Bible Commentaries
Romans 3

Introduction

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

1 The Jew’s prerogative:

3 which they have lost:

9 howbeit the law convinceth them also of sin:

20 therefore no flesh is justified by the law,

28 but all, without difference, by faith only:

31 and yet the law is not abolished.

Verse 1

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

What advantage then hath the Jew? &c. — The apostle frequently uses the interrogatory style, either to give strength to his own conclusions, or to bring forward what he knew would be the objections of others. To the doctrine which he had laid down, that the religious privileges of the Jews did not ensure their future salvation, he introduces the natural objection of those who reasoned like them on these subjects: What advantage then, what superiority in matters of religion and religious hope, hath the Jew? or what profit, benefit, is there in circumcision, by which the Jews are initiated into covenant with God, and become his peculiar people? This advantage he allows to be great in every respect, since the religious privileges with which they were thereby invested were so many instituted means of obtaining grace and salvation; but he sums them all up in their having had the oracles of God committed to them; both as this was the crowning privilege, and to intimate that their religious privileges did not, OF THEMSELVES, place them in a state of salvation, but that they all, like the word of God itself, were addressed to their understanding, and were designed to be the means of religious instruction and direction, which they were to follow out to its practical application. Such was the nature of circumcision itself, and of their sacrifices, festivals, and typical ceremonies.

Verse 2

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

Committed the oracles of God, &c. — By the oracles of God, τα λογια του Θεου , St. Paul means the Holy Scriptures, according to the usual division, the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. The heathens used to call the pretended responses of their deities λογια ; which is the word the apostle here uses, as it is frequently used by the LXX., for those immediate communications from God which are contained in the Jewish Scriptures. It is evident, therefore, that these writings were received by St. Paul and the Jews as of Divine inspiration. They regarded them not as words of men, but oracles of God. The Jews are said to have been intrusted with them, because Judaism was, in fact, a conservative dispensation, by which the light of truth might be kept from extinction during all those ages in which the nations of the earth were running mad with error and idolatry of every kind. These blessed records of the Divine oracles were therefore committed to one people to preserve and partially to diffuse, until the fulness of time, when all nations should, through the Gospel, be put into the possession of them. That advantage, in the meantime, belonged to the Jews, who, by means of these oracles, had the knowledge of God, the promises of Messiah, the doctrine of a future life, and were instructed in the way of salvation.

Verse 3

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

For what if some did not believe? &c. — Commentators have here greatly perplexed the apostle’s course of observation, for want of holding this and the following verses close to the context. The apostle had stated, in answer to the objection, that, although the sinning Jews should perish notwithstanding their advantages, yet the advantages were great, and chiefly as to their possessing the oracles of God. Now he goes on to state that, though some did not believe these oracles, had not that genuine faith in their warnings and threatenings, nor, indeed, in their spiritual promises, which is necessary to put men in possession of the saving and renewing influence of the word of Divine truth; yet their unbelief did not affect the faithfulness of God, This use of the term faith is quite in the manner of St. Paul, who, speaking of the ancient Jews, says that “the Gospel,” the good news, “preached to them, did not profit them, not being mixed with FAITH in them that heard it,” Hebrews 4:2; and they therefore perished. It is their practical unbelief, and their want of practical faith, here as well as there, of which he speaks. But he then asks, by way of rendering the negative more emphatic, Shall their unbelief make the faith, the faithfulness, of God without effect? shall it abolish or destroy God’s faithfulness to his own oracles, who promises life only to the penitent, the believing, and the holy, and threatens sure vengeance against persevering and obstinate sinners of any class? That the execution of the threatenings of the oracles of God is here referred to, as the object of the Divine faithfulness of which the text speaks, is manifest from what follows; for of the next verse no consistent sense can be made, if the faithfulness of God be confined to the promises alone, and those especially which relate to the seed of Abraham, which is the view usually taken.

