Romans 5
The Apostle describes in this chapter the blessed accompaniments, the security, and the foundation of justification. This last branch of the subject is interwoven with an account of the entrance of sin and death into the world; while a parallel is drawn between the first and the second Adam in their opposite tendencies and influences. By the first came sin, condemnation, and death; by the second, righteousness, justification, and life. From this comparison occasion is taken to show why God had made the promulgation of the written law to intervene betwixt the author of condemnation and the author of justification. On the one hand, the extent, the evil, and the demerit of sin, and the obstructions raised up by law and justice to man’s recovery, were thus made fully manifest; while, on the other hand, the superabundant riches of Divine grace, in its complete ascendency and victory over them, in the way of righteousness, were displayed to the greatest advantage, and with the fullest effect.
V. 1. — Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ.
There/brer^This particle of inference draws its conclusion from the whole preceding discussion concerning justification by faith, though it may have a more immediate reference to the nearest preceding context. The Apostle having fully proved that salvation is by grace, and that it is by faith, now shows the consequences of this doctrine.
Justified by faith. — This expression is elliptical: faith must be understood as inclusive of its object. This is very usual in all cases where the thing elHptically expressed is frequently spoken of, and therefore sufficiently explained by the, elliptical expression. It is not by faith, abstractly considered, that we are justified, nor even by faith in every thing that God reveals. It is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Even this phrase itself, namely, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, is still elliptical, and supposes the knowledge of what is to be believed with respect to Christ. It is not believing in his existence, bub believing on him as revealed in the Scriptures implying a knowledge of his person and work. In the same manner, as we have the phrase “justified by faith,” we have the phrase justified by the blood of Christ. As, in the former case, faith implies its object, — so, in the latter, it is implied that we are justified by faith in the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ justifies by being the object of belief and of trust.
We have ieace with God. — This shows that all men, till they are justified, are at war with God, and that he is at war with them. But when they are justified by faith, the wrath of God, which abideth on those who believe not on his Son, John, iii. 36, is turned away, and they cease to be enemies to God. Thus peace, succeeding hostility, brings with it every blessing; for there is no middle place for the creature between the. love and the wrath of God. This peace, then, arises from righteousness — the imputation of the righteousness of God by which the believer is justified, and a sense of peace obtained. While guilt remains in the conscience, enmity will also rankle in the heart; for so long as men look upon their sins as unpardoned, and upon God as the avenger of transgressions, they must regard him as being to them a consuming fire. But when they view God in Christ reconciling them to himself, not imputing their iniquities to them, peace, according to the measure of faith, is established in the conscience. This never can be experienced by going about to establish our own righteousness.
If any man have peace in his conscience, it must flow from Christ’s righteousness’ — it must be the effect of that righteousness which God has “created,“” Isa. xlv. 8; and of which the Spirit, when he comes, brings with him the conviction, John, xvi. 8. Resting on this righteousness, the believer sees that God is at peace with him, perfectly reconciled. The belief of this satisfies his conscience, which, being purged by blood, Heb. ix. 14, he is freed from guilty fears, and reconciled to God. Through this sense of the pardon of sin, and of friendship with God, the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keeps his heart and mind through Christ Jesus. The maintenance of this peace, by preserving the conscience, by continual application to the blood of Christ, free from guilt, is the main point in the believer’s walk with God, and the powerful spring of his obedience. In the New Testament, God is frequently denominated “the God of peace.” The Apostle prays that the Lord himself may give his people peace by all means, and enjoins that the peace of God should rule in the hearts of believers, to which they are also called in one body, and that they should be thankful. Peace is the fruit of the Spirit, and the kingdom of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ. — Peace comes through the death of Jesus Christ. The faith, therefore, by which it is obtained, must refer to him who made peace through the blood of his cross. He alone, as the one mediator, can make peace between God, who is holy, and man, who is sinful. Three covenants have been established by God, or three ways of communication with man. The first was the covenant of nature, the second the covenant of the law, the third the covenant of the gospel. Under the first covenant, man being in a state of innocence, needed no mediator. Under the second there was a mediator simply of communication, and not of reconciliation — a mediator as to the exterior, or a messenger who goes between two parties, a simple depository of words spoken on the one side or the other, without having any part in the interior or essence of the covenant, of which he was neither the founder nor the bond. Under the third covenant, Jesus Christ is a true mediator of reconciliation, who has produced a real peace between God and man, and is the founder of their mutual communion. “He is our peace.” It is established by the new covenant in his hands, and is everlasting, being made through the blood of that everlasting covenant. “The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness’ sake,” Is. xlii. 21. “The work of righteousness shall he peace, and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance for ever,” Is. xxxii. 17- This peace then is through Jesus Christ and his righteousness, which brings this quietness and assurance. He is the king of righteousness and king of peace. In parting from his disciples before his death, he bequeathed to them peace. “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you.” And when he met them again after his resurrection, his first salutation to them was, “Peace be unto you.”
V. 2. — Bi, whom also we have access by faith into this grace. wherein we stand, and rejoice in the hope of the glori; of God.
We have access into grace as well as peace. The one is distinguished from the other. In what, then, do they differ? Peace denotes a particular blessing; access into grace, or a state of favour, implies general blessings, among which peace and all other privileges are included. And as we are justified by means of faith, and have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, so likewise it is through him that we enter into this state of grace; for it is through him that we have access by one Spirit unto the Father, by that new and living way which he hath consecrated for us through the veil; that is to say, his flesh. We have access to a mercy-seat, to which we are invited to come freely; and bold-. ness and access with confidence by the faith of Jesus — boldness to conielto the throne of grace, and to enter into the holiest by his blood. And as it is by him we enter into this state of grace, so by him we stand in it, accepted before God, 1 Pet. V. 12; secured, according to his everlasting covenant, that we shall not be cast down; but are fixed in this state of perfect acceptance, conferred by sovereign grace, brought into it by unchangeable love, and kept in it by the power of a faithful God. “They shall be my people, and I will be their God.” “I will not turn away from them to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.” Jer. xxxii. 88, 40.
And rejoice. — This is an additional blessing. The word here translated rejoice signifies to glory or exult, and is the same that in the following verse is rendered “to glory.” It may designate not only the excess of joy possessed by the soul in the contemplation of the future inheritance, but the language of triumph that expresses this joy, which is properly meant by glorying. The Christian should speak nothing boastingly, as far as concerns himself; but he has no reason to conceal his sense of his high destination as a son of God, and an heir of glory. In this he ought to exult, in this he ought to glory — and, in obedience to his Lord’s command, to rejoice, because his name is written in heaven. The hope of eternal salvation through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot but produce joy; for as there can be no true joy without such a hope, so it carries with it the very essence of joy. Joy springing from faith is called the joy of faith, Phil. i. 25, and is made a distinguishing characteristic of the Christian. Phil. iii. S.
“Where Christ is truly seen,” says Luther, on the Galatians, p. 85, “there must needs be full and perfect joy in the Lord, with peace of conscience, which most certainly thus thinketh: — Although I am a sinner by the law, and under condemnation of the law, yet I despair not, I die not, because Christ liveth, who is both my righteousness and my everlasting life. In that righteousness and life I have no sin, no fear, no sting of conscience, no care of death. I am, indeed, a sinner, as touching this present life, and the righteousness thereof, as the child of Adam; where the law accuseth me, death reigneth over me, and at length would devour me. But 1 have another righteousness and life above this life, which is Christ, the Son of God, who knoweth no sin nor death, but righteousness, and life eternal; by whom this, my body, being dead, and brought into dust, shall be raised up again, and delivered from the bondage of the law, and sin, and shall be sanctified together with the spirit.”
In the hope of the glory of God. — The form of expression here will equally apply to the glory that God bestows on others, and to his own glory. The view and enjoyment of God’s glory is the hope of believers. It is the glory that shall be revealed in them when they shall be glorified together with Christ — when they shall behold the glory which the Father hath given to the Son, and which the Son gives to them, John, xvii. 22, 24. Thus, faith relies on the truth of what God has promised, and hope waits for the enjoyment of it. This hope is full of rejoicing, because every thing that it looks for and draws its joy from, depends on the truth and faithfulness of a covenant God. There can be no failure on his part, and consequently on the believer’s no disappointment.
Here it should be particularly observed, that before saying one word of the fruits produced by the believer, the Apostle describes him as rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God. He represents him as drawing no motive of consolation but from a view of God in Christ, whom he has received as his Saviour by faith, and this is the true source of his hope and joy. The disciples, after the day of Pentecost, as soon as they heard the word that Peter preached, gladly embraced it, and did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart. In the same way the Eunuch rejoiced, and the Jailor, when Christ was preached to them, the moment they believed. This hope is, indeed, capable of confirmation; but if it has not its origin in Jesus Christ, and his sacrifice alone, it is a false hope. As soon as a man believes the gospel of Christ, he ought to imitate the faith of Abraham, and give glory to God, resting securely on the sure foundation which is the basis of the hope; and he never can acquire a better, or a different title to glory, than that of which he is in possession in the moment when he believes, although as he grows in grace he perceives it more distinctly. Paul, while he urges the brethren at Colosse to a higher degree of conformity, in many particulars, to the will of God, yet gives thanks to the Father, who had already made them meet for the inheritance of the saints in light, which every man is, like the thief on the cross, in the moment when he is united to Christ; for then he is justified by faith, and has peace with God. Christians are characterised as holding fast the beginning of their confidence, and the rejoicing of their hope firm unto the end. The beginning of their confidence and hope of salvation rested wholly on the person and righteousness of Jesus Christ, the Surety of the new covenant. It is true, that at the commencement of their new life, faith is often weak, and its object seen indistinctly. Love, and joy, and hope cannot transcend the faith from which they flow. Hence the propriety of that prayer by all the disciples of Jesus, “Lord, increase our faith;“” hence also the necessity of using diligence in the work and labour of love, to the full assurance of hope unto the end, Heb. vi. 11.
