Romans Commentary

Ver. 27. — Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works?

Nay; but by the law of faith. Where is boasting then? — That is, according to the doctrine which the Apostle, by the Spirit of God, is teaching. There is no ground for it, or for ascribing salvation in any part or degree to the works of men. This shows that salvation was appointed to come to the redeemed through faith, for the very purpose of excluding all pretenses to allege that human merit has any share in it. This applies to all works, moral as well as ceremonial. If ceremonial works only were here meant, as many contend, and if moral works have some influence in procuring salvation, or in justification, then the Apostle could not have asked this question. Boasting would not have been excluded.

Paul had declared the only way in which a man can be ‘just with God.’ He had proved that it is not by His own righteousness, which is of the law, but by that righteousness which is received by faith. This is clear from what had been advanced in the preceding verse, from which this is an inference. If, then — as if he had said — God had purposed that men should have any group of boasting, He would not have set forth Christ to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, that thereby a way might be opened for justifying sinners, so that His justice might suffer no prejudice.

But now He has taken this course; and therefore the only way of justification precludes all boasting. ‘Paul is not here,’ says Calvin, ‘disputing merely concerning ceremonies, or any external works, but comprehends all works of every kind and degree. Boasting is excluded without all doubt, since we can produce nothing of our own that merits the approbation or commendation of God.

And here he is not speaking of limitation or diminution of merit, since he does not allow the least particle of it. Thus, if boasting of works be removed by faith, so that it takes away from man all praise, while all power and glory are ascribed to God, it follows that no works whatever contribute to the attainment of righteousness.’ By what law is boasting excluded? — It is not by that of works; for if works were admitted, in the smallest degree, to advance or aid man’s justification, he might in that proportion have ground of boasting. It is, then, by the law of faith; not by a law requiring faith, or as if the Gospel was a law, a new law, or, as it has been termed, a remedial or mitigated law; but the word law is here used in allusion to the law of works, according to a figure usual in the Scriptures. By the same figure Jesus says, ‘This is the work of God, that ye believe in Him whom He hath sent.’

Here faith is called a work, for a similar reason. Faith in the righteousness of Christ is, by the appointment of God, the medium of a sinner’s justification, without any consideration of works. This way of justification clearly shows that a man has no righteousness of his own, and that he can obtain nothing by means of conformity to the law, which can have no place, since he must admit that he is a transgressor. It impels him to flee out of himself, and to lay hold of the righteousness of another, and so leaves no room for glorying or boasting in himself, or in his own performances more or less. His justification is solely by faith; and it is clear that to believe a testimony, and rely on what has been done by another, furnish no ground for boasting. ‘Therefore it is by faith, that it might be by grace.’ The whole plan of salvation proceeds on this principle, ‘that no flesh should glory in His presence,’ but ‘that, according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.’ No ingenuity can ever make elevation by human merit consistent with the passage before us.

Ver. 28. — Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Therefore we conclude. — In the 20th verse the Apostle had arrived at the conclusion, from all he had said before, that by works of law no man shall be justified in the sight of God. He had next pointed out the way of justification by faith in the atonement; and here He comes to His second grand and final conclusion, as the sum of all He had taught in the preceding part of the Epistle. Justified by faith. — Faith does not justify as an act of righteousness, but as the instrument by which we receive Christ and His righteousness. Believers are said to be justified by faith and of faith, and through faith, but never on account of faith. The declaration of James, that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only, is not in any respect opposed to the affirmation in the passage before us. The question with him is not how men may obtain righteousness for themselves in the presence of God, but how they are proved to be righteous; for he is refuting those who make a vain boast of having faith, when they have only what he calls a dead faith, — that is, faith only in profession, which he illustrates by a man’s having the appearance of compassion without the reality, and by referring to the body without the spirit or breath. f21 Without the deeds of the law, literally without works of law, for here, as in verse 31st, the article is wanting. — This does not signify, as Dr.

