Chapter 4
Chapter 4 1-17. What shall we say our father Abraham found?
There follows the proof, in which the arguments must be ordered carefully and referred to Paul's purpose. For these not only confirm the proposition, but also add much light to it. For they clearly teach, fortify, comfort, and lift up our consciences when they are in fear about the forgiveness of sins and about grace. For they show the sources of this question, and learnedly distinguish the promise of the Gospel from the Law, and distinguish between the righteousness of the Law and that of the Gospel.
Moreover, Paul here as nowhere else refutes and rejects the righteousness of the Law in a wonderful manner. One must prudently see where this discussion is headed. He is asking about righteousness before God—whether our righteousness can be set in opposition to the terrors of sin, of the wrath and judgment of God; whether we receive forgiveness of sins on account of our own worthiness; whether our own worthiness can set us free from sin and death; whether in a real struggle our conscience ought to rest on our own worthiness, or indeed on the mercy promised because of Christ. To this debate must be referred these belittlements of the righteousness of the Law, not to carnally secure consciences or to external or civil life. For the Gospel preaches about spiritual and eternal life. It preaches about true repentance and liberates from sin and death. Outward life has need of discipline and Law. But the argument here is not about this external life.
Paul speaks first expressly about Abraham, who possessed many outstanding and heroic virtues, and without doubt excelled all men of that age in gifts of the mind, in wisdom, and every kind of virtue. Paul does not despise these great virtues and gifts of God, but denies that they could offset the wrath and judgment of God. He distinguishes them from that righteousness about which the Gospel speaks, namely, from the forgiveness of sins which is given on account of Christ.
The inexperienced should be reminded of those things in the beginning so they may know where the teaching of Paul belongs, and where this new belittling of the righteousness of the Law is to be applied. For profane people transfer it to the outward life. Afterward certain interpreters, since they dream that Paul is speaking about external life and righteousness, corrupt the statements of Paul and think that he is only urging that the Mosaic ceremonies
Romans 4
should be excluded from the external life. They do not apply this teaching to the forgiveness of sins and the struggle of the conscience.
There are five arguments. The first is from an example. Abraham was justified before God by trust in mercy, not on account of his virtues. Therefore we also are justified by faith. The conclusion is plain, because the relationship of virtues is the same. If Abraham, although he had so many outstanding and heroic virtues, was not righteous on their account before God, how much less will inferior virtues in others accomplish this?
The second argument is from the definition. Justification is the gratuitous imputation of righteousness. Therefore, we are not justified on account of our quality or worthiness, etc.
The third argument is from the definition. Justification is the remission of sins. Therefore, it does not come to us on account of our worthiness because we always have need of the remission of sins.
The fourth is from the order of causes and effects. Abraham is pronounced righteous before circumcision. Therefore, he is not righteous on account of this work.
The fifth is from the cause of the promise. A promise that depends on a condition of the Law is not certain. Therefore, the promise of grace does not depend on a condition of the Law, but must be accepted gratis, by faith.
The First Argument The first argument from the example of Abraham must be diligently inculcated in the minds. For although it strangely offends the Jews, this excessive belittling of the righteousness of the Law brings the richest comfort to pious and fearful consciences. And we should always remember that his preaching does not pertain to the outward life, but to the remission of sins in true repentance.
And here let us diligently magnify the virtues of Abraham. For there is no doubt that this heroic man had outstanding virtues, that he in morals and holy works far outstripped many. Nevertheless Paul dares to take away from him the glory of justification. He has praise, Paul says, but not before God, that is, those virtues cannot be set in opposition to the wrath and judgment of God; they do not set free from sin and death. This example brings great comfort to the godly. Not even Abraham was justified on account of the worthiness of his own virtues. Therefore we declare truly that we are forgiven gratis.
Having set down the negative statement, he adds the antithesis from Gen.
15, which is the antecedent of the argument. It was counted for righteousness to Abraham that he believed. Therefore we also are justified by faith, not on account of our works or by the Law.
Commentary on Romans Some mock this argument in many ways. Some say it is a synecdoche.
Believing, they say, is a work signifying obedience as such. Abraham believed, that is, he obeyed God (according to a synecdoche) because obedience must follow faith.Therefore, they say, obedience, as such, is signified by faith.
