righteousness of God is that we are in Christ regarded and treated as righteous, and therefore the sense in which he was made sin, is that he was regarded and treated as a sinner. His being made sin is consistent with his being in himself free from sin; and our being made righteous is consistent with our being in ourselves ungodly.
In other words, our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. Justitia hic non pro qualitate aut habitu, says Calvin, sed pro imputatione accipitur, eo quod accepta nobis fertur Christi justitia.
Quod e converso peccatum? reatus quo in Dei judicio obstringimur....
Personam enim nostram quodammodo suscepit, ut reus nostro nomine fieret, et tanquam peccator judicaretur, non propriis, sed alienis delictis,
quum purus foret ipse et immunis ab omni culpa, poenamque subiret nobis, non sibi debitam. Ita scilicit nunc justi sumus in ipso: non quia operibus propriis satisfaciamus judicio Dei, sed quoniam censimur Christi justitia, quam fide induimus, ut nostra fiiat. In <480313>
Galatians 3:13, the apostle says that “Christ was made a curse for us,” which is equivalent to saying that he was made sin for us. In both cases the idea is that he bore the punishment of our sins. God laid on him the iniquities of us all. His sufferings and death were penal, because inflicted and endured in satisfaction of justice. And in virtue of the infinite dignity of his person they were a perfect satisfaction; that is, a full equivalent for all the law’s demands. In <450803>
Romans 8:3, it is said, “What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Here again we have precisely the same doctrine. What in one passage is expressed by saying that Christ was made sin, in the other is expressed by saying, he was sent
“for sin,” i.e. as a sin-offering (peri<-aJmarti>av).
The apostle says Christ: was made sin for us, uJpe<r hJmw~n, i.e. in our stead, because the idea of substitution is involved in the very nature of the transaction. The victim was the substitute for the offender. It was put in his place. So Christ was our substitute, or, was put in our place. This is the more apparent from the following clause, which teaches the design of this substitution. He was made sin, that we might be made righteous. He was condemned, that we might be justified. The very idea of substitution is that what is done by one in the place of another, avails as though that other had done it himself. The victim was the substitute of the offerer, because its death took the place of his death. If both died there was no substitution. So if Christ’s being made sin does not secure our being made righteousness, he was not our substitute. Righteousness does not here mean inward rectitude, or moral excellence. It is true that the word often has this sense; and it is true that the work of Christ does secure the
holiness of his people, and was designed to produce that effect, as is often asserted in Scripture. But this was neither its only, nor its proximate design. Its immediate end was to reconcile us to God; to propitiate him, by the satisfaction of justice, so that he can be just and yet justify the
ungodly. As the apostle is here speaking of the sacrificial effect of Christ’s death, that is, of the proximate effect of his being made sin for us, the
word righteousness must be understood in its forensic sense. It expresses our relation to the law, not our inward moral state. It is that which justifies, or satisfies the demands of the law. Those who have this
dekaiosu>nh are di>kaioi just in the sight of the law, in the sense that the law or justice is satisfied as concerns them. It is called the righteousness of God, either because it is from him as its author; or, because it renders us righteous in his sight. Those who possess this righteousness are di>kaioi para< tw~| qew~|, i.e. righteous before God. The former is the more common representation in Paul’s writings. <450117>
Romans 1:17; <450322>
3:22; <451003>
10:3;
<500309>
Philippians 3:9, where “the righteousness of God,” is explained by “the righteousness which is of God.” In this view of the meaning of the phrase, the sense of the clause “we become the righteousness of God,” is that we become divinely righteous. We are righteous with the righteousness of God, not with our own which is but as a filthy rag, but with that which he has provided and which consists in the infinitely meritorious;
righteousness of his own dear Son. All this is true; but the context here favors the other mode of representation. Christ was treated as a sinner, i.e.
condemned, that we might be justified, i.e. regarded as just before God.
The apostle uses the present tense, ginw>meqa, we become righteous, because this justification is continuous. We are introduced into a justified state. In him, that is, in Christ. It is by virtue of our union with Christ, and only as we are in him by faith, that we are righteous before God.
There is probably no passage in the Scriptures in which the doctrine of justification is more concisely or clearly stated than in this. Our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. He bore our sins; we are clothed in his righteousness. Imputation conveys neither pollution nor holiness. Christ’s bearing our sins did not make him morally a sinner, any more than the victim was morally defiled which bore the sins of the people; nor does Christ’s righteousness become subjectively ours, it is not the moral quality of our souls. This is what is not meant. What is meant is equally plain. Our sins were the judicial ground of the sufferings of Christ, so that they were a satisfaction of justice; and his righteousness is the judicial ground of our acceptance with God, so that our pardon is an act of justice. It is a justification; or, a declaration that justice is satisfied.
