Commentaires bibliques

Romans 3:22

Even the righteousness of God. The repetition of the subject from the preceding verse; δέ is therefore not adversative, but is properly rendered even. This righteousness, of which God is the author, and which is available before him, and which is now revealed, is more particularly described as a (δικαιοσύνη (οὐσα) διὰ πίστεως) righteousness which is of faith, i.e. by means of faith, not διὰ πίστιν, on account of faith. Faith is not the ground of our justification; it is not the righteousness which makes us righteous before God, (it is not itself the δικαιοσύνη τοῦ Θεοῦ,) nor is it even represented as the inward principle whence that righteousness proceeds. It is indeed the principle of evangelical obedience, the source of holiness in heart and life; but such obedience or holiness is not our justifying righteousness. Holiness is the consequence and not the cause of our justification, as the apostle proves at length in the subsequent parts of this epistle. This righteousness is through faith, as it is received and appropriated by faith. It is, moreover, not faith in general, not mere confidence in God, not simply a belief in the Scriptures as the word of God, much less a recognition of the truth of the spiritual and invisible, but it is faith of Christ; that is, faith of which Christ is the object. A man may believe what else he may; unless he receives and rests on Christ alone for salvation, receives him as the Son of God, who loved us and gave himself for us, he has not the faith of which the apostle here speaks as the indispensable condition of salvation. This important doctrine is not only clearly but frequently brought into view in the New Testament. What our Lord constantly demanded was not merely religious faith in general, but specifically faith in himself as the Son of God and Savior of the world. It is only faith in Christ, not faith as such, which makes a man a Christian. “If ye believe not that I am he,” saith our Lord, “ye shall die in your sins,” John 8:24. “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name,” John 1:12. “That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life,” John 3:15, John 3:16. “Whosoever believeth on him, shall not be confounded,” Romans 9:33. “How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed,” Romans 10:14. Such passages are almost innumerable. So when the object of saving faith is designated, it is said to be not truth in general, but Christ himself. See Romans 3:25 (through faith in his blood), Galatians 2:16, Galatians 2:20; Galatians 3:24; Ephesians 3:19, etc. The act, therefore, which the sinner is required to perform, in order to be made a partaker of the righteousness of God, is to believe on Christ; that is, to receive him as he is revealed in the gospel as the eternal Son of God, clothed in our nature, loving us and giving himself as a propitiation for our sins. As there is no verb in the text, of which δικαιοσύνη (righteousness) is the nominative, we must either borrow the verb πεφανέρωται from Romans 3:21, “the righteousness of God is manifested unto all;” or what better suits what follows, supply ἔρχεται, comes (or simply ἐστί, is) unto all and upon all. The καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας; (and upon all) are omitted in the MSS. A. C. 20. 31. 47. 66. 67; in the Coptic and Ethiopic versions; and by several of the Fathers. Griesbach and Lachmann leave them out of the text; most modern critical editions retain them, both on external and internal grounds. This righteousness is εἰς πάντας, extending unto all, καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας, and over all, as covering them or overflowing them. “Eine Gnadenfluth,” says Olshausen, “die an alle herandringt und sogar über alle hinüberströmt.” There is no distinction between Jew and Gentile recognized in this method of salvation. The question is not as to whether men are of this or that race, or of one or another rank in life, or in the Church visible or out of it. This righteousness is unto all who believe. Faith is all that is demanded. The reason why the same method of salvation is suited to all men is given in the following clause: For there is no difference among men as to their moral state or relation to God, or as to their need of salvation, or as to what is necessary to that end. What one man needs all require, and what is suited to one is suited to and sufficient for all. The characteristics, therefore, of the plan of salvation presented in this verse are:

1. That the righteousness of God which is revealed in the gospel is to be attained by faith, not by works, not by birth, not by any external rite, not by union with any visible Church, but simply and only by believing on Christ, receiving and resting upon him.

2. That this righteousness is suited to and sufficient for all men; not only for all classes, but for all numerically; so that no one can perish for the want of a righteousness suitable and sufficient, clearly revealed and freely offered.

return to '

