Romans 2:17–3:8

In the latter part of the chapter the apostle directs his discourse more closely to the Jews, and shows what sins they were guilty of, notwithstanding their profession and vain pretensions. He had said (Rom 2:13) that not the hearers but the doers of the law are justified; and he here applies that great truth to the Jews. Observe, I. He allows their profession (Rom 2:17-20) and specifies their particular pretensions and privileges in which they prided themselves, that they might see he did not condemn them out of ignorance of what they had to say for themselves; no, he knew the best of their cause. 1. They were a peculiar people, separated and distinguished from all others by their having the written law and the special presence of God among them. (1.) Thou art called a Jew; not so much in parentage as profession. It was a very honourable title. Salvation was of the Jews; and this they were very proud of, to be a people by themselves; and yet many that were so called were the vilest of men. It is no new thing for the worst practices to be shrouded under the best names, for many of the synagogue of Satan to say they are Jews (Rev 2:9), for a generation of vipers to boast they have Abraham to their father, Mat 3:7-9. (2.) And restest in the law; that is, they took a pride in this, that they had the law among them, had it in their books, read it in their synagogues. They were mightily puffed up with this privilege, and thought this enough to bring them to heaven, though they did not live, up to the law. To rest in the law, with a rest of complacency and acquiescence, is good; but to rest in it with a rest of pride, and slothfulness, and carnal security, is the ruin of souls. The temple of the Lord, Jer 7:4. Bethel their confidence, Jer 48:13. Haughty because of the holy mountain, Zep 3:11. It is a dangerous thing to rest in external privileges, and not to improve them. (3.) And makest thy boast of God. See how the best things may be perverted and abused. A believing, humble, thankful glorying in God, is the root and summary of all religion, Psa 34:2; Isa 45:15; Co1 1:31. But a proud vainglorious boasting in God, and in the outward profession of his name, is the root and summary of all hypocrisy. Spiritual pride is of all kinds of pride the most dangerous. 2. They were a knowing to people (Rom 2:18): and knowest his will, thelēma - the will. God's will is the will, the sovereign, absolute, irresistible will. The world will then, and not till then, be set to rights, when God's will is the only will, and all other wills are melted into it. They did not only know the truth of God, but the will of God, that which he would have them to do. It is possible for a hypocrite to have a great deal of knowledge in the will of God. - And approvest the things that are more excellent - dokimazeis ta diapheronta. Paul prays for it for his friends as a very great attainment, Phi 1:10. Eis to dokemazein humas ta diapheronta. Understand it, (1.) Of a good apprehension in the things of God, reading it thus, Thou discernest things that differ, knowest how to distinguish between good and evil, to separate between the precious and the vile (Jer 15:19), to make a difference between the unclean and the clean, Lev 11:47. Good and bad lie sometimes so near together that it is not easy to distinguish them; but the Jews, having the touchstone of the law ready at hand, were, or at least thought they were, able to distinguish, to cleave the hair in doubtful cases. A man may be a good casuist and yet a bad Christian - accurate in the notion, but loose and careless in the application. Or, we may, with De Dieu, understand controversies by the ta diapheronta. A man may be well skilled in the controversies of religion, and yet a stranger to the power of godliness. (2.) Of a warm affection to the things of God, as we read it, Approvest the things that are excellent. There are excellences in religion which a hypocrite may approve of: there may be a consent of the practical judgment to the law, that it is good, and yet that consent overpowerd by the lusts of the flesh, and of the mind: - - Video meliora proboque Deteriora sequor. I see the better, but pursue the worse. and it is common for sinners to make that approbation an excuse which is really a very great aggravation of a sinful course. They got this acquaintance with, and affection to, that which is good, but being instructed out of the law, katēchoumenos - being catechised. The word signifies an early instruction in childhood. It is a great privilege and advantage to be well catechised betimes. It was the custom of the Jews to take a great deal of pains in teaching their children when they were young, and all their lessons were out of the law; it were well if Christians were but as industrious to teach their children out of the gospel. Now this is called (Rom 2:20), The form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law, that is, the show and appearance of it. Those whose knowledge rests in an empty notion, and does not make an impression on their hearts, have only the form of it, like a picture well drawn and in good colours, but which wants life. A form of knowledge produces but a form of godliness, Ti2 3:5. A form of knowledge may deceive men, but cannot impose upon the piercing eye of the heart-searching God. A form may be the vehicle of the power; but he that takes up with that only is like sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. 3. They were a teaching people, or at least thought themselves so (Rom 2:19, Rom 2:20): And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind. Apply it, (1.) To the Jews in general. They thought themselves guides to the poor blind Gentiles that sat in darkness, were very proud of this, that whoever would have the knowledge of God must be beholden to them for it. All other nations must come to school to them, to learn what is good, and what the Lord requires; for they had the lively oracles. (2.) To their rabbis, and doctors, and leading men among them, who were especially those that judged others, Rom 2:1. These prided themselves much in the possession they had got of Moses's chair, and the deference which the vulgar paid to their dictates; and the apostle expresses this in several terms, a guide of the blind, a light of those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, the better to set forth their proud conceit of themselves, and contempt of others. This was a string they loved to be harping upon, heaping up titles of honour upon themselves. The best work, when it is prided in, is unacceptable to God. It is good to instruct the foolish, and to teach the babes: but considering our own ignorance, and folly, and inability to make these teachings successful without God, there is nothing in it to be proud of. II. He aggravates their provocations (Rom 2:21-24) from two things: - 1. That they sinned against their knowledge and profession, did that themselves which they taught others to avoid: Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Teaching is a piece of that charity which begins at home, though it must not end there. It was the hypocrisy of the Pharisees that they did not do as they taught (Mat 23:3), but pulled down with their lives what they built up with their preaching; for who will believe those who do not believe themselves? Examples will govern more than rules. The greatest obstructors of the success of the word are those whose bad lives contradict their good doctrine, who in the pulpit preach so well that it is a pity they should ever come out, and out of the pulpit live so ill that it is a pity they should ever come in. He specifies three particular sins that abound among the Jews: - (1.) Stealing. This is charged upon some that declared God's statutes (Psa 50:16, Psa 50:18), When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him. The Pharisees are charged with devouring widows' houses (Mat 23:14), and that is the worst of robberies. (2.) Adultery, Rom 2:22. This is likewise charged upon that sinner (Psa 50:18), Thou hast been partaker with adulterers. Many of the Jewish rabbin are said to have been notorious for this sin. (3.) Sacrilege - robbing in holy things, which were then by special laws dedicated and devoted to God; and this is charged upon those that professed to abhor idols. So the Jews did remarkably, after their captivity in Babylon; that furnace separated them for ever from the dross of their idolatry, but they dealt very treacherously in the worship of God. It was in the latter days of the Old Testament church that they were charged with robbing God in tithes and offerings (Mal 3:8, Mal 3:9), converting that to their own use, and to the service of their lusts, which was, in a special manner, set apart for God. And this is almost equivalent to idolatry, though this sacrilege was cloaked with the abhorrence of idols. Those will be severely reckoned with another day who, while they condemn sin in others, do the same, or as bad, or worse, themselves. 2. That they dishonoured God by their sin, Rom 2:23, Rom 2:24. While God and his law were an honour to them, which they boasted of and prided themselves in, they were a dishonour to God and his law, by giving occasion to those that were without to reflect upon their religion, as if that did countenance and allow of such things, which, as it is their sin who draw such inferences (for the faults of professors are not to be laid upon professions), so it is their sin who give occasion for those inferences, and will greatly aggravate their miscarriages. This was the condemnation in David's case, that he had given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, Sa2 12:14. And the apostle here refers to the same charge against their forefathers: As it is written, Rom 2:24. He does not mention the place, because he wrote this to those that were instructed in the law (in labouring to convince, it is some advantage to deal with those that have knowledge and are acquainted with the scripture), but he seems to point at Isa 52:5; Eze 36:22, Eze 36:23; and Sa2 12:14. It is a lamentation that those who were made to be to God for a name and for a praise should be to him a shame and dishonour. The great evil of the sins of professors is the dishonour done to God and religion by their profession. "Blasphemed through you; that is, you give the occasion for it, it is through your folly and carelessness. The reproaches you bring upon yourselves reflect upon your God, and religion is wounded through your sides." A good caution to professors to walk circumspectly. See Ti1 6:1. III. He asserts the utter insufficiency of their profession to clear them from the guilt of these provocations (Rom 2:25-29): Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; that is, obedient Jews shall not lose the reward of their obedience, but will gain this by their being Jews, that they have a clearer rule of obedience than the Gentiles have. God did not give the law nor appoint circumcision in vain. This must be referred to the state of the Jews before the ceremonial polity was abolished, otherwise circumcision to one that professed faith in Christ was forbidden, Gal 5:1. But he is here speaking to the Jews, whose Judaism would benefit them, if they would but live up to the rules and laws of it; but if not "thy circumcision is made uncircumcision; that is, thy profession will do thee no good; thou wilt be no more justified than the uncircumcised Gentiles, but more condemned for sinning against greater light." The uncircumcised are in scripture branded as unclean (Isa 52:1), as out of the covenant, (Eph 2:11, Eph 2:12) and wicked Jews will be dealt with as such. See Jer 9:25, Jer 9:26. Further to illustrate this, 1. He shows that the uncircumcised Gentiles, if they live up to the light they have, stand upon the same level with the Jews; if they keep the righteousness of the law (Rom 2:26), fulfil the law (Rom 2:27); that is, by submitting sincerely to…