Verse 4

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

God forbid, &c. — This negation contains a strong implied assertion of the contrary. Whatever becomes of the opinions and theories of men, this is a first principle, that THE TRUTH OF GOD must be acknowledged, and that both in his threatenings as well as promises, which was the point the Jews denied. As to the Gentiles, indeed, God’s threatenings against sin might be interpreted strictly; but not as to the Jews, the seed of Abraham, the friend of God. Hence the force of the quotation from Psalms 51:4, where David acknowledges the justice of God with regard to the punishment denounced against him and his posterity by the Prophet Nathan, in consequence of his adultery and murder: “That thou mightest be justified in thy sentence, and be clearly right in every judicial act.” David was indeed a man in special relation to God; yet his sins were visited with severity; and when he confesses those offences in this penitential psalm, and reviews the sentence which his Judge had pronounced against him and his house, he justifies it, and acknowledges that in that, as well as in every other case, such was the essential righteousness of God, that he must be justified in his sayings, or sentences; and should any question them, that he would, by the strong demonstration of the equity of all his proceedings, overcome when judged. It was to these views, and this humble temper of David, that St. Paul wished to bring the Jews, that they might “acknowledge their sin,” and ascribe righteousness to God who had placed them under condemnation as sinners. The apostle and the LXX. translate the Hebrew word which we render “mayest be clear,” by νικησης , “mayest overcome,” which is the same in sense; for he who is cleared when accused overcomes his accuser, and carries his cause.

Verses 5-6

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

But if our unrighteousness, &c. — Still in order to attain clear views of these passages, which have been by most commentators so greatly obscured, the scope of the discourse must be strictly kept in mind. These words are not, as many suppose, a new objection; but are to be joined with the preceding verse, the argument of which, indeed, they continue. This is indicated by their not being introduced by the particle γαρ , which marks the other transitions. The apostle having quoted the preceding passage from Psalm li, continues his own observations, but not in the person of the objecting Jews: But if it be so, that the judgments of God are so righteous as not to be called in question, and our unrighteousness thus commends, proves, and demonstrates, συνιστησι , the righteousness, or justice of God, what shall we say? meaning, what can we say? We ought to be silent and, like David, in the passage quoted, confess the unquestionable rectitude of the decision. We must either acknowledge that, or else we must blasphemously deny it, and affirm that God is unrighteous. Is God then unrighteous who taketh vengeance on the wicked Jews? I speak as a man: I put the case hypothetically in the language of wicked men, prone to throw the blame from themselves, and to challenge the justice of God; but this no Jew can affirm. He cannot say that God is unrighteous in taking vengeance on sinners; because he acknowledges that the Gentiles at least will be condemned; and if wicked Jews were to be screened, though guilty of the same crimes, how then shall God judge the world, the whole world of Jews and Gentiles? that is, how shall he do this righteously and according to his own character of truth, if he show so gross a partiality and respect of persons?

Verses 7-8

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

For if the truth of God, &c. — This is a new and distinct objection. If the Jews could no longer urge against, the arguments of the apostle, that the mere possession of superior privileges would exempt them from the punishment due to their offences, still their zeal to make the true God known, and to promote his glory and worship, might plead for them. The fact could not be denied: whatever might have been the conduct of the earlier Jews, who were given much to idolatry, those who after the captivity were spread through the Greek and Latin cities maintained generally the worship of God, and were zealous to make proselytes from the heathen. This was reckoned an act of great merit; and though they were not solicitous to make the proselytes better men, yet if they brought them to acknowledge and worship the true God, this was their boast. They were indeed so urgent in this respect, that it is referred to by Horace, as proverbial. Our Lord, when he speaks of the Pharisees “compassing sea and land,” that is, using all sorts of means, “to make one proselyte,” intimates that they were not very scrupulous as to the arts they employed; and here the truth of God is said to have abounded expressly through their lie, ψευσμα , deceit of any kind. This truth of God is truth respecting God, which was proposed to the belief of the Gentile proselytes; and the abounding of this truth cannot easily be referred to any thing but to the gathering of proselytes from their heathen neighbours.

That they often, at least, thus promoted the glory of God by deceit and falsehood, they did not affect to deny; but seem to have grounded upon it an argument against St. Paul’s severe doctrine, — the doctrine he had preached previously in many places, and therefore well knew how his countrymen wrestled with it, — that the sins of Jews as well as of others placed them in a state of damnation. How, said they, can that be, since we all acknowledge that, though we often make proselytes by means not perfectly justifiable, yet it is a most meritorious act, and causes the truth of God to abound to his glory? Such sins, therefore, they said, will not be punished; and this would be set up as a refutation of the apostle’s doctrine. If the truth of God is made known, if Gentiles are brought to worship and glorify him, why yet am I judged, condemned by you, as a sinner? To this the apostle subjoins two answers. The first is drawn from a slander thrown by these very Jews and others upon the apostles as Christians, that they did evil that good might come; but if they condemned this in Christians, though the charge was false, how then could they justify it in themselves? The second answer is apostolic and authoritative, but founded upon the whole tenor of both the Jewish and Christian revelations, — that the final condemnation of persons who acted upon this detestable maxim would be JUST, since it is the first duty of every individual to avoid all sin, and the pretence of promoting some good thereby would sanction the greatest crimes.