Romans 3:23

For all have sinned. This is the reason why there is no difference as to the condition of men. All are sinners. The apostle uses the aorist ἣμαρτον, sinned, and not the perfect, have sinned. Rückert says this is an inaccuracy; Bengel explains it by assuming that the original act in paradise, and the sinful disposition, and also the acts of transgression flowing from it, are all denoted. Olshausen says that the reference is mainly to original sin; for where there are no peccata actualia, there is still need of redemption. Dr. Wordsworth, Canon of Westminster, gives the same explanation: “All men sinned in Adam, all fell in him.” Meyer says, “The sinning of each man is presented as an historical fact of the past.” The idea that all men now stand in the posture of sinners before God might be expressed either by saying, All have sinned (and are sinners), or all sinned. The latter is the form adopted by the apostle. And come short, ὑστεροῦνται, in the present tense. The sinning is represented as past; the present and abiding consequence of sin is the want of the glory of God. By δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ is most naturally understood the approbation of God, the δόξα which comes from God; comp. John 12:43, “They loved the praise of men rather than the praise (δόξαν) of God.” Calvin explains it as the glory quae coram Deo locum habet, glory before God, i.e., in estimation, as he explains δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ to be righteousness in his sight, what he regards as such. This is against the natural force of the genitive. Others understand δόξα in the sense of glorying, non habet, unds coram Deo glorientur, Estius; so also Luther, Tholuck, (who refers to John 5:44, δόξαν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ,) and others. This idea would be expressed by the word καύχησις Romans 3:27, or καύχημα, Romans 4:2; 1 Corinthians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 9:16 etc. Others again say that the glory of God here means that glory which God promises to the righteous, as in Romans 3:22. So Beza, who says, “δόξα est meta ad quam contendimus, id est, vita aeterna, quae in gloria Dei participatione consistit.” Rückert and Olshausen say it means the image of God; “Men are sinners, and are destitute of the image of God.” But this is not the sense of the words; “the glory of God” does not mean a glory like to that of God. The first interpretation, which is the simplest, is perfectly suited to the context. All men are sinners and under the disapprobation of God. In this respect there is no difference between them; and therefore all need a righteousness not their own, in order to their justification before God.

return to '

Romans 3:24

Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The apostle continues his exhibition of the method of salvation by using the participle “being justified,” instead of the verb “we are justified,” agreeably to a mode of construction not unusual in the Greek, though much more frequent in the Hebrew. Δικαιούμενοι therefore depends on ὑστεροῦνται, “all come short of the favor of God, being justified freely.” That is, since justification is gratuitous, the subjects of it are in themselves unworthy; they do not merit God’s favor. Justification is as to us δωρεάν, a matter of gift; on the part of God it is an act of grace; we are justified τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι, by his grace. The act, so far as we are concerned, is altogether gratuitous. We have not the slightest degree of merit to offer as the ground of our acceptance. This is the third characteristic of the method of justification which is by the righteousness of God. Though it is so entirely gratuitous as regards the sinner, yet it is in a way perfectly consistent with the justice of God. It is through “the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,” that is, of which he is the author.

The word ἀπολύτρωσις, redemption, has two senses in the New Testament.

1. It means properly ‘a deliverance effected by the payment of a ransom.’ This is its primary etymological meaning.

2. It means deliverance simply, without any reference to the mode of its accomplishment, whether by power or wisdom. Luke 21:28, “The day of redemption (i.e. of deliverance) draweth nigh;” Hebrews 9:15, and perhaps Romans 8:23; compare Isaiah 1:2, “Is my hand shortened at all, that it cannot redeem?” etc. When applied to the work of Christ, as affecting our deliverance from the punishment of sin, it is always taken in its proper sense, deliverance effected by the payment of a ransom. This is evident,

3. Because in no case where it is thus used, is anything said of the precepts, doctrines, or power of Christ, as the means by which the deliverance is effected; but uniformly his sufferings are mentioned as the ground of deliverance. Ephesians 1:7, “In whom we have redemption through his blood;” Hebrews 9:15, “By means of death, for the redemption of transgressions,” Colossians 1:14.

4. In this passage the nature of this redemption is explained by the following verse: it is not by truth, nor the exhibition of excellence, but through Christ ‘as a propitiatory sacrifice, through faith in his blood.’

5. Equivalent expressions fix the meaning of the term beyond doubt. 1 Timothy 2:6, “Who gave himself as a ransom for all;” Matthew 20:28, “The Son of man came to give his life as a ransom for many;” 1 Peter 1:18, “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ,” etc.

Accordingly Christ is presented as a Redeemer, not in the character of a teacher or witness, but of a priest, a sacrifice, a propitiation, etc. That from which we are redeemed is the wrath of God; the price of our redemption is the blood of Christ. That is in Christ Jesus. This may mean by him, ἐν having its instrumental force, as in Acts 17:31, (ἐν ἀνδρὶ ῷ,) by the man. As this use of the preposition with names of persons is infrequent, others retain its usual force, in. Compare Ephesians 1:7, “In whom (ἐν ῷ) we have redemption,” etc.; and Colossians 1:14. ‘We are justified by means (διά) of the redemption which we have in virtue of union to Christ.’

return to '

