.works, Olshauscn remarks: "No matter how abundant or pure 'works may be, the ground of blessedness is not in them, but in the principle whence they flow; that is, not in man, but in,GDd." The whole doctrine of the apostle is made to be, that men arc justified (made holy,) not by themselves, but by God;.thus confounding, as Romanists do, justification Tt.th sanetification. In Ps. xxxii. 1, 2, as quoted by Paul from the LXX., cupdi'M (to remit,) and k~txa.A>j7:T£tv (to cover,) arc interchanged. Olshausen says the former expresses the New Testament idea of forgiveness, (die realc Hinwegschaffung der Siinde,) i. e. the real removal of sin; the latter, the Old Testament idea of nonimputation of sin — the sin remaining, but being overlooked. This view of the nature of remission, and of the difference Detwecn the Old and the New Testament, is purely Romish.
VERSE 9. Cometh this blessedness upon the circumcison only, or upon the uncircumcision also? &c. The apostle's third argu ment, commencing with this verse and continuing to the 12th, lias special reference to circumcision. He had proved thafc Abraham was not justified on account of his works generally; he now proves that circumcision is neither the ground nor con dition of his acceptance. The proof of this point is brief and conclusive. It is admitted that Abraham was justified. The only question is, was it before or after his circumcision? If before, it certainly was not on account of it. As it was before, circumcision must have had some other object.
'Cometh this blessedness.' There is nothing in the original to answer to the word cometh, although some word of the kind must be supplied. The most natural word to supply is Aefsrat. David utters the declaration of the blessedness 'of the man whose sins are pardoned.' Concerning whom is this declara tion uttered? The word rendered blessedness means, more properly, 'declaration of blessedness.' 'This declaration of blessedness, is it upon, i. e. is it about, (Uf=.rac] is it said con cerning the circumcision only?' The preposition (*~i) used by the apostle, often points out the direction of an action, or the subject concerning which anything is said. This question has not direct reference to the persons to whom the offers of accept ance are applicable, as though it were equivalent to asking, 'Is this blessedness confined to the Jews, or may it be extended to the Gentiles also?' because this is not the subject now in hand. It is the ground or condition of acceptance, and not the persons/ to whom the offer is to be made, that is now under consideration.! The question therefore is, in substance, this: "Does this decla ration of blessedness relate to the circumcised, as such? Is cir-' cumcision necessary to justification?' — the blessing of which Paul is speaking. The answer obviously implied to the pre ceding question is, c It is not said concerning the circumcised, as such; for we say that faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness.' It was his faith, not his circumcision, that was the condition of his justification. The preceding verses are occupied with the testimony of David, which decided nothing as to the point of circumcision. To determine whether this rite was a necessary condition of acceptance, it was requisite to refer again to the ca>e of Abraham. To decide the point pre sented in the que.-tion at the beginning of the verse, the apostle argues from the position already established. It is conceded or proved that Abraham was justified by faith; to determine whether circumcision is necessarv, we have only to ask. Under what circumstances was he thus justified, before or after cir cumcision?
\ KKSI: 10. How was it then reckoned? ivhai lie 'was in circumcision or uncir cumcision? Xot in circumcision, but ui uncircumcision. Of course, his circumcision, which was long subsequent to his justification, could not be either the ground or necessary condition of his acceptance with God.
A HUSK 11. ^[/cl In* received f/«' X!<IH <>f circumcision, th<'.sv//;. of the righteousness <~>1 ih>' J<tttlt ichi<-]i h>' //a</, l><'!i/</ i/t-t iuicircumeised, Me. As Paul had shown that circumcision was not the condition of justification, it became necessary to declare its true nature and de-sign. Tin' xi<jn <>f circumcision, i. e. circumcision which was a sign, (genitive of apposition;) as u the earnest of the Spirit," for 'the Spirit which is an earnest,' '1 Cor. i. 20. The Mdl of t/te righteousness of faith, &c. The phrase, riyhteouxm.'*x of faith, is a concise expression for 'righteousness which is attained by faith,' or, as it stands more fully in Philip, iii. i), 'kthe righteousness of God, which is by faith." The word righteousness, in such connections, includes, with the idea of excellence or obedience, that of consequent blessedness. It is the * state of acceptableness with God.' Tie circumcision of Abraham was designed to confirm to him the fact, that he was regarded and treated by God as righteous, through faith, which was the means of his becoming interested in the promise of redemption. From this passage it is evident that circumcision was not merely the seal of the covenant between God and the Hebrews as a nation. Besides the promises made to Abraham, of a numerous posterity, and of the possession of the land of Canaan, there was the far higher promise, that through his seed (i. e. Christ, Gal. iii. 16) all the nations of the earth should be blessed. This was the promise of redemption, as the apos tle teaches us in Gal. in. 13 — 18: "Christ," he says, "has redeemed us from the curse of the law — in order that the bless ing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles." The blessing promised to Abraham, in which the Gentiles participate through Jesus Christ, can be none other than redemption. As that blessing was promised to Abraham on the condition, not of works, but of faith, the apostle hence argues, that in our case also we are made partakers of that blessing by faith, and not by works. This was the covenant of which circumcision was the seal. All therefore who were circumcised, professed to embrace the covenant of grace. All the Jews were professors of the true religion, and constituted the visible Church, in which by divine appointment their children were included. This is the broad and enduring basis of infant church-membership.
Abraham, says the apostle, was thus assured of his justifica tion by faith, (s/c TO £?j/«r,) in order that lie might be the father', or, so that he is the father, &c. The former explanation is to be preferred, not only because £?z with the infinitive, commonly expresses design, but also because the whole context shows that the apostle intends to bring into view the purpose of God in the justification of Abraham. The father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, xdvrcov TCOV -!<7rs'j6^Tcov di dxpoftuffTtaz, i. e. 'of all believing, with uncircumcision.' That is, of all uncircumcised believers. The preposition oca, here, as in ii. 27, and elsewhere, simply marks the attendant circum stances. The word father expresses community of nature or character, and is often applied to the head or founder of any school or class of men, whose character or course is determined by the relation to the person so designated; as Gen. iv, 20, 21: " Jabal... was the father of such as dwell in tents;" and, " Jubal... was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ." Hence teachers, priests, and kings are often called fathers. Believers arc called the children of Abraham, because of this identity of religious nature or character, as he stands out in Scripture as the believer; and because it was with him that the covenant of grace, embracing all the children of God, whether Jews or Gentiles, was reenacted; and because tliev are his heirs, inheriting the blessings promised to him. As Abra ham was the head and father of the theocratical people under the Old Testament, this relation was not disowned when the middle wall of partition was broken down, and the Gentiles introduced into the family of God. He still remained the father of the faithful, and we are "the sons of Abraham by faith," Gal. iii. 7. The Jews were accustomed to speak in the same way of Abraham: Michlol Jophi on Malachi ii. I"), hv tin- one. there mentioned, ''Abraham is intended, for he was one alone, and the father of all who follow and imitate him in faith." Bechai. fol. 27, he is calh'd k*Tlio root of faith, and lather of all those who believe in one God." Jalkut Chadash, fol. 54, 4, '"On this account Abraham was not circumcised until he was ninety-nine years old. lest lie should shut the door on proselytes coming in." See Sclioettgen^ p. 50*.
That rif/hteousiicss //u'<///f In' i///^nf>'<l unfn tJt<'//> <(lxo. The connection and design of these words are not verv clear, and they are variously explained. Thev may be considered as explanatory of the former clause, and therefore connected with the first part of the verse. The sense would then be. •Abraham was justified, being yet uncirciimcised, that he might be the father of believers, although uncirciimcised, that is, that right eousness might be imputed unto them also.' This clause ia most commonly regarded as a parenthesis, designed to indicate the point of resemblance between Abraham and those of whom he is called the father: 'lie is the father of uncircumcised believers, since they also are justified by faith, as he was.' The words e:z ~o koytad-vfjcu are explanatory of sl^ ~o ic^a: V.'JTOIJ Z'Hj.: 'He was justified in imcircumcision, in <>/'<l<'r tltat lie be the father., &c.; that is, in order that faith miylit le imputed to them also.' From this it appears that "to impute faith for righteousness" and " to impute righteousness," are synonymous. To Abraham righteousness was imputed; he had the (d>xawa'jvrj r?^ -laTSco^) righteousness of faith as truly and really as believers now have. Nothing can be more opposed to the whole tenor of apostolic teaching than the Romish and modern mystical doctrine, that the Old Testament believers were not fully justified; that their sins were pretermitted, but not remitted; that their regeneration was symbolical, but not real.
