simple old doctrine of a real vicarious satisfaction to the justice of God, as the) ground of the sinner's justification.
Through faith. These words, o'.a -:(TTSU)~, may be connected with dixa'.o'jjjLS,vot as coordinate with nrj\ d,~o).'JTp«)azco~: * Being justified fhruU'/h tin' r>'il<'tt}/>fi"ti. tliat is, being justified through faith.'' "But this breaks the connection between -yos'/s-o ami £:\~ sWcf-/v. Meyer connects both oca Ttlarscoz and zi> ~cu aifjiaTt witli -fiitzt'Jzro: 'God liatli, by means of faith, by his blood, set forth Christ as a propitiation.' But the faith of man is not tho means by which God set forth Christ. The most natural con nection is with IXacrrijtHoy) 'a propitiation through faith,' i. <l. which is received or appropriated through faith. It is a moro doubtful question how the words /// ///* ll«ml are to be con nected. The most obvious construction is that adopted in our version, as well as in the Vulgate, and by Luther, Calvin, Olshausen, and many others, 'Through faith in his blood;' so that the blood of Christ, as a propitiatory sacrifice, is the ground of the confidence expressed in rr.'Vrr.'C,;*in Christ! san guine repositam habenm< fiduciam." Calrin. To this it is objected, that the construction of -rVrr.'c with ^v is altogether unauthorized. But there are so many cases in the Xew Testa merit in which this construction must be admitted, unless violence be resorted to, that this objection cannot be allowed much weight. See Gal. iii. 20, Eph. i. 15, Col. i. 4, 1 Tim. iii. 13, 2 Tim. iii. 15. Others connect both oca -'.GTZCO^ and sv r«7
* So bleibt nur die richti^ verst;in>le hOchst scharfsinnige Anselmischo Theorip (satisfactio vicaria) als diejetiige iibrig, die der Schriftlehre eben so sehr geuilgt, als den Ansprucher der Wissensckaft.
at [mil as distinct qualifying clauses with fdaartjp>ov; the former, as De "VYettc says, expressing tlic means of the subjective appro priation, the other the means of the objective exhibition. That is, i God has set forth Christ as a propitiation, which is availa ble through faith, and he is a propitiation by his blood.' Still another method is to connect in TW at pare with ou: i Whom God has set forth in his blood as a propitiation.' The construction first mentioned, and sanctioned by the translators of the English Bible, gives a perfectly good sense, and is most agreeable tp the collocation of the words. The blood of Christ is an ex pression used in obvious reference to the sacrificial character of his death. It was not his death as a witness or as an exampie, but as a sacrifice, that expiates sin. And by his blood, ii not to be understood simply his death, but his whole work for our redemption, especially all his expiatory sufferings from the beginning to the end of his life.
This whole passage, which Olshausen happily calls the "Acro polis of the Christian faith," is of special importance. It teaches that we are justified in a manner which is entirely of grace, without any merit of our own; through, or by means of faith, and on the ground of the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is evident from this statement, that Paul intended to exclude from all participation in the meritorious ground of our acceptance with God, not only those works performed in obedi ence to the law, and with a legal spirit, but those which flow from faith and a renewed heart. The part assigned to faith in the work of our reconciliation to God is that of an instrument; it apprehends or appropriates the meritorious ground of our acceptance, the work or righteousness of Christ. It is not itself that ground, nor the means of attaining an inherent righteousness acceptable to God. This is obvious, 1. Because our justification would not then be gratuitous, or without works. Paul would then teach the very reverse of the doctrine which he has been labouring to establish, viz. that it is not on account of works of righteousness, i. e. works of the highest order of excellence, that we are accepted, since these works would then be the real ground of our acceptance. 2. Because we are said to be justified by faith of which Christ is the object, by faith in his blood, by faith in him as a sacrifice. These expressions cannot possibly mean, that faith in Christ is, or produces, a state of mind which is acceptable to God. Faith in a sacrifice is, by the very force of the terms, reliance on a sacrifice. It would be to contradict the sentiment of the whole ancient and Jewish world, to make the design of a sacrifice the production of a state of mind acceptable to the Being worshipped, which moral state was to be the ground of acceptance. There is no more pointed way of denying that we are justified on account of the state of our own hearts, or the character of our own acts, than by saying that we are justified by a propitiatory sacri fice. This latter declaration places of necessity the ground of acceptance out of ourselves; it is something done for us, not something experienced, or produced in us, or performed by us. There is no rule of interpretation more obvious and more] important than that which requires us to understand the lan-j guage of a writer in the sense in which he knew lie would bei understood by the persons to whom he wrote. To explain, therefore, the language of the apostle in reference to the sacri fice of Christ, and the mode of our acceptance with God, other wise than in accorda-nce with the universally prevalent opinions on the nature of sacrifices, is to.substitute our philosophy of religion for the inspired teachings of the sacred writers.
To declare Jus righteousness for the /v////xxAy^ of $in# tlmt arc. past, through the forbearance of (<<>/]. Having stated the nature arid ground of the gospel method of justification, Paul comes, in this clause, to state its object: 'God has set forth Christ, as a propitiatory sacrifice, to declare his righteousness.' It should be remembered that the object of the death of Christ, being very comprehensive, is variously presented in the Avord of God. In other words, the death of Christ answers a great number of infinitely important ends in the government of God. It displays "his manifold wisdom,'' Eph. iii. 10, 11; it was designed "to purify unto himself a people zealous of good works," Titus ii. 14; to break down the distinction between the Jews and Gentiles, Eph. ii. 15; to effect the reconciliation of both Jews and Gentiles unto God, Eph. ii. 10; "to deliver us from this present evil world," Gal. i. 4; to secure the forgive ness of sins, Eph. i. 7; to vindicate his ways to men, in so long passing by or remitting their sins, Rom. iii. 25; to reconcile the exercise of mercy with the requirements of justice, ver. 26, &c. These ends are not inconsistent, but perfectly harmonious. The end here specially mentioned is, to declare his righteous ness. These words here, as elsewhere, are variously explained. 1. They are understood of some one of the moral attributes of God, as his veracity, by Locke; or his mercy, by Grotius, Koppe, and many of the moderns. Both of these interpreta tions are forced, because they assign very unusual meanings to the word righteousness, and meanings little suited to the con text. 2. Most commentators, who render the phrase 'right- Jeousness, or justification of God,' in chap. i. 17, iii. 21, God's method of justification, adopt that sense here. The meaning | would then be, that ' God had set forth Christ as a propitia- < tion, to exhibit his method of justification, both in reference to! the sins committed under the old dispensation, and those com-; mitted under the new.' But this is inconsistent with the i meaning of duaioa'jvr^ which never has the sense of "method, of justification," and is unsuitcd to the context. 3. The great majority of commentators understand the dr/.awa'jvs] 6zorj here spokcn'of to be the justice of God. This is the proper meaning of the terms, and this the context demands. Justice is the attribute with which the remission, or passing by, of sins with out punishment, seemed to be in conflict, and which therefore: required vindication. It was necessary that the justice of God should be publicly exhibited, because he forgave sin. Besides, the apostle himself explains what he means by ar/a.'ocr'j^, when he adds that God set forth Christ as a propitiation, in order that he miyht be just, and yet justify the ungodly. The satis faction of justice therefore was the immediate and specific end of the death of Christ, This was indeed a means to a higher end. Justice was satisfied, in order that men might be sancti fied and saved; and men are sanctified and saved, in order that might be known, in the ages to come, the exceeding riches of | the grace of God.