Romans 3:25

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, etc. This clause contains the ground of our deliverance from the curse of the law, and of our acceptance with God, and constitutes therefore the second step in the apostle’s exhibition of the plan of salvation. He had already taught that justification was not by works, but by faith, and entirely gratuitous; he now comes to show how it is that this exercise of mercy to the sinner can be reconciled with the justice of God and the demands of his law. The word προέθετο, hath set forth, also signifies to purpose, to determine, Romans 1:13; compare Romans 8:28. If this sense be adopted here, the meaning would be, ‘whom God hath purposed or decreed to be a propitiation.’ But the context refers to a fact rather than a purpose; and the words εἰς ἔνδειξιν (for the manifestation), as expressing the design of the manifestation of Christ, is decidedly in favor of the common interpretation. There are three interpretations of the word ἱλαστήριον (propitiation), which are worthy of attention. It was understood by many of the Fathers, and after them by Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Olshausen, and others, to mean the propitiatory, or mercy-seat, over the ark of the covenant, on which the high priest, on the great day of atonement, sprinkled the blood of the sacrifices. Here it was that God was propitiated, and manifested himself as reconciled to his people. The ground of this interpretation is, that the original word here used is employed in the Septuagint as the designation of the mercy-seat, Exodus 25:18-20; and often elsewhere. The meaning would then be, ‘that God had set forth Jesus Christ as a mercy-seat, as the place in which, or the person in whom he was propitiated, and ready to forgive and accept the sinner.’ But the objections to this interpretation are serious.

1. The use of the word by the Greek translators of the Old Testament, probably arose from a mistake of the proper meaning of the Hebrew term. The Hebrew word means properly a cover; but as the verb whence it comes means literally, to cover; and metaphorically, to atone for, to propitiate, the Greek translators incorrectly rendered the noun ἱλαστήριον, the Latin propitiatorium, and our translators, the mercy-seat, a sense which ëÇÌôÉøÆú never has. It is, therefore, in itself a wrong use of the Greek word.

2. This interpretation is not consistent with the analogy of Scripture. The sacred writers are not accustomed to compare the Savior to the cover of the ark, nor to illustrate his work by such a reference. This passage, if thus interpreted, would stand alone in this respect.

3. According to this view, there is an obvious incongruity in the figure. It is common to speak of the blood of a sacrifice, but not of the blood of the mercy-seat. Besides, Paul in this very clause speaks of “his blood.” See Deylingii Observationes, Part 2, sect. 41, and Krebs’s New Testament, illustrated from the writings of Josephus.

The second interpretation supposes that the word θῦμα (sacrifice) is to be supplied: ‘Whom he has set forth as a propitiatory sacrifice.’

1. In favor of this interpretation is the etymology of the word. It is derived from ἱλάσκομυαι, to appease, to conciliate. Hence ἱλαστήριος, as an adjective, is applied to anything designed to propitiate; as in the expressions “propitiatory monument,” “propitiatory death.” (Josephus Ant. 16. 7. 1 Lib. de Macc., sect. 17. See Krebs on this verse.)

2. The use of analogous terms in reference to the sacrificial services under the old dispensation, as σωτήριον, sacrificium pro salute, Exodus 20:24; Exodus 28:29, for which we have in Exodus 24:5, θυσία σωτηρίου; so χαριστήρια, thank-offerings, τὸ καθάρσιον the offering for purification. In keeping with all these terms is the use of ἱλαστήριον (θῦμα) in the sense of propitiatory sacrifice.

3. The whole context favors this explanation, inasmuch as the apostle immediately speaks of the blood of this sacrifice, and as his design is to show how the gratuitous justification of men can be reconciled with the justice of God. It is only a modification of this interpretation, if ἱλαστήριον be taken substantively and rendered propitiation, as is done in the Vulgate and by Beza.

The third interpretation assumes that i(lasth&rion is here used in the masculine gender, and means propitiator. This is the explanation given by Semler and Wahl; but this is contrary to the usage of the word and inconsistent with the context. The obvious meaning, therefore, of this important passage is, that God has publicly set forth the Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of the intelligent universe, as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men. It is the essential idea of such a sacrifice, that it is a satisfaction to justice. It terminates on God. Its primary design is not to produce any subjective change in the offerer, but to appease God. Such is the meaning of the word, from which we have no right to depart. Such also is the idea which it of necessity would convey to every Gentile and every Jewish reader, and therefore such was the idea which the apostle intended to express. For if we are not to understand the language of the Bible in its historical sense, that is, in the sense in which the sacred writers knew it would be understood by those to whom they wrote, it ceases to have any determinate meaning whatever, and may be explained according to the private opinion of every interpreter. But if such be the meaning of these words, then they conclusively teach that the ground of our justification is no subjective change in us, but the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ. Olshausen, who elsewhere plainly teaches the doctrine of subjective justification, in his comment on this verse, admits the common Church doctrine. He denies that the work of Christ terminates on the sinner. “Every sacrifice,” he says, “proposed to expiate the guilt of man, and to appease the wrath of God, consequently the sacrifice of all sacrifices, in which alone all others have any truth, must accomplish that which they only symbolized.” The doctrine of the Scotists, he adds, of gratuita acceptatio, refutes itself, because God can never take a thing for what it is not, and therefore cannot accept as a satisfaction what is no satisfaction. Grotius’s view of an acceptilatio, which amounts to the same thing with the doctrine of Scotus, and resolves the atonement into a mere governmental display, (a popular theory reproduced as a novelty in the American Churches,) he also rejects. He says, “So there remains nothing but the acute theory of Anselm, properly understood, of a satisfactio vicaria, which completely agrees with the teachings of Scripture, and meets the demands of science.”‹10› According to Olshausen, therefore, (“die tiefste Erörterungen,”) the profoundest disclosures of modern science have at last led back to the simple old doctrine of a real vicarious satisfaction to the justice of God, as the ground of the sinner’s justification.

