John Calvin Commentary Romans 1

Paul, etc. — Regarding the name Paul, as it is not a subject of such importance that it ought to detain us, and as nothing can be said that has not been mentioned by other commentators, I would say nothing if it were not proper to satisfy some with little effort without being tedious to others; for the subject will be addressed in very few words.

Those who think that the Apostle received this name as a trophy for having brought Sergius, the proconsul, to the faith of Christ, are refuted by the testimony of Luke, who shows that he was already called by that name before that time (see Acts 13:7, 9). Nor does it seem probable to me that it was given to him when he was converted to Christ, though this idea so pleased Augustine that he took the opportunity to philosophize subtly on the subject; for he says that from a proud Saul, he was made a very little (parvulum) disciple of Christ.

More probable is the opinion of Origen, who thought that Paul had two names. For it is quite likely true that his name, Saul, derived from his family, was given to him by his parents to indicate his religion and his lineage, and that his other name, Paul, was added to show his right to Roman citizenship. They wanted this honor, which was then highly valued, to be clearly shown; however, they did not value it so highly as to conceal proof of his Israelite descent.

But he commonly used the name Paul in his Epistles, and this may be for the following reasons: because in the churches to which he wrote, it was more known and more common, more acceptable in the Roman Empire, and less known among his own nation. It was indeed his duty to avoid the foolish suspicion and hatred which the name of a Jew then suffered among the Romans and in their provinces, and to avoid inflaming the anger of his own countrymen, and to protect himself.

A servant of Jesus Christ, etc. — He identifies himself with these distinctions to secure more authority for his doctrine. He seeks to secure this by two things: first, by asserting his call to the Apostleship, and secondly, by showing that his call was not unconnected with the Church of Rome. For it was of great importance that he should be considered an Apostle through God’s call, and that he should be known as one destined for the Roman Church.

He therefore says that he was a servant of Christ, and called to the office of an Apostle, thereby intimating that he had not presumptuously intruded into that office. He then adds that he was chosen (selectum—selected), by which he more fully confirms the fact that he was not one of the common people, but a particular Apostle of the Lord.

Consistent with this, he had previously proceeded from the general to the particular, as the Apostleship was a special service. For all who sustain the office of teaching are to be considered Christ’s servants, but Apostles, in point of honor, far exceed all others. But the choosing for the gospel, etc., which he afterwards mentions, expresses the purpose as well as the use of the Apostleship, for he intended briefly to show for what purpose he was called to that function.

By saying then that he was a servant of Christ, he declared what he had in common with other teachers; by claiming for himself the title of an Apostle, he placed himself above others. But as no authority is due to one who willfully intrudes himself, he reminds us that he was appointed by God.

The meaning then is — that Paul was a servant of Christ, not any kind of servant, but an Apostle, and that by the call of God, and not by presumptuous intrusion. Then follows a clearer explanation of the Apostolic office — it was ordained for the preaching of the Gospel.

For I cannot agree with those who refer this call of which he speaks to the eternal election of God, or who understand the separation to be either that from his mother’s womb, which he mentions in Galatians 1:15, or that to which Luke refers when Paul was appointed for the Gentiles. Instead, I consider that he simply glories in having God as the author of his call, lest anyone should think that he had, through his own rashness, taken this honor to himself.

We must observe here that not all are fitted for the ministry of the word, for a special call is necessary. Even those who seem particularly fitted ought to take care lest they thrust themselves in without a call. As for the nature of the Apostolic and the Episcopal call, we will consider it elsewhere.

We must further observe that the office of an Apostle is the preaching of the gospel. From this it appears what just objects of ridicule are those dumb dogs who make themselves conspicuous only by their mitre and crook, and boast that they are the successors of the Apostles!

The word servant signifies nothing other than a minister, for it refers to what is official. I mention this to correct the mistake of those who over-refine this expression and think that a contrast between the service of Moses and that of Christ is to be understood here.

Which he had before promised, etc. — Since the suspicion of being new greatly diminishes the authority of a doctrine, he confirms the faith of the gospel by its antiquity. It is as if he were saying: “Christ did not come to the earth unexpectedly, nor did He introduce a doctrine of a new kind, unheard of before, because He, and His gospel too, had been promised and expected from the beginning of the world.”