V’ 3. — And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: Jmowing that tribulation worketh patience
Not only does the believer rejoice in hope of future glory, but he rejoices even in tribulations. This rejoicing, however, is not in tribulations considered in themselves, but considered in their effects. It is only the knowledge of the effects of afflictions, and of their being appointed by his Heavenly Father, that enables the Christian to rejoice in them. Being in themselves an evil, not joyous but grievous, they would not otherwise be a matter of rejoicing, but of regret. But viewed as proceeding from his Heavenly Father s love, Heb. xii. 6, Rev. iii. 19, they are so far from depriving him of his joy that they tend to increase it. The way to the cross was to his Saviour the way to the crown, and he knows that through much tribulation he must enter into the kingdom of God, Acts, xiv. 22. The greatest tribulations are among those things that work together for his good. God comforts him in the midst of his sorrows, 2 Cor. i. 4.
Tribulation, even death itself, which is numbered among his privileges, 1st Cor. iii. 22, shall not separate him from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus his Lord. The Apostle Peter addresses believers as greatly rejoicing in the hope of salvation, though now, if need be, they are in heaviness through manifold temptations.
Tribulation worketh or effecteth patience. Christians should be well instructed on this point, and should have it continually in their eye; their happiness is greatly concerned in it. If they forget the end and tendency of afflictions they will murmur like the Israelites. Patience is a habit of endurance, and Christian patience implies submission to the will of God. Paul says here that affliction worketh patience, and James, i. 3, says, that the trying of faith worketh patience. This proves that the afflictions of a Christian are intended as a trial of his faith. What by the one Apostle is called tribulation, is by the other called trial of faith. The effect of affliction is the working of patience, which is so necessary, as we are all naturally impatient and unwilling to submit imreservedly to the dispensations of God. Patience gives occasion to the exercise of the graces of the Spirit, and of submission under afflictions to the will of God.
V. 4. — And patience., experience; and experience hope.
Experience. — The Greek word signifies trial or proof. Here it means proof; for trial may detect a hypocrite as well as manifest a saint. But proof implies that the trial has proved the genuineness of the tried person. And proof worketh hope. That is, when the genuineness of our profession is manifested by being proved, our hope of enjoying the glory promised to the genuine people of God is confirmed. Hope is here introduced a second time. This again should be carefully noticed. At first, as we have seen, it springs solely from a view of the mediation and work of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here it acquires a new force from the proof the believer has of the reality of his union with the Saviour, from the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ. Thus the “good hope through grace” must be produced solely by faith, and must be confirmed, not produced, by the fruits of faith.
F. 5. — And hope makelli not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad m our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us.
Hope maJceth not ashamed. — This may import either that hope will not be disappointed, or that hope will not allow us to be ashamed of its object. Various passages speak of the believer as not being put to shame in the day of retribution; and the expression here is generally interpreted to signify that hope vrill not be disappointed, but will receive the object of its anticipation. This is an important truth, yet many things incHne us to understand the Apostle as speaking of the usual effect of hope as exemplified in the life of a Christian; and that it is not the future effect of hope in believers, but the present effect of it, as it is the present effect of the other particulars mentioned, that the Apostle refers to. Besides, the primary signification of the word in the original is, not to disappoint, but to shame, or put to shame, or make ashamed. Paul here evidently speaks of hope as a general principle, which in every instance, and on ail subjects, has the effect ascribed to it. It is its nature, with regard to every thing which is its object, to destroy shame, and excite to an open avowal, and even glorying in it, though it may be a thing of which others may be ashamed, and which is ridiculed in the world. The experience of every Christian confirms this view. When is he inclined to be ashamed of the gospel? Not when his hopes are high, his faith unwavering, and his impressions of future glory strong. It is when his hopes fade and grow weak. Just in proportion as he has strong. hope will he make an open and a bold profession of the truth. Here, then, by a well-known figure, the assertion before us appears to import that, so far from being ashamed, believers glory and boast. Hope causes Christians, instead of being ashamed of Christ and his word (which without hope they would be), to glory and proclaim their prospects before the world. Gal. vi. 14; 1st Peter, i. 6-8, v. 1; 1 John, iii. 2. They glory in the cross of Christ through hope. This shows the great importance of keeping our hope clear. If we suffer it to flag or grow faint, we shall be ashamed of it before men, to which, from the enmity of the world against the gospel, there is much temptation. Accordingly, our blessed Lord, who knew what was in man, has, in the most solemn and awful manner, warned his disciples against it; and the Apostle Peter enjoins on believers to add to their faith mrtue — courage to profess it.
Because. — This casual particle may be understood to intimate the reason why hope makes not ashamed, or to give an additional reason why Christians are not ashamed. Agreeably to the latter interpretation, hope is one reason, and then another is subjoined, and certainly the love of God is a strong reason to prevent us from being ashamed of the Gospel. Love of God. — This phrase in itself is ambiguous, and according to the connexion or other circumstances, it must be understood, in its different occurrences, to refer either to God’*s love to us, or to our love to God, which are two entirely distinct things.
Strictly speaking, God’s love to us is in himself, and the love that he pours into our hearts is love to him. The connexion here may incline us to understand the phrase in the sense of God’s love to us; for the Apostle immediately proceeds to show God’s love to his people. In this view, it coincides with such expressions as “In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him;” and, “We have known and believed the love that God hath to us,” 1 John, iv. 9, 16. We cannot be beforehand with God in love, and we must perceive his love to make us love him. The first feeling of love springs up in the heart from a view of his grace and mercy to us in Jesus Christ. Yet the phraseology of the connexion, as speaking of God’s love to us, is not inconsistent with the interpretation that the love of God here means our love to God, because his love to us is the foundation of our love to God, and it is a view of his love to us that produces and increases our love to God. And when the Apostle speaks of love to God being infused into the hearts of believers, it is quite in unison with his grounding it on God’s love to us.
Poured out. — This refers to the abundant measure of the sense of the love of God to us,
VOL. I. 2d or the gift of love to God, which is communicated to his people, and poured into their hearts, through all the faculties of their souls, moving and captivating their affections. By the Holy Ghost. — This shows that love to God is the gift of God, and it never exists in the human heart till the Holy Spirit implant it. “All men naturally hate God,” Rom. .viik 7; and it is only when they behold his love, in the gift of his Son, that they repent. Given tmto us. — The gift of the Holy Ghost, in his operation in the heart, in his sanctifying influences, was not confined to Apostles and Evangelists, but is enjoyed in common by all the saints, in all of whom the Holy Spirit dwells, and who are habitations of God through the Spirit, 1 Cor. iii. 16; Eph. ii. 22; Rom. viii. 9. Here we see that every thing in us that is good is the fruit of the Spirit of God. The love of God is said to be shed abroad by the Spirit in our hearts. Man possesses by nature no holy disposition. The lowest degree of true humility, godly sorrow for sin, and love to God, are not to be found in any of the children of Adam, till they are enlightened by the Spirit through the knowledge of the Gospel. Though sinners should hear ten thousand times of the love of God in the gift of his Son, they never are properly affected by it, till the Holy Spirit enters into their hearts, and till it is produced by the truth through the Spirit. Here also we may see the distinct work of the Holy Spirit in the economy of redemption. Each of the persons of the Godhead sustains a peculiar office in the salvation of sinners, and it is the office of the Spirit to convert and sanctify those for whom Christ died.
What fulness and variety of instruction and consolation are contained in the first five verses of this chapter! The work of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is exhibited all severally acting, as God alone can act, in the various parts of man’s salvation. The righteousness of God is imputed to the believer, who is therefore justified, and pronounced by the Judge of all the earth righteous. As righteous, he has peace with God, and free access to him through Jesus Christ; and thus introduced into the favour of God, he stands in a justified state, rejoicing in hope of future glory. Being justified, he is also sanctified, and enabled to glory even in present afflictions. He enjoys the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, through whose divine influence the love of God is infused into his soul. Here, then, are the peace, the joy, the triumph of the Christian. Here are faith, hope, and love, the three regulators of the Christian’s life. Faith is the great and only means of obtaining every privilege, because it unites the soul to Christ, and receives all out of his fulness. Hope cheers the passage of the believer with the expectation of promised blessings to be accomplished in eternal life, and is thus the anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, which retains it firm and enables it to ride out all the storms and troubles of life. Love is the renewal of the image of God in the soul and the true principle of obedience. “The end of the commandment is love, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.” Faith is thus the root of the whole. Faith in the resurrection of Christ produces a good conscience, 1st Peter, iii. 21; faith purifies the heart. Acts, xv. 9; faith works by love, Gal. V. 6.
V. 6. — For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
For — appears to assign the reason of our love to God, not the reason that the hope of a Christian will not disappoint him. Having spoken of the love of God shed abroad in our hearts, the Apostle naturally declares the ground of our love. Though the Holy Ghost inspires that love, yet in doing so he shows us the grounds on which it rests, or the reasons why it should exist. In making us love God, he makes us perceive the grounds on which we
•ouarht to love him. This shows us also another important fact, namely, that the Holy Spirit works in his people according to their constitution or the nature that he has given them; and, in giving us proper feelings and affections, he discovers to us the proper objects towards which they ought to be excited. The word of God through the Spirit, both in conversion and growth of grace, acts according to the original constitution that God has been pleased to bestow on the Christian.
Without strength, or imak. — Christ died for us while we were still unable and unwilling to obey him, without ability to save ourselves. This weakness, or inability, no doubt, is sinful; but it is our inability, not our guilt, that the Apostle designates here. When we were unable to keep the law of God, or do any thing towards our deliverance from Divine wrath, Christ interposed. He died for those whom he came to redeem, when they were still unable and unwilling to obey him.
