ROMANS Chapter 3
Verse 1. What advantage, etc. The design of the first part of this
chapter is to answer some of the objections which might be offered
by a Jew to the statements in the last chapter. The first objection
is stated in this verse. A Jew would naturally ask, if the view
which the apostle had given were correct, what peculiar benefit
could the Jew derive from his religion? The objection would arise
particularly from the position advanced, (Romans 2:25,26) that if
a heathen should do the things required by the law, he would be
treated as if he had been circumcised. Hence the question, "What
profit is there of circumcision?"
Verse 2. Much every way. Or, in every respect. This is the answer
of the apostle to the objection in Romans 3:1.
Chiefly. That is, this is the principal advantage, and one including
all others. The main benefit of being a Jew is to possess the sacred
Scriptures, and their instructions.
Unto them were committed. Or were entrusted, were confided. The word
translated "were committed," is that which is commonly employed to express
faith or confidence, and it implied confidence in them on the part
of God in entrusting his oracles to them; a confidence which was not
misplaced, for no people ever guarded a sacred trust or deposit with more
fidelity, than the Jews did the sacred Scriptures.
The oracles. The word oracle among the heathen meant, properly, the
answer or response of a god, or of some priest supposed to be inspired, to
an inquiry of importance, usually expressed in a brief, sententious way, and
often with great ambiguity. The place from which such a response was usually
obtained was also called an oracle, as the oracle at Delphi, etc.
These oracles were frequent among the heathen, and affairs of great
importance were usually submitted to them. The word rendered oracles
occurs in the New Testament but four times, Acts 7:38; Hebrews 5:12; 1 Peter 4:11;
Romans 3:2. It is evidently here used to denote the Scriptures, as being
that which was spoken by God, and particularly perhaps the Divine promises.
To possess these was, of course, an eminent privilege, and included all
others, as they instructed them in their duty, and were their guide in
everything that pertained to them in this life and the life to come.
They contained, besides, many precious promises respecting the
future dignity of the nation ill reference to the Messiah. No higher
favour can be conferred on a people than to be put in possession
of the sacred Scriptures. And this fact should excite us to gratitude, and
lead us to endeavour to extend them also to other nations. Comp.
Deuteronomy 4:7,8; Psalms 147:19,20.
Verse 3. For what if some did not believe? This is to be regarded as
another objection of a Jew. "What then? or what follows? if it
be admitted that some of the nation did not believe, does it not
fallow that the faithfulness of God in his promises will fail?" The
points of the objection are these:
(1.) The apostle had maintained that the nation was sinful, (chapter 2;)
that is, that they had not obeyed or believed God.
(2.) This the objector for the time admits, or supposes, in relation to
some of them. But
(3) he asks whether this does not involve a consequence which is not
admissible, that God is unfaithful. Did not the fact that God chose
them as his people, and entered into covenant with them, imply
that the Jews should be kept from perdition? It was evidently
their belief that all Jews would be saved--and this belief they
grounded on his covenant with their fathers. The doctrine of the
apostle (chapter 2) would seem to imply that, in certain respects,
they were on a level with the Gentile nations; that ff they sinned,
they would be treated just like the heathen; and hence they asked
of what value was the promise of God ? Had it not become vain
and nugatory?
Make the faith. The word faith here evidently means the
faithfulness or fidelity of God to his promises. Comp.
Matthew 23:23; 2 Timothy 3:10; Hosea 2:20.
Without effect. Destroy it; or prevent him from fulfilling his promises.
The meaning of the objection is, that the fact supposed, that the Jews would
become unfaithful and be lost, would imply that God had failed to
keep his promises to the nation; or that he had made promises
which the result showed he was not able to perform.
{n} "some did not believe" Romans 10:16; Hebrews 4:2
Verse 4. God forbid. Greek, Let not this be. The sense is, Let not
this by any means be supposed. This is the answer of the apostle,
showing that no such consequence followed from his doctrines;
and that if any such consequence should follow, the doctrine should
be at once abandoned, and that every man, no matter who, should
be rather esteemed false than God. The veracity of God was a great
first principle, which was to be held, whatever might be the
consequence. This implies that the apostle believed that the fidelity
of God could be maintained in strict consistency with the fact that
any number of the Jews might be found to be unfaithful, and be
cast off. The apostle has not entered into an explanation of this,
or shown how it could be; but it is not difficult to understand how
it was. The promise made to Abraham, and the fathers, was not
unconditional and absolute, that all the Jews should be saved. It
was implied that they were to be obedient; and that if they were
not, they would be cast off, Genesis 18:19. Though the apostle
has not stated it here, yet he has considered it at length in another
part of this epistle, and showed that it was not only consistent with
the original promise that a part of the Jews should be found unfaithful,
and be cast off, but that it had actually occurred according
to the prophets, Romans 10:16-21;; 11:1. Thus the fidelity of God was
preserved; at the same time that it was a matter of fact that no
small part of the nation was rejected and lost.
Let God be true. Let God be esteemed true and faithful, whatever
consequence may follow. This was a first principle, and should be now, that
God should be believed to be a God of truth, whatever consequence it
might involve. How happy would it be, if all men would regard
this as a fixed principle, a matter not to be questioned in their
hearts, or debated about, that God is true to his word! How much
doubt and anxiety would it save professing Christians; and how
much error would it save among sinners! Amidst all the agitations
of the world, all conflicts, debates, and trials, it would be a fixed
position, where every man might find rest, and which would do
more than all other things to allay the tempests, and smooth the
agitated waves of human life.
But every man a liar. Though every man and every other opinion should be
found to be false. Of course this included the apostle and his reasoning;
and the expression is one of those which show his magnanimity and
greatness of soul. It implies that every opinion which he and all others
held--every doctrine which had been defended, should be at once
abandoned, if it implied that God was false. It was to be assumed
as a first principle in all religion and all reasoning, that if a
doctrine implied that God was not faithful, it was of course a false
doctrine. This showed his firm conviction that the doctrine which he
advanced was strictly in accordance with the veracity of the Divine
promise. What a noble principle is this! How strikingly illustrative of the
humility of true piety, and of the confidence which true piety places in God
above all the deductions of human reason! And if all men were willing to
sacrifice their opinions when they appeared to impinge on the veracity of
God; if they started back with instinctive shuddering at the very
supposition of such a want of fidelity in him, how soon would it put an end
to the boastings of error, to the pride of philosophy, to lofty dictation in
religion! No man with this feeling could be for a moment a Universalist;
and none could be an infidel.
As it is written. Psalms 51:4. To confirm the sentiment which he had
just advanced, and to show that it accorded with the spirit of religion as
expressed in the Jewish writings, the apostle appeals to the language of
David, uttered in a state of deep penitence for past transgressions. Of all
quotations ever made, this is one of the most beautiful and most happy.
David was overwhelmed with grief; he saw his crime to be awful; he
feared the displeasure of God, and trembled before him. Yet he held
it as a fixed, indisputable principle, that GOD WAS RIGHT. This
he never once thought of calling in question. He had sinned
against God, God only; and he did not once think of calling in
question the fact that God was just altogether in reproving him
for his sin, and in pronouncing against him the sentence of condemnation.
That thou mightest be justified. That thou mightest be regarded as
just or right; or, that it may appear that God is not unjust. This does
not mean that David had sinned against God for the purpose of justifying
him, but that he now clearly saw that his sin had been so directly
against him, and so aggravated, that God was right in his sentence of
condemnation.
In thy sayings. In what thou hast spoken; that is, in thy sentence of
condemnation; in thy words in relation to this offence. It may help us to
understand this, to remember that the psalm was written immediately after
Nathan, at the command of God, had gone to reprove David for his crime. (See
the title of the psalm.) God, by the mouth of Nathan, had expressly
condemned David for his crime. To this expression of condemnation David
doubtless refers by the expression "in thy sayings." See 2 Samuel 12:7-13.
