John Calvin Commentary Romans 3

Although Paul has clearly proved that bare circumcision brought nothing to the Jews, yet since he could not deny that there was some difference between the Gentiles and the Jews, which was sealed to them by the Lord through that symbol, and since it was inconsistent to make a distinction authored by God void and meaningless, it remained for him also to remove this objection.

It was indeed evident that the glorying in which the Jews indulged on this account was foolish; yet a doubt still remained as to the design of circumcision, for the Lord would not have appointed it unless some benefit had been intended. He therefore, by way of an objection, asks what made the Jew superior to the Gentile; and he adds a reason for this with another question, What is the benefit of circumcision? For this separated the Jews from the common class of people; it was a partition wall, as Paul calls ceremonies, which kept groups apart.

Much in every way, etc.; that is, very much. He begins here to give the sacrament its own praise, but he does not concede that on this account the Jews should 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 they are regarded as men, he shows that they were on a level with others; but if the favors of God are taken into account, he admits that they possessed what made them more eminent than other men.

First indeed, because, entrusted to them, etc. Some think there is here an unfinished sentence, for he states what he does not afterwards complete. But the word first does not seem to me to be a note of number, but means 'chiefly' or 'especially,' and is to be taken in this sense: "Even if it were only this one thing, that they have the oracles of God committed to them, it might be considered sufficient to prove their superiority."

And it is worthy of notice that the advantage of circumcision does not 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 therefore follows that, apart from the word, no excellence 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 throughout the whole world: they were first depositories, and secondly dispensers. But if this benefit was to be so highly esteemed when the Lord favored only one nation with the revelation of his word, we can never sufficiently condemn our ingratitude, who receive his word with so much negligence or with so much carelessness, not to say disdain.

What indeed if some, etc. As before, while regarding the Jews as exulting in the mere sign, he allowed them 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.

Since he seemed before to have intimated that whatever grace there might have been in the sign of circumcision had completely vanished through the ingratitude of the Jews, he now, anticipating an objection, again asks what opinion was to be formed of it.

There is indeed a sort of reticence here, as he expresses less than what he intended to be understood. For he could have truly said that a great part of the nation had renounced God’s covenant; 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. Καταργεῖν properly means to render void and ineffectual, a meaning most suitable for this passage. For Paul’s question is not so much whether human unbelief neutralizes God’s truth, so that it would not in itself remain firm and constant, but whether it hinders its effect and fulfillment in relation to men.

The meaning then is: “Since most of the Jews are covenant-breakers, is God’s covenant so abrogated by their faithlessness that it produces no fruit among them?” To this he answers that it cannot be that God’s truth should lose its stability through human wickedness.

Though the greater part had nullified and trampled underfoot God’s covenant, it still retained its efficacy and manifested its power—not indeed for all, but with regard to a few of that nation; and it is efficacious when the Lord’s grace or blessing leads 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 confirmed on both sides. He then means that some always remained in that nation who, by continuing to believe in the promise, had not fallen away from the privileges of the covenant.

But let God be true, etc. (Romans 3:4). Whatever others may think, I regard this as an argument drawn from the necessary consequence of its opposite, by which Paul refutes the preceding objection.

For since these two things—that God is true and that man is false—stand together and indeed necessarily agree, it follows that the truth of God is not nullified by human falsehood. If he did not now set these two things in opposition to each other, he would afterwards have labored in vain to refute what was absurd and to show how God is just, even though He manifests His justice through our unrighteousness.

Therefore, the meaning is not at all ambiguous: the faithfulness of God is so far from being nullified by human treachery and apostasy that it thereby becomes even more evident.

God, he says, is true, not only because He is prepared to stand faithfully by His promises, but also because He truly fulfills whatever He declares; for He speaks in such a way that His command becomes reality.

On the other hand, man is false, not only because he often violates his pledged faith, but also 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 much-needed consolation. For such is the perversity of people in rejecting and despising God’s word that its truth would often be doubted if this thought did not come to our minds: that God’s truth does not depend on human truth.

But how does this agree with what was said previously—that for the divine promise to be effectual, faith on man's part, which receives it, is necessary? For faith stands opposed to falsehood.

This indeed seems to be a difficult question, but it can be answered without great difficulty. The Lord, notwithstanding human lies, and though these are hindrances to His truth, still finds a way for it through a pathless track, so that He may emerge as a conqueror.

This is achieved by correcting in His elect the innate unbelief of our nature and by subjecting to His service those who seem unconquerable. It must be added that the discussion here concerns the corruption of nature, and not the grace of God, which is the remedy for that corruption.

That You might be justified, etc. (Romans 3:4, quoting Psalm 51:4). The meaning is this: God's truth is so far from being destroyed by our falsehood and unfaithfulness that it thereby shines forth and appears more evident. This is according to the testimony of David, who says that, as he was a sinner, God was a just and righteous Judge in whatever He determined concerning him, and that He would overcome all the slanders of the ungodly who murmured against His righteousness.

By the words of God, David means the judgments He pronounces upon us, for the common application of these to promises is too forced. And so the particle that is not so much conclusive, nor does it refer to a far-fetched consequence, but implies an inference with this meaning: Against You have I sinned; justly then do You punish me.

That Paul quoted this passage according to David's proper and real meaning is clear from the objection immediately added: "How can the righteousness of God remain perfect if our iniquity illustrates it?" For, as I have already observed, Paul would have drawn his readers' attention to this difficulty in vain and unseasonably, unless David meant that God, in His wonderful providence, drew praise for His own righteousness from the sins of men.

The second clause in Hebrew is this: And that You might be pure in Your judgment. This expression means nothing other than that God, in all His judgments, is worthy of praise, however much the ungodly may clamor and strive with their complaints to disgracefully erase His glory.

But Paul followed the Greek version, which suited his purpose here even better. We know indeed that the Apostles, in quoting Scripture, often used freer language than the original, for they considered it sufficient to quote what was suitable to their subject; therefore, they did not place great importance on words.

The application of this passage, then, is as follows: Since all the sins of mortals must serve to illustrate the Lord's glory, and since He is especially glorified by His truth, it follows that even human falsehood serves to confirm rather than undermine His truth. Although the word κρίνεσθαι can be taken actively as well as passively, I have no doubt that the Greek translators rendered it passively, contrary to the Prophet's meaning.

But if our unrighteousness, etc. Though this is a digression from the main subject, it was still necessary for the Apostle to introduce it, so that he would not seem to give to the ill-disposed an occasion to speak evil, which he knew would be readily seized 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 that this was an ordinary, and everywhere a common calumny, as it will soon appear.

Therefore, Paul could not have covertly passed it by. So that no one would think that he expressed the sentiments of his own mind, he states first that he adopts the persona of the ungodly.

At the same time, he sharply touches on human reason with a single expression, whose work, as he intimates, is always to bark against the wisdom of God; for he says not, “according to the ungodly,” but “according to man,” or as man.

And this is indeed the case, for all the mysteries of God are paradoxes to the flesh. And it possesses so much audacity that it does not fear to oppose them and insolently assail what it cannot comprehend.

We are therefore reminded that if we desire to become capable of understanding them, we must especially labor to become freed from our own reasoning (proprio sensu), and to surrender ourselves, and unreservedly submit to his word.

The word wrath, understood here as judgment, refers to punishment, as if he were saying, “Is God unjust, who punishes those sins which set forth his righteousness?”