COMMENTARIES ON
THE
EPISTLE OF PAUL THE
APOSTLE
TO
THE
ROMANS
BY JOHN
CALVIN
TRANSLATED AND
EDITED
BY THE REV. JOHN
OWEN,
VICAR OF THRUSSINGTON,
LEICESTERSHIRE
TRANSLATOR’S
PREFACE
ON no portion of THE NEW TESTAMENT have so many
COMMENTARIES been written as on THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. We have indeed no
separate Comment extant by any of the Fathers on this Epistle; though it has
been explained, together with other parts of Scripture, by Origen in the third
century; by Jerome, Chrysostom, and in part by Augustine, in the
fourth; by Theodoret in the fifth; by Œcumenius in the tenth; and by
Theophylact in the eleventh century. But since the Reformation, many separate
Expositions have been published, beside a learned Introduction by Luther,
and Notes or Scholia by Zuingle and Melancthon.
The first complete COMMENTARY, as it appears, was
written by Bullinger; the second by Bucer, a Professor of Theology at Cambridge
for a short time in the reign of Edward the Sixth; and the next in order of time
was this Work by CALVIN, composed at Strasbourg in the year 1539. The fourth was
by Peter Martyr; and this was translated into English in the year 1568. Another
was afterwards published by Rodolph Gualter, Minister at
Zurich.
Early in the next century the learned Pareus
f1
delivered lectures on this Epistle, as Professor of Theology in the
University of Heidelberg — a work of great learning and of great merits
though written in a style too scholastic to suit the taste of the present day.
His special object was to rebut the arguments and expose the sophistries of
Popish writers, particularly those of Bellarmine, the acutest, the subtlest and
the most learned of all the Jesuits of his own age, and perhaps of any in after
ages. There is hardly a subject in any measure connected with the contents of
this Epistle which Pareus does not discuss: at the end of every chapter a number
of questions are stated and answered, especially such as refer to the disputes
between Papists and Protestants. He also controverts the perversions of
Socinianism.
The next work that requires particular notice is that
of Turrettin, a Professor of Theology in the University of Geneva. It was
published about the commencement of the last century; the author died in the
year 1737. The doctrine of Calvin had somewhat degenerated in his time, though
the work on the whole takes the side of orthodoxy. It yet shows a leaning to
those views, which commonly issue it sentiments subversive of the essentials of
true Christianity.
The first Commentary published in this country,
composed in English, was by Elnathan Parr, B.D., Rector of Palgrave in Suffolk.
He was, as it appears the personal friend of Sir Nathaniel Bacon, an
elder brother of Lord Bacon. He dedicated his work to Sir Nathaniel, and
speaks of him a having been a hearer of what he published when delivered from
the pulpit.
f2
His style is that of his age, and appear quaint now; but his thoughts are often
very striking an truly excellent, and his sentiments are wholly in accordant
with those of the Reformers.
Since that time until this century, no work of any
not has appeared separately on this Epistle. But within the last thirty years
several Commentaries have been published. Besides those of Flatt and Tholuck
in Germany, three at least have appeared in this country, and three in
America. The authors in America are Moses Stuart, M.A., Professor of Sacred
Literature at Andover in Massachusetts, the Rev Albert Barnes, and Charles
Hodge, Professor of Biblical Literature at Princeton. Those in this country are
the Rev F. Fry, Rector of Desford, Leicestershire, Robert Haldane
Esq., and Dr Chalmers. The doctrine held by Calvin is essentially maintained
in all these works, and in most of them in its fullest extent.
Of our American brethren, the most learned and the
most versed in criticisms is Professor Stuart; the fullest and the minutest
expositor is the Rev. A. Barnes; and the acutest and the most concise
commentator is Professor Hodge. The two first seem, in some instances, like
Turrettin, to deviate somewhat from what may be considered strict orthodoxy, at
least in their mode of explaining some subjects: the last is liable to no charge
of this kind.
Respecting our own countrymen, there is a more
perfect unanimity, though they belonged to different Churches. The Lectures of
the Rev. J. Fry are those of a strict Predestinarian, and yet replete with
remarks, both experimental and practical. The layman, R. Haldane, Esq., has
displayed very high qualifications as an expositor; he is strictly and even
stiffly orthodox, and can brook no deviation from what he regards as the truth.
Of Dr. Chalmers’ Lectures, comprised in four volumes, 12mo, it is
difficult to pronounce an opinion. They are the productions of a
philosopher’s and one of the highest grade, who, at the same time,
possessed the heart and the experience of an humble Christian. He expatiates
over the whole field of truth with the eye of an eagle, and with the docility of
a child, without ever overleaping the boundaries of revelation. He was evidently
a man by himself, taller by his shoulders than most men, either in this or in
any other age, having a mind as sound as at was vigorous, an imagination as
sober as it was creative, and a capacity to illustrate and to amplify quite
unequaled.
All these works have their peculiar excellencies,
adapted to different tastes and capacities, and no doubt they have their
defects. The same must be said of Calvin’s work. But as a concise
and lucid commentator he certainly excels. He is not so much an expounder of
words, as of principles. He carries on an unbroken chain of reasoning
throughout, in a brief and clear manner. Having well considered the main drift
of a passage, he sets before us what it contains, by a brief statement or by a
clear process of reasoning; and often by a single sentence he throws light on a
whole passage: and though his mind possessed more vigour of intellect and sound
good sense, than what is called imagination; yet there are some fine thoughts
occasionally occurring, beautifully expressed, to which that faculty must have
given birth. There is also a noble grandeur and dignity in his sentiments,
rarely to be found in other writers.
Professor Stuart has justly characterized this Work
by saying, that it contains “fundamental investigation of the logic and
course of thought contained in the Epistle;” and that it embraces
“very little verbal criticism. Many a difficulty is solved without any
appearance of effort, or any show of learning. Calvin,” he adds, “is
by far the most distinguished of all the Commentators of his
times.”
It was mainly to supply the defect named above, the
want of verbal criticism, that NOTES have been added in the present Edition.
They are also designed to furnish the reader with such expositions as have been
suggested by posterior critics and commentators. And as we are generally
desirous of knowing the names of authors, they have been for the most part
given. Much light is thrown on a passage by conveying the full meaning of the
original. This has been done partly by giving such different versions as seemed
most entitled to approbation, and partly by referring to other passages where
such words occur: so that a common reader, unacquainted with the original, may,
to a certain extent, have the advantage of one well versed in the Greek
language.
Variety of meanings given to words, and also to
passages, has been deemed by some to lessen the certainty of truth, but without
any solid reason; for this variety as found in the works of all sound and
judicious critics, seldom or ever affects any thing important, either in
doctrine, experience, or practice, and tends often to expand the meaning and to
render it clearer and more prominent. There has been in deed sometimes a
pruriency in this respect, an unholy ambition for novelty, a desire for new
discoveries, an indulgence of mere curiosity, which have been very injurious.
Much of this sort of mania prevailed among some of the German divines in the
last century, as Wolfius clearly shows in his works, in which he notices and
disproves many vagaries assuming the name of critical expositions; and much of a
similar kind of spirit seems to prevail still in that country. It is a mania for
criticism, for its own sake, without any concern or solicitude for the truth:
and ingenious criticism has often been resorted to by the oppugners of vital
Christianity as means for supporting heterodoxical sentiments. But there is a
palpable difference between men of this character, the mere gladiators of
criticism, and those who embrace the truth, and whose object it is faithfully to
explain it in consistency with the general tenor of what is revealed, and who
have what is indispensably necessary for such a work, a spiritual experience,
which often affords better assistance than any critical acumen that can ever be
possessed. The man who has seen a thing has a much better idea of it than the
man who has only heard it described.
Attempts have been made by various authors to show
and prove, that the STYLE OF THE EPISTLES, especially those of PAUL, is
consonant with that of classical writers. Blackwall laboured much to do this in
this country, as well as many German divines, particularly in the last century.
In common with some of the Fathers, they thought to recommend in this way the
Apostolic Writings to the attention of literary men. But it was a labour not
wisely undertaken, as it must have necessarily proved abortive: for though some
phrases may be classical, yet the general style is what might have been
naturally expected from the writers, brought up, as they had all been, in the
Jewish religion, and accustomed, as they had been, to the writings of the Old
Testament. Hence their style throughout is Hebraistic; and the meaning of many
of the Greek words which they use is not to be sought from the Classics, but
from the Greek Translation of the ancient Scriptures, and sometimes from the
Hebrew itself, of which that is a translation.
f3
Much evil and no good must result from a claim that
cannot be supported: nor is it at all necessary to make such a claim. It has
been long ago repudiated, and repudiated by Paul himself. Writers have often
ascribed to Paul what he himself distinctly and entirely disclaimed, and never
attempted to attain or to practice, and that on principle, “Lest
the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” It was not by
“excellency of speech” that he courted the attention of the
classical and refined Grecians, that he recommended the gospel to them; it was
not by the tinsel of mere eloquence that he succeeded in his preaching, nor by
the elegance and beauty of his diction; but by something much higher, much
greater, much more powerful and efficient. We ought to follow his example, and
stand on his high ground, and not to descend to that which is no better than a
quagmire. It is a happy thing, and no doubt so designed by God, that the shell
should not be made of fine materials, lest men’s minds should be attracted
by it and neglect the kernel. God might, if he chose, have easily endued his
Apostles with eloquence more than human, and enabled them to write with elegance
more than Grecian; but He did not do so, and Paul expressly gives us the reason,
“that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of
God.”
It is generally agreed, that the EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS was written at CORINTH, and about the end of the year 57, or at the
beginning of the year 58, and that it is the fifth Epistle in order of
time; the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, the Epistle to the
Galatians, and the first to the Corinthians, having
been previously written. Then followed the second Epistle to the
Corinthians, the Epistles to the Ephesians,
Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and
the Hebrews, the first to Timothy, the Epistle to
Titus, and the second to Timothy.
The common date assigned to Paul’s conversion
is AD 35. He wrote his first Epistle, that is, the first to the
Thessalonians, in 52, seventeen years after his conversion. His
second Epistle to Timothy, his last, was written from Rome in 65.
So that he wrote his fourteen Epistles during these thirteen years. The whole
extent of his ministry seems to have been about thirty years; for it is not
supposed that he long outlived the date of his second Epistle to Timothy.
Tradition says, that he was beheaded at Rome, June 29; AD 66.
Paul’s first coming to ROME was in the spring
of the year 61. He continued there as a prisoner for two years.
f4
When he was released, most writers are of the opinion, that he returned early in
63 to Judea, in company with Timothy, and left Titus at Crete; that he visited
the Churches in Asia Minor, then the Churches in Macedonia; that he wintered at
Nicopolis, a city of Epirus, in 64; that afterwards he proceeded to Crete and
also to Corinth; and that early in 65 he again visited Rome, was taken prisoner,
and beheaded in the following year.
f5
This account clearly shows that he did not accomplish his purpose of visiting
Spain, as tradition has recorded.
The first introduction of the Gospel into Rome is
involved in uncertainty. The probability is, that some of the “strangers
of Rome,” present at the day of Pentecost, were converted, and at their
return promoted the spread of the Gospel. Paul mentions two, “Andronicus
and Junia,” as having professed the faith before him, and as having been
noted among the Apostles. He makes mention, too, of another eminent Christian,
“Rufus” whose father, as it is supposed carried our Savior’s
cross,
<411521>Mark
15:21. It is not improbable, that these were afterwards assisted by such as had
been converted under the ministry of Paul; for he speaks of some of those whom
he salutes at Rome as being “beloved,” and as having been his
“fellow-workers.’
What some of the Fathers have related was in the
first instance a tradition, as there was nothing recorded on the subject before
the latter part of the second century, except what has been ascribed to
Dionysius of Corinth, preserved by Eusebius. Irenœus and Tertullian
were the first retailers of the tradition, that Peter, in conjunction with Paul,
was the founder of the Church at Rome. This tradition increased considerably by
the time of Jerome, who, in the fourth century, says, that Peter had been bishop
of Rome for twenty-five years! But this account is so clearly inconsistent with
what we learn from the Acts of the Apostles respecting Peter, that some of the
most reasonable of the Papists themselves have given it up as unworthy of
credit.
f6
It appears next to a certainty that Peter was not at
Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle in 57 or 58, for he sends no salutation to
Peter: — And also that he had not been there previous to that time; for it
is wholly unreasonable to suppose, that, had he been there, Paul would have made
no reference to his labours. It further amounts almost to a certainty, that
Peter was not at Rome when Paul was for two years a prisoner there, from 61 to
63; for he makes no mention of him in any way, not even in the four or five
Epistles which he wrote during that time: And that Peter was not at Rome during
Paul’s last imprisonment in 65 and 66, is evident from the second Epistle
to Timothy; for he makes no mention of Peter, and what he says of Christians
there, that they “all forsook him,” would have been highly
discreditable to Peter, if he was there. So that we have the strongest reasons
to conclude, that Peter had no part in forming and establishing a Church in Rome
during Paul’s life, whatever share in the work he might have had
afterwards.
f7
But the first tradition, or the first account, given by Irenœus and
Tertullian, refers only to a co-operation: and yet this co-operation is wholly
inconsistent with what has been stated, the force of which no reasonable man can
resist.
The learned Pareus proceeds in a different way to
prove that Peter was never at Rome. He shows from different parts of the Acts of
the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians, that Peter was in Judea at the
time when tradition declares that he was at Rome. Peter was in Judea when Paul
was converted, Acts 9; and three years after this — that is, in the
year 38,
<480108>Galatians
1:8. He was in Judea in the year 45, when he was imprisoned by Herod, Acts 12,
and in 49, fourteen years after Paul’s conversion, Acts 15,
<480201>Galatians
2:1-9. Had he been to Rome during this time, some account of such a journey must
surely have been given. After this time we find that he was at Antioch,
<480211>Galatians
2:11. If it be asked, where did he afterwards exercise his ministry? Where more
likely than among the Jews, as he had hitherto most clearly done; for he was the
Apostle of the Circumcision, and among those to whom he sent his Epistles. The
dating of the first at “Babylon,” has led some to conjecture that it
was a figurative term for Rome; but why not for Jerusalem, or for Antioch? for
Christians were at that time treated everywhere like captives or aliens, and
especially in the land of Judea.
What then are we to say as to this tradition? The
same, according to the just remark of Pareus, as what we must say of many other
traditions of that age, that it is nothing but a fable, which, like many others,
would have passed away, had it not been allied to a growing superstition. With
respect to what Eusebius says of the testimony of a presbyter, named Caius, that
about the beginning of the third century he saw the graves of Peter and Paul at
Rome, it may be easily accounted for: it was the age of pious fraud, when the
relics of saints could be found almost everywhere; and, in the next century, the
wood and the nails of the Cross were discovered! Those who can believe these
things, may have a credulity large enough to swallow up the testimony of Caius.
f8
The most probable account, then, of the commencement
of a Christian Church at Rome, is what has been already stated. The condition of
that Church, when Paul wrote to it, we may in a great measure learn from the
Epistle itself. It had a high character, viewed in a general way; but there were
some defects and blemishes. Its faith had been widely reported: there were at
the same time some contentions and divisions among its members, arising
especially from the prejudices of the Jewish believers. To remove the causes of
this dissension, was evidently one of the main objects of Paul in this
Epistle.
THE ORDER AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE EPISTLE have been
somewhat differently viewed by different authors. Pareus includes the
whole in this brief summary — “The Jews and Gentiles are equally
guilty; they are equally justified freely by faith in Christ, without works;
they are equally bound to lead a holy life, to be humble, and to love one
another.” Stuart says, that the whole of what the Epistle contains may be
expressed in a single brief sentence — “Christ our justification and
sanctification.”
In giving a more specific view of the contents of
this Epistle, the former author divides it into two parts —
doctrinal, 1-11.; and hortative, 12-16.: but the latter divides it
into three parts — doctrinal, 1-8.; answers to objections,
9-11.; and hortatory, 12-16. The analysis of Professor Hodge, who takes
the same view with Professor Stuart is the following:
—
“The Epistle consists of three parts. The
first, which includes the first eight chapters, is occupied in the
discussion of The Doctrine of Justification and its consequences. The
second, embracing chapters 9, 10, 11, treats of The Calling of the
Gentiles, The Rejection and Future Conversion of the Jews. The third
consists of Practical Exhortations and Salutations to the Christians at
Rome.”
A more particular ANALYSIS may be thus given:
—
I.
Address - A desire to visit Rome - a brief View
of The Gospel; 1:1-18.
II.
Justification,
1. A
proof of its necessity — the sin and guilt of both Gentiles and Jews,
1:18-3:21.
2.
Its Nature and Character — Examples, Abraham and David,
3:21-4.
3.
Its Effects or Fruits — Peace and Fullness of Grace, 5.;
Death unto Sin and Eternal Life, 6.; Immunity from The Law and The
Reigning Power of Sin, 7. Holiness, The Spirit’s help,
Patience in Afflictions, Perseverance, 8.
III. God’s Dealings
Vindicated —
l.
Election and Reprobation, 9.
2.
Unbelief and Faith, 10.
3.
The Rejection of the Jews, The Adoption of the Gentiles, The Restoration of the
Jews, 11.
IV Christian
Duties
1.
Devotedness to God, Proper Use of Gifts, Love, Doing Good,
12.
2.
Obedience to Authority, Love to all, Purity, 13.
3.
Forbearance towards Weak Brethren, 14.
4.
Help to the Weak, Unanimity, Christ the Savior of Jews and Gentiles,
15:1-13.
V. Conclusion,
—
1.
Paul’s Labours and Purpose to Visit Rome,
15:13.
2.
Salutations, Avoiding Disturbers, Promise of Victory, Praise to God,
16.
We have set before us in this Epistle especially two
things, which it behoves us all rightly to understand — the righteousness
of man and the righteousness of God — merit and grace, or salvation by
works and salvation by faith. The light in which they are exhibited here is
clearer and brighter than what we find in any other portion of Scripture, with
the exception, perhaps, of the Epistle to the Galatians. Hence the great value
which has in every age been attached to this Epistle by all really enlightened
Christians; and hence also the strenuous efforts which have often been made to
darken and wrest its meaning by men, though acute and learned, yet destitute of
spiritual light. But let not the simple Christian conclude from the contrariety
that is often found in the expositions on these two points, that there is no
certainty in what is taught respecting them. There are no contrary views given
of them by spiritually-minded men. Though on other subjects discussed here, such
men have had their differences, yet on these they have ever been found
unanimous: that salvation is from first to last by grace, and not by works, has
ever been the conviction of really enlightened men in every age, however their
opinion may have varied in other respects.
It may seem very strange, when we consider the plain
and decisive language, especially of this Epistle, and the clear and conclusive
reasoning which it exhibits, that any attempt should ever be made by a
reasonable being, acknowledging the authority of Scripture, to pervert what it
plainly teaches, and to evade what it clearly proves. But a right view of what
human nature is, when unrenewed, as exhibited in God’s Word, and as proved
by history and made evident by observation, enables us fully to account for what
would otherwise remain an enigma. No truth is more fully confirmed by facts (and
it ought ever to be remembered) than that “the natural man receiveth not
the things of the Spirit of God,” and that he “cannot know them,
because they are spiritually discerned.” This declaration clearly accounts
for the fact, that men of great learning have often misunderstood many things in
Scripture, and such things as are plain enough even to the unlettered when
spiritually enlightened. The learned Scribes and Rabbins were blind leaders of
the blind, when even babes understood the mysteries of the kingdom of God: and
no better then the Scribes are many learned men, professing Christianity, in our
day.
There is indeed a special reason why, on these
points, unenlightened men should contrive means to evade the obvious meaning of
Scripture; for they are such things as come in constant contact with a
principle, the strongest that belongs to human nature in its fallen state. Other
doctrines may be held as speculations, and kept, as it were, at a distance; but
when we come to merit and grace, to work and faith, man’s pride is
touched; and as long as under he is its prevailing influence, he will be
certain, in some way or another, direct or evasive, to support merit in
opposition to grace, or works in opposition to faith. When the authority of
tradition supplanted the authority of Scripture, the doctrine of merit so
prevailed, that the preposterous idea, that merits were a salable and a
transferable commodity, gained ground in the world. A notion of this kind is too
gross and absurd to be entertained by any who acknowledge God’s Word as
the only umpire in religion; and yet what is not essentially different has often
been maintained; for to say that salvation is partly by faith and partly by
works, is really the same thing, inasmuch as the principle of merit is thereby
admitted. Man naturally cleaves to his own righteousness; all those who are
ignorant are self-righteous, and all the learned who understand not the gospel;
and it is wonderful what ingenious evasions and learned subtleties men will have
recourse to in order to resist the plain testimony of Scripture. When they
cannot maintain their ground as advocates of salvation alone by merits, they
will attempt to maintain it as advocates of a system, which allows a part to
grace and a part to works — an amalgamation which Paul expressly
repudiates,
<451106>Romans
11:6.
But it is remarkable how the innate disposition of
man has displayed itself in this respect. Conscious, as it were, in some measure
of moral imperfections, he has been striving for the most part to merit
his salvation by ceremonial works. This has been the case in all ages
with heathens: their scarifies, austerities, and mechanical devotions were their
merits; they were the works by which they expected to obtain happiness. God
favored the people of Israel with the rituals of religion, which were designed
merely as aids and means to attain and preserve true religion; but they
converted them to another purpose, and, like the heathens, regarded them as
meritorious performances, and expected God’s acceptance for the very
religious acts which they exercised: and in order to make up, as it were, a
sufficient quantity of merit, they made additions to those services which God
had appointed, as though to multiply acts of this kind was to render their
salvation more certain. The very same evil crept early into the Christian
Church, and still continues to exist. The accumulation of ceremonies is of
itself a sufficient proof, that salvation by faith was in a great measure lost
sight of: we want no other evidence; it is what has been ever done whenever the
light of truth has become dim and obscure. We see the same evil in the present
day. Outward privileges and outward acts of worship are in effect too often
substituted for that grace which changes the heart, and for that living faith
which unites us to the Savior, which works by love and overcomes the world. The
very disposition to over-value external privileges and the mere performances of
religious duties, is an unequivocal evidence, that salvation by faith is not
understood, or very imperfectly understood, and not really
embraced.
The only remedy, as means for this evil, is that
which we find employed by Paul in this Epistle. He begins by showing what every
man, Jew and Gentile, is by nature; he proves by the clearest evidence, that all
have sinned and become guilty before God. And having done this, he discloses the
way of salvation which God himself has planned and revealed; and he teaches us,
that it is altogether by grace and through faith that we can be saved, and not
by works. In order cordially to embrace this latter truth, it is necessary to
know the first, that we are sinners under condemnation. It is impossible,
according to the very constitution of man’s mind, that he should really
and truly accede to the one, without a real and deep knowledge of the other. The
whole need not a physician, but the sick. It is only he who is really convinced
of sin and who feels its guilt and its burden intolerable, that ever will, or
indeed ever can, really lay hold on that free salvation which God has provided.
And when this free salvation is really known, all other things compared with it
will be deemed as nothing; and then all outward privileges will be viewed only
as means, and all outward acts of religion only as aids and helps; and then also
all our works, however great and self-denying, will be regarded in no way
meritorious, but imperfect and defective, and acceptable only through the merits
of our High Priest at God’s right hand.
It has not been deemed necessary to give in this
Edition any specimens of title-pages, etc., from former Editions, either In
Latin or in English; as they are to be found in the Old Translation already in
the hands of the subscribers.
J. O.
THE EPISTLE
DEDICATORY
JOHN CALVIN TO
SIMON GRYNÆUS,
F9
A MAN WORTHY OF ALL
HONOR
I REMEMBER that when three years ago we had a
friendly converse as to the best mode of expounding Scripture, the plan which
especially pleased you, seemed also to me the most entitled to approbation: we
both thought that the chief excellency of an expounder consists in lucid
brevity. And, indeed, since it is almost his only work to lay open the mind
of the writer whom he undertakes to explain, the degree in which he leads away
his readers from it, in that degree he goes astray from his purpose, and in a
manner wanders from his own boundaries. Hence we expressed a hope, that from the
number of those who strive at this day to advance the interest of theology by
this kind of labour, some one would be found, who would study plainness, and
endeavour to avoid the evil of tiring his readers with prolixity. I know at the
same time that this view is not taken by all, and that those who judge otherwise
have their reasons; but still I cannot be drawn away from the love of what is
compendious. But as there is such a variety, found in the minds of men, that
different things please different persons, let every one in this case follow his
own judgment, provided that no one attempts to force others to adopt his own
rules. Thus it will be, that we who approve of brevity, will not reject nor
despise the labours of those who are more copious and diffused in their
explanations of Scripture, and that they also in their turn will bear with us,
though they may think us too compressed and concise.
I indeed could not have restrained myself from
attempting something to benefit the Church of God in this way. I am, however, by
no means confident that I have attained what at that time seemed best to us; nor
did I hope to attain it when I began; but I have endeavoured so to regulate my
style, that I might appear to aim at that model. How far I have succeeded, as it
is not my part to determine, I leave to be decided by you and by such as you
are.
That I have dared to make the trial, especially on
this Epistle of Paul, I indeed see, will subject me to the condemnation of many:
for since men of so much learning have already laboured in the explanation of
it, it seems not probable that there is any room for others to produce any thing
better. And I confess, that though I promised to myself some fruit from my
labour, I was at first deterred by this thought; for I feared, lest I should
incur the imputation of presumption by applying my hand to a work which had been
executed by so many illustrious workmen. There are extant on this Epistle many
Commentaries by the ancients, and many by modern writers: and truly they could
have never employed their labours in a better way; for when any one understands
this Epistle, he has a passage opened to him to the understanding of the whole
Scripture.
Of the ancients who have, by their piety, learning,
holiness, and also by their age, gained so much authority, that we ought to
despise nothing of what they have adduced, I will say nothing; and with regard
to those who live at this day, it is of no benefit to mention them all by name:
Of those who have spent most labour in this work, I will express my
opinion.
Philip Melancthon, who, by his singular learning and
industry, and by that readiness in all kinds of knowledge, in which he excels,
has introduced more light than those who had preceded him. But as it seems to
have been his object to examine only those things which are mainly worthy of
attention, he dwelt at large on these, and designedly passed by many things
which common minds find to be difficult. Then follows Bullinger, who has justly
attained no small praise; for with learning he has connected plainness, for
which he has been highly commended. In the last place comes Bucer, who, by
publishing his works, has given as it were the finishing stroke. For in addition
to his recondite learning and enlarged knowledge of things, and to the clearness
of his mind, and much reading and many other excellencies, in which he is hardly
surpassed by any at this day, equaled by few and excelled by still fewer —
he possesses, as you know, this praise as his own — that no one in our age
has been with so much labour engaged in the work of expounding Scripture.
f10
As then it would have been, I know, a proof of the
most presumptuous rivalry, to wish to contend with such men, such a thing never
entered my mind; nor have I a desire to take from them the least portion of
their praise. Let that favor and authority, which according to the confession of
all good men they have deserved, be continued to them. This, however, I trust,
will be allowed — that nothing has been done by men so absolutely perfect,
that there is no room left for the industry of those who succeed them, either to
polish, or to adorn, or to illustrate. Of myself I venture not to say any thing,
except that I thought that my labour would not be useless, and that I have
undertaken it for no other reason than to promote the public good of the
Church.
I farther hoped, that by adopting a different plan, I
should not expose myself to the invidious charge of rivalry, of which I was
afraid in the first instance. Philipp attained his object by illustrating
the principal points: being occupied with these primary things, he passed by
many things which deserve attention; and it was not his purpose to prevent
others to examine them. Bucer is too diffuse for men in business to read, and
too profound to be understood by such as are simple and not capable of much
application: for whatever be the subject which he handles, so many things are
suggested to him through the incredible fecundity of his mind, in which he
excels, that he knows not when to stop. Since then the first has not explained
every passage, and the other has handled every point more at large than it can
be read in a short time, my design has not even the appearance of being an act
of rivalship. I, however, hesitated for some time, whether it would be better to
gather some gleanings after these and others, by which I might assist humbler
minds — or to compose a regular comment, in which I should necessarily
have to repeat many things which have been previously said by them all, or at
least by some of them. But as they often vary from one another, and thus present
a difficulty to simple readers, who hesitate as to what opinion they ought to
receive, I thought that it would be no vain labour, if by pointing out the best
explanation, I relieved them from the trouble of forming a judgment, who are not
able to form a judgment for themselves; and especially as I determined to treat
things so briefly, that without much loss of time, readers may peruse in my work
what is contained in other writings. In short, I have endeavoured that no one
may justly complain, that there are here many things which are
superfluous.
Of the usefulness of this work I will say nothing;
men not malignant, will, however, it may be, have reasons to confess, that they
have derived from it more benefit than I can with any modesty dare to promise.
Now, that I some times dissent from others, or somewhat differ from them, it is
but right that I should be excused. Such veneration we ought indeed to entertain
for the Word of God, that we ought not to pervert it in the least degree by
varying expositions; for its majesty is diminished, I know not how much,
especially when not expounded with great discretion and with great sobriety. And
if it be deemed a great wickedness to contaminate any thing that is dedicated to
God, he surely cannot be endured, who, with impure, or even with unprepared
hands, will handle that very thing, which of all things is the most sacred on
earth. It is therefore an audacity, closely allied to a sacrilege, rashly to
turn Scripture in any way we please, and to indulge our fancies as in sport;
which has been done-by many in former times.
But we ever find, that even those who have not been
deficient in their zeal for piety, nor in reverence and sobriety in handling the
mysteries of God, have by no means agreed among themselves on every point; for
God hath never favored his servants with so great a benefit, that they were all
endued with a full and perfect knowledge in every thing; and, no doubt, for this
end — that he might first keep them humble; and secondly, render them
disposed to cultivate brotherly intercourse. Since then what would otherwise be
very desirable cannot be expected in this life, that is, universal consent among
us in the interpretation of all parts of Scripture, we must endeavour, that,
when we depart from the sentiments of our predecessors, we may not be stimulated
by any humour for novelty, nor impelled by any lust or defaming others, nor
instigated by hatred, nor tickled by any ambition, but constrained by necessity
alone, and by the motive of seeking to do good: and then, when this is done in
interpreting Scripture, less liberty will be taken in the principles of
religion, in which God would have the minds of his people to be especially
unanimous. Readers will easily perceive that I had both these things in
view.
But as it becomes not me to decide or to pronounce
any thing respecting myself, I willingly allow you this office; to whose
judgment, since almost all in most things defer, I ought in everything to defer,
inasmuch as you are intimately known to me by familiar intercourse; which is
wont somewhat to diminish the esteem had for others, but does not a little
increase yours, as is well known among al the learned.
Farewell.
STRASBURGH, 18th October
1539.
EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS.
THE
ARGUMENT
WITH regard to the excellency of this Epistle, I know
not whether it would be well for me to dwell long on the subject; for I fear,
lest through my recommendations falling far short of what they ought to be, I
should do nothing but obscure its merits: besides, the Epistle itself, at its
very beginning, explains itself in a much better way than can be done by any
words which I can use. It will then be better for me to pass on to the Argument,
or the contents of the Epistle; and it will hence appear beyond all controversy,
that besides other excellencies, and those remarkable, this can with truth be
said of it, and it is what can never be sufficiently appreciated — that
when any one gains a knowledge of this Epistle, he has an entrance opened to him
to all the most hidden treasures of Scripture.
The whole Epistle is so methodical, that even its
very beginning is framed according to the rules of art. As contrivance appears
in many parts, which shall be noticed as we proceed, so also especially in the
way in which the main argument is deduced: for having begun with the proof of
his Apostleship, he then comes to the Gospel with the view of recommending it;
and as this necessarily draws with it the subject of faith, he glides into that,
being led by the chain of words as by the hand: and thus he enters on the main
subject of the whole Epistle justification by faith; in treating which he is
engaged to the end of the fifth chapter.
The subject then of these chapters By be stated
thus, — man’s only righteousness is through the mercy of God in
Christ, which being offered by the Gospel is apprehended by
faith.
But as men are asleep in their sins, and flatter and
delude themselves with a false notion about righteousness, so that they think
not that they need the righteousness of faith, except they be cast down from all
self-confidence, — and further, as they are inebriated with the sweetness
of lusts, and sunk in deep self-security, so that they are not-easily roused to
seek righteousness, except they are struck down by the terror of divine
judgment, — the Apostle proceeds to do two things — to convince men
of iniquity, and to shake off the torpor of those whom he proves
guilty.
He first condemns all mankind from the
beginning of the world for ingratitude, because they recognized not the workman
in his extraordinary work: nay, when they were constrained to acknowledge him,
they did not duly honor his majesty, but in their vanity profaned and dishonored
it. Thus all became guilty of impiety, a wickedness more detestable than any
thing else. And that he might more clearly show that all had departed from the
Lord, he recounts the filthy and horrible crimes of which men everywhere became
guilty: and this is a manifest proof, that they had degenerated from God, since
these sins are evidences of divine wrath, which appear not except in the
ungodly. And as the Jews and some of the Gentiles, while they covered their
inward depravity by the veil of outward holiness, seemed to be in no way
chargeable with such crimes, and hence thought themselves exempt from the common
sentence of condemnation, the Apostle directs his discourse against this
fictitious holiness; and as this mask before men cannot be taken away from
saintlings, (sanctulis — petty saints,) he summons them to the tribunal of
God, whose eyes no latent evils can escape. Having afterwards divided his
subject, he places apart both the Jews and the Gentiles before the tribunal of
God. He cuts off from the Gentiles the excuse which they pleaded from ignorance,
because conscience was to them a law, and by this they were abundantly convicted
as guilty. He chiefly urges on the Jews that from which they took their defense,
even the written law; and as they were proved to have transgressed it, they
could not free themselves from the charge of iniquity, and a sentence against
them had already been pronounced by the mouth of God himself. He at the same
time obviates any objection which might have been made by them — that the
covenant of God, which was the symbol of holiness, would have been violated, if
they were not to be distinguished from others. Here he first shows, that they
excelled not others by the right of the covenant, for they had by their
unfaithfulness departed from it: and then, that he might not derogate from the
perpetuity of the divine promise, he concedes to them some privilege as arising
from the covenant; but it proceeded from the mercy of God, and not from their
merits. So that with regard to their own qualifications they were on a level
with the Gentiles. He then proves by the authority of Scripture, that both Jews
and Gentiles were all sinners; and he also slightly refers to the use of the
law.
Having wholly deprived all mankind of their
confidence in their own virtue and of their boast of righteousness, and laid
them prostrate by the severity of God’s judgment, he returns to what he
had before laid down as his subject — that we are justified by faith; and
he explains what faith is, and how the righteousness of Christ is by it attained
by us. To these things he adds at the end of the third chapter a
remarkable conclusion, with the view of beating down the fierceness of human
pride, that it might not dare to raise up itself against the grace of God: and
lest the Jews should confine so great a favor of God to their own nation, he
also by the way claims it in behalf of the Gentiles.
In the fourth chapter he reasons from example;
which he adduces as being evident, and hence not liable to be cavilled at; and
it is that of Abraham, who, being the father of the faithful ought to be deemed
a pattern and a kind of universal example. Having then proved that he was
justified by faith, the Apostle teaches us that we ought to maintain no other
way of justification. And here he shows, that it follows from the rule of
contraries, that the righteousness of works ceases to exist, since the
righteousness of faith is introduced. And he confirms this by the declaration of
David, who, by making the blessedness of man to depend on the mercy of God,
takes it away from works, as they are incapable of making a man blessed. He then
treats more fully what he had before shortly referred to — that the Jews
had no reason to raise themselves above the Gentiles, as this felicity is
equally common to them both, since Scripture declares that Abraham obtained this
righteousness in an uncircumcised state: and here he takes the opportunity of
adding some remarks on the use of circumcision. He afterwards subjoins, that the
promise of salvation depends on God’s goodness alone: for were it to
depend on the law, it could not bring peace to consciences, which it ought to
confirm, nor could it attain its own fulfillment. Hence, that it may be sure and
certain, we must, in embracing it, regard the truth of God alone, and not
ourselves, and follow the example of Abraham, who, turning away from himself,
had regard only to the power of God. At the end of the chapter, in order to make
a more general application of the adduced example, he introduces several
comparisons.
In the fifth chapter, after having touched on
the fruit and effects of the righteousness of faith, he is almost wholly taken
up with illustrations, in order to make the point clearer. For, deducing an
argument from one greater, he shows how much we, who have been redeemed and
reconciled to God, ought to expect from his love; which was so abundantly poured
forth towards us, when we were sinners and lost, that he gave for us his
only-begotten and beloved Son. He afterwards makes comparisons between sin and
free righteousness, between Christ and Adam, between death and life, between the
law and grace: it hence appears that our evils, however vast they are, are
swallowed up by the infinite mercy of God.
