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 free from
all its functions.
f188
But though among men there is found no such example,
there is yet no reason why you should think, that what is said here is a vain
speculation, or despond in your minds, because you find not yourselves to be of
the number of those who have wholly crucified the flesh; for this work of God is
not completed in the day in which it is begun in us; but it gradually goes on,
and by daily advances is brought by degrees to its end. So then take this as the
sum of the whole, — “If thou art a Christian, there must appear in
thee an evidence of a fellowship as to the death of Christ; the fruit of which
is, that thy flesh is crucified together with all its lusts; but this fellowship
is not to be considered as not existing, because thou findest that the relics of
the flesh still live in thee; but its increase ought to be diligently labored
for, until thou arrivest at the goal.” It is indeed well with us, if our
flesh is continually mortified; nor is it a small attainment, when the reigning
power, being taken away from it, is wielded by the Holy Spirit. There is another
fellowship as to the death of Christ, of which the Apostle often speaks, as he
does in 2 Corinthians 4., that is, the bearing of the cross, which is followed
by a joint-participation also of eternal
life.
8.
But if we have
died, etc. He repeats this for no other end but
that he might subjoin the explanation which follows, that Christ, having once
risen, dies no more. And hereby he teaches us that newness of life is to be
pursued by Christians as long as they live; for since they ought to represent in
themselves an image of Christ, both by crucifying the flesh and by a spiritual
life, it is necessary that the former should be done once for all, and that the
latter should be carried on continually: not that the flesh, as we have already
said, dies in us in a moment, but that we ought not to retrograde in the work of
crucifying it. For if we roll again in our own filth, we deny Christ; of whom we
cannot be the participators except through newness of life, inasmuch as he lives
an incorruptible life.
9.
Death no more rules over
him, etc. He seems to imply that death once
ruled over Christ; and indeed when he gave himself up to death for us, he in a
manner surrendered and subjected himself to its power; it was however in such a
way that it was impossible that he should be kept bound by its pangs, so as to
succumb to or to be swallowed up by them. He, therefore, by submitting to its
dominion, as it were, for a moment, destroyed it for ever. Yet, to speak more
simply, the dominion of death is to be referred to the state of death
voluntarily undergone, which the resurrection terminated. The meaning is, that
Christ, who now vivifies the faithful by his Spirit, or breathes his own life
into them by his secret power from heaven, was freed from the dominion of death
when he arose, that by virtue of the same dominion he might render free all his
people.
10.
He died once to
sin, etc. What he had said — that we,
according to the example of Christ, are for ever freed from the yoke of death,
he now applies to his present purpose, and that is this — that we are no
more subject to the tyranny of sin, and this he proves from the designed object
of Christ’s death; for he died that he might destroy sin.
But we must observe what is suitable to Christ in
this form of expression; for he is not said to die to sin, so as to cease from
it, as the words must be taken when applied to us, but that he underwent death
on account of sin, that having made himself
ajnti>lutron,
a ransom, he might annihilate the power and dominion of sin.
f189
And he says that he died
once,
not only because he has by having obtained eternal redemption by one offering,
and by having made an expiation for sin by his blood, sanctified the faithful
for ever; but also in order that a mutual likeness may exist between us. For
though spiritual death makes continual advances in us, we are yet said properly
to die only once, that is, when Christ, reconciling us by his blood to the
Father, regenerates us at the same time by the power of his
Spirit.
But that he
lives, etc. Whether you add with or
in God, it comes to the same meaning; for he shows that Christ lives a
life subject to no mortality in the immortal and incorruptible kingdom of God; a
type of which ought to appear in the regeneration of the godly. We must here
remember the particle of likeness, so; for he says not that we shall now
live in heaven, as Christ lives there; but he makes the new life, which after
regeneration we live on earth, similar to his celestial life. When he says that
we ought to die to
sin, according to his example, we are not to
suppose it to be the same kind of death; for we die to sin, when sin dies in us,
but it was otherwise with Christ; by dying it was that he conquered sin. But he
had just said before, that we believe that we shall have life in common with
him, he fully shows by the word believing that he speaks of the grace of Christ:
for if he only reminded us of a duty, his mode of speaking would have been this,
“Since we die with Christ, we ought also to live with him.” But the
word believing denotes that he treats here of doctrine which is based on the
promises; as though he had said, that the faithful ought to feel assured that
they are through the kindness of Christ dead as to the flesh, and that the same
Christ will preserve them in newness of life to the end. But the future time of
the verb live, refers not to the last resurrection, but simply denotes
the continued course of a new life, as long as we peregrinate on the
earth.
11.
So count ye also
yourselves, etc. Now is added a definition of
that analogy to which I have referred. For having stated that Christ once died
to sin and lives for ever to God, he now, applying both to us, reminds us how we
now die while living, that is, when we renounce sin. But he omits not the other
part, that is, how we are to live after having by faith received the grace of
Christ: for though the mortifying of the flesh is only begun in us, yet the life
of sin is destroyed, so that afterwards spiritual newness, which is divine,
continues perpetually. For except Christ were to slay sin in us at once to the
end, his grace would by no means be sure and durable.
The meaning, then, of the words may be thus
expressed, “Take this view of your case, — that as Christ once died
for the purpose of destroying sin, so you have once died, that in future you may
cease from sin; yea, you must daily proceed with that work of mortifying, which
is begun in you, till sin be wholly destroyed: as Christ is raised to an
incorruptible life, so you are regenerated by the grace of God, that you may
lead a life of holiness and righteousness, inasmuch as the power of the Holy
Spirit, by which ye have been renewed, is eternal, and shall ever continue the
same.” But I prefer to retain the words of Paul, in Christ Jesus,
rather than to translate with Erasmus, through Christ Jesus; for thus the
grafting, which makes us one with Christ, is better
expressed.
|
ROMANS
6:12-13
|
|
12. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal
body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof:
|
12. Ne ergo regnet peccatum in mortali vestro
corpore, ut illi obediatis in cupiditatibus suis:
|
|
13. Neither yield ye your members as
instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those
that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness
unto God.
|
13. Neque exhibeatis membra vestra arma
injustitiæ peccato, sed exhibeatis vosmetipsos Deo, tanquam ex mortuis
viventes, et membra vestra arma justitiæ Deo.
|
12.
Let not sin
then, etc. He now begins with exhortation,
which naturally arises from the doctrine which he had delivered respecting our
fellowship with Christ. Though sin dwells in us, it is inconsistent that it
should be so vigorous as to exercise its reigning power; for the power of
sanctification ought to be superior to it, so that our life may testify that we
are really the members of Christ. I have already reminded you that the word
body is not to be taken for flesh, and skin, and bones, but, so to speak,
for the whole of what man is.
f190
This may undoubtedly be inferred from the passage; for the other clause, which
he immediately subjoins respecting the members of the body, includes the soul
also: and thus in a disparaging manner does Paul designate earthly man, for
owing to the corruption of our nature we aspire to nothing worthy of our
original. So also does God say in
<010603>Genesis
6:3; where he complains that man was become flesh like the brute animals, and
thus allows him nothing but what is earthly. To the same purpose is the
declaration of Christ, “What is born of the flesh is flesh.”
(<430306>John
3:6.) But if any makes this objection — that the case with the soul is
different; to this the ready answer is — that in our present degenerate
state our souls are fixed to the earth, and so enslaved to our bodies, that they
have fallen from their own superiority. In a word, the nature of man is said to
be corporeal, because he is destitute of celestial grace, and is only a sort of
empty shadow or image. We may add, that the body, by way of contempt, is said by
Paul to be mortal, and this to teach us, that the whole nature of man
tends to death and ruin. Still further, he gives the name of sin to the original
depravity which dwells in our hearts, and which leads us to sin, and from which
indeed all evil deeds and abominations stream forth. In the middle, between sin
and us, he places lusts, as the former has the office of a king, while lusts are
its edicts and commands.
13.
Nor present your
members, etc. When once sin has obtained
dominion in our soul, all our faculties are continually applied to its service.
He therefore describes here the reign of sin by what follows it, that he might
more clearly show what must be done by us, if we would shake off its yoke. But
he borrows a similitude from the military office, when he calls our members
weapons or arms (arma);
f191
as though he said, “As the soldier has ever his arms ready, that he may
use them whenever he is ordered by his general, and as he never uses them but at
his command; so Christians ought to regard all their faculties to be the weapons
of the spiritual warfare: if then they employ any of their members in the
indulgence of depravity, they are in the service of sin. But they have made the
oath of soldiers to God and to Christ, and by this they are held bound: it hence
behoves them to be far away from any intercourse with the camps of sin.”
— Those may also here see by what right they proudly lay claim to the
Christian name, who have all their members, as though they were the prostitutes
of Satan, prepared to commit every kind of abomination.
On the other hand, he now bids us to present
ourselves wholly to God, so that restraining our minds and hearts from all
wanderings into which the lusts of the flesh may draw us, we may regard the will
of God alone, being ready to receive his commands, and prepared to execute his
orders; and that our members also may be devoted and consecrated to his will, so
that all the faculties both of our souls and of our bodies may aspire after
nothing but his glory. The reason for this is also added — that the Lord,
having destroyed our former life, has not in vain created us for another, which
ought to be accompanied with suitable actions.
|
ROMANS
6:14-18
|
|
14. For sin shall not have dominion over you;
f192
for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
|
14. Peccatum enim vobis non dominabitur, non
enim estis sub Lege, sed Sub gratia.
|
|
15. What then? shall we sin, because we are
not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
|
15. Quid ergo? Peccabimus, quia non sumus sub
Lege, sed sub gratia? Absit:
|
|
16. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield
yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin
unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
|
16. Nescitis quod cui exhibuistis vos servos
in obedientiam, ejus servi estis cui obeditis, sive peccati in mortem, sive
obedientiæ in justitiam?
|
|
17. But God be thanked, that ye were the
servants of sin; but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which
was delivered you.
|
17. Gratia autem Deo, quod fuistis servi
peccati, obeditis, vero ex animo typo doctrinæ in quem traducti
estis:
|
|
18. Being then made free from sin, ye became
the servants of righteousness.
|
18. Manumissi vero peccato, servi facti estis
justitiæ.
|
14.
For sin shall not rule over you, etc. It is not
necessary to continue long in repeating and confuting expositions, which have
little or no appearance of truth. There is one which has more probability in its
favor than the rest, and it is this — that by
law
we are to understand the letter of the law, which cannot renovate the soul, and
by
grace,
the grace of the Spirit, by which we are freed from depraved lusts. But this I
do not wholly approve of; for if we take this meaning, what is the object of the
question which immediately follows, “Shall we sin because we are not under
the law?” Certainly the Apostle would never have put this question, had he
not understood, that we are freed from the strictness of the law, so that God no
more deals with us according to the high demands of justice. There is then no
doubt but that he meant here to indicate some freedom from the very law of God.
But laying aside controversy, I will briefly explain my view.
It seems to me, that there is here especially a
consolation offered, by which the faithful are to be strengthened, lest they
should faint in their efforts after holiness, through a consciousness of their
own weakness. He had exhorted them to devote all their faculties to the service
of righteousness; but as they carry about them the relics of the flesh, they
cannot do otherwise than walk somewhat lamely. Hence, lest being broken down by
a consciousness of their infirmity they should despond, he seasonably comes to
their aid, by interposing a consolation, derived from this circumstance —
that their works are not now tested by the strict rule of the law, but that God,
remitting their impurity, does kindly and mercifully accept them. The yoke of
the law cannot do otherwise than tear and bruise those who carry it. It hence
follows, that the faithful must flee to Christ, and implore him to be the
defender of their freedom: and as such he exhibits himself; for he underwent the
bondage of the law, to which he was himself no debtor, for this end — that
he might, as the Apostle says, redeem those who were under the
law.
Hence,
not to be under the law means, not only that we
are not under the letter which prescribes what involves us in guilt, as we are
not able to perform it, but also that we are no longer subject to the law, as
requiring perfect righteousness, and pronouncing death on all who deviate from
it in any part. In like manner, by the word
grace,
we are to understand both parts of redemption — the remission of sins, by
which God imputes righteousness to us, — and the sanctification of the
Spirit, by whom he forms us anew unto good works. The adversative particle,
[ajlla<,
but,] I take in the sense of alleging a reason, which is not unfrequently the
case; as though it was said — “We who are under grace, are not
therefore under the law.”
The sense now is clear; for the Apostle intended to
comfort us, lest we should be wearied in our minds, while striving to do what is
right, because we still find in ourselves many imperfections. For how much
soever we may be harassed by the stings of sin, it cannot yet overcome us, for
we are enabled to conquer it by the Spirit of God; and then, being under grace,
we are freed from the rigorous requirements of the law. We must further
understand, that the Apostle assumes it as granted, that all who are without the
grace of God, being bound under the yoke of the law, are under condemnation. And
so we may on the other hand conclude, that as long as they are under the law,
they are subject to the dominion of sin.
f193
15.
What
then? As the wisdom of the flesh is ever
clamorous against the mysteries of God, it was necessary for the Apostle to
subjoin what might anticipate an objection: for since the law is the rule of
life, and has been given to guide men, we think that when it is removed all
discipline immediately falls to the ground, that restraints are taken away, in a
word, that there remains no distinction or difference between good and evil. But
we are much deceived if we think, that the righteousness which God approves of
in his law is abolished, when the law is abrogated; for the abrogation is by no
means to be applied to the precepts which teach the right way of living, as
Christ confirms and sanctions these and does not abrogate them; but the right
view is, that nothing is taken away but the curse, to which all men without
grace are subject. But though Paul does not distinctly express this, yet he
indirectly intimates
it.
16.
By no means: know ye not? This is not a bare
denial as some think, as though he preferred to express his abhorrence of such a
question rather than to disprove it: for a confutation immediately follows,
derived from a contrary supposition, and to this purpose, “Between the
yoke of Christ and that of sin there is so much contrariety, that no one can
bear them both; if we sin, we give ourselves up to the service of sin; but the
faithful, on the contrary have been redeemed from the tyranny of sin, that they
may serve Christ: it is therefore impossible for them to remain bound to
sin.” But it will be better to examine more closely the course of
reasoning, as pursued by Paul.
To whom we
obey, etc. This relative may be taken in a
causative sense, as it often is; as when one says, — there is no kind of
crime which a parricide will not do, who has not hesitated to commit the
greatest crime of all, and so barbarous as to be almost abhorred even by wild
beasts. And Paul adduces his reason partly from the effects, and partly from the
nature of correlatives. For first, if they obey, he concludes that they are
servants, for obedience proves that he, who thus brings one into subjection to
himself, has the power of commanding. This reason as to service is from the
effect, and from this the other arises. “If you be servants, then of
course sin has the dominion.”
Or of
obedience, etc. The language is not strictly
correct; for if he wished to have the clauses correspondent, he would have said,
“or of righteousness unto life”
f194
But as the change in the words does not prevent the understanding of the
subject, he preferred to express what righteousness is by the word
obedience;
in which however there is a metonymy, for it is to be taken for the very
commandments of God; and by mentioning this without addition, he intimated that
it is God alone, to whose authority consciences ought to be subject. Obedience
then, though the name of God is suppressed, is yet to be referred to him, for it
cannot be a divided obedience.
17.
But thanks be to
God, etc. This is an application of the
similitude of the present subject. Though they were only to be reminded that
they were not now the servants of sin, he yet adds a thanksgiving; first, that
he might teach them, that this was not through their own merit, but through the
special mercy of God; and secondly, that by this thanksgiving, they might learn
how great was the kindness of God, and that they might thereby be more
stimulated to hate sin. And he gives thanks, not as to that time during which
they were the servants of sin, but for the liberation which followed, when they
ceased to be what they were before. But this implied comparison between their
former and present state is very emphatical; for the Apostle touches the
calumniators of the grace of Christ, when he shows, that without grace the whole
race of man is held captive under the dominion of sin; but that the kingdom of
sin comes to an end, as soon as grace puts forth its power.
f195
We may hence learn, that we are not freed from the
bondage of the law that we may sin; for the law does not lose its dominion,
until the grace of God restores us to him, in order to renew us in
righteousness: and it is hence impossible that we should be subject to sin, when
the grace of God reigns in us: for we have before stated, that under this term
grace, is included the spirit of regeneration.
You have obeyed from the
heart, etc. Paul compares here the hidden power
of the Spirit with the external letter of the law, as though he had said,
“Christ inwardly forms our souls in a better way, than when the law
constrains them by threatening and terrifying us.” Thus is dissipated the
following calumny, “If Christ frees us from subjection to the law, he
brings liberty to sin.” He does not indeed allow his people unbridled
freedom, that they might frisk about without any restraint, like horses let
loose in the fields; but he brings them to a regular course of life. —
Though Erasmus, following the old version, has chosen to translate it the
“form” (formam) of
doctrine, I have felt constrained to retain
type, the word which Paul uses: some may perhaps prefer the word pattern.
f196
It seems indeed to me to denote the formed image or impress of that
righteousness which Christ engraves on our hearts: and this corresponds with the
prescribed rule of the law, according to which all our actions ought to be
framed, so that they deviate not either to the right or to the left
hand.
18.
And having been made free from sin, etc. The
meaning is, “It is unreasonable that any one, after having been made free,
should continue in a state of bondage; for he ought to maintain the freedom
which he has received: it is not then befitting, that you should be brought
again under the dominion of sin, from which you have been set at liberty by
Christ.” It is an argument derived from the efficient cause; another also
follows, taken from the final cause, Ye have been liberated from the bondage of
sin, that ye might pass into the kingdom of righteousness; it is hence right
that you should wholly turn away from sin, and turn your minds wholly to
righteousness, into the service of which you leave been
transferred.”
It must be observed, that no one can be a servant to
righteousness except he is first liberated by the power and kindness of God from
the tyranny of sin. So Christ himself testifies,
“If the Son shall
free you, you shall be free
indeed.”
|(<430836>John
8:36.)
What are then our preparations by the power of free
will, since the commencement of what is good proceeds from this manumission,
which the grace of God alone effects?
|
ROMANS
6:19
|
|
19. I speak after the manner of men, because
of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to
uncleanness, and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members
servants to righteousness unto holiness.
|
19. Humanum dico propter infirmitatem carnis
vestræ, quemadmodum exhibuistis membra vestra serva immunditiæ et
iniquitati in iniquitatem, sic et nunc exhibite membra vestra serva
justitiæ in sanctificationem.
|
19.
I speak what is human, etc. He says that he
speaks after the manner of men, not as to the substance but as to the manner. So
Christ says, in
<430312>John
3:12, that he announced earthly things, while yet he spoke of heavenly
mysteries, though not so magnificently as the dignity of the things required,
because he accommodated himself to the capacities of a people ignorant and
simple. And thus the Apostle says, by way of preface, that he might more fully
show how gross and wicked is the calumny, when it is imagined, that the freedom
obtained by Christ gives liberty to sin. He reminds the faithful at the same
time, that nothing is more unreasonable, nay, base and disgraceful, than that
the spiritual grace of Christ should have less influence over them than earthly
freedom; as though he had said, “I might, by comparing sin and
righteousness, show how much more ardently ye ought to be led to render
obedience to the latter, than to serve the former; but from regard to your
infirmity I omit this comparison: nevertheless, though I treat you with great
indulgence, I may yet surely make this just demand — that you should not
at least obey righteousness more coldly or negligently than you served
sin.” It is a sort of reticence or silence, a withholding of something
when we wish more to be understood than what we express. He does yet exhort them
to render obedience to righteousness with so much more diligence, as that which
they served is more worthy than sin, though be seems not to require this in so
many words.
f197
As ye have
presented, etc.; that is, “As ye were
formerly ready with all your faculties to serve sin, it is hence sufficiently
evident how wretchedly enslaved and bound did your depravity hold you to itself:
now then ye ought to be equally prompt and ready to execute the commands of God;
let not your activity in doing good be now less than it was formerly in doing
evil.” He does not indeed observe the same order in the antithesis, by
adapting different parts to each other, as he does in
<520407>1
Thessalonians 4:7, where he sets uncleanness in opposition to holiness; but the
meaning is still evident.
He mentions first two kinds — uncleanness and
iniquity; the former of which is opposed to chastity and holiness, the other
refers to injuries hurtful to our neighbour. But he repeats iniquity twice, and
in a different sense: by the first he means plunders, frauds, perjuries, and
every kind of wrong; by the second, the universal corruption of life, as though
he had said, “Ye have prostituted your members so as to perpetrate all
wicked works, and thus the kingdom of iniquity became strong in you”
f198
By
righteousness
I understand the law or the rule of a holy life, the design of which is
sanctification, as the case is when the faithful devote themselves to serve God
in purity.
|
ROMANS
6:20-23
|
|
20. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye
were free from righteousness.
|
20. Quando enim servi fuistis peccati, liberi
fuistis justitiæ.
|
|
21. What fruit had ye then in those things
whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is
death.
|
21. Quem ergo fructum habuistis tunc in iis,
de quibus nunc erubescitis? Siquidem finis eorum mors.
|
|
22. But now, being made free from sin, and
become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end
everlasting life.
|
22. Nunc vero manumissi a peccato, Deo autem
in servitutem addicti, habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificationem, finem vero
vitam æternam.
|
|
23. For the wages of sin is death; but the
gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
|
23. Stipendia enim peccati, mors; donum vero
Dei, vita æterna, in Christo lesu Domino nostro.
|
20.
For when ye
were, etc. He still repeats the difference,
which he had before mentioned, between the yoke of righteousness and that of
sin; for these two things, sin and righteousness, are so contrary, that he who
devotes himself to the one, necessarily departs from the other. And he thus
represents both, that by viewing them apart we may see more clearly what is to
be expected from each; for to set things thus apart enables us to understand
better their distinctive character. He then sets sin on one side, and
righteousness on the other; and having stated this distinction, he afterwards
shows what results from each of them.
Let us then remember that the Apostle still reasons
on the principle of contraries, and in this manner, “While ye were the
servants of sin, ye were freed from righteousness; but now a change having taken
place, it behoves you to serve righteousness; for you have been liberated from
the yoke of sin. He calls those
free from
righteousness who are held by no bridle to obey
righteousness. This is the liberty of the flesh, which so frees us from
obedience to God, that it makes us slaves to the devil. Wretched then and
accursed is this liberty, which with unbridled or rather mad frenzy, leads us
exultingly to our destruction.
21.
What fruit,
then, etc. He could not more strikingly express
what he intended than by appealing to their conscience, and by confessing shame
as it were in their person. Indeed the godly, as soon as they begin to be
illuminated by the Spirit of Christ and the preaching of the gospel, do freely
acknowledge their past life, which they have lived without Christ, to have been
worthy of condemnation; and so far are they from endeavouring to excuse it,
that, on the contrary, they feel ashamed of themselves. Yea, further, they call
to mind the remembrance of their own disgrace, that being thus ashamed, they may
more truly and more readily be humbled before God.
Nor is what he says insignificant,
Of which ye are now
ashamed; for he intimates that we are
possessed with extreme blind love for ourselves, when we are involved in the
darkness of our sins, and think not that there is so much filth in us. The light
of the Lord alone can open our eyes to behold the filthiness which lies hid in
our flesh. He only then is imbued with the principles of Christian philosophy,
who has well learnt to be really displeased with himself, and to be confounded
with shame for his own wretchedness. He shows at last still more plainly from
what was to follow, how much they ought to have been ashamed, that is, when they
came to understand that they had been standing on the very precipice of death,
and had been nigh destruction; yea, that they would have already entered the
gates of death, had they not been reclaimed by God’s
mercy.
22.
Ye have your fruit unto
holiness, etc. As he had before mentioned a
twofold end of sin, so he does now as to righteousness. Sin in this life brings
the torments of an accusing conscience, and in the next eternal death. We now
gather the fruit of righteousness, even holiness; we hope in future to gain
eternal life. These things, unless we are beyond measure stupid, ought to
generate in our minds a hatred and horror of sin, and also a love and desire for
righteousness. Some render
telov,
“tribute” or reward, and not “end,” but not, as I think,
according to the meaning of the Apostle; for though it is true that we bear the
punish- ment of death on account of sin, yet this word is not suitable to the
other clause, to which it is applied by Paul, inasmuch as life cannot be said to
be the tribute or reward of
righteousness.
23.
For the wages of sin, etc. There are those who
think that, Paul, by comparing death to allowances of meat, (obsoniis,)
points out in a disparaging manner the kind of wretched reward that is allotted
to sinners, as this word is taken by the Greeks sometimes for portions allowed
to soldiers. But he seems rather indirectly to condemn the blind appetites of
those who are ruinously allured by the enticements of sin, as the fish are by
the hook. It will however be more simple to render the word “wages,”
for surely death is a sufficiently ample reward to the wicked. This verse is a
conclusion to the former, and as it were an epilogue to it. He does not,
however, in vain repeat the same thing again; but by doubling the terror, he
intended to render sin an object of still greater hatred.
But the gift of
God. They are mistaken who thus render the
sentence, “Eternal life is the gift of God,” as though eternal life
were the subject, and the gift of God the predicate; for this does not preserve
the contrast. But as he has already taught us, that sin produces nothing but
death; so now he subjoins, that this gift of God, even our justification and
sanctification, brings to us the happiness of eternal life. Or, if you prefer,
it may be thus stated, — “As the cause of death is sin, so
righteousness, which we obtain through Christ, restores to us eternal
life.”
It may however be hence inferred with certainty, that
our salvation is altogether through the grace and mere beneficence of God. He
might indeed have used other words — that the wages of righteousness is
eternal life; and then the two clauses would correspond: but he knew that it is
through God’s gift we obtain it, and not through our own merits; and that
it is not one or a single gift; for being clothed with the righteousness of the
Son, we are reconciled to God, and we are by the power of the Spirit renewed
unto holiness. And he adds, in Christ Jesus, and for this reason, that he
might call us away from every conceit respecting our own
worthiness.
CHAPTER 7
|
ROMANS
7:1-4
|
|
1. Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them
that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he
liveth?
|
1. Num ignoratis fratres (scientibus enim
Legem loquor) quod Lex dominatur homini quamdiu vivit?
|
|
2. For the woman which hath an husband is
bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be
dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
|
2. Nam viro subjecta mulier, viventi viro
alligata est per Legem; quod si mortuus fuerit vir, soluta est a Lege
viri.
|
|
3. So then if, while her husband liveth, she
be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband
be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be
married to another man.
|
3. Proinde vivente marito, si alteri viro
conjuncta fuerit, adultera vocabitur: quod si mortuus fuerit vir, liberata est a
Lege ne amplius sit adultera si alteri nupserit.
|
|
4. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become
dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another,
even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto
God.
|
4. Itaque fratres mei, vos quoque mortui estis
Legi per corpus Christi, ut posthac alterius sitis, ejus qui ex mortuis
suscitatus est, ut fructificemus Deo.
f199
|
Though he had, in a brief manner, sufficiently
explained the question respecting the abrogation of the law; yet as it was a
difficult one, and might have given rise to many other questions, he now shows
more at large how the law, with regard to us, is become abrogated; and then he
sets forth what good is thereby done to us: for while it holds us separated from
Christ and bound to itself, it can do nothing but condemn us. And lest any one
should on this account blame the law itself, he takes up and confutes the
objections of the flesh, and handles, in a striking manner, the great question
respecting the use of the law.
f200
1.
Know ye
not, etc. Let the general proposition be that
the law was given to men for no other end but to regulate the present life, and
that it belongs not to those who are dead: to this he afterwards subjoins this
truth — that we are dead to it through the body of Christ. Some
understand, that the dominion of the law continues so long to bind us as it
remains in force. But as this view is rather obscure, and does not harmonize so
well with the proposition which immediately follows, I prefer to follow those
who regard what is said as referring to the life of man, and not to the law. The
question has indeed a peculiar force, as it affirms the certainty of what is
spoken; for it shows that it was not a thing new or unknown to any of them, but
acknowledged equally by them all.
(For to those who know the law I
speak.) This parenthesis is to be taken in the
same sense with the question, as though he had said — that he knew that
they were not so unskilful in the law as to entertain any doubt on the subject.
And though both sentences might be understood of all laws, it is yet better to
take them as referring to the law of God, which is the subject that is
discussed. There are some who think that he ascribes knowledge of the law to the
Romans, because the largest part of the world was under their power and
government; but this is puerile: for he addressed in part the Jews or other
strangers, and in part common and obscure individuals; nay, he mainly regarded
the Jews, with whom he had to do respecting the abrogation of the law: and lest
they should think that he was dealing captiously with them, he declares that he
took up a common principle, known to them all, of which they could by no means
be ignorant, who had from their childhood been brought up in the teaching of the
law.
2.
For a woman subject to a
man, etc. He brings a similitude, by which he
proves, that we are so loosed from the law, that it does not any longer,
properly and by its own right, retain over us any authority: and though he could
have proved this by other reasons, yet as the example of marriage was very
suitable to illustrate the subject, he introduced this comparison instead of
evidence to prove his point. But that no one may be puzzled, because the
different parts of the comparison do not altogether correspond, we are to be
reminded, that the Apostle designedly intended, by a little change, to avoid the
invidiousness of a stronger expression. He might have said, in order to make the
comparison complete, “A woman after the death of her husband is loosed
from the bond of marriage: the law, which is in the place of a husband to us, is
to us dead; then we are freed from its power.” But that he might not
offend the Jews by the asperity of his expressions, had he said that the law was
dead, he adopted a digression, and said, that we are dead to the law
f201
To some indeed he appears to reason from the less to the greater: however, as I
fear that this is too strained, I approve more of the first meaning, which is
simpler. The whole argument then is formed in this manner “The woman is
bound to her living husband by the law, so that she cannot be the wife of
another; but after the death of her husband she is loosed from the bond of his
law so, that she is free to marry whom she pleases.”
Then follows the
application, —
The law was, as it
were our
husband,
under whose
yoke we were kept until it became dead to
us:
After the death
of the law Christ received us, that is, he joined
us,
when loosed from
the law, to
himself:
Then being
united to Christ risen from the
dead,
we ought to
cleave to him
alone:
And as the
life of Christ after the resurrection is
eternal,
so hereafter
there shall be no divorce.
But further, the word law is not mentioned here in
every part in the same sense: for in one place it means the bond of marriage; in
another, the authority of a husband over his wife; and in another, the law of
Moses: but we must remember, that Paul refers here only to that office of the
law which was peculiar to the dispensation of Moses; for as far as God has in
the ten commandments taught what is just and right, and given directions for
guiding our life, no abrogation of the law is to be dreamt of; for the will of
God must stand the same forever. We ought carefully to remember that this is not
a release from the righteousness which is taught in the law, but from its rigid
requirements, and from the curse which thence follows. The law, then, as a rule
of life, is not abrogated; but what belongs to it as opposed to the liberty
obtained through Christ, that is, as it requires absolute perfection: for as we
render not this perfection, it binds to under the sentence of eternal death. But
as it was not his purpose to decide here the character of the bond of marriage,
he was not anxious to mention the causes which releases a woman from her
husband. It is therefore unreasonable that anything decisive on this point
should be sought here.
4.
Through the body of
Christ. Christ, by the glorious victory of the
cross, first triumphed over sin; and that he might do this, it was necessary
that the handwriting, by which we were held bound, should be cancelled. This
handwriting was the law, which, while it continued in force, rendered us bound
to serve
f202
sin; and hence it is called the power of sin. It was then by cancelling this
handwriting that we were delivered through the body of Christ — through
his body as fixed to the cross.
f203
But the Apostle goes farther, and says, that the bond of the law was destroyed;
not that we may live according to our own will, like a widow, who lives as she
pleases while single; but that we may be now bound to another husband; nay, that
we may pass from hand to hand, as they say, that is, from the law to Christ. He
at the same time softens the asperity of the expression, by saying that Christ,
in order to join us to his own body, made us free from the yoke of the law. For
though Christ subjected himself for a time of his own accord to the law, it is
not yet right to say that the law ruled over him. Moreover, he conveys to his
own members the liberty which he himself possesses. It is then no wonder that he
exempts those from the yoke of the law, whom he unites by a sacred bond to
himself, that they may be one body in him.
Even
his who has been
raised, etc. We have already said, that Christ
is substituted for the law, lest any freedom should be pretended without him, or
lest any, being not yet dead to the law, should dare to divorce himself from it.
But he adopts here a periphrastic sentence to denote the eternity of that life
which Christ attained by his resurrection, that Christians might know that this
connection is to be perpetual. But of the spiritual marriage between Christ and
his Church he speaks more fully in Ephesians 6.
That we may bring forth fruit to
God. He ever annexes the final cause, lest any
should indulge the liberty of their flesh and their own lusts, under the
pretense that Christ has delivered them from the bondage of the law; for he has
offered us, together with himself, as a sacrifice to the Father, and he
regenerates us for this end — that by newness of life we may bring forth
fruit unto God: and we know that the fruits which our heavenly Father requires
from us are those of holiness and righteousness. It is indeed no abatement to
our liberty that we serve God; nay, if we desire to enjoy so great a benefit as
there is in Christ, it will not henceforth be right in us to entertain any other
thought but that of promoting the glory of God; for which purpose Christ has
connected us with himself. We shall otherwise remain tle bond-slaves, not only
of the law, but also of sin and of death.
|
ROMANS
7:5-6
|
|
5. For when we were in the flesh, the motions
of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit
unto death.
|
5. Quum enim essemus in carne, affectus
peccatorum qui sunt per Legem, in membris nostris operabantur ad fructificandum
morti:
|
|
6. But now we are delivered from the law, that
being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and
not in the old ness of the letter.
|
6. Nunc vero soluti sumus a Lege, mortui ei in
qua detinebamur; ut serviamus in novitate spiritus, et non in vetustate
literæ.
|
5.
For when we
were, etc. He shows still more clearly by
stating the contrary effect, how unreasonably the zealots of the law acted, who
would still detain the faithful under it dominion; for as long as the literal
teaching of the law, unconnected with the Spirit of Christ, rules and bears
sway, the wantonness of the flesh is not restrained, but, on the contrary,
breaks out and prevails. It hence follows, that the kingdom of righteousness is
not established, except when Christ emancipates us from the law. Paul at the
same time reminds us of the works which it becomes us to do, when set free from
the law. As long, then, as man is kept under the yoke of the law, he can, as he
is sinning continually, procure nothing for himself but death. Since bondage to
the law produces sin only, then freedom, its opposite, must tend to
righteousness; if the former leads to death, then the latter leads to life. But
let us consider the very words of Paul.
In describing our condition during the time we were
subject to the dominion of the law, he says, that we were
in the
flesh. We hence understand, that all those who
are under the law attain nothing else but this — that their ears are
struck by its external sound without any fruit or effect, while they are
inwardly destitute of the Spirit of God. They must therefore necessarily remain
altogether sinful and perverse, until a better remedy succeeds to heal their
diseases. Observe also this usual phrase of Scripture, to be in the
flesh; it means to be endued only with the gifts of nature, without that
peculiar grace with which God favors his chosen people. But if this state of
life is altogether sinful, it is evident that no part of our soul is naturally
sound, and that the power of free will is no other than the power of casting
evil emotions as darts into all the faculties of the soul.
f204A
The emotions of
sins,
f204
which are through the
law, etc.; that is, the law excited in us evil
emotions, which exerted their influence through all our faculties; for there is
no part which is not subject to these depraved passions. What the law does, in
the absence of the inward teacher, the Spirit, is increasingly to inflame our
hearts, so that they boil up with lusts. But observe here, that the law is
connected with the vicious nature of man, the perversity of which, and its
lusts, break forth with greater fury, the more they are checked by the
restraints of righteousness. He further adds, that as long as the emotions of
the flesh were under the dominion of the law they brought forth fruit to death;
and he adds this to show that the law by itself is destructive. It hence
follows, that they are infatuated, who so much desire this bondage which issues
in death.
6.
But now we have been loosed from
the law, etc. He pursues the argument derived
from the opposite effect of things, — “If the restraint of the law
availed so little to bridle the flesh, that it became rather the exciter of sin;
then, that we may cease from sin, we must necessarily be freed from the
law.” Again, “If we are freed from the bondage of the law for this
end, that we may serve God; then, perversely do they act who hence take the
liberty to indulge in sin; and falsely do they speak who teach, that by this
means loose reins are given to lusts.” Observe, then, that we are then
freed from the law, when God emancipates us from its rigid exactions and curse,
and endues us with his Spirit, through whom we walk in his ways.
f205
Having died to that,
etc. This part contains a reason, or rather,
indicates the manner in which we are made free; for the law is so far abrogated
with regard to us, that we are not pressed down by its intolerable burden, and
that its inexorable rigor does not overwhelm us with a Curse.
f206
— In newness of
spirit; He sets the spirit in opposition
to the letter; for before our will is formed according to the will of God by the
Holy Spirit, we have in the law nothing but the outward letter, which indeed
bridles our external actions, but does not in the least restrain the fury of our
lusts. And he ascribes
newness
to the Spirit, because it succeeds the old man; as the letter is called
old, because it perishes through the regeneration of the
Spirit.
|
ROMANS
7:7-8
|
|
7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God
forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law: for I had not known lust,
except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet
f207
|
7. Quid ergo dicemus? Lex peccatum est? Absit:
sed peccatum non cognovi nisi per Legem: concupiscentiam enim non noveram, nisi
Lex diceret, Non concupisces
|
|
8. But sin, taking occasion by the
commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.
|
8. Occasione autem sumpta, peccatum per
mandatum effecit in me omnem concupiscentiam.
|
7.
What then shall we
say? Since it has been said that we must
be freed from the law, in order that we may serve God in newness of spirit, it
seemed as though this evil belonged to the law, — that it leads us to sin.