Romans 2:17-24 17. Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, 17. Ecce, tu Iud?us cognominaris, et acquiescis in Lege, et gloriaris in Deo, 18. And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; 18. Et nosti voluntatem, et probas eximia, institutus ex Lege; 19. And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, 19. Confidisque teipsum esse ducem c?corum, lumen eorum qui sunt in tenebris, 20. An instructer of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 20. Eruditorem insipientium, doctorem imperitorum, habentem formam cognitionis ac veritatis in Lege: 21. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 21. Qui igitur doces alterum, teipsum non doces; qui concionaris, non furandum, furaris; 22. Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 22. Qui dicis, nom moechandum, moecharis; qui detestaris idola, Sacrilegium perpetras; 23. Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? 23. Qui de Lege gloriaris, Deum per Legis transgressionem dehonestas: 24. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. [76] 24. Nomen enim Dei propter vos probro afficitur inter gentes, quemadmodum scriptum est. 17. Behold, thou art named a Jew, etc. Some old copies read ei de, though indeed; which, were it generally received, would meet my approbation; but as the greater part of the manuscripts is opposed to it, and the sense is not unsuitable, I retain the old reading, especially as it is only a small difference of one letter. [77] Having now completed what he meant to say of the Gentiles, he returns to the Jews; and that he might, with greater force, beat down their great vanity, he allows them all those privileges, by which they were beyond measure transported and inflated: and then he shows how insufficient they were for the attainment of true glory, yea, how they turned to their reproach. Under the name Jew he includes all the privileges of the nation, which they vainly pretended were derived from the law and the prophets; and so he comprehends all the Israelites, all of whom were then, without any difference, called Jews. But at what time this name first originated it is uncertain, except that it arose, no doubt, after the dispersion. [78] Josephus, in the eleventh book of his Antiquities, thinks that it was taken from Judas Maccab?us, under whose auspices the liberty and honor of the people, after having for some time fallen, and been almost buried, revived again. Though I allow this opinion to be probable, yet, if there be some to whom it is not satisfactory, I will offer them a conjecture of my own. It seems, indeed, very likely, that after having been degraded and scattered through so many disasters, they were not able to retain any certain distinction as to their tribes; for a census could not have been made at that time, nor did there exist a regular government, which was necessary to preserve an order of this kind; and they dwelt scattered and in disorder; and having been worn out by adversities, they were no doubt less attentive to the records of their kindred. But though you may not grant these things to me, yet it cannot be denied but that a danger of this kind was connected with such disturbed state of things. Whether, then, they meant to provide for the future, or to remedy an evil already received, they all, I think assumed the name of that tribe, in which the purity of religion remained the longest, and which, by a peculiar privilege, excelled all the rest, as from it the Redeemer was expected to come; for it was their refuge in all extremities, to console themselves with the expectation of the Messiah. However this may be, by the name of Jews they avowed themselves to be the heirs of the covenant which the Lord had made with Abraham and his seed. And restest in the law, and gloriest in God, etc. He means not that they rested in attending to the law, as though they applied their minds to the keeping of it; but, on the contrary, he reproves them for not observing the end for which the law had been given; for they had no care for its observance, and were inflated on this account only, -- because they were persuaded that the oracles of God belonged to them. In the same way they gloried in God, not as the Lord commands by his Prophet, -- to humble ourselves, and to seek our glory in him alone, (Jeremiah 9:24,) -- but being without any knowledge of God's goodness, they made him, of whom they were inwardly destitute, peculiarly their own, and assumed to be his people, for the purpose of vain ostentation before men. This, then, was not the glorying of the heart, but the boasting of the tongue. 18. And knowest his will, and approvest things excellent, etc. He now concedes to them the knowledge of the divine will, and the approval of things useful; and this they had attained from the doctrine of the law. But there is a twofold approval, -- one of choice, when we embrace the good we approve; the other of judgment, by which indeed we distinguish good from evil, but by no means strive or desire to follow it. Thus the Jews were so learned in the law that they could pass judgment on the conduct of others, but were not careful to regulate their life according to that judgment. But as Paul reproves their hypocrisy, we may, on the other hand, conclude, that excellent things are then only rightly approved (provided our judgment proceeds from sincerity) when God is attended to; for his will, as it is revealed in the law, is here appointed as the guide and teacher of what is to be justly approved. [79] 19. And believest thyself, etc. More is still granted to them; as though they had not only what was sufficient for themselves, but also that by which they could enrich others. He grants, indeed, that they had such abundance of learning, as that others might have been supplied. [80] 20. I take what follows, having the form of knowledge, as a reason for the preceding; and it may be thus explained, -- "because thou hast the form of knowledge." For they professed to be the teachers of others, because they seemed to carry in their breasts all the secrets of the law. The word form is put for model (exemplar -- pattern); [81] for Paul has adopted morphosin and not tupon: but he intended, I think, to point out the conspicuous pomp of their teaching, and what is commonly called display; and it certainly appears that they were destitute of that knowledge which they pretended. But Paul, by indirectly ridiculing the perverted use of the law, intimates, on the other hand, that right knowledge must be sought from the law, in order that the truth may have a solid basis. 21. Thou, who then teachest another, teachest not thyself, etc. [82] Though the excellencies (encomia -- commendations) which he has hitherto stated respecting the Jews, were such as might have justly adorned them, provided the higher ornaments were not wanting; yet as they included qualifications of a neutral kind, which may be possessed even by the ungodly and corrupted by abuse, they are by no means sufficient to constitute true glory. And hence Paul, not satisfied with merely reproving and taunting their arrogance in trusting in these things alone, employs them for the purpose of enhancing their disgraceful conduct; for he exposes himself to no ordinary measure of reproach, who not only renders useless the gifts of God, which are otherwise valuable and excellent, but by his wickedness vitiates and contaminates them. And a strange counselor is he, who consults not for his own good, and is wise only for the benefit of others. He shows then that the praise which they appropriated to themselves, turned out to their own disgrace. Thou who preachest, steal not, etc. He seems to have alluded to a passage in Psalm 50:16, where God says to the wicked, "Why dost thou declare my statutes, and takest my covenant in thy mouth? And thou hatest reform, and hast cast my words behind thee: when thou seest a thief, thou joinest him, and with adulterers is thy portion." And as this reproof was suitable to the Jews in old time, who, relying on the mere knowledge of the law, lived in no way better than if they had no law; so we must take heed, lest it should be turned against us at this day: and indeed it may be well applied to many, who, boasting of some extraordinary knowledge of the gospel, abandon themselves to every kind of uncleanness, as though the gospel were not a rule of life. That we may not then so heedlessly trifle with the Lord, let us remember what sort of judgment impends over such prattlers, (logodoedalis -- word-artificers,) who make a show of God's word by mere garrulity. 22. Thou who abhorrest idols, etc. He fitly compares sacrilege to idolatry, as it is a thing of the same kind; for sacrilege is simply a profanation of the Divine Majesty, a sin not unknown to heathen poets. On this account Ovid (Metamor. 3,) calls Lycurgus sacrilegious for despising the rites of Bacchus; and in his Fasti he calls those sacrilegious hands which violated the majesty of Venus. But as the Gentiles ascribed the majesty of their gods to idols, they only thought it a sacrilege when any one plundered what was dedicated to their temples, in which, as they believed, the whole of religion centered. So at this day, where superstition reigns, and not the word of God, they acknowledge no other kind of sacrilege than the stealing of what belongs to churches, as there is no God but in idols, no religion but in pomp and magnificence. [83] Now we are here warned, first, not to flatter ourselves and to despise others, when we have performed only some portions of the law, -- and, secondly, not to glory in having outward idolatry removed, while we care not to drive away and to eradicate the impiety that lieth hid in our hearts. 23. Thou who gloriest in the law, etc. Though every transgressor dishonors God, (for we are all born for this end -- to serve him in righteousness and holiness;) yet he justly imputes in this respect a special fault to the Jews; for as they avowed God as their Lawgiver, and yet had no care to form their life according to his rule, they clearly proved that the majesty of their God was not so regarded by them, but that they easily despised him. In the same manner do they at this day dishonor Christ, by transgressing the gospel, who prattle idly about its doctrine, while yet they tread it under foot by their unbridled and licentious mode of living. 24. For the name of God, etc. I think this quotation is taken from Ezekiel 36:20, rather than from Isaiah 52:5; for in Isaiah there are no reproofs given to the people, but that chapter in Ezekiel is full of reproofs. But some think that it is a proof from the less to the greater, according to this import, "Since the Prophet upbraided, not without cause, the Jews of his time, that on account of their captivity, the glory and power of God were ridiculed among the Gentiles, as though he could not have preserved the people, whom he had taken under his protection, much more are ye a disgrace and dishonor to God, whose religion, being judged of by your wicked life, is blasphemed." This view I do not reject, but I prefer a simpler one, such as the following, -- "We see that all the reproaches cast on the people of Israel do fall on the name of God; for as they are counted, and are said to be the people of God, his name is as it were engraven on their foreheads: it must hence be, that God, whose name they assume, is in a manner defamed by men, through their wicked conduct." It was then a monstrous thing, that they who derived their glory from God should have disgraced his holy name; for it beho…

Romans 2:25-29 25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. 25. Nam circumcisio quidem prodest, si Legem observes; quod si transgressor Legis fueris, circumcisio tua in pr?putium versa est. 26. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? 26. Si ergo pr?putium justitias Legis servaverit, nonne pr?putium ejus pro circumcisione consebitur? 27. And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? 27. Et judicabit quod ex natura est pr?putium (si Legem servaverit) te qui per literam et circumcisionem transgressor es Legis? 28. For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: 28. Non enim qui est in aperto Iud?us est; ne qu? in aperto est circumcisio in carne, ea est circumcisio: 29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. 29. Sed qui est in occulto Iud?us; et circumcisio cordis in spiritu non litera; cujus laus non ex hominibus est sed ex Deo. 25. For circumcision indeed profits, etc. He dissipates by anticipation what the Jews might have objected in opposition to him in the defense of their own cause: for since circumcision was a symbol of the Lord's covenant, by which he had chosen Abraham and his seed as his peculiar people, they seemed not to have gloried in vain; but as they neglected what the sign signified, and regarded only the outward form, he gives this answer -- That they had no reason to lay claim to any thing on account of the bare sign. The true character of circumcision was a spiritual promise, which required faith: the Jews neglected both, the promise as well as faith. Then foolish was their confidence. Hence it is, that he omits to state here the main use of circumcision, and proceeds to expose their gross error, as he does in his Epistle to the Galatians. And this ought to be carefully noticed; for if he were explaining the whole character and design of circumcision, it would have been inconsistent in him not to have made mention of grace and free promise: but in both instances he spoke according to what the subject he had in hand required, and therefore he only discussed that part which was controverted. They thought that circumcision was of itself sufficient for the purpose of obtaining righteousness. Hence, speaking according to such an opinion, he gives this reply -- That if this benefit be expected from circumcision, it is on this condition, that he who is circumcised, must serve God wholly and perfectly. Circumcision then requires perfection. The same may be also said of our baptism: when any one confidently relies on the water of baptism alone, and thinks that he is justified, as though he had obtained holiness by that ordinance itself, the end of baptism must be adduced as an objection; which is, that the Lord thereby calls us to holiness of life: the grace and promise, which baptism testifies (testificatur) and seals, (obsignat,) need not in this case to be mentioned; for our business is with those who, being satisfied with the empty shadow of baptism, care not for nor consider what is material (solidum -- substantial) in it. And this very thing you may observe in Paul -- that when he speaks to the faithful of signs, apart from controversy, he connects them with the efficacy and fulfillment of the promises which belong to them; but when he contends with the absurd and unskillful interpreters of signs, he omits all mention of the proper and true character of signs, and directs his whole discourse against their perverted interpretation. Now many, seeing that Paul brings forward circumcision rather than any other part of the law, suppose that he takes away justification only from ceremonies: but the matter is far otherwise; for it always happens, that those who dare to set up their own merits against the righteousness of God, glory more in outward observances than in real goodness; for no one, who is seriously touched and moved by the fear of God, will ever dare to raise up his eyes to heaven, since the more he strives after true righteousness, the clearer he sees how far he is from it. But as to the Pharisees, who were satisfied with imitating holiness by an outward disguise, it is no wonder that they so easily deluded themselves. Hence Paul, after having left the Jews nothing, but this poor subterfuge of being justified by circumcision, does now also take from them even this empty pretense. 26. If then the uncircumcision, etc. This is a very strong argument. Every thing is below its end and subordinate to it. Circumcision looks to the law, and must therefore be inferior to it: it is then a greater thing to keep the law than circumcision, which was for its sake instituted. It hence follows, that the uncircumcised, provided he keeps the law, far excels the Jew with his barren and unprofitable circumcision, if he be a transgressor of the law: and though he is by nature polluted, he shall yet be so sanctified by keeping the law, that uncircumcision shall be imputed to him for circumcision. The word uncircumcision, is to be taken in its proper sense in the second clause; but in the first, figuratively, for the Gentiles, the thing for the persons. It must be added -- that no one ought anxiously to inquire what observers of the law are those of which Paul speaks here, inasmuch no such can be found; for he simply intended to lay down a supposed case -- that if any Gentile could be found who kept the law, his righteousness would be of more value without circumcision, than the circumcision of the Jew without righteousness. And hence I refer what follows, And what is by nature uncircumcision shall judge thee, etc., not to persons, but to the case that is supposed, according to what is said of the Queen of the south, that she shall come, etc., (Matthew 12:42,) and of the men of Nineveh, that they shall rise up in judgment, etc., (Luke 11:32) For the very words of Paul lead us to this view -- "The Gentile," he says, "being a keeper of the law, shall judge thee who art a transgressor, though he is uncircumcised, and thou hast the literal circumcision." 27. By the letter and circumcision, etc. A construction [85] which means a literal circumcision. He does not mean that they violated the law, because they had the literal circumcision; but because they continued, though they had the outward rite, to neglect the spiritual worship of God, even piety, justice, judgment, and truth, which are the chief matters of the law. [86] 28. For a Jew is not he, etc. The meaning is, that a real Jew is not to be ascertained, either by natural descent, or by profession, or by an external symbol; that the circumcision which constitutes a Jew, does not consist in an outward sign only, but that both are inward. And what he subjoins with regard to true circumcision, is taken from various passages of Scripture, and even from its general teaching; for the people are everywhere commanded to circumcise their hearts, and it is what the Lord promises to do. The fore-skin was cut off, not indeed as the small corruption of one part, but as that of the whole nature. Circumcision then signified the mortification of the whole flesh. 29. What he then adds, in the spirit, not in the letter, understand thus: He calls the outward rite, without piety, the letter, and the spiritual design of this rite, the spirit; for the whole importance of signs and rites depends on what is designed; when the end in view is not regarded, the letter alone remains, which in itself is useless. And the reason for this mode of speaking is this, -- where the voice of God sounds, all that he commands, except it be received by men in sincerity of heart, will remain in the letter, that is, in the dead writing; but when it penetrates into the heart, it is in a manner transformed into spirit. And there is an allusion to the difference between the old and the new covenant, which Jeremiah points out in Jeremiah 31:33; where the Lord declares that his covenant would be firm and permanent when engraven on the inward parts. Paul had also the same thing in view in another place, (2 Corinthians 3:6,) where he compares the law with the gospel, and calls the former "the letter," which is not only dead but killeth; and the latter he signalizes with the title of "spirit." But extremly gross has been the folly of those who have deduced a double meaning from the "letter," and allegories from the "spirit." Whose praise is not from men, etc. As men fix their eyes only on those things which are visible, he denies that we ought to be satisfied with what is commendable in the estimation of men, who are often deceived by outward splendor; but that we ought to be satisfied with the all-seeing eyes of God, from which the deepest secrets of the heart are not hid. He thus again summons hypocrites, who soothe themselves with false opinions, to the tribunal of God. Footnotes: [85] Hypallage, substitution, a figure of speech, by which a noun or an adjective is put in a form different from its obvious import. -- Ed [86] The rendering of this clause is rather obscure, "who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law." The preposition, dia, has no doubt the meaning of en or sun, as in some other passages, as in Romans 4:11, di akrobustias -- in uncircumcision, and in Romans 8:25, di upomonos -- in or with patience. Then the version should be, "who, being with, or having, the letter and circumcision, dost transgress the law." The "letter" means the written law. That this is the meaning is evident from the context. Both Grotius and Macknight give the same construction. It is better to take "letter," i.e., the law, and "circumcision" separate, than to amalgamate them by a rhetorical figure, as is done by Calvin and others. Hodge justly says, that this is "more suited to the context, as nothing is said here of spiritual circumcision." The word gramma, letter, has various meanings -- 1. What is commonly called letter, the character, Luke 23:38, -- 2. What is written, a bond or contract, Luke 16:6; -- 3. In the plural, letters, epistles, Acts 28:21; -- 4. The written law, as here, and in the plural, the Old Testament Scriptures, 2 Timothy 3:15; -- 5. What is conveyed by writing, learning, John 7:15; Acts 26:24; -- and, 6. The outward performance of the law, it being written, as opposed to what is spiritual or inward, as in the last verse of this chapter, and in 2 Corinthians 3:6. -- Ed

Behold--"But if" is, beyond doubt, the true reading here. (It differs but in a single letter from the received reading, and the sense is the same).

approvest the things that are excellent--"triest the things that differ" (Margin). Both senses are good, and indeed the former is but the result of the latter action. (See on Phi 1:10).

hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law--not being left, as the heathen are, to vague conjecture on divine things, but favored with definite and precise information from heaven.

thou that abhorrest idols--as the Jews did ever after their captivity, though bent on them before. dost thou commit sacrilege?--not, as some excellent interpreters, "dost thou rob idol temples?" but more generally, as we take it, "dost thou profane holy things?" (as in Mat 21:12-13, and in other ways).