Others say this statement is badly distorted, because Genesis does not mention Christ or this faith which accepts the remission of sins. It is useful to refute these mockeries in order that the meaning of the words in Genesis may be better understood.
This must be noted first: Paul with this statement from Genesis is distinguishing between the righteousness of the law and the righteousness of faith. It is necessary that this statement about faith be properly understood.
Likewise, Paul adds the interpretation that the gratuitous imputation is accepted by faith. Here he actually understands faith as assent and confidence by which we accept the promised mercy, that is, by which we declare that God truly wants to forgive us and be propitious through mercy, gratis, even if we feel that we are unworthy.
The meaning is ''he believed,' that is, he was sure he had a gracious God, although he felt that he was unworthy, and in this confidence he expected help and the promised Seed, etc. Thus he was justified by faith, that is, he was pleasing gratis, through mercy, not on account of his own worthiness.
He was sure of this by this faith, according to the promise, because God had said: '*I will be your protector.
. '' [Gen. 15:1]. Abraham knew the promise made about the coming Seed, by whom God wanted to do away with sin and death. Therefore we must not invent the synecdoche. Abraham was justified on account of his knowledge of the Word, and on account of his morals that agreed with his teaching and profession. Faith does not rest on the worthiness of one's own virtues, but only looks at mercy. I call attention briefly to these things about the first sophistry in order that the simple and true meaning of the verb '"'he believed'' may be retained.
The second sophistry: The subject of Paul is distorted, because Genesis does not seem in that passage to be speaking about faith in Christ, but about the expectation of a bodily thing, namely, posterity. To this sophistry I answer:
Faith is trust in the promised mercy because of Christ, and this trust causes the conscience to be at peace and overcomes the terrors of sin. Therefore the proper object of faith is the promised mercy. Faith always looks first at this object, even though afterward other external things are asked for or expected.
In this way, in all statements about faith, it should first be understood that a faith is included which accepts the remission of sins. Thereafter faith also revolves around other, external objects.
The faith of Moses at the Red Sea revolved about the defense of the
Romans 4
people. Meanwhile he was certain that he had a gracious God; therefore he expected liberation.
The faith of Jacob, Gen. 28, revolved around the expectation of food and of a return. This he could neither have asked nor expected of God unless he had first been certain that he had a gracious God.
As often as we ask for daily bread, we are sure at the same time that God is gracious because of Christ. This faith which accepts the forgiveness of sins is required in every prayer.
Although external matters differ, the first and chief object, namely, the promised mercy, is the same in all promises and in every exercise of faith.
Since faith has this chief object, Paul is quoting this statement correctly.
Furthermore, the patriarchs knew the first promise of Christ, and knew that all promises must be related to this one—that all things are given because of this Seed, on account of which God is gracious. Indeed, Abraham knew that the promise itself properly pertained to the Seed who was to come, that is, Christ.
The third sophistry: To this testimony quoted from Genesis they oppose another passage about Abraham from Gen. 22 [:16—17]: "'Because you have done this thing, and have not spared your son, I will bless you.'' From this they argue: Abraham is praised on account of a work; therefore, he was justified because of a work, not by faith alone.
I answer briefly: The conclusion must be denied. Although a work by a believer has its praise, is necessary obedience, and becomes righteousness, it nevertheless does not possess worth so that a person may have remission of sins on account of the work itself and be righteous, that is, accepted to eternal life before God. It is necessary that a person first have forgiveness of sins and justification. Afterward, the obedience which has been begun is found pleasing, and is worship of God. First, because we have access through Christ
[Rom. 5:2]. Likewise, all that is not of faith is sin [Rom. 14:23]. Second, because consciences would become uncertain if forgiveness of sins depended on the worthiness of works. Therefore, it is necessary that a person first have faith.
And these things can easily be judged in a true struggle, because the conscience cannot oppose the wrath or judgment of God according to the saying [Rom. 3:20]: ''No man living shall be justified in your sight.'' Neither did Abraham set his work in opposition to the judgment of God. Rather, in the very work he recognized his weakness and overcame it by faith, and declared that he certainly pleased God through something else, namely, through the promised mercy. Nevertheless, obedience in a believer afterward pleases God, and has great rewards. For this text does not say that Abraham
Commentary on Romans was therefore justified, but bodily rewards were promised to him, although also in these there is repeated to him the promise of Christ.