^ERSE 12. And the father of circumcision to them ivlw are not of the circumcision only, £c. That the preceding clause is parenthetical is plain, because the grammatical construction in this verse is continued unbroken. Father of circumcision, i. e. of the circumcised. To them, auTot^. This change of con struction from the genitive to the dative may be accounted for either by the fact, that in the Hebrew it may be said "father to" as well as "father of;" or by assuming that aljTolz, is the dative of advantage, "for them." The meaning of this verse is somewhat doubtful. According to our version, which adheres closely to the Greek, the meaning is, 'Abraham is not the father of uncircumcised believers only, as stated in ver. 11, but he is the father of the circumcised also, provided they follow the example of his faith.' According to this view, as ver. 11 pre sents him as the father of the believing Gentiles, this presents him as the father of the believing Jews. The only grammatical objection to this interpretation is the repetition of the article ro?~ before O^OLJO^O;., which Avould seem to indicate that "those who follow the steps of his faith" were a different class from the circumcised. Hence some commentators interpret the passao-e thus: ' He is the father of the circumcision, and not of the circumcision only, but also of those who follow his faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised.' But this is inconsistent with the construction. 1. It overlooks the xai at the beginning of the verse, by which it is connected with ver. 11: 'He is the father of the uncircumcised, (ver. 11,) and father of the circum cised, (ver. 12.) 2. It requires a transposition of the words Tolz o'j, so as to rea 1 o'j rdl-. What Paul says is, ' To those are not of the circumcision only.' This interpretation makes him say, 'Xot to those only who are of the circumcision.'' 3. It is very unnatural to make this verse repeat what had just been said in ver. 11. There Paul had said that Abraham was the father of Gentile believers; why should he here say he was the father of the Jews, and also of the Gentiles? The former interpretation, which is adopted by the great body of commentatois, is therefore to be preferred.
Verses lo — 10 contain two additional arguments in favour of the apostle's doctrine. The first, vs. lo, 14, is the same as that presented more at length in Gal. iii. 18, &c., and is founded on the nature of a covenant. The promise having been made to Abraham (and his seed.) on the condition of faith, cannot now, consistently with fidelity, be made to depend on obedience to the law. The second argument, vs.!;">, 16, is from the nature of the law itself.
VKRSI-; 1-3. For the promise, that he should be. heir of the world, ti'tiis not to Ati/'K/Kit/i, or to hi* seed, ^e. The word for does not connect this verse witli the one immediately preceding, as a proof of the insulliriency of circumcision. It rather marks the introduction of a new argument in favour of the general T)i-oposition which the chapter is designed to establish. As Abraham was not justified for his circumcision, so neither was it on account of his obedience to the law. If. however, it be preferred to connect this verse with what immediately precedes, the argument is substantially the same. In the preceding verses Paul had said that Abraham is the father of believers; in other words, that believers are his heirs, for the promise that lie should inherit the world was made on the condition ot faith. The promise here spoken of is, that Abraham ami his seed should be the heirs of the world. The word /«•//•, in Scrip ture, frequently means secure possessor. Ileb. i. '2, vi. 17, xi. 7, &c. This use of the term probably arose from the fact, that among the Jews possession by inheritance was much more secure and permanent than that obtained by purchase. The promise was not to Abraham, nor to ILLS seed, (/y TW o-itnmn a'jTorj,} i. e. neither to the one nor to the other. Both wero included in the promise. And by his seed, is not here, as in Gal, iii. 16, meant Christ, but his spiritual children. This is evident from ver. 16, where the apostle speaks of ~<iv TO a-so^a, the whole seed. The clause TO xfypovouov a-jrov e?v«i is explar/ator y of Y] sxfJL-i'fztia. It states the contents of the promise. The article ro, attached to the infinit.ve, renders it more prominent or emphatic. As no such promise as that mentioned in this verse is contained, in so many words, in the Old Testament, the apostle must have designed to express what he knew to be the purport of those actually given. The expression, however, has been variously explained. 1. Some understand tJte world to mean the land of Canaan merely. But in the first place, this is a very unusual, if not an entirely unexampled use of the word. And, in the second place, this explanation is incon sistent with the context; for Paul has reference to a promise of which, as appears from ver. 16, believing Gentiles are to partake. 2. Others understand the apostle to refer to the promise that Abraham should be the father of many nations, Gen. xvii. 5, and that his posterity should be as numerous as the stars of heaven, Gen. xv. 5; promises which they limit to his natural descendants, who, being widely scattered, may be said, in a limited sense, to possess the world. But this inter pretation is irreconcilable with vcr. 16. 3. Besides the pro mises already referred to, it was also said, that in him all the nations of the earth should be blessed, Gen. xii. 3. This, as Paul explains it, Gal. iii. 16, &c., had direct reference to the blessings of redemption through Jesus Christ, who was the seed of Abraham. And here too he speaks of blessings of which all believers partake. The possession of the world, therefore, here intended, must be understood in a manner consistent with these passages. The expression is frequently taken in a general sense, as indicating general prosperity and happiness. " To be heir of the world" would then mean, to be prosperous and happy, in the best sense of the words. Reference is made, in support of this interpretation, to such passages as Matt. v. 5, Ps. xxxvii. 11, "The meek shall inherit the earth;" Ps. xxv. 13, " His seed shall inherit the earth," The promise then, to be the heir of the world, is a general promise of blessedness. And as the happiness promised to believers, or the pious, as such, is of course the happiness consequent on religion, and is its reward, the promise in this sense may include all the blessm^s of redemption. So in Gal. iii. 14, Paul uses the expression
"that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles," as equivalent to saving 'that all the blessings of the gospel might come upon them.' 4. Or the promises in question may have reference to the actual possession of the world by the spiritual seed of Abraham, and Christ their head. The declara tion that Abraham should be the father of many nations, and that his seed should be as the stars of heaven for multitude, included far more than that his natural descendants should be very numerous. If they who are of faith ' art; the seed of Abra ham, and heirs of the promise,' Gal. iii. 0, 2l>, then will the pro mise, as stated by the apostle, have its literal accomplishment when the kingdoms of this world are given to the saints of the most high God (Dun. vii. 27,') and when the uttermost parts of the earth become the possession of Christ. In this sense, the promise includes the universal prevalence of the true religion, involving of course the advent of Christ, the establishment of his kingdom, and all its consequent blessings. The Jewish writers were accustomed to represent Abraham as the heir of
the world. "Bemidbar, K, xiv., fol. 2<>2, 'The garden is the world which God gave to Abraham, to whom it is said, Thou shalt be a blessing.' 'God gave to mv father Abraham the pos session of heaven and earth.' Midrasch Mischle, 1'-*. Mechila, in Iv\~. xiv. ->l, 'Abraham our father did not obtain the inhe ritance of this world, and the world to come, except through faith.' " W.-Wi't'n.
The promise in Abraham and his seed was not f7tr<>nt/7i tin*, laiv^lut through (In- rif/htcoumc.sat <>t\i'<t>'/7i. That is.it was not on condition <>l obedience to Ilie law, but on condition of his having that righteousness which is obtained hv faith. TIir<nn/h the law) is therefore cqnivalcnl to ////•"////// tin1 works of the A//r, as appears from its opposition to the latter clause. • righteous ness ot faith.' \\\ tin- l<m\ is to lie understood the whole rule of duty, as in other passages of the same kind: sec iii. 20. In this sense it of course includes the Mosaic law. which, to the Jews, was the most prominent portion of tin; revealed will of God, and hy obedience to which especially thev hoped for the mercy of (lod. The parallel passage, (lal. iii. IN. Ac., where the law is said to have been given four hundred vcars after the covenant formed with Abraham, shows it was one part of the apostle's design to convince the Jews, that as Abraham WAS riot justified by his circumcision, (ver. 11,) so also it was not it virtue of the Mosaic economy not yet established; and therefore the promise could not be made to depend on the condition of obe dience to that dispensation. This idea, although included, is not to be urged to the exclusion of the more comprehensive mean ing of the word law, which the usage of the apostle and the cont)xt show to be also intended. It was neither by obedience to the law generally, nor to the particular form of it, as it appeared in the Mosaic institutions, that the promise was to be secured.
VERSE 14. For if they which are of the law be heirs, &c. The original condition being faith, if another be substituted the covenant is broken, the promise violated, and the condition made of none effect. "They who are of the law" (ol Ix w/iou,) sometimes, as ver. 16, means the Jews, i. e. those who have the law; compare ver. 12, "Those of circumcision," &c. But here it means legalists, those who seek justification by the works of the law; as 'those who are of faith' are believers, those who seek justification by faith; compare Gal. iii. 10, "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse," i. e. as many as seek acceptance by their own works. The apostle's meaning, therefore, obviously is, that if those who rely upon their own works are the heirs of the promise, and are accepted on the condition of obedience to the law, the whole covenant is broken, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. " Is made void" (xsxsvcorat,) is rendered useless; see 1 Cor. i. 17, "The cross of Christ is made useless," ix. 15, &c.; compare 1 Cor. xv. 17, "Your faith is vain," not only without founda tion but of no use. The promise is made of none effect (xarijpy/jrat,) i. e. is invalidated; see chap. iii. 3, 31. It is plain from the whole design and argument of the apostle, that by law, in this whole connection, he means not specifically the law of Moses, but the law of God, however revealed as a rule of duty for man. He has reference to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. His purpose is not simply to convince his readers that obedience to the Mosaic law cannot save them, but that obedience in any form, works of any kind, arc insufficient for a man's justification before God. So far, therefore, from the context requiring, as so many of the modern commentator?
assert, an exclusive reference in this connection to the law of Moses, it imperatively demands the reverse.