For the remission of sins, o:a rr^ xdpsffw, x.r.L This admits of different explanations. 1. Some give oca with the accusa tive the same force as with the genitive; through the forgive ness of sins. That is, the righteousness of God was manifested bv means of remitting sins. This is contrary to the proper meaning of the words, and supposes that daaioa'jvy means good ness. Beza, however, adopts this view, and renders the words, per remissionem; so also Reiche, Koppe, and others. 2. It is taken to mean, as to, as it regards. This gives a good sense, ' To declare his righteousness, as to, or as it regards the remis sion of sins.' So Raphelius, (Observations, &c., p. 241,) who quotes Polybius, Lib. 5, ch. 24, p. 517, in support of this inter pretation. This view is given by Professor Stuart. But the preposition in question very rarely if ever has this force. No such meaning is assigned to it by Wahl, Bretschneider, or 'Winer. 3. The common force of the preposition is retained, on account of. This clause would then assign the ground or reason of the exhibition of the righteousness of God. It became necessary that there should be this exhibition, because God had overlooked or pardoned sin from the beginning. This is the most natural and satisfactory interpretation of the passage. So the Vulgate, proptcr remissionem, and almost all the moderns. 4. Others again make the preposition express the final cause or object, "To declare his righteousness for the sake of the remis sion of sins,' i. e. that sins might be remitted. So Calvin, who says, u Tantundcm valet pnepositio causalis, acsi dixisset, remission is ergo, vel in hunc finem ut peccata deleret. Atque haec deh'nitio vel exegesis rursus confirmat quod jam aliquoties monui, 11011 justificari homines, quia re ipsa tales siut, sed imputatione." But this is a very questionable force of the pre position: see Winer s Gram., § 5o, a. The third interpretation, therefore, just mentioned, is to be preferred. The word Ttdpzats, remission, more strictly means pretermission, a p((sxui</ J>>f, or overlooking. Paul repeatedly uses the proper term for r<' //fis sion (dtfsat^j) as in Eph. i. 7, lleb. ix. 22, *S:c.; but the word here used occurs nowhere else in the Xrw Testament. Many, therefore, consider the selection of this particular term as designed to express the idea, that sins committed before the advent of Christ might more properly be said to be overlooked, than actually pardoned, until the sacrifice of the Redeemer had been completed; sen,1 Wolfs Curce. Reference is made to Acts xvii. 80, where God is said to have overlooked the times of ignorance. Hut as the word used by the apostle is actually used to express the idea of remission, in Greek writers, (see
Eisner,) the majority of commentators adopt that meaning here. /The words ndpeact; and aipzcrcz express the same thing, but under different aspects. They differ only as not punishing, and par doning. To say that God did not punish sins under the old.dispensation, is only a different way of saying that he pardoned them. So "not to impute iniquity" is the negative statement of justification. This passage, however, is one of the few which the Romanists quote in support of their doctrine that there was no real pardon, justification, or salvation, before the advent of Christ. The ancient believers at death, according to their doc trine, did not pass into heaven, but into the limit us patrum, (where they continued in a semi-conscious state until Christ's descensus ad inferos for their deliverance. The moden trans cendental theologians of Germany, who approach Romanism in /so many other points, agree with the Papists also here. Thus Olshausen says, " Under the Old Testament there was no real, but only a symbolical forgiveness of sins." Our Lord, however, /speaks of Abraham as in heaven; and the Psalms are filled:with petitions and thanksgiving for God's pardoning mercy.
The words, that are past, seem distinctly to refer to the times before the advent of Christ. This is plain from their opposition to the expression, at this time, in the next, verse, and from a comparison with the parallel passage in Ileb. ix. 15, a lie is the Mediator for the redemption of sins that were under the first testament." The words lv TTJ lw%9j, rendered through the for bearance of Crodj admit of different explanations. 1. They may \>e connected with the words just mentioned, and the meaning be, ' Sins that are past, or, which were committed during the forbearance of God;' see Acts xvii. 20, where the times before the advent are described in much the same manner. 2. Or they may be taken, as by our translators, as giving the cause of the remission of these sins,; They were remitted, or overlooked through the divine forbearance or mercy.' Forgiveness however is always referred to grace, not to forbearance. The former interpretation is also better suited to the context. The mean ing of the whole verse therefore is, ' God has set forth Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, to vindicate his righteousness or justice, on account of the remission of the sins committed under the former dispensation;' and not under the former dispensation only, but also in the remission of sins at the pre sent time, as the apostle immediately adds. The interpretation of the latter part of this verse, given above, according to which TOL "ooyz^o^oia. &uv.oTrj[JLv~GL, (the sins before cotiinuttcd^ mean the sins committed before the coming of Christ, is that which both the context and the analogy of Scripture demand. In the early Church, however, there were some who held that there is no forgiveness for post-baptismal sins — a doctrine recently reproduced in England by the Rev. Dr. Pusey. The advocates of this doctrine make this passage teach that Christ was set forth as a propitiation for the forgiveness of sins committed before baptism, that is, before conversion or the professed adoption of the gospel. Ruckert and Keiclie, among the recent German writers, give the same interpretation. This would alter the whole character of the gospel. There could be no salvation for any human being; for all men sin hourlv, after as well as before baptism or conversion. ^So man at anv moment of his life is perfectly conformed to the law of God. Conscience always pronounces sentence against us. There could be no peace in believing, no imputation or possession of righteousness. "We should not now be under grace, but under law, as com pletely as though Christ had never died.
VERSE 2G. T<> declare, I say, his righteousness, &C. This clause is a resumption of what was said before. -<><)' l^nn^rj being coordinate with the foregoing £.'~ z^n-.'.^:^, both depending upon ~<n)ii.H-o: 'He set him forth sr- and — ~'//c.' The two prepositions have the same sense, as both expiv>s the design or object for which anything is done: 'Christ was set forth as a sacrifice for the manifestation of the righteousness of God, on account of the remission of the sins of old—/'"/- t/i>-)n<tnif<'xtation of his righteousness at this time.' There were two pur poses to be answered; the vindication of the character of God in passing by former sins, and in passing them by now. The words sv T(i> yji; '/M.cnuJ, (at tin* fi//n>.) therefore stand opposed to Iv rj duoyjj, (during the forbearance.) The death of Christ vindicated the justice of God in forgiving sin in all ages of the world, as those sins were by the righteous God, y.s Olshaiiben Bays, "punished in Christ."
that, as expressing the design, and not merely the result of the exhibition of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. This clause therefore expresses more definitely what is meant by e^ £i<dse~ci> dixcuoauvr^. Christ was set forth as a sacrifice for the mani festation of the righteousness or justice of God, that is, that he might be just, although the justifier of the ungodly. The word <ju$t expresses the idea of uprightness generally, of being or doing what the nature of the case demands. But when spoken of the conduct of a judge, and in reference to his treatment of sin, it must mean more specifically that modification of general rectitude, which requires that sin should be treated according to its true nature, that the demands of law or justice should not be disregarded. A judge is unjust when he allows a criminal to be pronounced righteous, and treated accordingly. On the other hand, he acts justly when he pronounces the offender guilty, and secures the infliction of the penalty which the law denounces. What the apostle means to say is, that there is no such disregard to the claims of justice in the justification of the sinner who believes in Christ. This is seen and acknowledged, when it is known that he is justified neither on account of his own acts or character, nor by a mere sovereign dispensing with the demands of the law, but on the ground of a complete satis faction rendered by his substitute, i. e. on the ground of the obedience and death of Christ. The gratuitous nature of this Justification is not at all affected by its proceeding on the i ground of this perfect satisfaction. It is, to the sinner, still the most undeserved of all favours, to which he not only has not the shadow of a personal claim, but the very reverse of which he has most richly merited. It is thus that justice and mercy are harmoniously united in the sinner's justification. Justice is no less justice, although mercy has her perfect work; and mercy is no less mercy, although justice is completely satisfied.