We are set free by no mere act of sovereignty, but by the judicial decision of the infinitely just. As we, considered in ourselves, are just as
undeserving and hell-deserving as ever, this justification is to us an act of infinite grace. The special consideration, therefore, by which the apostle enforces the exhortation, ‘Be ye reconciled to God,’ is that God can be just in the justification of sinners. There is nothing in the perfection of his character, nothing in the immutability of his law, nothing in the interests of his moral government, that stands in the way of our pardon. A full,
complete, infinitely meritorious satisfaction has been made for our sins, and therefore we may come to God with the assurance of being accepted.
This is a ground of confidence which an enlightened conscience, burdened with a sense of sin, absolutely needs. It is not mere pardon, but
justification alone, that gives us peace with God.
CHAPTER 6
The apostle continues the vindication of himself vs. 1-10. Asserts his strong love for the Corinthians, and exhorts them to keep themselves free from all contaminating alliances, vs. 11-18.
THE. APOSTLE’S FIDELITY AND LOVE. VS. 1-18.
As the occasion of writing this epistle was the false accusations of his opponents, a strain of self-vindication runs through the whole. In 5:12 he said he spoke of himself to enable his friends in Corinth to defend him against his enemies. He was governed by the love of Christ, and acted as his ambassador; as such he was a fellow-worker with God, and exhorted men not to fail of the grace of God, vs. 1, 2. In the exercise of this office he avoided all offense, v. 3, proving his sincerity and fidelity as a minister of God, by the patient endurance of all kinds of trials, vs. 4, 5; by the exercise of all the graces and gifts of the Spirit, vs. 6, 7; and under all circumstances, whether of honor or dishonor, prosperity or adversity, whether understood or misunderstood by his fellow men, vs. 8-10. He thus unbosomed himself to the Corinthians, because his heart was
enlarged. It was wide enough to take them all in. Whatever there was of the want of love or of due appreciation between them and him, the fault was on their side, not on his, vs. 11, 12. He begs them to be as large-hearted towards him as he was towards them, v. 13, and not to allow themselves to be involved in any intimate alliances with the wicked, vs. 13-18.
1. We then, (as) workers together (with him), beseech (you) also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
This verse is intimately connected with the preceding chapter by the particles de< kai>, but also. He is still describing his manner of discharging his apostolic duties. He not only announced that God had made Christ sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him, but also, as a co-worker with God, he exhorted men not to receive the grace of God in vain. In our version the apostle is made to say, “I beseech you also.” This is wrong; the also belongs to the verb — “I also beseech you.” That the word sunergou~ntev, co-operating, refers to the apostle’s co-operating
with God, is plain from the connection, and from the nature of the work.
He had just before, <470520>
5:20, spoken of God’s beseeching them; and now he says, we as co-workers beseech you. So in <460309>
1 Corinthians 3:9, he says,
“We are co-workers with God.” In the Vulgate the word is rendered adjuvantes, which favors the ideal that he was co-operating with them, assisting them (i.e. the Corinthians) by his exhortations. Luther’s version suggests the same meaning; Wir ermahen aber euch, als Mithelfer, as joint-laborers or helpers we exhort you. Compare <470124>
1:24, where the apostle says, “We are helpers (sunergoi>) of your joy.” This view of the passage is given by many commentators. It does not, however, so well, as just remarked, agree with the context; and it would require, to prevent ambiguity, the insertion of uJmi~n, with you. As an apostle or minister of the gospel, Paul was a co-worker with God.
That ye receive not the grace of God in vain. What is it to receive the grace of God in vain? Some say that the meaning is to accept of the atonement of Christ, or reconciliation with God spoken of in the preceding chapter, and yet to live in sin. The favor of God is then accepted to no purpose.
