Romans Commentary

THIS chapter beautifully connects with all that precedes it. In the first chapter the Apostle had announced that ‘the righteousness of God’ was revealed in the Gospel, which is on that account the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. He had shown at great length that this way of salvation was necessary for man, proving by an appeal to fact, and then to Scripture, that both Jews and Gentiles were guilty before God, and that, consequently, no one could be justified by his own obedience. He had afterwards reverted to this righteousness which God had provided in His Son. In this fourth chapter he strikingly illustrates these truths, by first obviating the objection that might be offered by the Jews respecting their great progenitor Abraham, whose character they held in such veneration. This would lead them to suppose that he must be an exception to the Apostle’s doctrine, by furnishing an example of one justified by works. Having refuted this objection in the particular case of Abraham, and confirmed the truth of what he had advanced by the testimony of David, Paul makes use of the history of Abraham himself to prove what he had previously asserted, and to show that in the matter of justification before God there was no exception, and no difference between Jews and Gentiles.

The chapter consists of four parts. In the first, the Apostle, by referring, as has just been observed, to the history of Abraham and the authority of David, illustrates his doctrine of justification by faith. Nothing could be so well calculated to convince both Jewish and Gentile believers, especially the former, how vain is the expectation of those who look for justification by their own works. Abraham was a patriarch eminently holy, the head of the nation of Israel, the friend of God, the father of all who believe, in whose seed all the nations of the world were to be blessed. David was a man according to God’s own heart, the progenitor of the Messiah, His great personal type, and a chosen and anointed king of Israel. If, then, Abraham had not been justified by his works, but by the righteousness of God imputed to him through faith, and David, speaking by the Spirit of God, had declared that the only way in which a man can receive justification is by his sin being covered by the imputation of that righteousness, who could suppose that it was to be obtained by any other means? By these two references, the Apostle likewise shows that the way of justification was the same from the beginning, both under the old and the new dispensation. This he had before intimated, in saying that both the law and the Prophets bore witness to the righteousness of God, which is now manifested, and which is upon all them that believe.

In the other three parts of this chapter, Paul shows, first, that circumcision, to which the Jews ascribed so much efficacy, contributed nothing to Abraham’s justification, and that the righteousness imputed to him was bestowed before his circumcision, with the express intention of proving that righteousness should be imputed to all who believe though they be not circumcised. In the next place, he proves that the promise of the inheritance made to Abraham was not through obedience to law, but through that righteousness which is received by faith; and that the whole plan of justification was arranged in this manner, in order that the blessing conveyed through faith by the free favor of God might be made sure to all the seed of Abraham, — that is, to ‘the children of the promise,’ Romans 9:8, whether Jews or Gentiles. And, lastly Paul describes Abraham’s faith, and states the benefit resulting from its exhibition to believers, for whose sake chiefly his faith was recorded. It is particularly to be noticed that not a word is said respecting Abraham’s sanctification, although his whole history, after leaving his own country, furnishes so remarkable an example of a holy walk and conversation. All that is brought into view is his faith. It is thus shown that neither moral nor ceremonial, neither evangelical nor legal works, are of any account whatever in the act of justification, or contribute in any degree to procure that blessing. The whole of this chapter is particularly calculated to make a deep impression on the Jews; and no doubt the day is approaching, and probably near at hand, when they will read it with much interest, and derive from it signal benefit.

Ver. 1 — What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

In the third chapter the Apostle had replied to the objections which might be offered to what he had before advanced respecting the Jews. First, it might be inquired if, as appeared from his doctrine, the Jew could not be saved by their distinguished privileges connected with the law, or by observing the rite of circumcision, what advantage did they possess over others, and what profit had they from circumcision? Second, on the supposition of their being transgressors, it was asked, if their sin was the means of condemning the righteousness of God, was it not unjust to punish them as sinners? Lastly, if all that had been said was true, what were they better than others? After obviating all these objections, and proving from the character of the Jews, and of all other men as delineated in the Scriptures, the impossibility of their justification by the works of law, Paul had exhibited the only way in which sinners could be justified before God, and had shown that it was effected in such a way that all boasting on the part of man is excluded. Another objection might now naturally present itself to the Jews in connection with the case of Abraham, who had received the ordinance of circumcision from God Himself, and whose eminent piety they held in such veneration. It might be asked what, according to the Apostle’s doctrine, could be said regarding him: what had he found, or obtained? Did not he obtain justification in these ways? Such is the objection which the Apostle introduces in this and the following verse, and answers fully in both its parts. Abraham our father. — In the course of this chapter Abraham is again and again denominated, in a spiritual sense, the father of all believers; but in this place, in which the argument from his circumcision and holy character refers chiefly to the Jews, to whom much of what is said in the preceding chapter relates, it appears that he is here spoken of as the natural progenitor of the Jewish nation. The expression our is therefore to be considered as referring to the Jews, with whom, as being a Jew, the Apostle here classes himself, and not to believers generally, whether Jews or Gentiles, as in other verses of this chapter. That it is thus to be understood does not appear, however, from the expression pertaining to the, flesh, since it is not joined with that of father in the original. The order there is, ‘Abraham our father hath found as pertaining to the flesh.’ As pertaining to the flesh. — That is, by circumcision, of which the Apostle had spoken, ch. 2; or by any work or privilege, Philippians 3:4.