He proceeds in the sixth chapter to mention
the sanctification which we obtain in Christ. It is indeed natural to our flesh,
as soon as it has had some slight knowledge of grace, to indulge quietly in its
own vices and lusts, as though it had become free from all danger: but Paul, on
the contrary, contends here, that we cannot partake of the righteousness of
Christ, except we also lay hold on sanctification. He reasons from baptism, by
which we are initiated into a participation of Christ, (per quem in Christi
participationem initiamur;) and in it we are buried together with Christ, so
that being dead in ourselves, we may through his life be raised to a newness of
life. It then follows, that without regeneration no one can put on his
righteousness. He hence deduces exhortations as to purity and holiness of life,
which must necessarily appear in those who have been removed from the kingdom of
sin to the kingdom of righteousness, the sinful indulgence of the flesh, which
seeks in Christ a greater liberty in sinning, being cast aside. He makes also a
brief mention of the law as being abrogated; and in the abrogation of this the
New Testament shines forth eminently; for together with the remission of sins,
it contains the promise of the Holy Spirit.
In the seventh chapter he enters on a full
discussion on the use of the law, which he had pointed out before as it were by
the finger, while he had another subject in hand: he assigns a reason why we are
loosed from the law, and that is, because it serves only for condemnation. Lest,
however, he should expose the law to reproach, he clears it in the strongest
terms from any imputation of this kind; for he shows that through our fault it
is that the law, which was given for life, turns to be an occasion of death. He
also explains how sin is by it increased. He then proceeds to describe the
contest between the Spirit and the flesh, which the children of God find in
themselves, as long as they are surrounded by the prison of a mortal body; for
they carry with them the relics of lust, by which they are continually prevented
from yielding full obedience to the law.
The eighth chapter contains abundance of
consolations, in order that the consciences of the faithful, having heard of the
disobedience which he had before proved, or rather imperfect obedience, might
not be terrified and dejected. But that the ungodly might not hence flatter
themselves, he first testifies that this privilege belongs to none but to the
regenerated, in whom the Spirit of God lives and prevails. He unfolds then two
things — that all who are planted by the Spirit in the Lord Jesus Christ,
are beyond the danger or the chance of condemnation, however burdened they may
yet be with sins; and, also, that all who remain in the flesh, being without the
sanctification of the Spirit, are by no means partakers of this great benefit.
He afterwards explains how great is the certainty of our confidence, since the
Spirit of God by his own testimony drives away all doubts and fears. He further
shows, for the purpose of anticipating objections, that the certainty of eternal
life cannot be intercepted or disturbed by present evils, to which we are
subject in this life; but that, on the contrary, our salvation is promoted by
such trials, and that the value of it, when compared with our present miseries,
renders them as nothing. He confirms this by the example of Christ, who, being
the first-begotten and holding the highest station in the family of God, is the
pattern to which we must all be conformed. And, in the last place, as though all
things were made secure, he concludes in a most exulting strain, and boldly
triumphs over all the power and artifices of Satan.
But as most were much concerned on seeing the Jews,
the first guardians and heirs of the covenant, rejecting Christ, for they hence
concluded, that either the covenant was transferred from the posterity of
Abraham, who disregarded the fulfilling of the covenant, or that he, who made no
better provision for the people of Israel, was not the promised Redeemer —
he meets this objection at the beginning of the ninth chapter. Having
then spoken of his love towards his own nation, that he might not appear to
speak from hatred, and having also duly mentioned those privileges by which they
excelled others, he gently glides to the point he had in view, that is, to
remove the offence, which arose from their own blindness. And he divides the
children of Abraham into two classes, that he might show that not all who
descended from him according to the flesh, are to be counted for seed and become
partakers of the grace of the covenant; but that, on the contrary, aliens become
his children, when they possess his faith. He brings forward Jacob and Esau as
examples. He then refers us back here to the election of God, on which the whole
matter necessarily depends. Besides, as election rests on the mercy of God
alone, it is in vain to seek the cause of it in the worthiness of man. There is,
on the other hand, rejection (rejectio), the justice of which is
indubitable, and yet there is no higher cause for it than the will of God. Near
the end of the chapter, he sets forth the calling of the Gentiles and the
rejection of the Jews as proved by the predictions of the
Prophets.
Having again begun, in the tenth chapter, by
testifying his love towards the Jews, he declares that a vain confidence in
their own works was the cause of their ruin; and lest they should pretend the
law, he obviates their objection, and says, that we are even by the law itself
led as it were by the hand to the righteousness of faith. He adds that this
righteousness is through God’s bountiful goodness offered indiscriminately
to all nations, but that it is only apprehended by those, whom the Lord through
special favor illuminates. And he states, that more from the Gentiles than from
the Jews would obtain this benefit, as predicted both by Moses and by Isaiah;
the one having plainly prophesied of the calling of the Gentiles, and the other
of the hardening of the Jews.
The question still remained, “Is there not a
difference between the seed of Abraham and other nations according to the
covenant of God?” Proceeding to answer this question, he first reminds us,
that the work of God is not to be limited to what is seen by our eyes, since the
elect often escape our observation; for Elias was formerly mistaken, when he
thought that religion had become wholly extinct among the Israelites, when there
were still remaining seven thousand; and, further, that we must not be perplexed
by the number of unbelievers, who, as we see, hate the gospel. He at length
alleges, that the covenant of God continues even to the posterity of Abraham
according to the flesh, but to those only whom the Lord by a free election hath
predestinated. He then turns to the Gentiles, and speaks to them, lest they
should become insolent on account of their adoption, and exult over the Jews as
having been rejected since they excel them in nothing, except in the free favor
of the Lord, which ought to make them the more humble; and that this has not
wholly departed from the seed of Abraham, for the Jews were at length to be
provoked to emulation by the faith of the Gentiles, so that God would gather all
Israel to himself.
The three chapters which follow are
admonitory, but they are various in their contents. The twelfth chapter
contains general precepts on Christian life. The thirteenth, for the;
most part, speaks of the authority of magistrates. We may hence undoubtedly
gather that there were then some unruly persons, who thought Christian liberty
could not exist without overturning the civil power. But that Paul might not
appear to impose on the Church any duties but those of love, he declares that
this obedience is included in what love requires. He afterwards adds those
precepts, which he had before mentioned, for the guidance of our conduct. In the
next chapter he gives an exhortation, especially necessary in that age:
for as there were those who through obstinate superstition insisted on the
observance of Mosaic rites, and could not endure the neglect of them without
being most grievously offended; so there were others, who, being convinced of
their abrogation, and anxious to pull down superstition, designedly showed their
contempt of such things. Both parties offended through being too intemperate;
for the superstitious condemned the others as being despisers of God’s
law; and the latter in their turn unreasonably ridiculed the simplicity of the
former. Therefore the Apostle recommends to both a befitting moderation,
deporting the one from superciliousness and insult, and the other from excessive
moroseness: and he also prescribes the best way of exercising Christian liberty,
by keeping within the boundaries of love and edification; and he faithfully
provides for the weak, while he forbids them to do any thing in opposition to
conscience.
The fifteenth chapter begins with a repetition
of the general argument, as a conclusion of the whole subject — that the
strong should use their strength in endeavours to confirm the weak. And as there
was a perpetual discord, with regard to the Mosaic ceremonies, between the Jews
and the Gentiles, he allays all emulation between them by removing the cause of
contention; for he shows, that the salvation of both rested on the mercy of God
alone; on which relying, they ought to lay aside all high thoughts of themselves
and being thereby connected together in the hope of the same inheritance, they
ought mutually to embrace one another. And being anxious, in the last place, to
turn aside for the purpose of commending his own apostleship, which secured no
small authority to his doctrine, he takes occasion to defend himself, and to
deprecate presumption in having assumed with so much confidence the office of
teacher among them. He further gives them some hope of his coming to them, which
he had mentioned at the beginning, but had hitherto in vain looked for and tried
to effect; and he states the reason which at that time hindered him, and that
was, because the churches of Macedonia and Achaia had committed to him the care
of conveying to Jerusalem those alms which they had given to relieve the wants
of the faithful in that city.
The last chapter is almost entirely taken up
with salutations, though scattered with some precepts worthy of all attention;
and concludes with a remarkable prayer.
COMMENTARIES ON THE
EPISTLE OF ST.
PAUL TO THE ROMANS.
CHAPTER
1
|
ROMANS
1:1-7
|
|
1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to
be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
|
1. Paulus, servus Iesu Christi, vocatus
Apostolus, selectus in Evangelium Dei,
|
|
2. (Which he had promised afore by his
prophets in the holy scriptures,)
|
2. Quod ante promiserat per Prophetas suos in
Scripturis Sanctis,
|
|
3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,
|
3. De Filio suo, qui factus est è
semine David secundum carnem,
|
|
4. And declared to be the Son of God with
power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the
dead:
|
4. Declaratus Filius Dei in potentia, per
Spiritum sanctificationis, ex resurrectione mortuorum, Iesu Christo Domino
nostro:
|
|
5. By whom we have received grace and
apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations for his
name;
|
5. Per quem accepimus gratiam et Apostolatum,
in obedientiam fidei inter omnes gentes, pro nomine ipsius;
|
|
6. Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus
Christ:
|
6. Inter quas estis etiam vos, vocati Iesu
Christi:
|
|
7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of God,
called to be saints: Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord
Jesus Christ.
|
7. Omnibus qui Romæ estis, dilectis Deo,
vocatis sanctis: gratia vobis, et pax a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Iesu
Christo.
|
1.
Paul,
etc.
f11
— With regard to the word Paul, as it is a subject of no such moment as
ought to detain us, and as nothing can be said which has not been mentioned by
other expounders, I should say nothing, were it not proper to satisfy some at
small expense without being tedious to others; for the subject shall be
despatched in a very few words.
They who think that the Apostle attained this name as
a trophy for having brought Sergius, the proconsul, to the faith of Christ, are
confuted by the testimony of Luke, who shows that he was so called before that
time.
(<441307>Acts
13:7, 9.) Nor does it seem probable to me, that it was given him when he was
converted to Christ; though this idea so pleased Augustine, that he took
occasion refinedly to philosophize on the subject; for he says, that from a
proud Saul he was made a very little
(parvulumf12)
disciple of Christ. More probable is the opinion of Origen, who thought that he
had two names; for it is not unlikely to be true, that his name, Saul, derived
from his kindred, was given him by his parents to indicate his religion and his
descent; and that his other name, Paul, was added, to show his right to Roman
citizenship;
f13
they would not have this honor, then highly valued, to be otherwise than made
evident; but they did not so much value it as to withhold a proof of his
Israelitic descent. But he has commonly taken the name Paul in his Epistles, and
it may be for the following reasons: because in the churches to which he wrote,
it was more known and more common, more acceptable in the Roman empire, and less
known among his own nation. It was indeed his duty to avoid the foolish
suspicion and hatred under which the name of a Jew then labored among the Romans
and in their provinces, and to abstain from inflaming the rage of his own
countrymen, and to take care of himself.
A servant of Jesus Christ,
etc. — He signalizes himself with these
distinctions for the purpose of securing more authority to his doctrine; and
this he seeks to secure by two things — first, by asserting his call to
the Apostleship;
f14
and secondly, by showing that his call was not unconnected with the Church of
Rome: for it was of great importance that he should be deemed an Apostle through
God’s call, and that he should be known as one destined for the Roman
Church. He therefore says, that he was a
servant
of Christ, and called to the office of an Apostle,
thereby intimating that he had not presumptuously intruded into that office. He
then adds, that he was chosen, (selectum — selected,
f15)
by which he more fully confirms the fact, that he was not one of the people, but
a particular Apostle of the Lord. Consistently with this, he had before
proceeded from what was general to what was particular, as the Apostleship was
an especial service; for all who sustain the office of teaching are to be deemed
Christ’s servants, but Apostles, in point of honor, far exceed all others.
But the choosing for the gospel, etc., which he afterwards mentions,
expresses the end as well as the use of the Apostleship; for he intended briefly
to show for what purpose he was called to that function. By saying then that he
was servant of Christ, he declared what he had in common with other teachers; by
claiming to himself the title of an Apostle, he put himself before others; but
as no authority is due to him who willfully intrudes himself, he reminds us,
that he was appointed by God.
Then the meaning is, — that Paul was a servant
of Christ, not any kind of servant, but an Apostle, and that by the call of God,
and not by presumptuous intrusion: then follows a clearer explanation of the
Apostolic office, — it was ordained for the preaching of the Gospel. For I
cannot agree with those who refer this call of which he speaks to the eternal
election of God; and who understand the separation, either that from his
mother’s womb, which he mentions in
<480115>Galatians
1:15, or that which Luke refers to, when Paul was appointed for the Gentiles:
but I consider that he simply glories in having God as the author of his call,
lest any one should think that he had through his own rashness taken this honor
to himself.
f16
We must here observe, that all are not fitted for the
ministry of the word; for a special call is necessary: and even those who seem
particularly fitted ought to take heed lest they thrust themselves in without a
call. But as to the character of the Apostolic and of the Episcopal call, we
shall consider it in another place. We must further observe, that the office of
an Apostle is the preaching of the gospel. It hence appears what just objects of
ridicule are those dumb dogs, who render themselves conspicuous only by their
mitre and their crook, and boast themselves to be the successors of the
Apostles!
The word,
servant,
imports nothing else but a minister, for it refers to what is official.
f17
I mention this to remove the mistake of those who too much refine on this
expression and think that there is here to be understood a contrast between the
service of Moses and that of Christ.
2.
Which he had before
promised, etc. — As the suspicion of
being new subtracts much from the authority of a doctrine, he confirms the faith
of the gospel by antiquity; as though he said, “Christ came not on the
earth unexpectedly, nor did he introduce a doctrine of a new kind and not heard
of before, inasmuch as he, and his gospel too, had been promised and expected
from the beginning of the world.” But as antiquity is often fabulous, he
brings witnesses, and those approved, even the Prophets of God, that he might
remove every suspicion. He in the third place adds, that their testimonies were
duly recorded, that is, in the Holy Scriptures.
We may learn from this passage what the gospel is: he
teaches us, not that it was promulgated by the Prophets but only promised. If
then the Prophets promised the gospel, it follows, that it was revealed, when
our Lord was at length manifested in the flesh. They are then mistaken who
confound the promises with the gospel, since the gospel is properly the
appointed preaching of Christ as manifested, in whom the promises themselves are
exhibited.
f18
3.
Concerning his own
Son, etc. — This is a remarkable passage,
by which we are taught that the whole gospel is included in Christ, so that if
any removes one step from Christ, he withdraws himself from the gospel. For
since he is the living and express image of the Father, it is no wonder, that he
alone is set before us as one to whom our whole faith is to be directed and in
whom it is to center. It is then a definition of the gospel, by which Paul
expresses what is summarily comprehended in it. I have rendered the words which
follow, Jesus Christ our
Lord, in the same case; which seems to me to be
most agreeable with the context. We hence learn, that he who has made a due
proficiency in the knowledge of Christ, has acquired every thing which can be
learned from the gospel; and, on the other hand, that they who seek to be wise
without Christ, are not only foolish, but even completely
insane.
Who was
made, etc. — Two things must be found in
Christ, in order that we may obtain salvation in him, even divinity and
humanity. His divinity possesses power, righteousness, life, which by his
humanity are conveyed to us. Hence the Apostle has expressly mentioned both in
the Summary he gives of the gospel, that Christ was manifested in the flesh
— and that in it he declared himself to be the Son of God. So John says;
after having declared that the Word was made flesh, he adds, that in that flesh
there was a glory as of the only-begotten Son of God.
(<430114>John
1:14.) That he specially notices the descent and lineage of Christ from his
ancestor David, is not superfluous; for by this he calls back our attention to
the promise, that we may not doubt but that he is the very person who had been
formerly promised. So well known was the promise made to David, that it appears
to have been a common thing among the Jews to call the Messiah the Son of David.
This then — that Christ did spring from David — was said for the
purpose of confirming our faith.
He
adds, according to the
flesh; and he adds this, that we may understand
that he had something more excellent than flesh, which he brought from heaven,
and did not take from David, even that which he afterwards mentions, the glory
of the divine nature. Paul does further by these words not only declare that
Christ had real flesh, but he also clearly distinguishes his human from his
divine nature; and thus he refutes the impious raving of Servetus, who
assigned flesh to Christ, composed of three untreated
elements.
4.
Declared
f19
the Son of
God, etc.: or, if you prefer, determined
(definitus); as though he had said, that the power, by which he it as raised
from the dead, was something like a decree by which he was proclaimed the Son of
God, according to what is said in
<190207>Psalm
2:7, “I have this day begotten thee:” for this begetting refers to
what was made known. Though some indeed find here three separate evidences of
the divinity of Christ — “power,” understanding thereby
miracles — then the testimony of the Spirit — and, lastly, the
resurrection from the dead — I yet prefer to connect them together, and to
reduce these three things to one, in this manner — that Christ was
declared the Son of God by openly exercising a real celestial power, that is,
the power of the Spirit, when he rose from the dead; but that this power is
comprehended, when a conviction of it is imprinted on our hearts by the same
Spirit. The language of the Apostle well agrees with this view; for he says that
he was declared by power, because power, peculiar to God, shone forth in him,
and uncontestably proved him to be God; and this was indeed made evident by his
resurrection. Paul says the same thing in another place; having stated, that by
death the weakness of the flesh appeared, he at the same time extols the power
of the Spirit in his resurrection;
(<470804>2
Corinthians 8:4) This glory, however, is not made known to us, until the same
Spirit imprints a conviction of it on our hearts. And that Paul includes,
together with the wonderful energy of the Spirit, which Christ manifested by
rising from the dead, the testimony which all the faithful feel in their hearts,
is even evident from this — that he expressly calls it the Spirit of
Holiness; as though he had said, that the Spirit, as far as it sanctifies,
confirms and ratifies that evidence of its power which it once exhibited. For
the Scripture is wont often to ascribe such titles to the Spirit, as tend to
illustrate our present subject. Thus He is called by our Lord the Spirit of
Truth, on account of the effect which he mentions;
(<431417>John
14:17)
Besides, a divine power is said to have shone forth
in the resurrection of Christ for this reason — because he rose by his own
power, as he had often testified:
“Destroy this
temple, and in three days
I will
raise it up again,”
(<430219>John
2:19;)
“No man taketh it
from me,” etc.;
(<431018>John
10:18)
For he gained victory over death, (to which he
yielded with regard to the weakness of the flesh,) not by aid sought from
another, but by the celestial operation of his own
Spirit.
5.
Through whom we have
received, etc. — Having completed his
definition of the gospel, which he introduced for the recommendation of his
office, he now returns to speak of his own call; and it was a great point that
this should be proved to the Romans. By mentioning grace and apostleship apart,
he adopts a form of speech,
f20
which must be understood as meaning, gratuitous apostleship or the favor of the
apostleship; by which he means, that it was wholly through divine favor, not
through his own worthiness, that he had been chosen for so high an office. For
though it has hardly any thing connected with it in the estimation of the world,
except dangers, labors, hatred, and disgrace; yet before God and his saints, it
possesses a dignity of no common or ordinary kind. It is therefore deservedly
counted a favor. If you prefer to say, “I have received grace that I
should be an Apostle,” the sense would be the same.
f21
The expression,
on account of his
name, is rendered by Ambrose, “in his
name,” as though it meant, that the Apostle was appointed in the place of
Christ to preach the gospel, according to that passage, “We are
ambassadors for Christ,” etc.
(<470520>2
Corinthians 5:20.) Their opinion, however, seems better, who take name
for knowledge; for the gospel is preached for this end — that we may
believe on the name of the Son of God.
(<430323>John
3:23.) And Paul is said to have been a chosen vessel, to carry the name of
Christ among the Gentiles.
(<440915>Acts
9:15.) On account then of his name, which means the same, as
though he had said, that I might make known what Christ is.
f22
For the obedience of
faith, etc. — That is, we have received a
command to preach the gospel among all nations, and this gospel they obey by
faith. By stating the design of his calling, he again reminds the Romans of his
office, as though he said, “It is indeed my duty to discharge the office
committed to me, which is to preach the word; and it is your duty to hear the
word and willingly to obey it; you will otherwise make void the vocation which
the Lord has bestowed on me.”
We hence learn, that they perversely resist the
authority of God and upset the whole of what he has ordained, who irreverently
and contemptuously reject the preaching of the gospel; the design of which is to
constrain us to obey God. We must also notice here what faith is; the name of
obedience is given to it, and for this reason — because the Lord calls us
by his gospel; we respond to his call by faith; as on the other hand, the chief
act of disobedience to God is unbelief, I prefer rendering the sentence,
“For the obedience of faith,” rather than, “In order that they
may obey the faith;” for the last is not strictly correct, except taken
figuratively, though it be found once in the
<440607>Acts
6:7. Faith is properly that by which we obey the gospel.
f23
Among all
nations, etc. It was not enough for him to have
been appointed an Apostle, except his ministry had reference to some who were to
be taught: hence he adds, that his apostleship extended to all nations. He
afterwards calls himself more distinctly the Apostle of the Romans, when he
says, that they were included in the number of the nations, to whom he had been
given as a minister And further, the Apostles had in common the command to
preach the gospel to all the world; and they were not, as pastors and bishops,
set over certain churches. But Paul, in addition to the general undertaking of
the apostolic function, was constituted, by a special appointment, to be a
minister to proclaim the gospel among the Gentiles. It is no objection to this,
that he was forbidden to pass through Macedonia and to preach the word in Mysia:
for this was done, not that there were limits prescribed to him, but that he was
for a time to go elsewhere; for the harvest was not as yet ripe
there.
Ye are the called of Jesus
Christ, etc. He assigns a reason more nearly
connected with them — because the Lord had already exhibited in them an
evidence by which he had manifested that he had called them to a participation
of the gospel. It hence followed, that if they wished their own calling to
remain sure, they were not to reject the ministry of Paul, who had been chosen
by the same election of God. I therefore take this clause, “the called of
Jesus Christ,” as explanatory, as though the particle “even”
were inserted; for he means, that they were by calling made partakers of Christ.
For they who shall be heirs of eternal life, are chosen by the celestial Father
to be children in Christ; and when chosen, they are committed to his care and
protection as their shepherd.
f24
7.
To all of you who are at
Rome, etc. By this happy arrangement he sets
forth what there is in us worthy of commendation; he says, that first the Lord
through his own kindness made us the objects of his favor and love; and then
that he has called us; and thirdly, that he has called us to holiness: but this
high honor only then exists, when we are not wanting to our
call.
Here a rich truth presents itself to us, to which I
shall briefly refer, and leave it to be meditated upon by each individual: Paul
does by no means ascribe the praise of our salvation to ourselves, but derives
it altogether from the fountain of God’s free and paternal love towards
us; for he makes this the first thing — God loves us: and what is the
cause of his love, except his own goodness alone? On this depends our calling,
by which in his own time he seals his adoption to those whom he had before
freely chosen. We also learn from this passage that none rightly connect
themselves with the number of the faithful, except they feel assured that the
Lord is gracious, however unworthy and wretched sinners they may be, and except
they be stimulated by his goodness and aspire to holiness, for he hath not
called us to uncleanness, but to holiness.
(<520407>1
Thessalonians 4:7.) As the Greek can be rendered in the second person, I see no
reason for any change.
Grace to you and
peace, etc. Nothing is more desirable than to
have God propitious to us, and this is signified by grace; and then to
have prosperity and success in all things flowing from him, and this is
intimated by
peace;
for however things may seem to smile on us, if God be angry, even blessing
itself is turned to a curse. The very foundation then of our felicity is the
favor of God, by which we enjoy true and solid prosperity, and by which also our
salvation is promoted even when we are in adversities.
f25
And then as he prays to God for peace, we must understand, that whatever good
comes to us, it is the fruit of divine benevolence. Nor must we omit to notice,
that he prays at the same time to the Lord Jesus Christ for these blessings.
Worthily indeed is this honor rendered to him, who is not only the administrator
and dispenser of his Father’s bounty to us, but also works all things in
connection with him. It was, however, the special object of the Apostle to show,
that through him all God’s blessings come to us.
f26
There are those who prefer to regard the word
peace
as signifying quietness of conscience; and that this meaning belongs to it
sometimes, I do not deny: but since it is certain that the Apostle wished to
give us here a summary of God’s blessings, the former meaning, which is
adduced by Bucer, is much the most suitable. Anxiously wishing then to
the godly what makes up real happiness, he betakes himself, as he did before, to
the very fountain itself, even the favor of God, which not only alone brings to
us eternal felicity but is also the source of all blessings in this
life.
|
ROMANS
1:8-12
|
|
8. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ
for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole
world.
|
8. Primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Iesum
Christum super vobis omnibus, quia fides vestra Prædicatur in universo
mundo.
|
|
9. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my
spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you
always in my prayers;
|
9. Testis enim mihi Deus, quem colo in spiritu
meo in Evangelio Filii ipsius, ut continenter memoriam vestri
faciam;
|
|
10. Making request (if by any means now at
length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God) to come unto
you.
|
10. Semper in orationibus meis,
f27
rogans, si quomodo prosperum iter aliquando mihi, obtingat per voluntatem Dei,
veniendi ad vos.
|
|
11. For I long to see you that I may impart
unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
|
11. Desidero enim videre, vos, ut aliquod
impertiar vobis donum spirituale ad vos confirmandos;
|
|
12. That is, that I may be comforted together
with you, by the mutual faith both of you and me.
|
12. Hoc est. ad cohortationem mutuo
percipiendam in vobis per Mutuam fidem, vestram atque meam.
|
8.
I first f28
indeed,
etc. Here the beginning commences, altogether adapted to the occasion, as he
seasonably prepares them for receiving instruction by reasons connected with
himself as well as with them. What he states respecting them is, the celebrity
of their faith; for he intimates that they being honored with the public
approbation of the churches, could not reject an Apostle of the Lord, without
disappointing the good opinion entertained of them by all; and such a thing
would have been extremely uncourteous and in a manner bordering on perfidy. As
then this testimony justly induced the Apostle, by affording him an assurance of
their obedience, to undertake, according to his office, to teach and instruct
the Romans; so it held them bound not to despise his authority. With regard to
himself, he disposes them to a teachable spirit by testifying his love towards
them: and there is nothing more effectual in gaining credit to an adviser, than
the impression that he is cordially anxious to consult our
wellbeing.
The first thing worthy of remark is, that he so
commends their faith,
f29
that he implies that it had been received from God. We are here taught that
faith is God’s gift; for thanksgiving is an acknowledgment of a benefit.
He who gives thanks to God for faith, confesses that it comes from him. And
since we find that the Apostle ever begins his congratulations with
thanksgiving, let us know that we are hereby reminded, that all our blessings
are God’s free gifts. It is also needful to become accustomed to such
forms of speaking, that we may be led more fully to rouse ourselves in the duty
of acknowledging God as the giver of all our blessings, and to stir up others to
join us in the same acknowledgment. If it be right to do this in little things,
how much more with regard to faith; Which is neither a small nor an
indiscriminate (promiscua) gift of God. We have here besides an example,
that thanks ought to be given
through
Christ, according to the Apostle’s
command in
<580801>Hebrews
8:15; inasmuch as in his name we seek and obtain mercy from the Father. —
I observe in the last place, that he calls him his God. This is the
faithful’s special privilege, and on them alone God bestows this honor.
There is indeed implied in this a mutual relationship, which is expressed in
this promise,
“I will be to them
a God;
they shall be to me a
people.”
(<243022>Jeremiah
30:22.)
I prefer al the same time to confine this to the
character Which Paul sustained, as an attestation of his obedience to the end in
the work of preaching the gospel. So Hezekiah called God the God of Isaiah, when
he desired him to give him the testimony of a true and faithful Prophet.
(<233704>Isaiah
37:4.) So also he is called in an especial manner the God of Daniel.
(<270620>Daniel
6:20.)
Through the whole
world. The eulogy of faithful men was to Paul
equal to that of the whole world, with regard to the faith of the Romans; for
the unbelieving, who deemed it detestable, could not have given an impartial or
a correct testimony respecting it. We then understood that it was by the mouths
of the faithful that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed through the whole
world; and that they were alone able to judge rightly of it, and to pronounce a
correct opinion. That this small and despised handful of men were unknown as to
their character to the ungodly, even at Rome, was a circumstance he regarded as
nothing; for Paul made no account of their
judgment.
9.
For God is my
witness, etc. He proves his love by its
effects; for had he not greatly loved them, he would not have so anxiously
commended them to the Lord, and especially he would not have so ardently desired
to promote their welfare by his own labors. His anxiety then and his ardent
desire were certain evidences of his love; for had they not sprung from it, they
would never have existed. And as he knew it to be necessary for establishing
confidence in his preaching, that the Romans should be fully persuaded of his
sincerity, he added an oath — a needful remedy, whenever a declaration,
Which ought to be received as true and indubitable vacillates through
uncertainty. For since an oath is nothing else but an appeal to God as to the
truth of what we declare, most foolish is it to deny that the Apostle used here
an oath. He did not notwithstanding transgress the prohibition of
Christ.
It hence appears that it was not Christ’s
design (as the Superstitious Anabaptists dream) to abolish oaths altogether, but
on the contrary to call attention to the due observance of the law; and the law,
allowing an oath, only condemns perjury and needless swearing. If then we would
use an oath aright, let us imitate the seriousness and the reverent manner
exhibited by the Apostles; and that you may understand what it is, know that God
is so called as a witness, that he is also appealed to as an avenger, in case we
deceive; which Paul expresses elsewhere in these words,
“God is a witness
to my soul.”
(<470123>2
Corinthians 1:23.)
f30
Whom I serve with my
spirit, etc. It is usual with profane men, who
trifle with God, to pretend his name, no less boldly than presumptuously; but
the Apostle here speaks of his own piety, in order to gain credit; and those, in
whom the fear of God and reverence for his name prevail, will dread to swear
falsely. At the same time, he sets his own spirit in opposition to the outward
mask of religion; for as many falsely pretend to be the worshippers of God, and
outwardly appear to be so, he testifies that he, from the heart served, God.
f31
It may be also that he alluded to the ancient ceremonies, in which alone the
Jews thought the worship of God consisted. He then intimates, that though he
retained not observance of these, he was yet a sincere worshipper of God,
according to what he says in
<500303>Philippians
3:3,
“We are the true
circumcision, who in spirit serve
God,
and glory not in the
flesh.”
He then glories that he served God with sincere
devotion of heart, which is true religion and approved worship.
But it was expedient, as I have said, in order that
his oath might attain more credit, that Paul should declare his piety towards
God; for perjury is a sport to the ungodly, while the pious dread it more than a
thousand deaths; inasmuch as it cannot be, but that where there is a real fear
of God, there must be also a reverence for his name. It is then the same thing,
as though Paul had said, that he knew how much sacredness and sincerity belonged
to an oath, and that he did not rashly appeal to God as a witness, as the
profane are wont to do. And thus, by his own example, he teaches us, that
whenever we swear, we ought to give such evidence of piety, that the name of
God, which we use in our declarations, may retain its sacredness. And further,
he gives a proof, even by his own ministry, that he worshipped not God
feignedly; for it was the fullest evidence, that he was a man devoted to
God’s glory, when he denied himself, and hesitated not to undergo all the
hardships of reproach, poverty, and hatred, and even the peril of death, in
advancing the kingdom of God.
f32
Some take this clause, as though Paul intended to
recommend that worship which he said he rendered to God, on this account,
— because it corresponded with what the gospel prescribes. It is indeed
certain that spiritual worship is enjoined on us in the gospel; but the former
interpretation is far the most suitable, — that he devoted his service to
God in preaching the gospel. He, however, makes at the same time a difference
between himself and hypocrites, who have something else in view rather than to
serve God; for ambition, or some such thing, influences most men; and it is far
from being the case, that all engage cordially and faithfully in this office.
The meaning is, that Paul performed sincerely the office of teaching; for what
he says of his own devotion he applies to this subject.
But we hence gather a profitable doctrine; for it
ought to add no little encouragement to the ministers of the gospel, when they
hear that, in preaching the gospel, they render an acceptable and a valuable
service to God. What, indeed, is there to prevent them from regarding it an
excellent service, when they know that their labor is pleasing to God, and is
approved by him? Moreover, he calls it
the gospel of the
Son of God; for Christ is in it made
known, who has been appointed by the Father for this end, — that he, being
glorified, should also glorify the Father.
That
continually, etc. He still further sets forth
the ardor of his love by his very constancy in praying for them. It was, indeed,
a strong evidence, when he poured forth no prayers to the Lord without making
mention of them. That the meaning may be clearer, I render
pantote,
“always;” as though it was said, “In all my prayers,”
or, “whenever I address God in prayer, I join a mention of you.”
f33
Now he speaks not of every kind of calling on God, but of those prayers to which
the saints, being at liberty, and laying aside all cares, apply their whole
attention to the work; for he might have often expressed suddenly this or that
wish, when the Romans did not come into his mind; but whenever he had previously
intended, and, as it were, prepared himself to offer up prayers to God, among
others he remembered them. He then speaks peculiarly of those prayers, for which
the saints deliberately prepare themselves; as we find to have been the case
with our Lord himself, who, for this purpose, sought retirement. He at the same
time intimates how frequently, or rather, how unceasingly he was engaged in such
prayers, since he says that he prayed
continually.
10.
Requesting, if by any
means, etc. As it is not probable that we from
the heart study his benefit, whom we are not ready to assist by our labors, he
now adds, after having said that he was anxious for their welfare, that he
showed by another proof his love to them, as before God, even by requesting that
he might be able to advance their interest. That you may, therefore, perceive
the full meaning, read the words as though the word also were inserted,
requesting also, if by any
means, etc. By saying,
A prosperous journey by the will
of God he shows, not only that he looked to the
Lord’s favor for success in his journey, but that he deemed his journey
prosperous, if it was approved by the Lord. According to this model ought all
our wishes to be formed.
11.
For I greatly desire to see
you. He might, indeed, while absent,
have confirmed their faith by his doctrine; but as advice is better taken from
one present, he had a desire to be with them. But he explains what his object
was, and shows that he wished to undertake the toil of a journey, not for his
own, but for their advantage. —
Spiritual gifts
f34 he calls those which he
possessed, being either those of doctrine, or of exhortation, or of prophesy
which he knew had come to him through God’s favor. He has here strikingly
pointed out the use of gifts by the word,
imparting:
for different gifts are distributed to each individual, that all may in kindness
mutually assist one another, and transfer to others what each one possesses. See
<450703>Romans
7:3; and
<460711>1
Corinthians 7:11.
To confirm
you, etc. He modifies what he had said of
imparting, lest he should seem to regard them such as were yet to be instructed
in the first elements of religion, as though they were not hitherto rightly
taught in Christ. He then says, that he wished so to lend his aid to them, that
they who had for the most part made a proficiency, might be further assisted:
for a confirmation is what we all want, until Christ be fully formed in us.
(<490413>Ephesians
4:13.)
12. Being not satisfied with this
modest statement, he qualifies it, and shows, that he did not so occupy the
place of a teacher, but that he wished to learn also from them; as though he
said, “I desire so to confirm you according to the measure of grace
conferred on me, that your example may also add courage (alacritatem
— alacrity) to my faith, and that we may thus mutually benefit one
another.”
See to what degree of modesty his pious heart
submitted itself, so that he disdained not to seek confirmation from
unexperienced beginners: nor did he speak dissemblingly, for there is no one so
void of gifts in the Church of Christ, who is not able to contribute something
to our benefit: but we are hindered by our envy and by our pride from gathering
such fruit from one another. Such is our high-mindedness, such is the inebriety
produced by vain reputation, that despising and disregarding others, every one
thinks that he possesses what is abundantly sufficient for himself. I prefer to
read with Bucer, exhortation (exhortationem — encouragement)
rather than consolatim; for it agrees better with the former part.
f35
|
ROMANS
1:13-15
|
|
13. Now I would not have you ignorant,
brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,)
that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other
Gentiles.
|
13. Nolo verò vos ignorare, fratres,
quod sæpe proposui venire ad vos, et impeditus sum hactenus,ut fructum
aliquem haberem in vobis, sicut et in reliquis gentibus.
|
|
14. I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the
Barbarians, both to the wise and to the unwise.
|
14. Et Græcis et Barbaris et sapientbus
et stultis debitor sum.
|
|
15. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to
preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.
|
15. Itaque quantum in me est, paratus sum
vobis quoque qui Romae estis Evangelizare.
|
13.
I would not that you should be
ignorant. What be has hitherto testified
— that he continually requested of the Lord that he might visit them,
might have appeared a vain thing, and could not have obtained credit, had he
neglected to seize the occasion when offered: he therefore says, that the effort
had not been wanting, but the opportunity; for he had been prevented from
executing a purpose often formed.
We hence learn that the Lord frequently upsets the
purposes of his saints, in order to humble them, and by such humiliation to
teach them to regard his Providence, that they may rely on it; though the
saints, who design nothing without the Lord’s will, cannot be said,
strictly speaking, to be driven away from their purposes. It is indeed the
presumption of impiety to pass by God, and without him to determine on things to
come, as though they were in our own power; and this is what James sharply
reprehends in
<450413>Romans
4:13.