And mightest overcome. In the Hebrew, "mightest be pure," or
mightest be esteemed pure, or just. The word which the Seventy and the
apostle have used, "mightest overcome," is sometimes used with
reference to litigations or trials in a court of justice. He that was
accused and acquitted, or who was adjudged to be innocent, might
be said to overcome, or to gain the cause. The expression is thus
used here. As if there were a trial between David and God, God
would overcome; that is, would be esteemed pure and righteous
in his sentence condemning the crime of David.
When thou art judged. The Hebrew is, when thou judgest; that is, in
thy judgment pronounced on this crime. The Greek may also be in the
middle voice as well as the passive, and may correspond, therefore,
in meaning precisely with the Hebrew. So the Arabic renders it.
The Syriac renders it, "when they (that is, men) shall judge thee."
The meaning, as expressed by David, is, that God is to be esteemed
right and just in condemning men for their sins, and that a true
penitent, that is, a man placed in the best circumstances to form a
proper estimate of God, will see this, though it should condemn
himself. The meaning of the expression in the connexion in which
Paul uses it is, that it is to be held as a fixed, unwavering principle,
that God is right and true, whatever consequences it may involve, whatever
doctrine it may overthrow, or whatever man it may prove to be a liar.
{o} "as it is written" Psalms 51:4
Verse 5. But if our unrighteousness. If our sin The
particular sin which had been specified Romans 3:3 was
unbelief. But the apostle here gives the objection a general form.
This is to be regarded as an objection which a Jew might take. The
force of it is this:
(1) It had been conceded that some had not believed; that is, had
sinned.
(2) But God was true to his promises. Notwithstanding their sin,
God's character was the same. Nay,
(3) in the very midst of sin, and as one of the results of it,
the character of God as a just Being shone out illustriously. The
question then was,
(4.) if his glory resulted from it; if the effect of all was to
show that his character was pure, how could he punish that sin
from which his own glory resulted? And this is a question which is often
asked by sinners.
Commend. Recommend; show forth; render illustrious.
The righteousness of God. His just and holy character.
This was the effect on David's mind, that he saw more clearly the
justice of God in his threatenings against sin, in consequence of
his own transgression. And if this effect followed, if honour was
thus done to God, the question was, how he could consistently
punish that which tended to promote his own glory?
What shall we say? What follows? or, what is the inference? This is
a mode of speech as if the objector hesitated about expressing an
inference which would seem to follow, but which was horrible in its
character. Is God unrighteous? The meaning of this would be
better expressed thus: "Is not God unrighteous in punishing?
Does it not follow, that if God is honoured by sin, that it would
be wrong for him to inflict punishment?"
Who taketh vengeance. The meaning of this is simply, who inflicts
punishment. The idea of vengeance is not necessarily in the original,
\~orghn\~. It is commonly rendered wrath, but it often means simply
punishment, with out any reference to the state of the mind of him who
inflicts it. Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7; 21:23; John 3:36.
See Barnes " :"; See Barnes "Romans 4:15".
I speak as a man. I speak after the manner of men. I speak as appears
to be the case to human view; or as would strike the human mind. It does
not mean that the language was such as wicked men were accustomed to
use; but that the objector expressed a sentiment which to human view
would seem to follow from what had been said. This I regard as the
language of an objector. It implies a degree of reverence for the
character of God, and a seeming unwillingness to state an objection
which seemed to be dishonourable to God, but which nevertheless pressed
itself so strong on the mind as to appear irresistible. No way of stating
the objection could have been more artful or impressive.
Verse 6. God forbid. See Barnes "Romans 3:4".
For then. If it be admitted that it would be unjust for God to
inflict punishment.
How shall God, etc. How will it be right or consistent for him
to judge the world. Judge. To judge implies the possibility and
the correctness of condemning the guilty; for if it were not right to
condemn them, judgment would be a farce. This does not mean that
God would condemn all the world; but that the fact of judging
men implied the possibility and propriety of condemning those who
were guilty. It is remarkable that the apostle does not attempt
to explain how it could be that God could take occasion from the
sins of men to promote his glory; nor does he even admit the fact;
but he meets directly the objection. To understand the force of
his answer, it must be remembered that it was an admitted fact, a
fact which no one among the Jews would call in question, that God
would judge the world. This fact was fully taught in their own
writings, Genesis 18:25; Ecclesiastes 12:14; 11:9. It was besides an admitted point
with them, that God would condemn the heathen world; and perhaps the
term "world" here refers particularly to them. But how could this be,
if it were not right for God to inflict punishment at nil? The
inference of the objector, therefore, could not be true; though the
apostle does not tell us how it was consistent to inflict punishment
for offences from which God took occasion to promote his glory. It may be
remarked, however, that God will judge offences, not from what he
may do in overruling them, but from the nature of the crime itself.
The question is not, what good God may bring out of it, but what
does the crime itself deserve? what is the character of the offender?
what was his intention? It is not what God may do to overrule the
offence when it is committed. The just punishment of the murderer is
to be determined by the law, and by his own desert; and not from any
reputation for integrity and uprightness which the judge may
manifest on his trial; or from any honour which may accrue to the police
for detecting him; or any security which may result to the commonwealth
from his execution; or from any honour which the law may gain as a
just law by his condemnation. Nor should any of these facts and
advantages, which may result from his execution, be pleaded in bar of
his condemnation. So it is with the sinner under the Divine
administration. It is indeed a truth (Psalms 76:10) that the wrath of
man shall praise God, and that he will take occasion from men's
wickedness to glorify himself as a just Judge and moral Governor; but
this will be no ground of acquittal for the sinner.
{p} "how shall God judge" Job 8:3
Verse 7. For if, etc. This is an objection similar to the former. It
is indeed but another form of the same.
The truth of God. His truth or faithfulness in adhering to his
threatenings. God threatened to punish the guilty. By their guilt he will
take occasion to show his own truth; or their crime will furnish
occasion for such an exhibition.
Hath more abounded. Has been more striking, or more manifest. His
truth will be shown by the fulfillment of all his promises to his
people, and of all his predictions. But it will also be shown by
fulfilling his threatenings on the guilty. It will, therefore,
more abound by their condemnation; that is, their condemnation will
furnish new and striking instances of his truth. Every lost sinner
will be, therefore, an eternal monument of the truth of God.
Through my lie. By means of my lie, or as one of the results of my
falsehood. The word lie here means falsehood, deceitfulness,
unfaithfulness. If by the unfaithfulness of the Jewish people to the
covenant, occasion should be given to God to glorify himself, how could
they be condemned for it? Unto his glory. To his praise, or so as to
show his character in such a way as to excite the praise and admiration
of his intelligent creation.
Why yet am I, etc. How can that act be regarded as evil, which
tends to promote the glory of God? The fault in the reasoning of the
objector is this, that he takes for granted that the direct tendency
of his conduct is to promote God's glory, whereas it is just the
reverse; and it is by God's reversing that tendency, or overruling
it, that he obtains his glory. The tendency of murder is not to
honour the law, or to promote the security of society, but just the
reverse. Still, his execution shall avert the direct tendency of his
crime, and do honour to the law and the judge, and promote the
peace and security of the community by restraining others.
Verse 8. And not rather. This is the answer of the apostle. He
meets the objection by showing its tendency if carried out, and if
it were made a principle of conduct. The meaning is, "If the glory of
God is to be promoted by sin, and if a man is not therefore to be
condemned, or held guilty for it; if this fact absolves man from
crime, why not carry the doctrine out, and make it a principle of
conduct, and DO ALL THE EVIL WE CAN, in order to promote his glory?"
This was the fair consequence of the objection. And yet this was
a result so shocking and monstrous, that all that was necessary
in order to answer the objection was merely to state this consequence.
Every man's moral feelings would revolt at the doctrine;
every man would know that it could not be true; and every man,
therefore, could see that the objection was not valid.
As we. This refers, doubtless, to the apostles, and to Christians
generally. It is unquestionable, that this accusation was often brought
against them.
Slanderously reported. Greek, "As we are blasphemed."
This is the legitimate and proper use of the word blaspheme, to
speak of one in a reproachful and calumnious manner.