Therefore both passages in Genesis must be learned. The one teaches simply about the imputation of righteousness, the other about the praise and rewards of obedience which arises from faith and has very great rewards.
Therefore one must distinguish where Genesis teaches about justification and judge where it teaches about the obedience which follows.
The Second Argument Justification is the gratuitous imputation of mercy, so justification is not our work. The antecedent is that of Paul, for Paul is occupied with the word impute, and he interprets it of gratuitous imputation. He opposes it to what is owed.
The way of speaking must be observed. As our adversaries now use the word merit, so Paul uses the correlative word debitus (something owed). As he takes away debt, so also he takes away merit in justification and clearly declares that an imputation is made not on account of debt or merit, but that it is gratuitous and is accepted by faith.
The Third Argument This is a clarification and confirmation of the second argument. Justification is remission of sins, so justification is not made on account of our worthiness or merits.
This argument greatly clarifies Paul's statement about gratuitous imputation, or exclusive [justification exclusively by grace; see on 3:27, 28-30 above]. For Sadoletus and others imagine a synecdoche: We are justified by faith, that is, by faith we acquire virtues; on account of these we please God.
But these men are imagining. Paul excludes this merit and says that we are sinners in the sight of God, and so are accounted righteous by the remission of sins.
This is the true meaning of Paul. We are reputed righteous on account of mercy because of Christ, not on account of our worthiness, and this mercy must be accepted by faith. This understanding retains the exclusive and takes away the synecdoche.
As for the rest, this must be known, that connected with imputation and the remission of sins is the gift of the Holy Spirit when we accept the Word by faith. How great is this comfort for godly consciences—to know that justification is the remission of sins! Therefore we are not scared off by the fact that we bring to God sins, not merits. Rather, we know that this is the voice of the Gospel, the eternal will of the Father, and the unchangeable benefit of Christ, that He truly wants to justify us although we are unworthy
Romans 4
and bring sins, provided only that we believe. And here note again that the exclusive is repeated: *'To whom God imputes righteousness without works''
[Rom. 4:6].
But our adversaries mock this passage in this manner: Other passages ascribe blessedness to works: **Blessed is the man who fears the Lord''[Ps.
112:1]; *'Blessed are the merciful'' [Mt. 5:7]; etc. Therefore, we can argue similarly that we are justified on account of our works, as Paul argues on the basis of a Psalm that we are justified by the remission of sins.
I answer: The conclusion must be denied, because in all passages about works there must be included the passage: *'Blessed are those whose sins are forgiven' [Ps. 32:1], because works are not pleasing except in a believer or a righteous person. Therefore Paul cites this passage most correctly, since it speaks about the remission of sins which is gratuitous.
But someone may say: Why do you make a synecdoche in passages about works and not in passages about faith? I answer: Because works are not pleasing except in a believer or a righteous person. Therefore in passages about works we include faith. In passages about faith there is no synecdoche, because it receives remission of sins through mercy and does not rest on the worthiness of works. Instead, it would become uncertain and be driven out if it depended on the worthiness of works or on merit. Therefore it is gratis in order that the promise may be firm. Moreover, as often as it is said that works please because of faith, justification is by that very fact taken away from works, because faith does not rest on works, but is trust in mercy alone.
And this says that a person must first be reconciled by faith; thereafter works please.
Ps. 31 [32:1]: ''Blessed are those whose ...
"' is a teaching and a confession in which the Psalm sets before us an example of doctrine. Thereafter in the third place it adds the doctrine of the Law about discipline and about the causes of human calamities.
In the beginning it hands down a teaching or proclamation which contains two parts, namely, the teaching that all are under sin, and the promise that God wants to remit sins. It teaches how he remits, how he justifies, namely, gratis, not imputing sins, etc.
Therefore the proposition is: ''Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven'' [Ps. 32:1], that is: In this way we are righteous: not on account of our worthiness or merits, but by God not imputing, by God remitting our sins. Therefore all men have sin, and God is able to impute sin to all; all ought to acknowledge that they have sin. Therefore he says: *'Neither is there guilt in his spirit'? [Ps. 32:2], that is, he who acknowledges and confesses his sin, ''He is blest'' [Ps. 32:2], etc. Therefore we are accounted righteous in this way: when we acknowledge and confess that we have sins and believe that they are remitted to us through mercy because of Christ.