But as this would be above measure inconsistent, the Apostle rightly undertook
to disprove it. Now when he adds,
Is the law
sin? what he means is, “Does it so
produce sin that its guilt ought to be imputed to the law?” —
But sin I knew not, except
through the law; sin then dwells in us,
and not in the law; for the cause of it is the depraved lust of our flesh, and
we come to know it by the knowledge of God’s righteousness, which is
revealed to us in the law.
f208
You are not indeed to understand, that no difference whatever can be known
between right and wrong without the law; but that without the law we are either
too dull of apprehension to discern our depravity, or that we are made wholly
insensible through self-flattery, according to what follows,
—
For coveting I had not
known, etc. This is then an explanation of the
former sentence, by which he proves that ignorance of sin, of which he had
spoken, consisted in this — that he perceived not his own coveting. And he
designedly referred to this one kind of sin, in which hypocrisy especially
prevails, which has ever connected with itself supine self-indulgence and false
assurance. For men are never so destitute of judgment, but that they retain a
distinction in external works; nay, they are constrained even to condemn wicked
counsels and sinister purposes: and this they cannot do, without ascribing to a
right object its own praise. But coveting is more hidden and lies deeper; hence
no account is made of it, as long as men judge according to their perceptions of
what is outward. He does not indeed boast that he was free from it; but he so
flattered himself, that he did not think that this sin was lurking in his heart.
For thou do for a time he was deceived, and believed not that righteousness
would be violated by coveting, he yet, at length, understood that he was a
sinner, when he saw that coveting, from which no one is free, was prohibited by
the law.
Augustine says, that Paul included in this expression
the whole law; which, when rightly understood, is true: for when Moses had
stated the things from which we must abstain, that we may not wrong our
neighbor, he subjoined this prohibition as to coveting, which must be referred
to all the things previously forbidden. There is no doubt but that he had in the
former precepts condemned all the evil desires which our hearts conceive; but
there is much difference between a deliberate purpose, and the desires by which
we are tempted. God then, in this last command, requires so much integrity from
us, that no vicious lust is to move us to evil, even when no consent succeeds.
Hence it was, that I have said, that Paul here ascends higher than where the
understanding of men can carry them. But civil laws do indeed declare, that
intentions and not issues are to be punished. Philosophers also, with greater
refinement, place vices as well as virtues in the soul. But God, by this
precept, goes deeper and notices coveting, which is more hidden than the will;
and this is not deemed a vice. It was pardoned not only by philosophers, but at
this day the Papists fiercely contend, that it is no sin in the regenerate.
f209
But Paul says, that he had found out his guilt from this hidden disease: it
hence follows, that all those who labor under it, are by no means free from
guilt, except God pardons their sin. We ought, at the same time, to remember the
difference between evil lustings or covetings which gain consent, and the
lusting which tempts and moves our hearts, but stops in the midst of its
course.
8.
But an occasion being
taken, etc. From sin, then, and the corruption
of the flesh, proceeds every evil; the law is only the occasion. And though he
may seem to speak only of that excitement, by which our lusting is instigated
through the law, so that it boils out with greater fury; yet I refer this
chiefly to the knowledge the law conveys; as though he had said, “It has
discovered to me every lust or coveting which, being hid, seemed somehow to have
no existence.” I do not yet deny, but that the flesh is more sharply
stimulated to lusting by the law, and also by this means more clearly shows
itself; which may have been also the case with Paul: but what I have said of the
knowledge it brings, seems to harmonize better with the context;
f210
for he immediately subjoins —
|
ROMANS
7:8-12
|
|
8. For without the law sin was dead.
f211
|
8. Sine Lege enim peccatum est
mortuum:
|
|
9. For I was alive without the law once; but
when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
|
9. Ego autem vivebam sine Lege aliquando
f212
adveniente autem mandato, peccatum revixit,
|
|
10. And the commandment, which was ordained to
life, I found to be unto death.
|
10. Ego autem mortuus sum; et deprehensum est
a me mandatum quod erat in vitam, cedere in mortem.
|
|
11. For sin, taking occasion by the
commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
|
11. Peccatum enim, occasione sumpta per
mandatum, abduxit me a via et per illud occidit:
|
|
12. Wherefore the law is holy, and the
commandment holy, and just, and good.
|
12. Itaque Lex quidem sancta, et mandatum
sanctum, et justum et bonum.
|
8.
For without the
law, etc. He expresses most clearly the meaning
of his former words; for it is the same as though he had said, that the
knowledge of sin without the law is buried. It is a general truth, which he
presently applies to his own case. I hence wonder what could have come into the
minds of interpreters to render the passage in the preterimperfect tense, as
though Paul was speaking of himself; for it is easy to see that his purpose was
to begin with a general proposition, and then to explain the subject by his own
example.
9.
For I was
alive, etc. He means to intimate that there had
been a time when sin was dead to him or in him. But he is not to be understood
as though he had been without law at any time, but this
word I was
alive has a peculiar import; for it was the
absence of the law that was the reason why he was alive; that is, why he being
inflated with a conceit as to his own righteousness, claimed life to himself
while he was yet dead. That the sentence may be more clear, state it thus,
“When I was formerly without the law, I was alive.” But I have said
that this expression is emphatic; for by imagining himself great, he also laid
claim to life. The meaning then is this, “When I sinned, having not the
knowledge of the law, the sin, which I did not observe, was so laid to sleep,
that it seemed to be dead; on the other hand, as I seemed not to myself to be a
sinner, I was satisfied with myself, thinking that I had a life of mine
own.” But the death of sin is the life of man, and again the life of sin
is the death of man.
It may be here asked, what time was that when through
his ignorance of the law, or as he himself says, through the absence of it, he
confidently laid claim to life. It is indeed certain, that he had been taught
the doctrine of the law from his childhood; but it was the theology of the
letter, which does not humble its disciples, for as he says elsewhere, the veil
interposed so that the Jews could not see the light of life in the law; so also
he himself, while he had his eyes veiled, being destitute of the Spirit of
Christ, was satisfied with the outward mask of righteousness. Hence he
represents the law as absent, though before his eyes, while it did not really
impress him with the consciousness of God’s judgment. Thus the eyes of
hypocrites are covered with a veil, that they see not how much that command
requires, in which we are forbidden to lust or covet.
But when the commandment
came, etc. So now, on the other hand, he sets
forth the law as coming when it began to be really understood. It then raised
sin as it were from be dead; for it discovered to Paul how great depravity
abounded in the recesses of his heart, and at the same time it slew him. We must
ever remember that he speaks of that inebriating confidence in which hypocrites
settle, while they flatter themselves, because they overlook their
sins.
10.
Was found by
me, etc. Two things are stated here —
that the commandment shows to us a way of life in the righteousness of God, and
that it was given in order that we by keeping the law of the Lord might obtain
eternal life, except our corruption stood in the way. But as none of us obey the
law, but, on the contrary, are carried headlong on our feet and hands into that
kind of life from which it recalls us, it can bring us nothing but death. We
must thus distinguish between the character of the law and our own wickedness.
It hence follows, that it is incidental that the law inflicts on us a deadly
wound, as when an incurable disease is more exasperated by a healing remedy. I
indeed allow that it is an inseparable incident, and hence the law, as compared
with the gospel, is called in another place the ministration of death; but still
this remains unaltered, that it is not in its own nature hurtful to us, but it
is so because our corruption provokes and draws upon us its
curse.
11.
Led me out of the
way, etc. It is indeed true, that while the
will of God is hid from us, and no truth shines on us, the life of men goes
wholly astray and is full of errors; nay, we do nothing but wander from the
right course, until the law shows to us the way of living rightly: but as we
begin then only to perceive our erroneous course, when the Lord loudly reproves
us, Paul says rightly, that we are led out of the way, when sin is made evident
by the law. Hence the verb,
ejxapata~|n,
must be understood, not of the thing itself, but of our knowledge; that is, that
it is made manifest by the law how much we have departed from the right course.
It must then be necessarily rendered,
led me out of the
way; for hence sinners, who before went
on heedlessly, loathe and abominate themselves, when they perceive, through the
light which the law throws on the turpitude of sin, that they had been hastening
to death. But he away introduces the word occasion, and for this purpose —
that we may know that the law of itself does not bring death, but that this
happens through something else, and that this is as it were adventitious.
f213
12.
So then the law is indeed
holy, etc. Some think that the words
law
and commandment
is a repetition of the same thing; with whom I
agree;
f214
and I consider that there is a peculiar force in the words, when he says, that
the law itself and whatever is commanded in the law, is
holy,
and therefore to be regarded with the highest reverence, — that it
is
just, and cannot therefore be charged with
anything wrong, — that it is
good,
and hence pure and free from everything that can do harm. He thus defends the
law against every charge of blame, that no one should ascribe to it what is
contrary to goodness, justice, and holiness.
|
ROMANS
7:13
|
|
13. Was then that which is good made death
unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by
that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding
sinful.
|
13. Quod ergo bonum est, mihi in mortem
cessit? Absit: imo peccatum, ut appareat peccatum, per bonum operatur mihi
mortem: ut fiat super modum peccans peccatum Per mandatum.
|
13.
Has then what is
good, etc. He had hitherto defended the law
from calumnies, but in such a manner, that it still remained doubtful whether it
was the cause of death; nay, the minds of men were on this point perplexed,
— how could it be that nothing but death was gained from singular a gift
of God. To this objection then he now gives an answer; and he denies, that death
proceeds from the law, though death through its means is brought on us by sin.
And though this answer seems to militate in appearance against what he had said
before — that he had found the commandment, which was given for life, to
be unto death, there is yet no contrariety. He had indeed said before, that it
is through our wickedness that the law is turned to our destruction, and that
contrary to its own character; but here he denies, that it is in such a sense
the cause of death, that death is to be imputed to it. In 2 Corinthians 3 he
treats more fully of the law. He there calls it the ministration of death; but
he so calls it according to what is commonly done in a dispute, and represents,
not the real character of the law, but the false opinion of his opponents.
f215
But
sin, etc. With no intention to offend others, I
must state it as my opinion, that this passage ought to be read as I have
rendered it, and the meaning is this, — “Sin is in a manner regarded
as just before it is discovered by the law; but when it is by the law made
known, then it really obtains its own name of sin; and hence it appears the more
wicked, and, so to speak, the more sinful, because it turns the goodness of the
law, by perverting it, to our destruction; for that must be very pestiferous,
which makes what is in its own nature salutary to be hurtful to us.” The
import of the whole is — that it was necessary for the atrocity of sin to
be discovered by the law; for except sin had burst forth into outrageous, or, as
they say, into enormous excess, it would not have been acknowledged as sin; and
the more outrageous does its enormity appear, when it converts life into death;
and thus every excuse is taken away from it.
f216
|
ROMANS
7:14-17
|
|
14. For me know that the law is spiritual; but
I am carnal, sold under sin
|
14. Scimus enim quod Lex spiritualis est: ego
autem carnalis sum, venditus sub peccato.
|
|
15. For that which I do I allow not: for what
I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
|
15. Quod enim operor, non intelligo; siquidem
non quod volo, hoc ago: sed quod odi, hoe facio.
|
|
16. If then I do that which I could not, I
consent unto the law that it is good.
|
16. Si vero quod nolo, hoe facio, consentio
Legi Dei quod sit bona.
|
|
17. Now then, it is no more I that do it; but
sin that dwelleth in me.
|
17. Nunc vero non jam illud operor ego, sed
quod habitat in me peccatum.
|
14.
For we know that the
law, etc. He now begins more closely to compare
the law with what man is, that it may be more clearly understood whence the evil
of death proceeds. He then sets before us an example in a regenerate man, in
whom the remnants of the flesh are wholly contrary to the law of the Lord, while
the spirit would gladly obey it. But first, as we have said, he makes only a
comparison between nature and the law. Since in human things there is no greater
discord than between spirit and flesh, the law being spiritual and man carnal,
what agreement can there be between the natural man and the law? Even the same
as between darkness and light. But by calling the law
spiritual,
he not only means, as some expound the passage, that it requires the inward
affections of the heart; but that, by way of contrast, it has a contrary import
to the word
carnal.
f217
These interpreters give this explanation, “The law is spiritual, that is,
it binds not only the feet and hands as to external works, but regards the
feelings of the heart, and requires the real fear of
God.”
But here a contrast is evidently set forth between
the flesh and the spirit. And further, it is sufficiently clear from the
context, and it has been in fact already shown, that under the term flesh is
included whatever men bring from the womb; and flesh is what men are called, as
they are born, and as long as they retain their natural character; for as they
are corrupt, so they neither taste nor desire anything but what is gross and
earthly. Spirit, on the contrary, is renewed nature, which God forms anew after
his own image. And this mode of speaking is adopted on this account —
because the newness which is wrought in us is the gift of the
Spirit.
The perfection then of the doctrine of the law is
opposed here to the corrupt nature of man: hence the meaning is as follows,
“The law requires a celestial and an angelic righteousness, in which no
spot is to appear, to whose clearness nothing is to be wanting: but I am a
carnal man, who can do nothing but oppose it.”
f218
But the exposition of Origen, which indeed has been approved by many before our
time, is not worthy of being refuted; he says, that the law is called spiritual
by Paul, because the Scripture is not to be understood literally. What has this
to do with the present subject?
Sold under
sin. By this clause he shows what flesh is in
itself; for man by nature is no less the slave of sin, than those bondmen,
bought with money, whom their masters ill treat at their pleasure, as they do
their oxen and their asses. We are so entirely controlled by the power of sin,
that the whole mind, the whole heart, and all our actions are under its
influence. Compulsion I always except, for we sin spontaneously, as it would be
no sin, were it not voluntary. But we are so given up to sin, that we can do
willingly nothing but sin; for the corruption which bears rule within us thus
drives us onward. Hence this comparison does not import, as they say, a forced
service, but a voluntary obedience, which an inbred bondage inclines us to
render.
15.
For what I do I know
not, etc. He now comes to a more particular
case, that of a man already regenerated;
f219
in whom both the things which he had in view appear more clearly; and these
were, — the great discord there is between the Law of God and the natural
man, — and how the law does not of itself produce death. For since the
carnal man rushes into sin with the whole propensity of his mind, he seems to
sin with such a free choice, as though it were in his power to govern himself;
so that a most pernicious opinion has prevailed almost among all men —
that man, by his own natural strength, without the aid of Divine grace, can
choose what he pleases. But though the will of a faithful man is led to good by
the Spirit of God, yet in him the corruption of nature appears conspicuously;
for it obstinately resists and leads to what is contrary. Hence the case of a
regenerated man is the most suitable; for by this you may know how much is the
contrariety between our nature and the righteousness of the law. From this case,
also, a proof as to the other clause may more fitly be sought, than from the
mere consideration of human nature; for the law, as it produces only death in a
man wholly carnal, is in him more easily impeached, for it is doubtful whence
the evil proceeds. In a regenerate man it brings forth salutary fruits; and
hence it appears, that it is the flesh only that prevents it from giving life:
so far it is from producing death of itself.
That the whole, then, of this reasoning may be more
fully and more distinctly understood, we must observe, that this conflict, of
which the Apostle speaks, does not exist in man before he is renewed by the
Spirit of God: for man, left to his own nature, is wholly borne along by his
lusts without any resistance; for though the ungodly are tormented by the stings
of conscience, and cannot take such delight in their vices, but that they have
some taste of bitterness; yet you cannot hence conclude, either that evil is
hated, or that good is loved by them; only the Lord permits them to be thus
tormented, in order to show to them in a measure his judgment; but not to imbue
them either with the love of righteousness or with the hatred of
sin.
There is then this difference between them and the
faithful — that they are never so blinded and hardened, but that when they
are reminded of their crimes, they condemn them in their own conscience; for
knowledge is not so utterly extinguished in them, but that they still retain the
difference between right and wrong; and sometimes they are shaken with such
dread under a sense of their sin, that they bear a kind of condemnation even in
this life: nevertheless they approve of sin with all their heart, and hence give
themselves up to it without any feeling of genuine repugnance; for those stings
of conscience, by which they are harassed, proceed from opposition in the
judgment, rather than from any contrary inclination in the will. The godly, on
the other hand, in whom the regeneration of God is begun, are so divided, that
with the chief desire of the heart they aspire to God, seek celestial
righteousness, hate sin, and yet they are drawn down to the earth by the relics
of their flesh: and thus, while pulled in two ways, they fight against their own
nature, and nature fights against them; and they condemn their sins, not only as
being constrained by the judgment of reason, but because they really in their
hearts abominate them, and on their account loathe themselves. This is the
Christian conflict between the flesh and the spirit of which Paul speaks in
<480517>Galatians
5:17.
It has therefore been justly said, that the carnal
man runs headlong into sin with the approbation and consent of the whole soul;
but that a division then immediately begins for the first time, when he is
called by the Lord and renewed by the Spirit. For regeneration only begins in
this life; the relics of the flesh which remain, always follow their own corrupt
propensities, and thus carry on a contest against the Spirit.
The inexperienced, who consider not the subject which
the Apostle handles, nor the plan which he pursues, imagine, that the character
of man by nature is here described; and indeed there is a similar description of
human nature given to us by the Philosophers: but Scripture philosophizes much
deeper; for it finds that nothing has remained in the heart of man but
corruption, since the time in which Adam lost the image of God. So when the
Sophisters wish to define free-will, or to form an estimate of what the power of
nature can do, they fix on this passage. But Paul, as I have said already, does
not here set before us simply the natural man, but in his own person describes
what is the weakness of the faithful, and how great it is. Augustine was
for a time involved in the common error; but after having more clearly examined
the passage, he not only retracted what he had falsely taught, but in his first
book to Boniface, he proves, by many strong reasons, that what is said cannot be
applied to any but to the regenerate. And we shall now endeavor to make our
readers clearly to see that such is the case.
I know
not. He means that he acknowledges not as his
own the works which he did through the weakness of the flesh, for he hated them.
And so Erasmus has not unsuitably given this rendering, “I approve
not,” (non probo.)
f220
We hence conclude, that the doctrine of the law is so consentaneous to right
judgment, that the faithful repudiate the transgression of it as a thing wholly
unreasonable. But as Paul seems to allow that he teaches otherwise than what the
law prescribes, many interpreters have been led a astray, and have thought that
he had assumed the person of another; hence has arisen the common error, that
the character of an unregenerate man is described throughout this portion of the
chapter. But Paul, under the idea of transgressing the law, includes all the
defects of the godly, which are not inconsistent with the fear of God or with
the endeavor of acting uprightly. And he denies that he did what the law
demanded, for this reason, because he did not perfectly fulfil it, but somewhat
failed in his effort.
For not what 1
desire, etc. You must not understand that it
was always the case with him, that he could not do good; but what he complains
of is only this — that he could not perform what he wished, so that he
pursued not what was good with that alacrity which was meet, because he was held
in a manner bound, and that he also failed in what he wished to do, because he
halted through the weakness of the flesh. Hence the pious mind performs not the
good it desires to do, because it proceeds not with due activity, and doeth the
evil which it would not; for while it desires to stand, it falls, or at least it
staggers. But the expressions to will and not to will must be applied to the
Spirit, which ought to hold the first place in all the faithful. The flesh
indeed has also its own will, but Paul calls that the will which is the chief
desire of the heart; and that which militates with it he represents as being
contrary to his will.
We may hence learn the truth of what we have stated
— that Paul speaks here of the faithful,
f221
in whom the grace of the Spirit exists, which brings an agreement between the
mind and the righteousness of the law; for no hatred of sin is to be found in
the flesh.
16.
But if what I desire not, I do, I
consent to the law, etc.; that is, “When
my heart acquiesces in the law, and is delighted with its righteousness, (which
certainly is the case when it hates the transgression of it,) it then perceives
and acknowledges the goodness of the law, so that we are fully convinced,
experience itself being our teacher, that no evil ought to be imputed to the
law; nay, that it would be salutary to men, were it to meet with upright and
pure hearts.” But this consent is not to be understood to be the same with
what we have heard exists in the ungodly, who have expressed words of this kind,
“I see better things and approve of them; I follow the worse.”
Again, “What is hurtful I follow; I shun what I believe would be
profitable.” For these act under a constraint when they subscribe to the
righteousness of God, as their will is wholly alienated from it, but the godly
man consents to the law with the real and most cheerful desire of his heart; for
he wishes nothing more than to mount up to heaven.
f222
17.
Now it is no more I who do it, etc. This is not
the pleading of one excusing himself, as though he was blameless, as the case is
with many triflers who think that they have a sufficient defense to cover all
their wickedness, when they cast the blame on the flesh; but it is a
declaration, by which he shows how very far he dissented from his own flesh in
his spiritual feeling; for the faithful are carried along in their obedience to
God with such fervour of spirit that they deny the flesh.
This passage also clearly shows, that Paul speaks
here of none but of the godly, who have been already born again; for as long as
man remains like himself, whatsoever he may be, he is justly deemed corrupt; but
Paul here denies that he is wholly possessed by sin; nay, he declares himself to
be exempt from its bondage, as though he had said, that sin only dwelt in some
part of his soul, while with an earnest feeling of heart he strove for and
aspired after the righteousness of God, and clearly proved that he had the law
of God engraven within him.
f223
|
ROMANS
7:18-20
|
|
18. For I know that in me (that is, in my
flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to
perform that which is good I find not.
|
18. Novi enim quod non habitat
f224
in me (hoc est, in came mea) bonum: siquidem velle adest mihi, sed ut perficiam
bonum non reperio.
|
|
19. For the good that I would I do not: but
the evil which I would not that I do.
|
19. Non enim quod volo facio bonum; sed quod
nolo malum, id ago.
|
|
20. Now, if I do that I would not, it is no
more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
|
20. Si vero quod nolo ego id facio, non jam
ego operor illud, sed quod habitat in me peccatum.
|
18.
For I
know, etc. He says that no good by nature dwelt
in him. Then in
me, means the same as though he had said,
“So far as it regards myself.” In the first part he indeed arraigns
himself as being wholly depraved, for he confesses that no good dwelt in him;
and then he subjoins a modification, lest he should slight the grace of God
which also dwelt in him, but was no part of his flesh. And here again he
confirms the fact, that he did not speak of men in general, but of the faithful,
who are divided into two parts — the relics of the flesh, and grace. For
why was the modification made, except some part was exempt from depravity, and
therefore not flesh? Under the term flesh, he ever includes all that
human nature is, everything in man, except the sanctification of the Spirit. In
the same manner, by the term spirit, which is commonly opposed to the
flesh, he means that part of the soul which the Spirit of God has so re-formed,
and purified from corruption, that God’s image shines forth in it. Then
both terms, flesh as well as spirit, belong to the soul; but the latter to that
part which is renewed, and the former to that which still retains its natural
character.
f225
To will is
present, etc. He does not mean that he had
nothing but an ineffectual desire, but his meaning is, that the work really done
did not correspond to his will; for the flesh hindered him from doing perfectly
what he did. So also understand what follows,
The evil I desire not, that I
do: for the flesh not only impedes the
faithful, so that they can not run swiftly, but it sets also before them many
obstacles at which they stumble. Hence they do not, because they accomplish not,
what they would, with the alacrity that is meet. This, to will, then,
which he mentions, is the readiness of faith, when the Holy Spirit so prepares
the godly that they are ready and strive to render obedience to God; but as
their ability is not equal to what they wish, Paul says, that he found not what
he desired, even the accomplishment of the good he aimed
at.
19. The same view is to be taken of
the expression which next follows, — that he
did not the
good which he
desired,
but, on the contrary, the evil which he
desired
not: for the faithful, however rightly
they may be influenced, are yet so conscious of their own infirmity, that they
can deem no work proceeding from them as blameless. For as Paul does not here
treat of some of the faults of the godly, but delineates in general the whole
course of their life, we conclude that their best works are always stained with
some blots of sin, so that no reward can be hoped, unless God pardons
them.
He at last repeats the sentiment, — that, as
far as he was endued with celestial light, he was a true witness and subscriber
to the righteousness of the law. It hence follows, that had the pure integrity
of our nature remained, the law would not have brought death on us, and that it
is not adverse to the man who is endued with a sound and right mind and abhors
sin. But to restore health is the work of our heavenly
Physician.
|
ROMANS
7:21-23
|
|
21. I find then a law, that, when I would do
good, evil is present with me.
|
21. Reperio igitur Legem volenti mihi facere
bonum quod mihi malum insideat.
f226
|
|
22. For I delight in the law of God after the
inward man:
|
22. Consentio enim Legi Dei secundum
interiorem hominem.
|
|
23. But I see another law in my members
warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of
sin which is in my members,
|
23. Video autem alterum Legem in membris meis,
repugnantem
f227
legi mentis meæ, et captivum me reddentem legi peccati, quæ est in
membris meis.
|
21.
I find
then, etc. Here Paul supposes a fourfold law.
The first is the law of God, which alone is properly so called, which is the
rule of righteousness, by which our life is rightly formed. To this he joins the
law of the mind, and by this he means the prompt readiness of the faithful mind
to render obedience to the divine law, it being a certain conformity on our part
with the law of God. On the other hand, he sets in opposition to this the law of
unrighteousness; and according to a certain kind of similarity, he gives this
name to that dominion which iniquity exercises over a man not yet regenerated,
as well as over the flesh of a regenerated man; for the laws even of tyrants,
however iniquitous they may be, are called laws, though not properly. To
correspond with this law of sin he makes the law of the members, that is, the
lust which is in the members, on account of the concord it has with
iniquity.
As to the first clause, many interpreters take the
word
law
in its proper sense, and consider
kata<
or
dia<
to be understood; and so Erasmus renders it, “by the law;” as though
Paul had said, that he, by the law of God as his teacher and guide, had found
out that his sin was innate. But without supplying anything, the sentence would
run better thus, “While the faithful strive after what is good, they find
in themselves a certain law which exercises a tyrannical power; for a vicious
propensity, adverse to and resisting the law of God, is implanted in their very
marrow and bones.”
22.
For I consent
f228
to the law of
God, etc. Here then you see what sort of
division there is in pious souls, from which arises that contest between the
spirit and the flesh, which Augustine in some place calls the Christian struggle
(luctam Christianam.) The law calls man to the rule of righteousness;
iniquity, which is, as it were, the tyrannical law of Satan, instigates him to
wickedness: the Spirit leads him to render obedience to the divine law; the
flesh draws him back to what is of an opposite character. Man, thus impelled by
contrary desires, is now in a manner a twofold being; but as the Spirit ought to
possess the sovereignty, he deems and judges himself to be especially on that
side. Paul says, that he was bound a captive by his flesh for this reason,
because as he was still tempted and incited by evil lusts; he deemed this a
coercion with respect to the spiritual desire, which was wholly opposed to them.
f229
But we ought to notice carefully the meaning of the
inner
man and of the
members;
which many have not rightly understood, and have therefore stumbled at this
stone. The inner man then is not simply the soul, but that spiritual part which
has been regenerated by God; and the members signify the other remaining part;
for as the soul is the superior, and the body the inferior part of man, so the
spirit is superior to the flesh. Then as the spirit takes the place of the soul
in man, and the flesh, which is the corrupt and polluted soul, that of the body,
the former has the name of the inner man, and the latter has the name of
members. The inner man has indeed a different meaning in
<470416>2
Corinthians 4:16; but the circumstances of this passage require the
interpretation which I have given: and it is called the inner by way of
excellency; for it possesses the heart and the secret feelings, while the
desires of the flesh are vagrant, and are, as it were, on the outside of man.
Doubtless it is the same thing as though one compared heaven to earth; for Paul
by way of contempt designates whatever appears to be in man by the term members,
that he might clearly show that the hidden renovation is concealed from and
escapes our observation, except it be apprehended by faith.
Now since the
law of the
mind undoubtedly means a principle rightly
formed, it is evident that this passage is very absurdly applied to men not yet
regenerated; for such, as Paul teaches us, are destitute of mind, inasmuch as
their soul has become degenerated from reason.
|
ROMANS
7:24-25
|
|
24. O wretched man that I am! who shall
deliver me from the body of this death?
|
24. Miser ego homo! quis me eripiet a corpore
mortis hoc?
|
|
25. I thank God, through Jesus Christ our
Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God,but with the flesh the
law of sin.
|
25. Gratias ago Deo per Iesum Christum Dominum
nostrum: itaque idem ego mente servio Legi Dei,carne autem legi
peccati.
|
24.
Miserable,
etc. He closes his argument with a vehement exclamation, by which he teaches us
that we are not only to struggle with our flesh, but also with continual
groaning to bewail within ourselves and before God our unhappy condition. But he
asks not by whom he was to be delivered, as one in doubt, like unbelievers, who
understand not that there is but one real deliverer: but it is the voice of one
panting and almost fainting, because he does not find immediate help,
f230
as he longs for. And he mentions the word rescue,
f231
in order that he might show, that for his liberation no ordinary exercise of
divine power was necessary.
By the
body of
death he means the whole mass of sin, or those
ingredients of which the whole man is composed; except that in him there
remained only relics, by the captive bonds of which he was held. The pronoun
tou>tou
this, which I apply, as Erasmus does, to the body, may also be
fitly referred to death, and almost in the same sense; for Paul meant to teach
us, that the eyes of God’s children are opened, so that through the law of
God they wisely discern the corruption of their nature and the death which from
it proceeds. But the word body
means the same as the external man and
members; for Paul points out this as the origin of evil, that man has
departed from the law of his creation, and has become thus carnal and earthly.
For though he still excels brute beasts, yet his true excellency has departed
from him, and what remains in him is full of numberless corruptions so that his
soul, being degenerated, may be justly said to have passed into a body. So God
says by Moses,
“No more shall my
Spirit contend with man, for he is even flesh,”
(<010603>Genesis
6:3:)
thus stripping man of his spiritual excellency, he
compares him, by way of reproach, to the brute creation.
f232
This passage is indeed remarkably fitted for the
purpose of beating down all the glory of the flesh; for Paul teaches us, that
the most perfect, as long as they dwell in the flesh, are exposed to misery, for
they are subject to death; nay, when they thoroughly examine themselves, they
find in their own nature nothing but misery. And further, lest they should
indulge their torpor, Paul, by his own example, stimulates them to anxious
groanings, and bids them, as long as they sojourn on earth, to desire death, as
the only true remedy to their evils; and this is the right object in desiring
death. Despair does indeed drive the profane often to such a wish; but they
strangely desire death, because they are weary of the present life, and not
because they loathe their iniquity. But it must be added, that though the
faithful level at the true mark, they are not yet carried away by an unbridled
desire in wishing for death, but submit themselves to the will of God, to whom
it behoves us both to live and to die: hence they clamor not with displeasure
against God, but humbly deposit their anxieties in his bosom; for they do not so
dwell on the thoughts of their misery, but that being mindful of grace received,
they blend their grief with joy, as we find in what
follows.
25.
1 thank
God; etc. He then immediately subjoined
this thanksgiving, lest any should think that in his complaint he perversely
murmured against God; for we know how easy even in legitimate grief is the
transition to discontent and impatience. Though Paul then bewailed his lot, and
sighed for his departure, he yet confesses that he acquiesced in the good
pleasure of God; for it does not become the saints, while examining their own
defects, to forget what they have already received from God.
f233
But what is suflicient to bridle impatience and to
cherish resignation, is the thought, that they have been received under the
protection of God, that they may never perish, and that they have already been
favored with the first-fruits of the Spirit, which make certain their hope of
the eternal inheritance. Though they enjoy not as yet the promised glory of
heaven, at the same time, being content with the measure which they have
obtained, they are never without reasons for joy.
So I
myself, etc. A short epilogue, in which he
teaches us, that the faithful never reach the goal of righteousness as long as
they dwell in the flesh, but that they are running their course, until they put
off the body. He again gives the name of
mind,
not to the rational part of the soul which philosophers extol, but to that which
is illuminated by the Spirit of God, so that it understands and wills aright:
for there is a mention made not of the understanding alone, but connected with
it is the earnest desire of the heart. However, by the exception he makes, he
confesses, that he was devoted to God in such a manner, that while creeping on
the earth he was defiled with many corruptions. This is a suitable passage to
disprove the most pernicious dogma of the Purists, (Catharorum,) which
some turbulent spirits attempt to revive at the present day.
f234
CHAPTER 8
|
ROMANS
8:1-4
|
|
1. There is therefore now no condemnation to
them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the
Spirit.
f235
|
1. Nulla igitur condemnatio est iis qui sunt
in Christo Iesu, qui non secumdum carnem ambulant, sed secundum
Spiritum.
|
|
2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
|
2. Lex enim Spiritus vitæ in Christo
Iesu, liberum me reddidit a lege peccati et mortis.
|
|
3. For what the law could not do,in that it
was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh;
|
3. Quod enim impossibile erat Legi,eo quod
infirmabatur per carnem,misso Deus Filio suo in similitudine carnis peccati,
etiam de peccato damnavit peccatum in carne;
|
|
4. That the righteousness of the law might be
fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit.
|
4. Ut justificatio Legis impleretur in nobis
qui non secumdum carnem ambulamus, sed secundum Spiritum.
|
1.
There is
then, etc. After having described the
contest which the godly have perpetually with their own flesh, he returns to the
consolation, which was very needful for them, and which he had before mentioned;
and it was this, — That though they were still beset by sin, they were yet
exempt fiom the power of death, and from every curse, provided they lived not in
the flesh but in the Spirit: for he joins together these three things, —
the imperfection under which the faithful always labor, — the mercy of God
in pardoning and forgiving it, —and the regeneration of the Spirit; and
this indeed in the last place, that no one should flatter himself with a vain
notion, as though he were freed from the curse, while securely indulging in the
meantime his own flesh. As then the carnal man flatters himself in vain, when in
no way solicitous to reform his life, he promises to himself impunity under the
pretense of having this grace; so the trembling consciences of the godly have an
invincible fortress, for they know that while they abide in Christ they are
beyond every danger of condemnation. We shall now examine the
words.
After the
Spirit. Those who walk after the Spirit are not
such as have wholly put off all the emotions of the flesh, so that their whole
life is redolent with nothing but celestial perfection; but they are those who
sedulously labor to subdue and mortify the flesh, so that the love of true
religion seems to reign in them. He declares that such walk not after the flesh;
for wherever the real fear of God is vigorous, it takes away from the flesh its
sovereignty, though it does not abolish all its
corruptions.
2.
For the law of the Spirit of
life, etc. This is a confirmation of the former
sentence; and that it may be understood, the meaning of the words must be
noticed. Using a language not strictly correct, by
the law of the
Spirit he designates the Spirit of God, who
sprinkles our souls with the blood of Christ, not only to cleanse us from the
stain of sin with respect to its guilt, but also to sanctify us that we may be
really purified. He adds that it is life-giving, (for the genitive case, after
the manner of the Hebrew, is to be taken as an adjective,) it hence follows,
that they who detain man in the letter of the law, expose him to death. On the
other hand, he gives the name of the law of sin and death to the
dominion of the flesh and to the tyranny of death, which thence follows: the law
of God is set as it were in the middle, which by teaching righteousness cannot
confer it, but on the contrary binds us with the strongest chains in bondage to
sin and to death.
The meaning then is, — that the law of God
condemns men, and that this happens, because as long as they remain under the
bond of the law, they are oppressed with the bondage of sin, and are thus
exposed to death; but that the Spirit of Christ, while it abolishes the law of
sin in us by destroying the prevailing desires of the flesh, does at the same
time deliver us from the peril of death. If any one objects and says, that then
pardon, by which our transgressions are buried, depends on regeneration; to this
it may be easily answered, that the reason is not here assigned by Paul, but
that the manner only is specified, in which we are delivered from guilt; and
Paul denies that we obtain deliverance by the external teaching of the law, but
intimates that when we are renewed by the Spirit of God, we are at the same time
justified by a gratuitous pardon, that the curse of sin may no longer abide on
us. The sentence then has the same meaning, as though Paul had said, that the
grace of regeneration is never disjoined from the imputation of
righteousness.
I dare
not, with some, take
the law of sin and
death for the law of God, because it seems a
harsh expression. For though by increasing sin it generates death, yet Paul
before turned aside designedly from this invidious language. At the same time I
no more agree in opinion with those who explain the law of sin as being the lust
of the flesh, as though Paul had said, that he had become the conqueror of it.
But it will appear very evident shortly, as 1 think, that he speaks of a
gratuitous absolution, which brings to us tranquillizing peace with God. I
prefer retaining the word law, rather than with Erasmus to render it
right or power: for Paul did not without reason allude to the law
of God.
f236
3.
For what was impossible for the
law, etc. Now follows the polishing or the
adorning of his proof, that the Lord has by his gratuitous mercy justified us in
Christ; the very thing which it was impossible for the law to do. But as this is
a very remarkable sentence, let us examine every part of it.
That he treats here of free justification or of the
pardon by which God reconciles us to himself, we may infer from the last clause,
when he adds, who walk not
according to the flesh, but according to the
Spirit. For if Paul intended to teach
us, that we are prepared by the spirit of regeneration to overcome sin, why was
this addition made? But it was very proper for him, after having promised
gratuitous remission to the faithful, to confine this doctrine to those who join
penitence to faith, and turn not the mercy of God so as to promote the
licentiousness of the flesh. And then the state of the case must be noticed; for
the Apostle teaches us here how the grace of Christ absolves us from
guilt.
Now as to the expression,
to<
ajdu>naton, the impossibility of the law, it is
no doubt to be taken for defect or impotency; as though it had been said, that a
remedy had been found by God, by which that which was an impossibility to the
law is removed. The particle, ejn
w=|, Erasmus has rendered “ea parte
qua — in that part in which;” but as I think it to be causal, I
prefer rendering it, “eo quod — because:” and though perhaps
such a phrase does not occur among good authors in the Greek language, yet as
the Apostles everywhere adopt Hebrew modes of expression, this interpretation
ought not to be deemed improper.
f237
No doubt intelligent readers will allow, that the cause of defect is what is
here expressed, as we shall shortly prove again. Now though Erasmus supplies the
principal verb, yet the text seems to me to flow better without it. The
copulative
kai<,
and, has led Erasmus astray, so as to insert the verb
prœstitit — hath performed; but I think that it is used for
the sake of emphasis; except it may be, that some will approve of the conjecture
of a Grecian scholiast, who connects the clause thus with the preceding words,
“God sent his own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and on account
of sin,” etc. I have however followed what I have thought to be the real
meaning of Paul. I come now to the subject itself.
f238
Paul clearly declares that our sins were expiated by
the death of Christ, because it was impossible for the law to confer
righteousness upon us. It hence follows, that more is required by the law than
what we can perform; for if we were capable of fulfilling the law there would
have been no need to seek a remedy elsewhere. It is therefore absurd to measure
human strength by the precepts of the law; as though God in requiring what is
justly due, had regarded what and how much we are able to do.