VERSE 15. For the liw worketh wrath, &c. That is, it causes men to be the subjects of wrath. It brings them under con demnation. So far from imparting life, it causes death. If, therefore, the inheritance is suspended on the condition of obe dience to the law, it can never be attained; for by the law no flesh living can be justified. The connection of this verse, therefore, may be with what immediately precedes. The pro mise fails if it be by the law, for the law worketh death. The truth here presented, however, although thus incidentally intro duced, is none the less a new and substantive argument for the doctrine of justification by faith. It is the same argument as that urged in Gal. iii. 10, derived from the very nature of the law. If it works wrath, if all who are under the law are under the curse, if the law condemns, it cannot justifv. As, however, there are two ways in which, according to the apostle, the law works wrath, so there arc two views of the meaning of this pas sage. First, the law works wrath, because it says, "Cursed is every one who continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them," Gal. iii. 10. As the law, from its very nature, demands perfect obedience, and condemns all who arc not perfect, it, by its very nature, is unsuited to give life to t sinners. It can only condemn them. If there were no law,. there would be no sin, and no condemnation. JJut as all are under the law. and all are sinners, all are under the curse. The other way in which the law works wrath is, that it excites and exasperates the evil passions of the heart; not from anv defect in the law itself, but from the nature of sin. This idea the apostle presents fully in the seventh chapter; where it is pro perly in place, as he is there treating of sanctification. Here, where lie is treating of justification, that idea would be inappro priate, and therefore the former interpretation is to be decidedly preferred. Calvin, Tholuck, and others, however, understand the apostle to reason thus: -The law, instead of freeing men from sin, incidentally renders their transgressions more numer ous, conspicuous, and inexcusable, and thus brings them more and more under condemnation.' "Nam quum Lex nihil quam ultionem generet, non potest affere gratiam. Bonis quidem ac integris viam vitse mfnstraret: sed quatcnus viaosis ac cor ruptia prajcipit, quid dcbcant, prsestandi autem vires non subministnit, rcos apud Dei tribunal peragit. QUJC cnim cst naturae nostnxi vitiositas, quo magis docemur, quid rectum sit ac justum, eo apcrtius nostra iniquitas dctegitur, maximeque contumacia; atque hoc modo gravius Dei judicium acccrsitur." For where there is no law. there is no transgression. The interpretation given to this clause depends upon the view taken of the precedin«- one. It assigns the reason why the law works wrath. If the law be understood to work wrath by exasperating the evils of our corrupt nature, then the meaning of this confirmatory clause must be, that the law makes sin more inexcusable. It exalts sins into transgressions, d.fj.apria into Ttapdfiaffez. Thus again Calvin says, that the reason why the law works wrath is,
"quia cognitione justitine Dei per legem perceptu, eo gravius peccamus in Deum, quo minus excusationis nobis supcrest — non loquitur apostolus," he adds, " de simplici justitire transgressione, a qua nemo eximitur; sed transgrcssionem appellat, ubi animus edoctus, quid Deo placeat quidve displiceai, fines voce Dei sil)i definitos sciens ac volens perrumpit. Atqui ut uno verbo dicam, transgressio hie non simplex delictum, sed destina tain in violanda justitia contumaciam significat." But ail this
belongs to the inefncacy of the law to produce holiness, and not to its impotency in the matter of justification, which is the point he-re under consideration. The apostle's argument here is, that the inheritance must be by faith, not by the law, for the law can only condemn. It works wrath, for without it there would be no condemnation, because there would be no transgression. Besides, Paul does not make the distinction between sin and transgression, between d.p.apria and Tiapaftaatz, which the former interpretation supposes. What is here said of transgression, is, in v. 1-3, said of sin. Where there is no law, there can be no sin, because the very idea of sin is the want of conformity to a rule, to which conformity is due; so that where there is no rule or standard, there can be no want of conformity. Such being the meaning of this clause, it is plain that by law, the apostle does not intend the Mosaic law, but law as the standard to which rational creatures are bound to be conformed. If men would onlj acquiesce in Paul's idea of law, they could not fail to receive his doctrine concerning sin and justification. If the law is holy, just, and good; if it is spiritual, taking cognizance not only of outward acts, but of feelings, not only of active feelings, but of the inherent states of the mind whence these (i-'d'ju'ia.^ spring; if it condemns all want of conformity to its own inflexible standard of complete perfection, then there must be an end to all hope of being justified by the law.
VERSE l(j. Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end that the promise might be sure to all the seed, £c. This arid the following verse contain the conclusion from the previous reasoning, and especially from the two preceding arguments: 'The inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed must be either of the law, or of faith. It cannot be of the law, for the law works wrath, therefore it is of faith.' The expression in the original is simply OM TO~JTO lx -'fTTsajz, there fore of faith. It matters little, so far as the sense is concerned, whether we supply the words ol x/yoowiw: z>v> (therefore the heirs are <f faith,} from ver. 14, or the word l-a-r-^a (the promise,) from ver. 1:{; or with Luther, d'xwowj^. out of the general context — darum muss die G-ereehtigkeit aus dem (Uauben kommen. These are only different ways of saying the same thing. The connection, as stated above, is in favour of the first explanation. The inheritance is of faith, (ha xara ydmv,) in order that it might be a matter of graee. And it is of irrace, (src TO sc^v falalav rr^?-a~ffz/.>ais.) in order that th>' promise might be sure. If salvation be in any form or to any decree dependent on the merit, the goodness, or the stability of man, n ncvcr (':t;i ^ sure, nay, it must be utterly unattainable. Unless we are saved by grace, we cannot be saved at all. To reject, therefore, a gratuitous salvation, is to reject the only method of salvation available for sinners. Salvation being of grace, suspended on the simple condition of faith, without regard to parentage, to national or ecclesiastical connection, it is available for all classes of men. And therefore the apostle says, 'The promise is sure (~avri TW a-st^aTi) to all the seed; i. e. to nil the spiritual children of Abraham. He had already shown in vs. 11, 12, that Abraham was the father of believing Gentiles as well as of believing Jews. The word ff-sp/m (seed) must therefore, in this connection, be understood of believers who. in a higher sense than mere natural descendants, are the children of Abraham. Both classes of his seed are included in the promise which is sure, (oi> rw kx TO~J vofwu /wvov,) not to that of the law only, i. e. not only to that portion of the seed who are of the law, that is, believing Jews, but also (raj I* ~!ffT£(oc \-\fit.cmii) to that whieh is of the faith of Abraham. These for mulas arc indefinite, and susceptible, taken by themselves, of different interpretations; but the context renders all plain. Paul is speaking of the spiritual children of Abraham; of those who are heirs of the inheritance promised to him. Of these there arc two classes; believing Jews and believing Gentiles. The former are distinguished as (Ix vo^ou] of the law, the latter as of the faith of Abraham, because their connection with him is purely spiritual, whereas the Jewish believers were connected with him by a twofold tie — the one natural, the other spiritual. Who is the father of us all, i. e. of all believers. The highest privilege of New Testament saints is to be partakers of the inheritance promised to Abraham. They are not exalted above him, but united with him in the blessings which flow from union with Christ.
VEHSE 17. As it is written, I have made thce a father of many nations, Gen. xvii. 5. This declaration, the apostle informs us, contains a great deal more than the assurance that the natural descendants Abraham should be very numerous. Taken in connection with the promise, that "in him all the nations of the earth should be blessed," it refers to his spiritual as well as his natural seed, and finds its full accomplishment in the extension of the blessing promised to him, to those of all nations who are his children by faith. This clause is very pro perly marked as a parenthesis, as the preceding one, "who is the father of us all," must be connected immediately with the following words, before him whom he believed, even Crod, who quiekeneth the dead, &c. The words xarsvavrc ob l-tffT&jffs Osoi), admit of different explanations. They are commonly regarded as an example of the substantive being attracted to the case of the relative, instead of the relative to that of the substantive, dzct) being in the genitive, because ob is. The clause may therefore be resolved thus: xaT£va.vTt Qzo\) w iTztareuffz, before God whom he believed. To this, however, it is objected, that this form of attraction with the dative is very unusual, and therefore "Winer, § 24, 2, b, and others, adopt the simple explanation, xaTsva'sre QZO~J xa-csvavrt oy i-ia-cz'jaz, (before (.rod, before ivliom lie believed.) The sense in either case is the same. Abraham is the father of us all, (xaTevavrt,) before, in the siyht of that God in whom he believed. God looked upon him as such. He stood before his omniscient eye, surrounded by many nations of children.