Commentary on Romans Then there follows his confession, which is an example of his proposed proclamation. ''When I kept silence, my bones waxed old.
*' [Ps. 32:3] He opposes keeping silent to confession. Confession is to acknowledge sin, and to seek and believe in remission. That is what he intends when he says:
'*T said, I will confess against myself my injustice to the Lord'' [Ps. 32:5].
To keep silence, on the other hand, is to feel sin and not to seek and believe in gratuitous remission, but to remain in doubt and fears, or to seek comfort through works, as some do by becoming monks, others through other works.
Thus he says: "'I remained in fears, and was nearly consumed"' [Ps. 32:4].
He adds this about confession, in which he teaches clearly that God remits sins, and indeed remits them to him who confesses, not to him who brings the righteousness of the Law. Therefore he remits them gratis.
He transfers this example to others: *'For this every saint has prayed to you'' [Ps. 32:6] that is, also saints acknowledge that they have sins and ask and believe that they are forgiven. Therefore the remission is gratuitous. By this faith they are saved and are not overwhelmed by the floods. They are not oppressed by terrors. You see that the doctrines of repentance and remission are connected. He does not promise remission to the carnally secure and to persons who do not grieve, but to those who at the same time have repentance and terrors.
He adds a sermon to the people of the Law, whom he exhorts to repentance: "'Do not become like a horse and mule"' [Ps. 32:9], that is, acknowledge the wrath of God against sin. And he adds concerning the punishment of sin:
God burdens the world with calamities and death, and coerces and punishes, also in order that He may humble us, that we may acknowledge our sin [cf.
Ps. 32:10]. Thus all disasters in the world are part of the Law, and divine proclamations, which testify that the world is subject to sin, and that God is angry at sin.
He opposes this statement to human judgments. For people think calamities happen by chance and without the counsel of God; or by an unjust judgment of God. But the prophet here proclaims and teaches divinely revealed wisdom, that they happen with the knowledge and by the ordinance of God in order that God may coerce the wicked and declare his wrath against sin, in order that we may acknowledge our sin and seek grace and liberation in Christ. Moreover, it teaches the saints that although they are afflicted at the same time as the wicked, they are nevertheless saved and will finally be set free from death and all evils.
The Fourth Argument The fourth argument is taken from the order of causes. Abraham is pronounced righteous before circumcision, therefore that work does not merit
Romans 4 Ns} remission of sins or justification. This is an important argument because it contains a combination of justification (or reconciliation) and the works that follow. Furthermore, it teaches about the use of the sacraments.
First, however, the sophistry must be refuted. When Paul mentions a ceremony he seems to have taken away justification only from ceremonies.
To this we must answer: In the case of Abraham, David, and similar ones, ceremonies had a command from God, just as other good works. Therefore there is here no reason for a difference. If other works commanded by God were meriting remission of sins and justification, then ceremonies together with these did merit this, because they were outstanding works of the First
Table. Therefore when Paul takes away merit from ceremonies, he takes it away also from other works.
Second, this topic contains a useful combination of faith and the works that follow. Abraham received remission of sins by faith, and thus, having been justified, his person pleases God. Afterward there follows his obedience.
This, in such a person, now has great praise.
Thus David first accepts remission of sins by faith and becomes a son.
Afterward the deeds done bravely by him as a soldier, his diligence in ruling, his patience in afflictions, and other virtues are pleasing. And yet he does not oppose these to the judgment of God. He knows that they do not satisfy the Law, that they do not please on account of his perfection, but because he believes that he has a gracious God through mercy, on account of the promised Seed, as he says [Ps. 116:12]: ""What can I pay back to the Lord
.. 2° Thus in a believer good works now become sacrifices and offerings of praise, and have great rewards.
In the third place this topic must be most diligently observed with regard to the use of the sacraments, in order that it may fortify us against Pharisaic opinions about the opus operatum and against Anabaptist imaginings. For by calling circumcision the seal of the righteousness of faith, Paul testifies that the sacraments are signs requiring faith. Therefore, they do not justify without faith, ex opere operato, as the monks were saying.