In due tmw. — At the time appointed of the Father, Gal. iv. 2, 4, the fruits of the earth are gathered in their season; so in his season, that is, the time appointed, Christ died. 1st Tim, ii. 6. Or it may mean, he gave himself for us when we were without strength, and ungodly; for had he not given himself for us in that season, we never could have been saved. Without his gift of himself for us we must have for ever continued ungodly. On this account, then, Christ may here be said to give himself for us in due time, that is, in the season of our utmost need. Ungodly. — Christ died for us, considered as ungodly. There are none who are not of this character by nature. It was not for those who were in some degree godly, or doing in some measure the will of God, that Christ died. He died for his people as ungodly. It is by faith in his death that they are made godly.
V. 7. — For scarcely for a righteous mail will one die: yet peradventure for a good man soryie would even dare to die.
For. — This introduces a fact that heightens and illustrates the love of God to sinners. A righteous or just man. — A just man is distinguished here from a good or beneficent man. They are quite distinct characters among men. A just man is approved — a benevolent man is loved. Scarcely, however, would any one give his life for the former, yet perhaps some one might for the latter. Scarcely. — This gives the reason why the Apostle uses the word righteous or just, when he denies that any one would die in his stead, because he does not mean to make the denial universal. ‘’’’EmnT — This is designed to qualify the verb to die., not the verb to dare, though it stands immediately before it.
It is not even dare, but dare even to die. This intimates that to die is a thing to which we are of all thinos most averse. It is the oreatest trial of love, John, xv. 13. “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us,” 1 John, iii. 16.
V. 8. — But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
His love. — Here God’s love to us is distinguished in the original as Ms oion love, which in this place takes away all ambiguity from the expression. Yet sinners. — This is literally true with respect to all who are saved since Christ’s death, and is substantially true of all who were saved before it. This may be said of Abel as well as of Paul. Christ died for him as a sinner. It was Christ’s death through which Abel was accepted. For us. — Not for us as including all men, but for those believers and himself whom the Apostle was addressing, and this equally applies to all believers, to all who are or shall be in Christ. Christ’s death for us as sinners, in an astonishing manner, commends, manifests, or exhibits God’s love to us.
V. 9. — Micch more then, bei?ig now juslijied by his blood, we shall be saved from xvrath through him.
If God’s love to us were such that Christ died for us when we were sinners, mucJi more, when we are perfectly righteous through that death.
will he save us from future punishment. Justified ly his blood. — This shows, that when we are said to be justified by faiths faith includes its object, and imports that we are not saved by faith as aVirtue. It shows also that Christ’s death was not that of a mere witness to the truth which he declared, but that it was for sin. Dr. Macknight’s explanation of this verse is as follows: — Much more then., being now allowed to live ’ under the new covenant, through the shedding ’ of his Mood, tve shall be saved from future pu- ’ nishment through him, if we behave well under ’ that covenant.’ In his note he adds, — ‘Here ‘’justified by his blood means, that, in the view of ‘Christ’s shedding his blood, Adam and Eve ’ were respited from death, and being allowed ’ to live, he and they were placed under a new ’ covenant, by which they might regain immor- ’ tality.’ And this follows naturally from what he gives as the meaning of the foregoing verse — ‘His oicn love to men, God hath raised above ’ all human love, because, toe being still sinners, ‘Christ died for us, to procure us a temporary ’ life on earth, under a better covenant than ’ the first.’ On such interpretations it is unnecessary to remark. They exhibit a picture of midnight darkness. Dr. Macknight supposes that it is here implied that some are said to be justified who are not saved from wrath. But this is not the fact. Justification is spoken of as having taken place, and salvation is spoken of as future — not because any shall be punished who have been justified, but because the wrath spoken of is future. The salvation of the Christian from wrath is said to be future, in reference to the time of the general execution of wrath in the day of judgment. It is evidently implied in the expression, that they who are justified shall never be punished. This expression, justified by his blood, gives a most awful view of the infinite evil of sin, of the strict justice of God, and of his faithfulness in carrying into execution the first sentence, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’”* Without the shedding of that blood, and entering with it into the holy place, Christ could not have obtained eternal salvation for those who had sinned. On the other hand, what an astonishing view is thus given of the love of God, who spared not his Son, but delivered him up for his people, and who with him will freely give them all things.
The divine wisdom is admirable in the manner in which the Scriptures are written. It is not without design that inspiration varies the phraseology respecting justification. Each variety is calculated to meet a different abuse of the doctrine. The human heart is so prone to self-righteousness, that the very doctrine of faith has been made to assume a legal sense. Faith is made a work, and the office assigned to it is not merely the medium of communicating righteousness, but it is made to stand for a certain value, either real or supposed. Had inspiration never varied the expressions, and always used the lime justified by faith though there would have been no real ground to conclude that faith has in itself any intrinsic value, yet evidence to the contrary would not have been exhibited in the manner in which it is held forth by varying the diction. Instead of “justified by faith,’^ we here read justified by the blood of Christ. This shows, that when we are said to be justified by faith, it is not by faith as a work of the law, but by faith as a medium: that is, faith in the blood of Christ. To the same purpose also is the expression, in the following verse, reconciled to God by the death of his Son. On the other hand, there are some who, strongly impressed with the great evil of making faith a work, have plunged into a contrary extreme, and are unwilling to look at the subject in any light but that in which it is represented in the phrase “justified by his blood,” as if justification were independent of faith, or as if faith was merely an accidental or unimportant thing in justification. This also is a great error. Faith is as necessary in justification as the sacrifice of
Christ itself, but necessary for a different purpose. The blood of Christ is the price that has value in itself. Faith is a necessary medium, through the Divine appointment. Again, we haye justified freely hj grace chap. iii. 24. Self-righteousness is fruitful in expedients. It is difficult to put it to silence. It will admit that justification is by faith in its own legal sense, and that it is through Christ’s blood, as a general price for the sins of all men; but it holds that every man must do something to entitle him to the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice. Here, then, the phrase justification by grace comes in to cut off every evasion.
Another variety of phraseology on this subject we have in the expression justified by Christy Gal. ii. 17. This points to the ground of our justification, or our union with Christ. We are accounted perfectly righteous, having paid the debt of sin, and having fulfilled the whole law, by our union or oneness with Christ, as we were sinners by our natural connexion with Adam. It is of immense importance to the satisfaction of the mind of the believer, constantly and steadfastly to consider himself as a member of Christ’s body — as truly a part of him. He rose for our justification. When he was justified from the sins which he took on him by having suffered for them, and when he had fulfilled the law, we were justified in his justification. We are therefore said not merely to be pardoned through Christ, but to be justified by him. We have suffered all the punishment due to our sins, we have kept every precept of the law, because he with whom we are one has done so. It is also worthy of remark, that while the Apostle speaks of being justified by Christ, he had, in the preceding verse, spoken of being justified by the faith of Christ. This shows that the way in which our union with Christ is effected is by faith.
V. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to
God by the death of his Son, much more, heing reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Enemies. — It greatly enhances the love of God, that he gave his Son for us while we were yet his enemies. Had we discovered any symptoms of willingness to obey him, or any degree of love to him, his love to us would not have been so astonishing. But it is in this light only that the proud heart of man is willing to view his obligations to redeeming love. He will not look upon himself as totally depraved and helpless. He desires to do something on his part to induce God to begin his work in him by his Spirit. But Christ died for his people when they were the enemies of God, and he calls them to the knowledge of himself when they are his enemies. Here, then, is the love of God. At the time when Christ died for us, we were not his friends, but his enemies.
Becmiciled to God by the death of Ms Son. — the word rendered reconciled signifies to change the state of matters between persons at variance, by removing their grounds of difference. The divine word and declarations, as well as the divine perfections, forbid us to imagine that God will clear the guilty. In order, then, to make reconciliation with God, satisfaction must be made to his justice. What is meant here is not our laying aside our enmity to God, but God’s laying aside his enmity to us, on account of the death of his Son. It is true that we lay aside our enmity to God, when we see that he has laid aside his enmity to us, and never till then will we do so; but what is here meant is, that God is reconciled to us. In Scripture this is spoken of as our being reconciled to God. We are reconciled to God when he is pacified towards us through his Son, in whom we believe. This is quite agreeable to the use of the term in Scripture with respect to other cases, 1st Sam. xxix. 4; Matth. v. 23, 24. Socinians, however, maintain that reconciliation between God and man consists only in bending and pacifying the heart of man towards God, and not in averting the just anger of God. This error, arising from their denial of the satisfaction
made by Jesus Christ, is refuted by the consideration that God pardons our sins; whence it follows, that he was angry with us, and the redemption of Jesus Christ is declared to be by a propitiatory sacrifice, which clearly proves that God was angry. To this the idea of a sacrifice necessarily leads, for a sacrifice is offered to pacify God towards men, and not to reconcile men to God. Aaron was commanded to make an atonement for the congregation, for there was wrath gone out from the Lord. — “And he stood between the living and the dead, and the plague was stayed,” Numbers, xvi. 46. God’s anger was thus turned away by making this atonement. In David’s time, by offering burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, the Lord was entreated for the land, and the plague was stayed from Israel. By this it is clear, that the primary intention of such sacrifices, and consequently of the priest who off“ered them, immediately respect the reconciling of God. The same is evident from the following passages: — “Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people; thou hast covered all their sin. Selah. Thou hast taken away all thy wrath; thou hast turned from the fierceness of thine anger,’” Psalm, lxxxv. 2, S. “Though thou was angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me,” Isa. xii. 1. “I will establish mv covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord: That thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified (reconciled, Lev. viii. 15, xvi. 20; 2d Chron. xxix. 24) toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God,” Ezek. xvi. 63.