It is not unusual for the apostle to attach to the name of God a descriptive peripnrase, bringing into view some divine attri bute or characteristic suited to the subject in hand. So here, when speaking of God's promising to Abraham, a childless old man, a posterity as numerous as the stars of heaven, it was most appropriate to refer to the omnipotence of God, to whom nothing is impossible. Abraham believed, what to all human appearance never could happen, because God, who made the promise, is he who quicJceneth the Jftd, <ni'l ccdleth those things which be. not, as though they were. To originate life is the pre rogative of God. It requires almighty power, and is therefore in Scripture specified as one of God's peculiar works; see Dent, xxxii.;50, 1 Sam. ii. 6, 2 Kings v. 7, Ps. Ixviii. 20. The being who can call the dead to life, must be able to fulfil to one, although as good as dead, the promise of a numerous posterity. The other clause in this passage, (xat MWWTO* ra it.rt o^~a d»* ovrc/.j i.tn'l '•allimj ////////* tJuit /"' nnt. <ix /;/•/////. is more doubtful. There are three interpretations of these words, founded on throe different senses of the word (yju^} t<> <'<iJL 1. To c<tJJ, means to command, to control, to muster or dispose of. Thus the psalm ist says, "The mighty (rod. even the Lord hath spoken, and called the earth, from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof." Isaiah, speaking of the stars, says, u Who... bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by name, by the greatness of his might," xl. 26, also Ps. cxlvii. 4, Isa. xlv. •], xlviii. 18. This gives a sense perfectly suited to the context. God is described as controlling with equal ease things which are not, and those which are. The actual and the possible are equally subject to his command. All things are present to his view, and all are under his control. This interpretation also is suited to the peculiar form of expression, who calls (ra /r/j o'vr« d>C oWa,) things not being, a$ being. It gives cl>c its appropri ate force. 2. To call, however, is often used to express the creating energy of God. See Isa. xli. 4, xlviii. 13. Compare Ps. xxix. 3 — 9. Philo de Great., TO. /ty WTO. kxdX-a-v e/c TO ecvcu. This also gives a good sense, as the omnipotence of God cannot be more forcibly expressed than by saying, ' He calls things not existing into existence.' But the difficulty is, that d»~ o'vra is not equivalent with e^ TO scvat, nor with iaopsva, nor with £*c TO elvat d»c 6W«, as Kollrier and De Wette explain it. This indeed is not an impossible meaning, inasmuch as oW«, as Fritzsche says, may be the accusative of the effect, as in Philip, iii. 21, " lie shall change our vile body (a'jju/jiofHfov) like unto his glorious body," i. e. so as to be like; see also 1 Thcss. iii. 13. As, however, the former interpretation gives so good a sense, there is no need of resorting to these constrained explanations. o. To atU, is often used to express the effectual calling of men by the Holy Spirit. Hence some understand the apostle as here saying, ' God calls to be his children those who were not children.' But this is entirely foreign to the context. Paul is presenting the ground of Abraham's faith in God. lie believed, because God was able to accomplish all things. Everything is obedient to his voice.
1. If the greatest and best men of the old dispensation had to renounce entirely dependence upon their works, and to accept of the favour of God as a gratuity, justification by works must, for all men, be impossible, vs. 2, 3.
2. No man can glory, that is, complacently rejoice in his own goodness in the sight of God. And this every man of an enlightened conscience feels. The doctrine of justification by works, therefore, is inconsistent with the inward testimony of conscience, and can never give true peace of mind, ver. 2.
3. The two methods of justification cannot be united. They are as inconsistent as wages and a free gift. If of works, it is not of grace; and if of grace, it is not of works, vs. 4, 5.
4. As God justifies the ungodly, it cannot be on the ground of their own merit, but must be by the imputation of a righteousness which does not personally belong to them, and which they received by faith, vs. 5, 6, 11.
5. The blessings of the gospel, and the method of justifica tion which it proposes, arc suited to all men; and are not to be confined by sectarian limits, or bound down to ceremonial observances, vs. 9 — 11.
6. The sacraments and ceremonies of the Church, although in the highest degree useful when viewed in their proper light, become ruinous when perverted into grounds of confidence. What answers well as a sign, is a miserable substitute for the thing signified. Circumcision will not serve for righteousness, nor baptism for regeneration, ver. 10.
7. As Abraham is the father of all believers, all believers are brethren. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, among them as Christians, vs. 11, \'l.
8. The seed of Abraham, or true believers, with Jesus Christ their head, are the heirs of the world. To them it will ulti mately belong; even the uttermost parts of the earth shall be their possession, ver.!•].
9. To speak of justification by obedience to a law which we have broken, is a solecism. That which condemns cannot justify, ver. 15.
10. Nothing is sure for sinners that is not gratuitous. A promise suspended on obedience, they could never render sure. One entirely gratuitous needs only to be accepted to become ours, ver. 1(J.
11. It is the entire freeness of the gospel, and its requiring faith as the condition of acceptance, which renders it suited to all ages and nations, ver. ]IJ.
VI. The proper object of faith is the divine promise; or God considered as able and determined to accomplish his word, ver. 17.
1. The renunciation of a legal self-righteous spirit is the first requisition of the gospel. This must be done, or the gospel cannot be accepted. 'lie who works,' i. e. who trusts in his works, refuses to be saved by grace, vs. 1 — 5.
2. The more intimately we are acquainted with our owr hearts and with the character of God, the more ready shall wo be to renounce our own righteousness, and to trust in his mercy, vs. 2, 3.
3. Those only are truly happy and secure, wTho, under a sense of ill-desert and helplessness, cast themselves upon the grace and promise of God, vs. 7, 8.
4. Nothing is more natural, and nothing has occurred more extensively in the Christian Church, than the perversion of the means of grace into grounds of dependence. Thus it was with circumcision, and thus it is with baptism and the Lord's supper; thus too with prayer, fasting, &c. This is the rock on which millions have been shipwrecked, vs. 9 — 12.
5. There is no hope for those who, forsaking the grace of God, take refuge in a law which worketh wrath, ver. 15.
6. All things are ours if we are Christ's; heirs of the life that now is, and of that which is to come, ver. 13.
7. As the God in whom believers trust is he to whom all things are known, and all things are subject, they should be strong in faith, giving glory to God, ver. 17.
THE object of this section is the illustration of the faith of Abraham, and the application of his case to our instruction. With regard to Abraham's faith, the apostle states, first, its object, viz. the divine promise, ver. 18. lie then illustrates its strength, by a reference to the apparent impossibility of the thing promised, vs. 19, 20. The ground of Abraham's con fidence was the power and veracity of God, ver. 21. The con sequence was, that he was justified by his faith, ver. 22. Hence it is to be inferred that this is the true method of justification; for the record was made to teach us this truth. We are situ ated as Abraham was; we are called upon to believe in the Almighty God, who, by raising up Christ from the deai, has accepted him as the propitiation for our sins, vs. 23 — 25.
"VERSE 18. Who against hope believed in hope. Here In efaidt may be taken adverbially, confidently: 'Against all human hope or reasonable expectation, he confidently believed.' Or it may indicate the subjective ground of his faith: he believed, because he had a hope founded on the promise of God. lie believed, that lie iniijht become the father of many nations. The Greek is, el- TO fiiiiad-fu awv -ars<>a, x.-.L, that is, according to one explanation, the object of his faith was, that he should be the father of many nations. The idea thus expressed is correct. Abraham did believe that God would make him the father of many nations. But to this it is objected that -earz'Jzw s/c, with an infinitive used as a substantive, although grammatically cor rect, is a construction which never occurs. Had the apostle, therefore, intended to express the object of Abraham's faith, he would probably have used ur:. he /u7/<r<.'<7 that If slmnLl he. &c§. Others make s!~ TO ~[£yi(j&(j.i express the result of his faith: " He believed... and hence he became,' ^c. The consequence of his faith was, that the promise was fulfilled. Most recent commenta tors assume that £/~ with the infinitive here, as it commonly does, expresses design, or intention; not however the design of Abra ham, but of God: 'He believed in order that, agreeably to the purpose of God, he might become the father of many nations.' This best agrees with what is said in ver. 11, and with the con text. According to that w//i<'// tea* spoken, S» x/ialt ///// seed be. This is a reference to the promise which was the object of Abraham's faith. It is a quotation from Gen. xv. 5. The word so refers to the stars of heaven, mentioned in the passage as it stands in the Old Testament. The promise, therefore, particularly intended by the apostle is, that Abraham should be the father of many nations, 01 that his seed should be as numerous as the stars. It has already been seen, however, that the apostle understood this promise as including far more than that the natural descendants of Abraham should be very numer ous; see vs. 13, IT. The expression in the text is a concise allusion to the various promises made to the ancient patriarch, which had reference to all nations being blessed through him. The promise c? a numerous posterity, therefore, included the promise of Christ and his redemption. This is evident, 1. Because Paul had been speaking of a promise (ver. 16,) in which believing Jews and Gentiles were alike interested; see Gal. iii. 14. 2. Because Paul asserts and argues that the seed promised to Abraham, and to which the promise related, was Jesus Christ, Gal. iii. 16. 3. So Abraham himself understood it, according to the declaration of our Saviour; John viii. 56, "Abraham rejoiced to see my day; and lie saw it, and was glad." He looked forward under the greatest discouragements to the Redeemer as yet to come. We have the easier task to look back to the same Deliverer, who has died for our sins, and risen again for our justification, ver. 25.