For circumcision--that is, One's being within the covenant of which circumcision was the outward sign and seal. verily profiteth, if thou keep the law--if the inward reality correspond to the outward sign. but if, &c.--that is, "Otherwise, thou art no better than the uncircumcised heathen."

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the . . . law, &c.--Two mistaken interpretations, we think, are given of these words: First, that the case here supposed is an impossible one, and put merely for illustration [HALDANE, CHALMERS, HODGE]; second that it is the case of the heathen who may and do please God when they act, as has been and is done, up to the light of nature [GROTIUS, OLSHAUSEN, &c.]. The first interpretation is, in our judgment, unnatural; the second, opposed to the apostle's own teaching. But the case here put is, we think, such as that of Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48), who, though outside the external pale of God's covenant, yet having come to the knowledge of the truths contained in it, do manifest the grace of the covenant without the seal of it, and exemplify the character and walk of Abraham's children, though not called by the name of Abraham. Thus, this is but another way of announcing that God was about to show the insufficiency of the mere badge of the Abrahamic covenant, by calling from among the Gentiles a seed of Abraham that had never received the seal of circumcision (see on Gal 5:6); and this interpretation is confirmed by all that follows.

he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, &c.--In other words, the name of "Jew" and the rite of "circumcision" were designed but as outward symbols of a separation from the irreligious and ungodly world unto holy devotedness in heart and life to the God of salvation. Where this is realized, the signs are full of significance; but where it is not, they are worse than useless. Note, (1) It is a sad mark of depravity when all that is designed and fitted to melt only hardens the heart (Rom 2:4, and compare Pe2 3:9; Ecc 8:11). (2) Amidst all the inequalities of religious opportunity measured out to men, and the mysterious bearing of this upon their character and destiny for eternity, the same great principles of judgment, in a form suited to their respective discipline, will be applied to all, and perfect equity will be seen to reign throughout every stage of the divine administration (Rom 2:11-16). (3) "The law written on the heart" (Rom 2:14-15) --or the Ethics of Natural Theology--may be said to be the one deep foundation on which all revealed religion reposes; and see on Rom 1:19-20, where we have what we may call its other foundation--the Physics and Metaphysics of Natural Theology. The testimony of these two passages is to the theologian invaluable, while in the breast of every teachable Christian it wakens such deep echoes as are inexpressibly solemn and precious. (4) High religious professions are a fearful aggravation of the inconsistencies of such as make them (Rom 2:17-24). See Sa2 12:14. (5) As no external privileges, or badge of discipleship, will shield the unholy from the wrath of God, so neither will the want of them shut out from the kingdom of heaven such as have experienced without them that change of heart which the seals of God's covenant were designed to mark. In the sight of the great Searcher of hearts, the Judge of quick and dead, the renovation of the character in heart and life is all in all. In view of this, have not all baptized, sacramented disciples of the Lord Jesus, who "profess that they know God, but in works deny Him," need to tremble--who, under the guise of friends, are "the enemies of the cross of Christ?" Next: Romans Chapter 3

[365] Rom. ii. 29, 30. “But he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God.” That by this last expression, “Whose praise is not of men, but of God,” the apostle has respect to the insufficiency of man, to judge concerning him, whether he be inwardly a Jew or no, and would signify that it belongs to God alone to give a voice in that matter; is confirmed by the same apostle’s use of the like phrase, in 1 Cor. iv. 5. “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and then shall every man have praise of God.” The apostle in the two foregoing verses says, “But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment; yea, I judge not mine own self, yet am I not hereby justified, but he that judgeth me is the Lord.” And again, it is further confirmed, because the apostle in this 2d chapter to the Romans., directs himself especially to those that had a high conceit of their own holiness, that made their boast of God, and were confident of their own discerning, and that they knew God’s will, and approved the things that were more excellent, or tried the things that differ, as it is in the margin, verse 18., and were confident that they were guides of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, instructors of the foolish, teachers of babes; and so took upon them to judge others See verse 1, and 17, 18, 19, 20. These things show that for any to take upon themselves, by only a little occasional conversation with others, that are professors of godliness, to judge them as hypocrites, unexperienced and unconverted men, is a great error. The same is confirmed by 1 Cor. ii. 15. “But he that is spiritual judgeth [discerneth] all things, but he himself is judged of no man,” or (as it is in the margin) is discerned of no man.

Every thing in the Christian, that belongs to the spiritual and divine life, is spoken of in Scripture as being hidden, known only to God and to himself. His life is said to be hid with Christ in God, but to appear, and to be made manifest at the day of judgment, when Christ shall appear. Col. iii. 3, 4. Their joy is said to be what others intermeddle not with. Their spiritual food is said to be hidden. Rev. ii. 17. “To him that overcometh, will I give to eat of the hidden manna.” So Christ told his disciples that he had meat to eat that they knew not of. And their new name, which is the name they have as new creatures, as born again, is said to be what no man knows but he that receives it. Rev. ii. 17. The heart, which is the thing that God looks at, and in which are those spiritual ornaments and graces, by which persons are sincere Christians, is called the hidden man. 1 Peter iii. 4. “But let it be the hidden man of the heart in that which is not corruptible,” &c.

Again: The same is confirmed from that in the parable of the good seed, and the tares, in the 13th chap. of Matt. 28, 29, 30th verses. “The servants said unto him, Wilt thou that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together, first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” The servants of the householder can be interpreted of nothing better than ministers, who were represented by Abraham’s servant; and by the servants of the householder in the parable of the king, that made a wedding for his son, and sent forth his servants to call guests; and by the servant of the man that made a great supper in the 14th of Luke; and by the servants of the householder, to whom he committed the care of his family when travelling into a far country; and by the servants of the householder that waited for the coming of their lord, in the 12th chapter of Luke.; and by the servant or steward in the same chapter, that gives to every one his portion of meat in due season; and by the servant that beat his fellow-servant; and by the servants of the householder, that dressed, and adorned, and fed the returning prodigal; and by the servants that were sent to receive the fruit of the vineyard, Luke xx. The same that were there to take care of the fruit of the vineyard, are those that in this parable have the care of the fruit of the field. The servants of the householder are oftentimes very apt to conceit themselves sufficient to separate between the wheat and the tares; but the householder says, Stop. He is aware of more danger of their rooting up the wheat with the tares, than they are, and therefore commands that they should let both grow together until the harvest, and signifies that that is the proper time of doing it. This parable shows plainly, that the proper time of judgment in this respect, viz. of judging who of professors are sincere, and who not, is the day of judgment; and that therefore, if any take it upon them to do this now, they do it out of its proper season. And therefore, judging men in this sense, comes under that prohibition forementioned, 1 Cor. iv. 5. “Therefore judge nothing before the time.”

When we are so often forbidden to judge, that we be not judged; without doubt it refers to a judging of men’s state, of their sincerity and hypocrisy, of their good and evil principles, of their hearts in general, as well as of particular actions. For what is meant by that prohibition is doubtless, that men should not take God’s work out of his hands, and anticipate the proper business of the day of judgment. In the place just now mentioned, we are forbidden to judge; in 1 Cor. we are forbidden to judge others upon that account, because it is before the time; and in the 14th of Rom. at the 4th verse., we are forbidden to judge others upon the other account, because we therein go out of our place, and take God’s work into our hands. Rom. xiv. 4. “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth;” and James iv. 12. “There is one lawgiver, that is able to save and to destroy; who art thou that judgest another?” These two reasons are given as good reasons in Scripture against judging others, but they are as strong against judging the state of men’s hearts in general, as against judging the state of their hearts with regard to particular actions:

For, 1. It is as much the proper work of God, and his prerogative, to judge the state of men’s hearts in general, to determine what hearts are good, and what not, what hearts are sincere, and what not, as to judge the state of the heart with regard to particular actions. When knowing the hearts of men is so often ascribed to God as his great prerogative, one thing principally intended is his knowing the state of their hearts, whether they are sincerely godly or no, as is evident by what Peter says concerning the conversion of the Gentiles before the council of Jerusalem, Acts xv. 7, 8. “God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel and believe: and God which knoweth the hearts bear them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us.” It is often challenged by God as one of the most glorious prerogatives to search the heart and try the reins of the children of men. And this is challenged as God’s prerogative, especially as it relates to the trial of the general state of the hearts of professors, in Rev. ii. 22, 23. There Christ threatens to destroy, and finally condemn, certain professors, except they repent; and adds, “And all the churches shall know, that I am he which searcheth the reins and the hearts; and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.” And again, 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. this divine prerogative is asserted, with respect to the judging of the state of the heart in general, and in order to that salvation, or destruction and casting off for ever, that depends on it, “And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart, and with a willing mind; for the Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him he will be found of thee, but if thou forsake him he will cast thee off for ever.” So Ps. vii. 9, 10, 11. “O let the wickedness of the wicked come to an end, but do thou establish the just. For the righteous God trieth the hearts and reins. My defence is of God which saveth the upright in heart. God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.” So, trying the hearts is spoken of as God’s prerogative, as the furnace tries what is gold, and what is dross or base metal. Prov. xvii. 3. “The fining-pot is for silver, and the furnace for gold, but the Lord trieth the hearts.” So the psalmist prays in the 26th Psalm, that God would judge him with respect to his integrity and trusting in God, and that he would examine him, and prove him, and try his reins and his heart, and not gather his soul with sinners, nor his life with bloody men, verse 9. So it was part of Christ’s prerogative to know which of his followers, and professed believers on him, were to be depended on, and which not, John ii. 23, 24, 25. “Many believed in his name when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, and needed not that any should testify of men, for he knew what was in man.” It is God’s prerogative to weigh the spirits and ponder the hearts of men, Prov. xvi. 2. and xxi. 2. It belongs to him to weigh men in the balance, and say who is found wanting, Dan. v. 27. This certainly is as much and much more claimed in Scripture, as God’s prerogative, than taking vengeance is; and therefore for any one to take upon him to decide what professors are sincere, and what insincere, and to draw a dividing line between them, is as much and much more invading the divine prerogative, than private revenge is.

2. If that reason why we should not judge men be a good one, that in so doing we shall judge men before the time, because the proper time for this is the day of judgment; then there is a good reason why we should not take upon us to judge professors with respect to their state; for this is one great and principal part of the work of the last judgment, and one special end of the day of judgment, to make an open distinction between the sincere and hypocrites, to separate between sheep and goats, between wheat and tares, between good grain and chaff, between gold and dross, as is manifest by Mal. iii. 2. “But who may abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap;” and Matt. iii. 12. “Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Yea, in most of the descriptions we have in Scripture, this is all the work that is mentioned. This is all that is mentioned in the description we have of the day of judgment, in the explication of the parable of the good seed and tares in the 13th chapter of Matthew.; and this is all the business that is mentioned in that famous description that Christ gives of the day of judgment in the 25th chap. of Matthew.; and this is all the business mentioned in that description we have in the 20th chap. of Revelations., which is the most famous of any we have in the Bible, excepting that in the 25th of Matthew. Yea, judging of persons’ state, and sentencing or damning them, is chiefly intended by Christ when he forbids us to judge them; for this is most properly judging them, or judging and condemning their persons. We may blame a man for many things he does, yet not condemn or sentence the man in doing the part of the Great Judge of men that is chiefly forbidden, which is either to justify them or condemn them as wicked or righteous.