Because it was weak
etc. That no one might think that the law was
irreverently charged with weakness, or confine it to ceremonies, Paul has
distinctly expressed that this defect was not owing to any fault in the law, but
to the corruption of our flesh; for it must be allowed that if any one really
satisfies the divine law, he will be deemed just before God. He does not then
deny that the law is sufficient to justify us as to doctrine, inasmuch as it
contains a perfect rule of righteousness: but as our flesh does not attain that
righteousness, the whole power of the law fails and vanishes away. Thus
condemned is the error or rather the delirious notion of those who imagine that
the power of justifying is only taken away from ceremonies; for Paul, by laying
the blame expressly on us, clearly shows that he found no fault with the
doctrine of the law.
But further, understand the weakness of the law
according to the sense in which the Apostle usually takes the word
asqeneia,
weakness, not only as meaning a small imbecility but impotency; for he means
that the law has no power whatever to justify.
f239
You then see that we are wholly excluded from the righteousness of works, and
must therefore flee to Christ for righteousness, for in us there can be none,
and to know this is especially necessary; for we shall never be clothed with the
righteousness of Christ except we first know assuredly that we have no
righteousness of our own. The word
flesh
is to be taken still in the same sense, as meaning ourselves. The corruption
then of our nature renders the law of God in this respect useless to us; for
whiles it shows the way of life, it does not bring us back who are running
headlong into death.
God having sent his own
Son, etc. He now points out the way in which
our heavenly Father has restored righteousness to us by his Son, even by
condemning sin in the very flesh of Christ; who by cancelling as it were the
handwriting, abolished sin, which held us bound before God; for the condemnation
of sin made us free and brought us righteousness, for sin being blotted out we
are absolved, so that God counts us as just. But he declares first that Christ
was
sent,
in order to remind us that righteousness by no means dwells in us, for it is to
be sought from him, and that men in vain confide in their own merits, who become
not just but at the pleasure of another, or who borrow righteousness from that
expiation which Christ accomplished in his own flesh. But he says, that he came
in the likeness of the flesh of
sin; for though the flesh of Christ was
polluted by no stains, yet it seemed apparently to be sinful, inasmuch as it
sustained the punishment due to our sins, and doubtless death exercised all its
power over it as though it was subject to itself. And as it behoved our
High-priest to learn by his own experience how to aid the weak, Christ underwent
our infirmities, that he might be more inclined to sympathy, and in this respect
also there appeared some resemblance of a sinful nature.
Even for
sin, etc. I have already said that this is
explained by some as the cause or the end for which God sent his own Son, that
is, to give satisfaction for sin. Chrysostom and many after him understood it in
a still harsher sense, even that sin was condemned for sin, and for this reason,
because it assailed Christ unjustly and beyond what was right. I indeed allow
that though he was just and innocent, he yet underwent punishment for sinners,
and that the price of redemption was thus paid; but I cannot be brought to think
that the word
sin
is put here in any other sense than that of an expiatory sacrifice, which is
called
µça,
ashem, in Hebrew,
f240
and so the Greeks call a sacrifice to which a curse is annexed
ka>qarma,
catharma. The same thing is declared by Paul in
<470521>2
Corinthians 5:21, when he says, that
“Christ, who knew
no sin, was made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in
him.”
But the preposition
peri<
peri, is to be taken here in a causative sense, as though he had said,
“On account of that sacrifice, or through the burden of sin being laid on
Christ, sin was cast down from its power, so that it does not hold us now
subject to itself.” For using a metaphor, he says that it was
condemned,
like those who fail in their cause; for God no longer deals with those as guilty
who have obtained absolution through the sacrifice of Christ. If we say that the
kingdom of sin, in which it held us, was demolished, the meaning would be the
same. And thus what was ours Christ took as his own, that he might transfer his
own to us; for he took our curse, and has freely granted us his
blessing.
Paul adds here,
In the
flesh, and for this end, — that be seeing
sin conquered and abolished in our very nature, our confidence might be more
certain: for it thus follows, that our nature is really become a partaker of his
victory; and this is what he presently
declares.
4.
That the justification of the law
might be fulfilled, etc. They who understand
that the renewed, by the Spirit of Christ, fulfil the law, introduce a gloss
wholly alien to the meaning of Paul; for the faithful, while they sojourn in
this world, never make such a proficiency, as that the justification of the law
becomes in them full or complete. This then must be applied to forgiveness; for
when the obedience of Christ is accepted for us, the law is satisfied, so that
we are counted just. For the perfection which the law demands was exhibited in
our flesh, and for this reason — that its rigor should no longer have the
power to condemn us. But as Christ communicates his righteousness to none but to
those whom he joins to himself by the bond of his Spirit, the work of renewal is
again mentioned, lest Christ should be thought to be the minister of sin: for it
is the inclination of many so to apply whatever is taught respecting the
paternal kindness of God, as to encourage the lasciviousness of the flesh; and
some malignantly slander this doctrine, as though it extinquished the desire to
live uprightly.
f241
|
ROMANS
8:5-8
|
|
5. For they that are after the flesh do mind
the things of the flesh; but that are after the Spirit the things of the
Spirit
|
5. Qui enim secundum carnem sunt, ea quæ
carnis sunt cogitant; qui vero secundum Spiritum, ea quæ sunt
Spiritus.
|
|
6. For to be carnally minded is death; but to
be spiritually minded is life and peace:
|
6. Cogitatio certe carnis, mors est; cogitatio
autem Spiritus, vita et pax:
|
|
7. Because the carnal mind is enmity against
God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
be.
|
7. Quandoquidem cogitatio carnis, inimicitia
est adversus Deum; nam Legi Dei non subjicitur, nec enim
potest.
|
|
8. So then they that are in the flesh cannot
please God.
|
8. Qui ergo in carne sunt, Deo placere non
possunt.
|
5.
For they who are after the
flesh, etc. He introduces this difference
between the flesh and the Spirit, not only to confirm, by an argument derived
from what is of an opposite character, what he has before mentioned, —
that the grace of Christ belongs to none but to those who, having been
regenerated by the Spirit, strive after purity; but also to relieve the faithful
with a seasonable consolation, lest being conscious of many infirmities, they
should despair: for as he had exempted none from the curse, but those who lead a
spiritual life, he might seem to cut off from all mortals the hope of salvation;
for who in this world can be found adorned with so much angelic purity so as to
be wholly freed from the flesh? It was therefore necessary to define what it is
to be in the
flesh, and to
walk after the
flesh. At first, indeed, Paul does not define
the distinction so very precisely; but yet we shall see as we proceed, that his
object is to afford good hope to the faithful, though they are bound to their
flesh; only let them not give loose reins to its lusts, but give themselves up
to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
By saying that carnal men care for, or think
upon, the things of the flesh, he shows that he did not count those as carnal
who aspire after celestial righteousness, but those who wholly devote themselves
to the world. I have rendered fronousin by a word of large meaning,
cogitant — think, that readers may understand that those only are
excluded from being the children of God who, being given to the allurements of
the flesh, apply their minds and study to depraved lusts.
f242
Now, in the second clause he encourages the faithful to entertain good hope,
provided they find that they are raised up by the Spirit to the meditation of
righteousness: for wherever the Spirit reigns, it is an evidence of the saving
grace of God; as the grace of God does not exist where the Spirit being
extinguished the reign of the flesh prevails. But I will briefly repeat here
what I have reminded you of before, — That to be
in the
flesh, or,
after the
flesh, is the same thing as to be without the
gift of regeneration:
f243
and such are all they who continue, as they commonly say, in pure naturals, (
Puris naturalibus.)
6.
The minding of the
flesh, etc. Erasmus has rendered it
“affection,” (affectum;) the old translator,
“prudence,” (prudentiam.) But as it is certain that the to
fronhma of Paul is the same with what Moses calls the imagination
(figmentum — devising) of the heart,
(<010605>Genesis
6:5;) and that under this word are included all the faculties of the soul
— reason, understanding, and affections, it seems to me that minding
(cogitatio — thinking, imagining, caring) is a more suitable word
f244
And though Paul uses the particle
ga<r
— for, yet I doubt not but that is only a simple confirmative, for there
is here a kind of concession; for after having briefly defined what it is to be
in the flesh, he now subjoins the end that awaits all who are slaves to the
flesh. Thus by stating the contrary effect, he proves, that they cannot be
partakers of the favor of Christ, who abide in the flesh, for through the whole
course of their life they proceed and hasten unto death.
This passage deserves special notice; for we hence
learn, that we, while following the course of nature, rush headlong into death;
for we, of ourselves, contrive nothing but what ends in ruin. But he immediately
adds another clause, to teach us, that if anything in us tends to life, it is
what the Spirit produces; for no spark of life proceeds from our
flesh.
The minding of the Spirit he calls
life,
for it is life-giving, or leads to life; and by
peace
he designates, after the manner of the Hebrews,
every kind of happiness; for whatever the Spirit of God works in us tends to our
felicity. There is, however, no reason why any one should on this account
attribute salvation to works; for though God begins our salvation, and at length
completes it by renewing us after his own image; yet the only cause is his good
pleasure, whereby he makes us partakers of
Christ.
7.
Because the minding of the flesh,
f245 etc. He subjoins a proof of
what he had stated, — that nothing proceeds from the efforts of our flesh
but death, because it contends as an enemy against the will of God. Now the will
of God is the rule of righteousness; it hence follows, that whatever is unjust
is contrary to it; and what is unjust at the same time brings death. But while
God is adverse, and is offended, in vain does any one expect life; for his wrath
must be necessarily followed by death, which is the avenging of his wrath. But
let us observe here, that the will of man is in all things opposed to the divine
will; for, as much as what is crooked differs from what is straight, so much
must be the difference between us and God.
For to the law of
God, etc. This is an explanation of the former
sentence; and it shows how all the thinkings (meditationes) of the flesh
carry on war against the will of God; for his will cannot be assailed but where
he has revealed it. In the law God shows what pleases him: hence they who wish
really to find out how far they agree with God must test all their purposes and
practices by this rule. For though nothing is done in this world, except by the
secret governing providence of God; yet to say, under this pretext, that nothing
is done but what he approves, (nihil nisi eo approbante fieri,) is
intolerable blasphemy; and on this subject some fanatics are wrangling at this
day. The law has set the difference between right and wrong plainly and
distinctly before our eyes, and to seek it in a deep labyrinth, what sottishness
is it! The Lord has indeed, as I have said, his hidden counsel, by which he
regulates all things as he pleases; but as it is incomprehensible to us, let us
know that we are to refrain from too curious an investigation of it. Let this in
the mean time remain as a fixed principle, — that nothing pleases him but
righteousness, and also, that no right estimate can be made of our works but by
the law, in which he has faithfully testified what he approves and
disapproves.
Nor can
be. Behold the power of free-will! which the
Sophists cannot carry high enough. Doubtless, Paul affirms here, in express
words, what they openly detest, — that it is impossible for us to render
our powers subject to the law. They boast that the heart can turn to either
side, provide it be aided by the influence of the Spirit, and that a free choice
of good or evil is in our power, when the Spirit only brings help; but it is
ours to choose or refuse. They also imagine some good emotions, by which we
become of ourselves prepared. Paul, on the contrary, declares, that the heart is
full of hardness and indomitable contumacy, so that it is never moved naturally
to undertake the yoke of God; nor does he speak of this or of that faculty, but
speaking indefinitely, he throws into one bundle all the emotions which arise
within us.
f246
Far, then, from a Christian heart be this heathen philosophy respecting the
liberty of the will. Let every one acknowledge himself to be the servant of sin,
as he is in reality, that he may be made free, being set at liberty by the grace
of Christ: to glory in any other liberty is the highest
folly.
8.
They then who are in the
flesh, etc. It is not without reason that I
have rendered the adversative
de<
as an illative: for the Apostle infers from what had been said, that those who
give themselves up to be guided by the lusts of the flesh, are all of them
abominable before God; and he has thus far confirmed this truth, — that
all who walk not after the Spirit are alienated from Christ, for they are
without any spiritual life.
|
ROMANS
8:9-11
|
|
9. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the
Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not
the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
|
9. Vos autem non estis in carne, sed in
Spiritu, siquidem Spiritus Dei habitat in vobis: si quis vero Spiritum Christi
non habet, hic non est ejus.
|
|
10. And if Christ be in you the body is dead
because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of
righteousness.
|
10. Si vero Christus in vobis est,corpus
quidem mortuum est propter peccatum, Spiritus autem vita est propter
justitiam.
|
|
11. But if the Spirit of him that raised up
Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall
also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in
you.
|
11. Si inquam Spiritus ejus qui suscitavit
Iesum ex mortuis, habitat in vobis, qui suscitavit Christum ex mortuis,
vivificabit et mortalia corpora propter Spiritum suum in vobis
habitantem.
|
9.
But
ye, etc. He applies hypothetically a general
truth to those to whom he was writing; not only that by directing his discourse
to them particularly he might more powerfully affect them, but also that they
might with certainty gather from the description already given, that they were
of the number of those, from whom Christ had taken away the curse of the law.
Yet, at the same time, by explaining what the Spirit of God works in the elect,
and what fruit he brings forth, he encourages them to strive after newness of
life.
If indeed the Spirit of
God, etc. This qualifying sentence is fitly
subjoined, by which they were stirred up to examine themselves more closely,
lest they should profess the name of Christ in vain. And it is the surest mark
by which the children of God are distinguished from the children of the world,
when by the Spirit of God they are renewed unto purity and holiness. It seems at
the same time to have been his purpose, not so much to detect hypocrisy, as to
suggest reasons for glorying against the absurd zealots of the law, who esteem
the dead letter of more importance than the inward power of the Spirit, who
gives life to the law.
But this passage shows, that what Paul has hitherto
meant by the Spirit, is not the mind or understanding (which is called the
superior part of the soul by the advoeates of freewill) but a celestial gift;
for he shows that those are spiritual, not such as obey reason through their own
will, but such as God rules by his Spirit. Nor are they yet said to be according
to the Spirit, because they are filled with God’s Spirit, (which is now
the case with none,) but because they have the Spirit dwelling in them, though
they find some remains of the flesh still remaining in them: at the same time it
cannot dwell in them without having the superiority; for it must be observed
that man’s state is known by the power that bears rule in
him.
But if any have not the Spirit of
Christ, etc. He subjoins this to show how
necessary in Christians is the denial of the flesh. The reign of the Spirit is
the abolition of the flesh. Those in whom the Spirit reigns not, belong not to
Christ; then they are not Christians who serve the flesh; for they who separate
Christ from his own Spirit make him like a dead image or a carcase. And we must
always bear in mind what the Apostle has intimated, that gratuitous remission of
sins can never be separated from the Spirit of regeneration; for this would be
as it were to rend Christ asunder.
If this be true, it is strange that we are accused of
arrogance by the adversaries of the gospel, because we dare to avow that the
Spirit of Christ dwells in us: for we must either deny Christ, or confess that
we become Christians through his Spirit. It is indeed dreadful to hear that men
have so departed from the word of the Lord, that they not only vaunt that they
are Christians without God’s Spirit, but also ridicule the faith of
others: but such is the philosophy of the Papists.
But let readers observe here, that the Spirit is,
without any distinction, called sometimes the Spirit of God the Father, and
sometimes the Spirit of Christ; and thus called, not only because his whole
fulness was poured on Christ as our Mediator and head, so that from him a
portion might descend on each of us, but also because he is equally the Spirit
of the Father and of the Son, who have one essence, and the same eternal
divinity. As, however, we have no intercourse with God except through Christ,
the Apostle wisely descends to Christ from the Father, who seems to be far
off:
10.
But if Christ be in
us, etc. What he had before said of the Spirit
he says now of Christ, in order that the mode of Christ’s dwelling in us
might be intimated; for as by the Spirit he consecrates us as temples to
himself, so by the same he dwells in us. But what we have before referred to, he
now explains more fully — that the children of God are counted spiritual,
not on the ground of a full and complete perfection, but only on account of the
newness of life that is begun in them. And he anticipates here an occasion of
doubt, which might have otherwise disturbed us; for though the Spirit possesses
a part of us, we yet see another part still under the power of death. He then
gives this answer — that the power of quickening is in the Spirit of
Christ, which will be effectual in swallowing up our mortality. He hence
concludes that we must patiently wait until the relics of sin be entirely
abolished.
Readers have been already reminded, that by the word
Spirit they are not to understand the soul, but the Spirit of regeneration; and
Paul calls the Spirit life, not only because he lives and reigns in us, but also
because he quickens us by his power, until at length, having destroyed the
mortal fesh, he perfectly renews us. So, on the other hand, the word body
signifies that gross mass which is not yet purified by the Spirit of God from
earthly dregs, which delight in nothing but what is gross; for it would be
otherwise absurd to ascribe to the body the fault of sin: besides the soul is so
far from being life that it does not of itself live. The meaning of Paul then is
— that although sin adjudges us to death as far as the corruption of our
first nature remains in us, yet that the Spirit of God is its conqueror: nor is
it any hindrance, that we are only favored with the first-fruits, for even one
spark of the Spirit is the seed of life.
f247
11.
If the
Spirit, etc. This is a confirmation of the last
verse, derived from the efficient cause, and according to this sense, —
“Since by the power of God’s Spirit Christ was raised, and since the
Spirit possesses eternal power, he will also exert the same with regard to
us.” And he takes it as granted, that in the person of Christ was
exhibited a specimen of the power which belongs to the whole body of the Church:
and as he makes God the author of the resurrection, he assigns to him a
life-giving Spirit.
Who
raised, etc. By this periphrasis he describes
God; which harmonizes better with his present object, than if he had called him
simply by his own name. For the same reason he assigns to the Father the glory
of raising Christ; for it more clearly proved what he had in view, than if he
had ascribed the act to Christ himself. For it might have been objected,
“That Christ was able by his own power to raise up himself, and this is
what no man can do.” But when he says, that God raised up Christ by his
Spirit, and that he also communicated his Spirit to us, there is nothing that
can be alleged to the contrary; so that he thus makes sure to us the hope of
resurrection. Nor is there anything here that derogates from that declaration in
John,
“I have power to
lay down my life, and to take it up
again.”
(<431018>John
10:18.)
No doubt Christ arose through his own power; but as
he is wont to attribute to the Father whatever Divine power he possesses, so the
Apostle has not improperly transferred to the Father what was especially done by
Christ, as the peculiar work of divinity.
By
mortal
bodies he understands all those things which
still remain in us, that are subject to death; for his usual practice is to give
this name to the grosser part of us. We hence conclude, that he speaks not of
the last resurrection, which shall be in a moment, but of the continued working
of the Spirit, by which he gradually mortifies the relics of the flesh and
renews in us a celestial life.
|
ROMANS
8:12-14
|
|
12. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not
to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
|
12. Itaque fratres, debitores sumus, non
carni, ut secundum carnem vivamus.
|
|
13. For if ye live after the flesh,ye shall
die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall
live.
|
13. Si enim secundum carnem vixeritis,
moriemini: si vero Spiritu facta carnis
f248
mortificaveritis, vivetis.
|
|
14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of
God, they are the sons of God.
|
14. Quicunque enim Spiritu Dei aguntur, ii
filii Dei sunt.
|
12.
So then,
brethren, etc. This is the conclusion of what
has been previously said; for if we are to renounce the flesh, we ought not to
consent to it; and if the Spirit ought to reign in us, it is inconsistent not to
attend to his bidding. Paul’s sentence is here defective, for he omits the
other part of the contrast, — that we are debtors to the Spirit; but the
meaning is in no way obscure.
f249
This conclusion has the force of an exhortation; for he is ever wont to draw
exhortations from his doctrine. So in another place,
<490430>Ephesians
4:30, he exhorts us
“not to grieve the
Spirit of God, by whom we have been sealed to the day of
redemption:”
he does the same in
<480525>Galatians
5:25,
“If we live in the
Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.”
And this is the case, when we renounce carnal lusts,
so as to devote ourselves, as those who are bound, to the righteousness of God.
Thus indeed we ought to reason, not as some blasphemers are wont to do, who talk
idly, and say, — that we must do nothing, because we have no power. But it
is as it were to fight against God, when we extinguish the grace offered to us,
by contempt and negligence.
13.
For if ye will live after the
flesh, etc. He adds a threatening, in order
more effectually to shake off their torpor; by which also they are fully
confuted who boast of justification by faith without the Spirit of Christ,
though they are more than sufficiently convicted by their own conscience; for
there is no confidence in God, where there is no love of righteousness. It is
indeed true, that we are justified in Christ through the mercy of God alone; but
it is equally true and certain, that all who are justified are called by the
Lord, that they may live worthy of their vocation. Let then the faithful learn
to embrace him, not only for justification, but also for sanctification, as he
has been given to us for both these purposes, lest they rend him asunder by
their mutilated faith.
But if ye by the
Spirit, etc. He thus moderates his address,
that he might not deject the minds of the godly, who are still conscious of much
infirmity; for however we may as yet be exposed to sins, he nevertheless
promises life to us, provided we strive to mortify the flesh: for he does not
strictly require the destruction of the flesh, but only bids us to make every
exertion to subdue its lusts.
14.
For whosoever are led by the
Spirit of God, etc. This is a confirmation of
what has immediately preceded; for he teaches us, that those only are deemed the
sons of God who are ruled by his Spirit; for by this mark God acknowledges them
as his own people. Thus the empty boasting of hyp¡crites is taken away, who
without any reason assume the title; and the faithful are thus encouraged with
unhesitating confidence to expect salvation. The import of the whole is this
— “all those are the sons of God who are led
f250
by God’s Spirit; all the sons of God are heirs of eternal life: then all
who are led by God’s Spirit ought to feel assured of eternal life. But the
middle term or assumption is omitted, for it was indubitable.
But it is right to observe, that the working of the
Spirit is various: for there is that which is universal, by which all creatures
are sustained and preserved; there is that also which is peculiar to men, and
varying in its character: but what he means here is sanctification, with which
the Lord favors none but his own elect, and by which he separates them for sons
to himself.
|
ROMANS
8:15-18
|
|
15. For ye have not received the spirit of
bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we
cry, Abba, Father.
|
15. Et enim non accepistis spiritum servitutis
iterum in terrorem: sed accepistis Spiritum adoptionis, per quem clamamus, Abba,
Pater.
|
|
16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirit, that we are the children of God:
|
16. Ipse enim Spiritus simul testificatur
spiritui nostro quod sumus filii Dei:
|
|
17. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God,
and joint-heirs with Christ: if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be
also glorified together.
|
17. Si vero filii, etiam hæredes;
hæredes quidem Dei, cohæredes autem Christi: siquidem compatimur, ut
et una glorificemur.
|
|
18. For I reckon that the sufferings of this
present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be
revealed in us.
|
18. Existimo certe non esse pares afflictiones
hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam quæ revelabitur erga
nos.
|
He now confirms the certainty of that confidence, in
which he has already bidden the faithful to rest secure; and he does this by
mentioning the special effect produced by the Spirit; for he has not been given
for the purpose of harassing us with trembling or of tormenting us with anxiety;
but on the contrary, for this end — that having calmed every perturbation,
and restoring our minds to a tranquil state, he may stir us up to call on God
with confidence and freedom. He does not then pursue only the argument which he
had before stated, but dwells more on another clause, which he had connected
with it, even the paternal mercy of God, by which he forgives his people the
infirmities of the flesh and the sins which still remain in them. He teaches us
that our confidence in this respect is made certain by the Spirit of adoption,
who could not inspire us with confidence in prayer without sealing to us a
gratuitous pardon: and that he might make this more evident, he mentions a
twofold spirit; he calls one the spirit of bondage, which we receive from the
law; and the other, the spirit of adoption, which proceeds from the gospel. The
first, he says, was given formerly to produce fear; the other is given now to
afford assurance. By such a comparison of contrary things the certainty of our
salvation, which he intended to confirm, is, as you see, made more evident.
f251
The same comparison is used by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where
he says, that we have not come to Mount Sinai, where all thing were so terrible,
that the people, being alarmed as it were by an immediate apprehension of death,
implored that the word should be no more spoken to them, and Moses himself
confessed that he was terrified;
“but to Sion, the
mount of the Lord, and to his city, the heavenly Jerusalem, where Jesus is, the
Mediator of the New Testament,” etc.
(<580718>Hebrews
7:18.)
By the adverb again, we learn, that the law is here
compared with the gospel: for the Son of God by his coming has brought to us
this invaluable benefit, — that we are no longer bound by the servile
condition of the law. You are not however to infer from this, either that no one
before the coming of Christ was endued with the spirit of adoption, or that all
who received the law were servants and not sons: for he compares the
ministration of the law with the dispensation of the gospel rather than persons
with persons. I indeed allow that the faithful are here reminded how much more
bountifully God now deals with them than he did formerly with the fathers under
the Old Testament; he yet regards the outward dispensation, in respect of which
only we excel them: for though the faith of Abraham, of Moses, and of David, was
superior to ours, yet as God kept them apparently under a schoolmaster, they had
not advanced into that liberty which has been revealed to us.
But it must at the same time be noticed, that it was
designedly, on account of false apostles, that a contrast was made between the
literal disciples of the law, and the faithful whom Christ, the heavenly
Teacher, not only addresses by words, but also teaches inwardly and effectually
by his Spirit.
And though the covenant of grace is included under
the law, it is yet far different from it; for in setting up the gospel in
opposition to it, he regards nothing but what was peculiar to the law itself, as
it commands and forbids, and restrains transgressors by the denunciation of
death: and thus he gives the law its own character, in which it differs from the
gospel; or this statement may be preferred by some, — “He sets forth
the law only, as that by which God covenants with us on the ground of
works.” So then persons only must be regarded as to the Jewish people; for
when the law was published, and also after it was published, the godly were
illuminated by the same Spirit of faith; and thus the hope of eternal life, of
which the Spirit is the earnest and seal, was sealed on their hearts. The only
difference is, that the Spirit is more largely and abundantly poured forth in
the kingdom of Christ. But if you regard only the dispensation of the law, it
will then appear, that salvation was first clearly revealed at that time, when
Christ was manifested in the flesh. All things under the Old Testament were
involved in great obscurity, when compared with the clear light of the
gospel.
And then, if the law be viewed in itself, it can do
nothing but restrain those, devoted to its miserable bondage, by the horror of
death; for it promises no good except under condition, and denounces death on
all transgressors. Hence, as there is the spirit of bondage under the law, which
oppresses the conscience with fear; so under the gospel there is the spirit of
adoption, which exhilarates our souls by bearing a testimony as to our
salvation. But observe, that fear is connected with bondage, as it cannot
be otherwise, but that the law will harass and torment souls with miserable
disquietness, as long as it exercises its dominion. There is then no other
remedy for quieting them, except God forgives us our sin and deals kindly with
us as a father with his children.
Through whom we
cry, etc. He has changed the person, that he
might describe the common privilege of all the saints; as though he had said,
— “Ye have the spirit, through whom you and all we, the rest of the
faithful, cry,” etc. The imitation of their language is very significant;
when he introduces the word Father, in the person of the faithful. The
repetition of the name is for the sake of amplification; for Paul intimates,
that God’s mercy was so published through the whole world, that he was
invoked, as Augustine observes, indiscriminately in all languages.
f252
His object then was to express the consent which existed among all nations. It
hence follows, that there is now no difference between the Jew and the Greek, as
they are united together. Isaiah speaks differently when he declares, that the
language of Canaan would be common to all,
(<231918>Isaiah
19:18;) yet the meaning is the same; for he had no respect to the external
idiom, but to the harmony of heart in serving God, and to the same undisguised
zeal in professing his true and pure worship. The word
cry
is set down for the purpose of expressing confidence; as though he said,
“We pray not doubtingly, but we confidently raise up a loud voice to
heaven.”
The faithful also under the law did indeed call God
their Father, but not with such full confidence, as the vail kept them at a
distance from the sanctuary: but now, since an entrance has been opened to us by
the blood of Christ, we may rejoice fully and openly that we are the children of
God; hence arises this crying. In short, thus is fulfilled the prophecy of
Hosea,
“I will say to
them, My people are ye: they in their turn will answer, Thou art our God.”
(<280223>Hosea
2:23.)
For the more evident the promise is, the greater the
freedom in prayer.
16.
The Spirit
himself, etc. He does not simply say, that
God’s Spirit is a witness to our spirit, but he adopts a compound verb,
which might be rendered “contest,” (contestatur,) were it not
that contestation (contestatio) has a different meaning in Latin. But
Paul means, that the Spirit of God gives us such a testimony, that when he is
our guide and teacher, our spirit is made assured of the adoption of God: for
our mind of its own self, without the preceding testimony of the Spirit, could
not convey to us this assurance. There is also here an explanation of the former
verse; for when the Spirit testifies to us, that we are the children of God, he
at the same time pours into our hearts such confidence, that we venture to call
God our Father. And doubtless, since the confidence of the heart alone opens our
mouth, except the Spirit testifies to our heart respecting the paternal love of
God, our tongues would be dumb, so that they could utter no prayers. For we must
ever hold fast this principle, — that we do not rightly pray to God,
unless we are surely persuaded in our hearts, that he is our Father, when we so
call him with our lips. To this there is a corresponding part, — that our
faith has no true evidence, except we call upon God. It is not then without
reason that Paul, bringing us to this test, shows that it then only appears how
truly any one believes, when they who have embraced the promise of grace,
exercise themselves in prayers.
f253
But there is here a striking refutation of the vain
notions of the Sophists respecting moral conjecture, which is nothing else but
uncertainty and anxiety of mind; nay, rather vacillation and delusion.
f254
There is also an answer given here to their objection, for they ask, “How
can a man fully know the will of God?” This certainly is not within the
reach of man, but it is the testimony of God’s Spirit; and this subject he
treats more at large in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, from which we may
derive a fuller explanation of a passage. Let this truth then stand sure,
— that no one can be called a son of God, who does not know himself to be
such; and this is called knowledge by John, in order to set forth its certainty.
(<620519>1
John 5:19, 20.)
17.
And if
children, etc. By an argument, taken from what
is annexed or what follows, he proves that our salvation consists in having God
as our Father. It is for children that inheritance is appointed: since God then
has adopted us as his children, he has at the same time ordained an inheritance
for us. He then intimates what sort of inheritance it is — that it is
heavenly, and therefore incorruptible and eternal, such as Christ possesses; and
his possession of it takes away all uncertainty: and it is a commendation of the
exellency of this inheritance, that we shall partake of it in common with the
only-begotten Son of God. It is however the design of Paul, as it will presently
appear more fully, highly to extol this inheritance promised to us, that we may
be contented with it, and manfully despise the allurements of the world, and
patiently bear whatever troubles may press on us in this life.
If so be that we suffer
together, etc. Various are the interpretations
of this passage, but I approve of the following in preference to any other,
“We are co-heirs with Christ, provided, in entering on our inheritance, we
follow him in the same way in which he has gone before.” And he thus made
mention of Christ, because he designed to pass over by these steps to an
encouraging strain, — “God’s inheritance is ours, because we
have by his grace been adopted as his children; and that it may not be doubtful,
its possession as been already conferred on Christ, whose partners we are
become: but Christ came to it by the cross; then we must come to it in the same
manner.”
f255
Nor is that to be dreaded which some fear, that Paul thus ascribes the cause of
our eternal glory to our labours; for this mode of speaking is not unusual in
Scripture. He denotes the order, which the Lord follows in dispensing salvation
to us, rather than the cause; for he has already sufficiently defended the
gratuitous mercy of God against the merits of works. When now exhorting us to
patience, he does not show whence salvation proceeds, but how God governs his
people.
18.
I indeed
judge,
f256
etc. Though they take not altogether an unsuitable view who understand this as a
kind of modification; yet I prefer to regard it in the light of an
encouragement, for the purpose of anticipating an objection, according to this
import, — “It ought not indeed to be grievous to us, if we must pass
through various afflictions into celestial glory, since these, when compared
with the greatness of that glory, are of the least moment.” He has
mentioned future for eternal glory, intimating that the afflictions of
the world are such as pass away quickly.
It is hence evident how ill understood has this
passage been by the Schoolmen; for they have drawn from it their frivolous
distinction between congruity and condignity. The Apostle indeed compares not
the worthiness of the one with that of the other, but only lightens the
heaviness of the cross by a comparison with the greatness of glory, in order to
confirm the minds of the faithful in patience.
|
ROMANS
8:19-22
|
|
19. For the earnest expectation of the
creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
|
19. Siquidem intenta expectatio creature,
revelationem filiorum Dei expectat:
|
|
20. For the creature was made subject to
vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in
hope;
|
20. Vanitati enim creatura subjecta est non
volens, sed propter eum qui subjecit ipsam in spe;
|
|
21. Because the creature itself also shall be
delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the
children of God.
|
21. Quoniam ipsa quoque creatura asseretur a
servitute corruptionis in libertatem gloriæ filiorum Dei.
|
|
22. For we know that the whole creation
groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
|
22. Novimus enim quod creatura universa
congemiscit, et ad hunc diem parturit.
|
19.
For the intent expectation of
the creation, etc. He teaches us that there is
an example of the patience, to which he had exhorted us, even in mute creatures.
For, to omit various interpretations, I understand the passage to have this
meaning — that there is no element and no part of the world which, being
touched, as it were, with a sense of its present misery, does not intensely hope
for a resurrection. He indeed lays down two things, — that all are
creatures in distress, — and yet that they are sustained by hope. And it
hence also appears how immense is the value of eternal glory, that it can excite
and draw all things to desire it.
Further, the expression,
expectation
expects, or waits for, though somewhat unusual,
yet has a most suitable meaning; for he meant to intimate, that all creatures,
seized with great anxiety and held in suspense with great desire, look for that
day which shall openly exhibit the glory of the children of God. The
revelation of God’s children shall be, when we shal1 be like
God, according to what John says,
“For though we know
that we are now his sons, yet it appears not yet what we shall be.”
(<620302>1
John 3:2.)
But I have retained the words of Paul; for bolder
than what is meet is the version of Erasmus, “Until the sons of God shall
be manifest;” nor does it sufficiently express the meaning of the Apostle;
for he means not, that the sons of God shall be manifested in the last day, but
that it shall be then made known how desirable and blessed their condition will
be, when they shall put off corruption and put on celestial glory. But he
ascribes hope to creatures void of reason for this end, — that the
faithful may open their eyes to behold the invisible life, though as yet it lies
hid under a mean garb.
20.
For to vanity has the creation,
etc. He shows the object of expectation from
what is of an opposite character; for as creatures, being now subject to
corruption, cannot be restored until the sons of God shall be wholly restore;
hence they, longing for their renewal, look forward to the manifestation of the
celestial kingdom. He says, that they have been
subjected to
vanity, and for this reason, because they abide
not in a constant and durable state, but being as it were evanescent and
unstable, they pass away swiftly; for no doubt he sets vanity in opposition to a
perfect state.
Not
willingly, etc. Since there is no reason in
such creatures, their will is to be taken no doubt for their natural
inclination, according to which the whole nature of things tends to its own
preservation and perfection: whatever then is detained under corruption suffers
violence, nature being unwilling and repugnant. But he introduces all parts of
the world, by a sort of personification, as being endued with reason; and he
does this in order to shame our stupidity, when the uncertain fluctuation of
this world, which we see, does not raise our minds to higher
things.
But on account of
him, etc. He sets before us an example of
obedience in all created things, and adds, that it springs from hope; for hence
comes the alacrity of the sun and moon, and of all the stars in their constant
courses, hence is the sedulity of the earth’s obedience in bringing forth
fruits, hence is the unwearied motion of the air, hence is the prompt tendency
to flow in water. God has given to everything its charge; and he has not only by
a distinct order commanded what he would to be done, but also implanted inwardly
the hope of renovation. For in the sad disorder which followed the fall of Adam,
the whole machinery of the world would have instantly becomne deranged, and all
its parts would have failed had not some hidden strength supported them. It
would have been then wholly inconsistent that the earnest of the Spirit should
be less efficacious in the children of God than hidden instinct in the lifeless
parts of creation. How much soever then created things do naturally incline
another way; yet as it has pleased God to bring them under vanity, they obey his
order; and as he has given them a hope of a better condition, with this they
sustain themselves, deferring their desire, until the incorruption promised to
them shall be revealed. He now, by a kind of personification, ascribes
hope
to them, as he did
will
before.
21.
Because the creation
itself, etc. He shows how the creation has in
hope been made subject to vanity; that is, inasmuch as it shall some time be
made free, according to what Isaiah testifies, and what Peter confirms still
more clearly. It is then indeed meet for us to consider what a dreadful curse we
have deserved, since all created things in themselves blameless, both on earth
and in the visible heaven, undergo punishment for our sins; for it has not
happened through their own fault, that they are liable to corruption. Thus the
condemnation of mankind is imprinted on the heavens, and on the earth, and on
all creatures. It hence also appears to what excelling glory the sons of God
shall be exalted; for all creatures shall be renewed in order to amplify it, and
to render it illustrious.
But he means not that all creatures shall be
partakers of the same glory with the sons of God; but that they, according to
their nature, shall be participators of a better condition; for God will restore
to a perfect state the world, now fallen, together with mankind. But what that
perfection will be, as to beasts as well as plants and metals, it is not meet
nor right in us to inquire more curiously; for the chief effect of corruption is
decay. Some subtle men, but hardly sober-minded, inquire whether all kinds of
animals will be immortal; but if reins be given to speculations where will they
at length lead us? Let us then be content with this simple doctrine, —
that such will be the constitution and the complete order of things, that
nothing will be deformed or fading.
22.
For we
know, etc. He repeats the same sentiment, that
he might pass over to us, though what is now said has the effect and the form of
a conclusion; for as ereatures are subject to corruption, not through their
natural desire, but through the appointment of God, and then, as they have a
hope of being hereafter freed from corruption, it hence follows, that they groan
like a woman in travail until they shall be delivered. But it is a most suitable
similitude; it shows that the groaning of which he speaks will not be in vain
and without effect; for it will at length bring forth a joyful and blessed
fruit. The meaning is, that creatures are not content in their present state,
and yet that they are not so distressed that they pine away without a prospect
of a remedy, but that they are as it were in travail; for a restoration to a
better state awaits them. By saying that they groan together, he does not
mean that they are united together by mutual anxiety, but he joins them as
companions to us. The particle hitherto, or, to this day, serves to
alleviate the weariness of daily languor; for if creatures have continued for so
many ages in their groaning, how inexcusable will our softness or sloth be if we
faint during the short course of a shadowy life.
f257
|
ROMANS
8:23-25
|
|
23. And not only they, but ourselves also
which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within
ourselves, waiting for the adoption to wit, the redemption of our
body.
|
23. Non solum autem, sed ipsi quoque qui
primordia Spiritus habemus; nos inquam ipsi in nobis ipsis gemimus, adoptionem
expectantes, redemptionem corporis nostri.
|
|
24. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is
seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope
for?
|
24. Spe enim salvi facti sumus, spes vero
quæ conspicitur, non est spes; quod enim conspicit quis, quomodo etiam
speret?
|
|
25. But if we hope for that we see not, then
do we with patience wait for it.
|
25. Si ergo non quod non conspicimus,
speramus, per patientiam expectamus.
|
23.