The sense of this passage is plain, the construction not so obvious. Bloomfield includes οτι within the parenthesis, and observes, “The sense then will be, And why, (και being adjective for καιτοι ,) at this rate, may not we, as we are slanderously reported to do, and some say we maintain, do evil that good may come!’

Verse 9

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

What then? are we better than they? — What, then, shall we conclude that we Jews are better than the Gentiles? No, in no wise, certainly not; and thus the apostle comes back to the great point from which he set out, — for we have before proved, both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin, all guilty of sin. The word αιτιασθι signifies not merely to prove, but to prove forensically, and therefore to convict, to bring in, as it were, that verdict of guilty which leaves the criminal to the sentence of the law. Here, therefore, it may be well to mark the steps of the argument. The point to be proved was, the necessity and excellence of the Gospel, as the power of God unto salvation, or as having a Divine efficiency to save, and this especially, as adapted to the case of the guilty against whom the wrath of God was revealed from heaven, having this grand peculiarity, that it revealed to the faith of men a method of pardoning and saving even the guilty, consistent with the righteous administration of a just and holy God; for thence, he observes, is the righteousness of God by faith revealed by faith, establishing the principle, that the just shall live by faith. But it was necessary to convince men that they needed such a provision of infinite wisdom and mercy, or to press it upon their attention and acceptance would be in vain. He shows, therefore,

1. That all ungodliness and unrighteousness exposed men to the wrath of God, Romans 1:18. Then,

2. That the Gentiles were notoriously guilty of this ungodliness and unrighteousness; which he illustrates by an awful but just enumeration of their mental and sensual vices, and thus shows that not only were they worthy of death, God’s penalty against sin, but that they knew that this was God’s sentence, by the light which remained among them.

3. He charges the Jews with the same sins, both of the heart and life, — a fact which is confirmed by their history and their own writers, as the fact of the immoralities of the Gentiles is confirmed by their history and their own writers. But in this the Jews differed from the Gentiles. The latter, it appears from Romans 1:32, knew the judgment, or righteous appointment, of God, that they that commit such things are worthy of death; but the Jew, without denying this to be the judgment of God, nay, asserting it as to the Gentiles, thought, imagined, wrapped himself up in the delusion, conceit, that he, being a Jew, should “escape the judgment of God;” though he did the same things. Therefore,

4. The apostle applies himself to dissipate this delusion, and with wonderful earnestness repeats and refutes every objection they were in the habit of making to the doctrine of their liability to future punishment for their sins or anticipating such delusive reasonings as he knew their course of thinking on these subjects would suggest. This refutation of their favourite and fatal error, and which alone was sufficient to prevent them from receiving the Gospel, I have shown runs on from Romans 2:3, to Romans 3:8, where it terminates. I am, indeed, aware of the difficulty of tracing the connection of this part of the discourse, where the subject is greatly varied in its aspect, and the transitions are abrupt. But, by considering that the subject of this whole section of the epistle is the refutation of the error just mentioned, a much more consistent and uniform sense of the different parts is brought out; whereas, it is quite difficult to conceive the connection of the usual interpretations with the general arguments. For instance, if we interpret verse 3 of this chapter, with many whom Macknight has followed in substance, “If some did not believe in Christ, the promised seed, shall their unbelief make the faithfulness of God, in his promises to be a God to Abraham’s seed, without effect?” how can this be made to harmonize in any conceivable manner with that part of the apostle’s reply taken from David’s psalm of penitent confession, “That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged,” or brought into judgment? Again, as to verse 5, if it be put into the mouth of a Jew, which is generally done by interpreters, as a reason why he should not be punished, in what sense could such a Jew, pleading for his impunity, argue that his unrighteousness did, or at least was allowed to, commend the righteousness of God, which manifestly means his punitive justice? This is clearly contradictory. No Jew could reason in this manner, nor the apostle put such an argument into his mouth. Hence some, who have perceived the incongruity, have given to the righteousness of God the forced sense of mercy. The same may be said of the usual interpretations of verse 7. They want either consistency or connection with the scope of the discourse.