As to that text, Judges xii. 6.“Then said they unto him. Say now Shibboletk; and he said, Sibboleth; for he could not frame to pronounce it right; then they took him and slew him at the passages of Jordan;” though that be an undoubted truth, that want of experience has a tendency to cause men to lisp, and greatly to fail and blunder in talking of experimental religion, which may very fitly be compared to the failing of the Ephraimite in pronouncing Shibboleth, yet we cannot infer from it that we are warranted to go as far in judging men’s state by what we think of their rightly expressing themselves in spiritual and experimental language, any more than we can infer that it is committed to us to proceed upon it as far as they did in the wrong pronunciation of Shibboleth. We cannot carry the inference so far, because the thing here principally typified is not the language of false professors, as it sounds in the ears of fellow-professors in this world, but in the ears of their Judge, and of the saints or assessors with him at the passage of the Jordan, i. e. in their passage out of this world into the next, or when they are attempting to pass out of this world into the heavenly Canaan. In Christ’s ears, no man can learn the language of the Canaanites but those that are indeed Canaanites, even as no man can learn the song of the one hundred and forty-four thousand, but only those that are redeemed from the earth. What is wanting, is the heart and the practice, which are the essential part of the song; and it is the language of the heart and practice that are the essential part of the language of a Christian. And these are the things by which we are often told professors of religion shall hereafter be judged, by him that searcheth the heart, and trieth the reins, and renders to every man according to his works. When Christ and his apostles so much warned against judging others, they doubtless had especially respect to judging their hearts. And Christians in those days understood this to be the thing so strictly prohibited, and a practice marked out as so presumptuous; as is confirmed by the manner of the apostle James, introducing what he says in the 2d chap. of his epistle, at the 4th verse.; speaking of their preferring of a man of gay appearance to the man in mean apparel, he says, Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?”

The eleven disciples, though they were all true converts, did not know but that Judas was also converted, and always supposed him to be so, though they had such abundant opportunity of conversation with him, and Christ all along treated him as if he had been a true disciple, and even sent him forth to preach the gospel, because he therein acted as minister of the visible church. He did not take it upon him to act as an Omniscient Judge at that time, but as setting an example for his disciples and ministers how to behave themselves in the visible church. The psalmist, though so wise a man, and a man so greatly acquainted with the word of God, and a man of such great experience, did not find out that Achitophel was not a convert, though he had so long been so intimately acquainted with him, but always looked upon him as a saint, and an eminent saint, and delighted in him as such. Psal. lv. 13, 14. “But it was thou, a man, mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance; we took sweet counsel together; we went to the house of God in company.” And besides, we are nowhere directed to judge of men chiefly by the account they give of their experiences, but chiefly by their works; and it is evident it was not the manner of the apostles to judge of Christians’ sincerity chiefly by the account they gave of the manner of the work in their hearts, but by their behaviour. And the signification of the word Shibboleth seems to intimate the same thing, which is an ear of corn. This seems to intimate that it is the fruit, or ear, that is the grand characteristic by which the true friends of Jephthah may be known from hypocrites, or the wheat known from tares. It is the fruit that we shall be judged by at last; our fruits shall be weighed in the balance, and, if they are found wanting, we shall be slain in this Jordan, and never suffered to go over into Canaan. It is probable that, according to the dialect of Ephraim, an ear of corn was called Sibboleth, and so that was the name of the fruit of Jephthah’s enemies; but Shibboleth was the name of the fruit of Jephthah’s friends, according to the dialect of Gilead. This, therefore, signifies that if at last our fruit be found to be not the fruit of the friends of Christ, but that of his enemies, we shall be slain.

It seems very probable that the devil, though he sees and hears a great deal more what men do and say than we, and has incomparably more experience, yet does not know who are converted, and who not. Thus he did not know that Peter was converted, and therefore hoped to overthrow him. So he did not know that Job was, as God told him, a perfect and an upright man; he questioned it, though he was so eminent a saint, he doubted whether he would not fail in the trial (unless we may suppose that the devil seeks to overthrow particular Christians, only as he seeks to overthrow the church of God, which he does what he can to destroy, though God has promised that it shall never be destroyed).

Behold, thou art called a Jew,.... From hence to the end of the chapter the Jews are particularly addressed; their several privileges and characters are commemorated, which by an ironical concession are allowed them; several charges are brought against them, even against their principal men; and the plea in favour of them, from their circumcision, is considered; and the apostle's view in the whole, is to show that they could not be justified before God by their obedience to the law of Moses: "behold"; take notice, observe it, this will be granted: "thou art called a Jew"; thou art one by name, by nation, and by religion; but no name, nor outward religion, nor a mere profession, will justify before God: and restest in the law; which may be understood of their having the law and the knowledge of it, what is to be done and avoided easily, without any fatigue and labour; of their pleasing and applauding themselves with the bare having and hearing of it; of their trust and confidence in it; and of their inactivity and security in it, as persons asleep; and so of their coming short of the knowledge of the Gospel, and of Christ the end of the law for righteousness, their whole confidence being placed in that: so the Targumist in Jeremiah 8:8 paraphrases the words, "we are wise, "and in the law of the Lord", , do we trust;'' and makest thy boast of God. There is a right boasting of God in opposition to boasting in the creature, when men ascribe all the blessings of nature and grace to the Lord alone, and praise him for all their enjoyments, temporal and spiritual; and when they trust in, and glory, and make their boast of Christ as the Lord their righteousness, in whom alone they are, and can be justified. But the boasting here spoken of, was such that was not right; these men boasted of their bare external knowledge of the one God, when the Gentiles around them were ignorant of him; of their being the covenant people of God, when others were aliens and strangers; and of their having the word and worship of the true God, which other nations were unacquainted with; and, on these external things they depended, which was their fault.

And knowest his will,.... Not the secret will or purpose of God; nor his revealed will in the Gospel, for of this they were ignorant; but his declared will in the law, showing what is to be done, and what is not to be done: to know which in express terms was a privilege, that other people had not; but then the bare knowledge of this will be of no avail: for persons may know their Lord's will, as the Jews did, and not do it, and so be worthy to be beaten with many stripes: and approvest the things that are more excellent: or "triest the things that differ"; from one another, and from the will and law of God; or as the Syriac, "discernest" "things that are convenient"; agreeable, which are fit and ought to be done: and having tried and discerned them, they approved of them in their judgment as the things more excellent; but then they did not put these excellent things in practice which they approved of; and the knowledge and approbation they had of these things, arose from their being instructed out of the law, and not the Gospel; for the excellent things of the Gospel, they had no discerning, knowledge and approbation of; see Philippians 1:10.

And art confident that thou thyself,.... Being vainly puffed up in, their fleshly minds, they were strongly persuaded that they were very fit persons to be a guide to the blind: all men are by nature blind, as to the knowledge of divine and spiritual things; the meaner sort of the people among the Jews seem to be intended here; or else the ignorant Gentiles, whom the Jews were very fond of making proselytes to their religion and laws; but miserable guides were they, whether to their own people, or others; blind guides of the blind. Gospel ministers best deserve this title: a light of them that are in darkness; so Christ, John the Baptist, the disciples of Christ, and all Gospel ministers are; but these men, who arrogated such characters to themselves, were dim lights, and dark lanterns. The apostle seems to have respect to those very high and exalted characters the Jews give of their doctors, as when they call one, , "the lamp of light" (w); another, "the holy lamps" (x); and a third, , "the lamp of Israel" (y); with many others of the same kind; See Gill on Matthew 5:14 and See Gill on John 5:35. (w) T. Bab. Cetubot, fol. 17. 1.((x) Zohar passim. (y) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 28. 2.

An instructor of the foolish,.... All men in a state of unregeneracy are foolish, and need instruction; here the common people among the Jews, who knew not the law, are meant; it was very usual to call anyone of their doctors and masters "an instructor": it follows, a teacher of babes; either in age or in understanding; such who taught either of them were called by the Jews , "teachers of babes". Thus they paraphrase the text in Daniel 12:3, "they that be wise, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament. This is the Judge who judges, the judgment of truth truly, and the collectors of alms: and they that turn, many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever; these are, , "the teachers of babes" (z).'' Though these are said (a) to be inferior to the wise men, or doctors: which hast the form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law: they had not a true knowledge of the law; only a draught and scheme, the outward form of the law, and a mere shadow and appearance of the knowledge of the truth of it. From hence the apostle would have it concluded, that though the Jews had the law, and in some sense knew it, yet inasmuch as they did not perform it, they could not be justified by it; and that even their teachers, their greatest masters and doctors, were very deficient, as appears from what follows; and since they could not be instilled by it, who taught others the knowledge of it, the hearers of it could not expect justification from it. (z) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 8. 2. & 21. 1, 2. Maimon. Hilchot Talmud Tora, c. 2. sect. 1.((a) Gloss in Sota, fol. 49. 1.

Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?.... Several charges are here brought against the Jews, even against their teachers; for though they are put by way of question, they are to be considered as so many assertions and matters of fact; thus, though they taught others, they did not teach themselves; they were blind leaders of the blind; they were ignorant of the law, of the spirituality of it; they were desirous to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they said, nor whereof they affirmed: they were ignorant of the righteousness of God, of whom they boasted; and of the more excellent things of Moses, and the prophets, they pretended to explain; and of the Messiah, of whom their prophecies so much spoke: and besides, what they did understand and teach, they did not practise themselves; than which nothing is more shameful, or more betrays stupidity and ignorance; for as they themselves (b) say, "he that teaches men, , "that which he himself does not do", is like a blind man who has a lamp in his hand, and enlightens others, but he, himself walks in darkness.'' And such teachers they own were among them. "Beautiful (say they (c)) are the words which come out of the mouths of them that do, them: Ben Assai was a beautiful preacher, but did not well observe;'' i.e., to do what he said. Thou that preach at a man should not steal, dost thou steal? some understand this figuratively, of stealing, or taking away the true sense of the law, and putting a false one upon it; of which these men were notoriously guilty: but rather, it is to be understood literally, not only of the inward desires and motions of their minds after this sin, and of their consenting to, and conniving at theft and robbery, but of their doing it themselves; who, under pretence of long prayers, "devoured widows' houses", Matthew 23:14, plundered and robbed them of their substance: no wonder that these men preferred Barabbas, a thief and a robber, to Jesus Christ. (b) Sepher Hamaalot, p. 87. Apud Buxtorf. Heb. Florileg. p. 75. (c) Bereshit Rabba, fol. 30. 3.

Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery,.... Adultery here is to be taken not figuratively for adulterating the word of God, and mixing it with their own inventions; but literally for the sin of adultery, and that not in heart only, but in act: dost thou commit adultery? an iniquity which greatly prevailed among the Jews at this time of day; hence Christ calls them "an adulterous generation", Matthew 12:39; and that to such a degree, that by the advice of their great Rabbi, R. Jochanan ben Zaccai, they left off the trial of the suspected woman, cases of this nature being so very numerous: and this sin prevailed not only among the common people, but among their principal doctors; as may be learnt from their own writings, and from that conviction of this iniquity which the Scribes and Pharisees were brought under by Christ, when the woman, taken in adultery, was had before him by them, John 8:9. Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? for though at this time they abhorred idolatry, to which their forefathers were so much inclined, and so often fell into, yet they were guilty of sacrilege; by violating the worship of God, and polluting it with their own inventions; by pillaging or withholding, or not offering the sacrifices they ought; and by plundering the temple, and converting the sacred things of it to their own use.

Thou that makest thy boast of the law,.... Of their having it, which other nations had not; of their knowledge of it, which many of their own people were without, or had but a small share of; and of their keeping of it even to perfection: through breaking of the law dishonourest thou God? sin sometimes is expressed by a word which signifies a "fall"; sometimes by another, which signifies missing of the mark, or straying from it; sometimes by another, which signifies a "contrariety to the law" of God; and here, by one which signifies a "passing over it", and the bounds which it has set, as the rule of man's obedience; and hereby God, the lawgiver, is dishonoured: for as God is glorified by good works, when rightly performed, he is dishonoured by evil ones; for his authority, as a lawgiver, is trampled upon and despised. Now persons guilty of such iniquities as here mentioned, could not be justified before God, or accepted by him on account of any works of righteousness done by them.

For the name of God is blasphemed,.... The being and perfections of God, such as his holiness, omniscience, and omnipotence, are denied, or evil spoken of; and also the law of God, and the forms of worship instituted by him: among the Gentiles through you: through their iniquities, who when they observe them, conclude that the God of Israel is not omniscient, or he would know, and take notice of these things; and that he is not holy, or he could not bear them; nor omnipotent, or he would revenge them: as it is written; the passage or passages referred to are not mentioned, but are perhaps Isaiah 52:5. In the former of these texts the words are, "they that rule over them make them to howl; saith the Lord, and my name continually every day is blasphemed"; which are spoken of the rulers of the people, either of their ecclesiastical or political rulers, or both; and so Aben Ezra interprets them of , "the great men of Israel"; and here by the apostle are applied to their doctors and wise men: and in the latter are these words, "thus saith the Lord God, I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for my holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the Heathen"; that is, by their unbecoming walk and conversation, and especially by the disagreeable conduct of their principal men: and the Jews own the same things, and complain of them in much the "same language the apostle here does, saying, "they disgrace the law before the people of the earth, (the common people, or else the Gentiles,) how? a wise man sits and expounds in the congregation, saying, thou shalt not lend upon usury, and he lends upon usury; he says, thou shalt not commit a robbery, and he commits a robbery; he says, , "thou shalt not steal, and he steals": says R. Berechiah, it happened to one man that his cloak was stolen from him, and he went before the judge about it, and he found it spread upon his bed or couch: and, says the same Rabbi, it happened to a certain man that his pot was stolen from him, and he went before the judge about it, and he found it upon his hearth: hence it is said, "as they were increased they sinned against me, therefore will I change their glory into shame", Hosea 4:7 (d). (d) Debarim Rabba, sect. 2. fol. 236. 2.