As some affirm, etc. Doubtless Jews. Why they should affirm this, is
not known. It was doubtless, however, some perversion of the
doctrines that the apostles preached. The doctrines which were thus
misrepresented and abused were probably these: the apostles taught
that the sins of men were the occasion of promoting God's glory in
the plan of salvation. That "where sin abounded, grace did much
more abound," Romans 5:20. That God, in the salvation of men,
would be glorified just in proportion to the depth and pollution of
the guilt which was forgiven. This was true; but how easy was
it to misrepresent this as teaching that men ought to sin in order
to promote God's glory! And instead of stating it as an inference
which THEY drew from the doctrine, to state it as what the apostles
actually taught. This is the common mode in which charges are
brought against others. Men draw an inference themselves, or
suppose that the doctrine leads to such an inference, and then
charge it on others as what they actually hold and teach. There
is one maxim which should never be departed from: that a man is
not to be held responsible for the inferences which we may draw
from his doctrine; and that he is never to be represented as holding
and teaching that which WE suppose follows from his doctrine. He is
answerable only for what he avows.
Let us do evil. That is, since sin is to promote the glory of God,
let us commit as much as possible.
That good may come. That God may take occasion by it to promote his
glory.
Whose damnation is just. Whose condemnation.
See Barnes "Romans 14:23". This does not necessarily refer to future
punishment, but it means that the conduct of those who thus slanderously
perverted the doctrines of the Christian religion, and accused the
apostles of teaching this doctrine, was deserving of condemnation
or punishment. Thus he expressly disavows, in strong language,
the doctrine charged on Christians. Thus he silences the objection;
and thus he teaches as a great fundamental law, that evil is not to
be done that good may come. This is a universal rule; and this is
in no case to be departed from. Whatever is evil is not to be done
under any pretence. Any imaginable good which we may think
will result from it; any advantage to ourselves or to our cause;
or any glory which we may think may result to God, will not
sanction or justify the deed. Strict, uncompromising integrity and
honesty is to be the maxim of our lives; and in such a life only
can we hope for success, or for the blessing of God.
{q} "Let us do evil" Romans 6:1,15
Verse 9. What then? This is another remark supposed to be made by
a Jewish objector. "What follows? or are we to infer that we
are better than others?"
Are we better than they? Are we Jews better than the Gentiles? Or
rather, have we any preference, or advantage as to character and
prospects, over the Gentiles? These questions refer only to the
great point in debate, to wit, about justification before God. The
apostle had admitted (Romans 3:2) that the Jews had important
advantages in some respects, but he now affirms that those advantages
did not make a difference between them and the Gentiles about
justification.
No, in no wise. Not at all. That is, the Jews have no preference or
advantage over the Gentiles in regard to the subject of justification
before God. They have failed to keep the law; they are sinners; and if
they are justified, it must be in the same way as the rest of the world.
We have before proved, etc. \\Ro 1:21-32 2:1-29\\.
Under sin. Sinners. Under the power and dominion of sin.
{1} "proved" or, "charged"
Verse 10. As it is written. The apostle is reasoning with Jews; and
he proceeds to show, from their own Scriptures, that what he had
affirmed was true. The point to be proved was, that the Jews, in the
matter of justification, had no advantage or preference over the
Gentiles; that the Jew had failed to keep the law which had been given
him, as the Gentile had failed to keep the law which had been given
him; and that both therefore were equally dependent on the mercy of
God, incapable of being justified and saved by their works. To show
this the apostle adduces texts, to show what was the character of the
Jewish people; or to show that, according to their own Scriptures, they
were sinners no less than the Gentiles. The point then is, to prove
the depravity of the Jews, not that of universal depravity. The
interpretation should be confined to the bearing of the passages on
the Jews, and the quotations should not be adduced as directly
proving the doctrine of universal depravity. In a certain sense,
which will be stated soon, they may be adduced as bearing on that
subject. But their direct reference is to the Jewish nation. The
passages which follow are taken from various parts of the Old
Testament. The design of this is to show, that this characteristic
of sin was not confined to any particular period of the Jewish
history, but pertained to them as a people; that it had characterized
them throughout their existence as a nation. Most of the passages
are quoted in the language of the Septuagint. The quotation in
Romans 3:10-12, is from Psalms 14:1-3, and from Psalms 53:1-3.
The fifty-third psalm is the same as the fourteenth, with some slight
variations.
There is none righteous. The Hebrew (Psalms 14:1) is, there is none
that doeth good. The Septuagint has the same. The apostle quotes
according to the sense of the passage. The design of the apostle is
to show that none could be justified by the law. He uses an expression,
therefore, which is exactly conformable to his argument, and which
accords in meaning with the Hebrew, there is none just--\~dikaiov\~.
No, not one. This is not in the Hebrew, but is in the Septuagint. It
is a strong universal expression, denoting the state of almost universal
corruption which existed in the time of the psalmist. The expression
should not be interpreted to mean that there was not literally one pious
man in the nation; but that the characteristic of the nation was, at that
time, that it was exceedingly corrupt. Instead of being righteous,
as the Jew claimed, because they were Jews, the testimony of their
own Scriptures was, that they were universally wicked.
{r} "There is none righteous" Psalms 14; Psalms 53
Verse 11. There is none that understandeth. In the Hebrew,
(Psalms 14:2), God is represented as looking down from heaven to see,
that is, to make investigation, whether there were any that understood
or sought after him. This circumstance gives not only high
poetic beauty to the passage, but deep solemnity and awfulness.
God, the Searcher of hearts, is represented as making investigation
on this very point, he looks down from heaven for this very purpose,
to ascertain whether there were any righteous. In the Hebrew it is not
asserted, though it is clearly and strongly implied, that
none such were found. That fact the apostle states. If, as the
result of such an investigation, none were found; if God did not
specify that there were any such; then it follows that there were
none. For none could escape the notice of his eye; and if there
had been any, the benevolence of his heart would have led him to
record it. To understand is used in the sense of being wise; or of
having such a state of moral feeling as to dispose them to serve and
obey God. The word is often used in the Bible, not to denote a
mere intellectual operation of the mind, but the state of the heart
inclining the mind to obey and worship God, Psalms 107:43; 119:27,100
Proverbs 2:5; Isaiah 6:10: "Lest they should understand with their heart,"
etc.
That seeketh after God. That endeavours to know and do his will, and
to be acquainted with his character. A disposition not to seek after
God, that is, to neglect and forget him, is one of the most decided
proofs of depravity. A righteous man counts it his highest privilege and
honour to know God, and to understand his will. A man can indulge in
wickedness only by forgetting God. Hence a disposition not to seek God
is full proof of depravity.
Verse 12. They have all gone out of the way. They have declined
from the true path of piety and virtue.
They are together. They have at the same time; or they have
equally become unprofitable. They are as one; they are joined,
or united, in this declension. The expression denotes union or
similarity.
Become unprofitable. This word in Hebrew means, to become putrid
and offensive, like fruit that is spoiled. In Arabic, it is applied
to milk that becomes sour. Applied to moral subjects, it means to
become corrupt and useless. They are of no value in regard to works
of righteousness.
There is none, etc. This is taken literally from the Hebrew.
Verse 13. Their throat, etc. This expression is taken from
Psalms 5:9, literally from the Septuagint. The design of the psalm is
to reprove those who were false, traitorous, slanderous, etc.,
Psalms 5:6. The psalmist has the sin of deceit, and falsehood, and
slander particularly in his eye. The expressions here are to be
interpreted in accordance with that. The sentiment here may be, as the
grave is ever open to receive all into it, that is, into destruction, so
the mouth or the throat of the slanderer is ever open to swallow up
the peace and happiness of all. Or it may mean, as from an open
sepulchre there proceeds an offensive and pestilential vapour, so
from the mouths of slanderous persons there proceeds noisome and
ruinous words. (Stuart.) I think the connexion demands the
former interpretation.
With their tongues, etc. In their conversation, their promises, etc.,
they have been false, treacherous, and unfaithful.