But he says that he was hindered: you must
take this in no other sense, but that the Lord employed him in more urgent
concerns, which he could not have neglected without loss to the Church. Thus the
hinderances of the godly and of the unbelieving differ: the latter perceive only
that they are hindered, when they are restrained by the strong hand of the Lord,
so as not to be able to move; but the former are satisfied with an hinderance
that arises from some approved reason; nor do they allow themselves to attempt
any thing beyond their duty, or contrary to edification.
That I might obtain some
fruit, etc. He no doubt speaks of that fruit,
for the gathering of which the Lord sent his Apostles,
“I have chosen you,
that ye may go and bring forth
fruit,
and that your fruit may
remain.”
(<431516>John
15:16.)
Though he gathered it not for himself, but for the
Lord, he yet calls it his own; for the godly have nothing more as their own than
the work of promoting the glory of the Lord, with which is connected all their
happiness. And he records what had happened to him with respect to other
nations, that the Romans might entertain hope, that his coming to them would
not be unprofitable, which so many nations had found to have been attended with
so much benefit.
14.
1 am a debtor both to the Greeks
and to the Barbarians, etc. Those whom he means
by the Greeks and the Barbarians, he afterwards explains by adding,
both to the wise and to the
foolish; which words Erasmus has not rendered
amiss by “learned and unlearned,” (eruditos et rudes,) but I
prefer to retain the very words of Paul. He then takes an argument from his own
office, and intimates that it ought not to be ascribed to his arrogance, that he
thought himself in a manner capable of teaching the Romans, however much they
excelled in learning and wisdom and in the knowledge of things, inasmuch as it
had pleased the Lord to make him a debtor even to the wise.
f36
Two things are to be here considered — that the
gospel is by a heavenly mandate destined and offered to the wise, in order that
the Lord may subject to himself all the wisdom of this world, and make all
variety of talents, and every kind of science, and the loftiness of all arts, to
give way to the simplicity of his doctrine; and what is more, they are to be
reduced to the same rank with the unlearned, and to be made so meek, as to be
able to bear those to be their fellow-disciples under their master, Christ, whom
they would not have deigned before to take as their scholars; and then that the
unlearned are by no means to be driven away from this school, nor are they to
flee away from it through groundless fear; for if Paul was indebted to them,
being a faithful debtor, he had doubtless discharged what he owed; and thus they
will find here what they will be capable of enjoying. All teachers have also a
rule here which they are to follow, and that is, modestly and kindly to
accommodate themselves to the capacities of the ignorant and unlearned. Hence it
will be, that they will be able, with more evenness of mind, to bear with many
absurdities and almost innumerable things that may disgust them, by which they
might otherwise be overcome. They are, however, to remember, that they are not
so indebted to the foolish, as that they are to cherish their folly by
immoderate indulgence.
15.
I am therefore
ready,
f37
etc. He concludes what he had before said of his desire — that as he knew
it to be his duty to spread the gospel among them, in order to gather fruit for
the Lord, he was anxious to fulfill God’s calling, as far as he was
allowed to do so by the Lord.
|
ROMANS
1:16-17
|
|
16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of
Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,
to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
|
16. Non enim pudet me Evangelii Christi,
quandoquidem potentia est Dei, in salutem omni credenti, Iudæoprimum,
deinde Græco.
|
|
17. For therein is the righteousness of God
revealed from faith to faith as it is written, The just shall live by
faith.
|
17. Nam justitia Dei in eo revelatur ex fide
in fidem, sicut scriptum est, Justus ex fide sua vivet.
|
16.
I am not indeed
ashamed, etc. This is an anticipation of an
objection; for he declares beforehand, that he cared not for the taunts of the
ungodly; and he thus provides a way for himself, by which he proceeds to
pronounce an eulogy on the value of the gospel, that it might not appear
contemptible to the Romans. He indeed intimates that it was contemptible in the
eyes of the world; and he does this by saying, that he was not ashamed of it.
And thus he prepares them for bearing the reproach of the cross of Christ, lest
they should esteem the gospel of less value by finding it exposed to the scoffs
and reproaches of the ungodly; and, on the other hand, he shows how valuable it
was to the faithful. If, in the first place, the power of God ought to be
extolled by us, that power shines forth in the gospel; if, again, the goodness
of God deserves to be sought and loved by us, the gospel is a display of his
goodness. It ought then to be reverenced and honored, since veneration is due to
God’s power; and as it avails to our salvation, it ought to be loved by
us.
But observe how much Paul ascribes to the ministry of
the word, when he testifies that God thereby puts forth his power to save; for
he speaks not here of any secret revelation, but of vocal preaching. It hence
follows, that those as it were willfully despise the power of God, and drive
away from them his delivering hand, who withdraw themselves from the hearing of
the word.
At the same time, as he works not effectually in all,
but only where the Spirit, the inward Teacher, illuminates the heart, he
subjoins, To every one who
believeth. The gospel is indeed offered to all
for their salvation, but the power of it appears not everywhere: and that it is
the savor of death to the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from
their own wickedness. By setting forth but one Salvation he cuts off every other
trust. When men withdraw themselves from this one salvation, they find in the
gospel a sure proof of their own ruin. Since then the gospel invites all to
partake of salvation without any difference, it is rightly called the doctrine
of salvation: for Christ is there offered, whose peculiar office is to save that
which was lost; and those who refuse to be saved by him, shall find him a Judge.
But everywhere in Scripture the word salvation is simply set in opposition to
the word destruction: and hence we must observe, when it is mentioned, what the
subject of the discourse is. Since then the gospel delivers from ruin and the
curse of endless death, its salvation is eternal life.
f38
First to the Jew and then to the
Greek. Under the word Greek, he includes all
the Gentiles, as it is evident from the comparison that is made; for the two
clauses comprehend all mankind. And it is probable that he chose especially this
nation to designate other nations, because, in the first place, it was admitted,
next to the Jews, into a participation of the gospel covenant; and, secondly,
because the Greeks, on account of their vicinity, and the celebrity of their
language, were more known to the Jews. It is then a mode of speaking, a part
being taken for the whole, by which he connects the Gentiles universally with
the Jews, as participators of the gospel: nor does he thrust the Jews from their
own eminence and dignity, since they were the first partakers of God’s
promise and calling. He then reserves for them their prerogative; but he
immediately joins the Gentiles, though in the second place, as being partakers
with them.
17.
For
f39
the righteousness of
God, etc. This is an explanation and a
confirmation of the preceding clause — that the gospel is the power of God
unto salvation. For if we seek salvation, that is, life with God, righteousness
must be first sought, by which being reconciled to him, we may, through him
being propitious to us, obtain that life which consists only in his favor; for,
in order to be loved by God, we must first become righteous, since he regards
unrighteousness with hatred. He therefore intimates, that we cannot obtain
salvation otherwise than from the gospel, since nowhere else does God reveal to
us his righteousness, which alone delivers us from perdition. Now this
righteousness, which is the groundwork of our salvation, is revealed in the
gospel: hence the gospel is said to be the power of God unto salvation. Thus he
reasons from the cause to the effect.
Notice further, how extraordinary and valuable a
treasure does God bestow on us through the gospel, even the communication of his
own righteousness. I take the righteousness of God to mean, that which is
approved before his tribunal;
f40
as that, on the contrary, is usually called the righteousness of men, which is
by men counted and supposed to be righteousness, though it be only vapor. Paul,
however, I doubt not, alludes to the many prophecies in which the Spirit makes
known everywhere the righteousness of God in the future kingdom of
Christ.
Some explain it as the righteousness which is freely
given us by God: and I indeed confess that the words will bear this sense; for
God justifies us by the gospel, and thus saves us: yet the former view seems to
me more suitable, though it is not what I make much of. Of greater moment is
what some think, that this righteousness does not only consist in the free
remission of sins, but also, in part, includes the grace of regeneration. But I
consider, that we are restored to life because God freely reconciles us to
himself, as we shall hereafter show in its proper place.
But instead of the expression he used before,
“to every one who believeth,” he says now,
from
faith; for righteousness is offered by the
gospel, and is received by faith. And he adds,
to
faith: for as our faith makes progress, and as
it advances in knowledge, so the righteousness of God increases in us at the
same time, and the possession of it is in a manner confirmed. When at first we
taste the gospel, we indeed see God’s smiling countenance turned towards
us, but at a distance: the more the knowledge of true religion grows in us, by
coming as it were nearer, we behold God’s favor more clearly and more
familiarly. What some think, that there is here an implied comparison between
the Old and New Testament, is more refined than well-founded; for Paul does not
here compare the Fathers who lived under the law with us, but points out the
daily progress that is made by every one of the faithful.
As it is
written, etc. By the authority of the Prophet
Habakkuk he proves the righteousness of faith; for he, predicting the overthrow
of the proud, adds this — that the life of the righteous consists in
faith. Now we live not before God, except through righteousness: it then
follows, that our righteousness is obtained by faith; and the verb being future,
designates the real perpetuity of that life of which he speaks; as though he had
said, — that it would not be momentary, but continue forever. For even the
ungodly swell with the false notion of having life; but when they say,
“Peace and safety,” a sudden destruction comes upon them,
(<520503>1
Thessalonians 5:3.) It is therefore a shadow, which endures only for a moment.
Faith alone is that which secures the perpetuity of life; and whence is this,
except that it leads us to God, and makes our life to depend on him? For Paul
would not have aptly quoted this testimony had not the meaning of the Prophet
been, that we then only stand, when by faith we recumb on God: and he has not
certainly ascribed life to the faith of the godly, but in as far as they, having
renounced the arrogance of the world, resign themselves to the protection of God
alone.
f41
He does not indeed professedly handle this subject;
and hence he makes no mention of gratuitous justification: but it is
sufficiently evident from the nature of faith, that this testimony is rightly
applied to the present subject. Besides, we necessarily gather from his
reasoning, that there is a mutual connection between faith and the gospel: for
as the just is said to live by faith, he concludes that this life is received by
the gospel.
We have now the principal point or the main hinge of
the first part of this Epistle, — that we are justified by faith through
the mercy of God alone. We have not this, indeed as yet distinctly expressed by
Paul; but from his own words it will hereafter be made very clear — that
the righteousness, which is grounded on faith, depends entirely on the mercy of
God.
|
ROMANS
1:18-23
|
|
18. For the wrath of God is revealed from
heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness;
|
18. Revelatur enim ira Dei e cœlo, super
omnem impietatem et injustitiam hominum, veritatem Dei injuste
continentium;
|
|
19. Because that which may be known of God is
manifest in them: for God hath shewed it unto them.
|
19. Quia quod cognoscitur de Deo manifestum
est in ipsis: Deus enim illis manifestavit.
|
|
20. For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse:
|
20. Si quidem invisibilia ipsius, ex creatione
mundi operibus intellecta, conspiciuntur, æterna quoque ejus potentia, et
divinitas; ut sint inexcusabiles.
|
|
21. Because that, when they knew God, they
glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
|
21. Quoniam quum Deum cogno vissent, non
tanquam Deo gloriam dederunt, aut grati fuerunt; exinaniti sunt in
cogitationibus suis, et obtenebratum est stultum coreorum.
|
|
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they
became fools,
|
22. Quum se putarent sapientes, stulti facti
sunt,
|
|
23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible
God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed
beasts, and creeping things.
|
23. Et mutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei
similitudine imaginis corruptibilis hominis, et volucrum, et quadrupedum, et
serpentum.
|
18.
For
f42
revealed,
etc. He reasons now by stating things of a contrary nature, and proves that
there is no righteousness except what is conferred, or comes through the gospel;
for he shows that without this all men are condemned: by it alone there is
salvation to be found. And he brings, as the first proof of condemnation, the
fact, — that though the structure of the world, and the most beautiful
arrangement of the elements, ought to have induced man to glorify God, yet no
one discharged his proper duty: it hence appears that all were guilty of
sacrilege, and of wicked and abominable ingratitude.
To some it seems that this is a main subject, and
that Paul forms his discourse for the purpose of enforcing repentance; but I
think that the discussion of the subject begins here, and that the principal
point is stated in a former proposition; for Paul’s object was to teach us
where salvation is to be found. He has already declared that we cannot obtain it
except through the gospel: but as the flesh will not willingly humble itself so
far as to assign the praise of salvation to the grace of God alone, Paul shows
that the whole world is deserving of eternal death. It hence follows, that life
is to be recovered in some other way, since we are all lost in ourselves. But
the words, being well considered, will help us much to understand the meaning of
the passage.
Some make a difference between
impiety
and unrighteousness, and think, that by the former word is meant the
profanation of God’s worship, and by the latter, injustice towards men;
but as the Apostle immediately refers this unrighteousness to the neglect of
true religion, we shall explain both as referring to the same thing.
f43
And then, all the impiety of
men is to be taken, by a figure in language, as
meaning “the impiety of all men,” or, the impiety of which all men
are guilty. But by these two words one thing is designated, and that is,
ingratitude towards God; for we thereby offend in two ways: it is said to be
ajse>beia,
impiety, as it is a dishonoring of God; it is
ajdiki>a,
unrighteousness, because man, by transferring to himself what belongs to God,
unjustly deprives God of his glory. The word
wrath,
according to the usage of Scripture, speaking after the manner of men, means the
vengeance of God; for God, in punishing, has, according to our notion, the
appearance of one in wrath. It imports, therefore, no such emotion in God, but
only has a reference to the perception and feeling of the sinner who is
punished. Then he says that it is
revealed from heaven; though the
expression, from
heaven, is taken by some in the sense of an
adjective, as though he had said “the wrath of the celestial God;”
yet I think it more emphatical, when taken as having this import,
“Wheresoever a man may look around him, he will find no salvation; for the
wrath of God is poured out on the whole world, to the full extent of
heaven.”
The truth of
God means, the true knowledge of God; and to
hold
in that, is to suppress or to obscure it: hence
they are charged as guilty of robbery. — What we render unjustly,
is given literally by Paul, in
unrighteousness, which means the same thing in
Hebrew: but we have regard to perspicuity.
F44
19.
Inasmuch as what may be known of
God, etc. He thus designates what it behoves us
to know of God; and he means all that appertains to the setting forth of the
glory of the Lord, or, which is the same thing, whatever ought to move and
excite us to glorify God. And by this expression he intimates, that God in his
greatness can by no means be fully comprehended by us, and that there are
certain limits within which men ought to confine themselves, inasmuch as God
accommodates to our small capacities what he testifies of himself. Insane then
are all they who seek to know of themselves what God is: for the Spirit, the
teacher of perfect wisdom, does not in vain invite our attention to what
may be
known,
to<
gnwsto<n; and by what means this is known, he
immediately explains. And he said,
in
them rather than to them, for the sake
of greater emphasis: for though the Apostle adopts everywhere Hebrew phrases,
and
b,
beth, is often redundant in that language, yet he seems here to have
intended to indicate a manifestation, by which they might be so closely pressed,
that they could not evade; for every one of us undoubtedly finds it to be
engraven on his own heart,
f45
By saying, that God has made it
manifest, he means, that man was created
to be a spectator of this formed world, and that eyes were given him, that he
might, by looking on so beautiful a picture, be led up to the Author
himself.
20.
Since his invisible
things,
f46
etc. God is in himself invisible; but as his majesty shines forth in his works
and in his creatures everywhere, men ought in these to acknowledge him, for they
clearly set forth their Maker: and for this reason the Apostle in his Epistle to
the Hebrews says, that this world is a mirror, or the representation of
invisible things. He does not mention all the particulars which may be thought
to belong to God; but he states, that we can arrive at the knowledge of his
eternal power and divinity;
f47
for he who is the framer of all things, must necessarily be without beginning
and from himself. When we arrive at this point, the divinity becomes known to
us, which cannot exist except accompanied with all the attributes of a God,
since they are all included under that idea.
So that they are
inexcusable. It hence clearly appears what the
consequence is of having this evidence — that men cannot allege any thing
before God’s tribunal for the purpose of showing that they are not justly
condemned. Yet let this difference be remembered, that the manifestation of God,
by which he makes his glory known in his creation, is, with regard to the light
itself, sufficiently clear; but that on account of our blindness, it is not
found to be sufficient. We are not however so blind, that we can plead our
ignorance as an excuse for our perverseness. We conceive that there is a Deity;
and then we conclude, that whoever he may be, he ought to be worshipped: but our
reason here fails, because it cannot ascertain who or what sort of being God is.
Hence the Apostle in
<581103>Hebrews
11:3, ascribes to faith the light by which man can gain real knowledge from the
work of creation, and not without reason; for we are prevented by our blindness,
so that we reach not to the end in view; we yet see so far, that we cannot
pretend any excuse. Both these things are strikingly set forth by Paul in
<441417>Acts
14:17, when he says, that the Lord in past times left the nations in their
ignorance, and yet that he left them not without witness (amarturon,)
since he gave them rain and fertility from heaven. But this knowledge of God,
which avails only to take away excuse, differs greatly from that which brings
salvation, which Christ mentions in
<431203>John
12:3, and in which we are to glory, as Jeremiah teaches us,
<450924>Romans
9:24.
21.
For when they knew
God, etc. He plainly testifies here, that God
has presented to the minds of all the means of knowing him, having so manifested
himself by his works, that they must necessarily see what of themselves they
seek not to know — that there is some God; for the world does not by
chance exist, nor could it have proceeded from itself. But we must ever bear in
mind the degree of knowledge in which they continued; and this appears from what
follows.
They glorified him not as
God. No idea can be formed of God without
including his eternity, power, wisdom, goodness, truth, righteousness, and
mercy. His eternity appears evident, because he is the maker of all things
— his power, because he holds all things in his hand and continues their
existence — his wisdom, because he has arranged things in such an
exquisite order — his goodness, for there is no other cause than himself,
why he created all things, and no other reason, why he should be induced to
preserve them — his justice, because in his government he punishes the
guilty and defends the innocent — his mercy, because he bears with so much
forbearance the perversity of men — and his truth, because he is
unchangeable. He then who has a right notion of God ought to give him the praise
due to his eternity, wisdom, goodness, and justice. Since men have not
recognized these attributes in God, but have dreamt of him as though he were an
empty phantom, they are justly said to have impiously robbed him of his own
glory. Nor is it without reason that he adds,
that they were not
thankful,
f48
for there is no one who is not indebted to him for numberless benefits: yea,
even on this account alone, because he has been pleased to reveal himself to us,
he has abundantly made us indebted to him.
But they became
vain,
f49
etc.; that is, having forsaken the truth of God, they turned to the vanity of
their own reason, all the acuteness of which is fading and passes away like
vapor. And thus their foolish mind, being involved in darkness, could understand
nothing aright but was carried away headlong, in various ways, into errors and
delusions. Their unrighteousness was this — they quickly choked by their
own depravity the seed of right knowledge, before it grew up to
ripeness.
22.
While they were
thinking, etc. It is commonly inferred from
this passage, that Paul alludes here to those philosophers, who assumed to
themselves in a peculiar manner the reputation of wisdom; and it is thought that
the design of his discourse is to show, that when the superiority of the great
is brought down to nothing, the common people would have no reason to suppose
that they had any thing worthy of being commended: but they seem to me to have
been guided by too slender a reason; for it was not peculiar to the philosophers
to suppose themselves wise in the knowledge of God, but it was equally common to
all nations, and to all ranks of men. There were indeed none who sought not to
form some ideas of the majesty of God, and to make him such a God as they could
conceive him to be according to their own reason. This presumption I hold is not
learned in the schools, but is innate, and comes with us, so to speak, from the
womb. It is indeed evident, that it is an evil which has prevailed in all ages
— that men have allowed themselves every liberty in coining superstitions.
The arrogance then which is condemned here is this — that men sought to be
of themselves wise, and to draw God down to a level with their own low
condition, when they ought humbly to have given him his own glory. For Paul
holds this principle, that none, except through their own fault, are
unacquainted with the worship due to God; as though he said, “As they have
proudly exalted themselves, they have become infatuated through the righteous
judgment of God.” There is an obvious reason, which contravenes the
interpretation which I reject; for the error of forming an image of God did not
originate with the philosophers; but they, by their consent, approved of it as
received from others.
f50
23.
And
changed, etc. Having feigned such a God as they
could comprehend according to their carnal reason, they were very far from
acknowledging the true God: but devised a fictitious and a new god, or rather a
phantom. And what he says is, that they
changed
the glory of God; for as though one substituted a
strange child, so they departed from the true God. Nor are they to be excused
for this pretense, that they believe that God dwells in heaven, and that they
count not the wood to be God, but his image; for it is a high indignity to God,
to form so gross an idea of his majesty as to dare to make an image of him. But
from the wickedness of such a presumption none were exempt, neither priests, nor
statesmen, nor philosophers, of whom the most sound-minded, even Plato himself,
sought to find out some likeness of God.
The madness then here noticed, is, that all attempted
to make for themselves an image of God; which was a certain proof that their
notions of God were gross and absurd. And, first, they befouled the majesty of
God by forming him in the likeness of
a corruptible
man: for I prefer this rendering to that of
mortal man, which is adopted by Erasmus; for Paul sets not the
immortality of God in opposition to the mortality of man, but that glory, which
is subject to no defects, to the most wretched condition of man. And then, being
not satisfied with so great a crime, they descended even to beasts and to those
of the most filthy kind; by which their stupidity appeared still more evident.
You may see an account of these abominations in Lactantius, in
Eusebius, and in Augustine in his book on the city of
God.
|
ROMANS
1:24-32
|
|
24. Wherefore God also gave them up to
uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies
between themselves:
|
24. Propterea tradidit illos Deus in
cupiditates cordium suorum in immunditiem, ut ignominia afficerent corpora sua
in seipsis:
|
|
25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie,
and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for
ever. Amen.
|
25. Qui transmutarunt veritatem ejus in
mendacium et coluerunt ac venerati sunt creaturam supra, Creatorem, qui est
benedictus in secula: Amen.
|
|
26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is
against nature:
|
26. Propterea, inquam, tradidit illos Deus in
passiones ignominiosas: ac enim feminæ ipsorum transmutarunt natura- lem
usum in eum qui est præter naturam:
|
|
27. And likewise also the men, leaving the
natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men
working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
their error which was meet.
|
27. Similiter et viri quoque, amisso naturali
usu feminæ, exarserunt mutua libidine, alii in alios; masculi in masculis
fœditatem per petrantes et quam decebat erroris sui mercedem in seipsis
recipientes.
|
|
28. And even as they did not like to retain
God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those
things which are not convenient;
|
28. Et quemadmodum non probaverunt Deum habere
in notitia, tradidit illos Deus in reprobam mentem, ad facienda quæ non
decerent;
|
|
29. Being filled with all unrighteousness,
fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder,
debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
|
29. Ut essent pleni omni injustitia, nequitia,
libidine, avaritia, malitia; referti invidia, homicidio, contentione, dolo,
perversitate; susurrones,
|
|
30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful,
proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to
parents,
|
30. Obtrectatores, osores Dei, malefici,
contumeliosi, fastuosi, repertores malorum, parentibus
immorigeri,
|
|
31. Without understanding, covenant breakers,
without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
|
31. Intelligentiæ expertes,
insociabiles, affectu humanitatis carentes, fœdifragi, sine
misericordiæ sensu;
|
|
32 Who, knowing the judgment of God, that they
which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have
pleasure in them that do them.
|
32. Qui, quum Dei judicium cognoverint, quod
qui talia agunt, digni sunt morte, non tantum ea faciunt, sed assentiuntur
facientibus.
|
24.
God therefore gave them
up, etc. As impiety is a hidden evil, lest they
should still find an evasion, he shows, by a more palpable demonstration, that,
they cannot escape, but must be held fast by a just condemnation, since such
fruits have followed this impiety as cannot be viewed otherwise than manifest
evidences of the Lord’s wrath. As the Lord’s wrath is always just,
it follows, that what has exposed them to condemnation, must have preceded it.
By these evidences then he now proves the apostasy and defection of men: for the
Lord indeed does so punish those, who alienate them selves from his goodness,
that he casts them headlong into various courses which lead to perdition and
ruin. And by comparing the vices, of which they were guilty, with the impiety,
of which he had before accused them, he shows that they suffered punishment
through the just judgment of God: for since nothing is dearer to us than our own
honor, it is extreme blindness, when we fear not to bring disgrace on ourselves;
and it is the most suitable punishment for a reproach done to the Divine
Majesty. This is the very thing which he treats of to the end of the chapter;
but he handles it in various ways, for the subject required ample
illustration.
What then, in short, he proves to us is this, —
that the ingratitude of men to God is incapable of being excused; for it is
manifest, by unequivocal evidences, that the wrath of God rages against them:
they would have never rolled themselves in lusts so filthy, after the manner of
beasts, had not the majesty of God been provoked and incensed against them.
Since, then, the worst abominations abounded everywhere, he concludes that there
existed among them evidences of divine vengeance. Now, as this never rages
without reason, or unjustly, but ever keeps within the limits of what is right,
he intimates that it hence appears that perdition, not less certain than just,
impended over all.
As to the manner in which God gives up or delivers
men to wickedness, it is by no means necessary in this place to discuss a
question so intricate, (longam — tedious.) It is indeed certain,
that he not only permits men to fall into sin, by allowing them to do so, and by
conniving at them; but that he also, by his equitable judgment, so arranges
things, that they are led and carried into such madness by their own lusts, as
well as by the devil. He therefore adopts the word, give up, according to
the constant usage of Scripture; which word they forcibly wrest, who think that
we are led into sin only by the permission of God: for as Satan is the minister
of God’s wrath, and as it were the executioner, so he is armed against us,
not through the connivance, but by the command of his judge. God, however, is
not on this account cruel, nor are we innocent, inasmuch as Paul plainly shows,
that we are not delivered up into his power, except when we deserve such a
punishment. Only we must make this exception, that the cause of sin is not from
God, the roots of which ever abide in the sinner himself; for this must be
true,
“Thine is
perdition, O Israel; in me only is thy
help.”
(<281309>Hosea
13:9)
f51
By connecting the desires or lusts of
man’s heart with uncleanness, he indirectly intimates what sort of progeny
our heart generates, when left to itself. The expression,
among
themselves, is not without its force;
for it significantly expresses how deep and indelible are the marks of infamy
imprinted on our bodies.
25.
Who
changed, etc. He repeats what he had said
before, though in different words, in order to fix it deeper in our minds. When
the truth of God is turned to a lie, his glory is obliterated. It is then but
just, that they should be besprinkled with every kind of infamy, who strive to
take away from God his honor, and also to reproach his name. —
And
worshipped, etc. That I might include two words
in one, I have given this rendering. He points out especially the sin of
idolatry; for religious honor cannot be given to a creature, without taking it
away, in a disgraceful and sacrilegious manner, from God: and vain is the excuse
that images are worshipped on God’s account, since God acknowledges no
such worship, nor regards it as acceptable; and the true God is not then
worshipped at all, but a fictitious God, whom the flesh has devised for itself.
f52
What is added, Who is blessed for
ever, I explain as having been said for the
purpose of exposing idolaters to greater reproach, and in this way, “He is
one whom they ought alone to have honored and worshipped, and from whom it was
not right to take away any thing, no, not even the
least.”
26.
God therefore gave them
up, etc. After having introduced as it were an
intervening clause, he returns to what he had before stated respecting the
judgment of God: and he brings, as the first example, the dreadful crime of
unnatural lust; and it hence appears that they not only abandoned themselves to
beastly lusts, but became degraded beyond the beasts, since they reversed the
whole order of nature. He then enumerates a long catalogue of vices which had
existed in all ages, and then prevailed everywhere without any
restraint.
It is not to the purpose to say, that every one was
not laden with so great a mass of vices; for in arraigning the common baseness
of men, it is proof enough if all to a man are constrained to acknowledge some
faults. So then we must consider, that Paul here records those abominations
which had been common in all ages, and were at that time especially prevalent
everywhere; for it is marvelous how common then was that filthiness which even
brute beasts abhor; and some of these vices were even popular. And he recites a
catalogue of vices, in some of which the whole race of man were involved; for
though all were not murderers, or thieves, or adulterers, yet there were none
who were not found polluted by some vice or another. He calls those
disgraceful passions, which are shameful even in the estimation of men,
and redound to the dishonoring of
God.
27.
Such a reward for their error as
was meet. They indeed deserved to be blinded,
so as to forget themselves, and not to see any thing befitting them, who,
through their own malignity, closed their eyes against the light offered them by
God, that they might not behold his glory: in short, they who were not ashamed
to extinguish, as much as they could, the glory of God, which alone gives us
light, deserved to become blind at
noonday.
28.
And as they chose
not, etc. There is an evident comparison to be
observed in these words, by which is strikingly set forth the just relation
between sin and punishment. As they chose not to continue in the knowledge of
God, which alone guides our minds to true wisdom, the Lord gave them a perverted
mind, which can choose nothing that is right.
f53
And by saying, that they chose not, (non probasse-approved not,) it is the same
as though he had said, that they pursues not after the knowledge of God with the
attention they ought to have done, but, on the contrary, turned away the;
thoughts resignedly from God. He then intimates, that they, making a depraved
choice, preferred their own vanities to the true God; and thus the error, by
which they were deceived, was voluntary.
To do those things which were not
meet. As he had hitherto referred only
to one instance of abomination, which prevailed indeed among many, but was not
common to all, he begins here to enumerate vices from which none could be found
free: for though every vice, as it has been said, did not appear in each
individual, yet all were guilty of some vices, so that every one might
separately be accused of manifest depravity. As he calls them in the first
instance not meet, understand him as saying, that they were inconsistent
with every decision of reason, and alien to the duties of men: for he mentions
it as an evidence of a perverted mind, that men addicted themselves, without any
reflection, to those vices, which common sense ought to have led them to
renounce.
But it is labor in vain so to connect these vices, as
to make them dependent one on another, since this was not Paul’s design;
but he set them down as they occurred to his mind. What each of them signifies,
we shall very briefly explain.
29.
Understand by
unrighteousness,
the violation of justice among men, by not rendering to each his due. I have
rendered
ponhri>an,
according to the opinion of Ammonium,
wickedness;
for he teaches us that
ponhron,
the wicked, is drasti>kon
kakou, the doer of evil. The word (nequitia)
then means practiced wickedness, or licentiousness in doing mischief: but
maliciousness (malitia) is that depravity and obliquity of mind which
leads us to do harm to our neighbour.
f54
For the word
pornei>an,
which Paul uses, I have put lust, (libidinem.) I do not, however, object,
if one prefers to render it fornication; but he means the inward passion as well
as the outward act.
f55
The words avarice, envy, and murder, have nothing doubtful
in their meaning. Under the word strife, (contentione,)
f56
he includes quarrels, fightings, and seditions. We have rendered
kakohqei>an,
perversity, (perversitatem;)
f57
which is a notorious and uncommon wickedness; that is, when a man, covered over,
as it were, with hardness, has become hardened in a corrupt course of life by
custom and evil habit.
30. The word
qestugei~v,
means, no doubt, haters of God; for there is no reason to take it in a
passive sense, (hated of God,) since Paul here proves men to be guilty by
manifest vices. Those, then, are designated, who hate God, whose justice they
seem to resist by doing wrong.
Whisperers
(susurrones) and
slanderers
(obtrectatores)
f58
are to be thus distinguished; the former, by secret accusations, break off the
friendships of good men, inflame their minds with anger, defame the innocent,
and sow discords; and the latter through an innate malignity, spare the
reputation of no one, and, as though they were instigated by the fury of
evilspeaking, they revile the deserving as well as the undeserving We have
translated
uJbrista<v,
villanous, (maleficos;) for the Latin authors are wont to call
notable injuries villanies, such as plunders, thefts, burnings, and sorceries;
and these where the vices which Paul meant to point out here.
f59
I have rendered the word
uJperh>fanouv,
used by Paul, insolent, (contumeliosos;) for this is the meaning
of the Greek word: and the reason for the word is this, — because such
being raised, as it were, on high, look down on those who are, as it were, below
them with contempt, and they cannot bear to look on their equals. Haughty
are they who swell with the empty wind of overweeningness. Unsociable
f60
are those who, by their iniquities, unloose the bands of society, or those in
whom there is no sincerity or constancy of faith, who may be called
truce-breakers.
31. Without
the feelings of
humanity are they who have put off the first
affections of nature towards their own relations. As he mentions the want of
mercy as an evidence of human nature being depraved, Augustine, in
arguing against the Stoics, concludes, that mercy is a Christian
virtue.
32.
Who, knowing the judgement
f61
of
God, etc. Though this passage is variously
explained, yet the following appears to me the correctest interpretation,
— that men left nothing undone for the purpose of giving unbridled liberty
to their sinful propensities; for having taken away all distinction between good
and evil, they approved in themselves and in others those things which they knew
displeased God, and would be condemned by his righteous judgment. For it is the
summit of all evils, when the sinner is so void of shame, that he is pleased
with his own vices, and will not bear them to be reproved, and also cherishes
them in others by his consent and approbation. This desperate wickedness is thus
described in Scripture:
“They boast when
they do evil,”
(<200214>Proverbs
2:14.)
“She has spread out
her feet,
and gloried in her
wickedness,”
(<261625>Ezekiel
16:25.)
For he who is ashamed is as yet healable; but when
such an impudence is contracted through a sinful habit, that vices, and not
virtues, please us, and are approved, there is no more any hope of reformation.
Such, then, is the interpretation I give; for I see that the Apostle meant here
to condemn something more grievous and more wicked than the very doing of vices:
what that is I know not, except we refer to that which is the summit of all
wickedness, — that is, when wretched men, having cast away all shame,
undertake the patronage of vices in opposition to the righteousness of
God.
CHAPTER 2
|
ROMANS
2:1-2
|
|
1. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man,
whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou
condemnest thyself for thou that judgest doest the same things.
|
1. Propterea inexcusabilis es, O homo,
quicunque judicas: in quo enim judicas alterum, teipsum condemnas; eadem enim
facis dum judicas.
|
|
2. But we are sure that the judgment of God is
according to truth against them which commit such things.
|
2. Novimus autem quod judicium Dei est
secundum veritatem in eos qui talia agunt.
|
This reproof is directed against hypocrites, who
dazzle the eyes of men by displays of outward sanctity, and even think
themselves to be accepted before God, as though they had given him full
satisfaction. Hence Paul, after having stated the grosser vices, that he might
prove that none are just before God, now attacks saintlings (sanctulos)
of this kind, who could not have been included in the first catalogue. Now the
inference is too simple and plain for any one to wonder how the Apostle derived
his argument; for he makes them
inexcusable,
because they themselves knew the judgment of God, and yet transgressed the law;
as though he said, “Though thou consented not to the vices of others, and
seemest to be avowedly even an enemy and a reprover of vices; yet as thou art
not free from them, if thou really examinest thyself, thou canst not bring
forward any defense.”
For in what thou judgest
another, etc. Besides the striking resemblance
there is between the two Greek verbs,
kri>nein
and
katakri>nein
(to judge and to condemn,) the enhancing of their sin ought to be noticed; for
his mode of speaking is the same, as though he said, “Thou art doubly
deserving of condemnation; for thou art guilty of the same vices which thou
blamest and reprovest in others.” It is, indeed, a well-known saying,
— that they who scrutinize the life of others lay claim themselves to
innocence, temperance, and all virtues; and that those are not worthy of any
indulgence who allow in themselves the same things which they undertake to
correct in others. For thou,
judging, doest the same things: so it is
literally; but the meaning is, “Though thou judgest, thou yet doest the
same things.” And he says that they did them, because they were not
in a right state of mind; for sin properly belongs to the mind. They then
condemned themselves on this account, — because, in reproving a thief, or
an adulterer, or a slanderer, they did not merely condemn the persons, but those
very vices which adhered to themselves.
f62
2.
But we know that the judgment
of God, etc. The design of Paul is to shake off
from hypocrites their self-complacencies, that they may not think that they can
really gain any thing, though they be applauded by the world, and though they
regard themselves guiltless; for a far different trial awaits them in heaven.
But as he charges them with inward impurity, which, being hid from the eyes of
men, cannot be proved and convicted by human testimonies, he summons them to the
tribunal of God, to whom darkness itself is not hid, and by whose judgment the
case of sinners, be they willing or unwilling, must be
determined.
