Having established the great truth that God required real moral goodness,
he considers the position of the Jews. Could they not plead special divine
favour? Was there no advantage in Judaism? Surely there was, especially in
that they possessed the oracles of God. The ways of God were full of
blessing in themselves, although that did not change the immutable truths
of His nature. And if many among them had been unbelieving, this did not
alter the faithfulness of God; and the fact that the unbelief of many did
but the more demonstrate the faithfulness of God, who remained the same
whatever they might be, took nothing from the claims of righteousness.
Unbelievers should be punished according to what they were; it would but
magnify the unfailing faithfulness of God, which never failed, however
unavailing it might be for the mass of the nation. Otherwise He could judge
no one, not even the world (which the Jew was willing to see judged); for
the condition of the world also enhanced and put in evidence the
faithfulness of God towards His people. If then the Jew had advantages, was
he therefore better? In no wise: all were shut up under sin, whether Jew or
Gentile, as God had already declared. [see note #10]
The apostle now cites the Old Testament to prove this with regard to the
Jews, who did not deny it with regard to the Gentiles which he had already
also shewn. The law, says he, belongs to you. You boast that it refers to
you exclusively. Be it so: hear then what it says of the people, of
yourselves. It speaks to you, as you acknowledge. There is not then one
righteous man among you on whom God can look down from heaven. He quotes
Psalm 14:2, 3; Isaiah 59:7, 8, to set forth the judgment pronounced on
them by those oracles of which they boasted. Thus every mouth was shut, and
all the world guilty before God. Therefore it is that no flesh can be
justified before God by the law; for if the world in the midst of darkness
wallowed in sin, by means of the law sin was known.
But now, without law, apart from all law, a righteousness that is of God
has been manifested, the law and the prophets bearing witness to it.
Hence then we find not only the condition of the Gentiles and of the Jews
set forth, together with the great immutable principles of good and evil,
whatever might be the dealings of God, but the effect of the law itself,
and that which was introduced by Christianity as regarded righteousness,
altogether outside the law, although the law and the prophets bore witness
to it. In a word, the eternal truth as to sin and as to the responsibility
of man, the effect of the law, the connection of the Old Testament with
Christianity, the true character of the latter in that which relates to
righteousness (namely, that it is a thing entirely new and independent),
the righteousness of God Himself-the whole question between man and God,
with regard to sin and righteousness, is settled, as to its foundation, in
these few words. The manner of its accomplishment is now to be treated of.
[see note #11]
It is the righteousness of God by faith in Jesus Christ. Man has not
accomplished it, man has not procured it. It is of God, it is His
righteousness; by believing in Jesus Christ participation in it is
obtained. Had it been a human righteousness, it would have been by the law
which is the rule of that righteousness-a law given to the Jews only. But
being the righteousness of God Himself, it had reference to all; its range
embraced not the one more than the other. It was the righteousness of God
"unto all." A Jew was not more in relation with the righteousness of God
than a Gentile. It was in fact universal in its aspect and in its
applicability. A righteousness of God for man, because no man had any for
God, it was applied to all those who believe in Jesus. Wherever there was
faith, there it was applied. The believer possessed it. It was towards all,
and upon all those who believed in Jesus. For there was no difference: all
had sinned, and outside the glory of God,[see note #12]
deprived of that glory, were justified freely by His grace, through the
redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Whether a Jew or a Gentile, it was a
sinful man: the righteousness was the righteousness of God; the goodness of
God was that which bestowed it, redemption in Christ Jesus the divine means
of having part in it. [see note #13]
Before the accomplishment of this redemption, God, in view of it, had in
patience borne with the faithful, and His righteousness in forgiving them
was now clearly manifested. But, further, the righteousness itself was
manifested: we come to Christ as a propitiatory that God has set forth
before men, and we find on it the blood which gives us free access to God
in righteousness,-God whose glory is satisfied in the work that Christ
Jesus has accomplished, His blood upon the mercy-seat bearing witness
thereof. It is no longer "forbearance"-righteousness is manifested, so that
God is seen to be righteous and just in justifying him who is of faith in
Jesus. Where then is boasting? For the Jews boasted much in reference to
the Gentiles-self-righteousness always boasts: it is not a law of works
that can shut it out. Man justifying himself by his works would have
something to boast in. It is this law of faith, this divine principle on
which we are placed, which shuts it out: for it is by the work of another,
without works of law, that we through grace have part in divine
righteousness, having none of our own.
And is God a limited God [see note #14]
-the God of the Jews only? No, He is also the God of the Gentiles. And how?
In grace: in that it is one God who justifies the Jews (who seek after
righteousness) on the principle of faith, and-since justification is on the
principle of faith-the believing Gentiles also by faith. Men are justified
by faith; the believing Gentile then is justified. With regard to the Jew,
it is the principle which is established (for they were seeking the
righteousness). With regard to the Gentile, since faith existed in the case
supposed, he was justified, for justification was on that principle.
Is it then that faith overturned the authority of law? By no means. It
established completely the authority of law; but it made man participate in
divine righteousness, while acknowledging his just and total condemnation
by the law when under it-a condemnation which made another righteousness
necessary, since according to the law man had none-had none of his own. The
law demanded righteousness, but it shewed sin was there. If righteousness
which it demanded had not been necessary, when it failed to produce it in
man, there was no need of another. Now faith affirmed this need and the
validity of man's condemnation under law, by making the believer
participate in this other righteousness, which is that of God. That which
the law demanded it did not give; and even, because it demanded it, man
failed to produce it. To have given it would have effaced the obligation.
God acts in grace, when the obligation of the law is fully maintained in
condemnation. He gives righteousness, because it must be had. He does not
efface the obligation of the law, according to which man is totally
condemned; [see note #15]
but, while recognising and affirming the justice of that condemnation, He
glorifies Himself in grace by granting a divine righteousness to man, when
he had no human righteousness to present before God in connection with the
obligations imposed on him by the law. Nothing ever put divine sanction on
the law like the death of Christ, who bore its curse, but did not leave us
under it. Faith does not then annul law; it fully establishes its
authority. It shews man righteously condemned under it, and maintains the
authority of the law in that condemnation, for it holds all who are under
it to be under the curse. [see note #16]
The reader will remark that what is distinctly set forth to the end of this
third chapter is the blood of Christ as applying itself to the sins of the
old man, hence making forgiving a righteous thing, and the believer clear
from sins, because cleared by Christ's blood. This met all the guilt of the
old man.
We now enter on another aspect of that which justifies, but still proves
sins; not yet, however, putting us in a new place-that of resurrection, in
connection with, and consequent on, this.
