Chapter 2
Chapter 2 1. Therefore you are inexcusable It is necessary that this teaching about the Law should be present in the church, that the Law of God does not only accuse and condemn external crimes, but also inner depravity, doubting with respect to God, and other vices of the heart, and all evil lusts. Christ rebukes the Pharisees in Matthew
5, who interpreted the Law of God only about outward deeds, the way we understand political laws, and he adds a new interpretation about inner depravity. So here Paul, in order to show that all men are guilty of sin as he will say later, accuses also those who, because they live without outward turpitude, think they are righteous on account of these civil morals.
The order of the parts must be observed in order that it can be better understood from where the beginning of the second chapter arises. It is a conclusion, accusing all who judge that they are righteous on account of civil morals. It is a complete syllogism. The major proposition is given at the end of the chapter: ''all are worthy of death, both those who commit unjust acts and those who agree with those who do them,"' [1:32], or who have similar desires.
The minor premise follows in the second chapter [v. 1]: *'
You who judge another person do the same thing,'' that is, whoever possesses civil morals and condemns only those who are beholden to manifest turpitude, and does not also condemn himself but thinks he is just because of his morals, does the same thing. In other words he has impiety in his mind and doubts whether
God is concerned about human affairs, whether he punishes or hears people.
Such a person also has other evil desires, hatreds and loves. That is the meaning of this statement: '*You do the same things, namely with the inner impulses of the mind."
Then comes the conclusion [v. |]: *'Therefore, since you do the same things, you are inexcusable, whoever you are that judges,"' that is, condemns others who are beholden to manifest turpitude. You do not condemn yourself, although you harbor similar inner depravity. This conclusion is a clear and perspicuous accusation of all who think they are just on account of civil morals.
Although, they know that those who are beholden to outward turpitude are not righteous, they do not consider that in their mind they are beholden to like sicknesses.
= Romans 2
And you should diligently remind yourself of the little word that follows when he says: "You do the same things."' For he is talking of inner impulses.
Pomponius Atticus does not commit murder with his hand; he does not rob others of their properties, like Sylla. But he does not think rightly about God.
He doubts, like the Platonists, whether God cares about human matters. He applauds the customary idolatry. He thinks superstitions are useful so that the common people may be controlled by it as by a prison. Furthermore, he also has many other desires that are evil and directed away from God.
2. Therefore Paul adds: **The judgment of God is according to the truth,"' that is, he judges not only the outer shadow of actions, but minds that are the source of the actions. If a true opinion about God is not shining in minds, if wills are turned away from God and love themselves more than God, they are certainly not obeying the Law of God which says [Deut. 6:5]: '' You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart.'' Since such is the infirmity in all men, they should confess that they are not satisfying the law of God.
Paul is speaking here concerning this true judgment.
3-5. Then he adds an admonition and calls all to repentance. He teaches why God delays punishments, namely, in order to give us room to come to our senses. He could suddenly have killed our first parent Adam when he sinned. Likewise, Peter in his fall, when he denied that he knew Christ. And fear immediately entered into the minds of both which would bring about their death. But he gives room to the miserable ones in order that they may be able to return to the right way, according to the word [Ez. 33:11]: "'As I live, I do not desire the death of the sinner, but that he may be converted and live.'' Here belongs also the parable of the fig-tree, Luke 13 [:6—9].
6-12. Who rewards everyone according to his works Would that the deceits of sophistries and the cunning perversions of correct statements might be removed from the divine dogmas! It is certain that this is what Paul is driving at in this entire epistle: that men are justified by faith, gratis, on account of the Son of God, not on account of our worthiness and merits. Although it is certain that is what Paul is driving at, our adversaries twist this statement, ''he will reward according to deeds'', to conform to their opinions, against the meaning of Paul. They contend that persons are pronounced just on account of the worthiness of their works. They contend that works are the purchase-price of eternal life. But persons correctly instructed in Christian doctrine will easily be able to harmonize such statements with others which speak about gratuitous imputation and the giving of eternal life because of Christ.
Commentary on Romans The entire divine Scripture sets forth the Law in some places, in others the Gospel, so some of its statements are statements of the Law, and some of its statements are statements of the Gospel. Nevertheless, the Gospel is the light and interpretation of the Law. This is a phrase of the Law: "'He will reward everyone according to his works.'' The meaning is: "'He will give rewards to the righteous, and the unjust he will punish.'' Neither is there any doubt that the explanation of who the righteous are and what works please
God must be added from the Gospel. For the pronouncements of the Law without the Gospel produce despair. Never can a conscience in the midst of true terrors declare that it has works worthy of the forgiveness of sins or eternal life. Thus when Christ says [Mt. 19:17]: "'If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments,'' it is necessary to mitigate what is said by adding the interpretation from the Gospel. For no one satisfies the Law.
One must answer briefly that the phrase: '""'He will reward according to works,'' is Law, that is, he will give rewards to the righteous, and punishments to the unjust. But it is the Gospel which teaches who the righteous are, and in what way works please God. And indeed, the Law speaks about faith as though it were a work, because true faith is the foremost worship of God, and the foremost work is trust in the mercy of God, by which God is truly invoked. Whence this faith arises is taught by the promises or by the Gospel.