The expression, to the flesh, should rather be translated by the flesh, as the word here translated as pertaining to, is rendered, ch. 2:7, and in many other passages. Circumcision especially was the token of the covenant which contained all the promises that God had made to Abraham, saying, ‘My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.’ Could it be supposed that this rite, so solemnly enjoined and collected with such privileges, and his other good works, had no procuring influence in Abraham’s justification? Such is the objection which it is supposed in this first verse would occur to the Jews, and is therefore stated by the Apostle, which he fully answers in the sequel.

Ver. 2. — For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

The term ‘works’ is here explanatory of the word flesh in the first verse, signifying any works, whether moral or ceremonial. If Abraham were justified on account of his works, as the Jews believed, it must be admitted that he had something to boast of, contrary to what the Apostle had just before declared, that all boasting on such grounds is excluded, whose doctrine, consequently, must be set aside. Than this, no objection that could be offered would appear to the Jews more forcible; it was therefore important to advert to it. Being, however, entirely groundless, the Apostle at once repels it, and replies to the question previously proposed, respecting circumcision, or any work or privilege, in that prompt and brief manner of which we see an example at the end of the 8th verse of the former chapter. He answers, But not before God. Abraham had no ground of boasting before God, not having been justified either by the observance of the rite of circumcision, or by any other work of obedience which he had performed; and this Paul fully proves in the sequel.

Ver. 3. — For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was covered unto him for righteousness.

Having denied in the foregoing verse that Abraham was justified, or had any ground of boasting, either on account of his circumcision or his obedience, Paul next supports his denial by an appeal to Scripture, which was calculated to carry stronger conviction to the Jews than all things else he could have alleged. His proof is drawn from the historical records of the Old Testament, and thus he sets his seal to its complete verbal inspiration, quoting what is there recorded as the decision of God; yet some who profess to receive the Bible as the word of God, deny that portion of it to be inspired! His meaning, then, by the question, What saith the Scripture? is, that God Himself, by His own word, has decided this matter; for the fact is there declared that Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. This quotation is taken from Genesis 15:6, where the promise to Abraham is recorded that his seed should be innumerable as the stars of heaven, being the renewal of the promise, Genesis 12:2, when he was called out of his own country. It thus comprehended the truth announced to him at different times, that all the nations of the world should be blessed in his seed, that is, in the Messiah, Galatians 3:16.

That promise referred to the one made to our first parents after the fall, in which was included the hope of redemption to be accomplished by the Deliverer of mankind, who was to spring from him, as God declared to Abraham. The above passage, then, according to Paul, proves that the righteousness of God is received by faith, and is an example of the testimony that is rendered to it by the law. It refutes the opinion of those who, misunderstanding the manner in which the Apostle James expresses himself, affirm that a man is first justified only by faith, but afterwards by works which flow from faith. And it was counted to him for righteousness, rather, unto righteousness. — It is not instead of righteousness, as this translation for righteousness has led many to suppose. By faith a man becomes truly righteous. Faith is the recipient of that righteousness by which we are justified. Unto righteousness is the literal rendering, as the same word in the original is so often translated in this discussion, as where it is said, ch. 1:16, the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation; and ch. 3:22, even the righteousness of God which is unto all; and so in innumerable other places, but especially in a passage precisely parallel to the one before us, ch. 10:10, ‘For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness.’ This is the signification of the phrase in the verse before us, which ought to have been translated in the same way. The expression ‘unto righteousness’ is elliptical, and signifies unto the receiving of righteousness. In the different French translations, the meaning of the original is properly expressed à justice;’ that is, to, or unto righteousness; and in the same way in the Vulgate, ‘ad justitiam,’ to righteousness; and in this meaning is fixed down definitely by the verses immediately succeeding, where the Apostle introduces a passage from the Psalm in illustration of the manner in which Abraham and his spiritual seed are justified.