VERSE 19. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body, now dead, &c. The 18th verse had stated it was contrary to all appearances that Abraham believed; this verse states the circumstances which rendered the accomplishment of the promise an apparent impossibility, viz. his own advanced age, and the age and barrenness of his wife. These circum stances he did not consider, that is, he did not allow them to have weight, he did not fix his mind on the difficulties of the case. Had he been weak in faith, and allowed himself to dwell on the obstacles to the fulfilment of the divine promise, he would have staggered. This does not imply that there was no inward conflict with doubt in Abraham's mind. It only says, that his faith triumphed over all difficulties. "The mind," says
Calvin, "is never so enlightened that there are no remains of ignorance, nor the heart so established that there is no misgiv ings. With these evils of our nature," he adds, "faith main tains a perpetual conflict, in which conflict it is often sorely shaken and put to great stress; but still it conquers, so that believers may be said to be in ipsa in firm it ate firmissimi."
Paul says Abraham was not weak, r/y rj.GTZi, as to faith.
VERSES 20, 21. lie staggered not at the promise of God; oi) dtexpi&y. The aorist passive is here used in a middle sense, he ivas not in strife with himself, i. e. he did not doubt; e;c TIJU 1/ra^sA/av, in reference to the promise of God; r^ direffrefa the dative lias a causal force, through unbelief. Want of faith in God did not cause him to doubt the divine promise, a///), but, i. e. on the contrary; lvzdi>ya[jLco$r^ not middle, made himself strong, but passive, lie was made strong: rfj rJ.ar-:^ either by, or as to faith. Giving glory to God; that is, the strength was manifested in his giving glory to God. To give glory to God, is to take him to be what he really is, almighty and faithful.
It is to show by our conduct that we give him credit, (so to speak,) that he will arid can do what lie says. Therefore the apostle adds, xai "typCHpoprftzlz, and being fully persuaded; that is, he gave glory to God by being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform. ''Quod
addit," says Calvin, " dcdissc gloriam Deo, in eo notandum est,
non posse Deo plus honoris deferri quani dum fide oloi^namus
ejus vcritatem; sicuti rursus nulla ei gravior contumelia inuri
potest quam dum respuitur oblata ab ipso gratia, vel epis verl)o
derogatur auctoritas. Quare lioc in ejus cultu pnecipuum est
caput. promissiones ejus obedientcr amplecti: vera reli^io;L fide
incipit." It is therefore a very great error for men to suppose
that to doubt is an evidence of humility. On the cmitrarv, to doubt God's promise, or his love, is to dishonour him. because it is to question his word. Multitudes refuse to accept his grace, harder to believe that God can love them, notwithstanding their sinfulness, than the hundred-years-old patriarch did to believe that he should be the father of many nations. Confidence in impossible, is as necessary in the one ease as in the oilier. The sinner honours God, in 1 rusting his grace, as mncli as Abraham did in t rusting liis power.
\~Kiisi-: -'2. Therefore <d*» If tcax imputed to him f»r rh/Jtteousncxx. That is, the faith of Abraham was imputed to him for righteousness. He was accepted as righteous on account of bis faith: not that faith itself was the ground, but the con dition of his justification. lie believed, and God accepted him as righteous: just as now we believe, and are accepted as right eous, not on account of any merit in our faith, but simply on the ground of the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to us when we believe; that is, it is given to us, whenever wo are willing to receive and rest upon it. "Niliil plus conferre fides nobis potcst, quam a verbo acceperit. Quare non protinus Justus erit, qui general! tantum confusaque notitia imbutus Deum veracem esse statuet, nisi in promissione gratise quiescat." Faith justifies by appropriating to ourselves the divine promise. But if that promise does not refer to our justification, faith cannot make us righteous. The object of justifying or saving faith, that is, of those acts of faith which secure our acceptance with God, is riot the divine veracity in general, nor the divine authority of the Scriptures, but the specific promise of gratu itous acceptance through the mediation and merit of the Lord Jesus Christ.
VERSES 23, 24. Now, it ivas not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him. The record concerning the faith and consequent justification of Abraham, was not made with the simple intention of giving a correct history of that patriarch. It had a much higher purpose. Abraham was a representative person. "What was true of him, was true of all others who stood in the same relation to God. The method in which he was jus tified, is the method in which other sinners must be justified. That he was justified by faith, is recorded in the Scriptures to be a perpetual testimony as to the true method of justification before God. The apostle therefore adds, thai it was of fyjiuz, on our account. That is, on account of those to whom it shall be imputed; o?c /JieAAze hof't^ead-cu, to whom it is appointed to be imputed, in case they should believe. As all men are sinners, the method in which one was certainly justified is the method by which others may secure the same blessing. If Abraham was justified by faith, we may be justified by faith. If the object of Abraham's faith was the promise of redemption, the same must be the object of our faith. He believed in God as quickening the dead, that is, as able to raise up from one as good as dead, the promised Redeemer. Therefore those to whom faith shall now be imputed for righteousness are described as those -who believe that Crod hath raised up Jesus from the dead. By thus raising him from the dead, he declared him to be his Son, and the seed of Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed. The object of the Christian's faith, therefore, is the same as the object of the faith of Abra- riam. Both believe the promise of redemption through the promised seed, which is Christ. When we are said to believe in God, who raised up Christ, it of course implies that we believe that Christ was thus raised up. As the resurrection of Christ was the great decisive evidence of the divinity of his mission, and the validity of all his claims, to believe that he rose from the dead, is to believe he was the Son of God, tho propitiation for our sins, the Redeemer and the Lord of men; that he was all he claimed to be, and had accomplished all lie purposed to effect. Compare Rom. x. 0, Acts i. 22, iv. 33, 1 Cor. xv., and other passages in which the resurrection of Christ is spoken of as the corner-stone of the gospel,;is the great fact to be proved, and which, being proved, involves all the rest.
VKUSI-] 25. W/to was delivered fur our offences, and rained again- for our juxt!ji<'<it(»n. This verse is a comprehensive state ment of the gospel. Christ was delivered unto deotlt for our offences, i. e. on account of them, and for their expiation; see Isa. liii. 5, G, lleb. ix. 28, 1 Peter ii. 21. This delivering of Christ is ascribed to God, Rom. viii. 32, Gal. i. 3, and else where; and to himself, Tit. ii. 14, Gal. ii. 20. It was by the divine purpose and counsel he suffered for the expiation of sin; and he gave himself willingly to death. "• lie was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth." Christ is said to have been delivered unto death, out -<L -ana-rwtLa-a /y/^v, and to have been raised, oca r^v dixaicoffiu 'fjtjiujv; that is, he was delivered in order that our sins might be expiated, and he was raised in order that we might be justified. His death and his resurrection were alike necessary; his death, as a satisfaction to divine justice. lie bore our sins in his own body on tho tree. That is, lie bore the punishment of our sins. " Significat ergo Paulas," says Calvin, " satisfactionem pro peccatis nostris in cruce fuisse peractam. Nam ut Christus nos in gratiam Patris restitueret, reatum nostrum ab ipso aboleri oportuit; quod fieri non potcrat, nisi pocnam, cui solvemhc pares non enmms, nostro nomine lucret." His resurrection was no less necessary, first, as a proof that his death had been accepted as an expiation for our sins. Had he not risen, it would have bee» evident tnat he was not what he claimed to be. We should be yet in our sins, 1 Cor. xv. 17, and therefore still under con demnation. Our ransom, in that case, instead of being publicly accepted, had been rejected. And secondly, in order to secure the continued application of the merits of his sacrifice, he rose from the dead, and ascended on high, there to appear before God for us. lie stands at the right hand of God, ever to make intercession for his people, thereby securing for them the benefits of his redemption. With a dead Saviour, a Saviour over whom death had triumphed and held captive, our justification had been for ever impossible. As it was necessary that the high priest, under the old economy, should not only slay the victim at the altar, but carry the blood into the most holy place, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat; so it was necessary not only that our great High Priest should suffer in the outer court, but that he should pass into heaven, to present his righteousness before God for our justification. Both, therefore, as the evidence of the acceptance of his satisfaction on our behalf, and as a neces sary step to secure the application of the merits of his sacrifice, the resurrection of Christ was absolutely essential, even for our justification. Its relation to inward spiritual life and eternal blessedness is not here brought into view; for Paul is not here speaking of our sanctification. That dexaUoffez means justifica tion, and not the act of making holy, need hardly be remarked. That follows of necessity, not only from the signification of the word, but from the whole scope of this part of the epistle. It is only by those who make justification identical with regenera tion, that this is called into question. "Pervertunt autem,"
says Calovius, " sententiam Apostoli Papistse, cum id eum velle contcndunt, mortem Christi exemplar fuisse mortis peccatorum, resurrectionem autem exemplar renovationis et regenerationis intcrnae, per quam in novitatc vitoe ambulamus, quia hie non agitur vel de morte peccatorum, vel dc renovatione et novitate vitoe; de quibus, cap. vi., demura agere incipit Apostolus; sed de non imputatione vel remissione peccatorum, et imputatione justitiae vel justificatiorie." Olshausen agrees substantially
with the Romish interpretation of this passage, as lie gives dtxaiajffiz an impossible sense, viz. (die den neuen Menschen schaffende Thatigkeit,) the regenerating activity of God. It will be observed, that the theology of Olshausen, and of the mystical school to which he belongs, has far greater affinity for the Romish than for the Protestant system.