And not only so, etc. There are those who think
that the Apostle intended here to exalt the dignity of our future blessedness,
and by this proof, because all things look for it with ardent desire; not only
the irrational parts of creation, but we also who have been regenerated by the
Spirit of God. This view is indeed capable of being defended, but there seems to
me to be a comparison here between the greater and the less; as though he said,
“The excellency of our glory is of such importance even to the very
elements, which are destitute of mind and reason, that they burn with a certain
kind of desire for it; how much more it behoves us, who have been illuminated by
the Spirit of God, to aspire and strive with firmness of hope and with ardour of
desire, after the attainment of so great a benefit.” And he requires that
there should be a feeling of two kinds in the faithful: that being burdened with
the sense of their present misery, they are to
groan;
and that notwithstanding they are to
wait
patiently for their deliverance; for he would have them to be raised up with
the expectation of their future blessedness, and by an elevation of mind to
overcome all their present miseries, while they consider not what they are now,
but what they are to be.
Who have the
beginnings, etc. Some render the word
first-fruits, (primitias,) and as meaning a rare and uncommon excellency;
but of this view I by no means approve. To avoid, therefore, any ambiguity, I
have rendered the word
beginnings,
(primordia, the elements,) for I do not apply the expression, as they do,
to the Apostles only, but to all the faithful who in this world are besprinkled
only with a few drops by the Spirit; and indeed when they make the greatest
proficiency, being endued with a considerable measure of it, they are still far
off from perfection. These, then, in the view of the Apostle, are beginnings or
first-fruits, to which is opposed the complete ingathering; for as we are not
yet endued with fullness, it is no wonder that we feel disquietude. By repeating
ourselves and adding in ourselves, he renders the sentence more
emphatical, and expresses a more ardent desire, nor does he call it only a
desire, but groaning: for in groaning there is a deep feeling of
misery.
Waiting for the
adoption, etc. Improperly indeed, but not
without the best reason, is adoption employed here to designate the fruition of
the inheritance to which we are adopted; for Paul means this, that the eternal
decree of God, by which he has chosen us to himself as sons before the
foundation of the world, of which he testifies to us in the gospel, the
assurance of which he seals on our hearts by his Spirit, would be void, except
the promised resurrection were certain, which is its consummation.
f258
For to what end is God our Father, except he receives us after we have finished
our earthly pilgrimage into his celestial inheritance? To the same purpose is
what he immediately subjoins, the
redemption of the body. For the price of our
redemption was in such a way paid by Christ, that death should notwithstanding
hold us tied by its chains, yea, that we should carry it within us; it hence
follows, that the sacrifice of the death of Christ would be in vain and
fruitless, except its fruit appeared in our heavenly
renovation.
24.
For by
hope, etc. Paul strengthens his exhortation by
another argument; for our salvation cannot be separated from some kind of death,
and this he proves by the nature of hope. Since hope extends to things not yet
obtained, and represents to our minds the form of things hidden and far remote,
whatever is either openly seen or really possessed, is not an object of hope.
But Paul takes it as granted, and what cannot be denied, that as long as we are
in the world, salvation is what is hoped for; it hence follows, that it is laid
up with God far beyond what we can see. By saying, that hope is not what is
seen, he uses a concise expression, but the meaning is not obscure; for he means
simply to teach us, that since hope regards some future and not present good, it
can never be connected with what we have in possession. If then it be grievous
to any to groan, they necessarily subvert the order laid down by God, who does
not call his people to victory before he exercises them in the warfare of
patience. But since it has pleased God to lay up our salvation, as it were, in
his closed bosom, it is expedient for us to toil on earth, to be oppressed, to
mourn, to be afflicted, yea, to lie down as half-dead and to be like the dead;
for they who seek a visible salvation reject it, as they renounce hope which has
been appointed by God as its guardian.
f259
25.
If then what we see
not, etc. This is an argument derived from what
the antecedent implies; for patience necessarily follows hope. For when it is
grievous to be without the good you may desire, unless you sustain and comfort
yourselves with patience, you must necessarily faint through despair. Hope then
ever draws patience with it. Thus it is a most apt conclusion — that
whatever the gospel promises respecting the glory of the resurrection, vanishes
away, except we spend our present life in patiently bearing the cross and
tribulations. For if life be invisible, we must have death before our eyes: if
glory be invisible, then our present state is that of degradation. And hence if
you wish to include in a few words the meaning of the whole passage, arrange
Paul’s arguments in this way, “To all the godly there is salvation
laid up in hope; it is the character of hope to look forward to future and
absent benefits: then the salvation of the faithful is not visible. Now hope is
not otherwise sustained than by patience; then the salvation of the faithful is
not to be consummated except by patience.”
It may be added, that we have here a remarkable
passage, which shows, that patience is an inseparable companion of faith; and
the reason of this is evident, for when we console ourselves with the hope of a
better condition, the feeling of our present miseries is softened and mitigated,
so that they are borne with less difficulty.
f260
|
ROMANS
8:26-27
|
|
26. Likewise
f261
the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for
as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings
which cannot be uttered.
|
26. Similiter vero Spiritus etiam coopitulatur
infirmitatibus nostris; non enim quid oraturi sumus quemadmodum oportet,
novimus; verum Spiritus ipse intercedit pro nobis gemitibus
innarrabilibus.
|
|
27. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth
what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints
according to the will of God.
|
27. Qui vero scrutatur corda, novit
cogitationem Spiritus, quod secundum Deum intercedit pro
sanctis.
|
26.
And likewise the
Spirit, etc. That the faithful may not make
this objection — that they are so weak as not to be able to bear so many
and so heavy burdens, he brings before them the aid of the Spirit, which is
abundantly sufficient to overcome all difficulties. There is then no reason for
any one to complain, that the bearing of the cross is beyond their own strength,
since we are sustained by a celestial power. And there is great force in the
Greek word
sunantilamba>netai,
which means that the Spirit takes on himself a part of the burden, by which our
weakness is oppressed; so that he not only helps and succours us, but lifts us
up; as though he went under the burden with us.
f262
The word
infirmities,
being in the plural number, is expressive of extremity. For as experience shows,
that except we are supported by God’s hands, we are soon overwhelmed by
innumerable evils, Paul reminds us, that though we are in every respect weak,
and various infirmities threaten our fall, there is yet sufficient protection in
God’s Spirit to preserve us from falling, and to keep us from being
overwhelmed by any mass of evils. At the same time these supplies of the Spirt
more clearly prove to us, that it is by God’s appointment that we strive,
by groanings and sighings, for our redemption.
For what we should pray
for, etc. He had before spoken of the testimony
of the Spirit, by which we know that God is our Father, and on which relying, we
dare to call on him as our Father. He now again refers to the second part,
invocation, and says, that we are taught by the same Spirit how to pray, and
what to ask in our prayers. And appropriately has he annexed prayers to the
anxious desires of the faithful; for God does not afflict them with miseries,
that they may inwardly feed on hidden grief, but that they may disburden
themselves by prayer, and thus exercise their faith.
At the same time I know, that there are various
expositions of this passage;
f263
but Paul seems to me to have simple meant this, — That we are blind in our
addresses to God; for though we feel our evils, yet our minds are more disturbed
and confused than that they can rightly choose what is meet and expedient. If
any one makes this objection — that a rule is prescribed to us in
God’s word; to this I answer, that our thoughts nevertheless continue
oppressed with darkness, until the Spirit guides them by his
light.
But the Spirit himself
intercedes,
f264
etc. Though really or by the event it does not appear that our prayers have been
heard by God, yet Paul concludes, that the presence of the celestial favor does
already shine forth in the desire for prayer; for no one can of himself give
birth to devout and godly aspirations. The unbelieving do indeed blab out their
prayers, but they only trifle with God; for there is in them nothing sincere, or
serious, or rightly formed. Hence the manner of praying aright must be suggested
by the Spirit: and he calls those groanings unutterable, into which we
break forth by the impulse of the Spirit, for this reason — because they
far exceed the capability of our own minds.
f265
And the Spirit is said to intercede, not because he really humbles
himself to pray or to groan, but because he stirs up in our hearts those desires
which we ought to entertain; and he also affects our hearts in such a way that
these desires by their fervency penetrate into heaven itself. And Paul has thus
spoken, that he might more significantly ascribe the whole to the grace of the
Spirit. We are indeed bidden to knock; but no one can of himself premeditate
even one syllable, except God by the secret impulse of his Spirit knocks at our
door, and thus opens for himself our
hearts.
27.
But he who searches
hearts, etc. This is a remarkable reason for
strengthening our confidence, that we are heard by God when we pray through his
Spirit, for he thoroughly knows our desires, even as the thoughts of his own
Spirit. And here must be noticed the suitableness of the word to
know;
for it intimates that God regards not these emotions of the Spirit as new and
strange, or that he rejects them as unreasonable, but that he allows them, and
at the same time kindly accepts them, as allowed and approved by him. As then
Paul had before testified, that God then aids us when he draws us as it were
into his own bosom, so now he adds another consolation, that our prayers, of
which he is the director, shall by no means be disappointed. The reason also is
immediately added, because he thus conforms us to his own will. It hence
follows, that in vain can never be what is agreeable to his will, by which all
things are ruled. Let us also hence learn, that what holds the first place in
prayer is consent with the will of the Lord, whom our wishes do by no means hold
under obligation. If then we would have our prayers to be acceptable to God, we
must pray that he may regulate them according to his will.
|
ROMANS
8:28-30
|
|
28. And we know that all things work together
for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his
purpose.
|
28. Novimus autem quod iis qui diligunt Deum
omnia cooperantur in bonum, iis scilicet qui secundum propositum vocati sunt
sancti.
|
|
29. For whom he did foreknow, he also did
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
firstborn among many brethren.
|
29. Quoniam quos præcognovit etiam
præfinivit conformes imaginis Filii sui, ut sit ipse primogenitus inter
multos fratres:
|
|
30. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them
he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he
justified, them he also glorified.
|
30. Quos vero præfinivit, eos et
vocavit; et quos vocavit, eos etiam justificavit; et quos justificavit, eos
etiam glorificavit.
|
28.
And we
know, etc. He now draws this conclusion from
what had been said, that so far are the troubles of this life from hindering our
salvation, that, on the contrary, they are helps to it. It is no objection that
he sets down an illative particle, for it is no new thing with him to make
somewhat an indiscriminate use of adverbs, and yet this conclusion includes what
anticipates an objection. For the judgment of the flesh in this case exclaims,
that it by no means appears that God hears our prayers, since our afflictions
continue the same. Hence the Apostle anticipates this and says, that though God
does not immediately succour his people, he yet does not forsake them, for by a
wonderful contrivance he turns those things which seem to be evils in such a way
as to promote their salvation. If any one prefers to read this verse by itself,
as though Paul proceeded to a new argument in order to show that adversities
which assist our salvation, ought not to be borne as hard and grievous things, I
do not object. At the same time, the design of Paul is not doubtful:
“Though the elect and the reprobate are indiscriminately exposed to
similar evils, there is yet a great, difference; for God trains up the faithful
by afflictions, and thereby promotes their salvation.”
But we must remember that Paul speaks here only of
adversities, as though he had said, “All things which happen to the saints
are so overruled by God, that what the world regards as evil, the issue shows to
be good.” For though what Augustine says is true, that even the
sins of the saints are, through the guiding providence of God, so far from doing
harm to them, that, on the contrary, they serve to advance their salvation; yet
this belongs not to this passage, the subject of which is the
cross.
It must also be observed, that he includes the whole
of true religion in the love of God, as on it depends the whole practice of
righteousness.
Even to them who according to his
purpose, etc. This clause seems to have been
added as a modification, lest any one should think that the faithful, because
they love God, obtain by their own merit the advantage of deriving such fruit
from their adversities. We indeed know that when salvation is the subject, men
are disposed to begin with themselves, and to imagine certain preparations by
which they would anticipate the favor of God. Hence Paul teaches us, that those
whom he had spoken of as loving God, had been previously chosen by him. For it
is certain that the order is thus pointed out, that we may know that it proceeds
from the gratuitous adoption of God, as from the first cause, that all things
happen to the saints for their salvation. Nay, Paul shows that the faithful do
not love God before they are called by him, as in another place he reminds us
that the Galatians were known of God before they knew him.
(<480409>Galatians
4:9.) It is indeed true what Paul intimates, that afflictions avail not to
advance the salvation of any but of those who love God; but that saying of John
is equally true, that then only he is begun to be loved by us, when he
anticipates us by his gratuitous love.
But the calling of which Paul speaks here, has a wide
meaning, for it is not to be confined to the manifestation if election, of which
mention is presently made, but is to be set simply in opposition to the course
pursued by men; as though Paul had said, — “The faithful attain not
religion by their own efforts, but are, on the contrary led by the hand of God,
inasmuch as he has chosen them to be a peculiar people to himself.” The
word
purpose
distinctly excludes whatever is imagined to be adduced mutually by men; as
though Paul had denied, that the causes of our election are to be sought
anywhere else, except in the secret good pleasure of God; which subject is more
fully handled in the first chapter to the Ephesians, and in the first of the
Second Epistle to Timothy; where also the contrast between this purpose and
human righteousness is more distinctly set forth.
f266
Paul, however, no doubt made here this express declaration, — that our
salvation is based on the election of God, in order that he might make a
transition to that which he immediately subjoined, namely, that by the same
celestial decree, the afflictions, which conform us to Christ, have been
appointed; and he did this for the purpose of connecting, as by a kind of
necessary chain, our salvation with the bearing of the
cross.
29.
For whom he has
foreknown, etc. He then shows, by the very
order of election, that the afflictions of the faithful are nothing else than
the manner by which they are conformed to the image of Christ; and that this was
necessary, he had before declared. There is therefore no reason for us to be
grieved, or to think it hard and grievous, that we are afflicted, unless we
disapprove of the Lord’s election, by which we have been foreordained to
life, and unless we are unwilling to bear the image of the Son of God, by which
we are to be prepared for celestial glory.
But the foreknowledge of God, which Paul mentions, is
not a bare prescience, as some unwise persons absurdly imagine, but the adoption
by which he had always distinguished his children from the reprobate.
f267
In the same sense Peter says, that the faithful had been elected to the
sanctification of the Spirit according to the foreknowledge of God. Hence those,
to whom I have alluded, foolishly draw this inference, — That God has
elected none but those whom he foresaw would be worthy of his grace. Peter does
not in deed flatter the faithful, as though every one had been elected on
account of his merit; but by reminding them of the eternal counsel of God, he
wholly deprives them of all worthiness. So Paul does in this passage, who
repeats by another word what he had said before of God’s purpose. It hence
follows, that this knowledge is connected with God’s good pleasure; for he
foreknew nothing out of himself, in adopting those whom he was pleased to adopt;
but only marked out those whom he had purposed to elect.
The verb
proori>zein,
which some translate, to predestinate, is to be understood according to
what this passage requires; for Paul only meant, that God had so determined that
all whom he has adopted should bear the image of Christ; nor has he simply said,
that they were to be conformed to Christ, but to
the image of
Christ, that he might teach us that there is in
Christ a living and conspicuous exemplar, which is exhibited to God’s
children for imitation. The meaning then is, that gratuitous adoption, in which
our salvation consists, is inseparable from the other decree, which determines
that we are to bear the cross; for no one can be an heir of heaven without being
conformed to the image of the only-begotten Son of God.
That he may be, or, that he might
be, the first-born, etc.; for the Greek
infinitive,
ei+nai,
may be rendered in these two ways; but I prefer the first rendering. But in
mentioning Christ’s primogeniture, Paul meant only to express this,
— that since Christ possesses a pre-eminence among the Children of God, he
is rightly given to us as a pattern, so that we ought to refuse nothing which he
has been pleased to undergo. Hence, that the celestial Father may in every way
bear testimony to the authority and honor which he has conferred on his own Son,
he will have all those whom he adopts to be the heirs of his kingdom, to be
conformed to his example. Though indeed the condition of the godly is apparently
various, as there is a difference between the members of the same body, there is
yet a connection between every one and his own head. As then the first-born
sustains the name of the family, so Christ is placed in a State of pre-eminence
not only that he might excel in honor among the faithful, but also that he might
include all under him himself under the common name of
brotherhood.
30.
And whom he has
foredetermined, (præfinivit,)
them has he also
called, etc. That he might now by a clearer
proof show how true it is that a conformity with the humiliating state of Christ
is for our good, he adopts a graduating process, by which he teaches us, that a
participation of the cross is so connected with our vocation, justification,
and, in short, with our future glory, that they can by no means be
separated.
But that readers may better understand the
Apostle’s meaning, it may be well to repeat what I have already said,
— that the word foredetermine does not refer to election, but to
that purpose or decree of God by which he has ordained that the cross is to be
borne by his people; and by declaring that they are now called, he intimates,
that God had not kept concealed what he had determined respecting them, but had
made it known, that they might resignedly and humbly submit to the condition
allotted to them; for calling here is to be distinguished from secret election,
as being posterior to it. That none then may make this objection — that it
appears to no one what lot God has appointed for him, the Apostle says, that God
by his calling bears an evident testimony respecting his hidden purpose. But
this testimony is not only found in the outward preaching of the gospel, but it
has also the power of the Spirit connected with it; for the elect are there
spoken of, whom God not only addresses by the outward word, but whom he also
inwardly draws.
Justification
may fitly be extended to the unremitted continuance of God’s favor,
from the time of our calling to the hour of death; but as Paul uses this word
throughout the Epistle, for gratuitous imputation of righteousness, there is no
necessity for us to deviate from this meaning. What Paul indeed had in view was
to show that a more precious compensation is offered to us, than what ought to
allow us to shun afflictions; for what is more desirable than to be reconciled
to God, so that our miseries may no longer be tokens of a curse, nor lead us to
ruin?
He then immediately adds, that those who are now
pressed down by the cross shall
be
glorified; so that their sorrows and
reproaches shall bring them no loss. Though glorification is not yet exhibited
except in our Head, yet as we in a manner behold in him our inheritance of
eternal life, his glory brings to us such assurance respecting our own glory,
that our hope may be justly compared to a present possession.
We may add, that Paul, imitating the style of the
Hebrew language, adopts in these verbs the past instead of the present tense.
f268
A continued act is no doubt what is meant, according to this import,
“Those whom God now, consistently with his purpose, exercises under the
cross, are called and justified, that they may have a hope of salvation, so that
nothing of their glory decays during their humiliation; for though their present
miseries deform it before the world, yet before God and angels it always shines
forth as perfect.” What Paul then means by this gradation is, That the
afflictions of the faithful, by which they are now humbled, are intended for
this end — that the faithful, having obtained the glory of the celestial
kingdom, may reach the glory of Christ’s resurrection, with whom they are
now crucified.
|
ROMANS
8:31-34
|
|
31. What shall we then say to these things? If
God be for us, who can be against us?
|
31. Quid ergo dicemus ad hæc?
f269
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
|
|
32. He that spared not his own Son, but
delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all
things?
|
32. Qui propno Filio non pepercit,sed pro
nobis omnibus tradidit,quomodo non etiam cum eo donaret nobis
omnia?
|
|
33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of
God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.
|
33. Quis intentabit crimina
f270
adversus electos Dei? Deus est qui justificat.
|
|
34. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ
that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of
God, who also maketh intercession for us.
|
34. Quis ille qui condemnet? Christus est qui
mortuus est, quin potius etiam suscitatus, qui et in dextera Patris est, qui et
intercedit pro nobis.
|
31.
What
then, etc. The subject discussed having been
sufficiently proved, he now breaks out into exclamations, by which he sets forth
the magnanimity with which the faithful ought to be furnished when adversities
urge them to despond. And he teaches us in these words that with the paternal
favor of God is connected that invincible courage which overcomes all
temptations. We indeed know, that judgment is usually formed of the love or of
the hatred of God, in no other way than by a view of our present state; hence
when things fall out untowardly, sorrow takes possession of our minds, and
drives away all confidence and consolation. But Paul loudly exclaims, that a
deeper principle ought to be inquired after, and that they reason absurdly who
confine themselves to the sad spectacle of our present warfare. I indeed allow,
that the scourges of God are in themselves justly deemed to be tokens of
God’s wrath; but as they are consecrated in Christ, Paul bids the saints
to lay hold, above all things, on the paternal love of God, that relying on this
shield they may boldly triumph over all evils; for this is a brazen wall to us,
so that while God is propitious to us we shall be safe against all dangers. He
does not, however, mean, that nothing shall oppose us; but he promises a victory
over all kinds of enemies.
If God be for
us, etc. This is the chief and the only support
which can sustain us in every temptation. For except we have God propitious to
us, though all things should smile on us, yet no sure confidence can be
attained: but, on the other hand, his favor alone is a sufficient solace in
every sorrow, a protection sufficiently strong against all the storms of
adversities. And on this subject there are many testimonies of Scripture, which
show that when the saints rely on the power of God alone, they dare to despise
whatever is opposed to them in the world.
“When I walk in the
midst of the shadow of death, I shall not fear evils, for thou art with
me.”
(<192304>Psalm
23:4.)
“In the Lord I
trust: what shall flesh do to
me.”
(<195611>Psalm
56:11.)
“I shall not fear
the thousands of the people who beset
me.”
(<190306>Psalm
3:6.)
For there is no power either under or above the
heavens, which can resist the arm of God. Having him then as our defender, we
need fear no harm whatever. Hence he alone shows real confidence in God, who
being content with his protection, dreads nothing in such a way as to despond;
the faithful are doubtless often shaken but are never utterly east down. In
short, the Apostle’s object was to show, that the godly soul ought to rely
on the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, and not to depend on outward
things.
32.
He who has not spared his own
son, etc. As it greatly concerns us to be so
thoroughly persuaded of the paternal love of God, as to be able to retain our
rejoicing on its account, Paul brings forward the price of our redemption in
order to prove that God favors us: and doubtless it is a remarkable and clear
evidence of inappreciable love, that the Father refused not to bestow his Son
for our salvation. And so Paul draws an argument from the greater to the less,
that as he had nothing dearer, or more precious, or more excellent than his Son,
he will neglect nothing of what he foresees will be profitable to us.
f271
This passage ought to remind us of what Christ brings
to us, and to awaken us to contemplate his riches; for as he is a pledge of
God’s infinite love towards us, so he has not been sent to us void of
blessings or empty, but filled with all celestial treasures, so that they who
possess him may not want anything necessary for their perfect felicity. To
deliver up means here to expose to
death.
33.
Who shall bring an
accusation, etc. The first and the chief
consolation of the godly in adversities, is to be fully persuaded of the
paternal kindness of God; for hence arises the certainty of their salvation, and
that calm quietness of the soul through which it comes that adversities are
sweetened, or at least the bitterness of sorrow mitigated. Hardly then a more
suitable encouragement to patience could be adduced than this, a conviction that
God is propitious to us; and hence Paul makes this confidence the main ground of
that consolation, by which it behoves the faithful to be strengthened against
all evils. And as the salvation of man is first assailed by accusation, and then
subverted by condemnation, he in the first place averts the danger of
accusation. There is indeed but one God, at whose tribunal we must Stand; then
there is no room for accusation when he justifies us. The antithetic clauses
seem not indeed to be exactly arranged; for the two parts which ought rather to
have been set in opposition to each other are these: “Who shall accuse?
Christ is he who intercedes:” and then these two might have been
connected, “Who shall condemn? God is he who justifies;” for
God’s absolution answers to condemnation, and Christ’s intercession
to accusation. But Paul has not without reason made another arrangement, as he
was anxious to arm the children of God, as they say, from head to foot, with
that confidence which banishes all anxieties and fears. He then more
emphatically concludes, that the children of God are not subject to an
accusation, because God justifies, than if he had said that Christ is our
advocate; for he more fully expresses that the way to a trial is more completely
closed up when the judge himself pronounces him wholly exempt from guilt, whom
the accuser would bring in as deserving of punishment. There is also a similar
reason for the second clause; for he shows that the faithful are very far from
being involved in the danger of condemnation, since Christ by expiating their
sins has anticipated the judgment of God, and by his intercession not only
abolishes death, but also covers our sins in oblivion, so that they come not to
an account.
The drift of the whole is, that we are not only freed
from terror by present remedies, but that God comes to our aid beforehand, that
he may better provide for our confidence.
But it must be here observed, as we have before
reminded you, that to be justified, according to Paul, is to be absolved by the
sentence of God, and to be counted just; and it is not difficult to prove this
from the present passage, in which he reasons by affirming one thing which
nullifies its opposite; for to absolve and to regard persons as guilty, are
contrary things. Hence God will allow no accusation against us, because he has
absolved us from all sins. The devil no doubt is an accuser of all the godly:
the very law of God and their own conscience convict them; but all these prevail
nothing with the judge, who justifies them. Therefore no adversary can shake or
endanger our salvation.
Further, he so mentions the elect, as one who doubted
not but that he was of their number; and he knew this, not by special
revelation, (as some sophists falsely imagine,) but by a perception
(sensu-feeling) common to all the godly. What then is here said of the
elect, every one of the godly, according to the example of Paul, may apply to
himself; for this doctrine would have been not only frigid, but wholly lifeless
had he buried election in the secret purpose of God. But when we know, that
there is here designedly set before us what every one of the godly ought to
appropriate to himself, there is no doubt but that we are all encouraged to
examine our calling, so that we may become assured that we are the children of
God.
34.
Who is he that
condemns? etc. As no one by accusing can
prevail, when the judge absolves; so there remains no condemnation, when
satisfaction is given to the laws, and the penalty is already paid. Now Christ
is he, who, having once for all suffered the punishment due to us, thereby
declared that he undertook our cause, in order to deliver us: he then who seeks
hereafter to condemn us, must bring back Christ himself to death again. But he
has not only died, but also came forth, by a resurrection, as the conqueror of
death and triumphed over all its power.
He adds still more, — that he now sits
at the right hand of the Father; by which is meant, that he possesses
dominion over heaven and earth, and full power and rule over all things,
according to what is said in
<490120>Ephesians
1:20. He teaches us also, that he thus sits, that he may be a perpetual advocate
and intercessor in securing our salvation. It hence follows, that when any one
seeks to condemn us, he not only seeks to render void the death of Christ, but
also contends with that unequalled power with which the Father has honored him,
and who with that power conferred on him supreme authority. This so great an
assurance; which dares to triumph over the devil, death, sin, and the gates of
hell, ought to lodge deep in the hearts of all the godly; for our faith is
nothing, except we feel assured that Christ is ours, and that the Father is in
him propitious to us. Nothing then can be devised more pestilent and ruinous,
than the scholastic dogma respecting the uncertainty of
salvation.
Who
intercedes, etc. It was necessary expressly to
add this, lest the Divine majesty of Christ should terrify us. Though, then,
from his elevated throne he holds all things in subjection under his feet, yet
Paul represents him as a Mediator; whose presence it would be strange for us to
dread, since he not only kindly invites us to himself, but also appears an
intercessor for us before the Father. But we must not measure this intercession
by our carnal judgment; for we must not suppose that he humbly supplicates the
Father with bended knees and expanded hands; but as he appears continually, as
one who died and rose again, and as his death and resurrection stand in the
place of eternal intercession, and have the efficacy of a powerful prayer for
reconciling and rendering the Father propitious to us, he is justly said to
intercede for us.
|
ROMANS
8:35-37
|
|
35. Who Shall separate us from the love of
Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness,
or peril, or sword?
|
35. Quis nos dirimet
f272
a dilectione Christi? tribulatio, an angustia, an persequutio, an fames, an
nuditas, an periculum, an gladius?
|
|
36. As it is written, For thy sake we are
killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the
slaughter.
|
36. Quemadmodum scriptum est,Quod propter te
morimur quotidie,reputati sumus tanquam oves mactationi
destinatæ:
|
|
37. Nay, in all these things we are more than
conquerors, through him that loved us.
|
37. Sed in iis omnibus supervincimus per eum
qui dilexit nos.
|
35.
Who shall separate
us, etc. The conviction of safety is now more
widely extended, even to lower things; for he who is persuaded of God’s
kindness towards him, is able to stand firm in the heaviest afflictions. These
usually harass men in no small degree, and for various reasons, — because
they interpret them as tokens of God’s wrath, or think themselves to be
forsaken by God, or see no end to them, or neglect to meditate on a better life,
or for other similar reasons; but when the mind is purged from such mistakes, it
becomes calm, and quietly rests. But the import of the words is, — That
whatever happens, we ought to stand firm in this faith, — that God, who
once in his love embraced us, never ceases to care for us. For he does not
simply say that there is nothing which can tear God away from his love to us;
but he means, that the knowledge and lively sense of the love which he testifies
to us is so vigorous in our hearts, that it always shines in the darkness of
afflictions: for as clouds, though they obscure the clear brightness of the sun,
do not yet wholly deprive us of its light; so God, in adversities, sends forth
through the darkness the rays of his favor, lest temptations should overwhelm us
with despair; nay, our faith, supported by God’s promises as by wings,
makes its way upward to heaven through all the intervening obstacles. It is
indeed true, that adversities are tokens of God’s wrath, when viewed in
themselves; but when pardon and reconciliation precede, we ought to be assured
that God, though he chastises us, yet never forgets his mercy: he indeed thus
reminds us of what we have deserved; but he no less testifies, that our
salvation is an object of his care, while he leads us to
repentance.
But he calls
it the love of
Christ, and for this reason, — because
the Father has in a manner opened his compassions to us in him. As then the love
of God is not to be sought out of Christ, Paul rightly directs to him our
attention, so that our faith may behold, in the rays of Christ’s favor,
the serene countenance of the Father. The meaning is, — that in no
adversities ought our confidence to be shaken as to this truth — that when
God is propitious, nothing can be adverse to us. Some take this love in a
passive sense, for that by which he is loved by us, as though Paul would have us
armed with invincible courage
f273
but this comment may be easily disproved by the whole tenor of Paul’s
reasoning; and Paul himself will presently remove all doubt by defining more
clearly what this love is.
Tribulation, or
distress, or
persecution?
etc. The pronoun masculine which he used at the beginning of the verse, contains
a hidden power: for when he might have adopted the neuter gender and said
— “What shall separate us?” etc., he preferred ascribing
personality to things without life, and for this end, — that he might send
forth with us into the contest as many champions as there are of temptations to
try our faith.
But these three things have this difference:
tribulation
includes every kind of trouble or evil;
distress is an inward feeling, when difficulties reduce us to such an
extremity, so that we know not what course to pursue. Such was the anxiety of
Abraham and of Lot, when one was constrained to expose his wife to the danger of
prostitution, and the other, his daughters; for being brought to straits and
being perplexed, they found no way of escape. Persecution properly
denotes the tyrannical violence by which the children of God were undeservedly
harassed by the ungodly. Now though Paul denies in
<470408>2
Corinthians 4:8, that the children of God are reduced to straits,
stenocwrei~sqai,
he does not yet disagree with himself; for he does not simply make them to be
exempt from anxious solicitude, but he means that they are delivered from it, as
also the examples of Abraham and Lot
testify.
36.
As it is
written, etc. This testimony adds no small
weight to the subject; for he intimates, that the dread of death is so far from
being a reason to us for falling away, that it has been almost ever the lot of
God’s servants to have death as it were present before their eyes. It is
indeed probable, that in that Psalm the miserable oppression of the people under
the tyranny of Antiochus is described; for it is expressly said, that the
worshippers of God were cruelly treated, for no other reason but through hatred
to true religion. There is also added a remarkable protestation, that they had
not departed from the covenant of God; which Paul, I think, had especially in
view. It is no objection that the saints there complain of a calamity which then
unusually pressed on them; for since they show, that they were oppressed with so
many evils, having before testified their innocence, an argument is hence fitly
drawn, that it is no new thing for the Lord to permit his saints to be
undeservedly exposed to the cruelty of the ungodly. But this is not done except
for their good; for the Scripture teaches us, that it is alien to the
righteousness of God to destroy the just with the wicked,
(<011823>Genesis
18:23); but that, on the contrary, it is meet for him to requite affliction to
those who afflict, and rest to those who are afflicted.
(<530106>2
Thessalonians 1:6, 9.) And then they affirm that they suffer for the Lord; and
Christ pronounces them blessed who suffer for the sake of righteousness.
(<400510>Matthew
5:10.) By saying that they died daily, they intimated that death was so
suspended over them, that their life differed but little from
death.
37.
We do more than
conquer, etc.; that is, we always struggle and
emerge. I have retained the word used by Paul,
f274
though not commonly used by the Latins. It indeed sometimes happens that the
faithful seem to succumb and to lie forlorn; and thus the Lord not only tries,
but also humbles them. This issue is however given to them, — that they
obtain the victory.
That they might at the same time remember whence this
invincible power proceeds, he again repeats what he had said before: for he not
only teaches us that God, because he loves us, supports us by his hand; but he
also confirms the same truth by mentioning the love of Christ.
f275
And this one sentence sufficiently proves, that the Apostle speaks not here of
the fervency of that love which we have towards God, but of the paternal
kindness of God and of Christ towards us, the assurance of which, being
thoroughly fixed in our hearts, will always draw us from the gates of hell into
the light of life, and will sufficiently avail for our
support.
|
ROMANS
8:38-39
|
|
38. For I am persuaded, that neither death,
nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor
things to come,
|
38. Persuasus enim sum, quod neque mors, neque
vita,
f276
neque angeli neque principatus, neque virtutes, neque principatus, neque
virtutes, neque præasentia, neque futura,
|
|
39. Nor height, nor depth, nor any other
creature, shall be able to which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
|
39. Neque altitudo, neque profunditas, neque
ulla alia creatura,poterit nos dirimere a charitate Dei,Quæ est in Christo
Iesu.
|
38. He is now carried away into hyperbolic
expressions, that he might confirm us more fully in those things which are to be
experienced. Whatever, he says, there is in life or in death, which seems
capable of tearing us away from God, shall effect nothing; nay, the very angels,
were they to attempt to overturn this foundation, shall do us no harm. It is no
objection, that angels are ministering spirits, appointed for the salvation of
the elect,
(<580114>Hebrews
1:14:) for Paul reasons here on what is impossible, as he does in
<480108>Galatians
1:8; and we may hence observe, that all things ought to be deemed of no worth,
compared with the glory of God, since it is lawful to dishonor even angels in
vindicating his truth.
f277
Angels are also meant by principalities and powers,
f278
and they are so called, because they are the primary instruments of the Divine
power: and these two words were added, that if the word angels sounded too
insignificant, something more might be expressed. But you would, perhaps, prefer
this meaning, “Nor angels, and whatever powers there may be;” which
is a mode of speaking that is used, when we refer to things unknown to us, and
exceeding our capacities.
Nor present things, nor future
things, etc. Though he speaks hyperbolically,
yet he declares, that by no length of time can it be effected, that we should be
separated from the Lord’s favor: and it was needful to add this; for we
have not only to struggle with the sorrow which we feel from present evils, but
also with the fear and the anxiety with which impending dangers may harass us.
f279
The meaning then is, — that we ought not to fear, lest the continuance of
evils, however long, should obliterate the faith of adoption.
This declaration is clearly against the schoolmen,
who idly talk and say, that no one is certain of final perseverance, except
through the gift of special revelation, which they make to be very rare. By such
a dogma the whole faith is destroyed, which is certainly nothing, except it
extends to death and beyond death. But we, on the contrary, ought to feel
confident, that he who has begun in us a good work, will carry it on until the
day of the Lord Jesus.
f280
39.
Which is in
Christ, etc. That is, of which Christ is the
bond; for he is the beloved Son, in whom the Father is well pleased. If, then,
we are through him united to God, we may be assured of the immutable and
unfailing kindness of God towards us. He now speaks here more distinctly than
before, as he declares that the fountain of love is in the Father, and affirms
that it flows to us from Christ.
CHAPTER 9
|
ROMANS
9:1-5
|
|
1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my
conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
|
1. Veritatem dico in Christo, non mentior,
testimonium simul mihi reddente mea conscientia eum Spiri-tu
sancto,
|
|
2. That I have great heaviness and continual
sorrow in my heart.
|
2. Quod dolor sit mihi magnus, et assiduus
cruciatus cordi meo:
|
|
3. For I could wish that myself were accursed
from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
|
3. Optarim enim ego ipse anathema esse a
Christo pro fratribus meis, cognatis inquam meis secundum
car-nem;
|
|
4. Who are Israelites;to whom pertaineth the
adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the
service of God, and the promises;
|
4. Qui sunt Israelitae, quorum est adoptio, et
gloria, et testamenta, et legislatio, et cultus, et
promissiones;
|
|
5. Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as
concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.
Amen.
|
5. Quorum sunt Patres, et ex quibus est
Christus secundum car-nem, qui est super omnia Deus bene-dictus in secula.
Amen.
|
In this chapter he begins to remove the offences
which might have diverted the minds of men from Christ: for the Jews, for whom
he was appointed according to the covenant of the law, not only rejected him,
but regarded him with contempt, and for the most part bated him. Hence one of
two things seemed to follow, — either that there was no truth in the
Divine promise, — or that Jesus, whom Paul preached, was not the
Lord’s anointed, who had been especially promised to the Jews. This
twofold knot Paul fully unties in what follows. He, however, so handles this
subject, as to abstain from all bitterness against the Jews, that he might not
exasperate their minds; and yet he concedes to them nothing to the injury of the
gospel; for he allows to them their privileges in such a way, as not to detract
anything from Christ. But he passes, as it were abruptly, to the mention of this
subject, so that there appears to be no connection in the discourse.
f281
He, however, so enters on this new subject, as though he had before referred to
it. It so happened in this way, — Having finished the doctrine he
discussed, he turned his attention to the Jews, and being astonished at their
unbelief as at something monstrous, he burst forth into this sudden
protestation, in the same way as though it was a subject which he had previously
handled; for there was no one to whom this thought would not of itself
immediately occur, — “If this be the doctrine of the law and
the Prophets, how comes it that the Jews so pertinaciously reject it?” And
further, it was everywhere known, that all that he had hitherto spoken of the
law of Moses, and of the grace of Christ, was more disliked by the Jews, than
that the faith of the Gentiles should be assisted by their consent. It was
therefore necessary to remove this obstacle, lest it should impede the course of
the gospel.