That faith is not itself the justifying righteousness, is demonstrably evident from the phraseology of many passages that speak of faith and righteousness in the same place. ‘Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe.’ Here righteousness is supposed to be one thing, and faith to be another. Can language more expressly show that righteousness and faith are two different things, for two different purposes, though always found united in the same persons, and both equally necessary? Righteousness is what we want in order to justification; faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, as testified in the Gospel, is the means through which we receive this righteousness.

Believing, then, is not the righteousness, but it is the means through which we become righteous. In like manner, in Romans 10:10, above quoted, the Apostle says, ‘For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness.’

Here it is necessarily implied that faith is not righteousness, but that it in the means through which we receive righteousness. Nothing, then, can be a greater corruption of the truth than to represent faith itself as accepted instead of righteousness, or to be the righteousness that saves the sinner.

Faith is not righteousness. Righteousness is the fulfilling of the law.

This verse, connected with the following, proves, like the 28th verse of the foregoing chapter, that faith is opposed to works, and not considered as a work in the matter of justification. Yet many speak of the excellence of Abraham’s faith in such a way as to represent the patriarch to be saved by faith as a work — as the most excellent of all works. Mr. Tholuck advances many observations on this subject that are altogether unscriptural, discovering most erroneous views of the Gospel. He quotes various passages from Philo, which he calls ‘beautiful,’ in which Philo extols faith as ‘the queen of virtues,’ ‘the price of every blessing;’ and adds, ‘and well is it said that faith was counted to him (Abraham) for righteousness.’ Here Philo exhibits faith as the righteousness by which Abraham was justified — the price of that blessing. Mr. Tholuck says, ‘ Dikaiosu>nh (righteousness) denotes here subjective holiness. God looked upon Abraham’s childlike submission as if it were real holiness, and attached value to it alone.’ A greater perversion of Scripture, or a sentiment more directly opposed to the meaning of the passage and to all the Apostle is proving in the context, and has been laboring to prove throughout the whole of his previous discussion from the 16th verse of the first chapter, as well as subversive of the grand doctrine of justification, cannot be imagined. If Abraham was justified by faith as a ‘price, ’ or ‘as righteousness,’ — an expression which Mr. Tholuck employs again and again, — then he was justified by faith as a work, ‘as if it were real holiness,’ and God is thus represented as attaching a value to faith which does not belong to it! In opposition to such unscriptural and fallacious statements, which at once make void the law and the Gospel, we are here taught that Abraham was not justified by faith, either as a price, or as a virtue, or as if it were really righteousness, but as the appointed medium of receiving righteousness, even the righteousness of God. This fundamental error of Mr. Tholuck and Mr. Stuart, and long ago of Socinus, that faith, although it is really not righteousness, is reckoned by God as righteousness, is most dishonorable to the character of God, and derogatory to His holy law. That law, which is a transcript of His own unchangeable nature, can acknowledge nothing as its fulfillment but perfect conformity to all its requirements. Nor did the Gospel come to pour dishonor upon it by modifying its demands, or to substitute another law for it, making faith meritorious. And besides, the nature of faith will not admit of this, for it excludes boasting. It implies a fleeing out of one’s self, and our own performances, — it consists in looking to another as the bestower of eternal salvation.

Dr. Macknight has a long note on this verse, which is also directly opposed to the Apostle’s doctrine of justification. ‘In judging Abraham,’ he says, ‘God will place on the one side of the account his duties, and on the other his performances . And on the side of his performances he will place his faith, and by mere favor will value it as equal to a complete performance of his duties, and reward him as if he were a righteous person.

But neither here, nor in Galatians 3:6, is it said that Christ’s righteousness was counted to Abraham. In both passages the expression is, Abraham believed God, and it, viz., his believing God, was counted to him for righteousness. — Further, as it is nowhere said in Scripture that Christ’s righteousness was imputed to Abraham, so neither is it said anywhere that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers.’ These statements, affirming that God, in judging Abraham, will place on the one side of the account his duties, and on the other his performances, and by mere favor will value faith as equal to a complete performance of his duties, argue most deplorable ignorance of the whole plan of salvation. The assertion, that it is nowhere said in Scripture that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers, is directly contrary to fact. It is contradicted by the whole strain of Scripture relating to the subject, and expressly by the Apostle Peter, in his address to them that have obtained like precious faith with us, in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, <610101> Peter 1:1. (This is the literal rendering.) And also by the Prophet Jeremiah 23:6, by whom Jesus Christ is called the Lord our righteousness. But by such groundless assertions does Dr. Macknight misrepresent the character of God, and labors to banish from the Bible the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, without which, consistently with the perfections of God and the demands of the law, there could be no salvation. He misunderstands, too, the meaning of the expression, for righteousness.