'Just and the justifier,' &c. In the simple language of the Old Testament, propositions and statements are frequently con nected by the copulative conjunction whose logical relation would be more definitely expressed by various particles in other languages; as Malachi ii. 14, "Against whom tliou hast dealt treacherously, and she was thy companion," i. e. although she was thy companion. " They spake in my name, and (although)
I sent them not;" see G-eseniuss Lexicon. In like manner the corresponding particle in the Greek Testament is used with scarcely less latitude. Matt. xii. 5, " The priests profane the Sabbath, and (and yet) are blameless;" Rom. i. 13, " T pur posed to come unto you, and (but) was let hitherto;" Heb. iii. 9, "Proved me, and (although the?/) saw my works;" see WahVs Lex. and Winers G-ram., § 57. So in the present instance it may be rendered, "That God might be just, and yet, or altliowjli the justifier," &c. Him which believeth in Jesus, literally, 'Him who is of the faith of Jesus;" so Gal. ii. 7, "They which are of faith," for believers; Gal. ii. 12, "They of the circumcision," i. e. the circumcised; see Rom. ii. 8, iv. 12, &c. Faith of JCKUS, faith of which Jesus is the object; see ver. 22. Our version therefore expresses the sense accurately, lie whom God is just in justifying, is the man who relies on Jesus as a propitiatory sacrifice. That justification id a forensic act, is of necessity implied in this passage. If to justify was to make subjectively just or righteous, what neces sity was there for the sacrifice of Christ? Why should he die, in order that it might be just in God to render men holy? It were an act of mercy to make the vilest malefactor good; but to justify such a malefactor would be to trample justice under foot. The doctrine therefore of subjective justification perverts the whole gospel. It is worthy of remark, that the orthodox interpretation of the meaning of this whole paragraph is acknowledged to be correct, even by those who cannot them selves receive the doctrine which it teaches. Thus Kollner, one of the latest and most candid of the German commentators,
says: "It is clear that the true sense of this passage entirely agrees with the doctrine of the Church concerning vicarious satisfaction, as unfolded in the Lutheran symbols. Neverthe less, although it is certain that Paul intended to teach the doc trine of vicarious satisfaction, not merely as a figure, (or in the way of accommodation.) but as a matter of full personal con viction; yet it is easy to see how he was necessarily led to adopt this view, from the current opinions of the age in which he lived." He proceeds to show that as the idea of vicarious
punishment was incorporated in the Jewish theology, the guilt of the offender being laid upon the head of the victim offered in sacrifice, Paul was unavoidably led to conceive of the work oi Christ under this form. As, however, this theory, according to Kollner, arose out of a false view of the nature of God, and of his relation to the world, he cannot regard it as a divine revelation. He proceeds to unfold what he supposes to be the eternal truth contained under these Jewish ideas, (unter der Hiille der Zeitvorstellungen,) and presents very much the governmental view of the atonement introduced by Grotius, and reproduced in this country by the younger Edwards and his followers. "Did Paul," says Kollner, "merely teach that God made a symbolical exhibition of justice in the sufferings of Christ, we might acquiesce in his teaching, but he says more; he constantly asserts that men are justified or constituted right eous through the blood of Christ, iii. 21, v. 19, Eph. i. 7, Col. i. 14." Such writers arc at least free from the guilt of per verting the word of God. They allow the Bible to mean what
.it says, although they refuse to submit to its teaching. This is better than not only refusing to submit, but forcing the Scrip-
, tures to teach our own foregone conclusions. In Germany, the subjection of the Bible to philosophy has come to an end. In this country, it is still struggling for liberty. It is desirable that the separation should here, as there, be made complete, between those who bow to the authority of the word of God, and those who acknowledge some higher rule of faith. Then
VERSE 27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. In this and the following verses the apostle presents the tendency and results of the glorious plan of salvation, which he had just unfolded. It excludes boasting, ver. 27. It presents God in his true character, as the God and Father of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews, vs. 29, 30; and it establishes the law, ver. 81. The word v.wjyrtaiz (boasting,) is used to express the idea of selfgratulation with or without sufficient reason. In the former case, it is properly rendered rejoicing, as when Paul speaks of the Thessalonians being his "crown of rejoicing." In the latter, the word boasting is the correct version. The word properly means the act of boasting or rejoicing; at times, by metonymy, the ground or reason of boasting, as in Rom. xv. 17.
Either sense suits this passage. The article,j xavffifftz, the boasting, may have its appropriate force. The reference how ever is not specially to ver. 1 of this chapter, the boasting of the Jews over the Gentiles, but the boasting of the sinner before God. The latter however includes the former. A plan of sal vation which strips every man of merit, and places all sinners on the same level before God, of course cuts off all assumption of superiority of one class over another. Paul means to say that the result of the gospel plan of salvation is to prevent all self-approbation, self-gratulation and exaltation on the part of the sinner. He is presented as despoiled of all merit, and as deserving the displeasure of God. He can attribute, in no degree, his deliverance from this displeasure to himself, and he cannot exalt himself either in the presence of God, or in com parison with his fellow-sinners. As sin is odious in the sight of God, it is essential, in any scheme of mercy, that the sinner should be made to feel this, and that nothing done by or for him should in any measure diminish his sense of personal ill-desert on account of his transgressions. This result obviously could not follow from any plan of justification that placed the ground of the sinner's acceptance in himself, or his peculiar advantages of birth 01- ecclesiastical connection; but it is eil'cctually secured by that plan of justification which not only places the ground of his acceptance entirely out of himself, but which also requires, as the very condition of that acceptance, an act involving a penitent acknowledgment of personal ill-desert, and exclusive dependence on the merit of another. In this connection, the phrases '-by what law," "'the law of works," and "the law of faith," are peculiar, as the word VO/JLO^ (law} is not used in its ordinary sense. The general idea, however, of a rule- <>f <x-l/<>u is retained. fc I>y what rule? ]}y that which requires works? Nay: by that which requires faith.' By the ulaw of faith," therefore, is obviously meant the gospel. Compare ix. -51.
YKRSK i^S. Tlu'rcfnre we conclude, &c. The common text has o5v, t/n'r<'f<»'»'i giving this verse the character of a conclu sion from the preceding argument. The great majority, how ever, of the best manuscripts, the Vulgate and Coptic versions, and many of the Fathers, have ^o, which almost all the modern editors adopt. This verse then is a confirmation of what is said before: 'Boasting is excluded,),o^^6/2e&a -f6.(>, for we think, i. e. are sure,' &c. See ii. 3, viii. 18, 2 Cor. xi. 5, for a similar use of the word ^l^ 0/201. That a man is justified by faith. If by faith, it is not of works; and if not of works, there can be no room for boasting, for boasting is the assertion of per sonal merit. From the nature of the case, if justification is by faith, it must be by faith alone. Luther's version, therefore, allcin durcli den glauben, is fully justified by the context. The Romanists, indeed, made a great outcry against that version as a gross perversion of Scripture, although Catholic translators before the time of Luther had given the same translation. So in the Nuremberg Bible, 1483, "Nur durch den glauben." And the Italian Bibles of Geneva, 1476, and of Venice, 1538, per sola fede. The Fathers also often use the expression, "man is justified by faith alone;" so that Erasmus, De Ratione Concionandi, Lib. III., says, "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc sieculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur." See Koppe and Tholuck on this verse.
Without ivories of the law. To be justified without works, is to be justified without anything in ourselves to merit justifica tion. The works of the law must be the works of the moral law, because the proposition is general, embracing Gentiles as well as Jews. And as our Saviour teaches that the sum of the moral law is that we should love God with all the heart, mind, and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves, and as no higher form of excellence than supreme love to God is possible or con ceivable, in excluding works of the law, the apostle excludes everything subjective. He places the ground of justification out of ourselves. Olshauscn, on this verse, reverts to his Romish idea of subjective justification, and explains ^vorJcs of the law to mean works produced by the moral law, which he says spring only from ourselves, and are perishable, whereas "the works of faith are imperishable as the principle whence they spring." That is, we are not justified by works performed from a principle of natural conscience, but by those which are the fruits of a renewed nature. How utterly subversive this is,of the gospel, has already been remarked. The works of the law are not works which the law produces, but works which the, law deman Is, and the law demands all that the Spirit of God effects, even in the just made perfect. And thercfoie spiritual as well as legal works are excluded. The contrast is not between works produced by the law and works produced by faith, but between works and faith, between what is done by us (whether in a state of nature or a state of grace) and what Christ has done for us.
VERSES 2!>, 30. Is he the Grod of the Jews only? is he not, also of the Crentiles? Yes, of tJte G-entiles also; seeing it is" one God who shall justify, tS:c. We have here the second result of the gospel method of justification; it presents Gud as equally the God of the Gentiles and of the Jews, lie is such, because 'it is one God who justifies the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.' lie deals with both classes on precisely the same principles; he pursues, with regard to both, the same plan, and offers salvation to both on exactly the same terms. There is, therefore, in this doctrine, the foundation laid for a universal religion, which may be preached to every creature under heaven; which need not, as was the case with the Jewish system, be confined to anv one sect or nation. This is the only doctrine which suits the cha racter of God, and his relation to all his intelligent creatures upon earth. God is a universal, and not a national God; and this is a method of salvation universally applicable. These sublime truths are so familial1 to our minds that tliev have, in a measure, lost their power; but as to the Jew, enthralled all his life in ins narrow national ami religious prejudices, tliev must have expanded his whole soul with unwonted emotions of wonder, gratitude, and joy. AVe Gentiles may now look up to heaven, and confidently say, u Thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and though Israel acknowledge us not."
Paul here, as in ver. 20, uses the future, daawHrx, will justify, not for the present, nor in reference to the final judg ment, but as expressing a permanent purpose. There is no distinction as to the meaning to be sought between £* -rVrrso;, (Inj faith) and o:a -ia-zcoz (through faith.) as Paul uses both forms indiscriminately; ex, for example, in i. IT, iii. 20, iv 10, &c., and d'.d in iii. 22, 25, Gal. ii. 1C, and sometimes first the one, and then the other, in the same connection. There is no greater difference between the Greek prepositions, as here used, than between the English l)ij and through.