All men being sinners, are,, in themselves, while in unbelief, under the displeasure of God, who cannot look upon iniquity, Heb. i. 13, and are by nature children of wrath, or of the judgment of God. But as viewed in Christ, and in relation to his death, the elect are the objects of God’s everlasting love, and this love in his good time takes effect. He sends his Son to be a propitiatory sacrifice for them, thus making satisfaction to his justice, and removing every obstacle to his beino: reconciled to them. He unites them to the Son of his love, and in him, clothed with his righteousness, they become the children of God, and then in themselves the proper objects of his love. The ministry committed to the Apostles is called the ministry of reconciliation. Men are besought to be reconciled to God from the consideration of his having made him who knew no sin to be sin for his people. Here is a double reconciliation — namely, of God to men, and of men to God. The latter is urged from the consideration of the former, and this consideration is effectual for all for whom the reconciliation was made. The whole of this reconciliation is through the death of his Son. Thus does God call his people with a holy calling. He invites them to friendship with himself through an all-sufficient atonement; and they lay aside their enmity to him when they see that God has laid aside his. anger against them. Thus they are reconciled to him through the death of his Son.
What in the preceding verse is spoken of as the lilood of Christ, is here spoken of as his death. These varied terms are useful to express the idea in such a manner that it cannot be evaded. Christ’s blood was an atonement as it was his death. This shows that no degree of suffering would have been sufficient as an atonement for our sins without the actual death of the sacrifice, according to the original sentence against man. Jesus Christ might have suffered all that he did suffer without a total extinction of life. But he must not only suffer — he must also die. This phraseology, then, is calculated to meet the error of those Christians, who, from a desire of magnifying the efficacy of the blood of Christ, have said that one drop of it would have been sufficient to save. Had one drop been sufficient, two drops of it would never have been shed.
Saved ly his life. — If we were reconciled by his death, much more shall we be saved by his life. Some find a difficulty in this, as if it implied that the atonement and price of redemption were not complete at the death of Christ. But the Apostle is not speaking on that point. He is speaking of the security of the believer from any danger, by Christ as alive. The meaning is, we shall be saved by him as existing alive, or as living, Heb. vii. 25. We need Christ raised from the dead to intercede for our daily transgressions, and to save us from wrath. The efficacy of the death and the intercession of Jesus Christ have the same objects and the same extent, John, xvii. 9. He intercedes for all those for whom he died. “It is Christ that died, yea, rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us,” Rom. viii. 34 — For us — that is, for those whom the Apostle had addressed as leloved of God, saints chap. i. 7, and all that are such.
Two comparisons are made in this passage, one between the past and the present state of believers; they were first the enemies, now they are the friends of God. The other is between the past and the present condition of Christ; he was dead, now he is alive. And the proposition that unites these two is, that reconciliation with God is entirely owing to the death of
VOL I. 2e
Christ as its meritorious cause. Since, then, the death of the Redeemer could produce so great an effect as the reconcihation to himself of those who were the enemies of the Most High, what room can there be to doubt that the life of Christ is sufficient to accomplish what is less difficult; that is to say, to obtain the continuation of the Divine friendship and benevolence for those whose reconciliation has been already purchased at a price of such infinite cost? By the death which he suffered in their place, they are freed from condemnation; the rigour of the law having had its course, and having received its execution by the punishment of their sins in him, and thus they are saved from the effects of wrath. By his resurrection, his life, and his entrance into eternal glory, the reward reserved for his work as Mediator, they become partakers of that glory. “In my father’s house are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you.” “Because I live, ye shall live also.” “Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me.’”* Thus Jesus Christ, who was delivered for the offences of his people, was raised again for their justification; and this unparalleled love of God, who has not spared his well-beloved Son, is the surest foundation for the absolute and unlimited confidence in him of every man who, renouncing his own righteousness, submits to his righteousness. At the same time, the necessity of the shedding of blood infinitely precious, in order to the Justification of believers, is the strongest proof of the infinite evil of sin, and of the infinite purity and awful justice of God. It shows the extreme difficulty there was in reconciling God to man, as it could only be done by a satisfaction to his justice, which could not be accomplished but by the death of his only begotten Son.
F. 1 1. — And not only so, but we also joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by ivhovi we have now received the atonement.
Not only so. — That is, we shall not only escape the wrath to come, but we have such prospects, that we rejoice in God. The measure of excess is future glory above mere exemption from misery. These two things are entirely distinct, and afford distinct grounds of thanksgiving. Joy in God. — It was before declared that believers have peace with God, that they have access to him, and that they rejoice in the hope of his glory. Now the Apostle represents them as arrived at the fountain-head, looking through all the blessings conferred on them, and rejoicing in God himself as the source of them all. The Christian’s joy is all in God. He exults in his prospects, but all are ascribed to God, and not to his own merit. God is the great and ultimate object of his joy. “My soul shall make her boast in the Lord.” “O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together.”” “I will rejoice in the Lord, I will joy in the God of my salvation.” “The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance, my portion for ever. I will go unto the altar of God, unto God my exceeding joy.“” The sentiment of the love of God, in so great a salvation, and of joy in him, is more deeply impressed upon the believer, by considering the rock from which he has been hewn, and the hole of the pit from which he has been dug. In the above verses, the former situation of those who are saved is declared in the strongest language. They were without
STRENGTH, UNGODLY, SINNERS, UNDER WRATH,
ENEMIES OF GOD. If such, thou, was their original condition, what reason have they not only to rejoice in the hope of glory, but above all in the goodness and mercy of God, who has now reconciled them to himself. Phil. iii. 1; iv. 4.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, — Joy in God, with all those unspeakable blessings above enumerated, are again and again declared to come by him, through whom God manifests his love, and is reconciled to his people. The name of Jesus Christ being here introduced so often, should be especially remarked. The Christian has joy and glorying in God only through Christ; without Christ, God could not be viewed as a friend. He must be an object of hatred. Our friendly relation to God is all through Christ. Atonement rather reconciliation, according to the original, as in the foregoing verse. — Reconciliation has been made through the death of Christ. Believers have accepted or received that reconciliation. But it is not of themselves that they have received or accepted this reconciliation; it is by Christ. Christ has not only made the reconciliation, but he makes his people receive it.
We now come to the Isecond division of this chapter, from verse 12 to 19. Having spoken of justification by faith, and having called our attention to several points connected with it, the Apostle now speaks of it, as it was figuratively exhibited in the condemnation of the human race in Adam. He first directs attention to the one man by whom sin was brought into the world, and declares that death came by sin. This necessarily imports that death is the lot of all that sin, and of none but such as are sinners. If death entered because of sin, it could affect none who were not sinners. But the Apostle does not leave this to be inferred by others, although this inference is both necessary and obvious. He draws it himself. “So death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ;*” thus plainly asserting that all are sinners upon whom death passes. Every step in this process is natural and obvious. We may trace the very train in the Apostle’s mind. We may see the reason of every subjoined expression. Having said that all are sinners who die, it immediately occurs to him that this would appear strange to some; he proceeds, therefore, to show how all have sinned. This he does by observing, that sin was in the world before the law of Moses, and that it had existed from Adam until the law was given. But this, as he observes, could not have been the case, had not law existed; “for sin is not imputed where there is no law.” What, then, is the evidence that sin existed before the law of Moses? The evidence is, that death reigned. And what is the evidence that sin existed in infants! The evidence is, that death reigned over them. If death came upon man by sin, it could not reign over any of the human race who were not sinners. Adam is called the figure of him thai was to come, and this must not be confined to one or two particulars, but must extend to every thing in which Christ’s seed are one with him, as contrasted with every thing in which Adam’s seed are one with him. If Christ’s seed are one with him in any characteristic point in which Adam’s seed are not one with him, then the “figure,” or type, would fail. Having shown the similarity, the Apostle proceeds to show the dissimilarity, or the abounding of grace over what was lost in Adam. This he continues to the end of verse 19, summing up in the 18th and ] 9th verses what he had referred to in the 12th, from which he was led by the considerations above specified.
In proceeding to analyze what is taught in v. 12-19, Mr Stuart professes to feel great difficulty. Considering the lamentable manner in which he has perverted and misrepresented the whole passage, this is not at all surprising. In his Synopsis, he says, ‘As the consequences of ‘Adam’s sin were extended to all men, so the ’ consequences of Christ’s obedience (viz. unto ’ death) are extended to all; i. e. Jews and ‘Gentiles all come on an equal footing into the ’ kingdom of Christ,’ p. 196. And again he says, that verses 12-19 ’ are designed at once ’ to confirm the statement made in ch. iii. 23- ’ 30, and iv. 10-19; i- e. to confirm the senti- ’ ment, that Gentiles as well as Jews may re- ’ joice in the reconciliation effected by Christ; ’ while, at the same time, the whole represen- ’ tation serves very much to enhance the great- ’ ness of the blessings which Christ has procur- ’ ed for sinners, by the contrast in which these ’ blessings are placed,’ p. 198. There is here no reference at all to the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. The design is evidently to show the likeness between the way in which righteousness and life came, and the way in which condemnation and death came, the former by Christ, the latter by Adam. He adds, ‘I cannot ’ perceive the particular design of introducing ’ such a contrast in this place, unless it be to ’ show the propriety and justice of extending the ’ blessings of reconciliation to the Gentiles as ’ well as to the Jews, and to set off to the best ’ advantage the greatness of these blessings.’ But the extension of these blessings to the Gentiles, however important a truth it is, and however much dwelt on in other places, has nothing to do in this place, or with this contrast. The contrast here brought forward is the same, whether the blessings are supposed to be confined to the Jews, or also extended to the Gentiles. The contrast is not between Jew and Gentile, but between Adam and Christ, between the way of condemnation and the way of justification. How does Mr Stuart bring in the distinction between Jews and Gentiles? He might as well introduce it into the history of the creation. But the common view of the passage is quite in accordance with the preceding context.
The difficulty he feels is a difficulty to reconcile it with his own unscriptural views of this part of the word of God.
