As he walketh safely in the way who hath a faithful convoy with him, so he is most sure of a faithful convoy who is a strong convoy unto himself. Righteousness alone is a puissant army, and he cannot perish whom righteousness preserveth. But how can he escape who is beset in the way by his own villainy. The Hebrew is, that wickedness overthroweth sin. When a sinner is grown settled in sinning, he justly getteth the name of sin, and such an one it is that is here spoken of.—Jermin.
“Righteousness,” that good claim in law which merit gives some of the creatures. Our righteousness comes to us as the merit of Christ. The condition of our being held righteous is faith and new obedience. Therefore, if one is obedient, or, as this verse expresses it, “is upright” or “of integrity in the way,” “righteousness keeps guard over him.” Once righteous, always righteous. Having the proof of our righteousness now, that righteousness, or good standing in the law, shall guard us for ever; while sin, becoming equally perpetual, does not only not guard us, but (another intensive second clause) rejects what guard we have; that is, as it is most evangelically expressed, “subverts” or “overturns” the sin-offering. This word, sin-offering, instead of allowing such an interpretation (see [Critical Notes]) has it in all preceding books. “Sin” is the rare rendering. Some of the most beautiful Scriptures, that are Messianic in their cast (Gen. iv. 7), are ruined by the translation “sin.” Leviticus never has the translation “sin” even in the English version.—Miller.
There is more bitterness following upon sin’s ending than ever there was sweetness flowing from sin’s acting. You that see nothing but well in its commission will suffer nothing but woe in its conclusion. You that sin for your profits will never profit by your sins.—Dyer.
main homiletics of verses 7 and 8.
The Law of Compensation.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE: Be very careful with the word “niggardly” because it can sound like a racial slur, especially to those who do not know the word or who are not paying attention. Consider substituting “miserly,” “sparing,” or “parsimonious.”
I. There may be pretensions to wealth where there is comparative poverty. Many men endeavour to make other people believe that they are richer than they are—indeed, it seems to be the common vice of modern society. It is to be deprecated for several reasons. 1. It is an injury to the man himself. It very often happens that his foolish artifices fail to blind others; he is like the ostrich who, when he places his head into the sand, thinks he has hidden himself entirely from observation; he only makes himself an object of ridicule to those who he thinks he has deceived. If, for a time, he that “hath nothing” succeeds in making people believe he is rich, the truth comes out in time, the bubble bursts, and the pretender comes to such shame as would never have been his portion if he had been content to pass for what he really was—a poor man. 2. Such pretenders are a curse to others. One such man makes many others. His costly furniture and brilliant entertainments, and all the adjuncts which are necessary to keep up the reputation of being a millionaire, lead his neighbours and associates to keep up appearances of the same kind, and so the mischief grows. Then such men rob honest men by leading them to trust them with their goods or money, and when the end comes many are brought to ruin. Examples of this truth are not far to seek, they are, alas, far too common in the present day. 3. Such pretension is base hypocrisy. A sin against which a righteous God levels His sternest threatenings (see on chap. [xi. 9]).
II. He who is really wealthy and yet does not use his wealth to the glory of God “hath nothing.” 1. He is poor in relation to his fellow-creatures. The greatest beggar cannot do less for the world than he does, and he is poor in the love and gratitude of those from whom he might win a rich reward by the exercise of benevolence. 2. He is poor in spiritual riches. A miserly, niggardly man must be poor “towards God” (Luke xii. 21)—must be destitute of all that God counts worth possessing. The rich Church of Laodicea was so “increased with goods” that she said, “I have need of nothing,” but in the sight of the Son of God she was “poor” (Rev. iii. 17).
III. In a spiritual sense this text is true. Possibly the rebuke to the Laodicean Church may refer to that satisfaction in spiritual things “which maketh itself rich yet hath nothing,” because its possessor is destitute of any real knowledge of his own spiritual needs and, consequently, of his spiritual poverty.
IV. There are men who are in every respect the opposite of those with whom we have been dealing. 1. There is the miser who “maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches.” It is difficult to know what motive can prompt a man to do this except covetousness—a fear that he will be expected to part with some of his wealth for the good of others. What, therefore, was said under the second head will apply to him. 2. There are those who make no show of wealth, yet having enough to sustain their position in life are really rich. The man who is content to be known for what he really is, and has enough to live honestly, is rich, for riches and poverty are merely comparative terms, and the riches of one man would be poverty to another.