VERSE 31. Do ive then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. This verse states the third result of this method of salvation; instead of invalidating, it establishes the law. As Paul uses the word law in so many senses, it is doubtful which one of them is here principally intended. In every sense, however, the declaration is true. If the law means the Old Testament generally, then it is true; for the gospel method of justification contradicts no one of its statements, is inconsistent with no one of its doctrines, and invalidates no one of its promises, but is harmonious with all, and confirmatory of the whole. If it means the Mosaic insti tutions specially, these were shadows of which Christ is the substance. That law is abolished, not by being pronounced spurious or invalid, but by having met its accomplishment, and answered its design in the gospel. What it taught and promised, the gospel also teaches and promises, only in clearer and fuller measure. If it means the moral law, which no doubt was pro minently intended, still it is not invalidated, but established. No moral obligation is weakened, no penal sanction disregarded. The precepts arc enforced by new and stronger motives, and the penalty is answered in Him who bore our sins in his own body on the tree. " Ubi vero ad Christum ventum est," says Calvin, " priinum in eo invenitur exacta Legis justitia, qua) per imputationem ctiam nostra fit. Deinde sanctificatio, qua formantur corda nostra ad Legis observationem, imperfectam quidem illam, sed ad scopum collimat." Instead of making vcr. 31 the close of the third chapter, many commentators regard it as more properly the beginning of the fourth. The proposition that the gospel, instead of invalidating, establishes the law, they say is too important to be dismissed with a mere categorical assertion. This, however, is Paul's method. After showing that the law cannot save, that both justification and sanctification are by the gospel, he is wont to state in a sentence what is the true end of the law, or that the law and the gospel being both from God, but designed for different ends, are not in conflict. See above, ver. 20, Gal. iii. 19, 20. If this verse, however, be made the beginning of the exhibition contained in the following chapter, then by law must be understood the Old Testament, and the confirmation of the law by the gospel consists in the fact that the latter teaches the same doctrine as the former. 4 Do we make void the law by teaching that justification is by faith? By no means: we establish the law; for the Old Testa ment itself teaches that Abraham and David were justified gratuitously by faith, and without works.' Although the sense is thus good, there does not appear to be any sufficient reason for departing from the common division of the chapters. The next chapter is not connected with this verse by f(in, which vthe sense would demand, if the connection was what Meyer, De Wette, and others would make it: 'We establish the law when we teach faith, for Abraham was justified by faith.' The connecting particle is simply ofo, then, and gives a very dif ferent sense. Besides, it is a very subordinate object with the apostle to prove that the law and the gospel agree. His design is to teach the true method of justification. The cases of Abra ham and David are referred to, to prove his doctrine on that point, and not merely the agreement between the old dispensa tion and the new.
1. The evangelical doctrine of justification by faith is the doctrine of the Old, no less than of the Xew Testament, ver. 21.
2. Justification is pronouncing one to be just, and treating him accordingly, on the ground that the demands of the law have been satisfied concerning him, vs. 24 — 2»J.
•1 The ground of justification is not our own merit, nor faith, nor evangelical obedience: not the work of Christ in us, but his work for us, i. e. his obedience unto death, ver. 25.
4. An act may be perfectly gratuitous as regards its object, and at the same time proceed on the ground of a complete satisfaction to the demands of the law. Thus justification is gratuitous, not because those demands are unsatisfied, but because it is granted to those who have no personal ground of recommendation, vs. 24, 26
5. God is the ultimate end of all his own acts. To declare his glory is the highest and best end which he can propose for himself or his creatures, ver. 25.
6. The atonement does not consist in a display to others cf the divine justice. This is one of its designs and results; but it is such a display only by being a satisfaction to the justice of God. It is not a symbol or illustration, but a satisfac tion, ver. 26.
7. All true doctrine tends to humble men, and to exalt God; and all true religion is characterized by humility arid reverence, ver. 27.
9. The law of God is immutable. Its precepts are always' binding, and its penalty must be inflicted either on the sinner or his substitute. When, however, it is said that the penalty of the law is inflicted on the Redeemer, as the sinner's substi tute, or, in the language of Scripture, that "he was made a curse for us," it cannot be imagined that he suffered the same kind of evils (as remorse, &c.) which the sinner would have suf fered. The law threatens no specific kind of evil as its penalty. The term death, in Scripture, designates any or all of the evils inflicted in punishment of sin. And the penalty, or curse of the law, (in the language of the Bible,) is any evil judicially inflicted in satisfaction of the demands of justice. To say, therefore, that Christ suffered to satisfy the law, to declare the righteousness of God, or that he might be just in justifying him that believes in Jesus, and to say that he bore the penalty of the law, are equivalent expressions, ver. 31.
1. As the cardinal doctrine of the Bible is justification by faith, so the turning point in the soul's history, the saving act, is the reception of Jesus Christ as the propitiation for our sins, ver. 25.
2. All modes of preaching must be erroneous, which do not lead sinners to feel that the great thing to be done, and done first, is to receive the Lord Jesus Christ, and to turn unto God through him. And all religious experience must be de fective, which does not embrace distinctly a sense of the justice of our condemnation, and a conviction of the sufficiency of the work of Christ, and an exclusive reliance upon it as such,
3. As God purposes his own glory as the end of all that he docs, so ought we to have that glory as the constant and com mand in <z object of pursuit, ver. -•">.
4. The doctrine of atonement produces in us its proper effect, when it leads us to see and feel that Clod is just; that lie is infinitely gracious; that we arc deprived of all ground of boast ing; that the wav of salvation, which is open for us, is open for all men; and that the motives to all duty, instead of being weakened, are enforced and multiplied, vs. "2~> -\\.
5. In the gospel all is harmonious: justice and mercy, as it regards (!<>d; freedom from the1 law, and the strongest obliga tions to obedience, as it regards men, vs. 2f),:',!.
THE object of this chapter is to confirm the doctrine of justifi cation bv faith. It is divided into two parts. 'Flic first, from ver. 1 to IT inclusive, contains the argumentative portion. The second, ver. 18 to -.">, is an illustration of the faith of Abraham.
PAUL, from the 21st verse of the preceding chapter, had been getting forth the gospel method of salvation. That this is the true method he now proves, 1. From the fact t'li^t Abraham was justified by faith, vs. 1 — ">. That this was really the case he shows, first, because otherwise Abraham would have had ground of boasting, even in the sight of God, ver. 2; second, because the Scriptures expressly declare that he was justified by faith, ver. 8. Verses 4, 5, are designed to show that being justified by faith is tantamount with being justified gratu itously, and therefore all those passages which speak of the gratuitous forgiveness of sins may be fairly cited in favour of the doctrine of justification by faith. 2. On this principle he adduces Ps. xxxii. 1, 2, as his second argument; for there David speaks not of rewarding the righteous as such, or for their righteousness, but of the free acceptance of the unworthy, vs. 6 — 8. 3. The third argument is designed to show that cir cumcision is not a necessary condition of justification, from the fact that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, and therefore is the head and father of all believers, whether cir cumcised or not, vs. 9—12. 4. The fourth argument is from the nature of the covenant made with Abraham, in which the promise was made on the condition of faith, and not of legal obedience, vs. 13, 14. 5. And the fifth, from the nature of the law, vs. 15 — 17.
VERSE 1. What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? The connection of this verse with the preceding train of reasoning is obvious, Paul had taught that we are justified by faith; as well in confirma tion of this doctrine, as to anticipate an objection from the Jew, he refers to the case of Abraham: ' How was it then with Abraham? How did he obtain justification?' The point in dispute was, how justification is to be attained. Paul proposes to decide the question by reference to a case about which no one could doubt. All admitted that Abraham was justified. The only question was, How? The particle ow, therefore, is not inferential, but simply indicates transition. What then shall we say about Abraham? In the question, however, re obv IOGV//SV, x.r.l. the ri belongs to euor^xsvac: ' What shall we say that Abraham hath found?' i. e. attained. The words xara ffdoxa do not belong to 7r#r£/>«, ' our father according to the flesh,' but to the preceding infinitive, sbpyxevcu, 'what hath he attained through the flesh?' Although the question is inde finite, the connection shows that Paul meant to ask whether Abraham secured justification before God, xara adpxa. through the flesh. The word flesh admits in this connection of different1 explanations. Calvin says it is equivalent to naturaliter, ex' seipso, and Grotius much to the same effect, propriis viribus, * through his own resources.' Not much different from this is the explanation of Meyer, Tholuck, and De Wettc — naeh sein memcldieherWeise — that is, after a purely human way; so that ffdo: stands opposed to the divine ll^^aa, (Holy Spirit.) If this^implies that Abraham was not justified by natural, but was justified by spiritual works, (works done after regeneration,) it ^ contradicts the whole teaching of the apostle. This, however, though naturally suggested as the meaning of the passage as thus explained, is not the doctrine of either of the commenta tors just named. Paul gives his own interpretation of y.a~a ffdoxa in the following verse: 'Did Abraham,' he a>ks, 'attain justification according to the flesh? No, for if he was justified by works, he hath whereof to boast.' It is plain that he uses the two expressions, ae<'<>r<lin<i t<> the fl<>*h and by works, as equivalent. This meaning of adt>z is easily explained. Paul uses the word for what is external, as opposed to what is inter nal and spiritual, and thus for all external rites and ceremonial works, and then for works without limitation. See Gal. iii. 3, vi. 12, Philip, iii. 3, 4. In this last passage Paul includes, under the //•'<//, not only his Hebrew descent, his circumcision, his being a Pharisee, his blameless adherence to the Jewish law, but everything comprehended under his "own righteousness, as distinguished from "the righteousness which is of (jod (C,T« xiffTx) on the condition of faith." This is clearly its sense here. It includes everything meant by -works." and "works" includes all forms of personal righteousness. This same result is reached in another way. Kara adnxa may mean, as Meyer and others Bay, after a human method, i. e. after the manner of men; and this may be understood to mean after the manner common among men, i. e. through works, or personal merit, which is the way that men adopt to secure favour with others. This is the explanation given by Kollner.