The following observations of President Edwards on the connexion of this passage, in reference to the commentary of Dr Taylor, are equally applicable to the difficulties experienced respecting it by Mr Stuart. ‘No wonder, when ’ the Apostle is treating so full and largely of ’ our restoration, righteousness, and life by ‘Christ, that he is led by it to consider our fall, ’ sin, death, and ruin by Adam; and to observe ’ wherein these two opposite heads of mankind ’ agree, and wherein they differ, in the manner of ’ conveyance of opposite influences and commu- ’ nications from each. Thus if this place be ’ understood, as it is used to be understood by ’ orthodox divines, the whole stands in a natu- ’ ral, easy, and clear connexion with the prece- ’ ding part of the chapter, and all the former ’ part of the epistle; and in a plain agreement * with the express design of all that the Apostle ’ had been saying; and also in connexion with ’ the words last before spoken, as introduced by ’ the two immediately preceding verses, where ’ he is speaking of our justification, reconcilia- ’ tion, and salvation by Christ; which leads the ‘Apostle directly to observe, how, on the con- ’ trary, we have sin and death by Adam.
‘Taking this discourse of the Apostle in its true ’ and plain sense, there is no need of great extent ’ of learning, or depth of criticism, to find out ’ the connexion; but if it be understood in Dr ‘Taylor’s sense, the plain scope and connexion ’ are wholly lost, and there was truly need of a ’ skill in criticism, and art of discerning, beyond ’ or at least different from that of former divines, ’ and a faculty of seeing something afar off, ’ which other men’s sight could not reach, in ’ order to find out the connexion,’ Orig. Sin, p. 312. It would be well if those, who will not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, would employ their “skill in criticism, and art of discerning,” on some other book than the Bible.
V. 12. — Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ,- and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’
Wherefore. — This refers to what follows, and not to what precedes. The inference is deduced from what is still to be mentioned. For this reason, a reason that is about to be stated, namely, as by one man sin entered, so by one man came righteousness. As- — This is a particle introducing a comparison. The Apostle is led off from the other part of the comparison after this 12th verse, and does not find an opportunity to return to it till verse 18th, in which he reverts to it, not directly, however, but with allusion also to what was introduced in the intermediate verses. He gives the substance of the comparison, but he repeats both parts of it, or introduces it anew, because the first introduction of it was at so great a distance. Entered by one man, — Mr Stuart interprets this by commence. Sin commenced with one man. But this is not the Apostle’s meaning. If ever sin commenced, it must have commenced by one. But it is not that sin merely commenced by one, but that it came upon all the world from one. This is the only point of view in which it can be contrasted with Christ’s righteousness. The meaning is, that as Adam’s sin came upon all men, so Christ’s righteousness came upon all his posterity, or his people whom he represented. Death by sin. — If death came through sin, then all who die are sinners. This proves, contrary to Mr Stuart’s view of the passage, that infants are sinners in Adam. Had infants no guilt in Adam’s sin, they would not meet death, or disease, or misery of any kind, till they came to be actual transgressors. And so. — That is consequently, or in this manner, not, as Mr Stuart, in like manner. This shows the consequence of what is said in the former clauses, namely, that death comes on all, because of the one man’s offence. Passed or passed through. That is, it passed through from father to son. All men. — That is, all of the human race, not all merely who sin actually. And as a matter of fact, we see that death does pass upon all without exception. For that, or inasmuch as. Some translate this “in whom.” This is not to be approved. There is no need of this translation. The meaning is, that death passes on all, because all are sinners. Mr Stuart makes this refer to those who are actually sinners. But there is no warrant for this. Besides, all have not actually sinned. And this would not serve his purpose, because at all events it is here implied that death comes on men on account of sin. Since, then, infants die, it proves that they are sinners. If the assertion be, that death passes on adults because they are sinners, it may be asked why death passes upon children on the supposition that they are not sinners? And farther, where is the likeness, if the expression” and so,’’’’ be interpreted in like manner? Is there any likeness between sin’*s entering the world through one man’*s offence, and a man dying by his own actual sin? Still less would this illustrate the way of justification through Christ, which is the Apostle’s object in this place. It is quite obvious that the Apostle designs to assert that all die, because all are sinners, which as truly includes infants as adults. Have sinned, — that is, have really sinned, though not in their own persons. This does not mean, as some explain it, that infants become involved in the consequences of Adam’s sin, without his guilt. Adam’s sin was as truly the sin of every one of his posterity as it was his own. It is only in this way that all could be involved in its consequences. Besides it is in this light only that it is illustrative of justification by Christ. Believers truly die with Christ, and pay the debt in him by being constituted one with him. It is not our business to enquire how can these things be so; we receive it on the testimony of God.
F”. 13. — (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
This gives the reason why death was in the world before the law of JNIoses, although death in all is the consequence of sin. Death was reigning universally in the world before the law, as well as after it. But the Apostle had said that death was the consequence of sin; he now states that it is no exception to this that death reigned before the law, because sin reigned before the law. Until — that is, from the entrance of sin and death by Adam till the law. The law. — This is the law of Moses. Was — that is, really was, or truly existed, not, as Dr Macknight, “was counted,” as if Adam’s posterity had his first sin counted to them, though it was not truly theirs. It was their sin as truly as it was his, and our business is not to try to account for this on principles level to the capacity of man, but to receive it as little children, on the authority of God. Many are greatly in error in the interpretation of “sin is not imputed,’’ understanding it as if before the giving of the law sin existed, but was not imputed; but if sin exists, it must be reckoned sin. The word means that sin does not exist where there is no law. Where there is no law there is no transgression. The conclusion, therefore, is, that as sin is not reckoned where there is no law, and as sin was reckoned, or as it existed before the law of Moses, therefore there was law before the law of Moses. The passage may be thus paraphrased: — “For sin existed among men from Adam to Moses, as well as afterwards. Yet there is no sin where there is no law. There were, then, both sin and law before the giving of the law of Moses.” The law before Moses is that which God had promulgated, besides the law written in the heart, which makes all men accountable.
V. l. — Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to cme.
But — that is, though it is a truth that there is no sin where there is no law, and that where there is no law transgressed, there is no death, yet we see that death reigned from Adam to
Moses, as well as from Moses to the present time. The conclusion from this is self-evident, and therefore the Apostle leaves his readers to draw it — namely, that the human race have always been under law, and have universally been transgressors. Even over them. — Some suppose that the persons referred to are those who did not, like Adam, break a revealed or a positive law; but this is objected to on the following grounds: 1st, There is no strong or striking difference, and therefore no contrast between the different methods of promulgating a law. Whether a law is made known by being written on the heart, or being written on tables, is nothing at all to the persons to whom it is given. A contrast might as well be made between those who know a law by reading it themselves, and those who hear it read, or those who hear it immediately from the lawgiver, and those who hear it through the medium of others. 2d, The reason of introducing the persons referred to by the word even implies that they are such persons as apparently ought to be excluded from the reign of sin and death. This cannot designate those who in any way know the law. But it evidently applies to infants. No one will cordially receive this except the man who, like a little child, submits to the testimony of God. Indeed no man can understand the grounds of this imputation, so as to be able perfectly to justify it on principles applicable to human life. It must always stand, not on our ability to see the justice of it, but on our belief that God speaks true, and that it is just, as the Judge of all the earth in all things does justly, whether we are able to see it or not. 3d, The word even supposes that the persons referred to are but a portion of those generally included in the declaration of the preceding clauses. These cannot be such as received not a positive law for all, from Adam to Moses, are such; but it will apply to infants. Death reigned from Adam to Moses over all the human race, even over infants who did not actually sin, but sinned in Adam. 4th, Who was the image or type. — This appears to have been suggested from the immediately preceding clause, and to imply that the persons referred to were sinners or transgressors of law, just as the saved are righteous — the one sinners in Adam, just as the others are righteous in Christ. The one fulfils the law just as the other breaks the law — namely, in their great head or representative. But, 5th, Even if the persons here referred to were those who did not break a positive law or a revealed law, yet it will come to the same thing. If the reign of death proves the reign of sin in such persons, must not the reign of death over infants equally prove the reign of sin I If the death of adults before the time of Moses was a proof of their being sinners, then of necessity the death of infants must prove the same thing. If death does not prove sin in infants, it cannot prove sin in any. If infants may die though they are not sinners, then may adults die without being sinners.
Figure of him who teas to come. — Efforts are made by some to bring uncertainty and obscurity upon a very clear subject, “^ making it a matter of difficulty. What are the respects in which this likeness consists? Mr Stuart instances a number of particulars, in which he makes the likeness on the part of Christ to extend to certain benefits, which his death has conferred on all mankind. But this is neither contained in this place, nor in any other passage of Scripture. This writer wishes to evade the conclusion that Adam’s sin condemns all his posterity, and attempts to make out that it only indirectly led to that result. But it is evident, that from the connexion Adam must here be represented as a figure of Christ in that transgression that is spoken of, and in its consequences. His transgression, and the ruin it brought on all mankind as being one with him, was a figure of the obedience to the law, and the suffering of the penalty, and the recovery
VOL. I. 2 F from its condemnation, by our being one with Christ as our covenant head.
The resemblance, on account of which Adam is regarded as the type of Christ, consists in this, that Adam communicated to those whom lie represented what belonged to him, and that Christ also communicated to those whom he represents what belongs to him. There is, however, a great dissimilarity between what the one and the other communicates. By his disobedience Adam has communicated sin and death, and by his obedience Christ has communicated righteousness and life; and as Adam was the author of the natural life, so Christ is the author of the spiritual life, which his people have, and which they shall enjoy at their resurrection, and according to these analogies he is called the last Adam. If, then, the actual obedience of Christ is thus imputed to all those of whom he is the head, and is counted to them for their justification as their own obedience; in the same way, the actual sin of Adam, who is the type of Christ, is imputed to all those of whom he is the head, and is counted for their condemnation, as their own sin. In writing to those at Corinth who were “sanctified in Christ Jesus,” the Apostle says, “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly,” The idea that the Scriptures give us of the sin of the first man is, that it was a complete subversion of nature, and the establishment of the kingdom of Satan in the world; they also show us, that the purpose of sending Jesus Christ into the world was to destroy the empire of Satan, sin, and death. “We read,’” says Mr. Bell on the Covenants, “of two Adams, 1 Cor. XV. 45-49. As the one is called the first man, the other is called the second, even the Lord from heaven. Now, as there were innumerable multitudes of men between the first man and him, it is plain that he is called the second man for some very peculiar reason. And what else can that be, but because he is the representative and Father of all his spiritual seed, as the first man was of all his natural seed? The one is the head, the federal head of the earthy men, the other of the heavenly. Since the one is called the second man, not because he was the second in the order of creation, but because he was the second public head, it follows that the other is called the first man, not because he was first created, or in opposition to his descendants, but because he was the first public head in opposition to Christ the second. Thus the two Adams are the heads of the two covenants. The one the representative of all who are under the covenant of works, communicating his image unto them; the other the representative of all who are under the covenant of grace, and communicating his image unto them. By the one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, and by the obedience of the other many shall be made righteous.”