1. Faith is an operative assent to the divine testimony, not the reception of truth as something which can be proved by our own arguments, vs. 18, 20.
2. When faith is genuine it is founded on correct apprehen sions of the divine character, and has a controlling influence over the heart and life, vs. 20, 21.
3. The method of salvation has never been changed; Abra ham was not only saved by faith, but the object of his faith was the same as tin? object of ours. vs. 2 -I. 17.
4. The resurrection of Christ, as an historical fact, estab lished by the most satisfactory evidence, (see 1 C«»r. xv.,) authenticates the whole gospel. As surely as Christ has risen, so surely shall believers be saved, ver. 2-3.
1. The true way to have our faith strengthened is not to consider the difficulties in the way of the thing promised, but the character and resources of God, who has made the pro mise, ver. 10.
2. It is as possible for faith to be strong when the thing pro mised is most improbable, as when it is probable. Abraham's faith should serve as an example and admonition to us. He believed that a Saviour would be born from his family, when his having a son was an apparent impossibility. Wo an; only called upon to believe that the Saviour has been born, has suf fered, and risen again from the dead — facts established on the strongest historical, miraculous, and spiritual evidence, vs. 20. 24, 2.5.
3. Unbelief is a very great sin, as it implies a doubt of the veracity and power of God, vs. 20, 21.
4. All that is written in the Scriptures is for our instruction. What is promised, commanded, or threatened, ''unless of a strictly personal nature,) although addressed originally to indi viduals, belongs to them only as representatives of classes of men, and is designed for all of similar character, and in similar circumstances, vcr. 23.
5. The two great truths of the gospel are, that Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins, and that he rose again for our justifi cation. Whosoever, from the heart, believes these truths, shall be saved, vcr. 25, Rom. x. 9.
G. The denial of the propitiatory death of Christ, or of his resurrection from the dead, is a denial of the gospel. It is a refusing to be saved according to the method which God has appointed, ver. 25.
FROM verse 1 to 11, inclusive, the apostle deduces some of the more obvious and consolatory inferences from the doctrine of gratuitous justification. From the 12th verse to the end, he illustrates his great principle of the imputation of righteous ness, or the regarding and treating "the many" as righteous, on account of the righteousness of one man, Christ Jesus, by a reference to the fall of all men in Adam.
THE first consequence of justification by faith is, that we have peace with God, vcr. 1. The second, that we have not only a sense of his present favour, but assurance of future glory, ver. 2. The third, that our afflictions, instead of being inconsistent with the divine favour, are made directly conducive to the confirmation of our hope; the Holy Spirit bearing witness co the fact that we are the objects of the love of God, vs. 3 — &
The fourth, the certainty of the final salvation of all believers. This is argued from the freeness and greatness of the divine love; its freeness being manifested in its exercise towards the unworthy; and its greatness, in the gift of the Son of God, vs< Q — 10. Salvation is not merely a future though certain good, it is a present and abundant joy, ver. 11.
VERSE 1. Therefore, being justified bi/ faith, we have* with G-od; that is, we are reconciled to God. We are no longer the objects of God's displeasure, his favour having been propi tiated by the death of his Son, ver. 10. As a consequence of this reconciliation, we have conscious peace with God, that is, we have neither any longer the present upbraidings of an unappeased conscience, nor the dread of divine vengeance. Both these ideas are included in the peace here spoken of. The latter, however, is altogether the more prominent. The phrase eiY^V^y £%oti~i' ~oo£ rov #£ov, we hace peace in regard to God, properly means, God is at peace with us, his ocrfq (wrath) towards us is removed. It expresses, as Philippi says, "not a state of mind, but a relation to God."f It is that relation which arises from the expiation of sin, and consequently justi fication. We arc no longer his enemies, in the objective sense of the term, (sec ver. 10. j but are the objects of bis favour. The whole context still treats of reconciliation and propitiation, of the removal of the wrath of God by the death of his Son, and not of inward sanctification. It is true that the immediate and certain effect of God's reconciliation to us is our reconcilia tion to him. If he is at peace with us, we have inward peace. Conscience is only the reflection of his countenance, the echo,
* Instead of t%cu&, we have peace, l^uutv, hi us have, is read in the MSS. A. C. I>. 17, 18, 10, 22, 24, 34, 30. 37, 42, 44, 40, 5">, GO, in the Syriac, Coptic, and Vulgate versions, and by several of the Fathers. The latter reading is adopted by Lachmann. But as the external authorities are nearly equally divided, and as the common reading gives a sense so much better suited to the context, it is retained by the majority of critical editors.
f Commentar Qber den Brief Pauli an die R<3mer von Friederick Adolph Philippi, Doktor und ord. Professor der Theologie zu Dorpat; since of Rostock, often feeble and indistinct, often terribly clear 'and unmistaka ble, of bis judgment; and therefore subjective peace uniformly attends faith in the love of God, or assurance of our justifica tion. Although, therefore, the primary idea of the apostle is, that God is at peace with us, it is nevertheless true that inward tranquillity of mind is the fruit of justification by faith. It is peculiarly an evangelical doctrine, that pious affections are the fruit of this reconciliation to God, and not the cause of it. Paul says this peace is the result of justification by faith. He who relies on his works for justification, can have no peace. lie can neither remove the displeasure of God, nor quiet the apprehen sion of punishment. Peace is not the result of mere gratuitous forgiveness, but of justification, of a reconciliation founded upon atonement. The enlightened conscience is never satisfied until it sees that God can be just in justifying the ungodly; that sin has been punished, the justice of God satisfied, his law honoured and vindicated. It is when he thus sees justice and mercy embracing eacli other, that the believer has that peace which passes all understanding; that sweet quiet of the soul in which deep humility, in view of personal unworthiness, is min gled with the warmest gratitude to that Saviour by whose blood God's justice has been satisfied, and conscience appeased. Hence Paul says we have this peace through our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not through ourselves in any way, neither by our own merit, nor our own efforts. It is all of grace. It is all through Jesus Christ. And this the justified soul is ever
anxious to acknowledge. "Pacem habemus. Singularis justitise fidei fructus. Nam siquis ab opcribus conscientise securitatem petere vclit, (quod in profanis et brutis hominibus cernitur,) frustra id tentabit. Aut cnim contemptu vel oblivione Divini judicii sopitum est pectus, aut trepidatione ac formidine quoque plenum est, donee in Christum recubuerit. Ipse enim solus est pax nostra. Pax ergo conscicntiiTe serenitatein significat, quse ex eo nascitur, quod Deum sibi reconciliatum sentit." Calvin.
