Bible Commentaries

D. IMPUTED GUILT OF THE FIRST SIN (Ch. 5)

We make no attempt (beyond what is said in the notes) to clear up this Doctrine, which approaches as nearly as well can be to complete mystery, and leans upon relations between the Head of an intelligent Race and that Race which are probably “knowable” by the Eternal alone. All that we do here is to clear up the statement of the Doctrine; which means not that the Omniscient Judge is to be held to think of every individual man as having done Adam’s sin, but to hold every individual man (because of the mysterious link between him and the Head of his Race) liable to penalty because Adam sinned.

Exactly thus, we are not asked to believe that the Omniscient thinks of the justified as having personally satisfied His Justice, but that He holds them (because of their connexion with the Head of the New Race) accepted because Christ obeyed.

Ch. Romans 5:1-11. The security and happiness of the state of Justification; its basis being the Divine Love

1. Therefore being justified] Here opens a leading section. The preliminaries are now over:—The need of Justification is established; and its equal terms for Jew and Greek; and the fact that Faith is its one appointed condition; and the nature and actings of faith, specially as in Abraham’s example. We now come to a fuller statement of some important details, which will lead up to a view of the effects of faith in the character and life of the justified.

being justified] An aorist. The time-reference is probably to the definite crisis of acceptance in each individual case; not to the ideal justification just expounded (Romans 4:25). Because the words “by faith” point here to our acceptance of the Lord’s work.

we have peace] The Gr. has an important and strongly supported various reading: “Let us have peace.” Without attempting to discuss the documentary evidence here, we merely state the case thus:—There is, on the whole, a greater weight of MSS. and ancient Versions in favour of “let us have.” But on the other hand there is a greater weight of internal evidence for “we have.” In other words, “we have” exactly fits info the context; “let us have” is foreign to it. The whole context is one not of exhortation, but of dogmatic assertion:—“we have access;” “we rejoice;” “the love of God has been poured out into our hearts;” “we shall be saved;” “we are reconciled;” “we have received the reconciliation.”—How then can we account for the “Let us have”? Probably, by early failures to grasp the complex but consistent argument of the whole long context, and the inevitable tendency due to such misapprehension to substitute aspiration or exhortation for (what the text speaks of) a present possession.—It is an obviously right principle, though calling for most cautious application, that no amount of MS. evidence ought ever to force on us a reading which mars the context.—A single stroke in the Gr. MSS. makes the only visible difference between the readings.

peace with God] Lit. towards God. That is, “in view of Him, as regards Him, we possess the security and calm of acceptance.” Practically the phrase thus = “He has admitted us to peace;” “He is at peace with us.” The whole previous argument shews that His reconciliation to us, not ours to Him, is the main point; in other words, the justice of forgiveness on God’s part, not the yielding of the will on man’s part, which latter, though an all-important thing, is not directly in view now.—Much has been said against the phrase “God’s reconciliation to us,” as if it made Him out to be a hostile Power. But the justice of the words is seen when we (like St Paul here) look on Him as on the Judge. As Creator and Father, He loves the sinner; as Judge, He must condemn him—if it were not for His own gift of a Propitiation. And the judge who sentences a criminal is, however personally kind, judicially hostile. And again, the judge who for a good cause removes the sentence is then judicially reconciled to the accused, though he may personally need no reconciliation of feeling.—Scripture plainly reveals that the God of Love proclaims “no peace” to the impenitent. Therefore when He “speaks peace” there is a change, not in His benevolence but in His judicial attitude: in other words, reconciliation.—For instructive parallels where the word “peace” occurs see Isaiah 53:5; Luke 2:14; Luke 19:38; Hebrews 13:20; 2 Peter 3:14.

through our Lord Jesus Christ] The sacred Propitiation, provided and accepted by the loving and righteous Father; once offered, and continuously (“we have”) availing.

2. by whom] Lit. through whom; the same construction as that just before.

also] i.e. “we owe to Him our entrance to grace, as well as our standing in it.”

we have access] Lit. we have had; “we have found.” The time-reference is to a past reception resulting in present possession.—“Access:”—lit. the introduction; “our introduction.” Same word as Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12 (though the reference there is not precisely that here), and 1 Peter 3:18 (where E. V. has “bring us to God”). The idea is of the acceptance of the acquitted. Both ideas, acquittal by a Judge and acceptance by a reconciled Father, reside in Justification.

by faith] Our side of the matter. The Lord’s “introduction” of us to His Father’s acceptance takes effect individually when we individually believe.

this grace] i.e. “acceptance” (Ephesians 1:6) and resulting “peace.” The word recalls the fact that acceptance, as previously proved (see ch. 4), is “according to grace,” not debt.

wherein we stand] The word “stand” is in contrast to the “fall” of the rejected and condemned. See Romans 11:20; also Psalm 1:5; Psalm 130:3; Revelation 6:17; and 1 Corinthians 15:1, where the context gives the idea of acceptance and safety, as here. That of perseverance (as in Acts 26:22, E. V. “continue”) may also be present; but the context shews that acceptance is at least the main point.

rejoice] A word elsewhere rendered “glory” (as just below, Romans 5:3), or “boast.” See on Romans 4:2. The reasoning here rises, from the foundation-truth of lawful justification, to the holy elevations of consequent joy and energy in the justified.

in hope] Lit. on hope. Perhaps here (as in Romans 4:18, q. v.) the “hope” is objective; “the hope set before us” (Hebrews 6:18), i.e. the promise and pledges of glory. On this our joy is based.

the glory of God] For commentary, see Romans 8:18; Romans 8:21; Romans 8:30.—The eternal bliss of the justified is called “the glory of God” because it is a state of joy, love, majesty, and holiness, bestowed by God; in the presence of God; and being in its essence the Vision of God, and likeness to Him. Cp. John 17:24; 2 Corinthians 4:17; Php 3:21; Colossians 1:27; 2 Timothy 2:10; 1 Peter 4:13; Revelation 21:11; Revelation 21:23.—This ver. is a brief anticipation of ch. 8.