Ver. 4. — Now to him that worketh in the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Some understand this as implying working perfectly — doing all that a man is bound to do. But this is contrary to the meaning: it applies to work of any kind, and excludes all working of every kind or degree. No reward can be said to be of grace that is given for work of any description. Abraham did not obtain righteousness by faith as a good disposition, or by counting that disposition above its value. Had Abraham been justified by faith as an act or disposition worthy of approbation, or by anything whatsoever that he had done, he would have been justified by works, and might have boasted.

Ver. 5. — But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

But to him that worketh not. — This is entirely misunderstood by Dr.

Macknight and Mr. Stuart, as if it meant, according to Dr. Macknight, ‘one who does not work all that he is bound to do;’ or according to Mr. Stuart, ‘the sinner who has not exhibited perfect obedience.’ It means, however, what it literally expresses, namely, that the person who is justified does not work at all for his justification. It is not that he does not perform all the works that he ought, but that for justification he does nothing. It is true that he works, but not for justification. Mr. Tholuck, who likewise misunderstands in this place the whole of the Apostle’s argument, seems to think that the case of Abraham is only an analogy, and not an example of justification by faith. But Abraham’s faith respected the Messiah, whose day he saw afar off, and by His righteousness he was justified. Justifieth the ungodly. — If the expression, ‘to him that worketh not,’ needed any explanation, this term — the ungodly — would place its meaning beyond all doubt. The term ungodly is applied throughout the Scriptures to wicked men, Romans 5:6; 1 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 4:18; 2 Peter 2:5, 3:7; Jude 4, 15. Men are ungodly in themselves, though, as soon as they are justified, they cease to be ungodly. They are ungodly till they believe; but in the moment that they receive the gift of faith, they are thereby united to the Savior, and are instantly invested with the robe of righteousness, and also partake, according to the measure of their faith, of all those other graces that are received out of His fullness.

They then pass from death to life, — a transition in which there is no medium; they are turned from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God; for till then, being without Christ, they are the children of the devil. They cannot at the same time be both dead and alive — under the power of God, and under the power of the devil; they must in every instant of their existence be either under the one or the other. In that moment, then, in which they believe, they are justified; and to justify, signifies not to treat men as if they were just or righteous, though they are not so, but because they are in truth righteous by imputation, really righteous, the law having been fulfilled in them, ch. 8:4. In this Professors Tholuck and Stuart most grossly err. To justify, with them, is not to acquit as being perfectly righteous, but to hold men to be righteous when they are not righteous. The expression, justifieth the ungodly, Dr.

Macknight says, ‘does not imply that Abraham was an ungodly person when he was justified; the Apostle’s meaning is, justifieth Him who had been ungodly.’ This is making, not explaining Scripture. It entirely sets aside the Apostle’s declaration.

It is much to be regretted that it should be necessary to introduce the name of Mr. Scott in connection with such writers as Macknight, Stuart, and Tholuck. As an expositor of Scripture, he deserves to be spoken of in terms very different from any of them; but an impartial regard for the interest of truth requires that his very erroneous remarks on the passage last referred to should not pass unnoticed. Mr. Scott’s note, in his Commentary on this expression, ‘justifieth the ungodly,’ is incorrect, and his ideas on the subject are confused, Contrary to the Apostle, he asserts that a man is not ‘absolutely ungodly at the time of his justification.’ It is true, as has been observed, that the moment a man is justified, he is godly; but the question is, if he be godly or ungodly in the moment which precedes his justification? If he be godly before, then the words of the Apostle are false; and the contrary, that God justifies the godly, would be true. But Mr. Scott’s views on this point are very erroneous, as appears from his remarks on Cornelius, in his note preceding the verse before us.

He says, ‘Even the proposition, Good works are the fruits of faith, and follow after faith, in Christ, though a general truth, may admit of some exception, in such cases as that of Cornelius.’ This contradicts the 12th and 13th articles of his church, to which he appears to refer; but what is of more consequence, his statement explicitly contradicts the whole tenor of the Holy Scriptures, and of the plan of redemption. The case of Cornelius forms no exception, nor does it contain even the shadow of an exception to the truth declared in the verse we are considering. Mr. Scott closes his note on Acts 10:1,2, by remarking, ‘Perhaps these observations may assist the reader in understanding this instructing chapter, which cannot easily be made to accord with the exactness of systematically writers on these subjects.’ Now there is not the smallest difficulty in showing that all which that chapter contains is in exact accordance with every other part of Scripture.