VERSE 2. For if Abraham were justified by ivories, he hath whereof to glory, but not before Crod. The apostle's mode of reasoning is so concise as often to leave some of the steps of his arguicont to be supplied, which, however, are almost always sufficiently obvious from the context. As just remarked,?» negative answer is to be supposed to the question in the first verse. Abraham did not attain the favour of God through the flesh. The force of for, at the beginning of this verse, is then obvious, as introducing the reason for this answer. The passage itself is very concise, and the latter clause admits of idifferent interpretations. 4 If Abraham was justified by works, he miirht indeed assert his claim to the confidence and favour of his fellow-men, but he could not have any ground of boasting before God.' This view, however, introduces an idea entirely 'foreign from the passage, and makes the conclusion the very opposite of that to which the premises would lead. For if justi fied by works, he would have ground of boasting before God. The interpretation given by Calvin is altogether the most satis factory and simple: "Epichirema est, id est imperfecta ratiocinatio, qune in hanc forinam colligi debet. Si Abraham operibus justificatus est, potest suo merito gloriari; sed non habet undo glorietur apud Deum; ergo non ex operibus justificatus est." 4 If Abraham was justified by works he hath whereof to glory; but he hath not whereof to glory before God, and therefore he was not justified by works;' the very conclusion which Pau] 1 intended to establish, and which he immediately confirms by the testimony of the Scriptures. The argument thus far is founded on the assumption that no man can appear thus con fidently before God, and boast of having done all that was required of him. If the doctrine of justification by works involves, as Paul shows it docs, this claim to perfect obedience, it must be false. And that Abraham was not thus justified, he proves from the sacred record.
VERSE 3. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed Grod, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. The con nection of this verse with the preceding is this: Paul had just said that Abraham had no ground of boasting with God; for, what saith the Scripture? Does it refer the ground of Abra- " ham's justification to his works? By no means. It declares he was justified by faith; which Paul immediately shows is equivalent to saying that he was justified gratuitously. The passage quoted by the apostle is Gen. xv. 6, "Abraham be lieved God, and it was counted unto him (i. e. imputed to him)
for righteousness." This is an important passage, as the phrase "to impute faith for righteousness," occurs repeatedly in Paul's writings. 1. The primary meaning of the word)>ofi^ofi.at, here rendered to count to, or impute, is to reason, then, to reckon, or nuntlcr; 2 Chron. v. 5, " Which could not be numbered for multitude;" Mark xv. 28, "lie was numbered with the trans gressors;" see Isa. liii. IT, &c. "2. It means to esteem, or regard as something, that is, to number as belonging to a cer tain class of things; Gen. xxxi. 15, "Are we not counted of him strangers?" Isa. xl. IT, &c.; compare Job xix. 11, xxxiii. 10, in the Hebrew. 3. It is used in the more general sense of pur posing, devising, considering, thinking, &c. 4. In strict con nection with its primary meaning, it signifies to i/njuitc, t<> x-ct to nuf's account; that is, to number among the things belonging to a man, or chargeable upon him. Jt generally implies tinaccessory idea of 'treating one according to the nature of the thing imputed.' Thus, in the iVeipieut phrase, t<> impute,v//v, as '1 Sam. xix. 1(J, "Let not my Lord impute iniquity unto me," i. e. 'Let him not lay it to my charge, and treat me accordingly;" compare 1 Sam. xxii. 15, in the Hebrew and Septuagint; Ps. xxxii. 2, (Septuagint, xxxi.j ^ Blessed is the man to whom the Lord iniputeth not iniquity," &c. And in til-.- Xew Testament. '1 C<>r. vi. 11*. -'Xot imputing unto men their trespasses;" '1 Tim. iv. 15, ••/ /»v/// <!<><l that it may not be laid to their charge'," i\:c. These and numerous similar pas sages render the scriptural idea of imputation perfectly clear. It is laying anything to one's charge, and treating him accord ingly. It produces no change in the individual to whom the' imputation is made; it simply alters his relation to the law ' All those objections, therefore, to the doctrine expressed by this term, which are founded on the assumption that imputation alters the moral character of men; that it implies an infusion of either sin or holiness, rest on a misconception of its nature., It is, so far as the mere force of the term is concerned, a matter of perfect indifference whether the thing imputed belonged antecedently to the person to whom the imputation is made or not. It is just as common and correct to speak of laying to a man's charge what does not belong to him, as what does. That a thing can seldom be jmtly imputed to a person to whom itl does not personally belong, is a matter of course. But that the word itself implies that the thing imputed must belong to the person concerned, is a singular misconception. These remarks have, of course, reference only to the meaning of the word. Whether the Bible actually teaches that there is an imputation jof either sin or righteousness, to any to whom it does not per sonally belong, is another question. That the Bible does speak both of imputing to a man what does not actually belong to him, and of not imputing what does, is evident from the follow ing, among other passages, Levit. xvii. 3, 4: 'What man soever killcth an ox, and bring^th it not to the door of the taberna cle,' &c., "blood shall be imputed to that man;" that is, bloodguiltiness or murder, a crime of which he was not actually guilty, should be laid to his charge, and he should be put to death. "Sanguis hie est ccedes, says Rosenmuller; perinde Deo displicebit, ac si ille hominem occidisset, et mortis reus judicabitur." "Als Blutschuld soil es angercchnet werden diesem Mamie." Cresenius. On the other hand, Levit. vii. 18, if any part of a sacrifice is eaten on the third day, the offering " shall not be imputed to him that made it." Paul, speaking to Phile mon of the debt of Onesimus, says, "put that on my account," i. e. impute it to me. The word used in this case is the same as that which occurs in Rom. v. 13, " Sin is not imputed where there is no law;" and is in its root and usage precisely synony mous with the word employed in the passage before us, when the latter is used in reference to imputation. No less than twice also, in this very chapter, vs. 6 and 11, Paul speaks of i imputing righteousness,' not to those to whom it personally belongs, certainly, but to the ungodly, ver. 5; to those who have no works, ver. 6.
"• Since innocence or probity (expressed by the word righteous ness) does not belong to man himself, it must be ascribed or imputed to him. In this way the formula, 'righteousness which 'is of God,' Philip, iii. 9, and especially the plainer expressions, <to impute faith for righteousness,' Rom. iv. o, and 'to impute righteousness,' are to be understood." We readily admit, he says, that things which actually belong to a man may also be said to be imputed to him, as was the case with Phineas, &c., and then adds, "Nevertheless, as he is said not to impute an action really performed, Lcvit. vii., '2 Sam. xix., &c., who does not so regard it as to decree the fruit and punishment of ir; so, on the other hand, those things can be imputed, Levit. xvii. 4, which are not, in fact, found in the man, but which are so far attributed to him, that he may be hence treated as though he had performed them. Thus righteousness may be said to be imputed, Rom. iv. 6, 11, when not his own innocence and probity, which God determines to reward, is ascribed to the believer, but when God so ascribes and imputes righteousness, of which we are destitute, that we are treated as innocent and just." On page -:»:>, he says, "Verbum),(r-'.'^in<hi/. monstrat gratiam, Rom. iv. 4, nam Ofxaeoff'jy/jy nostram negat."
