Romans 3:23

Romans 3:23-26 23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 23. Omnes enim peccaverunt, et destituuntur gloria Dei; 24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 24. Justificati gratis ipsius gratia per redemptionem qu? est in Christo lesu: 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 25. Quem proposuit Deus propitiatorium per fidem in sanguine ipsius, in demonstrationem justitiae su?, propter remissionem delictorum, 26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 26. Qu? prius extiterunt in tolerantia Dei; ad demonstrationem justitiae suae, in hoc tempore; ut sit ipse justus et Justificans enum qui est ex fide Iesu. 23. There is indeed no difference, etc. He urges on all, without exception, the necessity of seeking righteousness in Christ; as though he had said, "There is no other way of attaining righteousness; for some cannot be justified in this and others in that way; but all must alike be justified by faith, because all are sinners, and therefore have nothing for which they can glory before God." But he takes as granted that every one, conscious of his sin, when he comes before the tribunal of God, is confounded and lost under a sense of his own shame; so that no sinner can bear the presence of God, as we see an example in the case of Adam. He again brings forward a reason taken from the opposite side; and hence we must notice what follows. Since we are all sinners, Paul concludes, that we are deficient in, or destitute of, the praise due to righteousness. There is then, according to what he teaches, no righteousness but what is perfect and absolute. Were there indeed such a thing as half righteousness, it would yet be necessary to deprive the sinner entirely of all glory: and hereby the figment of partial righteousness, as they call it, is sufficiently confuted; for if it were true that we are justified in part by works, and in part by grace, this argument of Paul would be of no force -- that all are deprived of the glory of God because they are sinners. It is then certain, there is no righteousness where there is sin, until Christ removes the curse; and this very thing is what is said in Galatians 3:10 , that all who are under the law are exposed to the curse, and that we are delivered from it through the kindness of Christ. The glory of God I take to mean the approbation of God, as in John 12:43 , where it is said, that "they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God." And thus he summons us from the applause of a human court to the tribunal of heaven. [118] 24. Being justified freely, etc. A participle is here put for a verb according to the usage of the Greek language. The meaning is, -- that since there remains nothing for men, as to themselves, but to perish, being smitten by the just judgment of God, they are to be justified freely through his mercy; for Christ comes to the aid of this misery, and communicates himself to believers, so that they find in him alone all those things in which they are wanting. There is, perhaps, no passage in the whole Scripture which illustrates in a more striking manner the efficacy of his righteousness; for it shows that God's mercy is the efficient cause, that Christ with his blood is the meritorious cause, that the formal or the instumental cause is faith in the word, and that moreover, the final cause is the glory of the divine justice and goodness. With regard to the efficient cause, he says, that we are justified freely, and further, by his grace; and he thus repeats the word to show that the whole is from God, and nothing from us. It might have been enough to oppose grace to merits; but lest we should imagine a half kind of grace, he affirms more strongly what he means by a repetition, and claims for God's mercy alone the whole glory of our righteousness, which the sophists divide into parts and mutilate, that they may not be constrained to confess their own poverty. -- Through the redemption, etc. This is the material, -- Christ by his obedience satisfied the Father's justice, (judicium -- judgment,) and by undertaking our cause he liberated us from the tyranny of death, by which we were held captive; as on account of the sacrifice which he offered is our guilt removed. Here again is fully confuted the gloss of those who make righteousness a quality; for if we are counted righteous before God, because we are redeemed by a price, we certainly derive from another what is not in us. And Paul immediately explains more clearly what this redemption is, and what is its object, which is to reconcile us to God; for he calls Christ a propitiation, (or, if we prefer an allusion to an ancient type,) a propitiatory. But what he means is, that we are not otherwise just than through Christ propitiating the Father for us. But it is necessary for us to examine the words. [119] 25. Whom God hath set forth, etc. The Greek verb, protithenai, means sometimes to determine beforehand, and sometimes to set forth. If the first meaning be taken, Paul refers to the gratuitous mercy of God, in having appointed Christ as our Mediator, that he might appease the Father by the sacrifice of his death: nor is it a small commendation of God's grace that