VER.-E 2. By wlwni also we have access by faith into this t/race, &c. This verse admits of different interpretations. Ac cording to one view, it introduces a new and higher benefit than peace with God, as the consequence of our justification: 'We nave not only peace, but access (to God,) and joyful confidence of salvation.' Besides other objections to this interpretation, It overlooks the difference between e%ousu and laffixapsV) ren dering both, wehace: 'We have peace, and we have access;' whereas iayjqxatizv is properly, we have had. This clause, there fore, instead of indicating an additional and higher blessing than the peace spoken of in vcr. 1, expresses the ground of that peace: 'We have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom also we have had access into this grace.' So Meyer, Philippi, &c. ' We are indebted to Christ not only for peace, but also for access to this grace, (this state of justifi cation,) which is the ground of our peace.' The word -poaaftoi'if] means either introduction or access. In Eph. ii. IS, and iii. 12, it has the latter meaning, which maybe retained here. Jn both the other places in which it occurs, it is used of access to God. Many commentators so understand it in this place, and there fore put a comma after l<jyjjxa.fj.zy, and connect -:a—.: with *i~ ryu %dcitv ra'j-y^. The sense would then be, c Through whom also we have had access to God, by faith on this grace.' The objections to this explanation are, that it supposes an omission in the text, and that the expression "faith on the grace," has no scriptural analogy. The obviously natural construction is to connect Tiftoffa^co^v with er- r^v yjinw rv/'Jr^v, as is done in our version, and by the great majority of commentators, -uid to take ~7f -'.(j-=i instrumcntally, Itf firitlt. The grace to whidi we have access, or into which we have been introduced, is the state of justification. The fact, therefore, that we are justified, ire, rather than others, is not due to anvthing in us. We did not open the way, or introduce ourselves into this state. We were brought into it by Christ. "Accessus (juidem nomine initium salutis a Christo esse docens, preparationes cxdudit, quibus stulti homines Dei misericordiam se antcvertere putant; acsi iiccret, Christum nihil promeritis ol)viam venire manumque porrigere." Calrin. In which we stand. The antecedent of the relative (jjrj is not ~'wcz', but yanw; in which r/race we stand; that is, we are firmly and immovably established. So in John viii. 44, it is said of Satan, that he stood not (oty £ffTr4xz]s) in the truth, did not remain steadfast therein. 1 Cor. xv. 1, "Wherein ye stand," 2 Cor. i. 24. The state, therefore, into which the believer is introduced by Christ, is not a preca- rious one. H« has not only firm ground on which to stand, bin lie lias strength divinely imparted to enable him to keep his foothold. And rejoice in hope of the glory of G-od. The word xa'j'/jj.otmi is one of Paul's favourite terms. It properly means to talk of ones self, to praise ones self, to boast; then to con gratulate one's self, to speak of ourselves as glorious or blessed; and then to felicitate ourselves in anything as a ground of con fidence and source of honour and blessedness. Men are com manded not to glory (%a'j%tlfffrac) in themselves, or in men, or in the flesh, but in God alone. In this passage the word may be rendered, to rejoice, 'we rejoice in hope.' Still something more than mere joy is intended. It is a glorying, a self-felicitation and exultation, in view of the exaltation and blessedness which Christ has secured for us. In hope of the glory of God. The object or ground of the rejoicing or boasting expressed by this verb is indicated here by 1^'; commonly, in the iSew Testament, the matter of the boasting is indicated by sv, sometimes by u~so and TTSO/. The glory of Grod may mean that glory which God gives, or that glory which he possesses. In either case, it refers to the exaltation and blessedness secured to the believer, who is to share in the glory of his divine Redeemer. "The glory which thou gavcst me," said our Lord, "I have given them," John xvii. 22. There is a joyful confidence expressed in these words, an assurance of ultimate salvation, which is the appropriate effect of justification. We are authorized and bound to feel sure that, having through Jesus Christ been reconciled to God, we shall certainly be saved. This is only a becoming confidence in the merit of his sacrifice, and in the sin cerity of God's love. This confidence is not founded on our selves, neither on the preposterous idea that we deserve the favour of God, nor the equally preposterous idea that we have in ourselves strength to persevere in faith or obedience. Our con fidence is solely on the merit of Christ, and the gratuitous and infinite love of God. Although this assurance is the legitimate effect of reconciliation, and the want of it is evidence of weak ness, still in this, as in other respects, the actual state of the believer generally falls far short of the ideal. He ever lives below his privileges, and goes limping and halting, when he should mount up as with the wings of the eagle. Still it is important for him to know that assurance is not an unseemly presumption, but a privilege and duty. " Hie evertuntur," says Calvin, " pcstilentissiina duo sophistarum dcgmata, alterum, quo jubcnt Ciiristianos esse contentos conjcctura morali in percipienda erga se Dei gratia, altcrum, quo tradunt omnes esse inccrtos finalis perseverentiae. Atqui nisi et certa in pro> sens intelligentia, et in futurum constans ae ininiiiic dubia sit persuasio, quis gloriari auderet?"
VERSES 3, 4. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also. Not only do we rejoice in this hope of future glory, but we glory in tribulations also. Since our relation to God is changed, the relation of all things to us is changed. Afflictions, which before were the expressions of God's displeasure, arc now the benevolent and beneficent manifestations of his love. And instead of being inconsistent with our iiiial relation to him, they serve to prove that lie regards and loves us as his children; Putin. viii. IS, Jleb. xii. U. Tribulations, therefore, although for the present not joyous, but grievous, become to the believer matter of ]o\* and thankfulness. The words xa'jycb infra fv:v/?~ d-Al^'S&tv do not mean that we glory in the midst of affliction.", but on account of them. They are themselves the matter or ground of the glorying. So the Jews are said to glory (iV) in the law, others glory in men, the believer glories in the Lord; so con stantly. Afflictions themselves are to the Christian a ground of glorying; he feels them to be an honour and a blessing. This is a sentiment often expressed in the word of God. Our Lord says. "Blessed are they who mourn;" '• Blessed are the perse cuted:" '• Blessed arc ye when men <hall revile you." He calls on his suffering disciples to rejoice and be exceeding glad when they are afflicted. Matt. v. 4, 10 — VI. The apostles departed from the Jewish council, u rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for Christ's name." Acts v. 41. Peter calls upon Christians to rejoice when they are partakers of Christ's sufferings, and pronounces them happy when they are reproached for his sake. 1 Pet. iv. lo, 14. And Paul says, "Most gladly therefore will I glory in (on account of) my infirmities," (i. e. my sufferings.) "I take pleasure," he savs, "in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake." 2 Cor. xii. 10, 11. This is not irrational or fanatical. Christians do not glory in suffering, as such, or for its own sake, but as the Bible teaches, 1. Because they consider it an honour to suffer for Christ. 2. Because they rejoice in being the occasion of manifesting his power in their support and deliverance; and, 3. Because suffering is made the means of their own sanctification and preparation for usefulness here, and for heaven hereafter. The last of these reasons is that to which the apostle refers in the context. We glory in afflictions, he says, because affliction worketli patience, UXO/WVTJ. constancy. It calls into exercise that strength and firmness evinced in patient endurance of suffering, and in perseverance in fidelity to truth and duty, under the severest trials. And this constancy worJceth experience, doxf/juj. This word means, 1. Trial, as in 2 Cor. viii. 2, "In a great trial of affliction."
2. Evidence, or proof, as in 2 Cor. xiii. 3, " Since ye seek a proof of Christ speaking in me." Compare 2 Cor. ii. 9, Philip, ii. 22. This would give a good sense here: ' Constancy produces evidence' of the fidelity of God, or of our fidelity. 3. The word is used mctonymically for the result of trial, i. e. approbation, or that which is proved worthy of approbation: ' doxiuy est qualitas ejus, qui est doxtjuot;.' Bengal. It is tried integrity, a state of mind which has stood the test. Compare James i. 12, "Blessed is the man that endurcth temptation, (oc 5~o/jt£yse nstpaffiuoy;) for when he is tried (ort duxttio^ j^oni^o^] he shall receive the crown of life." ' I'-otto^y, the endurance of trial, therefore, makes a man d6xe/j.o$; in other words, it worketh 3oxt(jr/j. It produces a strong, tested faith. Hence the parallel expression, TO doxlfjuov uiwj^ ri^ TZ'KJTZCO*, the trying of your faith. 1 Pet. i. 7. And this ooy.>/j:/j, 'well tested faith, or this endurance of trial produces hope; tends to confirm and strengthen the hope of the glory of God, which wre owe to our justification through Jesus Christ.
VERSE 5. And hope malteth not asltamed, (xaTata%uv£c.) Not to make ashamed, is not to put us to the shame of disappoint ment. The hope of the believer, says Calvin, "habet certissimum salutis exitum." It' certainly eventuates in salvation. See ix. 33. The hope which true believers entertain, founded on the very nature of pious exercises, shall never disappoint them, Ps. xx ii. 5. The ground of this assurance, however, is not the strength of our purpose, or confidence in our own good ness, but the love of God. The latter clause of the verse assigns the reason why the Christian's hope shall not be found delusive; it is because the love of Crod is sited abroad in our hearts, ly the Holy Gliost given unto us. ' The love of God' is his love to us, and not ours to him, as appears from the following verses, in which the apostle illustrates the greatness and frecncss of this love, by a reference to the un worthiness of its objects. To shed abroad, (ixxiyjJT<u, it has been, and continues to be shed abroad.) is to communicate abundantly, and hence to evince clearly, Acts ii. IT, x. 45, Titus iii. 6. This manifestation of divine love is not any external revelation of it in the works of Providence, or even in redemption, but it is in our hearts, ev ra?c /'//'0:«.'c ~///'-<^, diffused abroad within our hearts, where ^, in, is not used for s/c, into. "The love of God," says Pliilippi, "does not descend upon us as dew in drops, but as a stream which spreads itself abroad through the whole soul, filling it with the consciousness of his presence and favour. And this inward persuasion that we are the objects of the love of God, is not the mere result of the examination of evidence, nor is it a vain delusion, but it is produced by the Holy Ghost: "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits, that we arc the children of God," Rom. viii. 10, 2 Cor. i. 21, 22, Eph. i. 14. As, however, the Spirit never contradicts himself, he never bears witness that "the children of the devil" are the children of God; that is, that the unholy, the disobedient, the proud or malicious, are the objects of the divine favour. Any reference, therefore, by the immoral, to the witness of the Spirit in their favour, must be vain and delusive.