1.
The truth I say in
Christ, etc. As it was an opinion
entertained by most that Paul was, as it were, a sworn enemy to his own nation,
and as it was suspected somewhat even by the household of faith, as though he
had taught them to forsake Moses, he adopts a preface to prepare the minds of
his readers, before he proceeds to his subject, and in this preface he frees
himself from the false suspicion of evil will towards the Jews. And as the
matter was not unworthy of an oath, and as he perceived that his affirmation
would hardly be otherwise believed against a prejudice already entertained, he
declares by an oath that he speaks the truth. By this example and the like, (as
I reminded you in the first chapter,) we ought to learn that oaths are lawful,
that is, when they render that truth credible which is necessary to be known,
and which would not be otherwise believed.
The expression,
In
Christ, means “according to
Christ.”f282
By adding I lie
not, he signifies that he speaks without
fiction or disguise. My
conscience testifying
to me, etc. By these words he calls his
own conscience before the tribunal of God, for he brings in the Spirit as a
witness to his feeling. He adduced the Spit!it for this end, that he might more
fully testify that he was free and pure from an evil disposition, and that he
pleaded the cause of Christ under the guidance and direction of the Spirit of
God. It often happens that a person, blinded by the passions of the flesh,
(though not purposing to deceive,) knowingly and wilfully obscures the light of
truth. But to swear by the name of God, in a proper sense of the word, is to
call him as a witness for the purpose of confirming what is doubtful, and at the
same time to bind ourselves over to his judgment, in case we say what is
false.
2.
That I have great
sorrow, etc. He dexterously manages so
to cut short his sentence as not yet to express what he was going to say; for it
was not as yet seasonable openly to mention the destruction of the Jewish
nation. It may be added, that he thus intimates a greater measure of sorrow, as
imperfect sentences are for the most part full of pathos. But he will presently
express the cause of his sorrow, after having more fully testified his
sincerity.
But the perdition of the Jews caused very great
anguish to Paul, though he knew that it happened through the will and providence
of God. We hence learn that the obedience we render to God’s providence
does not prevent us from grieving at the destruction of lost men, though we know
that they are thus doomed by the just judgment of God; for the same mind is
capable of being influenced by these two feelings: that when it looks to God it
can willingly bear the ruin of those whom he has decreed to destroy; and that
when it turns its thoughts to men, it condoles with their evils. They are then
much deceived, who say that godly men ought: to have apathy and insensibility,
(ajpa>qeian kai<
ajnalghsi>an) lest they should resist the
decree of
God.
3.
For I could wish, etc. He could not have
expressed a greater ardour of love than by what he testifies here; for that is
surely perfect love which refuses not to die for the salvation of a friend. But
there is another word added, anathema, which proves that he speaks not
only of temporal but of eternal death; and he explains its meaning when he says,
from
Christ, for it signifies a separation.
And what is to be separated from Christ, but to be excluded from the hope of
salvation? It was then a proof of the most ardent love, that Paul. hesitated
not-to wish for himself that condemnation which he saw impending over the Jews,
in order that he might deliver them. It is no objection that he knew that his
salvation was based on the election of God, which could by no means fail; for as
those ardent feelings hurry us on impetuously, so they see and regard nothing
but the object in view. So Paul did not connect God’s election with his
wish, but the remembrance of that being passed by, he was wholly intent on the
salvation of the Jews.
Many indeed doubt whether this was a lawful desire;
but this doubt may be thus removed: the settled boundary of love is, that it
proceeds as far as conscience permits;
f283
if then we love in God and not without God’s authority, our love can never
be too much. And such was the love of Paul; for seeing his own nation endued
with so many of God’s benefits, he loved God’s gifts in them, and
them on account; of God’s gifts; and he deemed it a great evil that those
gifts should perish, hence it was that his mind being overwhelmed, he burst
forth into this extreme wish.
f284
Thus I consent not to the opinion of those who think
that Paul spoke these words from regard to God only, and not to men; nor do I
agree with others, who say, that without any thought of’ God, he was
influenced, only by love to men: but I connect the love of men with a .zeal for
God’s glory.
I have not, however, as yet explained that which is
the chief thing, — that the Jews are here regarded as they were adorned
with those singular tokens, by which they were distinguished from the rest of
mankind. For God had by his covenant so highly exalted them, that by their fall,
the faithfulness and truth of God himself seemed also to fail in the world: for
that covenant would have thus become void, the stability of which was promised
to be perpetual, as long’ as the sun and moon should shine in heaven.
(<197207>Psalm
72:7.) So that the abolition of this would have been more strange, than the sad
and ruinous confusion of the whole world. It was not therefore a simple and
exclusive regard for men: for though it is better that one member should perish
than the whole body; it was yet for this reason that Paul had such a high regard
for the Jews, because he viewed them as bearing the character, and, as they
commonly say, the quality of an elect people; and this will appear more evident,
as we shall soon see, from what follows.
The words,
my kinsmen according to the
flesh, though they contain nothing new,
do yet serve much for amplification. For first, lest any one should think that
he willingly, or of his own accord, sought cause of quarrel with the Jews,
he intimates, that he had not put off the feeling of kindred, so as not to
be affected with the destruction of his own flesh. And secondly, since it was
necessary that the gospel, of which he was the preacher, should go forth from
Sion, he does not in vain pronounce an eulogy in so many words on his own
kindred. For the qualifying expression,
according to the
flesh, is not in :my view added for the
sake of extenuation, as in other places, but, on the contrary, for the sake of
expressing his faith: for though the Jews had disowned Paul, he yet concealed
not the fact, that he had sprung from that nation, the election of whom was
still strong in the root, though the branches had withered. What Budoeus
says of the word anathema, is inconsistent with the opinion of
Chrysostom, who makes
ajna>qema
and
ajna>qhma,
to be the same.
4.
Who are
Israelites, etc. Here the reason is now
more plainly given, why the destruction of that people caused him so much
anguish, thai; he was prepared to redeem them by his own death, namely
because they were Israelites; for the relative pronoun is put here instead
of a causative adverb. In like manner this anxiety took hold on Moses, when he
desired that he should be blotted out of the book of life, rather than that the
holy and chosen race of Abraham should be reduced to nothing.
(<023232>Exodus
32:32.) Then in addition to his kind feeling’, he mentions also other
reasons, and those of a higher kind, which made him to favor the Jews, even
because the Lord had, as it were, by a kind of privilege, so raised them, that
they were separated from the common order of men: and these titles of dignity
were testimonies of love; for we are not wont to speak thus favorably, but of
those whom we love. And though by their ingratitude they rendered themselves
unworthy to be esteemed on account of these gifts of God, yet Paul continued
justly to respect them, that he might teach us that the ungodly cannot so
contaminate the good endowments of God, but that they always deserve to be
praised and admired: at the same time, those who abuse them acquire thereby
nothing but a greater obloquy. But as we are not to act in such a manner as to
contemn, through a detestation of the ungodly, the gifts of God in them; so, on
the other hand, we must use prudence, lest by our kind esteem and regard for
them we make them proud, and especially lest our praises bear the appearance of
flattery. But let us imitate Paul, who conceded to the Jews their privileges in
such a manner, that he afterwards declared that they were all of no worth
without Christ. But it was not in vain that he mentioned this as one of their
praises, — that they were
Israelites;
for Jacob prayed for this as a great favor, that they should be called by
his name.
(<014816>Genesis
48:16.)
Whose are the
adoption, etc. The whole drift of
Paul’s discourse is to this purpose, — that though the Jews by their
defection had produced an ungodly divorce between God and themselves, yet the
light of God’s favor was not wholly extinguished, according to what he had
also said in
<450303>Romans
3:3. They had indeed become unbelievers and had broken his covenant; but still
their perfidy lind not rendered void the faithfulness of God; for he had not
only reserved for himself some remnant seed from the whole multitude, but had as
yet continued, according to their hereditary right, the mime of a Church among
them.
But though they had already stripped themselves of
these ornaments, so that it availed them nothing to be called the children of
Abraham, yet as there was a danger, lest through their fault the majesty of the
gospel should be depreciated among the Gentiles, Paul does not regard what they
deserved, but covers their baseness and disgraceful conduct by throwing vails
over them, until the Gentiles were fully persuaded, that the gospel had flowed
to them from the celestial fountain, from the sanctuary of God, from an elect
nation. For the Lord, passing by other nations, had selected them as a people
peculiar to himself, and had adopted them as his children, as he often testifies
by Moses and the prophets; and not content simply to give them the name of
children, he calls them sometimes his first-begotten, and sometimes his beloved.
So the Lord says in
<020422>Exodus
4:22, —
“My first-begotten
son is Israel; let my son go,
that
he may serve me.”
In
<243109>Jeremiah
31:9, it is said,
“I am become a Father to Israel,
and Ephraim is my first-begotten:”
and again, “Is not my son Ephraim
precious to me? Is he not a delightful child? Hence troubled for him are my
bowels, and I will yet pity him.” By these words he means, not only to set
forth his kindness towards the people of Israel, but rather to exhibit the
efficacy of adoption, through which the promise of the celestial
inheritance is conveyed.
Glory
means the excellency into which the Lord had raised up that people above all
other nations, and that in many and various ways, and especially by dwelling in
the midst of them; for besides many other tokens of his presence, he exhibited a
singular proof of it in the ark, where he gave responses, and also heard his
people, that he might show forth his power in helping them: and for this reason
it was called “the glory of God.”
(<090422>1
Samuel 4:22.)
f284a
As he has distinguished here between
covenants
f285 and
promises,
we may observe this difference, — that a covenant is that which
is expressed in distinct and accustomed words, and contains a mutual
stipulation, as that which was made with Abraham; but promises are what we meet
with everywhere in Scripture; for when God had once made a covenant with his
ancient people, he continued to offer, often by new promises, his favor to them.
It hence follows, that promises are to be traced up to the covenant as to their
true source; in the same manner as the special helps of God, by which he
testifies his love towards the faithful, may be said to flow from the true
fountain of election. And as the law was nothing more than a renewal of the
covenant, and more fully sanctioned the remembrance of it, legislation,
or the giving of the law, seems to be here peculiarly applied to the
things which the law decreed: for it was no common honor conferred on the Jewish
people, that they had God as their lawgiver. For if some gloried in their Solons
and Lycurguses, how much more reason was there to glory in the Lord? of this you
have an account in
<050432>Deuteronomy
4:32. By worship he understands that part of the law in which the
legitimate manner of worshipping God is prescribed, such as rites and
ceremonies. These ought to have been deemed lawful on account of God’s
appointment; without which, whatever men devise is nothing but a profanation of
religion.
5.
Whose are the fathers, etc. It is indeed
of some importance to be descended from saints and men beloved of God, since God
promised to the godly fathers mercy with regard to their children, even to
thousand generations, and especially :in the words addressed to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, as we find in
<011704>Genesis
17:4, and in other passages. It matters not, that this by itself, when separated
from the fear of God and holiness of life, is vain and useless: for we find the
same to have been the case as to worship and glory, as it is
evident everywhere in the prophets, especially in
<230111>Isaiah
1:11;
<236001>Isaiah
60:1; and also in
<240704>Jeremiah
7:4. But, as God dignified these things, when joined with attention to
godliness, with some degree of honor, he justly enumerated them among the
privileges of the Jews. They are indeed said to be the heirs of the promises for
this very reason, — because they descended from the fathers.
(<440325>Acts
3:25.)
From whom, is
Christ, etc. They who apply this to the
fathers, as though Paul meant only to say that Christ had descended from
the fathers, have no reason to allege: for his object was to close his account
of the pre-eminence of the Jews by this encomium, — that Christ proceeded
from them; for it was not a thing to be lightly esteemed, to have been united by
a natural relationship with the Redeemer of the world; for if he had honored the
whole human race, in joining himself to us by a community of nature, much more
did he honor them, with whom he had a closer bond of union. It must at the same
time be always maintained, that when this favor of being allied by kindred is
unconnected with godliness, it is so far from being an advantage, that on the
contrary it leads to a greater condemnation.
But we have here a remarkable passage, — that
in Christ two natures are in such a manner distinguished, that they are at the
same time united in the very person of Christ: for by saying that Christ had
descended from the Jews, he declared his real humanity. The words
according to the
flesh, which are added, imply that he
had something superior to flesh; and here seems to be an evident distinction
made between humanity and divinity. But he at last connects both together, where
he says, that the Christ, who had descended from the Jew’s
according to the flesh, is God blessed for ever.
We must further observe, that this ascription of
praise belongs to none but only to the true and eternal God; for he declares in
another place,
(<540117>1
Timothy 1:17,) that it is the true God alone to whom honor and glory are due.
They who break off this clause from the previous context, that they may take
away from Christ so clear a testimony to his divinity, most presumptuously
attempt, to introduce darkness in the midst of the clearest light; for the words
most evidently mean this, —
Christ, who is from the Jews
according to the flesh, is God blessed for
ever.
f286
And I doubt not, but that Paul, who had to contend hard with a reproach urged
against him, did designedly raise up his own mind to the contemplation of the
eternal glory of Christ; nor did he do this so much for his own sake
individually, as for the purpose of encouraging’ others by his example to
raise up their thoughts.
|
ROMANS
9:6-9
|
|
6. Not as though the word of God hath taken
none effect. For they are not all Israel which are of Israel:
|
6. Neque tamen, quasi exciderit verbum Dei:
non emro omnes qui sunt ex Israele sunt Israelitae:
|
|
7. Neither, because they are the seed of
Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be
called;
|
7. Nec qui sunt semen Abrabae, ideo omnes
filii; sed in Isaac voca-bitur tibi semen:
|
|
8. That is, They which are the children of the
flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are
counted for the seed.
|
8. Hoc est, non qui sunt filii car-nis, ii
filii sunt Dei; sed qui sunt filii promissionis, censebuntur in
semen:
|
|
9. For this is the word of promise, At this
time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
|
9. Promissionis enim verbum hoc est, Secundum
hoc tempus veniam, et erit Sarae filius.
|
6.
Not
however, etc. Paul had been carried away
by the ardour of his wish, as it were, into an excess of feeling, (in
ecstasin,) but now, returning to discharge his office as a teacher, he adds
what may be viewed as somewhat qualifying what he had said, as though he would
restrain immoderate grief. And inasmuch as by deploring the ruin of his own
nation, this inconsistency seems to follow, that the covenant made by God with
the seed of Abraham had failed, (for the favor of God could not have been
wanting to the Israelites without the covenant being abolished,) he reasonably
anticipates this inconsistency, and shows, that notwithstanding the great
blindness of the Jews, the favor of God continued still to that people, so that
the truth of the covenant remained firm.
Some read, “But it is not possible,”
etc., as though it were in Greek
oi=on te
f287
but as I find this reading in no copy, I adopt the common reading, Not
however that it had failed, etc., and according to this sense, “That I
deplore the destruction of my nation is not because I think the promise, given
formerly by God to Abraham, is now void or abolished.”
For not
all, etc. The statement is, — that
the promise was so given to Abraham and to his seed, that the inheritance did
not belong to every seed without distinction; it hence follows that the
defection of some does not prove that the covenant does not remain firm and
valid.
But that it may be more evident on what condition the
Lord adopted the posterity of Abraham as a peculiar people to himself, two
things are to be here considered. The first is, That the promise of salvation
given to Abraham belongs to all who can trace their natural descent to him; for
it is offered to all without exception, and for this reason they are rightly
called the heirs of the covenant made with Abraham; and in this respect they are
his successors, or, as Scripture calls them, the children of the promise. For
since it was the Lord’s will that his covenant should be sealed, no less
in Ishmael and Esau, than in Isaac and Jacob, it appears that they were not
wholly alienated from him; except,, it may be, you make no account of the
circumcision, which was conferred on them by God’s command; but it cannot
be so regarded without dishonor to God. But this belonged to them, according to
what the Apostle had said before, “whose are the covenants,” though
they were unbelieving; and in
<440325>Acts
3:25, they are called by Peter, the children of the covenants, because they were
the descendants of the Prophets. The second point to be considered is, That the
children of the promise are strictly those in whom its power and effect are
found.. On this account Paul denies here that all the children of Abraham were
the children of God, though a covenant had been made with them by the Lord, for
few continued in the faith of the covenant; and yet God himself testifies, in
the sixth chapter of Ezekiel, that they were all regarded by him as children. In
short, when a whole people are called the heritage and the peculiar people of
God, what is meant is, that they have been chosen by the Lord, the promise of
salvation having been offered them and confirmed by the symbol of circumcision;
but as many by their ingratitude reject this adoption, and thus enjoy in no
degree its benefits, there arises among them another difference with regard to
the fulfilment of the promise. That it might not then appear strange to
any one, that this fulfilment of the promise was not evident in many of the
Jews, Paul denies that they were included in the true election of
God.
Some may prefer such a statement as this, —
“The general election of the people of Israel is no hinderance, that God
should not from them choose by his hidden counsel those whom he pleases.”
It is indeed an illustrious example of gratuitous mercy, when God deigns to make
a covenant of life with a nation: but his hidden favor appears more evident in
that second election, which is confined to a part only.
But when he says, that
all who are of Israel are not
Israelites, and that
all who are of the seed of
Abraham are not children, it is a kind
of change in the meaning of words,
(paronomasi>a);
for in the first clause he includes the whole race, in the second he refers
only to true sons, who were not become
degenerated.
7.
But, “In Isaac shall
thy seed be called.” Paul mentions
this, to show that the hidden election of God overrules the outward
calling’, and that it is yet by no means inconsistent with it, but., on
the contrary, that. it tends to its confirmation and completion. That he might
then in due order prove both, he in the first place assumes, that the election
of God is not tied to the natural descendants of Abraham, and that it is not a
thing that is included in the conditions of the covenant: and this is what he
now confirms by a most suitable example. For if there ought to have been any
natural progeny, which fell not away from the covenant; this ought to have been
especially the case with those who obtained the privilege at first: but when we
find, that of the first sons of Abraham, while he was yet alive, and the promise
new, one of them was separated as the seed, how much more might the same thing
have taken place in his distant posterity? ]Now this testimony is taken from
<011720>Genesis
17:20, where the Lord gives an answer to Abraham, that he had heard his prayer
for Ishmael, but that there would be another on whom the promised blessing would
rest. It hence follows, that some men are by special privilege elected out of
the chosen people, in whom the common adoption becomes efficacious and
valid.
8.
That is, They are not,
etc. He now gathers from God’s
answer a proposition, which includes the whole of what he had in view. For if
Isaac, and not Ishmael, was the seed, though the one as well as the other was
Abraham’s son, it must be that all natural sons are not to be regarded as
the seed, but that the promise is specially fulfilled only in some, and that it
does not belong commonly and equally to all. He calls those
the children of the
flesh, who have nothing superior to a
natural descent; as they are the
children of the
promise, who are peculiarly selected by
the Lord.
9.
For the word of promise is
this, etc. He adds another divine
testimony; and we see, by the application made of it, with what care and skill
he explains Scripture. When he says, the Lord said that he would come, and that
a son would be born to Abraham of Sarah, he intimated that his blessing was not
yet conferred, but that it was as yet suspended.
f288
But Ishmael was already born when this was said: then God’s blessing had
no regard to Ishmael. We may also observe, by the way, the great caution with
which he proceeds here, lest he should exasperate the Jews. The cause being
passed over, he first simply states the fact; he will hereafter open the
fountain.
|
ROMANS
9:10-13
|
|
10. And not only this; but when Rebecca also
had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac,
|
10. Non solum autem hic, sed et Rebecca, quae
ex uno conceperat, patre nostro Isaac:
|
|
11. (For the children being not yet born,
neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to
election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth,)
|
11. Qunm enim nondum nati es-sent pueri, nec
quidpiam boni aut mali egissent, ut secundum electio-nem propositum Dei
maneret,
|
|
12. It was said unto her, The elder shall
serve the younger.
|
12. Non ex operibus, sed ex vo-cante, dictum
est ei, Major serviet minori;
|
|
13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but
Esau have I hated.
|
13. Quemadmodum scriptum est, Jacob dilexi,
Esau autem odio habui.
|
10.
And not only, etc. There are in this
chapter some broken sentences, such as this is, —
But Rebecca also, who had
conceived by one, our father Isaac; for
he leaves off in the middle, before he comes to the principal verb. The meaning,
however, is, that the difference as to the possession of the promise may not
only be seen in the children of Abraham, but that there is a much more evident
example in Jacob and Esau: for in the former instance some might allege that
their condition was unequal, the one being the son of an handmaid; but these
were of the same mother, and were even twins: yet one was rejected, and the
other was chosen by the Lord. It is hence clear, that the fulfilment of the
promise does not take place in all the children of the flesh
indiscriminately.
And as Paul refers to the persons to whom God made
known his purpose, I prefer to regard a masculine pronoun to be understood,
rather than a neuter, as Erasmus has done: for the meaning is, that
God’s special election had not been revealed only to Abraham, but also to
Rebecca, when she brought forth her twins.
f289
11.
For when the
children, etc. He now begins to ascend
higher, even to show the cause of this difference, which he teaches us is
nowhere else to be found except in the election of God. He had indeed before
briefly noticed, that there was a difference between the natural children of
Abraham, that though all were adopted by circumcision into a participation of
the covenant, yet the grace of God was not effectual in them all; and hence that
they, who enjoy the favor of God, are the children of the promise. But how it
thus happened, he has been either silent or has obscurely hinted. Now indeed he
openly ascribes the whole cause to the election of God, and that gratuitous, and
in no way depending on men; so that in the salvation of the godly nothing higher
(nihil superius) must be sought than the goodness of God, and nothing
higher in the perdition of the reprobate than his just
severity.
Then the first proposition is, — “As the
blessing of the covenant separates the Israelitic nation from all other people,
so the election of God makes a distinction between men in that nation, while he
predestinates some to salvation, and others to eternal condenmation.” The
second proposition is, — “There is no other basis for this election
than the good-hess of God alone, and also since the fall of Adam, his mercy;
which embraces whom he pleases, without any regard whatever to their
works.” The third is, — “The Lord in his gratuitous election
is free and exempt from the necessity of imparting’ equally the same.
grace to all; but, on the contrary, he passes by whom he wills, and whom he
wills he chooses.” .All these things Paul briefly includes in one
sentence: he then goes on to other things.
Moreover, by these words,
When the children had not yet
been born, nor had done any good or evil,
he shows, that God in making a difference could not have had any regard to
works, for they were not yet done. Now they who argue on the other side, and
say, that this is no reason why the election of God should not make a difference
between men according to the merits of works, for God foresees who those are who
by future works would be worthy or unworthy of his grace, are not more
clear-sighted than Paul, but stumble at a principle in theology, which ought to
be well known to all Christians, namely, that God can see nothing in the corrupt
nature ,of man, such as was in Esau and Jacob, to induce him to manifest his
favor. When therefore he says, that neither of them had then done any good or
evil, what he took as granted must also be added , — that they were
both the children of Adam, by nature sinful, and endued with no particle of
righteousness.
I do not dwell thus long on explaining these things,
because the meaning of the Apostle is obscure; but as the Sophists, being not
content with his plain sense, endeavour to evade it by frivolous distinctions, I
wished to show, that Paul was by no means ignorant of those things which they
allege.
It may further be said, that though that corruption
alone, which is diffused through the whole race of man, is sufficient, before it
breaks out, as they say, into action, for condemnation, and hence it follows,
that Esau was justly rejected, for he was naturally a child of wrath, it was yet
necessary, lest any doubt should remain, as though his condition became worse
through any vice or fault, that sins no less than virtues should be excluded. It
is indeed true, that the proximate cause of reprobation is the curse we all
inherit from Adam; yet, that we may learn to acquiesce in the bare and simple
good pleasure of God, Paul withdraws us from this view, until he has established
this doctrine, — That God has a sufficiently just reason for electing and
for reprobating, in his own will.
f290
That the purpose of God according
to election, etc. He speaks of the
gratuitous election of God almost in every instance. If works had any place, he
ought to have said, — “That his reward might stand through
works ;” but he mentions the purpose of God, which is included, so to
speak, in his own good pleasure alone. And that no ground of dispute might
remain on the subject,, he has removed all doubt by adding another
clause, according to
election, and then a third,
not through works, but through
him who calls. Let us now then apply our
minds more closely to this passage: Since the purpose of God according to
election is established in this way, — that before the brothers were born,
and had done either good or evil, one was rejected and the other chosen; it
hence follows, that when any one ascribes the cause of the difference to their
works, he thereby subverts the purpose of God. Now, by
adding, not through works, but
through him who calls, he means, not on
account of works, but of the calling only; for he wishes to exclude works
altogether. We have then the whole stability of our election inclosed in the
purpose of God alone: here merits avail nothing, as they issue in nothing but
death; no worthiness is regarded, for there is none; but the goodness of God
reigns alone. False then is the dogma, and contrary to God’s word, —
-that God elects or rejects, as he foresees each to be worthy or unworthy of his
favor.
f291
12.
The elder shall serve the
younger. See how the Lord makes a
difference between the :sons of Isaac, while they were as yet in their
mother’s womb; for this was the heavenly answer, by which it appeared that
God designed to show to the younger peculiar favor, which he denied to the
elder. Though this indeed had reference to the right of primogeniture, yet in
this, as the symbol of something greater, was manifested the will of God: and
that this was the case we may easily perceive, when we consider what little
benefit, according to the flesh, Jacob derived from his primogeniture. For he
was, on its account, exposed to great danger; and to avoid this danger, he was
obliged to quit his home and his country, and was unkindly treated in his exile:
when he returned, he tremblingly, and in doubt of his life, prostrated himself
at the feet of his brother, humbly asked forgiveness for his offence, and lived
through the indulgence shown to him. Where was his dominion over his brother,
from whom he was constrained to seek by entreaty his life? There was then
something greater than the primogeniture promised in the answer given by the
Lord.
13.
As it is written, Jacob I loved, etc. He
confirms, by a still stronger testimony, how much the heavenly answer, given to
Rebecca, availed to his present purpose, that is, that the spiritual condition
of both was intimated by the dominion of Jacob and servitude of Esau, and also
that .Jacob obtained this favor through the kindness of God, and not through his
own merit. Then this testimony of the prophet shows the reason why the Lord
conferred on Jacob the primogeniture: and it is taken from the first, chapter of
Malachi, where the Lord, reproaching the Jews for their ingratitude, mentions
his former kindness to them, — “I have loved you,” he says;
and then he refers to the origin of his love, — “Was not Esau the
brother of Jacob?” as though he said, — “What privilege had
he, that I should prefer him to his brother? None whatever. It was indeed an
equal right, except that by the law of nature the younger ought to have served
the elder; I yet chose the one, and rejected the other; and I was thus lied by
my mercy alone, and by no worthiness as to works. I therefore chose you for my
people, that I might show the same kindness to the seed of Jacob; but I rejected
the Edomites, the progeny of Esau. Ye are then so much the worse, inasmuch as
the remembrance of so great a favor cannot stimulate you to adore my
majesty.”
f292
Now, though earthly blessings are there recorded, which God had conferred on the
Israelites, it is not yet right to view them but as symbols of his benevolence:
for where the wrath of God is, there death follows; but where his love is, there
is life.
|
ROMANS
9:14-18
|
|
14. What shall we say then? Is there
unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
|
14. Quid ergo dicemus? num in-justitia est
apud Deum? Absit:
|
|
15. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy
on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have
compassion.
|
15. Moses enim dicit, Miserebor cujus
miserebor, et miserebor quem miseratus fuero.
|
|
16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor
of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
|
16. Ergo non volentis neque cur-rentis, sed
miserentis est Dei.
|
|
17. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even
for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee,
and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
|
17. Dieit enim Scriptura Phara-oni, In hoc
ipsum excitavi te, ut os-tendam in te potentiam meam, et ut praedicetur nomen
meum in universa terra.
|
|
18. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will
have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
|
18. Ergo cujus vult miseretur, et quem vult
indurat.
|
14.
What then shall we
say? etc. The flesh cannot hear of this
wisdom of God without being instantly disturbed by numberless questions, and
without attempting in a manner to call God to an account. We hence find that the
Apostle, whenever he treats of some high mystery, obviates the many absurdities
by which he knew the minds of men would be otherwise possessed; for when men
hear anything of what Scripture teaches respecting predestination, they are
especially entangled with very many impediments.
The predestination of God is indeed in reality a
labyrinth, from which the mind of man can by no means extricate itself: but so
unreasonable is the curiosity of man, that the more perilous the examination of
a subject is, the more boldly he proceeds; so that when predestination is
discussed, as he cannot restrain himself within due limits, he immediately,
through his rashness, plunges himself, as it were, into the depth of the sea.
What remedy then is there for the godly? Must they avoid every thought of
predestination? By no means: for as the Holy Spirit has taught us nothing but
what it behoves us to know, the knowledge of this would no doubt be useful,
provided it be confined to the word of God. Let this then be our sacred rule, to
seek to know nothing concerning it, except what Scripture teaches us:
when the Lord closes his holy mouth, let us also stop the way, that we may not
go farther. But as we are men, to whom foolish questions naturally occur, let us
hear from Paul how they are to be met.
Is there unrighteousness with
God? Monstrous surely is the madness of
the human mind, that it is more disposed to charge God with unrighteousness than
to blame itself for blindness. Paul indeed had no wish to go out of his way to
find out things by which he might confound his readers; but he took up as it
were from what was common the wicked suggestion, which immediately enters the
minds of many, when they hear that God determines respecting every individual
according to his own will. It is indeed, as the flesh imagines, a kind of
injustice, that God should pass by one and show regard to
another.
In order to remove this difficulty, Paul divides his
subject into two parts; in the, former of which he speaks of the elect, and in
the latter of the reprobate; and in the one he would have us to contemplate the
mercy of God, and in the other to acknowledge his righteous judgment. His
first reply is, that the thought that there is injustice with God deserves to be
abhorred, and then he shows that with regard to the two parties, there can be
none.
But before we proceed further, we may observe that
this very objection clearly proves, that inasmuch as God elects some and passes
by others, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in his own purpose;
for if the difference had been based on works, Paul would have to no purpose
mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion
could have been entertained concerning it if’ God dealt with every one
according to his merit. It may also, in the second place, be noticed, that
though he saw that this doctrine could not be touched without exciting instant
clamours and dreadful blasphemies, he yet freely and openly brought it forward;
nay, he does not conceal how much occasion for murmuring and clamour is given to
us, when we hear that before men are born their lot is assigned to each by the
secret will of God; and yet, notwithstanding all this, he proceeds, and
without any subterfuges, declares what he had learned from the Holy
Spirit. It hence follows, that their fancies are by no means to be endured, who
aim to appear wiser than the Holy Spirit, in removing and. pacifying offences.
That they may not criminate God, they ought honestly to confess that the
salvation or the perdition of men depends on. his free election. Were they to
restrain their minds from unholy curiosity, and to bridle their tongues from
immoderate liberty, their modesty and sobriety would be deserving of
approbation; but to put a restraint on the Holy Spirit and on Paul, what
audacity it is! Let then such magnanimity ever prevail in the Church of God, as
that godly teachers may not be ashamed to make an honest profession of the true
doctrine, however hated it may be, and also to refute whatever calumnies the
ungodly may bring forward.
15.
For he saith to
Moses, etc.
f293
With regard to the elect,, God cannot be charged with any unrighteousness; for
according to his good pleasure he favors them with mercy: and yet even in this
case the flesh finds reasons for murmuring, for it cannot concede to God the
right of showing favor to one and not to another, except the cause be made
evident. As then it seems unreasonable that some should without merit be
preferred to others, the petulancy of men quarrels with God, as though he
deferred to persons more than what is right. Let us now see how Paul defends the
righteousness of God.
In the first place, he does by no means conceal or
hide what he saw would be disliked, but proceeds to maintain it with inflexible
firmness. And in the second place, he labours not to seek out reasons to soften
its asperity, but considers it enough to check vile barkings by the testimonies
of Scripture.
It may indeed appear a frigid defence that God is not
unjust, because he is merciful to whom he pleases; but as God regards his own
authority alone as abundantly sufficient, so that he needs the defence of none,
Paul thought it enough to appoint him the vindicator of his own right. Now Paul
brings forward here the answer which Moses received from the Lord, when he
prayed for the salvation of the whole people, “I will show
mercy,” was God’s answer, “on whom I will show mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” By this oracle
the Lord declared that he is a debtor to none of mankind, and that whatever he
gives is a gratuitous benefit, and then that his kindness is free, so that he
can confer it on whom he pleases; and lastly, that no cause higher than his own
will can be thought of, why he does good and shows favor to some men but not to
all. The words indeed mean as much as though he had said, “From him to
whom I have once purposed to show mercy, I will never take it away; and with
perpetual kindness will I follow him to whom I have determined to be
kind.” And thus he assigns the highest reason for imparting grace, even
his own voluntary purpose, and also intimates that he has designed his mercy
peculiarly :for some; for it is a way of speaking which excludes all outward
causes, as when we claim to ourselves the free power of acting, we say, “I
will do what I mean to do.” The relative pronoun also expressly intimates,
that mercy is not to all indiscriminately. His freedom is taken away from God,
when his election is bound to external causes
The only true cause of salvation is expressed in the
two words used by Moses. The first is
ˆnj,
chenen, which means to favor or to show kindness freely and bountifully;
the other is
µjr,
rechem, which is to be treated with mercy. Thus is confirmed what Paul
intended, that the mercy of God, being gratuitous, is under no restraint, but
turns wherever it, pleases.
f294
16.
It is not then of him who
wills, etc. From the testimony adduced
he draws this inference, that beyond all controversy our election is not to be
ascribed to our diligence, nor to our striving, nor to our efforts, but that it
is wholly to be referred to the counsel of God. That none of you may think that
they who are elected are elected because they are deserving, or because they had
in any way procured for themselves the favor of God, or, in short, because they
had in them a particle of worthiness by which God might be moved, take, simply
this view of the matter, that it is neither by our will nor efforts, (for he has
put running for striving or endeavour,) that we are counted among the
elect, but that it wholly depends on the divine goodness, which of itself
chooses those who neither will, nor strive, nor even think of such a
thing’. And they who reason from this passage, that there is in us some
power to strive, but that it effects nothing of itself unless assisted by
God’s mercy, maintain what is absurd; for the Apostle shows not what is in
us, but excludes all our efforts. It is therefore a mere sophistry to say that
we will and run, because Paul denies that it is of him who wills or runs, since
he meant nothing else than that neither willing nor running can do
anything.
They are, however, to be condemned who remain secure
and idle on the pretence of giving place to the grace of God; for though nothing
is done by their own striving, yet that effort which is influenced by God is not
ineffectual. These things, then, are not said that we may quench the Spirit of
God, while kindling ;sparks within us, by our waywardness and sloth; but that we
may understand that everything we have is from him, and that we may hence learn
to ask all things of him, to hope for all things from him, and to ascribe all
things to him, while we are prosecuting the work of our salvation with :fear and
trembling.
Pelagius has attempted by another sophistical
and worthless cavil to evade this declaration of Paul, that it is not only of
him who wills and runs, because the mercy of God assists. But Augustine,
not less solidly than acutely, thus refuted him, “If the will of man
is denied to be the cause of election, because it is not the sole cause, but
only in part; so also we may say that it is not of mercy but of him who wills
and runs, for where there is a mutual co-operation, there ought to be a
reciprocal commendation: but unquestionably the latter sentiment falls through
its own absurdity.” Let us then feel assured that the salvation of those
whom God is pleased to save, is thus ascribed to his mercy, that nothing may
remain to the contrivance of man.
f295
Nor is there much more colour for what some advance,
who think that. these things are said in the person of the ungodly; for how can
it be right to turn passages of Scripture in which the justice of God is
asserted, for the purpose of reproaching him with tyranny? and then is it
probable that Paul, when the refutation was at hand and easy, would have
suffered the Scripture to be treated with gross mockery? But such subterfuges
have they laid hold on, who absurdly measured this incomparable mystery of God
by their own judgment. To their delicate and tender ears this doctrine was more
grating than that they could think it worthy of an Apostle. But they ought
rather to have bent their own stubbornness to the obedience of the Spirit, that
they might not surrender themselves up to their gross
inventions.
17.
For the Scripture
saith, etc. He comes now to the second
part, the rejection of the ungodly, and as there seems to be something more
unreasonable in this, he endeavours to make it more fully evident, how God,
in rejecting whom he wills, is not only irreprehensible, but also wonderful
in his wisdom and justice. He then takes his proof from
<020916>Exodus
9:16, where the Lord declares that it was he who raised up Pharaoh for this end,
that while he obstinately strove to resist the power of God, he might, by being
overcome and subdued, afford a proof how invincible the arm of God is; to bear
which, much less to resist it, no human power is able. See then the example
which the Lord designed to exhibit in Pharaoh!
f296
There are here two things to be considered, —
the predestination of Pharaoh to ruin, which is to be referred to the past and
yet the hidden counsel of God, — and then, the design of this, which was
to make known the name of God; and on this does Paul primarily dwell: for if
this hardening was of such a kind, that on its account the name of God deserved
to be made known, it is an impious thing, according to evidence derived from the
contrary effect, to charge him with any unrighteousness.