This idea of imputation is one of the most familiar in all the Bible, and is expressed in a multitude of cases where the term is not used. When Stephen prayed. Acts vii. (JO. " Lord, lay not this sin to their charge," he expressed exactly the same idea that Paul did, when he said, - Tim. iv. 1'i, *•/ /'/v// Uud it may not be laid to their charge," although the latter uses the word impute (/.<>'( c<jth'.rr] and the former does not. So the, expressions, "his sin shall be upon him." Hie shall bear his iniquity," which occur so often, are perfectly synonymous with the formula, "his sin shall be imputed to him;" and, of course, "to bear the sins of another," is equivalent to saving, "those sins are imputed." The objection, then-fore, that the word impute does not occur in reference to the imputation of the sin or righteousness of one man to another, even if well founded, which is not the fact, is of no more force than the objections against the doctrines of the Trinity, vicarious atonement, ])er-j, severance of the saints, &e., founded on the fact that these)' words do not occur in the Bible. The material point surely isr Do the ideas occur? The doctrine of "the imputation of right eousness" is not the doctrine of this or that school in theology. It is the possession of the Church. It was specially the glory and power of the Reformation. Those who differed most else where, were perfectly agreed here. Lutherans and Reformed, alienated from each other by the sacramentarian controversy, were of one mind on this great doctrine. The testimony of the learned Rationalist, Bretschneider, if any testimony on so notorious a fact is necessary, may be here cited. Speaking jwith special reference to the Lutheran Church, he says, "The
(symbolical books, in the first place, contradict the scholastic 'representation of justification, followed by the Romish Church, that is, that it is an act of God, by which he communicates to men an inherent righteousness, (justitia habitualis, infusa^) i. e. renders them virtuous. They described it as a forensic or judicial act of God, that is, an act by which merely the moral relation of the man to God, riot the man himself (at least not I immediately,) is changed." "Hence, justification consists of •three parts: 1. The imputation of the merit of Christ. 2. The remission of punishment. 3. The restoration of the favour and the blessedness forfeited by sin." "By the imputatio justitice.'{(or meriti) C/iristi, the symbolical books understand that judg ment of God, according to which he treats us as though we had not sinned, but had fulfilled the law, or as though the merit of Christ was ours; see Apol., Art. 9, p. 226, Merita propitiatoris — aliis donantur imputatione divina, ut per ea, tanquam propriis mentis justi reputcmur, ut si quis amicus pro amico solvit aes alienum, debitor alien o merito tanquam proprio liberatur." — Bretschneider' s Mntwickelung oiler in der Dog. vor~ Jcommenden Begriffe, pp. 631, 632, &c.
But to return to the phrase, ' Faith is imputed for righteous ness.' It is very common to understand faith here, to include its object, i. e. the righteousness of Christ; so that it is not faith considered as an act, which is imputed, but faith consi dered as including the merit which it apprehends and appro priates. Thus hope is often used for the thing hoped for, as I Rom. viii. 24, "Hope that is seen is not hope," &c.; and faith Jfor the things believed, Gal. i. 23, "He preacheth the faith," &c. In illustration of this idea, Gerhard, the leading authority in the Lutheran Church, during the seventeenth century, says, ' Quemadmodum annulus, cui inclusa est gemma, dicitur valere aliquot coronatis, pretiosissima ita fides, quoe apprehendit Christi justitiam, dicitur nobis imputari ad justitiam, quippe cujus est organurn apprehendens." Loci Tom. VII. 238. Although there are difficulties attending this interpretation, it cannot, with any consistency, be exclaimed against by those who make faith to include the whole work of the Spirit on the heart, and its fruits in the life; as is done by the majority of those who reject this view of the passage. Besides this interpretation, there are three other explanations which deserve consideration. The first is that adopted by the Remonstrants or Arininians. According to their view, ^LKaLoavvrj is to be taken in its ordinary sense of rujhteuuxnesx, that which constitutes a man righteous in the eye of the law. Thev understand the apostle, when he says, u Faith was imputed for righteousness/' as teaching that faith was regarded or counted as complete obedience to the law. As men are unable to render that perfect obedience which the law given to Adam required, Ood, under the gospel, according to this view, is pleased to accept of faith, (d Ji<lct obsequiosa^ as it is called, i. e. faith including evangelical obedience,) instead of the righteousness which the law demands. Faith is thus made, not the instrument, but the ground of justification. It is imputed for righteousness in the sense of being regarded and treated as though it were complete obedience to tin' law. It must be admitted, that so far as this single form of statement is concerned, this interpretation is natural, and consistent with usage?. Thus imcircumcision is said to be imputed for circum cision, that is, the former is regarded as though it were the Litter. This, however, is not the only sense the words will naturally bear, and it is utterly inconsistent with what the Scriptures elsewhere teach. 1. It contradicts all those passages in which Paul and the other sacred writers deny that the ground of justification is anything in us, or done by us. These passages are too numerous to be cited; sec chap. iii. 20, where it is shown that the works which are excluded from the ground of justifica tion arc not ceremonial works merely, nor works performed with a le^al spirit, but all works, without exception; works of righteousness, Titus iii. o, i. e. all right or good works. But faith considered as an act, is as much a work as prayer, repent ance, almsgiving, or anything of the kind. And it is as much an act of obedience to the law, as the performance of any other duty; for the law requires us to do whatever is in itself right. 2. It contradicts all those passages in which the merit of Christ, in any form, is declared to be the ground of our acceptance. Thus in chap. iii. 25, it is Christ's propitiatory sacrifice;
chap. v. 18, 19, it is his obedience or righteousness; in many other places it is said to be his death, his cross, his blood. Faith must either be the ground of our acceptance, or the means or instrument of our becoming interested in the true meritorious ground, viz. the righteousness of Christ. It cannot stand in both relations to our justification. 3. It is inconsistent with the office ascribed to faith. We are said to be saved by, or through faith, but never on account of our faith, or on the ground of it. (It is always oca. xlffTSco^ or £* xlffTScoz, but never oca xiarw.) The expressions, " through faith in his blood," iii. 25, "by faith in Jesus Christ," &c., admit of no other inter pretation than ' by means of faith in the blood of Christ, or in Christ himself, as the ground of confidence.' The interpreta tion, therefore, under consideration is at variance with the very nature of faith, which necessarily includes the receiving and resting on Christ as the ground of acceptance with God; and7 of course, implies that faith itself is not that ground. 4. We accordingly never find Paul, nor any other of the sacred writers, referring his readers to their faith, or anything in themselves, as the ground of their confidence. Even in reference to those most advanced in holiness, he directs them to what Christ has done for them, not to anything wrought in them, as the ground of their acceptance. See a beautiful passage to this effect, in Neanders G-elegenlieitschriften, p. 23. After stating that the believer can never rest his justification on his own spiritual life,
or works, he adds, "It would, indeed, fare badly with tho Christian, if on such weak ground as this he had to build his justification, if he did not know that 'if he confesses his sins, and walks in the light, as he is in the light, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses from all sin.' Paul, therefore, refers even the redeemed, disturbed by the reproaches of conscience, amidst the conflicts and trials of life, not to the work of Christ in themselves, but to what the love of God in Christ has done for them, and which, even notwithstanding their own continued sinfulness, remains ever sure." 5. Paul, by interchanging the
ambiguous phrase, 'faith is imputed for righteousness,' with the more definite expressions, 'justified through or by means of faith," 'justified through faith in his blood,' fixes the sense in which the clause in question is to be understood. It must express the idea, that it was by means of faith that Abraham came to be treated as righteous, and not that faith was taken in lieu of perfect obedience. See this subject more fully dis cussed in Owen on Justification, chap, xviii.
According to the second view, the word righteousness is taken in a much more limited sense, and the phrase ' to impute faith for righteousness,' is understood to mean 'faith was regarded as right, it was approved.' This interpretation also is perfectly consistent with usage. Thus, Ps. cvi. 31, it is said of the zeal of Phineas, " It was counted unto him for righteousness." This of course does not mean that it was regarded as complete obedience to the law, and taken in its stead as the ground of justification. It means simply that his zeal was approved of. It was regarded, says Dr. Owen, " as a just and rewardable action." uDivinitus approbatum erat," says Tuckney, W/"Av,'- tioncs, p. 212, "tanquam juste factum." In like manner, Deut. xxiv. 13, it is said of returning a pledge, ''It shall be right eousness unto tliec before the Lord thy God." Agreeably to the analogy of these passages, the moaning of this clause may be, 'his faith was regarded as right; it secured the approbation of God.' How it did this, must be learned from other passages. The third interpretation agrees with the first, in taking or/.atoa'jvfi in its proper sense, (righteousness,^) but gives a different force to the preposition e^: 'Faith was imputed to him unto righteousness,' that is, in order to his being regarded and treated as righteous. In support of this view, reference i* made to such frequently recurring expressions as sr'c ffcoTr^olay, (unto *<ilr<ition,) 'that they might be saved,' x. 1: E/~ //£rr/M;.'^v, (unto repentance,] 'that they might repent,' Matt. iii. 11. In x. 10, of this epistle, the apostle says, 'With the heart man bdicvctli unto righteousness,' (src dcxacoa'jvrjV^ i. e. in onL'r to becoming righteous, or so as to become righteous. Faith secures their beino- righteous. According to this view of the passage, all it teaches is. that faith and not works secured Abraham's justifica tion before God. And this is the object which the apostle has in view. The precise relation in which faith stands to justifi cation, whether it is the instrument or the ground, however clearly taught elsewhere, this particular expression leaves unde termined. It simply asserts that Abraham was justified as a believer, and not as a worker, (epfa£6fjtsvoC)) as Paul expresses it in the next verse.