This passage is teaching the same thing, namely that the sacraments are not just signs of profession before men or symbols of our morals, as the Anabaptists imagine who belittle the sacraments. Truly, the use and the principal purpose of the sacraments is that they are signs of the promise and testimonies concerning the will of God toward ourselves, and they call for faith, just as the promise does.
In Abraham, circumcision was a mark which always reminded him of the promise. It was also a testimony that God would be gracious to him according to the promise. Thus Baptism in our body should remind us of the
Commentary on Romans promise, and ought to testify that God truly wants to impart to us the things which he promised in the Gospel.
The eating of Christ's body and blood is a testimony in ourselves that Christ truly joins us to himself as members, that he truly wants to cleanse us with his blood. Thus the sacraments are to be used in the same way as the Word, and faith is to be aroused and exercised by the sacraments, just as by the Word.
The Fifth Argument The fifth argument is taken from the purpose of the promise. No promise that depends on a condition of law is sure. The promise of grace needs to be sure, so the promise of grace does not depend on a condition of the Law, but is to be accepted gratis, by faith.
This is the principal syllogism which must above all things be treated in this controversy. It is the thing that contains the chief matter of the disputation, taken from the sources or from the topic of causes. It adds much light to this matter it explains what the promise is and what faith is. Likewise, it shows the difference between the promises of the Law and the promise of grace.
Therefore, to understand this controversy, it is necessary to pursue the argument. This will then be most profitable not only for instructing consciences, but also for comforting them. For this topic best explains the little word gratis, and shows why the promise is gratuitous.
Explanation of the Major Premise If the promise depended on a condition of the Law, it would become uncertain. Paul confirms this proposition with the text [Rom. 4:15]: *'Because the Law works wrath,"' that is, the Law always accuses and condemns us because we never satisfy it, because the Law requires not only outward civil deeds, but perfect inner and outer obedience, perfect love of God. No one furnished this, except Christ. The Law accuses and condemns all other, as Paul says [Eph. 2:3]: "'By nature we are all children of wrath.' If the promise had a condition of the Law, the promise of grace would become void since the Law always accuses and condemns. Therefore, Paul states the major premise of the syllogism thus: "'If those who are of the Law were heirs, faith would be abolished and the promise would be void'? [Rom.4:14]. And he adds the confirmation [v. 15]: ''The Law works wrath,'' that is, it condemns and drives to despair. I have stated this confirmation somewhat briefly because he repeats it below where he discusses the use of the Law.
But someone may say: No, the Gospel is certainly conditional, because sins are not remitted unless repentance comes to it, as the text says: ''Repent"'
Romans 4 als) [Mt. 3:2]. Likewise: **Cease from doing evil.' Likewise Christ says: ''If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments"' [Mt. 19:17].
I answer briefly: These requirements are not the condition or cause on account of which reconciliation is given, but they are rather effects which necessarily follow. They cannot be the cause for which remission or reconciliation is given, since sin still clings in the flesh, and concupiscence is not idle, but generates endless evil affects. Therefore forgiveness does not depend on the condition of the Law fulfilled, or to be fulfilled, or of our purity.
Nevertheless, when forgiveness is apprehended by faith, when the beginning of a new and eternal life has been apprehended by faith, it is necessary that the new obedience should now begin, which, although it is imperfect, nevertheless pleases because of Christ. Likewise, since faith frees us from the terrors of sin, there must necessarily be fears in us, but these terrors are not the purchase price or the cause of the forgiveness of sins. But the conscience should be certain that this benefit is given gratis on account of the mediator and high priest, Christ.
But here it could be objected: If conditional promises are invalid, all promises added to works are useless, such as "'Give, and it will be given you' [Luke 6:38]; ''break your bread to the hungry and the Lord will hear you"' [Prov. 25:21], etc.
I answer: The promise of remission of sins and of responsibilities or justification and of eternal life belongs to the Gospel, and is bestowed gratis because of Christ, not on account of a condition of Law or of works. This promise must be diligently distinguished from legal promises which have the condition of works, such as: '*'Give, and it will be given to you"' [Luke 6:38].