But as many interpreters, striving to modify this
passage, pervert it,, we must first observe, that for the word, “I have
raised,” or stirred up, (excitavi,) the Hebrew is, “I have
appointed,” (constitui,) by which it appears, that God,
designing’ to show, that the contumacy of Pharaoh would not prevent him to
deliver his people, not only affirms, that his fury had been foreseen by him,
and that he had prepared means for restraining’ it, but that he had also
thus designedly ordained it, and indeed for this end, — that he might
exhibit a more illustrious evidence of his own power.
f297
Absurdly then do some render this passage, — that Pharaoh was preserved
for a time; for his beginning is what is spoken of here. For, seeing many
tilings from various quarters happen to men, which retard their purposes and
impede the course of their actions, God says, that Pharaoh proceeded from him,
and that his condition was by himself assigned to him: and with this view agrees
the verb, I have raised
up. But that no one may imagine, that
Pharaoh was moved from above by some kind of common and indiscriminate impulse,
to rush headlong into that madness the special cause, or end, is mentioned; as
though it had been said, — that God not only knew what Pharaoh would do,
but also designedly ordained him for this purpose. It hence follows, that it is
in vain to contend with him, as though he were bound to give a reason; for he of
himself comes forth before us, and anticipates the objection, by declaring, that
the reprobate, through whom he designs his name to be made known, proceed from
the hidden fountain of his providence.
18.
To whom he wills then he
showeth mercy, etc. Here follows the
conclusion of both parts; which can by no means be understood as being the
language of any other but of the Apostle; for he immediately addresses an
opponent, and adduces what might have been objected by an opposite party. There
is therefore no doubt but that Paul, as we have already reminded you, speaks
these things in his own person, namely, that God, according to his own will,
favors with mercy them whom he pleases, and :unsheathes the severity of his
judgment against whomsoever it seemeth him good. That our mind may be satisfied
with the difference which exists between the elect and the reprobate, and may
not inquire for any cause higher than the divine will, his purpose was to
convince us of this — that it seems good to God to illuminate some that
they may be saved, and to blind others that they may perish: for we ought
particularly to notice these words,
to whom he
wills, and,
whom he
wills: beyond this he allows us not to
proceed.
But the word
hardens,
when applied to God in Scripture, means not only permission, (as some washy
moderators would have it,) but also the operation of the wrath of God: for all
those external things, which lead to the blinding of the reprobate, are the,
instruments of his wrath; and Satan himself, who works inwardly with great
power, is so far his minister, that he acts not, but by his command.
f298Then
that frivolous evasion, which the schoolmen have recourse to respecting
foreknowledge, falls to the ground: for Paul teaches us, that the ruin of the
wicked is not only foreseen by the Lord, but also ordained by his counsel and
his will; and Solomon teaches ‘as the same thing, — that not only
the destruction of the wicked is foreknown, but that the wicked themselves have
been created for this very end — that they may perish.
(<201604>Proverbs
16:4.)
|
ROMANS
9:19-21
|
|
19. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he
yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
|
19. Dices itaque mihi, Quid adhuc conqueritur?
voluntati ejus quis re-stitit?
|
|
20. Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest
against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou
made me thus?
|
20. Atqui, O homo, tu quis es qui contendis
judicio cum Deo! hum dicit fictile figulo, cur me sic fecisti?
|
|
21. Hath not the potter power over the clay,
of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto
dishonor?
|
21. An non habet potestatem fi-gulus luti ex
eadem massa, faciendi, aliud quidem vas in honorem, aliud in
contumeliam?
|
19.
Thou wilt then
say, etc. Here indeed the flesh
especially storms, that is, when it hears that they who perish have been
destined by the will of God to destruction. Hence the Apostle adopts again the
words of an opponent; for he saw that the mouths of the ungodly could not be
restrained from boldly clamouring against the righteousness of God: and he very
fitly expresses their mind; for being not content with defending themselves,
they make God guilty instead of themselves; and then, after having devolved on
him the blame of their own condemnation, they become indignant against his great
power.
f299
They are indeed constrained to yield; but they storm, because they cannot
resist; and ascribing dominion to him, they in a manner charge him with tyranny.
In the same manner the Sophists in their schools foolishly dispute on what they
call his absolute justice, as though forgetful of his own righteousness, he
would try the power of his authority by throwing all things into confusion. Thus
then speak the ungodly in this passage, — “What cause has he to be
angry with us? Since he has formed us such as we are, since he leads
us at his will where he pleases, what else does he :in destroying us but punish
his own work in us? For it is not in our power to contend with him; how much
soever we may resist, he will yet have the upper hand. Then unjust will be his
judgment, if he condemns us; and unrestrainable is the power which he now
employs towards us.” What does Paul say to these
things?
20.
But, O man! who art
thou? etc.
f300
As it is a participle in Greek, we may read what follows in the present tense,
who disputest, or contendest, or strivest in opposition to God; for it is
expressed in Greek according to this meaning, — ”Who art thou who
enterest into a dispute with God?” But there is not much difference in the
sense?
f301
In this first answer, he does nothing else but beat down impious blasphemy by an
argument taken from the condition of man: he will presently subjoin another, by
which he will clear the righteousness of God from all blame.
It is indeed evident that no cause is adduced higher
than the will of God. Since there was a ready answer, that the difference
depends on just reasons, why did not Paul adopt such a brief reply? But he
placed the will of God in the highest rank for this reason, — that it
alone may suffice us for all other causes. No doubt, if the objection had been
false, that God according to his own will rejects those whom he honors not with
his favor, and chooses those whom he gratuitously loves, a refutation would not
have been neglected by Paul. The ungodly object and say, that men are exempted
from blame, if the will of God holds the first place in their salvation, or in
their perdition. Does Paul deny this? Nay, by his answer he confirms it, that
is, that God determines concerning men, as it seems good to him, and that, men
in vain and madly rise up to contend with God; for he assigns, by his own right,
whatever lot he pleases to what he forms.
But they who say that Paul, wanting reason, had
recourse to reproof, cast a grievous calumny on the Holy Spirit: for the things
calculated to vindicate God’s justice, and ready at hand, he was at first
unwilling’ to adduce, for they could not have been comprehended; yea, he
so modifies his second reason, that he does not undertake a full defence, but in
such a manner as to give a sufficient demonstration of God’s justice, if
it be considered by us with devout humility and reverence.
He reminds man of what is especially meet for him to
remember, that is, of his own condition; as though he had said, —
”Since thou art man, thou ownest thyself to be dust and ashes; why then
doest thou contend with the Lord about that which thou art not able to
understand?” In a word, the Apostle did not bring forward what might have
been said, but what is suitable to our ignorance. Proud men clamour, because
Paul, admitting that men are rejected or chosen by the secret counsel of God,
alleges no cause; as though the Spirit of God were silent for want of reason,
and not rather, that by his silence he reminds us, that a mystery which our
minds cannot, comprehend ought to be reverently adored, and that he thus checks
the wantonness of human curiosity. Let us then know, that God does for no other
reason refrain from speaking, but that he sees that we cannot contain his
immense wisdom in our small measure; and thus regarding our weakness, he leads
us to moderation and sobriety.
Does what is formed?
etc. We see that Paul dwells continually on
this, — that the will of God, though its reason is hid from us, is to be
counted just; for he shows that he is deprived of his right, if he is not at
liberty to determine what he sees meet concerning his creatures. This seems
unpleasant to the ears of many. There are also those who pretend that God is
exposed to great reproach were such a power ascribed to him, as though they in
their fastidiousness were better divines than Paul, who has laid down this as
the rule of humility to the faithful, that they are to admire the sovereignty of
God, and not to estimate it by their own judgment.
But he represses this arrogance of contending with
God by a most apt similitude, in which he seems to have alluded to
<234509>Isaiah
45:9, rather than to
<241806>Jeremiah
18:6; for nothing else is taught us by Jeremiah, than that Israel was in the
hand of the Lord, so that he could for his sins wholly break him in pieces, as a
potter the earthen vessel. But Isaiah ascends higher, “Woe to
him,” he says, “who speaks against his maker;” that is, the
pot that contends with the former of the clay; “shall the clay say
to its former, what doest thou?” etc. And surely there is no reason for a
mortal man to think himself better than earthen vessel, when he compares himself
with God. We are not however to be over-particular in applying this testimony to
our present subject, since Paul only meant to allude to the words of the
Prophet, in order that the similitude might have more weight.
f302
21.
Has not the worker of the
clay? etc. The reason why what is formed
ought not to contend with its former, is, that the former does nothing but what
he has a right to do. By the word
power,
he means not that the maker has strength to do according’ to his will,
but that this privilege rightly and justly belongs to him. For he intends not to
claim for God any arbitrary power but what ought to be justly ascribed to
him.
And further, bear this in mind, — that as the
potter takes away nothing from the clay, whatever form he may give it; so God
takes away nothing from man, in whatever condition he may create him. Only this
is to be remembered, that God is deprived of a portion of his honor, except such
an authority over men be conceded to him as to constitute him the arbitrator of
life and death?
f303
|
ROMANS
9:22-23
|
|
22. What if God, willing to show his wrath,
and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of
wrath fitted to destruction:
|
22. Quid autem si Deus volens demonstrare
iram, et notam facere potentiam suam, sustinuit in multa patientia vasa irae, in
interitum ap-parata;
|
|
23. And that he might make known the riches of
his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto
glory,
|
23. Ut notas quoque faceret divi-tins gloriae
sum in vasa misericordiae, quae preparavit in gloriam?
|
22.
And
what, etc. A second answer, by which he
briefly shows, that though the counsel of God is in fact incomprehensible, yet
his unblamable justice shines forth no less in the perdition of the reprobate
than in the salvation of the elect. He does not indeed give a reason for divine
election, so as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected;
for it was not meet that the tilings contained in the secret counsel of God
should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery is
inexplicable. tie therefore keeps us from curiously examining those things which
exceed human comprehension. He yet shows, that as far as God’s
predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just.
The particles,
eij
de<, used by Paul, I take to mean, And what
if? so that the whole sentence is a question; and thus the sense will be
more evident: and there is here an ellipsis, when we are to consider this as
being understood, — ” Who then can charge him with unrighteousness,
or arraign him?” for here appears nothing but the most perfect
course of justice.
f304
But if we wish fully to understand Paul, almost
every word must be examined. He then argues thus, — There are
vessels prepared for destruction, that is, given up and appointed to
destruction: they are also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this
end, that they may be examples of God’s vengeance and displeasure. If the
Lord bears patiently for a time with these, not destroying them at the first
moment, but deferring the judgment prepared for them, and this in order to set
forth the decisions of his severity, that others may be terrified by so dreadful
examples, and also to make known his power, to exhibit which he makes them in
various ways to serve; and, further, that the amplitude of his mercy towards the
elect may hence be more fully known and more brightly shine forth ; — what
is there worthy of being reprehended in this dispensation? But that he is silent
as to the reason, why they are vessels appointed to destruction, is no matter of
wonder. He indeed takes it as granted, according to what has been already said,
that the reason is hid in the secret and inexplorable counsel of God; whose
justice it behoves us rather to adore than to scrutinize.
And he has mentioned
vessels,
as commonly signifying instruments; for whatever is done by all creatures,
is, as it were, the ministration of divine power. For the best reason then are
we, the faithfnl, called the vessels of mercy, whom the Lord ‘uses as
instruments for the manifestation of his mercy; and the reprobate are the
vessels of wrath, because they servo to show forth the judgments of
God.
22.
That he might also make known the
riches of his glory,etc. I doubt not but the
two particles kai<
i[na, is an instance of a construction,
where the first word is put last;
(u[steron
pro>teron) and that this clause may better unite
with the former, I have rendered it,
That he might also make
known, etc. (Ut notas quoque faceret,
etc.) It is the second reason which manifests the glory of God in the
destruction of the reprobate, because the greatness of divine mercy
towards the elect is hereby more clearly made known; for how do they differ
from them except that they are delivered by the Lord from the same gulf of
destruction? and this by no merit of their own, but through his gratuitous
kindness. It cannot then be but that the infinite mercy of God towards the elect
must appear increasingly worthy of praise, when we see how miserable are all
they who escape not his wrath.
The word
glory,
which is here twice mentioned, I consider to have been used for God’s
mercy, a metonymy of effect for the cause; for his chief praise or glory
is in acts of kindness. So in
<490113>Ephesians
1:13, after having taught us, that we have been adopted to the praise of the
glory of his grace, he adds, that we are sealed by the Spirit of
promise unto the praise of his glory, the word grace being’ left out. tie
wished then to show, that the elect are instruments or vessels through whom God
exercises his mercy, that through them he may glorify his name.
Though in the second clause he asserts more
expressly. that it is God who prepares the elect for glory, as he had simply
said before that the reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction; there is
yet no doubt but that the preparation of both is connected with the secret
counsel of God. Paul might have otherwise said, that the reprobate give up or
cast themselves into destruction; but he intimates here, that before they are
born they are destined to their lot.
|
ROMANS
9:24-29
|
|
24. Even us, whom he hath called, not of the
Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
|
24. Quos etiam vocavit, nimirum nos, non solum
ex Iudaeis, sed etiam ex Gentibus:
|
|
25. As he saith also in Osee, I will call them
my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not
beloved.
|
25. Quemadmodum et in Osee dicit, Vocabo
populum meum eum qui non est populus, et dilectam cam quae non est
dilecta:
|
|
26. And it shall come to pass, that in the
place where it was said unto than, Ye are not my people; there shall they be
called the children of the living God.
|
26. Et erit in loco ubi dictum est eis, Non
populus meus ves, illie vo-cabuntur filii Dei viventis.
|
|
27. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel,
Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant
shall be saved:
|
27. Iesaias autem clamat super Israel, Si
fuerit numerus filiorum Israel ut arena maris, reliquiae
serva-buntur:
|
|
28. For he will finish the work, and cut it
short in righteousness; because a short work will the Lord make upon the
earth.
|
28. Sermonem enim consummans et
abbrevians,f305
quoniam sermonem abbreviatum faciet Dominus in terra:
|
|
29. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord
of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto
Gomorrha.
|
29. Et quemadmodum prius dix. erat Iesaias,
Nisi Dominus Sabbaoth. Reliquisset nobis semen, instar Sodorate facti essemus,
et Gomor-rhae essemus assimilati.
|
24.
Whom he also
called, etc. From the reasoning which he
has been hitherto carrying on respecting the freedom of divine election, two
things follow, — that the grace of God is not so confined to the Jewish
people that it does not also flow to other nations, and diffuse itself through
the whole world, — and then, that it is not even so tied to the Jews that
it comes without exception to all the children of Abraham according to the
flesh; for if God’s election is based on his own good pleasure alone,
wherever his will turns itself, there his election exists. Election being then
established, the way is now in a manner prepared for him to proceed to those
things which he designed to say respecting the calling of the Gentiles, and also
respecting the rejection of the Jews; the first of which seemed strange for its
novelty, and the other wholly unbecoming. As, however, the last had more in it
to offend, he speaks in the first place of that which was less disliked. Itc
says then, that the vessels of God’s mercy, whom he selects for the glory
of his name, are taken from every people, from the Gentiles no less than from
the Jews.
But though in the relative whom the rule of
grammar is not fully observed by Paul,
f306
yet his object was, by making as it were a transition, to subjoin that we are
the vessels of God’s glory, who have been taken in part from the Jews and
in part from the Gentiles; and he proves from the calling of God, that there is
no difference between nations made in election. For if to be descended from the
Gentiles was no hinderance that God should not call us, it is evident that the
Gentiles are by no means to be excluded from the kingdom of God and the covenant
of eternal salvation.
25.
As he says in Hosea,
f307 etc. He proves now that
the calling of the Gentiles ought not to have been deemed a new thing, as it had
long before been testified by the prediction of the prophet. The meaning is
evident; but there is some difficulty in thee application of this testimony; for
no one can deny but that the prophet in that passage speaks of the Israelites.
For the Lord, having been offended with their wickedness, declared that they
should be no longer his people: he afterwards subjoined a consolation, and said,
that of those who were not beloved he would make some beloved, and from those
who were not a people he would make a people. But Paul applies to the Gentiles
what was expressly spoken to the Israelites.
They who have hitherto been most successful in
untying this knot have supposed that Paul meant to adopt this kind of reasoning,
— ” What. may seem to be an hinderance to the Gentiles to become
partakers of salvation did also exist as to the Jewish nation: as then God did
formerly receive into favor the Jews, whom he had cast away and exterminated, so
also now he exercises the same kindness towards the Gentiles.” But as this
interpretation, though it. may be supported, yet seems to me to be somewhat
strained, let the readers consider this, — Whether it would not be a more
suitable view to regard the consolation given by the prophet, as intended, not
only for the Jews, but also for the Gentiles: for it was not a new or an unusual
thing with the prophets, after having pronounced on the Jews God’s
vengeance on account of their sins, to turn themselves to the kingdom of
Christ., which was to be propagated through the whole world. And this they did,
not without reason; for since the Jews so provoked God’s wrath by their
sins, that they deserved to be rejected by him, no hope of salvation remained,
except they turned to Christ, through whom the covenant of grace was to be
restored: and as it was based on him, so it was then renewed, when he
interposed. And doubtless, as Christ was the only refuge in great extremities,
no solid comfort could have been brought to miserable sinners, and such as saw
God’s wrath impending over them, except by setting’ Christ before
their eyes. lyes, it was usual with the prophets, as we have reminded you, after
having humbled the people by pronouncing on them divine vengeance, to call their
attention to Christ, as the only true asylum of those in despair. And where the
kingdom of Christ is erected there also is raised up that celestial Jerusalem,
into which citizens from all parts of the world assemble. And this is what is
chiefly included in the present prophecy: for when the Jews were banished from
God’s family, they were thus reduced to a common class, and put on a level
with the Gentiles. The difference being taken away, God’s mercy is now
indiscriminately extended to all the Gentiles. We hence see that the
prophet’s prediction is; fitly applied to the present subject; in which
God declares, that after having equalized the Jews and the Gentiles, he would
gather a Church for himself from aliens, so that they who were not a people
would begin to be so.
26.
I will call them my people
which are not a people. This is said
with respect to the divorce, which God had already made with the people, by
depriving them of all honor, so that they did not excel other nations. Though
they indeed, whom God in his eternal counsel has destined as sons to himself,
are perpetually his sons, yet Scripture in many parts counts none to be
God’s children but those, the election of whom has been proved by their
calling’: and hence he teaches us not to judge, much less to decide,
respecting God’s election, except as far as it manifests itself by its own
evidences. Thus Paul, after having’ shown to the Ephesians that their
election and adoption had been determined by God before the creation of the
world, shortly after declares, that they were once alienated from God,
(<490212>Ephesians
2:12,) that is, during that time when the Lord. had not manifested his love
towards them; though he had embraced them in his eternal mercy. Hence, in this
passage, they are said not to be beloved, to whom God declares wrath rather than
love: for until adoption reconciles men to God, we know that his wrath abides on
them.
The feminine gender of the participle depends on the
context of the prophet; for he had said, that a daughter had been born to him,
to whom he gave this name, Not
beloved, in order that the people might
know that they were hated by God. Now as rejection was the reason for hatred, so
the beginning of love, as the prophet; teaches, is, when God adopts those who
had been for a time strangers.
f308
27.
And Isaiah
exclaims, etc. He proceeds now to the
second part, with which he was unwilling’ to begin, lest He should too
much exasperate their minds. And it is not without a wise contrivance, that he
adduces Isaiah as exclaiming’, not, speaking, in order thai; he might
excite more attention. But the words of the Prophet were evidently intended to
keep the Jews from glorying too much in the flesh: for it was a thing dreadful
to be heard, that of so large a multitude, a small number only would obtain
salvation. For though the Prophet, after having described the devastation of the
people, lest the faithful should think that the covenant of God was wholly
abolished, gave some remaining hope of favor; yet he confined it to a few. But
as the Prophet predicted of his own time, let us see how could Paul rightly
apply this to his purpose. It must be in this sense, — When the Lord
resolved to deliver his people from the Babylonian, captivity, his purpose was,
that this benefit of deliverance should come only to a very few of thai vast
multitude; which might have been arid to be the remnant of that destruction,
when compared with the great number which he suffered to perish in exile, Now
that temporal restoration was typical of the real renovation of the Church of
God; yea, it was only its commencement. What therefore happened then, is to be
now much more completely fulfilled as the. very progress and completion of that
deliverance.
28.
For I will finish and shorten the
matter, etc.
f309
Omitting various interpretations, I will state what appears to me to be the real
meaning: The Lord will so cut short, and cut off his people, that the residue
may seem as it. were a consumption, that is, may have the appearance and the
vestige of a very great ruin. However, the few who shall remain from the
consumption shall be a proof of the work of God’s righteousness, or, what
I prefer, shall serve to testify the righteousness of God throughout the world.
As word often in Scripture means a thing, the consummated word is put for
consumption. Many interpreters have here been grossly mistaken, who have
attempted to philosophize with too much refinement; for they have :imagined,
that the doctrine of the gospel is thus called, because it is, when the
ceremonies are cut off, a brief compendium of the law; though the word means on
the contrary a consumption.
f310
And not only here is an error committed by the translator, but also in
<231022>Isaiah
10:22, 23;
<232822>Isaiah
28:22; and in
<261113>Ezekiel
11:13; where it is said, “Ah! ah! Lord God! wilt thou make a
completion of the remnant of Israel?” But the Prophets meant to
say, “Wilt thou destroy the very remnant with utter destruction?”
And this has happened through the ambiguity of the Hebrew word. For as the
word,
hlk,
cale, means to finish and to perfect,, as well as to consume, this
difference has not been sufficiently observed according to the passages in which
it occurs.
But Isaiah has not in this instance adopted one word
only, but has put down two words, consumption, and termination, or
cutting off; so that the affectation of Hebraism in the Greek translator was
singularly unseasonable; for to what purpose was it. to involve a sentence, in
itself clear, in an obscure and figurative language? It may be further added,
that Isaiah speaks here hyperbolically; for by consumption he means diminution,
such as is wont to be after a remarkable
slaughter.
29.
And as Isaiah had before
said, etc.
f311
He brings another testimony from the first chapter, where the Prophet deplores
the devastation of Israel in his time: and as this had happened once, it was no
new thing. The people of Israel had indeed no pre-eminence, except what they had
derived from their ancestors; who had yet been in such a manner treated, that
the Prophet complained that they had been so afflicted, that they were not far
from having been destroyed, as Sodom and Gomorrah had been. There was, however,
this difference, that a few were preserved for a seed, to raise up the name,
that they might not wholly perish, and be consigned to eternal oblivion. For it
behoved God to be ever mindful of his promise, so as to manifest his mercy in
the midst of the severest judgments.
|
ROMANS
9:30-33
|
|
30. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles,
which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the
righteousness which is of faith:
|
30. Quid ergo dicemus? Quod gentes quae non
sectabantur justi-tiam, adeptae sunt justitiam, justi-tiam autem ex
fide:
|
|
31. But Israel, which followed after the law
of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of
righteousness.
|
31. Israel autem sectando legem justitiae, ad
legem justitiae non per-venit.
|
|
32. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by
faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that
stumblingstone:
|
32. Quare? Quid non ex fide, sed quasi ex
operibus; offenderunt enim ad lapidem offensionis:
|
|
33. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a
stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be
ashamed.
|
33. Quemadmodum scriptum eat, Ecce pono in
Sion lapidem offen-sionis et petram offendiculi: et omnis qui crediderit in eum
non pude-fiet.
|
30.
What
then, etc. That he might, cut off from
the Jews every occasion of murmuring against God, he now begins to show those
causes, which may be comprehended by human minds, why the Jewish nation had been
rejected. But they do what is absurd and invert all order, who strive to assign
and set up causes above the secret predestination of God, which he has
previously taught us is to be counted as the first cause. But as this is
superior to all other causes, so the corruption and wickedness of the ungodly
afford a reason and an occasion for the judgments of God: and as he was engaged
on a difficult point, he introduced a question, and, as though he were in doubt,
asked what might be said on the subject.
That the Gentiles who did not
pursue, etc. Nothing appeared more
unreasonable, or less; befitting, than that the Gentiles, who, having no concern
for righteousness, rolled themselves in the lasciviousness of their flesh,
should be called to partake of salvation, and to obtain righteousness; and that,
on the other hand, the Jews, who assiduously laboured in the works of the law,
should be excluded from the reward of righteousness. Paul brings forward this,
which was so singular a paradox, in such a manner, that by adding a reason he
softens whatever asperity there might be in it; for he says, that the
righteousness which the Gentiles attained was by faith; and that it hence
depends on the Lord’s mercy, and not on man’s own worthiness; and
that a zeal for the law, by which the Jews were actuated, was absurd; for they
sought to be justified by works, and thus laboured for what no man could attain
to; and still further, they stumbled at Christ, through whom alone a way is open
to the attainment of righteousness.
But in the first clause it was the Apostle’s
object to exalt the grace of God alone, that no other reason might be sought for
in the calling of the Gentiles but this, — that he deigned to embrace them
when unworthy of his favor.
He speaks expressly of righteousness, without which
there can be no salvation: but. by saying that the righteousness of the Gentiles
proceeded from faith, he intimates, that it was based on a gratuitous
reconciliation; for if any one imagines that they, were justified, be.cause they
had by faith obtained the Spirit of regeneration, he departs far from the
meaning of Paul; it would not indeed have been true, that they had attained what
they sought not, except God had freely embraced them while they were straying
and wandering, and had offered them righteousness, for which, being unknown,
they could have had no desire. It must also be observed, that the Gentiles could
not have obtained righteousness by faith, except God had anticipated their faith
by his grace; for they followed it when they first by faith aspired to
righteousness; and so faith itself is a portion of his
favor.
31.
But Israel, by
pursuing, etc. Paul openly states what
seemed incredible, — .that it was no wonder that the Jews gained nothing
by sedulously following after righteousness; for by running out of the way, they
wearied themselves in vain. But in the first place it seems to me that the law
of righteousness is here an instance of transposition, and means the
righteousness of the law;
f312
and then, that when repeated in the second clause, it is to be taken in another
sense, as signifying the model or the rule of righteousness.
The meaning then is, — “That Israel,
depending on the righteousness of the law, even that which is prescribed in the
law, did not understand the true method of justification.” But; there is a
striking contrast in the expression, when he teaches us that the legal
righteousness was the cause, that they had fallen away from the law of
righteousness.
32.
Not by faith, but as it were
by works, etc. As false zeal seems
commonly to be justly excused, Paul shows that they are deservedly rejected, who
attempt to attain salvation by trusting in their own works; for they, as far as
they can, abolish faith, without which no salvation can be expected. Hence, were
they to gain their object, such a success would be the annihilation of true
righteousness. You farther see how faith and the merits of works are contrasted,
as things altogether contrary to each other. As then trust in works is the chief
hinderance, by which our way to obtain righteousness is closed up, it is
necessary that we should wholly renounce it:. in order that we may depend on
God’s goodness alone. This example of the Jews ought indeed justly to
terrify all those who strive to obtain the kingdom of God by works. Nor does he
understand by the works of the law, ceremonial observances, as it has been
before shown, but the merits of those works to which faith is opposed, which
looks, as I may say, with both eyes on the mercy of God alone, without casting
one glance on any worthiness of its own.
For they have stumbled at the
stone, etc. He confirms by a strong
reason the preceding sentence. There is indeed nothing more inconsistent than
that they should obtain righteousness who strive to destroy it. Christ has been
given to us for righteousness, whosoever obtrudes on God the righteousness of
works, attempts to rob him of his own office. And hence it appears that whenever
men, under the empty pretence of being zealous for righteousness, put confidence
in their works, they do in their furious madness carry on war with God
himself.
But how they stumble at Christ, who trust in their
works, it is not difficult to understand; for except we own ourselves to be
sinners, void and destitute of any righteousness of our own, we obscure the
dignity of Christ, which consists in this, that to us all he is light, life,
resurrection, righteousness, and healing’. But how is he all these things,
except that he illuminates the blind, restores the, lost, quickens the dead,
raises up those who are reduced to nothing, cleanses those who are full of
tilth, cures and heals those infected with diseases? Nay, when we claim for
ourselves any righteousness we in a manner contend with the power of Christ; for
his office is no less to beat down all the pride of the flesh, than to relieve
and comfort those who labour and are wearied under their
burden.
The quotation is rightly made; for God in that
passage declares that he would be to the people of Judah and of Israel for a
rock of offence, at which they should stumble and fall. Since Christ is that God
who spoke by the Prophets, it is no wonder that this also should be fulfilled in
him. And by calling Christ the stone of stumb1ing, he reminds us that it
is not to be wondered at if they made no progress in the way of righteousness,
who through their wilful stubbornness stumbled at the rock of offence, when God
had showed to them the way so plainly.
f313
But we must observe, that this stumbling does not properly belong to Christ
viewed in himself; but, on the contrary, it is what happens through the
wickedness of men, according to what immediately
follows.
33.
And every one who believes in him
shall not be ashamed. He subjoins this
testimony from another part for the consolation of the godly; as though he had
said, “Because Christ is called the stone of stumbling, there is no reason
that we should dread him, or entertain fear instead of confidence; for he is
appointed for ruin to the unbelieving, but for life and resurrection to the
godly.” As then the former prophecy, concerning the stumbling and offence,
is fulfilled in the rebellious and unbelieving, so there is another which is
intended for the godly, and that is, that he is a firm stone, precious, a
corner-stone, most firmly fixed, and whosoever builds on it shall never fall. By
putting shall not be
ashamed instead of shall not hasten
or fall, he has followed the Greek Translator. It is indeed certain that the
Lord in that passage intended to strengthen the hope of His people: and when the
Lord bids us to entertain good hope, it hence follows that we cannot be ashamed.
f314
See a passage like this in
<600210>1
Peter 2:10.
CHAPTER 10
|
ROMANS
10:1-4
|
|
1. Brethren, my heart’s desire and
prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
|
1. Fratres, benevolentia certe cordis mei, et
deprecatio ad Deum super Israel, est in salutem.
|
|
2. For I bear them record, that they have a
zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
|
2. Testimonium enim reddo illis, quod zelum
Dei habent, sed non secundum scientiam:
|
|
3. For they, being ignorant of God’s
righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not
submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
|
3. Ignorantes enim Dei justitiam, et propriam
justitiam quaerentes statuere, justitiae Dei subjecti non
fuerunt;
|
|
4. For Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness to every one that believeth.
|
4. Finis enim Legis Christus in justitiam omni
credenti.
f315
|
We here see with what solicitude the holy man
obviated offenses; for in order to soften whatever sharpness there may have been
in his manner of explaining the rejection of the Jews, he still testifies, as
before, his goodwill towards them, and proves it by the effect; for their
salvation was an object of concern to him before the Lord, and such a feeling
arises only from genuine love. It may be at the same time that he was also
induced by another reason to testify his love towards the nation from which he
had sprung; for his doctrine would have never been received by the Jews had they
thought that he was avowedly inimical to them; and his defection would have been
also suspected by the Gentiles, for they would have thought, as we have said in
the last chapter, that he became an apostate from the law through his hatred of
men.
f316
2.
For I bear to them a
testimony, etc. This was intended to
secure credit to his love. There was indeed a just cause why he should regard
them with compassion rather than hatred, since he perceived that they had fallen
only through ignorance, and not through malignancy of mind, and especially as he
saw that they were not led except by some regard for God to persecute the
kingdom of Christ. Let us hence learn where our good intentions may guide us, if
we yield to them. It is commonly thought a good and a very fit excuse, when he
who is reproved pretends that he meant no harm. And this pretext is held good by
many at this day, so that they apply not their minds to find out the truth of
God, because they think that whatever they do amiss through ignorance, without
any designed maliciousness, but with good intention, is excusable. But no one of
us would excuse the Jews for having crucified Christ, for having cruelly raged
against the Apostles, and for having attempted to destroy and extinguish the
gospel; and yet they had the same defense as that in which we confidently
glory. Away then with these vain evasions as to good intention; if we seek God
sincerely, let us follow the way by which alone we can come to him. For it is
better, as Augustine says, even to go limping in the right way than to
run with all our might out of the way. If we would be really religious, let us
remember that what Lactantius teaches is true, that true religion is
alone that which is connected with the word of God.
f317
And further, since we see that they perish, who with
good intention wander in darkness, let us bear in mind, that we are worthy of
thousand deaths, if after having been illuminated by God, we wander knowingly
and willfully from the right
way.
3.
For being ignorant of the righteousness of
God, etc. See how they went astray
through inconsiderate zeal! for they sought to set up a righteousness of their
own; and this foolish confidence proceeded from their ignorance of God’s
righteousness. Notice the contrast between the righteousness of God and that of
men. We first see, that they are opposed to one another, as things wholly
contrary, and cannot stand together. It hence follows, that God’s
righteousness is subverted, as soon as men set up their own. And again, as there
is a correspondence between the things contrasted, the righteousness of God is
no doubt his gift; and in like manner, the righteousness of men is that which
they derive from themselves, or believe that they bring before God. Then he who
seeks to be justified through himself, submits not to God’s righteousness;
for the first step towards obtaining the righteousness of God is to renounce our
own righteousness: for why is it, that we seek righteousness from another,
except that necessity constrains us?
We have already stated, in another place, how men put
on the righteousness of God by faith, that is, when the righteousness of Christ
is imputed to them. But Paul grievously dishonors the pride by which hypocrites
are inflated, when they cover it with the specious mask of zeal; for he says,
that all such, by shaking off as it were the yoke, are adverse to and rebel
against the righteousness of
God.
4.
For the end of the law is Christ, etc.
The word completion,
f318
seems not to me unsuitable in this place; and Erasmus has rendered it
perfection: but as the other reading is almost universally approved, and
is not inappropriate, readers, for my part, may retain it.
The Apostle obviates here an objection which might
have been made against him; for the Jews might have appeared to have kept the
right way by depending on the righteousness of the law. It was necessary for him
to disprove this false opinion; and this is what he does here. He shows that he
is a false interpreter of the law, who seeks to be justified by his own works;
because the law had been given for this end, — to lead us as by the hand
to another righteousness: nay, whatever the law teaches, whatever it commands,
whatever it promises, has always a reference to Christ as its main object; and
hence all its parts ought to be applied to him. But this cannot be done, except
we, being stripped of all righteousness, and confounded with the knowledge of
our sin, seek gratuitous righteousness from him alone.
It hence follows, that the wicked abuse of the law
was justly reprehended in the Jews, who absurdly made an obstacle of that which
was to be their help: nay, it appears that they had shamefully mutilated the law
of God; for they rejected its soul, and seized on the dead body of the letter.
For though the law promises reward to those who observe its righteousness, it
yet substitutes, after having proved all guilty, another righteousness in
Christ, which is not attained by works, but is received by faith as a free gift.
Thus the righteousness of faith, (as we have seen in the first chapter,)
receives a testimony from the law. We have then here a remarkable passage, which
proves that the law in all its parts had a reference to Christ; and hence no one
can rightly understand it, who does not continually level at this
mark.
|
ROMANS
10:5-10
|
|
5. For Moses describeth the righteousness
which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by
them.
|
5. Moses enim describit justitiam quae est ex
Lege, Quod qui fecerit ea homo rivet in ipsis.
|
|
6. But the righteousness which is of faith
speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven?
(that is, to bring Christ down from above:)
|
6. Quae vero est ex fide justitia sic dicit,
Ne dixeris in corde tuo, Quis ascendet in coelum? hoc est Christum
deducere:
|
|
7. Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that
is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
|
7. Aut, Quis descendet in abyssum? hoc est
Christum ex mortuis reducere:
|
|
8. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee,
even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith which we
preach;
|
8. Sed quid dicit? Prope est verbum, in ore
tuo et in corde tuo; hoc est verbum fidei quod praedicamus,
|
|
9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from
the dead, thou shalt be saved.
|
9. Quod si confessus fueris in ore tuo Dominum
Iesum, et credideris in corde tuo quod Deus suscitavit illum ex mortuis, salvus
eris:
|
|
10. For with the heart man believeth unto
righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto
salvation.
|
10. Corde enim creditur in justitiam, ore fit
confessio in salutem.
|
5.
For Moses,
etc. To render it evident how much at
variance is the righteousness of faith and that of works, he now compares them;
for by comparison the opposition between contrary things appears more clear. But
he refers not now to the oracles of the Prophets, but to the testimony of Moses,
and for this reason, — that the Jews might understand that the law was not
given by Moses in order to detain them in a dependence on works, but, on the
contrary, to lead them to Christ. He might have indeed referred to the Prophets
as witnesses; but still this doubt must have remained, “How was it that
the law prescribed another rule of righteousness?” He then removes this,
and in the best manner, when by the teaching of the law itself he confirms the
righteousness of faith.
But we ought to understand the reason why Paul
harmonizes the law with faith, and yet sets the righteousness of one in
opposition to that of the other: — The law has a twofold meaning; it
sometimes includes the whole of what has been taught by Moses, and sometimes
that part only which was peculiar to his ministration, which consisted of
precepts, rewards, and punishments. But Moses had this common office — to
teach the people the true rule of religion. Since it was so, it behooved him to
preach repentance and faith; but faith is not taught, except by propounding
promises of divine mercy, and those gratuitous: and thus it behooved him to be a
preacher of the gospel; which office he faithfully performed, as it appears from
many passages. In order to instruct the people in the doctrine of repentance, it
was necessary for him to teach what manner of life was acceptable to God; and
this he included in the precepts of the law. That he might also instill into the
minds of the people the love of righteousness, and implant in them the hatred of
iniquity, promises and threatening were added; which proposed rewards to the
just, and denounced dreadful punishments on sinners. It was now the duty of the
people to consider in how many ways they drew curses on themselves, and how far
they were from deserving anything at God’s hands by their works, that
being thus led to despair as to their own righteousness, they might flee to the
haven of divine goodness, and so to Christ himself. This was the end or design
of the Mosaic dispensation.
But as evangelic promises are only found scattered in
the writings of Moses, and these also somewhat obscure, and as the precepts and
rewards, allotted to the observers of the law, frequently occur, it rightly
appertained to Moses as his own and peculiar office, to teach what is the real
righteousness of works, and then to show what remuneration awaits the observance
of it, and what punishment awaits those who come short of it. For this reason
Moses is by John compared with Christ, when it is said,
“That the law was
given by Moses, but that grace
and
truth came by Christ.”
(<430117>John
1:17.)
And whenever the word law is thus strictly taken,
Moses is by implication opposed to Christ: and then we must consider what the
law contains, as separate from the gospel. Hence what is said here of the
righteousness
of the law, must be applied, not to the whole office of Moses, but to that
part which was in a manner peculiarly committed to him. I come now to the
words.