Afterward also the other works commanded by God, which must of necessity follow faith, are pleasing to Him. Therefore the meaning is: "'He will reward according to works,'' that is, to the righteous he will give eternal life, that is, as the Gospel teaches, to those who are justified by faith. And it is necessary that obedience has begun in these. It pleases not because it satisfies the Law, but because the person has been reconciled by faith and acknowledges its weakness, and nevertheless believes that these acts of worship are pleasing to the Father because of Christ, as has been said above. And below Paul teaches, saying [Rom. 6:14],: "'You are not under the Law, but under grace."'
The explanation is easy for those who understand the nature of faith. For it is necessary that Paul embrace faith when he speaks about the works of the righteous. Whenever mention is made of faith, there is also included this exclusive. Although a beginning of obedience must be present, nevertheless faith rests solely on mercy and declares that we are righteous, that is, accepted through mercy.
13. For those who hear the Law are not righteous The statement about the righteousness of the Law is general. For the Jews arrogated to themselves righteousness on account of the Law. Here Paul opposes the definition of the righteousness of the Law. For the righteousness of the Law is to do the Law, to provide complete obedience to the Law, not
Romans 2
merely to hear the Law or to profess the ceremony of the Law. This is what he says: The doers of the law are justified, that is, they are pronounced righteous. Therefore Paul is speaking of the ideal and convicts the Jews that they are not righteous by the Law, because no one satisfies the Law. Therefore this passage cannot be twisted against the righteousness of faith. Neither does
Paul here add how the Law is broken and in what way it pleases. For he only refutes those who imagine that they are righteous because of an outward profession of the law.
14-16. A Law to themselves He had said that the wicked would perish, the Jews and also the Gentiles, although the latter did not have the Law. Now he adds the correction: Yes, the Gentiles had the Law, that is, a natural knowledge about morals that distinguishes what is honorable and what is shameful. Here there is again a testimony about the natural Law. And Paul learnedly reasons that the Gentiles have the Law, and declares at the same time what the natural Law is: ''They have a conscience that either accuses or excuses,'' that is, that knows what is honorable and what is shameful. Therefore they have the Law. The conclusion is known from the definition. For the Law is in reality that natural knowledge teaching things honorable and reprehending things shameful.
It must be diligently observed that he says: "'They do by nature,'' that is, by the natural knowledge and light. And with this word, ''by nature'',
Paul testifies that this knowledge is a work of God, founded in the mind as light is in the eyes. For "'by nature'' really signifies something created by God. Therefore this knowledge is true and is divine Law, as was said above.
Augustine sweats mightily over this passage, although it contains nothing obscure. First he discusses what Paul wants when he says that the Gentiles do the Law, whether he is speaking about a few saints, for instance, about Job and similar persons. Secondly he discusses the little word "'by nature."'
He asks why Paul says that the Gentiles do the Law by nature, although the Law cannot be truly done without the Holy Spirit.
Augustine brings these difficulties to Paul, for the text is not so very obscure. For first, ''by nature'' signifies chiefly natural knowledge. For Paul is reasoning about knowledge and judgment. Next, it is clear that also unregenerate persons are able to do the outward works of the Law and be outstanding in discipline and civil works. Here it is sufficient for Paul to show that the Gentiles understand the distinction between honorable and shameful things. This shows knowledge, and so he reasons that they have the Law.
Therefore he is speaking about doing the outward works and about knowledge, and indeed, he compares Jews and Gentiles. He indicates that the Gentiles accomplished as much from the natural Law as the Jews from the Law of
Commentary on Romans Moses. For he does not say that the Gentiles were righteous before God by the Law, but indicates that both performed external civil works. Fabius,
Scipio, Atticus, and very many others excelled in the most beautiful virtues.
Perhaps they surpassed many outstanding Jews in learning and in diligence in every duty. Here Paul is reasoning that the Gentiles have the Law, that is, a natural knowledge about morals. It does not follow from this comparison that any were righteous in the sight of God on account of this learning.
17-24. Behold you Jew As he has in particular accused the Gentiles, so now he particularly accuses the Jews in order that he may arrive at an equalization of Gentiles and Jews, in which it is clearly seen that all men are under sin and that they are not set free from sin by Law. This rebuke is to be taken in this way that we are to understand that both manifest sins and hypocrisy are being rebuked, even as it is necessary that repentance be preached according to the command of Christ [cf. Mt. 28:19]: ''Go,' preaching repentance and remission of sins."'
And although a few among the Jews were holy, Paul nevertheless speaks of the Jews insofar as they have nothing except the Law, and are not sanctified by faith and knowledge of the promise of Christ. He wants to make the point that the Law does not suffice for justification. How is this argument valid:
"If the law were sufficient for justification, all who have received the Law and are observing the outward acts of worship would be righteous.'' But these are not righteous, so the Law is not sufficient for justification. It must be diligently considered what Paul's purpose was when he wrote this. He accuses the Jews in order that they may understand that there is need for a different benefit for justification. This is a serious rebuke of the arrogance in hypocrites, who are puffed up with confidence in their own righteousness. Such passages must be noted both in order that we may learn fear and that terrified minds may receive comfort. For such passages do much for both sides because they both curb carnal security and again raise up fear-filled minds according to the saying [2 Cor. 10:17]: ''Let him that boasts, boast of the Lord."