But since antiquity is often legendary, he brings witnesses, and approved ones, even the Prophets of God, so that he might remove every suspicion. He then adds, in the third place, that their testimonies were properly recorded, that is, in the Holy Scriptures.

We may learn from this passage what the gospel is: he teaches us that it was not proclaimed by the Prophets but only promised. If, then, the Prophets promised the gospel, it follows that it was revealed when our Lord was finally manifested in the flesh. Therefore, those who confound the promises with the gospel are mistaken, since the gospel is properly the appointed preaching of Christ as manifested, in whom the promises themselves are exhibited.

Concerning his own Son, etc. — This is a remarkable passage, by which we are taught that the whole gospel is included in Christ, so that if anyone moves one step from Christ, he withdraws himself from the gospel. For since he is the living and express image of the Father, it is no wonder that he alone is set before us as one to whom our whole faith is to be directed and in whom it is to center.

It is then a definition of the gospel, by which Paul expresses what is summarily comprehended in it. I have rendered the words which follow, Jesus Christ our Lord, in the same case, which seems to me to be most agreeable with the context. We therefore learn that he who has made a due proficiency in the knowledge of Christ has acquired everything which can be learned from the gospel; and, on the other hand, that those who seek to be wise without Christ are not only foolish, but even completely insane.

Who was made, etc. — Two things must be found in Christ so that we may obtain salvation in him: namely, divinity and humanity. His divinity possesses power, righteousness, life, which by his humanity are conveyed to us. Therefore, the Apostle has expressly mentioned both in the summary he gives of the gospel: that Christ was manifested in the flesh, and that in it he declared himself to be the Son of God. So John says: after declaring that the Word was made flesh, he adds that in that flesh there was a glory as of the only-begotten Son of God (John 1:14).

That he specifically notes the descent and lineage of Christ from his ancestor David is not superfluous, for by this he calls our attention back to the promise, so that we may not doubt that he is the very person who had been previously promised. So well known was the promise made to David that it appears to have been a common practice among the Jews to call the Messiah the Son of David. This then—that Christ sprang from David—was said for the purpose of confirming our faith.

He adds, according to the flesh; and he adds this so that we may understand that he had something more excellent than flesh, which he brought from heaven and did not take from David—namely, that which he later mentions, the glory of the divine nature. Furthermore, by these words, Paul not only declares that Christ had real flesh but also clearly distinguishes his human from his divine nature, and thus refutes the impious raving of Servetus, who assigned flesh to Christ composed of three untreated elements.

Declared the Son of God, etc.: or, if you prefer, determined (definitus); as if he had said that the power by which he was raised from the dead was something like a decree by which he was proclaimed the Son of God, according to what is said in Psalm 2:7, “I have this day begotten thee.” For this begetting refers to what was made known.

Although some indeed find here three separate evidences of Christ’s divinity—“power” (understanding this to mean miracles), then the testimony of the Spirit, and, lastly, the resurrection from the dead—I still prefer to connect them together and to reduce these three things to one, in this manner: Christ was declared the Son of God by openly exercising a real celestial power, that is, the power of the Spirit, when he rose from the dead. But this power is comprehended when a conviction of it is imprinted on our hearts by the same Spirit.

The Apostle’s language agrees well with this view, for he says that Christ was declared by power, because power peculiar to God shone forth in him and uncontestably proved him to be God; and this was indeed made evident by his resurrection.

Paul says the same thing in another place: having stated that by death the weakness of the flesh appeared, he at the same time extols the power of the Spirit in his resurrection (2 Corinthians 13:4). This glory, however, is not made known to us until the same Spirit imprints a conviction of it on our hearts.

And that Paul includes, together with the wonderful energy of the Spirit which Christ manifested by rising from the dead, the testimony which all the faithful feel in their hearts, is also evident from this: he expressly calls it the Spirit of Holiness. It is as if he had said that the Spirit, insofar as it sanctifies, confirms and ratifies that evidence of its power which it once exhibited.