For circumcision verily profiteth,.... The plea from circumcision in favour of the Jews, and their acceptance with God, and justification before him, is here, and in the following verses, considered. The apostle allows that circumcision was profitable; which must be understood whilst it was in force, before the abrogation of it, for since, it is not profitable but pernicious; and then it was only profitable, in case the law was kept: if thou keepest the law; that is, perfectly; for circumcision obliged persons to keep the whole law. Now the circumcised Jews did not keep it in such sense; wherefore circumcision was of no use to them, but, on the contrary, was an handwriting against them. But if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision; that is, it is not accounted circumcision; it is of no avail; such a man was all one as an uncircumcised Gentile, and appeared to be uncircumcised in a spiritual sense: the apostle perhaps alludes to a practice among some of the Jews, to bring on and draw over the foreskin, after they had been circumcised; See Gill on 1 Corinthians 7:18.

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep,.... These words are spoken hypothetically; if any such persons could be found among the Gentiles who keep the whole law of God; and can only be absolutely understood of such, who from a principle of grace act in obedience to the law; as in the hands of Christ, and who look to Christ as the fulfilling end of it, for righteousness; in whom they keep the righteousness of the law perfectly: shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? by this question it is suggested, that an uncircumcised Gentile, who keeps the law as in the hands of Christ, and under the influences of his Spirit and grace, and keeps it in Christ, is reckoned a circumcised person in a spiritual sense, and must be preferable to a circumcised Jew that breaks it.

And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature,.... That is, the Gentiles, who are by nature uncircumcised; for as circumcision was by the command of God, and performed by the art of men, uncircumcision is by nature, and what men naturally have. Now if it, such persons, fulfil the law in Christ, they will judge thee, the circumcision: and condemn, as Noah condemned the old world, Hebrews 11:7, and the men of Nineveh and the queen of the south will condemn the men of that generation, in which Christ lived, Matthew 12:41. Who by the letter and circumcision transgress the law; that is, either by the law, which is "the letter", and "by circumcision", or "by circumcision which is in the letter", Romans 2:29, sin being increased by the prohibitions of the moral law, and the rituals of the ceremonial law, and the more so by a dependence upon an obedience to either of them, or both, for justification.

For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly,.... The apostle removes the plea in favour of the Jews, taken from their name and privilege, by distinguishing between a Jew and a Jew, and between circumcision and circumcision: "he is not a Jew which is one outwardly"; by mere name, nature, nation, religion, and profession: neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; which takes away the flesh of the foreskin, but not the carnality of the heart; leaves a mark upon the flesh, but no impression on the mind. This is nothing, is not the true, solid, substantial, spiritual circumcision, which only avails in the sight of God.

But he is a Jew which is one inwardly,.... Who has an internal work of grace upon his soul: who has not only an outward name, but an inward nature; not the law of God in the hand, but in the heart; not an external righteousness only, but internal holiness; and who is not a mere outward court worshipper, but a worshipper of God in Spirit and in truth. The Jews have a (e) saying themselves, "that whosoever denies idolatry, , "is called a Jew":'' so that, according to them, this is a name that is not confined to themselves, but belongs to all such who truly fear and worship God; and they say, in the same place, that Pharaoh's daughter was called "a Jewess", because she denied idolatry, and went down to wash herself from the idols of her father's house. And elsewhere (f), "that faith does not depend upon circumcision, but upon the heart: he that believes not as he should, circumcision does not make him a Jew; and he that believes as he ought, he indeed is a Jew, though he is not circumcised.'' And circumcision is that of the heart; which God requires, and he himself promises to give, Deuteronomy 10:16, upon which last passage, a very noted Jew (g) has this observation, , "this is the circumcision of the heart"; the very phrase the apostle here uses: circumcision of the flesh was typical of this, which lies in a godly sorrow for sin, in a putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and in renouncing a man's own righteousness in the business of justification. The ancient Jews had some notion of this typical use of circumcision. So Philo the Jew says (h), that circumcision taught , "the cutting off of all pleasures and affections": and elsewhere he says (i): it is a symbol of two things particularly; the one is the cutting off of pleasures, as before; and the other is the removal of arrogancy, that grievous disease of the soul: and in another place (k) he calls purity, or chastity, , "the circumcision of circumcision". Now this our apostle says is in the spirit; meaning either the spirit or soul of man, which is the seat and subject of it; or the Spirit of God, who is the author of it: the Ethiopic version reads it, "by the Holy Ghost": and not in the letter; or "by the letter" of the law; but the Holy Ghost produces this spiritual work instrumentally, by the preaching of the Gospel. To which the apostle adds, whose praise is not of men, but of God; referring not to circumcision immediately spoken of before, but to the Jew who is one inwardly: and alludes to the name Judah, from whence the Jews are called, which comes from the word which signifies to "praise"; and intimates here, that such persons must not expect praise from men, who are only taken, with outward things, but from God, who searches and knows the heart. (e) T. Bab. Megilia, fol. 13. 1.((f) Nizzachon ad Genesis 17.Apud Maji Theolog. Jud. p. 252. (g) R. David Kimchi in Jer. iv. 4. (h) De Migrat. Abraham, p. 402. (i) De Circumcisione, p. 811. (k) De Somniis, p. 1111.

as it is written--(See Isa 52:5, Marginal reference).

Romans 3:1-2 1. What advantage [87] then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 1. Quae igitur praerogativa Iudaei, aut quae utilitas circumcisionis? 2. Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 2. Multa per omnem modem; ac primum quidem, quod illis credits sunt oracula Dei. 1. Though Paul has clearly proved that bare circumcision brought nothing to the Jews, yet since he could not deny but that there was some difference between the Gentiles and the Jews, which by that symbol was sealed to them by the Lord, and since it was inconsistent to make a distinction, of which God was the author, void and of no moment, it remained for him to remove also this objection. It was indeed evident, that it was a foolish glorying in which the Jews on this account indulged; yet still a doubt remained as to the design of circumcision; for the Lord would not have appointed it had not some benefit been intended. He therefore, by way of an objection, asks, what it was that made the Jew superior to the Gentile; and he subjoins a reason for this by another question, What is the benefit of circumcision? For this separated the Jews from the common class of men; it was a partition-wall, as Paul calls ceremonies, which kept parties asunder. 2. Much in every way, etc.; that is, very much. He begins here to give the sacrament its own praise; but he concedes not, that on this account the Jews ought to have been proud; for when he teaches that they were sealed by the symbol of circumcision, by which they were counted the children of God, he does not allow that they became superior to others through any merit or worthiness of their own, but through the free mercy of God. If then regard be had to them as men, he shows that they were on a level with others; but if the favors of God be taken to the account, he admits that they possessed what made them more eminent than other men. First indeed, because, intrusted to them, etc. Some think there is here an unfinished period, for he sets down what he does not afterwards complete. But the word first seems not to me to be a note of number, but means chiefly" or especially, [88] and is to be taken in this sense -- "Though it were but this one thing, that they have the oracles [89] of God committed to them, it might be deemed sufficient to prove their superiority." And it is worthy of being noticed, that the advantage of circumcision is not made to consist in the naked sign, but its value is derived from the word; for Paul asks here what benefit the sacrament conferred on the Jews, and he answers, that God had deposited with them the treasure of celestial wisdom. It hence follows, that, apart from the word, no excellency remained. By oracles he means the covenant which God revealed first to Abraham and to his posterity, and afterwards sealed and unfolded by the law and the Prophets. Now the oracles were committed to them, for the purpose of preserving them as long as it pleased the Lord to continue his glory among them, and then of publishing them during the time of their stewardship through the whole world: they were first depositories, and secondly dispensers. But if this benefit was to be so highly esteemed when the Lord favored one nation only with the revelation of his word, we can never sufficiently reprobate our ingratitude, who receive his word with so much negligence or with so much carelessness, not to say disdain. Footnotes: [87] "Pr?rogativa -- prerogative," to perisson, rendered "pre-eminence" by Macknight; "pr?stantia -- superiority" by Beza and Pareus; and "advantage" in our version, and by Doddridge and Stuart. -- Ed. [88] The word proton is thus used in other places. See Matthew 6:33; Mark 7:27; 2 Peter 1:20. -- Ed. [89] Logia, oracula, mean, in Greek authors, divine responses. Hesychius explains it by Thesphata -- divine dictates. The word is used four times in New Testament. In Acts 7:38, it means specifically the law of Moses; here it includes the whole of the Old Testament; in Hebrews 5:12, and in 1 Peter 4:11, it embraces the truths of the Gospel. The divine character of the Scriptures is by this word attested; they are the oracles of God, his dictates, or communications from him. -- Ed.

Much every way; chiefly, because--rather, "first, that." unto them were committed the oracles of God--This remarkable expression, denoting "divine communications" in general, is transferred to the Scriptures to express their oracular, divine, authoritative character.