25-29. For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the Law Here Paul meets the objection about the merits of outward works, since the Jews placed themselves above the Gentiles and objected that they had certain acts of worship instituted by God, and they argued that these acts of worship had not been instituted in vain, but merited forgiveness of sins, etc.
Paul answers with a new paradox: **Circumcision is profitable if you keep ' The text here has "'Ita'', which does not yield good sense. According to the context it ought to be "'Ite'', and we have so amended the text.
= Romans 2
the Law."' For it is a general saying about all external acts of worship that they do not profit by the mere fact that the work is performed (ex opere operato), as the common people express it, nor merit remission of sins, but are pleasing in those who are righteous. This pronouncement must be applied not only to the Levitical acts of worship but also to outward works and ceremonies in the church.
Chapters 1-2. What then does a Jew have in which he is superior?
This is a digression in which, as if he had been interrupted, he meets certain objections. A great and difficult question arises from this equalization of Gentiles and Jews. For if the Jews are not righteous on account of their acts of worship, if they are not freed from sin on account of the works of the Law, then why has the Law been given? Why does God require it? Why does he call them acts of worship and propitiations? Why are the Jews called the people of God if the Law makes no distinction between Jews and Gentiles?
What prerogative do the Jews have? Paul responds in a two-fold way. First affirmatively, thereafter negatively. First he says that the Jews are superior to the Gentiles and that they have this advantage: they have the promises.
Therefore they are superior not on account of the Law, not because they can merit justification by the law, but because they have the promises. This was a very great prerogative—to know the Word of God and the promise about Christ, and that they indeed have this right, that the promise should belong particularly to this people. Many who heard this Word were saved, and indeed it was certain that at all times some of the Jews were saved, for the promise had been given out in this way, that it should particularly belong to the descendants of Abraham.
Therefore this passage is already teaching about the chief purpose of the Jewish state. The unlearned imagine that these laws were given in order that the people might be justified through them, but Paul takes away the glory of justification from the Law, and shows that the purpose was political. For it was necessary that there should be a certain people in which the promises about Christ should be revealed by sure and clear testimonies of God. Therefore God separated this people from the Gentiles, and bore witness with many evident miracles that they had the Word of God. The cultus and the entire setup of the state were external things ordained chiefly for this political purpose, that they should distinguish this people from the other nations. Meanwhile miracles, laws given out,' and other things were testimonies that God had given His Word to this people. The acts of worship themselves had been
' The text has editae legis, which seems to be a misprint for editae leges. We have so emended the text.
A Romans 3
ordained by God in order to remind men that the Word of God and indeed the promise of Christ, was among this people. And the just had exercises of faith, likewise they admonished others, etc. Therefore this passage of Paul usefully teaches that acts of worship did not merit forgiveness of sins, that they did not justify.
3. Does their unbelief In passing he inserts other questions—whether the Jews have lost the promises and the whole race has been damned because they did not believe but killed Christ. Paul answers, the promise of grace is not rendered invalid, but remains valid for all who believe, although every man spurn it. This passage contains outstanding comfort and reminds us that we should not suspect that the promise of grace made to the church is invalid on account of the very great multitude of the wicked, but know that it is truly given to believers even if they are very few.
4a. Every man a liar He adds an antithesis in order that it may become clearer that God is truthful because he keeps his promises to the unworthy, on account of His truthfulness and goodness. Every man is a liar; he does not judge rightly about God, does not truly fear God; he does not truly believe God; does not think that God is angry at sin or that he takes pity on those who repent. He doubts, neglects, and mistrusts God. Remnants of these sins and of this darkness remain also in the saints. Therefore he says: "'Every man is a liar."' Therefore the promises do not depend on our worthiness, but on the fact that God 1s truthful.
4b. That you may be justified when you speak and prevail when you are judged He adds another testimony which takes away from us worthiness or the glory of righteousness and merits, and praises God as being just and keeping his covenants because he is truthful. But let us repeat the entire verse. For it contains the richest teaching and clearly refutes the hypocrites and legal persuasions and also the teaching of the monks, who imagine that people please
God on account of their own worthiness or on account of the Law. Again it also offers the sweetest comfort to those who acknowledge their uncleanness, and repent.
These are the words [Ps 51:4]: "'To you I am only a sinner, that you may be justified when you speak and prevail when you are judged."' The confession of sin is plain and simple. There are many similar ones in other
Psalms: ''I confess that I am not bringing righteousness to you, worthiness,
Commentary on Romans or merits, but only that I am a sinner" [cf. Ps. 25, 51]. Here the Hebrew way of speaking must be observed. For to the Hebrews, verbs often signify character:
"I have sinned against you," that is, | am a sinner. And there is a particular emphasis in the term sin. "I am just a sinner," that is, guilty, damned, cursed, refuse. For the term sin signifies these two things: sin is either something which fights against the Law of God, which merits the wrath and punishments of God unless it is forgiven, or it is understood simply by its effect, namely, of something which is guilty or condemned, as when sacrificial animals or propitiatory sacrifices are called sins.