Verses 10-19

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

As it is written, There is none righteous, &c. — As the apostle himself asserts that he resumes the subject from which he had diverged in order to rouse the Jew’s from their false security, and now comes back to the great point that both Jews and Gentiles were equally guilty of sin, and obnoxious to “the wrath of God, revealed from heaven against it,” it is clear that the scriptures he quotes were designed to establish this fundamental doctrine. The question is, how they do so? To which it may be replied that, if the passages are to be understood as confined to the Jewish nation, they would only prove that at different periods the evil characters mentioned were to be found in it; and as vicious persons of the same kind have been found in all ages and in all places, or those dispositions among men which, if not checked by external circumstances, break out into open wickedness, — it might be infallibly argued from this, that we cannot account for the majority of mankind being wicked, without admitting such a taint of human nature as must necessarily lead all to actual sin, not renewed by the grace of God. But though this would establish a firmer foundation for what follows, the apostle must be understood as speaking more directly. — The passages are quoted from different Psalms, and the last of them from the Prophet Isaiah; but it is clear that they were understood by St. Paul as not only moral descriptions of the Jews of a particular age, or of a particular class, but of these persons as men, wicked and unrenewed, and so equally descriptive of men in general, either as to the tendencies of their nature, or their actual overt acts. The first quotation contained in verses 10-12, is from Psalms 14:1-7, where it is expressly said to be a description of “the children of men;” that is, of all men in their unrenewed state, until, indeed, they become the children of God.

It is, in fact, the solemn decision of God upon an inspection of a fallen race. “The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside,” &c. The 13th verse unites quotations from Psalms 5:9, and Psalms 140:3; in neither of which places are any particular persons spoken of, but wicked men are spoken of generally, as “the foolish,” “the evil man,” “the wicked,” “the violent,” &c. The quotation in verse 14 is taken from Psalms 10:7, and there too it refers to “the wicked” generally; and to wicked, proud, and oppressive men, not confined to one age or place, and to those vices, the roots and seeds of which are in the nature of all. The remainder is taken from Isaiah 59:7-8, where it seems upon the face of the passage, that from complaining of the wickedness of his people, the prophet is carried out to expatiate upon the wickedness of human nature, or of men in general; at least so he was evidently understood by the apostle, who was, independent of his inspiration, better judge of the Hebrew Scriptures than some who have attempted to correct his reasoning on this particular.

In some good MSS., says Bloomfield, all these passages are found together in Psalms 14:1-7. This would strengthen the argument, since that Psalm, as we have seen, expressly, not by implication, describes the moral condition of “the children of men;” but whether found together or scattered, this is clear, that St. Paul intended us to consider these passages just like that of our Lord when he speaks of the evils which proceed out of the heart of man. Certainly Christ intended to show what the evils are of which every man is not only capable, but actually guilty; although an overt act of every kind might not take place in each individual. So here. Some of these evils are chargeable upon every one; and there is none of which, under certain circumstances, man’s lapsed nature does not render him capable: St. Paul presents a list of moral offences, some of the mind and heart, others more conspicuous in act; of some of which he tells us, on the authority of the Scriptures, every man is guilty; and so he establishes the conclusion which follows. This conclusion is thus solemnly introduced, Now we know that whatsoever the law says — using the term law in its general sense for the whole Scriptures, through which, in fact, the moral law of the Jews was diffused, it saith, it speaks, to them who are under the law, for their information and instruction. The apostle neither says nor means that it speaks OF or CONCERNING them that are under the law, as though the passages quoted related to the Jews only, which would fall short of the apostle’s design; but the meaning is, that the law in these general declarations as to the sinfulness of all men, taught the Jews, to whom this epistle was specially addressed, and through them teaches all, this great and humbling doctrine, but one most necessary to be known, in order that men may be prepared to receive the Gospel — THAT THE WHOLE WORLD, comprising both Jews and Gentiles, IS GUILTY BEFORE GOD; and this it does in order that every mouth may be stopped, as being consciously guilty, and having no answer or excuse to offer, but might humbly acknowledge that guilt which could neither be denied nor palliated, and from the punishment of which there was but one way of escape. To stop the mouth is to silence or take away all power of defence; and to be guilty, υποδικος , is to be liable to legal punishment; and these quotations from their own Scriptures, in which Jews as well as Gentiles are included, seeing that they speak of men universally in their fallen state, tended strongly to produce the effect for which St. Paul adduces them, — to silence entirely any delusive attempt to which the Jews resorted to palliate or excuse their sins, as though they were not reckoned to them as such, and to awaken them to a due sense of their great danger, as equally with the Gentiles exposed to the wrath of God. In the earnestness of St. Paul to produce this conviction, we must not only regard him as a theologian, endeavouring to clear the way for an important argument, but as a minister pitying the blind delusions of his people, and resorting to various modes of conviction to touch their consciences and to arouse them to a just consideration of their state.