Romans 3:3-4 3. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 3. Quid enigma si quidem fuerunt increduli? Num incredulitas eorum fidem Dei faciet irritam? 4. God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. 4. Ne ita sit; quin sit Deus verax, omnis autem homo mendax; quemadmodum scriptum est, ut justificeris in sermonibus tuis, et vincas quum judicaris. [90] 3. What indeed if some, etc. As before, while regarding the Jews as exulting in the naked sign, he allowed them no not even a spark of glory; so now, while considering the nature of the sign, he testifies that its virtue (virtutem, efficacy) is not destroyed, no, not even by their inconstancy. As then he seemed before to have intimated that whatever grace there might have been in the sign of circumcision, it had wholly vanished through the ingratitude of the Jews, he now, anticipating an objection, again asks what opinion was to be formed of it. There is here indeed a sort of reticence, as he expresses less than what he intended to be understood; for he might have truly said that a great part of the nation had renounced the covenant of God; but as this would have been very grating to the ears of the Jews, he mitigated its severity, and mentioned only some. Shall their unbelief, etc. Katargein is properly to render void and ineffectual; a meaning most suitable to this passage. For Paul's inquiry is not so much whether the unbelief of men neutralizes the truth of God, so that it should not in itself remain firm and constant, but whether it hinders its effect and fulfillment as to men. The meaning then is, "Since most of the Jews are covenant-breakers, is God's covenant so abrogated by their perfidiousness that it brings forth no fruit among them? To this he answers, that it cannot be that the truth of God should lose its stability through man's wickedness. Though then the greater part had nullified and trodden under foot God's covenant, it yet retained its efficacy and manifested its power, not indeed as to all, but with regard to a few of that nation: and it is then efficacious when the grace or the blessing of the Lord avails to eternal salvation. But this cannot be, except when the promise is received by faith; for it is in this way that a mutual covenant is on both sides confirmed. He then means that some ever remained in that nation, who by continuing to believe in the promise, had not fallen away from the privileges of the covenant. 4. But let God be true, etc. Whatever may be the opinion of others, I regard this as an argument taken from the necessary consequence of what is opposed to it, by which Paul invalidates the preceding objection. For since these two things stand together, yea, necessarily accord, that God is true and that man is false, it follows that the truth of God is not nullified by the falsehood of men; for except he did now set those two things in opposition, the one to the other, he would afterwards have in vain labored to refute what was absurd, and show how God is just, though he manifests his justice by our unjustice. Hence the meaning is by no means ambiguous, -- that the faithfulness of God is so far from being nullified by the perfidy and apostasy of men that it thereby becomes more evident. "God," he says, "is true, not only because he is prepared to stand faithfully to his promises, but because he also really fulfills whatever he declares; for he so speaks, that his command becomes a reality. On the other hand, man is false, not only because he often violates his pledged faith, but because he naturally seeks falsehood and shuns the truth." The first clause contains the primary axiom of all Christian philosophy; the latter is taken from Psalm 116:11, where David confesses that there is nothing certain from man or in man. Now this is a remarkable passage, and contains a consolation that is much needed; for such is the perversity of men in rejecting and despising God's word, that its truth would be often doubted were not this to come to our minds, that God's verity depends not on man's verity. But how does this agree with what has been said previously -- that in order to make the divine promise effectual, faith, which receives it, is on the part of men necessary? for faith stands opposed to falsehood. This seems, indeed, to be a difficult question; but it may with no great difficulty be answered, and in this way -- the Lord, notwithstanding the lies of men, and though these are hinderances to his truth, does yet find a way for it through a pathless track, that he may come forth a conqueror, and that is, by correcting in his elect the inbred unbelief of our nature, and by subjecting to his service those who seem to be unconquerable. It must be added, that the discourse here is concerning the corruption of nature, and not the grace of God, which is the remedy for that corruption. That thou mightest be justified, etc. The sense is, So far is it that the truth of God is destroyed by our falsehood and unfaithfulness, that it thereby shines forth and appears more evident, according to the testimony of David, who says, that as he was sinner, God was a just and righteous Judge in whatever he determined respecting him, and that he would overcome all the calumnies of the ungodly who murmured against his righteousness. By the words of God, David means the judgments which he pronounces upon us; for the common application of these to promises is too strained: and so the particle that, is not so much final, nor refers to a far-fetched consequence, but implies an inference according to this purport, "Against thee have I sinned; justly then dost thou punish me." And that Paul has quoted this passage according to the proper and real meaning of David, is clear from the objection that is immediately added, "How shall the righteousness of God remain perfect if our iniquity illustrates it?" For in vain, as I have already observed, and unseasonable has Paul arrested the attention of his readers with this difficulty, except David meant, that God, in his wonderful providence, elicited from the sins of men a praise to his own righteousness. The second clause in Hebrew is this, "And that thou mightest be pure in thy judgment;" which expression imports nothing else but that God in all his judgments is worthy of praise, how much soever the ungodly may clamor and strive by their complaints disgracefully to efface his glory. But Paul has followed the Greek version, which answered his purpose here even better. We indeed know that the Apostles in quoting Scripture often used a freer language than the original; for they counted it enough to quote what was suitable to their subject: hence they made no great account of words. The application then of this passage is the following: Since all the sins of mortals must serve to illustrate the glory of the Lord, and since he is especially glorified by his truth, it follows, that even the falsehood of men serves to confirm rather than to subvert his truth. Though the word krinesthai, may be taken actively as well as passively, yet the Greek translators, I have no doubt, rendered it passively, contrary to the meaning of the Prophet. [91] Footnotes: [90] The references in the margin are the following: -- Romans 9:6; 2 Timothy 2:13; John 3:33; Psalm 116:11; Psalm 51:4. [91] Whenever there is a material agreement between the Greek and the Hebrew, we ought not to make it otherwise. If the verb krinesthai, as admitted by most critics, may be taken actively and be thus made to agree with the Hebrew, what reason can there be to take it in another sense? The only real difference is in one word, between nikeses, "overcomest," and tzkh, "art clear:" but the meaning is the same, though the words are different. To overcome in judgment, and to be clear in judgment, amounts to the same thing. The parallelism of the Hebrew requires krinesthai to be a verb in the middle voice, and to have an active meaning. The two lines in Hebrew, as it is often the case in Hebrew poetry, contain the same sentiment in different words, the last line expressing it more definitely; so that to be "justified," and to be "cleared," convey the same idea; and also "in thy word," or saying -- vdvrk and "in thy judgment" vsphtk. In many copies both these last words are in the plural number, so that the first would be strictly what is here expressed, "in thy words," that is, the words which thou hast declared; and "in thy judgments," that is, those which thou hast announced, would be fully rendered by "when thou Judgest." Commentators, both ancient and modern, have differed on the meaning of the verb in question. Pareus, Beza, Macknight, and Stuart, take it in an active sense; while Erasmus, Grotius, Venema, and others, contend for the passive meaning. Drusius, Hammond, and Doddridge render it, "when thou contendest in judgment," or, "when thou art called to judgment:" and such a meaning no doubt the verb has according to Matthew 5:40, and 1 Corinthians 6:1, 6. But in this case regard must be had, especially to the meaning which corresponds the nearest with the original Hebrew. Some have maintained that "in thy judgment" vsphtk may be rendered "in judging thee;" but this would not only be unusual and make the sentence hardly intelligible, but also destroy the evident parallelism of the two lines. The whole verse may be thus literally rendered from the Hebrew, -- Against thee, against thee only have I sinned; And the evil before thine eyes have I done; So that thou art justified in thy words, And clear in thy judgments. The conjunction lmn, admits of being rendered so that; see Psalm 30:12; Isaiah 41:20; Amos 2:7; and hopos in many instances may be thus rendered; see Luke 2:35; Philemon 6; 1 Peter 2:9. It is what Schleusner designates ekbatikos, signifying the issue or the event. Pareus connects the passage differently. He considers the former part of the verse parenthetic, or as specifying what is generally stated in the previous verse, the third; and with that verse he connects this passage: so that the rendering of the two verses would be the following, -- 3. For my transgression I acknowledge, And my sin is before me continually, -- 4. (Against thee, against thee only have I sinned, and the evil before thine eyes have I done,) That thou mightest be justified in thy saying, And clear in thy judgment. This is certainty more probable than what Vatablus and Houbigant propose, who connect the passage with the second verse, "Wash me thoroughly," etc. But the sense given by Calvin is the most satisfactory -- Ed.

Romans 3:5-8 5. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) 5. Quod si injustitia nostra Dei justitiam commendat, quid dicemus? Num injustus est Deus qui infert iram? Secundum hominem dico. 6. God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? 6. Ne ita sit: nam quomodo judicabit Deus mundum? 7. For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 7. Si enim veritas Dei per meum mendacium excelluit in ejus gloriam; quid etiammum et ego velut peccator judicor; 8. And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. 8. Et non (quemadmodum exprobratur nobis, et quemadmodum aiunt quidam nos dicere) Faciamus mala, ut veniant bona? quorum judicium justum est. 5 But if our unrighteousness, etc. Though this is a digression from the main subject, it was yet necessary for the Apostle to introduce it, lest he should seem to give to the ill-disposed an occasion to speak evil, which he knew would be readily laid hold on by them. For since they were watching for every opportunity to defame the gospel, they had, in the testimony of David, what they might have taken for the purpose of founding a calumny, -- "If God seeks nothing else, but to be glorified by men, why does he punish them, when they offend, since by offending they glorify him? Without cause then surely is he offended, if he derives the reason of his displeasure from that by which he is glorified." There is, indeed, no doubt, but that this was an ordinary, and everywhere a common calumny, as it will presently appear. Hence Paul could not have covertly passed it by; but that no one should think that he expressed the sentiments of his own mind, he premises that he assumes the person of the ungodly; and at the same time, he sharply, touches, by a single expression, on human reason; whose work, as he intimates, is ever to bark against the wisdom of God; for he says not, "according to the ungodly," but "according to man," or as man. And thus indeed it is, for all the mysteries of God are paradoxes to the flesh: and at the same tine it possesses so much audacity, that it fears not to oppose them and insolently to assail what it cannot comprehend. We are hence reminded, that if we desire to become capable of understanding them, we must especially labor to become freed from our own reason, (proprio sensu) and to give up ourselves, and unreservedly to submit to his word. -- The word wrath, taken here for judgment, refers to punishment; as though he said, "Is God unjust, who punishes those sins which set forth his righteousness?" 6. By no means, etc. In checking this blasphemy he gives not a direct reply to the objection, but begins with expressing his abhorrence of it, lest the Christian religion should even appear to include absurdities so great. And this is more weighty than if he adopted a simple denial; for he implies, that this impious expression deserved to be regarded with horror, and not to be heard. He presently subjoins what may be called an indirect refutation; for he does not distinctly refute the calumny, but gives only this reply, -- that the objection was absurd. Moreover, he takes an argument from an office which belongs to God, by which he proves it to be impossible, -- God shall judge the world; he cannot then be unjust. This argument is not derived, so to speak, from the mere power of God, but from his exercised power, which shines forth in the whole arrangement and order of his works; as though he said, -- "It is God's work to judge the world, that is, to rectify it by his own righteousness, and to reduce to the best order whatever there is in it out of order: he cannot then determine any thing unjustly." And he seems to allude to a passage recorded by Moses, in Genesis 18:25, where it is said, that when Abraham prayed God not to deliver Sodom wholly to destruction, he spoke to this purpose, -- "It is not meet, that thou who art to judge the earth, shouldest destroy the just with the ungodly: for this is not thy work nor can it be done by thee." A similar declaration is found in Job 34:17, -- "Should he who hates judgment exercise power?" For though there are found among men unjust judges, yet this happens, because they usurp authority contrary to law and right, or because they are inconsiderately raised to that eminence, or because they degenerate from themselves. But there is nothing of this kind with regard to God. Since, then, he is by nature judge, it must be that he is just, for he cannot deny himself. Paul then proves from what is impossible, that God is absurdly accused of unrighteousness; for to him peculiarly and naturally belongs the work of justly governing the world. And though what Paul teaches extends to the constant government of God, yet I allow that it has a special reference to the last judgment; for then only a real restoration of just order will take place. But if you wish for a direct refutation, by which profane things of this kind may be checked, take this, and say, "That it comes not through what unrighteousness is, that God's righteousness becomes more illustrious, but that our wickedness is so surpassed by God's goodness, that it is turned to serve an end different from that to which it tends." 7. If indeed [92] the truth of God, etc. This objection, I have no doubt, is adduced in the person of the ungodly; for it is a sort of an explanation of the former verse, and would have been connected with it, had not the Apostle, moved with indignation, broken off the sentence in the middle. The meaning of the objection is -- "If by our unfaithfulness the truth of God becomes more conspicuous, and in a manner confirmed, and hence more glory redounds to him, it is by no means just, that he, who serves to display God's glory, should be punished as a sinner." [93] 8. And not, etc. This is an elliptical sentence, in which a word is to be understood. It will be complete, if you read it thus, -- "and why is it not rather said, (as we are reproached, etc.) that we are to do evils, that good things may come?" But the Apostle deigns not to answer the slander; which yet we may check by the most solid reason. The pretense, indeed, is this, -- "If God is by our iniquity glorified, and if nothing can be done by man in this life more befitting than to promote the glory of God, then let us sin to advance his glory!" Now the answer to this is evident, -- "That evil cannot of itself produce anything but evil; and that God's glory is through our sin illustrated, is not the work of man, but the work of God; who, as a wonderful worker, knows how to overcome our wickedness, and to convert it to another end, so as to turn it contrary to what we intend, to the promotion of his own glory." God has prescribed to us the way, by which he would have himself to be glorified by us, even by true piety, which consists in obedience to his word. He who leaps over this boundary, strives not to honor God, but to dishonor him. That it turns out otherwise, is to be ascribed to the Providence of God, and not to the wickedness of man; through which it comes not, that the majesty of God is not injured, nay, wholly overthrown [94] (As we are reproached,) etc. Since Paul speaks so reverently of the secret judgments of God, it is a wonder that his enemies should have fallen into such wantonness as to calumniate him: but there has never been so much reverence and seriousness displayed by God's servants as to be sufficient to check impure and virulent tongues. It is not then a new thing, that adversaries at this day load with so many false accusations, and render odious our doctrine, which we ourselves know to be the pure gospel of Christ, and all the angels, as well as the faithful, are our witnesses. Nothing can be imagined more monstrous than what we read here was laid to the charge of Paul, to the end, that his preaching might be rendered hateful to the inexperienced. Let us then bear this evil, when the ungodly abuse the truth which we preach by their calumnies: nor let us cease, on this account, constantly to defend the genuine confession of it, inasmuch as it has sufficient power to crush and to dissipate their falsehoods. Let us, at the same time, according to the Apostle's example, oppose, as much as we can, all malicious subtilties, (technis -- crafts, wiles,) that the base and the abandoned may not, without some check, speak evil of our Creator. Whose judgment is just. Some take this in an active sense, as signifying that Paul so far assents to them, that what they objected was absurd, in order that the doctrine of the gospel might not be thought to be connected with such paradoxes: but I approve more of the passive meaning; for it would not have been suitable simply to express an approval of such a wickedness, which, on the contrary, deserved to be severely condemned; and this is what Paul seems to me to have done. And their perverseness was, on two accounts, to be condemned, -- first, because this impiety had gained the assent of their minds; and secondly, because, in traducing the gospel, they dared to draw from it their calumny. Footnotes: [92] Or, "For if" -- Si enim -- ei gar. The particle gar here gives no reason, but is to be viewed as meaning then, or indeed, verily; see Luke 12:58; John 9:30; Acts 16:37; Philippians 2:27 Stuart renders it, still, and says, that it "points to a connection with verse. 5, and denotes a continuance of the same theme." Macknight often renders it by further, besides, and no doubt rightly. -- Ed. [93] It is remarkable how the Apostle changes his words from the third verse to the end of this, while the same things are essentially meant. His style is throughout Hebraistic. Stuart makes these just remarks, "Adikia is here [Romans 3:5] the generic appellation of sin, for which a specific name, apistia, was employed in Romans 3:3, and pseusma, in Romans 3:7. In like manner the dikaiosune, in Romans 3:5, which is a generic appellation, is expressed by a specific one, pistin, in Romans 3:3, and by aletheia, in Romans 3:7. The idea is substantially the same, which is designated by these respectively corresponding appellations. Fidelity, uprightness, integrity, are designated by pistin, dikaiosunen, and aletheia; while aletheia, and apistia adikia, designate unfaithfulness, want of uprightness and false dealing. All of these terms have more or less reference to the vryt, covenant or compact (so to speak) which existed between God and his ancient people." -- Ed. [94] Grotius thinks, that in the beginning of this verse there is a transposition, and that hoti, after the parenthesis, ought to be construed before me which precedes it, and that hoti is for cur, why, -- as in Mark 9:11, and 28. The version would then be, "and why not, (as we are reproached, and as some declare that we say,) Let us do evil that good may come?" This is the rendering of Luther But Limborch and Stuart consider legomen to be understood after me; and the latter takes me not as a negative but an interrogative, "and shall we say," etc.? Amidst these varieties, the main drift of the passage remains the same. -- Ed.