Here, when the prophet confesses that he is a sinner and adds the exclusive particle just or only (tantum), he renounces his own worthiness and acknowledges that he has impurity which fights against the Law of God and that he is guilty and deserving of the wrath and punishments of God. What this confession amounts to, the godly experience in true contrition. In the midst of these fears, pride and trust in one's own worthiness or in the righteousness of the Law are driven out.
In order that the hypocrites may be more clearly refuted, there is added the reason for the confession. "I confess that I am a sinner, that you may be justified when You speak" [Ps. 51:4], that is, that I may declare that only you are righteous when you accuse us. Let the glory of being righteous be given to you only. Likewise, "that you may prevail when you judge," that is, that you may prevail, and that the praise that you are righteous may be given to you when the hypocrites accuse you and ascribe to you injustice and cruelty when they are punished and rejected.
After Saul had done such great things for the safety of the people of God, he thought that he had merited that he should not be rejected by God nor cast out of the kingdom. In calamities men are angry with God and find fault with his judgment.
David, on the other hand, in calamity confesses that he is justly being punished. He does not accuse God but offers obedience, as is commanded elsewhere [1 Pet. 5:6]: "Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God."
This is the simple, true, and clear explanation of the Davidic saying, namely, that it is a confession of sin added to the antithesis so that God may be declared to be righteous and that he not be accused of punishing the innocent or of oppressing this weak nature unjustly with such great calamities, as the hypocrites Saul,
Cato, and similar persons accuse him.
Perhaps this statement is somewhat obscure for people who are enjoying Epicurean security. Nevertheless it can easily be understood by those who are not entirely ignorant of true repentance or contrition, as it is called.
As for the rest, the grammarians here argue needlessly about the verbs, whether they are to be understood passively: "that you may be justified."
Romans 3
Likewise, "'when you are judged.'' Paul rightly renders them passively, and the passive voice fits the very simple statement which we have recited. I want the passive voice retained, and the Hebrew way of speaking agrees with this, as the learned can easily judge.
However, | will add this: When he says, "'that you may be justified when you speak,"' the statement is to be referred to both—to the Law and to the promise of grace. "I acknowledge that I ama sinner, and am justly accused by you, and I praise you as being the only righteous one, and that we are not righteous.""
Up to this point the interpretation is the voice of the law accusing us.
He is not yet making mention of the promise. Therefore let us transfer this saying "'that you may be justified when you speak'' not only to the Law but also to the promise. Although I am guilty and bring nothing to you except the knowledge of sin, nevertheless | flee to the promised mercy. I look for forgiveness, that you may be justified when you speak, that we may proclaim that you are truthful and that you keep your promises, and that you receive through mercy those who call on you, even though they do not bring merits with them.
5-8. The hypocrites do not give him this praise. They do not say, "'I look for forgiveness, that you may be justified when you speak, that we may proclaim that you receive the unworthy because of the promised mercy.'' But they deny that the unworthy are received or heard. The former interpretation, which is the voice of the Law, can be understood more easily. The latter is somewhat more obscure, but nevertheless true, and Paul looks back more to this. Therefore he appended the following question: If the mercy of God is enlarged through this—that he receives and justifies the unworthy and those who bring only their sins—then why is God angry at those who sin, if indeed our sins amplify the glory of His mercy? Likewise, if we are not righteous on account of our virtues, what use is it to do good? Likewise, The more sins mercy remits, the more glorious it gets, so let us sin and give free rein to our lusts.
They threw up to Paul these absurdities when he taught that believers are declared righteous gratis. If mercy becomes more when we bring our sins, then let us sin freely. He will respond to these absurdities below in the sixth chapter and will dissolve them. For now he merely rejects them by adding a reprimand.
9a. What then? Are we superior to them?
Here he returns to his principal purpose—the equalization of Jews and Gentiles, to teach that all men are under sin, that is, guilty of sin and under
Commentary on Romans the wrath of God. You will observe the dissimilar responses to the questions added in the digression. First, he answers affirmatively that the Jews have a great advantage as far as the promise is concerned, but not insofar as merits are concerned. Therefore there is added here the negative response: ''The Jews are not superior,'' namely, so far as merit is concerned. The meaning is: ''We are by no means better,'' that is, we are not righteous on account of our worthiness, nor on account of works of the Law, nor on account of our virtues, etc.
9b. For we have shown earlier, giving reasons that both Jews and Gentiles There is a repetition of the proposition. It must be diligently observed that he is now making it universal and says that all are under sin, that is, that all men are guilty of sin and subject to the wrath of God and eternal death.
He is speaking of all men with the exception of Christ, and embraces also the saints, insofar as their nature is considered and they are not understood as having been reconciled through mercy. This equalization ought to admonish us because it terrifies the hypocrites and the carnally secure. And again it raises up those who are cast down because it testifies that God truly wants to forgive us gratis, because of Christ.