Mr. Scott, after some further remarks on the justification of the ungodly, says, ‘Nay, the justified believer, whatever his holiness or diligence may be, never works for this purpose, and he still comes before God as ungodly in this respect.’ This is incorrect. He always comes as a sinner; that is, as one who is daily, hourly, and every moment sinning. And when he comes so, he comes as he is; for this is truth. But he is not ungodly after he believes, which is a character belonging only to the enemies of God. The Christian, then, cannot in any respect come in such a character, for he cannot come in a character that is no longer his. There is an essential difference between coming to God as a sinner, and coming to Him as ungodly. ‘Abraham,’ Mr. Scott subjoins, ‘several years before, by faith obeyed the call and command of God, and therefore could not be, strictly speaking, altogether ungodly, when it was said, “He believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness;” so that the example of Abraham alone is a full and clear refutation of the construction by some put upon this text, that men are altogether and in every sense ungodly and unregenerate at the time when God justifies them, — a sentiment of most dangerous tendency.’ The assertion of the Apostle is, that God justifies the ungodly, which can have no other meaning than that men are ungodly in the moment that precedes their justification. It is truly astonishing that the example of Abraham should be referred to as a full and clear refutation of the plain and obvious construction of this assertion of the Apostle, which it never can be of dangerous tendency implicitly to believe. The danger lies in not receiving it, and in raising difficulties and objections which obscure and neutralize a declaration, the meaning of which is so clear and manifest. This must always have the effect, as in the case before us, of leading into most palpable error, inconsistency, and misrepresentation of the Divine testimony. If Abraham was godly before the time when it was recorded that he believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, he was also a believer before that time, and justified before that time, although his justification was then first recorded. The limitations, therefore, ‘strictly speaking,’ and ‘altogether ungodly,’ which Mr. Scott introduces, are entirely misplaced. He was not ungodly at all.

To intimate, as Mr. Scott does, that Abraham was not a justified believer till the period when it is recorded that his faith was counted to him for righteousness, is to say that a man may exercise strong faith, and obey God, and walk in communion with Him, long before he is justified, which is to overturn the doctrine of justification. But no such confusion and discrepancies are to be found in the Scriptures. When, in the eleventh chapter of the Hebrews, the Apostle illustrates his declaration in the end of the tenth chapter, that the just shall live by faith, he affirms that ‘By faith, Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place, which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed.’ If, then, faith justifies, as the Apostle is there showing, Abraham was justified by faith when he ‘departed as the Lord had spoken to him,’ Genesis 12:4, many years before the time of the declaration recorded in Genesis 15:6. On the whole, there is not a spark of godliness in any man before he is united to Christ; and the moment he is united to Him, he is for ever justified.

In the 4th and 5th verses before us, the distinction between receiving a reward for works, and receiving it through faith, is clearly established. In the first case, a man receives what is due to him as his wages; in the second, all comes in the way of favor. Here also faith and works are directly opposed to each other. To preserve the doctrine of these verses from abuse, it is only necessary to recollect that works are denied as having anything to do in justification, but that they are absolutely necessary in the life of the believer. ‘Works,’ says Luther, ‘are not taken into consideration when the question respects justification. But true faith will no more fail to produce them than the sun can cease to give light. But it is not on account of works that God justifies us.’ ‘We offer nothing to God,’ says Calvin; ‘but we are prevented by His grace altogether free, without His having any respect to our works.’

Men are prone to magnify one part of the Divine counsel, by disparaging or denying another, which to their wisdom appears to stand in opposition to it. Some speak of faith in such a manner as to disparage works; others are so zealous for works as to disparage faith; while some, in order to honor both, confound them together. The Apostle Paul gives every truth its proper value and its proper place. In this Epistle he establishes the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and speaks not of the fruits of faith till the fifth chapter. But these fruits he shows to be the necessary result of that faith which justifies.

Ver. 6. — Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.

As the blessing of the pardon of sin cannot be separated from our being viewed as perfectly righteous in the sight of God, Paul further confirms his doctrine by a reference to the <193201> 32nd Psalm, which gives the meaning of David’s words. In this manner one part of Scripture is employed to open and explain what is said in another part. Imputeth. — The same word in the original, which in verses 3, 4, 5, is rendered counted or reckoned, is here rendered imputed. All of them bear the same meaning, of placing to the believer’s account the righteousness of Jesus Christ, called in ch. 5:19 His ‘obedience.’ ‘Here we see,’ says Calvin, ‘the mere cavil of those who limit the works of the law within ceremonial rites, since what before were denominated works of the law are now called works simply, and without an adjunct. The simple and unrestricted language occurring in this passage, which all readers must understand as applying indifferently to every kind of work, must for ever conclude the whole of this dispute.