Macknight understands it, that ‘perfect obedience’ to law is not necessary; it signifies that no degree of obedience to law is necessary. Good works are necessary for the believer, and are the things which accompany salvation, but they are not in any respect necessary to his justification. They have nothing to do with it. This passage asserts not merely that men are justified by faith without perfect obedience to any law, but without any obedience of their own. It may likewise be remarked, that believers will not be acquitted at the last day on account of their works, but will be judged according to their works. But God does not justify any according to their works, but freely by His grace; and not by works, or according to the works of righteousness which they have done, Titus 3:5.

Ver. 29. — Is He the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles?

Yes, of the Gentiles also.

Rather, Is He the God of Jews only? Is He not also of Gentiles? The article before Jews and Gentiles, which is not in the original, makes the assertion respect Jews and Gentiles in general. In the sense of the passage, God is not the God either of the Jews or of the Gentiles in general; but He is the God of Jews and Gentiles indifferently, when they believe in His Son.

Ver. 30. — Seeing it is one God which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Seeing it is one God. — This assigns the reason why God must be the God of Gentiles as well as of Jews. If He justifies both in the same way, He must be equally the God of both. In the previous part of the discussion, Paul had shown that by works of law no flesh shall be justified, proving it first respecting Gentiles, and afterwards respecting Jews. Now he affirms that God’s method of justifying man applies equally to Jews and Gentiles.

This confirms his doctrine respecting the ruin of all men by sin, and of there being only one way of recovery by the righteousness of God received through faith. To urge this was likewise of great importance, with a view to establish the kingdom of Christ in all the earth, Romans 10:11,13. Having thus reduced the whole human race to the same level, it follows that all distinction among them must be from God, and not from themselves, — all standing on the same footing with respect to their works. There is but one God, and so but one way of becoming His people, which is by faith. By faith, and through faith. — It is difficult to see why the prepositions here are varied. Similar variations, however, occur in other places, where there appears to be no difference of meaning, as in Galatians 2:16, where justification, as applied to the same persons, is spoken of in the same sense, ‘knowing that a man is not justified by works of law, but through the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by the faith of Christ.’

Ver. 31. — Do we then make void law through faith God forbid: yea, we establish law.

From the doctrine of justification by faith alone, which the Apostle had been declaring, it might be supposed that the law of God was made void.

This consequence might be drawn from the conclusion that a man is justified by faith without any respect to his obedience to law. This the Apostle denies, and, on the contrary, asserts that by his doctrine the law is established. The article is here wanting before law, indicating that the reference is not to the legal dispensation, or to the books of Moses, as in the last clause of verse 21, but to the general law of God, whether written or unwritten. Make void law. — ’ Bring it to naught,’ as the same word in the original is rendered, 1 Corinthians 1:28; or ‘destroy,’ Corinthians 6:13, and 15:26; ‘done away,’ 2 Corinthians 3:7-14; ‘abolished,’ Ephesians 2:15; 2 Timothy 1:10. Professors Tholuck and Stuart, not perceiving how the doctrine of the Apostle establishes the authority of the law, understand law in this place as signifying the Old Testament. This entirely destroys the meaning and use of the passage.

That the Old Testament teaches the same way of justification as that taught by the Apostles, is indeed a truth, an important truth, but not the truth here asserted. Mr. Stuart says, ‘How gratuitous justification can be said to confirm or establish the moral law (as this text has been often explained), it seems difficult to make out.’ There is not here the smallest difficulty. It is quite obvious in what way gratuitous justification by Christ establishes Law. Can there be any greater respect shown to the law, than that when God determines to save men from its curse, He makes His own Son sustain its curse in their stead, and fulfill for them all its demands? When a surety pays all that is due by a debtor, the debtor receives a gratuitous discharge: but has the debt, or the law that enforces the debt, been on that account made void? Here, as well as in so many other parts of his exposition of this Epistle, we discover the unhappy effect of this commentator’s misunderstanding the meaning of the expression at its commencement, the righteousness of God. That he should feel the difficulty he states above, is not surprising, for, according to the view he gives of justification, the law of God is completely made void.