10-18. He confirms this proposition by citing testimonies in which not only civil transgressions are faulted, but the inner sins against the First Table.
There is none that knows or seeks God; they are without fear of God and without faith [ Ps. 14:1-3; 53:1-3; Eccl. 7:20]. Therefore they hold godless opinions and doctrines, and impious plans [cf. Ps. 5:9], and through pride and self-confidence they dare to do many things against the will of God [cf.
Ps. 140:3], and persecute those who teach and admonish pious things [cf Is.
59:7-8]. Thus he describes chiefly the secret vices of the hypocrites, which the world takes for outstanding wisdom and righteousness.
19-20a. By the works of the Law no flesh shall be justified In the conclusion he again repeats the universal statement: **That every mouth may be stopped and the whole world be guilty before God.'' But some, who imagine that men earn forgiveness of sins and are just on account of their good moral works, seek to escape this universal statement, and say that it is a synecdoche, as if Paul were not accusing all, but only most persons, and that from this universal statement there must be excepted a certain few
(Scipio, Atticus). Although among the Jews most persons sin, nevertheless they want a certain few to be excepted, as John, Peter, etc.
Minds must be fortified against such sophistries in order that we may
i Romans 3 oi retain the true meaning of Paul, and Paul himself prudently cautions us lest this exception could be added. For first he often inculcates what is universal, then he adds the reason which shows what he is accusing. For example, he says that *'no flesh will be justified by works of the Law.'' Here he expressly not only accuses the person, but takes away justification from the very persons whom the former want excepted.
Then the Psalm [143:2] says: *'Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for no man living will be justified in your sight.'? This statement and many similar ones show that exception is false, because they teach clearly that our good works cannot be opposed to the judgment of God. Furthermore, if more works could justify, ceremonies would also have justified the Jews, for with them these also had a command from God. Therefore the statements of the Psalm and of Paul should be understood universally of all men and of all works, nor should a synecdoche be admitted which imagines that some are righteous and merit forgiveness of sins on account of their own worthiness and good works etc.
He adds expressly that they are guilty before God because he is not talking about human judgment but about divine judgment. In the struggle the conscience cannot be pacified by any works, but it must know that God has commanded that we believe that God certainly forgives us on account of Christ, through mercy, etc. And indeed the weight of the words should be observed which exhort all to repentance. For he threatens most gravely those who are secure and who trust in their own righteousness when he says, **That every mouth may be stopped."" Likewise, *'That the whole world may become guilty.'
20b. For through the Law comes the knowledge of sin Paul's concern is that one could object: If we are not righteous by the Law, for what purpose was the Law given? Paul responds (however, more briefly) because this same concern is repeated below. And this response is seen by the world as something wholly new and absurd, that sin is only revealed by the Law, not taken away. For lawgivers make laws for kingdoms not only to show sins, but to take them away. The hearer must be reminded that here Paut is not at all preaching about civil righteousness and external morals. He is treating a different matter: how we may be accounted righteous before God; how we may receive remission of sins; and what the Law contributes there. Therefore the uses of the Law must be distinguished. Moreover we are here talking not only about the law of Moses but about the moral law inscribed in all men.
Now there are two uses. One is the political, namely, to coerce carnal persons from the outside. For God also requires this external justice, although
Commentary on Romans we are not righteous before God on account of it and it does not merit remission of sins. He is not speaking about this use in this statement. Elsewhere he does speak about this use: The law is laid down for the unjust, etc. [cf. Rom.
DAZE SAS):
The other use is not political, but concerns the judgment of God and the conscience, namely, to accuse and to terrify the conscience, as he says elsewhere [1 Cor. 15:56]: ''Sin is the sting of death: the strength of sin is the Law,'' that is, the Law reveals sin and terrifies hearts. It is of such knowledge that he is speaking here. For he does not have in mind an idle speculation, but such a knowledge in which we acknowledge the wrath of God against sin and are truly terrified. And these terrors truly become eternal death in those who are not raised up by the Gospel. Therefore the meaning is: We are not just in the sight of God through the Law; we do not merit remission of sins. Moreover, when consciences are terrified, they cannot find peace through the Law, which accuses us more and more and drives us to despair, as he says elsewhere [Rom. 7:13]: '"'That sin might become exceedingly sinful and harmful,' that is, killing by these terrors. From this it clearly follows that there is need for another word for comfort and justification.
21-22. Now indeed the righteousness of God has been manifested without the Law Above he made an approach to the principal proposition, for he said that all men are guilty of sin and subject to the wrath of God, neither can they be set free from sin through the Law. Now there follows the principal proposition which is the point at issue in this controversy. This must be diligently kept in mind also because of the greatness of the cause. For this proposition contains the real and chief statement of the Gospel about the benefit of Christ, and because to this issue in this controversy, as to the chief point, the arguments will thereafter have to be addressed.