For Scripture often ascribes such titles to the Spirit as tend to illustrate our present subject. Thus, He is called by our Lord the Spirit of Truth, on account of the effect which he mentions (John 14:17).

Besides, a divine power is said to have shone forth in the resurrection of Christ for this reason—because he rose by his own power, as he had often testified:

“Destroy this temple, and in three days
I will raise it up again,” (John 2:19).

“No man taketh it from me,” etc. (John 10:18).

For he gained victory over death (to which he yielded with regard to the weakness of the flesh,) not by aid sought from another, but by the celestial operation of his own Spirit.

Through whom we have received, etc. — Having completed his definition of the gospel, which he introduced to recommend his office, he now returns to speak of his own call; and it was a significant point that this should be proven to the Romans.

By mentioning grace and apostleship separately, he adopts a form of speech that must be understood as meaning gratuitous apostleship, or the favor of the apostleship. By this, he means that it was wholly through divine favor, not through his own worthiness, that he had been chosen for so high an office.

For although in the world's estimation it has hardly anything connected with it except dangers, labors, hatred, and disgrace, yet before God and His saints, it possesses a dignity of no common or ordinary kind. It is therefore rightly considered a favor. If you prefer to say, “I have received grace that I should be an Apostle,” the meaning would be the same.

The expression on account of His name is interpreted by Ambrose as “in His name,” as if it meant that the Apostle was appointed in Christ’s place to preach the gospel, according to that passage, We are ambassadors for Christ, etc. (2 Corinthians 5:20). However, the opinion of those who understand name as knowledge seems better, for the gospel is preached for this purpose—that we may believe in the name of the Son of God (John 3:23). And Paul is said to have been a chosen vessel to carry the name of Christ among the Gentiles (Acts 9:15). On account then of His name means the same as if he had said, that I might make known what Christ is.

For the obedience of faith, etc. — That is, we have received a command to preach the gospel among all nations, and they obey this gospel by faith. By stating the purpose of his calling, he again reminds the Romans of his office, as if he said, “It is indeed my duty to discharge the office committed to me, which is to preach the word; and it is your duty to hear the word and willingly to obey it. Otherwise, you will make void the vocation which the Lord has bestowed on me.”

From this we learn that those who irreverently and contemptuously reject the preaching of the gospel perversely resist God’s authority and overturn all that He has ordained; for the purpose of the gospel is to compel us to obey God.

We must also notice here what faith is: the name of obedience is given to it, and for this reason—because the Lord calls us by His gospel, and we respond to His call by faith. Conversely, the chief act of disobedience to God is unbelief. I prefer rendering the sentence “For the obedience of faith,” rather than “In order that they may obey the faith,” for the latter phrase is not strictly correct, except taken figuratively, though it is found once in Acts 6:7. Faith is properly that by which we obey the gospel.

Among all nations, etc. It was not enough for him to have been appointed an Apostle unless his ministry pertained to some who were to be taught. Therefore, he adds that his apostleship extended to all nations. He afterwards calls himself more distinctly the Apostle of the Romans when he says that they were included in the number of the nations to whom he had been given as a minister.

Furthermore, the Apostles had in common the command to preach the gospel to all the world, and they were not, like pastors and bishops, set over specific churches. But Paul, in addition to the general undertaking of the apostolic function, was constituted by a special appointment to be a minister to proclaim the gospel among the Gentiles.

It is no objection to this that he was forbidden to pass through Macedonia and to preach the word in Mysia, for this was done not because limits were prescribed for him, but because he was for a time to go elsewhere, as the harvest was not yet ripe there.

You are the called of Jesus Christ, etc. He assigns a reason more directly related to them: because the Lord had already shown evidence in them that He had called them to participation in the gospel. From this it followed that if they wished their own calling to remain sure, they were not to reject the ministry of Paul, who had been chosen by the same election of God.

I therefore understand this clause, “the called of Jesus Christ,” as explanatory, as if the particle “even” were inserted, for he means that by their calling they were made partakers of Christ. For those who will be heirs of eternal life are chosen by the heavenly Father to be His children in Christ; and when chosen, they are committed to His care and protection as their shepherd.