For Moses
describes, etc. Paul has
gra>fei
writes; which is used for a verb which means to describe, by taking
away a part of it
[ejpigra>fei.]
The passage is taken from
<031805>Leviticus
18:5, where the Lord promises eternal life to those who would keep his
law; for in this sense, as you see, Paul has taken the passage, and not only of
temporal life, as some think. Paul indeed thus reasons, — “Since no
man can attain the righteousness prescribed in the law, except he fulfills
strictly every part of it, and since of this perfection all men have always come
far short, it is in vain for any one to strive in this way for salvation: Israel
then were very foolish, who expected to attain the righteousness of the law,
from which we are all excluded.” See how from the promise itself he
proves, that it can avail us nothing, and for this reason, because the condition
is impossible. What a futile device it is then to allege legal promises, in
order to establish the righteousness of the law! For with these an unavoidable
curse comes to us; so far is it, that salvation should thence proceed. The more
detestable on this account is the stupidity of the Papists, who think it enough
to prove merits by adducing bare promises. “It is not in vain,” they
say, “that God has promised life to his servants.” But at the same
time they see not that it has been promised, in order that a consciousness of
their own transgressions may strike all with the fear of death, and that being
thus constrained by their own deficiency, they may learn to flee to
Christ.
6.
But the righteousness f319
which is by
faith, etc. This passage is such as may
not a little disturb the reader, and for two reasons — for it seems to be
improperly applied by Paul — and the words are also turned to a different
meaning. Of the words we shall hereafter see what may be said: we shall first
notice the application. It is a passage taken from
<053012>Deuteronomy
30:12, where, as in the former passage, Moses speaks of the doctrine of the law,
and Paul applies it to evangelic promises. This knot may be thus untied: —
Moses shows, that the way to life was made plain: for the will of God was not
now hid from the Jews, nor set far off from them, but placed before their eyes.
If he had spoken of the law only, his reasoning would have been frivolous, since
the law of God being set before their eyes, it was not easier to do it, than if
it was afar off. He then means not the law only, but generally the whole of
God’s truth, which includes in it the gospel: for the word of the law by
itself is never in our heart, no, not the least syllable of it, until it is
implanted in us by the faith of the gospel. And then, even after regeneration,
the word of the law cannot properly be said to be in our heart; for it demands
perfection, from which even the faithful are far distant: but the word of the
gospel has a seat in the heart, though it does not fill the heart; for it offers
pardon for imperfection and defect. And Moses throughout that chapter, as also
in the fourth, endeavors to commend to the people the remarkable kindness of
God, because he had taken them under his own tuition and government, which
commendation could not have belonged to the law only. It is no objection that
Moses there speaks of forming the life according to the rule of the law; for the
spirit of regeneration is connected with the gratuitous righteousness of faith.
Nor is there a doubt but that this verse depends on that main truth, “the
Lord shall circumcise thine heart,” which he had recorded shortly before
in the same chapter. They may therefore be easily disproved, who say that Moses
speaks only in that passage of good works. That he speaks of works I indeed
allow; but I deny it to be unreasonable, that the keeping of the law should be
traced from its own fountain, even from the righteousness of faith. The
explanation of the words must now follow.
f320
Say not in thine heart, Who shall
ascend? etc. Moses mentions
heaven
and the sea, as places remote and difficult of access to men. But
Paul, as though there was some spiritual mystery concealed under these words,
applies them to the death and resurrection of Christ. If any one thinks that
this interpretation is too strained and too refined, let him understand that it
was not the object of the Apostle strictly to explain this passage, but to apply
it to the explanation of his present subject. He does not, therefore, repeat
verbally what Moses has said, but makes alterations, by which he accommodates
more suitably to his own purpose the testimony of Moses. He spoke of
inaccessible places; Paul refers to those, which are indeed hid from
the sight of us all, and may yet be seen by our faith. If then you
take these things as spoken for illustration, or by way of improvement, you
cannot say that Paul has violently or inaptly changed the words of
Moses; but you will, on the contrary, allow, that without loss of meaning, he
has, in a striking manner, alluded to the words heaven and the
sea.
Let us now then simply explain the words of Paul: As
the assurance of our salvation lies on two foundations, that is, when we
understand, that life has been obtained for us, and death has been conquered for
us, he teaches us that faith through the word of the gospel is sustained by both
these; for Christ, by dying, destroyed death, and by rising again he obtained
life in his own power. The benefit of Christ’s death and resurrection is
now communicated to us by the gospel: there is then no reason for us to seek
anything farther. That it may thus appear, that the righteousness of faith is
abundantly sufficient for salvation, he teaches us, that included in it are
these two things, which are alone necessary for salvation. The import then of
the words, Who shall ascend into
heaven? is the same, as though you
should say, “Who knows whether the inheritance of eternal and celestial
life remains for us?” And the words,
Who shall descend into the
deep? mean the same, as though you
should say, “Who knows whether the everlasting destruction of the soul
follows the death of the body?” He teaches us, that doubt on those
two points is removed by the righteousness of faith; for the one would draw down
Christ from heaven, and the other would bring him up again from death.
Christ’s ascension into heaven ought indeed fully to confirm our faith as
to eternal life; for he in a manner removes Christ himself from the possession
of heaven, who doubts whether the inheritance of heaven is prepared for the
faithful, in whose name, and on whose account he has entered thither. Since in
like manner he underwent the horrors of hell to deliver us from them, to doubt
whether the faithful are still exposed to this misery, is to render void, and,
as it were, to deny his death.
8.
What does it say?
f321 For the purpose of removing
the impediments of faith, he has hitherto spoken negatively: but now in order to
show the way of obtaining righteousness, he adopts an affirmative mode of
speaking. Though the whole might have been announced in one continuous
sentence, yet a question is interposed for the sake of exciting
attention: and his object at the same time was to show how great is the
difference between the righteousness of the law and that of the gospel; for the
one, showing itself at a distance, restrains all men from coming nigh; but the
other, offering itself at hand, kindly invites us to a fruition of itself,
Nigh thee is the
word.
It must be further observed, that lest the minds of
men, being led away by crafts, should wander from the way of salvation, the
limits of the word are prescribed to them, within which they are to keep
themselves: for it is the same as though he had bidden them to be satisfied with
the word only, and reminded them, that in this mirror those secrets of heaven
are to be seen, which would otherwise by their brightness dazzle their eyes, and
would also stun their ears and overpower the mind itself.
Hence the faithful derive from this passage
remarkable consolation with regard to the certainty of the word; for they may no
less safely rest on it, than on what is actually present. It must also be
noticed, that the word, by which we have a firm and calm trust as to our
salvation, had been set forth even by Moses:
This is the word of
faith. Rightly does Paul take this as
granted; for the doctrine of the law does by no means render the conscience
quiet and calm, nor supply it with what ought to satisfy it. He does not,
however, exclude other parts of the word, no, not even the precepts of the law;
but his design is, to show that remission of sins stands for righteousness, even
apart from that strict obedience which the law demands. Sufficient then for
pacifying minds, and for rendering certain our salvation, is the word of the
gospel; in which we are not commanded to earn righteousness by works, but to
embrace it, when offered gratuitously, by faith.
The
word of
faith is to be taken for the word of
promise, that is, for the gospel itself, because it bears a relation to faith.
f322
The contrast, by which the difference between the law and the gospel appears, is
indeed to be understood: and from this distinction we learn, — that as the
law demands works, so the gospel requires nothing else, but that men bring faith
to receive the grace of God. The words,
which we
preach, are added, that no one might
have the suspicion that Paul differed from Moses; for he testifies, that in the
ministration of the gospel there was complete consent between him and Moses;
inasmuch as even Moses placed our felicity in nothing else but in the gratuitous
promise of divine favor.
9.
That if thou wilt
confess, etc. Here is also an allusion,
rather than a proper and strict quotation: for it is very probable that Moses
used the word
mouth,
by taking a part for the whole, instead of the word face, or sight.
But it was not unsuitable for the Apostle to allude to the word mouth, in this
manner: — “Since the Lord sets his word before our face, no doubt he
calls upon us to confess it.” For wherever the word of the Lord is,
it ought to bring forth fruit; and the fruit is the confession of the
mouth.
By putting
confession
before
faith,
he changes the order, which is often the case in Scripture: for the order
would have been more regular if the faith of the heart had preceded, and the
confession of the mouth, which arises from it, had followed.
f323
But he rightly confesses the Lord Jesus, who adorns him with his own power,
acknowledging him to be such an one as he is given by the Father, and described
in the gospel.
Express mention is made only of Christ’s
resurrection; which must not be so taken, as though his death was of no moment,
but because Christ, by rising again, completed the whole work of our salvation:
for though redemption and satisfaction were effected by his death, through which
we are reconciled to God; yet the victory over sin, death, and Satan was
attained by his resurrection; and hence also came righteousness, newness of
life, and the hope of a blessed immortality. And thus is resurrection alone
often set before us as the assurance of our salvation, not to draw away our
attention from his death, but because it bears witness to the efficacy and fruit
of his death: in short, his resurrection includes his death. On this subject we
have briefly touched in the sixth chapter.
It may be added, that Paul requires not merely an
historical faith, but he makes the resurrection itself its end. For we must
remember the purpose for which Christ rose again; — it was the
Father’s design in raising him, to restore us all to life: for though
Christ had power of himself to reassume his soul, yet this work is for the most
part ascribed in Scripture to God the
Father.
10.
For with the heart we believe
f324
unto
righteousness, etc. This passage may
help us to understand what justification by faith is; for it shows that
righteousness then comes to us, when we embrace God’s goodness offered to
us in the gospel. We are then for this reason just, because we believe that God
is propitious to us in Christ. But let us observe this, — that the seat of
faith is not in the head, (in cerebro — in the brain,) but in the
heart. Yet I would not contend about the part of the body in which faith is
located: but as the word
heart
is often taken for a serious and sincere feeling, I would say that faith is
a firm and effectual confidence, (fiducia — trust,
dependence,) and not a bare notion only.
With the mouth confession is made
unto salvation. It may seem strange,
that he ascribes no part of our salvation to faith, as he had before so often
testified, that we are saved by faith alone. But we ought not on this account to
conclude that confession is the cause of our salvation. His design was only to
show how God completes our salvation, even when he makes faith, which he
implants in our hearts, to show itself by confession: nay, his simple object
was, to mark out true faith, as that from which this fruit proceeds, lest any
one should otherwise lay claim to the empty name of faith alone: for it ought so
to kindle the heart with zeal for God’s glory, as to force out its own
flame. And surely, he who is justified has already obtained salvation: hence he
no less believes with the heart unto salvation, than with the mouth makes a
confession. You see that he has made this distinction, — that he refers
the cause of justification to faith, — and that he then shows what is
necessary to complete salvation; for no one can believe with the heart without
confessing with the mouth: it is indeed a necessary consequence, but not that
which assigns salvation to confession.
But let them see what answer they can give to Paul,
who at this day proudly boast of some sort of imaginary faith, which, being
content with the secrecy of the heart, neglect the confession of the mouth, as a
matter superfluous and vain; for it is extremely puerile to say, that there is
fire, when there is neither flame nor heat.
|
ROMANS
10:11-13
|
|
11. For the scripture saith, Whosoever
believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
|
11. Dicit enim scriptura, onmis qui credit in
eum non pudefiet:
|
|
12. For there is no difference between the Jew
and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon
him.
|
12. Non enim est distinctio Iudaei et Graeci;
unus enim Dominus omnium, dives in omnes qui invocant eum;
|
|
13. For whosoever shall call upon the name of
the Lord shall be saved.
|
13. Quisquis enim invocaverit nomen Domini
salvus erit.
|
11.
For the Scripture
saith, etc. Having stated the reasons
why God had justly repudiated the Jews, he returns to prove the calling of the
Gentiles, which is the other part of the question which he is discussing. As
then he had explained the way by which men obtain salvation, and one that is
common and opened to the Gentiles no less than to the Jews, he now, having first
hoisted an universal banner, extends it expressly to the Gentiles, and then
invites the Gentiles by name to it: and he repeats the testimony which he had
before adduced from Isaiah, that what he said might have more authority, and
that it might also be evident, how well the prophecies concerning Christ
harmonize with the law.
f325
12.
For there is no
distinction, etc. Since faith alone is
required, wherever it is found, there the goodness of God manifests itself unto
salvation: there is then in this case no difference between one people or nation
and another. And he adds the strongest of reasons; for since he who is the
Creator and Maker of the whole world is the God of all men, he will show himself
kind to all who will acknowledge and call on him as their God: for as his mercy
is infinite, it cannot be but that it will extend itself to all by whom it shall
be sought.
Rich
is to be taken here in an active sense, as meaning kind and bountiful.
f326
And we may observe, that the wealth of our Father is not diminished by his
liberality; and that therefore it is not made less for us, with whatever
multiplied affluence of his grace he may enrich others. There is then no reason
why some should envy the blessings of others, as though anything were thereby
lost by them.
But though this reason is sufficiently strong, he yet
strengthens it by the testimony of the Prophet Joel; which, according to the
general term that is used, includes all alike. But readers can see much better
by the context, that what Joel declares harmonizes with the present subject; for
he prophesies in that passage of the kingdom of Christ: and further, after
having said, that the wrath of God would burn in a dreadful manner, in the midst
of his ardor, he promises salvation to all who would call on the name of the
Lord. It hence follows, that the grace of God penetrates into the abyss of
death, if only it be sought there; so that it is not by any means to be withheld
from the Gentiles.
f327
|
ROMANS
10:14-17
|
|
14. How then shall they call on him in whom
they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not
heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
|
14. Quomodo ergo invocabunt eum in quem non
crediderint? quomodo vero in eum credent de quo non audiverint? quomodo autem
audient absque praedicante?
|
|
15. And how shall they preach, except they be
sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the
gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
|
15. Quomodo autem praedicabunt nisi mittantur?
Quemadmodum scriptum est, Quam pulchri pedes annuntiantium pacem, annuntiantium
bona!
|
|
16. But they have not all obeyed the gospel:
for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
|
16. Sed non omnes obedierunt evangelio;
Iesaias enim dicit, Domine, quis credidit sermoni nostro?
|
|
17. So then faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God?
|
17. Ergo fides ex auditu, auditus autem per
verbum Dei.
|
I shall not engage the reader long in reciting and
disproving the opinions of others. Let every one have his own view; and let me
be allowed to bring forward what I think. That you may then understand the
design of this gradation, bear in mind first, that there was a mutual connection
between the calling of the Gentiles and the ministry of Paul, which he exercised
among them; so that on the evidence for the one depended the evidence for the
other. It was now necessary for Paul to prove, beyond a doubt, the calling of
the Gentiles, and, at the same time, to give a reason for his own ministry, lest
he should seem to extend the favor of God without authority, to withhold from
the children the bread intended for them by God, and to bestow it on dogs. But
these things he therefore clears up at the same time.
But how he connects the thread of his discourse, will
not be fully understood, until every part be in order explained. The import of
what he advances is the same as though he had said, “Both Jews and
Gentiles, by calling on the name of God, do thereby declare that they believe on
him; for a true calling on God’s name cannot be except a right knowledge
of him were first had. Moreover, faith is produced by the word of God, but the
word of God is nowhere preached, except through God’s special providence
and appointment. Where then there is a calling on God, there is faith; and where
faith is, the seed of the word has preceded; where there is preaching there is
the calling of God. Now where his calling is thus efficacious and fruitful,
there is there a clear and indubitable proof of the divine goodness. It will
hence at last appear, that the Gentiles are not to be excluded from the kingdom
of God, for God has admitted them into a participation of his salvation. For as
the cause of faith among them is the preaching of the gospel, so the cause of
preaching is the mission of God, by which it had pleased him in this manner to
provide for their salvation.” We shall now consider each portion by
itself.
14.
How shall they call? etc. Paul intends
here to connect prayer with faith, as they are indeed things most closely
connected, for he who calls on God betakes himself, as it were, to the only true
haven of salvation, and to a most secure refuge; he acts like the son, who
commits himself into the bosom of the best and the most loving of fathers, that
he may be protected by his care, cherished by his kindness and love, relieved by
his bounty, and supported by his power. This is what no man can do who has not
previously entertained in his mind such a persuasion of God’s paternal
kindness towards him, that he dares to expect everything from
him.
He then who calls on God necessarily feels assured
that there is protection laid up for him; for Paul speaks here of that calling
which is approved by God. Hypocrites also pray, but not unto salvation; for it
is with no conviction of faith. It hence appears how completely ignorant are all
the schoolmen, who doubtingly present themselves before God, being sustained by
no confidence. Paul thought far otherwise; for he assumes this as an
acknowledged axiom, that we cannot rightly pray unless we are surely persuaded
of success. For he does not refer here to hesitating faith, but to that
certainty which our minds entertain respecting his paternal kindness, when by
the gospel he reconciles us to himself, and adopts us for his children. By this
confidence only we have access to him, as we are also taught in
<490312>Ephesians
3:12.
But, on the other hand, learn that true faith is only
that which brings forth prayer to God; for it cannot be but that he who has
tasted the goodness of God will ever by prayer seek the enjoyment of
it.
How shall they believe on
him? etc. The meaning is, that we are in
a manner mute until God’s promise opens our mouth to pray, and this is the
order which he points out by the Prophet, when he says, “I will say
to them, my people are ye;” and they shall say to me, “Thou art our
God.”
(<381309>Zechariah
13:9.) It belongs not indeed to us to imagine a God according to what we may
fancy; we ought to possess a right knowledge of him, such as is set forth in his
word. And when any one forms an idea of God as good, according to his own
understanding, it is not a sure nor a solid faith which he has, but an uncertain
and evanescent imagination; it is therefore necessary to have the word, that we
may have a right knowledge of God. No other word has he mentioned here but that
which is preached, because it is the ordinary mode which the Lord has appointed
for conveying his word. But were any on this account to contend that God cannot
transfer to men the knowledge of himself, except by the instrumentality of
preaching, we deny that to teach this was the Apostle’s intention; for he
had only in view the ordinary dispensation of God, and did not intend to
prescribe a law for the distribution of his
grace.
15.
How shall they preach except they be sent?
etc. He intimates that it is a proof and a pledge of divine love when any
nation is favored with the preaching of the gospel; and that no one is a
preacher of it, but he whom God has raised up in his special providence, and
that hence there is no doubt but that he visits that nation to whom the gospel
is proclaimed. But as Paul does not treat here of the lawful call of any one, it
would be superfluous to speak at large on the subject. It is enough for us to
bear this only in mind, that the gospel does not fall like rain from the clouds,
but is brought by the hands of men wherever it is sent from
above.
As it is written, How
beautiful, etc. We are to apply this
testimony to our present subject in this manner, The Lord, when he gave hope of
deliverance to his people, commended the advent of those who brought the glad
tidings of peace, by a remarkable eulogy; by this very circumstance he has made
it evident that the apostolic ministry was to be held in no less esteem, by
which the message of eternal life is brought to us. And it hence follows, that
it is from God, since there is nothing in the world that is an object of desire
and worthy of praise, which does not proceed from his hand.
f328
But hence we also learn how much ought all good men
to desire, and how much they ought to value the preaching of the gospel, which
is thus commended to us by the mouth of the Lord himself. Nor is there indeed a
doubt, but that God has thus highly spoken of the incomparable value of this
treasure, for the purpose of awakening the minds of all, so that they may
anxiously desire it. Take
feet, by metonymy, for coming.
f329
16.
But all have not obeyed the
gospel, etc. This belongs not to the
argument, which Paul designed to follow in the gradation he lays down; nor does
he refer to it in the conclusion which immediately follows. It was yet expedient
for Paul to introduce the sentence here, in order to anticipate an objection,
lest any one should build an argument on what he had said, — that the word
in order always precedes faith, as the seed the corn, — and draw this
inference, that faith everywhere follows the word: for Israel, who had never
been without the word, might have made a boast of this kind. It was therefore
necessary, that, in passing, he should give them this intimation, — that
many are called, who are yet not chosen.
He also quotes a passage from
<235301>Isaiah
53:1; where the Prophet, before he proceeds to announce a remarkable prediction
respecting the death and the kingdom of Christ, speaks with astonishment of the
few number of believers, who appeared to him in the Spirit to be so few, that he
was constrained to exclaim, “O Lord, who has believed our report?”
that is, the word which we preach. For though in Hebrew the term
h[wmç,
shimuoe, means passively a word,
f330
yet the Greeks have rendered it,
ajkoh<n
— hearing, and the Latins, auditum — hearing;
incorrectly indeed, but with no ambiguity in the meaning.
We now see why this exception was by the way
introduced; it was, that no one might suppose that faith necessarily follows
where there is preaching. He however does afterwards point out the reason, by
saying, “To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” by
which he intimates that there is no benefit from the word, except when God
shines in us by the light of his Spirit; and thus the inward calling, which
alone is efficacious and peculiar to the elect, is distinguished from the
outward voice of men. It is hence evident, how foolishly some maintain, that all
are indiscriminately the elect, because the doctrine of salvation is universal,
and because God invites all indiscriminately to himself. But the generality of
the promises does not alone and by itself make salvation common to all: on the
contrary, the peculiar revelation, mentioned by the Prophet, confines it to the
elect.
17.
Faith then is by
hearing, etc. We see by this conclusion
what Paul had in view by the gradation which he formed; it was to show, that
wherever faith is, God has there already given an evidence of his election;
and then, that he, by pouring his blessing on the ministration of the
gospel, to illuminate the minds of men by faith, and thereby to lead them to
call on his name, had thus testified, that the Gentiles were admitted by him
into a participation of the eternal inheritance.
And this is a remarkable passage with regard to the
efficacy of preaching; for he testifies, that by it faith is produced. He had
indeed before declared, that of itself it is of no avail; but that when it
pleases the Lord to work, it becomes the instrument of his power. And indeed the
voice of man can by no means penetrate into the soul; and mortal man would be
too much exalted, were he said to have the power to regenerate us; the light
also of faith is something sublimer than what can be conveyed by man: but all
these things are no hindrances, that God should not work effectually through the
voice of man, so as to create faith in us through his ministry.
It must be further noticed, that faith is grounded on
nothing else but the truth of God; for Paul does not teach us that faith springs
from any other kind of doctrine, but he expressly restricts it. to the word of
God; and this restriction would have been improper if faith could rest on the
decrees of men. Away then with all the devices of men when we speak of the
certainty of faith. Hence also the Papal conceit respecting implicit faith falls
to the ground, because it tears away faith from the word; and more detestable
still is that blasphemy, that the truth of the word remains suspended until the
authority of the Church establishes it.
|
ROMANS
10:18-21
|
|
18. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes
verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of
the world.
|
18. Sed dico, Nunquid non audierunt? Quinimo,
In omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, et in fines orbis verba
eorum.
|
|
19. But I say, Did not Israel know? First,
Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a
foolish nation I will anger you.
|
19. Sed dico, Nunquid non cognovit Israel?
Primus Moses dicit, Ego ad aemulationem provocabo vos in eo qui non est populus,
et in gente stulta irritabo vos.
|
|
20. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was
found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not
after me.
|
20. Iesaias autem audet et dicit, Inventus sum
a non quaerentibus me, conspicuus factus sum iis qui me non
interrogabant.
|
|
21. But to Israel he saith, All day long I
have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying
people.
|
21. De Israele autem dicit, Quotidie expandi
manus meas ad populum contumacem et contradicentem (vel, non
credentem.)
|
18.
But I say, have they not
heard? etc. Since the minds of men are
imbued, by preaching, with the knowledge of God, which leads them to call on
God, it remained a question whether the truth of God had been proclaimed to the
Gentiles; for that Paul had suddenly betaken himself to the Gentiles, there was
by that novelty no small offense given. He then asks, whether God had ever
before directed his voice to the Gentiles, and performed the office of a teacher
towards the whole world. But in order that he might show that the school, into
which God collects scholars to himself from any part, is open in common to all,
he brings forward a Prophet’s testimony from
<191904>Psalm
19:4; which yet seems to bear apparently but little on the subject: for the
Prophet does not speak there of Apostles but of the material works of God; in
which he says the glory of God shines forth so evidently, that they may be said
to have a sort of tongue of their own to declare the perfections of
God.
This passage of Paul gave occasion to the ancients to
explain the whole Psalm allegorically, and posterity have followed them: so
that, without doubt, the sun going forth as a bridegroom from his chamber, was
Christ, and the heavens were the Apostles. They who had most piety, and showed a
greater modesty in interpreting Scripture, thought that what was properly said
of the celestial architecture, has been transferred by Paul to the Apostles by
way of allusion. But as I find that the Lord’s servants have everywhere
with great reverence explained Scripture, and have not turned them at pleasure
in all directions, I cannot be persuaded, that Paul has in this manner
misconstrued this passage. I then take his quotation according to the proper and
genuine meaning of the Prophet; so that the argument will be something of this
kind, — God has already from the beginning manifested his divinity to the
Gentiles, though not by the preaching of men, yet by the testimony of his
creatures; for though the gospel was then silent among them, yet the whole
workmanship of heaven and earth did speak and make known its author by its
preaching. It hence appears, that the Lord, even during the time in which he
confined the favor of his covenant to Israel, did not yet so withdraw from the
Gentiles the knowledge of himself, but that he ever kept alive some sparks of it
among them. He indeed manifested himself then more particularly to his chosen
people, so that the Jews might be justly compared to domestic hearers, whom he
familiarly taught as it were by his own mouth; yet as he spoke to the Gentiles
at a distance by the voice of the heavens, he showed by this prelude that he
designed to make himself known at length to them also.
But I know not why the Greek interpreter rendered the
word
µwq,
kum, fqo>ggon
aujtw~n, their sound; for it means a line,
sometimes in building, and sometimes in writing.
f331
As it is certain that the same thing is mentioned twice in this passage, it
seems to me probable, that the heavens are introduced as declaring by what is
written as it were on them, as well as by voice, the power of God; for by the
word going forth the Prophet reminds us, that the doctrine, of which the
heavens are the preachers, is not included within the narrow limits of one land,
but is proclaimed to the utmost regions of the
world.
19.
But I say, has not Israel
known? This objection of an opponent is
taken from the comparison of the less with the greater. Paul had argued, that
the Gentiles were not to be excluded from the knowledge of God, since he had
from the beginning manifested himself to them, though only obscurely and through
shadows, or had at least given them some knowledge of his truth. What then is to
be said of Israel, who had been illuminated by a far different light of truth?
for how comes it that aliens and the profane should run to the light manifested
to them afar off, and that the holy race of Abraham should reject it when
familiarly seen by them? For this distinction must be ever borne in mind,
“What nation is so renowned, that it has gods coming nigh to it, as thy
God at this day descends to thee?” It was not then without reason asked,
why knowledge had not followed the doctrine of the law, with which Israel was
favored.
First, Moses
saith, etc. He proves by the testimony
of Moses, that there was nothing inconsistent in God in preferring the Gentiles
to the Jews. The passage is taken from that celebrated song, in which God,
upbraiding the Jews with their perfidiousness, declares, that he would execute
vengeance on them, and provoke them to jealousy by taking the Gentiles into
covenant with himself, because they had departed to fictitious gods.
“Ye have,” he says, “by despising and rejecting me,
transferred my right and honor to idols: to avenge this wrong, I will also
substitute the Gentiles in your place, and I will transfer to them what I have
hitherto given to you.” Now this could not have been without repudiating
the Jewish nation: for the emulation, which Moses mentions, arose from this,
— that God formed for himself a nation from that which was not a nation,
and raised up from nothing a new people, who were to occupy the place from which
the Jews had been driven away, inasmuch as they had forsaken the true God and
prostituted themselves to idols. For though, at the coming of Christ, the Jews
were not gone astray to gross and external idolatry, they had yet no excuse,
since they had profaned the whole worship of God by their inventions; yea, they
at length denied God the Father, as revealed in Christ, his only-begotten Son,
which was an extreme kind of impiety.
Observe, that a
foolish
nation, and no nation, are the
same; for without the hope of eternal life men have properly no existence.
Besides, the beginning or origin of life is from the light of faith: hence
spiritual existence flows from the new creation; and in this sense Paul calls
the faithful the work of God, as they are regenerated by his Spirit, and renewed
after his image. Now from the word foolish, we learn that all the wisdom
of men, apart from the word of God, is mere vanity.
f332
20.
But Isaiah is bold, and
says, etc. As this prophecy is somewhat
clearer, that he might excite greater attention he says that it was expressed
with great confidence; as though he had said, — “The Prophet did not
speak in a figurative language, or with hesitation, but had in plain and clear
words declared the calling of the Gentiles.” But the things which Paul has
here separated, by interposing a few words, are found connected together in the
prophet
<236501>Isaiah
65:1, where the Lord declares, that the time would come when he should turn his
favor to the Gentiles; and he immediately subjoins this reason, — that he
was wearied with the perverseness of Israel, which, through very long
continuance, had become intolerable to him. He then speaks thus, —
“They who inquired not of me before, and neglected my name, have now
sought me, (the perfect tense for the future to denote the certainty of the
f333
I know that this whole passage is changed by some
Rabbins, as though God promised that he would cause that the Jews should repent
of their defection: but nothing is more clear than that he speaks of aliens; for
it follows in the same context, — “I have said, Behold I come to a
people, on whom my name is not called.” Without doubt, then, the Prophet
declares it as what would take place, that those who were before aliens would be
received by a new adoption unto the family of God. It is then the calling of the
Gentiles; and in which appears a general representation of the calling of all
the faithful; for there is no one who anticipates the Lord; but we are all,
without exception, delivered by his free mercy from the deepest abyss of death,
when there is no knowledge of him, no desire of serving him, in a word, no
conviction of his truth.
21.
But of Israel,
etc. A reason is subjoined why God
passed over to the Gentiles; it was because he saw that his favor was become a
mockery to the Jews. But that readers may more fully understand that
the blindness of the people is pointed out in the second clause, Paul expressly
reminds us that the elect people were charged with their own wickedness.
Literally it is, “He says to Israel;” but Paul has imitated the
Hebrew idiom; for
l,
lamed, is often put for
ˆm,
men. And he says, that to Israel he stretched forth his hands, whom he
continually by his word invited to himself, and ceased not to allure by every
sort of kindness; for these are the two ways which he adopts to call men, as he
thus proves his goodwill towards them. However, he chiefly complains of the
contempt shown to his truth; which is the more abominable, as the more
remarkable is the manner by which God manifests his paternal solicitude in
inviting men by his word to himself.
And very emphatical is the expression, that he
stretches out his
hands; for by seeking our salvation
through the ministers of his word, he stretches forth to us his hands no
otherwise than as a father who stretches forth his arms, ready to receive
his son kindly into his bosom. And he says daily, that it might not
seem strange to any one if he was wearied in showing kindness to them, inasmuch
as he succeeded not by his assiduity. A similar representation we have in
<240713>Jeremiah
7:13; and
<241107>Jeremiah
11:7, where he says that he rose up early to warn them.
Their unfaithfulness is also set forth by two most
suitable words. I have thought it right to render the participle
ajpeiqou>nta,
refractory, or rebellious, and yet the rendering of Erasmus and of
the Old Translator, which I have placed in the margin, is not to be wholly
disapproved. But since the Prophet accuses the people of perverseness, and then
adds that they wandered through ways which were not good, I doubt not but that
the Greek Translator meant to express the Hebrew word
rrws,
surer, by two words, calling them first disobedient or rebellious,
and then gainsaying; for their contumacy showed itself in this, because the
people, with untamable pride and bitterness, obstinately rejected the holy
admonitions of the Prophets.
f334
CHAPTER 11
|
ROMANS
11:1-6
|
|
1. I say then, Hath God cast away his people?
God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of
Benjamin.
|
1. Dico igitur, Num abjecit Deus populum suum?
absit: etenim ego Israelita sum, ex genere Abrahae, tribu
Benjamin.
|
|
2. God hath not cast away his people which he
foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh
intercession to God against Israel, saying,
|
2. Non abjecit Deus populum suum quem
praecognovit. An nescitis in Elia quid scriptura dicat? quomodo appellet Deum
adversus Israel, dicens,
|
|
3. Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and
digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my
life.
|
3. Domine, Prophetas tuas occiderunt, et
altaria tua diruerunt, et ego relictus sum solus, et quaerunt animam
meam.
|
|
4. But what saith the answer of God unto him?
I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the
image of Baal.
|
4. Sed quid dicit ei oraculum?
f335
Reservavi mihi ipsi septem millia virorum, qui non flexerunt genu imagini
Baal.
|
|
5. Even so then at this present time also
there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
|
5. Sic ergo et hoc tempore, reliquiae secundum
electionem gratiae supersunt:
|
|
6. And if by grace, then is it no more of
works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no
more grace; otherwise work is no more work.
|
6. Quod si per gratiam, jam non ex operibus;
alioqui gratia, jam non est gratia: si vero ex operibus, jam non est gratia;
alioqui opus, jam non est opus.
|
1.
I say then, etc. What he has hitherto
said of the blindness and obstinacy of the Jews, might seem to import that
Christ at his coming had transferred elsewhere the promises of God, and deprived
the Jews of every hope of salvation. This objection is what he anticipates in
this passage, and he so modifies what he had previously said respecting the
repudiation of the Jews, that no one might think that the covenant formerly made
with Abraham is now abrogated, or that God had so forgotten it that the Jews
were now so entirely alienated from his kingdom, as the Gentiles were before the
coming of Christ. All this he denies, and he will presently show that it is
altogether false. But the question is not whether God had justly or unjustly
rejected the people; for it was proved in the last chapter that when the people,
through false zeal, had rejected the righteousness of God, they suffered a just
punishment for their presumption, were deservedly blinded, and were at last cut
off from the covenant.
The reason then for their rejection is not now under
consideration; but the dispute is concerning another thing, which is this, That
though they deserved such a punishment from God, whether yet the covenant which
God made formerly with the fathers was abolished. That it should fail through
any perfidiousness of men, was wholly unreasonable; for Paul holds this as a
fixed principle, that since adoption is gratuitous and based on God alone and
not on men, it stands firm and inviolable, howsoever great the unfaithfulness of
men may be, which may tend to abolish it. It was necessary that this knot should
be untied, lest the truth and election of God should be thought to be dependent
on the worthiness of men.
For I am also an
Israelite, etc. Before he proceeds to
the subject, he proves, in passing, by his own example, how unreasonable it was
to think that the nation was utterly forsaken by God; for he himself was in his
origin an Israelite, not a proselyte, or one lately introduced into the
commonwealth of Israel. As then he was justly deemed to be one of God’s
special servants, it was an evidence that God’s favor rested on Israel. He
then assumes the conclusion as proved, which yet he will hereafter explain in a
satisfactory manner.
That in addition to the title of an Israelite, he
called himself the seed of Abraham, and mentioned also his own tribe; this he
did that he might be counted a genuine Israelite, and he did the same in his
Epistle to the Philippians,
<500304>Philippians
3:4. But what some think, that it was done to commend God’s mercy,
inasmuch as Paul sprung from that tribe which had been almost destroyed, seems
forced and far-fetched.
2.
God has not cast
away, etc. This is a negative answer,
accompanied with a qualifying clause; for had the Apostle unreservedly denied
that the people were rejected, he would have been inconsistent with himself; but
by adding a modification, he shows it to be such a rejection, as that
God’s promise is not thereby made void. So the answer may be divided into
two parts, — that God has by no means cast away the whole race of Abraham,
contrary to the tenor of his own covenant, — and that yet the fruit of
adoption does not exist in all the children of the flesh, for secret election
precedes. Thus general rejection could not have caused that no seed should be
saved; for the visible body of the people was in such a manner rejected, that no
member of the spiritual body of Christ was cut off.
If any one asks, “Was not circumcision a common
symbol of God’s favor to all the Jews, so that they ought to have been all
counted his people?” To this the obvious answer is, — That as
outward calling is of itself ineffectual without faith, the honor which the
unbelieving refuse when offered, is justly taken from them. Thus a special
people remain, in whom God exhibits an evidence of his faithfulness; and Paul
derives the origin of constancy from secret election. For it is not said here
that God regards faith, but that he stands to his own purpose, so as not to
reject the people whom he has foreknown.
And here again must be noticed what I have before
reminded you of, — that by the
verb
foreknow, is not to be understood a
foresight, I know not what, by which God foresees what sort of being any one
will be, but that good pleasure, according to which he has chosen those as sons
to himself, who, being not yet born, could not have procured for themselves his
favor.
f336
So he says to the Galatians, that they had been known by God,
(<480409>Galatians
4:9); for he had anticipated them with his favor, so as to call them to the
knowledge of Christ. We now perceive, that though universal calling may not
bring forth fruit, yet the faithfulness of God does not fail, inasmuch as he
always preserves a Church, as long as there are elect remaining; for though God
invites all people indiscriminately to himself, yet he does not inwardly draw
any but those whom he knows to be his people, and whom he has given to his Son,
and of whom also he will be the faithful keeper to the end.
Know ye
not, etc. As there were so few of the
Jews who had believed in Christ, hardly another conclusion could have been drawn
from this small number, but that the whole race of Abraham had been rejected;
and creep in might this thought, — that in so vast a ruin no sign of
God’s favor appeared: for since adoption was the sacred bond by which the
children of Abraham were kept collected under the protection of God, it was by
no means probable, unless that had ceased, that the people should be miserably
and wretchedly dispersed. To remove this offense, Paul adopts a most suitable
example; for he relates, that in the time of Elias there was such a desolation,
that there remained no appearance of a Church, and yet, that when no vestige of
God’s favor appeared, the Church of God was, as it were, hid in the grave,
and was thus wonderfully preserved.
It hence follows, that they egregiously mistake who
form an opinion of the Church according to their own perceptions. And surely if
that celebrated Prophet, who was endued with so enlightened a mind, was so
deceived, when he attempted by his own judgment to form an estimate of
God’s people, what shall be the case with us, whose highest perspicuity,
when compared with his, is mere dullness? Let us not then determine any thing
rashly on this point; but rather let this truth remain fixed in our hearts
— that the Church, though it may not appear to our eyes, is sustained by
the secret providence of God. Let it also be remembered by us, that they are
foolish and presumptuous who calculate the number of the elect according to the
extent of their own perception: for God has a way, easy to himself, hidden from
us, by which he wonderfully preserves his elect, even when all things seem to us
past all remedy.