V. 15. — But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
Not as the offence. — There is a likeness between the sin of Adam and the gift of righteousness by Christ. But as in most instances, with regard to types, the antitype surpasses the type; and while, in some respects, the type furnishes a likeness, in others it may be very dissimilar. The sin of Adam involved all his posterity in guilt and ruin, as they were all represented in him as their head. This was a shadow of the gift of righteousness by grace. All Christ’’s seed were represented in him, and are made righteous by his one obedience. But while the one was a type of the other in this respect, there is a great unlikeness as to the degree of the evil and of the blessing. The evil brought death, but the blessing not only recovered from ruin, but abounded to unspeakable htpiness. If through the offence of one many he dead. — Here it is taken for granted, that “the many” who die, die through Adam’s offence. Infants then die through Adam’s offence, for they are a part of “the many.’”* But we have before seen that death comes only by sin; that is, none die who are not sinners, and there is no sin where there is no law, consequently infants are sinners, and must be included in the law under which Adam sinned. If infants die by Adam’s offence, they must be guilty by Adam’s offence; for God does not visit with the punishment of sin where there is no sin. Grace of God, and gift by grace. — These differ, as the one is the spring and fountain of the other. The gift of righteousness is a gift which results purely from grace. Some explain this phrase, as if by a figure one thing is made into two. But they are really two things. By one, Jesus Christ. — The gift comes only by Jesus Christ. Without his atonement for sin, the gift could not have been made. Grace could not operate till justice was satisfied.
Haih abounded unto many. — The abounding cannot possibly be with respect to the greater number of individuals benefited. None are benefited by Christ but those who were ruined in Adam. And only a part of those who were ruined are benefited. In this respect, then, instead of an abounding, there is a shortcoming. The abounding is evidently in the gift extending, not only to the recovery of what Adam lost, but to blessings which Adam did not possess, and had no reason to expect. The redeemed are raised in the scale of creation above all creatures, whereas they were created lower than the angels. Some are of opinion that the Apostle here rests the abounding of the gift on supposition, and in the following verses proves it. Thus, as so much evil has come by Adam, it may well be supposed that much more good will come by Christ. But this is evidently mistaking the meaning altogether. The Apostle does not rest on supposition from the nature of the case, but asserts a fact. He does not say that it may well be supposed that a greater good comes by Christ than the evil that came by Adam; but he says that the good that comes by Christ does more than repair the evil that came by Adam.
V. 16. — And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for thejudiiment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is cf many offences xinto juUificalion.
This is another particular in which the gift exceeds the evil. It not only, as in the last verse, gives more than Adam lost, but it pardons many sins, whereas condemnation came by one sin on the part of Adam. The one that sinned. — Many read one sin; but the common reading is preferable. The meaning is — in the case of the one that sinned namely Adam, condemnation came by one offence but the free gift of righteousness extends to many offences, and to life eternal. Judgment or sentence. — The original word here often itself signifies condemnation, or a condemning sentence; but as it here issues in condemnation, it must denote simply sentence, a judgment, without involving the nature of that sentence. Condemnation. — Here it is expressly asserted that condemnation has come by the one sin of the one man. If, then, all are condemned by that sin, all must be guilty by it, for the righteous judge would not condemn the innocent. To say that any are condemned or punished for Adam’s sin who are not guilty by it, is to accuse the righteous God of injustice. By one. — Some make the substantive understood to be man. But though this would be a truth, yet, from the nature of the sentence, it is evident that the substantive understood is not man, but sin; for it is opposed to the many offences. It is, then, the one offence opposed to many offences. Unto justification. — The free gift confers the pardon of the many offences in such a way that the person becomes righteous; he is of course justified.
V. n. — For if by one mans offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one Jesus Christ.)
By one mans offence. — Rather by the offence of the one man; the margin has “by one offence,“*’ for which there is no foundation. Death reigned. — It is here said that death reigned by the offence of the one man, consequently every one over whom death reigns is involved in that one offence of that one man. It is also said” death reigned’’ “by the one.” The empire of death, then, extends over infants and all men, on account of the one man. Instead of dying for their actual sins, death is the penalty to all men of the first sin. Beigned. — Those who die are here supposed to be the subjects of death, and death is considered as their king. If infants were not guilty in Adam, they could not be under the power of death. If they are not worthy of condemnation till they sin actually, they would not die till they sin actually. Much more. — Here the abounding of the gift over thel evil is specified. Those redeemed by the death of Christ are not merely recovered from the fall, but made to reign through Jesus Christ, which they had no title to in Adam’s communion. The saved are described as receiving abundance of grace, or the abundance, that is, the grace that abounds over the loss. This applies to all the redeemed. They all receive the abundance; they all receive more than was lost. They are also said to receive a superabounding of the gift of righteousness. This refers to the better righteousness possessed by the redeemed than that which in innocence was possessed by Adam; for theirs is the righteousness of Christ, the righteousness of him who is God. To this the righteousness of Adam and of angels cannot be compared. Shall reign in life. — Believers are to be kings as well as priests. All this they are to be through the one Jesus Christ; for as they were one with Adam in his fall, so they are one with Christ in what he did for them. If he be a king, they also shall be kings, for they are one with him as they were one with Adam. They shall not be re-established in the terrestrial paradise, in which man was first placed, with the danger of falling; but shall be brought to honour and glory and immortality in the heavenly world, before the throne of God, without the smallest danger of ever losing that blessing. They shall eat of the tree of life, not on earth, but in the midst of the paradise of God, Speaking of his sheep in the character of a shepherd, Jesus Christ himself says, “I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”’’* “I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any one pluck them out of my hand. My Father, who gave them me, is greater than all, and no one can pluck them out of my Father’s hand.” “Your life is hid with Christ in God,” Col. iii. 3. By all this we learn the excellence of that life in which believers shall reign, by whom it is conferred, its absolute security, and eternal duration.
r. 1 8. — Therefore us by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the rigfiteonsness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
There/ore, or wherefore, then, — the one word in the original signifies wherefore, the other signifies then, or consequently. It states the result of what was said. B^ the offence of one or by one offence. — Both of these are equally true, but the latter appears to be the design of the Apostle, as the expression wants the article. There are no words in the original corresponding to judgment and free gift, but they are rightly supplied by an ellipsis from verse 16. Condemnation. — Here it is expressly asserted that all men are condemned in the first offence. Infants, then, are included. If they are condemned, they cannot be innocent. By the righteousness of one or rather by one righteousness. Mr Stuart prefers the former, because of the antithesis, hi hog dua/dofxarog which, he says, *’ naturally cannot mean any thing but the righteouness of one (not one righteousness) T But the phrase alluded to can very naturally and properly signify one righteousness, as the obedience of Christ is summed up in his act of obedience to death. Righteousness here, Mr Stuart makes obedience, holiness, righteousness. But it is righteousness in its proper sense. By the one act, of giving himself for our sins, Christ brought in everlasting righteousness. The free gift came upon all men. — How did the free gift come upon all men, seeing all are not saved? Mr Stuart explains it, as signifying that righteousness is provided for all. But this is not the Apostle’s statement. The coming of the free gift upon all is contrasted with the coming of condemnation on all, and therefore it cannot mean that condemnation actually came upon all, but that the free gift was only provided for all. Besides, it is added, unto justification of life. — This is the issue of the coming of the free gift. It ends in the justification of life. Upon all men. — Those here referred to must be those, and those only, who are partakers of justification, and who shall finally be saved. What then? Are all men to be justified? No; but the all men, here said to be justified, are evidently the all that are represented by Christ. All who have been one with Adam were involved in his condemnation; and all who are one with Christ shall be justified.
There is a reference to the two heads, and the all men must be limited to their respective heads.
V. 19. — For a:i by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
For. — This assigns a reason for what the Apostle has said. Bi, one mans disobedience many were made sinners. — Here it is expressly asserted tlaat the many (not many; it includes all who were in Adam, that is, all the human race) were made or constituted sinners by Adam’s disobedience. Mr Stuart attempts to evade this, by supposing that they are led into sin by the occasion of Adam’s sin. But this is a great perversion. Adam’s disobedience is said not merely to be the occasion of leading his posterity into sin, but to have constituted them sinners. Mr Stuart rests much on the absurdity of supposing that one man is punished for another’s offence. But Adam’s offence is the offence of all his posterity. It constituted them sinners, and therefore must be their sin. We must, like little children, receive God’s testimony upon this as well as every other subject. We must not rest our acquiescence in God’s testimony upon our ability to fathom the depth of his unsearchable counsels. Mr Stuart makes Adam’s sin merely what he calls the instrumental or occasional cause. But with no propriety can Adam’s sin be called the instrument by which his posterity sinned. This is pure nonsense. And an occasional cause is no cause. Every person knows the difference between a cause and an occasion. Besides, to suppose that Christ’s own obedience is the real cause of our justification, and that Adam’s sin is only the occasion, not properly the cause of our condemnation, is to destroy the contrast between Adam and Christ, on which the Apostle here insists. If Christ’s obedience is the ground of our justification, Adam’s disobedience must, by the contrast, be the ground of our condemnation. So. — That is, in this loay., not in like manner. It is not in a manner that has merely some likeness, but it is in the very same manner. For although there is a contrast in the things, the one being disobedience, and the other obedience, yet there is a perfect identity in the manner. This is important, as by the turn given to the word translated so, Mr Stuart perverts the passage. The many shall be constituted righteous. The many here applies to all in Christ. It is argued, that the phrase “the many” must be equally extensive in its application in both cases. So it is as to the respective representatives. The many, with reference to Adam, includes all his race. The many, with respect to Christ, implies all his seed. Again, if it is said that Adam’s posterity became sinners merely by the example, influence, or occasion of his sin, it may, with equal propriety, be said that Christ’s posterity became righteous by the example or occasion of his righteousness. This makes void the gospel altogether.