Dr. Macknight explains establishing law to be making it ‘necessary in many respects.’ ‘The Gospel,’ he says, in his view and illustration of ch. 1:16, 17, ‘teaches, that because all have sinned, and are incapable of perfect obedience, God hath appointed, for their salvation, a righteousness without law; that is, a righteousness which does not consist in perfect obedience to any law whatever, even the righteousness of faith, that being the only righteousness attainable by sinners; and at the same time declares that God will accept and reward that kind of righteousness through Christ, as if it were a perfect righteousness.’ Accordingly, in this interpretation of the 21st verse of chapter 3, he says: ‘But now, under the Gospel, a righteousness appointed by God, as the means of the justification of sinners, without perfect obedience to law of any kind, is made known.’ In this manner, mistaking, like Professors Tholuck and Stuart, although in a different way, the import of the expression, ‘the righteousness of God,’ he misunderstands the whole train of the Apostle’s reasoning, from the 17th verse of the first chapter to the end of the fifth chapter, as well as its object; in this discussion on justification, and by his explanation, altogether makes void the law. Instead of making it ‘necessary in many respects,’ Dr. Macknight, as well as Dr. Stuart and Mr. Tholuck, by representing it as satisfied with an imperfect obedience, which does not meet the demands of any law, either human or Divine, makes it void in every respect. Such is the entire consistency among themselves of the doctrines of Scripture, that whenever any one of them is misunderstood, it invariably leads to the misunderstanding of the rest.

Many commentators, with more or less clearness, refer to the doctrine of sanctification, either in whole or in part, the Apostle’s denial that he makes void the law. According to them, it is not made void for this reason, because it convinces men of sin, and does not release from personal obedience to its precepts. That the doctrine of justification, by the imputation of Christs righteousness, does not release believers from obedience to the law, is a most important truth, which Paul fully establishes in the sixth chapter of this Epistle. On the contrary, it lays them under additional obligations to obey it, by furnishing additional motives to the love of God. But since their sanctification is always in this life imperfect, were there nothing else to meet the demands of the law, it would be made void — it would remain unfulfilled, both in its precept and penalty. In addition to this, the whole of the previous discussion regards the doctrine of justification, while not a word is said respecting sanctification. And it is evident that this verse is introduced to obviate an objection which might naturally present itself, namely, if man’s obedience, in order to his justification, be set aside, the law, which requires obedience, is made void.

But Paul appeals to his doctrine, and, according to his usual manner, strongly rejects such an inference. In the preceding verses, from the 20th, he had been announcing that the righteousness of God, which is the complete fulfillment of the law, is placed to the account of him who believes for his justification, whereby God, in thus justifying the sinner solely on the ground of a perfect obedience, shows Himself to be just. Do we then, he says, make void the law? This doctrine not only maintains the authority of the law of God, but also exhibits the fulfillment of all its demands. The connecting particle shows that Paul rests his proof on what had gone before, to which he appeals, and not on the ground of sanctification, to which he had been making no reference, and which, if he had referred to it, would not have borne out his assertion. ‘Think not,’ said our blessed Lord, ‘that I am come to destroy the law and the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.’ It is to this fulfillment — to the righteousness of God, which in the context the Apostle had been illustrating, and which Jesus Christ brought in — that he here appeals. Do we make law void when we conclude that a man is justified by faith without doing the works of law, since we show that through his faith he receives a perfect righteousness, by which, in all its demands and all its sanction, it is fulfilled? No; it is in this very way we establish it. In this glorious establishment of the law of God, Paul, in another place, exults, when he counts all things but loss for the excellency of Christ, and desires to be found in Him, not having his own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. While he thus tramples on his own righteousness, by which the law never could be established, he confidently appeals to the righteousness of God, now made his by faith. This is precisely in accordance with his conclusion in the 28th verse, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of law; and afterwards, at the termination of his mortal career, in the immediate prospect of death, he triumphs in the consideration that there is laid up for him a crown of righteous — a crown, the reward of that perfect obedience by which the law is magnified and made honorable.