Moreover,
the
truth of judgment will in two ways appear,
because God will punish sin without any respect of persons, in whomsoever it
will be found; and he will not heed outward appearances, nor be satisfied with
any outward work, except what has proceeded from real sincerity of heart. It
hence follows, that the mask of feigned sanctity will not prevent him from
visiting secret wickedness with judgment. It is, no doubt, a Hebrew idiom; for
truth in Hebrew means often the inward integrity of the heart, and thus
stands opposed not only to gross falsehood, but also to the outward appearance
of good works. And then only are hypocrites awakened, when they are told that
God will take an account, not only of their disguised righteousness, but also of
their secret motives and feelings.
f63
|
ROMANS
2:3-10
|
|
3. And thinkest thou this, o man, that judgest
them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the
Judgment of God?
|
3. Existimas autem, O homo, qui judicas eos
qui talia faciunt, et eadem facis, quod ipse effugies judicium
Dei?
|
|
4. Or despisest thou the riches of his
goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering;
f64
not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to
repentance?
|
4. An divitias bonitatis ipsius
tolerantiæque, ac lenitatis contemnis; ignorans quod bonitas Dei te ad
pœnitentiam deducit?
|
|
5. But, after thy hardness and impenitent
heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation
of the righteous judgment of God;
|
5. Sed, juxta duritiam tuam, et cor
pœnitere nescium, thesaurizas tibi iram in diem irae et revelations justi
judicii Dei;
|
|
6. Who will render to every man according to
his deeds:
|
6. Qui redditurus est unicuique secundam
ipsius opera:
|
|
7. To them who, by patient continuance in
well-doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal
life;
|
7. Iis quidem, qui per boni operis
perseverantiam, gloriam et honorem et immortalitatem quærunt, vitam
æternam;
|
|
8. But unto them that are contentious, and do
not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and
wrath,
|
8. Iis vero qui sunt contentiosi, ac veritati
immorigeri, injustitiæ autem obtemperant, excandescentia, ira,
tribulatio,
|
|
9. Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of
man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile:
|
9. Et anxietas in omnem animam hominis
perpetrantis malum, Iudæi primum simul et Græci:
|
|
10. But glory, honor, and peace, to every man
that worketh good; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.
|
10. At gloria et honor et pax omni operanti
bonum, Iudæo primum simul et Græco.
|
3.
And thinkest thou, O
man, etc. As rhetoricians teach us, that we
ought not to proceed to give strong reproof before the crime be proved, Paul may
seem to some to have acted unwisely here for having passed so severe a censure,
when he had not yet proved the accusation which he had brought forward. But the
fact is otherwise; for he adduced not his accusation before men, but appealed to
the judgment of conscience; and thus he deemed that proved which he had in view
— that they could not deny their iniquity, if they examined themselves and
submitted to the scrutiny of God’s tribunal. And it was not without urgent
necessity, that he with so much sharpness and severity rebuked their fictitious
sanctity; for men of this class will with astonishing security trust in
themselves, except their vain confidence be forcibly shaken from them. Let us
then remember, that this is the best mode of dealing with hypocrisy, in order to
awaken it from its inebriety, that is, to draw it forth to the light of
God’s judgment.
That thou shalt
escape, etc. This argument is drawn from the
less; for since our sins are subject to the judgment of men, much more are they
to that of God, who is the only true Judge of all. Men are indeed led by a
divine instinct to condemn evil deeds; but this is only an obscure and faint
resemblance of the divine judgment. They are then extremely besotted, who think
that they can escape the judgment of God, though they allow not others to escape
their own judgment. It is not without an emphatical meaning that he repeats the
word man; it is for the purpose of presenting a comparison between man and
God.
4.
Dost thou despise the
riches? etc. It does not seem to me, as some
think, that there is here an argument, conclusive on two grounds,
(dilemma,) but an anticipation of an objection: for as hypocrites are
commonly transported with prosperity, as though they had merited the
Lord’s kindness by their good deeds, and become thus more hardened in
their contempt of God, the Apostle anticipates their arrogance, and proves, by
an argument taken from a reason of an opposite kind, that there is no ground for
them to think that God, on account of their outward prosperity, is propitious to
them, since the design of his benevolence is far different, and that is, to
convert sinners to himself. Where then the fear of God does not rule,
confidence, on account of prosperity, is a contempt and a mockery of his great
goodness. It hence follows, that a heavier punishment will be inflicted on those
whom God has in this life favored; because, in addition to their other
wickedness, they have rejected the fatherly invitation of God. And though all
the gifts of God are so many evidences of his paternal goodness, yet as he often
has a different object in view, the ungodly absurdly congratulate themselves on
their prosperity, as though they were dear to him, while he kindly and
bountifully supports them.
Not knowing that the goodness of
God, etc. For the Lord by his kindness
shows to us, that it is he to whom we ought turn, if we desire to secure our
wellbeing, and at the same time he strengthens our confidence in expecting
mercy. If we use not God’s bounty for this end, we abuse it. But yet it is
not to be viewed always in the same light; for when the Lord deals favorably
with his servants and gives them earthly blessings, he makes known to them by
symbols of this kind his own benevolence, and trains them up at the same time to
seek the sum and substance of all good things in himself alone: when he treats
the transgressors of his law with the same indulgence, his object is to soften
by his kindness their perverseness; he yet does not testify that he is already
propitious to them, but, on the contrary, invites them to repentance. But if any
one brings this objection — that the Lord sings to the deaf as long as he
does not touch inwardly their hearts; we must answer — that no fault can
be found in this case except with our own depravity. But I prefer rendering the
word which Paul here uses, leads, rather than invites, for it is
more significant; I do not, however, take it in the sense of driving, but of
leading as it were by the hand.
5.
But according to thy
hardness, etc. When we become hardened
against the admonitions of the Lord, impenitence follows; and they who arc not
anxious about repentance openly provoke the Lord.
f65
This is a remarkable passage: we may hence learn what
I have already referred to — that the ungodly not only accumulate for
themselves daily a heavier weight of God’s judgments, as long as they live
here, but that the gifts of God also, which they continually enjoy, shall
increase their condemnation; for an account of them all will be required: and it
will then be found, that it will be justly imputed to them as an extreme
wickedness, that they had been made worse through God’s bounty, by which
they ought surely to have been improved. Let us then take heed, lest by unlawful
use of blessings we lay up for ourselves this cursed treasure.
For the
day, etc.; literally, in the day;
but it is put for eijv
hJme>ran, for the day. The ungodly gather now
the indignation of God against themselves, the stream of which shall then be
poured on their heads: they accumulate hidden destruction, which then shall be
drawn out from the treasures of God. The day of the last judgment is called the
day of wrath, when a reference is made to the ungodly; but it will be a day of
redemption to the faithful. And thus all other visitations of God are ever
described as dreadful and full of terror to the ungodly; and on the contrary, as
pleasant and joyful to the godly. Hence whenever the Scripture mentions the
approach of the Lord, it bids the godly to exult with joy; but when it turns to
the reprobate, it proclaims nothing but dread and terror.
“A day of wrath,” saith
Zephaniah, “shall be that day, a day of tribulation and distress, a day of
calamity and wretchedness, a day of darkness and of thick darkness, a day of
mist and of whirlwind.”
(<360115>Zephaniah
1:15.)
You have a similar description in
<290202>Joel
2:2, etc. And Amos exclaims,
“Woe To You Who Desire The Day Of
The Lord! What Will It Be To You? The Day Of The Lord Will Be Darkness, And Not
Light.”
(<300518>Amos
5:18.)
Farther, by adding the word
revelation,
Paul intimates what this day of wrath is to be, — that the Lord will then
manifest his judgment: though he gives daily some indications of it, he yet
suspends and holds back, till that day, the clear and full manifestation of it;
for the books shall then be opened; the sheep shall then be separated the goats,
and the wheat shall be cleansed from the
tares.
6.
Who will render to every
one, etc. As he had to do with blind
saintlings, who thought that the wickedness of their hearts was well covered,
provided it was spread over with some disguises, I know not what, of empty
works, he pointed out the true character of the righteousness of works, even
that which is of account before God; and he did this, lest they should feel
confident that it was enough to pacify him, if they brought words and trifles,
or leaves only. But there is not so much difficulty in this verse, as it is
commonly thought. For the Lord, by visiting the wickedness of the reprobate with
just vengeance, will recompense them with what they have deserved: and as he
sanctifies those whom he has previously resolved to glorify, he will also crown
their good works, but not on account of any merit: nor can this be proved from
this verse; for though it declares what reward good works are to have, it does
yet by no means show what they are worth, or what price is due to them. And it
is an absurd inference, to deduce merit from
reward.
7.
To them indeed, who by
perseverance, etc.; literally,
patience;
by which word something more is expressed. For it is perseverance, when one is
not wearied in constantly doing good; but patience also is required in the
saints, by which they may continue firm, though oppressed with various trials.
For Satan suffers them not by a free course to come to the Lord; but he strives
by numberless hinderances to impede them, and to turn them aside from the right
way. And when he says, that the faithful, by continuing in good works,
seek glory and
honor, he does not mean that they aspire
after any thing else but the favor of God, or that they strive to attain any
thing higher, or more excellent: but they can not seek him, without striving, at
the same time, for the blessedness of his kingdom, the description of which is
contained in the paraphrase given in these words. The meaning then is, —
that the Lord will give eternal life to those who, by attention to good works,
strive to attain immortality.
f66
8.
But to those who are
contentious, etc. There is some
irregularity in the passage; first, on account of its tenor being interrupted,
for the thread of the discourse required, that the second clause of the contrast
should be thus connected, — “The Lord will render to them, who by
perseverance in good works, seek glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal
life; but to the contentious and the disobedient, eternal death.” Then the
conclusion might be joined, — “That for the former are prepared
glory, and honor, and incorruption; and that for the latter are laid up wrath
and misery.” There is another thing, — These
words, indignation, wrath,
tribulation, and anguish, are joined to two
clauses in the context. However, the meaning of the passage is by no means
obscure; and with this we must be satisfied in the Apostolic writings. From
other writings must eloquence be learnt: here spiritual wisdom is to be sought,
conveyed in a plain and simple style.
f67
Contention is mentioned here for rebellion and
stubbornness; for Paul was contending with hypocrites who, by their gross and
supine self-indulgence, trifled with God. By the word
truth,
is simply meant the revealed will of God, which alone is the light of truth: for
it is what belongs to all the ungodly, that they ever prefer to be in bondage to
iniquity, rather than to receive the yoke of God; and whatever obedience they
may pretend, yet they never cease perversely to clamor and struggle against
God’s word. For as they who are openly wicked scoff at the truth, so
hypocrites fear not to set up in opposition to it their artificial modes of
worship. The Apostle further adds, that such disobedient persons
obey
or serve iniquity; for there is no middle course,
which those who are unwilling to be in subjection to the law of the Lord can
take, so as to be kept from falling immediately into the service of sin. And it
is the just reward of outrageous licentiousness, that those become the
bondslaves of sin who cannot endure the service of God.
Indignation and
wrath, so the character of the words
induces me to render them; for
qumov
in Greek means what the Latins call excandescentia — indignation,
as Cicero teaches us, (Tusc. 4,) even a sudden burning of anger. As to
the other words I follow Erasmus. But observe, that of the four which are
mentioned, the two last are, as it were, the effects of the two first; for they
who perceive that God is displeased and angry with them are immediately filled
with confusion.
We may add, that though he might have briefly
described, even in two words, the blessedness of the godly and also the misery
of the reprobate, he yet enlarges on both subjects, and for this end —
that he might more effectually strike men with the fear of God’s wrath,
and sharpen their desire for obtaining grace through Christ: for we never fear
God’s judgment as we ought, except it be set as it were by a lively
description before our eyes; nor do we really burn with desire for future life,
except when roused by strong incentives, (multis flabellis incitati
— incited by many fans.)
9.
To the Jew
first, etc. He simply places, I have no
doubt, the Jew in opposition to the Gentile; for those whom he calls Greeks he
will presently call Gentiles. But the Jews take the precedence in this case, for
they had, in preference to others, both the promises and the threatenings of the
law; as though he had said, “This is the universal rule of the divine
judgment; it shall begin with the Jews, and it shall include the whole
world.”
|
ROMANS
2:11-13
|
|
11. For there is no respect of persons with
God.
|
11. Siquidem non est acceptio personarum apud
Deum.
|
|
12. For as many as have sinned without law,
shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be
judged by the law;
|
12. Quicunque enim sine Lege peccaverunt sine
Lege etiam peribunt; quicunque vero in Lege peccaverunt per Legem
judicabuntur.
|
|
13. (For not the hearers of the law are just
before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
|
13. Non enim Legis auditores justi sunt apud
Deum, sed qui Legem faciunt justificabuntur.
|
11.
There is no respect of
persons, etc. He has hitherto generally
arraigned all mortals as guilty; but now he begins to bring home his accusation
to the Jews and to the Gentiles separately: and at the same time he teaches us,
that it is no objection that there is a difference between them, but that they
are both without any distinction exposed to eternal death. The Gentiles
pretended ignorance as their defense; the Jews gloried in the honor of having
the law: from the former he takes away their subterfuge, and he deprives the
latter of their false and empty boasting.
There is then a division of the whole human race into
two classes; for God had separated the Jews from all the rest, but the condition
of all the Gentiles was the same. He now teaches us, that this difference is no
reason why both should not be involved in the same guilt. But the
word
person is taken in Scripture for all
outward things, which are wont to be regarded as possessing any value or esteem.
When therefore thou readest, that God is no respecter of persons, understand
that what he regards is purity of heart or inward integrity; and that he hath no
respect for those things which are wont to be highly valued by men, such as
kindred, country, dignity, wealth, and similar things; so that respect of
persons is to be here taken for the distinction or the difference there is
between one nation and another.
f68
But if any hence objects and says, “That then there is no such thing as
the gratuitous election of God;” it may be answered, That there is a
twofold acceptation of men before God; the first, when he chooses and calls us
from nothing through gratuitous goodness, as there is nothing in our nature
which can be approved by him; the second, when after having regenerated us, he
confers on us his gifts, and shows favor to the image of his Son which he
recognizes in us.
12.
Whosoever have sinned without
law,
f69
etc. In the former part of this section he assails the Gentiles; though no Moses
was given them to publish and to ratify a law from the Lord, he yet denies this
omission to be a reason why they deserved not the just sentence of death for
their sins; as though he had said — that the knowledge of a written law
was not necessary for the just condemnation of a sinner. See then what kind of
advocacy they undertake, who through misplaced mercy, attempt, on the ground of
ignorance, to exempt the nations who have not the light of the gospel from the
judgment of God.
Whosoever have sinned under the
law, etc. As the Gentiles, being led by
the errors of their own reason, go headlong into ruin, so the Jews possess a law
by which they are condemned;
f70
for this sentence has been long ago pronounced,
“Cursed are all
they who continue not in all its precepts.”
(<052726>Deuteronomy
27:26.)
A worse condition then awaits the Jewish sinners,
since their condemnation is already pronounced in their own
law.
13.
For the hearers of the
law, etc. This anticipates an objection which
the Jews might have adduced. As they had heard that the law was the rule of
righteousness,
(<050401>Deuteronomy
4:1,) they gloried in the mere knowledge of it: to obviate this mistake, he
declares that the hearing of the law or any knowledge of it is of no such
consequence, that any one should on that account lay claim to righteousness, but
that works must be produced, according to this saying, “He who will do
these shall live in them.” The import then of this verse is the following,
— “That if righteousness be sought from the law, the law must be
fulfilled; for the righteousness of the law consists in the perfection of
works.” They who pervert this passage for the purpose of building up
justification by works, deserve most fully to be laughed at even by children. It
is therefore improper and beyond what is needful, to introduce here a long
discussion on the subject, with the view of exposing so futile a sophistry: for
the Apostle only urges here on the Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of
the law, — That by the law they could not be justified, except they
fulfilled the law, that if they transgressed it, a curse was instantly
pronounced on them. Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is
prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that
another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage
that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law
who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be
found who can boast of having fulfilled the law.
f71
|
ROMANS
2:14-16
|
|
14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the
law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law,
are a law unto themselves:
|
14. Quum enim Gentes, quæ Legem non
habent, natura quæ Legis sunt faciant, ipsæ, Legem non habentes,
sibi ipsæ sunt Lex:
|
|
15. Which shew the work of the law written in
their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean
while accusing or else excusing one another;
|
15. Quæ ostendunt opus Legis scriptum in
cordibus suis, simul attestante ipsorum conscientia et cogitationibus inter se
accusantibus aut etiam excusantibus,
|
|
16. In the day when God shall judge the
secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
|
16. In die qua judicabit Deus occulta hominum,
secundum Evangelium meum, per Iesum Christum.
|
14.
For when the
Gentiles, etc. He now states what proves
the former clause; for he did not think it enough to condemn us by mere
assertion, and only to pronounce on us the just judgment of God; but he proceeds
to prove this by reasons, in order to excite us to a greater desire for Christ,
and to a greater love towards him. He indeed shows that ignorance is in vain
pretended as an excuse by the Gentiles, since they prove by their own deeds that
they have some rule of righteousness: for there is no nation so lost to every
thing human, that it does not keep within the limits of some laws. Since then
all nations, of themselves and without a monitor, are disposed to make laws for
themselves, it is beyond all question evident that they have some notions of
justice and rectitude, which the Greeks call preconceptions
prolhyeiv,
and which are implanted by nature in the hearts of men. They have then a law,
though they are without law: for though they have not a written law, they are
yet by no means wholly destitute of the knowledge of what is right and just; as
they could not otherwise distinguish between vice and virtue; the first of which
their restrain by punishment, and the latter they commend, and manifest their
approbation of it by honoring it with rewards. He sets nature in opposition to a
written law, meaning that the Gentiles had the natural light of righteousness,
which supplied the place of that law by which the Jews were instructed, so that
they were a law to themselves.
f72
15.
Who show the work of the law
f73
written,
etc.; that is, they prove that there is imprinted on their hearts a
discrimination and judgment by which they distinguish between what is just and
unjust, between what is honest and dishonest. He means not that it was so
engraven on their will, that they sought and diligently pursued it, but that
they were so mastered by the power of truth, that they could not disapprove of
it. For why did they institute religious rites, except that they were convinced
that God ought to be worshipped? Why were they ashamed of adultery and theft,
except that they deemed them evils?
Without reason then is the power of the will deduced
from this passage, as though Paul had said, that the keeping of the law is
within our power; for he speaks not of the power to fulfill the law, but of the
knowledge of it. Nor is the word
heart
to be taken for the seat of the affections, but only for the understanding, as
it is found in
<052404>Deuteronomy
24:4,
“The Lord hath not
given thee a heart to understand;”
and in
<422425>Luke
24:25,
“O foolish men, and
slow in heart to believe.”
Nor can we conclude from this passage, that there is
in men a full knowledge of the law, but that there are only some seeds of
what is right implanted in their nature, evidenced by such acts as these —
All the Gentiles alike instituted religious rites, they made laws to punish
adultery, and theft, and murder, they commended good faith in bargains and
contracts. They have thus indeed proved, that God ought to be worshipped, that
adultery, and theft, and murder are evils, that honesty is commendable. It is
not to our purpose to inquire what sort of God they imagined him to be, or how
many gods they devised; it is enough to know, that they thought that there is a
God, and that honor and worship are due to him. It matters not whether they
permitted the coveting of another man’s wife, or of his possessions, or of
any thing which was his, — whether they connived at wrath and hatred;
inasmuch as it was not right for them to covet what they knew to be evil when
done.
Their conscience at the same time
attesting, etc. He could not have more
forcibly urged them than by the testimony of their own conscience, which is
equal to a thousand witnesses. By the consciousness of having done good, men
sustain and comfort themselves; those who are conscious of having done evil, are
inwardly harassed and tormented. Hence came these sayings of the heathens
— “A good conscience is the widest sphere; but a bad one is the
cruelest executioner, and more fiercely torments the ungodly than any furies can
do.” There is then a certain knowledge of the law by nature, which says,
“This is good and worthy of being desired; that ought to be
abhorred.”
But observe how intelligently he defines conscience:
he says, that reasons come to our minds, by which we defend what is rightly
done, and that there are those which accuse and reprove us for our vices;
f74
and he refers this process of accusation and defense to the day of the Lord; not
that it will then first commence, for it is now continually carried on, but that
it will then also be in operation; and he says this, that no one should
disregard this process, as though it were vain and evanescent. And he has put,
in the
day, instead of, at the day, — a
similar instance to what we have already
observed.
16.
In which God shall judge the
secrets of men.
f75
Most suitable to the present occasion is this periphrastic definition of
judgment: it teaches those, who willfully hide themselves in the recesses of
insensibility, that the most secret thoughts and those now completely hid in the
depths of their hearts, shall then be brought forth to the light. So he speaks
in another place; in order to show to the Corinthians what little value belongs
to human judgment, which regards only the outward action, he bids them to wait
until the Lord came, who would bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and
reveal the secrets of the heart.
(<460405>1
Corinthians 4:5) When we hear this, let it come to our minds, that we are warned
that if we wish to be really approved by our Judge, we must strive for sincerity
of heart.
He adds,
according to my
gospel, intimating, that he announced a
doctrine, to which the judgments of men, naturally implanted in them, gave a
response: and he calls it his gospel, on account of the ministry; for the
authority for setting forth the gospel resides in the true God alone; and it was
only the dispensing of it that was committed to the Apostles. It is indeed no
matter of surprise, that the gospel is in part called the messenger and the
announcer of future judgment: for if the fulfillment and completion of what it
promises be deferred to the full revelation of the heavenly kingdom, it must
necessarily be connected with the last judgment: and further, Christ cannot be
preached without being a resurrection to some, and a destruction to others; and
both these things have a reference to the day of judgment. The words,
through Jesus
Christ, I apply to the day of judgment,
though they are regarded otherwise by some; and the meaning is, — that the
Lord will execute judgment by Christ, for he is appointed by the Father to be
the Judge of the living and of the dead, — which the Apostles always
mention among the main articles of the gospel. Thus the sentence will be full
and complete, which would otherwise be defective.
|
ROMANS
2:17-24
|
|
17. Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest
in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
|
17. Ecce, tu Iudæus cognominaris, et
acquiescis in Lege, et gloriaris in Deo,
|
|
18. And knowest his will, and approvest the things
that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
|
18. Et nosti voluntatem, et probas eximia,
institutus ex Lege;
|
|
19. And art confident that thou thyself art a
guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
|
19. Confidisque teipsum esse ducem
cæcorum, lumen eorum qui sunt in tenebris,
|
|
20. An instructer of the foolish, a teacher of
babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the
law.
|
20. Eruditorem insipientium, doctorem
imperitorum, habentem formam cognitionis ac veritatis in Lege:
|
|
21. Thou therefore which teachest another,
teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou
steal?
|
21. Qui igitur doces alterum, teipsum non
doces; qui concionaris, non furandum, furaris;
|
|
22. Thou that sayest a man should not commit
adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit
sacrilege?
|
22. Qui dicis, nom mœchandum,
mœcharis; qui detestaris idola, Sacrilegium perpetras;
|
|
23. Thou that makest thy boast of the law,
through breaking the law, dishonorest thou God?
|
23. Qui de Lege gloriaris, Deum per Legis
transgressionem dehonestas:
|
|
24. For the name of God is blasphremed among
the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
f76
|
24. Nomen enim Dei propter vos probro
afficitur inter gentes, quemadmodum scriptum est.
|
17.
Behold, thou art named a
Jew, etc. Some old copies read
eij
de<,
though
indeed; which, were it generally
received, would meet my approbation; but as the greater part of the manuscripts
is opposed to it, and the sense is not unsuitable, I retain the old reading,
especially as it is only a small difference of one letter.
f77
Having now completed what he meant to say of the
Gentiles, he returns to the Jews; and that he might, with greater force, beat
down their great vanity, he allows them all those privileges, by which they were
beyond measure transported and inflated: and then he shows how insufficient they
were for the attainment of true glory, yea, how they turned to their reproach.
Under the name
Jew
he includes all the privileges of the nation, which they vainly pretended were
derived from the law and the prophets; and so he comprehends all the Israelites,
all of whom were then, without any difference, called Jews.
But at what time this name first originated it is
uncertain, except that it arose, no doubt, after the dispersion.
f78
Josephus, in the eleventh book of his Antiquities, thinks that it gas
taken from Judas Maccabæus, under whose auspices the liberty and honor of
the people, after having for some time fallen, and been almost buried, revived
again. Though I allow this opinion to be probable, yet, if there be some to whom
it is not satisfactory, I will offer them a conjecture of my own. It seems,
indeed, very likely, that after having been degraded and scattered through so
many disasters, they were not able to retain any certain distinction as to their
tribes; for a census could not have been made at that time, nor did there exist
a regular government, which was necessary to preserve an order of this kind; and
they dwelt scattered and in disorder; and having been worn out by adversities,
they were no doubt less attentive to the records of their kindred. But though
you may not grant these things to me, yet it cannot be denied but that a danger
of this kind was connected with such disturbed state of things. Whether, then,
they meant to provide for the future, or to remedy an evil already received,
they all, I think assumed the name of that tribe, in which the purity of
religion remained the longest, and which, by a peculiar privilege, excelled all
the rest, as from it the Redeemer was expected to come; for it was their refuge
in all extremities, to console themselves with the expectation of the Messiah.
However this may be, by the name of Jews they avowed themselves to be the heirs
of the covenant which the Lord had made with Abraham and his
seed.
And restest in the law, and
gloriest in God, etc. He means not that they
rested in attending to the law, as though they applied their minds to the
keeping of it; but, on the contrary, he reproves them for not observing the end
for which the law had been given; for they had no care for its observance, and
were inflated on this account only, — because they were persuaded that the
oracles of God belonged to them. In the same way they
gloried in
God, not as the Lord commands by his
Prophet, — to humble ourselves, and to seek our glory in him alone,
(<240924>Jeremiah
9:24,) — but being without any knowledge of God’s goodness, they
made him, of whom they were inwardly destitute, peculiarly their own, and
assumed to be his people, for the purpose of vain ostentation before men. This,
then, was not the glorying of the heart, but the boasting of the
tongue.
18.
And knowest his will, and
approvest things excellent, etc. He now
concedes to them the knowledge of the divine will, and the approval of things
useful; and this they had attained from the doctrine of the law. But there is a
twofold approval, — one of choice, when we embrace the good we approve;
the other of judgment, by which indeed we distinguish good from evil, but by no
means strive or desire to follow it. Thus the Jews were so learned in the law
that they could pass judgment on the conduct of others, but were not careful to
regulate their life according to that judgment. But as Paul reproves their
hypocrisy, we may, on the other hand, conclude, that excellent things are then
only rightly approved (provided our judgment proceeds from sincerity) when God
is attended to; for his will, as it is revealed in the law, is here appointed as
the guide and teacher of what is to be justly approved.
f79
19.
And believest
thyself, etc. More is still granted to them; as
though they had not only what was sufficient for themselves, but also that by
which they could enrich others. He grants, indeed, that they had such abundance
of learning, as that others might have been supplied.
f80
20.
I take what follows, having the
form of knowledge, as a reason for the
preceding; and it may be thus explained, — “because thou hast the
form of knowledge.” For they professed to be the teachers of others,
because they seemed to carry in their breasts all the secrets of the law. The
word
form
is put for model (exemplar — pattern);
f81
for Paul has adopted
mo>rfwsin
and not
tu>pon:
but he intended, I think, to point out the conspicuous pomp of their teaching,
and what is commonly called display; and it certainly appears that they were
destitute of that knowledge which they pretended. But Paul, by indirectly
ridiculing the perverted use of the law, intimates, on the other hand, that
right knowledge must be sought from the law, in order that the truth may have a
solid basis.
21.
Thou, who then teachest another,
teachest not thyself, etc.
f82
Though the excellencies (encomia — commendations) which he has
hitherto stated respecting the Jews, were such as might have justly adorned
them, provided the higher ornaments were not wanting; yet as they included
qualifications of a neutral kind, which may be possessed even by the ungodly and
corrupted by abuse, they are by no means sufficient to constitute true glory.
And hence Paul, not satisfied with merely reproving and taunting their arrogance
in trusting in these things alone, employs them for the purpose of enhancing
their disgraceful conduct; for he exposes himself to no ordinary measure of
reproach, who not only renders useless the gifts of God, which are otherwise
valuable and excellent, but by his wickedness vitiates and contaminates them.
And a strange counselor is he, who consults not for his own good, and is wise
only for the benefit of others. He shows then that the praise which they
appropriated to themselves, turned out to their own disgrace.
Thou who preachest, steal
not, etc. He seems to have alluded to a passage
in
<195016>Psalm
50:16, where God says to the wicked, “Why dost thou declare my statutes,
and takest my covenant in thy mouth? And thou hatest reform, and hast cast my
words behind thee: when thou seest a thief, thou joinest him, and with
adulterers is thy portion.” And as this reproof was suitable to the Jews
in old time, who, relying on the mere knowledge of the law, lived in no way
better than if they had no law; so we must take heed, lest it should be turned
against us at this day: and indeed it may be well applied to many, who, boasting
of some extraordinary knowledge of the gospel, abandon themselves to every kind
of uncleanness, as though the gospel were not a rule of life. That we may not
then so heedlessly trifle with the Lord, let us remember what sort of judgment
impends over such prattlers, (logodœdalis — word-artificers,)
who make a show of God’s word by mere
garrulity.
22.
Thou who abhorrest
idols, etc. He fitly compares sacrilege to
idolatry, as it is a thing of the same kind; for sacrilege is simply a
profanation of the Divine Majesty, a sin not unknown to heathen poets. On this
account Ovid (Metamor. 3,) calls Lycurgus sacrilegious for
despising the rites of Bacchus; and in his Fasti he calls those
sacrilegious hands which violated the majesty of Venus. But as the Gentiles
ascribed the majesty of their gods to idols, they only thought it a sacrilege
when any one plundered what was dedicated to their temples, in which, as they
believed, the whole of religion centered. So at this day, where superstition
reigns, and not the word of God, they acknowledge no other kind of sacrilege
than the stealing of what belongs to churches, as there is no God but in idols,
no religion but in pomp and magnificence.
f83
Now we are here warned, first, not to flatter
ourselves and to despise others, when we have performed only some portions of
the law, — and, secondly, not to glory in having outward idolatry removed,
while we care not to drive away and to eradicate the impiety that lieth hid in
our hearts.
23.
Thou who Goriest its the
law, etc. Though every transgressor
dishonors God, (for we are all born for this end — to serve him in
righteousness and holiness;) yet he justly imputes in this respect a special
fault to the Jews; for as they avowed God as their Lawgiver, and yet had no care
to form their life according to his rule, they clearly proved that the majesty
of their God was not so regarded by them, but that they easily despised him. In
the same manner do they at this day dishonor Christ, by transgressing the
gospel, who prattle idly about its doctrine, while yet they tread it under foot
by their unbridled and licentious mode of
living.
24.
For the name of
God, etc. I think this quotation is
taken from
<263620>Ezekiel
36:20, rather than from
<235205>Isaiah
52:5; for in Isaiah there are no reproofs given to the people, but that chapter
in Ezekiel is full of reproofs. But some think that it is a proof from the less
to the greater, according to this import, “Since the Prophet upbraided,
not without cause, the Jews of his time, that on account of their captivity, the
glory and power of God were ridiculed among the Gentiles, as though he could not
have preserved the people, whom he had taken under his protection, much more are
ye a disgrace and dishonor to God, whose religion, being judged of by your
wicked life, is blasphemed.” This view I do not reject, but I prefer a
simpler one, such as the following, — “We see that all the
reproaches cast on the people of Israel do fall on the name of God; for as they
are counted, and are said to be the people of God, his name is as it were
engraven on their foreheads: it must hence be, that God, whose name they assume,
is in a manner defamed by men, through their wicked conduct.” It was then
a monstrous thing, that they who derived their glory from God should have
disgraced his holy name; for it behoved them surely to requite him in a
different manner.
f84
|
ROMANS
2:25-29
|
|
25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou
keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made
uncircumcision.
|
25. Nam circumcisio quidem prodest, si Legem
observes; quod si transgressor Legis fueris, circumcisio tua in præputium
versa est.
|
|
26. Therefore, if the uncircumcision keep the
righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for
circumcision?
|
26. Si ergo præputium justitias Legis
servaverit, nonne præputium ejus pro circumcisione
consebitur?
|
|
27. And shall not uncircumcision which is by
nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision
dost transgress the law?
|
27. Et judicabit quod ex natura est
præputium (si Legem servaverit) te qui per literam et circumcisionem
transgressor es Legis?
|
|
28. For he is not a Jew which is one
outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the
flesh:
|
28. Non enim qui est in aperto Iudæus
est; ne quæ in aperto est circumcisio in carne, ea est
circumcisio:
|
|
29. But he is a Jew which is one inwardly: and
circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose
praise is not of men, but of God.
|
29. Sed qui est in occulto Iudæus; et
circumcisio cordis in spiritu non litera; cujus laus non ex hominibus est sed ex
Deo.
|
25.
For circumcision indeed
profits, etc. He dissipates by
anticipation what the Jews might have objected in opposition to him in the
defense of their own cause: for since circumcision was a symbol of the
Lord’s covenant, by which he had chosen Abraham and his seed as his
peculiar people, they seemed not to have gloried in vain; but as they neglected
what the sign signified, and regarded only the outward form, he gives this
answer — That they had no reason to lay claim to any thing on account of
the bare sign. The true character of circumcision was a spiritual promise, which
required faith: the Jews neglected both, the promise as well as faith. Then
foolish was their confidence. Hence it is, that he omits to state here the main
use of circumcision, and proceeds to expose their gross error, as he does in his
Epistle to the Galatians. And this ought to be carefully noticed; for if he were
explaining the whole character and design of circumcision, it would have been
inconsistent in him not to have made mention of grace and free promise: but in
both instances he spoke according to what the subject he had in hand required,
and therefore he only discussed that part which was
controverted.
They thought that circumcision was of itself
sufficient for the purpose of obtaining righteousness. Hence, speaking according
to such an opinion, he gives this reply — That if this benefit be expected
from circumcision, it is on this condition, that he who is circumcised, must
serve God wholly and perfectly. Circumcision then requires perfection. The same
may be also said of our baptism: when any one confidently relies on the water of
baptism alone, and thinks that he is justified, as though he had obtained
holiness by that ordinance itself, the end of baptism must be adduced as an
objection; which is, that the Lord thereby calls us to holiness of life: the
grace and promise, which baptism testifies (testificatur) and seals,
(obsignat,) need not in this case to be mentioned; for our business is
with those who, being satisfied with the empty shadow of baptism, care not for
nor consider what is material (solidum — substantial) in it. And
this very thing you may observe in Paul — that when he speaks to the
faithful of signs, apart from controversy, he connects them with the efficacy
and fulfillment of the promises which belong to them; but when he contends with
the absurd and unskillful interpreters of signs, he omits all mention of the
proper and true character of signs, and directs his whole discourse against
their perverted interpretation.
Now many, seeing that Paul brings forward
circumcision rather than any other part of the law, suppose that he takes away
justification only from ceremonies: but the matter is far otherwise; for it
always happens, that those who dare to set up their own merits against the
righteousness of God, glory more in outward observances than in real goodness;
for no one, who is seriously touched and moved by the fear of God, will ever
dare to raise up his eyes to heaven, since the more he strives after true
righteousness, the clearer he sees how far he is from it. But as to the
Pharisees, who were satisfied with imitating holiness by an outward disguise, it
is no wonder that they so easily deluded themselves. Hence Paul, after having
left the Jews nothing, but this poor subterfuge of being justified by
circumcision, does now also take from them even this empty
pretense.
26.
If then the
uncircumcision, etc. This is a very strong
argument. Every thing is below its end and subordinate to it. Circumcision looks
to the law, and must therefore be inferior to it: it is then a greater thing to
keep the law than circumcision, which was for its sake instituted. It hence
follows, that the uncircumcised, provided he keeps the law, far excels the Jew
with his barren and unprofitable circumcision, if he be a transgressor of the
law: and though he is by nature polluted, he shall yet be so sanctified by
keeping the law, that uncircumcision shall be imputed to him for circumcision.
The word
uncircumcision,
is to be taken in its proper sense in the second clause; but in the first,
figuratively, for the Gentiles, the thing for the persons.
It must be added — that no one ought anxiously
to inquire what observers of the law are those of which Paul speaks here,
inasmuch no such can be found; for he simply intended to lay down a supposed
case — that if any Gentile could be found who kept the law, his
righteousness would be of more value without circumcision, than the circumcision
of the Jew without righteousness. And hence I refer what follows,
And what is by nature
uncircumcision shall judge thee, etc.,
not to persons, but to the case that is supposed, according to what is said of
the Queen of the south, that she shall come, etc.,
(<401242>Matthew
12:42,) and of the men of Nineveh, that they shall rise up in judgment, etc.,
(<421132>Luke
11:32) For the very words of Paul lead us to this view — “The
Gentile,” he says, “being a keeper of the law, shall judge thee who
art a transgressor, though he is uncircumcised, and thou hast the literal
circumcision.”
27.
By the letter and
circumcision, etc. A construction
f85
which means a literal circumcision. He does not mean that they violated the law,
because they had the literal circumcision; but because they continued, though
they had the outward rite, to neglect the spiritual worship of God, even piety,
justice, judgment, and truth, which are the chief matters of the law.
f86
28.