In propositions, clarity is required most of all. Therefore Paul sets down the proposition accurately, properly, and clearly. But his way of expressing it must be considered, and the weight of the words must be observed: ''Justice of God,'' namely, by means of which he justifies us, that is, acceptance or remission of sins and imputation of righteousness. The meaning is: Now it has been manifested how God justifies; how he wants to pronounce righteous and remit sins and accept us.
He says: ''Without Law.'' This seems absurd to the world. Therefore this little word must be diligently considered. For it shows what the Gospel really is, and what is the distinction between Law and Gospel. For the world has political ideas about Christ. It thinks he is a new lawgiver, bringing a new law somewhat more agreeable than the Mosaic law because it abolishes
s Romans 3
ceremonies which were not suitable for all people and teaches many things about love. Then they gather the laws which Christ added to the Mosaic laws and imagine that by observing these laws men merit remission of sins and are righteous, and they interpret ''without law'' to mean ''without ceremonies."'
This error must be removed from the minds, for Christ did not come in order to bring a law. Neither is he a Moses or a Solomon, since he has a much greater office. He is the sacrificial victim for sin, and he gives us remission of sins gratis, also imputation of righteousness, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life. Therefore when Paul says ''without law'' he is speaking of the whole Law and means that Christ brings remission of sins and imputation of righteousness not on account of any law, nor on account of ceremonies, nor on account of moral works, but gratis. And we must know that this statement does not pertain to civil life or to external morals, but to the conscience acting in the sight of God and seeking how it may obtain forgiveness of sins and reconciliation. From this the difference between Law and Gospel becomes much clearer, because it shows that in the Gospel there is announced a gratuitous benefit, not depending on a condition of law or our merit.
This passage must be opposed not only to the Anabaptists (who imagine that the Gospel is a new, worldly state constitution) but is also to be held fast in the struggle of the conscience, so we may truly understand that the benefit of Christ is gratuitous. Therefore the meaning is: "'Righteousness has been manifested without Law,"' that is, we receive remission of sins and are accounted righteous not on account of any law, but gratis, on account of Christ, through mercy. For although new obedience is begun in those who have been justified by faith nevertheless this new obedience, or the Law, is not the reason we receive remission of sins and are accounted righteous or accepted.
Truly, these are given gratis, on account of Christ.
23. They come short of the glory of God They lack the glory which God approves. They lack the righteousness which God judges to be glory. Or, if someone prefers to interpret actively, the meaning.will be the same: They lack the glory of God, that is, the wisdom and righteousness which glorifies God, that is, which truly gives the glory to God, knows him, loves him, and presents perfect obedience. They lack the glory of God, that is, the light by which God is acknowledged and glorified.
The repetition of the statement is universal. It teaches that all men are guilty of sin and under the wrath of God, that they lack the glory, that is, they are rejected before God, and they are not righteous on account of the Law. This also must be observed: he makes the righteousness of the Law small, including those most holy acts of worship which the Jews thought were certainly the
Commentary on Romans glory of God. He teaches that this outward righteousness is not the glory of God because it is not knowledge and glorification of God.
24a. We are justified gratis — This means we receive remission of sin and are accounted righteous, that is, accepted, and joined to this accounting is the gift of the Holy Spirit and acceptance to life eternal. We must include these things when we dispute about justification: remission of sins and imputation of righteousness—that is, acceptance—joined to which is the gift of the Holy Spirit and acceptance to life eternal. Paul's description is clear when he says
"gratis, by grace,"'
' that is, through mercy. Here he shows clearly that he is speaking about a different kind of righteousness than the righteousness of the Law or of our work. For he excludes the condition of the Law or of merit, and testifies that we are justified gratis, not on account of any worthiness of our own or because of our works.
24b. Through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus Because God, angered at sin, required a different sacrificial victim, Paul says ''through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.'' And here our minds shrink back and think first about the wrath of God against sin, then about the greatness of the mercy, because both are here set forth. The world does not see the greatness of the wrath of God against sin, and says that sin is an unimportant thing. But here let us learn that the wrath is so great that no sacrificial victim could placate God, save only the death of his Son. Carnal security is a dreadful sin in those who persevere in sins and despise the wrath of God. Secondly, so great is the mercy that the Father gave his Son for us, and by giving such a pledge wanted us to be sure about the mercy. How great is the blasphemy to transfer the glory of the Son of God to human works and to invent other sacrifices such as satisfactions, Masses, monkery, etc.
25a. The Reconciler He tells? in the description of the office of Christ that he is the sacrificial victim, the propitiator, etc. And indeed the term propitiator is a title signifying that the benefit which has been promised on account of this propitiator is sure because Christ was not made propitiator in vain. But why does he add
'through faith''? This little word must be diligently observed because he is now speaking about the application, that we may know how we receive the benefit of Christ.
2 The text here has commoratur, which could perhaps mean "he lingers,'' but we prefer to read commemoratur, and have translated accordingly.
Romans 3
25b. By faith Our adversaries also confess that Christ is the mediator and propitiator.