''If someone only gives a drink of water.
. he will not lose his reward''[Mk.
9:41]. ''Honor your father and mother, if you want to live long on the earth"'
[Bx..20:12Dent. 5216]:
These promises have a condition of works and are truly useless and invalid without the promise of the Gospel, because the works in themselves do not please God except in those who are reconciled. But after we have been accepted gratis by mercy, the obedience which has been begun thereafter pleases, not-on account of our own purity or worthiness, not because it can be opposed to the judgment of God, not because it satisfies the Law, not because a person is righteous because of it, but because the person is righteous, that is, accepted because of Christ through mercy. Therefore, our works are pleasing afterward because we are sons, as Paul says [Rom. 6:14]: ** You are no longer under the Law, but under grace.'' Although such works are not themselves fulfillment of the Law, nevertheless, since they please because of Christ, they are, as it were, a certain fulfillment of the law. Therefore legal
Commentary on Romans promises, that is, promises with such works added to them, now become valid and useful for those who are reconciled.
This is a useful teaching about the distinction of promises and about the use of legal promises. We can know in what way they are valid, and may also learn to exercise our faith in them. Promises are added to works chiefly for this cause, that we may perform our works in such a way that faith at the same time asks and expects spiritual and bodily blessings which are necessary for the state and for ourselves.
Explanation of the Minor Premise The minor premise of the syllogism is: The promise of grace must be sure and valid. For first of all, what need would there have been of issuing a promise and of revealing forgiveness if there were no forgiveness? There would be none if it depended on a condition of the Law, because the Law is never satisfied. Rather, reconciliation has been revealed because we were not able to acquire it by the Law. And for this very reason the condition of the Law has been removed. Second, doubting in minds brings forth despair, as was said above: ''The Law works wrath'' [Rom. 4:5]. Therefore, it is necessary that the promise be known, sure, and valid for us in order that it may be opposed to doubt and be effective comfort.
We must rebuke the popular opinion which teaches that the conscience ought to be in doubt about the remission of sins and in doubt whether God is gracious to us, and that this doubting is not a sin. Doubt indeed inheres naturally in the minds of everyone. For the darkness is so great that carnally secure minds even despise the wrath of God, and are in doubt about his judgment. And then, when the conscience is worried, it unceasingly accuses and condemns. Therefore, let us confess that doubting inheres in the minds, but we also say that that doubting is a sin, and that doubting must be fought.
For the promise has been revealed for this reason, that it may correct doubting, that we may have a sure and firm comfort, and that we may say certainly that we are forgiven and we are heirs. The Gospel, even as it sets forth a promise, expressly calls for faith that we should believe the promise itself, as John 3 says. Faith is the opposite of doubting. Likewise, doubting accuses
God of lying; it denies that God is truthful, etc. Therefore, we should oppose both the promise and the commandment about faith to doubt, and should learn that doubting is the height of sin.
The scholastics imagined that doubting is not a sin because they saw that it inheres naturally in the minds. Likewise, they did not at all distinguish the Law from the Gospel, neither did they consider the fact that faith is required, or what faith is, because they imagined that faith is knowledge of the Law.
By this teaching about doubting—because they command to doubt—they
e Romans 4
simply abolish the entire Gospel, the promise and command concerning faith.
This impious imagination, which commands doubt, must be rejected.
18-22. Who in hope believed against hope There follows an amplification which illustrates the nature and exercise of faith. What was said above must always be held fast, that faith first embraces the confidence which declares that our sins are forgiven, and that God is propitious to us on account of Christ; and that afterward this faith revolves about other (also exterior) objects, as the faith of Abraham in this promise first regarded the promised Seed on account of which God would bless the human race. Then he goes on and expects the promised posterity.
The faith of Moses lays hold of mercy; afterward he expects the liberation of the people, etc. Thus the exterior objects always vary, and yet there is a common chief object of faith, namely, the mercy promised because of Christ.
Therefore let everyone also stir up his faith in his danger, in his affliction.
I have spoken here to explain the nature of faith, because its object is described first. The proper object of faith is the Word, which fights with the outward appearance, as Abraham is promised the Seed and posterity whom
God wants to bless. Meanwhile, his wife is sterile and he himself was exhausted.
