תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

And the apostle's observation-that sin was in the world long before the law was given, and was as universal in the world from the times of Adam, as it had been among the heathen since the law of Moses-shewed plainly, that the Jews were quite mistaken in their notion of their particular law; and that the law which is the original and universal rule of righteousness and judgment for all mankind, was another law, of far more ancient date, even the law of nature. This began as early as the human nature began, and was established with the first father of mankind, and in him with the whole race. The positive precept of abstaining from the forbidden fruit was given for the trial of his compliance with this law of nature; of which the main rule is supreme regard to God and his will. And the apostle proves that it must be thus, because if the law of Moses had been the highest rule of judgment, and if there had not been a superior, prior, divine rule established, mankind in general would not have been judged and condemned as sinners, before that was given, (for "sin is not imputed when there is no law") as it is apparent in fact they were, because death reigned before that time, even from the time of Adam.

It may be observed that the apostle both in this epistle, and in that to the Galatians, endeavours to convince the Jews of these two things, in opposition to the notions and prejudices they had entertained concerning their law. (1.) That it never was intended to be the covenant, or method by which they should actually be justified. (2.) That it was not the highest and universal rule or law, by which mankind in general, and particularly the heathen world, were condemned. And he proves both by similar arguments. He proves that the law of Moses was not the covenant by which any of mankind were to obtain justification, because that covenant was of older date, being expressly established in the time of Abraham, and Abraham himself was justified by it. This argument the apostle particularly handles in the third chap. of Galatians, particularly in ver. 17-19. and especially in Rom. iv. 13-15. He proves also that the law of Moses was not the prime rule of judgment, by which mankind in general, and particularly the heathen world, were condemned. And this he proves also the same way, viz. by shewing this to be of older date than that law, and that it was established with Adam. Now these things tended to lead the Jews to right notions of their law, not as the intended method of justification, nor as the original and universal rule of condemnation, but something superadded to both; superadded to the latter, to illustrate and confirm it, that the offence might abound: and superadded to the former, to be as a schoolmaster, to prepare men for its benefits, and to magnify divine grace in it, that this might much more abound.

The chief occasion of obscurity and difficulty, attending the scope and connection of the various clauses of this discourse, particularly in the 13th and 14th verses, is, that there are two things (although closely connected) which the apostle has in view at once. He would illustrate the grand point he had been upon from the beginning, even justification through Christ's righteousness alone, by shewing how we are originally in a sinful miserable state, how we derive this sin and misery from Adam, and how we are delivered and justified by Christ as a second Adam. At the same time he would confute those foolish and corrupt notions of the Jews, about their nation, and their law, which were very inconsistent with these doctrines. And he here endeavours to establish, at once, these two things in opposition to those Jewish notions.

(1.) That it is our natural relation to Adam, and not to Abraham, which determines our native moral state; and that, therefore, being natural children of Abraham, will not make us by nature holy in the sight of God, since we are the natural seed of sinful Adam. Nor does the Gentiles being not descended from Abraham, denominated them sinners, any more than the Jews, seeing both alike are descended from Adam.

(2.) That the law of Moses is not the prime and general law and rule of judgment for mankind, to condemn them, and denominate them sinners; but that the state they are in with regard to a higher, more ancient and universal law, determines them in general to be sinners in the sight of God, and liable to be condemned as such. Which observation is, in many respects, to the apostle's purpose; particularly in this respect, that if the Jews were convinced, that the law, which was the prime rule of condemnation, was given to all, was common to all mankind, and that all fell under condemnation through the violation of that law by the common father of all, both Jews and Gentiles, then they would be led more easily and naturally to believe, that the method of justification, which God had established, also extended equally to all mankind: And that the Messiah, by whom we have this justification, is appointed, as Adam was for a common head to all, both Jews and Gentiles-The apostle aiming to confute the Jewish notion, is the principal occasion of those words in the 13th verse, "for until the law, sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed, when there is no law."

As to the import of that expression, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, not only is the thing signified, in Dr. T.'s sense of it, not true; or if it had been true, would have been impertinent, as has been shewn But his interpretation is, otherwise, very much strained and unnatural. According to him, "by sinning after the similitude of Adam's transgression," is not meant any simiVOL. II.

64

litude of the act of sinning, nor of the command sinned against, nor properly any circumstance of the sin; but only the similitude of a circumstance of the command, viz. the threatening with which it is attended. A far-fetched thing truly, to be called a similitude of sinning! Besides, this expression in such a meaning, is only a needless, impertinent, and awkward repetition of the same thing, which it is supposed the apostle had observed in the foregoing verse, even after he had proceeded another step in the series of his discourse. As thus, in the foregoing verse the apostle had plainly laid down his argument, (as our author understands it) by which he would prove, that death did not come by personal sin, viz. because death reigned before any law, threatening death for personal sin, was in being: so that the sin then committed was against no law, threatening death for personal sin. Having laid this down, the apostle leaves this part of his argument, and proceeds another step, nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses: And then returns, in a strange unnatural manner, and repeats that argument or assertion again, but only more obscurely than before, in these words, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression; i. e. over them that had not sinned against a law threatening death for personal sin. Which is just the same thing as if the apostle had said, "they that sinned before the law, did not sin against all law threatening death for personal sin; for there was no such law for any to sin against at that time: Nevertheless death reigned at that time, even over such as did not sin against a law threatening death for personal sin." Which latter clause adds nothing to the premises, and tends nothing to illustrate what was said before, but rather to obscure and darken it. The particle (xa) even, when prefixed in this manner, is used to signify something additional, some advance in the sense or argument; implying that the words following express something more, or express the same thing more fully, plainly, or forcibly. But to unite two clauses by such a particle, in such a manner, when there is nothing besides a flat repetition, with no superadded sense or force, but rather a greater uncertainty and obscurity, would be very unusual, and indeed very absurd.