But this very thing they afterward change and corrupt. For they say nothing about the application, neither do they teach one should make use of that Christ the mediator. And first, they say nothing at all about this faith, that is, about trust in the mediator. They do not teach that Christ, the mediator, should be used; rather, they command the conscience to doubt. This doubting clearly militates against the faith which Paul here demands. Secondly, they imagine that Christ is a propitiator only so far as the chance for merit is concerned, as when the head of a family, angry with a servant, is placated by some friend. There the friend procures access to the master for the servant. Thereafter he has no business there, but the servant pleases because of his own service. They give to Christ only this, that He merited this beginning and chance for us to merit.
Thus they themselves say that Christ merited a first grace. Afterward they bury Him and imagine that He is idle, and that people merit remission of sins and are righteous because of their own fulfillment of the Law, etc.
On the contrary, we rightly understand that Christ always remains the mediator and must be applied to in faith, that is, it must be stated that we are pleasing to God not on account of our worthiness or fulfillment of the Law, but on account of Christ. We ought not oppose our virtues to the judgment of God, but Christ, the sacrificial victim and propitiator. Paul speaks expressly of the application below when he says [Rom. 5:2] "'through whom we have access by faith to this grace,'' as though he said, ''we approach God if we use Christ, the mediator, if by faith we flee to this propitiator and think that we are forgiven because of him."'
25c. This was to show God's righteousness The meaning will be clearer if the form of the speech is changed: *'For showing his righteousness,"' that is, that God would declare that he himself is the one who justifies. It is an antithesis. Above he accuses all and says that we are not righteous even when we have the works of the law. But now in Christ, God reveals his righteousness, that is, that he himself is the one who will justify in the way He promised in the promises, that he will give a new righteousness, a new and eternal life, that he will renew the human race by abolishing sin and death. This new righteousness and life he now reveals in the Gospel.
25d. On account of the remission This is a definition of the preceding work, for it explains what he has called '"'his righteousness.'' If you change the verbs it will be clearer: *"That
Commentary on Romans he may declare that he is the one who will justify, namely, through the forgiveness of sins.'' Thus he sets down a definition, and, if I may express it thus, the formal principle of justification. For in reality justification is the remission of sins on account of Christ, joined to which is the gift of the Holy
Spirit, etc. And remission of sins is to be understood not only of actual transgressions but also of the natural impurity. Therefore justification is to be declared righteous not on account of our virtues, but by God remitting sins and accepting the unclean and unworthy through mercy on account of Christ. Thus he elsewhere defines justification to be the remission of sins.
''Blessed are those who sins are forgiven' [Rom. 4:7].
25e. Of past sins They say that this little word was added in order that we may know that license to sin is not given us in the Gospel, but that we may know that sins are forgiven to those who repent, in whom sin is being mortified. However, it does not follow from this that those who fall after they are forgiven cannot again find forgiveness if they repent again, because always, as often as forgiveness is given, there is forgiveness of the former sins. Therefore the description of present forgiveness is general; it does not exclude remission of later sins.
26. But in my judgment the meaning is simplest if it is understood that these words are set in opposition to the Law, as if he said: **Sin ruled until now.'' The Law did not abolish sin and death, but through this faith in Christ sin which was present or ruled until now is now abolished. For Paul is speaking not only of actual transgressions, but also about original sin. It is as if he said that sin which was present until now is remitted, as he says below [Rom.
5:13]: ''Sin was in the world until the Law came,"' that is, not even the Law abolished sin. Now sin is doubly abolished, namely, by imputation, because the guilt is taken away, and it begins to be abolished and mortified when there are true terrors in repentance, true comfort, and the beginning of a new creature in the heart.
27. Where is boasting?
He adds a call to the proposition. He compares the opposite, namely, what is to be thought about merit. Boasting here really means confidence in merit, or merit itself.
This passage is an outstanding confirmation of our interpretation. It shows clearly that Paul wants the same thing which we interpret, and teaches that the opinions of the monks about merit are false. They imagine that one receives remission of sins because of merits, not gratis. They abolish the teaching
Romans 3
about faith, as when they teach "'If there is sufficient contrition it will merit forgiveness."' And because we can never say what is sufficient, they command people to doubt. Finally, they imagine that a person pleases God by fulfilling the Law, etc.
This is the sum total of the imagination of the monks, which Paul openly condemns when he says, **Boasting is excluded by the law of faith,'' that is, the doctrine about faith teaches that remission is given gratis, not on account of merits, and that it is given equally to those who believe, whether they be
Jews or Gentiles, that is, to those who do not have the works of the Law.
This equalization, as has already often been said, terrifies the carnally secure and comforts the fearful.
It also must be observed that when Paul wholly excludes boasting, he certainly also takes away the condition of merit in reconciliation from moral works. For if forgiveness were given on account of moral works, there would still be boasting. There would be something that would merit forgiveness of sins. Likewise, when he sets faith in opposition to our worthiness, he also takes away boasting. It is sufficiently clear that he understands faith as trust in gratuitous mercy.
The law of works signifies a teaching which requires works and teaches that men are righteous on account of works. The law of faith, on the contrary, signifies a doctrine which speaks of faith, that is, teaches that men are righteous not on account of their own worthiness or fulfillment of the Law or works, but by trust in the mercy promised on account of Christ. For faith does not mean the natural law or the Decalogue, as some falsely interpret, but signifies trust in the mercy promised because of Christ, which Paul opposes to our worthiness. For he is arguing about whether reconciliation is achieved on account of our works or on account of Christ, through mercy, gratis.