For nothing is more inconsistent than to deprive ceremonies alone of the power of justifying, when Paul excludes works indefinitely.’

The expression ‘imputeth righteousness without works,’ is important, as it clearly ascertains that the phrase ‘for righteousness, literally unto righteousness, signifies unto the receiving of righteousness. It signifies receiving righteousness itself, not a substitute for righteousness, nor a thing of less value than righteousness, which is accounted or accepted as righteousness. In Dr. Macknight’s note, however, on verse 3rd, already quoted, where he is laboring to prove that faith is countedFOR righteousness, or, according to Mr. Stuart and Mr. Tholuck,AS righteousness, he affirms, as has been observed, that God values faith as equal to complete performance of duty, and that it is nowhere said in Scripture that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers. The verse before us contains no explicit refutation of these unscriptural statements, which subvert not only the whole of the apostle’s reasoning on the doctrine of justification, but the whole doctrine of salvation. The righteousness here said to be imputed is that righteousness to which Paul had all along been referring, even the righteousness of God on account of the revelation of which the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and which, as has been noticed above, is by the Apostle Peter called the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, in which believers have obtained precious faith. That the apostle refers in the verse before us to this righteousness which fulfills the law, is evident, if we look back to what he says in the 21st verse of the preceding chapter, and to what he continues to say respecting it onwards to this 6th verse, and to the effect he here ascribes to it . If any one can suppose that all this is insufficient to settle the question, I shall produce an argument which is unanswerable, and which all the ingenuity of man is unable to gainsay It must be the righteousness of God (or the righteousness of Christ, which is the same) that is here spoken of BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER RIGHTEOUSNESS ON EARTH.

To say with the above writers, that the God of truth values anything ‘as equal to the complete performance of duty,’ which is not so in reality, is to give a most unworthy, not to say a blasphemous, representation of His character. Far different are the following sentiments of Dr. Owen in his treatise On Justification. ‘ The sinner is not accepted as if he were righteous, but because in Christ Jesus he is so. The majesty of the law is not sacrificed; its requirements are fulfilled in their exceeding breadth; its penalty is endured in all its awfulness. And thus, from the meeting of mercy and loving-kindness with justice and judgment, there shines a most excellent glory, of which the full demonstration to men, and angels, and all the rational creatures of God, shall fill up the cycles of eternity.’

Mr. Stuart comes far short of the truth when he represents the Apostle as here confirming his doctrine by the case of David, as a second example or single instance. David is appealed to by Paul, not in respect to his own justification, but as to the doctrine which he taught with respect to this subject in one of his Psalm, where he speaks as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. He is here teaching how all are justified, who ever were, or ever shall be justified. It is, then, much more than a second example. It is the declaration of God himself, who spoke by the mouth of His servant David, Acts 4:25. The effect of Mr. Stuart’s misunderstanding the expression, ‘the righteousness of God,’ ch. 1:17, and 3:21, and ascribing to it the signification of ‘the justification which God bestows,’ is, in his explanation of the verse before us, as in so many other places, abundantly evident. Although compelled here to attach to the original word its proper meaning of righteousness, instead of ‘justification,’ the vagueness of the meaning he had, as above, so erroneously ascribed to it, leaves an opening for explaining it to be a fictitious righteousness belonging to faith itself, instead of a real righteousness, namely, the righteousness of Christ received by faith. ‘Here,’ he says, ‘and elsewhere in this chapter, where the same phraseology occurs, it is evident that the word is not to be understood in the sense of justification, which is the most common meaning of it in our Epistle.’ So far from this being its most common meaning, it is not even once its meaning out of no fewer than thirty-six times in which it occurs in this Epistle.