3. but we glory] For the present, St Paul puts the eternal future out of view again, in order that present grace may be better explained.—“We glory:”—same word as “rejoice” in Romans 5:2. Wonderful is the force of this repetition, in connexion with tribulation!

tribulations] Lit. the tribulations; “our troubles.” See Romans 8:35-39 for a noble example of such rejoicing. See too Matthew 5:11; Acts 5:41; Hebrews 10:34; 1 Peter 1:6-9; and esp. James 1:2-4.

patience] The patience of perseverance. See on Romans 2:7. “Tribulation” teaches the believer the possibility, and blessedness, of “patient continuance in well-doing.”

4. experience] The Gr. properly means “a proof, a test.” So usually in N. T.: e.g. 2 Corinthians 8:2 (where E. V. “trial”), Romans 13:3 (where E. V. “proof”); Php 2:22 (“proof”). The word here cannot refer to the testing of the believer by his Master, for the next clause shews it is something in his own consciousness, producing hope there. It is rather his own testing of himself; his discovery of what he can bear and do, through grace; promoting courage for future efforts, and steady hopes of final victory.

hope] Of future grace and (perhaps mainly here) of the glory to follow. Each “test” of the power given enhances the confidence that He who gives it will continue it till the course of “patience” ends in the eternal welcome.

5. hope] Lit. the hope; not any hope, but the hope thus produced.

maketh not ashamed] Same word as Romans 9:33; 2 Corinthians 7:14; 2 Corinthians 9:4; nearly the same as Php 1:20; 2 Timothy 1:12. In all these passages the idea of disappointment is in the verb. So here: “the shame of disappointment never follows this hope.”

because] The connexion of thought is illustrated by e.g. Ephesians 1:13-14. See too Romans 8:11; Romans 8:16-17. Our certainty that the hope will end in fruition is deepened, if not begun, by the fact that the Holy Spirit is already given to us, and so given as to assure us of the love of God.

the love of God] i.e. His love to us. So Romans 5:8; Romans 8:35; Romans 8:39. The following context decides against the meaning “our love to Him.”

is shed abroad] Lit. has been poured out, as rain from a cloud. The tense indicates the lasting result of that past act by which the Holy Spirit first revealed the Divine Love to the soul.

by the Holy Ghost which is given] Better, which was given; a past bestowal, whether viewed ideally as to the Church, or actually as to each justified person. The Divine personal Spirit is here seen working as in Romans 8:15-16; and in such work He is recognized as the “earnest” of heaven, where the Love of God will be fully realized for ever.

6. For when, &c.] From this ver. to Romans 5:11 St Paul expands the words “the love of God.” He explains this love, as “poured out” by the Spirit, to be specially redeeming and justifying love.

without strength] Impotent to deliver ourselves from sin and judgment. The words are in contrast to the might of the Deliverer.

in due time] That of the Eternal Purpose; “the fulness of the time;” Galatians 4:4. See Mark 1:15.

Christ] In the Gr. this word has a slight emphasis, pointing to the wonder of such a Deliverer’s appearance.

died] Also emphatic by position. His death is both the supreme proof of Divine love and the supreme requirement of the Divine Law.

the ungodly] Better, us the ungodly. Same word as Romans 4:5, q. v. Here probably this intense word is used of all sinners as such; in view of the contrasted holiness of the Substitute, and also to suggest that the “impotence” of Romans 5:6 is not merely negative, but is the refusal (due to moral evil) truly to love the true God. See on Romans 8:7.

“For” = for the sake of. The special bearing of the Gr. preposition here used depends on the context. In itself it does not necessarily indicate “substitution in the place of,” “vicariousness.” But the illustration in Romans 5:7 at once suggests that idea; and the preposition neither compels nor excludes it.

7. For, &c.] The connexion is somewhat thus: “He died for the godless: a proof of unequalled love; for hardly will you find any one die for a just, a good, man; you may find such a case, but it will be rare.”—No marked distinction is meant between “just” and “good.” Justice and goodness are equally contrasted with godlessness and sinfulness here. As regards the wording of the verse, it is lit. For hardly for a just man will one die; for for the good man, perhaps, one actually dares to die. The first “for” in the second clause may be explained by a paraphrase: “Death for even a just person is hardly known. I say, hardly known; not quite unknown; for cases of death for one who is good do occur.” The whole point of the verse is that such acts of even such love among men are very rare and very limited indeed. (The translation “for a just cause,” “for that which is good,” is precluded, as Meyer points out, by the personal words in contrast; “the godless,” “sinners.”)