The poison of asps. This is taken literally from the Septuagint of
Psalms 140:3. The asp, or adder, is a species of serpent whose
poison is of such active operation that it kills almost the instant that
it penetrates, and that without remedy. It is small, and commonly lies
concealed, often in the sand in a road, and strikes the traveller before
he sees it. It is found chiefly in Egypt and Lybia. It is said by ancient
writers that the celebrated Cleopatra, rather than be carried a captive
to Rome by Augustus, suffered an asp to bite her in the arm, by which
she soon died. The precise species of serpent which is here meant by the
psalmist, however, cannot be ascertained. All that is necessary to
understand the passage is, that it refers to a serpent whose bite was
deadly, and rapid in its execution.
Is under their lips. The poison of the serpent is contained in a
small bag which is concealed at the root of the tooth. When the tooth is
struck into the flesh, the poison is pressed out, through a small hole
in the tooth, into the wound. whether the psalmist was acquainted with
that fact, or referred to it, cannot be known: his words do not of
necessity imply it. The sentiment is, that as the poison of the asp is
rapid, certain, spreading quickly through the system, and producing
death, so the words of the slanderer are deadly, pestiferous,
quickly destroying the reputation and happiness of man. They
are as subtle, as insinuating, and as deadly to the reputation, as the
poison of the adder is to the body. Wicked men, in the Bible, are
often compared to serpents, Matthew 23:33; Genesis 49:17.
{s} "throat is an open" Psalms 5:9
{t} "poison of asps" Psalms 140:3
Verse 14. Whose mouth. Psalms 10:7. The apostle has not quoted this
literally, but has given the sense. David in the psalm is
describing his bitter enemies.
Cursing. Reproachful and opprobrious language, such as Shimei used
in relation to David, 2 Samuel 16:5,7,8.
Bitterness. In the psalm, deceits. The word bitterness is
used to denote severity, harshness, cruelty; reproachful and malicious
words.
{u} "whose mouth is full" Psalms 10:7
Verse 15. Their feet, etc. The quotation in this and the two
following verses is abridged or condensed from Isaiah 59:7,8. The
expressions occur in the midst of a description of the character of the
nation in the time of the prophet. The apostle has selected a few
expressions out of many, rather making a reference to the entire
passage, than a formal quotation. The expression, "their feet are
swift," etc., denotes the eagerness of the nation to commit crime,
particularly deeds of injustice and cruelty. They thirsted for the
blood of innocence, and hasted to shed it, to gratify their malice,
or to satisfy their vengeance.
{v} "feet are swift" Psalms 10:7
Verse 16. Destruction. That is, they cause the destruction or the
ruin of the reputation, happiness, and peace of others.
Misery. Calamity, ruin.
In their ways. Wherever they go. This is a striking description not
only of the wicked then, but of all times. The tendency of their conduct
is to destroy the virtue, happiness, and peace of all with whom they
come in contact.
Verse 17. And the way of peace, etc. What tends to promote their
own happiness, or that of others, they do not regard. Intent on
their plans of evil, they do not know or regard that which is fitted
to promote the welfare of themselves or others. This is the case
with all who are selfish, and who seek to gain theft own purposes
of crime and ambition.
Verse 18. There is no fear of God. Psalms 36:1. The word fear
here denotes reverence, awe, veneration. There is no such regard or
reverence for the character, authority, and honour of God, as to
restrain them from crime. Their conduct shows that they are not
withheld from the commission of iniquity by any regard to the fear
or favour of God. The only thing that will be effectual in restraining
men from sin, will be a regard to the honour and law of God.
In regard to these quotations from the Old Testament, we may
make the following remarks:
(1.) They fully establish the position of the apostle, that the nation,
as such, was far from being righteous, or that they could be justified
by their own works. By quotations from no less than six distinct places
in their own writings, referring to different periods of their history,
he shows what the character of the nation was. And as this was the
characteristic of those times, it followed that a Jew could not hope to
be saved simply because he was a Jew. He needed, as much as the
Gentile, the benefit of some other plan of salvation.
(2.) These passages show us how to use the Old Testament, and the facts of
ancient history. They are to be adduced not as showing directly
what the character of man is now, but to show what human nature
is. They demonstrate what man is when under the most favourable
circumstances; in different situations; and at different periods of the
world. The concurrence of past facts shows what the race is. And
as past facts are uniform; as man thus far, in the most favourable
circumstances, has been sinful; it follows that this is the
characteristic of man everywhere. It is settled by the facts of the
world, just as any other characteristic of man is settled by the uniform
occurrence of facts in all circumstances and times. Ancient facts, and
quotations of Scripture, therefore, are to be adduced as proofs of the
tendency of human nature. So Paul used them; and so it is lawful for
us to use them.
(3.) It may be observed, further, that the apostle has given a
view of human depravity which is very striking. He does not confine it
to one faculty of the mind, or to one set of actions; he specifies
each member and each faculty as being perverse, and inclined to evil. The
depravity extends to all the departments of action. The tongue, the
mouth, the feet, the lips, are all involved in it; all are perverted,
and all become the occasion of the commission of sin. The entire man
is corrupt; and the painful description extends to every department of
action.
(4.) If such was the character of the Jewish nation under all
its advantages, what must have been the character of the heathen? We
are prepared thus to credit all that is said in Romans 1 and elsewhere,
of the sad state of the pagan world.
(5.) What a melancholy view we have thus of human nature. From whatever
quarter we contemplate it, we come to the same conclusion. Whatever
record we examine, whatever history we read; whatever time or period we
contemplate, we find the same facts, and are forced to the same
conclusion. All are involved in sin, and are polluted, and ruined, and
helpless. Over these ruins we should sit down and weep, and lift our
eyes with gratitude to the God or mercy, that he has pitied us in our
low estate, and has devised a plan by which. "these ruins may be built
again," and lost, fallen man be rinsed up to forfeited "glory, honour,
and immortality."
{w} "There is no fear of God" Psalms 36:1
Verse 19. Now we know. We all admit. It is a conceded, plain point.
What things soever. Whether given as precepts, or recorded as
historical facts. Whatever things are found in the law.
The law saith. This means here evidently the Old Testament. From
that the apostle had been drawing his arguments, and his train of
thought requires us here to understand the whole of the Old Testament
by this. The same principle applies, however, to all law,
that it speaks only to those to whom it is expressly given.
It saith to them, etc. It speaks to them for whom it was expressly
intended; to them for whom the law was made. The apostle
makes this remark in order to prevent the Jew from evading the
force of his conclusion. He had brought proofs from their own
acknowledged laws, from writings given expressly for them, and
which recorded their own history, and which they admitted to be
divinely inspired. These proofs, therefore, they could not evade.
That every mouth may be stopped. This is, perhaps, a proverbial
expression, Job 5:16; Psalms 107:42. It denotes that they would
be thoroughly convinced; that the argument would be so conclusive as
that they would have nothing to reply; that all objections
would be silenced. Here it denotes that the argument for the
depravity of the Jews from the Old Testament was so clear and
satisfactory, that nothing could be alleged in reply. This may be
regarded as the conclusion of his whole argument, and the expressions
may refer not to the Jews only, but to all the world. Its meaning may,
perhaps, be thus expressed: "The Gentiles are proved guilty by their own
deeds, and by a violation of the laws of nature. They sin against
their own conscience; and have thus been shown to be guilty before God,
Romans 1. The Jews have also been shown to be guilty; all their
objections have been silenced by an independent train of remark; by
appeals to their own law; by arguments drawn from the authority
which they admit. Thus the mouths of both are stopped. Thus the
whole world becomes guilty before God." I regard, therefore, the word
"that" here --\~ina\~--as referring, not particularly to the
argument from the law of the Jews, but to the whole previous
train of argument, embracing both Jews and Gentiles. His conclusion
is thus general or universal, drawn from arguments adapted to
the two great divisions of mankind.
