John Calvin Commentary Romans 4

What then, etc. This is a confirmation by example. It is a very strong one, since all things are alike with regard to the subject and the person.

For he was the father of the faithful, to whom we all ought to be conformed; and there is also only one way, not many ways, by which righteousness may be obtained by all.

In many other things, one example would not be sufficient to make a common rule. But since in the person of Abraham a mirror and pattern of righteousness was exhibited, which belongs in common to the whole Church, Paul rightly applies what has been written of him alone to the whole body of the Church.

At the same time, he challenges the Jews, who had nothing more plausible to glory in than that they were the children of Abraham; and they could not have dared to claim for themselves more holiness than what they ascribed to the holy patriarch.

Since it is then evident that he was justified freely, his posterity, who claimed a righteousness of their own by the law, ought to have been silenced even by shame.

According to the flesh, etc. Between this clause and the word father, the verb ἑυρηκέναι is placed in Paul’s text, in this order: “What shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?” For this reason, some interpreters think that the question is: “What has Abraham obtained according to the flesh?” If this interpretation is accepted, the words according to the flesh mean naturally or from himself.

It is, however, probable that these words are to be connected with the word father. Besides, as we are accustomed to be more moved by domestic examples, the dignity of their race, in which the Jews took too much pride, is here again expressly mentioned. But some regard this as spoken in contempt, as they are elsewhere called the carnal children of Abraham, not being his children spiritually or in the true sense.

But I think that it was expressed as something peculiar to the Jews; for it was a greater honor to be the children of Abraham by nature and descent than by mere adoption, provided there was also faith. He then concedes to the Jews a closer bond of union, but only for this purpose: that he might more deeply impress upon them that they ought not to depart from the example of their father.

For if Abraham, etc. This is an incomplete argument, which may be made in this form — “If Abraham was justified by works, he might justly glory: but he had nothing for which he could glory before God; then he was not justified by works.” Thus the clause but not before God, is the minor proposition; and to this must be added the conclusion which I have stated, though it is not expressed by Paul. He calls that glorying when we pretend to have anything of our own for which a reward is supposed to be due at God’s tribunal. Since he takes this away from Abraham, who of us can claim for himself the least particle of merit?

For what saith the Scripture? This is a proof of the minor proposition, or of what he assumed, when he denied that Abraham had any ground for glorying. For if Abraham was justified because he embraced, by faith, the bountiful mercy of God, it follows that he had nothing to glory in; for he brought nothing of his own, except a confession of his misery, which is a solicitation for mercy. He, indeed, takes it as granted that the righteousness of faith is the refuge, and, as it were, the asylum of the sinner who is destitute of works. For if there is any righteousness by the law or by works, it must be in men themselves; but by faith they derive from another what is lacking in themselves; and hence the righteousness of faith is rightly called imputative.

The passage quoted is taken from Genesis 15:6, in which the word believe is not to be confined to any particular expression, but refers to the whole covenant of salvation and the grace of adoption, which Abraham apprehended by faith. Indeed, the promise of a future seed is mentioned there, but it was grounded on gratuitous adoption. And it should be observed that salvation without the grace of God is not promised, nor God’s grace without salvation; and again, that we are not called to the grace of God nor to the hope of salvation without having righteousness offered to us.

Taking this view, we must see that those do not understand the principles of theology who think that this testimony recorded by Moses is diverted from its obvious meaning by Paul. For since a particular promise is stated there, they understand that he acted rightly and faithfully in believing it, and was to that extent approved by God.

But they are mistaken in this; first, because they have not considered that believing extends to the whole context and should not be confined to one clause. But the principal mistake is that they do not begin with the testimony of God’s favor. But God gave this, to make Abraham more assured of his adoption and paternal favor, and included in this was eternal salvation by Christ.

Hence Abraham, by believing, embraced nothing but the favor offered to him, being persuaded that it would not be void. Since this was imputed to him for righteousness, it follows that he was not just in any other way than as one trusting in God’s goodness and venturing to hope for all things from him. Moses does not, indeed, tell us what men thought of him, but how he was accounted before the tribunal of God.

Abraham then laid hold on the benignity of God offered to him in the promise, through which he understood that righteousness was communicated to him. It is necessary, in order to form an opinion of righteousness, to understand this relation between the promise and faith. For there is in this respect the same connection between God and us as there is, according to the lawyers, between the giver and the person to whom anything is given (datorem et donatarium — the donor and the donee): for we can attain righteousness in no other way than as it is brought to us, as it were, by the promise of the gospel; and we realize its possession by faith.

As for how to reconcile what James says, which seems somewhat contrary to this view, I have already explained this and intend to explain it more fully when I come, if the Lord permits, to expound that Epistle.

Only let us remember this: that those to whom righteousness is imputed are justified, since these two things are mentioned by Paul as being the same. We hence conclude that the question is not what men are in themselves, but how God regards them; not that purity of conscience and integrity of life are to be separated from the gratuitous favor of God, but that when the reason is asked why God loves us and acknowledges us as just, it is necessary that Christ should come forward as the one who clothes us with his own righteousness.

To him indeed who works, etc. The 'worker' to whom Paul refers is not the person merely engaged in good works (which all God’s children ought to practice), but rather the person who seeks to merit something by his works. In a similar way, Paul calls someone 'no worker' who does not rely on the merit of what he does. Indeed, Paul would not have the faithful be idle; he only forbids them to be mercenaries, demanding something from God as if it were justly their due.

We have reminded you before that the question here is not how we are to regulate our lives, but how we are to be saved. And Paul argues from the contrary position: that God does not confer righteousness on us because it is due, but bestows it as a gift.

Indeed, I agree with Bucer, who proves that the argument does not depend on a single expression but on the whole passage, and is structured as follows: “If one merits anything by his work, what is merited is not freely imputed to him but is rendered to him as his due. Faith is counted for righteousness, not because it procures any merit for us, but because it lays hold of God’s goodness. Therefore, righteousness is not due to us but is freely bestowed.”

For since Christ willingly justifies us through faith, Paul always regards this as evidence of our own emptiness. For what do we believe, except that Christ is the expiation to reconcile us to God?

The same truth is found expressed differently in Galatians 3:11, where it is said, That no man is justified by the law, it is evident, for the just shall by faith live: but the law is not by faith; but he who doeth these things shall live in them.

Therefore, since the law promises a reward for works, Paul concludes that the righteousness of faith, which is free, is not consistent with a righteousness based on works. This could not be true if faith were to justify by means of works.

— We should carefully observe these comparisons, by which all merit is entirely abolished.

But believes on him, etc. This is a very important sentence, in which he expresses the substance and nature both of faith and of righteousness. He indeed clearly shows that faith brings us righteousness, not because it is a meritorious act, but because it obtains for us the favor of God.

Nor does he declare only that God is the giver of righteousness, but he also arraigns us of unrighteousness, so that the bounty of God may come to aid our need. In short, no one will seek the righteousness of faith except the one who feels that he is ungodly. For this sentence is to be applied to what is said in this passage—that faith adorns us with the righteousness of another, which it seeks as a gift from God. And here again, God is said to justify us when he freely forgives sinners and favors with his love those with whom he might justly be angry, that is, when his mercy obliterates our unrighteousness.