Verse 20

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

Therefore by the deeds of the law, &c. — If, taking διοτι in the sense of because, we connect these words with the preceding, they serve to heighten the view there given of the miserable condition of Jews and Gentiles, by showing that the law against which they have sinned can make no provision for their impunity, and that this its inexorable character cuts them off, therefore, from all hope. This, indeed, in any way that the connection of the words with the scope of the apostle can be considered, must be the effect of the doctrine so clearly laid down; but διοτι may probably be more satisfactorily taken as a particle of transition to another, but still, in the general argument of the apostle, a closely allied subject.

For, having established the fact that all men are under condemnation, he now proceeds to speak of their possible justification. He first lays down a general and most important axiom, that none can be justified by the deeds of the law; and, therefore, if justification be attained, it must come through some other institution or appointment of God. This negative view is a most important branch of his subject, although he employs but few words to establish it. By the law he means the law of God in its manifestation, whether to Jews or Gentiles. — This, perhaps, is indicated by the absence of the article, εξ εργων νομου , by works of law; but the sense obliges us to this general interpretation; for, as Bishop Middleton observes, “it is his purpose to show that no man whatever can be justified by the works either of the Jewish law or of any other: πασα σαρξ , like ο κοσμος in the preceding verse, cannot but be understood universally; and what follows, for by the law is the knowledge of sin, is plainly a universal proposition.”

— He had shown that the Divine law, or will of God, existed among the Gentiles as well as the Jews: that both had sinned against it; and that, as to both alike, by what he calls works of law, they were excluded from justification; that is, from being declared and treated as righteous persons. For since, in the reason of the thing, the law of God declares and treats no man as righteous but him who perfectly and without intermission obeys all its commands, and both Jews and Gentiles were convicted of sin, all hope founded upon innocence was for ever gone. Hence the apostle adds, For by law is the knowledge of sin; it manifests every offence, as a straight rule shows every obliquity, or as a touchstone detects false metal, or as light makes darkness manifest; and the more perfect, therefore, our knowledge of the law is, the more fully must it exclude all hope of a meritorious justification; since the extent, the evil, and the aggravation of our offences are more perfectly set forth by its searching light, the nearer we approach it. And all hope for the future is cut off, as well as for the past, by the same rule. For, although indeed men often fancy that future obedience may avail them, yet, as soon as the true nature of LAW is apprehended, every one will be convinced that his former sins still lie in their penalty against him; that to make an act of obedience a compensation for an act of disobedience would be so irregular and imperfect a system of law, that no perfect moral government could stand upon it; that in fact, it would be legislating for imperfect and not perfect obedience, and unsettling the obligation of the latter by declaring it unnecessary, and that the universe could be well enough regulated without it. Still farther, all sin is the result of moral pravity, arising from the lapsed and fallen condition of man, so that what he calls his future obedience is itself imperfect, insufficient, and therefore sinful, either from defect or some other vitiating principle. Now that shadowy virtue in which men are apt to trust, God’s pure and perfect law, which requires truth in the inward parts, supreme love to God, and absolutely perfect obedience, detects, and exposes its true character, so that it convicts us still of sin, notwithstanding all our efforts, and, as far as moral law is concerned, leaves every sinner without hope of being justified; that is, of being treated as a righteous man, and exempted from punishment.

Some have thought that St. Paul includes here also in deeds of law, ceremonial observances, and excludes them also from the office of justifying. The whole context shows that he speaks of works of moral law, and not of any religious observances, except as they may be prescribed by moral law, such as the worship of God, and the Sabbath, which were appointed for man in innocence. As to sacrificial and propitiatory ceremonies, he does not and could not notice them distinctly. For before Christ, when acceptable to God, they were acts of faith in the promised Christ, and so supposed that very doctrine of justification by faith of which he is about to speak, but on which he has not yet entered; and when not acts of faith in a promised Redeemer, they lost their character as acts of faith, were regarded as morally meritorious, and therefore stood upon the same false ground as all other acts of imperfect moral obedience, by which men often vainly hoped to merit something at the hands of God.