Mr Stuart seems to understand that, according to the doctrine of imputation, sins are accounted to Adam’s race that are not their sins, or, in other words, that God accounts a thing to be fact which is not fact; just as he had before affirmed, that faith is imputed as righteousness. But Adam’s sin is imputed to his posterity, because it is their sin in reality, though we may not be able to see the way in which it is so. Indeed we should not pretend to explain this, because it is to be believed on the foundation of the divine testimony, and not on human speculation, or on our ability to account for it. I. If God testifies that Adam’s first sin is also that of all his posterity, is he not to be credited? If there be no such divine testimony’, we do not plead for the doctrine. On this ground the doctrine must rest. 2. Mr Stuart speaks of imputation in its strict sense, or in a rigid sense. This too much resembles an artifice designed to deceive the simple into the belief that he admits the doctrine, if not substantially, at least in some sense. This, however, is not the fact. He cannot admit imputation in any sense. He does not admit Adam’s sin to be our
8in in the lowest degree. 3. If in reality he does admit imputation in the lowest degree, then it is not impossible in the highest. If it is essentially unjust, it cannot exist in the lowest degree. Why then does he speak in this uncandid manner? Does this language betoken a man writing under the full conviction that he is contending for the truth of God? He professes to determine this question by an appeal to the natural sentiments of men. But if this tribunal is sufficient to decide this point, is it not equally so with respect to innumerable others, in which deists and heretics have made a like appeal? On this ground may not a man say, I cannot admit the eternity of future punishment, for it is contrary to my natural sentiments: I cannot admit that a good Being is the creator of the world, for he would not have permitted evil to enter it had he been able to keep it out? He says, page 233, “We never did, and never can, feel guilty of another’s act, which was done without any knowledge or concurrence of our own.” But if God has testified that there is a sense in which that act is our own, shall we not be able to admit and feel this? It altogether depends on the Divine testimony. Now such is the testimony of this verse in its obvious sense. How this is, or in what sense this is the case we may not be able to comprehend. This is no part of our business. This is no part of the Divine testimony. We are to believe God on his word, not from our capacity to understand the manner in which the thing testified is true. Mr Stuart himself asserts, page 235, that the sufferings of infants may conduce to their eternal good, yet, he says, “In what way I pretend not to determine.” And are we to determine in what way Adam’s sin is ours, before we admit the fact on the Divine testimony? He says, page 233, “We may just as well say, that we can appropriate to ourselves and make our own the righteousness of another, as his unrighteousness.” Here he denies the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. If the Divine testimony assures us, that by a Divine constitution we are made one with Christ, is not his righteousness ours? In opposition to all such infidel reasonings, it is becoming in the believer to say, I fully acknowledge, and I humbly confess, on the testimony of my God, that I am guilty of Adam’s sin; but by the same testimony, and by the same Divine constitution, I believe that I am a partaker of God’s righteousness — the righteousness of my God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of the free gift of that righteousness, which not only removes the guilt, and all the fatal consequences of that first sin, but of the many offences which I have myself committed. Regarding the difficulties that in both these respects present themselves, I hear my Saviour say, “What is that to thee? follow thou me.” In the mean time, it is sufficient for me to know, that the Judge of all the earth will do right: What I know not now, I shall know hereafter.
A considerable part of the resistance to the imputation of Adam’s sin, is owing to the ground on which the evidence of the fact is often rested. It is not simply placed on the authority of the testimony of God, but is attempted to be justified by human procedure. The difficulty that some persons feel on this subject, arises from the supposition, that though the sin of the first man is charged upon his posterity, yet it is not theirs. But the Scriptures hold it forth as ours in as true a sense as it was Adam’s. We may be asked to explain how it can be ours, and here we may find ourselves at a loss for an answer. But we ought to consider that we are not obliged to give an answer on this point either to others or to ourselves. We are to receive it on the Divine testimony, assured that what God declares must be true, however unable we may be to comprehend it. We ought not to perplex ourselves by endeavouring to ascertain the grounds of the Divine testimony on this subject. Our business is to understand the import of what is testified, and to receive it on that authority — not to inquire
VOL. I 2 G into the justice of the constitution from which our guilt results. This is not revealed, and it is utterly beyond our province and beyond our depth. Did Abraham understand why he was commanded to offer up his son 1 No. But he was strong in faith, and his faith in obeying in that instance is held forth in Scripture for our imitation, Heb. xi. 17. Like Abraham, let us give glory to God, by believing implicitly what we have no means of knowing to be true, but simply on the testimony of God.
The defenders of scriptural truth take wrong ground when they rest it on any thing but the testimony of Scripture. It is highly dishonourable to God to refuse to submit to his decisions till we can demonstrate their justice. Those writers who have endeavoured to vindicate the Divine justice in accounting Adam’’s sin to be ours, and to reconcile the mind of man to that procedure, have not only laboured in vain, but have actually injured the cause which they meant to uphold. The connexion according to which we suffer with our first father, is not such as is to be vindicated or illustrated by human transactions. The union of Adam and his posterity is a Divine constitution. The grounds of this constitution are not to be found in any of the justifiable transactions of men; and all attempts to make us submit by convincing us of its propriety, from what we are able to understand upon a comparison with the affairs of men, are only calculated to impose on credulity and to produce unbelief. We receive it because God says it, not because we see it to be just. We know it to be just, because it is part of the ways of the just God. But how it is just we may not be able to see. We receive it like little children who believe the testimony of their father, though they do not understand the grounds or reasons of the thing testified.
Nothing is more common than to vindicate the equity of our implication in the ruin of Adam’s fall, by alleging that had he stood, we should have been partakers in all his blessings. Had he stood, it is said, you would have received the benefit of his standing; is it not therefofe just that you should also receive the loss of his failure? Here the matter is rested, not on God’s testimony, but on our. sense of justice in the afikirs of men. We reply immediately, that if the transaction is not entered into with our consent, we have no obligation to be punished with the loss. Adam’s sin then we acknowledge to be ours, not because a similar thing would be just among men, but because God, the just God, testifies that it is so; and we know that the righteous God will do righteously. To submit in this way is rational; to submit on the ground of understanding the justice of the thing is to pretend to understand what is incomprehensible, and to rest faith on a fallacy, namely, that the ground of the imputation of Adam’s sin is of the same nature with human transactions. The method of vindicating Divine truth here censured has also the most unhappy tendency in encouraging Christians to think that they must always be able to give a reason for their believing God’s testimony, from their ability to comprehend the thing testified. It accustoms them to think that they should believe God not simply on his testimony, but on seeing with their own eyes that the thing is true independently of his testimony. On the contrary, the Christian ought to be accustomed to submit to God’s testimony without question, and without reluctance, even in things the furthest beyond the reach of the human mind. “Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth,”’ ought to be the motto of every Christian.
The true ground on which to vindicate it is the explicit testimony of God in the Scripture. This is so clear that no man can set it aside, we need not say without wresting the Scriptures, but, we may assert, without being conscious of violence of interpretation. Our defence of this doctrine then should ever be, “Thus saith the Lord.” This method of defence, which we are taught in this same epistle, chap. ix. 20, is not merely the only scriptural one, but it is the one that will have the greatest success. As long as a reason is alleged by the wisdom of man in support of the doctrine, so long, from the same source, an argument will be produced on the other side. But when the word of God is appealed to, and upon it all the stress of evidence rested, the Christian must submit. The writer knows from personal experience the effect of this method of teaching this doctrine.
“You cannot comprehend,” says Luther,” how a just God can condemn those who are born in sin, and cannot help themselves, but must, by a necessity of their natural constitution, continue in sin, and remain children of wrath. The answer is, God is incomprehensible throughout; and therefore his justice as well as his other attributes must be incomprehensible. It is on this very ground that St Paul exclaims, ‘O the depth of the riches and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out V Now his judgments would not be past finding out, if we could always perceive them to be just.^’
V. 20 — Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound- But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.
The law entered “privily entered,” says Dr Macknight, referring to the law of nature, which, he says, privily entered after the fall of our first parents. But no new law entered after the fall. What is called the law of nature, is only the remains of the law written in creation on the heart of man. The law here is evidently the law of Moses, and the original word signifies that the law entered in addition to the law which Adam transgressed, and to the law written in the heart. This is the effect of iraa in this place. That the offence might abound. — Some translate this, “so as the offence eventually abounds.’’ This is not the Apostle’s meaning. They say that the intention of the law was not to make sin abound, but to restrain sin, and make fewer sins. If this was the intention of giving the law, the lawgiver has been disappointed, for sins have been multiplied a thousandfold by the entrance of the law. This their view of the matter admits; for they acknowledge that this was the event., though not the intention. But if this was the event, it must also have been the intention of the lawgiver, though not of the law. God cannot be disappointed of his intentions.