Through faith. These words, διὰ πίστεως, may be connected with δικαιούμενοι as coordinate with διὰ απολυτρώσεως: ‘Being justified through the redemption, that is, being justified through faith.’ But this breaks the connection between προέθετο and εἰς ἔνδειξιν. Meyer connects both διὰ πίστεως and ἐν τῷ αἳματι with προέθετο: ‘God hath, by means of faith, by his blood, set forth Christ as a propitiation.’ But the faith of man is not the means by which God set forth Christ. The most natural connection is with i(lasth&rion, ‘a propitiation through faith,’ i.e. which is received or appropriated through faith. It is a more doubtful question how the words in his blood are to be connected. The most obvious construction is that adopted in our version, as well as in the Vulgate, and by Luther, Calvin, Olshausen, and many others, ‘Through faith in his blood;’ so that the blood of Christ, as a propitiatory sacrifice, is the ground of the confidence expressed in πίστις, “in Christi sanguine repositam habemus fiduciam.” Calvin. To this it is objected, that the construction of πίστις; with ἐν is altogether unauthorized. But there are so many cases in the New Testament in which this construction must be admitted, unless violence be resorted to, that this objection cannot be allowed much weight. See Galatians 3:26; Ephesians 1:15; Colossians 1:4; 1 Timothy 3:13; 2 Timothy 3:15. Others connect both διὰ πίστεως; and ἐν τῷ αἳματι as distinctly qualifying clauses with i(lasth&rion; the former, as De Wette says, expressing the means of the subjective appropriation, the other the means of the objective exhibition. That is, ‘God has set forth Christ as a propitiation, which is available through faith, and he is a propitiation by his blood. Still another method is to connect ἐν τῷ αἳματι with ὃν: ‘Whom God has set forth in his blood as a propitiation.’ The construction first mentioned, and sanctioned by the translators of the English Bible, gives a perfectly good sense, and is most agreeable to the collocation of the words. The blood of Christ is an expression used in obvious reference to the sacrificial character of his death. It was not his death as a witness or as an example, but as a sacrifice, that expiates sin. And by his blood, is not to be understood simply his death, but his whole work for our redemption, especially all his expiatory sufferings from the beginning to the end of his life.

This whole passage, which Olshausen happily calls the “Acropolis of the Christian faith,” is of special importance. It teaches that we are justified in a manner which is entirely of grace, without any merit of our own; through, or by means of faith, and on the ground of the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It is evident from this statement, that Paul intended to exclude from all participation in the meritorious ground of our acceptance with God, not only those works performed in obedience to the law, and with a legal spirit, but those which flow from faith and a renewed heart. The part assigned to faith in the work of our reconciliation to God is that of an instrument; it apprehends or appropriates the meritorious ground of our acceptance, the work or righteousness of Christ. It is not itself that ground, nor the means of attaining an inherent righteousness acceptable to God. This is obvious,

1. Because our justification would not then be gratuitous, or without works. Paul would then teach the very reverse of the doctrine which he has been laboring to establish, viz., that it is not on account of works of righteousness, i.e. works of the highest order of excellence, that we are accepted, since these works would then be the real ground of our acceptance.

2. Because we are said to be justified by faith, of which Christ is the object, by faith in his blood, by faith in him as a sacrifice. These expressions cannot possibly mean, that faith in Christ is, or produces, a state of mind which is acceptable to God.

Faith in a sacrifice is, by the very force of the terms, reliance on a sacrifice. It would be to contradict the sentiment of the whole ancient and Jewish world, to make the design of a sacrifice the production of a state of mind acceptable to the Being worshipped, which moral state was to be the ground of acceptance. There is no more pointed way of denying that we are justified on account of the state of our own hearts, or the character of our own acts, than by saying that we are justified by a propitiatory sacrifice. This latter declaration places of necessity the ground of acceptance out of ourselves; it is something done for us, not something experienced, or produced in us, or performed by us. There is no rule of interpretation more obvious and more important than that which requires us to understand the language of a writer in the sense in which he knew he would be understood by the persons to whom he wrote. To explain, therefore, the language of the apostle in reference to the sacrifice of Christ, and the mode of our acceptance with God, otherwise, than in accordance with the universally prevalent opinions on the nature of sacrifices, is to substitute our philosophy of religion for the inspired teachings of the sacred writers.

To declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. Having stated the nature and ground of the gospel method of justification, Paul comes, in this clause, to state its object: ‘God has set forth Christ, as a propitiatory sacrifice, to declare his righteousness.’ It should be remembered that the object of the death of Christ, being very comprehensive, is variously presented in the word of God. In other words, the death of Christ answers a great number of infinitely important ends in the government of God. It displays “his manifold wisdom,” Ephesians 3:10, Ephesians 3:11; it was designed “to purify unto himself a people zealous of good works,” Titus 2:14; to break down the distinction between the Jews and Gentiles, Ephesians 2:15; to effect the reconciliation of both Jews and Gentiles unto God, Ephesians 2:16; “to deliver us from this present evil world,” Galatians 1:4; to secure the forgiveness of sins, Ephesians 1:7; to vindicate his ways to men, in so long passing by or remitting their sins, Romans 3:25; to reconcile the exercise of mercy with the requirements of justice, Romans 3:26, etc. These ends are not inconsistent, but perfectly harmonious. The end here specially mentioned is, to declare his righteousness. These words here, as elsewhere, are variously explained.

1. They are understood of some one of the moral attributes of God, as his veracity, by Locke; or his mercy, by Grotius, Koppe, and many of the moderns. Both of these interpretations are forced, because they assign very unusual meanings to the word righteousness, and meanings little suited to the context.

2. Most commentators, who render the phrase ‘righteousness, or justification of God,’ in Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, God’s method of justification, adopt that sense here. The meaning would then be, that ‘God had set forth Christ as a propitiation, to exhibit his method of justification, both in reference to the sins committed under the old dispensation, and those committed under the new.’ But this is inconsistent with the meaning of δικαιοσύνη, which never has the sense of “method of justification,” and is unsuited to the context.

3. The great majority of commentators understand the δικαιοσύνη Qeou~ here spoken of to be the justice of God. This is the proper meaning of the terms, and this the context demands. Justice is the attribute with which the remission, or passing by, of sins without punishment, seemed to be in conflict, and which therefore required vindication.

It was necessary that the justice of God should be publicly exhibited, because he forgave sin. Besides, the apostle himself explains what he means by δικαιοσύνη when he adds that God set forth Christ as a propitiation, in order that he might be just, and yet justify the ungodly. The satisfaction of justice therefore was the immediate and specific end of the death of Christ. This was indeed a means to a higher end. Justice was satisfied, in order that men might be sanctified and saved; and men are sanctified and saved, in order that might be known, in the ages to come, the exceeding riches of the grace of God.

For the remission of sins, διὰ τήν πάρεσιν κ. τ. λ. This admits of different explanations.

1. Some give διὰ with the accusative the same force as with the genitive; through the forgiveness of sins. That is, the righteousness of God was manifested by means of remitting sins. This is contrary to the proper meaning of the words, and supposes that dikaiosu_nh means goodness. Beza, however, adopts this view, and renders the words, per remissionem; so also Reiche, Koppe, and others.

2. It is taken to mean, as to, as it regards. This gives a good sense, ‘To declare his righteousness, as to, or as it regards the remission of sins.’ So Raphelius (Observationes, etc., p. 241,) who quotes Polybius, Lib. 5, ch. 24, p. 517, in support of this interpretation. This view is given by Professor Stuart. But the preposition in question very rarely if ever has this force. No such meaning is assigned to it by Wahl, Bretschneider, or Winer.

3. The common force of the preposition is retained, on account of. This clause would then assign the ground or reason of the exhibition of the righteousness of God. It became necessary that there should be this exhibition, because God had overlooked or pardoned sin from the beginning. This is the most natural and satisfactory interpretation of the passage. So the Vulgate, propter remissionem, and almost all the moderns.

4. Others again make the preposition express the final cause or object, ‘To declare his righteousness for the sake of the remission of sins,’ i.e., that sins might be remitted.

So Calvin, who says, “Tantundem valet praepositio causalis, acsi dixisset, remissionis ergo, vel in hunc finem ut peccata deleret. Atque haec definitio vel exegesis rursus confirmat quod jam aliquoties monui, non justificari homines, quia re ipsa tales sint, sed imputatione.” But this is a very questionable force of the preposition: See Winer’s Gram., §49, c. The third interpretation, therefore, just mentioned, is to be preferred. The word pa&resij, remission, more strictly means pretermission, a passing by, or overlooking. Paul repeatedly uses the proper term for remission (ἄφεσις) as in Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 9:22 etc.; but the word here used occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Many, therefore, consider the selection of this particular term as designed to express the idea, that sins committed before the advent of Christ might more properly be said to be overlooked, than actually pardoned, until the sacrifice of the Redeemer had been completed; see Wolf’s Curae. Reference is made to Acts 17:30, where God is said to have overlooked the times of ignorance. But as the word used by the apostle is actually used to express the idea of remission, in Greek writers (see Elsner) the majority of commentators adopt that meaning here. The words pa&resij and ἄφεσις express the same thing, but under different aspects. They differ only as not punishing, and pardoning. To say that God did not punish sins under the old dispensation, is only a different way of saying that he pardoned them. So “not to impute iniquity,” is the negative statement of justification. This passage, however, is one of the few which the Romanists quote in support of their doctrine that there was no real pardon, justification, or salvation, before the advent of Christ. The ancient believers at death, according to their doctrine, did not pass into heaven, but into the limbus patrum, where they continued in a semi-conscious state until Christ’s descensus ad inferos for their deliverance. The modern transcendental theologians of Germany, who approach Romanism in so many other points, agree with the Papists also here. Thus Olshausen says, “Under the Old Testament there was no real, but only a symbolical forgiveness of sins.” Our Lord, however, speaks of Abraham as in heaven; and the Psalm are filled with petitions and thanksgiving for God’s pardoning mercy.