And all the world. Both Jews and Gentiles, for so the strain
of the argument shows. That is, all by nature; all who are out of
Christ; all who are not pardoned. All are guilty where there is not
some scheme contemplating forgiveness, and which is not applied to
purify them. The apostle in all this argument speaks of what man
is, and ever would be, without some plan of justification appointed by
God.
May become. May be. They are not made guilty by the law;
but the argument from the law, and from fact, proves that they are
guilty.
Guilty before God. \~upodikov tw yew\~, Marg., subject to the judgment of
God. The phrase is taken from courts of justice. It is applied to a
man who has not vindicated or defended himself; against whom therefore
the charge or the indictment is found true; and who is in consequence
subject to punishment. The idea is that of subjection to punishment;
but always because the man personally deserves it, and because
being unable to vindicate himself, he ought to be punished. It is
never used to denote simply an obligation to punishment, but with
reference to the fact that the punishment is personally deserved.
This word, rendered guilty, is not elsewhere used in the New
Testament, nor is it found in the Septuagint. The argument of the apostle
here shows,
(1.) that in order to guilt, there must be a law, either that of
nature or by revelation, Romans 1:1-3:31 and
(2) that in order to guilt, there must be a violation of that law
which may be charged on them as individuals, and for which they are to
be held personally responsible.
{x} "every mouth may be stopped" or, "subject to the judgment of God."
Verse 20. By the deeds of the law. By works; or by such deeds as the
law requires. The word law has, in the Scriptures, a great variety
of significations. Its strict and proper meaning is, a rule of
conduct prescribed by superior authority. The course of reasoning
in these chapters shows the sense in which the apostle uses it here.
He intends evidently to apply it to those rules or laws by which
the Jews and Gentiles pretended to frame their lives; and to affirm
that men could be justified by no conformity to those laws. He
had shown Romans 1 that the heathen, the entire Gentile world, had
violated the laws of nature--the rules of virtue made known to
them by reason, tradition, and conscience, He had shown the
same Romans 2:1-3:29 in respect to the Jews. They had equally failed
in rendering obedience to their law. In both these cases the
reference was not to ceremonial or ritual laws, but to the moral
law; whether that law was made known by reason or by revelation.
The apostle had not been discussing the question whether they had
yielded obedience to their ceremonial law, but whether they had
been found holy, i.e. whether they had obeyed the moral law.
The conclusion was, that in all this they had failed, and that
therefore they could not be justified by that law. That the apostle did
not intend to speak of external works only is apparent; for he all
along charges them with a want of conformity of the heart no less
than with a want of conformity of the life. See Romans 1:26,29-31;
Romans 2:28,29. The conclusion is therefore a general one, that by no
law, made known either by reason, conscience, tradition, or revelation,
could man be justified; that there was no form of obedience
which could be rendered, that would justify men in the sight of a
holy God.
There shall no flesh. No man; no human being, either among the Jews
or the Gentiles. It is a strong expression, denoting the absolute
universality of his conclusion. See Barnes "Romans 1:3".
Be justified. Be regarded and treated as righteous. None shall be
esteemed as having kept the law, and as being
entitled to the rewards of obedience. See Barnes " :".
In his sight. Before him. God sits as a Judge to determine the
characters of men, and he shall not adjudge any to have kept the law.
For by the law. That is, by all law. The connexion shows that
this is the sense. Law is a rule of action. The effect of applying
a rule to our conduct is to show us what sin is. The meaning of
the apostle clearly is, that the application of a law to try our conduct,
instead of being a ground of justification, will be merely to show us
our own sinfulness and departures from duty. A man may esteem himself to
be very right and correct, until he compares himself with a rule, or law;
so, whether the Gentiles compared their conduct with their laws of reason
and conscience, or the Jew his with his written law, the effect would
be to show them how far they had departed. The more closely and faithfully
it should be applied, the more they would see it. So far from being
justified by it, they would be more and more condemned. Comp.
Romans 7:7-10. The same is the case now. This is the way in which
a sinner is converted; and the more closely and faithfully the law
is preached, the more will it condemn him, and show him that he
needs some other plan of salvation.
{y} "therefore by the deeds of the law" Psalms 143:2
Verse 21. But now. The apostle, having shown the entire failure of
all attempts to be justified by the law, whether among Jews or
Gentiles, proceeds to state fully the plan of justification by Jesus
Christ in the gospel. To do this was the main design of the
epistle, Romans 1:17. He makes, therefore, in the close of this chapter,
an explicit statement of the nature of the doctrine; and in the
following parts of the epistle he fully-proves it, and illustrates its
effects.
The righteousness of God. God's plan of justifying men.
See Barnes "Romans 1:17".
Without the law. In a way different from personal obedience to the
law. It does not mean that God abandoned his law; or that Jesus
Christ did not regard the law, for he came to "magnify" it,
Isaiah 42:21 or that sinners after they are justified have no
regard to the law; but it means simply what the apostle had been
endeavouring to show, that justification could not be accomplished by
personal obedience to any law of Jew or Gentile, and that it must be
accomplished in some other way.
Being witnessed. Being borne witness to. It was not a new
doctrine; it was found in the Old Testament. The apostle makes this
observation with special reference to the Jews. He does not
declare any new thing, but that which was fully declared in their
own sacred writings.
By the law. This expression here evidently denotes, as it did
commonly among the Jews, the five books of Moses. And the apostle means
to say that this doctrine was found in those books; not that it was in
the ten commandments, or in the law, strictly so called. It is not a
part of law to declare justification except by strict and perfect
obedience. That it was found in those books the apostle shows by the
case of Abraham, Romans 4. See also his reasoning on Leviticus 18:5,
and Deuteronomy 30:12-14, in Romans 10:5-11; comp. Exodus 34:6,7.
And the prophets. Generally, the remainder of the Old Testament. The
phrase "the law and the prophets" comprehended the whole of the Old
Testament, Matthew 5:17; 11:13; 22:40; Acts 13:15; 28:23. That this doctrine
was contained in the prophets, the apostle showed by the passage quoted
from Habakkuk 2:4, in Habakkuk 1:17, "The just shall live by faith." The
same thing he showed in Romans 10:11 from Isaiah 28:16; 49:23 and
Romans 4:6-8, from Psalms 22. The same thing is fully taught in
Isaiah 53:11; Daniel 9:24. Indeed, the general tenor of the Old Testament--
the appointment of sacrifices, etc.--taught that man was a sinner, and
that he could not be justified by obedience to the moral law.
{z} "by the Law and the Prophets" Acts 26:22
Verse 22. Even the righteousness of God. The apostle, having stated
that the design of the gospel was to reveal a new plan of becoming
just in the sight of God, proceeds here more fully to explain it.
The explanation which he offers makes it plain that the phrase so
often used by him, "righteousness of God," does not refer to an
attribute of God, but to his plan of making men righteous. Here
he says that it is by faith in Jesus Christ; but surely an attribute
of God is not produced by faith in Jesus Christ. It means God's
mode of regarding men as righteous through their belief in Jesus
Christ.
By faith of Jesus Christ. That is, by faith in Jesus Christ.
Thus the expression, Mark 11:22, "Have the faith of God,"
(margin,) means, have faith in God. So Acts 3:16, the
"faith of his name," (Greek,) means, faith in his name. So
Galatians 2:20, the "faith of the Son of God" means, faith in the Son of
God. This cannot mean that faith is the meritorious cause of
salvation, but that it is the instrument or means by which we become
justified. It is the state of mind, or condition of the heart,
to which God has been pleased to promise justification. (On the
nature of faith, See Barnes "Mark 16:16".) God has promised that
they who believe in Christ shah be pardoned and saved. This is
his plan in distinction from the plan of those who seek to be
justified by works.
Unto all and upon all. It is evident that these expressions are
designed to be emphatic, but why both are used is not very apparent.
Many have supposed that there was no essential difference in the meaning.