he, of his own good will, sought out a way by which he might remove our curse. According to this view, the passage fully harmonizes with that in John 3:16 , "God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son." Yet if we embrace this meaning, it will remain still true, that God hath set him forth in due time, whom he had appointed as a Mediator. There seems to be an allusion in the word, hilasterion, as I have said, to the ancient propitiatory; for he teaches us that the same thing was really exhibited in Christ, which had been previously typified. As, however, the other view cannot be disproved, should any prefer it, I shall not undertake to decide the question. What Paul especially meant here is no doubt evident from his words; and it was this, -- that God, without having regard to Christ, is always angry with us, -- and that we are reconciled to him when we are accepted through his righteousness. God does not indeed hate in us his own workmanship, that is, as we are formed men; but he hates our uncleanness, which has extinguished the light of his image. When the washing of Christ cleanses this away, he then loves and embraces us as his own pure workmanship. A propitiatory through faith in his blood, etc. I prefer thus literally to retain the language of Paul; for it seems indeed to me that he intended, by one single sentence, to declare that God is propitious to us as soon as we have our trust resting on the blood of Christ; for by faith we come to the possession of this benefit. But by mentioning blood only, he did not mean to exclude other things connected with redemption, but, on the contrary, to include the whole under one word: and he mentioned "blood," because by it we are cleansed. Thus, by taking a part for the whole, he points out the whole work of expiation. For, as he had said before, that God is reconciled in Christ, so he now adds, that this reconciliation is obtained by faith, mentioning, at the same time, what it is that faith ought mainly to regard in Christ -- his blood. For (propter) the remission of sins, [120] etc. The causal preposition imports as much as though he had said, "for the sake of remission," or, "to this end, that he might blot out sins." And this definition or explanation again confirms what I have already often reminded you, -- that men are pronounced just, not because they are such in reality, but by imputation: for he only uses various modes of expression, that he might more clearly declare, that in this righteousness there is no merit of ours; for if we obtain it by the remission of sins, we conclude that it is not from ourselves; and further, since remission itself is an act of God's bounty alone, every merit falls to the ground. It may, however, be asked, why he confines pardon to preceding sins? Though this passage is variously explained, yet it seems to me probable that Paul had regard to the legal expiations, which were indeed evidences of a future satisfaction, but could by no means pacify God. There is a similar passage in Hebrews 9:15 , where it is said, that by Christ a redemption was brought from sins, which remained under the former Testament. You are not, however, to understand that no sins but those of former times were expiated by the death of Christ -- a delirious notion, which some fanatics have drawn from a distorted view of this passage. For Paul teaches us only this, -- that until the death of Christ there was no way of appeasing God, and that this was not done or accomplished by the legal types: hence the reality was suspended until the fullness of time came. We may further say, that those things which involve us daily in guilt must be regarded in the same light; for there is but one true expiation for all. Some, in order to avoid what seems inconsistent, have held that former sins are said to have been forgiven, lest there should seem to he a liberty given to sin in future. It is indeed true that no pardon is offered but for sins committed; not that the benefit of redemption fails or is lost, when we afterwards fall, as Novatus and his sect dreamed, but that it is the character of the dispensation of the gospel, to set before him who will sin the judgment and wrath of God, and before the sinner his mercy. But what I have already stated is the real sense. He adds, that this remission was through forbearance; and this I take simply to mean gentleness, which has stayed the judgment of God, and suffered it not to burst forth to our ruin, until he had at length received us into favor. But there seems to be here also an implied anticipation of what might be said; that no one might object, and say that this favor had only of late appeared. Paul teaches us, that it was an evidence of forbearance. 