The words, that are past, seem distinctly to refer to the times before the advent of Christ. This is plain from their opposition to the expression, at this time, in the next verse, and from a comparison with the parallel passage in Hebrews 9:16, “He is the Mediator for the redemption of sins that were under the first testament.” The words ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ, rendered through the forbearance of God, admit of different explanations.

1. They may be connected with the words just mentioned, and the meaning be, ‘Sins that are past, or, which were committed during the forbearance of God;’ see Acts 17:30, where the times before the advent are described in much the same manner.

2. Or they may be taken, as by our translators, as giving the cause of the remission of these sins, ‘They were remitted, or overlooked through the divine forbearance or mercy.’

Forgiveness however is always referred to grace, not to forbearance. The former interpretation is also better suited to the context. The meaning of the whole verse therefore is, ‘God has set forth Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice, to vindicate his righteousness or justice, on account of the remission of the sins committed under the former dispensation;’ and not under the former dispensation only, but also in the remission of sins at the present time, as the apostle immediately adds. The interpretation of the latter part of this verse, given above, according to which τὰ προγεγονότα ἁμαρτήματα, (the sins before committed,) mean the sins committed before the coming of Christ, is that which both the context and the analogy of Scripture demand. In the early Church, however, there were some who held that there is no forgiveness for post-baptismal sins — a doctrine recently reproduced in England by the Rever. Dr. Pusey. The advocates of this doctrine make this passage teach that Christ was set forth as a propitiation for the forgiveness of sins committed before baptism, that is, before conversion or the professed adoption of the gospel. Rückert and Reiche, among the recent German writers, give the same interpretation. This would alter the whole character of the gospel. There could be no salvation for any human being; for all men sin hourly, after as well as before baptism or conversion. No man at any moment of his life is perfectly conformed to the law of God. Conscience always pronounces sentence against us. There could be no peace in believing, no imputation or possession of righteousness. We should not now be under grace, but under law, as completely as though Christ had never died.

return to '

Romans 3:26

To declare, I say, his righteousness, etc. This clause is a resumption of what was said before, πρὸς ἔνδειξιν being coordinate with the foregoing εἰς ἔνδειξιν, both depending upon προέθετο: ‘He set him forth εἰς and — πρός.’ The two prepositions have the same sense, as both express the design or object for which anything is done: ‘Christ was set forth as a sacrifice for the manifestation of the righteousness of God, on account of the remission of the sins of old — for the manifestation of his righteousness at this time.’ There were two purposes to be answered; the vindication of the character of God in passing by former sins, and in passing them by now. The words ἐν τῷ νῦν καιρῷ, (at this time,) therefore stand opposed to ἐν τῇ ἀνοχῇ, (during the forbearance.) The death of Christ vindicated the justice of God in forgiving sin in all ages of the world, as those sins were by the righteous God as Olshausen says, “punished in Christ.”

That he might be just, etc., εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον, in order that, as expressing the design, and not merely the result of the exhibition of Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice. This clause therefore expresses more definitely what is meant by εἰς ἔνδειξιν δικαιοσύνηv. Christ was set forth as a sacrifice for the manifestation of the righteousness or justice of God, that is, that he might be just, although the justifier of the ungodly. The word just expresses the idea of uprightness generally, of being or doing what the nature of the case demands. But when spoken of the conduct of a judge, and in reference to his treatment of sin, it must mean more specifically that modification of general rectitude, which requires that sin should be treated according to its true nature, that the demands of law or justice should not be disregarded. A judge is unjust when he allows a criminal to be pronounced righteous, and treated accordingly. On the other hand he acts justly when he pronounces the offender guilty, and secures the infliction of the penalty which the law denounces. What the apostle means to say is, that there is no such disregard to the claims of justice in the justification of the sinner who believes in Christ. This is seen and acknowledged, when it is known that he is justified neither on account of his own acts or character, nor by a mere sovereign dispensing with the demands of the law, but on the ground of a complete satisfaction rendered by his substitute, i.e. on the ground of the obedience and death of Christ. The gratuitous nature of this justification is not at all affected by its proceeding on the ground of this perfect satisfaction. It is, to the sinner, still the most undeserved of all favors, to which he not only has not the shadow of a personal claim, but the very reverse of which he has most richly merited. It is thus that justice and mercy are harmoniously united in the sinner’s justification. Justice is no less justice, although mercy has her perfect work; and mercy is no less mercy, although justice is completely satisfied.