The Rationalistic theologians of modern times agree with the Socinians in teaching that justification by faith, as distinguished from justification by works, is nothing more than the doctrine that moral character is determined more by the inward princi ple than by the outward act. By faith., in the case of Abraham, they understand confidence in God; a pious frame of mind, which is influenced by considerations drawn from the unseen and spiritual world, the region of truth and eternal principles, rather than by either mercenary feelings or outward objects. When, therefore, the Scriptures say, ' God imputed Abraham's faith for righteousness,' the meaning is, God accepted him for his inward piety, for the elevated principle by which his whole life was governed. If this is what Paul means, when he speaks of Abraham being justified by faith, it is what he means when he teaches that men are now justified by faith. Then the whole gospel sinks to the level of natural religion, and Christ is in no other sense a Saviour, than as by his doctrines and example he leads men to cultivate piety. It is perfectly obvious that Paul means to teach that sinners are now justified in the same way that Abraham was. He proves that we are justified by faith, because Abraham was justified by faith. If faith means inward piety in the one case, it must have the same meaning in the other. But as it is expressly said, over and over, in so many words, that men are now justified by faith in Christ, it follows of necessity that faith in Christ was the faith by which Abra ham was justified. lie believed the promise of redemption, which is the promise that we embrace when we receive and rest on Christ for salvation. Hence it is one principal object of the apostle's argument in the latter part of this chapter, and in the third chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians, to show that we are heirs of the promise made to Abraham, because we have the same faith that he had; the same, that is, both in its nature and object.
It is further to be remarked, that \oyi£e(rdai els BircaLoo-vi'rjv, (to impute for righteousness,) and &t,Kat,ov(T0ai, (to he justified,) mean the same thing. Thus Calvin says, " Tantum iioternus, cos quibus justitia imputatur, justilicari; quando haec duo a
Paulo tanquam synonyma ponuntur." Yet, strange to say, Olshausen asserts that they are very different. To be justified (dcxacoi)$ai) and to have righteousness imputed, he.says, differ as the Romish and the Protestant doctrines of justification differ. The former means to be made subjectively righteous, the latter simply to be regarded as righteous. "Was Jemandem anirereclmet wird, das hat er nicht, er wird aber angesehen und behandelt, als ha'tte er cs." What is imputed to a wan, t/tat lit has not, lut he is regarded and treated, as though he had it. Abraham therefore was not justified, because before the coining of Christ, any true righteousness (iir/f/.foff'r^ f-)-orj, as ()l>hausen says) was impossible; he was only regarded as righteous.* ]>ut as what is said of Abraham is said also of believers under the gospel, since to them a.— well a> to him, righteousness is said to be imputed, it follows that believers are not reallv justified in this life. This is the conclusion to which he is led bv two prin ciples. The first is, that the word ur/jw'no means to make righteous inwardly, (e> bedeutet die gottlichc Thiitiirkeit des Hervorrufens der dr/.aeo(T'jyy],) and no man is perfect Iv holy in this life; the second is, that (lod cannot regard any one as being what he is not, and therefore lie cannot regard the unrighteous as righteous. The former of these assumptions is
* The doctrine of the transcendentalists (so called) regarding tlie nicarnatiori, the person of Christ, and hi- relation to tlie Church, necessarily leads to the assumption.if a great distinction between the religion of the Old Te-tament and that of the New, and between the state and privileges of believers tln-n and now. If our redemption consists in our being made partaker-; of the theanthropic nature of Christ, a< there was no such nature before the manifestation of (!od in the fle»h, there could be no real redemption, no deliverance from the guilt and power of sin, before that event. Hence Olshausen says there could be no JMXWJV* e«J really belonging to those who lived before the advent; and on page 171 he says, if we admit there was any regeneration at all under the Old Testament, it could only be symbolical; and on page K',7, he says, before Christ, forgiveness of sin was not real, but only symbolical. In a foot note ho adds, that under the theocracy there was the pardon of separate acts of trans gression, but not the forgiveness of all sins, actual and original, which can only proceed from Christ. It follows also from this theory, that justification is a subjective change, a change wrought in the soul by the reception of a new nature from Christ. These conclusions the Romanists had reached long ago, by a different process. It is not wonderful, therefore, that so many of the transcendentalists of Germany, and of their abettors elsewhere, have passed over to the Church of Uorno.
utterly unfounded, as dixaiba) always means to declare just, and never to make just. The second principle, Olsliausen, in his comment on this verse, modifies so far as to say that God can only regard as just those whom he purposes to render just; and as with God there are no distinctions of time, he regards as already possessed of righteousness those whom he has purposed to render so. (This would seem to imply eternal justification, or at least an imputation of righteousness from eternity to all whom God has purposed to save.) Without this modification, he says, the objection of Romanists to the Protestant doctrine would be unanswerable. There is a sense, however, in which the principle in question is perfectly sound. God must see things as they are, and pronounce them to be what they are. The Protestant doctrine does not suppose that God regards any person or thing as Being other than he or it really is. When he pronounces the unjust to be just, the word is taken in different senses. He does not pronounce the unholy to be holy; he simply declares that the demands of justice have been satisfied in behalf of those who have no righteousness of their own. In sin there are the two elements of guilt and pollution — the one expressing its relation to the justice, the other its relation to the holiness of God; or, what amounts to the same thing, the one expressing its relation to the penalty, arid the other its relation to the precept of the law. These two elements are separable. The moral character or inward state of a man who has suffered the penalty of a crime, and thus expiated his offence, may remain unchanged. His guilt, in the eye of human law, is removed, but his pollution remains. It would be unjust to inflict any further punishment on him for that offence. Justice is satisfied, but the man is unchanged. There may therefore be guilt where there is no moral pollution, as in the case of our blessed Lord, who bore our sins; and there may be freedom from guilt, where moral pollution remains, as in the case of every justified sinner. 'When, therefore, God justifies the ungodly, he does not regard him as being other than he really is. He only declares that justice is satisfied, and in that sense the man is just; he has a dcxaioa'jvrj which satisfies the demands of the law. His moral character is not the ground, of that declaration, and is not affected by it. As to the distinction made by Olshausen between imputing righteousness and justifying, there is not the slightest ground for it. IIo himself makes them synonymous, (p. Io7.) The two forms of expression are used synonymously in this very context. In ver. 8, it is said, 'faith is imputed for righteousness;' in ver. 5, 'God justifies the ungodly;' and in ver. 6, 'he imputes righteous ness' — all in the same sense. Olshausen, although a representa tive man, exhibits his theology, in his commentary, in a very unsettled state. lie not only retracts at times, in one volume, what lie had said in another, but he modifies his doctrine from page to page. In his remarks on Romans iii. -1, lie himself as serts the principle, (as quoted above,) that "by God' nothing can ever be regarded or declared righteous, which is not righteous," (p. 14');) but in his comment on this verse, lie pronounces the principle, '-das (Jott nach seiner Wahrhaftigkeit nielit.Jemanden fiir ctwas an.-elien kann, was er nicht ist — i'alseh und iiber den licilswcg durchaus irreleitend," (p. 174.) That is, he savs that the principle "that (iod, in virtue of his veracity, eannor regard one as being what he is not — is false, and perverts the whole plan of salvation.'' On pagel">7, he savs, "The passing over of the nature (Wesen) of Christ upon the sinner, is expressed by saying righteousness /.v imputed to ///?;?;" whereas, on pages 1^ —;>j lie labours to show that imputing righteousness is some thing very different from imparting righteousness, lie prevail ingly teaches the doctrine of subjective justification, to which his definition and system inevitably lead: but under the stress of some direct assertion of the apostle to the contrary, he for the time brings out the opposite doctrine. He exhibits similar fluctuations on manv other points.