For what if some did not believe?--It is the unbelief of the great body of the nation which the apostle points at; but as it sufficed for his argument to put the supposition thus gently, he uses this word "some" to soften prejudice. shall their unbelief make the faith of God--or, "faithfulness of God." of none effect?--"nullify," "invalidate" it.

God forbid--literally, "Let it not be," that is, "Away with such a thought"--a favorite expression of our apostle, when he would not only repudiate a supposed consequence of his doctrine, but express his abhorrence of it. "The Scriptures do not authorize such a use of God's name as must have been common among the English translators of the Bible" [HODGE]. yea, let God be--held true, and every man a liar--that is, even though it should follow from this that every man is a liar. when thou art judged--so in Psa 51:4, according to the Septuagint; but in the Hebrew and in our version, "when thou judgest." The general sentiment, however, is the same in both--that we are to vindicate the righteousness of God, at whatever expense to ourselves.

But if, &c.--Another objection: "It would appear, then, that the more faithless we are, so much the more illustrious will the fidelity of God appear; and in that case, for Him to take vengeance on us for our unfaithfulness would be (to speak as men profanely do) unrighteousness in God." Answer:

God forbid; for then how shall God judge the world?--that is, "Far from us be such a thought; for that would strike down all future judgment.

For if the truth of God, &c.--A further illustration of the same sentiment: that is, "Such reasoning amounts to this--which indeed we who preach salvation by free grace are slanderously accused of teaching--that the more evil we do, the more glory will redound to God; a damnable principle." (Thus the apostle, instead of refuting this principle, thinks it enough to hold it up to execration, as one that shocks the moral sense). On this brief section, Note (1) Mark the place here assigned to the Scriptures. In answer to the question, "What advantage hath the Jew?" or, "What profit is there of circumcision?" (Rom 3:1) those holding Romish views would undoubtedly have laid the stress upon the priesthood, as the glory of the Jewish economy. But in the apostle's esteem, "the oracles of God" were the jewel of the ancient Church (Rom 3:1-2). (2) God's eternal purposes and man's free agency, as also the doctrine of salvation by grace and the unchanging obligations of God's law, have ever been subjected to the charge of inconsistency by those who will bow to no truth which their own reason cannot fathom. But amidst all the clouds and darkness which in this present state envelop the divine administration and many of the truths of the Bible, such broad and deep principles as are here laid down, and which shine in their own luster, will be found the sheet-anchor of our faith. "Let God be true, and every man a liar" (Rom 3:4); and as many advocates of salvation by grace as say, "Let us do evil that good may come," "their damnation is just" (Rom 3:8).

What advantage then hath the Jew?.... If he is not properly a Jew, who is born of Jewish parents, and brought up in the customs, rites, and religion of the Jewish nation, but anyone of whatsoever nation, that is born again of water, and of the Spirit; where is the superior excellency of the Jew to the Gentile? A man may as well be born and brought up a Heathen as a Jew; the one has no more advantages than the other by his birth and education: it may be rendered, "what hath the Jew more?" or "what has he superfluous" or "abundant?" the phrase answers to the Hebrew in Ecclesiastes 1:3, which is rendered, "what profit hath a man?" and in Ecclesiastes 6:8, , "what hath a wise man more", &c. and in Romans 3:11, , "what is a man better?" the first of these passages the Septuagint render by , "what abundance?" and the last by "what more", or "superfluous", or "abundant?" the phrase used by the apostle here: or what profit is there of circumcision? since that which is outward in the flesh profits not unless the law is kept, otherwise circumcision is no circumcision; and if an uncircumcised Gentile keeps the law, he is a better man than a circumcised Jew; yea, he judges and condemns him; for the only true circumcision is internal, spiritual, and in the heart. To this the apostle answers in the Romans 3:2.

Much every way,.... The circumcised Jew has greatly the advantage of the uncircumcised Gentile, , "in all respects", , "on every side", as the Rabbins speak; phrases to which this in the text answers: chiefly; more especially, particularly, and in the first place; because that unto them were committed the oracles of God; by which are meant the law of Moses, and the writings of the prophets, the institutions of the ceremonial law, and the prophecies of the Messiah and the Gospel church state; and in a word, all the books of the Old Testament, and whatsoever is contained in them; which are called so, because they are of divine inspiration, contain the mind and will of God, and are infallible and authoritative: and it was the privilege and profit of the Jews that they were intrusted with them, when other nations were not, and so had the advantage of them; they had them for their own use; for hereby they had a more clear and distinct knowledge of God than the Gentiles could have by the light of nature; and besides, became acquainted with the doctrines of a trinity of persons in the Godhead, of the sonship and deity of the Messiah, of the sacrifice, satisfaction, and righteousness of the Redeemer, and of salvation by him; and also with the manner of worshipping of God according to his will; all which the Gentiles were ignorant of. Moreover, they had the honour of being the keepers of these sacred books, these divine oracles, and of transmitting them to posterity, for the use of others.

For what if some did not believe?.... It is suggested, that though the Jews enjoyed such a privilege, some of them did not believe; which is an aggravation of their sin, that they should have such means of light, knowledge, and faith, such clear and full evidences of things, and yet be incredulous: though it should be observed that this was the case only of some, not of all; and must be understood, not of their disbelief of the Scriptures being the word of God, for these were always received as such by them all, and were constantly read, heard, and attended to; but either of their disobedience to the commands of God required in the law, or of their disregard to the promises of God, and prophecies of the Messiah, and of their disbelief in the Messiah himself when he came; but now this was no objection to the advantage they had of the Gentiles, since this was not owing to want of evidence in the word of God, but to the darkness and unbelief of their minds: and, shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? no, their unbelief could not, and did not make void the veracity and faithfulness of God in his promises concerning the Messiah, recorded in the oracles of God, which they had committed to them; for notwithstanding this, God raised up the Messiah from among them, which is another advantage the Jews had of, the Gentiles; inasmuch as "of" them, "as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore", Romans 9:5, and he sent him to them, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, as a prophet and minister; he sent his Gospel to them first, and called out by it from among them his elect, nor did he take it from them until he had done this: and he took it away only; until "the fulness of the Gentiles", Romans 11:25, is brought in; and then the Gospel shall come to them again with power, and "all Israel shall be saved" Romans 11:26.

God forbid, yea, let God be true, but every man a liar,.... Let no such thing ever enter into the minds of any, that the truth of God can be, or will be made of none effect by the want of faith in man; let it be always asserted and abode by; that God is true, faithful to his word, constant in his promises, and will always fulfil his purposes; though "every man is a liar", vain, fallacious, and inconstant: referring to Psalm 116:11; as it is written, Psalm 51:4; that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. This is a proof that God is true, and stands to his word, though men are fallacious, inconstant, and wicked. God made a promise to David, that of the fruit of his body he would set upon his throne; that the Messiah should spring from him; that he would of his seed raise up unto Israel a Saviour. Now David sinned greatly in the case of Bathsheba, 2 Samuel 11:3 (title), but his sin did not make of no effect the truth and faithfulness of God: though David showed himself to be a weak sinful man, yet God appeared true and faithful to every word of promise which he had sworn in truth to him; and therefore when he was brought to a sense of his evil, and at the same time to observe the invariable truth and faithfulness of God, said, "I acknowledge my transgression, &c. against thee, thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight", Psalm 51:3, which confession of sin I make, "that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings"; or "when thou speakest", Psalm 51:4, which is all one; that is, that thou mightest appear to be just, and faithful, and true in all thy promises, in every word that is gone out of thy mouth, which shall not be recalled and made void, on account of my sins; for though I have sinned, thou abidest faithful; and this also I declare with shame to myself, and with adoring views of thine unchangeable truth and goodness: "that thou mightest overcome"; that is, put to silence all such cavils and charges, as if the faith of God could be made void by the unfaithfulness of men: "when thou art judged"; when men will be so bold and daring to arraign thy truth and faithfulness, and contend with thee about them. This now is brought as a full proof, and is a full proof of this truth, that God is always true to his word, though men fail in theirs, and fall into sin. God kept his word with David concerning the stability of his kingdom, his successor, and the Messiah that should spring from him, though he acted a bad part against God. There is some little difference between these words as they stand in the Hebrew text of Psalm 51:4; and as they are cited and rendered by the apostle, in the last clause of them; in the former it is, "that thou mightest be clear"; in the latter, "that thou mightest overcome". Now to vindicate the apostle's version, let it be observed, that the Hebrew word signifies to "overcome", as well as to "be clear"; of which instances may be given out of the Jewish writings. Says (l) Rabba; concerning an argument used by R. Chanina, in a controversy with other Rabbins, by this R. Chanina ben Antigonus, "hath overcome" them: and in another place (m), whosoever "overcomes" a king, they cast him into an empty ditch; where the gloss upon it is, he that overcomes a king by words, that is, by disputing with him, which is a disgrace to a king. So the word is used in the Syriac language in John 16:33. Moreover, the sense is the same, be it rendered either way; for as a man, when he overcomes his adversary, and carries his point against him, is clear of his charges and cavils, so God, when he overcomes in judgment, is clear of the imputations of wicked men. Another difference in the citation is, that what in the psalm is rendered "when thou judgest", is by the apostle, "when thou art judged", Psalm 51:4, the word, which is used by the Psalmist, may be rendered either way; either "when thou judgest", as a word of the same form is rendered, when "thou speakest", in Psalm 51:4; or "when anyone judges of thee", or "when thou art judged": a like instance is in Psalm 46:2; and so it is rendered by the Septuagint, and followed by the apostle, though the word he uses may be considered in the middle voice, and may have an active signification in it; and the phrase, , may be rendered, "when thou judgest", and then both agree. (l) T. Bab. Niddah, fol. 52. 2.((m) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 10. 2. Sanhedrim, fol. 39. 1. & Becorot, fol. 8. 2.

But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God,.... Hence it appears, that the unrighteousness of men commends the righteousness, or faithfulness of God; and yet all unrighteousness is sin; the wrath of God is revealed against it; and would exclude from heaven, were it not for pardon through the blood of Christ; and besides, the one is contrary to the other, and of itself, of its own nature, cannot influence and affect the other: wherefore this can only be understood of the manifestation and illustration of, the righteousness of God by it; which is covered and commended, in punishing the unrighteousness of men; in setting forth Christ to be a propitiation for sin; and in fulfilling his promises, notwithstanding the failings of his people, of which the case of David is a pregnant proof; just as the love of God is illustrated and commended, by the consideration of the sins of men, for whom Christ died, and his grace and mercy in the conversion of them: but if this be true, what shall we say? shall we allow the following question to be put? this answers to , "what is there to say", or "to be said?" a way of speaking, often used by the Talmudists (n): is God unrighteous, who taketh vengeance? if the premises are true, this is a just consequence of them; whereas God does take vengeance on men for their unrighteousness, both here and hereafter, it must be a piece of unrighteousness in him so to do; since that for which he takes vengeance on them commends his own righteousness; but that you may know as well by what follows, that this is not an inference of his own, but another's, he adds, I speak as a man; , "according to the language of the children of men", a phrase often used by the Jewish doctors (o). The apostle did not speak the sentiments of his own mind, he represented another man, and spoke in the language of an adversary. (n) T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 4. 1. & passim. (o) T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 11. 1. & passim.

God forbid, for then how shall God judge the world? "far be it"; such a notion is detestable and abominable, nor can it be fairly deduced from what is asserted; for it is the unrighteousness of his own people, on whom he takes no vengeance personally, and not the unrighteousness of others, on whom he does take vengeance, which commends his righteousness; and supposing it was that of others, God cannot be unrighteous in performing his threatenings, in a way of righteousness: moreover, unrighteousness is sin, and does not of itself but by accident, illustrate the righteousness of God; wherefore God is not unjust in punishing it; for how should God "judge the world?" whereas nothing is more certain than that he will do it, and that this will be done in righteousness; which could not be, was he unrighteous in taking vengeance; which will be one considerable part of that righteous judgment.