The Gospel promises peace and life. Meanwhile, we are plagued by all kinds of afflictions, and in death life is not visible. Therefore Paul says here:
''In hope Abraham believed against hope."' Against hope, that is, in the Word, in which he needed to hope. Thus faith looks to the Word and sustains itself by the Word, even if the outward appearance is against it.
Liberation was promised to the Israelites. Meanwhile, the severity of their servitude is increased, and other even greater troubles follow. So we also must exercise our faith during our dangers.
I have spoken about the object; now I shall speak about the formal side of faith. And this subject shows clearly that what Paul calls faith is trust which assents to the promise of the Gospel and fights against doubt. Faith does not mean knowledge of the Law, or merely a knowledge of history. It signifies assent to the. promise, not doubt that God will carry out His promise.
This subject must also be observed in order that it may be opposed to those who deny that faith is confidence which fights against doubt. Four descriptions are placed here expressly. Mistrust did not harbor doubt concerning the promise; it was certain. Likewise, it gave glory to God, etc. Thus
Paul above puts together faith and the promise, and shows that they are interconnected like correlatives. It is certain that with Paul faith signifies trust which assents to the promise of the Gospel, and which accepts the promised forgiveness of sins and reconciliation. There is no doubt that Paul is speaking
Commentary on Romans about a faith which accomplishes something in the midst of terrors of conscience and comforts consciences, as he says below: **'Having been justified by faith, we have peace' [Rom. 5:1]. Furthermore, this comfort is not brought about by knowledge of the Law, or by the knowledge of only history, but by trust in the promise which fights against doubt.
All things are full of darkness and fog in the Christian doctrine where this proper meaning of the word faith has been lost. These passages in Paul should be carefully observed in order that one may be able to judge and establish for certain what faith really signifies, and to beat back the twaddle of those who deny that faith is confidence which fights against doubt, but imagine that it is only a knowledge of history.
Let us also transfer to our own use this description here set forth, and learn that this is the true exercise of faith—to fight against the natural doubt and mistrust, and to oppose to it the Word or promise, and to ask and expect that we may be strengthened by God. As the man says in Mark 9[:24]: "'I believe, Lord; help my unbelief."'
In the third place Paul adorns faith on account of its ultimate purpose.
For after he described it according to its essence and its nature, he adds the outstanding commendation that it is an act of worship that gives glory to God, that is, it affirms that God is powerful and true, because not assenting to the promise doubts whether it is true, yes, denies that it is true. Therefore it accuses God of lying, as John says: ''Whoever does not believe God makes him a liar'' [1 John 5:10]. On the other hand, one who assents to the promise declares that God is true, powerful, etc.
And in order that it may be even better understood that without this faith no glory is given to God, the antithesis must be considered. Reason either has Epicurean opinions about God—that he is idle, neither punishing nor saving (this is the first insult described in the Psalm [14:1]: *'The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God' *'). Or reason holds opinions of the Law about God, namely, that God saves the righteous, and because we are not righteous, he will reject us. This is also the second insult, because he who thinks thus about God flees from God and rages against God. Those who judge thus about God do not call upon God. They expect nothing from God.
Therefore they do not acknowledge that he is God.
On the other hand, he who believes the promise of grace rejects Epicurean opinions and opinions of the Law, and gives the glory to God that he truly cares for us and loves us, that he does not want us to perish, but wants to hear and save us according to his promise, even though we are unworthy.
With this faith a person calls upon God and expects from God help and salvation. Therefore this faith gives glory to God, that he is God, that he is powerful, that is, efficacious, doing something with us, that he is true, that
Romans 4
he is merciful, that he hears, and that he saves. This is the glory that belongs to God, and this faith promotes calling on God and true spiritual acts of worship.
Here it is necessary that the hearers be warned about those who are adversaries of the doctrine of faith, and who boast that they are teachers of good works. These men arrogate this praise to themselves falsely because they teach only external and civil works. Meanwhile, they do not teach true and inward acts of worship, namely, the exercises of faith and calling on God. These works are the proper works of Christians. It is about these chiefly that the churches must be taught.