But this is an unscriptural idea. Justification and sanctification cannot be thus separated. A man cannot accept of reconciliation with God and live in sin; because the renunciation of sin is involved in the acceptance of
reconciliation. Paul never assumes that men may accept one benefit of redemption, and reject another. They cannot take pardon and refuse
sanctification. Others say that the apostle here exhorts his readers to guard against “falling from grace;” that having been graciously pardoned they should not, by a relapse into sin, forfeit the grace or favor which they had received. This is a very common interpretation. Olshausen says, “It is undeniable that the apostle assumes that grace when once received may be lost; the Scriptures know nothing of the dangerous error of the advocates of predestination, that grace cannot be lost; and experience stamps it as a lie.” But in the first place, it is no argument in favor of this interpretation that the apostle uses the infinitive aorist (de>xasqai), have received, because the aorist infinitive is very commonly used for the present after verbs signifying to command or exhort. See <451201>
Romans 12:1; <451520>
15:20; <470208>
2 Corinthians 2:8; <490401>
Ephesians 4:1. Winer’s Idioms of the New Testament, p. 386. In the second place, the “grace of God,” here spoken of, does not mean the actual forgiveness of sin, nor the renewing, sanctifying influence
of the Spirit, but the favor of which the apostle spoke in the preceding chapter. It is the infinite grace or favor of having made his Son sin for us, so that we may become the righteousness of God in him. This is the grace of God of which the apostle speaks. He exhorted men not to let it be in vain, as it regarded them, that a satisfaction for sin sufficient for all, and appropriate to all, had been made and offered to all who hear the gospel. In precisely the same sense he says, <480221>
Galatians 2:21, “I do not frustrate the grace of God.” That is, ‘I do not, by trusting to the works of the law, make it in vain that God has provided a gratuitous method of salvation.’ That great grace or favor he did not make a thing of naught. In <480504>
Galatians 5:4, he says, “Whosoever of you are justified by the law, are fallen from grace.” That is, ‘ye have renounced the gratuitous method of salvation, and are debtors to do the whole law.’ So in <450614>
Romans 6:14, it is said, “We are not under the law, but under grace.” In no one of these cases does “grace”
mean either the actual pardon of sin, or inward divine influence. It means the favor of God, and in this connection the great favor of redemption. The Lord Jesus Christ having died for our sins and procured eternal redemption for us, the apostle was most earnest in exhorting men not to allow this great favor, as regards them, to be in vain. It is the more evident that such is the meaning of the passage because it is not so much a direct exhortation to the Corinthians, as a declaration of the method in which the apostle preached. He announced the fact that God had made Christ who knew no sin to be sin for us, and he exhorted all men not to receive the grace of God in vain, that is, not to reject this great salvation. And finally, this
interpretation is required by the following verse. “Behold, now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation.” This is appropriate as a motive to receive the offer of pardon and acceptance with God, but it is not appropriate as a reason why a renewed and pardoned sinner should not fall from grace. There is therefore no necessity to assume, contrary to the whole analogy of Scripture, that the apostle here teaches that those who have once made their peace with God and experienced his renewing grace can fall away into perdition. If reconciled by the death of his Son, much more shall they be saved by his life. Nothing can ever separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus. Whom he calls, them he also glorifies. They are kept by the mighty power of God through faith unto salvation.
2. (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee; behold, now (is) the accepted time;
behold, now (is) the day of salvation.)
The Scriptures contain abundant evidence that inspiration did not interfere with the natural play of the powers of the sacred writers. Although they spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, yet they were probably in most cases unconscious of his influence, and acted as spontaneously as the believer does under the power of the Spirit in all his holy exercises. Hence we find that the sacred writings are constructed according to the ordinary laws of mind, and that the writers pass from subject to subject by the usual process of suggestion and association. So here the use of the word de>xasqai brought up to the apostle’s mind the word dektw~|, as it occurs in the beautiful passage, <234908>
Isaiah 49:8. Hence the quotation of that passage as it stands in the Greek version of the Old Testament. I have heard thee in an accepted time. In the Hebrew it is, a time of grace; and to this answers the equivalent expression, the day of salvation. It is on these expressions that the appropriateness of the citation rests. The Old Testament speaks of “a time of grace,” and of “a day of salvation.” That is, of a time and a day in which grace and salvation may be obtained. The apostle adds, by way of comment and application, “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” The connection between this verse and what precedes is thus clear. ‘Receive not the grace of God in vain, for there is a time of grace and a day of salvation, and that day is now. Therefore, neglect not this great salvation.’ The 49th chapter of Isaiah, whence this passage is taken, is his servant to restore Israel and to be a light to the Gentiles. He it was whom man despised and the nation abhorred, to whom kings should rise and princes worship. It was he to whom Jehovah said, “I have heard thee in an accepted time, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee.” This being the case, the use which the apostle makes of the passage may be explained either on the hypothesis adopted by Dr. J. A. Alexander, in his comment on this chapter, that the ideal person addressed is not the Messiah exclusively, but the Messiah and his people as represented in him. Therefore a promise of grace and salvation to the Messiah was at the same time a promise of grace and salvation to his people. This is the view which Bengel adopts. “He saith, the Father to Messiah, <234908>
Isaiah 49:8, embracing in him all believers.” Or
we may assume, in strict accordance with scriptural usage, that the apostle employs the language of the Old Testament to express his own ideas, without regard to its original application. God had in many ways, and on many occasions, promised to save sinners. To this promise the apostle appeals as a reason why men should accept the grace offered to them in Christ Jesus. He clothes this promise in scriptural language. He might have expressed it in any other equivalent form. But the language of the passage in Isaiah being brought to his mind by the principle of association, he adopts the form there given, without any intimation, expressed or implied, that the passage had not in the original a different application. Thus in
<451018>
Romans 10:18 he might have expressed the idea of the general
proclamation of the gospel in his own words, but he chose to express it in the words of the nineteenth Psalm, “Their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world;” although that Psalm relates to an entirely different subject. We are accustomed, without hesitation and almost unconsciously, to make a similar use of scriptural language.