For a Jew is not
he, etc. The meaning is, that a real Jew
is not to be ascertained, either by natural descent, or by profession, or by an
external symbol; that the circumcision which constitutes a Jew, does not consist
in an outward sign only, but that both are inward. And what he subjoins with
regard to true circumcision, is taken from various passages of Scripture, and
even from its general teaching; for the people are everywhere commanded to
circumcise their hearts, and it is what the Lord promises to do. The fore-skin
was cut off, not indeed as the small corruption of one part, but as that of the
whole nature. Circumcision then signified the mortification of the whole
flesh.
29. What he then adds,
in the spirit, not in the
letter, understand thus: He calls the
outward rite, without piety, the
letter, and the spiritual design of this
rite, the
spirit; for the whole importance of
signs and rites depends on what is designed; when the end in view is not
regarded, the letter alone remains, which in itself is useless. And the reason
for this mode of speaking is this, — where the voice of God sounds, all
that he commands, except it be received by men in sincerity of heart, will
remain in the letter, that is, in the dead writing; but when it penetrates into
the heart, it is in a manner transformed into spirit. And there is an allusion
to the difference between the old and the new covenant, which Jeremiah points
out in
<243133>Jeremiah
31:33; where the Lord declares that his covenant would be firm and permanent
when engraven on the inward parts. Paul had also the same thing in view in
another place,
(<470306>2
Corinthians 3:6,) where he compares the law with the gospel, and calls the
former “the letter,” which is not only dead but killeth; and the
latter he signalizes with the title of “spirit.” But extremly gross
has been the folly of those who have deduced a double meaning from the
“letter,” and allegories from the
“spirit.”
Whose praise is not from
men, etc. As men fix their eyes only on those
things which are visible, he denies that we ought to be satisfied with what is
commendable in the estimation of men, who are often deceived by outward
splendor; but that we ought to be satisfied with the all-seeing eyes of God,
from which the deepest secrets of the heart are not hid. He thus again summons
hypocrites, who soothe themselves with false opinions, to the tribunal of
God.
CHAPTER 3
|
ROMANS
3:1-2
|
|
1. What advantage
f87
then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
|
1. Quae igitur praerogativa Iudaei, aut quae
utilitas circumcisionis?
|
|
2. Much every way: chiefly, because that unto
them were committed the oracles of God.
|
2. Multa per omnem modem; ac primum quidem,
quod illis credits sunt oracula Dei.
|
1. Though Paul has clearly proved that bare
circumcision brought nothing to the Jews, yet since he could not deny but that
there was some difference between the Gentiles and the Jesus, which by that
symbol was sealed to them by the Lord, and since it was inconsistent to make a
distinction, of which God was the author, void and of no moment, it remained for
him to remove also this objection. It was indeed evident, that it was a foolish
glorying in which the Jews on this account indulged; yet still a doubt remained
as to the design of circumcision; for the Lord would not have appointed it had
not some benefit been intended. He therefore, by way of an objection, asks, what
it was that made the Jew superior to the Gentile; and he subjoins a reason for
this by another question, What is
the benefit of circumcision? For this
separated the Jews from the common class of men; it was a partition-wall, as
Paul calls ceremonies, which kept parties
asunder.
2.
Much in every
way, etc.; that is, very much. He begins here
to give the sacrament its own praise; but he concedes not, that on this account
the Jews ought to have been proud; for when he teaches that they were sealed by
the symbol of circumcision, by which they were counted the children of God, he
does not allow that they became superior to others through any merit or
worthiness of their own, but through the free mercy of God. If then regard be
had to them as men, he shows that they were on a level with others; but if the
favors of God be taken to the account, he admits that they possessed what made
them more eminent than other men.
First, indeed, because, interested
to them, etc. Some think there is here
an unfinished period, for he sets down what he does not afterwards complete. But
the word first seems not to me to be a note of number, but means
chiefly” or especially,
f88
and is to be taken in this sense — “Though it were but this one
thing, that they have the oracles
f89
of God committed to them, it might be deemed sufficient to prove their
superiority.” And it is worthy of being noticed, that the advantage of
circumcision is not made to consist in the naked sign, but its value is derived
from the word; for Paul asks here what benefit the sacrament conferred on the
Jews, and he answers, that God had deposited with them the treasure of celestial
wisdom. It hence follows, that, apart from the word, no excellency remained. By
oracles he means the covenant which God revealed first to Abraham and to
his posterity, and afterwards sealed and unfolded by the law and the
Prophets.
Now the oracles were committed to them, for the
purpose of preserving them as long as it pleased the Lord to continue his glory
among them, and then of publishing them during the time of their stewardship
through the whole world: they were first depositories, and secondly dispensers.
But if this benefit was to be so highly esteemed when the Lord favored one
nation only with the revelation of his word, we can never sufficiently reprobate
our ingratitude, who receive his word with so much negligence or with so much
carelessness, not to say disdain.
|
ROMANS
3:3-4
|
|
3. For what if some did not believe? shall
their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
|
3. Quid enigma si quidem fuerunt increduli?
Num incredulitas eorum fidem Dei faciet irritam?
|
|
4. God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every
man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings,
and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
|
4. Ne ita sit; quin sit Deus verax, omnis
autem homo mendax; quemadmodum scriptum est, ut justificeris in sermonibus tuis,
et vincas quum judicaris.
f90
|
3.
What indeed if
some, etc. As before, while regarding
the Jews as exulting in the naked sign, he allowed them no not even a spark of
glory; so now, while considering the nature of the sign, he testifies that its
virtue (virtutem, efficacy) is not destroyed, no, not even by their
inconstancy. As then he seemed before to have intimated that whatever grace
there might have been in the sign of circumcision, it had wholly vanished
through the ingratitude of the Jews, he now, anticipating an objection, again
asks what opinion was to be formed of it. There is here indeed a sort of
reticence, as he expresses less than what he intended to be understood; for he
might have truly said that a great part of the nation had renounced the covenant
of God; but as this would have been very grating to the ears of the Jews, he
mitigated its severity, and mentioned only some.
Shall their
unbelief, etc.
Katargei~n
is properly to render void and ineffectual; a meaning most suitable to this
passage. For Paul’s inquiry is not so much whether the unbelief of men
neutralizes the truth of God, so that it should not in itself remain firm and
constant, but whether it hinders its effect and fulfillment as to men. The
meaning then is, “Since most of the Jews are covenant-breakers, is
God’s covenant so abrogated by their perfidiousness that it brings forth
no fruit among them? To this he answers, that it cannot be that the truth of God
should lose its stability through man’s wickedness. Though then the
greater part had nullified and trodden under foot God’s covenant, it yet
retained its efficacy and manifested its power, not indeed as to all, but with
regard to a few of that nation: and it is then efficacious when the grace or the
blessing of the Lord avails to eternal salvation. But this cannot be, except
when the promise is received by faith; for it is in this way that a mutual
covenant is on both sides confirmed. He then means that some ever remained in
that nation, who by continuing to believe in the promise, had not fallen away
from the privileges of the covenant.
4.
But let God be
true, etc. Whatever may be the opinion
of others, I regard this as an argument taken from the necessary consequence of
what is opposed to it, by which Paul invalidates the preceding objection. For
since these two things stand together, yea, necessarily accord, that God is true
and that man is false, it follows that the truth of God is not nullified by the
falsehood of men; for except he did now set those two things in opposition, the
one to the other, he would afterwards have in vain labored to refute what was
absurd, and show how God is just, though he manifests his justice by our
unjustice. Hence the Leaning is by no I means ambiguous, — that the
faithfulness of God is so far from being nullified by the perfidy and apostasy
of men that it thereby becomes more evident. “God,” he says,
“is true, not only because he is prepared to stand faithfully to
his promises, but because he also really fulfills whatever he declares; for he
so speaks, that his command becomes a reality. On the other hand, man is
false, not only because he often violates his pledged faith, but because he
naturally seeks falsehood and shuns the truth.”
The first clause contains the primary axiom of all
Christian philosophy; the latter is taken from
<19B401>Psalm
114:11, where David confesses that there is nothing certain from man or in
man.
Now this is a remarkable passage, and contains a
consolation that is much needed; for such is the perversity of men in rejecting
and despising God’s word, that its truth would be often doubted were not
this to come to our minds, that God’s verity depends not on man’s
verity. But how I does this agree with what has been said previously —
that in order to make the divine promise effectual, faith, which receives it, is
on the part of men necessary? for faith stands opposed to falsehood. This seems,
indeed, to be a difficult question; but it may with no great difficulty be
answered, and in this way — the Lord, notwithstanding the lies of men, and
though these are hinderances to his truth, does yet find a way for it through a
pathless track, that he may come forth a conqueror, and that is, by correcting
in his elect the inbred unbelief of our nature, and by subjecting to his service
those who seem to be unconquerable. It must be added, that the discourse here is
concerning the corruption of nature, and not the grace of God, which is the
remedy for that corruption.
That thou mightest be
justified, etc. The sense is, So for is it that
the truth of God is destroyed by our falsehood and unfaithfulness, that it
thereby shines forth and appears more evident, according to the testimony of
David, who says, that as he was sinner, God was a just and righteous Judge in
whatever he determined respecting him, and that he would overcome all the
calumnies of the ungodly who murmured against his righteousness. By the
words of God, David means the judgments which he pronounces upon us; for
the common application of these to promises is too strained: and so the particle
that, is not so much final, nor refers to a far-fetched consequence, but
implies an inference according to this purport, “Against thee have I
sinned; justly then dost thou punish me.” And that Paul has quoted this
passage according to the proper and real meaning of David, is clear from the
objection that is immediately added, “How shall the righteousness of God
remain perfect if our iniquity illustrates it?” For in vain, as I have
already observed, and unseasonable has Paul arrested the attention of his
readers with this difficulty, except David meant, that God, in his wonderful
providence, elicited from the sins of men a praise to his own righteousness. The
second clause in Hebrew is this, “And that thou mightest be pure in thy
judgment;” which expression imports nothing else but that God in all his
judgments is worthy of praise, how much soever the ungodly may clamor and strive
by their complaints disgracefully to efface his glory. But Paul has followed the
Greek version, which answered his purpose here even better. We indeed know that
the Apostles in quoting Scripture often used a freer language than the original;
for they counted it enough to quote what was suitable to their subject: hence
they made no great account of words.
The application then of this passage is the
following: Since all the sins of mortals must serve to illustrate the glory of
the Lord, and since he is especially glorified by his truth, it follows, that
even the falsehood of men serves to confirm rather than to subvert his truth.
Though the word
kri>nesqai,
may be taken actively as well as passively, yet the Greek translators, I have no
doubt, rendered it passively, contrary to the meaning of the Prophet.
f91
|
ROMANS
3:5-8
|
|
5. But if our unrighteousness commend the
righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh
vengeance? (I speak as a man)
|
5. Quod si injustitia nostra Dei justitiam
commendat, quid dicemus? Num injustus est Deus qui infert iram? Secundum hominem
dico.
|
|
6. God forbid: for then how shall God judge
the world?
|
6. Ne ita sit: nam quomodo judicabit Deus
mundum?
|
|
7. For if the truth of God hath more abounded
through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a
sinner?
|
7. Si enim veritas Dei per meum mendacium
excelluit in ejus gloriam; quid etiammum et ego velut peccator
judicor;
|
|
8. And not rather, (as we be slanderously
reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come?
whose damnation is just.
|
8. Et non (quemadmodum exprobratur nobis, et
quemadmodum aiunt quidam nos dicere) Faciamus mala, ut veniant bona? quorum
judicium justum est.
|
5.
But if our
unrighteousness, etc. Though this is a
digression from the main subject, it was yet necessary for the Apostle to
introduce it, lest he should seem to give to the ill-disposed an occasion to
speak evil, which he knew would be readily laid hold on by them. For since they
were watching for every opportunity to defame the gospel, they had, in the
testimony of David, what they might have taken for the purpose of founding a
calumny, — “If God seeks nothing else, but to be glorified by men,
why does he punish them, when they offend, since by offending they glorify him?
Without cause then surely is he offended, if he derives the reason of his
displeasure from that by which he is glorified.” There is, indeed, no
doubt, but that this was an ordinary, and everywhere a common calumny, as it
will presently appear. Hence Paul could not have covertly passed it by; but that
no one should think that he expressed the sentiments of his own mind, he
premises that he assumes the person of the ungodly; and at the same time, he
sharply, touches, by a single expression, on human reason; whose work, as he
intimates, is ever to bark against the wisdom of God; for he says not,
“according to the ungodly,” but “according to man,” or
as man. And thus indeed it is, for all the mysteries of God are paradoxes to the
flesh: and at the same tine it possesses so much audacity, that it fears not to
oppose them and insolently to assail what it cannot comprehend. We are hence
reminded, that if we desire to become capable of understanding them, we must
especially labor to become freed from our own reason, (proprio sensu) and
to give up ourselves, and unreservedly to submit to his word. — The word
wrath, taken here for judgment, refers to punishment; as though he said,
“Is God unjust, who punishes those sins which set forth his
righteousness?”
6.
By no
means, etc. In checking this blasphemy he gives
not a direct reply to the objection, but begins with expressing his abhorrence
of it, lest the Christian religion should even appear to include absurdities so
great. And this is more weighty than if he adopted a simple denial; for he
implies, that this impious expression deserved to be regarded with horror, and
not to be heard. He presently subjoins what may be called an indirect
refutation; for he does not distinctly refute the calumny, but gives only this
reply, — that the objection was absurd. Moreover, he takes an argument
from an office which belongs to God, by which he proves it to be in possible,
— God shall judge the
world; he cannot then be
unjust.
This argument is not derived, so to speak, from the
mere power of God, but from his exercised power, which shines forth in the whole
arrangement and order of his works; a though he said, — “It is
God’s work to judge the world, that is, to rectify it by his own
righteousness, and to reduce to the best order whatever there is in it out of
order: he cannot then determine any thing unjustly.” And he seems to
allude to a passage recorded by Moses, in
<011825>Genesis
18:25, where it is said, that when Abraham prayed God not to deliver Sodom
wholly to destruction, he spoke to this purpose, —
“It is not meet, that thou who art
to judge the earth, shouldest destroy the just with the ungodly: for this is not
thy work nor can it be done by thee.”
A similar declaration is found in
<183417>Job
34:17, —
“Should he who
hates judgment exercise power?”
For though there are found among men unjust judges,
yet this happens, because they usurp authority contrary to law and right, or
because they are inconsiderately raised to that eminence, or because they
degenerate from themselves. But there is nothing of this kind with regard to
God. Since, then, he is by nature judge, it must be that he is just, for he
cannot deny himself. Paul then proves from what is impossible, that God is
absurdly accused of unrighteousness; for to him peculiarly and naturally belongs
the work of justly governing the world. And though what Paul teaches extends to
the constant government of God, yet I allow that it has a special reference to
the last judgment; for then only a real restoration of just order will take
place. But if you wish for a direct refutation, by which profane things of this
kind may be checked, take this, and say, “That it comes not through what
unrighteousness is, that God’s righteousness becomes more illustrious, but
that our wickedness is so surpassed by God’s goodness, that it is turned
to serve an end different from that to which it
tends.”
7.
If indeed
f92
the truth of
God, etc. This objection, I have no
doubt, is adduced in the person of the ungodly; for it is a sort of an
explanation of the former verse, and would have been connected with it, had not
the Apostle, moved with indignation, broken off the sentence in the middle. The
meaning of the objection is — “If by our unfaithfulness the truth of
God becomes more conspicuous, and in a manner confirmed, and hence more glory
redounds to him, it is by no means just, that he, who serves to display
God’s glory, should be punished as a sinner.”
f93
8.
And
not, etc. This is an elliptical
sentence, in which a word is to be understood. It will be complete, if you read
it thus, — “and why is it not rather said, (as we are reproached,
etc.) that we are to do evils, that good things may come?” But the Apostle
deigns not to answer the slander; which yet we may check by the most solid
reason. The pretense, indeed, is this, — “If God is by our iniquity
glorified, and if nothing can be done by man in this life more befitting than to
promote the glory of God, then let us sin to advance his glory!” Now the
answer to this is evident, — “That evil cannot of itself produce
anything but evil; and that God’s glory is through our sin illustrated, is
not the work of man, but the work of God; who, as a wonderful worker, knows how
to overcome our wickedness, and to convert it to another end, so as to turn it
contrary to what we intend, to the promotion of his own glory.” God has
prescribed to us the way, by which he would have himself to be glorified by us,
even by true piety, which consists in obedience to his word. He who leaps over
this boundary, strives not to honor God, but to dishonor him. That it turns out
otherwise, is to be ascribed to the Providence of God, and not to the wickedness
of man; through which it comes not, that the majesty of God is not injured, nay,
wholly overthrown
f94
(As we are reproached,) etc. Since Paul speaks
so reverently of the secret judgments of God, it is a wonder that his enemies
should have fallen into such wantonness as to calumniate him: but there has
never been so much reverence and seriousness displayed by God’s servants
as to be sufficient to check impure and virulent tongues. It is not then a new
thing, that adversaries at this day load with so many false accusations, and
render odious our doctrine, which we ourselves know to be the pure gospel of
Christ, and all the angels, as well as the faithful, are our witnesses. Nothing
can be imagined more monstrous than what we read here was laid to the charge of
Paul, to the end, that his preaching might be rendered hateful to the
inexperienced. Let us then bear this evil, when the ungodly abuse the truth
which we preach by their calumnies: nor let us cease, on this account,
constantly to defend the genuine confession of it, inasmuch as it has sufficient
power to crush and to dissipate their falsehoods. Let us, at the same time,
according to the Apostle’s example, oppose, as much as we can, all
malicious subtilties, (technis — crafts, wiles,) that the base and
the abandoned may not, without some check, speak evil of our
Creator.
Whose judgment is
just. Some take this in an active sense, as
signifying that Paul so far assents to them, that what they objected was absurd,
in order that the doctrine of the gospel might not be thought to be connected
with such paradoxes: but I approve more of the passive meaning; for it would not
have been suitable simply to express an approval of such a wickedness, which, on
the contrary, deserved to be severely condemned; and this is what Paul seems to
me to have done. And their perverseness was, on two accounts, to be condemned,
— first, because this impiety had gained the assent of their minds; and
secondly, because, in traducing the gospel, they dared to draw from it their
calumny.
|
ROMANS
3:9
|
|
9. What then? are we better than they?
No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are
all under sin.
|
9. Quid ergo? præcellimus?
f95
Nequaquam: ante enim constituimus tam Judæos quam Græcos, omnes sub
peccato esse.
|
9.
What
then? He returns from his digression to
his subject. For lest the Jews should object that they were deprived of their
right, as he had mentioned those distinctions of honor, for which they thought
themselves superior to the Gentiles, he now at length replies to the question
— in what respect they excelled the Gentiles. And though his answer seems
in appearance to militate against what he had said before, (for he now strips
those of all dignity to whom he had attributed so much,) there is yet no
discord; for those privileges in which he allowed them to be eminent, were
separate from themselves, and dependent on God’s goodness, and not on
their own merit: but here he makes inquiry as to their own worthiness, whether
they could glory in any respect in themselves. Hence the two answers he gives so
agree together, that the one follows from the other; for while he extols their
privileges, by including them among the free benefits of God, he shows that they
had nothing of their own. Hence, what he now answers might have been easily
inferred; for since it was their chief superiority, that God’s oracles
were deposited with them, and they had it not through their own merit, there was
nothing left for them, on account of which they could glory before God. Now mark
the holy contrivance (sanctum artificium) which he adopts; for when he
ascribes pre-eminency to them, he speaks in the third person; but when he strips
them of all things, he puts himself among them, that he might avoid giving
offense.
For we have before brought a
charge, etc. The Greek verb which Paul
adopts,
aijtia>sqai
is properly a forensic term; and I have therefore preferred to render it,
“We have brought a charge;”
f96
for an accuser in an action is said to charge a crime, which he is prepared to
substantiate by testimonies and other proofs. Now the Apostle had summoned all
mankind universally before the tribunal of God, that he might include all under
the same condemnation: and it is to no purpose for any one to object, and say
that the Apostle here not only brings a charge, but more especially proves it;
for a charge is not true except it depends on solid and strong evidences,
according to what Cicero says, who, in a certain place, distinguishes
between a charge and a slander. We must add, that to be under sin means that we
are justly condemned as sinners before God, or that we are held under the curse
which is due to sin; for as righteousness brings with it absolution, so sin is
followed by condemnation.
|
ROMANS
3:10-18
|
|
10. As it is written, There is none righteous,
no, not one:
|
10. Sicut scriptum, Quod non est justus
quisquam, ne unus quidem;
|
|
11. There is none that understandeth, there is
none that seeketh after God.
|
11. Non est intelligens, non est qui requirat
Deum;
|
|
12. They are all gone out of the way, they are
together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not
one.
|
12. Omnes declinarunt, simul facti sunt
inutiles; non est qui exerceat benignitatem, ne ad unum quidem:
|
|
13. Their throat is an open sepulchre: with
their tongues they have used deceit: the poison of asps is under their
lips:
|
13. Sepulchrum apertum guttur eorum; linguis
dolose egerunt: venenum aspidum sub labiis eorum:
|
|
14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and
bitterness:
|
14. Quorum os execratione et amarulentia
plenum:
|
|
15. Their feet are swift to shed
blood:
|
15. Veloces pedes eorum ad effundendum
sanguinem;
|
|
16. Destruction and misery are in their
ways:
|
16. Contritio et calamitas in viis
eorum;
|
|
17. And the way of peace have they not
known:
|
17. Et viam pacis non
noverunt:
|
|
18. There is no fear of God before their
eyes.
|
18. Non est timor Dei præ oculis eorum.
f97
|
10.
As it is
written, etc. He has hitherto used
proofs or arguments to convince men of their iniquity; he now begins to reason
from authority; and it is to Christians the strongest kind of proof, when
authority is derived from the only true God. And hence let ecclesiastical
teachers learn what their office is; for since Paul asserts here no truth but
what he confirms by the sure testimony of Scripture, much less ought such a
thing to be attempted by those, who have no other commission but to preach the
gospel, which they have received through Paul and others.
There is none
righteous, etc. The Apostle, who gives
the meaning rather than the entire words, seems, in the first place, before he
comes to particulars, to state generally the substance of what the Prophet
declares to be in man, and that is —
that none is
righteous;
f98
he afterwards particularly enumerates the effects or fruits of this
unrighteousness.
11. The first effect is,
that there is none that
understands: and then this ignorance is
immediately proved, for they seek not God; for empty is the man in whom
there is not the knowledge of God, whatever other learning he may possess; yea,
the sciences and the arts, which in themselves are good, are empty things, when
they are without this groundwork.
12. It
is added,
f99
There is no one who doeth
kindness. By this we are to understand,
that they had put of every feeling of humanity. For as the best bond of mutual
concord among us is the knowledge of God, (as he is the common Father of all, he
wonderfully unites us, and without him there is nothing but disunion,) so
inhumanity commonly follows where there is ignorance of God, as every one, when
he despises others, loves and seeks his own
good.
13. It is further added,
Their throat is an open
grave;
f100
that is, a gulf to swallow up men. It is more than if he had said, that they
were devours
(ajnqrwpofa>gouv
— men-eaters;) for it is an intimation of extreme barbarity, when the
throat is said to be so great a gulf, that it is sufficient to swallow down and
devour men whole and entire.
Their tongues are
deceitful, and,
the poison of asps is under
their lips, import the same
thing,
14. Then he says, that
their mouth is full of cursing
ant bitterness f101 — a vice
of an opposite character to the former; but the meaning is, that they are in
every way full of wickedness; for if they speak fair, they deceive and blend
poison with their flatteries; but if they draw forth what they have in their
hearts, bitterness and cursing stream
out.
16. Very striking is the sentence
that is added from Isaiah, Ruin
and misery are in all their ways;
f102
for it is a representation of ferociousness above measure barbarous, which
produces solitude and waste by destroying every thing wherever it prevails: it
is the same as the description which Pliny gives of
Domitian.
17. It follows,
The way of peace they have not
known: they are so habituated to
plunders, acts of violence and wrong, to savageness and cruelty, that they know
not how to act kindly and
courteously.
18. In the last clause
f103
he repeats again, in other words, what we have noticed at the beginning —
that every wickedness flows from a disregard of God: for as the principal part
of wisdom is the fear of God, when we depart from that, there remains in us
nothing right or pure. In short, as it is a bridle to restrain our wickedness,
so when it is wanting, we feel at liberty to indulge every kind of
licentiousness.
And that these testimonies may not seem to any one to
have been unfitly produced, let us consider each of them in connection with the
passages from which they have been taken. David says in
<191401>Psalm
14:1, that there was such perverseness in men, that God, when looking on them
all in their different conditions, could not find a righteous man, no, not one.
It then follows, that this evil pervaded mankind universally; for nothing is hid
from the sight of God. He speaks indeed at the end of the Psalm of the
redemption of Israel: but we shall presently show how men become holy, and how
far they are exempt from this condition. In the other Psalms he speaks of the
treachery of his enemies, while he was exhibiting in himself and in his
descendants a type of the kingdom of Christ: hence we have in his adversaries
the representatives of all those, who being alienated from Christ, are not led
by his Spirit. Isaiah expressly mentions Israel; and therefore his charge
applies with still greater force against the Gentiles. What, then? There is no
doubt but that the character of men is described in those words, in order that
we may see what man is when left to himself; for Scripture testifies that all
men are in this state, who are not regenerated by the grace of God. The
condition of the saints would be nothing better, were not this depravity
corrected in them: and that they may still remember that they differ nothing
from others by nature, they do find in the relics of their flesh (by which they
are always encompassed) the seeds of those evils, which would constantly produce
fruits, were they not prevented by being mortified; and for this mortification
they are indebted to God’s mercy and not to their own nature. We may add,
that though all the vices here enumerated are not found conspicuously in every
individual, yet they may be justly and truly ascribed to human nature, as we
have already observed on
<450126>Romans
1:26.
|
ROMANS
3:19-20
|
|
19. Now we know, that what things soever the
law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be
stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
|
19. Scimus autem quod quæcunque Lex
dicit, iis qui in Lege sunt loquitur; ut omne os obstruatur, et obnoxius fiat
omnis mundus Deo.
f104
|
|
20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there
shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge
of sin.
|
20. Quoniam ex operibus Legis non
justificabitur omnis caro coram ipso; per Legem enim agnitio
peccati.
|
19.
Now we
know, etc. Leaving the Gentiles, he
distinctly addresses his words to the Jews; for he had a much more difficult
work in subduing them, because they, though no less destitute of true
righteousness than the Gentiles, yet covered themselves with the cloak of
God’s covenant, as though it was a sufficient holiness to them to have
been separated from the rest of the world by the election of God. And he indeed
mentions those evasions which he well understood the Jews were ready to bring
forward; for whatever was said in the law unfavorably of mankind, they usually
applied to the Gentiles, as though they were exempt from the common condition of
men, and no doubt they would have been so, had they not fallen from their own
dignity. Hence, that no false conceit as to their own worthiness should be a
hinderance to them, and that they might not confine to the Gentiles alone what
applied to them in common with others, Paul here anticipates them, and shows,
from what Scripture declares, that they were not only blended with the
multitude, but that condemnation was peculiarly denounced on them. And we indeed
see the discretion of the Apostle in undertaking to refute these objections; for
to whom but to the Jews had the law been given, and to whose instruction but
theirs ought it to have served? What then it states respecting others is as it
were accidental; or as they say, parergon, an appendage; but it applies its
teaching mainly to its own disciples.
Under the
law. He says that the Jews were those to
whom the law was destined, it hence follows, that it especially regards them;
and under the word law he includes also the Prophets, and so the whole of the
Old Testament. —
That every mouth may be
stopped, etc.; that is, that every
evasion may be cut off, and every occasion for excuse. It is a metaphor taken
from courts of law, where the accused, if he has anything to plead as a lawful
defense, demands leave to speak, that he might clear himself from the things
laid to his charge; but if he is convicted by his own conscience, he is silent,
and without saying a word waits for his condemnation, being even already by his
own silence condemned. Of the same meaning is this saying in
<184004>Job
40:4, “I will lay my hand on my mouth.” He indeed says, that though
he was not altogether without some kind of excuse, he would yet cease to justify
himself, and submit to the sentence of God. The next clause contains the
explanation; for his mouth is stopped, who is so fast held by the sentence of
condemnation, that he can by no means escape. According to another sense, to be
silent before the Lord is to tremble at his majesty, and to stand mute, being
astonished at his brightness.
f105
20.
Therefore by the works of the
law, etc. It is a matter of doubt, even
among the learned, what the works of the law mean. Some extend them to the
observance of the whole law, while others confine them to the ceremonies alone.
The addition of the word
law
induced Chrysostom, Origenn, and Jerome to assent to the latter
opinion;
f106
for they thought that there is a peculiar intimation in this appendage, that the
expression should not be understood as including all works. But this difficulty
may be very easily removed: for seeing works are so far just before God as we
seek by them to render to him worship and obedience, in order expressly to take
away the power of justifying from all works, he has mentioned those, if there be
any, which can possibly justify; for the law hath promises, without which there
would be no value in our works before God. You hence see the reason why Paul
expressly mentioned the works of the law; for it is by the law that a reward is
apportioned to works. Nor was this unknown to the schoolmen, who held it as an
approved and common maxim, that works have no intrinsic worthiness, but become
meritorious by covenant. And though they were mistaken, inasmuch as they saw not
that works are ever polluted with vices, which deprive them of any merit, yet
this principle is still true, that the reward for works depends on the free
promise of the law. Wisely then and rightly does Paul speak here; for he speaks
not of mere works, but distinctly and expressly refers to the keeping of the
law, the subject which he is discussing.
f107
As to those things which have been adduced by learned
men in defense of this opinion, they are weaker than they might have been. They
think that by mentioning circumcision, an example is propounded, which belonged
to ceremonies only: but why Paul mentioned circumcision, we have already
explained; for none swell more with confidence in works than hypocrites, and we
know that they glory only in external masks; and then circumcision, according to
their view, was a sort of initiation into the righteousness of the law; and
hence it seemed to them a work of primary excellence, and indeed the basis as it
were of the righteousness of works. — They also allege what is said in the
Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul handles the same subject, and refers to
ceremonies only; but that also is not sufficiently strong to support what they
wish to defend. It is certain that Paul had a controversy with those who
inspired the people with a false confidence in ceremonies; that he might cut of
this confidence, he did not confine himself to ceremonies, nor did he speak
specifically of what value they were; but he included the whole law, as it is
evident from those passages which are derived from that source. Such also was
the character of the disputation held at Jerusalem by the
disciples.
But we contend, not without reason, that Paul speaks
here of the whole law; for we are abundantly supported by the thread of
reasoning which he has hitherto followed and continues to follow, and there are
many other passages which will not allow us to think otherwise. It is therefore
a truth, which deserves to be remembered as the first in importance, —
that by keeping the law no one can attain righteousness. He had before assigned
the reason, and he will repeat it presently again, and that is, that all, being
to a man guilty of transgression, are condemned for unrighteousness by the law.
And these two things — to be justified by works — and to be guilty
of transgressions, (as we shall show more at large as we proceed,) are wholly
inconsistent the one with the other. — The word
flesh,
without some particular specification, signifies men;
f108
though it seems to convey a meaning somewhat more general, as it is more
expressive to say, “All mortals,” than to say, “All
men,” as you may see in Gallius.
For by the
law, etc. He reasons from what is of an
opposite character, — that righteousness is not brought to us by the law,
because it convinces us of sin and condemns us; for life and death proceed not
from the same fountain. And as he reasons from the contrary effect of the law,
that it cannot confer righteousness on us, let us know, that the argument does
not otherwise hold good, except we hold this as an inseparable and unvarying
circumstance, — that by showing to man his sin, it cuts off the hope of
salvation. It is indeed by itself, as it teaches us what righteousness is, the
way to salvation: but our depravity and corruption prevent it from being in this
respect of any advantage to us. It is also necessary in the second place to add
this, — that whosoever is found to be a sinner, is deprived of
righteousness; for to devise with the sophisters a half kind of righteousness,
so that works in part justify, is frivolous: but nothing is in this respect
gained, on account of man’s corruption.
|
ROMANS
3:21-22
|
|
21. But now the righteousness of God without
the law
f109
is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
|
21. Nunc autem sine Lege justitia Dei
manifesto est, testimonio comprobata Legis et prophetarum;
|
|
22. Even the righteousness of God which
is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for
there is no difference:
|
22. Justitia, inquam, Dei per fidem Iesu
Christi, in omnes et super omnes credentes; non est sanè
distinctio:
|
21.
But now without the
law, etc. It is not certain for what
distinct reason he calls that the righteousness of God, which we obtain by
faith; whether it be, because it can alone stand before God, or because the Lord
in his mercy confers it on us. As both interpretations are suitable, we contend
for neither. This righteousness then, which God communicates to man, and accepts
alone, and owns as righteousness, has been revealed, he says,
without the
law, that is without the aid of the law;
and the law is to be understood as meaning works; for it is not proper to refer
this to its teaching, which he immediately adduces as bearing witness to the
gratuitous righteousness of faith. Some confine it to ceremonies; but this view
I shall presently show to be unsound and frigid. We ought then to know, that the
merits of works are excluded. We also see that he blends not works with the
mercy of God; but having taken away and wholly removed all confidence in works,
he sets up mercy alone.
It is not unknown to me, that Augustine gives a
different explanation; for he thinks that the righteousness of God is the grace
of regeneration; and this grace he allows to be free, because God renews us,
when unworthy, by his Spirit; and from this he excludes the works of the law,
that is, those works, by which men of themselves endeavor, without renovation,
to render God indebted to them. (Deum promereri — to oblige God.) I
also well know, that some new speculators proudly adduce this sentiment, as
though it were at this day revealed to them. But that the Apostle includes all
works without exception, even those which the Lord produces in his own people,
is evident from the context.
For no doubt Abraham was regenerated and led by the
Spirit of God at the time when he denied that he was justified by works. Hence
he excluded from man’s justification not only works morally good, as they
commonly call them, and such as are done by the impulse of nature, but also all
those which even the faithful can perform.
f110
Again, since this is a definition of the righteousness of faith, “Blessed
are they whose iniquities are forgiven,” there is no question to be made
about this or that kind of work; but the merit of works being abolished, the
remission of sins alone is set down as the cause of
righteousness.
They think that these two things well agree, —
that man is justified by faith through the grace of Christ, — and that he
is yet justified by the works, which proceed from spiritual regeneration; for
God gratuitously renews us, and we also receive his gift by faith. But Paul
takes up a very different principle, — that the consciences of men will
never be tranquillized until they recumb on the mercy of God alone.
f111
Hence, in another place, after having taught us that God is in Christ justifying
men, he expresses the manner, — “by not imputing to them their
sins.” In like manner, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he puts the law in
opposition to faith with regard to justification; for the law promises life to
those who do what it commands,
(<480312>Galatians
3:12;) and it requires not only the outward performance of works, but also
sincere love to God. It hence follows, that in the righteousness of faith, no
merit of works is allowed. It then appears evident, that it is but a frivolous
sophistry to say, that we are justified in Christ, because we are renewed by the
Spirit, inasmuch as we are the members of Christ, — that we are justified
by faith, because we are united by faith to the body of Christ, — that we
are justified freely, because God finds nothing in us but sin.
But we are in Christ because we are out of
ourselves; and justified by faith, because we must recumb on the mercy of
God alone, and on his gratuitous promises; and freely, because God
reconciles us to himself by burying our sins. Nor can this indeed be confined to
the commencement of justification, as they dream; for this definition —
“Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven” — was
applicable to David, after he had long exercised himself in the service of God;
and Abraham, thirty years after his call, though a remarkable example of
holiness, had yet no works for which he could glory before God, and hence his
faith in the promise was imputed to him for righteousness; and when Paul teaches
us that God justifies men by not imputing their sins, he quotes a passage, which
is daily repeated in the Church. Still more, the conscience, by which we are
disturbed on the score of works, performs its office, not for one day only, but
continues to do so through life. It hence follows that we cannot remain, even to
death, in a justified state, except we look to Christ only, in whom God has
adopted us, and regards us now as accepted. Hence also is their sophistry
confuted, who falsely accuse us of asserting, that according to Scripture we are
justified by faith only, while the exclusive word only, is nowhere to be
found in Scripture. But if justification depends not either on the law, or on
ourselves, why should it not be ascribed to mercy alone? and if it be from mercy
only, it is then by faith only.
The particle
now
may be taken adversatively, and not with reference to time; as we often use
now for but.
f112
But if you prefer to regard it as an adverb of time, I willingly admit it, so
that there may be no room to suspect an evasion; yet the abrogation of
ceremonies alone is not to be understood; for it was only the design of the
Apostle to illustrate by a comparison the grace by which we excel the fathers.
Then the meaning is, that by the preaching of the gospel, after the appearance
of Christ in the flesh, the righteousness of faith was revealed. It does not,
however, hence follow, that it was hid before the coming of Christ; for a
twofold manifestation is to be here noticed: the first in the Old Testament,
which was by the word and sacraments; the other in the New, which contains the
completion of ceremonies and promises, as exhibited in Christ himself: and we
may add, that by the gospel it has received a fuller
brightness.