If there be a difference, it is probably this: the first expression,
"unto all"--\~eiv pantav\~--may denote that this plan of justification has
come (Luther) unto all men, to Jews and Gentiles; i.e. that it has
been provided for them and offered to them without distinction. The plan
was ample for all, was fitted for all, was equally necessary for all,
and was offered to all. The second phrase, "upon all"--\~epi pantav\~--may be
designed to guard against the supposition that all therefore would
be benefited by it, or be saved by the mere face that the announcement
had come to all. The apostle adds, therefore, that the benefits
of this plan must actually come upon all, or must be applied to all,
if they would be justified. They could not be justified merely by
the fact that the plan was provided, and that the knowledge of it
had come to all, but by their actually coming under this plan, and
availing themselves of it. Perhaps there is reference in the last
expression, "upon all," to a robe, or garment, that is placed upon
one to hide his nakedness, or sin. Comp. Isaiah 64:6, also
Philippians 3:9.
For there is no difference. That is, there is no difference
in regard to the matter under discussion. The apostle does not mean
to say that there is no difference in regard to the talents,
dispositions, education, and property of men; but there is no distinction
in regard to the way in which they must be justified. All must
be saved, if saved at all, in the same mode, whether Jews or Gentiles,
bond or free, rich or poor, learned or ignorant. None can be saved by
works; and all are therefore dependent on the mercy of God in Jesus
Christ.
{a} "faith of Jesus Christ" Romans 5:1
Verse 23. For all have sinned. This was the point which he had fully
established in the discussion in these chapters.
And come short. Greek, Are deficient in regard to; are wanting,
etc. Here it means, that they had failed to obtain, or were destitute
of.
The glory of God. The praise or approbation of God. They had sought
to be justified, or approved, by God; but all had failed. Their works
of the law had not secured his approbation; and they were therefore
under condemnation. The word glory--\~doxa\~--is often used
in the sense of praise, or approbation. John 5:41,44;
John 7:18;; 8:50,54; 12:43.
{b} "all have sinned" Ecclesiastes 7:20
Verse 24. Being justified. Being treated as if righteous; that is,
being regarded and treated as if they had kept the law. The apostle has
shown that they could not be so regarded and treated by any merit
of their own, or by personal obedience to the law. He now affirms
that if they were so treated, it must be by mere favour, and as a
matter not of right, but of gift. This is the essence of the gospel.
And to show this, and the way in which it is done, is the main
design of this epistle. The expression here is be understood as
referring to all who are justified, Romans 3:22. The righteousness of
God, by faith in Jesus Christ, is "upon all who believe," who are all
"justified freely by his grace."
Freely--\~dwrean\~. This word stands opposed to that which is
purchased, or which is obtained by labour, or which is a matter of
claim. It is a free, undeserved gift, not merited by our obedience to
the law, and not that to which we have any claim. The apostle uses the
word here in reference to those who are justified. To them
it is a mere undeserved gift. It does not mean that it has been obtained,
however, without any price or merit from any one, for the Lord Jesus has
purchased it with his own blood, and to him it becomes a matter of
justice that those who were given to him should be justified,
1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 Peter 2:9, (Greek.) Acts 20:28; Isaiah 53:11.
We have no offering to bring, and no claim. To us, therefore, it is
entirely a matter of gift.
By his grace. By his favour; by his mere undeserved mercy.
See Barnes "Romans 1:7".
Through the redemption--\~dia thv apolutrwsewv\~. The word used here
occurs but ten times in the New Testament, Luke 21:28; Romans 3:24; 8:23; 1 Corinthians 1:30
Ephesians 1:7,14; 4:30; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:15; 11:35. Its root--\~lutron\~
lutron--properly denotes the price which is paid for a prisoner of
war; the ransom, or stipulated purchase-money, which being paid, the
captive is set free. The word here used is then employed to denote
liberation from bondage, captivity, or evil of any kind, usually keeping
up the idea of a price, or a ransom paid, in consequence of
which the delivery is effected. It is sometimes used, in a large sense,
to denote simple deliverance by any means, without reference to a
price paid, as in Luke 21:28; Romans 8:23; Ephesians 1:14. That this is not
the sense here, however, is apparent. For the apostle in the next verse
proceeds to specify the price which has been paid, or the means by
which this redemption has been effected. The word here denotes that
deliverance from sin, and from the evil consequences of sin, which
has been effected by the offering of Jesus Christ as a propitiation,
Romans 3:25.
That is in Christ Jesus. Or, that has been effected by Christ Jesus;
that of which he is the author and procurer. Comp. John 3:16.
Verse 25. Whom God hath set forth. Margin, Fore-ordained
--\~proeyeto\~. The word properly means, to place in public view; to
exhibit in a conspicuous, situation, as goods are exhibited or exposed
for sale, or as premiums or rewards of victory were exhibited to public
view in the games of the Greeks. It sometimes has the meaning
of decreeing, purposing, or constituting, as in the margin, (comp.
Romans 1:13; Ephesians 1:9) and many have supposed that this is its
meaning here. But the connexion seems to require the usual signification
of the word; and it means that God has publicly exhibited
Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men. This
public exhibition was made by his being offered on the cross, in
the face of angels and of men. It was not concealed; it was done
openly. He was put to open shame; and so put to death as to
attract towards the scene the eyes of angels, and of the inhabitants
of all worlds.
To be a propitiation--\~ilasthrion\~. This word occurs but in one other
place in the New Testament: Hebrews 9:5, "And over it (the ark) the
cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat." It is used here to
denote the lid or cover of the ark of the covenant. It was made of gold,
and over it were the cherubim. In this sense it is often used by the
LXX. Exodus 25:17, "And thou shalt make a propitatory--\~ilasthrion\~, of
gold," \\Ex 25:18-20,22 30:6 31:7 35:12 37:6-9 40:20 Le 16:2,13\\.
The Hebrew name for this was capphoreth, from the verb caphar,
to cover, or conceal. It was from this place that God was represented as
speaking to the children of Israel: Exodus 25:22, "And I will speak to
thee front above the Ilasterion," the propitiatory, the
mercy-seat; Leviticus 16:2, "For I will appear in the cloud upon the
mercy.seat." This seat, or cover, was covered with the smoke o{
the incense, when the high priest entered the most holy place,
Leviticus 16:13. And the blood of the bullock offered on the great day of
atonement was to be sprinkled "upon the mercy-seat," and "before the
mercy-seat," "seven times," Leviticus 16:14,15. This sprinkling or
offering of blood was called making "an atonement for the holy place,
because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel," etc.,
Leviticus 16:16. It was from this mercy-seat that God pronounced pardon,
or expressed himself as reconciled to his people. The atonement was
made, the blood was sprinkled, and the reconciliation thus effected. The
name was thus given to that cover of the ark, because it was the
place from which God declared himself reconciled to his people. Still
the inquiry is, why is this name given to Jesus Christ? In what sense is
he declared to be a propitiation? It is evident that it cannot be
applied to him in any literal sense. Between the golden cover of the ark
of the covenant and the Lord Jesus the analogy must be very
slight, if any such analogy can be perceived. We may observe, however,
(1.) that the main idea, in regard to the cover of the ark called the
mercy-seat, was that of God's being reconciled to his people; and that
this is the main idea in regard to the Lord Jesus, whom "God
hath set forth."
(2.) This reconciliation was effected then by the sprinkling of blood
on the mercy-seat, Leviticus 16:15,16. The same is true of the Lord Jesus
--by blood.
(3.) In the former case it was [by] the blood of atonement; the offering
of the bullock on the great day of atonement, that the reconciliation
was effected, Leviticus 16:17,18. In the case of the Lord Jesus it was also
by blood--by the blood of atonement. But it was by his own blood.
This the apostle distinctly states in this verse.
(4.) In the former case there was a sacrifice, or expiatory
offering; and so it is in reconciliation by the Lord Jesus. In the former,
the mercy-seat was the visible, declared place where God would express
his reconciliation with his people. So in the latter, the offering of
the Lord Jesus is the manifest and open way by which God will be recon-
ciled to men.