‘Just and the justifier,’ etc. In the simple language of the Old Testament, propositions and statements are frequently connected by the copulative conjunction whose logical relation would be more definitely expressed by various particles in other languages; as Malachi 2:14, “Against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, and she was thy companion,” i.e. although she was thy companion. “They spake in my name, and (although) I sent them not;” see Gesenius’s Lexicon. In like manner the corresponding particle in the Greek Testament is used with scarcely less latitude. Matthew 12:5, “The priests profane the Sabbath, and (and yet) are blameless;” Romans 1:13, “I purposed to come unto you, and (but) was let hitherto;” Hebrews 3:9, “Proved me and (although they) saw my works;” see Wahl’s Lex. and Winer’s Gram., §53. So in the present instance it may be rendered, “That God might be just, and yet, or although the justifier,” etc. Him which believeth in Jesus, literally, ‘Him who is of the faith of Jesus;’ so Galatians 3:7, “They which are of faith,” for believers; Galatians 2:12, “They of the circumcision,” i.e. the circumcised; see Romans 2:8; Romans 4:12, etc. Faith of Jesus, faith of which Jesus is the object; see Romans 3:22. Our version therefore expresses the sense accurately. He whom God is just in justifying, is the man who relies on Jesus as a propitiatory sacrifice. That justification is a forensic act, is of necessity implied in this passage. If to justify was to make subjectively just or righteous, what necessity was there for the sacrifice of Christ? Why should he die, in order that it might be just in God to render men holy? It were an act of mercy to make the vilest malefactor good; but to justify such a malefactor would be to trample justice under foot. The doctrine therefore of subjective justification perverts the whole gospel. It is worthy of remark, that the orthodox interpretation of the meaning of this whole paragraph is acknowledged to be correct, even by those who cannot themselves receive the doctrine which it teaches. Thus Köllner, one of the latest and most candid of the German commentators, says: “It is clear that the true sense of this passage entirely agrees with the doctrine of the Church concerning, vicarious satisfaction, as unfolded in the Lutheran symbols. Nevertheless, although it is certain that Paul intended to teach the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, not merely as a figure, (or in the way of accommodation,) but as a matter of full personal conviction; yet it is easy to see how he was necessarily led to adopt this view, from the current opinions of the age in which he lived.” He proceeds to show that as the idea of vicarious punishment was incorporated in the Jewish theology, the guilt of the offender being laid upon the head of the victim offered in sacrifice, Paul was unavoidably led to conceive of the work of Christ under this form. As, however, this theory according to Köllner, arose out of a false view of the nature of God, and of his relation to the world, he cannot regard it as a divine revelation. He proceeds to unfold what he supposes to be the eternal truth contained under these Jewish ideas, (unter der Hülle der Zeitvorstellungen,) and presents very much the governmental view of the atonement introduced by Grotius, and reproduced in this country by the younger Edwards and his followers. “Did Paul,” says Köllner, “merely teach that God made a symbolical exhibition of justice in the sufferings of Christ, we might acquiesce in his teaching, but he says more; he constantly asserts that men are justified or constituted righteous through the blood of Christ, Romans 3:21; Romans 5:19; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14.” Such writers are at least free from the guilt of perverting the word of God. They allow the Bible to mean what it says, although they refuse to submit to its teaching. This is better than not only refusing to submit, but forcing the Scriptures to teach our own foregone conclusions. In Germany, the subjection of the Bible to philosophy has come to an end. In this country, it is still struggling for liberty. It is desirable that the separation should here, as there, be made complete, between those who bow to the authority of the word of God, and those who acknowledge some higher rule of faith. Then both parties can agree as to what the Bible really teaches.

return to '

Romans 3:27

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. In this and the following verses the apostle presents the tendency and results of the glorious plan of salvation, which he had just unfolded. It excludes boasting, Romans 3:27. It presents God in his true character, as the God and Father of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews, Romans 3:29, Romans 3:30; and it establishes the law, Romans 3:31. The word καύχησις (boasting), is used to express the idea of self-gratulation with or without sufficient reason. In the former case, it is properly rendered rejoicing, as when Paul speaks of the Thessalonians being his “crown of rejoicing.” In the latter, the word boasting is the correct version. The word properly means the act of boasting or rejoicing; at times, by metonymy, the ground or reason of boasting, as in Romans 15:17. Either sense suits this passage. The article ης καύχησις, the boasting, may have its appropriate force. The reference, however, is not specially to Romans 3:1 of this chapter, the boasting of the Jews over the Gentiles, but the boasting of the sinner before God. The latter, however, includes the former. A plan of salvation which strips every man of merit, and places all sinners on the same level before God, of course cuts off all assumption of superiority of one class over another. Paul means to say that the result of the gospel plan of salvation is to prevent all self-approbation, self-gratulation, and exaltation on the part of the sinner. He is presented as despoiled of all merit, and as deserving the displeasure of God. He can attribute, in no degree, his deliverance from this displeasure to himself, and he cannot exalt himself either in the presence of God, or in comparison with his fellow-sinners. As sin is odious in the sight of God, it is essential, in any scheme of mercy, that the sinner should be made to feel this, and that nothing done by or for him should in any measure diminish his sense of personal ill-desert on account of his transgressions. This result obviously could not follow from any plan of justification that placed the ground of the sinner’s acceptance in himself, or his peculiar advantages of birth or ecclesiastical connection; but it is effectually secured by that plan of justification which not only places the ground of his acceptance entirely out of himself, but which also requires, as the very condition of that acceptance, an act involving a penitent acknowledgment of personal ill-desert, and exclusive dependence on the merit of another. In this connection, the phrases “by what law,” “the law of works,” and “the law of faith,” are peculiar, as the word νόμος (law) is not used in its ordinary sense. The general idea, however, of a rule of action is retained. “By what rule? By that which requires works? Nay; by that which requires faith:” By the “law of faith,” therefore, is obviously meant the gospel. Compare Romans 9:31.