Being
proved [or approved]
by the
testimony,
f113
etc. He adds this, lest in the conferring of free righteousness the gospel
should seem to militate against the law. As then he has denied that the
righteousness of faith needs the aid of the law, so now he asserts that it is
confirmed by its testimony. If then the law affords its testimony to gratuitous
righteousness, it is evident that the law was not given for this end, to teach
men how to obtain righteousness by works. Hence they pervert it, who turn it to
answer any purpose of this kind. And further, if you desire a proof of this
truth, examine in order the chief things taught by Moses, and you will find that
man, being cast from the kingdom of God, had no other restoration from the
beginning than that contained in the evangelical promises through the blessed
seed, by whom, as it had been foretold, the serpent’s head was to be
bruised, and through whom a blessing to the nations had been promised: you will
find in the commandments a demonstration of your iniquity, and from the
sacrifices and oblations you may learn that satisfaction and cleansing are to be
obtained in Christ alone.
f114
When you come to the
Prophets
you will find the clearest promises of gratuitous mercy. On this subject see
my Institutes.
22.
Even the righteousness of
God, etc.
f115
He shows in few words what this justification is, even that which is found in
Christ and is apprehended by faith. At the same time, by introducing again the
name of God, he seems to make God the founder, (autorem, the author,) and
not only the approver of the righteousness of which he speaks; as though he had
said, that it flows from him alone, or that its origin is from heaven, but that
it is made manifest to us in Christ.
When therefore we discuss this subject, we ought to
proceed in this way: First, the question respecting our justification is
to be referred, not to the judgment of men, but to the judgment of God, before
whom nothing is counted righteousness, but perfect and absolute obedience to the
law; which appears clear from its promises and threatenings: if no one is found
who has attained to such a perfect measure of holiness, it follows that all are
in themselves destitute of righteousness. Secondly, it is necessary that
Christ should come to our aid; who, being alone just, can render us just by
transferring to us his own righteousness. You now see how the righteousness of
faith is the righteousness of Christ. When therefore we are justified, the
efficient cause is the mercy of God, the meritorious is Christ, the instrumental
is the word in connection with faith.
f116
Hence faith is said to justify, because it is the instrument by which we receive
Christ, in whom righteousness is conveyed to us. Having been made partakers of
Christ, we ourselves are not only just, but our works also are counted just
before God, and for this reason, because whatever imperfections there may be in
them, are obliterated by the blood of Christ; the promises, which are
conditional, are also by the same grace fulfilled to us; for God rewards our
works as perfect, inasmuch as their defects are covered by free
pardon.
Unto all and upon
all,
f117
etc. For the sake of amplifying, he repeats the same thing in different forms;
it was, that he might more fully express what we have already heard, that faith
alone is required, that the faithful are not distinguished by external marks,
and that hence it matters not whether they be Gentiles or
Jews.
|
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 quæ 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 suæ, 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. Quæ prius extiterunt in tolerantia
Dei; ad demonstrationem justitiae suae, in hoc tempore; ut sit ipse justus et
Justificans enum qui est ex fide Iesu.
|
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
<480310>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
<431243>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.
f118
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.
f119
25.
Whom God hath set
forth, etc. The Greek verb,
proti>qenai,
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
<430316>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,
iJlasth>rion,
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,
f120
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
<580915>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,
f121
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.
f122A
|
ROMANS
3:27-28
|
|
27. Where is boasting then? It is
excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
|
27. Ubi ergo gloriatio?
f122
exclusa est. Per quam legem? operum? Nequaquam; Sed per legem
fidei.
|
|
28. Therefore we conclude, that a man is
justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
|
28. Constituimus ergo, fide justificari
hominem sine operibus Legis.
|
27.
Where then is
glorying? The Apostle, after having, with
reasons abundantly strong, cast down men from their confidence in works, now
triumphs over their folly: and this exulting conclusion was necessary; for on
this subject, to teach us would not have been enough; it was necessary that the
Holy Spirit should loudly thunder, in order to lay prostrate our loftiness. But
he says that glorying is beyond all doubt excluded, for we cannot adduce
anything of our own, which is worthy of being approved or commended by God. If
the material of glorying be merit, whether you name that of congruity or of
condignity, by which man would conciliate God, you see that both are here
annihilated; for he treats not of the lessening or the modifying of merit, but
Paul leaves not a particle behind. Besides, since by faith glorying in works is
so taken away, that faith cannot be truly preached, without wholly depriving man
of all praise by ascribing all to God’s mercy — it follows, that we
are assisted by no works in obtaining righteousness.
Of
works? In what sense does the Apostle deny
here, that our merits are excluded by the law, since he has before proved that
we are condemned by the law? for if the law delivers us over to death, what
glorying can we obtain from it? Does it not on the contrary deprive us of all
glorying and cover us with shame? He then indeed showed, that our sin is laid
open by what the law declares, for the keeping of it is what we have all
neglected: but he means here, that were righteousness to be had by the law of
works, our glorying would not be excluded; but as it is by faith alone, there is
nothing that we can claim for ourselves; for faith receives all from God, and
brings nothing except an humble confession of want.
This contrast between faith and works ought to be
carefully noticed: works are here mentioned without any limitation, even works
universally. Then he neither speaks of ceremonies only, nor specifically of any
external work, but includes all the merits of works which can possibly be
imagined.
The name of
law
is here, with no strict correctness, given to faith: but this by no means
obscures the meaning of the Apostle; for what he understands is, that when we
come to the rule of faith, the whole glorying in works is laid prostrate; as
though he said — “The righteousness of works is indeed commended by
the law, but that of faith has its own law, which leaves to works, whatever they
may be, no righteousness.”
f123
28.
We then
conclude, etc. He now draws the main
proposition, as one that is incontrovertible, and adds an explanation.
Justification by faith is indeed made very clear, while works are expressly
excluded. Hence, in nothing do our adversaries labor more in the present day
than in attempts to blend faith with the merits of works. They indeed allow that
man is justified by faith; but not by faith alone; yea, they place the efficacy
of justification in love, though in words they ascribe it to faith. But Paul
affirms in this passage that justification is so gratuitous, that he makes it
quite evident, that it can by no means be associated with the merit of works.
Why he names the works of the law, I have already explained; and I have also
proved that it is quite absurd to confine them to ceremonies. Frigid also is the
gloss, that works are to be taken for those which are outward, and done without
the Spirit of Christ. On the contrary, the word
law
that is added, means the same as though he called them meritorious; for what is
referred to is the reward promised in the law.
f124
What, James says, that man is not justified by faith
alone, but also by works, does not at all militate against the preceding view.
The reconciling of the two views depends chiefly on the drift of the argument
pursued by James. For the question with him is not, how men attain righteousness
before God, but how they prove to others that their are justified, for his
object was to confute hypocrites, who vainly boasted that they had faith. Gross
then is the sophistry, not to admit that the word, to justify, is taken in a
different sense by James, from that in which it is used by Paul; for they handle
different subjects. The word, faith, is also no doubt capable of various
meanings. These two things must be taken to the account, before a correct
judgment can be formed on the point. We may learn from the context, that James
meant no more than that man is not made or proved to be just by a feigned or
dead faith, and that he must prove his righteousness by his works. See on this
subject my Institutes.
|
ROMANS
3:29-30
|
|
29. Is he the God of the Jews only?
Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles
also:
|
29. Num Iudæorum Deus tantum? an non et
Gentium? certe et Gentium.
|
|
30. Seeing it is one God
f125
which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through
faith.
|
30. Quandoquidem unus Deus, qui justificabit
circumcisionem ex fide, et Præputium per fidem.
|
29.
Is he the God of the Jews
only? The second proposition is, that
this righteousness belongs no more to the Jews than to the Gentiles: and it was
a great matter that this point should be urged, in order that a free passage
might be made for the kingdom of Christ through the whole world. He does not
then ask simply or expressly, whether God was the Creator of the Gentiles, which
was admitted without any dispute; but whether he designed to manifest himself as
a Savior also to them. As he had put all mankind on a level, and brought them to
the same condition, if there be any difference between them, it is from God, not
from themselves, who have all things alike: but if it be true that God designs
to make all the nations of the earth partakers of his mercy, then salvation, and
righteousness, which is necessary for salvation, must be extended to all. Hence
under the name, God, is conveyed an intimation of a mutual relationship,
which is often mentioned in Scripture, —
“I shall he to you
a God, and you shall be to me a people.”
(<243022>Jeremiah
30:22.)
For the circumstance, that God, for a time, chose for
himself a peculiar people, did not make void the origin of mankind, who were all
formed after the image of God, and were to be brought up in the world in the
hope of a blessed eternity.
30.
Who shall
justify,
f126
etc. In saying that some are justified by faith, and some through faith, he
seems to have indulged himself in varying his language, while he expresses the
same thing, and for this end, — that he might, by the way, touch on the
folly of the Jews, who imagined a difference between themselves and the
Gentiles, though on the subject of justification there was no difference
whatever; for since men became partakers of this grace by faith only, and since
faith in all is the same, it is absurd to make a distinction in what is so much
alike. I am hence led to think that there is something ironical in the words, as
though be said, — “If any wishes to have a difference made between
the Gentile and the Jew, let him take this, — that the one obtains
righteousness
by
faith, and the other
through faith.”
But it may be, that some will prefer this
distinction, — that the Jews were justified by faith, because they were
born the heirs of grace, as the right of adoption was transmitted to them from
the Fathers, — and that the Gentiles were justified through faith, because
the covenant to them was adventitious.
|
ROMANS
3:31
|
|
31. Do we then make void the law through
faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
|
31. Legem igitur irritam facimus per fidem? Ne
ita sit: sed Legem stabilimus.
|
31.
Do we then
make, etc. When the law is opposed to faith,
the flesh immediately suspects that there is some contrariety, as though the one
were adverse to the other: and this false notion prevails, especially among
those who are imbued with wrong ideas as to the law, and leaving the promises,
seek nothing else through it but the righteousness of works. And on this
account, not only Paul, but our Lord himself, was evil spoken of by the Jews, as
though in all his preaching he aimed at the abrogation of the law. Hence it was
that he made this protest, —
“I came not to
undo, but to fulfill the law.”
(<400517>Matthew
5:17.)
And this suspicion regards the moral as well as the
ceremonial law; for as the gospel has put an end to the Mosaic ceremonies, it is
supposed to have a tendency to destroy the whole dispensation of Moses. And
further, as it sweeps away all the righteousness of works, it is believed to be
opposed to all those testimonies of the law, by which the Lord has declared,
that he has thereby prescribed the way of righteousness and salvation. I
therefore take this defense of Paul, not only as to ceremonies, nor as to the
commandments which are called moral, but with regard to the whole law
universally.
f127
For the moral law is in reality confirmed and
established through faith in Christ, inasmuch as it was given for this end
— to lead man to Christ by showing him his iniquity; and without this it
cannot be fulfilled, and in vain will it require what ought to be done; nor can
it do anything but irritate lust more and more, and thus finally increase
man’s condemnation; but where there is a coming to Christ, there is first
found in him the perfect righteousness of the law, which becomes ours by
imputation, and then there is sanctification, by which our hearts are prepared
to keep the law; it is indeed imperfectly done, but there is an aiming at the
work. Similar is the case with ceremonies, which indeed cease and vanish
away when Christ comes, but they are in reality confirmed by him; for when they
are viewed in themselves they are vain and shadowy images, and then only do they
attain anything real and solid, when their end is regarded. In this then
consists their chief confirmation, when they have obtained their accomplishment
in Christ. Let us then also bear in mind, so to dispense the gospel that by our
mode of teaching the law may be confirmed; but let it be sustained by no other
strength than that of faith in Christ.
CHAPTER 4
|
ROMANS
4:1-3
|
|
1. What shall we then say that Abraham, our
father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
|
1. Quid ergo dicemus, invenisse Abraham patrem
nostrum secundw carnem?
|
|
2. For if Abraham were justified by works, he
hath whereof to glory, but not before God.
|
2. Si enim Abraham ex operibus justificatus
est. habet quo glorietur, sed non apud Deum.
|
|
3. For what saith the scripture? Abraham
believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
f128
|
3. Quid enim Scripture dicit’ Credidit
Abraham Deo, et imputa tum est illi in justitiam.
|
1.
What
then, etc. This is a confirmation by
example; and it is a very strong one, since all things are alike with regard to
the subject and the person; for he was the father of the faithful, to whom we
ought all to be conformed; and there is also but one way and not many ways by
which righteousness may be obtained by all. In many other things one example
would not be sufficient to make a common rule; but as in the person of Abraham
there was exhibited a mirror and pattern of righteousness, which belongs in
common to the whole Church, rightly does Paul apply what has been written of him
alone to the whole body of the Church, and at the same time he gives a check to
the Jews, who had nothing more plausible to glory in than that they were the
children of Abraham; and they could not have dared to claim to themselves more
holiness than what they ascribed to the holy patriarch. Since it is then evident
that he was justified freely, his posterity, who claimed a righteousness of
their own by the law, ought to have been made silent even through
shame.
According to the
flesh, etc. Between this clause and the
word father there is put in Paul’s test the verb
eJurhke>nai,
in this order — “What shall we say that Abraham our father has found
according to the flesh?” On this account, some interpreters think that the
question is — “What has Abraham obtained according to the
flesh?” If this exposition be approved, the words
according to the
flesh mean naturally or from himself. It is,
however, probable that they are to be connected with the word
father.
f129
Besides, as we are wont to be more touched by domestic examples, the dignity of
their race, in which the Jews took too much pride, is here again expressly
mentioned. But some regard this as spoken in contempt, as they are elsewhere
called the carnal children of Abraham, being not so spiritually or in a
legitimate sense. But I think that it was expressed as a thing peculiar to the
Jews; for it was a greater honor to be the children of Abraham by nature and
descent, than by mere adoption, provided there was also faith. He then concedes
to the Jews a closer bond of union, but only for this end — that he might
more deeply impress them that they ought not to depart from the example of their
father.
2.
For if
Abraham, etc. This is an incomplete
argument,
f130
which may be made in this form — “If Abraham was justified by works,
he might justly glory: but he had nothing for which he could glory before God;
then he was not justified by works.” Thus the clause
but not before
God, is the minor proposition; and to
this must be added the conclusion which I have stated, though it is not
expressed by Paul. He calls that glorying when we pretend to have anything of
our own to which a reward is supposed to be due at God’s tribunal. Since
he takes this away from Abraham, who of us can claim for himself the least
particle of merit?
3.
For what saith the
Scripture? This is a proof of the mirlor
proposition, or of what he assumed, when he denied that Abraham had any ground
for glorying: for if Abraham was justified, because he embraced, by faith, the
bountiful mercy of God, it follows, that he had nothing to glory in; for he
brought nothing of his own, except a confession of his misery, which is a
solicitation for mercy. He, indeed, takes it as granted, that the righteousness
of faith is the refuge, and, as it were, the asylum of the sinner, who is
destitute of works. For if there be any righteousness by the law or by works, it
must be in men themselves; but by faith they derive from another what is wanting
in themselves; and hence the righteousness of faith is rightly called
imputative.
The passage, which is quoted, is taken from
Genesis15:6; in which the word
believe
is not to be confined to any particular expression, but it refers to the whole
covenant of salvation, and the grace of adoption, which Abraham apprehended by
faith. There is, indeed, mentioned there the promise of a future seed; but it
was grounded on gratuitous adoption:
f131
and it ought to be observed, that salvation without the grace of God is not
promised, nor God’s grace without salvation; and again, that we are not
called to the grace of God nor to the hope of salvation, without having
righteousness offered to us.
Taking this view, we cannot but see that those
understand not the principles of theology, who think that this testimony
recorded by Moses, is drawn aside from its obvious meaning by Paul: for as there
is a particular promise there stated, they understand that he acted rightly and
faithfully in believing it, and was so far approved by God. But they are in this
mistaken; first, because they have not considered that believing extends
to the whole context, and ought not to be confined to one clause. But the
principal mistake is, that they begin not with the testimony of God’s
favor. But God gave this, to make Abraham more assured of his adoption and
paternal favor; and included in this was eternal salvation by Christ. Hence
Abraham, by believing, embraced nothing but the favor offered to him, being
persuaded that it would not be void. Since this was imputed to him for
righteousness, it follows, that he was not otherwise just, than as one trusting
in God’s goodness, and venturing to hope for all things from him. Moses
does not, indeed, tell us what men thought of him, but how he was accounted
before the tribunal of God. Abraham then laid hold on the benignity of God
offered to him in the promise, through which he understood that righteousness
was communicated to him. It is necessary, in order to form an opinion of
righteousness, to understand this relation between the promise and faith; for
there is in this respect the same connection between God and us, as there is,
according to the lawyers, between the giver and the person to whom any thing is
given, (datorem et donatarium — the donor and the donee:) for we
can no otherwise attain righteousness, than as it is brought to us, as it were,
by the promise of the gospel; and we realize its possession by faith.
f132
How to reconcile what James says, which seems
somewhat contrary to this view I have already explained, and intend to explain
more fully, when I come, if the Lord will permit. to expound that
Epistle.
Only let us remember this, — that those to whom
righteousness is imputed, are justified; since these two things are mentioned by
Paul as being the same. We hence conclude that the question is not, what men are
in themselves, but how God regards them? not that purity of conscience and
integrity of life are to be separated from the gratuitous favor of God; but that
when the reason is asked, why God loves us and owns us as just, it is necessary
that Christ should come forth as one who clothes us with his own
righteousness.
|
ROMANS
4:4-5
|
|
4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not
reckoned of grace, but of debt.
|
4. Ei quidem qui operatur merces non imputatur
secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum:
|
|
5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth
on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
Righteousness.
|
5. Ei vero qui non operatur, credit autem in
eum qui justificat impium, imputatur fides sua in justitiam.
|
4.
To him indeed who
works, etc. It is not he, whom he calls a
worker, who is given to good works, to which all the children of God ought to
attend, but the person who seeks to merit something by his works: and in a
similar way he calls him no worker who depends not on the merit of what he does.
He would not, indeed, have the faithful to be idle; but he only forbids them to
be mercenaries, so as to demand any thing from God, as though it were justly
their due.
We have before reminded you, that the question is not
here how we are to regulate our life, but how we are to be saved: and he argues
from what is contrary, — that God confers not righteousness on us because
it is due, but bestows it as a gift. And indeed I agree with Bucer, who
proves that the argument is not made to depend on one expression, but on the
whole passage, and formed in this manner, “If one merits any thing by his
work, what is merited is not freely I imputed to him, but rendered to him as his
due. Faith is counted for righteousness, not that it procures any merit for us,
but because it lays hold on the goodness of God: hence righteousness is not due
to us, but freely bestowed.” For as Christ of his own good-will justifies
us through faith, Paul always regards this as an evidence of our emptiness; for
what do we believe, except that Christ is an expiation to reconcile us to God?
The same truth is found in other words in
<480311>Galatians
3:11, where it is said, “That no man is justified by the law, it is
evident, for the just shall by faith live: but the law is not by faith; but he
who doeth these things shall live in them.” Inasmuch, then, as the law
promises reward to works, he hence concludes, that the righteousness of faith,
which is free, accords not with that which is operative: this could not be were
faith to justify by means of works. — We ought carefully to observe these
comparisons, by which every merit is entirely done
away.
5.
But believes on him, etc. This is a very
important sentence, in which he expresses the substance and nature both of faith
and of righteousness. He indeed clearly shews that faith brings us
righteousness, not because it is a meritorious act, but because it obtains for
us the favor of God.
f133
Nor does he declare only that God is the giver of righteousness, but he also
arraigns us of unrighteousness, in order that the bounty of God may come to aid
our necessity: in short, no one will seek the righteousness of faith except he
who feels that he is ungodly; for this sentence is to be applied to what is said
in this passage, — that faith adorns us with the righteousness of another,
which it seeks as a gift from God. And here again, God is said to justify us
when he freely forgives sinners, and favors those, with whom he might justly be
angry, with his love, that is, when his mercy obliterates our
unrighteousness.
|
ROMANS
4:6-8
|
|
6. Even as David also describeth the
blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without
works,
|
6. Quemadmodum etiam David finit beatudinem
hominis cui Deus imputat justitiam absque operibus,
|
|
7. Saying, Blessed are they whose
iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
|
7. Beati quorum remissæ sunt
iniquitates, et quorum tecta sunt peccata:
|
|
8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord
will not impute sin.
|
8. Beatus vir, cui non imputavit Dominus
peccatum.
|
6.
As David also
defines, etc. We hence see the sheer
sophistry of those who limit the works of the law to ceremonies; for he now
simply calls those works, without anything added, which he had before called the
works of the law. Since no one can deny that a simple and unrestricted mode of
speaking, such as we find here, ought to be understood of every work without any
difference, the same view must be held throughout the whole argument. There is
indeed nothing less reasonable than to remove from ceremonies only the power of
justifying, since Paul excludes all works indefinitely. To the same purpose is
the negative clause, — that God justifies men by not imputing sin:
and by these words we are taught that righteousness, according to Paul, is
nothing else than the remission of sins; and further, that this remission is
gratuitous, because it is imputed without works, which the very name of
remission indicates; for the creditor who is paid does not remit, but he who
Spontaneously cancels the debt through mere kindness. Away, then, with those who
teach us to redeem pardon for our sins by satisfactions; for Paul borrows an
argument from this pardon to prove the gratuitous gift of righteousness.
f134
How then is it possible for them to agree with Paul? They say, “We must
satisfy by works the justice of God, that we may obtain the pardon of our
sins:” but he, on the contrary, reasons thus, — “The
righteousness of faith is gratuitous, and without works, because it depends on
the remission of sins.” Vicious, no doubt, would be this reasoning, if any
works interposed in the remission of sins.
Dissipated also, in like manner, by the words of the
Prophet, are the puerile fancies of the schoolmen respecting half remission.
Their childish fiction is, — that though the fault is remitted, the
punishment is still retained by God. But the Prophet not only declares that our
sins are covered, that is, removed from the presence of God; but also adds, that
they are not imputed. How can it be consistent, that God should punish those
sins which he does not impute? Safe then does this most glorious declaration
remain to us — “That he is justified by faith, who is cleared before
God by a gratuitous remission of his sins.” We may also hence learn, the
unceasing perpetuity of gratuitous righteousness through life: for when David,
being wearied with the continual anguish of his own conscience, gave utterance
to this declaration, he no doubt spoke according to his own experience; and he
had now served God for many years. He then had found by experience, after having
made great advances, that all are miserable when summoned before God’s
tribunal; and he made this avowal, that there is no other way of obtaining
blessedness, except the Lord receives us into favor by not imputing our sins.
Thus fully refuted also is the romance of those who dream, that the
righteousness of faith is but initial, and that the faithful afterwards retain
by works the possession of that righteousness which they had first attained by
no merits.
It invalidates in no degree what Paul says, that
works are sometimes imputed for righteousness, and that other kinds of
blessedness are mentioned. It is said in
<19A630>Psalm
106:30, that it was imputed to Phinehas, the Lord’s priest, for
righteousness, because he took away reproach from Israel by inflicting
punishment on an adulterer and a harlot. It is true, we learn from this passage,
that he did a righteous deed; but we know that a person is not justified by one
act. What is indeed required is perfect obedience, and complete in all its
parts, according to the import of the promise, —
“He who shall do
these things shall live in
them.”
(<050401>Deuteronomy
4:1.)
How then was this judgment which he inflicted imputed
to him for righteousness? He must no doubt have been previously justified by the
grace of God: for they who are already clothed in the righteousness of Christ,
have God not only propitious to them, but also to their works, the spots and
blemishes of which are covered by the purity of Christ, lest they should come to
judgment. As works, infected with no defilements, are alone counted just, it is
quite evident that no human work whatever can please God, except through a favor
of this kind. But if the righteousness of faith is the only reason why our works
are counted just, you see how absurd is the argument, — “That as
righteousness is ascribed to works, righteousness is not by faith only.”
But I set against them this invincible argument, that all works are to be
condemned as those of unrighteousness, except a man be justified solely by
faith.
The like is said of blessedness: they are pronounced
blessed who fear the Lord, who walk in his ways,
(<19C801>Psalm
128:1,) who meditate on his law day and night,
(<190102>Psalm
1:2:) but as no one doeth these things so perfectly as he ought, so as fully to
come up to God’s command, all blessedness of this kind is nothing worth,
until we be made blessed by being purified and cleansed through the remission of
sins, and thus cleansed, that we may become capable of enjoying that blessedness
which the Lord promises to his servants for attention to the law and to good
works. Hence the righteousness of works is the effect of the righteousness of
God, and the blessedness arising from works is the effect of the blessedness
which proceeds from the remission of sins. Since the cause ought not and cannot
be destroyed by its own effect, absurdly do they act, who strive to subvert the
righteousness of faith by works.
But some one may say, “Why may we not maintain,
on the ground of these testimonies, that man is justified and made blessed by
works? for the words of Scripture declare that man is justified and made blessed
by works as well as by faith.” Here indeed we must consider the order of
causes as well as the dispensation of God’s grace: for inasmuch as
whatever is declared, either of the righteousness of works or of the blessedness
arising from them, does not exist, until this only true righteousness of faith
has preceded, and does alone discharge all its offices, this last must be built
up and established, in order that the other may, as a fruit from a tree, grow
from it and flourish.
|
ROMANS
4:9-10
|
|
9. Cometh this blessedness then upon
the circumcision only,
f135
or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham
for righteousness.
|
9. Beatudo ergo ista in circumcisionem modo,
an et in præputium competit? Dicimus enim quod imputata fuit Abrahæ
fides in justitiam.
|
|
10. How was it then reckoned? when he was in
circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision but in
uncircumcision.
|
10. Quomodo igitur imputata fuit? In
Circumcisione quum esset, an in præputio? Non in circumcisione, sed in
præputio.
|
As circumcision and uncircumcision are alone
mentioned, some unwisely conclude, that the only question is, that righteousness
is not attained by the ceremonies of the law. But we ought to consider what sort
of men were those with whom Paul was reasoning; for we know that hypocrites,
whilst they generally boast of meritorious works, do yet disguise themselves in
outward masks. The Jews also had a peculiar way of their own, by which they
departed, through a gross abuse of the law, from true and genuine righteousness.
Paul had said, that no one is blessed but he whom God reconciles to himself by a
gratuitous pardon; it hence follows, that all are accursed, whose works come to
judgment. Now then this principle is to be held, that men are justified, not by
their own worthiness, but by the mercy of God. But still, this is not enough,
except remission of sins precedes all works, and of these the first was
circumcision, which initiated the Jewish people into the service of God. He
therefore proceeds to demonstrate this also.
We must ever bear in mind, that circumcision is here
mentioned as the initial work, so to speak, of the righteousness of the law: for
the Jews gloried not in it as the symbol of God’s favor, but as a
meritorious observance of the law: and on this account it was that they regarded
themselves better than others, as though they possessed a higher excellency
before God. We now see that the dispute is not about one rite, but that under
one thing is included every work of the law; that is, every work to which reward
can be due. Circumcision then was especially mentioned, because it was the basis
of the righteousness of the law.
But Paul maintains the contrary, and thus reasons:
“If Abraham’s righteousness was the remission of sins, (which he
safely takes as granted,) and if Abraham attained this before circumcision, it
then follows that remission of sins is not given for preceding merits.”
You see that the argument rests on the order of causes and effects; for the
cause is always before its effect; and righteousness was possessed by Abraham
before he had circumcision.
|
ROMANS
4:11-12
|
|
11. And he received the sign of circumcision,
a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:
that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not
circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them
also:
|
11. Et signum accepit circumcisionis, sigillum
justitiæ fidei quæ fuerat in præputio; ut esset pater omnium
credentium per præputium, quo ipsis quoque imputetur
justitia;
|
|
12. And the father of circumcision to them who
are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith
of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
|
12. Et pater circumcisionis, non iis qui sunt
ex circumcisione tantum, sed qui insistunt vestigiis fidei, quæ fuit in
præputio patris nostri Abrahæ.
|
11.
And he received the
sign, etc. In order to anticipate an
objection, he shows that circumcision was not unprofitable and superfluous,
though it could not justify; but it had another very remarkable use, it had the
office of sealing, and as it were of ratifying the righteousness of faith. And
yet he intimates at the same time, by stating what its object was, that it was
not the cause of righteousness, it indeed tended to confirm the righteousness of
faith, and that already obtained in uncircumcision. He then derogates or takes
away nothing from it.
We have indeed here a remarkable passage with regard
to the general benefits of sacraments. According to the testimony of Paul, they
are seals by which the promises of God are in a manner imprinted on our hearts,
(Dei promissiones cordibus nostris quodammodo imprimuntur,) and the
certainty of grace confirmed (sancitur gratœ certitudo.) And though
by themselves they profit nothing, yet God has designed them to be the
instruments (instrumenta) of his grace; and he effects by the secret
grace of his Spirit, that they should not be without benefit in the elect. And
though they are dead and unprofitable symbols to the reprobate, they yet ever
retain their import and character (vim suam et naturam:) for though our
unbelief may deprive them of their effect, yet it cannot weaken or extinguish
the truth of God. Hence it remains a fixed principle, that sacred symbols are
testimonies, by which God seals his grace on our hearts.
As to the symbol of circumcision, this especially is
to be said, that a twofold grace was represented by it. God had promised to
Abraham a blessed seed, from whom salvation was to be expected by the whole
world. On this depended the promise — “I will be to thee a
God.”
(<011707>Genesis
17:7.) Then a gratuitous reconciliation with God was included in that symbol:
and for this reason it was necessary that the faithful should look forward to
the promised seed. On the other hand, God requires integrity and holiness of
life; he indicated by the symbol how this could be attained, that is, by cutting
off in man whatever is born of the flesh, for his whole nature had become
vicious. He therefore reminded Abraham by the external sign, that he was
spiritually to cut off the corruption of the flesh; and to this Moses has also
alluded in
<051016>Deuteronomy
10:16. And to show that it was not the work of man, but of God, he commanded
tender infants to be circumcised, who, on account of their age, could not have
performed such a command. Moses has indeed expressly mentioned spiritual
circumcision as the work of divine power, as you will find in
<053006>Deuteronomy
30:6, where he says, “The Lord will circumcise thine heart:” and the
Prophets afterwards declared the same thing much more clearly.
As there are two points in baptism now, so there were
formerly in circumcision; for it was a symbol of a new life, and also of the
remission of sins. But the fact as to Abraham himself, that righteousness
preceded circumcision, is not always the case in sacraments, as it is evident
from the case of Isaac and his posterity: but God intended to give such an
instance once at the beginning, that no one might ascribe salvation to external
signs.
f136
That he might be the
father, etc. Mark how the circumcision of
Abraham confirms our faith with regard to gratuitous righteousness; for it was
the sealing of the righteousness of faith, that righteousness might also be
imputed to us who believe. And thus Paul, by a remarkable dexterity makes to
recoil on his opponents what they might have adduced as an objection: for since
the truth and import (veritas et vis) of circumcision were found in an
uncircumcised state, there was no ground for the Jews to elevate themselves so
much above the Gentiles.
But as a doubt might arise, whether it behoves us,
after the example of Abraham, to confirm also the same righteousness by the sign
of circumcision, how came the Apostle to make this omission? Even because he
thought that the question was sufficiently settled by the drift of his argument:
for as this truth had been admitted, that circumcision availed only to seal the
grace of God, it follows, that it is now of no benefit to us, who have a sign
instituted in its place by our Lord. As then there is no necessity now for
circumcision, where baptism is, he was not disposed to contend unnecessarily for
that respecting which there was no doubt, that is, why the righteousness of
faith was not sealed to the Gentiles in the same way as it was to Abraham.
To believe in
uncircumcision means, that the Gentiles, being
satisfied with their own condition, did not introduce the seal of circumcision:
and so the proposition
dia,
by is put for
en,
in.
f137
12.
To them who are
not, etc. . The
verb,
are, is in this place to be taken for,
“are deemed to be:” for he touches the carnal descendants of
Abraham, who, having nothing but outward circumcision, confidently gloried in
it. The other thing, which was the chief matter, they neglected; for the faith
of Abraham, by which alone he obtained salvation, they did not imitate. It hence
appears, how carefully he distinguished between faith and the sacrament; not
only that no one might be satisfied with the one without the other, as though it
were sufficient for justifying; but also that faith alone might be set forth as
accomplishing everything: for while he allows the circumcised Jews to be
justified, he expressly makes this exception — provided in true faith they
followed the example of Abraham; for why does he mention faith while in
uncircumcision, except to show, that it is alone sufficient, without the aid of
anything else? Let us then beware, lest any of us, by halving things, blend
together the two modes of justification.
What we have stated disproves also the scholastic
dogma respecting the difference between the sacraments of the Old and those of
the New Testament; for they deny the power of justifying to the former, and
assign it to the latter. But if Paul reasons correctly, when he argues that
circumcision does not justify, because Abraham was justified by faith, the same
reason holds good for us, while we deny that men are justified by baptism,
inasmuch as they are justified by the same faith with that of
Abraham.
|
ROMANS
4:13
|
|
13. For the promise, that he should be the
heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law,
but through the righteousness of faith.
|
13. Non enim per Legem promissio Abrahæ
et semini ejus data est, ut esset hæres mundi; sed per justitiam
fidei.
|
13.
For the
promise, etc. He now more clearly sets
the law and faith in opposition, the one to the other, which he had before in
some measure done; and this ought to be carefully observed: for if faith borrows
nothing from the law in order to justify, we hence understand, that it has
respect to nothing else but to the mercy of God. And further, the romance of
those who would have this to have been said of ceremonies, may be easily
disproved; for if works contributed anything towards justification, it ought not
to have been said, through the written law, but rather, through the law of
nature. But Paul does not oppose spiritual holiness of life to ceremonies, but
faith and its righteousness. The meaning then is, that heirship was promised to
Abraham, not because he deserved it by keeping the law, but because he had
obtained righteousness by faith. And doubtless (as Paul will presently show)
consciences can then only enjoy solid peace, when they know that what is not
justly due is freely given them.
f138
Hence also it follows, that this benefit, the reason
for which applies equally to both, belongs to the Gentiles no less than to the
Jews; for if the salvation of men is based on the goodness of God alone, they
check and hinder its course, as much as they can, who exclude from it the
Gentiles.
That he should be the heir of the
world,
f139
etc. Since he now speaks of eternal salvation, the Apostle seems to have
somewhat unseasonably led his readers to the world; but he includes generally
under this word
world,
the restoration which was expected through Christ. The chief thing was indeed
the restoration of life; it was yet necessary that the fallen state of the whole
world should be repaired. The Apostle, in
<580102>Hebrews
1:2, calls Christ the heir of all the good things of God; for the adoption which
we obtain through his favor restores to us the possession of the inheritance
which we lost in Adam; and as under the type of the land of Canaan, not only the
hope of a heavenly life was exhibited to Abraham, but also the full and complete
blessing of God, the Apostle rightly teaches us, that the dominion of the world
was promised to him. Some taste of this the godly have in the present life; for
how much soever they may at times be oppressed with want, yet as they partake
with a peaceable conscience of those things which God has created for their use,
and as they enjoy through his mercy and good-will his earthly benefits no
otherwise than as pledges and earnests of eternal life, their poverty does in no
degree prevent them from acknowledging heaven, and the earth, and the sea, as
their own possessions.
Though the ungodly swallow up the riches of the
world, they can yet call nothing as their own; but they rather snatch them as it
were by stealth; for they possess them under the curse of God. It is indeed a
great comfort to the godly in their poverty, that though they fare slenderly,
they yet steal nothing of what belongs to another, but receive their lawful
allowance from the hand of their celestial Father, until they enter on the full
possession of their inheritance, when all creatures shall be made subservient to
their glory; for both heaven and earth shall be renewed for this end, —
that according to their measure they may contribute to render glorious the
kingdom of God.
|
ROMANS
4:14-15
|
|
14. For if they which are of the law be heirs,
faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
|
14. Si enim ii qui sunt ex Lege hæredes
sunt, exinanita est fides et abolita est promissio:
|
|
15. Because the law worketh wrath: for where
no law is, there is no transgression.
|
15. Nam Lex iram efficit; siquidem ubi non est
Lex, neque etiam transgressio.
|
14.
For if they who are of the
law, etc. He takes his argument from what is
impossible or absurd, that the favor which Abraham obtained from God, was not
promised to him through any legal agreement, or through any regard to works; for
if this condition had been interposed — that God would favor those only
with adoption who deserved, or who performed the law, no one could have dared to
feel confident that it belonged to him: for who is there so conscious of so much
perfection that he can feel assured that the inheritance is due to him through
the righteousness of the law? Void then would faith be made; for an impossible
condition would not only hold the minds of men in suspense and anxiety, but fill
them also with fear and trembling: and thus the fulfillment of the promises
would be rendered void; for they avail nothing but when received by faith. If
our adversaries had ears to hear this one reason, the contest between us might
easily be settled.