Mr. Stuart’s views on the all-important subject of justification, are not only completely erroneous and unscriptural, but such as they are, he holds them in a manner so confused and indistinct, that he alternately asserts and contradicts what he has advanced. He one while speaks of faith as ‘not of itself such an act of obedience to the Divine law, as that it will supply the place of perfect obedience.’ ‘Nor has it,’ he adds, ‘any efficacy in itself, as a meritum ex condigno to save men; it is merely the instrument of union to Christ, in order that they may receive a gratuitous salvation,’ p. 176. At other times, he speaks as if faith were accepted at a rate much above its value, and that the justification of a sinner is gratuitous because of such acceptance. ‘Their faith,’ he says, ‘was gratuitously reckoned as equivalent to the dikaiosu>nh (righteousness) demanded by the law.’ Here faith itself is made the ground of justification, and taken at a value far above its intrinsic worth. But faith is in no point of view equivalent to the obedience the law requires. It is Christ’s obedience that is taken as an equivalent to an obedience to the law; and for the best of all reasons, because it is an equivalent. The value of faith is, that by the Divine appointment it is the medium of union with Christ. If it be true that faith is ‘merely’ an instrument of union to Christ, in order that we may receive a gratuitous salvation, as, in one of these passages, Mr. Stuart asserts, how is it that faith was gratuitously reckoned as equivalent to the righteousness demanded by the law? If faith be accepted as an equivalent to righteousness, then it cannot be merely the medium of connecting us with Christ. He observes, p. 177, ‘To say, was counted (namely, their faith) for justification, would make no tolerable sense; but to say, was counted as complete obedience, would be saying just what the Apostle means to say, viz., that the believer is gratuitously justified.’ And again, he affirms that faith ‘is counted as righteousness,’ p. 172. Here and in other places the imputation of Christ’s righteousness for the justification of a sinner is excluded by Mr. Stuart, as it is by Dr. Macknight. Mr. Stuart’s self-contradictions, contained in his Commentary, are noticed in the following term sin the American theological magazine, called The Biblical Repertory, of July 1833, where it is reviewed. ‘Respected sir, you admit what you deny, and deny what you admit, in such rapid succession, your readers are bewildered.’

According, then, to these statements, righteousness, that is, the righteousness of Christ, which does indeed fulfill the demands of the law, is not imputed to the believer for justification — although this is explicitly asserted in the text, when it is said, ‘God imputeth righteousness,’ for on earth, as has been observed there is no other righteousness — while faith, which does not fulfill so much as one of its demands, is reckoned as equivalent to all its demands; and besides, righteousness is thus counted to a man as belonging to him, which ‘in reality does not belong to him.’ And this, we are told by Mr. Stuart, is ‘just what the Apostle means to say.’

Paul affirms that God is just when He justifies him that believeth. But, according to Mr. Stuart, in thus representing God as counting for a reality what is a mere figment, and counting ‘something’ to a man ‘which does not belong to him,’ not a trace of anything that has even the semblance of justice in a sinner’s justification is left. And on these grounds, salvation is asserted by him to be ‘gratuitous!’

Mr. Stuart considers that the mercy of God, for Christ’s sake, accepts believers as just, while they are not so in reality. This overturns the Gospel and the justice of the Divine character. It destroys both law and Gospel. If a man is not truly just, God cannot account him just, nor treat him as just. Why cannot Mr. Stuart see believers perfectly just in Jesus Christ, their head and substitute? But this is what might be expected from one who cannot see the human race guilty in Adam. It is quite natural, then, that he should not see believers righteous in Christ. According to Mr. Stuart, God is not a just God in saving sinners, for He acquits as just those whom He knows to be unjust. He represents God as an unjust God in punishing the innocent, for He visits with suffering and death infants, who are supposed innocent of Adam’s sin.

According to the doctrine of the Apostle, when a sinner is justified, it is by the imputation of righteousness — not a fictitious, but a real righteousness. The believer, in his union with Christ, is viewed as perfectly righteous, because in truth he is so, for the righteousness of God is ‘upon him,’ ch. 3:22; Jehovah is his righteousness, Jeremiah 23:6.

God is therefore just in justifying him; and in the day of judgment the Great Judge will pronounce him ‘righteous,’ Matthew 25:37-46, and award to him ‘a crowd of righteousness,’ according to the strictest justice.

The gift of this righteousness, with the justification it brings along with it, is indeed perfectly gratuitous, and the manner of bestowing it is gratuitous — freely by grace; but ‘grace reigns through righteousness,’ Romans 5:21, — in that way which meets every demand of law and justice. This last is a most important declaration, with which the Apostle closes his discussion on the doctrine of justification; but important as it is, Mr. Stuart has altogether mistaken its meaning, and misrepresented it in the same way as he has misrepresented the corresponding expression at the opening of this discussion, ch. 1:17. Had he understood it, he would not have perverted the Apostle’s reasoning as he has done, and propounded sentiments respecting the all-important doctrine of justification which annihilate the glory of that redemption in which righteousness and peace have kissed each other, — sentiments which compromise the justice, and dishonor the character of God. ‘Faith,’ says Mr. Bell, in his View of the Covenants , p. 226, ‘rests upon Christ alone It in effect excludes itself as a work in the matter of justification. It is not a thing upon which a sinner rests; it is his resting on the Surety. Therefore, that man who would bring in his faith as a part of his justifying righteousness before God, thereby proves that he has no faith in Jesus Christ. He comes as with a lie in his right hand; for such is the absurdity, that he trusts in the act of faith, not in its object, — i.e., he believes in his faith, not in Jesus Christ. Having taken Christ, as he pretends, he would have that very act whereby he received Him sustained at the Divine tribunal as his righteousness. Thus Christ is bid to stand at a distance, and the sinner’s own act is by himself bid to come near in the case of justification. This is nothing else but works under another name. It is not faith, for that necessarily establishes grace.’