26. For a demonstration, [121] etc. The repetition of this clause is emphatical; and Paul resignedly made it, as it was very needful; for nothing is more difficult than to persuade man that he ought to disclaim all things as his own, and to ascribe them all to God. At the same time mention was intentionally made twice of this demonstration, that the Jews might open their eyes to behold it. -- At this time, etc. What had been ever at all times, he applies to the time when Christ was revealed, and not without reason; for what was formerly known in an obscure manner under shadows, God openly manifested in his Son. So the coming of Christ was the time of his good pleasure, and the day of salvation. God had indeed in all ages given some evidence of his righteousness; but it appeared far brighter when the sun of righteousness shone. Noticed, then, ought to be the comparison between the Old and the New Testament; for then only was revealed the righteousness of God when Christ appeared. That he might be just, etc. This is a definition of that righteousness which he has declared was revealed when Christ was given, and which, as he has taught us in the first chapter, is made known in the gospel: and he affirms that it consists of two parts -- The first is, that God is just, not indeed as one among many, but as one who contains within himself all fullness of righteousness; for complete and full praise, such as is due, is not otherwise given to him, but when he alone obtains the name and the honor of being just, while the whole human race is condemned for injustice: and then the other part refers to the communication of righteousness; for God by no means keeps his riches laid up in himself, but pours them forth upon men. Then the righteousness of God shines in us, whenever he justifies us by faith in Christ; for in vain were Christ given us for righteousness, unless there was the fruition of him by faith. It hence follows, that all were unjust and lost in themselves, until a remedy from heaven was offered to them. [122] Footnotes: [118] Beza gives another view, that the verb husterountai, refers to those who run a race, and reach not the goal, and lose the prize. The "glory of God" is the happiness which he bestows; (see Romans 5:2 ;) of this all mankind come short, however much some seemed to labor for it; and it can only be attained by faith. Pareus, Locke, and Whitby give the same view. Others consider it to be "the glory" due to God, -- that all come short of rendering him the service and honor which he justly demands and requires. So Doddridge, Scott, and Chalmers But Melancthon, Grotius and Macknight seemed to have agreed with Calvin in regarding "glory" here as the praise or approbation that comes from God. The second view seems the most appropriate, according to what is said in Romans 1:21 , "they glorified him not as God." -- Ed. [119] On this word hilasterion, both Venema, in his Notes on the Comment of Stephanus de Brais on this Epistle, and Professor Stuart, have long remarks. They both agree as to the meaning of the word as found in the Septuagint and in Greek authors, but they disagree as to its import here. It means uniformly in the Septuagint, the mercy-seat, kphrt, and, as it is in the form of an adjective, it has at least once, ( Exodus 25:17 ,) epithema, cover, added to it. But in the classics it means a propitiatory sacrifice, the word thuma, a sacrifice, being understood; but it is used by itself as other words of similar termination are. It is found also in Josephus and in Maccabees in this sense. It appears that Origen, Theodoret, and other Fathers, and also Erasmus, Luther and Locke, take the first meaning -- mercy-seat; and that Grotius, Elsner, Turrettin, Bos, and Tholuck, take the second meaning -- a propitiatory sacrifice. Now as both meanings are legitimate, which of them are we to take? Venema, and Stuart allude to one thing which much favors the latter view, that is, the phrase en to haimati autou; and the latter says, that it would be incongruous to represent Christ himself as the mercy-seat, and to represent him also as sprinkled by his own blood; but that it is appropriate to say that a propitiatory sacrifice was made by his blood. The verb proetheto, set forth, it is added, seems to support the same view. To exhibit a mercy-seat is certainly not suitable language in this connection. Pareus renders it "placamentum -- atonement," hoc est, "placatorem," that is, "atoner, or expiator." Beza's version is the same -- "placamentum;" Doddridge has "propitiation," and Macknight, "a propitiatory," and Schleusner, "expiatorem -- expiator." The word occurs in one other place with the neuter article, to hilasterion, Hebrews 9:5 , where it clearly means the mercy-seat. It is ever accompanied with the article in the Septuagint, when by itself, see Leviticus 16:2 , 13-15; but here it is without the article, and may be viewed as an adjective dependent on on, "whom," and rendered propitiator. Had the mercy-seat been intended, it would have been to hilasterion. -- Ed. [120] The words are, dia ten paresin. They seem connected, not with the first clause, but with the one immediately preceding; and dia may be rendered here in; see a note on Romans 2:26 ; or more properly, perhaps, on account of. "For a proof of his own righteousness in passing by the sins," etc., Macknight; "In order to declare his justification with respect to the remission of sins," Stuart What is God's "righteousness" here has been variously explained. Some regard it his righteousness in fulfilling his promises, as Beza; others, his righteousness in Christ to believers, mentioned in chapter. 1:17, as Augustine; and others, his righteousness as the God of rectitude and justice, as Chrysostom Some, too, as Grotius, view it as meaning goodness or mercy, regarding the word as having sometimes this sense. It is the context that can help us to the right meaning. God exhibited his Son as a propitiation, to set forth this righteousness; and this righteousness is connected with the remission of, or rather; as the word means, the preterition of or connivance at sins committed under the old dispensation: and those sins were connived at through the forbearance of God, he not executing the punishment they deserved; and the purpose is stated to be, -- that God might be or appear just, while he is the justifier of those who believe in Christ. Now, what can this righteousness be but his administrative justice? As the law allowed no remission, and God did remit sins, there appeared to be a stain on divine justice. The exhibition of Christ as an atonement is what alone removes it. And there is a word in the former verse, as Venema justly observes, which tends to confirm this view, and that word is redemption, apolutrosis, which is a deliverance obtained by a ransom, or by a price, such as justice requires. Both Doddridge and Scott regard the passage in this light; and the latter gives the following version of it, -- "Whom God hath before appointed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, for a demonstration of his justice, on account of the passing by of sins, that had been committed in former times, through the forbearance of God; I say, for a demonstration of his justice, in this present time, in order that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." -- Nothing can be clearer than this version. The last words are rightly rendered, though not literally; ton ek pisteos Iesou -- "him of the faith of Jesus," or, "him of faith in Jesus." Him of faith is him who believes, as tois houk ek peritomos -- "them not of circumcision" means "them who are not circumcised," Romans 4:12 ; and tois ex eritheias -- "those of contention," signifies, "those who contend," or, are contentious, Romans 2:8 . -- Ed. [121] There is a different preposition used here, pros, while eis is found in the preceding verse. The meaning seems to be the same, for both prepositions are used to designate the design, end, or object of any thing. This variety seems to have been usual with the Apostle; similar instances are found in Romans 3:22 , as to eis and epi, and in Romans 3:30 , as to ek and dia. "By both," says Wolfius, "the final cause (causa finalis) is indicated." Beza renders them both by the same preposition, ad, in Latin; and Stuart regards the two as equivalent. There is, perhaps, more refinement than truth in what Pareus says, -- that eis intimates the proximate end -- the forgiveness of sins; and pros, the final end -- the glory of God in the exhibition of his justice as well as of his mercy. There is, at the same time, something in the passage which seems favorable to this view. Two objects are stated at the end of the passage, -- that God might appear just, and be also the justifier of such as believe. The last may refer to eis, and the former to pros; and this is consistent with the usual style of the Apostle; for, in imitation of the Prophets, where two things are mentioned in a former clause, the order is reversed in the second. -- Ed. [122] A parallel passage to this, including the two verses, Romans 3:25 and 26, is found in Hebrews 9:15 ; where a reference, as here, is made to the effect of Christ's death as to the saints under the Old testament. The same truth is implied in other parts of Scripture, but not so expressly declared. Stuart makes here an important remark -- that if the death of Christ be regarded only as that of a martyr or as an example of constancy, how then could its efficacy be referred to "sins that are past?" In no other way than as a vicarious death could it possibly have any effect on past sins, not punished through God's forbearance. -- Ed.

For all have sinned, and come short of the {t} glory of God; (t) By the glory of God is meant that mark which we all aim for, that is, everlasting life, which consists in our being made partakers of the glory of God.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; All have sinned — The first man defiled the nature, and ever since the nature defileth the man. Adam was a parent, a public person, a parliament man, as it were; the whole country of mankind was in him, and fell with him. Short of the glory of God — i.e. Of his image now obliterated, or of his kingdom, upon the golden pavement whereof no dirty dog must ever trample. It is an inheritance undefiled, 1 Peter 1:4 .

For all have sinned: q.d. No wonder there is no difference, when both the one and the other have the guilt of Adam’s transgression imputed to them, and have original corruption inherent in them, from whence proceed very many actual transgressions. And come short of the glory of God; i.e. of the glorious image of God, in which man was at first created; or, of communion with God, in which the glory of a rational creature doth consist; or rather, of the eternal glory, which they come short of, as men that run a race are weary, and fall short of the mark.