The Apostle assumes it as a thing indubitable, that
the promises would by no means be effectual except they were received with full
assurance of mind. But what would be the case if the salvation of men was based
on the keeping of the law? consciences would have no certainty, but would be
harassed with perpetual inquietude, and at length sink in despair; and the
promise itself, the fulfillment of which depended on what is impossible, would
also vanish away without producing any fruit. Away then with those who teach the
common people to seek salvation for themselves by works, seeing that Paul
declares expressly, that the promise is abolished if we depend on works. But it
is especially necessary that this should be known, — that when there is a
reliance on works, faith is reduced to nothing. And hence we also learn what
faith is, and what sort of righteousness ought that of works to be, in which men
may safely trust.
The Apostle teaches us, that faith perishes, except
the soul rests on the goodness of God. Faith then is not a naked knowledge
either of God or of his truth; nor is it a simple persuasion that God is, that
his word is the truth; but a sure knowledge of God’s mercy, which is
received from the gospel, and brings peace of conscience with regard to God, and
rest to the mind. The sum of the matter then is this, — that if salvation
depends on the keeping of the law, the soul can entertain no confidence
respecting it, yea, that all the promises offered to us by God will become void:
we must thus become wretched and lost, if we are sent back to works to find out
the cause or the certainty of
salvation.
15.
For the law causeth
wrath, etc. This is a confirmation of the last
verse, derived from the contrary effect of the law; for as the law generates
nothing but vengeance, it cannot bring grace. It can indeed show to the good and
the perfect the way of life: but as it prescribes to the sinful and corrupt what
they ought to do, and supplies them with no power for doing, it exhibits them as
guilty before the tribunal of God. For such is the viciousness of our nature,
that the more we are taught what is right and just, the more openly is our
iniquity discovered, and especially our contumacy, and thus a heavier judgment
is incurred.
By
wrath, understand God’s judgment, which
meaning it has everywhere. They who explain it of the wrath of the sinner,
excited by the law, inasmuch as he hates and execrates the Lawgiver, whom he
finds to be opposed to his lusts, say what is ingenious, but not suitable to
this passage; for Paul meant no other thing, than that condemnation only is what
is brought on us all by the law, as it is evident from the common use of the
expression, and also from the reason which he immediately adds.
Where there is no
law, etc. This is the proof, by which he
confirms what he had said; for it would have been difficult to see how
God’s
wrath
is kindled against us through the law, unless it had been made more
apparent. And the reason is, that as the knowledge of God’s justice is
discovered by the law, the less excuse we have, and hence the more grievously we
offend against God; for they who despise the known will of God, justly deserve
to sustain a heavier punishment, than those who offend through
ignorance.
But the Apostle speaks not of the mere transgression
of what is right, from which no man is exempt; but he calls that a
transgression, when man, having been taught what pleases and displeases God,
knowingly and willfully passes over the boundaries fixed by God’s word;
or, in other words, transgression here is not a mere act of sin, but a willful
determination to violate what is right.
f140
The particle,
ou+,
where, which I take as an adverb, some consider to be a relative, of
which; but the former reading is the most suitable, and the most commonly
received. Whichever reading you may follow, the meaning will be the same,
— that he who is not instructed by the written law, when he sins, is not
guilty of so great a transgression, as he is who knowingly breaks and
transgresses the law of God.
|
ROMANS
4:16-17
|
|
16. Therefore it is of faith,
that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all
the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the
faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
|
16. Propterea ex fide, ut secundum gratiam,
quo firma sit promissio universo semini non ei quod est ex Lege solum, sed quod
est ex fide Abrahæ, qui est pater omnium nostrum,
|
|
17. (As it is written, l have made thee a
father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who
quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they
were.
|
17. (sicut scriptum est. Quod patrem multarum
gentium posui te,) coram Deo, cui credidit, qua vivificat mortuos et vocat ea
quæ non sunt tanquam sint.
|
16.
It is therefore of
faith, etc. This is the winding up of the
argument; and you may summarily include the whole of it in this statement,
— “If the heirship of salvation comes to us by works, then faith in
it vanishes, the promise of it is abolished; but it is necessary that both these
should be sure and certain; hence it comes to us by faith, so that its stability
being based on the goodness of God alone, may be secured. See how the Apostle,
regarding faith as a thing firm and certain, considers hesitancy and doubt as
unbelief, by which faith is abolished, and the promise abrogated. And yet this
doubting is what the schoolmen call a moral conjecture, and which, alas! they
substitute for faith.
That it might be by
grace, etc. Here, in the first place, the
Apostle shows, that nothing is set before faith but mere grace; and this, as
they commonly say, is its object: for were it to look on merits, absurdly would
Paul infer, that whatever it obtains for us is gratuitous. I will repeat this
again in other words, — “If grace be everything that we obtain by
faith, then every regard for works is laid in the dust.” But what next
follows more fully removes all ambiguity, — that the promise then only
stands firm, when it recumbs on grace: for by this expression Paul confirms this
truth, that as long as men depend on works, they are harassed with doubts; for
they deprive themselves of what the promises contain. Hence, also, we may easily
learn, that grace is not to be taken, as some imagine, for the gift of
regeneration, but for a gratuitous favor: for as regeneration is never perfect,
it can never suffice to pacify souls, nor of itself can it make the promise
certain.
Not to that only which is of the
law, etc. Though these words mean in another
place those who, being absurd zealots of the law, bind themselves to its yoke,
and boast of their confidence in it, yet here they mean simply the Jewish
nation, to whom the law of the Lord had been delivered. For Paul teaches us in
another passage, that all who remain bound to the dominion of the law, are
subject to a curse; it is then certain that they are excluded from the
participation of grace. He does not then call them the servants of the law, who,
adhering to the righteousness of works, renounce Christ; but they were those
Jews who had been brought up in the law, and yet professed the name of Christ.
But that the sentence may be made clearer, let it be worded thus, —
“Not to those only who are of the law, but to all who imitate the faith of
Abraham, though they had not the law before.”
Who is the father of us
all, etc. The relative has the meaning of a
causative particle; for he meant to prove, that the Gentiles were become
partakers of this grace, inasmuch as by the same oracle, by which the heirship
was conferred on Abraham and his seed, were the Gentiles also constituted his
seed: for he is said to have been made the father, not of one nation, but of
many nations; by which was presignified the future extension of grace, then
confined to Israel alone. For except the promised blessing had been extended to
them, they could not have been counted as the offspring of Abraham. The past
tense of the verb, according to the common usage of Scripture, denotes the
certainty of the Divine counsel; for though nothing then was less apparent, yet
as God had thus decreed, he is rightly said to have been made the father of many
nations. Let the testimony of Moses be included in a parenthesis, that this
clause, “Who is the father of us all,” may be connected with the
other, “before God,” etc.: for it was necessary to explain also what
that relationship was, that the Jews might not glory too much in their carnal
descent. Hence he says, “He is our father before God;”
which means the same as though he had said, “He is our spiritual
father;” for he had this privilege, not from his own flesh, but from the
promise of God
f141
17.
Whom he believed, who
quickens the dead, etc. In this circuitous form
is expressed the very substance of Abraham’s faith, that by his example an
opening might be made for the Gentiles. He had indeed to attain, in a wonderful
way, the promise which he had heard from the Lord’s mouth, since there was
then no token of it. A seed was promised to him as though he was in vigor and
strength; but he was as it were dead. It was hence necessary for him to raise up
his thoughts to the power of God, by which the dead are quickened. It was
therefore not strange that the Gentiles, who were barren and dead, should be
introduced into the same society. He then who denies them to be capable of
grace, does wrong to Abraham, whose faith was sustained by this thought, —
that it matters not whether he was dead or not who is called by the Lord; to
whom it is an easy thing, even by a word, to raise the dead through his own
power.
We have here also a type and a pattern of the call of
us all, by which our beginning is set before our eyes, not as to our first
birth, but as to the hope of future life, — that when we are called by the
Lord we emerge from nothing; for whatever we may seem to be we have not, no, not
a spark of anything good, which can render us fit for the kingdom of God. That
we may indeed on the other hand be in a suitable state to hear the call of God,
we must be altogether dead in ourselves. The character of the divine calling is,
that they who are dead are raised by the Lord, that they who are nothing begin
to be something through his power. The
word
call ought not to be confined to preaching, but
it is to be taken, according to the usage of Scripture, for raising up; and it
is intended to set forth more fully the power of God, who raises up, as it were
by a nod only, whom he wills.
f142
|
ROMANS
4:18
|
|
18. Who against hope believed in hope, that he
might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So
shall thy seed be.
|
18. Qui præter (vel supra) spem super
spe credidit, ut esset
f143
pater multarum gentium, secundum quod dictum erat, Sic erit semen
tuum.
|
18.
Who against
hope, etc. If we thus read, the sense is, that
when there was no probable reason, yea, when all things were against him, he yet
continued to believe. And, doubtless, there is nothing more injurious to faith
than to fasten our minds to our eyes, that we may from what we see, seek a
reason for our hope. We may also read, “above hope,” and perhaps
more suitably; as though he had said that by his faith he far surpassed all that
he could conceive; for except faith flies upward on celestial wings so as to
look down on all the perceptions of the flesh as on things far below, it will
stick fast in the mud of the world. But Paul uses the word hope twice in this
verse: in the first instance, he means a probable evidence for hoping, such as
can be derived from nature and carnal reason; in the second he refers to faith
given by God;
f144
for when he had no ground for hoping he yet in hope relied on the promise of
God; and he thought it a sufficient reason for hoping, that the Lord had
promised, however incredible the thing was in itself.
According to what had been
said, etc. So have I preferred to render it,
that it may be applied to the time of Abraham; for Paul meant to say, that
Abraham, when many temptations were drawing him to despair, that he might not
fail, turned his thoughts to what had been promised to him, “Thy seed
shall equal the stars of heaven and the sands of the sea;” but he
resignedly adduced this quotation incomplete, in order to stimulate us to read
the Scriptures. The Apostles, indeed, at all times, in quoting the Scriptures,
took a scrupulous care to rouse us to a more diligent reading of
them.
|
ROMANS
4:19-22
|
|
19. And being not weak in faith, he considered
not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet
the deadness of Sarah’s womb:
|
19. Ac fide minime debilitatus, non
consideravit suum ipsius corpus jam emortuum, centenaries quum fere esset, nec
emortuam vulvam Saræ:
|
|
20. He staggered not at the promise of God
through umbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
|
20. Nec vero in Dei promissionem nec emortuam
vulvam Sarre: per incredulitatem disquisivit; sed roboratus est fide, tribuens
gloriam Deo;
|
|
21. And being fully persuaded, that what he
had promised, he was able also to perform.
|
21. Ac certe persuasus, quod ubi quid
promisit, possit etiam præstare.
|
|
22. And therefore it was imputed to him for
righteousness.
|
22. Ideo et imputatum illi est in
justitiam.
|
19.
In
faith, etc. If you prefer to omit one of the
negatives you may render it thus, “Being weak in faith, he considered not
his own body,” etc.; but this makes no sense. He indeed shows now more
fully what might have hindered, yea, and wholly turned Abraham aside from
receiving the promise. A seed from Sarah was promised to him at a time when he
was not by nature fit for generating, nor Sarah for conceiving. Whatever he
could see as to himself was opposed to the accomplishment of the promise. Hence,
that he might yield to the truth of God, he withdrew his mind from those things
which presented themselves to his own view, and as it were forgot
himself.
You are not however to think, that he had no regard
whatever to his own body, now dead, since Scripture testifies to the contrary;
for he reasoned thus with himself, “Shall a child be born to a man an
hundred years old? and shall Sarah, who is ninety, bear a son?” But as he
laid aside the consideration of all this, and resigned his own judgment to the
Lord, the Apostle says, that he
considered
not, etc.; and truly it was a greater effort to
withdraw his thoughts from what of itself met his eyes, than if such a thing
came into his mind.
And that the body of Abraham was become through age
incapable of generating, at the time he received the Lord’s blessing, is
quite evident from this passage, and also from Genesis 17 and 18, so that the
opinion of Augustine is by no means to be admitted, who says somewhere, that the
impediment was in Sarah alone. Nor ought the absurdity of the objection to
influence us, by which he was induced to have recourse to this solution; for he
thought it inconsistent to suppose that Abraham in his hundredth year was
incapable of generating, as he had afterwards many children. But by this very
thing God rendered his power more visible, inasmuch as he, who was before like a
dry and barren tree, was so invigorated by the celestial blessing, that he not
only begot Isaac, but, as though he was restored to the vigor of age, he had
afterwards strength to beget others. But some one may object and say, that it is
not beyond the course of nature that a man should beget children at that age.
Though I allow that such a thing is not a prodigy, it is yet very little short
of a miracle. And then, think with how many toils, sorrows, wanderings,
distresses, had that holy man been exercised all his life; and it must be
confessed, that he was no more debilitated by age, than worn out and exhausted
by toils. And lastly, his body is not called barren simply but comparatively;
for it was not probable that he, who was unfit for begetting in the flower and
vigor of age, should begin only now when nature had decayed.
The expression,
being not weak in
faith, take in this sense — that he
vacillated not, nor fluctuated, as we usually do under difficult circumstances.
There is indeed a twofold weakness of faith — one is that which, by
succumbing to trying adversities, occasions a falling away from the supporting
power of God — the other arises from imperfection, but does not extinguish
faith itself: for the mind is never so illuminated, but that many relics of
ignorance remain; the heart is never so strengthened, but that much doubting
cleaves to it. Hence with these vices of the flesh, ignorance and doubt, the
faithful have a continual conflict, and in this conflict their faith is often
dreadfully shaken and distressed, but at length it comes forth victorious; so
that they may be said to be strong even in
weakness.
20.
Nor did he through unbelief make
an inquiry, etc. Though I do not follow the old
version, nor Erasmus, yet my rendering is not given without reason. The Apostle
seems to have had this in view, — That Abraham did not try to find out, by
weighing the matter in the balance of unbelief, whether the Lord was able to
perform what he had promised. What is properly to inquire or to search into
anything, is to examine it through diffidence or mistrust, and to be unwilling
to admit what appears not credible, without thoroughly sifting it.
f145
He indeed asked, how it could come to pass, but that was the asking of one
astonished; as the case was with the virgin Mary, when she inquired of the angel
how could that be which he had announced; and there are other similar instances.
The saints then, when a message is brought them respecting the works of God, the
greatness of which exceeds their comprehension, do indeed burst forth into
expressions of wonder; but from this wonder they soon pass on to lay hold on the
power of God: on the contrary, the wicked, when they examine a message, scoff at
and reject it as a fable. Such, as you will find, was the case with the Jews,
when they asked Christ how he could give his flesh to be eaten. For this reason
it was, that Abraham was not reproved when he laughed and asked, how could a
child be born to a man an hundred years old, and to a woman of ninety; for in
his astonishment he fully admitted the power of God’s word. On the other
hand, a similar laughter and inquiry on the part of Sarah were not without
reproof, because she regarded not the promise as valid.
If these things be applied to our present subject, it
will be evident, that the justification of Abraham had no other beginning than
that of the Gentiles. Hence the Jews reproach their own father, if they exclaim
against the call of the Gentiles as a thing unreasonable. Let us also remember,
that the condition of us all is the same with that of Abraham. All things around
us are in opposition to the promises of God: He promises immortality; we are
surrounded with mortality and corruption: He declares that he counts us just; we
are covered with sins: He testifies that he is propitious and kind to us;
outward judgments threaten his wrath. What then is to be done? We must with
closed eyes pass by ourselves and all things connected with us, that nothing may
hinder or prevent us from believing that God is true.
But he was
strengthened, etc. This is of the same import
with a former clause, when it is said, that he was not weak in faith. It is the
same as though he had said, that he overcame unbelief by the constancy and
firmness of faith.
f146
No one indeed comes forth a conqueror from this contest, but he who borrows
weapons and strength from the word Of God. From what he adds,
giving glory to
God, it must be observed, that no greater honor
can be given to God, than by faith to seal his truth; as, on the other hand, no
greater dishonor can be done to him, than to refuse his offered favor, or to
discredit his word. It is hence the chief thing in honoring God, obediently to
embrace his promises: and true religion begins with
faith.
21.
That what he had
promised, etc. As all men acknowledge
God’s power, Paul seems to say nothing very extraordinary of the faith of
Abraham; but experience proves, that nothing is more uncommon, or more
difficult, than to ascribe to God’s power the honor which it deserves.
There is in deed no obstacle, however small and insignificant, by which the
flesh imagines the hand of God is restrained from working. Hence it is, that in
the slightest trials, the promises of God slide away from us. When there is no
contest, it is true, no one, as I have said, denies that God can do all things;
but as soon as anything comes in the way to impede the course of God’s
promise, we cast down God’s power from its eminence. Hence, that it may
obtain from us its right and its honor, when a contest comes, we ought to de
termine thus, — That it is no less sufficient to overcome the obstacles of
the world, than the strong rays of the sun are to dissipate the mists. We are
indeed wont ever to excuse ourselves, that we derogate nothing from God’s
power, whenever we hesitate respecting his promises, and we commonly say,
“The thought, that God promises more in his word than he can perform,
(which would be a falsehood and blasphemy against him,) is by no means the cause
of our hesitation; but that it is the defect which we feel in ourselves.”
But we do not sufficiently exalt the power of God, unless we think it to be
greater than our weakness. Faith then ought not to regard our weakness, misery,
and defects, but to fix wholly its attention on the power of God alone; for if
it depends on our righteousness or worthiness, it can never ascend to the
consideration of God’s power. And it is a proof of the unbelief, of which
he had before spoken, when we mete the Lord’s power with our own measure.
For faith does not think that God can do all things, while it leaves him sitting
still, but when, on the contrary, it regards his power in continual exercise,
and applies it, especially, to the accomplishment of his word: for the hand of
God is ever ready to execute whatever he has declared by his
mouth.
It seems strange to me, that Erasmus approved of the
relative in the masculine gender; for though the sense is not changed, we may
yet come nearer to the Greek words of Paul. The verb, I know, is passive;
f147
but the abruptness may be lessened by a little
change.
22.
And it was therefore
imputed,
f148
etc. It becomes now more clear, how and in what manner faith brought
righteousness to Abraham; and that was, because he, leaning on God’s word,
rejected not the promised favor. And this connection of faith with the word
ought to be well understood and carefully remembered; for faith can bring us
nothing more than what it receives from the word. Hence he does not become
immediately just, who is imbued only with a general and confused idea that God
is true, except he reposes on the promise of his favor.
|
ROMANS
4:23-25
|
|
23. Now, it was not written for his sake
alone, that it was imputed to him,
|
23. Non est autem scriptum propter ipsum
tantum, imputatum fuisse illi;
|
|
24. But for us also, to whom it shall be
imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the
dead;
|
24. Sed etiam propter nos, quibus imputabitur
credentibus in eum, qui excitavit lesum Dominum nostrum ex
mortuis:
|
|
25. Who was delivered for our offences, and
was raised again for our justification.
|
25. Qui traditus fuit propter delicta nostra,
et excitatus propter nostram justificationem.
|
23.
Now it was not written, etc. A proof from
example is not always valid, of which I have before reminded you; lest this
should be questioned, Paul expressly affirms, that in the person of Abraham was
exhibited an example of a common righteousness, which belongs equally to
all.
We are, by this passage, reminded of the duty of
seeking profit from the examples recorded in Scripture. That history is the
teacher of what life ought to be, is what heathens have with truth said; but as
it is handed down by them, no one can derive from it sound instruction.
Scripture alone justly claims to itself an office of this kind. For in the first
place it prescribes general rules, by which we may test every other history, so
as to render it serviceable to us: and in the second place, it clearly points
out what things are to be followed, and what things are to be avoided. But as to
doctrine, which it especially teaches, it possesses this peculiarity, —
that it clearly reveals the providence of God, his justice and goodness towards
his own people, and his judgments on the wicked.
What then is recorded of Abraham is by Paul denied to
have been written only for his sake; for the subject is not what belongs to the
special call of one or of any particular person; but that way of obtaining
righteousness is described, which is ever the same with regard to all; and it is
what belonged to the common father of the faithful, on whom the eyes of all
ought to be fixed.
If then we would make a right and proper use of
sacred histories, we must remember so to use them as to draw from them sound
doctrine. They instruct us, in some parts, how to frame our life; in others, how
to strengthen faith; and then, how we are to be stirred up to serve the Lord. In
forming our life, the example of the saints may be useful; and we may learn from
them sobriety, chastity, love, patience, moderation, contempt of the world, and
other virtues. What will serve to confirm faith is the help which God ever gave
them, the protection which brought comfort in adversities, and the paternal care
which he ever exercised over them. The judgments of God, and the punishments
inflicted on the wicked, will also aid us, provided they fill us with that fear
which imbues the heart with reverence and devotion.
But by saying,
not on his account
only, he seems to intimate, that it was written
partly for his sake. Hence some think, that what Abraham obtained by faith was
commemorated to his praise, because the Lord will have his servants to be for
ever remembered, according to what Solomon says, that their name will be
blessed.
(<201007>Proverbs
10:7.) But what if you take the words,
not on his account
only, in a simpler form, as though it were some
singular privilege, not fit to be made an example of, but yet suitable to teach
us, who must be justified in the same manner? This certainly would be a more
appropriate sense.
24.
Who believe on
him, etc. I have already reminded you of the
design of those periphrastic expressions: Paul introduced them, that he might,
according to what the passages may require, describe in various ways the real
character of faith — of which the resurrection of Christ is not the
smallest part; for it is the ground of our hope as to eternal life. Had he said
only, that we believe in God, it could not have been so readily learnt how this
could serve to obtain righteousness; but when Christ comes forth and presents to
us in his own resurrection a sure pledge of life, it then appears evident from
what fountain the imputation of righteousness
flows.
25.
Who was delivered for our
offences,
f149
etc. He expands and illustrates more at large the doctrine to which I have just
referred. It indeed greatly concerns us, not only to have our minds directed to
Christ, but also to have it distinctly made known how he attained salvation for
us. And though Scripture, when it treats of our salvation, dwells especially on
the death of Christ, yet the Apostle now proceeds farther: for as his purpose
was more explicitly to set forth the cause of our salvation, he mentions its two
parts; and says, first, that our sins were expiated by the death of Christ,
— and secondly, that by his resurrection was obtained our righteousness.
But the meaning is, that when we possess the benefit of Christ’s death and
resurrection, there is nothing wanting to the completion of perfect
righteousness. By separating his death from his resurrection, he no doubt
accommodates what he says to our ignorance; for it is also true that
righteousness has been obtained for us by that obedience of Christ, which he
exhibited in his death, as the Apostle himself teaches us in the following
chapter. But as Christ, by rising from the dead, made known how much he had
effected by his death, this distinction is calculated to teach us that our
salvation was begun by the sacrifice, by which our sins were expiated, and was
at length completed by his resurrection: for the beginning of righteousness is
to be reconciled to God, and its completion is to attain life by having death
abolished. Paul then means, that satisfaction for our sins was given on the
cross: for it was necessary, in order that Christ might restore us to the
Father’s favor, that our sins should be abolished by him; which could not
have been done had he not on their account suffered the punishment, which we
were not equal to endure. Hence Isaiah says, that the chastisement of our peace
was upon him.
(<235305>Isaiah
53:5.) But he says that he was delivered, and not, that he died; for expiation
depended on the eternal goodwill of God, who purposed to be in this way
pacified.
And was raised again for our
justification. As it would not have been enough
for Christ to undergo the wrath and judgment of God, and to endure the curse due
to our sins, without his coming forth a conqueror, and without being received
into celestial glory, that by his intercession he might reconcile God to us, the
efficacy of justification is ascribed to his resurrection, by which death was
overcome; not that the sacrifice of the cross, by which we are reconciled to
God, contributes nothing towards our justification, but that the completeness of
his favor appears more clear by his coming to life again.
f150
But I cannot assent to those who refer this second
clause to newness of life; for of that the Apostle has not begun to speak; and
further, it is certain that both clauses refer to the same thing. For if
justification means renovation, then that he died for our sins must be taken in
the same sense, as signifying that he acquired for us grace to mortify the
flesh; which no one admits. Then, as he is said to have died for our sins,
because he delivered us from the evil of death by suffering death as a
punishment for our sins; so he is now said to have been raised for our
justification, because he fully restored life to us by his resurrection: for he
was first smitten by the hand of God, that in the person of the sinner he might
sustain the misery of sin; and then he was raised to life, that he might freely
grant to his people righteousness and life.
f151
He therefore still speaks of imputative justification; and this will be
confirmed by what immediately follows in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 5
|
ROMANS
5:1-2
|
|
1. Therefore, being justified by faith, we
have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ:
|
1. Iustificatus ergo ex fide, pacem habemus
apud Deum per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum;
|
|
2. By whom also we have access by faith into
this grace where in we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of
God.
|
2. Per quem accessum habiumus fide in gratiam
istam in qua stetimus, et gloriamur super spe gloriæ Dei.
|
1.
Being then
justified, etc. The Apostle begins to
illustrate by the effects, what he has hitherto said of the righteousness of
faith: and hence the whole of this chapter is taken up with amplifications,
which are no less calculated to explain than to confirm. He had said before,
that faith is abolished, if righteousness is sought by works; and in this case
perpetual inquietude would disturb miserable souls, as they can find nothing
substantial in themselves: but he teaches us now, that they are rendered quiet
and tranquil, when we have obtained righteousness by faith,
We have peace with
God; and this is the peculiar fruit of
the righteousness of faith. When any one strives to seek tranquillity of
conscience by works, (which is the case with profane and ignorant men,) he
labors for it in vain; for either his heart is asleep through his disregard or
forgetfulness of God’s judgment, or else it is full of trembling and
dread, until it reposes on Christ, who is alone our peace.
Then peace means tranquillity of conscience, which
arises from this, — that it feels itself to be reconciled to God. This the
Pharisee has not, who swells with false confidence in his own works; nor the
stupid sinner, who is not disquieted, because he is inebriated with the
sweetness of vices: for though neither of these seems to have a manifest
disquietude, as he is who is smitten with a consciousness of sin; yet as they do
not really approach the tribunal of God, they have no reconciliation with him;
for insensibility of conscience is, as it were, a sort of retreating from God.
Peace with God is opposed to the dead security of the flesh, and for this
reason, — because the first thing is, that every one should become
awakened as to the account he must render of his life; and no one can stand
boldly before God, but he who relies on a gratuitous reconciliation; for as long
as he is God, all must otherwise tremble and be confounded. And this is the
strongest. of proofs, that our opponents do nothing but prate to no purpose,
when they ascribe righteousness to works; for this conclusion of Paul is derived
from this fact, — that miserable souls always tremble, except they repose
on the grace of Christ.
2.
Through whom we have
access,
f152
etc. Our reconciliation with God depends only on Christ; for he only is the
beloved Son, and we are all by nature the children of wrath. But this favor is
communicated to us by the gospel; for the gospel is the ministry of
reconciliation, by the means of which we are in a manner brought into the
kingdom of God. Rightly then does Paul set before our eyes in Christ a sure
pledge of God’s favor, that he might more easily draw us away from every
confidence in works. And as he teaches us by the word
access,
that salvation begins with Christ, he excludes those preparations by which
foolish men imagine that they can anticipate God’s mercy; as though he
said, “Christ comes not to you, nor helps you, on account of your
merits.” He afterwards immediately subjoins, that it is through the
continuance of the same favor that our salvation becomes certain and sure; by
which he intimates, that perseverance is not founded on our power and diligence,
but on Christ; though at the same time by saying, that we
stand,
he indicates that the gospel ought to strike deep roots into the hearts of the
godly, so that being strengthened by its truth, they may stand firm against all
the devices of Satan and of the flesh. And by the word
stand,
he means, that faith is not a changeable persuasion, only for one day; but that
it is immutable, and that it sinks deep into the heart, so that it endures
through life. It is then not he, who by a sudden impulse is led to believe, that
has faith, and is to be reckoned among the faithful; but he who constantly, and,
so to speak, with a firm and fixed foot, abides in that station appointed to him
by God, so as to cleave always to Christ.
And glory in the
hope, etc. The reason that the hope of a future
life exists and dares to exult, is this, — because we rest on God’s
favor as on a sure foundation: for Paul’s meaning is, that though the
faithful are now pilgrims on the earth, they yet by hope scale the heavens, so
that they quietly enjoy in their own bosoms their future inheritance. And hereby
are subverted two of the most pestilent dogmas of the sophists. What they do in
the first place is, they bid Christians to be satisfied with moral conjecture as
to the perception of God’s favor towards them; and secondly, they teach
that all are uncertain as to their final perseverance. but except there be at
present sure knowledge, and a firm and undoubting persuasion as to the future,
who would dare to glory? The hope of the glory of God has shone upon us through
the gospel, which testifies that we shall be participators of the Divine nature;
for when we shall see God face to face, we shall be like him.
(<610104>2
Peter 1:4;
<620302>1
John 3:2.)
|
ROMANS
5:3-5
|
|
3. And not only so, but we glory in
tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
|
3. Neque id modo, sed gloriamur
f153
etiam in afflictionibus; scientes quod tribulatio patientiam
efficiat;
|
|
4. And patience, experience; and experience,
hope:
|
4. Patientia vero probationem; probatio autem
spem:
|
|
5. And hope maketh not ashamed; because the
love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto
us.
|
5. Porro spes non pudefacit, quoniam dilectio
Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris per Spiritum santum, qui datus est
nobis.
|
3.
Not only
so, etc. That no one might scoffingly object
and say, that Christians, with all their glorying, are yet strangely harassed
and distressed in this life, which condition is far from being a happy one,
— he meets this objection, and declares, not only that the godly are
prevented by these calamities from being blessed, but also that their glorying
is thereby promoted. To prove this he takes his argument from the effects, and
adopts a remarkable gradation, and at last concludes, that all the sorrows we
endure contribute to our salvation and final good.
By saying that the saints glory in tribulations, he
is not to be understood, as though they dreaded not, nor avoided adversities, or
were not distressed with their bitterness when they happened, (for there is no
patience when there is no feeling of bitterness;) but as in their grief and
sorrow they are not without great consolation, because they regard that whatever
they bear is dispensed to them for good by the hand of a most indulgent Father,
they are justly said to glory: for whenever salvation is promoted, there is not
wanting a reason for glorying.
We are then taught here what is the design of our
tribulations, if indeed we would prove ourselves to be the children of God. They
ought to habituate us to patience; and if they do not answer this end, the work
of the Lord is rendered void and of none effect through our corruption: for how
does he prove that adversities do not hinder the glorying of the faithful,
except that by their patience in enduring them, they feel the help of God, which
nourishes and confirms their hope? They then who do not learn patience, do not,
it is certain, make good progress. Nor is it any objection, that there are
recorded in Scripture some complaints full of despondency, which the saints had
made: for the Lord sometimes so depresses and straitens for a time his people,
that they can hardly breathe, and can hardly remember any source of consolation;
but in a moment he brings to life those whom he had nearly sunk in the darkness
of death. So that what Paul says is always accomplished in them
—
“We are in every way oppressed,
but not made anxious; we are in danger, but we are not in despair; we suffer
persecution, but we are not forsaken; we are cast down but we are not
destroyed.”
(<470408>2
Corinthians 4:8.)
Tribulation
produces (efficiat)
patience,
etc. This is not the natural effect of tribulation; for we see that a great
portion of mankind are thereby instigated to murmur against God, and even to
curse his name. But when that inward meekness, which is infused by the Spirit of
God, and the consolation, which is conveyed by the same Spirit, succeed in the
place of our stubbornness, then tribulations become the means of generating
patience; yea, those tribulations, which in the obstinate can produce nothing
but indignation anal clamorous
discontent.
4.
Patience,
probation, etc. James, adopting a similar
gradation, seems to follow a different order; for he says, that patience
proceeds from probation: but the different meaning of the word is what will
reconcile both. Paul takes probation for the experience which the faithful have
of the sure protection of God, when by relying on his aid they overcome all
difficulties, even when they experience, whilst in patiently enduring they stand
firm, how much avails the power of the Lord, which he has promised to be always
present with his people. James takes the same word for tribulation itself,
according to the common usage of Scripture; for by these God proves and tries
his servants: and they are often called trials.
f154
According then to the present passage, we then only
make advances in patience as we ought, when we regard it as having been
continued to us by God’s power, and thus entertain hope as to the future,
that God’s favor, which has ever succored us in our necessities, will
never be wanting to us. Hence he subjoins, that from probation arises hope; for
ungrateful we should be for benefits received, except the recollection of them
confirms our hope as to what is to
come.
5.
Hope machete not
ashamed, etc.;
f155
that is, it regards salvation as most certain. It hence appears, that the Lord
tries us by adversities for this end, — that our salvation may thereby be
gradually advanced. Those evils then cannot render us miserable, which do in a
manner promote our happiness. And thus is proved what he had said, that the
godly have reasons for glorying in the midst of their
afflictions.
For the love of
God, etc. I do not refer this only to the last
sentence, but to the whole of the preceding passage. I therefore would say,
— that by tribulations we are stimulated to patience, and that patience
finds an experiment of divine help, by which we are more encouraged to entertain
hope; for however we may be pressed and seem to be nearly consumed, we do not
yet cease to feel God’s favor towards us, which affords the richest
consolation, and much more abundant than when all things happen prosperously.
For as that happiness, which is so in appearance, is misery itself, when God is
adverse to and displeased with us; so when he is propitious, even calamities
themselves will surely be turned to a prosperous and a joyful issue. Seeing all
things must serve the will of the Creator, who, according to his paternal favor
towards us, (as Paul declares in the eighth chapter,) overrules all the trials
of the cross for our salvation, this knowledge of divine love towards us is
instilled into our hearts to the Spirit of God; for the good things which God
has prepared for his servants are hid from the ears and the eyes and the minds
of men, and the Spirit alone is he who can reveal them. And the word
diffused, is very emphatical; for it means that the revelation of divine
love towards us is so abounding that it fills our hearts; and being thus spread
through every part of them, it not only mitigates sorrow in adversities, but
also, like a sweet seasoning, it renders tribulations to be loved by us.
f156
He Says further, that the Spirit is
given,
that is, bestowed through the gratuitous goodness of God, and not conferred for
our merits; according to what Augustine has well observed, who, though he
is mistaken in his view of the love of God, gives this explanation, — that
we courageously bear adversities, and are thus confirmed in our hope, because
we, having been regenerated by the Spirit, do love God. It is indeed a pious
sentiment, but not what Paul means: for love is not to be taken here in an
active but a passive sense. And certain it is, that no other thing is taught by
Paul than that the true fountain of all love is, when the faithful are convinced
that they are loved by God, and that they are not slightly touched with this
conviction, but have their souls thoroughly imbued with it.
|
ROMANS
5:6-9
|
|
6. For when we were yet without strength, in
due time Christ died for the ungodly.
|
6. Christus enim, quum adhuc essemus infirmi
secundum rationem Temporis, pro impiis mortuus est:
|
|
7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one
die; yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to
die.
|
7. Vix sane pro justo quis moriatur; nam pro
bono forsan aliquis etiam mori audeat.
|
|
8. But God commendeth his love toward us, in
that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
|
8. Confimat autem erga nos charitatem Deus
quod peccatores quum Adhuc essemus, Christus pro nobis mortuus
est:
|
|
9. Much more then, being now justified by his
blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
|
9. Multo igitur magis, justificati nunc per
sanguinem ejus, servabimur per ipsum ab ira.
|
6.
For
Christ, etc. I ventured not in my version to
allow myself so much liberty as to give this rendering, “In the time in
which we were weak;” and yet I prefer this sense. An argument begins here,
which is from the greater to the less, and which he afterwards pursues more at
large: and though he has not woven the thread of his discourse so very
distinctly, yet its irregular structure does not disturb the meaning. “If
Christ,” he says, “had mercy on the ungodly, if he reconciled
enemies to his Father, if he has done this by the virtue of his death, much more
easily will he save them when justified, and keep those restored to favor in the
possession of it, especially when the influence of his life is added to the
virtue of his death.”
f157
The time of weakness some consider to be that, when Christ first began to be
manifested to the world, and they think that those are called weak, who were
like children under the tuition of the law. I apply the expression to every one
of us, and I regard that time to be meant, which precedes the reconciliation of
each one with God. For as we are all born the children of wrath, so we are kept
under that curse until we become partakers of Christ. And he calls those weak,
who have nothing in themselves but what is sinful; for he calls the same
immediately afterwards ungodly. And it is nothing new, that weakness should be
taken in this sense. He calls, in
<461222>1
Corinthians 12:22, the covered parts of the body weak; and, in
<471010>2
Corinthians 10:10, he designates his own bodily presence weak, because it had no
dignity. And this meaning will soon again occur. When, therefore, we were weak,
that is, when we were in no way worthy or fit that God should look on us, at
this very time Christ died for the ungodly: for the beginning of religion is
faith, from which they were all alienated, for whom Christ died. And this also
is true as to the ancient fathers, who obtained righteousness before he died;
for they derived this benefit from his future death.
f158
7.