Second, when the doctrine of faith is omitted, then other works do not please God, nor can consciences understand how they may please. Therefore such teachers who omit this doctrine of faith by no means teach about good works, but about certain works of their own which are rejected by God. Since they propose these as worship and transfer to them the honor owed to Christ, they teach idolatrous works. Here belong those speeches in the Prophets, as Is. 41 [:29]: **Behold, they are all a delusion; their works are nothing; their molten images are empty wind."'
Therefore in the true doctrine about good works we should consider that first of all faith and the exercises of faith are required. They are the acts of worship which really give glory to God and allow us to practice calling on God in all of life and in all matters. Thus faith itself will grow, and God will give other gifts such as he promises: *"'How much more will your Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask'' [Luke 11:13]. From that, other good works will come into existence.
23-25. It was not written for him alone that it was imputed to him This is an outstanding passage, and contains two things. The first is that this righteousness about which it speaks was revealed from heaven; it is not known to reason or from the Law. Second, the example of the justification of Abraham pertains to all. Both subjects contain important teaching.
The first, about revelation, shows the distinction between the righteousness of the Law and that which is by imputation, and leads us to the Word and promise. It clearly teaches the same thing which John teaches when he says [John 1:8]: ''The Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has told it to us,'' because neither reason nor the Law teaches or makes us certain that God forgives sins—and that to the unworthy—and that he pronounces people righteous, although they do not satisfy the Law. This promise (which is Gospel) about remission of sins and imputation of righteousness has been divinely revealed, and has a different meaning from the teaching of the Law and reason. one must carefully note here what he says: "'It has been written
Commentary on Romans that it is imputed,'' as though he said: ''This will about imputation is not known to reason like the Law, but is a different pronouncement and a new revelation."
, This also must be considered—that it leads us to the Word. It does not want us to seek other enlightenments, but wants us to begin with the Word and comfort consciences with the Word, and declare that this is the sure and valid will of God which is set forth in the Word. Anabaptist and Manichaean imaginings, which seek enlightenments without the Word of God and outside the Word of God, must be rejected.
Second, this contains outstanding comfort. He here transfers the example of Abraham to all, and teaches first that Abraham is a model of the people of God, so we may know that the others are accounted righteous, even as he was justified.
It is most lovely to see that he makes all people the equals of Abraham as far as the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of righteousness is concerned. For there is a difference of gifts. All should know that they are loved and accounted righteous as God testifies that he loves and justifies Abraham.
Testimonies of true and great love are revealed concerning him in order that we may know that we are similarly loved and heard. This passage in Paul must be applied so as to transfer the example of Abraham to us.
That which we have often said should be inculcated in consciences should be referred to this passage—that the promises are universal. Since this is so,
God commands and teaches that all should believe that they are equally loved and accounted righteous.
Finally, it is not enough just to speak about faith or trust in the promise.
It is necessary to embrace the mediator. Paul says that it is imputed to those who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus, who was delivered for our offenses and raised again for our justification. Here again you have an argument that faith does not signify knowledge of the Law or only of history, but signifies trust which lays hold of the imputation made on account of Christ, the mediator, who suffered and now reigns.
Paul distinguishes death and resurrection, and when mention is made of resurrection, the reign of Christ and his priesthood should be understood. We belong to Christ because Christ, our high priest, makes intercession for us with the Father and accounts us righteous [cf. Rom. 8:34, Heb. 7:25]. Likewise, because Christ lives and reigns, he gives the Holy Spirit and makes alive, frees from wrath and eternal death, and raises the dead. And faith apprehends both and applies them to us, namely the death of Christ and the resurrected mediator, high priest, and giver of life. It apprehends the death of Christ in order that it may hold fast to the sacrificial victim, it declares to be the sure ransom of our sins, because God wanted some victim for sin.
a Romans 4
And indeed he is so angry at sin that no sacrifice placated him except the death of his Son. This testifies both that the wrath of God against sin is unspeakable, and that his mercy toward us is infinite he made his Son the sacrificial victim for us.
Not only the death of Christ must be apprehended, but also that our high priest with the Father has been raised again, that he truly hears us, is truly efficacious, truly gives life, gives the Holy Spirit, helps us, frees us from eternal death, will raise the dead, and will give new and everlasting life, wisdom, and righteousness. Paul has included all these things when he says,
'"He rose again for our justification."