And let readers observe this, — that Paul
distinctly compares here, and elsewhere, the state of things in his time with
the ancient condition of the Church, and that it serves in no small degree to
confirm our faith, when we bear in mind, that nothing happens to us, at this
day, which the holy Fathers had not formerly experienced: for novelty, we know,
is a grievous engine to torment weak minds.
As to the words, In Elias, I have retained the
expression of Paul; for it may mean either in the history or in the business of
Elias; though it seems to me more probable, that Paul has followed the Hebrew
mode of speaking; for
b,
beth, which is rendered in the Greek by
ejn,
in, is often taken in Hebrew for of.
How he appeals to
God, etc.
f337
It was certainly a proof how much Elias honored the Lord, that for the glory of
his name he hesitated not to make himself an enemy to his own nation, and to
pray for their utter ruin, because he thought that the religion and worship of
God had perished among them: but he was mistaken in charging the whole nation,
himself alone excepted, with that impiety, for which he wished them to be
severely visited. There is however in this passage, which Paul quotes, no
imprecation, but a complaint only: but as he complains in such a way as to
despair of the whole people, there is no doubt but that he gave them up to
destruction. Let us then especially notice what is said of Elias, which was
this, — that when impiety had everywhere prevailed, and overspread almost
the whole land, he thought, that he was left alone.
I have reserved for myself seven
thousand, etc. Though you may take this
finite for an indefinite number, it was yet the Lord’s design to specify a
large multitude. Since then the grace of God prevails so much in an extreme
state of things, let us not lightly give over to the devil all those whose piety
does not openly appear to us. It also ought to be fully imprinted on our minds,
— that however impiety may everywhere prevail, and dreadful confusion
spread on every side, yet the salvation of many remains secured under the seal
of God.
f338
But that no one may under this error indulge his own sloth, as many seek
hiding-places for their vices in the hidden providences of God, it is right to
observe again, — that they only are said to be saved who continue sound
and unpolluted in the faith of God. This circumstance in the case ought also to
be noticed, — that those only remained safe who did not prostitute their
body, no, not even by an external act of dissimulation, to the worship of idols;
for he not only ascribes to them a purity of mind, but that they had also kept
their body from being polluted by any filthiness of superstition.
f339
So then also at this
time, etc. He applies the example to his
own age; and to make all things alike, he calls God’s people a remnant,
that is, in comparison with the vast number in whom impiety prevailed: and
alluding at the same time to the prophecy he had quoted from Isaiah, he shows,
that in the midst of a miserable and confused desolation the faithfulness of God
yet shone forth, for there was still some remnant: and in order more fully to
confirm this, he expressly calls them a remnant that survived through the grace
of God: and thus he bore witness that God’s election is unchangeable,
according to what the Lord said to Elias, — that where the whole people
had fallen away to idolatry, he had reserved for himself seven thousand: and
hence we conclude, that through his kindness they were delivered from
destruction. Nor does he simply speak of grace; but he now calls our attention
also to election, that we may learn reverently to rely on the hidden purpose of
God.
One thing then that is laid down is, — that few
are saved in comparison with the vast number of those who assume the name of
being God’s people; the other is, — that those are saved by
God’s power whom he has chosen with no regard to any merit. The
election of
grace is a Hebrew idiom for gratuitous
election.
6.
If through grace, it is no more by works,
etc. This amplification is derived from a comparison between things of an
opposite character; for such is the case between God’s grace and
the merit of works, that he who establishes the one overturns the
other.
But if no regard to works can be admitted in
election, without obscuring the gratuitous goodness of God, which he designed
thereby to be so much commended to us, what answer can be given to Paul by those
infatuated persons, (phrenetici — insane,) who make the
cause of election to be that worthiness in us which God has foreseen? For
whether you introduce works future or past, this declaration of Paul opposes
you; for he says, that grace leaves nothing to works. Paul speaks not here of
our reconciliation with God, nor of the means, nor of the proximate causes of
our salvation; but he ascends higher, even to this, — why God, before the
foundation of the world, chose only some and passed by others: and he declares,
that God was led to make this difference by nothing else, but by his own good
pleasure; for if any place is given to works, so much, he maintains, is taken
away from grace.
It hence follows, that it is absurd to blend
foreknowledge of works with election. For if God chooses some and rejects
others, as he has foreseen them to be worthy or unworthy of salvation, then the
grace of God, the reward of works being established, cannot reign alone, but
must be only in part the cause of our election. For as Paul has reasoned before
concerning the justification of Abraham, that where reward is paid, there grace
is not freely bestowed; so now he draws his argument from the same fountain,
— that if works come to the account, when God adopts a certain number of
men unto salvation, reward is a matter of debt, and that therefore it is not a
free gift.
f340
Now, though he speaks here of election, yet as it is
a general reasoning which Paul adopts, it ought to be applied to the whole of
our salvation; so that we may understand, that whenever it is declared that
there are no merits of works, our salvation is ascribed to the grace of God, or
rather, that we may believe that the righteousness of works is annihilated,
whenever grace is mentioned.
|
ROMANS
11:7-10
|
|
7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that
which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were
blinded
|
7. Quid ergo? Quod quaerit Israel, non est
assequutus;
f341
electio autem assequuta est, reliqui vero excaecati fuerunt;
|
|
8. (According as it is written, God hath given
them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they
should not hear) unto this day.
|
8. Quemadmodum scriptum est, Dedit illis Deus
spiritum compunctionis, oculos ut non videant, et aures ut non audiant, usque ad
hodiernum diem.
|
|
9. And David saith, Let their table be made a
snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompense unto
them:
|
9. Et David dicit, Fiat mensa eorum in laqueum
et in captionem et in offendiculum et in retributionem ipsis:
|
|
10. Let their eyes be darkened, that they may
not see, and bow down their back alway.
|
10. Obscurentur oculi eorum ne videant, et
dorsum eorum semper incurva.
|
7.
What then? What Israel
seeks, etc. As he is here engaged on a
difficult subject, he asks a question, as though he was in doubt. He intended,
however, by expressing this doubt, to render the answer, which immediately
follows, more evident; for he intimates, that no other can be given; and the
answer is, — that Israel in vain labored to seek salvation, because his
attempt was absurd. Though he mentions here no cause, yet as he had expressed it
before, he certainly meant it to be understood in this place. For his words are
the same, as though he had said, — that it ought not to seem strange, that
Israel gained nothing in striving after righteousness. And hence is proved what
he presently subjoins concerning election, — For if Israel has obtained
nothing by merit, what have others obtained whose case or condition was not
better? Whence has come so much difference between equals? Who does not here see
that it is election alone which makes the difference?
Now the meaning of the word
election
here is doubtful; for to some it seems that it ought to be taken in a
collective sense, for the elect themselves, that there may be a correspondence
between the two clauses. Of this opinion I do not disapprove, provided it be
allowed that there is something more in the word than if he had said, the elect,
even this, that he intimates that there was no other reason for obtaining their
election, as though he said, — “They are not those who strive by
relying on merits, but those whose salvation depends on the gratuitous election
of God.” For he distinctly compares with the whole of Israel, or body of
the people, the remnant which was to be saved by God’s grace. It hence
follows, that the cause of salvation exists not in men, but depends on the good
pleasure of God alone.
And the rest have been
blinded.
f342
As the elect alone are delivered by God’s grace from destruction, so all
who are not elected must necessarily remain blinded. For what Paul means
with regard to the reprobate is, — that the beginning of their ruin and
condemnation is from this — that they are forsaken by
God.
The quotations which he adduces, collected
from various parts of Scripture, and not taken from one passage, do seem,
all of them, to be foreign to his purpose, when you closely examine them
according to their contexts; for you will find that in every passage, blindness
and hardening are mentioned as scourges, by which God punished crimes already
committed by the ungodly; but Paul labors to prove here, that not those were
blinded, who so deserved by their wickedness, but who were rejected
by God before the foundation of the world.
You may thus briefly untie this knot, — that
the origin of the impiety which provokes God’s displeasure, is the
perversity of nature when forsaken by God. Paul therefore, while speaking
of eternal reprobation, has not without reason referred to those things which
proceed from it, as fruit from the tree or river from the fountain. The ungodly
are indeed, for their sins, visited by God’s judgment with blindness; but
if we seek for the source of their ruin, we must come to this,
— that being accursed by God, they cannot by all their deeds, sayings, and
purposes, get and obtain any thing but a curse. Yet the cause of eternal
reprobation is so hidden from us, that nothing remains for us but to wonder at
the incomprehensible purpose of God, as we shall at length see by the
conclusion. But they reason absurdly who, whenever a word is said of the
proximate causes, strive, by bringing forward these, to cover the first, which
is hid from our view; as though God had not, before the fall of Adam, freely
determined to do what seemed good to him with respect to the whole human race on
this account, — because he condemns his corrupt and depraved seed, and
also, because he repays to individuals the reward which their sins have
deserved.
f343
8.
Given them has
God, etc. There is no doubt, I think,
but that the passage quoted here from Isaiah is that which Luke refers to in
Acts, as quoted from him, only the words are somewhat altered. Nor does he
record here what we find in the Prophet, but only collects from him this
sentiment, — that they were imbued from above with the spirit of
maliciousness, so that they continued dull in seeing and hearing. The Prophet
was indeed bidden to harden the heart of the people: but Paul penetrates to the
very fountain, — that brutal stupor seizes on all the senses of men, after
they are given up to this madness, so that they excite themselves by virulent
stimulants against the truth. For he does not call it the spirit of giddiness,
but of compunction, when the bitterness of gall shows itself; yea, when there is
also a fury in rejecting the truth. And he declares, that by the secret judgment
of God the reprobate are so demented, that being stupified, they are incapable
of forming a judgment; for when it is said, that by seeing they see nothing, the
dullness of their senses is thereby intimated.
f344
Then Paul himself adds,
to this very
day, lest any one should object and say,
that this prophecy had been formerly fulfilled, and that it was therefore absurd
to apply it to the time of the gospel: this objection he anticipates, by
subjoining, that it was not only a blindness of one day, which is described,
but that it had continued, together with the unhealable obstinacy of the
people, to the coming of Christ.
f345
9.
And David
says, etc. In this testimony of David
there is also made some change in the words, but it is not what changes the
meaning. For he thus speaks, “Let their table before them become a snare,
and their peaceful things a trap;” there is no mention of
retribution. As to the main point there is sufficient agreement. The Prophet
prays, that whatever is desirable and happy in life might turn out to the ruin
and destruction of the ungodly; and this is what he means by table and
peaceful things.
f346
He then gives them up to blindness of spirit and weakening of strength; the one
of which he expresses by the darkening of the eyes, and the other by the
incurvation of the back. But that this should be extended almost to the whole
nation, is not to be wondered at; for we know, that not only the chief men were
incensed against David, but that the common people were also opposed to him. It
appears plain, that what is read in that passage was not applied to a few, but
to a large number; yea, when we consider of whom David was a type, there appears
to be a spiritual import in the opposite clause.
f347
Seeing then that this imprecation remains for all the
adversaries of Christ, — that their meat shall be converted into poison,
(as we see that the gospel is to be the savor of death unto death,) let us
embrace with humility and trembling the grace of God. We may add, that since
David speaks of the Israelites, who descended according to the flesh from
Abraham, Paul fitly applies his testimony to the subject in hand, that the
blindness of the majority of the people might not appear new or
unusual.
|
ROMANS
11:11-15
|
|
11. I say then, Have they stumbled that they
should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto
the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
|
11. Dico igitur, Num impegerunt ut corruerent?
Absit: sed eorum lapsu salus contigit gentibus in hoc, ut ipsi ad aemulationem
provocarentur.
|
|
12. Now if the fall of them be the riches of
the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more
their fullness?
|
12. Si vero eorum lapsus divitiae sunt mundi,
et imminutio eorum divitiae gentium, quanto magis complementum
ipsorum?
|
|
13. For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I
am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
|
13. Vobis enim dico gentibus, quatenus certe
ego gentium sum Apostolus, ministerium meum illustror,
|
|
14. If by any means I may provoke to emulation
them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
|
14. Si quomodo ad aemulationem provocavero
carnem meam, et aliquos ex ea salvos fecero:
|
|
15. For if the casting away of them be the
reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the
dead?
|
15. Si enim rejectio eorum, reconciliatio est
mundi, quid assumptio nisi vita ex mortius?
|
11.
Have they
stumbled, etc. You will be greatly
hindered in understanding this argument, except you take notice, that the
Apostle speaks sometimes of the whole nation of the Jews, and sometimes of
single individuals; for hence arises the diversity, that onewhile he speaks of
the Jews as being banished from the kingdom of God, cut off from the tree and
precipitated by God’s judgment into destruction, and that at another he
denies that they had fallen from grace, but that on the contrary they continued
in the possession of the covenant, and had a place in the Church of
God.
It is then in conformity with this difference that he
now speaks; for since the Jews for the most part rejected Christ, so that
perverseness had taken hold almost on the whole nation, and few among them
seemed to be of a sane mind, he asks the question, whether the Jewish nation had
so stumbled at Christ, that it was all over with them universally, and that no
hope of repentance remained. Here he justly denies that the salvation of the
Jews was to be despaired of, or that they were so rejected by God, that there
was to be no future restoration, or that the covenant of grace, which he had
once made with them, was entirely abolished, since there had ever remained in
that nation the seed of blessing. That we are so to understand his meaning is
evident from this, — that having before connected a sure ruin with
blindness, he now gives a hope of rising again; which two things are wholly
different. They then, who perversely stumbled at Christ, fell and fell into
destruction; yet the nation itself had not fallen, so that he who is a Jew must
necessarily perish or be alienated from God.
But by their fall
salvation has come
to the
Gentiles, etc. The Apostle asserts two
things in this place, — that the fall of the Jews had turned out for
salvation to the Gentiles; but to this end — that they might be kindled by
a sort of jealousy, and be thus led to repentance. He no doubt had an eye to the
testimony of Moses, which he had already quoted, where the Lord threatened
Israel, — that as he had been provoked by them to emulation through their
false gods; so he also, according to the law of retaliation, would provoke them
by a foolish nation.
The word here used denotes the feeling of emulation
or jealousy with which we are excited, when we see another preferred before us.
Since then it was the Lord’s purpose that Israel should be provoked to
emulation, they were not so fallen as to be precipitated into eternal ruin; but
that God’s blessing, despised by them, might come to the Gentiles, in
order that they might at length be also stirred up to seek the Lord, from whom
they had fallen away.
But there is no reason for readers to weary
themselves much as to the application of this testimony: for Paul does not dwell
on the strict meaning of the word, but alludes only to a common and well-known
practice. For as emulation stimulates a wife, who for her fault has been
rejected by her husband, so that she strives to be reconciled again; so it may
be now, he says, that the Jews, seeing the Gentiles introduced into their place,
will be touched with grief for their divorce, and seek
reconciliation.
12.
And if their
fall, etc. As he had taught us that
after the Jews were repudiated, the Gentiles were introduced in their place,
that he might not make the salvation of the Jews to be disliked by the Gentiles,
as though their salvation depended on the ruin of the Jews, he anticipates this
false notion, and lays down a sentiment of an opposite kind, that nothing would
conduce more to advance the salvation of the Gentiles, than that the grace of
God should flourish and abound among the Jews. To prove this, he derives an
argument from the less, — “If their fall had raised the Gentiles,
and their diminution had enriched them, how much more their fullness?” for
the first was done contrary to nature, and the last will be done according to a
natural order of things. And it is no objection to this reasoning, that the word
of God had flowed to the Gentiles, after the Jews had rejected, and, as it were,
cast it from them; for if they had received it, their faith would have brought
forth much more fruit than their unbelief had occasioned; for the truth of God
would have been thereby confirmed by being accomplished in them, and they also
themselves would have led many by their teaching, whom they, on the contrary, by
their perverseness, had turned aside.
Now he would have spoken more strictly correct, if,
to the
fall,
he had opposed rising:
f348
of this I remind you, that no one may expect here an adorned language, and may
not be offended with this simple mode of speaking; for these things were written
to mold the heart and not the tongue.
13.
For to you Gentiles I
speak, etc. He confirms by a strong
reason, that nothing shall be lost by the Gentiles, were the Jews to return
again to favor with God; for he shows, that the salvation of both is so
connected, that it can by the same means be promoted. For he thus addresses the
Gentiles, — “Though I am peculiarly destined to be your Apostle, and
ought therefore with special care to seek your salvation, with which I am
charged, and to omit as it were all other things, and to labor for that only, I
shall yet be faithfully discharging my office, by gaining to Christ any of my
own nation; and this will be for the glory of my ministry, and so for your
good.”
f349
For whatever served to render Paul’s ministry illustrious, was
advantageous to the Gentiles, whose salvation was its object.
And here also he uses the verb
parazhlw~sai,
to provoke to emulation, and for this purpose, that the Gentiles might
seek the accomplishment of Moses’ prophecy, such as he describes, when
they understood that it would be for their
benefit.
14.
And
save, etc. Observe here that the
minister of the word is said in some way to save those whom he leads to the
obedience of faith. So conducted indeed ought to be the ministry of our
salvation, as that we may feel that the whole power and efficacy of it depends
on God, and that we may give him his due praise: we ought at the same time to
understand that preaching is an instrument for effecting the salvation of the
faithful, and though it can do nothing without the Spirit of God, yet through
his inward operation it produces the most powerful
effects.
15.
For if their
rejections, etc. This passage, which
many deem obscure, and some awfully pervert, ought, in my view, to be understood
as another argument, derived from a comparison of the less with the greater,
according to this import, “Since the rejection of the Jews has
availed so much as to occasion the reconciling of the Gentiles, how much more
effectual will be their resumption? Will it not be to raise them even from the
dead?” For Paul ever insists on this, that the Gentiles have no cause for
envy, as though the restoration of the Jews to favor were to render their
condition worse. Since then God has wonderfully drawn forth life from death and
light from darkness, how much more ought we to hope, he reasons, that the
resurrection of a people, as it were, wholly dead, will bring life to the
Gentiles.
f350
It is no objection what stone allege, that reconciliation differs not from
resurrection, as we do indeed understand resurrection in the present instance,
that is, to be that by which we are translated from the kingdom of death to the
kingdom of life, for though the thing is the same, yet there is more force in
the expression, and this a sufficient answer.
|
ROMANS
11:16-21
|
|
16. For if the first-fruit be holy, the lump
is also holy; and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
|
16. Quod si primitiae sanctae, etiam
conspersio; et si radix sancta etiam rami:
|
|
17. And if some of the branches be broken off,
and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them
partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree;
|
17. Si vero ex ramis quidam defracti sunt, tu
vero oleaster quum esses, insitus es pro ipsis, et particeps factus es radicis
et pinguedinis oleae;
|
|
18. Boast not against the branches: but if
thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
|
18. Ne contra ramos glorieris: quod si
gloriaris, non tu radicem portas; sed radix to.
|
|
19. Thou wilt say then, The branches were
broken off, that I might be grafted in.
|
19. Dices ergo, Defracti sunt rami, ut ego
insererer.
|
|
20. Well; because of unbelief they were broken
oft, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear:
|
20. Bene; propter incredulitatem defracti
sunt, tu vero fide stabilitus es; Ne animo efferaris, sed
timeas.
|
|
21. For if God spared not the natural
branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
|
21. Si enim Deus naturalibus ramis non
perpercit, vide ne qua fit, ut et tibi non parcat.
|
16.
For if the
first-fruits, etc. By comparing the
worthiness of the Jews and of the Gentiles, he now takes away pride from the one
and pacifies the other, as far as he could; for he shows that the Gentiles, if
they pretended any prerogative of honor of their own, did in no respect excel
the Jews, nay, that if they came to a contest, they should be left far behind.
Let us remember that in this comparison man is not compared with man, but nation
with nation. If then a comparison be made between them, they shall be found
equal in this respect, that they are both equally the children of Adam; the only
difference is that the Jews had been separated from the Gentiles, that they
might be a peculiar people to the Lord.
f351
They were then sanctified by the holy covenant, and
adorned with peculiar honor, with which God had not at that time favored the
Gentiles; but as the efficacy of the covenant appeared then but small, he bids
us to look back to Abraham and the patriarchs, in whom the blessing of God was
not indeed either empty or void. He hence concludes, that from them an
heredity holiness had passed to all their posterity. But this
conclusion would not have been right had he spoken of persons, or rather had he
not regarded the promise; for when the father is just, he cannot yet transmit
his own uprightness to his son: but as the Lord had sanctified Abraham for
himself for this end, that his seed might also be holy, and as he thus conferred
holiness not only on his person but also on his whole race, the Apostle does not
unsuitably draw this conclusion, that all the Jews were sanctified in their
father Abraham.
f352
Then to confirm this view, he adduces two
similitudes: the one taken from the ceremonies of the law, and the other
borrowed from nature. The first-fruits which were offered sanctified the whole
lump, in like manner the goodness of the juice diffuses itself from the root to
the branches; and posterity hold the same connection with their parents from
whom they proceed as the lump has with the first-fruits, and the branches with
the tree. It is not then a strange thing that the Jews were sanctified in their
father. There is here no difficulty if you understand by holiness the spiritual
nobility of the nation, and that indeed not belonging to nature, but what
proceeded from the covenant. It may be truly said, I allow, that the Jews were
naturally holy, for their adoption was hereditary; but I now speak of our first
nature, according to which we are all, as we know, accursed in Adam. Therefore
the dignity of an elect people, to speak correctly, is a supernatural
privilege.
17.
And if some of the
branches, etc. He now refers to the
present dignity of the Gentiles, which is no other than to be of the branches;
which, being taken from another, are set in some noble tree: for the origin of
the Gentiles was as it were from some wild and unfruitful olive, as nothing but
a curse was to be found in their whole race. Whatever glory then they had was
from their new insition, not from their old stock. There was then no reason for
the Gentiles to glory in their own dignity in comparison with the Jews. We may
also add, that Paul wisely mitigates the severity of the case, by not saying
that the whole top of the tree was cut off, but that some of the branches were
broken, and also that God took some here and there from among the Gentiles, whom
he set in the holy and blessed trunk.
f353
18.
But if thou gloriest, thou
bearest not the root, etc. The Gentiles
could not contend with the Jews respecting the excellency of their race without
contending with Abraham himself; which would have been extremely unbecoming,
since he was like a root by which they were borne and nourished. As unreasonable
as it would be for the branches to boast against the root, so unreasonable would
it have been for the Gentiles to glory against the Jews, that is, with respect
to the excellency of their race; for Paul would have them ever to consider
whence was the origin of their salvation. And we know that after Christ by his
coming has pulled down the partition-wall, the whole world partook of the favor
which God had previously conferred on the chosen people. It hence follows, that
the calling of the Gentiles was like an ingrafting, and that they did not
otherwise grow up as God’s people than as they were grafted in the stock
of Abraham.
19.
Thou wilt then
say, etc. In the person of the Gentiles
he brings forward what they might have pleaded for themselves; but that was of
such a nature as ought not to have filled them with pride, but, on the contrary,
to have made them humble. For if the cutting off of the Jews was through
unbelief, and if the ingrafting of the Gentiles was by faith, what was their
duty but to acknowledge the favor of God, and also to cherish modesty and
humbleness of mind? For it is the nature of faith, and what properly belongs to
it, to generate humility and fear.
f354
But by fear understand that which is in no way inconsistent with the assurance
of faith; for Paul would not have our faith to vacillate or to alternate with
doubt, much less would he have us to be frightened or to quake with fear.
f355
Of what kind then is this fear? As the Lord bids us
to take into our consideration two things, so two kinds of feeling must thereby
be produced. For he would have us ever to bear in mind the miserable condition
of our nature; and this can produce nothing but dread, weariness, anxiety, and
despair; and it is indeed expedient that we should thus be thoroughly laid
prostrate and broken down, that we may at length groan to him; but this dread,
derived from the knowledge of ourselves, keeps not our minds while relying on
his goodness, from continuing calm; this weariness hinders us not from enjoying
full consolation in him; this anxiety, this despair, does not prevent us from
obtaining in him real joy and hope. Hence the fear, of which he speaks, is set
up as an antidote to proud contempt; for as every one claims for himself more
than what is right, and becomes too secure and at length insolent towards
others, we ought then so far to fear, that our heart may not swell with pride
and elate itself.
But it seems that he throws in a doubt as to
salvation, since he reminds them to beware lest they also should not be spared.
To this I answer, — that as this exhortation refers to the subduing of the
flesh, which is ever insolent even in the children of God, he derogates nothing
from the certainty of faith. And we must especially notice and remember what I
have before said, — that Paul’s address is not so much to
individuals as to the whole body of the Gentiles, among whom there might have
been many, who were vainly inflated, professing rather than having faith. On
account of these Paul threatens the Gentiles, not without reason, with excision,
as we shall hereafter find again.
21.
For if God has not spared the
natural branches, etc. This is a most
powerful reason to beat down all self-confidence: for the rejection of the Jews
should never come across our minds without striking and shaking us with dread.
For what ruined them, but that through supine dependence on the dignity which
they had obtained, they despised what God had appointed? They were not spared,
though they were natural branches; what then shall be done to us, who are the
wild olive and aliens, if we become beyond measure arrogant? But this thought,
as it leads us to distrust ourselves, so it tends to make us to cleave more
firmly and steadfastly to the goodness of God.
And here again it appears more evident, that the
discourse is addressed generally to the body of the Gentiles, for the excision,
of which he speaks, could not apply to individuals, whose election is
unchangeable, based on the eternal purpose of God. Paul therefore declares to
the Gentiles, that if they exulted over the Jews, a reward for their
pride would be prepared for them; for God will again reconcile to himself the
first people whom he has divorced.
|
ROMANS
11:22-24
|
|
22. Behold therefore the goodness and severity
of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou
continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
|
22. Vide igitur lenitatem
f356
et severitatem Dei; in eos quidem qui ceciderunt, severitatem;
f357
in te vero lenitatem, si permanseris in lenitate; alioqui tu quoque
excideris:
|
|
23. And they also, if they abide not still in
unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in
again.
|
23. Et illi, si non perstiterint in
incredulitate, inserentur; potens enim est Deus rursum inserere
ipsos.
|
|
24. For if thou were cut out of the
olive-tree, which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a
good olive-tree; how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be
grafted into their own olive-tree?
|
24. Si enim tu ex oleastro, quae tibi nativa
erat, exectus es, et printer naturam insitus es in veram oleam; multo magis hi
secundum naturam propriae oleae inserentur.
|
22.
See
then, etc. By laying the case
before their eyes he more clearly and fully confirms the fact,
— that the Gentiles had no reason to be proud. They saw in the Jews an
example of God’s severity, which ought to have terrified them; while in
themselves they had an evidence of his grace and goodness, by which they ought
to have been stimulated to thankfulness only, and to exalt the Lord and not
themselves. The words import the same, as though he had said, — “If
thou exultest over their calamity, think first what thou hast been; for the same
severity of God would have impended over thee, hadst thou not been delivered
by his gratuitous favor: then consider what thou art even now; for
salvation shall not continue to thee, except thou humbly recognisest the mercy
of God; for if thou forgettest thyself and arrogantly exultest, the ruin, into
which they have fallen, awaits thee: it is not indeed enough for thee to have
once embraced the favor of God, except thou followest his call through the whole
course of thy life.” They indeed who have been illuminated by the Lord
ought always to think of perseverance; for they continue not in the goodness of
God, who having for a time responded to the call of God, do at length begin to
loathe the kingdom of heaven, and thus by their ingratitude justly deserve to be
blinded again.
But he addresses not each of the godly apart, as we
have already said, but he makes a comparison between the Gentiles and the Jews.
It is indeed true that each individual among the Jews received the reward
due to his own unbelief, when they were banished from the kingdom of God, and
that all who front among the Gentiles were called, were vessels of God’s
mercy; but yet the particular design of Paul must be borne in mind. For he would
have the Gentiles to depend on the eternal covenant of God, so as to connect
their own with the salvation of the elect people, and then, lest the rejection
of the Jews should produce offense, as though their ancient adoption were
void, he would have them to be terrified by this example of punishment, so as
reverently to regard the judgment of God. For whence comes so great
licentiousness on curious questions, except that we almost neglect to consider
those things which ought to have duly taught us humility?
But as he speaks not of the elect individually, but
of the whole body, a condition is added,
If they continued in his
kindness. I indeed allow, that as soon
as any one abuses God’s goodness, he deserves to be deprived of the
offered favor; but it would be improper to say of any one of the godly
particularly, that God had mercy on him, when he chose him, provided he would
continue in his mercy; for the perseverance of faith, which completes in us the
effect of God’s grace, flows from election itself. Paul then teaches us,
that the Gentiles were admitted into the hope of eternal life on the condition,
that they by their gratitude retained possession of it. And dreadful indeed was
the defection of the whole world, which afterwards happened; and this dearly
proves, that this exhortation was not superfluous; for when God had almost in a
moment watered it with his grace, so that religion flourished everywhere, soon
after the truth of the gospel vanished, and the treasure of salvation was taken
away. And whence came so sudden a change, except that the Gentiles had fallen
away from their calling?
Otherwise thou also shalt be cut
off, etc. We now understand in what
sense Paul threatens them with excision, whom he has already allowed to have
been grafted into the hope of life through God’s election. For, first,
though this cannot happen to the elect, they have yet need of such warning, in
order to subdue the pride of the flesh; which being really opposed to their
salvation, ought justly to be terrified with the dread of perdition. As far then
as Christians are illuminated by faith, they hear, for their assurance, that the
calling of God is without repentance; but as far as they carry about them the
flesh, which wantonly resists the grace of God, they are taught humility by this
warning, “Take heed lest thou be cut off.” Secondly, we must
bear in mind the solution which I have before mentioned, — that Paul
speaks not here of the special election of individuals, but sets the Gentiles
and Jews in opposition the one to the other; and that therefore the elect are
not so much addressed in these words, as those who falsely gloried that they had
obtained the place of the Jews: nay, he speaks to the Gentiles generally, and
addresses the whole body in common, among whom there were many who were
faithful, and those who were members of Christ in name only.
But if it be asked respecting individuals,
“How any one could be cut off from the grafting, and how, after
excision, he could be grafted again,” — bear in mind, that there are
three modes of insition, and two modes of excision. For instance, the children
of the faithful are ingrafted, to whom the promise belongs according to the
covenant made with the fathers; ingrafted are also they who indeed receive the
seed of the gospel, but it strikes no root, or it is choked before it brings any
fruit; and thirdly, the elect are ingrafted, who are illuminated unto eternal
life according to the immutable purpose of God. The first are cut off, when they
refuse the promise given to their fathers, or do not receive it on account of
their ingratitude; the second are cut off, when the seed is withered and
destroyed; and as the danger of this impends over all, with regard to their own
nature, it must be allowed that this warning which Paul gives belongs in a
certain way to the faithful, lest they indulge themselves in the sloth of the
flesh. But with regard to the present passage, it is enough for us to know, that
the vengeance which God had executed on the Jews, is pronounced on the Gentiles,
in case they become like
them.
23.
For God is able, etc. Frigid would this
argument be to the profane; for however they may concede power to God, yet as
they view it at a distance, shut up as it were in heaven, they do for the most
part rob it of its effect. But as the faithful, whenever they hear God’s
power named, look on it as in present operation, he thought that this reason was
sufficient to strike their minds. We may add, that he assumes this as an
acknowledged axiom, — that God had so punished the unbelief of his people
as not to forget his mercy; according to what he had done before, having often
restored the Jews, after he had apparently banished them from his kingdom. And
he shows at the same time by the comparison, how much more easy it would be to
reverse the present state of things than to have introduced it; that is, how
much easier it would be for the natural branches, if they were again put in the
place from which they had been cut off, to draw substance from their own root,
than for the wild and the unfruitful, from a foreign stock: for such is the
comparison made between the Jews and the Gentiles.
|
ROMANS
11:25-27
|
|
25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should
be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits, that
blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be
come in.
|
25. Nolo euim vos ignorare, fratres ,mysterium
hoc, ut ne apud vosmetipsos superbiatis, quod caecitas ex parte Israeli
contigit, donec plenitudo gentium ingrediatur:
|
|
26. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is
written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away
ungodliness from Jacob:
|
26. Atque ita universus Israel salvus fiet;
quemadmodum scriptum est, Veniet ex Sion is qui liberat, et avertet impietates a
Iacob:
|
|
27. For this is my covenant unto them, when I
shall take away their sins.
|
27. Et hoc illis a me testamentum, quum
abstulero peccata eorum.
|
25.
I would
not, etc. Here he rouses his hearers to
a greater attention, while he avows that he is going to declare something that
was secret. Nor did he do this without reason; for he wished to conclude, by a
brief or plain sentence, a very perplexed question; and yet he declares what no
one could have expected. But the words,
Lest ye should be proud in
yourselves,
f358
show what was his designed object; and that was, to check the arrogance of the
Gentiles, lest they should exult over the Jews. This admonition was also
necessary, lest the defection of that people should immoderately disturb the
minds of the weak, as though the salvation of them all was to be for ever
despaired of. The same is still not less useful to us at this day, so that we
may know, that the salvation of the remnant, whom the Lord will at length gather
to himself, is hid, sealed as it were by his signet. And whenever a long delay
tempts us to despair, let us remember this word mystery; by which Paul
clearly reminds us, that the mode of their conversion will neither be common nor
usual; and hence they act absurdly who attempt to measure it by their own
judgment; for what can be more unreasonable than to regard that as incredible
which is far removed from our view? It is called a mystery, because it will be
incomprehensible until the time of its revelation.
f359
It is, however, made known to us, as it was to the Romans, that our faith may be
content with the word, and support us with hope, until the event itself come to
light.
That blindness in
part, etc. “In part,”
I think, refers not simply to time, nor to the number, but means, in a manner,
or in a measure; by which expression he intended, as it seems to me, only to
qualify a declaration which in itself was severe.
Until
does not specify the progress or order of time, but signifies the same
thing, as though he had said, “That the fullness of the
Gentiles,” etc. The meaning then is, — That God had in a manner so
blinded Israel, that while they refused the light of the gospel, it might be
transferred to the Gentiles, and that these might occupy, as it were, the
vacated possession. And so this blindness served the providence of God in
furthering the salvation of the Gentiles, which he had designed. And the
fullness
of the Gentiles is to be taken for a great number: for it was not to be, as
before, when a few proselytes connected themselves with the Jews; but such was
to be the change, that the Gentiles would form almost the entire body of the
Church.
f360
26.
And so all
Israel, etc. Many understand this of the
Jewish people, as though Paul had said, that religion would again be restored
among them as before: but I extend the word
Israel
to all the people of God, according to this meaning, — “When the
Gentiles shall come in, the Jews also shall return from their defection to the
obedience of faith; and thus shall be completed the salvation of the
whole Israel of God, which must be gathered from both; and yet in such a
way that the Jews shall obtain the first place, being as it
were the first-born in God’s family.” This interpretation seems to
me the most suitable, because Paul intended here to set forth the completion of
the kingdom of Christ, which is by no means to be confined to the Jews, but is
to include the whole world. The same manner of speaking we find in
<480616>Galatians
6:16. The Israel of God is what he calls the Church, gathered alike from Jews
and Gentiles; and he sets the people, thus collected from their dispersion, in
opposition to the carnal children of Abraham, who had departed from his
faith.
As it is
written, etc. He does not confirm the
whole passage by this testimony of Isaiah,
(<235920>Isaiah
59:20,) but only one clause, — that the children of Abraham shall be
partakers of redemption. But if one takes this view, — that Christ had
been promised and offered to them, but that as they rejected him, they were
deprived of his grace; yet the Prophet’s words express more, even this,
— that there will be some remnant, who, having repented, shall enjoy the
favor of deliverance.
Paul, however, does not quote what we read in Isaiah,
word for word;
“come,” he
says, “shall a Redeemer to Sion, and to those who shall repent of iniquity
in Jacob, saith the Lord.”
(<235920>Isaiah
59:20.)
But on this point we need not be very curious; only
this is to be regarded, that the Apostles suitably apply to their purpose
whatever proofs they adduce from the Old Testament; for their object was to
point but passages, as it were by the finger, that readers might be directed to
the fountain itself.
But though in this prophecy deliverance to the
spiritual people of God is promised, among whom even Gentiles are included; yet
as the Jews are the first-born, what the Prophet declares must be fulfilled,
especially in them: for that Scripture calls all the people of God Israelites,
is to be ascribed to the pre-eminence of that nation, whom God had preferred to
all other nations. And then, from a regard to the ancient covenant, he says
expressly, that a Redeemer shall come to Sion; and he adds, that he will redeem
those in Jacob who shall return from their transgression.
f361
By these words God distinctly claims for himself a certain seed, so that his
redemption may be effectual in his elect and peculiar nation. And though fitter
for his purpose would have been the expression used by the Prophet,
“shall come to Sion;” yet Paul made no scruple to
follow the commonly received translation, which reads, “The Redeemer shall
come forth from Mount Sion.” And similar is the case as to the second
part, “He shall turn away iniquities from Jacob:” for Paul thought
it enough to regard this point only, — that as it is Christ’s
peculiar office to reconcile to God an apostate and faithless people,
some change was surely to be looked for, lest they should all perish
together.
27.
And, This is my covenant with
them, etc. Though Paul, by the last
prophecy of Isaiah, briefly touched on the office of the Messiah, in order to
remind the Jews what was to be expected especially from him, he further adds
these few words from Jeremiah, expressly for the same purpose; for what is added
is not found in the former passage.
f362
This also tends to confirm the subject in hand; for what he said of the
conversion of a people who were so stubborn and obstinate, might have appeared
incredible: he therefore removes this stumblingblock, by declaring that the
covenant included a gratuitous remission of sins. For we may gather front the
words of the Prophet, — that God would have no more to do with his
apostate people, until he should remit the crime of perfidy, as well as their
other sins.
|
ROMANS
11:28-32
|
|
28. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies
for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the
fathers’ sakes.
|
28. Secundum Evangelium quidem inimici propter
vos; secundum electionem vero dilecti propter Patres:
|