For a just
man, etc. The meaning of the passage has
constrained me to render the particle
ga<r
as an affirmative or declarative rather than as a causative. The import of the
sentence is this, “Most rare, indeed, is such an example to be found among
men, that one dies for a just man, though this may sometimes happen: but let
this be granted, yet for an ungodly man none will be found willing to die: this
is what Christ has done.”
f159
Thus it is an illustration, derived from a comparison; for such an example of
kindness, as Christ has exhibited towards us, does not exist among
men.
8.
But God
confirms, etc. The verb,
suni>dthsi,
has various meanings; that which is most suitable to this place is that of
confirming; for it was not the Apostle’s object to excite our gratitude,
but to strengthen the trust and confidence of our souls. He then
confirms, that is, exhibits his love to us as most certain and complete,
inasmuch as for the sake of the ungodly he spared not Christ his own Son. In
this, indeed, his love appears, that being not moved by love on our part, he of
his own good will first loved us, as John tells us.
(<620316>1
John 3:16.) — Those are here called
sinners,
(as in many other places,) who are wholly vicious and given up to sin, according
to what is said in
<430931>John
9:31, “God hears not sinners,” that is, men abandoned and altogether
wicked. The woman called “a sinner,” was one of a shameful
character.
(<420737>Luke
7:37.) And this meaning appears more evident from the contrast which immediately
follows, — for being now
justified through his blood: for since he sets
the two in opposition, the one to the other, and calls those justified who are
delivered from the guilt of sin, it necessarily follows that those are sinners
who, for their evil deeds, are condemned.
f160
The import of the whole is, — since Christ has attained righteousness for
sinner by his death, much more shall he protect them, being now justified, from
destruction. And in the last clause he applies to his own doctrine the
comparison between the less and the greater: for it would not have been enough
for salvation to have been once procured for us, were not Christ to render it
safe and secure to the end. And this is what the Apostle now maintains; so that
we ought not to fear, that Christ will cut off the current of his favor while we
are in the middle of our course: for inasmuch as he has reconciled us to the
Father, our condition is such, that he purposes more efficaciously to put forth
and daily to increase his favor towards us.
|
ROMANS
5:10
|
|
10. For if, when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God by the death of his son; much more, being reconciled, we shall
be saved by his life.
|
10. Si enim quum inimici essemus, reconciliati
sumus Deo per mortem Filii ejus; multo magis, reconciliati, servabimur per vitam
ipsius.
|
This is an explanation of the former verse, amplified
by introducing a comparison between life and death. We were enemies, he says,
when Christ interposed for the purpose of propitiating the Father: through this
reconciliation we are now friends; since this was effected by his death; much
more influential and efficacious will be his life.
f161
We hence have ample proofs to strengthen our hearts with confidence respecting
our salvation. By saying that we were reconciled to God by the death of Christ,
he means, that it was the sacrifice of expiation, by which God was pacified
towards the world, as I have showed in the fourth chapter.
But the Apostle seems here to be inconsistent with
himself; for if the death of Christ was a pledge of the divine love towards us,
it follows that we were already acceptable to him; but he says now, that we were
enemies. To this answer, that as God hates sin, we are also hated by him his far
as we are sinners; but as in his secret counsel he chooses us into the body of
Christ, he ceases to hate us: but restoration to favor is unknown to us, until
we attain it by faith. Hence with regard to us, we are always enemies, until the
death of Christ interposes in order to propitiate God. And this twofold aspect
of things ought to be noticed; for we do not know the gratuitous mercy of God
otherwise than as it appears from this — that he spared not his
only-begotten Son; for he loved us at a time when there was discord between him
and us: nor can we sufficiently understand the benefit brought to us by the
death of Christ, except this be the beginning of our reconciliation with God,
that we are persuaded that it is by the expiation that has been made, that he,
who was before justly angry with us, is now propitious to us. since then our
reception into favor is ascribed to the death of Christ, the meaning is, that
guilt is thereby taken away, to which we should be otherwise
exposed.
|
ROMANS
5:11
|
|
11. And not only so, but we also joy in God,
through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the
atonement.
|
11. Non solum autem, sed etiam gloriamur in
Deo per Dominum Iesum Christum, per quem nunc reconciliationem
accepimus.
|
11.
And not this
only, etc. He now ascends into the highest
strain of glorying; for when we glory that God is ours, whatever blessings can
be imagined or wished, ensue and flow from this fountain; for God is not only
the chief of all good things, but also possesses in himself the sum and
substance of all blessings; and he becomes ours through Christ. We then attain
this by faith, — that nothing is wanting to us as to happiness. Nor is it
in vain that he so often mentions reconciliation: it is, first, that we may be
taught to fix our eyes on the death of Christ, whenever we speak of our
salvation; and, secondly, that we may know that our trust must be fixed on
nothing else, but on the expiation made for our sins.
|
ROMANS
5:12-14
|
|
12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into
the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have
sinned:
|
12. Quamobrem sicut per unum hominem peccatmn
in mundum introiit, et per peccatum mors; atque ita in omnes homines mors
pervagata est. quandoquidem omnes peccaverunt:
|
|
13. (For until the law sin was in the world:
but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
|
13. (Nam usque ad legem peccatum erat in
mundo; peccatum autem non imputatur, quum non est lex:
|
|
14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to
Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s
transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
|
14. Sed regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Mosen,
etiam in eos qui non peccaverunt ad similitudinem prævericationis Adam,
qui est figura futuri.
|
12.
Wherefore
as, etc. He now begins to enlarge on the same
doctrine, by comparing with it what is of an opposite character. For since
Christ came to redeem us from the calamity into which Adam had fallen, and had
precipitated all his posterity with him, we cannot see with so much clearness
what we have in Christ, as by having what we have lost in Adam set before us,
though all things on both sides are not similar: hence Paul subjoins an
exception, which we shall notice in its place; and we shall also point out any
other difference that may occur. The incompleteness of the sentence sometimes
renders it obscure, as when the second clause, which answers to the former, is
not expressed. But we shall endeavor to make both plain when we come to those
parts.
f162
Sin entered into the
world, etc. Observe the order which he
keeps here; for he says, that sin preceded, and that from sin death followed.
There are indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam’s sin,
as though we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he had
sinned for us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to all who suffer
its punishment: and this he afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he
assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion of
death; and it is even this — because we have all, he says, sinned. But to
sin in this case, is to become corrupt and vicious; for the natural depravity
which we bring, from our mother’s womb, though it brings not forth
immediately its own fruits, is yet sin before God, and deserves his vengeance:
and this is that sin which they call original. For as Adam at his creation had
received for us as well as for himself the gifts of God’s favor, so by
falling away from the Lord, he in himself corrupted, vitiated, depraved, and
ruined our nature; for having been divested of God’s likeness, he could
not have generated seed but what was like himself. Hence we have all sinned; for
we are all imbued with natural corruption, and so are become sinful and wicked.
Frivolous then was the gloss, by which formerly the Pelagians endeavored to
elude the words of Paul, and held, that sin descended by imitation from Adam to
the whole human race; for Christ would in this case become only the exemplar and
not the cause of righteousness. Besides, we may easily conclude, that he speaks
not here of actual sin; for if everyone for himself contracted guilt, why did
Paul form a comparison between Adam and Christ? It then follows that our innate
and hereditary depravity is what is here referred to.
f163
13.
For until the
law, etc. This parenthesis anticipates an
objection: for as there seems to be no transgression with out the law, it might
have been doubted whether there were before the law any sin: that there was
after the law admitted of no doubt. The question only refers to the time
preceding the law. To this then he gives this answer, — that though God
had not as yet denounced judgment by a written law, yet mankind were under a
curse, and that from the womb; and hence that they who led a wicked and vicious
life before the promulgation of the law, were by no means exempt from the
condemnation of sin; for there had always been some notion of a God, to whom
honor was due, and there had ever been some rule of righteousness. This view is
so plain and so clear, that of itself it disproves every opposite
notion.
But sin is not
imputed, etc. Without the law reproving us, we
in a manner sleep in our sins; and though we are not ignorant that we do evil,
we yet suppress as much as we can the knowledge of evil offered to us, at least
we obliterate it by quickly forgetting it. While the law reproves and chides us,
it awakens us as it were by its stimulating power, that we may return to the
consideration of God’s judgment. The Apostle then intimates that men
continue in their perverseness when not roused by the law, and that when the
difference between good and evil is laid aside, they securely and joyfully
indulge themselves, as if there was no judgment to come. But that before the law
iniquities were by God imputed to men is evident from the punishment of Cain,
from the deluge by which the whole world was destroyed, from the fate of Sodom,
and from the plagues inflicted on Pharaoh and Abimelech on account of Abraham,
and also from the plagues brought on the Egyptians. That men also imputed sin to
one another, is clear from the many complaints and expostulations by which they
charged one another with iniquity, and also from the defenses by which they
labored to clear themselves from accusations of doing wrong. There are indeed
many examples which prove that every man was of himself conscious of what was
evil and of what was good: but that for the most part they connived at their own
evil deeds, so that they imputed nothing as a sin to themselves unless they were
constrained. When therefore he denies that sin without the law is imputed, he
speaks comparatively; for when men are not pricked by the goads of the law, they
become sunk in carelessness.
f164
But Paul wisely introduced this sentence, in order
that the Jews might hence more clearly learn how grievously they offended,
inasmuch as the law openly condemned them; for if they were not exempted from
punishment whom God had never summoned as guilty before his tribunal, what would
become of the Jews to whom the law, like a herald, had proclaimed their guilt,
yea, on whom it denounced judgment? There may be also another reason adduced why
he expressly says, that sin reigned before the law, but was not imputed, and
that is, that we may know that the cause of death proceeds not from the law, but
is only made known by it. Hence he declares, that all became miserably lost
immediately after the fall of Adam, though their destruction was only made
manifest by the law. If you translate this adversative de, though, the
text would run better; for the meaning is, that though men may indulge
themselves, they cannot yet escape God’s judgment, even when there is no
law to reprove them.
Death reigned from
Adam, etc. He explains more clearly that it
availed men nothing that from Adam to the time when the law was promulgated,
they led a licentious and careless life, while the difference between good and
evil was willfully rejected, and thus, without the warning of the law, the
remembrance of sin was buried; yea, that this availed them nothing, because sin
did yet issue in their condemnation. It hence appears, that death even then
reigned; for the blindness and obduracy of men could not stifle the judgment of
God.
14.
Even over
them, etc. Though this passage is commonly
understood of infants, who being guilty of no actual sin, die through original
sin, I yet prefer to regard it as referring to all those who sinned without the
law; for this verse is to be connected with the preceding clause, which says,
that those who were without the law did not impute sin to themselves. Hence they
sinned not after the similitude of Adam’s transgression; for they had not,
like him, the will of God made known to them by a certain oracle: for the Lord
had forbidden Adam to touch the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil; but to them he had given no command besides the testimony of conscience.
The Apostle then intended to imply, that it did not happen through the
difference between Adam and his posterity that they were exempt from
condemnation. Infants are at the same time included in their
number.
Who is a type of him who was to
come . This sentence is put instead of a second
clause; for we see that one part only of the comparison is expressed, the other
is omitted — an instance of what is called anacoluthon.
f165
You are then to take the meaning as though it was said, “as by one man sin
entered into the whole world, and death through sin, so by one man righteousness
returned, and life through righteousness.” But in saying that Adam bore a
resemblance to Christ, there is nothing incongruous; for some likeness often
appears in things wholly contrary. As then we are all lost through Adam’s
sin, so we are restored through Christ’s righteousness: hence he calls
Adam not inaptly the type of Christ. But observe, that Adam is not, said to be
the type of sin, nor Christ the type of righteousness, as though they led the
way only by their example, but that the one is contrasted with the other.
Observe this, lest you should foolishly go astray with Origen, and be involved
in a pernicious error; for he reasoned philosophically and profanely on the
corruption of mankind, and not only diminished the grace of Christ, but nearly
obliterated it altogether. The less excusable is Erasmus, who labors much in
palliating a notion so grossly delirious.
|
ROMANS
5:15
|
|
15. But not as the offense, so also is the
free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead; much more the grace
of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded
unto many.
|
15. Sed non sicut delictum, ita et donum; nam
si unius delicto
f166
multi mortui sunt, multo magis gratia Dei et donum Dei in gratia, quæ fuit
unius hominis Christi, in multos abundavit.
|
15.
But not as the
offense, etc. Now follows the rectifying or the
completion of the comparison already introduced. The Apostle does not, however,
very minutely state the points of difference between Christ and Adam, but he
obviates errors into which we might otherwise easily fall, and what is needful
for an explanation we shall add. Though he mentions oftentimes a difference, yet
there are none of these repetitions in which there is not a want of a
corresponding clause, or in which there is not at least an ellipsis. Such
instances are indeed defects in a discourse; but they are not prejudicial to the
majesty of that celestial wisdom which is taught us by the Apostle; it has, on
the contrary, so happened through the providence of God, that the highest
mysteries have been delivered to us in the garb of an humble style,
f167
in order that our faith may not depend on the potency of human eloquence, but on
the efficacious working of the Spirit alone.
He does not indeed even now expressly supply the
deficiency of the former sentence, but simply teaches us, that there is a
greater measure of grace procured by Christ, than of condemnation introduced by
the first man. What some think, that the Apostle carries on here a chain of
reasoning, I know not whether it will be deemed by all sufficiently evident. It
may indeed be justly inferred, that since the fall of Adam had such an effect as
to produce the ruin of many, much more efficacious is the grace of God to the
benefit of many; inasmuch as it is admitted, that Christ is much more powerful
to save, than Adam was to destroy. But as they cannot be disproved, who wish to
take the passage without this inference, I am willing that they should choose
either of these views; though what next follows cannot be deemed an inference,
yet it is of the same meaning. It is hence probable, that Paul rectifies, or by
way of exception modifies, what he had said of the likeness between Christ and
Adam.
But observe, that a larger number (plures) are
not here contrasted with many (multis,) for he speaks not of the number
of men: but as the sin of Adam has destroyed many, he draws this conclusion,
— that the righteousness of Christ will be no less efficacious to save
many.
f168
When he says,
by the offense of
one, etc., understand him as meaning this,
— that corruption has from him descended to us: for we perish not through
his fault, as though we were blameless; but as his sin is the cause of our sin,
Paul ascribes to him our ruin: our sin I call that which is implanted in us, and
with which we are born.
The grace of God and the gift of
God through grace, etc. Grace is properly set
in opposition to offense; the gift which proceeds from grace, to death. Hence
grace
means the free goodness of God or gratuitous love, of which he has given us a
proof in Christ, that he might relieve our misery: and
gift
is the fruit of this mercy, and hath come to us, even the reconciliation by
which we have obtained life and salvation, righteousness, newness of life, and
every other blessing. We hence see how absurdly the schoolmen have defined
grace, who have taught that it is nothing else but a quality infused into the
hearts of men: for grace, properly speaking, is in God; and what is in us is the
effect of grace. And he says, that it is by
one
man; for the Father has made him the
fountain out of whose fullness all must draw. And thus he teaches us, that not
even the least drop of life can be found out of Christ, — that there is no
other remedy for our poverty and want, than what he conveys to us from his own
abundance.
|
ROMANS
5:16
|
|
16. And not as it was by one that
sinned,
f169
so is the gift: for the judgement was by one to condemnation, but
the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.
|
16. Et non sicut per unum qui peccaverat, ita
donum; judicium enim ex uno in condemationem, donum autem ex multis delictis in
justificationem.
|
16. This is especially an explanation of what
he had said before, — that by one offense guilt issued in the condemnation
of us all, but that grace, or rather the gratuitous gift, is efficacious to our
justification from many offenses. It is indeed an expansion of what the last
verse contains; for he had not hitherto expressed, how or in what respect Christ
excelled Adam. This difference being settled, it appears evident, that their
opinion is impious, who have taught that we recover nothing else by Christ but a
freedom from original sin, or the corruption derived from Adam. Observe also,
that these many offenses, from which he affirms we are freed through Christ, are
not to be understood only of those which every one must have committed before
baptism, but also of those by which the saints contract daily new guilt; and on
account of which they would be justly exposed to condemnation, were they not
continually relieved by this grace.
He sets gift in opposition to judgment: by the latter
he means strict justice; by the former, gratuitous pardon. From strict justice
comes condemnation; from pardon, absolution. Or, which is the same thing, were
God to deal with us according to justice, we should be all undone; but he
justifies us freely in Christ.
|
ROMANS
5:17
|
|
17. For if by one man’s offense death
reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift
of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
f170
|
17. Si enin unius delicto mors regnavit per
unum; multo magis qui exuberantiam gratiæ et doni justitiæ
acceperunt, in vita regnabunt per unum Iesum Christum.)
|
17.
For if the offense of
one, etc. He again subjoins a general
explanation, on which he dwells still further; for it was by no means his
purpose to explain every part of the subject, but to state the main points. He
had before declared, that the power of grace had surpassed that of sin: and by
this he consoles and strengthens the faithful, and, at the same time, stimulates
and encourages them to meditate on the benignity of God. Indeed the design of so
studious a repetition was, — that the grace of God might be worthily set
forth, that men might be led from self-confidence to trust in Christ, that
having obtained his grace they might enjoy full assurance; and hence at length
arises gratitude. The sum of the whole is this — that Christ surpasses
Adam; the sin of one is overcome by the righteousness of the other; the curse of
one is effaced by the grace of the other; from one, death has proceeded, which
is absorbed by the life which the other bestows.
But the parts of this comparison do not correspond;
instead of adding, “the gift of life shall more fully reign and flourish
through the exuberance of grace,” he says, that “the faithful shall
reign;” which amounts to the same thing; for the reign of the faithful is
in life, and the reign of life is in the faithful.
It may further be useful to notice here the
difference between Christ and Adam, which the Apostle omitted, not because he
deemed it of no importance, but unconnected with his present
subject.
The first is, that by Adam’s sin we are not
condemned through imputation alone, as though we were punished only for the sin
of another; but we suffer his punishment, because we also ourselves are guilty;
for as our nature is vitiated in him, it is regarded by God as having committed
sin. But through the righteousness of Christ we are restored in a different way
to salvation; for it is not said to be accepted for us, because it is in us, but
because we possess Christ himself with all his blessings, as given to us through
the bountiful kindness of the Father. Hence the gift of righteousness is not a
quality with which God endows us, as some absurdly explain it, but a gratuitous
imputation of righteousness; for the Apostle plainly declares what he understood
by the word grace. The other difference is, that the benefit of Christ
does not come to all men, while Adam has involved his whole race in
condemnation; and the reason of this is indeed evident; for as the curse we
derive from Adam is conveyed to us by nature, it is no wonder that it includes
the whole mass; but that we may come to a participation of the grace of Christ,
we must be ingrafted in whim by faith. Hence, in order to partake of the
miserable inheritance of sin, it is enough for thee to be man, for it dwells in
flesh and blood; but in order to enjoy the righteousness of Christ it is
necessary for thee to be a believer; for a participation of him is attained only
by faith. He is communicated to infants in a peculiar way; for they have by
covenant the right of adoption, by which they pass over unto a participation of
Christ.
f171
Of the children of the godly I speak, to whom the promise of grace is addressed;
for others are by no means exempted from the common lot.
|
ROMANS
5:18
|
|
18. Therefore, as by the offense of one
judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness
of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of
life.
|
18. Itaque quemadmodum, per unius delictum, in
omnes homines in condemnationem; sic et per unius justificationem, in omnes
homines in justificationem vitæ.
|
18.
Therefore,
etc. This is a defective sentence; it will be complete if the words
condemnation
and justification
be read in the nominative case; as doubtless you
must do in order to complete the sense. We have here the general conclusion from
the preceding comparison; for, omitting the mention of the intervening
explanation, he now completes the comparison, “As by the offense of one we
were made (constitute) sinners; so the righteousness of Christ is
efficacious to justify us. He does not say the righteousness —
dikaiosu>nhn,
but the justification —
dikai>wma,
f172
of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for
himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in
order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this
favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in
reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole
world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet
all do not receive him.
f173
These two words, which he had before used,
judgment
and
grace,
may be also introduced here in this form, “As it was through God’s
judgment that the sin of one issued in the condemnation of many, so grace will
be efficacious to the justification of many.”
Justification of
life is to be taken, in my judgment, for
remission, which restores life to us, as though he called it life-giving.
f174
For whence comes the hope of salvation, except that God is propitious to us; and
we must be just, in order to be accepted. Then life proceeds from justification.
f175
|
ROMANS
5:19
|
|
19. For as by one man’s disobedience
many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made
righteous.
|
19. Quemadmodum enim per disobedientiam unius
hominis peccatores constitute sunt multi; sic et per obedientiam unius justi
constituentur multi.
|
This is no tautology, but a necessary explanation of
the former verse. For he shows that we are guilty through the offense of one
man, in such a manner as not to be ourselves innocent. He had said before, that
we are condemned; but that no one might claim for himself innocence, he also
subjoined, that every one is condemned because he is a sinner. And then, as he
declares that we are made righteous through the obedience of Christ, we hence
conclude that Christ, in satisfying the Father, has provided a righteousness for
us. It then follows, that righteousness is in Christ, and that it is to be
received by us as what peculiarly belongs to him. He at the same time shows what
sort of righteousness it is, by calling it obedience. And here let us especially
observe what we must bring into God’s presence, if we seek to be justified
by works, even obedience to the law, not to this or to that part, but in every
respect perfect; for when a just man falls, all his former righteousness will
not be remembered. We may also hence learn, how false are the schemes which they
take to pacify God, who of themselves devise what they obtrude on him. For then
only we truly worship him when we follow what he has commanded us, and render
obedience to his word. Away then with those who confidently lay claim to the
righteousness of works, which cannot otherwise exist than when there is a full
and complete observance of the law; and it is certain that this is nowhere to be
found. We also learn, that they are madly foolish who vaunt before God of works
invented by themselves, which he regards as the filthiest things; for obedience
is better than sacrifices.
|
ROMANS
5:20-21
|
|
20. Moreover, the law entered, that the
offense might abound;
f176
but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
|
20. Lex vero intervenit, ut abundaret
delictum; ubi vero abundavit delictum, superabundavit et
gratia:
|
|
21. That as sin hath reigned unto death, even
so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our
Lord.
|
21. Quo, sicut regnavit peccatum per mortem,
sic et gratia regnet per justitiam in vitam æternam per Iesum Christum
Dominum nostrum.
|
20.
But the law
intervened, etc. This subject depends on what
he had said before — that there was sin before the law was published. This
being the case, then follows immediately this question — For what purpose
was the law given? It was therefore necessary to solve this difficulty; but as a
longer digression was not suitable, he deferred the subject and handled it in
another place: and now by the way he only says, that the law entered,
f177
that sin might abound; for he describes not here the whole office and use of the
law, but only touches on one part, which served his present purpose. He indeed
teaches us, that it was needful that men’s ruin should be more fully
discovered to them, in order that a passage might be opened for the favor of
God. They were indeed shipwrecked before the law was given; as however they
seemed to themselves to swim, while in their destruction, they were thrust down
into the deep, that their deliverance might appear more evident, when they
thence emerge beyond all human expectation. Nor was it unreasonable, that the
law should be partly introduced for this end — that it might again condemn
men already condemned; for nothing is more reasonable than that men should,
through all means be brought, nay, forced, by being proved guilty, to know their
own evils.
That offense might
abound, etc. It is well known how some,
following Augustine, usually explain this passage, — that lust is
irritated the more, while it is checked by the restraints of the law; for it is
man’s nature to strive for what is forbidden. But I understand no other
increase to be intended here than that of knowledge and of obstinacy; for sin is
set by the law before the eyes of man, that he may be continually forced to see
that condemnation is prepared for him. Thus sin disturbs the conscience, which,
when cast behind them, men forget. And farther, he who before only passed over
the bounds of justice, becomes now, when the law is introduced, a despiser of
God’s authority, since the will of God is made known to him, which he now
wantonly tramples under feet. It hence follows, that sin is increased by the
law, since now the authority of the lawgiver is despised and his majesty
degraded.
f178
Grace has
superabounded. After sin has held men sunk in
ruin, grace then comes to their help: for he teaches us, that the abundance of
grace becomes for this reason more illustrious. — that while sin is
overflowing, it pours itself forth so exuberantly, that it not only overcomes
the flood of sin, but wholly absorbs it.
f179
And we may hence learn, that our condemnation is not set before us in the law,
that we may abide in it; but that having fully known our misery, we may be led
to Christ, who is sent to be a physician to the sick, a deliverer to the
captives, a comforter to the afflicted, a defender to the oppressed.
(<236101>Isaiah
61:1.)
21.
That as sin has
reigned, etc. As sin is said to be the sting of
death, and as death has no power over men, except on account of sin; so sin
executes its power by death: it is hence said to exercise thereby its dominion.
In the last clause the order of the words is deranged, but yet not without
reason. The simple contrast might have been thus formed, — “That
righteousness may reign through Christ.” But Paul was not content to
oppose what is contrary to what is contrary, but adds the word
grace,
that he might more deeply print this truth on the memory — that the whole
is to be ascribed, not to our merit, but to the kindness of God.
f180
He had previously said, that death reigned; he now ascribes reigning to sin; but
its end or, effect is death. And he says, that it has reigned, in the past
tense; not that it has ceased to reign in those who are born only of flesh, and
he thus distinguishes between Adam and Christ, and assigns to each his own time.
Hence as soon as the grace of Christ begins to prevail in any one, the reign of
sin and death ceases.
f181
CHAPTER 6
|
ROMANS
6:1-2
|
|
1. What shall we say then? Shall we continue
in sin, that grace may abound?
|
1. Quid ergo dicemus? manebimus in peccato, ut
gratia abundet?
|
|
2. God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to
sin, live any longer therein?
|
2. Ne sit ita: qui mortui sumus peccato,
quomodo adhuc vivemus in eo?
|
1.
What then shall we
say? Throughout this chapter the Apostle
proves, that they who imagine that gratuitous righteousness is given us by him,
apart from newness of life, shamefully rend Christ asunder: nay, he goes
further, and refers to this objection, — that there seems in this case to
be an opportunity for the display of grace, if men continued fixed in sin. We
indeed know that nothing is more natural than that the flesh should indulge
itself under any excuse, and also that Satan should invent all kinds of slander,
in order to discredit the doctrine of grace; which to him is by no means
difficult. For since everything that is announced concerning Christ seems very
paradoxical to human judgment, it ought not to be deemed a new thing, that the
flesh, hearing of justification by faith, should so often strike, as it were,
against so many stumbling-stones. Let us, however, go on in our course; nor let
Christ be suppressed, because he is to many a stone of offense, and a rock of
stumbling; for as he is for ruin to the ungodly, so he is to the godly for a
resurrection. We ought, at the same time, ever to obviate unreasonable
questions, lest the Christian faith should appear to contain anything
absurd.
The Apostle now takes notice of that most common
objection against the preaching of divine grace, which is this, —
“That if it be true, that the more bountifully and abundantly will the
grace of God aid us, the more completely we are overwhelmed with the mass of
sin; then nothing is better for us than to be sunk into the depth of sin, and
often to provoke God’s wrath with new offenses; for then at length we
shall find more abounding grace; than which nothing better can be
desired.” The refutation of this we shall here after meet
with.
2.
By no
means. To some the Apostle seems to have only
intended indignantly to reprove a madness so outrageous; but it appears from
other places that he commonly used an answer of this kind, even while carrying
on a long argument; as indeed he does here, for he proceeds carefully to
disprove the propounded slander. He, however, first rejects it by an indignant
negative, in order to impress it on the minds of his readers, that nothing can
be more inconsistent than that the grace of Christ, the repairer of our
righteousness, should nourish our vices.
Who have died to
sin, etc. An argument derived from what is of
an opposite character. “He who sins certainly lives to sin; we have died
to sin through the grace of Christ; then it is false, that what abolishes sin
gives vigor to it.” The state of the case is really this, — that the
faithful are never reconciled to God without the gift of regeneration; nay, we
are for this end justified, — that we may afterwards serve God in holiness
of life. Christ indeed does not cleanse us by his blood, nor render God
propitious to us by his expiation, in any other way than by making us partakers
of his Spirit, who renews us to a holy life. It would then be a most strange
inversion of the work of God were sin to gather strength on account of the grace
which is offered to us in Christ; for medicine is not a feeder of the disease,
which it destroys.
f182
We must further bear in mind, what I have already referred to — that Paul
does not state here what God finds us to be, when he calls us to an union with
his Son, but what it behoves us to be, after he has had mercy on us, and has
freely adopted us; for by an adverb, denoting a future time, he shows what kind
of change ought to follow righteousness.
|
ROMANS
6:3-4
|
|
3. know ye not, that so many of us as were
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
|
3. Num ignoratis quod quicunque baptizati
Sumus in Christum, in mortem ejus baptizati sumus?
|
|
4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism
into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
|
4. Consepulti ergo sumus ei per baptismum in
mortem; ut guemadmodum suscitatus est Christus ex mortuis per gloriam Patris,
sic et nos in novitate vitæ ambulemus.
|
3.
Know ye
not, etc. What he intimated in the last verse
— that Christ destroys sin in his people, he proves here by mentioning the
effect of baptism, by which we are initiated into his faith; for it is beyond
any question, that we put on Christ in baptism, and that we are baptized for
this end — that we may be one with him. But Paul takes up another
principle — that we are then really united to the body of Christ, when his
death brings forth in us its fruit; yea, he teaches us, that this fellowship as
to death is what is to be mainly regarded in baptism; for not washing alone is
set forth in it, but also the putting to death and the dying of the old man. It
is hence evident, that when we become partakers of the grace of Christ,
immediately the efficacy of his death appears. But the benefit of this
fellowship as to the death of Christ is described in what follows.
f183
4.
We have then been buried with
him, etc. He now begins to indicate the object
of our having been baptized into the death of Christ, though he does not yet
completely unfold it; and the object is — that we, being dead to
ourselves, may become new creatures. He rightly makes a transition from a
fellowship in death to a fellowship in life; for these two things are connected
together by an indissoluble knot — that the old man is destroyed by the
death of Christ, and that his resurrection brings righteousness, and renders us
new creatures. And surely, since Christ has been given to us for life, to what
purpose is it that we die with him except that we may rise to a better life? And
hence for no other reason does he slay what is mortal in us, but that he may
give us life again.
Let us know, that the Apostle does not simply exhort
us to imitate Christ, as though he had said that the death of Christ is a
pattern which all Christians are to follow; for no doubt he ascends higher, as
he announces a doctrine, with which he connects, as it is evident, an
exhortation; and his doctrine is this — that the death of Christ is
efficacious to destroy and demolish the depravity of our flesh, and his
resurrection, to effect the renovation of a better nature, and that by baptism
we are admitted into a participation of this grace. This foundation being laid,
Christians may very suitably be exhorted to strive to respond to their calling.
Farther, it is not to the point to say, that this power is not apparent in all
the baptized; for Paul, according to his usual manner, where he speaks of the
faithful, connects the reality and the effect with the outward sign; for we know
that whatever the Lord offers by the visible symbol is confirmed and ratified by
their faith. In short, he teaches what is the real character of baptism when
rightly received. So he testifies to the Galatians, that all who have been
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.
(<480327>Galatians
3:27.) Thus indeed must we speak, as long as the institution of the Lord and the
faith of the godly unite together; for we never have naked and empty symbols,
except when our ingratitude and wickedness hinder the working of divine
beneficence.
f184
By the glory of the
Father, that is, by that illustrious power by
which he exhibited himself as really glorious, and as it were manifested the
greatness of his glory. Thus often is the power of God, which was exercised in
the resurrection of Christ, set forth in Scripture in sublime terms, and not
without reason; for it is of great importance, that by so explicit a record of
the ineffable power of God, not only faith in the last resurrection, which far
exceeds the perception of the flesh, but also as to other benefits which we
receive from the resurrection of Christ, should be highly commended to us.
f185
|
ROMANS
6:5-6
|
|
5. For if we have been planted together in the
likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his
resurrection:
|
5. Nam si insititii facti sumus similitudini
mortis ejus, nimirum et resurrectionis participes erimus:
|
|
6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified
with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we
should not serve sin.
|
6. Illud scientes, quod vetus noster homo
simul cum ipso crucifixus est. ut aboleretur corpus peccati, ut non ultra
serviamus peccato.
|
5.
For if we have been
ingrafted, etc. He strengthens in plainer words
the argument he has already stated; for the similitude which he mentions leaves
now nothing doubtful, inasmuch as grafting designates not only a conformity of
example, but a secret union, by which we are joined to him; so that he, reviving
us by his Spirit, transfers his own virtue to us. Hence as the graft has the
same life or death in common with the tree into which it is ingrafted, so it is
reasonable that we should be partakers of the life no less than of the death of
Christ; for if we are ingrafted according to the likeness of Christ’s
death, which was not without a resurrection, then our death shall not be without
a resurrection. But the words admit of a twofold explanation, — either
that we are ingrafted in Christ into the likeness of his death, or, that we are
simply ingrafted in its likeness. The first reading would require the Greek
dative
oJmoiw>mati,
to be understood as pointing out the manner; nor do I deny but that it has a
fuller meaning: but as the other harmonizes more with simplicity of expression,
I have preferred it; though it signifies but little, as both come to the same
meaning. Chrysostom thought that Paul used the expression,
“likeness of death,” for death, as he says in another place,
“being made in the likeness of men.” But it seems to me that there
is something more significant in the expression; for it not only serves to
intimate a resurrection, but it seems also to indicate this — that we die
not like Christ a natural death, but that there is a similarity between our and
his death; for as he by death died in the flesh, which he had assumed from us,
so we also die in ourselves, that we may live in him. It is not then the same,
but a similar death; for we are to notice the connection between the death of
our present life and spiritual renovation.
Ingrafted,
etc. There is great force in this word, and it clearly shows, that the Apostle
does not exhort, but rather teach us what benefit we derive from Christ; for he
requires nothing from us, which is to be done by our attention and diligence,
but speaks of the grafting made by the hand of God. But there is no reason why
you should seek to apply the metaphor or comparison in every particular; for
between the grafting of trees, and this which is spiritual, a disparity will
soon meet us: in the former the graft draws its aliment from the root, but
retains its own nature in the fruit; but in the latter not only we derive the
vigor and nourishment of life from Christ, but we also pass from our own to his
nature. The Apostle, however, meant to express nothing else but the efficacy of
the death of Christ, which manifests itself in putting to death our flesh, and
also the efficacy of his resurrection, in renewing within us a spiritual nature.
f186
6.
That our old
man, etc. The old man, as the Old Testament is
so called with reference to the New; for he begins to be old, when he is by
degrees destroyed by a commencing regeneration. But what he means is the whole
nature which we bring from the womb, and which is so in capable of the kingdom
of God, that it must so far die as we are renewed to real life. This old man, he
says, is fastened to the cross of Christ, for by its power he is slain: and he
expressly referred to the cross, that he might more distinctly show, that we
cannot be otherwise put to death than by partaking of his death. For I do not
agree with those who think that he used the word crucified, rather than dead,
because he still lives, and is in some respects vigorous. It is indeed a correct
sentiment, but not suitable to this passage.
The body of
sin, which he afterwards mentions, does not
mean flesh and bones, but the corrupted mass; for man, left to his own nature,
is a mass made up of sin.
f187
He points out the end for which this destruction is
effected, when he says, so that
we may no longer serve sin. It hence follows,
that as long as we are children of Adam, and nothing more than men, we are in
bondage to sin, that we can do nothing else but sin; but that being grafted in
Christ, we are delivered from this miserable thraldom; not that we immediately
cease entirely to sin, but that we become at last victorious in the
contest.
|
ROMANS
6:7-11
|
|
7. For he that is dead is freed from
sin.
|
7. Qui enim mortuus est, justificatus Est a
peccato.
|
|
8. Now, if we be dead with Christ, we believe
that we shall also live with him:
|
8. Si vero mortui sumus cum Christo, credimus
quod et vivemus cum eo
|
|
9. Knowing that Christ, being raised from the
dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
|
9. Scientes quad Christus suscitatus ex
mortuis, amplius non moritur, mors illi amplius non dominatur:
|
|
10. For in that he died, he died unto sin
once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
|
10. Quod enim mortuus est, peccato mortuus est
semel, quod autem vivit, vivit Deo.
|
|
11. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be
dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our
Lord.
|
11. Sic et ipsi æstimate vosmet esse
mortuos quidem peccato, viventes autem Deo in Christo Iesu Domino
nostro.
|
7.
For he who has
died, etc. This is an argument derived from
what belongs to death or from its effect. For if death destroys all the actions
of life, we who have died to sin ought to cease from those actions which it
exercised during its life. Take justified for freed or reclaimed from
bondage; for as he is freed from the bond of a charge, who is absolved by the
sentence of a judge; so death, by freeing us from this life, sets us f