VERSE 0. For -when we were ijet without strength. The con nection of this verse, as indicated by ffi.f>, is with vcr. 5. We are the object of God's love, for Christ died for us. The gift of Christ to die on our behalf, is everywhere in Scripture re-presented as the highest possible or conceivable proof of the love of God to sinners. John iii. 16, 1 John iii. 10, iv. 9, 10. The objection that the Church doctrine represents the death of Christ as exciting or procuring the love of an unloving God, is without the shadow of foundation. The Scriptures represent the love of God to sinners as independent of the work of Christ, and anterior to it. He so loved us as to give his only begotten Son to reconcile our salvation with his justice. In the Greek of this passage, ere ^ao Ao.'^roc o^rtov YJ[IOJI> dadzi>o)y, the err, yet, is out of its natural place; it belongs to OI^TCOU aoti^tiiv, (as in vcr. 8, Izv d/mpTwAwv,) and not to Xftiaro^. Such trajections of the particles are not unusual even in classical Greek. See Winer, § 65, 4: ' Christ died for us, when we were yet weak.' This slight irregularity has given rise to considerable diversity of readings, even in the older manuscripts. Some, instead of err at the beginning of the verse, have si'ys or zc-* rr, and place en after aa&zvibv; others have ere both at the beginning and at the end of the clause. The great majority of editors and com mentators retain the common reading;, and refer the lie to oW^v, £c., as is done in our version. We being yet weak. The weakness here intended is spiritual weakness, destitution of strength for what is spiritually good, a weakness arising from, and consisting in sinfulness. The same idea, therefore, is ex pressed in ver. 8, by the words Ir.' fW^roV.rov, when we were yet sinners. What, in Isa. liii. 4, is expressed by the LXX. in the words TV.:; b.u.o.n~>.tj.^ Yj>wrj c?£0£.', he bears our sins, is, in Matt. viii. 17, expressed by saying, r«c aT'Vsi/s.'V/c '/J/JLOJV s/.afc, lie took our weaknesses. In due time, yjj-u. xacoov^ are not to be connected witli the preceding participial, 'we being weak according1 to (or considering) the time,' secundum rationem temporix, as Calvin and Luther, after Chrysostom and Theodoret, render it, but witli the following verb, aTreQave, he d'u'.d Kara Kaipov. This may mean, at the appointed, or at the appro priate time. The forimT is moiv in accordance with the analogy of Scripture, Christ canio at th(j tiin«; appointed by tlie Father. The same idea is expressed in Gal. iv. 4, by "the fulness of iinio;" coni])arc Kpli. i. 10, 1 Tim. ii. 0, Titus i. 3, John v. 4. Of course the appointed was uls > tlu; appropriate time. The question only concerns the form in which the- idea is expressed. He died, uirep dae/3a)v,for tin', unyodly. As th(; apostle bad said, ' when we were weak,' it would have been natural for him to say, 'Christ died for usj rather than that he died for the unjodlij, had it not been his design to exalt the gratuitous nature of God's love. Christ died for us the ungodly; and therein, as the apostle goes on to show, is the mystenousness of the divine love revealed. That God should love the good, the righteous, the pure, the godiy. is what • -:ajvi;
VERSE 7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die, ye\ per adventure for a good man some would even dare to die. The.greatness and frceness of the love of God is illustrated in this and the following verse, by making still more prominent the unworthiness of its objects: 'It is hardly to be expected that any one would die. in the place of a merely righteous man, though for the good man, this self-denial might possibly be exercised. But we, so far from being good, were not even righteous; we were sinners, ungodly, and enemies.' The dif ference between the words -righteous and good, as here used, is that which, in common usage, is made between just and kind. The former is applied to a man who does all that the law or justice can demand of him, the latter to him who is governed by love. The just man commands respect; the good man calls forth affection. Respect being a cold and feeble principle, com pared to love, the sacrifices to which it leads are comparatively slight. This distinction between oixaco^ and a^afto^ is illustrated by that which Cicero, De Offieiis, Lib. III. 15, makes between Justus and bonus: "Si vir bonus is cst qui prodest quibus potest, nocct ncmini, recte justum virum, bonum non facile '* reperiemus." The interpretation given above is the one gene rally adopted; it suits the context, the signification of the words, and the structure of the passage. The design of the apostle is to represent the death of Christ as an unexampled manifestation of love. Among men, it was never heard of that one died for a man simply just; the most that human nature could be expected to accomplish is, that one should die for his benefactor, or for the good man — one so good as to be charac terized and known as the good. There is evidently a climax in the passage, as indicated by the opposition between (fj.bh$ and ra^#) scarcely and possibly. The passage, however, has been differently interpreted. Luther takes both dtxaiou and TOO afa&o[) as neuters: "Scarcely for the right will any one die, possibly for something good some one might dare to die." Calvin makes no distinction between the words: " Rarissimum sane inter homines exemplum exstat, ut pro justo quis mori sustineat quanquam illud nonnunquam acciderc possit." Meyer takes dexaioUj as it is without the article, as masculine, but TOL* afattorj as neuter, and renders the latter clause of the verse interrogatively: "Hardly for a righteous man will one die, for who can easily bring himself to die for what is good (TO dfa&6^, the good)?" The common interpretation is per fectly satisfactory, and to these, other objections more or less decisive may be adduced. Instead of or/aio'j, the Syriac reads dolxoi>/ 'Scarcely for an unrighteous man will one die.' But this is not only unauthorized, but the sense is not so appro priate.
VERSE 8. But Grod commendeth his love towards us, in that* while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. ' Commendeth,' a'^AarfjO',, proves, or renders conspicuous; see iii. 5. What renders the love of God so peculiarly conspicuous, is his send ing his Son to die, not for the good, nor even for the righteous, but for sinners, for those who were deserving of wrath instead of love. The word sowers expresses the idea of moral turpi tude, and consequent exposure to the divine displeasure. It was for, or in the place of those who were at once corrupt, and the enemies of God, that Christ died.
VEUSK D. Mueli more than, bcin<j now justified by I/is Hood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. This and the fol lowing verse draw the obvious inference, from the freeness and greatness of the love of God, as just exhibited, that believers shall be ultimately saved. It is an argument a fortiori. If tlio greater benefit has been bestowed, the less will not be withheld. If Christ has died for his enemies, ho will surely save his friends. Being justified. To be justified is more than to bo pardoned; it includes the idea of reconciliation or restoration to the favour of God, on the ground of a satisfaction to justice, and the participation of the consequent blessings. This idea is prominently presented in the following verse. 'We are justified by his blood.' This expression, as remarked above (chap. iv. 3,) exhibits the true ground of our acceptance with God. It is not our works, nor our faith, nor our new obedience, nor the work of Christ in us, but what he has done for us; chap. iii. 25, Eph. ii. 13, lleb. ix. 12. Having by the death of Christ been brought into the relation of peace with God, beiiv now regarded for his sake as righteous, we, shall be saved from wrath through him. He will not leave his work unfinished; whom he justifies, them he also glorifies. The word wrath, of course, nocans the effects of wrath or punishment, those sufferings with which the divine displeasure visits sin; Matt. iii. 7, 1 Thess. i. 10, Rom. i. 18. Not only is our justification to be ascribed to Christ, but our salvation is through him. Salvation, in a general sense, includes justification; but when distinguished from it, as in this lase, it means the consummation of that work of which justifi cation is the commencement. It is a preservation from all the causes of destruction; a deliverance from the evils which sur round us here, or threaten us hereafter; and an introduction into the blessedness of heaven. Christ thus saves us by his providence and Spirit, and by his constant intercession; chap, viii. 34, Ileb. iv. 14, 15, vii. 25, Jude v. 24, 1 John ii. 1. Olshausen here also introduces his idea of subjective justifica tion, and says that the meaning of this passage is, "If God regenerates a man, we may hope that he will uphold and per fect him, and reduce his liability to apostasy to a minimum." According to this, to justify is to regenerate, and to save from wrath is to reduce our liability to apostasy to a minimum.