For if the truth of God,.... The "truth of God" is the same with "the righteousness of God", Romans 3:5, and means his faithfulness; of which it is hypothetically said, it hath more abounded; or has been more illustrated, through my lie to his glory: nothing is more opposite to truth than a lie; a lie of itself can never be of any advantage to truth, or to the God of truth; nothing is more contrary to the nature of God, and more abominable to him; a lie is of the devil, and punishable with eternal death; wherefore it may seem strange, that the truth of God should abound through it to his glory: now let it be observed, that the apostle is not speaking of himself, nor of his lie of unbelief, in his state of unregeneracy; but in the person of a sinful man, "for every man is a liar", Romans 3:4, as he says, "I speak as a man", Romans 3:5; representing a wicked man, who from what was before said, might collect this as the sense of it, that the truth of God is illustrated by the lies of men: and so much may be owned as the apostle's sense, that the truth of God is commended, illustrated, and made to abound, when it is asserted, that he is true and faithful, and every man is a liar, fallacious, and deceitful; "let God be true, and every man a liar", Romans 3:4, moreover, the truth of God may be allowed to abound through the lies of men, in a comparative sense, the one being set against the other; and so as contraries do, illustrate each other: this may be assented to, as that sometimes a lie has been overruled by God, for the accomplishing of his purposes and promises, in which his truth and faithfulness have been displayed, as in the cases of Jacob and the Egyptian midwives; but then this does not arise from its nature and tendency, but from the overruling wisdom and providence of God, and therefore not to be excused hereby from sin; and consequently the inference from it is not just, that therefore "no man can, or ought to be, judged as a sinner"; since his sin turns to such account, as to make for the glory of God, which is intimated in the question: why yet am I also judged as a sinner? if this be the case, I ought not to be reckoned a sinner, or to be treated as such here, or judged and condemned as one hereafter, which is a most wicked, as well as weak consequence; for though God is true and faithful to his promises, notwithstanding the sins of his people, which are as a foil, to set off the lustre of his truth the more, yet their sins are nevertheless sins, and are taken notice of by him as such, and they are corrected for them; and however God may overrule, in a providential way, the sins of others for his glory, this is no excuse for their sins, nor will it be an exemption of them from punishment. This is the sense of the passage; unless by "the truth of God" should be meant, the Gospel, the word of truth, which is of God; and which through the apostle's "lie", as the Jews might call his ministration of it, "abounded to" the "glory" of God; being spread far and near, and made useful for the conversion of sinners, for turning men from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God; and for the planting of churches in the Gentile world, as well as in Judea; which much conduced to the honour of God, and the interest of true religion: and then the meaning of the last clause is, "why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" why am I accounted and condemned as an heretic? as an apostate from the faith? as he was by the Jews, and who are used to call heretics sinners: so "the sinner" in Ecclesiastes 7:26 is thus interpreted (p), "these are the heretics": and elsewhere it (q) is observed, that concerning the heretics it is said, Proverbs 10:7, "the name of the wicked shall rot": and I very much suspect this to be the sense of the word in John 9:24, "we know that this man is a sinner"; an heretic, a man of bad principles; and in John 9:31; "now we know that God heareth not sinners"; men of corrupt minds; since this character stands opposed to a worshipper of the God of Israel. (p) Midrash Kohelet, fol. 77. 1.((q) Juchasin, fol. 130. 2.

And not rather, as we be slanderously reported,.... These are the apostle's own words, in answer to the objector he represented; and it is as if he should say, why do not you go on? why do you stop here? "and not rather" say, as we are evil spoken of, and our doctrine is blasphemed: and as some affirm; ignorantly and audaciously enough: that we say; and teach: let us do evil that good may come; a slander cast upon the apostle's doctrine of unconditional election, free justification, and of God's overruling the sins of men for good; and is the same which is cast on ours now, and is no small proof of the likeness and sameness of doctrines: whose damnation is just; whose judgment would have been right, and their censure of our doctrines just, had it been true that we held such a principle, taught such a doctrine, or encouraged such a practice: or their condemnation is just, for aspersing our principles and practices in so vile a manner; and all such persons are deserving of damnation, who teach such things, or practise after this sort.

I. Here the apostle answers several objections, which might be made, to clear his way. No truth so plain and evident but wicked wits and corrupt carnal hearts will have something to say against it; but divine truths must be cleared from cavil. Object. 1. If Jew and Gentile stand so much upon the same level before God, what advantage then hath the Jew? Hath not God often spoken with a great deal of respect for the Jews, as a non-such people (Deu 33:29), a holy nation, a peculiar treasure, the seed of Abraham his friend: Did not he institute circumcision as a badge of their church-membership, and a seal of their covenant-relation to God? Now does not this levelling doctrine deny them all such prerogatives, and reflect dishonour upon the ordinance of circumcision, as a fruitless insignificant thing. Answer. The Jews are, notwithstanding this, a people greatly privileged and honoured, have great means and helps, though these be not infallibly saving (Rom 3:2): Much every way. The door is open to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, but the Jews have a fairer way up to this door, by reason of their church-privileges, which are not to be undervalued, though many that have them perish eternally for not improving them. He reckons up many of the Jews' privileges Rom 9:4, Rom 9:5; here he mentions but one (which is indeed instar omnium - equivalent to all), that unto them were committed the oracles of God, that is, the scriptures of the Old Testament, especially the law of Moses, which is called the lively oracles (Act 7:38), and those types, promises, and prophecies, which relate to Christ and the gospel. The scriptures are the oracles of God: they are a divine revelation, they come from heaven, are of infallible truth, and of eternal consequence as oracles. The Septuagint call the Urim and Thummim the logia - the oracles. The scripture is our breast-plate of judgment. We must have recourse to the law and to the testimony, as to an oracle. The gospel is called the oracles of God, Heb 5:12; Pe1 4:11. Now these oracles were committed to the Jews; the Old Testament was written in their language; Moses and the prophets were of their nation, lived among them, preached and wrote primarily to and for the Jews. They were committed to them as trustees for succeeding ages and churches. The Old Testament was deposited in their hands, to be carefully preserved pure and uncorrupt, and so transmitted down to posterity. The Jews were the Christians' library-keepers, were entrusted with that sacred treasure for their own use and benefit in the first place, and then for the advantage of the world; and, in preserving the letter of the scripture, they were very faithful to their trust, did not lose one iota or tittle, in which we are to acknowledge God's gracious care and providence. The Jews had the means of salvation, but they had not the monopoly of salvation. Now this he mentions with a chiefly, prōton men gar - this was their prime and principal privilege. The enjoyment of God's word and ordinances is the chief happiness of a people, is to be put in the imprimis of their advantages, Deu 4:8; Deu 33:3; Psa 147:20. Object. 2. Against what he had said of the advantages the Jews had in the lively oracles, some might object the unbelief of many of them. To what purpose were the oracles of God committed to them, when so many of them, notwithstanding these oracles, continued strangers to Christ, and enemies to his gospel? Some did not believe, Rom 3:3. Answer. It is very true that some, nay most of the present Jews, do not believe in Christ; but shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? The apostle startles at such a thought: God forbid! The infidelity and obstinacy of the Jews could not invalidate and overthrow those prophecies of the Messiah which were contained in the oracles committed to them. Christ will be glorious, though Israel be not gathered, Isa 49:5. God's words shall be accomplished, his purposes performed, and all his ends answered, though there be a generation that by their unbelief go about to make God a liar. Let God be true but every man a liar; let us abide by this principle, that God is true to every word which he has spoken, and will let none of his oracles fall to the ground, though thereby we give the lie to man; better question and overthrow the credit of all the men in the world than doubt of the faithfulness of God. What David said in his haste (Psa 116:11), that all men are liars, Paul here asserts deliberately. Lying is a limb of that old man which we every one of us come into the world clothed with. All men are fickle, and mutable, and given to change, vanity and a lie (Psa 62:9), altogether vanity, Psa 39:5. All men are liars, compared with God. It is very comfortable, when we find every man a liar (no faith in man), that God is faithful. When they speak vanity every one with his neighbour, it is very comfortable to think that the words of the Lord are pure words, Psa 12:2, Psa 12:6. For the further proof of this he quotes Psa 51:4, That thou mightest be justified, the design of which is to show, 1. That God does and will preserve his own honour in the world, notwithstanding the sins of men. 2. That it is our duty, in all our conclusions concerning ourselves and others, to justify God and to assert and maintain his justice, truth, and goodness, however it goes. David lays a load upon himself in his confession, that he might justify God, and acquit him from any injustice. So here, Let the credit or reputation of man shift for itself, the matter is not great whether it sink or swim; let us hold fast this conclusion, how specious soever the premises may be to the contrary, that the Lord is righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works. Thus is God justified in his sayings, and cleared when he judges (as it is Psa 51:4), or when he is judged, as it is here rendered. When men presume to quarrel with God and his proceedings, we may be sure the sentence will go on God's side. Object. 3. Carnal hearts might hence take occasion to encourage themselves in sin. He had said that the universal guilt and corruption of mankind gave occasion to the manifestation of God's righteousness in Jesus Christ. Now it may be suggested, If all our sin be so far from overthrowing God's honour that it commends it, and his ends are secured, so that there is no harm done, is it not unjust for God to punish our sin and unbelief so severely? If the unrighteousness of the Jews gave occasion to the calling in of the Gentiles, and so to God's greater glory, why are the Jews so much censured? If our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Rom 3:5. What inference may be drawn from this? Is God unrighteous, mē adikos ho Theos - Is not God unrighteous (so it may be read, more in the form of an objection), who taketh vengeance? Unbelieving hearts will gladly take any occasion to quarrel with equity of God's proceedings, and to condemn him that is most just, Job 34:17. I speak as a man, that is, I object this as the of carnal hearts; it is suggested like a man, a vain, foolish, proud creature. Answer. God forbid; far be it from us to imagine such a thing. Suggestions that reflect dishonour upon God and his justice and holiness are rather to be startled at than parleyed with. Get thee behind me, Satan; never entertain such a thought. For then how shall God judge the world? Rom 3:6. The argument is much the same with that of Abraham (Gen 18:25): Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? No doubt, he shall. If he were not infinitely just and righteous, he would be unfit to be the judge of all the earth. Shall even he that hateth right govern? Job 34:17. Compare Job 34:18, Job 34:19. The sin has never the less of malignity and demerit in it though God bring glory to himself out of it. It is only accidentally that sin commends God's righteousness. No thanks to the sinner for that, who intends no such thing. The consideration of God's judging the world should for ever silence all our doubtings of, and reflections upon, his justice and equity. It is not for us to arraign the proceedings of such an absolute Sovereign. The sentence of the supreme court, whence lies no appeal, is not to be called in question. Object. 4. The former objection is repeated and prosecuted (Rom 3:7, Rom 3:8), for proud hearts will hardly be beaten out of their refuge of lies, but will hold fast the deceit. But his setting off the objection in its own colours is sufficient to answer it: If the truth of God has more abounded through my lie. He supposes the sophisters to follow their objection thus: "If my lie, that is, my sin" (for there is something of a lie in every sin, especially in the sins of professors) "have occasioned the glorifying of God's truth and faithfulness, why should I be judged and condemned as a sinner, and not rather thence take encouragement to go on in my sin, that grace may abound?" an inference which at first sight appears too black to be argued, and fit to be cast out with abhorrence. Daring sinners take occasion to boast in mischief, because the goodness of God endures continually, Psa 52:1. Let us do evil that good may come is oftener in the heart than in the mouth of sinners, so justifying themselves in their wicked ways. Mentioning this wicked thought, he observes, in a parenthesis, that there were those who charged such doctrines as this upon Paul and his fellow-ministers: Some affirm that we say so. It is no new thing for the best of God's people and ministers to be charged with holding and teaching such things as they do most detest and abhor; and it is not to be thought strange, when our Master himself was said to be in league with Beelzebub. Many have been reproached as if they had said that the contrary of which they maintain: it is an old artifice of Satan thus to cast dirt upon Christ's ministers, Fortiter calumniari, aliquid adhaerebit - Lay slander thickly on, for some will be sure to stick. The best men and the best truths are subject to slander. Bishop Sanderson makes a further remark upon this, as we are slanderously reported - blasphēmoumetha. Blasphemy in scripture usually signifies the highest degree of slander, speaking ill of God. The slander of a minister and his regular doctrine is a more than ordinary slander, it is a kind of blasphemy, not for his person's sake, but for his calling's sake and his work's sake, Th1 5:13. Answer. He says no more by way of confutation but that, whatever they themselves may argue, the damnation of those is just. Some understand it of the slanderers; God will justly condemn those who unjustly condemn his truth. Or, rather, it is to be applied to those who embolden themselves in sin under a pretence of God's getting glory to himself out of it. Those who deliberately do evil that good may come of it will be so far from escaping, under the shelter of that excuse, that it will rather justify their damnation, and render them the more inexcusable; for sinning upon such a surmise, and in such a confidence, argues a great deal both of the wit and of the will in the sin - a wicked will deliberately to choose the evil, and a wicked wit to palliate it with the pretence of good arising from it. Therefore their damnation is just; and, whatever excuses of this kind they may now please themselves with, they will none of them stand good in the great day, but God will be justified in his proceedings, and all flesh, even the proud flesh that now lifts up itself against him, shall be silent before him. Some think Paul herein refers to the approaching ruin of the Jewish church and nation, which their obstinacy and self-justification in their unbelief hastened upon them apace. II. Paul, having removed these objections, next revives his assertion of the general guilt and corruption of mankind in common, both of Jews and Gentiles, Rom 3:9-18. "Are we better than they, we Jews, to whom were committed the oracles of God? Does this rec…