A ERSES 4, f>. Now t<> Jinn tJnit wnrld-fh, i* tJ><> reward not reckoned of grace, lut of debt; Int to him that ivorketh not, &c. These verses are designed, in the first place, to vindicate the pertinency of the quotation from Scripture, made in ver. 3, by showing that the declaration 'faith was imputed for righteous ness,' is a denial that works were the ground of Abraham's acceptance; and, secondly, that to justify by faith, is to justify gratuitously, and therefore all passages which speak of gratui tous acceptance are in favour of the doctrine of justification by faith.
Now to Mm that ivorketh, that is, cither emphatically *tc him who docs all that is required of him;' or 'to him who seeks to be accepted on account of his works.' The former explanation is the better. The words then state a general pro position, ' To him that is obedient, or who performs a stipulated work, the recompense is not regarded as a gratuity, but as a debt.' The reward, b /Mff&bz, the appropriate and merited com pensation. Is not imputed, XO.TCL %doty, #//« dpeltyfjia, not grace, but debt, which implies that a claim founded in justice is the ground and measure of remuneration. Paul's argument is founded on the principle, which is so often denied, as by Olshausen, (p. 172,) that man may have merit before God; or that God may stand in the relation of debtor to man. The apostle says expressly, that rw ipfa^ofjLSvqj) to him that works, the reward is a matter of debt. If Adam had remained faith ful and rendered perfect obedience, the promised reward would have been due to him as a matter of justice; the withholding it would have been an act of injustice. When, therefore, the apostle speaks of Abraham as having a ground of boasting, if his works made him righteous, it is not to be understood simply of boasting before men. He would have had a ground of boastino- in that case before God. The reward would have been to him a matter of debt.
But to him that worketh not, rw os /J.YJ ipfa^o^svcp. That is, to him who has no works to plead as the ground of reward; XiffTZ'joyTt ok l-i x.T.L, but beUeveth upon, i. e. putting his trust upon. The faith which justifies is not mere assent, it is an act of trust. The believer confides upon God for justification. He believes that God will justify him, although ungodly; for the object of the faith or confidence here expressed is b or/jmov ~bu frffsffi, he who justifies the ungodly. Faith therefore is appro priating:; it is an act of confidence in reference to our own acceptance with God. To him who thus believes, faith is counted for righteousness, i. e. it is imputed in order to his becoming righteous. It lies in the nature of the faith of which Paul speaks, that he who exercises it should feel and acknow ledge that he is ungodly, and consequently undeserving of the favour of God. He, of course, in relying on the mercy of God, must acknowledge that his acceptance is a matter of grace, and not of debt. The meaning of the apostle is plainly this: ' To him that worketh, the reward is a matter of debt, but to him who worketh not, but believeth simply, the reward is a matte! of grace.' Instead, however, of saying ' it is a matter of grace,' lie uses, as an equivalent expression, " to him faith is counted for righteousness." That is. he is justified by faith. To be justified by faith, therefore, is to be justified gratuitously, and not by works. It is thus he proves that the passage cited in ver. 8, respecting Abraham, is pertinent to his purpose as an argument against justification by works. It at the same time shows that all passages which speak of gratuitous acceptance, may be cited in proof of his doctrine of justification hv faith. The way is thus opened for his second argument, which is derived from the testimony of David.
It is to be remarked, that Paul speaks of God as justifying the ungodly. The word is in the singular, rov dm ft. the. ungodly win. not with anv special reference to Abraham, as though lie was the ungodly person whom God justified, but because the singular, iftfa^oiJLS^tu^ (fo Jifi/i tJi<(t trnr/ci'tJi.) ~cn~i''joi/r.', (to him tlii 1. 1 lidi'-i'i'tJi.) is used in the context, and because every man must believe for himself (rod does not justify com munities. If every man and all n,v-n are ungodly, it follows that they are regarded and treated as righteous, not on the ground of their personal character: and it is further apparent that justification does not consist in making one inherently just or holy: for it is as ungodly \\\&\ those who believe are iVeelv justified for Christ's sake. It never was, as shown above, the doctrine of the Reformation, or of tlie Lutheran and Reformed divines, that the imputation of righteousness affects the moral character of those concerned. It is true, whom God justifies ho also sanetifies; but justification is not sanctificat ion. and trio imputation of righteousness is not the infusion of righteousness.) These are the first principles of the doctrine of the Reformers,!
''The fourth grand error of the Papists in the article of justifi cation," says an old divine, '"is concerning that which we call the form thereof. For they, denying and deriding the imputa tion of Christ's righteousness, (without which, notwithstanding, no man can be saved,) do h)\<\ that men are justified by infusion. and not by imputation of righteousness; we, on the contrary.
.do hold, according to the Scriptures, that we are justified before God, only by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and not by infusion. And our meaning, when we say that God imputeth Christ's righteousness unto us, is nothing else but this: that he graciously accepteth for us, and in our behalf, the righteousness of Christ, that is, both as to his obedience, which, in the days of his flesh, he performed for us; and passive, that is, his suf ferings, which he sustained for us, as if we had in our own per sons both performed and suffered the same ourselves. Ilowbcit, we confess that the Lord doth infuse righteousness into the faithful; yet not as he justified), but as he sanctiiieth them,'
I &c. Bishop Downame on Justification, p. 261. Tuckney, one of the leading members of the Westminster Assembly, and principal author of the Shorter Catechism, in his Prcelectiones,
p. 213, says, "Although God justifies the ungodly, Rom. iv. 5, i. e. him who was antecedently ungodly, and who in a measure remains, as to his inherent character, unjust after justification, yet it has its proper ground in the satisfaction of Christ," &c.
' On page 220, he says, "The Papists understand by justifica tion, the infusion of inherent righteousness, and thus confound justification with sanctification; which, if it was the true nature and definition of justification, they might well deny that the imputation of Christ's righteousness is the cause or formal reason of this justification, i. e. of sanctification. For we are not so foolish or blasphemous as to say, or even think, that the righteousness of Christ imputed to us renders us formally or inherently righteous, so that we should be formally or inhe rently righteous with the righteousness of Christ. Since the righteousness of Christ is proper to himself, and is as insepara ble from him, and as incommunicable to others, as any other attribute of a thing, or its essence itself."
VERSES 6 8. ~Even as David also describcth the blessedness of the man to whom Crod imputeth righteousness 'without works. Paul's first argument in favour of gratuitous justification was from the case of Abraham; his second is from the testimony of David. The immediate connection of this verse is with ver. 5. At the conclusion of that verse, it was said, to him who had no works, faith is imputed, in order to his justification, i. e. he is justified grati itously, even as David speaks of the blessedness of him whom, although destitute of merit, God regards and treats as righteous. Describeth the blessedness, i. e. pronounces blessed. The words are /£;— rov /jLaxapeffuoy, utters the declara tion of blessedness concerning the man, &c. To whom God imputcth righteousness without works, that is, whom God regards and treats as righteous, although he is riot in himself righteous. The meaning rf tins clause cannot be mistaken. 'To impute/ sin,' is to lay sin to the charge of any one, and to treat him accordingly, as is universally admitted; so "to impute right eousness,' is to set righteousness to one's account, and to treat! him accordingly. This righteousness does not, of course, belong antecedently to those to whom it is imputed, for they are un godly, and destitute of works. Here then is an imputation to men of what does not belong to them, and to which thev have in themselves no claim. To impute righteousness is the apos- 1 tie's definition of the term to Justify. It is not making men inherently righteous, or morally pure, but it is regarding and treating them as just. This is done, not on the ground of per sonal character or works, but on the ground of the righteousness of Christ. As this is dealing with men, not according to merit, but in a gracious manner, the passage cited from Ps. xxxii. 1, '2, is precisely in point: u Blessed are they whose) iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Jilessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." That is, blessed is the man who, although a sinner, is regarded and treated as righteous. As the remission of sin is necessarily connected with restoration to God's favour, the apostle speaks of it as the whole of justification; not that the idea of remission exhausts the whole idea of justification, but it necessarily implies the rest. In like manner, in Eph. i. 7, it is said, >kiu whom we have redemption,... the forgiveness of sins;" which does not imply that forgiveness is the whole of redemption, that the gift of the Spirit, the glorification of the body, and eternal life, which are so constantly spoken of as fruits of Christ's work, as parts of the purchased inheritance, are to be excluded. Here again the doctrine of a personal, inherent righteous ness, which it is the special object of the apostle to exclude, is introduced by the modern mystical or transcendental theolo gians. On the declaration that righteousness is imputed without