Ver. 7. — Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

This verse, in connection with the preceding, shows that sins are not forgiven, except in a way in which righteousness is imputed. Anciently, the high priest was appointed to bless the people, Numbers 6:24, as the type of Jesus Christ, who, as the Great High Priest, imparts a real blessedness. ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.’ In Him it was promised that all nations should be blessed. When about to ascend into heaven, He lifted up His hands and blessed His disciples; and at the last day He will, from the throne of His glory, pronounce all His people the blessed of His Father. On that day, and not till then, shall any of them be able fully to comprehend all that is implied in this term in the verse before us. Blessed are they. — ’ Blessed is he’ (the man), says David ‘whose transgression is forgiven.’ David speaks of one person, but Paul speaks of many. This alteration which the Apostle makes should not be overlooked.

The work of redemption being now finished, the Apostle is commissioned by the Holy Ghost, who dictated the words, thus to include for their encouragement the whole mystical body of Christ, — all that are His, whether Jews or Gentiles. Covered — This appears to be in allusion to the mercy-seat, which covered the law. Sins must be covered before they can be forgiven. There must be a way in which this is done according to justice. This way is by the blood of Christ; and he that is dead with Him is justified from sin, Romans 6:7. His sins are for ever covered, as being cast into the depths of the sea, Micah 7:19. They are blotted out with the, Savior’s blood. ‘I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins,’ Isaiah 43:25. He is saved from the guilt of sin immediately on his believing. The righteousness of the Savior being imputed to the sinner, none of his own unrighteousness can attach to him; the imputation of both cannot take place. There is a full remission of his past sins, and none which he shall afterwards commit shall be judicially laid to his charge, Romans 8:33. Being stripped of the filthy garments, and clothed with a change of raiment, Zechariah 3:4, as certain as God is unchangeable, it shall never be taken off him. ‘He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation; He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness,’ Isaiah 61:10. ‘I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more,’ Jeremiah 31:34. ‘As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us, <19A312> Psalm 103:12. ‘Wearied at length,’ says Luther, ‘with your own righteousness, rejoice and confide in the righteousness of Christ. Learn, my dear brother, to know Christ, and Christ crucified, and learn to despair of thyself and to the Lord this song: — Lord Jesus! Thou art my righteousness, but I am Thy sin. Thou hast taken what belonged to me; Thou hast given me what was Thine. Thou becamest what Thou wert not in order that I was not myself.’

Ver. 8. — Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Righteousness is imputed when sin is not imputed, for we here see that the man to whom sin is not imputed is blessed. As Jesus was accursed, Galatians 3:13, when the sins of His people were imputed to Him, so they are blessed when His righteousness is imputed to them. Justification, or the judgment of God by which He renders us ‘blessed,’ consists of two acts, by one of which He pardons our sins, by the other He gives us the kingdom. This appears in the sequel of this chapter, where we see that the justification of Abraham includes the promise of making him heir of the world, ver. 13; and this truth the Apostle establishes not only in the person of Abraham, but also extends it to all the people of God, ver. 16. In the eighth chapter of this Epistle, where Paul joins together the Divine calling and justification, he also connects justification and glorification.

Afterwards he adds, ‘What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things’ The expression, God is for us, marks the effect of justification.

It is not said, God is not against us, as should be said if justification was only the pardon of sin; but God is for us, — which signifies that He not only pardons but blesses us, giving us a right to the kingdom. He not only delivers us from being children of wrath, but adopts us into His family, and makes us His own children. When He discharges us from the pains of the second death, He destines us to the glory of heaven. The words that follow, respecting the delivering up of His Son, and freely giving us all things, clearly import these two great acts of pardon and blessing. The same is also declared by the Prophet Malachi 3:17, ‘And they shall be Mine, saith the Lord of Hosts, in that day when I make up My jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son.’ Justification, then, corresponds to the righteousness of God, by the imputation of which it is received. By that righteousness the penalty of the law is fulfilled, which secures the pardon of sin, and also the precept on account of which the inheritance is awarded.