Verse 21

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

But now the righteousness of God without the law. — Here the apostle, having not only proved all men sinners, but cut off all hope of justification by the law, breaks forth into a full enumeration of that glorious subject, for which he had been preparing the way, and to which he had referred in the introduction of the epistle, — the justification even of the guilty, by God, the righteous Governor of the world, and that in a manner consistent with his own most righteous and holy character. This is the subject on which he expatiates as far as verse 26 inclusive.

The whole passage requires the deepest attention. By the righteousness of God, cannot be understood, as in verse 5, the punitive justice of God; because this righteousness is said to be without law, which punitive justice never is, but essentially connected with it. Nor does it here mean the righteousness which God possesses, that is, his rectitude and holiness; for that is not manifested without the law, but has its most illustrious exhibition in it. Nor does righteousness here mean mercy, as some would have it; for in this sense the word never occurs in the New Testament. The import is the same as that of the same phrase in chap. 10:3, where the apostle, speaking of the Jews, opposes “the righteousness of God” to that “righteousness of their own,” which they were endeavouring to establish; plainly meaning by the latter, their own method of seeking justification in opposition to that which God had appointed. The righteousness of God, in this verse, then, signifies God’s method of constituting men righteous, though in fact they are criminal, and obnoxious to punishment.

This is said to be manifested without the law, or, literally, without LAW. For there is but one class of beings whom pure law can declare and treat as righteous, and these are the absolutely sinless; whereas, under the method here said to be manifested, not the SINLESS, but the SINFUL, are declared and treated as righteous persons. This procedure must therefore be WITHOUT LAW, whose sole office it is to justify the innocent and condemn the guilty. It necessarily proceeds from an entirely distinct institution and appointment. But though now manifested, that is, clearly and perfectly brought from under the veil of types, and the symbolical language of prophecy, this method of affording hope to the human race, this grand branch of the Divine administration was not a novelty, but had all along been witnessed by the law and the prophets. The law and the prophets comprehend the whole Old Testament; for from the beginning, sinful men had been taught to hope for salvation through the great Redeemer promised to our first parents, and to seek it by faith; while the grand example of Abraham’s gratuitous justification by faith in the promised Christ, of which circumcision was the standing TESTIMONY, and the types of the ceremonial law, and the promises contained in the writings of the prophets, all gave witness to the fact, that a method of justifying guilty men, quite independent of moral law, had been introduced by Divine appointment, and acted upon in God’s administration from the beginning.

Verses 22-23

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ, &c. — The righteousness of God being said to be by faith to all that believe, farther proves that the phrase means something done or appointed by God, which passes over to man, and thus confirms the exposition of it above given, the method by which men are justified, or are accepted as righteous, as revealed in the Gospel. This justification is, by faith, δια πιστεως ; δια marking the INSTRUMENTAL cause, FAITH; and the object of this faith is Christ Jesus, the meritorious or procuring cause of this grace and salvation; for there seems no reason for making a distinction between faith of Jesus Christ, and faith in Jesus Christ. In Php_3:9 , the apostle also uses the genitive, where he could mean nothing else but faith of which Christ was the object: “the righteousness which is through the faith OF Christ,” through believing in him. What follows, unto all and upon all, εις παντας και επι παντας , them that believe, has somewhat perplexed interpreters; some drawing various distinctions from the prepositions; others cancelling the latter clause, but without authority; others regarding it as a repetition of the same thought for the sake of emphasis. The meaning seems to be, that this justification by faith IS OFFERED TO, and comes ACTUALLY into the experience and enjoyment of, all them that believe. For there is no difference, no distinction between Jew or Greek, as all are capable of believing, so all may equally attain the righteousness which is by faith; and as all have sinned, they are involved in a common condemnation, are equally cut off from the hope of justification by law, and are all therefore equally the subjects of that gracious constitution, by which the forgiveness of sins is bestowed through faith in the appointed Redeemer.

And come short of the glory of God. — This has been interpreted of failing of the praise and approbation of God; and, by others, of failing of the glory and blessedness of heaven. But a more probable sense is, that by sin all men have failed to glorify God their Maker, Preserver, and Governor, to which they were bound by the most indisputable obligations, and the most powerful motives.

Verse 24

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

Being justified freely by his grace, &c. — That adorable display of Divine wisdom and love by which those who are guilty are justified, is now more fully opened.