(5.) In the former, there was joined the idea of a sacrifice for sin,
Leviticus 16:1. So in the latter. And hence the main idea of the
apostle here is to convey the idea of a sacrifice for sin;
or to set forth the Lord Jesus as such a sacrifice. Hence the
word "propitiation" in the original may express the idea of a
propitiatory sacrifice, as well as the cover to the ark. The word is
an adjective, and may be joined to the noun sacrifice, as well
as to denote the mercy-seat of the ark. This meaning accords also with
its classic meaning to denote a propitiatory offering, or an offering
to produce reconciliation. Christ is thus represented, not as a
mercy-seat, which would be unintelligible; but as the medium, the
offering, the expiation, by which reconciliation is produced between God
and man.
Through faith. Or, by means of faith. The offering will be of no avail
without faith. The offering has been made; but it will not be applied,
except where there is faith. He has made an offering which may be
efficacious in putting away sin; but it produces no reconciliation, no
pardon, except where it is accepted by faith.
In his blood. Or, in his death--his bloody death. Among the Jews,
the blood was regarded as the seat of life, or vitality,
Leviticus 17:11, "The life of the flesh is in the blood."
Hence they were commanded not to eat blood: Genesis 9:4, "But
flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not
eat." Leviticus 19:26; Deuteronomy 12:23; 1 Samuel 14:34. This doctrine is contained
uniformly in the sacred Scriptures. And it has been also the opinion of
not a few celebrated physiologists, as well in modern as in ancient
times. The same was the opinion of the ancient Pharisees and Hindoos.
Homer thus often speaks of blood as the seat of life, as in the
expression \~porfureov yanatov\~, or purple death. And Virgil speaks of
purple life,
Purpuream vomit ille animam.
AEniad, ix. 349.
Empedocles and Critias, among the Greek philosophers, also embraced this
opinion. Among the moderns, Harvey, to whom we are indebted for a
knowledge of the circulation of the blood, fully believed it. Hoffman
and Huxham believed it. Dr. John Hunter has fully adopted the belief,
and sustained it, as he supposed, by a great variety of considerations.
See Good's Book of Nature, pp. 102, 108, Edit. New York, 1828. This was
undoubtedly the doctrine of the Hebrews; and hence with them to shed the
blood was a phrase signifying to kill; hence the efficacy of their
sacrifices was supposed to consist in the blood, that is, in the
life of the victim. Hence it was unlawful to eat it, as it was the
life, the seat of vitality; the more immediate and direct gift of
God. When therefore the blood of Christ is spoken of in the New
Testament, it means the offering of his life as a sacrifice, or his
death as an expiation. His life was given to make atonement. See the
word blood thus used in Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14; Hebrews 9:12,14;
Hebrews 13:12; Revelation 1:5; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:7. By faith in his death as
a sacrifice for sin; by believing that he took our sins; that he died
in our place; by thus, in some sense, making his offering ours; by
approving it, loving it, embracing it, trusting it, our sins become
pardoned, and our souls made pure.
To declare. \~eiv endeixin\~. For the purpose of showing, or exhibiting;
to present it to man. The meaning is, that the plan was adopted; the
Saviour was given; he suffered and died; and the scheme is proposed to
men, for the purpose of making a full manifestation of his plan, in
contradistinction from all the plans of men.
His righteousness. His plan of justification. The method or scheme
which he has adopted, in distinction from that of man, and which he
now exhibits, or proffers to sinners. There is great variety in the
explanation of the word here rendered righteousness. Some explain it
as meaning veracity; others as holiness; others as goodness;
others as essential justice. Most interpreters, perhaps, have
explained it as referring to an attribute of God. But the whole connexion
requires us to understand it here as in Romans 1:17, not of an
attribute of God, but of his plan of justifying sinners. He has
adopted and proposed a plan by which men may become just by faith
in Jesus Christ, and not by their own works. His acquitting men from sin;
his regarding them and treating them as just, is set forth in the gospel
by the offering of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice on the cross.
For the remission of sins. Margin, Passing over. The word here
used (\~paresin\~) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, nor in the
Septuagint. It means passing by, as not noticing; and hence forgiving.
A similar idea occurs in 2 Samuel 24:10; Micah 7:18: "Who is a God like unto
thee, that passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his
inheritance?" In Romans it means for the pardoning, or in order to
pardon past transgression.
That are past. That have been committed; or that have existed before.
This has been commonly understood to refer to past generations, as
affirming that sins under all dispensations of the world are to be
forgiven in this manner, through the sacrifice of Christ. And it has been
supposed that all who have been justified have received pardon by the
merits of the sacrifice of Christ. This may be true; but there is no
reason to think that this is the idea in this passage, for
(1.) the scope of the passage does not require it. The argument is not
to show how men had been justified, but how they might be. It is not
to discuss an historical fact, but to state the way in which sin was
to be forgiven under the gospel.
(2.) The language has no immediate or necessary reference to past
generations. It evidently refers to the past lives of the
individuals who are justified, and not to the sins of former times.
All that the passage means, therefore, is, that the plan of pardon is
such as completely to remove all the former sins of the life, not of
all former generations. If it referred to the sins of former times, it
would not be easy to avoid the doctrine of universal salvation.
Through the forbearance of God. Through his patience, his
long-suffering. That is, he did not come forth in judgment when
the sin was committed; he spared us, though deserving of punishment; and
now he comes forth completely to pardon those sins concerning which
he has so long and so graciously exercised forbearance. This expression
obviously refers not to the remission of sins, but to the fact that
they were committed while he evinced such long-suffering. Comp.
Acts 17:30. I do not know better how to show the practical value and
bearing of this important passage of Scripture, than by transcribing a
part of the affecting experience of the poet Cowper. It is well known
that before his conversion he was oppressed by a long and dreadful
melancholy; that this was finally heightened to despair; and that
he was then subjected to the kind treatment of Dr. Cotton in St.
Alban's, as a melancholy case of derangement. His leading thought
was, that he was doomed to inevitable destruction, and that there
was no hope. From this he was roused only by the kindness of
his brother, and by the promises of the gospel. (See Taylor's
Life of Cowper.) The account of his conversion I shall now give
in his own words. "The happy period,, which was to shake off
my fetters, and afford me a clear discovery of the free mercy of
God in Christ Jesus was now arrived. I flung myself into a chair
near the window, and, seeing a Bible there, ventured once more to
apply to it for comfort and instruction. The first verse I saw was
the 25th of the third chapter of Romans, Whom God hath set forth,
etc. Immediately I received strength to believe, and the full
beam of the Sun of Righteousness shone upon me. I saw the sufficiency of
the atonement he had made for my pardon and justification. In a moment I
believed, and received the peace of the gospel. Unless the almighty Arm
had been under me, I think I should have been overwhelmed with gratitude
and joy. My eyes filled with tears, and my voice choked with transport.
I could only look up to heaven in silent fear, overwhelmed with love and
wonder. How glad should I now have been to have spent every moment in
prayer and thanksgiving. I lost no opportunity of repairing to a throne
of grace; but flew to it with an earnestness irresistible, and never to
be satisfied."
{1} "set forth" or, "fore-ordained"
{2} "remission of sins" or, "passing over"
Verse 26. At this time. The time now since the Saviour has come,
now is the time when he manifests it.
That he might be just. This verse contains the substance of the
gospel. The word "just" here does not mean benevolent, or merciful,
though it may sometimes have that meaning, (See Barnes "Matthew 1:19",
also See Barnes "John 17:25") but it refers to the fact that God had
retained the integrity of his character as a moral Governor; that he had
shown a due regard to his law, and to the penalty of the law, by his plan
of salvation. Should he forgive sinners without an atonement,
justice would be sacrificed and abandoned. The law would cease to have
any terrors for the guilty, and its penalty would be a nullity. In
the plan of salvation, therefore, he has shown a regard to the law
by appointing his Son to be a substitute in the place of sinners; not
to endure its precise penalty, for his sufferings were not eternal,
nor were they attended with remorse of conscience, or by despair,
which are the proper penalty of the law; but he endured so much
as to accomplish the same ends as if those who shall be saved by
him had been doomed to eternal death. That is, he showed that
the law could not be violated without introducing suffering; and
that it could not be broken with impunity, he showed that he
had so great a regard for it, that he would not pardon one sinner
without an atonement. And thus he secured the proper honour
to his character as a lover of his law, a hater of sin, and a just God.