But it is self-evidently clear that the intention of the promulgation of the law of Moses could not be to lessen the number of sins, when almost the whole ceremonial part of it makes things to be sin, which were not sin before the giving of the law, and which are not sinful in their own nature. Besides, sin is greatly increased as to the guilt of the breach of the moral law, by the promulgation of the law of Moses. While the law of God is holy, just, and good, it was evidently God’s intention, in the giving of it, that offences might abound. In this way the wickedness of the human heart was manifested. It showed men that they were sinners. Had not the law been repeated in its extent and purity at Sinai, such was the darkness in men’s minds, that they would not have thought themselves transgressors of its precept, or obnoxious to its curse; and not seeing themselves sinners, they would not have seen the necessity of a Surety. The “commandment is a lamp, and the law is light;“” Prov. vi. 23. It discovers the real state of human nature, and manifests not only the evil and aggravation, but also the vast accumulation and extent of the wickedness of man. The entrance, then, of the law between the author of condemnation and the author of justification, in order that sin might abound, was of the highest importance. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” The law did not put sin into the heart, but it was an instrument to display the depravity that was already in the heart. But vain man will be wise, and he will compel the word of God to submit to his own views. It may be justly’said, that such displays of the deep things of God as are made in his word are intended to manifest the blindness of the human mind, and the deep depravity of human nature. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Grace abounds over sin, inasmuch as not only it pardons the most numerous and the most heinous sins, but also confers eternal life upon the sinner.
V. 21. — That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
As sin hath reigned unto (literally in or by) death. — Death here, and throughout this chapter, as well as in many other places, signifies not temporal death merely, but the whole punishment of sin, of which temporal death is perhaps the smallest part. Eternal misery is included in it, but the word “death” does not literally denote eternal misery. This is called the “second death“” and this expression gives us the key to understand the full extent of the meaning of the word. The punishment of hell is the second deaths according to Scripture explanation, Rev. XX. 14; xxi. 8, and therefore it is no fancy’ to understand future eternal punishment as included in the word. But though the expression includes this, it is not from the literal meaning of the word death that it proves it. As death is the greatest of all temporal evils, it was not only a part of the punishment of the first sin, but it was the symbol of the second death. Another proof that death includes the whole punishment of sin is, that in Rom. vi. 23, death is called the wages of sin. If death be the wages of sin, then death must include every thing that is the wages or punishment of sin. But the Scriptures point out future misery, as well as temporal death, as being the wages of sin. This proof is incontrovertible. The Scriptures show, that the punishment of sin is eternal misery; if so, death includes eternal misery. AVhile this lays no stress on the necessary literal meaning of the word death, it comes to the same conclusion. Another proof that death here signifies the whole punishment of sin, and, consequently, that it includes eternal misery, is, that the gift of God is said to be “eternal life.” Now life literally is tis limited as death. Yet life here signifies not merely existence in a state of consciousness, but of happiness. Life, indeed, even without the word eternal, is in Scripture taken to signify all the happiness of the future state of the blessed.
What objection, then, can there be to a like extended signification of the term death? That it includes spiritual death is beyond a question, as the Scriptures expressly use this term in this sense, Eph. ii. 1; Col. ii. 13. That they are all included in the threatening against the eating of the tree in the garden is most certain. It is no objection that it was not explained to Adam in this sense. If any part of Scripture explains it in this sense it is sufficient. It may be said, that it would be unjust to punish Adam in any extent that he did not understand in the threatening. He understood by it destruction, at least we have no ground to say that he did not. Returning to the dust is not the explanation of the threatening, it being God’s appointment in connexion with the promise of Christ. But it is perfectly sufficient that he knew the law that was given him. To make him guilty there was no necessity for any threatening. Is hot a child guilty when he breaks the command of a father, even though the command was unaccompanied with threatening? With regard to Christ’s suffering for us, it was not necessary that he should suffer eternally. It answers all the ends of justice if he has suffered a perfect equivalent. That he has done so we have the clear testimony of the Scriptures, and we have no need to show how he has done so by metaphysical explanations and calculations of our own.
Even so might grace reign through righteousness. — Mr Stuart having subverted, by his interpretations and reasonings, every idea of the imputation of sin, as he had formerly altogether set aside the imputation of righteousness, is only consistent in misrepresenting the meaning of this passage. As he has mistaken the import of the expression righteousness at the commencement of this discussion, so he also misunderstands it here. His explanation is, that ’ grace ’ might reign or have an influence widely ex- * tended, in the bestowment of justification or ’ pardoning mercy.’ The passage informs us, that grace reigns unto eternal life, which does indeed include the bestowment of justification. But it informs us of something more, and that of the last importance, which Mr Stuart’s mistaking righteousness for justification leads him entirely to omit. Grace reigns through righteousness., even the righteousness of God., which fulfils his law, and satisfies his justice, and displays his holiness; whereas, did grace bestow a justification in such a way as Mr Stuart describes, it would do so at the expense of law and justice, and dishonour the whole Divine administration.
Unto eternal life ly Jesus Christ our Lord. —
This is that life of which Jesus Christ, who is risen from the dead, is the author, as the death here spoken of is that which he came to destroy. The source of our natural life is Adam, but he is dead, and in his communion we all die. But a new source of life is provided in the second Adam, that he may deliver from death all that are in his communion. “The first Adam was made a living soul,” that he might communicate natural life to those who had not received it. “The last Adam was made a quickening spirit,” that he might impart spiritual life to those who had lost it. The first communicated an earthly and perishable life, the second a life that is celestial and immortal. Jesus Christ is that eternal life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us; and the Father hath given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to as many as he hath given him. “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal life.” The termination, then, of the reign of deatl over those whom he represents, and the establishment of the reign of grace through the everlasting righteousness which he has brought in, are all by Jesus Christ. He hath abolished death. By him came grace and truth; he brought life and immortality to light. He is the true God and eternal life. And “to this end Christ both died and rose, and revived, that he might be the Lord both of the dead and the living.” The similarity of the Apostle’s commencement in unfolding the doctrine of justification, and of his conclusion, is very striking. He begins by declaring that the Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation because therein is the righteousness of God revealed; and he ends by affirming, that grace reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
In this 21st verse the doctrine of the whole preceding context, the salvation of believers, is summed up in a manner most beautiful and striking. Having exhibited in a strong light the righteousness of God, chap. iii. 21, 22, the Apostle returns to it in this chapter; and having contrasted Christ and Adam, he brings out his conclusion in this verse with a contrast of the reign of sin and grace. Sin had an absolute sway over all the descendants of Adam. There was nothing good among them, or in any of them. Sin existed in every human soul. Therefore it is said to reign. The absolute and universal influence of sin is figured by the empire of a monarch in uncontrolled sovereignty. Grace also reigns. There was nothing in men to merit salvation, or to recommend them in any measure to God. Grace, therefore, reigns in their salvation, which is wholly and entirely of free favour. Sin is said to reign m, or by death. This shows that death was, in every human being, the effect of his sin. The way in which death manifested its universal reign over the human race, was in causing their death. This most fully proves that infants are sinners. If sin ruled in causing death to its subjects, then all who die are the subjects of sin. Death to the human race is in every instance the effect of the dominion of sin. Bin reigns in death. — But, if sin has reigned, grace reigns; if the former reigns in death, the latter reigns in life; yea, it reigns unto eternal life. How then does it reign unto life Is it by a gratuitous pardon? Doubtless it is. But it is not by forgiving the sinner in an arbitrary way, with respect to the punishment due to sin. Forgiveness is indeed entirely gratuitous, but if it cost believers nothing, it has cost much to their Surety. Grace reigns through righteousness. — How beautifully is thus fulfilled the prophetic declaration of Psalm lxxxv. 10-13. Grace did not, could not, deliver the lawful captives without paying the ransom. It did not trample on justice, or evade its demands. Ifc reigns by providing a Saviour to suffer in the room of the guilty. By the death of Jesus Christ, full compensation was made to the law and justice of God.
The Apostle in the end of this chapter brings his argument to a close. Every individual of the human race is proved to be guilty before God, and on the ground of his own righteousness no man can be saved. The state of the Gentile world is exhibited in the most degrading view, while history and experience most fully concur in the condemnation. Man is represented as vile, below the condition of the brutes, and the facts on which the charge is grounded, were so notorious, that they could not be denied. Nor had the most uncultivated Pagans any apology for their conduct. Their sins were against nature, and their ignorance of God was in spite of the revelation of his character in the works of creation. They are condemned by the standard they themselves recognise, and their own mutual recriminations and defences prove that they are fully aware of sin and responsibility.
But are not the Jews excepted from this black catalogue of crimes? Are they not righteous through that holy, just, and good law which they received from the God of Israel? By no means. By the testimony of that revelation which they received, all men are guilty, and this testimony directly implies those to whom the revelation was given. With this experience also coincides.
The Apostle charges them as actually doing the same thing which they condemned in the heathens. Both, then, are guilty, and from their superior light the Jews must be the most guilty.
Nor was it ever in contemplation of the law of Moses to give the Jews a righteousness by their own obedience. The law was designed rather to manifest their guilt. By the law there was to no individual a righteousness unto life; by the law was the “knowledge of sin.*” All men, then, without exception, are shut up unto condemnation.
But this law veiled the truth, which the Apostle now unfolds, and exhibits in the strongest light. He proclaims a righteousness so perfect, as to answer all the demands of the law, both as to penalty and obedience — a righteousness so free as to extend to the very chief of sinners. This righteousness is in Jesus Christ. He has borne the curse of the law, and perfectly obeyed all its precepts. All this merit becomes ours by believing the testimony of the Father concerning his Son. The guiltiest either of the Jews or the Gentiles becomes perfectly righteous the moment he believes in the work of Christ. This glorious plan of salvation vindicates the law, exalts the character of God, and reconciles mercy with justice. In the gospel grace appears; in the gospel grace reigns; but it reigns not on the ruins of law and justice, but in the more glorious establishment of both; it reigns through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. In the salvation of men by the Son of God, the law is not made void. It is magnified and made honourable. In this salvation sin is not represented as a harmless thing. It is here seen in a more awful light than in the future punishment of the wicked. The gospel is the only manifestation of God in the full glory of his character as the just God, yet the Saviour — punishing sin to the utmost extent of its demerit, at the same time that his mercy reaches to the most guilty of the children of men.