Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans John Calvin
John Calvin
He mentions first two kinds — uncleanness and iniquity; the former of which is opposed to chastity and holiness, the other refers to injuries hurtful to our neighbour. But he repeats iniquity twice, and in a different sense: by the first he means plunders, frauds, perjuries, and every kind of wrong; by the second, the universal corruption of life, as though he had said, "Ye have prostituted your members so as to perpetrate all wicked works, and thus the kingdom of iniquity became strong in you" 199 By righteousness I understand the law or the rule of a holy life, the design of which is sanctification, as the case is when the faithful devote themselves to serve God in purity.
Romans 6:20-23
Romans 6:20-23
20. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 20. Quando enim servi fuistis peccati, liberi fuistis justitiæ. 21. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
21. Quem ergo fructum habuistis tunc in iis, de quibus nunc erubescitis? Siquidem finis eorum mors.
22. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
22. Nunc vero manumissi a peccato, Deo autem in servitutem addicti, habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificationem, finem vero vitam æternam.
23. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
23. Stipendia enim peccati, mors; donum vero Dei, vita æterna, in Christo lesu Domino nostro.
20. For when ye were, etc. He still repeats the difference, which he had 199The different clauses of this verse have been a knotty point to all commentators. Probably the Apostle did not intend to keep up a regular course of antithesis, the subject not admitting of this; because the progress of evil and the progress of its remedy may be different, and it seems to be so in the present case. Sin is innate and inward, and its character, as here represented, is vileness and iniquity, and it breaks out into acts of iniquity: he does not repeat the other character, vileness; but when he comes to the contrast he mentions holiness, and does not add what is antithetic to iniquity. This is a striking instance of the elliptical style of the Apostle. It is not neglect or carelessness, but no doubt an intentional omission; it being the character of his mode of writing, which he had in common with the ancient Prophets. Then comes the word "righteousness," which I am disposed to think is that which all along has been spoken of, the righteousness of faith; this is not innate, not inward, but which comes from without, and is apprehended by faith, by which sins are forgiven, and God's favor obtained; and they who become the servants of this are to cultivate holiness both inward and outward; they ought to present all their members, that is, all their faculties, to the service of this master, so that they may become holy in all manner of conversation. But if this idea of righteousness be disapproved of, we may still account for the apparent irregularity in the construction of the passage. It is an instance of an inverted order, many examples of which are found even in this Epistle. He begins with "uncleanness," he ends with "holiness," and then the intervening words which are in contrast correspond, "iniquity" and "righteousness." Here is also an inversion in the meaning; "uncleanness" is the principle, and "holiness" is the action; while "iniquity" is the action, and "righteousness" is the principle. If this view is right, we have here a singular instance of the inverted parallelism, both as to words and meaning. — Ed.