He has shown that if sinners do not avail themselves of the offer
of pardon by Jesus Christ, they must experience in their own souls
for ever the pains which this substitute for sinners endured in
behalf of men on the cross. Thus, no principle of justice has been
abandoned; no threatening has been modified; no claim of his
law has been let down; no disposition has been evinced to do
injustice to the universe by suffering the guilty to escape. He
is in all this great transaction, a just moral governor, as just
to his law, to himself, to his Son, to the universe, when he pardons, as
he is when he sends the incorrigible sinner down to hell. A full
compensation, an equivalent, has been provided by the sufferings of
the Saviour in the sinner's stead, and the sinner may be pardoned.
And the justifier of him, etc. Greek, Even justifying him that
believeth, etc. This is the peculiarity and the wonder of the
gospel, Even while pardoning, and treating the ill-deserving
as if they were innocent, he can retain his pure and holy character.
His treating the guilty with favour does not show that he loves guilt
and pollution, for he has expressed his abhorrence of it in the atonement.
His admitting them to friendship and heaven does not show that
he approves their past conduct and character, for he showed how
much he hated even their sins by giving his Son to a shameful
death for them. When an executive pardons offenders, there is
an abandonment of the principles of justice and law. The sentence
is set aside; the threatenings of the law are departed from; and it
is done without compensation. It is declared that, in certain cases,
the law may be violated, and its penalty not be inflicted. But not
so with God. He shows no less regard to his law in pardoning than in
punishing. This is the grand, glorious, peculiar feature of
the gospel plan of salvation.
Him which believeth in Jesus. Gr., Him who is of the faith of
Jesus; in contradistinction from him who is of the works of the law;
that is, who depends on his own works for salvation.
{c} "that he might be just" Acts 13:38,39
Verse 27. Where is boasting then? Where is there ground or occasion
of boasting or pride? Since all have sinned, and since all have
failed of being able to justify themselves by obeying the law, and
since all are alike dependent on the mere mercy of God in Christ,
all ground of boasting is of course taken away. This refers
particularly to the Jews, who were much addicted to boasting of their
peculiar privileges. See Barnes "Romans 3:1", etc.
By what law? The word law here is used in the sense of
arrangement, rule, or economy. By what arrangement, or by
the operation of what rule, is boasting excluded? Stuart.
See Galatians 3:21; Acts 21:20.
Of works? The law which commands works, and on which the
Jews relied. If this were complied with, and they were thereby
justified, they would have had ground of self-confidence, or boasting,
as being justified by their own merits. But a plan which led to this,
which ended in boasting, and self-satisfaction, and pride, could not be
true.
Nay. No.
The law of faith. The rule, or arrangement which proclaims that we
have no merit; that we are lost sinners; and that we are to be justified
only by faith.
Verse 28. Therefore. As the result of the previous train of argument.
That a man. That all who are justified; that is, that there is no
other way.
Is justified by faith. Is regarded and treated as righteous, by
believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Without the deeds of the law. Without works as a meritorious ground
of justification. The apostle, of course, does not mean that Christianity
does not produce good works, or that they who are justified will
not obey the law, and be holy; but that no righteousness of their
own will be the ground of their justification. They are sinners;
and as such can have no claim to be treated as righteous. God has
devised a plan by which they may be pardoned and saved; and
that is by faith alone. This is the grand peculiarity of the Christian
religion. This was the peculiar point in the reformation from
popery. Luther often called this doctrine of justification by faith
the article on which the church stood or fell--articulus stantis,
vel earlentis ecclesiae--and it is so. If this doctrine is held
entire, all others will be held with it. If this is abandoned, all others
will fall also. It may be remarked here, however, that this doctrine by
no means interferes with the doctrine that good works are to be
performed by Christians. Paul urges this as much as any other
writer in the New Testament. His doctrine is, that they are not
to be relied on as a ground of justification; but that he did not mean
to teach that they are not to be performed by Christians is apparent
from the connexion, and from the following places in his epistles:
Romans 2:7; 2 Corinthians 9:8; Ephesians 2:10; 1 Timothy 2:10; 5:10,25; 6:18; 2 Timothy 3:17; Titus 2:7,14;
Titus 3:8; Hebrews 10:24. That we are justified by our works is a
doctrine which he has urged and repeated with great power and frequency.
See Romans 4:2,6; 9:11,32; 11:6; Galatians 2:16; 3:2,5,10; Ephesians 2:9; 2 Timothy 1:9.
{d} "that a man" Romans 3:20-22; 8:3; Galatians 2:16
Verses 29, 30. Is he the God, etc. The Jews supposed that he was the
God of their nation only, that they only were to be admitted to his
favour. In these verses Paul showed that as all had alike sinned,
Jews and Gentiles, and as the plan of salvation by faith was adapted
to sinners, without any special reference to Jews, so God could show
favours to all, and all might be admitted on the same terms to the
benefits of the plan of salvation.
Verse 30. It is one God. The same God; there is but one, and his
plan is equally fitted to Jews and Gentiles.
The circumcision. Those who are circumcised--the Jews.
The uncircumcision. Gentiles; all who were not Jews.
By faith--through faith. There is no difference in the meaning of
these expressions. Both denote that faith is the instrumental cause of
justification, or acceptance with God.
{e} "which shall justify" Galatians 3:8,28
Verse 31. Do we then make void the law. Do we render it vain and
useless; do we destroy its moral obligation; and do we prevent
obedience to it, by the doctrine of justification by faith ? This was
an objection which would naturally be made; and which has thousands of
times been since made, that the doctrine of justification by
faith tends to licentiousness. The word law here, I understand as
referring to the moral law, and not merely to the Old Testament.
This is evident from Romans 3:20,21, where the apostle shows that no
man could be justified by deeds of law, by conformity with the
moral law. See Note.
God forbid. By no means. See Barnes "Romans 3:4". This is an explicit
denial of any such tendency.
Yea, we establish the law. That is, by the doctrine of justification
by faith; by this scheme of treating men as righteous, the moral law is
confirmed, its obligation is enforced, obedience to it is secured. This
is done in the following manner:
(1.) God showed respect to it, in being unwilling to pardon sinners
without an atonement. He showed that it could not be violated with
impunity; that he was resolved to fulfil its threatenings.
(2.) Jesus Christ came to magnify it, and to make it honourable. He
showed respect to it in his life; and he died to show that God was
determined to inflict its penalty.
(3.) The plan of justification by faith leads to an observance of the
law. The sinner sees the evil of transgression. He sees the respect which
God has shown to the law. He gives his heart to God, and yields himself
to obey his law. All the sentiments that arise from the conviction of
sin; that flow from gratitude for mercies; that spring from love to God;
all his views of the sacredness of the law, prompt him to yield obedience
to it. The fact that Christ endured such sufferings to show the evil of
violating the law, is one of the strongest motives prompting to obedience.
We do not easily and readily repeat that which overwhelms our
best friends in calamity; and we are brought to hate that which
inflicted such woes on the Saviour's soul. The sentiment recorded
by Watts is as true as it is beautiful :--
'"Twas for my sins my dearest Lord
Hung on the cursed tree,
And groan'd away his dying life
For thee, my soul, for thee.
"Oh, how I hate those lusts of mine
That crucified my Lord;
Those sins that pierc'd and nail'd his flesh
Fast to'the fatal wood.
"Yes, my Redeemer, they shall die,
My heart hath so decreed,
Nor will I spare the guilty things
That made my Saviour bleed."
This is an advantage in moral influence which no cold, abstract law
ever has over the human mind. And one of the chief glories of
the plan of salvation is, that while it justifies the sinner, it brings
a new set of influences from heaven, more tender and mighty than
can be drawn from any other source, to produce obedience to the
law of God.
{f} "through faith" Hebrews 10:15,16
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP