Romans 4:7

4:7-8 This quotation from Ps 32:1-2 follows the Jewish custom of supporting a reference to the Law with a reference in the Prophets or the Writings. Paul also uses a Jewish exegetical technique of linking unrelated quotations with a key word. Here, record . . . has cleared translates the same Greek word as “counted” in Rom 4:3.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 4:7. Ἀφέθησαν κτλ) So the LXX., Psa 32:1. The synonymous words are, ἀφιέναι, ἐπικαλύπτειν, οὐ λογίζεσθαι, that sin committed may be accounted as not committed.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Saying, Blessed, &c.-- (Psa 32:1-2). David here sings in express terms only of "transgression forgiven, sin covered, iniquity not imputed"; but as the negative blessing necessarily includes the positive, the passage is strictly in point.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 7. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven] That is, the man is truly happy whose iniquities αιανομιαι, whose transgressions of the law are forgiven; for by these he was exposed to the most grievous punishment. Whose sins, αιαμαρτιαι, his innumerable deviations from the strict rule of truth and righteousness, are covered-entirely removed out of sight, and thrown into oblivion. See the meaning of the word sin in Clarke's note on "Ge 13:13".

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(7) Forgiven.—The stress is upon this word; “whose sins are not abolished, but forgiven; not annihilated, but covered up, removed from sight, hidden by the absolving grace of God.”

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

7. Blessed, &c.] The Gr. is verbatim from LXX. It is worth remarking that the words (in the Psalm) following this quotation (“and in whose spirit is no guile”) are in full accord with its application here. The “guile” there is evidently “insincerity in coming as a penitent to God.” The “blessed” are they who are really forgiven—who have really sought forgiveness.

are forgiven] Gr. aorist; were forgiven. The probable reference is to the definite act, past and complete, of remission. So just below, were covered.

covered] The literal translation of the Hebrew word very often translated “atoned for.”

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Saying, blessed are they,.... These words are cited from Psa 32:1, and contain the proof of the happiness of justified persons. In this citation the singular number is changed into the plural, to take in all sorts of men, Jews and Gentiles, and very agreeably to the sense of the original; for the word may be rendered "blessed are they", or, "O the blessednesses"; that is, of everyone of them,

whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: such whom God justifies by imputing the righteousness of his Son to them, he removes their iniquities from them, which is meant by their being "forgiven", and that "as far as the east is from the west", Psa 103:12; he casts them behind his back, Isa 38:17, and into the depths of the sea, Mic 7:19, so that they shall never be found more: such whom he clothes with the robe of righteousness, and garments of salvation, Isa 61:10, "their sins are covered"; from the eye of divine justice, and shall never be seen more, or be brought against them to their condemnation, and therefore must be happy persons. The (e) Jews tell us, that

"on the day of atonement Satan comes to accuse Israel, and he particularizes their sins, and the holy blessed God he particularizes their good works, and takes a pair of balances, and puts their sins against their good works, and weighs the one against the other; and when the two scales of the balances are alike, Satan goes to bring in other sins to overweigh; what does the holy blessed God do? he takes the sins out of the scale, and hides them , "under his purple garment"; and when Satan comes and finds no iniquity there, as it is said "the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none", Jer 50:20; and when Satan sees this, he says before him, Lord of the world, "thou hast taken away the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin", Psa 85:2. Selah.''

The purple garment they explain by , "his garment of mercy"; which is true of the mercy of God covering the sins of his people, through the purple blood of his Son; which is the purple covering of Christ, Sol 3:10, under which the saints go safe to glory, and by which blood their crimson and scarlet sins are blotted out, so as never to be seen more.

(e) Caphtor, fol. 59. 1, 2.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

Ver. 7. Are covered] Sic velantur ut in iudicio non revelentur; so covered as that he never see them again, but as the Israelites saw the Egyptians dead on the shore.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Blessed - Happy are they: they are highly favored; see the note at Mat 5:3.

Whose sins are covered - Are concealed; or hidden from the view. On which God will no more look, and which he will no more remember. “By these words,” says Calvin (in loco), “we are taught that justification with Paul is nothing else but pardon of sin.” The word “cover” here has no reference to the atonement, but is expressive of hiding, or concealing that is, of forgiving sin.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. That is, blessed are those who, by doing penance, have obtained pardon and remission of their sins, and also are covered; that is, newly clothed with the habit of grace, and vested with the stole of charity. (Challoner) --- When it is said that the sins of man are covered, we must not imagine that they still remain, but on account of the goodness of God will not be punished, as the Lutherans contend; for the justice of God could not suffer this: but by it we must understand that they are entirely blotted out, and neither exist, nor are considered any longer by God. Still, we must not conclude that man is blessed, as soon as sin is remitted; since the same psalmist, in another place, ascribes happiness to man when he walks in the law of the Lord, and when he keeps judgment and does justice. (Psalms i; cv; and cviii.) And our Saviour says, If you know these things, blessed shall you be if you do them. (St. John xiii.) (Estius) --- Moreover, if sins were never blotted out, but only covered, why did the royal prophet pray to the Almighty, saying: blot out all mine iniquities; and in different parts of the 50th psalm and psalm cviii, speaking of the egregious sinner, he says: let the sin of his mother not be blotted out; which would mean nothing at all, if sins were never blotted out? (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

This testimony is taken out of Psa 32:1, and it is well enough accommodated to the occasion, for those two, to remit sin, and to impute righteousness, are inseparable. The one is put here figuratively for the other. They mistake, who take occasion from hence to make justification to consist only in remission of sin: the text will not bear it. The apostle’s design is, not hereby to declare the full nature of justification, which he had done before; but only to prove the freedom of it from any respect to works, in the instance of this principal and essential part of it. Remission of sin and the imputation of righteousness differ, as the cause and the effect. Remission of sin presupposeth imputation of righteousness; and he that hath his sins remitted, hath Christ’s righteousness first imputed, that so they may be remitted and forgiven to sinners.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

7. Forgiven… covered—A parallelism expressing the same thing in varied language. Covered, as it were, from God’s sight by Christ’s mediation and God’s mercy.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Happy are they whose sins are covered - With the veil of divine mercy. If there be indeed such a thing as happiness on earth, it is the portion of that man whose iniquities are forgiven, and who enjoys the manifestation of that pardon. Well may he endure all the afflictions of life with cheerfulness, and look upon death with comfort. O let us not contend against it, but earnestly pray that this happiness may be ours! Psalm xxxii, 1, 2.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

iniquites, sins

Sin. (See Scofield "Rom 3:23").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

saying [ Psa_32:1-2 ], Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered .

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

7. Blessed are they. The class described as blessed are those whose sins are forgiven, counted righteous because their sins are blotted out.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

7, 8. Μακάριοι, κ.τ.λ. This quotation of Psa 32:1, Psa 32:2 is the same in Heb. and LXX. It is introduced by St. Paul as confirming his interpretation of Gen 15:6.

μακάριοι is, as we have seen, the highest term which a Greek could use to describe a state of felicity. In the quotation just given from Aristotle it is applied to the state of the gods and those nearest to the gods among men.

ᾧ οὐ μή. So אc A C Dc F K L &c.: οὗ οὐ μή א B D E (?) G, 67**. οὗ is also the reading of LXX (ᾧ שׂאca Ra). The authorities for οὗ are superior as they combine the oldest evidence on the two main lines of transmission (א B + D) and it is on the whole more probable that ᾧ has been assimilated to the construction of λογίζεσθαι in vv. 3, 4, 5, 6 than that οὗ has been assimilated to the preceding ὧν or to the O.T. or that it has been affected by the following οὐ: ᾧ naturally established itself as the more euphonious reading.

ὐ μὴ λογίσηται. There is a natural tendency in a declining language to the use of more emphatic forms; but here a real emphasis appears to be intended, ‘Whose sin the Lord will in no wise reckon’: see Ell. on 1Th 4:15 [p. 154], and Win. § Lev_3, p. 634 f.

The History of Abraham as treated by St. Paul and by St. James

It is at first sight a remarkable thing that two New Testament writers should use the same leading example and should quote the same leading text as it would seem to directly opposite effect. Both St. Paul and St. James treat at some length of the history of Abraham; they both quote the same verse, Gen 15:6, as the salient characterization of that history; and they draw from it the conclusion—St. Paul that a man is accounted righteous πίστει χωρὶς ἔργων (Rom 3:28; cf. 4:1-8), St. James as expressly, that he is accounted righteous ἐξ ἔργων καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον (Jas 2:24).

We notice at once that St. Paul keeps more strictly to his text. Gen 15:6 speaks only of faith. St. James supports his contention of the necessity of works by appeal to a later incident in Abraham’s life, the offering of Isaac (Jas 2:21). St. Paul also appeals to particular incidents, Abraham’s belief in the promise that he should have a numerous progeny (Rom 4:18), and in the more express prediction of the birth of Isaac (Rom 4:19-21). The difference is that St. Paul makes use of a more searching exegesis. His own spiritual experience confirms the unqualified affirmation of the Book of Genesis; and he is therefore able to take it as one of the foundations of his system. St. James, occupying a less exceptional standpoint, and taking words in the average sense put upon them, has recourse to the context of Abraham’s life, and so harmonizes the text with the requirements of his own moral sense.

The fact is that St. James and St. Paul mean different things by ‘faith,’ and as was natural they impose these different meanings on the Book of Genesis, and adapt the rest of their conclusions to them. When St. James heard speak of ‘faith,’ he understood by it what the letter of the Book of Genesis allowed him to understand by it, a certain belief. It is what a Jew would consider the fundamental belief, belief in God, belief that God was One (Jas 2:19). Christianity is with him so much a supplement to the Jews’ ordinary creed that it does not seem to be specially present to his mind when he is speaking of Abraham. Of course he too believes in the ‘Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Glory’ (Jas 2:1). He takes that belief for granted; it is the substratum or basement of life on which are not to be built such things as a wrong or corrupt partiality (προσωποληψία). If he were questioned about it, he would put it on the same footing as his belief in God. But St. James was a thoroughly honest, and, as we should say, a ‘good’ man; and this did not satisfy his moral sense. What is belief unless proof is given of its sincerity? Belief must be followed up by action, by a line of conduct conformable to it. St. James would have echoed Matthew Arnold’s proposition that ‘Conduct is three-fourths of life.’ He therefore demands—and from his point of view rightly demands—that his readers shall authenticate their beliefs by putting them in practice.

St. Paul’s is a very different temperament, and he speaks from a very different experience. With him too Christianity is something added to an earlier belief in God; but the process by which it was added was nothing less than a convulsion of his whole nature. It is like the stream of molten lava pouring down the volcano’s side. Christianity is with him a tremendous over-mastering force. The crisis came at the moment when he confessed his faith in Christ; there was no other crisis worth the name after that. Ask such an one whether his faith is not to be proved by action, and the question will seem to him trivial and superfluous. He will almost suspect the questioner of attempting to bring back under a new name the old Jewish notion of religion as a round of legal observance. Of course action will correspond with faith. The believer in Christ, who has put on Christ, who has died with Christ and risen again with him, must needs to the very utmost of his power endeavour to live as Christ would have him live. St. Paul is going on presently to say this (Rom 6:1, Rom 6:12, Rom 6:15), as his opponents compel him to say it. But to himself it appears a truism, which is hardly worth definitely enunciating. To say that a man is a Christian should be enough.

If we thus understand the real relation of the two Apostles, it will be easier to discuss their literary relation. Are we to suppose that either was writing with direct reference to the other? Did St. Paul mean to controvert St. James, or did St. James mean to controvert St. Paul? Neither hypothesis seems probable. If St. Paul had had before him the Epistle of St. James, when once he looked beneath the language to the ideas signified by the language, he would have found nothing to which he could seriously object. He would have been aware that it was not his own way of putting things; and he might have thought that such teaching was not intended for men at the highest level of spiritual attainment; but that would have been all. On the other hand, if St. James had seen the Epistle to the Romans and wished to answer it, what he has written would have been totally inadequate. Whatever value his criticism might have had for those who spoke of ‘faith’ as a mere matter of formal assent, it had no relevance to a faith such as that conceived by St. Paul. Besides, St. Paul had too effectually guarded himself against the moral hypocrisy which he was condemning.

It would thus appear that when it is examined the real meeting-ground between the two Apostles shrinks into a comparatively narrow compass. It does not amount to more than the fact that both quote the same verse, Gen 15:6, and both treat it with reference to the antithesis of Works and Faith.

Now Bp. Lightfoot has shown (Galatians, p. 157 ff., Exo_2) that Gen 15:6 was a standing thesis for discussions in the Jewish schools. It is referred to in the First Book of Maccabees: ‘Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness’ (1 Macc. 2:52)? It is repeatedly quoted and commented upon by Philo (no less than ten times, Lft.). The whole history of Abraham is made the subject of an elaborate allegory. The Talmudic treatise Mechilta expounds the verse at length: ‘Great is faith, whereby Israel believed on Him that spake and the world was. For as a reward for Israel’s having believed in the Lord, the Holy Spirit dwelt in them … In like manner thou findest that Abraham our father inherited this world and the world to come solely by the merit of faith, whereby he believed in the Lord; for it is said, “and he believed in the Lord, and He counted it to him for righteousness”’ (quoted by Lft. ut sup. p. 160). Taking these examples with the lengthened discussions in St. Paul and St. James, it is clear that attention was being very widely drawn to this particular text: and it was indeed inevitable that it should be so when we consider the place which Abraham held in the Jewish system and the minute study which was being given to every part of the Pentateuch.

It might therefore be contended with considerable show of reason that the two New Testament writers are discussing independently of each other a current problem, and that there is no ground for supposing a controversial relation between them. We are not sure that we are prepared to go quite so far as this. It is true that the bearing of Gen 15:6 was a subject of standing debate among the Jews; but the same thing cannot be said of the antithesis of Faith and Works. The controversy connected with this was essentially a Christian controversy; it had its origin in the special and characteristic teaching of St. Paul. It seems to us therefore that the passages in the two Epistles have a real relation to that controversy, and so at least indirectly to each other.

It does not follow that the relation was a literary relation. We have seen that there are strong reasons against this*. We do not think that either St. Paul had seen the Epistle of St. James, or St. James the Epistle of St. Paul. The view which appears to us the most probable is that the argument of St. James is directed not against the writings of St. Paul, or against him in person, but against hearsay reports of his teaching, and against the perverted construction which might be (and perhaps to some slight extent actually was) put upon it. As St. James sate in his place in the Church at Jerusalem, as yet the true centre and metropolis of the Christian world; as Christian pilgrims of Jewish birth were constantly coming and going to attend the great yearly feasts, especially from the flourishing Jewish colonies in Asia Minor and Greece, the scene of St. Paul’s labours; and as there was always at his elbow the little coterie of St. Paul’s fanatical enemies, it would be impossible but that versions, scarcely ever adequate (for how few of St. Paul’s hearers had really understood him!) and often more or less seriously distorted, of his brother Apostle’s teaching, should reach him. He did what a wise and considerate leader would do. He names no names, and attacks no man’s person. He does not assume that the reports which he has heard are full and true reports. At the same time he states in plain terms his own view of the matter. He sounds a note of warning which seems to him to be needed, and which the very language of St. Paul, in places like Rom 6:1ff., Rom 6:15 ff., shows to have been really needed. And thus, as so often in Scripture, two complementary sets of truths, suited to different types of mind and different circumstances, are stated side by side. We have at once the deeper principle of action, which is also more powerful in proportion as it is deeper, though not such as all can grasp and appropriate, and the plainer practical teaching pitched on a more every-day level and appealing to larger numbers, which is the check and safeguard against possible misconstruction.

FAITH AND CIRCUMCISION

4:9-12. The declaration made to Abraham did not depend upon Circumcision. For it was made before he was circumcised; and Circumcision only came in after the fact, to ratify a verdict already given. The reason being that Abraham might have for his spiritual descendants the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised.

9Here we have certain persons pronounced ‘happy.’ Is this then to be confined to the circumcised Jew, or may it also apply to the uncircumcised Gentile? Certainly it may. For there is no mention of circumcision. It is his faith that we say was credited to Abraham as righteousness. 10And the historical circumstances of the case prove that Circumcision had nothing to do with it. Was Abraham circumcised when the declaration was made to him? No: he was at the time uncircumcised. 11And circumcision was given to him afterwards, like a seal affixed to a document, to authenticate a state of things already existing, viz. the righteousness based on faith which was his before he was circumcised. The reason being that he might be the spiritual father alike of two divergent classes: at once of believing Gentiles, who though uncircumcised have a faith like his, that they too might be credited with righteousness; 12and at the same time of believing Jews who do not depend on their circumcision only, but whose files march duly in the steps of Abraham’s faith—that faith which was his before his circumcision.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Iniquities [ανομιαι] . Lit., lawlessnesses.

Are forgiven [αφεθησαν] . Lit., were forgiven. See on Mt 6:12; Jas 5:15; 1Jo 1:9. Also on remission, Luk 3:3.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Rom_4:6-8

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man to whom God imputeth righteousness without works. Pauls first argument in favor of gratuitous justification was from the case of Abraham; his second is from the testimony of David. The immediate connection of this verse is with Rom_4:5. At the conclusion of that verse, it was said, to him who had no works, faith is imputed, in order to his justification, i.e., he is justified gratuitously, even as David speaks of the blessedness of him whom, although destitute of merit, God regards and treats as righteous. Describeth the blessedness, i.e., pronounces blessed. The words are λέγει τὸν μακαρισμόν, utters the declaration of blessedness concerning the man, etc. To whom God imputeth righteousness without works, that is, whom God regards and treats as righteous, although he is not in himself righteous. The meaning of this clause cannot be mistaken. To impute sin, is to lay sin to the charge of any one, and to treat him accordingly, as is universally admitted; so to impute righteousness, is to set righteousness to ones account, and to treat him accordingly. This righteousness does not, of course, belong antecedently to those to whom it is imputed, for they are ungodly, and destitute of works. Here then is an imputation to men of what does not belong to them, and to which they have in themselves no claim. To impute righteousness is the apostles definition of the term to justify. It is not making men inherently righteous, or morally pure, but it is regarding and treating them as just. This is done, not on the ground of personal character or works, but on the ground of the righteousness of Christ. As this is dealing with men, not according to merit, but in a gracious manner, the passage cited from Psa_32:1, Psa_32:2, is precisely in point: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. That is, blessed is the man who, although a sinner, is regarded and treated as righteous. As the remission of sin is necessarily connected with restoration to Gods favor, the apostle speaks of it as the whole of justification; not that the idea of remission exhausts the whole idea of justification, but it necessarily implies the rest. In like manner, in Eph_1:7, it is said, in whom we have redemption … the forgiveness of sins; which does not imply that forgiveness is the whole of redemption, that the gift of the Spirit, the glorification of the body, and eternal life, which are so constantly spoken of as fruits of Christs work, as parts of the purchased inheritance, are to be excluded.

Here again the doctrine of a personal, inherent righteousness, which it is the special object of the apostle to exclude, is introduced by the modern mystical or transcendental theologians. On the declaration that righteousness is imputed without works, Olshausen remarks: No matter how abundant or pure works may be, the ground of blessedness is not in them, but in the principle whence they flow; that is, not in man, but in God. The whole doctrine of the apostle is made to be, that men are justified (made holy,) not by themselves, but by God; thus confounding, as Romanists do, justification with sanctification. In Psa_32:1, Psa_32:2, as quoted by Paul from the lxx, ἀφίεναι (to remit,) and ἐπικαλύπτειν (to cover,) are interchanged. Olshausen says the former expresses the New Testament idea of forgiveness (die reale Hinwegschaffung der Sunde) i.e., the real removal of sin; the latter, the Old Testament idea of non-imputation of sin the sin remaining, but being overlooked. This view of the nature of remission, and of the difference between the Old and the New Testament, is purely Romish.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.