1. They are JUSTIFIED, that is, pardoned; for this appears from the next verse, where the same act is called the remission of sins: yet not simply pardoned: for the terms to justify, and justification, when applied to a guilty person, import not the being made morally just, which is indeed a separate though concomitant act of the grace of God, but just or righteous with reference to law and the Lawgiver, that is, placed in the condition of persons who have not broken the law, both with reference to exemption from punishment, and the favour and kindness of God, the Governor and Judge.

2. They are justified FREELY, δωρεαν , κατα being understood. This is opposed to MERITORIOUSLY or DESERVEDLY; it is of FREE GIFT, not of RIGHT; and hence it is added, by his grace, not his justice, to which the appeal for justification might have been made with confidence, had we been innocent, or could we ourselves have done any thing which would have legally cancelled our transgressions. — Those who deny the doctrine of atonement argue, that to be justified freely is to be freely forgiven from God’s natural goodness and mercy, without regard “to any other consideration whatever;” and yet in this very verse another and leading consideration is brought in, — “through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.” But, beside this, it is plain from the context, that the freeness of our justification denotes the manner in which the blessing is BESTOWED not the means by which it was PROCURED. Nor do the means by which our justification was effected, in any respect, alter its nature as a gift, or in the least diminish its freedom. We are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ; but this redemption was not procured by us. It was the result of the pure love of God, who, compassionating our misery, himself provided the means of our deliverance, by sending his only begotten Son into the world, who voluntarily submitted to die upon the cross, that he might reconcile us to God. — Thus was the whole an entire act of mercy on the part of God and our Saviour, begun and completed for our benefit, but without our intervention; and therefore, in respect to us, the pardon of sin must be accounted a gift, though it comes to us through redemption.

Through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. — Redemption has sometimes been restrained to the liberation of captives, by paying a ransom, λυτρον , or redemption price; but Grotius has fully shown that it is used both by sacred and profane writers to signify not merely the liberation of captives, but deliverance from exile, death, or any other evil; and that the ransom, λυτρον , signifies every thing which satisfies another, so as to affect this deliverance. In the Gospel, that from which we are redeemed is sin, and all the evils and miseries consequent upon it: this redemption is effected by Christ, — through the redemption that is in or BY Jesus Christ: the redemption price was his LIFE. “The Son of man came to give his life a ransom, λυτρον , for many,” Matthew 20:28. In whom we have redemption, την απολυτρωσιν , through his BLOOD,” Ephesians 1:7. That deliverance of man from sin, misery, and all other penal evils following his transgression, which constitutes our redemption by Christ, is not therefore a gratuitous deliverance, granted without a consideration, as an act of God’s supposed prerogative to dispense with his own laws; but the ransom, the redemption price, was exacted and paid, one thing was given for another, “the precious blood of Christ,” for condemned, captive men.

Mr. Locke greatly trifles on this passage. He urges that redemption is sometimes used in Scripture where no price is paid as a ransom.

Figuratively and loosely it may, but never where our redemption by Christ is spoken of; and however many instances could be brought from the Old Testament of the use of the word, without reference to a ransom, they are all irrelevant to the argument; for in our redemption the λυτρον , the ransom, is repeatedly, expressly, and emphatically mentioned, and that price is said to be “the blood of Christ.” He urges too, and in this foolish objection he has been followed by many, that if redemption necessarily supposes a price paid, it must be paid to those who hold us captive, sin or Satan; forgetting that to be subject to sin and Satan, is, by God’s righteous decision, made a part of man’s punishment. The satisfaction is, therefore to be made to God, under whose law we are doomed to these and other miseries, and not to the instruments by whom the penalties of that law are carried into effect.

Verse 25

Watson - Exposition of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Mark

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation. — The word rendered propitiation in other passages of the New Testament is ιλασμος : here the adjective ιλαστηριον , is employed, probably with θυμα or ιερειον , understood; and so it means an expiatory sacrifice. In the LXX. and the Epistle to the Hebrews it is used for the mercy seat or covering of the ark; and if the allusion were to that, it would follow that, as this mercy seat was sprinkled with the blood of the appointed victims, and became the medium of gracious intercourse between God and the Israelites represented by their high priest, so our Lord may be called the propitiation, as being the person in and through whom, upon the offering of his blood, God holds gracious intercourse with penitent men. The former sense is, however, to be preferred, — whom God hath set forth to be a propitiatory sacrifice. To propitiate is to appease, to turn away the wrath of an offended person. In this case the wrath to be turned away is the wrath of God. Not that he is implacable, the unfounded objection which many bring against the doctrine of the atonement. There is not only no implacability in God, but a most tender affection toward the sinning race, which is proved by the gift of his Son. This is the most eminent proof of his love, that for our sakes “he spared not his own Son.” Thus he is the fountain and first moving cause of that scheme of recovery and salvation which the death of Christ wrought into efficiency.

