The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 92

meaning will be that he wu set forth (or justiftoation). It h excluded. By what purposed) na CLn IA.oo"r/ip,011, CLvailable for 118 manner of (,rolou) law t Of workll t Nay, through fCLith, o.nd oonetsting in the offering but by the law of faith. Is it, then, here of himself-in tho shedcling of his 01011 blood. implied that the law of works wonld .,or llhowing of hi• righteo11Sne■1 became of e.llow. of boasting? Not eo yrru:tfoally. the pa11ing over of the 1inll done a.foretime Bnt its Oi«Jry would leave room for it, on in the forbearanoe of God, in order to the the B1lPJ;>Ol~tion of its conditi,ma being fnl- 1howing of his righteousnes1 in the time fllled; it 1B e. kind of law (observe ..-olov that now is, so that he may be righteous, 11&µ.ov ;) which does not exclude it ; for if a. and justifying (the worcl is B11ca;1oii11Tti, cor• ma.u could say, "I ha.ve !nlfilled all the responding with B11ca;u,,c,6111w and 1il1Ca;uo11 righteouaness of the La.w," he would have preceding) him that is of faith in leans. something wherein to glory. But the prin- This translation differs materially from tipl.e of the law of faith, which baa been that of the Authorized Version, which is shown to be the only one available for the evidently erroneo118, especially in the j oeti.fioation of either Jew or Gentile, in rendering of Ii«\ T¾,11 ,r,J,p,crw by "for the itseli excludes it. It will be obl!erved that remission." Our translators, in a way very the strict sense of the word .,,&µ.os, hitherto unusual with them, seem to have miesed preserved, is extended in 11&µ.os T,.,..,.,.,,. the drift of the passage, and so been led (For the various applications of which the to give the above untenable rendering word is capable, see especially eh. vii.) in order to suit their view of it. It is Ver. 28.-For (-yap here, rather than o~, to be observed that two purposes of the o.s in the Text118 Receptus; though either setting f01th (or purposing) of Christ Jes118 reading rests on good authority, -yiip suits o.e /A.a;rnl,p,011 are here declared, both denoted best the course of thought, as introdncing by the word f11Bei~111, which is repeated, a. reason for the assertion of the previous being governed in the first clause of the verse) we reokon that a man is justified by sentence by ,ls, and in the second by ,rpos. faith a.part from works of law; i.e. the la.w l:lome say that the preposition is changed of works, as a principle of ju.stification, is, in with no intended difference of meaning. fact, aooording ID our reckoning, nowhere. But it is :not St. Paul's way to use hie pre- It is to be particularly observed that xo,pls positions carelessly. Els in the first clause fp-yo,11 11&µ.ov implies no antirwmian doctrine. may be ta.ken to denote the immediate nor a.ny opposition to James (ii H, etc.). purpose of the propitiation, and ,rpos in the Its reference is not a.t e.11 to works reqnired seoond to have its proper significance of aim or not required from man for accept.a.nee, or direction, denoting a further intention bnt simply to the ground or principle of his and result, consequent on the first. The justification. first purpose, denoted by Eis, was the vindi- Ver. 29.-Is God the God of the le'll'I cation of God's righteousness with regerd only 1 is he not also of the Gentiles ! Yea, to the ages past, in that he had so long of the Gentile& also. This verse is in support paased over, or left unvisited, the sins of of the doctrine, already as.serted. a.nd per- mankind. The propitiation of Christ, at vading the Epistle, of justification through length setf01th (or, as may be expressed by Christ being for o.ll mankind alike without ,rpoEB<TO, all along JJUrposed), showed that distinction or partiality : a.nd it comes in he had not been indifferent to these sine, here in pursue.nee of the thought of the though in his f01bearance he had passed preceding verse. In it justification wa.s said them over. Cf. Aots xvii. 30, Toos ~~" oliv to be by faith, a.ud apart frum tDorka of law, x.p&vovs '1'7IS lr:yvola;s vrr,p,liwv 6 e,os; also and therefore in itself available for the Heb. ix. 15, where the deCLth of Christ, as Gentiles, who ha.cl no revenled law, as well the Mod.inter of the new oovena.nt, is en.id W! for the Jews, who had. And why should to have been "for the redemption of the it not be so? Is not the God of the Jewa transgressions that were under the first their God too ? Yes. oovenCLnt," the meaning and effioaoy of the Ver. S0.-If indeed (,r,..,p rather than "death" being thus regnJ"ded, in the first br,{.,,p, as in the Tertus Reeeptue) God is plaoe, ILB retrospeoUve (of. 11lso Heb. ix. 26). one, who shall justify the oiroumaision by But then there wns a further grand purpose, faith, and the unoiroumaision through faith. expressed by tho rrpos T¾/11 tvB .. Ew of the Here the 11,11ity of God is gh-en ns the reason second olnuso-thnt of providing a wa.y of of his being the God of the Gentiles M well present justiflontion for boliovors no10, with- a.s of the Jews. So 1,ls0, 1 'fim. ii. 5, ds 'Y"-P out dorog11tiou of tho Divine righteousness. e,l>s is tho rcnson why ho wills 1,ll wou to Buch npponrs to bo tho mcnuing of tl.iw be roved. It is of importi.mC<l to gmsp St. puss11go. P,ml's idoo iu his a..sscrlions of the unity of Ver. 27.-Where then ls the bonating, God. It is not thl\t of 11umerical unitv. but (tlmt of the Jowl roforrml to in oh. ii., of his what may be called the unity of qu;ality ; 11uperiority to tie GonLilo with rog1ml to i.o. not I\ mero nsscrtiou of wonothlil&ll llll  TITE EPISTLi 01<' PAUL TO THE ROMANS. [orr. m. 1-81 '