For all have sinned,.... This is the general character of all mankind; all have sinned in Adam, are guilty by his sin, polluted with it, and condemned for it; all are sinners in themselves, and by their own actual transgressions; this is the case of the whole world, and of all the men in it; not only of the Gentiles, but of the Jews, and the more righteous among them: hence there is no difference in the state and condition of men by nature; nor is there any reason from and in themselves, why God saves one and not another; nor any room to despair of the grace and righteousness of Christ, on account of persons being, in their own view, the worst of sinners: and hence it is, that they are all come short of the glory of God; either of glorifying of God; man was made for this purpose, and was capable of it, though now through sin incapable; and it is only by the grace of God that he is enabled to do it: or of glorying: before him; sin has made him infamous, and is his shame; by it he has forfeited all external favours, and has nothing of his own to glory in; his moral righteousness is no foundation for boasting, especially before God: or of having glory from God; the most pure and perfect creature does not of itself deserve any glory and praise from God; good men, in a way of grace, will have praise of God; but sinners can never expect any on their own account: or of the glorious grace of God, as sanctifying and pardoning grace, and particularly the grace of a justifying righteousness; man has no righteousness, nor can he work out one; nor will his own avail, he wants a better than that: or of eternal glory; which may be called the glory of God, because it is of his preparing, what he calls persons to by his grace, and which of his own free grace he bestows upon them, and will chiefly lie in the enjoyment of him; now this is represented sometimes as a prize, which is run for, and pressed after; but men, through sinning, come short of it, and must of themselves do so for ever: or rather of the image of God in man, who is called "the image and glory of God", 1 Corinthians 11:7 , which consisted externally in government over the creatures; internally, in righteousness and holiness, in wisdom and knowledge, in the bias of his mind to that which is good, and in power to perform it; of all which he is come short, or deprived by sinning.

Must guilty man remain under wrath? Is the wound for ever incurable? No; blessed be God, there is another way laid open for us. This is the righteousness of God; righteousness of his ordaining, and providing, and accepting. It is by that faith which has Jesus Christ for its object; an anointed Saviour, so Jesus Christ signifies. Justifying faith respects Christ as a Saviour, in all his three anointed offices, as Prophet, Priest, and King; trusting in him, accepting him, and cleaving to him: in all these, Jews and Gentiles are alike welcome to God through Christ. There is no difference, his righteousness is upon all that believe; not only offered to them, but put upon them as a crown, as a robe. It is free grace, mere mercy; there is nothing in us to deserve such favours. It comes freely unto us, but Christ bought it, and paid the price. And faith has special regard to the blood of Christ, as that which made the atonement. God, in all this, declares his righteousness. It is plain that he hates sin, when nothing less than the blood of Christ would satisfy for it. And it would not agree with his justice to demand the debt, when the Surety has paid it, and he has accepted that payment in full satisfaction.

23. for all have sinned—Though men differ greatly in the nature and extent of their sinfulness, there is absolutely no difference between the best and the worst of men, in the fact that "all have sinned," and so underlie the wrath of God. and come short of the glory—or "praise" of God—that is, "have failed to earn His approbation" (compare Joh 12:43, Greek). So the best interpreters.

For all have sinned - This was the point which he had fully established in the discussion in these chapters. Have come short - Greek, "Are deficient in regard to;" are lacking, etc. Here it means, that they had failed to obtain, or were destitute of. The glory of God - The praise or approbation of God. They had sought to be justified, or approved, by God; but all had failed. Their works of the Law had not secured his approbation; and they were therefore under condemnation. The word "glory" (δόξα doxa) is often used in the sense of praise, or approbation, John 5:41 , John 5:44 ; John 7:18 ; John 8:50 , John 8:54 ; John 12:43 .

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned. This is the reason why there is no difference as to the condition of men. All are sinners. The apostle uses the aorist ἣμαρτον , sinned , and not the perfect, have sinned . Rückert says this is an inaccuracy; Bengel explains it by assuming that the original act in paradise, and the sinful disposition, and also the acts of transgression flowing from it, are all denoted. Olshausen says that the reference is mainly to original sin; for where there are no peccata actualia , there is still need of redemption. Dr. Wordsworth, Canon of Westminster, gives the same explanation: “All men sinned in Adam, all fell in him.” Meyer says, “The sinning of each man is presented as an historical fact of the past.” The idea that all men now stand in the posture of sinners before God might be expressed either by saying, All have sinned (and are sinners), or all sinned . The latter is the form adopted by the apostle. And come short , ὑστεροῦνται , in the present tense. The sinning is represented as past; the present and abiding consequence of sin is the want of the glory of God . By δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ is most naturally understood the approbation of God, the δόξα which comes from God; comp. John 12:43 , “They loved the praise of men rather than the praise ( δόξαν ) of God.” Calvin explains it as the glory quae coram Deo locum habet , glory before God, i.e., in estimation, as he explains δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ to be righteousness in his sight, what he regards as such. This is against the natural force of the genitive. Others understand δόξα in the sense of glorying, non habet, unds coram Deo glorientur, Estius; so also Luther, Tholuck, (who refers to John 5:44 , δόξαν παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ ,) and others. This idea would be expressed by the word καύχησις Romans 3:27 , or καύχημα , Romans 4:2 ; 1 Corinthians 5:6 ; 1 Corinthians 9:16 etc. Others again say that the glory of God here means that glory which God promises to the righteous, as in Romans 3:22 . So Beza, who says, “ δόξα est meta ad quam contendimus, id est, vita aeterna, quae in gloria Dei participatione consistit .” Rückert and Olshausen say it means the image of God; “Men are sinners, and are destitute of the image of God.” But this is not the sense of the words; “the glory of God” does not mean a glory like to that of God. The first interpretation, which is the simplest, is perfectly suited to the context. All men are sinners and under the disapprobation of God. In this respect there is no difference between them; and therefore all need a righteousness not their own, in order to their justification before God.

Romans WORLD-WIDE SIN AND WORLD-WIDE REDEMPTION Romans 3:19 - Romans 3:26 . Let us note in general terms the large truths which this passage contains. We may mass these under four heads: I. Paul’s view of the purpose of the law. He has been quoting a mosaic of Old Testament passages from the Psalms and Isaiah. He regards these as part of ‘the law,’ which term, therefore, in his view, here includes the whole previous revelation, considered as making known God’s will as to man’s conduct. Every word of God, whether promise, or doctrine, or specific command, has in it some element bearing on conduct. God reveals nothing only in order that we may know, but all that, knowing, we may do and be what is pleasing in His sight. All His words are law. But Paul sets forth another view of its purpose here; namely, to drive home to men’s consciences the conviction of sin. That is not the only purpose, for God reveals duty primarily in order that men may do it, and His law is meant to be obeyed. But, failing obedience, this second purpose comes into action, and His law is a swift witness against sin. The more clearly we know our duty, the more poignant will be our consciousness of failure. The light which shines to show the path of right, shines to show our deviations from it. And that conviction of sin, which it was the very purpose of all the previous Revelation to produce, is a merciful gift; for, as the Apostle implies, it is the prerequisite to the faith which saves. As a matter of fact, there was a far profounder and more inward conviction of sin among the Jews than in any heathen nation. Contrast the wailings of many a psalm with the tone in Greek or Roman literature. No doubt there is a law written on men’s hearts which evokes a lower measure of the same consciousness of sin. There are prayers among the Assyrian and Babylonian tablets which might almost stand beside the Fifty-first Psalm; but, on the whole, the deep sense of sin was the product of the revealed law. The best use of our consciousness of what we ought to be, is when it rouses conscience to feel the discordance with it of what we are, and so drives us to Christ. Law, whether in the Old Testament, or as written in our hearts by their very make, is the slave whose task is to bring us to Christ, who will give us power to keep God’s commandments. Another purpose of the law is stated in Romans 3:21 , as being to bear witness, in conjunction with the prophets, to a future more perfect revelation of God’s righteousness. Much of the law was symbolic and prophetic. The ideal it set forth could not always remain unfulfilled. The whole attitude of that system was one of forward-looking expectancy. There is much danger lest, in modern investigations as to the authorship, date, and genesis of the Old Testament revelation, its central characteristic should be lost sight of; namely, its pointing onwards to a more perfect revelation which should supersede it. II. Paul’s view of universal sinfulness. He states that twice in this passage { Romans 3:20 - Romans 3:24 }, and it underlies his view of the purpose of law. In Romans 3:20 he asserts that ‘by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified,’ and in Romans 3:23 he advances from that negative statement to the positive assertion that all have sinned. The impossibility of justification by the works of the law may be shown from two considerations: one, that, as a matter of fact, no flesh has ever done them all with absolute completeness and purity; and, second, that, even if they had ever been so done, they would not have availed to secure acquittal at a tribunal where motive counts for more than deed. The former is the main point with Paul. In Romans 3:23 the same fact of universal experience is contemplated as both positive sin and negative falling short of the ‘glory’ {which here seems to mean, as in John 5:44 , John 12:43 , approbation from God}. ‘There is no distinction,’ but all varieties of condition, character, attainment, are alike in this, that the fatal taint is upon them all. ‘We have, all of us, one human heart.’ We are alike in physical necessities, in primal instincts, and, most tragically of all, in the common experience of sinfulness. Paul does not mean to bring all varieties of character down to one dead level, but he does mean to assert that none is free from the taint. A man need only be honest in self-examination to endorse the statement, so far as he himself is concerned. The Gospel would be better understood if the fact of universal sinfulness were more deeply felt. Its superiority to all schemes for making everybody happy by rearrangements of property, or increase of culture, would be seen through; and the only cure for human misery would be discerned to be what cures universal sinfulness. III. So we have next Paul’s view of the remedy for man’s sin. That is stated in general terms in Romans 3:21 - Romans 3:22 . Into a world of sinful men comes streaming the light of a ‘righteousness of God.’ That expression is here used to mean a moral state of conformity with God’s will, imparted by God. The great, joyful message, which Paul felt himself sent to proclaim, is that the true way to reach the state of conformity which law requires, and which the unsophisticated, universal conscience acknowledges not to have been reached, is the way of faith. The message is so familiar to us that we may easily fail to realise its essential greatness and wonderfulness when first proclaimed. That God should give righteousness, that it should be ‘of God,’ not only as coming from Him, but as, in some real way, being kindred with His own perfection; that it should be brought to men by Jesus Christ, as ancient legends told that a beneficent Titan brought from heaven, in a hollow cane, the gift of fire; and that it should become ours by the simple process of trusting in Jesus Christ, are truths which custom has largely robbed of their wonderfulness. Let us meditate more on them till they regain, by our own experience of their power, some of the celestial light which belongs to them. Observe that in Romans 3:22 the universality of the redemption which is in Christ is deduced from the universality of sin. The remedy must reach as far as the disease. If there is no difference in regard to sin, there can be none in regard to the sweep of redemption. The doleful universality of the covering spread over all nations, has corresponding to it the blessed universality of the light which is sent forth to flood them all. Sin’s empire cannot stretch farther than Christ’s kingdom. IV. Paul’s view of what makes the Gospel the remedy. In Romans 3:21 - Romans 3:22 it was stated generally that Christ was the channel, and faith the condition, of righteousness. The personal object of faith was declared, but not the special thing in Christ which was to be trusted in. That is fully set forth in Romans 3:24 . We cannot attempt to discuss the great words in these verses, each of which would want a volume. But we may note that ‘justified’ here means to be accounted or declared righteous, as a judicial act; and that justification is traced in its ultimate source to God’s ‘grace,’-His own loving disposition-which bends to unworthy and lowly creatures, and is regarded as having for the medium of its bestowal the ‘redemption’ that is in Christ Jesus. That is the channel through which grace comes from God. ‘Redemption’ implies captivity, liberation, and a price paid. The metaphor of slaves set free by ransom is exchanged in Romans 3:25 for a sacrificial reference. A propitiatory sacrifice averts punishment from the offerer. The death of the victim procures the life of the worshipper. So, a propitiatory or atoning sacrifice is offered by Christ’s blood, or death. That sacrifice is the ransom-price through which our captivity is ended, and our liberty assured. As His redemption is the channel ‘through’ which God’s grace comes to men, so faith is the condition ‘through’ which { Romans 3:25 } we make that grace ours. Note, then, that Paul does not merely point to Jesus Christ as Saviour, but to His death as the saving power. We are to have faith in Jesus Christ { Romans 3:22 }. But that is not a complete statement. It must be faith in His propitiation, if it is to bring us into living contact with His redemption. A gospel which says much of Christ, but little of His Cross, or which dilates on the beauty of His life, but stammers when it begins to speak of the sacrifice in His death, is not Paul’s Gospel, and it will have little power to deal with the universal sickness of sin. The last verses of the passage set forth another purpose attained by Christ’s sacrifice; namely, the vindication of God’s righteousness in forbearing to inflict punishment on sins committed before the advent of Jesus. That Cross rayed out its power in all directions-to the heights of the heavens; to the depths of Hades { Colossians 1:20 }; to the ages that were to come, and to those that were past. The suspension of punishment through all generations, from the beginning till that day when the Cross was reared on Calvary, was due to that Cross having been present to the divine mind from the beginning. ‘The judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted,’ or left unpunished. There would be a blot on God’s government, not because it was so severe, but because it was so forbearing, unless His justice was vindicated, and the fatal consequences of sin shown in the sacrifice of Christ. God could not have shown Himself just, in view either of age-long forbearance, or of now justifying the sinner, unless the Cross had shown that He was not immorally indulgent toward sin.