The question is not, whether God is love but whether he is nothing but love; whether he is not holy and just; whether we, his creatures, are or are not under law; whether this law has any penalty; and whether God, in his rectoral character, is bound to execute and uphold that law. These points are settled by what the apostle has already said, or his argument amounts to nothing: we are under law, and under guilt, — these are his decisions: the justice of God he also declares to be punitive, and we are therefore under that “wrath of God which is revealed from heaven against ALL ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” Thus God is angry with us, and so a propitiation becomes necessary to turn away that anger from us. This propitiation is the BLOOD, the LIFE, of Christ, sacrificially offered. Socinus interpreted propitiation to mean no more than the destruction of sin; which is unsupported by a single Greek authority. The modern Socinians depart from their master, and allow that it means the pacifying of an offended party, but contend that God is pacified by repentance. So that at last they allow rectoral wrath in God, but still overlook, not merely the meaning, but the very words of the text, where not our repentance, but Christ, in his character of Redeemer, or RANSOM- PAYER, is said to be the propitiation set forth. The SETTING FORTH of this propitiation is also all important circumstance introduced.

The most satisfactory sense of προεθετο , which has been rendered both foreordained and substituted, is that of our own translation; which, in fact, includes the others: for as God himself is said to have set forth, publicly exhibited and proposed this propitiation, he himself before appointed or ordained it; the paternal mercy gave the Son, and he was the Lamb which from the beginning “God provided for a burnt-offering,” and provided as a substitute for guilty men. Through all the promises and types of the law there was a setting forth, in some degree, of this propitiation, yet not a clear revelation, nor could be until the true sacrifice was offered. Then it was fully exhibited and proposed both by the publication of the Gospel and the Divine institution of the Lord’s Supper; in which all his disciples “show forth his death” in its sacrificial nature, and as the propitiation for the sins of the world, and will continue to do so “until he come” as the righteous Judge of all. Every thing relative to the sacrifice of Christ bears the most public character, and is in accordance with its peculiar and universal exhibition. — He was offered up before the world; the doctrine of his cross forms the great subject of the evangelical ministry; it is that which is commanded to be preached, published, and proclaimed to every creature; while the institution of the Church, which is not a secret society, but “a city set on a hill,” holds up to the faith and trust of men, from age to age, that grand atonement by which alone the guilty are reconciled to God.

Through faith in his blood. — This important clause expresses the means by which the propitiation becomes available to each individual. By its virtue all mankind are placed under a gracious and merciful administration, and provision is made for their salvation independent of any efforts of their own; but, in order that actual personal reconciliation with an offended God may take place, there must be personal faith in his blood. Faith is presented to us under two leading views: the first is that of assent or persuasion, the second that of confidence or reliance. The former may exist without the latter; and, though the basis, is certainly not that faith which is made the condition and instrument of our salvation. One is mere intellectual assent; the other is a work of the heart, a motion of the soul toward God, to lay hold upon his covenant engagements, and to rest in them. The faith by which the elders “obtained a good report” was of this character: it united assent to the truth of God’s revelations with a noble confidence in his promises. “Our fathers TRUSTED in thee, and were not confounded.” So here the phrase used, faith in his blood, indicates the nature of the faith itself; for it surely cannot mean that every man who believes historically that the blood of Christ was actually shed, nor that every man who believes that his blood was the general atonement for sin will be saved; for then, indeed, heaven would be peopled with the unsanctified and unholy, since many admit these truths with the fulness of conviction, who still live in the practice of sin; but the meaning is, TRUST in his blood, the reliance of a sinner consciously sinful and penitent, one, as the apostle had said, “whose mouth is stopped,” who denies nothing, palliates nothing, but sinks in silent shame, as guilty before God; that is, he feels, confesses, that he is guilty, and relies upon the propitiation which God hath set forth. Both Jews and Gentiles TRUSTED in something however delusive, to avert from them the Divine displeasure, or to secure the favour of superior powers. These things were to be wholly renounced, and the full and exclusive trust of a contrite heart be reposed in that true and only propitiation which was manifestly set forth by God, and which demanded, by the strength of its demonstrations reliance of the most absolute kind.

END OF THE EXPOSITION.