I can see no reason why we should be dissatisfied with that explanation of this clause, which has more commonly been given, viz. That by them who have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, are meant infants; who, though they have indeed sinned in Adam, yet never sinned as Adam did, by actually transgressing in their own persons; unless it be, that this interpretation is too old, and too common. It was well understood by those to whom the apostle wrote, that vast numbers had died in infancy, within that period of

which he speaks, particularly in the time of the deluge. And it would be strange, that the apostle should not have the case of such infants in his mind; even supposing his scope were what our author supposes, and he had only intended to prove that death did not come on mankind for their personal sin. How directly would it have served the purpose of proving this, to have mentioned so great a part of mankind who are subject to death, and who, all know, never committed any sin in their own persons? How much more plain and easy the proof of the point by that, than to go round about, as Dr. T. supposes, and bring in a thing so dark and uncertain as this, that God never would bring death on all mankind for personal sin, (though they had personal sin) without an express revealed constitution; and then to observe, that there was no revealed constitution of this nature from Adam to Moses,-which also seems to be an assertion without any plain evidence-and then to infer, that it must needs be so, that it could come only on occasion of Adam's sin, though not for his sin, or as any punishment of it; which inference also is very dark and unintelligible.

If the apostle in this place meant those who never sinned by their personal act, it is not strange that he should express this by their not sinning after the similitude of Adam's transgression. We read of two ways of men being like Adam, or in which a similitude to him is ascribed to men: One is, being begotten or born in his image or likeness, Gen. v. 3. Another is, transgressing God's Covenant or law, like him, Hos. vi. 7. They like Adam, (so, in the Heb. and Vulg. Lat.) have transgressed the covenant. Infants have the former similitude, but not the latter. And it was very natural, when the apostle would infer that infants become sinners by that one act and offence of Adam, to observe, that they had not renewed the act of sin themselves, by any second instance of a like sort. And such might be the state of language among Jews and Christians at that day, that the apostle might have no phrase more aptly to express this meaning. The manner in which the epithets, personal and actual, are used and applied now in this case, is probably of later date, and more modern use.

And the apostle having the case of infants in view, in this expression, makes it more to his purpose to mention death reigning before the law of Moses was given. For the Jews looked on all nations besides themselves as sinners, by virtue of their law; being made so especially by the law of circumcision, given first to Abraham, and completed by Moses, making the want of circumcision a legal pollution, utterly disqualifying for the privileges of the sanctuary. This law, the Jews supposed, made the very infants of the Gentiles to be sinners, polluted and hateful to God; they being uncircumcised, and born of uncircumcised parents. But the apostle proves against these

notions of the Jews, that the nations of the world do not become sinners by nature, and sinners from infancy, by virtue of their law, in this manner, but by Adam's sin: Inasmuch as infants were treated as sinners long before the law of circumcision was given, as well as before they had committed actual sin. What has been said, may, as I humbly conceive, lead us to that which is the true scope and sense of the apostle in these three verses; which I will endeavour more briefly to represent in the following paraphrase.

12. Wherefore, "The things which I have largely as by one man sin en- insisted on, viz. the evil that is in the tered into the world, world, the general wickedness, guilt and and death by sin; ruin of mankind, and the opposite good, and so death passed even justification and life, as only by upon all men, for that Christ, lead me to observe the likeness of all have sinned.

the manner in which they are each of them introduced. For it was by one man that the general corruption and guilt which I have spoken of, came into the world, and condemnation and death by sin: And this dreadful punishment and ruin came on all mankind by the great law of works, originally established with mankind in their first father, and by his one offence, or breach of that law; all thereby becoming sinners in God's sight, and exposed to final destruction.

13. For until the "It is manifest that it was in this law sin was in the way the world became sinful and guilty; world: But sin is and not in that way which the Jews sup not imputed when pose, viz. That their law, given by Moses there is no law.

is the grand universal rule of righteousness and judgment for mankind, and that it is by being Gentiles, uncircumcised, and aliens from that law, that the nations of the world are constituted sinners, and unclean. For before the law of Moses was given, mankind were all looked up. on by the great Judge as sinners, by corruption and guilt derived from Adam's violation of the original law of works; which shews, that the original universal rule of righteousness is not the law of Moses; for if so, there would have been no sin imputed before that was given; because sin is not imputed, when there

is no law.

« הקודםהמשך »