Therefore faith does not signify some law, but relates to the promise, and is trust which lays hold of the promised mercy.
28-30. Therefore we judge that a man is justified by faith, without the works of the Law To his-addition he attaches the conclusion in which he briefly repeats the content Of the proposition and again inculcates the exclusive, in order that the meaning may be more certain. To be justified signifies to receive forgiveness of sins and be declared righteous, that is, accepted to eternal life.
Joined to this acceptance is the gift of the Holy Spirit. Faith signifies confidence in the mercy promised because of Christ. Therefore the meaning is:
'"'We declare that a person receives forgiveness of sins and is accounted righteous before God on account of Christ, through mercy, not on account of the Law."' And this mercy must be accepted by faith.
Commentary on Romans Furthermore, our adversaries mutilate this statement and interpret only that ceremonies are excluded: ''Without the works of the Law,"' that is, without ceremonies. Thereafter they imagine that a person receives remission of sins and is accounted righteous on account of moral works, or, as they say, on account of love, and they understand faith only as knowledge of history. Thus they transfer the benefit of Christ to their own worthiness.
But this interpretation militates against the meaning of Paul, for Paul takes away this glory of merit or of justification from the entire Law, as it clear from what has been said above: **That the whole world may become guilty'' and ''In your sight no man living shall be justified"' [3:19-20]. These statements exclude also moral works from justification. This can be understood easily. Ina real struggle, the conscience is not able to say that sins are forgiven us or that we are accepted on account of our virtues and worthiness. Therefore, another reason must be sought for why we should be accepted, namely, Christ, the mediator.
From this it can readily be understood that Paul is speaking about the entire Law, not only about ceremonies, as he shows also below, where he confirms that justification is taken away from the entire Law. And indeed, he himself singles out the moral law [7:7]: **You shall not covet,' lest there be an ambiguous discussion. Likewise he says in this passage [3:31]: ""'We establish the Law.'' Therefore it is necessary that it be understood of morals.
Likewise, when the word faith is rightly understood, it is sufficiently clear that justification or reconciliation is taken away from the entire Law, because to be justified by faith is to be accounted righteous by trust in mercy, not on account of our worthiness. Thus this very formula, *'we are justified by faith,"' is opposed to the imagination of those who suppose that people are justified on account of their own worthiness or fulfillment of the moral law. Therefore he excludes also morals from the cause of justification, because no one satisfies the moral law. However, he does not exclude moral works from the effect of justification, for it is necessary that the beginning of a new obedience follow justification.
31. Do we make the Law void?
This concern is necessary because when everyone hears this new proclamation—that men are accounted just through mercy, not on account of the Law—ask they immediately whether license to sin is thereby given. They ask whether the Law has been abrogated in order that license to sin may be granted.
Paul answers that the Law is not abolished by faith, but rather is very much established, that is, fulfilled.
This passage teaches us how to interpret all statements about works of the Law, such as this: "'If you want to enter into life, keep the command-
Romans 3
ments' [Lev. 18:5; Prov. 7:2; Mt. 19:17], and similar statements. For here Paul testifies that to the Law there must be added the Gospel about faith.
Therefore let these two rules be held fast: Without faith it is impossible to keep the Law. Likewise: By faith the Law is kept and pleases God; by faith obedience is begun and pleases.
The prior rule—it is impossible that the Law be kept without faith—may be understood in two ways. First, of spiritual obedience: When pious hearts feel the wrath of God, then they doubt, flee from God, despair, do not love
God, and do not call on him. But when a conscience raised up by faith has come to know the mercy set forth to faith, it begins to love and to call upon God according to the words of Paul [Rom. 5:2]: ''Through faith we have access to God.'' Secondly, it may be understood of acceptance. The things done by a person without faith do not please God without faith. From this it can be clearly understood that the Law cannot be kept without faith. When good works are praised, this must be understood in such a way that we remember that the Gospel of Christ must be included and that we know faith is necessary for keeping the Law, and that the Law without faith does not please God.
The second rule may also be understood in a two-fold way. The Law is kept by faith, first, because faith is the spiritual impulse by which we acknowledge the mercy of God set forth in Christ. Therefore it provides the knowledge of God, love and other good impulses, calling on God, etc. Likewise, the Holy Spirit is received by faith. He arouses good impulses and the new obedience in the hearts. Secondly, the Law pleases God because of faith, that is, although we do not satisfy the Law, nevertheless, because we are in Christ, the new obedience now pleases, and whatever is lacking is forgiven believers because of Christ.
This understanding is necessary in order that consciences may layhold of firm consolation and may acknowledge God's unspeakable mercy which approves of the beginning obedience, in which there is very much both weakness and obedience. Thus Paul says here ''We establish the Law,"' that is, we fulfill it by faith, both because consciences that have found peace by faith acknowledge God, love and call on Him, and because the obedience which has been begun would not please God unless we had been reconciled by faith.