return to '

Romans 3:28

Therefore we conclude, etc. The common text has οὖν, therefore, giving this verse the character of a conclusion from the preceding argument. The great majority, however, of the best manuscripts, the Vulgate and Coptic versions, and many of the Fathers, have γάρ, which almost all the modern editors adopt. This verse, then, is a confirmation of what is said before: “Boasting is excluded, λογιζόμθα γάρ, for we think, i.e., are sure,” etc. See Romans 2:3; Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 11:5, for a similar use of the word λογίζομαι. That a man is justified by faith. If by faith, it is not of works; and if not of works, there can be no room for boasting, for boasting is the assertion of personal merit. From the nature of the case, if justification is by faith, it must be by faith alone. Luther’s version, therefore, allein durch den glauben, is fully justified by the context. The Romanists, indeed, made a great outcry against that version as a gross perversion of Scripture, although Catholic translators before the time of Luther had given the same translation. So in the Nuremberg Bible, 1483, “Nur durch den glauben.” And the Italian Bibles of Geneva, 1476, and of Venice, 1538, per sola fede. The Fathers also often use the expression, “man is justified by faith alone;” so that Erasmus, De Ratione Concionandi, Lib. 3., says, “Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur.” See Koppe and Tholuck on this verse.

Without works of the law. To be justified without works, is to be justified without anything in ourselves to merit justification. The works of the law must be the works of the moral law, because the proposition is general, embracing Gentiles as well as Jews. And as our Savior teaches that the sum of the moral law is that we should love God with all the heart, mind, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves, and as no higher form of excellence than supreme love to God is possible or conceivable, in excluding works of the law, the apostle excludes everything subjective. He places the ground of justification out of ourselves. Olshausen, on this verse, reverts to his Romish idea of subjective justification, and explains works of the law to mean works produced by the moral law, which he says spring only from ourselves, and are perishable, whereas “the works of faith are imperishable as the principle whence they spring.” That is, we are not justified by works performed from a principle of natural conscience, but by those which are the fruits of a renewed nature. How utterly subversive this is of the gospel, has already been remarked. The works of the law are not works which the law produces, but works which the law demands, and the law demands all that the Spirit of God effects, even in the just made perfect. And therefore spiritual as well as legal works are excluded. The contrast is not between works produced by the law and works produced by faith, but between works and faith, between what is done by us (whether in a state of nature or a state of grace) and what Christ has done for us.

return to '

Romans 3:29, Romans 3:30

Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also; seeing it is one God who shall justify, etc. We have here the second result of the gospel method of justification; it presents God as equally the God of the Gentiles and of the Jews. He is such, because ‘it is one God who justifies the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.’ He deals with both classes on precisely the same principles; he pursues, with regard to both, the same plan, and offers salvation to both on exactly the same terms. There is, therefore, in this doctrine, the foundation laid for a universal religion, which may be preached to every creature under heaven; which need not, as was the case with the Jewish system, be confined to any one sect or nation. This is the only doctrine which suits the character of God, and his relation to all his intelligent creatures upon earth God is a universal, and not a national God; and this is a method of salvation universally applicable. These sublime truths are so familiar to our minds that they have, in a measure, lost their power; but as to the Jew, enthralled all his life in his narrow national and religious prejudices, they must have expanded his whole soul with unwonted emotions of wonder, gratitude, and joy. We Gentiles may now look up to heaven, and confidently say, “Thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and though Israel acknowledge us not.”

Paul here, as in Romans 3:20, uses the future δικαιώσει, will justify, not for the present, nor in reference to the final judgment, but as expressing a permanent purpose. There is no distinction as to the meaning to be sought between ἐκ πίστεως (by faith) and διὰ πίστεως (through faith,) as Paul uses both forms indiscriminately; ἐκ, for example, in Romans 1:17; Romans 3:20; Romans 4:16, etc., and διὰ in Romans 3:22, Romans 3:25; Galatians 2:16; and sometimes first the one, and then the other, in the same connection. There is no greater difference between the Greek prepositions, as here used, than between the English by and through.

return to '